Sunteți pe pagina 1din 320

JA¡t I 0 t9,92



'i?:ãii 343

Shallow Foundations
Driven Piles
Retaining Walls and Abutments
Drilled Shafts
Estimating Tolera ble Movements
Load Factor Design Specif ications
and Commentary
P. S. K. OOt, C. K. TAN, and S. G. KIM
vrrsinra Porytechnrc rnäijiliìi
Blackeburg, Vlrglnla


ASSocrATroN o F srATE HicHwÄv AND
wrrH THE FEDERAL HrcHwAy norurñsinATroN



DECEMBER 1991 e^
% t'r""à
%ì, ).
ci?, '
r, -.._, -
ià -+'
\' '¿'

Syst'èmätic, welld6igned research provides the most effective

Prqæt 244 F.{ ,87
approach to the solution of many problems facing highway
administrators and e¡gineers. Often, highway problems are of ISSN 0077-5614
local interest *d b€st be studied by highway depart_
ments individually or""Tin cooperation ISBN G309{xs66-4
with their state universi-
ties and others. However,.the accelerating growth of higfiç,¿y L. C. Catalog C¡¡d No. 9l-66471
transportation develops increasingly complex problems oi
wide interest to highway authorities. These probrems are best Prlce $45.00
studied tbrougb a coordinated program ol cooperative re,
search. Aæas of Inteæsts
In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators
of Structurcs design and performancc
the American Association of st¿te Highway and rransportation Soil foundations
Ofïicials initiated tui.l962an objective national highway
research Soil and ¡ock mechanics
program employing rn*.T scientific techniques.
This program
is supported on a continuing basis by funds irom participãting Mode
member states of the Association and it receives Highway Transportation
tion and support of theFederat Highway Administration,"oåp"rul
States Department of Transportation.
The Transportation Research Board of the
Nationar Research
council was requested by the Association to administer NOTICE
the re-
search program because of the Board's recognized subjæt of this reporr was a part of the National C_rnpcmtivc
objectivity *:ff.I:j Kesarch
n]qnway :11 1..,heprogm
conducted by the Tmnsportåtion Resea¡ch Boa¡d
and understanding of modern research practiL.
The Board is with thc approvat of the Goveming Bo*a órtn" Nutìãi'J-Rärch
council. such
uniquely suited for this purpose as: it maintains approval reflæts rhe Goveming Bord'sjudgment
th;trh";;;;r"_ concerned is
an extensive or nauonal-rmportancæ and appropriate with r€spect to
committee structure from which authorities bothìhe purposes md
on any highway r€souroð of the National Resea¡cti Council.
transportation subject may be drawn; it possesses
avenues of
communications and cooperation with fderal, The membem of the techniel æmmittee selæted to
monitor this p¡oject and to
state and local review this report were chosen for ræognized sch.l"rly;;;ä*
governmental agencies, universities, and Ând with due
industry; its relation_ consideration for the balanc¿ of dircipliries appropriaìeio
n"'prã¡""t. m" opinion,
s!'ip to the National Research Council is an insurance and conclusions erprssed or implied
of objectiv_ t't'o."'of tt" iesãlii"og"ncy üat p"r-
ity; it maintains a full-time research correlation foT* lhe resærch, and, while they "r. har.e bæn ;;;r"d;;prrpriat€
staff of specialists technic¡l committee, they are not necssarily thoæ by the
in highway transportation_ matrers to bring ,h. i;ìõ;-;;; Board, the National Reearch Councit, the Áme¡en
of the Transörøtion Resea¡ch
search di¡ectly to those who are in a positån nssæiiiã'nìrst"t. Higt *"y
and Transportation oflicials, or the Federal
to use them. ment of TraNportation.
Highway Aàministåìion, U.S. Oep"rt-
The program is developed on the basis ofresea¡ch
needs identi_
fied by chief administrators of the highway and Each repon is reviewed md acc€pt€d for publietion
transportation by the technical co&mittee
departments and by committees of aasfffó. according to procedures establisheà and *oìito."d
by th. fåosport tion¿¡ct
Each year, specific Board Exccutive commiuæ md the Goveminj
a¡eas of research needs to be included in
the program are pro_
B#;;¡ìËï.ä,ionat Resea¡ch
posed to the National Research Council
and ihe BoarA by the
American Association of St¿te Highway and
Transportation Of_
ficials- Research projects to fulñil ìhese ,ree¡s
a¡e ¿efined by the
Board, and qualified research agencies are selected
from those
that have submitted proposals. Administration
and surveilrance
of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National
Research Council and the Transportation Resea¡ch
The needs for highway research are many,
_ and the National
Cooperative Highway Research program
_ut" significant Published reports of the
contributions to the solution of highway transportation
of mutual concern to many responsible gro,rp.. The program, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH
however, is intended to complement rathei
to substitute for are available from:
or duplicate other highway rese¿rch programs.
Transportation Rese¿rch Board
Note: The Transportation Research Board, the Nalional National Research Council
Research Counc¡1, lhe
Federat Hishway Adm¡nisrrarion, rn" n.ã¡"å"
À-..ååiå,¡åiãi s,u,. Hishway 2l0l Constitution Avenue, N.W.
and rransporrarion offic¡ats. and rhe.¡nd¡v¡du;i
tionat.Cooperat¡ve Highway Research program
!iãi""'öää¡"ö"iläïìïyJK:l Washington, D.C. 20418
manufacturers. Trade or manufactureÍs n.ñl".
do-;j;;;år"" products or
they are considered essenriat to rne ou¡ecì äiiniJ"il]"'- sorety because
Printcd in rhc Unitcd St8t6 of Amcri€
FOREWORD This report contains the results of a study that developed recommended
factor'design specifications for highway-bridge foundations and retaining
By Staff Comprising a series of engineering-design manuals,
the report provides detailed load-
Trønsportation Research factor'design procedures for various foundation
types and includes .fro*irrg
Board how the recommended specification can be applied "*u-plo
to bridge foundation design. Thã
contents of this report will be of immediate interest and use to bridge
desþ and
geotechnical engineers at the federal, state, and local levels, and to specification

Prior to the early 1970s, all highway-bridge design in the united states was
performed using the working stress design method. Then, in the mid-1970s,
adopted load-factor design into the AASHTO standard specíficøtions
for Híghway
Bridges as an approved design method for portions of the bridge structure
above the
foundation. over time, a number of states adopted AASHTo's load-factor-design
criteria for bridge-superstructure design. However, many others have not due, part,
to the desire to avoid inconsistency inherent in designing those portions
of the structure
above the foundation by the load factor method while still designing
foundations by
working stress.
This inconsistency in design format requires considerable duplication of effort
compiling design forces for the highway structure and its foundation. The development
of suitable load-factor-design criteria for bridge foundations would eliminate
this incon-
sistency, saving time and money. Additionally, it would lead to a more uniform
of safety fcr all structural components in a highway structure and result in a more
consistent and effrcient use of materials.
NCHRP Project 24'4 was initiated with the oirjective of developing load-factor-
design provisions which could be considered by AASHTo for inclusion
in the Standørd
specifications for Highway Bridges. specification provisions and commentary
developed for shallow foundations, driven piles, drilled shafts, and abutments
rigid retaining structures. The specifications employ the same load factors and
combinations that are presently used for AAsHTo superstructure design.
The recom_
menled specifltcations and commentary are expected to be considered for adoption
AASHTO in 1992.
In addition to the recommended specifications, flrve engineering manuals were
developed during the course of the study. The manuals describe detailed
design proce-
dures for various foundation elements based on the recommended load-factor
tions, and include many examples demonstrating their use. The hve engineering
als cover the design of shallow foundations, driven piles, drilled shafts, retaining
and abutments, and the estimation of tolerable bridge movements.
This report contains six major sections: the five engineering manuals and the
recommended specifrcations and commentary. The engineering manuals
will aid in the
understanding ofnot only the new provisions but offoundation design in general
can be the basis for a future training program.

SUMMARY Until now, engineers who used AASHTO load factor design procedures for bridge
superstructures have had to develop two sets of loadings, one for design of the super-
structure and another for design of the foundation. This wasteful duplication of effort
was unavoidable because load factor design procedures were not available for founda-
tions. The study described in this report remedies this situation. A recommended
accompanying AASHTO design code and commentary for foundations has been devel-
oped, based on load factor design procedures. The recomrnended code and commentary
are included in Appendixes B and C.* The superstructure and the foundation can now
be designed using the same loads and the same design format.
The recommended AASHTO design code has been made as similar as possible to
the existing code. This was done to minimize the diffrculties involved in working with
the recommended code for engineers who are familiar with the existing code. Changes
were made only where necessary to incorporate the load factor design format, to bring
the code up to the current state-of-practice, or to remedy omissions in the existing
In addition to the draft design code and commentary, f,rve engineering manuals have
been developed during the course of this study. The purpose of these manuals is to
describe in detail design procedures for foundations, and to give examples showing
how the load factor design procedures that form the basis of the recommended code
can be applied to foundation design.
These engineering manuals are:

Engineering Manual for Design of Shallow Foundations (Part 1)

Engineering Manual for Design of Driven Piles (Part 2)
Engineering Manual for Design of Retaining Walls and Abutments (Part 3)
Engineering Manual for Design of Drilled Shafts (Part 4)
Engineering Manual for Estirnating Tolerable Movements of Bridges (Part 5)

The load factor design procedures described in the recommended AASHTO code
and commentary employ the same load factors and load combinations that are used
for superstructure design under AASHTO. Developing the load factor design proce-
dures for foundations required extensive studies of margins of safety and reliability
of foundations. Through these studies appropriate values were established for the
performance (or resistance) factors that are used to modify the nominal capacities of
foundations and thereby establish reduced levels ofcapacity that will result in reliable
foundation performance. The details of these studies are presented in Appendix A of
this report. A Synopsis, giving a brief acc<.,ont of the conduct of the research, f,rndings,
applications, conclusions and recommendations, immediately follows this Summary.

+Appendix B (Specifications) and Appendix C (Commentary) of the agency final report

have been published
in Part 6, as "Recommended Load Factor Design Specifications and Commentary." Note that theìe appen-
dixes have been reproduced herein as submitted by the research agency; thus, none of the cross referènces
to them within the published text have been altered in the editorial process so that accuracv of cross
references can be retained.

I /


Problem Statement and Research Obiectives

L¡ntil now, engineers who used AASHTO load factor design procedures for bridge
superstructures have had to work with two sets of loadings, one for design of the
superstructure and one for design of the foundation. This wasteful duplication of effort
wás be¡ause there were no load factor design procedures for foundations Under the
AASHTO code, foundations could only be designed using the working stress design
The objective of the research study described in this report was to develop recommen-
dations for an AASHTO code for load factor design of foundations, in a form consistent
with the AASHTO code for load factor design of superstructures.
The recommended design procedure for bridge foundations is expected to have the
following benehts: (l) greater effrciency in the design effort because the same loads can
be used for the superstructure and the foundation; (2) more consistent incorporation
of margins of safety in the superstructure and foundation because they will be designed
using the same loads and consistent design methods; and (3) more effrcient use of
matãrials because load factor design procedures afford a more consistent means for
setting safetY margins: '-.
Because load factor,deSig¡r,p4gcedures offer these benefits, it is expected that they
will be used widely whenlengineers'beoome familiar with the method, and learn the
'advantdgesrof u.p,1ng it. " -" , r

: ';:' :' ':'r',.'- ,., . : .'1

,.r 'ìi:'r ' il:,...: ,i¡,

Scope of Study -, :. -..

i;:;..,., '.....,;;-.å'. ,

. ''¡,.,¿..Ð
As originally proposed, the scope of this study'eircöinpassed only (l) development
of a recommended AASHTO code for load factor deffi of bridge foundations and an
accompanying commentary, and (2) documentation of ùhe methods used in evaluating
load factors and performance (or resistance) factors for design of foundations.
As the study progressed, it became clear that it .would be desirable also to develop
a more thorough exposition of design methods thaúfüould be suitable for the recom-
mended code and its commentary, and to develop a series of examples of the use of
the new procedures, so that engineers could understand the new procedures more
easily, and more completely. To accomplish this goal, the scope of the study was
broadened to include development of a series of five engineering manuals covering the
design of foundations and abutments.
Thus, in its final form, the scope of the research study included development of
these products: (1) documentation of the methods used in evaluating the load and
performance (or resistance) factors used in the recommended code (this procedure,
called "calibration" of the code, is described in Appendix A); (2) the recommended
AASHTO code for load factor design of foundations, and the accompanying commen-
tary (Appendixes B and C of this report, reproduced here in Part 6); and (3) five
engineering manuals: Engineering Manual for Shallow Foundations (Part l); Engi-
neering Manual for Driven Piles (Part 2); Engineering Manual for Retaining Walls and
Abutments (Part 3); Engineering Manual for Drilled Shafts (Part 4); and Engineering
Manual for Estimating Tolerable Movements of Bridges (Part 5).

Research Approøch

The principal steps involved in the research were: (1) development and distribution
of a questionnaire to determine the extent of current use of LFD for highway structures,
opinions regarding its use for foundations, and factors that would influence its adoption
by practitioners; (2) review of previous experience with load factor design, Oorf, O.,l
lished and unpublished; (3) development of a framework for applying load factor design
methods to foundations; (4) review of the state of the art of foundation design and
selection of design and selection of design procedures suiøble for modern practice; (5)
analysis of sources of uncertainty in foundation desiga and evaluation of load and
resistance factors for the recommended load factor design code; (6) development of the
engineering manuals, incorporating load factor design concepts and including examples
illustrating the use ofeach ofthe included design procedures; and (7) development of
the recommended code and commentary.


Sumey of Practitioners. A questionnaire on load factor design for highway bridge

structures was developed and distributed to the highway departments of the fifty states,
the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Department of transportation.
The return rate was 83 percent.
Of the respondents, 80 percent are currently using load factor design methods for
highway structures. Seventy-three percent of the respondents indicated intentions to
use load factor design for foundations when the new code becomes available. These
responses indicated good potential support for load factor design. The most frequent
suggestion from the respondents was that the new code should be simple, and easy to
apply. Another frequent suggestion was that the new code should consider all types of
foundations, soils, and structures.
The same questionnaire was sent subsequently to 106 consulting engineering design
firms. The response rate from these firms was 29 percent, possibly indicating that
matters of bridge design codes were of somewhat less vital interest to at least some of
the hrms that received the questionnaire. The respondents indicated a strong willingness
to use load factor design methods if they were adopted by government agencies.
Load Factor Design FormaL In the load factor design procedure, margins of safety
are incorporated through load factors and performance (or resistance) factors.
Load factors (usually denoted by the symbol 7) account for uncerlainties in the
magnitudes of the loads that may be imposed on structures and foundations. The loads
are modified by multiplying the nominal loads by the load factors, which usually have
values larger than unity. The factored loads represent extreme values that have very
low probabilities of occurrence.
Performance (or resistance) factors (usually represented by the symbol þ) account
for uncertainties in the ability of foundations to support loads. The nominal capacity
of the foundation is modiflred by multiplying it by a performance factor, which has a
value less than unity. Performance factors account for such things as foundation soils
that are weaker than expected, foundations that are not built in precise accordance
with plans, and foundation materials (wood, concrete, steel) whose properties may fall
short of specihcations.
.The basic requirement for foundation design in the load factor design format is
expressed by the following equation:

0\ > )yiQi (1)

where þ : performance factor

R¡ : nominal resistance or load-carrying capacity of the foundation
7i : load factor for load component i
Q; : load effect due to load component i
In basic terms, this equation expresses the notion that even in the highly unlikely
situation where the load-carrying capacity of the foundation is very low, and, at the
same time, the loads are very high, the capacity should still be great enough to carry
the load.
Limit States. Limit states are limiting conditions of acceptable performance. These
can correspond to complete failure, or collapse, or to less severe occurrences such as
excessive deflection without failure or collapse. These are usually called "ultimate or
strength limit states" and "serviceability limit states."
Strength Limit States correspond to mobilization of the maximum load-carrying
capacity of the foundation, which may involve either structural failure of the founda-
tion, or failure of the soil that supports the foundation. Reaching a strength limit state
corresponds to complete collapse.
Serviceability Limit States correspond to the threshold of loss of some form of
serviceability. For example, if a bridge settles so much that the deck does not drain as
designed or there is a bump at the abutment that impairs ride quality or vehicle safety,
the bridge will have lost some of its serviceability.
Load Factors. The new draft design code uses the same load factors for foundation
design as are used for design ofthe superstructure. This choice ofload factors has the
advantage that the same factored loads can be used for both the structure and the
foundation, and the design process is therefore more efficient and consistent.
Perþrmance (or Resistance) Factors. Developing suitable values of performance
factors for soil-related limit states of foundations was a major effort of this research
study. Appendix A of this report documents the methods used in these evaluations.
\There possible, reliability analyses were performed to evaluate performance factors.
The objective was to arrive at values of performance factors that correspond to the
same level of safety, in terms of probability of failure, as do conventional working stress
design procedures.
It was found to be necessary to perform separate studies, and to develop different
performance factors, for each combination of foundation type, soil type, soil testing
procedure, and method of calculating capacity. Thus, for example, driven piles, deriving
support from sand, with capacity estimated using cone penetration test rèsults, have a
different value of perfonnance factor than the same foundation with capacity estimated
using Standard Penetration Test results. Similarly, piles in clay have different perform-
ance factors from piles in sand, and drilled shafts have different performance factors
from driven piles.
Comparative analyses were performed to ensure that foundations designed using the
new load factor design code will not differ greatly in size or cost from foundations
designed using conventional working stress design methods.

Application to Bridge Foundatíon Design

Recommended AASHTO Design Code. Application of the results of this work to

bridge foundation design will be through use of the recommended AASHTO design
code. The code and commentary are contained in Part 6-Section 4, Foundations
(spread footings, driven piles, and drilled shafts); Section 5, Retaining Walls; Section
7, Substructures (abutments).
As indicated previously, it is anticipated that this code will eliminate costly duplica-
tions of effort for engineers who use load factor design procedures for design ofbridge
superstructures. Gaps and deficiencies have also been addressed, to make the code
consistent with the current state of practice in foundation design.
Design Manuals. The design manuals developed through this study contain: the
load factors used in the recommended AASHTO code (the same load factors as
for superstructure design); the performance factors contained in the recommended
AASHTO code; descriptions and explanations of the design methods to which the
performance factors apply; and examples illustrating the application of the recom-
mended code and design methods.
These manuals will make it possible for practicing engineers to understand and use
the recommended code quickly and efficiently. They represent much more focused and
specific design aids than were available previously.

Conclusíons and Suggested Reseørch

Conclusions. The load factor design format is suitable for application to design of
highway bridge foundations. The recommended code and commentary contained in
Part 6 will make this possible, and will eliminate the need for the wasteiul duplication
of effort that arises when a bridge superstructure is designed by the load factor method
and the foundation is designed by working stress design.
The greatest efficiency and consistency can be achieved by using the same load
factor values for both structure and foundation. The recommended code uses the
superstructure load factors for the foundation, thus making use of the c¡de as simple,
consistent, and effrcient as possible.
Different values of performance factor are needed for each combination of foundation
type, soil type, soil testing procedure, and method of calculating capacity. The recom-
mended code cont¿ins values of performance factor for each of the design methods in
current use in engineering practice, making it usable for a wide variety of different
The engineering manuals developed in the course of this study will provide an
effrcient and effective means for engineers to understand and to use the new code.
Suggested Research. During the course of this study it became evident that the
performance of retaining walls and abutments has not been well documented. Design
methods for these structures are largely empirical, and it is diffrcult for design engineers
to anticipate performance with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Methods should be
developed for estimating vertical movements, horizontal movements, and rotations of
retaining walls and abutments, and these methods should be verified by comparison
with the behavior of full-scale structures in the field. Research is also needed to
develop a better understanding of the behavior of retaining walls and abutments during
earthquakes, and to develop improved procedures for earthquake-resist¿nt design of
retaining walls and abutments.


Appendix A contained in the report as submitted by the research agency is not

published herein. The table ofcontents is reproduced here for the convenience ofthose
interested in the subject area. Qualiflred researchers may obtain loan copies by written
request to the NCHRP, Transportation Research Board Business Offrce, 2101 Constitu-
tion Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20¿f 18.





2.1 TNTHODUCTTON ............................ A-3
2.3 LtMrT STAIES DESTGN ................ A4
2.4 LOAD AND RESTSTANCE FACTOR DESTGN ........................... A-5


3.1 PROPOSEDFORMAT ....................... A-9

3.2 LoADS FAcroRS ANo r-oeo cor,¡erüÄTìöÑë 4.10
3.3 PERFORMANCE FACTORS ............. A-11



4.2 cALTBRAToN usrNc ner-regrlrry riËöCî' .::::::.:.:.::::::.:: A-f4
4.3 REL|ABtL|TYANALYStS ....................... A-15
4.5 cALtBRAT|ON BY FtTTtNG W|TH WSD ............................... A-27



AND DRTLLED SHAFTS ............................ A.3t
5.2 RESISTANCÉ STATISTICS FOR DRIVEN PILES ..........'.....'... 4.43
5.3 RELtABIL¡ÎY INDICES FOR OÊIVEN PILES ...........'............'.. 448
s.¿ i¡hcer neltAgtLtrY INoEX FoR DRIvEN Pll..Es ......'.'.".... A-51
5.5 ÞËRFORMâNCE FACTOBS FOR DRIVEN PILES ........":.......- A-51


. LOAÓED DÊILLED SHAFÍS '...........:...... Æ58






g.o Reïa¡,¡rNewAl1s..................... A-118


8,2 LrMrT STATES FOR RETAINING WALLS '.'.'.'.'....'.........,........ A-11s
8.3 LOAD FACTORS FoR RETAINING WALLS '..........'..'.........'.... A-121
e.¿ s¡petY¡o¡tNsTsolLFAlLURE A-122


FonswoRD lt¡
Surrunny YU
Sy¡topsrs oF THE Rnsp¡,ncrr... vru
Part 1
Englneering Manual lor Shallow Foundaüons.... 1

Contents I
Chapter I Introduction 2
Chapter 2 Design Considerations for Shallow Foundations 2
Chapter 3 Soil Exploration for Shallow Foundations 8
Chapter 4 Bearing Capacþ Shellow Foundations in Soil l6
Chapter 5 Settlements of Footings 28
Chapter 6 Shallow Foundations on Rock 39
Rrrænrxcns 6
Nor,lnoxs AND SyMBoLs... 49

Part 2
Englneering ltranual lor Drlven Plles 53
Contents 53
Chapter I Introduction 54
Chapter 2 Classification of Deep Foundations and Piles....... 54
Chapter 3 Design Requirements for Pile Foundations.. 56
Chapter 4 Design of Piles for Axial Loading......... 60
Chapter 5 Design of Piles for Lateral Loading......... 80
Appendix I Section Properties ofPrestressed Concrete, Steel-H and pipe piIes............... 93
Appendix 2 Axial and Moment Capacities of Piles.......... 98
Appendix 3 Correlations for Estimating the Friction Angle of Sands from SPT Blow Counts and Cone
Resistance 103
Appendix 4 Eccentricity Factors for Driven Piles 106
RBrnnnxcns r08
Nor¡,r¡oxs axp Sy*rnors 110

Part 3
Engineering Manual for Betaining Wails and Abutments 11S
Contents ll5
Chapter I Introduction iló
Chapter 2 Types of Retaining Walls and Abutments tt7
Chapter 3 General Design Considerations. il9
Chapter 4 Forces on Retaining Walls and Abutments 128
Chapter 5 Desþ Requirements for Retaining Walls and Abutments. 137
Chapter 6 Design Examples t42
RB¡rnn¡,¡crs 154
Notauoxs exn Syunor,s
Part 4
Englneering Manual for Drilled Shafts t6i
Contents t6l
Chapter I Introduction.. t62
Chapter 2 Classification of Deep Found¿tions and Drilled Shafts............ t62
Chapter 3 Design Requirements for Drilled Shaft Foundations .............. t67
Chapter 4 Design of Drilled Shafts for Axial Loading 172
Chapter 5 Design of Drilled Shafts for Lateral Loading......... t97
RBrrnpxces 2tt
Nornrroxs .lNn SyùrsoLs 2t3

Part ; of Brídges' """""""""' 219

Eiï¡íeertng üanua\for Estimatlng Tolerabte Movements
Contents ...........'..ij...... """:;"""""""""":""""""'
The Natu¡b of Bridge Foundation Movements and the Problçms. They. Cause """""'
Chapter 2
Chapter 3 Use of Structural Aìralysis to Evaluate the Consequences of $ettlement.....'......""'

Part 6
Recommended Load Factor Design
gpecífications and commentary 229 1;:.::'.

,! .)ÁO

Îfì? .,,r


The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project Phillip Ooi, former Research Assistant; C.K. Tan, former Research
24-4 attheCharles E. Via, Jr., Department of Civil Engineering, Virginia Assisiant; and S.G. Kim, former Research Assistant' J'R' Chen also
Polytechnic Institute and State University. Richard M. Barker, Professor contributed to the project.
of Civil Engineering, J. Michael Duncan, University Distinguished Pro- The work was done under the supervision of Professors Barker, Dun-
fessor, and Kamal B. Rojiani, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, can, and Rojiani'
were co-principal investigators. The othe¡ authors of this report are:
Part t$neineering Manual for
f Shallow Foundatlons
C.K. Tmv, J.tVl. Dt¡xcrx, K.B. Ro.rrlxr
R.M. Blrutpn

2.4 Qther Design Considerations.....,....,...,...... ................i...... 5
4.3 Bearing Pressures from Standard Penetration Tests (SPT)... l6
4.4 Bearing Pressures from Cone Penetration Tests (CPT).. 20
4.5 Bearing Pressures from Pressuremeter Tests (PMÐ........... 20
4.ll Safety Factors, Load Factors and Resistance Factors....... 27
5.2 Settlements of Footings on Sand from Standard Penetration Tests.............. 28
5.3 Settlements of Footings on Sand from Cone Penetration Tests.............. 3l
5.4 Settlements of Footings on Sands, Silts and Clays by Janbu's Tangent Modulup Method 33
5.5 Settlements of Footings on Sands and Clays from Pressuremeter Tests............i......... 34
5.6 Settlements of Footings on Soil by Elastic Methods ....................1., 36
5.7 Settlements of Footings Due to Consolidation of C1ays......... ......,'....... 37
5.8 Time-Dependent Settlements of Footings on Sands....... ..............f........ 38
5.9 Settlements Due to Secondary Compression of Clays......... 38
lrl PART I

'l 40
.t 6.2,3 Empirical design procedure for reasonably sound rock 40
6.2.4 Empirical dêsign procedure for less competent jointed rock................ 40
6.4 Design of Shallow Foundations in Rock Using Load and Resist¿nce Factor Design Approach...... 43
Nor¿.rror.¡s AND SYMBoLS 49

cn¡prpn I

The main purpose of this manual is to present simple guide- while load and resistance factor design is a semiprobabilistic
lines for the analysis and design of shallow foundations in soil approach. Although the two methods consider safety against
and rock. The emphasis is on simple and routine practical proce- failure differently, they treat serviceability considerations in a
dures, but not on detailed theoretical evaluations. similar fashion.
The design procedures included in this manual are presented Design considerations and various aspects ofsoil exploration
using both the conventional working stress design and the re- for shallow foundations are discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 respec-
cently introduced load and resistance factor design concepts. tively. Methods for estimating bearing capacity and deformation
The two approaches differ in the manner in which uncertainties offootings in soil are described in Chapters 4 and 5. The design
in design and the provision of safety margin are dealt with. of shallow foundations on rock is discussed in Chapter 6.
Conventional design is essentially a deterministic approach;




walls, (5) earthquake forces in seismically active areas, and (ó)
The function of a footing is to transmit loads from the struc- other environmental loadings, such as current and ice forces.
ture to the supporting soil or rock without failure or excessive Most codes specify the types of loads and the load combina-
movements. If the footing is to fulfill this function successfully, tions to be considered in foundation design. For example, the
it should be designed to resist all of the loads that it may be recommendations of the American Association Of State High-
subjected to during its lifetime. way and Transportation Offrcials (AASHTO, 1989) are given in
Table 2. I . The types of loads included in each of the load groups
are the same for both service load allowable stress design and
2.2 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS load factor design procedures. However, the two design ap-
proaches use different values of multiplication factors to deter-
The types of loads that must be considered in the design of a mine the design loads. Values for service load design procedure
bridge foundation include: (l) dead loads, (2) live loads con- are more appropriate for design for movement considerations
sisting primarily of trafftc loads, (3) wind loads, (4) lateral earth (e.g., settlement calculation); values for load factor design proce-
pressures where applicable, e.g., for footings supporting retaining dure are applicable for failure considerations (e.g., ultimate bear-

Table 2.1. l¡ad combinations in.AASHTO specifications. (After AASFITO, 1989)

Col. No. I 2 3 3A 4 ó 6 7 t 9 to ll l2 l3 l,f

GROUP I D .Li¡}' F E B SF w WL L¡ R+S+'l EQ ICÉ: s
l.o t I o o o o o o lu(,
fA l.o I 2 o 0 o o 0 0 o 0 o 0 o 160
IB l.o I 0 I ¡ PE I ¡ o o o o 0 0
o ¡t t.o I o o o I I I I o o o 0 o 12ó
o TII 1.0 I I o I Én I I o.3 I I o o o r25
f'¡ TV l.o I I o I An I t o o o I o o r25
o 1.O I o o o I I o o I o o lao
É vt l.o I I o 1 9n I I o.3 I I I o o l{o
v, VTT l.o 1 0 o o I I I o o o o 1 o 133
v¡¡¡ l.o I o I I I I o o o o o ¡ l{o
¡x 1.O I 0 0 o I I I I o o o o I 160
x 1.O I I o o É¡ 0 o o o 0 o o 0 100 Culvcrt
I 1.3 t.þ 7 o t.u PE I o o 1' o o 0
fA 1.3 pD 2.20 o o o o o o o o o o o
0 IB 1.3 o 1.0 o o o o o o
o II 1.3 o o o I o o o o o ta
o t¡t 1.3 tD I o ¡ ßn t I o.¡ I o o o g

Ê ¡v 1_3 PD o o o o o o À
o ê
É. v l-26 ED 0 o o ëE I I I o o I o o
vt t.26 ln I o Fø o.3 I I o o o
a v¡I
a 1-3 PD o o 0 I t o o o o I o
v¡tI 1.3 tD 0 I ds I I o o o o o t
o IX I I o I
.¡ -20 Én o o o Én 1 0 o o
x .ao 1.6? o o Bç o o o o o o o o Cu¡vcÍ

(L + I). - Live load plus impact for AASHTO High-

. way H or HS loading
(L + I)p - Live load plus impact consistent with the
overload criteria of the operation agencv.

' 1.25 may bc uscd for dcsign of outside roadway bcam whcn For culvert loading spccifications. see Articlc 6.2.
comtinetion of sidewalk livc load as wcll as traftic livc load plus
impact govcrns the dcsigo but thc capacity of the section should de = 1.0 and 0.5 for lateral loads on rigid franres (check bo¡h
not bc lcss than rcquircd for highway traffrc live load only using loadings to see shich one governs). See Anicle J-20.
a bcta factor of 1.67. l.@ may bc uscd for design of deck slab
with ømbioation of loads as describcd in Article 3.24.2-2. For L<¡ad Factor Design

de t.3 for latcral cârth picssure for rctaining walls, reinforccd

concretc boxes, and rigid framcs excluding rigid culvcns.
tì¡; = 0.5 for lateral eanh pressurc rshen chccking positivc nto'
e'PcrccnÞgc: -'' x
Ma¡imum Unit Stress (Opcrating Ratine)
ments in either rigid frames or rigid culvens. including rcin-
- Allowablc Easic Unit Stress
forced box culverts. This complies p'ith Anicle -1.20.
0r, = 1.0 for vertical earth prcssurc
For Sewiæ Load Design do = 0.75 u'hcn checking member for nrinimunr axial load and
maxinrum momcnt or maximum ecccnf riciry. - . . For
o/o (Column l4) Percentagc of Basic Unit Stress d¡¡ = 1.0 u hcn chccking membcr for nraximum axial Coluntn
load a.nd minimunr monrent . . Dcsign
No incrcasc in allou'able unit strcsscs shall bc pernritted fìrr n¡cnrbcrs trD - 1.0 for flexural and tension membcrs
or connec¡ions carrying u'ind loads only. 0E= 1.0 for Rigid Culverts
fis = 1.5 for Flexiblc Culvcrts
0e : 0.70 for vertical loads on Rc.inforced Concrctc Boxcs.
Ée = 1.00 for fateral loads on Reinforced Concrctc Boxes. For Croup X loading (culvens) thc B¡' facror shall bc applicd to veni-
0e : l.OO for vcrtic¿l ¡nd late¡al loads on all other structurcs. cal and horizontal loads.

Detemine values of loads ùc be ùsed in design of footings to 2.3.2 Safety Margin and Satety Factor
support a bridge abuûnenr subjected to the Ar4.S¡ITO lÆad Group l.

(l) For a safe design, a structure must have adequate capacity (or
Typs of loads in Group I
resistance) to resist the loads to which it is subjected. The reserve
As ce be wn from Table 2.1, the loads in GrouÞ I include dead capacity, in excess of the required capacity, is the safety margin.
load, live load, pffiw, buoymcy and sûem flow
centifutal forc, eanh An adequate margin is maintained in design by choosing conser-
prcssue. Thæ loads have values of p factor greater thm ærc. Following
vative values ofload and soil parameters for use in design, and
the AASHTO specifications, impact fore is excluded in foundation dsign.
In lhis exmple, it is also Numed that ûerc tre no loads resulting from
by the use of appropriate safety factors.
buoymcy, centrifugal force or sEem flow pE$urc. The basis for establishing the values of design parameters and
safety factors underlines the fundamental differences between
Ø Nominalloads the conventional working stress design (WSD) and the load
and resistance factor design (LRFD). The WSD procedure is
Dead loads æ calculated bæd on dead weights of the structurc,
foudation md surchdge materials. Live loads de stimated basd on basically a deterministic approach, whereas LRFD is often based
Section 3 of the AASHTO specifications. Eä1h presurcs æ stimared on semiprobabilistic concepts.
using stâblished soil mechmics principle or empirical pr@duE, æ

2.3.3 Work¡ng Stress Design

(3) Factorcd loads

Factored loads æ usd in the LRFD præedrcs. Thei¡ values æ In working stress design both the loads and soil resistances
obhined by mulúplying lhe componding nominal valu6 compuæd in Step are considered to be deterministic and are charactenzed in calcu-
(2) by the product of the coEespooding valus of T ud 0 factoß ftom Table lations by a single value, called the nominal value. The nominal
1. The multiplication factoß for tie thæe types of loadings consideÉd in
value used in working stress design is usually either the mean
ùis exmple æ computed õ follows:
value, or a value that is somewhat more conservative than the
mean value. In selecting nominal values, the random nature of
MultiDlication Factor (= Y x ß) the loads and resistances is usually not taken into consideration.
Load TYæ Seryice Load DesiAn I¡âd Fâcb. D Selection of nominal values for the loads and resistance is an
Dead l¡ad l.0xl=1.0 llllYl=l10
important initial step in design. Dead load can usually be pre-
dicted more accurately than live loads whose values are often
Live l¡ad 1.0x1=1.0 l10\'1 67=)11 chosen based on codes, laws, and experience. The selection of
Earth Prcssw l.0xl=1.0 ll0rllO=l6S design soil parameters, on the other hand, requires careful ap-
praisal ofthe conditions peculiar to the particular structure and
Figure 2.1. Example 2.[-4etermination of factored loads. site.
In the WSD procedure, safety is ensured by the use of a single
factor of safety, sometimes called the "global" safety factor. An
appropriate value ofsafety factors, which may be defined as the
ratio of design resistance to the design load, is chosen based on
ing capacity). The use of the load combinations given in Table the uncertainties associated with the design and the conse-
2.1 for design is shown in Figure 2.1. quences ofa failure. Typical values ofsafety factors customarily
used in shallow foundations design are given in Table 2.2.


2.3.1 Sources of Uncertaint¡es

The sources of uncertainties in foundation design can be

grouped into four major categories: (l) uncertainties in estimat-
Table 2.2. Safety factors customarily used in foundation design.
ing the loads, (2) uncertainties associated with the variability of (After Terzaghi and Peck, 1967)
the soil conditions at the site, (3) evaluation of
the engineering properties of the soils and rocks at the site, and Failure Type Failure Mode Safety Factor*
(4) uncertainties regarding the degree to which the analytical
shearlng Bearing capacity 2.O 3.0
model represents the actual behavior ofthe foundation, structure fõilure
and the soils and rocks that support it. overturning
The uncertainties associated with the variability of soil condi- Overall stabílity 1.5 - 2.0
tions, and with evaluation ofsoil and rock properties, are usually
slidlng l-.5 - 2.0
the greatest. This is because the complex geological process in-
Seepage uplift l-.5 - 2.0
volved with the deposition and formation of soil and rock intro-
Heave 1.5 - 2.0
duces signihcant inherent variability in these materials.
To some extent, the foregoing uncertainties can be quantified Piping 2.0 - 3.0
explicitly or implicitly. In contrast, uncertainties associated with
human errors or omissions, though they do occur in practice, tNote: The lower values are used when uncertainty in design
are seldom quantiflred in design. They are usually accommodated is snall and con6equence6 of failure are ninor;
higher value6 are used vhen uncertalnty in design is
by quality assurance programs, checking, or independent review. large and consequences of faj.lure are najor.

r (r-q)

ron=sRn rìn

Nolation: R = resistance
õ.= mean of load O = ¡oad etfoct
F = mean ol res¡stance
Ê = sat€ty ¡ndex
. On = nominalvalue of load P = probab¡lity of fa¡lure
Rn = nom¡nal value of resistancs sf standard dev¡at¡on of random variable, R - O
R -e=
f"(r) = CrobabilitV dens¡ty funct¡on of random variabte R
Figure 2.3. Definitions of probability offailure and safety index.
fe(q) = probability density funst¡on of random variable e
T = load factor
0 = performance faclor
Different values of load and performance factors are provided
Figure 2.2. Load and resistance factor design. for different limit states, such as ultimate and serviceability limit
Ultimate limit states are related to the strength of foundation,
and they include bearing capacity failure, horizontal sliding,
overturning, and overall stability.
2.3.4 Load and Resistance Factor Design
Serviceability limit states are concerned with deformation and
durability, and they include considerations of settlement, hori-
Load and resistance factor design is a recently developed
zontal movement, tilting, and deterioration of the foundation
method based on probability or reliability theory. The loads and
resistance are treated as random variables and are characterized
Because the values ofload and performance factors are inter-
by probability density functions, as shown in Figure 2.2. Safety
twined, consistent sets of values must be used in design. For
is deflrned in terms of the probability of survival or its comple-
example, the suggested values of performaúce factor given in
ment, the probability of failure. The design is based on some
Table 2.3 must be used with the values of load factor for LFD
acceptable probability of failure.
given in Table 2.1. It would be inappropriate to use the load
For given distributions ofload and resistance, the probability
factors from Table 2.1 with performance factors taken from an
of failure can be directly defined. For example, for the combined
unrelated source or vice versa.
distribution of resistance minus load shown in Figure 2.3 the
probability of failure is defrned as the area under the shaded
It is important to note that values of load factor for earth
pressure given in Table 2.1 can be used directly to amplify the
region. In LRFD several partial safety factors are employed to
magnitude of active and at-rest earth pressure. The magnitude
ensure that the probability of failure associated with the design
of passive pressure, which provides a beneficial effect to the
is within the acceptable value. The two partial safety factors are
foundation system, should be multiplied by the reciprocal of the
the load and performance factors, as shown in Figure 2.2.'lhe
product of7 X É¡ given in Table 2.1. It should also be noted
load factors, 7, which often have values larger than unity, ac-
that the table does not list recommended values for y and B for
count for the uncertainties in loads and their probability ofoccur-
water pressure. If the water pressure is evaluated based on the
rence. The performance (or resistance) factors, þ, which are
worst possible position of groundwater table (the highest likely
typically less than one, account for soil variabilities and model
in 1@ years), it seems reasonable to use unfactored water pres-
uncertainties. The design equation for LRFD is as follows:
sure in LRFD calculations. Otherwise, the water pressure may
be amplihed by a load factor of 1.10.
ó\ ) )v¡Q, (

where þ : performance factor, Rn : nominal resistance, e, : 2.4 OTHER DES]GN CONSIDERATIONS

load effect due to load component, and 7, : load factor for load
component i. 2.4.1 Scour
In practice values for the load and performance factors are
usually specified in codes and are based on target values of Scour is the displacement of stream bed materials by the ero-
reliability selected to be consistent with current state ofpractice. sive action ofstream or tidal currents. It may occur naturally or

TÉble 2.3. Suggested values of perfornsnce frctor for ultimate limit stdtes design for shallow foundations.

FûËe of Llnlt Stet€ Þerfomance Factor

1. Bêaring Capaclby
a. Sând
- Seml-enpirlcal Proceduro ueing SPi ¿a¿a 0.45
- Senl-empirlcal Procedure usint CPT da¿â 0.55
- Rational Method --
uslng /¡ €ltimâÈ€d f,¡oo SPI data 0.35
uctng {¡ estinated from CPT daèa 0.45

b. Clay
- S€mi-empirical Procedure uslng CPT daÈa 0.50
- Ratlonal Method
uslng ahear st!ênt¿h ¡neagured ln lab tests 0.60
usLng shear strength neasu¡ed tn fteld vane tests 0.60
using shear B¿rength est'lmated froo CPT data 0.50

c. Rock
- Seml-empirlcal p¡ocedure (CárÈ€r and Kulhawy) 0.60

12. SIidíns
a, Precast concr€te placed on sand
ustng f¡ estlmat€d from SPT daÈa 0.90
using {¡ estl¡oated from CPI data 0.90

b. Concrete cas¿ in place on sand

ustng /¡ €stimat€d fro¡n SPT data 0.80
ustng /¡ esttmated from CPT data 0.80

c. CIay (where shear sÈrength is lese than 0,5 times no¡mal pressure)
using shear strength measured ln Iab tests 0. 85
using shear sor€ntth m€asured in fleld tests 0.85
using shear strength estlmated from CFI data il .eo

d, Clay (nhere the strength is treater than 0.5 Èimes no¡mal pr€ssure) 0.85

(1) ót = tti"t:.onal angle of sand

(Ð Sliding on clay ls conLrolled by the stlength of the clay when the clay shear streng¿h is
less than 0.5 Limes the no¡mal str€ss, and is conlrolled by the normal stress when the clay
shear sLrent¿h is Srsater than 0.5 times èhe normal stress.


itmay be the result of channel restriction or changes in flow soils are highly susceptible to scour, while cohesive or cemented
pattern. Except for unusual circumst¿nces, the greatest scour soils are more resistant. Typical scour rates of some stream bed
occurs during the largest flood. materials, expressed in terms of the time taken to reach the
Different materials scour at different rates. Loose granular maximum scour depth, are listed below (AASHTO, 1970):


-1' 11.5
. 15'
>\ Þ:

Figure 2.4. Maximum depth of frost penetration Depths in melers

in the United States. (After Sowers, 1979)

abutments, minimum foundation depth > 6 ft below stream bed;

Time for
(2) for other structures (except culvert), minimum foundation
depth > 4 ft below stream bed.
Material Scour
In addition, special precautionary steps must be taken to pro-
sands & gravels hours tect spread footings founded on sand or other highly erodible
cohesive soils days soils. This may be achieved by paving the stream bed with con-
glacial tills, sandstones & shale months crete or by driving sheet piles around the footings.
limestones years
dense granites centuries
2.4.2 Frost
For bridges at stream crossings, the potential for scour to
In regions where freezing of the ground occurs during the
undermine bridge foundations should be investigated. Bridge
winter months, shallow foundations should be founded below
foundations are usually designed to withstand the effects ofscour
the maximum depth of frost penetration in order to prevent
without failure for the worst conditions resulting from the 100-
damage from frost heave. The maximum depth of frost penetra-
year flood. This usually involves designing the foundations for
tion is generally estimated from local experience or from maps
the after-scour conditions. The analyses are performed on the
like the one shown in Figure 2.4. The U.S. Army Corps of
basis that all the stream bed materials within the scour prism
Engineers proposed a relationship between frost penetration
have been removed, and are not available for bearing or lateral
depth and the freezing index. The freezing index is defined by
the equation: freezing index : number of days below 32"F X
The amount ofscour depends on many factors, including the
(32' - average daily temperature). The relationship is shown in
hydrological characteristics of the site, the hydraulics of the
Figure 2.5.
flow, and the properties of the streambed materials. Detailed
discussion of scour can be found in the Technical Advisory 100
on Scour at Bridges published by FHWA (1988), the NCHRP
Synthesis of Highway Practice 5 (1970), and an FHWA report 50
by Copp and Johnson (1987).
Scour prediction involves many disciplines ofengineering, and o
prediction models still involve many uncertainties. Collaboration õrô
with other branches of engineering, including hydraulics engi- ô
neering and hydrology, should therefore be sought. In spite of o.//
the recent progress made in scour prediction, experience with a
o -/ uscE. r 949
given stream is still the best guide for estimating maximum depth Brown. l9ó4
of scour. 4
In the absence of detailed scour investigations, Terzaghi and t520 304050 100 200300 500 t000 2000 4000
Peck (1967) recommend that the foundation be placed at a depth
Freezing index, deg. days
not less than the elevation of the bottom of low-water channel
plus four times the greatest rise of the river level. Freezing index = No. ofdays below 32'F X (32o - Avenge daily temp. in'Ð

Similarly, AASHTO speciflrcations (1989) suggest the follow- Figure 2.5. Design cumes for maximum frost penetration based
ing guidelines for placing a foundation in cases where data per- on the freezíng index. (After U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1949;
taining to scour are not available: (l) for stream píers and arch Brown, 1964)

2.4.3 Expans¡ve and Gollapslble Solls

Expansive and collapsible soils may be encountered in many I(ú
parts of the United States, primarily the arid and semiarid re-
gions of the West and Southwest. Expansive soils, usually highly
plastic clays and clay shales, may undergo large volume changes
as a result ofseasonal changes in water content, and the expan- o_F
sion process may exert enomous swelling pressure on engineered o-E

facilities. Collapsible soils are, predominantly, partially saturated qb
silts and lightly cemented sands. They may collapse when wetted. o.ã
In areas where these problem soils are found, information e6
from other projects in the area and pertinent site-specific data, -Eo
including groundwater information and index properties of soils,
are usually available. Swelling potential can be estimated by õE
þo r0
using correlations with index properties, as shown in Figure
2.6. Collapsible soils can be identified by conducting special à
laboratory consolidation tests on undisturbed test specimens. t
2.4.4 Deterloratlon 10 20 30 40

Plasticity lndex, lO
Deterioration of concrete in foundations can be caused by
sulfates, organic acids, and other corrosive compounds that are Figure 2.6. Relationship of plasticity index to swell potential of
present in the soils or groundwater. The severity of the problem soils. (A"fter Holtz and Gibbs, 1956)
depends on three major factors: the concentrations of the sul-
fates, organic acids, and corrosive compounds; the level of the
groundwater and its movements within the vicinity of the site;
tions include equipment access, storage and handling of exca-
and the climatic conditions.
vated materials, feasibility of dewatering, stability of slopes
Geotechnical investigation for deterioration studies can be
during construction, and maintenance ofessential functions dur-
integrated into the subsurface exploration program through sam-
pling and chemical analysis of the groundwater and the soils.
ing construction. Such factors often govern the design, and
should receive thorough consideration early in the project.
Details can be found in the AASHTO Manual on Subsurface
Construction activities may alter the properties of soils and
Investigations (1988).
may even induce movements or failure. Examples include distur-
Once the extent and the severity ofthe deterioration problem
bance of clays due to pile driving, settlement of loose sands
are identified, various measures can be adopted to protect con-
due to pile driving, piping or quick conditions resulting from
crete foundations from attack by aggressive agents. These in-
dewatering, and damaging vibrations due to blasting. These ef-
clude use ofspecial materials, frequent maintenance, and conser-
fects often determine which construction methods can be used,
vative designs that deliberately disregard portions of the
and it is important to recognize that they may determine how
foundation material. The choice depends, among other factors,
construction can best be done.
on the severity of the problem, the decay rates, and the cost.
In areas where sulfates and organic acids are known to be
present, special types of cements are often recommended for
protecting concrete from the attack of these agents. Detailed
information can be found in Tomlinson's text (1986), and also CHAPTER 3
in an American Concrete Institute (ACI) publication known as
ACI's Guide To Durable Conuete (1982).
At chemical waste sites, appropriate precautionary steps can
be taken after the source and nature ofthe aggressive compounds FOUNDATIONS
have been identified. The types, concentrations, and distributions
of the deleterious chemicals may vary widely from site to site or
even within the site itself, and each case must be evaluated on
its own merits. Useful information can be found in the publica- 3.1 GENERAL
tions of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Accurate subsurface information is required for foundation
design. Lack of such information may lead to construction dis-
2.5 CONSTRUCTION ASPECTS putes and claims, overly conservative designs with extremely
high factors of safety, or to unsafe designs.
Two aspects of construction are especially important in design. The field and laboratory investigations used to obtain subsur-
They are: constructability and the effects of construction activ- face information comprise the soil exploration program. It con-
ities. sists of borings and sampling, in situ testing, laboratory testing
The feasibility of constructing the foundation should be evalu- of soil samples, and is occasionally supplemented with geophysi-
ated in terms of the diffrculties involved. Important considera- cal and other techniques.

A site investigation generally involves three phases: (1) recon- sounding spacings, exploration depths, and sampling require-
naissance (2) exploratory investigation, and (3) intensive investi- ments. For instance, the guidelines developed by the Federal
gation. A reconnaissance study provides information useful for Highway Administration (FHWA, 1985) are given in Table 3.1
project feasibility, planning, and preliminary design. Foundation and Table 3.2.
design data are obt¿ined during the exploratory and intensive
phases of the investigation.
This chapter briefly discusses various aspects of soil explora- 3.4 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION
tion, with emphasis on the exploratory and intensive phases of
investigations. Detailed information concerning soil investiga- 3.4.1 Useful Exploration Technlques
tions can be found in many textbooks (Peck et al., 1974; Sowers,
1979) and in the AASHTO (1988) manual on the subject, and Many techniques are available for exploring subsurface condi-
will not be repeated here. tions at a site. These techniques differ mainly in the types of
tools or equipment that they employ and in the manner used to
advance the bore hole. The choice of the procedure or method
3.2 OBJECTIVES OF SOIL EXPLORATION to be used depends to a large extent on the depth and nature of
the soils and the required quality of soil samples. Table 3.3
The primary objectives of soil exploration are to determine summarizes the use and limitations of some of the exploratory
the following: (l) the nature of the deposits, including their boring methods. It is intended for use as a quick reference.
geologic origins and other factors that may affect their engi- Details for each of these techniques are described in textbooks
neering behavior; (2) the aerial extent, depth, thickness, and (Sowers, 1979; Tomlinson, 1986) and in the AASHTO manual
elevation of each of the soil strata; (3) the depth to hrm soil or (1988) on soil exploration.
rock; (4) the location of groundwater and its fluctuation, and
the possible presence of artesian pressures; (5) the engineering
properties of soils and rocks that will influence the performance 3.4.2 Soil Sampling
of the foundation; and (6) other pertinent information, such as
the chemical properties of soils and groundwater. Both disturbed and undisturbed samples provide useful infor-
Acquisition and interpretation of this information help to de- mation. Disturbed samples are samples that have been distorted
fine potential problems, to identify important details, and to and remolded. They are useful for soil identifrcation and index
identify areas where special attention is needed. It also provides tests, but not for measurement of soil properties. Undisturbed
the data needed for a design. samples are obtained with thin-walled sampling tubes or from
test pits. They are useful for all types of soil tests, including
measurement of strength, compressibility, and permeability.
3,3 EXPLORATION PROGRAM As a quick reference, Table 3.4 summarizes the use and limita-
tions of various sampling techniques. For more detailed cover-
Soil exploration programs should be planned to obtain the age, the readers are referred to Hvorslev's book (1948).
maximum possible information at minimum cost. In planning
an exploration program, it is important to consider the cost of
site investigation in comparison with the cost of the foundation. 3.4.3 ln Situ Tests
A thorough investigation may result in substantial savings in the
cost of a foundation in a particular area. In other cases, no In recent years in situ tests have been used more frequently to
amount of detailed information may change the type, cost, or determine the strength and deformation characteristics of soils.
performance of the foundation. In many cases these tests provide considerable useful information
The planning ofa soil investigation program includes both the at reasonable cost.
field and laboratory work. It includes establishing methods for The use and limitations of several types of in situ tests are
field exploration and in situ testing. It also includes determining summarized in Table 3.5. Depending on whether soil properties
the depth and location of borings, test pits, and other sounding are measured directly or are estimated by using empirical corre-
techniques, as well as the type and number of laboratory tests. lations, in situ tests may be classihed into two major categories:
These decisions can only be made effectively after some k¡owl- direct tests and indirect tests. For example, the vane shear test
edge of the site conditions is available. Planning is therefore a is considered a direct test because strength of the soil is related
continuous and progressive process which involves updating or quantitatively to the torque required to turn the vane. On the
modifying a preliminary plan as work advances and more infor- other hand, the standard penetration test measures the driving
mation is accumulated. resistance ofthe split-spoon sampler, and is thus an indirect test.
The scope and amount of work in an exploration program are It is important that all in-situ tests be carried out by experi-
dependent on many site-specific factors, including the type of enced personnel and in accordance with the standardized or
structure and foundation, the soil conditions, and the project generally accepted procedures. Relevant standards are indicated
requirements. These factors and their degree ofsignifircance can in Table 3.5.
vary so widely from site to site that each exploration program
has to be planned individually.
Fortunately, guidelines have been developed over the years by 3.4,4 Groundwater
various agencies to assist the planning ofexploration programs.
Based largely on experience and on some basic principles ofsoil Reliable information on groundwater is essential for founda-
mechanics, they typically include suggestions on bore hole or tion design. In most cases the location of the groundwater level
Table 3.1. Guidelines for "mininum" boring programs. (After Federal Highway Administra- Table 3.2. Guidelines for sampling and testing criteria. (After Feileral
Highw¡y Ailminishation, 1985)

Sand- cravel SPI (sptlt-ÊÞoon) aanplês ahould be taken at

Aqvance Bortngi (t) through solls 5-ft lnteryala or at Êlgnlficant changea in
under 100 ft in vldth usuitable foudati.on soils 6o11 straèa.
2 per substructure unlt (such as peat6, highty organic
over 100 ft in wlalth clays, soft clays, etc.) into Continuou6 SPT aaDlr1eB are recouendeal Ln thê
coDpetent [aterÌals of suitable top.15 ft of boringa Dade at locatlona vhere
bearing capacity and : (2) to apread footlngs Day be placed In natural aoll6,
depth vhere added Etressês due
to estirated fowdatlon load Ís SPf Jar or bag EanÞ1e6 shouLd be Bent to lab
less than ¡.ot of the existing for clasaiflcation teeting and. vertflcation
effecÈive 6oi1 overburden stiess of fleld vigual BoIl identiflcatlon.
or (3) Elninu of IO ft into
bedrock, if encountêred at sllty- clay sP¡ and rudiEturbedr thln wa¡l tube aanpleB
shalloser depÈh. soi ls ahould ba taken at 5-ft lntewalE or at
signlficant changea of atlata.
Boringg gpaced every 100 ft Extend borings to a depth of 2 tiEes
to 200 ft, goÀe borinEs vallheight or nininu of IO ft lake alternate SI¿I and tube aaDÞles ln Ëane
6hould be in front and in into bedrock. borlng or tak6 tube eanpt€s in ãeparate
back of wall undisturbed borlnE.
¡{hen approach eEban¡@ents sæe as establlshed above for lnfbe 6anples shoutd bE 6snt to lab for con-
are to be placed over soft bridge foundatlon. 6olldatlon teatlng (for settLeDent analyalÉ)
ground, at least one boring and atrength testlng (for 6lopa stablllty and
Bhould be Eade at each Àdditional, shalloe exploration bearlng capaclty üaly6la).
enbanl@ent to detemlne the (hand auger holes) taken at
probl@E assoqiated sith approach elbanloent' Locations iE Fleld vana ahear te6tlng 1a aLso recomended
stablllty and aettl-eEent of an econoEical vay to detemine to obtaln ln situ ahear Étrength of Boft
the eEbanl@ent. fyplcauy, depth of unsultable 6urface clays, sllts and well rotted peata.
test boringE taken for the soils or topsolL.
approach enbanhentE are contlnuouE coreg ahould be obtalneal ln rock
located at proposed abutDent or Bhal€ uslng doubfe or trtple tube core
locations Èo 6ewe a dual barrela,
Ìn stnctural foundatlon lnvegtlEatLonB, core
Borlngs tjÞlcall,y spaced çU!g: 1) In Etable Eaterials a ninibun of 10 ft Into rock to enEure that
every 200 ft (erratic extend borings DlnIDu l0 to It IE a bedrock and not a boulder. F
conditlons) to 500 ft 15 ft belov grade. 2) In weak Ê
(uifoE condltlons) elth solls, extend borings belov corê sån¡rleB Bhould be 6ânt to the lab for
at leaEt one boring taken grade to: fin laterials, or to poarlble 6trenEth teÉtlng (unconfinsd
In each aeparate landfom. the depth of cut below grade coDpresEion) for foundatlon lnveatlgatlon.
vhlchever ocqur6 first.
Percent core r€cover? and RQD value shoutd be
Fo! hlgh cutg and f111s. LìDbankûènts: Extend borÍnqs to detenined in fleld or lab for èach cole ru
ghouLd have a liniDu of iin-¡ãEãiÏar or to depth-of and rêcorded on borlnE 1og. l¡owever, It would
2 borings along a Etraight tslce the eD.ban¡oent height be ea6Ler In ffetd to dlstinguish breaka cauBed
Ilne perpendlcular Co the by dr1lling operatlÒns.
centerllne or plannêd 61oÞe Ground Vlater t{ater LeveL encoutered during dr1lllnE, at
face to estabLlsh geological coEpletion of bgrlngr and at 24 hours after
crosa-6ection for analyslE, coDpletlon of borlng should be recorded on
borlng log.
UiniDW 2 borings along a Extend borÍngs to an elevåtion I

straight Iine perpendicular beLow acÈlve or potêntial In 1ow pemeablttty aolla, Êuch aE Éllts and I
tô the centerllne or plannê fallure surface and lnto hard clays, a faL6e lndlcatfon of the vater level I
slope aurface to establlsh stratu, or to a depth for vhich Day be obtalned shen oater 1s uaed as I
geologlcal 6ecÈ1on for fallure ls ulikely because of drllllng fluid and adequate Èlre iE noÈ I
analysLB. Nu¡ber of section georetry of cross-6ections. penltted after hol€ coDpletlon for the vater I
dependB on extent of level to atablllze (!or€ than one veek nay be I
stabillty problels. For r6qulred). In 6uch soila a plaEtlc ÞlÞe water I
active 61Íde, place at lea obBewatlon selt ahould be inatalled to allow I

one boring above and beÌow Donltorlng of the water level, ov6r a perlod I
Ellding area. of tlùe.

MateriaIE Sltes BorinEs spaceal every IOO to Extend exploratLon to base of Seaeonal fluctuatLon of water tal¡le ehould be I
(Borroq Pits) 200 ft. deposit or to depth required detemlned vhere fluqtuatlon wllL have I
to provÍded needed quantity. ElEnlflcanÈ lnpact on deElgn or constnctlon.
ÀrteaLan presEure and Beepage zones, lf I
encountered. Éhou1d alao be notad on the I
borlng tog. I
The top foot or Eo of the annular Bpace I
between water obBeryatlon well pipes and I
borehole uall should be backflllêd slth I
grout, bentonlte, or sand-cenent [lxture to I
prevent aurface uater lnflow vhlch can cau8e I
erroneous Erounalwater level readlnqg. I
Table 3.3. Methods for exploratory borings. (After Sowers, 1979) Table 3.4. Use and limitation of soil sampling techniques. (Morlified after Sowers, 1979)

l,initations Hethod SaEple Condltlon and Use f,IDitations

Àu9er Dlsturbed for Boil ldentificatfont Stnctur€ deatroyed. Soll

Àuger Borlng Hand or power auger with Identlfy changes in crinds soft (Àsnr D-r.4s2 water content above Hater table. Dlxed rlth water below vater
(ÀsÎr1 D-r4s2) renovâl of naterial at 6o11 texture above partlcles- )
reqular short lnteryals water table. Locate stopped by
ground vager rock, etc. spllt barrel Intact but dlEturbeat. So11 seplê dlatorlgd-dlaturbance
(ÀsÎr{ D-r586) ldentlficatlon, stncture, water too great for Etrenglh,
Test Borlng Dri11 hole sanple at Identlfy lexture and cravel, hard contentr denslty of very vide ranges consoÌldatlon teats.
(ÀsfM D-1.586) interyals slth l. 4 in ID structure, estlDate seans. of 6oil6.
and 2 ln oD split barrel density or consistency
sahpler drlven l8 Inches ln sôil or soft rock thin-walled Relatively undisturbed saEple for saDple toEt In very aoft cIaY
in three 6-in lnteryals tube (ÀST!,1 shear, conaolldatlon.denslty etc., or looae Band below water tt
by 140-Ib hamer fallIng D-rs8 7 ) of Dost Éolls, table.
30 in. Below water
nalntaln hydrostatlc stfff cLays anly (sùples drlven vlth Slight dlaturbance. F
balance with fluld. hamer) o
core: soil
Force or drlll tube lnto
soll untll reslstance
Identlfy soll texture
and Gtructure
Thin-sa11ed Relatlvely undlsturbed 6aDpIê of very SaEple soEetlEes lost ln 6oft {
(ÀsrH D-21t3) preven¡a further roveBent. contlnuously in tube, fixed êoft siLts, claysi loose aand lf holq clay, Ioo8e sand,
piston. filted vith heaw drllllng fluld.
Renove cuttLngs slth alr cohesive aoils.
or water. svedlsh foil Relatlvely undlsturbed contlnuous (to cravel, coarge Eand. or hard z
40 ft long) s@ple of soft clay. for atrata dtraln dalage U
Borehole vlew lnslde of borehole ExaEinê stratlf lcatLon 6hea., consolldatlon, etc. gaEpler. -l
canera, ÎV in place.
Rotary cores RelatLvely undlaturbed EaDple of flm Torslon fållure ln soft soll6 o
soil to atlff coheeive 9oil6, soft rocki and soEetLDes Ln sandE. zØ
conclnuous Rotatê tube wlth dlaEond- Identify rock strata continuous,
corer rock studded bit to cuù annular and structural defects
(ÀsÍ¡r D-2113) hole. cuttlngs renovêd by continuously, Rotary core! contÍnuous core In hard rockt nearly Fractured or very Boft rock
circulatlng water. core rock con!Ínuous 1n 6oft or fractured not recovered.
retained ln tube by rock rith U-tlFe dou.ble tube.
cyllndrlcal wedge. Best
vlth statlonary Inner tube
to protect çore.
Excavate pIt or lrench by vlsual exallnatlon of Cavlng of valls
hand, larger auger and by stncture and cround rater.
excãvator. stratification above
vater cable.
chop wlth chlsel blt or Identlfy coarger t'lisleading if
rotate toothed cutter. fractLon froE cuttings, appreclablê
cuttlngs washed !o surfacê hardness fron drilllng flneg present
by circulatlng uater or rate.
drllllng nud through bÍt.
Pound and churn 6oil Dríll and ldentify Strata
boulders and rock to slurry broken rock, etc., difficult to
by dropping heavl' chisel fron cuttings deflne, Quick
bit in wet hole. Dall condition
water and cuttlngs at fomed in
lnteryals. sands ,

Inpact-drlLl vlth Jack Identlfy rock fron

haMer; reEove cuttings cutt1ngs, hardness
wj"th conpressed air. from late.

Table 3.5. Use and liniitations of in situ tests. (Modified after Sowers, 1979; Canadian
Foundation Engineering Manual, 1985)
üethod Best suited Not Àppllcable Propertlês Linltations
To To l{easured

À. Direct Testr
vane shear I clay Sflt. sand, anal strength Progressive
tmnr o-zsz:) gravel . failure ln
] 6ensltive
I solls.
had test soft rock, soft clay UltiEate bearing, InÈerpretation
(ÀsTt'f D-r194, sand, and êhort-tem ln tems of
stfff cl.ay deflectlon. protot¡r¡re
HêIl tèst ÀIl.6olls Effective Questionable
horlzontal above vater
peneability of tablet not
DASS. effectlvê for
Borehole sand, soft stiff clay Êtrength uncertainty in
shear clay. dralnage,

Indirect :.8

Standard sand, clay Gravel Estl.Date strength changes

Penetration and/or density. density of
Test Estl¡ate bearing Ioose sands-
(Àsnf D-rs86) capacity. sensitive to
to procédure
Static cone Sand, clay EstLDate slrength fnterprêtation
penetration and/or density varies with
test EsÈiDate bearing soil; identi-
(ÀsTlf D-3441) capac j.ty fÍcation of
sensitive to
Pressureneter Soft rock, EstiEate ultinate Interpretation
Test sand, cLay bearing capacity difficult.
(Asnf D-4719) and compressibili Requires
DiLatometer sand, clay Horizontal stress, Introduced in
test soiL stiffness u.s.À. in

Table 3.6. Use of routine laboratory soil tests. (Modified after is measured during and at the end of the drilling. These observa-
Sowers, 1979) tions may not provide useful information if drilling mud is used,
or if the site has perched water table or artesian water pressure
conditions. In such instances, observation wells or piezometers
specific Àt1
may be required.
Disturbed VoId ratio,
gravlty ninerals
crain 6izê sands, Disturbed Classlfication.
gravels Estlnate pemea- 3.4.5 Laboratory Tests
bility, shear
strength, frost
action and Laboratory tests are commonly performed to classify soils and
to assess their engineering properties. Some of the laboratory soil
Grain shape sands, Di.sturbed Classification,
gravels Estlnate shear tests used for foundation design are summarized in Table 3.6.
Procedures for these tests are given in the standards published
Llquid and silts, Disturbed Classification.
plastic clays EsLlnate conpress- by AASHTO (1986) and ASTM (1990).
1inÍts ibillty and
Water conten! cLays Disturbed Correlate with 3.5 USEFUL CORRELATIONS
and conpactlon.
Many useful correlations have been established between the
void ratio clays E6tinate strength
and conpressi- engineering properties ofsoils and vârious indirect and classihca-
bi1 ity. tion properties. For small projects or preliminary studies, such
Unconfined clays Undlsturbed Estinate shear correlations are often used extensively. In other cases these corre-
conpression sands conpacted strength.
lations serve as alternative sources of design information.
lriaxia I clays Undlsturbed Estinate shear
conpression sands Conpacted strength. Various types of correlations have been summarized by Sowers
Direct cl-ays Undisturbed Estihate shear (1979), as shown in Table 3.7. An extensive collection of strength
shear 6ands Compacted strength,
correlations has been compiled by Duncan et al. (1989). Some
consol i.dat ion cLays Undisturbed Estinate conpressi
bil ity. of the more widely used correlations are included in Figures 3.1
through 3.7 and Tables 3.7 through 3.12.

0f rxlEnn^! rRlctto¡

-¡ (FOR Co^RS€ Cn^rftEO SO|LSI

+ ߀L^frv€ oE¡¡s¡fY
POROSTIY. ô ffoß c. ¿681
..ã .a .!3r¡
.!3 .t
.l Ii .eg .2 .t5

.6 .å3 I á ..5 .¡ I .r5

zs go 90 too uo t2o t3o t4o iso
Dry Unlt Wclghl,.16 pcf
Figure 3.1. Approximate relationship between the angle of internalfriction and the dry unit weightfor
granular soils. (A.fter NÁVFAC, 1982)

o5r pavrLloN
o I

!t o50 O Creloceous sedimenls

-30 O Grey bosol fill

+ Numbers olongside po¡ots indícote
percentoqe of sond in lhe direct-
E'I o o 4 sheor somples. I I
î, =25
NAVFAC, I97I ¡! \
+ E
g s20
o \.24

c s
o ,a\ VOIGHT t9731
c ts
.9 (D
(t co
26 -GtLLOfi
O Kenney (1959) E, tlAI
O Bierrum I Simons (1960) g CREEK

o ,.",¿'R.È
V Comp¡led by Gen. Reporter E5

o to 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 too ilo æ 40 60 80 roo t20

Plosticity lndex. lp.(%) Ploslicily lndex, lp, (7"1

Figure 3.2. Correlation between peak effective friction angle and Figure 3.3. Relationship between resídual angle of internalfriction
plasticíty index for clays. (After Duncan et al., 1989) and plasticity index for clays. (A.fter Duncan et al., /989)
penr I

/ |
30 ,

Sowers: Skemplon. 1957

Cloys of Low PloslicilY / Terzoshi
Lodd å Fooll.1974
ond Cloyey Sills | *d t**,
^ o 0.4

\ \ b

z ã o.2 øJo.O. ll+O.OO37 Ip
/ at

9. on
¡a G"
É, / 20 40 60 80 roo r20
, Plorticily Inder lp
IÉ (c)
(D I
O Triq¡iol ComPression

A Direcl Simple Sheor
g El Trio:iol E¡tension

I 0{'l
// Z-\;;r,
/t Cloys
ium Plosticily

of Higt r Ploslicily
,f.' -
l, tl
Ploslicity lndcr Io
:o o.s r.o t.5 2.o 2.5 3-o 3-5 4-o
' (b)

Unconfined co¡npressive strength, qu, (kgf/cn2) Figure 3.5. VariatÌon of su/c,o' with plastícity indexþr nor-
mally consolidated clays. (After Robertson and Campanella,
Fígure 3.4. Relationship between standard penetration resistance'
1984, and Jamiolkowski, et al', 1985)
N, and unconJined compressive stength, qu. (After NAVFAC,


o +


Figure 3.6. Relation between comPres-
sion ratio and natural water content.
(After Lambe and Whitman, 1969) Natural Water Content (*)

u¡oyey sr¡¡s Sondy S¡¡t SillY Table 3.8. Relationship among relative density, penehation re-
I Silly Cloy I silt Sond Sond cistance, and angle of internal friction of cohesíonless soils. (After
r I I ¡ tt Meyerhof, 1950

g: o itate of Relatlve itandard statlc cone Àrgle of

Rot rerlson el.ol. 1983 DenEIty lenetratlon
'acklng Re6i6tance Intemal
+: cl o1..1986
Kot ;im
q c: crç rcsscd in kgf/cm2
?ercên! blovs/ft tcef or Rgf/ø2
N:crp ¡csscd ¡o blors/fl degree6
'ery tooEe < fo
þo5e 20-40 4-I0 20-40 30- 35
:onpact 40-60 l0-30 40 - 120 35-40
60-Bô 30-s0 120 - 200 40-45
o Den6e > 80 > 50 > 200 > 45
o/" Note: N - +9.+ (Nt - 1S)/2 for N' > t5 In Eaturated very flne

tr or 61lty aand, shere
blov count correcÈed
during the Sl¡¡. The
Nr = Dea6ured blow count, and N =
for dynanic pore pre€sur; effect'6
vatueÀ of C'-are ior clean 6and.
Reduce l' by 5 degrees for clayey 6and.

à Increase Cr by 5 degrees for gravelly sand.

3 B o + Table 3.9. Approximate relation between undrained strength ra-
o ï,+ tio, su/ a"o', and overconsolidation ratio, OCR. (.After Schmert-
mann, 1978)
o o +
4 o
. l0 -
.26 - 0.s
lea6 than I
1 to 1.5 (assume I)
OCR Remark6

sErll congolrdatug
nomally consolidatel
nofrally consolidate,
.s1 - I.0 3 overconsolidated
1-4 6 overconsolidated
ver 4 greater than 6 overconaolidated
I I r tt
0.00r o.or o.r t.o Note: Àging (or Gecondary conpressionl¿ cenentation and
other processes may lesult in a higher overcon-
solidation (apparent overconãolidationl
Mcon Groin Sizc, Dao, mm although the clay remains nomalLy consolidated. Àa
aged clay is seldon found to have an OCR greater than
Figure 3.7- Variation of q./ N with mean grain size. (After Robert- about 1.5.
son and Campanella, 1984, and Kasim et al., 1986)

Table 3.10. Equations for stress-st¡ain modulus, E", by several

test methods. (Modified after Bowles, 1988)

Soi I s PT* CPT

Table 3.7. Correlation of test dats. (After Sowers, 1979)

sand -s 500(N + t5) E-=2to4q^
Sinple lest Po6Blble Corrêlation
(nomalLy "s (15000 to 22000)1nN ¡l = 1r*0,2tøl
consol idated)

¡{ater conten! Shear Etrength of cl.ay. Sand (over- E6=18000+750N Es=6to30q,

coEpre6slon Index of clay. consol idated)
Grain aize EsocR = EsNc locn¡0.5
Pemeablllly, Etrength,
(D]0, Dt5, Cu) and dralnabillty of
cohesIonleEE 6oi1E. GraveLly Êand Es = 600(N + 6) Ns 15
and gravel Es = 600(N + 6) +2000 N>15
L,iquid linlt Cobpres6ibII fty.
Plastic lndex Svell-Ehrink. drained angle Clayey sand Es =32O(N+Is) Es=3to6qc
of EheÀrIng resistance of
clay. Silty 6and E6 =3oo(N+6) Es=Ito2qê
Vold ratio, ConpreEsibility and 6hear
unft vêIght Etrength. Soft clay Es=3togqc
Relative denalty Str€ngth, coEpre6slbility of
( Dr) coheslonle6e 6oll. clay expressed in tems undrained shear strength,
seiÊn1c veLoclty, !{odulus of elãslicityt su; and in 6ane pressure units as su.
(v) strength of soll, rock.
fp > 30 or organic Es = tOO to 5OO Su
Electrlcal t¡eler, clay, organic and salt lp < 30 or stiff Ðs = 5OO to t5OO Su
reaistivity content,
Penetratlon shear atrength, relatlve EsocR = EsNc ¡ocn¡0.5
resi6tance, denslÈy, bodulus ôf
6tatic and coDpr€a6lb1l Ity.
Note¡* Units of Es is in kpa (L tsf = tOO kpa).

Table 3.11. Approximate correlation between coeffrcient of consolida- Table 3.12. Correlation between cone resistance, q., and st¡nilard
tion, c"r and liquid limit. (After Terzaghi and Peck' 1967) penetration resistance, N. (After Schmertmann, 1970)

soll Type s"/N

Liquid Limit (8) Range of cv (ft2lyrl
lLts, 6andy silts. Êlightly coheslve allt-
rand nixtures 2.O
30 20 to 360 :lean, fine to Dedlun sands, and sllghtly
40 L2 to 23O rilty sands 3.5
50 I to 150 :oarse sands and 6andg wlth little gravel 5.0
60 5to 90
70 3to 53 iandy gravel and gravel 6.0
80 2t,o 35
90 1to 23
Note¡ unit6 of q^ are kgf/cn2 or tsf;
UnitE of Ñ-are blovs/ft.
N! uncorrected.




basic requirement for any foundation is that it can safely

A based on presumptive bearing pressures are excessively conserva-
support the load that it carries. The foundation itself must not tive and wasteful in some cases, and unsafe in others. Presump-
suffer structural failure, and the soil beneath it must not be tive bearing pressures are best used for preliminary estimates of
loaded so heavily that its supporting capacity is exceeded. foundation size, and for a rough check on bearing pressures
Structural failure in a foundation can be avoided by assuring derived using more reliable methods.
that the foundation has sufftcient shear and moment capacity to
distribute the load it carries into the soil on which it rests. Failure
of the soil beneath a foundation can be avoided by making the
foundation large enough so that the stresses induced in the sup- PENETRATION TESTS (SPT)
porting soils are less than their shear strengths.
This chapter is concerned with methods of evaluating the The standard penetration test is widely used for soil explora-
ultimate bearing capacities of soil, and with the determination tion. It provides a disturbed, but representative, sample for classi-
of bearing loads that provide an adequate margin of safety with flrcation and a measure of soil strength and density through the
respect to soil failure. number of blows, N, required to drive the sampler.
SPT blow counts can be used to estimate soil properties such
as the undrained shear strength, su, of claYs, and the angle of
internal friction, þ, of sands. These can be used with bearing
capacity theories to estimate ultimate bearing capacities for soils.
The quickest (and least accurate) method of determining al-
Bearing capacity theories are discussed in a subsequent section.
lowable bearing loads for foundations is the use of "presumptive
SPT blow counts can also be used to estimate bearing pressures
bearing pressures." As may be seen from Table 4.1, these relate
directly, through empirical correlations. Meyerhof (1956) pro-
the allowable bearing pressure to the type ofsoil and a qualitative
posed the following formula for estimating ultimate bearing pres'
description of its condition, termed "consistency in place."
sure using SPT blow counts:
The procedure for designing a footage using presumptive bear-
ing pressures is direct and simple. Having determined the allow-
able bearing pressure from information like that in Table 4.1'
the designer can determine the required size of the footing by
o',:#("*,*.-'?) (4.3.1)

dividing the load supported by the footing by the allowable

bearing pressure. Any footing with this or larger area is ac- where qr,, : ultimate bearing capacity (ultimate corresponds to
ceptable. failure ofthe soil beneath the footing), t,/ft2; N : average blow
Although the use of presumptive bearing pressures is simple, it count, corrected for submergence effect; B : footing width (least
is not very accurate. It is not possible to determine the allowable dimension), ft; D, : depth from ground surface to base of
bearing pressure accurately based only on the type ol soil and a footing, ft; and C*t, C*2 : correction factors whose values
qualitative description of its consistency. Foundation designs depend on the position of the water table:

Table 4.1. Presumptive allowable bearing pressures for epread footing foundations. (Modiñed after U.S. Depart
ment ofthe Navy, 1982)

Allowable Bearin8 Pr€ssure (tsf)

lyp€ of BearInB Materlal ConslsLoncy ln Place n5¡y
for Usê

Massivs crysLalllno Very hård, cound rock 60 to 100 80

igneous md ngLmorphlc
rock: graphlLe, dtortts,
basalt, gnelss, bhorouthly
c€m€nted conglomeraÈe
(soud condltion allowg
ninor crackE)

FolÍabed meLmolphlc lock: Hard sound rock 30 to 40 35

slaÈe, schls¿ (sound
condlLion allows ninor cracks)

Sedlm€n¿åry ¡ock: hard c€menùed Ha¡d sound ¡ock L5 Lo 25 20

6hales, siltsLon€, sandsLone,
Limestone wlthoub cavl¿leg

WesthEred o¡ broken bed¡ock of Medlw ha¡d rock 8to12 10

any klnd ex€pÈ highly
argillaceous rock (6hal€)

Compåc¿l,on shale or oLh€r Mediw hard ¡ock 8to 10

highly argillaceous ¡ock

In sound conditlon

Well-8¡Âded mixLu¡€ of fino- Very dense 8Lo].2 10

and coarse-gralned soll:
glacial LiIl, hå¡dpan,
boulde¡ clay (GW-GC, GC,SC)

Gravel, gravel-sand mlxLur€s, V€ry dens€ 6¿oL0 7

boulder-graveL nlxtures (GW,GP, Mediw dense Lo dênse 4Loj

ST{, SP) Loose 2 to 6 J

Coalse to mêdiw sand, sand Very dens€ 4to6 4

with litLl€ gEavel. (SW,SP) Mediw d€nse bo 2lo4

Loose 1¿o3 1.5

Fine to medj.w sand, siLLy o¡ Ve¡y dense 3to5 3

clayey mediw Lo coarse sand Mediw dense to 2Lo4 2.5

(sw, sM, sc) d€nse
Loos€ !to2 1.5

Fine sand, sll¿y or clayêy Very dense 3Lo5

nediw to fine sand (SP,SM,SC) m€diw dônse ¿o ZLo4 2.5
Loose lLo2 1.5

Homogeneous inorganic clay, sædy Very stiff ¿o hard 3Lo6 4

or silty clay (CL,CH) Medlm stiff to 1Lo3
stl ff
Sof¿ 0.5 to 1 0.5

Ino¡ganic siIL, sandy or clay€y Very sLiff ¿o ha¡d 2Lo4 3

sil¿, varved siIL-clay-fine sand Mediw sLiff Lo 1to3 1.5
(ML,MH) sLiff
So fL 0.5 ¿o 1 0.5

Note: These values should be used with service (or

unfactored) l-oads.
t8 PART 1

for D* > Dr * : C*, :

1.58, Cwl 1.0 The value of N is determined in two steps. First, in saturated
very fine or silty sand, the measured SPT blow count is corrected
for D* : D¡, C*1 : 0.5 and Cwz : 1.0
for submergence effect as follows:
for D* : 0, C*1 : 0.5 and C*z : 0.5
N : 15 + 1/2 (N' - 15) for N' > 15 (4.3.3)
Values for other positions of the water t¿ble (between D* 0 :
and Dw :
Dr *
l.5B) can be determined by interpolation. where N' : measured SPT blow count.
Equation 4.3.1 applies only for vertically loaded footings. To The average value of N is determined within the range of
account for the effect of load inclination, Eq. 4.3.1 may be written depth from the bottom offooting to a depth of 1.58 below the
as: footing (Meyerhof, 1956). This avetage value used in Eq. 4.3.1
or 4.3.2 is also used to calculate footing settlement.

: NB/ * c*t DÀ
An example of the use of SPT dat¿ to estimate bearing capacity
eurt Rt (4.3.2) offootings on sand is given in Figure 4.1.
l[- l"*t
where R, : load inclination factor from 'lable 4.2 (dimen-

Table 4.2. Load inclination factor, R¡, for use with empirical procedures.
(i) Fo¡ Square Footlngs
Load Incllnatlon Facbor, Rr
H/v Dr/B * 0 Df/B - 1 Dr/B = s

0. 10 0.75 0.80 0.85

0. 15 0.65 0.75 0.80
0.20 0.55 0.65 0.70
0.25 0.50 0 .55 0.65
0.30 0. 40 0.50 0. 55
0.35 0.35 0.45 0. 50
0.40 0.30 0.35 0.45
0.45 o.z5 0,30 0.40
0.50 0.20 0.25 0. 30
0. 55 0. 15 0.20 0.25
0.60 0. 10 0. 15 0.20

(iI) For Rectangl. Footings

Load Inclination Factor, Rt

Load Incllned in Width Di¡ecbíon Load Incllned in Lenglh dlrecÈion

HIY Dr/B = 0 Dr/B = 1 Dr/B = 5 Dr/B = 0 Dr/B = 1 Dr/B = s

0. 10 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.80 0.85 0.90

0. 15 0.60 0. 65 0.70 0.70 0.80 0.85
0.20 0. 50 0.60 0.65 0.65 o.70 0.75
0.25 0.40 0.50 0.55 0.55 0.65 0.70
0.30 0.35 0.40 0. 50 0.50 0.60 0.65
0.35 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.40 0.55 0 .60
0.40 0.25 0.30 0. 35 0 .35 0. 50 0. 55
0.45 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.45 0.50
0.50 0. 15 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.45
0. 55 0. 10 0. 15 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.40
0 .60 0.05 0. 10 0. 15 0.15 0.25 0.35

For the conditions shown in Figure 4. lâ" estimate the bearing (2) Btimate ultimate bearing capaciry, qu¡s
capacity of a 15 ft square footing using the results from SPT. The fmting
will be 5 ft below the gromd surface, and a flfm stratum is encounrered at
depth 45 ft below the bo[om of the footing.
qun={f {c*,*c*þ
(1) Deemiß the minimum average valw of SPT blow count within
1.5 B G.e. io a depth of 23 ft) below the befüng level

Depth Boring I Boring 2 Boring 3 Consider conditipns where the water table is at depth 20 ft below the
ground surface (ie,, highest position of groundwater æcorded in the thæe
N N N N' N N N borings), values of Cwl and Cw2 deærmined as follows:
6 t7 t7 t7 9 9 9 t6 l6 l6

9 t2 T2 t5 8 8 9 35 35 26
Cwl = 0.5 + 15122.5 x 0.5 = 0.83
L2 l6 t6 r5 9 9 9 26 26 26
Cw2 = 1'0
l5 t8 18 ló l4 l4 10 24 24 25
n"u=116lå{0.E3 + I xþ =19.2¡tft2
18 t7 T7 t6 15 t5 1t 20 20 24

zl 15 l5 l6 t2 t2 t1 21 2L 24
with a safety factor of 3.0, the allowable bearing capacity of the footing is:
24 l6 16 l6 r3 l3 ll t7 L7 23

27 t2 L2 l5 lt lt ll 20 20 a1

q" = = e.+ urtz

N' = Coræcted N values for submergence effect; applicable only to silty sands
encountered below the water table. Thus Ñ = I I (the minimum average

Fijure 4.1. Example 4.\-estimating bearing capacity of aþoting Allowance for safety margin can also be provided through the use of
using standard penetration test result.
load and resisønce factors concepL The procedure for evaluating bearing
capacity of soil using LRFD concept is discussed in Section 4.1 1.

(Note thât settlement of the footing should be checþd using the

procedurcs given in Chapter 5 o ensure tìat its magnitude does not exceed
the tolerance).

ې E
oo N value o

15 12 t8

17 9 t6 t 15' r

12 I 35

16 I %

18 14 24 ¡ = 115 pc-t
= 0.0575 tcf
17 15 æ

15 21

16 17 Note: The firm stratum
is €ncounter€d at depth
12 11 45 ft below lhe foundation

30 16 13 n
Figure 4.1ø. Standørd penetration test data for a housing developing site. (After Garga and Quin,
20 PART 1

4.4 BEARING PRESSURES FROM CONE ance. The test is usually performed by speciaþ contractors who
PENETRATION TESTS (CPT) also provide recommendations regarding interpretation of the
results. An excellent reference on the subject is the recent book
The cone penetration test has gained widespread acceptance by Briaud (1990).
for soil exploration in the United States. It provides a continuous Menard (1965), Baguelin et al. (1978), and Briaud (1986)
record ofresistance to penetration by a 10 cm2 penetrometer and suggested the following empirical relationship between ultimate
a measure of shaft friction on the cone shaft. Used in conjunction bearing capacify and the limit pressure measured in the pres-
with conventional methods for drilling and sampling, it has suremeter test:
proven to be a valuable in situ test,
Cone penetration resist¿nce is the tip bearing pressure required gult: ro f k(p¿ - p") (4.s.1)
to cause continuous penetration of the cone through the soil at
a speed of 2 cm/sec, The tip resistance, q", is usually reported
inkg/cmz, which is essentially the same value when converted where ro : initial total vertical pressure at foundation level, in
to tons/ft2. pressure units; k : empirical bearing capacity coefftcient from
Values of q. can be used to estimate soil properties such as Figure 4.3, dimensionless; p, : limit pressure measured in the
the undrained shear strength, so, ofclays and the angle pressuremeter test, in pressure units; and po : total horizontal
friction, þ, of sands. These can be used in the rational bearing pressure at the depth where the pressuremeter test is performed,
capacity theories described subsequently in Section 4.6. in pressure units.
Cone penetration resistance can also be used to estimate bear- Any consistent pressure units can be used in the calculations.
ing pressures directly, through empirical correlations. An average value of limit pressure over the range of depth from
Meyerhof (1956) proposed a relationship between ultimate 1.58 above to 1.58 below foundation level is commonly used in
bearing capacity and cone penetration resistance in sands. His design. For cases where values of p7 vary significantly within a
equation can be modified to include the effect of load inclinâtion, depth B above or below the bearing level, Menard (1965) and
as given below: Baguelin et al. (1978) recommended special averaging techniques
that are based on experience.

c",:fft("*,+c-,f)n, (4.4.1)

where q" : average value of cone penetration resistance mea- 4.6 BEARING CAPACITY THEORY
sured within the range ofdepth from footing base to 1.58 below
the footing; B : footing width, in ft; C*l and C*, are the Saturated clays have undrained friction angles, þr, equal to
water table correction factors discussed in connection with the zero. For these materials the ultimate bearing capacity is related
standard penetration test, and Rr : load inclination factor from to the undrained shear strength, su : c, by the following
Table 4.2. equation:
As reported by Schmertmann (1978), Awkati (1970) has cor-
related values of ultimate bearing capacity to cone penetration gult: cN"- * yD¡Nq* (4.6.1)
resistance in clays. Recommended values based on the chart he
presented are summarized below: : :
where c su undrained shear strength, in pressure units; N"-,
No* : modified bearing capacity factors which are functions of
Value of quft(t/Îtz)
footing shape, embedment depth and load inclination, dimen-
q" (kg/cmz or t/ftz) Strip Footing Square Footing sionless; y : total unit weight of clay, in weight per unit volume;
l0 5 9 and D, : footing depth, in length units.
20 I 12 Brinch Hansen (1957) suggested the following expression for
30 l1 16 N"- for footings with Dr,/B < 2.5,8/L < 1 and H/Y < 0.4:
40 l3 t9
50 l5 22

These values are intended for use with footings that are below
N"-:5 (' * o' ?) (' . .':X' - r.3I\

the ground surface.

where L : length of footing, in length units; H : horizontal
It is not necessary to correct for the position of the groundwa-
component of resultant load, in force units, V : vertical compo-
ter table for footings on clay.
Procedures for estimating bearing capacity using cone pene-
nent of resultant load, same force units as H; and the other
terms are as defined previously. For values of Dr,/B ) 2.5, the
tration test data (CPT) are shown in Figure 4.2.
following expression is used:


PRESSUREMETER TESTS (PMT) N"*:7.5 +0.2al (4.6.3)
11 lr-13v/
Pressuremeter tests are performed by inflating a membrane
within a drilled hole and measuring the volume of expansion as Equations 4.6.2 and 4.6.3 are valid for values of H,/V I 0.4. For
a function of the applied pressure. Although not widely used in saturated clay þ, : 0, No- : 1.0.
the United States at present (1990), it is gaining wider accept- Sands and gravels (cohesionless soils) have no cohesion (c :

The result of the cone penetration test performed adjacent to Boring 3 of Example 4.1 is
shown in figure 4.2a. Based on this ¡esult, estimate the bearing capacity of the l5 ft squaæ
footing described in Example 4.1.

(1) Determine value ofcone resistance for use in design.

Since there is only one test result, the value ofqs used in dæigrr will be the average
of cone resistance measured within the range of depth from the bouom of the footing to a
depth of l5B below the footing base. Thus, from Figuæ 4.2(a),

9c = 120 krtcm2 = 120. tJ Íê

(2) Estimafe ultimate bearing capacity.

Values of Cyyl and Crx2 are calculated æ follows:

Cwr = 0.5 *#;L * 0.5 = 0.83

Cwz = 1'0
qr, = E}5Ë (0.83 + 1.0 * års
) = 52.¡ tlrt,

Using a safety factor of 3, the allowable bearing pressu¡e from failwe criterion is:

.- !þ!! =
= - 52.3
= p.5 ¡¡(
Note that the allowable bearing pressue determined using CPT result is about three times
the value estimaæd using SPT results given in Example 4.I. This is not surprising
because: (l) the soil conditions adjacent to Boring 3, where the CPT was performed, are
generally better than those in Borings I and 2 (see Figure 4.1a), and (2) the allowable
bearing pressure estimated using SPT data is based on minimum average value of SPT
blow count which is much smallel than the average SFrf blow count from Boring 3.
Figure 4.2. Example 4.2----estimøting bearing capacity of a footing usiixg cone
penetration test data.
Cone Resistance, qc (kg/cm2)
q 100 200



Figure 4.2a. Result of cone penetration test performed adjacent to boring 3 in

Figure 4.1a. (After Garga and Quin, 1974)

where N, is the dimensionless bearing capacity factor from Table

4.3; s-, c., i,, and d, are correction factors that account for the
effect'of fooiing shape, soil compressibility, load inclination, and
footing embedment. Values of sr, cr, and i" are given in Tables
4.4 through 4.6, and d" :
1.0 for all conditions.
v Similarly, values of No- may be determined using the ex-
z lr*r,*,
g : (4.6.6'.)
Nn* Nn so co io do
9 I'n='
where No : another dimensionless bearing capacíty factor
) whose value is also given in Table 4.3; so, cn, io, do are correction
FOOTINGS factors accounting for the effects offooting shape, soil compress-
(=, sA=o ibility, load inclination, and embedment depth. Their values are
given in Tables 4.4 through 4.7.
(J I In deriving the values for c" and cn, the comPressibility index
0.8 as defined by Vesic (1973) was estimated using the empirical

Ir: 2D,
0.5 ¡.0 ¡.5
DÉPrH FACIOt, Dt /S where I. : compressibility index, dimensionless; D, : relative
conslstoncy or Donsl¿y (p¿ - po)(t/r¿2) cr¡¡¡ density, in percent; pu : atmospheric pressure, in pressure units;
and cru' : effective overburden pressure, same pressure unit as
Sofb ùo vlry Flm < LZ
Clay The empirical correlation for compressibility index given in

F.4. 4.6.7 was established using a hyperbolic relationship to

s¿llr 8-40 z
model the stress-strain behavior ofthe soil. Typical soil proper-
Sùd 8d Looro {-8 2 ties were obtained from Duncan et al. (1980)'
xl .
Grqvol Modlu ùo Donso 10-20 3 The step-by-step procedure for estimating bearing capacity
using rational theory is illustrated by an example in Figure 4.4.
vcry Donse 30-60 4

SII¿ Looso to Hedl@ <7 1

Denlo 12-30 2
Equation 4.6.4 applies to conditions where the depth to the
Rock VerY Loe S¿lon8th 10-30 2 groundwater table, D*, is greater than Dr + 1.58 below the
ground surface. For cases where the groundwater is shallower,
LoH S¿ron8th 30-60 3
the following expression can be used:
H.dl@ ¿o EIah Sùrmsth 8O-lOo+ 4

eurt : Cwr;

f BN"- * C*rTDrNo- (4.7.1)

Figure 4.3. Values of empirical capacity coeftìcient, k. (After
Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 1985)
where the values of C*, and C*r vary with D*, as discussed in
0). For these materials and conditions where the water table is Section 4.3.
deep (D* > Dr t 1.5B), the ultimate bearing capacity can be
expressed in the form:
9"rt : 7B N7- * 7D¡ No^ (4.6.4) Ifthe load does not act at the centroid ofthe footing, a reduced
effective footing area should be used. As shown in Figure 4.5'
the width and length of the effective area are
where y: total (moist) unit weight of soil; Nr- : dimen-
sionless modified bearing capacity factor which is a function of B' :2y (a.8.1a)
þ, footing shape, soil compressibility, embedment depth, and
load inclination; and Nqm : another dimensionless modified L' :2x (
bearing capacity factor, which is also a function of þ, footing
shape, soil compressibility, embedment depth, and load incli- where B' : reduced effective footing width, length units; L' :
nation. reduced effective footing length, length units; x: minimum
Values of N"- may be calculated using the expression distance from edge of footing to point of load application, length
units; and y : least distance from edge of footing to point of
N"- : N" t" i" d, (4.6.s) load application, measured perpendicular to x, length units.

Tsble 4.3. Bearing capacity factors N- and N^ for

sa¡ds srd gravels. (Áfter Vesig lng> ' { Frl,c¿loD ¡l¡t1., ó (des!..) r1 llq

28 L7 15
30 22 18
3Z 30 23
34 41 29
36 56 38
38 ,E {e
{0 110 6a
42 155 85
4{ 225 115
{6 330 t60
¡8 195 220
50 760 320

Table 4.4. shrpe factorf, s7 ard õq for sa¡ds and grsvels. (After Kulhary et al., 19g3)


Frlct,ton Ángle (C) LIB-7 Lla-2 LIB-s L/B - !0

2A r.5a r.27 1. 11 1. 05
30 1. 58 1.29 1. 11 1. 06
3Z L.62 1. 31 L.t2 1.06
34 1. 67 1. 34 1. 13 1 .07
36 1.73 1.36 1. 14 1. 07
38 L,78 1. 39 1. 16 1.08
40 1. 84 r.42 LIB
L.L7 1. 08
42 1. 90
1.45 1. 18 1.09
44 1. g0 1.45 1. 19 1, 10 I 0.60
46 2.03 r.s2 2 0. 80
L.2L 1. 10
48 2.LL 1. 56 5 o.92
7.22 1. 11
50 2.19 1.60 10 0. 96
7.24 L.L2

Table 4.5. Compressibility fac- (I) Square footlngs

tors C" and Co for sands and
gIavels. R€IaLiv€ Denstty Aaswed
(:) FEIct,lon .Angle
(degr€e ) - 0.25 q - o.s Llf|z
q. Llf:Lz s - L Etî.Lz q - z ¡tt"2
0 00 00
1 1. 00 1. 00
20 1.00 1. 00 0.92 0.89
30 1 .00 .00
1 0.85 0 .77
40 1.00 0. 97 o.82 0.75
50 .00 0.96
1 0.81 0. 73
60 1. 00 .86
0 0.72 0.65
70 .96
0 0.80 0.66 0. 60
80 45 0 .79 0 .66 0. 54 0. 48
100 o.52 0.42 0-35 0.31

fricùlon Ang16
(degr€e ) q - o.25 ¿ltt? q = o.5 LtfL2 q - r ¿tîv2 s. =2 Ll*z
z0 30 0. 85 0.75 0.65 0. 60
30 s2 0.80 0.68 0. 58 0.53
40 35 0. 76 .64
0 0. 54 0.49
50 37 0. 73 0. 61 o.52 0 .47
60 40 0. 62 o.52 0.43 0 .39
70 4Z 0.56 .47
o 0 .39 0. 35
80 45 0. 44 0 .36 0. 30 0.27
100 50 0.25 o.2t 0.r7 0. 15

Table 4.6. Load inclination fac.

tors i, and io for eands and grav.
els. (After Kulhawy et aI.' 1983)

0.10 0. 73 0. 76 o.77 0.81 0.84 0. 85

.65 .67 o.72 0.76 0 .78

0.15 0 .61 0 0

0. 51 0. 55 0.57 0 .64 0.69 0.72

o.42 0..46 0. 49 0. 56 0.62 0 .65
0. 34 0.39 0.41 0,49 0. 55 0.59
0. 30
0,32 0 .34 0.42 0.49 0.52
0 .35 Q.27
0.26 0.28 0.36 0 .43 0. 46
0. 40 0.22
0.20 0.22 0.30 0.37 0 .41
0.45 0.17
0.16 0. 18 o,25 0 .31 0. 35
0. 50 0. 13
0.09 0.12 0. 14 0 .20 0.26 0 .30
0.06 0.09 0. l0 0. 16 0.22 o.25
0.04 0. 06 0.07 o.L2 o.L7 0;21
0.05 0. 0g 0. 13 0. 16
0 .70 0.03 0 .04

rr{ì 1.ô'¿l fñêllnåd lñ DlrecùLon of Footlnß Lonå¿h

o.77 0.90 0. E7 0. 85
0. 10 0.81 0.78
0.67 0. 85 0.81 0.78
0. 15 0.72 0.68
0. 57 0. ô0 o.74 o.72
0.20 0.64 0.50
0. 49 0. 75 0.68 0 .65
0.25 0.56 0.51
0.41 0. 70 o.62 0. 59
0.30 0.49 0. 44
0.34 0.65 0.56 0.52
0.35 o.42 0.37
0.28 0.60 0. 51 0. 46
0.40 0.36 0. 30
o.22 0. 55 0.45 0 .41
0.45 0. 30 o.25
0. 50 0. 40 0. 35
0. 50 0.25 0.20 0. 18
0-14 0.45 0.34 0 .30
0 .55 0.20 0. 16
0. 10 0. 40 o.29 o.25
0.60 0.16 0. 12
0.07 0.35 o.25 0.2r
0.65 0.t2 0.09
0. 30 0.20 0, 16
0,70 0.00 0.06 0 .05

Table 4.?. Depth factor, dn, for sands and gravels'

Brinch Hansen, 1970)

FricLlon AngI€ DlIB dq

32" 1 L.20
2 1 .30
4 1 .35
8 1.40

3?" 1 1.20
z 1.25
4 1 .30
8 1.35

42" 1 1. 15
2 1.ZO
4 L.25
I 1.30

*Nob", Valuss of dq
tlven rn this tabre ar€ applicable if Lhe soirs 6bov€ ¿he fooLint rever are
conpetent a8 ¿hE solls b€n€abh lhe fooling level' If Lhey are w€aÌ€r' use dq = 1'00'

Based on the informadon given in Figue 4. l4 estimate the beaing capacity of a 15'
squæ footing using rational theory, The fooring is founded 5'below the gmund surface,
and is sub.ieced to venical loadings only.

Based on the soil inforution, Ñ = I I (see Empþ 4.1), indicaring rhat Q - 35' (fron
Table 3.8).

From Table 4.3, values of NTand Nq are interpolared below:

N?=41 t56 - 49

Nq=2et38 = 34

Frcm Table 4.4, for Square footing, S¡= Q.fQ ¿¡¡d

Sq=l'67t1'71- 1.70

Effective ove¡burden pressue at depth bebw the footing base is:

o'" = (0.0575) (5 + = Otz unz
From Table 4.5, values ofCland are i¡t€rpolated as: REDUCED EFFECTTVE ARÉA
q = Q = 0.e7 * ) x (0.72 - 0.05) = 0.90
_ o.s

Since the soil above ùe footing level is less competent than the soil benearh the
footing level, and it is dso likely to be disu[bed duing excavation, use dq = 1.0' APPLICATION
For footings subjecæd to venical loadings only, iT -h= 1.0.

Nr- = Nr. E.9.ry. dï

Np = (49) (0.60) (0.90) (1.0) (1.0) = 26.s

Nqo = No. Sq.Q.t .d.

Figure 4.5. Reduced eÍfective areas þr eccentrícally loaded
No. = (3a) (1.70) (0.90) (1.0) (1.0) = 52.0
The ultimate betring capæity, qulr, is then
1953), footings on layered soils (NAVFAC-DM7, 1982; Meyer-
f P c*t
q"¡,= +1D¡C*2 Nq6
hof, 1957), and foundations with inclined bases (Kulhawy, et al.,
values of Cw I ild Cw2 are inlerpolated as:

C*r =0.5 *ffj'* (1.0 - 0.5) =0.83


Cwz = l'0
q",, = x 0.0575 x 15 x 0.83 x 26.5 + 0.0575 x 5 x 1.0 x 52.0 Footings that support inclined loads and footings on slopes
may slide on the underlying soil. The safety of such footings
9* = 24'4 ttftz against sliding should be evaluated. Sliding will not occur ifthe
with a safety facûor of 3, the allowâble beuing presw is
shear strength at any point on the assumed slip surface (usually
the interface between the foundation and soil) exceeds the shear
q"= stress at the same slip surface under service loading conditions.
If the soil beneath the footing is sand, the sliding capacity can
Figure 4.4. Example 4.3----estimating bearing capacity of afooting
be estimated using the following expression:
on sand based on rational theory.

Q, : V tanô (4.10.1)

For footings that are not rectangular, such as the circular where Q, : sliding capacity of the footing, in force units; V :
footing at the bottom of Figure 4.5, the effective area can be resultant vertical force on the slip surface under service loading
estimated using simple approximations and judgment. The re- conditions, in force units; and ô : angle of friction between soil
duced effective area is ahvays concentrically loaded, so the bear- and foundation material along the slip surface.
ing pressure on the reduced effective area is always uniform. Ifthe soil beneath the foundation is sand and the base ofthe
An example of estimating bearing capacity of a footing subject footing is rough (the usual case for concrete cast against soil),
to eccentric and inclined loads is given in Figure 4.6. sliding is resisted by the full shear strength of the soil, and tanô
: tanô, where þ is the angle of internal friction. For precast
concrete footings, which may be smoother, tanô : 0.8 tanQ
4.9 OTHER CONDITIONS should be used for design (Potyondy, 1961).
Ifthe soil beneath the footing is clay, consideration should be
Theories have been developed to calculate bearing capacities given to the possibility of sliding by shear within the clay as well
for footings with various types of special conditions. Among as sliding on the interface betvreen the footing and the clay. The
these are foundations on slopes or adjacent to slopes (Meyerhof, maximum sliding resistance should be taken as one-half the

Based on the information given in Figure, estimate bearing capacity of a 15 ft square
footing which is subjected to a load incliried at 10' ftom the vertical and with an eccenricity
of 3 ft (See the sketch below). The footing is founded 5' below the ground surface.

Effective dimension of the footing

B' = 2y = (2) (4.5) = 9'

L'=2x = (2) (7.5) = 15'

Load inclination angle, c = 10"

lW=t¿no=tâ¡l 10"=0.18

Based on the soil information from

Figure 4.1a,Ñ = 11.

Vertical component of ultimafe bearing

capacity is,

er* =$tc*1*c*zþ
Since the \r'ater table is located at depth g¡eater than 1.58' (i.e., 13.5ft) below the footing
base, Crvt = Cw2 = 1.0

9't*=t\o*,t + r xly' =15-4ttftz

Reduction in bearing capacity due to the effect of load inclination from Table 4.2 (ü):

Value of Reduction Factor. Rr

TI¡/ DelB'= 0.0 Dc/B'= 0.55 DrlB'= 1.0

0.15 0.60 0.63 0.65

0.20 0.s0 0.56 0.60

Value of R¡ for tW = 0.18 and Df/B' = 0.55 is interpolated as:

Rr = 0'63 + (0'18 - 0'15) = 0'5e

gut = Rr gultw = (0.59) (i5.4) = 9.1 tlf]Í

wittr a safety factor of 3, the vertical component of allowable bearing pressuæ from
strength consideration is,

9" - Qor/3'0 = = 3'0 ttf1

and the allowable vertical load is,

Qa = ga x B' x L'= (3.0) (9) (15) = 405 tons

Figure 4.6. Example 4.4-estimating beøríng capacity of a footing subjected to eccentric

and inclined load using SPT data.

nornal stress on the interface between the concrete and the clay, C¿lculate the safety againsr sliding for rhe fooring described in Exanple 4-4. The resulla¡t

or the adhesion of the clay, whichever is smaller. For cast in load on the footing has a venical component of 120 tons and a horizont¿l component of 2l
place concrete the adhesion may be taken as the full undrained
shear strength ofthe clay. The adhesion may be reduced to 0.5 Frcm the soil infomadon givetr in F¡gue" Ñ = 11.
to 0.7 times the undrained strength if the concrete is wet.
Procædures for evaluating safety of a footing against sliding
are illustrated by an example in Figure 4.7. The concreþ fooüng will be c€st in sih¡, thus

ô = Or= 3s'

The sliding æsistance is

RESISTANCE FACTORS Qt= Vr¿n ô = (120) (ran 35) = 84 rons

The horizontal load on the footing is

Good design requires a margin of safety between the actual
loading conditions and the loading conditions that would cause H = 21 tons
failure. A margin ofsafety can be achieved using a safety factor,
Factor of safety against sliding is
which is defined as follows:
' r.s (o.K.)

tr:- (4. I r. 1) Altematively, the safery mügin may be provided tfuough the use of load md resistanæ
factors- Procedues for the LRFD approach are shown in Figure 4.9: Example 4.7.

where F : safety factor, dimensionless; qr,, : ultimate bearing Figure 4.7. Example 4.5---<hecking the safety of afooting on sand
capacity, in pressure units; and p : bearing pressure under against sliding.
nominal load conditions, in pressure units.
For footings supporting bridges and buildings, the factor of The use of separate load and performance factors is logical
safety should be 2.5 to 3.0, or higher. because loads and resistance have separate and unrelated sources
The factor of safety against sliding can be expressed as of uncertainty. Using separate load and performance factors is
a convenient and rational way of accounting for the sources of
s uncertainty in design.
F:- ( In Figure 4.8 the load carrying capacity of the footing dis-
î cussed in Figure 4.2 is recalculated using the load and resistance

where s : shear strength of the interface between footing and

factor design conc€pt. The LRFD procedures for checking slid-
soil, or soil and soil, in pressure units; and r : shear stress on
Using load md resistrnce facror concepts, de@mine whether a 15 fr sqwe footing
the interface under service load condition, in pressure units.
carrying a seryice dead load of 250 tons md a seryice live load of 50 tons has adequate soil
Conventional design practice requires the factor ofsafety against
beuing capacity. The footing is embedded 5 fr below ground su¡face, md the soil
sliding to be 1.5 or higher. infomation is given in Figure
An alternate method of providing a margin of safety is through
the use of load factors (commonly called y by structural engi- (t) Calculate the factored load.

neers) and performance factors (commonly called þ by structural [.oad fâctors,.tb

= l.3,lr = 2.lj
engineers). The requirement ofgood design can be expressed as
Factored load = 1b PD + TL PL = (1.3) (250) + (2.17) (50)

óq"n 2 yp (4.1 1.3)

= 435 tons

where þ : performance factor, dimensionless; 7 : load factor, (2) Estimate ultimate beüing capaciry.

dimensionless; and p : bearing pressure under nominal load

The ultimate beadng capacity may be detemined using my method based
conditions, in pressure units. on SPT ¡esults. If Meyerhofs merhod is usd, æ in Exmple 4.I,
Load factors reflect the uncertainties in the magnitudes of the
loads to which the footings are subjected. Values of7 are on the Qut=192lft2
order of l.l to 1.3 for dead loads, and are on the order of2.0 for (3) Cálculate factored load cãrying capacity
live loads. Values of load factors recommended by ¿rt5¡¡'¡'O
Using = 9.45, ¡r. ¡".tored beuing pressure is
(1989) can be found in Table 2. l. Performance factors reflect the Q

uncertainties in soil strength values. Typical values of þ range qturi = 0 qdr = (0.45) (19.2) = 8.6 trftz.

from 0.35 to 0.90 for soils, depending on soil type ¿nd method
Magnitude of factored load carrying epacity is
of strength determination. Suggested values of performance fac-
tors for shallow foundation design are provided in Table 2.3. Qn, = qrut . A = (8.6) (15) (15) = 1935 tons.
Designs based on safety factors are equivalent to designs based Since the factored load cilrying capaciry (Qn = 1935 rons) is coNiderably grealer ùm rhe
on load and performance factors if the following relationship is factored load (Pr = 435 tons) the footing has adequa@ capacity w.ith regud to soil failm.
satished: However, it is likely that the design would be govemed by seftlement considerarions. This
cm be evaluated Ning rhe p¡ocedues discusd in Chapær 5.

F:zô (4. I 1.4)

Figure 4.8. Example 4-6-load and resístance factor design proce-
dure for estimating load carrying capacity of a footing on sand.
28 PART 1

ing resistance of a footing are illustrated by an example given in 5.2 SETTLEMENTS OF FOOTINGS ON SAND FROM
Figure 4.9.

5.2.1 Terzaghl and Peck Method

Example 4.7 - For the footing given in Example 4.5, determine whether it
has sutficient sliding capacity using load and resistance
i- factors concept. îerrugbtand Peck (1948, 1967) developed a procedure which
i1 uses SPT results to estimate settlements of footings on sand.
i Their method, which has been widely used, is considered by
.. some engineers to be quite conservative, in the sense that it often
The magnitude of the factored lateral load is overestimates settlements.
H1 = 1o He = (1.3) (21) = 27.3 tons Recent studies (Tan and Duncan, l99l) have shown that about
85 percent of the time, settlements estimated using the Tetzaghi
and Peck method are larger than the actual settlements. Thus,
Assumirig the concrete footing w¡ll be cast in situ, while it is true that the method is not highly precise, it is also
true that the method is reliable, in the sense that it seldom
õ=S = 35', tor Ñ = tl. (see Figure 4.1)
underestimates settlements. Because settlements of footings on
sand are highly erratic, it is inevitable that methods that rarely
The factored sl¡d¡ng capacity is
underestimate settlements will often overestimate settlements by
a fairly wide margin. The method proposed by Terzaghi and
Q1 =V1 tanõ=(1.3) (120) (tan35') =109.2tons
Peck appears to provide a suitable compromise between accuracy
and reliability. Although it is one of the simplest methods, it
isas accurate as any other method with the same degree of
This assumes that both the verl¡cal and horizontal components of the
applied load are due to dead load. The Terzaghi and Peck method is presented in the form ofthe
chart shown in Figure 5.1. This chart is based on the notion
that the tolerable amount of settlement is I in. For a given
For a performance factor, S= 0.80 (from Table 2.3), the factored slid¡ng
combination of footing width and SPT blow count, N, the chart
capac¡ty is is used to determine the bearing pressure that will result in I in.
Q1, = Q Q = (0.80) (109.2) = 87.4 tons of settlement. The chart can be used to estimate the bearing
pressure corresponding to settlements other thanI in., by consid-
ering that settlements are very nearly proportional to bearing
Since Q1s > H1, the fooling is safe against sliding failure. pressure. Thus, for 2 in. ofsettlement the bearing pressure would
be twice as great as shown in Figure 5.1; and for half an inch of
Figure 4.9. Example 4.7-load and resistancefactor design proce-
settlement, the pressure would be half of the values from Figure
dure for estimating slidíng capacity of a footing subjected to in-
clined load.
5. t.
The value of N used in estimating the bearing pressure is
determined by averaging the values measured in all borings,
within the range of depth from the bottom of the footings to
depth B below the bottom ofthe footings. B is the footing width,
which can be estimated roughly for the purpose ofaveraging N
CHAPTER 5 values. Values ofN are averaged separately for each boring, and
the lowest average value is used for design.
SETTLEMENTS OF FOOTINGS Figure 5.1 can be used directly when the water table is at a
depth below the bottom of the footings that is at least twice the
footing width. For higher positions of water table, the bearing
pressures determined from Figure 5.1 should be reduced. If the
5.1 GENERAL water table is at the ground surface, the bearing pressure should
be reduced as follows: (1) for shallow foundations, with Dr,/B
The settlements of footings must be small enough so that the less than one-half, pressures from Figure 5.1 should be reduced
structures they support are not damaged by movements of the by 50 percent; (2) for deeper foundations, with D¡lB closer to
ri footings and their functions are not impaired. unity, pressures from Figure 5.1 need only be reduced by 30
Design of footings to prevent excessive movements involves percent.
two considerations. One is determining the amount of movement Ifthe position ofthe water table is between depth 2B and the
that the supported structure can tolerate. The second is estimat- ground surface, the bearing pressure should be reduced by an
ing the amount of movement that will be caused by the loads amount between zero and 50 percent for shallow footings (Dr./
carried by the footings. B < 0.5); for deeper foundations (D¡/B = 1), the bearing
This chapter is concerned with methods of estimating settle- pressure should be reduced by an amount between zero and30
ments. The chapter also deals with procedures for ensuring that percent.
uncertainties in the estimated movements are accounted for in As shown by Bazaraa (1967) the relationships among bearing
the design. Methods for establishing tolerable settlements of foot- pressure, settlement, footing width and N values shown in Figure
ings are given in Part 5. 5.1 can be expressed in terms of the following equation

7 Example 5.1

Estimate the senlement of a 15 ft square footing using the soil

information given in Figure 4. la. The footing is designed !o carry a service

6 I
dead load of 250 tons and a service live load of 50 tons, and is placed 5 ft
(¡{ below the ground surface.
Very ?ense
o Following Terzaghi and Peck's recommendation, minimum average
value of SPT blow counb rvithin the r¿flge of depth from the bonom of
Ê \_ footing to depth B below the footíng base is used in sett¡ement calculatiorl
o From soil information given in Figure 4.1,
o 4 From Boring I, N = 16

q{ Det ?se From Boring 2,Ñ = 1l
o Frorn Boring 3, Ñ = 24
o 3
Use Ñ = 11 for se$lement calculation.
o From Figu¡e 5.1 the be€¡ing pressu¡e comsponding to one inch setdement
o z ll
9r- = 0.8 lft2 for B = 15' and Ñ =
o /./ed, um
t{ Since the water øble is ar depth approximaæty B betow the footing
o base, correction for effect of \¡'ater tÂble is rcquired.
ùì 'zxl)
Reduction = 6.5 a 120:å._) + (1.0 - 0.5) = 0.75
Ê /-oo se
0å Thus q1- = (0.75) (0.8) = 0.6 t/ft2

5/0/5e0 Design pressure is

e +=!0
1'33 Y¡r
' = ?5'0
15x15 =
Width B of Footinq (ft) Estimated senlement of footins
- =14-
u.ó =
2.2 inches

Figure 5. I. Bearing one inch of settlement offootings

pressure for
on sands. (A"fter Terzaghi and Peck, 1967) Figure 5.2. Example 5.1----estimating settlement of a footing on
sand using Tenaghi and Peck procedure.

An example illustrating the procedures for estimating settle-

ñ ts+rl2
P:PJl*l (5.2.1)
ment using the Terzaghi and Peck method is given in Figure 5.2.

where p : bearing pressure corresponding to a given magnitude 5.2-2 D'Appolon¡a et al. (1970) Method
of settlement, p,int/ftz;p : settlement in inches; Ñ : auerage
blow count from the standard penetration test; and B : footing The method developed by D'Appolonia et al. (1970) is based
width in feet. on elastic theory. It uses SPT blow count as the basis for estimat-
As in the case ofFigure 5. l, bearing pressures calculated using ing in situ soil compressibility. The following expression is used
E,q. 5.2.1 should be reduced if the depth to the water table is less for calculating settlements of footings on sand:
than 2B below the bottom of the footing.
The use of this procedure can be illustrated by reference to a pB
simple example. Suppose that the minimum average N for a site
P:l'oPrt (s.2.2)

has been determined to be 15. For footings with width B : 10

ft, the bearing pressure causing 1.0 in. of settlement would be where p : settlement of footing (same length units as B); po, pr
1.5 VfP if the water table was at a depth greater than twice the : settlement influence factors dependent on footing geometry,
footing width. If the water table is at the ground surface and the depth of embedment, and depth to the relatively incompressible
footing is shallow (Dr < 5 ft), the bearing pressure causing 1.0 layer, dimensionless; p : average applied pressure under service
in. of settlement would be 0.8 t/ftz (50 percent less). The bearing loading condition, in pressure units; B : footing width, in length
pressure causing 2 in. of settlement would be about 3.0 t/f* if units; and M : modulus of compressibility, same pressure units
the water table was deep, and about 1.5 Vf* rf the water table as p.
was at the ground surface. Values of po and ¡.r,, are given in Figure 5.3, and the correlation
30 PART 1

3.0 where p : bearing pressure corresponding to a given magnitude

of settlement, p, in pressure units; p : settlement of footing,
same length units as B; ,¿o, ,¿r : settlement influence factors,
dimensionless; B : footing width, in length units; and M :
2.0 modulus of compressibility, same pressurè units as p.
Equation 5.2.3 represents a conveniènt form for calculating
1.5 bearing pressure corresponding to a given magnitude of set-
() tlement.
Í 1.0 Studies by Tan and Duncan (1991) show that the D'Appolonia
et al. method appears to be one of the most accurate methods
0.5 for estimating settlements of footings on sand, in the sense that
the average settleñents estimated using this method are about
0.0 L equal to the average value of actual settlements for a large num-
0.1 25 10 20 50
H RATIO ber of actual footings. However, it is important to note that their
method underestimates settlements about half the time. Values
o 0.9 of settlement estimated using the method can be adjusted easily
É. 0.8 to provide the same level of reliability as the Terzaghi and Peck
t- 0.7 method. The adjustment process is discussed in Section 5.10.
o 0.6
0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 'r0 20 50 100 1 000

Figure 5.3. Settlement influencefactors p,oand p,rfor the D'Appo-

lonia et al. procedure. (After D'Appolonia, et al., 1970)

Example 5.2

Estimate settlement of the footing given in Example 5.1 using

D'Appolonia, et al.'s procedure. The sand is normally consolidated, a¡d the
;dd oa
firm stratum is encountered at depth 45' below the footing base.

750 2"",
r (1) Determine minimum average value of Ñ.

(4) a )ã Use the minimum average value of measu¡ed S[rI below counß
a within the range of depth B below the foothg base. From soil information
= a
given in Figure 4.Ia,

Ñl = 16 forBori¡g I
lNolANA SITE (Numbtr in pâßnÙl€sis is tho number Ñz = 11 for Boring z
^ ot fæl¡ngs awr¿qod lo obbin dåÞ poinl)

Ñ3 = 24 for Boring 3
Q) Determi¡e value of modrfus of compressibility
Figure 5.4. Correlation between modulus of compressibility and From Figure 5.4, for Ñ = I I and normalty loaded sand,
average value SPT blow count. (After D'Appolonia, et al., Ig70)
M= 260üfQ

between modulus of compressibility, M, and average SPT blow

count is given in Figure 5.4. The value ofSPT blow count used (3) Determine values of setdement influence factors, F6 and ¡rr.

to estimate M is the average value within the range of depth

from the bottom of the footing to depth B below the footing D/B=å=0.33, *=rå=ro
base. D'Appolonia et al. agreed with Meyerhols conclusion that
From Figure 5.3, P0 = 0.92 and lrt = 0.65
the effect of groundwater on soil modulus is reflected in the
measured SPT, and that no correction for groundwater effect is
(4) Estimate setlement of footing.
required. The use of this method is shown in Figure 5.5.
As is the case for Terzaghi and Peck's method, the D'Appo- Estimated settlement of the footing is

lonia et al. method can be rearranged to provide the following ,250 + 50.
relationship between bearing pressure and settlement of footings p = po pr
S = ro.szl to.esl tIffi trslt
on sand:
P = 0.048 ft or 0.57 inch

: lpM Figure 5.5. Example S.2-estímating settlement of a footing on

o (5.2.3)
*"*,' sand using D'Appolonia et al. procedure.

5.3 SETTLEMENTS OF FOOTINGS ON SAND FROM Table 5.1. Pressu¡e change correction factor, Cr.
ow^ |
Schmertmann (1970, 1978) developed a procedure using cone
0.0 1.O
penetration test results to estimate settlements of footings on o.2 0.9
sand. His method has a rational basis, and uses cone penetration 0.4 0.8
resistance, Çar as â measure of in situ soil compressibility. 0.6 o.7
The expression proposed by Schmertmann (1978) for calculat- 0.8 0.6
ing settlements of footings on sand is as follows: >r, 0 0.5

p:cpc,ao)(*-) (5.3.1)
- = lnitlal
avot vertlcal pregaure at tevêl of botton of
footlng (ln preasure unlts)
average net bearlnE preósure at foundation
' = level (6ane pressure unfts aa øror)
where p: estimated settlement, the same length units as AZ;
Co : pressure change correction factor for initial overburden
pressure from Table 5.1, dimensionless; C, : time rate factor or
(creep correlation factor), from Table 5.2, dimensionless; Ao : Teble 5.2, Time rate factor, C,, for settlementg of cohesionless sollc.
net increase in bearing pressure at foundation level, the sàme
pressure unit as 9"; Iz : settlement influence factor, which Tfune C¡
varies with depth and L/B ratio, as defined in Figure 5.6 and
Table 5.3, dimensionless; E, : in situ soil modulus, which can I nonth 1.0
be related to the value ofcone resistance, q". in the same pressure
unit as qc; and AZ : thickness of sublayer, in length units.
4 months T.I
The variation of settlement influence factor with depth is 1 year L.2
shown in Figure 5.6. The values of the quantities that define the 3 years 1.3
dimensions of the settlement influence diagram are given in
Table 5.3.
10 years 1.4
Values of in situ soil modulus for square footings can be 30 years 1.5
estimated using the following expression:

E, : 2.5 q" (s.3.2)

where E, : in situ soil modulus, in same pressure units as q";

and q" : cone penetration resistance, in pressure units. E, : 3.5 q" (5.3.3)
For footings with a length,/width ratio greater than or equal
to 10, the soil deforms in a condition closer to plane strain, and For footings with a length/width ratio between I and 10, the
the soil is stiffer because ofthe increased conhnement. For these E"/ q" ratio can be estimated by interpolation.
long footings, the expression for estimating the in situ soil modu- Schmertmann's method provides a logical means for account-
lus is: ing the variations in sand density and compressibility with depth.

Table 5.3. Coefficients to define the dimensions of Schmertmann's improved settlement influence factor diagram
in Figure 5.6, (After Schmertmann, et al,, 1978)

LIB Max. D€pÈh D€pbh Lo value of IZ Pcak Vqlue of SÈre6a Influ€nc€ Fac¿or I
of Influônca Pôrk Vatuo rÈ fop AP AÞ Ap AP
p rz, _-2
qt o'vp c'
vp vP vP

1 2.O0 0. 50 0. 10 0 .60 0.64 0. 70 0 .82

2 2.20 0.55 0.11 0. 60 0.64 0. 70 0.82
4 2.65 0.6s 0. 13 0.60 0.64 0.70 o.8z
I 0.90 0. 18 0.60 0.64 0.70 0.a2
>10 4-00 1. 00 0 .20 0. 60 0 .64 0. 70 0.82

NoLe: B-fooLlngpid¿h
L = fooÈlng len8¿h
_vlvo - d' -n€Lb€arlng presGure
øvf' - flnâl v€rÈ p¡ea6uEe aÈ level of bo¿t@ of foobint
øvo' = lnltLal v€¡Llcal pr€ssure a¿ lovsl of bo¿¿@ of fooLlnt
ovp' * inlt,ial ve¡tlcal prsssur€ qL dsp¿h of pea.k lnfluence

footing l
r, Settlement lnfluencs Faclor, : l' C, C, (*)B
p (5.3.4)

depth to where I' : equivalent settlement influence factor from Table

peak value, 5.4. Other terms are as previously defined.
zP Schmertmann's method can also be used to estimate the pres-
sure required to cause a given amount ofsettlement by rearrang-
max¡mum ing Eq. 5.3.4 in the following form:
peakvalus, lzp ^%1
ap:PBr-c"c, (s.3.s)

This form is convenient for determining values of bearing pres-

sures when the tolerable settlement for a particular structure has
been established.
The use of Schmertmann's method is shown by Example 3 in
'1. See Table 5.3 for values of Z g, l rl,l.p Figures 5.7, 5.7a and 5.7b.
2. Depth measursd from lhe bottom of the footing.
Oepth, z
Example 5.3
Figure 5.6, Variation of Schmertmann's ímproved settlement in-
Estimaæ the se¡tlement of a 15 ft square footing using the cone
fluence factors wíth depth. (After Schmertmann, et al., 1978) peneûation test data given in Figue 4.2a. The footing is designed to carry a
service dead load of 250 tons and a service live load of 50 tons. The
embedment depth of the footing is 5 fr
In cases where there is pronounced layering, persistent from
boring to boring, the soil beneath the foundation level is divided
(l) Determine dimension of seulement ir¡fluence diagram.
into a number ofsublayers for purposes ofcalculating settlement.
The sublayers are chosen so that the values of cone resistance For square footine, t.O
f; =

within each sublayer are essentially constant. The value of the

settlement influence factor for each sublayer is evaluated at the From Table 5.3, â;* = 2.00, = O.SO, and Izt = 0.10
mid-height of the sublayer. Because the value of settlement influ-
ence factor peaks at some depth below the foundation level,Zo, Assume weight of the footing is about the sarne as weight of the soil

it is necessary that a sublayer boundary occurs at Zo. excavated so that

The computation process involves a rather lengthy procedure,

and is warranted only when the site is characterized by pro-
an =fffff= r.rr urt2

nounced and persistent layering. Effective overbu¡den pæssure at Zp is

For sand layers of limited thickness, overlying hrm soil or
rock, the influence diagram is terminated at the top of the firm o'* = (0.0575) (5 + 0.5 x tS) = 0.72 ¡JrP

layer. The method thus provides a logical means for accounting

4r-=r¡1= r.s5
for the influence of the finite thickness of sand layer on set- orn 0.,
From Table 5.3, value of lzp is interpolated as:
Ifthe soil at the site can be represented as being homogeneous,
In this case, it is not necessary to divide
the process is simplified. I"p = 0.60 * (!LÉ[:JÍoz ) (1.85 -l) = 0.63
the soil beneath the footing level into sublayers. For homoge-
neous conditions, the settlement can be calculated using the
following expression: Based on the valuæ of z,6?'.,2Ù12¡ and I2p, the senlement influence
diagram is drawn, as shown in Figure 5.7a-

Fígure 5.7. Example 5.3----estimat-

ing settlement of a footing on sand
Table 5.4. Values of equivalent settlement influence factor,
using cone peneffation test data.

Equtvål€n¿ S€ttlmonL Influence Fac¿or, I


ow' otp' ow'

--2 -r10

L o.25 0 .27 0. 29 0. 34
0.27 0. 28 0.31 0.36
4 0.30 0.32 0.35 0.40
I 0 .35 0 .37 0.40 0. 46
>10 0 .37 0. 39 0. 43 0.50

qc G0 (2) Calculateseulementofthefooting.
1.0 Bæd on dafa from Figure 4.2a, design value of qç is deæmined as
shown in Figu¡e 5.7a- For serdement compulsrion, ¡he soil bencarh rhe
foo¡ing is divided in¡o five sublayers.
Botþm of Footino

Sodomort lnflu€ncs Fartor Proñlg


l+oosign Valu6 otqc The iniúal effecdve overùurden pressur€ at foundation levcl is,

q'; = (0.0575) (5) = 0.29 tsf.

f ="-T=o''
Fmm Table 5.1, Cp = 0.89
Subleyer Number
Immediate settlement of the fooring, pi, is eslinaæd æ fol¡ows:

Fígure 5.7a. Settlement influence diagram and design values of
cone resistance for the l,-ft square footing. p¡ = (0.89) (1.0) (1.33) (0.0369) = 0.044 ft o¡ 0.52 inch
Esúmated setdement of ú¡e footing over ten ytrs is

5.4 SETTLEMENTS OF FOOTINGS ON SANDS, From Tabte 5.2, C¡ = 1.4
MODULUS METHOD pr = (1.4) (0.52) = 0.73 inch

As noted in Rgue 4.2a" rhe CFI was perfomed adjacenr to Bori¡g

Janbu (I963, 1967) developed a unified approach for estimat- 3. The SPT blow counts obEined from Boring 3 aæ consisæritly highr
ing settlements of footings on soil using tangent modulus values thm rhose from Borisgs I md 2. It is not surprising that senlement
to characterize soil compressibility. compuæd using CFI data" as shown in rhis example, is smalltr thm that

In Janbu's method the soil beneath the footing is divided computed using lhe Teøghi and Peck method which uses minimm
into a number of sublayers, each characterized by a value of avemge SPT N-value for seü.lement câlculaúons.

constrained tangent modulus, M,. The settlement of the footing Figure 5.7b. Estimating settlement of afooting on sand using cone
is estimated by summing the reductions in thickness of each of penetration test data.
the sublayers beneath the footing, as shown by the expression:
and compaction water content as the flrll in the field.
The pressures used in the laboratory tests should cover the
(5.4.1) range from the initial pressure on the sublayer (before the load
is applied) to the final pressure on the sublayer (after the load is
where : :
p settlement, any length units; Acrv' increase in applied). As shown in Figure 5.8, Mt is determined by dividing
effective stress within the sublayer due to the load on the footing,
the stress increment in the sublayer (Aø,' - a* - øuo') by
stress units-the same units as M, (this increase in stress due to
the corresponding strain, Ae".
When laboratory tests are not available for evaluation of M,.
the footing load can be estimated using elastic stress distribution
theory); M, : tangent value of constrained modulus of the values can be estimated using the information given in Table 5.5,
soil, stress units-the same units as Acrr'; and LZ : sublayer
together with the following equations:
thickness, length units-the same units as p. For sands and silts, values of M, can be estimated using the
Values of constrained tangent modulus vary with the type of expression:
soil, its density, whether it is normally consolidated or overcon-
solidated, and the stresses acting on it before and after the load
is applied to the footing.
M,: m o" (9*J" 6.4.2)
Values of M, can be measured using conventional laboratory
consolidation tests (oedometer, or one-dimensional compression where m : dimensionless modulus number shown in Table 5.5
tests). In the case of natural soils the tests should be performed cÍ,^' : aveÍage vertical stress : l/2 (a,o' + o#) expressed in
on good quality undisturbed specimens. In the case ofcompacted in the same pressure units as M, and p"i p" : atmospheric
fills, the specimens should be prepared at the same dry density pressure, expfessed in the same pressure units as M, and crr"';
34 penr I

Vertical Effeelive Stress ( ov ) For normalþ consolidated clays, values of M, can be estimated
( o) Overconsol¡dated Soil using this expression:
- small Á ov
orf'.Pp Straln Mr:m.crnu' (5.4.3)
l- ÀH
where m : dimensionless modulus number shown in Table 5.5,
and ø""' : aveta$e vertical stress : l/2 (aro' * ø"¡') ex-
pressed in the same pressure units as Mr.
Verlical Effêclivs Stress ( cu )
As shown in Figure 5.8 and Table 5.5, values of IVf. are higher
( b) Overconsalidated Soil for overconsolidated soils (po > øuo). When the final pressures
-lá196 Áov:
ovo'< Pp < ovf '
do not exceed the preconsolidation pressure (o"r' (
pe) the soil
is being reloaded, and the value of M, is higher than for cases
where cr-"l exceeds po.
The procedure for estimating settlement of a footing using
Janbu's tangent modulus method is shown in Figure 5.9.

Verlical Eff€cl¡ve Stress ( ou )

( c ) Normally Consolidatsd So¡l 5.5 SETTLEMENÎS OF FOOTINGS ON SANDS AND

Sûain Menard and Rousseau (1962) proposed a procedure for esti-

Allcases: M,=-i
^6' mating settlements of footings using pressuremeter test results.
Pp = preconsolidat¡on prêssufo Their procedure uses pressuremeter modulus as a measure of in
situ soil compressibility.
The pressuremeter modulus, which is derived from the slope
Figure 5.8. Determination of M, from results of laboratory of a straight portion of the pressure-expansion curve, is sensitive
consolidation tests. to soil disturbance. In dense sands and stiffclays, soil disturbance
due to boring and probe installation is usually not excessive, and
the method is reliable (Baguelin et al., 1978; Robertson, 1986).

Table 5.5. Values of mi¡dulus number, m, for sands, silts, and clsys. (After Janbu' 1985)

Relaiive Value of m

Density (Dr) øvo' - Pp dvo'< Þ<øvf' øvf'<IÞ

307 (Loose) 80 - 160 120 - 300 240 - 500

501 (Medium) L20 - 240 200 - 400 350 - 700
70f (Dense) 200 - 400 300 - 700 600 - 1200

Values of m

srlr Porisity (N) ovo' = Þ dvo'<¡¡.<øvf' øvf'<Þ

50u 25-50 40 - 200 L20 - 240

402 60 - 120 80 - 400 300 - 600
302 100 - 200 150 - 700 500 - 1000

In Situ Wate¡ Value of m

Clay Conten¿ øvo' - Pp dvo' < Pp'øvf' øvf' < Ptr¡

702 6-12 10-80 60 - 120

50u 9-18 L5 - L20 90 - 180
302 15-35 25 - 200 150 - 350

pp = preconsolidation Pressur€ = highest pressurs to which the soil has been subjected in Lhe past.

Using Jmbu's tangent modulus method, stimale the stdement of a (2) Detemine values of Engent modulls.
15 fr squarc footing which is designed to suppon a dead load of 250 lons
To æour for the mtic mtue of sand deposits, use minirBm
and a live load of 50 !oos. The soil infomation ¡s the ffie as ùat given in
avenge value of N as sugges@d by ler¿åghi atrd peck for scntement
Figure 4.24 and the footing will be 5 ft below the ground surface.
computation, ie., Ñ t = I l. This implia the sãd is loose þ medim.
The target modulus values a¡e esdnated using Equr¡on 5.4.2 and
(1) Calculate theinitial md finalvenicål pEssues. a¡e tabulatcd below:

Sublayer Aver¿ge Àverage Modr¡lus Tangent

Numbs Depth V€rtbl Number, m Modulus, Mt
The initial md lnal overburden pressues b€neath the footing, to a (ft) (ps0
Prcsw dy¡
depth of one fmting width below its bæ, aÉ tabulaæd below. The
incffi in pressure, Ády, due o the applied load was estimated uing
I 7.5 1691 t20 2.22 x 105
ìvstergard's úleory. Vadations of initial, lnal ild aveEge venical
pmuæs with depth are ploned in Figw 5.9a 2 12.5 t9z4 t20 2.36 x 105

Sublayer Depth Iriitial PrcSW Fmal Avemge leconsolid-

3 t7 -5 23tl 120 2.59 x 105
Effective Chmge Etrective Veficåt tion
Vsticål Verdcat Pressue fessw
hessw PHsw
(rt) Pp (3) CålcüIate seulement of the footing
o'vo Âo'v o'vf 6'va


5 l0 7.5 862 1658 2520 1691 Asume

t0 t5 12.5 1438 g',t2 24t0 1924 nomal¡y


l5 20 t7 -5 2012 59t 26t0 23rt

Thus, setdement of ûe footing is, Total

p = 0.069 ft or 0.83 inch

If the sand is Numed ro be pßloaded, rhen m = 350, ild
For sublayer t, Mr = 6.48 x 105 psf
Figure 5.9. Example 5.4---csti-
mating settlement of afooting on For sublayer 2, M¡ = * 165 psf
sand using Jenbu's tangent mod- For sublayer 3, Mr = * 195 psf
ulus method.
The esdm@d sttlement is úìen,


o= 1658 *t*---972-¡5a---598-¡5
' 6.4t x 105 6.88 ¡ 105 ?.55 x ld

P = 0.024 ft or 0.29 inch

lnitiaj e¡d final eflective

Average verthal presguro, d".
vsrtic€l pre33ur€3, d*'and du'
(psD (psr)
æ00 4000 0 2000 4æ0

, 15ft .
l+: :;-q
Slro Sand ':'.,:', ]i .

I Nä8lo35:.:r:'
Unit weight . ,

Figure 5.9a. Example 5.4 (continued)

For soft clays, loose sands and silts, disturbance is likely to affect I

I L-
the test results to a greater extent, and use ofthe plessuremeter
method has sometimes led to unsatisfactory results (Baguelin
et al., 1978). For these oils the pressuremeter method is not
+ '=0.,

For pressuremeter tests the settlements of embedded footings 1.6

(depth of embedment, D¡. equal to or greater than the footing

't.2 ø
width, B) can be estimated using the, following expression:

: O-22o / B\" 0.11p

+ øÀcB (5'5'l)
E: ". l^. r./ Ç

where p :estimated footing settlement, in same length units as

B; p : avera$e bearing pressure at foundation level, in same
pressure units as Eo; Eo :
pressuremeter modulus, in pressure
units; Bo :reference width, taken as 2 ft or 0.6 m; f,.. tr, :
dimensionless shape factors, from Table 5.6; and ct :
settlement coeffrcient defined by Menard (1972), from Table 5.7,
If the footing is not embedded (Dr 0), Baguelin et al. (1978)
indicated that the settlement should be estimated to be 1.2 times Fígure 5. 1 A Seftleme nt influence factor from Steìnb renner's ap-
the value calculated using Eq. 5.5.1. Settlements for partially proximation for m : 0.3. (After Taylor and Matyas, 1983)
embedded footings (0 < Dr < B) can be estimated by interpo-



Settlements of footings on sands and clays may be estimated

using elastic theory by means of the following equation which
was suggested by Steinbrenner (1934) and Giroud (1972):
er:p. Ie (s.6. l)

where p, : hnal settlement, in same length units as B; p: ó00

average bearing pressure at the base of footing in pressure units; q{

E, : in situ soil modulus, in same pressure units as p; Ip : UI

dimensionless settlement influence factor, whose value depends u¡
on footing geometry, thickness of the compressible layer, and
the value of Poisson's ratio; and B : width of footing, in length u
units. I
For estimating settlements of sands and clays for drained I aoo
conditions, the value of Poisson's ratio, v, may be taken as 0.3. F.l

Values of Io for v : 0.3 (developed by Steinbrenner, 1934) are

(n 200 sands
given in Figure 5.10. gravels
The accuracy of the settlement calculation depends on the
accuracy with which the soil modulus can be estimated' Because
of sample disturbance, values of soil modulus obtained from
laboratory tests are unreliable. It is preferable that values be
estimated from empirical correlations, such as the one shown in
Figure 5.1 1, which relates soil modulus to SPT blow counts'
If settlement observations on similar soils are available, values SPT B1o!¡ Count' N
of soil modulus can be back calculated from these data. This is
probably the most reliable method of estimating modulus values' Figure 5.11. Relationship between soil modulus, 8", and
Elastic theory is also often used to estimate immediate (or SPT blow count, N. (After Schultze and Melzer, 1965)
elastic) settlements of foundations on clay' The equation for
calculating immediate settlements, as discussed by Steinbrenner
(1934) and Christian and Carrier (1978), has a form similar to
: pB
;lro Pr (5.6.2)
Eq.5.6.1: Þu

Table 5.6. Values of shape factors for settlement computations

using Menard pressuemeter test results. (After Baquelin et al.,
L/B Àd tc

t (clrcle) t. 0o r. 00
I ( Êquare) 1, 12 t. 10
2 1. 53 1.20
I 1. 78 1.30
5 2.L4 1.40
20 2.65 r.50 UB=-
Table 5.7. Values of empirical settlement coefficient, a, for typical soils.
Type Conditlon

overconsol idated
nornal-1y consolldâted
weathered or renolded

7 -9



v z I 2-

o.t l.o r0 100 1000
overconsol Ldated >14 2/3 H,ß
norDalÌy consolldaÈed s-14 r/2
weathered or renolded r/2 Figure 5.12. Settlement influence factors p.o and þr (After
Christian and Carrier, 1978)
sand overconsol ldated >t2 L/2
nomally consolldated , L/3
weathered or renolded :,, r/3 1 600

Sand and overconsol ldated >r0 r/3

cravel nomally consolidated 6-10 L/4 1 400

weathered or renolded L/4

1 200
Note: pl = Iimiting pressure deternined from pressuremeter
test result (in pressure units)
1 000

: k 800
where p, immediate settlement, in same length units as B; p
: average bearing pressure at the base ofthe footing, in pressure
units; Eu : undrained soil modulus, in same pressure units as 600

pi po : dimensionless settlement influence factor which de-

scribes the effect of footing embedment, whose value is given in 400

Figure 5.12; pl : dimensionless settlement influence factor

which describes the effect of finite thickness for the compressible 200
layer (values of p, are given in Figure 5.12); and B : width of
foundation, in length units. 0
As for the determination of soil modulus for drained condi- 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8910
tions, it is preferable that undrained soil modulus be estimated OVERCONSOLIDATION RATIO

using empirical correlations of the type shown in Figure 5.13.

Eu =k Su
In this figure, values of undrained soil modulus are related to
Eu = Undrained lvlodulus of C¡ay
the plasticity index (PI), the undrained shear strength, s,. and k = Factor lrom Chart Above
stress history ofthe clay, expressed in terms ofoverconsolidation Su = Undrained Shear Strength of Clay
ratio (OCR). The overconsolidation ratio is the maximum effec-
Figure 5.13. Chart for estimating undrained modu-
tive pressure to which the soil has been subjected in the past, po,
Ius of clay. (A.fter Duncan and Buchignani, 1976)
divided by the present effective overburden pressure, ø,o,, i.e.,
OCR : po/c,o'.
The use of elastic theory to estimate settlement of a footing
on sand is shown in Figure 5.14. dated and lightly overconsolidated clays can be very large.
Where such soils are loaded by hlls, settlements as large as
several feet may occur. Methods for estimating the magnitudes
5.7 SETTLEMENTS OF FOOTINGS DUE TO ofconsolidation settlements, and the rates at which they occur,
CONSOLIDAT]ON OF CLAYS are discussed in many soil mechanics textbooks and engineering
mânuals (Sowers, 1979; Terzaghi and Peck, 1967; NAVFAC,
Settlements resulting from consolidation of normally consoli- 1982).
38 PART 1

Use elastic theory o estimaæ ûe seülement of a 15 ft quare footing where p¡ seitlement at time ti Pi : settlement calculated
which caniæ a service rtead load of 250 ons and a setrice live load of 50 by Terághi and Peck's method, Janbu's method, Baguelin's
rons. The footing is embedded 5 fr below the ground surfæe' The soi¡ pressuremeter method, or using elastic theory; and C, : time
infomarion is the siame as thât given in Exa¡nple 4.1. The fim sEarm i$
rate factor from Table 5'2.
encountered at 4j' below the bottom of the footingj

(l) Detè¡in¡ne lhe initial effective overburden pressure. 5.9 SETTLEMENTS DUE TO SECONDARY
The initiat etrediv¿ dverburdeft Fessw at dAù below ùe bouom of the fooling is
Settlements offodtings on clays coniini¡e at a slow and contin-
c'"o = (0.0575) x (5 * = O.lz m' ually decreasing rate after the clay undergoes its initial compres-
sion. This process is called "secondary compression."
Secondary compression settlements can be estimated using the
Q) Estimdtesoilnodu¡N.
From Figûie 5.8, forÑl = ll and o'vo = 0.?2 ífr2

E5 ;410 r/ftz
: Co H,log k (5.e.r)

(3) Estimate s€ü¡emcnt of the footing.

Using elasric theory, setüement ofthe footing is

where p." : settlement due to secondary cômpression, in the
same length units as H; Co : coeflicient of secondary compres-
sion, dimensionless-values of Co are given in Table 5.8; Ht
p=tsþ total thickness of layer undergoing secondary compression, in
length unit; t." : time for which secondary compression is to
be calculated, in years; and tp = time for primary compression,
ror S=f3= I' Io = o'z
From Figure 5.7,
in yearb-to should be taken as not less than I year.
p = r s xjl"l '--' (0.7) = 0.034 ft
sl Design of shallow foundations is often limited by considera-
Figure 5.14. Example S.S-estímatíng settlement of aþoting on tions of tolerable settlement, This fact is illustrated by Examples
sand using elastic theory' 4.1 and 5.1 (see Figures 4.1 and 5.2). In Example 4.1 it was
determined that a bearing pressure of 6.4 t/ft2 would provide a
factor of safety of about 3.0. In Example 5.1 it was determined
that the bearing pressure would have to be limited to 0-6 t/ftz
to limit the settlement to I '0 in' Thus, if the tolerable settlement
Highly compressible clays are rarely capable of supporting
footings for bridges, buildings, or other structures where the
of the footing was 1.0 in., its design would be controlled by
consideration of settlement rather than consideration of ultimate
tolerable amount of settlement is limited to a small fraction of a
bearing capacity. This is usually the case with spread footings
foot. For tliis reason, detailed consideration of consolidation
on sand.
settlements is not included in this manual.
Design of footings to satisfy settlement criteria involves these
Settlements of footings founded on less compressible, overcon-
steps: (1) establish the upper limit of tolerable settlement for the
solidated clays can be estimated using Jânbu's procedure' Bag-
footing; (2) select a footing size that is safe against bearing capac-
uelin's pressuremeter procedure' or elastic theory. Settiements
ity failure and estimate its settlement; and (3) compare the settle-
offootings on heavily overconsolidated clays usually occur fairly
ment estimated in step (2) with the tolerable value. If the esti-
rapidly, and it is reasonable to assume that they take place as
mated value ofsettlement exceeds the tolerable value, the footing
rapidly as the loads are aPPlied.
is redesigned so that the settlement is reduced.
With some methods of estimating settlement, it is possible to
5.8 TIME;DEPENDENT SETTLEMENTS OF determine fairly directly what bearing pressure will satisfy the
FOOT|NGS ON SANDS movement criteria. For example, Bazarra (1967) showed that
Terzaghi and Peck's method corresponds to the following rela-
Footings on sands continue to settle at a slow and continually
decreasing rate after the amount by which the settlements in-
crease with time can be estimated by multiplying the calculated
Table 5.8. Values of co for clays.
value of immediate settlement by a time rate factor, C,'
VaLue of
The time rate factor is included in Schmertmann's method of
Natural ¡{ater
bettlement calculation, as may be seen by reference to F4s. 5.3.1 Content of CIay For OCR = I For oCR > 5
and 5.3.4. The same allowance for increased settlements with
time can be used with other methods. This can be done through r0t o.001 0.0003 to 0.0005
20t 0.002 0.0006 to 0.0010
the following equation: 40t 0.004 0.0012 to 0.0020
80t 0. 008 0.0025 to 0.0040
P,:Pi'Ct (5.8. l)

tionship between bearing pressure and settlement of footings on that methods which result in settlements close to the average of
sand above the water t¿ble: measured settlements are ükely to underestimate settlements half
the time and overestimate them half the time. Methods that are
ñ/n+r\2 more conservative (notably Terzaghi and peck's method) tend
Pp:Ptd;l * / (5.10.1)
to overestimate settlements more than half the time and to under-
estimate them relativeþ infrequently.
where po : bearing pressure corresponding to the tolerable The studies indicate that there exists a trade-offbetween accu-
movement, tsf; p., : tolerable movement, in.; ñ : minimum racy and reliability. A relatively ¿ccurate method is one that
aveÍage SPT-N values, blows,/ft; and B : footing width, ft. would result in estimated settlement about equal to the average
The adequacy of a design for settlement criteria depends to a settlement for a group of footings. A reliable method is one that
large extent on the a@túacy with which the settlement can predicts settlements that are greater than or equal to the actual
be estimated. Since the densities and compressibilities of sand settlement most of the time. The studies show that any method
deposits are inherently variable, it is not possible to estimate for estimating settlements of footings on sand can be modiflred,
settlement of footings on sand with high accuracy. If a number by multiplying the estimated settlements by an a justment factor
of footings of the same size were constructed.on the same sand to yield about the same combination of accuracy and reliability
deposit, each would settle a different amount when subjected to as any other method. For instance, the D'Appolonia, et al.,
the same load. Terzaghi and Peck (1967) indicated that in rhis method predicts settlements that are about equal to the average
circumstance, the footing that settled the most Ìvould settle about value of actual settlements, and it underestimates settlements
4 times as much as the footing that settled the least. Thus, the about half the time. To ensure that the settlements calculated
actual settlements would cover a wide range, and no method of using the D'Appolonia, et al., method equal or exceed the mea-
calculation could ever give exactly the ,.right answer" for all of sured settlement about 90 percent of the time, the settlements
the footings. computed using the procedure should be multiplied by a factor
It is important to realize that various methods of estimating of two. This adjustment would increase the ..reliability', of the
settlements of footings on sand, which lead to different estimates method from about 50 percent to about 90 percent.
of the settlement, would compare differently to the range of Adjustment factors for 50 percent and 90 percent reliability
actual settlements of identical footings. Recent studies have com_ in calculated values of displacement are given in Table 5.9 for
pared measured settlements with settlements calculated using Terzaghi and Peck, D'Appolonia et al., and Schmertmann
various procedures (Tan and Duncan, l99l). These studies show methods.

Table 5.9. Vslues of adjustment factor for 50 percent and 90 percent reliability in displacement

AdjustmenL Factor
Method Soil Type For 502 For 902
ReLiability ReliabiliLy
Terzaghi and Peck Sand 0.45 1.05
Schmertmann Sand 0.60 I.25
D 'Appoloni a, eL al, Sand 1.00 2.OO



6.1 GENERAL design of footings to be supported by these materials is rather

simple and straightforward, and is often governed by structural
Footings on rock must satisfy the same design criteria as considerations. For instance, if the allowable concrete strength
footings on soil. They must be able to support the loads that they is less than the rock strength, the determination of allowable
carry safely, without excessive movements that may damage or "rock" bearing pressures may be unnecessary, and concrete
impair the functions of the supported structure. strength will determine the required footing size.
Most continuous sound rocks have relatively high strengths Continuous and sound rock masses are, however, rarely en-
and low compressibilities. In comparison with footings in soil, countered at shallow depth. Most near-surface rock masses are


broken by one or more sets ofjoints or fractures that divide the To meet the soundness requirement, Deere and Deere (1988)
mass into blocks. Design of footings in these discontinuous rocks recommended that rocks of grades IV (highly weathered), V
is usually controlled by geotechnical considerations, particularþ (completely weathered), and VI (residual soil), as defined by the
by the characteristics of rock defect such as joints, seams, faults, International Society of Rock Mechanics (1978)' be discounted
and bedding planes. for the determination of RQD, even though their lengths are
This chapter presents a simple overview of current design greater than 4 in. Fractures caused by drilling operation must
procedures for estimating bearing capacity and settlement of also be excluded. Determination of RQD is illustrated in Figure
footings on discontinuous or jointed rocks. The emphasis is on 6.1. Values of RQD reflect the relative intensity ofjointing and'
practical procedures that do not require detailed analyses. hence, the compressibility of a rock mass. The relationship be-
tween rock quality and RQD is given in Table 6'3. An RQD of
100 percent would represent an excellent quality rock mass
whose engineering properties are similar to those of an int¿ct
6.2 BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS ON rock specimen; an RQD less than 25 percent, on the other hand,
would represent a very poor quality rock mass whose engineering
properties are similar to those of soil.
6.2.1 Load Test
The value of RQD for use in Table 6.2 may be taken as the
avetagevalue of RQD within a depth equal to one footing width
Full scale load tests are the most reliable method for determin'
below the bottom ofthe foundation, provided the RQD is reason-
ing bearing capacity of foundations on rock. Ilowever, load tests
ably uniform within these depths. In most cases, however, values
are relatively expensive, and are only warranted when very high
of iQO tend to increase with depth' For these cases, Peck et al'
loads are anticipated, for example, on piers for high-rise build-
ings or abutments for arch bridges.
recommended that an average value of RQD within a depth
equal to one-fourth ofthe footing width from the bottom ofthe
foundation be used instead.
Peck et al. further recommended that the allowable bearing
6.2.2 Presumptlve Bearing Values pressures from Table 6'2 should not exceed the unconftned com-
pressive strength ofthe intact ¡ock core sample and the allowable
Many codes provide presumptive design bearing values for stress of the foundation material. No increase in bearing pressure
foundations in rock. As given in Table 6.1, these values provide is allowed for footing embedment because the design values given
allowable bearing pressures based on descriptions of rock type in Table 6.2 are based on settlement limitation rather than rock
and quality. The recommended values, however, do not take into
consideration the type and function of the structures, the loading An example of the use of this procedure is given in Figure 6'2'
conditions, tolerable movement criteria, or the strength and de-
formation characteristics of the rock masses. In addition, even
for the same type of rock, there are considerable differences
among the vdlues recommended by various codes.
Presumptive values often tend to be quite conservative. How- 6.2.4 Empirical Design Procedure for Less
Competent Jointed Rock
ever, these values may provide reasonable estimates for bearing
capacity offoundations ofsimple structures on good quality rock
Carter and Kulhawy (1988) developed an empirical procedure
masses. In these cases the structural strength of the foundation
usually governs the foundation design. For structures imposing
for estimating ultimate bearing capacity of jointed or broken
large loadings, the use of presumptive design values as a basis of
rock. The procedure is based on unconfined compressive
strength of the intact rock core sample. Depending on rock mass
design is not recommended. For such heavy structures, use of
quality, ultimate bearing capacity of the rock mass varies from
the presumptive values may lead to overly expensive foundations'
ã small fraction to six times the unconfrined strength of the rock
core sample. The authors further indicated that the rock mass
quality should preferably be determined using the Geomechanics
6.2.3 Emp¡r¡cal Design Procedure for Reasonably Rock Mass Rating (RMR) System (Bieniawski, 1988)' or the
Sound Rock
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI) Rock Mass Classifltca-
tion System (Barton et al.,1974).
Peck et al. Q97\ suggested an empirical correlation for esti-
mating allowable bearing pressures of foundations on jointed
rock based on an index of rock mass quality known as rock
quality designation (RQD). The correlation, as given in Table
6.2, is intended for rock masses with tight joints "not wider 6.2.5 Rational Methods
than a fraction ofan inch." The authors also indicated that, for
footings designed with the allowable values given in Table 6'2, Depending on the relative spacing ofjoints and rock layering,
their settlements would be less than 0'5 in. bearing capacity failures for foundations in rock may take several
Value of RQD is computed as the percent of modified core different forms, as shown in Figure 6.3. Except for the case of a
recovery, as follows: rock mass with closed joints, the failure modes are different from
those in soil. Procedures for estimating the bearing capacity have
Sum of lengths of "sound" been developed for each of the failure modes shown in Figure
corepieces >4in. 6.3. Details of these procedures can be found in Kulhawy and
RQD: x 100 $.2.3.1)
Goodman (1987), Goodman (1989), and Sowers (1979).
Total core run length

T¡ble 6.1. Presumptive bearing pressures (tsf) for foundations on rock (After Putnan, 1981)

Sound Sound
Foliated Sedimentary Soft Soft Broken
Code Year 1 Bedrock2 Rock Rock Rock3 Shale Shale

Baltinore 1962 100 35 10 (4)

BOCA 1970 100 40 25 10 4 1.5

Boston 1970 100 50 10 10 (4)

Chl.cago 1970 100 100

Cleveland 1951/ 1969 25

DalIas 1968 2qrr(5) 2q,\ . ZS" 2S" .2V, 2eu

DeÈrolt 1956 100 100 9600 t2 L2

Indiana 1967 29u 2e. . ZSu 2q .29u 2eu

Kansas Ciby 1961/ 1969 2Au 2e" .29u 29.u .29u 2eu

Los Angeles 1970 10 4 3 1 1 1

New York Clty 1970 60 60 60 I

New York Stabe 100 40 15

Ohlo 1970 100 40 15 10 4

Philadelphia 1969 50 15 10-15 I

PiLtsburth 1959/ 1969 23 25 25 I I
Richmond 1968 100 40 25 10 4 1.5

St. Louis 1960 / 1970 100 40 25 10 1.5 1.5

Sân FÌanclsco 1969 3-5 3-5 3-5

Unlfo¡m 1970 .2gu 2q .2q 2q .29u .2!Iu

Building Code

NBC Canada 1970 100

New South 1974 33 13 4.5

Wales, Australia

Note: 1 - Year of code or origÍnal y€ar and date of revision

2 - Massive crystallín€ bedrock
3 - Soft and broken !ock, not including shale
4 - Allowable bearing pressure to be determined by appropriate city official
t - gu = unconfined compressive sbrent¿h

The site condidons at a bridge abumient, near Pennsylvania

Table 6.2. Atowable bearing pressures of iointed rock. (After
Peck, Hanson and Thornburn, 1974) Turnpike (æhigh county) are diven in Figure 6.2a- Based on this
information, estimate the allowable bearing pressure for the 29.75 ft x 14.0
Allowable Bearing Pressure* ft footing for the bridge abutnenL The footing was placed at an elevation of
RQD (t8f)
380 fL

100 300
90 200 (1) Detemine design value for RQD. l
75 120
50 65 Borehole f/9
z5 30 Core Run L (El. 377.5 - 382.5 f0 - RQD = 257o
0 10
Core Run 2 (El. 372.5'377.5 ft) -RQD =298o

*Note: If the rêcomnended value of allowable bearlng Borehole #80

pressure exceedB the unconfined conpressLve I

Ètrengttr of the lock or aÌlowable EtresE of Core Run (E1.375.6 - 380.6 ft) - RQD = r57¿
concrete, the aIlovaþle bearing pressure should
be taken as the unconfined conpresslve strength. Core Run 2 @. 370.6 - 375.6 ft) --RQD = 707o
or the allowable stress of concrete, whichever
is less.

Use RQD = 157ø for the estimation ofallowable bea¡ing pressure,

Table 6.3. RQD as an index of rock quality. (After Deere' 1963) 9a.

RQD Rock Quality

(2) Estimate the allou,able bearing pressurc.

9 0-100 Excellent From Table 6.2, the allowable bea¡ing pressure can be interpolated
75-90 Good as follows:

50-7 5 FaÍr (.1*O) (30 - 10) = 22 tsf

q" = 10 +
25-50 Poor
0-2 5 Very poor

N -,r
According to Peck, et al., senlement of the footing would be less
than 0.5 inch. In Fig. 6.4 - Example 6.2, the settlement is estimated using
elastic theory.
Core Recovery Modined Core Recoverv
Fígure 6.2. Example 6.1-estimating øllowable bearing
10.0" 10.0"
pressure ofa footing on rock using the Peck et al. procedure'
4.0" , 4.0"
broken rocts
4.5" 4.5"
15" For most ordinary structures, where the imposed loadings are
not exceptionally large, settlements of footings supported on
3.0" 'j rock are not large enough to cause problems. As noted earlier,
if footings for these structures are designed on the basis of the
Total = 415" Total = 32.0" procedure proposed by Peck eI al. (1974), the settlements will
usually be smaller than 0.5 in. However, in some cases such as
piers for high-rise structures or abutments for arch bridges'
2l * W*=ae* where the foundations may be subjected to very large loadings,
and where settlement tolerance may be small, estimation of set-
tQo=ffx ßo%=53% tlement may be an important design consideration'
The characteristics of the discontinuities in a rock mass have
a dominant influence on its compressibility. In rock masses con-
taining seams of soft material, in porous limestone and in
clayshale, consolidation and secondary settlements may occur.
In these cases, the procedures described in Chapter 5 may be
used to estimate settlements. For most other rock masses' the
settlement occurs immediately upon application of the load, and
its magnitude may be estimated by using elastic theory.
Æ,F. intack¡ock
According to elastic theory, the settlement of a footing is
related to footing size and load as follows:
brcken ræk
"',.1J-, - P (1 v*2)
P-: lp-Aoj (6.3. l)
Figure 6.1. Determination of RQD (modirted core recovery).

Borohola #80

Sllly day
Mdsr ¡ L,

.1"' s¡hy.lay
gl lr6€ffib
å #
+i+ ffim.
: .,l ' r: : I :: ': :il-: w mny
I qn6l
,,;i..tiôlinp.o¡men¡¡c¡n..',:., Ë fiad¡s:

¡tr:'.,:,:rl-,* 29i75 ff,,:.:: r,, .;:' qy hard
.. .. 9þt4cli.. : .t:,...,.,
i.1. I
.'i' r ì t, ,i1' :::: ': :':::li!,ì
ROD (%)

Figure 6.2a- Geological conditions þr a bridge abutment footing near Pennsylvania Turnpíke
(Lehigh County).

in which pm : settlement of rock mass, in length units; p : I

applied load, in force units; v_ : poisson's ratio for rock mass,
dimensionless) ß" : shape and rigidity factor, dimensionless; ffi

E* : Young's modulus for rock mass, in pressure units (this

value must represent the properties of the rock mass, including
joints, and not simply the intact material between joints); and A
: footing area, in length2 units.
Using typical values of u_ and 8., Kulhawy (197g) suggested
Op€n jointsr S<
Un¡oxiol compression
I C¡osedjo¡nls,S<8 Wide io¡nts, S > I
Sheor ¿one Splil l¡n9
that for circular, square, and rectangular footings (L/B < 3)
F4. 6.3.1 may be written as:

P^- E-Ao s
(6.3.2) R¡g¡d,'

Weo k

Th¡ck rig¡d tqye r

When L,/B > 10, Eg. 6.3.1 may be approximately expressed as: Flcru.e
Th¡n ri0id Ioyer

0.7P Figure 6.3. Bearing capacity failure modes for foundations ìn

P' - E-A'J (6.3.3) rock (After Sowers, 1979)

For rectangular footings q,ith L/B ratio ranging between 3

and 10, the settlement may be determined by interpolating the
results from Eqs. 6.3.2 and 6.3.3.
The accuracy with which settlement can be estimated by using tinuities) can be determined from laboratory testing. In the ab-
elastic theory is dependent on the accuracy with which the value sence ofsite-specihc data,Kulhawy (1978) suggested that typical
of rock mass modulus can be estimated. In some cases the value values of Er,/Kn ranging from 0.2 m to 4.2 m, with an average
of E- can be estimated through empirical correlations with the value of about 1.2 m, may be used for preliminary analyses.
value of Young's modulus for the intact rock between joints. For The use of Kulhawy's procedure to estimate settlement of a
unusual or poor rock mass condition, it may be necessary to foundation on jointed rock is shown in Figure 6.4.
determine the modulus from in situ tests, such as plate loading
and pressuremeter tests.
Because ofthe presence ofrock fractures, the rock mass modu_
lus is smaller than the modulus of the intact rock between joints. DESIGN APPROACH
The difference in modulus is related to the discontinuity spacing,
which in turn can be correlated with ReD, as indicated in Table As discussed in previous chapters, an alternative method of
6.4 (Kulhawy, 1978). To use Table 6.4, values of E. (young providing safety margin for foundations is through the use of
modulus of rock core sample) and K" (normal stiffness of discon- load and resistance factors. In principle, the procedures de-

44 PART 1

Table 6.4. Values of modulus reduction factor, cr : E^/Er. Estimate the s€dlement of lhe 29.75 ft x 14.0 foodng described in
Example ó.1. The footing is 3 ft Úlick' and the elasúc modulus of the intact
(After Kulhawy' 1978).
limestone, Er, is est¡mated to be 40 x I03 tsf. For the purpose of this

value of rE for Er/Kn* exampte, the design pressure (unfacþred) for the footing is assumed to be 6
RQD (t) O. lm o. 5! 1. 0n
i Si¡c" normal stiffnes, K¡¡, for the discontinuity is not known,

<10 o.22 o. 06 0.03 E/Kn - 0.5m for a fi¡st approximation'

0.3s o. 10 o. 05
20 From Table 6.4, for RQD = 157o, the modulus reduction factor,
30 0.40 0. 13 0.06 oE, is
40 0. 44 0. 15 0.08
0.46 0. t6 o. 09 aE 0.08
50 =
60 0. 50 o. 18 o. 11 Elastic modulu for üte rock mass can be estimated æ
70 0.53 0.20 o. 12
Em = aE Er = (0.08) (40 x 103) = 3.2 x 103 ßf
80 0. 56 o.22 0. 14
90 o.70 0.30 o. 18 The unfactored design load is
100 0. 92 0.75 o. 60
P = pn = (6) (29.75) (14.0) = 2500 ons

*Note: Er,/Kn Ís Ín netrest and ForUB =ffi=2.1, s€ttlement of the fock mass c¿n be estimated using the expfession:

- Er = YoungrË nodulus for rock core Êanple

- Kn = Nornal stiffnes6 for dlscontLnuities
n oÞ= (0.9) (2500)
P- =tãä3
€2 x 103) (zrJs x 14J)o;
- E¡t = Youngrs nodulus for rock rnass
- For Er,/Kn à 10, use equivalent soil noduluE for
anaIYsis. Po = 0'034 ft or 0'41 inch

which is smallu than the tolerable value of one inch of ættlement

ftequently adopted in practice.

If the design were to be bæd on the allowable beuing presure of

scribed in Section 4. I 3 may be extended directly for use in desigrt 22 úft2, as calculat€d using Peck' et al. procedure in ExamPle 6 1' a smaller

offoundations on rock. footing would have been used.

In LRFD the safety against ultimate bearing capacity failure Aæa of the smaller footine, h' = = t t+ ft2
(an ultimate limit state) is ensured if:
Estimaæd æfllement of the ræk mN would then be

ó(q,,,A) > 27¡Qi (6.4. r)

(0.9) (2500)
ô,- - -'''- ft--
= 0.066
in which qrn :. ultimate bearing capacity of the rock mass; A "' (3.2 * 103) (II4)0.5
: footing area, in length2 units; Q¡ : load effect due to load or P'a = 0'8 inch
component i, in force units; þ : performance factor, dimen-
sionless; and 7 : load factor, dimensionless' Values of load
factors are given in Table2.1. The calculated value agÉes fairly well with the valüe of 0'5 inch
suggesæd with Peck, et al., provided the Numed value of ErlKn =
0'5 m
For foundations on good quality rock, the design may be
controlled by structural considerations. The safety against struc- is representative of the sile condition'

tural failure can be checked using the following expression: Figure 6.4. Example 6.2-estimating settlement of a þoting on
jointed rock
óuP" > rTiQi (6.4.2)

in which P. : nominal structural axial load capacity of the

flooting; óu : petfotmance factor for axial loading, and other
terms are as deflrned previously (for concrete footings, Su is
usually taken as 0.7). The use of LRFD concepts in design of a
According to Sowers (1979), two major practical concerns for
footing on jointed rock masses is illustrated in Figure 6'5'
footings on rock are as follows: (l) Good contact between rock
mass and foundation-To ensure proper performance of founda-

6.5 SPECIAL GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS tion, good contact between rock mass and the foundation is
necessary. The presence oflocal defects may create contact prob-
in rock may present diffrcult-
Some special geological features lems that require special treatment. Figure 6'6 presents several
ies in foundation design. These include: weathering of rock, typical contact problems and the suggested solutions' These in-
solution cavities, swelling of rock, creep' and mining subsidence' clude hlling up a naffow soft seam with "dental" concrete' an-
These special problems may call for special design considerations choring footings on dipping rock surface with dowel bars or rock
or foundations treatments. In some instances' the presence of bolts, and avoiding the so-called shelf hazard by placing the
sink holes in limestone may make the use of footing foundation foundation on the stiffer rock layer. (2) Effect of excavation on
impractical. An excellent discussion on these special geological rock quality-Excavation by blasting often results in overbreak
problems is presented by Peck (1976), citing case study examples' and fractures or opening ofjoints in the rock. To avoid potential

settlement problems, the excavated rock surface should be prop- Using LRFD conceprs, determine wherher the 29.75 x 14.0 ft
erly cleaned, ¿nd the fractured rock below the foundation level footing described in Example 6.1 hæ adequate capaciry againsr soil failure
should be replaced by lean concrete or well-compacted gravel. beneath the footing. For the purpose of this example, the footing wæ
asswtred to be founded at an elevation of 375.0 ft, and that the intact
limestone has an unconfined compressive strength of lS00 tsf.

(l) g¿.u¡¿¡sm¡gnitudeoffacoredloads.

Total unfactored load = 16¡ 129.75¡,14.0) = 2500 tons

The proportion of dead and live loads a¡e not known. For this
example it will be assumed rhat the dead load is 1875 tons (7570 of the tor¿l)
and that the live load is 625 tons (25%).

Factored dead load =ïp Pp = (1.3) (1875) = 2438 ons

Facrofed tive load = ïL pr = (2.I7) (624) = l3J4 ¡¡n.

Total factored load =2438 + 1354 - 3790 tons

(2) Calculate magniurde offacûorcd be¿ring capacity.

Using the procedurc described in Section 6.2.4, ultimate bearing

capacity (qdt ) of the rock mass was estimaæd as,

qult = 22'5 tsf

Uìtimate bearing load, Qu¡1 = q¡¡ A
Qu¡ = (22.s) (29.75) (14.0) = 9370 tons

With â performance factor( Q) of 0.6, the factored bea¡ing load is,

Qfu = Q Qult = (0.6) (9370) = 5620 tons

which is greater than the roBl factored load of 3790 rons. Thus, the
footing has adequate capacity against bearing capaciry failure.

Figure ó.5. Example 6.3-design of a footing on rock using

LRFD procedure (ultimate limit state).

bl Grntlc diD c) Stcrp d¡p


Figure 6.6. Rock þundation

contact problems. (A.fter Sowers,
1979) d) Stccg dip ¡cor cut .¡ Shclf ho¡ord t I Shall r.movq¡
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Briaud, J. L. (1986), "Pressuremeter and Foundation Desígn",
Officials (1989), Standard SPecifications for Hiqhwav Proc. Conference ou.
Bridqes, Fourteen Edition, Washington, D.C.
American Assocíation of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (1970), NCHRP SynÈhesis of.Hiqhwav Practice Briaud, J. L. (1990), The Pleqs!¡EelBelcr, The Netherlands, À.
No. 5 - Scour At Bridqe Waterwavs, Highway Research À. Balkeema, in press, 3L4pp.
Board, National Research Council, 37 pP.
American Àssociation of State Highway and Transportation Broqrn, W. G. (L964), "DÍfficulties Associated with
officials (1988)' Manrral on Subsurface fnvestiqations, Þredicting Depth of Freeze or thaw", Canadian -
Washington, D.C,, 391 pp. Geotechnical iournal, Vol. L, No. 4' PP.2L5-226.

American Association of State Highway and lransportation Canadian Geotechnical Society (1985), Canadian Foundation
Officials (1986)' AÀSHTO Materials, Part fI - Iest, Engineering Manua}, Second Edition' 456 pp.
13th Edition, Washington' D. C. r PP. 273 - IL77 ' Carter, J. P. and KuIhawY, F. H. (1988),
Àmerican Concrete Institute (1982), ACI's Guide to Durable No. EL-5918, Empire State
Concrete, ACI Guide No. 20L.2R-77, Detroit, 37 PP. Corporation and Electric
American Society of Testing and Materials (1990), Annual pP'
04.08: Soil and Rock, Building Christian, J. T. and Carrier, W. D. (1978)¡ "Janbu, Bjerrum
stone, Ceotextiles, ASTM, Philadelphia, 1189 pp. and Kjaernsli's Chart Reinterpreted", Canadian
Baguelin, F., Jezequel, J. F.r lnd.Shields, D..H. (r.e78 ) , Geoteéhnical Journal, VoI. 15' pp. L23-L28. F
, Trans Copp, H. D. and Johnson' J. P. (1987), Riverbed.Scour Àt '.1
Clausthal, Bridge Piers, US DePartment of Íransportation, Federal
Barton, N. R.' Lien, R., and Linde, J. (1974), "Engíneering Highway Administratíon' 73PP.
Ciassification of Àock Masses and lts Àpplication in D'Appolonia, D. J., D'Appolonia, 8., and Brisette, R. F.
Tunnelling", Rock Mechanics, VoI. 6, No. 4' pp' 189-236' (1970), "settlement of Spread Footinge on Sand",
Bazaraa, A. R. S. S. (1967)' "Use of Standard Penetration iclosúre¡. Proc. Journal of Soil Mechanics and
reåt for Estimating Settlements of Shallow Foundations Èoundation Division, ÀSCE, vol. 96, No. SM2' pp.754-
7 6t.
on Sand", Ph. D. Dissertation Submitted to Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois' 380 pp' Deere, D. U. (1963), "Technical Description.of Rock Cores
Bieniav¡skiI z. T. (1988), "The Rock Mass Rating (RMR) Systen Éor Engineering Purposes", Rock Mechanics and
(Geouråchanics' Classification) . in Engineering'Practice",
Engineéring Geólogy, Vol- 1, No- 1, pp.L6-22.
Èro"., Rock I'lechanics Classification Systen for- Deere, D. U. and Deexe, D. W. (1988), "The Rock Quality
nnginåering Purposes' ÀSTM STP 984r ASTM' Philadelphia' óesignation (RQD) Index in Practice", Proc., Rock
pp. L7-34. clas;ification System for Engineering PurPoses' ASTM
STP 984, ASTI{' Philadelphia' PP.91-101.
' L. (1963), "ÀllowabIe Settlement of Structures"'
Pro"., àrd European Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Duncan, J. M. and Buchignani, A. L. (1976), LE4g++e+tgg
FãIiãation Engiäeering, Wiesbaden, vol. 2, PP.73-96' uànual for Settlenént Studies, Department of Civil
EnglneerIng, of California at Berkeley, 94
Bowles, J. E. (1988)r Foundation Analysis and-Desiqn, Fourth
Edition, McGraw-Hill Publication Co., p.255. PP.
Duncan, J. M., Horz, R. C., and yang, T. L. (1999) , Shear Janbu, N. "Soi1 Compressibility As Determined
( 1963 ) , By
Oedometer and Triaxial Test,s", @.., European
Charles E. Via Jr. Departnent
t¡nent of Civil Engineering, Conference of SoÍ] Mechanics and Foundatioñ
Virginla Polytechnic Institut
titute and State University, Engineering, Vol. I, Wiesbaden,
100 pp.
Janbu, N. (19671,
Duncan, J. . and Tan (1991), Encrineerinq Manual for
lif Modulus Concept, Bulletin No. Mechanics a
, Final Draft
for NCHRP 24-4, C}¡arles E. via Jr. Department
Foundation Engineering Series, The Technical University
of Civil of Norway, Trondheim, 57 pp.
Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic and State University.
Janbu, N. (1985), "soil Models in offehore Engineering",
Federal Highway Àdmlnistratlon (1995), Checklist and 25th Rankine Lecture, Geotechnique, Vol 35, No. 3,
, US Departnent of
Transporta on, 33 pp. Kasim, À. G.r_Chu, M. Y., and ilensen, C. N. (1986), "Field
CorreLation of Cone arid Standard penetration-ÍIests'.,
Federal Highvray Ad¡ninistratlon (1988), rrÎechnical Advisory - PToc., Journal- of the Geotechnical Engineering
- fnterim Procedures for Evaluating Scour aÈ Bridgesa, Division, ÀSCE, Vol . 112, No. GT3, pp.-368472:
US Depart¡ûent of lransportation, Office of Engineering,
Bridge Divislon, 62 pp. Kulhawy, F. H. (1978), "Geonechanical Modet for Rock
Foundation Settlement", Proc., Journal of Geotechnical
Garg'a, V. K. and Quin, J. l. (L974), rtÀn fnvestigaÈion on Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT2, pp.211-
settlenent, of Direct Foundat,ions on Sandrt, p¡9.g., 227.
Conference on Settlenents of Structures, Canbridge, tt)
England, Pentech Press, pp 22-36. Kulhawy, F. E. and Goodrnan, R. E. (1987), "Foundatione in
Rock", Chapter 55 in Ground Enqíneerinc Reference 11
Goodman, R. E. (1989), fntroduction to Rock Mechanics, Manual, Edited by F. c. Be1l, Butten¡orths Publiehing o
Second EdiÈÍon, John 9t11ey and Sons, Neer york, 562 pp. Co. {

Hansen, J. B. and Hansen, B. (1957), rFoundations of o

Kulhawy, F. 8., Trautmann, C.8., Beech, il. F., O'Rourke, T. c
structures --(a) General Subjects and Foundations other D., and McGuire, W. (1983), "Bearing Capacity of z
than p1led Foundationsrt, cenêral Report, 4th ICSMFE, Shallow Foundations in Soil" 7 of Transnission
London, Vol II, pp 44L-447. Ë
Loading, EPRf Report, EL-2870, h z
Hansen, J. B. (1970), [À Revised and Extended For¡¡ula for Institute, Palo Àlto, California, 23 Pp. Ø
Bearing CapacJ.tytt, Bulletin No. 28, Danish Geotechnical
Institute, Copenhagen, pp 5-11. Lambe, T. W. and Whitman, R. V. (1969), Soil Mechanicg, John
Wiley and Sons, New York, 553 pp.
Ho1tz, W. G. and Gibbs, H. J. (1956), trEngineering
Propert,ies of Expansive Claysrt, Transactions, ASCE, Menard, L. (1965), "Reg1e pour J.e calcul de la force
Vol. 120 portante et du tassement des fondatione en fonction des
Hvorslev, M. J. (1948) , Subsurface Exr¡loration and Samplincr resultate preesiorretriques", Proc., 6th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundatíon
, I{aterstay Engineering, Montreal, Vol. 2, pp.295-299.
t Sta D,V , llfiss., 465 pp.
Menard, L. and Rouseau, ,J. (1962), "L, Evaluation des
International Society for Rock Mechanics (1978), r'suggested Tossements Tendance¡s Nouvelles,,, Sols-Soils, Vol. 1.,
Methods for the Quantitat,ive Description of No. 1.
Discontinuities in Rock Massesrr, prepared by Co¡nmission
on Standardization on Laboratory and Field Tests, pp Mesri, G. (L973), "Coefficient of Secondary Conpression',,
319-368. (Reprinted in Proc., Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundat,ion
Ed., Pergamon Press, Oxford, England, Engineering, ÀSCE, Vo1. 99, No. SM1, pp.123-137.


Schultz, E. and Melzer, K. J. (1965), rrThe Detenùination of à
Meyerhof, G. G. (1953), "The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of
' Foundations the Density and the ltodulus of Conpressibility of.Non-
Under Eccentric and Inclíned Loads", .81e99"
3rd International Conference on Soil Mechanics and cohesive sãils by Soundingsrr, @.. , 6th International
Foundation Engineering, Zwric,h, Vol 1r pp' 440-445' conference on soil l¡fechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Montreal, vol. I' pp 354-358.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1956), "Penetration Tests and Bearing
capåcity of 'coheåionless Soils", 89c.., Journal of Soil Sowers, G. F. (]-979r,
ueèhaniãs and Foundation Engineering, ÀSCE, Vol' 82' lishinE co., New Yor¡<, 621- PP.
No. SMl,. PP. L-11.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1957), "The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Steinbrenner, I{. (1934), 'f Tafeln zur Setzungberechnung[,
- Die Strasser PP 12L-124.
¡'oundations On Siopes", Epç.. , 4th International
Conference on Soí1-Mechanics and Foundation Tan, C. K. and Duncan, J. ¡'f . (1991), ISettlements of
Engíneering, London, Vol. 1' pp' 384-386' Footings on Sand - Àccuracy and Re1lablllty" be
Meyerhof, G. G. (19?0), "safety Factors in Soil l'lechanics", publisñed in the Proc., Geotechnical Engineering
' Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 7, Pp.349-355' congress, Boulder, Co.

Peck, R. B. (1976), "Rock Foundatione for Structures", Taylor, B. and Matyas, E. L. (1983), rrlnfluence Factor
- fór B.settlement
Proc., Confeience on Rock Engineering for-Foundations Estinates of Footings on Flnite Layersrr,
ãtta Siop"", VoI. II, Boulder, CO.' pp.1-21' canadian Geotechnlcal Journal' vol. 20, No. ' pP 832-
R. B.' Hanson, W. E.r and Thornburn, T' H' (L27-4lt and
Peck,'Foundaiion Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1967), godl Mechinlqg=in
Enqineerinq, Second Edition, John Wiley Éncrineerincr Practice, Second Edltion, .lohn I{i-ley and
Sons, New York, 514 PP. sons, Nett Iork' 729 PP.
Putnam, J. B. (1981), "Analysis and Design-of Foundations on lornlinson, ltf . J. (1986), Foundation Desicrn and CqnsËn¡ction,

Continuous Rock", M. Sc. Thesis, Sub¡nitted to Syracuse Fifth Edition, Longnan Scientific and Technical, F
UniversitY. .ì
London; England' 842 PP.
Robertson, P. K. (1986), "In Situ Testing and lts-. us corps of Engineers (1949), .Addendun No. l, L945'4?,
Àpplicatíon Èo Foundation Engineering",-Canadian Rãport on Frost PenetrêtÍon' L944-.45, ^Cor?s of
cãõtechnical Journal, VoI.23' No.' pp. 573-594' n;gIr¡eers, US Àrny' New England Division, Boston.
Robertson, P. K. and Carnpanella, R. G. (1984), Us Department of Navlt (1982),@
Series No. 69, Mechanics, Naval racilities Engineering Conmand' VAt
oeparLment of Civit Bngineering, The UniversitY of 348 pp.
British Columbia. vancouver. Vesic, À. S. (f973), rrÀnalysis of ltltinate Iþads on Shallow
Schmertmann, J. E. (L970), "Static Cone to Compute Static
i'oundatiõnsn, fuç:, Journal of, Soil llechanlcs and
Settlement Over Sand", EEqg., Journal of SoiI Mechanics Foundation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 99, No. SUl, pp 45-
and Foundation Engineeringf ÀSCE' VoI. 96, NO.3, PP.
Schmertmann' J. H. (1977lt
Department of
Transportat , Federa Àd¡rinistration, PP. 54-
Schmertnann, J. H., Eartman, J. P., and Brown' P. R. (1978),
"Improved Strain Influence Factor Diagrarn", !roc..,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE'
VoI.104, No. GT8, pp.1131-1135.
Notations and Symbols
SYMBOLS F = safety factor
A = area of footing base H = horizontal load (unfactored)
B = footing width IT¡ = factored horizontal load
B' = reduced effective footÍng uridth E¿ = thickness of compressible layer
cc = compression index I' = equivalent Schmertmann's inproved settlenent
CP = correction factor for initial overburden influence factor
pressure at foundation level I¡ = horizontal movement influence factor used in
C¡ = ti¡ne rate (or creep correction) factor for elastic theory
settl-ement of IP = plasticity index
cohesionless soils rr = compressibility index
cu = coefficient of uniformity rz = Schmertmann's improved settlement influence
cvJ' = correction factor for r¡ater table factor
ca = coefficient of secondary compression r"P = Schmertmann's peak settlement influence factor
c = cohesion Tzt = Schmertmann's i-trproved settlement influence rt)

C1, Cq = compressibility factors factor evaluated at bottom of footing r{

cv = coefficient of consolidation o
r.P = settle¡rent influence factor used in elastic {
DLo = size of soil particle corresponding to 10t theory rd
passing by weight e
Ig = rotation influence factor ueed in elastic z
D1s = size of soíl particle corresponding to 15t theory ¡l
passing by weight i-¡, ic, iq = load inclination factora used in bearing o
D¡ = embedment depth for foundations capacÍty theory
Dr = relative density of soils Kn = normal stiffness for rock diecontinuities
D!ù = depth to groundwater table k = bearing capacity factor used with
dq = depth correctÍon factor pressuremeter data
E = elastic rnodulus L = footing length
Em = elastic modulus for rock nasses L' = reduced effective footing length
EP = pressuremeter nodulus m = Janbu's ¡rodulus number
Er = elastic modulus for intact rock core sample Èf¿ = Janbu's tangent modulus
Es = ín situ ¡rodulus of soils N = Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count
Bu = undrained modulus of soils N = average SPT blow count, corrected for
e = void ratio
subnergence effect
eo = initial void ratio
Ns r N1 rNq = bearing capacíty factors in rational theory
ex = eccentricity of vertical load
N-¡mrNcmtNqm = nodified bearing capacity factore in rational

P = applied load (unfactored) \o
. .3; ..... -. :.-..:!..--i,. ....-

': : :
' ' j'

P¡ dead l-oad (unfactored) Y moment arm for horizontal J-oad I

Iive load (unfactored) z depth

D nominal axial structural load (unfactored) zmax maximum depth defined in Sch¡rertmann's
average bearing Pressure inproved settlement influence diagram
atmospheric pressure zP depth to Schmertmann's Peak settlement
total horizontal pressure at depths where influence factor
pressuremeter tests are performed
P1 Iiniting pressure measured in pressuremeter Greek
preconsolidation Pressure empirical settlement coefficient used
a Ioad effect (unfactored) with pressuremeter test data
sliding resistance of a footing dE modulus reduction factor
allowable bearing Pressure p load factor coefficient for a load componentt
cone resistance (tiP) when used in Section 2.2
unconfined cornpressíve strength p safety index, when used in Section 2.3-4
ultimate bearing capacity (or pressure) of "l Ioad factor used in load and reaiÊtance factor
foundation soils or rock masses design (LRFD) Procedures
vertical component of ultimate bearing ^l unit weight of soils
9uLt vert ¡Ú
capacity of footings subjected to inclined 'yd dry unit weight of soils
Ioad 6 frictional angle of the interface between 'l
R¡ reduction factor for load inclination used in foundation and soil
empirical Procedures AZ thickness of a sublayer
Rn nominal resistance aov' increase in effective vertical stress
ro initial total vertical pressure at foundation horizontal movement
^h net bearing pressure increase at foundation
level Âp

S shear strength of the interface bethreen IeveI

footing and soil €\Jr vertícal strain
SC, sq shape factors 0 rotation
su undrained shear strength of soils ì¿¡ ls shape factors used \tith Pressuremeter test
t ti¡re data
time for prinary comPression l¿o influence factors for iumediate settlementt
"p accounting for effect of footing embedment
Lsc time for which secondary settlement is to be
calculated ttI influence factors for i¡nrediâte settlement,
v vertical load (unfactored) accounting for effect of finite thickness of a

v¡ factored vertical load compressible layer

v seismic velocity Poisson's ratio
p = footing settlement
pf = final settlenent
pi = initial settlement
Pm = settlement of rock masseÊ
Psc = secondary settlement
Ptol = tolerable settlement
PL = settlernent at time, t
o =. standard deviation
ov' .= effective overburden pressure
ova' = average effective vertical presÊure
ovo' = initial effective vertical prest¡ure (before
construction) at foundation level when uEed in
Section 5.3
ovo' = initial effective vert.ical preasure (before
the footin,g load is applied), at nrid-height of
a sublayer when used in Section 5.4 1A

ovf ' = final- effective vertical pressure

oup' = effective vertical presaure evaluated at depth o
of Schmertmanr¡,s peak eettlement influence {
factor o
r = ahear etress of the interface under gervice z
load condition 'l
ö = performance factor used in LRFD procedure z
ó = frictÍonal angle of soils or rock6
óa = performance factor for axial load

Part 2-Engineering Manual for

Driven Piles
P.S.K. Oor, J.M. DuNc.nx, K.B. Ro¡aNl
R.M. Banrcn

Chapter I Introduction 54
Chapter 2 Classification of Deep Found¿tions and Piles 54
2.1 Types of Deep Foundations. 54
2.2 Types of Piles 54
2.2.2 Precast concrete piles (including prestressed piles)............. 54


4.1.2 Presumptive bearing capacities of soils and rocks...... 62
4.1.3 Rational methods of estimating pile bearing capacities....... 62

-' 70
fi;i'å'"1*ätffi*1':::'*;:i:l:::..''........'............'................''...:::::::::::::::::::::::...'..'.............. 70
5.3 Combined Axial Loads and Bending Moments....... ....................... 86
5.3. I Estimation of bending moment in a single pile................. 86
5.3.2 Estimation of bending moments in piles within pile groups........... 87
5.3.3 Structural capacity of piles subjected to axial load and bending......... 87
APPENDIX I Secr¡oN Pnopenrles on Pnr,srnessED CoNcRETe, Sreer-H AND PrpE Prr-es............- 93
Appr,Nplx 2 Ãxtan nNo MoveNT CApAcrrrES o¡ Pll¡s....... 98
AppeNoIx 3 Connr,leuoNs FoR Estrprar¡Nc rue FnrcrroN ANGLE o¡ Snxos rnov SpT Br-ow-CouNrs eNn CoNe

Appe,Nprx 4 EcceNrnrcrry Fe,crons ron DnlveN Prr-es 106

RereneNc¡s 108
Norerlo¡¡s euo Sytr¿goLs 110
54 PART 2



Piles are used to support many bridges, buildings, and--'bther Load factor design has been incorporatpd in the American Asso-
structures. The primary function of these foundations is to trâns- ciation of State Highway and Transportation Offrcials
mit loads to the ground safely and to avoid excessive settlements (AASHTO) specifications for design of bridge suPerstructures
or lateral movements. Piles are especially useful where underþ- since the mid-1970s. Bridge engineers who use LFD for the
ing layers include weak or compressible strata. superstructure must deveþ two sets of loads--<ne for the de-
The purpose ofthis manual is to draw together practical proce- sign of the superstructure and another for the design of the
dures for the design of pile foundations. The theoretical and foundations @arker et al., 1988). Development of load factor
empirical procedures described provide methods suitable for de- design procedures for bridge foundations will make this duplica-
sign ofsingle piles and pile groups lhat are subjected to vertical tion of effort unnecessary.
and horizontal loads. In the sections that follow, a brief description of various types
The design procedures presented in this manual incorporate of deep foundations and piles is given in Chapter 2. Chapter 3
the concepts of load factor design, or LFD' The LFD approach discusses the design requirements and the factors influencing the
provides a logical method of dealing with uncertainties of compo- safety of pile foundations in bridges, Chapter 4 considers axial
nent loads, strength and behavior, and for incorporating suitable loading ofpiles, and Chapter 5 presents a new approach for the
margins of safety. LFD and other procedures similar in format design of laterally loaded piles. Design examples are presented
are being used with increasing frequency in civil engineering. in the concluding sections of the design procedures.



2.1 TYPES OF DEEP FOUNDATIONS 2.2.1 T¡mber P¡les

Deep foundations can be described as columnar elements in Timber piles are straight and slender sections of tree trunks
the soil which transfer the loads from a superstructure (such as with their branches removed. The lumber should be straight-
a bridge or a building) into the soil or rock. Deep foundations grained with no defects, and the taper should be uniform.
must be able to support axial, horizontal, and uplift loads effec- Timber piles projecting above the groundwater must be treated
tively. with preservatives to retard deterioration. The bark should be
Deep foundations cân be divided into two classes: (1) piles that removed because it reduces the depth of impregnation of the
are installed by driving and (2) drilled shafts that are installed by preservative.
placing concrete in drilled holes. Advantages: (l) They are light and therefore easy to handle.
Driven piles can be subdivided into two categories: (1) dis- (2) They have a high strength to weight ratio. (3) They are
placement piles, which have solid sections or hollow sections resistant to decay when placed below the groundwater table.
with a closed end (a relatively large volume of soil is displaced Disadvantages: (1) They have relatively low structural capacit-
by the pile during penetration); and (2) nondisplacement piles, ies. (2) They are vulnerable to damage during driving through
which have relatively small cross-sectional areas, such as H piles hard soil. (3) They are vulnerable to decay when placed above
and open-ended pipe piles that do not plug. the groundwater table or in a splash zone. (4) They are difÏicult
This manual discusses the design aspects of displacement and to splice.
nondisplacement piles. The design of drilled shafts is dealt with
separately in Part 4.

2.2.2 Precast Concrete P¡les (lncluding

2,2 TYPES OF PILES Prestressed Piles)

Figure 2.1 (Carsln,-l9þshows typical maximum lengths Precast concrete piles are long and slender units of reinforced
and loadings lrequéntly used il¡ design for various types of piles. concrete with square, circular, or octagonal cross sections. Pre-
The advantages and disadvantÞ'ges of each type of pile are dis- stress can be applied to precast concrete piles to achieve higher
cussed in the following sections. strength to weight ratio.

H- beom cyl¡nder
Cosl'in-ploc€ Cost-¡n-shell Precosl Pipe pile p ile pile
Wood no shell Pipe pile concrele f¡ I led
p ¡te no fill

Figure 2.1. Summary of approxi-

møte maximum lengths of piles
and unfactored loadings fre-
^.,^-tr,. :- øCtaért,
4òc4 ¿tL )^^:^- / / 1¿^-
tøctL..! l^Jaef
Carson, 1965)

Advantages: (1) They have relatively large axial capacities. (2) Advantages: (l) They are light and not easily damaged during
The concrete mix can be designed for chemically aggressive handling. (2) They can be spliced easily. (3) Pipe sections are
ground or marine environments. (3) They can withstand hard available in a variety ofsizes. (4) They have relatively high axial
driving. (4) Concrete piles can be prestressed. This results in a capacities and high resistance to buckling. (5) Closed end pipe
pile section with a higher strength to weight ratio. Prestressing piles can be easily inspected for deviations from the intended
offers an additional advantage in that it closes up cracks that are alignment. (6) The quality of steel and wall thickness can be
caused during driving and handling. strategically varied with depth according to the severity of the
Disadvantages: (l) They are susceptible to damage during han- loads and bending moments anticipated along the pile.
dling and driving. (2) It is diff¡cult and costly to cut off excess Disadvantage: (1) They are vulnerable to corrosion if unpro-
length or splice more length after driving. tected.

2.2.3 Steel-H Piles 2.2.5 Other Pile Types

H piles are made of steel, rolled into the shape of an H. They Two other types of piles commonly used include cast-in-place
have two flanges connected by a web. The flange width is usually concrete piles and composite piles.
at least 85 percent of the depth of the pile section so that the pile Cast-in-place concrete piles are constructed by first driving a
is strong along its weak axis (Teng, 1962). steel shell into the ground. Driving with the aid of a mandrel
Advantages: (l) Steel-H piles are robust and light. (2) They inserted in the shell is optional. A reinforcing cage is then low-
can be easily spliced. (3) They are available in a variety ofsizes. ered into the shell, after which concrete is poured. The shell is
(4) They have high axial capacities and good resistance to buck- withdrawn as the concrete is poured in the case ofan open ended
ling. (5) They can withstand hard driving and are useful for shell, or it may be left in the ground.
penetrating hard layers and even soft rock. (6) Only a small Steel shells are either uniform or tapered in cross section.
volume of soil is displaced during driving of H piles. Therefore, Tapered shells provide a higher shaft resistance for piles in clay
they are preferred in groups where the piles are closely spaced, (Teng, 1962). Shells that are withdrawn can be reused. Another
and where undesirable ground heave and lateral displacements advantage of cast-in-place piles is that the alignment of the shell
of the soil are anticipated. can be inspected before the concrete is poured.
Disadvantages: (l) They are susceptible to corrosion if unpro- Composite piles are combinations of different types of piles or
tected. (2) End bearing resistance of unplugged H piles is rela- drilled shafts; for example, a steel-H pile "stinger" placed on the
tively small because ofits small cross-sectional area. (3) Steel-H end of a prestressed concrete pile. They are used to circumvent
piles are easily deflected by hard sloping layers and by under- diffrculties arising due to the site or ground conditions. The
ground obstructions. structural capacity ofthe pile is governed by the weakest material
used. Good quality joints of two different pile materials must be
ensured during construction.
2.2.4 Steel Pipe Piles

Steel pipe piles may be driven with either open or closed ends. 2.3 FACTORS GOVERNING THE CHOICE OF PILES
They may be unfrlled or filled with concrete. Unhlled open end
pipe piles can be used instead of closed end ones if greater The advantages and disadvantages of the various types of piles
penetration depths are desired because the soil inside can be listed in the preceding sections merit consideration during pile
removed during driving. selection. The following eight factors govern the choice of the
56 PART 2

pile typer (1) structural strength of the pile, (2) durability, (3) strata, (6) ground displacement during driving, (7) availability,
ease of handling; (4) ease of splicing, (5) penetrability into hard and (8) cost.

cn¡,vren 3


The simplest and most economical type of foundation is the 3.2 LOAD FACTORS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS
spread footing. However, spread footings are not always suitable.
For instance, when a structure is undedain by soft clay or loose Loads acting on bridge superstructures include one or more
sand or is subject to scour, pile foundations may be a better of the following: dead load, live and impact loads, thrust due to
alternative. earth pressures, buoyancy, wind load, longitudinal and centrifu-
Pile foundations must be capable of transmitting the loads to gal forces caused by moving vehicles, earthquake loads, stre4m
the soil without reaching a "limit state". A limit state is reached and ice flow forces, and forces induced by changes in the dimen-
when the structure no longer fulfills its design requirements. sions of the structure, such as shrinkage and temperature effects.
There are two types of limit states: (l) Ãn ultimate limit state ' One difference between the loads acting on the superstructure
corregponds to the maximum load carrying capacity of the foun- and those that act on the foundation is that impact loads are
dation. This may be reached through either structural or soil usually assumed to be fully dissipated before reaching the foun-
failure. An ultimate limit state corresponds to complete collapse. dation (exceptions are pile bent piers and integral abutments
(2) A. seniceability limit stafe corresponds to loss of serviceabil- where the foundation should be designed to carry the impact
ity, and occurs before collapse. A serviceability limit state in- loads). The load combinations and load factors for the design of
volves unacceptable deformations or undesirable damage levels. the superstructure, as given in the 1989 AASHTO specific¿tions,
This may be reached through excessive differential or total settle- can be used for the design of foundations as follows:
ments, excessive lateral displacements, or structural deteriora-
tion of the piles. Total Load : TIß'D + ßtL + P.CF + BEE +
ÉrB * B'FSF + É*W t É¡y¡WL
+BLFLFfÊn(R+S+T)+ e.2.t)
In load factor design (LFD), it is recognized that loads and
resistances are probabilistic and not deterministic in nature.Dif- where y :
load factor (see Tables 3.1 and3.2); É :
ferent types and magnitudes ofloads have varying probabilities (see Tables 3.1 and 3.2); D : dead load; L : live load; E :
ofoccurrence. In order to account for their differing probabilities earth pressure; B : buoyancyi W : wind load; WL : wind
ofoccurrence, each load component is amplified by a load factor, load on live load, 100 pounds per linear ft; LF : longitudinal
the value of which depends on the level of uncertainty of the force from live load; CF : centrifugal force; R: rib shortening;
load component. S : shrinkage; T: temperature; EQ : earthquake; SF :
The factored loads are compared to the design strengths or stream flow pressure; and ICE :
ice pressure.
resistances. The design resistances are obtained by multiplying The load combinations considered by AASHTO are given in
nominal values of resistance by performance factors, usually Table 3.1. Each line in the table, designated by loading group
denoted as þ. The objective of design is to ensure that the design numbers I through IX, gives the values of the load factors, 7,
resistance is greater than or equal to the sum of the factored and the coefficients B that govern the contributions to the total
loads, i.e., load. For example, in group (load combination) I, total load :
1.3(D +t.67Ln+ CF + pEE + B + SF).
óR > )yiQi (3. 1. 1) Loading groups I, II, and III usually apply to the design of
the superstructures and substructures; groups IV, V, and VI
where þ : performance factor, R : resistance corresponding apply usually to the design of arches and frames; and groups
to the limit state considered, Qi : load effect due to load compo- VII, VIII, and IX apply usually to the design of substruc-
nent i, and 7, : load factor for load component i. tures (Heins and Firmage, 1979). Column 14 of Table 3.2 gives
Various combinations of loads are considered in design to the percentage increase in allowable stresses permitted in the
ensure that the structure and foundation will have sufftcient load combinations, and is mainly used in working stress design.
capacity to resist all of the types of loading to which it may be The increase in allowable stresses accounts for the fact that the
subjected during its life. This manual uses the load factors and probability of the load components reaching their maximum
load combinations described in the 1989 AASHTO specifications values simultaneously varies from one load combination to an-
for the design of bridges. other.

T¡ble 3.1. Table of coefficients of y and B for ultimate limit states. Tsble 3.2. Tsble of coefficients of 7 and p for serviceability limit states.
(After AASHTO, 1989) (After A.AS[ÍTO, 1989)
col,No. 2 3À 4 5 6 7 9 t0 t1 I3 Col.No. I z 3 3À 4 5 6 7 a 9 I 11 I L3

É-FÀqtoRs ,-FÀefoRs
GROUP 7 (Lrr) Lrr ) CF E B sl w WI LF t+s EC ICE GROUP 1 D (I,fr) I*I) r CF E B s H ¡{t LI R+S+1 E( TC z
I 1.3 rf, l-67 0 1 ÊE t 0 0 o 0 o I 1 I I 0 1 þB 1 I 0 0 0 0 o o oo
IA 1.3
2.2 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IÀ 1 1 2 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 50
rB t-3 ,E o 1 1 9E 1 I 0 0 o o 0 IB 1 1 o 1 êt, 1 1 0 0 0 0 o o

II t,3 ¡f, o 0 0 þE 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 TI 1 1 0 0 o I 1 1 1 0 o 0 0 0 t25

III 1.3 rc I o ÉE I I 3 1 0 0 o rrr 1 1 I 0 I þe I 1 .3 I 1 o 0 0 .25
IV 1.3 ¡D t 0 I Êt 1 1 0 0 t 0 o IV I I 1 0 PE I I 0 o 0 1 0 0 .25
t.2 rD o 0 0 ÊE 1 I 1 0 1 o o v 1 I 0 0 o I 1 1 I 0 o I o 0 14 0
VI ,D I 0 1 Ê¿ I 3 I I 0 o vt 1 I 1 0 þe 1 I I I 1 0 0 40
vrr 1-3 ,D o o 0 PE 1 I 0 o 0 0 I o VII 1 I o 0 o I 1 1 0 0 o o I o 133
VII I r.3 D I o I PE 1 I 0 o o 0 0 1 VIII I 1 1 o 1 1 0 o 0 0 0 1 140
IT r.2 ,D o 0 0 Êa t 1 0 0 0 o 1 IX I 1 0 0 o L I 1 t 0 o 0 0 1 150

(HI). - Live load plus inpact for ÀÀSHTO Highway H or HS loading (I+I)n - Live Ioad plus iEpact for ÀÀSHTO Highway H or HS loading
(L+I)Þ - tÍve load plus inpact consistent with the overload (I+I)p - Live load plus iEpact consistent with the overload
- criteria of the operation agency. - criteria of the operation agency.

Ée = 1t3 for lãtêral earth pressure for retaining walls and ** Percentage = Maxinuh Unit Stress loÞeratinq Ratinqì X IOO
rigid frahes. ÀIlowable Basic Unit stress
PE = O.5 for lateral earth pressure whên checking positive
noments in rigid franes.
pE = 1.o for vertical earth pressure t in colunn !.4 is the naxinun pemissible percentage of
pD = I.O for flexural and tension hehbers basic unit stress for load group indicàted
For Colunn Design
No increase in allowable unit stresses shaÌl bê pernitted
ÊO = when chêèking member for mininuh axial load and for menbers or connections carrying ùind l"oads only.
haxinun noment or naxinuh eccentricity
ÉO = f.O when checkihg menber for naxinuh axial load and
nininun noment É¡ = f.O for vertical and lateral loads on a]l structures
except reinforced concrete boxes.
Ée = f.O and O.5 for lateral loads on rigid franes (check
both loadings to see uhich one governs)

3.3 DESIGN REOUIREMENTS FOR PILES moment interaction diagrams. These are envelopes of the combi-
nations of moment and axial load that would cause pile failure.
Piles should be designed for both axial and lateral loading The amount of lateral reinforcement (spiral or ties) required
conditions. The two principal design considerations for piles for prestressed concrete piles is less than the amount required
under axial loads are ultimate load capacity and settlement. The for columns (see PCI, 1985; or Issa and Yuan, 1989).
ultimate load capacity of a pile may be governed either by the
structural capacity of the pile or the bearing capacity of the soil.
Piles that are subjected to lateral loads must also be safe against 3.3.2 Soil Capac¡ty
ultimate failure of the soil or the pile, and excessive lateral
deflections. The ultimate bearing capacity of a pile is the sum of its tip and
shaft capacities. During failure, the shear stress at the interface of
the pile and soil reaches a limiting value. Piles are usually driven
3.3.1 Structural Capac¡ty in groups, and the most important consideration is the capacity
of the pile group. This is usually taken as the minimum of two
Axially loaded piles may fail in compression or by buckling. values: (l) the sum of the individual pile capacities or (2) the
Buckling may occur in long and slender piles that extend for a ultimate capacity of the pile group and the soil between the piles,
portion of their lengths through water or air. Scour of the soil acting as a unit.
around the piles could expose portions of their lengths and in- The ultimate lateral capacity of piles is usually not a control-
crease the likelihood of buckling. ling factor in the design of piles to resist lateral loads. The
A pile will fail in compression when the loads exceed the governing criterion in the lateral load design is usually either the
structural or soil capacity. The structural capacity of the pile is maximum tolerable deflection or the structural capacity of the
usually greater than the ultimate soil capacity except when the piles.
pile bears on sound rock. Nevertheless, the adequacy ofthe pile
against structural failure must always be checked. The tensile
capacity of piles should also be checked when the piles are subject 3.3.3 Movement
to uplift loads.
Laterally loaded piles will fail in flexure if the induced bending Horizont¿l movements in buildings are caused by wind loads,
moment exceeds the moment capacity of the pile. The structural earth pressures, and earthquakes. Horizontal movements occur
capacity of the pile is dependent on both the moment and axial at bridge abutments and piers because of lateral forces from
load. The structural adequacy of piles is checked using load- earth pressure, wind loads, stream flow forces, braking forces of
58 PART 2

vehicles, and earthquakes. Lateral movements of buildings must distribution can be calculated more accurately through iterative
be limited to prevent architectural and structural damage. Lat- procedures using a wave equation solver called CAPWAP (Hol-
eral movements of abutments and piers must be limited to pre- loway, 1978). The PDA requires skilled personnel.
vent damage to bearings and expansion joints (functional and Wave equation analyses combined with PDA measurements
structural damage), and poor ride quality. provide an effective means ofassessing stresses induced in piles
Excessive movements of pile foundations supporting bridges during driving. They can be used effectively in the field as a
may lead to discontinuities in the slope of the riding surface, means of checking the ultimate capacities of piles estimated using
damage to the bridge superstructure, jamming of bearings and static methods, later described in this manual.
expansionjoints, or even collapse. It is necessary in bridge design
to estimate the maximum settlement and lateral movement antic-
ipated in the foundations and to ensure that they fall within 3.4 PILE SPACING
tolerable limits.
Load tests on instrumented piles have shown that the move- Piles are usually driven at spacings of 2.5 to 4 pile diameters.
ment required to mobilize skin friction in piles is smaller than Close spacings minimize the cost of the pile cap' However, driv-
that required to mobilize end-bearing. The shaft capacity of a ing piles ât close spacings in dense sands and saturated plastic
pile is fully mobilized when the settlement is between 0.1 in. and soils can cause heave or lateral ground displacements that may
0.4 in. (Circeo, 1986). The tip capacity, however, is mobilized damage or cause misalignment of previously driven piles. Close
after the pile settles about I percqnt of its diameter (Kulhawy et spacings may be advantageous with loose sands because they
al., 1983). This is an important design consideration when the become compacted after driving (Teng, 1962).
working load acting on the pile exceeds the shaft resistance. [n
this case, larger settlements are required to mobilize the portion
of the tip resistance that supports the load not carried by skin
Horizontal displacements occur at bridge abutments and piers
because oflateral forces from earth pressure, wind loads, stream
3.5.1 Scour
flow forces, braking forces ofvehicles, and earthquakes. Lateral
movements of abutments and piers must be limited to prevent Scour around bridge foundations can create a severe safety
damage to bearings and expansion joints. If both vertical and hazard. Therefore, bridge foundations should be designed to
horizontal displacements are possible, the horizontal displace- survive the effects of possible scour. Geotechnical analyses of
ment of bridge foundations should be limited to I in. If vertical bridge foundations should be perlormed assuming that the soil
displacements are small, the horizontal displacements should be above the estimated scour line has been removed and is not
limited to 1,5 in. (Moulton et al., 1985). available to provide bearing or lateral support (FHWA' 1988)'
Three possible effects ofscour should be considered in design
(FHIü/A, 1988):

3.3.4 P¡le Driving and lnstallation l. Aggradation and Degradation-aggradation is the deposi-
tion of stream bed material eroded from other portions of a
Piles can be damaged when stresses induced during pile driv- stream; whereas, degradation is the removal of stream bed mate-
ing exceed the structural capacity of the pile. The impact of the rial thereby lowering the bed elevation. Aggradation and degra-
hammer during driving sends a compressive stress wave down dation are long-term effects caused by natural or man-made
the pile. Ifa pile is driven through soil ofhigh resistance into a conditions.
soil oflow resistance, the stress wave is reflected at the pile point, 2. General Scour and Contraction Scour-general scour and
causing tension to develop near the pile tip, and these stresses contraction scour are characterized by the removal of stream
can damage concrete piles. On the other hand, if the pile is driven bed material across the entire width of the stream because of
onto a hard rock, reflection of the stress wave at the pile-rock increasing flow velocities. Flow velocities increase as a result of
interface induces a compression stress at the toe that is twice contraction of the flow channel or change in the downstream
that at the head (Tomlinson, 1987). water surface elevation. One instance when contraction scour
Driving stresses can be estimated using wave equation analy- may occur is when the approach embankment of a bridge en-
ses,which were first developed by Smith (1960). Finite difference ôroaches into the stream.
algorithms that model the pile and the soil by masses, springs, 3. Local Scour-local scour occurs when bed material is re-
dashpots, and plastic resisting elements are used to calculate the moved from a small portion of the width of the stream. Obstruc-
penetration of the pile induced by the hammer blow, and the tions to flow, such as bridge piers and abutments, induce acceler-
stresses in the pile. However, two major uncertainties are in- ation of the flow, causing vortices that wash away the bed
volved in wave equation analyses (Lawton et al., undated): (1) material.
the uncertainty in the actual energy that is imparted by the
hammer, and (2) the uncertainty in the distribution of the soil Scour is usually evaluated for a flood with a return period of
resistance along the pile. about 100 years. The FHWA recommends that the top of the
The pile driving analyzer (PDA) was developed by Goble to pile cap should be located below the depth ofcontraction scour
overcome these shortcomings. Using measured force and acceler- to reduce obstruction to flow and to minimizelocal scour. Also
ations at the pile head, the energy of the hammer imparted a few long piles should be used rather than many short piles'
to the pile can be accurately determined. The soil resistance This results in higher safety against pile failure due to scour.

3.5.2 Deterioration limit st¿tes. Loads due to negative skin friction should be in-
Most piles are made of concrete, steel, or timber. Concrete 3. For stream crossings, determine the water proliles for the
piles may be attacked by deleterious substances in the ground site and the expected depth of scour during flood.
such as organic materials, acids, sulfates, salt, and so on. Abra- 4. Select candidate pile types and pile lengths. Consider the
sion ofconcrete piles can occur ifthe piles are exposed to soils factors described in Section 2 and eliminate all unsatisfactory
being moved by currents and waves, floating debris and ice. High alternatives.
quality concrete and ample cover for the reinforcemeirt provide 5. Make a general economic comparison of the candidate piles
protection against abrasion and corrosion. In an environment and design with the most cost-effective one(s) according to the
rich in sulfates, sulfate resisting cement can be used in the con- steps below.
crete mix. 6. Estimate the axial pile capacity considering both soil and
Steel piles that are exposed along portions of their lengths are structural capacity.
subjected to corrosion when placed in hostile chemical environ- 7. Determine the required number of piles and their spacing
ments, while embedded steel piles corrode at an insignificant rate and locations.
in the absence ofoxygen. The following precautions can be used 8. Estimate the capacity ofthe pile group. Ifthe group capac-
to reduce the rate of corrosion in piles that are exposed along ity is not suffrcient, increase the number of piles or the pile
portions oftheir lengths: (l) Provide additional sacrificial steel spacing.
thickness. (2) P.emove or treat the corrosive soil. (3) provide 9. Check for possible punching of the pile group into any
cathodic protection to the piles, i.e., introduce an electric current weak stratum that may be present beneath the bearing stratum.
towards the piles so that there is no electron loss (corrosion) 10. Determine the tolerable settlement of the pile group and
from the steel piles. (4) Provide a protective coating. estimate its settlement. If the settlement is greater than the toler-
Untreated timber piles projecting above the groundwater table able settlement, increase the length of the piles or the pile spacing
are sutjected to decay caused by alternate cycles of wetting and (see Section 4.2.2).
drying, and attacks by chemicals, fungi, and insects. The rate of ll. Check the uplift capacity of the pile group, if it will be
deterioration can be retarded by using piles treated with creosote subject to uplift loads.
and other chemical solutions. 12. Check the structural capacity of the piles under lateral
13. Determine the tolerable lateral displacement of the pile
3.6 DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR P]LE group and calculate the lateral displacement. If the lateral dis-
FOUNDATIONS placement is greater than the tolerable lateral displacement, in-
crease the number of piles or the pile spacing (see Section
The design of pile foundations involves the following steps: s.2.t.2).
14. Determine whether pile load tests are required to verify
1. Develop a soil profile based on soil borings for the site. the design.
Include details of strength profiles, compressibility characteris-
tics, stress history and geology of the soils, and identify the A summary of the ultimate and serviceability limit states fhat
favorable and unfavorable zones in the subsoil. should be considered during the design stage is given in Table
2. Estimate the loads for the ultimate and the serviceability 3.3.

Table 3.3. Summary of ultimate and

serviceability limit states that must LIMTT STÀTE LIMTT STÀTE
be considered in the design of
pile foundations.
Structural capacity of single x

Bearing capacity of singLe piles

Bearing capacity of Þil-e groups x

Punching into lower weak stratm x

Settlenent of pile groups x

Tensile capacity of piles during x


Uplift capacity of singÌe pit-es x

Structural capacity of piles

under lateral loading

Lateral- novement of pile groups X

when subjected to lateral loads
60 PART 2



Significant advances have been made in recent years in devel- Table 4.1. Performence factors for the ¡ominal sxial structurål cs'
pacity of piles.
oping improved understanding of the behavior of axially loaded
piles. Three limit states may be reached in piles subjected to axial PII,E TYPE PERFORHANCE ECCENTRICITY
loads. These are: (1) structural failure of the pile, (2) bearing
0.75 for splral 0,85 for Fplral
capacity failure of the soil, and (3) excessive settlement. Failure colunns colunns
of the pile or the soil is called an "ultimate limit state" (ULS). Prestressed Concrete PileE
0.70 for tled 0.80 for tied
colunnÊ columns
Excessive settlement, a less drastic occurrence' is called a "ser-
viceability limit state" (SLS). 0.75 for spiral 0.85 for splral
colunns colunn6
Both ultimate and serviceability limit states are addressed in PrecaEt Concrete Pil,es
O.70 for tied o.8o for tl-ed
this section. The structural capacity of piles is discussed first, colunns colunns
followed by the bearing capacity ofsingle piles and pile groups. steel-H Piles o-a5 o.7a
Settlement of pile groups is considered last. steel Pipe PileÊ 0.85 o. 87

Tinber Piles t. zo* 0,82


Davisson et aI. (1983) stated that the nininun factor of,
safely for the structural capacity of tinber piles in
4.1.1 Structural Capac¡ty conprèssion is 1.25. the perfornance factor is greater
tha-n unity since the average load factor for vertical
loads (deäd and live loadsi is greater than the factor of
safety itself.
Axially loaded piles can fail structurally either in compression
or by buckling. Buckling usually does not take place in piles of
"normal dimensions driven through soft soils" (Poulos, 1980).
However, buckling analyses are warranted in long and slender
piles that extend for a portion oftheir lengths through water or
air. Scour around piles increases the likelihood that they may
fail by buckling, and the maximum possible depth of scour must
be considered in design.

4.1. I. I Axial Compression

The axial load in a pile should not exceed the factored axial
structural capacity. The following criterion expresses this fact:

röuPn) ToPo * 7"P" (

where r : eccentricity factor (Table 4.1), +^: performance

factor for the nominal structural capacity (Table 4.1), P, :
nominal structural capacity ofthe pile, Po and P" are the axial
loads due to dead and live loads respectively and yo and y" are
the dead and live load factors. In general, for conditions where
other types of loads may act on piles, the design criterion may
be expressed as:
Figure 4.1. Eccentric loading on a pile group.
þ"Pn > )7tP, (4.r.1.2)

where 7, : load factor for the load i and P¡ : axial load due
y directions. The factored axial load on any pile, Pr,, may be
to load i.
calculated from the following expression (Scott, 1980):
Expressions for the nominal axial pile capacity can be found
in Table 42.1 (in Appendix 2) for steel, timber, prestressed and
precast concrete piles. Values of the performance factor, þu, are
given in Table 4.1.
P^,y : -,[***=*#] (4. 1. 1.3)

The pile carrying the maximum load in an eccentrically loaded

pile group must be checked for structural failure. In Figure 4.1, where x and y are the distances ofthe pile from the centroid in
the factored total vertical load acting on a grouP ofpiles, denoted the x and y directions respectively, and Npu" is the number of
as Pr, acts at a distance e^ ancl e, from the centroid in the x and piles in the group.

For example, consider the pile group shown in Figure 4.1. If Modulus increasing linearly with depth (sands)
P, : 500 tons, ex : 2 ft, ey : I ft, and the pile spacing is 3 ft L*: L, + l.8T (\
center-to-center, the maximum pile load can be determined as
follows: )x2 : 6 (3)z : 54;2yz : 6 (3)z : Sq. where Lu :
unsupported lengh ofpile extending above ground;
The most heavily loaded pile is pile 3, in the fi¡st quadrant: R: o'25 in units
[EeIÉlEJ :
of length; Ep Young's modulus of
P¡ : 500 ll/9 + (2)(3)/54 + (lx3y54l : 139 tons. pile, foicêAengthz; Ip:
moment of iriertia of pile, lengtha; E
Pile number 7 carries a tensile force: P, : 500 U/9 - Q)Q)/ :
soil modulus, foróe,/length2; E, :
675o for clays (Davisson
54 - (lX3)/541 : -27.8 tons. and Robinson, 1965); Su :
undrained shear strength of clays,
Design against tensile failure is considered in Section 4.4. forc'e4engthz; T :
[EolnZnn]o''; nr :
rate of increase of soil
modulus with depth, forie4ength3; nn: E"/z; and z depth. :
Davisson and Robinson's (1965) procedure applies to different Buckling of Pørtially E¡nbedded Piles boundary conditions at the top ofthe pile; the bottom boundary
condition is assumed to be fixed against rotation and translation
Piles that extend above the ground through air or water may at the depth offixity. Selection ofappropriate boundary condi-
buckle when subjected to axial loads, and the possibility ofbuck- tions at the top of the pile depends on the type of structure, the
ling failure may control their structural capacity. In order to fixity of bearings, and the number of rows of piles along the
evaluate the buckling capacity of partially embedded piles, it is lo¡oth o¡¡l u'i,{+fi ^f fh. -ila crn,r¡ Eiarrra á I cf¡n-'c f^".
^ ^6e¡v r,r s¡¡v -^"c¡hl-
necessary to determine at what depth below the ground surface boundary conditions at the top ofthe pile where it connects with
should the pile be assumed to be frxed. Davisson and Robinson the structure, and expressions for the critical buckling load in
(1965) have developed a method for estimating this depth to ideal columns for each case.
fixity. Based on lateral load tests of piles in sand, Alizadeh and
Davisson and Robinson's Procedure. Davisson and Robinson Davisson (1970) found that n¡ is strongly dependent on deflec-
(1965) presented solutions for the buckling loads of partially tion when the lateral deflection is less than 3 percent ofthe pile
embedded piles in terms of an equivalent free standing length. width. At larger deflections, the value of nn becomes almost
The equivalent free standing length is the sum ofthe unsupported independent of the lateral deflection.
pile length above ground, and an additional length to the depth Terzaghi (1955) recommended values of nn that are appro-
to fixity below ground. This depth to fixity is a function of the priate for lateral deflections that are about 5 percent of the pile
flexural stiffness ofthe pile (EoIo) and the soil stiffness. The soil width (Table 4.2). Reese et al. (1974) recommended using values
stiffness can be expressed in terms of a soil modulus (E, , force,/ of no that are between 3 and 4 times larger than Terzaghi's
length2). The soil modulus is usually considered to remain con- recommended values for constructing the initial slope of p-y
stant with depth in clays, and to vary linearly with depth in curves.
granular soils. For analysis of pile buckling, values of nn corresponding to
For long piles, the equivalent free standing length, L"o, can be smaller deflections, on the order of 0.5 percent of the pile width
written as follows: or less, appear to be most appropriate. Evans (1982) showed that
for lateral deflections of this magnitude, it is reasonable to use
Modulus constant with depth (clays) values of nn about 3 times as high as the values recommended
L"q:Lu+1.4R ( by Terzaghi. The two right hand columns of Table 4.2 contain


iE- %î
l Ti
l lr
t".. r",
J r.' r...
1 1 1 1
Figure 4.2. Critical buckling
t 2-to' o
for centrally
with various end
loaded col-
Pa, =7-
-3- ol o

o -
'ct- 4L2
tions. eq eq
62 PART 2

Table 4.2. Coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction (n¡) in lb,/in.3 where Qr,, : tot¿l ultimate bearing capacity of a pile; Q. :
Terzaghí (1955) Reese al. (1974 Recomended ultimate load carried by pile shaft : A"q.r; Qp : ultimate load
carried by pile point : Aogn; A¡ : surface are¿¡ of pile shaft;
)ry or
Ao : area of pile point; % : ultimate unit skin resistance of
Dry or Submerged Subnerged Subnerget
Moist sand Sand {olst sand
piie; qo : ultimate unit point resistance of pile; and \Y : weight
sand iand

of the pile.
ioose I 5 20 30 15
In most cases (with the exception of large concrete piles in
ledium 24 16 60 so 40
bent piers), the weight of the pile is small compared to the other
)ense 65 39 L25 200 100 terms, and is usually disregarded.
The load factor design criterion may be expressed as:

values of nh appropriate for lateral deflections on the order of ÓqQ"r 2 ToPo * 7"Pt (4'l'3'2)
0.5 percent of the pile width.
Group Effects on Buckling Loads. The effect of pile spacing where fo : the performance factor for the ultimate bearing
on the soil modulus has been studied by Prakash (Prakash and capacity of a pile, or in general,
Sharma, 1990). He found that, at pile spacings greater than I
times the pile width, neighboring piles have no effect on the soil öqQur, ) )7¡P¡ (
modulus or buckling capacity. However, at a pile spacing of 3
times the pile width, the effective soil modulus is reduced to 25 where 7, is the load factor for load i and Pr is the axial load due
percent ofthe value applicable to a single pile. For intermediate to load i.
spacings, the modulus values can be estimated by interpolation. One rational method of estimating the bearing capacity of
Design Procedure. Buckling loads for partially embedded free piles in compression is called the "static" approach. Static for-
standing piles can be calculated using the following steps: mulas are based either on classiôal soil mechanics theories or
empirical correlations. These include the a, B, and À methods,
l. Estimate the value of nn (for sands) or E, (for clays) and and methods based on in situ tests such as the cone penetration
calculate the value of T (for sands) or R (for clays). For pile test (CPT) or the standard penetration test (SPT). The a, ß, and
groups, the soil modulus should be reduced to account for the À methods are more suited for piles in cohesive soils, while
effects of neighboring piles as described earlier. the SPT and CPT correlations are better suited for piles in
-t 2. Calculate the equivalent length ofthe pile, L"o, using Eqs. cohesionless soils.
"-t or, whichever is appropriate.
3. Use the appropriate expression from Figure 4.2 to calculate
the buckling load, P"r. Four equations are given in Figure 4.2 Rational Methods to Estimate Skin Frictíon
for four different restraint conditions at the top of the pile.
When piles are driven into saturated clays, the soil around the
After the ideal buckling load has been determined, the safe pile is severely disturbed. Installation induces high pore pres-
design load for the column, considering the effects of end mo- sures in the soil, which dissipate with time. In some cases, after
ments and eccentricity of loading, can be determined using nor- complete consolidation, the shear strength ofthe clay at the pile
mal design procedures for columns and beam columns. interface may be greater than that of the soil prior to driving.
For sensitive clays or stiff overconsolidated clays, the final shear
strength is considerably less than that of the undisturbed soil
4.1,2 Presumptive Bearing Capacities of Soils and (Meyerhof, 1976).

In the absence of suffrcient soil strength data to estimate pile L The a method relates the adhesion between the pile and
the clay to the undrained shear strength of the clay. The ultimate
capacities rationally, bearing capacities of piles may be estimated
unit skin friction, g", can be expressed by:
using presumptive bearing capacities. These values should be
used only as a rough guide to possible capacities. rr¡y'hen used in : dSu
design, presumptive bearing capacities must be substantiated by 9, Ø.1.3.4)
pile load tests or rational methods of analysis based on soil data : :
where Su mean undrained shear strength; cr adhesion factor
from the site.
applied to S".
Presumptive bearing capacities that have been published pre-
Tomlinson (1987) found that the adhesion factor, c', varies
viously are "allowable" values intended foi use in working stress
with the value of the undrained shear strength, S, as shown in
Figure 4.3. Although not shown in the hgure, there is consider-
able scatter around the curves because factors such as pile length,
4.1.3 Rational Methods of Ëstimating Pile Bear¡ng overconsolidation ratio, and coefftcient of lateral earth pressure
Capacities were neglected; all ofthese factors affect the pile capacity. Uncer-
tainty in the undrained shear strength also contributes to the
The ultimate bearing capacity of a pile is the sum of the skin scatter. However, the a-method is used frequently in practice
and point resistances, minus the weight of the pile: because it is simple, and also because no method is available that
fully reflects pile installation and all of the factors involved in
Qu',: Q, + oe - w ( the reconsolidation processes.

Undra¡ned shearing slrenglh Su in ktvm2

50 too r 50 200
- -.-'0A:lels lhon l0o
o t ! rDr:ZOD

roo0 2000 3000 4000 5000

Undra¡ned shearing strenglh Su ¡n lb/ft'z

Undreined shear¡ng strenglh Su ¡n kN/rÉ

50 ro0 r50 200
r¡ I

o.75 -Dx: oreo ler hon 2OD *P exceeds limit I Cí

g ¡__J__

l-r -lo6= roo

tooo eooo 3000 4000
Undrained shearing strenglh Su in fbít2
Undrained shearing skengrth S, in ktUÍf
50 roo
roo r50
r50 ?ol
o t25to2050
õ ocR
Figure 4.4. B versus OCRforfull dßplacement piles. (After Esrig
Þ and Kirby, 1979)

o rooo 2000 3000 4000 5000

Undraíned shearing strength Su in lb/fl'?

Figure 4.3. Design cumes for adhesion factors þr piles driven into
clay soils. (After Tomlinson, 1987) The p-method has been found to work best for piles in nor-
mally consolidated and lightly overconsolidated clays. The
method tends to overpredict skin friction of piles in heavily
overconsolidated soils. Esrig and Kirby suggested that for heav-
ily overconsolidated clays, the value ofB should not exceed 2.
The adhesion factor also depends on the type of soil above the 3. Vijayvergiya and Focht (1972) recognizedthat the passive
cohesive bearing stratum (Figure 4.3). Soil from the upper layers lateral earth pressure (øn' : ø"' * 2Sr) and the ultimate unit
may be carried down with the pile into the clay bearing stratum. skin friction of a pile are related. They proposed the following
Bringing down soft clay will tend to reduce adhesion, while relationship:
dragdown of cohesionless soil will increase adhesion in the lower
cohesive stratum. gr:À(cr"'+2S") (
2. The B-method is an effective stress method for predicting
skin friction of piles. The ultimate unit skin friction, q", is related where À is an empirical coefficient shown in Figure 4.5. The
to the effective stresses in the ground as follows: value of À decreases with pile length and was found empirically
by examining the results of load tests on steel pipe piles.
qs : oh'tanô : K tanô or,' : B cu' (

where øn' and ø"' are the horizontal and vertical effective Rational Methods to Estimate Tip (or Toe)
ofshearing resistance between
stresses respectively, ô is the angle Resistance
the soil and the pile, K is the coeffrcient of lateral earth pressure,
and B equals Ktanô. The following expression for the ultimate bearing capacity of
The value of the parameter K is very important. Kulhawy et a strip footing on the ground surface has been derived using the
al. (1983) noted that "the coeffrcient, K, is a function of the concepts of plasticity theory (Kulhawy et al., 1983):
original in situ horizontal stresses and the stress changes caused
in response to construction, Ioading and time." When a pile is qp : cN, * 0.5y'DN" * cr"'No (
first driven into the ground, the displaced soil exerts horizontal
stresses on the pile. Excess pore pressures are generated and, where c : cohesion of soil below the base of the footing; cr"' :
thus, ø,' is low, giving a high initial K value. As pore pressure vertical effective stress at the base of the footing; 7' : effective
dissipates, K changes with time. Depending on the overconsoli- unit weight of soil below the base of the footing; D : width of
dation ratio (OCR), the value of K may be higher or lower than the footing; and N", No, N, : bearing capacity factors which
the at-rest coeffrcient of lateral earth pressure, Ç. Esrig and are related to the friction angle of the soil.
Kirby (1979) developed the relationship between p and OCR The tip resistance of a pile point can also be treated as a
that is shown in Figure 4.4. bearing capacity problem. Equation can be modified to
64 r¡,nr 2

À Qo : 9SoAo (4. r.3.1l)


where S, is the undrained shear strength ofthe clay near the pile
2A^ base.
2. In coarse-grained, cohesionless soils such as sands, c : 0,

ô38 '.,1a) ;

tgfva \l9c The friction angle of sands can be correlated to the standard
penetration test blow-count and the cone penetration resistance,
{201 as described in Appendix 3. For piles with large depth to width
2tc ratios, the second term of Eq. is small compared to the
,"rt ,227 third term. For instance, where the depth to width ratio is be-
370 ,J.:. tween 4 and 5, the second term is less than l0 percent of the
¡,1 ro
.75 L6 -l third term (Kulhawy et al., 1983). Thus, the drained ultimate
llj tip resistance may be approximated as follows:
: ø"'Nosndoro (4.1.3.t2)
6 roo 3rf
"t::' tgmN
where Nosodoro : bearing capacity factor obtained from Figure
l-.35 M o ffi 4.6 (Kulhawy et al., 1983). The rigidity index, a term which
filzs I ouÍfr o ffi
rcm sÈl ô rcx accounts for soil deformability and the variation ofthe bearing
È ÉmE O ffiÐ
srNoRÉ I rcrrNN capacity factor with depth, is defined by Vesic (1975) as follows:
5 t€t oRrNt a &Esû
v€ìE€ I FM
0- r5 uuru É bM
150 Wu O uRrcH E"
32 Etrn o Èru
o ol3 sFNs
g8Naugc 9
t) sæo
I.: 2 (l + y")a,'tanþ'
t2 BUNtr tl ps
where E" : Young's modulus of the soil, ,¿ : Poisson's ratio
ofthe soil, cr"' : vertical effective stress measured at a depth of


Figure 4.5. lt cofficient þr driven pipe piles. (After Vijayvergiya I

and Focht, 1972) I
t .5oo

t' .' 't?5o
,'t' ¿.too
include shape and depth effects ofthe pile and rigidity of the soil ,/ ." .5o
t00 /- .t -.'
(Kulhawy et al., 1983): t¿
f. ¿a aa ,a.-u
,/r' ttt .t'
: cN"s"d"r, f 0.57'DNysydrrt * cru'Nosodoro ( z
9 ,f.ttt .t -ttt ¿t-t'? I
/ .'.
where s", sr, and so are shape factors; d", d", and do are depth
-/'..',.t ..' I

'. .t ... r. J
factors; and r", r" and ro are factors that take into account the ,fl/t,...t . ¿.
rigidity of the soil. 'a ,ftt'
ta a -t'
ó f a a
a/ a
LFor piles in saturated clay with a zero friction angle and c rO ,/' ,'
: N7 : 0, Nosodor* : l, and N"s"d"r" : 9 for piles with
So, t/

depth to width ratios greater than 4 (Skempton, l95l). Equation, for the unit tip capacity thus reduces to:

* a, t
Qo: 9So (4.1.3.e)

or alternatively, the ultimate tip capacity can be expressed as:

Qo:9SuAo*cruAu (4.1.3. 10) oro?o304050

ADgle ol friclion. { lOegrees¡
The quantity cr,Ao is comparable in magnitude to the weight of
the pile, W. Therefore, the weight of the pile, W, may be ne- Figure 4.6. Modified N, bearíng capacity factor for deep fou:nda-
glected in Eq. if the ultimate tip capacity is written as: tions. (After Kulhawy et al., 1983)

D,/2 below the base of the pile, and þ' :

effective friction angle o.5
of the soil. Kulhawy et al. (1983) approximated the rigidity index
for sands as follows:

30 -o
For T:-
loose sands
^r (o"')o'stanó'
( t¿Þòz
110 o.oo?
For dense sands I:-
'r (ø"')o.stanþ'
o 0.005-
where øu' is in tsf. ._J

o.2 0.010 Tip Resistance of Piles Dríven to Rock 0.020

The ultimate unit end-bearing capacity, go, of piles driven to

rock may be estimated from the uniaxial compression strength
as follows (Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 1985):

9o : 3cr"K.od (4.1.3. l6)

o o.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 t.o t.2 t.4 t.6 t.8 2.O
where ø" : average uniaxial compression strength of the rock Ratþ sd/Ds
core; Kro : dimensionless bearing capacity coeffrcient (Figure
4.7) and Figure 4.7. Bearing capacity coefJicient, K"o. (After Canadian
Foundation Engineering Manual, 1985)

3 * s,/D
sP 10[ + 300tn,/sn]o'5

: for which N"o* : average corrected SPT-N value near the pile
d dimensionless depth factor : t + 0.4Hs,/D" I 3.4; so :
spacing of discontinuities; to : width of discontinuities; D :
pile width; H. : depth of embedment of pile socketed into rock
: 0 for piles resting on top of bedrock; and D. : diameter of N"o,, : [0.77 log,o (20lø,')] N (
This method is not applicable to soft stratihed rocks, such as
N measured SPT-N value and cru' effective vertical stress :
shale or limestone. When this method is applicable, the rocks
at the pile tip, in tons,/ftz; D :
pile width or diameter and q, :
limiting point resistance, in tons per square foot;
are usually so sound that the structural capacity will govern the
design (Fellenius et al., 1989). This method is applicable only if
9t : 4N"o* for sands (
sd > I ft, td < 0.25 in. for unfilled discontinuities or td < I in.
for discontinuities frlled with soil or rock debris, and D > I ft.
gl : 3N"o,, for nonplastic silt (

The rationale behind Eq. is that the ultimate unit tip In Situ Test Methods capacity in a cohesionless stratum increases linearly with the
embedment ratio (DblD) up to a critical embedment ratio of l0
In situ tests are widely used in cohesionless soils because for sands, or 7.5 for silts. At higher embedment ratios, the tip
obtaining good quality samples of cohesionless soils is very difli- capacity remains constant at its limiting value, q,.
cult. In situ test parameters may be used to estimate the tip In bearing strata with highly varying blow counts, Meyerhof
resistance and skin friction of piles. There are two frequently (1976) proposed that the average blow count be obt¿ined within
used in situ test methods for predicting pite capacity. These the range of depth from 4 pile diameters above to I pile diameter
are the standard penetration test (SPT) method and the cone below the tip.
penetration test (CPT) method: Piles bearing on a firm stratum overlying a weaker layer may
punch into the lower stratum as shown in Figure 4.8. Meyerhof
l. SPT method-Meyerhof (1976) correlated the tip capacity (1976) suggested that if the distance between the pile tip and the
and shaft resistance of piles with the SPT blow count. This weak deposit, H, is less than 10 pile diameters, the ultimate point
method applies only to sands and nonplastic silts. resistance will be:
The ultimate unit tip resistance for piles, 9o (in tons per square
foot) driven to a depth Do into a cohesionlèss soil stratum can
*, -=r-
(qr - qJH
be approximated by: qp: qo a o, (

o.4NcorrDb where q, is the limiting unit tip resist¿nce in the upper stratum
9o: --5, s- q' (4.1.3. l 8)
and qo is the limiting unit tip resistance in the lower stratum.
66 PART 2

where Q. : ultimate skin friction capacity of the pile; Kr," :

correction factors (Ç for clays and K. for sands-see Figure
4.10); L¡ : depth to point considered; D : pile width or diame-
ter; f. : unit local sleeve friction resistance from CPT at the
ïN point considered; a" : pile perimeter; andZ : total embedded
pile length.
The advantages of using this method is that it (1) corrects for

the type of cone penetrometer used (electrical versus mechani-
cal), Q) accounts for the material of the pile, (3) considers the
soil type, and (a) coffects for depth of pile embedment.
I Pile Load Tests

Pile load tests provide the best means of evaluating ultimate

load capacities, and should be used whenever possible to verify
Fígure 4.8. Relation between ultimate point resistance of pile capacities estimated by means of the methods described earlier.
and depth in thin sand layer overlying weak soil. The procedure for the quick load test method is described in
ASTM Dll43. It is a short duration test and can usually be
completed in I to 4 hours. The test pile is generally loaded to
200 percent of the design load unless it fails at a lower load.
Other load test procedures on piles include the slow maintained
The skin friction of piles in cohesionless soils may be estimated
load test, the constant rate of penetration test (ASTM Dll43),
using the following equation (Meyerhof, 1976):
and the tensile (or uplift) test method (ASTM D3689). The slow
maintained load test is a long duration test that usually lasts 70
g. : ñ for driven displacement piles ( hours or longer. The test pile is loaded to 20O percent of the
SO, design load unless it fails at a lower load.
q Davisson's graphical procedure provides a logical procedure

9, : ñ for nondisplacement piles (e.g., steel-H piles)

for defining a conservative (lower bound) ultimate failure load.
The method is shown in Figure 4.11 (NAVFAC, 1982).

where q. :
unit skin friction for driven piles measured, in tsf;
N: average (uncorrected) SPT blow count along the pile shaft.
4. 1.3.6 Nondisplacement Piles
An alternate method of predicting pile capacities using SPT
Steel-H piles can fail in two ways. First, they can become
blow counts was proposed by Briaud and Tucker (1984). Their
plugged when the soil between the flanges adheres fully to the
method is more rational in that it considers residual stresses in
pile. The effective area of the pile in this case is the area of the
the pile after driving.
enveloping rectangle rather than the area ofthe steel-H section.
2. CPT method-The cone penetration test yields two useful
parameters that can be applied to pile capacity prediction: (l)
In this case, the skin friction is the sum of the adhesion at the
flanges (e.g., cSu for saturated clays) and the full soil-to-soil
the cone penetration resistance, q", which is related to the tip
shearing resistance (e.9., S, for saturated clays) along both sides
capacity of piles, and (2) sleeve friction, f", which can be used to
estimate the skin friction capacity. Nottingham and Schmert-
ofthe soil plug. The point resistance is calculated using the area
of the enveloping rectangle.
mann (1975) developed the following procedure for estimating
Alternatively, steel-H piles can fail without plugging. In this
pile capacity.
case, the skin friction of the pile is estimated assuming adhesion
Nottingham and Schmertmann (1975) found that Begemann's
procedure gives a good estimation of end bearing capacity in
on the entire perimeter of the steel-H section, and the point
resistance is calculated using the area of the steel-H section.
piles for all soil types. Begemann's procedure for estimating the
Plugging usually occurs when piles are driven in soft to me-
tip resistance, go is outlined in Figure 4.9. The minimum average
dium clays and loose to dense sands. Piles usually do not plug
cone resistance between 0.7 and 4 pile diameters below the eleva-
tion of the pile tip is obtained by a trial and error process,
in medium to very stiff clays and very dense sands (Duncan,
1988). The case that yields the minimum capacity should be used
with the use of the minimum-path rule (see Figure 4.9). The
in design.
minimum-path rule is also used to find the value of cone resist-
Similady, open-ended pipe piles may or may not plug. In a
ance for a distance of eight pile diameters above the tip. The two
plugged pipe pile, the skin friction is calculated assuming adhe-
results are then averaged to give the pile tip resistance.
sion on the outside surface only. The gross area of the pipe
Nottingham and Schmertmann (1975) presented the following
contributes to the end bearing capacity.
equation for computing the ultimate skin friction of piles:
In an unplugged pipe pile, the skin friction is calculated assum-
ing that the soil adheres to both the inside and outside surfaces
: K"..' r8D I (
e" I ) o(rrzao)r"a, * Lr:
l-k: eo
t url of the pile. The point bearing capacity is calculated using the
cross-sectional area of the steel annulus.



%r +9"¿
qcl = Av€rag€ of aII valuec of qç alon6 paÈh a-b-c ov.r a dirtrncc of yD bclor th€ ptl€ tlp. Su¡n qc
values measured at each el.vaiion 1n tho dorr¡ward path a-b. Srm q6 valucs at evory slâvatlon
where a conê r€sistance reading ls made, along Èhe upward paÈh b-c, but at each elevation take
thê mtnimum of (i) ¿he q6 value ât that elevatlon or (ii) the lovtest qc valu€ beÈween tha¿
elevation and the elevation of point b. This method of dete¡mining qg 1s called bhe "minimum
path" rule. compute qç1 for y-values from 0.7 to 4.0 and use the minimum qs1 value obùained.

qcz = Average ![ç ovê! a distance of 8D above the pile tip (path c-e). Use the minimum path rule as
for path b-c in the qcl compuLations. Ignore any very extreme peaks or depressions (such as
,,x,, in Lhe diagram above) if thê soil is a sand, buL include thes€ ln miniûlun path if the soil
is a clay.
Figure 4.9. Pile end-bearing computation procedure after Begemann. (After Nottingham and Schmertmann' 1975)
68 PART 2

Nottingham's (1975) factors Kr and Kc For a pile group of width X, length Y, and depth Z (Figure
4.12), the bearing capacity for block failure is given by:
f. in þrf/ønz or ld

t.o o r.o 2.o Q, : (2X + 2Y)zS, + XYNcSu Ø.2.1.2)

\ where So : average undrained shear strength along the depth

r.0 ofpenetration ofthe piles; So : undrained shear strength at the
ô base ofthe group; and,
ñI K
CE 0.5
\ N" : + o.zxm( +
5(1 A.2z/X)for z/X < 2.5 (

Ë N":7.5(1 +0.2XtY) for Z/X > 2.5 (

Ifthe pile cap is not in firm contact with the ground and the
o clay is normally or slightly overconsolidated or is sensitive, the
o- individual pile capacity must be multiplied by an effrciency fac-
tor, 4, where n : 0.7 for a pile spacing of 3D and 4 : 1.0 for
Concrete and
wood piles
a pile spacing of 6D. The value of 4 may be linearly interpolated
Steel piles for intermediate spacings. The group capacity is then calculated
as the minimum of the sum of the individual pile capacities
Use 0.8 f¡ kom Begemann
ïp if in hþh OCR Crays multiplied by 4 or the bearing capacity for block failure as
Begemann ïp (Me(flan¡cal) described above.
steel If the clay is overconsolidated and insensitive, the group
--- Concrete should be treated as ifthe cap were in contact with the ground,
-fìp (Eleclrbâl) The bearing capacity of a pile group containing batter piles
Fugo may be estimated by treating the batter piles as vertical piles.
The performance factors for the group capacity calculated
using the sum of the individual capacities are the same as those
For Ks Wood use .l.25 Ks Steel for the single pile capacity. A separate performance factor must
q-q be used for the block failure mechanism (see Table 4.3).
Figure 4.10. Shaft fríction correctíon factors. (After Nottingham
and Schmertmann, 1975)

4.2.2 Settlement

Settlement of piles in sand and point bearing piles driven to

rock are usually small, and they occur fairly rapidly. However,
4.2.1 Bearing Capacity piles in clay may consolidate over a long period of time. The
loads causing settlement of pile groups are assumed to act on an
The design requirements for pile groups are similar to those equivalent footing located at two-thirds of the depth of em-
for single piles, i.e., bedment of the piles in the layer which provides support (Duncan
and Buchignani,1976), as shown in Figure 4.13.
órQ, t group load effect (4.2.t.1) In estimating settlements of piles in clay, only unfactored
permanent loads are considered. However, unfactored live loads
where þ, : performance factor for pile group capacity (see must be added to the permanent loads when considering settle-
Table 4.3) and Q, : pile group capacity. ment of piles in granular soil.
The ultimate bearing capacity of a pile group in sand is esti- Cohesionless ,Sol. Meyerhof related the settlement of a pile
mated by summing capacities of all the piles in the group. The group (p in inches) to the SPT blow count of the soil as follows:
group effrciency, defined as the ratio of the ultimate load capacity
of the pile group to the sum of the ultimate capacities of the zqJx I
individual piles, is conservatively taken as unity. Evaluation of N"o.,
group capacity of piles in cohesionless soil is the same for the
case when the pile cap is, and is not, in contact with the ground. where q : net foundation pressure (including any negative skin
For pile groups in cohesive soil, the presence and contact of friction per unit area), in tons/ftz applied at 2Do/3 (see Figure
the pile cap with the ground surface must be considered. Pile a. l3); X : width of pile group, in ft; I : influence factor of the
groups in clay with the cap in firm contact with the ground may effective group embedment
fail as a unit consisting ofthe piles and the block ofsoil contained
within the piles, and the ultimate bearing capacity in this case I:1-D'l8X>0.5 (
may be taken as the minimum of the following two values: (1)
the sum of the individual pile capacities, or (2) the bearing D' : effective depth : 2D,o/3; N"or. : average corrected pene-
capacity for block failure of the group. tration resistance within the seat of settlement (approximately

Applied Load (tons)

o t4o t6O

<*'./ ¡
Elastic compression of pile

c 0.4 \ \- {_ I lo.=ffi
o '---
E 0.6
o Faílurr uillg¡t9l ç \
() :
i5 o.8

\- R.

(l, Tot aldisplacement .


1.4 -l î


1. Calcul¡te oltr¿lc coûItrcrtlon of plh (69) rhon concldercd rs r free colr:nn:r by:

Q - to¡t load, lbr

QZ ¿ - pllc lcngth, ln. (for cnd-beartng p!,le)
Ap Ep Ap - cros¡-sccelonal ¡re¡ of pile maLerial, sq in
Ep - Young's Modulus for ptlc maÈerial, psl

Z' DetcrEln. ac¡lc¡ of ploÈ ruch lhâL alopo of pile claaelc cdrpr6s3lon lin€ is
approxloately 20'.

3. PloÈ pile.h€rd totrl dlaplacrornt va. rppllod load.

4. Fallu¡e load Is defincd Êt ¿htÈ load rhlch producoa a dlsplacement, of th€ pil€
hcad cqual Lo:
D Sf - dlsplaceoont aÈ f¡iture, in.
Sf - ¿E + ( .15 + p - pllo dtr¡!.¿.E, in.

5. Plot fallu¡c cllLcrlon ¡s dcscrlbcd in (4), rcprcscnLed as a sLraithL line, parallel

Èo llno of pilc clasÈlc co(lprossion. InL€lsoction of faÍlure criLerion wiLh observed
Ioad deflcctlon curve deflnes failurc load, e¡r¡¿.

6. l{t¡ere obscrved load dlsplaceraenÈ curvc does not inLels€c¿ failurs cri¿erion, Lhe
roarioun tesÈ toad should be taken as Lhe failurc load.
Figure 4.11. Interpretation of pile load test. (After NAI/FAC, 1982)
70 PART 2

--õ' o.oo o o
-r'l o o oo o
\Tì--no o
--q'' o
'ffi Equ¡valent

(o) (b)

Figure 4.13. Location of equivalentfooting. (After Duncan and

Buchignani, 1976)

of piles, the lengths of the piles, or the pile spacing and repeat
step 2.
Figure 4.12. Pile group øcting as block þundation.


Négative skin friction is the downdrag force induced in piles

one pile groUp width below the equivalent footing) as defined in
when the soil around the piles moves downward relative to the
piles. Settlement of the soil around the pile may occur because
The settlerirent of pile groups in silty sand is usually estimated
of placement of fill, groundwater fluctuations, pile-driving in the
to be twice the value found using Eq.
vicinity, and other causes (Poulos and Davis, 1980).
Static cciàe penetration tests may also be used to estimate
*l *r Negative skin friction may be estimated using the rational
settlement of pile groups in cohesionless soils. Meyerhof (1976)
methods discussed in Section 4.1 (the a, B, and À methods). The
related the settlement of a pile group to the average static cone
unit negative skin friction, using the ø method (Ea. a.l.3.a) is
resistance as follows:
given by:

qXI : l)
p:=- ( 9rr oSu (4.3.
and the downdrag load is given by:
where q" : avetage static cone resistance within the seat of
settlement and q, X, and I have been dehned previously. The P.n : q"ra.D. (4.3.2)
units for g, g", and X should be consistent.
Cohesive Soil. The settlement of pile groups in olay occurs over where P.n : downdrag load; a. : pile perimeter; D. : length
a considerablè period of time. The long-Ierm settlement of pile of pile embedded in settling soil.
groups in clay may be calculated using the methods employed
in estimating settlement of shallow foundations. For this pur-
pose, the load carried by a group of friction piles is assumed to 4.3.1 Design Conslderations
be transferred to the soil through an equivalent footing located
at two-thirds the pile depth. Downdrag loads can increase the settlement of pile groups but
The components contributing to the total settlement of a pile they rarely cause capacity problems. Settlement of pile groups
group in clay are: immediate settlement, consolidation settle- should be checked when downdrag loads (unfactored) act to-
ment, and secondary settlement. They can be estimated using gether with dead loads. Temporary live loads and downdrag
the same procedures as used for shallow foundations. loads do not act together. This is because temporary live loads
will compress the pile elastically and cancel or reduce the down-
drag load. When the live load is removed, the pile will rebound
4.2.3 Load Factor Design for Settlement of Plle elastically, thereby restoring the downdrag load.
If the magnitude of the downdrag load exceeds that of the live
load, the structural and soil capacities should be checked for the
The load factor design approach to the settlement of pile dead load plus downdrag. The load factor for the downdrag load
groups requires an estimation of the tolerable settlement. The
is the reciprocal of the performance factor for the ultimate skin
procedure is as follows:
resistance ofthe pile. The following criterion expresses this fact:

l. Determine the tolerable settlement for the pile grouPr Ptol.

2. Estimate the settlement of the pile group, p. If the settle- 0R>yoPn*r*t* (4.3. r. l)
ment is greater than the tolerable settlement, increase the number

where þ :performance factor corresponding to the limit state Settlement Distribut¡on

considered; R : resist¿nce corresponding to the limit st¿te con-


sidered; and þ0. : performance factor for the ultimate skin


resistance of the pile. Pile head

4.3.2 Neutral Plane

The neutral plane is defined as the elevation at which the

settlement of the pile and the settlement of the soil are the same,
as shown in Figure 4.14. Above the neutral plane, the soil loads
the shaft in negative skin friction. Below the neutral plane, the P¡lo toe

pile derives support from the soil. The distribution of the load
and resistance in a pile is shown in Figure 4.14(a). A dead load,
Po, acts at the top of the pile. With increasing depth, the load
on the pile increases because ofnegative skin friction. The total
load acting on the pile (PD + P,J increases accordingly. The
pile resistance is equal to the tip capacity at the toe, Qo, and
Figure 4.14. Calculation of the location of the neutal plane and
increases upwards as the skin friction, Q., increases. This is
the settlement of a pile or a pile group. (After Canadian Founda-
represented by the curve (Qo + q.¡. The two curves intersect at
tion Engineering Manual, 1985)
the neutral plane. This is the location of the maximum load on
the pile. The neutral plane of piles end bearing on rock is located
at the tip of the piles.
making uplift capacity smaller than compressive load capacity;
and (2) piles in tension unload the soil-this reduces the overbur-
4.3.3 Settlement den effective stress and, hence, the uplift skin friction resistance
of the pile.
Figure 4.14(b) illustrates the procedure for estimating the set- The uplift capacity of a pile may be verified by a load test
tlement of the pile cap. The settlement of the pile cap is the sum according to ASTM D3689.
of the settlement at the neutral plane and the elastic compression Structural Capacíty. Fellenius et al. (1989) recommend that
ofthe piles above the neutral plane (Figure 4.14(b). Unfactored tensile loads should be carried entirely by the reinforcement
loads are used to estimate the pile group settlement. for precast and prestressed concrete piles, and that the tensile
strength ofconcrete should be neglected. The design requirement
is as follows:
þrfuA, 2 P*, (
Uplift of pile foundations may be caused by: swelling soils,
frost heave, buoyancy, lateral loads, and upward loads. Piles where fu : tensile strength ofsteel; fu : yield stress ofsteel, fr,
subjected to uplift must be designed to withstand tensile stresses in the case of the reinforcements in precast concrete piles; fu :
and pullout from the soil. Pullout resistance is usually adequate ultimate strength ofthe tendons in prestressed concrete piles; A,
in long piles, but piles end-bearing on bedrock at shallow depths : total area of steel; and þ, : performance factor for tensile
may have small pullout resistance. capacity of steel : 0.9 for steel-H and pipe piles, as well as
reinforced and prestressed concrete piles.
Equation applies to steel-H and pipe piles, as well as
4.4.1 Single P¡le Upllft Capaclty reinforced and prestressed concrete piles.
The parallel-to-grain tensile strengths of timber piles are
Each pile in a group is either in tension or compression. The higher than the compressive strengths. Therefore, the tensile
load acting on each pile in a group may be estimated using Eq. structural capacity of timber piles is not critical if the magnitudes of the uplift loads do not exceed the magnitudes of the compres-
Soil Capacity. The ultimate uplift capacity of a single pile is sive loads, and in most cases, this is true.
estimated in a manner similar to that for estimating the ultimate
shaft capacity for piles in compression (Section 4.1.3). The design
requirement for uplift is as follows: 4.4.2 Pile Group Uplift Capacities

ôuQ, à P",, ( The ultimate uplift capacity of a pile group is usually taken
as the minimum of the following two values: the sum of the
where Q, : ultimate uplift capacity due to shaft resistance; P*,, individual pile uplift capacities, or the uplift capacity of the
: factored tensile load effect in the pile (see Eq.; and group considered as a block. The mechanism for the latter is
þu : performance factor for uplift capacity (see Table 4.3). different for piles in clays and sands.
The performance factors for axial compression and uplift are The shaft friction of pile groups in sands deteriorates with
different because: (1) the diameter and, thus, the area ofthe pile time if the piles are subjected to vibratory and lateral loads.
shaft, decreases in tension due to the Poisson effect, thereby Tomlinson (1987) suggested that the weight of the block uplifted
72 PART 2

Table 4.3. Summary of performance factors for geotechnic¡l ultimate

limit st¡tes in axially loading of piles.

JLTII.IÀTE SKIN o-¡nethod öqe = O.7o

BEÀRING FRTC!¡ION p-nethod Cqs = 0'50
3ÀPACTTY t-nethod Cqe t 0.55
)F clay c@ = o'zo
lskenbtôn. 1951
PILES BEÀRING C'fron cPÍ cç = o'¿s
C'fron sPT áæ = o'¡s
Rock Cq) - o.5o
(canadlan ceotech
c^^{ ã+rr 1 oÞEl
üÁfN !'KIçÏI9N Ðtï-neEnoq 0q =
ÀND cPl-nethod dq = o'ss
END BEÀRING Load Te6t cq = o'ao
Pile Driving cq = o'zo
Figure 4. I 5a. Uplift of group of closely spaced piles in cohesionless BI,OCX
soils. (A.fter Tomlinson, 1987) clay ég - o'es

UPLIFT a-¡nethod, Cu = 0.60

CÀPÀCITY p-nethod óu = 0.40
OF )-nethod Cu = 0.45
SINGLE sPT-nethod du = 0.35
PILES cPT-nethod Cu = 0.45
Load lest óu = 0.80
Y-r ;ROUP sand Cug = 0.55
:ÀPÀCITY clay éug = 0.55
Block of soil


Figure 4.15b. Uplift of group of piles in cohesive soils. (A,fter
Table 4.3 gives the geotechnical performance factors for bear-
Tomlinson, 1987)
ing capacity and uplift capacity of pile foundations. Settlement
ofpile foundations should be estimated using unfactored loads.
Foundation design should not be uncoupled from construction
be estimated using a spread of load of 1 in 4 (Figure 4. l5a) from considerations. Performance factors can be affected by careful
the base ofthe pile group. Buoyant unit weights should be used monitoring of pile installation and by how contract documents
for soil below the groundwater level. are written to permit changes in installation procedures. For
In clays, the uplift resistance ofthe block in undrained shear example, higher performance factors may be used if wave equa-
is given by (Figure 4.15b): tion analyses are run prior to driving, pile driving blow counts
are compared to the wave equation results, and representative
Q", : (2XZ + 2YZ)s, + Ws ( piles are monitored with the Pile Driving Analyzer.

where Qr, : ultimate uplift resistance of the group; X : width

of the group; Y : lenglh of the group; Z : depth of the block 4.6 DESIGN EXAMPLES
of soil below pile cap; Su : average undrained shear strength
along pile shaft; and W, : weight of the block of soil, piles and The design procedures discussed in the previous sections are
pile cap. demonstrated in the following example problems.
EXÀMPLE 4. ]. b) Bearing Capacity
Fiq. 84.1 shows that the piJ.e will be drlven through 3
Deterrnine whethera 30 ft long Hp 14 X 89 pile has adequate different çoil layers. The ultimate bearlng capacity of the
structural and bearing capacity to support a dead load of 40 pile is the surn of the skin friction in soil layers J- (clay),
tons and a live load of 34 tons. Electric cone penetration 2 (sand) and 3 (ctay), and the end bearing resistance of the
test data for the soil at the site is given in Fig. E4.1. pi1e.

Fron Table ÀL.2, the section properties of Hp 14 X 89 are: End Bearinq

Depth = D = 13.83 in, Ltidth - bf I4.7 ín, A = area of steel
= 26.I in2, Thickness of ureb (and flange) - t͡ tf = 0.615 in End bearing capacity ls calculated using the rmlnirnum path
rulerr described in Fig. 4.g. Values of gcl and qc2 are
the capacíty of the pile will be estimated for conditions calculated using the procedures described Ln that figure.
where: (1) the pile is pLugged and (2) the pile is unplugged. v yD z + yt 9cL
(¡n) (n)
The case that yields the minimurn capacity will govern the U
o.7 o.25 I 9.39
design. 1144+2(741+447/4 = 5e tsf
1.0 0.35 | I
ll44+?4+3(56)+441/6 = 55 tsf z

".nn I
1.5 0.53 l[44+74+56+sI+6(40) J/tO = 46.5 tsf Ë
I - IS
0.70 e.84

en*za*se*sr+4o+s6+2 (68) +s6+s (40) ) / L4


1) Desiqn Load lcrouÞ I) lI


I so.s tnt
Load per pile = 1.3PD + 2.:-7PL = (1.3) (40) + (2.t7)(34) I

:2.5 0. 88 10. 02 144+7 4+56+51+4 O+56+68+67+4 ( 61 ) +s6+5 (4O) I /18

= 126 tons/pile ,i !,:"

2) Estimate ÀxiaL CaÞacitv '' ,; itt = 53.1 tsf

3.0 10. t9 | 44+7 4+56+5L+4 0+56+68+67+61+5 58 ) +56+5 l
a) Structural Capacity . -,, )

( (4 O)

Fron lable À2. L /20 = 53.2 tsf

3.5 r.23 r0,37 I 4 4+7 4+56+51+4 0+56+68+67+61+58+60+7 ( 58 ) +56+
[Pn] = fyÀy = (36)(26.1) = 940 kips/pile = 470 tons/pile
5(4o)l/24 = 54 tsf
From Table 4.1, öa = (0.85) (0.78) = 0.66 r:il
4.0 Ì. 41 10.55 [ 44+7 4+5Éi+51+4 0+5 6+68+67+6 ].+58+6 0+58+59+
dalPnl = (0.66) (47o) = 310 tons/pile > 126 tons/pi1e. '
t0(44)+s(40) 1/28 = 49.7 t-sf,
therefore the structural capacity of the pile is adequate.




D€Plrq. ls fr D€PtÍ qc ls fr
n tsl tsl Z ñ tll tsf ¡
0.1 114 7-13 ó.25 5.1 va l.l2 l.y
0.2 ro8 ó,07 5-ó2 5.5 t4ó l.z r.r7
0.3 ll2 ô.07 5.¿1 5.6 ß2 1-72 0.91
o.¿ r3a 5.2E 3.82 5.7 212 2.21 1.t5
o-5 130 5.41 4.1ó 5.S 216 2.11 0.L
0.ó 118 5.81 ¿.92 5.9 áZ 1.9 0.71
Layer 1 - Cla
0.7 114 5.15 ¿.51 6 202 2.17 1.Ol
o.a 121 t.Z? t.10 ó.r 9E 5.01
0.9 110 5.ó6 ¿.ró 6.2 & 1.72 2.& 2 2.25 m
11-225.A1 1.76 6.3 62 2.21 l:61
r.t t54 5.El 4.33 6.1 50 1.r9 2.71 8D=2.81 m
1.2 1ß 7.26 5.26 ó.5 t2 1.58 ¡.Ol
1.1 10ó 5.15 ¿.85 6-6 52 1.7¿ 3.n
1.4 15ó 4.75 3.04
6.7 51 1.76 l.n
1.5 136 5.éa ¿.11 6.8 52 1.72 3.lO
l-ó 15ó ó.07 3.89 ó.9 t0 1.98 3.9ó
1.7 112 l.EA t.43 7 4E 1.85 3.t5 4 Layer 2 - Sand
l.E 17E ó.23 3.7E 7.1 ¿5 1.85 1.11
t-9 t6 6.17 7.2 16 1-72 3.73
2 152 5.26 3.17 7.3 50 1.45 2'9
2.1 152 6.6 1.y 7.1 58 1.9E l.¿l
2.2 156 6.ó 1.2t 7.5 76 1.98 2.& 5
2.3 170 1.22 2.48 7.6 51 2.11 1.27
2.1 190 4.36 2.æ 7.7 58 l.9E 3.41
2.5 208 3.r 1.n 7.a 61 1.fZ 2.91
¿-6 1ß 4.19 2.67 7.9 76 1.72 2.26 6 ¡ú
2-7 134 r.E5 2.85 6 Eó 1.96 2.30 F
2.8 t50 3.04 2.02 ,t
8.1 100 2.51 2.51
2.9 170 2.& 1.55 l.J
a.2 1@ 2.7f 2.56
3 250 4.ñ 1.9 a,r 114 2.n 2.Q 7
tJ 22A 2.77 1.21 E.1 108 2.79 2.56
t.2 262 1.22 7.61 a.3 106 2,9 z.Tt
f.3 330 5.41 1.ó3 8.ó -
3.¿ 284 3.7 1.30
J.5 210 3.13 1.(2
a.7 1ú 2.n 2.61
8.8',104 ¿.09 3.9J
I Layer 3 - Clay
!.6 231 2.n 1.14
8.9 æ 2.9 3.53
t.7 222 2.7? 1.21 9 ó4 3.&3 5.
198 1.58 0.?t
3-9 ',|50 2.24 1.¿9
9.1 50 r.78 3.5ó
9.2 44 1.7( t.ç5
Z=9.14 m I
1 152 1.15 0.95 9.3 71 2.13 3-11
1.1 150 1.58 1.05
9.65 m
9.4 56 1.33 2.17
1.2 132 1.32| e.5 5t 1.3¿ à.5S Z + 0.7D =9.39 m

0.?9 0.70
(.4 t?2 1.0ó 0.8ó
1.5 .l24 1.(5 1.1ó
T2 0-92
56 0.9? 1.&
9.ó 40 1.32 3.f
9.7 5ó 1.04 1.65
9.8 ó8 1.03 1.51
9.9 ó7 1.03 1.53
10 ó'l 1.1? 2.ió
Z + 4D=10.55 m

Layer 4 - Sand
I t'¡'1,, r

56 0.79 1.¿t
70 0.19 1.12
10.1 58 1.03 l.r¿
10.2 ó0 t.'l? 1.6ó
120 200 280 0 2 4 rìi:i+6
5 96 0.79 0.42 10.! 56 t.0ó 1.t2 -
Cone resistance Q. ßdcm2 )
Friction ral¡o , Fr (%¡::r,"
t.r 9ô 0.92 0.91 10.1 59 1.12 1.89
5.2 110 1-65 1.31 ""
10.5 44 1.ùó 2.¿0
5.t m l-t9 1.32 10.ó 52 l.oó 2'03

penetration test data for example Problem 4. I

Figure 84. I Cone
qlcz= ao tsf since there is no value of qg for I dia¡neters fro¡n depth of 0 to 2.25 m (7.38 ft), the average fs = 5.8 tsf
above the tlp, that is less than the value. of 40 tsf at yD = Fron Fig 4.9, Kc = shaft f¡:lction coruection factor for piles
0,53 m. below the pile tip, so ec2 = 40 tsf. The value of qp in clay = 9.2
is the average of {cl and qc2: Qsr = 0.8 X 0.2 X 7.1 X 7.38 X 5.8 = 48.6 tons
IÀYER 2: À depth of enbed¡nent correctlon uust be rnade
9p = [a6.s + 40)/2 = 43.3 tsf between the top of this layer (2.25 n or 7.38 ft) and
depth of 8D (2.81 m or 9.22 ft).
rn an unplugged pi).e, the point resistance is calculated using (L¡/9D) z.38 ft = 7.38/9.22 = o.8
the cross-sectional area of the steel-H sectl.on. (L¡/eD)s.22 ft = 1.0
Qp = gpÀp (\/ao)avs = [0.8 + 1.ol/2 = o.e
= (43.3') (26.L')/r44 Ithe pile penetration to di¿r¡neter ratlo le calculated as
= 7.9 tons follor¡s:
D 13.83
Skin Frlction U
Frorn Fig. 4.9, Ks = shaft frlcÈion correction factor for piles
in sand = 0.7 lr
the ultl¡nate skin friction of piles can be conputed using Fron depth of 2.2s n (7.38 ft) to 2.8L rû (9.22 ft'r, .
Equation as follovrs: the average fs = 3.94 tsf
8D 7,
Qs2a = 0.9 x 0.7 N ?.1 x (9.22' 7.38) X 3.94
Qs=Ks,cIt (Lt/aDlf"a"+ ) fsas]
Lr=o Lt=aO = 32.4 tons
In an unplugged pi1e, the soil adheres to the entire perimeter Frorn depth of 2.81 m (9.22 ft) to 6.05 ¡n (19.85 ft),
of the steel-H section. the average fs = 2.O4 tsf
Pite perirneter, as = 21L4.7 + L3.83 +.14.7 - o.6I5)/L2 Qs2b = O.7 X 7.f X (19.85 - 9.22) X 2.O4 = IOg tons
= 7.1 ft IÀYER 3:
LÀYER 1: Lf = depth to point considered = 2.25 n = 7.38 ft Fro¡n depthof 6.05 n (19.e5 ft) to 9.14 n (3o ft),
8D=8X13.83 =9.22fi- the average f= = 2.23 Esf
Fron Fig. 4.9, K" = 9.2
Lç/8D = 7.38/e.22 = o.8
Qs: = 0.2 x 7.1 x (30 - 19.85) x 2.23 = 32J-Lo¡!g

Qst = 0.8 X 0.2 X (2.45 + 1'5 X 2'31) x 7'38 X 5'8 \¡
Total skin friction = 4g'6 + 32'4 + 108 + 32'r
Qs o\

= 22I tons = 40.5 tons

Total ultimate pile capacity Qult = 22I + 1.9 LÀYER 2: Assume soil-to-soil shearing resj-stance is 1.5
= 229 tons tines that of soit-to-pi).e friction in sand
From Tabl-e 4.3, performance factor for cPT method = 0.55 Fron depth of 2.25 n (7.38 ft) to 2.81 m (9.22 îEr'
dqQutt = 0.55 X 229 = 126 tons > 126 tons' Therefore' the Qs2a = 0.9 X 0.7 x (2.4s + 1.5 X 2.31) X (9.22' 7.38) X 3'.94
bearing capacity of the pile is adequate. = 27.0 tons
From depth of 2.81 m (9.22 ft) to 6.05 m (19.85 ft),
CASE II - ASST'ME THAT THE PILE fS PLUGGED Qs2b = o.7 x (2.4s + 1.5 x 2.3L) x (19'8s - 9'22, x 2'o4
End Bearinq = 89.8 tons
In a plugged pile, the point resistance is calculated using IÀYER 3: Àssume soil-to-soil shearing reÊistance is 1.5 :

the cross-sectional area of a rectangle 13.83 in. X 14.7 in. ti¡nes that of adhesion
Qn = ønÀn rrom depth of 6.os n. (19.85 ft) to 9.14 n. (30 ft)
= (43.3) (13.83) (14.7)/I44 Qs3 = o.2 x (2.45 + 1.5 x 2.31) x (30 - 19.85) x 2.23
= 61.1 tons = 26.7 tons fr
Total Skin FricÈion Qs = 40.5 + 27.0 + 89.a + 26.7 tJ

skin Friction = 184 tons

In a plugged pile, the skin friction is the sum of the Total Ultinate PiLe Capacity, Qul-t = 184 + 6L.1
adhesion at the flanges and the fuIl soiL-to-soil shearÍng = 245 tons > 229 tons
resistance along both sides of the soil p1ug. Àssuming that the pile vril1 be plugged resul.ts in a higher
Pil-e perimeter for adhesion at flanges = 2(l-4.7)/I2 capacity (245 tons) than assuming that it is not plugged
= 2.45 fE (capacity = 229 tons if the pile ls not plugged). therefore
pile perimeter for soil-to-soil shearing resistance along both the unplugged condition controlsr'and the estirnated capacity
sides of the soil plug = 2(I3.83)/L2 is 229 tons.
= 2. 31- ft
LÀYER L: Assume soil-to-soil shearing resistance is t'5
times that of adhesion
EXÀMPLE 4.2 7tl

Given the dead load of the bridge superstructure and 4ft

Po = 50 kips
col"umnis 50 kips and the live load is 50 kips, check the 7ft 2fl
P. = 50 kips
adequacy of the pile foundation shown in Fig. E4.2.

El. 10 fr
L) Deternine desiqn Load on the piLes Fiil

weight of pile cap = (4) (7') (7) (l-so)/1000 = 29.4 kips Et. 4 fr 7 -120pcl

Weight of soil above pÍle cap = 6l(7)(7) - (4)(2)lr2oltooo .*'l- Su þsr)


= 29.5 kips
Dead load due to pite cap and soil above = 29.4 + 29.5
= 59 kips z-100 Pcf

Total dead load = 50 + 59 = 109 kips

5u -790 psl
?DPD + .yLPL = (1.3) (109) + (2.17) (s0) F
= 142 + 109 z
Et. - 70 tr -70
= 251 kips l.
2ì Select- nilp tvnp- 12 in. X 12 in. prestressed concrete
pile (fqr = 5000 psi) with six 7/16 in.
grade 270 axial 6trand. Piles are
prestressed to 700 ps1.
3l Estlnate axial capacitv of a sincrle pile Sand
a) Structural CapacÍty ¡.¡-f5
Frorn fable À2 . L,
Pn = (0.85fcr - 0.6fpre)Ac Figure 84.2 Fig'ure for exanple problem 4.2
= t (0.8s) (5) - (0.6) (0.7) 1144
= 552 kips/píIe

:.-.a...........- ,--..- r. l r-.. -t.g ,,: . -:..-...:....r-..:..4.--.,.-..:-

Ncorr = lo.TTIogasQo/L.75) lrs -¡

From Tab1e 4-L, ó¿ = (0.85) (0'75) = o'64

: (o.8ls) (15)
óaPn = (0.64) (ss2)
= 353 kips/PíIe
Number of piles needed = 25I/353 or I pile Since pile penetrates 15 ft into sand sÈratum, use 9p = 9f'
b) Bearins capacitv - 9P = 4N"otr
caPacitY is the sum of the = (4) (12)
stin fiiction of the pile in both clay
and sand., and the tiP caPacitY' = 48 tsf
an = (ae) (1)
Skin Friction of Pil-e in ClaY
= 48 tons or 96 kips
Using Fíg 4.2,
Total Factored Pile caÞacity
From elevation 0 to -L2 ft, Su = 0'875 ksf, c = 0'8
From Table 4.3,
From elevation -I2 to -70 ft, Fu = O'79 ksf, a:0'83
Performance factor for c-method is 0.70.
Using Equation 4.I.3.4 Perfornance factor for SPT nethod is o.45

Q= = (0.8) (0.87s) (12) (4) + (0.83) (0.7e) (58) (4) óqQutt = (0.70) (186) + (0.45) (36 + e6) ¡ú

=34+Ì52 =130+59 F
= l-86 kips = ].89 kips
Nunber of piles needed = 25L/le9 or 2 piles.
skin rriction of Pile in sand
Frorn elevation -70 to -85 ft, Ñ = 15 4l S.elect pile spacino and nurnber of piles
Using .Equation 4.I.3.23 ' eile spacing = 3 X PiIe width = 3 ft
Q==Þ (4)(1s) Use 4 pÍles in the group.

= l-8 tons or 36 kips 5) Esti¡nate crrouP çaPacity

Íhe ultinate capacity of pile groups in sand is the number
Tip caÞacitv of Pile in sand ;;-pit; iim"= Lne täctorãa capacily of a single pile
o,or at the pile típ:79(1oo - 62'4) + 15(120 - 62'4) = (4) (le6)
= 3500 psf or 1.75 tsf = 784 kips > 25I kiPs
6l Est,inate settlernent caÞacity of pile qroup The neutral plane occurs at a depth of 54 ft. The load at
the neutral plane is J-72 kips/pile or 68g kips for the pile
Àssu¡ne that the tolerable settlenent ls 2 in. group (greater than the working load = fS9 kips). Thus,
settlernent due to downdrag wilt be greater thãn the tolerable
Fron Equation 4.2.2.L value of 2 in. The foundation is therefore inadequate. The
bearing capacity of the pite group should also be checked to
see if the downdrag Loads can be adequately supported, but
since the tolerablð settlement has béen exèeedää, the'
2q,Jxr. foundation must be redesigned with (f) more pÍles or
(2) longer piIes.

(8) (4)
Pp+Ptr= 1O9 + 50 = 159 kips
Lss/ 42
9.94 ksf U
4.97 tsf
(2) (4.e7, z
J4 (0.688) ¡ú
T2 ln

= 1.14 1n. < 2 in.

?l chêdk the affcct nf tho ¿lown¡lraa ì a¡d

LæAO nEgSlME dfRtEnþN (HF)

80 PART 2



Lateral loads on pile foundations arise because ofwind, earth- 5.2 VERTICAL PILES
quake, water pressures, earth pressures, and live loads' Pile foun-
dations must be designed to withstand such forces without failing The governing criterion in the design ollaterally loaded piles is
(i.e., without reaching the ultimate limit state) and without de- almost always the maximum tolerable deflection or the structural
flecting excessively (i.e., without reaching the serviceability limit capacity of the pile itself. Mobilizing the ultimate lateral capacity
state). of the soil requires such large displacements that this is not a
Batter piles are frequently used to resist lateral loads' Vertical realistic possibility, and ultimate soil failure does not control the
piles alone may suffrce in foundations that carry horizontal loads design.
of low magnitudes. Design methodologies for both cases are In designing vertical piles to resist lateral loads, both lateral
presented in the follorving sections. deflection and structural capacity should be considered. Proce-
dures for addressing these issues are described in the following

When lateral loads acting on a foundation are large, batter 5.2.1 Lateral Deflectlon
piles provide an effective way of transmitting loads to the soil.
The degree of batter will depend on the type of pile and the One of the design objectives is to ensure that the lateral deflec-
magnitude of the lateral loads. Installation by driving is feasible tion of the pile group does not exceed the tolerable limit. The
for batters as large I horizontal to 2 vertical (Tomlinson, 1987)' lateral deflection of a pile group can be related to the lateral
According to Tomlinson, the greatest effrciency is achieved by deflection of a single pile. Procedures for estimating the lateral
using piles battered in opposite directions. deflections of single piles and pile groups are described in the
There are situations where the use of batter piles may be following sections.
undesirable. These include conditions involving large settlements
in compressible clays. Settlement induces bending moments in
the shafts of batter piles (Tomlinson, 1987). Síngle Pile Deflection
Tomlinson (1987) described a simple graphical procedure for
estimating the compressive and tensile forces in pile groups con- Poulos and Davis ( 1980) described three methods of analyzing
taining batter piles. The procedure is based on the assumption the behavior of single piles under lateral load. They include
that (1) the battered piles are pinned at their point ofintersection, elastic analysis, subgrade reaction analysis, and p'y analysis.
(2) vertical piles in the group do not carry lateral loads, and (3) Elastic analyses and subgrade reaction analyses approximate the
batter piles cairy only axial loads. Tomlinson's procedure does soil behavior as linear; p-y analyses model nonlinear behavior of
not consider pile-soil-pile interaction, pile stiffness, soil stiffnesS, the soil, but require the use of computer programs and involve
and pile head fixity, all of which can significantly affect the considerable engineering time.
distribution of forces in piles in a pile group. Nevertheless, Tom- The procedure described in this manual is the one developed
linson's graphical procedure is useful for obtaining a preliminary by Evans and Duncan (1982). The method models nonlinear
pile layout, and is reasonably accurate if the lateral load is less behavior, but does not require computer analyses. The charts
than 20 percent of the vertical load (Department of the Army, discussed in the following sections are for hxed-head piles. Piles
in press). that are embedded in reinforced concrete pile caps are effectively
If the pile grouphas more than three rows, Tomlinson's simple restrained from rotation at the top, and they deflect laterally
procedure is not applicable, and, as mentioned previously, it with negligible rotation at the top of the pile.
may be inaccurate if the lateral loads are large. More complex Evans and Duncan's Procedure. Evans and Duncan (1982)
methods based on linear elastic and nonlinear elastic soil re- related lateral deflections to the lateral loads using what they
sponse are available for analyzing two-dimensional and three- called a characteristic load, P". The characteristic load, P", em-
dimensional pile groups. These methods are often very involved bodies the important properties of the pile (diameter, stiffness)
and require the use of a computer. and the soil (strength, stiffness) that determine the way the pile
Hrennikoffs (1950) linear elastic procedure may be used to and soil respond to lateral loads. The larger the value ofP", the
solve for the pile forces and displacements in pile groups that greater is the capacity of the pile to carry lateral loads, and the
can be modeled in two dimensions. Saul (1968) expanded Hren- smaller is its deflection under a given lateral load.
nikoffs solution to three dimensions. O'Neill, Ghazzaly and Ha Charts in dimensionless form were developed lor sand and
(1977) and O'Neill and Tsai (1984) have developed a method of clay (Figures 5.1 and 5.2). These charts show variations of P,o,/
analysis for three-dimensional pile groups that considers nonlin- P" with Y,o/D; P,o is the unfacto¡ed lateral load, Y,o is the pile
ear soil response and pile-soil-pile interaction. displacement, and D is the pile width or diameter. The charts

Concr€tÊ rpdulus ol

o 4.3

þn 3.8
E 3.6
'2a 3.0

0 f00 110 120 130 f40 150
Figure 5.1. Lateral load versus deflection for fixed head píles in w, Un¡t weight ol corìcrete, lb per cu ft
sand. (After Evans and Duncan, 1982)
Figure 5.3. Modulus of eløsticity of conuete. (AÍter PCI, i,985)

2. Estimate the average undrained shear strength, Su, for

clays, or the average angle of internal friction, þ', for sands.
The behavior of the soil close to the ground surface is most
important with regard to lateral loads. The properties (Su for
clays, f', and unit weight, 7', for sands) should be averaged over
a depth extending about eight pile diameters below the top of
the pile. Buoyant unit weights for sands are used below the water
sô table.
% 3. Determine the characteristic load, P", which is dehned by
the following equations:
For clay

P": 7.34 D2 (EeRr) (S,,/EeRr)0.683 (5.2.1. t. l)
For sand
P" : 1.57 D2 (EpRr) (7',Dþ',KnrEoRr)0.57 (5.2.t.1.2)
0 where R, :
moment of inertia ratio : Io,/I.6¡¡¿i \"orro: rDa/
64 : moment of inertia of a solid circular cross section; Ko :
Rankine passive earth pressure coeffrcient : øn2(45' + +t/2);
Figure 5.2. Lateral load versus deflectionforJixed-head piles
in clay. (After Evans and Dunean, 1982)
and þ' : angle of internal friction of sand, in degrees.
4. Calculate the value of the load ratio P,o,/P".
5. Use Figure 5.1 for sand or Figure 5.2 for clay to determine
model the same nonlinear behavior of soil as the p-y method of the value of Y.o/D.
analysis. The procedure for determining the lateral deflection of 6. Calculate Y.p : (Y"p/D).
a pile, using Figures 5.1 and 5.2, is as follows:
This procedure has been used to develop lateral load-deflection
Select a pile section having a width or diameter D, Young's curves for some commonly used pile sections. Charts for pre-
modulus Eo, and moment of inertia Io. stressed concrete piles (10 in., 12 in., 14 in., 16 in., and 18 in.
For prestressed and precast concrete piles, the value of square) and steel-H piles (HP 10x42, HP 10x57, HP 12x53, HP
Young's modulus can be related to the concrete compressive 12x74, HP 14x73 and HP 14x89) in clay and sand are shown in
strength and density as shown in Figure 5.3. The modulus of Figures 5.4 through 5.7. For these piles and soil conditions,
steel can be taken as 29X 106 psi. The National Forest Products deflections can be estimated directly using the charts. For exam-
Association (1982) recommends that the Young's modulus of all ple, a lateral load of l0 kip acting on a 12 in. by 12 in. prestressed
species of Douglas Fir and Southern Pine piles be taken as 1.5 concrete pile, driven in clay with an undrained shear strength of
X 106 psi. Tables of sectional properties for prestressed concrete, 1 ksf, will result in a lateral deflection of about 0. I in (Figure
steel-H and pipe piles can be found in Appendix 1. 5.5).


82 PART 2

Loed{efloclion Curvss lor Prestrossed Load-rmmort Rohlionship lor Prsstrosssd

Corr¡ele p¡les h sard (0 = æ ) cofErele prhs ln send (l = :ll )
'l ¿10

I 35 35

30 30

Bæ 8æ
d J
zo .E 20
Eo i
5rs 5rs I t0'r 10'
¡ l0'¡ 10' o t2'¡ t2'
O tfrtf
10 O t¿t'r ta'
r0 O t¿l'¡ l¡l'
ô t6i ¡ t€i ô 16'r 16'
O t8'¡ 18' O t8'r 18'
5 5

0 0

Dolhc¡¡on {irchot¡ (Tlþusårds)

Mo.nonr (kÞh)

(r=5) (t.35)
¿10 40

x5 35

æ 3{¡

Eæ tæ
ttt tt
Ezo Eæ
Eo Ë

5rs 3rs I l0'r 10'

¡ ttrrt(r O 12.r1f
O 1Tt1T
r0 O ta'¡ ta'
t0 O 1¿l'¡ ll'
ô t6ir16. ô 16- x 16'
ortrr18' O 18'r 18'
5 5

0 0

Ocrþdiñ (idr.!)
Morñont (kilh)

(r..0) (l = {))
¡10 1('

35 35

30 30

8æ 8æ
éq E
Äæ Äzo
3rs 5ts I l0- x 10'
I t0'r l0'
o \tt1t o 12'x 12'
l0 O l¡l'r t¡¡'
t0 C> l¡t'r 14'
ô 16'¡ 16' ô 16'r 16'
o |trrltr o r8'x r8'
5 5

0.8 1.2 L6
D€ll€clbn (iìc¡ros)
Momern (k'Êin)

Figure 5.4. Load versus deflection and load versus moment for prestressed concrete piles in sand.

Load-Oôllgc1þn Curvâs b, Prestress€d CorErote Pil€s Load-Mom€nt Relåt¡onsàip for prestressed Concrete pites

h Clåy (Su-l ksll h Clay (Su-t ksl)

4 ¡10

35 35

30 30

x gzs
G !zo
o E
5rs ¡ to'r t0' års ¡ 10'x 10'
o lttlt O l2'x t2'
r0 O lfx f¿l' 10 O t¿l'rl¿l'
a 16'x 16' ô t6'¡ 16'
o f8'r 18' O t8'r 18'
5 5

0 0
1.2 r,8 2
Dellocl¡on (lnchssl
Mom€nl (l.Jdrnl

(Su-2 krD (Su.z ksl)

¿10 ¡10

35 35

æ 30

5 $æ
tt tt
Ezo Ezo
o E
3rs I lCxl0' 5rs ¡ 10'r t0'
o 1tt1? o l?.tlt
10 O l¿l'x 1¡l' 10 o 1.t. x 14.
ô 16- r 16' ô 16- r 16'
O 18'x 18' O t8'x 18'
5 5

0 0
0.ô 0.8 1 1.2 1.¡l
Momont (kfY¡n)

(Su.4 kso (Su-4 ksO


35 35

30 30

J Eæ
! 5
$æ Ezo
o õ
5rs ! 10'x 10' 5rs ¡ 10'x 10'
o l2'r 12' O 12'x 1?'
r0 o Í.1'x 14' 10 O 14'r 14'
A l6'x 16' ô 16'x 16'
o l8'x 18' o 18'¡ t8'
5 5

0 0
0.1? 0.16 0.2 v.¿4 e-¿ö u.J¿ o 0.2 0..t 0.6 0.9 t 1.2
Deflect¡on (¡rEh€s)
Deftect¡on (irEhss)
Moment (kiilin)
Figure 5.5. Load versus deflection and load versus moment for prestressed concrete piles in clay.
84 PART 2

Load.Oelleclion Curvcs for Sleel H Piles Load-Momonl Relalionship lor Sleel H.Piles
insånd(O=3l) ¡nsand(Q=æ)
¡t0 40

35 35

æ 30

T ¡
.T 25
E ttE
20 20
.Ë .9
É õ
õ r HPro i42 o ¡ HPlo x¡tz
5rs o HPro ¡57 G r5
o HPl0 r57
o HP12 r53 o HP12 ¡53
ô HP12 ¡7¿l
10 ô HPl? x74
O HP14 r73 O HPl4 ¡73
9 HP14 ¡89 I HP14 x89
5 5

0 0
0.,t 0.8 1.2 f .6 2 2.1 2.8 3.2
Dell€ction (¡nchesl (Thousands)
Momont (kÞ'in)

(0 = sS) (e = 35)
40 ¡t0

35 35

30 30

F.s Ers
E tl
-E zo Eao
d E
g ¡ HP10 x42 r HP10 r4Z
.5fs o HP10 ¡57 irs o HP10 r57
,ô HP12 x5:l
O HP12 x53
 HP12 x74
10 ô HP12 x74
o HPl¡l x73 o HPl¡l r73
9 HP t/t r8{¡ e HP14 r89
5 5

0 0
1.2 1.6 2

Dellecl¡on (¡rìches) (Tlþusands)

Momenl (k¡È¡n)

(f=æ) (o=æ)
40 ¡10

35 35

30 30

'g .s Ex
€ tl
.c 20 Ezo
G iú
o ¡ HP10 x42 o r HP l0 x42
5rs o HPlq x57 5rs o HP10 x57
O HP12 x53 o HP12 x53
ô HP12 x74 ô HPr2 x74
10 o HP14 x73 10 O HP14 x73
9 HP14 x89 I HP14 x89
5 5

0 0
0.4 0.ô 0.8 t 0.4 0.8 1 .2 1.6

Dellecl¡on (¡nches) (Thousands)

Momenl (k¡P-in)

Figure 5.6. Load versus deflectíon and load versus moment for steel-H piles in sand.

Loed-Dsllect¡on Curves for Steet H-p¡þs

Load.rþmer¡t Reht¡onship for Steel H-piles
h clay (Su.l ksf) ¡n cley (su.l ksf)



i1 Eæ
tt 5
.Ë 20

@ ¡ HP10 x42 g
5rs o HP10 ¡57 .5 ls ¡ HP10 x42
o HP10 x57
o HP12 x53
ô HP12 xzl O HP12 x53
O HP14 xæ 10 a HP12 \74
I HP I¿¡ ¡89 O HP14 r73
I HP14 x89

0 0
1.2 1.6 2
O€ll€cl¡on (hch€s) (Thousandsl
Morn€nl (k¡p¡nl

(Su-z ksr) (Su'2 ¡s¡¡

40 ¡t0

3¡t 35

30 30

$æ r¡ 25
-E zo
o E
5rs f
r57 5rs ¡
O HP12 r53 O HP12 x53
10 6 HP12 x74 10 ô HP12 x74
O HPlrl x73 O HP14 r73
I HP14 r89 I HP14 x89
5 5

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Dellsclþn (inch€s) (Thousands)
Momenl (k¡p-¡nl

(Su-a ksO (Su-4 ksl)

40 ¡10


30 30

i1 E.s
E 5
-Ë ë20
o E
5rs I HP10 x42
O HP10 x57 5rs I HP10 x42
o HP 10 x57
O HP12 x53 Ô HP12 x53
10 Â HP12 x74 f0 ô HP12 x74
O HPl4 x73 o HP14 x73
e HP14 x89 e HP14 x89
5 5

0 0
'.v9 0.1? 0.16
v.t¿ u.ìb u.z o.z4 0 0.2 0.4 0-6 0.9
Deflect¡on (¡nches) (Thousands)
Moment (kiÈ.¡n)
Figure 5.7. Load versus deflection and load versus moment for steel-H piles in clay.
86 PART 2

For sands, charts were developed for friction angles of 30 deg.' 3. Calculate the single pile deflection, \0,
corresponding to
35 deg., and 40 deg. The water table was assumed to be at or the lateral load per pile, P*n, using either Evans and Duncan's
above the ground surface. For intermediate values of friction procedure (Section or Figures 5'4 to 5.7'
angle between those shown in the charts, deflections may be 4. Calculate k, : Yr,/Y.o using Eq. and, Y, :
estimated by interpolation. krY.o'
For clays, the load-deflection curves were developed for un- the lateral displacement for the pile group exceeds the
drained shear strengths of 1, 2, and 4 ksf. Defle.ction for interme- tolerable lateral displacement, increase the diameter of the piles'
diate values of undrained shear strengths can be estimated by the number of piles, or the pile spacing.


MOMENTS Píle Group Deflection
5.3.1 Estlmation of Bending Moment ln a Single
Excessive horizontal displacements of pile groups may cause Pile
distress in bridges and buildings. It is, therefore, necessary both
to estimate the largest lateral movement that can be tolerated Evans and Duncan (1982) developed a simple procedure for
without damage and to ensure that lateral deflections in service estimating the maximum bending moment induced in single
are within tho tolerable range. piles, M;n, due to a lateral load at the top of the pile. They
A pile group will deflect more than a single pile subjected to developeå the design charts shown in Figures 5.8 and 5.9 for
the same lateral load per pile. This is due to interaction effects
whereby deflection of each pile in a group causes deflection of
the surrounding soil and thereby increases the deflections of
neighboring piles.
The lateral deflection of a group of piles may be estimated 0.01

using the empirical F4.


Ys ( T¡P. p
P" 0.006

where Yro :lateral displacement of a single hxed-head pile

subjected load P.o; No¡" : number of piles in group;
io a lateral
S : average spacing of piles; p : pile width or diameter; P.o
: average lateral load per pile : PyrÀpl", in which Pt, :
lateral load on pile group; o 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
PN : K'YD3 þr sand (s.2.r.2.2) ,MC
P* : SuDz for clay (s.
Figure 5.8. Lateral load versus momentforJixed-head piles in
y : totdl unit weight of sand; Ko : Rankine Passive earth sand. (After Evans and Duncan, 1982)
pressure coeffrcient : tanz (45" * þ'/2); Ô' : average angle of
internal friction of sand within the upper 8 pile diameters; Su : 0.06

avera1e undrained shear strength ofclay within the upper eight

pile diameters. A :
16 for clay and A : 9 for sand; B : 5.5
for clay and B : 3 for sand; C : 3 for clay and C : 16 for
Equation developed through a parametric study
ofa large number ofpile groups using the theories proposed by lt Pap

Focht and Koch (1973). It was developed for uniformly spaced Pc 0.03

piles, but can be used for groups with nonuniform spacing if the
avera1e pile spacing is used in the calculations.
A computer program for calculating the lateral displacement
of pile groups using the theory of Focht and Koch has been
developed by the writers, and was used to perform the parametric
The load factor design approach to the lateral deflection of 0 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.02 0.024
pile groups requires an estimation of the tolerable lateral dis- M
placement. The procedure is as follows: ï- c

1. Determine a tolerable lateral displacement, Y,o,. Figure 5.9. Lateral load versus moment for fixed-head piles in
2. Calculate the lateral load per pile P.o : PyrlNp1". clay. (After Evans and Duncan, 1982)

fixed-head piles in sand and clay. These charts show the variation and Koch (1973) and has been confirmed by comparing with
o-f :
M.o/M. with Pro,/P", where M.o maximum moment in a field load tests. The increase in moment due to group interaction
single pile and M, : characteristið moment. was studied for a large numb€r of cases by first estimating the
Using these charts, the bending moment in a laterally loaded pile group deflection using the theory ofFocht and Koch (1973),
pile can be estimated as follows: and then "softening" the soil (reduce S, for clays or {, for sands)
until the single pile deflection (calculated using the Evans and
l. Select a pile section of width (or diameter) D, young's Duncan approach) matched the lateral deflection of the pile
moiulus Eo, and moment of inertia Io. group. Through this study, the following empirical equation was
2. Estimate the average undrained shear strength, Su, for developed (the equation relates the maximum bending moment
clays, or the average angle ofinternal friction, þ', for sands. The
of the most severely loaded pile in the group to the maximum
behavior is governe.d by the soil close to the ground surface. The
bending moment in a single pile):
properties (Su for clays, þ'and unit weight, 7', for sands) should
be averaged over a depth extending about eight pile diameters
M, : lY*/Y.J"M.o (
below the elevation of the pile top. Buoyant unit weights are
used below the water table.
\ryhere Msp : maximum bending moment in a single fixed-head
3. Determine the characteristic load, P", using E4,. 5.Z.l.l.l pile subjected to a lateral load, Pro, calculated using the proce-
for clay or for sand. dure described in Section 5.3.1; M" : maximum bending mo-
ment in a pile within a pile group; Yro : lateral deflection of a
¿1. Calculate 'rhe iactored lateral load,
7oF"o an<i the vaiue oi
the load ratio (7nP./,/Pcl 7r, is the lateral loád factor. single fixed-head pile subjected to a lãteral load, pro estimated
5. Use Figure 5.8 for hxed-head piles in sand or Figure 5.9 using the procedure described in Section; Yg : lateral
for fixed-head piles in clay to determine the value of M.o,/M". group deflection estimated using Eq.;
6. Determine the characteristic moment, M", which is defined
by the following equations:
: l*t*" r 0.25 þr cray (
For clay " l50PN

M" : 3.86 D3 (EeRr) (S,,/EoRr)o.46 (

n : l¡'l"o r 0.3 for sand (
For sand

M" : 1.33 D3 (EpRr) (7'Dþ'KolEoR,)o'a ( P* is as defined previously in Eqs.¡d5. and y¡
is the load factor for the lateral load.
where R¡, Ko, and þ' are as defined previously.
7. Calculate M,o : M. (M"'/MJ.

This procedure has been used to develop lateral load-moment 5.3.3 Structural Capacity of Piles Subjected to
curves for some commonly used pile sections. Charts for pre- Axial Loads and Bending
stressed concrete and steel-H piles in clay and sand are shown
in Figures 5.4 through 5.7. For these piles and soil conditions, The structural capacity of a pile is dependent on both moment
bending moments can be estimated directly using the charts. For and axial load. An axial load-moment interaction diagram is an
example, a lateral load of 10 kip acting on a 12 in. by 12 in. envelope of the combinations of moment and axial load that
prestressed concrete pile driven in clay with an undr¿ined shear would cause failure in the pile.
strength of I ksf will induce a bending moment of 400 kip-in. Normalized load-moment interaction diagrams for various
types of piles are shown in Figures 5.10 through 5.14. The fac-
tored axial load, )7,P, has been normalized by dividing by the
5.3.2 Est¡mation of Bending Moments ln piles factored nominal axial capacity, ó.Pn. Similarly, the factored
Within Pile Groups bending moment (y-M) has been normalized by dividing by
the factored nominal moment capacity, þ_Mn. The 7-factors
As discussed previously, the deflection of any pile in a group account for uncertainties in the loads and moments, and the
causes deflection ofthe surrounding soil and piles, thus leading þ-factors account for uncertainties in the structural capacity.
to larger deflection for the pile group than for single piles sub- Methods of estimating the structural capacities of piles are given
jected to the same load per pile. The bending moment in a pile in Appendix 2.
within a pile group will consequently be larger than that in a The procedure for checking the structural adequacy of piles
single pile subjected to the same loading. This is because the using the normalized load-moment interaction curves is as
interaction effects, by causing more deflection, also increase the follows:
bending moment in the piles.
Brown et al. (1987, 1988) found that the maximum bending 1. Estimate the axial load per pile and calculate the combined
moment in a group of free-head piles occurs in the leading row axial load effect, )y,P,.
(or front row) of piles. However, current theories on lateral 2. Determine the nominal axial structural capacity of the pite,
loading of groups of piles are not able to predict this behavior. Pr. Formulas for calculating the nominal axial structural capac-
A semiempirical procedure that provides a reasonable approxi- ity of piles can be found in Appendix 2.
mation of the maximum bending moment in the leading row of 3. Determine the performance factor for the nominal axial
a group of piles has been developed using the theories of Focht structural capacity, óu, from Table 5.1 and calculate þ"p,.
88 PART 2


0.8 0.78
.ã 0.6
ä 0.s
å o.o Ê
6 ts

lrfr o
'¡ ¡ o
9.Pn ôP
0.2 'a n
g 0.1 c
Þ 2
0.6 t9 0.5


ôtM n
Figure 5.10. Normalìzed load-moment interactÍon curve for
prestressed concrete Piles. Figure 5.12. Normalized load-moment ínteraction curve fot
steel-H piles.

% Steel

't I
'a n


rd oo o

0.8 1.6 0 0.8 1.6 2.4 0 0.8 1.6


'm 'm
;-M ôM
'm n ôM
'm n

Figure 5.11. Normalized load-moment interuction cumes for precast concrete piles'



ttl, EvP
't I
oP ôP
'a n
'a n 0.4


0 0.6 0.8
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 ,l

' trM
tr% Figure 5.14. Normalízed load-moment interaction cune for tim-
ber piles.
Figure 5,13. Normalized load-moment interaction curve for steel
pipe piles.

Table 5,1. Summary of performance factors for the nominal axial struc- 4. Calculate the factored design bending moment, 7-M, in
tural capacity of piles. the pile using factored loads.
PILE TYPE PERFORMÀNCE FÀCTOR, CA 5. Estimate the nominal structural moment capacity of the
pile, Mn. Formulas to estimate this quantity for piles are given
0.75 for spiral coJ-unns
Prestressed Concrete Piles in Appendix 2.
0.70 for tied columns
6. Determine the performance factor for the nominal struc-
0.75 for spiral colunns tural moment capacity, ó-, from Table 5.2 and calculate ó-Mn.
Precast Concrete Piles
o.?0 for tied columns 7. Determine the ratios ZyrPr/þ^Pnand,2y^M/þ_Mn, and
steel H-Pi1es 0.85 locate a point at these coordinate values on the normalized load-
Steel Pipe PiLes 0.85
moment interaction diagram. If the point falls on or close to the
interaction curve and inside the area enveloped by the interaction
Tinber Piles r-.2o*
curve and the two axes, the pile chosen is adequate. If it falls
* Davisson et aI. (1983) stated that the nininun factor of outside this region, a larger pile is needed. Steps 2 through 7
safety for the structural capacity of piLes in axial- should be repeated until the point falls inside and close to the
conpression is 1.25. The perfomance factor is greater interaction curve. If the point falls inside the region but far away
than unity because the average load factor for verticat
Ioads (dead and tive loads) is greater than the factor of from the interaction curve (e.9., near the origin), the pile chosen
safety. has more capacity than required. Steps 2 to 7 can be repeated
for smaller pile sections to achieve greater design economy.


Table 5.2. Summary of performance factors for the nominal moment The design procedures discussed in the previous sections are
capâcify of piles.
demonstrated in the following example.

Prestressed concrete Piles

Precast Concrete Piles 0.9
Steel H-PiIes 0.9
Steel Pipe Piles 0.9
Tinber Pil-es 0.9*

Davisson et al. (L983) stated that the nininun factor of

safety for bending in tinber piles is I.40. The
perfomance factor is obtained by dividing the load
factor for Lateral loads (= 1.3) by the factor of safety
(= 1.a).
ì-fi-:--L..:...,... .

5.1 Pile GrouP Deflection \ o
Assume that the tolerable lateral deflection is 0'5 in'
Using the charts developed by Evans and Duncan (L982) '
determinethelateraldeflectionofthepi}efoundationshown Fron Equation 5. 2.!.2.3,
PN = srrD2 = (I/L44) (I2)2 = I kip
in Fig. E5'1 and the structural adequacy of the piles'
Fro¡fl Equat,ion 5.2.L.2.f ' th9 group lateral deflecÈion
ããir"=p'""aing to a Lateral loád pèr pÍIe of 10 kips may be
(i) l,ateral Deflection calculated as follows:
Single Pife Deflection 16+4
Psr=40'14=ro kips per pile. 's 5.5 36 I
ISFPSF=1X10= lo kips Per Pile for rg¡ = 1
-+- 3 (1)
EP = 4300 ksi = 1.a45(0.1)
D=12in. = 0.14 in. < 0.5 in.
rP = 17zs in4'
Isotid = n(tz)4/ed = 1018 in4 (ii) strlr.:tur.el Capacitv
Rl = 1728'11019 Design bending moment, Msp in a single Pile is estimated as ¡É

From Equation (5.2.I.1.1),

follovts: F
7.34 (L2)2 1a:oo¡ (r.7) Fron Fig. 5. 10,
usp'/Mc = o.oo48 for P"n/P. = 0.017
[144 (4300) (1.2¡10'es3
Fro¡n Equation (5.3.1. 1)
3.86 (12)J (43o0) (1.7)
= 595 kips Mc=
rs¡Pgp,/Ps = Lo/595 = 0'017 for rgP = 1 (i.e. unfactored) æ
82 760 kip-in
l,f o.oo48 (82 760)
Fron Fig. 5.3,
Ysp,/D = 0. 008
v o.Oo8 (12) = 0.t in. Sinrilarly, using Fig. 5.6 directly, Msp = 4oo kip-in.
Sirnilarly, using Fiq. 5.6, Ysp = 0.1 in. Design bending mornent in the Pile grouP is estimated as
Using Equation (,
Yg/Y"p = L'445
PD = 300 kiDs
PL = 300 k¡ps

12 h..x 12 h. prestrossed corErete
r¡les, eæt¡ with six 7/16 h. U
gtú 270 axid strands F
wilh 700 psi presress ttt
.td l"'= 5000 psi z

Flgutie E5.1 Figure for example problen 5.1

.ysFPsF= 1'3 x 10 = 13 kips/pile for'v5¡ = l'3' = [0.85 (s) - 0.6 (0.7) ] 144 \c}

n= 13 +0.25 = ss2 kips/píLe

lso (Ð
From Tab1e 5.1, öa = O,Z
= 0.337
daPn = o'7 (5s2)
Mn = 11.44s)o'337 1tøz¡
= 386 kips/pile
= 1. 13 (3e7)
P*,y _ 274
= 449 kip-in/pile
daPn 386
The structural adequacy of the piles carrying the maximurÌr
axial load (i.e. the two piJ-es on the right) is checked as = O.72
r.M = 1 (449) for 7r = 1
À.AsHTors load cornbinatíon I consists of dead load, rnaxirnum
l-ive load and stream flow pressure acting on the pile group. = 449 kip-in,zpile
No¡ninal area for 7/L6 ín. prestressing tendon fo, = 0.L15 in2
Mn = o'r7\sfpu from Table A2'4
Po = 300 kips
= o.37 (I2) (6) (0.1I5) (2701
Pl = 300 kips
= e27 kip-in,/pile
.II'L = (1.3) (300) + (2.17) (300) ¡ú
Fron Tabl-e 5.2, {. = 0.9 F
= 1041 kips F.l

CmMn = O.9 (827) t¿

TSFPSF = (1.3)(40) for'yg¡' = 1.3
= 744 kip-in/pile
= 52 kips
"rmu 449
Eccentricity of R,ê = (52')(2f|-.)/l-O4L
órür, 7 44
= 0.1 ft.
= 0.60
zxz = (a) (1.5)2
The point (0.60, 0.72) plots inside the lnteraction diagram
of Fig. 5.11. Thus the structural capacity is adequate.
From equation, the ¡nost heavily loaded pile supports a
factored axial load of:
P*,y = (1041) lI/4 + (0.1) (r..s)/91
= 260.3 + l-7.4
= 278 kips/pil-e,
Pr., = (o.85fcr - 0.6fpre)À" from Table A2'l-





(After Hunt, 1979)



U *s
9l l. þpror. Hl¡. Effcctiva Strànds Pcr P{le sact{on D.ilgr 8..r1¡9 C¡p¡cltt
Sl& (l) Aê¡. A. leight (2) Prc¡tresr ¿oduìus PcrlEte¡ ton¡ (5)
fo¡cc (3) otùÈtcr (4) Concretc StÊngth, psi
1n,¿ lb./lin. ft. tipe 7/16-tn. l/z-in. in.r ln. 5000 c000

l0 ìq) t05 70 4 4 ì6t q) 73 90

l¿ 144 t50 ì0t 6 528ß 48 ì0s 129
ì{ 196 ¿05 ì37 6 45' 56 143 I 76
' 16 225 265 t79 lt I 683 6a 187 ?29
tB 324 335 ì3 t0 972 72 237 290
20 400 415 2æ ì6 ì2 1333 80 292 3s8
22 4U 505 339 z0 15 I 775 ¿8 354 1J3
z4 5t6 600 403 23 ì8 2304 96 42t 5ì6
20 ilc 305 320 2t1 t3 ì0 ì26ì 80 223 213
22 HC 351 365 246 l4 ìì ì64t 256 3ì4
¿4 hc 399 4ì5 2?9 l6 t2 2097 96 29ì 357


Ptl. Ap9rox. xfñ. Effectlv. Str.ñds Per Plle S.ctlm 0.si9n 8.¡riñ9 C.pàctty
Slrê (l) Ar¡, A. rclght (?) PrêstEs3 tloduìus PêrlÊt.r t65 (5)
(dlú.) Forcc (3) oiànêþr (1) - Cdcrcte Stængti. prl
in, la,¿ ìÞ./lli. ft. ktp3 7116-l^.112-1^. in.r ln. 5000 6000

l0 83 85 58 44ì0933 6ì 74

¡2 ì19 125 83 5 1 ì89 4{) 87 107

ìt 162 r70 ìì3 75æ0¡6 lì8 l{5

ì6 212 220 ì18 974{853 155 ì90
¡8 268 280 t68 ìl 8 638 60 t96 ¿{0
20 33t 345 232
'14 l0 e76 66 242 296
22 4Ðl t2q 2Cì t6 t2 ìt6é 73 293 359

24 alt 495 334 ì9 ì5 t5l3 æ 3a8 427

z0 ¿c 2É 215 ì65 ì08æ466 i2 2ìr

¿2 HC 268 2ú ìû8 lr 8 t038 73 196 ?{0
24 HC 3m 315 210 l¿ 9 1306 80 2ì9 269

NOTE S: (For both squ!¡? rnd octegonrl p¡lcs)

¡OTEST lFo. both qq.'c.d ctFn¡l pil.r)
(1l voÉr¡^æ",22 rnd24 dir.r..hollow<oÉ(HC¡lil.r¡rêll', 13" {5t o.5¡9nb...iñqcææIvbdoñ5.m.ñd6,mÊ¡coftrctc¡ñd¡n
¡nd 15 dina... ..Srivcly, provìd'ñg . ñinimuñ 4N" w¡ll rh'ckôãr, .[owùt. unit ¡ on thc lutt ¡ærioñ ot 0.33 t c . 0,27 lcc. ú..c lc.
{2} W.igñß bd oñ l9 lb. Fr csbk loot ol rqsl.r conc..l.. ir rh. sGrêt. ¡trcr! rô thc Þ¡h du. ro Þ16r.r!ñ9, .fr.r .ll lot*3- Thæ
f3t Miôimum .ltdiv. Þr6t.s brc. bd on unil Þr.ttr.Í ol 7æ øi ¡ft.¡ &r¡¡ô9 c¡Firy v.luc¡ m¡v E ift¡.¡d if highcr rr6lh <oñcr.r. L
lort.r, ud.
{41 A¡d o¡ 7/16 .ñd l/2 in. 270 GrÉc nr.ß.r.|¡rd rtr.d
m.r.rt.rrñol3l.m¡¡rr¡v!¡y. '(h .n ulri l7l
16l Ci.culrr o¡l.t ot lhc DmG di¡nct.. ñ¡y È u€ wih Eqin..,! ¡po'or.L
O.r¡il¡ r. tñ Prer..¡*d ftftr.r. ln(isr. r¡d.rd. which g¡v.t o. lo*.r.l.r¡rion tÍmd ir sd. rh. nqmb.. ol ¡rñ¡ È. p¡lc morc iñlom.tioô,
údld F mditid iñ @nlorñ.æ. *ilh ¡rrhd m¡nufætur..1 &rign
¡nlorñdioñ ro 9iv. rhc lûrd ¡ñ rh. lourh êol!ññ,
94 plnt 2


(lfÈer PiIe Buck Annual, 1988)


rg Phlüc
tlange Scclior Proprdic¡ Compãcl Slrllon Crlt¿ilr nl torluln
fhict l{omkid r- Suú¡cr
Alla Depllrì
dl widlh íess
Ar¡s X-I Ari¡ Y-Y Wclght I _!- È lrat

, 9¡r Fl, ar br F",t Í"1
hr s l s l ú
tt I
ã,t t.
J cÜ

lÈl tr tn. lÀ fù lÊ' lÀt ¡r h. ¡r¡ tr. Ë. lû t.¡, ¡d t.¡ ¡r' å. 5l ¡l ttrir
HPI¡arll7 34.a t ¡¡.21 t4.645 o.8{r5 o.805 t22o r.t2 5.96 aa3 qo5 3.s9 ttt a.(þ r.t9 9.3 a9a ti.l daa t,02 t¡e@ rea ot.a t.! r
r l02 30.o l¿a.Ol i¡1.785 o.7(xt o.705 r06¡, r50 5.e 2 3ro 5l.a 3.56 r02 t.3a io.s 3t. ro.9 ¿.d 3..O rqîó lae rta t.6
x80 2g.r r3.83 1,4.695 0.615 0-61 5 0o. r3r 5.åA 32ô a..l 3.53 6g 3.9. r.53 n.ô ?96 22s rau t¡¡a al., t.0r
¡73 21.1 r3.6r r a.585 o.505 o.506 fæ rôt 5.t.4 2tr 3s.ó 3..0 t3 3.S r.r5 I ¡4.,4 203 àt.o 2j0r rræ rrt 3aa a.da

lPl3 x l(x) 21t.1 r3.f5 r3.205 o.765 o.705 EA€ r35 5..9 29a a¡r.5 3.t6 ræ 3.lta r.30 ò.c 56t tl.2 aaa G.25 r rtoo r3¡ taG a3a
x87 2s.5 r 2.95 r3 r05 o.065 0.665 r35 rt7 5..5 ?50 3t.r
l3r3 à7 s.5r r.a¡ 9.9 .31 rg.5 ¡.! ¿ r¡r Jó.7 a.til
x73 2r.6 t2.f 5 r3.qt5 o.5ß5 o.565 6:10 9€¡ ¡o7 3r.9 I 3.rO t3 3.¡rt t.ra r r.5 3r¡ 22.4 2.Sa ria.t Iro .tt a.2a
r80 r t.5 12.5¡¡ r2.9@ o..0{) o.a80 txt to3 s.3ó r05 23.5 l¡.or 60 3..3 i i.o 2t5 ir¡ ,39 aoao too r.o a.rt
':' 21.3

HPt2 ¡ &l 2..C 12.28 r 2.295 o.685 o.6€s eso r(F 5.ra 2r3 3a.6 2.Ua 6a 3.29 r.a6 Ò.0 szi i r.c ..?. ttto riþ ¡ò.¿ ¡.'.
t71 2r.8 2.r3 r2.2r5 o.8ro 0.60s
r 5ße e3.ô 5.r r rta 30.a ?.Ò? it 3.2C r.à¡ r0.O a2r eo.o i.t ?,ea attg r6 at.a
r83 t8.¡¡ I t.0a t2.t25 o.5r5 o.5r 5 172 tet 5.OG ró¡ 2t.3 2.ta ca ir.23 r.9i r t.t 303 23.2 ¡ir t.ül .¡oo ta¡ !at i6
¡53 r 5.5 r !.7a l2.O¡15 o..35 o..35 3e3 õa.t 5.O3 t2f ?l.l 2.æ 53 3.20 2.23 t3.t 220 2r.t t.¡à .60 t..o câ.2 5å?
lfIO ¡ 57 r6.8 9.9Ð r0,225 o.565 o.sô5 29a 5t.ô a.r6 t0l t9.t 2..ó 5t 2.ta r.73 9,1 5t6 tf.f aaa r.9t 22.O aa.r æ¡
t12 12.4 9.70 ro.075 o.420 5 2ro a3.. a.t 3 f t.l 11.2 A.¡¡r 12 à,óe 2.2a t2.o 7ì. 23.. O.ôr | 5¡rO ¡¡t.t 2rl ..t¡
HPe ¡ 36 r0.6 8.o2 8.155 O.¡aas O..a.a5 tr9 2t.t 3.36 ao.3 0.8€ r.95 s 2.r8 z.2t 0.2 so.3 t8.O 3rô t:t.r rt.2 t.e2

Normal Material Specifications: ASTM 436, A,STM A572 and ASTM Â690 *** The lheorètrcal maximum yisld slress exc€€ds 65 ksi

Structural properties are g¡ven for use when H-piles are ut¡lized as rakers' vÙales or
as other structural members. See "Manual of Sleel Construclion," Amèr¡can lnst¡lule
of Steel Conslruct¡on. lor definitions of terms.


The following charts list the dimensions and physical properties of some of the more
commonly used sizes
of Pipe Piling.

Dimensions and Properties br Designlng
(After Pile Buck Inc., 1988)

0clgnatlor Sællon Poprrllc¡ h¡klc

¡nd W.ll Ana l¡Uolght A'ta ol C¡o¡¡- ln¡ldr Erbmd
0rbld: A
iiûiumÉ ûo¡i¿¡ro
0l¡melar Fool I s l Su¡facr A1!. lndcr

ln. ln. l¡2 th ln.r in.r ln. #*a ln.u rt3ltt

PP'O .109 3.39 1 1.51 41.4 3.50
8.28 2.62 75.2 .0193 62
.120 3.72 r 2.66 45.5 L09 3.49 2.62 74.8 .0192 83
.134 4.15 14.12 50.5 10.1 3.49 2.62 74.4 .0191 116
.141 4.37 14.85 53.1 10.6 3.49 2.62 74.2 .0f 91 135

.150 4.64 1 5.78 56.3 1 r.3 3.48 2.62 73.9 .0190 163
.164 5.07 t7.23 6 r.3 12.3 3.48 2.62 73.5 .0189 214
.172 5.3r 18.05 64.1 12.8 3.48 2.62 73.2 .0188 247
179 5.52 1 8.78 66.6 13.3 3.47 262 73.0 .o188 279
.188 5.80 19.70 69.8 14.0 3.47 2.62 72.7 .0187 324
.203 6.25 21.24 750 r 5.0 3.46 2.62 72.3 .0186 409
.219 6.73 22.88 80.5 16. r 3.46 2.62 71.8 .0185 515
.230 7.06 24.OO 84.3 16.9 3.46 2.62 71.5 .0184 588
.250 7.66 26-03 91.1 18.2 3.45 2.62 70.9 .0182 719
)P t 0-3/4 f09 3.64 12.39 51.6 9.60 3.76
. 2.81 87.1 .o224 50
.120 4.01 13.62 s6.6 r0.5 3.76 2.81 86.8 .o223 67
.125 4.17 14.18 s8.9 1 1.0 3.76 2.81 86.6 .0223 76
.134 4.47 1 5.19 63.O 117 3.75 2.81 86.3 .o222 93
.14 r 4.70 15.98 66.1 12.3 3.75 2.81 86.1 .o221 109
.150 5.00 16.98 70.2 13.1 3.75 2.81 8s.8 .o221 r31
.156 5.19 17.65 72.9 r3.6 3.75 2.8r 85.6 .o220 148
.164 5.45 t8.54 76.4 14.? 3.74 2.81 85.3 .0219 172

.172 5.72 19.43 80.0 14.9 3.74 2.81 85.0 .0219 1gfl
.179 5.94 20.21 83.1 15.5 3.74 2.81 84.8 .0218 224
.188 6.24 21 .21 87.0 16.2 3.73 2.81 84.5 .o217 2AO
.203 6.73 22.87 93.6 17.4 3.73 2.81 84.0 .0216 328
.2tg 7.25 2¡f.03 r00 t8.7 3.72 2.81 q¡.5 .o2rõ al.l
.2æ 7.00 25.8a t05 r9.0 3.72 2.81 gt.2 .ozt1 ¿]80
.250 8.25 28.(X 1l¡l 21.2 3.7r 2.8r 82.5 .o2t2 605
.279 9.rE 3r.20 r20 23.1 3.70 2.81 81.6 .02r0 741
.307 to.1 91.21 137 25.0 3.89 2.81 80.7 .0208 951
.ul 11.2 38.23 152 28.1 3.08 2.81 79.s .020õ r.180
.3e5 r t.9 ¿tO.¡18 t0r 29.0 3.ô7 2.81 18.e .oã)31 r.320
.438 11.2 a8.21 r89 35.2 3.05 2.81 70.6 .ole7i r,800
.500 10.1 9.71 212 39.a 3.63 2.81 71.7 .ote2l 2.380

Material Specificat¡ons - ASTM 4252

' The External Collapse lndex is a nondimensional function of the

diameter to wall thickness rat¡on and is for general guidance only.
ïh€ h¡gher th€ number, the greater ¡s th€ ros¡starrce to collapse.
96 PART 2


.13¡l 5.(þ r0.98 87.9 11.7 1.20 10E .o274

.t¿ll 5.25 r7.8ô 9.2.1 t5.a a.19 3.ta ro8 .o277
.150 5.58 r8.98 98.0 re.3 ¿1.19 3.1¡l 108 .o277
.f 0¡l 20.73 r07 r7.8 ¡ 3.1¿l 107 .o275

.1f2 9.30 21.73 1t2 r8.o ¡1.18 3.1,1 t07 .o274

.r79 6.85 22.@ 1r0 t9.¡l a.l8 3.1¡f r00 .o271
.188 0.98 23.72 122 20.3 ¿t.tB 3,'l¿l r06 .o273
.?03 7.52 25.58 t3r 21.8 1.17 3.14 106 .o272

.219 8.r f 27.55 l¿tt 23.1 1.17 3. 1¡l t05 2ge

.230 28.9r 117 21.4 ¡l.lo 3.1¿l r05 34¿l
.250 9.23 31.37 159 26.s ¡t.16 3.14 f04' .0247 4¡03
.281 10.3 35.t7 t78 29.6 ¿1. t ¡t 3.1¿l r03 .0264 016
.312 r r.5 38.9s r9E 32.6 ¿1.r3 3.14 102 .0201 781

.r09 ¡1.33 11.72 86.5 r3.ô a.17 123 .0317 30

.1 25 ¡t.96 r6.85 98.8 15.5 ¿1.¡fO 123 .0318 45
.t34 5.31 t8.06 too 16.0 ¿f.46 122 .0315 56
.tal 5.59 r8.90 rlt 17.1 a.¡fo '122 .0314 65
.150 5.94 20.19 118 18.5 446 3.34 't22 .0313 7A
.156 6.17 '20.98 122 19.2 4.45 3.34 122 .0313 88
. 164 6.48 22.O4 128 20.1 445 3.34 121 .031 2 103
.172 6.80 23.1 1 13¿l 21 1 4 4E- 3.34 121 .0311 118

.179 7.O7 24.O3 140 21 9 4,45 3.34 't21 .0310 134

.r88 7.42 25.22 146 230 4.44 3.34 120 .0309 155
.203 8.00 27 20 158 247 4.44 3.34 't20 .0308 196
.219 3.62 29.31 169 266 443 3.34 119 .o306 246

.230 9.05 30.75 177 278 4.43 3.34 119 .0305 286
.250 9.82 33.38 192 30.1 4.42 334 118 .0303 368
.281 11.0 37.42 2',t4 336 4.41 3.34 117 .0300 526
.312 12.2 41.45 236 370 440 334 r 15 .o297 684
.330 12.9 43.77 244 39.0 4.39 3.34 115 .0295 776

.344 13.4 45.58 258 40.5 439 3.34 114 .o294 848
.375 14.6 49:56 279 43.8 4.38 3.34 113 .0291 1.o10
.406 15.7 53.52 300 47.1 4.37 3.34 't't2 .0288 1.170
438 16.9 57.59 321 504 4.36 334 111 .0285 1,350
.500 19.2 65.42 362 56.7 4.33 334 108 .o279 1,760

.134 5.84 19.84 140 20.0 4.90 3.67 148 .0381 42

.141 6.14 20.87 147 21.1 4.90 3.67 148 .0380 49
.150 6.53 22.19 157 224 4.90 3.67 147 .0379 59
.156 6.78 23.O7 r63 23.2 4.89 3.67 147 .0378 66
.164 7.13 24.23 171 21.4 4.89 3.67 147 .0378 77

172 7.47 25.40 r79 25.5 489 3.67 146 .o377 B9

.r79 7.77 26.42 186 265 4.89 3.67 146 .0376 101
.r88 8. r6 27.73 r95 27.8 488 367 146 .0375 117
.203 8.80 29.91 209 299 4.88 367 145 .0373 147
.210 9.10 30.93 216 309 4.88 367 145 .0373 163
.219 9.48 32.23 225 32.2 4.87 3.67 144 .o372 185
.230 9.95 33.82 236 33.7 487 3.67 144 .0370 215
.2s0 10.8 36.71 255 365 4.86 367 143 .0368 277
.281 't2.1 41 .17 285 40.7 4.85 3.67 142 .0365 395
.312 13.4 45.61 314 44.9 4.84 3.67 141 036 1 542

.344 14.8 50.1 7 t49.2 4.83 367 139 .0358 691

.375 16 1 54.57 4.42 367 138 .0355 835
.438 187 63.44 4.80 3.67 135 .0348 1.130
.469 199 67.78 4.79 367 134 .0345 1.2E0
.500 21 .2 72.O9 17fJ 3.67 133 o34 1 1.460

The Exlernal Collapse lndex is a non{¡mensional function of the Material Specifications - ASTM 4252
diameter to wall th¡ckness ration and is lor general guidance only
The hilher the number, the greater is the resistance to collapse.


0G.lgn.üor Sælion ProgGrllr¡ hdrlc

rú Wrll Alr! Wtlghl AG. d Cm¡¡- hdd. En!m¡l
0ut¡dc A 9rt Ertrlor ColhF
0hmrLr Foot s l Sulåcr llrr hdr¡
In. ln. hZ lb. ¡"4 ¡"3 ln. rfrn h.2 Él¡n
PFl6 .l3¡t 6.68 22.71 210 26.3 5 .6 1 4.r9 194 .uÐ9u ¿ó
.1¿l I 7.O2 23.88 221 27.6 5.61 4.r9 r94 .O¡t99 33
.150 7.47 25.39 235 29.3 5.60 4.19 194 .0498 39
.150 7.76 20.40 244 30.5 5.60 4.19 r93 .O¡197 41

.104 8.r6 27.71 256 32.O 5.60 4.19 r93 .0¡t96 52

.172 QÊß t(l ôa tae eec 5.60 t1õ rôâ ¡ôc
.179 8.90 30.25 278 34.8 5.59 4. r9 192 .0494 67
.r88 9.3.1 31.75 252 36.5 5.59 4.19 192 .O¡193 t8
.203 10.1 34.25 314 39.3 5.59 4.19 19r .O.l9t 98

.219 10.9 36.91 338 42.3 5.58 4.19 190 .0a89 124
.230 r 1.4 38.74 354 44.3 5.s8 4.19 190 .0488 r44
.250 12.4 42.O5 384 48.0 5.57 4.t9 189 p48s 185
.281 13.9 17.17 129 53.6 5.56 ¡{.19 187 .048r 264
.312 15.4 52.27 473 59.2 5.55 ¿1.19 186 .0478 362

.34¿f 16.9 57.52 519 64.8 5.54 4.19 184 .o471 487
.375 18.4 62.s8 562 70.3 5.53 4.19 r83 .0470 617
.438 21.4 72.80 649 81.1 5.50 4.19 180 .0462 871
.¿169 22.5 77.79 691 86.3 5.¡19 4.19 178 .0458 r.000
.500 24.3 82.77 732 91.5 5.48 4.19 177 .O¡t55 r.130

' The Extemal Collapse lndex is a nondimensional function of the Mater¡at Spec¡fications - ASTM 4252
diameter to wall th¡ckness ration and is for general guidance only.
The hþher the numb€r, the greater ¡s the resistiance to clllapse.



ÀXIÀL ÀND },ÍOMENT CÀPÀCITIES OF PTI,ES the ulti¡nate capacities from a pÍIe manufacturer (Santa
Fe Pomeroy) and the Pcf equations is not more than about 20å
In this section, methods of estimatÍng the structural for the fotlovring square sections.
axial and moment capacities of piles are discussed.
TABLE 42.4 VTTTH (kiÉ-ft)
o in square 34 29 L7
2 in square 62 55 l_3
t) [Pn] 4 in square 96 a7 l-o
6 in square L47 1,42 4
The value of the axial structural capacity, [Pn], can be I in square 206 t9I 4

estimated using the expressj.ons in Table À2.1 for a pile of

known concrete cornpressive strength, effective prestress and in prestressed concrete piles
The prestressing tendons
cross-sectional area. Section properties of some coÌlmon are usually made of Grade 27o steel with a diameter of either
prestressed concrete piles are found in Àppendix 1. 7/L6 ín. (nominal area = 0.115 in2.) or I/2 in. (nominal area l.J

= 0.153 itr2.).
2) lMnl
The nominal moment capacity, [Mr.,] varies depending on (i) PRECAST CONCRETE PILES

the geometry of the section, (ii) the concrete compressive

strength and (iii) the fevel of prestress (which can be 1) [Pn]
thought of as a type of axial load). Hovever for pile lengths Theaxial capaeity, [Pn], can be deÈernined fron the
betr{een 40 and I4O ft, the tendons are stressed typically second equation in Table 42.1. The capacity depends on the
between 7OO and 12OO psi (Pile Buck Annual, 1988). lypica)- cornpressj,ve strength of concrete, the yield strength of steel,
concrete compressive strengths for prestressed concrete pi)-es the area of concrete and the area of steeÌ.
vary betr,reen 5OOO and 8000 psi. The PCI Design Handbook
(19s5) contains expressions for the ultirnate rno¡nent capacity 2) [Mn]
that assune a certain prestress level and concrete strength' capacity, [Mn] is a function of (i)
The nominal moment
these have been tabulated for different shapes in Table A2'4' the shape of the cross section, (ii) the percentage of stee1,
À comparison beloü/ shoh¡s that the maximum difference bett een (iii) the reinforcement layout, (iv) the concrete compressive
strength and (v) the pile dirnensions. No general expression 2) [Mn]
exists for the ultinate moment capacity for precast concrete is the product ót ttre yield
The norninal- moment capacity
piles. À table of dimensionless ultirnate rnoment capacities is strength of steel and its plastlc section modulus, zp.
provided for various precast shapes and percentage area of
steel (Table À'2.5). The li¡nitation of this table is that the TIMBER PTLES
yield strength of steelr fy¡ must be approximately 10 tines
the cornpressive strength of the concrete, fsr. In the United states, Southern Plne ls usually used in
the eastern half of the country while Douglas Fir j.s ¡rore
STEEL PTLES prominent in the rvestern part (Forest Products Laboratory,
1989). Factors that lnfluence tl¡nber strength lnclude (1)
the type of steel piles referred to in this section are H noisture, (ii) te¡nperatur,e (treatment process), (Íil) durat,ion
piles and pipe piles (without concrete fill). According to of loading and (iv) wood irnperfection features euch as knots,
Davisson et al. (L983), rropen-end pipe piles are seldom used slope of grain, shakes, checks and spllts (Davisson et a1.,
in bridge foundation applicationsrt. Pipe sectlons, vith le83). U
superior coLumn charcteristics, are advantageous rühen piles rl
have free-standÍng portions. Otherwise, according to Davisson 1) [Pn] lr
et al., steel-H piles are preferred because they are nore the axial capacity is the product of the 5t exclusion
cost-effective. Sectional properties of both steel-H and pipe Iinit in conpression paraiLlel to graln for green clear q¡ood
piles can be found in Appendix 1. specirnens (Sc) obtained from Table À2.2, the area of the plte
(À¡) and a factor accounting for the treatnent condltioning of
1) [Pn] the ti¡nber pile (k.) obtaíned from Table À2.3 (Davlsson et
the axlal structural capacity in both steel--H piles and a1., 1983) i.e.
pipe piles is simply the product of the yield stress of steel
and the cross-sectional steel area (Table À2.t). Pn=kcÀtSc

2) [un] TÀBLE À2.1 Expressions for Nomlnal Axial structural capacity,
lPnl, of Piles ln the Absence of Bending Moments 8
SirniÌarly, the nominal moment capacity of wood piles is (After PCI, 1985 and Davisson et al., 1983)
the product of the 58 exclusion Ii¡nit for moduÌus of rupture
of green small clear wood specimens (Sp) (Îable À2.2), the
elastic section modulus of the pile (Ze) and a treatment
conditioning factor (k5) obtained fron Table 42.6 (Davisson et
al., 1983). PRESTRESSED CONCRETE (0.85fc' - 0.6fpre)Àc
If the pile dianeter is greater than 12 inches, the expression TIMBER ksSsÀ¡
above has to be rnultiplied by llz/Dl 1/9 where D is the
dia¡neter in inches.



fct = 28 day concrete cyLinder strength

fu, = yield stress of steel
-Àc = effective prestress in the concrete
= cross-sectional area of concrete
Àv = cross-sectional area of steel
Ai = cross-sectional area of timber
så = st exclusion lI¡nit in conpression parallel to
grain for green 6¡na11 clear wood specimens
(see TabLe À2.2)
kc- = factor to account for the treat¡nent condi.tion
of the timber pite and vthere along the pile
the ulti¡nate axial load is desired (see Table
A2.3 )
TÀBLE À2.2 5t Exclusion values for compression Parallel to TABLE À2.4 Expressions for the Nominal Moment Capacity, [Mn],
Grain and llodulus of Rupture for Timber PíIes of Piles in the Àbsence of Àxial Loads
(After Davisson et al., 1983)
To GRAIN (psi) RUPTURE (psi Mn

sc S5
PRESTRESSED CONCRETE 0.37DÀDsfÞu - solid square Piles
(after PCI Design 0.32DÀ;;f;u, - eoltd clrcular and
COAST 2577 5499 Handbook, 1985) octagonal Plles
o.38DAþsfÞ¡¡ - hollów squãre piles
DOUGIJAS TNTERTOR WEST 2558 553 I o.34DA;¡f;¡ - ho).Low circular and
octagonal plles


LOBLOLLY 2504 5325


stÀsH 2923 683



TÀBLE À2.3 kc Factor to Àccount for the Treatment Condition

oi Ti¡nber Piles v¡hen calculating the Axial
Cornpressive strength Parallel to Grain (After
Davisson et al., 1983)
strength of the tendons In prestressed
^ = uttimate
concrete piles
LENGTH Untreated or Kiln Boulton Steamed = yÍeld stress of steel
Air-Seasoned Dried Process 5il = 5t exclusion val-ue for the modulus of rupture of
ti¡nber piles (see Tabl-e 42.2)
D = pile r¡idth or diameter
Àos = ñominal area of prestressing tendons
Pil,e ÀIT 0.534 o.473 o.457 0.396 Le = elastic section nodulus of timber plles
Butt Lengths zD = plastic section moduLus of steel plles
kl = factor to account for the treatment conditioning
of the timber pile and where the plle tle
uLtimate mo¡nenÈ capaclty is required (see Table
Pile < 50ft. o.473 o.427 o.4L2 0.366
Tips > 50ft. o .442 0.396 0.366 0.335 o
TÀBLE À2.5 Nominal Moment Capacity' F,lÌnl, for Precast TABLE À2.6 k5 Faator to Account for-the Treatment Condition o
concrete Piles. chart Àpplieis to any Va1ue of limber'PileE r{then CalculatinE the No¡ninal l.r)

of fqr and fy provided fy : IOfct. lifoment Capacity (After Davisson,et aL.,, 1983)


Untreated or Kiln Boulton Steamed
!fn Air-Seasoned Dried ProcesÊ
CROSS-SECTIONAL Pile À11 0.490 0.448 o.420 0.364
ÀREA Butt Lengths

Ë],,'lE 0.6D

0. 01 0. 043 0 o37 0 037

o.02 o.074 0 074 0 o67

0. 03 0. 106 0 102 0 088

0. 04 0.137 o L20 0 107
0. 05 o.L67 0 139 0 126 N)

0. o6 0. r94 0 L57 0 L44

0. 07 o.226 0 L76 0 161

0. 08 o.254 0 193 0 176

rc 28 day concrete cylinder strength

yield stress of steel
iv= pile width or diarneter
Ag= gross cross-sectional area of concrete





The friction angle of sands is usually not neasured in the

9' 350
laboratory because it is virtually inpossible to obtain
undisturbed samples for testing. The friction angle of sands 300
can instead be correlated to the blow-counts from the standard
penetration test (sPT) or the cone resLstance fron a cone 25"1
0 r0 20 30 40 50 60
penetration test (CPT). N

Figrure A3.l Þ
Àpproxinate relatlonship between the lrt
friction angle of gand änd the spT-N z
y?lue (Àfter pect Haneen and Tlrornburn, F
Peck et aI. (1.974) deveJ.oped the relationshlp between the L974' EI

frlctlon angle of Êand and the corrected SPT-N value that is

shown in Fig. À3.1. the SPT-N values shown on the horizontal
axis l-n this flgrure are corrected to eli¡oinate the influence
of the overburden pressure at the depth nhere the penetratlon
test is perforned. This is achieved using a correction factor
(c¡) which relates the SPT-N value neasured at a given
overburden pressure to the value corresponding to an
overburden pressure of I iuon/flc2. Peck, Hansen and Thornburn
(1974) expressed the value of this correction factor in the
following for¡il:

cN = o.771oq¡g(2o/oytl

uhere øvr = vertical effective stress in tons/ft2

the corrected value of N (Ncor¡) is calculated by nultiplying o
the rneasured value of N by the correction factor:

Ncorr = CN N
9' 350

where Ncorr = corrected SPT-N value

N = neasured SPT-N value
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figrure À3.I
Durgrunogfu and Mitchell (1975) developed a correLatLon
Àpproxinate relationship between the
fricÈion angle of sand and the SPT-N betvreen the friction angle of sands and the cone resistance,
value (Àfter Peck.Hansen and Thornburn,
Le7 4) 9c, as shown in Fí9. À3.2.
The biggest drawback of the cone penetration test is that

no sample is obtained. The test is best- used 1n conjuncÈion F
with conventional dri[ing and sanpling operations ¡¡here ì.J

sarnples are obtained that can be used for classLficatlon. It

is also possible to establish a rough idea of soil tlpe based
on the relationship of friction ratio (FR) and cone resistanée
(qc), and various enpirical correlations have been established
for this purpose. Campanella and Robertson (1983) developed
Fig. À3.3 for this purpose. This diagran can be used to
supplenent conventional classificatj.ons based on sa¡nples.
5000 I - tPa - t.02 kg/cm2
I prrdlcLd ul¡mL Yü't'
baf 1OO
Ö -¡30c$¡i r0.rl-0.5
dd¡ddn d I'O uurnweir I sanas /
I A x¡r¡a¡t
(\l torn tteiuñrt
1 A *.r."
Ê (1e7¿r'
,/ S¡lty
/ sands, s/
= 1000
Y ,touî' t l/l
/ Sandy I
6 60
,/ ",il\'*rl"'*t
and /
I(! 500 tt
/' s¡lty clayy
'õ .ú
(D //
(D co //
E I /
/ ^/
o crays
o 10

oo I /
6 ,n/ //
.9 Á
ct ,/
100 1 / U
U' / F

/ E'
.E ¡g
50 li
:f ft

Frlctlon Ratio, FR, %

¿3búd mðUfad Ya¡¡-
30 35 40 45 50
slnoltflert classlflcatlon chart for
Figure À3.3
Angle ol lnlemal Friction O - dcg stairdard electrlc friction cone
tÀitãi. n"uertson and camPanella,
rlgure À3.2
Ultinate cone resistance as a function of
frÍction angle for several sands
(After Durgunoglu and Mitchell, 1975)




The bases for the eccentricity factors in

Table 4.1 for prestressed concrete, precast concrete, steeL-
H, steel pipe and tirnber piles are described in this O.7BPy
Fully Plostic
The eccentricity factors for precast and prestressed
concrete piles are simiÌar to those recorn¡nended by ÀÀSHTo. Eloslic '-H{'
The eccentricity factor for timber piles in Table 4.1 (0.82)
is the value reco¡nmended by Davisson (1983). In the case of
Me Mp s l.53Me
steel-H piles and steel pipe pi).es, the values shown in
Table 4.1 are derived based on Davisson's (L983) F
recomnendations . N)

Steel-H Piles
Me= nominal- structural moment capacity of a pile that
behaves elastically
The moment-thrust interaction curves recommended by "p nominal structural moment capacity of a pite that
behaves plasticatly
Davisson (1983) for steel-H piles along the weak axes are
D= axial structural capacj-ty
shown as solid lines in Fig. À4.1. The nor¡nalized load-
moment interaction diagrarn of Fig. 5.12 reflects a load-
moment curve that is intermediate betvreen an elastic secti-on
and a plastic section, as indicated by the dashed line in
Fig. À1.i. Therefore, the value of eccentricity factor
reconmended for steel-H pites (0.78) is in between those for Figure À4.1 Load-lttoment fnteraction Curve for Steel-H Piles
Àlong the weak Àxis (Àfter Davisson' 1983)
the elastic section (0.?0) and the plastic section (0.89).
Steel Pipe Piles t.o

The monent-thrust interactÍon curve recornmended by
Davisson (1983) for steeL pipe piles is shown as a soLid o.8
line in Fig. À4.2. For this curve, the eccentricity factor.
is 0.91. The nornalized ]oad-mo¡nent interaction diagram for
steeL pipe piles in Fig. 5.13 is derived by approximating o.6
the straight dashed line in Fig. Àa.2,to be the load-moment
curve. This is the basis for seLecting an eccentricty P/Py

factor of 0.87 for steel pipe piles. o.4

o.2 o4 o.6


Mp= nominal structuraL moment capacity of a pi.le that

behaves plastically
^v axial structural capacity
M bending moment.

P axial load

Figure À4.2 Load-Monent Interaction Curve for Steel-Þipe

Piles (After Davisson, 1983)


1. Alizadeh M., and Davisson M.T., rrlateral- Load Tests on 14. Duncan J.M., trClass Notes for Deep Foundation Course -
Piles - Arkansas River Project'r, ASCE JSMFED, voL. 96, No. CE 5530", Virginia Polytechnic lnstitute and State
9 | :-970, pp. L583-l-604. University, Spring 1988.
2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation 15. Duncan J.M. and Buchignani À.L., rrAn Engineering Manual
officj-ats, "Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges", for Settlement Studiesrr, Geotechnical Engineering Report,
Fourteenth Edition, 1989. Univ. of calif. Berke]ey, 1976, 94 pp.
3, Barker R.M., Duncan J.M. and Rojiani x.B-, rrl.oad Factor 1,6.. Durgunoglu T. and Mitchell J.K., ilstatic Penetration
Design Crj-teria for Highway Structure Foundationsrr, fnterin Resistance of soils: II - Evaluation of Theory and
Rept. for NCHRP, VPI&SU, Oct. 1988, 140 pp. Implications for Practicertr Proc. ÀsCE Spec. conf. on In
Situ Measurenent of soil Parameters, vof. f, L975, pp 172-
4. Briaud J.L. and Tucker L., "Pifes in Sand: A Method 189.
Including Residual Stresses'r, ÀscE JGED, Vol. 110, No. 11,
Nov. 1984, pp. 1666-l-680. ]-7. Esrig liÎ.E. and Kirby R.c., rÀdvances in General
Effective Stress Method for tþp Prediction of Àxial Capacity
5, Brohrn D.4., Reese L.c., o'Nei1L, M.w., ttcyclic Lateral for Driven Piles in C1ayrr, LlLt¡ Annual offshore Technology
Loading of a Large-Scal-e Pile erouprr, ASCE JGED, VoI . l-l-3, conference, Houston, 1979r pp. 437-449.
No. l-l-, Nov. 1987, pp. 1326-1-343.
18. Evans Jr. L.1. and Duncan J.Ù1., ItSimplified Ànalysis of
6. Brov¡n D.À., Morrison, C., Reese L.C., rr],ateral Load. Laterally Loaded Pilesrr, Uc BerkeLey Rept. No. UCB/Gvg2-O t
Behavior of Pile Group in Sand't, ASCE JGED, Vo1. l-L4, No. July, 1982, 245 pp,
11, Nov. 1988, pp. L26L-L27 6.
19. Fetlenius 8.H., samson L and favenas F., rrceotechnical ¡ú

7. Canadian Geotechnical Society, ?rcanadian Foundation Guidelines - Pile Designrr, Public works canada, Marine Works F
Engineering Manualt', 2nq Edition, Bitech Publishers Ltd., sector, ottalta ontario KlÀ oMz, canada, August 1989. ì.)
L985, 460 pp.
20. FII.À, rrlnteri¡n Procedures for Evaluating Scour at
8. carson 4.8., ilFoundation Constructionrt, Mccraw Hill- Book Bridgesi,, FIfwA Publication to be incorporated in trHydraulic
co., Ne\,/ York, L965, 424 pp. Engiñeering circular No. 18 (HEC-18), rrscour at Bridgestr
which is scheduted for PubLication in 1989, Sept. L989, 62
g. circeo M.R., trskin Friction l'Iobilization in Axially pp.
Loaded Piles and Piersrr, Rept. subrnitted to VPI&SU in
partiaJ. fulfiLlnent for the M.S. Degree in Civ. Eng., Dec. 2I. Focht J.A. and Koch K.J., rlRational Anatysis of the
l-986, 61, pp. LaieraL Performance of Offshore Pile Groupsrr, Proc. of the
5ln offshore TechnoÌogy Conference, Houston, Texas, voL. 2'
L0. Davisson M.T., Manuel F.S. and Armstrong R.M., Paper oTC 1896, I973, PP. 701-708.
"ALlowabl-e Stresses in Pilesn, FHwÀ Rept. No. FHi^lAlRD- 22. Forest Products Laboratory, rrHandbook of Wood and wood-
83/O59, December, l-983, 19L PP.
Based MaÈerials for Engineers, Àrchitects and Buildersrr,
l-i.. Davisson M.T., and Robinson K.E.,,IBending and Buckling U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Hemisphere Publishíng Corp.,
of Partially Ernbedded Piles.rr Proc' 6tn Int. conf. s.M. and 1989.
F.8., Montreal, Canada, L965, pp.243-246. 23. Heins c.P. and Firmage D.À., ilDesign of Modern steel
13, Departnent of the Arny, rrDesign of Pile Foundationsrr, wiley and Sons, Nevt York, L979, 463
Highhray Bridgesrr, John
U.S. Àrmy corps of Engineers, Washington D.C. 2031-4-l-000' pp.
PubLication No. EM ILLo-2-29o6, in press. J.M.E.. and Dover 4.R., rrRecent
24. Holloway D.!1., Audibertpriveabilityn,
Advances in Þredicting Pile lenth Ànnua1
offshore lech. conf., Houston' Texas, May 1978, pp. 1915-
25, Hrennikoff .A., ItAnalysis of Pile Foundations with
Batter Pilesil, Transactions AscE, cxv' 1950.
26. Hunt H.W., "Design and Installation of Driven Pile 37. Peck R.8., Hanson 9J.E. and Thornburn Í.H., :'Foundation
Foundations", Associated Pile and Fitting Corp., P.O. Box Engineering", Second Edition, John Wiley and Sons Inc., NY,
1043, Clifton, NJ 0'70L4, L979, 217 pp. L97 4.
2'1. Issa Mohsen and Yuan Robert L., "Prestressed Concrete 38, Pile Buck fnc., "The Pile Buck Ànnual -
Column Behavior" PCI Journal, November/December 1989, pp. Handbook/Directory of Pile Driving, Foundâtion and Marine
5 1-67 . Construction Techniques, Engineers, Contractors,
Manufacturers, Dj-stributors and Suppliers", P.O. Box 1056,
28. Kulhawy F.H., Trautmann C.H., Beech J.F., O'Rourke T.D. Jupiter FI 33468, 1988, at32 pp.
and McGuire W, "Transmission Line Structure Foundations for
Uplift-Conpression Loading", EPRI Rept. EL-2870, Electric 39. Poulos H.G.. and Davj-s E.H., "PiIe Eoundation Design and
Power Research Institute, 1983. Ana1ysis", John wiley ancl Sons, 1980, 397 pp.
29. Fragaszy R.J., Higgins J.D., KiJ.ian A.P.
Law-ton 8.C., 40. Prakash S. and Sharma H.D., "PiIe Foundations in
and Peters 4.J., "Revíew of Methods for Estimating PiJ.e Engineering Practice", John l{iley & Sons, Lnc., 19901 734
Capacity", Rept. submitted to the Washington State D.O.1., pp.
37 pp.
4L. Prestressed Concreter Institute,_üPCI Design Handbook -
30, Meyerhof G.G, "Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Pile Precast and Prestressed (loncrete", 3rq Edition, Prestressed
Foundations", ASCE JGED, Vol. 102, No. G13, March L976, pp Concrete Institute, 20 Nc¡rth Wacker Dr., Chicago I1 60606'
196-228. 1985.

31. Moulton L.K., GangaRao H.V.S. and Halvorsen G.T., 42. Reese L.C., Cox Il.R., and Koop-F.D.r "Analysis of
"Tolerable Movement Criterj-a for Highway Bridges", FHWÀ/RD- Laterally Loaded Piles i¡r Sand", 6Lr¡ Annual Offshore
85/L07, Federal Highway Àdrninistration, Washington D.C., Technology Conf., Paper llo. OTC 2080, 1974.
1985, 118 pp.
43, Robertson P.K. and (iampanella R.G., " Intepretation of U
32. National Forest Products Association, "National Design Cone Penetration Tests, I,art I and Part 2, Soil Mechanics
Specification for Wood Construction", Recommended Practice Series No. 60, Dept. of (liv. Eng., Univ. of British r!,
by the National Forest Products and Àssoc.,