el
BOARD IÍBRARY
Shallow Foundations
Driven Piles
Retaining Walls and Abutments
Drilled Shafts
Estimating Tolera ble Movements
Load Factor Design Specif ications
and Commentary
R. M. BARKER, J.,M. DUNCAÎ,, K. B. ROJIANI
P. S. K. OOt, C. K. TAN, and S. G. KIM
vrrsinra Porytechnrc rnäijiliìi
Blackeburg, Vlrglnla
Prior to the early 1970s, all highwaybridge design in the united states was
performed using the working stress design method. Then, in the mid1970s,
AASHTO
adopted loadfactor 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 loadfactordesign
criteria for bridgesuperstructure design. However, many others have not due, part,
in
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
in
compiling design forces for the highway structure and its foundation. The development
of suitable loadfactordesign criteria for bridge foundations would eliminate
this incon
sistency, saving time and money. Additionally, it would lead to a more uniform
margin
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 loadfactor
design provisions which could be considered by AASHTo for inclusion
in the Standørd
specifications for Highway Bridges. specification provisions and commentary
were
developed for shallow foundations, driven piles, drilled shafts, and abutments
and
rigid retaining structures. The specifications employ the same load factors and
load
combinations that are presently used for AAsHTo superstructure design.
The recom_
menled specifltcations and commentary are expected to be considered for adoption
by
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 loadfactor
spe;ifica
tions, and include many examples demonstrating their use. The hve engineering
manu
als cover the design of shallow foundations, driven piles, drilled shafts, retaining
walls
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
and
can be the basis for a future training program.
MANUALS FOR THE DESIGN OF
BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS
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 stateofpractice, or to remedy omissions in the existing
code.
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:
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.
I /
viii
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
approach.

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
. '' .li¡,.,¿..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.
Fíndíngs
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
conditions.
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 fullscale 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 earthquakeresist¿nt design of
retaining walls and abutments.
APPENDIX A
PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING PERFORMANCE FACTORS
Pâge
LIST OF FIGURES..
6.I DESIGNMETHODSFORAXIATIY
. LOAÓED DÊILLED SHAFÍS '...........:...... Æ58
RÊFERENCES A132
NC)MENGLATURE E'UZ
CONTENTS
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, SteelH 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
5
"+.
Part 6
Recommended Load Factor Design
gpecífications and commentary 229 1;:.::'.
,! .)ÁO
Îfì? .,,r
:"r¡
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project Phillip Ooi, former Research Assistant; C.K. Tan, former Research
244 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 coprincipal 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
CONTENTS
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
5
2.4 Qther Design Considerations.....,....,...,...... ................i...... 5
5
7
8
I
8
I
I
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
t2
t2
t6
16
l6
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
20
22
22
25
25
4.ll Safety Factors, Load Factors and Resistance Factors....... 27
2t
28
5.2 Settlements of Footings on Sand from Standard Penetration Tests.............. 28
28
29
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 TimeDependent Settlements of Footings on Sands....... ..............f........ 38
5.9 Settlements Due to Secondary Compression of Clays......... 38
38
lrl PART I
39
39
40
4A
'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
40
42
6.4 Design of Shallow Foundations in Rock Using Load and Resist¿nce Factor Design Approach...... 43
4
44
46
Nor¿.rror.¡s AND SYMBoLS 49
cn¡prpn I
INTRODUCTION
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;
CHAPTER 2
É FACÎORS
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
J
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
f¡¡
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
z
0 IB 1.3 o 1.0 o 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
o
É. v l26 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
2
a v¡I
a 13 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
' 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 J20.
a bcta factor of 1.67. l.@ may bc uscd for design of deck slab
with ømbioation of loads as describcd in Article 3.24.22. For L<¡ad Factor Design
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
appropriate,
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
2.
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.
r (rq)
ron=sRn rìn
h
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
states.
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
materials.
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 atrest 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, (2.3.4.1)
TÉble 2.3. Suggested values of perfornsnce frctor for ultimate limit stdtes design for shallow foundations.
1. Bêaring Capaclby
a. Sând
 Semlenpirlcal Proceduro ueing SPi ¿a¿a 0.45
 Senlempirlcal 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€miempirical 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
 Semlempirlcal 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
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
NOTE:
(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.
'I
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):
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
.5
715
7
r.15
1' 11.5
r.25
. 15'
>\ Þ:
'
\
:;
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)
8 PART I
0)
Expansive and collapsible soils may be encountered in many I(ú
parts of the United States, primarily the arid and semiarid re
o
gions of the West and Southwest. Expansive soils, usually highly
plastic clays and clay shales, may undergo large volume changes
Ea
l)'6
6)s
as a result ofseasonal changes in water content, and the expan o_F
sion process may exert enomous swelling pressure on engineered oE
9ì
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
E(,
from other projects in the area and pertinent sitespecific data, Eo
oe
>E
including groundwater information and index properties of soils,
(úÉ
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
SOIL EXPLORATION FOR SHALLOW
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.
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
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 thinwalled 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 splitspoon sampler, and is thus an indirect test.
The scope and amount of work in an exploration program are It is important that all insitu tests be carried out by experi
dependent on many sitespecific 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
tion,1985)
o
Highw¡y Ailminishation, 1985)
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 cross6ections. 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.
I
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.
I
ÀrteaLan presEure and Beepage zones, lf I
encountered. Éhou1d alao be notad on the I
borlng tog. I
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 sandcenent [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)
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 ozsz:) gravel . failure ln
] 6ensltive
I solls.
had test soft rock, soft clay UltiEate bearing, InÈerpretation
(ÀsTt'f Dr194, sand, and êhorttem ln tems of
stfff cl.ay deflectlon. protot¡r¡re
difficult.
HêIl tèst ÀIl.6olls Effective Questionable
horlzontal above vater
peneability of tablet not
DASS. effectlvê for
verCical
pemeabillty,
Borehole sand, soft stiff clay Êtrength uncertainty in
shear clay. dralnage,
Indirect :.8
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
conpact.lon.
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.
6trength.
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
conpaction.
Water conten! cLays Disturbed Correlate with 3.5 USEFUL CORRELATIONS
6trength,
conpressibllity,
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 clays 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.
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS 13
0f rxlEnn^! rRlctto¡
^r.Gt€
YS. ORY U¡'f T€GHT
a
o
êa
+ ß€L^frv€ oE¡¡s¡fY
co
u
l¡.
o
C
o
c
c
o
CD
C
POROSTIY. ô ffoß c. ¿681
..ã .a .!3r¡
.!3 .t
.l Ii .eg .2 .t5
o5r pavrLloN
o
o I
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
l4
/ 
30 ,
o.6
I I
25
\ \ b
lr
z ã o.2 øJo.O. ll+O.OO37 Ip
o
(,
/ at
c
9. on
/
¡a G"
o
€'
É, / 20 40 60 80 roo r20
, Plorticily Inder lp
IÉ (c)
E'u
(D I
c(D
o.
O Triq¡iol ComPression
I/
!t
C'
A Direcl Simple Sheor
elu
g El Trio:iol E¡tension
I 0{'l
o
(t
/
/
I
// Z\;;r,
/t Cloys
o,
""0
ium Plosticily
of Higt r Ploslicily
40
,f.' 
l, tl
60
Ploslicity lndcr Io
:o o.s r.o t.5 2.o 2.5 3o 35 4o
' (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,
1982)
dp
o
o
o
o +
F{
o
+J
.ú
É
É
o
{o
n
o
¡{
g.
É
o
c,
Figure 3.6. Relation between comPres
sion ratio and natural water content.
(After Lambe and Whitman, 1969) Natural Water Content (*)
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS l5
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
z
o
C'
g
ge0
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.
4+
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
o
+
. l0 
.26  0.s
0.25
Àpproxihate
lea6 than I
I
1 to 1.5 (assume I)
OCR Remark6
sErll congolrdatug
nomally consolidatel
nofrally consolidate,
.s1  I.0 3 overconsolidated
14 6 overconsolidated
ver 4 greater than 6 overconaolidated
I I r tt
oL
0.00r o.or o.r t.o Note: Àging (or Gecondary conpressionl¿ cenentation and
other processes may lesult in a higher overcon
solidation rat.io (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 3.11. 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)
CHAPTER 4
4.1 GENERAL
Table 4.1. Presumptive allowable bearing pressures for epread footing foundations. (Modiñed after U.S. Depart
ment ofthe Navy, 1982)
: 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
sionless).
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
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
lfrì
ground surface (ie,, highest position of groundwater æcorded in the thæe
N N N N' N N N borings), values of Cwl and Cw2 a.re 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
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.
e
€ê E
'g
oo N value o
Éo
15 12 t8
17 9 t6 t 15' r
12 I 35
16 I %
18 14 24 ¡ = 115 pct
= 0.0575 tcf
17 15 æ
15 21
+Gvrr
16 17 Note: The firm stratum
is €ncounter€d at depth
12 11 45 ft below lhe foundation
level.
30 16 13 n
Figure 4.1ø. Standørd penetration test data for a housing developing site. (After Garga and Quin,
1974)
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
ofinternal
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\
v)
Ø.6.2)
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.
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),
o,r,=S(c*r+c*rþ
Values of Cyyl and Crx2 are calculated æ follows:
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!! =
t"3.0
=  52.3
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 4.2estimøting bearing capacity of a footing usiixg cone
penetration test data.
Cone Resistance, qc (kg/cm2)
q 100 200
t
a
oo
40
Pa
Ir: 2D,
cu'
(4.6.7)
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
P.'
Sofb ùo vlry Flm < LZ
Clay The empirical correlation for compressibility index given in
1
eurt : Cwr;
1
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)
I
q
Asgued
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
24 PART I
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
014 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
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'
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS 25
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).
N?=41 t56  49
Nq=2et38 = 34
Sq=l'67t1'71 1.70
Since the soil above ùe footing level is less competent than the soil benearh the
POINTOF LOAO
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.
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 onehalf the
26 PART I
1
Based on the information given in Figure 4.la, 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.
lW=t¿no=tâ¡l 10"=0.18
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
Reduction in bearing capacity due to the effect of load inclination from Table 4.2 (ü):
wittr a safety factor of 3, the vertical component of allowable bearing pressuæ from
strength consideration is,
nornal stress on the interface between the concrete and the clay, C¿lculate the safety againsr sliding for rhe fooring described in Exanple 44. 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
t0ns.
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 4.la" Ñ = 11.
to 0.7 times the undrained strength if the concrete is wet.
Procædures for evaluating safety of a footing against sliding
Forñ=ll,Qr35'
are illustrated by an example in Figure 4.7. The concreþ fooüng will be c€st in sih¡, thus
ô = Or= 3s'
9ult

tr: (4. I r. 1) Altematively, the safery mügin may be provided tfuough the use of load md resistanæ
p
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: (4.tr.2) 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 þ : performance factor, dimensionless; 7 : load factor, (2) Estimate ultimate beüing capaciry.
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.
ing resistance of a footing are illustrated by an example given in 5.2 SETTLEMENTS OF FOOTINGS ON SAND FROM
STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS
Figure 4.9.
7 Example 5.1
C.¡
+J
6 I
dead load of 250 tons and a service live load of 50 tons, and is placed 5 ft
(¡{ below the ground surface.
ç
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
5
+J
Ê \_ footing to depth B below the footíng base is used in sett¡ement calculatiorl
o From soil information given in Figure 4.1,
É
o
¡{
+J
+J
o 4 From Boring I, N = 16
t¡
q{ Det ?se From Boring 2,Ñ = 1l
o Frorn Boring 3, Ñ = 24
É
o 3
É
H
IY¿U
Use Ñ = 11 for se$lement calculation.
o
ç
o From Figu¡e 5.1 the be€¡ing pressu¡e comsponding to one inch setdement
is,
t{
lt{
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
a
o base, correction for effect of \¡'ater tÂble is rcquired.
o
o
tr
A
ùì 'zxl)
Reduction = 6.5 a 120:å._) + (1.0  0.5) = 0.75
Ft
Ê /oo se
¡{
0å Thus q1 = (0.75) (0.8) = 0.6 t/ft2
fo
.ú
0,
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
where p : bearing pressure corresponding to a given magnitude 5.22 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)
Example 5.2
750 2"",
(3)
r (1) Determine minimum average value of Ñ.
o
F
F1"..
(4) a )ã Use the minimum average value of measu¡ed S[rI below counß
n (12) NORMALLY LOADED SAND OR SAND
a within the range of depth B below the foothg base. From soil information
= a
AND GFÂVEL
given in Figure 4.Ia,
a oATAPoTNTFoRBRtocEPTERS I
Ñl = 16 forBori¡g I
I
lNolANA SITE (Numbtr in pâßnÙl€sis is tho number Ñz = 11 for Boring z
^ ot fæl¡ngs awr¿qod lo obbin dåÞ poinl)
I
Ñ3 = 24 for Boring 3
0r0æ301ó506070
AVERAGE MEASURED SPT RESISTANCE IN
OEPTH B BELOW FOOTING, BLOWS/FT.
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
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
5.3 SETTLEMENTS OF FOOTINGS ON SAND FROM Table 5.1. Pressu¡e change correction factor, Cr.
CONE PENETRATION.TESTS
ow^ 
cP
^P
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)
Notes
 = 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)
^D
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:
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
ztB
hd
ztB
p rz, _2
qt o'vp c'
vp vP vP
NoLe: BfooLlngpid¿h
L = fooÈlng len8¿h
ÄÞ=d'
_vlvo  d' n€Lb€arlng presGure
øvf'  flnâl v€rÈl.cal 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
32 PART I
footing l
r, Settlement lnfluencs Faclor, : l' C, C, (*)B
I
p (5.3.4)
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
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS 33
qc G0 (2) Calculateseulementofthefooting.
I
1.0 Bæd on dafa from Figure 4.2a, design value of qç is deæmined as
fz
shown in Figu¡e 5.7a For serdement compulsrion, ¡he soil bencarh rhe
foo¡ing is divided in¡o five sublayers.
Botþm of Footino
l+oosign Valu6 otqc The iniúal effecdve overùurden pressur€ at foundation levcl is,
f ="T=o''
Fmm Table 5.1, Cp = 0.89
Subleyer Number
Immediate settlement of the fooring, pi, is eslinaæd æ fol¡ows:
p,=coc,aor3
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
pr=crpi
5.4 SETTLEMENTS OF FOOTINGS ON SANDS, From Tabte 5.2, C¡ = 1.4
SILTS AND CLAYS BY JANBU'S TANGENT
MODULUS METHOD pr = (1.4) (0.52) = 0.73 inch
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 Nvalue 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 unitsthe 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 unitsthe same units as Acrr'; and LZ : sublayer
together with the following equations:
thickness, length unitsthe 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 onedimensional 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
Verl¡cal
orf'.Pp Straln Mr:m.crnu' (5.4.3)
l ÀH
Ho
["
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.
Table 5.5. Values of mi¡dulus number, m, for sands, silts, and clsys. (After Janbu' 1985)
Relaiive Value of m
Values of m
pp = preconsolidation Pressur€ = highest pressurs to which the soil has been subjected in Lhe past.
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS 35
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:
Tnn
p=¿r+.^zl
o= 1658 *t*972¡5a598¡5
' 6.4t x 105 6.88 ¡ 105 ?.55 x ld
, 15ft .
l+: :;q
el
5l
ol
Slro Sand ':'.,:', ]i .
I Nä8lo35:.:r:'
Unit weight . ,
r¡=t15pcf
GWT
m
Figure 5.9a. Example 5.4 (continued)
36 PART I
2.8
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
recommended.
2.0
+ '=0.,
UB=
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=
10
1.5
,
Table 5.7. Values of empirical settlement coefficient, a, for typical soils.
soÍI
clay
Type Conditlon
overconsol idated
nornal1y consolldâted
weathered or renolded
Ep'lPr
>16
9L6
7 9
I
L/2
u
'11.0
0.5
0¡
¿
v z I 2
squars
SíIt
o.t l.o r0 100 1000
overconsol Ldated >14 2/3 H,ß
norDalÌy consolldaÈed s14 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
: 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
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
COMPRESSION OF CLAYS
The initiat etrediv¿ dverburdeft Fessw at dAù below ùe bouom of the fooling is
å
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
E)
sion. This process is called "secondary compression."
Secondary compression settlements can be estimated using the
Q) Estimdtesoilnodu¡N.
expression:
From Figûie 5.8, forÑl = ll and o'vo = 0.?2 ífr2
E5 ;410 r/ftz
P."
: Co H,log k (5.e.r)
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 tradeoffbetween accu
movement, tsf; p., : tolerable movement, in.; ñ : minimum racy and reliability. A relatively ¿ccurate method is one that
aveÍage SPTN 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
estimates.
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
CHAPTER 6
40 PART I
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,
ROCK
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 highrise build
ings or abutments for arch bridges.
recommended that an average value of RQD within a depth
equal to onefourth 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
strength.
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
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS 4t
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
Kansas Ciby 1961/ 1969 2Au 2e" .29u 29.u .29u 2eu
Building Code
Wales, Australia
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
9 0100 Excellent From Table 6.2, the allowable bea¡ing pressure can be interpolated
7590 Good as follows:
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 6.1estimating 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"
7.5" ,: 6.3 SETTLEMENTS OF FOUNDATIONS ON ROCK
3.s"
r.5,'
15" For most ordinary structures, where the imposed loadings are
not exceptionally large, settlements of footings supported on
6.0'
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 highrise structures or abutments for arch bridges'
CorcRecovery=
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
kgend:
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: lpAoj (6.3. l)
Figure 6.1. Determination of RQD (modirted core recovery).
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS 43
Borohola #80
Nspr
a
('**"'"0"
"
Nssr
'1020sÆ
T.p6o¡
Sllly day
;x
\,,
Mdsr ¡ L,
llrn
.1"' s¡hy.lay
úflÉm
\
gl lr6€ffib
^l:;
tl.*
å #
EI
;¡+
+i+ ffim.
i!+
: .,l ' r: : I :: ': :il: w mny
I qn6l
,,;i..tiôlinp.o¡men¡¡c¡n..',:., Ë fiad¡s:
h
¡tr:'.,:,:rl,* 29i75 ff,,:.:: r,, .;:' qy hard
.. .. 9þt4cli.. : .t:,...,.,
.:.'': .:..tr]::,]':
i.1. I
il*
.'i' r ì t, ,i1' :::: ': :':::li!,ì
s
ROD (%)
Figure 6.2a Geological conditions þr a bridge abutment footing near Pennsylvania Turnpíke
(Lehigh County).
0.9P
P^ EAo s
(6.3.2) R¡g¡d,'
Weo k
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
rsf.
RQD (t) O. lm o. 5! 1. 0n
i Si¡c" normal stiffnes, K¡¡, for the discontinuity is not known,
*Note: Er,/Kn Ís Ín netrest and ForUB =ffi=2.1, s€ttlement of the fock mass c¿n be estimated using the expfession:
In LRFD the safety against ultimate bearing capacity failure Aæa of the smaller footine, h' = = t t+ ft2
ljO
(an ultimate limit state) is ensured if:
Estimaæd æfllement of the ræk mN would then be
tural failure can be checked using the following expression: Figure 6.4. Example 6.2estimating settlement of a þoting on
jointed rock
óuP" > rTiQi (6.4.2)
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 socalled 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 qualityExcavation 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
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS 45
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 wellcompacted 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.
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%).
which is greater than the roBl factored load of 3790 rons. Thus, the
footing has adequate capacity against bearing capaciry failure.
.oil
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. EL5918, Empire State
Concrete, ACI Guide No. 20L.2R77, 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. L23L28. 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' 189236' (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.L622.
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. L734. clas;ification System for Engineering PurPoses' ASTM
STP 984, ASTI{' Philadelphia' PP.91101.
Bjerrumr
' 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.7396' uànual for Settlenént Studies, Department of Civil
EnglneerIng, of California at Berkeley, 94
Bowles, J. E. (1988)r Foundation Analysis andDesiqn, Fourth
Edition, McGrawHill Publication Co., p.255. PP.
unfversity
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 244, 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,
p.241.
, 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 penetrationÍIests'.,
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 2236. Kulhawy, F. E. and Goodrnan, R. E. (1987), "Foundatione in
Rock", Chapter 55 in Ground Enqíneerinc Reference 11
l{
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. {
1t
à
¡
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
æ
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' 440445' conference on soil l¡fechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Montreal, vol. I' pp 354358.
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. L11.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1957), "The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Steinbrenner, I{. (1934), 'f Tafeln zur Setzungberechnung[,
 Die Strasser PP 12L124.
¡'oundations On Siopes", Epç.. , 4th International
Conference on Soí1Mechanics and Foundation Tan, C. K. and Duncan, J. ¡'f . (1991), ISettlements of
Engíneering, London, Vol. 1' pp' 384386' Footings on Sand  Àccuracy and Re1lablllty"r.to be
Meyerhof, G. G. (19?0), "safety Factors in Soil l'lechanics", publisñed in the Proc., Geotechnical Engineering
' Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 7, Pp.349355' 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 forFoundations Estinates of Footings on Flnite Layersrr,
ãtta Siop"", VoI. II, Boulder, CO.' pp.121' canadian Geotechnlcal Journal' vol. 20, No. ' pP 832
835.
R. B.' Hanson, W. E.r and Thornburn, T' H' (L274lt and
Peck,'Foundaiion Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1967), godl Mechinlqg=in
Enqineerinq, Second Edition, John Wiley Éncrineerincr Practice, Second Edltion, .lohn I{iley and
Sons, New York, 514 PP. sons, Nett Iork' 729 PP.
Putnam, J. B. (1981), "Analysis and Designof Foundations on lornlinson, ltf . J. (1986), Foundation Desicrn and CqnsËn¡ction,
¡Ë
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. 573594' 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
73.
and Foundation Engineeringf ÀSCE' VoI. 96, NO.3, PP.
10111043
Schmertmann' J. H. (1977lt
Department of
Transportat , Federa Àd¡rinistration, PP. 54
55.
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.11311135.
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
settlement 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 itrproved settlement influence rt)
': : :
' ' j'
CONTENTS
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
54
2.2.2 Precast concrete piles (including prestressed piles)............. 54
55
55
56
56
56
57
57
58
58
58
59
59
60
60
60
4.1.2 Presumptive bearing capacities of soils and rocks...... 62
4.1.3 Rational methods of estimating pile bearing capacities....... 62
68
68
68
' 70
70
fi;i'å'"1*ätffi*1':::'*;:i:l:::..''........'............'................''...:::::::::::::::::::::::...'..'.............. 70
71
7l
7t
7l
7t
72
72
80
80
80
80
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
89
APPENDIX I Secr¡oN Pnopenrles on Pnr,srnessED CoNcRETe, SreerH AND PrpE Prres............ 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 BrowCouNrs eNn CoNe
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
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 mid1970s. 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.
CHAPTER 2
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 crosssectional areas, such as H piles hard soil. (3) They are vulnerable to decay when placed above
and openended 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.
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.
DRIVEN PILES 55
Pr€slressed
H beom cyl¡nder
Cosl'inploc€ Cost¡nshell Precosl Pipe pile p ile pile
Wood no shell Pipe pile concrele f¡ I led
p ¡te no fill
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.
H piles are made of steel, rolled into the shape of an H. They Two other types of piles commonly used include castinplace
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 Castinplace 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) SteelH 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 castinplace 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 steelH pile "stinger" placed on the
tively small because ofits small crosssectional area. (3) SteelH 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)
3.1 LOAD FACTOR DESIGN CONCEPT
ÊrqEQ + BTCEICEI
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 :
coeffrcient
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.
DRIVEN PILES 57
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
ÉFÀqtoRs ,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, l67 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
'x
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 t3 ,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
(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 = o.ls 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 endbearing. 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
friction.
3.5 OTHER DES¡GN CONSIDERATIONS
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 Degradationaggradation 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 longterm effects caused by natural or manmade
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 Scourgeneral 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 pilerock 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 Scourlocal 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.
DRIVEN PILFS 59
3.5.2 Deterioration limit st¿tes. Loads due to negative skin friction should be in
cluded.
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 costeffective 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
loading.
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.
I
CHAPTER 4
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
FÀCTOR, dA FÀCTOR, T
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 tled
this section. The structural capacity of piles is discussed first, colunns colunns
followed by the bearing capacity ofsingle piles and pile groups. steelH Piles oa5 o.7a
Settlement of pile groups is considered last. steel Pipe PileÊ 0.85 o. 87
The axial load in a pile should not exceed the factored axial
structural capacity. The following criterion expresses this fact:
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)
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 (4.1.2.2\
centertocenter, 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
4.1.1.2 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 py
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 (4.1.2.1) by Terzaghi. The two right hand columns of Table 4.2 contain
iE %î
I
l Ti
I
l lr
I
I
li
t
.[
I
I
t".. r",
J r.' r...
1 1 1 1
Figure 4.2. Critical buckling
t 2to' o
loads
umns
for centrally
with various end
loaded col
condi
Pa, =7
an2eOtO
D,1
'cr
2n2Eoto
2
L_
P=
'cf
rr2E
3 ol o
eq
o 
'ct 4L2
eq
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¡ (4.1.3.3)
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
4.1.2.1 or 4.1.2.2, 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 4.1.3.1 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).
Rocks
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
design.
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 amethod 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 (4.1.3.1) the reconsolidation processes.
DRIVEN PILES 63
r.oo?
50 ro0 r50 200
r¡ I
€
o
o.es
lr lo6= roo
o.oo
tooo eooo 3000 4000
Undrained shearing strenglh Su in fbít2
Undrained shearing skengrth S, in ktUÍf
50 roo
roo r50
r50 ?ol
?oo
o
o t25to2050
õ ocR
c
.9
Figure 4.4. B versus OCRforfull dßplacement piles. (After Esrig
c
Þ and Kirby, 1979)
Figure 4.3. Design cumes for adhesion factors þr piles driven into
clay soils. (After Tomlinson, 1987) The pmethod 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") (4.1.3.6)
2. The Bmethod 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' (4.1.3.5)
where øn' and ø"' are the horizontal and vertical effective 4.1.3.2 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 (4.1.3.7)
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 atrest 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 4.1.3.7 can be modified to
64 r¡,nr 2
,#
0.5
where S, is the undrained shear strength ofthe clay near the pile
9zu
2A^ base.
2. In coarsegrained, cohesionless soils such as sands, c : 0,
.
ô38 '.,1a) ;
tgfva \l9c The friction angle of sands can be correlated to the standard
penetration test blowcount and the cone penetration resistance,
2ro
1(uo,
{201 as described in Appendix 3. For piles with large depth to width
123
2tc ratios, the second term of Eq. 4.1.3.8 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:
uJ
lr
: ø"'Nosndoro (4.1.3.t2)
6 roo 3rf
9o
kcÉ
h
"t::' tgmN
ogmÍ
rcw
ils
o
a
ffi
reL
¡Nn
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
rrys
I.: 2 (l + y")a,'tanþ'
(4.1.3.13)
t2 BUNtr tl ps
o
where E" : Young's modulus of the soil, ,¿ : Poisson's ratio
ofthe soil, cr"' : vertical effective stress measured at a depth of
qbt
t7
o
/
l"
t' .' 't?5o
/r'
,'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'
Qo
: cN"s"d"r, f 0.57'DNysydrrt * cru'Nosodoro (4.1.3.8) z
9 ,f.ttt .t ttt ¿tt'? I
/ .'.
where s", sr, and so are shape factors; d", d", and do are depth
/'..',.t ..' I
q
'. .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/
.//
t/
* a, t
Qo: 9So (4.1.3.e)
30 o
For T:
loose sands
^r (o"')o'stanó'
(4.1.3.14) t¿Þòz
0sq
110 o.oo?
For dense sands I:
'r (ø"')o.stanþ'
(4.1.3.1s)
Y
o 0.005
@
where øu' is in tsf. ._J
s
o.2 0.010
v
3 * s,/D
sP 10[ + 300tn,/sn]o'5
(4.1.3.17)
: for which N"o* : average corrected SPTN value near the pile
d dimensionless depth factor : t + 0.4Hs,/D" I 3.4; so :
spacing of discontinuities; to : width of discontinuities; D :
tip
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 (4.1.3.1e)
socket.
This method is not applicable to soft stratihed rocks, such as
:
N measured SPTN 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 (4.1.3.20)
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 (4.1.3.21)
The rationale behind Eq. 4.1.3.18 is that the ultimate unit tip
4.1.3.4 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 methodMeyerhof (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, (4.1.3.22)
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
I
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.
L
I
4.1.3.5 Pile Load Tests
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
SteelH 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 steelH section.
2. CPT methodThe 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 soiltosoil
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, steelH 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 steelH section, and the point
resistance is calculated using the area of the steelH 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 minimumpath rule (see Figure 4.9). The
in design.
minimumpath rule is also used to find the value of cone resist
Similady, openended 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 (4.1.3.2s)
e" I ) o(rrzao)r"a, * Lr:
lk: eo
t url of the pile. The point bearing capacity is calculated using the
crosssectional area of the steel annulus.
DRWEN PILES 67
gc
o.
q)
ô
%r +9"¿
"pF
qcl = Av€rag€ of aII valuec of qç alon6 paÈh abc ov.r a dirtrncc of yD bclor th€ ptl€ tlp. Su¡n qc
values measured at each el.vaiion 1n tho dorr¡ward path ab. Srm q6 valucs at evory slâvatlon
where a conê r€sistance reading ls made, along Èhe upward paÈh bc, 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 yvalues 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 ce). Use the minimum path rule as
for path bc 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 endbearing 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:
K
s
f. in þrf/ønz or ld
.
4.2.2 Settlement
o t4o t6O
al,
I
o.2
\
<*'./ ¡
loQz
I
Elastic compression of pile
()
c 0.4 \ \ {_ I lo.=ffi
\t
o '
E 0.6
o Faílurr uillg¡t9l ç \
.g
() :
o.
at
i5 o.8
Þ
c'
(¡)
r.o
l
\ R.
>l
I
1.4 l î
\
1. Calcul¡te oltr¿lc coûItrcrtlon of plh (69) rhon concldercd rs r free colr:nn:r by:
Z' DetcrEln. ac¡lc¡ of ploÈ ruch lhâL alopo of pile claaelc cdrpr6s3lon lin€ is
approxloately 20'.
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.
)
L20
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
\Tìno o
q'' o
o
o
'ffi Equ¡valent
tooling
(o) (b)
of piles, the lengths of the piles, or the pile spacing and repeat
step 2.
Figure 4.12. Pile group øcting as block þundation.
qXI : l)
p:= (4.2.2.3) 9rr oSu (4.3.
Zg"
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 longIerm 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 twothirds 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.
Groups
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:
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 soilthis 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:
4.4 UPLIFT
þrfuA, 2 P*, (4.4.1.2)
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 endbearing 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 steelH and pipe piles, as well as
reinforced and prestressed concrete piles.
Equation 4.4.1.2 applies to steelH and pipe piles, as well as
4.4.1 Single P¡le Upllft Capaclty reinforced and prestressed concrete piles.
The paralleltograin 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
4.1.1.3. 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",, (4.4.1.1) 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. 4.1.1.3); 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
I so.s tnt
Load per pile = 1.3PD + 2.:7PL = (1.3) (40) + (2.t7)(34) I
'.:u
( (4 O)
l
Þ
&
Èl
rl
J
5
D€Plrq. ls fr D€PtÍ qc ls fr
n tsl tsl Z ñ tll tsf ¡
0.1 114 713 ó.25 5.1 va l.l2 l.y
0.2 ro8 ó,07 5ó2 5.5 t4ó l.z r.r7
0.3 ll2 ô.07 5.¿1 5.6 ß2 172 0.91
o.¿ r3a 5.2E 3.82 5.7 212 2.21 1.t5
1
o5 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 l.to
0.9 110 5.ó6 ¿.ró 6.2 & 1.72 2.& 2 2.25 m
11225.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 66 52 1.7¿ 3.n
1.4 15ó 4.75 3.04
3
6.7 51 1.76 l.n
1.5 136 5.éa ¿.11 6.8 52 1.72 3.lO
ló 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
t9 t6 6.17 t.ag 7.2 16 172 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
27 134 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.E
39 ',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 2.13 311
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
13
1.6
1.7
0.?9 0.70
112
(.4 t?2 1.0ó 0.8ó
1.5 .l24 1.(5 1.1ó
T2 092
56 0.9? 1.&
',1.27
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
10
12r
R I
Layer 4  Sand
I t'¡'1,, r
4.8
a.9
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
5.2 110 165 1.31 "".i.tl
10.5 44 1.ùó 2.¿0
5.t m lt9 1.32 10.ó 52 l.oó 2'03
\¡
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\
the crosssectional 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
¡ú
= 61.1 tons = 26.7 tons fr
Ê
Total Skin FricÈion Qs = 40.5 + 27.0 + 89.a + 26.7 tJ
El. 10 fr
L) Deternine desiqn Load on the piLes Fiil
weight of pile cap = (4) (7') (7) (lso)/1000 = 29.4 kips Et. 4 fr 7 120pcl
= 29.5 kips
Dead load due to pite cap and soil above = 29.4 + 29.5
t2
Clay
= 59 kips z100 Pcf
\¡
J
:..a........... ,.. r. l r.. t.g ,,: . :.....:....r..:..4..,...:
: (o.8ls) (15)
óaPn = (0.64) (ss2)
= 353 kips/PíIe
:12
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
H:"îå#,.1:lutl:.:i*,ïl:t:îffi"¿:t"
caPacitY is the sum of the = (4) (12)
bearing
stin fiiction of the pile in both clay
and sand., and the tiP caPacitY' = 48 tsf
an = (ae) (1)
Skin Friction of Pile 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 cmethod 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
'lN)
= l86 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.
50
x=Y=3+1=4ft
10
I=l
(8) (4)
0.688
Pp+Ptr= 1O9 + 50 = 159 kips
Lss/ 42
9.94 ksf U
v
4.97 tsf
E'
(2) (4.e7, z
J4 (0.688) ¡ú
F
T2 ln
Ø
0sæ1ætæru24æ
LæAO nEgSlME dfRtEnþN (HF)
\¡
\o
80 PART 2
CHAF'TER 5
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
sections.
5.1 BATTER PILES
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). 5.2.1.1 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; py analyses model nonlinear behavior of
not consider pilesoilpile 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 hxedhead 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 twodimensional 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 threedimensional 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 pilesoilpile interaction. displacement, and D is the pile width or diameter. The charts
DRIVEN PILES 8t
Concr€tÊ rpdulus ol
5.4
5.1
4.7
o 4.3
CL
þn 3.8
E 3.6
Ë
o
3.3
'2a 3.0
g
o
o
ø
f
Ìt=1
o
ô
t¡J
1
Y
sP
õ
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)
0.01
P": 7.34 D2 (EeRr) (S,,/EeRr)0.683 (5.2.1. t. l)
For sand
0.00
P" : 1.57 D2 (EpRr) (7',Dþ',KnrEoRr)0.57 (5.2.t.1.2)
t.o
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 deflectionforJixedhead 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 py 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 loaddeflection
l.
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 steelH 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
steelH and pipe piles can be found in Appendix 1. 5.5).
..ì
,]
.'j
82 PART 2
I 35 35
!
:
30 30
Bæ 8æ
d J
Þ E
zo .E 20
.8
Eo i
3
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
(r=5) (t.35)
¿10 40
x5 35
æ 3{¡
qr
Eæ tæ
¿
ttt tt
Ezo Eæ
I
Eo Ë
0 0
(Thousarìds)
Ocrþdiñ (idr.!)
Morñont (kilh)
(r..0) (l = {))
¡10 1('
35 35
30 30
8æ 8æ
5
éq E
Äæ Äzo
É E
Ë
o
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
0
0.8 1.2 L6
(Tlþusarìds)
D€ll€clbn (iìc¡ros)
Momern (k'Êin)
Figure 5.4. Load versus deflection and load versus moment for prestressed concrete piles in sand.
DRIVEN PILES 83
LoadOôllgc1þn Curvâs b, Prestress€d CorErote Pil€s LoadMom€nt Relåt¡onsàip for prestressed Concrete pites
35 35
30 30
8æ
x gzs
!
tt
i20
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
fnþusandsl
Mom€nl (l.Jdrnl
35 35
æ 30
Fzs
5 $æ
tt tt
Ezo Ezo
6
o E
o
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
(Thousends)
Momont (kfY¡n)
35 35
30 30
E.s
J Eæ
! 5
E
$æ Ezo
E
o õ
Ë
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)
lThousands)
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 LoadMomonl Relalionship lor Sleel H.Piles
insånd(O=3l) ¡nsand(Q=æ)
¡t0 40
35 35
æ 30
$æ
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
t0
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
¡
t9
E tl
E zo Eao
d E
o
g ¡ HP10 x42 r HP10 r4Z
.5fs o HP10 ¡57 irs o HP10 r57
,ô HP12 x5:l
O HP12 x53
Â HP12 x74
10 ô HP12 x74
10
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
(f=æ) (o=æ)
40 ¡10
35 35
30 30
'g .s Ex
x
E
€ 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
Figure 5.6. Load versus deflectíon and load versus moment for steelH piles in sand.
DRIVEN PILES 85
35
35
30
30
Eæ
i1 Eæ
tt 5
It
.Ë 20
Eæ
G
õ
@ ¡ HP10 x42 g
5rs o HP10 ¡57 .5 ls ¡ HP10 x42
o HP10 x57
o HP12 x53
ô HP12 xzl O HP12 x53
10
O HP14 xæ 10 a HP12 \74
I HP I¿¡ ¡89 O HP14 r73
5
I HP14 x89
5
0 0
1.2 1.6 2
O€ll€cl¡on (hch€s) (Thousandsl
Morn€nl (k¡p¡nl
3¡t 35
30 30
$æ r¡ 25
5
E È
E zo
Eao
E
o E
o
5rs f
o
HP10
HP10
x4?
r57 5rs ¡
O
HP10
HP10
x42
r57
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
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Dellsclþn (inch€s) (Thousands)
Momenl (k¡p¡nl
35
35
30 30
Eæ
i1 E.s
E 5
zo
E
Ë ë20
E
o E
o
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
0.08
'.v9 0.1? 0.16
v.t¿ u.ìb u.z o.z4 0 0.2 0.4 06 0.9
(¡nches)
Deflect¡on (¡nches) (Thousands)
Moment (kiÈ.¡n)
Figure 5.7. Load versus deflection and load versus moment for steelH 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 5.2.1.1) 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. 5.2.1.2.1 and, Y, :
estimated by interpolation. krY.o'
5.'If
For clays, the loaddeflection 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.
interpolation.
Ys (5.2.1.2.1) T¡P. p
P" 0.006
È'I
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
study.
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
sp
placement. The procedure is as follows: ï c
1. Determine a tolerable lateral displacement, Y,o,. Figure 5.9. Lateral load versus moment for fixedhead piles in
2. Calculate the lateral load per pile P.o : PyrlNp1". clay. (After Evans and Duncan, 1982)
DRIVEN PILES 87
fixedhead piles in sand and clay. These charts show the variation and Koch (1973) and has been confirmed by comparing with
of :
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 (5.3.2.1)
below the elevation of the pile top. Buoyant unit weights are
used below the water table.
\ryhere Msp : maximum bending moment in a single fixedhead
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 5.2.1.1.2 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 fixedhead pile subjected to a lãteral load, pro estimated
5. Use Figure 5.8 for hxedhead piles in sand or Figure 5.9 using the procedure described in Section 5.2.1.1; Yg : lateral
for fixedhead piles in clay to determine the value of M.o,/M". group deflection estimated using Eq. 5.2.1.2.1;
6. Determine the characteristic moment, M", which is defined
by the following equations:
: l*t*" r 0.25 þr cray (5.3.2.2)
For clay " l50PN
M" : 1.33 D3 (EpRr) (7'Dþ'KolEoR,)o'a (5.3.1.2) P* is as defined previously in Eqs. 5.2.1.2.2a¡d5.2.1.2.3 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 loadmoment 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 steelH 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 loadmoment 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 kipin. Normalized loadmoment 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 (yM) has been normalized by dividing by
the factored nominal moment capacity, þ_Mn. The 7factors
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 þfactors 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 loadmoment 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 freehead 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
1
I
0.8 0.78
.e
.ã 0.6
o
ä 0.s
å o.o Ê
o
o
6 ts
0..
lrfr o
2tP
'¡ ¡ o
9.Pn ôP
0.2 'a n
c
.c
g 0.1 c
.9
o
Þ 2
0.6 t9 0.5
0.8
,rru
ôtM n
Figure 5.10. Normalìzed loadmoment interactÍon curve for
prestressed concrete Piles. Figure 5.12. Normalized loadmoment ínteraction curve fot
steelH piles.
% Steel
EvP
't I
;P
'a n
lyrOf.
rd oo o
oo
ooo
Figure 5.11. Normalized loadmoment interuction cumes for precast concrete piles'
DRIVEN PILES 89
c
.9
å
E
o.s
o
o
0.6
ttl, EvP
't I
o
oP ôP
'a n
'a n 0.4
0.2
0 0.6 0.8
lymM
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 ,l
ôrMn
' trM
'm
tr% Figure 5.14. Normalízed loadmoment interaction cune for tim
ber piles.
Figure 5,13. Normalized loadmoment 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, 7M, 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 coJunns
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 óMn.
Precast Concrete Piles
o.?0 for tied columns 7. Determine the ratios ZyrPr/þ^Pnand,2y^M/þ_Mn, and
steel HPi1es 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.
PILE TYPE PERFORMÀNCE FÀCTOR, óN
\o
5.1 Pile GrouP Deflection \ o
EXÀMPLE
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
(o.1)
Psr=40'14=ro kips per pile. 's 5.5 36 I
ISFPSF=1X10= lo kips Per Pile for rg¡ = 1
L2
+ 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
T T
T T
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
E
F
g
\o
.ysFPsF= 1'3 x 10 = 13 kips/pile for'v5¡ = l'3' = [0.85 (s)  0.6 (0.7) ] 144 \c}
l.J
APPENDIX 1
Â
o
c;
U *s
GAUGE
.2010'
SPIRAL
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 7/16tn. l/zin. in.r ln. 5000 c000
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 7116l^.1121^. in.r ln. 5000 6000
l0 83 85 58 44ì0933 6ì 74
STANDARD H.PILES
FFt DIMENSIONS AND PROPERTIES FOR DESIGNING
rg Phlüc
tlange Scclior Proprdic¡ Compãcl Slrllon Crlt¿ilr nl torluln
Weö
fhict l{omkid r Suú¡cr
Alla Depllrì
dl widlh íess
Ar¡s XI Ari¡ YY Wclght I _! È lrat
A
b¡
ness
, 9¡r Fl, ar br F",t Í"1
hr s l s l ú
tt I
ã,t t.
J cÜ
'Ï
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 3.et t.3a io.s 3t. ro.9 ¿.d 3..O rqîó lae rta t.6
x80 2g.r r3.83 1,4.695 0.615 061 5 0o. r3r 5.åA 32ô a..l 3.53 6g 3.9. r.53 n.ô ?96 22s 3.to 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 ¡.! ¿ e.to r¡r Jó.7 a.til
x73 2r.6 t2.f 5 r3.qt5 o.5ß5 o.565 6:10 9€¡ 3.ao ¡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 t.ar
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¡ r.cr
t12 12.4 9.70 ro.075 o.420 o.ar 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 o.tt 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 Hpiles 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.
DRIVEN PILES
TABLE AI.3
The following charts list the dimensions and physical properties of some of the more
commonly used sizes
of Pipe Piling.
PIPE PILES
Dimensions and Properties br Designlng
(After Pile Buck Inc., 1988)
.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 2603 91.1 18.2 3.45 2.62 70.9 .0182 719
)P t 03/4 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
.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
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.
DRIVEN PILES 97
.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.
\Ó
æ
APPENDIX 2
= 0.153 itr2.).
2) lMnl
The nominal moment capacity, [Mr.,] varies depending on (i) PRECAST CONCRETE PILES
\o
þ
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
PILE TYPE Pn
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
PRECÀST CONCRETE o.85fcrÀc + fyÀy
Mn=kbZeSb SI¡EELH PILES fyÀy
STEEL PIPE PILES fyAy
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.
F
"ì
l.J
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
FIR INTERTOR NORTH 2479 5525
of fqr and fy provided fy : IOfct. lifoment Capacity (After Davisson,et aL.,, 1983)
Ë],,'lE 0.6D
Pile
Tips
50ft
50ft
0.448
0.378
0.406
0.350
o.374
o.322
0.336
0.280
0. 01 0. 043 0 o37 0 037
Figrure A3.l Þ
F
SPT CORR.EI,AIION
Àpproxinate relatlonship between the lrt
friction angle of gand änd the spTN z
¡ú
y?lue (Àfter pect Haneen and Tlrornburn, F
Peck et aI. (1.974) deveJ.oped the relationshlp between the L974' EI
tt
cN = o.771oq¡g(2o/oytl
o.
Ncorr = CN N
9' 350
Figrure À3.I
Durgrunogfu and Mitchell (1975) developed a correLatLon
Àpproxinate relationship between the
fricÈion angle of sand and the SPTN 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
rÉ
no sample is obtained. The test is best used 1n conjuncÈion F
Ê
with conventional dri[ing and sanpling operations ¡¡here ì.J
oo I /
6 ,n/ //
.9 Á
ct ,/
100 1 / U
U' / F
(D
(ú
/ E'
z
.E ¡g
50 li
:f ft
U,
o
¿3búd mðUfad Ya¡¡
10
30 35 40 45 50
slnoltflert classlflcatlon chart for
Figure À3.3
Angle ol lnlemal Friction O  dcg stairdard electrlc friction cone
1983)
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)
o
u
APPENDIX 4 o
o\
SteelH Piles
Me= nominal structural moment capacity of a pile that
behaves elastically
The momentthrust interaction curves recommended by "p nominal structural moment capacity of a pite that
behaves plasticatly
Davisson (1983) for steelH piles along the weak axes are
v
D= axial structural capacjty
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 section
and a plastic section, as indicated by the dashed line in
Fig. À1.i. Therefore, the value of eccentricity factor
reconmended for steelH pites (0.78) is in between those for Figure À4.1 Loadlttoment fnteraction Curve for SteelH Piles
Àlong the weak Àxis (Àfter Davisson' 1983)
the elastic section (0.?0) and the plastic section (0.89).
Steel Pipe Piles t.o
o.9l
The monentthrust 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 ]oadmo¡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 loadmoment
curve. This is the basis for seLecting an eccentricty P/Py
o
F
trt
z
¡É
F
õ
Ø
o.2 o4 o.6
M/Mp
P axial load
o
J
REFERENCES co
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. L583l604. University, Spring 1988.
2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation 15. Duncan J.M. and Buchignani À.L., rrAn Engineering Manual
officjats, "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 Crjteria 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. 1666l680. ]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 LargeScale Pile erouprr, ASCE JGED, VoI . ll3, conference, Houston, 1979r pp. 437449.
No. ll, Nov. 1987, pp. 13261343.
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/Gvg2O t
Behavior of Pile Group in Sand't, ASCE JGED, Vo1. lL4, No. July, 1982, 245 pp,
11, Nov. 1988, pp. L26LL27 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
.l
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 (HEC18), 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
l986, 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. 701708.
"ALlowable Stresses in Pilesn, FHwÀ Rept. No. FHi^lAlRD 22. Forest Products Laboratory, rrHandbook of Wood and wood
83/O59, December, l983, 19L PP.
Based MaÈerials for Engineers, Àrchitects and Buildersrr,
li.. 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.243246. 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. 20314l000' pp.
PubLication No. EM ILLo229o6, 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
t922.
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
5 167 . Construction Techniques, Engineers, Contractors,
Manufacturers, Djstributors 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
UpliftConpression Loading", EPRI Rept. EL2870, Electric 39. Poulos H.G.. and Davjs 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.
Lawton 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'
196228. 1985.
31. Moulton L.K., GangaRao H.V.S. and Halvorsen G.T., 42. Reese L.C., Cox Il.R., and KoopF.D.r "Analysis of
"Tolerable Movement Criterja 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
F
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!,
z
by the National Forest Products and Àssoc.,
Mult mai mult decât documente.
Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.
Anulați oricând.