‘SECTION 10 (SI) - TABLE OF CONTENTS. 40.1 SCOPE .........26. 10.2 DEFINITIONS ..... 40.3 NOTATION .......... 40.4 DETERMINATION OF SOIL PROPERTIES. 10.41 Subsurface Exploration ... 10.4.2 Laboratory Tests 10.42.1 GENERAL . 10.422 SOIL TESTINGS 10.423 ROCKTESTS: 10.43 In-situ Tests .... 1043.1 GENERAL «2.0... 10.432 IN-SITU SOIL TESTS 10.4.3. IN-SITU ROCK TESTS 10.5 LIMIT STATES AND RESISTANCE FACTORS 10.5.1 General ..... 40.52 Service Limit States 10.5.3 Strength Limit State . 10.5.4 Extreme Event Limit States 10.8.5 Resistance Factors .. Fieeeeee eee 1098 40.6 SPREAD FOOTINGS .. 10.6.1 General Considerations 10.6.1.1 GENERAL ..... 10.64.2 DEPTH: ... 10.6.3 ANCHORAGE - 10.6.4 GROUNDWATER | 40.64.5 UPLIFT ...... fe 10.6.1.6 NEARBY STRUCTURES | 10.6.2 Movement and Bearing Pressure 10.621 GENERAL ... 10.82.2 MOVENENT Ci 10.6221 General . 106222 Loads 10.82.23 Settlement Analyses... 10.6.223a General 2.0.0.0. 00s sees me 10.62.2.3b Soitlemont of Foctings on Cohesionioss Soils... 1082230 SolfementofFoengs on Cohesive Sal... 10.6.2.2.3d Settlements of Footings on Rock . . : : 10.82.24 Loss of Overall Stability 10.62.3 BEARING PRESSURE AT TH 10.62.3.1 Presumptive Values for Bearing Pressure ...... 10.82.32 Semiempitical Procedures for Bearing Pressure... 10.6.3 Resistance at the Strength Limit State ....-.. 0.000 0sssuse 10.63.41 BEARING RESISTANCE OF SOILS UNDER FOOTINGS ....... 10.83.11 Goneral....... veceeeee 10.83.1.2 Theoretical Estimation 20.0...) 10.6.3.1.2a General . 10.63.1.2b Saturated Cieys - 10.6.3.1.20 Cohesiontoss Soils. 10.83.1.3 Semiempiical Procedures .. 10.6.3.1.3a General .. 10.6.3.1.3b Using SPT ST 40-18 10-110.6.3.1.3¢ Using CPT ... : 10.6:3.1.3d Use of Pressuremeter Test Results . 106.3.1.4 Plate Load Tests . : 106.3.1.5 Effect of Load Eccentcity 108,32 BEARING RESISTANCE OF ROCK | | 108.321 General ..... : 106.32.2 Semiempirical Procedures... ...... 108.32'3 AnayticMethod ........... 106.32.4 Load Test ... 106.32'5 Limts on Load Eccerivicty - 40.68.33 FAILURE BY SLIDING . . 10.6.4 Structural Design ...... 10.7 DRIVENPILES 12.20... .. ce cece 10.7.4 General : er 40.7.1.4 USE 407.12 PILE PENETRATION 1U7.13 RESISTANCE ..... perenne 14 EFFECT OF SETTLING GROUND AND DOWNDRAG LOADS - 16 BATTER PILES ... ‘1.7 GROUNDWATER TABLE AND BUOYANCY . 118 PROTECTION AGAINST DETERIORATION | 4.9 UPLIFT... - 10.7.110 ESTIMATED LENGTHS «. 407.4.41 ESTIMATE AND MINMUM TIP ELEVATION 1077-192 PILES THROUGH EMBANKNENT FIL 407.4.13 TESTPLES......... : 10,7.1.14 WAVE EQUATION ANALYSIS. 107.1.15 DYNAM MONITORING... 40.71.18 MAXIMUM ALLOWAGLE DRIVING STRESSES 10.7.2 Movement and Bearing Resistance at the Service Limit State . 40.7.2.1 GENERAL occ esse ceeeeee ten tseees : 40.722 CRITERIA FOR HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT 107.23 SETTLENENT ....... 107.231 Gereral .. 10.7.232 Coheshe Soil. 107.23. Gobesicnless Scil 10.7.24 HORIZONTAL DISPLACI 10.725 PRESUMPTIVE VALUES FOR ENI 40.7.3 Resistance at the Strength Limit Stato. 40.734 GENERAL ...ees..e 10732 AXIAL LOADING OF PILES - mon 10.7.3 SEMEMPIRICAL ESTIMATES OF PILE RESISTANCE . 107.33. General 40.733.2 Sheft Resietance . 107.3322 a-Mettod .. 10.7.33.2b B-Method 10.7.33.2¢ AMethod . 10.7.33.3 TipResstance 10.7.3.4 PILE RESISTANCE ES 10.7.34.1 General ...... 10.7.342 Ushg SPT 107.3422 Pie Tip Resistance 10.7.34.2 Skin Friction 10.73.43 Using CPT 10.7.84.3a General 15 PILE SPACING, CLEARANCES, AND EMBEDMENT .......000.00000 10-49 + 10-50 2. 10-52 + 10-52 2 10-53 40-53 + 10-53 1 40-53 + 10-53 10-54 * 10-54 + 10-55 10-56 10-68 10-58 + 10-56 1 10-56 40-57 2 40-59 40-59 + 10-60 10-60 + 10-61 10-61 40-61 40-62 10-62 40-62 10-62 40-63 10- 40-63 10-64 10-65 10-65 10-65 5 10-65 40-68 10-68 410-68 40-68 10-67 10-68 10-88 2 10-88 10-68 40-70 40-70 10-74 10-74 10-74 10-72 10-72 10-72 40-73 ni 10-73STABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 107.3.43b Pile Tip Resistance 10.7.3.430 Skin Friction . : ee 10,7.3.6 PILES BEARING ON ROGK 122010 & 10.7.3.6 PILE LOAD TEST AND FIELD MONITORING . 10.7.3.7 UPLIFT . veves o 107.38 LATERALLOAD ........, 107.39 BEARING RESSTANCE OF BATTER PILES 10,7.3.10 GROUP AXIAL LOAD RESISTANCE . ..... 10.7.3.10.1 Genaral. 10.7.3.10.2 Cohesive Soll. ? : 10.7.3.10.3 Cohasionless Sol... : fee 10.7.3.10.4 Pile Group in Strong Soil Overiying a Wesker Gompresiie : 10.7.3.11 GROUP LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE .. : 10.7.4 Structural Design .......... 10.7.4.1 GENERAL... 10.7.4.2 BUCKLING OF PILE! 10.8 DRILLED SHAFTS... 10.81 General... 10.8.1.1 SCOPE... 2. 10.8.1.2 EMBEDMENT 108-1.8 SHAFTDIAMETER AND E ENLARGED BASES. . 10.8.1.4 RESISTANCE 10.8.1.5 DOWNDRAG: co 10.8.1.6 GROUP SPACING... . 10.8.1.7 BATTER SHAFTS 200011... é 108. GROUNDWATER TABLE AND BUOY 4082 Movement atthe Service init 8 10.8.2.1 GENERAL ......... 10.82.2 CRITERIA FORHORIZONTAL MOVEMENT . 108.23 SETTLEMENT......... 10.82.3.1 General... fest 10.82.32 Sattiement of Single-Diiled Shaft’ | 40.82.33 Group Sattiemant ......., 40.8.2.4 LATERAL DISPLACEMENT ..- 10.8.3 Resistance at the Strength Limit State . 10.8.3.1 GENERAL .... 10.832 AXIAL LOADING OF DRILLED SHAFTS ||” 10.8.3.3 SEMIEMPIRICAL ESTIVATES OF DRILLED SHAFT RESISTANCE IN COHESIVE SOILS ..... setteereee 10.83.34 Shaft Resistance Using the a-Method 10.83.32 Tip Resistance ................ wee 10.83.4 ESTIMATION OF DRILLED-SHAFT RESISTANCE IN COHESIONLESS SOILS | 10.83.41 General . 10.83.42 Shaft Resistanco 10.83.43 Tp Resistance ....-.... 5 AXIAL RESISTANCE IN ROCK 10.8.3.6 LOAD TEST : 10.83,7 UPLIFTRESISTANCE 10.83.71 General... a 10.83.7.2 Uplift Resistance ofa Single-Driled si r 10.83.73 Group Upift Resistance .... 10.83.8 LATERALLOAD .......10.8.3.9 GROUP CAPACITY 10.8.3.9.1 General .... 10.8.3.9.2 Conesive Soil 40.8.3.9.3 Cohesionless Soil . 10.83.84 Group n Strong Soi 2 Ovetig We Compress 40.8.4 Structural Design ..... 10.84.1 GENERAL . 0.8.4.2 BUCKLING OF DRILLED SHAFTS 40.85 Details for Drilled Shafts ....... 10.8.5.1 GENERAL ...... 10.85.2 REINFORCEMENT {0.85.3 TRANSVERSE REINFORCEMENT . 0.8.5.4 CONCRETE 10.85.5 REINFORCEMENT INT rO SUPER 1085.6 ENLARGED BASES . APPEND! AMO INVESTIGATION «20.0. ...0.2s 0 M02 FOUNDATION DESIGN ......-..... A103 SPECIAL PILE REQUIREMENTS | 40-Wv‘Section 10- Foundations (81) ‘SPECIFICATIONS 4104 SCOPE Provisions of this section shall apply for the design of spread footings, driven piles, and driled shaft foundations. ‘The probabilistic LRFD basis of these Specifications, Which produces an intertelated combination of load, load factor, resistance, resistance factor, and statistical reliablity, shall be consi¢ered whan selecting procedures for calculating resistance other than that epecified herein. Other methods, especially when locally recognized and considered suitable for regional conditions, may be used COMMENTARY cto. ‘The resistance procedures used in developing this section are summarized in Appendix A of Barker et al. (1991). ‘The specication of methods of analysis and Calculation of resistance for foundations herein is not intended to imply that field verification and/or reaction to ‘conditions actually encountered in the field are no longer needed. These traditioral features of foundation design ‘and construction are stil practical considerations when ‘designing in accordance with these Specifications. if the statistical nature of the factors given above are considered through corsistent use of reliability theory ‘and are approved by the Owner. 4102 DEFINITIONS Batter Pile Pile driven at an angle inclined to the vertical to provide higher resistance to lateral loads. Bearing Pile - A pile whose purpose is to carry axial load through friction or point bearing. Combination Point Bearing and Friction Pile - Pile that cerives its capacity from contributions of both point tearing developed at the pile tip and resistance mobilized along the embedded shatt. ‘Combined Feoting - A footing that supports more than one column, ‘Competent Rock - A rock mass with discontinuities that are open not wider than 3.2 mm, Deep Foundation - A foundation that derives its support by transferring loads to soll or reck et some depth below the structure by end bearing, adhesion or friction, or beth. Drilled Shaft - A deep foundation uni, wholly or partly embecied in the ground, constructed by placing fresh ccncrete in é drited hole with or without stee! reinforcement. Dried shatts derive teir capacity trom the surrounding soll andior from the sol or rock strata below its tip. Drilled shafts are also commonly referred to as calssons, dilled caissors, bored piles, or dilled piers. Effective Stress - The net siress across points of contact of soil particles, generally considered as equivalent to the {otal stress minus the pore water pressure. Friction Pile - A pile whose support capacity is derived principally from soil resistance mebilized along the side of the embedded pil Isolated Footing - Indiidual suppor for the various parts of a substructure uri the fcundation is called a footing foundaton. Length of Foundation -Maximum plan dimension of a foundation element. Overconsolidation Ratio (OCR) - Dettned as the ratio of the preconsolidation pressure tothe current vertical effective stress. Pile - A relatively slender deep foundation unit, wholly or partly embedded In the ground, that is installed by criving, driling, auguring, jeting, or otherwise and that derives its capacity from the surrounding soll andlor from the soil or rock strata below its tip. 10-4‘Section 10 - Foundations (S!) Pile Bent -A type of bent using piles as the colurmn members. Pile Shoe - A metal piece fixed 10 the penetration end ot a pile to protect it fom damage during driving and to facilitate penetration through very dense material. Piping - Progressive erosion of soil by seeping water that produces an open pipe through the ecil through which water flows in an uncontrolled and dangercus manner. Plunging - A mode of behavior observed in some pile load tests, wherein the settlement of the pile continues to Increase with no increase in load. Point-Bearing Pile - A oile whose suppcrt cpaciy Is derived principally from the resistance of the foundation material on which the ple tip resis, QD - Rock Quality Designation. ‘Shallow Foundation - A foundation that derives its support by transferring load directly to the soll or rock at shallow depth. Slickensides - Polished ard grooved surfaces in clayey soils or rocks resulting from shearing displacements along planes. Total Stress - Total pressure exerted in any direction by both soil and water. ‘Width of Foundation - Minimum pian dimension of a fourdation element. 10.3 NOTATION ‘Tre units shown after the cescripticn of each term are suggested units. Other units that are consistent with the ‘expressions being evaluated may be used. = effective footing area for determination of elastic settlement of footing subjected to eccentic leads (im?) (10.6.2.2.36) area of pile poirt or base of drilled shatt (mm?) (10.7.32) ‘surface area of pile shat (mm) (10.7.3.2) pile perimeter athe point considered (mm) (10.7.3.4.3c) area of drilled shaft socket in rock (mm?) (C108.3.5) UpIR area cf a bollod driled shaft (rim) (+0.8.3.7.2) ‘octing with (rm); pile group width (mm) (10.8.3.4.2c) effective footing width (mm) (10.6.3.15) secondary settlement coefficient estimaied from results of laboratory consolidation testing of undisturbed soil samples (DIM) (10.6.2.2.3c) ‘compression index (DIM) (10.6.22.2c) ‘compression ratio (DIM) (10.8.2.2.3c) recompression index (DIM) (10.62.2.30) unaxial compressive strength of rock (MPa) (10.62.32) cone panetration test (10.5.5) recompression ratio (DIM) (10.6,2.2.5e) coefficient of consoldation (mm*YR) (10.5.2.2.3¢) correction factors for groundwater effect (DIM) (6.10.2.1.2) cohesion of soil (MPa); undrained shear strength (MPa) (10.6.3:1.2b) ‘sol compressibility factor (DIM) (10.6.3.1.20) Undrained shear strength ofthe top layer of soll as depicted in Figure 3 (MP2) (10.8.31.2b) shear strength of lower soil layer (MPa) (10.6.3.1.2b) reduced effective stress soil cohesion for punching shear (MPa) (10.6.9.1.22) pile width or diemeter (ram); diameter of crilled shaft (mim) (10.7.3.42a) (10.83.32) effective depth of pie group (mrn) (10.7.23.3) pamrppr> > wonsnnne 2 gore a qoo9 sp° ppp 40-2Section 10 - Foundations (SI) DB, D, 3 a o, q E & E Ee e eg & a & Fe fo f fa 9 H dH. depth of embedment of ple into a bearing statum (rm) (10.7:2.1) fandaten eréainent éept tten fom goin sites bara of kandfon (nr) (106.3. pile width or dlameter at the point considered (ram) (10.73.4.80) diameter of the tp ofa drifed shaft (mm); ciameter of bell (mm) (10.8.3.3.2) (10:8.87.2) ddepin factor (DIM) (10.6.3.1.20) diameter of socket when pile of driled shaftis sccketed into rock (mm) (10.7.3.5) depth fo water surface taken from the ground surface (mm) (10.6.3.1.2c) ‘depth factor for estimating tip capacity cf piles in rock (DIM) (10.7.3.6) modulus of elastcty of concrete (MPa) (C10.8.35) ‘modulus of elastic of intact rock (MPa) (C10.8.3.5) estimated rock mass modulus (MPa); rock mass modulus (MPa) (C106.2.2.9¢) (106.2.2.3¢) intact rock modulus (MPa) (10.2.2.3d) ‘modulus of obeicty of pile (MPa) (10.7.4.2) modulus of eiasticity of inaitu rock (MPa) (C10.8.3.5) soll modulus (MPa) (10.7.4.2) ‘eccentricity of load parallel tothe width ofthe footing (mm) (10.6.3.1.5) ‘eccentricity of load parallel fo the length ofthe footing (mm) (10.6.3.1.6) ‘oid ratio at intial varicol ofective stress (DIM) (10.6.2.23e) reduction facior for peint resistance of large diameter diled shatts (DIM) (10.83.32) 28-day compressive strength of concrete (MPa) (10.6.2.3.2) sleeve friction measured ffom a CPT (MPa) (10.7.3.4.3a) unit oval sleeve Fiction resistance from CPT at the point considered (\Pa) (10.7.24.80) gravitational acceleration (mie?) horizontal component of inclined loads (N); distance from tps of pilas to top of lowest stratum (rmmp (10.6.3.1.30) height of compressible sol layer (mm) (10.62.20) height of ingest drainage path in compressibie sol ayer (mm) (10.6.2.2.5c) height of sloping ground mass (rm); depth of ambedment of pile G driled shaft socketed into rock (mma) (10.6.5.1.26) (10.7.3.5) distance from botom af footing to top ofthe second soil layer (mn) (12.8.9.1.20) length interval at he point considered (mm) (10,7.3.4.30) influence factor forthe effective embedment of a pile group (DIM) (10.7.2.3.3) influence coefficient fo account for rigidity and dimensions of focting (DIM); moment of inertia of pile (mm) (10.6.2.2.34) (10.7.4.2) 4 = influence coefMcient fom Figure ©10.8.3.5-1 (DIM) iyi, = load inclination factors (DIM) (10.6.3.1.2c) K = load transfer factor (DIM) (10.8.3.42) K = cooffcient for bearing on rock rom pressuremetar test (DIM) (010.8.38) K correction factor for sieeve friction in clay (DIM) (10.7.3.4.3¢) K modulus modification ralie from Figure 010.8.3.5-3 (DIM] (010.8.3.5) K correction factor ‘or sieeve friction in send (DIM) (10,7.3.4.3c) Ky dimensionless bearing capacity coefficient (DIM) (10.7.3.5) k ‘emeirical bearing capacity coefficient from Figure 10.6.3.1.3d-1 (DIM) (10.8.3.1.3d) t += length of foundaton (mm) (108.3.1.5) vc = effective footing length (mm) (10.6:3.1.5) u = depth topoint considered when measuring sleeve friction (mm) (10.7.3.4.3¢) q = depth tomiddle cf length interval at the point considered (mm) (10.7.3.4.30) uw = liquid limit of soil (C10.8.1.9) N = Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count (Blows/300 mm) (10.7.2.3.3) N = average (uncorrected) SPT blow count along pile shaft (Blows/300 min) (10.7.3.4.2b) N, = beating capacity factor (DIM) (10.6.3.1.20) Nt = bearing capacity factors (DIM) (10.6.3.1.2c) New = modified beering capacity factors (DIM) (10.6.3.1.2b) Noa. New Ne = miecifed bearing capacity factors (DIM) (106.3.1_2b) Neer = _ corrected SPT blow count (Blows/300 mm) (10.7.2.3.3) average valve of corrected SPT blow count (Blows/300 mm) (10..3.1.3b) 10-3Section 10 - Foundations (SI) q ce er ee a a % % Oe Se a On a Oe Pegooo"R ge apport & + 4 bearing capacity factor (DIM) (10.6.3.1.2b) ‘rock parameter (DIM (10.6.2.3.2) ‘uplit adhesion factor for bell (DIM) (108. @ ‘modified bearing capacity factor (DIM) (10.8.3.1.2c) eo ‘SPT resistance, corrected for depth (Blows/300 mm); nurber of intervals between the ground surface and a point 89 below the ground surface (10.6.2.2.9b-1) (10.7.3.43c) ‘number of intervals between 8D below the ground surface and the tip ofthe ple (10.7.3.4.33) rate of increase of sol modulus with depth (MPa/nmm) (10.7.4.2) plastic limit of sol (C10.8.1.9) limiting pressure obtained from pressuremeter test result (MPa) (10.6:3.1.3d) total herent pressure at the depth whee the pressuremeter test Is performed (MPa) (10.8.3.1.9d limit pressure determined from pressuremeter tests averaged over a distanze of 2.0 diameters above and below the base (MPa) (C108.3.5) passive resistance of soil available throughout the dasign life ofthe structure (N) (10.6.3.3) nortinal resistance of pile group (N) (10.7.3.10.1) norrinal lateral resistance of single pile (N) (10.7.3.11) norrinal lateral resistance of ple group (N) (10.7.9.14) nominal resistance (N) (10.6.3.3) nominal load carried by pile point N) (10.7.2) factored resistance (N) (10.6.3.3) norrinal load carted by ple shaft (N) (10.73.2) norrinal uplift resistance of a belled driled shaft(N)(10.8.2.7.2) norrinal side resistance of dried shafts socketed in rock (N) (C10.8.3.5) orrinal uplit resistance of a plle group (N) (10.7.3.7.3) total nominal bearing resistance (N) (10.7.3.2) ‘maximum shear resistance between the foundation and the soll (N) (70.5.5) net foundation pressure applied at 2D,3 (MPa) (10.7.2.2.3) state cone resatance (MPa); average static cone resistance over a depth B below the equivalent >, footing (MPa) (10.6.3 1.36) (10.7.23.3) minimum average staic cone resistance over a depth yD below a pile tip (MPa) (10.7.2.4.35) ‘minimum average static cone resistance over a distance €D above the pila tip (MPa) (10.7.3.4.3b) limitng point resistance (MPa) (107.3.4.2a) Norrinal beating resistance (MPa) (10:6.3.1.1) vertical stress at base of loaded area (MPa) (10.8.22.3b) Norrinal unit point resistance (MPa) (10.7.32) reduced nominal unt point resistance (MP2) (C10.83.3.2) factored bearing resistance (MPa) (10.5.3.1.1) Unit shear resistence; nominal unit skin resistance (MPa) (10.6.33) (10.732) orrinal unit uplit resistance of a belled criled shaft (MPa) (10.8.3.7.2) average uniaxial comoression strength of the rack core (MP2) (10.7.3) norrinal beating resistance (MPa) (10.6.3.1.1) Ultimate beating capacity of footing eupporied in the upper layer of a two-layer system, eosuming the upper layer is infinitely thick (MPa) (10.6.3.1.2a) ultimate beering capacity ofa ficitious focting of the seme size and shape as the actual footing, but supported on surface of the second (lower) layer of a two-layer sysiem (MPa) (10.6.3.1.2a) reduction factor zecountirg forthe effect ofload incination (DIM) (10.8.3.1.3b) radius of circular footing or B/2 for square footing (rn) (10.8:2.2.34) inital total vertical pressure at foundation level (MP2) (10.6.3 1.34) consolidation settlement (mm) (10.8.2.2.3a) elastic sattiement (mm) (10.6.2.2.2a) standard penetration test (10.5.5) secondary settiement (mm) (10,6.2.2.3a) undrained shear strength (MPa) (10.6.3.1.26) average undrained shear strength along pile shaft (MPa) (107.3.7.3) shape factors (DIM) (10.63.1.2b) (10.6.3.1.20) sspacing of discontinuities (mm) (10.7.3) time factor (DIM) (10.5.2.2.30) 10-4‘Section 10 - Foundations (SI) on = xs< PSASNP Pe F ySO measure their engineering properties. 010.422 Laboratory tests of sols may be grouped broadly into two general ciasses: © Classification tests: These may be performed on either disturbed or undisturbed samples. © Quantiative tests ‘or permeability, compressibiity and shear strength: These tests are generally performed on undisturbed samples, axcept for materials to be placed as controlled fill or materials that do not have an unsiabie sol-structure. In these cases, tes's should be performed on specimens prepared in the laboratory. 10.423, Laboratory testing of rock has very limited applicability for measuring significant rock properties, such as: ‘© Compressive strength, © Shear strength, © Hardness, © Compressibility, and 10-7Section 10- Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS 1043 In-situ Tests 104.31 GENERAL In-situ tests may be performed to obtain ceformation ‘and strength paramaters of foundation sols or rock for the purposes of design andior analysis. The tests shall be performed in accordance with the appropricte standards recommended by ASTM or AASHTO and may Include the in-situ sol tests and in-situ rock tests, 104.32 INSITU SOIL TESTS In-situ soll tests include: © Standard Penetration Test - AASHTO T 206 (ASTM D 1586) © Static Cone Test - ASTM D 3441 © Field Vane Test- AASHTO T 223 (ASTM D 2573) © Pressuremeter Test - ASTM D 4719 Plate Bearing Test - AASHTO T 235 (ASTM D 1194) © Well Test (Permeabity) - ASTM D 4750 COMMENTARY '* Permeability. Rock samples small enough to be tested in the laboratory are usually not representative of the entre: rock mass. Laboratory testing of rock is used primatty {for classification of inact rock samples, and, i periormed properly, serves a useful function inthis regard ‘Laboratory tests on intact samples provide upper bounds on strength and lower bounds on compressibility. Frequently, laboratcry tests can be used in conjunction with field tests t give reasonable estimates of rack mess behavioral charactevistcs. 610.4.9.4 ‘Some features of common in-situ tests are gven in Tee C10.4.32-1 (Canadian Geotechnical Society 1985) 10-8‘Section 10- Foundations (S!) ‘SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY Table C104.9.2-4 - In-Situ Tests. ‘TYPE OF BEST NOT PROPERTIES THAT TEST SUTED | APPLICABLE | CAN BE DETERMINED TO TO Standard Sand CoarseGravel_| Quaitative evaluation of Penetation ‘compactness, Test (SPT) Qualitative comparison of subsoil stratifcation, Dynamic Cone | Sandand | Clay Qualitative evaluation of Test Gravel compactness, Quaitative comparison of subsoil stratification. SrticCone | Sand, silt, - Continuous evaluation of Test and Clay density and strength of sancs. Continuous evaluation of undrained shear strength in clays. Feld Vane | Clay AllOther Soils | Undrained shear Test strength. Pressuremeter | SoftRock, | Sot Sensitive | Bearing capacity and Test Sand, Clays compressibility. Gravel, and Tih Pate Bearing | Sandand - Defermation modulus. Test and Clay Modulus of subgrade Sorew Plats reaction. Bearing Test capacity Fét Pate Dilatometer Test Permeabilty | Sandand - Evaluation of coefficient Graval of permeability. 104.33 IN-SITU ROCK TESTS: In-situ tests may include: ‘© Deformabitty and Strength of Weak Rock by an in- ‘Situ Uniaxial Compressive Test - ASTM D 4555, © Determination of Direct Shear Strength of Rook Disconsinuifies - ASTM D 4554 © Modulus of Deformation of Rock Mass Using the Flexible Plate Loading Method - ASTM D 4395 10-9Section 10- Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS © Modulus of Deformation of Reck Mass Using a Radial Jacking Test- ASTM D 4506 © Modulus of Deformation of Rock Mass Using the Rigid Pate Loading Method - ASTM D 4394 © Stress and Modulus of Deformation Determination Using the Flatjack Method - ASTM D 4729 © Stress in Rock Using the Hydraulic Fracturing ‘Method - ASTM D 4845 405 LIMITSTATES AND RESISTANCE FACTORS. 405.1 General ‘The limit states shall be as specified in Article 1.3.2; foundation-specific clarficatons are contained in this section 108.2 Service Limit States Foundation design at the service Imit state shall Indude: © Settlements, © Lateral displacements, and ‘© Bearing resistance estimated using the presumptive bearing pressure. Consideration of settlement shall be based upon rideabiity end economy. 105.3 Strength Limit State Foundation design at the strength imit state shall indude: © Bearing resistance, except presumptive bearing pressure; © Excessive loss of contact; © Sliding atthe base of footing, © Loss offateral support; © Loss of overall stability; and © Structural capacity. COMMENTARY 10.62 Inbridges where the superstucture and substructure are_not Integrated, correction of settlements can be made by jacking and shimmring bearings. Aicle 2.5.2.3, requires jacking provisions for these bridges. ‘The cost of liming foundation movernents should be compared 10 the coat of designing the superstructure so that it can tolerate larger moverrents or of correcting the consequences of movements through maintenance to determine minimum lfeime cost. More stringent criteria ‘may be established by the Owner, 10-10‘Section 10- Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS Foundations shall be proportioned such that the factored resistance is not less than the effects of factored loads specified in Section 3. 10.5.4 Extreme Evont Limit States Foundations shall be designed for extreme events as, apolicable. 10.5.5 Resistance Factors Resistance factors for different types of foundation ‘systems at the strength limit etate shall bo taken as ‘specified in Tables { through 3, unless regionally specific values are avaliable. ‘Where pile foundations are specified, the contract decuments shall specify the level of field ple capacity verification required. The field verification epecified shall be consistent with the value of A, taken from Table 2 Resistance factors for the service limit state shall be taken as 1.0. A further reduction in P, for piles should be considered when ple diiving diffculty is expected, COMMENTARY 10.6.4 Extrerre events indude the check flood for scour, vessel and veticle collision, seismic loading, and other site-spacific stuations that the Engineer determines should be included. ‘As of 1996, seismic considerations for foundaton design were being thoroughiy reevaluated. For the time being, relevant information from Division FA of the Standard Specifications are reproduced herein as an Appendix to this section, 10.85 ‘Where statistical information was available, rellabiity theory, tempered in come cases with judement, was used to derive the values of geotechnical resstance factors given in Tables 1 through 3. These resstatce values do not apply to structural resistance for which Sections §, 6, 7, and 8 should be utllzed. In cases Where there was insuficient information for calbraton Using reliability theory, values of resistance factors were ‘chosen based on judgment, so that the design using LRFD procedures was consistent with that using ASD procedures. Details are provided in Appendix A of Barker et al. (1991) ‘The resistance factor for passive earth pressure associated with bearing capacity is taken as specified in Table 1 if a bridge component is pushed, e.g., backwall of an integral abutment, or pulled, e.g., anchor block of adeadman, inio the soll. On the other hand, if passive earth pressure is used to determine force effects on other bridge components, €g., the bending moments in ‘components of an integral ebutment itis conservative to assume that the maximum passive resistance is available, Le, 9 = 1.0. In the past, a reduction multiplier factor of about 0.875 was considered when moderate driving difficalty ‘was expected, and a factor of about 0.75 was considered ‘when difficult driving was expected. For further details ‘800 Davisson et al. (1983). 10-14‘Section 10 - Foundations (8!) Table 10.5.6-1 - Resistance Factors for Strength Limit State for Shallow Foundations NETHOD/SOILICONDITION RESISTANCE FACTOR, Bearng Capacity and Passive Pressure Send + Semierpirical procedure using SPT daa = Samniempirical procedure using CPT data = Ratonal Method — using 9, estimated from SPT data using , estimated from CPT data Chay: = Semiempirical procedure using CPT aia = Rafonal Method — using shear resistance measured in lab tests, ing shear resistance measured in field vane tests Using shear resistance estimated from CPT data. Rock + Semiempitical procedure, Carter ‘and Kulhawy (1888) Plate Load Test Sliding Precast concrete placed on sand using 9, estimated from SPT data using g,estimated from CPT data ‘Concrete cast-in-plave on sand using @, estimated from SPT data u 10-42Section 10 - Foundations ($1) METHODISOIUCONDITION. Sliding on clay is controled by the strength of the clay when the clay shear is less than 0.5times the ‘normal stress and is controlled by the ‘normal stress when the clay shear strengthis greater than 0.5 times the normal stress (see Figure 1, which is developed for the case in which there is atleast 150 mm of compacted ‘granular material below the footing). Clay (whore shear resistance is less than 0.5 times normal pressure) using shear resistance measured in lab tests using shear resistance measured in field tests, using shear resistance estimated from CPT data Clay (where the resistance is greater than 0.5 times normal pressure) RESISTANCE FACTOR. 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.85 Soll on soit 4.0 Passive earth pressure componert of slidng resistance 0.50 Overall Stabiity Where soil or rock properties and 0.90 groundwater levels are basedon laboratcry or in-situ testing, shallow foundations on or near a slope ‘evaluated for overall stablty and resistance to a deep-seated failure mode. 10-43Section 10 - Foundations (St) ‘Teble 10.5.5-2 - Resistance Factors for Geotechnical Strength Limit State in Axially Loaded Piles RESISTANCE METHOD/SOILICONDITION FACTOR Utimate Bearing Skin Friction: Ciay Resistance of Single Piles ‘a-method (Tomlinson 1987) 0.70, Brmethod (Esrig & Kirby 1879 and 050, [Nordlund method applied to cohesive sols) Jemethod Viiayveriva & Focht 1872) 055, End Bearing: Ciay and Rock ‘igy (Skempton 1851) 070, Rock {Caradien Geotechnical Society 1985) 050, Skin Friction and End Beating: Sand SPT-method O45, CPT-method 0.55, Weve equation analysis with assumed driving 0.854, resistance Load Test 080A, Block Falure Clay oss, Uplit Resistance of | c-method so Singe Ples Brmethod 40 emethod ous, SPT-method 035 CPT-method 45 Load Test 080 ‘Group Uplift Sand ass Resistance, Clay O55, Method of controling installation of ples and verifying their capacity during | Value of , or afer ctiving tobe spectied in the contract dosuments Pile orivng Formulas, e.g, ENR, equation without stress wave 80 measurements during diving Beating graph from wave equation analysis without stress wave ass measurements during drivin Stress wave measurements on 2% to 5% of piles, capacity verified by 090 timalified methods, eg, the ple diving analyzer Strose wave measurements on 2% to 6% of piles, capacity vorified by 1.00 simplified methods, eg. the ple diving analyzer and static load test to verity capacity Stress wave measurements on 2% to 8% of piles, capacity verified by 44.00 simplified methods, ea. the ple diving analyzer and CAPWAP analyses to verify capacity Stress wave measuremerts on 10% t0 70% of ples, capacity venfied by 1.00 simplified methods, e.g. the ple driving anal 10-14Section 10- Foundations (SI) Table 10.5.5-3 - Resistance Factors for Geotechnical Strength Limit State in Axialy Loaded Drilled Shats Ultimate Bearing Resistance of Single-Driled Shafts METHOD/SOI/CONDITION Resistance in Clay ‘gemethod (Reese & O'Neil! 1988) RAC Base Resistance in Ch Resistance in jand Touma & Res Gates Rees § Neat taza Reese & O'Neill (1088: Bese Resistance in Fou & Begee (1974 Eerie fe a ‘See Discussion in Antics 10.834 10-15 ‘Side Resistance ks ‘carer & Kura Rock " Eker, ioe Base Resistance In| Canatlan Gectechnical 050 Rock Sealy (985) Rresaure Method 050 (Canacian Geotechnical octal 1885) Sip asians ard | toadTost 080 Block Failure Clay 065 UplitResiatance of Single- | Cl ‘xmathod 056 Ditiad Shots . ” {Rosso & O'Nall 1988) Bolled Shafts (esse & ONell 1968) 980 Send Tour steees te74) | Sep Dlasgcin in Gatos 8 ses ig Boose £ Reese & ON (1808, eek Cater & Kul 045 Bérahd Rorndy (670) age Load Test 080 Group Uplift Resistance sandSection 10 - Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS 40.6 SPREAD FOOTINGS 10.6.4 General Considerations 106.1.1 GENERAL Provisions of this Article shall apply to design of Isolated footings and, where applicable, to combined footings. Special attention shall be given to footings on fill, Foctings should be designed so thet the pressure under the footing is as nearly uniform as practicable. ‘The distribution of soil pressure shall be consistent with properties of the soll of rock and the structure and with established principles of soil and rock mechanics. 108.12 DEPTH The depth of fooings shall be determined in consideration of the character of the foundation materials and the possibilty of undermining, Footings at stream cressings shall be founded at a depth at least 600 mm below the maximum anticpated depth of scour as specified in Article 26.4.4.1 Footings not exposed to the action of stream current shall be founded on a firm foundation below frost level or on a firm foundation made frost resistant by overexcavation of fost-susceptitle material to below the frost line end replacement with material which is. not frost-ousceptible. ‘Consideration should be given to the use of ether 2 geotexile or graded granular fiter layer to reduce usceptibilty to piping inrip rap or abutment backfil, 106.13 ANCHORAGE Footings that are founded on inclined smooth solid rock surfaces and that are not restrained by an ‘overburden of resistant material shall be effectively anchored by means of rock anchors, rock belts, dowels, keys, or ofner suitable means. Shallow keying of large COMMENTARY . c10.6.1.1 Problems with insufficient bearing andlor excessive settlements in fil cen be significant, partcularly if poor, e.g, soft, wet, frozen, or nondurable, material is used, of if the material is not properly compacted. Settlement of improperiy placed ot compacted fill around piers can cause substantal increases in footing loads resulting from the downward drag or friction force exerted on the pier by the setting fil, Le., negative skin fricton. Even properly placed and compacted backill undergoes some alrount of setlement or sweling depending on te material type, moisture conditions. method of placement, ‘and method and degree of compaction. C10.6.1.2 In cases where footings are founded on rocks, ‘special attention should be paid to the effect of blasting. Blasting of highly resistant competent rock formations: typically results in the fracturing of the rock to some depth below the final rock surface. Blasting may reduce ‘the resistance to scour within the rock zone immediately below the footing base. ‘Considerable differences of frest penetration can ‘exist throughout the United States and, in some instances, even locally. Where frost protection is marginal or deficient, consideration should be given to ‘the use of insulation to improve fost protection, Evaluation of seepage ferces and hydraulic gradients 1s essential in the design of foundation excavations extencing below the groundwater table. Upward ‘seepage forces in the bottom of excavations can result in piping in dense granuler soll cr heaving in loose ‘granular soil tat may cause bottom Instability. These Problems can be contolled by adequate dewatering, typically using wels or well poin's. Dewatering of excavations in loose granular sails can cause setfement ofthe surrounding ground. adjacent structures may be damaged by such settlement orif the cost of dewatering is high, seepage cut off methods, such as sheet piling or slurry walls, mey be practical or necessary. c10.61.3 Blasting operations have a high probatility of overbreak and/or fragmentation of the bearing rock below the footing level. Accordingly, positive anchorage should be provided between the rock and footing such as that provided by rock anchors, bolts, or dowels. 10-16te ‘Section 10 - Foundations (SI) SPECIFICATIONS fooling areas shall be avoided where blasting is required for rock removal 10.8.1.4 GROUNDWATER Foctings shall be designed in consideration of the ‘highest anticipated groundwater table. The influences of groundwater table on the bearing capacity of soils or rocks and on the settements of the structure should be considered. In cases where seepage forces are present, they should also be Inclided in the analyses. 10.8.1.5 UPLIFT ‘Where foundations are subjected to uplift forces, they shall be Investigated Doth for tesistance to pullout and for their structural strength. 10.6.1.6 NEARBY STRUCTURES ‘Where foundations are placed adjacent to existing structures, the influence of the exsting structures on the: behavior ‘of the foundation and the effect of the foundation on the existing structures shall’ be Investigated 10.6.2 Movement and Bearing Pressureat the Service Limit State 1062.1 GENERAL Movement of foundations in both vertcal settlement and hovizontal lateral displacement dlitections shall te Investigated at the service limit state. Lateral cisplacement of 2 stucture shall te evaluated were: © Horzontal or incined loads are present, is placed on embankment slope, © The possibilty of loss of foundation support through erosion or scour exis's, of ‘© Bearing strata are significantly incined, © The foundatio COMMENTARY c10621 Elastic deformation occurs quickly and is usualy ‘small, It is normally neglected in design. Changes in ‘volume aseociatod with a reduction in the water content ‘of the subsoil is called consolidation and can be estimated and measured. Consolidation settlement ‘occurs in all soils, In cohesionless soils the consolidation occurs cuicky and is normally not letinguishable from the elastic deformation. In cohesive soils, such as clays, the consolidation. can take a considerable length of time. Various loads may have significant effects on the ‘magnitude of settlements or lateral displacements of the ‘soils, The following factore chould be coneidered in the estimation of settlements: © The ratio of sustained load to total load, (©The duration of sustained loads, and © The time interval over which settlement or lateral displacement occurs. 10-17Section 10- Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS 106.22 MOVEMENT CRITERIA 106.221 General Vertical and horizontal movement criteria shall be developed to be consistent with the function and type of structure, anticipated service life, and consequences of unacceptable movements on structure performance. The tolerable movement criteria shall be established by elther emprical procedures or structural analyses or by consideration of both. 106.222 Loads Immeciate settement shall be determined using load combination Service, as specified in Table 34.1-1. Time-dependent settlements in cohesive soils may be determined by using the permanent loads only. ‘Settlements caused by embankment loadings behind bridge abutments shall be irvesiigated. In seismically active ereas, consideration shall be given to the potential settlements of footings on sand Tesulting from vibration induced by earthquake. COMMENTARY The consolidation settlements In cohesive sols are time-dependent consequently, transient loads have neglighle effect. However, in cahesionless solls where the permeability Ie euffciently high, elastic. deformation of the supportng soll due to transient load cen take place, Because deformation in cohesioniess soils ofien takes place during constructon while the loads are beng applied, it can be accommodated by the structure to an etent, depending on the type of structure and ‘censtruction method. Deformation in cohesionless, or granular, soils ofen ‘occurs as soon as loads are appied. As a consecuence, ‘settlements dus to transient loads may be significant in ‘echesionies soile, and they chould be included In settlementanalyses. 10.62.24 Past experience has shown that bridges can and often do accommocate more settlement than traditionally ‘alowed or anticipated in design. This accormmocation is ‘accomparied by creep, relaxation, and redistribution of foe effects. Some studies have been made to synthesize apparent response. These studies indicate that angular distortions between adjacent foundations greater than 0.008 in simple spans and 0004 in Continuous spans should not be permitted in satioment caiiteria (Moulton et al. 1985, Barker et al. 1991). Lesser angular distortion may be appropriate affer consideration ot © Cost of mitigation through larger foundations, realignment or overbuilding, © Rideabilty, © Assthetics, and © Safety 10-18‘Section 10- Foundations ($1) ‘SPECIFICATIONS 108.223 Settlement Analyses 106.2238 General Foundation settements should be estimated using deformation analyses based on the tesuks of laboratory testing oF in-situ testing. The soll parameters used in the analyses should be chosen to reflect the loading history ‘of the ground, the constuction sequence, and the effect ‘of soil layering. Both tolal and dfferential settlements, including time dependent effects, shall be considered. ‘The total settlement, incuding elastic, consolidation, and secondary components, may be taken as: S78, 45,48, (106.2.23a4) where: s, elastic settlement (rm) 1: = consolidation settlement (min) S, = secondary settlement (mm) Other factors that can affect settiement, e9. embankment loading and lateral and/or eccentric loading and for footings on granuiar solls, vibration loading from dynamic live loads or earthquake loads, should-also be ‘considered, where epprepriate. ‘The distribution of vertical stress increase below clreular (or square) and long rectarguler footings, Le., ‘where L > SB, may be estimated using Figure 1. sma nts Figure 1062.2.3a1 - Boussinesq Vertical Stress Contours for Continuous and Square Footings Modified After Sowers (1978) COMMENTARY 010.6.2.2.3a Immediate settlement, often referred to as elastic settlement because of the method of computation, is the Instantaneous cistortion of the soli mass that occurs as the soil is loaded. In a nearly saturated or saturated ‘cohesive soil, the applied Icad is initially cariied by the pore water pressure. As pere wator is forced from the ods in the soll by the appied load, the load is transferred to the soil skeleton, Consolidation settierent is the gradual compression of the soil skeleton as the ore water is forced from voids in the soll. Secondary settlemant occurs as a resuit of the plastic deformation ‘of the soil skeleton under a constant effective stress. Immediate settlements predominate In ochesioniess sols and unsaturated cohesive soils, whereas consolidation settlements predominate in fine-grained cohesive soils having 2 degree of saturation greater than about 80 percent. “Secondary settlement is of principal ‘concem in highly plastic or organic sail deposts. ‘The principal deformation component for footings on rock is elastic settlement, unless the rock or included discontinuities exhibit ‘noticeable time-dependent behavior. For general guidance regarding stato toadhg conditions, see Gifford et al. (1967). For gudance regarding aynamiciseismic loading conditions, see Lam and Martin (1985). For guitance on vettical stress distribution for other footing geometries, see Poulos and Davis (1974). ‘Some methods used for estimating setierent of footings on sand include an integral method to account {or the effects of vertical stress increese varietions, For guidance regarding application of these procedures, see Giflordet al (1687). 10-19Section 10 - Foundations (S!) ‘SPECIFICATIONS 10.6.2.2.3b Settlement of Fcotings on Cohesionless Sols ‘Settlements of footings on cohesionless soils may be estimated using empirical procedures or elastic theory. Tre elastic settlement of footinas on cohesionless scils may be estimated using the following: elt vA EE (108.22.3b-4) where: = load intensity (MPa) A = area of footing (rnm') E, = Youngs modulus of soil taken as specified in Table 1 in lieu of the results of laboratory tests, (Pay B, = shape factor taken as specified in Table 2 (DIM) v = Poisson's Ratio taken as specifed in Table 1 In Neu of the results of iaboratcry tests (DIM) Unless E, varies signifcanty with depth, E, should bbe determined at a derth of about 1/2 to 2/3 of B below the footing. If the soll modulus vaties significantly with depth, a welghted average value of E, may be used. 4, Th flowing romencetr sal be used wah Tale Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance ‘SPT corrected for depth 8, = _undrained sheer strength (MPa) ccone penetration resistance (MPa) COMMENTARY 10.62.23 ‘Atthough methods ate. tecommended for the determination of settiement of cohesioriess soils, experience has indicated that setlements can vary ‘considerably in a construction site, and this vartation may not be predicted by conventonal calculations. Settlements of cohesionless sols occurs essentially ‘8 rapidly as the foundation is loaded. Consequertly, their importance on the performance of most bridge ‘stuctures will be small because the settlements occur before critical elements of the bridge are constructed. Details of these procedures can be found In many text books and engineering maruals (Terzaghi and Peck 4987, Sowers 1978, U.S. Department of the Naw 1982, Gifford et al. 1387, Tomlinson 1380, Barker et al. 1991). For general guidance regarding the estimation of e’astic setlement of footings on sand, see Gifford et al. (1987). ‘The stress distributions used to calculate elastic ‘settlement assume the footing s flexible and supported ‘on a homogeneous soil of infinite depth. The settlement below a flexible footing varies from a maximum near the ‘center to a minimum at the edge equal io about 50 percent and 64 percent of the maximum for rectangular and circular footings, respectivey. ‘The settlemert profile for rigid footings is assumed to be uniform across the ‘width of the footing. Accurate estimates of elaste settlement are difficult to obtain because the analyses are based on only 2 single value of soil modulus. Therefore, in selecting an fae value for soll modulus, consideration should be given to the influence of sail layering, bedrock at @ shallow depth, and adjacent footings. For footings with eccentc loads, the area, A, should be computed based on reduced footing dimensions 2s specified in Article 10.6.3.1.5. 10-20 CcSeotion 10 - Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY Teble 10.62.2.3b-1 - Elastic Constarts of Various Soils Medified After U.S. Department of the Navy (1982) and Bowles (1988) peal Range of en Estimating, trom N Yours’ Nodulus,&, | Polson's Rati, v 5 (uP) (ain) Soil Type Pa) Soft senate 2415 04s Sits, sandy sts, sighty oan, Hedium sti to sift 7550 ‘endreined) cohesive mires Very sit 50-100 ‘lean ine to mecium sands and o7N, sight sity sands 10N, ‘Sandy gravel and gravels aN, Loess, 1500 103 ‘Sandy gravel and gravels 4AN, sit 220 03.035 Estimating, trom 8, Fire Sand: loose 7540 Soft sensitive clay 4008,1,0093, Medium dense 1020 025 Mediu stiftostt clay 115008,2 4008, Dense 2025 Very st clay Tablet 62.2.30-2- Elastic Snape and Rigidity Factors, EPRI (1983) 40 141 441 40-21Section 10- Foundations (SI) SPECIFICATIONS 10.8.2.2.3¢ Settlement of Feotings on Cohesive Soils For foundations on stiff cohesive soils, the elastic ‘settiement may be determined using Equation 106.223b-4. For foundations on cohseive soils, both immediate and consolidation settiements shall be investigated. In highly plastic and organic clay, secondary settlements may be significant and shall be included in the analysis ‘Where laboratory test results are expressed in terms of void ratio (@), the consolidation settlement of footings on saturated or nearly saturated cohesive soils may be ‘taken 2s: © Forinitally overconsolidated soils (i, o', >): He Dy [cinco a) (106.22.3¢-1) © For initally normally consolidated sols (ie, 0,= 04): Where laboratory teet reauits ate exproseed in terms of vertical strain, ¢,, consclidation settlement may be taken as © Fer iniially overconsolidated soils (.e., 6, > 07): snfoam{ 9) soa | tioez2ee4 %, 4 COMMENTARY 010.6.2.2.30 tn practice, footings on cohesive soils are most likely founded on overcorsolidated clays, and settlements can be estimated using elastic theory (Baguelin et al. 1978) or the tangent modulus method (Janbu 1963, 1967). Settlements of footings on overconsolidated clay usually ‘occur at approximately one order of magnitude faster than solls without preconsoidation, and it is reasonable to assume that they take place as rapidly as the lozds are applies. Infrecuenty, 2 layer of cohesive soll ray exhibit a preconsolidation pressure less than the calculated existing overburden pressure. The sollis then seid o be indetconsolidated because a state of ceculltrium has not yet been reached under the appled overburden stress. Such a condition may have been caused by a recert lowering of the groundwater tatle. In this case, consclidation settlement will occur due to the additional load of the structure and the setlement that is occurring to reach a state of equilibrium. The total ‘consolidation settlement due to these twa components can be estimated by Equation 3 or Equation 6. To account for the decreasing stress with Increased depth below a footing and variations in soil compressibility with depth, the compressible layer should be divided into vertical increments (ie., typically 1500 to 3000 mm for most normal wicth footings for righway ‘pplications) end the consalidetion settlement of each Increment analyzec separately. The total value of S, is the summation of &, for each increment. ‘The magnitude of consolidetion settlement depends ‘on the consolidation properties of the soil (Le, C, (Or Cas] and C, [or Cg), the preconsolidation pressure (¢,'), the ccurrent vertical effective stress (9,"), and the final vertcal effective stress after application of addtional loading (Gi). The sci condtion depicted in Figures 1 and 2 is for an overconsolidated soll (6, < o,'), that I, a soll that has been preloated by previously overiying strata, desiccation, groundwater lowering, glaciation, or some ‘other geologic process. If c,' = dp the soll Is referred to ‘as normally consolidated. Because C,_is typically equal to 0.05C, to 0.10C,, an accurate ing of the cil doposit sirees history Is needed to make relizble estimates of consoldation settlement ‘The reltablty of consolidaton settlement estimates is also affected by the quality of the consdlidaion test sample and by the accuracy with which changes in 0,’ vith depth are known or estimated. As shown in Figure Ci, the slope of the © versus log 0; and the location of o,"'can be strongly affected by the quality of samples bed for the laboratory consolidation tests. In general, the use of poor quality. samples will result in an overestimate of consolidation settiement. “Typically, the value of o,' wil vary with depth as shown in Figure C2. {f the variation of o,' with depth is unknown (e9., only ‘one consolidation test was conducted in the soil protle), 10-22Section 10 - Foundations (St) ‘SPECIFICATIONS © Forinitially normally consolidated soils (ie, o', o sora (10.6.2.236-5) © Forinitially underconsolidated soils (Le., 0%, < 6): S8,=H,C,glog| "| (10.62.2308) Spe height of compressible sol layer (mm) Void ratio at inital vertical effective stress wim 2 ” = recompression index determined es specified in Figure 1 (DIM) = compression index determined as specified In Figure 1 (DIM) ‘compression ratio determined as specified in Figure 2 (DIM) PF PF f & = recompressicn ratio determined as specified in Figure 2 (01M) © = maximum past vertical effective stress in sal at depth interval below focting (MPa) Initial vettical effective stress in soil at depth Interval below footing (MPa) {inal vertical effective stress in soll at depth interval below footing (MPa) current vertical effective stress in the sol, not including the additional stress due to tha footing toads (MPa) COMMENTARY ‘actual settlements could be higher or lower then the ‘computed value based on a single value of 0, ‘ange in o, from poor quality sample Void ratio, --—- Insitu cue _— Laboratory curve on bigh quality sample ——— Laboratory curve on poor quality sample Etfestive consolidation stress, a7, (109 seale) Figure C108.22.3c-1 - Effects of Sample Quality on Consolidation Behavior, Holtz and Kovacs (1981) 10-23Section 10 - Foundations (SI) ‘SPECIFICATIONS Void rotio, © ‘Vertical effective stress, (log scate? Figure 10.6.2.2.3¢-1_- Typical Consolidation ‘Compression Cure for Overconsolidation Soil - Void Ratio Versus Vertical Effectve Stress, EPRI (1983) 3 = Vertical effective stress, 2" (log scale) Figure 10.6.2.2.3c-2 - Typical Consolidation ‘Compression Curve for Overcensolidation Soil - Verical Strain Versus Vertcal Effective Stress, EPRI (1983) I the footing width Is small relative to the thickness of the compressible soil, the effect of three-dimensional loading shall be considered and may be taken as: (10.6.2.2.30-7) 0) = HaSo¢s-oy 1. = reduction factor taken as specified in Figure 3(DIM) Sq-0) = single dimensional consolidation settlement (men) COMMENTARY i a) Figure €106.22.3¢-2 - Typical Variation of Preconsolidation Pressure with Depth, Holtz and Kovacs (1984) ‘The height of the drainage path is the longest dstance tom ary pont In a compressible leer a drainage layer at the top and/or bottom of the compressible soll unk. Where a compressible layer is located between two drainage boundaries, H, equals ‘one-half the actual height of the layer. Where a compresstle layer Ie atjacont to a single drairage boundary, H, equals the actual height of the layer. Computations to predict the time rate of consolidation based on the result of laboratory tests ‘generally tend to overestimate the actual time required for consolidation in the field This overestimate is princpaly due to: © The presence of thin drainage layers within the compressible layer that are not observed from the ubsuriaco expleraton nor considered in’ the ‘settlement computations; © The effects of three-dimersional cissipation of pore water pressures in the field, rather than the one- dimensional desipation that is imposed by laboratory consolidation tests and assumed in the analyses; and © The effects of sample disturbance, which tend to reduce the permeablity of the laboratory tested samples, 10-24