Foundation Design - WA

Chapter 8
8.1 8.2 8.3 Overview
Foundation Design
Contents
8-1 8-1 8-5 8-7 8-10 8-10 8-12 8-13 8-13 8-15 8-16 8-16 8-16 8-17 8-19 8-20 8-21 8-21 8-21 8-22 8-22 8-23 8-23 8-23 8-23 8-24 8-27 8-28 8-28 8-28 8-28 8-29 8-29 8-29 8-29 8-30 8-30 8-30
Page 8-i
OverallDesignProcessforStructureFoundations DataNeededforFoundationDesign 8.3.1 FieldExplorationRequirementsforFoundations 8.3.2 LaboratoryandFieldTestingRequirementsforFoundations FoundationSelectionConsiderations OverviewofLRFDforFoundations LRFDLoads,LoadGroupsandLimitStatestobeConsidered 8.6.1 FoundationAnalysistoEstablishLoadDistributionforStructure 8.6.2 DowndragLoads 8.6.3 UpliftLoadsduetoExpansiveSoils 8.6.4 SoilLoadsonBuriedStructures 8.6.5 ServiceLimitStates 8.6.5.1 TolerableMovements 8.6.5.2 OverallStability 8.6.5.3 AbutmentTransitions 8.6.6 StrengthLimitStates 8.6.7 ExtremeEventLimitStates ResistanceFactorsforFoundationDesignDesignParameters ResistanceFactorsforFoundationDesignServiceLimitStates ResistanceFactorsforFoundationDesignStrengthLimitStates ResistanceFactorsforFoundationDesignExtremeEventLimitStates 8.10.1 Scour 8.10.2 OtherExtremeEventLimitStates SpreadFootingDesign 8.11.1 LoadsandLoadFactorApplicationtoFootingDesign 8.11.2 FootingFoundationDesign 8.11.2.1 FootingBearingDepth 8.11.2.2 NearbyStructures 8.11.2.3 ServiceLimitStateDesignofFootings 8.11.2.3.1 SettlementofFootingsonCohesionlessSoils 8.11.2.3.2 SettlementofFootingsonRock 8.11.2.3.3 BearingResistanceattheServiceLimitState UsingPresumptiveValues 8.11.2.4 StrengthLimitStateDesignofFootings 8.11.2.4.1 TheoreticalEstimationofBearingResistance 8.11.2.4.2 PlateLoadTestsforDeterminationofBearing ResistanceinSoil 8.11.2.4.3 BearingResistanceofFootingsonRock 8.11.2.5 ExtremeEventLimitStateDesignofFootings
M 46-03.01
8.4 8.5 8.6
8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10
8.11
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010
Contents
Chapter 8
8.12
DrivenPileFoundationDesign 8-31 8.12.1 LoadsandLoadFactorApplicationtoDrivenPileDesign 8-33 8.12.2 DrivenforPileFoundationGeotechnicalDesign 8-35 8.12.2.1 DrivenPileSizesandMaximumResistances 8-35 8.12.2.2 MinimumPileSpacing 8-36 8.12.2.3 DeterminationofPileLateralResistance 8-36 8.12.2.4 BatterPiles 8-37 8.12.2.5 ServiceLimitStateDesignofPileFoundations 8-37 8.12.2.5.1 OverallStability 8-37 8.12.2.5.2 HorizontalPileFoundationMovement 8-37 8.12.2.6 StrengthLimitStateGeotechnicalDesignofPileFoundations 8-37 8.12.2.6.1 NominalAxialResistanceChangeafterPile Driving 8-37 8.12.2.6.2 Scour 8-37 8.12.2.6.3 Downdrag 8-39 8.12.2.6.4 DeterminationofNominalAxialPileResistance in Compression 8-41 8.12.2.6.5 NominalHorizontalResistanceofPileFoundations -43 8 8.12.2.7 ExtremeEventLimitStateDesignofPileFoundations 8-44 DrilledShaftFoundationDesign 8.13.1 LoadsandLoadFactorApplicationtoDrilledShaftDesign 8.13.2 DrilledShaftGeotechnicalDesign 8.13.2.1 GeneralConsiderations 8.13.2.2 NearbyStructures 8.13.2.3 ServiceLimitStateDesignofDrilledShafts 8.13.2.3.1 HorizontalMovementofShaftsandShaftGroups 8.13.2.3.2 OverallStability 8.13.2.4 StrengthLimitStateGeotechnicalDesignofDrilledShafts 8.13.2.4.1 Scour 8.13.2.4.2 Downdrag 8.13.2.4.3 NominalHorizontalResistanceofShaftand ShaftGroupFoundations 8.13.2.5 ExtremeEventLimitStateDesignofDrilledShafts Micropiles ProprietaryFoundationSystems DetentionVaults 8.16.1 Overview 8.16.2 FieldInvestigationRequirements 8.16.3 DesignRequirements References 8-46 8-48 8-48 8-48 8-48 8-49 8-49 8-50 8-50 8-50 8-51 8-51 8-52 8-52 8-52 8-53 8-53 8-53 8-54 8-54
8.13
8.14 8.15 8.16
8.17
Page 8-ii
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010
Chapter 8
8.1 Overview
Foundation Design
Thischaptercoversthegeotechnicaldesignofbridgefoundations,cut-andcovertunnelfoundations,foundationsforwalls,andhydraulicstructure foundations(pipearches,boxculverts,flexibleculverts,etc.).WSDOT GDMChapter17coversfoundationdesignforlightlyloadedstructures,and WSDOTGDMChapter18coversfoundationdesignformarinestructures. Bothshallow(e.g.,spreadfootings)anddeep(piles,shafts,micro-piles, etc.)foundationsareaddressed.Ingeneral,theloadandresistancefactor designapproach(LRFD)asprescribedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign Specificationsshallbeused,unlessaLRFDdesignmethodologyisnot availableforthespecificfoundationtypebeingconsidered(e.g.,micro-piles). Structuraldesignofbridgeandotherstructurefoundationsisaddressedinthe WSDOTLRFDBridgeDesignManual(BDM). AllstructurefoundationswithinWSDOTRightofWayorwhoseconstruction isadministeredbyWSDOTshallbedesignedinaccordancewiththeWSDOT GeotechnicalDesignManual(GDM)andthefollowingdocuments: WSDOTBridge Design ManualLRFDM23-50 WSDOTStandard Plans for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction M21-01 AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications,U.S. Themostcurrentversionsoftheabovereferencedmanualsincludingall interimsordesignmemorandamodifyingthemanualsshallbeused.Inthe caseofconflictordiscrepancybetweenmanuals,thefollowinghierarchyshall beused:thosemanualslistedfirstshallsupersedethoselistedbelowinthelist.
8.2 Overall Design Process for Structure Foundations

TheoverallprocessforgeotechnicaldesignisaddressedinWSDOTGDM Chapters1and23.Fordesignofstructurefoundations,theoverallWSDOT designprocess,includingboththegeotechnicalandstructuraldesign functions,isasillustratedinFigure8-1.
M 46-03.01
Page 8-1
Foundation Design
Chapter 8
Bridge and Structures Office (BO) requests conceptual foundation recommendations from GeotechnicalDivision (GD)
GD provides conceptual foundation recommendations to BO
BO obtains site data from Region, develops draft preliminary plan, and provides initial foundation needs input to GD
GD provides preliminary foundation design recommendations
Iterate
BO performs structural analysis and modeling, and provides feedback to GD regarding foundation loads, type, size, depth, and configuration needed for structural purposes GD performs final geotechnical design as needed and provides final geotechnical report for the structure
BO performs final structural modeling and develops final PS&E for structure
Overall design process for LRFD foundation design.

Figure 8-1
Thestepsintheflowchartaredefinedasfollows: ConceptualBridgeFoundationDesignThisdesignstepresultsinan informalcommunication/reportproducedbytheGeotechnicalDivisionatthe requestoftheBridgeandStructuresOffice.Thisinformalcommunication/ report,consistentwithwhatisdescribedforconceptuallevelgeotechnical reportsinWSDOTGDMChapter23,providesabriefdescriptionofthe anticipatedsiteconditions,anestimateofthemaximumslopefeasibleforthe bridgeapproachfillsforthepurposeofdeterminingbridgelength,conceptual foundationtypesfeasible,andconceptualevaluationofpotentialgeotechnical hazardssuchasliquefaction.Thepurposeoftheserecommendationsisto
Page 8-2
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
provideenoughgeotechnicalinformationtoallowthebridgepreliminaryplan tobeproduced.Thistypeofconceptualevaluationcouldalsobeappliedto othertypesofstructures,suchastunnelsorspecialdesignretainingwalls. DevelopSitedataandPreliminaryPlanDuringthisphase,theBridge andStructuresOfficeobtainssitedatafromtheRegion(seeWSDOT DesignManual,Chapters510,1110,and1130)anddevelopsapreliminary bridgeplan(orotherstructure)adequatefortheGeotechnicalDivisionto locateboringsinpreparationforthefinaldesignofthestructure(i.e.,pier locationsareknownwitharelativelyhighdegreeofcertainty).TheBridge andStructuresOfficewouldalsoprovidethefollowinginformationtothe GeotechnicalDivisiontoallowthemtoadequatelydevelopthepreliminary foundationdesign: Anticipatedstructuretypeandmagnitudesofsettlement(bothtotaland differential)thestructurecantolerate. Atabutments,theapproximatemaximumelevationfeasibleforthetopof thefoundationinconsiderationofthefoundationdepth. Forinteriorpiers,thenumberofcolumnsanticipated,andiftherewillbe singlefoundationelementsforeachcolumn,orifonefoundationelement willsupportmultiplecolumns. Atstreamcrossings,thedepthofscouranticipated,ifknown. Typically,theGeotechnicalDivisionwillpursuethisissuewiththeHQ HydraulicsOffice. Anyknownconstraintsthatwouldaffectthefoundationsintermsof type,location,orsize,oranyknownconstraintswhichwouldaffectthe assumptionswhichneedtobemadetodeterminethenominalresistanceof thefoundation(e.g.,utilitiesthatmustremain,constructionstagingneeds, excavation,shoringandfalseworkneeds,otherconstructabilityissues). PreliminaryFoundationDesignThisdesignstepresultsinamemorandum producedbytheGeotechnicalDivisionattherequestoftheBridgeand StructuresOfficethatprovidesgeotechnicaldataadequatetodothe structuralanalysisandmodelingforallloadgroupstobeconsideredfor thestructure.Thegeotechnicaldataispreliminaryinthatitisnotinfinal formforpublicationandtransmittaltopotentialbidders.Inaddition,the foundationrecommendationsaresubjecttochange,dependingontheresults ofthestructuralanalysisandmodelingandtheeffectthatmodelingand analysishasonfoundationtypes,locations,sizes,anddepths,aswellas anydesignassumptionsmadebythegeotechnicaldesigner.Preliminary foundationrecommendationsmayalsobesubjecttochangedependingon theconstructionstagingneedsandotherconstructabilityissuesthatare discoveredduringthisdesignphase.Geotechnicalworkconductedduringthis stagetypicallyincludescompletionofthefieldexplorationprogramtothe finalPS&Elevel,developmentoffoundationtypesandcapacitiesfeasible, foundationdepthsneeded,P-Ycurvedataandsoilspringdataforseismic
M 46-03.01
Page 8-3
Foundation Design
Chapter 8
modeling,seismicsitecharacterizationandestimatedgroundacceleration, andrecommendationstoaddressknownconstructabilityissues.Adescription ofsubsurfaceconditionsandapreliminarysubsurfaceprofilewouldalsobe providedatthisstage,butdetailedboringlogsandlaboratorytestdatawould usuallynotbeprovided. StructuralAnalysisandModelingInthisphase,theBridgeandStructures Officeusesthepreliminaryfoundationdesignrecommendationsprovided bytheGeotechnicalDivisiontoperformthestructuralmodelingofthe foundationsystemandsuperstructure.Throughthismodeling,theBridgeand StructuresOfficedeterminesanddistributestheloadswithinthestructure forallappropriateloadcases,factorstheloadsasappropriate,andsizesthe foundationsusingthefoundationnominalresistancesandresistancefactors providedbytheGeotechnicalDivision.Constructabilityandconstruction stagingneedswouldcontinuetobeinvestigatedduringthisphase.TheBridge andStructuresOfficewouldalsoprovidethefollowingfeedbacktothe GeotechnicalDivisiontoallowthemtochecktheirpreliminaryfoundation designandproducetheFinalGeotechnicalReportforthestructure: Anticipatedfoundationloads(includingloadfactorsandload groupsused). Foundationsize/diameteranddepthrequiredtomeetstructuralneeds. Foundationdetailsthatcouldaffectthegeotechnicaldesignofthe foundations. Sizeandconfigurationofdeepfoundationgroups. FinalFoundationDesign-Thisdesignstepresultsinaformalgeotechnical reportproducedbytheGeotechnicalDivisionthatprovidesfinalgeotechnical recommendationsforthesubjectstructure.Thisreportincludesall geotechnicaldataobtainedatthesite,includingfinalboringlogs,subsurface profiles,andlaboratorytestdata,allfinalfoundationrecommendations,and finalconstructabilityrecommendationsforthestructure.Atthistime,the GeotechnicalDivisionwillchecktheirpreliminaryfoundationdesignin considerationofthestructuralfoundationdesignresultsdeterminedbythe BridgeandStructuresOffice,andmakemodificationstothepreliminary foundationdesignasneededtoaccommodatethestructuraldesignneeds providedbytheBridgeandStructuresOffice.Itispossiblethatmuchofwhat wasincludedinthepreliminaryfoundationdesignmemorandummaybe copiedintothefinalgeotechnicalreport,ifnodesignchangesareneeded.This reportwillalsobeusedforpublicationanddistributiontopotentialbidders.
Page 8-4
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
FinalStructuralModelingandPS&EDevelopmentInthisphase,the BridgeandStructuresOfficemakesanyadjustmentsneededtotheirstructural modeltoaccommodateanychangesmadetothegeotechnicalfoundation recommendationsastransmittedinthefinalgeotechnicalreport.Fromthis,the bridgedesignandfinalPS&Ewouldbecompleted. Notethatasimilardesignprocessshouldbeusedifaconsultantordesignbuilderisperformingoneorbothdesignfunctions.
8.3 Data Needed for Foundation Design

ThedataneededforfoundationdesignshallbeasdescribedintheAASHTO LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications,Section10(mostcurrentversion).The expectedprojectrequirementsandsubsurfaceconditionsshouldbeanalyzed todeterminethetypeandquantityofinformationtobedevelopedduringthe geotechnicalinvestigation.Duringthisphaseitisnecessaryto: Identifydesignandconstructabilityrequirements(e.g.providegrade separation,transferloadsfrombridgesuperstructure,providefordry excavation)andtheireffectonthegeotechnicalinformationneeded Identifyperformancecriteria(e.g.limitingsettlements,rightofway restrictions,proximityofadjacentstructures)andschedulecontraints Identifyareasofconcernonsiteandpotentialvariabilityoflocalgeology Developlikelysequenceandphasesofconstructionandtheireffectonthe geotechnical information needed Identifyengineeringanalysestobeperformed(e.g.bearingcapacity, settlement,globalstability) Identifyengineeringpropertiesandparametersrequiredfortheseanalyses Determinemethodstoobtainparametersandassessthevalidityofsuch methodsforthematerialtypeandconstructionmethods Determinethenumberoftests/samplesneededandappropriatelocations forthem. Table8-1providesasummaryofinformationneedsandtestingconsiderations forfoundationdesign.
M 46-03.01
Page 8-5
Foundation Design Foundation Type Engineering Evaluations bearing capacity Required Information for Analyses Field Testing SPT (granular soils) CPT PMT dilatometer rock coring (RQD) plate load testing geophysical testing
Chapter 8 Laboratory Testing 1-D Oedometer tests soil/rock shear tests grain size distribution Atterberg Limits specific gravity moisture content unit weight organic content collapse/swell potential tests intact rock modulus point load strength test SPT (granular soils) pile load test CPT PMT vane shear test dilatometer piezometers rock coring (RQD) soil/rock shear tests interface friction tests grain size distribution 1-D Oedometer tests pH, resistivity tests Atterberg Limits specific gravity organic content moisture content unit weight collapse/swell potential tests intact rock modulus point load strength test subsurface profile (soil, ground water, rock) shear strength parameters interface shear strength friction parameters (soil and shaft) compressibility parameters installation technique test shaft shaft load test vane shear test CPT SPT (granular soils) PMT 1-D Oedometer soil/rock shear tests grain size distribution interface friction tests pH, resistivity tests permeability tests Atterberg Limits specific gravity moisture content unit weight organic content collapse/swell potential tests intact rock modulus point load strength test slake durability
Shallow Foundations
subsurface profile (soil, groundwater, settlement (magnitude rock) & rate) shear strength parameters shrink/swell of foundation soils (natural soils or embankment fill) frost heave scour (for water crossings) liquefaction compressibility parameters (including consolidation, shrink/swell potential, and elastic modulus) frost depth stress history (present and past vertical effective stresses) depth of seasonal moisture change unit weights geologic mapping including orientation and characteristics of rock discontinuities pile end-bearing pile skin friction settlement subsurface profile (soil, ground water, rock) shear strength parameters horizontal earth pressure coefficients
Driven Pile Foundations
down-drag on pile
lateral earth pressures interface friction parameters (soil and pile) chemical compatibility compressibility parameters of soil and pile drivability
presence of boulders/ unit weights very hard layers presence of shrink/swell soils (limits skin scour (for water friction) crossings) vibration/heave damage to nearby structures liquefaction shaft end bearing shaft skin friction constructability down-drag on shaft
chemical composition of soil/rock (e.g., potential corrosion issues)
geologic mapping including orientation geophysical and characteristics of rock discontinuities testing
Drilled Shaft Foundations
quality of rock socket lateral earth pressures
horizontal earth pressure coefficients settlement (magnitude chemical composition of soil/rock & rate) groundwater seepage/ unit weights dewatering/ potential for caving permeability of water-bearing soils presence of artesian conditions
presence of boulders/ presence of shrink/swell soils (limits skin dilatometer very hard layers friction) piezometers scour (for water geologic mapping including orientation rock coring crossings) and characteristics of rock discontinuities (RQD) liquefaction degradation of soft rock in presence of geophysical water and/or air (e.g., rock sockets in testing shales)
Summary of Information Needs and Testing Considerations (modified after Sabatini, et al., 2002).
Table 8-1
Page 8-6 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
WSDOTGDMChapter5 coverstherequirementsforhowtheresultsfromthe fieldinvestigation,thefieldtesting,andthelaboratorytestingaretobeused separatelyorincombinationtoestablishpropertiesfordesign.Thespecific testandfieldinvestigationrequirementsneededforfoundationdesignare describedinthefollowingsections. 8.3.1 Field Exploration Requirements for Foundations Subsurfaceexplorationsshallbeperformedtoprovidetheinformationneeded forthedesignandconstructionoffoundations.Theextentofexplorationshall bebasedonvariabilityinthesubsurfaceconditions,structuretype,andany projectrequirementsthatmayaffectthefoundationdesignorconstruction. Theexplorationprogramshouldbeextensiveenoughtorevealthenatureand typesofsoildepositsand/orrockformationsencountered,theengineering propertiesofthesoilsand/orrocks,thepotentialforliquefaction,andthe groundwaterconditions.Theexplorationprogramshouldbesufficientto identifyanddelineateproblematicsubsurfaceconditionssuchaskarstic formations,minedoutareas,swelling/collapsingsoils,existingfillorwaste areas,etc. Boringsshouldbesufficientinnumberanddepthtoestablishareliable longitudinalandtransversesubstrataprofileatareasofconcern,suchasat structurefoundationlocations,adjacentearthworklocations,andtoinvestigate anyadjacentgeologichazardsthatcouldaffectthestructureperformance. GuidelinesonthenumberanddepthofboringsarepresentedinTable8-2. Whileengineeringjudgmentwillneedtobeappliedbyalicensedand experienced geotechnical professional to adapt the exploration program to the foundationtypesanddepthsneededandtothevariabilityinthesubsurface conditionsobserved,theintentofTable8-2regardingtheminimumlevelof explorationneededshouldbecarriedout.Geophysicaltestingmaybeusedto guidetheplanningofthesubsurfaceexplorationandreducetherequirements forborings.ThedepthofboringsindicatedinTable8-2performedbeforeor duringdesignshouldtakeintoaccountthepotentialforchangesinthetype, sizeanddepthoftheplannedfoundationelements. Table8-2shallbeusedasastartingpointfordeterminingthelocationsof borings.Thefinalexplorationprogramshouldbeadjustedbasedonthe variabilityoftheanticipatedsubsurfaceconditionsaswellasthevariability observedduringtheexplorationprogram.Ifconditionsaredeterminedto bevariable,theexplorationprogramshouldbeincreasedrelativetothe requirementsinTable8-2suchthattheobjectiveofestablishingareliable longitudinalandtransversesubstrataprofileisachieved.Ifconditions areobservedtobehomogeneousorotherwisearelikelytohaveminimal impactonthefoundationperformance,andpreviouslocalgeotechnical andconstructionexperiencehasindicatedthatsubsurfaceconditions arehomogeneousorotherwisearelikelytohaveminimalimpactonthe foundationperformance,areducedexplorationprogramrelativetowhatis specifiedinTable8-2maybeconsidered.Eventhebestandmostdetailed
M 46-03.01
Page 8-7
Foundation Design
Chapter 8
subsurfaceexplorationprogramsmaynotidentifyeveryimportantsubsurface problemconditionifconditionsarehighlyvariable.Thegoalofthesubsurface explorationprogram,however,istoreducetheriskofsuchproblemstoan acceptableminimum. Forsituationswherelargediameterrocksocketedshaftswillbeusedorwhere drilledshaftsarebeinginstalledinformationsknowntohavelargeboulders, orvoidssuchasinkarsticorminedareas,itmaybenecessarytoadvancea boringatthelocationofeachshaft. Inalaterallyhomogeneousarea,drillingoradvancingalargenumberof boringsmayberedundant,sinceeachsampletestedwouldexhibitsimilar engineeringproperties.Furthermore,inareaswheresoilorrockconditions areknowntobeveryfavorabletotheconstructionandperformanceofthe foundationtypelikelytobeused(e.g.,footingsonverydensesoil,and groundwaterisdeepenoughtonotbeafactor),obtainingfewerborings thanprovidedinTable8-2maybejustified.Inallcases,itisnecessaryto understandhowthedesignandconstructionofthegeotechnicalfeaturewill beaffectedbythesoiland/orrockmassconditionsinordertooptimizethe exploration. Samplesofmaterialencounteredshallbetakenandpreservedforfuture referenceand/ortesting.Boringlogsshallbepreparedindetailsufficientto locatematerialstrata,resultsofpenetrationtests,groundwater,anyartesian conditions,andwheresamplesweretaken.Specialattentionshallbepaidto thedetectionofnarrow,softseamsthatmaybelocatedatstratumboundaries. Fordrilledshaftfoundations,itisespeciallycriticalthatthegroundwater regimeiswelldefinedateachfoundationlocation.Piezometerdata adequatetodefinethelimitsandpiezometricheadinallunconfined, confined,andlocallyperchedgroundwaterzonesshouldbeobtainedateach foundationlocation.
Page 8-8
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
Application Shallow Foundations
Minimum Number of Investigation Points and Location of Investigation Points For substructure (e.g., piers or abutments) widths less than or equal to 100 feet, a minimum of one investigation point per substructure. For substructure widths greater than 100 feet, a minimum of two investigation points per substructure. Additional investigation points should be provided if erratic subsurface conditions are encountered. For cut-and-cover tunnels, culverts pipe arches, etc., spacing of investigation points shall be consistent for that required for retaining walls (see WSDOT GDM Chapter 15), with a minimum of two investigation points spaced adequately to develop a subsurface profile for the entire structure.
Minimum Depth of Investigation
Deep Foundations
Depth of investigation should be: (1) Great enough to fully penetrate unsuitable foundation soils (e.g., peat, organic silt, soft fine grained soils) into competent material of suitable bearing capacity (e.g. stiff to hard cohesive soil, compact to dense cohesionless soil or bedrock) (2) At least to a depth where stress increase due to estimated foundation load is less than 10% of the existing effective overburden stress at that depth and; (3) If bedrock is encountered before the depth required by item (2) above is achieved, investigation depth should be great enough to penetrate a minimum of 10 feet into the bedrock, but rock investigation should be sufficient to characterize compressibility of infill material of near-horizontal to horizontal discontinuities. In soil, depth of investigation should For substructure (e.g., bridge piers or extend below the anticipated pile or shaft abutments) widths less than or equal to tip elevation a minimum of 20 feet, or a 100 feet, a minimum of one investigation point per substructure. For substructure minimum of two times the maximum pile widths greater than 100 feet, a minimum of group dimension, whichever is deeper. All two investigation points per substructure. borings should extend through unsuitable strata such as unconsolidated fill, peat, Additional investigation points should be highly organic materials, soft fine-grained provided if erratic subsurface conditions soils, and loose coarse-grained soils to are encountered. reach hard or dense materials, a minimum Due to large expense associated with of 30 ft into soil with an average N-Value of construction of rock-socketed shafts, 30 blows/ft or more. conditions should be confirmed at each For piles bearing on rock, a minimum of 10 shaft location. feet of rock core shall be obtained at each investigation point location to verify that the boring has not terminated on a boulder. For shafts supported on or extending into rock, a minimum of 10 feet of rock core, or a length of rock core equal to at least three times the shaft diameter for isolated shafts or two times the maximum shaft group dimension, whichever is greater, shall be extended below the anticipated shaft tip elevation to determine the physical characteristics of rock within the zone of foundation influence.
Guidelines for Minimum Number of Investigation Points and Depth of Investigation (modified after Sabatini, et al., 2002)
Table 8-2
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010 M 46-03.01 Page 8-9
Foundation Design
Chapter 8
8.3.2
Laboratory and Field Testing Requirements for Foundations Generalrequirementsforlaboratoryandfieldtesting,andtheiruseinthe determinationofpropertiesfordesign,areaddressedinWSDOTGDM Chapter5.Ingeneral,forfoundationdesign,laboratorytestingshouldbeused toaugmentthedataobtainedfromthefieldinvestigationprogram,torefine thesoilandrockpropertiesselectedfordesign. FoundationdesignwilltypicallyheavilyrelyupontheSPTand/orqcresults obtainedduringthefieldexplorationthroughcorrelationstoshearstrength, compressibility,andthevisualdescriptionsofthesoil/rockencountered, especiallyinnon-cohesivesoils.Theinformationneededfortheassessment ofgroundwaterandthehydrogeologicpropertiesneededforfoundation designandconstructabilityevaluationistypicallyobtainedfromthefield explorationthroughfieldinstrumentation(e.g.,piezometers)andin-situtests (e.g.,slugtests,pumptests,etc.).Indextestssuchassoilgradation,Atterberg limits,watercontent,andorganiccontentareusedtoconfirmthevisual fieldclassificationofthesoilsencountered,butmayalsobeuseddirectly toobtaininputparametersforsomeaspectsoffoundationdesign(e.g.,soil liquefaction,scour,degreeofover-consolidation,andcorrelationtoshear strengthorcompressibilityofcohesivesoils).Quantitativeorperformance laboratorytestsconductedonundisturbedsoilsamplesareusedtoassessshear strengthorcompressibilityoffinergrainedsoils,ortoobtainseismicdesign inputparameterssuchasshearmodulus.Siteperformancedata,ifavailable, canalsobeusedtoassessdesigninputparameters.Recommendationsare providedinWSDOTGDMChapter5regardinghowtomakethefinal selectionofdesignpropertiesbasedonallofthesesourcesofdata.
8.4 Foundation Selection Considerations

Foundationselectionconsiderationstobeevaluatedinclude: theabilityofthefoundationtypetomeetperformancerequirements (e.g.,deformation,bearingresistance,upliftresistance,lateralresistance/ deformation)foralllimitstates,giventhesoilorrockconditions encountered theconstructabilityofthefoundationtype theimpactofthefoundationinstallation(intermsoftimeandspace required)ontrafficandright-of-way theenvironmentalimpactofthefoundationconstruction theconstraintsthatmayimpactthefoundationinstallation(e.g.,overhead clearance,access,andutilities) theimpactofthefoundationontheperformanceofadjacentfoundations, structures,orutilities,consideringboththedesignoftheadjacent foundations,structures,orutilities,andtheperformanceimpactthe installationofthenewfoundationwillhaveontheseadjacentfacilities. thecostofthefoundation,consideringalloftheissueslistedabove.
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
Spreadfootingsaretypicallyverycosteffective,giventherightsetof conditions.Footingsworkbestinhardordensesoilsthathaveadequate bearingresistanceandexhibittolerablesettlementunderload.Footingscan getratherlargeinmediumdenseorstiffsoilstokeepbearingstresseslow enoughtominimizesettlement,orforstructureswithtallcolumnsorwhich otherwiseareloadedinamannerthatresultsinlargeeccentricitiesatthe footinglevel,orwhichresultinthefootingbeingsubjectedtoupliftloads. Footingsarenoteffectivewheresoilliquefactioncanoccuratorbelow thefootinglevel,unlesstheliquefiablesoilisconfined,notverythick,and wellbelowthefootinglevel.However,footingsmaybecosteffectiveif inexpensivesoilimprovementtechniquessuchasoverexcavation,deep dynamiccompaction,andstonecolumns,etc.arefeasible.Otherfactorsthat affectthedesirabilityofspreadfootingsincludetheneedforacofferdam andsealswhenplacedbelowthewatertable,theneedforsignificant overexcavationofunsuitablesoil,theneedtoplacefootingsdeepduetoscour andpossiblyfrostaction,theneedforsignificantshoringtoprotectadjacent existingfacilities,andinadequateoverallstabilitywhenplacedonslopes thathavemarginallyadequatestability.Footingsmaynotbefeasiblewhere expansiveorcollapsiblesoilsarepresentnearthebearingelevation.Since deformation(service)oftencontrolsthefeasibilityofspreadfootings,footings maystillbefeasibleandcosteffectiveifthestructurethefootingssupport canbedesignedtotoleratethesettlement(e.g.,flatslabbridges,bridgeswith jackableabutments,etc.). Deepfoundationsarethebestchoicewhenspreadfootingscannotbe foundedoncompetentsoilsorrockatareasonablecost.Atlocationswhere soilconditionswouldnormallypermittheuseofspreadfootingsbutthe potentialexistsforscour,liquefactionorlateralspreading,deepfoundations bearingonsuitablematerialsbelowsuchsusceptiblesoilsshouldbeusedas aprotectionagainsttheseproblems.Deepfoundationsshouldalsobeused whereanunacceptableamountofspreadfootingsettlementmayoccur.Deep foundationsshouldbeusedwhereright-of-way,spacelimitations,orother constraintsasdiscussedabovewouldnotallowtheuseofspreadfootings. Twogeneraltypesofdeepfoundationsaretypicallyconsidered:pile foundations,anddrilledshaftfoundations.Shaftfoundationsaremost advantageouswhereverydenseintermediatestratamustbepenetratedto obtainthedesiredbearing,uplift,orlateralresistance,orwhereobstructions suchasbouldersorlogsmustbepenetrated.Shaftsmayalsobecomecost effectivewhereasingleshaftpercolumncanbeusedinlieuofapile groupwithapilecap,especiallywhenacofferdamorshoringisrequired toconstructthepilecap.However,shaftsmaynotbedesirablewhere contaminatedsoilsarepresent,sincecontaminatedsoilwouldberemoved, requiringspecialhandlinganddisposal.Shaftsshouldbeusedinlieuofpiles wheredeepfoundationsareneededandpiledrivingvibrationscouldcause damagetoexistingadjacentfacilities.Pilesmaybemorecosteffectivethan shaftswherepilecapconstructionisrelativelyeasy,wherethedepthtothe
M 46-03.01
Page 8-11
Foundation Design
Chapter 8
foundationlayerislarge(e.g.,morethan100ft),orwherethepierloads aresuchthatmultipleshaftspercolumn,requiringashaftcap,areneeded. Thetendencyoftheupperloosesoilstoflow,requiringpermanentshaft casing,mayalsobeaconsiderationthatcouldmakepilefoundationsmore costeffective.Artesianpressureinthebearinglayercouldprecludetheuse ofdrilledshaftsduetothedifficultyinkeepingenoughheadinsidetheshaft duringexcavationtopreventheaveorcavingunderslurry. Forsituationswhereexistingstructuresmustberetrofittedtoimprove foundationresistanceorwherelimitedheadroomisavailable,micro-pilesmay bethebestalternative,andshouldbeconsidered. Augercastpilescanbeverycosteffectiveincertainsituations.However, theirabilitytoresistlateralloadsisminimal,makingthemundesirableto supportstructureswheresignificantlateralloadsmustbetransferredtothe foundations.Furthermore,qualityassuranceofaugercastpileintegrityand capacityneedsfurtherdevelopment.Therefore,itisWSDOTpolicynottouse augercastpilesforbridgefoundations.
8.5 Overview of LRFD for Foundations

Thebasicequationforloadandresistancefactordesign(LRFD)statesthatthe loadsmultipliedbyfactorstoaccountforuncertainty,ductility,importance, andredundancymustbelessthanorequaltotheavailableresistance multipliedbyfactorstoaccountforvariabilityanduncertaintyinthe resistancepertheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications.Thebasic equation,therefore,isasfollows: i Qi Rn where: = i = Qi = = Rn = Factorforductility,redundancy,andimportanceofstructure LoadfactorapplicabletotheithloadQi Load Resistancefactor Nominal(predicted)resistance (8-1)
FortypicalWSDOTpractice,ishouldbesetequalto1.0foruseofboth minimumandmaximumloadfactors.Foundationsshallbeproportionedso thatthefactoredresistanceisnotlessthanthefactoredloads. Figure8-2belowshouldbeutilizedtoprovideacommonbasisof understandingforloadinglocationsanddirectionsforsubstructuredesign. Thisfigurealsoindicatesthegeometricdatarequiredforabutmentand substructuredesign.Notethatforshaftandsomepilefoundationdesigns,the shaftorpilemayformthecolumnaswellasthefoundationelement,thereby eliminatingthefootingelementshowninthefigure.
Page 8-12
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
Transverse Longitudinal
Elev. ______
Plan
Elev. _____
Parallel to Abutment Normal to Abutment

Elev. _____
Transverse to Bridge Longitudinal to Bridge

Elev. _____
Axial Axial
Elev. _____ Elev. _____ North Elev. _____ South Existing Ground Line Elev. _____ North Elev. _____ South
Elevation
Figure 8-2
Elev. _____
Template for Foundation Site Data and Loading Direction Definitions
8.6 LRFD Loads, Load Groups and Limit States to be Considered

Thespecificloadsandloadfactorstobeusedforfoundationdesignareas foundinAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecificationsandtheWSDOT LRFDBridgeDesignManual(BDM). 8.6.1 Foundation Analysis to Establish Load Distribution for Structure Oncetheapplicableloadsandloadgroupsfordesignhavebeenestablished foreachlimitstate,theloadsshallbedistributedtothevariouspartsofthe structureinaccordancewithSections3and4oftheAASHTOLRFDBridge DesignSpecifications.Thedistributionoftheseloadsshallconsiderthe deformationcharacteristicsofthesoil/rock,foundation,andsuperstructure. Thefollowingprocessisusedtoaccomplishtheloaddistribution(see WSDOTLRFDBDMSection7.2formoredetailedprocedures): 1. Establishstiffnessvaluesforthestructureandthesoilsurroundingthe foundationsandbehindtheabutments.
M 46-03.01
Page 8-13
Foundation Design
Chapter 8
2. Forserviceandstrengthlimitstatecalculations,useP-Ycurvesfordeep foundations,orusestrainwedgetheory,especiallyinthecaseofshort orintermediatelengthshafts(seeWSDOTGDMSection8.13.2.3.3),to establishsoil/rockstiffnessvalues(i.e.,springs)necessaryforstructural design.Thebearingresistanceatthespecifiedsettlementdeterminedfor theservicelimitstate,butexcludingconsolidationsettlement,should beusedtoestablishsoilstiffnessvaluesforspreadfootingsforservice andstrengthlimitstatecalculations.Forstrengthlimitstatecalculations fordeepfoundationswherethelateralloadispotentiallyrepetitivein nature(e.g.,wind,water,brakingforces,etc.),usesoilstiffnessvalues derivedfromP-Ycurvesusingnon-degradedsoilstrengthandstiffness parameters.Thegeotechnicaldesignerprovidesthesoil/rockinput parameterstothestructuraldesignertodevelopthesespringsandto determinetheloaddistributionusingtheanalysisproceduresasspecified inWSDOTLRFDBDMSection7.2andSection4oftheAASHTOLRFD BridgeDesignSpecifications,applyingunfactoredloads,togettheload distribution.Twounfactoredloaddistributionsforserviceandstrength limitstatecalculationsaredeveloped:oneusingundegradedstiffness parameters(i.e.,maximumstiffnessvalues)todeterminethemaximum shearandmomentinthestructure,andanotherdistributionusingsoil strengthandstiffnessparametersthathavebeendegradedovertimedue torepetitiveloadingtodeterminethemaximumdeflectionsandassociated loadsthatresult. 3. Forextremeeventlimitstate(seismic)deepfoundationcalculations,use soilstrengthandstiffnessvaluesbeforeanyliquefactionorothertime dependentdegradationoccurstodeveloplateralsoilstiffnessvalues anddeterminetheunfactoredloaddistributiontothefoundationand structureelementsasdescribedinStep2,includingthefullseismic loading.Thisanalysisusingmaximumstiffnessvaluesforthesoil/rock isusedbythestructuraldesignertodeterminethemaximumshearand momentinthestructure.Thestructuraldesignerthencompletesanother unfactoredanalysisusingsoilparametersdegradedbyliquefactioneffects togetanotherloaddistribution,againusingthefullseismicloading,to determinethemaximumdeflectionsandassociatedloadsthatresult.For footingfoundations,asimilarprocessisfollowed,excepttheverticalsoil springsarebracketedtoevaluatebothasoftresponseandastiffresponse. 4. Oncetheloaddistributionshavebeendetermined,theloadsarefactored toanalyzethevariouscomponentsofthefoundationsandstructurefor eachlimitstate.Thestructuralandgeotechnicalresistancearefactoredas appropriate,butinallcases,thelateralsoilresistancefordeepfoundations remainunfactored(i.e.,aresistancefactorof1.0). Throughoutalloftheanalysisproceduresdiscussedabovetodevelopload distributions,thesoilparametersandstiffnessvaluesareunfactored.The geotechnicaldesignermustdevelopabestestimatefortheseparameters
Page 8-14
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
duringthemodeling.Useofintentionallyconservativevaluescouldresultin unconservativeestimatesofstructureloads,shears,andmomentsorinaccurate estimatesofdeflections. SeetheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications,Article10.6forthe development of elastic settlement/bearing resistance of footings for static analysesandWSDOTGDMChapter6forsoil/rockstiffnessdetermination forspreadfootingssubjectedtoseismicloads.SeeWSDOTGDMSections 8.12.2.3and8.13.2.3.3,andrelatedAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign Specificationsforthedevelopmentoflateralsoilstiffnessvaluesfordeep foundations. 8.6.2 Downdrag Loads Regardingdowndragloads,possibledevelopmentofdowndragonpiles, shafts,orotherdeepfoundationsshallbeevaluatedwhere: Sitesareunderlainbycompressiblematerialsuchasclays,siltsororganic soils, Fillwillbeorhasrecentlybeenplacedadjacenttothepilesorshafts,such asisfrequentlythecaseforbridgeapproachfills, Thegroundwaterissubstantiallylowered,or Liquefactionofloosesandysoilcanoccur. Downdrag loads (DD)shallbedetermined,factored(usingloadfactors),and appliedasspecifiedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications, Section3.TheloadfactorsforDDloadsprovidedinTable3.4.1-2ofthe AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecificationsshallbeused.Thistabledoes notaddressthesituationinwhichthesoilcontributingtodowndraginthe strengthlimitstateconsistsofsandysoil,thesituationinwhichasignificant portionofthesoilprofileconsistsofsandylayers,northesituationinwhich theCPTisusedtoestimateDDandthepilebearingresistance.Therefore,the portionofTable3.4.1-2intheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications thataddressesdowndragloadshasbeenaugmentedtoaddressthesesituations asshowninTable8-3.
Type of Load, Foundation Type, and Method Used to Calculate Downdrag Piles, Tomlinson Method Piles, Method DD: Downdrag Piles, Nordlund Method, or Nordlund and Method Piles, CPT Method Drilled shafts, ONeill and Reese (1999) Method Table 8-3 Load Factor Maximum 1.4 1.05 1.1 1.1 1.25 Minimum 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.35
Strength Limit State Downdrag Load Factors
M 46-03.01
Page 8-15
Foundation Design
Chapter 8
8.6.3
Uplift Loads due to Expansive Soils Ingeneral,upliftloadsonfoundationsduetoexpansivesoilsshallbeavoided throughremovaloftheexpansivesoil.Ifremovalisnotpossible,deep foundationssuchasdrivenpilesorshaftsshallbeplacedintostablesoil. Spreadfootingsshallnotbeusedinthissituation. Deepfoundationspenetratingexpansivesoilshallextendtoadepthinto moisture-stablesoilssufficienttoprovideadequateanchoragetoresist uplift.Sufficientclearanceshouldbeprovidedbetweenthegroundsurface andundersideofcapsorbeamsconnectingpilesorshaftstoprecludethe applicationofupliftloadsatthepile/capconnectionduetoswellingground conditions. Evaluationofpotentialupliftloadsonpilesextendingthroughexpansivesoils requiresevaluationoftheswellpotentialofthesoilandtheextentofthesoil stratathatmayaffectthepile.Onereasonablyreliablemethodforidentifying swellpotentialispresentedinWSDOTGDMChapter5.Alternatively, ASTMD4829maybeusedtoevaluateswellpotential.Thethicknessofthe potentiallyexpansivestratummustbeidentifiedby: Examinationofsoilsamplesfromboringsforthepresenceofjointing, slickensiding,orablockystructureandforchangesincolor,and Laboratorytestingfordeterminationofsoilmoisturecontentprofiles.
8.6.4
Soil Loads on Buried Structures Fortunnels,culvertsandpipearches,thesoilloadstobeusedfordesignshall beasspecifiedinSections3and12oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign Specifications.
8.6.5
Service Limit States Foundationdesignattheservicelimitstateshallinclude: Settlements Horizontalmovements Overallstability,and Scouratthedesignflood Considerationoffoundationmovementsshallbebaseduponstructure tolerancetototalanddifferentialmovements,rideabilityandeconomy. Foundationmovementsshallincludeallmovementfromsettlement, horizontalmovement,androtation. Inbridgeswherethesuperstructureandsubstructurearenotintegrated, settlementcorrectionscanbemadebyjackingandshimmingbearings.Article 2.5.2.3oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecificationsrequiresjacking provisionsforthesebridges.Thecostoflimitingfoundationmovements
Page 8-16
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
shouldbecomparedwiththecostofdesigningthesuperstructuresothatitcan toleratelargermovementsorofcorrectingtheconsequencesofmovements throughmaintenancetodetermineminimumlifetimecost.WSDOTmay establishcriteriathataremorestringent. ThedesignfloodforscourisdefinedinArticle2.6.4.4.2andisspecified inArticle3.7.5oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecificationsas applicableattheservicelimitstate. 8.6.5.1 Tolerable Movements Foundationsettlement,horizontalmovement,androtationoffoundations shallbeinvestigatedusingallapplicableloadsintheServiceILoad CombinationspecifiedinTable3.4.1-1oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign Specifications.Transientloadsmaybeomittedfromsettlementanalysesfor foundationsbearingonorincohesivesoildepositsthataresubjecttotimedependantconsolidationsettlements. Foundationmovementcriteriashallbeconsistentwiththefunctionand typeofstructure,anticipatedservicelife,andconsequencesofunacceptable movementsonstructureperformance.Foundationmovementshallinclude vertical,horizontalandrotationalmovements.Thetolerablemovementcriteria shallbeestablishedbyeitherempiricalproceduresorstructuralanalysesorby considerationofboth. Experiencehasshownthatbridgescanandoftendoaccommodatemore movementand/orrotationthantraditionallyallowedoranticipatedindesign. Creep,relaxation,andredistributionofforceeffectsaccommodatethese movements.Somestudieshavebeenmadetosynthesizeapparentresponse. Thesestudiesindicatethatangulardistortionsbetweenadjacentfoundations greaterthan0.008(RAD)insimplespansand0.004(RAD)incontinuous spansshouldnotbepermittedinsettlementcriteria(Moulton et al. 1985; DiMillio, 1982; Barker et al. 1991).Otherangulardistortionlimitsmaybe appropriateafterconsiderationof: Costofmitigationthroughlargerfoundations,realignmentorsurcharge, Rideability, Aesthetics,and, Safety. Inadditiontotherequirementsforserviceabilityprovidedabove,the followingcriteria(Tables8-4,8-5,and8-6)shallbeusedtoestablish acceptablesettlementcriteria:
M 46-03.01
Page 8-17
Foundation Design
Chapter 8
Total Settlement at Pier or Abutment H 1 in 1 in < H 4 in
Differential Settlement Over 100 ft within Pier or Abutment, and Differential Settlement Between Piers H100 0.75 in 0.75 in < H100 3 in H100 > 3 in
Action Design and Construct Ensure structure can tolerate settlement Obtain Approval1 prior to proceeding with design and Construction
H > 4 in
1Approval
of WSDOT State Geotechnical Engineer and WSDOT Bridge Design Engineer required.
Settlement Criteria for Bridges

Table 8-4
Total Settlement H 1 in 1 in < H 2.5 in
Differential Settlement Over 100 ft H100 0.75 in 0.75 in < H100 2 in H100 > 2 in
H > 2.5 in
1Approval
Settlement Criteria for Cut and Cover Tunnels, Concrete Culverts (including box culverts), and Concrete Pipe Arches
Table 8-5
Total Settlement H 2 in 2 in < H 6 in
Differential Settlement Over 100 ft H100 1.5 in 1.5 in < H100 5 in H100 > 5 in
H > 6 in
1Approval
Settlement Criteria for Flexible Culverts

Table 8-6
Page 8-18
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
Rotationmovementsshouldbeevaluatedatthetopofthesubstructureunit (inplanlocation)andatthedeckelevation. Thehorizontaldisplacementofpileandshaftfoundationsshallbeestimated usingproceduresthatconsidersoil-structureinteraction(seeWSDOTGDM Section8.12.2.3).Horizontalmovementcriteriashouldbeestablishedat thetopofthefoundationbasedonthetoleranceofthestructuretolateral movement,withconsiderationofthecolumnlengthandstiffness.Tolerance ofthesuperstructuretolateralmovementwilldependonbridgeseatwidths, bearingtype(s),structuretype,andloaddistributioneffects. 8.6.5.2 Overall Stability Theevaluationofoverallstabilityofearthslopeswithorwithoutafoundation unitshallbeinvestigatedattheservicelimitstateasspecifiedinArticle 11.6.3.4oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications.Overall stabilityshouldbeevaluatedusinglimitingequilibriummethodssuchas modifiedBishop,Janbu,Spencer,orotherwidelyacceptedslopestability analysismethods.Article11.6.3.4recommendsthatoverallstabilitybe evaluatedattheServiceIlimitstate(i.e.,aloadfactorof1.0)andaresistance factor,osof0.65forslopeswhichsupportastructuralelement.Forresistance factorsforoverallstabilityofslopesthatcontainaretainingwall,see WSDOTGDMChapter15.AlsoseeWSDOTGDMChapter7foradditional informationandrequirementsregardingslopestabilityanalysisandacceptable safetyfactorsandresistancefactors. Availableslopestabilityprogramsproduceasinglefactorofsafety,FS. Overallslopestabilityshallbecheckedtoinsurethatfoundationsdesigned foramaximumbearingstressequaltothespecifiedservicelimitstatebearing resistancewillnotcausetheslopestabilityfactorofsafetytofallbelow1.5. ThispracticewillessentiallyproducethesameresultasspecifiedinArticle 11.6.3.4oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications.Thefoundation loadsshouldbeasspecifiedfortheServiceIlimitstateforthisanalysis.Ifthe foundationislocatedontheslopesuchthatthefoundationloadcontributes toslopeinstability,thedesignershallestablishamaximumfootingloadthat isacceptableformaintainingoverallslopestabilityforService,andExtreme Eventlimitstates(seeFigure8-3forexample).Ifthefoundationislocated ontheslopesuchthatthefoundationloadincreasesslopestability,overall stabilityoftheslopeshallevaluatedignoringtheeffectofthefootingonslope stability,orthefoundationloadshallbeincludedintheslopestabilityanalysis andthefoundationdesignedtoresistthelateralloadsimposedbytheslope.
M 46-03.01
Page 8-19
Foundation Design
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
Center of rotation
Center of rotation
Example Where Footing Contributes to Instability of Slope (Left Figure) VS. Example Where Footing Contributes to Stability of Slope (Right Figure) Figure 8-3 Example where footing contributes to instability of slope (left gure) Figure 8-3 vs. example where footing contributes to stability of slope (right gure).
8.6.5.3 Abutment Transitions 8.6.5.3 Abutment Transitions Verticalandhorizontalmovementscausedbyembankmentloadsbehind Vertical and horizontal movements caused by embankment loads behind bridge abutments shall be investigated. Settlement of foundation soils induced by embankment loads can result in excessive bridgeabutmentsshallbeinvestigated.Settlementoffoundationsoilsinduced movements of substructure elements. Both short and long term settlement potential should be considered. byembankmentloadscanresultinexcessivemovementsofsubstructure elements.Bothshortandlongtermsettlementpotentialshouldbeconsidered.
Settlement of improperly placed or compacted backll behind abutments can cause poor rideability Settlementofimproperlyplacedorcompactedbackfillbehindabutmentscan and a possibly dangerous bump at the end of the bridge. Guidance for proper detailing and material causepoorrideabilityandapossiblydangerousbumpattheendofthebridge. requirements for abutment backll is provided in Cheney and Chassie (2000) and should be followed. Lateral earth pressure behind and/or lateral squeeze below abutments can also contribute to lateral movement of abutments and should be investigated, if applicable. Lateralearthpressurebehindand/orlateralsqueezebelowabutmentscanalso
Guidanceforproperdetailingandmaterialrequirementsforabutmentbackfill isprovidedinCheneyandChassie(2000)andshouldbefollowed.
contributetolateralmovementofabutmentsandshouldbeinvestigated,if applicable. In addition to the considerations for addressing the transition between the bridge and the abutment ll
provided above, an approach slab shall be provided at the end of each bridge for WSDOT projects, and In addition to the considerations for addressing the transition between the shall be the same width as the bridge deck. However, the slab may be deleted under certain conditions as bridgeandtheabutmentfillprovidedabove,anapproachslabshallbe described herein. If approach slabs are to be deleted, a geotechnical and structural evaluation is required. providedattheendofeachbridgeforWSDOTprojects,andshallbethe The nal decision on whether or not to delete the approach slabs shall be made by the WSDOT Region samewidthasthebridgedeck.However,theslabmaybedeletedunder Project Development Engineer with consideration to the geotechnical and structural evaluation. The certainconditionsasdescribedherein.Ifapproachslabsaretobedeleted, geotechnical and structural evaluation shall consider, as a minimum, the criteria described below.
ageotechnicalandstructuralevaluationisrequired.Thefinaldecisionon 1. Approach slabswhetherornottodeletetheapproachslabsshallbemadebytheWSDOT may be deleted for geotechnical reasons if the following geotechnical considerations RegionProjectDevelopmentEngineerwithconsiderationtothegeotechnical are met: andstructuralevaluation.Thegeotechnicalandstructuralevaluationshall If settlements are excessive, resulting in the angular distortion of the slab to be great enough to consider,asaminimum,thecriteriadescribedbelow. become a safety problem for motorists, with excessive dened as a differential settlement
between the bridge and the approach ll of 8 inches or more, or, 1. Approachslabsmaybedeletedforgeotechnicalreasonsifthefollowing If creep settlement of the approach ll will be less than 0.5 inch, and the amount of new ll geotechnicalconsiderationsaremet: placed at the approach is less than 20 ft, or Ifsettlementsareexcessive,resultingintheangulardistortionofthe If approach ll heights are less than 8 ft, or slabtobegreatenoughtobecomeasafetyproblemformotorists,with If more than 2 inches of differential settlement could occur between the centerline and shoulder
Foundation Design WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual Chapter 8-21 M 46-03.01 January 2010
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Page 8-20 2006 December
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
excessivedefinedasadifferentialsettlementbetweenthebridgeand theapproachfillof8inchesormore,or, Ifcreepsettlementoftheapproachfillwillbelessthan0.5inch,and theamountofnewfillplacedattheapproachislessthan20ft,or Ifapproachfillheightsarelessthan8ft,or Ifmorethan2inchesofdifferentialsettlementcouldoccurbetween thecenterlineandshoulder 2. Otherissuessuchasdesignspeed,averagedailytraffic(ADT)or accommodationofcertainbridgestructuredetailsmaysupersedethe geotechnicalreasonsfordeletingtheapproachslabs.Approachslabsshall beusedforallWSDOTbridgeswithstubabutmentstoaccommodate bridgeexpansionandcontraction.Approachslabsarenotrequired foraccommodatingexpansionandcontractionofthebridgeforL abutments.Forbridgewidenings,approachslabsshallbeprovidedfor thewideningiftheexistingbridgehasanapproachslab.Iftheexisting bridgedoesnothaveanapproachslab,anditisnotintendedtoinstallan approachslabforthefullexistingpluswidenedbridgewidth,anapproach slabshallnotbeprovidedforthebridgewidening. 8.6.6 Strength Limit States Designoffoundationsatstrengthlimitstatesshallincludeevaluationofthe nominalgeotechnicalandstructuralresistancesofthefoundationelementsas specifiedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecificationsArticle10.5. 8.6.7 Extreme Event Limit States Foundationsshallbedesignedforextremeeventsasapplicableinaccordance withtheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications.
8.7 Resistance Factors for Foundation Design Design Parameters

Theloadandresistancefactorsprovidedhereinresultfromacombination ofdesignmodeluncertainty,soil/rockpropertyuncertainty,andunknown uncertaintyassumedbythepreviousallowablestressdesignandloadfactor designapproachincludedinpreviousAASHTOdesignspecifications. Therefore,theloadandresistancefactorsaccountforsoil/rockproperty uncertaintyinadditiontootheruncertainties. Itshouldbeassumedthatthecharacteristicsoil/rockpropertiestobeused inconjunctionwiththeloadandresistancefactorsprovidedhereinthathave beencalibratedusingreliabilitytheory(seeAllen,2005)areaveragevalues obtainedfromlaboratorytestresultsorfromcorrelatedfieldin-situtest results.Itshouldbenotedthatuseoflowerboundsoil/rockpropertiescould resultinoverlyconservativefoundationdesignsinsuchcases.However, dependingontheavailabilityofsoilorrockpropertydataandthevariability ofthegeologicstrataunderconsideration,itmaynotbepossibletoreliably
Foundation Design
Chapter 8
estimatetheaveragevalueofthepropertiesneededfordesign.Insuchcases, thegeotechnicaldesignermayhavenochoicebuttouseamoreconservative selectionofdesignparameterstomitigatetheadditionalriskscreatedby potentialvariabilityorthepaucityofrelevantdata.Regardingtheextentof subsurfacecharacterizationandthenumberofsoil/rockpropertytestsrequired tojustifyuseoftheloadandresistancefactorsprovidedherein,seeWSDOT GDMChapter5.Forthoseloadandresistancefactorsdeterminedprimarily fromcalibrationbyfittingtoallowablestressdesign,thispropertyselection issueisnotrelevant,andpropertyselectionshouldbebasedonpastpractice. Forinformationregardingthederivationofloadandresistancefactorsfor foundations,(seeAllen,2005).
8.8 Resistance Factors for Foundation Design Service Limit States

Resistancefactorsfortheservicelimitstatesshallbetakenasspecified intheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecificationsArticle10.5(most currentversion).
8.9 Resistance Factors for Foundation Design Strength Limit States

Resistancefactorsforthestrengthlimitstatesforfoundationsshallbetaken asspecifiedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecificationsArticle 10.5(mostcurrentversion).Regionallyspecificvaluesmaybeusedin lieuofthespecifiedresistancefactors,butshouldbedeterminedbasedon substantialstatisticaldatacombinedwithcalibrationorsubstantialsuccessful experiencetojustifyhighervalues.Smallerresistancefactorsshouldbeused ifsiteormaterialvariabilityisanticipatedtobeunusuallyhighorifdesign assumptionsarerequiredthatincreasedesignuncertaintythathavenotbeen mitigatedthroughconservativeselectionofdesignparameters. Exceptionswithregardtotheresistancefactorsprovidedinthemostcurrent versionofAASHTOforthestrengthlimitstateareasfollows: Fordrivenpilefoundations,iftheWSDOTdrivingformulaisusedforpile drivingconstructioncontrol,theresistancefactordynshallbeequalto 0.55(endofdrivingconditionsonly).Thisresistancefactordoesnotapply tobeginningofredriveconditions.SeeAllen(2005band2007)fordetails onthederivationofthisresistancefactor. Fordrivenpilefoundations,whenusingWaveEquationanalysisto estimatepilebearingresistanceandestablishdrivingcriteria,aresistance factorof0.50maybeusedifthehammerperformanceisfieldverified. Fieldverificationofhammerperformanceincludesdirectmeasurementof hammerstrokeorramkineticenergy(e.g.,ramvelocitymeasurement). Thewaveequationmaybeusedforeitherendofdriveorbeginningof redrivepilebearingresistanceestimation.
Page 8-22
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
Fordrilledshaftfoundations,strengthlimitstateresistancefactorsfor IntermediateGeoMaterials(IGMs)providedintheAASHTOLRFD BridgeDesignSpecificationsArticle10.5shallnotbeused.Instead,the resistancefortheselecteddesignmethodshallbeused. All other resistance factor considerations and limitations provided in theAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecificationsArticle10.5shallbe consideredapplicabletoWSDOTdesignpractice.
8.10 Resistance Factors for Foundation Design Extreme Event Limit States
Designoffoundationsatextremeeventlimitstatesshallbeconsistentwith theexpectationthatstructurecollapseispreventedandthatlifesafetyis protected. 8.10.1 Scour Theresistancefactorsandtheirapplicationshallbeasspecifiedinthe AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications,Article10.5. 8.10.2 Other Extreme Event Limit States Resistancefactorsforextremeeventlimitstates,includingthedesignof foundationstoresistearthquake,ice,vehicleorvesselimpactloads,shallbe takenas1.0,withtheexceptionofbearingresistanceoffootingfoundations. SincetheloadfactorusedfortheseismiclateralearthpressureforEQis currently1.0,toobtainthesamelevelofsafetyobtainedfromtheAASHTO StandardSpecificationdesignrequirementsforslidingandbearing,a resistancefactorofslightlylessthan1.0isrequired.Forbearingresistance duringseismicloading,aresistancefactorof0.90shouldbeused.Foruplift resistanceofpilesandshafts,theresistancefactorshallbetakenas0.80or less,toaccountforthedifferencebetweencompressionskinfrictionand tensionskinfriction. Regardingoverallstabilityofslopesthatcanaffectstructures,aresistance factorof0.9,whichisequivalenttoafactorofsafetyof1.1,shouldingeneral beusedfortheextremeeventlimitstate.WSDOTGDMSection6.4.3and Chapter7provideadditionalinformationandrequirementsregardingseismic stabilityofslopes.
8.11 Spread Footing Design

Figure8-4providesaflowchartthatillustratesthedesignprocess,and interactionrequiredbetweenstructuralandgeotechnicalengineers,neededto completeaspreadfootingdesign.STdenotesstepsusuallycompletedbythe StructuralDesigner,whileGTdenotesthosestepsnormallycompletedbythe geotechnicaldesigner.
M 46-03.01
Page 8-23
Foundation Design
Chapter 8
1(ST).Determinebridgegeometryandpierlocations
1(GT).Determinedepthoffooting based on geometry and bearing material
2(ST).Determineloadsappliedto footing,includinglateralearthpressure loadsforabutments
2(GT).Determinedepthoffooting forscour,ifpresent(withhelpof HydraulicEngineer)
3(ST).Designthefootingatthe service limit state
3(GT).Determinesoilproperties forfoundationdesign,and resistance factors in consideration ofthesoilpropertyuncertaintyand themethodselectedforcalculating nominal resistance
4(ST).Checkthebearingpressureof the footing at the strength limit state
5(ST).Checktheeccentricityofthe footing at the strength limit state
4(GT).Determineactive,passive, andseismicearthpressure parameters as needed for abutments
6(ST).Checktheslidingresistanceof the footing at the strength limit state
5(GT).Determinenominalfooting resistance at the strength and extreme limit states
6(GT).Determinenominalfooting resistance at the service limit state
8(GT).Check nominal footing resistance at all limitstates,and overall stability in light of new footing dimensions, depth,andloads
7(ST).Checkthebearingpressureof the footing at the extreme limit state
8(ST).Checktheeccentricityofthe footing at the extreme limit state
9(ST).Checkslidingresistanceofthe footing at the extreme limit state
7(GT).Checkoverallstability, determiningmax.feasiblebearing loadtomaintainadequatestability
10(ST).Designthefooting(andwalls forabutment)accordingtothe concretesectionoftheSpecification
Flowchart for LRFD Spread Footing Design

Figure 8-4
8.11.1
Loads and Load Factor Application to Footing Design Figures8-5and8-6providedefinitionsandlocationsoftheforcesand momentsthatactonstructuralfootings.Notethattheeccentricityusedto calculatethebearingstressingeotechnicalpracticetypicallyisreferenced tothecenterlineofthefooting,whereastheeccentricityusedtoevaluate overturningtypicallyisreferencedtopointOatthetoeofthefooting.It isimportanttonotchangefrommaximumtominimumloadfactorsin considerationoftheforcelocationrelativetothereferencepointused (centerlineofthefooting,orpointOatthetoeofthefooting),asdoing sowillcausebasicstaticstonolongerapply,andonewillnotgetthesame resultantlocationwhenthemomentsaresummedatdifferentreferencepoints.
Page 8-24
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
TheAASHTOLRFDBridgedesignSpecificationsindicatethatthemoments shouldbesummedaboutthecenterofthefooting.Table8-7identifieswhen tousemaximumorminimumloadfactorsforthevariousmodesoffailurefor thefooting(bearing,overturning,andsliding)foreachforce,forthestrength limitstate.

Superstructure Forces DC,LL (super.&appr.slab) Super.BearingForces (paralleltoabutment) Super.BearingForces (normaltoabutment)
H Substructure Forces
LS EHsoil
EVheel
DCabut 0.3H
0.5H
EVtoe
C L
RT
v
Rep
(a)Staticdesign
B/2 B
e0 R
X0
Point0
Superstructure Forces
DC,LL,EQ (super.&appr.slab) Super.BearingForces (paralleltoabutment) Super.BearingForces (normaltoabutment)
H Substructure Forces
LS
EQsoil
EVheel
EQabut
DCabut 0.5H
0.5H
EVtoe
C L
RT
v
Rep
(b)Seismicdesign
B/2 B
e0 R
X0
Point0
Definition and location of forces for stub abutments

Figure 8-5
M 46-03.01
Page 8-25
Foundation Design
Chapter 8
DC,LL(Appr.Slab) DC,LL (super.&appr.slab) Super.BearingForces (paralleltoabutment) Super.BearingForces (normaltoabutment) EVheel H Substructure Forces LS EHsoil DCabut EVtoe 0.3H
0.5H
C L
RT
v
Rep
(a)Staticdesign
B/2 B
e0 R
X0
Point0
DC,LL(Appr.Slab) DC,LL (super.&appr.slab) Super.BearingForces (paralleltoabutment) Super.BearingForces (normaltoabutment) EVheel H Substructure Forces LS EQsoil EQabut
DCabut 0.5H EVtoe
0.5H
C L
RT
v
Rep
(b)Seismicdesign
B/2 B
e0 R
X0
Point0
Definition and location of forces for L-abutments and interior footings.

Figure 8-6
Page 8-26
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
ThevariablesshowninFigures8-5and8-6aredefinedasfollows: DC,LL,EQ DCabut = EQabut = EVheel = = EVtoe EHsoil = LS = EQsoil = = Rep = R = v R = = eo = Xo B = H =

Load DC, DCabut LL, LS EVheel, EVtoe EHsoil
= verticalstructuralloadsappliedtofooting/wall (deadload,liveload,EQload,respectively) structureloadduetoweightofabutment abutmentinertialforceduetoearthquakeloading vertical soil load on wall heel vertical soil load on wall toe lateralloadduetoactiveoratrestearthpressure behindabutment lateralearthpressureloadduetoliveload lateralloadduetocombinedeffectofactiveoratrestearth pressureplusseismicearthpressurebehindabutment ultimatesoilpassiveresistance(note:heightofpressure distributiontriangleisdeterminedbythegeotechnicalengineer andisprojectspecific) soilshearresistancealongfootingbaseatsoil-concreteinterface resultantverticalbearingstressatbaseoffooting resultantforceatbaseoffooting eccentricitycalculatedaboutpointO(toeoffooting) distancetoresultantRfromwalltoe(pointO) footingwidth totalheightofabutmentplussuperstructurethickness
Load Factor Overturning, eo Use min. load factor Use transient load factor (e.g., LL) Use min. load factor Use max. load factor Bearing Stress (ec, v) Use max. load factor Use transient load factor (e.g., LL) Use max. load factor Use max. load factor
Sliding Use min. load factor Use transient load factor (e.g., LL) Use min. load factor Use max. load factor
Selection of Maximum or Minimum Spread Footing Foundation Load Factors for Various Modes of Failure for the Strength Limit State
Table 8-7
8.11.2
Footing Foundation Design Geotechnicaldesignoffootings,andallrelatedconsiderations,shallbe conductedasspecifiedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications Article10.6(mostcurrentversion),exceptasspecifiedinfollowing paragraphsandsections.
M 46-03.01
Page 8-27
Foundation Design
Chapter 8
8.11.2.1
Footing Bearing Depth Forfootingsonslopes,suchasatbridgeabutments,thefootingsshouldbe locatedasshownintheWSDOTLRFDBDM,Section7.7.1.Thefooting shouldalsobelocatedtomeettheminimumcoverrequirementsprovidedin WSDOTLRFDBDM,Section7.7.1.
8.11.2.2
Nearby Structures Wherefoundationsareplacedadjacenttoexistingstructures,theinfluence oftheexistingstructureonthebehaviorofthefoundationandtheeffectof thefoundationontheexistingstructuresshallbeinvestigated.Issuestobe investigatedinclude,butarenotlimitto,settlementoftheexistingstructure duetothestressincreasecausedbythenewfooting,decreasedoverall stabilityduetotheadditionalloadcreatedbythenewfooting,andtheeffect ontheexistingstructureofexcavation,shoring,and/ordewateringtoconstruct thenewfoundation.
8.11.2.3
Service Limit State Design of Footings Footingfoundationsshallbedesignedattheservicelimitstatetomeetthe tolerablemovementsforthestructureinaccordancewithWSDOTGDM Section8.6.5.1.Thenominalunitbearingresistanceattheservicelimit state,qserve,shallbeequaltoorlessthanthemaximumbearingstressthat thatresultsinsettlementthatmeetsthetolerablemovementcriteriaforthe structureinWSDOTGDMSection8.6.5.1,calculatedinaccordancewiththe AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications,andshallalsobelessthanthe maximumbearingstressthatmeetsoverallstabilityrequirements. Otherfactorsthatmayaffectsettlement,e.g.,embankmentloadingandlateral and/oreccentricloading,andforfootingsongranularsoils,vibrationloading fromdynamicliveloadsshouldalsobeconsidered,whereappropriate.For guidanceregardingsettlementduetovibrations,seeLam and Martin (1986) or Kavazanjian, et al., (1997).
8.11.2.3.1
Settlement of Footings on Cohesionless Soils Basedonexperience(seealsoKimmerling,2002),theHoughmethodtends tooverestimatesettlementofdensesands,andunderestimatesettlement ofveryloosesiltysandsandsilts.Kimmerling(2002)reportstheresults offullscalestudieswhereonaveragetheHoughMethod(Hough,1959) overestimatedsettlementbyanaveragefactorof1.8to2.0,thoughsome ofthespecificcaseswerecloseto1.0.Thisdoesnotmeanthatestimated settlementsbythismethodcanbereducedbyafactorof2.0.However,based onsuccessfulWSDOTexperience,forfootingsonsandsandgravelswith N160of20blows/ftormore,orsandsandgravelsthatareotherwiseknownto beoverconsolidated(e.g.,sandssubjectedtopreloadingordeepcompaction), reductionoftheestimatedHoughsettlementbyuptoafactorof1.5maybe considered,providedthegeotechnicaldesignerhasnotusedaggressivesoil
Page 8-28
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
parameterstoaccountfortheHoughmethodsobservedconservatism.The settlementcharacteristicsofcohesivesoilsthatexhibitplasticityshouldbe investigatedusingundisturbedsamplesandlaboratoryconsolidationtestsas prescribedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications. 8.11.2.3.2 Settlement of Footings on Rock Forfootingsbearingonfairtoverygoodrock,accordingtotheGeomechanics Classificationsystem,asdefinedinWSDOTGDMChapter5,anddesigned inaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthissection,elasticsettlementsmay generallybeassumedtobelessthan0.5IN. 8.11.2.3.3 Values Bearing Resistance at the Service Limit State Using Presumptive Regardingpresumptivebearingresistancevaluesforfootingsonrock, bearingresistanceonrockshallbedeterminedusingempiricalcorrelation theGeomechanicRockMassRatingSystem,RMR,asspecifiedinWSDOT GDMChapter5. 8.11.2.4 Strength Limit State Design of Footings Thedesignofspreadfootingsatthestrengthlimitstateshalladdressthe followinglimitstates: Nominalbearingresistance,consideringthesoilorrockatfinalgrade, andconsideringscourasspecifiedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign SpecificationsSection10: Overturningorexcessivelossofcontact;and Slidingatthebaseoffooting. TheWSDOTLRFDBridgeDesignManualallowsfootingstobeinclinedon slopesofupto6H:1V.Footingswithinclinedbasessteeperthanthisshould beavoidedwhereverpossible,usingsteppedhorizontalfootingsinstead. Themaximumfeasibleslopeofsteppedfootingfoundationsiscontrolled bythemaximumacceptablestableslopeforthesoilinwhichthefooting isplaced.Whereuseofaninclinedfootingbasemustbeused,thenominal bearingresistancedeterminedinaccordancewiththeprovisionshereinshould befurtherreducedusingacceptedcorrectionsforinclinedfootingbasesin Munfakh,etal(2001). 8.11.2.4.1 Theoretical Estimation of Bearing Resistance ThefootingbearingresistanceequationsprovidedintheAASHTOLRFD BridgeDesignSpecificationshavenotheoreticallimitonthebearing resistancetheypredict.However,WSDOTlimitsthenominalbearing resistanceforstrengthandextremeeventlimitstatesto120KSFonsoil. Valuesgreaterthan120KSFshouldnotbeusedforfoundationdesigninsoil.
M 46-03.01
Page 8-29
Foundation Design
Chapter 8
8.11.2.4.2
Plate Load Tests for Determination of Bearing Resistance in Soil Thenominalbearingresistancemaybedeterminedbyplateloadtests, providedthatadequatesubsurfaceexplorationshavebeenmadeto determinethesoilprofilebelowthefoundation.Plateloadtestsshall beconductedinaccordancewithAASHTOT235andasdescribedin Section6-02.3(17)DoftheWSDOTStandard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction.Thenominalbearingresistancedeterminedfrom aplateloadtestmaybeextrapolatedtoadjacentfootingswherethesubsurface profileisconfirmedbysubsurfaceexplorationtobesimilar. Plateloadtestshavealimiteddepthofinfluenceandfurthermoremaynot disclosethepotentialforlong-termconsolidationoffoundationsoils.Scale effectsshouldbeaddressedwhenextrapolatingtheresultstoperformance offullscalefootings.Extrapolationoftheplateloadtestdatatoafull scalefootingshouldbebasedonthedesignproceduresprovidedhereinfor settlement(servicelimitstate)andbearingresistance(strengthandextreme eventlimitstate),withconsiderationtotheeffectofthestratification(i.e., layerthicknesses,depths,andproperties).Plateloadtestresultsshouldbe appliedonlywithinasub-areaoftheprojectsiteforwhichthesubsurface conditions(i.e.,stratification,geologichistory,properties)arerelatively uniform.
8.11.2.4.3
Bearing Resistance of Footings on Rock Fordesignofbearingoffootingsonrock,whereengineeringjudgmentdoes notverifythepresenceofcompetentrock,thecompetencyoftherockmass shouldbeverifiedusingtheproceduresforRMRratinginWSDOTGDM Chapter5.
8.11.2.5
Extreme Event Limit State Design of Footings Footingsshallnotbelocatedonorwithinliquefiablesoil.Footingsmaybe locatedonliquefiablesoilsthathavebeenimprovedthroughdensificationor othermeanssothattheydonotliquefy.Footingsmayalsobelocatedabove liquefiablesoilinanon-liquefiablelayerifthefootingisdesignedtomeetall ExtremeEventlimitstates.Inthiscase,liquefiedsoilparametersshallbeused fortheanalysis(seeWSDOTGDMChapter6).Thefootingshallbestable againstanoverallstabilityfailureofthesoil(seeWSDOTGDMSection 8.6.5.2)andlateralspreadingresultingfromtheliquefaction(seeWSDOT GDMChapter6). Footingslocatedaboveliquefiablesoilbutwithinanon-liquefiablelayershall bedesignedtomeetthebearingresistancecriteriaestablishedforthestructure fortheExtremeEventLimitState.Thebearingresistanceofafootinglocated aboveliquefiablesoilsshallbedeterminedconsideringthepotentialfora punchingshearconditiontodevelop,andshallalsobeevaluatedusinga twolayerbearingresistancecalculationconductedinaccordancewiththe AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecificationsSection10.6,assumingthe
Page 8-30
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
soiltobeinaliquefiedcondition.Settlementoftheliquefiablezoneshall alsobeevaluatedtodetermineiftheextremeeventlimitstatecriteriaforthe structurethefootingissupportingaremet.TheTokimatsuandSeed(1987) ortheIshiharaandYoshimine(1992)procedureshouldbeusedtoestimate settlement. Forfootings,whetheronsoiloronrock,theeccentricityofloadingatthe extremelimitstateshallnotexceedone-third(0.33)ofthecorresponding footingdimension,BorL,forEQ=0.0andshallnotexceedfour-tenths (0.40)ofthecorrespondingfootingdimension,BorL,forEQ=1.0.Iflive loadsacttoreducetheeccentricityfortheExtremeEventIlimitstate,EQ shallbetakenas0.0.
8.12 Driven Pile Foundation Design

Figure8-7providesaflowchartthatillustratesthedesignprocess,and interactionrequiredbetweenstructuralandgeotechnicalengineers,neededto completeadrivenpilefoundationdesign.STdenotesstepsusuallycompleted bytheStructuralDesigner,whileGTdenotesthosestepsnormallycompleted bythegeotechnicaldesigner.
M 46-03.01
Page 8-31
Foundation Design
Chapter 8
1(ST).Determinebridgegeometry,pierlocations,andfoundationtop
1(GT).Determinedepthofscour, ifpresent(withhelpofHydraulic Engineer)
2(ST).Determineloadsappliedto foundationtop,includinglateralearth pressureloadsforabutments,through structuralanalysisandmodelingas well as pile lateral load analysis
2(GT).Determinesoilproperties forfoundationdesign,liquefaction potential,andresistancefactorsin consideration of the soil property uncertaintyandthemethod selectedforcalculatingnominal resistance
3(ST).Determinethenumberofpiles requiredtosupporttheunfactored appliedloadsatthestrengthlimitstate, and their estimated depth 4(ST).Determinethenumberofpiles requiredtosupporttheunfactored applied loads at the extreme event limitstate,andtheirestimateddepth 5(ST).Reevaluatefoundation stiffnesses,andrerunstructural modelingtogetnewloaddistribution forfoundations.Reiterateifloads from lateral pile analysis do not match foundationtoploadsfromstructural modelingwithin5%
9(GT).Evaluatethe pilegroupfornominal resistance at the strength and extreme limitstates,and settlement/resistance at the service limit state
10(GT).Verify estimated tip elevation and pile nominal resistancefromStep 6(ST),aswellas minimumtipelevation from the greatest depth requiredtomeetuplift, lateralload,and serviceability requirements
4(GT).Selectbestpiletypes,and determine nominal single pile resistance at the strength and extremelimitstatesasfunctionof depth,estimatingpilesizeslikely needed,&establishingmaximum acceptable pile nominal resistance
5(GT).Estimatedowndragloads, if present
6(ST).Factortheloads,andadjust sizeofpilegrouporthepilecapacities and estimated depths as needed to resist applied factored loads
11(GT).Basedon minimumtipelevation and pile diameter needed,determine need for overdriving and driveability of pile asdesigned;ifnot driveable,reevaluate pilefoundationdesign andstructuralmodel
6(GT).Provideestimateof settlementforpile/pilegroup,or foundationdepthrequiredto precludeunacceptablesettlement 7(GT).Determinenominaluplift resistanceforpilesasfunctionof depth
7(ST).Checktheminimumpiledepth requiredtoresistfactoredupliftloads and to resist lateral loads within acceptable deformations
8(ST).Designthefoundation(and wallsforabutment)accordingtothe concretesectionoftheSpecification
8(GT).DetermineP-Ycurve parameters for pile lateral load analysis
9(ST).Developcontractspecifications,obtainingpilequantities fromestimatedpiledepths,minimumpilecapacityrequired, minimumtipelevations,andoverdrivingrequiredfromdesign
Design Flowchart for Pile Foundation Design

Figure 8-7
Page 8-32
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
8.12.1
Loads and Load Factor Application to Driven Pile Design Figures8-8and8-9providedefinitionsandtypicallocationsoftheforcesand momentsthatactondeepfoundationssuchasdrivenpiles.Table8-8identifies whentousemaximumorminimumloadfactorsforthevariousmodesof failureforthepile(bearing,uplift,andlateralloading)foreachforce,forthe strengthlimitstate.
DC,LL,EQ(superstructure) Superbearingforces (transversetobridge) Column Superbearingforces (paralleltobridge) EQ col NewFill DCcol
SoftorLoose Soil
DD
*Shaft or pile
DCnet
BearingSoil/Rock
*Forapilefoundation, thepileandcolumnmay beone continous unit.
qs
qp
Definition and Location of Forces for Integral Shaft Column or Pile Bent
Figure 8-8
M 46-03.01
Page 8-33
Foundation Design
Chapter 8
DC,LL,EQ(superstructure) Superbearingforces (transversetobridge) Column Superbearingforces (paralleltobridge) EQ col NewFill DCcol
SoftorLoose Soil Shaftorpile
DD
BearingSoil/Rock
qs
*Momentsarecalculated atbottomofcolumn.
DCnet
qp
Definition and Location of Forces for Pile or Shaft Supported Footing.
Figure 8-9
where, DCcol EQcol qp qs DD DCnet
= = = = = =
structureloadduetoweightofcolumn earthquakeinertialforceduetoweightofcolumn ultimateendbearingresistanceatbaseofshaft(unitresistance) ultimatesideresistanceonshaft(unitresistance) ultimatedowndragloadonshaft(totalload) unitweightofconcreteinshaftminusunitweightofsoil timestheshaftvolumebelowthegroundline(mayinclude partofthecolumnifthetopoftheshaftisdeepduetoscour or for other reasons
Page 8-34
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
Allotherforcesareasdefinedpreviously.
Load Factor Load DC, DCcol LL DCnet DD Bearing Stress Use max. load factor Use transient load factor (e.g., LL) Use max. load factor Use max. load factor Uplift Use min. load factor Use transient load factor (e.g., LL) Use min. load factor Treat as resistance, and use resistance factor for uplift *Lateral Loading Use max load factor Use transient load factor (e.g., LL) N/A N/A
*Use unfactored loads to get force distribution in structure, then factor the resulting forces for final structural design.
Selection of Maximum or Minimum Deep Foundation Load Factors for Various Modes of Failure for the Strength Limit State
Table 8-8
Allforcesandloadfactorsareasdefinedpreviously. Theloadsandloadfactorstobeusedinpilefoundationdesignshallbeas specifiedinSection3oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications. Computationalassumptionsthatshallbeusedindeterminingindividual pileloadsaredescribedinSection4oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign Specifications. 8.12.2 Driven for Pile Foundation Geotechnical Design Geotechnicaldesignofdrivenpilefoundations,andallrelatedconsiderations, shallbeconductedasspecifiedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign SpecificationsArticle10.7(mostcurrentversion),exceptasspecifiedin followingparagraphsandsections: 8.12.2.1 Driven Pile Sizes and Maximum Resistances Inlieuofmoredetailedstructuralanalysis,thegeneralguidanceonpiletypes, sizes,andnominalresistancevaluesprovidedinTable8-9maybeusedto selectpilesizesandtypesforanalysis.TheGeotechnicalDivisionlimitsthe maximumnominalpileresistancefor24inchpilesto1500KIPSand18inch pilesto1,000KIPS,andmaylimitthenominalpileresistanceforagiven pilesizeandtypedriventoagivensoil/rockbearingunitbasedonexperience withthegivensoil/rockunit.Notethatthis1500KIPlimitfor24inch diameter piles applies to closed end piles driven to bearing on to glacially overconsolidatedtillorasimilargeologicunit.Open-endedpiles,orpiles driventolesscompetentbearingstrata,shouldbedriventoalowernominal resistance.Themaximumresistanceallowedinthatgivensoil/rockunitmay beincreasedbytheWSDOTGeotechnicalDivisionpermutualagreement withtheBridgeandStructuresOfficeifapileloadtestisperformed.
M 46-03.01
Page 8-35
Foundation Design
Chapter 8
Pile Type and Diameter (in.) Nominal pile Resistance (KIPS) 120 Closed End Steel Pipe/ *Precast, Cast-in-Place Prestressed Concrete Piles Concrete Piles Steel H-Piles -
Timber Piles See WSDOT Standard Specs. See WSDOT Standard Specs. -
240 330 420 600
12 in. 14 in. 18 in. nonseismic areas, 24 in. seismic areas 24 in.
13 in. 16 in. 18 in. Project Specific
12 in. 14 in. Project Specific
900
*Precast, prestressed concrete piles are generally not used for highway bridges, but are more commonly used for marine work.
Typical Pile Types and Sizes for Various Nominal Pile Resistance Values.
Table 8-9
8.12.2.2
Minimum Pile Spacing Center-to-centerpilespacingshouldnotbelessthanthegreaterof30INor 2.5pilediametersorwidths.Acenter-to-centerspacingoflessthan2.5pile diametersmaybeconsideredonacase-by-casebasis,subjecttotheapproval oftheWSDOTStateGeotechnicalEngineerandBridgeDesignEngineer.
8.12.2.3
Determination of Pile Lateral Resistance Pilefoundationsaresubjectedtohorizontalloadsduetowind,trafficloads, bridgecurvature,vesselortrafficimpactandearthquake.Thenominal resistanceofpilefoundationstohorizontalloadsshallbeevaluatedbasedon bothsoil/rockandstructuralproperties,consideringsoil-structureinteraction. Determinationofthesoil/rockparametersrequiredasinputfordesignusing soil-structureinteractionmethodologiesispresentedinWSDOTGDM Chapter5. SeeArticle10.7.2.4intheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecificationsfor detailedrequirementsregardingthedeterminationoflateralresistanceofpiles. Empiricaldataforpilespacingslessthan3pilediametersisverylimited.If, duetospacelimitations,asmallercenter-to-centerspacingisused,subjectto therequirementsinWSDOTGDMSection8.12.2.2,basedonextrapolationof
Page 8-36
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
thevaluesofPminTable8-10,thefollowingvaluesofPm at a spacing of no lessthan2Dmaybeused: ForRow1,Pm=0.45 ForRow2,Pm=0.33 ForRow3,Pm=0.25 8.12.2.4 Batter Piles WSDOTdesignpreferenceistoavoidtheuseofbatterpilesunlessnoother structuraloptionisavailable. 8.12.2.5 Service Limit State Design of Pile Foundations Drivenpilefoundationsshallbedesignedattheservicelimitstatetomeet thetolerablemovementsforthestructurebeingsupportedinaccordancewith WSDOTGDMSection8.6.5.1. Servicelimitstatedesignofdrivenpilefoundationsincludestheevaluationof settlementduetostaticloads,anddowndragloadsifpresent,overallstability, lateralsqueeze,andlateraldeformation. Lateralanalysisofpilefoundationsisconductedtoestablishtheload distributionbetweenthesuperstructureandfoundationsforalllimitstates, andtoestimatethedeformationinthefoundationthatwilloccurduetothose loads.Thissectiononlyaddressestheevaluationofthelateraldeformationof thefoundationresultingfromthedistributedloads. 8.12.2.5.1 8.12.2.5.2 Overall Stability TheprovisionsofWSDOTGDMSection8.6.5.2shallapply. Horizontal Pile Foundation Movement Thehorizontalmovementofpilefoundationsshallbeestimatedusing proceduresthatconsidersoil-structureinteractionasspecifiedinWSDOT GDMSection8.12.2.3. 8.12.2.6 8.12.2.6.1 Strength Limit State Geotechnical Design of Pile Foundations Nominal Axial Resistance Change after Pile Driving SetupasitrelatestotheWSDOTdynamicformulaisdiscussedfurtherin WSDOTGDMSection8.12.2.6.4(a)andAllen(2005b,2007). 8.12.2.6.2 Scour Ifastaticanalysismethodisusedtodeterminethefinalpilebearingresistance (i.e.,adynamicanalysismethodisnotusedtoverifypileresistanceasdriven), theavailablebearingresistance,andthepiletippenetrationrequiredto achievethedesiredbearingresistance,shallbedeterminedassumingthatthe soilsubjecttoscouriscompletelyremoved,resultinginnooverburdenstress atthebottomofthescourzone.
Foundation Design
Chapter 8
PiledesignforscourisillustratedinFigure8-11,where, Rscour Qp Dest. dyn = = = = skinfrictionwhichmustbeovercomeduringdrivingthrough scourzone(KIPS) (iQi) = factoredloadperpile(KIPS) estimated pile length needed to obtain desired nominal resistanceperpile(FT) resistancefactor,assumingthatadynamicmethodisused toestimatepileresistanceduringinstallationofthepile (ifastaticanalysismethodisusedinstead,usestat)
FromEquation8-1,thesummationofthefactoredloads(iQi)mustbe lessthanorequaltothefactoredresistance(Rn).Therefore,thenominal resistanceRnmustbegreaterthanorequaltothesumofthefactoredloads divided by the resistance factor .Hence,thenominalbearingresistanceof thepileneededtoresistthefactoredloadsistherefore, Rn = (iQi)/dyn (8-2)
Ifdynamicpilemeasurementsordynamicpileformulaareusedtodetermine finalpilebearingresistanceduringconstruction,theresistancethatthepiles aredriventomustbeadjustedtoaccountforthepresenceofthesoilinthe scourzone.Thetotaldrivingresistance,Rndr,neededtoobtainRn,accounting fortheskinfrictionthatmustbeovercomeduringpiledrivingthatdoesnot contributetothedesignresistanceofthepileisasfollows: Rndr=Rscour+Rn (8-3)
NotethatRscourremainsunfactoredinthisanalysistodetermineRndr.
iQ i)/ dyn
NominalPileDrivingResistanceRequired,Rndr Rscour
iQ i)/
Rndr
dyn
Staticskinfriction component of driving resistance
Scour Zone
Depth
Totalpile resistanceduring driving
Bearing Zone Dest.
Design of Pile Foundations for Scour

Figure 8-11
Page 8-38
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
8.12.2.6.3
Downdrag Thefoundationshouldbedesignedsothattheavailablefactoredgeotechnical resistanceisgreaterthanthefactoredloadsappliedtothepile,includingthe downdrag,atthestrengthlimitstate.Thenominalpileresistanceavailable tosupportstructureloadsplusdowndragshallbeestimatedbyconsidering onlythepositiveskinandtipresistancebelowthelowestlayercontributingto thedowndrag.Thepilefoundationshallbedesignedtostructurallyresistthe downdragplusstructureloads. PiledesignfordowndragisillustratedinFigure8-12,where, RSdd = Qp = DD = Dest. = dyn = p = skinfrictionwhichmustbeovercomeduringdrivingthrough downdragzone(KIPS) (iQi) = factoredloadperpile,excludingdowndrag load(KIPS) downdragloadperpile(KIPS) estimated pile length needed to obtain desired nominal resistanceperpile(FT) resistancefactor,assumingthatadynamicmethodisused toestimatepileresistanceduringinstallationofthepile (ifastaticanalysismethodisusedinstead,usestat) load factor for downdrag
SimilartothederivationofEquation8-2,thenominalbearingresistanceof thepileneededtoresistthefactoredloads,includingdowndrag,istherefore, Rn = (iQi)/dyn+pDD/dyn (8-4)
Thetotalnominaldrivingresistance,Rndr,neededtoobtainRn,accounting fortheskinfrictionthatmustbeovercomeduringpiledrivingthatdoesnot contributetothedesignresistanceofthepile,isasfollows: Rndr=RSdd+Rn (8-5)
where,Rndristhenominalpiledrivingresistancerequired.NotethatRSdd remainsunfactoredinthisanalysistodetermineRndr.
M 46-03.01
Page 8-39
Foundation Design
Chapter 8
iQ i)/ dyn
+ p DD/
dyn
NominalPileDrivingResistanceRequired,Rndr RSdd
iQ i)/ dyn
+ p DD/
Rndr
dyn
DD
Downdrag Zone
Depth
Bearing Zone Dest.
Design of Pile Foundations for Downdrag

Figure 8-12
Intheinstancewhereitisnotpossibletoobtainadequategeotechnical resistancebelowthelowestlayercontributingtodowndrag(e.g.,friction piles)tofullyresistthedowndrag,orifitisanticipatedthatsignificant deformationwillberequiredtomobilizethegeotechnicalresistanceneeded toresistthefactoredloadsincludingthedowndragload,thestructureshould bedesignedtotoleratethesettlementresultingfromthedowndragandthe otherappliedloadsinaccordancewiththeAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign Specifications,Article10.7. ThestaticanalysisproceduresintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign Specifications,Article10.7maybeusedtoestimatetheavailablepile resistancetowithstandthedowndragplusstructureloadstoestimate pilelengthsrequiredtoachievetherequiredbearingresistance.Forthis calculation,itshouldbeassumedthatthesoilsubjecttodowndragstill contributesoverburdenstresstothesoilbelowthedowndragzone. ResistancemayalsobeestimatedusingadynamicmethodpertheAASHTO LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications,Article10.7,providedtheskinfriction resistancewithinthezonecontributingtodowndragissubtractedfromthe resistancedeterminedfromthedynamicmethodduringpileinstallation.The skinfrictionresistancewithinthezonecontributingtodowndragmaybe estimatedusingthestaticanalysismethodsspecifiedintheAASHTOLRFD BridgeDesignSpecifications,Article10.7,fromsignalmatchinganalysis, orfrompileloadtestresults.Notethatthestaticanalysismethodmayhave abias,onaverageoverorunderpredictingtheskinfriction.Thebiasofthe methodselectedtoestimatetheskinfrictionwithinandabovethedowndrag zoneshouldbetakenintoaccountasdescribedintheAASHTOLRFDBridge DesignSpecifications,Article10.7.
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
8.12.2.6.4
Determination of Nominal Axial Pile Resistance in Compression Ifadynamicformulaisusedtoestablishthedrivingcriterioninlieuofa combinationofdynamicmeasurementswithsignalmatching,waveequation analysis,and/orpileloadtests,theWSDOTPileDrivingFormulafrom theWSDOTStandard Specifications for Roads, Bridge, and Municipal ConstructionSection6-05.3(12)shallbeused,unlessotherwisespecifically approvedbytheWSDOTStateGeotechnicalEngineer. Thehammerenergyusedtocalculatethenominal(ultimate)pileresistance duringdrivingintheWSDOTandotherdrivingformulaedescribedhereinis thedevelopedenergy.Thedevelopedhammerenergyistheactualamountof grossenergyproducedbythehammerforagivenblow.Thisvaluewillnever exceedtheratedhammerenergy(ratedhammerenergyisthemaximumgross energythehammeriscapableofproducing,i.e.,atitsmaximumstroke). ThedevelopmentoftheWSDOTpiledrivingformulaisdescribedinAllen (2005b,2007).Thenominal(ultimate)pileresistanceduringdrivingusing thismethodshallbetakenas: Rndr = F E Ln (10N) (8-6)
Where: Rndr = drivingresistance,inTONS F = 1.8forair/steamhammers = 1.2foropenendeddieselhammersandprecastconcrete or timber piles = 1.6foropenendeddieselhammersandsteelpiles = 1.2forclosedendeddieselhammers = 1.9forhydraulichammers = 0.9fordrophammers E = developedenergy,equaltoWtimesH1,inft-kips W = weightofram,inkips H = verticaldropofhammerorstrokeofram,infeet = average penetration resistance in blows per inch for the last N 4inchesofdriving Ln = thenaturallogarithm,inbasee
1For
closed-end diesel hammers (double-acting), the developed hammer energy (E) is to be determined from the bounce chamber reading. Hammer manufacturer calibration data may be used to correlate bounce chamber pressure to developed hammer energy. For double acting hydraulic and air/steam hammers, the developed hammer energy shall be calculated from ram impact velocity measurements or other means approved by the Engineer. For open ended diesel hammers (single-acting), the blows per minute may be used to determine the developed energy (E).
NotethatRndrasdeterminedbythisdrivingformulaispresentedinunits ofTONSratherthanKIPS,tobeconsistentwiththeWSDOTStandard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction(M41-10). Theaboveformulaappliesonlywhen:
M 46-03.01
Page 8-41
Foundation Design
Chapter 8
1. Thehammerisingoodconditionandoperatinginasatisfactorymanner; 2. Afollowerisnotused; 3. Thepiletopisnotdamaged; 4. Thepileheadisfreefrombroomedorcrushedwoodfiber; 5. Thepenetrationoccursatareasonablyquick,uniformrate;andthepile hasbeendrivenatleast2feetafteranyinterruptionindrivinggreaterthan 1hourinlength. 6. Thereisnoperceptiblebounceaftertheblow.Ifasignificantbounce cannotbeavoided,twicetheheightofthebounceshallbedeductedfrom Htodetermineitstruevalueintheformula. 7. Fortimberpiles,bearingcapacitiescalculatedbytheformulaaboveshall beconsideredeffectiveonlywhenitislessthanthecrushingstrengthof thepiles. 8. IfNisgreaterthanorequalto1.0blow/inch. AsdescribedindetailinAllen(2005b,2007),Equation8-6shouldnotbeused fornominalpilebearingresistancesgreaterthanapproximately1,000KIPS (500TONS),orforpilediametersgreaterthan30inches,duetothepaucityof dataavailabletoverifytheaccuracyofthisequationathigherresistancesand largerpilediameters,andduetotheincreasedscatterinthedata.Additional fieldtestingandanalysis,suchastheuseofaPileDrivingAnalyzer(PDA) combinedwithsignalmatching,orapileloadtest,isrecommendedforpiles driventohigherbearingresistanceandpilediameterslargerthan30inches. Asistrueofmostdrivingformulae,iftheyhavebeencalibratedtopileload testresults,theWSDOTpiledrivingformulahasbeencalibratedtoNvalues obtainedatendofdriving(EOD).Sincethepilenominalresistanceobtained frompileloadtestsaretypicallyobtaineddays,ifnotweeks,afterthepile hasbeendriven,thegaininpileresistancethattypicallyoccurswithtimeis ineffectcorrelatedtotheEODNvaluethroughthedrivingformula.Thatis, thedrivingformulaassumesthatanaverageamountofsetupwilloccur afterEODwhenthepilenominalresistanceisdeterminedfromtheformula (seeAllen,2005b,2007).Hence,theWSDOTdrivingformulashallnotbe usedincombinationwiththeresistancefactordyn provided in WSDOT GDM Section 8.9forbeginningofredrive(BOR)Nvaluestoobtainnominal resistance.Ifpilefoundationnominalresistancemustbedeterminedbased onrestrike(BOR)drivingresistance,dynamicmeasurementsincombination withsignalmatchinganalysisand/orpileloadtestresultsshouldbeused. Sincedrivingformulasinherentlyaccountforamoderateamountofpile resistancesetup,itisexpectedthattheoreticalmethodologiessuchasthe waveequationwillpredictlowernominalbearingresistancevaluesforthe samedrivingresistanceNthanempiricalmethodologiessuchastheWSDOT
Page 8-42
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
drivingformula.Thisshouldbeconsideredwhenassessingpiledrivability ifitisintendedtoevaluatethepile/hammersystemforcontractapproval purposesusingthewaveequation,butusingapiledrivingformulaforfield determinationofpilenominalbearingresistance. Ifadynamic(piledriving)formulaotherthantheoneprovidedhereis used,subjecttotheapprovaloftheStateGeotechnicalEngineer,itshall becalibratedbasedonmeasuredloadtestresultstoobtainanappropriate resistancefactor,consistentwiththeAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign Specifications,Article10.7andAllen(2005b,2007). Ifadynamicformulaisused,thestructuralcompressionlimitstatecannot betreatedseparatelyaswiththeotheraxialresistanceevaluationprocedures unlessadrivabilityanalysisifperformed.Evaluationofpiledrivability, includingthespecificevaluationofdrivingstressesandtheadequacyofthe piletoresistthosestresseswithoutdamage,isstronglyrecommended.When drivabilityisnotchecked,itisnecessarythatthepiledesignstressesbe limitedtovaluesthatwillassurethatthepilecanbedrivenwithoutdamage. Forsteelpiles,guidanceisprovidedinArticle6.15.2oftheAASHTOLRFD BridgeDesignSpecificationsforthecasewhereriskofpiledamageis relativelyhigh.Ifpiledrivabilityisnotchecked,itshouldbeassumedthat theriskofpiledamageisrelativelyhigh.Forconcretepilesandtimberpiles, nospecificguidanceisavailableinSections5and8,respectively,ofthe AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecificationsregardingsafedesignstresses toreducetheriskofpiledamage.Inpastpractice(seeAASHTO2002),the requirednominalaxialresistancehasbeenlimitedto0.6f'c for concrete piles and2,000psifortimberpilesifpiledrivabilityisnotevaluated. 8.12.2.6.5 Nominal Horizontal Resistance of Pile Foundations Thenominalresistanceofpilefoundationstohorizontalloadsshallbe evaluatedbasedonbothgeomaterialandstructuralproperties.Thehorizontal soilresistancealongthepilesshouldbemodeledusingP-Ycurvesdeveloped forthesoilsatthesiteorusinstrainwedgetheory(Norris,1986;Ashour,et al.,1998),asspecifiedinWSDOTGDMSection8.12.2.3.Forpilesclassified asshortorintermediateasdefinedinWSDOTGDMSection8.13.2.4.3,Strain WedgeTheoryshouldbeused. Theappliedloadsshallbefactoredloadsandtheymustincludeboth horizontalandaxialloads.Theanalysismaybeperformedonarepresentative singlepilewiththeappropriatepiletopboundaryconditionorontheentire pilegroup.IfP-Ycurvesareused,theyshallbemodifiedforgroupeffects. TheP-multipliersinTable8-10shouldbeusedtomodifythecurves.Ifstrain wedgetheoryisused,P-multipliersshallnotbeused,butgroupeffectsshall beaddressedthroughevaluationoftheoverlapbetweenshearzonesformed duetothepassivewedgethatdevelopsinfrontofeachpileinthegroup aslateraldeflectionincreases.Ifthepilecapwillalwaysbeembedded,the P-Yhorizontalresistanceofthesoilonthecapfacemaybeincludedinthe horizontalresistance.
Foundation Design
Chapter 8
8.12.2.7
Extreme Event Limit State Design of Pile Foundations Fortheapplicablefactoredloads(seeAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign Specifications,Section3)foreachextremeeventlimitstate,thepile foundationsshallbedesignedtohaveadequatefactoredaxialandlateral resistance.Forseismicdesign,allsoilwithinandaboveliquefiablezones, shallnotbeconsideredtocontributeaxialcompressiveresistance.Downdrag resultingfromliquefactioninducedsettlementshallbedeterminedasspecified inWSDOTGDMSection6.5.3andtheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign Specifications(Article3.11.8),andshallbeincludedintheloadsappliedto thefoundation.Staticdowndragloadsshouldnotbecombinedwithseismic downdragloadsduetoliquefaction. Ingeneral,theavailablefactoredgeotechnicalresistanceshouldbegreater thanthefactoredloadsappliedtothepile,includingthedowndrag,atthe extremeeventlimitstate.Thepilefoundationshallbedesignedtostructurally resistthedowndragplusstructureloads. PiledesignforliquefactiondowndragisillustratedinFigure8-13,where, RSdd= Qp = DD = Dest. = seis = p = skinfrictionwhichmustbeovercomeduringdrivingthrough downdragzone (iQi) = factoredloadperpile,excludingdowndragload downdrag load per pile estimated pile length needed to obtain desired nominal resistance per pile resistance factor for seismic conditions load factor for downdrag
Thenominalbearingresistanceofthepileneededtoresistthefactoredloads, includingdowndrag,istherefore, Rn = (iQi)/seis+pDD/seis (8-7)
Thetotaldrivingresistance,Rndr,neededtoobtainRn,accountingfortheskin frictionthatmustbeovercomeduringpiledrivingthatdoesnotcontributeto thedesignresistanceofthepile,isasfollows: Rndr=RSdd+Rn (8-8)
NotethatRSddremainsunfactoredinthisanalysistodetermineRndr.
Page 8-44
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
iQ i)/ seis
p DD/
seis
NominalPileDrivingResistanceRequired,Rndr RSdd
iQ i)/ seis
+ p DD/
Rndr
seis
DD
Liquefaction Downdrag Zone
Depth
Bearing Zone Dest.
Design of Pile Foundations for Liquefaction Downdrag

Figure 8-13
Intheinstancewhereitisnotpossibletoobtainadequategeotechnical resistancebelowthelowestlayercontributingtodowndrag(e.g.,friction piles)tofullyresistthedowndrag,orifitisanticipatedthatsignificant deformationwillberequiredtomobilizethegeotechnicalresistanceneeded toresistthefactoredloadsincludingthedowndragload,thestructureshould bedesignedtotoleratethesettlementresultingfromthedowndragandthe otherappliedloadsinaccordancewithAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign Specifications. ThestaticanalysisproceduresinAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign Specificationsmaybeusedtoestimatetheavailablepileresistanceto withstandthedowndragplusstructureloadstoestimatepilelengthsrequired toachievetherequiredbearingresistance.Forthiscalculation,itshouldbe assumedthatthesoilsubjecttodowndragstillcontributesoverburdenstressto thesoilbelowthedowndragzone. ResistancemayalsobeestimatedusingadynamicmethodperAASHTO LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications,providedtheskinfrictionresistance withinthezonecontributingtodowndragissubtractedfromtheresistance determinedfromthedynamicmethodduringpileinstallation.Theskin frictionresistancewithinthezonecontributingtodowndragmaybeestimated usingthestaticanalysismethodsspecifiedinAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign Specifications,fromsignalmatchinganalysis,orfrompileloadtestresults. Notethatthestaticanalysismethodmayhaveabias,onaverageoveror underpredictingtheskinfriction.Thebiasofthemethodselectedtoestimate theskinfrictionwithinandabovethedowndragzoneshouldbetakeninto accountasdescribedinAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications.
M 46-03.01
Page 8-45
Foundation Design
Chapter 8
Downdragforcesestimatedusingthesemethodsmaybeconservative,asthe downdragforceduetoliquefactionmaybebetweenthefullstaticshear strengthandtheliquefiedshearstrengthactingalongthelengthofthedeep foundationelements(seeWSDOT GDM Section 6.5.3). Thepilefoundationshallalsobedesignedtoresistthehorizontalforce resultingfromlateralspreading,ifapplicable,ortheliquefiablesoilshall beimprovedtopreventliquefactionandlateralspreading.Forlateralsoil resistanceofthepilefoundation,ifP-Ycurvesareused,thesoilinput parametersshouldbereducedtoaccountforliquefaction.Todeterminethe amountofreduction,thedurationofstrongshakingandtheabilityofthesoil tofullydevelopaliquefiedconditionduringtheperiodofstrongshaking shouldbeconsidered. RegardingthereductionofP-Ysoilstrengthandstiffnessparametersto accountforliquefaction,seeWSDOTGDMSection6.5.1.2. Theforceresultingfromlateralspreadingshouldbecalculatedasdescribedin WSDOTGDMChapter6. Whendesigningforscourattheextremeeventlimitstate,thepilefoundation designshallbeconductedasdescribedinWSDOTGDMSection8.12.4.5, andtheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications.Theresistancefactors andthecheckfloodpertheAASHTOBridgeDesignSpecificationsshall beused.
8.13 Drilled Shaft Foundation Design

Figure8-14providesaflowchartthatillustratesthedesignprocess,and interactionrequiredbetweenstructuralandgeotechnicalengineers,needed tocompleteadrilledshaftfoundationdesign.STdenotesstepsusually completedbytheStructuralDesigner,whileGTdenotesthosestepsnormally completedbytheGeotechnicalDesigner.
Page 8-46
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
1(ST).Determinebridgegeometry,pierlocations,andfoundationtop
1(GT).Determinedepthofscour, ifpresent(withhelpofHydraulic Engineer)
2(ST).Determineloadsappliedto foundationtop,includinglateralearth pressureloadsforabutments,through structuralanalysisandmodelingas well as shaft lateral load analysis
2(GT).Determinesoilproperties forfoundationdesign,liquefaction potential,andresistancefactorsin consideration of the soil property uncertaintyandthemethod selectedforcalculatingnominal resistance
3(ST).Determinedepth,diameter,and nominal shaft resistance needed to supporttheunfactoredappliedloadsat the strength limit state 3(ST).Determinedepth,diameter,and nominal shaft resistance needed to supporttheunfactoredappliedloadsat the extreme limit state 5(ST).Reevaluatefoundation stiffnesses,andrerunstructural modelingtogetnewloaddistribution forfoundations.Reiterateifloads from lateral shaft analysis do not matchfoundationtoploadsfrom structuralmodelingwithin5%
9(GT).Evaluatethe shaft/shaftgroupfor nominal resistance at the strength and extremelimitstates, and settlement/resistance at the service limit state
4(GT).Determinenominalsingle shaft resistance at the strength and extremelimitstatesasfunctionof depth,forlikelyshaftdiameters needed,consideringshaft constructability
10(GT).Verify estimated tip elevation and shaft nominal resistancefromStep 6(ST),aswellasthe specified tip elevation from the greatest depth requiredtomeetuplift, lateralload,and serviceability requirements;if significantly different than what was providedinStep 6(ST),havestructural modelandfoundation designreevaluated
5(GT).Estimatedowndragloads, if present
6(ST).Factortheloads,andadjustthe shaftsizeordepthasneededtoresist appliedfactoredloads,bothlateraland vertical
6(GT).Provideestimateof settlement limited resistance (servicestate)forshaft/shaftgroup, orfoundationdepthrequiredto precludeunacceptablesettlement
7(ST).Checktheminimumshaft depthrequiredtoresistfactoreduplift loads and to resist lateral loads within acceptable deformations
7(GT).Determinenominaluplift resistanceforshaftsasfunctionof depth
8(ST).Designthefoundation(and wallsforabutment)accordingtothe concretesectionoftheSpecification
8(GT).DetermineP-Ycurve parameters for shaft lateral load analysis
9(ST).Developcontractspecifications
Design Flowchart For Drill Shaft Foundation Design

Figure 8-14
M 46-03.01
Page 8-47
Foundation Design
Chapter 8
8.13.1
Loads and Load Factor Application to Drilled Shaft Design Figures8-8and8-9providedefinitionsandtypicallocationsoftheforces andmomentsthatactondeepfoundationssuchasdrilledshafts.Table8-8 identifieswhentousemaximumorminimumloadfactorsforthevarious modesoffailurefortheshaft(bearingcapacity,uplift,andlateralloading)for eachforce,forthestrengthlimitstate. Theloadsandloadfactorstobeusedinshaftfoundationdesignshallbeas specifiedinSection3oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications. Computationalassumptionsthatshallbeusedindeterminingindividualshaft loadsaredescribedinSection4oftheAASHTOLRFDspecifications.
8.13.2
Drilled Shaft Geotechnical Design Geotechnicaldesignofdrilledshaftfoundations,andallrelated considerations,shallbeconductedasspecifiedintheAASHTOLRFDBridge DesignSpecificationsArticle10.8(mostcurrentversion),exceptasspecified infollowingparagraphsandsections:
8.13.2.1
General Considerations TheprovisionsofWSDOTGDMSection8.13andallsubsectionsshall applytothedesignofdrilledshafts.Throughouttheseprovisions,theuse ofthetermdrilledshaftshallbeinterpretedtomeanashaftconstructed usingeitherdrillingorcasingplusexcavationequipmentandrelated technology.Theseprovisionsshallalsoapplytoshaftsthatareconstructed usingcasingadvancersthattwistorrotatecasingsintothegroundconcurrent withexcavationratherthandrilling.Theprovisionsofthissectionarenot applicabletodrilledpilesinstalledwithcontinuousflightaugersthatare concretedastheaugerisbeingextracted(e.g.,thissectiondoesnotapplyto thedesignofaugercastpiles). Shaftdesignsshouldbereviewedforconstructabilitypriortoadvertisingthe projectforbids.
8.13.2.2
Nearby Structures Whereshaftfoundationsareplacedadjacenttoexistingstructures,the influenceoftheexistingstructureonthebehaviorofthefoundation,andthe effectofthefoundationontheexistingstructures,includingvibrationeffects duetocasinginstallation,shouldbeinvestigated.Inaddition,theimpactof cavingsoilsduringshaftexcavationonthestabilityoffoundationssupporting adjacentstructuresshouldbeevaluated.Forexistingstructurefoundationsthat areadjacenttotheproposedshaftfoundation,andifashaftexcavationcave-in couldcompromisetheexistingfoundationintermsofstabilityorincreased deformation,thedesignshouldrequirethatcasingbeadvancedastheshaft excavationproceeds.
Page 8-48
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
8.13.2.3
Service Limit State Design of Drilled Shafts Drilledshaftfoundationsshallbedesignedattheservicelimitstatetomeet thetolerablemovementsforthestructurebeingsupportedinaccordancewith WSDOTGDMSection8.6.5.1. Servicelimitstatedesignofdrilledshaftfoundationsincludestheevaluation ofsettlementduetostaticloads,anddowndragloadsifpresent,overall stability,lateralsqueeze,andlateraldeformation. Lateralanalysisofshaftfoundationsisconductedtoestablishtheload distributionbetweenthesuperstructureandfoundationsforalllimitstates, andtoestimatethedeformationinthefoundationthatwilloccurduetothose loads.Thissectiononlyaddressestheevaluationofthelateraldeformationof thefoundationresultingfromthedistributedloads. TheprovisionsintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignManual(Article 10.8.2.2.3)forIntermediateGeoMaterials(IGMs)shallnotbeusedfor drilledshaftdesign.
8.13.2.3.1
Horizontal Movement of Shafts and Shaft Groups TheprovisionsofWSDOTGDMSection8.12.2.3shallapply. Forshaftsembeddedinrock,uniaxialunconfinedcompressivestrength, qu,orshearstrength,su(notethatsu=qu/2),isakeyinputparameterto estimatelateralresistance,bothforP-Yanalysisandstrainwedgetheory.For determinationoflateralresistance,qu or su shall be determined in a way that accountsforthecharacteristicsoftherockmass.Oneofthefollowingtwo approachesmaybeusedtoestimatequ or suoftherockmass: UsetherockmassRQDandTable10.4.6.5-1intheAASHTOLRFD BridgeDesignSpecificationstoestimaterockmassmodulus,assuming thattheratioofintacttorockmassmoduluswouldalsoapplytoshear strength. Usetheglobalrockmassstrength,cm,determinedbasedonthe methodinHoeketal.(2002).SeeWSDOTGDMSection5.7for recommendationsondeterminationofrockmassshearstrength. First,itshouldbenotedthattherockmassshearstrengthessentiallyfunctions asanindexparametertoestimatethestiffnessresponseofshaftssubjectto lateralloadaswellasakeyparameterusedtodeterminePultoftherockmass lateralresistance.Thefirstapproachwasdevelopedforshaftfoundations, butreliesontheassumptionthattheratiosinAASHTOTable10.4.6.5-1can beappliedtoshearstrengtheventhoughtheratiosweredevelopedbased onstiffness,notashearfailurelimitstate.TheHoek,etal.(2002)failure criterionisempiricallyderivedfromandisprimarilyusedforexcavations, notshaftfoundations.However,itisthebestavailableestimationmethod forestimatingcompressivestrength,qu,ofafracturedrockmass.Both
M 46-03.01
Page 8-49
Foundation Design
Chapter 8
approaches have their shortcomings with regard to this application of lateral resistanceofdeepfoundations.Therefore,otherapproachestoaddressing thisissuemaybeconsidered,subjecttotheapprovaloftheWSDOTState GeotechnicalEngineer. 8.13.2.3.2 8.13.2.4 Overall Stability TheprovisionsofWSDOTGDMSection8.6.5.2shallapply. Strength Limit State Geotechnical Design of Drilled Shafts Thenominalshaftgeotechnicalresistancesthatshallbeevaluatedatthe strengthlimitstateinclude: Axialcompressionresistance, Axialupliftresistance, Punchingofshaftsthroughstrongsoilintoaweakerlayer, Lateralgeotechnicalresistanceofsoilandrockstrata, Resistancewhenscouroccurs,and Axialresistancewhendowndragoccurs. TheprovisionsintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignManual(Article 10.8.3.5)forIntermediateGeoMaterials(IGMs)shallnotbeusedfordrilled shaftdesign.Ingeneral,theequationsforIGMstendtoproduceexcessively conservativeresults.Therefore,theequationsfordrilledshaftaxialresistance applicabletosandorclay,asapplicabletothesiteconditions,shouldbeused. Ifverystrongsoil,suchasglaciallyoverriddentillsoroutwashdeposits, ispresent,andadequateperformancedataforshaftaxialresistanceinthe consideredgeologicalsoildepositisavailable,thenominalendbearing resistancemaybeincreasedabovethelimitspecifiedforbearinginsoilin theAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecificationsuptotheloadinglimit thatperformancedataindicateswillproducegoodlong-termperformance. Alternatively,loadtestingmaybeconductedtovalidatethevalueofbearing resistanceselectedfordesign. 8.13.2.4.1 Scour Theeffectofscourshallbeconsideredinthedeterminationoftheshaft penetration.Resistanceafterscourshallbebasedontheapplicableprovisions ofWSDOTGDMSection8.12.2.6.2andtheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign SpecificationsSection10.Theshaftfoundationshallbedesignedsothatthe shaftpenetrationafterthedesignscoureventsatisfiestherequirednominal axialandlateralresistance.Forthiscalculation,itshallbeassumedthatthe soillostduetoscourdoesnotcontributetotheoverburdenstressinthesoil belowthescourzone.Theshaftfoundationshallbedesignedtoresistdebris loadsoccurringduringthefloodeventinadditionto the loads applied from thestructure.
Page 8-50
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
Theresistancefactorsarethoseusedinthedesignwithoutscour.Theaxial resistanceofthemateriallostduetoscourshallnotbeincludedintheshaft resistance. 8.13.2.4.2 Downdrag Thenominalshaftresistanceavailabletosupportstructureloadsplus downdragshallbeestimatedbyconsideringonlythepositiveskinandtip resistancebelowthelowestlayercontributingtothedowndrag.Forthis calculation,itshallbeassumedthatthesoilcontributingtodowndragdoes contributetotheoverburdenstressinthesoilbelowthedowndragzone.In general,theavailablefactoredgeotechnicalresistanceshouldbegreaterthan thefactoredloadsappliedtotheshaft,includingthedowndrag,atthestrength limitstate. Intheinstancewhereitisnotpossibletoobtainadequategeotechnical resistancebelowthelowestlayercontributingtodowndrag(e.g.,friction shafts)tofullyresistthedowndrag,thestructureshouldbedesigned totoleratethesettlementresultingfromthedowndragandtheother appliedloads. 8.13.2.4.3 Nominal Horizontal Resistance of Shaft and Shaft Group Foundations TheprovisionsofWSDOTGDMSection8.12.2.6.5shallapply.Forshafts classifiedaslongperEquation8-9,P-Ymethodsofanalysismaybeused. Forshaftsclassifiedasshortorintermediate,whenlaterallyloaded,theshaft maintainsalateraldeflectionpatternthatisclosetoastraightline.Ashaftis definedasshortifitslength,L,torelativestiffnessratio(L/T)islessthanor equalto2,intermediatewhenthisratioislessthanorequalto4butgreater than2,andlongwhenthisratioisgreaterthan4,whererelativestiffness,T, isdefinedas:
T EI f
0.2
(8-9)
where, E = = I = f
theshaftmodulus themomentofinertiafortheshaft,andEIisthebendingstiffness oftheshaft,and coefficientofsubgradereactionforthesoilintowhichtheshaft isembeddedasprovidedinNAVFACDM7.2(1982)
Forshaftsclassifiedasshortorintermediateasdefinedabove,strainwedge theory(Norris,1986;Ashour,etal.,1998)shouldbeusedtoestimatethe lateralresistanceoftheshafts. Thedesignofhorizontallyloadeddrilledshaftsshallaccountfortheeffects ofinteractionbetweentheshaftandground,includingthenumberofshaftsin thegroup.Whenstrainwedgetheoryisusedtoassessthelateralloadresponse ofshaftgroups,groupeffectsshallbeaddressedthroughevaluationofthe

Foundation Design
Chapter 8
overlapbetweenshearzonesformedduetothepassivewedgethatdevelopsin frontofeachshaftinthegroupaslateraldeflectionincreases. 8.13.2.5 Extreme Event Limit State Design of Drilled Shafts TheprovisionsofWSDOTGDMSection8.12.2.7shallapply,exceptthat forliquefactiondowndrag,thenominalshaftresistanceavailabletosupport structureloadsplusdowndragshallbeestimatedbyconsideringonlythe positiveskinandtipresistancebelowthelowestlayercontributingtothe downdrag.Forthiscalculation,itshallbeassumedthatthesoilcontributing todowndragdoescontributetotheoverburdenstressinthesoilbelowthe downdragzone.Ingeneral,theavailablefactoredgeotechnicalresistance shouldbegreaterthanthefactoredloadsappliedtotheshaft,includingthe downdrag,atthestrengthlimitstate.Theshaftfoundationshallbedesigned tostructurallyresistthedowndragplusstructureloads. Intheinstancewhereitisnotpossibletoobtainadequategeotechnical resistancebelowthelowestlayercontributingtodowndrag(e.g.,friction shafts)tofullyresistthedowndrag,thestructureshouldbedesigned totoleratethesettlementresultingfromthedowndragandtheother appliedloads.
8.14 Micropiles
Micropiles shall be designed inaccordancewithArticles10.5and10.9of theAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications.Additionalbackground informationonmicropiledesignmaybefoundintheFHWAMicropileDesign andConstructionGuidelinesImplementationManual,PublicationNo.FHWASA-97-070(Armour,etal.,2000).
8.15 Proprietary Foundation Systems

Onlyproprietaryfoundationsystemsthathavebeenreviewedandapproved bytheWSDOTNewProductsCommittee,andsubsequentlyaddedto WSDOTGDMAppendix8-Aofthismanual,maybeusedforstructural foundationsupport. Ingeneral,proprietaryfoundationsystemsshallbeevaluatedbasedonthe following: 1. Thedesignshallrelyonpublishedandproventechnology,andshouldbe consistentwiththeAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecificationsandthis geotechnicaldesignmanual.DeviationsfromtheAASHTOspecifications andthismanualnecessarytodesignthefoundationsystemmustbefully explainedbasedonsoundgeotechnicaltheoryandsupportedempirically throughfullscaletesting. 2. Thequalityofthefoundationsystemasconstructedinthefieldis verifiable.
Page 8-52
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
3. Thefoundationsystemisdurable,andthroughtestdataitisshownthatit willhavethenecessarydesignlife(usually75yearsormore). 4. Thelimitationsofthefoundationsystemintermsofitsapplicability, capacity,constructability,andpotentialimpacttoadjacentfacilities duringandafteritsinstallation(e.g.,vibrations,potentialsubsurfacesoil movement,etc.)areclearlyidentified.
8.16 Detention Vaults

8.16.1 Overview Requirementsforsizingandlocatingdetention/retentionvaultsareprovided intheWSDOTHighwayRunoffManual.Detention/retentionvaultsas describedinthissectionincludewetvaults,combinedwet/detentionvaults anddetentionvaults.Forspecificdetailsregardingthedifferencesbetween thesefacilities,pleaserefertoChapter5oftheWSDOTHighwayRunoff Manual.Forgeotechnicalandstructuraldesignpurposes,adetentionvault isaburiedreinforcedconcretestructuredesignedtostorewaterandretain soil,withorwithoutalid.Thelidandtheassociatedretainingwallsmay needtobedesignedtosupportatrafficsurcharge.Thesizeandshapeofthe detentionvaultscanvary.Commonvaultwidthsvaryfrom15fttoover60ft. Thelengthcanvarygreatly.Detentionvaultsovera100ftinlengthhave beenproposedforsomeprojects.Thebaseofthevaultmaybelevelormay beslopedfromeachsidetowardthecenterformingabroadVtofacilitate sedimentremoval.Vaultshavespecificsitedesignelements,suchaslocation withrespecttoright-of-way,septictanksanddrainfields.Thegeotechnical designermustaddresstheadequacyoftheproposedvaultlocationand providerecommendationsfornecessaryset-backdistancesfromsteepslopes orbuildingfoundations. 8.16.2 Field Investigation Requirements Ageotechnicalreconnaissanceandsubsurfaceinvestigationarecriticalforthe designofalldetentionvaults.Alldetentionvaults,regardlessoftheirsize,will requireaninvestigationoftheunderlyingsoil/rockthatsupportsthestructure. TherequirementsforfrequencyofexplorationsprovidedinTable8-11 shouldbeused.Additionalexplorationsmayberequireddependingonthe variabilityinsiteconditions,vaultgeometry,andtheconsequencesshoulda failureoccur.
Vault surface area (ft2) <200 200 - 1000 1000 10,000 >10,000 Table 8-11 Exploration points (minimum) 1 2 3 3-4
Minimum Exploration Requirements for Detention Vaults

Foundation Design
Chapter 8
Thedepthoftheboringswillvarydependingontheheightofsoilbeing retainedbythevaultandtheoveralldepthofthevault.Theboringsshould beextendedtoadepthbelowthebottomelevationofthevaultaminimum of1.5timestheheightoftheexteriorwalls.Explorationdepthshouldbe greatenoughtofullypenetratesofthighlycompressiblesoils(e.g.,peat, organicsilt,softfinegrainedsoils)intocompetentmaterialofsuitablebearing resistance(e.g.,verystifftohardcohesivesoil,densecohesionlesssoilor bedrock).Sincethesestructuresmaybesubjectedtohydrostaticupliftforces, aminimumofoneboringmustbeinstrumentedwithapiezometertomeasure seasonalvariationsingroundwaterunlessthegroundwaterdepthisknownto bewellbelowthebottomofthevaultatalltimes. 8.16.3 Design Requirements Adetentionvaultisanenclosedburiedstructuresurroundedbythreeor moreretainingwalls.Therefore,forthegeotechnicaldesignofdetention vaultwalls,designrequirementsprovidedinWSDOTGDMChapter15are applicable.Sincethevaultwallstypicallydonothavetheabilitytodeform adequatelytoallowactiveearthpressureconditionstodevelop,atrest conditionsshouldbeassumedforthedesignofthevaultwalls(seeWSDOT GDMChapter15). Iftheseasonalhighgroundwaterlevelisabovethebaseofthevault,the vaultshallbedesignedfortheupliftforcesthatresultfromthebuoyancyof thestructure.Upliftforcesshouldberesistedbytie-downanchorsordeep foundationsincombinationwiththeweightofthestructureandoverburden materialoverthestructure. Temporaryshoringmayberequiredtoallowexcavationofthesoilnecessary toconstructthevault.SeeWSDOTGDMChapter15forguidelineson temporaryshoring.Ifashoringwallisusedtopermanentlysupportthesides ofthevaultortoprovidepermanentupliftresistancetobuoyantforces,the shoringwall(s)shallbedesignedaspermanentwall(s).
8.17 References
AASHTO,2007, LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,AmericanAssociation ofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials,FourthEdition,Washington, D.C.,USA. Allen,T.M.,2005,Development of Geotechnical Resistance Factors and Downdrag Load Factors for LRFD Foundation Strength Limit State Design, PublicationNo.FHWA-NHI-05-052,FederalHighwayAdministration, Washington,DC,41pp. Allen,T.M.,2005b,Development of the WSDOT Pile Driving Formula and Its Calibration for Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD),WSDOT ResearchReportWA-RD610.1,Olympia,WA,45pp.
Page 8-54
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
Allen,T.M.,2007,DevelopmentofNewPile-DrivingFormulaandIts CalibrationforLoadandResistanceFactorDesign,Transportation Research Record 2004,TRB,NationalResearchCouncil,Washington,DC.,pp.20-27. Armour,T.,Groneck,T.,Keeley,J.,andSharma,S.,2000,MicropileDesign andConstructionGuidelinesImplementationManual,FHWA-SA-97-070, 376pp. Ashour,M.,andNorris,G.M.,1999,LiquefactionandUndrained ResponseEvaluationofSandsfromDrainedFormulation,,ASCE JournalofGeotechnicalandGeoenvironmentalEngineering,Vol.125,No.8, pp.649-658. Ashour,M.,andNorris,G.M.,2003,LateralLoadedPileResponsein LiquefiableSoil,ASCEJournalofGeotechnicalandGeoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.129,No.6,pp.404-414. Ashour,M.,Norris,G.M.,andPilling,P.,1998,LateralLoadingofaPilein layeredSoilUsingtheStrainWedgeModel,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,ASCE,Vol.124,No.4,pp.303-315. Ashour,M.,Norris,G.M.,andPilling,P.,2002,StrainWedgeModel CapabilityofAnalyzingBehaviorofLaterallyLoadedIsolatedPiles, DrilledShafts,andPileGroups,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.7,No.4,pp.245-254. Barker,R.M.,J.M.Duncan,K.B.Rojiani,P.S.K.Ooi,C.K.Tan,andS.G. Kim.1991.ManualsfortheDesignofBridgeFoundations.NCHRP Report 343.TRB,NationalResearchCouncil,Washington,DC. Broms,B.B.,1964a.LateralResistanceofPilesinCohesiveSoil.ASCE, JournalforSoilMechanicsandFoundationEngineering,Vol90,SM2,27 63. Broms,B.B.,1964b.LateralResistanceofPilesinCohesionlessSoil.ASCE, JournalforSoilMechanicsandFoundationEngineering,Vol90,SM3,123 156. Cheney,R.&Chassie,R.2000.Soilsand Foundations Workshop Reference Manual.Washington,DC,NationalHighwayInstitutePublicationNHI-00045,FederalHighwayAdministration. DiMillio,A.F.,1982.PerformanceofHighwayBridgeAbutmentsSupported bySpreadFootingsonCompactedFill,Report No. FHWA/RD-81/184, (NTISPB83-201822).(FHWAStaffStudy). Hannigan,P.J.,G.G.Goble,G.E.LikinsandF.Rausche,2006.Design andConstructionofDrivenPileFoundations-Vol.IandII,Federal HighwayAdministrationReportNo.FHWA-HI-05-042,FederalHighway Administration,Washington,D.C.,822pp.
M 46-03.01
Page 8-55
Foundation Design
Chapter 8
Hoek,E.,C.Carrazna-Torres,andB.Corkum,2002.Hoek-BrownFailure Criterion2002Edition,5th North American Rock Mechanics Symposium and 17th Tunneling Association of Canada Conference:NARMS-TAC, pp.267-271. Hough,B.K.1959.CompressibilityastheBasisforSoilBearingValue, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,ASCE,Vol.85, Part2. Ishihara,K.,andYoshimine,M.,1992.Evaluationofsettlementsinsand depositsfollowingliquefactionduringearthquakes.SoilsandFoundations, JSSMFE,Vol.32,No.1,March,pp.173-188. Kavazanjian,E.,Jr.,Matasovi,T.Hadj-HamouandSabatini,P.J.1997. GeotechnicalEngineeringCircularNo.3,DesignGuidance:Geotechnical EarthquakeEngineeringforHighways,Report No. FHWA-SA-97-076, FederalHighwayAdministration,Washington,D.C. Kimmerling,R.E.2002.GeotechnicalEngineeringCircular6.Report No. FHWA-SA-02-054,FederalHighwayAdministration,Washington,D.C. Kyfor,Z.G.,Schnore,A.R.,Carlo,T.A.,andBailey,P.F.,1992.Static TestingofDeepFoundations.ReportNo.FHWA-SA-91-042,U.S. DepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration,Officeof TechnologyApplications,WashingtonD.C.,174 Lam,I.P,andG.R.Martin.1986.SeismicDesignofHighwayBridge Foundations.Vol.2,Design Procedures and Guidelines.FHWA/RD86/102,FederalHighwayAdministration,U.S.DepartmentofTransportation, Washington,DC,p.18. Moulton,L.K.,H.V.S.GangaRao,andG.T.Halverson.1985.Tolerable MovementCriteriaforHighwayBridges.FHWA/RD-85/107.Federal HighwayAdministration,U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,Washington, DC,p.118. Munfakh,G.,Arman,A.,Collin,J.G.,Hung,J.C.-J.,andBrouillette,R.P. 2001.ShallowFoundationsReferenceManual,Publication No. FHWANHI-01-023,FederalHighwayAdministration,Washington,D.C. Norris,G.M.,1986,TheoreticallybasedBEFLaterallyLoadedPile Analysis:Proceedings,ThirdInternationalConferenceonNumericalMethods inOffshorePiling,Nantes,France,pp.361-386. Reese,L.C.1984.HandbookonDesignofPilesandDrilledShaftsUnder LateralLoad.FHWA-IP-84/11,FederalHighwayAdministration,U.S. DepartmentofTransportation,Washington,DC.
Page 8-56
Chapter 8
Foundation Design
Reese,L.C.,1986.BehaviorofPilesandPileGroupsUnderLateralLoad. ReportNo.FHWA/RD-85/106,U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,Federal HighwayAdministration,OfficeofEngineeringandHighwayOperations ResearchandDevelopment,WashingtonD.C.,311 Sabatini,P.J,Bachus,R.C,Mayne,P.W.,Schneider,J.A.,Zettler,T.E.(2002), GeotechnicalEngineeringCircular5(GEC5)-EvaluationofSoilandRock Properties.ReportNoFHWA-IF-02-034.FederalHighwayAdministration, U.S.DepartmentofTransportation. Seed,R.B.andHarder,L.F.Jr.,1990.SPT-BasedAnalysisofCyclicPore PressureGenerationandUndrainedResidualStrength.Proceedings,H.B. BoltonSeedMemorialSymposium,J.M.DuncanEditor,BiTechPublishers, Vol2,351-376 Tokimatsu,K.andBoltonSeed,B.1987.EvaluationofSettlementsinSands duetoEarthquakeShaking,JournalofGeotechnicalEngineering,ASCE,113, 8,861-878. Williams,M.E.,M.McVayandM.I.Hoit,2003.LRFDSubstructureand FoundationDesignPrograms,Proceedingsofthe2003InternationalBridge Conference,June9-11,Pittsburgh,Pa. WSDOT,2008,BridgeDesignManualLRFD,M23-50 WSDOT,2008,Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction,M41-01
M 46-03.01
Page 8-57
Foundation Design
Chapter 8
Page 8-58

Foundation Design - WA

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Foundation Design - WA

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Chapter 8

8.1 8.2 8.3 Overview

8.4 8.5 8.6

8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

8.14 8.15 8.16

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

8.2 Overall Design Process for Structure Foundations

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

GD provides conceptual foundation recommendations to BO

GD provides preliminary foundation design recommendations

Overall design process for LRFD foundation design.

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

8.3 Data Needed for Foundation Design

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

Driven Pile Foundations

chemical composition of soil/rock (e.g., potential corrosion issues)

Drilled Shaft Foundations

quality of rock socket lateral earth pressures

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

Application Shallow Foundations

Minimum Depth of Investigation

8.4 Foundation Selection Considerations

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

8.5 Overview of LRFD for Foundations

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

Parallel to Abutment Normal to Abutment

Transverse to Bridge Longitudinal to Bridge

Template for Foundation Site Data and Loading Direction Definitions

8.6 LRFD Loads, Load Groups and Limit States to be Considered

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

Strength Limit State Downdrag Load Factors

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

Soil Loads on Buried Structures Fortunnels,culvertsandpipearches,thesoilloadstobeusedfordesignshall beasspecifiedinSections3and12oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign Specifications.

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

Total Settlement at Pier or Abutment H 1 in 1 in < H 4 in

Settlement Criteria for Bridges

Total Settlement H 1 in 1 in < H 2.5 in

Total Settlement H 2 in 2 in < H 6 in

Settlement Criteria for Flexible Culverts

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

Chapter 8 Foundation Design

Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Page 8-20 2006 December

8.7 Resistance Factors for Foundation Design Design Parameters

8.8 Resistance Factors for Foundation Design Service Limit States

8.9 Resistance Factors for Foundation Design Strength Limit States

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

8.11 Spread Footing Design

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

1(GT).Determinedepthoffooting based on geometry and bearing material

2(ST).Determineloadsappliedto footing,includinglateralearthpressure loadsforabutments

2(GT).Determinedepthoffooting forscour,ifpresent(withhelpof HydraulicEngineer)

3(ST).Designthefootingatthe service limit state

3(GT).Determinesoilproperties forfoundationdesign,and resistance factors in consideration ofthesoilpropertyuncertaintyand themethodselectedforcalculating nominal resistance

4(ST).Checkthebearingpressureof the footing at the strength limit state

5(ST).Checktheeccentricityofthe footing at the strength limit state

4(GT).Determineactive,passive, andseismicearthpressure parameters as needed for abutments

6(ST).Checktheslidingresistanceof the footing at the strength limit state