×
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

embedment depth of pier design - 2007CBC/IBC2006

embedment depth of pier design - 2007CBC/IBC2006

embedment depth of pier design - 2007CBC/IBC2006

(OP)
I'm a little bit confused that why the eq.18-1 (for nonconstrainted case) limits the embedment depth of 12'? Does that mean the max. embedment depth is only 12'?
If look further in the notes area of 1805.7.2.2, there is no limit for the embedment depth d for constrained case, why is that? Thanks for answering...

RE: embedment depth of pier design - 2007CBC/IBC2006

I don't have the code. Can you explain "constrained case vs nonconstrained case", and what is to be "embedded" (depth of pier below grade)?

RE: embedment depth of pier design - 2007CBC/IBC2006

based on what i understand, "non constrained" means it does not have pavement as a  part of supporting system when its "constrained" floor pavement is provided

i believe constrained non-constrained is for piles or in poles

RE: embedment depth of pier design - 2007CBC/IBC2006

(OP)
Nobody answered my question. Why the depth limits at 12', what's the phylosiphy implied by the depth limitation? Is it possible that in the reality, the embedment depth will be needed much larger than 12'?

RE: embedment depth of pier design - 2007CBC/IBC2006

Does the definition of "d" apply to both equations?

If so, you don't have an problem.

RE: embedment depth of pier design - 2007CBC/IBC2006

"research shows that soil strength does not increase consistently with great depths"   

RE: embedment depth of pier design - 2007CBC/IBC2006

The code does not restrict the maximum embedment depth to 12 feet for the non-constrained case, only the lateral load calcs are limited to 12 feet.  For an axial loaded pier, the depths can be greater.  In addition, effective lateral resistance will decrease with depth, so 12 feet is likely an arbitrary number that represents the diminishing lateral resistance at greater depths for small diameter piers or piles.  

RE: embedment depth of pier design - 2007CBC/IBC2006

To add to my previous post, a small diameter pier or pile, especially of wood, will not provide significant bending resistance at depths over 12 feet, likely resulting in unacceptable lateral deflections.

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