×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Required rock socket embedment for Caissons (to develop fixity)?
2

Required rock socket embedment for Caissons (to develop fixity)?

Required rock socket embedment for Caissons (to develop fixity)?

(OP)
It seems like everyone uses 1 Diameter of embedment to achieve this (i.e. fixity of the caisson to the rock). But I could have sworn I read (somewhere) that research has indicated that anywhere from 1 to 3 diameters may be required. Can anyone recommend a (reliable) reference? Thanks in advance!

RE: Required rock socket embedment for Caissons (to develop fixity)?

1 diameter seems small to me.

I would suggest posting this on the Foundation engineering Forum to get some advice from the geotechs.

RE: Required rock socket embedment for Caissons (to develop fixity)?

To better know forces and deflections, you need to model this with FEA with soil springs and rock springs, based on lateral modulus. The caisson embedment should be at least the minimum bedrock penetration prescribed be the soils report.  

The soil/rock lateral stiffness is materially non-linear (P-y curve) but for the small caisson head deflection most SE's are going to tolerate, a linearly elastic soil/rock spring is OK in my opinion.  Doing material non-linear FEA based on a geotechnical parameters known to one or two significant figures is "putting lipstick on a pig".

Consider whether the TOP of your caisson is "fixed head" or "free head" and I usually model the caisson as having a cracked cross section (Ieff = 0.5 Igross) as a simplification.

The soil stiffness immediately at the top of the pier, the depth of overburden and the pier head BC's affect forces and deflections for laterally loaded piers MUCH more so than the bedrock penetration is my experience.

 

RE: Required rock socket embedment for Caissons (to develop fixity)?

From structural point view, you will need more than 1 Dia to achieve full fixity, but 1 Dia would be ok for a shear sucket/key, depending on the property of the rock.

  

RE: Required rock socket embedment for Caissons (to develop fixity)?

Rock mechanics is actually very different to soil mechanics. In rocks, the critical factor is usually not the strength of the rock, but the size and orientation of the existing failure planes(cracks).

RE: Required rock socket embedment for Caissons (to develop fixity)?

For the bridges with drilled shafts I've designed, I've always used L-pile (p-y curves) to locate fixity.  I've found that unless the unsupported length of the shaft is very long, that it just doesn't take much embedment to achieve fixity.  I seem to recall the 1D rule of thumb, too, but I think AASHTO LFD recommends 3D minimum depending on orientation of bedding layers.

Also nearly every geotech report I've seen says to ignore the top 5' or so of rock due to it either being weathered or to account for spoilage due to drilling.

I've also analyzed several signs on drilled shaft foundation and found similar results.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources