Bridge-Design of Shallow Foundations

LRFD Design of Shallow Foundations
Nominal Geotechnical Resistances
ASD Failure Modes

Overall Stability Bearing Capacity Settlement Sliding Overturning
Nominal Geotechnical Resistances
LRFD Service Limit State

Overall Stability Vertical (Settlement) and Horizontal Movements Bearing Resistance Sliding Eccentricity Limits (Overturning)
LRFD Strength Limit State

Service Limit State

Global Stability
Stabilize
Destabilize
Global Stability Factor of Safety Method of Slices

+
WT
N tan f cl T WT
l
N a WT T
l
WT a
N
T
N tan f cl T
Resistance Factors
ASD Factors of Safety
Soil/Rock Parameters and Ground Water Conditions Based On: In-situ or Laboratory Tests and Measurements
Slope Supports Abutment or Other Structure? Yes No

1.5 1.3
No Site-specific Tests
1.8
1.5
LRFD
Stability Wrap-Up

Unfactored loads
Service Limit State

Footings supported in a slope f 0.65 (FS 1.5)
Applied stress must be limited

Stress criteria for stability can control footing design
Service Limit State Design Settlement

Cohesive Soils
Evaluate Using Consolidation Theory

Evaluate Using Empirical or Other Conventional Methods Hough Method
Cohesionless Soils

Impact on Structures
Settlement of Granular vs. Cohesive Soils
Relative importance of settlement components for different soil types

Elastic Primary Consolidation Secondary Settlement (Creep)
Settlement of Granular vs. Cohesive Soils
Structural effects of settlement components Include Transient Loads if Drained Loading is Expected and for Computing Initial Elastic Settlement Transient Loads May Be Omitted When Computing Consolidation Settlement of Cohesive Soils
Hough Method
Settlement of Cohesionless Soils
Stress Below Footing

Boussinesq Pressure Isobars
Nominal Bearing Resistance at Service Limit State

For a constant value of settlement Rn
Bf
Eccentricity of Footings on Soil
ML
P P
MB
eB = MB / P eL = M L / P
eL
B
Effective Dimensions for Footings on Soil

B = B 2eB L = L 2eL
ML
L
MB
eL
B
Applied Stress Beneath Effective Footing Area

L
ML
MB
eL
B
Stress Applied to Soil

Strip Footing
Footings on Rock
Trapezoidal Distribution
Footings on Rock
Triangular Distribution
Use of Eccentricity and Effective Footing Dimensions
Service Limit State
Nominal Bearing Resistance Limited by Settlement Nominal Bearing Resistance Limited by Bearing Resistance
Strength Limit State
Prevent Overturning
All Applicable Limit States
Strength Limit State Bearing Resistance
Strength Limit State Design Bearing Resistance

Footings on Soil
Evaluate Using Conventional Bearing Theory

Evaluate Using CSIR Rock Mass Rating Procedure
Footings on Rock
Bearing Resistance Mechanism

Ground Surface Df B>Df d e = C + s tan f Soil Shear Strength B 3 b 2 1 a b 2 3 d
sv = g Df
c
Pp
b I a
c Pp
Table 10.5.5.2.1-1 Resistance Factors for Geotechnical Resistance of Shallow Foundations at the Strength Limit State
METHOD/SOIL/CONDITION Theoretical method (Munfakh, et al. (2001), in clay Theoretical method (Munfakh, et al. (2001), in sand, using CPT Bearing Resistance b
RESISTANCE FACTOR
0.50
0.50 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.55 0.90 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.50
Theoretical method (Munfakh, et al. (2001), in sand, using SPT

Semi-empirical methods (Meyerhof), all soils Footings on rock Plate Load Test
Precast concrete placed on sand

Sliding ep Cast-in-Place Concrete on sand Cast-in-Place or precast Concrete on Clay Soil on soil Passive earth pressure component of sliding resistance
Footings on Rock
Service Limit State use published presumptive bearing Published values are allowable therefore settlement-limited Procedures for computing settlement are available
Footings on Rock
Strength Limit State
Very little guidance available for bearing resistance of rock Proposed Specification revisions provide for evaluating the cohesion and friction angle of rock using the CSIR Rock Mass Rating System
CSIR Rock Mass Rating System
CSIR Rock Mass Rating developed for tunnel design Includes life safety considerations and therefore, margin of safety Use of cohesion and friction angle therefore may be conservative
LRFD vs. ASD
All modes are expressly checked at a limit state in LRFD Eccentricity limits replace the overturning Factor of Safety
Width vs. Resistance - ASD

Bearing Pressure (kPa) Shear Failure controls
800 600 400 0 0.0
Settlement controls
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Footing width, B (m)

Allowable Bearing Capacity, FS = 3.0 Bearing Pressure for 25-mm (1in) settlement
Settlement vs. Bearing Resistance

12 10 N=30 8
qa, ksf
N=25 6 4 2 N=5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 N=20 N=15 N=10
B, ft
Width vs. Resistance - LRFD

Nominal Bearing Resistance (ksf)
35 25
15
5
12
16
20
Effective Footing width, B (m)

Strength Limit State Service Limit State
Recommended Practice
For LRFD design of footings on soil and rock;

Size footings at the Service Limit State Check footing at all other applicable Limit States
Settlement typically controls!
Summary Comparison of ASD and LRFD for Spread Footings
Same geotechnical theory used to compute resistances, however As per Limit State concepts, presentation of design recommendations needs to be modified
Strength Limit State Resistance Factors

METHOD/SOIL/CONDITION Bearing Resistance f All methods, soil and rock Plate Load Test Sliding f Precast concrete placed on sand Cast-in-Place Concrete on sand Clay Soil on soil fep Passive earth pressure component of sliding resistance RESISTANCE FACTOR 0.45 0.55
0.90
0.80 0.85 0.90 0.50

Bridge-Design of Shallow Foundations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bridge-Design of Shallow Foundations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bridge-Design of Shallow Foundations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LRFD Design of Shallow Foundations

Nominal Geotechnical Resistances

ASD Failure Modes

Overall Stability Bearing Capacity Settlement Sliding Overturning

Nominal Geotechnical Resistances

LRFD Service Limit State

LRFD Strength Limit State

Service Limit State

Global Stability Factor of Safety Method of Slices

Slope Supports Abutment or Other Structure? Yes No

Service Limit State

Applied stress must be limited

Stress criteria for stability can control footing design

Service Limit State Design Settlement

Evaluate Using Consolidation Theory

Settlement of Granular vs. Cohesive Soils

Relative importance of settlement components for different soil types

Elastic Primary Consolidation Secondary Settlement (Creep)

Settlement of Granular vs. Cohesive Soils

Stress Below Footing

Nominal Bearing Resistance at Service Limit State

Eccentricity of Footings on Soil

Effective Dimensions for Footings on Soil

Applied Stress Beneath Effective Footing Area

Stress Applied to Soil

Use of Eccentricity and Effective Footing Dimensions

Service Limit State

Strength Limit State

All Applicable Limit States

Strength Limit State Bearing Resistance

Strength Limit State Design Bearing Resistance

Evaluate Using Conventional Bearing Theory

Bearing Resistance Mechanism

Theoretical method (Munfakh, et al. (2001), in sand, using SPT

Precast concrete placed on sand

CSIR Rock Mass Rating System

LRFD vs. ASD

Width vs. Resistance - ASD

Footing width, B (m)

Settlement vs. Bearing Resistance

N=25 6 4 2 N=5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 N=20 N=15 N=10

Width vs. Resistance - LRFD

Effective Footing width, B (m)

For LRFD design of footings on soil and rock;

Settlement typically controls!

Summary Comparison of ASD and LRFD for Spread Footings

Strength Limit State Resistance Factors

You might also like