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

Code Language for Caisson Pile Rock Socket

Code Language for Caisson Pile Rock Socket

Code Language for Caisson Pile Rock Socket

From NYC building code 2014

1810.7.3 Rock socket design.
The depth of the rock socket in Class 1c rock or better shall be
sufficient to develop the full load bearing capacity of the caisson
pile based upon the sum of the allowable bearing pressure on the bottom of the socket in
accordance with Table 1804.1 plus an allowable bond stress of 200 psi on the sides of the socket.
The depth of the socket in Class 1c rock or better below the bottom of the pipe shall not be less than 3 feet (914 mm)of the outside diameter of the pipe.

I am not following "shall not be less than 3 feet of the outside diameter of the pipe"

Can someone please expand on this language?

Also there appears to be an exception in the NYC code that allows for the factor of safety to be dropped for caisson piles socketed into class 1c rock or better. I have this situation but am cautious to design with no factor of safety.

Thank you.

RE: Code Language for Caisson Pile Rock Socket

Maybe a typo. "3 feet OR the OD of the pipe" is typical sort of language in these situations to cover the range from small to large pipes.

RE: Code Language for Caisson Pile Rock Socket

thx steveh49

RE: Code Language for Caisson Pile Rock Socket

"I have this situation but am cautious to design with no factor of safety."
Check with your Geotech, but there is generally no way the factor of safety is eliminated. Rock socketed caissons are common in NYC (the Hudson River Treatment Plant is supported on some 2400 of 'em) and their design is mostly based on experience of what works.
These things are expensive and there is usually a test program to confirm their capacity. Testing also justifies a lower safety factor.

Regarding "safety factors": When they found that an earthquake fault (Spanish Bight) extended below the new aircraft carrier wharves here in San Diego, The Navy Geotechs just scratched their heads and all they could do was reduce the safety factor. Luckily, the aircraft carriers have hydraulic foundations that isolate them.

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! Already a Member? Login


White Paper - Implementing a Multi-Domain System
IoT systems are multi-domain designs that often require AMS, Digital, RF, photonics and MEMS elements within the system. Tanner EDA provides an integrated, top-down design flow for IoT design that supports all these design domains. Learn more about key solutions that the Tanner design flow offers for successful IoT system design and verification. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close