Engineering_Policy_Guide - User contributions [en]

Category:909 Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO)

2026-09-03T21:53:16Z

Hoskir: /* 909 Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) */

<div style="float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; width:400px; font-size: 95%; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
Several '''foundational documents''' guide MoDOT’s TSMO program:
* [https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/2024%20MoDOT%20TSMO%20Program%20Plan.pdf TSMO Program and Action Plan] – outlines MoDOT’s statewide TSMO vision, goals, and implementation strategies.
* [https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/TSMO%20Informational%20Memoranda%20Complete.pdf TSMO Informational Memoranda] – provides background, technical details, and
* [https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/BC%20Reference%20memo_0.pdf TSMO Benefit-Cost Reference Memo] – provides the benefit-cost information on TSMO applications that are critical to MoDOT’s TSMO program and future work.
* [https://epg.modot.org/files/6/6b/909_WZM_Guidebook.pdf Work Zone Management Guidebook] – provides a comprehensive set of tools and strategies for work zone management and describes “advanced work zone” practices, guidance, and resources
* [https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/FR1_MoDOT_CAVPlan_Apr25_ACCESSIBLE.pdf Connected and Automated Vehicle Action Plan] – articulates MoDOT’s mission, vision, strengths, and strategic focus areas for leveraging CV/AV technologies, and lays out actions across institutional capability-building, outreach and education, and partnership development to support safe, efficient deployment.
</div>

Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) consists of operational strategies and systems that optimize the safety, reliability, efficiency, and capacity of the transportation system. TSMO emphasizes maximizing the performance of the existing system through proactive management and operational improvements.

Category:909 Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO)

2026-09-02T18:38:31Z

Hoskir: /* 909 Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) */

=909 Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO)=

<div style="float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; width:400px; font-size: 95%; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
Several '''foundational documents''' guide MoDOT’s TSMO program:
* [https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/2024%20MoDOT%20TSMO%20Program%20Plan.pdf TSMO Program and Action Plan] – outlines MoDOT’s statewide TSMO vision, goals, and implementation strategies.
* [https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/TSMO%20Informational%20Memoranda%20Complete.pdf TSMO Informational Memoranda] – provides background, technical details, and
* [https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/BC%20Reference%20memo_0.pdf TSMO Benefit-Cost Reference Memo] – provides the benefit-cost information on TSMO applications that are critical to MoDOT’s TSMO program and future work.
* [https://epg.modot.org/files/6/6b/909_WZM_Guidebook.pdf Work Zone Management Guidebook] – provides a comprehensive set of tools and strategies for work zone management and describes “advanced work zone” practices, guidance, and resources
* [https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/FR1_MoDOT_CAVPlan_Apr25_ACCESSIBLE.pdf Connected and Automated Vehicle Action Plan] – articulates MoDOT’s mission, vision, strengths, and strategic focus areas for leveraging CV/AV technologies, and lays out actions across institutional capability-building, outreach and education, and partnership development to support safe, efficient deployment.
</div>

Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) consists of operational strategies and systems that optimize the safety, reliability, efficiency, and capacity of the transportation system. TSMO emphasizes maximizing the performance of the existing system through proactive management and operational improvements.

909.1 Introduction to TSMO

2026-09-02T18:33:41Z

Hoskir: /* 909.1.3 Roles and Contributions for TSMO Implementation */

==909.1.1 Overview of TSMO Strategies==
<div style="float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;">__TOC__</div>

TSMO strategies are the day-to-day operational actions MoDOT uses to actively manage the transportation system and address the primary causes of congestion without relying solely on capacity expansion.

Congestion generally falls into two categories:
* '''Non-recurring delays''' arise from unplanned or irregular events such as incidents, disasters, weather, work zones, and special events. These disruptions are inherently unpredictable, vary in severity and duration, and often require dynamic traffic management and interagency coordination to reduce their impact.
* '''Recurring delays''' occur regularly at specific locations, most often during peak traffic periods. This type of congestion is usually the result of demand exceeding the capacity of the existing system. Transportation agencies do not have the resources to construct enough highway capacity to eliminate all recurring congestion. Instead, TSMO strategies provide more cost-effective ways to manage demand and improve flow.

By addressing both types of congestion, TSMO supports MoDOT’s mission of moving Missourians safely and reliably while making the best use of available resources. These strategies are organized based on whether they address '''non-recurring delays''' or '''recurring delays''', as described below.

[[#909.2_Non-Congested_Route_(Non-Recurring_Delays)|909.2 Non-Congested Route (Non-Recurring Delays)]] – These strategies focus on managing temporary (whether short-term or long-term) capacity reductions caused by irregular or time-limited events that disrupt normal traffic conditions, with the goal of restoring mobility and safety efficiently and consistently.
* [[#909.2.1_Traffic_Incident_Management|909.2.1 Traffic Incident Management]]: Coordinates detection, response, and clearance across multiple agencies to minimize secondary crashes and return roadways to normal operation quickly.
* [[#909.2.2_Transportation_Operations_for_Emergency_Incidents_or_Disasters|909.2.2 Transportation Operations for Emergency Incidents or Disasters]]: Supports system readiness and coordinated response during natural or human-caused disasters through planning, communication, and multimodal evacuation procedures.
* [[#909.2.3_Road_Weather_Management|909.2.3 Road Weather Management]]: Integrates environmental monitoring, data-driven decision support, and targeted maintenance to mitigate the effects of adverse weather on safety and mobility.
* [[#909.2.4_Work_Zone_Traffic_Management|909.2.4 Work Zone Traffic Management]]: Applies smart work zone technologies and comprehensive traffic management plans to maintain safe and reliable travel through construction and maintenance areas.
* [[#909.2.5_Planned_Special_Event_Management|909.2.5 Planned Special Event Management]]: Coordinates transportation, enforcement, and communication activities for scheduled events to maintain efficient system operations and traveler safety.

[[#909.3_Congested_Route_(Recurring_Delays)|909.3 Congested Route (Recurring Delays)]] – These strategies address predictable and routine congestion caused by daily travel demand and capacity constraints on specific facilities or corridors, emphasizing active traffic management, system integration, and multimodal coordination.
* [[#909.3.1_Freeway_Operations_and_Management|909.3.1 Freeway Operations and Management]]: Improves freeway performance through corridor-level monitoring, adaptive control, and coordinated operations to enhance safety and travel-time reliability.
* [[#909.3.2_Arterial_Operations_and_Management|909.3.2 Arterial Operations and Management]]: Optimizes signal timing, intersection design, and corridor coordination to improve mobility and safety on surface streets.
* [[#909.3.3_Freight_Operation|909.3.3 Freight Operation]]: Enhances the efficiency and safety of freight movement through improved access, parking management, and technology-based monitoring along key freight corridors.
* [[#909.3.4_Vulnerable_Road_Users|909.3.4 Vulnerable Road Users]]: Improves safety, accessibility, and comfort for VRUs through targeted infrastructure, operational strategies, and multimodal coordination.
* [[#909.3.5_Transit_Operation|909.3.5 Transit Operation]]: Strengthens transit reliability and accessibility through operational strategies such as priority treatments, multimodal hubs, and corridor management.

==909.1.2 Relationship with Other Programs==
TSMO is not a standalone initiative—it complements and enhances MoDOT’s other programs:
* '''Safety Programs''': TSMO contributes to MoDOT’s safety goals, as outlined in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan and the SAFER Program (see [[907.9_Safety_Assessment_For_Every_Roadway_(SAFER)|EPG 907.9 Safety Assessment For Every Roadway (SAFER)]]), by reducing secondary crashes, improving work zone management, and advancing road weather management capabilities.
* '''Asset Management''': Proper maintenance of TSMO strategies and supporting systems can improve how facilities operate, reduce incidents that accelerate wear, and extend the life of infrastructure investments.
* '''Planning and Design''': TSMO principles should be incorporated early in the planning and design process so that operational strategies are built into projects from the start.
* '''Maintenance''': Maintenance activities can be coordinated with TSMO tools such as smart work zones and ITS devices to reduce traffic disruptions.
* '''Traveler Information''': TSMO strengthens customer service by providing real-time, accurate, and actionable information to the traveling public.

In practice, TSMO serves as the operational thread that connects safety, planning, design, maintenance, and customer service into a unified system-management approach.

==909.1.3 Roles and Contributions for TSMO Implementation==
This guide is designed to provide MoDOT staff and partners with a clear, practical reference for TSMO strategies. Table 909.1.3 highlights the typical roles and potential TSMO contributions of different staff in implementing and supporting TSMO strategies, as applicable based on project context, needs, and available resources. These contributions are intended to guide coordination and consideration of TSMO strategies and may vary depending on the specific application.

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
|+ ''Table 909.1.3. Typical Roles and Potential Contributions for TSMO Implementation''
|-
! Role !! Potential TSMO Contribution
|-
| '''Transportation Management Center (TMC) Operator''' || Monitor traffic conditions, manage information systems, and coordinate incident response and traveler communication to maintain safe and efficient roadway operations.
|-
| '''Emergency Response Operator''' || Provide on-scene incident management, motorist assistance, and roadway clearance to restore normal traffic flow and enhance safety during disruptions.
|-
| '''Maintenance Technician''' || Implement maintenance related TSMO strategies; provide feedback and effort for continual improvement of these strategies and tools.
|-
| '''Traffic Operations Engineer''' || Implement traffic operations related TSMO strategies; provide feedback and effort for continual improvement of these strategies and tools.
|-
| '''Transportation Planner''' || Incorporate TSMO and other traditional transportation improvement strategies into planning efforts, as appropriate.
|-
| '''Design Staff''' || Consider TSMO as an element of design, where applicable, either as a project-based improvement at a spot location or as an opportunity for the continuation of existing TSMO strategies through a corridor.
|-
| '''Construction Inspector''' || Coordinate with appropriate personnel when modifying design elements or inspecting TSMO related infrastructure.
|-
| '''Work Zone Specialists''' || Oversee temporary traffic control in construction zones; review and manage Transportation Management Plans (TMPs), ensure proper setup and quality of traffic control devices, assess risks, and provide input during planning and post-construction reviews to enhance safety and minimize disruptions.
|-
| '''Information Systems Staff''' || Provide oversight and management of field and central communications systems, computer and software, and other information systems resources.
|-
| '''Human Resources Specialist''' || Incorporate relevant related skills and experience into position descriptions where TSMO expertise is needed; assist with training programs to improve the knowledge, skills, and abilities of existing operations personnel.
|-
| '''Emergency Management Agencies''' || Provide coordinated incident response, traffic control, emergency medical services, and roadway clearance; collaborate with MoDOT and TMC staff, when applicable, to improve incident management, responder safety, and system recovery during emergencies and planned events.
|}

==909.1.4 TSMO Implementation Framework==
The TSMO Implementation Framework provides a structured approach for MoDOT to translate its mission and agency goals into actionable objectives and strategies. It supports the development of purpose-driven, measurable strategies aligned with statewide priorities. This framework serves as a bridge between MoDOT’s overarching mission and the specific strategies implemented across the TSMO program. Effective implementation of these goals relies on coordination across disciplines, integration throughout project phases, and collaboration with internal and external partners.

Table 909.1.4.1 identifies the core programmatic elements, MoDOT’s goals and associated objectives, that guide how TSMO is planned, implemented, and evaluated.

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
|+ ''Table 909.1.4.1 Programmatic Element''
|-
! Goal !! Objective
|-
| '''Safety''' || Reduce crash frequency and severity through proactive deployment of TSMO strategies (e.g., incident management, work zone safety, network operations).
|-
| '''Reliability''' || Support predictable and consistent travel times across the system by proactively managing congestion and incidents.
|-
| '''Efficiency''' || Operate MoDOT’s existing system efficiently and effectively through the application of TSMO strategies, as appropriate, to improve performance and inform decisions regarding potential capacity expansion.
|-
| '''Customer Service''' || Support timely, accurate, and useful traveler information that enables informed decision-making.
|}

Table 909.1.4.2 links MoDOT’s mission to measurable outcomes and example TSMO strategies, demonstrating how operations initiatives directly support statewide goals.

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
|+ ''Table 909.1.4.2. Linking MoDOT Mission to Outcomes and Example TSMO Strategies''
|-
! style="width:400px" | Mission !! style="width:400px" | High-Level Outcome !! Example TSMO Strategy
|-
| '''Improving safety (Moving Missourians safely)''' || Reduction in crashes, fatalities, and serious injuries; safer travel for all users || • [[#909.2.1_Traffic_Incident_Management|909.2.1 Traffic Incident Management]]<br>• [[#909.2.3_Road_Weather_Management|909.2.3 Road Weather Management]]<br>• [[#909.2.4_Work_Zone_Traffic_Management|909.2.4 Work Zone Traffic Management]]<br>• [[#909.3.1_Freeway_Operations_and_Management|909.3.1 Freeway Operations and Management]]<br>• [[#909.3.2_Arterial_Operations_and_Management|909.3.2 Arterial Operations and Management]]
|-
| '''Providing high-value, impactful solutions (Delivering efficient and innovative transportation projects; asset management)''' || Cost-effective improvements that maximize existing infrastructure and delay costly expansions || • [[#909.3.1_Freeway_Operations_and_Management|909.3.1 Freeway Operations and Management]]<br>• [[#909.3.2_Arterial_Operations_and_Management|909.3.2 Arterial Operations and Management]]<br>• [[#909.3.3_Freight_Operation|909.3.3 Freight Operation]]<br>• [[#909.3.4_Vulnerable_Road_Users|909.3.4 Vulnerable Road Users]]
|-
| '''Improving reliability and mobility (Operating a reliable transportation system; Building a prosperous economy for all Missourians)''' || Predictable travel times and improved system performance for people and freight || • [[#909.2.2_Transportation_Operations_for_Emergency_Incidents_or_Disasters|909.2.2 Transportation Operations for Emergency Incidents or Disasters]]<br>• [[#909.2.4_Work_Zone_Traffic_Management|909.2.4 Work Zone Traffic Management]]<br>• [[#909.2.5_Planned_Special_Event_Management|909.2.5 Planned Special Event Management]]<br>• [[#909.3.1_Freeway_Operations_and_Management|909.3.1 Freeway Operations and Management]]<br>• [[#909.3.5_Transit_Operation|909.3.5 Transit Operation]]
|-
| '''Providing useful and timely traveler information (Providing outstanding customer service)''' || Informed travel decisions by the public, increased user satisfaction || • [[#909.2.2_Transportation_Operations_for_Emergency_Incidents_or_Disasters|909.2.2 Transportation Operations for Emergency Incidents or Disasters]]<br>• [[#909.2.3_Road_Weather_Management|909.2.3 Road Weather Management]]
|}

==909.1.5 Performance Metrics==
Performance metrics provide the foundation for evaluating how TSMO strategies contribute to the safety, reliability, efficiency, and customer experience of Missouri’s transportation system. MoDOT currently tracks performance through a combination of federal performance measures and internal performance management tools (e.g. [https://www.modot.org/tracker-measures-departmental-performance Tracker: Measures of Departmental Performance]). The following tables present example performance measures that may be used to assess the effectiveness of TSMO strategies related to both non-recurring delays (Table 909.1.5.1) and recurring delays (Table 909.1.5.2).

These measures are not intended to represent required or standalone reporting metrics, but rather a menu of potential measures that can support analysis, planning, and evaluation efforts, as appropriate to the specific application, study type, or operational need. When applied, these metrics can help users identify opportunities for improvement and support data-driven decision-making.

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
|+ ''Table 909.1.5.1 Linking MoDOT TSMO Strategies for Non-Recurring Delays to Performance Metrics''
|-
! style="width:400px" | Strategy !! style="width:400px" | Goals !! Example Performance Metric
|-
| rowspan="4" | '''[[#909.2.1_Traffic_Incident_Management|909.2.1 Traffic Incident Management]]''' || Enhance the '''safety''' of traveling public and incident responders || • Number of secondary crashes per incident<br>• Severity (fatalities/serious injuries) of secondary crashes<br>• Percent of incidents with secondary crashes recorded<br>• Number of responders struck-by crashes<br>• Severity of responder-involved crashes<br>• Percent of incidents with responder crash data recorded
|-
| Enhance '''reliability''' and '''efficiency''' of Missouri’s transportation system || • Average roadway clearance time<br>• Average incident clearance time<br>• Percent of incidents meeting clearance time targets
|-
| Strengthen '''coordination''', '''communication''', and '''collaboration''' between MoDOT and TIM partners || • Number of formalized agreements signed<br>• Number of multi-agency TIM meetings held annually<br>• Number of TIM trainings held annually<br>• Partner participation rate in meetings/exercises
|-
| Establish '''TIM policies''', '''procedures''', and '''protocols''' within MoDOT || • Number of formal TIM policies/protocols adopted<br>• Percent of TIM coordinator positions filled and active
|-
| rowspan="2" | '''[[#909.2.2_Transportation_Operations_for_Emergency_Incidents_or_Disasters|909.2.2 Transportation Operations for Emergency Incidents or Disasters]]''' || Enhance '''safety''' and responder protection during emergency incidents || • Number of emergency-related crashes<br>• Severity (fatal/serious injury) of emergency-related crashes<br>• Percent of emergency incidents with responder safety data recorded
|-
| Improve '''reliability''' and '''speed''' of emergency response and system restoration || • Time to activate emergency operations<br>• Duration of emergency lane/road closures<br>• Percent of priority routes restored within target timeframes<br>• Emergency communication system uptime<br>• Average time to deploy emergency traffic control
|-
| rowspan="3" | '''[[#909.2.3_Road_Weather_Management|909.2.3 Road Weather Management]]''' || Improve '''safety''' under adverse weather conditions || • Number of weather-related crashes, fatalities, and serious injuries<br>• Crash rate per weather event
|-
| Enhance '''operational readiness''' and '''timely''' roadway treatment || • Time to treat priority routes during storms<br>• Percent of network treated within specific time thresholds<br>• Materials usage efficiency (salt, brine, abrasives)
|-
| Improve '''traveler information''' accuracy during weather events || • Traveler information system accuracy rate during storms<br>• Number of travel information interactions (511 apps, CMS messages)
|-
| rowspan="2" | '''[[#909.2.4_Work_Zone_Traffic_Management|909.2.4 Work Zone Traffic Management]]''' || Enhance '''safety''' for workers and motorists in work zones || • Number and rate of work zone crashes<br>• Number of work zone fatalities and serious injuries<br>• Number of work zone intrusions (near-miss events)
|-
| Improve '''mobility''' and reduce unexpected work zone delays || • Work-zone related delays<br>• Percent of work zones meeting mobility targets (queue length, speed, travel time)<br>• Average incident clearance time for work zone-related incidents
|-
| rowspan="2" | '''[[#909.2.5_Planned_Special_Event_Management|909.2.5 Planned Special Event Management]]''' || Ensure '''safe''' travel conditions during special events || • Number and rate of special event-related crashes<br>• Vulnerable Road User (VRU) level of comfort/safety index near event venues
|-
| Improve '''mobility''' and minimize event-related congestion || • Travel time reliability during event periods<br>• Vehicle and pedestrian throughput at key access points<br>• Percent of events meeting planned operational performance targets
|}

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
|+ ''Table 909.1.5.2 Linking MoDOT TSMO Strategies for Recurring Delays to Performance Metrics''
|-
! style="width:400px" | Strategy !! style="width:400px" | Goals !! Example Performance Metric
|-
| rowspan="3" | '''[[#909.3.1_Freeway_Operations_and_Management|909.3.1 Freeway Operations and Management]]''' || Support '''safety''' on managed freeway facilities || • Number and rate of crashes on freeway segments<br>• Number of secondary crashes
|-
| Improve '''travel reliability''' on freeway corridors || • Travel time reliability index<br>• Planning time index
|-
| Enhance operational '''efficiency''' on freeway corridors || • Average travel speed and delay<br>• Vehicle and truck throughput<br>• Number of recurring congestion hotspots mitigated
|-
| rowspan="3" | '''[[#909.3.2_Arterial_Operations_and_Management|909.3.2 Arterial Operations and Management]]''' || Enhance '''safety''' at signalized intersections and arterials || • Crash frequency and severity at signalized intersections<br>• Pedestrian and bicycle crash rate
|-
| Improve '''efficiency''' of arterial traffic flow || • Arterial travel time and delay<br>• Signal progression quality (arrival on green, bandwidth)<br>• Number of mitigated congestion hotspots
|-
| Enhance '''reliability''' of multimodal arterial operations || • Transit signal delay at signals (if applicable)<br>• Pedestrian crossing delay
|-
| rowspan="2" | '''[[#909.3.3_Freight_Operation|909.3.3 Freight Operation]]''' || Improve '''efficiency''' on key freight corridors || • Truck delay at bottlenecks<br>• Freight throughput (corridor or intermodal facility)
|-
| Enhance '''reliability''' of freight travel || • Truck travel time reliability index<br>• Number of freight-related congestion hotspots mitigated
|-
| rowspan="3" | '''[[#909.3.4_Vulnerable_Road_Users|909.3.4 Vulnerable Road Users]]''' || Enhance '''safety''' and '''comfort''' for Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs) || • Number and rate of VRU crashes<br>• VRU level of comfort/safety index
|-
| Improve '''connectivity''' for walking and bicycling || • Miles of connected pedestrian/bicycle facilities<br>• Percent of network meeting connectivity standards
|-
| Support '''sustainable''', multimodal travel options || • Share of trips completed using active modes
|-
| rowspan="3" | '''[[#909.3.5_Transit_Operation|909.3.5 Transit Operation]]''' || Enhance '''mobility''' of transit users || • Passenger throughput per route or corridor<br>• Average transit travel time
|-
| Improve transit '''reliability''' and on-time performance || • Percent of on-time arrivals<br>• Transit travel time reliability (travel adherence)
|-
| Improve customer experience and multimodal access || • Customer satisfaction survey results<br>• Pedestrian access quality (stop accessibility index)
|}

[[Category:909 Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO)]]

909.3 Congested Route (Recurring Delays)

2026-09-01T19:17:32Z

Hoskir:

==909.3.1 Freeway Operations and Management==
<div style="float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;">__TOC__</div>
Freeway operations strategies help enhance safety, reduce recurring congestion, and improve travel time reliability on major corridors. The following sections outline some strategies for freeway operations and management. Not all strategies discussed below are currently used in Missouri; however, they are included to provide a range of options that may be considered based on context, needs, and available resources.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left; width:62%">
'''Users:'''
* TMC Operators → Monitor and adjust dynamic controls, coordinate corridor operations, and manage incident response ([[#909.3.1.1_Ramp_Management_and_Control|909.3.1.1 Ramp Management and Control]]; [[#909.3.1.3 Dynamic Speed Limits|909.3.1.3 Dynamic Speed Limits]]; [[#909.3.1.4 Queue Warning|909.3.1.4 Queue Warning]]; [[#909.3.1.6 Transportation Management Centers|909.3.1.5 Transportation Management Centers]]).
* Traffic Operations Engineers → Design freeway operations strategies, oversee policy-sensitive strategies, and evaluate corridor performance ([[#909.3.1.2 Part-Time Shoulder Use (Hard Shoulder Running)|909.3.1.2 Part-Time Shoulder Use]]; [[#909.3.1.5 Transportation Management Centers|909.3.1.5 Traffic Management Centers]]; [[#909.3.1.6 Managed Lanes|909.3.1.6 Managed Lanes]]).
* Information Systems Managers → Maintain ITS infrastructure, support automated detection, and ensure system integration for real-time operations ([[#909.3.1.5 Transportation Management Centers|909.3.1.5 Transportation Management Centers]]; [[#909.3.1.7 Automated Incident Detection|909.3.1.7 Automated Incident Detection]]).
</div>
<br>
<div style="width:62%; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Policy Coordination''' – It is encouraged that any consideration or application of the following strategies should be closely coordinated with applicable Central Office staff, including the Highway Safety and Traffic Division, as well as other related divisions to support consistency with MoDOT policy, design standards, and operational practices.
</div>

===909.3.1.1 Ramp Management and Control===
Ramp management and control strategies, including ramp metering and adaptive ramp management, regulate vehicle entry onto freeways to improve merging operations, reduce conflicts, and smooth overall traffic flow. This remains a dynamic application where it is implemented, with operational adjustments based on corridor conditions.

Currently, Missouri does not operate continuous ramp metering systems. Instead, ramp meters are activated dynamically based on real-time traffic conditions when metrics (such as speed, volume, and/or density) exceed predefined thresholds.

===909.3.1.2 Part-Time Shoulder Use (Hard Shoulder Running)===
Part-time shoulder use, also known as hard shoulder running, allows roadway shoulders to serve as temporary travel lanes during peak periods, incidents, or emergencies. Applications may be designed for all vehicles or limited to transit operations.

This strategy is increasingly being implemented by peer agencies across the country, particularly in corridors with limited right-of-way or peak-period capacity needs. While Missouri does not currently have any active applications of part-time shoulder use, the concept may present opportunities in select corridors - especially where traditional widening is not feasible and where shoulders are constructed to full-depth pavement standards.

===909.3.1.3 Dynamic Speed Limits===
Dynamic speed limits adjust posted speed limits in real time based on conditions such as traffic flow, weather, or incidents. This approach has been applied by several peer agencies to improve safety, smooth traffic flow, and reduce crash risk.

In Missouri, there are no permanent applications of dynamic speed limits in routine freeway operations. However, the strategy may hold value in temporary, controlled environments, particularly in work zones, where changing conditions may warrant more flexible speed management.

===909.3.1.4 Queue Warning===
Queue warning systems are designed to alert motorists of slow or stopped traffic ahead, helping to reduce the likelihood of sudden braking and rear-end collisions. In Missouri, queue warning is typically implemented using probe data to identify travel times, including delays associated with downstream incidents or congestion, and to display warning messages on Dynamic Message Signs (DMS).

In work zones, queue warning applications commonly include the use of probe data linked to DMS, as well as sensor-based systems that detect traffic conditions and trigger messages on Changeable Message Signs (CMS). These approaches help provide advance warning to drivers when queues form due to temporary capacity constraints and changing traffic conditions.

Effective implementation requires appropriate placement of signs upstream of anticipated queue locations and consideration of roadway speeds to ensure adequate driver perception and reaction time.

===909.3.1.5 Transportation Management Centers===
Transportation Management Centers (TMCs) serve as the operational backbone of ICM. From TMCs, MoDOT staff monitor real-time traffic conditions, manage ITS devices, coordinate incident response, and adjust strategies such as ramp metering or queue warning. This centralized approach enables proactive management of corridors, supporting safety and reliability during incidents, work zones, and peak travel periods.

===909.3.1.6 Managed Lanes===
Managed lanes are roadway segments where access and use are actively regulated to improve traffic flow, safety, or reliability. Common approaches used nationally include bus-only lanes and truck-only lanes. These treatments are typically considered in locations with recurring congestion, limited right-of-way, or freight movement challenges.

At present, Missouri has no active managed lane facilities.

===909.3.1.7 Automated Incident Detection===
Automated incident detection systems use roadside sensors, video feeds, and software algorithms to identify crashes, stalled vehicles, or other disruptions in real time. These systems often integrate data analytics with CCTV camera footage to detect unusual traffic patterns or stopped vehicles more quickly than traditional operator observation alone. By providing earlier notification of likely incidents, automated detection enhances safety, reduces secondary crashes, and improves response times for emergency and traffic management personnel.

==909.3.2 Arterial Operations and Management==
Arterial operations strategies help improve mobility, safety, and reliability on surface streets through targeted improvements, signal operations, and multimodal accommodations. These strategies focus on reducing congestion at bottlenecks, enhancing intersection performance, and supporting consistent travel across urban and suburban corridors.

In Missouri, arterial management is often a shared responsibility between MoDOT and regional or local partners. For example, the Kansas City region’s Operation Green Light program coordinates arterial signal timing and corridor operations in collaboration with MoDOT and multiple local jurisdictions. Other examples include MoDOT’s partnership with St. Charles in the St. Louis region and collaboration with the City of Springfield and the Ozarks Transportation Organization. Similar arrangements may exist in other regions where MPOs, cities, or counties lead day-to-day arterial management. Practitioners should recognize that depending on the corridor and location, responsibility for arterial operations may rest with another entity, requiring coordination and partnership to ensure consistent system performance.

The following sections outline strategies for arterial operations and management.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Users:'''
* Traffic Operations Engineers → Manage signals, coordination, and adaptive timing ([[#909.3.2.3 Traffic Signal Program Management|909.3.2.3 Traffic Signal Program Management]]; [[#909.3.2.4 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination|909.3.2.4 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination]]; [[#909.3.2.5 Transit Signal Priority|909.3.2.5 Transit Signal Priority]]).
* Design Staff → Implement innovative intersections and targeted improvements ([[#909.3.2.1 Targeted Infrastructure Improvements|909.3.2.1 Targeted Infrastructure Improvements]]; [[#909.3.2.2 Alternative Intersection Designs|909.3.2.2 Alternative Intersection Designs]]).
* TMC Operators → Oversee corridor signal adjustments and incident response ([[#909.3.2.4 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination|909.3.2.4 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination]]; [[#909.3.2.6 Arterial Dynamic Shoulder Use|909.3.2.6 Arterial Dynamic Shoulder Use]]).
</div>
<br>
<div style="margin: auto; width:875px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Policy Coordination''' – It is encouraged that any consideration or application of the following strategies should be closely coordinated with applicable Central Office staff, including the Highway Safety and Traffic Division, as well as other related divisions to support consistency with MoDOT policy, design standards, and operational practices.
</div>

===909.3.2.1 Targeted Infrastructure Improvements===
Targeted infrastructure improvements are localized enhancements that address recurring bottlenecks or multimodal safety concerns on arterial corridors. Common treatments include new or extended turn lanes to reduce delay at intersections, access control to improve traffic flow and safety, and bus pullouts to minimize transit-related delays. Pedestrian and bicyclist accommodations such as crosswalk improvements, refuge islands, and protected lanes also support safer and more reliable mobility for all users.

===909.3.2.2 Alternative Intersection Designs===
Alternative intersection designs apply alternative layouts to improve safety and efficiency where traditional designs are constrained. Examples include restricted crossing U-turns (RCUTs), median U-turns, and displaced left-turn (continuous flow) intersections, which reduce conflict points and increase throughput. These designs are increasingly considered where right-of-way is limited, traffic volumes are high, or safety issues persist with conventional layouts.

Additional information can be found in [[233.5_Intersection_Alternatives|EPG 233.5 Intersection Alternatives]].

===909.3.2.3 Traffic Signal Program Management===
A comprehensive traffic signal program helps support effective corridor operations. Program elements include monitoring and evaluating existing signal systems, scheduling recurring retiming efforts, and integrating new technologies over time. A proactive, programmatic approach supports consistent signal management across jurisdictions, improving reliability and reducing the need for inefficient, piecemeal adjustments.

Procedures for signal operation and maintenance are outlined in [[902.1_General_(MUTCD_Chapter_4A)#902.1.10_Responsibility_for_Operation_and_Maintenance_(MUTCD_Section_4A.10)|902.1.10 Responsibility for Operation and Maintenance (MUTCD Section 4A.10)]].

===909.3.2.4 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination===
Traffic signal timing and coordination strategies are a cost-effective approach to improve arterial operations. By updating signal timing plans and coordinating operations across intersections, agencies can reduce delays and support more predictable travel along corridors. These strategies allow signal operations to reflect current traffic conditions, land use patterns, and system changes, while also providing a foundation for integrating advanced technologies such as adaptive control.

<u>Applications:</u>
* '''Traffic Signal Retiming''' – Updating the timing plans for one signalized intersection or a corridor of intersections based on the latest traffic volumes. Retiming is recommended every few years or after significant changes to transportation systems or land use within a given area.
* '''Traffic Signal Coordination''' – Coordinating traffic signal timing along a corridor to enable a “green wave” of vehicles traveling through a sequence of signals. Coordination optimizes the splits and offsets of signals to allow for smoother, progressive traffic flow.
* '''Adaptive Traffic Signal Control''' – Coordinating traffic signal timing across a network using real-time detector data to accommodate current, prevailing traffic patterns. This allows for dynamic adjustment of timing in response to fluctuating traffic conditions.

Procedures for signal phasing and operation are outlined in [[902.23_Traffic_Signal_Phasing_and_Operation|EPG 902.23 Traffic Signal Phasing and Operation]].

===909.3.2.5 Transit Signal Priority===
Transit signal priority (TSP) strategies adjust signal phasing to reduce delay for buses and improve the efficiency of transit operations. TSP can extend green phases and/or provide early green intervals to help transit vehicles move more consistently through intersections. By enhancing the speed and reliability of bus service, TSP supports multimodal goals and encourages greater use of transit along arterial corridors.

===909.3.2.6 Arterial Dynamic Shoulder Use===
Arterial dynamic shoulder use provides additional capacity and helps improve multimodal efficiency by repurposing existing roadway space under defined conditions. Dynamic shoulder use allows roadway shoulders to operate as travel lanes during peak periods or special events, while maintaining their primary role for emergency access during off-peak times. When feasible, this strategy can help reduce delays, improve vehicle-throughput, and support multimodal goals in areas where right-of-way is constrained and traditional widening is not feasible. Successful implementation requires clear operational policies, appropriate signing and striping, and coordination with enforcement and transit partners to ensure safety and effectiveness.

Although Missouri does not currently implement arterial dynamic shoulder use, the approach may offer targeted benefits in select corridors. However, because shoulders are typically not constructed to full-depth pavement standards, implementation would likely require reconstruction or significant upgrades to support sustained traffic loading.

==909.3.3 Freight Operation==
Freight operations strategies address truck mobility, parking, and safety near freight generators such as ports and distribution centers. The following sections outline key strategies for freight operations.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Users:'''
* Transportation Planners → Coordinate freight corridors, permitting, and parking strategies ([[#909.3.3.1 Freight Operations Around Ports and Generators|909.3.3.1 Freight Operations Around Ports and Generators]]; [[#909.3.3.2 Truck Parking|909.3.3.2 Truck Parking]]; [[#909.3.3.3 Regional Permitting|909.3.3.3 Regional Permitting]]).
* Traffic Operations Engineers → Oversee technology applications and truck restrictions ([[#909.3.3.1 Freight Operations Around Ports and Generators|909.3.3.1 Freight Operations Around Ports and Generators]]; [[#909.3.3.4 Technology Applications for Freight|909.3.3.4 Technology Applications for Freight]]; [[#909.3.3.5 Connected and Automated Freight Vehicles|909.3.3.5 Connected and Automated Freight Vehicles]]).
</div>

Reference MoDOT’s [https://www.modot.org/2022-state-freight-and-rail-plan-documents 2022 State Freight and Rail Plan Documents] for additional information.

===909.3.3.1 Freight Operations Around Ports and Generators===
Freight hubs such as ports, intermodal yards, and distribution centers generate concentrated truck activity that can create localized congestion and safety concerns. Targeted operational improvements may include intersection upgrades, dedicated freight lanes, improved signage, or optimized signal timing along key freight corridors. These measures reduce bottlenecks, improve travel time reliability for trucks, and minimize conflicts between freight and passenger vehicles in high-demand areas.

===909.3.3.2 Truck Parking===
Adequate truck parking supports driver safety, freight efficiency, and regulatory compliance. Strategies include the development of new truck parking facilities, upgrades to existing rest areas, and the integration of real-time availability systems that help drivers locate spaces. Reservation tools and wayfinding applications can further support efficient parking use and reduce the safety risks associated with unauthorized shoulder or ramp parking.

===909.3.3.3 Regional Permitting===
Freight often crosses multiple jurisdictions, and inconsistent permitting processes can add delay and administrative burden. Regional permitting strategies streamline requirements by coordinating across state, county, and local agencies. Harmonizing size, weight, and routing approvals enhances efficiency for carriers while reducing redundant processes for agencies, particularly along high-volume freight corridors.

===909.3.3.4 Technology Applications for Freight===
Technology provides powerful tools for managing freight mobility. Examples include routing platforms that help drivers avoid weight-restricted bridges or low-clearance structures, monitoring systems that track freight movement in real time, and automated clearance technologies at weigh stations or ports of entry. Collectively, these applications enhance efficiency, improve safety, and provide data to better manage freight corridors.

===909.3.3.5 Connected and Automated Freight Vehicles===
The freight industry is a leading sector for testing and deploying connected and automated vehicle (CV/AV) technologies. Applications may include platooning, automated truck-mounted attenuators, or fully automated long-haul freight operations. These technologies have the potential to improve safety, reduce driver fatigue, and increase efficiency in freight corridors. Early deployment efforts require coordination with industry, agencies, and technology providers to ensure infrastructure readiness and to evaluate operational impacts.

==909.3.4 Vulnerable Road Users==
Vulnerable road users (VRUs) are individuals who travel without the protection of an enclosed vehicle and therefore face a greater risk of serious injury in a collision. VRUs include pedestrians, roadway workers, individuals using wheelchairs or other personal mobility devices, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and users of electric scooters and other micromobility devices. The following sections outline strategies to improve safety, access, and comfort for these users within the transportation system.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Users:'''
* Design Staff → Implement bike lanes, pedestrian facilities, and safety enhancements ([[#909.3.4.1 Safety Enhancements|909.3.4.1 Safety Enhancements]]; [[#909.3.4.2 Pedestrian and Accessibility Facilities|909.3.4.2 Pedestrian and Accessibility Facilities]]; [[#909.3.4.3 Bicycle Lanes and Cycle Tracks|909.3.4.3 Bicycle Lanes and Cycle Tracks]]).
* Transportation Planners → Support multimodal planning and education programs ([[#909.3.4.1 Safety Enhancements|909.3.4.1 Safety Enhancements]]; [[#909.3.4.4 VRU Education and Outreach|909.3.4.4 VRU Education]]).
</div>

===909.3.4.1 Safety Enhancements===
Selective deployment of safety enhancements should be informed by [[:Category:907_Traffic_Safety|EPG 907 Traffic Safety]] and tailored to the needs of VRUs. Enhancements may include improved crossings, lighting, signing and pavement markings, speed management strategies, traffic calming measures, work zone protections for roadway workers, and design treatments that reduce conflicts involving motorcyclists and micromobility users.

===909.3.4.2 Pedestrian and Accessibility Facilities===
Sidewalks, shared-use paths, accessible curb ramps, transit stop connections and enhanced or grade-separated crossings should be prioritized where safety risks, accessibility needs, or network gaps are identified. Integrating these facilities in alignment with Complete Streets principles ([[907.10_Complete_Streets|EPG 907.10 Complete Streets]]), in coordination with regional and local partners, helps support safe, efficient access for pedestrians and individuals using wheelchairs or other mobility devices.

Additional information can be found in [[:Category:642_Pedestrian_Facilities|EPG 642 Pedestrian Facilities]].

===909.3.4.3 Bicycle Lanes and Cycle Tracks===
Where conditions and community priorities warrant, dedicated bike lanes or protected cycle tracks can enhance comfort and safety for bicyclists and other micromobility users, including users of electric scooters and similar devices. MoDOT supports the Complete Street concept (as outlined in [[907.10_Complete_Streets|EPG 907.10 Complete Streets]]) and encourages coordination with communities and regional partners to consider these facilities where appropriate.

Additional information can be found in [[:Category:641_Bicycle_Facilities|EPG 641 Bicycle Facilities]].

===909.3.4.4 VRU Education and Outreach===
Support community-informed education and outreach programs that promote safe behaviors among VRUs. Programs may address the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, micromobility users, motorcyclists, individuals with disabilities, and drivers, and may include collaboration with local schools, community organizations, advocacy groups, employers, transit agencies, and public safety partners.

==909.3.5 Transit Operation==
Transit operations strategies improve speed, reliability, and accessibility of transit services. The following sections outline strategies for transit operations.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Users:'''
* Transit Agencies → Operate BRT, implement TSP, and manage transit vehicles ([[#909.3.5.1 Transit Signal Priority|909.3.5.1 Transit Signal Priority]]; [[#909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit|909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit]]; [[#909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes|909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes]]; [[#909.3.5.4 Transit Operation Vehicles|909.3.5.4 Transit Operation Vehicles]]).
* Transportation Planners → Plan multimodal centers and support dynamic transit strategies ([[#909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit|909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit]]; [[#909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes|909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes]]; [[#909.3.5.5 Multimodal Transportation Centers|909.3.5.5 Multimodal Transportation Centers]]).
* Traffic Operations Engineers → Support signal priority and corridor treatments ([[#909.3.5.1 Transit Signal Priority|909.3.5.1 Transit Signal Priority]]; [[#909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit|909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit]]; [[#909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes|909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes]]).
</div>

===909.3.5.1 Transit Signal Priority===
Transit Signal Priority (TSP) strategies modify traffic signal operations to reduce delay and improve on-time arrivals for buses and other transit vehicles.

Additional information on TSP is provided in [[#909.3.2.5 Transit Signal Priority|EPG 909.3.2.5 Transit Signal Priority]].

===909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit===
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) incorporates a combination of dedicated lanes, intersection treatments, and enhanced stations to provide faster and more reliable bus service. Treatments such as queue jump lanes and high-capacity vehicles further enhance performance. BRT can serve as a cost-effective alternative to rail in high-demand corridors, delivering rapid, frequent, and reliable service with improved passenger amenities.

===909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes===
Transit-only lanes provide additional capacity and improve multimodal efficiency by repurposing existing roadway space under defined conditions. Transit-only lanes dedicate roadway space to buses, enabling more reliable service and improving schedule adherence in congested corridors. This strategy can help reduce delays, improve person-throughput, and support multimodal goals in areas where right-of-way is constrained and traditional widening is not feasible. Successful implementation requires clear operational policies, appropriate signing and striping, and coordination with enforcement and transit partners to ensure safety and effectiveness.

This strategy may offer targeted benefits in select corridors where transit demand and roadway conditions support dedicated space for transit operations. In some cases, implementation could involve repurposing shoulder space where available. However, because shoulders are typically not constructed to full-depth pavement standards, such applications would likely require reconstruction or significant upgrades to support sustained transit operations.

<div style="margin: auto; width:875px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Policy Coordination''' – It is encouraged that any consideration or application of the following strategies should be closely coordinated with applicable Central Office staff, including the Highway Safety and Traffic Division, as well as other related divisions to support consistency with MoDOT policy, design standards, and operational practices.
</div>

===909.3.5.4 Transit Operation Vehicles===
Transit vehicle operations may require unique roadway considerations. Streetcars, for example, share corridors with general traffic and necessitate signal coordination and geometric design adjustments for turning movements. Similarly, buses may require accommodations such as bus pullouts, curb extensions, or boarding islands to improve efficiency and passenger safety. These vehicle-specific considerations support smoother operations and minimize conflicts with other modes.

===909.3.5.5 Multimodal Transportation Centers===
Multimodal transportation centers serve as hubs that integrate multiple travel modes, including bus, rail, bike, and pedestrian connections. These facilities improve regional accessibility by consolidating transfers in a single location and providing amenities such as shelters, ticketing, and real-time traveler information.

In Missouri, existing park-and-ride facilities present opportunities to serve as future multimodal centers. These centers encourage greater transit use, strengthen first- and last-mile connections, and elevate the role of transit in supporting regional mobility.

[[Category:909 Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO)]]

909.3 Congested Route (Recurring Delays)

2026-09-01T19:10:49Z

Hoskir:

==909.3.1 Freeway Operations and Management==
Freeway operations strategies help enhance safety, reduce recurring congestion, and improve travel time reliability on major corridors. The following sections outline some strategies for freeway operations and management. Not all strategies discussed below are currently used in Missouri; however, they are included to provide a range of options that may be considered based on context, needs, and available resources.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left; width:62%">
'''Users:'''
* TMC Operators → Monitor and adjust dynamic controls, coordinate corridor operations, and manage incident response ([[#909.3.1.1_Ramp_Management_and_Control|909.3.1.1 Ramp Management and Control]]; [[#909.3.1.3 Dynamic Speed Limits|909.3.1.3 Dynamic Speed Limits]]; [[#909.3.1.4 Queue Warning|909.3.1.4 Queue Warning]]; [[#909.3.1.6 Transportation Management Centers|909.3.1.5 Transportation Management Centers]]).
* Traffic Operations Engineers → Design freeway operations strategies, oversee policy-sensitive strategies, and evaluate corridor performance ([[#909.3.1.2 Part-Time Shoulder Use (Hard Shoulder Running)|909.3.1.2 Part-Time Shoulder Use]]; [[#909.3.1.5 Transportation Management Centers|909.3.1.5 Traffic Management Centers]]; [[#909.3.1.6 Managed Lanes|909.3.1.6 Managed Lanes]]).
* Information Systems Managers → Maintain ITS infrastructure, support automated detection, and ensure system integration for real-time operations ([[#909.3.1.5 Transportation Management Centers|909.3.1.5 Transportation Management Centers]]; [[#909.3.1.7 Automated Incident Detection|909.3.1.7 Automated Incident Detection]]).
</div>
<br>
<div style="width:62%; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Policy Coordination''' – It is encouraged that any consideration or application of the following strategies should be closely coordinated with applicable Central Office staff, including the Highway Safety and Traffic Division, as well as other related divisions to support consistency with MoDOT policy, design standards, and operational practices.
</div>

===909.3.1.1 Ramp Management and Control===
Ramp management and control strategies, including ramp metering and adaptive ramp management, regulate vehicle entry onto freeways to improve merging operations, reduce conflicts, and smooth overall traffic flow. This remains a dynamic application where it is implemented, with operational adjustments based on corridor conditions.

Currently, Missouri does not operate continuous ramp metering systems. Instead, ramp meters are activated dynamically based on real-time traffic conditions when metrics (such as speed, volume, and/or density) exceed predefined thresholds.

===909.3.1.2 Part-Time Shoulder Use (Hard Shoulder Running)===
Part-time shoulder use, also known as hard shoulder running, allows roadway shoulders to serve as temporary travel lanes during peak periods, incidents, or emergencies. Applications may be designed for all vehicles or limited to transit operations.

This strategy is increasingly being implemented by peer agencies across the country, particularly in corridors with limited right-of-way or peak-period capacity needs. While Missouri does not currently have any active applications of part-time shoulder use, the concept may present opportunities in select corridors - especially where traditional widening is not feasible and where shoulders are constructed to full-depth pavement standards.

===909.3.1.3 Dynamic Speed Limits===
Dynamic speed limits adjust posted speed limits in real time based on conditions such as traffic flow, weather, or incidents. This approach has been applied by several peer agencies to improve safety, smooth traffic flow, and reduce crash risk.

In Missouri, there are no permanent applications of dynamic speed limits in routine freeway operations. However, the strategy may hold value in temporary, controlled environments, particularly in work zones, where changing conditions may warrant more flexible speed management.

===909.3.1.4 Queue Warning===
Queue warning systems are designed to alert motorists of slow or stopped traffic ahead, helping to reduce the likelihood of sudden braking and rear-end collisions. In Missouri, queue warning is typically implemented using probe data to identify travel times, including delays associated with downstream incidents or congestion, and to display warning messages on Dynamic Message Signs (DMS).

In work zones, queue warning applications commonly include the use of probe data linked to DMS, as well as sensor-based systems that detect traffic conditions and trigger messages on Changeable Message Signs (CMS). These approaches help provide advance warning to drivers when queues form due to temporary capacity constraints and changing traffic conditions.

Effective implementation requires appropriate placement of signs upstream of anticipated queue locations and consideration of roadway speeds to ensure adequate driver perception and reaction time.

===909.3.1.5 Transportation Management Centers===
Transportation Management Centers (TMCs) serve as the operational backbone of ICM. From TMCs, MoDOT staff monitor real-time traffic conditions, manage ITS devices, coordinate incident response, and adjust strategies such as ramp metering or queue warning. This centralized approach enables proactive management of corridors, supporting safety and reliability during incidents, work zones, and peak travel periods.

===909.3.1.6 Managed Lanes===
Managed lanes are roadway segments where access and use are actively regulated to improve traffic flow, safety, or reliability. Common approaches used nationally include bus-only lanes and truck-only lanes. These treatments are typically considered in locations with recurring congestion, limited right-of-way, or freight movement challenges.

At present, Missouri has no active managed lane facilities.

===909.3.1.7 Automated Incident Detection===
Automated incident detection systems use roadside sensors, video feeds, and software algorithms to identify crashes, stalled vehicles, or other disruptions in real time. These systems often integrate data analytics with CCTV camera footage to detect unusual traffic patterns or stopped vehicles more quickly than traditional operator observation alone. By providing earlier notification of likely incidents, automated detection enhances safety, reduces secondary crashes, and improves response times for emergency and traffic management personnel.

==909.3.2 Arterial Operations and Management==
Arterial operations strategies help improve mobility, safety, and reliability on surface streets through targeted improvements, signal operations, and multimodal accommodations. These strategies focus on reducing congestion at bottlenecks, enhancing intersection performance, and supporting consistent travel across urban and suburban corridors.

In Missouri, arterial management is often a shared responsibility between MoDOT and regional or local partners. For example, the Kansas City region’s Operation Green Light program coordinates arterial signal timing and corridor operations in collaboration with MoDOT and multiple local jurisdictions. Other examples include MoDOT’s partnership with St. Charles in the St. Louis region and collaboration with the City of Springfield and the Ozarks Transportation Organization. Similar arrangements may exist in other regions where MPOs, cities, or counties lead day-to-day arterial management. Practitioners should recognize that depending on the corridor and location, responsibility for arterial operations may rest with another entity, requiring coordination and partnership to ensure consistent system performance.

The following sections outline strategies for arterial operations and management.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Users:'''
* Traffic Operations Engineers → Manage signals, coordination, and adaptive timing ([[#909.3.2.3 Traffic Signal Program Management|909.3.2.3 Traffic Signal Program Management]]; [[#909.3.2.4 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination|909.3.2.4 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination]]; [[#909.3.2.5 Transit Signal Priority|909.3.2.5 Transit Signal Priority]]).
* Design Staff → Implement innovative intersections and targeted improvements ([[#909.3.2.1 Targeted Infrastructure Improvements|909.3.2.1 Targeted Infrastructure Improvements]]; [[#909.3.2.2 Alternative Intersection Designs|909.3.2.2 Alternative Intersection Designs]]).
* TMC Operators → Oversee corridor signal adjustments and incident response ([[#909.3.2.4 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination|909.3.2.4 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination]]; [[#909.3.2.6 Arterial Dynamic Shoulder Use|909.3.2.6 Arterial Dynamic Shoulder Use]]).
</div>
<br>
<div style="margin: auto; width:875px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Policy Coordination''' – It is encouraged that any consideration or application of the following strategies should be closely coordinated with applicable Central Office staff, including the Highway Safety and Traffic Division, as well as other related divisions to support consistency with MoDOT policy, design standards, and operational practices.
</div>

===909.3.2.1 Targeted Infrastructure Improvements===
Targeted infrastructure improvements are localized enhancements that address recurring bottlenecks or multimodal safety concerns on arterial corridors. Common treatments include new or extended turn lanes to reduce delay at intersections, access control to improve traffic flow and safety, and bus pullouts to minimize transit-related delays. Pedestrian and bicyclist accommodations such as crosswalk improvements, refuge islands, and protected lanes also support safer and more reliable mobility for all users.

===909.3.2.2 Alternative Intersection Designs===
Alternative intersection designs apply alternative layouts to improve safety and efficiency where traditional designs are constrained. Examples include restricted crossing U-turns (RCUTs), median U-turns, and displaced left-turn (continuous flow) intersections, which reduce conflict points and increase throughput. These designs are increasingly considered where right-of-way is limited, traffic volumes are high, or safety issues persist with conventional layouts.

Additional information can be found in [[233.5_Intersection_Alternatives|EPG 233.5 Intersection Alternatives]].

===909.3.2.3 Traffic Signal Program Management===
A comprehensive traffic signal program helps support effective corridor operations. Program elements include monitoring and evaluating existing signal systems, scheduling recurring retiming efforts, and integrating new technologies over time. A proactive, programmatic approach supports consistent signal management across jurisdictions, improving reliability and reducing the need for inefficient, piecemeal adjustments.

Procedures for signal operation and maintenance are outlined in [[902.1_General_(MUTCD_Chapter_4A)#902.1.10_Responsibility_for_Operation_and_Maintenance_(MUTCD_Section_4A.10)|902.1.10 Responsibility for Operation and Maintenance (MUTCD Section 4A.10)]].

===909.3.2.4 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination===
Traffic signal timing and coordination strategies are a cost-effective approach to improve arterial operations. By updating signal timing plans and coordinating operations across intersections, agencies can reduce delays and support more predictable travel along corridors. These strategies allow signal operations to reflect current traffic conditions, land use patterns, and system changes, while also providing a foundation for integrating advanced technologies such as adaptive control.

<u>Applications:</u>
* '''Traffic Signal Retiming''' – Updating the timing plans for one signalized intersection or a corridor of intersections based on the latest traffic volumes. Retiming is recommended every few years or after significant changes to transportation systems or land use within a given area.
* '''Traffic Signal Coordination''' – Coordinating traffic signal timing along a corridor to enable a “green wave” of vehicles traveling through a sequence of signals. Coordination optimizes the splits and offsets of signals to allow for smoother, progressive traffic flow.
* '''Adaptive Traffic Signal Control''' – Coordinating traffic signal timing across a network using real-time detector data to accommodate current, prevailing traffic patterns. This allows for dynamic adjustment of timing in response to fluctuating traffic conditions.

Procedures for signal phasing and operation are outlined in [[902.23_Traffic_Signal_Phasing_and_Operation|EPG 902.23 Traffic Signal Phasing and Operation]].

===909.3.2.5 Transit Signal Priority===
Transit signal priority (TSP) strategies adjust signal phasing to reduce delay for buses and improve the efficiency of transit operations. TSP can extend green phases and/or provide early green intervals to help transit vehicles move more consistently through intersections. By enhancing the speed and reliability of bus service, TSP supports multimodal goals and encourages greater use of transit along arterial corridors.

===909.3.2.6 Arterial Dynamic Shoulder Use===
Arterial dynamic shoulder use provides additional capacity and helps improve multimodal efficiency by repurposing existing roadway space under defined conditions. Dynamic shoulder use allows roadway shoulders to operate as travel lanes during peak periods or special events, while maintaining their primary role for emergency access during off-peak times. When feasible, this strategy can help reduce delays, improve vehicle-throughput, and support multimodal goals in areas where right-of-way is constrained and traditional widening is not feasible. Successful implementation requires clear operational policies, appropriate signing and striping, and coordination with enforcement and transit partners to ensure safety and effectiveness.

Although Missouri does not currently implement arterial dynamic shoulder use, the approach may offer targeted benefits in select corridors. However, because shoulders are typically not constructed to full-depth pavement standards, implementation would likely require reconstruction or significant upgrades to support sustained traffic loading.

==909.3.3 Freight Operation==
Freight operations strategies address truck mobility, parking, and safety near freight generators such as ports and distribution centers. The following sections outline key strategies for freight operations.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Users:'''
* Transportation Planners → Coordinate freight corridors, permitting, and parking strategies ([[#909.3.3.1 Freight Operations Around Ports and Generators|909.3.3.1 Freight Operations Around Ports and Generators]]; [[#909.3.3.2 Truck Parking|909.3.3.2 Truck Parking]]; [[#909.3.3.3 Regional Permitting|909.3.3.3 Regional Permitting]]).
* Traffic Operations Engineers → Oversee technology applications and truck restrictions ([[#909.3.3.1 Freight Operations Around Ports and Generators|909.3.3.1 Freight Operations Around Ports and Generators]]; [[#909.3.3.4 Technology Applications for Freight|909.3.3.4 Technology Applications for Freight]]; [[#909.3.3.5 Connected and Automated Freight Vehicles|909.3.3.5 Connected and Automated Freight Vehicles]]).
</div>

Reference MoDOT’s [https://www.modot.org/2022-state-freight-and-rail-plan-documents 2022 State Freight and Rail Plan Documents] for additional information.

===909.3.3.1 Freight Operations Around Ports and Generators===
Freight hubs such as ports, intermodal yards, and distribution centers generate concentrated truck activity that can create localized congestion and safety concerns. Targeted operational improvements may include intersection upgrades, dedicated freight lanes, improved signage, or optimized signal timing along key freight corridors. These measures reduce bottlenecks, improve travel time reliability for trucks, and minimize conflicts between freight and passenger vehicles in high-demand areas.

===909.3.3.2 Truck Parking===
Adequate truck parking supports driver safety, freight efficiency, and regulatory compliance. Strategies include the development of new truck parking facilities, upgrades to existing rest areas, and the integration of real-time availability systems that help drivers locate spaces. Reservation tools and wayfinding applications can further support efficient parking use and reduce the safety risks associated with unauthorized shoulder or ramp parking.

===909.3.3.3 Regional Permitting===
Freight often crosses multiple jurisdictions, and inconsistent permitting processes can add delay and administrative burden. Regional permitting strategies streamline requirements by coordinating across state, county, and local agencies. Harmonizing size, weight, and routing approvals enhances efficiency for carriers while reducing redundant processes for agencies, particularly along high-volume freight corridors.

===909.3.3.4 Technology Applications for Freight===
Technology provides powerful tools for managing freight mobility. Examples include routing platforms that help drivers avoid weight-restricted bridges or low-clearance structures, monitoring systems that track freight movement in real time, and automated clearance technologies at weigh stations or ports of entry. Collectively, these applications enhance efficiency, improve safety, and provide data to better manage freight corridors.

===909.3.3.5 Connected and Automated Freight Vehicles===
The freight industry is a leading sector for testing and deploying connected and automated vehicle (CV/AV) technologies. Applications may include platooning, automated truck-mounted attenuators, or fully automated long-haul freight operations. These technologies have the potential to improve safety, reduce driver fatigue, and increase efficiency in freight corridors. Early deployment efforts require coordination with industry, agencies, and technology providers to ensure infrastructure readiness and to evaluate operational impacts.

==909.3.4 Vulnerable Road Users==
Vulnerable road users (VRUs) are individuals who travel without the protection of an enclosed vehicle and therefore face a greater risk of serious injury in a collision. VRUs include pedestrians, roadway workers, individuals using wheelchairs or other personal mobility devices, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and users of electric scooters and other micromobility devices. The following sections outline strategies to improve safety, access, and comfort for these users within the transportation system.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Users:'''
* Design Staff → Implement bike lanes, pedestrian facilities, and safety enhancements ([[#909.3.4.1 Safety Enhancements|909.3.4.1 Safety Enhancements]]; [[#909.3.4.2 Pedestrian and Accessibility Facilities|909.3.4.2 Pedestrian and Accessibility Facilities]]; [[#909.3.4.3 Bicycle Lanes and Cycle Tracks|909.3.4.3 Bicycle Lanes and Cycle Tracks]]).
* Transportation Planners → Support multimodal planning and education programs ([[#909.3.4.1 Safety Enhancements|909.3.4.1 Safety Enhancements]]; [[#909.3.4.4 VRU Education and Outreach|909.3.4.4 VRU Education]]).
</div>

===909.3.4.1 Safety Enhancements===
Selective deployment of safety enhancements should be informed by [[:Category:907_Traffic_Safety|EPG 907 Traffic Safety]] and tailored to the needs of VRUs. Enhancements may include improved crossings, lighting, signing and pavement markings, speed management strategies, traffic calming measures, work zone protections for roadway workers, and design treatments that reduce conflicts involving motorcyclists and micromobility users.

===909.3.4.2 Pedestrian and Accessibility Facilities===
Sidewalks, shared-use paths, accessible curb ramps, transit stop connections and enhanced or grade-separated crossings should be prioritized where safety risks, accessibility needs, or network gaps are identified. Integrating these facilities in alignment with Complete Streets principles ([[907.10_Complete_Streets|EPG 907.10 Complete Streets]]), in coordination with regional and local partners, helps support safe, efficient access for pedestrians and individuals using wheelchairs or other mobility devices.

Additional information can be found in [[:Category:642_Pedestrian_Facilities|EPG 642 Pedestrian Facilities]].

===909.3.4.3 Bicycle Lanes and Cycle Tracks===
Where conditions and community priorities warrant, dedicated bike lanes or protected cycle tracks can enhance comfort and safety for bicyclists and other micromobility users, including users of electric scooters and similar devices. MoDOT supports the Complete Street concept (as outlined in [[907.10_Complete_Streets|EPG 907.10 Complete Streets]]) and encourages coordination with communities and regional partners to consider these facilities where appropriate.

Additional information can be found in [[:Category:641_Bicycle_Facilities|EPG 641 Bicycle Facilities]].

===909.3.4.4 VRU Education and Outreach===
Support community-informed education and outreach programs that promote safe behaviors among VRUs. Programs may address the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, micromobility users, motorcyclists, individuals with disabilities, and drivers, and may include collaboration with local schools, community organizations, advocacy groups, employers, transit agencies, and public safety partners.

==909.3.5 Transit Operation==
Transit operations strategies improve speed, reliability, and accessibility of transit services. The following sections outline strategies for transit operations.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Users:'''
* Transit Agencies → Operate BRT, implement TSP, and manage transit vehicles ([[#909.3.5.1 Transit Signal Priority|909.3.5.1 Transit Signal Priority]]; [[#909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit|909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit]]; [[#909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes|909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes]]; [[#909.3.5.4 Transit Operation Vehicles|909.3.5.4 Transit Operation Vehicles]]).
* Transportation Planners → Plan multimodal centers and support dynamic transit strategies ([[#909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit|909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit]]; [[#909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes|909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes]]; [[#909.3.5.5 Multimodal Transportation Centers|909.3.5.5 Multimodal Transportation Centers]]).
* Traffic Operations Engineers → Support signal priority and corridor treatments ([[#909.3.5.1 Transit Signal Priority|909.3.5.1 Transit Signal Priority]]; [[#909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit|909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit]]; [[#909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes|909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes]]).
</div>

===909.3.5.1 Transit Signal Priority===
Transit Signal Priority (TSP) strategies modify traffic signal operations to reduce delay and improve on-time arrivals for buses and other transit vehicles.

Additional information on TSP is provided in [[#909.3.2.5 Transit Signal Priority|EPG 909.3.2.5 Transit Signal Priority]].

===909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit===
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) incorporates a combination of dedicated lanes, intersection treatments, and enhanced stations to provide faster and more reliable bus service. Treatments such as queue jump lanes and high-capacity vehicles further enhance performance. BRT can serve as a cost-effective alternative to rail in high-demand corridors, delivering rapid, frequent, and reliable service with improved passenger amenities.

===909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes===
Transit-only lanes provide additional capacity and improve multimodal efficiency by repurposing existing roadway space under defined conditions. Transit-only lanes dedicate roadway space to buses, enabling more reliable service and improving schedule adherence in congested corridors. This strategy can help reduce delays, improve person-throughput, and support multimodal goals in areas where right-of-way is constrained and traditional widening is not feasible. Successful implementation requires clear operational policies, appropriate signing and striping, and coordination with enforcement and transit partners to ensure safety and effectiveness.

This strategy may offer targeted benefits in select corridors where transit demand and roadway conditions support dedicated space for transit operations. In some cases, implementation could involve repurposing shoulder space where available. However, because shoulders are typically not constructed to full-depth pavement standards, such applications would likely require reconstruction or significant upgrades to support sustained transit operations.

<div style="margin: auto; width:875px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Policy Coordination''' – It is encouraged that any consideration or application of the following strategies should be closely coordinated with applicable Central Office staff, including the Highway Safety and Traffic Division, as well as other related divisions to support consistency with MoDOT policy, design standards, and operational practices.
</div>

===909.3.5.4 Transit Operation Vehicles===
Transit vehicle operations may require unique roadway considerations. Streetcars, for example, share corridors with general traffic and necessitate signal coordination and geometric design adjustments for turning movements. Similarly, buses may require accommodations such as bus pullouts, curb extensions, or boarding islands to improve efficiency and passenger safety. These vehicle-specific considerations support smoother operations and minimize conflicts with other modes.

===909.3.5.5 Multimodal Transportation Centers===
Multimodal transportation centers serve as hubs that integrate multiple travel modes, including bus, rail, bike, and pedestrian connections. These facilities improve regional accessibility by consolidating transfers in a single location and providing amenities such as shelters, ticketing, and real-time traveler information.

In Missouri, existing park-and-ride facilities present opportunities to serve as future multimodal centers. These centers encourage greater transit use, strengthen first- and last-mile connections, and elevate the role of transit in supporting regional mobility.

[[Category:909 Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO)]]

909.3 Congested Route (Recurring Delays)

2026-09-01T19:09:51Z

Hoskir: /* 909.3.1 Freeway Operations and Management */

<div style="float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;">__TOC__</div>
==909.3.1 Freeway Operations and Management==
Freeway operations strategies help enhance safety, reduce recurring congestion, and improve travel time reliability on major corridors. The following sections outline some strategies for freeway operations and management. Not all strategies discussed below are currently used in Missouri; however, they are included to provide a range of options that may be considered based on context, needs, and available resources.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left; width:62%">
'''Users:'''
* TMC Operators → Monitor and adjust dynamic controls, coordinate corridor operations, and manage incident response ([[#909.3.1.1_Ramp_Management_and_Control|909.3.1.1 Ramp Management and Control]]; [[#909.3.1.3 Dynamic Speed Limits|909.3.1.3 Dynamic Speed Limits]]; [[#909.3.1.4 Queue Warning|909.3.1.4 Queue Warning]]; [[#909.3.1.6 Transportation Management Centers|909.3.1.5 Transportation Management Centers]]).
* Traffic Operations Engineers → Design freeway operations strategies, oversee policy-sensitive strategies, and evaluate corridor performance ([[#909.3.1.2 Part-Time Shoulder Use (Hard Shoulder Running)|909.3.1.2 Part-Time Shoulder Use]]; [[#909.3.1.5 Transportation Management Centers|909.3.1.5 Traffic Management Centers]]; [[#909.3.1.6 Managed Lanes|909.3.1.6 Managed Lanes]]).
* Information Systems Managers → Maintain ITS infrastructure, support automated detection, and ensure system integration for real-time operations ([[#909.3.1.5 Transportation Management Centers|909.3.1.5 Transportation Management Centers]]; [[#909.3.1.7 Automated Incident Detection|909.3.1.7 Automated Incident Detection]]).
</div>
<br>
<div style="width:62%; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Policy Coordination''' – It is encouraged that any consideration or application of the following strategies should be closely coordinated with applicable Central Office staff, including the Highway Safety and Traffic Division, as well as other related divisions to support consistency with MoDOT policy, design standards, and operational practices.
</div>

===909.3.1.1 Ramp Management and Control===
Ramp management and control strategies, including ramp metering and adaptive ramp management, regulate vehicle entry onto freeways to improve merging operations, reduce conflicts, and smooth overall traffic flow. This remains a dynamic application where it is implemented, with operational adjustments based on corridor conditions.

Currently, Missouri does not operate continuous ramp metering systems. Instead, ramp meters are activated dynamically based on real-time traffic conditions when metrics (such as speed, volume, and/or density) exceed predefined thresholds.

===909.3.1.2 Part-Time Shoulder Use (Hard Shoulder Running)===
Part-time shoulder use, also known as hard shoulder running, allows roadway shoulders to serve as temporary travel lanes during peak periods, incidents, or emergencies. Applications may be designed for all vehicles or limited to transit operations.

This strategy is increasingly being implemented by peer agencies across the country, particularly in corridors with limited right-of-way or peak-period capacity needs. While Missouri does not currently have any active applications of part-time shoulder use, the concept may present opportunities in select corridors - especially where traditional widening is not feasible and where shoulders are constructed to full-depth pavement standards.

===909.3.1.3 Dynamic Speed Limits===
Dynamic speed limits adjust posted speed limits in real time based on conditions such as traffic flow, weather, or incidents. This approach has been applied by several peer agencies to improve safety, smooth traffic flow, and reduce crash risk.

In Missouri, there are no permanent applications of dynamic speed limits in routine freeway operations. However, the strategy may hold value in temporary, controlled environments, particularly in work zones, where changing conditions may warrant more flexible speed management.

===909.3.1.4 Queue Warning===
Queue warning systems are designed to alert motorists of slow or stopped traffic ahead, helping to reduce the likelihood of sudden braking and rear-end collisions. In Missouri, queue warning is typically implemented using probe data to identify travel times, including delays associated with downstream incidents or congestion, and to display warning messages on Dynamic Message Signs (DMS).

In work zones, queue warning applications commonly include the use of probe data linked to DMS, as well as sensor-based systems that detect traffic conditions and trigger messages on Changeable Message Signs (CMS). These approaches help provide advance warning to drivers when queues form due to temporary capacity constraints and changing traffic conditions.

Effective implementation requires appropriate placement of signs upstream of anticipated queue locations and consideration of roadway speeds to ensure adequate driver perception and reaction time.

===909.3.1.5 Transportation Management Centers===
Transportation Management Centers (TMCs) serve as the operational backbone of ICM. From TMCs, MoDOT staff monitor real-time traffic conditions, manage ITS devices, coordinate incident response, and adjust strategies such as ramp metering or queue warning. This centralized approach enables proactive management of corridors, supporting safety and reliability during incidents, work zones, and peak travel periods.

===909.3.1.6 Managed Lanes===
Managed lanes are roadway segments where access and use are actively regulated to improve traffic flow, safety, or reliability. Common approaches used nationally include bus-only lanes and truck-only lanes. These treatments are typically considered in locations with recurring congestion, limited right-of-way, or freight movement challenges.

At present, Missouri has no active managed lane facilities.

===909.3.1.7 Automated Incident Detection===
Automated incident detection systems use roadside sensors, video feeds, and software algorithms to identify crashes, stalled vehicles, or other disruptions in real time. These systems often integrate data analytics with CCTV camera footage to detect unusual traffic patterns or stopped vehicles more quickly than traditional operator observation alone. By providing earlier notification of likely incidents, automated detection enhances safety, reduces secondary crashes, and improves response times for emergency and traffic management personnel.

==909.3.2 Arterial Operations and Management==
Arterial operations strategies help improve mobility, safety, and reliability on surface streets through targeted improvements, signal operations, and multimodal accommodations. These strategies focus on reducing congestion at bottlenecks, enhancing intersection performance, and supporting consistent travel across urban and suburban corridors.

In Missouri, arterial management is often a shared responsibility between MoDOT and regional or local partners. For example, the Kansas City region’s Operation Green Light program coordinates arterial signal timing and corridor operations in collaboration with MoDOT and multiple local jurisdictions. Other examples include MoDOT’s partnership with St. Charles in the St. Louis region and collaboration with the City of Springfield and the Ozarks Transportation Organization. Similar arrangements may exist in other regions where MPOs, cities, or counties lead day-to-day arterial management. Practitioners should recognize that depending on the corridor and location, responsibility for arterial operations may rest with another entity, requiring coordination and partnership to ensure consistent system performance.

The following sections outline strategies for arterial operations and management.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Users:'''
* Traffic Operations Engineers → Manage signals, coordination, and adaptive timing ([[#909.3.2.3 Traffic Signal Program Management|909.3.2.3 Traffic Signal Program Management]]; [[#909.3.2.4 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination|909.3.2.4 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination]]; [[#909.3.2.5 Transit Signal Priority|909.3.2.5 Transit Signal Priority]]).
* Design Staff → Implement innovative intersections and targeted improvements ([[#909.3.2.1 Targeted Infrastructure Improvements|909.3.2.1 Targeted Infrastructure Improvements]]; [[#909.3.2.2 Alternative Intersection Designs|909.3.2.2 Alternative Intersection Designs]]).
* TMC Operators → Oversee corridor signal adjustments and incident response ([[#909.3.2.4 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination|909.3.2.4 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination]]; [[#909.3.2.6 Arterial Dynamic Shoulder Use|909.3.2.6 Arterial Dynamic Shoulder Use]]).
</div>
<br>
<div style="margin: auto; width:875px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Policy Coordination''' – It is encouraged that any consideration or application of the following strategies should be closely coordinated with applicable Central Office staff, including the Highway Safety and Traffic Division, as well as other related divisions to support consistency with MoDOT policy, design standards, and operational practices.
</div>

===909.3.2.1 Targeted Infrastructure Improvements===
Targeted infrastructure improvements are localized enhancements that address recurring bottlenecks or multimodal safety concerns on arterial corridors. Common treatments include new or extended turn lanes to reduce delay at intersections, access control to improve traffic flow and safety, and bus pullouts to minimize transit-related delays. Pedestrian and bicyclist accommodations such as crosswalk improvements, refuge islands, and protected lanes also support safer and more reliable mobility for all users.

===909.3.2.2 Alternative Intersection Designs===
Alternative intersection designs apply alternative layouts to improve safety and efficiency where traditional designs are constrained. Examples include restricted crossing U-turns (RCUTs), median U-turns, and displaced left-turn (continuous flow) intersections, which reduce conflict points and increase throughput. These designs are increasingly considered where right-of-way is limited, traffic volumes are high, or safety issues persist with conventional layouts.

Additional information can be found in [[233.5_Intersection_Alternatives|EPG 233.5 Intersection Alternatives]].

===909.3.2.3 Traffic Signal Program Management===
A comprehensive traffic signal program helps support effective corridor operations. Program elements include monitoring and evaluating existing signal systems, scheduling recurring retiming efforts, and integrating new technologies over time. A proactive, programmatic approach supports consistent signal management across jurisdictions, improving reliability and reducing the need for inefficient, piecemeal adjustments.

Procedures for signal operation and maintenance are outlined in [[902.1_General_(MUTCD_Chapter_4A)#902.1.10_Responsibility_for_Operation_and_Maintenance_(MUTCD_Section_4A.10)|902.1.10 Responsibility for Operation and Maintenance (MUTCD Section 4A.10)]].

===909.3.2.4 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination===
Traffic signal timing and coordination strategies are a cost-effective approach to improve arterial operations. By updating signal timing plans and coordinating operations across intersections, agencies can reduce delays and support more predictable travel along corridors. These strategies allow signal operations to reflect current traffic conditions, land use patterns, and system changes, while also providing a foundation for integrating advanced technologies such as adaptive control.

<u>Applications:</u>
* '''Traffic Signal Retiming''' – Updating the timing plans for one signalized intersection or a corridor of intersections based on the latest traffic volumes. Retiming is recommended every few years or after significant changes to transportation systems or land use within a given area.
* '''Traffic Signal Coordination''' – Coordinating traffic signal timing along a corridor to enable a “green wave” of vehicles traveling through a sequence of signals. Coordination optimizes the splits and offsets of signals to allow for smoother, progressive traffic flow.
* '''Adaptive Traffic Signal Control''' – Coordinating traffic signal timing across a network using real-time detector data to accommodate current, prevailing traffic patterns. This allows for dynamic adjustment of timing in response to fluctuating traffic conditions.

Procedures for signal phasing and operation are outlined in [[902.23_Traffic_Signal_Phasing_and_Operation|EPG 902.23 Traffic Signal Phasing and Operation]].

===909.3.2.5 Transit Signal Priority===
Transit signal priority (TSP) strategies adjust signal phasing to reduce delay for buses and improve the efficiency of transit operations. TSP can extend green phases and/or provide early green intervals to help transit vehicles move more consistently through intersections. By enhancing the speed and reliability of bus service, TSP supports multimodal goals and encourages greater use of transit along arterial corridors.

===909.3.2.6 Arterial Dynamic Shoulder Use===
Arterial dynamic shoulder use provides additional capacity and helps improve multimodal efficiency by repurposing existing roadway space under defined conditions. Dynamic shoulder use allows roadway shoulders to operate as travel lanes during peak periods or special events, while maintaining their primary role for emergency access during off-peak times. When feasible, this strategy can help reduce delays, improve vehicle-throughput, and support multimodal goals in areas where right-of-way is constrained and traditional widening is not feasible. Successful implementation requires clear operational policies, appropriate signing and striping, and coordination with enforcement and transit partners to ensure safety and effectiveness.

Although Missouri does not currently implement arterial dynamic shoulder use, the approach may offer targeted benefits in select corridors. However, because shoulders are typically not constructed to full-depth pavement standards, implementation would likely require reconstruction or significant upgrades to support sustained traffic loading.

==909.3.3 Freight Operation==
Freight operations strategies address truck mobility, parking, and safety near freight generators such as ports and distribution centers. The following sections outline key strategies for freight operations.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Users:'''
* Transportation Planners → Coordinate freight corridors, permitting, and parking strategies ([[#909.3.3.1 Freight Operations Around Ports and Generators|909.3.3.1 Freight Operations Around Ports and Generators]]; [[#909.3.3.2 Truck Parking|909.3.3.2 Truck Parking]]; [[#909.3.3.3 Regional Permitting|909.3.3.3 Regional Permitting]]).
* Traffic Operations Engineers → Oversee technology applications and truck restrictions ([[#909.3.3.1 Freight Operations Around Ports and Generators|909.3.3.1 Freight Operations Around Ports and Generators]]; [[#909.3.3.4 Technology Applications for Freight|909.3.3.4 Technology Applications for Freight]]; [[#909.3.3.5 Connected and Automated Freight Vehicles|909.3.3.5 Connected and Automated Freight Vehicles]]).
</div>

Reference MoDOT’s [https://www.modot.org/2022-state-freight-and-rail-plan-documents 2022 State Freight and Rail Plan Documents] for additional information.

===909.3.3.1 Freight Operations Around Ports and Generators===
Freight hubs such as ports, intermodal yards, and distribution centers generate concentrated truck activity that can create localized congestion and safety concerns. Targeted operational improvements may include intersection upgrades, dedicated freight lanes, improved signage, or optimized signal timing along key freight corridors. These measures reduce bottlenecks, improve travel time reliability for trucks, and minimize conflicts between freight and passenger vehicles in high-demand areas.

===909.3.3.2 Truck Parking===
Adequate truck parking supports driver safety, freight efficiency, and regulatory compliance. Strategies include the development of new truck parking facilities, upgrades to existing rest areas, and the integration of real-time availability systems that help drivers locate spaces. Reservation tools and wayfinding applications can further support efficient parking use and reduce the safety risks associated with unauthorized shoulder or ramp parking.

===909.3.3.3 Regional Permitting===
Freight often crosses multiple jurisdictions, and inconsistent permitting processes can add delay and administrative burden. Regional permitting strategies streamline requirements by coordinating across state, county, and local agencies. Harmonizing size, weight, and routing approvals enhances efficiency for carriers while reducing redundant processes for agencies, particularly along high-volume freight corridors.

===909.3.3.4 Technology Applications for Freight===
Technology provides powerful tools for managing freight mobility. Examples include routing platforms that help drivers avoid weight-restricted bridges or low-clearance structures, monitoring systems that track freight movement in real time, and automated clearance technologies at weigh stations or ports of entry. Collectively, these applications enhance efficiency, improve safety, and provide data to better manage freight corridors.

===909.3.3.5 Connected and Automated Freight Vehicles===
The freight industry is a leading sector for testing and deploying connected and automated vehicle (CV/AV) technologies. Applications may include platooning, automated truck-mounted attenuators, or fully automated long-haul freight operations. These technologies have the potential to improve safety, reduce driver fatigue, and increase efficiency in freight corridors. Early deployment efforts require coordination with industry, agencies, and technology providers to ensure infrastructure readiness and to evaluate operational impacts.

==909.3.4 Vulnerable Road Users==
Vulnerable road users (VRUs) are individuals who travel without the protection of an enclosed vehicle and therefore face a greater risk of serious injury in a collision. VRUs include pedestrians, roadway workers, individuals using wheelchairs or other personal mobility devices, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and users of electric scooters and other micromobility devices. The following sections outline strategies to improve safety, access, and comfort for these users within the transportation system.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Users:'''
* Design Staff → Implement bike lanes, pedestrian facilities, and safety enhancements ([[#909.3.4.1 Safety Enhancements|909.3.4.1 Safety Enhancements]]; [[#909.3.4.2 Pedestrian and Accessibility Facilities|909.3.4.2 Pedestrian and Accessibility Facilities]]; [[#909.3.4.3 Bicycle Lanes and Cycle Tracks|909.3.4.3 Bicycle Lanes and Cycle Tracks]]).
* Transportation Planners → Support multimodal planning and education programs ([[#909.3.4.1 Safety Enhancements|909.3.4.1 Safety Enhancements]]; [[#909.3.4.4 VRU Education and Outreach|909.3.4.4 VRU Education]]).
</div>

===909.3.4.1 Safety Enhancements===
Selective deployment of safety enhancements should be informed by [[:Category:907_Traffic_Safety|EPG 907 Traffic Safety]] and tailored to the needs of VRUs. Enhancements may include improved crossings, lighting, signing and pavement markings, speed management strategies, traffic calming measures, work zone protections for roadway workers, and design treatments that reduce conflicts involving motorcyclists and micromobility users.

===909.3.4.2 Pedestrian and Accessibility Facilities===
Sidewalks, shared-use paths, accessible curb ramps, transit stop connections and enhanced or grade-separated crossings should be prioritized where safety risks, accessibility needs, or network gaps are identified. Integrating these facilities in alignment with Complete Streets principles ([[907.10_Complete_Streets|EPG 907.10 Complete Streets]]), in coordination with regional and local partners, helps support safe, efficient access for pedestrians and individuals using wheelchairs or other mobility devices.

Additional information can be found in [[:Category:642_Pedestrian_Facilities|EPG 642 Pedestrian Facilities]].

===909.3.4.3 Bicycle Lanes and Cycle Tracks===
Where conditions and community priorities warrant, dedicated bike lanes or protected cycle tracks can enhance comfort and safety for bicyclists and other micromobility users, including users of electric scooters and similar devices. MoDOT supports the Complete Street concept (as outlined in [[907.10_Complete_Streets|EPG 907.10 Complete Streets]]) and encourages coordination with communities and regional partners to consider these facilities where appropriate.

Additional information can be found in [[:Category:641_Bicycle_Facilities|EPG 641 Bicycle Facilities]].

===909.3.4.4 VRU Education and Outreach===
Support community-informed education and outreach programs that promote safe behaviors among VRUs. Programs may address the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, micromobility users, motorcyclists, individuals with disabilities, and drivers, and may include collaboration with local schools, community organizations, advocacy groups, employers, transit agencies, and public safety partners.

==909.3.5 Transit Operation==
Transit operations strategies improve speed, reliability, and accessibility of transit services. The following sections outline strategies for transit operations.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Users:'''
* Transit Agencies → Operate BRT, implement TSP, and manage transit vehicles ([[#909.3.5.1 Transit Signal Priority|909.3.5.1 Transit Signal Priority]]; [[#909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit|909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit]]; [[#909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes|909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes]]; [[#909.3.5.4 Transit Operation Vehicles|909.3.5.4 Transit Operation Vehicles]]).
* Transportation Planners → Plan multimodal centers and support dynamic transit strategies ([[#909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit|909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit]]; [[#909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes|909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes]]; [[#909.3.5.5 Multimodal Transportation Centers|909.3.5.5 Multimodal Transportation Centers]]).
* Traffic Operations Engineers → Support signal priority and corridor treatments ([[#909.3.5.1 Transit Signal Priority|909.3.5.1 Transit Signal Priority]]; [[#909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit|909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit]]; [[#909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes|909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes]]).
</div>

===909.3.5.1 Transit Signal Priority===
Transit Signal Priority (TSP) strategies modify traffic signal operations to reduce delay and improve on-time arrivals for buses and other transit vehicles.

Additional information on TSP is provided in [[#909.3.2.5 Transit Signal Priority|EPG 909.3.2.5 Transit Signal Priority]].

===909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit===
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) incorporates a combination of dedicated lanes, intersection treatments, and enhanced stations to provide faster and more reliable bus service. Treatments such as queue jump lanes and high-capacity vehicles further enhance performance. BRT can serve as a cost-effective alternative to rail in high-demand corridors, delivering rapid, frequent, and reliable service with improved passenger amenities.

===909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes===
Transit-only lanes provide additional capacity and improve multimodal efficiency by repurposing existing roadway space under defined conditions. Transit-only lanes dedicate roadway space to buses, enabling more reliable service and improving schedule adherence in congested corridors. This strategy can help reduce delays, improve person-throughput, and support multimodal goals in areas where right-of-way is constrained and traditional widening is not feasible. Successful implementation requires clear operational policies, appropriate signing and striping, and coordination with enforcement and transit partners to ensure safety and effectiveness.

This strategy may offer targeted benefits in select corridors where transit demand and roadway conditions support dedicated space for transit operations. In some cases, implementation could involve repurposing shoulder space where available. However, because shoulders are typically not constructed to full-depth pavement standards, such applications would likely require reconstruction or significant upgrades to support sustained transit operations.

<div style="margin: auto; width:875px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Policy Coordination''' – It is encouraged that any consideration or application of the following strategies should be closely coordinated with applicable Central Office staff, including the Highway Safety and Traffic Division, as well as other related divisions to support consistency with MoDOT policy, design standards, and operational practices.
</div>

===909.3.5.4 Transit Operation Vehicles===
Transit vehicle operations may require unique roadway considerations. Streetcars, for example, share corridors with general traffic and necessitate signal coordination and geometric design adjustments for turning movements. Similarly, buses may require accommodations such as bus pullouts, curb extensions, or boarding islands to improve efficiency and passenger safety. These vehicle-specific considerations support smoother operations and minimize conflicts with other modes.

===909.3.5.5 Multimodal Transportation Centers===
Multimodal transportation centers serve as hubs that integrate multiple travel modes, including bus, rail, bike, and pedestrian connections. These facilities improve regional accessibility by consolidating transfers in a single location and providing amenities such as shelters, ticketing, and real-time traveler information.

In Missouri, existing park-and-ride facilities present opportunities to serve as future multimodal centers. These centers encourage greater transit use, strengthen first- and last-mile connections, and elevate the role of transit in supporting regional mobility.

[[Category:909 Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO)]]

909.3 Congested Route (Recurring Delays)

2026-09-01T19:08:28Z

Hoskir: created and updated per RR4165

==909.3.1 Freeway Operations and Management==
<div style="float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;">__TOC__</div>

Freeway operations strategies help enhance safety, reduce recurring congestion, and improve travel time reliability on major corridors. The following sections outline some strategies for freeway operations and management. Not all strategies discussed below are currently used in Missouri; however, they are included to provide a range of options that may be considered based on context, needs, and available resources.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left; width:62%">
'''Users:'''
* TMC Operators → Monitor and adjust dynamic controls, coordinate corridor operations, and manage incident response ([[#909.3.1.1_Ramp_Management_and_Control|909.3.1.1 Ramp Management and Control]]; [[#909.3.1.3 Dynamic Speed Limits|909.3.1.3 Dynamic Speed Limits]]; [[#909.3.1.4 Queue Warning|909.3.1.4 Queue Warning]]; [[#909.3.1.6 Transportation Management Centers|909.3.1.5 Transportation Management Centers]]).
* Traffic Operations Engineers → Design freeway operations strategies, oversee policy-sensitive strategies, and evaluate corridor performance ([[#909.3.1.2 Part-Time Shoulder Use (Hard Shoulder Running)|909.3.1.2 Part-Time Shoulder Use]]; [[#909.3.1.5 Transportation Management Centers|909.3.1.5 Traffic Management Centers]]; [[#909.3.1.6 Managed Lanes|909.3.1.6 Managed Lanes]]).
* Information Systems Managers → Maintain ITS infrastructure, support automated detection, and ensure system integration for real-time operations ([[#909.3.1.5 Transportation Management Centers|909.3.1.5 Transportation Management Centers]]; [[#909.3.1.7 Automated Incident Detection|909.3.1.7 Automated Incident Detection]]).
</div>
<br>
<div style="width:62%; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Policy Coordination''' – It is encouraged that any consideration or application of the following strategies should be closely coordinated with applicable Central Office staff, including the Highway Safety and Traffic Division, as well as other related divisions to support consistency with MoDOT policy, design standards, and operational practices.
</div>

===909.3.1.1 Ramp Management and Control===
Ramp management and control strategies, including ramp metering and adaptive ramp management, regulate vehicle entry onto freeways to improve merging operations, reduce conflicts, and smooth overall traffic flow. This remains a dynamic application where it is implemented, with operational adjustments based on corridor conditions.

Currently, Missouri does not operate continuous ramp metering systems. Instead, ramp meters are activated dynamically based on real-time traffic conditions when metrics (such as speed, volume, and/or density) exceed predefined thresholds.

===909.3.1.2 Part-Time Shoulder Use (Hard Shoulder Running)===
Part-time shoulder use, also known as hard shoulder running, allows roadway shoulders to serve as temporary travel lanes during peak periods, incidents, or emergencies. Applications may be designed for all vehicles or limited to transit operations.

This strategy is increasingly being implemented by peer agencies across the country, particularly in corridors with limited right-of-way or peak-period capacity needs. While Missouri does not currently have any active applications of part-time shoulder use, the concept may present opportunities in select corridors - especially where traditional widening is not feasible and where shoulders are constructed to full-depth pavement standards.

===909.3.1.3 Dynamic Speed Limits===
Dynamic speed limits adjust posted speed limits in real time based on conditions such as traffic flow, weather, or incidents. This approach has been applied by several peer agencies to improve safety, smooth traffic flow, and reduce crash risk.

In Missouri, there are no permanent applications of dynamic speed limits in routine freeway operations. However, the strategy may hold value in temporary, controlled environments, particularly in work zones, where changing conditions may warrant more flexible speed management.

===909.3.1.4 Queue Warning===
Queue warning systems are designed to alert motorists of slow or stopped traffic ahead, helping to reduce the likelihood of sudden braking and rear-end collisions. In Missouri, queue warning is typically implemented using probe data to identify travel times, including delays associated with downstream incidents or congestion, and to display warning messages on Dynamic Message Signs (DMS).

In work zones, queue warning applications commonly include the use of probe data linked to DMS, as well as sensor-based systems that detect traffic conditions and trigger messages on Changeable Message Signs (CMS). These approaches help provide advance warning to drivers when queues form due to temporary capacity constraints and changing traffic conditions.

Effective implementation requires appropriate placement of signs upstream of anticipated queue locations and consideration of roadway speeds to ensure adequate driver perception and reaction time.

===909.3.1.5 Transportation Management Centers===
Transportation Management Centers (TMCs) serve as the operational backbone of ICM. From TMCs, MoDOT staff monitor real-time traffic conditions, manage ITS devices, coordinate incident response, and adjust strategies such as ramp metering or queue warning. This centralized approach enables proactive management of corridors, supporting safety and reliability during incidents, work zones, and peak travel periods.

===909.3.1.6 Managed Lanes===
Managed lanes are roadway segments where access and use are actively regulated to improve traffic flow, safety, or reliability. Common approaches used nationally include bus-only lanes and truck-only lanes. These treatments are typically considered in locations with recurring congestion, limited right-of-way, or freight movement challenges.

At present, Missouri has no active managed lane facilities.

===909.3.1.7 Automated Incident Detection===
Automated incident detection systems use roadside sensors, video feeds, and software algorithms to identify crashes, stalled vehicles, or other disruptions in real time. These systems often integrate data analytics with CCTV camera footage to detect unusual traffic patterns or stopped vehicles more quickly than traditional operator observation alone. By providing earlier notification of likely incidents, automated detection enhances safety, reduces secondary crashes, and improves response times for emergency and traffic management personnel.

==909.3.2 Arterial Operations and Management==
Arterial operations strategies help improve mobility, safety, and reliability on surface streets through targeted improvements, signal operations, and multimodal accommodations. These strategies focus on reducing congestion at bottlenecks, enhancing intersection performance, and supporting consistent travel across urban and suburban corridors.

In Missouri, arterial management is often a shared responsibility between MoDOT and regional or local partners. For example, the Kansas City region’s Operation Green Light program coordinates arterial signal timing and corridor operations in collaboration with MoDOT and multiple local jurisdictions. Other examples include MoDOT’s partnership with St. Charles in the St. Louis region and collaboration with the City of Springfield and the Ozarks Transportation Organization. Similar arrangements may exist in other regions where MPOs, cities, or counties lead day-to-day arterial management. Practitioners should recognize that depending on the corridor and location, responsibility for arterial operations may rest with another entity, requiring coordination and partnership to ensure consistent system performance.

The following sections outline strategies for arterial operations and management.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Users:'''
* Traffic Operations Engineers → Manage signals, coordination, and adaptive timing ([[#909.3.2.3 Traffic Signal Program Management|909.3.2.3 Traffic Signal Program Management]]; [[#909.3.2.4 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination|909.3.2.4 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination]]; [[#909.3.2.5 Transit Signal Priority|909.3.2.5 Transit Signal Priority]]).
* Design Staff → Implement innovative intersections and targeted improvements ([[#909.3.2.1 Targeted Infrastructure Improvements|909.3.2.1 Targeted Infrastructure Improvements]]; [[#909.3.2.2 Alternative Intersection Designs|909.3.2.2 Alternative Intersection Designs]]).
* TMC Operators → Oversee corridor signal adjustments and incident response ([[#909.3.2.4 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination|909.3.2.4 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination]]; [[#909.3.2.6 Arterial Dynamic Shoulder Use|909.3.2.6 Arterial Dynamic Shoulder Use]]).
</div>
<br>
<div style="margin: auto; width:875px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Policy Coordination''' – It is encouraged that any consideration or application of the following strategies should be closely coordinated with applicable Central Office staff, including the Highway Safety and Traffic Division, as well as other related divisions to support consistency with MoDOT policy, design standards, and operational practices.
</div>

===909.3.2.1 Targeted Infrastructure Improvements===
Targeted infrastructure improvements are localized enhancements that address recurring bottlenecks or multimodal safety concerns on arterial corridors. Common treatments include new or extended turn lanes to reduce delay at intersections, access control to improve traffic flow and safety, and bus pullouts to minimize transit-related delays. Pedestrian and bicyclist accommodations such as crosswalk improvements, refuge islands, and protected lanes also support safer and more reliable mobility for all users.

===909.3.2.2 Alternative Intersection Designs===
Alternative intersection designs apply alternative layouts to improve safety and efficiency where traditional designs are constrained. Examples include restricted crossing U-turns (RCUTs), median U-turns, and displaced left-turn (continuous flow) intersections, which reduce conflict points and increase throughput. These designs are increasingly considered where right-of-way is limited, traffic volumes are high, or safety issues persist with conventional layouts.

Additional information can be found in [[233.5_Intersection_Alternatives|EPG 233.5 Intersection Alternatives]].

===909.3.2.3 Traffic Signal Program Management===
A comprehensive traffic signal program helps support effective corridor operations. Program elements include monitoring and evaluating existing signal systems, scheduling recurring retiming efforts, and integrating new technologies over time. A proactive, programmatic approach supports consistent signal management across jurisdictions, improving reliability and reducing the need for inefficient, piecemeal adjustments.

Procedures for signal operation and maintenance are outlined in [[902.1_General_(MUTCD_Chapter_4A)#902.1.10_Responsibility_for_Operation_and_Maintenance_(MUTCD_Section_4A.10)|902.1.10 Responsibility for Operation and Maintenance (MUTCD Section 4A.10)]].

===909.3.2.4 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination===
Traffic signal timing and coordination strategies are a cost-effective approach to improve arterial operations. By updating signal timing plans and coordinating operations across intersections, agencies can reduce delays and support more predictable travel along corridors. These strategies allow signal operations to reflect current traffic conditions, land use patterns, and system changes, while also providing a foundation for integrating advanced technologies such as adaptive control.

<u>Applications:</u>
* '''Traffic Signal Retiming''' – Updating the timing plans for one signalized intersection or a corridor of intersections based on the latest traffic volumes. Retiming is recommended every few years or after significant changes to transportation systems or land use within a given area.
* '''Traffic Signal Coordination''' – Coordinating traffic signal timing along a corridor to enable a “green wave” of vehicles traveling through a sequence of signals. Coordination optimizes the splits and offsets of signals to allow for smoother, progressive traffic flow.
* '''Adaptive Traffic Signal Control''' – Coordinating traffic signal timing across a network using real-time detector data to accommodate current, prevailing traffic patterns. This allows for dynamic adjustment of timing in response to fluctuating traffic conditions.

Procedures for signal phasing and operation are outlined in [[902.23_Traffic_Signal_Phasing_and_Operation|EPG 902.23 Traffic Signal Phasing and Operation]].

===909.3.2.5 Transit Signal Priority===
Transit signal priority (TSP) strategies adjust signal phasing to reduce delay for buses and improve the efficiency of transit operations. TSP can extend green phases and/or provide early green intervals to help transit vehicles move more consistently through intersections. By enhancing the speed and reliability of bus service, TSP supports multimodal goals and encourages greater use of transit along arterial corridors.

===909.3.2.6 Arterial Dynamic Shoulder Use===
Arterial dynamic shoulder use provides additional capacity and helps improve multimodal efficiency by repurposing existing roadway space under defined conditions. Dynamic shoulder use allows roadway shoulders to operate as travel lanes during peak periods or special events, while maintaining their primary role for emergency access during off-peak times. When feasible, this strategy can help reduce delays, improve vehicle-throughput, and support multimodal goals in areas where right-of-way is constrained and traditional widening is not feasible. Successful implementation requires clear operational policies, appropriate signing and striping, and coordination with enforcement and transit partners to ensure safety and effectiveness.

Although Missouri does not currently implement arterial dynamic shoulder use, the approach may offer targeted benefits in select corridors. However, because shoulders are typically not constructed to full-depth pavement standards, implementation would likely require reconstruction or significant upgrades to support sustained traffic loading.

==909.3.3 Freight Operation==
Freight operations strategies address truck mobility, parking, and safety near freight generators such as ports and distribution centers. The following sections outline key strategies for freight operations.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Users:'''
* Transportation Planners → Coordinate freight corridors, permitting, and parking strategies ([[#909.3.3.1 Freight Operations Around Ports and Generators|909.3.3.1 Freight Operations Around Ports and Generators]]; [[#909.3.3.2 Truck Parking|909.3.3.2 Truck Parking]]; [[#909.3.3.3 Regional Permitting|909.3.3.3 Regional Permitting]]).
* Traffic Operations Engineers → Oversee technology applications and truck restrictions ([[#909.3.3.1 Freight Operations Around Ports and Generators|909.3.3.1 Freight Operations Around Ports and Generators]]; [[#909.3.3.4 Technology Applications for Freight|909.3.3.4 Technology Applications for Freight]]; [[#909.3.3.5 Connected and Automated Freight Vehicles|909.3.3.5 Connected and Automated Freight Vehicles]]).
</div>

Reference MoDOT’s [https://www.modot.org/2022-state-freight-and-rail-plan-documents 2022 State Freight and Rail Plan Documents] for additional information.

===909.3.3.1 Freight Operations Around Ports and Generators===
Freight hubs such as ports, intermodal yards, and distribution centers generate concentrated truck activity that can create localized congestion and safety concerns. Targeted operational improvements may include intersection upgrades, dedicated freight lanes, improved signage, or optimized signal timing along key freight corridors. These measures reduce bottlenecks, improve travel time reliability for trucks, and minimize conflicts between freight and passenger vehicles in high-demand areas.

===909.3.3.2 Truck Parking===
Adequate truck parking supports driver safety, freight efficiency, and regulatory compliance. Strategies include the development of new truck parking facilities, upgrades to existing rest areas, and the integration of real-time availability systems that help drivers locate spaces. Reservation tools and wayfinding applications can further support efficient parking use and reduce the safety risks associated with unauthorized shoulder or ramp parking.

===909.3.3.3 Regional Permitting===
Freight often crosses multiple jurisdictions, and inconsistent permitting processes can add delay and administrative burden. Regional permitting strategies streamline requirements by coordinating across state, county, and local agencies. Harmonizing size, weight, and routing approvals enhances efficiency for carriers while reducing redundant processes for agencies, particularly along high-volume freight corridors.

===909.3.3.4 Technology Applications for Freight===
Technology provides powerful tools for managing freight mobility. Examples include routing platforms that help drivers avoid weight-restricted bridges or low-clearance structures, monitoring systems that track freight movement in real time, and automated clearance technologies at weigh stations or ports of entry. Collectively, these applications enhance efficiency, improve safety, and provide data to better manage freight corridors.

===909.3.3.5 Connected and Automated Freight Vehicles===
The freight industry is a leading sector for testing and deploying connected and automated vehicle (CV/AV) technologies. Applications may include platooning, automated truck-mounted attenuators, or fully automated long-haul freight operations. These technologies have the potential to improve safety, reduce driver fatigue, and increase efficiency in freight corridors. Early deployment efforts require coordination with industry, agencies, and technology providers to ensure infrastructure readiness and to evaluate operational impacts.

==909.3.4 Vulnerable Road Users==
Vulnerable road users (VRUs) are individuals who travel without the protection of an enclosed vehicle and therefore face a greater risk of serious injury in a collision. VRUs include pedestrians, roadway workers, individuals using wheelchairs or other personal mobility devices, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and users of electric scooters and other micromobility devices. The following sections outline strategies to improve safety, access, and comfort for these users within the transportation system.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Users:'''
* Design Staff → Implement bike lanes, pedestrian facilities, and safety enhancements ([[#909.3.4.1 Safety Enhancements|909.3.4.1 Safety Enhancements]]; [[#909.3.4.2 Pedestrian and Accessibility Facilities|909.3.4.2 Pedestrian and Accessibility Facilities]]; [[#909.3.4.3 Bicycle Lanes and Cycle Tracks|909.3.4.3 Bicycle Lanes and Cycle Tracks]]).
* Transportation Planners → Support multimodal planning and education programs ([[#909.3.4.1 Safety Enhancements|909.3.4.1 Safety Enhancements]]; [[#909.3.4.4 VRU Education and Outreach|909.3.4.4 VRU Education]]).
</div>

===909.3.4.1 Safety Enhancements===
Selective deployment of safety enhancements should be informed by [[:Category:907_Traffic_Safety|EPG 907 Traffic Safety]] and tailored to the needs of VRUs. Enhancements may include improved crossings, lighting, signing and pavement markings, speed management strategies, traffic calming measures, work zone protections for roadway workers, and design treatments that reduce conflicts involving motorcyclists and micromobility users.

===909.3.4.2 Pedestrian and Accessibility Facilities===
Sidewalks, shared-use paths, accessible curb ramps, transit stop connections and enhanced or grade-separated crossings should be prioritized where safety risks, accessibility needs, or network gaps are identified. Integrating these facilities in alignment with Complete Streets principles ([[907.10_Complete_Streets|EPG 907.10 Complete Streets]]), in coordination with regional and local partners, helps support safe, efficient access for pedestrians and individuals using wheelchairs or other mobility devices.

Additional information can be found in [[:Category:642_Pedestrian_Facilities|EPG 642 Pedestrian Facilities]].

===909.3.4.3 Bicycle Lanes and Cycle Tracks===
Where conditions and community priorities warrant, dedicated bike lanes or protected cycle tracks can enhance comfort and safety for bicyclists and other micromobility users, including users of electric scooters and similar devices. MoDOT supports the Complete Street concept (as outlined in [[907.10_Complete_Streets|EPG 907.10 Complete Streets]]) and encourages coordination with communities and regional partners to consider these facilities where appropriate.

Additional information can be found in [[:Category:641_Bicycle_Facilities|EPG 641 Bicycle Facilities]].

===909.3.4.4 VRU Education and Outreach===
Support community-informed education and outreach programs that promote safe behaviors among VRUs. Programs may address the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, micromobility users, motorcyclists, individuals with disabilities, and drivers, and may include collaboration with local schools, community organizations, advocacy groups, employers, transit agencies, and public safety partners.

==909.3.5 Transit Operation==
Transit operations strategies improve speed, reliability, and accessibility of transit services. The following sections outline strategies for transit operations.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Users:'''
* Transit Agencies → Operate BRT, implement TSP, and manage transit vehicles ([[#909.3.5.1 Transit Signal Priority|909.3.5.1 Transit Signal Priority]]; [[#909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit|909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit]]; [[#909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes|909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes]]; [[#909.3.5.4 Transit Operation Vehicles|909.3.5.4 Transit Operation Vehicles]]).
* Transportation Planners → Plan multimodal centers and support dynamic transit strategies ([[#909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit|909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit]]; [[#909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes|909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes]]; [[#909.3.5.5 Multimodal Transportation Centers|909.3.5.5 Multimodal Transportation Centers]]).
* Traffic Operations Engineers → Support signal priority and corridor treatments ([[#909.3.5.1 Transit Signal Priority|909.3.5.1 Transit Signal Priority]]; [[#909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit|909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit]]; [[#909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes|909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes]]).
</div>

===909.3.5.1 Transit Signal Priority===
Transit Signal Priority (TSP) strategies modify traffic signal operations to reduce delay and improve on-time arrivals for buses and other transit vehicles.

Additional information on TSP is provided in [[#909.3.2.5 Transit Signal Priority|EPG 909.3.2.5 Transit Signal Priority]].

===909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit===
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) incorporates a combination of dedicated lanes, intersection treatments, and enhanced stations to provide faster and more reliable bus service. Treatments such as queue jump lanes and high-capacity vehicles further enhance performance. BRT can serve as a cost-effective alternative to rail in high-demand corridors, delivering rapid, frequent, and reliable service with improved passenger amenities.

===909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes===
Transit-only lanes provide additional capacity and improve multimodal efficiency by repurposing existing roadway space under defined conditions. Transit-only lanes dedicate roadway space to buses, enabling more reliable service and improving schedule adherence in congested corridors. This strategy can help reduce delays, improve person-throughput, and support multimodal goals in areas where right-of-way is constrained and traditional widening is not feasible. Successful implementation requires clear operational policies, appropriate signing and striping, and coordination with enforcement and transit partners to ensure safety and effectiveness.

This strategy may offer targeted benefits in select corridors where transit demand and roadway conditions support dedicated space for transit operations. In some cases, implementation could involve repurposing shoulder space where available. However, because shoulders are typically not constructed to full-depth pavement standards, such applications would likely require reconstruction or significant upgrades to support sustained transit operations.

<div style="margin: auto; width:875px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Policy Coordination''' – It is encouraged that any consideration or application of the following strategies should be closely coordinated with applicable Central Office staff, including the Highway Safety and Traffic Division, as well as other related divisions to support consistency with MoDOT policy, design standards, and operational practices.
</div>

===909.3.5.4 Transit Operation Vehicles===
Transit vehicle operations may require unique roadway considerations. Streetcars, for example, share corridors with general traffic and necessitate signal coordination and geometric design adjustments for turning movements. Similarly, buses may require accommodations such as bus pullouts, curb extensions, or boarding islands to improve efficiency and passenger safety. These vehicle-specific considerations support smoother operations and minimize conflicts with other modes.

===909.3.5.5 Multimodal Transportation Centers===
Multimodal transportation centers serve as hubs that integrate multiple travel modes, including bus, rail, bike, and pedestrian connections. These facilities improve regional accessibility by consolidating transfers in a single location and providing amenities such as shelters, ticketing, and real-time traveler information.

In Missouri, existing park-and-ride facilities present opportunities to serve as future multimodal centers. These centers encourage greater transit use, strengthen first- and last-mile connections, and elevate the role of transit in supporting regional mobility.

[[Category:909 Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO)]]

909.3 Congested Route (Recurring Delays)

2026-09-01T19:03:11Z

Hoskir:

==909.3.1 Freeway Operations and Management==
<div style="float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;">__TOC__</div>

Freeway operations strategies help enhance safety, reduce recurring congestion, and improve travel time reliability on major corridors. The following sections outline some strategies for freeway operations and management. Not all strategies discussed below are currently used in Missouri; however, they are included to provide a range of options that may be considered based on context, needs, and available resources.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Users:'''
* TMC Operators → Monitor and adjust dynamic controls, coordinate corridor operations, and manage incident response ([[#909.3.1.1_Ramp_Management_and_Control|909.3.1.1 Ramp Management and Control]]; [[#909.3.1.3 Dynamic Speed Limits|909.3.1.3 Dynamic Speed Limits]]; [[#909.3.1.4 Queue Warning|909.3.1.4 Queue Warning]]; [[#909.3.1.6 Transportation Management Centers|909.3.1.5 Transportation Management Centers]]).
* Traffic Operations Engineers → Design freeway operations strategies, oversee policy-sensitive strategies, and evaluate corridor performance ([[#909.3.1.2 Part-Time Shoulder Use (Hard Shoulder Running)|909.3.1.2 Part-Time Shoulder Use]]; [[#909.3.1.5 Transportation Management Centers|909.3.1.5 Traffic Management Centers]]; [[#909.3.1.6 Managed Lanes|909.3.1.6 Managed Lanes]]).
* Information Systems Managers → Maintain ITS infrastructure, support automated detection, and ensure system integration for real-time operations ([[#909.3.1.5 Transportation Management Centers|909.3.1.5 Transportation Management Centers]]; [[#909.3.1.7 Automated Incident Detection|909.3.1.7 Automated Incident Detection]]).
</div>
<br>
<div style="margin: auto; width:875px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Policy Coordination''' – It is encouraged that any consideration or application of the following strategies should be closely coordinated with applicable Central Office staff, including the Highway Safety and Traffic Division, as well as other related divisions to support consistency with MoDOT policy, design standards, and operational practices.
</div>

===909.3.1.1 Ramp Management and Control===
Ramp management and control strategies, including ramp metering and adaptive ramp management, regulate vehicle entry onto freeways to improve merging operations, reduce conflicts, and smooth overall traffic flow. This remains a dynamic application where it is implemented, with operational adjustments based on corridor conditions.

Currently, Missouri does not operate continuous ramp metering systems. Instead, ramp meters are activated dynamically based on real-time traffic conditions when metrics (such as speed, volume, and/or density) exceed predefined thresholds.

===909.3.1.2 Part-Time Shoulder Use (Hard Shoulder Running)===
Part-time shoulder use, also known as hard shoulder running, allows roadway shoulders to serve as temporary travel lanes during peak periods, incidents, or emergencies. Applications may be designed for all vehicles or limited to transit operations.

This strategy is increasingly being implemented by peer agencies across the country, particularly in corridors with limited right-of-way or peak-period capacity needs. While Missouri does not currently have any active applications of part-time shoulder use, the concept may present opportunities in select corridors - especially where traditional widening is not feasible and where shoulders are constructed to full-depth pavement standards.

===909.3.1.3 Dynamic Speed Limits===
Dynamic speed limits adjust posted speed limits in real time based on conditions such as traffic flow, weather, or incidents. This approach has been applied by several peer agencies to improve safety, smooth traffic flow, and reduce crash risk.

In Missouri, there are no permanent applications of dynamic speed limits in routine freeway operations. However, the strategy may hold value in temporary, controlled environments, particularly in work zones, where changing conditions may warrant more flexible speed management.

===909.3.1.4 Queue Warning===
Queue warning systems are designed to alert motorists of slow or stopped traffic ahead, helping to reduce the likelihood of sudden braking and rear-end collisions. In Missouri, queue warning is typically implemented using probe data to identify travel times, including delays associated with downstream incidents or congestion, and to display warning messages on Dynamic Message Signs (DMS).

In work zones, queue warning applications commonly include the use of probe data linked to DMS, as well as sensor-based systems that detect traffic conditions and trigger messages on Changeable Message Signs (CMS). These approaches help provide advance warning to drivers when queues form due to temporary capacity constraints and changing traffic conditions.

Effective implementation requires appropriate placement of signs upstream of anticipated queue locations and consideration of roadway speeds to ensure adequate driver perception and reaction time.

===909.3.1.5 Transportation Management Centers===
Transportation Management Centers (TMCs) serve as the operational backbone of ICM. From TMCs, MoDOT staff monitor real-time traffic conditions, manage ITS devices, coordinate incident response, and adjust strategies such as ramp metering or queue warning. This centralized approach enables proactive management of corridors, supporting safety and reliability during incidents, work zones, and peak travel periods.

===909.3.1.6 Managed Lanes===
Managed lanes are roadway segments where access and use are actively regulated to improve traffic flow, safety, or reliability. Common approaches used nationally include bus-only lanes and truck-only lanes. These treatments are typically considered in locations with recurring congestion, limited right-of-way, or freight movement challenges.

At present, Missouri has no active managed lane facilities.

===909.3.1.7 Automated Incident Detection===
Automated incident detection systems use roadside sensors, video feeds, and software algorithms to identify crashes, stalled vehicles, or other disruptions in real time. These systems often integrate data analytics with CCTV camera footage to detect unusual traffic patterns or stopped vehicles more quickly than traditional operator observation alone. By providing earlier notification of likely incidents, automated detection enhances safety, reduces secondary crashes, and improves response times for emergency and traffic management personnel.

==909.3.2 Arterial Operations and Management==
Arterial operations strategies help improve mobility, safety, and reliability on surface streets through targeted improvements, signal operations, and multimodal accommodations. These strategies focus on reducing congestion at bottlenecks, enhancing intersection performance, and supporting consistent travel across urban and suburban corridors.

In Missouri, arterial management is often a shared responsibility between MoDOT and regional or local partners. For example, the Kansas City region’s Operation Green Light program coordinates arterial signal timing and corridor operations in collaboration with MoDOT and multiple local jurisdictions. Other examples include MoDOT’s partnership with St. Charles in the St. Louis region and collaboration with the City of Springfield and the Ozarks Transportation Organization. Similar arrangements may exist in other regions where MPOs, cities, or counties lead day-to-day arterial management. Practitioners should recognize that depending on the corridor and location, responsibility for arterial operations may rest with another entity, requiring coordination and partnership to ensure consistent system performance.

The following sections outline strategies for arterial operations and management.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Users:'''
* Traffic Operations Engineers → Manage signals, coordination, and adaptive timing ([[#909.3.2.3 Traffic Signal Program Management|909.3.2.3 Traffic Signal Program Management]]; [[#909.3.2.4 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination|909.3.2.4 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination]]; [[#909.3.2.5 Transit Signal Priority|909.3.2.5 Transit Signal Priority]]).
* Design Staff → Implement innovative intersections and targeted improvements ([[#909.3.2.1 Targeted Infrastructure Improvements|909.3.2.1 Targeted Infrastructure Improvements]]; [[#909.3.2.2 Alternative Intersection Designs|909.3.2.2 Alternative Intersection Designs]]).
* TMC Operators → Oversee corridor signal adjustments and incident response ([[#909.3.2.4 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination|909.3.2.4 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination]]; [[#909.3.2.6 Arterial Dynamic Shoulder Use|909.3.2.6 Arterial Dynamic Shoulder Use]]).
</div>
<br>
<div style="margin: auto; width:875px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Policy Coordination''' – It is encouraged that any consideration or application of the following strategies should be closely coordinated with applicable Central Office staff, including the Highway Safety and Traffic Division, as well as other related divisions to support consistency with MoDOT policy, design standards, and operational practices.
</div>

===909.3.2.1 Targeted Infrastructure Improvements===
Targeted infrastructure improvements are localized enhancements that address recurring bottlenecks or multimodal safety concerns on arterial corridors. Common treatments include new or extended turn lanes to reduce delay at intersections, access control to improve traffic flow and safety, and bus pullouts to minimize transit-related delays. Pedestrian and bicyclist accommodations such as crosswalk improvements, refuge islands, and protected lanes also support safer and more reliable mobility for all users.

===909.3.2.2 Alternative Intersection Designs===
Alternative intersection designs apply alternative layouts to improve safety and efficiency where traditional designs are constrained. Examples include restricted crossing U-turns (RCUTs), median U-turns, and displaced left-turn (continuous flow) intersections, which reduce conflict points and increase throughput. These designs are increasingly considered where right-of-way is limited, traffic volumes are high, or safety issues persist with conventional layouts.

Additional information can be found in [[233.5_Intersection_Alternatives|EPG 233.5 Intersection Alternatives]].

===909.3.2.3 Traffic Signal Program Management===
A comprehensive traffic signal program helps support effective corridor operations. Program elements include monitoring and evaluating existing signal systems, scheduling recurring retiming efforts, and integrating new technologies over time. A proactive, programmatic approach supports consistent signal management across jurisdictions, improving reliability and reducing the need for inefficient, piecemeal adjustments.

Procedures for signal operation and maintenance are outlined in [[902.1_General_(MUTCD_Chapter_4A)#902.1.10_Responsibility_for_Operation_and_Maintenance_(MUTCD_Section_4A.10)|902.1.10 Responsibility for Operation and Maintenance (MUTCD Section 4A.10)]].

===909.3.2.4 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination===
Traffic signal timing and coordination strategies are a cost-effective approach to improve arterial operations. By updating signal timing plans and coordinating operations across intersections, agencies can reduce delays and support more predictable travel along corridors. These strategies allow signal operations to reflect current traffic conditions, land use patterns, and system changes, while also providing a foundation for integrating advanced technologies such as adaptive control.

<u>Applications:</u>
* '''Traffic Signal Retiming''' – Updating the timing plans for one signalized intersection or a corridor of intersections based on the latest traffic volumes. Retiming is recommended every few years or after significant changes to transportation systems or land use within a given area.
* '''Traffic Signal Coordination''' – Coordinating traffic signal timing along a corridor to enable a “green wave” of vehicles traveling through a sequence of signals. Coordination optimizes the splits and offsets of signals to allow for smoother, progressive traffic flow.
* '''Adaptive Traffic Signal Control''' – Coordinating traffic signal timing across a network using real-time detector data to accommodate current, prevailing traffic patterns. This allows for dynamic adjustment of timing in response to fluctuating traffic conditions.

Procedures for signal phasing and operation are outlined in [[902.23_Traffic_Signal_Phasing_and_Operation|EPG 902.23 Traffic Signal Phasing and Operation]].

===909.3.2.5 Transit Signal Priority===
Transit signal priority (TSP) strategies adjust signal phasing to reduce delay for buses and improve the efficiency of transit operations. TSP can extend green phases and/or provide early green intervals to help transit vehicles move more consistently through intersections. By enhancing the speed and reliability of bus service, TSP supports multimodal goals and encourages greater use of transit along arterial corridors.

===909.3.2.6 Arterial Dynamic Shoulder Use===
Arterial dynamic shoulder use provides additional capacity and helps improve multimodal efficiency by repurposing existing roadway space under defined conditions. Dynamic shoulder use allows roadway shoulders to operate as travel lanes during peak periods or special events, while maintaining their primary role for emergency access during off-peak times. When feasible, this strategy can help reduce delays, improve vehicle-throughput, and support multimodal goals in areas where right-of-way is constrained and traditional widening is not feasible. Successful implementation requires clear operational policies, appropriate signing and striping, and coordination with enforcement and transit partners to ensure safety and effectiveness.

Although Missouri does not currently implement arterial dynamic shoulder use, the approach may offer targeted benefits in select corridors. However, because shoulders are typically not constructed to full-depth pavement standards, implementation would likely require reconstruction or significant upgrades to support sustained traffic loading.

==909.3.3 Freight Operation==
Freight operations strategies address truck mobility, parking, and safety near freight generators such as ports and distribution centers. The following sections outline key strategies for freight operations.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Users:'''
* Transportation Planners → Coordinate freight corridors, permitting, and parking strategies ([[#909.3.3.1 Freight Operations Around Ports and Generators|909.3.3.1 Freight Operations Around Ports and Generators]]; [[#909.3.3.2 Truck Parking|909.3.3.2 Truck Parking]]; [[#909.3.3.3 Regional Permitting|909.3.3.3 Regional Permitting]]).
* Traffic Operations Engineers → Oversee technology applications and truck restrictions ([[#909.3.3.1 Freight Operations Around Ports and Generators|909.3.3.1 Freight Operations Around Ports and Generators]]; [[#909.3.3.4 Technology Applications for Freight|909.3.3.4 Technology Applications for Freight]]; [[#909.3.3.5 Connected and Automated Freight Vehicles|909.3.3.5 Connected and Automated Freight Vehicles]]).
</div>

Reference MoDOT’s [https://www.modot.org/2022-state-freight-and-rail-plan-documents 2022 State Freight and Rail Plan Documents] for additional information.

===909.3.3.1 Freight Operations Around Ports and Generators===
Freight hubs such as ports, intermodal yards, and distribution centers generate concentrated truck activity that can create localized congestion and safety concerns. Targeted operational improvements may include intersection upgrades, dedicated freight lanes, improved signage, or optimized signal timing along key freight corridors. These measures reduce bottlenecks, improve travel time reliability for trucks, and minimize conflicts between freight and passenger vehicles in high-demand areas.

===909.3.3.2 Truck Parking===
Adequate truck parking supports driver safety, freight efficiency, and regulatory compliance. Strategies include the development of new truck parking facilities, upgrades to existing rest areas, and the integration of real-time availability systems that help drivers locate spaces. Reservation tools and wayfinding applications can further support efficient parking use and reduce the safety risks associated with unauthorized shoulder or ramp parking.

===909.3.3.3 Regional Permitting===
Freight often crosses multiple jurisdictions, and inconsistent permitting processes can add delay and administrative burden. Regional permitting strategies streamline requirements by coordinating across state, county, and local agencies. Harmonizing size, weight, and routing approvals enhances efficiency for carriers while reducing redundant processes for agencies, particularly along high-volume freight corridors.

===909.3.3.4 Technology Applications for Freight===
Technology provides powerful tools for managing freight mobility. Examples include routing platforms that help drivers avoid weight-restricted bridges or low-clearance structures, monitoring systems that track freight movement in real time, and automated clearance technologies at weigh stations or ports of entry. Collectively, these applications enhance efficiency, improve safety, and provide data to better manage freight corridors.

===909.3.3.5 Connected and Automated Freight Vehicles===
The freight industry is a leading sector for testing and deploying connected and automated vehicle (CV/AV) technologies. Applications may include platooning, automated truck-mounted attenuators, or fully automated long-haul freight operations. These technologies have the potential to improve safety, reduce driver fatigue, and increase efficiency in freight corridors. Early deployment efforts require coordination with industry, agencies, and technology providers to ensure infrastructure readiness and to evaluate operational impacts.

==909.3.4 Vulnerable Road Users==
Vulnerable road users (VRUs) are individuals who travel without the protection of an enclosed vehicle and therefore face a greater risk of serious injury in a collision. VRUs include pedestrians, roadway workers, individuals using wheelchairs or other personal mobility devices, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and users of electric scooters and other micromobility devices. The following sections outline strategies to improve safety, access, and comfort for these users within the transportation system.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Users:'''
* Design Staff → Implement bike lanes, pedestrian facilities, and safety enhancements ([[#909.3.4.1 Safety Enhancements|909.3.4.1 Safety Enhancements]]; [[#909.3.4.2 Pedestrian and Accessibility Facilities|909.3.4.2 Pedestrian and Accessibility Facilities]]; [[#909.3.4.3 Bicycle Lanes and Cycle Tracks|909.3.4.3 Bicycle Lanes and Cycle Tracks]]).
* Transportation Planners → Support multimodal planning and education programs ([[#909.3.4.1 Safety Enhancements|909.3.4.1 Safety Enhancements]]; [[#909.3.4.4 VRU Education and Outreach|909.3.4.4 VRU Education]]).
</div>

===909.3.4.1 Safety Enhancements===
Selective deployment of safety enhancements should be informed by [[:Category:907_Traffic_Safety|EPG 907 Traffic Safety]] and tailored to the needs of VRUs. Enhancements may include improved crossings, lighting, signing and pavement markings, speed management strategies, traffic calming measures, work zone protections for roadway workers, and design treatments that reduce conflicts involving motorcyclists and micromobility users.

===909.3.4.2 Pedestrian and Accessibility Facilities===
Sidewalks, shared-use paths, accessible curb ramps, transit stop connections and enhanced or grade-separated crossings should be prioritized where safety risks, accessibility needs, or network gaps are identified. Integrating these facilities in alignment with Complete Streets principles ([[907.10_Complete_Streets|EPG 907.10 Complete Streets]]), in coordination with regional and local partners, helps support safe, efficient access for pedestrians and individuals using wheelchairs or other mobility devices.

Additional information can be found in [[:Category:642_Pedestrian_Facilities|EPG 642 Pedestrian Facilities]].

===909.3.4.3 Bicycle Lanes and Cycle Tracks===
Where conditions and community priorities warrant, dedicated bike lanes or protected cycle tracks can enhance comfort and safety for bicyclists and other micromobility users, including users of electric scooters and similar devices. MoDOT supports the Complete Street concept (as outlined in [[907.10_Complete_Streets|EPG 907.10 Complete Streets]]) and encourages coordination with communities and regional partners to consider these facilities where appropriate.

Additional information can be found in [[:Category:641_Bicycle_Facilities|EPG 641 Bicycle Facilities]].

===909.3.4.4 VRU Education and Outreach===
Support community-informed education and outreach programs that promote safe behaviors among VRUs. Programs may address the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, micromobility users, motorcyclists, individuals with disabilities, and drivers, and may include collaboration with local schools, community organizations, advocacy groups, employers, transit agencies, and public safety partners.

==909.3.5 Transit Operation==
Transit operations strategies improve speed, reliability, and accessibility of transit services. The following sections outline strategies for transit operations.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Users:'''
* Transit Agencies → Operate BRT, implement TSP, and manage transit vehicles ([[#909.3.5.1 Transit Signal Priority|909.3.5.1 Transit Signal Priority]]; [[#909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit|909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit]]; [[#909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes|909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes]]; [[#909.3.5.4 Transit Operation Vehicles|909.3.5.4 Transit Operation Vehicles]]).
* Transportation Planners → Plan multimodal centers and support dynamic transit strategies ([[#909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit|909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit]]; [[#909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes|909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes]]; [[#909.3.5.5 Multimodal Transportation Centers|909.3.5.5 Multimodal Transportation Centers]]).
* Traffic Operations Engineers → Support signal priority and corridor treatments ([[#909.3.5.1 Transit Signal Priority|909.3.5.1 Transit Signal Priority]]; [[#909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit|909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit]]; [[#909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes|909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes]]).
</div>

===909.3.5.1 Transit Signal Priority===
Transit Signal Priority (TSP) strategies modify traffic signal operations to reduce delay and improve on-time arrivals for buses and other transit vehicles.

Additional information on TSP is provided in [[#909.3.2.5 Transit Signal Priority|EPG 909.3.2.5 Transit Signal Priority]].

===909.3.5.2 Bus Rapid Transit===
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) incorporates a combination of dedicated lanes, intersection treatments, and enhanced stations to provide faster and more reliable bus service. Treatments such as queue jump lanes and high-capacity vehicles further enhance performance. BRT can serve as a cost-effective alternative to rail in high-demand corridors, delivering rapid, frequent, and reliable service with improved passenger amenities.

===909.3.5.3 Transit-Only Lanes===
Transit-only lanes provide additional capacity and improve multimodal efficiency by repurposing existing roadway space under defined conditions. Transit-only lanes dedicate roadway space to buses, enabling more reliable service and improving schedule adherence in congested corridors. This strategy can help reduce delays, improve person-throughput, and support multimodal goals in areas where right-of-way is constrained and traditional widening is not feasible. Successful implementation requires clear operational policies, appropriate signing and striping, and coordination with enforcement and transit partners to ensure safety and effectiveness.

This strategy may offer targeted benefits in select corridors where transit demand and roadway conditions support dedicated space for transit operations. In some cases, implementation could involve repurposing shoulder space where available. However, because shoulders are typically not constructed to full-depth pavement standards, such applications would likely require reconstruction or significant upgrades to support sustained transit operations.

<div style="margin: auto; width:875px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Policy Coordination''' – It is encouraged that any consideration or application of the following strategies should be closely coordinated with applicable Central Office staff, including the Highway Safety and Traffic Division, as well as other related divisions to support consistency with MoDOT policy, design standards, and operational practices.
</div>

===909.3.5.4 Transit Operation Vehicles===
Transit vehicle operations may require unique roadway considerations. Streetcars, for example, share corridors with general traffic and necessitate signal coordination and geometric design adjustments for turning movements. Similarly, buses may require accommodations such as bus pullouts, curb extensions, or boarding islands to improve efficiency and passenger safety. These vehicle-specific considerations support smoother operations and minimize conflicts with other modes.

===909.3.5.5 Multimodal Transportation Centers===
Multimodal transportation centers serve as hubs that integrate multiple travel modes, including bus, rail, bike, and pedestrian connections. These facilities improve regional accessibility by consolidating transfers in a single location and providing amenities such as shelters, ticketing, and real-time traveler information.

In Missouri, existing park-and-ride facilities present opportunities to serve as future multimodal centers. These centers encourage greater transit use, strengthen first- and last-mile connections, and elevate the role of transit in supporting regional mobility.

<span style="background:#00FF00">Create link to 909</span>

[[Category:909 Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO)]]

909.3 Congested Route (Recurring Delays)

2026-09-01T19:02:03Z

Hoskir: Created page with " Category:909 Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO)"

[[Category:909 Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO)]]

909.2 Non-Congested Route (Non-Recurring Delays)

2026-09-01T18:59:30Z

Hoskir: updated per RR4165

==909.2.1 Traffic Incident Management==
<div style="float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;">__TOC__</div>

Traffic Incident Management (TIM) can help reduce the impact of roadway incidents by coordinating detection, response, and clearance activities among transportation, law enforcement, fire, EMS, towing, and other partners.

While crashes, disabled vehicles, and cargo spills are the most common focus of TIM programs, there are a broader set of disruptions that can also be monitored including:
* Debris in the roadway
* Grass fires
* Lane-blocking emergency vehicles
* Vehicle fires
* Heavy congestion

By incorporating this broader incident set, TIM strategies ensure operators and responders are prepared for a wide range of events that may impact traveler safety and network performance. The following sections outline strategies for TIM.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left; width: 63%">
'''Users:'''
* TMC Operators → Detect and coordinate response ([[#909.2.1.3 Components|909.2.1.3 Components]]), disseminate traveler information ([[#909.2.1.1 Traffic Incident Management Plans|909.2.1.1 Traffic Incident Management Plans]]).
* Maintenance Technicians → Assist with clearance and roadway restoration ([[#909.2.1.3 Components|909.2.1.3 Components]]).
* Emergency Management Agencies → Critical frontline responders ([[#909.2.1.2 Stakeholders|909.2.1.2 Stakeholders]]).
</div>

===909.2.1.1 Traffic Incident Management Plans===
Traffic incidents occur without warning at any time and location on the highway system. On all segments of the interstate and freeway highway system, TIM plans should be developed in coordination with law enforcement and local responders to:
* Reduce response and clearance times.
* Develop alternate plans for handling affected traffic.
* Communicate and coordinate between first responders.
* Communicate traffic impacts to motorists.

Reference [[:Category:948_Incident_Response_Plan_and_Emergency_Response_Management|EPG 948 Incident Response Plan and Emergency Response Management]] for additional information.

===909.2.1.2 Stakeholders===
Effective TIM depends on collaboration among a wide range of partners. Law enforcement, fire/rescue, EMS, and towing operators provide immediate on-scene response, while MoDOT personnel and TMCs deliver critical support through detection, traffic control, and traveler information. Each stakeholder brings unique capabilities, and coordinated multi-agency response supports faster clearance, safer conditions for responders, and more reliable outcomes for the traveling public.

===909.2.1.3 Components===
The core components of TIM—detection, verification, response, clearance, and recovery—create a structured framework for managing roadway incidents. Detection and verification confirm the incident type and location; coordinated response mobilizes the appropriate agencies; clearance restores traffic lanes and removes hazards; and recovery ensures the roadway is returned to normal operation. Addressing each component systematically reduces incident duration and enhances both safety and reliability.

==909.2.2 Transportation Operations for Emergency Incidents or Disasters==
Emergency operations support safe and effective evacuation and mobility during disasters such as floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, or other emergencies. The following sections outline strategies for emergency operations during disasters.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Users:'''
* Emergency Management Agencies → Coordinate disaster response ([[#909.2.2.1 Frameworks and Coordination|909.2.2.1 Frameworks and Coordination]]).
* Transportation Planners → Prepare evacuation plans ([[#909.2.2.2 Preparedness and Planning|909.2.2.2 Preparedness and Planning]]).
* Traffic Operations Engineers → Manage ingress and egress traffic flow ([[#909.2.2.3 Operational Strategies During Disasters|909.2.2.3 Operational Strategies During Disasters]]).
* TMC Operators → Monitor evacuation routes and push real-time traveler information ([[#909.2.2.3 Operational Strategies During Disasters|909.2.2.3 Operational Strategies During Disasters]]).
</div>

===909.2.2.1 Frameworks and Coordination===
MoDOT’s emergency transportation operations should align with the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the Incident Command System (ICS). These frameworks establish the standard structure, terminology, and coordination processes for incident and disaster response at the local, state, and federal levels.

'''National Incident Management System (NIMS)''':
* Provides a nationwide approach for incident management and coordination.
* Provides emergency transportation operations guidance for interoperable collaboration with law enforcement, fire, EMS, emergency management, and federal partners.
* Establishes common terminology, communication protocols, and resource management procedures to support multi-agency operations.

'''Incident Command System (ICS)''':
* Serves as the on-scene management structure for all types of incidents.
* Defines clear roles, responsibilities, and reporting relationships across agencies.
* Provides guidance on unified command structures, filling roles such as transportation branch directors, field observers, or technical specialists.
* Provides flexibility to scale operations for localized or statewide events.

For detailed response information, please contact MoDOT’s Safety and Emergency Management.

===909.2.2.2 Preparedness and Planning===
* Develop and exercise evacuation and emergency operations plans.
* Use simulation and scenario testing to identify gaps and strengthen interagency protocols.
* Establish pre-designated staging areas for resource allocation, evacuation support, and vehicle marshaling.

===909.2.2.3 Operational Strategies During Disasters===
* '''Traffic Management''': Complete rapid damage assessment and plan and publish routes for ingress and egress to the impacted area.
* '''Multimodal Evacuations''': Utilize buses, school buses, and regional transit providers to assist in large-scale evacuations.
* '''Route Monitoring''': Employ field observations, cameras, and sensors to track evacuation route conditions in real time.
* '''Public Information''': Provide timely traveler information, evacuation messaging, and updates in coordination with media partners.

==909.2.3 Road Weather Management==
Road Weather Management strategies improve mobility, reliability, and safety during weather events through strategies such as targeted traveler information, warnings, and operational interventions. The following sections outline strategies for road weather management.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Users:'''
* TMC Operators → Operate dynamic message signs and push alerts ([[#909.2.3.1 Road Weather Warnings/Alerts and Dynamic Message Signs|909.2.3.1 Road Weather Warnings/Alerts and Dynamic Message Signs]]; [[#909.2.3.2 Road Weather Information Systems|909.2.3.2 Road Weather Information Systems]]).
* Maintenance Technicians → Respond to weather conditions, deploy treatment ([[#909.2.3.2 Road Weather Information Systems|909.2.3.2 Road Weather Information Systems]]).
* Traffic Operations Engineers → Integrate road weather information systems data ([[#909.2.3.1 Road Weather Warnings/Alerts and Dynamic Message Signs|909.2.3.1 Road Weather Warnings/Alerts and Dynamic Message Signs]]; [[#909.2.3.2 Road Weather Information Systems|909.2.3.2 Road Weather Information Systems]]).
</div>

===909.2.3.1 Road Weather Warnings/Alerts and Dynamic Message Signs===
Used to display real-time information to warn motorists of roadway incidents, construction or congestion ahead that could pose a hazard or cause delays.

Procedures for Dynamic Message Signs are outlined in [[910.3_Dynamic_Message_Signs_(DMS)|EPG 910.3 Dynamic Message Signs (DMS)]].

===909.2.3.2 Road Weather Information Systems===
Road Weather Information Systems (RWIS) provide real-time data on weather and roadway conditions to support transportation system operations and maintenance activities. These systems collect information such as air and pavement temperatures, precipitation, visibility, and surface conditions to help inform operational decisions. Data may be collected through field sensors, third-party weather service providers, or a combination of both, depending on system needs and available resources.

==909.2.4 Work Zone Traffic Management==
Work zone strategies reduce risk to workers and travelers while minimizing delays during construction and maintenance activities. These strategies apply to both short-term and long-term work zones, recognizing that every project, regardless of duration, can significantly affect roadway operations and safety.

Effective work zone traffic management begins early in project development. Once a project design has been determined, the [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/WZ_Impact_Analysis.xlsm MoDOT Work Zone Impact Analysis Spreadsheet] assists in identifying which work zone strategies should be incorporated to provide real-time information and warnings to motorists, supporting both safety and traffic mobility through the project corridor.

The [[media:909_WZM_Guidebook.pdf|Work Zone Management Guidebook]] serves as a comprehensive reference for planning and implementing work zone traffic management. The Guidebook covers a range of tools and strategies, from temporary traffic control and traveler information systems to smart work zone technologies, and is intended to help project teams maximize safety and minimize traffic impacts across all project types and durations. It also includes information about the use of law enforcement in work zones, contractor management and work zone inspections. The following sections outline key strategies for work zone traffic management.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Users:'''
* Design Staff → Incorporate TMP and ITS strategies into project design, when practical ([[#909.2.4.1 Traffic Management Plan|909.2.4.1 Traffic Management Plan]]; [[#909.2.4.4 Use of Intelligent Transportation Systems|909.2.4.4 Use of Intelligent Transportation Systems]]).
* Work Zone Specialists → Review and manage TMPs, oversee traffic control device setup, and ensure compliance with MoDOT standards ([[#909.2.4.1 Traffic Management Plan|909.2.4.1 Traffic Management Plan]]; [[#909.2.4.2 Traffic Incident Management Plan|909.2.4.2 Traffic Incident Management Plan]]).
* Construction Inspectors → Enforce work zone traffic control measures ([[#909.2.4.2 Traffic Incident Management Plan|909.2.4.2 Traffic Incident Management Plan]]).
* Traffic Operations Engineers → Oversee ITS integration and system strategies ([[#909.2.4.3 Smart Work Zones|909.2.4.3 Smart Work Zones]]; [[#909.2.4.4 Use of Intelligent Transportation Systems|909.2.4.4 Use of Intelligent Transportation Systems]]).
* TMC Operators → Monitor work zones and disseminate real-time traveler information ([[#909.2.4.4 Use of Intelligent Transportation Systems|909.2.4.4 Use of Intelligent Transportation Systems]]).
</div>

===909.2.4.1 Traffic Management Plan===
The Transportation Management Plan (TMP) consists of strategies to manage the work zone impacts of a project. Each TMP is tailored to the unique conditions of a project and typically incorporates three coordinated elements: Traffic Control Plan (TCP), Traffic Operations (TO), and Public Information and Outreach (PIO).

As an initial step, a project design should be selected to eliminate or minimize additional delays and traffic queueing during construction. [[616.19_Work_Zone_Capacity,_Queue_and_Travel_Delay|EPG 616.19 Work Zone Capacity, Queue and Travel Delay]] provides tools to assess the traffic impact of the proposed project design(s).

For additional detail on the required elements, development process, and documentation standards for TMPs, reference [[616.20_Work_Zone_Safety_and_Mobility_Policy#616.20.9_Work_Zone_Transportation_Management_Plan|EPG 616.20.9 Work Zone Transportation Management Plan]]. For additional information on developing Work Zone Traffic Management JSPs for use in core team meetings, reference [[616.20_Work_Zone_Safety_and_Mobility_Policy#616.20.7_Significant_Projects|EPG 616.20.7 Significant Projects]].

===909.2.4.2 Traffic Incident Management Plan===
When traffic incidents occur within a work zone, it is important to clear the incident and restore traffic as quickly as possible. To aid in this effort, a project-based traffic incident management (TIM) plan should be developed for all significant projects on interstate and freeways.

Reference [[#909.2.1.1 Traffic Incident Management Plans|EPG 909.2.1.1 Traffic Incident Management (TIM) Plans]] for additional information.

===909.2.4.3 Smart Work Zones===
Smart work zones integrate temporary Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies into construction and maintenance areas to improve safety for workers and motorists and to reduce traffic delays. These systems use real-time monitoring, detection, and communication tools to provide dynamic information and warnings to travelers based on actual conditions within and upstream of the work zone.

Smart work zone strategy information is available at [[616.19_Work_Zone_Capacity,_Queue_and_Travel_Delay#616.19.6.3_Smart_Work_Zone_(SWZ)_Strategy_Selection|EPG 616.19.6.3 Smart Work Zone (SWZ) Strategy Selection]]. MoDOT has used, but is not limited to, the following smart work zone strategies:
* Construction Vehicle Warning System
* Dynamic Late (Zipper) Merge System
* Queue Warning System
* Speed Warning System
* Work Zone ITS and Temporary Traffic Incident Management System
* Travel Time Advisory System
* Travel Time Advisory System with Alternate Routes

For additional guidance on smart work zone strategy selection during project delivery and development, refer to [[616.20_Work_Zone_Safety_and_Mobility_Policy|EPG 616.20 Work Zone Safety and Mobility Policy]]. Additional information can also be found in [[616.19_Work_Zone_Capacity,_Queue_and_Travel_Delay|EPG 616.19 Work Zone Capacity, Queue and Travel Delay]].

===909.2.4.4 Use of Intelligent Transportation Systems===
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) devices (cameras, sensors, communication systems) provide detection and real-time monitoring of work zones.

Procedures for ITS devices are outlined in [[:Category:910_Intelligent_Transportation_Systems|EPG 910 Intelligent Transportation Systems]].

==909.2.5 Planned Special Event Management==
Special event management strategies ensure safe and efficient mobility during large gatherings, sporting events, and other planned activities. The following sections outline strategies for planned special event management.

<div style="margin-top: 5px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
'''Users:'''
* Transportation Planners → Develop TMPs for special events and coordinate agencies ([[#909.2.5.1 Pre-Event Planning|909.2.5.1 Pre-Event Planning]]; [[#909.2.5.4 Post-Event Evaluation|909.2.5.4 Post-Event Evaluation]]).
* Traffic Operations Engineers → Design strategies for traffic flow and multimodal support ([[#909.2.5.2 Implementation|909.2.5.2 Implementation]]).
* TMC Operators → Manage day-of-event operations and traveler communications ([[#909.2.5.3 Day-of-Event Operations|909.2.5.3 Day-of-Event Operations]]).
* Emergency Management Agencies → Manage access, safety, and enforcement ([[#909.2.5.2 Implementation|909.2.5.2 Implementation]]).
</div>

===909.2.5.1 Pre-Event Planning===
* Develop Transportation Management Plans (TMPs) with input from MoDOT, local agencies, law enforcement, transit providers, and event organizers.
* Identify needs for Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and Joint Operations Center (JOC) activation, staffing augmentation, and resource staging for high-profile or large-scale events (e.g., sporting events, major concerts, parades, funerals, festivals, eclipse, political events).
* Plan for multimodal access (transit, walking, biking) and freight restrictions, where applicable.

===909.2.5.2 Implementation===
* Deploy traffic control devices, signage, and ITS in advance of the event.
* Coordinate with law enforcement and emergency management on enforcement zones, access control, and responder staging.
* Conduct interagency briefings to confirm roles, responsibilities, and communication protocols.

===909.2.5.3 Day-of-Event Operations===
* Manage traffic and crowd circulation using TMC monitoring, field staff, and real-time traveler information (dynamic message signs, push alerts, social media).
* Coordinate with EOC/JOC if activated to ensure situational awareness and resource support.
* Adjust plans dynamically to address congestion, incidents, or security needs.

===909.2.5.4 Post-Event Evaluation===
* Conduct after-action reviews with MoDOT staff, law enforcement, emergency management, and event organizers.
* Document lessons learned, identify gaps in staffing or coordination, and refine TMPs for future events.
* Capture performance measures such as clearance times, delay estimates, and traveler feedback.

[[Category:909 Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO)]]

909.2 Nonrecurring Congestion

2026-09-01T18:53:55Z

Hoskir: Hoskir moved page 909.2 Nonrecurring Congestion to 909.2 Non-Congested Route (Non-Recurring Delays): updated due to RR 4165

#REDIRECT [[909.2 Non-Congested Route (Non-Recurring Delays)]]

909.2 Non-Congested Route (Non-Recurring Delays)

2026-09-01T18:53:55Z

Hoskir: Hoskir moved page 909.2 Nonrecurring Congestion to 909.2 Non-Congested Route (Non-Recurring Delays): updated due to RR 4165

Nonrecurring congestion can occur at any location at any time and results in delay to motorists as well as a potential for subsequent traffic incidents. TSMO strategies should be utilized to address each type of nonrecurring congestion generator.

'''Construction '''

:* As an initial step, a project design should be selected to eliminate or minimize additional delays and traffic queueing during construction. [[616.13 Work Zone Capacity, Queue and Travel Delay|EPG 616.13 Work Zone Capacity, Queue and Travel Delay]] provides tools to access the traffic impact of the proposed project design(s).
:* Once a project design has been determined, the [[616.13 Work Zone Capacity, Queue and Travel Delay#MoDOT Work Zone Impact Analysis Spreadsheet|MoDOT Work Zone Impact Analysis Spreadsheet]] will assist in determining which smart work zones strategies should be included in the project to provide information and warnings to motorists to improve work zone safety and traffic mobility. Additionally, the [[media:909 WZM Guidebook.pdf|Work Zone Management Guidebook]] provides information about tools and strategies for work zone management that will maximize safety and minimize the impacts to traffic. The [[media:909 WZM Presentation.pdf|Work Zone Management Guidebook Presentation]] provides additional information about the guidebook. Additional information can also be found in [[616.13 Work Zone Capacity, Queue and Travel Delay|EPG 616.13 Work Zone Capacity, Queue and Travel Delay]] and [[616.14 Work Zone Safety and Mobility Policy|EPG 616.14 Work Zone Safety and Mobility Policy]].
:* When traffic incidents occur within a work zone, it is imperative to clear the incident and restore traffic as quickly as possible. To aid in this effort, a project-based traffic incident management (TIM) plan should be developed for all significant projects on interstate and freeways.

'''Traffic Incidents'''

Traffic incidents occur without warning at any time and location on the highway system. On all segments of the interstate and freeway highway system, traffic incident management (TIM) plans should be developed in coordination with law enforcement and local responders to:
:* Reduce response and clearance times
:* Develop alternate plans for handling affected traffic
:* Communicate and coordinate between responders
:* Communicate traffic impacts to motorists.

Reference [[:Category:948 Incident Response Plan and Emergency Response Management#MoDOT Traffic Incident Management Training Program|MoDOT’s Strategic Traffic Incident Management Plan]] for additional information.

[[Category:909 Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO)]]

909.1 Introduction to TSMO

2026-09-01T18:51:02Z

Hoskir:

==909.1.1 Overview of TSMO Strategies==
<div style="float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;">__TOC__</div>

TSMO strategies are the day-to-day operational actions MoDOT uses to actively manage the transportation system and address the primary causes of congestion without relying solely on capacity expansion.

Congestion generally falls into two categories:
* '''Non-recurring delays''' arise from unplanned or irregular events such as incidents, disasters, weather, work zones, and special events. These disruptions are inherently unpredictable, vary in severity and duration, and often require dynamic traffic management and interagency coordination to reduce their impact.
* '''Recurring delays''' occur regularly at specific locations, most often during peak traffic periods. This type of congestion is usually the result of demand exceeding the capacity of the existing system. Transportation agencies do not have the resources to construct enough highway capacity to eliminate all recurring congestion. Instead, TSMO strategies provide more cost-effective ways to manage demand and improve flow.

By addressing both types of congestion, TSMO supports MoDOT’s mission of moving Missourians safely and reliably while making the best use of available resources. These strategies are organized based on whether they address '''non-recurring delays''' or '''recurring delays''', as described below.

[[#909.2_Non-Congested_Route_(Non-Recurring_Delays)|909.2 Non-Congested Route (Non-Recurring Delays)]] – These strategies focus on managing temporary (whether short-term or long-term) capacity reductions caused by irregular or time-limited events that disrupt normal traffic conditions, with the goal of restoring mobility and safety efficiently and consistently.
* [[#909.2.1_Traffic_Incident_Management|909.2.1 Traffic Incident Management]]: Coordinates detection, response, and clearance across multiple agencies to minimize secondary crashes and return roadways to normal operation quickly.
* [[#909.2.2_Transportation_Operations_for_Emergency_Incidents_or_Disasters|909.2.2 Transportation Operations for Emergency Incidents or Disasters]]: Supports system readiness and coordinated response during natural or human-caused disasters through planning, communication, and multimodal evacuation procedures.
* [[#909.2.3_Road_Weather_Management|909.2.3 Road Weather Management]]: Integrates environmental monitoring, data-driven decision support, and targeted maintenance to mitigate the effects of adverse weather on safety and mobility.
* [[#909.2.4_Work_Zone_Traffic_Management|909.2.4 Work Zone Traffic Management]]: Applies smart work zone technologies and comprehensive traffic management plans to maintain safe and reliable travel through construction and maintenance areas.
* [[#909.2.5_Planned_Special_Event_Management|909.2.5 Planned Special Event Management]]: Coordinates transportation, enforcement, and communication activities for scheduled events to maintain efficient system operations and traveler safety.

[[#909.3_Congested_Route_(Recurring_Delays)|909.3 Congested Route (Recurring Delays)]] – These strategies address predictable and routine congestion caused by daily travel demand and capacity constraints on specific facilities or corridors, emphasizing active traffic management, system integration, and multimodal coordination.
* [[#909.3.1_Freeway_Operations_and_Management|909.3.1 Freeway Operations and Management]]: Improves freeway performance through corridor-level monitoring, adaptive control, and coordinated operations to enhance safety and travel-time reliability.
* [[#909.3.2_Arterial_Operations_and_Management|909.3.2 Arterial Operations and Management]]: Optimizes signal timing, intersection design, and corridor coordination to improve mobility and safety on surface streets.
* [[#909.3.3_Freight_Operation|909.3.3 Freight Operation]]: Enhances the efficiency and safety of freight movement through improved access, parking management, and technology-based monitoring along key freight corridors.
* [[#909.3.4_Vulnerable_Road_Users|909.3.4 Vulnerable Road Users]]: Improves safety, accessibility, and comfort for VRUs through targeted infrastructure, operational strategies, and multimodal coordination.
* [[#909.3.5_Transit_Operation|909.3.5 Transit Operation]]: Strengthens transit reliability and accessibility through operational strategies such as priority treatments, multimodal hubs, and corridor management.

==909.1.2 Relationship with Other Programs==
TSMO is not a standalone initiative—it complements and enhances MoDOT’s other programs:
* '''Safety Programs''': TSMO contributes to MoDOT’s safety goals, as outlined in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan and the SAFER Program (see [[907.9_Safety_Assessment_For_Every_Roadway_(SAFER)|EPG 907.9 Safety Assessment For Every Roadway (SAFER)]]), by reducing secondary crashes, improving work zone management, and advancing road weather management capabilities.
* '''Asset Management''': Proper maintenance of TSMO strategies and supporting systems can improve how facilities operate, reduce incidents that accelerate wear, and extend the life of infrastructure investments.
* '''Planning and Design''': TSMO principles should be incorporated early in the planning and design process so that operational strategies are built into projects from the start.
* '''Maintenance''': Maintenance activities can be coordinated with TSMO tools such as smart work zones and ITS devices to reduce traffic disruptions.
* '''Traveler Information''': TSMO strengthens customer service by providing real-time, accurate, and actionable information to the traveling public.

In practice, TSMO serves as the operational thread that connects safety, planning, design, maintenance, and customer service into a unified system-management approach.

==909.1.3 Roles and Contributions for TSMO Implementation==
This guide is designed to provide MoDOT staff and partners with a clear, practical reference for TSMO strategies. Table 909.1.3 highlights the typical roles and potential TSMO contributions of different staff in implementing and supporting TSMO strategies, as applicable based on project context, needs, and available resources. These contributions are intended to guide coordination and consideration of TSMO strategies and may vary depending on the specific application.

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
|+ ''Table 909.1.3. Typical Roles and Potential Contributions for TSMO Implementation''
|-
! Role !! Potential TSMO Contribution
|-
| '''Transportation Management Center (TMC) Operator''' || Monitor traffic conditions, manage information systems, and coordinate incident response and traveler communication to maintain safe and efficient roadway operations.
|-
| '''Emergency Response Operator''' || Provide on-scene incident management, motorist assistance, and roadway clearance to restore normal traffic flow and enhance safety during disruptions.
|-
| '''Maintenance Technician''' || Implement maintenance related TSMO strategies; provide feedback and effort for continual improvement of these strategies and tools.
|-
| '''Traffic Operations Engineer''' || Implement traffic operations related TSMO strategies; provide feedback and effort for continual improvement of these strategies and tools.
|-
| '''Transportation Planner''' || Incorporate TSMO and other traditional transportation improvement strategies into planning efforts, as appropriate.
|-
| '''Design Staff''' || Consider TSMO as a key element of design, where applicable, either as a direct improvement for the specific application or as an opportunity for the continuation of existing TSMO strategies.
|-
| '''Construction Inspector''' || Coordinate with appropriate personnel when modifying design elements or inspecting TSMO related infrastructure.
|-
| '''Work Zone Specialists''' || Oversee temporary traffic control in construction zones; review and manage Transportation Management Plans (TMPs), ensure proper setup and quality of traffic control devices, assess risks, and provide input during planning and post-construction reviews to enhance safety and minimize disruptions.
|-
| '''Information Systems Manager''' || Provide oversight and management of field and central communications systems, computer and software, and other information systems resources.
|-
| '''Human Resources Specialist''' || Incorporate relevant related skills and experience into position descriptions where TSMO expertise is needed; assist with training programs to improve the knowledge, skills, and abilities of existing operations personnel.
|-
| '''Emergency Management Agencies''' || Support TSMO implementation by providing coordinated incident response, traffic control, emergency medical services, and roadway clearance; collaborate with MoDOT and TMC staff, when applicable, to improve incident management, responder safety, and system recovery during emergencies and planned events.
|}

==909.1.4 TSMO Implementation Framework==
The TSMO Implementation Framework provides a structured approach for MoDOT to translate its mission and agency goals into actionable objectives and strategies. It supports the development of purpose-driven, measurable strategies aligned with statewide priorities. This framework serves as a bridge between MoDOT’s overarching mission and the specific strategies implemented across the TSMO program. Effective implementation of these goals relies on coordination across disciplines, integration throughout project phases, and collaboration with internal and external partners.

Table 909.1.4.1 identifies the core programmatic elements, MoDOT’s goals and associated objectives, that guide how TSMO is planned, implemented, and evaluated.

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
|+ ''Table 909.1.4.1 Programmatic Element''
|-
! Goal !! Objective
|-
| '''Safety''' || Reduce crash frequency and severity through proactive deployment of TSMO strategies (e.g., incident management, work zone safety, network operations).
|-
| '''Reliability''' || Support predictable and consistent travel times across the system by proactively managing congestion and incidents.
|-
| '''Efficiency''' || Operate MoDOT’s existing system efficiently and effectively through the application of TSMO strategies, as appropriate, to improve performance and inform decisions regarding potential capacity expansion.
|-
| '''Customer Service''' || Support timely, accurate, and useful traveler information that enables informed decision-making.
|}

Table 909.1.4.2 links MoDOT’s mission to measurable outcomes and example TSMO strategies, demonstrating how operations initiatives directly support statewide goals.

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
|+ ''Table 909.1.4.2. Linking MoDOT Mission to Outcomes and Example TSMO Strategies''
|-
! style="width:400px" | Mission !! style="width:400px" | High-Level Outcome !! Example TSMO Strategy
|-
| '''Improving safety (Moving Missourians safely)''' || Reduction in crashes, fatalities, and serious injuries; safer travel for all users || • [[#909.2.1_Traffic_Incident_Management|909.2.1 Traffic Incident Management]]<br>• [[#909.2.3_Road_Weather_Management|909.2.3 Road Weather Management]]<br>• [[#909.2.4_Work_Zone_Traffic_Management|909.2.4 Work Zone Traffic Management]]<br>• [[#909.3.1_Freeway_Operations_and_Management|909.3.1 Freeway Operations and Management]]<br>• [[#909.3.2_Arterial_Operations_and_Management|909.3.2 Arterial Operations and Management]]
|-
| '''Providing high-value, impactful solutions (Delivering efficient and innovative transportation projects; asset management)''' || Cost-effective improvements that maximize existing infrastructure and delay costly expansions || • [[#909.3.1_Freeway_Operations_and_Management|909.3.1 Freeway Operations and Management]]<br>• [[#909.3.2_Arterial_Operations_and_Management|909.3.2 Arterial Operations and Management]]<br>• [[#909.3.3_Freight_Operation|909.3.3 Freight Operation]]<br>• [[#909.3.4_Vulnerable_Road_Users|909.3.4 Vulnerable Road Users]]
|-
| '''Improving reliability and mobility (Operating a reliable transportation system; Building a prosperous economy for all Missourians)''' || Predictable travel times and improved system performance for people and freight || • [[#909.2.2_Transportation_Operations_for_Emergency_Incidents_or_Disasters|909.2.2 Transportation Operations for Emergency Incidents or Disasters]]<br>• [[#909.2.4_Work_Zone_Traffic_Management|909.2.4 Work Zone Traffic Management]]<br>• [[#909.2.5_Planned_Special_Event_Management|909.2.5 Planned Special Event Management]]<br>• [[#909.3.1_Freeway_Operations_and_Management|909.3.1 Freeway Operations and Management]]<br>• [[#909.3.5_Transit_Operation|909.3.5 Transit Operation]]
|-
| '''Providing useful and timely traveler information (Providing outstanding customer service)''' || Informed travel decisions by the public, increased user satisfaction || • [[#909.2.2_Transportation_Operations_for_Emergency_Incidents_or_Disasters|909.2.2 Transportation Operations for Emergency Incidents or Disasters]]<br>• [[#909.2.3_Road_Weather_Management|909.2.3 Road Weather Management]]
|}

==909.1.5 Performance Metrics==
Performance metrics provide the foundation for evaluating how TSMO strategies contribute to the safety, reliability, efficiency, and customer experience of Missouri’s transportation system. MoDOT currently tracks performance through a combination of federal performance measures and internal performance management tools (e.g. [https://www.modot.org/tracker-measures-departmental-performance Tracker: Measures of Departmental Performance]). The following tables present example performance measures that may be used to assess the effectiveness of TSMO strategies related to both non-recurring delays (Table 909.1.5.1) and recurring delays (Table 909.1.5.2).

These measures are not intended to represent required or standalone reporting metrics, but rather a menu of potential measures that can support analysis, planning, and evaluation efforts, as appropriate to the specific application, study type, or operational need. When applied, these metrics can help users identify opportunities for improvement and support data-driven decision-making.

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
|+ ''Table 909.1.5.1 Linking MoDOT TSMO Strategies for Non-Recurring Delays to Performance Metrics''
|-
! style="width:400px" | Strategy !! style="width:400px" | Goals !! Example Performance Metric
|-
| rowspan="4" | '''[[#909.2.1_Traffic_Incident_Management|909.2.1 Traffic Incident Management]]''' || Enhance the '''safety''' of traveling public and incident responders || • Number of secondary crashes per incident<br>• Severity (fatalities/serious injuries) of secondary crashes<br>• Percent of incidents with secondary crashes recorded<br>• Number of responders struck-by crashes<br>• Severity of responder-involved crashes<br>• Percent of incidents with responder crash data recorded
|-
| Enhance '''reliability''' and '''efficiency''' of Missouri’s transportation system || • Average roadway clearance time<br>• Average incident clearance time<br>• Percent of incidents meeting clearance time targets
|-
| Strengthen '''coordination''', '''communication''', and '''collaboration''' between MoDOT and TIM partners || • Number of formalized agreements signed<br>• Number of multi-agency TIM meetings held annually<br>• Number of TIM trainings held annually<br>• Partner participation rate in meetings/exercises
|-
| Establish '''TIM policies''', '''procedures''', and '''protocols''' within MoDOT || • Number of formal TIM policies/protocols adopted<br>• Percent of TIM coordinator positions filled and active
|-
| rowspan="2" | '''[[#909.2.2_Transportation_Operations_for_Emergency_Incidents_or_Disasters|909.2.2 Transportation Operations for Emergency Incidents or Disasters]]''' || Enhance '''safety''' and responder protection during emergency incidents || • Number of emergency-related crashes<br>• Severity (fatal/serious injury) of emergency-related crashes<br>• Percent of emergency incidents with responder safety data recorded
|-
| Improve '''reliability''' and '''speed''' of emergency response and system restoration || • Time to activate emergency operations<br>• Duration of emergency lane/road closures<br>• Percent of priority routes restored within target timeframes<br>• Emergency communication system uptime<br>• Average time to deploy emergency traffic control
|-
| rowspan="3" | '''[[#909.2.3_Road_Weather_Management|909.2.3 Road Weather Management]]''' || Improve '''safety''' under adverse weather conditions || • Number of weather-related crashes, fatalities, and serious injuries<br>• Crash rate per weather event
|-
| Enhance '''operational readiness''' and '''timely''' roadway treatment || • Time to treat priority routes during storms<br>• Percent of network treated within specific time thresholds<br>• Materials usage efficiency (salt, brine, abrasives)
|-
| Improve '''traveler information''' accuracy during weather events || • Traveler information system accuracy rate during storms<br>• Number of travel information interactions (511 apps, CMS messages)
|-
| rowspan="2" | '''[[#909.2.4_Work_Zone_Traffic_Management|909.2.4 Work Zone Traffic Management]]''' || Enhance '''safety''' for workers and motorists in work zones || • Number and rate of work zone crashes<br>• Number of work zone fatalities and serious injuries<br>• Number of work zone intrusions (near-miss events)
|-
| Improve '''mobility''' and reduce unexpected work zone delays || • Work-zone related delays<br>• Percent of work zones meeting mobility targets (queue length, speed, travel time)<br>• Average incident clearance time for work zone-related incidents
|-
| rowspan="2" | '''[[#909.2.5_Planned_Special_Event_Management|909.2.5 Planned Special Event Management]]''' || Ensure '''safe''' travel conditions during special events || • Number and rate of special event-related crashes<br>• Vulnerable Road User (VRU) level of comfort/safety index near event venues
|-
| Improve '''mobility''' and minimize event-related congestion || • Travel time reliability during event periods<br>• Vehicle and pedestrian throughput at key access points<br>• Percent of events meeting planned operational performance targets
|}

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
|+ ''Table 909.1.5.2 Linking MoDOT TSMO Strategies for Recurring Delays to Performance Metrics''
|-
! style="width:400px" | Strategy !! style="width:400px" | Goals !! Example Performance Metric
|-
| rowspan="3" | '''[[#909.3.1_Freeway_Operations_and_Management|909.3.1 Freeway Operations and Management]]''' || Support '''safety''' on managed freeway facilities || • Number and rate of crashes on freeway segments<br>• Number of secondary crashes
|-
| Improve '''travel reliability''' on freeway corridors || • Travel time reliability index<br>• Planning time index
|-
| Enhance operational '''efficiency''' on freeway corridors || • Average travel speed and delay<br>• Vehicle and truck throughput<br>• Number of recurring congestion hotspots mitigated
|-
| rowspan="3" | '''[[#909.3.2_Arterial_Operations_and_Management|909.3.2 Arterial Operations and Management]]''' || Enhance '''safety''' at signalized intersections and arterials || • Crash frequency and severity at signalized intersections<br>• Pedestrian and bicycle crash rate
|-
| Improve '''efficiency''' of arterial traffic flow || • Arterial travel time and delay<br>• Signal progression quality (arrival on green, bandwidth)<br>• Number of mitigated congestion hotspots
|-
| Enhance '''reliability''' of multimodal arterial operations || • Transit signal delay at signals (if applicable)<br>• Pedestrian crossing delay
|-
| rowspan="2" | '''[[#909.3.3_Freight_Operation|909.3.3 Freight Operation]]''' || Improve '''efficiency''' on key freight corridors || • Truck delay at bottlenecks<br>• Freight throughput (corridor or intermodal facility)
|-
| Enhance '''reliability''' of freight travel || • Truck travel time reliability index<br>• Number of freight-related congestion hotspots mitigated
|-
| rowspan="3" | '''[[#909.3.4_Vulnerable_Road_Users|909.3.4 Vulnerable Road Users]]''' || Enhance '''safety''' and '''comfort''' for Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs) || • Number and rate of VRU crashes<br>• VRU level of comfort/safety index
|-
| Improve '''connectivity''' for walking and bicycling || • Miles of connected pedestrian/bicycle facilities<br>• Percent of network meeting connectivity standards
|-
| Support '''sustainable''', multimodal travel options || • Share of trips completed using active modes
|-
| rowspan="3" | '''[[#909.3.5_Transit_Operation|909.3.5 Transit Operation]]''' || Enhance '''mobility''' of transit users || • Passenger throughput per route or corridor<br>• Average transit travel time
|-
| Improve transit '''reliability''' and on-time performance || • Percent of on-time arrivals<br>• Transit travel time reliability (travel adherence)
|-
| Improve customer experience and multimodal access || • Customer satisfaction survey results<br>• Pedestrian access quality (stop accessibility index)
|}

[[Category:909 Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO)]]

909.1 Introduction to TSMO

2026-09-01T18:49:39Z

Hoskir: updated per RR4165

==909.1.1 Overview of TSMO Strategies==
TSMO strategies are the day-to-day operational actions MoDOT uses to actively manage the transportation system and address the primary causes of congestion without relying solely on capacity expansion.

Congestion generally falls into two categories:
* '''Non-recurring delays''' arise from unplanned or irregular events such as incidents, disasters, weather, work zones, and special events. These disruptions are inherently unpredictable, vary in severity and duration, and often require dynamic traffic management and interagency coordination to reduce their impact.
* '''Recurring delays''' occur regularly at specific locations, most often during peak traffic periods. This type of congestion is usually the result of demand exceeding the capacity of the existing system. Transportation agencies do not have the resources to construct enough highway capacity to eliminate all recurring congestion. Instead, TSMO strategies provide more cost-effective ways to manage demand and improve flow.

By addressing both types of congestion, TSMO supports MoDOT’s mission of moving Missourians safely and reliably while making the best use of available resources. These strategies are organized based on whether they address '''non-recurring delays''' or '''recurring delays''', as described below.

[[#909.2_Non-Congested_Route_(Non-Recurring_Delays)|909.2 Non-Congested Route (Non-Recurring Delays)]] – These strategies focus on managing temporary (whether short-term or long-term) capacity reductions caused by irregular or time-limited events that disrupt normal traffic conditions, with the goal of restoring mobility and safety efficiently and consistently.
* [[#909.2.1_Traffic_Incident_Management|909.2.1 Traffic Incident Management]]: Coordinates detection, response, and clearance across multiple agencies to minimize secondary crashes and return roadways to normal operation quickly.
* [[#909.2.2_Transportation_Operations_for_Emergency_Incidents_or_Disasters|909.2.2 Transportation Operations for Emergency Incidents or Disasters]]: Supports system readiness and coordinated response during natural or human-caused disasters through planning, communication, and multimodal evacuation procedures.
* [[#909.2.3_Road_Weather_Management|909.2.3 Road Weather Management]]: Integrates environmental monitoring, data-driven decision support, and targeted maintenance to mitigate the effects of adverse weather on safety and mobility.
* [[#909.2.4_Work_Zone_Traffic_Management|909.2.4 Work Zone Traffic Management]]: Applies smart work zone technologies and comprehensive traffic management plans to maintain safe and reliable travel through construction and maintenance areas.
* [[#909.2.5_Planned_Special_Event_Management|909.2.5 Planned Special Event Management]]: Coordinates transportation, enforcement, and communication activities for scheduled events to maintain efficient system operations and traveler safety.

[[#909.3_Congested_Route_(Recurring_Delays)|909.3 Congested Route (Recurring Delays)]] – These strategies address predictable and routine congestion caused by daily travel demand and capacity constraints on specific facilities or corridors, emphasizing active traffic management, system integration, and multimodal coordination.
* [[#909.3.1_Freeway_Operations_and_Management|909.3.1 Freeway Operations and Management]]: Improves freeway performance through corridor-level monitoring, adaptive control, and coordinated operations to enhance safety and travel-time reliability.
* [[#909.3.2_Arterial_Operations_and_Management|909.3.2 Arterial Operations and Management]]: Optimizes signal timing, intersection design, and corridor coordination to improve mobility and safety on surface streets.
* [[#909.3.3_Freight_Operation|909.3.3 Freight Operation]]: Enhances the efficiency and safety of freight movement through improved access, parking management, and technology-based monitoring along key freight corridors.
* [[#909.3.4_Vulnerable_Road_Users|909.3.4 Vulnerable Road Users]]: Improves safety, accessibility, and comfort for VRUs through targeted infrastructure, operational strategies, and multimodal coordination.
* [[#909.3.5_Transit_Operation|909.3.5 Transit Operation]]: Strengthens transit reliability and accessibility through operational strategies such as priority treatments, multimodal hubs, and corridor management.

==909.1.2 Relationship with Other Programs==
TSMO is not a standalone initiative—it complements and enhances MoDOT’s other programs:
* '''Safety Programs''': TSMO contributes to MoDOT’s safety goals, as outlined in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan and the SAFER Program (see [[907.9_Safety_Assessment_For_Every_Roadway_(SAFER)|EPG 907.9 Safety Assessment For Every Roadway (SAFER)]]), by reducing secondary crashes, improving work zone management, and advancing road weather management capabilities.
* '''Asset Management''': Proper maintenance of TSMO strategies and supporting systems can improve how facilities operate, reduce incidents that accelerate wear, and extend the life of infrastructure investments.
* '''Planning and Design''': TSMO principles should be incorporated early in the planning and design process so that operational strategies are built into projects from the start.
* '''Maintenance''': Maintenance activities can be coordinated with TSMO tools such as smart work zones and ITS devices to reduce traffic disruptions.
* '''Traveler Information''': TSMO strengthens customer service by providing real-time, accurate, and actionable information to the traveling public.

In practice, TSMO serves as the operational thread that connects safety, planning, design, maintenance, and customer service into a unified system-management approach.

==909.1.3 Roles and Contributions for TSMO Implementation==
This guide is designed to provide MoDOT staff and partners with a clear, practical reference for TSMO strategies. Table 909.1.3 highlights the typical roles and potential TSMO contributions of different staff in implementing and supporting TSMO strategies, as applicable based on project context, needs, and available resources. These contributions are intended to guide coordination and consideration of TSMO strategies and may vary depending on the specific application.

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
|+ ''Table 909.1.3. Typical Roles and Potential Contributions for TSMO Implementation''
|-
! Role !! Potential TSMO Contribution
|-
| '''Transportation Management Center (TMC) Operator''' || Monitor traffic conditions, manage information systems, and coordinate incident response and traveler communication to maintain safe and efficient roadway operations.
|-
| '''Emergency Response Operator''' || Provide on-scene incident management, motorist assistance, and roadway clearance to restore normal traffic flow and enhance safety during disruptions.
|-
| '''Maintenance Technician''' || Implement maintenance related TSMO strategies; provide feedback and effort for continual improvement of these strategies and tools.
|-
| '''Traffic Operations Engineer''' || Implement traffic operations related TSMO strategies; provide feedback and effort for continual improvement of these strategies and tools.
|-
| '''Transportation Planner''' || Incorporate TSMO and other traditional transportation improvement strategies into planning efforts, as appropriate.
|-
| '''Design Staff''' || Consider TSMO as a key element of design, where applicable, either as a direct improvement for the specific application or as an opportunity for the continuation of existing TSMO strategies.
|-
| '''Construction Inspector''' || Coordinate with appropriate personnel when modifying design elements or inspecting TSMO related infrastructure.
|-
| '''Work Zone Specialists''' || Oversee temporary traffic control in construction zones; review and manage Transportation Management Plans (TMPs), ensure proper setup and quality of traffic control devices, assess risks, and provide input during planning and post-construction reviews to enhance safety and minimize disruptions.
|-
| '''Information Systems Manager''' || Provide oversight and management of field and central communications systems, computer and software, and other information systems resources.
|-
| '''Human Resources Specialist''' || Incorporate relevant related skills and experience into position descriptions where TSMO expertise is needed; assist with training programs to improve the knowledge, skills, and abilities of existing operations personnel.
|-
| '''Emergency Management Agencies''' || Support TSMO implementation by providing coordinated incident response, traffic control, emergency medical services, and roadway clearance; collaborate with MoDOT and TMC staff, when applicable, to improve incident management, responder safety, and system recovery during emergencies and planned events.
|}

==909.1.4 TSMO Implementation Framework==
The TSMO Implementation Framework provides a structured approach for MoDOT to translate its mission and agency goals into actionable objectives and strategies. It supports the development of purpose-driven, measurable strategies aligned with statewide priorities. This framework serves as a bridge between MoDOT’s overarching mission and the specific strategies implemented across the TSMO program. Effective implementation of these goals relies on coordination across disciplines, integration throughout project phases, and collaboration with internal and external partners.

Table 909.1.4.1 identifies the core programmatic elements, MoDOT’s goals and associated objectives, that guide how TSMO is planned, implemented, and evaluated.

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
|+ ''Table 909.1.4.1 Programmatic Element''
|-
! Goal !! Objective
|-
| '''Safety''' || Reduce crash frequency and severity through proactive deployment of TSMO strategies (e.g., incident management, work zone safety, network operations).
|-
| '''Reliability''' || Support predictable and consistent travel times across the system by proactively managing congestion and incidents.
|-
| '''Efficiency''' || Operate MoDOT’s existing system efficiently and effectively through the application of TSMO strategies, as appropriate, to improve performance and inform decisions regarding potential capacity expansion.
|-
| '''Customer Service''' || Support timely, accurate, and useful traveler information that enables informed decision-making.
|}

Table 909.1.4.2 links MoDOT’s mission to measurable outcomes and example TSMO strategies, demonstrating how operations initiatives directly support statewide goals.

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
|+ ''Table 909.1.4.2. Linking MoDOT Mission to Outcomes and Example TSMO Strategies''
|-
! style="width:400px" | Mission !! style="width:400px" | High-Level Outcome !! Example TSMO Strategy
|-
| '''Improving safety (Moving Missourians safely)''' || Reduction in crashes, fatalities, and serious injuries; safer travel for all users || • [[#909.2.1_Traffic_Incident_Management|909.2.1 Traffic Incident Management]]<br>• [[#909.2.3_Road_Weather_Management|909.2.3 Road Weather Management]]<br>• [[#909.2.4_Work_Zone_Traffic_Management|909.2.4 Work Zone Traffic Management]]<br>• [[#909.3.1_Freeway_Operations_and_Management|909.3.1 Freeway Operations and Management]]<br>• [[#909.3.2_Arterial_Operations_and_Management|909.3.2 Arterial Operations and Management]]
|-
| '''Providing high-value, impactful solutions (Delivering efficient and innovative transportation projects; asset management)''' || Cost-effective improvements that maximize existing infrastructure and delay costly expansions || • [[#909.3.1_Freeway_Operations_and_Management|909.3.1 Freeway Operations and Management]]<br>• [[#909.3.2_Arterial_Operations_and_Management|909.3.2 Arterial Operations and Management]]<br>• [[#909.3.3_Freight_Operation|909.3.3 Freight Operation]]<br>• [[#909.3.4_Vulnerable_Road_Users|909.3.4 Vulnerable Road Users]]
|-
| '''Improving reliability and mobility (Operating a reliable transportation system; Building a prosperous economy for all Missourians)''' || Predictable travel times and improved system performance for people and freight || • [[#909.2.2_Transportation_Operations_for_Emergency_Incidents_or_Disasters|909.2.2 Transportation Operations for Emergency Incidents or Disasters]]<br>• [[#909.2.4_Work_Zone_Traffic_Management|909.2.4 Work Zone Traffic Management]]<br>• [[#909.2.5_Planned_Special_Event_Management|909.2.5 Planned Special Event Management]]<br>• [[#909.3.1_Freeway_Operations_and_Management|909.3.1 Freeway Operations and Management]]<br>• [[#909.3.5_Transit_Operation|909.3.5 Transit Operation]]
|-
| '''Providing useful and timely traveler information (Providing outstanding customer service)''' || Informed travel decisions by the public, increased user satisfaction || • [[#909.2.2_Transportation_Operations_for_Emergency_Incidents_or_Disasters|909.2.2 Transportation Operations for Emergency Incidents or Disasters]]<br>• [[#909.2.3_Road_Weather_Management|909.2.3 Road Weather Management]]
|}

==909.1.5 Performance Metrics==
Performance metrics provide the foundation for evaluating how TSMO strategies contribute to the safety, reliability, efficiency, and customer experience of Missouri’s transportation system. MoDOT currently tracks performance through a combination of federal performance measures and internal performance management tools (e.g. [https://www.modot.org/tracker-measures-departmental-performance Tracker: Measures of Departmental Performance]). The following tables present example performance measures that may be used to assess the effectiveness of TSMO strategies related to both non-recurring delays (Table 909.1.5.1) and recurring delays (Table 909.1.5.2).

These measures are not intended to represent required or standalone reporting metrics, but rather a menu of potential measures that can support analysis, planning, and evaluation efforts, as appropriate to the specific application, study type, or operational need. When applied, these metrics can help users identify opportunities for improvement and support data-driven decision-making.

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
|+ ''Table 909.1.5.1 Linking MoDOT TSMO Strategies for Non-Recurring Delays to Performance Metrics''
|-
! style="width:400px" | Strategy !! style="width:400px" | Goals !! Example Performance Metric
|-
| rowspan="4" | '''[[#909.2.1_Traffic_Incident_Management|909.2.1 Traffic Incident Management]]''' || Enhance the '''safety''' of traveling public and incident responders || • Number of secondary crashes per incident<br>• Severity (fatalities/serious injuries) of secondary crashes<br>• Percent of incidents with secondary crashes recorded<br>• Number of responders struck-by crashes<br>• Severity of responder-involved crashes<br>• Percent of incidents with responder crash data recorded
|-
| Enhance '''reliability''' and '''efficiency''' of Missouri’s transportation system || • Average roadway clearance time<br>• Average incident clearance time<br>• Percent of incidents meeting clearance time targets
|-
| Strengthen '''coordination''', '''communication''', and '''collaboration''' between MoDOT and TIM partners || • Number of formalized agreements signed<br>• Number of multi-agency TIM meetings held annually<br>• Number of TIM trainings held annually<br>• Partner participation rate in meetings/exercises
|-
| Establish '''TIM policies''', '''procedures''', and '''protocols''' within MoDOT || • Number of formal TIM policies/protocols adopted<br>• Percent of TIM coordinator positions filled and active
|-
| rowspan="2" | '''[[#909.2.2_Transportation_Operations_for_Emergency_Incidents_or_Disasters|909.2.2 Transportation Operations for Emergency Incidents or Disasters]]''' || Enhance '''safety''' and responder protection during emergency incidents || • Number of emergency-related crashes<br>• Severity (fatal/serious injury) of emergency-related crashes<br>• Percent of emergency incidents with responder safety data recorded
|-
| Improve '''reliability''' and '''speed''' of emergency response and system restoration || • Time to activate emergency operations<br>• Duration of emergency lane/road closures<br>• Percent of priority routes restored within target timeframes<br>• Emergency communication system uptime<br>• Average time to deploy emergency traffic control
|-
| rowspan="3" | '''[[#909.2.3_Road_Weather_Management|909.2.3 Road Weather Management]]''' || Improve '''safety''' under adverse weather conditions || • Number of weather-related crashes, fatalities, and serious injuries<br>• Crash rate per weather event
|-
| Enhance '''operational readiness''' and '''timely''' roadway treatment || • Time to treat priority routes during storms<br>• Percent of network treated within specific time thresholds<br>• Materials usage efficiency (salt, brine, abrasives)
|-
| Improve '''traveler information''' accuracy during weather events || • Traveler information system accuracy rate during storms<br>• Number of travel information interactions (511 apps, CMS messages)
|-
| rowspan="2" | '''[[#909.2.4_Work_Zone_Traffic_Management|909.2.4 Work Zone Traffic Management]]''' || Enhance '''safety''' for workers and motorists in work zones || • Number and rate of work zone crashes<br>• Number of work zone fatalities and serious injuries<br>• Number of work zone intrusions (near-miss events)
|-
| Improve '''mobility''' and reduce unexpected work zone delays || • Work-zone related delays<br>• Percent of work zones meeting mobility targets (queue length, speed, travel time)<br>• Average incident clearance time for work zone-related incidents
|-
| rowspan="2" | '''[[#909.2.5_Planned_Special_Event_Management|909.2.5 Planned Special Event Management]]''' || Ensure '''safe''' travel conditions during special events || • Number and rate of special event-related crashes<br>• Vulnerable Road User (VRU) level of comfort/safety index near event venues
|-
| Improve '''mobility''' and minimize event-related congestion || • Travel time reliability during event periods<br>• Vehicle and pedestrian throughput at key access points<br>• Percent of events meeting planned operational performance targets
|}

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
|+ ''Table 909.1.5.2 Linking MoDOT TSMO Strategies for Recurring Delays to Performance Metrics''
|-
! style="width:400px" | Strategy !! style="width:400px" | Goals !! Example Performance Metric
|-
| rowspan="3" | '''[[#909.3.1_Freeway_Operations_and_Management|909.3.1 Freeway Operations and Management]]''' || Support '''safety''' on managed freeway facilities || • Number and rate of crashes on freeway segments<br>• Number of secondary crashes
|-
| Improve '''travel reliability''' on freeway corridors || • Travel time reliability index<br>• Planning time index
|-
| Enhance operational '''efficiency''' on freeway corridors || • Average travel speed and delay<br>• Vehicle and truck throughput<br>• Number of recurring congestion hotspots mitigated
|-
| rowspan="3" | '''[[#909.3.2_Arterial_Operations_and_Management|909.3.2 Arterial Operations and Management]]''' || Enhance '''safety''' at signalized intersections and arterials || • Crash frequency and severity at signalized intersections<br>• Pedestrian and bicycle crash rate
|-
| Improve '''efficiency''' of arterial traffic flow || • Arterial travel time and delay<br>• Signal progression quality (arrival on green, bandwidth)<br>• Number of mitigated congestion hotspots
|-
| Enhance '''reliability''' of multimodal arterial operations || • Transit signal delay at signals (if applicable)<br>• Pedestrian crossing delay
|-
| rowspan="2" | '''[[#909.3.3_Freight_Operation|909.3.3 Freight Operation]]''' || Improve '''efficiency''' on key freight corridors || • Truck delay at bottlenecks<br>• Freight throughput (corridor or intermodal facility)
|-
| Enhance '''reliability''' of freight travel || • Truck travel time reliability index<br>• Number of freight-related congestion hotspots mitigated
|-
| rowspan="3" | '''[[#909.3.4_Vulnerable_Road_Users|909.3.4 Vulnerable Road Users]]''' || Enhance '''safety''' and '''comfort''' for Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs) || • Number and rate of VRU crashes<br>• VRU level of comfort/safety index
|-
| Improve '''connectivity''' for walking and bicycling || • Miles of connected pedestrian/bicycle facilities<br>• Percent of network meeting connectivity standards
|-
| Support '''sustainable''', multimodal travel options || • Share of trips completed using active modes
|-
| rowspan="3" | '''[[#909.3.5_Transit_Operation|909.3.5 Transit Operation]]''' || Enhance '''mobility''' of transit users || • Passenger throughput per route or corridor<br>• Average transit travel time
|-
| Improve transit '''reliability''' and on-time performance || • Percent of on-time arrivals<br>• Transit travel time reliability (travel adherence)
|-
| Improve customer experience and multimodal access || • Customer satisfaction survey results<br>• Pedestrian access quality (stop accessibility index)
|}

[[Category:909 Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO)]]

909.1 Recurring Congestion

2026-09-01T18:47:35Z

Hoskir: Hoskir moved page 909.1 Recurring Congestion to 909.1 Introduction to TSMO: updated due to RR 4165

#REDIRECT [[909.1 Introduction to TSMO]]

909.1 Introduction to TSMO

2026-09-01T18:47:35Z

Hoskir: Hoskir moved page 909.1 Recurring Congestion to 909.1 Introduction to TSMO: updated due to RR 4165

Highway segments with recurring congestion are candidates for highway improvements. While adding capacity by constructing additional lanes may not be feasible, other TSMO strategies should be considered as alternate solutions which are often more economical than traditional construction solutions. Strategies such as integrated corridor management (ICM), active transportation and demand management (ATDM), ramp metering, and lane management may provide substantial improvements to recurring congestion.

[[Category:909 Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO)]]

Category:909 Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO)

2026-09-01T18:43:28Z

Hoskir:

=909 Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO)=

<div style="float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; width:400px; font-size: 95%; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
Several '''foundational documents''' guide MoDOT’s TSMO program:
* [https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/2024%20MoDOT%20TSMO%20Program%20Plan.pdf TSMO Program and Action Plan] – outlines MoDOT’s statewide TSMO vision, goals, and implementation strategies.
* [https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/TSMO%20Informational%20Memoranda%20Complete.pdf TSMO Informational Memoranda] – provides background, technical details, and
* [https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/BC%20Reference%20memo_0.pdf TSMO Benefit-Cost Reference Memo] – provides the benefit-cost information on TSMO applications that are critical to MoDOT’s TSMO program and future work.
* [https://epg.modot.org/files/6/6b/909_WZM_Guidebook.pdf Work Zone Management Guidebook] – provides a comprehensive set of tools and strategies for work zone management and describes “advanced work zone” practices, guidance, and resources
* [https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/FR1_MoDOT_CAVPlan_Apr25_ACCESSIBLE.pdf Connected and Automated Vehicle Action Plan] – articulates MoDOT’s mission, vision, strengths, and strategic focus areas for leveraging CV/AV technologies, and lays out actions across institutional capability-building, outreach and education, and partnership development to support safe, efficient deployment.
</div>

Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) consists of operational strategies and systems that cost-effectively optimize the safety, reliability, efficiency, and capacity of the transportation system. TSMO emphasizes maximizing the performance of the existing system through proactive management and operational improvements.

Category:909 Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO)

2026-09-01T18:43:17Z

Hoskir:

=909 Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO)=

<div style="float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; width:400px; font-size: 95%; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left;">
Several '''foundational documents''' guide MoDOT’s TSMO program:
* [https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/2024%20MoDOT%20TSMO%20Program%20Plan.pdf TSMO Program and Action Plan] – outlines MoDOT’s statewide TSMO vision, goals, and implementation strategies.
* [https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/TSMO%20Informational%20Memoranda%20Complete.pdf TSMO Informational Memoranda] – provides background, technical details, and
* [https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/BC%20Reference%20memo_0.pdf TSMO Benefit-Cost Reference Memo] – provides the benefit-cost information on TSMO applications that are critical to MoDOT’s TSMO program and future work.
* [https://epg.modot.org/files/6/6b/909_WZM_Guidebook.pdf Work Zone Management Guidebook] – provides a comprehensive set of tools and strategies for work zone management and describes “advanced work zone” practices, guidance, and resources
* [https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/FR1_MoDOT_CAVPlan_Apr25_ACCESSIBLE.pdf Connected and Automated Vehicle Action Plan] – articulates MoDOT’s mission, vision, strengths, and strategic focus areas for leveraging CV/AV technologies, and lays out actions across institutional capability-building, outreach and education, and partnership development to support safe, efficient deployment.
</div>

Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) consists of operational strategies and systems that cost-effectively optimize the safety, reliability, efficiency, and capacity of the transportation system. TSMO emphasizes maximizing the performance of the existing system through proactive management and operational improvements.

<br>
<hr style="border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;" />New Page<hr style="border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;" />
<br>

Recent Policy Changes in the EPG

2026-06-18T17:27:32Z

Hoskir:

<div style="border: 0px solid #74BAAC; background:white"; padding:5px>

</br>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">December 13, 2024
----
* Adjusted language to use a prescriptive term for water elevation in EPG [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.9.2_Steel_Girder_Options|751.1.2.9.2 Steel Girder Options]].
* Revised EPG [[106.12_Qualified_Lists_(QL)_and_Pre-Acceptance_Lists_(PAL)|106.12 Qualified Lists (QL) and Pre-Acceptance Lists (PAL)]] to provide a definition of qualified lists. This is to help clarify the difference between qualified materials and materials on the pre-apporved list (PAL).
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">December 12, 2024
----
* Updated EPG [[643.4_Railroads#643.4.1.6_Property_Rights_from_Railroads|643.4.1.6 Property Rights from Railroads]] and EPG[[236.7_Negotiation#236.7.5.2_Railroads|236.7.5.2 Railroads]]to match current process of ROW liaisons coordinating ROW acquisition with RR companies rather than the Multimodal RR staff.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">December 11, 2024
----
* Removed TR17 Traffic Engineering Studies and TR18 Towing Services Agreement from EPG [[153.21_Traffic|153.21 Traffic]], they are no longer used.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">November 27, 2024
----
* Added guidance to EPG [[:Category:109_Measurement_and_Payment#109.12.2_Change_Order_Approval|109.12.2 Change Order Approval]] to disallow the practice of contractors typing disclaimers on change orders when they sign.
* Revised EPG [[751.24_Retaining_Walls#751.24.2.1_Design|751.24.2.1 Design]] to allow wetcast modular wall blocks in splash zones for non-critical structural application.
* Updated EPG [[751.32_Concrete_Pile_Cap_Intermediate_Bents#751.32.4.2_Encased_Pile_Cap_Bent|751.32.4.2 Encased Pile Cap Bent]] to allow #4 @ 12" (min.) stirrup bars for encased pile cap bents instead of #5 @ 12” (min.).
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">November 21, 2024
----
* Harden language to not allow multi-cell box culverts where medium to heavy drift/debris is reported in EPG [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.8_Box_Culverts|751.1.2.8 Box Culverts]].
* Clarified TSR information for sample records in EPG [[:Category:403_Asphaltic_Concrete_Pavement#403.1.5_Mixture_Production_Specification_Limits_.28Sec_403.5.29|403.1.5 Mixture Production Specification Limits (Sec 403.5)]].
* Updating EPG [[642.14_ADA_Transition_Plan|642.14 ADA Transition Plan|903.6.11 Chevron Alignment Sign (W1-8) (MUTCD Section 2C.09)]] to better describe the process for removal of pedestrian facilities that are not the responsbility of the MoDOT and adds a reference to EPG [[642.2_Consideration_of_Pedestrian_Facilites_on_Projects|642.2 Consideration of Pedestrian Facilities on Projects]].
* Updated EPG [[903.6_Warning_Signs#903.6.11_Chevron_Alignment_Sign_.28W1-8.29_.28MUTCD_Section_2C.09.29|903.6.11 Chevron Alignment Sign (W1-8) (MUTCD Section 2C.09)]] this revision involves cleaning up and making the language of the policy more clear to users, removing old information regarding chevrons that no longer apply, changing the current policy from 10mph or greater speed difference to 15mph or greater speed difference, including new language from the 2023 MUTCD.
* ASTM A252 Grade 3 may not be meeting weldable material requirements - updates were made to [[:Category:702_Load-Bearing_Piles#702.1.1_Cast-In-Place_.28CIP.29_Concrete_Piles_.28Sec_702.2.1.29|702.1.1 Cast-In-Place (CIP) Concrete Piles (Sec 702.2.1)]], [[751.3_Structural_Steel_Design_Properties|751.3 Structural Steel Design Properties]], [[751.36_Driven_Piles#751.36.2.1.2_Cast-In-Place_.28CIP.29_Pile|751.36.2.1.2 Cast-In-Place (CIP) Pile]], [[751.36_Driven_Piles#751.36.5.5_Preliminary_Structural_Nominal_Axial_Design_Capacity_.28PNDC.29_of_an_individual_pile|751.36.5.5 Preliminary Structural Nominal Axial Design Capacity (PNDC) of an individual pile]], [[751.36_Driven_Piles#751.36.5.7.1.2_Design_Values_for_Individual_Cast-In-Place_.28CIP.29_Pile|751.36.5.7.1.2 Design Values for Individual Cast-In-Place (CIP) Pile]], [[751.36_Driven_Piles#751.36.5.7.2.2_Design_Values_for_Individual_Cast-In-Place_.28CIP.29_Pile|751.36.5.7.2.2 Design Values for Individual Cast-In-Place (CIP) Pile]], [[751.39_Pile_Footings#751.39.6.2_Pile_Pull-out_Force|751.39.6.2 Pile Pull-out Force]], and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes A1.3, G5a1 and G5b1]].
* Updated the buffer that contractors must utilize if human remains are encountered during construction in EPG [[127.2_Historic_Preservation_and_Cultural_Resources#127.2.9.2_Human_Remains_Encountered_During_Construction|127.2.9.2 Human Remains Encountered During Construction]].
* Added [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#I1._General|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes I1.18]] to use with polyester polymer concrete (PPC) wearing surfaces.
* Clarify staged bridge construction with MSE walls at the abutments and minimum backfill cover requirements for drainpipe under the leveling pad in EPG [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.11_Staged_Construction|751.1.2.11 Staged Construction]], [[751.24_Retaining_Walls#751.24.2.1_Design|751.24.2.1 Design]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|751.50 note J1.43]].
* Reorganization of EPG [[751.40_LFD_Widening_and_Repair|751.40 LFD Widening and Repair]].
* The revisions to EPG [[:Category:1001_General_Requirements_for_Material|1001 General Requirements for Material]], [[:Category:1005_Aggregate_for_Concrete|1005 Aggregate for Concrete]], and [[106.3.2.93_TM-93,_Alkali_Carbonate_Reactivity_Screening|106.3.2.93 TM-93, Alkali Carbonate Reactivity Screening]] will help ensure concrete pavement and masonry are durable and will last the anticipated life span.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">November 20, 2024
----
* Updated EPG [[:Category:108_Prosecution_and_Progress#108.16_Project_Dates|108.16 Project Dates]] the internal process was rearranged so dates flow with life of project. Removed references to actual and projected dates, they are no longer used in AWP software.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">October 11, 2024
----
* Removed restriction for use of transparent bridge deck forms on horizontally curved structures in [[751.10_General_Superstructure#751.10.2.4_Transparent_Forms | EPG 751.10.2.4 Transparent Forms]].
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">October 10, 2024
----
* Revised Tack Coat application rate for estimating quantities for bridges in [[751.6_General_Quantities#751.6.2.16_Tack_Coat | EPG 751.6.2.16 Tack Coat]].
* Updated guidance with the State Funded ROW A-date process and clarified some other steps regarding the limited a-date process in [[236.3_Administration#236.3.4_Right_of_Way_Acquisition_Authority_and_Project_Funding | EPG 236.3.4 Right of Way Acquisition Authority and Project Funding]].
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">October 9, 2024
----
* Update guidance on addressing apprenticeship guidance on prevailing wage rates in [[:Category:110_State_and_Federal_Wage_Rates_and_Other_Requirements#110.3_Prevailing_Wages_and_Records_.28Guidance_for_Sec_110.3.29 | EPG110.3 Prevailing Wages and Records (Guidance for Sec 110.3)]].
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">September 16, 2024
----
* Revised monetary limits due to the new 49 CFR part 24 final rule for relocation benefits and minor grammar updates were also made in [[236.8_Relocation_Assistance_Program|EPG 236.8 Relocation Assistance Program]].
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">July 22, 2024
----
* Updated EPG [[:Category:408_Prime_Coat#408.1.5_Method_of_Measurement_.28Sec_408.5.29|408.1.5 Method of Measurement (Sec 408.5)]] to provide guidance and specifications for volume correction of liquid asphalt.
* Updated Longitudinal Buffer Spaces (Table 616.3.6) in EPG [[616.3_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Elements_(MUTCD_Chapter_6C)#616.3.6.4_Side_Road_Tapers|616.3.6.4 Side Road Tapers]].
* Updates to EPG [[:Category:618_Mobilization|618 Mobilization]], this eliminates a separate payment for contract bond and RR insurance. No change to the retention of mobilization in excess of 10% of the contract (released at acceptance for maintenance).
* Updates to reflect LRFD seismic bridge and retaining wall design policy implementation in EPG [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.4_Light_Towers|321.2.4.4]], [[:Category:720_Mechanically_Stabilized_Earth_Wall_Systems#720.1_Materials_Guidance_for_Sec_720|720.1]], [[:Category:747_Bridge_Reports_and_Layouts#747.2.6.2_Mechanically_Stabilized_Earth_.28MSE.29_Wall_Systems|747.2.6.2]], [[:Category:751_LRFD_Bridge_Design_Guidelines|multiple articles in 751]], [[:Category:756_Seismic_Design|756]] and [[:Category:1052_Mechanically_Stabilized_Earth_Wall_(MSE)_and_Sound_Wall_System_Components|multiple articles in 1052]].
* Include EPG guidance for use of stay-in-place transparent forms for bridge decks in EPG [[751.6_General_Quantities#751.6.1_Index_of_Quantities|751.6.1 Index of Quantities]], [[751.10_General_Superstructure#751.10.1.7_Standard_Bridge_Deck_Details|751.10.1.7 Standard Bridge Deck Details]], [[751.10_General_Superstructure#751.10.2.4_Transparent_Forms|751.10.2.4 Transparent Forms]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#B3c._Slabs_on_Steel.2C_Concrete_and_Semi-Deep_Abutment.2C_and_Reinforced_Concrete_Wearing_Surfaces.|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]].
* Chain link fence revised for LRFD specifications and added 120-inch straight and 96-inch curved chain link fence options. Fence posts are attached to top of curb. Chain link fence with Type D and H barrier options also added to allow the barrier to be slip-formed with chain link fence posts attached to back face of barrier, see EPG [[751.5_Structural_Detailing_Guidelines#751.5.8.5_Pedestrian_Railing|751.5.8.5 Pedestrian Railing]], [[751.6_General_Quantities|751.6 General Quantities]], [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.4_Chain_Link_Fence|751.12.4 Chain Link Fence]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H11._Fences_and_Sidewalks|751.50-H11 Standard Detailing Notes]].
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">July 18, 2024
----
* EPG [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.3.4_Barrier_or_Railing_Type.2C_Height_and_Guidelines_for_Curb_Blockouts|751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type, Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts]] was updated to correct the crash test classification for the 12” x 29” vertical bridge barrier.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">July 11, 2024
----
* Current armor detail is no longer in production. An optional armor detail is provided in bridge standard drawings. Added a standard note for those drawings to EPG [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H5d._Strip_Seal_.28Notes_for_Bridge_Standard_Drawings.29|751.50]].
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">July 3, 2024
----
* Updated Safer Document in EPG [[907.9_Safety_Assessment_For_Every_Roadway_(SAFER)|907.9]].
* Updated the language in EPG [[:Category:128_Conceptual_Studies#128.2_Preventive_Maintenance_Projects_.281R_and_2R.29|128.2 Preventive Maintenance Projects (1R and 2R)]] to be consistent with the messaging for the SAFER program.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">July 2, 2024
----
* EPG [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.9.8.4_Culvert_Pipe|941.9.8.4 Culvert Pipe]] updates the terminology of the plastic pipes and updates the guidance on use with driveways.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">June 27, 2024
----
* Update EPG [[147.3_Job_Order_Contracting_(JOC)|147.3 Job Order Contracting (JOC)]] to provide clarity for submitting non-standard JOCs.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">June 21, 2024
----
* Updated processes and procedures related to Environmental/Historic Preservation work on LPA projects in EPG [[:LPA:136.6_Environmental_and_Cultural_Requirements|136.6 Environmental and Cultural Requirements]].
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">June 5, 2024
----
* Added a standard note to ensure that touch-up products for galvanized reinforcing steel do not contain aluminum in EPG [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#C1._Bill_of_Reinforcing_Steel|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]].
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">May 28, 2024
----
* EPG [[:Category:105_Control_of_Work#105.15.2_Final_Acceptance|105.15.2 Final Acceptance]] was updated to clarify the DBE Final Payment Form now serves as the required DBE Participation List and Final Verification.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">May 23, 2024
----
* Updated EPG [[751.37_Drilled_Shafts#751.37.1.1_Dimensions_and_Nomenclature|751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature]], [[751.37_Drilled_Shafts#751.37.1.6_Drilled_Shaft_General_Detail_Considerations|751.37.1.6 Drilled Shaft General Detail Considerations]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#G8._Drilled_Shaft|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes - G8. Drilled Shaft]] to clarify column and drilled shaft connection details so contractors do not insert column reinforcements or dowel bars into drilled shaft’s wet concrete.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">May 16, 2024
----
* Updated EPG [[106.3.2.59_TM-59,_Determination_of_the_International_Roughness_Index|106.3.2.59 TM-59, Determination of the International Roughness Index]] - Profiler certification requirements have changed. Smoothness dispute resolutions no longer settled by the MoDOT SurPro and will require a Third Party.
* MoDOT's guidance for use of guard cable has been updated to clarify low-tension references are for repairs only and all new installations will be high-tension guard cable. These revisions also include guidance for splicing both high-tension and low-tension guard cable in EPG [[231.1_Median_Width#231.1.2_Barrier_Types|231.1.2 Barrier Types]], [[606.2_Guard_Cable|606.2 Guard Cable]], [[:Category:617_Traffic_Barrier|617 traffic barrier]] and [[:Category:1040_Guardrail,_End_Terminals,_One-Strand_Access_Restraint_Cable_and_Guard_Cable_Material|1040 Guardrail, End Terminals, One-Strand Access Restraint Cable and Guard Cable Material]].
* Updated EPG [[:Category:612_Impact_Attenuators|612 Impact Attenuators]], [[:Category:612_Impact_Attenuators#612.4_Construction_Inspection_Guidelines|612.4 Construction Inspection Guidelines]] and [[616.23_Traffic_Control_for_Field_Operations#616.23.2.5.11_Protective_Vehicles|616.23.2.5.11 Protective Vehicles]] - This clarifies usage of Impact Attenuators within Work Zones. These clarifications align with recent revisions to TAs and TMA usage.
* Revised content in EPG [[616.19_Quality_Standards_for_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Devices|616.19 - Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices]] to language consistent with current policy and rearranged to flow with the order of first appearance in a work zone. Some revisions included eliminating outdated or unnecessary content, including pictures, for the specific article.
* Updates to EPG [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.3.4_Barrier_or_Railing_Type.2C_Height_and_Guidelines_for_Curb_Blockouts|751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type, Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts]], [[751.8_LRFD_Concrete_Box_Culverts#751.8.3.5_Miscellaneous|751.8.3.5 Miscellaneous]], [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.2_Two_Tube_Rail_.28Top_Mounted.29|751.12.2 Two Tube Rail (Top Mounted)]], [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.6_Culvert_Guardrail_.28Top_Mounted.29|751.12.6 Culvert Guardrail (Top Mounted)]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]] provide a MASH option for attaching guardrail to box culverts. These revisions also include guidance for Two Tube Bridge Railings.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">May 13, 2024
----
* Updated the Missouri Uniform Crash Report Preparation Manual in [[907.4_Missouri_Uniform_Accident_Report|EPG 907.4]].
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">May 10, 2024
----
* [[902.15_Designing_a_Traffic_Signal#902.15.3.1_Optional_Bidding_of_Traffic_Signal_Detectors|EPG 902.15.3.1]] has been revised to allow core team to specify signal detection type to be documented with memo in eProjects instead of a design exception.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">March 27, 2024
----
*[[751.1_Preliminary_Design|EPG 751.1 Preliminary Design]] and [[751.36_Driven_Piles|EPG 751.36 Driven Piles]] were revised to clarify guidance for field verification of pile driving which affects design and construction.
*[[751.5_Structural_Detailing_Guidelines#751.5.9.2.1.2_Bend_Shapes|EPG 751.5.9.2.1.2 Bend Shapes]]: New article under the general information for reinforcing steel explaining MoDOT’s bent bar shapes used in structures.
*[[751.5_Structural_Detailing_Guidelines#751.5.9.2.7_Length_Calculations|EPG 751.5.9.2.7 Length Calculations]]: Clarified calculations for hook dimensions and bend deductions.
*[[751.11_Bearings#751.11.3.5_Anchor_Bolts|EPG 751.11.3.5]], [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.3_Type_D_and_H_.2842.CA.BA_and_32.CA.BA_single_sloped_railing.29|751.12.1.3-6]],[[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.3.4.1_Reinforcing_Steel_Details|751.22.3.4.1]] and [[751.31_Open_Concrete_Intermediate_Bents|751.31]],[[751.32_Concrete_Pile_Cap_Intermediate_Bents|32]] & [[751.35_Concrete_Pile_Cap_Integral_End_Bents|35]]: Revised references to stirrup pin bend shapes. Revised bar shape dimensions or shape numbers in accordance with revisions to the bill of reinforcing standard drawing.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">March 14, 2024
----
*Changes made to [[902.5_Traffic_Control_Signal_Features_(MUTCD_Chapter_4D)#902.5.23_Signal_Indications_for_Left-Turn_Movements_.E2.80.93_General_.28MUTCD_Section_4D.17.29|902.5.23 Signal Indications for Left-Turn Movements – General (MUTCD Section 4D.17)]] due to new guidelines for Protected Only Left Turns.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">January 23, 2024
----
*Change made to [[230.1_Horizontal_Alignment#230.1.5_Spiral_Transition_Curves|EPG 230.1.5 Spiral Transition Curves]] due to a change in the 2018 AASHTO Green Book for superelevation runoff lengths for 50+ mph.
*[[616.8_Typical_Applications_(MUTCD_6H)#616.8.1_Temporary_Traffic_Control_for_Contract_Plan_Sheet_Development|616.8.1 Temporary Traffic Control for Contract Plan Sheet Development]] clarifies stationary TMAs will become a new lump sum bid item with applicable new TMA JSP. Mobile operation TMAs will be incidental to the bid items that utilize such methods to get a task done.
*Clarified guidance for conduit clamp anchors versus anchor bolts in [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.2.7_Details_of_Mounting_Light_Poles_on_Safety_Barrier_Curbs|EPG 751.12.1.2.7 Details of Mounting Light Poles on Safety Barrier Curbs]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H4._Conduit_System|EPG 751.50 - H4. Conduit System]].
*Provided a MASH TL-4 steel barrier alternate for bridges. Creating MO Std Plans 606.61 and Bridge Standard Drawings TTR04 & 05. Adding standard notes to [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H9._Thrie_Beam_and_Other_Rail_Types_.28Notes_for_Bridge_Standard_Drawings.29|EPG 751.50 - H9. Thrie Beam and Other Rail Types (Notes for Bridge Standard Drawings).]]
*Updated [[:Category:1048_Pavement_Marking_Material#1048.2.1.1_Qualified_List|EPG 1048.2.1.1 Qualified List]] due to NTPEP has changed their name to AASHTO Product Evaluation and Audit Solutions.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">October 18, 2023
----
*Updates were made to [[236.12_Quality_Assurance_Reviews|236.12 Quality Assurance Reviews]] to provide a more accurate description of the current processes and procedures of our QARs.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">September 22, 2023
----
*Changes made to EPG guidelines for flags in [[616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_(MUTCD_6F)#616.6.2.2_Flags_and_Advance_Warning_Rail_System_on_Signs|616.6.2.2 Flags and Advance Warning Rail System on Signs]] and [[616.5_Flagger_Control_(MUTCD_Chapter_6E)#616.5.3.4_Single_Flagger|616.5.3.4 Single Flagger]] to meet the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). [[:Category:612_Impact_Attenuators#612.1.4_MoDOT_Equipment.2FMaterials_Stored_in_Bed_of_Protective_Vehicle_Guidelines|612.1.4 MoDOT Equipment/Materials Stored in Bed of Protective Vehicle Guidelines]] was updated to describe how to safely carry loads/cargo in back of the PV as long as it is secure.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">September 19, 2023
----
*Added new EPG article [[907.10_Complete_Streets|907.10 Complete Streets]].
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">September 15, 2023
----
*[[616.8_Typical_Applications_(MUTCD_6H)|616.8 Typical Applications (MUTCD 6H)]] was updated.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">August 22, 2023
----
*Added info and related notes & pay items to EPG for Decorative Pedestrian Fence. Creating Bridge Standard Drawings. Incorporating a Bridge Pre-qualified Listing (BPPL) for decorative fencing in EPG [[751.6_General_Quantities#751.6.1_Index_of_Quantities|751.6.1 Index of Quantities]], [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.5_Decorative_Pedestrian_Fence|751.12.5 Decorative Pedestrian Fence]], and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]].
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">August 14, 2023
----
*Updated guidance that indicates when temporary stop signs should be placed at signalized intersections where the electric is out in EPG [[902.5_Traffic_Control_Signal_Features_(MUTCD_Chapter_4D)#902.5.43.1_Temporary_Stop_Signs_at_Signalized_Intersections|902.5.43.1 Temporary Stop Signs at Signalized Intersections]].
*Updated wind loads in EPG [[751.2_Loads#751.2.2.3_Wind_Loads|751.2.23 Wind Loads]] to current LRFD Bridge design Specifications.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">August 11, 2023
----
*Updated EPG [[:Category:753_Bridge_Inspection_Rating|753.15 (Section 15) - Bridge Inspection Rating Manual]] to make the load rating process clearer to users. For efficiency purposes, excel Load Rating Summary Sheets have also been added to the EPG.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">July 21, 2023
----
*Updated and created new graphs for EPG [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.1.3_Typical_Span_Ranges|751.22.1.3 Typical Span Ranges]] and [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.1.4_Span_and_Structure_Lengths|751.21.4 Span and Structure Lengths]] to better reflect current design practices,
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">July 19, 2023
----
*Revised [[616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_(MUTCD_6F)|616.6 Temporary Traffic Control Zone Devices (MUTCD 6F)]] to add Type IV Fluorescent Orange, replacing Type IV Orange and Type IX/XI Fluorescent Orange for trim-line and drum-like channelizers. Type IV Fluorescent Orange will provide better visibility and luminance at driver's normal observation angle. Type IX/XI are designed for higher observation angle performance and incur higher costs to the TTCD.

*Revised [[:Category:1041_Polypropylene_Culvert_Pipe#1041.7_Polypropylene_Culvert_Pipe_Properties|1041.7 Polypropylene Culvert Pipe Properties]] for current AASHTO references concerning polypropylene storm sewer pipe and NTPEP requirement to be placed on the qualified list. [[750.7_Non-Hydraulic_Considerations#750.7.2_Types|750.7.2]] was also updated to clean up some wording to accurately describe which pipe type is allowable for each group of pipe.

*Added guidance on the change from the contractor self perform requirement from 40% to 30% in [[:Category:108_Prosecution_and_Progress#108.1.1_Review_and_Approval_of_a_Subcontract_Request|108.1.1 Review and Approval of a Subcontract Request]].

*[[:Category:1017_Slag_Cement|1017 Slag Cement]] was revised to better define slag. Slag cement is the industry terminalolgy and intended material.

*Modify referenced ASTM materal standards for HDPE in [[:Category:1060_Electrical_Conduit|1060 Electrical Conduit]] to accurately reflect use as electrical conduit.

*[[:Category:1007_Aggregate_for_Base|1007 Aggregate for Base]] processes for the Districts and CM Lab are being updated to establish how comparable and non-comparable tests and material will be handled.

*Added AASHTO Reference for filter sock to [[806.2_Sediment_Control_Measures|806.2 Sediment Control Measures]] and [[806.8_Storm_Water_Pollution_Prevention_Plan_(SWPPP)#806.8.6.4_Sediment_Control_Measures|806.8.6.4 Sediment Control Measures]].

*[[616.27_Fleet_Lighting|Fleet Lighting]] and [[:Category:612_Impact_Attenuators#612.1.2_MoDOT_Protective_Vehicle.2FTMA_Marking_and_Lighting|612.1.2 MoDOT Protective Vehicle/TMA Marking and Lighting]] were updated to align with the new typical applications.

*Shop drawing review and fabrication inspection responsibilities have been updated in [[106.16_Special_Designs_and_Shop_Drawings#106.16.2_Shop_Drawings|106.16.2 Shop Drawings]] and [[:Category:1080_Structural_Steel_Fabrication#1080.2_Fabrication_Inspection_Shipment_Release_.28FISR.29|1080.2 Fabrication Inspection Shipment Release (FISR)]]

*Updated [[:Category:950_Automated_Traffic_Enforcement#950.1.4_Violation_Study|950.1.4 Violation Study]] and [[:Category:950_Automated_Traffic_Enforcement#950.1.6_Conditions_for_Intersections_with_Automated_Red-Light_Violation_Enforcement_Equipment_Installed_After_January_2011|950.1.6 Conditions for Intersections with Automated Red-Light Violation Enforcement Equipment Installed After January 2011]]. Clarifcation was added for who at MoDOT will review the data.

*[[751.10_General_Superstructure#751.10.1.12_Slab_Pouring_Sequences_and_Construction_Joints|751.10.1.12 Slab Pouring Sequences and Construction Joints]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H6._Pouring_and_Finishing_Concrete_Slabs|H6. Pouring and Finishing Concrete Slabs]] have been updated to clarify for simple spans and for redecks (both don’t require pouring sequences) that decks shall be poured up grade.

*[[:Category:242_Optional_and_Alternate_Pavement_Designs#242.6_Specifying_One_Pavement_Type|242.6 Specifying One Pavement Type]] was updated to change documentation requirements from Design Exception, to file a memo in eProjects. The State Design Engineer and State Construction and Materials Engineer will still need to be informed when one pavement type is specified on a MoDOT contract.

*Added acceeleration/decereation lane guidance lookup table to [[233.2_At-Grade_Intersections_with_Stop_and_Yield_Control#233.2.6_Type_4:_Directional_Median_Opening_with_Downstream_U-Turns|233.2.6 Type 4: Directional Median Opening with Downstream U-Turns]]
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">June 27, 2023
----
*Updated TRB’s NCHRP Report 1043, Guide for Roundabouts in [[233.3_Roundabouts|233.3 Roundabouts]]

*Updated [[:Category:753_Bridge_Inspection_Rating|753 Bridge Inspection Rating]] - A new section was added to the Bridge Inspection Rating Manual - Tunnel Inspection Requirements in Missouri

*Updated [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.10_Automated_License_Plate_Readers_and_Pan-Tilt-Zoom_Cameras|941.10 Automated License Plate Readers and Pan-Tilt-Zoom Cameras]] to reflect new approval process with the Department of Public Safety and clearification on existing guidance.

*Updates to [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.2_Entrance_Requests_Within_Controlled_Access_Right_of_Way|941.2 Entrance Requests Within Controlled Access Right of Way]] have been made to improve coordination between district traffic and right of way staff.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">May 24, 2023
----
*Added two new Material Inspection Test Methods to 106.3.2: [[106.3.2.91_TM-91,_Determination_of_Total_Sulfur_in_Fly_Ash_by_Sodium_Carbonate_fusion|106.3.2.91 TM-91, Determination of Total Sulfur in Fly Ash by Sodium Carbonate fusion]] and [[106.3.2.92_TM-92,_Determination_of_Sulfide_sulfur_by_oxidation_of_blended_slag_cements|106.3.2.92 TM-92, Determination of Sulfide sulfur by oxidation of blended slag cements]].
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">May 1, 2023
----
*Updated [[Media:903.2a_Signpost_Selection_Guide_2022-5-23.xls|Signpost Selection Guide]] to show "BREAKAWAY REQUIRED" note for applicable entries in the PSST tab.

*Revised [[751.21_Prestressed_Concrete_Slab_and_Box_Beams#751.21.3.4_Prestressing_Strands|EPG 751.21.3.4]] to always use regular-size and fully stressed prestressing strands for the top two prestressing strands for the purpose of supporting the reinforcement cage. The 3/8” support strands are not sufficiently supporting the reinforcement cage.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">April 26, 2023
----
*Due to a new code of federal regulations relating to bridge weight classifications, [[903.5_Regulatory_Signs#903.5.36_Weight_Limit_Signs_.28R12_Series.29_.28MUTCD_Section_2B.59.29|903.5.36]] has been updated to reflect the changes in signs which will be associated with the new classifications.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">April 20, 2023
----
*A revision to Sec 401.7.6 will clarify that the density requirement applies to only unconfined longitudinal joints. [[:Category:401_Bituminous_Base_and_Pavement#401.2.6_Construction_Requirements_.28Sec_401.7.29|EPG 401.2.6]] pertaining to this spec has been modified.

*Updated [[751.10_General_Superstructure#751.10.4_Conduit_Systems|EPG 751.10.4]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H4._Conduit_System|751.50]] to clarify allowed conduit size and junction box size in concrete barrier Type D, Type H, bridge abutment wing and slab.

*Added the reasoning behind the 90 day camber for typical bridge projects in [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders|EPG 751.22]] and consideration of line sag is necessary to retrieve accurate camber measurements in [[:Category:1029_Fabricating_Prestressed_Concrete_Members_for_Bridges#1029.2.13_Inspection_of_Completed_Members|EPG 1029.2.13.]]

*Updated [[750.6_Erosion_Control_and_Energy_Dissipation#750.6.3.3_Rock_Ditch_Liner|EPG 750.6.3.3]] clarifying that geotextile is required with Rock Blanket, and now requiring in all installations of Rock Ditch Liner.

*Updated [[:Category:450_Bituminous_Pavement_Design|EPG 450]] to reflect a change in policy to increase minimum lift thicknesses for Superpave and Bituminous Pavement mixes, as per "four times the nominal maximum aggregate size" as recommended by NCHRP study. Additionally, language was added to explain MSCR Graded binders.

*Update to current sheeting types in [[616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_(MUTCD_6F)|EPG 616.6.]]
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">April 18, 2023
----
*References to LRFD specifications for development lengths and splice lengths have been updated to those of the current version of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
*Articles [[751.5_Structural_Detailing_Guidelines|751.5]] and [[751.37_Drilled_Shafts#751.37.6.1_Reinforcement_Design|751.37.6.1]] have been updated to reflect these changes.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">April 12, 2023
----
*Added verification of signature link and updating language addressing types of appraisals required during condemnations in [[:LPA:136.8_Local_Public_Agency_Land_Acquisition#136.8.5.2_Title_Information|EPG 136.8.5.2]], [[236.7_Negotiation#236.7.1.13_Pre-Negotiation_Preparation|EPG 236.7.1.13]], and [[EPG 236.10_Right_Of_Way_Condemnation#236.10.7.5_Appraisal.2C_Waiver_Valuation_and_Written_Offer_.28RSMo_523.253.29|236.10.7.5]].
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">March 8, 2023
----
*Updated the terminology of divisional (formerly median) islands constructed with non-mountable curbs in EPG Articles [[233.2_At-Grade_Intersections_with_Stop_and_Yield_Control#233.2.12_Islands|233.2.12 Islands]], [[643.4_Railroads#643.4.1.14_Railroad_Crossing_Median_Islands|643.4.1.14 Railroad Crossing Median Islands]] and [[901.1_Lighting_to_be_Provided,_Operated,_and_Maintained_at_State_Expense|901.1.2 Basic Lighting and Intersections Including Ramp Terminals at Crossroads]].
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">March 7, 2023
----
*Archived [[:Category:405 Processing Reclaimed Asphalt|405 Processing Reclaimed Asphalt]]. The information in this Article is outdated and has been removed.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">February 9, 2023
----
*Updated [[:Category:401_Bituminous_Base_and_Pavement#401.2.3_Job_Mix_Formula_.28Sec_401.4.29|EPG 401.2.3]] and [[:Category:403_Asphaltic_Concrete_Pavement#403.1.4_Job_Mix_Formula|EPG 403.1.4]] so that District Materials may approve mix transfers if the mix quantity per project is 250 tons or less provided the mix type and contract binder grade match what’s listed on the plan sheets or change order.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">February 1, 2023
----
*[[616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_(MUTCD_6F)#616.6.87_Temporary_Rumble_Strips_.28MUTCD_6F.87.29|616.6.87 Temporary Rumble_Strips (MUTCD_6F.87)]] has been updated to discontinue short-term temporary rumble strips and continue the use of long-term temporary rumble strips.

*Added FS37_Carbon_Reduction_Program_(CRP)_Funds to [[153.11_Financial_Services|EPG 153.11 Financial Services]]
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">January 27, 2023
----
*Updated [[:Category:139_Design_-_Build|EPG 139 Design-Build]]</br>
This revision updates the Design-Build guidance and processes for invoice reviews, risk to identify auditing, and other minor revisions.

*Updated [[:Category:134_Engineering_Professional_Services|EPG 134 Engineering Professional Services]]</br>
Revisions to EPG 134 better emphasize how conflicts of interest are identified, better defines the solicitation and selection process, rating/scoring of consultants, and brings the entire process up to current practices.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">January 19, 2023
----
*Updated [[LPA:136.4_Consultant_Selection_and_Consultant_Contract_Management|EPG 136.4]]
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">January 18, 2023
----
*Revising various specs and EPG articles ([[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.9_Girder_Type_Selection|EPG 751.1.2.9]], [[751.6_General_Quantities|751.6]], [[751.14_Steel_Superstructure#751.14.5.8_Protective_Coating_Requirements|751.14.5.8]], [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|751.50]], [[:Category:1045_Paint_for_Structural_Steel|1045]]) for updates to preferred paint systems. Adding organic zinc coatings and removing calcium sulfonate.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">January 10, 2023
----
*Update [[903.6_Warning_Signs#903.6.11_Chevron_Alignment_Sign_.28W1-8.29_.28MUTCD_Section_2C.09.29|EPG 903.6.11]] Chevron Alignment Sign (W1-8)
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">January 1, 2023
----
*Updated [[616.8_Typical_Applications_(MUTCD_6H)]]</br>
*Added new Typical Applications Effective January 1, 2023
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">December 12, 2022
----
*Renamed and updated 127.28 Linking Planning and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to [[127.28_Planning_and_Environmental_Linkages_(PEL)_and_the_National_Environmental_Policy_Act_(NEPA)|127.28 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)]]. The intent and definition of a PEL has changed since the EPG article was written. This update makes it current to practice.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">December 6, 2022
----
*[[910.5_ITS_Improvements_Procurement#910.5.1_ITS_Procurement_Overview|910.5.1]] - Added 2 CFR 200.216 reference on prohibited vendors
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">November 28, 2022
----
*Added new EPG Article [[153.4 Administrative|153.4 Administrative]] in [[:Category:153 Agreements and Contracts|EPG 153 Agreements and Contracts]]
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">November 15, 2022
----
*[[131.2_Proprietary_Items_and_Public_Interest_Findings|EPG 131.2]] - Removed FHWA and CFR references due to the Changes in 2019 no longer requiring it.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">November 10, 2022
----
*Correcting language related to NEPA and plan development milestones in EPG [[127.1_Request_for_Environmental_Services#127.1.2.2_Preliminary_Plans_Stage|127.1.2.2]], [[:Category:235_Preliminary_Plans#235.1_Purpose|235.1]], [[:Category:235_Preliminary_Plans#235.2_Procedure|235.2]], [[:Category:235_Preliminary_Plans#235.6_Approval_of_Preliminary_Plan|235.6]], [[236.13_Designing_Right_of_Way_Plans|236.13]]
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">November 01, 2022
----
*Modified [[LPA:136.1 Introduction#136.1.3.2 Preliminary and Final Design|EPG 136.1.3.2]], [[LPA:136.7 Design#136.7.2.1.6.1 Minimum Plan Requirements|EPG 136.7.2.1.6.1]], and [[LPA:136.7 Design#136.7.2.2.5.1 General Guidance|EPG 136.7.2.2.5.1]]. Added clarification of the requirement to have LPA preliminary plans reviewed and approved prior to submitting ROW plans for review and approval and provide the approval on a specific memo.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">October 24, 2022
----
*[[:Category:403_Asphaltic_Concrete_Pavement#403.1_Construction_Inspection_for_Sec_403|EPG Section 403.1]] has been revised primarily to incorporate a longstanding separate Word doc, which explained sampling, testing and acceptance procedures for projects with Superpave mixes. Additional revisions were made to update in accordance with current construction and materials specifications.

*[[903.3_Ground-Mounted_Sign_Supports#903.3.4.4_Pipe_Posts|903.3.4.4]] was updated to eliminate redundant 3" pipe post and update capacities.
</div>

<div style="margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888">October 21, 2022
----
*[[:Category:712_Structural_Steel_Construction#712.1.5_High_Strength_Bolts_.28Sec_712.7.29|EPG 712.1.5]] updated to reflect modified testing requirements for high strength bolts.
</div>

Category:753 Bridge Inspection Rating

2026-06-10T20:34:38Z

Hoskir:

{| style="margin-left:15px; font-size: 90%; border:1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left; background:#f8f9fa; cellpadding="0";" width="475px" align="right"
|-
| '''<u><center>Load Rating Summary Tables</center></u>'''
|-
|
|-
| <u><center>Locally Owned Detailed Summary Tables</center></u>
|-
| <u>LFD</u>
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Culvert.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Culvert]
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_FloorSystem.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - FloorSystem]
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Multibeam.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Multibeam]
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Slab.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Slab]
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_ThruGirder.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - ThruGirder]
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Truss.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Truss]
|-
| <u>LRFR</u>
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Culvert.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Culvert]
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_FloorSystem.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - FloorSystem]
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Multibeam.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Multibeam]
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Slab.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Slab]
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_ThruGirder.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - ThruGirder]
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Truss.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Truss]
|-
|
|-
| <u><center>State Owned Detailed Summary Tables</center></u>
|-
| <u>LFD</u>
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Culvert.xlsx Detailed State Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Culvert]
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_FloorSystem.xlsx Detailed State Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - FloorSystem]
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Multibeam.xlsx Detailed State Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Multibeam]
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Slab.xlsx Detailed State Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Slab]
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_ThruGirder.xlsx Detailed State Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - ThruGirder]
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Truss.xlsx Detailed State Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Truss]
|-
| <u>LRFR</u>
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Culvert.xlsx Detailed State Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Culvert]
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_FloorSystem.xlsx Detailed State Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - FloorSystem]
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Multibeam.xlsx Detailed State Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Multibeam]
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Slab.xlsx Detailed State Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Slab]
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_ThruGirder.xlsx Detailed State Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - ThruGirder]
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Truss.xlsx Detailed State Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Truss]
|-
|
|-
| <u><center>Simplified Summary Table for AASHTOWare Bridge Rating</center></u>
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Simple_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_for_BrR_Files.xlsx Simple Load Rating Summary Sheet for BrR Files]
|-
|
|-
| <u><center>Truck Listing</center></u>
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Truck_Listing_Non_AASHTOWare_Bridge_Rating_Models.pdf Truck Listing Non AASHTOWare Bridge Rating Models]
|}

The Bridge Inspection Rating guidance shall be used by MoDOT's internal staff, as well as consultants, contractors, local agencies and may be used by other department of transportation agencies as a reference. The guidance was developed to ensure uniformity in the inventory and appraisal of all bridges within the state of Missouri. It defines the general guidelines and processes of MoDOT's Non-State Bridge Inspection program along with giving specific load rating procedures for bridges in Missouri.

In case of conflict or apparent error the user should advise the State Bridge Office in Jefferson City.

The guidance is provided in Acrobat Reader format. To use the guidance as it is intended, you will need to download the Free Adobe [http://adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html Adobe Acrobat Reader] from Adobe's web site.
----
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left"
|+ '''Bridge Inspection Rating Guidance'''
|- style="text-align:center"
! colspan="2" | [[media:Bridgetableofcontents.pdf|Table of Contents]]
|-
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/EPG_753.1.pdf EPG 753.1 (Section 1)] || Bridge Inspection Rating Manual - NBI Organization and Responsibilities
|-
| [[media:Bridgesection 3.pdf|EPG 753.3 (Section 3)]] || align="left"|Inspection and Reporting Aids
|-
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/EPG_753.4.pdf EPG 753.4 (Section 4)] || Bridge Inspection Rating Manual - Inspection Policy
|-
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/EPG_753.8.pdf EPG 753.8 (Section 8)] || Bridge Inspection Rating Manual - Inspection Program Quality Measures
|-
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/EPG_753.15.pdf EPG 753.15 (Section 15)] || Bridge Inspection Rating Manual - Load Rating Policy
|-
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/EPG_753.20.pdf EPG 753.20 (Section 20)] || Bridge Inspection Rating Manual - Tunnel Inspection Requirements in Missouri
|-
| colspan="2" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/1995_FHWA_NBI_Coding.pdf 1995 FHWA NBI Coding Guide]
|}

If you have any questions or comments regarding this guidance please email the Bridge Management Engineer at [mailto:BRINV@modot.mo.gov BRINV@modot.mo.gov].

{| style="font-size: 90%; border:1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left; background:#f8f9fa; cellpadding="0";" width="460px" align="left"
|-
| '''<u><center>Forms</center></u>'''
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/State_FAR_Form_EPG_753.4.4.docx Bridge Inspection Finding That Requires Follow-up Action(FAR) Form]
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Nonstate_CIF_Form_EPG_753.4.3.docx Nonstate System Structure Inspections Critical Inspection Finding Form]
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/PIN_Form_EPG_753.4.5.docx Posting Issue Notification Form]
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/SIA_Fillable_Form_EPG_753.xlsx SIA Form SNBI Format]
|-
| ● [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/State_CIF_Form_EPG_753.4.3.docx State System Structure Inspections Critical Inspection Finding Form]
|}

Category:753 Bridge Inspection Rating

2026-06-10T20:30:04Z

Hoskir:

{| style="margin-left:15px; font-size: 90%; border:1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left; background:#f8f9fa; cellpadding="0";" width="475px" align="right"
|-
| '''<u><center>Load Rating Summary Tables</center></u>'''
|-
|
|-
| <u><center>Locally Owned Detailed Summary Tables</center></u>
|-
| <u>LFD</u>
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Culvert.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Culvert]
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_FloorSystem.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - FloorSystem]
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Multibeam.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Multibeam]
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Slab.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Slab]
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_ThruGirder.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - ThruGirder]
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Truss.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Truss]
|-
| <u>LRFR</u>
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Culvert.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Culvert]
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_FloorSystem.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - FloorSystem]
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Multibeam.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Multibeam]
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Slab.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Slab]
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_ThruGirder.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - ThruGirder]
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Truss.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Truss]
|-
|
|-
| <u><center>State Owned Detailed Summary Tables</center></u>
|-
| <u>LFD</u>
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Culvert.xlsx Detailed State Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Culvert]
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_FloorSystem.xlsx Detailed State Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - FloorSystem]
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Multibeam.xlsx Detailed State Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Multibeam]
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Slab.xlsx Detailed State Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Slab]
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_ThruGirder.xlsx Detailed State Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - ThruGirder]
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Truss.xlsx Detailed State Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Truss]
|-
| <u>LRFR</u>
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Culvert.xlsx Detailed State Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Culvert]
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_FloorSystem.xlsx Detailed State Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - FloorSystem]
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Multibeam.xlsx Detailed State Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Multibeam]
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Slab.xlsx Detailed State Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Slab]
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_ThruGirder.xlsx Detailed State Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - ThruGirder]
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Truss.xlsx Detailed State Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Truss]
|-
|
|-
| <u><center>Simplified Summary Table for AASHTOWare Bridge Rating</center></u>
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Simple_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_for_BrR_Files.xlsx Simple Load Rating Summary Sheet for BrR Files]
|-
|
|-
| <u><center>Truck Listing</center></u>
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Truck_Listing_Non_AASHTOWare_Bridge_Rating_Models.pdf Truck Listing Non AASHTOWare Bridge Rating Models]
|}

The Bridge Inspection Rating guidance shall be used by MoDOT's internal staff, as well as consultants, contractors, local agencies and may be used by other department of transportation agencies as a reference. The guidance was developed to ensure uniformity in the inventory and appraisal of all bridges within the state of Missouri. It defines the general guidelines and processes of MoDOT's Non-State Bridge Inspection program along with giving specific load rating procedures for bridges in Missouri.

In case of conflict or apparent error the user should advise the State Bridge Office in Jefferson City.

The guidance is provided in Acrobat Reader format. To use the guidance as it is intended, you will need to download the Free Adobe [http://adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html Adobe Acrobat Reader] from Adobe's web site.
----
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left"
|+ '''Bridge Inspection Rating Guidance'''
|- style="text-align:center"
! colspan="2" | [[media:Bridgetableofcontents.pdf|Table of Contents]]
|-
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/EPG_753.1.pdf EPG 753.1 (Section 1)] || Bridge Inspection Rating Manual - NBI Organization and Responsibilities
|-
| [[media:Bridgesection 3.pdf|EPG 753.3 (Section 3)]] || align="left"|Inspection and Reporting Aids
|-
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/EPG_753.4.pdf EPG 753.4 (Section 4)] || Bridge Inspection Rating Manual - Inspection Policy
|-
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/EPG_753.8.pdf EPG 753.8 (Section 8)] || Bridge Inspection Rating Manual - Inspection Program Quality Measures
|-
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/EPG_753.15.pdf EPG 753.15 (Section 15)] || Bridge Inspection Rating Manual - Load Rating Policy
|-
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/EPG_753.20.pdf EPG 753.20 (Section 20)] || Bridge Inspection Rating Manual - Tunnel Inspection Requirements in Missouri
|-
| colspan="2" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/1995_FHWA_NBI_Coding.pdf 1995 FHWA NBI Coding Guide]
|}

If you have any questions or comments regarding this guidance please email the Bridge Management Engineer at [mailto:BRINV@modot.mo.gov BRINV@modot.mo.gov].

{| style="font-size: 90%; border:1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left; background:#f8f9fa; cellpadding="0";" width="475px" align="left"
|-
| '''<u><center>Forms</center></u>'''
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/State_FAR_Form_EPG_753.4.4.docx Bridge Inspection Finding That Requires Follow-up Action(FAR) Form]
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Nonstate_CIF_Form_EPG_753.4.3.docx Nonstate System Structure Inspections Critical Inspection Finding Form]
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/PIN_Form_EPG_753.4.5.docx Posting Issue Notification Form]
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/SIA_Fillable_Form_EPG_753.xlsx SIA Form SNBI Format]
|-
| • [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/State_CIF_Form_EPG_753.4.3.docx State System Structure Inspections Critical Inspection Finding Form]
|}

Category:753 Bridge Inspection Rating

2026-06-10T19:05:41Z

Hoskir:

{| style="margin-left:15px; font-size: 95%; border:1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:left; background:#f8f9fa; cellpadding="0";" width="475px" align="right"
|- style="height: 30px;"
| '''<u><center>Load Rating Summary Tables</center></u>'''
|-
|
|-
|<u><center>Locally Owned Detailed Summary Tables</center></u>
|-
|<u>LFD</u>
|-
| *[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Culvert.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Culvert]
|-
| *[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_FloorSystem.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - FloorSystem]
|-
| *[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Multibeam.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Multibeam]
|-
| *[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Slab.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Slab]
|-
| *[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_ThruGirder.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - ThruGirder]
|-
| *[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Truss.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Truss]
<u>LRFR</u>
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Culvert.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Culvert]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_FloorSystem.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - FloorSystem]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Multibeam.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Multibeam]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Slab.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Slab]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_ThruGirder.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - ThruGirder]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Truss.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Truss]
<br>
<u><center>State Owned Detailed Summary Tables</center></u>
<u>LFD</u>
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Culvert.xlsx Detailed State Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Culvert]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_FloorSystem.xlsx Detailed State Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - FloorSystem]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Multibeam.xlsx Detailed State Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Multibeam]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Slab.xlsx Detailed State Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Slab]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_ThruGirder.xlsx Detailed State Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - ThruGirder]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Truss.xlsx Detailed State Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Truss]
<u>LRFR</u>
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Culvert.xlsx Detailed State Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Culvert]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_FloorSystem.xlsx Detailed State Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - FloorSystem]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Multibeam.xlsx Detailed State Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Multibeam]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Slab.xlsx Detailed State Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Slab]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_ThruGirder.xlsx Detailed State Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - ThruGirder]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Truss.xlsx Detailed State Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Truss]
<br>
<u><center>Simplified Summary Table for AASHTOWare Bridge Rating</center></u>
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Simple_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_for_BrR_Files.xlsx Simple Load Rating Summary Sheet for BrR Files]
<br>
<u><center>Truck Listing</center></u>
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Truck_Listing_Non_AASHTOWare_Bridge_Rating_Models.pdf Truck Listing Non AASHTOWare Bridge Rating Models]
|}

<div style="float: right; margin-right:0px; width:450px; background-color: #f5f5f5; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #cccccc; text-align:left; border-radius:3px; font-size: 90%;">
'''<u><center>Load Rating Summary Tables</center></u>'''
</br>
<u><center>Locally Owned Detailed Summary Tables</center></u>
<u>LFD</u>
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Culvert.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Culvert]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_FloorSystem.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - FloorSystem]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Multibeam.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Multibeam]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Slab.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Slab]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_ThruGirder.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - ThruGirder]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Truss.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Truss]
<u>LRFR</u>
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Culvert.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Culvert]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_FloorSystem.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - FloorSystem]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Multibeam.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Multibeam]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Slab.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Slab]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_ThruGirder.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - ThruGirder]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_Locally_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Truss.xlsx Detailed Locally Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Truss]
</br>
<u><center>State Owned Detailed Summary Tables</center></u>
<u>LFD</u>
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Culvert.xlsx Detailed State Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Culvert]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_FloorSystem.xlsx Detailed State Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - FloorSystem]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Multibeam.xlsx Detailed State Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Multibeam]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Slab.xlsx Detailed State Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Slab]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_ThruGirder.xlsx Detailed State Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - ThruGirder]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LFD_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Truss.xlsx Detailed State Owned LFD Load Rating Summary Sheet - Truss]
<u>LRFR</u>
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Culvert.xlsx Detailed State Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Culvert]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_FloorSystem.xlsx Detailed State Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - FloorSystem]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Multibeam.xlsx Detailed State Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Multibeam]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Slab.xlsx Detailed State Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Slab]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_ThruGirder.xlsx Detailed State Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - ThruGirder]
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Detailed_State_Owned_LRFR_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_Truss.xlsx Detailed State Owned LRFR Load Rating Summary Sheet - Truss]
</br>
<u><center>Simplified Summary Table for AASHTOWare Bridge Rating</center></u>
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Simple_Load_Rating_Summary_Sheet_for_BrR_Files.xlsx Simple Load Rating Summary Sheet for BrR Files]
</br>
<u><center>Truck Listing</center></u>
*[https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Truck_Listing_Non_AASHTOWare_Bridge_Rating_Models.pdf Truck Listing Non AASHTOWare Bridge Rating Models]
</div>

The Bridge Inspection Rating guidance shall be used by MoDOT's internal staff, as well as consultants, contractors, local agencies and may be used by other department of transportation agencies as a reference. The guidance was developed to ensure uniformity in the inventory and appraisal of all bridges within the state of Missouri. It defines the general guidelines and processes of MoDOT's Non-State Bridge Inspection program along with giving specific load rating procedures for bridges in Missouri.

In case of conflict or apparent error the user should advise the State Bridge Office in Jefferson City.

The guidance is provided in Acrobat Reader format. To use the guidance as it is intended, you will need to download the Free Adobe [http://adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html Adobe Acrobat Reader] from Adobe's web site.

----

{| style="margin:1em auto 1em auto" border="1" class="wikitable" align="center" style="text-align:center"
|+ '''Bridge Inspection Rating Guidance'''
| [[media:Bridgetableofcontents.pdf|Table of Contents]] ||style="background:#99FFFF"|
|-
| [[media:Bridgesection1english.pdf|EPG 753.1 (Section 1)]] || align="left"|Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges
|-
| [[media:Bridgesection 2.pdf|EPG 753.2 (Section 2)]] || align="left"|Critical Inspection Findings Missouri Bridge and Culvert Rating Guidelines Figures
|-
| [[media:Bridgesection 3.pdf|EPG 753.3 (Section 3)]] || align="left"|Inspection and Reporting Aids
|-
| EPG 753.4 (Section 4)|| align="left"|See Section 15 (formerly Rating Off-System Bridges)
|-
| [[media:Bridgesection 5.pdf|EPG 753.5 (Section 5)]] || align="left"|Inspection of Fracture Critical Bridge Members
|-
| [[media:Bridgesection 6.pdf|EPG 753.6 (Section 6)]] || align="left"|Legal Aspects of Public Work
|-
| [[media:Bridgeappendix.pdf|EPG 753.7 Appendix]] || align="left"|Various Forms and Figures
|-
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/EPG_753.15_(Section_15).pdf EPG 753.15 (Section 15)] || align="left"|Bridge Inspection Rating Manual
|-
| [[media:EPG_753.20.pdf|EPG 753.20 (Section 20)]] || align="left"|Bridge Inspection Rating Manual - Tunnel Inspection Requirements in Missouri
|}
If you have any questions or comments regarding this guidance please email the Bridge Management Engineer at [mailto:BRINV@modot.mo.gov BRINV@modot.mo.gov].

{| align="left"
|-
| [[Image:753 800 Bridge PR.jpg|192px]] || [[Image:753 Bridge photo.jpg|170px]] || [[Image:753 Pubic Mtg.gif|195px]] || [[Image:753 Ratings Graph.gif|205px]]
|}

751.37 Drilled Shafts

2026-01-15T17:22:07Z

Hoskir: fixed math errors

==751.37.1 General==
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.1 General|Commentary for EPG 751.37.1 General''']]
|}
These guidelines address procedures for design of drilled shafts used as foundations for bridge piers, bridge abutments, roadway signs, and other miscellaneous structures. The guidelines were established following load and resistance factor design (LRFD) concepts. The provisions provided herein are intended to produce foundations that achieve target reliabilities established by MoDOT for structures of different operational importance. The four classes of operational importance include minor or low volume route, major route, major bridge costing less than $100 million, and major bridge costing greater than $100 million. Additional background regarding development of these provisions and supportive information regarding use of these provisions is provided in the accompanying commentary.

Drilled shafts can be an economical alternative to spread footing or driven pile foundations. They can be constructed in a wide variety of soil and rock conditions and designed to support a wide range of loading conditions. Drilled shafts should be considered:

:* To accommodate sites where depth to bedrock is too short for pile embedment but too deep for spread footings.

:* For large design loads. (Eliminates the need for large quantities of piles).

:* To provide resistance against large lateral and uplift loads.

:* To eliminate the need for cofferdams.

:* To provide protection against scour.

:* To accommodate concerns associated with the effects of pile driving (e.g. vibrations or interference with battered piles).

:* When obstructions or other conditions may make pile driving difficult.

:* To provide resistance to settlement when displacement tolerances are small.

===751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature|Commentary for EPG 751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature''']]
|}

Dimensions to be established in design include the overall length of the shaft and the shaft diameter. For shafts that will be socketed into bedrock, the length and diameter of the rock socket must also be established. Table 751.37.1.1 defines the nomenclature used for these dimensions and provides relevant minimum and/or maximum values for the respective dimensions.

====<center>''Table 751.37.1.1 Summary of drilled shaft dimensions with minimum and maximum values''</center>====
{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
|+
! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Dimension !! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Description!! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Minimum Value !! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Maximum Value !! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Comment
|-
|D|| Nominal shaft diameter (Overall)||align="center"| 18”<sup>'''1'''</sup>||align="center"| --|| Min. 6” increments
|-
|L|| Length of shaft (Overall) ||align="center"|-- ||align="center"|-- ||--
|-
|D<sub>s</sub>'''<sup>4</sup>'''||Nominal socket diameter||align="center"|-- ||align="center"|--<sup>'''2'''</sup>||Min. 6” increments
|-
|L<sub>s</sub>'''<sup>4</sup>'''||Length of rock socket||align="center"| D<sub>s</sub>'''<sup>3, 5</sup>'''||align="center"| --|| --
|-
|colspan="5"|<sup>'''1'''</sup> Shaft diameter shall be at least 6” greater than column diameter when shaft is directly connected to the column and not a footing cap or bent cap.
|-
|colspan="5"|<sup>'''2'''</sup> Sockets installed through casing shall have diameters 6” less than the outside diameter of the casing.
|-
|colspan="5"|<sup>'''3'''</sup> Minimum rock socket length L<sub>s</sub> ≥ D<sub>s</sub> shall be measured from the anticipated tip of the casing.
|-
|colspan="5"|<sup>'''4'''</sup> The dimensions “D<sub>s</sub>” and “L<sub>s</sub>” are not explicitly used in any of the design equations that follow in favor of generally referring to the diameter of any segment of an overall shaft as “D” which can be a rock socket segment. This is not entirely true for the dimension “L<sub>s</sub>” which is explicitly used as part of a settlement design equation that follows. Judicial use of the appropriate segment and use of the appropriate diameter and length of a segment is implicit to the correct use of the design equations that follow. (See [[#751.37.2 General Design Procedure and Limit States|EPG 751.37.2 General Design Procedure and Limit States]].)
|-
| colspan="5" | <sup>'''5'''</sup> See [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/751.37.1.1_Drilled_Shaft_Design_Aid.docx Design Aid: Minimum Rock Socket Length]
|}

The length to diameter ratio of drilled shafts should generally be in the following range: 3 ≤ L/D ≤ 30

The nomenclature used in these guidelines has intentionally been selected to be consistent with that used in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2009) to the extent possible to avoid potential confusion with methods provided in those specifications. By convention, references to other provisions of the MoDOT Engineering Policy Guide are indicated as “EPG XXX.XX” throughout these guidelines where the ''X''s are replaced with the appropriate article numbers. Similarly, references to provisions within the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications are indicated as “LRFD XXX.XX”.

===751.37.1.2 Materials===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.1.2 Materials|Commentary for EPG 751.37.1.2 Materials''']]
|}

Concrete used for drilled shaft construction shall be Class B-2 concrete with minimum compressive strength, <math>f^'_c</math> = 4 ksi.

===751.37.1.3 Casing===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.1.3 Casing|Commentary for EPG 751.37.1.3 Casing''']]
|}

All drilled shafts shall have permanent casing installed through overburden soils to prevent caving of these soils during construction unless conditions are such that the shafts can be more effectively and reliably constructed without casing or using temporary casing. Welded or seamless steel permanent casing shall be in accordance with [http://www.modot.org/business/standards_and_specs/SpecbookEPG.pdf#page=11 Sec 701]. Approval from the MoDOT Geotechnical Section is required for use of temporary casing or uncased shafts with or without drilling slurry.

Rock sockets shall be uncased.

Permanent Casing Thickness Design and Plan Reporting:

:Any drilled shaft for a major bridge over a river or lake <u>or</u> any drilled shaft longer than 80 feet or any drilled shaft greater than 6 feet in diameter shall have a minimum casing thickness of 1/2 inch specified unless a greater thickness is required by design for strength. The thickness of casing in either case shall be shown on the bridge plans and noted as a minimum.

:All other drilled shafts shall not have a minimum casing thickness specified unless a specific thickness is required by design for strength. The minimum thickness in the latter case shall be shown on the bridge plans and noted as a minimum.

:For drilled shaft stiffness computations and load distribution analysis, use the minimum casing thickness required. When a minimum casing thickness is not required, assume a casing thickness of 3/8” for the analysis.

===751.37.1.4 General Design Considerations===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.1.4 General Design Considerations|Commentary for EPG 751.37.1.4 General Design Considerations''']]
|}

The following issues shall be considered for design of drilled shafts:

''Scour ''

The potential for scour and its effect on the axial and lateral strength and serviceability of drilled shafts shall be investigated.

''Ground Water ''

The effects of variable ground water levels and buoyancy shall be taken into account in evaluating drilled shaft strength and serviceability limit states.

''Downdrag ''

Downdrag shall be considered when strength and serviceability are evaluated. For drilled shafts socketed into rock and overlain with soil that has the potential to settle, downdrag shall be considered as an applied load and predicted according to LRFD 3.11.8. Downward movements of 0.1 to 0.5 in. are enough to mobilize full downdrag. The top 5 ft. and a bottom length equal to the shaft diameter shall not be included in calculating downdrag. Allowance shall be given for an increase in the undrained shear strength of the soil within compressible strata as consolidation occurs.

''Uplift ''

The effects of uplift shall be considered for drilled shafts in cohesive soils, not socketed into rock.

''Group Effects ''

Shafts designed with relatively close spacing shall be evaluated considering group effects. Specific methods and modifications to account for group effects differ according to the soil/rock type that the shaft is founded within as provided in EPG 751.37.3.9.

The redundancy factor ''η<sub>R</sub>'' from LRFD 1.3.4 shall not be applied for design of drilled shafts.

===751.37.1.5 Related Provisions===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.1.5 Related Provisions|Commentary for EPG 751.37.1.5 Related Provisions''']]
|}
The provisions of these guidelines were developed presuming that design parameters required to apply the provisions are established following current MoDOT site characterization protocols as described in EPG 321. Specific attention is drawn to [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. The provisions provided in these guidelines presume that parameter variability, as generally represented by the coefficient of variation (COV), is established following procedures in EPG 321.3.

===751.37.1.6 Drilled Shaft General Detail Considerations===
[[image:751.37.1.6 01.png|700px|center]]
Pay items shown in above table are for example only, show actual pay items and quantities in plan details for specific project.

''Notes:''
::(1) Number of pipes (equally spaced) for Sonic Logging Testing:
::::::Diameter ≤ 2.5 ft: 2 pipes
::::::Diameter >2.5 ft but ≤ 3.5 ft: 3 pipes
::::::Diameter >3.5 ft but ≤ 5.0 ft: 4 pipes
::::::Diameter >5.0 ft but ≤ 8.0 ft: 5 pipes
::::::Diameter >8.0 ft: 6 pipes
::::Single diameter reinforcing cage is typically used. Modify details based on design for single or multiple-diameter cages and splice location(s).
::::See [[#751.37.1.3 Casing|EPG 751.37.1.3]] for casing requirements and alternatives.
::::When determining P bar diameter for barbill, assume 3/8” casing unless otherwise specified.
::::See [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#G8. Drilled Shaft|EPG 751.50, G8]], for notes to include for drilled shafts and rock sockets (starting at G8.1).
::(2) See [[#751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature|EPG 751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature]] for [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/751.37.1.1_Drilled_Shaft_Design_Aid.docx Design Aid: Minimum Rock Socket Length].
::(3) When difference between drilled shaft and column diameter is 6" a single reinforcement cage is typically used for the socket and shaft and the vertical reinforcement extends into the column. A separate column steel cage is then placed around the protruding shaft reinforcement without requiring an adjustment to minimum cover for rock socket or column reinforcement. When difference between drilled shaft and column diameter is 12” either the vertical column steel or dowels will need to be extended into the shaft or the cover in the socket and shaft will need to be increased to allow the shaft reinforcement to extend into the column. In the former scenario an optional construction joint is recommended as discussed in note 4 for oversized shafts. In the latter scenario the same number of vertical bars should be used in the shaft and column to allow the shaft bars to be tied to the column cage. Any reduction in cage diameter required for fit-up shall be considered in design.
::(4) When difference between drilled shaft and column diameter is greater than 12" (oversized shaft generally 18" to 24" larger than column), show "Optional construction joint" at bottom of column/dowel reinforcement in the drilled shaft and use [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#G8._Drilled_Shaft|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Notes G8.8 and G8.9]] in plan details.

<center>
{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" style="text-align:center"
|+
| style="background:#BEBEBE" width="400" |'''[https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings Bridge Standard Drawings]'''</br> (Drilled Shafts - DSS → As Built Drilled Shaft Data [DSS_01])
|-
|align="center"|[https://www.modot.org/media/14725 As Built Drilled Shaft Data (PDF)]
|}

</center>

==751.37.2 General Design Procedure and Limit States==
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.2 General Design Procedure and Limit States|Commentary for EPG 751.37.2 General Design Procedure and Limit States''']]
|}
Drilled shafts should be sized (diameter and length) to support the required factored loads in the most cost effective manner possible without excessive deflections. The initial diameter and length of drilled shafts are generally established considering vertical loading at the strength limit state(s) according to EPG 751.37.3. The resulting shaft should then be evaluated at the axial and lateral serviceability limit states (settlement and lateral deflection) according to EPG 751.37.4 and EPG 751.37.5, where the shaft dimensions shall be adjusted if serviceability requirements are not satisfied.

The Strength Limit State and applicable Extreme Event Limit States shall be investigated when calculating the soil and structural resistance of the drilled shaft. The Service I Limit State shall be used when evaluating lateral deflection and settlement.

'''Guidance'''

There are three major types of drilled shaft construction that influence how a drilled shaft is designed. MoDOT exclusively designs and details drilled shafts with permanent casing and rock sockets as given as Case No. 1. The two cases that follow are rare and require the recommendation or approval of the Geotechnical Section and shall be shown on the plans. See [[#751.37.1.3 Casing|EPG 751.37.1.3 Casing]].

:1. Permanently cased shaft through soil and socketed into rock. A reduced shaft diameter for rock socket is required. This case shall be used for all MoDOT projects unless otherwise allowed by the Geotechnical Section. For axial loading and settlement computations substitute D with D<sub>s</sub> and L with L<sub>s</sub> which are equal to the diameter and length of the rock socket since the required resistance to loading and settlement are computed for segment of the shaft in rock only (Rock sockets to be installed through casing shall have diameters 6” less than the inside diameter of the casing to allow for clearance and insertion of rock excavation re-tooling equipment.).

:2. Permanently cased or temporarily cased or uncased shaft through soil and not socketed into rock. For axial loading and settlement computations use D = diameter of shaft.

:3. Temporarily cased or uncased shaft through soil with a reduced or same shaft diameter for soil than/and for rock socket respectively. For axial loading and settlement computations use the appropriate diameter and length of shaft as the case may be for the design segment under investigation.

Permanently cased shafts shall not be allowed to use frictional resistance of the soil for either a drilled shaft with or without a rock socket.

Temporarily cased shafts may use the frictional resistance of the soil only for the case where a rock socket is not used (see the [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section]).

Recommendation or approval from the Geotechnical Section is required for use of temporary casing or uncased shafts with or without drilling slurry.

Note on Definitions:

:1. Where L<sub>,i</sub> is defined, L<sub>i</sub> shall mean the length of the shaft segment through soil or through rock.

:2. Where L is defined, L shall mean overall shaft length including the length of the rock socket.

==751.37.3 Design for Axial Loading at Strength Limit State==
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3 Geotechnical Resistance for Axial Loading at Strength Limit States|Commentary for EPG 751.37.3 Design for Axial Loading at Strength Limit State''']]
|}
Geotechnical resistance to axial loading at the relevant strength limit state shall be computed as the sum of tip resistance and side resistance unless conditions are present that may prevent reliable mobilization of tip resistance (e.g. karst conditions with known or likely voids that cannot be specifically identified or characterized). Shafts should be sized such that the factored geotechnical resistance to axial loads exceeds the factored axial loads:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> R_R = R_{sR} + R_{pR} \ge \gamma Q</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.1
|}

where:

:''R<sub>R</sub>'' = factored axial shaft resistance (consistent units of force),

:''R<sub>sR</sub>'' = factored side resistance (consistent units of force),

:''R<sub>pR</sub>'' = factored tip resistance (consistent units of force) and

:<math>\gamma Q</math> = factored load for the appropriate strength limit state (consistent units of force).

Tip resistance and side resistance shall be computed according to the provisions of EPG 751.37.3 for the material type(s) encountered. The Structural Project Manager or Structural Liaison Engineer shall be consulted before utilizing design methods other than those provided in EPG 751.37.3 for calculating the geotechnical resistance of drilled shafts.

The factored side resistance for drilled shafts shall be established from factored unit side resistance values for the relevant soil/rock conditions as provided in this article. For stratified ground conditions or where the shaft dimensions change (e.g. at tip of temporary or permanent casing, or at top of rock socket), the shaft shall be divided into segments with practically uniform shaft geometry and soil/rock properties and unit side resistance values determined for each shaft segment. The total factored side resistance shall then be computed as the sum of the factored resistance values for each shaft segment:
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> R_{sR} = \textstyle \sum_{i=1}^n (q_{sR-i} \cdot A_{s-i}) = \textstyle \sum_{i=1}^n (\phi_{qs-i}\cdot q_{s-i} \cdot \pi \cdot D_i \cdot L_i)</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.2
|}

where:
:''n'' = number of shaft segments,

:<math>q_{sR-i} = \phi_{qs-i} \cdot q_{s-i}</math> = factored unit side resistance for shaft segment ''i'' (consistent units of stress),

:<math>A_{s-i} = \pi \cdot D_{i} \cdot L_{i}</math> = perimeter interface area for shaft segment ''i'' (consistent units of area),

:<math>\phi_{qs-i}</math> = resistance factor for unit side resistance along shaft segment ''i'' (dimensionless),

:''<math>q_{s-i}</math>'' = nominal unit side resistance along shaft segment ''i'' (consistent units of stress),

:''D<sub>i</sub>'' = shaft diameter for shaft segment ''i'' (consistent units of length), and

:''L<sub>i</sub>'' = length of shaft segment ''i'' (consistent units of length).

<math>\phi_{qs-i}</math> and ''<math>q_{s-i}</math>'' shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this article, based on the material type present along the respective shaft segment.

Side resistance shall generally be neglected or reduced, as recommended by the Geotechnical Section, over shaft segments with permanent casing and over any length of rock socket that is deemed unusable.

The factored tip resistance for drilled shafts shall be established from factored unit tip resistance values for the relevant soil/rock conditions as provided in this article. The appropriate tip resistance shall be established for the soil/rock located between the tip of the shaft and two diameters below the tip of the shaft. The factored tip resistance shall be computed as
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> R_{pR} = q_{pR} \cdot A_p = \phi_{qp} \cdot q_p \cdot \pi \cdot \frac {D^2}{4}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.3
|}

where:

:<math>q_{pR} = \phi_{qp} \cdot q_p</math> = factored unit tip resistance (consistent units of stress),

:<math>A_p = \pi \cdot \frac{D^2}{4}</math> = cross-sectional area of the shaft at the tip (consistent units of area),

:<math>\phi_{qp}</math> = resistance factor for unit tip resistance (dimensionless),

:''<math>q_p </math>''= nominal unit tip resistance (consistent units of stress), and

:''D'' = shaft diameter at the tip of the shaft (consistent units of length).

<math>\phi_{qp}</math> and ''<math>q_p</math>'' shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this article, based on the material type present within a depth of ''2D'' below the tip of the shaft.

Tip resistance shall be neglected, as recommended by the Geotechnical Section, when the shaft tip is located within karstic rock or other conditions where tip resistance cannot be reliably determined.

The specific methods and resistance factors for determining nominal and factored side and tip resistance shall be selected based on the material type(s) present along the sides and beneath the tip of the shaft:

:* EPG 751.37.3.1 shall generally be followed to estimate resistance for shafts in rock from results of uniaxial compression tests on intact rock core with uniaxial compressive strengths ''(q<sub>u</sub> )'' greater than 100 ksf;

:* EPG 751.37.3.2 shall generally be followed to estimate resistance for shafts in weak rock from results of uniaxial compression tests on rock core with uniaxial compressive strengths ''(q<sub>u</sub> )'' greater than 5 ksf but less than 100 ksf;

:* EPG 751.37.3.3 shall generally be followed to estimate resistance for shafts in weak rock from results of Standard Penetration Tests with equivalent ''N''-values ''(N<sub>eq</sub> )'' less than 400 blows/foot;

:* EPG 751.37.3.4 shall generally be followed to estimate resistance for shafts in weak rock from results of Texas Cone Penetration Tests with measured penetrations ''(TCP)'' greater than 1 inch/100 blows but less than 10 inches/100 blows;

:* EPG 751.37.3.5 shall generally be followed to estimate resistance for shafts in weak rock from results of Point Load Index Tests with Point Load Indices ''(I<sub>s(50)</sub> )'' less than 40 ksf;

:* EPG 751.37.3.6 shall generally be followed to estimate resistance for shafts in cohesive soils with undrained shear strengths ''(s<sub>u</sub> )'' less than 5 ksf; and

:* EPG 751.37.3.7 shall generally be followed to estimate resistance for shafts in cohesionless soils.

Additional guidance on selection of specific methods and resistance factors based on the material types encountered is provided in the commentary to these guidelines.

===751.37.3.1 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Rock ''(q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf)''===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.1 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Rock (qu ≥ 100 ksf')|'''Commentary for EPG 751.37.3.1 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Rock ''(q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf)''''']]
|}
'''Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Rock ''(q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf)'''''

The nominal unit side resistance for shaft segments located in rock shall be computed as a function of the mean uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock according to (Horvath and Kenney, 1979)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_s = \Bigg(0.95 \cdot \sqrt {\overline q_u} < 17.5 \cdot \sqrt{f'_c}\Bigg)\alpha_E</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.4
|}

where:

:''q<sub>s</sub>'' = nominal unit side resistance for the shaft segment (ksf),

:<math>\overline q_u</math> = mean value of uniaxial compressive strength of rock core along the shaft segment (ksf), and

:<math>f^'_c</math> = compressive strength of concrete (ksi).

:''α<sub>E</sub>'' = factor to account for discontinuities in the rock

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified.''

Resistance factors <math>(\phi_{qs})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values ''(q<sub>s</sub> )'' determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.1.1 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean uniaxial compressive strength <math>(COV_{\overline {q_u}} )</math>. Values for <math>\overline {q_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}} </math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline {q_u}</math> shall be taken as mean values for the rock over the length of the shaft segment. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}} </math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment. Values for <math>f^'_c</math> shall be estimated based on the expected concrete compressive strength for the shaft.

The nominal unit side resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.4 shall be limited to a maximum value of <math>17.5 \cdot \sqrt{f'_c}</math> ksf where <math>f^'_c</math> is input in units of ksi. This limit corresponds to 35 ksf for concrete with <math>f^'_c</math> = 4 ksi.

[[image:751.37.3.1.1 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.1.1 Resistance factors for unit side resistance of drilled shafts in rock from uniaxial compression tests on intact rock core. '''</center>]]

A factor α<sub>E</sub> to account for discontinuities in the rock following O’Neill and Reese (1999) shall be used to reduce the nominal unit side resistance calculated by equation 751.37.3.4. The reduction factor shall only be applied to rock with recovery ratios less than 80% and RQD less than 50. Interpolation may be used. The reduction factor shall be determined and included as part of the nominal unit side resistance by the Geotechnical Section.

<center>
{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
|+ '''''Table 751.37.3.1.1 (Modified after O’Neill and Reese, 1999)'''''
! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2" width="100"|RQD!!style="background:#BEBEBE" colspan="2"| α<sub>E</sub>
|-
!style="background:#BEBEBE" |Closed Joints!!style="background:#BEBEBE"| Open Joints
|-
|100|| 1.0 ||0.85
|-
|70|| 0.85|| 0.55
|-
|50|| 0.60|| 0.55
|-
|30|| 0.50|| 0.5
|-
|20|| 0.45|| 0.45
|}
</center>

'''Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Rock ''(q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf)'''''

The nominal unit tip resistance for shafts founded on rock shall be computed as (adapted from Wyllie, 1999)
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_p = \sqrt{s} \cdot \overline{q_u} \Bigg[ 1 + \sqrt{\frac{m}{\sqrt{s}} + 1} \Bigg] \le 400 ksf</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of stress)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.5
|}

where:

:''q<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal unit tip resistance for the shaft (consistent units of stress),

:<math>\overline {q_u}</math> = mean value of the uniaxial compressive strength (consistent units of stress) and

:''m'' and ''s'' = empirical constants describing the rock mass strength (dimensionless).

Resistance factors <math>(\phi_{qp})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values ''(q<sub>p</sub>)'' determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.1.2 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean uniaxial compressive strength <math>(COV_{\overline {q_u}} )</math>. Values for <math>\overline {q_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}} </math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline {q_u}</math>, ''m'' and ''s'' shall be taken as mean values for the rock over a depth of ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}} </math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.3.1.2 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.1.2 Resistance factors for unit tip resistance of drilled shafts in rock from uniaxial compression tests on intact rock core.'''</center>]]

Values for the rock mass parameters m and s can be established as:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> m = m_i \mbox{exp} \Bigg(\frac{GSI - 100}{28}\Bigg)</math>||align="center"| (dimensionless)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.6
|-
|align="left"|<math> s = \mbox{exp} \Bigg(\frac{GSI - 100}{9}\Bigg) \ for \ GSI \ge 25</math>||align="center"| (dimensionless)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.7a
|-
|align="left"|<math> s = 0 \ for \ GSI < 25</math>||align="center"| (dimensionless)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.7b
|}

where ''m<sub>i</sub>'' is a material constant corresponding to rock type and ''GSI'' is the Geological Strength Index. The value for ''m<sub>i</sub>'' can be estimated from Table 751.37.3.1.2 or determined more precisely from triaxial tests (Hoek and Brown, 1997). For routine design, ''m<sub>i</sub>'' can be approximated as 10 for limestones and dolomites, as 6 for shales, siltstones, and mudstones, and as 17 for sandstones. Values for ''GSI'' can be estimated from rock mass characterizations using the Rock Mass Rating (''RMR'') system for rock masses with ''RMR'' greater than 25 (Hoek and Brown, 1997). Using this approach, GSI is calculated as:
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>GSI = 10 + \textstyle \sum_{i=1}^4 R_i </math>||align="center"|(dimensionless)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.8
|}

where

''R<sub>i</sub>'' = Rock Mass Rating system rating parameters (dimensionless).

''GSI'' is thus equivalent to the ''RMR'' value with the groundwater rating term, ''R<sub>5</sub>'', taken as 10.

Values for ''GSI'' to be used in Equations 751.37.3.6 and 751.37.3.7, or values for ''m'' and ''s'' to be used in Equation 751.37.3.5, can also be established using alternative methods described in the commentary to this subarticle.

The nominal tip resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.5 shall be limited to a maximum value of 400 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:table 751.37.3.2.jpg|center|775px|thumb|<center>'''Table 751.37.3.1.2 Approximate values for material constant ''m<sub>i</sub>'' (from Marinos and Hoek, 2000). Numerals shown beneath rock types reflect ''m<sub>i</sub>'' values. Values in parentheses are estimates.'''</center> <br>
* Conglomerates and breccias may present a wide range of ''m<sub>i</sub>'' values depending on the nature of the cementing material and degree of cementation, so they may range from values similar to sandstone, to values used for fine grained sediments (even under 10). <br>
** These values are for intact rock specimens tested normal to bedding or foliation. The value of ''m<sub>i</sub>'' will be significantly different if failure occurs along a weakness plane.
]]

===751.37.3.2 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core ''(5 ksf ≤ q<sub>u</sub> ≤ 100 ksf)''===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.2 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core (5 ksf ≤ qu ≤ 100 ksf)|'''Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.2 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core (5 ksf ≤ ''q<sub>u</sub>'' ≤ 100 ksf)''']]
|}

'''Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core ''(5 ksf ≤ q<sub>u</sub> ≤ 100 ksf)'''''

The nominal unit side resistance for shaft segments located in weak rock shall be computed from measurements of uniaxial compressive strength on rock core as (Loehr et al., 2011a; Loehr et al., 2011b)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>q_s = 0.76 \cdot \overline{q_u}^0.79 \le 30 ksf</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.9
|}

where:

:''q<sub>s</sub>'' = nominal unit side resistance for the shaft segment (ksf) and

:<math>\overline{q_u}</math> = mean uniaxial compressive strength of rock core along the shaft segment (ksf).

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified. ''

Resistance factors <math>(\phi_{qs})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values ''(q<sub>s</sub>)'' determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.2.1 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean uniaxial compressive strength <math>(COV_{\overline {q_u}} )</math>. Values for <math>\overline {q_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}} </math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline {q_u}</math> shall be taken as mean values for the rock over the length of the shaft segment. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}} </math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment.

The nominal unit side resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.9 shall be limited to a maximum value of 30 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:751.37.3.2.1 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.2.1 Resistance factors for unit side resistance for drilled shafts in weak rock from uniaxial compression tests on rock core. '''</center>]]

'''Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core (5 ksf ≤ q<sub>u</sub> ≤ 100 ksf)'''

The nominal unit tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall be computed from measurements of uniaxial compressive strength on rock core as (Loehr et al., 2011a; Loehr et al., 2011b)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>q_p = 14 \cdot \overline{q_u}^0.71 \le 400 ksf</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.10
|}

where:

:''q<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal unit tip resistance for the shaft (ksf), and

:<math>\overline {q_u}</math> = mean uniaxial compressive strength for rock at the shaft tip (ksf).

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified. ''

Resistance factors <math>(\phi_{qp})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values ''(q<sub>p</sub>)'' determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.2.2 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean uniaxial compressive strength <math>(COV_{\overline {q_u}} )</math>. Values for <math>\overline {q_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}} </math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline {q_u}</math> shall be taken as mean values for the rock over a depth of ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}} </math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

The nominal tip resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.10 shall be limited to a maximum value of 400 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:751.37.3.2.2 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.2.2 Resistance factors for unit tip resistance for drilled shafts in weak rock from uniaxial compression tests on rock core. '''</center>]]

===751.37.3.3 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests ''(N<sub>eq</sub> ≤ 400 blows/ft)''===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.3 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests (Neq ≤ 400 blows/ft)|'''Commentary for EPG 751.37.3.3 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests ''(N<sub>eq</sub> ≤ 400 blows/ft)''']]
|}
'''Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests ''(N<sub>eq</sub> ≤ 400 blows/ft)'''''

The nominal unit side resistance for shaft segments located in weak rock shall be computed from Standard Penetration Test (SPT) measurements as (Pierce et al., 2011)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_s = \frac{\overline{N_eq}}{14} \le 30 ksf</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.11
|}

where:

:''q<sub>s</sub>'' = nominal unit side resistance for the shaft segment (ksf) and

:<math>\overline{N_{eq}}</math> = equivalent SPT ''N-''value along the shaft segment (blows/foot).

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified. ''

Resistance factors <math>(\phi_{qs})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values ''(q<sub>s</sub>)'' determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.3.1 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean equivalent SPR ''N-''value <math>(COV_{\overline {N_eq}} )</math>. Values for <math>\overline {N_eq}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {N_eq}} </math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline {N_eq}</math> shall be taken as mean values for the rock over the length of the shaft segment. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {N_eq}} </math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean equivalent ''N-''value for the rock over the shaft segment.

The nominal unit side resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.11 shall be limited to a maximum value of 30 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:751.37.3.3.1 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.3.1 Resistance factors for unit side resistance for drilled shafts in weak rock from equivalent SPT ''N-''values.'''</center>]]

'''Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests ''(N<sub>eq</sub> ≤ 400 blows/ft)'''''

The nominal unit tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall be computed from Standard Penetration Test (SPT) measurements as (Pierce et al., 2011)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_p = \frac{\overline{N_eq}}{1.6} \le 400 ksf</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.9
|}

where:

:''q<sub>p</sub> = nominal unit tip resistance for the shaft (ksf) and

:<math>\overline{N_{eq}}</math> = mean equivalent SPT N-value for rock at the shaft tip (blows/foot).

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified. ''

Resistance factors <math>(\phi_{qp})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values ''(q<sub>p</sub>)'' determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.3.2 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean equivalent SPR ''N-''value <math>(COV_{\overline {N_eq}} )</math>. Values for <math>\overline {N_eq}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {N_eq}} </math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline {N_eq}</math> shall be taken as mean values for the rock over a depth of ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {N_eq}} </math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean equivalent ''N-''value for the rock over the distance ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

The nominal tip resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.12 shall be limited to a maximum value of 400 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:751.37.3.3.2 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.3.2 Resistance factors for unit tip resistance for drilled shafts in weak rock from equivalent SPT ''N-''values.'''</center>]]

===751.37.3.4 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ TCP ≤ 10 in.)===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.4 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ TCP ≤ 10 in.)|Commentary for EPG 751.37.3.4 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ TCP ≤ 10 in.)''']]
|}
'''Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ TCP ≤ 10 in.)'''

The nominal unit side resistance for shaft segments located in weak rock shall be computed from Texas Cone Penetration Test (TCPT) measurements as (Pierce et al., 2011)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_s = 31.6 \cdot \overline{TCP}^{-1.18} \le 30 ksf</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.13
|}

where:

:''q<sub>s</sub>'' = nominal unit side resistance for the shaft segment (ksf) and

:<math>\overline{TCP}</math> = mean value of penetration from TCPT measurements for rock along the shaft segment (inches/100 blows).

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified.''

Resistance factors <math>(\phi_{qs})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values ''(q<sub>s</sub>)'' determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.4.1 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean ''TCP''-value <math>(COV_{\overline {TCP}})</math>. Values for <math>\overline {TCP} </math> and <math>COV_{\overline {TCP}} </math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline {TCP} </math> shall be taken as mean values for the rock over the length of the shaft segment. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {TCP}} </math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean ''TCP''-value for the rock over the shaft segment.

The nominal unit side resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.13 shall be limited to a maximum value of 30 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:751.37.3.4.1 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.4.1 Resistance factors for unit side resistance for drilled shafts in weak rock from Texas Cone Penetration Test penetration values.'''</center>]]

'''Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ TCP ≤ 10 in.)'''

The nominal unit tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall be computed from Texas Cone Penetration Test (TCPT) measurements as (Pierce et al., 2011)
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_p = 500 \cdot \overline{TCP}^{-1.22} \le 400 ksf</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.14
|}

where:

:''(q<sub>p</sub>)'' = nominal unit tip resistance for the shaft (ksf) and

:<math>\overline {TCP} </math> = mean value of penetration from TCPT measurements for rock at the tip of the shaft (inches/100 blows).

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified.''

Resistance factors <math>(\phi_{qp})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values ''(q<sub>p</sub>)'' determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.4.2 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean ''TCP''-value <math>(COV_{\overline {TCP}})</math>. Values for <math>\overline {TCP} </math> and <math>COV_{\overline {TCP}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline {TCP} </math> shall be taken as mean values for the rock over a depth of ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {TCP}}</math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean ''TCP''-value for the rock over the distance ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

The nominal tip resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.14 shall be limited to a maximum value of 400 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:751.37.3.4.2 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig.751.37.3.4.2 Resistance factors for unit tip resistance for drilled shafts in weak rock from Texas Cone Penetration Test penetration values.'''</center>]]

===751.37.3.5 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests ''(5 ksf ≤ I<sub>s(50)</sub> ≤ 40 ksf)''===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.5 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests (5 ksf ≤ Is(50) ≤ 40 ksf)|'''Commentary for EPG 751.37.3.5 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests ''(5 ksf ≤ I<sub>s(50)</sub> ≤ 40 ksf)''']]
|}

'''Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests ''(5 ksf ≤ I<sub>s(50)</sub> ≤ 40 ksf)'''''

The nominal unit side resistance for shaft segments located in weak rock shall be computed from Point Load Index Test measurements as (Loehr et al., 2011a; Loehr et al., 2011b)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_s = \frac{(\overline{I_{s(50)}})^{1.8}}{10} \le 30 ksf </math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.15
|}

where:

:''q<sub>s</sub>'' = nominal unit side resistance for the shaft segment (ksf) and

:<math>\overline{I_{s(50)}}</math> = mean corrected point load index value for rock along the shaft segment (ksf).

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified. ''

Resistance factors <math>(\phi_{qs})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values (''q<sub>s</sub>'') determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.5.1 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>''-value <math>(COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}})</math>. Values for ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>'' and <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>'' shall be taken as mean values for the rock over the length of the shaft segment. Values for <math>(COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}})</math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>''-value for the rock over the shaft segment.

The nominal unit side resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.15 shall be limited to a maximum value of 30 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:751.37.3.5.1 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.5.1 Resistance factors for unit side resistance for drilled shafts in weak rock from Point Load Index values.'''</center>]]

'''Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests ''(5 ksf ≤ I<sub>s(50)</sub> ≤ 40 ksf)'''''

The nominal unit tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall be computed from Point Load Index Test measurements as (Loehr et al., 2011a; Loehr et al., 2011b)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_p = 10.5 \cdot \overline{I_{s(50)}} \le 400 ksf </math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.16
|}

where:

:''q<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal unit tip resistance for the shaft (ksf) and

:<math>\overline{I_{s(50)}}</math> = mean corrected point load index value for rock at the tip of the shaft (ksf).

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified.''

Resistance factors <math>(\phi_{qp})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values (''q<sub>p</sub>'') determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.5.2 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>''-value <math>(COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}})</math>. Values for <math>\overline{I_{s(50)}}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline{I_{s(50)}}</math> shall be taken as mean values for the rock over a depth of ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>''-value for the rock over the distance ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

The nominal tip resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.16 shall be limited to a maximum value of 400 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:751.37.3.5.2 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.5.2 Resistance factors for unit tip resistance for drilled shafts in weak rock from Point Load Index values.'''</center>]]

===751.37.3.6 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (''s<sub>u</sub> ≤ 5 ksf'')===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.6 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (su ≤ 5 ksf)|'''Commentary for EPG 751.37.3.6 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (''s<sub>u</sub> ≤ 5 ksf'')''']]
|}

'''Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (''s<sub>u</sub> ≤ 5 ksf'')'''

The nominal unit side resistance for shaft segments located in cohesive soils shall be computed from measurements of undrained shear strength using the “α-method” as (e.g. Reese et al., 2006)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_s = \alpha \cdot \overline{s_u}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of stress)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.17
|}

where:

:''q<sub>s</sub>'' = nominal unit side resistance for the shaft segment (consistent units of stress),

:''α'' = an empirical coefficient (dimensionless) and

:<math>\overline{s_u}</math> = mean value of the undrained shear strength for the soil along the shaft segment (consistent units of stress).

The value for ''α'' shall be taken as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> \alpha = \frac {0.75}{\sqrt{\overline{s_u}}} \le 1.0</math>||align="center"| (dimensionless)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.18
|}

where <math>\overline {s_u}</math> is the mean undrained shear strength input in units of ksf.

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified.''

Resistance factors <math>(\phi_{qs})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values (''q<sub>s</sub>'') determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.6.1 based on the coefficient of variation of mean undrained shear strength <math>(COV_{\overline {s_u}})</math>. Values for <math>{\overline {s_u}}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>{\overline {s_u}}</math> shall be taken as mean values for the soil over the length of the shaft segment. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean undrained shear strength for the soil over the shaft segment.

[[image:751.37.3.6.1 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.6.1 Resistance factors for unit side resistance for drilled shafts in cohesive soils from undrained shear strength measurements. '''</center>]]

The value for α predicted using Equation 751.37.3.18 shall be limited to a maximum value of 1.0.

In cohesive soils, side resistance along the top 5 ft. of the shaft and a distance of one shaft diameter above the tip of the shaft shall be ignored.

'''Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (''s<sub>u</sub> ≤ 5 ksf)'''

The nominal tip resistance for shafts founded on cohesive soils shall be calculated from measurements of undrained shear strength according to:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_p = \overline{s_u} \cdot N_c \le 80 ksf</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of stress)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.19
|}

where:

:''q<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal unit tip resistance for the shaft (consistent units of stress),

:<math>\overline{s_u}</math> = mean value of the undrained shear strength of the soil (consistent units of stress) and

:''N<sub>c</sub>'' = bearing capacity factor (dimensionless).

Resistance factors <math>(\phi_{qp})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values (''q<sub>p</sub>'') determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.6.2 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean undrained shear strength <math>(COV_{\overline {s_u}})</math>. Values for <math>\overline{s_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline{s_u}</math>shall be taken as mean values for the soil over a depth of 2''D'' below the tip of the shaft. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean undrained shear strength for the soil over the distance 2''D'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.3.6.2 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.6.2 Resistance factors for unit tip resistance for drilled shafts in cohesive soils from undrained shear strength measurements.'''</center>]]

The value for ''N<sub>c</sub>'' shall be taken as
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>N_c = 6 \Big[ 1 + 0.2 \Big(\frac{Z}{D}\Big)\Big] \le 9</math>||align="center"| (dimensionless)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.20
|}

where:

:Z = depth of the tip of the shaft from the ground surface (consistent units of length), and

:D = shaft diameter (consistent units of length).

The value for ''N<sub>c</sub>'' predicted using Equation 751.37.3.20 shall be limited to a maximum value of 9.0.

For <math>\overline{s_u}</math> ≤ 0.5 ksf, ''N<sub>c</sub>'' shall be multiplied by 0.67.

The nominal unit tip resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.19 shall be limited to a maximum value of 80 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

===751.37.3.7 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.7 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils|Commentary for EPG 751.37.3.7 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils]]
|}

'''Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils'''

The nominal unit side resistance for shaft segments located in cohesionless soils shall be computed using the “β-method” as
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_s = \beta \cdot \sigma^'_v</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of stress)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.21
|}

where:

:''q<sub>s</sub> = nominal unit side resistance for the shaft segment (consistent units of stress),

:β = an empirical correlation factor (dimensionless) and

:σ'<sub>v</sub> = average vertical effective stress for the soil along the shaft segment (consistent units of stress).

The value for β shall be taken as (O’Neill and Reese, 1999)
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> \beta = 1.5 - 0.135\sqrt{z}</math>||align="center"| (for ''N<sub>60</sub> ≥ 15)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.22a
|-
|align="left"|<math> \beta = \frac{N_{60}}{15} \cdot \big(1.5 - 0.135\sqrt{z} \big)</math>||align="center"| (for ''N<sub>60</sub> < 15)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.22b
|}

where 0.25 ≤ β ≤ 1.2 and

:z = depth below ground surface to center of shaft segment (ft.) and

:''N<sub>60</sub>'' = average SPT ''N''-value corrected for hammer efficiency (blows/ft).

If permanent casing is used, the side resistance shall be adjusted with consideration of type and length of casing used.

The resistance factor <math>\phi_{qs}</math> to be applied to the nominal unit side resistance shall be taken as 0.55.

'''Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils'''

The nominal unit tip resistance for shafts founded on cohesionless soils shall be computed from corrected SPT ''N''-values, N<sub>60</sub> (O’Neill and Reese, 1999).

For N_60≤50:
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_p = 1.2 \cdot N_{60} \le 60 ksf</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.23
|}

where:
:''q<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal unit tip resistance for the shaft (ksf) and

:''N<sub>60</sub>'' = average SPT ''N''-value corrected for hammer efficiency (blows/ft).

For ''N<sub>60</sub>'' ≥ 50:
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_p = 0.59\cdot \sigma^'_v \cdot \Bigg( N_{60}\bigg(\frac{p_a}{\sigma^'_v}\bigg)\Bigg)^{0.8}</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.24
|}

where:
:''q<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal unit tip resistance for the shaft (ksf),

:''N<sub>60</sub>'' = average SPT N-value corrected for hammer efficiency (blows/foot),

:''p<sub>a</sub>'' = 2.12 ksf = atmospheric pressure (ksf).

:<math>\sigma^'_v</math> = vertical effective stress for the soil at the tip of the shaft (ksf).

''Note that these expressions are dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified. ''

The resistance factor <math>\phi_{qp}</math> shall be taken as 0.50 for Equation 751.37.3.23 and as 0.55 for Equation 751.37.3.24.

===751.37.3.8 Geotechnical Resistance from Load Tests===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.8 Geotechnical Resistance from Load Tests|Commentary for EPG 751.37.3.8 Geotechnical Resistance from Load Tests]]
|}

If drilled shaft resistance is determined by load test, the resistance factor shall be taken as 0.7 regardless of the soil conditions.

===751.37.3.9 Evaluation of Group Effects===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.9 Evaluation of Group Effects|Commentary for EPG 751.37.3.9 Evaluation of Group Effects]]'''
|}
Group effects for drilled shafts shall be evaluated as described in EPG 751.37.3.9. Procedures for evaluation of group effects generally involve use of a group efficiency factor, consideration of an “equivalent pier”, or both. Application of the group efficiency factor requires that the nominal resistance for individual shafts be multiplied by the factor η to reflect the nominal average resistance of the shafts within a group:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> R^{\star} = \eta \cdot R</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.25
|}

where:

:R = nominal resistance of an individual shaft (consistent units of force),

:R<sup>*</sup> = modified shaft resistance accounting for group effects (consistent units of force) and

:''η'' = group efficiency factor established as described in this article.

''Note that the group efficiency factor (η) used here is different from the redundancy factor (η<sub>R</sub>) discussed in EPG 751.37.1.4.'' Additional discussion regarding the redundancy factor is provided in the commentary.

Consideration of an “equivalent pier” requires evaluation of the shaft group as a hypothetical, monolithic pier encompassing the block of soil and shafts enclosed within the outer perimeter of the shaft group.

The specific method to be used differs with geologic setting as described in the remainder of this article.

'''Group Effects in Cohesionless Soils'''

For shafts deriving resistance predominantly from cohesionless soils, the nominal resistance of individual shafts in the group shall be reduced by an efficiency factor, ''η'', determined based on the spacing of the shafts:

:* for shafts with center-to-center spacing equal to 2.5 shaft diameters, ''η'' = 0.65

:* for shafts with center-to-center spacing equal to 4.0 shaft diameters or more, ''η'' = 1.0, and

:* for shafts with intermediate spacing, the value for ''η'' shall be linearly interpolated between these values.

These efficiency factors shall apply regardless of conditions of contact between the cap and ground.

'''Group Effects in Cohesive Soils'''

For shafts deriving resistance predominantly from cohesive soils, the nominal resistance of the pile group shall be taken as the lesser of the following values:

:* The nominal resistance of an equivalent pier consisting of the shafts and the block of soil within the area bounded by the shafts, or

:* The sum of the nominal resistances for each individual shaft in the group.

For the latter value, the nominal resistances for individual piles shall be reduced by an efficiency factor, ''η'', <u>if</u> the soil is soft <u>and</u> the cap may not be in firm contact with the ground. In such cases, the efficiency factor, ''η'', shall be determined based on the spacing of the shafts:

:* ''η'' = 0.65 for shafts with center-to-center spacing equal to 2.5 shaft diameters,

:* ''η'' = 1.0 for shafts with center-to-center spacing equal to 6.0 shaft diameters or more, and

:* For intermediate shaft spacing, the value for ''η'' shall be linearly interpolated between these values.

Note that the efficiency factors shall only apply if the soil is soft <u>and</u> the cap is not in firm contact with the ground. For all other conditions, no efficiency factor shall be applied when comparing the total resistance for the equivalent pier with the cumulative resistance from the individual shafts.

The resistance factors to be applied for the equivalent pier evaluation shall be 0.60 (AASHTO, 2009). Resistance factors for summation of the individual shaft resistances shall be those provided in EPG 751.37.3.1 through EPG 751.37.3.8.

'''Group Effects in Rock'''

For shafts deriving resistance predominantly from rock, the nominal resistance of the pile group shall be taken as the lesser of the following:

:* The nominal resistance of an equivalent pier consisting of the shafts and the block of soil/rock within the area bounded by the shafts, or

:* The sum of the nominal resistances for each individual shaft in the group.

No efficiency factor shall be applied to the individual pile resistances when evaluating the latter condition.

==751.37.4 Design for Axial Loading at Serviceability Limit States==
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.4 Design for Axial Loading at Serviceability Limit States|Commentary for EPG 751.37.Commentary on EPG 751.37.4 Design for Axial Loading at Serviceability Limit States]]'''
|}
Drilled shafts shall be dimensioned so that there is a small likelihood that shafts will settle more than tolerable settlements, generally established from consideration of span length. This shall be accomplished by comparing a factored settlement computed for a shaft with dimensions established from EPG 751.37.3 with an established tolerable settlement. If the factored total settlement determined from these provisions is found to be less than or equal to the tolerable settlement, i.e. if
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\delta_R \le \delta_{tol}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of lengths)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.1
|}

where:

:''δ<sub>R</sub>'' = factored total settlement (consistent units of length) and

:''δ<sub>tol</sub>'' = tolerable settlement (consistent units of length),

the limit state is satisfied and the probability of shaft settlement exceeding the tolerable settlement is less than or equal to the target probability established by MoDOT. If the factored total settlement is determined to exceed the tolerable settlement, the probability of foundation settlement exceeding the tolerable value is greater than the target probability established by MoDOT. In such cases, the shaft dimensions shall be increased until the factored total settlement is less than or equal to the tolerable settlement.

Resistance factors provided in this article were established to produce factored settlements that have a target probability of being exceeded. Target probabilities of exceedance were established by MoDOT for structures of different operational importance. Additional information regarding development of the resistance factors and application of the resistance factors for settlement calculations are provided in the commentary that accompanies these guidelines.

For this provision, the tolerable settlement shall be taken as
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\delta_{tol} = \frac{S}{476}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of lengths)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.2
|}

where:

:''δ<sub>tol</sub>'' = tolerable settlement (consistent units of length) and
:''S'' = span between adjacent bridge bents (consistent units of length).

Factored settlements shall be determined as provided in this article. Settlement shall be evaluated for the Service I limit state.

Two alternative approaches are provided in these guidelines for determining the factored total settlement of drilled shafts. The first approach is based on an approximate factored load-settlement relationship for an individual shaft. The second approach utilizes the “t-z” method to predict the factored settlement for the shaft. Greater factored settlements will generally be predicted using the approximate method both because it tends to be conservative at working loads and because it involves greater variability and uncertainty. It is expected that the approximate method will generally be used for preliminary evaluation of settlement. If the settlement determined from the approximate method satisfies the serviceability requirement of Equation 751.37.4.1, the shaft dimensions can be considered acceptable. If use of the approximate method produces factored settlements that do not satisfy Equation 751.37.4.1, designers should consider performing evaluations using the more precise t-z method to evaluate whether serviceability is satisfied prior to increasing the dimensions of the shaft to satisfy serviceability requirements.

===751.37.4.1 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using Approximate Method===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.4.1 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using Approximate Method|Commentary on EPG 751.37.4.1 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using Approximate Method]]'''
|}

Prediction of factored settlement due to factored service loads shall be determined as follows depending on the magnitude of factored loads relative to the magnitude of factored side and tip resistance:

If <math>\gamma Q \le R_{sR} + 0.1 R_{pR}</math>:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\delta_R = 0.005 \cdot D \cdot \frac{\gamma Q}{R_{sR} + 0.1 R_{pR}} + \delta_{eR}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of lengths)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.3
|}

where:

:<math>\gamma Q</math> = factored load for the appropriate serviceability limit state (consistent units of force),

:''R<sub>sR</sub>'' = total factored side resistance determined according to the provisions of this article (consistent units of force),

:''R<sub>pR</sub>'' = factored tip resistance determined according to the provisions of this article (consistent units of force),

:''δ<sub>R</sub>'' = factored total settlement of shaft due to factored service loads (consistent units of length),

:''D'' = shaft diameter (consistent units of length) and

:''δ<sub>eR</sub>'' = factored elastic compression of the unsupported length of the shaft (consistent units of length).

If <math>R_{sR} + 0.1 R_{pR} \le \gamma Q \le R_{sR} + R_{pR}</math> :

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\delta_R = 0.005 \cdot D + 0.045 \cdot D \cdot \Big(\frac{\gamma Q - R_{sR} - 0.1 R_{pR}}{0.9 \cdot R_{pR}}\Big) + \delta_{eR}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of lengths)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.4
|}

where:

:<math>\gamma Q</math> = factored load for the appropriate serviceability limit state (consistent units of force),

:''R<sub>sR</sub>'' = total factored side resistance determined according to the provisions of this article (consistent units of force),

:''R<sub>pR</sub>'' = factored tip resistance determined according to the provisions of this article (consistent units of force),

:''δ<sub>R</sub>'' = factored total settlement of shaft due to factored service load (consistent units of length),

:''D'' = shaft diameter (consistent units of length) and

:''δ<sub>eR</sub>'' = factored elastic compression of the unsupported length of the shaft (consistent units of length).

Note that if <math>\gamma Q \ge R_{sR} + R_{pR}</math>, the factored service load exceeds the maximum factored resistance of the shaft and the limit state cannot be satisfied without increasing the dimensions of the shaft.

The factored side resistance in Equations 751.37.4.3 and 751.37.4.4 shall be established from factored unit side resistance values for the relevant soil/rock conditions as provided in this article. For stratified ground conditions or where the shaft dimensions change (e.g. at tip of temporary or permanent casing, or at top of rock socket), the shaft shall be divided into segments with practically uniform shaft geometry and soil/rock properties and unit side resistance values determined for each shaft segment. The total factored side resistance shall then be computed as the sum of the factored resistance values for each shaft segment:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>R_{sR} = \textstyle \sum_{i=1}^n \big( q_{sR-1} \cdot A_{s-i} \big) = \textstyle \sum_{i-1}^n \big( \phi_{\delta s - i} \cdot q_{s-i} \cdot \pi \cdot D_i \cdot L_i \big)</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.5
|}

where:

:''n'' = number of shaft segments,

:<math>q_{sR-i} = \phi_{\delta s-i} \cdot q_{s-i}</math> = factored unit side resistance for shaft segment i (consistent units of stress),

:<math>A_{s-i} = \pi \cdot D_i \cdot L_i</math> = perimeter interface area for shaft segment i (consistent units of area),

:<math>\phi_{\delta s-i}</math> = settlement resistance factor for side resistance along shaft segment i (dimensionless),

:''q<sub>s-i</sub>'' = nominal unit side resistance along shaft segment i (consistent units of stress),

:''D<sub>i</sub>'' = shaft diameter for shaft segment i (consistent units of length) and

:''L<sub>i</sub>'' = length of shaft segment i (consistent units of length).

Values for ''q<sub>s-i</sub>'' shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of [[#751.37.3 Design for Axial Loading at Strength Limit State|EPG 751.37.3]], based on the material type present along the respective shaft segments. Values for <math>\phi_{\delta s-i}</math> shall be established as provided subsequently in this article. Side resistance shall generally be neglected or reduced, as recommended by the Geotechnical Section, over shaft segments with permanent casing and over any length of rock socket that is deemed unusable for consistency with evaluations performed for strength limit states.

The factored tip resistance in Equations 751.37.4.3 and 751.37.4.4 shall be established from factored unit tip resistance values for the relevant soil/rock conditions as provided in this article. The appropriate tip resistance shall be established for the soil/rock located between the tip of the shaft and a distance of 2D below the tip of the shaft. The factored tip resistance shall be computed as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>R_{pR} = q_{pR} \cdot A_p = \phi_{\delta p} \cdot q_p \cdot \pi \cdot \frac{D^2}{4}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.6
|}

where:

:<math>q_{pR} = \phi_{\delta p} \cdot q_p</math> = factored unit tip resistance (consistent units of stress),

:<math>A_p = \pi \cdot \frac{D^2}{4}</math> = cross-sectional area of the shaft at the tip (consistent units of area),

:<math>\phi_{\delta p}</math> = settlement resistance factor for tip resistance (dimensionless),

:''q<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal unit tip resistance (consistent units of stress) and

:''D'' = shaft diameter at the tip of the shaft (consistent units of length).

The value for ''q<sub>p</sub>'' shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of [[#751.37.3 Design for Axial Loading at Strength Limit State|EPG 751.37.3]], based on the material type present within a depth of 2''D'' below the tip of the shaft. The value for <math>\phi_{\delta p}</math> shall be established as provided subsequently in this article. For consistency with evaluations for strength limit states, tip resistance shall be neglected, as recommended by the Geotechnical Section, when the shaft tip is located within karstic rock or other conditions where tip resistance cannot be reliably determined.

The factored elastic compression of the unsupported length of the shaft shall be determined as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\delta_{eR} = \frac{\gamma Q (L-L_s)}{\phi_{\delta e} \cdot E_p A_p}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of length)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.7
|}

where:

:''δ<sub>eR</sub>'' = factored elastic compression of the unsupported length of the shaft (consistent units of length),

:<math>\gamma Q </math> = factored load for the appropriate serviceability limit state (consistent units of force),

:''L'' = overall shaft length (consistent units of length),

:''L<sub>s</sub>'' = length of the rock socket (consistent units of length),

:''E<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal modulus of elasticity for the shaft (consistent units of stress),

:''A<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal shaft area (consistent units of area) and

:<math>\phi_{\delta e}</math> = settlement resistance factor for elastic compression of the shaft.

Values for the settlement resistance factor for elastic compression of the shaft shall be taken from Table 751.37.4.1 according to the operational importance of the structure.

====<center>''Table 751.37.4.1 Settlement resistance factors for elastic compression of drilled shafts''</center>====
{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
|+
! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Operational Importance !! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Settlement Resistance Factor, ''Φ<sub>δe</sub>''
|-
|Minor or Low Volume Route || align="center"|0.68
|-
|Major Route ||align="center"|0.64
|-
|Major Bridge <$100 million ||align="center"| 0.61
|-
|Major Bridge >$100 million||align="center"| 0.60
|}

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for Approximate Method for Drilled Shafts in Rock'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.1 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean uniaxial compressive strength, <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}}</math>. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.2 based on values for <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.1.1 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.1 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in rock from uniaxial compression test measurements using approximate method. '''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.1.2 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.2 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in rock from uniaxial compression test measurements using approximate method. '''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for Approximate Method for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through weak rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.3 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean uniaxial compressive strength, <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}}</math>. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.4 based on values for <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.1.3 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.3 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from uniaxial compression test measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.1.4 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.4 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from uniaxial compression test measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for Approximate Method for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Test Measurements'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through weak rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.5 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean equivalent SPT ''N''-value, <math>COV_{\overline {N_{eq}}}</math>. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {N_{eq}}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean equivalent ''N''-value over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.6 based on values for <math>COV_{\overline {N_{eq}}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean equivalent ''N''-value over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.1.5 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.5 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Standard Penetration Test measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.1.6 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.6 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Standard Penetration Test measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for Approximate Method for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Test Measurements'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through weak rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.7 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean ''TCP''-value, <math>COV_{\overline {TCP}}</math>. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {TCP}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean ''TCP''-value over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.8 based on values for <math>COV_{\overline {TCP}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean TCP-value over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.1.7 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.7 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Texas Cone Penetration Test measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.1.8 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.8 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Texas Cone Penetration Test measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for Approximate Method for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Test Measurements'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through weak rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.9 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>''-value, <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math>. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>''-value for the rock over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.10 based on values for <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>''-value for the rock over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.1.9 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.9 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Point Load Index Test measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.1.10 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.10 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Point Load Index Test measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for Approximate Method for Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through cohesive soil shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.11 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean undrained shear strength, <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math>. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean undrained shear strength for the soil over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on cohesive soil shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.12 based on values for <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean undrained shear strength for the soil over the distance 2''D'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.1.11 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.11 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in cohesive soil from undrained shear strength measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.1.12 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.12 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in cohesive soil from undrained shear strength measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

For shafts founded in soft cohesive soils, consideration shall also be given to including additional settlement induced from time dependent consolidation of the soil.

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for Approximate Method for Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils'''

Settlement evaluations for individual drilled shafts in cohesionless soils shall be designed according to applicable sections of the current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.

===751.37.4.2 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using t-z Method===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.4.2 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using t-z Method|Commentary on EPG 751.37.4.2 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using t-z Method]]'''
|}
The “t-z method” is a numerical method for predicting the axial load-displacement response of drilled shafts and other deep foundation members (Reese et al., 2006). The analyses can be performed using commercial specialty software, such as TZPile©, or using common spreadsheet software. Regardless of the method of implementation, the analyses require specification of t-z models that reflect the load transfer characteristics for side resistance, “q-w” models that reflect the load transfer characteristics for tip resistance, and shaft characteristics that reflect the stiffness of the shaft relative to the surrounding soil/rock.

Prediction of factored settlements using the t-z method according to these provisions shall be accomplished by performing t-z analysis using factored t-z and q-w models models as described in more detail in the commentary to this article. The top of shaft settlement predicted using the t-z method for a shaft subjected to the factored service loads and modeled using factored t-z and q-w models shall be taken as the factored total settlement, ''δ<sub>R</sub>'', for use in Equation 751.37.4.1.

Factored t-z models shall be established from a nominal, unfactored t-z model selected to represent the load transfer response in side resistance for relevant soil/rock conditions as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>t_R(z) = \phi_{\delta s} \cdot t(z)</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of stress)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.8
|}

where:

:''t<sub>R</sub>(z)'' = factored t-z model for input into analyses using the t-z method (consistent units of stress),

:''z'' = relative displacement between the shaft and the soil/rock along the length of the shaft (consistent units of length),

:''<math>\phi_{\delta s}</math>'' = settlement resistance factor for side resistance (dimensionless) and

:''t(z)'' = nominal t-z model selected to represent relevant soil/rock conditions (consistent units of stress).

Values for ''<math>\phi_{\delta s}</math>'' shall be established according to the soil/rock type and available site characterization data as provided subsequently in this article.

Factored q-w models shall similarly be established from a nominal, unfactored q-w model selected to represent the load transfer response in tip resistance for relevant soil/rock conditions as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>q_R (w) = \phi_{\delta p} \cdot q(w)</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of stress)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.9
|}

where:

:''q<sub>R</sub>(w)'' = factored q-w model for input into analyses using the t-z method (consistent units of stress),

:''w'' = relative displacement between the shaft and the soil/rock at the shaft tip (consistent units of length),

:<math>\phi_{\delta p}</math> = settlement resistance factor for tip resistance (dimensionless), and

:''q(w)'' = nominal q-w model selected to represent relevant soil/rock conditions at the tip of the shaft (consistent units of stress).

Values for <math>\phi_{\delta p}</math> shall be established according to the soil/rock type and available site characterization data as provided subsequently in this article.

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for t-z Method for Drilled Shafts in Rock'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.1 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean uniaxial compressive strength, <math>COV \overline{q_u}</math>. Values for <math>COV \overline{q_u}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.2 based on values for <math>COV \overline{q_u}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.2.1 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.1 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in rock from uniaxial compression test measurements using t-z method'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.2.2 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.2 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in rock from uniaxial compression test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for t-z Method for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through weak rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.3 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean uniaxial compressive strength, <math>COV \overline{q_u}</math>. Values for <math>COV \overline{q_u}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.4 based on values for <math>COV \overline{q_u}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.2.3 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.3 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from uniaxial compression test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.2.4 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.4 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from uniaxial compression test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for t-z Method for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Test Measurements'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through weak rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.5 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean equivalent SPT ''N''-value, <math>COV \overline{N_{eq}}</math>. Values for <math>COV \overline{N_{eq}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.6 based on values for <math>COV \overline{N_{eq}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.2.5 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig.751.37.4.2.5 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Standard Penetration Test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.2.6 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig.751.37.4.2.6 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Standard Penetration Test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for t-z Method for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Test Measurements'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through weak rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.7 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean ''TCP''-value, <math>COV_{\overline{TCP}}</math>. Values for <math>COV_{\overline{TCP}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.8 based on values for <math>COV_{\overline{TCP}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.2.7 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.7 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Texas Cone Penetration Test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.2.8 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.8 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Texas Cone Penetration Test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for t-z Method for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Test Measurements'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through weak rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.9 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>''-value, <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math>. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.10 based on values for <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.2.9 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.9 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Point Load Index Test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.2.10 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.10 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Point Load Index Test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for t-z Method for Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through cohesive soil shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.11 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean undrained shear strength, <math>COV \overline{s_u}</math>. Values for <math>COV \overline{s_u}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean undrained shear strength for the soil over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on cohesive soil shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.12 based on values for <math>COV \overline{s_u}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean undrained shear strength for the soil over the distance 2''D'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.2.11 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.11 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in cohesive soil from undrained shear strength measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.2.12 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.12 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in cohesive soil from undrained shear strength measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

For shafts founded in soft cohesive soils, consideration shall also be given to including additional settlement induced from time dependent consolidation of the soil.

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for t-z Method for Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils'''

Settlement evaluations for individual drilled shafts in cohesionless soils shall be designed according to applicable sections of the current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.

===751.37.4.3 Settlement of Drilled Shafts in Groups===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.4.3 Settlement of Drilled Shafts in Groups|Commentary on EPG 751.37.4.3 Settlement of Drilled Shafts in Groups]]'''
|}
'''Settlement of Shaft Groups in Cohesive Soils'''

Settlement of shaft groups in cohesive soils shall be estimated according to EPG 751.38.4.3 using the “equivalent footing” approach described in LRFD 10.7.2.3.

'''Settlement of Shaft Groups in Cohesionless Soils Using Standard Penetration Test Measurements'''

Settlement for drilled shaft groups in cohesionless soils can be estimated from SPT measurements as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\rho = qI\frac{\sqrt{B}}{(N_1)_{60}}</math>||align="center"| (inches)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.10
|}

where:

:''ρ'' = settlement of shaft group (inches),

:''q'' = net foundation pressure applied at depth of ''D'''(ksf),

:''B'' = width or smallest dimension of shaft group (feet),

:''I'' = 1 - 0.125(''D'/B'') ≥ 0.5 = influence factor of the effective group embedment (dimensionless),

:''(N<sub>1</sub>)<sub>60</sub>'' = SPT blow count corrected for overburden stress and hammer efficiency (blows/foot),

:''D'' = 2''D<sub>b</sub>''/3 = effective depth of “equivalent footing” and

:''D<sub>b</sub>'' = depth of embedment of shafts in layer that provides support.

The value for ''(N<sub>1</sub>)<sub>60</sub>'' is determined as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>(N_1)_{60} = C_N \cdot N \Big( \frac{ER}{60%}\Big)</math>||align="center"| (blows/foot)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.11
|}

where:

:''C<sub>N</sub>'' = <math>\Big[ 0.77 log_{10} \Big(\frac{40}{\sigma^'_v}\Big)\Big] \le 2.0</math> = correction factor to account for overburden stress (dimensionless),

:''ER'' = hammer efficiency expressed as percentage of theoretical free fall energy for hammer system actually used (percent) and

:''N'' = uncorrected SPT blow count (blows/foot).

'''Settlement of Shaft Groups in Cohesionless Soils Using Cone Penetration Test Measurements'''

Settlement for drilled shaft groups in cohesionless soils can be estimated from CPT measurements as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\rho = \frac{qBI}{2q_c}</math>||align="center"| (inches)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.12
|}

where:

:''ρ'' = settlement of shaft group (inches),

:''q'' = net foundation pressure applied at depth of D'(ksf),

:''B'' = width or smallest dimension of shaft group (feet),

:''I'' = 1 - 0.125(''D'/B'') ≥ 0.5 = influence factor of the effective group embedment (dimensionless),

:''q<sub>c</sub>'' = static cone tip resistance (ksf),

:''D'' = 2''D<sub>b</sub>''/3 = effective depth of “equivalent footing” and

:''D<sub>b</sub>'' = depth of embedment of shafts in layer that provides support.

'''Settlement of Shaft Groups in Rock'''

Settlement of shaft groups in rock shall be estimated according to EPG 751.38.4.2 using the “equivalent footing” approach described in LRFD 10.7.2.3.

==751.37.5 Design for Lateral Loading at Strength and Service Limit States==
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.5 Design for Lateral Loading at Strength and Service Limit States|Commentary on EPG 751.37.5 Design for Lateral Loading at Strength and Service Limit States]]'''
|}
The Strength Limit State and applicable Extreme Event Limit States shall be investigated when calculating the soil and structural resistance of the drilled shaft for lateral loading. The Service I Limit State shall be used when evaluating lateral deflection.

Design lateral movements should not exceed approximately 1.5 in. at the top of the shaft at the Service I Limit State.

To analyze laterally loaded drilled shafts, the point of fixity of the drilled shaft must be estimated. This location may be estimated by using a computer program. This is an iterative process that requires first assuming a point of fixity so that the bent stiffness may be calculated. The stiffness of the bent may be found by modeling the bent in a structural analysis program, applying a load to the middle of the beam cap and measuring the amount of deflection caused by the load. The method shown in [[751.2 Loads#751.2.4.6 Longitudinal Wind Force Distribution |EPG 751.2.4.6 Loads - Longitudinal Wind Force Distribution]] and [[751.2 Loads#751.2.4.7 Longitudinal Temperature Force Distribution |EPG 751.2.4.7 Loads - Longitudinal Temperature Force Distribution]] for modeling the stiffness, E'I, of a cast in place (C.I.P.) pile may also be used to model a drilled shaft. The moment of inertia of the bent is then found by:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>I = \frac{\big(\frac{P}{\delta}\big) L^3}{3E}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of length<sup>4</sup>)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.5.1
|}

where:

:''I'' = moment of inertia for the bridge bent (consistent units of length<sup>4</sup>),

:''P'' = load applied to the middle of the beam cap (consistent units of force),

:''L'' = length from point of fixity of shaft to middle of beam cap (consistent units of length),

:''δ'' = deflection caused by load P (consistent units of length) and

:''E'' = modulus of elasticity of concrete (consistent units of stress).

The ''E'' and ''I'' values used in the above equation shall also be used for longitudinal force distribution calculations.

The longitudinal forces applied to the bent can be calculated once the moment of inertia of the bent is known. Once loads are obtained, they can be input into computer software to get a point of fixity.

If the point of fixity is different than what was assumed to obtain the original bent stiffness, the bent stiffness shall be re-calculated with a new assumed point of fixity and this process continued until the point of fixity converges. As a rule of thumb, shafts socketed into rock are usually fixed near to the soil-rock interface.

The location of the point of fixity should be considered to be only an <u>approximation</u>. Many factors influence the actual location of the point of fixity. The thickness of the casing, scour and actual geotechnical properties could cause different results for the actual location of the point of fixity.

==751.37.6 Structural Resistance of Drilled Shafts==
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.6 Structural Resistance of Drilled Shafts|Commentary on EPG 751.37.6 Structural Resistance of Drilled Shafts]]'''
|}
===751.37.6.1 Reinforcement Design===

Drilled shaft structural resistance shall be designed similarly to reinforced concrete columns. The Strength Limit State and applicable Extreme Event Limit State load combinations shall be used in the reinforcement design.

Longitudinal reinforcing steel shall extend below the point of fixity of the drilled shaft at least 10 ft. in accordance with LRFD 10.8.3.9.3 or the required bar development length whichever is larger.

If permanent casing is used, and the shell consists of smooth pipe greater than 0.12 in. thick, it may be considered load carrying. An 1/8" shall be subtracted off of the shell thickness to account for corrosion. Casing could also be corrugated metal pipe. If casing is assumed to contribute to the structural resistance, the plans should indicate the minimum thickness and type of casing required.

Minimum clear spacing between longitudinal bars as well as between transverse bars shall not be less than five times the maximum aggregate size or 5 in. (LRFD 10.8.3.9.3).

For minimum concrete cover for drilled shaft, see [http://www.modot.org/business/standards_and_specs/SpecbookEPG.pdf#page=11 Sec 701.4.12.1]. If drilled shaft diameter does not match Sec 701.4.12.1 then use concrete cover for the next greater diameter drilled shaft. For rock sockets use 3” min. clear cover.

For longitudinal reinforcement, splicing shall be in accordance with LRFD 5.10.8.4.

For transverse reinforcement, lap splices for closed circular stirrups/ties shall be provided and staggered in accordance with LRFD 5.10.4.3. Lap length of 1.3 '''l'''<sub>d</sub> (Class B) for closed stirrups/ties shall be provided in accordance with LRFD 5.10.8.2.6d.

For lap length, see [[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.8.1 Development and Lap Splice General|EPG 751.5.9.2.8.1 Development and Lap Splice General]].

===751.37.6.2 Longitudinal Reinforcement===

Longitudinal reinforcement shall be designed to resist bending in the shaft due to lateral loads. The cross-sectional area for longitudinal reinforcement shall fall within the following limits:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left" rowspan="2"|<math>\frac{0.135 A_g f^'_c}{f_y} \le A_{steel} \le 0.08 A_g</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of stress)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.6.1
|-
|align="center"|''' LRFD 5.7.4.2'''||
|}

where:

:''A<sub>g</sub>'' = gross cross-sectional area of drilled shaft (consistent units of area),

:''f'<sub>c</sub>'' = concrete compressive strength (consistent units of stress),

:''f<sub>y</sub>'' = yield strength of steel reinforcement (consistent units of stress) and

:''A<sub>steel</sub>'' = cross-sectional area of longitudinal steel reinforcement (consistent units of area).

MoDOT prefers to follow LRFD 5.7.4.2 for drilled shafts since for typical cases, the potential exists for load transfer between the concrete and steel casing. (The minimum area of reinforcement based on LRFD is 10 percent less than ACI for f’<sub>c</sub> = 4 ksi).

===751.37.6.3 Factored Axial Resistance===

The factored axial resistance of a drilled shaft shall be determined as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>P_R = \phi P_N \ge \gamma Q</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.6.2
|}

where:

:''P<sub>R</sub>'' = factored axial resistance of drilled shaft (consistent units of force),

:''P<sub>N</sub>'' = nominal axial resistance of drilled shaft (consistent units of force),

:<math>\phi</math> = 0.75 = resistance factor for axial resistance of drilled shaft (dimensionless) and

:<math>\gamma Q</math> = factored axial load (consistent units of force).

For shafts with spiral reinforcement, the nominal axial resistance shall be computed as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>P_N = 0.85 \Big[ 0.85 f^'_c \big(A_g - A_{steel}\big) + A_{steel}f_y \Big]</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.6.3
|}

where:

:''A<sub>g</sub>'' = gross cross-sectional area of drilled shaft (consistent units of area),

:''f'<sub>c</sub>'' = concrete compressive strength (consistent units of stress),

:''f<sub>y</sub>'' = yield strength of steel reinforcement (consistent units of stress) and

:''A<sub>steel</sub>'' = cross-sectional area of longitudinal steel reinforcement (consistent units of area).

For shafts with tie reinforcement, the nominal axial resistance shall be computed as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>P_N = 0.80 \Big[ 0.85 f^'_c \big(A_g - A_{steel}\big) + A_{steel}f_y \Big]</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.6.4
|}

where:

:''A<sub>g</sub>'' = gross cross-sectional area of drilled shaft (consistent units of area),

:''f'<sub>c</sub>'' = concrete compressive strength (consistent units of stress),

:''f<sub>y</sub>'' = yield strength of steel reinforcement (consistent units of stress) and

:''A<sub>steel</sub>'' = cross-sectional area of longitudinal steel reinforcement (consistent units of area).

===751.37.6.4 Transverse Reinforcement===

Minimum transverse reinforcement shall be designed to resist the potential of diagonal cracking and improve ductility, and to control the stability of the reinforcement cage. Follow the four-step procedure, below:

'''No. 1. Determine if Transverse Reinforcement is Required for Loading'''

:If
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="900"
|-
|align="left"|<math>V_u > 0.5 \phi V_c</math>,||align="left|then go to No. 2a, below,<br/>otherwise, go to No. 2b.|| align="center"| (consistent units of force) '''(LRFD 5.8.2.4)'''||align="right"|Equation 751.37.6.4.1
|}

:where:

::''V<sub>u</sub>'' = factored shear force (consistent units of force),

::<math>V_c = 0.0316\beta \sqrt{f^'_c} b_v d_v</math> = approximate shear resistance of drilled shaft (consistent units of force),

::''Φ'' = 0.9 = resistance factor for shear resistance of drilled shaft (dimensionless),

::''β'' = 2.0,

::''b<sub>v</sub>'' = D = shaft diameter (consistent units of length),

::''d<sub>v</sub>'' = 0.9 (''D''/2 + ''D<sub>r</sub>'' /π) and

::''D<sub>r</sub>'' = diameter of circle passing through the centers of the longitudinal reinforcement (consistent units of length). See commentary for LRFD C5.8.2.9-2.

'''No. 2. Determine Minimum Transverse Reinforcement'''

:'''a)''' Minimum transverse reinforcement to control shear diagonal cracking and increase ductility:

:The minimum amount of transverse reinforcement shall satisfy the following equation if transverse reinforcement is required for loading in No. 1, otherwise go to No. 2b:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>A_v \ge 0.0316 \sqrt{f^'_c}\frac{b_vs}{f_y}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units)||align="Center"|'''(LRFD 5.8.2.5)''' ||align="right"|Equation 751.37.6.4.2
|}

:where:

:''A<sub>v</sub>'' = area of transverse reinforcement within distance s (consistent units of area),

:''s'' = spacing of transverse reinforcement (consistent units of length),

:''b<sub>v</sub>'' = ''D'' = shaft diameter (consistent units of length),

:''f'<sub>c</sub>'' = concrete compressive strength (consistent units of stress) and

:''f<sub>y</sub>'' = yield strength of steel reinforcement (consistent units of stress).

:'''b)''' Minimum transverse reinforcement to control stability of cage before and during placement:

:Use minimum #4 @ 12” stirrups for reinforcing cage ≤ 4 ft. diameter and minimum #5 @ 12” stirrups for reinforcing cage > 4 ft. diameter (FHWA-NHI-10-016) unless transverse reinforcement needs to be designed as in No. 1. If transverse reinforcement needs to be designed as in No. 1, then provide the controlling transverse reinforcement area required by EPG 751.37.6.4 No. 2a, 2b and [[#751.37.6.5 Factored Shear Resistance|EPG 751.37.6.5 Factored Shear Resistance]].

:All shafts, cased or uncased, or where casing is used for strength, shall be transversely reinforced.

'''No. 3. Determine Maximum Transverse Reinforcement Spacing:'''

:The maximum transverse reinforcement spacing shall be ≤ 12” to provide crack control without consideration for casing. MoDOT does not implement LRFD 5.8.2.7 maximum spacing of transverse reinforcement requirements for typical shaft sizes. However, for small shafts where LRFD 5.8.2.7 will control, it should be directly implemented.

<div id="No. 4. Determine Maximum"></div>
'''No. 4. Determine Maximum Transverse Shaft Reinforcement Spacing at the Anchorage of Column Reinforcement: '''

:For columns with longitudinal reinforcement anchored into oversized shafts, in the anchorage region, the spacing of the transverse shaft reinforcement shall meet the requirements of the following equation:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>S_{max}=\frac{2\pi A_{sp}f_{ytr}l_s}{kA_lf_{ul}}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units)||align="Center"|'''(LRFD 5.11.5.2.1-1)''' ||align="right"|Equation 751.37.6.4.3
|}

:where:

::''S<sub>max</sub>'' = maximum spacing of transverse shaft reinforcement (consistent units of length),
::''A<sub>sp</sub>'' = area of transverse shaft reinforcement (consistent units of area),
::''f<sub>ytr</sub>'' = yield strength of transverse shaft reinforcement (consistent units of stress),
::''ℓ<sub>s</sub>'' = required lap splice of the longitudinal column reinforcement (consistent units of length),
::''k'' = ratio of column tensile reinforcement to total column reinforcement at the nominal resistance,
::''A<sub>ℓ</sub>'' = area of longitudinal column reinforcement (consistent units of area), and
::''f<sub>uℓ</sub>'' = tensile strength of longitudinal column reinforcement (consistent units of stress).

===751.37.6.5 Factored Shear Resistance===

The factored shear resistance of a drilled shaft shall be determined as:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>V_R = \phi \big(V_c + V_s\big)</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.6.4.4
|}

where:

:''V<sub>R</sub>'' = factored shear resistance of drilled shaft (consistent units of force),

:''V<sub>c</sub>''= nominal shear resistance from concrete (consistent units of force),

:''V<sub>s</sub>'' = <math>\frac{A_v f_y d_v cot\theta}{s}</math> = shear resistance from transverse shear reinforcement. (For A<sub>v</sub>, use transverse reinforcement area from [[#751.37.6.4 Transverse Reinforcement|EPG 751.37.6.4 Transverse Reinforcement]] and increase reinforcement area as needed to meet design requirements. (consistent units of force),

:''Φ'' = 0.9 = resistance factor for shear resistance of drilled shaft (dimensionless),

:''A<sub>v</sub>'' = area of transverse shear reinforcement within distance s (consistent units of area),

:''f<sub>y</sub>'' = yield strength of steel reinforcement (consistent units of stress),

:''θ'' = 45° = angle of inclination of diagonal compressive stresses (degrees),

:''d<sub>v</sub>'' = 0.9 (''D''/2 + ''D<sub>r</sub>'' /''π'') and

:''D<sub>r</sub>'' = diameter of circle passing through the centers of the longitudinal reinforcement (consistent units of length). See commentary for LRFD C5.8.2.9-2.

==751.37.7 References==
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.7 References|Commentary on EPG 751.37.7 References]]'''
|}
AASHTO (2009), ''AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification: Customary U.S. Units'', American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Fourth Edition with 2008 and 2009 Interim Revisions.

Hoek, E., and E.T. Brown (1988), “The Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion – A 1988 Update,” ''Proceedings of the 15th Canadian Rock Mechanics Symposium'', Toronto, Canada.

Hoek, E., C. Carranza-Torres, and B. Corkum (2002), “Hoek and Brown Failure Criterion – 2002 Edition,” ''Proceedings of NARMS-TAC Conference'', Toronto, Canada.

Horvath, R.G., and T.C. Kenney (1979), “Shaft Resistance of Rock Socketed Drilled Piers,” ''Proceedings of the Symposium on Deep Foundations'', ASCE, pp. 182-214.

Loehr, J.E., B.L. Rosenblad, and T.T. Vu (2011a), ''MoDOT Transportation Geotechnics Research Program: Drilled Shaft Axial Load Test Program Interpretation Report'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Loehr, J.E., S.A. Grant, and B.L. Rosenblad (2011b), ''Calibration of Resistance Factors for Design of Drilled Shafts at Strength Limit States Using Laboratory Test Measurements'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

O’Neill, M.W., and L.C. Reese (1999), ''Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods'', Report No. FHWA-IF-99-025, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, 758 pp.

Pierce, M.D., J.E. Loehr, and B.L. Rosenblad (2011), ''Calibration of LRFD Resistance Factors for Design of Drilled Shafts at Strength Limit States Using In situ Test Measurements'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Reese, L.C., W.M. Isenhower, and S-T Wang (2006), ''Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations'', John Wiley and Sons, 574 pp.

Wyllie, D.C. (1999), ''Foundations on Rock'', E & FN Spon, Second Edition, 401 pp.

==751.37.8 Commentary==
===Commentary on [[#751.37.1 General|EPG 751.37.1 General]]===

These guidelines were developed from prior EPG guidelines with notable changes to the general approach for application of LRFD techniques as well as updated resistance factors based on probabilistic calibrations. Calibration analyses were performed following generally accepted procedures for calibration of resistance factors for geotechnical applications, but with modifications to permit several enhancements to be implemented. The most notable enhancements provided in the guidelines include:

:* Use of resistance factors that are dependent upon the variability and uncertainty that exists in select design properties

:* Adoption of different target reliability levels for foundations of structures of different operational importance.

Both of these enhancements are expected to produce efficient foundation designs while still maintaining appropriate safety and reliability for all classes of operational importance. Additional information regarding development of the methods provided in these guidelines can be found in Loehr et al. (2011b), Pierce et al. (2011), and Vu and Loehr (2011). Additional information regarding target reliability values established for different classes of operational importance is provided in Bowders et al. (2011).

The four classes of operational importance include:
:* Minor or low volume route
:* Major route
:* Major bridge costing less than $100 million
:* Major bridge costing greater than $100 million.

These classifications are based on common MoDOT designations. The target reliability levels established for each limit state and operational importance were generally based upon consideration of highway bridges. However, the methods provided in this article can also be utilized for design of foundations for other structures including retaining walls and roadway signs.

Calibration analyses performed to establish the resistance factors presented in these guidelines were performed using the latest knowledge of variability and uncertainty in applied loads (Kulicki et al., 2007), as well as using load factors that are currently in effect. The resistance factors provided in these guidelines are intended to produce foundations with reliabilities that are approximately equal to the target reliabilities established by MoDOT when utilized with current load factors. Since it is the combined effect of load and resistance factors that produce this reliability, the resistance factors provided are inherently coupled with current load factors and are contingent upon the uncertainty and variability in the applied loads that were presumed for the calibrations. As such, recalibration of resistance factors is required if alternative load factors are adopted, or if substantial revisions to current estimates of load variability and uncertainty are found.

It is important to emphasize that the resistance factors provided in these guidelines were developed presuming that ''mean values'' would be used for all design parameters in the methods provided. This departs from past practice utilizing allowable stress design (ASD) approaches where nominal values of parameters that were less than mean values were often used to introduce conservatism into the analyses beyond that provided by the ASD factor of safety. Use of design parameters less than the mean values within the context of these guidelines will often, but not always, increase the reliability of foundation designs; however, such practice is contrary to the spirit of LRFD in that it will not produce foundations that achieve the target reliability established by MoDOT policy.

The procedures provided in these guidelines are not intended as a substitute for good judgment. Rather, the intent of these guidelines is to:

:1) inform designers of generally appropriate levels of conservatism to address the variability and uncertainty involved in different aspects of design analyses and

:2) provide quantitative methods to achieve target reliabilities for foundations depending on the variability and uncertainty present in relevant design parameters and design methods.

Designers must still use their best judgment in considering design options (e.g. foundation depth, type and size; necessity for load tests; etc.) for establishing the most appropriate foundations for bridges and other structures.

Design methods provided in these guidelines are mostly empirical methods derived from results of full-scale load tests. Application of these methods is generally restricted to geologic conditions and construction procedures similar to those represented by the load tests used to establish the methods. In particular, methods presented for prediction of nominal and factored shaft resistance in weak rock were specifically developed from load tests performed in Missouri following established MoDOT construction specifications. As such, these methods are, strictly speaking, only applicable to cases where shafts will be constructed in general accordance with current MoDOT construction specifications. Use of these guidelines for conditions or situations that depart from these restrictions is permissible, but requires that designers give consideration to the effects of differences between the specific site conditions encountered and those represented by the empirical data.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature|EPG 751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature]]====

The length to diameter ratio of drilled shafts should generally be targeted for the range 3 ≤ ''L''/''D'' ≤ 30; however, shafts with dimensions falling outside of this range can, at times, be effectively utilized.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.1.2 Materials|EPG 751.37.1.2 Materials]]====

Where possible, the concrete mix for drilled shafts should utilize MoDOT aggregate gradation E (1/2 inch minus) to improve the workability of the concrete during placement and reduce the risk of shaft defects. Special attention should also be given to concrete slump requirements to ensure the concrete has sufficient workability to completely surround the reinforcing cage without vibration. For cases where “tight cages” are required, consideration should be given to using special construction provisions to minimize the risk of concrete placement problems.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.1.3 Casing|EPG 751.37.1.3 Casing]]====

Temporary or permanent casing is commonly required to support the shaft excavation during construction to prevent caving of overburden soils. Use of permanent casing generally simplifies construction by avoiding the need for multiple cranes to simultaneously place concrete and extract the casing and reduces the risk of problems during concrete placement. However, use of either temporary or permanent casing will generally reduce the side resistance of the constructed shaft over the cased length. Alternatives to use of casing include use of mineral or polymer slurry to maintain the stability of the excavation during construction, or use of no casing and no slurry when soil/rock conditions will permit the shafts to be constructed without caving of the excavation walls.

Permanent casing may also be required to provide structural resistance, especially when lateral loads are substantial (see [[#751.37.6 Structural Resistance of Drilled Shafts|EPG 751.37.6]]). For example, permanent casing may be required to:

:* Achieve the required flexural resistance of the drilled shaft

:* Resist large lateral loads for bridges located in seismic areas

:* Facilitate shaft construction through water

:* Support the shaft excavation when there is insufficient head room available for casing recovery

====Commentary on [[#751.37.1.4 General Design Considerations|EPG 751.37.1.4 General Design Considerations]]====

''Scour ''

Appropriate methods for evaluation of scour are beyond the scope of these guidelines. However, these guidelines require that drilled shafts be designed to acceptably support the structure assuming that the foundation soil/rock is scoured to depths predicted following currently accepted practice.

''Downdrag ''

Downdrag loads should be considered any time settlement is likely to occur in soils surrounding drilled shafts. Downdrag is most commonly a concern for foundations passing through or near to approach fills overlying soft, cohesive soils where the applied load of the fill will induce settlement in the underlying soft soils. Downdrag is seldom a concern for intermediate bents away from approach fills (because there is often no loading to induce compression of the soft soils) unless settlement is likely to be induced by lowering groundwater levels.

Downdrag loads are generally fully mobilized with relatively small settlements and can be substantial. In cases where downdrag loading is significant, consideration should be given to staging construction of shafts, if timing will allow, such that shafts are installed after settlement has practically ceased or to other techniques to limit the effects of downdrag.

''Group Effects ''

The redundancy factor of LRFD 1.3.4 is not intended to account for redundancy or lack of redundancy in foundation design. The LRFD redundancy factor, ''η<sub>R</sub>'', has been a source of confusion for foundation design, especially given that group efficiency factors are also denoted as ''η''. Use of the redundancy factor to account for the presence or absence of redundancy in the foundations is inappropriate as this factor was developed purely from considerations of the performance of the superstructure and not the foundations as discussed in LRFD C10.5.5.2.4.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.1.5 Related Provisions|EPG 751.37.1.5 Related Provisions]]====

Use of site characterization practices that significantly depart from those currently used by MoDOT can produce substantial differences in design parameters and/or the variability of design parameters, which will lead to substantial differences in foundation reliability and failure to achieve the established target foundation reliabilities established by MoDOT. Use of the methods in these guidelines is generally restricted to design parameters established following current MoDOT site characterization practices as described in [[:Category:321 Geotechnical Engineering|EPG 321]].

===Commentary on [[#751.37.2 General Design Procedure and Limit States|EPG 751.37.2 General Design Procedure and Limit States]]===

Selection of applicable strength and serviceability limit states shall be accomplished in close consultation with the Structural Project Manager. At a minimum, the Strength I and Service I limit states should be evaluated. When multiple strength and/or service limit states are considered, the limit state producing the greatest minimum shaft dimensions shall govern the final design dimensions.

Axial geotechnical resistance will frequently control the dimensions of drilled shafts. However, lateral strength or serviceability may dictate final shaft dimensions when shafts are subjected to large lateral loads.

Note that it is possible that a shaft can be shortened from that initially determined considering only axial loads. This can occur where a shaft’s diameter must be increased to satisfy lateral strength or serviceability requirements (e.g. to increase bending/shear strength/stiffness). When this occurs, designers should revisit the relevant axial strength and axial serviceability requirements to evaluate whether a shaft of the diameter required to meet lateral serviceability requirements can be made shorter than what was originally determined for a smaller diameter shaft. One should not simply increase the diameter to satisfy the lateral loading requirements without reconsidering the shaft length. Often multiple combinations of shaft diameter and length can be made to satisfy the axial loading requirements.

Lengths of rock sockets should generally be limited to the extent possible because rock sockets commonly have substantially higher unit costs.

===Commentary on [[#751.37.3 Design for Axial Loading at Strength Limit State|EPG 751.37.3 Geotechnical Resistance for Axial Loading at Strength Limit States]]===

Throughout EPG 751.37, factored loads are denoted as <math>\gamma Q</math>. This notation should not be taken to suggest inclusion or exclusion of specific load effects, but rather is simply intended as a convenient notation to reflect factored loads. When applying these guidelines, designers should replace <math>\gamma Q</math> with load combinations and load factors that are appropriate for the structure and limit state being considered.

Side resistance over the cased length of shaft is commonly neglected for rock-socketed shafts because the resistance is difficult to appropriately establish and because the resistance generally contributes little to the overall shaft resistance. For shafts founded exclusively in soil, the potential resistance over the cased length may provide a more substantial contribution to resistance.

Judgment should be applied when deciding whether to ignore tip resistance in karstic formations including consideration of the prevalence of voids and likelihood of encountering them during actual construction. Consideration should also be given to use of special provisions that stipulate appropriate action if voids are encountered in verification holes.

Design procedures within this article are categorized according to material type, including methods for design of shafts founded within “rock”, “weak rock”, “cohesive soil”, and “cohesionless soil”. While these categories serve to logically separate the guidelines according to design method, complexities present at some sites may lead to cases where multiple methods could potentially be used. In such cases, designers should utilize the method that is most appropriate for the conditions encountered, rather than selecting the method that produces the smallest or largest shaft dimensions.

EPG 751.37.3.1 is generally intended for use with “harder” rock materials where the frequency, orientation, and condition of rock discontinuities tend to dominate the response of the rock to loading from foundations. Such rock masses will generally be composed of rock with uniaxial compressive strengths that are greater than 100 ksf, although some exceptions to this limit could arise. Limestones and dolomites will commonly fall under this article as will many sandstones, and even a few hard shales.

EPG 751.37.3.2, EPG 751.37.3.3, EPG 751.37.3.4, and EPG 751.37.3.5 are intended for use with weaker rock where the properties of the intact rock tend to dominate performance. These articles represent alternative means for design in shales, some weak sandstones, and potentially some very stiff clays. Several alternative methods are provided because of difficulties that can arise with reliable sampling and testing of weak rock. EPG 751.37.3.2 is intended for use when the compressive strength of the rock is determined using conventional uniaxial compression tests whereas the remaining articles provide means for designing drilled shafts in weak rock based on in situ tests or index tests. Use of methods provided in these articles for materials with properties falling outside of the measurement bounds provided should be done with extreme caution as the methods may dramatically overestimate the resistance that can be realistically achieved beyond the bounds provided.

EPG 751.37.3.6 and EPG 751.37.3.7 are intended for use with cohesive and cohesionless soils, respectively. Some overlap exists between the strength limits provided in EPG 751.37.3.2 and EPG 751.37.3.6 (Note that the limits for EPG 751.37.3.2 are based on the uniaxial compressive strength whereas the limits for EPG 751.37.3.6 are based on the undrained shear strength, which is nominally one half of the compressive strength). When designing for materials that fall within this overlapping range of strengths, designers shall use the method that is most appropriate for the material encountered.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.1 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Rock (qu ≥ 100 ksf)|EPG 751.37.3.1 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Rock (''q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf''')]]====

=====Commentary on Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Rock (''q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf''')=====

The design method provided in this article is adapted from Horvath and Kenney (1979) based on evaluation of results from a small number of load tests performed in Missouri limestones for shafts constructed in general accordance with current MoDOT construction specifications. Analysis of this data shows that the “best fit” trend to the empirical data is similar to the Horvath and Kenny relationship.

The resistance factors provided in Figure 751.37.3.1.1 were established from probabilistic calibrations to achieve the target foundation reliabilities established by MoDOT as described in Loehr et al. (2011b). The variability and uncertainty present for dead load, live load, the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock, as well as the variability and uncertainty of the design method were explicitly considered in these calibrations. The variability and uncertainty utilized for dead load and live load were taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). The variability and uncertainty utilized for the design method were established from empirical data derived from load tests performed on test shafts constructed in general accordance with current MoDOT construction specifications. Consideration of additional load test results from test shafts not constructed following these specifications was found to lead to substantially lower required resistance factors. As such, the resistance factors provided are not generally appropriate for shafts constructed according to specifications that differ substantially from current MoDOT construction specifications.

The coefficient of variation for the mean uniaxial compressive strength used in Equation 751.37.3.4 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> compressive strength rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> of compressive strength as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline{q_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{q_u}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed on samples taken from within the depth range of the shaft segment being considered. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

=====Commentary on Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Rock (''q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf''')=====

The design method provided in this article is adapted from the method presented in Wyllie (1999) to conform to the LRFD approach. The method is derived from the Hoek-Brown strength criterion (Hoek and Brown, 1988) that is commonly used to represent the strength of fractured rock masses using the rock mass parameters, ''m'' and ''s''. The resistance factors provided in Figure 751.37.3.1.2 were established from probabilistic calibrations to achieve the target foundation reliabilities as described in Abu El-Ela et al. (2011) and are identical to those provided in EPG 751.38.3.1 for bearing resistance of spread footings on fractured rock. These calibrations were conducted with explicit consideration of variability and uncertainty present for dead load, live load, uniaxial compressive strength, and the design method itself (i.e. a “method” uncertainty). The variability and uncertainty utilized for dead load and live load were taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). The variability and uncertainty in the design method was conservatively estimated utilizing the likely range of m and s values expected for a particular condition.

Unfortunately, empirical data to evaluate design methods for predicting the ultimate tip resistance of drilled shafts in fractured rock are not presently available. As such, the variability and uncertainty attributed to the design method was conservatively estimated as a matter of prudence. One consequence of this conservatism is that the factored tip resistance predicted for foundations designed according to EPG 751.37.3.1 may, in some cases, be less than the factored tip resistance predicted according to EPG 751.37.3.2 for rock that might be considered to have lower quality. This consequence is a reflection of the lack of data available to confirm the predicted resistance using the prescribed method, and thus the limited reliability of the method, rather than an indication that the tip resistance will actually be less than that for lesser rock. Future research to measure the ultimate tip resistance for drilled shafts in fractured rock could dramatically improve the accuracy and reliability of these methods, which in turn would dramatically improve the efficiency of foundation designs for fractured rock. This consequence also suggests that site specific load tests could potentially improve foundation efficiency in some cases while still maintaining the target reliability.

The coefficient of variation for the mean uniaxial compressive strength used in Equation 751.37.3.5 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> compressive strength rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> of compressive strength as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline{q_u}</math>, <math>COV_{\overline{q_u}}</math>, ''m'' and ''s'' do not have to be established exclusively from tests or observations performed for rock specimens taken from within the depth range of interest below the tip of the shaft. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

Several methods are available for establishing appropriate values of ''GSI'' for specific rock masses. Equation 751.37.3.8 represents a generally rigorous approach for determination of ''GSI'' that should be used when available measurements and observations allow for establishing Rock Mass Rating system ratings and when these ratings produce ''RMR'' greater than 25. In cases where such measurements and observations are not available, or where ''RMR'' is less than 25, ''GSI'' values can be estimated using the qualitative chart shown in Fig. Commentary 751.37.3.1.1 based on the work of Marinos and Hoek (2000). Figs. Commentary 751.37.3.1.2, Commentary 751.37.3.1.3 and Commentary 751.37.3.1.4 provide additional guidance for qualitative selection of GSI for typical sandstones, shales and limestones from the chart.

In cases where ''GSI'' cannot be rationally determined, it is also possible to directly estimate approximate values for the rock mass parameters ''m'' and ''s'' from Table Commentary 751.37.3.1 using qualitative descriptions of the rock mass. The values provided in Table Commentary 751.37.3.1 will generally be less than values that will be produced using Equations 751.37.3.6 and 751.37.3.7. This result is because the values in Table Commentary 751.37.3.1 were established under the assumption that excavation-induced damage will occur (i.e. that the Hoek and Brown damage factor, ''D'', is equal to 1) while Equations 751.37.3.6 and 751.37.3.7 were established assuming that no significant excavation-induced damage will occur (i.e. that ''D'' = 0). Since significant excavation-induced damage is unlikely to occur for shafts excavated using conventional construction techniques, the values provided in Table Commentary 751.37.3.1 will be conservative. It is also important to point out that ''m'' and ''s'' can be roughly interpolated from the values provided in Table Commentary 751.37.3.1 for conditions falling between those listed.

[[image:751.38.4.2.jpg|center|700px|thumb|<center>'''Fig. Commentary 751.37.3.1.1 Graphic for estimation of geological strength index (GSI) in rock (from Marinos and Hoek, 2000).'''</center>]]

[[image:Commentary 751.38.4.1.jpg|center|750px|thumb|<center>'''Fig. Commentary 751.37.3.1.2 Graphic for illustrating typical ranges for geological strength index (GSI) of sandstone (from Marinos and Hoek, 2000). '''</center>]]

[[image:Commentary 751.38.4.2.jpg|center|750px|thumb|<center>'''Fig. Commentary 751.37.3.1.3 Graphic for illustrating typical ranges for geological strength index (GSI) of siltstone, claystone, and clay shale (from Marinos and Hoek, 2000).'''</center>]]

[[image:Commentary 751.38.4.3.jpg|center|750px|thumb|<center>'''Fig. Commentary 751.37.3.1.4 Graphic for illustrating typical ranges for geological strength index (GSI) of limestone (from Marinos and Hoek, 2000). '''</center>]]

[[image:Table Commentary 751.38.3.1.jpg|center|750px|thumb|<center>'''Table Commentary 751.37.3.1 Approximate values for rock material constants for rock masses of varying quality (from AASHTO, 2009; after Hoek and Brown, 1988'''</center>]]

Methods provided in this subarticle are not appropriate for use with uniaxial compressive strengths estimated from Point Load Index tests or from other empirical correlations. Use of correlations for estimation of uniaxial compressive strength introduces additional variability into the relation among rock mass parameters, uniaxial compressive strength, and side and tip resistance that is not accounted for in the resistance factors provided. Use of compressive strengths derived from Point Load Index values or other correlations is therefore not appropriate for application of the provisions of this subarticle. It is possible to develop resistance factors that would be appropriate for such use, but such calibrations have not been completed at this time.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.2 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core (5 ksf ≤ qu ≤ 100 ksf)|EPG 751.37.3.2 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core (''5 ksf ≤ q<sub>u</sub> ≤ 100 ksf'')]]====

Several alternative methods are provided to estimate side resistance for shafts founded in weak rock. Any of these alternatives may be used depending upon the site characterization data that are available. All methods provided are intended to produce shafts with reliabilities that are approximately equal to the established target reliability for the operational importance utilized. However, the methods will not necessarily produce shafts with identical dimensions so designers are encouraged to consider potential efficiencies that can be realized from utilization of the alternative methods. It is currently anticipated that methods in EPG 751.37.3.2 will produce the most cost-effective drilled shafts from among the methods provided. However, additional experience with the different provisions is needed to confirm this belief.

The design methods provided in this article were established from analysis of data from load tests performed in weak rock at sites in Missouri as described in Rosenblad et al. (2011), Loehr et al. (2011a), and Miller (2003). The resistance factors provided in Figures 751.37.3.1.3 and 751.37.3.1.4 were established from probabilistic calibrations to achieve established target reliabilities as described in Loehr et al. (2011b). The variability and uncertainty present for dead load, live load, and uniaxial compressive strength were explicitly considered in these calibrations, in addition to variability and uncertainty associated with the empirical design method itself. The variability and uncertainty utilized for dead load and live load were taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). Variability and uncertainty for the empirical design method were established from statistical analysis of the empirical data as described in Loehr et al. (2011b).

Uniaxial compressive strengths established from Point Load Index tests or from other empirical correlations are not appropriate for use with the methods provided in this subarticle. Use of correlations for estimation of uniaxial compressive strength introduces additional variability and uncertainty into the relations among uniaxial compressive strength and side and tip resistance that is not accounted for in the resistance factors provided. Use of compressive strengths derived from Point Load Index values or other correlations is therefore not appropriate for application of the provisions of this subarticle. Methods provided in EPG 751.37.3.5 shall be used to design drilled shafts using results from Point Load Index tests.

=====Commentary on Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core (''5 ksf ≤ q<sub>u</sub> ≤100 ksf'')=====

The coefficient of variation for the mean uniaxial compressive strength used in Equation 751.37.3.9 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> compressive strength rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> of compressive strength as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline{q_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{q_u}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed on samples taken from the depth range of the shaft segment. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The nominal unit side resistance provided in Equation 751.37.3.9 is limited to be less than 30 ksf because predictions resulting from use of the equation for ''q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf'' will often exceed what can be reliably mobilized for large uniaxial compressive strengths.

=====Commentary on Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core (''5 ksf ≤ q<sub>u</sub> ≤ 100 ksf'')=====

The coefficient of variation for the mean uniaxial compressive strength used in Equation 751.37.3.10 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> compressive strength rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> of compressive strength as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline{q_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{q_u}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed on samples taken from within the depth range of interest below the tip of the shaft. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The nominal unit tip resistance provided in Equation 751.37.3.10 is limited to be less than 400 ksf because predictions resulting from use of the equation for ''q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf'' will often exceed what can be reliably mobilized for large uniaxial compressive strengths.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.3 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests (Neq ≤ 400 blows/ft)|EPG 751.37.3.3 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests (''N<sub>eq</sub> ≤ 400 blows/ft'')]]====

The design methods provided in this article were established from analysis of data from load tests performed in weak rock at sites in Missouri as described in Rosenblad et al. (2011), Loehr et al. (2011a), Pierce et al. (2011), and Miller (2003). The resistance factors provided in Figures 751.37.3.5 and 751.37.3.6 were established from probabilistic calibrations to achieve established target reliabilities as described in Pierce et al. (2011). The variability and uncertainty present for dead load, live load, and equivalent SPT ''N''-value were explicitly considered in the calibrations, in addition to variability and uncertainty associated with the empirical design method itself. The variability and uncertainty utilized for dead load and live load were taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). The variability and uncertainty for the empirical design method was established from statistical analysis of the empirical data as described in Pierce et al. (2011).

“Equivalent N-value” is used in these guidelines because, strictly speaking, the value used is not a true SPT ''N''-value. Common practice is to limit the number of hammer blows in SPT measurements to approximately 50 blows in 6 inches (depending upon the energy rating of the hammer). As such, ''N''-values greater than 100 blows per foot are not reported. Rather, when tests fail to penetrate at least 6 inches, the penetration achieved for 50 blows is reported to reflect the relative strength and stiffness of the test material. In such cases, the “equivalent” N-value is calculated as
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>N_{eq} = 12 \cdot \frac{b}{p}</math>||align="center"| (dimensionless)||align="right"|Equation Commentary 751.37.3.1
|}

where:

:N<sub>eq</sub> = “equivalent SPT N-value” (blows/foot),

:b = number of blows applied (blows) and

:p = measured penetration of Standard sampler (inches).

When tests successfully penetrate 6 in. during one testing increment but subsequently fail to penetrate 6 in. during a successive increment, the equivalent ''N''-value shall be computed using the combined number of blows and combined penetration of both testing increments. While N<sub>eq</sub> is not strictly an SPT ''N''-value, its use is consistent with current MoDOT practice and, since it was used as the basis for calibration of the methods of this article, is appropriate for use in design.

=====Commentary on Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests (''N<sub>eq</sub> ≤ 400 blows/ft'')=====

The coefficient of variation for the mean equivalent SPT ''N''-value used in Equation 751.37.3.11 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> value rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> of the equivalent ''N''-value as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline{N_{eq}}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{N_{eq}}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed over the depth range of the shaft segment. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The nominal unit side resistance provided in Equation 751.37.3.11 is limited to be less than 30 ksf because predictions resulting from use of the equation for N_eq≥400 blows/foot will often exceed what can be reliably mobilized.

=====Commentary on Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests (''N<sub>eq</sub> ≤ 400 blows/ft'')=====

The coefficient of variation for the mean equivalent SPT ''N''-value used in Equation 751.37.3.12 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> value rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> of the equivalent ''N''-value as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline{N_{eq}}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{N_{eq}}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed over the depth range of interest below the tip of the shaft. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The nominal unit tip resistance provided in Equation 751.37.3.12 is limited to be less than 400 ksf because predictions resulting from use of the equation for ''N<sub>eq</sub> ≥ 400 blows/ft.'' will often exceed what can be reliably mobilized.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.4 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ TCP ≤ 10 in.)|EPG 751.37.3.4 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ ''TCP'' ≤ 10 in.)]]====

The design methods provided in this article were established from analysis of data from load tests performed in weak rock at sites in Missouri as described in Rosenblad et al. (2011), Loehr et al. (2011a), Pierce et al. (2011), and Miller (2003). The resistance factors provided in Figures 751.37.3.4.1 and 751.37.3.4.2 were established from probabilistic calibrations to achieve established target reliabilities as described in Pierce et al. (2011). The variability and uncertainty present for dead load, live load, and Texas Cone Penetration test penetration were considered in these calibrations, in addition to variability and uncertainty associated with the empirical design method itself. The variability and uncertainty utilized for dead load and live load were taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). The variability and uncertainty for the empirical design method was established from statistical analysis of the empirical data as described in Pierce et al. (2011).

=====Commentary on Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ ''TCP'' ≤10 in.)=====

Resistance factors to produce the established target reliabilities from mean TCP values actually vary slightly depending on the magnitude of the mean ''TCP''-value. However, since the differences observed in resistance factors were small, average values determined over the range of potential ''TCP''-values (1 in. ≤ ''TCP'' ≤10 in.) were used as a practical simplification.

The coefficient of variation for the mean ''TCP''-value used in Equation 751.37.3.13 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> value rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline{TCP}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{TCP}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed over the depth range of the shaft segment. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The nominal unit side resistance provided in Equation 751.37.3.13 is limited to be less than 30 ksf because predictions resulting from use of the equation for ''TCP ≥ 10 in.'' will often exceed what can be reliably mobilized.

=====Commentary on Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ ''TCP'' ≤ 10 in.)=====

Resistance factors to produce the established target reliabilities from mean ''TCP'' values actually vary slightly depending on the magnitude of the mean ''TCP''-value. However, since the differences observed in resistance factors were small, average values determined over the range of potential ''TCP''-values (1 in. ≤ ''TCP'' ≤ 10 in.) were used as a practical simplification.

The coefficient of variation for the mean ''TCP''-value used in Equation 751.37.3.14 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> value rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline{TCP}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{TCP}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed over the depth range of interest below the tip of the shaft. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The nominal unit tip resistance provided in Equation 751.37.3.14 is limited to be less than 400 ksf because predictions resulting from use of the equation for ''TCP ≥ 10 in.'' will often exceed what can be reliably mobilized.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.5 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests (5 ksf ≤ Is(50) ≤ 40 ksf)|EPG 751.37.3.5 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests (5 ksf ≤ ''I<sub>s(50)''</sub> ≤ 40 ksf)]]====

The design methods provided in this article were established from analysis of data from load tests performed in weak rock at sites in Missouri as described in Rosenblad et al. (2011), Loehr et al. (2011a), and Miller (2003). The resistance factors provided in Figures 751.37.3.5.1 and 751.37.3.5.2 were established from probabilistic calibrations to achieve established target reliabilities as described in Loehr et al. (2011b). The variability and uncertainty present for dead load, live load, and Point Load Index were explicitly considered in these calibrations, in addition to variability and uncertainty associated with the empirical design method itself. The variability and uncertainty utilized for dead load and live load were taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). Variability and uncertainty for the empirical design method were established from statistical analysis of the empirical data as described in Loehr et al. (2011b).

=====Commentary on Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests (5 ksf ≤ ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>'' ≤ 40 ksf)=====

The coefficient of variation for mean Point Load Index values used in Equation 751.37.3.15 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> value rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline {I_{s(50)}}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{I_{s(50)}}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed on samples taken from the depth range of the shaft segment. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The nominal unit side resistance provided in Equation 751.37.3.15 is limited to be less than 30 ksf because predictions resulting from use of the equation for <math>\overline {I_{s(50)}}</math> ≥ 40 ksf will often exceed what can be reliably mobilized.

=====Commentary on Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests (5 ksf ≤ ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>'' ≤ 40 ksf)=====

The coefficient of variation for mean Point Load Index values used in Equation 751.37.3.16 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> value rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline {I_{s(50)}}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{I_{s(50)}}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed on samples taken from the depth range of interest below the tip of the shaft. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The nominal unit tip resistance provided in Equation 751.37.3.16 is limited to be less than 400 ksf because predictions resulting from use of the equation for <math>\overline {I_{s(50)}}</math> ≥ 40 ksf will often exceed what can be reliably mobilized.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.6 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (su ≤ 5 ksf)|EPG 751.37.3.6 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (''s<sub>u</sub>'' ≤ 5 ksf)]]====

=====Commentary on Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (''s<sub>u</sub>'' ≤ 5 ksf)=====

The design method and resistance factors provided in this article were established from probabilistic calibrations performed using empirical data from Kulhawy and Jackson (1993) and analyses of variability by Phoon and Kulhawy (2005). Equation 751.37.3.18 was established from analysis of the data from Kulhawy and Jackson (1993), with curve fitting constraints to keep the relationship simple.

The resistance factors provided in this article should be considered approximate at this time for two reasons. The first reason is that the calibrations were performed using the variability of the measurements of unit side resistance, rather than the variability of predictions for unit side resistance. The result of this approximation is to generally underestimate the variability of unit side resistance and therefore to overestimate the resistance factors needed to achieve a given target reliability. This approximation is believed to be acceptable on an interim basis because the magnitude of the error is believed to be small since the data set is relatively large and the magnitude of this error decreases with the size of the data set. The second reason is that the empirical data upon which the resistance factors were derived were based on load tests performed on shafts that were not necessarily constructed following current MoDOT construction specifications. This does not necessarily mean that the results are not representative of results that would be obtained if the shafts were constructed following MoDOT specifications, but it does introduce some additional variability and uncertainty because the effect of construction methods is unknown. Such additional variability and uncertainty was not included in the calibrations performed to establish the resistance factors provided. MoDOT currently designs very few drilled shafts that derive substantial resistance from side shear in cohesive soils. However, more rigorous calibration of these resistance factors should nevertheless be performed to improve the precision of designs conducted using these provisions.

The resistance factors provided in this article are based on the assumption that measurements of undrained shear strength will accurately reflect the actual undrained shear strength in the field. Use of undrained shear strength values established from approximations or from index tests such as hand-held penetrometer tests, Torvane tests, or Standard Penetration Tests will introduce additional variability and uncertainty into the design that is currently not reflected in the resistance factors provided. As such, it is not generally appropriate to use such approximations for estimating undrained shear strength for use in these provisions. At a minimum, undrained shear strengths should be established based on unconfined compression tests performed on specimens acquired using good quality boring techniques and good quality “undisturbed” sampling with thin walled samplers. It is preferable to perform unconsolidated-undrained type triaxial tests or consolidated-undrained type triaxial tests to establish undrained shear strength values for use in these provisions.

The coefficient of variation for the mean undrained shear strength used in Equations 751.37.3.17 and 751.37.3.18 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> value rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline {s_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed on samples taken from the depth range of interest below the tip of the shaft. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

=====Commentary on Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (''s<sub>u</sub>'' ≤ 5 ksf)=====

The design method provided is currently unchanged from prior MoDOT guidance. Resistance factors provided in this article are revised from prior versions of the EPG. These resistance factors were established from probabilistic calibrations and are identical to those provided for bearing capacity of spread footings in cohesive soils in EPG 751.38.3.3.

The coefficient of variation for the mean undrained shear strength used in Equation 751.37.3.19 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> value rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline {s_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed on samples taken from the depth range of interest below the tip of the shaft. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The resistance factors provided in this article are based on the assumption that measurements of undrained shear strength will accurately reflect the actual undrained shear strength in the field. Use of undrained shear strength values established from approximations or from index tests such as hand-held penetrometer tests, Torvane tests, or Standard Penetration Tests will introduce additional variability and uncertainty into the design that is currently not reflected in the resistance factors provided. As such, it is not generally appropriate to use such approximations for estimating undrained shear strength for use in these provisions. At a minimum, undrained shear strengths should be established based on unconfined compression tests performed on specimens acquired using good quality boring techniques and good quality “undisturbed” sampling with thin walled samplers. It is preferable to perform unconsolidated-undrained type triaxial tests or consolidated-undrained type triaxial tests to establish undrained shear strength values for use in these provisions.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.7 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils|EPG 751.37.3.7 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils]]====

=====Commentary on Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils=====

This subarticle is unchanged from prior versions of the EPG aside from minor editorial revisions. Probabilistic calibrations for drilled shafts in cohesionless soils have not been completed at this time.

=====Commentary on Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils=====

This subarticle is unchanged from prior versions of the EPG aside from minor editorial revisions. Probabilistic calibrations for drilled shafts in cohesionless soils have not been completed at this time.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.8 Geotechnical Resistance from Load Tests|EPG 751.37.3.8 Geotechnical Resistance from Load Tests]]====

This subarticle is unchanged from prior versions of the EPG. Probabilistic calibrations for drilled shafts designs incorporating results from load tests have not been completed at this time. Additional study of available results for load tests in Missouri will likely lead to revision of appropriate resistance factors for use when load tests are performed.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.9 Evaluation of Group Effects|EPG 751.37.3.9 Evaluation of Group Effects]]====

Two potential effects arise when drilled shafts are installed in groups with relatively close spacing. The first, and most commonly referenced effect is that there is potential for the cumulative resistance for all shafts in the group to be less than the sum of the individual shaft resistances. Such effects are commonly referred to as “group effects” in the geotechnical literature and have been traditionally accounted for using the methods provided in this article.

The second effect relates to the reliability of a group of shafts relative to the reliability of individual shafts. In general, the reliability of a group of drilled shafts will be greater than that of an individual shaft with the same resistance because groups benefit from “averaging” of shaft resistance, which tends to make their collective resistance more reliable than the resistance from an individual shaft. The resistance factors provided in these guidelines are those that produce the target foundation reliabilities ''for individual shafts''. As such, use of these resistance factors for groups of shafts will tend to produce foundations that are more reliable than the established target reliabilities. No explicit account is made for this effect in the current guidelines, but designers should be aware of this issue. Additional study is needed to allow for this effect to be properly reflected in LRFD methods.

This also raises the issue of redundancy factors, generally denoted as ''η<sub>R</sub>'', in LRFD 1.3.4. The LRFD redundancy factor has been a source of confusion for foundation design, especially given that group efficiency factors are also denoted as ''η''. Use of the redundancy factor to account for the presence or absence of redundancy in the foundations is inappropriate as this factor was developed purely from considerations of the performance of the superstructure and not the foundations as discussed in LRFD C10.5.5.2.4. LRFD 10.5.5.2.4 indicates that resistance factors provided in AASHTO (2009) should be reduced by 20 percent for non-redundant foundations to account for the lack of redundancy. Such reductions should <u>not</u> be applied to the resistance factors provided in these guidelines as the resistance factors were established considering the reliability of individual shafts. While one could conversely argue that the resistance factors provided in these guidelines should therefore be increased by 20 percent for redundant foundations, such a position does not seem justified without additional study and verification that such application is in fact appropriate.

When mixed soil profiles are present, the specific approach utilized for evaluation of group effects shall be based on the soil/rock type that provides the greatest contribution to resistance. For example, for a shaft group founded in rock overlain by cohesive soil, group effects shall be evaluated following the guidelines provided for rock since the shaft resistance will be predominantly derived from side resistance and tip resistance in the rock.

=====Commentary on Group Effects in Cohesionless Soils=====

The provisions provided in this article for cohesionless soils are drawn from the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification (AASHTO, 2009). Group efficiency factors for drilled shafts in cohesionless soils are generally less than one to account for potential loosening of the soil during shaft excavation and potential for overlapping stresses surrounding the shafts. This is contrary to what is observed for driven piles in most cohesionless soils, where group efficiency factors are commonly greater than one because of densification of the cohesionless soils during pile driving.

=====Commentary on Group Effects in Cohesive Soils=====

No probabilistic calibrations of the “equivalent pier” approach have been performed by MoDOT at this time. The resistance factor provided in this subarticle for evaluation of the equivalent pier is taken from the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification (AASHTO, 2009). The resistance factor for evaluation of the equivalent pier shall be applied to the total resistance of the equivalent pier (side resistance and tip resistance).

The resistance factors for summation of the individual shaft resistances shall be applied separately for side resistance and tip resistance based on the resistance factors provided in these guidelines for the appropriate soil/rock type(s).

=====Commentary on Group Effects in Rock=====

Few data are available to quantify group effects for shafts founded in rock or shafts founded in stratified soil/rock. The provisions provided for rock are based on considerable judgment drawn from discussions with a number of foundation designers and researchers.

===Commentary on [[#751.37.4 Design for Axial Loading at Serviceability Limit States|EPG 751.37.4 Design for Axial Loading at Serviceability Limit States]]===

The provisions of this article were developed to limit foundation settlements to be less than generally tolerable levels of settlement with some target reliability. Target reliability levels for service limit states are substantially less than target reliability levels for strength limit states because the consequences associated with serviceability limit states are substantially less than consequences for strength limit state conditions. The ramification of these facts is that some foundations designed according to these guidelines may experience settlements that exceed tolerable settlements in some instances. The frequency of foundations settling more than tolerable limits should approach the established target probabilities of exceedance when considered over a large number of projects. In cases where actual foundation settlements are observed to exceed tolerable limits, appropriate remedial measures shall be applied to the foundation(s) and/or the structure that it is supporting so that appropriate reliability is maintained.

Tolerable settlements used throughout these provisions were established from theoretical considerations and empirical observations of bridge performance based on the work of Moulton (1984) and Duncan and Tan (1991). Three different serviceability conditions corresponding to different levels of required maintenance and repair were initially considered:

:1) minor damage generally corresponding to the theoretical onset of deck cracking (Duncan and Tan, 1991),

:2) more significant damage corresponding to the onset of structural distress based on empirical observations by Moulton (1986) and

:3) major damage corresponding to theoretical overstress of the bridge superstructure (Moulton, 1986).

Target reliabilities for each of these conditions were established based on economic analyses described in Bowders et al. (2011). Comparative analyses for typical design conditions were then performed to evaluate the alternative serviceability conditions. Results of these analyses generally indicate that the first serviceability condition, corresponding to minor damage, tends to control foundation dimensions. These guidelines therefore only require evaluation of this condition (the others being presumed to be inherently satisfied based on the analyses performed).

Based on this work, tolerable settlements are established according to an angular distortion, defined as
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>A = \frac{\Delta}{s} \le 0.0021</math>||align="center"| (dimensionless)||align="right"|Equation Commentary 751.37.4.1
|}

where :

:''A'' = angular distortion (dimensionless),

:''∆'' = differential settlement between adjacent bridge bents (consistent units of length),

:''S'' = span between adjacent bridge bents (consistent units of length).

This limiting value of angular distortion is based on theoretical consideration of the onset of deck cracking (Duncan and Tan, 1991). This limit is explicitly included in the methods provided throughout EPG 751.37.

The target probabilities of exceedance reflected in the resistance factors provided in EPG 751.37 correspond to the target values established by MoDOT based on economic considerations. While use of alternative limits for tolerable settlement is possible, such use is not strictly appropriate since the target probabilities adopted by MoDOT for different classes of operational importance were established based on consequences associated with the limit provided in Equation Commentary 751.37.4.1. Other limits would generally require different target probabilities, and thus different resistance factors to achieve the same economic balance.

When results of evaluations performed for these provisions require that shaft dimensions be increased, designers should recognize that it has traditionally been more cost effective to increase the length of drilled shafts rather than increase the diameter of the shafts.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.4.1 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using Approximate Method|EPG 751.37.4.1 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using Approximate Method]]====

The provisions of EPG 751.37.4.1 are based on an approximate load-settlement curve illustrated in Fig. Commentary 751.37.4.1.1. The load-settlement curve is established considering factored side and tip resistance values that account for variability and uncertainty associated with the nominal side and tip resistance and associated with mobilization of side and tip resistance. The following assumptions are also made:

:* the shaft can be considered as practically rigid over the length of the shaft where significant side resistance is mobilized so that side resistance and end resistance are simultaneously mobilized;

:* side and tip resistance are mobilized according to the bi-linear curves shown in Fig. Commentary 751.37.4.1.2;

:* ultimate side resistance is fully mobilized at shaft displacements of 0.5 percent of the shaft diameter and

:* ultimate tip resistance is fully mobilized for shaft displacements of 5 percent of the shaft diameter.

[[image:Commentary 751.37.4.1.jpg|center|800px|thumb|<center>'''Fig. Commentary 751.37.4.1.1 Approximate load-settlement curve used for estimation of drilled shaft settlement using approximate method.'''</center>]]

[[image:Commentary 751.37.4.2.jpg|center|800px|thumb|<center>'''Fig. Commentary 751.37.4.1.2 Presumed load-settlement relationships for side and tip resistance for estimation of drilled shaft settlement using approximate method.'''</center>]]

Based on these assumptions, the approximate factored load-settlement curve can be constructed by establishing the factored resistance and associated settlement values at the points designated as “a” and “b” in Fig. Commentary 751.37.4.1.1. The mobilized factored resistance at point a is computed as:
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|''R<sub>aR</sub> = R<sub>sR</sub> + 0.1 R<sub>pR</sub>''||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation Commentary 751.37.4.2
|}

where:

:''R<sub>aR</sub>'' = factored total resistance at point a (consistent units of force),

:''R<sub>sR</sub>'' = total factored side resistance determined according to the provisions of this article (consistent units of force) and

:''R<sub>pR</sub>'' = factored tip resistance determined according to the provisions of this article (consistent units of force).

The corresponding settlement at point a is taken to be:
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\delta_a = 0.005 \cdot D</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of length)||align="right"|Equation Commentary 751.37.4.3
|}

where:

:''δ<sub>a</sub>'' = settlement corresponding to point a (consistent units of length) and

:''D'' = shaft diameter (consistent units of length).

The mobilized factored resistance at point b is computed as:
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|''R<sub>bR</sub> = R<sub>sR</sub> + R<sub>pR</sub>''||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation Commentary 751.37.4.4
|}

where:

:''R<sub>bR</sub>'' = factored total resistance at point b (consistent units of force),

:''R<sub>sR</sub>'' = total factored side resistance determined according to the provisions of this article (consistent units of force) and

:''R<sub>pR</sub>'' = factored tip resistance determined according to the provisions of this article (consistent units of force).

The corresponding settlement at point b is taken to be
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\delta_b = 0.05 \cdot D</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of length)||align="right"|Equation Commentary 751.37.4.5
|}

where:

:''δ<sub>b</sub>'' = settlement corresponding to point b (consistent units of length) and

:''D'' = shaft diameter (consistent units of length).

The factored settlement due to a factored service load can then be determined by interpolation from the approximate load-settlement curve. Equations Commentary 751.37.4.3 and Commentary 751.37.4.4 produce such interpolated values with an additional term being added to account for elastic compression of the unsupported length of the shaft. For the purposes of this provision, the unsupported length shall be taken to be the length of shaft over which side resistance is neglected.

As has been done throughout these guidelines, factored loads are denoted using <math>\gamma Q</math> as a general reference to factored loads. This notation should not be taken to imply inclusion or exclusion of any specific load effects or load combinations, but rather is simply intended as a convenient notation to reflect factored loads. When applying these provisions of the guidelines, designers should replace <math>\gamma Q</math> with the appropriate load combinations and load factors for the relevant limit state. For this article, such load combinations and load factors should correspond to the appropriate serviceability limit state in which load factors are generally taken to be 1.0.

The modulus of elasticity used in Equation 751.37.4.7 should reflect the composite modulus for the shaft including the concrete and reinforcing steel.

The settlement resistance factor for elastic compression is placed in the denominator of Equation 751.37.4.7 as a matter of choice so that resistance factors are less than 1.0 as is conventionally assumed.

Settlement resistance factors for elastic compression provided in Table 751.37.4.1 were developed from probabilistic analyses performed considering the variability in the dead and live loads, the variability in concrete modulus, and the variability in the shaft area. The variability used for dead and live loads was taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). Variabilities in concrete modulus and shaft area were estimated from preliminary results of an ongoing study of the variability of these parameters (Tyler, 2010). Because these estimates are preliminary, it is likely that the settlement resistance factors for elastic compression can be refined with additional study of the variability of concrete modulus and shaft area.

The resistance factors provided in Figures 751.37.4.1.1 through 751.37.4.1.12 were established from preliminary probabilistic calibrations to achieve established target reliabilities as described in Vu and Loehr (2011). Considerable judgment was applied in development of these resistance factors in an effort to make these guidelines as comprehensive as possible. However, the resistance factors should be considered as rational but preliminary design values that can be dramatically improved through more comprehensive analysis of available full-scale load test results. The resistance factors provided were established with explicit consideration of the variability and uncertainty present for dead and live loads, for the nominal side and tip resistance, and for the anticipated mobilization of side and tip resistance. The variability and uncertainty utilized for dead load and live load were taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). Variability and uncertainty in the nominal side and tip resistances were established from statistical analysis of the empirical data as described in Loehr et al. (2011b). Variability and uncertainty in mobilization of side and tip resistance were estimated from preliminary analysis of results from a limited number of full-scale load tests. Additional study of the serviceability provisions of these guidelines should include more rigorous analysis of available load test data to establish improved models for load transfer in different types of materials, re-calibration of resistance factors for both the approximate method and t-z method provided in the guidelines, as well as consideration of alternative simplified and closed-form methods for prediction of settlements for drilled shafts (e.g. Vesic, 1977; Chen and Kulhawy, 2002; Mayne and Harris, 1993; O’Neill et al, 1996; etc.).

Probabilistic calibration of resistance factors for settlement of individual drilled shafts in cohesionless soils have not been completed at this time. Settlement evaluations should therefore be conducted according to current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. However, it is important to note that such designs will not generally produce the target probabilities established by MoDOT.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.4.2 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using t-z Method|EPG 751.37.4.2 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using t-z Method]]====

The settlement resistance factors used in the provisions of this article are akin to ''t''-multipliers for ''t-z'' models and ''q''-multipliers for ''q-w'' models, where the respective multipliers are selected to produce the target reliabilities for settlement established by MoDOT, as illustrated in Fig. Commentary 751.37.4.2. Application of resistance factors for use in commercial specialty software or spreadsheet programs therefore requires no special capabilities beyond that required for conventional analyses.

The program TZPile© is commercially available through Ensoft, Inc. Other similar programs are also commercially available from other vendors.

The modulus of elasticity used in the ''t-z'' analyses should reflect the composite modulus for the shaft including the concrete and reinforcing steel.

Elastic compression of shafts is inherently included in results of ''t-z'' analyses so no additional account shall be made for elastic compression of the shaft.

Results of preliminary analyses suggest that the variability and uncertainty associated with the shaft stiffness (''EA'') used in ''t-z'' analyses can be substantial (Tyler, 2010). For this version of the guidelines, the decision was made to combine the variability and uncertainty associated with shaft stiffness together with other sources of variability and uncertainty rather than to consider it separately. This decision simplifies use of the provisions, but does not allow for explicit accounting of the effects of the variability in shaft stiffness. Further study is needed to determine whether this position is a prudent one or whether separate resistance factors should be applied to shaft stiffness to allow the effect to be isolated.

[[image:Commentary 751.37.4.3.jpg|center|800px|thumb|<center>'''Fig. Commentary 751.37.4.2 Illustration of unfactored and factored t-z models for estimation of drilled shaft settlement using t-z method.'''</center>]]

The resistance factors provided in Figures 751.37.4.2.1 through 751.37.4.2.12 were established from preliminary probabilistic calibrations to achieve established target reliabilities as described in Vu and Loehr (2011). Considerable judgment was applied in development of these resistance factors in an effort to make these guidelines as comprehensive as possible. However, the resistance factors should be considered as rational but preliminary design values that can be dramatically improved through more comprehensive analysis of available full-scale load test results. The resistance factors provided were established with explicit consideration of the variability and uncertainty present for dead and live loads, for the nominal side and tip resistance, and for the anticipated mobilization of side and tip resistance. The variability and uncertainty utilized for dead load and live load were taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). Variability and uncertainty in the nominal side and tip resistances were established from statistical analysis of the empirical data as described in Loehr et al. (2011b). Variability and uncertainty in mobilization of side and tip resistance were estimated from preliminary analysis of results from a limited number of full-scale load tests. Additional study of the serviceability provisions of these guidelines should include more rigorous analysis of available load test data to establish improved models for load transfer in different types of materials, re-calibration of resistance factors for both the approximate method and t-z method provided in the guidelines, as well as consideration of alternative simplified and closed-form methods for prediction of settlements for drilled shafts (e.g. Vesic, 1977; Chen and Kulhawy, 2002; Mayne and Harris, 1993; O’Neill et al, 1996; etc.).

Model specific calibrations for individual ''t-z'' and ''q-w'' models have not been completed at this time. The resistance factors provided in these guidelines were established from preliminary calibrations for several simplified models. While the resistance factors produced from these calibrations, and provided in these guidelines, represent a rational design position, additional research is needed to refine these calibrations to reflect specific ''t-z'' and ''q-w'' models for different soil/rock types. Such calibrations are likely to increase the settlement resistance factors, which will improve the efficiency of drilled shafts designed according to these guidelines if serviceability controls the shaft dimensions.

Probabilistic calibration of resistance factors for settlement of individual drilled shafts in cohesionless soils have not been completed at this time. Settlement evaluations should therefore be conducted according to current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. However, it is important to note that such designs will not generally produce the target probabilities established by MoDOT.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.4.3 Settlement of Drilled Shafts in Groups|EPG 751.37.4.3 Settlement of Drilled Shafts in Groups]]====

=====Commentary on Settlement of Shaft Groups in Cohesive Soils=====

This subarticle is currently unchanged from prior versions of the EPG aside from minor editorial revisions. Probabilistic calibrations for drilled shaft groups in cohesive soils have not been completed at this time.

=====Commentary on Settlement of Shaft Groups in Cohesionless Soils Using Standard Penetration Test Measurements=====

This subarticle is currently unchanged from prior versions of the EPG aside from minor editorial revisions. Probabilistic calibrations for drilled shaft groups in cohesionless soils have not been completed at this time.

=====Commentary on Settlement of Shaft Groups in Cohesionless Soils Using Cone Penetration Test Measurements=====

This subarticle is currently unchanged from prior versions of the EPG aside from minor editorial revisions. Probabilistic calibrations for drilled shaft groups in cohesionless soils have not been completed at this time.

=====Commentary on Settlement of Shaft Groups in Rock=====

This subarticle is new to the EPG, but relies exclusively on methods and resistance factors established for other provisions of the EPG.

===Commentary on [[#751.37.5 Design for Lateral Loading at Strength and Service Limit States|EPG 751.37.5 Design for Lateral Loading at Strength and Service Limit States]]===

This subarticle is currently unchanged from prior versions of the EPG aside from minor editorial revisions. Probabilistic calibrations for laterally loaded shafts have not been completed at this time.

===Commentary on [[#751.37.6 Structural Resistance of Drilled Shafts|EPG 751.37.6 Structural Resistance of Drilled Shafts]]===

This subarticle is currently unchanged from prior versions of the EPG aside from minor editorial revisions.

The LRFD requirement that reinforcing steel extend 10 feet below the point of fixity shall not be taken to imply that rock sockets shall be a minimum of 10 feet long. This provision is intended to ensure that reinforcing steel extends beyond where significant bending may be encountered in the shaft, the location of which if not coincident with the point of fixity (pof) but higher than the pof may provide reasoning for using a lesser but adequate development length for a lesser bending moment at the pof and hence a shorter socket length., Regardless, reinforcement shall be provided for the full length of the shaft.

===Commentary on [[#751.37.7 References|EPG 751.37.7 References]]===
AASHTO (2009), ''AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification: Customary U.S. Units'', American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Fourth Edition with 2008 and 2009 Interim Revisions.

Abu El-Ela, A.A., J.J. Bowders, and J.E. Loehr (2011), ''Calibration of LRFD Resistance Factors for Design of Spread Footings in Hard and Soft Rock'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Bowders, J.J., J.E. Loehr, and D.R. Huaco (2011),'' MoDOT Transportation Geotechnics Research Program: Development of Target Reliabilities for MoDOT Bridge Foundations and Earth Slopes'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Chen, Y-J, and F.H. Kulhawy (2002), “Evaluation of Drained Axial Capacity for Drilled Shafts,” ''Deep Foundations 2002: An International Perspective on Theory, Design, Construction, and Performance'', Geotechnical Special Publication No. 116, M.W. O’Neill and F.C. Townsend, Editors, ASCE, Reston, VA, pp. 1200-1214.

Duncan, J.M., and C.K. Tan (1991), “Part 5 – Engineering Manual for Estimating Tolerable Movements for Bridges,” in ''Manuals for the Design of Bridge Foundations'', NCHRP Report 343, by R.M. Barker, J.M. Duncan, K.B. Rojiani, P.S.K. Ooi, C.K. Tan, and S.G. Kim, Transportation Research Board, pp. 219-228.

Hoek, E., and E.T. Brown (1988), “The Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion – A 1988 Update,” ''Proceedings of the 15<sup>th</sup> Canadian Rock Mechanics Symposium'', Toronto, Canada.

Hoek, E. and E.T. Brown (1997), “Practical Estimates of Rock Mass Strength,” ''International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences'', Vol. 34, No. 8, Elsevier, pp. 1165-1186.

Horvath, R.G., and T.C. Kenney (1979), “Shaft Resistance of Rock Socketed Drilled Piers,” ''Proceedings of the Symposium on Deep Foundations'', ASCE, pp. 182-214.

Kulicki, J.M., Z. Prucz, C.M. Clancy, D.R. Mertz, and A.S. Nowak (2007),'' Updating the Calibration Report for AASHTO LRFD Code'', Final Report for NCHRP Project 20-7/186, AASHTO, 125 pp.

Loehr, J.E., B.L. Rosenblad, and T.T. Vu (2011a), ''MoDOT Transportation Geotechnics Research Program: Drilled Shaft Axial Load Test Program Interpretation Report, Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Loehr, J.E., S.A. Grant, and B.L. Rosenblad (2011b), Calibration of Resistance Factors for Design of Drilled Shafts at Strength Limit States Using Laboratory Test Measurements'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Mayne, P.W., and D.E. Harris (1993), ''Axial Load-Displacement Behavior of Drilled Shaft Foundations in Piedmont Residuum'', FHWA Reference Number 41-30-2175, Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, GA.

Miller, A.D. (2003), ''Prediction of Ultimate Side Shear for Drilled Shafts in Missouri Shales'', thesis presented to the faculty of the University of Missouri in partial fulfillment of the requirements for M.S. degree, 266 pp.

Moulton, L.K. (1986), ''Tolerable Movement Criteria for Highway Bridges'', Report No. FHWA-TS-85-228, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, 93 pp.

O'Neill, M.W., F.C. Townsend, K.H. Hassan, A. Buller, and P.S. Chan (1996), ''Load Transfer for Drilled Shafts in Intermediate Geomaterials'', Publication No. FHWA-RD-95-171, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, 184 pp.

O’Neill, M.W., and L.C. Reese (1999), ''Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods'', Report No. FHWA-IF-99-025, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, 758 pp.

Phoon, K.K., and F.H. Kulhawy (2005), “Characterization of Model Uncertainties for Drilled Shafts Under Undrained Axial Loading,” ''Contemporary Issues in Foundation Engineering'', Proceedings of Sessions from the Geo-Frontiers 2005 Congress, Austin, Texas, ASCE Geo-Institute, GSP 131.

Pierce, M.D., J.E. Loehr, and B.L. Rosenblad (2011), ''Calibration of LRFD Resistance Factors for Design of Drilled Shafts at Strength Limit States Using In situ Test Measurements'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Rosenblad, B.L., J.E. Loehr, M.D. Pierce, S.A. Grant, and K.D. Murphy (2011), ''MoDOT Transportation Geotechnics Research Program: Drilled Shaft Axial Load Test Program Data Report'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Turner, J.P. (2006), ''Rock-socketed Shafts for Highway Structure Foundations'', NCHRP Synthesis 360, Transportation Research Board, 136 pp.

Tyler, H.L. (2010), ''Influence of Parameter Variability on Side Shear Values Determined from O-Cell Testing of Drilled Shafts'', report presented to the University of Missouri in partial fulfillment of the requirements for M.S. Degree.

Vu, T.T., and J.E. Loehr (2011), ''Calibration of LRFD Resistance Factors for Design of Drilled Shafts at Serviceability Limit States'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Vesic, A.S. (1977), ''NCHRP Synthesis 42: Design of Pile Foundations'', Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 68 pp.

Wyllie, D.C. (1999), ''Foundations on Rock'', E & FN Spon, Second Edition, 401 pp.

[[Category:751 LRFD Bridge Design Guidelines]]

751.37 Drilled Shafts

2026-01-15T17:16:58Z

Hoskir: /* 751.37.3 Design for Axial Loading at Strength Limit State */ fixing math errors

==751.37.1 General==
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.1 General|Commentary for EPG 751.37.1 General''']]
|}
These guidelines address procedures for design of drilled shafts used as foundations for bridge piers, bridge abutments, roadway signs, and other miscellaneous structures. The guidelines were established following load and resistance factor design (LRFD) concepts. The provisions provided herein are intended to produce foundations that achieve target reliabilities established by MoDOT for structures of different operational importance. The four classes of operational importance include minor or low volume route, major route, major bridge costing less than $100 million, and major bridge costing greater than $100 million. Additional background regarding development of these provisions and supportive information regarding use of these provisions is provided in the accompanying commentary.

Drilled shafts can be an economical alternative to spread footing or driven pile foundations. They can be constructed in a wide variety of soil and rock conditions and designed to support a wide range of loading conditions. Drilled shafts should be considered:

:* To accommodate sites where depth to bedrock is too short for pile embedment but too deep for spread footings.

:* For large design loads. (Eliminates the need for large quantities of piles).

:* To provide resistance against large lateral and uplift loads.

:* To eliminate the need for cofferdams.

:* To provide protection against scour.

:* To accommodate concerns associated with the effects of pile driving (e.g. vibrations or interference with battered piles).

:* When obstructions or other conditions may make pile driving difficult.

:* To provide resistance to settlement when displacement tolerances are small.

===751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature|Commentary for EPG 751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature''']]
|}

Dimensions to be established in design include the overall length of the shaft and the shaft diameter. For shafts that will be socketed into bedrock, the length and diameter of the rock socket must also be established. Table 751.37.1.1 defines the nomenclature used for these dimensions and provides relevant minimum and/or maximum values for the respective dimensions.

====<center>''Table 751.37.1.1 Summary of drilled shaft dimensions with minimum and maximum values''</center>====
{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
|+
! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Dimension !! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Description!! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Minimum Value !! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Maximum Value !! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Comment
|-
|D|| Nominal shaft diameter (Overall)||align="center"| 18”<sup>'''1'''</sup>||align="center"| --|| Min. 6” increments
|-
|L|| Length of shaft (Overall) ||align="center"|-- ||align="center"|-- ||--
|-
|D<sub>s</sub>'''<sup>4</sup>'''||Nominal socket diameter||align="center"|-- ||align="center"|--<sup>'''2'''</sup>||Min. 6” increments
|-
|L<sub>s</sub>'''<sup>4</sup>'''||Length of rock socket||align="center"| D<sub>s</sub>'''<sup>3, 5</sup>'''||align="center"| --|| --
|-
|colspan="5"|<sup>'''1'''</sup> Shaft diameter shall be at least 6” greater than column diameter when shaft is directly connected to the column and not a footing cap or bent cap.
|-
|colspan="5"|<sup>'''2'''</sup> Sockets installed through casing shall have diameters 6” less than the outside diameter of the casing.
|-
|colspan="5"|<sup>'''3'''</sup> Minimum rock socket length L<sub>s</sub> ≥ D<sub>s</sub> shall be measured from the anticipated tip of the casing.
|-
|colspan="5"|<sup>'''4'''</sup> The dimensions “D<sub>s</sub>” and “L<sub>s</sub>” are not explicitly used in any of the design equations that follow in favor of generally referring to the diameter of any segment of an overall shaft as “D” which can be a rock socket segment. This is not entirely true for the dimension “L<sub>s</sub>” which is explicitly used as part of a settlement design equation that follows. Judicial use of the appropriate segment and use of the appropriate diameter and length of a segment is implicit to the correct use of the design equations that follow. (See [[#751.37.2 General Design Procedure and Limit States|EPG 751.37.2 General Design Procedure and Limit States]].)
|-
| colspan="5" | <sup>'''5'''</sup> See [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/751.37.1.1_Drilled_Shaft_Design_Aid.docx Design Aid: Minimum Rock Socket Length]
|}

The length to diameter ratio of drilled shafts should generally be in the following range: 3 ≤ L/D ≤ 30

The nomenclature used in these guidelines has intentionally been selected to be consistent with that used in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2009) to the extent possible to avoid potential confusion with methods provided in those specifications. By convention, references to other provisions of the MoDOT Engineering Policy Guide are indicated as “EPG XXX.XX” throughout these guidelines where the ''X''s are replaced with the appropriate article numbers. Similarly, references to provisions within the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications are indicated as “LRFD XXX.XX”.

===751.37.1.2 Materials===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.1.2 Materials|Commentary for EPG 751.37.1.2 Materials''']]
|}

Concrete used for drilled shaft construction shall be Class B-2 concrete with minimum compressive strength, <math>f^'_c</math> = 4 ksi.

===751.37.1.3 Casing===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.1.3 Casing|Commentary for EPG 751.37.1.3 Casing''']]
|}

All drilled shafts shall have permanent casing installed through overburden soils to prevent caving of these soils during construction unless conditions are such that the shafts can be more effectively and reliably constructed without casing or using temporary casing. Welded or seamless steel permanent casing shall be in accordance with [http://www.modot.org/business/standards_and_specs/SpecbookEPG.pdf#page=11 Sec 701]. Approval from the MoDOT Geotechnical Section is required for use of temporary casing or uncased shafts with or without drilling slurry.

Rock sockets shall be uncased.

Permanent Casing Thickness Design and Plan Reporting:

:Any drilled shaft for a major bridge over a river or lake <u>or</u> any drilled shaft longer than 80 feet or any drilled shaft greater than 6 feet in diameter shall have a minimum casing thickness of 1/2 inch specified unless a greater thickness is required by design for strength. The thickness of casing in either case shall be shown on the bridge plans and noted as a minimum.

:All other drilled shafts shall not have a minimum casing thickness specified unless a specific thickness is required by design for strength. The minimum thickness in the latter case shall be shown on the bridge plans and noted as a minimum.

:For drilled shaft stiffness computations and load distribution analysis, use the minimum casing thickness required. When a minimum casing thickness is not required, assume a casing thickness of 3/8” for the analysis.

===751.37.1.4 General Design Considerations===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.1.4 General Design Considerations|Commentary for EPG 751.37.1.4 General Design Considerations''']]
|}

The following issues shall be considered for design of drilled shafts:

''Scour ''

The potential for scour and its effect on the axial and lateral strength and serviceability of drilled shafts shall be investigated.

''Ground Water ''

The effects of variable ground water levels and buoyancy shall be taken into account in evaluating drilled shaft strength and serviceability limit states.

''Downdrag ''

Downdrag shall be considered when strength and serviceability are evaluated. For drilled shafts socketed into rock and overlain with soil that has the potential to settle, downdrag shall be considered as an applied load and predicted according to LRFD 3.11.8. Downward movements of 0.1 to 0.5 in. are enough to mobilize full downdrag. The top 5 ft. and a bottom length equal to the shaft diameter shall not be included in calculating downdrag. Allowance shall be given for an increase in the undrained shear strength of the soil within compressible strata as consolidation occurs.

''Uplift ''

The effects of uplift shall be considered for drilled shafts in cohesive soils, not socketed into rock.

''Group Effects ''

Shafts designed with relatively close spacing shall be evaluated considering group effects. Specific methods and modifications to account for group effects differ according to the soil/rock type that the shaft is founded within as provided in EPG 751.37.3.9.

The redundancy factor ''η<sub>R</sub>'' from LRFD 1.3.4 shall not be applied for design of drilled shafts.

===751.37.1.5 Related Provisions===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.1.5 Related Provisions|Commentary for EPG 751.37.1.5 Related Provisions''']]
|}
The provisions of these guidelines were developed presuming that design parameters required to apply the provisions are established following current MoDOT site characterization protocols as described in EPG 321. Specific attention is drawn to [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. The provisions provided in these guidelines presume that parameter variability, as generally represented by the coefficient of variation (COV), is established following procedures in EPG 321.3.

===751.37.1.6 Drilled Shaft General Detail Considerations===
[[image:751.37.1.6 01.png|700px|center]]
Pay items shown in above table are for example only, show actual pay items and quantities in plan details for specific project.

''Notes:''
::(1) Number of pipes (equally spaced) for Sonic Logging Testing:
::::::Diameter ≤ 2.5 ft: 2 pipes
::::::Diameter >2.5 ft but ≤ 3.5 ft: 3 pipes
::::::Diameter >3.5 ft but ≤ 5.0 ft: 4 pipes
::::::Diameter >5.0 ft but ≤ 8.0 ft: 5 pipes
::::::Diameter >8.0 ft: 6 pipes
::::Single diameter reinforcing cage is typically used. Modify details based on design for single or multiple-diameter cages and splice location(s).
::::See [[#751.37.1.3 Casing|EPG 751.37.1.3]] for casing requirements and alternatives.
::::When determining P bar diameter for barbill, assume 3/8” casing unless otherwise specified.
::::See [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#G8. Drilled Shaft|EPG 751.50, G8]], for notes to include for drilled shafts and rock sockets (starting at G8.1).
::(2) See [[#751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature|EPG 751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature]] for [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/751.37.1.1_Drilled_Shaft_Design_Aid.docx Design Aid: Minimum Rock Socket Length].
::(3) When difference between drilled shaft and column diameter is 6" a single reinforcement cage is typically used for the socket and shaft and the vertical reinforcement extends into the column. A separate column steel cage is then placed around the protruding shaft reinforcement without requiring an adjustment to minimum cover for rock socket or column reinforcement. When difference between drilled shaft and column diameter is 12” either the vertical column steel or dowels will need to be extended into the shaft or the cover in the socket and shaft will need to be increased to allow the shaft reinforcement to extend into the column. In the former scenario an optional construction joint is recommended as discussed in note 4 for oversized shafts. In the latter scenario the same number of vertical bars should be used in the shaft and column to allow the shaft bars to be tied to the column cage. Any reduction in cage diameter required for fit-up shall be considered in design.
::(4) When difference between drilled shaft and column diameter is greater than 12" (oversized shaft generally 18" to 24" larger than column), show "Optional construction joint" at bottom of column/dowel reinforcement in the drilled shaft and use [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#G8._Drilled_Shaft|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Notes G8.8 and G8.9]] in plan details.

<center>
{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" style="text-align:center"
|+
| style="background:#BEBEBE" width="400" |'''[https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings Bridge Standard Drawings]'''</br> (Drilled Shafts - DSS → As Built Drilled Shaft Data [DSS_01])
|-
|align="center"|[https://www.modot.org/media/14725 As Built Drilled Shaft Data (PDF)]
|}

</center>

==751.37.2 General Design Procedure and Limit States==
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.2 General Design Procedure and Limit States|Commentary for EPG 751.37.2 General Design Procedure and Limit States''']]
|}
Drilled shafts should be sized (diameter and length) to support the required factored loads in the most cost effective manner possible without excessive deflections. The initial diameter and length of drilled shafts are generally established considering vertical loading at the strength limit state(s) according to EPG 751.37.3. The resulting shaft should then be evaluated at the axial and lateral serviceability limit states (settlement and lateral deflection) according to EPG 751.37.4 and EPG 751.37.5, where the shaft dimensions shall be adjusted if serviceability requirements are not satisfied.

The Strength Limit State and applicable Extreme Event Limit States shall be investigated when calculating the soil and structural resistance of the drilled shaft. The Service I Limit State shall be used when evaluating lateral deflection and settlement.

'''Guidance'''

There are three major types of drilled shaft construction that influence how a drilled shaft is designed. MoDOT exclusively designs and details drilled shafts with permanent casing and rock sockets as given as Case No. 1. The two cases that follow are rare and require the recommendation or approval of the Geotechnical Section and shall be shown on the plans. See [[#751.37.1.3 Casing|EPG 751.37.1.3 Casing]].

:1. Permanently cased shaft through soil and socketed into rock. A reduced shaft diameter for rock socket is required. This case shall be used for all MoDOT projects unless otherwise allowed by the Geotechnical Section. For axial loading and settlement computations substitute D with D<sub>s</sub> and L with L<sub>s</sub> which are equal to the diameter and length of the rock socket since the required resistance to loading and settlement are computed for segment of the shaft in rock only (Rock sockets to be installed through casing shall have diameters 6” less than the inside diameter of the casing to allow for clearance and insertion of rock excavation re-tooling equipment.).

:2. Permanently cased or temporarily cased or uncased shaft through soil and not socketed into rock. For axial loading and settlement computations use D = diameter of shaft.

:3. Temporarily cased or uncased shaft through soil with a reduced or same shaft diameter for soil than/and for rock socket respectively. For axial loading and settlement computations use the appropriate diameter and length of shaft as the case may be for the design segment under investigation.

Permanently cased shafts shall not be allowed to use frictional resistance of the soil for either a drilled shaft with or without a rock socket.

Temporarily cased shafts may use the frictional resistance of the soil only for the case where a rock socket is not used (see the [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section]).

Recommendation or approval from the Geotechnical Section is required for use of temporary casing or uncased shafts with or without drilling slurry.

Note on Definitions:

:1. Where L<sub>,i</sub> is defined, L<sub>i</sub> shall mean the length of the shaft segment through soil or through rock.

:2. Where L is defined, L shall mean overall shaft length including the length of the rock socket.

==751.37.3 Design for Axial Loading at Strength Limit State==
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3 Geotechnical Resistance for Axial Loading at Strength Limit States|Commentary for EPG 751.37.3 Design for Axial Loading at Strength Limit State''']]
|}
Geotechnical resistance to axial loading at the relevant strength limit state shall be computed as the sum of tip resistance and side resistance unless conditions are present that may prevent reliable mobilization of tip resistance (e.g. karst conditions with known or likely voids that cannot be specifically identified or characterized). Shafts should be sized such that the factored geotechnical resistance to axial loads exceeds the factored axial loads:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> R_R = R_{sR} + R_{pR} \ge \gamma Q</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.1
|}

where:

:''R<sub>R</sub>'' = factored axial shaft resistance (consistent units of force),

:''R<sub>sR</sub>'' = factored side resistance (consistent units of force),

:''R<sub>pR</sub>'' = factored tip resistance (consistent units of force) and

:<math>\gamma Q</math> = factored load for the appropriate strength limit state (consistent units of force).

Tip resistance and side resistance shall be computed according to the provisions of EPG 751.37.3 for the material type(s) encountered. The Structural Project Manager or Structural Liaison Engineer shall be consulted before utilizing design methods other than those provided in EPG 751.37.3 for calculating the geotechnical resistance of drilled shafts.

The factored side resistance for drilled shafts shall be established from factored unit side resistance values for the relevant soil/rock conditions as provided in this article. For stratified ground conditions or where the shaft dimensions change (e.g. at tip of temporary or permanent casing, or at top of rock socket), the shaft shall be divided into segments with practically uniform shaft geometry and soil/rock properties and unit side resistance values determined for each shaft segment. The total factored side resistance shall then be computed as the sum of the factored resistance values for each shaft segment:
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> R_{sR} = \textstyle \sum_{i=1}^n (q_{sR-i} \cdot A_{s-i}) = \textstyle \sum_{i=1}^n (\phi_{qs-i}\cdot q_{s-i} \cdot \pi \cdot D_i \cdot L_i)</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.2
|}

where:
:''n'' = number of shaft segments,

:<math>q_{sR-i} = \phi_{qs-i} \cdot q_{s-i}</math> = factored unit side resistance for shaft segment ''i'' (consistent units of stress),

:<math>A_{s-i} = \pi \cdot D_{i} \cdot L_{i}</math> = perimeter interface area for shaft segment ''i'' (consistent units of area),

:<math>\phi_{qs-i}</math> = resistance factor for unit side resistance along shaft segment ''i'' (dimensionless),

:''<math>q_{s-i}</math>'' = nominal unit side resistance along shaft segment ''i'' (consistent units of stress),

:''D<sub>i</sub>'' = shaft diameter for shaft segment ''i'' (consistent units of length), and

:''L<sub>i</sub>'' = length of shaft segment ''i'' (consistent units of length).

<math>\phi_{qs-i}</math> and ''<math>\boldsymbol q_{s-i}</math>'' shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this article, based on the material type present along the respective shaft segment.

Side resistance shall generally be neglected or reduced, as recommended by the Geotechnical Section, over shaft segments with permanent casing and over any length of rock socket that is deemed unusable.

The factored tip resistance for drilled shafts shall be established from factored unit tip resistance values for the relevant soil/rock conditions as provided in this article. The appropriate tip resistance shall be established for the soil/rock located between the tip of the shaft and two diameters below the tip of the shaft. The factored tip resistance shall be computed as
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> R_{pR} = q_{pR} \cdot A_p = \phi_{qp} \cdot q_p \cdot \pi \cdot \frac {D^2}{4}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.3
|}

where:

:<math>q_{pR} = \phi_{qp} \cdot q_p</math> = factored unit tip resistance (consistent units of stress),

:<math>A_p = \pi \cdot \frac{D^2}{4}</math> = cross-sectional area of the shaft at the tip (consistent units of area),

:<math>\phi_{qp}</math> = resistance factor for unit tip resistance (dimensionless),

:''<math>q_p </math>''= nominal unit tip resistance (consistent units of stress), and

:''D'' = shaft diameter at the tip of the shaft (consistent units of length).

<math>\phi_{qp}</math> and ''<math>\boldsymbol q_p</math>'' shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this article, based on the material type present within a depth of ''2D'' below the tip of the shaft.

Tip resistance shall be neglected, as recommended by the Geotechnical Section, when the shaft tip is located within karstic rock or other conditions where tip resistance cannot be reliably determined.

The specific methods and resistance factors for determining nominal and factored side and tip resistance shall be selected based on the material type(s) present along the sides and beneath the tip of the shaft:

:* EPG 751.37.3.1 shall generally be followed to estimate resistance for shafts in rock from results of uniaxial compression tests on intact rock core with uniaxial compressive strengths ''(q<sub>u</sub> )'' greater than 100 ksf;

:* EPG 751.37.3.2 shall generally be followed to estimate resistance for shafts in weak rock from results of uniaxial compression tests on rock core with uniaxial compressive strengths ''(q<sub>u</sub> )'' greater than 5 ksf but less than 100 ksf;

:* EPG 751.37.3.3 shall generally be followed to estimate resistance for shafts in weak rock from results of Standard Penetration Tests with equivalent ''N''-values ''(N<sub>eq</sub> )'' less than 400 blows/foot;

:* EPG 751.37.3.4 shall generally be followed to estimate resistance for shafts in weak rock from results of Texas Cone Penetration Tests with measured penetrations ''(TCP)'' greater than 1 inch/100 blows but less than 10 inches/100 blows;

:* EPG 751.37.3.5 shall generally be followed to estimate resistance for shafts in weak rock from results of Point Load Index Tests with Point Load Indices ''(I<sub>s(50)</sub> )'' less than 40 ksf;

:* EPG 751.37.3.6 shall generally be followed to estimate resistance for shafts in cohesive soils with undrained shear strengths ''(s<sub>u</sub> )'' less than 5 ksf; and

:* EPG 751.37.3.7 shall generally be followed to estimate resistance for shafts in cohesionless soils.

Additional guidance on selection of specific methods and resistance factors based on the material types encountered is provided in the commentary to these guidelines.

===751.37.3.1 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Rock ''(q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf)''===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.1 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Rock (qu ≥ 100 ksf')|'''Commentary for EPG 751.37.3.1 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Rock ''(q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf)''''']]
|}
'''Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Rock ''(q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf)'''''

The nominal unit side resistance for shaft segments located in rock shall be computed as a function of the mean uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock according to (Horvath and Kenney, 1979)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_s = \Bigg(0.95 \cdot \sqrt {\overline q_u} < 17.5 \cdot \sqrt{f'_c}\Bigg)\alpha_E</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.4
|}

where:

:''q<sub>s</sub>'' = nominal unit side resistance for the shaft segment (ksf),

:<math>\overline q_u</math> = mean value of uniaxial compressive strength of rock core along the shaft segment (ksf), and

:<math>f^'_c</math> = compressive strength of concrete (ksi).

:''α<sub>E</sub>'' = factor to account for discontinuities in the rock

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified.''

Resistance factors <math>(\boldsymbol \phi_{qs})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values ''(q<sub>s</sub> )'' determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.1.1 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean uniaxial compressive strength <math>(COV_{\overline {q_u}} )</math>. Values for <math>\overline {q_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}} </math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline {q_u}</math> shall be taken as mean values for the rock over the length of the shaft segment. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}} </math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment. Values for <math>f^'_c</math> shall be estimated based on the expected concrete compressive strength for the shaft.

The nominal unit side resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.4 shall be limited to a maximum value of <math>17.5 \cdot \sqrt{f'_c}</math> ksf where <math>f^'_c</math> is input in units of ksi. This limit corresponds to 35 ksf for concrete with <math>f^'_c</math> = 4 ksi.

[[image:751.37.3.1.1 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.1.1 Resistance factors for unit side resistance of drilled shafts in rock from uniaxial compression tests on intact rock core. '''</center>]]

A factor α<sub>E</sub> to account for discontinuities in the rock following O’Neill and Reese (1999) shall be used to reduce the nominal unit side resistance calculated by equation 751.37.3.4. The reduction factor shall only be applied to rock with recovery ratios less than 80% and RQD less than 50. Interpolation may be used. The reduction factor shall be determined and included as part of the nominal unit side resistance by the Geotechnical Section.

<center>
{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
|+ '''''Table 751.37.3.1.1 (Modified after O’Neill and Reese, 1999)'''''
! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2" width="100"|RQD!!style="background:#BEBEBE" colspan="2"| α<sub>E</sub>
|-
!style="background:#BEBEBE" |Closed Joints!!style="background:#BEBEBE"| Open Joints
|-
|100|| 1.0 ||0.85
|-
|70|| 0.85|| 0.55
|-
|50|| 0.60|| 0.55
|-
|30|| 0.50|| 0.5
|-
|20|| 0.45|| 0.45
|}
</center>

'''Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Rock ''(q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf)'''''

The nominal unit tip resistance for shafts founded on rock shall be computed as (adapted from Wyllie, 1999)
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_p = \sqrt{s} \cdot \overline{q_u} \Bigg[ 1 + \sqrt{\frac{m}{\sqrt{s}} + 1} \Bigg] \le 400 ksf</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of stress)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.5
|}

where:

:''q<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal unit tip resistance for the shaft (consistent units of stress),

:<math>\overline {q_u}</math> = mean value of the uniaxial compressive strength (consistent units of stress) and

:''m'' and ''s'' = empirical constants describing the rock mass strength (dimensionless).

Resistance factors <math>(\boldsymbol \phi_{qp})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values ''(q<sub>p</sub>)'' determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.1.2 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean uniaxial compressive strength <math>(COV_{\overline {q_u}} )</math>. Values for <math>\overline {q_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}} </math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline {q_u}</math>, ''m'' and ''s'' shall be taken as mean values for the rock over a depth of ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}} </math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.3.1.2 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.1.2 Resistance factors for unit tip resistance of drilled shafts in rock from uniaxial compression tests on intact rock core.'''</center>]]

Values for the rock mass parameters m and s can be established as:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> m = m_i \mbox{exp} \Bigg(\frac{GSI - 100}{28}\Bigg)</math>||align="center"| (dimensionless)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.6
|-
|align="left"|<math> s = \mbox{exp} \Bigg(\frac{GSI - 100}{9}\Bigg) \ for \ GSI \ge 25</math>||align="center"| (dimensionless)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.7a
|-
|align="left"|<math> s = 0 \ for \ GSI < 25</math>||align="center"| (dimensionless)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.7b
|}

where ''m<sub>i</sub>'' is a material constant corresponding to rock type and ''GSI'' is the Geological Strength Index. The value for ''m<sub>i</sub>'' can be estimated from Table 751.37.3.1.2 or determined more precisely from triaxial tests (Hoek and Brown, 1997). For routine design, ''m<sub>i</sub>'' can be approximated as 10 for limestones and dolomites, as 6 for shales, siltstones, and mudstones, and as 17 for sandstones. Values for ''GSI'' can be estimated from rock mass characterizations using the Rock Mass Rating (''RMR'') system for rock masses with ''RMR'' greater than 25 (Hoek and Brown, 1997). Using this approach, GSI is calculated as:
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>GSI = 10 + \textstyle \sum_{i=1}^4 R_i </math>||align="center"|(dimensionless)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.8
|}

where

''R<sub>i</sub>'' = Rock Mass Rating system rating parameters (dimensionless).

''GSI'' is thus equivalent to the ''RMR'' value with the groundwater rating term, ''R<sub>5</sub>'', taken as 10.

Values for ''GSI'' to be used in Equations 751.37.3.6 and 751.37.3.7, or values for ''m'' and ''s'' to be used in Equation 751.37.3.5, can also be established using alternative methods described in the commentary to this subarticle.

The nominal tip resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.5 shall be limited to a maximum value of 400 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:table 751.37.3.2.jpg|center|775px|thumb|<center>'''Table 751.37.3.1.2 Approximate values for material constant ''m<sub>i</sub>'' (from Marinos and Hoek, 2000). Numerals shown beneath rock types reflect ''m<sub>i</sub>'' values. Values in parentheses are estimates.'''</center> <br>
* Conglomerates and breccias may present a wide range of ''m<sub>i</sub>'' values depending on the nature of the cementing material and degree of cementation, so they may range from values similar to sandstone, to values used for fine grained sediments (even under 10). <br>
** These values are for intact rock specimens tested normal to bedding or foliation. The value of ''m<sub>i</sub>'' will be significantly different if failure occurs along a weakness plane.
]]

===751.37.3.2 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core ''(5 ksf ≤ q<sub>u</sub> ≤ 100 ksf)''===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.2 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core (5 ksf ≤ qu ≤ 100 ksf)|'''Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.2 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core (5 ksf ≤ ''q<sub>u</sub>'' ≤ 100 ksf)''']]
|}

'''Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core ''(5 ksf ≤ q<sub>u</sub> ≤ 100 ksf)'''''

The nominal unit side resistance for shaft segments located in weak rock shall be computed from measurements of uniaxial compressive strength on rock core as (Loehr et al., 2011a; Loehr et al., 2011b)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>q_s = 0.76 \cdot \overline{q_u}^0.79 \le 30 ksf</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.9
|}

where:

:''q<sub>s</sub>'' = nominal unit side resistance for the shaft segment (ksf) and

:<math>\overline{q_u}</math> = mean uniaxial compressive strength of rock core along the shaft segment (ksf).

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified. ''

Resistance factors <math>(\boldsymbol \phi_{qs})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values ''(q<sub>s</sub>)'' determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.2.1 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean uniaxial compressive strength <math>(COV_{\overline {q_u}} )</math>. Values for <math>\overline {q_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}} </math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline {q_u}</math> shall be taken as mean values for the rock over the length of the shaft segment. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}} </math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment.

The nominal unit side resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.9 shall be limited to a maximum value of 30 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:751.37.3.2.1 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.2.1 Resistance factors for unit side resistance for drilled shafts in weak rock from uniaxial compression tests on rock core. '''</center>]]

'''Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core (5 ksf ≤ q<sub>u</sub> ≤ 100 ksf)'''

The nominal unit tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall be computed from measurements of uniaxial compressive strength on rock core as (Loehr et al., 2011a; Loehr et al., 2011b)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>q_p = 14 \cdot \overline{q_u}^0.71 \le 400 ksf</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.10
|}

where:

:''q<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal unit tip resistance for the shaft (ksf), and

:<math>\overline {q_u}</math> = mean uniaxial compressive strength for rock at the shaft tip (ksf).

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified. ''

Resistance factors <math>(\boldsymbol \phi_{qp})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values ''(q<sub>p</sub>)'' determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.2.2 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean uniaxial compressive strength <math>(COV_{\overline {q_u}} )</math>. Values for <math>\overline {q_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}} </math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline {q_u}</math> shall be taken as mean values for the rock over a depth of ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}} </math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

The nominal tip resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.10 shall be limited to a maximum value of 400 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:751.37.3.2.2 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.2.2 Resistance factors for unit tip resistance for drilled shafts in weak rock from uniaxial compression tests on rock core. '''</center>]]

===751.37.3.3 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests ''(N<sub>eq</sub> ≤ 400 blows/ft)''===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.3 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests (Neq ≤ 400 blows/ft)|'''Commentary for EPG 751.37.3.3 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests ''(N<sub>eq</sub> ≤ 400 blows/ft)''']]
|}
'''Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests ''(N<sub>eq</sub> ≤ 400 blows/ft)'''''

The nominal unit side resistance for shaft segments located in weak rock shall be computed from Standard Penetration Test (SPT) measurements as (Pierce et al., 2011)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_s = \frac{\overline{N_eq}}{14} \le 30 ksf</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.11
|}

where:

:''q<sub>s</sub>'' = nominal unit side resistance for the shaft segment (ksf) and

:<math>\overline{N_{eq}}</math> = equivalent SPT ''N-''value along the shaft segment (blows/foot).

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified. ''

Resistance factors <math>(\boldsymbol \phi_{qs})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values ''(q<sub>s</sub>)'' determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.3.1 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean equivalent SPR ''N-''value <math>(COV_{\overline {N_eq}} )</math>. Values for <math>\overline {N_eq}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {N_eq}} </math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline {N_eq}</math> shall be taken as mean values for the rock over the length of the shaft segment. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {N_eq}} </math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean equivalent ''N-''value for the rock over the shaft segment.

The nominal unit side resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.11 shall be limited to a maximum value of 30 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:751.37.3.3.1 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.3.1 Resistance factors for unit side resistance for drilled shafts in weak rock from equivalent SPT ''N-''values.'''</center>]]

'''Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests ''(N<sub>eq</sub> ≤ 400 blows/ft)'''''

The nominal unit tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall be computed from Standard Penetration Test (SPT) measurements as (Pierce et al., 2011)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_p = \frac{\overline{N_eq}}{1.6} \le 400 ksf</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.9
|}

where:

:''q<sub>p</sub> = nominal unit tip resistance for the shaft (ksf) and

:<math>\overline{N_{eq}}</math> = mean equivalent SPT N-value for rock at the shaft tip (blows/foot).

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified. ''

Resistance factors <math>(\boldsymbol \phi_{qp})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values ''(q<sub>p</sub>)'' determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.3.2 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean equivalent SPR ''N-''value <math>(COV_{\overline {N_eq}} )</math>. Values for <math>\overline {N_eq}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {N_eq}} </math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline {N_eq}</math> shall be taken as mean values for the rock over a depth of ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {N_eq}} </math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean equivalent ''N-''value for the rock over the distance ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

The nominal tip resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.12 shall be limited to a maximum value of 400 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:751.37.3.3.2 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.3.2 Resistance factors for unit tip resistance for drilled shafts in weak rock from equivalent SPT ''N-''values.'''</center>]]

===751.37.3.4 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ TCP ≤ 10 in.)===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.4 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ TCP ≤ 10 in.)|Commentary for EPG 751.37.3.4 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ TCP ≤ 10 in.)''']]
|}
'''Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ TCP ≤ 10 in.)'''

The nominal unit side resistance for shaft segments located in weak rock shall be computed from Texas Cone Penetration Test (TCPT) measurements as (Pierce et al., 2011)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_s = 31.6 \cdot \overline{TCP}^{-1.18} \le 30 ksf</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.13
|}

where:

:''q<sub>s</sub>'' = nominal unit side resistance for the shaft segment (ksf) and

:<math>\overline{TCP}</math> = mean value of penetration from TCPT measurements for rock along the shaft segment (inches/100 blows).

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified.''

Resistance factors <math>(\boldsymbol \phi_{qs})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values ''(q<sub>s</sub>)'' determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.4.1 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean ''TCP''-value <math>(COV_{\overline {TCP}})</math>. Values for <math>\overline {TCP} </math> and <math>COV_{\overline {TCP}} </math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline {TCP} </math> shall be taken as mean values for the rock over the length of the shaft segment. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {TCP}} </math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean ''TCP''-value for the rock over the shaft segment.

The nominal unit side resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.13 shall be limited to a maximum value of 30 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:751.37.3.4.1 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.4.1 Resistance factors for unit side resistance for drilled shafts in weak rock from Texas Cone Penetration Test penetration values.'''</center>]]

'''Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ TCP ≤ 10 in.)'''

The nominal unit tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall be computed from Texas Cone Penetration Test (TCPT) measurements as (Pierce et al., 2011)
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_p = 500 \cdot \overline{TCP}^{-1.22} \le 400 ksf</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.14
|}

where:

:''(q<sub>p</sub>)'' = nominal unit tip resistance for the shaft (ksf) and

:<math>\overline {TCP} </math> = mean value of penetration from TCPT measurements for rock at the tip of the shaft (inches/100 blows).

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified.''

Resistance factors <math>(\boldsymbol \phi_{qp})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values ''(q<sub>p</sub>)'' determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.4.2 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean ''TCP''-value <math>(COV_{\overline {TCP}})</math>. Values for <math>\overline {TCP} </math> and <math>COV_{\overline {TCP}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline {TCP} </math> shall be taken as mean values for the rock over a depth of ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {TCP}}</math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean ''TCP''-value for the rock over the distance ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

The nominal tip resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.14 shall be limited to a maximum value of 400 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:751.37.3.4.2 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig.751.37.3.4.2 Resistance factors for unit tip resistance for drilled shafts in weak rock from Texas Cone Penetration Test penetration values.'''</center>]]

===751.37.3.5 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests ''(5 ksf ≤ I<sub>s(50)</sub> ≤ 40 ksf)''===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.5 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests (5 ksf ≤ Is(50) ≤ 40 ksf)|'''Commentary for EPG 751.37.3.5 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests ''(5 ksf ≤ I<sub>s(50)</sub> ≤ 40 ksf)''']]
|}

'''Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests ''(5 ksf ≤ I<sub>s(50)</sub> ≤ 40 ksf)'''''

The nominal unit side resistance for shaft segments located in weak rock shall be computed from Point Load Index Test measurements as (Loehr et al., 2011a; Loehr et al., 2011b)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_s = \frac{(\overline{I_{s(50)}})^{1.8}}{10} \le 30 ksf </math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.15
|}

where:

:''q<sub>s</sub>'' = nominal unit side resistance for the shaft segment (ksf) and

:<math>\overline{I_{s(50)}}</math> = mean corrected point load index value for rock along the shaft segment (ksf).

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified. ''

Resistance factors <math>(\boldsymbol \phi_{qs})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values (''q<sub>s</sub>'') determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.5.1 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>''-value <math>(COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}})</math>. Values for ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>'' and <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>'' shall be taken as mean values for the rock over the length of the shaft segment. Values for <math>(COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}})</math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>''-value for the rock over the shaft segment.

The nominal unit side resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.15 shall be limited to a maximum value of 30 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:751.37.3.5.1 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.5.1 Resistance factors for unit side resistance for drilled shafts in weak rock from Point Load Index values.'''</center>]]

'''Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests ''(5 ksf ≤ I<sub>s(50)</sub> ≤ 40 ksf)'''''

The nominal unit tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall be computed from Point Load Index Test measurements as (Loehr et al., 2011a; Loehr et al., 2011b)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_p = 10.5 \cdot \overline{I_{s(50)}} \le 400 ksf </math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.16
|}

where:

:''q<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal unit tip resistance for the shaft (ksf) and

:<math>\overline{I_{s(50)}}</math> = mean corrected point load index value for rock at the tip of the shaft (ksf).

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified.''

Resistance factors <math>(\boldsymbol \phi_{qp})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values (''q<sub>p</sub>'') determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.5.2 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>''-value <math>(COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}})</math>. Values for <math>\overline{I_{s(50)}}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline{I_{s(50)}}</math> shall be taken as mean values for the rock over a depth of ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>''-value for the rock over the distance ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

The nominal tip resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.16 shall be limited to a maximum value of 400 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:751.37.3.5.2 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.5.2 Resistance factors for unit tip resistance for drilled shafts in weak rock from Point Load Index values.'''</center>]]

===751.37.3.6 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (''s<sub>u</sub> ≤ 5 ksf'')===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.6 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (su ≤ 5 ksf)|'''Commentary for EPG 751.37.3.6 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (''s<sub>u</sub> ≤ 5 ksf'')''']]
|}

'''Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (''s<sub>u</sub> ≤ 5 ksf'')'''

The nominal unit side resistance for shaft segments located in cohesive soils shall be computed from measurements of undrained shear strength using the “α-method” as (e.g. Reese et al., 2006)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_s = \alpha \cdot \overline{s_u}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of stress)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.17
|}

where:

:''q<sub>s</sub>'' = nominal unit side resistance for the shaft segment (consistent units of stress),

:''α'' = an empirical coefficient (dimensionless) and

:<math>\overline{s_u}</math> = mean value of the undrained shear strength for the soil along the shaft segment (consistent units of stress).

The value for ''α'' shall be taken as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> \alpha = \frac {0.75}{\sqrt{\overline{s_u}}} \le 1.0</math>||align="center"| (dimensionless)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.18
|}

where <math>\overline {s_u}</math> is the mean undrained shear strength input in units of ksf.

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified.''

Resistance factors <math>(\boldsymbol \phi_{qs})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values (''q<sub>s</sub>'') determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.6.1 based on the coefficient of variation of mean undrained shear strength <math>(COV_{\overline {s_u}})</math>. Values for <math>{\overline {s_u}}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>{\overline {s_u}}</math> shall be taken as mean values for the soil over the length of the shaft segment. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean undrained shear strength for the soil over the shaft segment.

[[image:751.37.3.6.1 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.6.1 Resistance factors for unit side resistance for drilled shafts in cohesive soils from undrained shear strength measurements. '''</center>]]

The value for α predicted using Equation 751.37.3.18 shall be limited to a maximum value of 1.0.

In cohesive soils, side resistance along the top 5 ft. of the shaft and a distance of one shaft diameter above the tip of the shaft shall be ignored.

'''Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (''s<sub>u</sub> ≤ 5 ksf)'''

The nominal tip resistance for shafts founded on cohesive soils shall be calculated from measurements of undrained shear strength according to:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_p = \overline{s_u} \cdot N_c \le 80 ksf</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of stress)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.19
|}

where:

:''q<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal unit tip resistance for the shaft (consistent units of stress),

:<math>\overline{s_u}</math> = mean value of the undrained shear strength of the soil (consistent units of stress) and

:''N<sub>c</sub>'' = bearing capacity factor (dimensionless).

Resistance factors <math>(\boldsymbol \phi_{qp})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values (''q<sub>p</sub>'') determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.6.2 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean undrained shear strength <math>(COV_{\overline {s_u}})</math>. Values for <math>\overline{s_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline{s_u}</math>shall be taken as mean values for the soil over a depth of 2''D'' below the tip of the shaft. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean undrained shear strength for the soil over the distance 2''D'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.3.6.2 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.6.2 Resistance factors for unit tip resistance for drilled shafts in cohesive soils from undrained shear strength measurements.'''</center>]]

The value for ''N<sub>c</sub>'' shall be taken as
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>N_c = 6 \Big[ 1 + 0.2 \Big(\frac{Z}{D}\Big)\Big] \le 9</math>||align="center"| (dimensionless)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.20
|}

where:

:Z = depth of the tip of the shaft from the ground surface (consistent units of length), and

:D = shaft diameter (consistent units of length).

The value for ''N<sub>c</sub>'' predicted using Equation 751.37.3.20 shall be limited to a maximum value of 9.0.

For <math>\overline{s_u}</math> ≤ 0.5 ksf, ''N<sub>c</sub>'' shall be multiplied by 0.67.

The nominal unit tip resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.19 shall be limited to a maximum value of 80 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

===751.37.3.7 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.7 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils|Commentary for EPG 751.37.3.7 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils]]
|}

'''Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils'''

The nominal unit side resistance for shaft segments located in cohesionless soils shall be computed using the “β-method” as
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_s = \beta \cdot \sigma^'_v</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of stress)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.21
|}

where:

:''q<sub>s</sub> = nominal unit side resistance for the shaft segment (consistent units of stress),

:β = an empirical correlation factor (dimensionless) and

:σ'<sub>v</sub> = average vertical effective stress for the soil along the shaft segment (consistent units of stress).

The value for β shall be taken as (O’Neill and Reese, 1999)
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> \beta = 1.5 - 0.135\sqrt{z}</math>||align="center"| (for ''N<sub>60</sub> ≥ 15)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.22a
|-
|align="left"|<math> \beta = \frac{N_{60}}{15} \cdot \big(1.5 - 0.135\sqrt{z} \big)</math>||align="center"| (for ''N<sub>60</sub> < 15)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.22b
|}

where 0.25 ≤ β ≤ 1.2 and

:z = depth below ground surface to center of shaft segment (ft.) and

:''N<sub>60</sub>'' = average SPT ''N''-value corrected for hammer efficiency (blows/ft).

If permanent casing is used, the side resistance shall be adjusted with consideration of type and length of casing used.

The resistance factor <math>\boldsymbol\phi_{qs}</math> to be applied to the nominal unit side resistance shall be taken as 0.55.

'''Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils'''

The nominal unit tip resistance for shafts founded on cohesionless soils shall be computed from corrected SPT ''N''-values, N<sub>60</sub> (O’Neill and Reese, 1999).

For N_60≤50:
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_p = 1.2 \cdot N_{60} \le 60 ksf</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.23
|}

where:
:''q<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal unit tip resistance for the shaft (ksf) and

:''N<sub>60</sub>'' = average SPT ''N''-value corrected for hammer efficiency (blows/ft).

For ''N<sub>60</sub>'' ≥ 50:
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_p = 0.59\cdot \sigma^'_v \cdot \Bigg( N_{60}\bigg(\frac{p_a}{\sigma^'_v}\bigg)\Bigg)^{0.8}</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.24
|}

where:
:''q<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal unit tip resistance for the shaft (ksf),

:''N<sub>60</sub>'' = average SPT N-value corrected for hammer efficiency (blows/foot),

:''p<sub>a</sub>'' = 2.12 ksf = atmospheric pressure (ksf).

:<math>\sigma^'_v</math> = vertical effective stress for the soil at the tip of the shaft (ksf).

''Note that these expressions are dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified. ''

The resistance factor <math>\boldsymbol\phi_{qp}</math> shall be taken as 0.50 for Equation 751.37.3.23 and as 0.55 for Equation 751.37.3.24.

===751.37.3.8 Geotechnical Resistance from Load Tests===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.8 Geotechnical Resistance from Load Tests|Commentary for EPG 751.37.3.8 Geotechnical Resistance from Load Tests]]
|}

If drilled shaft resistance is determined by load test, the resistance factor shall be taken as 0.7 regardless of the soil conditions.

===751.37.3.9 Evaluation of Group Effects===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.9 Evaluation of Group Effects|Commentary for EPG 751.37.3.9 Evaluation of Group Effects]]'''
|}
Group effects for drilled shafts shall be evaluated as described in EPG 751.37.3.9. Procedures for evaluation of group effects generally involve use of a group efficiency factor, consideration of an “equivalent pier”, or both. Application of the group efficiency factor requires that the nominal resistance for individual shafts be multiplied by the factor η to reflect the nominal average resistance of the shafts within a group:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> R^{\star} = \eta \cdot R</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.25
|}

where:

:R = nominal resistance of an individual shaft (consistent units of force),

:R<sup>*</sup> = modified shaft resistance accounting for group effects (consistent units of force) and

:''η'' = group efficiency factor established as described in this article.

''Note that the group efficiency factor (η) used here is different from the redundancy factor (η<sub>R</sub>) discussed in EPG 751.37.1.4.'' Additional discussion regarding the redundancy factor is provided in the commentary.

Consideration of an “equivalent pier” requires evaluation of the shaft group as a hypothetical, monolithic pier encompassing the block of soil and shafts enclosed within the outer perimeter of the shaft group.

The specific method to be used differs with geologic setting as described in the remainder of this article.

'''Group Effects in Cohesionless Soils'''

For shafts deriving resistance predominantly from cohesionless soils, the nominal resistance of individual shafts in the group shall be reduced by an efficiency factor, ''η'', determined based on the spacing of the shafts:

:* for shafts with center-to-center spacing equal to 2.5 shaft diameters, ''η'' = 0.65

:* for shafts with center-to-center spacing equal to 4.0 shaft diameters or more, ''η'' = 1.0, and

:* for shafts with intermediate spacing, the value for ''η'' shall be linearly interpolated between these values.

These efficiency factors shall apply regardless of conditions of contact between the cap and ground.

'''Group Effects in Cohesive Soils'''

For shafts deriving resistance predominantly from cohesive soils, the nominal resistance of the pile group shall be taken as the lesser of the following values:

:* The nominal resistance of an equivalent pier consisting of the shafts and the block of soil within the area bounded by the shafts, or

:* The sum of the nominal resistances for each individual shaft in the group.

For the latter value, the nominal resistances for individual piles shall be reduced by an efficiency factor, ''η'', <u>if</u> the soil is soft <u>and</u> the cap may not be in firm contact with the ground. In such cases, the efficiency factor, ''η'', shall be determined based on the spacing of the shafts:

:* ''η'' = 0.65 for shafts with center-to-center spacing equal to 2.5 shaft diameters,

:* ''η'' = 1.0 for shafts with center-to-center spacing equal to 6.0 shaft diameters or more, and

:* For intermediate shaft spacing, the value for ''η'' shall be linearly interpolated between these values.

Note that the efficiency factors shall only apply if the soil is soft <u>and</u> the cap is not in firm contact with the ground. For all other conditions, no efficiency factor shall be applied when comparing the total resistance for the equivalent pier with the cumulative resistance from the individual shafts.

The resistance factors to be applied for the equivalent pier evaluation shall be 0.60 (AASHTO, 2009). Resistance factors for summation of the individual shaft resistances shall be those provided in EPG 751.37.3.1 through EPG 751.37.3.8.

'''Group Effects in Rock'''

For shafts deriving resistance predominantly from rock, the nominal resistance of the pile group shall be taken as the lesser of the following:

:* The nominal resistance of an equivalent pier consisting of the shafts and the block of soil/rock within the area bounded by the shafts, or

:* The sum of the nominal resistances for each individual shaft in the group.

No efficiency factor shall be applied to the individual pile resistances when evaluating the latter condition.

==751.37.4 Design for Axial Loading at Serviceability Limit States==
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.4 Design for Axial Loading at Serviceability Limit States|Commentary for EPG 751.37.Commentary on EPG 751.37.4 Design for Axial Loading at Serviceability Limit States]]'''
|}
Drilled shafts shall be dimensioned so that there is a small likelihood that shafts will settle more than tolerable settlements, generally established from consideration of span length. This shall be accomplished by comparing a factored settlement computed for a shaft with dimensions established from EPG 751.37.3 with an established tolerable settlement. If the factored total settlement determined from these provisions is found to be less than or equal to the tolerable settlement, i.e. if
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\delta_R \le \delta_{tol}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of lengths)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.1
|}

where:

:''δ<sub>R</sub>'' = factored total settlement (consistent units of length) and

:''δ<sub>tol</sub>'' = tolerable settlement (consistent units of length),

the limit state is satisfied and the probability of shaft settlement exceeding the tolerable settlement is less than or equal to the target probability established by MoDOT. If the factored total settlement is determined to exceed the tolerable settlement, the probability of foundation settlement exceeding the tolerable value is greater than the target probability established by MoDOT. In such cases, the shaft dimensions shall be increased until the factored total settlement is less than or equal to the tolerable settlement.

Resistance factors provided in this article were established to produce factored settlements that have a target probability of being exceeded. Target probabilities of exceedance were established by MoDOT for structures of different operational importance. Additional information regarding development of the resistance factors and application of the resistance factors for settlement calculations are provided in the commentary that accompanies these guidelines.

For this provision, the tolerable settlement shall be taken as
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\delta_{tol} = \frac{S}{476}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of lengths)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.2
|}

where:

:''δ<sub>tol</sub>'' = tolerable settlement (consistent units of length) and
:''S'' = span between adjacent bridge bents (consistent units of length).

Factored settlements shall be determined as provided in this article. Settlement shall be evaluated for the Service I limit state.

Two alternative approaches are provided in these guidelines for determining the factored total settlement of drilled shafts. The first approach is based on an approximate factored load-settlement relationship for an individual shaft. The second approach utilizes the “t-z” method to predict the factored settlement for the shaft. Greater factored settlements will generally be predicted using the approximate method both because it tends to be conservative at working loads and because it involves greater variability and uncertainty. It is expected that the approximate method will generally be used for preliminary evaluation of settlement. If the settlement determined from the approximate method satisfies the serviceability requirement of Equation 751.37.4.1, the shaft dimensions can be considered acceptable. If use of the approximate method produces factored settlements that do not satisfy Equation 751.37.4.1, designers should consider performing evaluations using the more precise t-z method to evaluate whether serviceability is satisfied prior to increasing the dimensions of the shaft to satisfy serviceability requirements.

===751.37.4.1 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using Approximate Method===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.4.1 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using Approximate Method|Commentary on EPG 751.37.4.1 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using Approximate Method]]'''
|}

Prediction of factored settlement due to factored service loads shall be determined as follows depending on the magnitude of factored loads relative to the magnitude of factored side and tip resistance:

If <math>\gamma Q \le R_{sR} + 0.1 R_{pR}</math>:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\delta_R = 0.005 \cdot D \cdot \frac{\gamma Q}{R_{sR} + 0.1 R_{pR}} + \delta_{eR}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of lengths)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.3
|}

where:

:<math>\boldsymbol\gamma Q</math> = factored load for the appropriate serviceability limit state (consistent units of force),

:''R<sub>sR</sub>'' = total factored side resistance determined according to the provisions of this article (consistent units of force),

:''R<sub>pR</sub>'' = factored tip resistance determined according to the provisions of this article (consistent units of force),

:''δ<sub>R</sub>'' = factored total settlement of shaft due to factored service loads (consistent units of length),

:''D'' = shaft diameter (consistent units of length) and

:''δ<sub>eR</sub>'' = factored elastic compression of the unsupported length of the shaft (consistent units of length).

If <math>R_{sR} + 0.1 R_{pR} \le \gamma Q \le R_{sR} + R_{pR}</math> :

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\delta_R = 0.005 \cdot D + 0.045 \cdot D \cdot \Big(\frac{\gamma Q - R_{sR} - 0.1 R_{pR}}{0.9 \cdot R_{pR}}\Big) + \delta_{eR}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of lengths)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.4
|}

where:

:<math>\boldsymbol\gamma Q</math> = factored load for the appropriate serviceability limit state (consistent units of force),

:''R<sub>sR</sub>'' = total factored side resistance determined according to the provisions of this article (consistent units of force),

:''R<sub>pR</sub>'' = factored tip resistance determined according to the provisions of this article (consistent units of force),

:''δ<sub>R</sub>'' = factored total settlement of shaft due to factored service load (consistent units of length),

:''D'' = shaft diameter (consistent units of length) and

:''δ<sub>eR</sub>'' = factored elastic compression of the unsupported length of the shaft (consistent units of length).

Note that if <math>\gamma Q \ge R_{sR} + R_{pR}</math>, the factored service load exceeds the maximum factored resistance of the shaft and the limit state cannot be satisfied without increasing the dimensions of the shaft.

The factored side resistance in Equations 751.37.4.3 and 751.37.4.4 shall be established from factored unit side resistance values for the relevant soil/rock conditions as provided in this article. For stratified ground conditions or where the shaft dimensions change (e.g. at tip of temporary or permanent casing, or at top of rock socket), the shaft shall be divided into segments with practically uniform shaft geometry and soil/rock properties and unit side resistance values determined for each shaft segment. The total factored side resistance shall then be computed as the sum of the factored resistance values for each shaft segment:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>R_{sR} = \textstyle \sum_{i=1}^n \big( q_{sR-1} \cdot A_{s-i} \big) = \textstyle \sum_{i-1}^n \big( \phi_{\delta s - i} \cdot q_{s-i} \cdot \pi \cdot D_i \cdot L_i \big)</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.5
|}

where:

:''n'' = number of shaft segments,

:<math>q_{sR-i} = \phi_{\delta s-i} \cdot q_{s-i}</math> = factored unit side resistance for shaft segment i (consistent units of stress),

:<math>A_{s-i} = \pi \cdot D_i \cdot L_i</math> = perimeter interface area for shaft segment i (consistent units of area),

:<math>\boldsymbol \phi_{\delta s-i}</math> = settlement resistance factor for side resistance along shaft segment i (dimensionless),

:''q<sub>s-i</sub>'' = nominal unit side resistance along shaft segment i (consistent units of stress),

:''D<sub>i</sub>'' = shaft diameter for shaft segment i (consistent units of length) and

:''L<sub>i</sub>'' = length of shaft segment i (consistent units of length).

Values for ''q<sub>s-i</sub>'' shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of [[#751.37.3 Design for Axial Loading at Strength Limit State|EPG 751.37.3]], based on the material type present along the respective shaft segments. Values for <math>\boldsymbol \phi_{\delta s-i}</math> shall be established as provided subsequently in this article. Side resistance shall generally be neglected or reduced, as recommended by the Geotechnical Section, over shaft segments with permanent casing and over any length of rock socket that is deemed unusable for consistency with evaluations performed for strength limit states.

The factored tip resistance in Equations 751.37.4.3 and 751.37.4.4 shall be established from factored unit tip resistance values for the relevant soil/rock conditions as provided in this article. The appropriate tip resistance shall be established for the soil/rock located between the tip of the shaft and a distance of 2D below the tip of the shaft. The factored tip resistance shall be computed as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>R_{pR} = q_{pR} \cdot A_p = \phi_{\delta p} \cdot q_p \cdot \pi \cdot \frac{D^2}{4}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.6
|}

where:

:<math>q_{pR} = \phi_{\delta p} \cdot q_p</math> = factored unit tip resistance (consistent units of stress),

:<math>A_p = \pi \cdot \frac{D^2}{4}</math> = cross-sectional area of the shaft at the tip (consistent units of area),

:<math>\boldsymbol \phi_{\delta p}</math> = settlement resistance factor for tip resistance (dimensionless),

:''q<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal unit tip resistance (consistent units of stress) and

:''D'' = shaft diameter at the tip of the shaft (consistent units of length).

The value for ''q<sub>p</sub>'' shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of [[#751.37.3 Design for Axial Loading at Strength Limit State|EPG 751.37.3]], based on the material type present within a depth of 2''D'' below the tip of the shaft. The value for <math>\boldsymbol \phi_{\delta p}</math> shall be established as provided subsequently in this article. For consistency with evaluations for strength limit states, tip resistance shall be neglected, as recommended by the Geotechnical Section, when the shaft tip is located within karstic rock or other conditions where tip resistance cannot be reliably determined.

The factored elastic compression of the unsupported length of the shaft shall be determined as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\delta_{eR} = \frac{\gamma Q (L-L_s)}{\phi_{\delta e} \cdot E_p A_p}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of length)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.7
|}

where:

:''δ<sub>eR</sub>'' = factored elastic compression of the unsupported length of the shaft (consistent units of length),

:<math>\boldsymbol\gamma Q </math> = factored load for the appropriate serviceability limit state (consistent units of force),

:''L'' = overall shaft length (consistent units of length),

:''L<sub>s</sub>'' = length of the rock socket (consistent units of length),

:''E<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal modulus of elasticity for the shaft (consistent units of stress),

:''A<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal shaft area (consistent units of area) and

:<math>\boldsymbol\phi_{\boldsymbol\delta e}</math> = settlement resistance factor for elastic compression of the shaft.

Values for the settlement resistance factor for elastic compression of the shaft shall be taken from Table 751.37.4.1 according to the operational importance of the structure.

====<center>''Table 751.37.4.1 Settlement resistance factors for elastic compression of drilled shafts''</center>====
{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
|+
! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Operational Importance !! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Settlement Resistance Factor, ''Φ<sub>δe</sub>''
|-
|Minor or Low Volume Route || align="center"|0.68
|-
|Major Route ||align="center"|0.64
|-
|Major Bridge <$100 million ||align="center"| 0.61
|-
|Major Bridge >$100 million||align="center"| 0.60
|}

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for Approximate Method for Drilled Shafts in Rock'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.1 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean uniaxial compressive strength, <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}}</math>. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.2 based on values for <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.1.1 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.1 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in rock from uniaxial compression test measurements using approximate method. '''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.1.2 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.2 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in rock from uniaxial compression test measurements using approximate method. '''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for Approximate Method for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through weak rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.3 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean uniaxial compressive strength, <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}}</math>. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.4 based on values for <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.1.3 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.3 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from uniaxial compression test measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.1.4 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.4 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from uniaxial compression test measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for Approximate Method for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Test Measurements'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through weak rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.5 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean equivalent SPT ''N''-value, <math>COV_{\overline {N_{eq}}}</math>. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {N_{eq}}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean equivalent ''N''-value over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.6 based on values for <math>COV_{\overline {N_{eq}}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean equivalent ''N''-value over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.1.5 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.5 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Standard Penetration Test measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.1.6 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.6 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Standard Penetration Test measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for Approximate Method for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Test Measurements'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through weak rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.7 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean ''TCP''-value, <math>COV_{\overline {TCP}}</math>. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {TCP}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean ''TCP''-value over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.8 based on values for <math>COV_{\overline {TCP}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean TCP-value over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.1.7 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.7 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Texas Cone Penetration Test measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.1.8 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.8 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Texas Cone Penetration Test measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for Approximate Method for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Test Measurements'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through weak rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.9 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>''-value, <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math>. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>''-value for the rock over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.10 based on values for <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>''-value for the rock over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.1.9 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.9 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Point Load Index Test measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.1.10 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.10 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Point Load Index Test measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for Approximate Method for Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through cohesive soil shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.11 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean undrained shear strength, <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math>. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean undrained shear strength for the soil over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on cohesive soil shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.12 based on values for <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean undrained shear strength for the soil over the distance 2''D'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.1.11 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.11 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in cohesive soil from undrained shear strength measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.1.12 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.12 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in cohesive soil from undrained shear strength measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

For shafts founded in soft cohesive soils, consideration shall also be given to including additional settlement induced from time dependent consolidation of the soil.

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for Approximate Method for Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils'''

Settlement evaluations for individual drilled shafts in cohesionless soils shall be designed according to applicable sections of the current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.

===751.37.4.2 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using t-z Method===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.4.2 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using t-z Method|Commentary on EPG 751.37.4.2 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using t-z Method]]'''
|}
The “t-z method” is a numerical method for predicting the axial load-displacement response of drilled shafts and other deep foundation members (Reese et al., 2006). The analyses can be performed using commercial specialty software, such as TZPile©, or using common spreadsheet software. Regardless of the method of implementation, the analyses require specification of t-z models that reflect the load transfer characteristics for side resistance, “q-w” models that reflect the load transfer characteristics for tip resistance, and shaft characteristics that reflect the stiffness of the shaft relative to the surrounding soil/rock.

Prediction of factored settlements using the t-z method according to these provisions shall be accomplished by performing t-z analysis using factored t-z and q-w models models as described in more detail in the commentary to this article. The top of shaft settlement predicted using the t-z method for a shaft subjected to the factored service loads and modeled using factored t-z and q-w models shall be taken as the factored total settlement, ''δ<sub>R</sub>'', for use in Equation 751.37.4.1.

Factored t-z models shall be established from a nominal, unfactored t-z model selected to represent the load transfer response in side resistance for relevant soil/rock conditions as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>t_R(z) = \phi_{\delta s} \cdot t(z)</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of stress)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.8
|}

where:

:''t<sub>R</sub>(z)'' = factored t-z model for input into analyses using the t-z method (consistent units of stress),

:''z'' = relative displacement between the shaft and the soil/rock along the length of the shaft (consistent units of length),

:''<math>\boldsymbol\phi_{\delta s}</math>'' = settlement resistance factor for side resistance (dimensionless) and

:''t(z)'' = nominal t-z model selected to represent relevant soil/rock conditions (consistent units of stress).

Values for ''<math>\boldsymbol\phi_{\delta s}</math>'' shall be established according to the soil/rock type and available site characterization data as provided subsequently in this article.

Factored q-w models shall similarly be established from a nominal, unfactored q-w model selected to represent the load transfer response in tip resistance for relevant soil/rock conditions as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>q_R (w) = \phi_{\delta p} \cdot q(w)</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of stress)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.9
|}

where:

:''q<sub>R</sub>(w)'' = factored q-w model for input into analyses using the t-z method (consistent units of stress),

:''w'' = relative displacement between the shaft and the soil/rock at the shaft tip (consistent units of length),

:<math>\boldsymbol\phi_{\delta p}</math> = settlement resistance factor for tip resistance (dimensionless), and

:''q(w)'' = nominal q-w model selected to represent relevant soil/rock conditions at the tip of the shaft (consistent units of stress).

Values for <math>\boldsymbol\phi_{\delta p}</math> shall be established according to the soil/rock type and available site characterization data as provided subsequently in this article.

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for t-z Method for Drilled Shafts in Rock'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.1 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean uniaxial compressive strength, <math>COV \overline{q_u}</math>. Values for <math>COV \overline{q_u}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.2 based on values for <math>COV \overline{q_u}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.2.1 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.1 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in rock from uniaxial compression test measurements using t-z method'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.2.2 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.2 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in rock from uniaxial compression test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for t-z Method for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through weak rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.3 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean uniaxial compressive strength, <math>COV \overline{q_u}</math>. Values for <math>COV \overline{q_u}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.4 based on values for <math>COV \overline{q_u}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.2.3 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.3 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from uniaxial compression test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.2.4 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.4 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from uniaxial compression test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for t-z Method for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Test Measurements'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through weak rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.5 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean equivalent SPT ''N''-value, <math>COV \overline{N_{eq}}</math>. Values for <math>COV \overline{N_{eq}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.6 based on values for <math>COV \overline{N_{eq}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.2.5 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig.751.37.4.2.5 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Standard Penetration Test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.2.6 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig.751.37.4.2.6 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Standard Penetration Test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for t-z Method for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Test Measurements'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through weak rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.7 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean ''TCP''-value, <math>COV_{\overline{TCP}}</math>. Values for <math>COV_{\overline{TCP}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.8 based on values for <math>COV_{\overline{TCP}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.2.7 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.7 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Texas Cone Penetration Test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.2.8 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.8 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Texas Cone Penetration Test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for t-z Method for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Test Measurements'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through weak rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.9 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>''-value, <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math>. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.10 based on values for <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.2.9 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.9 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Point Load Index Test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.2.10 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.10 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Point Load Index Test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for t-z Method for Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through cohesive soil shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.11 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean undrained shear strength, <math>COV \overline{s_u}</math>. Values for <math>COV \overline{s_u}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean undrained shear strength for the soil over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on cohesive soil shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.12 based on values for <math>COV \overline{s_u}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean undrained shear strength for the soil over the distance 2''D'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.2.11 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.11 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in cohesive soil from undrained shear strength measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.2.12 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.12 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in cohesive soil from undrained shear strength measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

For shafts founded in soft cohesive soils, consideration shall also be given to including additional settlement induced from time dependent consolidation of the soil.

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for t-z Method for Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils'''

Settlement evaluations for individual drilled shafts in cohesionless soils shall be designed according to applicable sections of the current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.

===751.37.4.3 Settlement of Drilled Shafts in Groups===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.4.3 Settlement of Drilled Shafts in Groups|Commentary on EPG 751.37.4.3 Settlement of Drilled Shafts in Groups]]'''
|}
'''Settlement of Shaft Groups in Cohesive Soils'''

Settlement of shaft groups in cohesive soils shall be estimated according to EPG 751.38.4.3 using the “equivalent footing” approach described in LRFD 10.7.2.3.

'''Settlement of Shaft Groups in Cohesionless Soils Using Standard Penetration Test Measurements'''

Settlement for drilled shaft groups in cohesionless soils can be estimated from SPT measurements as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\rho = qI\frac{\sqrt{B}}{(N_1)_{60}}</math>||align="center"| (inches)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.10
|}

where:

:''ρ'' = settlement of shaft group (inches),

:''q'' = net foundation pressure applied at depth of ''D'''(ksf),

:''B'' = width or smallest dimension of shaft group (feet),

:''I'' = 1 - 0.125(''D'/B'') ≥ 0.5 = influence factor of the effective group embedment (dimensionless),

:''(N<sub>1</sub>)<sub>60</sub>'' = SPT blow count corrected for overburden stress and hammer efficiency (blows/foot),

:''D'' = 2''D<sub>b</sub>''/3 = effective depth of “equivalent footing” and

:''D<sub>b</sub>'' = depth of embedment of shafts in layer that provides support.

The value for ''(N<sub>1</sub>)<sub>60</sub>'' is determined as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>(N_1)_{60} = C_N \cdot N \Big( \frac{ER}{60%}\Big)</math>||align="center"| (blows/foot)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.11
|}

where:

:''C<sub>N</sub>'' = <math>\Big[ 0.77 log_{10} \Big(\frac{40}{\sigma^'_v}\Big)\Big] \le 2.0</math> = correction factor to account for overburden stress (dimensionless),

:''ER'' = hammer efficiency expressed as percentage of theoretical free fall energy for hammer system actually used (percent) and

:''N'' = uncorrected SPT blow count (blows/foot).

'''Settlement of Shaft Groups in Cohesionless Soils Using Cone Penetration Test Measurements'''

Settlement for drilled shaft groups in cohesionless soils can be estimated from CPT measurements as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\rho = \frac{qBI}{2q_c}</math>||align="center"| (inches)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.12
|}

where:

:''ρ'' = settlement of shaft group (inches),

:''q'' = net foundation pressure applied at depth of D'(ksf),

:''B'' = width or smallest dimension of shaft group (feet),

:''I'' = 1 - 0.125(''D'/B'') ≥ 0.5 = influence factor of the effective group embedment (dimensionless),

:''q<sub>c</sub>'' = static cone tip resistance (ksf),

:''D'' = 2''D<sub>b</sub>''/3 = effective depth of “equivalent footing” and

:''D<sub>b</sub>'' = depth of embedment of shafts in layer that provides support.

'''Settlement of Shaft Groups in Rock'''

Settlement of shaft groups in rock shall be estimated according to EPG 751.38.4.2 using the “equivalent footing” approach described in LRFD 10.7.2.3.

==751.37.5 Design for Lateral Loading at Strength and Service Limit States==
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.5 Design for Lateral Loading at Strength and Service Limit States|Commentary on EPG 751.37.5 Design for Lateral Loading at Strength and Service Limit States]]'''
|}
The Strength Limit State and applicable Extreme Event Limit States shall be investigated when calculating the soil and structural resistance of the drilled shaft for lateral loading. The Service I Limit State shall be used when evaluating lateral deflection.

Design lateral movements should not exceed approximately 1.5 in. at the top of the shaft at the Service I Limit State.

To analyze laterally loaded drilled shafts, the point of fixity of the drilled shaft must be estimated. This location may be estimated by using a computer program. This is an iterative process that requires first assuming a point of fixity so that the bent stiffness may be calculated. The stiffness of the bent may be found by modeling the bent in a structural analysis program, applying a load to the middle of the beam cap and measuring the amount of deflection caused by the load. The method shown in [[751.2 Loads#751.2.4.6 Longitudinal Wind Force Distribution |EPG 751.2.4.6 Loads - Longitudinal Wind Force Distribution]] and [[751.2 Loads#751.2.4.7 Longitudinal Temperature Force Distribution |EPG 751.2.4.7 Loads - Longitudinal Temperature Force Distribution]] for modeling the stiffness, E'I, of a cast in place (C.I.P.) pile may also be used to model a drilled shaft. The moment of inertia of the bent is then found by:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>I = \frac{\big(\frac{P}{\delta}\big) L^3}{3E}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of length<sup>4</sup>)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.5.1
|}

where:

:''I'' = moment of inertia for the bridge bent (consistent units of length<sup>4</sup>),

:''P'' = load applied to the middle of the beam cap (consistent units of force),

:''L'' = length from point of fixity of shaft to middle of beam cap (consistent units of length),

:''δ'' = deflection caused by load P (consistent units of length) and

:''E'' = modulus of elasticity of concrete (consistent units of stress).

The ''E'' and ''I'' values used in the above equation shall also be used for longitudinal force distribution calculations.

The longitudinal forces applied to the bent can be calculated once the moment of inertia of the bent is known. Once loads are obtained, they can be input into computer software to get a point of fixity.

If the point of fixity is different than what was assumed to obtain the original bent stiffness, the bent stiffness shall be re-calculated with a new assumed point of fixity and this process continued until the point of fixity converges. As a rule of thumb, shafts socketed into rock are usually fixed near to the soil-rock interface.

The location of the point of fixity should be considered to be only an <u>approximation</u>. Many factors influence the actual location of the point of fixity. The thickness of the casing, scour and actual geotechnical properties could cause different results for the actual location of the point of fixity.

==751.37.6 Structural Resistance of Drilled Shafts==
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.6 Structural Resistance of Drilled Shafts|Commentary on EPG 751.37.6 Structural Resistance of Drilled Shafts]]'''
|}
===751.37.6.1 Reinforcement Design===

Drilled shaft structural resistance shall be designed similarly to reinforced concrete columns. The Strength Limit State and applicable Extreme Event Limit State load combinations shall be used in the reinforcement design.

Longitudinal reinforcing steel shall extend below the point of fixity of the drilled shaft at least 10 ft. in accordance with LRFD 10.8.3.9.3 or the required bar development length whichever is larger.

If permanent casing is used, and the shell consists of smooth pipe greater than 0.12 in. thick, it may be considered load carrying. An 1/8" shall be subtracted off of the shell thickness to account for corrosion. Casing could also be corrugated metal pipe. If casing is assumed to contribute to the structural resistance, the plans should indicate the minimum thickness and type of casing required.

Minimum clear spacing between longitudinal bars as well as between transverse bars shall not be less than five times the maximum aggregate size or 5 in. (LRFD 10.8.3.9.3).

For minimum concrete cover for drilled shaft, see [http://www.modot.org/business/standards_and_specs/SpecbookEPG.pdf#page=11 Sec 701.4.12.1]. If drilled shaft diameter does not match Sec 701.4.12.1 then use concrete cover for the next greater diameter drilled shaft. For rock sockets use 3” min. clear cover.

For longitudinal reinforcement, splicing shall be in accordance with LRFD 5.10.8.4.

For transverse reinforcement, lap splices for closed circular stirrups/ties shall be provided and staggered in accordance with LRFD 5.10.4.3. Lap length of 1.3 '''l'''<sub>d</sub> (Class B) for closed stirrups/ties shall be provided in accordance with LRFD 5.10.8.2.6d.

For lap length, see [[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.8.1 Development and Lap Splice General|EPG 751.5.9.2.8.1 Development and Lap Splice General]].

===751.37.6.2 Longitudinal Reinforcement===

Longitudinal reinforcement shall be designed to resist bending in the shaft due to lateral loads. The cross-sectional area for longitudinal reinforcement shall fall within the following limits:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left" rowspan="2"|<math>\frac{0.135 A_g f^'_c}{f_y} \le A_{steel} \le 0.08 A_g</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of stress)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.6.1
|-
|align="center"|''' LRFD 5.7.4.2'''||
|}

where:

:''A<sub>g</sub>'' = gross cross-sectional area of drilled shaft (consistent units of area),

:''f'<sub>c</sub>'' = concrete compressive strength (consistent units of stress),

:''f<sub>y</sub>'' = yield strength of steel reinforcement (consistent units of stress) and

:''A<sub>steel</sub>'' = cross-sectional area of longitudinal steel reinforcement (consistent units of area).

MoDOT prefers to follow LRFD 5.7.4.2 for drilled shafts since for typical cases, the potential exists for load transfer between the concrete and steel casing. (The minimum area of reinforcement based on LRFD is 10 percent less than ACI for f’<sub>c</sub> = 4 ksi).

===751.37.6.3 Factored Axial Resistance===

The factored axial resistance of a drilled shaft shall be determined as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>P_R = \phi P_N \ge \gamma Q</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.6.2
|}

where:

:''P<sub>R</sub>'' = factored axial resistance of drilled shaft (consistent units of force),

:''P<sub>N</sub>'' = nominal axial resistance of drilled shaft (consistent units of force),

:<math>\boldsymbol\phi</math> = 0.75 = resistance factor for axial resistance of drilled shaft (dimensionless) and

:<math>\boldsymbol\gamma Q</math> = factored axial load (consistent units of force).

For shafts with spiral reinforcement, the nominal axial resistance shall be computed as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>P_N = 0.85 \Big[ 0.85 f^'_c \big(A_g - A_{steel}\big) + A_{steel}f_y \Big]</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.6.3
|}

where:

:''A<sub>g</sub>'' = gross cross-sectional area of drilled shaft (consistent units of area),

:''f'<sub>c</sub>'' = concrete compressive strength (consistent units of stress),

:''f<sub>y</sub>'' = yield strength of steel reinforcement (consistent units of stress) and

:''A<sub>steel</sub>'' = cross-sectional area of longitudinal steel reinforcement (consistent units of area).

For shafts with tie reinforcement, the nominal axial resistance shall be computed as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>P_N = 0.80 \Big[ 0.85 f^'_c \big(A_g - A_{steel}\big) + A_{steel}f_y \Big]</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.6.4
|}

where:

:''A<sub>g</sub>'' = gross cross-sectional area of drilled shaft (consistent units of area),

:''f'<sub>c</sub>'' = concrete compressive strength (consistent units of stress),

:''f<sub>y</sub>'' = yield strength of steel reinforcement (consistent units of stress) and

:''A<sub>steel</sub>'' = cross-sectional area of longitudinal steel reinforcement (consistent units of area).

===751.37.6.4 Transverse Reinforcement===

Minimum transverse reinforcement shall be designed to resist the potential of diagonal cracking and improve ductility, and to control the stability of the reinforcement cage. Follow the four-step procedure, below:

'''No. 1. Determine if Transverse Reinforcement is Required for Loading'''

:If
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="900"
|-
|align="left"|<math>V_u > 0.5 \boldsymbol\phi V_c</math>,||align="left|then go to No. 2a, below,<br/>otherwise, go to No. 2b.|| align="center"| (consistent units of force) '''(LRFD 5.8.2.4)'''||align="right"|Equation 751.37.6.4.1
|}

:where:

::''V<sub>u</sub>'' = factored shear force (consistent units of force),

::<math>V_c = 0.0316\beta \sqrt{f^'_c} b_v d_v</math> = approximate shear resistance of drilled shaft (consistent units of force),

::''Φ'' = 0.9 = resistance factor for shear resistance of drilled shaft (dimensionless),

::''β'' = 2.0,

::''b<sub>v</sub>'' = D = shaft diameter (consistent units of length),

::''d<sub>v</sub>'' = 0.9 (''D''/2 + ''D<sub>r</sub>'' /π) and

::''D<sub>r</sub>'' = diameter of circle passing through the centers of the longitudinal reinforcement (consistent units of length). See commentary for LRFD C5.8.2.9-2.

'''No. 2. Determine Minimum Transverse Reinforcement'''

:'''a)''' Minimum transverse reinforcement to control shear diagonal cracking and increase ductility:

:The minimum amount of transverse reinforcement shall satisfy the following equation if transverse reinforcement is required for loading in No. 1, otherwise go to No. 2b:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>A_v \ge 0.0316 \sqrt{f^'_c}\frac{b_vs}{f_y}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units)||align="Center"|'''(LRFD 5.8.2.5)''' ||align="right"|Equation 751.37.6.4.2
|}

:where:

:''A<sub>v</sub>'' = area of transverse reinforcement within distance s (consistent units of area),

:''s'' = spacing of transverse reinforcement (consistent units of length),

:''b<sub>v</sub>'' = ''D'' = shaft diameter (consistent units of length),

:''f'<sub>c</sub>'' = concrete compressive strength (consistent units of stress) and

:''f<sub>y</sub>'' = yield strength of steel reinforcement (consistent units of stress).

:'''b)''' Minimum transverse reinforcement to control stability of cage before and during placement:

:Use minimum #4 @ 12” stirrups for reinforcing cage ≤ 4 ft. diameter and minimum #5 @ 12” stirrups for reinforcing cage > 4 ft. diameter (FHWA-NHI-10-016) unless transverse reinforcement needs to be designed as in No. 1. If transverse reinforcement needs to be designed as in No. 1, then provide the controlling transverse reinforcement area required by EPG 751.37.6.4 No. 2a, 2b and [[#751.37.6.5 Factored Shear Resistance|EPG 751.37.6.5 Factored Shear Resistance]].

:All shafts, cased or uncased, or where casing is used for strength, shall be transversely reinforced.

'''No. 3. Determine Maximum Transverse Reinforcement Spacing:'''

:The maximum transverse reinforcement spacing shall be ≤ 12” to provide crack control without consideration for casing. MoDOT does not implement LRFD 5.8.2.7 maximum spacing of transverse reinforcement requirements for typical shaft sizes. However, for small shafts where LRFD 5.8.2.7 will control, it should be directly implemented.

<div id="No. 4. Determine Maximum"></div>
'''No. 4. Determine Maximum Transverse Shaft Reinforcement Spacing at the Anchorage of Column Reinforcement: '''

:For columns with longitudinal reinforcement anchored into oversized shafts, in the anchorage region, the spacing of the transverse shaft reinforcement shall meet the requirements of the following equation:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>S_{max}=\frac{2\pi A_{sp}f_{ytr}l_s}{kA_lf_{ul}}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units)||align="Center"|'''(LRFD 5.11.5.2.1-1)''' ||align="right"|Equation 751.37.6.4.3
|}

:where:

::''S<sub>max</sub>'' = maximum spacing of transverse shaft reinforcement (consistent units of length),
::''A<sub>sp</sub>'' = area of transverse shaft reinforcement (consistent units of area),
::''f<sub>ytr</sub>'' = yield strength of transverse shaft reinforcement (consistent units of stress),
::''ℓ<sub>s</sub>'' = required lap splice of the longitudinal column reinforcement (consistent units of length),
::''k'' = ratio of column tensile reinforcement to total column reinforcement at the nominal resistance,
::''A<sub>ℓ</sub>'' = area of longitudinal column reinforcement (consistent units of area), and
::''f<sub>uℓ</sub>'' = tensile strength of longitudinal column reinforcement (consistent units of stress).

===751.37.6.5 Factored Shear Resistance===

The factored shear resistance of a drilled shaft shall be determined as:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>V_R = \phi \big(V_c + V_s\big)</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.6.4.4
|}

where:

:''V<sub>R</sub>'' = factored shear resistance of drilled shaft (consistent units of force),

:''V<sub>c</sub>''= nominal shear resistance from concrete (consistent units of force),

:''V<sub>s</sub>'' = <math>\frac{A_v f_y d_v cot\theta}{s}</math> = shear resistance from transverse shear reinforcement. (For A<sub>v</sub>, use transverse reinforcement area from [[#751.37.6.4 Transverse Reinforcement|EPG 751.37.6.4 Transverse Reinforcement]] and increase reinforcement area as needed to meet design requirements. (consistent units of force),

:''Φ'' = 0.9 = resistance factor for shear resistance of drilled shaft (dimensionless),

:''A<sub>v</sub>'' = area of transverse shear reinforcement within distance s (consistent units of area),

:''f<sub>y</sub>'' = yield strength of steel reinforcement (consistent units of stress),

:''θ'' = 45° = angle of inclination of diagonal compressive stresses (degrees),

:''d<sub>v</sub>'' = 0.9 (''D''/2 + ''D<sub>r</sub>'' /''π'') and

:''D<sub>r</sub>'' = diameter of circle passing through the centers of the longitudinal reinforcement (consistent units of length). See commentary for LRFD C5.8.2.9-2.

==751.37.7 References==
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.7 References|Commentary on EPG 751.37.7 References]]'''
|}
AASHTO (2009), ''AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification: Customary U.S. Units'', American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Fourth Edition with 2008 and 2009 Interim Revisions.

Hoek, E., and E.T. Brown (1988), “The Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion – A 1988 Update,” ''Proceedings of the 15th Canadian Rock Mechanics Symposium'', Toronto, Canada.

Hoek, E., C. Carranza-Torres, and B. Corkum (2002), “Hoek and Brown Failure Criterion – 2002 Edition,” ''Proceedings of NARMS-TAC Conference'', Toronto, Canada.

Horvath, R.G., and T.C. Kenney (1979), “Shaft Resistance of Rock Socketed Drilled Piers,” ''Proceedings of the Symposium on Deep Foundations'', ASCE, pp. 182-214.

Loehr, J.E., B.L. Rosenblad, and T.T. Vu (2011a), ''MoDOT Transportation Geotechnics Research Program: Drilled Shaft Axial Load Test Program Interpretation Report'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Loehr, J.E., S.A. Grant, and B.L. Rosenblad (2011b), ''Calibration of Resistance Factors for Design of Drilled Shafts at Strength Limit States Using Laboratory Test Measurements'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

O’Neill, M.W., and L.C. Reese (1999), ''Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods'', Report No. FHWA-IF-99-025, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, 758 pp.

Pierce, M.D., J.E. Loehr, and B.L. Rosenblad (2011), ''Calibration of LRFD Resistance Factors for Design of Drilled Shafts at Strength Limit States Using In situ Test Measurements'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Reese, L.C., W.M. Isenhower, and S-T Wang (2006), ''Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations'', John Wiley and Sons, 574 pp.

Wyllie, D.C. (1999), ''Foundations on Rock'', E & FN Spon, Second Edition, 401 pp.

==751.37.8 Commentary==
===Commentary on [[#751.37.1 General|EPG 751.37.1 General]]===

These guidelines were developed from prior EPG guidelines with notable changes to the general approach for application of LRFD techniques as well as updated resistance factors based on probabilistic calibrations. Calibration analyses were performed following generally accepted procedures for calibration of resistance factors for geotechnical applications, but with modifications to permit several enhancements to be implemented. The most notable enhancements provided in the guidelines include:

:* Use of resistance factors that are dependent upon the variability and uncertainty that exists in select design properties

:* Adoption of different target reliability levels for foundations of structures of different operational importance.

Both of these enhancements are expected to produce efficient foundation designs while still maintaining appropriate safety and reliability for all classes of operational importance. Additional information regarding development of the methods provided in these guidelines can be found in Loehr et al. (2011b), Pierce et al. (2011), and Vu and Loehr (2011). Additional information regarding target reliability values established for different classes of operational importance is provided in Bowders et al. (2011).

The four classes of operational importance include:
:* Minor or low volume route
:* Major route
:* Major bridge costing less than $100 million
:* Major bridge costing greater than $100 million.

These classifications are based on common MoDOT designations. The target reliability levels established for each limit state and operational importance were generally based upon consideration of highway bridges. However, the methods provided in this article can also be utilized for design of foundations for other structures including retaining walls and roadway signs.

Calibration analyses performed to establish the resistance factors presented in these guidelines were performed using the latest knowledge of variability and uncertainty in applied loads (Kulicki et al., 2007), as well as using load factors that are currently in effect. The resistance factors provided in these guidelines are intended to produce foundations with reliabilities that are approximately equal to the target reliabilities established by MoDOT when utilized with current load factors. Since it is the combined effect of load and resistance factors that produce this reliability, the resistance factors provided are inherently coupled with current load factors and are contingent upon the uncertainty and variability in the applied loads that were presumed for the calibrations. As such, recalibration of resistance factors is required if alternative load factors are adopted, or if substantial revisions to current estimates of load variability and uncertainty are found.

It is important to emphasize that the resistance factors provided in these guidelines were developed presuming that ''mean values'' would be used for all design parameters in the methods provided. This departs from past practice utilizing allowable stress design (ASD) approaches where nominal values of parameters that were less than mean values were often used to introduce conservatism into the analyses beyond that provided by the ASD factor of safety. Use of design parameters less than the mean values within the context of these guidelines will often, but not always, increase the reliability of foundation designs; however, such practice is contrary to the spirit of LRFD in that it will not produce foundations that achieve the target reliability established by MoDOT policy.

The procedures provided in these guidelines are not intended as a substitute for good judgment. Rather, the intent of these guidelines is to:

:1) inform designers of generally appropriate levels of conservatism to address the variability and uncertainty involved in different aspects of design analyses and

:2) provide quantitative methods to achieve target reliabilities for foundations depending on the variability and uncertainty present in relevant design parameters and design methods.

Designers must still use their best judgment in considering design options (e.g. foundation depth, type and size; necessity for load tests; etc.) for establishing the most appropriate foundations for bridges and other structures.

Design methods provided in these guidelines are mostly empirical methods derived from results of full-scale load tests. Application of these methods is generally restricted to geologic conditions and construction procedures similar to those represented by the load tests used to establish the methods. In particular, methods presented for prediction of nominal and factored shaft resistance in weak rock were specifically developed from load tests performed in Missouri following established MoDOT construction specifications. As such, these methods are, strictly speaking, only applicable to cases where shafts will be constructed in general accordance with current MoDOT construction specifications. Use of these guidelines for conditions or situations that depart from these restrictions is permissible, but requires that designers give consideration to the effects of differences between the specific site conditions encountered and those represented by the empirical data.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature|EPG 751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature]]====

The length to diameter ratio of drilled shafts should generally be targeted for the range 3 ≤ ''L''/''D'' ≤ 30; however, shafts with dimensions falling outside of this range can, at times, be effectively utilized.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.1.2 Materials|EPG 751.37.1.2 Materials]]====

Where possible, the concrete mix for drilled shafts should utilize MoDOT aggregate gradation E (1/2 inch minus) to improve the workability of the concrete during placement and reduce the risk of shaft defects. Special attention should also be given to concrete slump requirements to ensure the concrete has sufficient workability to completely surround the reinforcing cage without vibration. For cases where “tight cages” are required, consideration should be given to using special construction provisions to minimize the risk of concrete placement problems.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.1.3 Casing|EPG 751.37.1.3 Casing]]====

Temporary or permanent casing is commonly required to support the shaft excavation during construction to prevent caving of overburden soils. Use of permanent casing generally simplifies construction by avoiding the need for multiple cranes to simultaneously place concrete and extract the casing and reduces the risk of problems during concrete placement. However, use of either temporary or permanent casing will generally reduce the side resistance of the constructed shaft over the cased length. Alternatives to use of casing include use of mineral or polymer slurry to maintain the stability of the excavation during construction, or use of no casing and no slurry when soil/rock conditions will permit the shafts to be constructed without caving of the excavation walls.

Permanent casing may also be required to provide structural resistance, especially when lateral loads are substantial (see [[#751.37.6 Structural Resistance of Drilled Shafts|EPG 751.37.6]]). For example, permanent casing may be required to:

:* Achieve the required flexural resistance of the drilled shaft

:* Resist large lateral loads for bridges located in seismic areas

:* Facilitate shaft construction through water

:* Support the shaft excavation when there is insufficient head room available for casing recovery

====Commentary on [[#751.37.1.4 General Design Considerations|EPG 751.37.1.4 General Design Considerations]]====

''Scour ''

Appropriate methods for evaluation of scour are beyond the scope of these guidelines. However, these guidelines require that drilled shafts be designed to acceptably support the structure assuming that the foundation soil/rock is scoured to depths predicted following currently accepted practice.

''Downdrag ''

Downdrag loads should be considered any time settlement is likely to occur in soils surrounding drilled shafts. Downdrag is most commonly a concern for foundations passing through or near to approach fills overlying soft, cohesive soils where the applied load of the fill will induce settlement in the underlying soft soils. Downdrag is seldom a concern for intermediate bents away from approach fills (because there is often no loading to induce compression of the soft soils) unless settlement is likely to be induced by lowering groundwater levels.

Downdrag loads are generally fully mobilized with relatively small settlements and can be substantial. In cases where downdrag loading is significant, consideration should be given to staging construction of shafts, if timing will allow, such that shafts are installed after settlement has practically ceased or to other techniques to limit the effects of downdrag.

''Group Effects ''

The redundancy factor of LRFD 1.3.4 is not intended to account for redundancy or lack of redundancy in foundation design. The LRFD redundancy factor, ''η<sub>R</sub>'', has been a source of confusion for foundation design, especially given that group efficiency factors are also denoted as ''η''. Use of the redundancy factor to account for the presence or absence of redundancy in the foundations is inappropriate as this factor was developed purely from considerations of the performance of the superstructure and not the foundations as discussed in LRFD C10.5.5.2.4.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.1.5 Related Provisions|EPG 751.37.1.5 Related Provisions]]====

Use of site characterization practices that significantly depart from those currently used by MoDOT can produce substantial differences in design parameters and/or the variability of design parameters, which will lead to substantial differences in foundation reliability and failure to achieve the established target foundation reliabilities established by MoDOT. Use of the methods in these guidelines is generally restricted to design parameters established following current MoDOT site characterization practices as described in [[:Category:321 Geotechnical Engineering|EPG 321]].

===Commentary on [[#751.37.2 General Design Procedure and Limit States|EPG 751.37.2 General Design Procedure and Limit States]]===

Selection of applicable strength and serviceability limit states shall be accomplished in close consultation with the Structural Project Manager. At a minimum, the Strength I and Service I limit states should be evaluated. When multiple strength and/or service limit states are considered, the limit state producing the greatest minimum shaft dimensions shall govern the final design dimensions.

Axial geotechnical resistance will frequently control the dimensions of drilled shafts. However, lateral strength or serviceability may dictate final shaft dimensions when shafts are subjected to large lateral loads.

Note that it is possible that a shaft can be shortened from that initially determined considering only axial loads. This can occur where a shaft’s diameter must be increased to satisfy lateral strength or serviceability requirements (e.g. to increase bending/shear strength/stiffness). When this occurs, designers should revisit the relevant axial strength and axial serviceability requirements to evaluate whether a shaft of the diameter required to meet lateral serviceability requirements can be made shorter than what was originally determined for a smaller diameter shaft. One should not simply increase the diameter to satisfy the lateral loading requirements without reconsidering the shaft length. Often multiple combinations of shaft diameter and length can be made to satisfy the axial loading requirements.

Lengths of rock sockets should generally be limited to the extent possible because rock sockets commonly have substantially higher unit costs.

===Commentary on [[#751.37.3 Design for Axial Loading at Strength Limit State|EPG 751.37.3 Geotechnical Resistance for Axial Loading at Strength Limit States]]===

Throughout EPG 751.37, factored loads are denoted as <math>\boldsymbol\gamma Q</math>. This notation should not be taken to suggest inclusion or exclusion of specific load effects, but rather is simply intended as a convenient notation to reflect factored loads. When applying these guidelines, designers should replace <math>\boldsymbol\gamma Q</math> with load combinations and load factors that are appropriate for the structure and limit state being considered.

Side resistance over the cased length of shaft is commonly neglected for rock-socketed shafts because the resistance is difficult to appropriately establish and because the resistance generally contributes little to the overall shaft resistance. For shafts founded exclusively in soil, the potential resistance over the cased length may provide a more substantial contribution to resistance.

Judgment should be applied when deciding whether to ignore tip resistance in karstic formations including consideration of the prevalence of voids and likelihood of encountering them during actual construction. Consideration should also be given to use of special provisions that stipulate appropriate action if voids are encountered in verification holes.

Design procedures within this article are categorized according to material type, including methods for design of shafts founded within “rock”, “weak rock”, “cohesive soil”, and “cohesionless soil”. While these categories serve to logically separate the guidelines according to design method, complexities present at some sites may lead to cases where multiple methods could potentially be used. In such cases, designers should utilize the method that is most appropriate for the conditions encountered, rather than selecting the method that produces the smallest or largest shaft dimensions.

EPG 751.37.3.1 is generally intended for use with “harder” rock materials where the frequency, orientation, and condition of rock discontinuities tend to dominate the response of the rock to loading from foundations. Such rock masses will generally be composed of rock with uniaxial compressive strengths that are greater than 100 ksf, although some exceptions to this limit could arise. Limestones and dolomites will commonly fall under this article as will many sandstones, and even a few hard shales.

EPG 751.37.3.2, EPG 751.37.3.3, EPG 751.37.3.4, and EPG 751.37.3.5 are intended for use with weaker rock where the properties of the intact rock tend to dominate performance. These articles represent alternative means for design in shales, some weak sandstones, and potentially some very stiff clays. Several alternative methods are provided because of difficulties that can arise with reliable sampling and testing of weak rock. EPG 751.37.3.2 is intended for use when the compressive strength of the rock is determined using conventional uniaxial compression tests whereas the remaining articles provide means for designing drilled shafts in weak rock based on in situ tests or index tests. Use of methods provided in these articles for materials with properties falling outside of the measurement bounds provided should be done with extreme caution as the methods may dramatically overestimate the resistance that can be realistically achieved beyond the bounds provided.

EPG 751.37.3.6 and EPG 751.37.3.7 are intended for use with cohesive and cohesionless soils, respectively. Some overlap exists between the strength limits provided in EPG 751.37.3.2 and EPG 751.37.3.6 (Note that the limits for EPG 751.37.3.2 are based on the uniaxial compressive strength whereas the limits for EPG 751.37.3.6 are based on the undrained shear strength, which is nominally one half of the compressive strength). When designing for materials that fall within this overlapping range of strengths, designers shall use the method that is most appropriate for the material encountered.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.1 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Rock (qu ≥ 100 ksf)|EPG 751.37.3.1 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Rock (''q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf''')]]====

=====Commentary on Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Rock (''q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf''')=====

The design method provided in this article is adapted from Horvath and Kenney (1979) based on evaluation of results from a small number of load tests performed in Missouri limestones for shafts constructed in general accordance with current MoDOT construction specifications. Analysis of this data shows that the “best fit” trend to the empirical data is similar to the Horvath and Kenny relationship.

The resistance factors provided in Figure 751.37.3.1.1 were established from probabilistic calibrations to achieve the target foundation reliabilities established by MoDOT as described in Loehr et al. (2011b). The variability and uncertainty present for dead load, live load, the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock, as well as the variability and uncertainty of the design method were explicitly considered in these calibrations. The variability and uncertainty utilized for dead load and live load were taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). The variability and uncertainty utilized for the design method were established from empirical data derived from load tests performed on test shafts constructed in general accordance with current MoDOT construction specifications. Consideration of additional load test results from test shafts not constructed following these specifications was found to lead to substantially lower required resistance factors. As such, the resistance factors provided are not generally appropriate for shafts constructed according to specifications that differ substantially from current MoDOT construction specifications.

The coefficient of variation for the mean uniaxial compressive strength used in Equation 751.37.3.4 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> compressive strength rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> of compressive strength as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline{q_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{q_u}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed on samples taken from within the depth range of the shaft segment being considered. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

=====Commentary on Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Rock (''q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf''')=====

The design method provided in this article is adapted from the method presented in Wyllie (1999) to conform to the LRFD approach. The method is derived from the Hoek-Brown strength criterion (Hoek and Brown, 1988) that is commonly used to represent the strength of fractured rock masses using the rock mass parameters, ''m'' and ''s''. The resistance factors provided in Figure 751.37.3.1.2 were established from probabilistic calibrations to achieve the target foundation reliabilities as described in Abu El-Ela et al. (2011) and are identical to those provided in EPG 751.38.3.1 for bearing resistance of spread footings on fractured rock. These calibrations were conducted with explicit consideration of variability and uncertainty present for dead load, live load, uniaxial compressive strength, and the design method itself (i.e. a “method” uncertainty). The variability and uncertainty utilized for dead load and live load were taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). The variability and uncertainty in the design method was conservatively estimated utilizing the likely range of m and s values expected for a particular condition.

Unfortunately, empirical data to evaluate design methods for predicting the ultimate tip resistance of drilled shafts in fractured rock are not presently available. As such, the variability and uncertainty attributed to the design method was conservatively estimated as a matter of prudence. One consequence of this conservatism is that the factored tip resistance predicted for foundations designed according to EPG 751.37.3.1 may, in some cases, be less than the factored tip resistance predicted according to EPG 751.37.3.2 for rock that might be considered to have lower quality. This consequence is a reflection of the lack of data available to confirm the predicted resistance using the prescribed method, and thus the limited reliability of the method, rather than an indication that the tip resistance will actually be less than that for lesser rock. Future research to measure the ultimate tip resistance for drilled shafts in fractured rock could dramatically improve the accuracy and reliability of these methods, which in turn would dramatically improve the efficiency of foundation designs for fractured rock. This consequence also suggests that site specific load tests could potentially improve foundation efficiency in some cases while still maintaining the target reliability.

The coefficient of variation for the mean uniaxial compressive strength used in Equation 751.37.3.5 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> compressive strength rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> of compressive strength as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline{q_u}</math>, <math>COV_{\overline{q_u}}</math>, ''m'' and ''s'' do not have to be established exclusively from tests or observations performed for rock specimens taken from within the depth range of interest below the tip of the shaft. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

Several methods are available for establishing appropriate values of ''GSI'' for specific rock masses. Equation 751.37.3.8 represents a generally rigorous approach for determination of ''GSI'' that should be used when available measurements and observations allow for establishing Rock Mass Rating system ratings and when these ratings produce ''RMR'' greater than 25. In cases where such measurements and observations are not available, or where ''RMR'' is less than 25, ''GSI'' values can be estimated using the qualitative chart shown in Fig. Commentary 751.37.3.1.1 based on the work of Marinos and Hoek (2000). Figs. Commentary 751.37.3.1.2, Commentary 751.37.3.1.3 and Commentary 751.37.3.1.4 provide additional guidance for qualitative selection of GSI for typical sandstones, shales and limestones from the chart.

In cases where ''GSI'' cannot be rationally determined, it is also possible to directly estimate approximate values for the rock mass parameters ''m'' and ''s'' from Table Commentary 751.37.3.1 using qualitative descriptions of the rock mass. The values provided in Table Commentary 751.37.3.1 will generally be less than values that will be produced using Equations 751.37.3.6 and 751.37.3.7. This result is because the values in Table Commentary 751.37.3.1 were established under the assumption that excavation-induced damage will occur (i.e. that the Hoek and Brown damage factor, ''D'', is equal to 1) while Equations 751.37.3.6 and 751.37.3.7 were established assuming that no significant excavation-induced damage will occur (i.e. that ''D'' = 0). Since significant excavation-induced damage is unlikely to occur for shafts excavated using conventional construction techniques, the values provided in Table Commentary 751.37.3.1 will be conservative. It is also important to point out that ''m'' and ''s'' can be roughly interpolated from the values provided in Table Commentary 751.37.3.1 for conditions falling between those listed.

[[image:751.38.4.2.jpg|center|700px|thumb|<center>'''Fig. Commentary 751.37.3.1.1 Graphic for estimation of geological strength index (GSI) in rock (from Marinos and Hoek, 2000).'''</center>]]

[[image:Commentary 751.38.4.1.jpg|center|750px|thumb|<center>'''Fig. Commentary 751.37.3.1.2 Graphic for illustrating typical ranges for geological strength index (GSI) of sandstone (from Marinos and Hoek, 2000). '''</center>]]

[[image:Commentary 751.38.4.2.jpg|center|750px|thumb|<center>'''Fig. Commentary 751.37.3.1.3 Graphic for illustrating typical ranges for geological strength index (GSI) of siltstone, claystone, and clay shale (from Marinos and Hoek, 2000).'''</center>]]

[[image:Commentary 751.38.4.3.jpg|center|750px|thumb|<center>'''Fig. Commentary 751.37.3.1.4 Graphic for illustrating typical ranges for geological strength index (GSI) of limestone (from Marinos and Hoek, 2000). '''</center>]]

[[image:Table Commentary 751.38.3.1.jpg|center|750px|thumb|<center>'''Table Commentary 751.37.3.1 Approximate values for rock material constants for rock masses of varying quality (from AASHTO, 2009; after Hoek and Brown, 1988'''</center>]]

Methods provided in this subarticle are not appropriate for use with uniaxial compressive strengths estimated from Point Load Index tests or from other empirical correlations. Use of correlations for estimation of uniaxial compressive strength introduces additional variability into the relation among rock mass parameters, uniaxial compressive strength, and side and tip resistance that is not accounted for in the resistance factors provided. Use of compressive strengths derived from Point Load Index values or other correlations is therefore not appropriate for application of the provisions of this subarticle. It is possible to develop resistance factors that would be appropriate for such use, but such calibrations have not been completed at this time.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.2 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core (5 ksf ≤ qu ≤ 100 ksf)|EPG 751.37.3.2 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core (''5 ksf ≤ q<sub>u</sub> ≤ 100 ksf'')]]====

Several alternative methods are provided to estimate side resistance for shafts founded in weak rock. Any of these alternatives may be used depending upon the site characterization data that are available. All methods provided are intended to produce shafts with reliabilities that are approximately equal to the established target reliability for the operational importance utilized. However, the methods will not necessarily produce shafts with identical dimensions so designers are encouraged to consider potential efficiencies that can be realized from utilization of the alternative methods. It is currently anticipated that methods in EPG 751.37.3.2 will produce the most cost-effective drilled shafts from among the methods provided. However, additional experience with the different provisions is needed to confirm this belief.

The design methods provided in this article were established from analysis of data from load tests performed in weak rock at sites in Missouri as described in Rosenblad et al. (2011), Loehr et al. (2011a), and Miller (2003). The resistance factors provided in Figures 751.37.3.1.3 and 751.37.3.1.4 were established from probabilistic calibrations to achieve established target reliabilities as described in Loehr et al. (2011b). The variability and uncertainty present for dead load, live load, and uniaxial compressive strength were explicitly considered in these calibrations, in addition to variability and uncertainty associated with the empirical design method itself. The variability and uncertainty utilized for dead load and live load were taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). Variability and uncertainty for the empirical design method were established from statistical analysis of the empirical data as described in Loehr et al. (2011b).

Uniaxial compressive strengths established from Point Load Index tests or from other empirical correlations are not appropriate for use with the methods provided in this subarticle. Use of correlations for estimation of uniaxial compressive strength introduces additional variability and uncertainty into the relations among uniaxial compressive strength and side and tip resistance that is not accounted for in the resistance factors provided. Use of compressive strengths derived from Point Load Index values or other correlations is therefore not appropriate for application of the provisions of this subarticle. Methods provided in EPG 751.37.3.5 shall be used to design drilled shafts using results from Point Load Index tests.

=====Commentary on Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core (''5 ksf ≤ q<sub>u</sub> ≤100 ksf'')=====

The coefficient of variation for the mean uniaxial compressive strength used in Equation 751.37.3.9 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> compressive strength rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> of compressive strength as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline{q_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{q_u}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed on samples taken from the depth range of the shaft segment. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The nominal unit side resistance provided in Equation 751.37.3.9 is limited to be less than 30 ksf because predictions resulting from use of the equation for ''q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf'' will often exceed what can be reliably mobilized for large uniaxial compressive strengths.

=====Commentary on Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core (''5 ksf ≤ q<sub>u</sub> ≤ 100 ksf'')=====

The coefficient of variation for the mean uniaxial compressive strength used in Equation 751.37.3.10 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> compressive strength rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> of compressive strength as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline{q_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{q_u}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed on samples taken from within the depth range of interest below the tip of the shaft. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The nominal unit tip resistance provided in Equation 751.37.3.10 is limited to be less than 400 ksf because predictions resulting from use of the equation for ''q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf'' will often exceed what can be reliably mobilized for large uniaxial compressive strengths.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.3 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests (Neq ≤ 400 blows/ft)|EPG 751.37.3.3 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests (''N<sub>eq</sub> ≤ 400 blows/ft'')]]====

The design methods provided in this article were established from analysis of data from load tests performed in weak rock at sites in Missouri as described in Rosenblad et al. (2011), Loehr et al. (2011a), Pierce et al. (2011), and Miller (2003). The resistance factors provided in Figures 751.37.3.5 and 751.37.3.6 were established from probabilistic calibrations to achieve established target reliabilities as described in Pierce et al. (2011). The variability and uncertainty present for dead load, live load, and equivalent SPT ''N''-value were explicitly considered in the calibrations, in addition to variability and uncertainty associated with the empirical design method itself. The variability and uncertainty utilized for dead load and live load were taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). The variability and uncertainty for the empirical design method was established from statistical analysis of the empirical data as described in Pierce et al. (2011).

“Equivalent N-value” is used in these guidelines because, strictly speaking, the value used is not a true SPT ''N''-value. Common practice is to limit the number of hammer blows in SPT measurements to approximately 50 blows in 6 inches (depending upon the energy rating of the hammer). As such, ''N''-values greater than 100 blows per foot are not reported. Rather, when tests fail to penetrate at least 6 inches, the penetration achieved for 50 blows is reported to reflect the relative strength and stiffness of the test material. In such cases, the “equivalent” N-value is calculated as
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>N_{eq} = 12 \cdot \frac{b}{p}</math>||align="center"| (dimensionless)||align="right"|Equation Commentary 751.37.3.1
|}

where:

:N<sub>eq</sub> = “equivalent SPT N-value” (blows/foot),

:b = number of blows applied (blows) and

:p = measured penetration of Standard sampler (inches).

When tests successfully penetrate 6 in. during one testing increment but subsequently fail to penetrate 6 in. during a successive increment, the equivalent ''N''-value shall be computed using the combined number of blows and combined penetration of both testing increments. While N<sub>eq</sub> is not strictly an SPT ''N''-value, its use is consistent with current MoDOT practice and, since it was used as the basis for calibration of the methods of this article, is appropriate for use in design.

=====Commentary on Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests (''N<sub>eq</sub> ≤ 400 blows/ft'')=====

The coefficient of variation for the mean equivalent SPT ''N''-value used in Equation 751.37.3.11 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> value rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> of the equivalent ''N''-value as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline{N_{eq}}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{N_{eq}}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed over the depth range of the shaft segment. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The nominal unit side resistance provided in Equation 751.37.3.11 is limited to be less than 30 ksf because predictions resulting from use of the equation for N_eq≥400 blows/foot will often exceed what can be reliably mobilized.

=====Commentary on Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests (''N<sub>eq</sub> ≤ 400 blows/ft'')=====

The coefficient of variation for the mean equivalent SPT ''N''-value used in Equation 751.37.3.12 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> value rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> of the equivalent ''N''-value as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline{N_{eq}}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{N_{eq}}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed over the depth range of interest below the tip of the shaft. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The nominal unit tip resistance provided in Equation 751.37.3.12 is limited to be less than 400 ksf because predictions resulting from use of the equation for ''N<sub>eq</sub> ≥ 400 blows/ft.'' will often exceed what can be reliably mobilized.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.4 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ TCP ≤ 10 in.)|EPG 751.37.3.4 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ ''TCP'' ≤ 10 in.)]]====

The design methods provided in this article were established from analysis of data from load tests performed in weak rock at sites in Missouri as described in Rosenblad et al. (2011), Loehr et al. (2011a), Pierce et al. (2011), and Miller (2003). The resistance factors provided in Figures 751.37.3.4.1 and 751.37.3.4.2 were established from probabilistic calibrations to achieve established target reliabilities as described in Pierce et al. (2011). The variability and uncertainty present for dead load, live load, and Texas Cone Penetration test penetration were considered in these calibrations, in addition to variability and uncertainty associated with the empirical design method itself. The variability and uncertainty utilized for dead load and live load were taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). The variability and uncertainty for the empirical design method was established from statistical analysis of the empirical data as described in Pierce et al. (2011).

=====Commentary on Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ ''TCP'' ≤10 in.)=====

Resistance factors to produce the established target reliabilities from mean TCP values actually vary slightly depending on the magnitude of the mean ''TCP''-value. However, since the differences observed in resistance factors were small, average values determined over the range of potential ''TCP''-values (1 in. ≤ ''TCP'' ≤10 in.) were used as a practical simplification.

The coefficient of variation for the mean ''TCP''-value used in Equation 751.37.3.13 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> value rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline{TCP}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{TCP}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed over the depth range of the shaft segment. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The nominal unit side resistance provided in Equation 751.37.3.13 is limited to be less than 30 ksf because predictions resulting from use of the equation for ''TCP ≥ 10 in.'' will often exceed what can be reliably mobilized.

=====Commentary on Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ ''TCP'' ≤ 10 in.)=====

Resistance factors to produce the established target reliabilities from mean ''TCP'' values actually vary slightly depending on the magnitude of the mean ''TCP''-value. However, since the differences observed in resistance factors were small, average values determined over the range of potential ''TCP''-values (1 in. ≤ ''TCP'' ≤ 10 in.) were used as a practical simplification.

The coefficient of variation for the mean ''TCP''-value used in Equation 751.37.3.14 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> value rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline{TCP}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{TCP}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed over the depth range of interest below the tip of the shaft. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The nominal unit tip resistance provided in Equation 751.37.3.14 is limited to be less than 400 ksf because predictions resulting from use of the equation for ''TCP ≥ 10 in.'' will often exceed what can be reliably mobilized.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.5 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests (5 ksf ≤ Is(50) ≤ 40 ksf)|EPG 751.37.3.5 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests (5 ksf ≤ ''I<sub>s(50)''</sub> ≤ 40 ksf)]]====

The design methods provided in this article were established from analysis of data from load tests performed in weak rock at sites in Missouri as described in Rosenblad et al. (2011), Loehr et al. (2011a), and Miller (2003). The resistance factors provided in Figures 751.37.3.5.1 and 751.37.3.5.2 were established from probabilistic calibrations to achieve established target reliabilities as described in Loehr et al. (2011b). The variability and uncertainty present for dead load, live load, and Point Load Index were explicitly considered in these calibrations, in addition to variability and uncertainty associated with the empirical design method itself. The variability and uncertainty utilized for dead load and live load were taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). Variability and uncertainty for the empirical design method were established from statistical analysis of the empirical data as described in Loehr et al. (2011b).

=====Commentary on Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests (5 ksf ≤ ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>'' ≤ 40 ksf)=====

The coefficient of variation for mean Point Load Index values used in Equation 751.37.3.15 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> value rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline {I_{s(50)}}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{I_{s(50)}}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed on samples taken from the depth range of the shaft segment. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The nominal unit side resistance provided in Equation 751.37.3.15 is limited to be less than 30 ksf because predictions resulting from use of the equation for <math>\overline {I_{s(50)}}</math> ≥ 40 ksf will often exceed what can be reliably mobilized.

=====Commentary on Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests (5 ksf ≤ ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>'' ≤ 40 ksf)=====

The coefficient of variation for mean Point Load Index values used in Equation 751.37.3.16 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> value rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline {I_{s(50)}}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{I_{s(50)}}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed on samples taken from the depth range of interest below the tip of the shaft. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The nominal unit tip resistance provided in Equation 751.37.3.16 is limited to be less than 400 ksf because predictions resulting from use of the equation for <math>\overline {I_{s(50)}}</math> ≥ 40 ksf will often exceed what can be reliably mobilized.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.6 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (su ≤ 5 ksf)|EPG 751.37.3.6 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (''s<sub>u</sub>'' ≤ 5 ksf)]]====

=====Commentary on Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (''s<sub>u</sub>'' ≤ 5 ksf)=====

The design method and resistance factors provided in this article were established from probabilistic calibrations performed using empirical data from Kulhawy and Jackson (1993) and analyses of variability by Phoon and Kulhawy (2005). Equation 751.37.3.18 was established from analysis of the data from Kulhawy and Jackson (1993), with curve fitting constraints to keep the relationship simple.

The resistance factors provided in this article should be considered approximate at this time for two reasons. The first reason is that the calibrations were performed using the variability of the measurements of unit side resistance, rather than the variability of predictions for unit side resistance. The result of this approximation is to generally underestimate the variability of unit side resistance and therefore to overestimate the resistance factors needed to achieve a given target reliability. This approximation is believed to be acceptable on an interim basis because the magnitude of the error is believed to be small since the data set is relatively large and the magnitude of this error decreases with the size of the data set. The second reason is that the empirical data upon which the resistance factors were derived were based on load tests performed on shafts that were not necessarily constructed following current MoDOT construction specifications. This does not necessarily mean that the results are not representative of results that would be obtained if the shafts were constructed following MoDOT specifications, but it does introduce some additional variability and uncertainty because the effect of construction methods is unknown. Such additional variability and uncertainty was not included in the calibrations performed to establish the resistance factors provided. MoDOT currently designs very few drilled shafts that derive substantial resistance from side shear in cohesive soils. However, more rigorous calibration of these resistance factors should nevertheless be performed to improve the precision of designs conducted using these provisions.

The resistance factors provided in this article are based on the assumption that measurements of undrained shear strength will accurately reflect the actual undrained shear strength in the field. Use of undrained shear strength values established from approximations or from index tests such as hand-held penetrometer tests, Torvane tests, or Standard Penetration Tests will introduce additional variability and uncertainty into the design that is currently not reflected in the resistance factors provided. As such, it is not generally appropriate to use such approximations for estimating undrained shear strength for use in these provisions. At a minimum, undrained shear strengths should be established based on unconfined compression tests performed on specimens acquired using good quality boring techniques and good quality “undisturbed” sampling with thin walled samplers. It is preferable to perform unconsolidated-undrained type triaxial tests or consolidated-undrained type triaxial tests to establish undrained shear strength values for use in these provisions.

The coefficient of variation for the mean undrained shear strength used in Equations 751.37.3.17 and 751.37.3.18 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> value rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline {s_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed on samples taken from the depth range of interest below the tip of the shaft. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

=====Commentary on Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (''s<sub>u</sub>'' ≤ 5 ksf)=====

The design method provided is currently unchanged from prior MoDOT guidance. Resistance factors provided in this article are revised from prior versions of the EPG. These resistance factors were established from probabilistic calibrations and are identical to those provided for bearing capacity of spread footings in cohesive soils in EPG 751.38.3.3.

The coefficient of variation for the mean undrained shear strength used in Equation 751.37.3.19 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> value rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline {s_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed on samples taken from the depth range of interest below the tip of the shaft. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The resistance factors provided in this article are based on the assumption that measurements of undrained shear strength will accurately reflect the actual undrained shear strength in the field. Use of undrained shear strength values established from approximations or from index tests such as hand-held penetrometer tests, Torvane tests, or Standard Penetration Tests will introduce additional variability and uncertainty into the design that is currently not reflected in the resistance factors provided. As such, it is not generally appropriate to use such approximations for estimating undrained shear strength for use in these provisions. At a minimum, undrained shear strengths should be established based on unconfined compression tests performed on specimens acquired using good quality boring techniques and good quality “undisturbed” sampling with thin walled samplers. It is preferable to perform unconsolidated-undrained type triaxial tests or consolidated-undrained type triaxial tests to establish undrained shear strength values for use in these provisions.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.7 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils|EPG 751.37.3.7 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils]]====

=====Commentary on Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils=====

This subarticle is unchanged from prior versions of the EPG aside from minor editorial revisions. Probabilistic calibrations for drilled shafts in cohesionless soils have not been completed at this time.

=====Commentary on Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils=====

This subarticle is unchanged from prior versions of the EPG aside from minor editorial revisions. Probabilistic calibrations for drilled shafts in cohesionless soils have not been completed at this time.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.8 Geotechnical Resistance from Load Tests|EPG 751.37.3.8 Geotechnical Resistance from Load Tests]]====

This subarticle is unchanged from prior versions of the EPG. Probabilistic calibrations for drilled shafts designs incorporating results from load tests have not been completed at this time. Additional study of available results for load tests in Missouri will likely lead to revision of appropriate resistance factors for use when load tests are performed.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.9 Evaluation of Group Effects|EPG 751.37.3.9 Evaluation of Group Effects]]====

Two potential effects arise when drilled shafts are installed in groups with relatively close spacing. The first, and most commonly referenced effect is that there is potential for the cumulative resistance for all shafts in the group to be less than the sum of the individual shaft resistances. Such effects are commonly referred to as “group effects” in the geotechnical literature and have been traditionally accounted for using the methods provided in this article.

The second effect relates to the reliability of a group of shafts relative to the reliability of individual shafts. In general, the reliability of a group of drilled shafts will be greater than that of an individual shaft with the same resistance because groups benefit from “averaging” of shaft resistance, which tends to make their collective resistance more reliable than the resistance from an individual shaft. The resistance factors provided in these guidelines are those that produce the target foundation reliabilities ''for individual shafts''. As such, use of these resistance factors for groups of shafts will tend to produce foundations that are more reliable than the established target reliabilities. No explicit account is made for this effect in the current guidelines, but designers should be aware of this issue. Additional study is needed to allow for this effect to be properly reflected in LRFD methods.

This also raises the issue of redundancy factors, generally denoted as ''η<sub>R</sub>'', in LRFD 1.3.4. The LRFD redundancy factor has been a source of confusion for foundation design, especially given that group efficiency factors are also denoted as ''η''. Use of the redundancy factor to account for the presence or absence of redundancy in the foundations is inappropriate as this factor was developed purely from considerations of the performance of the superstructure and not the foundations as discussed in LRFD C10.5.5.2.4. LRFD 10.5.5.2.4 indicates that resistance factors provided in AASHTO (2009) should be reduced by 20 percent for non-redundant foundations to account for the lack of redundancy. Such reductions should <u>not</u> be applied to the resistance factors provided in these guidelines as the resistance factors were established considering the reliability of individual shafts. While one could conversely argue that the resistance factors provided in these guidelines should therefore be increased by 20 percent for redundant foundations, such a position does not seem justified without additional study and verification that such application is in fact appropriate.

When mixed soil profiles are present, the specific approach utilized for evaluation of group effects shall be based on the soil/rock type that provides the greatest contribution to resistance. For example, for a shaft group founded in rock overlain by cohesive soil, group effects shall be evaluated following the guidelines provided for rock since the shaft resistance will be predominantly derived from side resistance and tip resistance in the rock.

=====Commentary on Group Effects in Cohesionless Soils=====

The provisions provided in this article for cohesionless soils are drawn from the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification (AASHTO, 2009). Group efficiency factors for drilled shafts in cohesionless soils are generally less than one to account for potential loosening of the soil during shaft excavation and potential for overlapping stresses surrounding the shafts. This is contrary to what is observed for driven piles in most cohesionless soils, where group efficiency factors are commonly greater than one because of densification of the cohesionless soils during pile driving.

=====Commentary on Group Effects in Cohesive Soils=====

No probabilistic calibrations of the “equivalent pier” approach have been performed by MoDOT at this time. The resistance factor provided in this subarticle for evaluation of the equivalent pier is taken from the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification (AASHTO, 2009). The resistance factor for evaluation of the equivalent pier shall be applied to the total resistance of the equivalent pier (side resistance and tip resistance).

The resistance factors for summation of the individual shaft resistances shall be applied separately for side resistance and tip resistance based on the resistance factors provided in these guidelines for the appropriate soil/rock type(s).

=====Commentary on Group Effects in Rock=====

Few data are available to quantify group effects for shafts founded in rock or shafts founded in stratified soil/rock. The provisions provided for rock are based on considerable judgment drawn from discussions with a number of foundation designers and researchers.

===Commentary on [[#751.37.4 Design for Axial Loading at Serviceability Limit States|EPG 751.37.4 Design for Axial Loading at Serviceability Limit States]]===

The provisions of this article were developed to limit foundation settlements to be less than generally tolerable levels of settlement with some target reliability. Target reliability levels for service limit states are substantially less than target reliability levels for strength limit states because the consequences associated with serviceability limit states are substantially less than consequences for strength limit state conditions. The ramification of these facts is that some foundations designed according to these guidelines may experience settlements that exceed tolerable settlements in some instances. The frequency of foundations settling more than tolerable limits should approach the established target probabilities of exceedance when considered over a large number of projects. In cases where actual foundation settlements are observed to exceed tolerable limits, appropriate remedial measures shall be applied to the foundation(s) and/or the structure that it is supporting so that appropriate reliability is maintained.

Tolerable settlements used throughout these provisions were established from theoretical considerations and empirical observations of bridge performance based on the work of Moulton (1984) and Duncan and Tan (1991). Three different serviceability conditions corresponding to different levels of required maintenance and repair were initially considered:

:1) minor damage generally corresponding to the theoretical onset of deck cracking (Duncan and Tan, 1991),

:2) more significant damage corresponding to the onset of structural distress based on empirical observations by Moulton (1986) and

:3) major damage corresponding to theoretical overstress of the bridge superstructure (Moulton, 1986).

Target reliabilities for each of these conditions were established based on economic analyses described in Bowders et al. (2011). Comparative analyses for typical design conditions were then performed to evaluate the alternative serviceability conditions. Results of these analyses generally indicate that the first serviceability condition, corresponding to minor damage, tends to control foundation dimensions. These guidelines therefore only require evaluation of this condition (the others being presumed to be inherently satisfied based on the analyses performed).

Based on this work, tolerable settlements are established according to an angular distortion, defined as
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>A = \frac{\Delta}{s} \le 0.0021</math>||align="center"| (dimensionless)||align="right"|Equation Commentary 751.37.4.1
|}

where :

:''A'' = angular distortion (dimensionless),

:''∆'' = differential settlement between adjacent bridge bents (consistent units of length),

:''S'' = span between adjacent bridge bents (consistent units of length).

This limiting value of angular distortion is based on theoretical consideration of the onset of deck cracking (Duncan and Tan, 1991). This limit is explicitly included in the methods provided throughout EPG 751.37.

The target probabilities of exceedance reflected in the resistance factors provided in EPG 751.37 correspond to the target values established by MoDOT based on economic considerations. While use of alternative limits for tolerable settlement is possible, such use is not strictly appropriate since the target probabilities adopted by MoDOT for different classes of operational importance were established based on consequences associated with the limit provided in Equation Commentary 751.37.4.1. Other limits would generally require different target probabilities, and thus different resistance factors to achieve the same economic balance.

When results of evaluations performed for these provisions require that shaft dimensions be increased, designers should recognize that it has traditionally been more cost effective to increase the length of drilled shafts rather than increase the diameter of the shafts.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.4.1 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using Approximate Method|EPG 751.37.4.1 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using Approximate Method]]====

The provisions of EPG 751.37.4.1 are based on an approximate load-settlement curve illustrated in Fig. Commentary 751.37.4.1.1. The load-settlement curve is established considering factored side and tip resistance values that account for variability and uncertainty associated with the nominal side and tip resistance and associated with mobilization of side and tip resistance. The following assumptions are also made:

:* the shaft can be considered as practically rigid over the length of the shaft where significant side resistance is mobilized so that side resistance and end resistance are simultaneously mobilized;

:* side and tip resistance are mobilized according to the bi-linear curves shown in Fig. Commentary 751.37.4.1.2;

:* ultimate side resistance is fully mobilized at shaft displacements of 0.5 percent of the shaft diameter and

:* ultimate tip resistance is fully mobilized for shaft displacements of 5 percent of the shaft diameter.

[[image:Commentary 751.37.4.1.jpg|center|800px|thumb|<center>'''Fig. Commentary 751.37.4.1.1 Approximate load-settlement curve used for estimation of drilled shaft settlement using approximate method.'''</center>]]

[[image:Commentary 751.37.4.2.jpg|center|800px|thumb|<center>'''Fig. Commentary 751.37.4.1.2 Presumed load-settlement relationships for side and tip resistance for estimation of drilled shaft settlement using approximate method.'''</center>]]

Based on these assumptions, the approximate factored load-settlement curve can be constructed by establishing the factored resistance and associated settlement values at the points designated as “a” and “b” in Fig. Commentary 751.37.4.1.1. The mobilized factored resistance at point a is computed as:
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|''R<sub>aR</sub> = R<sub>sR</sub> + 0.1 R<sub>pR</sub>''||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation Commentary 751.37.4.2
|}

where:

:''R<sub>aR</sub>'' = factored total resistance at point a (consistent units of force),

:''R<sub>sR</sub>'' = total factored side resistance determined according to the provisions of this article (consistent units of force) and

:''R<sub>pR</sub>'' = factored tip resistance determined according to the provisions of this article (consistent units of force).

The corresponding settlement at point a is taken to be:
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\delta_a = 0.005 \cdot D</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of length)||align="right"|Equation Commentary 751.37.4.3
|}

where:

:''δ<sub>a</sub>'' = settlement corresponding to point a (consistent units of length) and

:''D'' = shaft diameter (consistent units of length).

The mobilized factored resistance at point b is computed as:
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|''R<sub>bR</sub> = R<sub>sR</sub> + R<sub>pR</sub>''||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation Commentary 751.37.4.4
|}

where:

:''R<sub>bR</sub>'' = factored total resistance at point b (consistent units of force),

:''R<sub>sR</sub>'' = total factored side resistance determined according to the provisions of this article (consistent units of force) and

:''R<sub>pR</sub>'' = factored tip resistance determined according to the provisions of this article (consistent units of force).

The corresponding settlement at point b is taken to be
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\delta_b = 0.05 \cdot D</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of length)||align="right"|Equation Commentary 751.37.4.5
|}

where:

:''δ<sub>b</sub>'' = settlement corresponding to point b (consistent units of length) and

:''D'' = shaft diameter (consistent units of length).

The factored settlement due to a factored service load can then be determined by interpolation from the approximate load-settlement curve. Equations Commentary 751.37.4.3 and Commentary 751.37.4.4 produce such interpolated values with an additional term being added to account for elastic compression of the unsupported length of the shaft. For the purposes of this provision, the unsupported length shall be taken to be the length of shaft over which side resistance is neglected.

As has been done throughout these guidelines, factored loads are denoted using <math>\boldsymbol\gamma Q</math> as a general reference to factored loads. This notation should not be taken to imply inclusion or exclusion of any specific load effects or load combinations, but rather is simply intended as a convenient notation to reflect factored loads. When applying these provisions of the guidelines, designers should replace <math>\boldsymbol\gamma Q</math> with the appropriate load combinations and load factors for the relevant limit state. For this article, such load combinations and load factors should correspond to the appropriate serviceability limit state in which load factors are generally taken to be 1.0.

The modulus of elasticity used in Equation 751.37.4.7 should reflect the composite modulus for the shaft including the concrete and reinforcing steel.

The settlement resistance factor for elastic compression is placed in the denominator of Equation 751.37.4.7 as a matter of choice so that resistance factors are less than 1.0 as is conventionally assumed.

Settlement resistance factors for elastic compression provided in Table 751.37.4.1 were developed from probabilistic analyses performed considering the variability in the dead and live loads, the variability in concrete modulus, and the variability in the shaft area. The variability used for dead and live loads was taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). Variabilities in concrete modulus and shaft area were estimated from preliminary results of an ongoing study of the variability of these parameters (Tyler, 2010). Because these estimates are preliminary, it is likely that the settlement resistance factors for elastic compression can be refined with additional study of the variability of concrete modulus and shaft area.

The resistance factors provided in Figures 751.37.4.1.1 through 751.37.4.1.12 were established from preliminary probabilistic calibrations to achieve established target reliabilities as described in Vu and Loehr (2011). Considerable judgment was applied in development of these resistance factors in an effort to make these guidelines as comprehensive as possible. However, the resistance factors should be considered as rational but preliminary design values that can be dramatically improved through more comprehensive analysis of available full-scale load test results. The resistance factors provided were established with explicit consideration of the variability and uncertainty present for dead and live loads, for the nominal side and tip resistance, and for the anticipated mobilization of side and tip resistance. The variability and uncertainty utilized for dead load and live load were taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). Variability and uncertainty in the nominal side and tip resistances were established from statistical analysis of the empirical data as described in Loehr et al. (2011b). Variability and uncertainty in mobilization of side and tip resistance were estimated from preliminary analysis of results from a limited number of full-scale load tests. Additional study of the serviceability provisions of these guidelines should include more rigorous analysis of available load test data to establish improved models for load transfer in different types of materials, re-calibration of resistance factors for both the approximate method and t-z method provided in the guidelines, as well as consideration of alternative simplified and closed-form methods for prediction of settlements for drilled shafts (e.g. Vesic, 1977; Chen and Kulhawy, 2002; Mayne and Harris, 1993; O’Neill et al, 1996; etc.).

Probabilistic calibration of resistance factors for settlement of individual drilled shafts in cohesionless soils have not been completed at this time. Settlement evaluations should therefore be conducted according to current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. However, it is important to note that such designs will not generally produce the target probabilities established by MoDOT.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.4.2 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using t-z Method|EPG 751.37.4.2 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using t-z Method]]====

The settlement resistance factors used in the provisions of this article are akin to ''t''-multipliers for ''t-z'' models and ''q''-multipliers for ''q-w'' models, where the respective multipliers are selected to produce the target reliabilities for settlement established by MoDOT, as illustrated in Fig. Commentary 751.37.4.2. Application of resistance factors for use in commercial specialty software or spreadsheet programs therefore requires no special capabilities beyond that required for conventional analyses.

The program TZPile© is commercially available through Ensoft, Inc. Other similar programs are also commercially available from other vendors.

The modulus of elasticity used in the ''t-z'' analyses should reflect the composite modulus for the shaft including the concrete and reinforcing steel.

Elastic compression of shafts is inherently included in results of ''t-z'' analyses so no additional account shall be made for elastic compression of the shaft.

Results of preliminary analyses suggest that the variability and uncertainty associated with the shaft stiffness (''EA'') used in ''t-z'' analyses can be substantial (Tyler, 2010). For this version of the guidelines, the decision was made to combine the variability and uncertainty associated with shaft stiffness together with other sources of variability and uncertainty rather than to consider it separately. This decision simplifies use of the provisions, but does not allow for explicit accounting of the effects of the variability in shaft stiffness. Further study is needed to determine whether this position is a prudent one or whether separate resistance factors should be applied to shaft stiffness to allow the effect to be isolated.

[[image:Commentary 751.37.4.3.jpg|center|800px|thumb|<center>'''Fig. Commentary 751.37.4.2 Illustration of unfactored and factored t-z models for estimation of drilled shaft settlement using t-z method.'''</center>]]

The resistance factors provided in Figures 751.37.4.2.1 through 751.37.4.2.12 were established from preliminary probabilistic calibrations to achieve established target reliabilities as described in Vu and Loehr (2011). Considerable judgment was applied in development of these resistance factors in an effort to make these guidelines as comprehensive as possible. However, the resistance factors should be considered as rational but preliminary design values that can be dramatically improved through more comprehensive analysis of available full-scale load test results. The resistance factors provided were established with explicit consideration of the variability and uncertainty present for dead and live loads, for the nominal side and tip resistance, and for the anticipated mobilization of side and tip resistance. The variability and uncertainty utilized for dead load and live load were taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). Variability and uncertainty in the nominal side and tip resistances were established from statistical analysis of the empirical data as described in Loehr et al. (2011b). Variability and uncertainty in mobilization of side and tip resistance were estimated from preliminary analysis of results from a limited number of full-scale load tests. Additional study of the serviceability provisions of these guidelines should include more rigorous analysis of available load test data to establish improved models for load transfer in different types of materials, re-calibration of resistance factors for both the approximate method and t-z method provided in the guidelines, as well as consideration of alternative simplified and closed-form methods for prediction of settlements for drilled shafts (e.g. Vesic, 1977; Chen and Kulhawy, 2002; Mayne and Harris, 1993; O’Neill et al, 1996; etc.).

Model specific calibrations for individual ''t-z'' and ''q-w'' models have not been completed at this time. The resistance factors provided in these guidelines were established from preliminary calibrations for several simplified models. While the resistance factors produced from these calibrations, and provided in these guidelines, represent a rational design position, additional research is needed to refine these calibrations to reflect specific ''t-z'' and ''q-w'' models for different soil/rock types. Such calibrations are likely to increase the settlement resistance factors, which will improve the efficiency of drilled shafts designed according to these guidelines if serviceability controls the shaft dimensions.

Probabilistic calibration of resistance factors for settlement of individual drilled shafts in cohesionless soils have not been completed at this time. Settlement evaluations should therefore be conducted according to current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. However, it is important to note that such designs will not generally produce the target probabilities established by MoDOT.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.4.3 Settlement of Drilled Shafts in Groups|EPG 751.37.4.3 Settlement of Drilled Shafts in Groups]]====

=====Commentary on Settlement of Shaft Groups in Cohesive Soils=====

This subarticle is currently unchanged from prior versions of the EPG aside from minor editorial revisions. Probabilistic calibrations for drilled shaft groups in cohesive soils have not been completed at this time.

=====Commentary on Settlement of Shaft Groups in Cohesionless Soils Using Standard Penetration Test Measurements=====

This subarticle is currently unchanged from prior versions of the EPG aside from minor editorial revisions. Probabilistic calibrations for drilled shaft groups in cohesionless soils have not been completed at this time.

=====Commentary on Settlement of Shaft Groups in Cohesionless Soils Using Cone Penetration Test Measurements=====

This subarticle is currently unchanged from prior versions of the EPG aside from minor editorial revisions. Probabilistic calibrations for drilled shaft groups in cohesionless soils have not been completed at this time.

=====Commentary on Settlement of Shaft Groups in Rock=====

This subarticle is new to the EPG, but relies exclusively on methods and resistance factors established for other provisions of the EPG.

===Commentary on [[#751.37.5 Design for Lateral Loading at Strength and Service Limit States|EPG 751.37.5 Design for Lateral Loading at Strength and Service Limit States]]===

This subarticle is currently unchanged from prior versions of the EPG aside from minor editorial revisions. Probabilistic calibrations for laterally loaded shafts have not been completed at this time.

===Commentary on [[#751.37.6 Structural Resistance of Drilled Shafts|EPG 751.37.6 Structural Resistance of Drilled Shafts]]===

This subarticle is currently unchanged from prior versions of the EPG aside from minor editorial revisions.

The LRFD requirement that reinforcing steel extend 10 feet below the point of fixity shall not be taken to imply that rock sockets shall be a minimum of 10 feet long. This provision is intended to ensure that reinforcing steel extends beyond where significant bending may be encountered in the shaft, the location of which if not coincident with the point of fixity (pof) but higher than the pof may provide reasoning for using a lesser but adequate development length for a lesser bending moment at the pof and hence a shorter socket length., Regardless, reinforcement shall be provided for the full length of the shaft.

===Commentary on [[#751.37.7 References|EPG 751.37.7 References]]===
AASHTO (2009), ''AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification: Customary U.S. Units'', American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Fourth Edition with 2008 and 2009 Interim Revisions.

Abu El-Ela, A.A., J.J. Bowders, and J.E. Loehr (2011), ''Calibration of LRFD Resistance Factors for Design of Spread Footings in Hard and Soft Rock'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Bowders, J.J., J.E. Loehr, and D.R. Huaco (2011),'' MoDOT Transportation Geotechnics Research Program: Development of Target Reliabilities for MoDOT Bridge Foundations and Earth Slopes'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Chen, Y-J, and F.H. Kulhawy (2002), “Evaluation of Drained Axial Capacity for Drilled Shafts,” ''Deep Foundations 2002: An International Perspective on Theory, Design, Construction, and Performance'', Geotechnical Special Publication No. 116, M.W. O’Neill and F.C. Townsend, Editors, ASCE, Reston, VA, pp. 1200-1214.

Duncan, J.M., and C.K. Tan (1991), “Part 5 – Engineering Manual for Estimating Tolerable Movements for Bridges,” in ''Manuals for the Design of Bridge Foundations'', NCHRP Report 343, by R.M. Barker, J.M. Duncan, K.B. Rojiani, P.S.K. Ooi, C.K. Tan, and S.G. Kim, Transportation Research Board, pp. 219-228.

Hoek, E., and E.T. Brown (1988), “The Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion – A 1988 Update,” ''Proceedings of the 15<sup>th</sup> Canadian Rock Mechanics Symposium'', Toronto, Canada.

Hoek, E. and E.T. Brown (1997), “Practical Estimates of Rock Mass Strength,” ''International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences'', Vol. 34, No. 8, Elsevier, pp. 1165-1186.

Horvath, R.G., and T.C. Kenney (1979), “Shaft Resistance of Rock Socketed Drilled Piers,” ''Proceedings of the Symposium on Deep Foundations'', ASCE, pp. 182-214.

Kulicki, J.M., Z. Prucz, C.M. Clancy, D.R. Mertz, and A.S. Nowak (2007),'' Updating the Calibration Report for AASHTO LRFD Code'', Final Report for NCHRP Project 20-7/186, AASHTO, 125 pp.

Loehr, J.E., B.L. Rosenblad, and T.T. Vu (2011a), ''MoDOT Transportation Geotechnics Research Program: Drilled Shaft Axial Load Test Program Interpretation Report, Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Loehr, J.E., S.A. Grant, and B.L. Rosenblad (2011b), Calibration of Resistance Factors for Design of Drilled Shafts at Strength Limit States Using Laboratory Test Measurements'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Mayne, P.W., and D.E. Harris (1993), ''Axial Load-Displacement Behavior of Drilled Shaft Foundations in Piedmont Residuum'', FHWA Reference Number 41-30-2175, Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, GA.

Miller, A.D. (2003), ''Prediction of Ultimate Side Shear for Drilled Shafts in Missouri Shales'', thesis presented to the faculty of the University of Missouri in partial fulfillment of the requirements for M.S. degree, 266 pp.

Moulton, L.K. (1986), ''Tolerable Movement Criteria for Highway Bridges'', Report No. FHWA-TS-85-228, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, 93 pp.

O'Neill, M.W., F.C. Townsend, K.H. Hassan, A. Buller, and P.S. Chan (1996), ''Load Transfer for Drilled Shafts in Intermediate Geomaterials'', Publication No. FHWA-RD-95-171, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, 184 pp.

O’Neill, M.W., and L.C. Reese (1999), ''Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods'', Report No. FHWA-IF-99-025, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, 758 pp.

Phoon, K.K., and F.H. Kulhawy (2005), “Characterization of Model Uncertainties for Drilled Shafts Under Undrained Axial Loading,” ''Contemporary Issues in Foundation Engineering'', Proceedings of Sessions from the Geo-Frontiers 2005 Congress, Austin, Texas, ASCE Geo-Institute, GSP 131.

Pierce, M.D., J.E. Loehr, and B.L. Rosenblad (2011), ''Calibration of LRFD Resistance Factors for Design of Drilled Shafts at Strength Limit States Using In situ Test Measurements'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Rosenblad, B.L., J.E. Loehr, M.D. Pierce, S.A. Grant, and K.D. Murphy (2011), ''MoDOT Transportation Geotechnics Research Program: Drilled Shaft Axial Load Test Program Data Report'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Turner, J.P. (2006), ''Rock-socketed Shafts for Highway Structure Foundations'', NCHRP Synthesis 360, Transportation Research Board, 136 pp.

Tyler, H.L. (2010), ''Influence of Parameter Variability on Side Shear Values Determined from O-Cell Testing of Drilled Shafts'', report presented to the University of Missouri in partial fulfillment of the requirements for M.S. Degree.

Vu, T.T., and J.E. Loehr (2011), ''Calibration of LRFD Resistance Factors for Design of Drilled Shafts at Serviceability Limit States'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Vesic, A.S. (1977), ''NCHRP Synthesis 42: Design of Pile Foundations'', Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 68 pp.

Wyllie, D.C. (1999), ''Foundations on Rock'', E & FN Spon, Second Edition, 401 pp.

[[Category:751 LRFD Bridge Design Guidelines]]

751.37 Drilled Shafts

2026-01-15T17:15:32Z

Hoskir: /* 751.37.3 Design for Axial Loading at Strength Limit State */ math errors

==751.37.1 General==
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.1 General|Commentary for EPG 751.37.1 General''']]
|}
These guidelines address procedures for design of drilled shafts used as foundations for bridge piers, bridge abutments, roadway signs, and other miscellaneous structures. The guidelines were established following load and resistance factor design (LRFD) concepts. The provisions provided herein are intended to produce foundations that achieve target reliabilities established by MoDOT for structures of different operational importance. The four classes of operational importance include minor or low volume route, major route, major bridge costing less than $100 million, and major bridge costing greater than $100 million. Additional background regarding development of these provisions and supportive information regarding use of these provisions is provided in the accompanying commentary.

Drilled shafts can be an economical alternative to spread footing or driven pile foundations. They can be constructed in a wide variety of soil and rock conditions and designed to support a wide range of loading conditions. Drilled shafts should be considered:

:* To accommodate sites where depth to bedrock is too short for pile embedment but too deep for spread footings.

:* For large design loads. (Eliminates the need for large quantities of piles).

:* To provide resistance against large lateral and uplift loads.

:* To eliminate the need for cofferdams.

:* To provide protection against scour.

:* To accommodate concerns associated with the effects of pile driving (e.g. vibrations or interference with battered piles).

:* When obstructions or other conditions may make pile driving difficult.

:* To provide resistance to settlement when displacement tolerances are small.

===751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature|Commentary for EPG 751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature''']]
|}

Dimensions to be established in design include the overall length of the shaft and the shaft diameter. For shafts that will be socketed into bedrock, the length and diameter of the rock socket must also be established. Table 751.37.1.1 defines the nomenclature used for these dimensions and provides relevant minimum and/or maximum values for the respective dimensions.

====<center>''Table 751.37.1.1 Summary of drilled shaft dimensions with minimum and maximum values''</center>====
{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
|+
! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Dimension !! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Description!! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Minimum Value !! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Maximum Value !! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Comment
|-
|D|| Nominal shaft diameter (Overall)||align="center"| 18”<sup>'''1'''</sup>||align="center"| --|| Min. 6” increments
|-
|L|| Length of shaft (Overall) ||align="center"|-- ||align="center"|-- ||--
|-
|D<sub>s</sub>'''<sup>4</sup>'''||Nominal socket diameter||align="center"|-- ||align="center"|--<sup>'''2'''</sup>||Min. 6” increments
|-
|L<sub>s</sub>'''<sup>4</sup>'''||Length of rock socket||align="center"| D<sub>s</sub>'''<sup>3, 5</sup>'''||align="center"| --|| --
|-
|colspan="5"|<sup>'''1'''</sup> Shaft diameter shall be at least 6” greater than column diameter when shaft is directly connected to the column and not a footing cap or bent cap.
|-
|colspan="5"|<sup>'''2'''</sup> Sockets installed through casing shall have diameters 6” less than the outside diameter of the casing.
|-
|colspan="5"|<sup>'''3'''</sup> Minimum rock socket length L<sub>s</sub> ≥ D<sub>s</sub> shall be measured from the anticipated tip of the casing.
|-
|colspan="5"|<sup>'''4'''</sup> The dimensions “D<sub>s</sub>” and “L<sub>s</sub>” are not explicitly used in any of the design equations that follow in favor of generally referring to the diameter of any segment of an overall shaft as “D” which can be a rock socket segment. This is not entirely true for the dimension “L<sub>s</sub>” which is explicitly used as part of a settlement design equation that follows. Judicial use of the appropriate segment and use of the appropriate diameter and length of a segment is implicit to the correct use of the design equations that follow. (See [[#751.37.2 General Design Procedure and Limit States|EPG 751.37.2 General Design Procedure and Limit States]].)
|-
| colspan="5" | <sup>'''5'''</sup> See [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/751.37.1.1_Drilled_Shaft_Design_Aid.docx Design Aid: Minimum Rock Socket Length]
|}

The length to diameter ratio of drilled shafts should generally be in the following range: 3 ≤ L/D ≤ 30

The nomenclature used in these guidelines has intentionally been selected to be consistent with that used in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2009) to the extent possible to avoid potential confusion with methods provided in those specifications. By convention, references to other provisions of the MoDOT Engineering Policy Guide are indicated as “EPG XXX.XX” throughout these guidelines where the ''X''s are replaced with the appropriate article numbers. Similarly, references to provisions within the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications are indicated as “LRFD XXX.XX”.

===751.37.1.2 Materials===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.1.2 Materials|Commentary for EPG 751.37.1.2 Materials''']]
|}

Concrete used for drilled shaft construction shall be Class B-2 concrete with minimum compressive strength, <math>f^'_c</math> = 4 ksi.

===751.37.1.3 Casing===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.1.3 Casing|Commentary for EPG 751.37.1.3 Casing''']]
|}

All drilled shafts shall have permanent casing installed through overburden soils to prevent caving of these soils during construction unless conditions are such that the shafts can be more effectively and reliably constructed without casing or using temporary casing. Welded or seamless steel permanent casing shall be in accordance with [http://www.modot.org/business/standards_and_specs/SpecbookEPG.pdf#page=11 Sec 701]. Approval from the MoDOT Geotechnical Section is required for use of temporary casing or uncased shafts with or without drilling slurry.

Rock sockets shall be uncased.

Permanent Casing Thickness Design and Plan Reporting:

:Any drilled shaft for a major bridge over a river or lake <u>or</u> any drilled shaft longer than 80 feet or any drilled shaft greater than 6 feet in diameter shall have a minimum casing thickness of 1/2 inch specified unless a greater thickness is required by design for strength. The thickness of casing in either case shall be shown on the bridge plans and noted as a minimum.

:All other drilled shafts shall not have a minimum casing thickness specified unless a specific thickness is required by design for strength. The minimum thickness in the latter case shall be shown on the bridge plans and noted as a minimum.

:For drilled shaft stiffness computations and load distribution analysis, use the minimum casing thickness required. When a minimum casing thickness is not required, assume a casing thickness of 3/8” for the analysis.

===751.37.1.4 General Design Considerations===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.1.4 General Design Considerations|Commentary for EPG 751.37.1.4 General Design Considerations''']]
|}

The following issues shall be considered for design of drilled shafts:

''Scour ''

The potential for scour and its effect on the axial and lateral strength and serviceability of drilled shafts shall be investigated.

''Ground Water ''

The effects of variable ground water levels and buoyancy shall be taken into account in evaluating drilled shaft strength and serviceability limit states.

''Downdrag ''

Downdrag shall be considered when strength and serviceability are evaluated. For drilled shafts socketed into rock and overlain with soil that has the potential to settle, downdrag shall be considered as an applied load and predicted according to LRFD 3.11.8. Downward movements of 0.1 to 0.5 in. are enough to mobilize full downdrag. The top 5 ft. and a bottom length equal to the shaft diameter shall not be included in calculating downdrag. Allowance shall be given for an increase in the undrained shear strength of the soil within compressible strata as consolidation occurs.

''Uplift ''

The effects of uplift shall be considered for drilled shafts in cohesive soils, not socketed into rock.

''Group Effects ''

Shafts designed with relatively close spacing shall be evaluated considering group effects. Specific methods and modifications to account for group effects differ according to the soil/rock type that the shaft is founded within as provided in EPG 751.37.3.9.

The redundancy factor ''η<sub>R</sub>'' from LRFD 1.3.4 shall not be applied for design of drilled shafts.

===751.37.1.5 Related Provisions===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.1.5 Related Provisions|Commentary for EPG 751.37.1.5 Related Provisions''']]
|}
The provisions of these guidelines were developed presuming that design parameters required to apply the provisions are established following current MoDOT site characterization protocols as described in EPG 321. Specific attention is drawn to [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. The provisions provided in these guidelines presume that parameter variability, as generally represented by the coefficient of variation (COV), is established following procedures in EPG 321.3.

===751.37.1.6 Drilled Shaft General Detail Considerations===
[[image:751.37.1.6 01.png|700px|center]]
Pay items shown in above table are for example only, show actual pay items and quantities in plan details for specific project.

''Notes:''
::(1) Number of pipes (equally spaced) for Sonic Logging Testing:
::::::Diameter ≤ 2.5 ft: 2 pipes
::::::Diameter >2.5 ft but ≤ 3.5 ft: 3 pipes
::::::Diameter >3.5 ft but ≤ 5.0 ft: 4 pipes
::::::Diameter >5.0 ft but ≤ 8.0 ft: 5 pipes
::::::Diameter >8.0 ft: 6 pipes
::::Single diameter reinforcing cage is typically used. Modify details based on design for single or multiple-diameter cages and splice location(s).
::::See [[#751.37.1.3 Casing|EPG 751.37.1.3]] for casing requirements and alternatives.
::::When determining P bar diameter for barbill, assume 3/8” casing unless otherwise specified.
::::See [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#G8. Drilled Shaft|EPG 751.50, G8]], for notes to include for drilled shafts and rock sockets (starting at G8.1).
::(2) See [[#751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature|EPG 751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature]] for [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/751.37.1.1_Drilled_Shaft_Design_Aid.docx Design Aid: Minimum Rock Socket Length].
::(3) When difference between drilled shaft and column diameter is 6" a single reinforcement cage is typically used for the socket and shaft and the vertical reinforcement extends into the column. A separate column steel cage is then placed around the protruding shaft reinforcement without requiring an adjustment to minimum cover for rock socket or column reinforcement. When difference between drilled shaft and column diameter is 12” either the vertical column steel or dowels will need to be extended into the shaft or the cover in the socket and shaft will need to be increased to allow the shaft reinforcement to extend into the column. In the former scenario an optional construction joint is recommended as discussed in note 4 for oversized shafts. In the latter scenario the same number of vertical bars should be used in the shaft and column to allow the shaft bars to be tied to the column cage. Any reduction in cage diameter required for fit-up shall be considered in design.
::(4) When difference between drilled shaft and column diameter is greater than 12" (oversized shaft generally 18" to 24" larger than column), show "Optional construction joint" at bottom of column/dowel reinforcement in the drilled shaft and use [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#G8._Drilled_Shaft|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Notes G8.8 and G8.9]] in plan details.

<center>
{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" style="text-align:center"
|+
| style="background:#BEBEBE" width="400" |'''[https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings Bridge Standard Drawings]'''</br> (Drilled Shafts - DSS → As Built Drilled Shaft Data [DSS_01])
|-
|align="center"|[https://www.modot.org/media/14725 As Built Drilled Shaft Data (PDF)]
|}

</center>

==751.37.2 General Design Procedure and Limit States==
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.2 General Design Procedure and Limit States|Commentary for EPG 751.37.2 General Design Procedure and Limit States''']]
|}
Drilled shafts should be sized (diameter and length) to support the required factored loads in the most cost effective manner possible without excessive deflections. The initial diameter and length of drilled shafts are generally established considering vertical loading at the strength limit state(s) according to EPG 751.37.3. The resulting shaft should then be evaluated at the axial and lateral serviceability limit states (settlement and lateral deflection) according to EPG 751.37.4 and EPG 751.37.5, where the shaft dimensions shall be adjusted if serviceability requirements are not satisfied.

The Strength Limit State and applicable Extreme Event Limit States shall be investigated when calculating the soil and structural resistance of the drilled shaft. The Service I Limit State shall be used when evaluating lateral deflection and settlement.

'''Guidance'''

There are three major types of drilled shaft construction that influence how a drilled shaft is designed. MoDOT exclusively designs and details drilled shafts with permanent casing and rock sockets as given as Case No. 1. The two cases that follow are rare and require the recommendation or approval of the Geotechnical Section and shall be shown on the plans. See [[#751.37.1.3 Casing|EPG 751.37.1.3 Casing]].

:1. Permanently cased shaft through soil and socketed into rock. A reduced shaft diameter for rock socket is required. This case shall be used for all MoDOT projects unless otherwise allowed by the Geotechnical Section. For axial loading and settlement computations substitute D with D<sub>s</sub> and L with L<sub>s</sub> which are equal to the diameter and length of the rock socket since the required resistance to loading and settlement are computed for segment of the shaft in rock only (Rock sockets to be installed through casing shall have diameters 6” less than the inside diameter of the casing to allow for clearance and insertion of rock excavation re-tooling equipment.).

:2. Permanently cased or temporarily cased or uncased shaft through soil and not socketed into rock. For axial loading and settlement computations use D = diameter of shaft.

:3. Temporarily cased or uncased shaft through soil with a reduced or same shaft diameter for soil than/and for rock socket respectively. For axial loading and settlement computations use the appropriate diameter and length of shaft as the case may be for the design segment under investigation.

Permanently cased shafts shall not be allowed to use frictional resistance of the soil for either a drilled shaft with or without a rock socket.

Temporarily cased shafts may use the frictional resistance of the soil only for the case where a rock socket is not used (see the [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section]).

Recommendation or approval from the Geotechnical Section is required for use of temporary casing or uncased shafts with or without drilling slurry.

Note on Definitions:

:1. Where L<sub>,i</sub> is defined, L<sub>i</sub> shall mean the length of the shaft segment through soil or through rock.

:2. Where L is defined, L shall mean overall shaft length including the length of the rock socket.

==751.37.3 Design for Axial Loading at Strength Limit State==
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3 Geotechnical Resistance for Axial Loading at Strength Limit States|Commentary for EPG 751.37.3 Design for Axial Loading at Strength Limit State''']]
|}
Geotechnical resistance to axial loading at the relevant strength limit state shall be computed as the sum of tip resistance and side resistance unless conditions are present that may prevent reliable mobilization of tip resistance (e.g. karst conditions with known or likely voids that cannot be specifically identified or characterized). Shafts should be sized such that the factored geotechnical resistance to axial loads exceeds the factored axial loads:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> R_R = R_{sR} + R_{pR} \ge \gamma Q</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.1
|}

where:

:''R<sub>R</sub>'' = factored axial shaft resistance (consistent units of force),

:''R<sub>sR</sub>'' = factored side resistance (consistent units of force),

:''R<sub>pR</sub>'' = factored tip resistance (consistent units of force) and

:<math>\gamma Q</math> = factored load for the appropriate strength limit state (consistent units of force).

Tip resistance and side resistance shall be computed according to the provisions of EPG 751.37.3 for the material type(s) encountered. The Structural Project Manager or Structural Liaison Engineer shall be consulted before utilizing design methods other than those provided in EPG 751.37.3 for calculating the geotechnical resistance of drilled shafts.

The factored side resistance for drilled shafts shall be established from factored unit side resistance values for the relevant soil/rock conditions as provided in this article. For stratified ground conditions or where the shaft dimensions change (e.g. at tip of temporary or permanent casing, or at top of rock socket), the shaft shall be divided into segments with practically uniform shaft geometry and soil/rock properties and unit side resistance values determined for each shaft segment. The total factored side resistance shall then be computed as the sum of the factored resistance values for each shaft segment:
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> R_{sR} = \textstyle \sum_{i=1}^n (q_{sR-i} \cdot A_{s-i}) = \textstyle \sum_{i=1}^n (\phi_{qs-i}\cdot q_{s-i} \cdot \pi \cdot D_i \cdot L_i)</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.2
|}

where:
:''n'' = number of shaft segments,

:<math>q_{sR-i} = \phi_{qs-i} \cdot q_{s-i}</math> = factored unit side resistance for shaft segment ''i'' (consistent units of stress),

:<math>A_{s-i} = \pi \cdot D_{i} \cdot L_{i}</math> = perimeter interface area for shaft segment ''i'' (consistent units of area),

:<math>\phi_{qs-i}</math> = resistance factor for unit side resistance along shaft segment ''i'' (dimensionless),

:''<math>q_{s-i}</math>'' = nominal unit side resistance along shaft segment ''i'' (consistent units of stress),

:''D<sub>i</sub>'' = shaft diameter for shaft segment ''i'' (consistent units of length), and

:''L<sub>i</sub>'' = length of shaft segment ''i'' (consistent units of length).

<math>\boldsymbol \phi_{qs-i}</math> and ''<math>\boldsymbol q_{s-i}</math>'' shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this article, based on the material type present along the respective shaft segment.

Side resistance shall generally be neglected or reduced, as recommended by the Geotechnical Section, over shaft segments with permanent casing and over any length of rock socket that is deemed unusable.

The factored tip resistance for drilled shafts shall be established from factored unit tip resistance values for the relevant soil/rock conditions as provided in this article. The appropriate tip resistance shall be established for the soil/rock located between the tip of the shaft and two diameters below the tip of the shaft. The factored tip resistance shall be computed as
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> R_{pR} = q_{pR} \cdot A_p = \phi_{qp} \cdot q_p \cdot \pi \cdot \frac {D^2}{4}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.3
|}

where:

:<math>q_{pR} = \phi_{qp} \cdot q_p</math> = factored unit tip resistance (consistent units of stress),

:<math>A_p = \pi \cdot \frac{D^2}{4}</math> = cross-sectional area of the shaft at the tip (consistent units of area),

:<math>\phi_{qp}</math> = resistance factor for unit tip resistance (dimensionless),

:''<math>q_p </math>''= nominal unit tip resistance (consistent units of stress), and

:''D'' = shaft diameter at the tip of the shaft (consistent units of length).

<math>\phi_{qp}</math> and ''<math>\boldsymbol q_p</math>'' shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this article, based on the material type present within a depth of ''2D'' below the tip of the shaft.

Tip resistance shall be neglected, as recommended by the Geotechnical Section, when the shaft tip is located within karstic rock or other conditions where tip resistance cannot be reliably determined.

The specific methods and resistance factors for determining nominal and factored side and tip resistance shall be selected based on the material type(s) present along the sides and beneath the tip of the shaft:

:* EPG 751.37.3.1 shall generally be followed to estimate resistance for shafts in rock from results of uniaxial compression tests on intact rock core with uniaxial compressive strengths ''(q<sub>u</sub> )'' greater than 100 ksf;

:* EPG 751.37.3.2 shall generally be followed to estimate resistance for shafts in weak rock from results of uniaxial compression tests on rock core with uniaxial compressive strengths ''(q<sub>u</sub> )'' greater than 5 ksf but less than 100 ksf;

:* EPG 751.37.3.3 shall generally be followed to estimate resistance for shafts in weak rock from results of Standard Penetration Tests with equivalent ''N''-values ''(N<sub>eq</sub> )'' less than 400 blows/foot;

:* EPG 751.37.3.4 shall generally be followed to estimate resistance for shafts in weak rock from results of Texas Cone Penetration Tests with measured penetrations ''(TCP)'' greater than 1 inch/100 blows but less than 10 inches/100 blows;

:* EPG 751.37.3.5 shall generally be followed to estimate resistance for shafts in weak rock from results of Point Load Index Tests with Point Load Indices ''(I<sub>s(50)</sub> )'' less than 40 ksf;

:* EPG 751.37.3.6 shall generally be followed to estimate resistance for shafts in cohesive soils with undrained shear strengths ''(s<sub>u</sub> )'' less than 5 ksf; and

:* EPG 751.37.3.7 shall generally be followed to estimate resistance for shafts in cohesionless soils.

Additional guidance on selection of specific methods and resistance factors based on the material types encountered is provided in the commentary to these guidelines.

===751.37.3.1 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Rock ''(q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf)''===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.1 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Rock (qu ≥ 100 ksf')|'''Commentary for EPG 751.37.3.1 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Rock ''(q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf)''''']]
|}
'''Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Rock ''(q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf)'''''

The nominal unit side resistance for shaft segments located in rock shall be computed as a function of the mean uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock according to (Horvath and Kenney, 1979)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_s = \Bigg(0.95 \cdot \sqrt {\overline q_u} < 17.5 \cdot \sqrt{f'_c}\Bigg)\alpha_E</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.4
|}

where:

:''q<sub>s</sub>'' = nominal unit side resistance for the shaft segment (ksf),

:<math>\overline q_u</math> = mean value of uniaxial compressive strength of rock core along the shaft segment (ksf), and

:<math>f^'_c</math> = compressive strength of concrete (ksi).

:''α<sub>E</sub>'' = factor to account for discontinuities in the rock

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified.''

Resistance factors <math>(\boldsymbol \phi_{qs})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values ''(q<sub>s</sub> )'' determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.1.1 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean uniaxial compressive strength <math>(COV_{\overline {q_u}} )</math>. Values for <math>\overline {q_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}} </math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline {q_u}</math> shall be taken as mean values for the rock over the length of the shaft segment. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}} </math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment. Values for <math>f^'_c</math> shall be estimated based on the expected concrete compressive strength for the shaft.

The nominal unit side resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.4 shall be limited to a maximum value of <math>17.5 \cdot \sqrt{f'_c}</math> ksf where <math>f^'_c</math> is input in units of ksi. This limit corresponds to 35 ksf for concrete with <math>f^'_c</math> = 4 ksi.

[[image:751.37.3.1.1 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.1.1 Resistance factors for unit side resistance of drilled shafts in rock from uniaxial compression tests on intact rock core. '''</center>]]

A factor α<sub>E</sub> to account for discontinuities in the rock following O’Neill and Reese (1999) shall be used to reduce the nominal unit side resistance calculated by equation 751.37.3.4. The reduction factor shall only be applied to rock with recovery ratios less than 80% and RQD less than 50. Interpolation may be used. The reduction factor shall be determined and included as part of the nominal unit side resistance by the Geotechnical Section.

<center>
{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
|+ '''''Table 751.37.3.1.1 (Modified after O’Neill and Reese, 1999)'''''
! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2" width="100"|RQD!!style="background:#BEBEBE" colspan="2"| α<sub>E</sub>
|-
!style="background:#BEBEBE" |Closed Joints!!style="background:#BEBEBE"| Open Joints
|-
|100|| 1.0 ||0.85
|-
|70|| 0.85|| 0.55
|-
|50|| 0.60|| 0.55
|-
|30|| 0.50|| 0.5
|-
|20|| 0.45|| 0.45
|}
</center>

'''Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Rock ''(q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf)'''''

The nominal unit tip resistance for shafts founded on rock shall be computed as (adapted from Wyllie, 1999)
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_p = \sqrt{s} \cdot \overline{q_u} \Bigg[ 1 + \sqrt{\frac{m}{\sqrt{s}} + 1} \Bigg] \le 400 ksf</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of stress)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.5
|}

where:

:''q<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal unit tip resistance for the shaft (consistent units of stress),

:<math>\overline {q_u}</math> = mean value of the uniaxial compressive strength (consistent units of stress) and

:''m'' and ''s'' = empirical constants describing the rock mass strength (dimensionless).

Resistance factors <math>(\boldsymbol \phi_{qp})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values ''(q<sub>p</sub>)'' determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.1.2 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean uniaxial compressive strength <math>(COV_{\overline {q_u}} )</math>. Values for <math>\overline {q_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}} </math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline {q_u}</math>, ''m'' and ''s'' shall be taken as mean values for the rock over a depth of ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}} </math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.3.1.2 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.1.2 Resistance factors for unit tip resistance of drilled shafts in rock from uniaxial compression tests on intact rock core.'''</center>]]

Values for the rock mass parameters m and s can be established as:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> m = m_i \mbox{exp} \Bigg(\frac{GSI - 100}{28}\Bigg)</math>||align="center"| (dimensionless)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.6
|-
|align="left"|<math> s = \mbox{exp} \Bigg(\frac{GSI - 100}{9}\Bigg) \ for \ GSI \ge 25</math>||align="center"| (dimensionless)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.7a
|-
|align="left"|<math> s = 0 \ for \ GSI < 25</math>||align="center"| (dimensionless)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.7b
|}

where ''m<sub>i</sub>'' is a material constant corresponding to rock type and ''GSI'' is the Geological Strength Index. The value for ''m<sub>i</sub>'' can be estimated from Table 751.37.3.1.2 or determined more precisely from triaxial tests (Hoek and Brown, 1997). For routine design, ''m<sub>i</sub>'' can be approximated as 10 for limestones and dolomites, as 6 for shales, siltstones, and mudstones, and as 17 for sandstones. Values for ''GSI'' can be estimated from rock mass characterizations using the Rock Mass Rating (''RMR'') system for rock masses with ''RMR'' greater than 25 (Hoek and Brown, 1997). Using this approach, GSI is calculated as:
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>GSI = 10 + \textstyle \sum_{i=1}^4 R_i </math>||align="center"|(dimensionless)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.8
|}

where

''R<sub>i</sub>'' = Rock Mass Rating system rating parameters (dimensionless).

''GSI'' is thus equivalent to the ''RMR'' value with the groundwater rating term, ''R<sub>5</sub>'', taken as 10.

Values for ''GSI'' to be used in Equations 751.37.3.6 and 751.37.3.7, or values for ''m'' and ''s'' to be used in Equation 751.37.3.5, can also be established using alternative methods described in the commentary to this subarticle.

The nominal tip resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.5 shall be limited to a maximum value of 400 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:table 751.37.3.2.jpg|center|775px|thumb|<center>'''Table 751.37.3.1.2 Approximate values for material constant ''m<sub>i</sub>'' (from Marinos and Hoek, 2000). Numerals shown beneath rock types reflect ''m<sub>i</sub>'' values. Values in parentheses are estimates.'''</center> <br>
* Conglomerates and breccias may present a wide range of ''m<sub>i</sub>'' values depending on the nature of the cementing material and degree of cementation, so they may range from values similar to sandstone, to values used for fine grained sediments (even under 10). <br>
** These values are for intact rock specimens tested normal to bedding or foliation. The value of ''m<sub>i</sub>'' will be significantly different if failure occurs along a weakness plane.
]]

===751.37.3.2 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core ''(5 ksf ≤ q<sub>u</sub> ≤ 100 ksf)''===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.2 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core (5 ksf ≤ qu ≤ 100 ksf)|'''Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.2 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core (5 ksf ≤ ''q<sub>u</sub>'' ≤ 100 ksf)''']]
|}

'''Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core ''(5 ksf ≤ q<sub>u</sub> ≤ 100 ksf)'''''

The nominal unit side resistance for shaft segments located in weak rock shall be computed from measurements of uniaxial compressive strength on rock core as (Loehr et al., 2011a; Loehr et al., 2011b)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>q_s = 0.76 \cdot \overline{q_u}^0.79 \le 30 ksf</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.9
|}

where:

:''q<sub>s</sub>'' = nominal unit side resistance for the shaft segment (ksf) and

:<math>\overline{q_u}</math> = mean uniaxial compressive strength of rock core along the shaft segment (ksf).

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified. ''

Resistance factors <math>(\boldsymbol \phi_{qs})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values ''(q<sub>s</sub>)'' determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.2.1 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean uniaxial compressive strength <math>(COV_{\overline {q_u}} )</math>. Values for <math>\overline {q_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}} </math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline {q_u}</math> shall be taken as mean values for the rock over the length of the shaft segment. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}} </math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment.

The nominal unit side resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.9 shall be limited to a maximum value of 30 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:751.37.3.2.1 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.2.1 Resistance factors for unit side resistance for drilled shafts in weak rock from uniaxial compression tests on rock core. '''</center>]]

'''Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core (5 ksf ≤ q<sub>u</sub> ≤ 100 ksf)'''

The nominal unit tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall be computed from measurements of uniaxial compressive strength on rock core as (Loehr et al., 2011a; Loehr et al., 2011b)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>q_p = 14 \cdot \overline{q_u}^0.71 \le 400 ksf</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.10
|}

where:

:''q<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal unit tip resistance for the shaft (ksf), and

:<math>\overline {q_u}</math> = mean uniaxial compressive strength for rock at the shaft tip (ksf).

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified. ''

Resistance factors <math>(\boldsymbol \phi_{qp})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values ''(q<sub>p</sub>)'' determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.2.2 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean uniaxial compressive strength <math>(COV_{\overline {q_u}} )</math>. Values for <math>\overline {q_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}} </math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline {q_u}</math> shall be taken as mean values for the rock over a depth of ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}} </math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

The nominal tip resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.10 shall be limited to a maximum value of 400 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:751.37.3.2.2 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.2.2 Resistance factors for unit tip resistance for drilled shafts in weak rock from uniaxial compression tests on rock core. '''</center>]]

===751.37.3.3 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests ''(N<sub>eq</sub> ≤ 400 blows/ft)''===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.3 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests (Neq ≤ 400 blows/ft)|'''Commentary for EPG 751.37.3.3 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests ''(N<sub>eq</sub> ≤ 400 blows/ft)''']]
|}
'''Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests ''(N<sub>eq</sub> ≤ 400 blows/ft)'''''

The nominal unit side resistance for shaft segments located in weak rock shall be computed from Standard Penetration Test (SPT) measurements as (Pierce et al., 2011)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_s = \frac{\overline{N_eq}}{14} \le 30 ksf</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.11
|}

where:

:''q<sub>s</sub>'' = nominal unit side resistance for the shaft segment (ksf) and

:<math>\overline{N_{eq}}</math> = equivalent SPT ''N-''value along the shaft segment (blows/foot).

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified. ''

Resistance factors <math>(\boldsymbol \phi_{qs})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values ''(q<sub>s</sub>)'' determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.3.1 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean equivalent SPR ''N-''value <math>(COV_{\overline {N_eq}} )</math>. Values for <math>\overline {N_eq}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {N_eq}} </math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline {N_eq}</math> shall be taken as mean values for the rock over the length of the shaft segment. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {N_eq}} </math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean equivalent ''N-''value for the rock over the shaft segment.

The nominal unit side resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.11 shall be limited to a maximum value of 30 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:751.37.3.3.1 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.3.1 Resistance factors for unit side resistance for drilled shafts in weak rock from equivalent SPT ''N-''values.'''</center>]]

'''Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests ''(N<sub>eq</sub> ≤ 400 blows/ft)'''''

The nominal unit tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall be computed from Standard Penetration Test (SPT) measurements as (Pierce et al., 2011)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_p = \frac{\overline{N_eq}}{1.6} \le 400 ksf</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.9
|}

where:

:''q<sub>p</sub> = nominal unit tip resistance for the shaft (ksf) and

:<math>\overline{N_{eq}}</math> = mean equivalent SPT N-value for rock at the shaft tip (blows/foot).

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified. ''

Resistance factors <math>(\boldsymbol \phi_{qp})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values ''(q<sub>p</sub>)'' determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.3.2 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean equivalent SPR ''N-''value <math>(COV_{\overline {N_eq}} )</math>. Values for <math>\overline {N_eq}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {N_eq}} </math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline {N_eq}</math> shall be taken as mean values for the rock over a depth of ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {N_eq}} </math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean equivalent ''N-''value for the rock over the distance ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

The nominal tip resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.12 shall be limited to a maximum value of 400 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:751.37.3.3.2 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.3.2 Resistance factors for unit tip resistance for drilled shafts in weak rock from equivalent SPT ''N-''values.'''</center>]]

===751.37.3.4 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ TCP ≤ 10 in.)===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.4 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ TCP ≤ 10 in.)|Commentary for EPG 751.37.3.4 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ TCP ≤ 10 in.)''']]
|}
'''Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ TCP ≤ 10 in.)'''

The nominal unit side resistance for shaft segments located in weak rock shall be computed from Texas Cone Penetration Test (TCPT) measurements as (Pierce et al., 2011)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_s = 31.6 \cdot \overline{TCP}^{-1.18} \le 30 ksf</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.13
|}

where:

:''q<sub>s</sub>'' = nominal unit side resistance for the shaft segment (ksf) and

:<math>\overline{TCP}</math> = mean value of penetration from TCPT measurements for rock along the shaft segment (inches/100 blows).

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified.''

Resistance factors <math>(\boldsymbol \phi_{qs})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values ''(q<sub>s</sub>)'' determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.4.1 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean ''TCP''-value <math>(COV_{\overline {TCP}})</math>. Values for <math>\overline {TCP} </math> and <math>COV_{\overline {TCP}} </math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline {TCP} </math> shall be taken as mean values for the rock over the length of the shaft segment. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {TCP}} </math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean ''TCP''-value for the rock over the shaft segment.

The nominal unit side resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.13 shall be limited to a maximum value of 30 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:751.37.3.4.1 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.4.1 Resistance factors for unit side resistance for drilled shafts in weak rock from Texas Cone Penetration Test penetration values.'''</center>]]

'''Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ TCP ≤ 10 in.)'''

The nominal unit tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall be computed from Texas Cone Penetration Test (TCPT) measurements as (Pierce et al., 2011)
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_p = 500 \cdot \overline{TCP}^{-1.22} \le 400 ksf</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.14
|}

where:

:''(q<sub>p</sub>)'' = nominal unit tip resistance for the shaft (ksf) and

:<math>\overline {TCP} </math> = mean value of penetration from TCPT measurements for rock at the tip of the shaft (inches/100 blows).

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified.''

Resistance factors <math>(\boldsymbol \phi_{qp})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values ''(q<sub>p</sub>)'' determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.4.2 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean ''TCP''-value <math>(COV_{\overline {TCP}})</math>. Values for <math>\overline {TCP} </math> and <math>COV_{\overline {TCP}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline {TCP} </math> shall be taken as mean values for the rock over a depth of ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {TCP}}</math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean ''TCP''-value for the rock over the distance ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

The nominal tip resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.14 shall be limited to a maximum value of 400 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:751.37.3.4.2 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig.751.37.3.4.2 Resistance factors for unit tip resistance for drilled shafts in weak rock from Texas Cone Penetration Test penetration values.'''</center>]]

===751.37.3.5 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests ''(5 ksf ≤ I<sub>s(50)</sub> ≤ 40 ksf)''===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.5 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests (5 ksf ≤ Is(50) ≤ 40 ksf)|'''Commentary for EPG 751.37.3.5 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests ''(5 ksf ≤ I<sub>s(50)</sub> ≤ 40 ksf)''']]
|}

'''Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests ''(5 ksf ≤ I<sub>s(50)</sub> ≤ 40 ksf)'''''

The nominal unit side resistance for shaft segments located in weak rock shall be computed from Point Load Index Test measurements as (Loehr et al., 2011a; Loehr et al., 2011b)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_s = \frac{(\overline{I_{s(50)}})^{1.8}}{10} \le 30 ksf </math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.15
|}

where:

:''q<sub>s</sub>'' = nominal unit side resistance for the shaft segment (ksf) and

:<math>\overline{I_{s(50)}}</math> = mean corrected point load index value for rock along the shaft segment (ksf).

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified. ''

Resistance factors <math>(\boldsymbol \phi_{qs})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values (''q<sub>s</sub>'') determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.5.1 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>''-value <math>(COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}})</math>. Values for ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>'' and <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>'' shall be taken as mean values for the rock over the length of the shaft segment. Values for <math>(COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}})</math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>''-value for the rock over the shaft segment.

The nominal unit side resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.15 shall be limited to a maximum value of 30 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:751.37.3.5.1 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.5.1 Resistance factors for unit side resistance for drilled shafts in weak rock from Point Load Index values.'''</center>]]

'''Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests ''(5 ksf ≤ I<sub>s(50)</sub> ≤ 40 ksf)'''''

The nominal unit tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall be computed from Point Load Index Test measurements as (Loehr et al., 2011a; Loehr et al., 2011b)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_p = 10.5 \cdot \overline{I_{s(50)}} \le 400 ksf </math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.16
|}

where:

:''q<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal unit tip resistance for the shaft (ksf) and

:<math>\overline{I_{s(50)}}</math> = mean corrected point load index value for rock at the tip of the shaft (ksf).

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified.''

Resistance factors <math>(\boldsymbol \phi_{qp})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values (''q<sub>p</sub>'') determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.5.2 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>''-value <math>(COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}})</math>. Values for <math>\overline{I_{s(50)}}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline{I_{s(50)}}</math> shall be taken as mean values for the rock over a depth of ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>''-value for the rock over the distance ''2D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

The nominal tip resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.16 shall be limited to a maximum value of 400 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

[[image:751.37.3.5.2 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.5.2 Resistance factors for unit tip resistance for drilled shafts in weak rock from Point Load Index values.'''</center>]]

===751.37.3.6 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (''s<sub>u</sub> ≤ 5 ksf'')===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.6 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (su ≤ 5 ksf)|'''Commentary for EPG 751.37.3.6 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (''s<sub>u</sub> ≤ 5 ksf'')''']]
|}

'''Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (''s<sub>u</sub> ≤ 5 ksf'')'''

The nominal unit side resistance for shaft segments located in cohesive soils shall be computed from measurements of undrained shear strength using the “α-method” as (e.g. Reese et al., 2006)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_s = \alpha \cdot \overline{s_u}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of stress)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.17
|}

where:

:''q<sub>s</sub>'' = nominal unit side resistance for the shaft segment (consistent units of stress),

:''α'' = an empirical coefficient (dimensionless) and

:<math>\overline{s_u}</math> = mean value of the undrained shear strength for the soil along the shaft segment (consistent units of stress).

The value for ''α'' shall be taken as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> \alpha = \frac {0.75}{\sqrt{\overline{s_u}}} \le 1.0</math>||align="center"| (dimensionless)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.18
|}

where <math>\overline {s_u}</math> is the mean undrained shear strength input in units of ksf.

''Note that this expression is dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified.''

Resistance factors <math>(\boldsymbol \phi_{qs})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values (''q<sub>s</sub>'') determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.6.1 based on the coefficient of variation of mean undrained shear strength <math>(COV_{\overline {s_u}})</math>. Values for <math>{\overline {s_u}}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>{\overline {s_u}}</math> shall be taken as mean values for the soil over the length of the shaft segment. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean undrained shear strength for the soil over the shaft segment.

[[image:751.37.3.6.1 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.6.1 Resistance factors for unit side resistance for drilled shafts in cohesive soils from undrained shear strength measurements. '''</center>]]

The value for α predicted using Equation 751.37.3.18 shall be limited to a maximum value of 1.0.

In cohesive soils, side resistance along the top 5 ft. of the shaft and a distance of one shaft diameter above the tip of the shaft shall be ignored.

'''Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (''s<sub>u</sub> ≤ 5 ksf)'''

The nominal tip resistance for shafts founded on cohesive soils shall be calculated from measurements of undrained shear strength according to:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_p = \overline{s_u} \cdot N_c \le 80 ksf</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of stress)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.19
|}

where:

:''q<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal unit tip resistance for the shaft (consistent units of stress),

:<math>\overline{s_u}</math> = mean value of the undrained shear strength of the soil (consistent units of stress) and

:''N<sub>c</sub>'' = bearing capacity factor (dimensionless).

Resistance factors <math>(\boldsymbol \phi_{qp})</math> to be applied to the nominal resistance values (''q<sub>p</sub>'') determined according to the provisions of this article shall be established from Figure 751.37.3.6.2 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean undrained shear strength <math>(COV_{\overline {s_u}})</math>. Values for <math>\overline{s_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with methods described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] for the site and location in question. Values for <math>\overline{s_u}</math>shall be taken as mean values for the soil over a depth of 2''D'' below the tip of the shaft. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math> should similarly reflect the variability of the mean undrained shear strength for the soil over the distance 2''D'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.3.6.2 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.3.6.2 Resistance factors for unit tip resistance for drilled shafts in cohesive soils from undrained shear strength measurements.'''</center>]]

The value for ''N<sub>c</sub>'' shall be taken as
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>N_c = 6 \Big[ 1 + 0.2 \Big(\frac{Z}{D}\Big)\Big] \le 9</math>||align="center"| (dimensionless)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.20
|}

where:

:Z = depth of the tip of the shaft from the ground surface (consistent units of length), and

:D = shaft diameter (consistent units of length).

The value for ''N<sub>c</sub>'' predicted using Equation 751.37.3.20 shall be limited to a maximum value of 9.0.

For <math>\overline{s_u}</math> ≤ 0.5 ksf, ''N<sub>c</sub>'' shall be multiplied by 0.67.

The nominal unit tip resistance predicted using Equation 751.37.3.19 shall be limited to a maximum value of 80 ksf unless greater resistance can be verified by a load test.

===751.37.3.7 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.7 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils|Commentary for EPG 751.37.3.7 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils]]
|}

'''Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils'''

The nominal unit side resistance for shaft segments located in cohesionless soils shall be computed using the “β-method” as
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_s = \beta \cdot \sigma^'_v</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of stress)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.21
|}

where:

:''q<sub>s</sub> = nominal unit side resistance for the shaft segment (consistent units of stress),

:β = an empirical correlation factor (dimensionless) and

:σ'<sub>v</sub> = average vertical effective stress for the soil along the shaft segment (consistent units of stress).

The value for β shall be taken as (O’Neill and Reese, 1999)
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> \beta = 1.5 - 0.135\sqrt{z}</math>||align="center"| (for ''N<sub>60</sub> ≥ 15)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.22a
|-
|align="left"|<math> \beta = \frac{N_{60}}{15} \cdot \big(1.5 - 0.135\sqrt{z} \big)</math>||align="center"| (for ''N<sub>60</sub> < 15)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.22b
|}

where 0.25 ≤ β ≤ 1.2 and

:z = depth below ground surface to center of shaft segment (ft.) and

:''N<sub>60</sub>'' = average SPT ''N''-value corrected for hammer efficiency (blows/ft).

If permanent casing is used, the side resistance shall be adjusted with consideration of type and length of casing used.

The resistance factor <math>\boldsymbol\phi_{qs}</math> to be applied to the nominal unit side resistance shall be taken as 0.55.

'''Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils'''

The nominal unit tip resistance for shafts founded on cohesionless soils shall be computed from corrected SPT ''N''-values, N<sub>60</sub> (O’Neill and Reese, 1999).

For N_60≤50:
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_p = 1.2 \cdot N_{60} \le 60 ksf</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.23
|}

where:
:''q<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal unit tip resistance for the shaft (ksf) and

:''N<sub>60</sub>'' = average SPT ''N''-value corrected for hammer efficiency (blows/ft).

For ''N<sub>60</sub>'' ≥ 50:
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> q_p = 0.59\cdot \sigma^'_v \cdot \Bigg( N_{60}\bigg(\frac{p_a}{\sigma^'_v}\bigg)\Bigg)^{0.8}</math>||align="center"| (ksf)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.24
|}

where:
:''q<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal unit tip resistance for the shaft (ksf),

:''N<sub>60</sub>'' = average SPT N-value corrected for hammer efficiency (blows/foot),

:''p<sub>a</sub>'' = 2.12 ksf = atmospheric pressure (ksf).

:<math>\sigma^'_v</math> = vertical effective stress for the soil at the tip of the shaft (ksf).

''Note that these expressions are dimensional so values must be entered in the units specified. ''

The resistance factor <math>\boldsymbol\phi_{qp}</math> shall be taken as 0.50 for Equation 751.37.3.23 and as 0.55 for Equation 751.37.3.24.

===751.37.3.8 Geotechnical Resistance from Load Tests===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.8 Geotechnical Resistance from Load Tests|Commentary for EPG 751.37.3.8 Geotechnical Resistance from Load Tests]]
|}

If drilled shaft resistance is determined by load test, the resistance factor shall be taken as 0.7 regardless of the soil conditions.

===751.37.3.9 Evaluation of Group Effects===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.3.9 Evaluation of Group Effects|Commentary for EPG 751.37.3.9 Evaluation of Group Effects]]'''
|}
Group effects for drilled shafts shall be evaluated as described in EPG 751.37.3.9. Procedures for evaluation of group effects generally involve use of a group efficiency factor, consideration of an “equivalent pier”, or both. Application of the group efficiency factor requires that the nominal resistance for individual shafts be multiplied by the factor η to reflect the nominal average resistance of the shafts within a group:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math> R^{\star} = \eta \cdot R</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.3.25
|}

where:

:R = nominal resistance of an individual shaft (consistent units of force),

:R<sup>*</sup> = modified shaft resistance accounting for group effects (consistent units of force) and

:''η'' = group efficiency factor established as described in this article.

''Note that the group efficiency factor (η) used here is different from the redundancy factor (η<sub>R</sub>) discussed in EPG 751.37.1.4.'' Additional discussion regarding the redundancy factor is provided in the commentary.

Consideration of an “equivalent pier” requires evaluation of the shaft group as a hypothetical, monolithic pier encompassing the block of soil and shafts enclosed within the outer perimeter of the shaft group.

The specific method to be used differs with geologic setting as described in the remainder of this article.

'''Group Effects in Cohesionless Soils'''

For shafts deriving resistance predominantly from cohesionless soils, the nominal resistance of individual shafts in the group shall be reduced by an efficiency factor, ''η'', determined based on the spacing of the shafts:

:* for shafts with center-to-center spacing equal to 2.5 shaft diameters, ''η'' = 0.65

:* for shafts with center-to-center spacing equal to 4.0 shaft diameters or more, ''η'' = 1.0, and

:* for shafts with intermediate spacing, the value for ''η'' shall be linearly interpolated between these values.

These efficiency factors shall apply regardless of conditions of contact between the cap and ground.

'''Group Effects in Cohesive Soils'''

For shafts deriving resistance predominantly from cohesive soils, the nominal resistance of the pile group shall be taken as the lesser of the following values:

:* The nominal resistance of an equivalent pier consisting of the shafts and the block of soil within the area bounded by the shafts, or

:* The sum of the nominal resistances for each individual shaft in the group.

For the latter value, the nominal resistances for individual piles shall be reduced by an efficiency factor, ''η'', <u>if</u> the soil is soft <u>and</u> the cap may not be in firm contact with the ground. In such cases, the efficiency factor, ''η'', shall be determined based on the spacing of the shafts:

:* ''η'' = 0.65 for shafts with center-to-center spacing equal to 2.5 shaft diameters,

:* ''η'' = 1.0 for shafts with center-to-center spacing equal to 6.0 shaft diameters or more, and

:* For intermediate shaft spacing, the value for ''η'' shall be linearly interpolated between these values.

Note that the efficiency factors shall only apply if the soil is soft <u>and</u> the cap is not in firm contact with the ground. For all other conditions, no efficiency factor shall be applied when comparing the total resistance for the equivalent pier with the cumulative resistance from the individual shafts.

The resistance factors to be applied for the equivalent pier evaluation shall be 0.60 (AASHTO, 2009). Resistance factors for summation of the individual shaft resistances shall be those provided in EPG 751.37.3.1 through EPG 751.37.3.8.

'''Group Effects in Rock'''

For shafts deriving resistance predominantly from rock, the nominal resistance of the pile group shall be taken as the lesser of the following:

:* The nominal resistance of an equivalent pier consisting of the shafts and the block of soil/rock within the area bounded by the shafts, or

:* The sum of the nominal resistances for each individual shaft in the group.

No efficiency factor shall be applied to the individual pile resistances when evaluating the latter condition.

==751.37.4 Design for Axial Loading at Serviceability Limit States==
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.4 Design for Axial Loading at Serviceability Limit States|Commentary for EPG 751.37.Commentary on EPG 751.37.4 Design for Axial Loading at Serviceability Limit States]]'''
|}
Drilled shafts shall be dimensioned so that there is a small likelihood that shafts will settle more than tolerable settlements, generally established from consideration of span length. This shall be accomplished by comparing a factored settlement computed for a shaft with dimensions established from EPG 751.37.3 with an established tolerable settlement. If the factored total settlement determined from these provisions is found to be less than or equal to the tolerable settlement, i.e. if
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\delta_R \le \delta_{tol}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of lengths)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.1
|}

where:

:''δ<sub>R</sub>'' = factored total settlement (consistent units of length) and

:''δ<sub>tol</sub>'' = tolerable settlement (consistent units of length),

the limit state is satisfied and the probability of shaft settlement exceeding the tolerable settlement is less than or equal to the target probability established by MoDOT. If the factored total settlement is determined to exceed the tolerable settlement, the probability of foundation settlement exceeding the tolerable value is greater than the target probability established by MoDOT. In such cases, the shaft dimensions shall be increased until the factored total settlement is less than or equal to the tolerable settlement.

Resistance factors provided in this article were established to produce factored settlements that have a target probability of being exceeded. Target probabilities of exceedance were established by MoDOT for structures of different operational importance. Additional information regarding development of the resistance factors and application of the resistance factors for settlement calculations are provided in the commentary that accompanies these guidelines.

For this provision, the tolerable settlement shall be taken as
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\delta_{tol} = \frac{S}{476}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of lengths)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.2
|}

where:

:''δ<sub>tol</sub>'' = tolerable settlement (consistent units of length) and
:''S'' = span between adjacent bridge bents (consistent units of length).

Factored settlements shall be determined as provided in this article. Settlement shall be evaluated for the Service I limit state.

Two alternative approaches are provided in these guidelines for determining the factored total settlement of drilled shafts. The first approach is based on an approximate factored load-settlement relationship for an individual shaft. The second approach utilizes the “t-z” method to predict the factored settlement for the shaft. Greater factored settlements will generally be predicted using the approximate method both because it tends to be conservative at working loads and because it involves greater variability and uncertainty. It is expected that the approximate method will generally be used for preliminary evaluation of settlement. If the settlement determined from the approximate method satisfies the serviceability requirement of Equation 751.37.4.1, the shaft dimensions can be considered acceptable. If use of the approximate method produces factored settlements that do not satisfy Equation 751.37.4.1, designers should consider performing evaluations using the more precise t-z method to evaluate whether serviceability is satisfied prior to increasing the dimensions of the shaft to satisfy serviceability requirements.

===751.37.4.1 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using Approximate Method===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.4.1 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using Approximate Method|Commentary on EPG 751.37.4.1 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using Approximate Method]]'''
|}

Prediction of factored settlement due to factored service loads shall be determined as follows depending on the magnitude of factored loads relative to the magnitude of factored side and tip resistance:

If <math>\gamma Q \le R_{sR} + 0.1 R_{pR}</math>:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\delta_R = 0.005 \cdot D \cdot \frac{\gamma Q}{R_{sR} + 0.1 R_{pR}} + \delta_{eR}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of lengths)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.3
|}

where:

:<math>\boldsymbol\gamma Q</math> = factored load for the appropriate serviceability limit state (consistent units of force),

:''R<sub>sR</sub>'' = total factored side resistance determined according to the provisions of this article (consistent units of force),

:''R<sub>pR</sub>'' = factored tip resistance determined according to the provisions of this article (consistent units of force),

:''δ<sub>R</sub>'' = factored total settlement of shaft due to factored service loads (consistent units of length),

:''D'' = shaft diameter (consistent units of length) and

:''δ<sub>eR</sub>'' = factored elastic compression of the unsupported length of the shaft (consistent units of length).

If <math>R_{sR} + 0.1 R_{pR} \le \gamma Q \le R_{sR} + R_{pR}</math> :

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\delta_R = 0.005 \cdot D + 0.045 \cdot D \cdot \Big(\frac{\gamma Q - R_{sR} - 0.1 R_{pR}}{0.9 \cdot R_{pR}}\Big) + \delta_{eR}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of lengths)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.4
|}

where:

:<math>\boldsymbol\gamma Q</math> = factored load for the appropriate serviceability limit state (consistent units of force),

:''R<sub>sR</sub>'' = total factored side resistance determined according to the provisions of this article (consistent units of force),

:''R<sub>pR</sub>'' = factored tip resistance determined according to the provisions of this article (consistent units of force),

:''δ<sub>R</sub>'' = factored total settlement of shaft due to factored service load (consistent units of length),

:''D'' = shaft diameter (consistent units of length) and

:''δ<sub>eR</sub>'' = factored elastic compression of the unsupported length of the shaft (consistent units of length).

Note that if <math>\gamma Q \ge R_{sR} + R_{pR}</math>, the factored service load exceeds the maximum factored resistance of the shaft and the limit state cannot be satisfied without increasing the dimensions of the shaft.

The factored side resistance in Equations 751.37.4.3 and 751.37.4.4 shall be established from factored unit side resistance values for the relevant soil/rock conditions as provided in this article. For stratified ground conditions or where the shaft dimensions change (e.g. at tip of temporary or permanent casing, or at top of rock socket), the shaft shall be divided into segments with practically uniform shaft geometry and soil/rock properties and unit side resistance values determined for each shaft segment. The total factored side resistance shall then be computed as the sum of the factored resistance values for each shaft segment:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>R_{sR} = \textstyle \sum_{i=1}^n \big( q_{sR-1} \cdot A_{s-i} \big) = \textstyle \sum_{i-1}^n \big( \phi_{\delta s - i} \cdot q_{s-i} \cdot \pi \cdot D_i \cdot L_i \big)</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.5
|}

where:

:''n'' = number of shaft segments,

:<math>q_{sR-i} = \phi_{\delta s-i} \cdot q_{s-i}</math> = factored unit side resistance for shaft segment i (consistent units of stress),

:<math>A_{s-i} = \pi \cdot D_i \cdot L_i</math> = perimeter interface area for shaft segment i (consistent units of area),

:<math>\boldsymbol \phi_{\delta s-i}</math> = settlement resistance factor for side resistance along shaft segment i (dimensionless),

:''q<sub>s-i</sub>'' = nominal unit side resistance along shaft segment i (consistent units of stress),

:''D<sub>i</sub>'' = shaft diameter for shaft segment i (consistent units of length) and

:''L<sub>i</sub>'' = length of shaft segment i (consistent units of length).

Values for ''q<sub>s-i</sub>'' shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of [[#751.37.3 Design for Axial Loading at Strength Limit State|EPG 751.37.3]], based on the material type present along the respective shaft segments. Values for <math>\boldsymbol \phi_{\delta s-i}</math> shall be established as provided subsequently in this article. Side resistance shall generally be neglected or reduced, as recommended by the Geotechnical Section, over shaft segments with permanent casing and over any length of rock socket that is deemed unusable for consistency with evaluations performed for strength limit states.

The factored tip resistance in Equations 751.37.4.3 and 751.37.4.4 shall be established from factored unit tip resistance values for the relevant soil/rock conditions as provided in this article. The appropriate tip resistance shall be established for the soil/rock located between the tip of the shaft and a distance of 2D below the tip of the shaft. The factored tip resistance shall be computed as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>R_{pR} = q_{pR} \cdot A_p = \phi_{\delta p} \cdot q_p \cdot \pi \cdot \frac{D^2}{4}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.6
|}

where:

:<math>q_{pR} = \phi_{\delta p} \cdot q_p</math> = factored unit tip resistance (consistent units of stress),

:<math>A_p = \pi \cdot \frac{D^2}{4}</math> = cross-sectional area of the shaft at the tip (consistent units of area),

:<math>\boldsymbol \phi_{\delta p}</math> = settlement resistance factor for tip resistance (dimensionless),

:''q<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal unit tip resistance (consistent units of stress) and

:''D'' = shaft diameter at the tip of the shaft (consistent units of length).

The value for ''q<sub>p</sub>'' shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of [[#751.37.3 Design for Axial Loading at Strength Limit State|EPG 751.37.3]], based on the material type present within a depth of 2''D'' below the tip of the shaft. The value for <math>\boldsymbol \phi_{\delta p}</math> shall be established as provided subsequently in this article. For consistency with evaluations for strength limit states, tip resistance shall be neglected, as recommended by the Geotechnical Section, when the shaft tip is located within karstic rock or other conditions where tip resistance cannot be reliably determined.

The factored elastic compression of the unsupported length of the shaft shall be determined as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\delta_{eR} = \frac{\gamma Q (L-L_s)}{\phi_{\delta e} \cdot E_p A_p}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of length)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.7
|}

where:

:''δ<sub>eR</sub>'' = factored elastic compression of the unsupported length of the shaft (consistent units of length),

:<math>\boldsymbol\gamma Q </math> = factored load for the appropriate serviceability limit state (consistent units of force),

:''L'' = overall shaft length (consistent units of length),

:''L<sub>s</sub>'' = length of the rock socket (consistent units of length),

:''E<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal modulus of elasticity for the shaft (consistent units of stress),

:''A<sub>p</sub>'' = nominal shaft area (consistent units of area) and

:<math>\boldsymbol\phi_{\boldsymbol\delta e}</math> = settlement resistance factor for elastic compression of the shaft.

Values for the settlement resistance factor for elastic compression of the shaft shall be taken from Table 751.37.4.1 according to the operational importance of the structure.

====<center>''Table 751.37.4.1 Settlement resistance factors for elastic compression of drilled shafts''</center>====
{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
|+
! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Operational Importance !! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Settlement Resistance Factor, ''Φ<sub>δe</sub>''
|-
|Minor or Low Volume Route || align="center"|0.68
|-
|Major Route ||align="center"|0.64
|-
|Major Bridge <$100 million ||align="center"| 0.61
|-
|Major Bridge >$100 million||align="center"| 0.60
|}

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for Approximate Method for Drilled Shafts in Rock'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.1 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean uniaxial compressive strength, <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}}</math>. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.2 based on values for <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.1.1 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.1 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in rock from uniaxial compression test measurements using approximate method. '''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.1.2 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.2 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in rock from uniaxial compression test measurements using approximate method. '''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for Approximate Method for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through weak rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.3 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean uniaxial compressive strength, <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}}</math>. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.4 based on values for <math>COV_{\overline {q_u}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.1.3 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.3 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from uniaxial compression test measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.1.4 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.4 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from uniaxial compression test measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for Approximate Method for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Test Measurements'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through weak rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.5 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean equivalent SPT ''N''-value, <math>COV_{\overline {N_{eq}}}</math>. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {N_{eq}}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean equivalent ''N''-value over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.6 based on values for <math>COV_{\overline {N_{eq}}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean equivalent ''N''-value over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.1.5 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.5 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Standard Penetration Test measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.1.6 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.6 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Standard Penetration Test measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for Approximate Method for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Test Measurements'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through weak rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.7 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean ''TCP''-value, <math>COV_{\overline {TCP}}</math>. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {TCP}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean ''TCP''-value over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.8 based on values for <math>COV_{\overline {TCP}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean TCP-value over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.1.7 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.7 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Texas Cone Penetration Test measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.1.8 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.8 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Texas Cone Penetration Test measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for Approximate Method for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Test Measurements'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through weak rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.9 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>''-value, <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math>. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>''-value for the rock over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.10 based on values for <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>''-value for the rock over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.1.9 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.9 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Point Load Index Test measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.1.10 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.10 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Point Load Index Test measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for Approximate Method for Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through cohesive soil shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.11 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean undrained shear strength, <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math>. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean undrained shear strength for the soil over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on cohesive soil shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.1.12 based on values for <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean undrained shear strength for the soil over the distance 2''D'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.1.11 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.11 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in cohesive soil from undrained shear strength measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.1.12 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.1.12 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in cohesive soil from undrained shear strength measurements using approximate method.'''</center>]]

For shafts founded in soft cohesive soils, consideration shall also be given to including additional settlement induced from time dependent consolidation of the soil.

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for Approximate Method for Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils'''

Settlement evaluations for individual drilled shafts in cohesionless soils shall be designed according to applicable sections of the current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.

===751.37.4.2 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using t-z Method===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.4.2 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using t-z Method|Commentary on EPG 751.37.4.2 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using t-z Method]]'''
|}
The “t-z method” is a numerical method for predicting the axial load-displacement response of drilled shafts and other deep foundation members (Reese et al., 2006). The analyses can be performed using commercial specialty software, such as TZPile©, or using common spreadsheet software. Regardless of the method of implementation, the analyses require specification of t-z models that reflect the load transfer characteristics for side resistance, “q-w” models that reflect the load transfer characteristics for tip resistance, and shaft characteristics that reflect the stiffness of the shaft relative to the surrounding soil/rock.

Prediction of factored settlements using the t-z method according to these provisions shall be accomplished by performing t-z analysis using factored t-z and q-w models models as described in more detail in the commentary to this article. The top of shaft settlement predicted using the t-z method for a shaft subjected to the factored service loads and modeled using factored t-z and q-w models shall be taken as the factored total settlement, ''δ<sub>R</sub>'', for use in Equation 751.37.4.1.

Factored t-z models shall be established from a nominal, unfactored t-z model selected to represent the load transfer response in side resistance for relevant soil/rock conditions as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>t_R(z) = \phi_{\delta s} \cdot t(z)</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of stress)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.8
|}

where:

:''t<sub>R</sub>(z)'' = factored t-z model for input into analyses using the t-z method (consistent units of stress),

:''z'' = relative displacement between the shaft and the soil/rock along the length of the shaft (consistent units of length),

:''<math>\boldsymbol\phi_{\delta s}</math>'' = settlement resistance factor for side resistance (dimensionless) and

:''t(z)'' = nominal t-z model selected to represent relevant soil/rock conditions (consistent units of stress).

Values for ''<math>\boldsymbol\phi_{\delta s}</math>'' shall be established according to the soil/rock type and available site characterization data as provided subsequently in this article.

Factored q-w models shall similarly be established from a nominal, unfactored q-w model selected to represent the load transfer response in tip resistance for relevant soil/rock conditions as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>q_R (w) = \phi_{\delta p} \cdot q(w)</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of stress)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.9
|}

where:

:''q<sub>R</sub>(w)'' = factored q-w model for input into analyses using the t-z method (consistent units of stress),

:''w'' = relative displacement between the shaft and the soil/rock at the shaft tip (consistent units of length),

:<math>\boldsymbol\phi_{\delta p}</math> = settlement resistance factor for tip resistance (dimensionless), and

:''q(w)'' = nominal q-w model selected to represent relevant soil/rock conditions at the tip of the shaft (consistent units of stress).

Values for <math>\boldsymbol\phi_{\delta p}</math> shall be established according to the soil/rock type and available site characterization data as provided subsequently in this article.

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for t-z Method for Drilled Shafts in Rock'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.1 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean uniaxial compressive strength, <math>COV \overline{q_u}</math>. Values for <math>COV \overline{q_u}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.2 based on values for <math>COV \overline{q_u}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.2.1 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.1 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in rock from uniaxial compression test measurements using t-z method'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.2.2 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.2 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in rock from uniaxial compression test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for t-z Method for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through weak rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.3 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean uniaxial compressive strength, <math>COV \overline{q_u}</math>. Values for <math>COV \overline{q_u}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.4 based on values for <math>COV \overline{q_u}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.2.3 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.3 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from uniaxial compression test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.2.4 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.4 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from uniaxial compression test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for t-z Method for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Test Measurements'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through weak rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.5 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean equivalent SPT ''N''-value, <math>COV \overline{N_{eq}}</math>. Values for <math>COV \overline{N_{eq}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.6 based on values for <math>COV \overline{N_{eq}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.2.5 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig.751.37.4.2.5 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Standard Penetration Test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.2.6 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig.751.37.4.2.6 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Standard Penetration Test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for t-z Method for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Test Measurements'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through weak rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.7 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean ''TCP''-value, <math>COV_{\overline{TCP}}</math>. Values for <math>COV_{\overline{TCP}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.8 based on values for <math>COV_{\overline{TCP}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.2.7 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.7 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Texas Cone Penetration Test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.2.8 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.8 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Texas Cone Penetration Test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for t-z Method for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Test Measurements'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through weak rock shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.9 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>''-value, <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math>. Values for <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on weak rock shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.10 based on values for <math>COV_{\overline {I_{s(50)}}}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean uniaxial compressive strength for the rock over the distance 2''D<sub>s</sub>'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.2.9 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.9 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Point Load Index Test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.2.10 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.10 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in weak rock from Point Load Index Test measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for t-z Method for Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils'''

Settlement resistance factors to be applied to side resistance for shaft segments through cohesive soil shall be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.11 based on the coefficient of variation of the mean undrained shear strength, <math>COV \overline{s_u}</math>. Values for <math>COV \overline{s_u}</math> shall be determined in accordance with [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]] to reflect the variability of the mean undrained shear strength for the soil over the shaft segment. Settlement resistance factors to be applied to tip resistance for shafts founded on cohesive soil shall similarly be determined from Figure 751.37.4.2.12 based on values for <math>COV \overline{s_u}</math> that reflect the variability of the mean undrained shear strength for the soil over the distance 2''D'' below the tip of the shaft.

[[image:751.37.4.2.11 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.11 Settlement resistance factors for side resistance of drilled shafts in cohesive soil from undrained shear strength measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

[[image:751.37.4.2.12 2021.jpg|center|700px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 751.37.4.2.12 Settlement resistance factors for tip resistance of drilled shafts in cohesive soil from undrained shear strength measurements using t-z method.'''</center>]]

For shafts founded in soft cohesive soils, consideration shall also be given to including additional settlement induced from time dependent consolidation of the soil.

'''Settlement Resistance Factors for t-z Method for Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils'''

Settlement evaluations for individual drilled shafts in cohesionless soils shall be designed according to applicable sections of the current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.

===751.37.4.3 Settlement of Drilled Shafts in Groups===
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.4.3 Settlement of Drilled Shafts in Groups|Commentary on EPG 751.37.4.3 Settlement of Drilled Shafts in Groups]]'''
|}
'''Settlement of Shaft Groups in Cohesive Soils'''

Settlement of shaft groups in cohesive soils shall be estimated according to EPG 751.38.4.3 using the “equivalent footing” approach described in LRFD 10.7.2.3.

'''Settlement of Shaft Groups in Cohesionless Soils Using Standard Penetration Test Measurements'''

Settlement for drilled shaft groups in cohesionless soils can be estimated from SPT measurements as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\rho = qI\frac{\sqrt{B}}{(N_1)_{60}}</math>||align="center"| (inches)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.10
|}

where:

:''ρ'' = settlement of shaft group (inches),

:''q'' = net foundation pressure applied at depth of ''D'''(ksf),

:''B'' = width or smallest dimension of shaft group (feet),

:''I'' = 1 - 0.125(''D'/B'') ≥ 0.5 = influence factor of the effective group embedment (dimensionless),

:''(N<sub>1</sub>)<sub>60</sub>'' = SPT blow count corrected for overburden stress and hammer efficiency (blows/foot),

:''D'' = 2''D<sub>b</sub>''/3 = effective depth of “equivalent footing” and

:''D<sub>b</sub>'' = depth of embedment of shafts in layer that provides support.

The value for ''(N<sub>1</sub>)<sub>60</sub>'' is determined as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>(N_1)_{60} = C_N \cdot N \Big( \frac{ER}{60%}\Big)</math>||align="center"| (blows/foot)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.11
|}

where:

:''C<sub>N</sub>'' = <math>\Big[ 0.77 log_{10} \Big(\frac{40}{\sigma^'_v}\Big)\Big] \le 2.0</math> = correction factor to account for overburden stress (dimensionless),

:''ER'' = hammer efficiency expressed as percentage of theoretical free fall energy for hammer system actually used (percent) and

:''N'' = uncorrected SPT blow count (blows/foot).

'''Settlement of Shaft Groups in Cohesionless Soils Using Cone Penetration Test Measurements'''

Settlement for drilled shaft groups in cohesionless soils can be estimated from CPT measurements as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\rho = \frac{qBI}{2q_c}</math>||align="center"| (inches)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.4.12
|}

where:

:''ρ'' = settlement of shaft group (inches),

:''q'' = net foundation pressure applied at depth of D'(ksf),

:''B'' = width or smallest dimension of shaft group (feet),

:''I'' = 1 - 0.125(''D'/B'') ≥ 0.5 = influence factor of the effective group embedment (dimensionless),

:''q<sub>c</sub>'' = static cone tip resistance (ksf),

:''D'' = 2''D<sub>b</sub>''/3 = effective depth of “equivalent footing” and

:''D<sub>b</sub>'' = depth of embedment of shafts in layer that provides support.

'''Settlement of Shaft Groups in Rock'''

Settlement of shaft groups in rock shall be estimated according to EPG 751.38.4.2 using the “equivalent footing” approach described in LRFD 10.7.2.3.

==751.37.5 Design for Lateral Loading at Strength and Service Limit States==
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.5 Design for Lateral Loading at Strength and Service Limit States|Commentary on EPG 751.37.5 Design for Lateral Loading at Strength and Service Limit States]]'''
|}
The Strength Limit State and applicable Extreme Event Limit States shall be investigated when calculating the soil and structural resistance of the drilled shaft for lateral loading. The Service I Limit State shall be used when evaluating lateral deflection.

Design lateral movements should not exceed approximately 1.5 in. at the top of the shaft at the Service I Limit State.

To analyze laterally loaded drilled shafts, the point of fixity of the drilled shaft must be estimated. This location may be estimated by using a computer program. This is an iterative process that requires first assuming a point of fixity so that the bent stiffness may be calculated. The stiffness of the bent may be found by modeling the bent in a structural analysis program, applying a load to the middle of the beam cap and measuring the amount of deflection caused by the load. The method shown in [[751.2 Loads#751.2.4.6 Longitudinal Wind Force Distribution |EPG 751.2.4.6 Loads - Longitudinal Wind Force Distribution]] and [[751.2 Loads#751.2.4.7 Longitudinal Temperature Force Distribution |EPG 751.2.4.7 Loads - Longitudinal Temperature Force Distribution]] for modeling the stiffness, E'I, of a cast in place (C.I.P.) pile may also be used to model a drilled shaft. The moment of inertia of the bent is then found by:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>I = \frac{\big(\frac{P}{\delta}\big) L^3}{3E}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of length<sup>4</sup>)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.5.1
|}

where:

:''I'' = moment of inertia for the bridge bent (consistent units of length<sup>4</sup>),

:''P'' = load applied to the middle of the beam cap (consistent units of force),

:''L'' = length from point of fixity of shaft to middle of beam cap (consistent units of length),

:''δ'' = deflection caused by load P (consistent units of length) and

:''E'' = modulus of elasticity of concrete (consistent units of stress).

The ''E'' and ''I'' values used in the above equation shall also be used for longitudinal force distribution calculations.

The longitudinal forces applied to the bent can be calculated once the moment of inertia of the bent is known. Once loads are obtained, they can be input into computer software to get a point of fixity.

If the point of fixity is different than what was assumed to obtain the original bent stiffness, the bent stiffness shall be re-calculated with a new assumed point of fixity and this process continued until the point of fixity converges. As a rule of thumb, shafts socketed into rock are usually fixed near to the soil-rock interface.

The location of the point of fixity should be considered to be only an <u>approximation</u>. Many factors influence the actual location of the point of fixity. The thickness of the casing, scour and actual geotechnical properties could cause different results for the actual location of the point of fixity.

==751.37.6 Structural Resistance of Drilled Shafts==
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.6 Structural Resistance of Drilled Shafts|Commentary on EPG 751.37.6 Structural Resistance of Drilled Shafts]]'''
|}
===751.37.6.1 Reinforcement Design===

Drilled shaft structural resistance shall be designed similarly to reinforced concrete columns. The Strength Limit State and applicable Extreme Event Limit State load combinations shall be used in the reinforcement design.

Longitudinal reinforcing steel shall extend below the point of fixity of the drilled shaft at least 10 ft. in accordance with LRFD 10.8.3.9.3 or the required bar development length whichever is larger.

If permanent casing is used, and the shell consists of smooth pipe greater than 0.12 in. thick, it may be considered load carrying. An 1/8" shall be subtracted off of the shell thickness to account for corrosion. Casing could also be corrugated metal pipe. If casing is assumed to contribute to the structural resistance, the plans should indicate the minimum thickness and type of casing required.

Minimum clear spacing between longitudinal bars as well as between transverse bars shall not be less than five times the maximum aggregate size or 5 in. (LRFD 10.8.3.9.3).

For minimum concrete cover for drilled shaft, see [http://www.modot.org/business/standards_and_specs/SpecbookEPG.pdf#page=11 Sec 701.4.12.1]. If drilled shaft diameter does not match Sec 701.4.12.1 then use concrete cover for the next greater diameter drilled shaft. For rock sockets use 3” min. clear cover.

For longitudinal reinforcement, splicing shall be in accordance with LRFD 5.10.8.4.

For transverse reinforcement, lap splices for closed circular stirrups/ties shall be provided and staggered in accordance with LRFD 5.10.4.3. Lap length of 1.3 '''l'''<sub>d</sub> (Class B) for closed stirrups/ties shall be provided in accordance with LRFD 5.10.8.2.6d.

For lap length, see [[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.8.1 Development and Lap Splice General|EPG 751.5.9.2.8.1 Development and Lap Splice General]].

===751.37.6.2 Longitudinal Reinforcement===

Longitudinal reinforcement shall be designed to resist bending in the shaft due to lateral loads. The cross-sectional area for longitudinal reinforcement shall fall within the following limits:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left" rowspan="2"|<math>\frac{0.135 A_g f^'_c}{f_y} \le A_{steel} \le 0.08 A_g</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of stress)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.6.1
|-
|align="center"|''' LRFD 5.7.4.2'''||
|}

where:

:''A<sub>g</sub>'' = gross cross-sectional area of drilled shaft (consistent units of area),

:''f'<sub>c</sub>'' = concrete compressive strength (consistent units of stress),

:''f<sub>y</sub>'' = yield strength of steel reinforcement (consistent units of stress) and

:''A<sub>steel</sub>'' = cross-sectional area of longitudinal steel reinforcement (consistent units of area).

MoDOT prefers to follow LRFD 5.7.4.2 for drilled shafts since for typical cases, the potential exists for load transfer between the concrete and steel casing. (The minimum area of reinforcement based on LRFD is 10 percent less than ACI for f’<sub>c</sub> = 4 ksi).

===751.37.6.3 Factored Axial Resistance===

The factored axial resistance of a drilled shaft shall be determined as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>P_R = \phi P_N \ge \gamma Q</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.6.2
|}

where:

:''P<sub>R</sub>'' = factored axial resistance of drilled shaft (consistent units of force),

:''P<sub>N</sub>'' = nominal axial resistance of drilled shaft (consistent units of force),

:<math>\boldsymbol\phi</math> = 0.75 = resistance factor for axial resistance of drilled shaft (dimensionless) and

:<math>\boldsymbol\gamma Q</math> = factored axial load (consistent units of force).

For shafts with spiral reinforcement, the nominal axial resistance shall be computed as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>P_N = 0.85 \Big[ 0.85 f^'_c \big(A_g - A_{steel}\big) + A_{steel}f_y \Big]</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.6.3
|}

where:

:''A<sub>g</sub>'' = gross cross-sectional area of drilled shaft (consistent units of area),

:''f'<sub>c</sub>'' = concrete compressive strength (consistent units of stress),

:''f<sub>y</sub>'' = yield strength of steel reinforcement (consistent units of stress) and

:''A<sub>steel</sub>'' = cross-sectional area of longitudinal steel reinforcement (consistent units of area).

For shafts with tie reinforcement, the nominal axial resistance shall be computed as

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>P_N = 0.80 \Big[ 0.85 f^'_c \big(A_g - A_{steel}\big) + A_{steel}f_y \Big]</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.6.4
|}

where:

:''A<sub>g</sub>'' = gross cross-sectional area of drilled shaft (consistent units of area),

:''f'<sub>c</sub>'' = concrete compressive strength (consistent units of stress),

:''f<sub>y</sub>'' = yield strength of steel reinforcement (consistent units of stress) and

:''A<sub>steel</sub>'' = cross-sectional area of longitudinal steel reinforcement (consistent units of area).

===751.37.6.4 Transverse Reinforcement===

Minimum transverse reinforcement shall be designed to resist the potential of diagonal cracking and improve ductility, and to control the stability of the reinforcement cage. Follow the four-step procedure, below:

'''No. 1. Determine if Transverse Reinforcement is Required for Loading'''

:If
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="900"
|-
|align="left"|<math>V_u > 0.5 \boldsymbol\phi V_c</math>,||align="left|then go to No. 2a, below,<br/>otherwise, go to No. 2b.|| align="center"| (consistent units of force) '''(LRFD 5.8.2.4)'''||align="right"|Equation 751.37.6.4.1
|}

:where:

::''V<sub>u</sub>'' = factored shear force (consistent units of force),

::<math>V_c = 0.0316\beta \sqrt{f^'_c} b_v d_v</math> = approximate shear resistance of drilled shaft (consistent units of force),

::''Φ'' = 0.9 = resistance factor for shear resistance of drilled shaft (dimensionless),

::''β'' = 2.0,

::''b<sub>v</sub>'' = D = shaft diameter (consistent units of length),

::''d<sub>v</sub>'' = 0.9 (''D''/2 + ''D<sub>r</sub>'' /π) and

::''D<sub>r</sub>'' = diameter of circle passing through the centers of the longitudinal reinforcement (consistent units of length). See commentary for LRFD C5.8.2.9-2.

'''No. 2. Determine Minimum Transverse Reinforcement'''

:'''a)''' Minimum transverse reinforcement to control shear diagonal cracking and increase ductility:

:The minimum amount of transverse reinforcement shall satisfy the following equation if transverse reinforcement is required for loading in No. 1, otherwise go to No. 2b:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>A_v \ge 0.0316 \sqrt{f^'_c}\frac{b_vs}{f_y}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units)||align="Center"|'''(LRFD 5.8.2.5)''' ||align="right"|Equation 751.37.6.4.2
|}

:where:

:''A<sub>v</sub>'' = area of transverse reinforcement within distance s (consistent units of area),

:''s'' = spacing of transverse reinforcement (consistent units of length),

:''b<sub>v</sub>'' = ''D'' = shaft diameter (consistent units of length),

:''f'<sub>c</sub>'' = concrete compressive strength (consistent units of stress) and

:''f<sub>y</sub>'' = yield strength of steel reinforcement (consistent units of stress).

:'''b)''' Minimum transverse reinforcement to control stability of cage before and during placement:

:Use minimum #4 @ 12” stirrups for reinforcing cage ≤ 4 ft. diameter and minimum #5 @ 12” stirrups for reinforcing cage > 4 ft. diameter (FHWA-NHI-10-016) unless transverse reinforcement needs to be designed as in No. 1. If transverse reinforcement needs to be designed as in No. 1, then provide the controlling transverse reinforcement area required by EPG 751.37.6.4 No. 2a, 2b and [[#751.37.6.5 Factored Shear Resistance|EPG 751.37.6.5 Factored Shear Resistance]].

:All shafts, cased or uncased, or where casing is used for strength, shall be transversely reinforced.

'''No. 3. Determine Maximum Transverse Reinforcement Spacing:'''

:The maximum transverse reinforcement spacing shall be ≤ 12” to provide crack control without consideration for casing. MoDOT does not implement LRFD 5.8.2.7 maximum spacing of transverse reinforcement requirements for typical shaft sizes. However, for small shafts where LRFD 5.8.2.7 will control, it should be directly implemented.

<div id="No. 4. Determine Maximum"></div>
'''No. 4. Determine Maximum Transverse Shaft Reinforcement Spacing at the Anchorage of Column Reinforcement: '''

:For columns with longitudinal reinforcement anchored into oversized shafts, in the anchorage region, the spacing of the transverse shaft reinforcement shall meet the requirements of the following equation:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>S_{max}=\frac{2\pi A_{sp}f_{ytr}l_s}{kA_lf_{ul}}</math>||align="center"| (consistent units)||align="Center"|'''(LRFD 5.11.5.2.1-1)''' ||align="right"|Equation 751.37.6.4.3
|}

:where:

::''S<sub>max</sub>'' = maximum spacing of transverse shaft reinforcement (consistent units of length),
::''A<sub>sp</sub>'' = area of transverse shaft reinforcement (consistent units of area),
::''f<sub>ytr</sub>'' = yield strength of transverse shaft reinforcement (consistent units of stress),
::''ℓ<sub>s</sub>'' = required lap splice of the longitudinal column reinforcement (consistent units of length),
::''k'' = ratio of column tensile reinforcement to total column reinforcement at the nominal resistance,
::''A<sub>ℓ</sub>'' = area of longitudinal column reinforcement (consistent units of area), and
::''f<sub>uℓ</sub>'' = tensile strength of longitudinal column reinforcement (consistent units of stress).

===751.37.6.5 Factored Shear Resistance===

The factored shear resistance of a drilled shaft shall be determined as:

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>V_R = \phi \big(V_c + V_s\big)</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation 751.37.6.4.4
|}

where:

:''V<sub>R</sub>'' = factored shear resistance of drilled shaft (consistent units of force),

:''V<sub>c</sub>''= nominal shear resistance from concrete (consistent units of force),

:''V<sub>s</sub>'' = <math>\frac{A_v f_y d_v cot\theta}{s}</math> = shear resistance from transverse shear reinforcement. (For A<sub>v</sub>, use transverse reinforcement area from [[#751.37.6.4 Transverse Reinforcement|EPG 751.37.6.4 Transverse Reinforcement]] and increase reinforcement area as needed to meet design requirements. (consistent units of force),

:''Φ'' = 0.9 = resistance factor for shear resistance of drilled shaft (dimensionless),

:''A<sub>v</sub>'' = area of transverse shear reinforcement within distance s (consistent units of area),

:''f<sub>y</sub>'' = yield strength of steel reinforcement (consistent units of stress),

:''θ'' = 45° = angle of inclination of diagonal compressive stresses (degrees),

:''d<sub>v</sub>'' = 0.9 (''D''/2 + ''D<sub>r</sub>'' /''π'') and

:''D<sub>r</sub>'' = diameter of circle passing through the centers of the longitudinal reinforcement (consistent units of length). See commentary for LRFD C5.8.2.9-2.

==751.37.7 References==
{|style="padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5" width="250px" align="right"
|-
|align="center"|'''[[#Commentary on EPG 751.37.7 References|Commentary on EPG 751.37.7 References]]'''
|}
AASHTO (2009), ''AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification: Customary U.S. Units'', American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Fourth Edition with 2008 and 2009 Interim Revisions.

Hoek, E., and E.T. Brown (1988), “The Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion – A 1988 Update,” ''Proceedings of the 15th Canadian Rock Mechanics Symposium'', Toronto, Canada.

Hoek, E., C. Carranza-Torres, and B. Corkum (2002), “Hoek and Brown Failure Criterion – 2002 Edition,” ''Proceedings of NARMS-TAC Conference'', Toronto, Canada.

Horvath, R.G., and T.C. Kenney (1979), “Shaft Resistance of Rock Socketed Drilled Piers,” ''Proceedings of the Symposium on Deep Foundations'', ASCE, pp. 182-214.

Loehr, J.E., B.L. Rosenblad, and T.T. Vu (2011a), ''MoDOT Transportation Geotechnics Research Program: Drilled Shaft Axial Load Test Program Interpretation Report'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Loehr, J.E., S.A. Grant, and B.L. Rosenblad (2011b), ''Calibration of Resistance Factors for Design of Drilled Shafts at Strength Limit States Using Laboratory Test Measurements'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

O’Neill, M.W., and L.C. Reese (1999), ''Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods'', Report No. FHWA-IF-99-025, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, 758 pp.

Pierce, M.D., J.E. Loehr, and B.L. Rosenblad (2011), ''Calibration of LRFD Resistance Factors for Design of Drilled Shafts at Strength Limit States Using In situ Test Measurements'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Reese, L.C., W.M. Isenhower, and S-T Wang (2006), ''Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations'', John Wiley and Sons, 574 pp.

Wyllie, D.C. (1999), ''Foundations on Rock'', E & FN Spon, Second Edition, 401 pp.

==751.37.8 Commentary==
===Commentary on [[#751.37.1 General|EPG 751.37.1 General]]===

These guidelines were developed from prior EPG guidelines with notable changes to the general approach for application of LRFD techniques as well as updated resistance factors based on probabilistic calibrations. Calibration analyses were performed following generally accepted procedures for calibration of resistance factors for geotechnical applications, but with modifications to permit several enhancements to be implemented. The most notable enhancements provided in the guidelines include:

:* Use of resistance factors that are dependent upon the variability and uncertainty that exists in select design properties

:* Adoption of different target reliability levels for foundations of structures of different operational importance.

Both of these enhancements are expected to produce efficient foundation designs while still maintaining appropriate safety and reliability for all classes of operational importance. Additional information regarding development of the methods provided in these guidelines can be found in Loehr et al. (2011b), Pierce et al. (2011), and Vu and Loehr (2011). Additional information regarding target reliability values established for different classes of operational importance is provided in Bowders et al. (2011).

The four classes of operational importance include:
:* Minor or low volume route
:* Major route
:* Major bridge costing less than $100 million
:* Major bridge costing greater than $100 million.

These classifications are based on common MoDOT designations. The target reliability levels established for each limit state and operational importance were generally based upon consideration of highway bridges. However, the methods provided in this article can also be utilized for design of foundations for other structures including retaining walls and roadway signs.

Calibration analyses performed to establish the resistance factors presented in these guidelines were performed using the latest knowledge of variability and uncertainty in applied loads (Kulicki et al., 2007), as well as using load factors that are currently in effect. The resistance factors provided in these guidelines are intended to produce foundations with reliabilities that are approximately equal to the target reliabilities established by MoDOT when utilized with current load factors. Since it is the combined effect of load and resistance factors that produce this reliability, the resistance factors provided are inherently coupled with current load factors and are contingent upon the uncertainty and variability in the applied loads that were presumed for the calibrations. As such, recalibration of resistance factors is required if alternative load factors are adopted, or if substantial revisions to current estimates of load variability and uncertainty are found.

It is important to emphasize that the resistance factors provided in these guidelines were developed presuming that ''mean values'' would be used for all design parameters in the methods provided. This departs from past practice utilizing allowable stress design (ASD) approaches where nominal values of parameters that were less than mean values were often used to introduce conservatism into the analyses beyond that provided by the ASD factor of safety. Use of design parameters less than the mean values within the context of these guidelines will often, but not always, increase the reliability of foundation designs; however, such practice is contrary to the spirit of LRFD in that it will not produce foundations that achieve the target reliability established by MoDOT policy.

The procedures provided in these guidelines are not intended as a substitute for good judgment. Rather, the intent of these guidelines is to:

:1) inform designers of generally appropriate levels of conservatism to address the variability and uncertainty involved in different aspects of design analyses and

:2) provide quantitative methods to achieve target reliabilities for foundations depending on the variability and uncertainty present in relevant design parameters and design methods.

Designers must still use their best judgment in considering design options (e.g. foundation depth, type and size; necessity for load tests; etc.) for establishing the most appropriate foundations for bridges and other structures.

Design methods provided in these guidelines are mostly empirical methods derived from results of full-scale load tests. Application of these methods is generally restricted to geologic conditions and construction procedures similar to those represented by the load tests used to establish the methods. In particular, methods presented for prediction of nominal and factored shaft resistance in weak rock were specifically developed from load tests performed in Missouri following established MoDOT construction specifications. As such, these methods are, strictly speaking, only applicable to cases where shafts will be constructed in general accordance with current MoDOT construction specifications. Use of these guidelines for conditions or situations that depart from these restrictions is permissible, but requires that designers give consideration to the effects of differences between the specific site conditions encountered and those represented by the empirical data.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature|EPG 751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature]]====

The length to diameter ratio of drilled shafts should generally be targeted for the range 3 ≤ ''L''/''D'' ≤ 30; however, shafts with dimensions falling outside of this range can, at times, be effectively utilized.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.1.2 Materials|EPG 751.37.1.2 Materials]]====

Where possible, the concrete mix for drilled shafts should utilize MoDOT aggregate gradation E (1/2 inch minus) to improve the workability of the concrete during placement and reduce the risk of shaft defects. Special attention should also be given to concrete slump requirements to ensure the concrete has sufficient workability to completely surround the reinforcing cage without vibration. For cases where “tight cages” are required, consideration should be given to using special construction provisions to minimize the risk of concrete placement problems.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.1.3 Casing|EPG 751.37.1.3 Casing]]====

Temporary or permanent casing is commonly required to support the shaft excavation during construction to prevent caving of overburden soils. Use of permanent casing generally simplifies construction by avoiding the need for multiple cranes to simultaneously place concrete and extract the casing and reduces the risk of problems during concrete placement. However, use of either temporary or permanent casing will generally reduce the side resistance of the constructed shaft over the cased length. Alternatives to use of casing include use of mineral or polymer slurry to maintain the stability of the excavation during construction, or use of no casing and no slurry when soil/rock conditions will permit the shafts to be constructed without caving of the excavation walls.

Permanent casing may also be required to provide structural resistance, especially when lateral loads are substantial (see [[#751.37.6 Structural Resistance of Drilled Shafts|EPG 751.37.6]]). For example, permanent casing may be required to:

:* Achieve the required flexural resistance of the drilled shaft

:* Resist large lateral loads for bridges located in seismic areas

:* Facilitate shaft construction through water

:* Support the shaft excavation when there is insufficient head room available for casing recovery

====Commentary on [[#751.37.1.4 General Design Considerations|EPG 751.37.1.4 General Design Considerations]]====

''Scour ''

Appropriate methods for evaluation of scour are beyond the scope of these guidelines. However, these guidelines require that drilled shafts be designed to acceptably support the structure assuming that the foundation soil/rock is scoured to depths predicted following currently accepted practice.

''Downdrag ''

Downdrag loads should be considered any time settlement is likely to occur in soils surrounding drilled shafts. Downdrag is most commonly a concern for foundations passing through or near to approach fills overlying soft, cohesive soils where the applied load of the fill will induce settlement in the underlying soft soils. Downdrag is seldom a concern for intermediate bents away from approach fills (because there is often no loading to induce compression of the soft soils) unless settlement is likely to be induced by lowering groundwater levels.

Downdrag loads are generally fully mobilized with relatively small settlements and can be substantial. In cases where downdrag loading is significant, consideration should be given to staging construction of shafts, if timing will allow, such that shafts are installed after settlement has practically ceased or to other techniques to limit the effects of downdrag.

''Group Effects ''

The redundancy factor of LRFD 1.3.4 is not intended to account for redundancy or lack of redundancy in foundation design. The LRFD redundancy factor, ''η<sub>R</sub>'', has been a source of confusion for foundation design, especially given that group efficiency factors are also denoted as ''η''. Use of the redundancy factor to account for the presence or absence of redundancy in the foundations is inappropriate as this factor was developed purely from considerations of the performance of the superstructure and not the foundations as discussed in LRFD C10.5.5.2.4.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.1.5 Related Provisions|EPG 751.37.1.5 Related Provisions]]====

Use of site characterization practices that significantly depart from those currently used by MoDOT can produce substantial differences in design parameters and/or the variability of design parameters, which will lead to substantial differences in foundation reliability and failure to achieve the established target foundation reliabilities established by MoDOT. Use of the methods in these guidelines is generally restricted to design parameters established following current MoDOT site characterization practices as described in [[:Category:321 Geotechnical Engineering|EPG 321]].

===Commentary on [[#751.37.2 General Design Procedure and Limit States|EPG 751.37.2 General Design Procedure and Limit States]]===

Selection of applicable strength and serviceability limit states shall be accomplished in close consultation with the Structural Project Manager. At a minimum, the Strength I and Service I limit states should be evaluated. When multiple strength and/or service limit states are considered, the limit state producing the greatest minimum shaft dimensions shall govern the final design dimensions.

Axial geotechnical resistance will frequently control the dimensions of drilled shafts. However, lateral strength or serviceability may dictate final shaft dimensions when shafts are subjected to large lateral loads.

Note that it is possible that a shaft can be shortened from that initially determined considering only axial loads. This can occur where a shaft’s diameter must be increased to satisfy lateral strength or serviceability requirements (e.g. to increase bending/shear strength/stiffness). When this occurs, designers should revisit the relevant axial strength and axial serviceability requirements to evaluate whether a shaft of the diameter required to meet lateral serviceability requirements can be made shorter than what was originally determined for a smaller diameter shaft. One should not simply increase the diameter to satisfy the lateral loading requirements without reconsidering the shaft length. Often multiple combinations of shaft diameter and length can be made to satisfy the axial loading requirements.

Lengths of rock sockets should generally be limited to the extent possible because rock sockets commonly have substantially higher unit costs.

===Commentary on [[#751.37.3 Design for Axial Loading at Strength Limit State|EPG 751.37.3 Geotechnical Resistance for Axial Loading at Strength Limit States]]===

Throughout EPG 751.37, factored loads are denoted as <math>\boldsymbol\gamma Q</math>. This notation should not be taken to suggest inclusion or exclusion of specific load effects, but rather is simply intended as a convenient notation to reflect factored loads. When applying these guidelines, designers should replace <math>\boldsymbol\gamma Q</math> with load combinations and load factors that are appropriate for the structure and limit state being considered.

Side resistance over the cased length of shaft is commonly neglected for rock-socketed shafts because the resistance is difficult to appropriately establish and because the resistance generally contributes little to the overall shaft resistance. For shafts founded exclusively in soil, the potential resistance over the cased length may provide a more substantial contribution to resistance.

Judgment should be applied when deciding whether to ignore tip resistance in karstic formations including consideration of the prevalence of voids and likelihood of encountering them during actual construction. Consideration should also be given to use of special provisions that stipulate appropriate action if voids are encountered in verification holes.

Design procedures within this article are categorized according to material type, including methods for design of shafts founded within “rock”, “weak rock”, “cohesive soil”, and “cohesionless soil”. While these categories serve to logically separate the guidelines according to design method, complexities present at some sites may lead to cases where multiple methods could potentially be used. In such cases, designers should utilize the method that is most appropriate for the conditions encountered, rather than selecting the method that produces the smallest or largest shaft dimensions.

EPG 751.37.3.1 is generally intended for use with “harder” rock materials where the frequency, orientation, and condition of rock discontinuities tend to dominate the response of the rock to loading from foundations. Such rock masses will generally be composed of rock with uniaxial compressive strengths that are greater than 100 ksf, although some exceptions to this limit could arise. Limestones and dolomites will commonly fall under this article as will many sandstones, and even a few hard shales.

EPG 751.37.3.2, EPG 751.37.3.3, EPG 751.37.3.4, and EPG 751.37.3.5 are intended for use with weaker rock where the properties of the intact rock tend to dominate performance. These articles represent alternative means for design in shales, some weak sandstones, and potentially some very stiff clays. Several alternative methods are provided because of difficulties that can arise with reliable sampling and testing of weak rock. EPG 751.37.3.2 is intended for use when the compressive strength of the rock is determined using conventional uniaxial compression tests whereas the remaining articles provide means for designing drilled shafts in weak rock based on in situ tests or index tests. Use of methods provided in these articles for materials with properties falling outside of the measurement bounds provided should be done with extreme caution as the methods may dramatically overestimate the resistance that can be realistically achieved beyond the bounds provided.

EPG 751.37.3.6 and EPG 751.37.3.7 are intended for use with cohesive and cohesionless soils, respectively. Some overlap exists between the strength limits provided in EPG 751.37.3.2 and EPG 751.37.3.6 (Note that the limits for EPG 751.37.3.2 are based on the uniaxial compressive strength whereas the limits for EPG 751.37.3.6 are based on the undrained shear strength, which is nominally one half of the compressive strength). When designing for materials that fall within this overlapping range of strengths, designers shall use the method that is most appropriate for the material encountered.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.1 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Rock (qu ≥ 100 ksf)|EPG 751.37.3.1 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Rock (''q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf''')]]====

=====Commentary on Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Rock (''q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf''')=====

The design method provided in this article is adapted from Horvath and Kenney (1979) based on evaluation of results from a small number of load tests performed in Missouri limestones for shafts constructed in general accordance with current MoDOT construction specifications. Analysis of this data shows that the “best fit” trend to the empirical data is similar to the Horvath and Kenny relationship.

The resistance factors provided in Figure 751.37.3.1.1 were established from probabilistic calibrations to achieve the target foundation reliabilities established by MoDOT as described in Loehr et al. (2011b). The variability and uncertainty present for dead load, live load, the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock, as well as the variability and uncertainty of the design method were explicitly considered in these calibrations. The variability and uncertainty utilized for dead load and live load were taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). The variability and uncertainty utilized for the design method were established from empirical data derived from load tests performed on test shafts constructed in general accordance with current MoDOT construction specifications. Consideration of additional load test results from test shafts not constructed following these specifications was found to lead to substantially lower required resistance factors. As such, the resistance factors provided are not generally appropriate for shafts constructed according to specifications that differ substantially from current MoDOT construction specifications.

The coefficient of variation for the mean uniaxial compressive strength used in Equation 751.37.3.4 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> compressive strength rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> of compressive strength as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline{q_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{q_u}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed on samples taken from within the depth range of the shaft segment being considered. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

=====Commentary on Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Rock (''q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf''')=====

The design method provided in this article is adapted from the method presented in Wyllie (1999) to conform to the LRFD approach. The method is derived from the Hoek-Brown strength criterion (Hoek and Brown, 1988) that is commonly used to represent the strength of fractured rock masses using the rock mass parameters, ''m'' and ''s''. The resistance factors provided in Figure 751.37.3.1.2 were established from probabilistic calibrations to achieve the target foundation reliabilities as described in Abu El-Ela et al. (2011) and are identical to those provided in EPG 751.38.3.1 for bearing resistance of spread footings on fractured rock. These calibrations were conducted with explicit consideration of variability and uncertainty present for dead load, live load, uniaxial compressive strength, and the design method itself (i.e. a “method” uncertainty). The variability and uncertainty utilized for dead load and live load were taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). The variability and uncertainty in the design method was conservatively estimated utilizing the likely range of m and s values expected for a particular condition.

Unfortunately, empirical data to evaluate design methods for predicting the ultimate tip resistance of drilled shafts in fractured rock are not presently available. As such, the variability and uncertainty attributed to the design method was conservatively estimated as a matter of prudence. One consequence of this conservatism is that the factored tip resistance predicted for foundations designed according to EPG 751.37.3.1 may, in some cases, be less than the factored tip resistance predicted according to EPG 751.37.3.2 for rock that might be considered to have lower quality. This consequence is a reflection of the lack of data available to confirm the predicted resistance using the prescribed method, and thus the limited reliability of the method, rather than an indication that the tip resistance will actually be less than that for lesser rock. Future research to measure the ultimate tip resistance for drilled shafts in fractured rock could dramatically improve the accuracy and reliability of these methods, which in turn would dramatically improve the efficiency of foundation designs for fractured rock. This consequence also suggests that site specific load tests could potentially improve foundation efficiency in some cases while still maintaining the target reliability.

The coefficient of variation for the mean uniaxial compressive strength used in Equation 751.37.3.5 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> compressive strength rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> of compressive strength as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline{q_u}</math>, <math>COV_{\overline{q_u}}</math>, ''m'' and ''s'' do not have to be established exclusively from tests or observations performed for rock specimens taken from within the depth range of interest below the tip of the shaft. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

Several methods are available for establishing appropriate values of ''GSI'' for specific rock masses. Equation 751.37.3.8 represents a generally rigorous approach for determination of ''GSI'' that should be used when available measurements and observations allow for establishing Rock Mass Rating system ratings and when these ratings produce ''RMR'' greater than 25. In cases where such measurements and observations are not available, or where ''RMR'' is less than 25, ''GSI'' values can be estimated using the qualitative chart shown in Fig. Commentary 751.37.3.1.1 based on the work of Marinos and Hoek (2000). Figs. Commentary 751.37.3.1.2, Commentary 751.37.3.1.3 and Commentary 751.37.3.1.4 provide additional guidance for qualitative selection of GSI for typical sandstones, shales and limestones from the chart.

In cases where ''GSI'' cannot be rationally determined, it is also possible to directly estimate approximate values for the rock mass parameters ''m'' and ''s'' from Table Commentary 751.37.3.1 using qualitative descriptions of the rock mass. The values provided in Table Commentary 751.37.3.1 will generally be less than values that will be produced using Equations 751.37.3.6 and 751.37.3.7. This result is because the values in Table Commentary 751.37.3.1 were established under the assumption that excavation-induced damage will occur (i.e. that the Hoek and Brown damage factor, ''D'', is equal to 1) while Equations 751.37.3.6 and 751.37.3.7 were established assuming that no significant excavation-induced damage will occur (i.e. that ''D'' = 0). Since significant excavation-induced damage is unlikely to occur for shafts excavated using conventional construction techniques, the values provided in Table Commentary 751.37.3.1 will be conservative. It is also important to point out that ''m'' and ''s'' can be roughly interpolated from the values provided in Table Commentary 751.37.3.1 for conditions falling between those listed.

[[image:751.38.4.2.jpg|center|700px|thumb|<center>'''Fig. Commentary 751.37.3.1.1 Graphic for estimation of geological strength index (GSI) in rock (from Marinos and Hoek, 2000).'''</center>]]

[[image:Commentary 751.38.4.1.jpg|center|750px|thumb|<center>'''Fig. Commentary 751.37.3.1.2 Graphic for illustrating typical ranges for geological strength index (GSI) of sandstone (from Marinos and Hoek, 2000). '''</center>]]

[[image:Commentary 751.38.4.2.jpg|center|750px|thumb|<center>'''Fig. Commentary 751.37.3.1.3 Graphic for illustrating typical ranges for geological strength index (GSI) of siltstone, claystone, and clay shale (from Marinos and Hoek, 2000).'''</center>]]

[[image:Commentary 751.38.4.3.jpg|center|750px|thumb|<center>'''Fig. Commentary 751.37.3.1.4 Graphic for illustrating typical ranges for geological strength index (GSI) of limestone (from Marinos and Hoek, 2000). '''</center>]]

[[image:Table Commentary 751.38.3.1.jpg|center|750px|thumb|<center>'''Table Commentary 751.37.3.1 Approximate values for rock material constants for rock masses of varying quality (from AASHTO, 2009; after Hoek and Brown, 1988'''</center>]]

Methods provided in this subarticle are not appropriate for use with uniaxial compressive strengths estimated from Point Load Index tests or from other empirical correlations. Use of correlations for estimation of uniaxial compressive strength introduces additional variability into the relation among rock mass parameters, uniaxial compressive strength, and side and tip resistance that is not accounted for in the resistance factors provided. Use of compressive strengths derived from Point Load Index values or other correlations is therefore not appropriate for application of the provisions of this subarticle. It is possible to develop resistance factors that would be appropriate for such use, but such calibrations have not been completed at this time.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.2 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core (5 ksf ≤ qu ≤ 100 ksf)|EPG 751.37.3.2 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core (''5 ksf ≤ q<sub>u</sub> ≤ 100 ksf'')]]====

Several alternative methods are provided to estimate side resistance for shafts founded in weak rock. Any of these alternatives may be used depending upon the site characterization data that are available. All methods provided are intended to produce shafts with reliabilities that are approximately equal to the established target reliability for the operational importance utilized. However, the methods will not necessarily produce shafts with identical dimensions so designers are encouraged to consider potential efficiencies that can be realized from utilization of the alternative methods. It is currently anticipated that methods in EPG 751.37.3.2 will produce the most cost-effective drilled shafts from among the methods provided. However, additional experience with the different provisions is needed to confirm this belief.

The design methods provided in this article were established from analysis of data from load tests performed in weak rock at sites in Missouri as described in Rosenblad et al. (2011), Loehr et al. (2011a), and Miller (2003). The resistance factors provided in Figures 751.37.3.1.3 and 751.37.3.1.4 were established from probabilistic calibrations to achieve established target reliabilities as described in Loehr et al. (2011b). The variability and uncertainty present for dead load, live load, and uniaxial compressive strength were explicitly considered in these calibrations, in addition to variability and uncertainty associated with the empirical design method itself. The variability and uncertainty utilized for dead load and live load were taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). Variability and uncertainty for the empirical design method were established from statistical analysis of the empirical data as described in Loehr et al. (2011b).

Uniaxial compressive strengths established from Point Load Index tests or from other empirical correlations are not appropriate for use with the methods provided in this subarticle. Use of correlations for estimation of uniaxial compressive strength introduces additional variability and uncertainty into the relations among uniaxial compressive strength and side and tip resistance that is not accounted for in the resistance factors provided. Use of compressive strengths derived from Point Load Index values or other correlations is therefore not appropriate for application of the provisions of this subarticle. Methods provided in EPG 751.37.3.5 shall be used to design drilled shafts using results from Point Load Index tests.

=====Commentary on Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core (''5 ksf ≤ q<sub>u</sub> ≤100 ksf'')=====

The coefficient of variation for the mean uniaxial compressive strength used in Equation 751.37.3.9 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> compressive strength rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> of compressive strength as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline{q_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{q_u}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed on samples taken from the depth range of the shaft segment. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The nominal unit side resistance provided in Equation 751.37.3.9 is limited to be less than 30 ksf because predictions resulting from use of the equation for ''q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf'' will often exceed what can be reliably mobilized for large uniaxial compressive strengths.

=====Commentary on Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Uniaxial Compression Tests on Rock Core (''5 ksf ≤ q<sub>u</sub> ≤ 100 ksf'')=====

The coefficient of variation for the mean uniaxial compressive strength used in Equation 751.37.3.10 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> compressive strength rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> of compressive strength as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline{q_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{q_u}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed on samples taken from within the depth range of interest below the tip of the shaft. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The nominal unit tip resistance provided in Equation 751.37.3.10 is limited to be less than 400 ksf because predictions resulting from use of the equation for ''q<sub>u</sub> ≥ 100 ksf'' will often exceed what can be reliably mobilized for large uniaxial compressive strengths.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.3 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests (Neq ≤ 400 blows/ft)|EPG 751.37.3.3 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests (''N<sub>eq</sub> ≤ 400 blows/ft'')]]====

The design methods provided in this article were established from analysis of data from load tests performed in weak rock at sites in Missouri as described in Rosenblad et al. (2011), Loehr et al. (2011a), Pierce et al. (2011), and Miller (2003). The resistance factors provided in Figures 751.37.3.5 and 751.37.3.6 were established from probabilistic calibrations to achieve established target reliabilities as described in Pierce et al. (2011). The variability and uncertainty present for dead load, live load, and equivalent SPT ''N''-value were explicitly considered in the calibrations, in addition to variability and uncertainty associated with the empirical design method itself. The variability and uncertainty utilized for dead load and live load were taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). The variability and uncertainty for the empirical design method was established from statistical analysis of the empirical data as described in Pierce et al. (2011).

“Equivalent N-value” is used in these guidelines because, strictly speaking, the value used is not a true SPT ''N''-value. Common practice is to limit the number of hammer blows in SPT measurements to approximately 50 blows in 6 inches (depending upon the energy rating of the hammer). As such, ''N''-values greater than 100 blows per foot are not reported. Rather, when tests fail to penetrate at least 6 inches, the penetration achieved for 50 blows is reported to reflect the relative strength and stiffness of the test material. In such cases, the “equivalent” N-value is calculated as
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>N_{eq} = 12 \cdot \frac{b}{p}</math>||align="center"| (dimensionless)||align="right"|Equation Commentary 751.37.3.1
|}

where:

:N<sub>eq</sub> = “equivalent SPT N-value” (blows/foot),

:b = number of blows applied (blows) and

:p = measured penetration of Standard sampler (inches).

When tests successfully penetrate 6 in. during one testing increment but subsequently fail to penetrate 6 in. during a successive increment, the equivalent ''N''-value shall be computed using the combined number of blows and combined penetration of both testing increments. While N<sub>eq</sub> is not strictly an SPT ''N''-value, its use is consistent with current MoDOT practice and, since it was used as the basis for calibration of the methods of this article, is appropriate for use in design.

=====Commentary on Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests (''N<sub>eq</sub> ≤ 400 blows/ft'')=====

The coefficient of variation for the mean equivalent SPT ''N''-value used in Equation 751.37.3.11 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> value rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> of the equivalent ''N''-value as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline{N_{eq}}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{N_{eq}}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed over the depth range of the shaft segment. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The nominal unit side resistance provided in Equation 751.37.3.11 is limited to be less than 30 ksf because predictions resulting from use of the equation for N_eq≥400 blows/foot will often exceed what can be reliably mobilized.

=====Commentary on Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts Weak Rock from Standard Penetration Tests (''N<sub>eq</sub> ≤ 400 blows/ft'')=====

The coefficient of variation for the mean equivalent SPT ''N''-value used in Equation 751.37.3.12 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> value rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> of the equivalent ''N''-value as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline{N_{eq}}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{N_{eq}}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed over the depth range of interest below the tip of the shaft. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The nominal unit tip resistance provided in Equation 751.37.3.12 is limited to be less than 400 ksf because predictions resulting from use of the equation for ''N<sub>eq</sub> ≥ 400 blows/ft.'' will often exceed what can be reliably mobilized.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.4 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ TCP ≤ 10 in.)|EPG 751.37.3.4 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ ''TCP'' ≤ 10 in.)]]====

The design methods provided in this article were established from analysis of data from load tests performed in weak rock at sites in Missouri as described in Rosenblad et al. (2011), Loehr et al. (2011a), Pierce et al. (2011), and Miller (2003). The resistance factors provided in Figures 751.37.3.4.1 and 751.37.3.4.2 were established from probabilistic calibrations to achieve established target reliabilities as described in Pierce et al. (2011). The variability and uncertainty present for dead load, live load, and Texas Cone Penetration test penetration were considered in these calibrations, in addition to variability and uncertainty associated with the empirical design method itself. The variability and uncertainty utilized for dead load and live load were taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). The variability and uncertainty for the empirical design method was established from statistical analysis of the empirical data as described in Pierce et al. (2011).

=====Commentary on Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ ''TCP'' ≤10 in.)=====

Resistance factors to produce the established target reliabilities from mean TCP values actually vary slightly depending on the magnitude of the mean ''TCP''-value. However, since the differences observed in resistance factors were small, average values determined over the range of potential ''TCP''-values (1 in. ≤ ''TCP'' ≤10 in.) were used as a practical simplification.

The coefficient of variation for the mean ''TCP''-value used in Equation 751.37.3.13 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> value rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline{TCP}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{TCP}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed over the depth range of the shaft segment. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The nominal unit side resistance provided in Equation 751.37.3.13 is limited to be less than 30 ksf because predictions resulting from use of the equation for ''TCP ≥ 10 in.'' will often exceed what can be reliably mobilized.

=====Commentary on Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Texas Cone Penetration Tests (1 in. ≤ ''TCP'' ≤ 10 in.)=====

Resistance factors to produce the established target reliabilities from mean ''TCP'' values actually vary slightly depending on the magnitude of the mean ''TCP''-value. However, since the differences observed in resistance factors were small, average values determined over the range of potential ''TCP''-values (1 in. ≤ ''TCP'' ≤ 10 in.) were used as a practical simplification.

The coefficient of variation for the mean ''TCP''-value used in Equation 751.37.3.14 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> value rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline{TCP}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{TCP}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed over the depth range of interest below the tip of the shaft. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The nominal unit tip resistance provided in Equation 751.37.3.14 is limited to be less than 400 ksf because predictions resulting from use of the equation for ''TCP ≥ 10 in.'' will often exceed what can be reliably mobilized.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.5 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests (5 ksf ≤ Is(50) ≤ 40 ksf)|EPG 751.37.3.5 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests (5 ksf ≤ ''I<sub>s(50)''</sub> ≤ 40 ksf)]]====

The design methods provided in this article were established from analysis of data from load tests performed in weak rock at sites in Missouri as described in Rosenblad et al. (2011), Loehr et al. (2011a), and Miller (2003). The resistance factors provided in Figures 751.37.3.5.1 and 751.37.3.5.2 were established from probabilistic calibrations to achieve established target reliabilities as described in Loehr et al. (2011b). The variability and uncertainty present for dead load, live load, and Point Load Index were explicitly considered in these calibrations, in addition to variability and uncertainty associated with the empirical design method itself. The variability and uncertainty utilized for dead load and live load were taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). Variability and uncertainty for the empirical design method were established from statistical analysis of the empirical data as described in Loehr et al. (2011b).

=====Commentary on Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests (5 ksf ≤ ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>'' ≤ 40 ksf)=====

The coefficient of variation for mean Point Load Index values used in Equation 751.37.3.15 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> value rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline {I_{s(50)}}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{I_{s(50)}}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed on samples taken from the depth range of the shaft segment. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The nominal unit side resistance provided in Equation 751.37.3.15 is limited to be less than 30 ksf because predictions resulting from use of the equation for <math>\overline {I_{s(50)}}</math> ≥ 40 ksf will often exceed what can be reliably mobilized.

=====Commentary on Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Weak Rock from Point Load Index Tests (5 ksf ≤ ''I<sub>s(50)</sub>'' ≤ 40 ksf)=====

The coefficient of variation for mean Point Load Index values used in Equation 751.37.3.16 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> value rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline {I_{s(50)}}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline{I_{s(50)}}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed on samples taken from the depth range of interest below the tip of the shaft. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The nominal unit tip resistance provided in Equation 751.37.3.16 is limited to be less than 400 ksf because predictions resulting from use of the equation for <math>\overline {I_{s(50)}}</math> ≥ 40 ksf will often exceed what can be reliably mobilized.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.6 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (su ≤ 5 ksf)|EPG 751.37.3.6 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (''s<sub>u</sub>'' ≤ 5 ksf)]]====

=====Commentary on Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (''s<sub>u</sub>'' ≤ 5 ksf)=====

The design method and resistance factors provided in this article were established from probabilistic calibrations performed using empirical data from Kulhawy and Jackson (1993) and analyses of variability by Phoon and Kulhawy (2005). Equation 751.37.3.18 was established from analysis of the data from Kulhawy and Jackson (1993), with curve fitting constraints to keep the relationship simple.

The resistance factors provided in this article should be considered approximate at this time for two reasons. The first reason is that the calibrations were performed using the variability of the measurements of unit side resistance, rather than the variability of predictions for unit side resistance. The result of this approximation is to generally underestimate the variability of unit side resistance and therefore to overestimate the resistance factors needed to achieve a given target reliability. This approximation is believed to be acceptable on an interim basis because the magnitude of the error is believed to be small since the data set is relatively large and the magnitude of this error decreases with the size of the data set. The second reason is that the empirical data upon which the resistance factors were derived were based on load tests performed on shafts that were not necessarily constructed following current MoDOT construction specifications. This does not necessarily mean that the results are not representative of results that would be obtained if the shafts were constructed following MoDOT specifications, but it does introduce some additional variability and uncertainty because the effect of construction methods is unknown. Such additional variability and uncertainty was not included in the calibrations performed to establish the resistance factors provided. MoDOT currently designs very few drilled shafts that derive substantial resistance from side shear in cohesive soils. However, more rigorous calibration of these resistance factors should nevertheless be performed to improve the precision of designs conducted using these provisions.

The resistance factors provided in this article are based on the assumption that measurements of undrained shear strength will accurately reflect the actual undrained shear strength in the field. Use of undrained shear strength values established from approximations or from index tests such as hand-held penetrometer tests, Torvane tests, or Standard Penetration Tests will introduce additional variability and uncertainty into the design that is currently not reflected in the resistance factors provided. As such, it is not generally appropriate to use such approximations for estimating undrained shear strength for use in these provisions. At a minimum, undrained shear strengths should be established based on unconfined compression tests performed on specimens acquired using good quality boring techniques and good quality “undisturbed” sampling with thin walled samplers. It is preferable to perform unconsolidated-undrained type triaxial tests or consolidated-undrained type triaxial tests to establish undrained shear strength values for use in these provisions.

The coefficient of variation for the mean undrained shear strength used in Equations 751.37.3.17 and 751.37.3.18 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> value rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline {s_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed on samples taken from the depth range of interest below the tip of the shaft. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

=====Commentary on Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils (''s<sub>u</sub>'' ≤ 5 ksf)=====

The design method provided is currently unchanged from prior MoDOT guidance. Resistance factors provided in this article are revised from prior versions of the EPG. These resistance factors were established from probabilistic calibrations and are identical to those provided for bearing capacity of spread footings in cohesive soils in EPG 751.38.3.3.

The coefficient of variation for the mean undrained shear strength used in Equation 751.37.3.19 shall reflect the variability and uncertainty in the <u>mean</u> value rather than the variability and uncertainty in <u>measurements</u> as described in [[321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation|EPG 321.3 Procedures for Estimation of Geotechnical Parameter Values and Coefficients of Variation]]. Values for <math>\overline {s_u}</math> and <math>COV_{\overline {s_u}}</math> do not have to be established exclusively from tests performed on samples taken from the depth range of interest below the tip of the shaft. However, the values used should reflect the mean and variability in the material parameters within that depth range.

The resistance factors provided in this article are based on the assumption that measurements of undrained shear strength will accurately reflect the actual undrained shear strength in the field. Use of undrained shear strength values established from approximations or from index tests such as hand-held penetrometer tests, Torvane tests, or Standard Penetration Tests will introduce additional variability and uncertainty into the design that is currently not reflected in the resistance factors provided. As such, it is not generally appropriate to use such approximations for estimating undrained shear strength for use in these provisions. At a minimum, undrained shear strengths should be established based on unconfined compression tests performed on specimens acquired using good quality boring techniques and good quality “undisturbed” sampling with thin walled samplers. It is preferable to perform unconsolidated-undrained type triaxial tests or consolidated-undrained type triaxial tests to establish undrained shear strength values for use in these provisions.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.7 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils|EPG 751.37.3.7 Axial Resistance for Individual Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils]]====

=====Commentary on Side Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils=====

This subarticle is unchanged from prior versions of the EPG aside from minor editorial revisions. Probabilistic calibrations for drilled shafts in cohesionless soils have not been completed at this time.

=====Commentary on Tip Resistance for Drilled Shafts in Cohesionless Soils=====

This subarticle is unchanged from prior versions of the EPG aside from minor editorial revisions. Probabilistic calibrations for drilled shafts in cohesionless soils have not been completed at this time.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.8 Geotechnical Resistance from Load Tests|EPG 751.37.3.8 Geotechnical Resistance from Load Tests]]====

This subarticle is unchanged from prior versions of the EPG. Probabilistic calibrations for drilled shafts designs incorporating results from load tests have not been completed at this time. Additional study of available results for load tests in Missouri will likely lead to revision of appropriate resistance factors for use when load tests are performed.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.3.9 Evaluation of Group Effects|EPG 751.37.3.9 Evaluation of Group Effects]]====

Two potential effects arise when drilled shafts are installed in groups with relatively close spacing. The first, and most commonly referenced effect is that there is potential for the cumulative resistance for all shafts in the group to be less than the sum of the individual shaft resistances. Such effects are commonly referred to as “group effects” in the geotechnical literature and have been traditionally accounted for using the methods provided in this article.

The second effect relates to the reliability of a group of shafts relative to the reliability of individual shafts. In general, the reliability of a group of drilled shafts will be greater than that of an individual shaft with the same resistance because groups benefit from “averaging” of shaft resistance, which tends to make their collective resistance more reliable than the resistance from an individual shaft. The resistance factors provided in these guidelines are those that produce the target foundation reliabilities ''for individual shafts''. As such, use of these resistance factors for groups of shafts will tend to produce foundations that are more reliable than the established target reliabilities. No explicit account is made for this effect in the current guidelines, but designers should be aware of this issue. Additional study is needed to allow for this effect to be properly reflected in LRFD methods.

This also raises the issue of redundancy factors, generally denoted as ''η<sub>R</sub>'', in LRFD 1.3.4. The LRFD redundancy factor has been a source of confusion for foundation design, especially given that group efficiency factors are also denoted as ''η''. Use of the redundancy factor to account for the presence or absence of redundancy in the foundations is inappropriate as this factor was developed purely from considerations of the performance of the superstructure and not the foundations as discussed in LRFD C10.5.5.2.4. LRFD 10.5.5.2.4 indicates that resistance factors provided in AASHTO (2009) should be reduced by 20 percent for non-redundant foundations to account for the lack of redundancy. Such reductions should <u>not</u> be applied to the resistance factors provided in these guidelines as the resistance factors were established considering the reliability of individual shafts. While one could conversely argue that the resistance factors provided in these guidelines should therefore be increased by 20 percent for redundant foundations, such a position does not seem justified without additional study and verification that such application is in fact appropriate.

When mixed soil profiles are present, the specific approach utilized for evaluation of group effects shall be based on the soil/rock type that provides the greatest contribution to resistance. For example, for a shaft group founded in rock overlain by cohesive soil, group effects shall be evaluated following the guidelines provided for rock since the shaft resistance will be predominantly derived from side resistance and tip resistance in the rock.

=====Commentary on Group Effects in Cohesionless Soils=====

The provisions provided in this article for cohesionless soils are drawn from the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification (AASHTO, 2009). Group efficiency factors for drilled shafts in cohesionless soils are generally less than one to account for potential loosening of the soil during shaft excavation and potential for overlapping stresses surrounding the shafts. This is contrary to what is observed for driven piles in most cohesionless soils, where group efficiency factors are commonly greater than one because of densification of the cohesionless soils during pile driving.

=====Commentary on Group Effects in Cohesive Soils=====

No probabilistic calibrations of the “equivalent pier” approach have been performed by MoDOT at this time. The resistance factor provided in this subarticle for evaluation of the equivalent pier is taken from the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification (AASHTO, 2009). The resistance factor for evaluation of the equivalent pier shall be applied to the total resistance of the equivalent pier (side resistance and tip resistance).

The resistance factors for summation of the individual shaft resistances shall be applied separately for side resistance and tip resistance based on the resistance factors provided in these guidelines for the appropriate soil/rock type(s).

=====Commentary on Group Effects in Rock=====

Few data are available to quantify group effects for shafts founded in rock or shafts founded in stratified soil/rock. The provisions provided for rock are based on considerable judgment drawn from discussions with a number of foundation designers and researchers.

===Commentary on [[#751.37.4 Design for Axial Loading at Serviceability Limit States|EPG 751.37.4 Design for Axial Loading at Serviceability Limit States]]===

The provisions of this article were developed to limit foundation settlements to be less than generally tolerable levels of settlement with some target reliability. Target reliability levels for service limit states are substantially less than target reliability levels for strength limit states because the consequences associated with serviceability limit states are substantially less than consequences for strength limit state conditions. The ramification of these facts is that some foundations designed according to these guidelines may experience settlements that exceed tolerable settlements in some instances. The frequency of foundations settling more than tolerable limits should approach the established target probabilities of exceedance when considered over a large number of projects. In cases where actual foundation settlements are observed to exceed tolerable limits, appropriate remedial measures shall be applied to the foundation(s) and/or the structure that it is supporting so that appropriate reliability is maintained.

Tolerable settlements used throughout these provisions were established from theoretical considerations and empirical observations of bridge performance based on the work of Moulton (1984) and Duncan and Tan (1991). Three different serviceability conditions corresponding to different levels of required maintenance and repair were initially considered:

:1) minor damage generally corresponding to the theoretical onset of deck cracking (Duncan and Tan, 1991),

:2) more significant damage corresponding to the onset of structural distress based on empirical observations by Moulton (1986) and

:3) major damage corresponding to theoretical overstress of the bridge superstructure (Moulton, 1986).

Target reliabilities for each of these conditions were established based on economic analyses described in Bowders et al. (2011). Comparative analyses for typical design conditions were then performed to evaluate the alternative serviceability conditions. Results of these analyses generally indicate that the first serviceability condition, corresponding to minor damage, tends to control foundation dimensions. These guidelines therefore only require evaluation of this condition (the others being presumed to be inherently satisfied based on the analyses performed).

Based on this work, tolerable settlements are established according to an angular distortion, defined as
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>A = \frac{\Delta}{s} \le 0.0021</math>||align="center"| (dimensionless)||align="right"|Equation Commentary 751.37.4.1
|}

where :

:''A'' = angular distortion (dimensionless),

:''∆'' = differential settlement between adjacent bridge bents (consistent units of length),

:''S'' = span between adjacent bridge bents (consistent units of length).

This limiting value of angular distortion is based on theoretical consideration of the onset of deck cracking (Duncan and Tan, 1991). This limit is explicitly included in the methods provided throughout EPG 751.37.

The target probabilities of exceedance reflected in the resistance factors provided in EPG 751.37 correspond to the target values established by MoDOT based on economic considerations. While use of alternative limits for tolerable settlement is possible, such use is not strictly appropriate since the target probabilities adopted by MoDOT for different classes of operational importance were established based on consequences associated with the limit provided in Equation Commentary 751.37.4.1. Other limits would generally require different target probabilities, and thus different resistance factors to achieve the same economic balance.

When results of evaluations performed for these provisions require that shaft dimensions be increased, designers should recognize that it has traditionally been more cost effective to increase the length of drilled shafts rather than increase the diameter of the shafts.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.4.1 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using Approximate Method|EPG 751.37.4.1 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using Approximate Method]]====

The provisions of EPG 751.37.4.1 are based on an approximate load-settlement curve illustrated in Fig. Commentary 751.37.4.1.1. The load-settlement curve is established considering factored side and tip resistance values that account for variability and uncertainty associated with the nominal side and tip resistance and associated with mobilization of side and tip resistance. The following assumptions are also made:

:* the shaft can be considered as practically rigid over the length of the shaft where significant side resistance is mobilized so that side resistance and end resistance are simultaneously mobilized;

:* side and tip resistance are mobilized according to the bi-linear curves shown in Fig. Commentary 751.37.4.1.2;

:* ultimate side resistance is fully mobilized at shaft displacements of 0.5 percent of the shaft diameter and

:* ultimate tip resistance is fully mobilized for shaft displacements of 5 percent of the shaft diameter.

[[image:Commentary 751.37.4.1.jpg|center|800px|thumb|<center>'''Fig. Commentary 751.37.4.1.1 Approximate load-settlement curve used for estimation of drilled shaft settlement using approximate method.'''</center>]]

[[image:Commentary 751.37.4.2.jpg|center|800px|thumb|<center>'''Fig. Commentary 751.37.4.1.2 Presumed load-settlement relationships for side and tip resistance for estimation of drilled shaft settlement using approximate method.'''</center>]]

Based on these assumptions, the approximate factored load-settlement curve can be constructed by establishing the factored resistance and associated settlement values at the points designated as “a” and “b” in Fig. Commentary 751.37.4.1.1. The mobilized factored resistance at point a is computed as:
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|''R<sub>aR</sub> = R<sub>sR</sub> + 0.1 R<sub>pR</sub>''||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation Commentary 751.37.4.2
|}

where:

:''R<sub>aR</sub>'' = factored total resistance at point a (consistent units of force),

:''R<sub>sR</sub>'' = total factored side resistance determined according to the provisions of this article (consistent units of force) and

:''R<sub>pR</sub>'' = factored tip resistance determined according to the provisions of this article (consistent units of force).

The corresponding settlement at point a is taken to be:
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\delta_a = 0.005 \cdot D</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of length)||align="right"|Equation Commentary 751.37.4.3
|}

where:

:''δ<sub>a</sub>'' = settlement corresponding to point a (consistent units of length) and

:''D'' = shaft diameter (consistent units of length).

The mobilized factored resistance at point b is computed as:
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|''R<sub>bR</sub> = R<sub>sR</sub> + R<sub>pR</sub>''||align="center"| (consistent units of force)||align="right"|Equation Commentary 751.37.4.4
|}

where:

:''R<sub>bR</sub>'' = factored total resistance at point b (consistent units of force),

:''R<sub>sR</sub>'' = total factored side resistance determined according to the provisions of this article (consistent units of force) and

:''R<sub>pR</sub>'' = factored tip resistance determined according to the provisions of this article (consistent units of force).

The corresponding settlement at point b is taken to be
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" width="800"
|-
|align="left"|<math>\delta_b = 0.05 \cdot D</math>||align="center"| (consistent units of length)||align="right"|Equation Commentary 751.37.4.5
|}

where:

:''δ<sub>b</sub>'' = settlement corresponding to point b (consistent units of length) and

:''D'' = shaft diameter (consistent units of length).

The factored settlement due to a factored service load can then be determined by interpolation from the approximate load-settlement curve. Equations Commentary 751.37.4.3 and Commentary 751.37.4.4 produce such interpolated values with an additional term being added to account for elastic compression of the unsupported length of the shaft. For the purposes of this provision, the unsupported length shall be taken to be the length of shaft over which side resistance is neglected.

As has been done throughout these guidelines, factored loads are denoted using <math>\boldsymbol\gamma Q</math> as a general reference to factored loads. This notation should not be taken to imply inclusion or exclusion of any specific load effects or load combinations, but rather is simply intended as a convenient notation to reflect factored loads. When applying these provisions of the guidelines, designers should replace <math>\boldsymbol\gamma Q</math> with the appropriate load combinations and load factors for the relevant limit state. For this article, such load combinations and load factors should correspond to the appropriate serviceability limit state in which load factors are generally taken to be 1.0.

The modulus of elasticity used in Equation 751.37.4.7 should reflect the composite modulus for the shaft including the concrete and reinforcing steel.

The settlement resistance factor for elastic compression is placed in the denominator of Equation 751.37.4.7 as a matter of choice so that resistance factors are less than 1.0 as is conventionally assumed.

Settlement resistance factors for elastic compression provided in Table 751.37.4.1 were developed from probabilistic analyses performed considering the variability in the dead and live loads, the variability in concrete modulus, and the variability in the shaft area. The variability used for dead and live loads was taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). Variabilities in concrete modulus and shaft area were estimated from preliminary results of an ongoing study of the variability of these parameters (Tyler, 2010). Because these estimates are preliminary, it is likely that the settlement resistance factors for elastic compression can be refined with additional study of the variability of concrete modulus and shaft area.

The resistance factors provided in Figures 751.37.4.1.1 through 751.37.4.1.12 were established from preliminary probabilistic calibrations to achieve established target reliabilities as described in Vu and Loehr (2011). Considerable judgment was applied in development of these resistance factors in an effort to make these guidelines as comprehensive as possible. However, the resistance factors should be considered as rational but preliminary design values that can be dramatically improved through more comprehensive analysis of available full-scale load test results. The resistance factors provided were established with explicit consideration of the variability and uncertainty present for dead and live loads, for the nominal side and tip resistance, and for the anticipated mobilization of side and tip resistance. The variability and uncertainty utilized for dead load and live load were taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). Variability and uncertainty in the nominal side and tip resistances were established from statistical analysis of the empirical data as described in Loehr et al. (2011b). Variability and uncertainty in mobilization of side and tip resistance were estimated from preliminary analysis of results from a limited number of full-scale load tests. Additional study of the serviceability provisions of these guidelines should include more rigorous analysis of available load test data to establish improved models for load transfer in different types of materials, re-calibration of resistance factors for both the approximate method and t-z method provided in the guidelines, as well as consideration of alternative simplified and closed-form methods for prediction of settlements for drilled shafts (e.g. Vesic, 1977; Chen and Kulhawy, 2002; Mayne and Harris, 1993; O’Neill et al, 1996; etc.).

Probabilistic calibration of resistance factors for settlement of individual drilled shafts in cohesionless soils have not been completed at this time. Settlement evaluations should therefore be conducted according to current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. However, it is important to note that such designs will not generally produce the target probabilities established by MoDOT.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.4.2 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using t-z Method|EPG 751.37.4.2 Settlement of Individual Drilled Shafts using t-z Method]]====

The settlement resistance factors used in the provisions of this article are akin to ''t''-multipliers for ''t-z'' models and ''q''-multipliers for ''q-w'' models, where the respective multipliers are selected to produce the target reliabilities for settlement established by MoDOT, as illustrated in Fig. Commentary 751.37.4.2. Application of resistance factors for use in commercial specialty software or spreadsheet programs therefore requires no special capabilities beyond that required for conventional analyses.

The program TZPile© is commercially available through Ensoft, Inc. Other similar programs are also commercially available from other vendors.

The modulus of elasticity used in the ''t-z'' analyses should reflect the composite modulus for the shaft including the concrete and reinforcing steel.

Elastic compression of shafts is inherently included in results of ''t-z'' analyses so no additional account shall be made for elastic compression of the shaft.

Results of preliminary analyses suggest that the variability and uncertainty associated with the shaft stiffness (''EA'') used in ''t-z'' analyses can be substantial (Tyler, 2010). For this version of the guidelines, the decision was made to combine the variability and uncertainty associated with shaft stiffness together with other sources of variability and uncertainty rather than to consider it separately. This decision simplifies use of the provisions, but does not allow for explicit accounting of the effects of the variability in shaft stiffness. Further study is needed to determine whether this position is a prudent one or whether separate resistance factors should be applied to shaft stiffness to allow the effect to be isolated.

[[image:Commentary 751.37.4.3.jpg|center|800px|thumb|<center>'''Fig. Commentary 751.37.4.2 Illustration of unfactored and factored t-z models for estimation of drilled shaft settlement using t-z method.'''</center>]]

The resistance factors provided in Figures 751.37.4.2.1 through 751.37.4.2.12 were established from preliminary probabilistic calibrations to achieve established target reliabilities as described in Vu and Loehr (2011). Considerable judgment was applied in development of these resistance factors in an effort to make these guidelines as comprehensive as possible. However, the resistance factors should be considered as rational but preliminary design values that can be dramatically improved through more comprehensive analysis of available full-scale load test results. The resistance factors provided were established with explicit consideration of the variability and uncertainty present for dead and live loads, for the nominal side and tip resistance, and for the anticipated mobilization of side and tip resistance. The variability and uncertainty utilized for dead load and live load were taken from Kulicki et al. (2007). Variability and uncertainty in the nominal side and tip resistances were established from statistical analysis of the empirical data as described in Loehr et al. (2011b). Variability and uncertainty in mobilization of side and tip resistance were estimated from preliminary analysis of results from a limited number of full-scale load tests. Additional study of the serviceability provisions of these guidelines should include more rigorous analysis of available load test data to establish improved models for load transfer in different types of materials, re-calibration of resistance factors for both the approximate method and t-z method provided in the guidelines, as well as consideration of alternative simplified and closed-form methods for prediction of settlements for drilled shafts (e.g. Vesic, 1977; Chen and Kulhawy, 2002; Mayne and Harris, 1993; O’Neill et al, 1996; etc.).

Model specific calibrations for individual ''t-z'' and ''q-w'' models have not been completed at this time. The resistance factors provided in these guidelines were established from preliminary calibrations for several simplified models. While the resistance factors produced from these calibrations, and provided in these guidelines, represent a rational design position, additional research is needed to refine these calibrations to reflect specific ''t-z'' and ''q-w'' models for different soil/rock types. Such calibrations are likely to increase the settlement resistance factors, which will improve the efficiency of drilled shafts designed according to these guidelines if serviceability controls the shaft dimensions.

Probabilistic calibration of resistance factors for settlement of individual drilled shafts in cohesionless soils have not been completed at this time. Settlement evaluations should therefore be conducted according to current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. However, it is important to note that such designs will not generally produce the target probabilities established by MoDOT.

====Commentary on [[#751.37.4.3 Settlement of Drilled Shafts in Groups|EPG 751.37.4.3 Settlement of Drilled Shafts in Groups]]====

=====Commentary on Settlement of Shaft Groups in Cohesive Soils=====

This subarticle is currently unchanged from prior versions of the EPG aside from minor editorial revisions. Probabilistic calibrations for drilled shaft groups in cohesive soils have not been completed at this time.

=====Commentary on Settlement of Shaft Groups in Cohesionless Soils Using Standard Penetration Test Measurements=====

This subarticle is currently unchanged from prior versions of the EPG aside from minor editorial revisions. Probabilistic calibrations for drilled shaft groups in cohesionless soils have not been completed at this time.

=====Commentary on Settlement of Shaft Groups in Cohesionless Soils Using Cone Penetration Test Measurements=====

This subarticle is currently unchanged from prior versions of the EPG aside from minor editorial revisions. Probabilistic calibrations for drilled shaft groups in cohesionless soils have not been completed at this time.

=====Commentary on Settlement of Shaft Groups in Rock=====

This subarticle is new to the EPG, but relies exclusively on methods and resistance factors established for other provisions of the EPG.

===Commentary on [[#751.37.5 Design for Lateral Loading at Strength and Service Limit States|EPG 751.37.5 Design for Lateral Loading at Strength and Service Limit States]]===

This subarticle is currently unchanged from prior versions of the EPG aside from minor editorial revisions. Probabilistic calibrations for laterally loaded shafts have not been completed at this time.

===Commentary on [[#751.37.6 Structural Resistance of Drilled Shafts|EPG 751.37.6 Structural Resistance of Drilled Shafts]]===

This subarticle is currently unchanged from prior versions of the EPG aside from minor editorial revisions.

The LRFD requirement that reinforcing steel extend 10 feet below the point of fixity shall not be taken to imply that rock sockets shall be a minimum of 10 feet long. This provision is intended to ensure that reinforcing steel extends beyond where significant bending may be encountered in the shaft, the location of which if not coincident with the point of fixity (pof) but higher than the pof may provide reasoning for using a lesser but adequate development length for a lesser bending moment at the pof and hence a shorter socket length., Regardless, reinforcement shall be provided for the full length of the shaft.

===Commentary on [[#751.37.7 References|EPG 751.37.7 References]]===
AASHTO (2009), ''AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification: Customary U.S. Units'', American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Fourth Edition with 2008 and 2009 Interim Revisions.

Abu El-Ela, A.A., J.J. Bowders, and J.E. Loehr (2011), ''Calibration of LRFD Resistance Factors for Design of Spread Footings in Hard and Soft Rock'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Bowders, J.J., J.E. Loehr, and D.R. Huaco (2011),'' MoDOT Transportation Geotechnics Research Program: Development of Target Reliabilities for MoDOT Bridge Foundations and Earth Slopes'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Chen, Y-J, and F.H. Kulhawy (2002), “Evaluation of Drained Axial Capacity for Drilled Shafts,” ''Deep Foundations 2002: An International Perspective on Theory, Design, Construction, and Performance'', Geotechnical Special Publication No. 116, M.W. O’Neill and F.C. Townsend, Editors, ASCE, Reston, VA, pp. 1200-1214.

Duncan, J.M., and C.K. Tan (1991), “Part 5 – Engineering Manual for Estimating Tolerable Movements for Bridges,” in ''Manuals for the Design of Bridge Foundations'', NCHRP Report 343, by R.M. Barker, J.M. Duncan, K.B. Rojiani, P.S.K. Ooi, C.K. Tan, and S.G. Kim, Transportation Research Board, pp. 219-228.

Hoek, E., and E.T. Brown (1988), “The Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion – A 1988 Update,” ''Proceedings of the 15<sup>th</sup> Canadian Rock Mechanics Symposium'', Toronto, Canada.

Hoek, E. and E.T. Brown (1997), “Practical Estimates of Rock Mass Strength,” ''International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences'', Vol. 34, No. 8, Elsevier, pp. 1165-1186.

Horvath, R.G., and T.C. Kenney (1979), “Shaft Resistance of Rock Socketed Drilled Piers,” ''Proceedings of the Symposium on Deep Foundations'', ASCE, pp. 182-214.

Kulicki, J.M., Z. Prucz, C.M. Clancy, D.R. Mertz, and A.S. Nowak (2007),'' Updating the Calibration Report for AASHTO LRFD Code'', Final Report for NCHRP Project 20-7/186, AASHTO, 125 pp.

Loehr, J.E., B.L. Rosenblad, and T.T. Vu (2011a), ''MoDOT Transportation Geotechnics Research Program: Drilled Shaft Axial Load Test Program Interpretation Report, Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Loehr, J.E., S.A. Grant, and B.L. Rosenblad (2011b), Calibration of Resistance Factors for Design of Drilled Shafts at Strength Limit States Using Laboratory Test Measurements'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Mayne, P.W., and D.E. Harris (1993), ''Axial Load-Displacement Behavior of Drilled Shaft Foundations in Piedmont Residuum'', FHWA Reference Number 41-30-2175, Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, GA.

Miller, A.D. (2003), ''Prediction of Ultimate Side Shear for Drilled Shafts in Missouri Shales'', thesis presented to the faculty of the University of Missouri in partial fulfillment of the requirements for M.S. degree, 266 pp.

Moulton, L.K. (1986), ''Tolerable Movement Criteria for Highway Bridges'', Report No. FHWA-TS-85-228, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, 93 pp.

O'Neill, M.W., F.C. Townsend, K.H. Hassan, A. Buller, and P.S. Chan (1996), ''Load Transfer for Drilled Shafts in Intermediate Geomaterials'', Publication No. FHWA-RD-95-171, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, 184 pp.

O’Neill, M.W., and L.C. Reese (1999), ''Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods'', Report No. FHWA-IF-99-025, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, 758 pp.

Phoon, K.K., and F.H. Kulhawy (2005), “Characterization of Model Uncertainties for Drilled Shafts Under Undrained Axial Loading,” ''Contemporary Issues in Foundation Engineering'', Proceedings of Sessions from the Geo-Frontiers 2005 Congress, Austin, Texas, ASCE Geo-Institute, GSP 131.

Pierce, M.D., J.E. Loehr, and B.L. Rosenblad (2011), ''Calibration of LRFD Resistance Factors for Design of Drilled Shafts at Strength Limit States Using In situ Test Measurements'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Rosenblad, B.L., J.E. Loehr, M.D. Pierce, S.A. Grant, and K.D. Murphy (2011), ''MoDOT Transportation Geotechnics Research Program: Drilled Shaft Axial Load Test Program Data Report'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Turner, J.P. (2006), ''Rock-socketed Shafts for Highway Structure Foundations'', NCHRP Synthesis 360, Transportation Research Board, 136 pp.

Tyler, H.L. (2010), ''Influence of Parameter Variability on Side Shear Values Determined from O-Cell Testing of Drilled Shafts'', report presented to the University of Missouri in partial fulfillment of the requirements for M.S. Degree.

Vu, T.T., and J.E. Loehr (2011), ''Calibration of LRFD Resistance Factors for Design of Drilled Shafts at Serviceability Limit States'', Missouri Department of Transportation, OR11.XXX, XXX pp. (in preparation)

Vesic, A.S. (1977), ''NCHRP Synthesis 42: Design of Pile Foundations'', Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 68 pp.

Wyllie, D.C. (1999), ''Foundations on Rock'', E & FN Spon, Second Edition, 401 pp.

[[Category:751 LRFD Bridge Design Guidelines]]

903.18 Memorial Signs

2025-11-19T20:12:29Z

Hoskir: updated per RR4122

[[Category:903 Highway Signing|903.18]]
==903.18.1 Memorial Designation Programs==

'''Support.''' The Missouri General Assembly statutorily established the Memorial Designation Programs to memorialize certain individuals, events, places or organizations on Missouri’s state roadway system.

The Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission establish fees for these memorial designation signs. The fee is for participating in the Memorial Designation Programs, which covers the cost of constructing signs or constructing, installing and maintaining markers. These memorial signs and markers are the property of MoDOT.

MoDOT’s involvement in memorial designations is limited to the administration of the designation programs and to the installation and maintenance of signs or markers.

'''Standard.''' MoDOT has no authority to designate or install memorial signs or markers on non-state (e.g., city or county) routes.

MoDOT will require written consent from the honoree’s family authorizing the designation, if designating after an individual. To be mindful and respectful of the family, their consent is required. Not all families have interest in seeing a loved one’s memorial sign or marker and want to be reminded of their loss.

MoDOT shall provide notice of any proposed designation on the state’s roadway system by posting the proposal on [https://www.modot.org/memorial-designation-programs MoDOT’s Memorial Designation Programs website] in addition to making available to any representative of the news media or public upon request.

Organization of memorial dedication ceremonies shall be the responsibility of the family and/or their designee. MoDOT does not participate in organizational planning or provide signs for ceremonies. To ensure the safety of attendees and traveling public, ceremonies shall not take place on state right-of-way. MoDOT does not coordinate the sign installation with dedication ceremonies.

Following the approval of a memorial designation, MoDOT will notify the family or its designee of the approval. MoDOT will send either an approval or payment request letter to the family or its designee, or to the legislator who sponsored the memorial if the family or its designee is unknown. The official letter will provide specific and necessary information regarding the subsequent steps in MoDOT’s memorial designation process.

MoDOT will order signs after the memorial receives approval or becomes law and once the fees, if required are received in full. Signs for memorial designations established through the Legislative Process will not be ordered or installed until after August 28<sup>th</sup>, date the bill becomes law. Signs for memorial designations established through MoDOT's Application Process will be ordered and scheduled for installation after the designation is approved by the Joint Committee on Transportation Oversight. Sign delivery can take five to seven weeks. Memorial signs or markers are installed within 120 days from the date the signs are received from the manufacturer, weather permitting.

MoDOT shall determine the sign location to ensure safe operation of the state roadway system.

MoDOT will not publicly announce the installation date for memorial signs or markers to ensure safety is not compromised for all individuals involved, including our personnel, and the traveling public.

'''Option.''' The family or its designee may request a PDF file of the memorial sign at no cost, provided their written acceptance of MoDOT's PDF terms and condition declaration. The PDF allows the family or its designee to utilize local sign/banner companies to fabricate commemorative or replica signs for their own personal use.

'''Support.''' MoDOT will provide the PDF file of the memorial sign electronically to the family or its designee at the email address provided.

Following installation, MoDOT will send digital images of the completed memorial signs or markers and the official installation date to the email address provided by the family or its designee. Memorial sign or marker installations shall not preempt critical highway work or any department directives pertaining to prioritization of sign maintenance.

'''Option.''' The family or its designee may submit a biography for an individual honored with a memorial designation on the state roadway system. A photo of the honoree may be added to the biography, if electronically provided.

'''Support.''' MoDOT will publicize the honoree’s biography and post a website link on the MoDOT Memorial Map.

'''Standard.''' All biographies will have the same format, as designed by MoDOT. MoDOT shall reserve the right to review and edit the biography,

==903.18.2 Memorial Highway and Bridge Program (M18-1, M18-2, M18-5, M18-6, M18-7, M18-8) (MUTCD Section 2M.10)==
<gallery mode="packed" heights=75>
File:M18-1.jpg|M18-1
File:M18-2.jpg|M18-2
File:M18-5.jpg|M18-5
File:M18-6.jpg|M18-6
File:M18-7.jpg|M18-7
File:M18-8.jpg|M18-8
</gallery>

'''Support.''' Under certain conditions, and within specific guidelines, Missouri highways and bridges may be designated after an individual (deceased 2 years), an event, place, or organization. The 2-year waiting period after a death is required by state statute to allow for grieving before memorialization decisions are made.

MoDOT will require the family or its designee to provide verification of the honoree’s death. A copy of the death certificate or obituary is an acceptable form of documentation.

Before contacting a member of the General Assembly or completing a MoDOT Application, contact the MoDOT Highway Safety and Traffic Division at (573) 751-7643 or via email at [mailto:Memorial.Designations@modot.mo.gov Memorial.Designations@modot.mo.gov] to verify availability of the desired section of highway (two-mile-or-less) or bridge location.

MoDOT can help identify an available roadway. The family or its designee will need to provide a general location (e.g., county, route, crossroad) to assist in their research.

'''Standard.''' No bridge or section of a highway on the state roadway system shall be designated more than once. Each event, place, organization or person shall only be eligible for one bridge or highway designation. These are the provisions of [https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=227.299&bid=57602&hl=#:~:text=No%20bridge%20or%20portion%20of%20a%20highway%20on%20the%20state%20highway%20system%20may%20be%20named%20or%20designated%20after%20more%20than%20one%20event%2C%20place%2C%20organization%2C%20or%20person.%C2%A0%C2%A0Each%20event%2C%20place%2C%20organization%2C%20or%20person%20shall%20only%20be%20eligible%20for%20one%20bridge%20or%20highway%20designation. Missouri Revisor of Statutes - Revised Statutes of Missouri, RSMo Section 227.299.8].

In the event a bridge or highway has a designated name, another bridge or highway shall be selected.

A total of two signs shall be erected for each highway or bridge designation on the state’s roadway system, as specified by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

Signing shall consist of one shoulder post-mounted sign at each end of the bridge or section of highway. Memorial bridge signs will be installed on the roadway carried by the bridge, not on the roadway traveling under the bridge. Memorial signs shall not appear on or be placed on any bridge structure or bridge span over a divided or undivided highway.

The memorial signs shall be rectangular in shape and shall be 6 ft. by 3 ft. The signs shall have a white legend on a green background. The signs shall use MoDOT standard retroreflective sheeting. Legend on the signs shall use 6 in. tall letters with a maximum of 3 lines of text. The legend displayed on memorial signs shall be limited to the name of the individual, event, place, or organization being designated and the required simple message preceding or following the name, such as “MEMORIAL HIGHWAY” or “MEMORIAL BRIDGE”. Additional legends, such as biographical information, nicknames, or any appearance of advertising, shall not be displayed on memorial signs. Decorative or graphical elements, pictographs, logos, or symbols shall not be displayed on or attached to memorial signs or posts.

MoDOT shall have the right to modify the proposed legend based on design limitations.

The lettering on memorial signs shall be composed of lower-case letters with initial upper-case letters.

Where such memorial signs are installed on the mainline, (1) memorial names shall not appear on directional guide signs, (2) memorial signs shall not interfere with the placement of any other traffic control devices, and (3) memorial signs shall not compromise the safety or efficiency of traffic flow. The memorial signing shall be limited to one sign at an appropriate location in each route direction, each as an independent post-mounted sign installation. MoDOT determines the exact sign location to ensure safe operation of the state roadway system.

Memorial Designation names do not replace or alter the official names of state routes with numerals, letters, or city streets. Memorial Designation names are honorary designations only and are not official highway names.

Memorial Designation names shall not appear on supplemental signs or on any other information sign on or along the highway or its intersecting routes.

MoDOT shall erect and maintain signs provided under this policy.

Location of these signs shall be determined by MoDOT.

===903.18.2.1 Legislative Process===
'''Support.''' Legislative bodies will occasionally adopt an act or resolution memorializing or designating a highway or bridge on Missouri’s state roadway system.

MoDOT can help identify an available roadway. The family or its designee will need to provide a general location (e.g., county, route, or crossroad) to assist in their research.

MoDOT can work with members of the General Assembly or House and Senate Research to draft the appropriate bill language.

'''Standard.''' A directive for naming shall come through the action of the General Assembly. In the event a bridge or highway has a designated name, another bridge or highway shall be selected.

Only one memorial name shall be used to identify any highway or bridge designation under the provisions of [https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=227.299&bid=57602&hl= Missouri Revisor of Statutes - Revised Statutes of Missouri, RSMo Section 227.299].

Only the following residents of Missouri shall be eligible for memorial signing through the legislative process:
# Members of the U.S. Armed Forces killed in the line of duty
# Members of the U.S. Armed Forces who are missing in action
# Missouri Medal of Honor Recipients
# Emergency personnel killed while performing duties relating to their employment
# State employees killed while serving the state

'''Standard.''' For designations honoring Missouri Armed Forces killed in the line of duty or missing in action, Missouri Medal of Honor recipients, Missouri emergency personnel or state employees killed while performing duties relating to their employment, no fees shall be assessed and all costs associated with such designations shall be funded by MoDOT.

MoDOT will waive the participation fee if verification is provided to certify the honoree meets the circumstances outlined in [https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=227.296&bid=54091&hl= Missouri Revisor of Statutes - Revised Statutes of Missouri, RSMo Section 227.296]. A copy of the U.S. Armed Forces Casualty Report, a website link to a fallen military webpage or news article, statement from the Missouri Veterans Commission or the U.S. Department of Veterans Affair, or any military office or state document certifying such facts are acceptable forms of documentation.

MoDOT will design memorial signs for any highway or bridge designation as specified in legislation. MoDOT has no authority to deviate from law. If any part of the memorial designation is incorrect, legislation must be modified during a subsequent legislative session. MoDOT can only change the memorial designation or signs after the correction has been signed into law.

===903.18.2.2 Application Process===
'''Standard.''' A MoDOT application shall be submitted to MoDOT.

A list of one hundred (100) wet-signed signatures of individuals who support the naming of the highway or bridge designation shall be submitted to MoDOT. A 100-signature petition is required by state statute to show community support from the specific area the family, or its designee wishes to designate. The list must be of Missouri residents who are 18 years or older and live in the county or counties surrounding the memorial’s location.

MoDOT will require the family or its designee to have a legislative sponsor supporting the application. All memorial designation programs in the state of Missouri are based on state law. The law requires every memorial application to have a member of the Missouri General Assembly who will sponsor the designation. The sponsor should serve the local community for where the memorial is designated.

A total of two signs shall be erected for each highway or bridge designation on the state’s roadway system, as specified by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

The participating fee shall be paid by the applicant, private donations, or organizations. MoDOT shall maintain the signs for 20 years, after which a renewal application and renewal fee shall be submitted, or the signs are removed.

In the event a bridge or highway has a designated name, another bridge or highway shall be selected.

Only one memorial name shall be used to identify any highway or bridge designation under the provisions of [https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=227.299&bid=57602&hl= Missouri Revisor of Statutes - Revised Statutes of Missouri, RSMo Section 227.299].

'''Support.''' The Joint Committee on Transportation Oversight reviews and approves proposed designations. The Committee normally meets three times a year: in late January or early February, in late April or mid-May (before end of session), and in mid-September (during veto session). MoDOT has no influence over when the Joint Committee on Transportation Oversight meets. If the Committee is unable to gather a quorum to vote on the application, the application will be held, reviewed, and voted on at the next meeting.

Before completing an application, contact the MoDOT Highway Safety and Traffic Division at (573) 751-7643 or via email at [mailto:Memorial.Designations@modot.mo.gov Memorial.Designations@modot.mo.gov] to verify roadway availability of the desired section of highway (two-mile-or-less) or bridge designation.

MoDOT can help identify an available route. The family or its designee will need to provide a general location (e.g., county, route, or crossroad) to assist in their research.

Additional program information and application can be found at [https://www.modot.org/memorial-highway-and-bridge-program Memorial Highway and Bridge Program].

==903.18.3 Heroes Way Designation Program==
<gallery mode="packed" heights=75>
File:M18-3.jpg|Heroes Way
</gallery>

'''Support.''' This program allows for state-maintained highway interchanges, bridges, or segments of highway (two-miles-or-less) to be designated for Missouri residents, who were in the U.S. Armed Forces and were killed in action while performing active military duty.

Additional program information and application can be found at [https://www.modot.org/heroes-way-designation-program Heroes Way Designation Program].

'''Option.''' Any individual who is related by marriage, adoption, or consanguinity within the second degree to the member of the United States Armed Forces who was killed in action may apply for a Heroes Way designation.

'''Support.''' To protect the family’s interest, MoDOT corresponds only with the family member who submitted and signed the application.

'''Standard.''' MoDOT is the assigned program administrator under the provisions of [https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=227.297 Missouri Revisor of Statutes - Revised Statutes of Missouri, RSMo Section 227.297].

An application shall be submitted to MoDOT.

Verification the honoree was in the U.S. Armed Forces and was killed while performing military duty is required by state statue and shall be submitted to MoDOT. Acceptable forms of verification include a copy of the U.S. Armed Forces Casualty Report, website link to a fallen military webpage, a statement from the Missouri Veterans Commission or the U.S. Department of Veterans Affair, or any official military document certifying such facts.

Interstate or state-numbered highway interchanges, bridges or segments of highway shall only be designated in memory of one fallen solider. All interchanges, bridges, and sections of highway shall be identified and tied to the primary route. (e.g., an interchange at Interstate 70 and U.S. Highway 63 shall be considered an Interstate interchange and not a U.S. interchange).

A total of two signs shall be erected for each interchange, bridge, or section of highway designation on the state’s roadway system, as specified by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

Signing shall consist of one shoulder post-mounted sign at each end of the interchange, bridge, or section of highway. Heroes Way bridge signs will be installed on the roadway carried by the bridge, not on the roadway traveling under the bridge. Heroes Way interchange signs will be installed within the triangle area between the mainline and the ramp of the designated interchange. Heroes Way signs shall not appear on or be placed on any bridge structure or bridge span over a divided or undivided highway.

The signs shall be rectangular in shape and shall be 6 ft. by 3 ft. The signs shall have a white legend on a green background. The signs shall use MoDOT standard retroreflective sheeting. The legend displayed on the signs shall be limited to the simple message of “HEROES WAY”, the name of the individual being designated and the branch of U.S. Armed Forces the individual serviced. Additional legends, such as biographical information, nicknames, or any appearance of advertising, shall not be displayed on the signs. Decorative or graphical elements, pictographs, logos, or symbols shall not be displayed or attached to the signs or posts.

MoDOT shall have the right to modify the proposed legend based on design limitations of the sign.

MoDOT shall determine the sign location to ensure safe operation of the state roadway system.

MoDOT shall maintain the signs for 20 years, after which a renewal application shall be submitted to MoDOT or the signs are removed.

'''Support.''' The Joint Committee on Transportation Oversight reviews and approves the proposed designations. The Committee normally meets three times a year: in late January or early February, in late April or mid-May (before end of session), and in mid-September (during veto session). MoDOT has no influence over when the Joint Committee on Transportation Oversight meets. If the Committee is unable to gather a quorum to vote on the application, the application will be held, reviewed, and voted on at the next meeting.

MoDOT will order the signs and schedule for installation after the memorial receives approval. Sign delivery can take five to seven weeks. Memorial signs are installed within 120 days from the date the signs are received from the manufacturer, weather permitting. Before completing an application, contact the MoDOT Highway Safety and Traffic Division at (573) 751-7643 or via email at [mailto:Memorial.Designations@modot.mo.gov Memorial.Designations@modot.mo.gov] to verify roadway availability of the desired interchange, bridge, or section of highway (two-miles-or-less).

MoDOT can help identify an available roadway. The family will need to provide a general location (e.g., county, route, or crossroad) to assist in their research.

'''Standard.''' No interchange, bridge or section of a highway on the state roadway system shall be designated after more than one member of the U.S. Armed Forces killed in action. Such person shall only be eligible for one interchange, bridge or highway designation under the provision of [https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=227.297#:~:text=No%20interchange%2C%20bridge%2C%20or%20highway%20may%20be%20named%20or%20designated%20after%20more%20than%20one%20member%20of%20the%20United%20States%20Armed%20Forces%20killed%20in%20action.%C2%A0%C2%A0Such%20person%20shall%20only%20be%20eligible%20for%20one%20interchange%2C%20bridge%2C%20or%20highway%20designation%20under%20the%20provisions%20of%20this%20section. Missouri Revisor of Statutes - Revised Statutes of Missouri, RSMo Section 227.297.8].

Heroes Way designations shall not replace existing memorial designations for any bridge or section of highway designated on the roadway system. In the event a bridge or highway has a designated name, another bridge or section of highway shall be selected.

==903.18.4 Drunk Driving Victim Program==
<gallery mode="packed" heights=75>
File:M18-4.jpg|Fig. 903.18.4, David's Law
</gallery>

'''Support.''' This program allows memorial markers to be placed along state-maintained roadways for any victim killed on a state highway as result of a vehicular accident caused by an impaired driver.

Additional program information and application can be found at [https://www.modot.org/drunk-driving-victim-davids-law Drunk Driving Victim (David's Law)].

'''Standard.''' MoDOT is the program administrator. Applicants must submit an application to MoDOT, along with a copy of a Missouri Law Enforcement report or other legal documentation. This documentation must indicate one of the vehicle operators involved in the crash was impaired.

One marker shall be allowed for one individual who died in Missouri. In cases involving multiple victims, one marker per victim may be installed at the discretion of MoDOT; this is subject to additional costs. A marker shall not be installed in memory of an individual who themselves were impaired and in violation of the provisions in section [https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=577.010&bid=34718&hl= 577.010] or [https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=577.012&bid=33823&hl= 577.012].

One marker shall be erected as close as possible to the location where the crash occurred. MoDOT determines the marker location to ensure safe operation of the highway system.

The marker shall consist of one shoulder post-mounted sign on the right-hand side of the roadway, placed parallel to the roadway at approximately the mowing limit and facing the median. The marker shall not be placed perpendicular to the roadway. The marker shall not interfere with the placement of other signs, traffic control devices, other safety devices, or impede the safety of the traveling public.

The marker shall be rectangular in shape and shall be 30 inches by 18 inches. The marker shall have white legend on a blue background. The marker shall use MoDOT standard retroreflective sheeting. The legend displayed on the marker is mandated by state statue and shall be limited to the simple message of “Drunk Driving Victim”, the initials (e.g., first, middle, and last name) of the individual being designated, the month and year (e.g., two-digits) of the accident and the simple message of “Think About It”. Additional legends, such as ranks, or titles, shall not be displayed on the marker. Decorative or graphical elements, pictographs, logos, or symbols shall not be displayed on or attached to the marker or post.

The participating fee shall be paid by the applicant, private donations, or organizations.

MoDOT will order the marker and schedule for installation after the memorial receives approval. Sign delivery can take five to seven weeks. Memorial markers are installed within 120 days from the date the signs are received from the manufacturer, weather permitting.

MoDOT shall determine the marker location to ensure safe operation of the state roadway system.

MoDOT will not publicly announce the installation date for memorial markers to ensure safety is not compromised for all individuals involved, including our personnel, and the traveling public.

MoDOT shall maintain the markers for 10 years, after which a renewal application and renewal fee shall be submitted, or the markers are removed.

'''Option.''' Immediate family members of the deceased victim may request a memorial marker. An individual with written consent from an immediate family member may also apply on the family member’s behalf.

'''Support.''' The MoDOT Highway Safety and Traffic Division reviews and approves these proposed designations.

Before completing an application, contact the MoDOT Highway Safety and Traffic Division at (573) 751-7643 or via email at [mailto:Memorial.Designations@modot.mo.gov Memorial.Designations@modot.mo.gov] to verify roadway availability of the desired highway designation.

File:M18-8.jpg

2025-11-19T20:07:20Z

Hoskir: File uploaded with MsUpload

File uploaded with MsUpload

File:M18-7.jpg

2025-11-19T20:07:19Z

Hoskir: File uploaded with MsUpload

File uploaded with MsUpload

File:M18-6.jpg

2025-11-19T20:07:19Z

Hoskir: File uploaded with MsUpload

File uploaded with MsUpload

File:M18-5.jpg

2025-11-19T20:07:19Z

Hoskir: File uploaded with MsUpload

File uploaded with MsUpload

File:M18-4.jpg

2025-11-19T20:07:18Z

Hoskir: File uploaded with MsUpload

File uploaded with MsUpload

File:M18-3.jpg

2025-11-19T20:07:18Z

Hoskir: File uploaded with MsUpload

File uploaded with MsUpload

File:M18-2.jpg

2025-11-19T20:07:18Z

Hoskir: Hoskir uploaded a new version of File:M18-2.jpg

File:M18-1.jpg

2025-11-19T20:07:17Z

Hoskir: Hoskir uploaded a new version of File:M18-1.jpg

File:4c1x copyxx.jpg

2025-10-16T14:01:15Z

Hoskir:

File:4c1x copy1.jpg

2025-10-16T13:53:42Z

Hoskir:

File:4c1x copy1resized-800.jpg

2025-10-16T13:29:20Z

Hoskir:

File:4c1x copy1resized.jpg

2025-10-16T13:27:51Z

Hoskir:

User talk:Hoskir

2025-10-16T12:43:36Z

Hoskir: Replaced content with "1000px '''File:4c1x.png PNG file with width set''' 500px '''File:4c1x copy.jpg width set''' File:4c1x copy.jpg '''File:4c1x copy.jpg no width set''' 500px '''File:4c1x.jpg width set''' File:4c1x.jpg '''File:4c1x.jpg no width set'''"

[[File:4c1x.png|1000px]]
'''File:4c1x.png PNG file with width set'''

[[File:4c1x copy.jpg|500px]]
'''File:4c1x copy.jpg width set'''

[[File:4c1x copy.jpg]]
'''File:4c1x copy.jpg no width set'''

[[File:4c1x.jpg|500px]]
'''File:4c1x.jpg width set'''

[[File:4c1x.jpg]]
'''File:4c1x.jpg no width set'''

User talk:Hoskir

2025-09-26T13:50:41Z

Hoskir: Created page with "1000px 900px 500px =={{SpanID|902.3.3}}902.3.3 Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (MUTCD Section 4C.03)== '''Support. '''The Four-Hour Vehicular Volume signal warrant conditions are intended to be applied where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. This warrant is based on existing traffic and is not normally used during project developm..."

[[File:4c1x.png|1000px]]

[[File:4c1x copy.jpg|900px]]

[[File:4c1x.jpg|500px]]

=={{SpanID|902.3.3}}902.3.3 Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (MUTCD Section 4C.03)==

'''Support. '''The Four-Hour Vehicular Volume signal warrant conditions are intended to be applied where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. This warrant is based on existing traffic and is not normally used during project development.

'''Guidance. '''The need for a traffic control signal should be considered if an engineering study finds that, for each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the more critical minor-street approach (one direction only) all fall above the applicable curve in [[#fig902.3.3.1|Figure 902.3.3.1]] for the existing combination of approach lanes.

'''Support. '''On the minor street, the more critical volume is not required to be on the same approach during each of these 4 hours. The more critical minor-street volume is the one that meets the warranting criteria for that approach, and in the case of a one-lane minor-street approach that is opposite from a multi-lane minor-street approach might not have the higher volume.

'''Option. '''If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, [[#fig902.3.3.2|Figure 902.3.3.2]] may be used in place of [[#fig902.3.3.1|Figure 902.3.3.1]].

{{SpanID|fig902.3.3.1}}
[[File:4c1x.png|thumbnail|center|frame|alt=A line graph displays three curves—one for each existing combination of approach lanes: one lane and one lane, two or more lanes and one lane (which can be a combination of two or more major-street lanes and one minor-street, or one major-street lane and two or more minor-street lanes), and two or more lanes and two or more lanes. These three curves represent numerical values between the approximate vehicles per hour (VPH) on the “major street – total of both approaches” on the “x” axis and corresponding VPH on the “minor street more critical approach” on the “y” axis for each combination of approach lanes.|1000px|'''Figure 902.3.3.1''' Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume]]

{{SpanID|fig902.3.3.2}}
[[File:4c2.jpg|thumbnail|center|frame|alt=A line graph displays three curves—one for each existing combination of approach lanes: one lane and one lane, two or more lanes and one lane (which can be a combination of two or more major-street lanes and one minor-street, or one major-street lane and two or more minor-street lanes), and two or more lanes and two or more lanes. These three curves represent numerical values between the approximate vehicles per hour (VPH) on the “major street – total of both approaches” on the “x” axis and corresponding VPH on the “minor street more critical approach” on the “y” axis for each combination of approach lanes. The numerical values depict conditions where the intersection lies within a “community less than 10,000 population” or posted speed limit or 85th-percentile speed “above 40 MPH on major street” is exceeded.|1000px|'''Figure 902.3.3.2''' Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor)]]

File:4c1x.png

2025-09-25T20:45:52Z

Hoskir: File uploaded with MsUpload

File uploaded with MsUpload

File:4c1x copy.jpg

2025-09-25T20:43:33Z

Hoskir: File uploaded with MsUpload

File uploaded with MsUpload

File:4c1x.jpg

2025-09-25T20:40:09Z

Hoskir: File uploaded with MsUpload

File uploaded with MsUpload

616.16 Typical Applications (MUTCD Chapter 6P)

2025-07-31T19:42:16Z

Hoskir: /* 616.8.2.1 Typical Applications */

<div style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-top:7px; margin-bottom: 5px;">__TOC__</div>
<center><div style="margin-top:7px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; display: inline-block; border:2px solid black; box-shadow:5px 5px 5px #888888">
[[image:TA-Header.png|center]]
</div></center>

==616.8.1 Temporary Traffic Control for Contract Plan Sheet Development==

Each work zone is different and requires different temporary traffic control (TTC) plans. For contract plan sheets, [https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2r3/pdf_index.htm MUTCD (2009) Chapter 6H] provides the typical applications (TAs) to develop TTC plans and for in-field modifications as directed by the engineer. TAs should be altered, when needed, to fit the conditions of the specific work zone. See [[:Category:237_Contract_Plans|EPG 237]] for additional plan sheet guidance.

References to work vehicle or shadow vehicle made in the MUTCD will be considered incidental and should be indicated as such on the TTC plans.

When optional items are referenced in the MUTCD, the contractor may, at their discretion, utilize the items as incidental. When the TTC plans indicate one or more of these items as required for stationary work activities, applicable pay items will apply and will be included. Field adjustments, as directed by the engineer, may require additional pay items via a change order. When use of a Truck Mounted Attenuator (TMA) is deemed necessary for one or more stationary work activities, this will be indicated on the TTC plans, the Truck Mounted Attenuator (TMA) for Stationary Work Activities JSP will be included in the contract, and the Truck Mounted Attenuator pay item will be provided.

TMAs used in mobile operations, such as striping, are considered incidental per Sec 612.5.

==616.8.2 Temporary Traffic Control for MoDOT Employees==

<div style="float: right; margin-left: 35px; margin-right: 35px; text-align: center; width:400px; border:1px solid black; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:5px 5px 5px #888888">
<b>If you have questions about a Typical Application, please email [mailto:WZTAQuestions@modot.mo.gov?Subject=Question%20about%20TA WZTAQuestions@modot.mo.gov]</b>
</div>

These TAs are intended for the use of MoDOT employees. Before each work shift, all employees are required to participate in a pre-shift safety briefing. During the briefing, the applicable TAs should be printed out and then discussed to know the procedures to follow for the day’s work. This should include the risk-based assessment (RBA). The TAs shown in the EPG are considered current.

===616.8.2.1 Typical Applications===


<div class="mw-customtoggle-ET1" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #ff67ff; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888; border-width:thin;border-style:solid; border-color:gray;">[+/-] Emergency Traffic Control</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-ET1">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top; background-color: #fca1fc"
! style="background-color: #fca1fc" | Emergency Traffic Control Description !! style="width: 170px; background-color: #fca1fc" | ETC Number !! style="width: 230px; background-color: #fca1fc" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| *Imminent Danger of a Human* on Roadway or Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Emergency_Traffic_Control/ETC-1.pdf ETC-1] || style="text-align:center;" | 7/12/2024
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| *Unsafe Condition* on Roadway or Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Emergency_Traffic_Control/ETC-2.pdf ETC-2] || style="text-align:center;" | 7/12/2024
|}

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888; border-width:thin;border-style:solid; border-color:gray;">[+/-] Work Beyond the Shoulder</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation Work Beyond the Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-1M.pdf TA-1M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.1M || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Work Beyond the Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-1SD.pdf TA-1SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.1SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work Beyond the Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-1S.pdf TA-1S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.1S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888; border-width:thin;border-style:solid; border-color:gray;">[+/-] Work on the Shoulder</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation on a Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-4M.pdf TA-4M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.4M || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Work on a Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-4SD.pdf TA-4SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.4SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Shoulder Closure</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Long-Term Shoulder Closure || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-5A.pdf TA-5A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.5A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Long-Term Shoulder Closure with Temporary Traffic Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-5B.pdf TA-5B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.5B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Shoulder Work with Minor Encroachment || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-6A.pdf TA-6A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.6A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Shoulder Work with Minor Encroachment with Temporary Traffic Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-6B.pdf TA-6B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.6B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2d" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2d" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Shoulder Work || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-3S.pdf TA-3S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.3S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888; border-width:thin;border-style:solid; border-color:gray;">[+/-] Work Within the Traveled Way of a Two-Lane Highway</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation on a Two-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-17M.pdf TA-17M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.17M || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Striping Operations on a Two-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-17STRIPE.pdf TA-17STRIPE] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.17STRIPE || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Road Closure</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Road Closure || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-8A.pdf TA-8A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.8A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Road Closure with Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-8B.pdf TA-8B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.8B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Road Closed Beyond Junction Detour || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-9.pdf TA-9] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.9 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SD.pdf TA-10SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway with Less than 400 AADT || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SD400AADT.pdf TA-10SD400AADT] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.6.8.616.8.10SD400AADT || style="text-align:center;" | 4-1-24
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using TMA Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SDTMA.pdf TA-10SDTMA] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SDTMA || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30SDTWLTL.pdf TA-30SDTWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.6.8.30SDTWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3d" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3d" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10S.pdf TA-10S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Automated Flagger Assistance Device (AFADs) || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SAFAD.pdf TA-10SAFAD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SAFAD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Portable Signal Flagger Devices (PSFDs) || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SPSFD.pdf TA-10SPSFD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SPSFD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using a TMA Flagger || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10STMA1.pdf TA-10STMA1] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10STMA1 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Multiple TMA Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10STMA2.pdf TA-10STMA2] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10STMA2 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Lane Closure on Two-Lane Highways Using Traffic Control Signals || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-12.pdf TA-12] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.12 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30STWLTL.pdf TA-30STWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.30STWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3e" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Support Figures</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3e" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Support Figure Description !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Flagger_Control_for_Resurfacing_or_Moving_Operations_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway.pdf Flagger control for Resurfacing or Moving Operations on a Two-Lane Highway] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway_near_Intersections.pdf Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway near Intersections] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway–3_Mile_Flagging_Scenarios.pdf Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway - 3 mile Flagging Scenarios] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Restriction_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway_Vertical_Clearance_at_Bridge.pdf Lane Restriction on a Two-Lane Highway Vertical Clearance at Bridge] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Side_Roads_Entering_Work_Zones.pdf Side Roads Entering Work Zones] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-TMA_Flagger_Design.pdf TMA Flagger Design] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_Alternate_Passing_Lanes.pdf Lane Closure on Alternating Passing Lanes] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Begin-End_of_Project_Signing.pdf Begin/End of Project Signing] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA4" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888; border-width:thin;border-style:solid; border-color:gray;">[+/-] Work Within the Traveled Way at an Intersection and on Sidewalks</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA4">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA4a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA4a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Center Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-21SD.pdf TA-21SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.21SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Right Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-22SD.pdf TA-22SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.22SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Left Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-23SD.pdf TA-23SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.23SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA4b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA4b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Center Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-21S.pdf TA-21S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.21S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Right Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-22S.pdf TA-22S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.22S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Left Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-23S.pdf TA-23S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.23S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888; border-width:thin;border-style:solid; border-color:gray;">[+/-] Work Within the Traveled Way of a Multi-Lane Highway</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-35M.pdf TA-35M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.35M || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Pavement Marking Operation on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-35STRIPE.pdf TA-35STRIPE] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.35STRIPE || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30SDTWLTL.pdf TA-30SDTWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.6.8.30SDTWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-33SD.pdf TA-33SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.33SD || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Work on Exit Ramps || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-43SD.pdf TA-43SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.43SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30STWLTL.pdf TA-30STWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.30STWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-33S.pdf TA-33S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.33S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Lane Closure with Temporary Traffic Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-34B.pdf TA-34B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.34B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Double Lane Closures on Interior Lane on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-37S.pdf TA-37S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.37S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Closure of Interior Lane on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-38S.pdf TA-38S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.38S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work in the Vicinity of an Exit Ramp || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-42S.pdf TA-42S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.42S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Ramp By-Pass || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-43B.pdf TA-43B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.43B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work on Ramps || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-43S.pdf TA-43S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.43S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Entrance Ramp Closure || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-44A.pdf TA-44A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.44A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work in the Vicinity of an Entrance Ramp || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-44S.pdf TA-44S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.44S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5d" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Support Figures</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5d" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Support Figure Description !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_Alternate_Passing_Lanes.pdf Lane Closure on Alternating Passing Lanes] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Restriction_on_Divided_Highways_Width_Clearance_at_Bridge.pdf Lane Restriction on Divided Highways Width Clearance at Bridge] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Begin-End_of_Project_Signing.pdf Begin/End of Project Signing] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA6" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888; border-width:thin;border-style:solid; border-color:gray;">[+/-] Work at Railroad Crossing</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA6">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA6a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA6a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work in the Vicinity of a Railroad Grade Crossing || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-46S.pdf TA-46S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.46S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA7" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888; border-width:thin;border-style:solid; border-color:gray;">[+/-] Excavations with Steel Plates</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA7">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA7a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA7a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Excavations with Steel Plate or Backfill on Undivided Highways || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-47A.pdf TA-47A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.47A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Excavations with Steel Plate or Backfill on Divided Highways || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-47B.pdf TA-47B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.47B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA8" onclick="window.location.href='https://www.google.com';" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #e6fff2; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888; border-width:thin;border-style:solid; border-color:gray;">[https://modotgov.sharepoint.com/sites/cm Complex Intersection Guidance (MoDOT access only)]</div>

===616.8.2.2 Legend for Typical Applications===

</br>
[[image:616.8.jpg|center|750px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 616.8.2 Meaning of Symbols on Typical Application Diagrams'''</center>]]

===616.8.2.3 Examples of Highways===

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
|-
|colspan="3"|'''Divided Highway:''' Highway with physical separation of traffic in the opposite direction.
|-
|[[image:616.8.3.1.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Median Separation'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.2.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Median Separation with Guard Cable'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Barrier Wall Separation'''</center>]]
|-
|
|-
|height="40"|
|-
|colspan="3"|'''Undivided Highway:''' Highway with no physical separation of traffic in the opposite direction.
|-
|[[image:616.8.3.4.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Undivided Highway'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.5.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane Undivided Highway'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.6.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane with Turning Lane'''</center>]]
|}
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
|-
|[[image:616.8.3.7.jpg|left|275px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane with Raised Median'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.8.jpg|left|275px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane with Paved Narrow Median</center>''']]
|}

===616.8.2.4 Recommended Advance Warning Sign Minimum Spacing===
<center>

{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" style="text-align:center"
|+ '''[[616.3 Temporary Traffic Control Elements (MUTCD Chapter 6C)#Table 616.3.4 Recommended Advance Warning Sign Minimum Spacing| Table 616.3.4, Recommended Advance Warning Sign Minimum Spacing]]'''
! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2"|Speed Limit<sup>'''1'''</sup>, mph!!style="background:#BEBEBE" colspan="2"|Sign Spacing<sup>'''2'''</sup>, ft.
|-
!style="background:#BEBEBE" |Undivided Highway!! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Divided Highway
|-
|up to 35|| 200<sup>'''3'''</sup>|| 200<sup>'''3'''</sup>
|-
|40 to 45|| 350|| 500
|-
|50 to 55|| 500|| 1000
|-
|60 to 70||1000||SA-1000<br/>SB-1500<br/>SC-2640
|-
|align="left" colspan="3"|<sup>'''1'''</sup> Speed limit is based on posted speed limit.
|-
|align="left" colspan="3"|<sup>'''2'''</sup> Sign spacing may be adjusted, normally by increasing it, to accommodate field conditions and visibility.
|-
|align="left" colspan="3"|<sup>'''3'''</sup> For urban low speed, minimum recommended spacing in MUTCD is 100 ft.
|}
</center>

===616.8.2.5 Recommended Taper Length and Spacing===
<center>

{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" style="text-align:center"
|+'''[https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=616.3_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Elements_%28MUTCD_Chapter_6C%29#Table_616.3.5_Recommended_Taper_Length_and_Spacing Table 616.3.5, Recommended Taper Length and Spacing]'''
! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2"|Speed Limit<sup>'''1'''</sup>, mph!!style="background:#BEBEBE" colspan="2"|Taper Length<sup>'''2'''</sup>, ft. !!style="background:#BEBEBE" colspan="2"| Channelizing Spacing <sup>'''3'''</sup>, ft.
|-
!style="background:#BEBEBE"| Shoulder<sup>'''4'''</sup> (T1)!!style="background:#BEBEBE"|Lane<sup>'''5'''</sup> (T2)!!style="background:#BEBEBE"|Tapers!!style="background:#BEBEBE"|Buffer/Work Areas
|-
|up to 35||70|| 245|| 35<sup>6</sup> ||40<sup>6</sup>
|-
|40 to 45||150|| 540|| 40<sup>6</sup>|| 80<sup>6</sup>
|-
|50 to 55||185|| 660|| 50<sup>7</sup>|| 80<sup>7</sup>
|-
|60 to 70||235|| 840|| 60<sup>7</sup>|| 120<sup>7</sup>
|-
|align="left" colspan="5"|<sup>'''1'''</sup> Speed limit is based on posted speed limit.<br/><sup>'''2'''</sup> Taper lengths may be adjusted to accommodate crossroads, curves, intersections, ramps or other geometric features.<br/><sup>'''3'''</sup> Channelizer spacing may be reduced to discourage traffic encroachment.<br/><sup>'''4'''</sup> Based on 10 ft. shoulder width.<br/><sup>'''5'''</sup> Based on 12 ft. lane width.<br/><sup>'''6'''</sup> Spacing reduced to 1/2 at intersections.<br/><sup>'''7'''</sup> Spacing may be reduced to 1/2 at intersections.
|}
</center>

[[Category:616 Temporary Traffic Control|616.08]]

616.16 Typical Applications (MUTCD Chapter 6P)

2025-07-31T19:31:51Z

Hoskir: /* 616.8.2.1 Typical Applications */

<div style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-top:7px; margin-bottom: 5px;">__TOC__</div>
<center><div style="margin-top:7px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; display: inline-block; border:2px solid black; box-shadow:5px 5px 5px #888888">
[[image:TA-Header.png|center]]
</div></center>

==616.8.1 Temporary Traffic Control for Contract Plan Sheet Development==

Each work zone is different and requires different temporary traffic control (TTC) plans. For contract plan sheets, [https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2r3/pdf_index.htm MUTCD (2009) Chapter 6H] provides the typical applications (TAs) to develop TTC plans and for in-field modifications as directed by the engineer. TAs should be altered, when needed, to fit the conditions of the specific work zone. See [[:Category:237_Contract_Plans|EPG 237]] for additional plan sheet guidance.

References to work vehicle or shadow vehicle made in the MUTCD will be considered incidental and should be indicated as such on the TTC plans.

When optional items are referenced in the MUTCD, the contractor may, at their discretion, utilize the items as incidental. When the TTC plans indicate one or more of these items as required for stationary work activities, applicable pay items will apply and will be included. Field adjustments, as directed by the engineer, may require additional pay items via a change order. When use of a Truck Mounted Attenuator (TMA) is deemed necessary for one or more stationary work activities, this will be indicated on the TTC plans, the Truck Mounted Attenuator (TMA) for Stationary Work Activities JSP will be included in the contract, and the Truck Mounted Attenuator pay item will be provided.

TMAs used in mobile operations, such as striping, are considered incidental per Sec 612.5.

==616.8.2 Temporary Traffic Control for MoDOT Employees==

<div style="float: right; margin-left: 35px; margin-right: 35px; text-align: center; width:400px; border:1px solid black; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:5px 5px 5px #888888">
<b>If you have questions about a Typical Application, please email [mailto:WZTAQuestions@modot.mo.gov?Subject=Question%20about%20TA WZTAQuestions@modot.mo.gov]</b>
</div>

These TAs are intended for the use of MoDOT employees. Before each work shift, all employees are required to participate in a pre-shift safety briefing. During the briefing, the applicable TAs should be printed out and then discussed to know the procedures to follow for the day’s work. This should include the risk-based assessment (RBA). The TAs shown in the EPG are considered current.

===616.8.2.1 Typical Applications===


<div class="mw-customtoggle-ET1" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #ff67ff; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888; border-width:thin;border-style:solid; border-color:gray;">[+/-] Emergency Traffic Control</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-ET1">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top; background-color: #fca1fc"
! style="background-color: #fca1fc" | Emergency Traffic Control Description !! style="width: 170px; background-color: #fca1fc" | ETC Number !! style="width: 230px; background-color: #fca1fc" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| *Imminent Danger of a Human* on Roadway or Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Emergency_Traffic_Control/ETC-1.pdf ETC-1] || style="text-align:center;" | 7/12/2024
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| *Unsafe Condition* on Roadway or Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Emergency_Traffic_Control/ETC-2.pdf ETC-2] || style="text-align:center;" | 7/12/2024
|}

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work Beyond the Shoulder</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation Work Beyond the Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-1M.pdf TA-1M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.1M || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Work Beyond the Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-1SD.pdf TA-1SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.1SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work Beyond the Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-1S.pdf TA-1S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.1S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work on the Shoulder</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation on a Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-4M.pdf TA-4M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.4M || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Work on a Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-4SD.pdf TA-4SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.4SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Shoulder Closure</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Long-Term Shoulder Closure || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-5A.pdf TA-5A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.5A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Long-Term Shoulder Closure with Temporary Traffic Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-5B.pdf TA-5B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.5B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Shoulder Work with Minor Encroachment || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-6A.pdf TA-6A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.6A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Shoulder Work with Minor Encroachment with Temporary Traffic Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-6B.pdf TA-6B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.6B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2d" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2d" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Shoulder Work || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-3S.pdf TA-3S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.3S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work Within the Traveled Way of a Two-Lane Highway</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation on a Two-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-17M.pdf TA-17M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.17M || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Striping Operations on a Two-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-17STRIPE.pdf TA-17STRIPE] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.17STRIPE || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Road Closure</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Road Closure || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-8A.pdf TA-8A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.8A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Road Closure with Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-8B.pdf TA-8B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.8B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Road Closed Beyond Junction Detour || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-9.pdf TA-9] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.9 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SD.pdf TA-10SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway with Less than 400 AADT || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SD400AADT.pdf TA-10SD400AADT] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.6.8.616.8.10SD400AADT || style="text-align:center;" | 4-1-24
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using TMA Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SDTMA.pdf TA-10SDTMA] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SDTMA || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30SDTWLTL.pdf TA-30SDTWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.6.8.30SDTWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3d" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3d" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10S.pdf TA-10S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Automated Flagger Assistance Device (AFADs) || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SAFAD.pdf TA-10SAFAD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SAFAD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Portable Signal Flagger Devices (PSFDs) || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SPSFD.pdf TA-10SPSFD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SPSFD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using a TMA Flagger || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10STMA1.pdf TA-10STMA1] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10STMA1 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Multiple TMA Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10STMA2.pdf TA-10STMA2] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10STMA2 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Lane Closure on Two-Lane Highways Using Traffic Control Signals || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-12.pdf TA-12] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.12 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30STWLTL.pdf TA-30STWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.30STWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3e" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Support Figures</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3e" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Support Figure Description !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Flagger_Control_for_Resurfacing_or_Moving_Operations_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway.pdf Flagger control for Resurfacing or Moving Operations on a Two-Lane Highway] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway_near_Intersections.pdf Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway near Intersections] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway–3_Mile_Flagging_Scenarios.pdf Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway - 3 mile Flagging Scenarios] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Restriction_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway_Vertical_Clearance_at_Bridge.pdf Lane Restriction on a Two-Lane Highway Vertical Clearance at Bridge] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Side_Roads_Entering_Work_Zones.pdf Side Roads Entering Work Zones] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-TMA_Flagger_Design.pdf TMA Flagger Design] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_Alternate_Passing_Lanes.pdf Lane Closure on Alternating Passing Lanes] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Begin-End_of_Project_Signing.pdf Begin/End of Project Signing] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA4" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work Within the Traveled Way at an Intersection and on Sidewalks</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA4">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA4a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA4a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Center Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-21SD.pdf TA-21SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.21SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Right Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-22SD.pdf TA-22SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.22SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Left Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-23SD.pdf TA-23SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.23SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA4b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA4b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Center Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-21S.pdf TA-21S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.21S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Right Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-22S.pdf TA-22S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.22S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Left Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-23S.pdf TA-23S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.23S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work Within the Traveled Way of a Multi-Lane Highway</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-35M.pdf TA-35M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.35M || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Pavement Marking Operation on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-35STRIPE.pdf TA-35STRIPE] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.35STRIPE || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30SDTWLTL.pdf TA-30SDTWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.6.8.30SDTWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-33SD.pdf TA-33SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.33SD || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Work on Exit Ramps || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-43SD.pdf TA-43SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.43SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30STWLTL.pdf TA-30STWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.30STWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-33S.pdf TA-33S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.33S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Lane Closure with Temporary Traffic Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-34B.pdf TA-34B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.34B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Double Lane Closures on Interior Lane on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-37S.pdf TA-37S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.37S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Closure of Interior Lane on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-38S.pdf TA-38S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.38S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work in the Vicinity of an Exit Ramp || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-42S.pdf TA-42S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.42S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Ramp By-Pass || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-43B.pdf TA-43B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.43B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work on Ramps || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-43S.pdf TA-43S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.43S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Entrance Ramp Closure || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-44A.pdf TA-44A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.44A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work in the Vicinity of an Entrance Ramp || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-44S.pdf TA-44S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.44S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5d" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Support Figures</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5d" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Support Figure Description !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_Alternate_Passing_Lanes.pdf Lane Closure on Alternating Passing Lanes] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Restriction_on_Divided_Highways_Width_Clearance_at_Bridge.pdf Lane Restriction on Divided Highways Width Clearance at Bridge] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Begin-End_of_Project_Signing.pdf Begin/End of Project Signing] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA6" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work at Railroad Crossing</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA6">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA6a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA6a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work in the Vicinity of a Railroad Grade Crossing || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-46S.pdf TA-46S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.46S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA7" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Excavations with Steel Plates</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA7">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA7a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA7a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Excavations with Steel Plate or Backfill on Undivided Highways || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-47A.pdf TA-47A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.47A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Excavations with Steel Plate or Backfill on Divided Highways || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-47B.pdf TA-47B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.47B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA8" onclick="window.location.href='https://www.google.com';" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #e6fff2; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888; border-width:thin;border-style:solid; border-color:gray;">[https://modotgov.sharepoint.com/sites/cm Complex Intersection Guidance (MoDOT access only)]</div>

===616.8.2.2 Legend for Typical Applications===

</br>
[[image:616.8.jpg|center|750px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 616.8.2 Meaning of Symbols on Typical Application Diagrams'''</center>]]

===616.8.2.3 Examples of Highways===

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
|-
|colspan="3"|'''Divided Highway:''' Highway with physical separation of traffic in the opposite direction.
|-
|[[image:616.8.3.1.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Median Separation'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.2.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Median Separation with Guard Cable'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Barrier Wall Separation'''</center>]]
|-
|
|-
|height="40"|
|-
|colspan="3"|'''Undivided Highway:''' Highway with no physical separation of traffic in the opposite direction.
|-
|[[image:616.8.3.4.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Undivided Highway'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.5.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane Undivided Highway'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.6.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane with Turning Lane'''</center>]]
|}
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
|-
|[[image:616.8.3.7.jpg|left|275px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane with Raised Median'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.8.jpg|left|275px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane with Paved Narrow Median</center>''']]
|}

===616.8.2.4 Recommended Advance Warning Sign Minimum Spacing===
<center>

{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" style="text-align:center"
|+ '''[[616.3 Temporary Traffic Control Elements (MUTCD Chapter 6C)#Table 616.3.4 Recommended Advance Warning Sign Minimum Spacing| Table 616.3.4, Recommended Advance Warning Sign Minimum Spacing]]'''
! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2"|Speed Limit<sup>'''1'''</sup>, mph!!style="background:#BEBEBE" colspan="2"|Sign Spacing<sup>'''2'''</sup>, ft.
|-
!style="background:#BEBEBE" |Undivided Highway!! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Divided Highway
|-
|up to 35|| 200<sup>'''3'''</sup>|| 200<sup>'''3'''</sup>
|-
|40 to 45|| 350|| 500
|-
|50 to 55|| 500|| 1000
|-
|60 to 70||1000||SA-1000<br/>SB-1500<br/>SC-2640
|-
|align="left" colspan="3"|<sup>'''1'''</sup> Speed limit is based on posted speed limit.
|-
|align="left" colspan="3"|<sup>'''2'''</sup> Sign spacing may be adjusted, normally by increasing it, to accommodate field conditions and visibility.
|-
|align="left" colspan="3"|<sup>'''3'''</sup> For urban low speed, minimum recommended spacing in MUTCD is 100 ft.
|}
</center>

===616.8.2.5 Recommended Taper Length and Spacing===
<center>

{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" style="text-align:center"
|+'''[https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=616.3_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Elements_%28MUTCD_Chapter_6C%29#Table_616.3.5_Recommended_Taper_Length_and_Spacing Table 616.3.5, Recommended Taper Length and Spacing]'''
! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2"|Speed Limit<sup>'''1'''</sup>, mph!!style="background:#BEBEBE" colspan="2"|Taper Length<sup>'''2'''</sup>, ft. !!style="background:#BEBEBE" colspan="2"| Channelizing Spacing <sup>'''3'''</sup>, ft.
|-
!style="background:#BEBEBE"| Shoulder<sup>'''4'''</sup> (T1)!!style="background:#BEBEBE"|Lane<sup>'''5'''</sup> (T2)!!style="background:#BEBEBE"|Tapers!!style="background:#BEBEBE"|Buffer/Work Areas
|-
|up to 35||70|| 245|| 35<sup>6</sup> ||40<sup>6</sup>
|-
|40 to 45||150|| 540|| 40<sup>6</sup>|| 80<sup>6</sup>
|-
|50 to 55||185|| 660|| 50<sup>7</sup>|| 80<sup>7</sup>
|-
|60 to 70||235|| 840|| 60<sup>7</sup>|| 120<sup>7</sup>
|-
|align="left" colspan="5"|<sup>'''1'''</sup> Speed limit is based on posted speed limit.<br/><sup>'''2'''</sup> Taper lengths may be adjusted to accommodate crossroads, curves, intersections, ramps or other geometric features.<br/><sup>'''3'''</sup> Channelizer spacing may be reduced to discourage traffic encroachment.<br/><sup>'''4'''</sup> Based on 10 ft. shoulder width.<br/><sup>'''5'''</sup> Based on 12 ft. lane width.<br/><sup>'''6'''</sup> Spacing reduced to 1/2 at intersections.<br/><sup>'''7'''</sup> Spacing may be reduced to 1/2 at intersections.
|}
</center>

[[Category:616 Temporary Traffic Control|616.08]]

616.16 Typical Applications (MUTCD Chapter 6P)

2025-07-31T19:30:52Z

Hoskir: /* 616.8.2.1 Typical Applications */

<div style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-top:7px; margin-bottom: 5px;">__TOC__</div>
<center><div style="margin-top:7px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; display: inline-block; border:2px solid black; box-shadow:5px 5px 5px #888888">
[[image:TA-Header.png|center]]
</div></center>

==616.8.1 Temporary Traffic Control for Contract Plan Sheet Development==

Each work zone is different and requires different temporary traffic control (TTC) plans. For contract plan sheets, [https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2r3/pdf_index.htm MUTCD (2009) Chapter 6H] provides the typical applications (TAs) to develop TTC plans and for in-field modifications as directed by the engineer. TAs should be altered, when needed, to fit the conditions of the specific work zone. See [[:Category:237_Contract_Plans|EPG 237]] for additional plan sheet guidance.

References to work vehicle or shadow vehicle made in the MUTCD will be considered incidental and should be indicated as such on the TTC plans.

When optional items are referenced in the MUTCD, the contractor may, at their discretion, utilize the items as incidental. When the TTC plans indicate one or more of these items as required for stationary work activities, applicable pay items will apply and will be included. Field adjustments, as directed by the engineer, may require additional pay items via a change order. When use of a Truck Mounted Attenuator (TMA) is deemed necessary for one or more stationary work activities, this will be indicated on the TTC plans, the Truck Mounted Attenuator (TMA) for Stationary Work Activities JSP will be included in the contract, and the Truck Mounted Attenuator pay item will be provided.

TMAs used in mobile operations, such as striping, are considered incidental per Sec 612.5.

==616.8.2 Temporary Traffic Control for MoDOT Employees==

<div style="float: right; margin-left: 35px; margin-right: 35px; text-align: center; width:400px; border:1px solid black; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:5px 5px 5px #888888">
<b>If you have questions about a Typical Application, please email [mailto:WZTAQuestions@modot.mo.gov?Subject=Question%20about%20TA WZTAQuestions@modot.mo.gov]</b>
</div>

These TAs are intended for the use of MoDOT employees. Before each work shift, all employees are required to participate in a pre-shift safety briefing. During the briefing, the applicable TAs should be printed out and then discussed to know the procedures to follow for the day’s work. This should include the risk-based assessment (RBA). The TAs shown in the EPG are considered current.

===616.8.2.1 Typical Applications===


<div class="mw-customtoggle-ET1" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #ff67ff; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888; border-width:thin;border-style:solid; border-color:gray;">[+/-] Emergency Traffic Control</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-ET1">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top; background-color: #fca1fc"
! style="background-color: #fca1fc" | Emergency Traffic Control Description !! style="width: 170px; background-color: #fca1fc" | ETC Number !! style="width: 230px; background-color: #fca1fc" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| *Imminent Danger of a Human* on Roadway or Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Emergency_Traffic_Control/ETC-1.pdf ETC-1] || style="text-align:center;" | 7/12/2024
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| *Unsafe Condition* on Roadway or Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Emergency_Traffic_Control/ETC-2.pdf ETC-2] || style="text-align:center;" | 7/12/2024
|}

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work Beyond the Shoulder</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation Work Beyond the Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-1M.pdf TA-1M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.1M || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Work Beyond the Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-1SD.pdf TA-1SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.1SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work Beyond the Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-1S.pdf TA-1S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.1S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work on the Shoulder</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation on a Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-4M.pdf TA-4M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.4M || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Work on a Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-4SD.pdf TA-4SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.4SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Shoulder Closure</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Long-Term Shoulder Closure || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-5A.pdf TA-5A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.5A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Long-Term Shoulder Closure with Temporary Traffic Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-5B.pdf TA-5B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.5B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Shoulder Work with Minor Encroachment || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-6A.pdf TA-6A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.6A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Shoulder Work with Minor Encroachment with Temporary Traffic Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-6B.pdf TA-6B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.6B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2d" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2d" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Shoulder Work || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-3S.pdf TA-3S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.3S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work Within the Traveled Way of a Two-Lane Highway</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation on a Two-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-17M.pdf TA-17M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.17M || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Striping Operations on a Two-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-17STRIPE.pdf TA-17STRIPE] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.17STRIPE || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Road Closure</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Road Closure || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-8A.pdf TA-8A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.8A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Road Closure with Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-8B.pdf TA-8B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.8B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Road Closed Beyond Junction Detour || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-9.pdf TA-9] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.9 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SD.pdf TA-10SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway with Less than 400 AADT || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SD400AADT.pdf TA-10SD400AADT] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.6.8.616.8.10SD400AADT || style="text-align:center;" | 4-1-24
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using TMA Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SDTMA.pdf TA-10SDTMA] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SDTMA || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30SDTWLTL.pdf TA-30SDTWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.6.8.30SDTWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3d" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3d" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10S.pdf TA-10S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Automated Flagger Assistance Device (AFADs) || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SAFAD.pdf TA-10SAFAD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SAFAD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Portable Signal Flagger Devices (PSFDs) || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SPSFD.pdf TA-10SPSFD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SPSFD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using a TMA Flagger || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10STMA1.pdf TA-10STMA1] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10STMA1 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Multiple TMA Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10STMA2.pdf TA-10STMA2] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10STMA2 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Lane Closure on Two-Lane Highways Using Traffic Control Signals || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-12.pdf TA-12] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.12 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30STWLTL.pdf TA-30STWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.30STWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3e" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Support Figures</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3e" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Support Figure Description !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Flagger_Control_for_Resurfacing_or_Moving_Operations_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway.pdf Flagger control for Resurfacing or Moving Operations on a Two-Lane Highway] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway_near_Intersections.pdf Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway near Intersections] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway–3_Mile_Flagging_Scenarios.pdf Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway - 3 mile Flagging Scenarios] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Restriction_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway_Vertical_Clearance_at_Bridge.pdf Lane Restriction on a Two-Lane Highway Vertical Clearance at Bridge] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Side_Roads_Entering_Work_Zones.pdf Side Roads Entering Work Zones] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-TMA_Flagger_Design.pdf TMA Flagger Design] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_Alternate_Passing_Lanes.pdf Lane Closure on Alternating Passing Lanes] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Begin-End_of_Project_Signing.pdf Begin/End of Project Signing] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA4" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work Within the Traveled Way at an Intersection and on Sidewalks</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA4">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA4a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA4a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Center Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-21SD.pdf TA-21SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.21SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Right Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-22SD.pdf TA-22SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.22SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Left Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-23SD.pdf TA-23SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.23SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA4b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA4b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Center Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-21S.pdf TA-21S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.21S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Right Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-22S.pdf TA-22S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.22S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Left Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-23S.pdf TA-23S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.23S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work Within the Traveled Way of a Multi-Lane Highway</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-35M.pdf TA-35M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.35M || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Pavement Marking Operation on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-35STRIPE.pdf TA-35STRIPE] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.35STRIPE || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30SDTWLTL.pdf TA-30SDTWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.6.8.30SDTWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-33SD.pdf TA-33SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.33SD || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Work on Exit Ramps || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-43SD.pdf TA-43SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.43SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30STWLTL.pdf TA-30STWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.30STWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-33S.pdf TA-33S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.33S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Lane Closure with Temporary Traffic Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-34B.pdf TA-34B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.34B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Double Lane Closures on Interior Lane on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-37S.pdf TA-37S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.37S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Closure of Interior Lane on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-38S.pdf TA-38S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.38S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work in the Vicinity of an Exit Ramp || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-42S.pdf TA-42S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.42S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Ramp By-Pass || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-43B.pdf TA-43B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.43B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work on Ramps || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-43S.pdf TA-43S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.43S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Entrance Ramp Closure || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-44A.pdf TA-44A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.44A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work in the Vicinity of an Entrance Ramp || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-44S.pdf TA-44S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.44S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5d" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Support Figures</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5d" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Support Figure Description !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_Alternate_Passing_Lanes.pdf Lane Closure on Alternating Passing Lanes] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Restriction_on_Divided_Highways_Width_Clearance_at_Bridge.pdf Lane Restriction on Divided Highways Width Clearance at Bridge] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Begin-End_of_Project_Signing.pdf Begin/End of Project Signing] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA6" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work at Railroad Crossing</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA6">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA6a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA6a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work in the Vicinity of a Railroad Grade Crossing || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-46S.pdf TA-46S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.46S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA7" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Excavations with Steel Plates</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA7">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA7a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA7a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Excavations with Steel Plate or Backfill on Undivided Highways || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-47A.pdf TA-47A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.47A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Excavations with Steel Plate or Backfill on Divided Highways || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-47B.pdf TA-47B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.47B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA8" onclick="window.location.href='https://www.google.com';" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #e6fff2; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888; border-width:thin;border-style:solid; border-color:gray;">[https://modotgov.sharepoint.com/sites/cm Complex intersection Guidance (MoDOT access only)]</div>

===616.8.2.2 Legend for Typical Applications===

</br>
[[image:616.8.jpg|center|750px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 616.8.2 Meaning of Symbols on Typical Application Diagrams'''</center>]]

===616.8.2.3 Examples of Highways===

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
|-
|colspan="3"|'''Divided Highway:''' Highway with physical separation of traffic in the opposite direction.
|-
|[[image:616.8.3.1.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Median Separation'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.2.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Median Separation with Guard Cable'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Barrier Wall Separation'''</center>]]
|-
|
|-
|height="40"|
|-
|colspan="3"|'''Undivided Highway:''' Highway with no physical separation of traffic in the opposite direction.
|-
|[[image:616.8.3.4.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Undivided Highway'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.5.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane Undivided Highway'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.6.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane with Turning Lane'''</center>]]
|}
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
|-
|[[image:616.8.3.7.jpg|left|275px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane with Raised Median'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.8.jpg|left|275px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane with Paved Narrow Median</center>''']]
|}

===616.8.2.4 Recommended Advance Warning Sign Minimum Spacing===
<center>

{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" style="text-align:center"
|+ '''[[616.3 Temporary Traffic Control Elements (MUTCD Chapter 6C)#Table 616.3.4 Recommended Advance Warning Sign Minimum Spacing| Table 616.3.4, Recommended Advance Warning Sign Minimum Spacing]]'''
! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2"|Speed Limit<sup>'''1'''</sup>, mph!!style="background:#BEBEBE" colspan="2"|Sign Spacing<sup>'''2'''</sup>, ft.
|-
!style="background:#BEBEBE" |Undivided Highway!! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Divided Highway
|-
|up to 35|| 200<sup>'''3'''</sup>|| 200<sup>'''3'''</sup>
|-
|40 to 45|| 350|| 500
|-
|50 to 55|| 500|| 1000
|-
|60 to 70||1000||SA-1000<br/>SB-1500<br/>SC-2640
|-
|align="left" colspan="3"|<sup>'''1'''</sup> Speed limit is based on posted speed limit.
|-
|align="left" colspan="3"|<sup>'''2'''</sup> Sign spacing may be adjusted, normally by increasing it, to accommodate field conditions and visibility.
|-
|align="left" colspan="3"|<sup>'''3'''</sup> For urban low speed, minimum recommended spacing in MUTCD is 100 ft.
|}
</center>

===616.8.2.5 Recommended Taper Length and Spacing===
<center>

{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" style="text-align:center"
|+'''[https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=616.3_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Elements_%28MUTCD_Chapter_6C%29#Table_616.3.5_Recommended_Taper_Length_and_Spacing Table 616.3.5, Recommended Taper Length and Spacing]'''
! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2"|Speed Limit<sup>'''1'''</sup>, mph!!style="background:#BEBEBE" colspan="2"|Taper Length<sup>'''2'''</sup>, ft. !!style="background:#BEBEBE" colspan="2"| Channelizing Spacing <sup>'''3'''</sup>, ft.
|-
!style="background:#BEBEBE"| Shoulder<sup>'''4'''</sup> (T1)!!style="background:#BEBEBE"|Lane<sup>'''5'''</sup> (T2)!!style="background:#BEBEBE"|Tapers!!style="background:#BEBEBE"|Buffer/Work Areas
|-
|up to 35||70|| 245|| 35<sup>6</sup> ||40<sup>6</sup>
|-
|40 to 45||150|| 540|| 40<sup>6</sup>|| 80<sup>6</sup>
|-
|50 to 55||185|| 660|| 50<sup>7</sup>|| 80<sup>7</sup>
|-
|60 to 70||235|| 840|| 60<sup>7</sup>|| 120<sup>7</sup>
|-
|align="left" colspan="5"|<sup>'''1'''</sup> Speed limit is based on posted speed limit.<br/><sup>'''2'''</sup> Taper lengths may be adjusted to accommodate crossroads, curves, intersections, ramps or other geometric features.<br/><sup>'''3'''</sup> Channelizer spacing may be reduced to discourage traffic encroachment.<br/><sup>'''4'''</sup> Based on 10 ft. shoulder width.<br/><sup>'''5'''</sup> Based on 12 ft. lane width.<br/><sup>'''6'''</sup> Spacing reduced to 1/2 at intersections.<br/><sup>'''7'''</sup> Spacing may be reduced to 1/2 at intersections.
|}
</center>

[[Category:616 Temporary Traffic Control|616.08]]

616.16 Typical Applications (MUTCD Chapter 6P)

2025-07-31T19:29:13Z

Hoskir: /* 616.8.2.1 Typical Applications */

<div style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-top:7px; margin-bottom: 5px;">__TOC__</div>
<center><div style="margin-top:7px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; display: inline-block; border:2px solid black; box-shadow:5px 5px 5px #888888">
[[image:TA-Header.png|center]]
</div></center>

==616.8.1 Temporary Traffic Control for Contract Plan Sheet Development==

Each work zone is different and requires different temporary traffic control (TTC) plans. For contract plan sheets, [https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2r3/pdf_index.htm MUTCD (2009) Chapter 6H] provides the typical applications (TAs) to develop TTC plans and for in-field modifications as directed by the engineer. TAs should be altered, when needed, to fit the conditions of the specific work zone. See [[:Category:237_Contract_Plans|EPG 237]] for additional plan sheet guidance.

References to work vehicle or shadow vehicle made in the MUTCD will be considered incidental and should be indicated as such on the TTC plans.

When optional items are referenced in the MUTCD, the contractor may, at their discretion, utilize the items as incidental. When the TTC plans indicate one or more of these items as required for stationary work activities, applicable pay items will apply and will be included. Field adjustments, as directed by the engineer, may require additional pay items via a change order. When use of a Truck Mounted Attenuator (TMA) is deemed necessary for one or more stationary work activities, this will be indicated on the TTC plans, the Truck Mounted Attenuator (TMA) for Stationary Work Activities JSP will be included in the contract, and the Truck Mounted Attenuator pay item will be provided.

TMAs used in mobile operations, such as striping, are considered incidental per Sec 612.5.

==616.8.2 Temporary Traffic Control for MoDOT Employees==

<div style="float: right; margin-left: 35px; margin-right: 35px; text-align: center; width:400px; border:1px solid black; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:5px 5px 5px #888888">
<b>If you have questions about a Typical Application, please email [mailto:WZTAQuestions@modot.mo.gov?Subject=Question%20about%20TA WZTAQuestions@modot.mo.gov]</b>
</div>

These TAs are intended for the use of MoDOT employees. Before each work shift, all employees are required to participate in a pre-shift safety briefing. During the briefing, the applicable TAs should be printed out and then discussed to know the procedures to follow for the day’s work. This should include the risk-based assessment (RBA). The TAs shown in the EPG are considered current.

===616.8.2.1 Typical Applications===


<div class="mw-customtoggle-ET1" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #ff67ff; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888; border-width:thin;border-style:solid; border-color:gray;">[+/-] Emergency Traffic Control</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-ET1">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top; background-color: #fca1fc"
! style="background-color: #fca1fc" | Emergency Traffic Control Description !! style="width: 170px; background-color: #fca1fc" | ETC Number !! style="width: 230px; background-color: #fca1fc" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| *Imminent Danger of a Human* on Roadway or Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Emergency_Traffic_Control/ETC-1.pdf ETC-1] || style="text-align:center;" | 7/12/2024
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| *Unsafe Condition* on Roadway or Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Emergency_Traffic_Control/ETC-2.pdf ETC-2] || style="text-align:center;" | 7/12/2024
|}

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work Beyond the Shoulder</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation Work Beyond the Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-1M.pdf TA-1M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.1M || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Work Beyond the Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-1SD.pdf TA-1SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.1SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work Beyond the Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-1S.pdf TA-1S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.1S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work on the Shoulder</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation on a Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-4M.pdf TA-4M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.4M || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Work on a Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-4SD.pdf TA-4SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.4SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Shoulder Closure</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Long-Term Shoulder Closure || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-5A.pdf TA-5A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.5A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Long-Term Shoulder Closure with Temporary Traffic Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-5B.pdf TA-5B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.5B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Shoulder Work with Minor Encroachment || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-6A.pdf TA-6A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.6A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Shoulder Work with Minor Encroachment with Temporary Traffic Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-6B.pdf TA-6B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.6B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2d" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2d" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Shoulder Work || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-3S.pdf TA-3S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.3S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work Within the Traveled Way of a Two-Lane Highway</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation on a Two-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-17M.pdf TA-17M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.17M || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Striping Operations on a Two-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-17STRIPE.pdf TA-17STRIPE] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.17STRIPE || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Road Closure</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Road Closure || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-8A.pdf TA-8A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.8A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Road Closure with Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-8B.pdf TA-8B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.8B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Road Closed Beyond Junction Detour || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-9.pdf TA-9] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.9 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SD.pdf TA-10SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway with Less than 400 AADT || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SD400AADT.pdf TA-10SD400AADT] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.6.8.616.8.10SD400AADT || style="text-align:center;" | 4-1-24
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using TMA Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SDTMA.pdf TA-10SDTMA] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SDTMA || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30SDTWLTL.pdf TA-30SDTWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.6.8.30SDTWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3d" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3d" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10S.pdf TA-10S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Automated Flagger Assistance Device (AFADs) || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SAFAD.pdf TA-10SAFAD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SAFAD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Portable Signal Flagger Devices (PSFDs) || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SPSFD.pdf TA-10SPSFD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SPSFD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using a TMA Flagger || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10STMA1.pdf TA-10STMA1] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10STMA1 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Multiple TMA Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10STMA2.pdf TA-10STMA2] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10STMA2 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Lane Closure on Two-Lane Highways Using Traffic Control Signals || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-12.pdf TA-12] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.12 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30STWLTL.pdf TA-30STWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.30STWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3e" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Support Figures</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3e" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Support Figure Description !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Flagger_Control_for_Resurfacing_or_Moving_Operations_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway.pdf Flagger control for Resurfacing or Moving Operations on a Two-Lane Highway] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway_near_Intersections.pdf Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway near Intersections] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway–3_Mile_Flagging_Scenarios.pdf Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway - 3 mile Flagging Scenarios] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Restriction_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway_Vertical_Clearance_at_Bridge.pdf Lane Restriction on a Two-Lane Highway Vertical Clearance at Bridge] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Side_Roads_Entering_Work_Zones.pdf Side Roads Entering Work Zones] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-TMA_Flagger_Design.pdf TMA Flagger Design] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_Alternate_Passing_Lanes.pdf Lane Closure on Alternating Passing Lanes] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Begin-End_of_Project_Signing.pdf Begin/End of Project Signing] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA4" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work Within the Traveled Way at an Intersection and on Sidewalks</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA4">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA4a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA4a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Center Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-21SD.pdf TA-21SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.21SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Right Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-22SD.pdf TA-22SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.22SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Left Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-23SD.pdf TA-23SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.23SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA4b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA4b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Center Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-21S.pdf TA-21S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.21S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Right Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-22S.pdf TA-22S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.22S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Left Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-23S.pdf TA-23S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.23S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work Within the Traveled Way of a Multi-Lane Highway</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-35M.pdf TA-35M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.35M || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Pavement Marking Operation on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-35STRIPE.pdf TA-35STRIPE] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.35STRIPE || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30SDTWLTL.pdf TA-30SDTWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.6.8.30SDTWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-33SD.pdf TA-33SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.33SD || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Work on Exit Ramps || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-43SD.pdf TA-43SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.43SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30STWLTL.pdf TA-30STWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.30STWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-33S.pdf TA-33S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.33S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Lane Closure with Temporary Traffic Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-34B.pdf TA-34B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.34B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Double Lane Closures on Interior Lane on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-37S.pdf TA-37S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.37S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Closure of Interior Lane on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-38S.pdf TA-38S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.38S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work in the Vicinity of an Exit Ramp || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-42S.pdf TA-42S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.42S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Ramp By-Pass || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-43B.pdf TA-43B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.43B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work on Ramps || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-43S.pdf TA-43S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.43S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Entrance Ramp Closure || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-44A.pdf TA-44A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.44A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work in the Vicinity of an Entrance Ramp || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-44S.pdf TA-44S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.44S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5d" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Support Figures</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5d" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Support Figure Description !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_Alternate_Passing_Lanes.pdf Lane Closure on Alternating Passing Lanes] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Restriction_on_Divided_Highways_Width_Clearance_at_Bridge.pdf Lane Restriction on Divided Highways Width Clearance at Bridge] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Begin-End_of_Project_Signing.pdf Begin/End of Project Signing] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA6" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work at Railroad Crossing</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA6">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA6a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA6a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work in the Vicinity of a Railroad Grade Crossing || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-46S.pdf TA-46S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.46S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA7" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Excavations with Steel Plates</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA7">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA7a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA7a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Excavations with Steel Plate or Backfill on Undivided Highways || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-47A.pdf TA-47A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.47A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Excavations with Steel Plate or Backfill on Divided Highways || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-47B.pdf TA-47B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.47B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA8" onclick="window.location.href='https://www.google.com';" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #ffffff; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888; border-width:thin;border-style:solid; border-color:gray;">[https://modotgov.sharepoint.com/sites/cm Complex intersection Guidance (MoDOT access only)]</div>

===616.8.2.2 Legend for Typical Applications===

</br>
[[image:616.8.jpg|center|750px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 616.8.2 Meaning of Symbols on Typical Application Diagrams'''</center>]]

===616.8.2.3 Examples of Highways===

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
|-
|colspan="3"|'''Divided Highway:''' Highway with physical separation of traffic in the opposite direction.
|-
|[[image:616.8.3.1.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Median Separation'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.2.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Median Separation with Guard Cable'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Barrier Wall Separation'''</center>]]
|-
|
|-
|height="40"|
|-
|colspan="3"|'''Undivided Highway:''' Highway with no physical separation of traffic in the opposite direction.
|-
|[[image:616.8.3.4.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Undivided Highway'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.5.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane Undivided Highway'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.6.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane with Turning Lane'''</center>]]
|}
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
|-
|[[image:616.8.3.7.jpg|left|275px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane with Raised Median'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.8.jpg|left|275px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane with Paved Narrow Median</center>''']]
|}

===616.8.2.4 Recommended Advance Warning Sign Minimum Spacing===
<center>

{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" style="text-align:center"
|+ '''[[616.3 Temporary Traffic Control Elements (MUTCD Chapter 6C)#Table 616.3.4 Recommended Advance Warning Sign Minimum Spacing| Table 616.3.4, Recommended Advance Warning Sign Minimum Spacing]]'''
! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2"|Speed Limit<sup>'''1'''</sup>, mph!!style="background:#BEBEBE" colspan="2"|Sign Spacing<sup>'''2'''</sup>, ft.
|-
!style="background:#BEBEBE" |Undivided Highway!! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Divided Highway
|-
|up to 35|| 200<sup>'''3'''</sup>|| 200<sup>'''3'''</sup>
|-
|40 to 45|| 350|| 500
|-
|50 to 55|| 500|| 1000
|-
|60 to 70||1000||SA-1000<br/>SB-1500<br/>SC-2640
|-
|align="left" colspan="3"|<sup>'''1'''</sup> Speed limit is based on posted speed limit.
|-
|align="left" colspan="3"|<sup>'''2'''</sup> Sign spacing may be adjusted, normally by increasing it, to accommodate field conditions and visibility.
|-
|align="left" colspan="3"|<sup>'''3'''</sup> For urban low speed, minimum recommended spacing in MUTCD is 100 ft.
|}
</center>

===616.8.2.5 Recommended Taper Length and Spacing===
<center>

{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" style="text-align:center"
|+'''[https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=616.3_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Elements_%28MUTCD_Chapter_6C%29#Table_616.3.5_Recommended_Taper_Length_and_Spacing Table 616.3.5, Recommended Taper Length and Spacing]'''
! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2"|Speed Limit<sup>'''1'''</sup>, mph!!style="background:#BEBEBE" colspan="2"|Taper Length<sup>'''2'''</sup>, ft. !!style="background:#BEBEBE" colspan="2"| Channelizing Spacing <sup>'''3'''</sup>, ft.
|-
!style="background:#BEBEBE"| Shoulder<sup>'''4'''</sup> (T1)!!style="background:#BEBEBE"|Lane<sup>'''5'''</sup> (T2)!!style="background:#BEBEBE"|Tapers!!style="background:#BEBEBE"|Buffer/Work Areas
|-
|up to 35||70|| 245|| 35<sup>6</sup> ||40<sup>6</sup>
|-
|40 to 45||150|| 540|| 40<sup>6</sup>|| 80<sup>6</sup>
|-
|50 to 55||185|| 660|| 50<sup>7</sup>|| 80<sup>7</sup>
|-
|60 to 70||235|| 840|| 60<sup>7</sup>|| 120<sup>7</sup>
|-
|align="left" colspan="5"|<sup>'''1'''</sup> Speed limit is based on posted speed limit.<br/><sup>'''2'''</sup> Taper lengths may be adjusted to accommodate crossroads, curves, intersections, ramps or other geometric features.<br/><sup>'''3'''</sup> Channelizer spacing may be reduced to discourage traffic encroachment.<br/><sup>'''4'''</sup> Based on 10 ft. shoulder width.<br/><sup>'''5'''</sup> Based on 12 ft. lane width.<br/><sup>'''6'''</sup> Spacing reduced to 1/2 at intersections.<br/><sup>'''7'''</sup> Spacing may be reduced to 1/2 at intersections.
|}
</center>

[[Category:616 Temporary Traffic Control|616.08]]

616.16 Typical Applications (MUTCD Chapter 6P)

2025-07-31T18:56:23Z

Hoskir: /* 616.8.2.1 Typical Applications */

<div style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-top:7px; margin-bottom: 5px;">__TOC__</div>
<center><div style="margin-top:7px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; display: inline-block; border:2px solid black; box-shadow:5px 5px 5px #888888">
[[image:TA-Header.png|center]]
</div></center>

==616.8.1 Temporary Traffic Control for Contract Plan Sheet Development==

Each work zone is different and requires different temporary traffic control (TTC) plans. For contract plan sheets, [https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2r3/pdf_index.htm MUTCD (2009) Chapter 6H] provides the typical applications (TAs) to develop TTC plans and for in-field modifications as directed by the engineer. TAs should be altered, when needed, to fit the conditions of the specific work zone. See [[:Category:237_Contract_Plans|EPG 237]] for additional plan sheet guidance.

References to work vehicle or shadow vehicle made in the MUTCD will be considered incidental and should be indicated as such on the TTC plans.

When optional items are referenced in the MUTCD, the contractor may, at their discretion, utilize the items as incidental. When the TTC plans indicate one or more of these items as required for stationary work activities, applicable pay items will apply and will be included. Field adjustments, as directed by the engineer, may require additional pay items via a change order. When use of a Truck Mounted Attenuator (TMA) is deemed necessary for one or more stationary work activities, this will be indicated on the TTC plans, the Truck Mounted Attenuator (TMA) for Stationary Work Activities JSP will be included in the contract, and the Truck Mounted Attenuator pay item will be provided.

TMAs used in mobile operations, such as striping, are considered incidental per Sec 612.5.

==616.8.2 Temporary Traffic Control for MoDOT Employees==

<div style="float: right; margin-left: 35px; margin-right: 35px; text-align: center; width:400px; border:1px solid black; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:5px 5px 5px #888888">
<b>If you have questions about a Typical Application, please email [mailto:WZTAQuestions@modot.mo.gov?Subject=Question%20about%20TA WZTAQuestions@modot.mo.gov]</b>
</div>

These TAs are intended for the use of MoDOT employees. Before each work shift, all employees are required to participate in a pre-shift safety briefing. During the briefing, the applicable TAs should be printed out and then discussed to know the procedures to follow for the day’s work. This should include the risk-based assessment (RBA). The TAs shown in the EPG are considered current.

===616.8.2.1 Typical Applications===


<div class="mw-customtoggle-ET1" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #ff67ff; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888; border-width:thin;border-style:solid; border-color:gray;">[+/-] Emergency Traffic Control</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-ET1">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top; background-color: #fca1fc"
! style="background-color: #fca1fc" | Emergency Traffic Control Description !! style="width: 170px; background-color: #fca1fc" | ETC Number !! style="width: 230px; background-color: #fca1fc" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| *Imminent Danger of a Human* on Roadway or Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Emergency_Traffic_Control/ETC-1.pdf ETC-1] || style="text-align:center;" | 7/12/2024
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| *Unsafe Condition* on Roadway or Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Emergency_Traffic_Control/ETC-2.pdf ETC-2] || style="text-align:center;" | 7/12/2024
|}

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work Beyond the Shoulder</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation Work Beyond the Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-1M.pdf TA-1M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.1M || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Work Beyond the Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-1SD.pdf TA-1SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.1SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work Beyond the Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-1S.pdf TA-1S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.1S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work on the Shoulder</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation on a Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-4M.pdf TA-4M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.4M || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Work on a Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-4SD.pdf TA-4SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.4SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Shoulder Closure</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Long-Term Shoulder Closure || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-5A.pdf TA-5A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.5A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Long-Term Shoulder Closure with Temporary Traffic Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-5B.pdf TA-5B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.5B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Shoulder Work with Minor Encroachment || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-6A.pdf TA-6A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.6A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Shoulder Work with Minor Encroachment with Temporary Traffic Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-6B.pdf TA-6B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.6B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2d" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2d" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Shoulder Work || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-3S.pdf TA-3S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.3S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work Within the Traveled Way of a Two-Lane Highway</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation on a Two-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-17M.pdf TA-17M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.17M || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Striping Operations on a Two-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-17STRIPE.pdf TA-17STRIPE] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.17STRIPE || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Road Closure</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Road Closure || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-8A.pdf TA-8A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.8A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Road Closure with Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-8B.pdf TA-8B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.8B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Road Closed Beyond Junction Detour || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-9.pdf TA-9] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.9 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SD.pdf TA-10SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway with Less than 400 AADT || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SD400AADT.pdf TA-10SD400AADT] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.6.8.616.8.10SD400AADT || style="text-align:center;" | 4-1-24
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using TMA Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SDTMA.pdf TA-10SDTMA] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SDTMA || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30SDTWLTL.pdf TA-30SDTWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.6.8.30SDTWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3d" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3d" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10S.pdf TA-10S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Automated Flagger Assistance Device (AFADs) || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SAFAD.pdf TA-10SAFAD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SAFAD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Portable Signal Flagger Devices (PSFDs) || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SPSFD.pdf TA-10SPSFD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SPSFD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using a TMA Flagger || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10STMA1.pdf TA-10STMA1] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10STMA1 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Multiple TMA Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10STMA2.pdf TA-10STMA2] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10STMA2 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Lane Closure on Two-Lane Highways Using Traffic Control Signals || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-12.pdf TA-12] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.12 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30STWLTL.pdf TA-30STWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.30STWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3e" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Support Figures</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3e" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Support Figure Description !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Flagger_Control_for_Resurfacing_or_Moving_Operations_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway.pdf Flagger control for Resurfacing or Moving Operations on a Two-Lane Highway] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway_near_Intersections.pdf Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway near Intersections] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway–3_Mile_Flagging_Scenarios.pdf Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway - 3 mile Flagging Scenarios] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Restriction_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway_Vertical_Clearance_at_Bridge.pdf Lane Restriction on a Two-Lane Highway Vertical Clearance at Bridge] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Side_Roads_Entering_Work_Zones.pdf Side Roads Entering Work Zones] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-TMA_Flagger_Design.pdf TMA Flagger Design] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_Alternate_Passing_Lanes.pdf Lane Closure on Alternating Passing Lanes] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Begin-End_of_Project_Signing.pdf Begin/End of Project Signing] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA4" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work Within the Traveled Way at an Intersection and on Sidewalks</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA4">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA4a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA4a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Center Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-21SD.pdf TA-21SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.21SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Right Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-22SD.pdf TA-22SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.22SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Left Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-23SD.pdf TA-23SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.23SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA4b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA4b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Center Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-21S.pdf TA-21S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.21S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Right Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-22S.pdf TA-22S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.22S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Left Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-23S.pdf TA-23S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.23S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work Within the Traveled Way of a Multi-Lane Highway</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-35M.pdf TA-35M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.35M || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Pavement Marking Operation on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-35STRIPE.pdf TA-35STRIPE] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.35STRIPE || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30SDTWLTL.pdf TA-30SDTWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.6.8.30SDTWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-33SD.pdf TA-33SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.33SD || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Work on Exit Ramps || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-43SD.pdf TA-43SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.43SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30STWLTL.pdf TA-30STWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.30STWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-33S.pdf TA-33S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.33S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Lane Closure with Temporary Traffic Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-34B.pdf TA-34B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.34B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Double Lane Closures on Interior Lane on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-37S.pdf TA-37S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.37S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Closure of Interior Lane on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-38S.pdf TA-38S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.38S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work in the Vicinity of an Exit Ramp || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-42S.pdf TA-42S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.42S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Ramp By-Pass || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-43B.pdf TA-43B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.43B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work on Ramps || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-43S.pdf TA-43S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.43S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Entrance Ramp Closure || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-44A.pdf TA-44A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.44A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work in the Vicinity of an Entrance Ramp || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-44S.pdf TA-44S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.44S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5d" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Support Figures</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5d" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Support Figure Description !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_Alternate_Passing_Lanes.pdf Lane Closure on Alternating Passing Lanes] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Restriction_on_Divided_Highways_Width_Clearance_at_Bridge.pdf Lane Restriction on Divided Highways Width Clearance at Bridge] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Begin-End_of_Project_Signing.pdf Begin/End of Project Signing] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA6" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work at Railroad Crossing</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA6">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA6a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA6a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work in the Vicinity of a Railroad Grade Crossing || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-46S.pdf TA-46S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.46S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA7" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Excavations with Steel Plates</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA7">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA7a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA7a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Excavations with Steel Plate or Backfill on Undivided Highways || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-47A.pdf TA-47A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.47A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Excavations with Steel Plate or Backfill on Divided Highways || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-47B.pdf TA-47B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.47B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA8" onclick="window.location.href='https://www.google.com';" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">Complex intersection Guidance</div>

<div class="container" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">
<p>Content inside the div</p>
<div class="overlay" onclick="window.location.href='https://www.google.com';"></div>
</div>

===616.8.2.2 Legend for Typical Applications===

</br>
[[image:616.8.jpg|center|750px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 616.8.2 Meaning of Symbols on Typical Application Diagrams'''</center>]]

===616.8.2.3 Examples of Highways===

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
|-
|colspan="3"|'''Divided Highway:''' Highway with physical separation of traffic in the opposite direction.
|-
|[[image:616.8.3.1.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Median Separation'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.2.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Median Separation with Guard Cable'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Barrier Wall Separation'''</center>]]
|-
|
|-
|height="40"|
|-
|colspan="3"|'''Undivided Highway:''' Highway with no physical separation of traffic in the opposite direction.
|-
|[[image:616.8.3.4.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Undivided Highway'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.5.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane Undivided Highway'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.6.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane with Turning Lane'''</center>]]
|}
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
|-
|[[image:616.8.3.7.jpg|left|275px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane with Raised Median'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.8.jpg|left|275px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane with Paved Narrow Median</center>''']]
|}

===616.8.2.4 Recommended Advance Warning Sign Minimum Spacing===
<center>

{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" style="text-align:center"
|+ '''[[616.3 Temporary Traffic Control Elements (MUTCD Chapter 6C)#Table 616.3.4 Recommended Advance Warning Sign Minimum Spacing| Table 616.3.4, Recommended Advance Warning Sign Minimum Spacing]]'''
! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2"|Speed Limit<sup>'''1'''</sup>, mph!!style="background:#BEBEBE" colspan="2"|Sign Spacing<sup>'''2'''</sup>, ft.
|-
!style="background:#BEBEBE" |Undivided Highway!! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Divided Highway
|-
|up to 35|| 200<sup>'''3'''</sup>|| 200<sup>'''3'''</sup>
|-
|40 to 45|| 350|| 500
|-
|50 to 55|| 500|| 1000
|-
|60 to 70||1000||SA-1000<br/>SB-1500<br/>SC-2640
|-
|align="left" colspan="3"|<sup>'''1'''</sup> Speed limit is based on posted speed limit.
|-
|align="left" colspan="3"|<sup>'''2'''</sup> Sign spacing may be adjusted, normally by increasing it, to accommodate field conditions and visibility.
|-
|align="left" colspan="3"|<sup>'''3'''</sup> For urban low speed, minimum recommended spacing in MUTCD is 100 ft.
|}
</center>

===616.8.2.5 Recommended Taper Length and Spacing===
<center>

{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" style="text-align:center"
|+'''[https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=616.3_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Elements_%28MUTCD_Chapter_6C%29#Table_616.3.5_Recommended_Taper_Length_and_Spacing Table 616.3.5, Recommended Taper Length and Spacing]'''
! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2"|Speed Limit<sup>'''1'''</sup>, mph!!style="background:#BEBEBE" colspan="2"|Taper Length<sup>'''2'''</sup>, ft. !!style="background:#BEBEBE" colspan="2"| Channelizing Spacing <sup>'''3'''</sup>, ft.
|-
!style="background:#BEBEBE"| Shoulder<sup>'''4'''</sup> (T1)!!style="background:#BEBEBE"|Lane<sup>'''5'''</sup> (T2)!!style="background:#BEBEBE"|Tapers!!style="background:#BEBEBE"|Buffer/Work Areas
|-
|up to 35||70|| 245|| 35<sup>6</sup> ||40<sup>6</sup>
|-
|40 to 45||150|| 540|| 40<sup>6</sup>|| 80<sup>6</sup>
|-
|50 to 55||185|| 660|| 50<sup>7</sup>|| 80<sup>7</sup>
|-
|60 to 70||235|| 840|| 60<sup>7</sup>|| 120<sup>7</sup>
|-
|align="left" colspan="5"|<sup>'''1'''</sup> Speed limit is based on posted speed limit.<br/><sup>'''2'''</sup> Taper lengths may be adjusted to accommodate crossroads, curves, intersections, ramps or other geometric features.<br/><sup>'''3'''</sup> Channelizer spacing may be reduced to discourage traffic encroachment.<br/><sup>'''4'''</sup> Based on 10 ft. shoulder width.<br/><sup>'''5'''</sup> Based on 12 ft. lane width.<br/><sup>'''6'''</sup> Spacing reduced to 1/2 at intersections.<br/><sup>'''7'''</sup> Spacing may be reduced to 1/2 at intersections.
|}
</center>

[[Category:616 Temporary Traffic Control|616.08]]

616.16 Typical Applications (MUTCD Chapter 6P)

2025-07-31T18:53:52Z

Hoskir: /* 616.8.2.1 Typical Applications */

<div style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-top:7px; margin-bottom: 5px;">__TOC__</div>
<center><div style="margin-top:7px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; display: inline-block; border:2px solid black; box-shadow:5px 5px 5px #888888">
[[image:TA-Header.png|center]]
</div></center>

==616.8.1 Temporary Traffic Control for Contract Plan Sheet Development==

Each work zone is different and requires different temporary traffic control (TTC) plans. For contract plan sheets, [https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2r3/pdf_index.htm MUTCD (2009) Chapter 6H] provides the typical applications (TAs) to develop TTC plans and for in-field modifications as directed by the engineer. TAs should be altered, when needed, to fit the conditions of the specific work zone. See [[:Category:237_Contract_Plans|EPG 237]] for additional plan sheet guidance.

References to work vehicle or shadow vehicle made in the MUTCD will be considered incidental and should be indicated as such on the TTC plans.

When optional items are referenced in the MUTCD, the contractor may, at their discretion, utilize the items as incidental. When the TTC plans indicate one or more of these items as required for stationary work activities, applicable pay items will apply and will be included. Field adjustments, as directed by the engineer, may require additional pay items via a change order. When use of a Truck Mounted Attenuator (TMA) is deemed necessary for one or more stationary work activities, this will be indicated on the TTC plans, the Truck Mounted Attenuator (TMA) for Stationary Work Activities JSP will be included in the contract, and the Truck Mounted Attenuator pay item will be provided.

TMAs used in mobile operations, such as striping, are considered incidental per Sec 612.5.

==616.8.2 Temporary Traffic Control for MoDOT Employees==

<div style="float: right; margin-left: 35px; margin-right: 35px; text-align: center; width:400px; border:1px solid black; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:5px 5px 5px #888888">
<b>If you have questions about a Typical Application, please email [mailto:WZTAQuestions@modot.mo.gov?Subject=Question%20about%20TA WZTAQuestions@modot.mo.gov]</b>
</div>

These TAs are intended for the use of MoDOT employees. Before each work shift, all employees are required to participate in a pre-shift safety briefing. During the briefing, the applicable TAs should be printed out and then discussed to know the procedures to follow for the day’s work. This should include the risk-based assessment (RBA). The TAs shown in the EPG are considered current.

===616.8.2.1 Typical Applications===


<div class="mw-customtoggle-ET1" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #ff67ff; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888; border-width:thin;border-style:solid; border-color:gray;">[+/-] Emergency Traffic Control</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-ET1">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top; background-color: #fca1fc"
! style="background-color: #fca1fc" | Emergency Traffic Control Description !! style="width: 170px; background-color: #fca1fc" | ETC Number !! style="width: 230px; background-color: #fca1fc" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| *Imminent Danger of a Human* on Roadway or Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Emergency_Traffic_Control/ETC-1.pdf ETC-1] || style="text-align:center;" | 7/12/2024
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| *Unsafe Condition* on Roadway or Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Emergency_Traffic_Control/ETC-2.pdf ETC-2] || style="text-align:center;" | 7/12/2024
|}

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work Beyond the Shoulder</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation Work Beyond the Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-1M.pdf TA-1M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.1M || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Work Beyond the Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-1SD.pdf TA-1SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.1SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work Beyond the Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-1S.pdf TA-1S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.1S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work on the Shoulder</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation on a Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-4M.pdf TA-4M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.4M || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Work on a Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-4SD.pdf TA-4SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.4SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Shoulder Closure</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Long-Term Shoulder Closure || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-5A.pdf TA-5A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.5A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Long-Term Shoulder Closure with Temporary Traffic Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-5B.pdf TA-5B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.5B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Shoulder Work with Minor Encroachment || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-6A.pdf TA-6A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.6A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Shoulder Work with Minor Encroachment with Temporary Traffic Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-6B.pdf TA-6B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.6B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2d" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2d" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Shoulder Work || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-3S.pdf TA-3S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.3S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work Within the Traveled Way of a Two-Lane Highway</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation on a Two-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-17M.pdf TA-17M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.17M || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Striping Operations on a Two-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-17STRIPE.pdf TA-17STRIPE] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.17STRIPE || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Road Closure</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Road Closure || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-8A.pdf TA-8A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.8A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Road Closure with Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-8B.pdf TA-8B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.8B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Road Closed Beyond Junction Detour || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-9.pdf TA-9] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.9 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SD.pdf TA-10SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway with Less than 400 AADT || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SD400AADT.pdf TA-10SD400AADT] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.6.8.616.8.10SD400AADT || style="text-align:center;" | 4-1-24
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using TMA Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SDTMA.pdf TA-10SDTMA] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SDTMA || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30SDTWLTL.pdf TA-30SDTWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.6.8.30SDTWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3d" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3d" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10S.pdf TA-10S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Automated Flagger Assistance Device (AFADs) || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SAFAD.pdf TA-10SAFAD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SAFAD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Portable Signal Flagger Devices (PSFDs) || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SPSFD.pdf TA-10SPSFD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SPSFD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using a TMA Flagger || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10STMA1.pdf TA-10STMA1] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10STMA1 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Multiple TMA Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10STMA2.pdf TA-10STMA2] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10STMA2 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Lane Closure on Two-Lane Highways Using Traffic Control Signals || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-12.pdf TA-12] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.12 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30STWLTL.pdf TA-30STWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.30STWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3e" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Support Figures</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3e" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Support Figure Description !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Flagger_Control_for_Resurfacing_or_Moving_Operations_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway.pdf Flagger control for Resurfacing or Moving Operations on a Two-Lane Highway] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway_near_Intersections.pdf Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway near Intersections] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway–3_Mile_Flagging_Scenarios.pdf Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway - 3 mile Flagging Scenarios] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Restriction_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway_Vertical_Clearance_at_Bridge.pdf Lane Restriction on a Two-Lane Highway Vertical Clearance at Bridge] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Side_Roads_Entering_Work_Zones.pdf Side Roads Entering Work Zones] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-TMA_Flagger_Design.pdf TMA Flagger Design] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_Alternate_Passing_Lanes.pdf Lane Closure on Alternating Passing Lanes] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Begin-End_of_Project_Signing.pdf Begin/End of Project Signing] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA4" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work Within the Traveled Way at an Intersection and on Sidewalks</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA4">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA4a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA4a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Center Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-21SD.pdf TA-21SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.21SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Right Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-22SD.pdf TA-22SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.22SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Left Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-23SD.pdf TA-23SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.23SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA4b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA4b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Center Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-21S.pdf TA-21S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.21S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Right Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-22S.pdf TA-22S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.22S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Left Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-23S.pdf TA-23S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.23S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work Within the Traveled Way of a Multi-Lane Highway</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-35M.pdf TA-35M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.35M || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Pavement Marking Operation on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-35STRIPE.pdf TA-35STRIPE] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.35STRIPE || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30SDTWLTL.pdf TA-30SDTWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.6.8.30SDTWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-33SD.pdf TA-33SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.33SD || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Work on Exit Ramps || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-43SD.pdf TA-43SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.43SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30STWLTL.pdf TA-30STWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.30STWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-33S.pdf TA-33S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.33S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Lane Closure with Temporary Traffic Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-34B.pdf TA-34B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.34B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Double Lane Closures on Interior Lane on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-37S.pdf TA-37S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.37S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Closure of Interior Lane on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-38S.pdf TA-38S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.38S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work in the Vicinity of an Exit Ramp || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-42S.pdf TA-42S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.42S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Ramp By-Pass || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-43B.pdf TA-43B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.43B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work on Ramps || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-43S.pdf TA-43S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.43S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Entrance Ramp Closure || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-44A.pdf TA-44A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.44A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work in the Vicinity of an Entrance Ramp || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-44S.pdf TA-44S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.44S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5d" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Support Figures</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5d" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Support Figure Description !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_Alternate_Passing_Lanes.pdf Lane Closure on Alternating Passing Lanes] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Restriction_on_Divided_Highways_Width_Clearance_at_Bridge.pdf Lane Restriction on Divided Highways Width Clearance at Bridge] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Begin-End_of_Project_Signing.pdf Begin/End of Project Signing] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA6" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work at Railroad Crossing</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA6">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA6a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA6a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work in the Vicinity of a Railroad Grade Crossing || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-46S.pdf TA-46S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.46S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA7" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Excavations with Steel Plates</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA7">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA7a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA7a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Excavations with Steel Plate or Backfill on Undivided Highways || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-47A.pdf TA-47A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.47A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Excavations with Steel Plate or Backfill on Divided Highways || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-47B.pdf TA-47B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.47B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA8" onclick="window.location.href='https://www.google.com';" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">Complex intersection Guidance</div>

===616.8.2.2 Legend for Typical Applications===

</br>
[[image:616.8.jpg|center|750px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 616.8.2 Meaning of Symbols on Typical Application Diagrams'''</center>]]

===616.8.2.3 Examples of Highways===

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
|-
|colspan="3"|'''Divided Highway:''' Highway with physical separation of traffic in the opposite direction.
|-
|[[image:616.8.3.1.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Median Separation'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.2.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Median Separation with Guard Cable'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Barrier Wall Separation'''</center>]]
|-
|
|-
|height="40"|
|-
|colspan="3"|'''Undivided Highway:''' Highway with no physical separation of traffic in the opposite direction.
|-
|[[image:616.8.3.4.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Undivided Highway'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.5.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane Undivided Highway'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.6.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane with Turning Lane'''</center>]]
|}
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
|-
|[[image:616.8.3.7.jpg|left|275px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane with Raised Median'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.8.jpg|left|275px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane with Paved Narrow Median</center>''']]
|}

===616.8.2.4 Recommended Advance Warning Sign Minimum Spacing===
<center>

{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" style="text-align:center"
|+ '''[[616.3 Temporary Traffic Control Elements (MUTCD Chapter 6C)#Table 616.3.4 Recommended Advance Warning Sign Minimum Spacing| Table 616.3.4, Recommended Advance Warning Sign Minimum Spacing]]'''
! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2"|Speed Limit<sup>'''1'''</sup>, mph!!style="background:#BEBEBE" colspan="2"|Sign Spacing<sup>'''2'''</sup>, ft.
|-
!style="background:#BEBEBE" |Undivided Highway!! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Divided Highway
|-
|up to 35|| 200<sup>'''3'''</sup>|| 200<sup>'''3'''</sup>
|-
|40 to 45|| 350|| 500
|-
|50 to 55|| 500|| 1000
|-
|60 to 70||1000||SA-1000<br/>SB-1500<br/>SC-2640
|-
|align="left" colspan="3"|<sup>'''1'''</sup> Speed limit is based on posted speed limit.
|-
|align="left" colspan="3"|<sup>'''2'''</sup> Sign spacing may be adjusted, normally by increasing it, to accommodate field conditions and visibility.
|-
|align="left" colspan="3"|<sup>'''3'''</sup> For urban low speed, minimum recommended spacing in MUTCD is 100 ft.
|}
</center>

===616.8.2.5 Recommended Taper Length and Spacing===
<center>

{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" style="text-align:center"
|+'''[https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=616.3_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Elements_%28MUTCD_Chapter_6C%29#Table_616.3.5_Recommended_Taper_Length_and_Spacing Table 616.3.5, Recommended Taper Length and Spacing]'''
! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2"|Speed Limit<sup>'''1'''</sup>, mph!!style="background:#BEBEBE" colspan="2"|Taper Length<sup>'''2'''</sup>, ft. !!style="background:#BEBEBE" colspan="2"| Channelizing Spacing <sup>'''3'''</sup>, ft.
|-
!style="background:#BEBEBE"| Shoulder<sup>'''4'''</sup> (T1)!!style="background:#BEBEBE"|Lane<sup>'''5'''</sup> (T2)!!style="background:#BEBEBE"|Tapers!!style="background:#BEBEBE"|Buffer/Work Areas
|-
|up to 35||70|| 245|| 35<sup>6</sup> ||40<sup>6</sup>
|-
|40 to 45||150|| 540|| 40<sup>6</sup>|| 80<sup>6</sup>
|-
|50 to 55||185|| 660|| 50<sup>7</sup>|| 80<sup>7</sup>
|-
|60 to 70||235|| 840|| 60<sup>7</sup>|| 120<sup>7</sup>
|-
|align="left" colspan="5"|<sup>'''1'''</sup> Speed limit is based on posted speed limit.<br/><sup>'''2'''</sup> Taper lengths may be adjusted to accommodate crossroads, curves, intersections, ramps or other geometric features.<br/><sup>'''3'''</sup> Channelizer spacing may be reduced to discourage traffic encroachment.<br/><sup>'''4'''</sup> Based on 10 ft. shoulder width.<br/><sup>'''5'''</sup> Based on 12 ft. lane width.<br/><sup>'''6'''</sup> Spacing reduced to 1/2 at intersections.<br/><sup>'''7'''</sup> Spacing may be reduced to 1/2 at intersections.
|}
</center>

[[Category:616 Temporary Traffic Control|616.08]]

616.16 Typical Applications (MUTCD Chapter 6P)

2025-07-31T18:53:21Z

Hoskir: /* 616.8.2.1 Typical Applications */

<div style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-top:7px; margin-bottom: 5px;">__TOC__</div>
<center><div style="margin-top:7px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; display: inline-block; border:2px solid black; box-shadow:5px 5px 5px #888888">
[[image:TA-Header.png|center]]
</div></center>

==616.8.1 Temporary Traffic Control for Contract Plan Sheet Development==

Each work zone is different and requires different temporary traffic control (TTC) plans. For contract plan sheets, [https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2r3/pdf_index.htm MUTCD (2009) Chapter 6H] provides the typical applications (TAs) to develop TTC plans and for in-field modifications as directed by the engineer. TAs should be altered, when needed, to fit the conditions of the specific work zone. See [[:Category:237_Contract_Plans|EPG 237]] for additional plan sheet guidance.

References to work vehicle or shadow vehicle made in the MUTCD will be considered incidental and should be indicated as such on the TTC plans.

When optional items are referenced in the MUTCD, the contractor may, at their discretion, utilize the items as incidental. When the TTC plans indicate one or more of these items as required for stationary work activities, applicable pay items will apply and will be included. Field adjustments, as directed by the engineer, may require additional pay items via a change order. When use of a Truck Mounted Attenuator (TMA) is deemed necessary for one or more stationary work activities, this will be indicated on the TTC plans, the Truck Mounted Attenuator (TMA) for Stationary Work Activities JSP will be included in the contract, and the Truck Mounted Attenuator pay item will be provided.

TMAs used in mobile operations, such as striping, are considered incidental per Sec 612.5.

==616.8.2 Temporary Traffic Control for MoDOT Employees==

<div style="float: right; margin-left: 35px; margin-right: 35px; text-align: center; width:400px; border:1px solid black; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:5px 5px 5px #888888">
<b>If you have questions about a Typical Application, please email [mailto:WZTAQuestions@modot.mo.gov?Subject=Question%20about%20TA WZTAQuestions@modot.mo.gov]</b>
</div>

These TAs are intended for the use of MoDOT employees. Before each work shift, all employees are required to participate in a pre-shift safety briefing. During the briefing, the applicable TAs should be printed out and then discussed to know the procedures to follow for the day’s work. This should include the risk-based assessment (RBA). The TAs shown in the EPG are considered current.

===616.8.2.1 Typical Applications===


<div class="mw-customtoggle-ET1" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #ff67ff; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888; border-width:thin;border-style:solid; border-color:gray;">[+/-] Emergency Traffic Control</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-ET1">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top; background-color: #fca1fc"
! style="background-color: #fca1fc" | Emergency Traffic Control Description !! style="width: 170px; background-color: #fca1fc" | ETC Number !! style="width: 230px; background-color: #fca1fc" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| *Imminent Danger of a Human* on Roadway or Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Emergency_Traffic_Control/ETC-1.pdf ETC-1] || style="text-align:center;" | 7/12/2024
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| *Unsafe Condition* on Roadway or Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Emergency_Traffic_Control/ETC-2.pdf ETC-2] || style="text-align:center;" | 7/12/2024
|}

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work Beyond the Shoulder</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation Work Beyond the Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-1M.pdf TA-1M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.1M || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Work Beyond the Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-1SD.pdf TA-1SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.1SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA1c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA1c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work Beyond the Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-1S.pdf TA-1S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.1S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work on the Shoulder</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation on a Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-4M.pdf TA-4M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.4M || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Work on a Shoulder || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-4SD.pdf TA-4SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.4SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Shoulder Closure</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Long-Term Shoulder Closure || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-5A.pdf TA-5A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.5A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Long-Term Shoulder Closure with Temporary Traffic Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-5B.pdf TA-5B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.5B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Shoulder Work with Minor Encroachment || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-6A.pdf TA-6A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.6A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Shoulder Work with Minor Encroachment with Temporary Traffic Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-6B.pdf TA-6B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.6B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA2d" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA2d" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Shoulder Work || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-3S.pdf TA-3S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.3S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work Within the Traveled Way of a Two-Lane Highway</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation on a Two-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-17M.pdf TA-17M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.17M || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Striping Operations on a Two-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-17STRIPE.pdf TA-17STRIPE] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.17STRIPE || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Road Closure</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Road Closure || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-8A.pdf TA-8A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.8A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Road Closure with Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-8B.pdf TA-8B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.8B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Road Closed Beyond Junction Detour || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-9.pdf TA-9] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.9 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SD.pdf TA-10SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway with Less than 400 AADT || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SD400AADT.pdf TA-10SD400AADT] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.6.8.616.8.10SD400AADT || style="text-align:center;" | 4-1-24
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using TMA Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SDTMA.pdf TA-10SDTMA] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SDTMA || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30SDTWLTL.pdf TA-30SDTWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.6.8.30SDTWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3d" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3d" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10S.pdf TA-10S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Automated Flagger Assistance Device (AFADs) || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SAFAD.pdf TA-10SAFAD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SAFAD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Portable Signal Flagger Devices (PSFDs) || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10SPSFD.pdf TA-10SPSFD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10SPSFD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using a TMA Flagger || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10STMA1.pdf TA-10STMA1] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10STMA1 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway using Multiple TMA Flaggers || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-10STMA2.pdf TA-10STMA2] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.10STMA2 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Lane Closure on Two-Lane Highways Using Traffic Control Signals || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-12.pdf TA-12] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.12 || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30STWLTL.pdf TA-30STWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.30STWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA3e" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Support Figures</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA3e" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Support Figure Description !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Flagger_Control_for_Resurfacing_or_Moving_Operations_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway.pdf Flagger control for Resurfacing or Moving Operations on a Two-Lane Highway] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway_near_Intersections.pdf Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway near Intersections] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway–3_Mile_Flagging_Scenarios.pdf Lane Closure on a Two-Lane Highway - 3 mile Flagging Scenarios] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Restriction_on_a_Two-Lane_Highway_Vertical_Clearance_at_Bridge.pdf Lane Restriction on a Two-Lane Highway Vertical Clearance at Bridge] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Side_Roads_Entering_Work_Zones.pdf Side Roads Entering Work Zones] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-TMA_Flagger_Design.pdf TMA Flagger Design] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_Alternate_Passing_Lanes.pdf Lane Closure on Alternating Passing Lanes] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Begin-End_of_Project_Signing.pdf Begin/End of Project Signing] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA4" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work Within the Traveled Way at an Intersection and on Sidewalks</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA4">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA4a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA4a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Center Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-21SD.pdf TA-21SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.21SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Right Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-22SD.pdf TA-22SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.22SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Left Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-23SD.pdf TA-23SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.23SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA4b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA4b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Center Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-21S.pdf TA-21S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.21S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Right Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-22S.pdf TA-22S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.22S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Left Lane Closure at an Intersection || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-23S.pdf TA-23S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.23S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work Within the Traveled Way of a Multi-Lane Highway</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Mobile</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Mobile Operation on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-35M.pdf TA-35M] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.35M || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Pavement Marking Operation on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-35STRIPE.pdf TA-35STRIPE] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.35STRIPE || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5b" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Short Duration</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5b" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30SDTWLTL.pdf TA-30SDTWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.6.8.30SDTWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Lane Closure on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-33SD.pdf TA-33SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.33SD || style="text-align:center;" | 2-1-24
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Short Duration Work on Exit Ramps || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-43SD.pdf TA-43SD] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.43SD || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5c" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5c" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure with a Two-Way Left Turn Lane || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-30STWLTL.pdf TA-30STWLTL] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.30STWLTL || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Lane Closure on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-33S.pdf TA-33S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.33S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Lane Closure with Temporary Traffic Barrier || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-34B.pdf TA-34B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.34B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Double Lane Closures on Interior Lane on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-37S.pdf TA-37S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.37S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Closure of Interior Lane on a Multi-Lane Highway || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-38S.pdf TA-38S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.38S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work in the Vicinity of an Exit Ramp || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-42S.pdf TA-42S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.42S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Ramp By-Pass || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-43B.pdf TA-43B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.43B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work on Ramps || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-43S.pdf TA-43S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.43S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Entrance Ramp Closure || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-44A.pdf TA-44A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.44A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work in the Vicinity of an Entrance Ramp || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-44S.pdf TA-44S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.44S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA5d" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Support Figures</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA5d" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Support Figure Description !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Closure_on_Alternate_Passing_Lanes.pdf Lane Closure on Alternating Passing Lanes] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Lane_Restriction_on_Divided_Highways_Width_Clearance_at_Bridge.pdf Lane Restriction on Divided Highways Width Clearance at Bridge] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/SF-Begin-End_of_Project_Signing.pdf Begin/End of Project Signing] || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA6" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Work at Railroad Crossing</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA6">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA6a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA6a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Stationary Work in the Vicinity of a Railroad Grade Crossing || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-46S.pdf TA-46S] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.46S || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA7" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Excavations with Steel Plates</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA7">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA7a" style="font-size:1.15em; margin:10px; margin-left:35px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #f6f6f6; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">[+/-] Stationary</div>
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-TA7a" style="margin-left:45px;">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content" style="margin-bottom:15px;">

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: 2em; text-align: left; width: 95%"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
! Typical Application Description !! style="width: 170px" | TA Number !! style="width: 230px" | Figure Number !! style="width: 100px" | Effective Date
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Excavations with Steel Plate or Backfill on Undivided Highways || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-47A.pdf TA-47A] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.47A || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
| Excavations with Steel Plate or Backfill on Divided Highways || style="text-align:center;" | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Typical_Applications/TA-47B.pdf TA-47B] ||style="text-align:center;" | 616.8.47B || style="text-align:center;" | 9-15-23
|}

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>


<div class="mw-customtoggle-TA7" onclick="window.location.href='https://www.google.com';" style="font-size:1.25em; margin:10px; padding:3px; cursor:pointer; color:black; background-color: #EBEBEB; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #888888">Complex intersection Guidance</div>

===616.8.2.2 Legend for Typical Applications===

</br>
[[image:616.8.jpg|center|750px|thumb|'''<center>Fig. 616.8.2 Meaning of Symbols on Typical Application Diagrams'''</center>]]

===616.8.2.3 Examples of Highways===

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
|-
|colspan="3"|'''Divided Highway:''' Highway with physical separation of traffic in the opposite direction.
|-
|[[image:616.8.3.1.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Median Separation'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.2.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Median Separation with Guard Cable'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Barrier Wall Separation'''</center>]]
|-
|
|-
|height="40"|
|-
|colspan="3"|'''Undivided Highway:''' Highway with no physical separation of traffic in the opposite direction.
|-
|[[image:616.8.3.4.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Undivided Highway'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.5.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane Undivided Highway'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.6.jpg|left|250px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane with Turning Lane'''</center>]]
|}
{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
|-
|[[image:616.8.3.7.jpg|left|275px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane with Raised Median'''</center>]]||[[image:616.8.3.8.jpg|left|275px|thumb|<center>'''Multi-lane with Paved Narrow Median</center>''']]
|}

===616.8.2.4 Recommended Advance Warning Sign Minimum Spacing===
<center>

{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" style="text-align:center"
|+ '''[[616.3 Temporary Traffic Control Elements (MUTCD Chapter 6C)#Table 616.3.4 Recommended Advance Warning Sign Minimum Spacing| Table 616.3.4, Recommended Advance Warning Sign Minimum Spacing]]'''
! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2"|Speed Limit<sup>'''1'''</sup>, mph!!style="background:#BEBEBE" colspan="2"|Sign Spacing<sup>'''2'''</sup>, ft.
|-
!style="background:#BEBEBE" |Undivided Highway!! style="background:#BEBEBE"|Divided Highway
|-
|up to 35|| 200<sup>'''3'''</sup>|| 200<sup>'''3'''</sup>
|-
|40 to 45|| 350|| 500
|-
|50 to 55|| 500|| 1000
|-
|60 to 70||1000||SA-1000<br/>SB-1500<br/>SC-2640
|-
|align="left" colspan="3"|<sup>'''1'''</sup> Speed limit is based on posted speed limit.
|-
|align="left" colspan="3"|<sup>'''2'''</sup> Sign spacing may be adjusted, normally by increasing it, to accommodate field conditions and visibility.
|-
|align="left" colspan="3"|<sup>'''3'''</sup> For urban low speed, minimum recommended spacing in MUTCD is 100 ft.
|}
</center>

===616.8.2.5 Recommended Taper Length and Spacing===
<center>

{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" style="text-align:center"
|+'''[https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=616.3_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Elements_%28MUTCD_Chapter_6C%29#Table_616.3.5_Recommended_Taper_Length_and_Spacing Table 616.3.5, Recommended Taper Length and Spacing]'''
! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2"|Speed Limit<sup>'''1'''</sup>, mph!!style="background:#BEBEBE" colspan="2"|Taper Length<sup>'''2'''</sup>, ft. !!style="background:#BEBEBE" colspan="2"| Channelizing Spacing <sup>'''3'''</sup>, ft.
|-
!style="background:#BEBEBE"| Shoulder<sup>'''4'''</sup> (T1)!!style="background:#BEBEBE"|Lane<sup>'''5'''</sup> (T2)!!style="background:#BEBEBE"|Tapers!!style="background:#BEBEBE"|Buffer/Work Areas
|-
|up to 35||70|| 245|| 35<sup>6</sup> ||40<sup>6</sup>
|-
|40 to 45||150|| 540|| 40<sup>6</sup>|| 80<sup>6</sup>
|-
|50 to 55||185|| 660|| 50<sup>7</sup>|| 80<sup>7</sup>
|-
|60 to 70||235|| 840|| 60<sup>7</sup>|| 120<sup>7</sup>
|-
|align="left" colspan="5"|<sup>'''1'''</sup> Speed limit is based on posted speed limit.<br/><sup>'''2'''</sup> Taper lengths may be adjusted to accommodate crossroads, curves, intersections, ramps or other geometric features.<br/><sup>'''3'''</sup> Channelizer spacing may be reduced to discourage traffic encroachment.<br/><sup>'''4'''</sup> Based on 10 ft. shoulder width.<br/><sup>'''5'''</sup> Based on 12 ft. lane width.<br/><sup>'''6'''</sup> Spacing reduced to 1/2 at intersections.<br/><sup>'''7'''</sup> Spacing may be reduced to 1/2 at intersections.
|}
</center>

[[Category:616 Temporary Traffic Control|616.08]]