02 Presentation Workshop Delft Paikowsky Final

Safety Concepts and Calibration of Partial Factors
in European and North American Codes of Practice
LRFD Calibration and Implementation of

Strength and Serviceability Limit States
Review of Research and Lessons Learned
Workshop
30/11 01/12/2011
Delft University of Technology,
Delft, The Netherlands
Samuel G. Paikowsky
Geotechnical Engineering Research Laboratory
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Massachusetts
Lowell, USA
November 30, 2011
Geosciences Testing & Research, Inc.

(GTR)
North Chelmsford,
Massachusetts USA
Table of Contents
1
DESIGN PRACTICE
Codes in the USA
Limit State Design
DESIGN METHODOLOGIES
Review Working Stress Design
Uncertainties Structural and Geotechnical Designs
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN (LRFD)

Principles
Target Reliability Probability of Failure
LRFD For Deep Foundations
LRFD Deep Foundation Design Report - NCHRP 507

Dynamic Analyses of Piles
Framework
Databases
Static Analysis of Driven Piles
Dynamic Analysis of Driven Piles
Static Analysis of Drilled Foundations
Table of Contents
5
LRFD Shallow Foundations Design Report - NCHRP 651

Databases
Uncertainty of Vertical Centric Loading
Source of Uncertainty Investigation of N
Development of Resistance Factors
Eccentric and/or inclined Loading
Resistance Factors for Controlled and Naturally Deposited Soils
Shallow Foundations on Rock
LRFD Serviceability Limit State Design Report NCHRP 12-66
Example Case History
1 DESIGN PRACTICE
1 DESIGN PRACTICE
Codes
Code Any systematic collection of regulations

and rules of procedure or conduct.
Importance
Standardization
Recognition of methods and procedures
1 DESIGN PRACTICE
Codes in the USA
Every state in the USA has a building code
which is part of the states laws. In addition,
the Department of Transportation (a.k.a.
Highway Department) of the state has its own
specifications.
A united code (IBC International Building
Code) was developed in 2000 by uniting
several previous codes (UBC Uniform
Building Code and SBC Standard Building
Code). Forty-four states (88%) adopted the
IBC as their building code.
1 DESIGN PRACTICE
Codes in the USA
The construction of most bridges (all highway
bridges) is funded primarily by the Federal
Government via FHWA. These structures are
obliged to be designed by the AASHTO
specifications - (American Association of State
Highway Transportation Officials). The AASHTO
specifications are traditionally observed on all
federally aided projects and generally viewed as
a national code of US Highway practice, hence
influencing the construction of all the foundations
of highway bridges throughout the USA
1 DESIGN PRACTICE
Codes in the USA
The AASHTO Specifications, as well as most
advanced codes worldwide, moved to RBD
Reliability Based Design. The LRFD Load
and Resistance Factor Design format of RBD
is used by the AASHTO specifications since
1994.
The major developments relevant to
foundation design will be presented some
had been implemented.
1 DESIGN PRACTICE
Limit State Design (LSD)
was initiated in the 1950s for a more economical design.
A design of a structure needs to ensure that while being economically
viable it will suit the intended purpose during its working life.
LS Limit State Condition beyond which the structure or a
component fail to fulfill in some way the intended purpose for
which it was designed.
ULS Ultimate Limit State deals with strength (maximum loading
capacity) of the structure / element. (aka Strength Limit State)
SLS Serviceability Limit State deals with the functionality and
service requirements of a structure to ensure adequate
performance under expected conditions.
e.g. - Relevance to Foundations:
By and large axial loading of piles is controlled by ULS and lateral
loading by SLS.
1 DESIGN PRACTICE
Limit State Requirements
Satisfying Limit States:
Ultimate Limit State (ULS)
Factored resistance Factored load effects
Serviceability Limit State (SLS)
Factored Deformation Tolerable deformation to
remain serviceable
2 DESIGN METHODOLOGIES
Review Working Stress Design
STATE OF STRESS DESIGN
Working stress design (WSD) also called the Allowable Stress Design
(ASD) method, has been used in Civil Engineering since the early
1800s.
Q Qall = Rn / FS = Qult / FS
Q = Design load (F)

Qall= Allowable load (F)
Rn= Qult = Nominal Resistance = Ultimate geotechnical foundation
force resistance
FS = Factor of safety
The factor of safety is commonly defined as the ratio of the resistance of
the structure (Rn) to the load effects (Q) acting on the structure.
Review - Working Stress Design
ADVANTAGES
Simple
Vast Experience Serves as a Reference
LIMITATIONS
Lumps all uncertainty into a factor of safety
Does not provide a direct evaluation of
whether a method is conservative or unconservative
Factor Of Safety On Ultimate Axial Geotechnical Capacity
Based On Specified Construction Control (AASHTO 1997 Standard
Specifications)
X - Construction Control
Specified on Plans
Subsurface Exploration
Increasing Construction Control

X
Static Calculation
Dynamic Formula
X
X
Wave Equation
CAPWAP Analysis
Static Load Test
Factor of Safety (FS)
3.50
2.75
2.25
* Any combination that includes a static load test

Design Capacities Specified on Plans so FS can be
Adjusted if Construction Control is Altered
X
X
2.00*
1.90
Comments
1. On the face of it logical and progressive but on what basis are the
specifications founded? Is the control method F.S. suitable for the design
method?
2. Rewards the use of quality control through dynamic measurements
during driving and/or static load-testing.
3. Very Generic Does not provide any details regarding the methods.
e.g.:
What kind of subsurface investigation?
What kind of static analysis?
Dynamic Measurements - When? (EOD, Restrike ?) On what kind
of piles? Driving conditions?
What about field interpretation?
Can be examined and/or explained only against actual data.
SIMPLE EXAMPLE
Assume a load of 200 tons and Pile Capacity Qult = 100 tons
(accurately predicted by all methods, i.e.bias = 1.0)

Capacity
Evaluation
Method
F.S.
Load per
Pile
(tons)
# of
Piles
Savings
Static Analysis
3.50
28.6
7.0
WEAP
2.75
36.4
5.5
- 21%
CAPWAP
2.25
44.4
4.5
- 36%
Static L.T.
2.00
50.0
4.0
- 43%
Evaluation of Parameters Static Analysis of Driven Piles In Clay
No. of cases and Mean of Prediction
(msd. Over calculated using data 2 SD)
(1/0.8 = 1.25)
Actual Mean FS for driven piles in clay

Methods = 0.82 x 3.5 = 2.87
Method = 0.72 x 3.5 = 2.52
For Comparison FS for the Dynamic Methods

CAPWAP - BOR 162 Mean = 1.16
Actual FS BOR = 1.16 x 2.25 = 2.61
Revisit Simple WSD Example
Assume a load of 200 tons and Pile Capacity Qult = 100 tons (Specifying now
a concrete pile in clay and using the bias known for the methods)
Capacity
Evaluation
Method
F.S.
(Load)
Load per
Pile - ton
(w/o bias)
Static Analysis
API Clay
3.50
on 123t
35.3
(28.6)
5.7
(7)
WEAP EOD
2.75
on 60t
22.0
(36.4)
9.1
(5.5)
+60%
(-21%)
CAPWAP BOR
2.25
on 86t
38.4
(44.4)
5.2
(4.5)
-9%
(-36%)
Static L.T.
2.00
on100t
50.0
4.0
-30%
(-43%)
# of Piles Savings
(w/o bias) (w/o bias)
(values in original example ignoring the bias)
INTERMEDIATED CONCLUSION
1. The examination of factors of safety on the basis of their
absolute values is misleading and do not represent the
economical value of a specific method.
2. The same holds for any other design method e.g
resistance factors for LRFD as will be shown.
3. Only the use of an actual database provides the bias of a
design method and hence allows for a rational development
of safety margins regardless of the design methodology.
Uncertainties - Structural Design

Simplified Example of Beam Design and Sources of Uncertainty
q
loading
Sources of Uncertainty
A
A=B=
ql
2
1. Loading
2. Dimensions
3. Material Properties
shear
Most Noticeable:
moment
M max
1.
ql 2
=
8
deflection
ymax
5 ql 4
5 max l 2
=
=
384 EI 24 E h
(Assuming homogenous crosssection, horizontal symmetry line and

beam height, h.)
2.
No uncertainty in the model

under given loading conditions
the uncertainty in the material
properties (i.e. yield) dictates
the uncertainty in strength or
uncertainty in Modulus E will
dictate the uncertainty in the
deflection
Largest uncertainty in the
loading, source, magnitude,
distribution
(in case of bridges)
Uncertainties - Geotechnical Design

Components of Foundations Design and Sources of Uncertainty
Soil sampling and testing for
engineering material parameters
Analysis Model
Assumed Failure Pattern

under Foundations
Uncertainty in the assumptions
made in the model development
leaves unknown analysis versus
actual performance
Uncertainty due to site,
material and testing variability
and estimation of parameters
Code of practice
Traditional design although developed

over many years and used as a
benchmark has undocumented unknown
uncertainty
Method of Approach
LOAD Use the load uncertainty from
the structures (until better research is
done)
RESISTANCE Establish the uncertainty
of the complete foundation capacity
analysis by comparing a design
procedure to measured failure.
Loading
FOUNDATION
DESIGN
Uncertainty in loads created by and

applied to the bridge, e.g.
Dead Load e.g. weight of the bridge
Live Load e.g. traffic and its effects
(e.g. breaking)
Wind & wind on traffic
Extreme Events e.g. earthquake, ship
collision
Uncertainties - Geotechnical Design
Significant uncertainties exist in:
(1) The process of defining geomaterial properties.
(2) The calculation model.
Defining uncertainty in the soil properties alone

is therefore not sufficient in most cases to
determine the uncertainty of the designed
element/structure.
The relationship between loads and

displacements requires a separate model having
its own uncertainty.
3 LOAD AND RESISTANCE

FACTOR DESIGN (LRFD)
3 LRFD DESIGN
LRFD for Foundations
Principles
The design of a foundation depends upon predicted loads and
the capacity to resist them.
Both loads and resistance
(capacity) have various sources and levels of uncertainty that
historically have been compensated for by experience and
subjective judgment.
These uncertainties can be quantified using probability-based
design, or safety check expressions, aimed at achieving
designs with consistent levels of reliability. The intent of the
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) method is to
separate uncertainties in loading from uncertainties in
resistance and to assure a prescribed margin of safety .
3 LRFD DESIGN
Probability Density Functions for Load and
Resistance
__
_ _
FS = R/Q
fR(R), fQ(Q)
Qn
Q, R Mean
Load Ef f ect (Q)
Load/Resistance
__
Qn, Rn Nominal
Rn R
Resistance (R)
Load/Resistance
consistent
levels of
reliability
R, Q
An illustration of probability density functions

for load effect and resistance
3 LRFD DESIGN
Target Reliability Probability of Failure
Relationship Between
Reliability Index and
Target Reliability
Reliability Index
Probability of Failure
pf
1.0
0.159
1.2
0.115
1.4
0.0808
1.6
0.0548
1.8
0.0359
2.0
0.0228
2.2
0.0139
2.4
0.00820
2.6
0.00466
2.8
0.00256
3.0
0.00135
3.2
6.87 E-4
3.4
3.37 E-4
3.6
1.59 E-4
3.8
7.23 E-5
4.0
3.16 E-5
Reliability is expressed using the reliability

index, , which is the number of standard
deviations of the derived PDF of the limit state
function g, (g = R Q)
An Illustration of a Combined Probability Density

Function (g(R,Q)) Representing the Margin of Safety
and the Reliability Index, (
g = Standard Deviation
of g).
3 LRFD DESIGN
LRFD FOR DEEP FOUNDATIONS
1994, 1st. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specs for
Foundations
For the strength limit state:
Rr = Rn iQi
Rr = Factored resistance (F or F/A);
= Resistance factor (dimensionless);
Rn = Nominal (Ultimate) resistance (F or F/A);
= Factors to account for ductility (
D), redundancy (
R),
and operational importance (
I) Structural (dimensionless)
i = Load factor (dimensionless);
Qi = Force effect, stress or stress resultant (F or F/A);
4 LRFD Deep Foundations Design

Research Project NCHRP 24-17
An extensive development of resistance

factors for the AASHTO specifications of
Deep Foundations was undertaken under
NCHRP project 24-17 and presented in
NCHRP Report 507. These factors were
developed based on large databases
examining the deep foundations capacity
prediction methods during design and
construction.
Google Search: NCHRP 507 will bring you to the pdf

Research Team
Massachusetts Group
Samuel G. Paikowsky, PI
Kirk Stenersen
Kevin O'Malley
Les Chernauskas
Florida Group
Michael McVay
Ching Kuo
Bjorn Birgisson
Thai Nguyen
Maryland Group
Gregory Baecher
Bilal Ayyub
David Schelling
Consultants
James Withiam
Michael O'Neill
30
4 LRFD Deep Foundations DESIGN

Framework For The Development Of The
Resistance Factors In NCHRP 507
Rr = Rn iQi
Distribution of Load - Type, Mean, SD

Distribution of Resistance Type, Mean, SD
__
Qn
POSSIBLE SOURCES
Load Effect (Q)
f R (R ), f Q (Q )
REQUIRED INFORMATION
__
Rn R
Resistance (R)
Distribution of Load Measurements on and

Analyses of Structures e.g. Vehicles on a
Bridge
Distribution of Resistance Databases, Related
Correlations - e.g. Soil Parameters, Judgment
Probability of Failure Observations, Judgment,
Probabilistic Theory
R, Q

Framework For Calibration
Required And Sources of Information

Required Information
Load Combination
Load Factors
Distribution of Load
Type
Mean
COV
Nature of Resistance
Distribution of Resistance
Sources of Information
AASHTO Strength I DL & LL
D = 1.25 L = 1.75
Lognormal
QD = 1.05 QL = 1.15
COVQD = 0.1 COVQL = 0.2
Geotechnical Axial resistance
Database Analysis
Review Available Literature/Develop

Databases
Main Analyses:
Driven Piles Static Analyses

Drilled Shafts Static Analyses
Driven Piles Dynamic Analyses
527 piles
300 shafts
389 cases on 210 piles
Static Load Test Interpretation DP

Static Load Test Interpretation DS
Influence of Loading Rate
Dynamic Measurements both EOD
BOR (without Static Load Test)
WEAP (GRL Database) Case Method (Florida Study): EOD
196 piles
44 shafts
75 piles
456 cases on 228 piles &
99 piles
40 piles
BOR
37 piles
Peripheral Analyses:

Calculated Resistance Factors
Target Reliability
(probability of exceedance = Probability of failure)
Efficiency Factor
Calibration Methods
34

Redundant vs. NonRedundant
NCHRP 507 Recommendations
= 3.00 Pf = 0.1%
= 2.33
Pf = 1.0%
Logically
Non - Redundant
Redundant
Non - Redundant
35

Development of Resistance Factors
1.
NCHRP 507 Used two Calibration Methods:

FOSM First Order Second Moment
The first version of the AASHTO specifications utilized First-Order,

Second-Moment (FOSM) principles, assuming lognormal distribution
for the resistance and bias factors, closed form relations were
established (Barker et al., 1991).
2.
FORM First Order Reliability Method
FORM provides a means for calculating resistance and load factors

and against a target reliability level using an iterative process.
3.
Comments
All current calibrations are using MC simulations

Always practical to compare to FOSM (Mostly on the
conservative side for foundations Strength LS by about 10%)
36

Design Method Efficiency
Resistance Factor Over Bias- /
v
2.5
FOSM
QL = 1.15
QD = 1.05
COVQL= 0.2 COVQD =0.1
QD/QL = 2.5 = 2.33
D = 1.25,
L = 1.75
1.5
V=
CO
0. 2
0.4
1.0
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.5
COV = 1.00
0.0
0
0.5
1.5
Bias ()
2.5
Figure 15. Calculated resistance factors as a function of the bias and COV for the
chosen load distributions and DD/LL ratio of 2.5
0.8
FOSM
QL = 1.15
COVQL = 0.2
QD/QL = 2.5
D = 1.25
0.6
Efficiency (/)
Resistance Factor ()
2.0
QD = 1.05
COVQD = 0.1
= 2.33
L = 1.75
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
COVR
Figure 16. Illustration of the efficiency factor as a measure of the effectiveness of a

design method when using resistance factors.
Efficiency-Resistance factor.grf
37

Calculated and Recommended
Resistance Factors
Static Analyses Driven Piles
Dynamic Analyses Driven Piles
Static Analyses drilled shafts

DATABSE - Initial Relevant Analyses
I Interpretation of Static Capacity

Establish a Unique Failure Criterion as a Reference Static Capacity
for the Calibrations of the static and dynamic analyses.
Analysis of 196 Driven Pile Load Tests to failure Approach using 5
interpretation methods
II Influence of Load Test Procedure

Examining two detailed case histories of the Newbury Test Site.
Examining the UML/Ukraine Database of 75 cases comparing slow
maintained and static-cyclic load test results.

DATABSE - Analyses
Static Analyses of driven Piles Summary of Methods
Method
-Tomlinson
(Tomlinson, 1980/1995)
-API (Reese et al.,
1998)
in cohesive (AASHTO,
1996/2000)
(US Army Corps of
Engineers, 1992)
in cohesionless
(Bowles, 1996)
Nordlund and Thurman
(Hannigan et al., 1995)
Side resistance
Tip resistance
qs = Su
q p = 9 Su
Parameters
required
Constraints
Su ;
Db (bearing
embedment)
+Bearing layer must be stiff

cohesive
+ Number of soil layers 2
Su
qs =
OCR
qs = (+2Su)
Su
Dr
qs = K C F '
sin( + )
cos
qp =
t Nq
Only for cohesive soils
Meyerhof SPT (Meyerhof, 1976/1981)
qs = k N
qp =
0.4D/BN
+ For cohesionless soils

+ SPT data
SPT 97(Lai and Graham, 1995)
qs = function(N)
qp = fn(N)
SPTdata
FHWA CPT (McVay

and Townsend, 1989)
qs = function(fs)
qp = fn(qc)
qc, fs
CPT data
Specific Correlations were provided for soil parameters Interpretations
40

DATABSE - Analyses
The performance of driven piles static analysis methods
10
0.175
9
log-normal
distribution
0.15
7
0.125
6
Relative Frequency
Number of Pile-Cases
Histogram & Frequency

Distributions for 52
Cases of All Pile Types
(Concrete, Pipe, H) in
Clay Using - API
Method
mlnx = -0.270
lnx = 0.428
0.1
normal distribution
x = 0.349
0.075
3
0.05
mx = 0.832
0.025
1
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Ratio of Static Load Test Results over the Pile Capacity
Prediction using the -API method
41

DATABSE - Analyses
22
0.14
20
18
0.12
16
0.1
12
0.08
x = 0.387
10
normal distribution
log-normal
distribution
0.06
Relative Frequency
14

Cases of All Pile Types
(Concrete, Pipe, H) in
Mixed Soils Using API/Nordlund/Thurman
Design Methods
mlnx = -0.293
lnx = 0.494
0.04
mx = 0.835
0.02
2
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Prediction using the -API/Nordlund/Thurman design method
42

DATABSE - Analyses
15
0.18
14
13
0.16
12
0.14
mlnx = -0.260
lnx = 0.502
10
9
0.1
8
normal distribution
7
0.08
6
mx = 0.868
x = 0.416
0.06
4
0.04
3
2
0.02
1
0
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Prediction using the -API/Nordlund/Thurman design method
43
Relative Frequency
0.12

Cases of Concrete Piles
in Mixed Soils Using API/Nordlund/Thurman
Design Methods
log-normal
distribution
11
Table 25. Recommended resistance factors for driven piles static analyses
Resistance Factor
Pile Type
Soil
Type
Design
Method
Mixed
SPT97 mob
-API
-Method
-Method
SPT97 mob
FHWA CPT
-Method/Thurman
Tomlinson/Nordlund/Thurman
Nordlund
-Tomlinson
-API/Nordlund/Thurman
Meyerhof
SPT97 mob,
Nordlund
SPT 97 mob
-Method
-API
Meyerhof
-Method/Thurman
-Tomlinson
-Method
SPT 97 mob
SPT 97 mob
Nordlund
Meyerhof
-API
-Tomlinson
-Method
-Method
-Method/Thurman
Clay
Sand
Concrete
Pile
Mixed
Sand
Clay
Mixed
Sand
Sand
Mixed
.
Pipe Pile
Sand
Clay
Sand
Mixed
Clay
Mixed
Sand
H Piles
Clay
Mixed
Sand
Mixed
Redundant
Nonredundant
0.70
0.50
0.50
0.40
0.40
0.30
0.35
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.55
0.45
0.40
0.30
0.35
0.25
0.30
0.20
0.25
0.15
0.55
0.45
0.45
0.35
0.40
0.30
0.35
0.30
0.20
Notes:
Non-Redundant = Four or less piles under one pile cap ( = 3.0 pf = 0.1%)
Redundant = Five piles or more under one pile cap ( = 2.33 pf = 1.0%)
= bias = Mean KSX = measured/predicted
0.25
0.15
/
Redundant
Nonredundant
0.40
0.67
0.63
0.46
0.42
0.60
0.51
0.41
0.42
0.41
0.41
0.32
0.38
0.38
0.51
0.44
0.31
0.36
0.33
0.32
0.41
0.40
0.36
0.45
0.46
0.49
0.51
0.48
0.49
0.50
0.45
0.51
0.39
0.42
0.29
0.55
0.55
0.34
0.31
0.48
0.39
0.30
0.31
0.30
0.30
0.22
0.28
0.27
0.40
0.31
0.21
0.26
0.23
0.23
0.30
0.29
0.25
0.33
0.35
0.37
0.39
0.37
0.37
0.39
0.34
0.39
0.28
0.31
3/19/02 7/11/02 7/15/02
/ = efficiency factor, evaluating the relative economic performance of each method (the higher the better)
/ values relate to the exact calculated and and not to the assigned values in the table
NCHRP 507
Recommended
Resistance Factors
Driven Piles
Static Analyses
5 PERFORMANCE OF THE
DYNAMIC METHODS
60
0.15
55
0.14
50
0.13
0.12
45
0.11
0.1
35
log-normal
distribution
30
mlnx = 0.233
lnx = 0.387
0.09
0.08
mx = 1.368
0.07
25
normal distribution
20
0.06
0.05
x = 0.620
15
0.04
0.03
10
0.02
5
0.01
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
Ratio of Static Load Test Results over the Pile

Capacity Prediction using the CAPWAP method
>3
Relative Frequency

Distributions for all
(377) CAPWAP pilecases in PD/LT2000
40
DYNAMIC METHODS
60
0.36
55
0.32
50
0.28
45
0.24
35
0.2
30
0.16
25
log-normal
distribution
20
mlnx = 0.100
lnx = 0.295
mx = 1.158
0.12
normal distribution
15
0.08
x = 0.393
10
0.04
5
0
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
>3

Prediction using the CAPWAP method
Relative Frequency

Distributions for all BOR
(162) CAPWAP pilecases in PD/LT2000
40
DYNAMIC METHODS
60
0.44
55
0.4
50
0.28
35
30
0.24
25
0.2
log-normal
distribution
20
0.16
mlnx = 0.011
lnx = 0.366
15
mx = 1.084
0.12
normal distribution
10
0.08
x = 0.431
0.04
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5

Prediction using the Energy Approach method
Relative Frequency
0.32
40

Distributions for all
EOD (128) Energy
Approach pile-cases in
PD/LT2000
0.36
45
4 LRFD DESIGN
Recommended resistance factors
Driven Piles Dynamic Analyses
Table 27. Recommended resistance factors for driven piles dynamic analyses
Resistance factor,
Method
Case
Redundant
Non-Redundant
Redundant
Non-Redundant
EOD
EOD, AR<350,
Bl. Ct.<16BP10cm
BOR
0.65
0.45
0.40
0.28
0.40
0.25
0.16
0.09
0.65
0.50
0.56
0.44
Energy
Approach
EOD
BOR
0.55
0.40
0.40
0.30
0.49
0.52
0.37
0.41
ENR
General
0.25
0.15
0.16
0.09
Gates
FHWA
modified
General
0.75
0.55
0.41
0.30
General
0.40
0.25
0.38
0.28
EOD
0.40
0.25
0.24
0.15
Signal
Matching
Dynamic
Measurements
Dynamic
Equations
WEAP
Notes:
EOD
AR
(CAPWAP)
= Reliability Index
pf
= Probability of Failure
COV
= End of Driving
= Area Ratio
= Coefficient of Variation
BOR = Beginning of Restrike

Bl. Ct. = Blow Count
ENR = Engineering News Record Equation
BP10cm = Blows per 10cm Non-Redundant= Four or less piles under one pile cap ( = 3.0 pf = 0.1%)
Redundant = Five piles or more under one pile cap.( = 2.33 pf = 1.0%) = bias = Mean KSX = measured/predicted
/ values relate to the exact calculated and and not to the assigned values in the table.
4 LRFD DESIGN
Drilled Shafts Static Analyses
Table 29. Recommended resistance factors for drilled shafts
Shaft
Resistance
Soil
Type
Sand
Clay
Design
Method
R&W
FHWA
FHWA
Total
Resistance
FHWA
Sand
+
Clay
R&W
Rock
Skin
Resistance
All
Soils
Rock
C&K
IGM
FHWA
R&W
C&K
IGM
Construction
Method
All
Resistance Factors
NonRedundant
Redundant
0.50
/
Redundant
NonRedundant
0.36
0.29
0.38
0.31
0.40
All
Slurry &
Dry
0.40
0.30
0.43
0.31
0.85
0.70
0.63
0.52
Casing
0.65
0.50
0.63
0.52
Slurry &
Dry
0.75
0.60
0.65
0.52
Casing
0.50
0.35
0.47
0.36
All
All
0.60
0.75
0.60
0.75
All
0.45
0.35
All
0.50
0.65
0.35
0.50
0.48
0.56
0.48
0.42
0.43
0.53
0.37
0.44
0.40
0.33
0.32
0.41
Notes:
Non-Redundant = Four or less piles under one pile cap ( = 3.0 pf = 0.1%)
Redundant = Five piles or more under one pile cap.( = 2.33 pf = 1.0%)
= bias = Mean KSX = measured/predicted
3/26/02 7/11/02 7/15/02
/ values relate to the exact calculated and and not to the assigned values in the table.
4 LRFD DESIGN
Static Load Test
Table 30. Recommended resistance factors for static load tests
Resistance Factor -
No. of
Site Variability
Load Tests
Per Site
Low
Medium
High
1
0.80
0.70
0.55
2
3
0.90
0.90
0.75
0.85
0.65
0.75
0.90
0.90
0.80
4 LRFD DESIGN
Recommended Number of Pile Tests
During Production
Table 28. Recommended number of dynamic tests to be conducted during production
Site Var.
No. of Method
Piles
Time
15
16 - 25
26 - 50
51 100
101-500
> 500
Low
EA
CAPWAP
EOD
BOR
4
3
5
3
6
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
Medium
EA
CAPWAP
EOD
BOR
5
4
6
5
8
6
9
7
11
7
12
7
High
EA
CAPWAP
EOD
BOR
6
6
9
8
10
9
12
10
14
12
15
12
EA = Energy Approach Analysis

CAPWAP = Signal Matching Analysis
EOD = End of Driving
BOR = Beginning of Restrike
Minimum one test under each substructure
Site Variability Assessment - Example

SPT Blow Counts (N & N') vs. Elevation (4 Borings)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Ground Surface
-5
-10
Fill:
n=12
mx(N) = 9, sx(N) = 7.1, COV = 79%
mx(N') = 10, sx(N') = 8.1, COV = 81%
High Variability
Organic Silt: (n=10)
mx(N) = 2, sx(N) = 2.1, COV = 129%
mx(N') = 2, sx(N') = 2.1, COV = 128%
High Variability
Glacio-Deltaic (Upper):
n=61
mx(N) = 26, sx(N) = 8.2, COV = 32%
mx(N') = 18, sx(N') = 5.0, COV = 28%
Low/Medium Variability
El. (m)
-15
Area A (4 borings)
Variability
Layer
No.
mx
COV
12
10
8.1
81%
High
10
2.1
128%
High
61
18
5.0
28%
Low-Med
16
19
4.8
25%
Low
N
N'
-20
N Avg.
N' Avg.
-25
n Number of Values
-30
-35
Glacio-Deltaic (Lower):
n=16
mx(N) = 37, x(N) = 9.6, COV = 26%
mx(N') = 19, x(N') = 4.8, COV = 25%
Low/Medium Variability
-40
SPT N or N'
Area A Using SPT 4 Borings
Time Dependent Pile Capacity

Guideline for scheduling static load tests and restrikes.
For piles embedded in alternating
soil conditions (granular and
cohesive):
For piles embedded

completely in clay:
For static testing purpose:
For dynamic testing purpose:

t75 = 1540 x r2
t75 = 39 x r2
For dynamic testing purpose:

t75 = 85 x r2
Where:
t75% =
r
time to reach 75% of maximum

capacity in hours
pile radius (or equivalent)
in feet.
Using The Simple Example With

NCHRP 507 Resistance Factors
Assume a load of 200 tons with the relevant load factors and
Pile Capacity Qult = 100 tons (Specifying now a redundant
concrete pile in clay and using the bias known for the methods)
Capacity
Evaluation
Method
(Load)
Load per
Pile
(tons)
# of
Piles
Static Analysis
API Clay
0.50
123t
61.5
(28.6)
3.3
(7)
EA EOD
0.55
92t
50.6
(36.4)
3.9
(5.5)
+18%
(-21%)
CAPWAP BOR
0.65
86t
55.9
(44.4)
3.6
(4.5)
+9%
(-36%)
Medium Var site

1 Static L.T.
0.70
100
70.0
2.9
(4)
-12%
(-43%)
Savings
54
5 LRFD Shallow Foundations Design
5 LRFD Shallow Foundations DESIGN

Research Team
Samuel G. Paikowsky and Mary C. Canniff - GTR and UML

Kerstin Lesny and Aloys Kisse - UDE
Shailendra Amatya, and Robert Muganga - UML

NCHRP Research 24-31: LRFD Design
Specifications for Shallow Foundations
Develop and Calibrate Procedures and Modify
AASHTOs Section 10 (Foundations)
Specifications for the Strength Limit State
Design of Bridge Shallow Foundations.
NCHRP Report 651
LRFD DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS FOR HIGHWAY
STRUCTURES
Google NCHRP 651
57

DATABASES
UML-GTR ShalFound07 Database
549 cases built in ACCESS platform, 415 cases are suitable for
ULS.
UML-GTR RockFound07 Capacity Database

122 Cases of load tests to failure including 61 rock sockets, 33
shallow foundations on rock surface, 28 shallow foundations
below surface
ShalFound07
Divided into vertical centric and eccentric, and inclined cases
RockFound07
All vertical centric, shallow and drilled shafts
58

Foundation
type
Plate load tests
B 1m
Small footings
1 < B 3m
Large footings
3 < B 6m
Rafts & Mats
B > 6m
Total
Sand
Predominant Soil Type

Gravel Cohesive
Mix
Others
Total
Country
Germany Others
346
46
--
72
466
253
213
26
--
33
--
33
30
--
--
--
31
--
31
13
--
--
19
18
415
48
12
74
549
254
295
Note:
Mixed are cases with alternating layers of sand or gravel and clay or silt
Others are cases with either unknown soil types or with other granular materials like loamy Scoria
1m 3.3ft
Large foundations are often not loaded to ULS failure (SLS controls)
59

Bias of Estimated BC - Vertical Centric Loading
Granular Soil Controlled Conditions
0.2
Frequency
lognormal
distribution
30
normal
distribution
20
0.1
10
0
0.2
0.6
100
1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6

Bias, = qu,meas / qu,calc
3.4
3.8
Interpreted bearing capacity, qu,meas

using Minimum Slope criterion (Vesic, 1963)
(ksf)
40
Number of observations
0.3
Controlled soil conditions

n = 159
mean = 1.64
COV = 0.267
10
1
Controlled soil conditions
Data (n = 159)
Data best fit line
No bias line
0.1
0.1
1
10
Calcualted bearing capacity, qu,calc
(Vesic, 1975 and modified AASHTO)
(ksf)
Figure 62. (a) Histogram and probability density functions of the bias and (b)
relationship between measured and calculated bearing capacity for vertical
60
centrically loaded shallow foundations on controlled soil conditions.
100
Source of
Uncertainty
Investigation
of N
qu / (0.5 B s)
1000
100
N from load tests; n = 125
N (Vesic, 1973)
N = exp(0.39f 11.546)
(R2 = 0.666)
10
42
43
44
friction angle, f (deg)
45
46
Comparison of bearing capacity factor calculated based on test results;

N = qu / (0.5 B s) from 125 tests carried out in controlled soil
conditions (tests by Perau, 1995) and N proposed by Vesic (1973) in
61
the range of soil friction angle of 42 and 46

3
Source of
Uncertainty
Investigation
of N
N = [qu / (0.5 B s)] / NVesic
load test data; n = 125

= exp(0.205f 8.655) (R2 = 0.351)
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
42
43
44
Friction Angle, f (deg)
45
46
Figure 93. The ratio (

N) between the back-calculated B.C. factor N
based on experimental data to that proposed by Vesi versus soil
friction angle.
62

3
Data BC bias (n = 131)
Bearing Capacity (BC) bias,
N bias,
2.5
2
Bias
Uncertainty
in B.C. compared
to the Uncertainty
of N
1.5
0.5
0
43
44
45
Friction Angle, f (deg)
46
Figure 94. The ratio between measured and calculated bearing

capacity (bias ) compared to the bias in the B.C. factor N (
N) versus
the soils friction angle for footings under vertical-centric loadings.
63

3.5
Mean bias, BC (n = 172) 1 s.d.
(x) no. of cases in each interval
3.0
BC = 0.308exp(0.0372f)
(R2=0.200)
95% confidence interval
Uncertainty
in B.C.
Bias
2.5
(2)
2.0
(30)
(4)
1.5
(3)
(2)
(12)
(2)
(90)
1.0
(4) (14)
(4)
(3)
0.5
(2)
0.0
30
32
34
36
38
40
Friction angle f (deg)
42
44
46
Figure 103. Bearing resistance bias vs. average soil friction angle
(taken f 0.5) including 95% confidence interval for all cases under
vertical-centric loading.
64

3.0
95% confidence interval for
Resistance factor based on database
(x) no. of cases in each interval
2.5
Recommended f for Natural soil conditions
(90)
(3)
2.0
(2)
1.0
(3)
(2)
(30)
(12)
0.8
(4) (14)
(4)
1.5
0.6
(4)
1.0
(2)
(2)
0.4
0.5
0.2
Resistance factor,
Bias
Uncertainty
in B.C. and
Resistance
Factors
Recommended f for Controlled soil conditions
n = 172
0.0
0.0
30
32
34
36
38
40
Friction angle f (deg)
42
44
46
Figure 104. Recommended resistance factors for soil friction angles (taken f 0.5) between 30 and
46, with comparisons to 95% confidence interval and resistance factors obtained for the cases in the
database; the bubble size represents the number of data cases in each subset.
65

Final Resistance Factors Controlled Conditions
Table 66 Recommended resistance factors for shallow foundations on granular
soils placed under controlled conditions
Loading conditions
Soil friction
Vertical-centric or
angle f
Inclined-centric
-eccentric
30 34
0.50
35 36
0.60
37 39
Inclined-eccentric
Positive Negative
0.40
0.40
0.70
0.70
0.45
0.45
0.75
40 44
0.75
0.50
45
0.50
0.80
0.80
0.55
Notes:
1) f determined by laboratory testing
2) compacted controlled fill or improved ground are assumed to extend below the base
of the footing to a distance to at least two (2.0) times the width of the foundation (B).
If the fill is less than 2B thick, but overlays a material equal or better in strength than
the fill itself, then the recommendation stands. If not, then the strength of the
weaker material within a distance of 2B below the footing; prevails.
66
3) The resistance factors were evaluated for a target reliability T = 3.0.

Intermediate Conclusions and Summary
It was found that for the footings of larger sizes (B>3m
(9.9ft)), the load tests were not carried out to the failure load
Biases for the tests in Natural Soil Condition and Controlled
Soil Conditions were analyzed separately
For the footing sizes in similar ranges (0.1m < B 1.0m), the
scatter of bias was larger for footings on/in natural soil
conditions
The majority of the relevant data refers to small size
foundations (B 3.3ft (1.0m)) on controlled compacted
material. Many of the highway shallow foundations on soils
are built on compacted materials and hence, the statistical
data of the uncertainty can be used for that purpose
There appears to be a trend of increase in bias with the
footing size within the range of footing sizes available for
testing (which seems to conform with the observation made
by Vesic (1969))
67

ULS of Inclined Loading
x2
F1
M2
M1
F3
F2
M3
b3
b2
x3
, f
x1
(a) Loading convention

F1
F1
F1
F1,const.
= const.
F3
arctan e = const
(b) Radial load path
M2
increasing
F3
(c) Step-like load path
Figure 64. Loading convention and load paths used during tests.
68

Bias of BC for Vertical-Eccentric Loading (using B)
10
0.25
0.2
8
lognormal
distribution
0.15
6
normal
distribution
4
0.1
0.05
0
0.4
1.2
2
2.8
3.6
Frequency
1000
Vertical-eccentric loading
n = 43
mean = 1.83
COV = 0.351

(ksf)
12
Vertical-eccentric loading
Data (n = 43)
Data best fit line
No bias line
100
10
0.1
0.1
1
10
(ksf)
Figure 66. (a) Histogram and probability density functions of

the bias and (b) relationship between measured and calculated
bearing capacity for all cases of vertical eccentrically loaded
shallow foundations.
69
100

Bias of BC for Inclined-Centric Loading
0.3
0.2
lognormal
distribution
normal
distribution
0.1
Frequency
12
Inclined-centric loading
n = 39
mean = 1.43
COV = 0.295

(ksf)
100
Inclined-centric loading
Data (n = 39)
Data best fit line
No bias line
10
0.1
0.2
0.6
1
1.4
1.8
2.2
2.6
0.1
1
10
(ksf)
Figure 67. (a) Histogram and probability density functions of the

bias and (b) relationship between measured and calculated
bearing capacity for all cases of inclined centric loaded shallow
foundations.
100
70

Loading Directions for Inclined-Eccentric Loadings
e
M2
M3 +
F +
F
F
Moment acting in direction opposite to the lateral loading negative

eccentricity
e
M2 +
3
F
1
F +
2
Moment acting in direction opposite to the lateral loading negative

e
eccentricity
M3 2
F
1
Moment acting in the same direction as the lateral loading positive

eccentricity
(a) along footing width
F +
F +
2
Moment acting in the same direction as the lateral loading positive

eccentricity
(b) along footing length
Figure 69. Loading directions for the case of inclined-eccentric

loadings: (a) along footing width and (b) along footing length
71

Bias of BC for Inclined-Eccentric Loading
0.25
0.2
5
0.15
4
lognormal
distribution
normal
distribution
3
2
0.1
0.05
Frequency
0.3
Inclined-eccentric loading
n = 29
mean = 2.43
COV = 0.508

(ksf)
100
9
10
1
Data (n = 29)
Data best fit line
No bias line
0.1
0
0
1.2 1.8 2.4
3 3.6 4.2 4.8 5.4

6.6 7.2
0.1
1
10
(ksf)

bearing capacity for all cases of inclined eccentrically loaded
shallow foundations.
72
100

Bias of BC Cases with Inclined-Eccentric Loading
0.3
lognormal
distribution
0.2
normal
distribution
0.1
0
1.2 1.8 2.4
3 3.6 4.2 4.8 5.4 6

6.6 7.2

(ksf)
0.4
Frequency
10
0.5
Negative eccentricity
n=7
mean = 3.43
COV = 0.523
Negative eccentricity
Data (n = 7)
Data best fit line
No bias line
0.1
0.1
1
(ksf)

bearing capacity for all cases of inclined eccentrically loaded
shallow foundations under negative eccentricity.
10
73

Final Resistance Factors Controlled Conditions
Table 66 Recommended resistance factors for shallow foundations on granular
soils placed under controlled conditions
Loading conditions
Soil friction
Vertical-centric or
angle f
Inclined-centric
-eccentric
30
30 34
34
0.50
35
35 36
36
0.60
37
37 39
39
Inclined-eccentric
Positive Negative
0.40
0.40
0.70
0.70
0.45
0.45
0.75
40
40 44
44
0.75
0.50
45
45
0.50
0.80
0.80
0.55
Notes:
1) f determined by laboratory testing
2) compacted controlled fill or improved ground are assumed to extend below the base
of the footing to a distance to at least two (2.0) times the width of the foundation (B).
If the fill is less than 2B thick, but overlays a material equal or better in strength than
the fill itself, then the recommendation stands. If not, then the strength of the
weaker material within a distance of 2B below the footing; prevails.
74
3) The resistance factors were evaluated for a target reliability T = 3.0.

Final Resistance Factors Natural Conditions
Table 67 Recommended resistance factors for shallow foundations on natural
deposited granular soil conditions
Loading conditions
Soil friction
angle f
30
30 34
34
35
35 36
36
37
37 39
39
Vertical-centric or
-eccentric
0.40
0.45
0.50
Inclined-eccentric
Inclined-centric
0.40
Positive
Negative
0.35
0.65
0.70
0.40
40
40 44
44
0.55
0.45
45
45
0.65
0.50
0.75
0.45
Notes:
1) f determined from Standard Penetration Test results
2) granular material is assumed to extend below the base of the footing at least two
(2.0) times the width of the foundation.
3) The resistance factors were evaluated for a target reliability T = 3.0
75

DATABASE UML/GTR RockFound 07
Comprised of 122 foundation case histories of load

tests in/on rock and IGMs.
The database has 61 footings cases (28 cases
D>0, 33 cases D=0) and 61 rock socket cases for
which the base behavior (load and displacement)
under loading was monitored.
89 of the 122 cases were used for the uncertainty
determination of the settlement of foundations on
rock.
76

Goodman (1989) - B.C. of Foundations on Rock
Interpreted Foundation Capacity qL2 (ksf)
100000
qL2 = 2.16 (qult)0.868
(n = 119; R2 = 0.897)
qL2 = qult
10000
1000
100
10
58 Footings cases
61 Rock Socket cases
1
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
Goodman (1989) Bearing Capacity qult (ksf)
Figure 78. Relationship between Goodmans (1989) calculated bearing capacity

(qult) and the interpreted bearing capacity (qL2).
77

Goodman (1989) - B.C. of Foundations on Rock
10
0.2
lognormal
distribution
0.15
normal
distribution
Frequ ency
0.25
0.5
0.4
lognormal
distribution
0.3
normal
distribution
Frequency
0.3
30
20
0.6
20 Foundation cases on Fractured Rocks
Goodman (1989)
mean = 1.24
COV = 0.276
0.35
40
N u m b er of observ ations
12
119 Rock-sockets and Footing cases

Goodman (1989)
mean = 1.35
COV = 0.535
0.2
0.1
10
2
0.1
0.05
0
0
0
0.6
1.2 1.8 2.4

3
3.6
4.2
4.8
0.4
0.8
1.2 1.6
2
2.4
2.8
3.2
Figure 79. Distribution of the ratio of the

Figure 80. Distribution of the ratio of the
interpreted bearing capacity (qL2) to the
interpreted bearing capacity (qL2) to the
bearing capacity (qult) calculated using
bearing capacity (qult) calculated using
Goodmans (1989) method for the rock
Goodmans (1989) method for foundations
sockets and footings in database UML-GTR
on fractured rock in database UML-GTR
78
RockFound07.
RockFound07

Table 70 Recommended resistance factors for foundations in/on
rock based on T = 3.0 (pf = 0.135%)
Method of
Analysis
Carter and
Kulhawy
(1988)
Equation
qult = qu m + s
Application
Efficiency Factor
/
(%)
All
0.35
4.4
RMR 85
0.50
17.1
65 RMR < 85
44 RMR < 65
26.5
1.00
3 RMR < 44
qult = qu ( N + 1)
For fractured rocks:

Goodman
(1989)
For non-fractured rocks:

1 s ( N 1)
qult = qu
N
N 1 B
11.3
4.2
All
0.30
22.2
Measured f
0.35
24.8
Measured s
0.40
28.0
Measured s and f
0.45
29.8
79
6 LRFD Serviceability Limit State
NCHRP 12-66 AASHTO LRFD

Specifications for Serviceability
in the Design of Bridge
Foundations
Final report in NCHRP never Published Can be
obtained

RESEARCH TEAM
Samuel G. Paikowsky, Mary Canniff, GTR, Inc.
Ayhan Garbuz, Yu Fu, Roiy Guy Geotechnical Eng.
Research Lab., University of Massachusetts Lowell
Zeidan Ashraf, Guy Levi, Wisam Mualem and Sam
Frydman, Technion Israel Institute of Technology,
Structural Engineering and Construction Management area
of the Civil Engineering Department
Japan Team: Yusuke Honjo, Gifu University, Ikumasa
Yoshida, Shuichi Suzuki, Hyoudou Junichi, TEPSCO,
Tokyo, Masahiro Shirato, PWRI, Japan
Susan Faraji, Faraji Consulting, Inc., Winchester, MA

Objectives
Develop procedures for serviceability design of bridge
foundations, calibrate them and write specifications
Practically, develop new methodology to calibrate
serviceability in LRFD and write new specifications.
Main Challenges
Establish serviceability criteria for bridges under normal
operation.
Compilation of large high quality databases for axial and
lateral single and group deep foundation displacements, as
well as shallow foundations and bridge substructures.
Establish uncertainty of displacement prediction methods.
Develop methodology for establishing LRFD parameters for
serviceability.

Developed Serviceability Criteria
Criteria
Bridge Type
Limit State
Angular distortion
Simple
Support
/l < 1/200
Angular distortion
Continuous
/l < 1/250
Abutment differential vert.

displacement for bridge
lifetime
Steel
VA < 3in
Concrete
VA < 3in
l 50ft steel
I/l 20in3
l 100ft
Steel
VP < 2in
l 50ft
Concrete
Steel
VP < 2in
VA < 2in
l 50ft
Concrete
VA < 2in
Steel
Concrete
All Substructures
VP < 1.25in
VP < 1.50in
h < 1.5in
Controlling criteria
AASHTO Moulton 1986, h < 2.0in
All Substructures
h < 1.0in
Controlling criteria
AASHTO Moulton 1986, h < 1.5in
Pier differential vert.

displacement for bridge
lifetime
Abutment differential vert.
displacement following bridge
completion
Pier differential displacement
following bridge completion
Horiz. displacements
Horiz. displacements
combined with vert.
displacements
Limitations
l 50ft
l 50ft steel
Comments
subjected to limit vertical
displacements
exc. rigid frame structures
exc. integral abutment bridges
assuming pinned connection at the
abutment
Moulton, 1986, Table 7; Current study
Table 4.14
Moulton, 1986, p.58; Current study
Table 4.14
Moulton, 1986, Table 7; Current study
Table 4.14

Databases and Their Analyses
Performance of DP
Compression, Tension, and Lateral / Pile Type/Soil Type
Performance of DF
Compression, Tension, and Lateral / Construction Type/Soil
Type
Performance of Pile Groups
Vertical / Lateral / Soil Type
Performance of Shallow Foundations
Prototype / Full Scale / Soil Type
Performance of Full Scale Structures
Piers / Abutments

Methods of Analysis for Lateral Displacement of a
Deep Foundation
Equilibrium Method Broms (1964a, 1964b)

p-y Curves Method (BEF, Winkler, 1887, McClleland
and Focht, 1958, Matlock, 1970, Reese 1977,1984, 1985).
COM624P (Wang and Reese, 1993)
LPILE 5.0 (Reese et al. 2004)
Strain Wedge Method (Norris, 1986)

SWM 6.0 (Ashour and Norris, 2000)
Normalized Relations
Lateral Load vs. Normalized Disp. (current research)

Laterally Loaded Single Piles
Summarized by Method of Analysis
1.80
COM624P Analysis
1.80
COV
H-Piles
SWM Analysis
Pipe Piles (18")
Pipe Piles (18")
Pipe Piles (24")
1.60
Pipe Piles (24")
1.60
PPC
PPC
All Pipe Piles
All Pipe Piles
All Piles
All Piles
1.40
COV
H-Piles
1.40
DS in Soil
1.20
1.00
1.00
, COV
, COV
1.20
0.80
0.80
0.60
0.60
0.40
0.40
0.20
0.20
0.00
0.00
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Pile Top Deflection (inch)
2.5
0.5
1
1.5
2
Pile Top Deflection (inch)
2.5

Lateral Displacement of Single Piles
vs. Resistance Factor
1
0.8
0.8
(12)
(12)
(24)
(25)
(19)
Resistance Factor
Resistance Factor
(25)
(26)
0.6
(23)
(18)
(12)
(11)
0.4
0.6
(23)
(18)
(12)
(11)
0.4
H-Piles
COM624P
(no. of cases)
Broms
(no. of cases)
SWM
(no. of cases)
Normalized
(no. of cases)
0.2
H-Piles
0.2
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Lateral Displacement (inch)
Broms
(no. of cases)
Fit 1: Broms
Y = -0.130X + 0.705, R2 = 0.927
Fit 2: Log
Y = -0.168ln(X) + 0.554, R2 = 0.990
2.5
0.5
1
1.5
2
Lateral Displacement (inch)
2.5
Example of Resistance factors for SLS

Recommended Resistance Factors for SLS of Deep Foundations
Pile Type
Method
p-y curves
COM624P /
LPile
H
SWM
Normalized
Range of Settlement
(inch)
0.00 < 0.50
0.50 < 1.50
1.50 < 2.00
Resistance Factor
0.55
0.60
0.65
2.00 < 2.50
0.70
0.00 < 0.50

0.50 < 2.50
0.00 < 1.50
1.50 < 2.50
0.55
0.60
0.60
0.65

Shallow Foundations Bias & COV vs. Settlement
, COV
, COV
3.0
3.0
AASHTO
2.5
2.5
Bias ()
D'Appolonia
Bias ()
COV
COV
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Foundation Settlement (inch)
2.5
3.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Foundation Settlement (inch)
Bias (
) Relates to the mean of the ratio of measured over calculated loads for a given displacement
2.5
3.0

Shallow Foundations Settlement
vs. Resistance Factor
1
1
(85)
(51)
(36) (18)
D'Appolonia (no. of cases)
(18)
0.8
Recommended
Y = 0.25*X-0.85, 0.7
(17)
0.8
(7)
(14)
(13)
0.6
(6)
0.4
Resistance Factor
Resistance Factor
(74)
0.6
(52)
0.4
(40)
(22)
0.2
0.2
AASHTO (No. of cases)
(22) (21)
(19)
(18)
(14)
Recommended
Data Ranges
(11)
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Settlement (inch)
2.5
0.5
1
1.5
2
Settlement (inch)
2.5

Resistance Factors for Shallow Foundations SLS
For reliability index = 1.28 (pf = 10%), and load factors taken as unity
Bias of LL = 1.15, COVQL = 0.2
Bias of DL = 1.05, COVQD = 0.1
Method
Range of Settlement
(inch)
Resistance Factor
Efficiency Factor
/
AASHTO
0.00 < 1.00

1.00 < 1.50
1.50 < 3.00
0.85
0.80
0.60
0.34
0.48
0.48
91
CASE HISTORY LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN

USING AASHTO 2006 SPECIFICATIONS
Existing and Replacement Sakonnet

River Bridges
Replacement Bridge Foundation Layout
P1
P2
H-PILES
PIPE PILES
H-PILES
P3
P4
P5
SPREAD
FOOTING
P6
P7
P8
P9
W. Abut
E. Abut.
Test
Site
Test
Site
SOIL PROFILE
HP 14x117 (112 ft/34m) Test Pile

Vibrated to 92 ft (28m)
Driven w/ ICE 1070 diesel
hammer (3 bpi @ 22 kip-ft)
(1 bl/10mm @ 30 kN-m)
Restrikes @ 1, 7, & 14 days
HP 14x117
El 4 to -109.6 ft,
1 to 33 m
Current Specifications Resistance Factors for

Driven Piles (Static Analysis)
(AASHTO 2008 Interim 2006,, Table 10.5.5.2.3-1) continued
Condition/Resistance Determination Method
Resistance
Factor
Nominal Resistance
of Single Pile in
Axial
Compression
Static Analysis
Methods, stat
Skin Friction and End Bearing Clay&Mixed Soils

-method (Tomlinson, 1987; Skempton, 1951)
-method (Esrig & Kirby, 1979; Skempton, 1951)
-method (Vijayvergiya & Focht, 1972; Skempton, 1951)
Skin Friction and End Bearing: Sand
Nordlund/Thurman Method (Hannigan et al., 2005)
SPT-method (Meyerhof)
CPT-method (Schmertmann)
End bearing in rock (Canadian Geotech. Society, 1985)
Block Failure, b1
Clay
0.60
Uplift Resistance of
Single Piles, up
Nordlund Method
-method
-method
-method
SPT-method
CPT-method
Load test
0.35
0.25
0.20
0.30
0.25
0.40
0.60
Group Uplift
Resistance, ug
Sand and clay
0.50
All soils and rock
1.0
Horizontal
Geotechnical
Resistance of Single
Pile or Pile Group
0.35
0.25
0.40
Where is the end

bearing?
0.45
0.30
0.50
0.45
Where are the

pile/soil types?
Where is method?
H Pile Summary (14x177, penetration = 112ft/34m)

Prediction for Static Pile Capacity Combinations (112ft /34m penetration)
(1kip =4.45kN)
NCHRP 507
NCHRP 507
Analysis Combination
AASHTO LRFD
Estimated
Resistance
Factored
Resistance
Factored
Specifications
Factored
Capacity (Rn)
Factor for H
Resistance
Factor for H
Resistance
2006
Resistance
(kips)
Piles inSand
(Rr)
Piles in Mixed
(Rr)
Resistance
(Rr)
()
-Method/Thurman (Steel Only)
1,157
-Method/Thurman (Box Area)
1,339
Nordlund/Thurman (Steel Only)
1,137
Nordlund/Thurman (Box Area)
1,319
FHWA Driven Ver. 1.2 (Steel Only) (2)
1,142
FHWA Driven Ver. 1.2 (Box Area) (2)
1,329
FHWA Driven Ver. 1.2 (Steel Only) (3)
935
FHWA Driven Ver. 1.2 (Box Area) (3)
976
0.30
0.45
Soils ()
347
402
512
594
0.20
0.35
Factor ()
231
268
398
462
Not Specified
0.45
512
594
514
0.45
598
421
439
Notes:
1.
Resistance Factors taken from NCHRP Report 507 Table 25 for a Redundant Structure.
2.
Calculated by inserting the friction angles and unit weights directly into DRIVEN.
3.
Calculated by inserting the uncorrected SPT N-values directly into DRIVEN. N-values were taken
from boring HA-HP only. Friction angle was limited to 36 degrees.
Recommended range for preliminary design
Foundation Test Program
HP 14x117 Test Frame
HP 14x117 (112 ft 34m) Static Load Test

Pile Tip
Max. Applied Load
Max. Settlement,
Pile Top
Failure Load by
Davisson Criterion
Davisson
Settlement, Pile
Top
583kips
2593kN
2.7in
6.9cm
378kips
1681kN
0.7in
1.8cm
Pile Top
LT Recommended resistance factors (NCHRP 507)

Static Load Test (in/out the AASHTO Specs)
Table 30. Recommended resistance factors for static load tests
Resistance Factor -
No. of
Site Variability
Load Tests
Per Site
Low
Medium
High
1
0.80
0.70
0.55
2
3
0.90
0.90
0.75
0.85
0.65
0.75
0.90
0.90
0.80
HP 14x117 (112 ft 34m) Summary Results

Estimation
Method
Nominal
Capacity
Resistance
Factor
Factored
Resistance
Static Prediction
Nordlund/Thurman
1248 kips
0.45
(AASHTO)
562 kips
Static Prediction
(GTR)
Beta/Thurman
1248 kips
0.20
(NCHRP 507)
250 kips
0.55 (large
variability)
208 kips
5551 kN
5551 kN
378 kips
Static Load Test
1681 kN
(Davisson)
0.70 (med.
Variability)
2500 kN
1112 kN
925 kN
265 kips
1179 kN
AASHTO Factored Design load 1.5 times Failure Load and 2.1 to 2.7 Factored LT

02 Presentation Workshop Delft Paikowsky Final

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

02 Presentation Workshop Delft Paikowsky Final

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Safety Concepts and Calibration of Partial Factors

in European and North American Codes of Practice

LRFD Calibration and Implementation of

Geosciences Testing & Research, Inc.

LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN (LRFD)

LRFD Deep Foundation Design Report - NCHRP 507

LRFD Shallow Foundations Design Report - NCHRP 651

LRFD Serviceability Limit State Design Report NCHRP 12-66

Example Case History

Code Any systematic collection of regulations

Q = Design load (F)

Increasing Construction Control

Static Load Test

Factor of Safety (FS)

* Any combination that includes a static load test

Can be examined and/or explained only against actual data.

(accurately predicted by all methods, i.e.bias = 1.0)

Actual Mean FS for driven piles in clay

For Comparison FS for the Dynamic Methods

(values in original example ignoring the bias)

Uncertainties - Structural Design

(Assuming homogenous crosssection, horizontal symmetry line and

No uncertainty in the model

Uncertainties - Geotechnical Design

Assumed Failure Pattern

Traditional design although developed

Uncertainty in loads created by and

Defining uncertainty in the soil properties alone

The relationship between loads and

3 LOAD AND RESISTANCE

Load Ef f ect (Q)

An illustration of probability density functions

Reliability is expressed using the reliability

An Illustration of a Combined Probability Density

4 LRFD Deep Foundations Design

4 LRFD Deep Foundations Design

An extensive development of resistance

4 LRFD Deep Foundations Design

4 LRFD Deep Foundations DESIGN

Distribution of Load - Type, Mean, SD

Load Effect (Q)

Distribution of Load Measurements on and

4 LRFD Deep Foundations DESIGN

Required And Sources of Information

4 LRFD Deep Foundations DESIGN

Driven Piles Static Analyses

Static Load Test Interpretation DP

4 LRFD Deep Foundations DESIGN

4 LRFD Deep Foundations DESIGN

4 LRFD Deep Foundations DESIGN

NCHRP 507 Used two Calibration Methods:

The first version of the AASHTO specifications utilized First-Order,

FORM First Order Reliability Method

FORM provides a means for calculating resistance and load factors

All current calibrations are using MC simulations

4 LRFD Deep Foundations DESIGN

Figure 16. Illustration of the efficiency factor as a measure of the effectiveness of a

4 LRFD Deep Foundations DESIGN

Static Analyses Driven Piles

Dynamic Analyses Driven Piles

Static Analyses drilled shafts

4 LRFD Deep Foundations DESIGN

I Interpretation of Static Capacity