Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bridge-Section 107 and 108-Deep Foundations
Bridge-Section 107 and 108-Deep Foundations
8 Deep Foundations
BY FAR THIS SECTION HAS BEEN
IDENTIFIED AS THE MOST PROBLEMATIC SECTION OF THE AASHTO LRFD SPECS. BY THE STATE DOTS
10.7 10.7.1 10.7.1.1 10.7.1.2 10.7.1.3 10.7.1.4 10.7.1.5 10.7.1.5.1 10.7.1.5.2 10.7.1.5.3 10.7.2 10.7.2.1 10.7.2.2 10.7.2.3 10.7.2.3.1 10.7.2.3.2 10.7.2.4 10.7.2.5 10.7.2.6 10.7.3 10.7.3.1 10.7.3.1.1 10.7.3.1.2 10.7.3.2 10.7.3.3 10.7.3.3.1 10.7.3.3.2 10.7.3.4
DRIVEN PILES
General MINIMUM PILE SPACING, CLEARANCE AND EMBEDMENT INTO CAP PILES THROUGH EMBANKMENT FILL BATTER PILES PILE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS Determination of Pile Loads Downdrag Uplift Due to Expansive Soils Nearby Structures Service Limit State Design GENERAL TOLERABLE MOVEMENTS settlement Pile Groups in Cohesive Soil Pile Groups in Cohesionless Soil HORIZONTAL PILE FOUNDATION MOVEMENT SETTLEMENT DUE TO DOWNDRAG lateral squeeze Strength Limit State Design POINT BEARING PILES ON ROCK Piles Driven to Soft Rock Piles Driven to Hard Rock pile length estimates for contract documents nominal axial RESISTANCE CHANGE AFTER PILE DRIVING Relaxation Setup groundwater effects and BUOYANCY
10.7 Driven Piles Total re-write 10.8 Drilled Shafts Re-organized + new & updated content
Vertical Displacement Additional equivalent footing diagrams added Horizontal Displacement P-y method for analysis of horizontal displacement now specifically called out P multipliers for group effects updated and specified Overall stability
Vertical Displacement
Properties A, E, I
y
y
Pm * P
D
P-multiplier (Pm) Spacing (S) Row 1 Row 2 3D 0.7 0.5 5D 1.0 0.85 Row 3 0.35 0.7
Overall Stability
Geotechnical Resistance Emphasis of pile resistance verification during construction De-emphasis on use of static analysis methods except for estimation of pile length for contract drawings Structural Resistance Axial Combined bending and axial Shear Driven Resistance (10.7.7)
Load
Settlement
Driving Formulas
Driving Formulas
Engineering News Method Equation Modified to Produce Ultimate Resistance by Removing the Built-in Factor of Safety = 6
Design stresses must be limited if a driveability analysis is not performed limiting stresses prescribed
Limited to nominal resistances below 300 tons
Existing Methods Retained FHWA Nordland/Thurman Method Added Applicability limited to: - Prediction of pile penetration (used without resistance factors) - Rare case of driving to prescribed penetration or depth (no field determination of pile axial resistance)
Geotechnical Resistance Factors Pile Static Analysis Methods Method - Method - Method - Method Nordlund-Thurman SPT CPT Group Comp 0.4 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.3 0.45 0.6 Ten 0.3 0.25 0.3 0.25 0.35 0.5
Values in Table 2
Nominal Resistance of Single Pile in Axial Compression Dynamic Analysis and Static Load Test Methods, dyn
0.65
0.40
0.40
0.10
Table 10.5.5.2.2-2 Relationship between Number of Static Load Tests Conducted per Site and (after Paikowsky, et al., 2004)
Site Variability*
Low* 0.80 0.90 0.90 0.90 Medium* 0.70 0.75 0.85 0.90 High* 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.80
Table 10.5.5.2.2-3 Number of Dynamic Tests with Signal Matching Analysis per Site to Be Conducted During Production Pile Driving (after Paikowsky, et al., 2004)
Low* Site Variability* Number of Piles Located within Site < 15 16-25 26-50 51-100 101-500 > 500
Medium*
High*
Number of Piles with Dynamic Tests and Signal Matching Analysis Required (BOR)
3 3 4 4 4 4
4 5 6 7 7 7
6 8 9 10 12 12
LRFD Specifications
Wood Section 8
Specifically required Purpose is to verify that the specified pile can be driven: To the required minimum penetration To the required ultimate resistance Using a commonly available hammer Without exceeding the permissible driving stress At a reasonable penetration rate
37.5 ksi
Comp Str ksi 30 20 10 Ult Cap kips 800 600 400 200
550 kip
160
320
480 Blows/ft
120 bpf
New section with limited guidance regarding extreme events (no guidance previously provided)
10.7.5 Corrosion and Deterioration Moved from section 10.7.1 with no major changes 10.7.6 Determination of Minimum Pile Penetration New section combining some of the existing material from section 10.7.1 with additional guidance. Downdrag provisions extensively modified
Downdrag
New provisions in article 3.11.8 regarding determination of downdrag as a load Revisions to load factors pending additional analysis/research
Maximum Minimum
Prediction Method
Piles, -Tomlinson
Piles, -Method
Drilled shafts, ONeill and Reese (1999)
Article re-organized to follow section 10.7 Most provisions refer back to section 10.7 Service limit state provisions removed from strength limit state resistance determination Provisions for resistance determination updated Detailed procedures for evaluation of combined side friction and end bearing in rock added to commentary
10.8 10.8.1 10.8.1.1 10.8.1.2 10.8.1.3 10.8.1.4 10.8.1.5 10.8.1.6 10.8.1.6.1 10.8.1.6.2 10.8.1.6.3 10.8.2 10.8.2.1 10.8.2.2 10.8.2.2.1 10.8.2.2.2 10.8.2.2.3 10.8.2.2.4 10.8.2.3 10.8.2.4 10.8.2.5 10.8.3 10.8.3.1 10.8.3.2 10.8.3.3 10.8.3.4 10.8.3.5 10.8.3.5.1 10.8.3.5.1a 10.8.3.5.1b 10.8.3.5.2
DRILLED SHAFTS
General scope shaft spacing, clearance and embedment into cap shaft diameter and enlarged bases batterED shafts drilled SHAFT resistance DETERMINATION OF Shaft Loads General Downdrag Uplift Service Limit State Design tolerable movements settlement General Settlement of Single-Drilled Shaft Intermediate Geo Materials (IGMs) Group Settlement HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT OF SHAFTS AND SHAFT GROUPS settlement due to downdrag lateral squeeze Strength Limit State Design general ground water table and bouyancy Scour downdrag NOMINAL axial COMPRESSION resistance of single drilled shafts Estimation of Drilled Shaft Resistance in Cohesive Soils Side Resistance Tip Resistance Estimation of Drilled Shaft Resistance in Cohesionless Soils
Side Resistance
D
B C
QS
QP
Tip Resistance
0.45