Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
6000
2 2 ( ) -
b
t F
y
1600
2 1 ( ) -
14 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 2.7.4.1
FIGURE 2.7.4B (Continued)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
(c) The D/t ratio of webs shall not exceed
(d) If subject to combined axial force and bending, the
D/t ratio of webs shall not exceed
but need not be less than
(e) the distance between lateral supports in inches of
Wor I sections shall not exceed
or
20 000 000
2
, ,
( )
A
dF
f
y
- 7
2 400
2 6
,
( )
b
F
y
-
D
t F
y
<
7 000
2 5
,
( ) -
D
t
f
F
F
a
a
y
<
_
,
1
]
1
1
13 300 1 1 43
2 4
, .
( ) -
D
t F
y
13 000
2 3
,
( ) -
2.7.4.3 DIVISION IDESIGN 15
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
Section 3
LOADS
Part A
TYPES OF LOADS
3.1 NOTATIONS
A maximum expected acceleration of bedrock at the site
a length of short span of slab (Article 3.24.6)
B buoyancy (Article 3.22)
b width of pier or diameter of pile (Article 3.18.2.2.4)
b length of long span of slab (Article 3.24.6)
C combined response coefficient
C stiffness parameter K(W/L) (Article 3.23.4.3)
C centrifugal force in percent of live load (Article 3.10.1)
CF centrifugal force (Article 3.22)
C
n
coefficient for nose inclination (Article 3.18.2.2.1)
C
M
steel bending stress coefficient (Article 3.25.1.5)
C
R
steel shear stress coefficient (Article 3.25.1.5)
D parameter used in determination of load fraction of wheel load (Article 3.23.4.3)
D degree of curve (Article 3.10.1)
D dead load (Article 3.22)
D.F. fraction of wheel load applied to beam (Article 3.28.1)
DL contributing dead load
E width of slab over which a wheel load is distributed (Article 3.24.3)
E earth pressure (Article 3.22)
EQ equivalent static horizontal force applied at the center of gravity of the structure
E
c
modulus of elasticity of concrete (Article 3.26.3)
E
s
modulus of elasticity of steel (Article 3.26.3)
E
w
modulus of elasticity of wood (Article 3.26.3)
F horizontal ice force on pier (Article 3.18.2.2.1)
F
b
allowable bending stress (Article 3.25.1.3)
F
v
allowable shear stress (Article 3.25.1.3)
g 32.2 ft./sec.
2
I impact fraction (Article 3.8.2)
I gross exural moment of inertia of the precast member (Article 3.23.4.3)
ICE ice pressure (Article 3.22)
J gross Saint-Venant torsional constant of the precast member (Article 3.23.4.3)
K stream ow force constant (Article 3.18.1)
K stiffness constant (Article 3.23.4)
K wheel load distribution constant for timber ooring (Article 3.25.1.3)
k live load distribution constant for spread box girders (Article 3.28.1)
L loaded length of span (Article 3.8.2)
L loaded length of sidewalk (Article 3.14.1.1)
17
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
L live load (Article 3.22)
L span length (Article 3.23.4)
LF longitudinal force from live load (Article 3.22)
M
D
moment capacity of dowel (Article 3.25.1.4)
M
x
primary bending moment (Article 3.25.1.3)
M
y
total transferred secondary moment (Article 3.25.1.4)
N
B
number of beams (Article 3.28.1)
N
L
number of traffic lanes (Article 3.23.4)
n number of dowels (Article 3.25.1.4)
P live load on sidewalk (Article 3.14.1.1)
P stream ow pressure (Article 3.18.1)
P total uniform force required to cause unit horizontal deection of whole structure
P load on one rear wheel of truck (Article 3.24.3)
P wheel load (Article 3.24.5)
P design wheel load (Article 3.25.1.3)
P
15
12,000 pounds (Article 3.24.3)
P
20
16,000 pounds (Article 3.24.3)
p effective ice strength (Article 3.18.2.2.1)
p proportion of load carried by short span (Article 3.24.6.1)
R radius of curve (Article 3.10.1)
R normalized rock response
R rib shortening (Article 3.22)
R
D
shear capacity of dowel (Article 3.25.1.4)
R
x
primary shear (Article 3.25.1.3)
R
y
total secondary shear transferred (Article 3.25.1.4)
S design speed (Article 3.10.1)
S soil amplication spectral ratio
S shrinkage (Article 3.22)
S average stringer spacing (Article 3.23.2.3.1)
S spacing of beams (Article 3.23.3)
S width of precast member (Article 3.23.4.3)
S effective span length (Article 3.24.1)
S span length (Article 3.24.8.2)
S beam spacing (Article 3.28.1)
s effective deck span (Article 3.25.1.3)
SF stream ow (Article 3.22)
T period of vibration
T temperature (Article 3.22)
t thickness of ice (Article 3.18.2.2.4)
t deck thickness (Article 3.25.1.3)
V variable spacing of truck axles (Figure 3.7.7A)
V velocity of water (Article 3.18.1)
W combined weight on the rst two axles of a standard HS Truck (Figure 3.7.7A)
W width of sidewalk (Article 3.14.1.1)
W wind load on structure (Article 3.22)
W total dead weight of the structure
W
e
width of exterior girder (Article 3.23.2.3.2)
W overall width of bridge (Article 3.23.4.3)
W roadway width between curbs (Article 3.28.1)
WL wind load on live load (Article 3.22)
w width of pier or diameter of circular-shaft pier at the level of ice action (Article 3.18.2.2.1)
X distance from load to point of support (Article 3.24.5.1)
x subscript denoting direction perpendicular to longitudinal stringers (Article 3.25.1.3)
18 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 3.1
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
3.2 GENERAL
3.2.1 Structures shall be designed to carry the following
loads and forces:
Dead load.
Live load.
Impact or dynamic effect of the live load.
Wind loads.
Other forces, when they exist, as follows:
Longitudinal forces; centrifugal force; thermal forces;
earth pressure; buoyancy; shrinkage stresses; rib short-
ening; erection stresses; ice and current pressure; and
earthquake stresses.
Provision shall be made for the transfer of forces be-
tween the superstructure and substructure to reect the ef-
fect of friction at expansion bearings or shear resistance at
elastomeric bearings.
3.2.2 Members shall be proportioned either with refer-
ence to service loads and allowable stresses as provided
in Service Load Design (Allowable Stress Design) or, al-
ternatively, with reference to load factors and factored
strength as provided in Strength Design (Load Factor De-
sign).
3.2.3 When stress sheets are required, a diagram or no-
tation of the assumed loads shall be shown and the
stresses due to the various loads shall be shown separately.
3.2.4 Where required by design conditions, the concrete
placing sequence shall be indicated on the plans or in the
special provisions.
3.2.5 The loading combinations shall be in accordance
with Article 3.22.
3.2.6 When a bridge is skewed, the loads and forces car-
ried by the bridge through the deck system to pin connec-
tions and hangers should be resolved into vertical, lateral,
and longitudinal force components to be considered in the
design.
3.3 DEAD LOAD
3.3.1 The dead load shall consist of the weight of the
entire structure, including the roadway, sidewalks, car
tracks, pipes, conduits, cables, and other public utility
services.
3.3.2 The snow and ice load is considered to be offset
by an accompanying decrease in live load and impact and
shall not be included except under special conditions.
3.3.2.1 If differential settlement is anticipated in a
structure, consideration should be given to stresses result-
ing from this settlement.
3.3.3 If a separate wearing surface is to be placed when
the bridge is constructed, or is expected to be placed in the
future, adequate allowance shall be made for its weight in
the design dead load. Otherwise, provision for a future
wearing surface is not required.
3.3.4 Special consideration shall be given to the neces-
sity for a separate wearing surface for those regions where
the use of chains on tires or studded snow tires can be
anticipated.
3.1 DIVISION IDESIGN 19
Z reduction for ductility and risk assessment
(with appropriate script) coefficient applied to actual loads for service load and load factor designs (Article 3.22)
load factor (Article 3.22)
PL
proportional limit stress perpendicular to grain (Article 3.25.1.4)
B
load combination coefficient for buoyancy (Article 3.22.1)
C
load combination coefficient for centrifugal force (Article 3.22.1)
D
load combination coefficient for dead load (Article 3.22.1)
E
load combination coefficient for earth pressure (Article 3.22.1)
EQ
load combination coefficient for earthquake (Article 3.22.1)
ICE
load combination coefficient for ice (Article 3.22.1)
L
load combination coefficient for live load (Article 3.22.1)
R
load combination coefficient for rib shortening, shrinkage, and temperature (Article 3.22.1)
S
load combination coefficient for stream ow (Article 3.22.1)
W
load combination coefficient for wind (Article 3.22.1)
WL
load combination coefficient for wind on live load (Article 3.22.1)
Poissons ratio (Article 3.23.4.3)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
3.3.5 Where the abrasion of concrete is not expected,
the traffic may bear directly on the concrete slab. If con-
sidered desirable,
1
4 inch or more may be added to the
slab for a wearing surface.
3.3.6 The following weights are to be used in comput-
ing the dead load:
#/cu.ft.
Steel or cast steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490
Cast iron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
Aluminum alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Timber (treated or untreated) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Concrete, plain or reinforced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Compacted sand, earth, gravel, or ballast . . . . . 120
Loose sand, earth, and gravel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Macadam or gravel, rolled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Cinder lling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Pavement, other than wood block . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Railway rails, guardrails, and fastenings
(per linear foot of track) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Stone masonry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Asphalt plank, 1 in. thick . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 lb. sq. ft.
3.4 LIVE LOAD
The live load shall consist of the weight of the applied
moving load of vehicles, cars, and pedestrians.
3.5 OVERLOAD PROVISIONS
3.5.1 For all loadings less than H 20, provision shall be
made for an infrequent heavy load by applying Loading
Combination IA (see Article 3.22), with the live load as-
sumed to be H or HS truck and to occupy a single lane
without concurrent loading in any other lane. The over-
load shall apply to all parts of the structure affected, ex-
cept the roadway deck, or roadway deck plates and stiff-
ening ribs in the case of orthotropic bridge super-
structures.
3.5.2 Structures may be analyzed for an overload that is
selected by the operating agency in accordance with
Loading Combination Group IB in Article 3.22.
3.6 TRAFFIC LANES
3.6.1 The lane loading or standard truck shall be as-
sumed to occupy a width of 10 feet.
3.6.2 These loads shall be placed in 12-foot wide design
traffic lanes, spaced across the entire bridge roadway
width measured between curbs.
3.6.3 Fractional parts of design lanes shall not be used,
but roadway widths from 20 to 24 feet shall have two de-
sign lanes each equal to one-half the roadway width.
3.6.4 The traffic lanes shall be placed in such numbers
and positions on the roadway, and the loads shall be
placed in such positions within their individual traffic
lanes, so as to produce the maximum stress in the mem-
ber under consideration.
3.7 HIGHWAY LOADS
3.7.1 Standard Truck and Lane Loads*
3.7.1.1 The highway live loadings on the roadways
of bridges or incidental structures shall consist of standard
trucks or lane loads that are equivalent to truck trains. Two
systems of loading are provided, the H loadings and the
HS loadingsthe HS loadings being heavier than the cor-
responding H loadings.
3.7.1.2 Each lane load shall consist of a uniform load
per linear foot of traffic lane combined with a single con-
centrated load (or two concentrated loads in the case of
continuous spanssee Article 3.11.3), so placed on the
span as to produce maximum stress. The concentrated
load and uniform load shall be considered as uniformly
distributed over a 10-foot width on a line normal to the
center line of the lane.
3.7.1.3 For the computation of moments and shears,
different concentrated loads shall be used as indicated in
Figure 3.7.6B. The lighter concentrated loads shall be
used when the stresses are primarily bending stresses, and
the heavier concentrated loads shall be used when the
stresses are primarily shearing stresses.
20 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 3.3.5
*Note: The system of lane loads dened here (and illustrated in Figure
3.7.6.B) was developed in order to give a simpler method of calculating
moments and shears than that based on wheel loads of the truck.
Appendix B shows the truck train loadings of the 1935 Specications
of AASHO and the corresponding lane loadings.
In 1944, the HS series of trucks was developed. These approximate the
effect of the corresponding 1935 truck preceded and followed by a train
of trucks weighing three-fourths as much as the basic truck.
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
3.7.2 Classes of Loading
There are four standard classes of highway loading:
H 20, H 15, HS 20, and HS 15. Loading H 15 is 75% of
Loading H 20. Loading HS 15 is 75% of Loading HS 20.
If loadings other than those designated are desired, they
shall be obtained by proportionately changing the weights
shown for both the standard truck and the corresponding
lane loads.
3.7.3 Designation of Loadings
The policy of affixing the year to loadings to identify
them was instituted with the publication of the 1944 Edi-
tion in the following manner:
H 15 Loading, 1944 Edition shall be
designated................................................. H 15-44
H 20 Loading, 1944 Edition shall be
designated................................................. H 20-44
H 15-S 12 Loading, 1944 Edition shall be
designated................................................. HS 15-44
H 20-S 16 Loading, 1944 Edition shall be
designated................................................. HS 20-44
The affix shall remain unchanged until such time as the
loading specication is revised. The same policy for iden-
tication shall be applied, for future reference, to loadings
previously adopted by AASHTO.
3.7.4 Minimum Loading
Bridges supporting Interstate highways or other high-
ways which carry, or which may carry, heavy truck traf-
c, shall be designed for HS 20-44 Loading or an Alter-
nate Military Loading of two axles four feet apart with
each axle weighing 24,000 pounds, whichever produces
the greatest stress.
3.7.5 H Loading
The H loadings consist of a two-axle truck or the cor-
responding lane loading as illustrated in Figures 3.7.6A
and 3.7.6B. The H loadings are designated H followed by
a number indicating the gross weight in tons of the stan-
dard truck.
3.7.6 HS Loading
The HS loadings consist of a tractor truck with semi-
trailer or the corresponding lane load as illustrated in Fig-
ures 3.7.7A and 3.7.6B. The HS loadings are designated
by the letters HS followed by a number indicating the
gross weight in tons of the tractor truck. The variable axle
spacing has been introduced in order that the spacing of
axles may approximate more closely the tractor trailers
now in use. The variable spacing also provides a more sat-
isfactory loading for continuous spans, in that heavy axle
loads may be so placed on adjoining spans as to produce
maximum negative moments.
3.8 IMPACT
3.8.1 Application
Highway Live Loads shall be increased for those struc-
tural elements in Group A, below, to allow for dynamic,
vibratory and impact effects. Impact allowances shall not
be applied to items in Group B. It is intended that impact
be included as part of the loads transferred from super-
structure to substructure, but shall not be included in loads
transferred to footings nor to those parts of piles or
columns that are below ground.
3.8.1.1 Group AImpact shall be included.
(1) Superstructure, including legs of rigid frames.
(2) Piers, (with or without bearings regardless of type)
excluding footings and those portions below the
ground line.
(3) The portions above the ground line of concrete or
steel piles that support the superstructure.
3.8.1.2 Group BImpact shall not be included.
(1) Abutments, retaining walls, piles except as speci-
ed in Article 3.8.1.1 (3).
(2) Foundation pressures and footings.
(3) Timber structures.
(4) Sidewalk loads.
(5) Culverts and structures having 3 feet or more
cover.
3.8.2 Impact Formula
3.8.2.1 The amount of the impact allowance or in-
crement is expressed as a fraction of the live load stress,
and shall be determined by the formula:
in which,
I impact fraction (maximum 30 percent);
I
L
+
50
125
1 ( ) 3-
3.7.2 DIVISION IDESIGN 21
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
22 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 3.8.2.1
FIGURE 3.7.6A Standard H Trucks
*In the design of timber oors and orthotropic steel decks (excluding transverse beams) for H 20 Loading, one
axle load of 24,000 pounds or two axle loads of 16,000 pounds each spaced 4 feet apart may be used, whichever
produces the greater stress, instead of the 32,000-pound axle shown.
**For slab design, the center line of wheels shall be assumed to be 1 foot from face of curb. (See Article 3.24.2.)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
L length in feet of the portion of the span that is
loaded to produce the maximum stress in the
member.
3.8.2.2 For uniformity of application, in this formula,
the loaded length, L, shall be as follows:
(a) For roadway oors: the design span length.
(b) For transverse members, such as oor beams: the
span length of member center to center of supports.
(c) For computing truck load moments: the span
length, or for cantilever arms the length from the mo-
ment center to the farthermost axle.
(d) For shear due to truck loads: the length of the
loaded portion of span from the point under consider-
ation to the far reaction; except, for cantilever arms,
use a 30% impact factor.
(e) For continuous spans: the length of span under
consideration for positive moment, and the average of
two adjacent loaded spans for negative moment.
3.8.2.3 For culverts with cover
00 to 1-0 inc. I 30%
1-1 to 2-0 inc. I 20%
2-1 to 2-11 inc. I 10%
3.9 LONGITUDINAL FORCES
Provision shall be made for the effect of a longitudinal
force of 5% of the live load in all lanes carrying traffic
headed in the same direction. All lanes shall be loaded for
bridges likely to become one directional in the future. The
load used, without impact, shall be the lane load plus the
concentrated load for moment specied in Article 3.7,
with reduction for multiple-loaded lanes as specied in
Article 3.12. The center of gravity of the longitudinal
force shall be assumed to be located 6 feet above the oor
slab and to be transmitted to the substructure through the
superstructure.
3.8.2.1 DIVISION IDESIGN 23
FIGURE 3.7.6B Lane Loading
*For the loading of continuous spans involving lane loading refer to Article 3.11.3 which provides for an
additional concentrated load.
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
24 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 3.9
FIGURE 3.7.7A Standard HS Trucks
*In the design of timber oors and orthotropic steel decks (excluding transverse beams) for H 20 Loading, one
axle load of 24,000 pounds or two axle loads of 16,000 pounds each, spaced 4 feet apart may be used, whichever
produces the greater stress, instead of the 32,000-pound axle shown.
**For slab design, the center line of wheels shall be assumed to be 1 foot from face of curb. (See Article 3.24.2.)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
3.10 CENTRIFUGAL FORCES
3.10.1 Structures on curves shall be designed for a hor-
izontal radial force equal to the following percentage of
the live load, without impact, in all traffic lanes:
where,
C the centrifugal force in percent of the live load,
without impact;
S the design speed in miles per hour;
D the degree of curve;
R the radius of the curve in feet.
3.10.2 The effects of superelevation shall be taken into
account.
3.10.3 The centrifugal force shall be applied 6 feet
above the roadway surface, measured along the center line
of the roadway. The design speed shall be determined with
regard to the amount of superelevation provided in the
roadway. The traffic lanes shall be loaded in accordance
with the provisions of Article 3.7 with one standard truck
on each design traffic lane placed in position for maxi-
mum loading.
3.10.4 Lane loads shall not be used in the computation
of centrifugal forces.
3.10.5 When a reinforced concrete oor slab or a steel
grid deck is keyed to or attached to its supporting mem-
bers, it may be assumed that the deck resists, within its
plane, the shear resulting from the centrifugal forces act-
ing on the live load.
3.11 APPLICATION OF LIVE LOAD
3.11.1 Traffic Lane Units
In computing stresses, each 10-foot lane load or single
standard truck shall be considered as a unit, and fractions
of load lane widths or trucks shall not be used.
3.11.2 Number and Position of Traffic Lane Units
The number and position of the lane load or truck loads
shall be as specied in Article 3.7 and, whether lane or
truck loads, shall be such as to produce maximum stress,
subject to the reduction specied in Article 3.12.
3.11.3 Lane Loads on Continuous Spans
For the determination of maximum negative moment
in the design of continuous spans, the lane load shown in
Figure 3.7.6B shall be modied by the addition of a sec-
ond, equal weight concentrated load placed in one other
span in the series in such position to produce the maxi-
mum effect. For maximum positive moment, only one
concentrated load shall be used per lane, combined with
as many spans loaded uniformly as are required to pro-
duce maximum moment.
3.11.4 Loading for Maximum Stress
3.11.4.1 On both simple and continuous spans, the
type of loading, whether lane load or truck load, to be
used shall be the loading which produces the maximum
stress. The moment and shear tables given in Appendix
A show which types of loading controls for simple
spans.
3.11.4.2 For continuous spans, the lane loading shall
be continuous or discontinuous; only one standard H or
HS truck per lane shall be considered on the structure.
3.12 REDUCTION IN LOAD INTENSITY
3.12.1 Where maximum stresses are produced in any
member by loading a number of traffic lanes simultane-
ously, the following percentages of the live loads may be
used in view of the improbability of coincident maximum
loading:
Percent
One or two lanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100
Three lanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Four lanes or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.12.2 The reduction in load intensity specied in Arti-
cle 3.12.1 shall not be applicable when distribution factors
from Table 3.23.1 are used to determine moments in lon-
gitudinal beams.
3.12.3 The reduction in intensity of loads on transverse
members such as floor beams shall be determined as
in the case of main trusses or girders, using the number
of traffic lanes across the width of roadway that must
be loaded to produce maximum stresses in the floor
beam.
C S D
S
R
0 00117
6 68
3 2
2
2
.
.
( ) -
3.10 DIVISION IDESIGN 25
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
3.13 ELECTRIC RAILWAY LOADS
If highway bridges carry electric railway traffic, the
railway loads shall be determined from the class of traffic
which the bridge may be expected to carry. The possibil-
ity that the bridge may be required to carry railroad freight
cars shall be given consideration.
3.14 SIDEWALK, CURB, AND RAILING
LOADING
3.14.1 Sidewalk Loading
3.14.1.1 Sidewalk oors, stringers, and their imme-
diate supports shall be designed for a live load of 85
pounds per square foot of sidewalk area. Girders, trusses,
arches, and other members shall be designed for the fol-
lowing sidewalk live loads:
Spans 0 to 25 feet in length . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 lb./ft.
2
Spans 26 to 100 feet in length . . . . . . . . . . .60 lb./ft.
2
Spans over 100 feet in length according to the formula
in which
P live load per square foot, max. 60-lb. per sq. ft.
L loaded length of sidewalk in feet.
W width of sidewalk in feet.
3.14.1.2 In calculating stresses in structures that sup-
port cantilevered sidewalks, the sidewalk shall be fully
loaded on only one side of the structure if this condition
produces maximum stress.
3.14.1.3 Bridges for pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic
shall be designed for a live load of 85 PSF.
3.14.1.4 Where bicycle or pedestrian bridges are ex-
pected to be used by maintenance vehicles, special design
consideration should be made for these loads.
3.14.2 Curb Loading
3.14.2.1 Curbs shall be designed to resist a lateral
force of not less than 500 pounds per linear foot of curb,
applied at the top of the curb, or at an elevation 10 inches
above the oor if the curb is higher than 10 inches.
3.14.2.2 Where sidewalk, curb, and traffic rail form
an integral system, the traffic railing loading shall be ap-
plied and stresses in curbs computed accordingly.
3.14.3 Railing Loading
For Railing Loads, see Article 2.7.1.3.
3.15 WIND LOADS
The wind load shall consist of moving uniformly dis-
tributed loads applied to the exposed area of the structure.
The exposed area shall be the sum of the areas of all mem-
bers, including oor system and railing, as seen in eleva-
tion at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the structure.
The forces and loads given herein are for a base wind ve-
locity of 100 miles per hour. For Group II and Group V
loadings, but not for Group III and Group VI loadings,
they may be reduced or increased in the ratio of the square
of the design wind velocity to the square of the base wind
velocity provided that the maximum probable wind ve-
locity can be ascertained with reasonable accuracy, or
provided that there are permanent features of the terrain
which make such changes safe and advisable. If a change
in the design wind velocity is made, the design wind ve-
locity shall be shown on the plans.
3.15.1 Superstructure Design
3.15.1.1 Group II and Group V Loadings
3.15.1.1.1 A wind load of the following intensity
shall be applied horizontally at right angles to the longi-
tudinal axis of the structure:
For trusses and arches ........75 pounds per square foot
For girders and beams ........50 pounds per square foot
3.15.1.1.2 The total force shall not be less than 300
pounds per linear foot in the plane of the windward chord
and 150 pounds per linear foot in the plane of the leeward
chord on truss spans, and not less than 300 pounds per lin-
ear foot on girder spans.
3.15.1.2 Group III and Group VI Loadings
Group III and Group VI loadings shall comprise the
loads used for Group II and Group Vloadings reduced by
70% and a load of 100 pounds per linear foot applied at
right angles to the longitudinal axis of the structure and
6 feet above the deck as a wind load on a moving live load.
P
L
W
+
_
,
_
,
30
3 000 55
50
3 3
,
( ) -
26 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 3.13
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
3.15.1.2 DIVISION IDESIGN 27
When a reinforced concrete floor slab or a steel grid
deck is keyed to or attached to its supporting members,
it may be assumed that the deck resists, within its plane,
the shear resulting from the wind load on the moving
live load.
3.15.2 Substructure Design
Forces transmitted to the substructure by the super-
structure and forces applied directly to the substructure by
wind loads shall be as follows:
3.15.2.1 Forces from Superstructure
3.15.2.1.1 The transverse and longitudinal forces
transmitted by the superstructure to the substructure for
various angles of wind direction shall be as set forth in the
following table. The skew angle is measured from the per-
pendicular to the longitudinal axis and the assumed wind
direction shall be that which produces the maximum
stress in the substructure. The transverse and longitudinal
forces shall be applied simultaneously at the elevation of
the center of gravity of the exposed area of the super-
structure.
The loads listed above shall be used in Group II and
Group V loadings as given in Article 3.22.
3.15.2.1.2 For Group III and Group VI loadings,
these loads may be reduced by 70% and a load per linear
foot added as a wind load on a moving live load, as given
in the following table:
This load shall be applied at a point 6 feet above the
deck.
3.15.2.1.3 For the usual girder and slab bridges hav-
ing maximum span lengths of 125 feet, the following
wind loading may be used in lieu of the more precise load-
ing specied above:
W (wind load on structure)
50 pounds per square foot, transverse
12 pounds per square foot, longitudinal
Both forces shall be applied simultaneously.
WL (wind load on live load)
100 pounds per linear foot, transverse
40 pounds per linear foot, longitudinal
Both forces shall be applied simultaneously.
3.15.2.2 Forces Applied Directly
to the Substructure
The transverse and longitudinal forces to be applied di-
rectly to the substructure for a 100-mile per hour wind
shall be calculated from an assumed wind force of 40
pounds per square foot. For wind directions assumed
skewed to the substructure, this force shall be resolved
into components perpendicular to the end and front ele-
vations of the substructure. The component perpendicular
to the end elevation shall act on the exposed substructure
area as seen in end elevation and the component perpen-
dicular to the front elevation shall act on the exposed areas
and shall be applied simultaneously with the wind loads
from the superstructure. The above loads are for Group II
and Group V loadings and may be reduced by 70%
for Group III and Group VI loadings, as indicated in Arti-
cle 3.22.
3.15.3 Overturning Forces
The effect of forces tending to overturn structures
shall be calculated under Groups II, III, V, and VI of
Article 3.22 assuming that the wind direction is at right
angles to the longitudinal axis of the structure. In addition,
an upward force shall be applied at the windward quarter
point of the transverse superstructure width. This force
shall be 20 pounds per square foot of deck and sidewalk
plan area for Group II and Group V combinations and
6 pounds per square foot for Group III and Group VI
combinations.
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
3.16 THERMAL FORCES
Provision shall be made for stresses or movements re-
sulting from variations in temperature. The rise and fall in
temperature shall be xed for the locality in which the
structure is to be constructed and shall be computed from
an assumed temperature at the time of erection. Due con-
sideration shall be given to the lag between air tempera-
ture and the interior temperature of massive concrete
members or structures.
The range of temperature shall generally be as follows:
3.17 UPLIFT
3.17.1 Provision shall be made for adequate attachment
of the superstructure to the substructure by ensuring that
the calculated uplift at any support is resisted by tension
members engaging a mass of masonry equal to the largest
force obtained under one of the following conditions:
(a) 100% of the calculated uplift caused by any load-
ing or combination of loadings in which the live plus
impact loading is increased by 100%.
(b) 150% of the calculated uplift at working load
level.
3.17.2 Anchor bolts subject to tension or other elements
of the structure stressed under the above conditions shall
be designed at 150% of the allowable basic stress.
3.18 FORCES FROM STREAM CURRENT AND
FLOATING ICE, AND DRIFT CONDITIONS
All piers and other portions of structures that are sub-
ject to the force of owing water, oating ice, or drift shall
be designed to resist the maximum stresses induced
thereby.
3.18.1 Force of Stream Current on Piers
3.18.1.1 Stream Pressure
3.18.1.1.1 The effect of owing water on piers and
drift build-up, assuming a second-degree parabolic veloc-
ity distribution and thus a triangular pressure distribution,
shall be calculated by the formula:
P
avg
K(V
avg
)
2
(3-4)
where,
P
avg
average stream pressure, in pounds per square
foot,
V
avg
average velocity of water in feet per second,
computed by dividing the ow rate by the ow
area,
K a constant, being 1.4 for all piers subjected to
drift build-up and square-ended piers, 0.7 for
circular piers, and 0.5 for angle-ended piers
where the angle is 30 degrees or less.
The maximum stream ow pressure, P
max
, shall be
equal to twice the average stream ow pressure, P
avg
, com-
puted by Equation 3-4. Stream ow pressure shall be a tri-
angular distribution with P
max
located at the top of water
elevation and a zero pressure located at the ow line.
3.18.1.1.2 The stream ow forces shall be computed
by the product of the stream ow pressure, taking into ac-
count the pressure distribution, and the exposed pier area.
In cases where the corresponding top of water elevation is
above the low beam elevation, stream ow loading on the
superstructure shall be investigated. The stream ow pres-
sure acting on the superstructure may be taken as P
max
with
a uniform distribution.
3.18.1.2 Pressure Components
When the direction of stream ow is other than normal
to the exposed surface area, or when bank migration or a
change of stream bed meander is anticipated, the effects
of the directional components of stream ow pressure
shall be investigated.
3.18.1.3 Drift Lodged Against Pier
Where a signicant amount of drift lodged against a
pier is anticipated, the effects of this drift buildup shall be
considered in the design of the bridge opening and the
bridge components. The overall dimensions of the drift
buildup shall reect the selected pier locations, site con-
ditions, and known drift supply upstream. When it is an-
ticipated that the ow area will be signicantly blocked
by drift buildup, increases in high water elevations,
stream velocities, stream ow pressures, and the potential
increases in scour depths shall be investigated.
28 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 3.16
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
3.18.2 Force of Ice on Piers
3.18.2.1 General
Ice forces on piers shall be selected, having regard
to site conditions and the mode of ice action to be ex-
pected. Consideration shall be given to the following
modes:
(a) Dynamic ice pressure due to moving ice-sheets
and ice-oes carried by streamow, wind, or currents.
(b) Static ice pressure due to thermal movements of
continuous stationary ice-sheets on large bodies of
water.
(c) Static pressure resulting from ice-jams.
(d) Static uplift or vertical loads resulting from adher-
ing ice in waters of uctuating level.
3.18.2.2 Dynamic Ice Force
3.18.2.2.1 Horizontal forces resulting from the pres-
sure of moving ice shall be calculated by the formula:
F C
n
p t w (3-5)
where,
F horizontal ice force on pier in pounds;
C
n
coefficient for nose inclination from table;
p effective ice strength in pounds per square inch;
t thickness of ice in contact with pier in inches;
w width of pier or diameter of circular-shaft pier at
the level of ice action in inches.
Inclination of Nose to vertical C
n
0 to 15 1.00
15 to 30 0.75
30 to 45 0.50
3.18.2.2.2 The effective ice strength p shall normally
be taken in the range of 100 to 400 pounds per square inch
on the assumption that crushing or splitting of the ice
takes place on contact with the pier. The value used shall
be based on an assessment of the probable condition of the
ice at time of movement, on previous local experience,
and on assessment of existing structure performance. Rel-
evant ice conditions include the expected temperature of
the ice at time of movement, the size of moving sheets and
oes, and the velocity at contact. Due consideration shall
be given to the probability of extreme rather than average
conditions at the site in question.
3.18.2.2.3 The following values of effective ice
strength appropriate to various situations may be used as
a guide.
(a) In the order of 100 psi where breakup occurs
at melting temperatures and where the ice runs as
small cakes and is substantially disintegrated in its
structure.
(b) In the order of 200 psi where breakup occurs at
melting temperatures, but the ice moves in large pieces
and is internally sound.
(c) In the order of 300 psi where at breakup there is an
initial movement of the ice sheet as a whole or where
large sheets of sound ice may strike the piers.
(d) In the order of 400 psi where breakup or major ice
movement may occur with ice temperatures signi-
cantly below the melting point.
3.18.2.2.4 The preceding values for effective ice
strength are intended for use with piers of substantial mass
and dimensions. The values shall be modied as neces-
sary for variations in pier width or pile diameter, and de-
sign ice thickness by multiplying by the appropriate coef-
cient obtained from the following table:
3.18.2.2.5 Piers should be placed with their longitu-
dinal axis parallel to the principal direction of ice action.
The force calculated by the formula shall then be taken to
act along the direction of the longitudinal axis. A force
transverse to the longitudinal axis and amounting to not
less than 15% of the longitudinal force shall be considered
to act simultaneously.
3.18.2.2.6 Where the longitudinal axis of a pier can-
not be placed parallel to the principal direction of ice ac-
tion, or where the direction of ice action may shift, the
total force on the pier shall be computed by the formula
and resolved into vector components. In such conditions,
3.18.2 DIVISION IDESIGN 29
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
forces transverse to the longitudinal axis shall in no case
be taken as less than 20% of the total force.
3.18.2.2.7 In the case of slender and exible piers,
consideration should be given to the vibrating nature of
dynamic ice forces and to the possibility of high momen-
tary pressures and structural resonance.
3.18.2.3 Static Ice Pressure
Ice pressure on piers frozen into ice sheets on large
bodies of water shall receive special consideration where
there is reason to believe that the ice sheets are subject to
signicant thermal movements relative to the piers.
3.19 BUOYANCY
Buoyancy shall be considered where it affects the de-
sign of either substructure, including piling, or the super-
structure.
3.20 EARTH PRESSURE
3.20.1 Structures which retain lls shall be proportioned
to withstand pressure as given by Coulombs Equation or
by other expressions given in Section 5, Retaining
Walls; provided, however, that no structure shall be de-
signed for less than an equivalent uid weight (mass) of
30 pounds per cubic foot.
3.20.2 For rigid frames a maximum of one-half of the
moment caused by earth pressure (lateral) may be used to
reduce the positive moment in the beams, in the top slab,
or in the top and bottom slab, as the case may be.
3.20.3 When highway traffic can come within a hori-
zontal distance from the top of the structure equal to one-
half its height, the pressure shall have added to it a live
load surcharge pressure equal to not less than 2 feet of
earth.
3.20.4 Where an adequately designed reinforced con-
crete approach slab supported at one end by the bridge is
provided, no live load surcharge need be considered.
3.20.5 All designs shall provide for the thorough
drainage of the back-lling material by means of weep
holes and crushed rock, pipe drains or gravel drains, or by
perforated drains.
3.21 EARTHQUAKES
In regions where earthquakes may be anticipated,
structures shall be designed to resist earthquake motions
by considering the relationship of the site to active faults,
the seismic response of the soils at the site, and the dy-
namic response characteristics of the total structure in ac-
cordance with Division I-ASeismic Design.
Part B
COMBINATIONS OF LOADS
3.22 COMBINATIONS OF LOADS
3.22.1 The following Groups represent various combi-
nations of loads and forces to which a structure may be
subjected. Each component of the structure, or the foun-
dation on which it rests, shall be proportioned to with-
stand safely all group combinations of these forces that
are applicable to the particular site or type. Group loading
combinations for Service Load Design and Load Factor
Design are given by:
Group (N) [
D
D
L
(L I)
C
CF
E
E
B
B
S
SF
W
W
WL
WL
L
LF
R
(R S T)
EQ
EQ
ICE
ICE] (3-10)
where,
N group number;
load factor, see Table 3.22.1A;
coefficient, see Table 3.22.1A;
D dead load;
L live load;
I live load impact;
E earth pressure;
B buoyancy;
W wind load on structure;
WL wind load on live load100 pounds per linear
foot;
LF longitudinal force from live load;
CF centrifugal force;
R rib shortening;
S shrinkage;
T temperature;
EQ earthquake;
SF stream ow pressure;
ICE ice pressure.
30 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 3.18.2.2.6
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
3.22.1 DIVISION IDESIGN 31
TABLE 3.22.1A Table of Coefficients and
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
3.22.2 For service load design, the percentage of the
basic unit stress for the various groups is given in Table
3.22.1A.
The loads and forces in each group shall be taken as ap-
propriate from Articles 3.3 to 3.21. The maximum section
required shall be used.
3.22.3 For load factor design, the gamma and beta fac-
tors given in Table 3.22.1A shall be used for designing
structural members and foundations by the load factor
concept.
3.22.4 When long span structures are being designed by
load factor design, the gamma and beta factors specied
for Load Factor Design represent general conditions and
should be increased if, in the Engineers judgment,
expected loads, service conditions, or materials of
construction are different from those anticipated by the
specications.
3.22.5 Structures may be analyzed for an overload that
is selected by the operating agency. Size and conguration
of the overload, loading combinations, and load distribu-
tion will be consistent with procedures dened in permit
policy of that agency. The load shall be applied in Group
IB as dened in Table 3.22.1A. For all loadings less than
H 20, Group IA loading combination shall be used (see
Article 3.5).
Part C
DISTRIBUTION OF LOADS
3.23 DISTRIBUTION OF LOADS TO
STRINGERS, LONGITUDINAL BEAMS,
AND FLOOR BEAMS*
3.23.1 Position of Loads for Shear
3.23.1.1 In calculating end shears and end reactions
in transverse oor beams and longitudinal beams and
stringers, no longitudinal distribution of the wheel load
shall be assumed for the wheel or axle load adjacent to the
transverse oor beam or the end of the longitudinal beam
or stringer at which the stress is being determined.
3.23.1.2 Lateral distribution of the wheel loads at
ends of the beams or stringers shall be that produced by
assuming the ooring to act as a simple span between
stringers or beams. For wheels or axles in other positions
on the span, the distribution for shear shall be determined
by the method prescribed for moment, except that the cal-
culations of horizontal shear in rectangular timber beams
shall be in accordance with Article 13.3.
3.23.2 Bending Moments in Stringers and
Longitudinal Beams**
3.23.2.1 General
In calculating bending moments in longitudinal beams
or stringers, no longitudinal distribution of the wheel
loads shall be assumed. The lateral distribution shall be
determined as follows.
3.23.2.2 Interior Stringers and Beams
The live load bending moment for each interior
stringer shall be determined by applying to the stringer the
fraction of a wheel load (both front and rear) determined
in Table 3.23.1.
3.23.2.3 Outside Roadway Stringers and Beams
3.23.2.3.1 Steel-Timber-Concrete T-Beams
3.23.2.3.1.1 The dead load supported by the outside
roadway stringer or beam shall be that portion of the oor
slab carried by the stringer or beam. Curbs, railings, and
wearing surface, if placed after the slab has cured, may be
distributed equally to all roadway stringers or beams.
3.23.2.3.1.2 The live load bending moment for out-
side roadway stringers or beams shall be determined by
applying to the stringer or beam the reaction of the wheel
load obtained by assuming the ooring to act as a simple
span between stringers or beams.
3.23.2.3.1.3 When the outside roadway beam or
stringer supports the sidewalk live load as well as traffic
live load and impact and the structure is to be designed by
the service load method, the allowable stress in the beam
or stringer may be increased by 25% for the combination
of dead load, sidewalk live load, traffic live load, and im-
pact, providing the beam is of no less carrying capacity
than would be required if there were no sidewalks. When
the combination of sidewalk live load and traffic live load
plus impact governs the design and the structure is to be
designed by the load factor method, 1.25 may be used as
the beta factor in place of 1.67.
3.23.2.3.1.4 In no case shall an exterior stringer have
less carrying capacity than an interior stringer.
32 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 3.22.2
*Provisions in this Article shall not apply to orthotropic deck bridges.
**In view of the complexity of the theoretical analysis involved in the
distribution of wheel loads to stringers, the empirical method herein de-
scribed is authorized for the design of normal highway bridges.
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
3.23.2.3.1.5 In the case of a span with concrete oor
supported by 4 or more steel stringers, the fraction of the
wheel load shall not be less than:
where, S 6 feet or less and is the distance in feet be-
tween outside and adjacent interior stringers, and
where, S is more than 6 feet and less than 14 feet. When
S is 14 feet or more, use footnote f, Table 3.23.1.
3.23.2.3.2 Concrete Box Girders
3.23.2.3.2.1 The dead load supported by the exterior
girder shall be determined in the same manner as for steel,
timber, or concrete T-beams, as given in Article
3.23.2.3.1.
3.23.2.3.2.2 The factor for the wheel load distribu-
tion to the exterior girder shall be W
e
/7, where W
e
is the
width of exterior girder which shall be taken as the top
slab width, measured from the midpoint between girders
to the outside edge of the slab. The cantilever dimension
of any slab extending beyond the exterior girder shall
preferably not exceed half the girder spacing.
3.23.2.3.3 Total Capacity of Stringers and Beams
The combined design load capacity of all the beams
and stringers in a span shall not be less than required to
support the total live and dead load in the span.
S
S 4 0 0 25 . . +
S
5 5 .
3.23.2.3.1.4 DIVISION IDESIGN 33
TABLE 3.23.1 Distribution of Wheel Loads in
Longitudinal Beams
Bridge Designed
Bridge Designed for for Two or more
Kind of Floor One Traffic Lane Traffic Lanes
Timber:
a
Plank
b
S/4.0 S/3.75
Nail laminated
c
4 thick or multiple
layer
d
oors over 5
thick S/4.5 S/4.0
Nail laminated
c
6 or more thick S/5.0 S/4.25
If S exceeds 5 If S exceeds 6.5
use footnote f. use footnote f.
Glued laminated
e
Panels on glued
laminated stringers
4 thick S/4.5 S/4.0
6 or more thick S/6.0 S/5.0
If S exceeds 6 f S exceeds 7.5
use footnote f. use footnote f.
On steel stringers
4 thick S/4.5 S/4.0
6 or more thick S/5.25 S/4.5
If S exceeds 5.5 f S exceeds 7
use footnote f. use footnote f.
Concrete:
On steel I-Beam
stringers
g
and
prestressed
concrete girders S/7.0 S/5.5
If S exceeds 10 f S exceeds 14
use footnote f. use footnote f.
On concrete
T-Beams S/6.5 S/6.0
If S exceeds 6 f S exceeds 10
use footnote f. use footnote f.
On timber
stringers S/6.0 S/5.0
If S exceeds 6 f S exceeds 10
use footnote f. use footnote f.
Concrete box
girders
h
S/8.0 S/7.0
If S exceeds 12 f S exceeds 16
use footnote f. use footnote f.
On steel box girders See Article 10.39.2.
On prestressed con-
crete spread box
Beams See Article 3.28.
Steel grid:
(Less than 4 thick) S/4.5 S/4.0
(4 or more) S/6.0 S/5.0
If S exceeds 6 f S exceeds 10.5
use footnote f. use footnote f.
Steel bridge
Corrugated plank
i
(2 min. depth) S/5.5 S/4.5
S = average stringer spacing in feet.
a
Timber dimensions shown are for nominal thickness.
b
Plank oors consist of pieces of lumber laid edge to edge with the
wide faces bearing on the supports (see Article 16.3.11Division II).
c
Nail laminated oors consist of pieces of lumber laid face to face
with the narrow edges bearing on the supports, each piece being nailed
to the preceding piece (see Article 16.3.12Division II).
d
Multiple layer oors consist of two or more layers of planks, each
layer being laid at an angle to the other (see Article 16.3.11Division II).
e
Glued laminated panel oors consist of vertically glued laminated
members with the narrow edges of the laminations bearing on the sup-
ports (see Article 16.3.13Division II).
f
In this case the load on each stringer shall be the reaction of the
wheel loads, assuming the ooring between the stringers to act as a sim-
ple beam.
g
Design of I-Beam Bridges by N. M. NewmarkProceedings,
ASCE, March 1948.
h
The sidewalk live load (see Article 3.14) shall be omitted for inte-
rior and exterior box girders designed in accordance with the wheel load
distribution indicated herein.
i
Distribution factors for Steel Bridge Corrugated Plank set forth
above are based substantially on the following reference:
Journal of Washington Academy of Sciences, Vol. 67, No. 2, 1977
Wheel Load Distribution of Steel Bridge Plank, by Conrad P. Heins,
Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Maryland.
These distribution factors were developed based on studies using
6 2 steel corrugated plank. The factors should yield safe results for
other corrugated congurations provided primary bending stiffness is
the same as or greater than the 6 2 corrugated plank used in the stud-
ies.
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
3.23.3 Bending Moments in Floor Beams
(Transverse)
3.23.3.1 In calculating bending moments in oor
beams, no transverse distribution of the wheel loads shall
be assumed.
3.23.3.2 If longitudinal stringers are omitted and the
oor is supported directly on oor beams, the beams shall
be designed for loads determined in accordance with
Table 3.23.3.1.
3.23.4 Precast Concrete Beams Used
in Multi-Beam Decks
3.23.4.1 A multi-beam bridge is constructed with
precast reinforced or prestressed concrete beams that are
placed side by side on the supports. The interaction be-
tween the beams is developed by continuous longitudinal
shear keys used in combination with transverse tie as-
semblies which may, or may not, be prestressed, such as
bolts, rods, or prestressing strands, or other mechanical
means. Full-depth rigid end diaphragms are needed to en-
sure proper load distribution for channel, single- and
multi-stemmed tee beams.
3.23.4.2 In calculating bending moments in multi-
beam precast concrete bridges, conventional or pre-
stressed, no longitudinal distribution of wheel load shall
be assumed.
3.23.4.3 The live load bending moment for each sec-
tion shall be determined by applying to the beam the frac-
tion of a wheel load (both front and rear) determined by
the following equation:
where,
S width of precast member;
D (5.75 0.5N
L
) 0.7N
L
(1 0.2C)
2
(3-12)
N
L
number of traffic lanes from Article 3.6;
C K(W/L) fow W/L < 1
K for W/L 1 (3-13)
where,
W overall width of bridge measured perpendicular
to the longitudinal girders in feet;
L span length measured parallel to longitudinal
girders in feet; for girders with cast-in-place end
diaphragms, use the length between end dia-
phragms;
K {(1 ) I/J}
1/2
If the value of I/ J exceeds 5.0, or the skew exceeds
45 degrees, the live load distribution should be deter-
mined using a more precise method, such as the Articulate
Plate Theory or Grillage Analysis. The Load Fraction,
S/D, need not be greater than 1.
where,
I moment of inertia;
J Saint-Venant torsion constant;
Poissons ratio for girders.
In lieu of more exact methods, J may be estimated using
the following equations:
Load
S
D
Fraction -11) (3
34 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 3.23.3
TABLE 3.23.3.1 Distribution of Wheel Loads
in Transverse Beams
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
For Non-voided Rectangular Beams, Channels, Tee
Beams:
J {(1/3)bt
3
(1 0.630t/b)}
where,
b the length of each rectangular component within
the section,
t the thickness of each rectangular component
within the section.
The anges and stems of stemmed or channel sections are
considered as separate rectangular components whose
values are summed together to calculate J. Note that for
Rectangular Beams with Circular Voids the value of J
can usually be approximated by using the equation above
for rectangular sections and neglecting the voids.
For Box-Section Beams:
where
b the overall width of the box,
d the overall depth of the box,
t the thickness of either web,
t
f
the thickness of either ange.
The formula assumes that both anges are the same thick-
ness and uses the thickness of only one ange. The same
is true of the webs.
For preliminary design, the following values of K may
be used:
3.24 DISTRIBUTION OF LOADS AND DESIGN
OF CONCRETE SLABS*
3.24.1 Span Lengths (See Article 8.8)
3.24.1.1 For simple spans the span length shall be the
distance center to center of supports but need not exceed
clear span plus thickness of slab.
3.24.1.2 The following effective span lengths shall
be used in calculating the distribution of loads and bend-
ing moments for slabs continuous over more than two
supports:
(a) Slabs monolithic with beams or slabs monolithic
with walls without haunches and rigid top ange pre-
stressed beams with top ange width to minimum
thickness ratio less than 4.0. S shall be the clear span.
(b) Slabs supported on steel stringers, or slabs sup-
ported on thin top ange prestressed beams with top
ange width to minimum thickness ratio equal to or
greater than 4.0. S shall be the distance between
edges of top ange plus one-half of stringer top ange
width.
(c) Slabs supported on timber stringers. S shall be the
clear span plus one-half thickness of stringer.
3.24.2 Edge Distance of Wheel Loads
3.24.2.1 In designing slabs, the center line of the
wheel load shall be 1 foot from the face of the curb. If
curbs or sidewalks are not used, the wheel load shall be 1
foot from the face of the rail.
3.24.2.2 In designing sidewalks, slabs and support-
ing members, a wheel load located on the sidewalk shall
be 1 foot from the face of the rail. In service load design,
the combined dead, live, and impact stresses for this load-
ing shall be not greater than 150% of the allowable
stresses. In load factor design, 1.0 may be used as the beta
factor in place of 1.67 for the design of deck slabs. Wheel
loads shall not be applied on sidewalks protected by a
traffic barrier.
3.24.3 Bending Moment
The bending moment per foot width of slab shall be
calculated according to methods given under Cases Aand
J
tt b t d t
bt dt t t
f f
f f
+
2
2 2
2 2
( ) ( )
3.23.4.3 DIVISION IDESIGN 35
*The slab distribution set forth herein is based substantially on the
Westergaard theory. The following references are furnished concern-
ing the subject of slab design.
Public Roads, March 1930, Computation of Stresses in Bridge Slabs
Due to Wheel Loads, by H. M. Westergaard.
University of Illinois, Bulletin No. 303, Solutions for Certain Rec-
tangular Slabs Continuous over Flexible Supports, by Vernon P. Jensen;
Bulletin 304, ADistribution Procedure for the Analysis of Slabs Con-
tinuous over Flexible Beams, by Nathan M. Newmark; Bulletin 315,
Moments in Simple Span Bridge Slabs with Stiffened Edges, by Ver-
non P. Jensen; and Bulletin 346, Highway Slab Bridges with Curbs;
Laboratory Tests and Proposed Design Method.
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
B, unless more exact methods are used considering tire
contact area. The tire contact area needed for exact meth-
ods is given in Article 3.30.
In Cases Aand B:
S effective span length, in feet, as dened under
Span Lengths Articles 3.24.1 and 8.8;
E width of slab in feet over which a wheel load is
distributed;
P load on one rear wheel of truck (P
15
or P
20
);
P
15
12,000 pounds for H 15 loading;
P
20
16,000 pounds for H 20 loading.
3.24.3.1 Case AMain Reinforcement
Perpendicular to Traffic (Spans 2 to 24
Feet Inclusive)
The live load moment for simple spans shall be deter-
mined by the following formulas (impact not included):
HS 20 Loading:
HS 15 Loading:
In slabs continuous over three or more supports, a conti-
nuity factor of 0.8 shall be applied to the above formulas
for both positive and negative moment.
3.24.3.2 Case BMain Reinforcement Parallel
to Traffic
For wheel loads, the distribution width, E, shall be
(4 0.06S) but shall not exceed 7.0 feet. Lane loads are
distributed over a width of 2E. Longitudinally reinforced
slabs shall be designed for the appropriate HS loading.
For simple spans, the maximum live load moment per
foot width of slab, without impact, is closely approxi-
mated by the following formulas:
HS 20 Loading:
Spans up to and including 50 feet: LLM 900S
foot-pounds
Spans 50 feet to 100 feet: LLM 1,000
(1.30S-20.0)
foot-pounds
HS 15 Loading:
Use
3
4 of the values obtained from the formulas for
HS 20 Loading
Moments in continuous spans shall be determined by
suitable analysis using the truck or appropriate lane
loading.
3.24.4 Shear and Bond
Slabs designed for bending moment in accordance
with Article 3.24.3 shall be considered satisfactory in
bond and shear.
3.24.5 Cantilever Slabs
3.24.5.1 Truck Loads
Under the following formulas for distribution of loads
on cantilever slabs, the slab is designed to support the load
independently of the effects of any edge support along the
end of the cantilever. The distribution given includes the
effect of wheels on parallel elements.
3.24.5.1.1 Case AReinforcement
Perpendicular to Traffic
Each wheel on the element perpendicular to traffic
shall be distributed over a width according to the follow-
ing formula:
E 0.8X 3.75 (3-17)
The moment per foot of slab shall be (P/E) X foot-
pounds, in which X is the distance in feet from load to
point of support.
3.24.5.1.2 Case BReinforcement
Parallel to Traffic
The distribution width for each wheel load on the ele-
ment parallel to traffic shall be as follows:
E 0.35X 3.2, but shall not exceed 7.0 feet (3-18)
The moment per foot of slab shall be (P/E) X foot-
pounds.
3.24.5.2 Railing Loads
Railing loads shall be applied in accordance with Arti-
cle 2.7. The effective length of slab resisting post loadings
shall be equal to E 0.8X 3.75 feet where no parapet
S
P Moment in foot pounds
+
_
,
2
32
3
15
( -16)
per foot width of slab
S
P Moment in foot pounds
+
_
,
2
32
3
20
( -15)
per foot width of slab
36 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 3.24.3
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
is used and equal to E 0.8X 5.0 feet where a parapet
is used, where X is the distance in feet from the center of
the post to the point under investigation. Railing and
wheel loads shall not be applied simultaneously.
3.24.6 Slabs Supported on Four Sides
3.24.6.1 For slabs supported along four edges and re-
inforced in both directions, the proportion of the load car-
ried by the short span of the slab shall be given by the fol-
lowing equations:
where,
p proportion of load carried by short span;
a length of short span of slab;
b length of long span of slab.
3.24.6.2 Where the length of the slab exceeds 1
1
2
times its width, the entire load shall be carried by the
transverse reinforcement.
3.24.6.3 The distribution width, E, for the load taken
by either span shall be determined as provided for other
slabs. The moments obtained shall be used in designing
the center half of the short and long slabs. The reinforce-
ment steel in the outer quarters of both short and long
spans may be reduced by 50%. In the design of the sup-
porting beams, consideration shall be given to the fact that
the loads delivered to the supporting beams are not uni-
formly distributed along the beams.
3.24.7 Median Slabs
Raised median slabs shall be designed in accordance
with the provisions of this article with truck loadings so
placed as to produce maximum stresses. Combined dead,
live, and impact stresses shall not be greater than 150% of
the allowable stresses. Flush median slabs shall be de-
signed without overstress.
3.24.8 Longitudinal Edge Beams
3.24.8.1 Edge beams shall be provided for all slabs
having main reinforcement parallel to traffic. The beam
may consist of a slab section additionally reinforced, a
beam integral with and deeper than the slab, or an integral
reinforced section of slab and curb.
3.24.8.2 The edge beam of a simple span shall be de-
signed to resist a live load moment of 0.10 PS, where,
P wheel load in pounds P
15
or P
20
;
S span length in feet.
3.24.8.3 For continuous spans, the moment may be
reduced by 20% unless a greater reduction results from a
more exact analysis.
3.24.9 Unsupported Transverse Edges
The design assumptions of this article do not provide for
the effect of loads near unsupported edges. Therefore, at the
ends of the bridge and at intermediate points where the con-
tinuity of the slab is broken, the edges shall be supported by
diaphragms or other suitable means. The diaphragms shall
be designed to resist the full moment and shear produced
by the wheel loads which can come on them.
3.24.10 Distribution Reinforcement
3.24.10.1 To provide for the lateral distribution of the
concentrated live loads, reinforcement shall be placed
transverse to the main steel reinforcement in the bottoms
of all slabs except culvert or bridge slabs where the depth
of ll over the slab exceeds 2 feet.
3.24.10.2 The amount of distribution reinforcement
shall be the percentage of the main reinforcement steel
required for positive moment as given by the following
formulas:
where, S the effective span length in feet.
3.24.10.3 For main reinforcement perpendicular to
traffic, the specied amount of distribution reinforcement
shall be used in the middle half of the slab span, and not
less than 50% of the specied amount shall be used in the
outer quarters of the slab span.
For main reinforcement parallel to traffic,
- 21)
For main reinforcement perpendicular to traffic,
- 22)
Percentage
S
Maximum
Percentage
S
Maximum
100
50 3
220
67 3
% (
% (
For concentrated load at center p
b
a b
,
+
3
3 3
(3- 20)
For uniformly distributed load p
b
a b
,
+
4
4 4
(3-19)
3.24.5.2 DIVISION IDESIGN 37
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
3.25 DISTRIBUTION OF WHEEL LOADS ON
TIMBER FLOORING
For the calculation of bending moments in timber
ooring each wheel load shall be distributed as follows.
3.25.1 Transverse Flooring
3.25.1.1 In the direction of ooring span, the wheel
load shall be distributed over the width of tire as given in
Article 3.30.
Normal to the direction of ooring span, the wheel load
shall be distributed as follows:
Plank oor: the width of plank, but not less than 10
inches.
Non-interconnected* nail laminated panel oor: 15
inches, but not to exceed panel width.
Non-interconnected glued laminated panel oor: 15
inches plus thickness of oor, but not to exceed panel
width. Continuous nail laminated oor and interconnected
nail laminated panel oor, with adequate shear transfer
between panels**: 15 inches plus thickness of oor, but
not to exceed panel width.
Interconnected* glued laminated panel oor, with ad-
equate shear transfer between panels**, not less than 6
inches thick: 15 inches plus twice thickness of oor, but
not to exceed panel width.
3.25.1.2 For transverse ooring the span shall be
taken as the clear distance between stringers plus one-half
the width of one stringer, but shall not exceed the clear
span plus the oor thickness.
3.25.1.3 One design method for interconnected
glued laminated panel oors is as follows: For glued lam-
inated panel decks using vertically laminated lumber with
the panel placed in a transverse direction to the stringers
and with panels interconnected using steel dowels, the de-
termination of the deck thickness shall be based on the fol-
lowing equations for maximum unit primary moment and
shear. The maximum shear is for a wheel position as-
sumed to be 15 inches or less from the center line of the
support. The maximum moment is for a wheel position as-
sumed to be centered between the supports.
where,
M
x
primary bending moment in inch-pounds per
inch;
R
x
primary shear in pounds per inch;
x denotes direction perpendicular to longitudinal
stringers;
P design wheel load in pounds;
s effective deck span in inches;
t deck thickness, in inches, based on moment or
shear, whichever controls;
K design constant depending on design load as
follows:
H 15 K 0.47
H 20 K 0.51
F
b
allowable bending stress, in pounds per square
inch, based on load applied parallel to the wide
face of the laminations (see Tables 13.2.2Aand B);
F
v
allowable shear stress, in pounds per square inch,
based on load applied parallel to the wide face of
the laminations (see Tables 13.2.2Aand B).
3.25.1.4 The determination of the minimum size and
spacing required of the steel dowels required to transfer
the load between panels shall be based on the following
equation:
where,
n number of steel dowels required for the given
spans;
PL
proportional limit stress perpendicular to grain
(for Douglas r or Southern pine, use 1,000 psi);
R
y
total secondary shear transferred, in pounds, de-
termined by the relationship:
n
R
R
M
M
PL
y
D
y
D
+
1
]
1
1
1 000
3
,
(
- 27)
M P s K
P
whichever is greater
x
(. log ) (
. (
(
(
51 3
034 3
3
3
10
- 23)
R - 24)
Thus, t =
6M
F
- 25)
or,
t =
3R
2F
- 26)
x
x
b
x
v
38 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 3.25
*The terms interconnected and non-interconnected refer to the joints
between the individual nail laminated or glued laminated panels.
**This shear transfer may be accomplished using mechanical fasten-
ers, splines, or dowels along the panel joint or other suitable means.
The equations are developed for deck panel spans equal to or greater
than the width of the tire (as specied in Article 3.30), but not greater
than 200 inches.
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
M
y
total secondary moment transferred, in inch-
pound, determined by the relationship,
R
D
and M
D
shear and moment capacities, respec-
tively, as given in the following table:
3.25.1.5 In addition, the dowels shall be checked to
ensure that the allowable stress of the steel is not exceeded
using the following equation:
where,
minimum yield point of steel pins in
pounds per square inch (see Table
10.32.1A);
n, R
y
, M
y
as previously dened;
C
R
, C
M
steel stress coefficients as given in pre-
ceding table.
3.25.2 Plank and Nail Laminated Longitudinal
Flooring
3.25.2.1 In the direction of the span, the wheel load
shall be distributed over 10 inches.
3.25.2.2 Normal to the direction of the span the
wheel load shall be distributed as follows:
Plank oor: 20 inches;
Non-interconnected nail laminated oor: width of tire
plus thickness of oor, but not to exceed panel
width. Continuous nail laminated oor and inter-
connected nail laminated oor, with adequate shear
transfer between panels*, not less than 6 inches
thick: width of tire plus twice thickness of oor.
3.25.2.3 For longitudinal ooring the span shall be
taken as the clear distance between oor beams plus one-
half the width of one beam but shall not exceed the clear
span plus the oor thickness.
3.25.3 Longitudinal Glued Laminated Timber
Decks
3.25.3.1 Bending Moment
In calculating bending moments in glued laminated
timber longitudinal decks, no longitudinal distribution of
wheel loads shall be assumed. The lateral distribution
shall be determined as follows.
The live load bending moment for each panel shall be
determined by applying to the panel the fraction of a
wheel load determined from the following equations:
TWO OR MORE TRAFFIC LANES
greater.
ONE TRAFFIC LANE
greater.
where, W
p
Width of Panel; in feet (3.5 W
p
4.5)
L Length of span for simple span bridges and the
length of the shortest span for continuous bridges in
feet.
Load Fraction
W
L
or
W
whichever is
p p
.
.
, =
+ 4 25
28
5 50
Load Fraction
W
L
or
W
whichever is
p p
.
.
, =
+ 3 75
28
5 00
= +
1
n
(C R C M ) - 32)
R y M y
(3
M
Ps
s
Ps s
s
y
=
=
>
1 600
10 50 3
20
30
10
50
,
( ) (
( )
( )
for s inches - 30)
M for s inches (3- 31)
y
R Ps for s inches
R
P
s
s for inches
y
y
=
= >
6 1 000 50 3
2
20 50 3 29
/ , (
) ( )
- 28)
or,
( s -
3.25.1.4 DIVISION IDESIGN 39
*This shear transfer may be accomplished using mechanical fasteners,
splines, or dowels along the panel joint or spreader beams located at in-
tervals along the panels or other suitable means.
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
3.25.3.2 Shear
When calculating the end shears and end reactions for
each panel, no longitudinal distribution of the wheel
loads shall be assumed. The lateral distribution of the
wheel load at the supports shall be that determined by the
equation:
Wheel Load Fraction per Panel
For wheel loads in other positions on the span, the lateral
distribution for shear shall be determined by the method
prescribed for moment.
3.25.3.3 Deections
The maximum deection may be calculated by apply-
ing to the panel the wheel load fraction determined by the
method prescribed for moment.
3.25.3.4 Stiffener Arrangement
The transverse stiffeners shall be adequately attached
to each panel, at points near the panel edges, with either
steel plates, thru-bolts, C-clips or aluminum brackets. The
stiffener spacing required will depend upon the spacing
needed in order to prevent differential panel movement;
however, a stiffener shall be placed at mid-span with ad-
ditional stiffeners placed at intervals not to exceed 10 feet.
The stiffness factor EI of the stiffener shall not be less than
80,000 kip-in
2
.
3.25.4 Continuous Flooring
If the ooring is continuous over more than two spans,
the maximum bending moment shall be assumed as being
80% of that obtained for a simple span.
3.26 DISTRIBUTION OF WHEEL LOADS AND
DESIGN OF COMPOSITE WOOD-
CONCRETE MEMBERS
3.26.1 Distribution of Concentrated Loads for
Bending Moment and Shear
3.26.1.1 For freely supported or continuous slab
spans of composite wood-concrete construction, as de-
scribed in Article 16.3.14, Division II, the wheel loads
shall be distributed over a transverse width of 5 feet for
bending moment and a width of 4 feet for shear.
3.26.1.2 For composite T-beams of wood and con-
crete, as described in Article 20.19.2, Division II, the ef-
fective ange width shall not exceed that given in Article
10.38.3. Shear connectors shall be capable of resisting
both vertical and horizontal movement.
3.26.2 Distribution of Bending Moments in
Continuous Spans
3.26.2.1 Both positive and negative moments shall
be distributed in accordance with the following table:
3.26.2.2 Impact should be considered in computing
stresses for concrete and steel, but neglected for wood.
3.26.3 Design
The analysis and design of composite wood-concrete
members shall be based on assumptions that account for
the different mechanical properties of the components. A
suitable procedure may be based on the elastic properties
of the materials as follows:
1 for slab in which the net concrete thickness is
less than half the overall depth of the compos-
ite section
2 for slab in which the net concrete thickness is
at least half the overall depth of the composite
section
18.75 (for Douglas r and Southern pine)
in which,
E
c
modulus of elasticity of concrete;
E
w
modulus of elasticity of wood;
E
s
modulus of elasticity of steel.
E
s
E
w
E
c
E
w
E
c
E
w
=
W
but not less than
p
4 00
1
.
.
40 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 3.25.3.2
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
3.27 DISTRIBUTION OF WHEEL LOADS ON
STEEL GRID FLOORS*
3.27.1 General
3.27.1.1 The grid oor shall be designed as continu-
ous, but simple span moments may be used and reduced
as provided in Article 3.24.
3.27.1.2 The following rules for distribution of loads
assume that the grid oor is composed of main elements
that span between girders, stringers, or cross beams, and
secondary elements that are capable of transferring load
between the main elements.
3.27.1.3 Reinforcement for secondary elements shall
consist of bars or shapes welded to the main steel.
3.27.2 Floors Filled with Concrete
3.27.2.1 The distribution and bending moment shall
be as specied for concrete slabs, Article 3.24. The fol-
lowing items specied in that article shall also apply to
concrete lled steel grid oors:
Longitudinal edge beams
Unsupported transverse edges
Span lengths
3.27.2.2 The strength of the composite steel and con-
crete slab shall be determined by means of the trans-
formed area method. The allowable stresses shall be as
set forth in Articles 8.15.2, 8.16.1, and 10.32.
3.27.3 Open Floors
3.27.3.1 Awheel load shall be distributed, normal to
the main elements, over a width equal to 1
1
4 inches per
ton of axle load plus twice the distance center to center of
main elements. The portion of the load assigned to each
main element shall be applied uniformly over a length
equal to the rear tire width (20 inches for H 20, 15 inches
for H 15).
3.27.3.2 The strength of the section shall be deter-
mined by the moment of inertia method. The allowable
stresses shall be as set forth in Article 10.32.
3.27.3.3 Edges of open grid steel oors shall be sup-
ported by suitable means as required. These supports may
be longitudinal or transverse, or both, as may be required
to support all edges properly.
3.27.3.4 When investigating for fatigue, the mini-
mum cycles of maximum stress shall be used.
3.28 DISTRIBUTION OF LOADS FOR BENDING
MOMENT IN SPREAD BOX GIRDERS**
3.28.1 Interior Beams
The live load bending moment for each interior beam in
a spread box beam superstructure shall be determined by
applying to the beam the fraction (D.F.) of the wheel load
(both front and rear) determined by the following equation:
where,
N
L
number of design traffic lanes (Article 3.6);
N
B
number of beams (4 N
B
10);
S beam spacing in feet (6.57 S 11.00);
L span length in feet;
k 0.07 W N
L
(0.10N
L
0.26) 0.20N
B
0.12;
(3-34)
W numeric value of the roadway width between
curbs expressed in feet (32 W 66).
3.28.2 Exterior Beams
The live load bending moment in the exterior beams
shall be determined by applying to the beams the reaction
of the wheel loads obtained by assuming the ooring to
act as a simple span (of length S) between beams, but shall
not be less than 2N
L
/N
B
.
3.29 MOMENTS, SHEARS, AND REACTIONS
Maximum moments, shears, and reactions are given
in tables, Appendix A, for H 15, H 20, HS 15, and HS 20
loadings. They are calculated for the standard truck or
the lane loading applied to a single lane on freely sup-
ported spans. It is indicated in the table whether the
standard truck or the lane loadings produces the maxi-
mum stress.
D F
N
N
k
S
L
L
B
. . ( +
2
3- 33)
3.27 DIVISION IDESIGN 41
*Provisions in this article shall not apply to orthotropic bridge super-
structures.
**The provisions of Article 3.12, Reduction in Load Intensity, were
not applied in the development of the provisions presented in Articles
3.28.1 and 3.28.2.
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
3.30 TIRE CONTACT AREA
The tire contact area for the Alternate Military Load-
ing or HS 20-44 shall be assumed as a rectangle with a
length in the direction of traffic of 10 inches, and a width
of tire of 20 inches. For other design vehicles, the tire con-
tact should be determined by the engineer.
42 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 3.30
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
Section 4
FOUNDATIONS
Part A
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MATERIALS
4.1 GENERAL
Foundations shall be designed to support all live and
dead loads, and earth and water pressure loadings in ac-
cordance with the general principles specied in this sec-
tion. The design shall be made either with reference to ser-
vice loads and allowable stresses as provided in SERVICE
LOAD DESIGN or, alternatively, with reference to load
factors, and factored strength as provided in STRENGTH
DESIGN.
4.2 FOUNDATION TYPE AND CAPACITY
4.2.1 Selection of Foundation Type
Selection of foundation type shall be based on an
assessment of the magnitude and direction of loading,
depth to suitable bearing materials, evidence of previous
ooding, potential for liquefaction, undermining or
scour, swelling potential, frost depth and ease and cost of
construction.
4.2.2 Foundation Capacity
Foundations shall be designed to provide adequate
structural capacity, adequate foundation bearing capacity
with acceptable settlements, and acceptable overall sta-
bility of slopes adjacent to the foundations. The tolerable
level of structural deformation is controlled by the type
and span of the superstructure.
4.2.2.1 Bearing Capacity
The bearing capacity of foundations may be estimated
using procedures described in Articles 4.4, 4.5, or 4.6 for
service load design and Articles 4.11, 4.12, or 4.13 for
strength design, or other generally accepted theories. Such
theories are based on soil and rock parameters measured
by in situ and/or laboratory tests. The bearing capacity
may also be determined using load tests.
4.2.2.2 Settlement
The settlement of foundations may be determined
using procedures described in Articles 4.4, 4.5, or 4.6 for
service load design and Articles 4.11, 4.12, or 4.13 for
strength design, or other generally accepted methodolo-
gies. Such methods are based on soil and rock parameters
measured directly or inferred from the results of in situ
and/or laboratory tests.
4.2.2.3 Overall Stability
The overall stability of slopes in the vicinity of
foundations shall be considered as part of the design of
foundations.
4.2.3 Soil, Rock, and Other Problem Conditions
Geologic and environmental conditions can inuence
the performance of foundations and may require special
consideration during design. To the extent possible, the
presence and inuence of such conditions shall be evalu-
ated as part of the subsurface exploration program. Arep-
resentative, but not exclusive, listing of problem condi-
tions requiring special consideration is presented in Table
4.2.3Afor general guidance.
4.3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND
TESTING PROGRAMS
The elements of the subsurface exploration and testing
programs shall be the responsibility of the designer based
on the specic requirements of the project and his or her
experience with local geologic conditions.
4.3.1 General Requirements
As a minimum, the subsurface exploration and testing
programs shall dene the following, where applicable:
Soil strata
Depth, thickness, and variability
43
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
Identication and classication
Relevant engineering properties (i.e., shear
strength, compressibility, stiffness, permeability,
expansion or collapse potential, and frost suscep-
tibility)
Rock strata
Depth to rock
Identication and classication
Quality (i.e., soundness, hardness, jointing and
presence of joint lling, resistance to weathering,
if exposed, and solutioning)
Compressive strength (e.g., uniaxial compres-
sion, point load index)
Expansion potential
Ground water elevation
Ground surface elevation
Local conditions requiring special consideration
Exploration logs shall include soil and rock strata de-
scriptions, penetration resistance for soils (e.g., SPT or
q
c
), and sample recovery and RQD for rock strata. The
drilling equipment and method, use of drilling mud, type
of SPThammer (i.e. safety, donut, hydraulic) or cone pen-
etrometer (i.e., mechanical or electrical), and any unusual
subsurface conditions such as artesian pressures, boulders
or other obstructions, or voids shall also be noted on the
exploration logs.
4.3.2 Minimum Depth
Where substructure units will be supported on spread
footings, the minimum depth of the subsurface explo-
ration shall extend below the anticipated bearing level a
minimum of two footing widths for isolated, individual
footings where L 2B, and four footing widths for foot-
ings where L 5B. For intermediate footing lengths, the
minimum depth of exploration may be estimated by lin-
ear interpolation as a function of L between depths of 2B
and 5B below the bearing level. Greater depths may be re-
quired where warranted by local conditions.
44 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.3.1
TABLE 4.2.3A Problem Conditions Requiring Special Consideration
Problem
Type Description Comments
Organic soil; highly plastic clay Low strength and high compressibility
Sensitive clay Potentially large strength loss upon large straining
Micaceous soil Potentially high compressibility (often saprolitic)
Soil Expansive clay/silt; expansive slag Potentially large expansion upon wetting
Liqueable soil Complete strength loss and high deformations due to earthquake
loading
Collapsible soil Potentially large deformations upon wetting (Caliche; Loess)
Pyritic soil Potentially large expansion upon oxidation
Laminated rock Low strength when loaded parallel to bedding
Expansive shale Potentially large expansion upon wetting; degrades readily upon
exposure to air/water
Pyritic shale Expands upon exposure to air/water
Rock Soluble rock Soluble in owing and standing water (Limestone, Limerock,
Gypsum)
Cretaceous shale Indicator of potentially corrosive ground water
Weak claystone (Red Beds) Low strength and readily degradable upon exposure to air/water
Gneissic and Schistose Rock Highly distorted with irregular weathering proles and steep
discontinuities
Subsidence Typical in areas of underground mining or high ground water
extraction
Sinkholes/solutioning Karst topography; typical of areas underlain by carbonate rock
strata
Condition Negative skin friction/ Additional compressive/uplift load on deep foundations due to
expansion loading settlement/uplift of soil
Corrosive environments Acid mine drainage; degradation of certain soil/rock types
Permafrost/frost Typical in northern climates
Capillary water Rise of water level in silts and ne sands leading to strength loss
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
Where substructure units will be supported on deep
foundations, the depth of the subsurface exploration shall
extend a minimum of 20 feet below the anticipated pile or
shaft tip elevation. Where pile or shaft groups will be
used, the subsurface exploration shall extend at least two
times the maximum pile group dimension below the an-
ticipated tip elevation, unless the foundations will be end
bearing on or in rock. For piles bearing on rock, a mini-
mum of 10 feet of rock core shall be obtained at each ex-
ploration location to insure the exploration has not been
terminated on a boulder. For shafts supported on or ex-
tending 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 for a shaft group, whichever is
greater, shall be obtained to insure the exploration has not
terminated in a boulder and to determine the physical
characteristics of rock within the zone of foundation in-
uence for design.
4.3.3 Minimum Coverage
A minimum of one soil boring shall be made for each
substructure unit. (See Article 7.1.1 for denition of sub-
structure unit.) For substructure units over 100 feet in
width, a minimum of two borings shall be required.
4.3.4 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory testing shall be performed as necessary to
determine engineering properties including unit weight,
shear strength, compressive strength and compressibility.
In the absence of laboratory testing, engineering proper-
ties may be estimated based on published test results or
local experience.
4.3.5 Scour
The probable depth of scour shall be determined by
subsurface exploration and hydraulic studies. Refer to
Article 1.3.2 and FHWA (1988) for general guidance
regarding hydraulic studies and design.
Part B
SERVICE LOAD DESIGN METHOD
ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN
4.4 SPREAD FOOTINGS
4.4.1 General
4.4.1.1 Applicability
Provisions of this Article shall apply for design of iso-
lated footings, and to combined footings and mats (foot-
ings supporting more than one column, pier, or wall).
4.4.1.2 Footings Supporting Non-Rectangular
Columns or Piers
Footings supporting circular or regular polygon-
shaped concrete columns or piers may be designed as-
suming that the columns or piers act as square members
with the same area for location of critical sections for mo-
ment, shear, and development of reinforcement.
4.4.1.3 Footings in Fill
Footings located in ll are subject to the same bearing
capacity, settlement, and dynamic ground stability con-
siderations as footings in natural soil in accordance with
Articles 4.4.7.1 through 4.4.7.3. The behavior of both the
ll and underlying natural soil shall be considered.
4.4.1.4 Footings in Sloped Portions of
Embankments
The earth pressure against the back of footings and
columns within the sloped portion of an embankment
shall be equal to the at-rest earth pressure in accordance
with Article 5.5.2. The resistance due to the passive earth
pressure of the embankment in front of the footing shall
be neglected to a depth equal to a minimum depth of
3 feet, the depth of anticipated scour, freeze thaw action,
and/or trench excavation in front of the footing,
whichever is greater.
4.4.1.5 Distribution of Bearing Pressure
Footings shall be designed to keep the maximum soil
and rock pressures within safe bearing values. To prevent
unequal settlement, footings shall be designed to keep the
bearing pressure as nearly uniform as practical. For foot-
ings supported on piles or drilled shafts, the spacing be-
tween piles and drilled shafts shall be designed to ensure
nearly equal loads on deep foundation elements as may be
practical.
When footings support more than one column, pier, or
wall, distribution of soil pressure shall be consistent with
properties of the foundation materials and the structure,
and with the principles of geotechnical engineering.
4.4.2 Notations
The following notations shall apply for the design of
spread footings on soil and rock:
A Contact area of footing (ft
2
)
A Effective footing area for computation of
bearing capacity of a footing subjected to
eccentric load (ft
2
); (See Article 4.4.7.1.1.1)
4.3.2 DIVISION IDESIGN 45
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
b
c
, b
, b
q
Base inclination factors (dim); (See Article
4.4.7.1.1.8)
B Width of footing (ft); (Minimum plan di-
mension of footing unless otherwise noted)
B Effective width for load eccentric in direc-
tion of short side, L unchanged (ft)
c Soil cohesion (ksf)
c Effective stress soil cohesion (ksf)
c* Reduced effective stress soil cohesion for
punching shear (ksf); (See Article 4.4.7.1)
c
a
Adhesion between footing and foundation
soil or rock (ksf); (See Article 4.4.7.1.1.3)
c
v
Coefficient of consolidation (ft
2
/yr); (See
Article 4.4.7.2.3)
c
1
Shear strength of upper cohesive soil
layer below footing (ksf); (See Article
4.4.7.1.1.7)
c
2
Shear strength of lower cohesive soil
layer below footing (ksf); (See Article
4.4.7.1.1.7)
C
c
Compression index (dim); (See Article
4.4.7.2.3)
C
cr
Recompression index (dim); (See Article
4.4.7.2.3)
C
c
Compression ratio (dim); (See Article
4.4.7.2.3)
C
o
Uniaxial compressive strength of intact
rock (ksf)
C
r
Recompression ratio (dim); (See Article
4.4.7.2.3)
C
, i
q
Load inclination factors (dim); (See Article
4.4.7.1.1.3)
I
, N
q
Bearing capacity factors based on the value
of internal friction of the foundation soil
(dim); (See Article 4.4.7.1)
N
m
Modied bearing capacity factor to account
for layered cohesive soils below footing
(dim); (See Article 4.4.7.1.1.7)
N
ms
Coefficient factor to estimate q
ult
for rock
(dim); (See Article 4.4.8.1.2)
N
s
Stability number (dim); (See Article
4.4.7.1.1.4)
46 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.4.2
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
N
cq
, N
q
Modied bearing capacity factors for ef-
fects of footing on or adjacent sloping
ground (dim); (See Article 4.4.7.1.1.4)
P Tangential component of force on footing
(k)
P
max
Maximum resisting force between footing
base and foundation soil or rock for sliding
failure (k)
q Effective overburden pressure at base of
footing (ksf)
Q Normal component of force on footing (k)
q
aii
Allowable uniform bearing pressure or con-
tact stress (ksf)
q
c
Cone penetration resistance (ksf)
q
max
Maximum footing contact pressure (ksf)
Q
max
Maximum normal component of load sup-
ported by foundation soil or rock at ultimate
bearing capacity (k)
q
min
Minimum magnitude of footing contact
pressure (ksf)
q
o
Vertical stress at base of loaded area (ksf);
(See Article 4.4.7.2.1)
q
ult
Ultimate bearing capacity for uniform bear-
ing pressure (ksf)
q
1
Ultimate bearing capacity of footing sup-
ported in the upper layer of a two-layer sys-
tem assuming the upper layer is innitely
thick (ksf); (See Article 4.4.7.1.1.7)
q
2
Ultimate bearing capacity of a ctitious
footing of the same size and shape as the ac-
tual footing, but supported on surface of the
second (lower) layer of a two-layer system
(ksf); (See Article 4.4.7.1.1.7)
R Resultant of pressure on base of footing (k)
r Radius of circular footing or B/2 for square
footing (ft); (See Article 4.4.8.2.2)
RQD Rock Quality Designation (dim)
s
c
, s
, s
q
Footing shape factors (dim); (See Article
4.4.7.1.1.2)
s
u
Undrained shear strength of soil (ksf)
S
c
Consolidation settlement (ft); (See Article
4.4.7.2.3)
S
e
Elastic or immediate settlement (ft); (See
Article 4.4.7.2.2)
S
s
Secondary settlement (ft); (See Article
4.4.7.2.4)
S
t
Total settlement (ft); (See Article 4.4.7.2)
t Time to reach specified average degree
of consolidation (yr); (See Article
4.4.7.2.3)
t
1
, t
2
Arbitrary time intervals for determination
of S
s
(yr); (See Article 4.4.7.2.4)
T Time factor (dim); (See Article 4.4.7.2.3)
z
w
Depth from footing base down to the high-
est anticipated ground water level (ft); (See
Article 4.4.7.1.1.6)
Angle of inclination of the footing base
from the horizontal (radian)
m
Punching index BL/[2(B L)H] (dim);
(See Article 4.4.7.1.1.7)
z
Factor to account for footing shape and
rigidity (dim); (See Article 4.4.7.2.2)
Total unit weight of soil or rock (kcf)
Buoyant unit weight of soil or rock (kcf)
m
Moist unit weight of soil (kcf)
Angle of friction between footing and foun-
dation soil or rock (deg); (See Article
4.4.7.1.1.3)
Differential settlement between adjacent
footings (ft); (See Article 4.4.7.2.5)
v
Vertical strain (dim); (See Article 4.4.7.2.3)
vf
Vertical strain at nal vertical effective
stress (dim); (See Article 4.4.7.2.3)
vo
Initial vertical strain (dim); (See Article
4.4.7.2.3)
vp
Vertical strain at maximum past vertical
effective stress (dim); (See Article
4.4.7.2.3)
Angle of load eccentricity (deg)
Shear strength ratio (c
2
/c
1
) for two layered
cohesive soil system below footing (dim);
(See Article 4.4.7.1.1.7)
c
Reduction factor to account for three-di-
mensional effects in settlement analysis
(dim); (See Article 4.4.7.2.3)
Poissons ratio (dim)
f
Final vertical effective stress in soil at depth
interval below footing (ksf); (See Article
4.4.7.2.3)
o
Initial vertical effective stress in soil at
depth interval below footing (ksf); (See Ar-
ticle 4.4.7.2.3)
p
Maximum past vertical effective stress in
soil at depth interval below footing (ksf);
(See Article 4.4.7.2.3)
Angle of internal friction (deg)
Effective stress angle of internal friction
(deg)
* Reduced effective stress soil friction angle
for punching shear (ksf); (See Article
4.4.7.1)
4.4.2 DIVISION IDESIGN 47
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
The notations for dimension units include the follow-
ing: dim Dimensionless; deg degree; ft foot; k
kip; k/ft kip/ft; ksf kip/ft
2
; kcf kip/ft
3
; lb pound;
in. inch; and psi pound per square inch. The dimen-
sional units provided with each notation are presented for
illustration only to demonstrate a dimensionally correct
combination of units for the footing capacity procedures
presented herein. If other units are used, the dimensional
correctness of the equations shall be conrmed.
4.4.3 Design Terminology
Refer to Figure 4.4.3Afor terminology used in the de-
sign of spread footing foundations.
4.4.4 Soil and Rock Property Selection
Soil and rock properties dening the strength and com-
pressibility characteristics of the foundation materials are
required for footing design. Foundation stability and set-
tlement analyses for design shall be conducted using soil
and rock properties based on the results of eld and/or
laboratory testing.
4.4.5 Depth
4.4.5.1 Minimum Embedment and Bench Width
Footings not otherwise founded on sound, non-de-
gradeable rock surfaces shall be embedded a sufficient
48 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.4.2
FIGURE 4.4.3A Design Terminology for Spread Footing Foundations
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
depth to provide adequate bearing, scour and frost heave
protection, or 2 feet to the bottom of footing, whichever is
greatest. For footings constructed on slopes, a minimum
horizontal distance of 4 feet, measured at the top of foot-
ing, shall be provided between the near face of the foot-
ing and the face of the nished slope.
4.4.5.2 Scour Protection
Footings supported on soil or degradable rock strata
shall be embedded below the maximum computed scour
depth or protected with a scour countermeasure. Footings
supported on massive, competent rock formations which
are highly resistant to scour shall be placed directly on the
cleaned rock surface. Where required, additional lateral
resistance should be provided by drilling and grouting
steel dowels into the rock surface rather than blasting to
embed the footing below the rock surface.
Footings on piles may be located above the lowest an-
ticipated scour level provided the piles are designed for
this condition. Assume that only one-half of the maximum
anticipated scour has occurred when designing for earth-
quake loading. Where footings on piles are subject to
damage by boulders or debris during ood scour, ade-
quate protection shall be provided. Footings shall be con-
structed so as to neither pose an obstacle to water traffic
nor be exposed to view during low ow.
4.4.5.3 Footing Excavations
Footing excavations below the ground water table, par-
ticularly in granular soils having relatively high perme-
ability, shall be made such that the hydraulic gradient in
the excavation bottom is not increased to a magnitude that
would cause the foundation soils to loosen or soften due
to the upward ow of water. Further, footing excavations
shall be made such that hydraulic gradients and material
removal do not adversely affect adjacent structures. Seep-
age forces and gradients may be evaluated by ow net
procedures or other appropriate methods. Dewatering or
cutoff methods to control seepage shall be used where
necessary.
Footing excavations in nonresistant, easily weathered
moisture sensitive rocks shall be protected from weather-
ing immediately after excavation with a lean mix concrete
or other approved materials.
4.4.5.4 Piping
Piping failures of ne materials through rip-rap or
through drainage backlls behind abutments shall be pre-
vented by properly designed, graded soil lters or geotex-
tile drainage systems.
4.4.6 Anchorage
Footings founded on inclined, smooth rock surfaces
and which are not restrained by an overburden of resistant
material shall be effectively anchored by means of rock
anchors, rock bolts, dowels, keys, benching or other suit-
able means. Shallow keying or benching of large footing
areas shall be avoided where blasting is required for rock
removal.
4.4.7 Geotechnical Design on Soil
Spread footings on soil shall be designed to support the
design loads with adequate bearing and structural capac-
ity, and with tolerable settlements in conformance with
Articles 4.4.7 and 4.4.11. In addition, the capacity of
footings subjected to seismic and dynamic loads, shall
be evaluated in conformance with Articles 4.4.7.3 and
4.4.10.
The location of the resultant of pressure (R) on the base
of the footings shall be maintained within B/6 of the cen-
ter of the footing.
4.4.7.1 Bearing Capacity
The ultimate bearing capacity (for general shear fail-
ure) may be estimated using the following relationship for
continuous footings (i.e., L 5B):
q
ult
cN
c
0.5BN
qN
q
(4.4.7.1-1)
The allowable bearing capacity shall be determined
as:
q
all
q
ult
/FS (4.4.7.1-2)
Refer to Table 4.4.7.1Afor values of N
c
, N
, and N
q
.
If local or punching shear failure is possible, the value
of q
ult
may be estimated using reduced shear strength pa-
rameters c* and * in Equation (4.4.7.1-1) as follows:
c* 0.67c (4.4.7.1-3)
* tan
1
(0.67tan ) (4.4.7.1-4)
Effective stress methods of analysis and drained shear
strength parameters shall be used to determine bearing
capacity factors for drained loading conditions in all soils.
Additionally, the bearing capacity of cohesive soils shall
4.4.5.1 DIVISION IDESIGN 49
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
be checked for undrained loading conditions using bear-
ing capacity factors based on undrained shear strength
parameters.
4.4.7.1.1 Factors Affecting Bearing Capacity
Amodied form of the general bearing capacity equa-
tion may be used to account for the effects of footing
shape, ground surface slope, base inclination, and inclined
loading as follows:
q
ult
cN
c
s
c
b
c
i
c
0.5BN
qN
q
s
q
b
q
i
q
(4.4.7.1.1-1)
Reduced footing dimensions shall be used to account
for the effects of eccentric loading.
4.4.7.1.1.1 Eccentric Loading
For loads eccentric relative to the centroid of the foot-
ing, reduced footing dimensions (B and L) shall be used
to determine bearing capacity factors and modiers (i.e.,
slope, footing shape, and load inclination factors), and to
calculate the ultimate load capacity of the footing. The re-
duced footing dimensions shall be determined as follows:
B B 2e
B
(4.4.7.1.1.1-1)
L L 2e
L
(4.4.7.1.1.1-2)
The effective footing area shall be determined as
follows:
A BL (4.4.7.1.1.1-3)
Refer to Figure 4.4.7.1.1.1Afor loading denitions and
footing dimensions.
The value of q
ult
obtained using the reduced footing di-
mensions represents an equivalent uniform bearing pres-
sure and not the actual contact pressure distribution be-
neath the footing. This equivalent pressure may be
multiplied by the reduced area to determine the ultimate
load capacity of the footing from the standpoint of bear-
ing capacity. The actual contact pressure distribution (i.e.,
trapezoidal for the conventional assumption of a rigid
50 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.4.7.1
TABLE 4.4.7.1A Bearing Capacity Factors
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
footing and a positive pressure along each footing edge)
shall be used for structural design of the footing.
The actual distribution of contact pressure for a rigid
footing with eccentric loading about one axis is shown
in Figure 4.4.7.1.1.1B. For an eccentricity (e
L
) in the L
direction, the actual maximum and minimum contact
pressures may be determined as follows:
for e
L
L/6:
q
max
Q[1 (6e
L
/L)]/BL (4.4.7.1.1.1-4)
q
min
Q[1 (6e
L
/L)]/BL (4.4.7.1.1.1-5)
for L/6 e
L
L/2:
q
max
2Q/(3B[L/2) e
L
]) (4.4.7.1.1.1-6)
q
min
0 (4.4.7.1.1.1-7)
L
1
3[(L/2) e
L
] (4.4.7.1.1.1-8)
For an eccentricity (e
(4.4.7.1.1.4-1)
Refer to Figure 4.4.7.1.1.4Afor values of N
cq
and N
q
for footings on slopes and Figures 4.4.7.1.1.4B for values
of N
cq
and N
q
for footings at the top of slopes. For foot-
ings in or above cohesive soil slopes, the stability number
in the gures, N
s
, is dened as follows:
N
s
H
s
/c (4.4.7.1.1.4-2)
Overall stability shall be evaluated for footings on or
adjacent to sloping ground surfaces as described in Arti-
cle 4.4.9.
4.4.7.1.1.5 Embedment Depth
The shear strength of soil above the base of footings is
neglected in determining q
ult
using Equation 4.4.7.1.1-1.
If other procedures are used, the effect of embedment
shall be consistent with the requirements of the procedure
followed.
4.4.7.1.1.1 DIVISION IDESIGN 51
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
52 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.4.7.1.1.5
FIGURE 4.4.7.1.1.1B Contact Pressure for Footing Loaded Eccentrically About One Axis
FIGURE 4.4.7.1.1.1A Denition Sketch for Loading and Dimensions for Footings
Subjected to Eccentric or Inclined Loads
Modied after EPRI (1983)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
4.4.7.1.1.5 DIVISION IDESIGN 53
FIGURE 4.4.7.1.1.1C Contact Pressure for Footing Loaded Eccentrically About Two Axes
Modied after AREA (1980)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
4.4.7.1.1.6 Ground Water
Ultimate bearing capacity shall be determined using
the highest anticipated ground water level at the footing
location. The effect of ground water level on the ultimate
bearing capacity shall be considered by using a weighted
average soil unit weight in Equation 4.4.7.1.1-1. If
37, the following equations may be used to determine the
weighted average unit weight:
for z
w
B: use
m
(no effect) (4.4.7.1.1.6-1)
for z
w
B: use (z
w
/B)(
m
)
(4.4.7.1.1.6-2)
for z
w
0: use (4.4.7.1.1.6-3)
Refer to Figure 4.4.7.1.1.6A for denition of terms
used in these equations. If 37, the following equa-
tions may be used to determine the weighted average unit
weight:
(2D z
w
)(z
w
m
/D
2
) (/D
2
)(D z
w
)
2
(4.4.7.1.1.6-4)
D 0.5Btan(45 /2)
(4.4.7.1.1.6-5)
4.4.7.1.1.7 Layered Soils
If the soil prole is layered, the general bearing capac-
ity equation shall be modied to account for differences
in failure modes between the layered case and the homo-
geneous soil case assumed in Equation 4.4.7.1.1-1.
Undrained Loading
For undrained loading of a footing supported on the
upper layer of a two-layer cohesive soil system, q
ult
may
be determined by the following:
q
ult
c
1
N
m
q (4.4.7.1.1.7-1)
4.4.7.1.1.6 DIVISION IDESIGN 55
FIGURE 4.4.7.1.1.6A Denition Sketch for Inuence of Ground Water Table on Bearing Capacity
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
Refer to Figure 4.4.7.1.1.7Afor the denition of c
1
. For
undrained loading, c
1
equals the undrained soil shear
strength s
ul
, and
1
0.
If the bearing stratum is a cohesive soil which overlies
a stiffer cohesive soil, refer to Figure 4.4.7.1.1.7B to de-
termine N
m
. If the bearing stratum overlies a softer layer,
punching shear should be assumed and N
m
may be calcu-
lated by the following:
N
m
(1/
m
s
c
N
c
) s
c
N
c
(4.4.7.1.1.7-2)
Drained Loading
For drained loading of a footing supported on a strong
layer overlying a weak layer in a two-layer system, q
ult
may be determined using the following:
q
ult
[q
2
(1/K)c
1
cot
1
] exp{2[1
(B/L)]Ktan
1
(H/B)} (1/K)c
1
cot
1
(4.4.7.1.1.7-3)
The subscripts 1 and 2 refer to the upper and lower
layers, respectively. K (1 sin
2
1
)/(1 sin
2
1
)
and q
2
equals q
ult
of a ctitious footing of the same size and
shape as the actual footing but supported on the
second (or lower) layer. Reduced shear strength values shall
be used to determine q
2
in accordance with Article 4.4.7.1.
If the upper layer is a cohesionless soil and equals
25 to 50, Equation 4.4.7.1.1.7-3 reduces to
q
ult
q
2
exp{0.67[1 (B/L)]H/B} (4.4.7.1.1.7-4)
The critical depth of the upper layer beyond which the
bearing capacity will generally be unaffected by the pres-
ence of the lower layer is given by the following:
H
crit
[3B1n(q
1
/q
2
)]/[2(1 B/L)] (4.4.7.1.1.7-5)
In the equation, q
1
equals the bearing capacity of the
upper layer assuming the upper layer is of innite extent.
56 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.4.7.1.1.7
FIGURE 4.4.7.1.1.7A
Typical Two-Layer Soil Proles
FIGURE 4.4.7.1.1.7B Modied Bearing Capacity Factor for
Two-Layer Cohesive Soil with Softer Soil Overlying
Stiffer Soil EPRI (1983)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
4.4.7.1.1.8 Inclined Base
Footings with inclined bases are generally not recom-
mended. Where footings with inclined bases are neces-
sary, the following factors shall be applied in Equation
4.4.7.1.1-1:
b
q
b
(1 tan)
2
(4.4.7.1.1.8-1)
b
c
b
(1 b)/(N
c
tan) (for 0)
(4.4.7.1.1.8-2)
b
c
1 [2/( 2)] (for 0)
(4.4.7.1.1.8-3)
Refer to Figure 4.4.7.1.1.8Afor denition sketch.
Where footings must be placed on sloping surfaces,
refer to Article 4.4.6 for anchorage requirements.
4.4.7.1.2 Factors of Safety
Spread footings on soil shall be designed for Group 1
loadings using a minimum factor of safety (FS) of 3.0
against a bearing capacity failure.
4.4.7.2 Settlement
The total settlement includes elastic, consolidation,
and secondary components and may be determined using
the following:
S
t
S
e
S
c
S
s
(4.4.7.2-1)
Elastic settlement shall be determined using the unfac-
tored dead load, plus the unfactored component of live
and impact loads assumed to extend to the footing level.
Consolidation and secondary settlement may be deter-
mined using the full unfactored dead load only.
Other factors which can affect settlement (e.g., em-
bankment loading, lateral and/or eccentric loading, and
for footings on granular soils, vibration loading from dy-
namic live loads or earthquake loads) should also be con-
sidered, where appropriate. Refer to Gifford, et al., (1987)
for general guidance regarding static loading conditions
and Lam and Martin (1986) for guidance regarding dy-
namic/seismic loading conditions.
4.4.7.2.1 Stress Distribution
Figure 4.4.7.2.1A may be used to estimate the distri-
bution of vertical stress increase below circular (or
square) and long rectangular footings (i.e., where L
5B). For other footing geometries, refer to Poulos and
Davis (1974).
Some methods used for estimating settlement of foot-
ings on sand include an integral method to account for the
effects of vertical stress increase variations. Refer to Gif-
ford, et al., (1987) for guidance regarding application of
these procedures.
4.4.7.1.1.8 DIVISION IDESIGN 57
FIGURE 4.4.7.1.1.8A Denition Sketch for Footing Base Inclination
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
4.4.7.2.2 Elastic Settlement
The elastic settlement of footings on cohesionless
soils and stiff cohesive soils may be estimated using the
following:
S
e
[q
o
(1
2
)A ]/E
s
z
(4.4.7.2.2-1)
Refer to Table 4.4.7.2.2Afor approximate values of E
s
and for various soil types, and Table 4.4.7.2.2B for val-
ues of
z
for various shapes of exible and rigid footings.
Unless E
s
varies signicantly with depth, E
s
should be de-
termined at a depth of about
1
2 to
2
3 of B below the foot-
ing. If the soil modulus varies signicantly with depth, a
weighted average value of E
s
may be used.
Refer to Gifford, et al., (1987) for general guidance re-
garding the estimation of elastic settlement of footings on
sand.
4.4.7.2.3 Consolidation Settlement
The consolidation settlement of footings on saturated
or nearly saturated cohesive soils may be estimated using
58 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.4.7.2.2
FIGURE 4.4.7.2.1A Boussinesg Vertical Stress Contours for Continuous and Square Footings
Modied after Sowers (1979)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
4.4.7.2.3 DIVISION IDESIGN 59
TABLE 4.4.7.2.2A Elastic Constants of Various Soils
Modied after U.S. Department of the Navy (1982) and Bowles (1982)
TABLE 4.4.7.2.2B Elastic Shape and Rigidity
Factors EPRI (1983)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
the following when laboratory test results are expressed in
terms of void ratio (e):
For initial overconsolidated soils (i.e.,
p
0
):
S
c
[H
c
/(1 e
o
)][(C
cr
log{
p
/
o
}
C
c
log{
f
/
p
})] (4.4.7.2.3-1)
For initial normally consolidated soils (i.e.,
p
o
):
S
c
[H
c
/(1 e
o
)][C
c
log(
f
/
p
)] (4.4.7.2.3-2)
If laboratory test results are expressed in terms of ver-
tical strain (
v
), consolidation settlement may be estimated
using the following:
For initial overconsolidated soils (i.e.,
p
o
):
S
c
H
c
[C
re
log(
p
/
o
) C
ce
log(
f
/
p
)]
(4.4.7.2.3-3)
For initial normally consolidated soils (i.e.,
p
o
):
S
c
H
c
C
ce
log(
f
/
p
) (4.4.7.2.3-4)
Refer to Figures 4.4.7.2.3Aand 4.4.7.2.3B for the de-
nition of terms used in the equations.
To account for the decreasing stress with increased
depth below a footing, and variations in soil compress-
ibility with depth, the compressible layer should be di-
vided into vertical increments (i.e., typically 5 to 10 feet
for most normal width footings for highway applications),
and the consolidation settlement of each increment ana-
lyzed separately. The total value of S
c
is the summation of
S
c
for each increment.
If the footing width is small relative to the thickness
of the compressible soil, the effect of three-dimensional
(3-D) loading may be considered using the following:
S
c(3-D)
c
S
c(1-D)
(4.4.7.2.3-5)
Refer to Figure 4.4.7.2.3C for values of
c
.
The time (t) to achieve a given percentage of the total
estimated 1-D consolidation settlement may be estimated
using the following:
t TH
d
2
/c
v
(4.4.7.2.3-6)
Refer to Figure 4.4.7.2.3D for values of T for constant
and linearly varying excess pressure distributions. See
Winterkorn and Fang (1975) for values of T for other ex-
60 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.4.7.2.3
FIGURE 4.4.7.2.3A Typical Consolidation
Compression Curve for Overconsolidated Soil
Void Ratio Versus Vertical Effective Stress
EPRI (1983)
FIGURE 4.4.7.2.3B Typical Consolidation
Compression Curve for Overconsolidated Soil
Void Strain Versus Vertical Effective Stress
FIGURE 4.4.7.2.3C Reduction Factor to Account for
Effects of Three-Dimensional Consolidation Settlement
EPRI (1983)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
cess pressure distributions. Values of c
v
may be estimated
from the results of laboratory consolidation testing of
undisturbed soil samples or from in-situ measurements
using devices such as a piezoprobe or piezocone.
4.4.7.2.4 Secondary Settlement
Secondary settlement of footings on cohesive soil may
be estimated using the following:
S
s
C
H
c
log(t
2
/t
1
) (4.4.7.2.4-1)
t
1
is the time when secondary settlement begins (typi-
cally at a time equivalent to 90-percent average degree of
consolidation), and t
2
is an arbitrary time which could rep-
resent the service life of the structure. Values of C
may
be estimated from the results of consolidation testing of
undisturbed soil samples in the laboratory.
4.4.7.2.5 Tolerable Movement
Tolerable movement criteria (vertical and horizontal)
for footings shall be developed consistent with the func-
tion and type of structure, anticipated service life, and
consequences of unacceptable movements on structure
performance. Foundation displacement analyses shall be
based on the results of in-situ and/or laboratory testing to
characterize the load-deformation behavior of the foun-
dation soils. Displacement analyses should be conducted
to determine the relationship between estimated settle-
ment and footing bearing pressure to optimize footing size
with respect to supported loads.
Tolerable movement criteria for foundation settlement
shall be developed considering the angular distortion
(/) between adjacent footings. / shall be limited to
0.005 for simple span bridges and 0.004 for continuous
span bridges (Moulton, et al., 1985). These / limits are
not applicable to rigid frame structures. Rigid frames shall
be designed for anticipated differential settlements based
on the results of special analysis.
Tolerable movement criteria for horizontal foundations
displacement shall be developed considering the potential
effects of combined vertical and horizontal movement.
Where combined horizontal and vertical displacements
are possible, horizontal movements should be limited to 1
inch or less. Where vertical displacements are small, hor-
izontal displacements should be limited to 1
1
2 inch or less
(Moulton, et al. 1985). If estimated or actual movements
exceed these levels, special analysis and/or measures to
limit movements should be considered.
4.4.7.3 Dynamic Ground Stability
Refer to Division I-ASeismic Design and Lam and
Martin (1986a; 1986b) for guidance regarding the devel-
opment of ground and seismic parameters and methods
used for evaluation of dynamic ground stability.
4.4.8 Geotechnical Design on Rock
Spread footings supported on rock shall be designed to
support the design loads with adequate bearing and struc-
tural capacity and with tolerable settlements in confor-
mance with Articles 4.4.8 and 4.4.11. In addition, the re-
sponse of footings subjected to seismic and dynamic
loading shall be evaluated in conformance with Article
4.4.10. For footings on rock, the location of the resultant
4.4.7.2.3 DIVISION IDESIGN 61
FIGURE 4.4.7.2.3D Percentage of Consolidation as a Function of Time Factor, T
EPRI (1983)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
of pressure (R) on the base of footings shall be maintained
within B/4 of the center of the footing.
The bearing capacity and settlement of footings on
rock is inuenced by the presence, orientation and condi-
tion of discontinuities, weathering proles, and other sim-
ilar features. The methods used for design of footings on
rock should consider these factors as they apply at a par-
ticular site, and the degree to which they should be incor-
porated in the design.
For footings on competent rock, reliance on simple and
direct analyses based on uniaxial compressive rock
strengths and RQD may be applicable. Competent rock is
dened as a rock mass with discontinuities that are tight
or open not wider than
1
8 inch. For footings on less com-
petent rock, more detailed investigations and analyses
should be used to account for the effects of weathering,
the presence and condition of discontinuities, and other
geologic factors.
4.4.8.1 Bearing Capacity
4.4.8.1.1 Footings on Competent Rock
The allowable contact stress for footings supported on
level surfaces in competent rock may be determined using
Figure 4.4.8.1.1A(Peck, et al. 1974). In no instance shall
the maximum allowable contact stress exceed the allow-
able bearing stress in the concrete. The RQD used in Fig-
ure 4.4.8.1.1A shall be the average RQD for the rock
within a depth of B below the base of the footing, where
the RQD values are relatively uniform within that inter-
val. If rock within a depth of 0.5B below the base of the
footing is of poorer quality, the RQD of the poorer rock
shall be used to determine q
all
.
4.4.8.1.2 Footings on Broken or Jointed Rock
The design of footings on broken or jointed rock must
account for the condition and spacing of joints and other
discontinuities. The ultimate bearing capacity of footings
on broken or jointed rock may be estimated using the fol-
lowing relationship:
q
ult
N
ms
C
o
(4.4.8.1.2-1)
Refer to Table 4.4.8.1.2A for values of N
ms
. Values of
C
o
should preferably be determined from the results of
laboratory testing of rock cores obtained within 2B of the
base of the footing. Where rock strata within this interval
are variable in strength, the rock with the lowest capacity
62 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.4.8
FIGURE 4.4.8.1.1A Allowable Contact Stress for Footings on Rock with Tight Discontinuities
Peck, et al. (1974)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
should be used to determine q
ult
. Alternatively, Table
4.4.8.1.2B may be used as a guide to estimate C
o
. For
rocks dened by very poor quality, the value of q
ult
should
be determined as the value of q
ult
for an equivalent soil
mass.
4.4.8.1.3 Factors of Safety
Spread footings on rock shall be designed for Group 1
loadings using a minimum factor of safety (FS) of 3.0
against a bearing capacity failure.
4.4.8.2 Settlement
4.4.8.2.1 Footings on Competent Rock
For footings on competent rock, elastic settlements will
generally be less than
1
2 inch when footings are designed
in accordance with Article 4.4.8.1.1. When elastic settle-
ments of this magnitude are unacceptable or when the rock
is not competent, an analysis of settlement based on rock
mass characteristics must be made. For rock masses which
have time-dependent settlement characteristics, the proce-
dure in Article 4.4.7.2.3 may be followed to determine the
time-dependent component of settlement.
4.4.8.2.2 Footings on Broken or Jointed Rock
Where the criteria for competent rock are not met, the
inuence of rock type, condition of discontinuities and de-
gree of weathering shall be considered in the settlement
analysis.
The elastic settlement of footings on broken or jointed
rock may be determined using the following:
For circular (or square) footings;
q
o
(1
2
)rI
/E
m
, with I
( )/
z
(4.4.8.2.2-1)
For rectangular footings;
4.4.8.1.2 DIVISION IDESIGN 63
TABLE 4.4.8.1.2A Values of Coefficient N
ms
for Estimation of the Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Footings on
Broken or Jointed Rock (Modied after Hoek, (1983))
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
q
o
(1
2
)BI
/E
m
, with I
(L/B)
1/2
/
z
(4.4.8.2.2-2)
Values of I
p
may be computed using the
z
values pre-
sented in Table 4.4.7.2.2B from Article 4.4.7.2.2 for rigid
footings. Values of Poissons ratio () for typical rock
types are presented in Table 4.4.8.2.2A. Determination of
the rock mass modulus (E
m
) should be based on the results
of in-situ and laboratory tests. Alternatively, values of E
m
may be estimated by multiplying the intact rock modulus
(E
o
) obtained from uniaxial compression tests by a reduc-
tion factor (
E
) which accounts for frequency of disconti-
nuities by the rock quality designation (RQD), using the
following relationships (Gardner, 1987):
E
m
E
E
o
(4.4.8.2.2-3)
E
0.0231(RQD) 1.32 0.15 (4.4.8.2.2-4)
For preliminary design or when site-specic test data can-
not be obtained, guidelines for estimating values of E
o
(such as presented in Table 4.4.8.2.2B or Figure
4.4.8.2.2A) may be used. For preliminary analyses or for
nal design when in-situ test results are not available, a
value of
E
0.15 should be used to estimate E
m
.
4.4.8.2.3 Tolerable Movement
Refer to Article 4.4.7.2.3.
4.4.9 Overall Stability
The overall stability of footings, slopes, and founda-
tion soil or rock shall be evaluated for footings located on
64 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.4.8.2.2
TABLE 4.4.8.1.2B Typical Range of Uniaxial Compressive Strength (C
o
) as a Function of
Rock Category and Rock Type
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
4.4.9 DIVISION IDESIGN 65
TABLE 4.4.8.2.2A Summary of Poissons Ratio for Intact Rock
Modied after Kulhawy (1978)
TABLE 4.4.8.2.2B Summary of Elastic Moduli for Intact Rock
Modied after Kulhawy (1978)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
or near a slope by limiting equilibrium methods of analy-
sis which employ the Modied Bishop, simplied Janbu,
Spenser or other generally accepted methods of slope sta-
bility analysis. Where soil and rock parameters and
ground water levels are based on in-situ and/or laboratory
tests, the minimum factor of safety shall be 1.3 (or 1.5
where abutments are supported above a slope). Otherwise,
the minimum factor of safety shall be 1.5 (or 1.8 where
abutments are supported above a retaining wall).
4.4.10 Dynamic/Seismic Design
Refer to Division I-A and Lam and Martin (1986a;
1986b) for guidance regarding the design of footings sub-
jected to dynamic and seismic loads.
4.4.11 Structural Design
4.4.11.1 Loads and Reactions
4.4.11.1.1 Action of Loads and Reactions
Footings shall be considered as under the action of
downward forces, due to the superimposed loads, resisted
by an upward pressure exerted by the foundation materi-
als and distributed over the area of the footings as deter-
mined by the eccentricity of the resultant of the downward
forces. Where piles are used under footings, the upward
reaction of the foundation shall be considered as a series
of concentrated loads applied at the pile centers, each pile
being assumed to carry the computed portion of the total
footing load.
66 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.4.9
FIGURE 4.4.8.2.2A Relationship Between Elastic Modulus and Uniaxial Compressive Strength for Intact Rock
Modied after Deere (1968)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
4.4.11.1.2 Isolated and Multiple Footing Reactions
When a single isolated footing supports a column, pier
or wall, the footing shall be assumed to act as a cantilever.
When footings support more than one column, pier, or
wall, the footing slab shall be designed for the actual con-
ditions of continuity and restraint.
4.4.11.2 Moments
4.4.11.2.1 Critical Section
External moment on any section of a footing shall be
determined by passing a vertical plane through the foot-
ing, and computing the moment of the forces acting over
the entire area of the footing on one side of that vertical
plane. The critical section for bending shall be taken at the
face of the column, pier, or wall. In the case of columns
that are not square or rectangular, the section shall be
taken at the side of the concentric square of equivalent
area. For footings under masonry walls, the critical sec-
tion shall be taken halfway between the middle and edge
of the wall. For footings under metallic column bases, the
critical section shall be taken halfway between the column
face and the edge of the metallic base.
4.4.11.2.2 Distribution of Reinforcement
Reinforcement of one-way and two-way square foot-
ings shall be distributed uniformly across the entire width
of footing.
Reinforcement of two-way rectangular footings shall
be distributed uniformly across the entire width of footing
in the long direction. In the short direction, the portion of
the total reinforcement given by Equation 4.4.11.2.2-1
shall be distributed uniformly over a band width (centered
on center line of column or pier) equal to the length of the
short side of the footing. The remainder of reinforcement
required in the short direction shall be distributed uni-
formly outside the center band width of footing.
is the ratio of the footing length to width.
4.4.11.3 Shear
4.4.11.3.1 Critical Section
Computation of shear in footings, and location of crit-
ical section, shall be in accordance with Articles 8.15.5.6
or 8.16.6.6. Location of critical section shall be measured
from the face of column, pier or wall, for footings sup-
porting a column, pier, or wall. For footings supporting
a column or pier with metallic base plates, the critical
section shall be measured from the location dened in
Article 4.4.11.2.
4.4.11.3.2 Footings on Piles or Drilled Shafts
Shear on the critical section shall be in accordance with
the following:
Entire reaction from any pile or drilled shaft whose
center is located d
p
/2 or more outside the critical
section shall be considered as producing shear on
that section.
Reaction from any pile or drilled shaft whose center
is located d
p
/2 or more inside the critical section
shall be considered as producing no shear on that
section.
For the intermediate position of pile or drilled shaft
centers, the portion of the pile or shaft reaction to be
considered as producing shear on the critical section
shall be based on linear interpolation between full
value at d
p
/2 outside the section and zero value at
d
p
/2 inside the section.
4.4.11.4 Development of Reinforcement
4.4.11.4.1 Development Length
Computation of development of reinforcement in
footings shall be in accordance with Articles 8.24
through 8.32.
4.4.11.4.2 Critical Section
Critical sections for development of reinforcement
shall be assumed at the same locations as dened in Arti-
cle 4.4.11.2 and at all other vertical planes where changes
in section or reinforcement occur. See also Article
8.24.1.5.
4.4.11.5 Transfer of Force at Base of Column
4.4.11.5.1 Transfer of Force
All forces and moments applied at base of column or
pier shall be transferred to top of footing by bearing on
concrete and by reinforcement.
4.4.11.5.2 Lateral Forces
Lateral forces shall be transferred to supporting foot-
ing in accordance with shear-transfer provisions of Arti-
cles 8.15.5.4 or 8.16.6.4.
Reinforcement in band width
Total reinforcement in short direction
-1)
=
+
2
1
4 4 11 2 2
( )
( . . . .
a
Allowable stress (ksi)
The notations for dimension units include the follow-
ing: dim Dimensionless; ft foot; square feet ft
2
;
k kip; ksi kip/in.
2
; and in. inch. The dimensional
units provided with each notation are presented for illus-
tration only to demonstrate a dimensionally correct com-
bination of units for the footing capacity procedures pre-
sented herein. If other units are used, the dimensional
correctness of the equations shall be conrmed.
4.5.4 Design Terminology
Refer to Figure 4.5.4Afor terminology used in the de-
sign of driven pile foundations.
4.5.5 Selection of Soil and Rock Properties
Soil and rock properties dening the strength and com-
pressibility characteristics of the foundation materials, are
required for driven pile design. Refer to Article 4.3 for
guidelines for subsurface exploration to obtain soil and
rock properties.
4.5.6 Selection of Design Pile Capacity
The design pile capacity is the maximum load the
pile shall support with tolerable movement. In determin-
ing the design pile capacity, the following items shall be
considered:
Ultimate geotechnical capacity; and
Structural capacity of the pile section.
4.5.6.1 Ultimate Geotechnical Capacity
The ultimate axial capacity of a driven pile shall be de-
termined from:
Q
ult
Q
S
Q
T
(4.5.6.1-1)
The allowable design axial capacity shall be deter-
mined from:
Q
all
Q
ult
/FS (4.5.6.1-2)
4.5.6.1.1 Factors Affecting Axial Capacity
In determining the design axial capacity, consideration
shall be given to:
The difference between the supporting capacity of a
single pile and that of a group of piles;
The capacity of an underlying strata to support the
load of the pile group;
The effects of driving piles on adjacent structures or
slopes;
The possibility of scour and its effect on axial and
lateral capacity;
The effects of negative skin friction or downdrag
loads from consolidating soil and the effects of up-
lift loads from expansive or swelling soils;
The inuence of construction techniques such as
augering or jetting on capacity; and
The inuence of uctuations in the elevation of the
ground water table on capacity.
4.5.6.1.2 Axial Capacity in Cohesive Soils
The ultimate axial capacity of piles in cohesive soils
may be calculated using a total stress method (e.g., Tom-
linson, 1957) for undrained loading conditions, or an ef-
fective stress method (e.g., Meyerhof, 1976) for drained
loading conditions. The axial capacity may also be calcu-
lated from in-situ testing methods such as the cone pene-
tration (e.g., Schmertmann, 1978) or pressuremeter tests
(e.g., Baguelin, 1978).
4.5.6.1.3 Axial Capacity in Cohesionless Soils
The ultimate axial capacity of piles in cohesionless
soils may be calculated using an empirical effective stress
method (e.g., Nordlund, 1963) or from in-situ testing
methods and analysis such as the cone penetration (e.g.,
Schmertmann, 1978) or pressuremeter tests (e.g.,
Baguelin, 1978).
4.5.6.1.4 Axial Capacity on Rock
For piles driven to competent rock, the structural ca-
pacity in Article 4.5.7 will generally govern the design
axial capacity. For piles driven to weak rock such as shale
and mudstone or poor quality weathered rock, a static load
test is recommended. Pile relaxation should be considered
in certain kinds of rock when performing load tests.
70 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.5.3
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
4.5.6.2 Factor of Safety Selection
The selection of the factor of safety to be applied to
the ultimate axial geotechnical capacity shall consider
the reliability of the ultimate soil capacity determination
and pile installation control. Recommended values for
the factor of safety depending upon the degree of con-
struction control specified on the plans are presented in
Table 4.5.6.2A. All factors of safety are based on full-
time observation of pile installation. The design pile ca-
pacity shall be specified on the plans so the factor of
safety can be adjusted if the specified construction con-
trol is altered.
4.5.6.3 Settlement
The settlement of axially loaded piles and pile groups
at the allowable loads shall be estimated. Elastic analysis,
load transfer and/or nite element techniques (e.g., Vesic,
1977 or Poulos and Davis, 1980) may be used. The set-
tlement of the pile or pile group shall not exceed the tol-
erable movement limits of the structure.
4.5.6.4 Group Pile Loading
Group pile capacity should be determined as the prod-
uct of the group efficiency, number of piles in the group,
4.5.6.2 DIVISION IDESIGN 71
FIGURE 4.5.4A Design Terminology for Driven Pile Foundations
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
and the capacity of a single pile. In general, a group effi-
ciency value of 1.0 should be used except for friction piles
in cohesive soils. The efficiency factor for friction piles in
cohesive soils with a center-to-center pile spacing less
than 3.0B should be 0.7. Center-to-center pile spacings
less than 2.5B are not recommended.
4.5.6.5 Lateral Loads on Piles
The design of laterally loaded piles is usually governed
by lateral movement criteria. The design of laterally
loaded piles shall account for the effects of soil/rock-
structure interaction between the pile and ground (e.g.,
Reese, 1984). Methods of analysis evaluating the ultimate
capacity or deection of laterally loaded piles (e.g.,
Broms, 1964a and 1964b; Singh, et al., 1971) may be used
for preliminary design only as a means to evaluate appro-
priate pile sections.
4.5.6.6 Uplift Loads on Piles
The uplift design capacity of single piles and pile
groups shall be determined in accordance with Articles
4.5.6.6.1 and 4.5.6.6.2, respectively. Proper provision
shall be made for anchorage of the pile into the pile cap.
4.5.6.6.1 Single Pile
The uplift design capacity for a single pile shall not ex-
ceed one-third of the ultimate frictional capacity deter-
mined by a static analysis method. Alternatively, the uplift
capacity of a single pile can be determined by uplift load
tests in conformance with ASTM D 3689 (ASTM, 1988).
If determined by load tests, the allowable uplift design ca-
pacity shall not exceed 50% of the failure uplift load.
4.5.6.6.2 Pile Group
The uplift design capacity for a pile group shall be the
lesser of: (1) The single pile uplift design capacity multi-
plied by the number of piles in the group, or (2) two-thirds
of the effective weight of the pile group and the soils con-
tained within a block dened by the perimeter of the
group and the embedded length of the piles, or (3) one-
half the effective weight of the pile group and the soil con-
tained within a block dened by the perimeter of the
group and the embedded pile length plus one-half the total
soil shear on the peripheral surface of the group.
4.5.6.7 Vertical Ground Movement
The potential for external loading on a pile by vertical
ground movements shall be considered as part of the de-
sign. Vertical ground movements may result in negative
skin friction or downdrag loads due to settlement of com-
pressible soils or may result in uplift loads due to heave of
expansive soils. For design purposes, the full magnitude
of maximum vertical ground movement shall be assumed.
4.5.6.7.1 Negative Skin Friction
The potential for external loading on a pile by negative
skin friction/downdrag due to settlement of compressible
soil shall be considered as a part of the design. Evaluation
of negative skin friction shall include a load-transfer
method of analysis to determine the neutral point (i.e.,
point of zero relative displacement) and load distribution
along shaft (e.g., Fellenius, 1984, Reese and ONeill,
1988). Due to the possible time dependence associated
with vertical ground movement, the analysis shall con-
sider the effect of time on load transfer between the
ground and shaft and the analysis shall be performed for
the time period relating to the maximum axial load trans-
fer to the pile. If necessary, negative skin friction loads
that cause excessive settlement may be reduced by appli-
cation of bitumen or other viscous coatings to the pile sur-
faces before installation.
4.5.6.7.2 Expansive Soil
Piles driven in swelling soils may be subjected to up-
lift forces in the zone of seasonal moisture change. Piles
shall extend a sufficient distance into moisturestable
soils to provide adequate resistance to swelling uplift
forces. In addition, sufficient clearance shall be provided
between the ground surface and the underside of pile caps
or grade beams to preclude the application of uplift loads
at the pile cap. Uplift loads may be reduced by application
of bitumen or other viscous coatings to the pile surface in
the swelling zone.
72 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.5.6.4
TABLE 4.5.6.2A Recommended Factor of Safety on
Ultimate Geotechnical Capacity Based on Specied
Construction Control
Increasing Construction
Control
Subsurface exploration
(1)
X X X X X
Static calculation X X X X X
Dynamic formula X
Wave equation X X X X
Dynamic measurement X X
and analysis
Static load test X X
Factor of safety 3.50 2.75 2.25
(2)
2.00 1.90
(1)
X Construction Control Specied on Contract Plans.
(2)
For any combination of construction control that includes an
approved static load test, a factor of safety of 2.0 may be used.
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
4.5.6.8 Dynamic/Seismic Design
Refer to Division I-Afor guidance regarding the design
of driven piles subjected to dynamic and seismic loads.
4.5.7 Structural Capacity of Pile Section
4.5.7.1 Load Capacity Requirements
Piles shall be designed as structural members capable
of safely supporting all loads imposed on them by the
structure or surrounding soil.
4.5.7.2 Piles Extending Above Ground Surface
For portions of piles in air or water, or in soil not ca-
pable of providing adequate lateral support throughout the
pile length to prevent buckling, the structural design pro-
visions for compression members of Sections 8, 9, 10, and
13 shall apply except: timber piles shall be designed in ac-
cordance with Article 13.5 using the allowable unit
stresses given in Article 13.2 for lumber and in Table
4.5.7.3A.
4.5.7.3 Allowable Stresses in Piles
The maximum allowable stress on a pile shall not ex-
ceed the following limits in severe subsurface conditions.
Where pile damage or deterioration is possible, it may be
prudent to use a lower stress level than the maximum al-
lowable stress.
For steel H-piles, the maximum allowable stress
shall not exceed 0.25F
y
over the cross-sectional area
of the pile, not including the area of any tip rein-
forcement. The maximum allowable stress may be
increased to 0.33F
y
in conditions where pile damage
is unlikely. Static and/or dynamic load test and eval-
uation conrming satisfactory results should be per-
formed when using 0.33F
y
.
For unlled steel pipe piles, the maximum allowable
stress shall not exceed 0.25F
y
over the minimum
cross-sectional area of the pile. The maximum al-
lowable stress may be increased to 0.33F
y
in condi-
tions where pile damage is unlikely. Static and/or
dynamic load test and evaluation conrming satis-
factory results should be performed when using
0.33F
y
.
For concrete lled steel pipe piles, the maximum
allowable stress shall not exceed 0.25F
y
0.40f
c
i
Adhesion factor as a function over ith depth in-
terval (dim); (See Article 4.6.5.1.1)
E
Reduction factor to estimate rock mass modulus
and uniaxial strength from the modulus and
4.6.1.7 DIVISION IDESIGN 79
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
uniaxial strength of intact rock (dim); (See Article
4.6.5.3.1)
i
Load transfer factor in the ith interval (dim); (See
Article 4.6.5.1.2)
i
Effective soil unit weight in ith interval (kcf);
(See Article 4.6.5.1.2)
z
i
ith increment of shaft length (ft)
Factor to account for reduced individual capac-
ity of closely spaced shafts in group (dim); (See
Article 4.6.5.2.4.1)
e
Elastic shortening of shaft (ft); (See Articles
4.6.5.5.1.1 and 4.6.5.5.1.2)
s
Total settlement displacement at butt for shaft
with rock socket (ft); (See Article 4.6.5.5.2)
u
Total uplift displacement at butt for shaft with
rock socket (ft); (See Equation 4.6.5.5.2)
3.1415 (dim)
Poissons ratio (dim)
c
Unconned compressive strength of rock mass
or concrete, whichever is weaker (psi); (See Ar-
ticle 4.6.5.3.1)
vi
Effective vertical stress at midpoint of ith depth
interval (ksf); (See Article 4.6.5.1.2)
The notations for dimension units include the follow-
ing: dim Dimensionless; deg degree; ft foot; k
kip; k/ft kip/ft; ksf kip/ft
2
; and kcf kip/ft
3
. The di-
mensional units provided with each notation are presented
for illustration only to demonstrate a dimensionally cor-
rect combination of units for the shaft capacity and settle-
ment procedures presented below. If other units are used,
the dimensional correctness of the equations should be
conrmed.
4.6.3 Design Terminology
Refer to Figure 4.6.3Afor terminology used in design
of drilled shafts.
4.6.4 Selection of Soil and Rock Properties
Soil and rock properties dening the strength and com-
pressibility characteristics of the foundation materials are
required for drilled shaft design.
4.6.4.1 Presumptive Values
Presumptive values for allowable bearing pressures on
soil and rock may be used only for guidance, preliminary
design or design of temporary structures. The use of pre-
sumptive values shall be based on the results of subsur-
face exploration to identify soil and rock conditions. All
values used for design shall be conrmed by eld and/or
laboratory testing.
4.6.4.2 Measured Values
Foundation stability and settlement analyses for nal
design shall be performed using soil and rock properties
based on the results of eld and/or laboratory testing.
4.6.5 Geotechnical Design
Drilled shafts shall be designed to support the design
loads with adequate bearing and structural capacity, and
with tolerable settlements in conformance with Articles
4.6.5 and 4.6.6. In addition, the response of drilled shafts
subjected to seismic and dynamic loads, materials and
shaft shall be evaluated in conformance with Articles
4.4.7.3 (dynamic ground stability) and 4.6.5.7, respec-
tively.
Shaft design shall be based on working stress princi-
ples using maximum unfactored loads derived from cal-
culations of dead and live loads from superstructures, sub-
structures, earth (i.e., sloping ground), wind and traffic.
Allowable axial and lateral loads may be determined by
separate methods of analysis.
The design methods presented herein for determining
axial load capacity assume drilled shafts of uniform cross-
section, with vertical alignment, concentric axial loading,
and a relatively horizontal ground surface. The effects of
an enlarged base, group action, and sloping ground are
treated separately.
4.6.5.1 Axial Capacity in Soil
The ultimate axial capacity (Q
ult
) of drilled shafts shall
be determined in accordance with the following for com-
pression and uplift loading, respectively:
Q
ult
Q
S
Q
T
W (4.6.5.1-1)
Q
ult
0.7Q
S
W (4.6.5.1-2)
The allowable or working axial load shall be deter-
mined as:
Q
all
Q
ult
/FS (4.6.5.1-3)
Shafts in cohesive soils may be designed by total and
effective stress methods of analysis, for undrained and
drained loading conditions, respectively. Shafts in cohe-
sionless soils shall be designed by effective stress meth-
ods of analysis for drained loading conditions.
80 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.6.2
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
4.6.5.1.1 Side Resistance in Cohesive Soil
For shafts in cohesive soil loaded under undrained
loading conditions, the ultimate side resistance may be es-
timated using the following:
The ultimate unit load transfer in side resistance at any
depth f
si
is equal to the product of
i
and s
ui
. Refer to Table
4.6.5.1.1Afor guidance regarding selection of
i
and lim-
iting values of f
si
for shafts excavated dry in open or cased
holes. Environmental, long-term loading or construction
factors may dictate that a depth greater than 5 feet should
be ignored in estimating Q
S
. Refer to Figure 4.6.5.1.1A
for identication of portions of drilled shaft not consid-
ered in contributing to the computed value of Q
S
. For
shafts in cohesive soil under drained loading conditions,
Q
S
may be determined using the procedure in Article
4.6.5.1.2.
Where time-dependent changes in soil shear strength
may occur (e.g., swelling of expansive clay or downdrag
from a consolidating clay), effective stress methods (Ar-
ticle 4.6.5.1.2) should be used to compute Q
S
in the zone
where such changes may occur.
4.6.5.1.2 Side Resistance in Cohesionless Soil
For shafts in cohesionless soil or for effective stress
analysis of shafts in cohesive soils under drained loading
conditions, the ultimate side resistance of axially loaded
drilled shafts may be estimated using the following:
The value of
i
may be determined using the follow-
ing:
The value of
i
should be determined from measure-
ments from undisturbed samples along the length of the
shaft or from empirical correlations with SPT or other in-
situ test methods. The ultimate unit load transfer in side
i i i
z = > > 1 5 0 135 0 25 4 6 5 1 2 2 . . ; . ( . . . . ) 1.2
Q B z z
S
i
N
i i i i
=
=
1
4 6 5 1 2 ( . . . . -1)
Q B S z
S
i
N
i ui i
=
=
1
4 6 5 1 1 ( . . . . -1)
4.6.5.1.1 DIVISION IDESIGN 81
FIGURE 4.6.3A Design Terminology for Drilled Shaft Foundations
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
resistance at any depth, f
si
, is equal to the product of
i
and
vi
. The limiting value of f
si
for shafts in cohesionless soil
is 4 ksf.
4.6.5.1.3 Tip Resistance in Cohesive Soil
For axially loaded shafts in cohesive soil subjected to
undrained loading conditions, the ultimate tip resistance
of drilled shafts may be estimated using the following:
Q
T
q
T
A
t
N
c
s
ut
A
t
(4.6.5.1.3-1)
Values of the bearing capacity factor N
c
may be deter-
mined using the following:
N
c
6.0[1 0.2(D/B
t
)]; N
c
9 (4.6.5.1.3-2)
The limiting value of unit end bearing (q
T
N
c
s
ut
) is
80 ksf.
The value of s
ut
should be determined from the results
of in-situ and/or laboratory testing of undisturbed samples
82 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.6.5.1.2
FIGURE 4.6.5.1.1A Identication of Portions of Drilled Shafts Neglected for Estimation of
Drilled Shaft Side Resistance in Cohesive Soil
Reese and ONeill (1988)
TABLE 4.6.5.1.1A Recommended Values of and f
si
for Estimation of Drilled Shaft Side Resistance in
Cohesive Soil Reese and ONeill (1988)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
obtained within a depth of 2B below the tip of the shaft.
If the soil within 2B of the tip is of soft consistency, the
value of N
c
should be reduced by one-third.
If B
t
6.25 feet (75 inches) and shaft settlements will
not be evaluated, the value of q
T
should be reduced to q
TR
as follows:
q
TR
F
r
q
T
(2.5/[aB
t
/12 2.5b])q
T
(4.6.5.1.3-3)
a 0.0071 0.0021(D/B
t
); a 0.015 (4.6.5.1.3-4)
b 0.45(s
ut
)
0.5
; 0.5 b 1.5 (4.6.5.1.3-5)
The limiting value of q
TR
is 80 ksf.
For shafts in cohesive soil under drained loading con-
ditions, Q
T
may be estimated using the procedure de-
scribed in Article 4.6.5.1.4.
4.6.5.1.4 Tip Resistance in Cohesionless Soil
For axially loaded drilled shafts in cohesionless soils
or for effective stress analysis of axially loaded drilled
shafts in cohesive soil, the ultimate tip resistance may be
estimated using the following:
Q
T
q
T
A
t
(4.6.5.1.4-1)
The value of q
T
may be determined from the results of
standard penetration testing using uncorrected blow count
readings within a depth of 2B below the tip of the shaft.
Refer to Table 4.6.5.1.4Afor recommended values of q
T
.
If B
t
4.2 feet (50 inches) and shaft settlements will
not be evaluated, the value of q
T
should be reduced to q
TR
as follows:
q
TR
(50/12B
t
)q
T
(4.6.5.1.4-2)
4.6.5.2 Factors Affecting Axial Capacity in Soil
4.6.5.2.1 Soil Layering and Variable Soil Strength
with Depth
The design of shafts in layered soil deposits or soil de-
posits having variable strength with depth requires evalu-
ation of soil parameters characteristic of the respective
layers or depths. Q
S
in such soil deposits may be estimated
by dividing the shaft into layers according to soil type and
properties, determining Q
S
for each layer, and summing
values for each layer to obtain the total Q
S
. If the soil
below the shaft tip is of variable consistency, Q
T
may be
estimated using the predominant soil strata within 2B
below the shaft tip.
For shafts extending through soft compressible layers
to tip bearing on rm soil or rock, consideration shall be
4.6.5.1.3 DIVISION IDESIGN 83
TABLE 4.6.5.1.4A Recommended Values of q
T
*
for Estimation of Drilled Shaft Tip Resistance in
Cohesionless Soil after Reese and ONeill (1988)
Standard
Penetration Resistance
N
(Blows/Foot) Value of qT
(uncorrected) (ksf)
0 to 75 1.20 N
Above 75 90
*Ultimate value or value at settlement of 5 percent of base diameter.
given to the effects of negative skin friction (Article
4.6.5.2.5) due to the consolidation settlement of soils sur-
rounding the shaft. Where the shaft tip would bear on a
thin rm soil layer underlain by a softer soil unit, the shaft
shall be extended through the softer soil unit to eliminate
the potential for a punching shear failure into the softer
deposit.
4.6.5.2.2 Ground Water
The highest anticipated water level shall be used for
design.
4.6.5.2.3 Enlarged Bases
An enlarged base (bell or underream) may be used at
the shaft tip in stiff cohesive soil to increase the tip bear-
ing area and reduce the unit end bearing pressure, or to
provide additional resistance to uplift loads.
The tip capacity of an enlarged base shall be deter-
mined assuming that the entire base area is effective in
transferring load. Allowance of full effectiveness of the
enlarged base shall be permitted only when cleaning of
the bottom of the drilled hole is specied and can be ac-
ceptably completed before concrete placement.
4.6.5.2.4 Group Action
Evaluation of group shaft capacity assumes the effects
of negative skin friction (if any) are negligible.
4.6.5.2.4.1 Cohesive Soil
Evaluation of group capacity of shafts in cohesive soil
shall consider the presence and contact of a cap with the
ground surface and the spacing between adjacent shafts.
For a shaft group with a cap in rm contact with the
ground, Q
ult
may be computed as the lesser of (1) the sum
of the individual capacities of each shaft in the group or
(2) the capacity of an equivalent pier dened in the
perimeter area of the group. For the equivalent pier, the
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
shear strength of soil shall not be reduced by any factor
(e.g.,
1
) to determine the Q
S
component of Q
ult
, the total
base area of the equivalent pier shall be used to determine
the Q
T
component of Q
ult
, and the additional capacity of
the cap shall be ignored.
If the cap is not in rm contact with the ground, or if
the soil at the surface is loose or soft, the individual ca-
pacity of each shaft should be reduced to times Q
T
for an
isolated shaft, where 0.67 for a center-to-center
(CTC) spacing of 3B and 1.0 for a CTC spacing of
6B. For intermediate spacings, the value of may be de-
termined by linear interpolation. The group capacity may
then be computed as the lesser of (1) the sum of the mod-
ied individual capacities of each shaft in the group, or (2)
the capacity of an equivalent pier as described above.
4.6.5.2.4.2 Cohesionless Soil
Evaluation of group capacity of shafts in cohesionless
soil shall consider the spacing between adjacent shafts.
Regardless of cap contact with the ground, the individual
capacity of each shaft should be reduced to times Q
T
for
an isolated shaft, where 0.67 for a center-to-center
(CTC) spacing of 3B and 1.0 for a CTC spacing of
8B. For intermediate spacings, the value of may be de-
termined by linear interpolation. The group capacity may
be computed as the lesser of (1) the sum of the modied
individual capacities of each shaft in the group or (2) the
capacity of an equivalent pier circumscribing the group,
including resistance over the entire perimeter and base
areas.
4.6.5.2.4.3 Group in Strong Soil Overlying
Weaker Soil
If a group of shafts is embedded in a strong soil deposit
which overlies a weaker deposit (cohesionless and cohe-
sive soil), consideration shall be given to the potential for
a punching failure of the tip into the weaker soil strata. For
this case, the unit tip capacity of the equivalent shaft (q
E
)
may be determined using the following:
q
E
q
LO
(H/10B
1
)(q
UP
q
LO
) q
UP
(4.6.5.2.4.3-1)
If the underlying soil unit is a weaker cohesive soil
strata, careful consideration shall be given to the potential
for large settlements in the weaker layer.
4.6.5.2.5 Vertical Ground Movement
The potential for external loading on a shaft by verti-
cal ground movement (i.e., negative skin friction/down-
drag due to settlement of compressible soil or uplift due
to heave of expansive soil) shall be considered as a part of
design. For design purposes, it shall be assumed that the
full magnitude of maximum potential vertical ground
movement occurs.
Evaluation of negative skin friction shall include a
load-transfer method of analysis to determine the neutral
point (i.e., point of zero relative displacement) and load
distribution along shaft (e.g., Reese and ONeill, 1988).
Due to the possible time dependence associated with ver-
tical ground movement, the analysis shall consider the ef-
fect of time on load transfer between the ground and shaft
and the analysis shall be performed for the time period re-
lating to the maximum axial load transfer to the shaft.
Shafts designed for and constructed in expansive soil
shall extend to a sufficient depth into moisture-stable soils
to provide adequate anchorage to resist uplift movement.
In addition, sufficient clearance shall be provided between
the ground surface and underside of caps or beams con-
necting shafts to preclude the application of uplift loads at
the shaft/cap connection from swelling ground conditions.
Uplift capacity shall rely only on side resistance in con-
formance with Article 4.6.5.1. If the shaft has an enlarged
base, Q
S
shall be determined in conformance with Article
4.6.5.2.3.
4.6.5.2.6 Method of Construction
The load capacity and deformation behavior of drilled
shafts can be greatly affected by the quality and method(s)
of construction. The effects of construction methods are
incorporated in design by application of a factor of safety
consistent with the expected construction method(s) and
level of eld quality control measures (Article 4.6.5.4).
Where the spacing between shafts in a group is re-
stricted, consideration shall be given to the sequence of
construction to minimize the effect of adjacent shaft con-
struction operations on recently constructed shafts.
4.6.5.3 Axial Capacity in Rock
Drilled shafts are socketed into rock to limit axial dis-
placements, increase load capacity and/or provide xity
for resistance to lateral loading. In determining the axial
capacity of drilled shafts with rock sockets, the side resis-
tance from overlying soil deposits may be ignored.
Typically, axial compression load is carried solely by
the side resistance on a shaft socketed into rock until a
total shaft settlement (
s
) on the order of 0.4 inches oc-
curs. At this displacement, the ultimate side resistance,
Q
SR
, is mobilized and slip occurs between the concrete
and rock. As a result of this slip, any additional load is
transferred to the tip.
The design procedures assume the socket is con-
structed in reasonably sound rock that is little affected by
84 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.6.5.2.4.1
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
construction (i.e., does not rapidly degrade upon excava-
tion and/or exposure to air or water) and which is cleaned
prior to concrete placement (i.e., free of soil and other de-
bris). If the rock is degradable, consideration of special
construction procedures, larger socket dimensions, or re-
duced socket capacities should be considered.
4.6.5.3.1 Side Resistance
The ultimate side resistance (Q
SR
) for shafts socketed
into rock may be determined using the following:
Q
SR
B
r
D
r
(0.144q
SR
) (4.6.5.3.1-1)
Refer to Figure 4.6.5.3.1Afor values of q
SR
. For uplift
loading Q
ult
of a rock socket shall be limited to 0.7Q
SR
.
The design of rock sockets shall be based on the un-
conned compressive strength of the rock mass (C
m
) or
concrete, whichever is weaker (
c
). C
m
may be estimated
using the following relationship:
C
m
E
C
o
(4.6.5.3.1-2)
Refer to Article 4.4.8.2.2 for the procedure to deter-
mine
E
as a function of RQD.
4.6.5.3.2 Tip Resistance
Evaluation of ultimate tip resistance (Q
TR
) for rock-
socketed drilled shafts shall consider the inuence of rock
discontinuities. Q
TR
for rock-socketed drilled shafts may
be determined using the following:
Q
TR
N
ms
C
o
A
t
(4.6.5.3.2-1)
Preferably, values of C
o
should be determined from the
results of laboratory testing of rock cores obtained within
2B of the base of the footing. Where rock strata within this
interval are variable in strength, the rock with the lowest
capacity should be used to determine Q
TR
. Alternatively,
Table 4.4.8.1.2B may be used as a guide to estimate C
o
.
For rocks dened by very poor quality, the value of Q
TR
cannot be less than the value of Q
T
for an equivalent soil
mass.
4.6.5.3.3 Factors Affecting Axial Capacity in Rock
4.6.5.3.3.1 Rock Stratication
Rock stratication shall be considered in the design of
rock sockets as follows:
4.6.5.3 DIVISION IDESIGN 85
FIGURE 4.6.5.3.1A Procedure for Estimating Average Unit Shear for Smooth Wall Rock-Socketed Shafts
Horvath, et al. (1983)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
Sockets embedded in alternating layers of weak and
strong rock shall be designed using the strength of
the weaker rock.
The side resistance provided by soft or weathered
rock should be neglected in determining the required
socket length where a socket extends into more com-
petent underlying rock. Rock is dened as soft when
the uniaxial compressive strength of the weaker rock
is less than 20% of that of the stronger rock, or
weathered when the RQD is less than 20%.
Where the tip of a shaft would bear on thin rigid rock
strata underlain by a weaker unit, the shaft shall be
extended into or through the weaker unit (depending
on load capacity or deformation requirements) to
eliminate the potential for failure due to exural ten-
sion or punching failure of the thin rigid stratum.
Shafts designed to bear on strata in which the rock
surface is inclined should extend to a sufficient depth
to ensure that the shaft tip is fully bearing on the rock.
Shafts designed to bear on rock strata in which bed-
ding planes are not perpendicular to the shaft axis
shall extend a minimum depth of 2B into the dipping
strata to minimize the potential for shear failure
along natural bedding planes and other slippage sur-
faces associated with stratication.
4.6.5.3.3.2 Rock Mass Discontinuities
The strength and compressibility of rock will be af-
fected by the presence of discontinuities (joints and frac-
tures). The inuence of discontinuities on shaft behavior
will be dependent on their attitude, frequency and condi-
tion, and shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as nec-
essary.
4.6.5.3.3.3 Method of Construction
The effect of the method of construction on the engi-
neering properties of the rock and the contact between the
rock and shaft shall be considered as a part of the design
process.
4.6.5.4 Factors of Safety
Drilled shafts in soil or socketed in rock shall be de-
signed for a minimum factor of safety of 2.0 against bear-
ing capacity failure (end bearing, side resistance or com-
bined) when the design is based on the results of a load test
conducted at the site. Otherwise, shafts shall be designed
for a minimum factor of safety 2.5. The minimum recom-
mended factors of safety are based on an assumed normal
level of eld quality control during shaft construction. If a
normal level of eld quality control cannot be assured,
higher minimum factors of safety shall be used.
4.6.5.5 Deformation of Axially Loaded Shafts
The settlement of axially loaded shafts at working or
allowable loads shall be estimated using elastic or load
transfer analysis methods. For most cases, elastic analysis
will be applicable for design provided the stress levels in
the shaft are moderate relative to Q
ult
. Where stress levels
are high, consideration should be given to methods of load
transfer analysis.
4.6.5.5.1 Shafts in Soil
Settlements should be estimated for the design or
working load.
4.6.5.5.1.1 Cohesive Soil
The short-term settlement of shafts in cohesive soil
may be estimated using Figures 4.6.5.5.1.1A and
4.6.5.5.1.1B. The curves presented indicate the propor-
tions of the ultimate side resistance (Q
S
) and ultimate tip
resistance (Q
T
) mobilized at various magnitudes of settle-
ment. The total axial load on the shaft (Q) is equal to the
sum of the mobilized side resistance (Q
S
) and mobilized
tip resistance (Q
t
).
The settlement in Figure 4.6.5.5.1.1Aincorporates the
effects of elastic shortening of the shaft provided the shaft
is of typical length (i.e., D 100 ft). For longer shafts, the
effects of elastic shortening may be estimated using the
following:
e
PD/AE
c
(4.6.5.5.1.1-1)
For a shaft with an enlarged base in cohesive soil, the
diameter of the shaft at the base (B
b
) should be used in
Figure 4.6.5.5.1.1B to estimate shaft settlement at the tip.
Refer to Article 4.4.7.2.3 for procedures to estimate the
consolidation settlement component for shafts extending
into cohesive soil deposits.
4.6.5.5.1.2 Cohesionless Soil
The short-term settlement of shafts in cohesion-
less soil may be estimated using Figures 4.6.5.5.1.2A
and 4.6.5.5.1.2B. The curves presented indicate the
proportions of the ultimate side resistance (Q
S
) and
ultimate tip resistance (Q
T
) mobilized at various magni-
tudes of settlement. The total axial load on the shaft (Q)
is equal to the sum of the mobilized side resistance (Q
S
)
and mobilized tip resistance (Q
t
). Elastic shortening
of the shaft shall be estimated using the following rela-
tionship:
e
PD/AE
c
(4.6.5.5.1.2-1)
86 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.6.5.3.3.1
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
4.6.5.5.1.3 Mixed Soil Prole
The short-term settlement of shafts in a mixed soil pro-
le may be estimated by summing the proportional settle-
ment components from layers of cohesive and cohesion-
less soil comprising the subsurface prole.
4.6.5.5.2 Shafts Socketed into Rock
In estimating the displacement of rock-socketed drilled
shafts, the resistance to deformation provided by overly-
ing soil deposits may be ignored. Otherwise, the load
transfer to soil as a function of displacement may be esti-
mated in accordance with Article 4.6.5.5.1.
The butt settlement (
s
) of drilled shafts fully sock-
eted into rock may be determined using the following
which is modied to include elastic shortening of the
shaft:
s
Q[(I
s
/B
r
E
m
) (D
r
/AE
c
)] (4.6.5.5.2-1)
Refer to Figure 4.6.5.5.2Ato determine I
ps
.
The uplift displacement (
u
) at the butt of drilled shafts
fully socketed into rock may be determined using the fol-
lowing which is modied to include elastic shortening of
the shaft:
u
Q
u
[(I
u
/B
r
E
m
) (D/AE
c
)] (4.6.5.5.2-2)
Refer to Figure 4.6.5.5.2B to determine I
pu
.
The rock mass modulus (E
m
) should be deter-
mined based on the results of in-situ testing (e.g.,
pressure-meter) or estimated from the results of labora-
tory tests in which E
m
is the modulus of intact rock spec-
imens, and (E
o
) is estimated in accordance with Article
4.4.8.2.2.
For preliminary design or when site-specic test
data cannot be obtained, guidelines for estimating
values of E
o
, such as presented in Table 4.4.8.2.2B or
Figure 4.4.8.2.2A, may be used. For preliminary analyses
or for nal design when in-situ test results are not
available, a value of
E
0.15 should be used to esti-
mate E
m
.
4.6.5.5.3 Tolerable Movement
Tolerable axial displacement criteria for drilled shaft
foundations shall be developed by the structural designer
consistent with the function and type of structure, xity of
bearings, anticipated service life, and consequences of un-
acceptable displacements on the structure performance.
Drilled shaft displacement analyses shall be based on the
results of in-situ and/or laboratory testing to characterize
4.6.5.5.1.2 DIVISION IDESIGN 87
FIGURE 4.6.5.5.1.1A Load Transfer in
Side Resistance Versus Settlement Drilled Shafts in
Cohesive Soil
After Reese and ONeill (1988)
FIGURE 4.6.5.5.1.1B Load Transfer in
Tip Bearing Settlement Drilled Shafts in
Cohesive Soil
After Reese and ONeill (1988)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
the load-deformation behavior of the foundation materials.
Refer to Article 4.4.7.2.5 for additional guidance regarding
tolerable vertical and horizontal movement criteria.
4.6.5.6 Lateral Loading
The design of laterally loaded drilled shafts shall ac-
count for the effects of soil/rock-structure interaction be-
tween the shaft and ground (e.g., Reese, 1984; Borden and
Gabr, 1987). Methods of analysis evaluating the ultimate
capacity or deection of laterally loaded shafts (e.g.,
Broms, 1964a,b; Singh, et al., 1971) may be used for pre-
liminary design only as a means to determine approximate
shaft dimensions.
4.6.5.6.1 Factors Affecting Laterally Loaded Shafts
4.6.5.6.1.1 Soil Layering
The design of laterally loaded drilled shafts in layered
soils shall be based on evaluation of the soil parameters
characteristic of the respective layers.
4.6.5.6.1.2 Ground Water
The highest anticipated water level shall be used for
design.
4.6.5.6.1.3 Scour
The potential for loss of lateral capacity due to scour
shall be considered in the design. Refer to Article 1.3.2
and FHWA (1988) for general guidance regarding hy-
draulic studies and design. If heavy scour is expected,
consideration shall be given to designing the portion of
the shaft that would be exposed as a column. In all cases,
the shaft length shall be determined such that the design
structural load can be safely supported entirely below the
probable scour depth.
4.6.5.6.1.4 Group Action
There is no reliable rational method for evaluating
the group action for closely spaced, laterally loaded
shafts. Therefore, as a general guide, drilled shafts
in a group may be considered to act individually when
the center-to-center (CTC) spacing is greater than 2.5B
in the direction normal to loading, and CTC 8B in
the direction parallel to loading. For shaft layouts
not conforming to these criteria, the effects of shaft inter-
action shall be considered in the design. As a general
guide, the effects of group action for in-line CTC 8B
may be considered using the ratios (CGS, 1985) appear-
ing on page 89.
88 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.6.5.5.3
FIGURE 4.6.5.5.1.2A Load Transfer in
Side Resistance Versus Settlement Drilled Shafts in
Cohesionless Soil
After Reese and ONeill (1988)
FIGURE 4.6.5.5.1.2B Load Transfer in
Tip Bearing Versus Settlement Drilled Shafts in
Cohesionless Soil
After Reese and ONeill (1988)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
Ratio of Lateral
CTC Shaft Spacing Resistance of Shaft in
for In-line Loading Group to Single Shaft
8B 1.00
6B 0.70
4B 0.40
3B 0.25
4.6.5.6.1.5 Cyclic Loading
The effects of traffic, wind, and other nonseismic
cyclic loading on the load-deformation behavior of later-
ally loaded drilled shafts shall be considered during de-
sign. Analysis of drilled shafts subjected to cyclic load-
ing may be considered in the COM624 analysis (Reese,
1984).
4.6.5.6.1.6 Combined Axial and Lateral Loading
The effects of lateral loading in combination with axial
loading shall be considered in the design. Analysis of
drilled shafts subjected to combined loading may be con-
sidered in the COM624 analysis (Reese, 1984).
4.6.5.6.1.7 Sloping Ground
For drilled shafts which extend through or below
sloping ground, the potential for additional lateral
loading shall be considered in the design. The
general method of analysis developed by Borden
and Gabr (1987) may be used for the analysis of shafts
in stable slopes. For shafts in marginally stable slopes,
additional consideration should be given for low
factors of safety against slope failure or slopes showing
ground creep, or when shafts extend through fills over-
lying soft foundation soils and bear into more competent
underlying soil or rock formations. For unstable ground,
detailed explorations, testing and analysis are required to
evaluate potential additional lateral loads due to slope
movements.
4.6.5.6.2 Tolerable Lateral Movements
Tolerable lateral displacement criteria for drilled shaft
foundations shall be developed by the structural designer
consistent with the function and type of structure, xity of
bearings, anticipated service life, and consequences of un-
acceptable displacements on the structure performance.
Drilled shaft lateral displacement analysis shall be based
on the results of in-situ and/or laboratory testing to char-
acterize the load-deformation behavior of the foundation
materials.
4.6.5.6.1.4 DIVISION IDESIGN 89
FIGURE 4.6.5.5.2A Inuence Coefficient for
Elastic Settlement of Rock-Socketed Drilled Shafts
Modied after Pells and Turner (1979)
FIGURE 4.6.5.5.2B Inuence Coefficient for
Elastic Uplift Displacement of Rock-Socketed
Drilled Shafts
Modied after Pells and Turner (1979)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
4.6.5.7 Dynamic/Seismic Design
Refer to Division I-A and Lam and Martin (1986a;
1986b) for guidance regarding the design of drilled shafts
subjected to dynamic and seismic loads.
4.6.6 Structural Design and General Shaft
Dimensions
4.6.6.1 General
Drilled shafts shall be designed to insure that the shaft
will not collapse or suffer loss of serviceability due to ex-
cessive stress and/or deformation. Shafts shall be de-
signed to resist failure following applicable procedures
presented in Section 8.
All shafts should be sized in 6-inch increments with a
minimum shaft diameter of 18 inches. The diameter of
shafts with rock sockets should be sized a minimum of 6
inches larger than the diameter of the socket. The diame-
ter of columns supported by shafts shall be less than or
equal to B.
4.6.6.2 Reinforcement
Where the potential for lateral loading is insignicant,
drilled shafts need to be reinforced for axial loads only.
Those portions of drilled shafts that are not supported
laterally shall be designed as reinforced concrete
columns in accordance with Articles 8.15.4 and 8.16.4,
and the reinforcing steel shall extend a minimum of 10
feet below the plane where the soil provides adequate
lateral restraint.
Where permanent steel casing is used and the shell
is smooth pipe and more than 0.12 inch in thickness, it
may be considered as load carrying in the absence of
corrosion.
The design of longitudinal and spiral reinforcement
shall be in conformance with the requirements of Articles
8.18.1 and 8.18.2.2, respectively. Development of de-
formed reinforcement shall be in conformance with the
requirements of Articles 8.24, 8.26, and 8.27.
4.6.6.2.1 Longitudinal Bar Spacing
The minimum clear distance between longitudinal
reinforcement shall not be less than 3 times the bar diam-
eter nor 3 times the maximum aggregate size. If bars are
bundled in forming the reinforcing cage, the minimum
clear distance between longitudinal reinforcement shall
not be less than 3 times the diameter of the bundled bars.
Where heavy reinforcement is required, consideration
may be given to an inner and outer reinforcing cage.
4.6.6.2.2 Splices
Splices shall develop the full capacity of the bar in ten-
sion and compression. The location of splices shall be
staggered around the perimeter of the reinforcing cage so
as not to occur at the same horizontal plane. Splices may
be developed by lapping, welding, and special approved
connectors. Splices shall be in conformance with the re-
quirements of Article 8.32.
4.6.6.2.3 Transverse Reinforcement
Transverse reinforcement shall be designed to resist
stresses caused by fresh concrete owing from inside the
cage to the side of the excavated hole. Transverse rein-
forcement may be constructed of hoops or spiral steel.
4.6.6.2.4 Handling Stresses
Reinforcement cages shall be designed to resist han-
dling and placement stresses.
4.6.6.2.5 Reinforcement Cover
The reinforcement shall be placed a clear distance of
not less than 2 inches from the permanently cased or 3
inches from the uncased sides. When shafts are con-
structed in corrosive or marine environments, or when
concrete is placed by the water or slurry displacement
methods, the clear distance shall not be less than 4 inches
for uncased shafts and shafts with permanent casings not
sufficiently corrosion resistant.
The reinforcement cage shall be centered in the hole
using centering devices. All steel centering devices shall
be epoxy coated.
4.6.6.2.6 Reinforcement into Superstructure
Sufficient reinforcement shall be provided at the
junction of the shaft with the superstructure to make a
suitable connection. The embedment of the reinforcement
into the cap shall be in conformance with Articles 8.24
and 8.25.
4.6.6.3 Enlarged Bases
Enlarged bases shall be designed to insure that plain
concrete is not overstressed. The enlarged base shall slope
at a side angle not less than 30 degrees from the vertical
and have a bottom diameter not greater than 3 times the
90 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.6.5.6.7
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
diameter of the shaft. The thickness of the bottom edge of
the enlarged base shall not be less than 6 inches.
4.6.6.4 Center-to-Center Shaft Spacing
The center-to-center spacing of drilled shafts should be
3B or greater to avoid interference between adjacent
shafts during construction. If closer spacing is required,
the sequence of construction shall be specied and the in-
teraction effects between adjacent shafts shall be evalu-
ated by the designer.
4.6.7 Load Testing
4.6.7.1 General
Where necessary, a full scale load test (or tests) should
be conducted on a drilled shaft foundation(s) to conrm
response to load. Load tests shall be conducted using a test
shaft(s) constructed in a manner and of dimensions and
materials identical to those planned for the production
shafts into the materials planned for support. Load testing
should be conducted whenever special site conditions or
combinations of load are encountered, or when structures
of special design or sensitivity (e.g., large bridges) are to
be supported on drilled shaft foundations.
4.6.7.2 Load Testing Procedures
Load tests shall be conducted following prescribed
written procedures which have been developed from ac-
cepted standards (e.g., ASTM, 1989; Crowther, 1988) and
modied, as appropriate, for the conditions at the site.
Standard pile load testing procedures developed by
ASTM which may be modied for testing drilled shafts
include:
ASTM D 1143, Standard Method of Testing Piles
Under Static Axial Compressive Load;
ASTM D 3689, Standard Method of Testing Indi-
vidual Piles Under Static Axial Tensile Load; and
ASTM D 3966, Standard Method for Testing Piles
Under Lateral Loads.
A simplied procedure for testing drilled shafts per-
mitting determination of the relative contribution of side
resistance and tip resistance to overall shaft capacity is
also available (Osterberg, 1984).
As a minimum, the written test procedures should in-
clude the following:
Apparatus for applying loads including reaction sys-
tem and loading system.
Apparatus for measuring movements.
Apparatus for measuring loads.
Procedures for loading including rates of load appli-
cation, load cycling and maximum load.
Procedures for measuring movements.
Safety requirements.
Data presentation requirements and methods of data
analysis.
Drawings showing the procedures and materials to
be used to construct the load test apparatus.
As a minimum, the results of the load test(s) shall pro-
vide the load-deformation response at the butt of the shaft.
When appropriate, information concerning ultimate load
capacity, load transfer, lateral load-displacement with
depth, the effects of shaft group interaction, the degree of
xity provided by caps and footings, and other data perti-
nent to the anticipated loading conditions on the produc-
tion shafts shall be obtained.
4.6.7.3 Load Test Method Selection
Selection of an appropriate load test method shall be
based on an evaluation of the anticipated types and dura-
tion of loads during service, and shall include considera-
tion of the following:
The immediate goals of the load test (i.e., to proof
load the foundation and verify design capacity).
The loads expected to act on the production founda-
tion (compressive and/or uplift, dead and/or live),
and the soil conditions predominant in the region of
concern.
The local practice or traditional method used in sim-
ilar soil/rock deposits.
Time and budget constraints.
Part C
STRENGTH DESIGN METHOD
LOAD FACTOR DESIGN
Note to User: Article Number 4.7 has been omitted in-
tentionally.
4.8 SCOPE
Provisions of this section shall apply for the design
of spread footings, driven piles, and drilled shaft
foundations.
4.6.6.3 DIVISION IDESIGN 91
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
4.9 DEFINITIONS
Batter PileA pile driven at an angle inclined to the
vertical to provide higher resistance to lateral loads.
Combination End-Bearing and Friction PilePile that
derives its capacity from the contributions of both end
bearing developed at the pile tip and resistance mobilized
along the embedded shaft.
Deep FoundationA foundation which derives its
support by transferring loads to soil or rock at some depth
below the structure by end bearing, by adhesion or fric-
tion or both.
Design LoadAll applicable loads and forces or their
related internal moments and forces used to proportion a
foundation. In load factor design, design load refers to
nominal loads multiplied by appropriate load factors.
Design StrengthThe maximum load-carrying capac-
ity of the foundation, as dened by a particular limit state.
In load factor design, design strength is computed as the
product of the nominal resistance and the appropriate per-
formance factor.
Drilled ShaftA deep foundation unit, wholly or
partly embedded in the ground, constructed by placing
fresh concrete in a drilled hole with or without steel rein-
forcement. Drilled shafts derive their capacities from the
surrounding soil and/or from the soil or rock strata below
their tips. Drilled shafts are also commonly referred to as
caissons, drilled caissons, bored piles or drilled piers.
End-Bearing PileA pile whose support capacity is
derived principally from the resistance of the foundation
material on which the pile tip rests.
Factored LoadLoad, multiplied by appropriate load
factors, used to proportion a foundation in load factor
design.
Friction PileA pile whose support capacity is de-
rived principally from soil resistance mobilized along the
side of the embedded pile.
Limit StateA limiting condition in which the foun-
dation and/or the structure it supports are deemed to be
unsafe (i.e., strength limit state), or to be no longer fully
useful for their intended function (i.e., serviceability limit
state).
Load EffectThe force in a foundation system (e.g.,
axial force, sliding force, bending moment, etc.) due to the
applied loads.
Load FactorAfactor used to modify a nominal load
effect, which accounts for the uncertainties associated
with the determination and variability of the load effect.
Load Factor DesignAdesign method in which safety
provisions are incorporated by separately accounting for
uncertainties relative to load and resistance.
Nominal LoadA typical value or a code-specied
value for a load.
Nominal ResistanceThe analytically estimated load-
carrying capacity of a foundation calculated using nomi-
nal dimensions and material properties, and established
soil mechanics principles.
Performance FactorAfactor used to modify a nom-
inal resistance, which accounts for the uncertainties asso-
ciated with the determination of the nominal resistance
and the variability of the actual capacity.
PileA relatively slender deep foundation unit,
wholly or partly embedded in the ground, installed by driv-
ing, drilling, augering, jetting, or otherwise, and which de-
rives its capacity from the surrounding soil and/or from
the soil or rock strata below its tip.
PipingProgressive erosion of soil by seeping water,
producing an open pipe through the soil, through which
water ows in an uncontrolled and dangerous manner.
Shallow FoundationA foundation which derives its
support by transferring load directly to the soil or rock at
shallow depth. If a single slab covers the supporting stra-
tum beneath the entire area of the superstructure, the foun-
dation is known as a combined footing. If various parts of
the structure are supported individually, the individual
supports are known as spread footings, and the foundation
is called a footing foundation.
4.10 LIMIT STATES, LOAD FACTORS, AND
RESISTANCE FACTORS
4.10.1 General
All relevant limit states shall be considered in the de-
sign to ensure an adequate degree of safety and service-
ability.
4.10.2 Serviceability Limit States
Service limit states for foundation design shall include:
settlements, and
lateral displacements.
The limit state for settlement shall be based upon ride-
ability and economy. The cost of limiting foundation
movements shall be compared to the cost of designing the
superstructure so that it can tolerate larger movements, or
of correcting the consequences of movements through
maintenance, to determine minimum lifetime cost. More
stringent criteria may be established by the owner.
4.10.3 Strength Limit States
Strength limit states for foundation design shall
include:
92 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.9
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
bearing resistance failure,
excessive loss of contact,
sliding at the base of footing,
loss of overall stability, and
structural capacity.
Foundations shall be proportioned such that the fac-
tored resistance is not less than the effects of factored
loads specied in Section 3.
4.10.4 Strength Requirement
Foundations shall be proportioned by the methods
specied in Articles 4.11 through 4.13 so that their design
strengths are at least equal to the required strengths.
The required strength is the combined effect of the fac-
tored loads for each applicable load combination stipu-
lated in Article 3.22. The design strength is calculated for
each applicable limit state as the nominal resistance, R
n
,
multiplied by an appropriate performance (or resistance)
factor, . Methods for calculating nominal resistance are
provided in Articles 4.11 through 4.13, and values of per-
formance factors are given in Article 4.10.6.
4.10.5 Load Combinations and Load Factors
Foundations shall be proportioned to withstand safely
all load combinations stipulated in Article 3.22 which are
applicable to the particular site or foundation type. With
the exception of the portions of concrete or steel piles that
are above the ground line and are rigidly connected to the
superstructure as in rigid frame or continuous structures,
impact forces shall not be considered in foundation design.
(See Article 3.8.1.)
Values of and coefficients for load factor design, as
given in Table 3.22.1A, shall apply to strength limit state
considerations; while those for service load design (also
given in Table 3.22.1A) shall apply to serviceability con-
siderations.
4.10.6 Performance Factors
Values of performance factors for different types of
foundation systems at strength limit states shall be as
specied in Tables 4.10.6-1, 4.10.6-2, and 4.10.6-3, unless
regionally specic values are available.
If methods other than those given in Tables 4.10.6-1,
4.10.6-2, and 4.10.6-3 are used to estimate the soil capac-
ity, the performance factors chosen shall provide the same
reliability as those given in these tables.
4.11 SPREAD FOOTINGS
4.11.1 General Considerations
4.11.1.1 General
Provisions of this article shall apply to design of iso-
lated footings, and where applicable, to combined foot-
ings. Special attention shall be given to footings on ll.
Footings shall be designed to keep the soil pressure
as nearly uniform as practicable. The distribution of soil
pressure shall be consistent with properties of the soil
and the structure, and with established principles of soil
mechanics.
4.11.1.2 Depth
The depth of footings shall be determined with respect
to the character of the foundation materials and the possi-
bility of undermining. Footings at stream crossings shall
be founded at depth below the maximum anticipated
depth of scour as specied in Article 4.11.1.3.
Footings not exposed to the action of stream current
shall be founded on a rm foundation and below frost
level.
Consideration shall be given to the use of either a
geotextile or graded granular lter layer to reduce sus-
ceptibility to piping in rip rap or abutment backll.
4.11.1.3 Scour Protection
Footings supported on soil or degradable rock strata
shall be embedded below the maximum computed scour
depth or protected with a scour counter-measure. Footings
supported on massive, competent rock formations which
are highly resistant to scour shall be placed directly on the
cleaned rock surface. Where required, additional lateral
resistance shall be provided by drilling and grouting steel
dowels into the rock surface rather than blasting to embed
the footing below the rock surface.
4.11.1.4 Frost Action
In regions where freezing of the ground occurs during
the winter months, footings shall be founded below the
maximum depth of frost penetration in order to prevent
damage from frost heave.
4.11.1.5 Anchorage
Footings which are founded on inclined smooth solid
rock surfaces and which are not restrained by an overbur-
den of resistant material shall be effectively anchored by
4.10.3 DIVISION IDESIGN 93
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
94 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.11.1.5
TABLE 4.10.6-1 Performance Factors for Strength Limit States for Shallow Foundations
means of rock anchors, rock bolts, dowels, keys or other
suitable means. Shallow keying of large footing areas
shall be avoided where blasting is required for rock
removal.
4.11.1.6 Groundwater
Footings shall be designed for the highest anticipated
position of the groundwater table.
The inuence of the groundwater table on bearing
capacity of soils or rocks, and settlements of the struc-
ture shall be considered. In cases where seepage
forces are present, they should also be included in the
analyses.
4.11.1.7 Uplift
Where foundations may be subjected to uplift forces,
they shall be investigated both for resistance to pullout
and for their structural strength.
4.11.1.8 Deterioration
Deterioration of the concrete in a foundation by
sulfate, chloride, and acid attack should be investi-
gated. Laboratory testing of soil and groundwater
samples for sulfates, chloride and pH should be suffi-
cient to assess deterioration potential. When chemical
wastes are suspected, a more thorough chemical anal-
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
ysis of soil and groundwater samples should be con-
sidered.
4.11.1.9 Nearby Structures
In cases where foundations are placed adjacent to ex-
isting structures, the inuence of the existing structures on
the behavior of the foundation, and the effect of the foun-
dation on the existing structures, shall be investigated.
4.11.2 Notations
B footing width (in length units)
B reduced effective footing width (see
Article 4.11.4.1.5) (in length units)
c soil cohesion (in units of force/length
2
)
C
w1
, C
w2
correction factors for groundwater effect
(dimensionless)
D
f
depth to footing base (in length units)
D
w
depth to groundwater table (in length
units)
E
m
elastic modulus of rock masses (in units
of force/length
2
)
i type of load
L reduced effective length (see Article
4.11.4.1.5) (in length units)
L
i
load type i
N average value of standard penetration
test blow count (dimensionless)
N
m
, N
cm
, N
qm
modied bearing capacity factors used in
analytic theory (dimensionless)
q
c
cone resistance (in units of force/length
2
)
q
ult
ultimate bearing capacity (in units of
force/length
2
)
R
I
reduction factor due to the effect of load
inclination (dimensionless)
R
n
nominal resistance
RQD rock quality designation
s span length (in length units)
s
u
undrained shear strength of soil (in units
of force/length
2
)
i
load factor coefficient for load type i (see
Article 4.10.4)
load factor (see Article 4.10.4)
total (moist) unit weight of soil (see Arti-
cle 4.11.4.1.1)
4.11.1.8 DIVISION IDESIGN 95
TABLE 4.10.6-2 Performance Factors for Geotechnical Strength Limit States in Axially Loaded Piles
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
96 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.11.2
TABLE 4.10.6-3 Performance Factors for Geotechnical Strength Limit States
in Axially Loaded Drilled Shafts
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
differential settlement between adjacent
footings
performance factor
f
friction angle of soil
4.11.3 Movement Under Serviceability
Limit States
4.11.3.1 General
Movement of foundations in both vertical settlement
and lateral displacement directions shall be investigated at
service limit states.
Lateral displacement of a structure shall be evaluated
when:
horizontal or inclined loads are present,
the foundation is placed on an embankment slope,
possibility of loss of foundation support through
erosion or scour exists, or
bearing strata are signicantly inclined.
4.11.3.2 Loads
Immediate settlement shall be determined using the
service load combinations given in Table 3.22.1A. Time-
dependent settlement shall be determined using only the
permanent loads.
Settlement and horizontal movements caused by em-
bankment loadings behind bridge abutments should be in-
vestigated.
In seismically active areas, consideration shall be
given to the potential settlement of footings on sand re-
sulting from ground motions induced by earthquake load-
ings. For guidance in design, refer to Division I-Aof these
Specications.
4.11.3.3 Movement Criteria
Vertical and horizontal movement criteria for footings
shall be developed consistent with the function and type
of structure, anticipated service life, and consequences of
unacceptable movements on structure performance. The
tolerable movement criteria shall be established by em-
pirical procedures or structural analyses.
The maximum angular distortion (/s) between
adjacent foundations shall be limited to 0.008 for sim-
ple span bridges and 0.004 for continuous span bridges.
These /s limits shall not be applicable to rigid frame
structures. Rigid frames shall be designed for anticipated
differential settlements based on the results of special
analyses.
4.11.3.4 Settlement Analyses
Foundation settlements shall be estimated using de-
formation analyses based on the results of laboratory or
in situ testing. The soil parameters used in the analyses
shall be chosen to reflect the loading history of the
ground, the construction sequence and the effect of soil
layering.
Both total and differential settlements, including time
effects, shall be considered.
4.11.3.4.1 Settlement of Footings on
Cohesionless Soils
Estimates of settlement of cohesionless soils shall
make allowance for the fact that settlements in these soils
can be highly erratic.
No method should be considered capable of predicting
settlements of footings on sand with precision.
Settlements of footings on cohesionless soils may be
estimated using empirical procedures or elastic theory.
4.11.3.4.2 Settlement of Footings on Cohesive Soils
For foundations on cohesive soils, both immediate and
consolidation settlements shall be investigated. If the
footing width is small relative to the thickness of a com-
pressible soil, the effect of three-dimensional loading
shall be considered. In highly plastic and organic clay,
secondary settlements are signicant and shall be in-
cluded in the analysis.
4.11.3.4.3 Settlements of Footings on Rock
The magnitude of consolidation and secondary settle-
ments in rock masses containing soft seams shall be esti-
mated by applying procedures discussed in Article
4.11.3.4.2.
4.11.4 Safety Against Soil Failure
4.11.4.1 Bearing Capacity of Foundation Soils
Several methods may be used to calculate ultimate
bearing capacity of foundation soils. The calculated value
of ultimate bearing capacity shall be multiplied by an ap-
propriate performance factor, as given in Article 4.10.6, to
determine the factored bearing capacity.
Footings are considered to be adequate against soil
failure if the factored bearing capacity exceeds the effect
of design loads.
4.11.2 DIVISION IDESIGN 97
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
4.11.4.1.1 Theoretical Estimation
The bearing capacity should be estimated using ac-
cepted soil mechanics theories based on measured soil pa-
rameters. The soil parameter used in the analysis shall be
representative of the soil shear strength under the consid-
ered loading and subsurface conditions.
4.11.4.1.2 Semi-empirical Procedures
The bearing capacity of foundation soils may be esti-
mated from the results of in situ tests or by observing
foundations on similar soils. The use of a particular in situ
test and the interpretation of the results shall take local ex-
perience into consideration. The following in situ tests
may be used:
Standard penetration test (SPT),
Cone penetration test (CPT), and
Pressuremeter test.
4.11.4.1.3 Plate Loading Test
Bearing capacity may be determined by load tests pro-
viding that adequate subsurface explorations have been
made to determine the soil prole below the foundation.
The bearing capacity determined from a load test may
be extrapolated to adjacent footings where the subsurface
prole is similar.
Plate load test shall be performed in accordance with
the procedures specied in ASTM Standard D 1194-87 or
AASHTO Standard T 235.
4.11.4.1.4 Presumptive Values
Presumptive values for allowable bearing pressures on
soil and rock, given in Table 4.11.4.1.4-1, shall be used
only for guidance, preliminary design or design of tem-
porary structures. The use of presumptive values shall be
based on the results of subsurface exploration to identify
soil and rock conditions. All values used for design shall
be conrmed by eld and/or laboratory testing.
The values given in Table 4.11.4.1.4-1 are applicable
directly for working stress procedures. When these values
are used for preliminary design, all load factors shall be
taken as unity.
4.11.4.1.5 Effect of Load Eccentricity
For loads eccentric to the centroid of the footing, a re-
duced effective footing area (B L) shall be used in de-
sign. The reduced effective area is always concentrically
loaded, so that the design bearing pressure on the reduced
effective area is always uniform.
Footings under eccentric loads shall be designed to en-
sure that: (1) the product of the bearing capacity and an
appropriate performance factor exceeds the effect of ver-
tical design loads, and (2) eccentricity of loading, evalu-
ated based on factored loads, is less than
1
4 of the footing
dimension in any direction for footings on soils.
For structural design of an eccentrically loaded foun-
dation, a triangular or trapezoidal contact pressure distri-
bution based on factored loads shall be used.
4.11.4.1.6 Effect of Groundwater Table
Ultimate bearing capacity shall be determined based
on the highest anticipated position of groundwater level
at the footing location. In cases where the groundwater
table is at a depth less than 1.5 times the footing width
below the bottom of the footing, reduction of bearing
capacity, as a result of submergence effects, shall be
considered.
4.11.4.2 Bearing Capacity of
Foundations on Rock
The bearing capacity of footings on rock shall consider
the presence, orientation and condition of discontinuities,
weathering proles and other similar proles as they
apply at a particular site, and the degree to which they
shall be incorporated in the design.
For footings on competent rock, reliance on simple and
direct analyses based on uniaxial compressive rock
strengths and RQD may be applicable. Competent
rock shall be dened as a rock mass with discontinuities
that are tight or open not wider than
1
8 inch. For footings
on less competent rock, more detailed investigations and
analyses shall be performed to account for the effects
of weathering, and the presence and condition of discon-
tinuities.
Footings on rocks are considered to be adequate
against bearing capacity failure if the product of the ulti-
mate bearing capacity determined using procedures de-
scribed in Articles 4.11.4.2.1 through 4.11.4.2.3 and
an appropriate performance factor exceeds the effect of
design loads.
4.11.4.2.1 Semi-empirical Procedures
Bearing capacity of foundations on rock may be deter-
mined using empirical correlation with RQD, or other sys-
tems for evaluating rock mass quality, such as the Geo-
mechanic Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system, or
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI) Rock Mass
Classication System. The use of these semi-empirical
procedures shall take local experience into consideration.
98 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.11.4.1.1
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
4.11.4.2.1 DIVISION IDESIGN 99
TABLE 4.11.4.1.4-1 Presumptive Allowable Bearing Pressures for Spread Footing Foundations
Modied after U.S. Department of the Navy, 1982
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
4.11.4.2.2 Analytic Method
The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations on rock
shall be determined using established rock mechanics
principles based on the rock mass strength parameters.
The inuence of discontinuities on the failure mode shall
also be considered.
4.11.4.2.3 Load Test
Where appropriate, load tests may be performed to de-
termine the bearing capacity of foundations on rock.
4.11.4.2.4 Presumptive Bearing Values
For simple structures on good quality rock masses, val-
ues of presumptive bearing pressure given in Table
4.11.4.2.4-1 may be used for preliminary design. The use
of presumptive values shall be based on the results of sub-
surface exploration to identify rock conditions. All values
used in design shall be conrmed by eld and/or labora-
tory testing. The values given in Table 4.11.4.2.4-1 are di-
rectly applicable to working stress procedure, i.e., all the
load factors shall be taken as unity.
4.11.4.2.5 Effect of Load Eccentricity
If the eccentricity of loading on a footing is less than
1
6 of the footing width, a trapezoidal bearing pressure
shall be used in evaluating the bearing capacity. If the ec-
centricity is between
1
6 and
1
4 of the footing width, a
triangular bearing pressure shall be used. The maximum
bearing pressure shall not exceed the product of the ulti-
mate bearing capacity multiplied by a suitable perfor-
mance factor. The eccentricity of loading evaluated using
factored loads shall not exceed
3
8 (37.5%) of the footing
dimensions in any direction.
4.11.4.3 Failure by Sliding
Failure by sliding shall be investigated for footings that
support inclined loads and/or are founded on slopes.
For foundations on clay soils, possible presence of a
shrinkage gap between the soil and the foundation shall be
considered. If passive resistance is included as part of the
shear resistance required for resisting sliding, considera-
tion shall also be given to possible future removal of the
soil in front of the foundation.
4.11.4.4 Loss of Overall Stability
The overall stability of footings, slopes and foundation
soil or rock, shall be evaluated for footings located on or
near a slope using applicable factored load combinations
in Article 3.22 and a performance factor of 0.75.
4.11.5 Structural Capacity
The structural design of footings shall comply to the
provisions given in Articles 4.4.11 and 8.16.
4.11.6 Construction Considerations for
Shallow Foundations
4.11.6.1 General
The ground conditions should be monitored closely
during construction to determine whether or not the
ground conditions are as foreseen and to enable prompt
intervention, if necessary. The control investigation
should be performed and interpreted by experienced and
qualied engineers. Records of the control investigations
should be kept as part of the nal project data, among
other things, to permit a later assessment of the founda-
tion in connection with rehabilitation, change of neigh-
boring structures, etc.
4.11.6.2 Excavation Monitoring
Prior to concreting footings or placing backll, an ex-
cavation shall be free of debris and excessive water.
Monitoring by an experienced and trained person
should always include a thorough examination of the sides
and bottom of the excavation, with the possible addition
of pits or borings to evaluate the geological conditions.
The assumptions made during the design of the foun-
dations regarding strength, density, and groundwater con-
ditions should be veried during construction, by visual
inspection.
4.11.6.3 Compaction Monitoring
Compaction shall be carried out in a manner so that the
ll material within the section under inspection is as close
as practicable to uniform. The layering and compaction of
the ll material should be systematic everywhere, with the
same thickness of layer and number of passes with the
compaction equipment used as for the inspected ll. The
control measurements should be undertaken in the form
of random samples.
4.12 DRIVEN PILES
4.12.1 General
The provisions of the specications in Articles 4.5.1
through 4.5.21 with the exception of Article 4.5.6, shall
apply to strength design (load factor design) of driven
piles. Article 4.5.6 covers the allowable stress design of
100 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.11.4.2.2
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
piles and shall be replaced by the articles in this section
for load factor design of driven piles, unless otherwise
stated.
4.12.2 Notations
a
s
pile perimeter
A
p
area of pile tip
A
s
surface area of shaft of pile
CPT cone penetration test
d dimensionless depth factor for estimating tip ca-
pacity of piles in rock
D pile width or diameter
D effective depth of pile group
D
b
depth of embedment of pile into a bearing stratum
D
s
diameter of socket
e
x
eccentricity of load in the x-direction
e
y
eccentricity of load in the y-direction
E
p
Youngs modulus of a pile
E
s
soil modulus
f
s
sleeve friction measured from a CPTat point con-
sidered
H distance between pile tip and a weaker underly-
ing soil layer
H
s
depth of embedment of pile socketed into rock
I inuence factor for the effective group embed-
ment
I
p
moment of inertia of a pile
K coefficient of lateral earth pressure
K
c
correction factor for sleeve friction in clay
K
s
correction factor for sleeve friction in sand
K
sp
dimensionless bearing capacity coefficient
L
f
depth to point considered when measuring sleeve
friction
n
h
rate of increase of soil modulus with depth
N Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count
N average uncorrected SPT blow count along pile
shaft
4.12.1 DIVISION IDESIGN 101
TABLE 4.11.4.2.4-1 Presumptive Bearing Pressures (tsf) for Foundations on Rock (After Putnam, 1981)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
N
corr
average SPT-N value corrected for effect of
overburden
N
pile
number of piles in a pile group
OCRoverconsolidation ratio
P
D
unfactored dead load
P
g
factored total axial load acting on a pile group
P
x,y
factored axial load acting on a pile in a pile group;
the pile has coordinates (X,Y) with respect to the
centroidal origin in the pile group
PI plasticity index
q net foundation pressure
q
c
static cone resistance
q
l
limiting tip resistance
q
o
limiting tip resistance in lower stratum
q
p
ultimate unit tip resistance
q
s
ultimate unit side resistance
q
u
average uniaxial compressive strength of rock
cores
q
ult
ultimate bearing capacity
Q
p
ultimate load carried by tip of pile
Q
s
ultimate load carried by shaft of pile
Q
ug
ultimate uplift resistance of a pile group or a
group of drilled shafts
Q
ult
ultimate bearing capacity
R characteristic length of soil-pile system in cohe-
sive soils
s
d
spacing of discontinuities
S average spacing of piles
S
u
undrained shear strength
SPT Standard Penetration Test
Su
average undrained shear strength along pile shaft
t
d
width of discontinuities
T characteristic length of soil-pile system in cohe-
sionless soils
W
g
weight of block of soil, piles and pile cap
x distance of the centroid of the pile from the cen-
troid of the pile cap in the x-direction
X width of smallest dimension of pile group
y distance of the centroid of the pile from the cen-
troid of the pile cap in the y-direction
Y length of pile group or group of drilled shafts
Z total embedded pile length
adhesion factor applied to S
u
coefficient relating the vertical effective stress
and the unit skin friction of a pile or drilled shaft
effective unit weight of soil
angle of shearing resistance between soil and pile
empirical coefficient relating the passive lateral
earth pressure and the unit skin friction of a pile
pile group efficiency factor
settlement
tol
tolerable settlement
h
horizontal effective stress
v
vertical effective stress
av
average shear stress along side of pile
performance factor
g
performance factor for the bearing capacity of a
pile group failing as a unit consisting of the piles
and the block of soil contained within the piles
q
performance factor for the total ultimate bearing
capacity of a pile
qs
performance factor for the ultimate shaft capacity
of a pile
qp
performance factor for the ultimate tip capacity of
a pile
u
Performance factor for the uplift capacity of a sin-
gle pile
ug
performance factor for the uplift capacity of pile
groups
4.12.3 Selection of Design Pile Capacity
Piles shall be designed to have adequate bearing and
structural capacity, under tolerable settlements and toler-
able lateral displacements.
The supporting capacity of piles shall be determined by
static analysis methods based on soil-structure interaction.
Capacity may be veried with pile load test results, use of
wave equation analysis, use of the dynamic pile analyzer
or, less preferably, use of dynamic formulas.
4.12.3.1 Factors Affecting Axial Capacity
See Article 4.5.6.1.1. The following sub-articles shall
supplement Article 4.5.6.1.1.
4.12.3.1.1 Pile Penetration
Piling used to penetrate a soft or loose upper stratum
overlying a hard or rm stratum, shall penetrate the hard
or rm stratum by a sufficient distance to limit lateral and
vertical movement of the piles, as well as to attain suffi-
cient vertical bearing capacity.
4.12.3.1.2 Groundwater Table and Buoyancy
Ultimate bearing capacity shall be determined using
the groundwater level consistent with that used to calcu-
late load effects. For drained loading, the effect of hydro-
static pressure shall be considered in the design.
4.12.3.1.3 Effect Of Settling Ground and
Downdrag Forces
Possible development of downdrag loads on piles shall
be considered where sites are underlain by compressible
clays, silts or peats, especially where ll has recently been
102 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.12.2
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
placed on the earlier surface, or where the groundwater is
substantially lowered. Downdrag loads shall be consid-
ered as a load when the bearing capacity and settlement of
pile foundations are investigated. Downdrag loads shall
not be combined with transient loads.
The downdrag loads may be calculated, as specied in
Article 4.12.3.3.2 with the direction of the skin friction
forces reversed. The factored downdrag loads shall be
added to the factored vertical dead load applied to the
deep foundation in the assessment of bearing capacity.
The effect of reduced overburden pressure caused by the
downdrag shall be considered in calculating the bearing
capacity of the foundation.
The downdrag loads shall be added to the vertical dead
load applied to the deep foundation in the assessment of
settlement at service limit states.
4.12.3.1.4 Uplift
Pile foundations designed to resist uplift forces should
be checked both for resistance to pullout and for structural
capacity to carry tensile stresses. Uplift forces can be
caused by lateral loads, buoyancy effects, and expansive
soils.
4.12.3.2 Movement Under Serviceability
Limit State
4.12.3.2.1 General
For purposes of calculating the settlements of pile
groups, loads shall be assumed to act on an equivalent
footing located at two-thirds of the depth of embedment
of the piles into the layer which provide support as shown
in Figure 4.12.3.2.1-1.
Service loads for evaluating foundation settlement
shall include both the unfactored dead and live loads for
piles in cohesionless soils and only the unfactored dead
load for piles in cohesive soils.
Service loads for evaluating lateral displacement of
foundations shall include all lateral loads in each of the
load combinations as given in Article 3.22.
4.12.3.2.2 Tolerable Movement
Tolerable axial and lateral movements for driven pile
foundations shall be developed consistent with the func-
tion and type of structure, xity of bearings, anticipated
service life and consequences of unacceptable displace-
ments on performance of the structure.
Tolerable settlement criteria for foundations shall be
developed considering the maximum angular distortion
according to Article 4.11.3.3.
Tolerable horizontal displacement criteria shall be de-
veloped considering the potential effects of combined ver-
tical and horizontal movement. Where combined hori-
zontal and vertical displacements are possible, horizontal
movement shall be limited to 1.0 inch or less. Where ver-
tical displacements are small, horizontal displacements
shall be limited to 2.0 inches or less (Moulton et al.,
1985). If estimated or actual movements exceed these lev-
els, special analysis and/or measures shall be considered.
4.12.3.2.3 Settlement
The settlement of a pile foundation shall not exceed the
tolerable settlement, as selected according to Article
4.12.3.2.2.
4.12.3.2.3a Cohesive Soil
Procedures used for shallow foundations shall be used
to estimate the settlement of a pile group, using the equiv-
alent footing location shown in Figure 4.12.3.2.1-1.
4.12.3.2.3b Cohesionless Soil
The settlement of pile groups in cohesionless soils can
be estimated using results of in situ tests, and the equiva-
lent footing location shown in Figure 4.12.3.2.1-1.
4.12.3.2.4 Lateral Displacement
The lateral displacement of a pile foundation shall not
exceed the tolerable lateral displacement, as selected ac-
cording to Article 4.12.3.2.2.
The lateral displacement of pile groups shall be esti-
mated using procedures that consider soil-structure inter-
action.
4.12.3.3 Resistance at Strength Limit States
The strength limit states that shall be considered in-
clude:
bearing capacity of piles,
uplift capacity of piles,
punching of piles in strong soil into a weaker layer,
and
structural capacity of the piles.
4.12.3.3.1 Axial Loading of Piles
Preference shall be given to a design process based
upon static analyses in combination with either eld mon-
itoring during driving or load tests. Load test results may
be extrapolated to adjacent substructures with similar sub-
surface conditions. The ultimate bearing capacity of piles
may be estimated using analytic methods or in situ test
methods.
4.12.3.1.3 DIVISION IDESIGN 103
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
4.12.3.3.2 Analytic Estimates of Pile Capacity
Analytic methods may be used to estimate the ultimate
bearing capacity of piles in cohesive and cohesionless
soils. Both total and effective stress methods may be used
provided the appropriate soil strength parameters are eval-
uated. The performance factors for skin friction and tip re-
sistance, estimated using three analytic methods, shall be
as provided in Table 4.10.6-2. If another analytic method
is used, application of performance factors presented in
Table 4.10.6-2 may not be appropriate.
4.12.3.3.3 Pile of Capacity Estimates Based
on In Situ Tests
In situ test methods may be used to estimate the ulti-
mate axial capacity of piles. The performance factors for
the ultimate skin friction and ultimate tip resistance, esti-
mated using in situ methods, shall be as provided in Table
4.10.6-2.
4.12.3.3.4 Piles Bearing on Rock
For piles driven to weak rock such as shales and mud-
stones or poor quality weathered rock, the ultimate tip
capacity shall be estimated using semi-empirical meth-
ods. The performance factor for the ultimate tip resistance
of piles bearing on rock shall be as provided in Table
4.10.6-2.
4.12.3.3.5 Pile Load Test
The load test method specied in ASTM D 1143-81
may be used to verify the pile capacity. Tensile load test-
ing of piles shall be done in accordance with ASTM D
3689-83 Lateral load testing of piles shall be done in ac-
cordance with ASTM D 3966-81. The performance factor
for the axial compressive capacity, axial uplift capacity
and lateral capacity obtained from pile load tests shall be
as provided in Table 4.10.6-2.
4.12.3.3.6 Presumptive End Bearing Capacities
Presumptive values for allowable bearing pressures
given in Table 4.11.4.1.4-1 on soil and rock shall be used
only for guidance, preliminary design or design of tem-
porary structures. The use of presumptive values shall be
based on the results of subsurface exploration to identify
soil and rock conditions. All values used for design shall
be conrmed by eld and/or laboratory testing.
4.12.3.3.7 Uplift
Uplift shall be considered when the force effects cal-
culated based on the appropriate strength limit state load
combinations are tensile.
When piles are subjected to uplift, they should be in-
vestigated for both resistance to pullout and structural
ability to resist tension.
4.12.3.3.7a Single Pile Uplift Capacity
The ultimate uplift capacity of a single pile shall be es-
timated in a manner similar to that for estimating the skin
friction resistance of piles in compression in Article
4.12.3.3.2 for piles in cohesive soils and Article 4.12.3.3.3
for piles in cohesionless soils. Performance factors for
the uplift capacity of single piles shall be as provided in
Table 4.10.6-2.
4.12.3.3.7b Pile Group Uplift Capacity
The ultimate uplift capacity of a pile group shall be es-
timated as the lesser of the sum of the individual pile up-
lift capacities, or the uplift capacity of the pile group con-
sidered as a block. The block mechanism for cohesionless
soil shall be taken as provided in Figure C4.12.3.7.2-1 and
for cohesive soils as given in Figure C4.12.3.7.2-2. Buoy-
ant unit weights shall be used for soil below the ground-
water level.
The performance factor for the group uplift capacity
calculated as the sum of the individual pile capacities shall
be the same as those for the uplift capacity of single piles
as given in Table 4.10.6-2. The performance factor for the
uplift capacity of the pile group considered as a block
shall be as provided in Table 4.10.6-2 for pile groups in
clay and in sand.
4.12.3.3.8 Lateral Load
For piles subjected to lateral loads, the pile heads shall
be xed into the pile cap. Any disturbed soil or voids cre-
ated from the driving of the piles shall be replaced with
compacted granular material.
The effects of soil-structure or rock-structure interac-
tion between the piles and ground, including the number
and spacing of the piles in the group, shall be accounted
for in the design of laterally loaded piles.
4.12.3.3.9 Batter Pile
The bearing capacity of a pile group containing batter
piles may be estimated by treating the batter piles as ver-
tical piles.
4.12.3.3.10 Group Capacity
4.12.3.3.10a Cohesive Soil
If the cap is not in rm contact with the ground, and if
the soil at the surface is soft, the individual capacity of
104 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.12.3.3.2
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
4.12.3.3.10a DIVISION IDESIGN 104.1
FIGURE C4.12.3.2.1-1 Location of Equivalent
Footing (After Duncan and Buchignani, 1976)
FIGURE C4.12.3.3.4-1 Bearing capacity coefficient, K
sp
(After Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 1985)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
As referenced in Section 4.12.3.3.7b and 4.13.2, the
following figures have been reprinted from the 1993
Commentary of the 1993 Interims to the Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges.
104.2 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.12.3.3.10a
FIGURE C4.12.3.7.2-1 Uplift of group of
closely-spaced piles in cohesionless soils
FIGURE C4.12.3.7.2-2 Uplift of group of piles in
cohesive soils (After Tomlinson, 1987)
FIGURE C4.13.3.3.4-1 Elastic Settlement
Inuence Factor as a Function of
Embedment Ratio and Modulus Ratio
(After Donald, Sloan and Chiu, 1980,
as presented by Reese and ONeill, 1988)
FIGURE C4.13.3.3.4-4 Bearing Capacity Coefficient, K
sp
(After Canadian Geotechnical Society, 1985)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
each pile shall be multiplied by an efficiency factor ,
where 0.7 for a center-to-center spacing of three di-
ameters and 1.0 for a center-to-center spacing of six
diameters. For intermediate spacings, the value of may
be determined by linear interpolation.
If the cap is not in rm contact with the ground and
if the soil is stiff, then no reduction in efficiency shall be
required.
If the cap is in rm contact with the ground, then no re-
duction in efficiency shall be required.
The group capacity shall be the lesser of:
the sum of the modied individual capacities of each
pile in the group, or
the capacity of an equivalent pier consisting of the
piles and a block of soil within the area bounded by
the piles.
For the equivalent pier, the full shear strength of soil
shall be used to determine the skin friction resistance, the
total base area of the equivalent pier shall be used to de-
termine the end bearing resistance, and the additional ca-
pacity of the cap shall be ignored.
The performance factor for the capacity of an equiva-
lent pier or block failure shall be as provided in Table
4.10.6-2. The performance factors for the group capacity
calculated using the sum of the individual pile capacities,
are the same as those for the single pile capacity as given
in Table 4.10.6-2.
4.12.3.3.10b Cohesionless Soil
The ultimate bearing capacity of pile groups in cohe-
sionless soil shall be the sum of the capacities of all the
piles in the group. The efficiency factor, , shall be 1.0
where the pile cap is, or is not, in contact with the ground.
The performance factor is the same as those for single pile
capacities as given in Table 4.10.6-2.
4.12.3.3.10c Pile Group in Strong Soil
Overlying a Weak or
Compressible Soil
If a pile group is embedded in a strong soil deposit over-
lying a weaker deposit, consideration shall be given to the
potential for a punching failure of the pile tips into the
weaker soil stratum. If the underlying soil stratum consists
of a weaker compressible soil, consideration shall be given
to the potential for large settlements in that weaker layer.
4.12.3.3.11 Dynamic/Seismic Design
Refer to Division I-Aof these Specications and Lam
and Martin (1986a, 1986b) for guidance regarding the de-
sign of driven piles subjected to dynamic and seismic
loads.
4.12.4 Structural Design
The structural design of driven piles shall be in accor-
dance with the provisions of Articles 4.5.7, which was de-
veloped for allowable stress design procedures. To use
load factor design procedures for the structural design of
driven piles, the load factor design procedures for rein-
forced concrete, prestressed concrete and steel in Sections
8, 9, and 10, respectively, shall be used in place of the al-
lowable stress design procedures.
4.12.4.1 Buckling of Piles
Stability of piles shall be considered when the piles ex-
tend through water or air for a portion of their lengths.
4.12.5 Construction Considerations
Foundation design shall not be uncoupled from con-
struction considerations. Factors such as pile driving, pile
splicing, and pile inspection shall be done in accordance
with the provisions of this specication and Division II.
4.13 DRILLED SHAFTS
4.13.1 General
The provisions of the specications in Articles 4.6.1
through 4.6.7, with the exception of Article 4.6.5, shall
apply to the strength design (load factor design) of drilled
shafts. Article 4.6.5 covers the allowable stress design of
drilled shafts, and shall be replaced by the articles in this
section for load factor design of drilled shafts, unless oth-
erwise stated.
The provisions of Article 4.13 shall apply to the design
of drilled shafts, but not drilled piles installed with con-
tinuous ight augers that are concreted as the auger is
being extracted.
4.13.2 Notations
a parameter used for calculating F
r
A
p
area of base of drilled shaft
A
s
surface area of a drilled pier
A
soc
cross-sectional area of socket
A
u
annular space between bell and shaft
b perimeter used for calculating F
r
CPT cone penetration test
d dimensionless depth factor for estimating tip
capacity of drilled shafts in rock
4.12.3.3.10A DIVISION IDESIGN 105
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
D diameter of drilled shaft
D
b
embedment of drilled shaft in layer that pro-
vides support
D
p
diameter of base of a drilled shaft
D
s
diameter of a drilled shaft socket in rock
E
c
Youngs modulus of concrete
E
i
intact rock modulus
E
p
Youngs modulus of a drilled shaft
E
r
modulus of the in situ rock mass
E
s
soil modulus
F
r
reduction factor for tip resistance of large
diameter drilled shaft
H
s
depth of embedment of drilled shaft socketed
into rock
I
p
moment of inertia of a drilled shaft
I
base
settlement of the base of the drilled shaft
e
elastic shortening of drilled shaft
tol
tolerable settlement
v
vertical effective stress
v
total vertical stress
P
i
working load at top of socket
performance factor
or
f
angle of internal friction of soil
q
performance factor for the total ultimate bear-
ing capacity of a drilled shaft
qs
performance factor for the ultimate shaft ca-
pacity of a drilled shaft
qp
performance factor for the ultimate tip capac-
ity of a drilled shaft
4.13.3 Geotechnical Design
Drilled shafts shall be designed to have adequate bear-
ing and structural capacities under tolerable settlements
and tolerable lateral movements.
The supporting capacity of drilled shafts shall be esti-
mated by static analysis methods (analytical methods
based on soil-structure interaction). Capacity may be ver-
ied with load test results.
The method of construction may affect the drilled shaft
capacity and shall be considered as part of the design
process. Drilled shafts may be constructed using the dry,
casing or wet method of construction, or a combination of
methods. In every case, hole excavation, concrete place-
ment, and all other aspects shall be performed in con-
formance with the provisions of this specication and
Division II.
106 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.13.2
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
4.13.3.1 Factors Affecting Axial Capacity
See Article 4.6.5.2 for drilled shafts in soil and Arti-
cle 4.6.5.3.3 for drilled shafts in rock. The follow-
ing sub-articles shall supplement Articles 4.6.5.2 and
4.6.5.3.3.
4.13.3.1.1 Downdrag Loads
Downdrag loads shall be evaluated, where appropriate,
as indicated in Article 4.12.3.1.3.
4.13.3.1.2 Uplift
The provisions of Article 4.12.3.1.4 shall apply as ap-
plicable.
Shafts designed for and constructed in expansive soil
shall extend for a sufficient depth into moisture-stable
soils to provide adequate anchorage to resist uplift. Suffi-
cient clearance shall be provided between the ground sur-
face and underside of caps or beams connecting shafts to
preclude the application of uplift loads at the shaft/cap
connection due to swelling ground conditions. Uplift ca-
pacity of straight-sided drilled shafts shall rely only on
side resistance in conformance with Article 4.13.3.3.2 for
drilled shafts in cohesive soils, and Article 4.13.3.3.3 for
drilled shafts in cohesionless soils. If the shaft has an en-
larged base, Q
s
shall be determined in conformance with
Article 4.13.3.3.6.
4.13.3.2 Movement Under Serviceability
Limit State
4.13.3.2.1 General
The provisions of Article 4.12.3.2.1 shall apply as
applicable.
In estimating settlements of drilled shafts in clay, only
unfactored permanent loads shall be considered. However
unfactored live loads must be added to the permanent
loads when estimating settlement of shafts in granular
soil.
4.13.3.2.2 Tolerable Movement
The provisions of Article 4.12.3.2.2 shall apply as
applicable.
4.13.3.2.3 Settlement
The settlement of a drilled shaft foundation involving
either single drilled shafts or groups of drilled shafts shall
not exceed the tolerable settlement as selected according
to Article 4.13.3.2.2
4.13.3.2.3a Settlement of Single Drilled Shafts
The settlement of single drilled shafts shall be esti-
mated considering short-term settlement, consolidation
settlement (if constructed in cohesive soils), and axial
compression of the drilled shaft.
4.13.3.2.3b Group Settlement
The settlement of groups of drilled shafts shall be esti-
mated using the same procedures as described for pile
groups, Article 4.12.3.2.3.
Cohesive Soil, See Article 4.12.3.2.3a
Cohesionless Soil, See Article 4.12.3.2.3b
4.13.3.2.4 Lateral Displacement
The provisions of Article 4.12.3.2.4 shall apply as
applicable.
4.13.3.3 Resistance at Strength Limit States
The strength limit states that must be considered in-
clude: (1) bearing capacity of drilled shafts, (2) uplift ca-
pacity of drilled shafts, and (3) punching of drilled shafts
bearing in strong soil into a weaker layer below.
4.13.3.3.1 Axial Loading of Drilled Shafts
The provisions of Article 4.12.3.3.1 shall apply as
applicable.
4.13.3.3.2 Analytic Estimates of Drilled Shaft
Capacity in Cohesive Soils
Analytic (rational) methods may be used to estimate
the ultimate bearing capacity of drilled shafts in cohesive
soils. The performance factors for side resistance and tip
resistance for three analytic methods shall be as provided
in Table 4.10.6-3. If another analytic method is used, ap-
plication of the performance factors in Table 4.10.6-3 may
not be appropriate.
4.13.3.3.3 Estimation of Drilled-Shaft Capacity in
Cohesionless Soils
The ultimate bearing capacity of drilled shafts in co-
hesionless soils shall be estimated using applicable meth-
ods, and the factored capacity selected using judgment,
and any available experience with similar conditions.
4.13.3.3.4 Axial Capacity in Rock
In determining the axial capacity of drilled shafts with
rock sockets, the side resistance from overlying soil de-
posits shall be ignored.
4.13.3.1 DIVISION IDESIGN 107
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
If the rock is degradable, consideration of special con-
struction procedures, larger socket dimensions, or re-
duced socket capacities shall be considered.
The performance factors for drilled shafts socketed in
rock shall be as provided in Table 4.10.6-3.
4.13.3.3.5 Load Test
Where necessary, a full scale load test or tests shall be
conducted on a drilled shaft or shafts to conrm response
to load. Load tests shall be conducted using shafts con-
structed in a manner and of dimensions and materials
identical to those planned for the production shafts.
Load tests shall be conducted following prescribed
written procedures which have been developed from ac-
cepted standards and modied, as appropriate, for the
conditions at the site. Standard pile load testing proce-
dures developed by ASTM as specied in Article
4.12.3.3.5 may be modied for testing drilled shafts.
The performance factor for axial compressive capac-
ity, axial uplift capacity, and lateral capacity obtained
from load tests shall be as provided in Table 4.10.6-3.
4.13.3.3.6 Uplift Capacity
Uplift shall be considered when (i) upward loads act on
the drilled shafts and (ii) swelling or expansive soils act
on the drilled shafts. Drilled shafts subjected to uplift
forces shall be investigated, both for resistance to pullout
and for their structural strength.
4.13.3.3.6a Uplift Capacity of a Single
Drilled Shaft
The uplift capacity of a single straight-sided drilled
shaft shall be estimated in a manner similar to that for
estimating the ultimate side resistance for drilled shafts
in compression (Articles 4.13.3.3.2, 4.13.3.3.3, and
4.13.3.3.4).
The uplift capacity of a belled shaft shall be estimated
neglecting the side resistance above the bell, and assum-
ing that the bell behaves as an anchor.
The performance factor for the uplift capacity of
drilled shafts shall be as provided in Table 4.10.6-3.
4.13.3.3.6b Group Uplift Capacity
See Article 4.12.3.3.7b. The performance factors for
uplift capacity of groups of drilled shafts shall be the same
as those for pile groups as given in Table 4.10.6-3.
4.13.3.3.7 Lateral Load
The design of laterally loaded drilled shafts is usually
governed by lateral movement criteria (Article 4.13.3.2)
or structural failure of the drilled shaft. The design of lat-
erally loaded drilled shafts shall account for the effects of
interaction between the shaft and ground, including the
number of piers in the group.
4.13.3.3.8 Group Capacity
Possible reduction in capacity from group effects shall
be considered.
4.13.3.3.8a Cohesive Soil
The provisions of Article 4.12.3.3.10a shall apply. The
performance factor for the group capacity of an equivalent
pier or block failure shall be as provided in Table 4.10.6-
2 for both cases of the cap being in contact, and not in con-
tact with the ground. The performance factors for the
group capacity calculated using the sum of the individual
drilled shaft capacities are the same as those for the single
drilled shaft capacities.
4.13.3.3.8b Cohesionless Soil
Evaluation of group capacity of shafts in cohesionless
soil shall consider the spacing between adjacent shafts.
Regardless of cap contact with the ground, the individual
capacity of each shaft shall be reduced by a factor for
an isolated shaft, where 0.67 for a center-to-center
(CTC) spacing of three diameters and 1.0 for a cen-
ter-to-center spacing of eight diameters. For intermediate
spacings, the value of may be determined by linear
interpolation.
See Article 4.13.3.3.3 for a discussion on the selection
of performance factors for drilled shaft capacities in co-
hesionless soils.
4.13.3.3.8c Group in Strong Soil Overlying
Weaker Compressible Soil
The provisions of Article 4.12.3.3.10c shall apply as
applicable.
4.13.3.3.9 Dynamic/Seismic Design
Refer to Division I-Afor guidance regarding the design
of drilled shafts subjected to dynamic and seismic loads.
4.13.4 Structural Design
The structural design of drilled shafts shall be in
accordance with the provisions of Article 4.6.6,
which was developed for allowable stress design proce-
108 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 4.13.3.3.4
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
dures. In order to use load factor design procedures for
the structural design of drilled shafts, the load factor
design procedures in Section 8 for reinforced concrete
shall be used in place of the allowable stress design
procedures.
4.13.4.1 Buckling of Drilled Shafts
Stability of drilled shafts shall be considered when the
shafts extend through water or air for a portion of their
length.
4.13.4 DIVISION IDESIGN 109
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
Section 5
RETAINING WALLS
Part A
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MATERIALS
5.1 GENERAL
Retaining walls shall be designed to withstand lateral
earth and water pressures, including any live and dead
load surcharge, the self weight of the wall, temperature
and shrinkage effects, and earthquake loads in accordance
with the general principles specied in this section.
Retaining walls shall be designed for a service life
based on consideration of the potential long-term effects
of material deterioration, seepage, stray currents and other
potentially deleterious environmental factors on each of
the material components comprising the wall. For most
applications, permanent retaining walls should be de-
signed for a minimum service life of 75 years. Retaining
walls for temporary applications are typically designed
for a service life of 36 months or less.
Agreater level of safety and/or longer service life (i.e.,
100 years) may be appropriate for walls which support
bridge abutments, buildings, critical utilities, or other fa-
cilities for which the consequences of poor performance
or failure would be severe.
The quality of in-service performance is an important
consideration in the design of permanent retaining walls.
Permanent walls shall be designed to retain an aestheti-
cally pleasing appearance, and be essentially maintenance
free throughout their design service life.
5.2 WALL TYPE AND BEHAVIOR
Retaining walls are generally classied as gravity, semi-
gravity, non-gravity cantilever, and anchored. Examples
of various types of walls are provided in Figures 5.2A,
5.2B, and 5.2C. Gravity walls derive their capacity to re-
sist lateral loads through a combination of dead weight and
lateral resistance. Gravity walls can be further subdivided
by type into rigid gravity walls, mechanically stabilized
earth (MSE) walls, and prefabricated modular gravity
walls. Semi-gravity walls are similar to gravity walls, ex-
cept they rely more on structural resistance through can-
tilevering action, with this cantilevering action providing
the means to mobilize dead weight for resistance. Non-
gravity cantilever walls rely strictly on the structural resis-
tance of the wall and the passive resistance of the soil/rock,
in which vertical wall elements are partially embedded in
the soil/rock to provide xity. Anchored walls derive their
capacity through cantilevering action of the vertical wall
elements (similar to a non-gravity cantilever wall) and ten-
sile capacity of anchors embedded in stable soil or rock
below or behind potential soil/rock failure surfaces.
5.2.1 Selection of Wall Type
Selection of wall type is based on an assessment of
the magnitude and direction of loading, depth to suitable
foundation support, potential for earthquake loading,
presence of deleterious environmental factors, proximity
of physical constraints, wall site cross-sectional geometry,
tolerable and differential settlement, facing appearance,
and ease and cost of construction.
5.2.1.1 Rigid Gravity and Semi-Gravity Walls
Rigid gravity walls use the dead weight of the structure
itself and may be constructed of stone masonry, unrein-
forced concrete, or reinforced concrete. Semi-gravity can-
tilever, counterfort, and buttress walls are constructed of
reinforced concrete. Rigid gravity and semi-gravity retain-
ing walls may be used for bridge substructures or grade
separation. Rigid gravity and semi-gravity walls are gen-
erally used for permanent wall applications. These types of
walls can be effective for both cut and ll wall applications
due to their relatively narrow base widths which allows ex-
cavation laterally to be kept to a minimum.
Gravity and semi-gravity walls may be used without
deep foundation support only where the bearing soil/rock
is not prone to excessive or differential settlement. Due to
their rigidity, excessive differential settlement can cause
111
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
cracking, excessive bending or shear stresses in the wall,
or rotation of the overall wall structure.
5.2.1.2 Nongravity Cantilevered Walls
Nongravity cantilevered walls derive lateral resistance
through embedment of vertical wall elements and support
retained soil with facing elements. Vertical wall elements
may consist of discrete vertical elements (e.g., soldier or
sheet piles, caissons, or drilled shafts) spanned by a struc-
tural facing (e.g., wood or reinforced concrete lagging,
precast or cast-in-place concrete panels, wire or ber re-
inforced shotcrete, or metal elements such as sheet piles).
The discrete vertical elements typically extend deeper into
the ground than the facing to provide vertical and lateral
support. Alternately, the vertical wall elements and facing
are continuous and, therefore, also form the structural fac-
ing. Typical continuous vertical wall elements include
piles, precast or cast-in-place concrete diaphragm wall
panels, tangent piles, and tangent caissons.
Permanent nongravity cantilevered walls may be con-
structed of reinforced concrete, timber, and/or metals.
Temporary nongravity cantilevered walls may be con-
structed of reinforced concrete, metal and/or timber. Suit-
able metals generally include steel for components such as
piles, brackets and plates, lagging and concrete reinforce-
ment. Nongravity cantilevered walls may be used for the
same applications as rigid gravity and semi-gravity walls,
as well as temporary or permanent support of earth slopes,
excavations, or unstable soil and rock masses. This type of
wall requires little excavation behind the wall and is most
effective in cut applications. They are also effective where
deep foundation embedment is required for stability.
Nongravity cantilevered walls are generally limited to
a maximum height of approximately 5 meters (15 feet),
unless they are provided with additional support by means
of anchors. They generally cannot be used effectively
where deep soft soils are present, as these walls depend on
the passive resistance of the soil in front of the wall.
112 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 5.2.1.1
FIGURE 5.2A Typical Mechanically Stabilized Earth Gravity Walls
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
5.2.1.3 Anchored Walls
Anchored walls are typically composed of the same el-
ements as nongravity cantilevered walls (Article 5.2.1.2),
but derive additional lateral resistance from one or more
tiers of anchors. Anchors may be prestressed or deadman
type elements composed of strand tendons or bars (with
corrosion protection as necessary) extending from the
wall face to a ground zone or mechanical anchorage lo-
cated beyond the zone of soil applying load to the wall.
Bearing elements on the vertical support elements or fac-
ing of the wall transfer wall loads to the anchors. In some
cases, a spread footing is used at the base of the anchored
wall facing in lieu of vertical element embedment to pro-
vide vertical support. Due to their exibility and method
of support, the distribution of lateral pressure on anchored
walls is inuenced by the method and sequence of wall
construction and anchor prestressing.
Anchored walls are applicable for temporary and per-
manent support of stable and unstable soil and rock masses.
Anchors are usually required for support of both temporary
and permanent nongravity cantilevered walls higher than
about 5 meters (15 feet), depending on soil conditions.
Anchored walls are typically constructed in cut situa-
tions, in which construction occurs from the top down to
the base of the wall. Anchored walls have been success-
fully used to support lls; however, certain difficulties
arising in ll wall applications require special considera-
tion during design and construction. In particular, there is
a potential for anchor damage due to settlement of back-
ll and underlying soils or due to improperly controlled
backlling procedures. Also, there is a potential for unde-
sirable wall deection if anchors are too highly stressed
when the backll is only partially complete and provides
limited passive resistance.
The base of the vertical wall elements should be lo-
cated below any soft soils which are prone to settlement,
as settlement of the vertical wall elements can cause de-
stressing of the anchors. Also, anchors should not be lo-
cated within soft clays and silts, as it is difficult to obtain
5.2.1.3 DIVISION IDESIGN 113
FIGURE 5.2B Typical Prefabricated Modular Gravity Walls
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
adequate long-term capacity in such materials due to
creep.
5.2.1.4 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls
MSE systems, whose elements may be proprietary,
employ either metallic (strip or grid type) or geosynthetic
(geotextile, strip, or geogrid) tensile reinforcements in the
soil mass, and a facing element which is vertical or near
vertical. MSE walls behave as a gravity wall, deriving
their lateral resistance through the dead weight of the re-
inforced soil mass behind the facing. For relatively thick
facings, such as segmental concrete block facings, the
dead weight of the facing may also provide a signicant
contribution to the capacity of the wall system.
MSE walls are typically used where conventional
gravity, cantilever, or counterforted concrete retaining
walls are considered, and are particularly well suited
where substantial total and differential settlements are an-
ticipated. The allowable settlement of MSE walls is lim-
ited by the longitudinal deformability of the facing and the
performance requirements of the structure. MSE walls
114 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 5.2.1.3
FIGURE 5.2C Typical Rigid Gravity, Semi-Gravity Cantilever, Nongravity Cantilever, and Anchored Walls
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
have been successfully used in both ll and cut wall ap-
plications. However, they are most effective in ll wall
applications. MSE walls shall not be used under the fol-
lowing conditions.
When utilities other than highway drainage must be
constructed within the reinforced zone if future
access to the utilities would require that the rein-
forcement layers be cut, or if there is potential for
material which can cause degradation of the soil re-
inforcement to leak out of the utilities into the wall
backll.
With soil reinforcements exposed to surface or
ground water contaminated by acid mine drainage,
other industrial pollutants, or other environmental
conditions which are dened as aggressive as de-
scribed in Division II, Article 7.3.6.3, unless envi-
ronment specic long-term corrosion or degradation
studies are conducted.
When oodplain erosion may undermine the rein-
forced ll zone or facing column, or where the depth
of scour cannot be reliably determined.
MSE walls may be considered for use under the fol-
lowing special conditions:
When two intersecting walls form an enclosed angle
of 70 or less, the affected portion of the wall is de-
signed as an internally tied bin structure with at-rest
earth pressure coefficients.
Where metallic reinforcements are used in areas
of anticipated stray currents within 60 meters (200
feet) of the structure, a corrosion expert should eval-
uate the potential need for corrosion control require-
ments.
5.2.1.5 Prefabricated Modular Walls
Prefabricated modular wall systems, whose elements
may be proprietary, generally employ interlocking soil-
lled reinforced concrete or steel modules or bins, rock
lled gabion baskets, precast concrete units, or dry cast
segmental masonry concrete units (without soil reinforce-
ment) which resist earth pressures by acting as gravity re-
taining walls. Prefabricated modular walls may also use
their structural elements to mobilize the dead weight of a
portion of the wall backll through soil arching to provide
resistance to lateral loads. Prefabricated modular systems
may be used where conventional gravity, cantilever or
counterfort concrete retaining walls are considered.
Steel modular systems shall not be used where the steel
will be exposed to surface or subsurface water which is
contaminated by acid mine drainage, other industrial pol-
lutants, other environmental conditions which are dened
as aggressive as described in Division II, Article 7.3.6.3,
or where deicing spray is anticipated.
5.2.2 Wall Capacity
Retaining walls shall be designed to provide adequate
structural capacity with acceptable movements, adequate
foundation bearing capacity with acceptable settlements,
and acceptable overall stability of slopes adjacent to
walls. The tolerable level of wall lateral and vertical de-
formations is controlled by the type and location of the
wall structure and surrounding facilities.
5.2.2.1 Bearing Capacity
The bearing capacity of wall foundation support sys-
tems shall be estimated using procedures described in Ar-
ticles 4.4, 4.5, or 4.6, or other generally accepted theories.
Such theories are based on soil and rock parameters mea-
sured by in situ and/or laboratory tests.
5.2.2.2 Settlement
The settlement of wall foundation support systems
shall be estimated using procedures described in Articles
4.4, 4.5, or 4.6, or other generally accepted methods. Such
methods are based on soil and rock parameters measured
directly or inferred from the results of in situ and/or labo-
ratory test.
5.2.2.3 Overall Stability
The overall stability of slopes in the vicinity of walls
shall be considered as part of the design of retaining walls.
The overall stability of the retaining wall, retained slope,
and foundation soil or rock shall be evaluated for all walls
using limiting equilibrium methods of analysis such as the
Modied Bishop, simplied Janbu or Spencer methods of
analysis. Aminimum factor of safety of 1.3 shall be used
for walls designed for static loads, except the factor of
safety shall be 1.5 for walls that support abutments, build-
ings, critical utilities, or for other installations with a low
tolerance for failure. A minimum factor of safety of 1.1
shall be used when designing walls for seismic loads. In
all cases, the subsurface conditions and soil/rock proper-
ties of the wall site shall be adequately characterized
through in-situ exploration and testing and/or laboratory
testing as described in Article 5.3.
Seismic forces applied to the mass of the slope shall be
based on a horizontal seismic coefficient k
h
equal to one-
half the ground acceleration coefficient A, with the verti-
cal seismic coefficient k
v
equal to zero.
5.2.1.4 DIVISION IDESIGN 115
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
It must be noted that, even if overall stability is satis-
factory, special exploration, testing and analyses may be
required for bridge abutments or retaining walls con-
structed over soft subsoils where consolidation and/or lat-
eral ow of the soft soil could result in unacceptable long-
term settlements or horizontal movements.
Stability of temporary construction slopes needed to
construct the wall shall also be evaluated.
5.2.2.4 Tolerable Deformations
Tolerable vertical and lateral deformation criteria for re-
taining walls shall be developed based on the function and
type of wall, unanticipated service life, and consequences of
unacceptable movements (i.e., both structural and aesthetic).
Allowable total and differential vertical deformations
for a particular retaining wall are dependent on the ability
of the wall to deect without causing damage to the wall
elements or exhibiting unsightly deformations. The total
and differential vertical deformation of a retaining wall
should be small for rigid gravity and semi-gravity retain-
ing walls, and for soldier pile walls with a cast-in-place
facing. For walls with anchors, any downward movement
can cause signicant destressing of the anchors.
MSE walls can tolerate larger total and differential ver-
tical deections than rigid walls. The amount of total and
differential vertical deection that can be tolerated de-
pends on the wall facing material, conguration, and tim-
ing of facing construction. A cast-in-place facing has the
same vertical deformation limitations as the more rigid re-
taining wall systems. However, an MSE wall with a cast-
in-place facing can be specied with a waiting period be-
fore the cast-in-place facing is constructed so that vertical
(as well as horizontal) deformations have time to occur.
An MSE wall with welded wire or geosynthetic facing can
tolerate the most deformation. An MSE wall with multi-
ple precast concrete panels cannot tolerate as much verti-
cal deformation as exible welded wire or geosynthetic
facings because of potential damage to the precast panels
and unsightly panel separation.
Horizontal movements resulting from outward rotation
of the wall or resulting from the development of internal
equilibrium between the loads applied to the wall and the
internal structure of the wall must be limited to prevent
overstress of the structural wall facing and to prevent the
wall face batter from becoming negative. In general, if
vertical deformations are properly controlled, horizontal
deformations will likely be within acceptable limits. For
MSE walls with extensible reinforcements, reinforcement
serviceability criteria, the wall face batter, and the facing
type selected (i.e., the exibility of the facing) will inu-
ence the horizontal deformation criteria required.
Vertical wall movements shall be estimated using con-
ventional settlement computational methods (see Articles
4.4, 4.5, and 4.6. For gravity and semi-gravity walls, lat-
eral movement results from a combination of differential
vertical settlement between the heel and the toe of the wall
and the rotation necessary to develop active earth pressure
conditions (see Table 5.5.2A). If the wall is designed for
at-rest earth pressure conditions, the deections in Table
5.5.2Ado not need to be considered. For anchored walls,
deections shall be estimated in accordance with Article
5.7.2. For MSE walls, deections may be estimated in ac-
cordance with Article 5.8.10.
Where a wall is used to support a structure, tolerable
movement criteria shall be established in accordance with
Articles 4.4.7.2.5, 4.5 and 4.6. Where a wall supports soil
on which an adjacent structure is founded, the effects of
wall movements and associated backll settlement on the
adjacent structure shall be evaluated.
For seismic design, seismic loads may be reduced, as
result of lateral wall movement due to sliding, for what is
calculated based on Division 1A using the Mononobe-
Okabe method if both of the following conditions are met:
the wall system and any structures supported by the
wall can tolerate lateral movement resulting from
sliding of the structure,
the wall base is unrestrained regarding its ability to
slide, other than soil friction along its base and min-
imal soil passive resistance.
Procedures for accomplishing this reduction in seismic
load are provided in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specications, 2nd Edition. In general, this only applies to
gravity and semi-gravity walls. Though the specications
in Division 1A regarding this issue are directed at struc-
tural gravity and semi-gravity walls, these specications
may also be applicable to other types of gravity walls re-
garding this issue provided the two conditions listed above
are met.
5.2.3 Soil, Rock, and Other Problem Conditions
Geologic and environmental conditions can inuence
the performance of retaining walls and their foundations,
and may require special consideration during design. To
the extent possible, the presence and inuence of such
conditions shall be evaluated as part of the subsurface ex-
ploration program. A representative, but not exclusive,
listing of problem conditions requiring special considera-
tion is presented in Table 4.2.3Afor general guidance.
5.3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND
TESTING PROGRAMS
The elements of the subsurface exploration and testing
programs shall be the responsibility of the Designer, based
116 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 5.2.2.3
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
on the specic requirements of the project and his or her
experience with local geological conditions.
5.3.1 General Requirements
As a minimum, the subsurface exploration and testing
programs shall dene the following, where applicable:
Soil strata:
Depth, thickness, and variability
Identication and classication
Relevant engineering properties (i.e., natural
moisture content, Atterberg limits, shear strength,
compressibility, stiffness, permeability, expan-
sion or collapse potential, and frost susceptibility)
Relevant soil chemistry, including pH, resistivity,
and sulde content
Rock strata:
Depth to rock
Identication and classication
Quality (i.e., soundness, hardness, jointing and
presence of joint lling, resistance to weathering,
if exposed, and solutioning)
Compressive strength (e.g., uniaxial compres-
sion, point load index)
Expansion potential
Ground water elevation, including seasonal varia-
tions, chemical composition, and pH (especially im-
portant for anchored, non-gravity cantilevered, mod-
ular, and MSE walls) where corrosion potential is an
important consideration
Ground surface topography
Local conditions requiring special consideration
(e.g., presence of stray electrical currents).
Exploration logs shall include soil and rock strata de-
scriptions, penetration resistance for soils (e.g., SPT or
q
c
), and sample recovery and RQD for rock strata. The
drilling equipment and method, use of drilling mud, type
of SPT hammer (i.e., safety, donut, hydraulic) or cone
penetrometer (i.e., mechanical or electrical), and any un-
usual subsurface conditions such as artesian pressures,
boulders or other obstructions, or voids shall also be noted
on the exploration logs.
5.3.2 Minimum Depth
Regardless of the wall foundation type, borings shall ex-
tend into a bearing layer adequate to support the anticipated
foundation loads, dened as dense or hard soils, or bedrock.
In general, for walls which do not utilize deep foundation
support, subsurface explorations shall extend below the an-
ticipated bearing level a minimum of twice the total wall
height. Greater depths may be required where warranted by
local conditions. Where the wall is supported on deep foun-
dations and for all non-gravity walls, the depth of the sub-
surface explorations shall extend a minimum of 6 meters
(20 feet) below the anticipated pile, shaft, or slurry wall tip
elevation. For piles or shafts end bearing on rock. or shafts
extending into rock, a minimum of 3 meters (10 feet) of
rock core, or a length of rock core equal to at least three
times the shaft diameter, which ever is greater, shall be ob-
tained to insure that the exploration has not been terminated
on a boulder and to determine the physical characteristics of
the rock within the zone of foundation inuence for design.
5.3.3 Minimum Coverage
A minimum of one soil boring shall be made for each
retaining wall. For retaining walls over 30 meters (100
feet) in length, the spacing between borings should be 30
meters (100 feet). The number and spacing of the bore
holes may be increased or decreased from 30 meters
(100 feet), depending upon the anticipated geological con-
ditions within the project area. In planning the exploration
program, consideration should be given to placing borings
inboard and outboard of the wall line to dene conditions
in the scour zone at the toe of the wall and in the zone be-
hind the wall to estimate lateral loads and anchorage or re-
inforcement capacities.
5.3.4 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory testing shall be performed as necessary to de-
termine engineering characteristics including unit weight,
natural moisture content, Atterberg limits, gradation, shear
strength, compressive strength and compressibility. In the
absence of laboratory testing, engineering characteristics
may be estimated based on eld tests and/or published prop-
erty correlations. Local experience should be applied when
establishing project design values based on laboratory and
eld tests.
5.3.5 Scour
The probable depth of scour shall be determined by
subsurface exploration and hydraulic studies. Refer to Ar-
ticle 1.3.2 and FHWA (1991) for general guidance re-
garding hydraulic studies and design.
5.4 NOTATIONS
The following notations apply for design of retaining
walls:
A Acceleration coefficient (dim); (See Article
5.8.9.1)
A
c
Reinforcement area corrected for corrosion
losses (mm
2
); (See Article 5.8.6)
5.3 DIVISION IDESIGN 117
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
A
m
Maximum wall acceleration coefficient at the
centroid (dim); (See Article 5.8.9.1)
b Width of discrete wall backll element (m); (See
Article 5.8.6)
b
f
Width of vertical or horizontal concentrated dead
load (m); (See Article 5.8.12.1)
B Total base width of wall, including facing ele-
ments (m); (See Article 5.5.5)
B Effective base width of retaining wall foundation
(m); (See Article 5.8.3)
C Overall reinforcement surface area geometry fac-
tor (dim); (See Article 5.8.5.2)
C
f
Distance from back of wall facing to front edge
of footing or other concentrated surcharge load
(m); (See Article 5.8.12.1)
CR
s
A reduction factor to account for reduced con-
nection strength resulting from pullout of the
connection (dim); (See Article 5.8.7.2)
CR
u
A reduction factor to account for reduced ulti-
mate strength resulting from rupture of the con-
nection (dim); (See Article 5.8.7.2)
C
u
Soil coefficient of uniformity (dim); (See Article
5.8.5.2)
d Distance from back of wall face to center of con-
centrated dead load (m); (See Article 5.8.12.1);
also, the effective depth relative to stem of con-
crete semi-gravity walls for locating critical sec-
tion for shear (m); (See Article 5.5.6.1)
D
i
Effective width of applied load at depth within or
behind wall due to surcharge (m); (See Article
5.8.12.1)
D* Reinforcement bar diameter corrected for corro-
sion losses (mm); (See Article 5.8.6)
e, e Eccentricity of forces contributing to bearing
pressure (m); (See Articles 5.8.3 and 5.8.12.1)
E
c
Thickness of metal reinforcement at end of ser-
vice life (mm); (See Article 5.8.6)
E
n
Nominal thickness of steel reinforcement at con-
struction (mm); (See Article 5.8.6.1.1)
E
R
Equivalent sacriced thickness of metal expected
to be lost by uniform corrosion to produce ex-
pected loss of tensile strength during service life
of structure (mm); (See Article 5.8.6.1.1)
f Friction factor (dim); (See Article 5.5.2)
F* Pullout resistance factor (dim); (See Article 5.8.5.2)
F
p
Lateral force resulting from K
af
v
(kN/m); (See
Article 5.8.12.1)
F
y
Yield strength of the steel (kN/mm
2
); (See Article
5.8.6.1.1)
F
1
Active lateral earth pressure force for level back-
ll conditions (kN/m); (See Article 5.8.2)
F
2
Lateral earth pressure force due to traffic or other
continuous surcharge (kN/m); (See Article 5.8.2)
F
H
Horizontal component of active lateral earth
pressure force (kN/m); (See Article 5.8.2)
F
T
Resultant active lateral earth pressure force
(kN/m); (See Article 5.8.2)
FS Factor of safety (dim); (See Article 5.5.5)
FS
OT
Factor of safety against overturning (dim); (See
Article 5.8.2)
FS
PO
Safety factor against pullout (dim); (See Article
5.8.5.2)
FS
SL
Factor of safety against sliding (dim); (See Arti-
cle 5.8.2)
F
V
Vertical component of active lateral earth pres-
sure force (kN/m); (See Article 5.8.2)
G
u
Distance to center of gravity of a modular block
facing unit, including aggregate ll, measured from
the front of the unit (m); (See Article 5.8.7.2)
h Equivalent height of soil representing surcharge
pressure or effective total height of soil at back of
reinforced soil mass (m); (See Article 5.8.2)
h
p
Vertical distance F
p
is located from bottom of
wall (m); (See Article 5.8.12.1)
H Design wall height (m); (See Article 5.8.1)
H
1
Equivalent wall height (m); (See Article 5.8.5.1)
H
2
Effective wall height (m); (See Article 5.8.9.1)
H
h
Hinge height for block facings (m); (See Article
5.8.7.2)
H
s
Surcharge height (m of soil); (See Article 5.5.2)
H
u
Facing unit height (m); (See Article 5.8.7.2)
H
w
Height of water in backll above base of wall (m)
I Average slope of broken back soil surcharge
above wall (deg); (See Article 5.8.2)
i
b
Inclination of wall base from horizontal (deg);
(See Article 5.8.7.2)
k
h
Horizontal seismic coefficient (dim); (See Article
5.8.9.1)
k
v
Vertical seismic coefficient (dim); (See Article
5.8.9.1)
K Earth pressure coefficient (dim); (See Article 5.5.2)
K
ae
Total Mononobe-Okabe seismic lateral earth
pressure coefficient (dim); (See Article 5.8.9.1)
K
ae
Dynamic increment of the Mononobe-Okabe
seismic lateral earth pressure coefficient (dim);
(See Article 5.8.9.1)
K
af
Active earth pressure coefficient for the soil be-
hind the MSE wall reinforcements (dim); (See
Article 5.8.2)
K
r
Lateral earth pressure coefficient for the soil
within the MSE wall reinforced soil zone (dim);
(See Article 5.8.4.1)
K
a
Active earth pressure coefficient (dim); (See Ar-
ticle 5.5.2)
K
o
At-rest earth pressure coefficient (dim); (See Ar-
ticle 5.5.2)
118 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 5.4
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
K
p
Passive earth pressure coefficient for curved fail-
ure surface (dim); (See Article 5.5.2)
K
p
Passive earth pressure coefficient for planar fail-
ure surface (dim); (See Article 5.5.2)
l
1
, l
2
Depth from concentrated horizontal dead load lo-
cation that force is distributed (m); (See Article
5.8.12.1)
L Length of soil reinforcing elements (m); (See Ar-
ticle 5.8.2); length of structural footings (m); (See
Article 5.8.12.1)
L
a
Length of reinforcement in the active zone (m);
(See Article 5.8.5.2)
L
e
Length of reinforcement in the resistant zone (m);
(See Article 5.8.5.2)
L
ei
Effective reinforcement length for layer i (m);
(See Article 5.8.9.2)
m Relative horizontal distance of point load from
back of wall face (dim); (See Article 5.5.2)
M
A
The moment about point z at base of segmental
concrete facing blocks due to force W
A
(m-
kN/m); (See Article 5.8.7.2)
M
B
The moment about point z at base of segmental
concrete facing blocks due to force W
B
(m-
kN/m); (See Article 5.8.7.2)
n Relative depth below top of wall when calculat-
ing lateral pressure due to point load above wall
(dim); (See Article 5.5.2)
N Number of reinforcement layers vertically within
MSE wall (dim); (See Article 5.8.9.2)
P
a
Active earth pressure force (kN/m); (See Article
5.5.2)
P
ir
Inertial force caused by seismic acceleration of the
reinforced soil mass (kN/m); (See Article 5.8.9.1)
P
is
Inertial force caused by seismic acceleration of
the sloping soil surcharge above the reinforced
soil mass (kN/m); (See Article 5.8.9.1)
P
o
At-rest earth pressure force (kN/m); (See Article
5.5.2)
P
s
Earth pressure force resulting from uniform sur-
charge behind wall (kN/m); (See Article 5.5.2)
P
AE
Dynamic horizontal thrust due to seismic loading
(kN/m); (See Article 5.8.9.1)
P
H
Concentrated horizontal dead load force (kN/m);
(See Articles 5.5.2 and 5.8.12.1)
P
I
Inertial force of mass within active zone due to
seismic loading (kN/m); (See Article 5.8.9.2)
P
IR
Reinforced wall mass inertial force due to seis-
mic loading (kN/m); (See Article 5.8.9.1)
P
N
Resultant horizontal load on wall due to point
load (kN/m), (See Article 5.5.2)
P
V
Concentrated vertical dead load force for strip
load (kN/m); (See Article 5.8.12.1)
P
V
Concentrated vertical dead load force for isolated
footing or point load (kN/m); (See Article 5.8.12.1)
P
w
Force due to hydrostatic water pressure behind
wall (kN/m); (See Article 5.5.3)
q Traffic live load pressure (kN/m
2
); (See Article
5.8.2)
q
c
Cone end bearing resistance (kN/m
2
), (See Arti-
cle 5.3.1)
Q
L
Line load force (kN/m); (See Article 5.5.2)
Q
P
Point load force (kN); (See Article 5.5.2)
R Resultant of foundation bearing pressure (kN or
kN/m); (See Article 5.8.3)
R Distance above wall base to resultant of lateral
pressure due to surcharge (m); (See Article 5.5.2)
R
c
Soil reinforcement coverage ratio (dim); (See Ar-
ticle 5.8.6)
RF Reduction factor applied to the ultimate tensile
strength to account for short and long-term degra-
dation factors such as installation damage, creep,
and chemical aging (dim); (See Article 5.8.6.1.2)
RF
c
Reduction factor applied to the ultimate tensile re-
inforcement-facing connection strength to account
for long-term degradation factors such as creep
and chemical aging (dim); (See Article 5.8.7.2)
RF
ID
Reinforcement strength reduction factor to ac-
count for installation damage (dim); (See Article
5.8.6.1.2)
RF
CR
Reinforcement strength reduction factor to ac-
count for creep rupture (dim); (See Article
5.8.6.1.2)
RF
D
Reinforcement strength reduction factor to ac-
count for rupture due to chemical/biological
degradation (dim); (See Article 5.8.6.1.2)
S Equivalent soil surcharge height above wall (m);
(See Article 5.8.4.1)
S
h
Horizontal reinforcement spacing of discrete re-
inforcements (mm); (See Article 5.8.6)
S
rs
The reinforcement strength needed to resist the
static component of load (kN/m); (See Article
5.8.9.2)
S
rt
The reinforcement strength needed to resist the
dynamic or transient component of load (kN/m);
(See Article 5.8.9.2)
S
t
Transverse grid element spacing (mm); (See Ar-
ticle 5.8.5.2)
S
v
Vertical spacing of soil reinforcement (mm); (See
Article 5.8.4.1)
t Transverse grid or bar mat element thickness
(mm); (See Article 5.8.5.2)
T Total load applied to structural frame around ob-
struction (kN); (See Article 5.8.12.4)
T
a
The allowable load which can be applied to each
soil reinforcement layer per unit width of rein-
forcement (kN/m); (See Article 5.8.6)
T
ac
The allowable load which can be applied to each
soil reinforcement layer per unit width of rein-
5.4 DIVISION IDESIGN 119
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
forcement at the connection with the wall face
(kN/m); (See Article 5.8.7.2)
T
max
Maximum load applied to each soil reinforce-
ment layer per unit width of wall (kN/m); (See
Article 5.8.4.1)
T
al
Allowable long-term reinforcement tension per
unit reinforcement width for ultimate limit state
(kN/m); (See Article 5.8.6.1.2)
T
lot
= The ultimate wide width tensile strength for the
reinforcement material lot used for connection
strength testing (kN/m); (See Article 5.8.7.2)
T
md
Incremental dynamic inertia force at level i
(kN/m of structure); (See Article 5.8.9.2)
T
0
Applied reinforcement load per unit width of wall
at the connection with the facing (kN/m); (See
Article 5.8.4.2)
T
sc
= The peak load per unit reinforcement width in the
connection test at a specied conning pressure
where reinforcement pullout is known to be the
mode of failure (kN/m); (See Article 5.8.7.2)
T
total
The total static plus seismic load applied to each
reinforcement layer per unit width of wall
(KN/m); (See Article 5.8.9.2)
T
ult
Ultimate tensile strength of geosynthetic rein-
forcement per unit reinforcement width (kN/m);
(See Article 5.8.6.1.2.)
T
ultc
= The peak load per unit reinforcement width in the
connection test at a specied conning pressure
where reinforcement rupture is known to be the
mode of failure (kN/m); (See Article 5.8.7.2)
V
1
Weight of reinforced soil mass (kN/m); (See Ar-
ticle 5.8.2)
V
2
Weight of sloping soil surcharge on top of rein-
forced soil mass (kN/m); (See Article 5.8.2)
W Weight of reinforced wall mass (kN/m); (See Ar-
ticle 5.8.9.1)
W
A
Weight of facing blocks outside the heel of the
base unit (kN/m); (See Article 5.8.7.2)
W
B
Weight of facing blocks inside the heel of the base
unit within hinge height (kN/m); (See Article
5.8.7.2)
W
W
Weight of facing blocks over the base unit
(kN/m); (See Article 5.8.7.2)
W
u
Width of wall facing or facing blocks (mm); (See
Article 5.8.7.2)
X
1
Horizontal distance of concentrated dead load
from Point 0 toe of wall (m); (See Article 5.8.12.1)
Z Depth below effective top of wall or to reinforce-
ment (m); (See Article 5.8.4.1 or 5.8.12.1)
Z
p
Depth to reinforcement at beginning of resistant
zone for pullout computations (m); (See Article
5.8.4.1)
Z
2
Depth where effective surcharge width D
i
inter-
sects back of wall face (m); (See Article 5.8.12.1)
Scale effect correction factor (dim); (See Article
5.8.5.2)
Inclination of ground slope behind wall measured
counterclockwise from horizontal plane (deg);
(See Article 5.5.2)
Friction angle between two dissimilar materials
(deg); (See Article 5.5.2)
max
Maximum lateral wall displacement occurring
during wall construction (mm); (See Article 5.8.10)
R
Relative lateral wall displacement coefficient
(dim); (See Article 5.8.10)
Lateral Rotation at top of wall (mm); (See Article
5.5.2)
h
Horizontal stress at the soil reinforcement loca-
tion resulting from a concentrated horizontal load
(kN/m
2
); (See Article 5.8.12.1)
v1
Vertical stress at the soil reinforcement location
resulting from a concentrated vertical load (kN/m
2
);
(See Article 5.8.12.1)
Soil unit weight (kN/m
3
)
f
Soil unit weight for random backll behind and
above reinforced backll (kN/m
3
); (See Article
5.8.1)
r
Soil unit weight for reinforced wall backll
(kN/m
3
); (See Article 5.8.4.1)
Effective unit weight of soil or rock (kN/m
3
)
w
Unit weight of water (kN/m
3
)
Friction angle of the soil (deg); (See Article
5.5.2)
Effective stress angle of internal friction (deg);
(See Article 5.5.2)
f
Friction angle of the soil behind the MSE wall re-
inforcements (deg); (See Article 5.8.1 or 5.8.4.1)
r
Friction angle of the soil within the MSE wall re-
inforcement zone (deg); (See Article 5.8.1 or
5.8.4.1)
Inclination of back of wall measured clock-wise
from horizontal plane (deg); (See Article 5.5.2)
Soil/reinforcement interface friction angle (deg);
(See Article 5.8.2)
2
Vertical stress due to equivalent horizontal soil
surcharge above wall when sloping ground pre-
sent (kN/m
2
); (See Article 5.8.4.1)
a
Active pressure on the back of a wall (kN/m
2
);
(See Article 5.5.2)
h
Horizontal soil stress at the soil reinforcement
(kN/m
2
); (See Article 5.8.4.1)
v
Vertical stress on the soil reinforcement (kN/m
2
);
(See Articles 5.8.4.1 and 5.8.5.2)
H
Horizontal stress due to point load above wall
(kN/m
2
); (See Article 5.5.2)
120 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 5.4
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
5.4 DIVISION IDESIGN 121
Wall face batter due to setback per course (deg);
(See Article 5.8.5.1)
Inclination of internal failure surface from hori-
zontal (deg); (See Article 5.8.5.1)
The notations for dimension units include the follow-
ing: deg degree; dim dimensionless; m meter;
mm millimeter; kN kilonewton; and kg kilo-
gram. The dimensional units provided with each nota-
tion are presented for illustration only to demonstrate a
dimensionally correct combination of units for the wall
design procedures presented herein. If other units are
used, the dimensional correctness of the equations
should be confirmed.
Part B
SERVICE LOAD DESIGN METHOD
ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN
5.5 RIGID GRAVITY AND SEMI-GRAVITY
WALL DESIGN
5.5.1 Design Terminology
Refer to Figure 5.5.1Afor terminology used in the de-
sign of rigid gravity and semi-gravity retaining walls.
5.5.2 Earth Pressure and Surcharge Loadings
Earth pressure loading on rigid gravity and semi-gravity
walls is a function of the type and condition of soil backll,
the slope of the ground surface behind the wall, the friction
between the wall and soil, and the ability of the wall to trans-
late or rotate about their base. Restrained walls are xed or
partially restrained against translation and/or rotation.
For yielding walls, lateral earth pressures shall be com-
puted assuming active stress conditions and wedge theory
using a planar surface of sliding dened by Coulomb The-
ory. Development of an active state of stress in the soil be-
hind a rigid wall requires an outward rotation of the wall
about its toe. The magnitude of rotation required to develop
active pressure is a function of the soil type and conditions
behind the wall, as dened in Table 5.5.2A. Refer to Figure
5.5.2A for procedures to determine the magnitude and lo-
cation of the earth pressure resultant for gravity and semi-
gravity retaining walls subjected to active earth pressures.
For restrained or yielding walls for which the tilting or
deection required to develop active earth pressure is not
tolerable (i.e., yielding walls located adjacent to structures
sensitive to settlement), lateral earth pressures shall be com-
puted assuming at-rest conditions using the relationships
P
o
(H
2
/2)(K
o
) (5.5.2-1)
FIGURE 5.5.1A Terms Used in Design of Rigid Gravity and Semi-Gravity Retaining Walls
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
K
o
1 sin (5.5.2-2)
When traffic loads are applied within a horizontal dis-
tance from the top of the wall equal to one-half the wall
height, the lateral earth pressure for design shall be in-
creased by a minimum surcharge acting on the backslope
equivalent to that applied by 0.6 meters (2 feet) of soil as
described in Article 3.20.3. The surcharge will result in
the application of an additional uniform pressure on the
back of the wall having a resultant magnitude
P
s
(H
s
)KH (5.5.2-3)
acting at the mid-height of the wall where K is equal to K
a
or K
o
depending on wall restraint. If the surcharge is
greater than that applied by 0.6 meters (2 feet) of soil, the
design earth pressures shall be increased by the actual
amount of the surcharge. Unless actual data regarding the
magnitude of the anticipated surcharge loads is available,
assume a minimum soil unit weight of 19.6 kN/m
3
(0.125
kcf) in determining the surcharge load.
The effects of permanent point or line surcharge loads
(other than normal traffic live loads) on backslopes shall
also be considered in developing the design earth pres-
sures. See Figure 5.5.2B to estimate the effects of perma-
nent point and line surcharge loads.
The effect of compacting backll in conned areas be-
hind retaining walls may result in development of earth
pressures greater than those represented by active or at-
rest conditions. Where use of heavy static or vibratory
compaction equipment within a distance of about 0.5H
behind the wall is anticipated, the effects of backll com-
122 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 5.5.2
TABLE 5.5.2A Relationship Between Soil Backll Type
and Wall Rotation to Mobilize Active and Passive Earth
Pressures Behind Rigid Retaining Walls
FIGURE 5.5.2A Computational Procedures for Active Earth Pressures (Coulomb Analysis)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
paction shall be considered in estimating the lateral earth
pressure distribution used for design.
In addition to the earth, surcharge and water pressures,
the backwalls of abutments shall be designed to resist loads
due to design live and impact loads. For design purposes,
it shall be assumed that wheel loads are positioned to gen-
erate the maximum tensile stresses at the back of the back-
wall when combined with stresses caused by the backll.
The resistance due to passive earth pressure in front of
the wall shall be neglected unless the wall extends well
below the depth of frost penetration, scour or other types
of disturbance (e.g., a utility trench excavation in front of
the wall). Where passive earth pressure in front of a wall
can be considered, refer to Figures 5.5.2C and 5.5.2D for
procedures to determine the magnitude and location of
the passive earth pressure resultant for gravity and semi-
gravity walls. Development of passive earth pressure in
the soil in front of a rigid wall requires an outward rota-
tion of the wall about its toe or other movement of the wall
into the soil. The magnitude of movement required to mo-
bilize passive pressure is a function of the soil type and
condition in front of the wall as dened in Table 5.5.2A.
5.5.2 DIVISION IDESIGN 123
FIGURE 5.5.2B Procedure to Determine Lateral Pressure Due to Point and Line Loads, Modied after Terzaghi (1954)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
124 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 5.5.2
FIGURE 5.5.2C Computational Procedures for Passive Earth Pressures for Sloping Wall
with Horizontal Backll (Caquot and Kerisel Analysis), Modied After U.S. Department of Navy (1982)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
5.5.2 DIVISION IDESIGN 125
FIGURE 5.5.2D Computational Procedures for Passive Earth Pressures for Vertical Wall
with Sloping Backll (Caquot and Kerisel Analysis), Modied After U.S. Department of Navy (1982)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
5.5.3 Water Pressure and Drainage
Walls shall be designed to resist the maximum antici-
pated water pressure. For a horizontal, static ground water
table, the total hydrostatic water pressure should be deter-
mined using the following relationship:
P
w
w
H
w
2
/2 (5.5.3-1)
If the ground water levels differ on opposite sides of a
wall, the effects of seepage forces on wall stability or pip-
ing potential shall be considered. Seepage forces may be
determined by ow net procedures or various analytical
methods. Hydrostatic pressures and seepage shall be con-
trolled by providing free-draining granular backll and a
positive drainage collection system. The positive drainage
system shall be located at the lowest elevation that will
permit gravity drainage. Portions of the walls below the
level of the drainage system shall be designed for full hy-
drostatic pressure unless a deeper drainage system is pro-
vided behind and at the base of the wall.
5.5.4 Seismic Pressure
Refer to Section 6 of Division I-Afor guidance regard-
ing the lateral earth pressure on gravity and semi-gravity
retaining walls subjected to seismic loading. In general,
the pseudo-static approach developed by Mononobe-
Okabe may be used to estimate equivalent static forces for
seismic loads. The estimation of seismic design forces
shall account for wall inertia forces in addition to the
equivalent static forces. Where a wall supports a bridge
structure, the seismic design forces shall also include
seismic forces transferred from the bridge through bear-
ing supports which do not slide freely (e.g., elastomeric
bearings).
5.5.5 Structure Dimensions and External Stability
Gravity and semi-gravity walls shall be dimensioned to
ensure stability against possible failure modes by satisfy-
ing the following factor of safety (FS) criteria:
Sliding - FS 1.5
Overturning -
FS 2.0 for footings on soil
FS 1.5 for footings on rock
Bearing Capacity for Static Loading -
See Article 4.4.7 for footings on soil
See Article 4.4.8 for footings on rock
The factors of safety against sliding and overturning
failure under seismic loading may be reduced to
75% of the factors of safety listed above.
Bearing capacity for Seismic Loading -
FS 1.5 for footings on soil and rock
Refer to Figure 5.5.5Afor computational procedures to
determine the factors of safety for sliding and overturning
failure modes using the Coulomb analysis.
Unfactored dead and live loads shall be used to deter-
mine the FS against sliding and overturning. In determin-
ing the FS, the effect of passive soil pressure resistance in
front of a wall shall only be considered when competent
soil or rock exists which will not be removed or eroded
during the structure life. Table 5.5.2B may be used for gen-
eral guidance in selecting coefficients of sliding friction
between the wall base and foundation soil or rock.
For static loading, the location of the bearing pressure
resultant (R) on the base of the wall foundation shall be
within B/6 of the center of the foundation for foundations
on soil and within B/4 of the center of the foundation for
foundations on rock where B is the width of the wall base
or footing.
For seismic loading, the location of R shall be within
B/3 of the center of the foundation for foundations on soil
and rock.
See Article 4.4.5 for procedures to determine the re-
quired embedment depth of wall foundations; Articles
4.4.7 and 4.4.8, respectively, for procedures to design
spread footings on soil and rock; and Articles 4.5 and 4.6,
respectively, for procedures to design pile and drilled
shaft foundations.
5.5.6 Structure Design
Structural design of individual wall elements shall be
by service load or load factor design methods in confor-
mance with Article 3.22.
5.5.6.1 Base or Footing Slabs
The rear projection or heel of base slabs shall be de-
signed to support the entire weight of the superimposed
materials, unless a more exact method is used. The base
slabs of cantilever walls shall be designed as cantilevers
supported by the wall. The base slabs of counterforted and
buttressed walls shall be designed as xed or continuous
beams of spans equal to the distance between counterforts
or buttresses.
The critical sections for bending moments in footings
shall be taken at the face and back of the stem. The criti-
cal sections for shear in the footings shall be taken at a
distance d (d effective depth) from the face of the stem
for the toe section and at the back of the stem for the heel
section.
5.5.6.2 Wall Stems
The upright stems of cantilever walls shall be designed
as cantilevers supported at the base. The upright stems or
126 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 5.5.3
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
5.5.6.2 DIVISION IDESIGN 127
FIGURE 5.5.5A Design Criteria for Rigid Retaining Walls, (Coulomb Analysis)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
face walls of counterfort and buttress walls shall be de-
signed as xed or continuous beams. The face walls (or
stems) shall be securely anchored to the supporting coun-
terforts or buttresses by means of adequate reinforcement.
Wall stems shall be designed for combined axial load
(including the weight of the stem and friction due to back-
ll acting on the stem) and bending due to eccentric ver-
tical loads, surcharge loads and earth pressure.
5.5.6.3 Counterforts and Buttresses
Counterforts shall be designed as rectangular beams.
In connection with the main tension reinforcement of
counterforts, there should be a system of horizontal and
vertical bars or stirrups to anchor the face walls and base
slab to the counterfort. These stirrups should be anchored
as near to the outside faces of the face walls, and as near
to the bottom of the base slab as practicable.
5.5.6.4 Reinforcement
Except in gravity walls, not less than 81 mm
2
(
1
8
square inch) of horizontal reinforcement per 0.3 meter (1
foot) of height shall be provided near exposed surfaces not
otherwise reinforced to resist the formation of tempera-
ture and shrinkage cracks.
The reinforcement in each construction panel (i.e., be-
tween vertical construction joints) of wall with height
varying uniformly from one end to another, shall be de-
signed for the loading condition acting at one-third of the
panel length from the high end of the panel. If practical,
the thickness of the footings shall be maintained constant
in each panel or in each group of panels. The width of the
footings, however, may vary according to the height of the
wall as required by design.
Tension reinforcement at the bottom of the heel shall
be provided if required during the construction stage prior
to wall backll. The adequacy of the reinforcement shall
be checked due to the dead load of the stem and any other
vertical loads applied to the stem prior to backlling.
Reinforcement in wall and abutment stems shall be ex-
tended a minimum distance equal to the effective depth of
the section or 15 bar diameters, whichever is greater, but
not less than 0.3 meter (1 foot) beyond the point at which
computations indicate reinforcement is no longer needed
to resist stress.
128 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 5.5.6.2
TABLE 5.5.2B Ultimate Friction Factors and Friction Angles for Dissimilar Materials,
After U.S. Department of the Navy (1982)
Friction Factor
f tan Friction Angle,
Interface Materials (dim) (degrees)
Mass concrete or masonry on the following foundation materials:
Clean sound rock 0.70 35
Clean gravel, gravel-sand mixtures, coarse sand 0.55 to 0.60 29 to 31
Clean ne to medium sand, silty medium to coarse sand, silty or clayey gravel 0.45 to 0.55 24 to 29
Clean ne sand, silty or clayey ne to medium sand 0.35 to 0.45 19 to 24
Fine sandy silt, nonplastic silt 0.30 to 0.35 17 to 19
Very stiff and hard residual or preconsolidated clay 0.40 to 0.50 22 to 26
Medium stiff and stiff clay and silty clay 0.30 to 0.35 17 to 19
Steel sheet piles against the following soils:
Clean gravel, gravel-sand mixtures, well-graded rock ll with spalls 0.40 22
Clean sand, silty sand-gravel mixtures, single size hard rock ll 0.30 17
Silty sand, gravel or sand mixed with silt or clay 0.25 14
Fine sandy silt, nonplastic silt 0.20 11
Formed concrete or concrete sheet piling against the following soils:
Clean gravel, gravel-sand mixtures, well-graded rock ll with spalls 0.40 to 0.50 22 to 26
Clean sand, silty sand-gravel mixtures, single size hard rock ll 0.30 to 0.40 17 to 22
Silty sand, gravel or sand mixed with silt or clay 0.30 17
Fine sandy silt, nonplastic silt 0.25 14
Various structural materials:
Masonry on masonry, igneous, and metamorphic rocks
Dressed soft rock on dressed soft rock 0.70 35
Dressed hard rock on dressed soft rock 0.65 33
Dressed hard rock on dressed hard rock 0.55 29
Masonry on wood (cross grain) 0.50 26
Steel on steel at sheet pile interlocks 0.30 17
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
5.5.6.5 Expansion and Contraction Joints
Contraction joints shall be provided at intervals
not exceeding 9 meters (30 feet) and expansion joints at
intervals not exceeding 27 meters (90 feet) for gravity or
reinforced concrete walls. All joints shall be filled with
approved filling material to ensure the function of the
joint. Joints in abutments shall be located approximately
midway between the longitudinal members bearing on
the abutments.
5.5.7 Backll
The backll material behind all retaining walls shall be
free draining, nonexpansive, noncorrosive material and
shall be drained by weep holes with french drains or other
positive drainage systems, placed at suitable intervals and
elevations. In counterfort walls, there shall be at least one
drain for each pocket formed by the counterforts. Silts and
clays shall not be used for backll unless suitable design
procedures are followed and construction control mea-
sures are incorporated in the construction documents to
account for their presence.
5.5.8 Overall Stability
Refer to Article 5.2.2.3.
5.6 NONGRAVITY CANTILEVERED
WALL DESIGN
5.6.1 Design Terminology
A nongravity cantilevered wall includes an exposed
design height (H) over which soil is retained by the verti-
cal and facing elements, and a vertical element embed-
ment depth (D) which provides lateral support to the ver-
tical wall elements.
5.6.2 Earth Pressure and Surcharge Loadings
Lateral earth pressures shall be estimated assuming
wedge theory using a planar surface of sliding dened by
Coulomb theory.
For determining lateral earth pressures on permanent
walls, effective stress methods of analysis and drained
shear strength parameters for soil shall be used.
For permanent walls and for temporary walls in granu-
lar soils, the simplied earth pressure distributions shown in
Figures 5.6.2Aand 5.6.2B, or other suitable earth pressure
distributions, may be used. If walls will support or are sup-
ported by cohesive soils for temporary applications, walls
may be designed based on total stress methods of analysis
and undrained shear strength parameters. For this latter
case, the simplied earth pressure distributions shown in
5.5.6.5 DIVISION IDESIGN 129
FIGURE 5.6.2A Simplied Earth Pressure Distributions for Permanent Flexible Cantilevered Walls
With Discrete Vertical Wall Elements
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
130 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 5.6.2
FIGURE 5.6.2B Simplied Earth Pressure Distributions and Design Procedures for Permanent Flexible
Cantilevered Walls with Continuous Vertical Wall Elements Modied after Teng (1962)
FIGURE 5.6.2C Simplied Earth Pressure Distributions for Temporary Flexible Cantilevered Walls
with Discrete Vertical Wall Elements
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
5.6.2 DIVISION IDESIGN 131
FIGURE 5.6.2D Simplied Earth Pressure Distributions for Temporary Flexible Cantilevered Walls
with Continuous Vertical Wall Elements
Modied after Teng (1962)
TABLE 5.6.2A General Notes and Legend Simplied Earth Pressure Distributions for Permanent and
Temporary Flexible Cantilevered Walls with Discrete Vertical Wall Elements
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
Figures 5.6.2C and 5.6.2D, or other suitable earth pressure
distributions, may be used with the following restrictions:
The ratio of overburden pressure to undrained shear
strength (i.e., stability number N H/c) must be
3.
The active earth pressure shall not be less than 0.25
times the effective overburden pressure at any depth.
Where discrete vertical wall elements are used for sup-
port, the width of each vertical element shall be assumed
to equal the width of the ange or diameter of the element
for driven sections and the diameter of the concrete-lled
hole for sections encased in concrete.
The magnitude and location of resultant loads and re-
sisting forces for permanent walls with discrete vertical
elements embedded in soil and rock for lateral support
may be determined using the earth pressure distributions
presented in Figures 5.6.2A and 5.6.2C, or other earth
pressure distributions developed for use in the design of
such walls. The procedure for determining the resultant
passive resistance of a vertical element embedded in soil
assumes that net passive resistance is mobilized across
a maximum of three times the element width or dia-
meter (reduced, if necessary, to account for soft clay or
discontinuities in the embedded depth of soil or rock) and
that some portion of the embedded depth below nished
grade (usually 2 to 3 feet for an element in soil, and 1 foot
for an element in rock) is ineffective in providing passive
lateral support.
In developing the design lateral pressure, the lateral
pressure due to traffic, permanent point and line surcharge
loads, backll compaction, or other types of surcharge
loads shall be added to the lateral earth pressure in accor-
dance with Articles 3.20.3 and 5.5.2.
5.6.3 Water Pressure and Drainage
Flexible cantilevered walls shall be designed to resist
the maximum anticipated water pressure. For a horizontal
static ground water table, the total hydrostatic water pres-
sure shall be determined using Equation 5.5.3-1. For dif-
fering ground water levels on opposite sides of the wall,
the water pressure and seepage forces shall be determined
by ow net procedures or other appropriate methods of
analysis, where necessary. Seepage shall be controlled by
installation of a drainage medium (e.g., preformed
drainage panels, sand or gravel drains or wick drains) be-
hind the facing with outlets at or near the base of the wall.
Drainage panels shall maintain their drainage characteris-
tics under the design earth pressures and surcharge load-
ings, and shall extend from the base of the wall to a level
1 foot below the top of the wall.
Where thin drainage panels are used behind walls, sat-
urated or moist soil behind the panels may be subject to
freezing and expansion. In such cases, insulation shall be
provided on the walls to prevent freezing of the soil, or
consideration should be given during wall design to
the pressures which may be exerted on the wall by
frozen soil.
5.6.4 Seismic Pressure
Refer to Section 6 of Division I-A for guidance re-
garding the design of exible cantilevered walls subjected
to dynamic and seismic loads. In general, the pseudo-
static approach developed by Mononobe-Okabe may be
used to estimate the equivalent static forces. Forces
resulting from wall inertia effects may be ignored in esti-
mating the seismic lateral earth pressure.
5.6.5 Structure Dimensions and External Stability
Flexible cantilevered walls shall be dimensioned to en-
sure stability against passive failure of embedded vertical
elements such that FS 1.5. Unfactored dead and live
loads shall be used to evaluate the factor of safety against
passive failure of embedded vertical elements.
Vertical elements shall be designed to support the full
design earth, surcharge and water pressures between the
elements. In determining the depth of embedment to mo-
bilize passive resistance, consideration shall be given to
planes of weakness (e.g., slickensides, bedding planes,
and joint sets) that could reduce the strength of the soil or
rock determined by eld or laboratory tests. Embedment
in intact rock, including massive to appreciably jointed
rock which should not fail through a joint surface, should
be based on an allowable shear strength of 0.10C
o
to
0.15C
o
of the intact rock.
5.6.6 Structure Design
Structural design of individual wall elements may be
performed by service load or load factor design methods
in conformance with Article 3.22.
The maximum spacing between vertical supporting el-
ements depends on the relative stiffness of the vertical el-
ements and facing, and the type and condition of soil to be
supported. M
max
in a 1-foot height of wall facing at any
level may be determined by the following, or other ac-
ceptable design procedures:
Simple span (no soil arching)
M
max
p
a
2
/8 (5.6.6-1)
Simple span (soil arching)
M
max
p
a
2
/12 (5.6.6-2)
132 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 5.6.2
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
Continuous (no soil arching)
M
max
p
a
2
/10 (5.6.6-3)
Continuous (soil arching)
M
max
p
a
2
/12 (5.6.6-4)
Equation 5.6.6-1 is applicable for simply supported fac-
ing behind which the soil will not arch between vertical
supports (e.g., in soft cohesive soils or for rigid concrete
facing placed tightly against the in-place soil). Equation
5.6.6-2 is applicable for simply supported facing behind
which the soil will arch between vertical supports (e.g., in
granular or stiff cohesive soils with exible facing or rigid
facing behind which there is sufficient space to permit the
in-place soil to arch). Equations 5.6.6-3 and 5.6.6-4 are ap-
plicable for facing which is continuous over several verti-
cal supports (e.g., reinforced shotcrete or concrete).
Timber facings should be constructed of stress-grade
lumber in conformance with Article 13.2.1. If timber is
used where conditions are favorable for the growth of
decay-producing organisms, wood should be pressure
treated with a wood preservative unless the heartwood of
a naturally decay-resistant species is available and is con-
sidered adequate with respect to the decay hazard and ex-
pected service life of the structure.
5.6.7 Overall Stability
Refer to Article 5.2.2.3.
5.6.8 Corrosion Protection
Refer to Article 5.7.8.
5.7 ANCHORED WALL DESIGN
5.7.1 Design Terminology
Refer to Figure 5.7.1Afor terminology used for the de-
sign of anchored retaining walls.
5.7.2 Earth Pressure and Surcharge Loadings
The development of lateral earth pressures for design
shall consider the method and sequence of construction,
the rigidity of the wall/anchor system, the physical char-
acteristics and stability of the ground mass to be sup-
5.6.6 DIVISION IDESIGN 133
FIGURE 5.7.1A Typical Terms Used in Flexible Anchored Wall Design
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
ported, allowable wall deflections, the space between
anchors, anchor prestress, and the potential for anchor
yield.
For stable ground masses, the nal distribution and
magnitude of lateral earth pressure on a completed an-
chored wall with two or more levels of anchors con-
structed from the top down may be computed using the
apparent earth pressure distributions shown in Figure
5.7.2Aor any other applicable earth pressure distribution
developed for this purpose. For unstable or marginally
stable ground masses, the design earth pressure may ex-
ceed those shown in Figure 5.7.2Aand loads should be es-
timated using methods of slope stability analysis which
incorporate the effects of anchors or which consider in-
terslice equilibrium and provide information on interslice
forces. In developing the design earth pressure for a par-
ticular wall section, consideration shall be given to wall
displacements that may affect adjacent structures or un-
derground utilities. Very approximate estimates of settle-
ments adjacent to braced or anchored exible walls can be
made using Figure 5.7.2B. If wall deections estimated
using Figure 5.7.2B are excessive for a particular appli-
cation, a more detailed analysis using beam on elastic
foundation, nite element or other methods of analysis
which consider the soil-structure interaction effects of an-
chored walls may be warranted.
134 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 5.7.2
FIGURE 5.7.2A Guidelines for Estimating Earth Pressure on Walls with Two or More Levels of Anchors
Constructed from the Top Down Modied after Terzaghi and Peck (1967)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
Anchored walls with one level of anchors may be de-
signed using a triangular earth pressure distribution in ac-
cordance with Article 5.6.2 or using another suitable earth
pressure distribution consistent with the expected wall de-
ection. For the case where excavation has advanced
down to the rst anchor level but the rst row of anchors
has not yet been installed, the wall shall be treated as a
nongravity cantilevered wall and the earth pressure distri-
bution loading on the wall shall be assumed as triangular
in accordance with Article 5.6.2. Overstressing of the an-
chors should be avoided as excessive anchor loads rela-
tive to the capacity of the retained ground mass to support
the anchor loads can result in undesirable deections, or
passive failure of the wall into the retained soil.
In developing the design lateral pressure for walls con-
structed from the top down, the lateral pressure due to
traffic or other surcharge loading, shall be added to the lat-
eral earth pressure in accordance with Articles 3.23.3 and
5.5.2, using an earth pressure coefficient consistent with
the estimated magnitude of wall deection.
For the conditions where there is no or one anchor
level, the magnitude and distribution of lateral resisting
forces for embedded vertical elements in soil or rock shall
be determined following procedures described in Article
5.6.2. When two or more levels of anchors have been in-
stalled, the magnitude of lateral resistance provided by
embedded vertical elements will depend on the element
stiffness and deection under load.
The earth pressures on anchored walls constructed in
ll situations from the bottom up are affected by the
method and sequence of construction. Therefore, the
method and sequence of construction must be considered
when selecting appropriate lateral earth pressures for an-
chored walls in ll situations. As a general guide, the fol-
lowing may be considered:
For walls with a single anchor levelA triangular
distribution dened by K
a
per unit length of wall
height plus surcharge loads.
5.7.2 DIVISION IDESIGN 135
FIGURE 5.7.2B Settlement Proles Behind Braced or Anchored Walls
Modied after Clough and ORourke (1990)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
For walls with multiple anchor levelsArectangu-
lar pressure distribution derived by increasing the
total force from the triangular pressure distribution
described above by one-third and applying the force
as a uniform pressure distribution.
5.7.3 Water Pressure and Drainage
Refer to Article 5.6.3.
5.7.4 Seismic Pressure
Refer to Section 6 of Division I-A for guidance re-
garding the design of anchored retaining walls subjected
to dynamic and seismic loads. In general, the pseudo-sta-
tic approach developed by Mononobe-Okabe may be used
to estimate the equivalent static forces provided the max-
imum lateral earth pressure be computed using a seismic
coefficient k
h
1.5A. Forces resulting from wall inertia
effects may be ignored in estimating the seismic lateral
earth pressure.
5.7.5 Structure Dimensions and External Stability
The design of anchored walls includes determination
of the following:
Size, spacing, and depth of embedment of vertical
wall elements and facing;
Type, capacity, spacing, depth, inclination and cor-
rosion protection of anchors; and
Structural capacity and stability of the wall, wall
foundation, and surrounding soil mass for all inter-
mediate and nal stages of construction.
The bearing capacity and settlement of vertical wall el-
ements under the vertical component of the anchor forces
and other vertical loads shall be determined in accordance
with Articles 4.4, 4.5, or 4.6.
For walls supported in or through soft clays with S
u
v
K
r
h
(5.8.4.1-3)
T
max
h
S
v
(5.8.4.1-4)
where,
h
is the horizontal soil stress at the reinforcement,
S
v
is the vertical spacing of the reinforcement, K
r
is the lat-
eral earth pressure coefficient for a given reinforcement
type and location,
v
is the vertical earth pressure at the
reinforcement, and
h
is the horizontal stress at the rein-
forcement location resulting from a concentrated hori-
zontal surcharge load. (See Article 5.8.12.1.)
The design specications provided herein assume that
the wall facing combined with the reinforced backll acts
as a coherent unit to form a gravity retaining structure.
The effect of relatively large vertical spacing of rein-
forcement on this assumption is not well known, and a
vertical spacing greater than 0.8 meters (31 inches) shall
K
Sin
Sin
Sin
Sin
a
+ ( )
+
1
]
1
2
3
1
146 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 5.8.4
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
not be used without full scale wall data (e.g., reinforce-
ment loads and strains, and overall deections) which
supports the acceptability of larger vertical spacings.
These MSE wall specications also assume that inex-
tensible reinforcements are not mixed with extensible
reinforcements within the same wall. MSE walls which
contain a mixture of inextensible and extensible rein-
forcements are not recommended.
5.8.4.2 Determination of Reinforcement Tensile
Load at the Connection to the Wall Face
The tensile load applied to the soil reinforcement con-
nection at the wall face, T
0
, shall be equal to T
max
for all
wall systems regardless of facing and reinforcement type.
5.8.5 Determination of Reinforcement Length
Required for Internal Stability
5.8.5.1 Location of Zone of Maximum Stress
The location of the zone of maximum stress for inex-
tensible and extensible wall systems, which forms the
boundary between the active and resistant zones, is de-
termined as shown in Figure 5.8.5.1A. For all wall sys-
tems, the zone of maximum stress shall be assumed
to begin at the back of the facing elements at the toe of
the wall.
For extensible wall systems with a face batter of
less than 10 from the vertical, the zone of maximum
stress should be determined using the Rankine method.
5.8.4.1 DIVISION IDESIGN 147
FIGURE 5.8.4.1A Calculation of Vertical Stress for Horizontal Backslope Condition, Including Live Load and Dead Load
Surcharges for Internal Stability Design
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
Since the Rankine method cannot account for wall face
batter or the effect of concentrated surcharge loads
above the reinforced backfill zone, the Coulomb
method shall be used for walls with extensible rein-
forcement in cases of significant batter (defined as 10
from vertical or more) and concentrated surcharge loads
to determine the location of the zone of maximum
stress.
5.8.5.2 Soil Reinforcement Pullout Design
The reinforcement pullout resistance shall be checked
at each level against pullout failure for internal stability.
Only the effective pullout length which extends beyond the
theoretical failure surfaces shall be used in this computa-
tion. Note that traffic loads are neglected in pullout calcu-
lations (see Figure 5.8.4.1.A).
148 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 5.8.5.1
FIGURE 5.8.4.1B Calculation of Vertical Stress for Sloping Backslope Condition for Internal Stability Design
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
The effective pullout length required shall be deter-
mined using the following equation:
(5.8.5.2-1)
where L
e
is the length of reinforcement in the resisting
zone, FS
PO
is the safety factor against pullout (minimum
of 1.5), F* is the pullout resistance factor, is a scale ef-
fect correction factor,
v
is the vertical stress at the rein-
forcement in the resistant zone, C is an overall reinforce-
ment surface area geometry factor based on the gross
perimeter of the reinforcement and is equal to 2 for strip,
grid, and sheet type reinforcements (i.e., two sides), R
c
is
the reinforcement coverage ratio (see Article 5.8.6), and
other variables are as dened previously. F*
v
CL
e
is the
pullout resistance P
r
per unit of reinforcement width.
F* and shall be determined from product specic pull-
out tests in the project backll material or equivalent soil, or
they can be estimated empirically/theoretically. Pullout test-
ing and interpretation procedures (and direct shear testing
for some parameters), as well as typical empirical data, are
provided in Appendix Aof FHWAPublication No. FHWA
SA-96-071 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Rein-
forced Soil Slopes Design and Construction Guidelines.
For standard backll materials (see Article 7.3.6.3 in Divi-
sion II), with the exception of uniform sands (i.e., coefficient
of uniformity C
u
4), it is acceptable to use conservative
default values for F* and as shown in Figure 5.8.5.2Aand
Table 5.8.5.2A. For ribbed steel strips, if the specic C
u
for
the wall backll is unknown at the time of design, a C
u
of
4.0 should be assumed for design to determine F*.
Aminimum length, L
e
, in the resistant zone of 0.9 me-
ters (3 feet) shall be used. The total length of reinforce-
ment required for pullout is equal to L
a
L
e
as shown in
Figure 5.8.5.1A.
For grids, the spacing between transverse grid ele-
ments, S
t
shall be uniform throughout the length of the re-
inforcement rather than having transverse grid members
concentrated only in the resistant zone.
These pullout calculations assume that the long-term
strength of the reinforcement (see Article 5.8.6.1) in the
resistant zone is greater than T
max
.
5.8.6 Reinforcement Strength Design
The strength of the reinforcement needed, for internal
stability, to resist the load applied throughout the design
L
FS T
F CR
e
PO
v c
max
T FS
A F
b
a
c y
=
5.8.6.1.2 DIVISION IDESIGN 157
TABLE 5.8.6.1.2B Default and Minimum Values for the Total Geosynthetic Ultimate Limit State
Strength Reduction Factor, RF
Application Total Reduction Factor, RF
All applications, but with product specic data obtained and analyzed in
accordance with FHWAPublication No. FHWASA-96-071
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes Design
and Construction GuidelinesAppendix B, and FHWAPublication No.
FHWASA-96-072 Corrosion/Degradation of Soil Reinforcements for
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes
Permanent applications not having severe consequences should poor
performance or failure occur, nonaggressive soils, and polymers meeting
the requirements listed in Table 5.8.6.1.2A, provided product specic data
is not available
Temporary applications not having severe consequences should poor
performance or failure occur, nonaggressive soils, and polymers meeting
the requirements listed in Table 5.8.6.1.2A, provided product specic data
is not available
All reduction factors shall be based on product
specific data. RF
ID
and RF
D
shall not be less
than 1.1.
7.0
3.5
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
manent walls, a FS of 1.5 shall be used. Note that the un-
certainty of determining long-term reinforcement strength
is taken into account through an additional factor of safety,
which is typically about 1.2, depending on the amount of
creep data available, through the creep extrapolation pro-
tocol provided in Appendix B of the FHWA-SA-96-071,
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil
Slopes Design and Construction Guidelines.
5.8.7 Soil Reinforcement/Facing Connection
Strength Design
5.8.7.1 Connection Strength for Steel Soil
Reinforcements
Connections shall be designed to resist stresses result-
ing from active forces (T
0
, as described in Article 5.8.4.2)
as well as from differential movements between the rein-
forced backll and the wall facing elements.
Elements of the connection which are embedded in the
facing element shall be designed with adequate bond
length and bearing area in the concrete to resist the con-
nection forces. The capacity of the embedded connector
shall be checked by tests as required in Article 8.31. Con-
nections between steel reinforcement and the wall facing
units (e.g., welds, bolts, pins, etc.) shall be designed in ac-
cordance with Article 10.32.
Connection materials shall be designed to accommo-
date losses due to corrosion in accordance with Article
5.8.6.1.1. Potential differences between the environment
at the face relative to the environment within the rein-
forced soil mass shall be considered when assessing po-
tential corrosion losses.
5.8.7.2 Connection Strength for Geosynthetic
Reinforcements
To evaluate the long-term geosynthetic strength at the
connection with the wall facing, reduce T
ult
using the
connection/seam strength determined in accordance with
ASTM D 4884 for structural (i.e., not partial or full fric-
tion) connections. ASTM D 4884 will produce a short-
term connection strength equal to T
ult
CR
u
. (See Equa-
tion 5.8.7.2-1.) Note that ASTM D 4884 will need to be
modied to accommodate geogrid joints such as a Bodkin
joint. The portion of the connection embedded in the con-
crete facing shall be designed in accordance with Article
8.31.
For reinforcements connected to the facing through
embedment between facing elements using a partial or
full friction connection (e.g., segmental concrete block
faced walls), the capacity of the connection shall be re-
duced from T
ult
for the backll reinforcement using the
connection strength determined from laboratory tests.
(See Equation 5.8.7.2-1.) This connection strength is
based on the lessor of the pullout capacity of the connec-
tion, the long-term rupture strength of the connection and
T
al
as determined in Article 5.8.6.1.2. An appropriate lab-
oratory testing and interpretation procedure, which is a
modication of NCMATest Method SRWU-1 (Simac, et.
al., 1993), is discussed in Appendix Aof FHWAPublica-
tion No. FHWA SA-96-071 Mechanically Stabilized
158 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 5.8.6.2.2
TABLE 5.8.7.2A Default and Minimum Values for the Total Geosynthetic Ultimate Limit State
Strength Reduction Factor at the Facing Connection, RF
c
Application Total Reduction Factor, RF
c
All applications, but with product specic data obtained and analyzed in
accordance with FHWAPublication No. FHWASA-96-071
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes Design
and Construction GuidelinesAppendix B, and FHWAPublication No.
FHWASA-96-072 Corrosion/Degradation of Soil Reinforcements for
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes.
Permanent applications not having severe consequences should poor
performance or failure occur, nonaggressive soils, and polymers meeting
the requirements listed in Table 5.8.6.1.2A, provided product specic data
is not available. If using polyester reinforcement, the pH regime at the
connection must be investigated and determined to be within the pH
requirements for a nonaggressive environment. (See Division II, Article
7.3.6.3.)
Temporary applications not having severe consequences should poor
performance or failure occur, nonaggressive soils, and polymers meeting
the requirements listed in Table 5.8.6.1.2A, provided product specic data
is not available.
All reduction factors shall be based on product
specic data. RF
ID
and RF
D
shall not be less
than 1.1.
4.0
2.5
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes Design and Con-
struction Guidelines.
From this test, a peak connection strength load as a func-
tion of vertical conning stress, T
ultc
or T
sc
, are obtained,
which can be used to determine CR
u
and CR
s
as follows:
(5.8.7.2-1)
(5.8.7.2-2)
where, T
ultc
is the peak load per unit reinforcement width
in the connection test at a specied conning pressure
where rupture of the reinforcement is known to be the
mode of failure, T
sc
is the peak load per unit of reinforce-
ment width in the connection test at a specied conning
pressure where pullout is known to be the mode of failure,
T
lot
is the ultimate wide width tensile strength (ASTM
D 4595) for the reinforcement material lot used for the
connection strength testing, CR
u
is a reduction factor to
account for reduced ultimate strength resulting from the
connection where rupture is the mode of failure, and CR
s
is a reduction factor to account for reduced strength due
to connection pullout.
Therefore, determine the long-term geosynthetic con-
nection strength T
ac
on a load per unit reinforcement width
basis as follows:
If the failure mode for the connection is rupture,
CR
T
T
s
sc
lot
CR
T
T
u
ultc
lot
T
T CR
FS RF
ac
ult u
c
f
H
2
(5.8.9.1-2)
P
IR
0.5A
m
f
H
2
(5.8.9.1-3)
A is defined as the ground acceleration coefficient
as determined in Division I-A, Article 3.2, in particular
Figure 3. A
m
is defined as the maximum wall accelera-
tion coefficient at the centroid of the wall mass. For
ground accelerations greater than 0.45 g, A
m
would be
calculated to be less than A. Therefore, if A> 0.45 g, set
A
m
A. The equation for P
AE
was developed assuming
a friction angle of 30. P
AE
may be adjusted for other soil
friction angles using the Mononobe-Okabe method, with
the horizontal acceleration k
h
equal to A
m
and k
v
equal
to zero.
For structures with sloping backlls, the inertial force
(P
IR
) and the dynamic horizontal thrust (P
AE
) are based
on a height H
2
near the back of the wall determined as
follows:
(5.8.9.1-4)
P
AE
shall be adjusted for sloping backlls using the
Mononobe-Okabe method, with the horizontal accelera-
tion k
h
equal to A
m
and k
v
equal to zero. A height of H
2
shall be used to calculate P
AE
in this case. P
IR
for sloping
backlls shall be calculated as follows:
P
IR
P
ir
P
is
(5.8.9.1-5)
P
ir
0.5A
m
f
H
2
H (5.8.9.1-6)
P
is
0.125A
m
f
(H
2
)
2
Tan (5.8.9.1-7)
where, P
ir
is the inertial force caused by acceleration of the
reinforced backll and P
is
is the inertial force caused by
acceleration of the sloping soil surcharge above the rein-
forced backll, with the width of mass contributing to P
IR
equal to 0.5H
2
. P
IR
acts at the combined centroid of P
ir
and
P
is
. This is illustrated in Figure 5.8.9.1A.
Factors of safety against sliding, overturning, and bear-
ing capacity failure under seismic loading may be reduced
to 75% of the factors of safety dened in Articles 5.8.2
and 5.8.3. The factor of safety for overall stability may be
reduced to 1.1. (See Article 5.2.2.3.)
H H
Tan H
Tan
2
0 5
1 0 5
+
( )
.
.
5.8.8.2 DIVISION IDESIGN 161
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
162 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 5.8.9.1
FIGURE 5.8.9.1A Seismic External Stability of a MSE Wall
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
5.8.9.2 DIVISION IDESIGN 163
5.8.9.2 Internal Stability
Reinforcements shall be designed to withstand hori-
zontal forces generated by the internal inertial force (P
1
)
in addition to the static forces. The total inertial force P
1
per unit width of structure shall be considered equal to
the weight of the active zone times the maximum wall
acceleration coefficient A
m
. This inertial force is distrib-
uted to the reinforcements proportionally to their resis-
tant areas on a load per unit of wall width basis as
follows:
(5.8.9.2-1)
As shown in Figure 5.8.9.2A, the total load applied to
the reinforcement on a load per unit of wall width basis is
as follows:
T
total
T
max
T
md
(5.8.9.2-2)
where, T
max
is determined using Equation 5.8.4.1-3.
T P
L
L
md i
ei
ei
i
N
( )
1
FIGURE 5.8.9.2A Seismic Internal Stability of a MSE Wall
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
For seismic loading conditions, the value of F*, the
pullout resistance factor, shall be reduced to 80% of the
values used for static design. Factors of safety under com-
bined static and seismic loads for pullout and breakage of
reinforcement may be reduced to 75% of the factors of
safety used for static loading.
For geosynthetic reinforcement rupture, the reinforce-
ment must be designed to resist the static and dynamic
components of the load as follows:
For the static component,
(5.8.9.2-3)
For the dynamic component,
(5.8.9.2-4)
Therefore, the ultimate strength of the geosynthetic re-
inforcement required is,
T
ult
S
rs
S
rt
(5.8.9.2-5)
For reinforcement pullout,
(5.8.9.2-6)
where, all variables are as dened in Article 5.8.5.2.
5.8.9.3 Facing/Soil Reinforcement Connection
Design for Seismic Loads
Facing elements shall be designed to resist the seismic
loads determined in accordance with Article 5.8.9.2 (i.e.,
T
total
).
Allowable stresses used for the design of the wall fac-
ing are permitted to increase by 50% for steel, 33% for
concrete, and 50% for timber components of the facing.
Facing elements shall be designed in accordance with Di-
vision I-A.
For segmental concrete block facing walls, the blocks
located above the uppermost backll reinforcement layer
shall be designed to resist toppling failure during seismic
loading.
For geosynthetic connections, the long-term connection
strength must be greater than T
max
T
md
. Where the long-
term connection strength is partially or fully dependent on
friction between the facing blocks and the reinforcement,
and connection pullout is the controlling failure mode, the
long-term connection strength to resist seismic loads shall
be reduced to 80% of its static value.
If the seismic performance category is C or higher
(see Section 3, Division I-A), facing connections in seg-
mental block faced walls shall not be fully dependent on
frictional resistance between the backll reinforcement
and facing blocks. Shear resisting devices between the
facing blocks and backll reinforcement such as shear
keys, pins, etc. shall be used.
For steel reinforcement connections, safety factors for
combined static and seismic loads may be reduced to 75%
of the safety factors used for static loading. Based on these
safety factors, the available connection strength must be
greater than T
total
.
For the static component,
(5.8.9.3-1)
For the dynamic component,
(5.8.9.3-2)
The reinforcement strength required for the static com-
ponent, S
rs
, must be added to the reinforcement strength
required for the dynamic component, S
rt
, to determine the
total ultimate strength required for the reinforcement, T
ult
.
5.8.10 Determination of Lateral Wall
Displacements
Lateral wall displacements are a function of overall
structure stiffness, compaction intensity, soil type, rein-
forcement length, slack in reinforcement-to-facing con-
nections, and deformability of the facing system. A rst
order estimate of lateral wall displacements occurring
during wall construction for simple MSE walls on rm
foundations can be determined from Figure 5.8.10A. If
signicant vertical settlement is anticipated or heavy sur-
charges are present, lateral displacements could be con-
siderably greater. Appropriate uses of this gure are as a
guide to establish an appropriate wall face batter to obtain
a near vertical wall or to determine minimum clearances
between the wall face and adjacent objects or structures.
5.8.11 Drainage
MSE walls in cut areas and side-hill lls with estab-
lished ground water levels should be constructed with
drainage blankets in back of and beneath the reinforced
zone. Internal drainage measures should be considered for
all structures to prevent saturation of the reinforced back-
ll or to intercept any surface ows containing aggressive
elements such as deicing chemicals.
T
S CR
FS RF
S CR
FS
md
rt u
D
rt
_
,
0 8
1
.
T
S CR
FS RF
S CR
FS
rs u
c
rs
max
.
_
,
0 8
1
L
FS T
F C R
e
PO total
v c
0 8 . *
T
S R
FS RF RF
md
rt c
ID D
T
S R
FS RF
rs c
max
h v
rt c
ID D
S
S R
FS RF RF
FIGURE 5.8.12.4A Structural Connection of Soil Reinforcement Around Backll Obstructions
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
5.8.12.3 DIVISION IDESIGN 171
requirements in Article 7.3.6.3 of Division II is not con-
sidered to be rapid draining.
5.8.12.4 Design for Presence of Obstructions in
the Reinforced Soil Zone
If the placement of an obstruction in the wall soil rein-
forcement zone such as a catch basin, grate inlet, signal or
sign foundation, guardrail post, or culvert cannot be
avoided, the design of the wall near the obstruction shall
be modied using one of the following alternatives:
(1) Assuming reinforcement layers must be partially
or fully severed in the location of the obstruction, de-
sign the surrounding reinforcement layers to carry the
additional load which would have been carried by the
severed reinforcements.
(2) Place a structural frame around the obstruction
which is capable of carrying the load from the rein-
forcements in front of the obstruction to reinforce-
ments connected to the structural frame behind the ob-
struction. This is conceptually illustrated in Figure
5.8.12.4A.
(3) If the soil reinforcements consist of discrete strips
or bar mats rather than continuous sheets, depending on
the size and location of the obstruction, it may be pos-
sible to splay the reinforcements around the obstruction.
For the rst alternative, the portion of the wall facing
in front of the obstruction shall be made stable against a
toppling (overturning) or sliding failure. If this cannot be
accomplished, the soil reinforcements between the ob-
struction and the wall face can be structurally connected
to the obstruction such that the wall face does not topple,
or the facing elements can be structurally connected to ad-
jacent facing elements to prevent this type of failure.
For the second alternative, the frame and connections
shall be designed in accordance with Article 10.32 for steel
frames. Note that it may be feasible to connect the soil re-
inforcement directly to the obstruction depending on the
reinforcement type and the nature of the obstruction.
For the third alternative, the splay angle, measured
from a line perpendicular to the wall face, shall be small
enough that the splaying does not generate moment in the
reinforcement or the connection of the reinforcement to
the wall face. The tensile capacity of the splayed re-
inforcement shall be reduced by the cosine of the splay
angle.
If the obstruction must penetrate through the face of
the wall, the wall facing elements shall be designed to
fit around the obstruction such that the facing elements
are stable (i.e., point loads should be avoided) and such
that wall backfill soil cannot spill through the wall
face where it joins the obstruction. To this end, a collar
next to the wall face around the obstruction may be
needed.
If driven piles must be placed through the reinforced
zone, the recommendations provided in Section 7 of
Division I shall be followed.
5.9 PREFABRICATED MODULAR
WALL DESIGN
5.9.1 Structure Dimensions
Prefabricated modular walls shall be dimensioned
to ensure that the applicable factors of safety outlined in
Article 5.5.5 are satised.
Minimum embedment and scour protection shall sat-
isfy the requirements of Article 5.8.1.
5.9.2 External Stability
Stability computations shall be made by assuming that
the system acts as a rigid body.
Lateral pressures shall be computed by wedge theory
using a plane surface of sliding (Coulomb theory). Where
the rear of the prefabricated modular systems forms an ir-
regular surface (stepped modules), pressures shall be
computed on an average plane surface drawn from the
lower back heel of the lowest module to the upper rear
heel of the top module, as shown in Figures 5.9.2A and
5.9.2B.
The following wall friction angles, , shall be used un-
less more exact coefficients are demonstrated:
Computations for stability shall be made at every mod-
ule level. At each level, the required factors of safety with
respect to overturning shall be provided. The value of
K
a
used to compute the lateral thrust resulting from the
random backll and other loads shall be computed on
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
the basis of the friction angle of the backll behind the
modules.
If sufficient amounts of structural backll are used be-
hind the prefabricated modules, a value of 34 may be
used for . In the absence of specic data, a maximum
friction angle of 30 shall be used. The coefficient of slid-
ing friction at the wall base shall be the lesser of the coef-
cients of the backll or the foundation soil. Passive pres-
sures shall be neglected in stability computations.
Computations for overturning stability shall consider
that only 80% of the soil-ll unit weight inside the mod-
ules is effective in resisting overturning moments. In the
absence of specic data, a total unit weight of 110 pounds
per cubic foot shall be assumed.
Computations for sliding stability may consider that
100% of the soil-fill weight inside the modules is
effective in resisting sliding motion. The value of
of the foundation soils shall be used in these computa-
tions.
For structures loaded with sloping surcharges, refer to
Article 5.2.2.3 regarding overall stability analysis of
slopes.
172 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 5.9.2
FIGURE 5.9.2A Lateral Earth Pressures for Prefabricated Modular Walls
Case IContinuous Pressure Surfaces
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
5.9.3 Bearing Capacity and Foundation Stability
Allowable bearing capacities for concrete modular
systems shall be computed using a minimum factor of
safety of 3 for Group I loading applied to the ultimate
bearing capacity or to a bearing capacity obtained in ac-
cordance with Articles 4.4.7 and 4.4.8.
Footing loads shall be computed by assuming that dead
loads and earth pressure loads are resisted by point sup-
ports per unit length, at the rear and front of the modules
or at the location of the bottom legs.
For modules supported on integrally cast legs, the re-
actions shall be similarly calculated.
For this computation, a minimum of 80% of the soil
weight inside the modules shall be considered effective. If
foundation conditions require a footing under the total
area of the module, 100% of the soil weight inside the
modules shall be considered.
5.9.3 DIVISION IDESIGN 173
FIGURE 5.9.2B Lateral Earth Pressures for Prefabricated Modular Walls
Case IIIrregular Pressure Surfaces
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
The overall slope stability condition, of which the re-
taining wall may only be part, shall be evaluated in ac-
cordance with Article 5.2.2.3.
5.9.4 Allowable Stresses
Prefabricated modular units shall be designed for de-
veloped earth pressures behind the wall and from pres-
sures developed inside the modules. Rear face surfaces
shall be designed for the difference of these pressures. Al-
lowable stresses and reinforcement requirements for con-
crete modules shall be in accordance with Section 8.
Inside pressures (bin) shall be the same for each mod-
ule and shall not be less than as follows:
P
i
b (5.9.4-1)
Concrete modules shall be designed for bending in
both vertical and horizontal directions between their sup-
ports. Steel reinforcing shall be symmetrical on both faces
unless positive identication of each face can be ensured
to preclude reversal of units. Corners shall be adequately
reinforced.
Allowable stresses for steel module members shall
be in accordance with Article 10.32. The net section used
for design shall be reduced in accordance with Article
5.8.6.1.
5.9.5 Drainage
Prefabricated modular units in cut and side-hill ll
areas shall be designed with a continuous subsurface drain
placed at, or near, the footing grade and out-letted as re-
quired. In cut and side-hill ll areas with established or
potential ground water levels above the footing grade, a
continuous drainage blanket shall be provided and con-
nected to the longitudinal drain system.
For systems with open front faces, a surface drainage
system shall be provided as needed above the top of the
wall to collect and divert surface runoff and prevent ero-
sion of the front face.
Part C
STRENGTH DESIGN METHOD
LOAD FACTOR DESIGN
5.10 SCOPE
The provisions of this Part shall apply for the design of
rigid gravity and semi-rigid gravity walls, and nongravity
cantilevered walls.
The probabilistic LFD basis of these specications
which produces an inter-related combination of load, load
factor, and statistical reliability shall be considered when
selecting procedures for calculating resistance. The pro-
cedures used in developing values of performance factors
contained in this Part are summarized in Appendix A of
the Final Report for NCHRP Project 24-4 (Barker, et al.,
1991). Other methods may be used if the statistical nature
of the factors given above are considered, and are ap-
proved by the owner.
5.11 DEFINITIONS
Only terms relating to retaining walls are provided in
this Section. Denitions for terms relating to foundation
types and LFD design are given in Article 4.8.
Cantilever WallsWalls that resist the forces exerted
on them by exural strength. These walls consist of a con-
crete wall stem, a concrete slab, and possibly a shear key.
Gravity WallsMassive stone or concrete masonry
walls which depend primarily on their weights to maintain
stability. Only a nominal amount of steel is placed near the
exposed faces of these walls to prevent surface cracking
due to temperature changes.
Retaining WallsStructures that provide lateral sup-
port for a mass of soil and that owe their stability primar-
ily to their own weights and to the weights of any soils lo-
cated directly above their base.
Semi-gravity WallsThese walls are somewhat more
slender than gravity walls and require reinforcement con-
sisting of vertical bars along the inner face and dowels
continuing into the footing.
5.12 NOTATIONS
F
r
sliding resistance
H height of retaining wall
H
f
factored horizontal load
K coefficient of earth pressure
K
o
coefficient of earth pressure at rest
N factored bearing pressure resultant
P lateral earth pressure
P
a
active earth load
P
h
lateral earth load
P
v
vertical earth load
q
f
factored bearing capacity
q
max
maximum bearing pressure calculated using fac-
tored loads
q
s
surcharge loading
q
ult
ultimate bearing capacity
R
I
reduction factor due to load inclination effect
R
n
nominal resistance
V
f
factored vertical load
y distance to the point of action for lateral earth
pressure
174 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 5.9.3
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
Greek
load factor coefficient (see Article 5.13.4)
E
load factor coefficient for earth pressure
load factor (See Article 5.13.4)
eq equivalent uid pressure
angle of shearing resistance between wall and soil
wall displacement
performance factor
5.13 LIMIT STATES, LOAD FACTORS AND
RESISTANCE FACTORS
All relevant limit states shall be considered in the design
to ensure an adequate degree of safety and serviceability.
5.13.1 Serviceability Limit States
Design of rigid gravity and semi-gravity walls, and
nongravity cantilever walls shall consider the following
serviceability limit states:
excessive movements of retaining walls and their
foundations,
excessive vibrations caused by dynamic loadings, and
deterioration of element(s) of retaining structures.
The limit state for settlement shall be based upon ride-
ability and economy. The cost of limiting foundation
movements shall be compared to the cost of designing the
superstructure so that it can tolerate larger movements, or
of correcting the consequences of movements through
maintenance, to determine minimum lifetime cost. More
stringent criteria may be established by the owner.
5.13.2 Strength Limit States
Design of rigid gravity and semi-gravity walls, and
nongravity cantilever walls shall be checked against the
strength limit states of:
bearing capacity failure,
lateral sliding,
excessive loss of base contact,
overall instability, and
structural failure.
The limit state which governs the design depends on:
type and function of retaining structure,
earth pressures exerted on the wall by the retained
backll,
geometry of the ground and the structure,
strength of the ground,
ground deformability,
groundwater, and
swelling pressure in clay backlls.
5.13.3 Strength Requirement
Retaining walls and their foundations shall be propor-
tioned by the methods specied in Article 5.14 so that
their design strength exceeds the required strength.
The required strength is the combined effect of fac-
tored loads for each applicable load combination stipu-
lated in Article 3.22. The design strength is calculated for
each applicable limit state as the nominal resistance, R
n
,
multiplied by an appropriate performance (or resistance)
factor, . Procedures for calculating nominal resistance
are provided in Article 5.1, and values of performance fac-
tors are given in Article 5.13.5.
5.13.4 Load Combinations and Load Factors
Retaining structures and their foundations shall be pro-
portioned to withstand safely all load combinations stipu-
lated in Article 3.22 which are applicable to the particular
site or wall/foundation type. Impact forces shall not be in-
cluded in retaining wall design. (Refer to Article 3.8.)
Values of and coefficients for load factor design, as
given in Table 3.22.1A, shall apply to strength limit state
considerations; while those for service load design (also
given in Table 3.22.1A) shall apply to serviceability con-
siderations.
5.13.5 Performance Factors
Values of performance factors for geotechnical design
of foundations are given in Tables 4.10.6-1 through
4.10.6-3, while those for structural design are provided in
Article 8.16.1.2.2.
If methods other than those given in Tables 4.10.6-1
through 4.10.6-3 are used to estimate the soil capacity, the
performance factors chosen shall provide the same relia-
bility as those given in Tables 4.10.6-1 through 4.10.6-3.
5.14 GRAVITY AND SEMI-GRAVITY WALL
DESIGN, AND CANTILEVER
WALL DESIGN
5.14.1 Earth Pressure Due to Backll
The provisions of Articles 5.5.2 and 5.6.2 shall also
apply to the load factor design of rigid gravity and semi-
gravity walls, and nongravity cantilevered walls respec-
tively; with the exception that the loads shall be factored
according to the bottom half of Table 3.22.1A when
5.12 DIVISION IDESIGN 175
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
checking wall stability against bearing capacity, sliding
and overturning. Vertical earth pressure due to the dead
load of the backll shall have an overall load factor,
E
,
of 1.0.
Lateral earth pressures on walls backlled with cohe-
sionless soils shall be designed using effective stresses.
Walls backlled with cohesive soils shall be designed
using equivalent uid pressures. The backll, whether co-
hesionless or cohesive, shall be well drained, so that no
water pressures act on the wall, and no signicant pore
pressures act in the backll. The load factor for lateral
earth pressures calculated using equivalent uid pressures
shall be the same as those calculated using effective
stresses (
E
1.3).
The and
E
coefficients specied for earth pressure
in Table 3.22.1Aare applicable directly to active or at rest
earth pressures. The resistance due to passive earth pres-
sure in front of the wall shall be neglected unless the wall
extends well below the depth of frost penetration, scour or
other types of disturbance. Where passive pressure is as-
sumed to provide resistance, the performance factor ()
shall be taken as 0.6.
5.14.2 Earth Pressure Due to Surcharge
In the design of retaining walls and abutments where
traffic can come within a horizontal distance from the top
of the wall equal to one-half the wall height, the lateral
earth pressure shall be increased by a live load surcharge
pressure equal to not less than 2 feet of earth (Article
3.20.3). Impact loads shall not be included in the design
of abutments (Article 3.8.1). Vertical earth pressure in-
duced by live load surcharge and dead load surcharge
shall have overall load factors of 1.67 and 1.3, respec-
tively. Lateral earth pressure induced by live load
and dead load surcharge shall have an overall load factor
of 1.3.
Where heavy static and dynamic compaction equip-
ment is used within a distance of one-half the wall height
behind the wall, the effect of additional earth pressure that
may be induced by compaction shall be taken into ac-
count. The load factor for compaction-induced earth pres-
sures shall be the same as for lateral earth pressures
(
E
1.3).
5.14.3 Water Pressure and Drainage
The provisions of Articles 5.5.3 and 5.6.3 shall
also apply to the load factor design of rigid gravity and
semi-gravity walls, and nongravity cantilevered walls,
respectively.
The backll, whether cohesive or cohesionless, shall
be well drained so that no water pressures act on the wall
and no signicant pore pressures act in the backll. If a
thorough drainage system is not provided to dewater the
failure wedge, or if its adequate performance cannot be
guaranteed, walls shall be designed to resist the maximum
anticipated water pressure. For walls backlled with co-
hesionless soils, the lateral earth pressure shall be calcu-
lated using buoyant unit weights below the groundwater
level and multiplied by the load factor for lateral earth
pressure. The wall shall be designed for these factored lat-
eral earth pressures (
E
) plus factored hydrostatic water
pressure (1.0).
In the case of an undrained analysis of cohesive back-
lls, the lateral earth pressure shall be calculated using
equivalent uid pressure, which inherently includes water
pressure effects. The calculated lateral earth pressure shall
then be multiplied by 1.3.
If the groundwater levels differ on opposite sides of the
wall, the effects of seepage on wall stability and the po-
tential for piping shall be considered. Pore pressures be-
hind the wall can be determined by ow net procedures or
various analytical methods, and shall be added to the ef-
fective horizontal stresses when calculating total lateral
earth pressures on the wall. The effective lateral earth
pressure shall be multiplied by
E
(obtained from Table
3.22.1A) and the hydrostatic pressure shall be factored by
1.0, when designing the wall.
5.14.4 Seismic Pressure
The provisions of Article 5.6.4 shall apply to the load
factor design of walls when considering earthquakes
loads.
5.14.5 Movement Under Serviceability Limit States
The movement of wall foundation support systems
shall be estimated using procedures described in Article
4.11.3, 4.12.3.2.2, or 4.13.3.2.2, for walls supported on
spread footings, driven piles, or drilled shafts, respec-
tively. Such methods are based on soil and rock parame-
ters measured directly or inferred from the results of in
situ and/or laboratory tests.
Tolerable movement criteria for retaining walls shall
be developed based on the function and type of wall, an-
ticipated service life, and consequence of unacceptable
movements. Tolerable movement criteria shall be estab-
lished in accordance with Articles 4.11.3.5, 4.12.3.2.3,
and 4.13.3.2.3.
5.14.6 Safety Against Soil Failure
Gravity and semi-gravity walls, and cantilever walls
shall be dimensioned to ensure stability against bearing ca-
176 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 5.14.1
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
pacity failure, overturning, and sliding. Where a wall is
supported by clayey foundation, safety against deep-seated
foundation failure shall also be investigated. Stability cri-
teria for walls with respect to various modes of failure shall
be as shown in Figures 5.14.6-1 through 5.14.6-3.
5.14.6.1 Bearing Capacity Failure
The safety against bearing capacity failure shall be
investigated: (1) by using factored soil pressures which
are uniformly distributed over the effective base area, if
the wall is supported by a soil foundation (see Figures
5.14.6-1 and 5.14.6-2); or (2) by using factored soil
pressures which vary linearly over the effective base area,
if the wall is supported by a rock foundation (see Figure
5.14.6-3).
Retaining walls and their foundations are considered to
be adequate against bearing capacity failure if the factored
bearing capacity (taking into consideration the effect of
load inclination) exceeds the maximum soil pressure
(q
max
) determined using factored loads. Methods for
calculating factored bearing capacity are provided in Ar-
ticle 4.11.4 for walls founded on spread footings, and in
Articles 4.12.3.3 and 4.13.3.3 for walls supported on dri-
ven piles or drilled shafts, respectively.
5.14.6.2 Sliding
Where the retaining wall is founded on a spread foot-
ing, safety against sliding shall be investigated using the
procedures specied in Article 4.11.4.3.
5.14.6.3 Overturning
The safety against overturning shall be ensured by lim-
iting the location of the factored bearing pressure resultant
(N) on the wall base. For walls supported by soil founda-
tions, location of the factored bearing pressure resultant
on the base of the wall foundation shall be within the mid-
dle half of the base. For walls supported by rock founda-
tions, location of the factored bearing pressure resultant
on the base of the wall foundation shall be within the mid-
dle three-quarters of the base.
5.14.6.4 Overall Stability (Revised Article
5.2.2.3)
The overall stability of slopes in the vicinity of walls
shall be considered.
The overall stability of the retaining wall, retained
slope, and foundation soil or rock shall be evaluated for
5.14.6 DIVISION IDESIGN 177
FIGURE 5.14.6-1 Earth Loads and Stability Criteria for Walls with Clayey Soils
in the Backll or Foundation (After Duncan et al., 1990)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
178 HIGHWAY BRIDGES 5.14.6.4
FIGURE 5.14.6-3 Earth Loads and Stability Criteria for Walls with Granular Backlls
and Foundations on Rock (After Duncan et al., 1990)
FIGURE 5.14.6-2 Earth Loads and Stability Criteria for Walls with Granular Backlls
and Foundations on Sand or Gravel (After Duncan et al., 1990)
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
all walls using limiting equilibrium methods of analysis.
The Modied Bishop, simplied Janbu or Spence meth-
ods of analysis may be used. Special exploration, testing
and analyses may be required for bridge abutments or re-
taining walls constructed over soft deposits where con-
solidation and/or lateral ow of the soft soil could result
in unacceptable long-term settlements or horizontal
movements.
5.14.7 Safety Against Structural Failure
The structural design of individual wall elements and
wall foundations shall comply to the requirements given
in Section 8.
In the structural design of a footing on soil and rock at
ultimate limit states, a linear contact pressure distribution
determined using factored loads, as shown in Figure
5.14.7-1, shall be considered. The maximum pressure for
structural design may be greater than the factored bearing
capacity.
5.14.7.1 Base of Footing Slabs
See Article 5.5.6.1.
5.14.7.2 Wall Stems
See Article 5.5.6.2.
5.14.7.3 Counterforts and Buttresses
See Article 5.5.6.3.
5.14.7.4 Reinforcement
See Article 5.5.6.4.
5.14.7.5 Expansion and Contraction Joints
See Article 5.5.6.5.
5.14.8 Backll
Where possible, the backll material behind all
retaining walls shall be free draining, nonexpansive,
noncorrosive and shall be drained by weep-holes and
french drains placed at suitable intervals and eleva-
tions. In counterfort walls, there shall be at least one
drain for each pocket formed by the counterforts.
Silts and clays shall, if possible, be avoided for use as
backll.
5.14.6.4 DIVISION IDESIGN 179
FIGURE 5.14.7-1 Contact Pressure Distribution
for Structural Design of Footings on Soil and Rock
at Strength Limit States
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
2002 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.