FHWA-NHI-10-016 C Commentary on Axial Resistance

Drilled Shaft Reference Manual C-1 May 2010

APPENDIX C
COMMENTARY ON METHODS FOR COMPUTING NOMINAL AXIAL RESISTANCE OF
DRILLED SHAFTS
C.1 SIDE RESISTANCE IN COHESIONLESS GEOMATERIALS
In Chapter 13, the nominal side resistance of a drilled shaft in cohesionless soil is modeled as the
frictional resistance that can be developed over a cylindrical surface at the soil-shaft interface, given by:
( ) o o' A t = A t = tan z B z B R
h SN SN
f C-1
in which R
SN
= nominal side resistance, B = shaft diameter, Az = thickness of the soil layer over which
resistance is calculated, and f
SN
= nominal unit shearing resistance, o'
h
= horizontal effective stress, and o
= effective stress angle of friction for the soil-shaft interface. Figure C-1 depicts a segment of drilled
shaft and the resulting unit shearing resistance developed along the interface. The horizontal effective
stress acts as a normal stress at the interface, and tan o is equivalent to a sliding coefficient of friction.
Horizontal effective stress is expressed in terms of vertical effective stress (o'
v
) and the coefficient of
horizontal soil stress (K = o'
h
/ o'
v
), resulting in the following expression:
( ) o o' A t = tan K z B R
v SN
C-2
The last two terms in Equation C-2 often are grouped as follows:

| = K tano C-3
and
f
SN
= o'
v
| C-4
in which | = side resistance coefficient and f
SN
= nominal unit side resistance. In terms of the coefficient
|, total side resistance for a cohesionless soil layer is then given by:
( )
v SN
z B R o' | A t = C-5

Two approaches for evaluating the coefficient | have been used in U.S. practice. In one approach, trends
of | versus depth (z) determined from field load tests are used to develop empirical relationships between
| and z. ONeill and Hassan (1994) refer to this as the depth-dependent | method and this is the basis
of the equations given in the previous version of this manual (ONeill and Reese, 1999) as well as the
current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2007). A more fundamental approach is to
evaluate | in terms of K and o. Each approach is reviewed, followed by a discussion on the relative
merits of each.
FHWA-NHI-10-016 C Commentary on Axial Resistance
Drilled Shaft Reference Manual C-2 May 2010
o
o'
h
= K o'
v
f
SN
= o'
h
tan o
Q
c
Figure C-1 Frictional Shear Model of Drilled Shaft Side Resistance in Cohesionless Soil
The depth-dependent | method is given by the following expressions:
For sandy soils:
z 135 . 0 5 . 1 = for N
60
> 15 0.25 < | < 1.2 C-6
For gravelly sands and gravels:
( )
75 . 0
z 06 . 0 0 . 2 = | for N
60
> 15 0.25 < | < 1.8 C-7
For all cohesionless soils:
( ) z 135 . 0 5 . 1
15
N

60
= for N
60
< 15 C-8


Unit side resistance calculated by the above expressions is limited to an upper bound value of 4,000 psf
unless higher values are shown to be valid by load tests. This value is not a theoretical limit, but was
reported to be the largest value measured when Equation C-6 was first proposed by ONeill and Reese
(1978). In the AASHTO (2007) LRFD specifications a resistance factor of 0.55 is adopted for use with
the above expressions for |, based on the recommendation of Allen (2005).
Rollins et al. (2005) proposed the following modified form of the depth-dependent | method for gravels
(> 50 percent gravel size)

( ) z
e
085 . 0
4 . 3

= 0.25 < | < 3.0 C-9

FHWA-NHI-10-016 C Commentary on Axial Resistance
Drilled Shaft Reference Manual C-3 May 2010
Rollins et al. note that almost all of the gravels in the database used to establish Equation C-9 exhibited
N-values greater than 25, with values up to 100. According to the authors, Equation C-9 therefore is not
applicable to low blow count gravels but would apply to gravels with N
60
> 50.
Equations C-6 through C-9 are used to assign nominal values to the coefficient | solely as a function of
depth (z). A basic premise of the depth-dependent approach, as described by ONeill and Hassan (1994),
is that drilled shaft construction disturbs the soil, reducing its density and allowing relaxation of
horizontal stress. It is further assumed that disturbance can reduce the soil friction angle to a lower-bound
value corresponding to the critical state void ratio (ONeill and Reese, 1988 and 1999). Based on this
reasoning, detailed evaluations of in-situ strength and state of stress are not warranted because the in-situ
properties are changed by construction and the changes cannot be predicted reliably, in particular if the
designer does not know ahead of time what construction methods will be used. Instead, near lower-bound
values of | back-calculated from field load tests are assumed to provide a conservative approximation of
unit side resistance. Using this model, the nominal value of | in a cohesionless soil layer with N
60
= 15 is
assumed to have the same value of | as a cohesionless soil layer at the same depth but with N
60
= 50.
The load test results used by ONeill and Hassan (1994) to develop Equations C-6 through C-8 are shown
in Figure C-2 as back-calculated values of | versus depth. The trend line labeled Improved lower-bound
design relation N > 15 corresponds to Equation C-6. For a full discussion of the data and trend lines
shown in Figure C-2 the reader should consult ONeill and Hassan (1994). It can be observed that |
exhibits a wide range of values at shallow depths, and there is a general trend of decreasing | with
increasing depth. This trend, which is reflected in Equations C-6 through C-9, can be attributed to higher
values of K near the surface, where many soil deposits are overconsolidated. Overconsolidation occurs in
response to mechanical processes (burial and subsequent erosion) but also from fluctuations in the water
table, capillary rise, desiccation, and aging. The effect of preconsolidation is to increase the in-situ
horizontal stress and, therefore, |. With increasing depth, most soil deposits trend toward a normally
consolidated state, a lower value of K, and therefore a lower value of |. From Equation C-6, | is assumed
to reach a constant minimum value of 0.25 below a depth of 85 ft, corresponding approximately to a
normally consolidated value of K for a friction angle of 22 degrees. While the depth-dependent | method
has been found to provide conservative estimates of nominal side resistance for most soil profiles, its
failure to account explicitly for the in-situ state of stress and the soil shear strength imposes a limitation
on designers to model properly the mechanisms of soil-structure interaction that control side resistance.
The more fundamental approach, as presented for example by Kulhawy (1991), Mayne and Harris (1993),
Chen and Kulhawy (2002), Kulhawy and Chen (2007), and others, is to evaluate separately the
parameters that are lumped into the coefficient |. From Equation C-3, these are the interface friction
angle (o) and the coefficient of horizontal soil stress (K). For concrete cast in place against soil, as in a
drilled shaft, the interface is assumed to be rough and o can be taken equal to the effective stress friction
angle of the soil:
|' ~ o C-10
The value of soil friction angle can be determined through correlation to common in-situ tests such as
SPT N-values or CPT cone resistance as presented in Chapter 3. When SPT results are available, the
recommended correlation for sands and gravels is:
( ) | |
60 1
log 2 . 9 5 . 27 N + = |'
C-11
Equations C-6 through C-9 are used to assign nominal values to the coefficient | ssolely as a function of Equations C-6 through C-9 are used to assign nominal values to the coefficient | solely as a function of
depth (z). A basic premise of the depth-dependent approach, as described by ONeill and Hassan (1994), depth (z). A basic premise of the depth-dependent approach, as described by ONeill and Hassan (1994),
is that drilled shaft construction disturbs the soil, reducing its density and allowing relaxation of il, reducing its density and allowing relaxation of
horizontal stress. It is further assumed that disturbance can reduce the soil friction angle to a lower-bound urbance can reduce the soil friction angle to a lower-bound
value corresponding to the critical state void ratio (ONeill and Reese, 1988 and 1999). Based on this value corresponding to the critical state void ratio (ONeill and Reese, 1988 and 1999). Based on this
reasoning, detailed evaluations of in-situ strength and state of stress are not warranted because the in-situ reasoning, detailed evaluations of in-situ strength and state of stress ar
properties are changed by construction and the changes cannot be predicted reliably, in particular if the properties are changed by construction and the changes cannot be predicted reliably, in particular if the
designer does not know ahead of time what construction methods will be used. Instead, near lower-bound designer d
values of
r doe
| b
does not know ahead of time what constructi
back-calculated from field load tests are assumed to provide a conservative approximation of back-calculated from field load tests are assumed
unit side resistance. Using this model, the nominal value of
med t
of | i
ed to provide a conservative approximation of
in a cohesionless soil layer with N
60
= 15 is unit side resistance. Using this mod
assumed to have the same value of
ode
of | a
del, the nominal value of in a cohesionless soil layer with N
as a cohesionless soil layer at the same depth but with N
60
= 50.
The load test results used by ONeill and Hassan (1994) to develop Equations C-6 through C-8 are shown The load test results used by ONeill and H
in Figure C-2 as back-calculated values of
d Has
of | v
Hassan (1994) to develop Equations C-6 through C-8 are shown
versus depth. The trend line labeled Improved lower-bound in Figure C-2 as back-calculated values of | versus depth. The trend line labeled Improved lower-bound
design relation N > 15 corresponds to Equation C-6. For a full discussion of the data and trend lines design relation N > 15 corresponds to Equation C-6.
shown in Figure C-2 the reader should consult ONeill and Hassan (1994). It can be observed that | shown in Figure C-2 the reader should consult ONe
exhibits a wide range of values at shallow depths, and there is a general trend of decreasing | wwith exhibits a wide range of values at shallow depths, and there is a general trend of decreasing |
increasing depth. This trend, which is reflected in Equations C-6 through C-9, can be attributed to higher increasing depth. This trend, which is reflected in Equations C-6 through C-9, can be attributed to higher
values of K near the surface, where many soil deposits are overconsolidated. Overconsolidation occurs in values of K near the surface, where many soil deposi
response to mechanical processes (burial and subsequent erosion) but also from fluctuations in the water response to mechanical processes (burial and subsequent erosion) but also from fluctuations in the water
table, capillary rise, desiccation, and aging. The effect of preconsolidation is to increase the in-situ table, capillary rise, desiccation, and aging. The effect of precons
horizontal stress and, therefore, |. With increasing depth, most soil deposits trend toward a normally . With increasing depth, most soi
consolidated state, a lower value of K, and therefore a lower value of of
soil d
of |. F
il deposits trend toward
From Equation C-6,
ard a
| i
rd a normally
is assumed | From Equation C-6, |
to reach a constant minimum value of 0.25 below a depth of 85 ft, corresponding approximately to a to reach a constant minimum value of 0.25 below a depth of 85 ft, corresponding approxima
normally consolidated value of K for a friction angle of 22 degrees. While the depth-dependent
imate
| m
ately to a
method normally consolidated value of K for a friction angle of 22 degrees. While the depth-dependent |
has been found to provide conservative estimates of nominal side resistance for most soil profiles, its has been found to provide conservative estimates of nominal side resistance for most soil profiles, its
failure to account explicitly for the in-situ state of stress and the soil shear strength imposes a limitation of failure to account explicitly for the in-situ state of stress and the soil shear strength imposes a limitatio of
on designers to model properly the mechanisms of soil-structure interaction that control side resistance.
FHWA-NHI-10-016 C Commentary on Axial Resistance
Drilled Shaft Reference Manual C-4 May 2010
Figure C-2 Variations of | with Depth (ONeill and Hassan, 1994)
The value of K, coefficient of horizontal stress, is a function of the in-situ (at-rest) value, K
o
, and changes
in horizontal stress that occur in response to drilled shaft construction, which can be expressed in terms of
the ratio K/K
o
. In this approach, the coefficient beta can be expressed as:
|'
|
|
.
|

\
|
= | tan
K
K
K
o
o
C-12
To apply this approach it is necessary to select values of K
o
and construction-related changes in terms of
K/K
o
. As described by Chen and Kulhawy (2002), early studies suggested that K/K
o
be taken as 1 for dry
construction, 5/6 for casing construction, 2/3 for slurry construction, and 11/12 for combined dry/casing
construction. However, back-analyses of field load tests using the approach described herein by Chen
and Kulhawy (2002) suggest these values are overly conservative and that K/K
o
is close to 1 for properly
constructed shafts. As a first-order approximation it will be assumed that K/K
o
= 1, and therefore the
operative value of K equals the in-situ value K
o
. For simple virgin loading-unloading of normal soils
that are not cemented, the K
o
value increases with overconsolidation ratio (OCR) according to (Kulhawy
and Mayne, 1982):
K
o
= (1 sin |') OCR
sin |'
< K
p
C-13
v
p
OCR
o'
o'
= C-14
where o'
p
= effective vertical preconsolidation stress. In Equation C-13, K
o
is limited to an upper bound
value equal to the Rankine coefficient of passive earth pressure, K
p
. A variety of methods have been
proposed for evaluation of either K
o
or o'
p
by correlations with in-situ test measurements. For a practical
FHWA-NHI-10-016 C Commentary on Axial Resistance
Drilled Shaft Reference Manual C-5 May 2010
estimate based on the most commonly used in-situ test (SPT) the following correlation is suggested by
Mayne (2007):
( )
m
60
a
p
N 47 . 0
p
~
o'
C-15
where m = 0.6 for clean quartzitic sands and m = 0.8 for silty sands to sandy silts (e.g., Piedmont residual
soils). Kulhawy and Chen (2007) suggest the following correlation provides a good fit for gravelly soils:
60
a
p
N 15 . 0
p
=
o'
C-16
Substituting Equations C-12 through C-15 into Equation C-11 leads to the following approximation of
| for cohesionless soils:
( ) |' s |'
|
|
.
|

\
|
o'
o'
|' ~ |
|'
tan K tan sin 1
p
sin
v
p
C-17
where o'
p
is estimated by Equation C-15 for sandy soils and by Equation C-16 for gravelly soils. The
calculated value of | is substituted into Equation C-5 for determination of nominal side resistance R
SN
.
The advantage of this approach is that it allows the designer to account for site-specific variations in
horizontal stress and soil strength in a rational manner. The principal limitation to this approach is that
in-situ stress and soil strength are determined through correlation to N-values, and therefore are subjected
to all sources of error and variability associated with the SPT. Furthermore, this method, in terms of the
equations presented above, has not been evaluated for calibration of resistance factors using the
procedures required for incorporation into the AASHTO LRFD specifications. However, a simple
calibration to allowable stress design (historical practice), assuming a factor of safety = 2.0, yields a
resistance factor of 0.45. This value is recommended until additional calibration studies are conducted.
The database used by Chen and Kulhawy (2002) included 100 axial load tests on drilled shafts at 53 sites.
Figure C-3 shows the back-calculated values of | versus depth for all 100 tests. The general trend is
similar to Figure C-2, showing high values of | and large scatter at shallow depths and decreasing values
of | and less scatter with increasing depth, converging to the normally consolidated range at depths
greater than 100 ft (30 meters) or so. Both uplift (54 tests) and compression (46 tests) are included. The
results demonstrate that | values are essentially the same for uplift and compression, varying by less than
4 percent. Test shaft depths ranged from 4.5 ft to 200 ft and diameters ranged from less than 1 ft to 6.5 ft.
The range of depth to diameter ratios (L/B) is 2.5 to 56.4. Soil types at the test sites are dominated by
sands and range from gravelly sand to sand to silty sand. A few cemented sand sites are included.
All load test results were evaluated in a consistent manner to establish nominal resistances using the L
1
-L
2
interpretation described by Hirany and Kulhawy (1989, 2002). The basic concept is depicted graphically
in terms of a normalized load versus normalized displacement curve as shown in Figure C-4. The elastic
limit is defined at L
1
, and occurs on average at a normalized displacement of ~0.4%. This is followed by
a nonlinear yield region. The end of this region is denoted by L
2
, the interpreted failure load, which is
defined as the point where a final linear region begins. On average, data from compression load tests
show that the point L
2
occurs at a normalized displacement of ~4% (as shown in Figure C-4). For uplift,
FHWA-NHI-10-016 C Commentary on Axial Resistance
Drilled Shaft Reference Manual C-6 May 2010
L
2
occurs at an average value of absolute displacement of 0.5 inch. For each compression load test,
nominal resistance was established graphically by the load at 4% normalized displacement. For uplift
tests, nominal resistance was taken as the load at 0.5 inch upward displacement. According to its authors,
attributes of the L
1
-L
2
interpretation for drilled shafts are: independence of scale and individual judgment;
does not involve extrapolation of the measured load-displacement curve; accounts for foundation
diameter; and considers the shape of the load-displacement curve. Further background on this method, is
given in the two references cited above.
Figure C-3 Variation of Measured | with Depth (Chen and Kulhawy, 2002)
Of the 100 load tests considered by Chen and Kulhawy (2002), 58 tests were accompanied by data that
were deemed sufficient to make predictions of | on the basis of soil properties. At the majority of sites,
soil properties were characterized by correlations with SPT N-values. An updated analysis of the 2002
data, with additional data from load tests on shafts in gravel and cobbles, is given by Kulhawy and Chen
(2007). For each test accompanied by suitable information on soil properties, the coefficient | was
predicted using Equation C-12 and |' was evaluated by Equation C-11. The soil profile along the shaft
was divided into several layers and average K
o
and |' values were evaluated at the mid-depth of each
layer. These were used to calculate a | value for each layer and then weighted averages were used to
calculate an average | over the length of the shaft. Figure C-5 shows a comparison between the ratio of
values of | from load test measurements (|
m
) to the predicted values (|
p
) versus normalized depth
(depth/diameter). Analyses of these data give a mean |
m
/|
p
= 1.16. These results suggest that the
analysis model yields predictions of side resistance to a level of accuracy and reliability that is acceptable
for geotechnical practice. Furthermore, the results are consistent over a range of cohesionless soil profiles
including sand, gravel, and cobbles, provided the soil parameters are evaluated properly.
FHWA-NHI-10-016 C Commentary on Axial Resistance
Drilled Shaft Reference Manual C-7 May 2010
Figure C-4 Average Normalized Load-displacement Curve that Forms the Basis of Load Test
Interpretation for Compression (Chen and Kulhawy, 2002).
Note: DS = drilled shaft foundations; PIF = pressure injected footings
Figure C-5 Ratio of Measured to Predicted | Values Versus Depth Ratio for Drilled Foundations in
Cohesionless Soils (Kulhawy and Chen, 2007)
FHWA-NHI-10-016 C Commentary on Axial Resistance
Drilled Shaft Reference Manual C-8 May 2010
The approach described above is adaptable to other in-situ methods that allow measurement of horizontal
soil stress and its variation with depth, such as pressuremeter test (PMT) and flate plate dilatometer test
(DMT). The measured horizontal effective stress is then used directly in Equation C-1 to evaluate
nominal side resistance. When cone penetration test (CPT) results are available, the following expression
given by Mayne (2007) provides a direct estimate of OCR from measured cone tip resistance values:
( )
|
|
.
|

\
|
|'
(
(
(
(
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
o'
|'
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
27 . 0 sin
1
31 . 0
a
v
22 . 0
a
t
p
sin 1
p
192 . 0
OCR
q
C-18
in which q
t
= cone tip resistance, o'
v
= vertical effective stress, and p
a
= atmospheric pressure in the same
units as q
t
and o'
v
. The OCR value is then substituted into Equation C-13 for an estimate of K, which is
used to evaluate | and nominal side resistance. Equation C-18 was derived empirically from statistical
evaluations on 26 different series of CPT calibration chamber tests. Cohesionless soils used in the tests
were primarily quartz and feldspar sands with OCR values ranging from 1 to 15.
In Equation C-17, it is assumed that no change in horizontal stress, and therefore no change in K, occurs
as a result of construction. Analysis of load test data demonstrates this assumption is valid for dry, slurry
(wet-hole), and casing methods of construction with minimal sidewall disturbance, proper handling of
slurry and casing, and prompt placement of concrete (Chen and Kulhawy, 2002). However, when these
aspects of construction quality are not controlled properly, the coefficient K can be reduced to 2/3 of its
initial in-situ value (K
o
). Judgment and accurate knowledge of field realities are therefore needed to
assess the applicability of the design equations to individual projects. The recommended approach is to
take the necessary measures that will assure the highest quality of construction, thereby justifying the use
of the design equations presented above. When there is reason to believe quality construction cannot be
achieved, the drilled shaft designer has the option to apply reduced values of K and/or |' for computing
side resistance.
Discussion
The recommendation given herein to adopt the |-method with separate evaluation of K and o (rational
method), versus the depth-dependent |-method, represents a departure from previous FHWA practice and
current AASHTO specifications (2007). Justification for these revisions is based on both theoretical and
empirical arguments. First, it was recognized very early that a frictional shear model of side resistance, as
expressed by Equation C-2, provides the proper effective stress analysis for side resistance of deep
foundations in cohesionless materials. For example, see Tomlinson (1963), Vesic (1977), ONeill and
Reese (1978), Kulhawy et al. (1983), or Turner and Kulhawy (1990). However, a lack of data from load
tests on drilled shafts in cohesionless soils limited the development and verification of specific methods
for proper assessment of the parameters K and tan o needed to apply this model to drilled shaft design.
The depth-dependent | method was introduced by ONeill and Reese (1978) as an interim, empirical
approach that would provide conservative estimates of side resistance given the uncertainties associated
with construction effects and the limited data available at the time. The database of load tests against
which the depth-dependent | values were evaluated consisted of only two load tests in sand and 18 tests
in mixed soil profiles of sand and clay (Reese and ONeill, 1988). Since that time, a significant amount
of additional information available from load tests has made it possible to move beyond depth-dependent
empirical equations for | and into the realm of methods based on the correct theoretical model. The
FHWA-NHI-10-016 C Commentary on Axial Resistance
Drilled Shaft Reference Manual C-9 May 2010
resulting research published over the past 20 years demonstrates the validity of applying an analysis
model that incorporates careful geotechnical evaluation of the soil parameters that determine side
resistance as expressed by Equation C-2. This research has consisted of careful studies involving analysis
of data from full-scale load tests and also through development of improved correlations between in-situ
tests, in particular SPT and CPT measurements, and horizontal stress in soils. The reader is referred to
the following references that present research supporting this approach: Kulhawy (1991), Mayne and
Harris (1993), ONeill and Hassan (1994), Chen and Kulhawy (2002), and Kulhawy and Chen (2007).
The practice of lumping K and o into a single parameter (|) and then evaluating | solely as a function of
depth neglects the influence of geology, material type, and stress history. Use of this method restricts the
ability of a foundation engineer to design a drilled shaft on the basis of site-specific ground conditions.
While this approach may have been warranted in the past as a result of construction-related uncertainties
and insufficient data, compelling evidence now exists to demonstrate that these factors can be taken into
account in engineering practice. As stated by ONeill and Hassan (1994), the rational method is clearly
superior to the depth dependent | method from a soil mechanics perspective and should give more
accurate values for | than the depth-dependent | method.
A further important reason for adopting the rational |-method is that the previous version of this manual
(ONeill and Reese, 1999) adopted this approach for cohesionless materials with N
60
> 50 (cohesionless
IGM). This created a discrepancy between the design equations recommended for shafts in cohesionless
soils and the method for cohesionless IGM. Adoption of a single approach therefore provides a unified
design model for all cohesionless geomaterials.
For strictly illustrative purposes (not for design), Figure C-6 shows curves of | versus depth as calculated
for three cases: rational method with N
60
= 15, rational method with N
60
= 50, and the depth-dependent
beta method for sand with N
60
> 15 (Equation C-6). For the rational method, | at shallow depths is
limited to the value corresponding to a depth of 7.5 ft, which corresponds approximately to a vertical
effective stress of ~900 psf. At lower confining stress, the correlations for effective stress friction angle
and preconsolidation stress have not been validated and it would be prudent to limit | to the values
corresponding to this depth. The unit weight used to calculate | values in Figure C-6 is assumed to be
120 pcf and constant with depth, and no water table effects are considered. The figure serves to illustrate
the restriction imposed by the depth-dependent method (dashed line) on a designers ability to assign
nominal values of side resistance to cohesionless soil layers. For soils with relatively high N-values and
quality construction, overly conservative estimates of side resistance will result, diminishing the cost
advantages of drilled shaft foundations. The rational method correctly provides the designer with a tool
to assign higher values of side resistance to layers exhibiting higher N-values, and lower nominal side
resistance values to layers exhibiting lower N-values. This approach leads to designs that are both more
cost-effective and more reliable by accounting for site-specific ground conditions. The curves for |
within the range of 15 < N
60
< 50 also provide a much improved match to the distribution of | versus
depth as illustrated in Figure C-2 and Figure C-3.
Application of the rational approach for evaluation of nominal side resistance in cohesionless soils can be
summarized by the following steps. For each cohesionless geomaterial layer:
- Establish mean value of N
60
and mean vertical effective stress o'
v
- Establish |' by correlation to N
60
and o'
v
- Establish o'
p
by correlation to N
60
by Equation C-15 if sand; by Equation C-16 if gravel
- Calculate K
o
using estimated values of o'
p
, |', and o'
v
(Equation C-13)
- Calculate | by Equation C-17 and average nominal unit side resistance f
SN
by Equation C-4
- Calculate nominal side resistance R
SN
by Equation C-1
FHWA-NHI-10-016 C Commentary on Axial Resistance
Drilled Shaft Reference Manual C-10 May 2010
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Beta Coefficient, |
D
e
p
t
h

(
f
t
)
N
60
= 50
N
60
= 15
All N
60
> 15
Figure C-6 Comparison of | Values Computed by Rational Method and Depth-Dependent Method
C.2 BASE RESISTANCE BY BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Bearing capacity theory provides a theoretical framework for evaluating the base (tip) resistance of deep
foundations in soil and rock. The degree to which bearing capacity analyses are applicable depends upon
the extent to which the assumed base conditions correspond to actual field realities. Experience and
observations from load tests suggest that bearing capacity theory provides reliable estimates of base
resistance for shafts bearing on cohesive soils. The method recommended in Chapter 13 for nominal base
resistance of shafts in cohesive soils (Equation 13-18) is based on bearing capacity analysis. For shafts
bearing on cohesionless soils, experience shows that full mobilization of the theoretical bearing capacity
generally requires downward displacements that average approximately 10 percent of base diameter.
Load test results also show higher variability in base resistance in cohesionless soils, possibly due to
disturbance of the soil caused by stress release, seepage, and drilling. Nevertheless, when the base load-
displacement behavior is accounted for properly, bearing capacity theory provides a useful tool for
evaluating drilled shaft strength and service limit states. In this Appendix, bearing capacity equations
applicable to drilled shafts in cohesionless and cohesive soils are presented in greater detail than in
Chapter 13, along with recommendations for evaluating the various parameters.
Bearing capacity equations have not been applied widely to the design of drilled shafts in rock. The
empirical approach presented in Chapter 13, based on strength of intact rock, is recommended for routine
applications. However, recent advancements in characterization of rock mass strength, for example use
of Geological Strength Index (GSI) for fractured rock mass, make it possible to formulate analytical
expressions for base resistance from bearing capacity theory. Future improvements in base resistance
predictions are likely when considered within the framework of bearing capacity theory, as described
herein.
FHWA-NHI-10-016 C Commentary on Axial Resistance
Drilled Shaft Reference Manual C-11 May 2010
Nominal base resistance is the product of the nominal unit base resistance (q
BN
) and the cross-sectional
area of the shaft base (A
base
), or:
BN
2
base BN BN
q
4
B
A q R = =
C-19
When bearing capacity theory is applied, the nominal unit base resistance is taken as the ultimate bearing
capacity (q
ult
) of the soil or rock beneath the shaft base. The general form of the solution to the bearing
capacity equation is given by:
qr qd qs q r d s cr cd cs c ult
qN N B 0.5 cN q + + =
C-20
in which c = soil cohesion, = soil unit weight, q = vertical stress at the shaft base elevation (E
i
Az
i
), N
c
,
N

, and N
q
= bearing capacity factors, and the terms are modifications factors to account for foundation
shape (s), depth (d), and rigidity (r). The first subscript indicates the term in Equation C-20 to which the
factor applies.
The bearing capacity factors are functions of soil friction angle |, as follows:
|
|
.
|

\
| |
+ =
tan 2
q
e
2
45 tan N C-21
( ) | = cot 1 N N
q c
(as | 0, N
c
= 5.14)
C-22
( ) | + = tan 1 N 2 N
q
C-23
For a circular cross section (drilled shaft), expressions for the modification factors are given in TABLE
C-1. Application of Equation C-20 to drilled shaft base resistance is considered for the three cases of
drained loading in soil, undrained loading in soil, and rock.
C.2.1 Drained Loading
Fully-drained response can be assumed for shafts bearing on cohesionless soils or for shafts bearing on
cohesive soils where the long-term condition may be critical. The latter case generally applies to heavily
overconsolidated cohesive soils. For drained loading, the problem is analyzed in terms of effective stress
and it is usually assumed that the effective stress cohesion c' is zero. For these assumptions, and
considering values for the modification factors as given in TABLE C-1, Equation C-20 reduces to the
following:
FHWA-NHI-10-016 C Commentary on Axial Resistance
Drilled Shaft Reference Manual C-12 May 2010
qr qd qs q r ult
N q N B 0.3 q + =
C-24
in which = average effective unit weight, N

and N
q
are functions of soil effective stress friction angle
(|'), q = vertical effective stress at the base elevation, and the remaining terms are evaluated from
Table C-1. The soil properties (|', , and I
rr
) are average values over the depth interval extending from
the base of the shaft to one shaft diameter below the base.
TABLE C-1 MODIFICATION FACTORS FOR CIRCULAR FOUNDATIONS
(KULHAWY 1991)
Modification Symbol Value

cs
c
q
N
N
+ 1

s
0.6
Shape

qs
1 + tan |

cd (

tan
1
c
qd
qd
N

d
1
Depth

qd
( )
(

|
.
|

\
|
+

B
D
1 2
tan
180
sin 1 tan 2 1
t
| |

cr (

tan
1
c
qr
qr
N

qr
Rigidity

qr
| | ( )
)
`

+
+
|
| |
sin 1
log
sin 07 . 3 tan 8 . 3 exp
10 rr
I
To evaluate the rigidity modification factors, the soil rigidity index (I
r
) must be evaluated and compared
to the critical rigidity index (Vesic 1975). For drained loading and c' = 0, the soil rigidity index is given
by:
( ) tan q (1 2
E
I
a d
d
r
' +
=
C-25
in which E
d
= soil drained modulus, v
d
= drained Poissons ratio, and
a
q = average vertical effective
stress from the base to one diameter below the base. Drained modulus can be estimated on the basis of
relative density or correlated to in-situ test results for cohesionless soils (Chapter 3). For cohesive soils,
drained modulus must be evaluated from consolidated-drained (CD) triaxial compression tests on
undisturbed samples. Poissons ratio of granular soils ranges from 0.1 to 0.4 and can be estimated from
(Kulhawy, 1991):
FHWA-NHI-10-016 C Commentary on Axial Resistance
Drilled Shaft Reference Manual C-13 May 2010
v
d
= 0.1 + 0.3 |
rel
C-26
in which the relative friction angle (|
rel
) ranges from 0 to 1 and is given by:
$ $
$
25 45
25
rel

|'
= | C-27
Equation C-27 has not been validated for calcareous or cemented soils. The reduced rigidity index
utilized in the expressions given in Table C-1 accounts for volumetric strain and is given by (Vesic 1975):
I 1
I
I
r
r
rr
+
=
C-28
in which A = volumetric strain, which can be estimated by:
a a
rel
/p q
1
0.005
|
=
C-29
where p
a
= atmospheric pressure in the same units as
a
q . Equation C-29 also has not been validated for
cemented or calcareous soils.
The reduced rigidity index (I
rr
) is compared to the critical rigidity index (I
rc
) given by (Vesic 1975):
(

|
.
|

\
|
'
=
2

45 cot 2.85 exp 0.5 I

rc
$
C-30
If I
rr
> I
rc
, the soil beneath the base behaves as a rigid-plastic material resulting in general shear failure
mode and the rigidity modification factors are equal to 1.0. If I
rr
< I
rc
, the assumption of rigid-plastic
behavior is not satisfied and local or punching shear failure mode is likely. In this case, the rigidity
modification factors will be less than 1.0 and should be evaluated from the expressions given in Table
C-1.
C.2.2 Undrained Loading
Undrained bearing capacity is evaluated in terms of total stress with | = 0 and c = undrained shear
strength (s
u
). The bearing capacity factors become: N
c
= 5.14, N

= 0, and N
q
= 1.0. For | = 0 the
modification factors applied to the third term in Equation C-20 (
qs
,
qd,

qr
) are equal to 1.0, and the shape
factor
cs
= 1.2. Equation C-20 then becomes:
q c 6.17 q
cr cd u ult
+ = C-31
FHWA-NHI-10-016 C Commentary on Axial Resistance
Drilled Shaft Reference Manual C-14 May 2010
in which q = total vertical stress at the base elevation (= E
i
Az
i
) and indicates soil total unit weight. The
remaining modification factors are given by the expressions in Table C-2.

TABLE C-2 MODIFICATION FACTORS FOR CIRCULAR FOUNDATION, | = 0
Modification Symbol Value
Depth
cd (

|
.
|

\
|
+

B
D
1
tan
180
33 . 0 1
t
Rigidity
cr r
I
10
log 60 . 0 44 . 0 +
The undrained rigidity index is required to evaluate the rigidity modification factor, and is given by:
( )
u
u
u u
u
r
c 3
E
c 1 2
E
I =
+
=
C-32
in which E
u
= soil undrained modulus and v
u
= undrained Poissons ratio which is taken as 0.5 for
saturated cohesive soils. Considering that zero volume change occurs during undrained loading, the
rigidity index is not reduced to account for volume change. The rigidity index is compared to the critical
rigidity index, which by Equation C-30 is I
rc
= 8.64. If I
r
> I
rc
, general shear failure mode is assumed and

cr
= 1.0. If I
r
< I
rc
, local or punching shear is assumed and
cr
is less than one and is computed by the
expression given in Table C-2.
Examination of the depth factor
cd
as given in Table C-2 shows that as the depth to diameter ratio of a
shaft (D/B) goes to infinity,
cd
reaches an upper bound value of 1.52, and Equation C-31 becomes:
q s 9.37 q
cr u ult
+ = C-33
Practically, when D/B reaches 5, the first term in Equation C-33 is approximately equal to 9.
Furthermore, if general shear failure mode occurs, which is often the case when the shaft is bearing on
stiff clay (s
u
> 2,000 psf), then
cr
= 1. Equation C-33 forms the basis of the recommendation given in
Chapter 13 (see Equation 13-18) for approximation of undrained bearing capacity as:
q
BN
= N
*
c
s
u
C-34
with values of the bearing capacity factor N
*
c
given in Table 13-2 and ranging from 6.5 to 9.0 depending
on the range of undrained shear strength of the cohesive soil beneath the base of the shaft (ONeill and
Reese 1999). The recommendations given in Chapter 13 are suitable for routine design. More refined
analyses can be conducted by application of Equation C-33 with evaluation of the various factors as
described above. In most cases the computed nominal base resistance will not differ significantly.