CHAPTER 16

STRUCTURAL DESIGN
16.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the process for structural design of drilled shafts. The methods are generally in
accordance with the AASHTO LRFD 2007 Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2007a), with 2009
Interims.
As discussed in Chapter 11, structural design of drilled shaft foundations (Block 12 of Figure 11-1) is not
a linear process, as might be implied by the simplified format of Figure 11-1. The complete structural
design typically requires numerous iterations in order to achieve an optimal design (adjusting shaft
diameter, length, group configuration, etc.), or to accommodate constructability concerns. A flow chart
expanding from Block 12 of Figure 11-1 is shown on Figure 16-1 to outline the structural design
sequence.
The following points are important with regard to the material presented in this chapter.
1. Drilled shafts are treated as reinforced-concrete beam-columns for structural design purposes.
2. The position taken in this manual is to require a minimum reinforcement because of the potential
for unforeseen loading (tension or flexure due to wind loads, uplift due to expansive clay, and
similar loadings).
3. The methods presented herein are based on the load and resistance factor design (LRFD)
procedure that was first described in Chapter 10.
4. Some of the requirements for minimum amounts of steel reinforcement depend upon the location
of the section being analyzed relative to: (a) the depth at which the shaft is laterally supported
and (b) the depth of moment fixity. AASHTO (2007), Section C.10.8.3.9.3, defines laterally
supported as:

Below the zone of liquefaction or seismic loads,

In rock, or
5.0 ft below the ground surface or the lowest anticipated scour elevation

As stated in C.10.8.3.9.3: Laterally supported does not mean fixed. Fixity would occur
somewhat below this location and depends on the stiffness of the supporting soil. The depth of
moment fixity is not defined in AASHTO (2007) Specifications. A working definition of moment
fixity found to be useful by the authors is: the depth below which the moment is equal to or less
than 5 percent of the maximum moment in the shaft. The distribution of moment as a function of
shaft depth would be determined through analysis of the shaft under lateral or moment loading, for
example by the p-y method of analysis described in Chapter 12.
Readers can refer to textbooks (Ferguson, 1988; Wang and Salmon, 1985) for detailed information on
design of reinforced concrete beam-columns.

FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

16-1

16 - Structural Design
May 2010

12. Finalize Structural Design of Drilled Shafts

12-1. Determine force effects on foundations (P, M, V) using AASHTO
limit states, structural model, and foundation model

12-2. Dimension the drilled shafts to resist the force effects (P, M, V)
and determine the resulting behavior (displacements, rotations,
Mmax, Vmax)

Does the foundation behavior

agree with the behavior
determined in 12-1?

no

yes
Is the current structural and
foundation model sufficiently
detailed to represent the final
force effects with confidence?

no

yes
12.3. Check structural design for axial loading
not O.K.

O.K.

Change amount of
reinforcement

Change
diameter

12.4. Check structural design for shear

not O.K.

O.K.

Modify fc'; modify

reinforcement

Change
diameter

12.5. Check moment resistance

not O.K.

O.K.

Change amount of
reinforcement

See next page

Figure 16-1

Change
diameter
See next page

Flow Chart for Structural Design

FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

16-2

16 - Structural Design
May 2010

See previous page

See previous page

12.6. Distribute steel and check spacings for compliance

not O.K.

O.K.

Change bar size and

spacing

Change
diameter

12.7. Select transverse reinforcement

not O.K.
Change amount of
reinforcement

O.K.

Change
diameter

12.8. Final analysis check with P, M, V; Do Mmax, Vmax,

displacements, and rotations, agree with previous analyses?

Figure 16-1

no

Flow Chart for Structural Design (Continued)

16.2 MATERIAL PROPERTIES

Structural materials including concrete, reinforcing steel, and casings are discussed previously (i.e.
Chapters 6, 8, and 9). Unless otherwise noted, materials and material properties should be in accordance
with the provisions of the current AASHTO LRFD Specifications (2007). Structural considerations of
these material properties are discussed hereafter.
16.2.1 Concrete
Drilled shafts are generally designed with concrete having a specified compressive strength, fc', of 3.5 ksi
to 5.0 ksi. Note that AASHTO (5.4.2.1) prohibits the use of concrete with a specified compressive
strength less than 2.4 ksi for structural applications (including drilled shafts).
Concrete for drilled shafts shall be normal weight. The modulus of elasticity for concrete, Ec, can be
approximated by Equation 16-1:

Ec = 1820 f c '

(AASHTO C5.4.2.4.-1)

16-1

Refer to AASHTO 5.4.2 and Chapter 9 of this manual for additional requirements for drilled shaft
concrete.
FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

16-3

16 - Structural Design
May 2010

16.2.2 Reinforcing Steel

Reinforcing steel for drilled shafts will generally be AASHTO M31 (ASTM A615) Grade 60, with a
minimum yield strength of 60 ksi. The use of reinforcing steel with yield strengths less than 60 ksi is not
recommended. Bars with yield strengths less than 60 ksi should be used only with the approval of the
owner.
The use of reinforcing steel conforming to ASTM A706, Low Alloy Steel Deformed Bars for Concrete
Reinforcement, should be considered where improved ductility is needed or where welding is required.
The modulus of elasticity, Es, for reinforcing steel can be assumed to be 29,000 ksi.
Refer to AASHTO 5.4.3 and Section 8.3 of this manual for additional information on drilled shaft
reinforcing steel.
16.2.3 Casings
Steel for permanent casings should generally conform to the values shown in Table 16-1.

TABLE 16-1

MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTHS FOR PERMANENT STEEL CASING

Standard
ASTM A36
ASTM A242

ASTM A252 Grade 2

ASTM A252 Grade 3

Minimum Yield Strength (fy)

36 ksi
50 ksi for thickness
46 ksi for < thickness 1
42 ksi for 1< thickness 4
36 ksi
45 ksi

The modulus of elasticity, E, for steel casings can be assumed to be 29,000 ksi.
The thickness of casings should be shown in the contract documents as minimum. The minimum
thickness of casings should be that required for reinforcement or for strength required during driving.
The latter is a function of both the site conditions and the driving equipment. AASHTO Specifications
(2007) require the contractor to furnish casings of greater than the design minimum thickness, if
necessary, to accommodate the contractors choice of driving equipment. Readers are referred to
Chapter 6 for more information on this topic.

16.3 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF LONGITUDINAL STEEL

REINFORCEMENT
AASHTO (5.7.4.2) specifies a range for the amount of steel reinforcement allowed in the cross-section of
a drilled shaft. The maximum allowable area of longitudinal reinforcing steel, As, is 8.0% of the gross
cross-sectional area of the shaft Ag, or:

FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

16-4

16 - Structural Design
May 2010

As
0.08
Ag

(AASHTO 5.7.4.2-1)

16-2

In addition, AASHTO (5.10.11.3 and 5.10.11.4.1) limits the longitudinal reinforcement for Seismic Zones
2, 3 and 4 to not more than 6.0%. Typical amounts of reinforcement are between one and two percent but
may be greater than 3% in high seismic zones. Construction of drilled shafts with longitudinal
reinforcement greater than 4% is difficult, and should be avoided if at all possible. Difficulties with
construction of drilled shafts with the higher percentages of longitudinal reinforcement include the flow
of concrete through the rebar cage to the outside faces of the shaft.
The minimum amount of longitudinal reinforcement is affected by both the strength of steel and concrete.
In the portions of the drilled shaft that behave as a column, defined as any portion of the shaft above the
depth at which the shaft is laterally supported (defined on page 16-1), the minimum longitudinal
reinforcement amount is determined as:

As f y
Ag f c'

0.135

(AASHTO 5.7.4.2-3)

16-3

In which fy = yield strength of the longitudinal steel bars. Furthermore, the minimum longitudinal
reinforcement area in the portions of the shaft that behave as a column should be not less than 1% of the
gross concrete area of the shaft. Below the section where the drilled shaft behaves as a column (i.e., is
laterally supported) nominal longitudinal reinforcement may be provided. However, 0.5% of the gross
concrete area of the pile is suggested as a practical minimum.
The longitudinal reinforcing bars should be evenly distributed among not less than 6 bars in a circular
arrangement. The minimum size of longitudinal bars is No. 5 (AASHTO 5.7.4.2).
Per AASHTO 5.13.4.5.2, the clear distance between parallel longitudinal reinforcing bars shall be not less
than 5 times the maximum aggregate size or 5.0 inches, whichever is greater. However, recent research
has indicated that, for drilled shafts constructed using tremie concrete, the proper flow of concrete
through the rebar cage cannot be assured unless the clear spacing is equal to or greater than 10 times the
maximum aggregate size. When necessary, vertical reinforcing bars should be bundled in order to
maximize the clear space between vertical reinforcement bars. For drilled shafts constructed by the dry
method, a clear spacing of 5 times the maximum aggregate size, with a minimum of 5.0 inches, is
sufficient.

16.4 MINIMUM AMOUNT OF TRANSVERSE STEEL REINFORCEMENT

Transverse reinforcement in drilled shafts shall meet all of the following (minimum) requirements:

Shear design requirements. See Section 16.7.2 of this manual (below) and AASHTO Article
5.8.
Minimum requirements for transverse reinforcement determined in accordance with
AASHTO Article 5.7.4.6 (see Equation 16-4, below), Note that this requirement applies to
all Seismic Zones

FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

16-5

16 - Structural Design
May 2010

Minimum confinement requirements for seismic design, determined in accordance with

AASHTO Articles 5.10.11.4.1d, 5.10.11.4.1e and 5.13.4.6. Note that the transverse
reinforcement requirements specified for Seismic Zones 3 and 4 under Sections 5.10.11.4.1d
and 5.10.11.4.1e also apply to Seismic Zone 2, per AASHTO Article 5.10.11.3.

For all seismic zones, from the top of the drilled shaft to a depth of at least 3.0 diameters below the
calculated depth of moment fixity, the minimum transverse reinforcement can be determined using
Equation 16-4:

f '
Ag
1 c
f yh
Ac

s 0.45

Where: s =
Ag =
Ac =
f c' =
fyh =

(AASHTO 5.7.4.6-1)

16-4

Ratio of spiral or seismic hoop reinforcement to total volume of concrete core

Gross area of column section (in2)
Area of the concrete core measured to the outside diameter of the spiral (in.)
Specified strength of concrete at 28 days (ksi)
Specified yield strength of spiral or hoop reinforcement (ksi)

In addition, for Seismic Zones 2, 3, and 4, from the top of the drilled shaft to a depth of at least 3.0
diameters below the calculated depth of moment fixity, the minimum transverse reinforcement can be
determined using Equation 16-5:

s 0.12
where: s =
fc ' =
fy =

fc '
fy

(AASHTO 5.10.11.4.1d-1)

16-5

Ratio of spiral or seismic hoop reinforcement to total volume of concrete core

Specified strength of concrete at 28 days (ksi)
Specified yield strength of spiral or hoop reinforcement (ksi)

For Seismic Zones 2, 3 and 4, the maximum pitch of spiral reinforcement or spacing of seismic hoops
shall be 4.0 inches down to a depth of at least 3.0 diameters below the depth of moment fixity and 9.0
inches below that depth (AASHTO Article 5.13.4.6.2b). For Seismic Zone 1, the maximum pitch of
spiral reinforcement or spacing of seismic hoops shall be 6.0 inches down to a depth of at least 3.0
diameters below the depth of moment fixity and 12.0 inches below that depth (AASHTO Article
5.13.4.5.2). In all cases, spirals or seismic hoops shall not be smaller than #3 bars.
The clear distance between parallel transverse reinforcing bars should not be less than five times the
maximum aggregate size or 5.0 inches, whichever is greater (AASHTO 5.13.4.5.2). In seismic zones this
can be a challenge because high steel ratios are often dictated by the earthquake force effects. An effort
should be made to meet the minimum 5-inch spacing requirement by bundling the longitudinal bars, as
necessary.
A typical layout for longitudinal and transverse reinforcement in a drilled shaft is shown in Figure 16-2.

FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

16-6

16 - Structural Design
May 2010

Longitudinal
Reinforcement
MinimumClearSpacing
of5Inchesor5Times
MaximumConcrete
AggregateSize,
WhicheverisLarger

Transverse(Spiral)
Reinforcement

Figure 16-2

Transverse (Confinement) Reinforcement Details (AASHTO Figure C5.10.11.4.1d-1)

16.5 CONCRETE COVER AND CAGE CENTERING DEVICES

Recommended minimum concrete covers to the primary (longitudinal) reinforcing steel (including rebars
protected by epoxy coating) for drilled shafts are as follows:

3.0 inches for shafts 3'-0" diameter

4.0 inches for > 3'-0" but < 5'-0" diameter
6.0 inches for shafts 5'-0" diameter

The cover required for transverse reinforcement may be less than required for longitudinal bars by no
more than 0.5 inch. Transverse reinforcement larger than 0.5 inch diameter would thus necessitate greater
cover than specified above for longitudinal bars.
The above minimum concrete covers are for concrete with water-to-cementitious material ratios (W/CM)
between 0.40 and 0.50. For W/CM ratios equal to or greater than 0.50, the cover requirements must be
increased by a factor of 1.2. For W/CM ratios less than or equal to 0.40, the cover requirements may be
decreased by a factor of 0.8. The modification factors of 1.2 and 0.8 are in recognition of the changes in
concrete permeability resulting from higher and lower values of W/CM ratio. However, low W/CM
ratios can lead to constructability problems because the flow characteristics and ability of concrete to pass
through the rebar cage generally decrease at low W/CM ratios.
Centering devices must be used with drilled shaft construction to maintain alignment of the steel
reinforcing cages and maintain the required minimum concrete cover. The centering devices are often
plastic wheels installed around the transverse reinforcement. The wheels must be oriented such that
they roll along the borehole wall without scraping into the soil.

16.6 CASES WITH AXIAL LOAD ONLY

16.6.1 Axial Compression

For some applications, the force effects transmitted to drilled shafts are predominately axial compression
with zero to small moment and shear. Structurally, this can be designed for axial compression only.
FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

16-7

16 - Structural Design
May 2010

Examples of this case include the lower portion of a drilled shaft deeper than 3.0 diameters below the
equivalent depth of fixity. Any eccentricity of the axial load is ignored explicitly (although included
implicitly) in this computation.
Equation 16-6 can be utilized in LRFD for calculating the factored nominal structural resistance of a
short, reinforced concrete column subjected only to compressive axial load.

Pr = Pn = 0.85 f c' ( Ag As ) + As f y
Where: Pr =
Pn =
=
=
fc' =
Ag =
As =
fy =

(AASHTO 5.7.4.4)

16-6

Factored axial resistance of an axially loaded short column (drilled shaft)

Nominal axial resistance
Resistance factor (see below)
Reduction factor, 0.85 for spiral reinforcement, and 0.80 for tie reinforcement.
Specified minimum compressive strength of concrete,
Gross area of section
Total area of longitudinal reinforcement
Specified yield strength of reinforcement

The resistance factor, , is equal to 0.75 for compression-controlled sections with either spiral or ties used
for transverse reinforcement. An exception is for the case of extreme event seismic loading in Seismic
Zones 2, 3 and 4, where is taken as 0.90 for sections with either spiral or ties as transverse
reinforcement (reference AASHTO 5.5.4.2, 5.10.11.3 and 5.10.11.4.1b).
In executing a preliminary design to obtain the approximate cross-sectional area and longitudinal steel
schedule, a reasonable percentage of steel of from 1 to 4 percent (preferably not more than 2% to 2.5%)
of the gross column section area, Ag, can be assumed. If the drilled shaft is subjected to an axial load
having an eccentricity larger than is permitted in the construction specifications for horizontal position of
the drilled shaft, or if force effects include shear or moment, a lateral load analysis should be carried out.
Note that an eccentric axial load will generate bending and therefore the shaft must be designed as a
beam-column. Depending on the level of load eccentricity and the magnitudes of the lateral loads, the
structural resistance for axial loading (alone) should be well in excess of the factored axial load so that the
section will also be found to be safe under moment.
16.6.2 Tension Members

Drilled shafts subjected to uplift force effects, either from load combinations applied to the bridge or from
expansive soils, can be regarded as tension members and the axial forces are assumed to be resisted by the
steel elements only. The LRFD equation for structural strength in tension is:

Pr = Pn = f y A st
Where: Pr
Pn

fy
Ast

=
=
=
=
=

FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

(AASHTO 5.7.6.1-1 and 5.6.3.4.1-1 )

Factored axial resistance in tension
Nominal axial resistance in tension
Resistance factor = 0.90
Specified yield strength of steel reinforcement
Total area of longitudinal steel reinforcement

16-8

16-7

16 - Structural Design
May 2010

16.7 CASES WITH AXIAL LOAD AND BENDING MOMENT

16.7.1 General Concepts

When a cross-section of an axially loaded drilled shaft is subjected to a bending moment from any source,
there is a corresponding decrease in its axial structural resistance. The decrease can be explained by
referring to Figure 16-3. The curve in Figure 16-3a shows the combinations of maximum axial load and
maximum bending moment that the cross section of the drilled shaft can carry at the structural limit state.
Points inside the curve, called an "interaction diagram", give combinations of axial load and moment that
can be sustained; points on the curve, or outside of it, define a structural limit state. Interaction diagrams
for a given cross section can be generated using several commercially available computer programs, for
example LPILE (Ensoft, Inc., 2004), spColumn (formerly PCAColumn; Structure Point Software, 2010),
and others.

Figure 16-3

Interaction Diagram for a Reinforced Concrete Column

FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

16-9

16 - Structural Design
May 2010

Although Figure 16-3 treats the case of combined axial compression and bending, the concepts presented
in this section are equally valid and applicable to a reinforced concrete beam-column (drilled shaft)
subjected to combined axial tension and bending.
Figure 16-3b shows a schematic of a drilled shaft cross section that is being analyzed to obtain the
interaction diagram. The diagrams in parts (c) through (h) of Figure 16-3 illustrate the assumed
distribution of strain in the cross section when it is subjected to different combinations of axial
compressive load and bending moment, represented by the points on the interaction curve A, B, C, D, E
and F, respectively. When failure occurs due to axial load only (Po as at point A in Figure 16-3a), a
uniform compressive strain cu exists across the entire cross section (Figure 16-3c), where cu is the
compressive strain that causes crushing in the concrete (0.003). When failure occurs with a lesser axial
load combined with a small amount of bending moment, as at point B, the strain distribution on the cross
section is no longer uniform. The top-fiber strain reaches the value of cu whereas the bottom-fiber strain
is reduced, but may still be compressive as in Figure 16-3d, if the moment is not large.
For a condition where bending moment is increased further and axial load decreased further, as
represented by point C, part of the cross section is subjected to tension, which is taken by steel
reinforcement if, for simplicity, it is assumed that the concrete is a material that cannot resist tension. This
is a stage when sufficient tension is not developed to cause yielding of the steel, and the failure is still by
crushing in the concrete. Proceeding to the state represented by point D, the failure combination of axial
load and bending moment is such that the ultimate strain cu in the concrete and tensile yield strain y, in
the steel are simultaneously reached. This stage is known as the balanced condition, and Mb and Pb are the
moment and axial load resistances of the section at the balanced condition. At any failure combination
between points A and D on the curve, failure is caused by crushing in the concrete before the steel yields.
Tensile yielding in the steel can occur with a lesser bending moment than that at the balanced condition if
the compression is removed by decreasing the axial load. This stage is represented by the lower portion,
DF, of the curve. Since the axial load is less, the steel yields before the ultimate concrete strain, cu is
reached. With further bending, the concrete compressive strain reaches cu and failure occurs. At point F
the section is subjected to bending moment only (Mo), and failure occurs well after the steel yields.
Because the resistance of a cross section with given properties of steel and concrete depends upon the
percentage of reinforcement and the position of the steel with respect to the centroidal axis, a set of
interaction diagrams needs to be drawn for each drilled shaft cross section that is analyzed.
The nominal resistance interaction diagram, shown as the solid line in Figure 16-3 and Figure 16-4,
should be obtained for all critical sections of the drilled shaft. Computer programs for lateral analyses
typically include options for generating this interaction diagram for specified cross-sections. The factored
resistance interaction diagram, illustrated as a dashed line in Figure 16-4, identifies the boundary in which
factored force effects should reside. The method to determine the boundary is described herein.
The factored resistance interaction diagram (shown as the dashed line in Figure 16-4) is determined by
multiplying the nominal moment and nominal axial resistances by the resistance factor .

FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

Pr = Pn

(AASHTO 5.7.4.4-1)

16-8

M r = M n

(AASHTO 5.7.3.2.1-1)

16-9

16-10

16 - Structural Design
May 2010

Where:

Pr
Pn
Mr
Mn

=
=
=
=
=

Factored axial resistance

Nominal axial resistance
Factored moment resistance
Nominal moment resistance
Resistance factor (see below)

P (kips)

Nominal Resistance
Factored Resistance

Permissible

Moment (ft-kips)
Figure 16-4

Nominal and Factored Interaction Diagrams

The interaction diagram uses a resistance factor () that is variable and is determined by the strain
conditions in the structural cross-section, at nominal strength. Therefore, resistance factors are different
for compression-controlled and tension-controlled sections. Sections are considered tension controlled
if the tensile strain (in the extreme tensile steel) at nominal strength is greater than 0.005. A value of 0.9
is used as for a tension-controlled section. A compression-controlled section uses a of 0.75 and is
defined as a cross-section for which the net tensile strain (t) in the extreme tensile steel at nominal
strength is less than or equal to the compression controlled strain limit of 0.003 (refer to AASHTO
Articles 5.7.2.1 and C5.7.2.1).
Linear interpolation is used to determine for sections that transition between tension-controlled and
compression-controlled (see plot in Figure 16-5). The transition formula for can also be given by
Equation 16-10:

0.75 = 0.65 + 0.15 t 1 0.9

c

FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

(AASHTO 5.5.4.2.1-2)

16-11

16-10

16 - Structural Design
May 2010

Where: c =
dt =

Distance from the extreme compression fiber to the neutral axis (inches)
Distance from the extreme compression fiber to the centroid of the extreme
tensile element (inches)

1.1

1.0
= 0.65 + 0.15(dt/c - 1)

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

transition

compression

tension
controlled

controlled
0.5
0.000

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0.006

0.007

t (net tensile strain)

Figure 16-5

Variation of with Net Tensile Strain, t and dt/c for Grade 60 Reinforcement

In addition to the P-M interaction diagram, the factored axial resistance (Equation 16-6 or Equation 16-7
above) should also be considered and may control for cases in which axial loads dominate.
Cases involving combined axial tension and bending are analyzed by applying the same concepts
described above for combined axial compression and bending. A notable difference would be that the
strength limit state is always tension-controlled; therefore the resistance factor is = 0.90.
16.7.2 Structural Design Procedure: Longitudinal and Transverse Reinforcement

The procedures described in this section are applicable to the design of drilled shafts without permanent
casing. Some of the procedures described in this section are also applicable to drilled shafts with
permanent casing, which is addressed further in Section 16.8.2.
Structural design of a drilled shaft is executed following the step-by-step procedure outlined below, which
deals only with compressive axial loading and seismic conditions.
1. Determine the factored axial, moment, and shear force effects that are transmitted to critical
sections of the drilled shaft. In some cases the critical section will be at the head of the drilled
FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

16-12

16 - Structural Design
May 2010

shaft (for example, for the case where multiple drilled shafts support a common pile cap and the
cap is rigid enough that the shafts approximate a fixed head condition). For cases where the
shaft behavior approximates a fixed head condition, the designer may choose to size the section
based on these loads and to verify the appropriateness of the section properties later using a
comprehensive p-y analysis. Otherwise, a preliminary analysis of the drilled shaft can be
conducted using one of the lateral load analysis procedures described in Chapter 12 of this
manual.
Factored force effects, applied to the head of the shaft, are used to obtain moment and shear
diagrams along the shaft as a function of depth in order to estimate the highest values of shear and
moment that occur along the shaft. It is customary to assume that the axial load Px acting on any
such section is equal to the axial force transmitted to the head. The results of the preliminary
lateral drilled shaft analysis using factored force effects can be considered to be the factored
forces (shear, moment and axial thrust) that act on the section under consideration.
2. Check whether the factored axial force is well within the factored nominal axial structural
resistance (Pn) of the shaft using Equation 16-6 (compression) or Equation 16-7 (tension). If
not, increase the section appropriately.
Judgment is involved in determining how safe the design needs to be against axial load alone. If
the estimate at this point is unsafe or overly conservative, it will be shown to be so later, and the
designer will need to return to this step.
3. Check to see whether the concrete section has adequate shear resistance with the minimum
transverse reinforcement ratio as specified in Section 16.3. The factored shear resistance of a
section with the minimum shear reinforcement is calculated as:

Vr = Vn

(AASHTO 5.8.2.1-2)

16-11

Where:
=
=
=
Vn =

Capacity reduction (resistance) factor for shear

(AASHTO 5.5.4.2)
0.90 for normal weight concrete
0.70 for lightweight concrete
Nominal (computed, unfactored) shear resistance of the section,

The nominal shear resistance Vn is determined as the lesser of:

V n = Vc + V s

(AASHTO 5.8.3.3-1)

16-12a

Vn = 0.25 fc bv dv

(AASHTO 5.8.3.3-2)

16-12b

(AASHTO 5.8.3.3-3)

16-13

and
where: Vc = the limiting concrete shear stress, defined as:

Vc = 0.0136

FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

f c ' Av

16-13

16 - Structural Design
May 2010

where: A = area of the column cross section that is effective in resisting shear, which can be
taken as the equivalent of bv*dv for a circular drilled shaft, where:
bv = D
dv = 0.9 D + Dr (see Figure 16-6)

2
D = external diameter of the drilled shaft, and
Dr = diameter of the circle passing through the centers of the longitudinal rebars.
Figure 16-6 shows a cross section of a circular reinforced concrete column (or drilled shaft) and
defines the terms used above to describe its geometry.
Alternatively, Av may be taken as 0.80 x Agross (reference: ATC 32-1 Section 7.3.4)

Illustration of Terms bv, dv and dc for Circular Sections (reference AASHTO C5.8.2.9)

Figure 16-6

If the factored shear force acting on the section is greater than the factored resistance, determined
above, several options are available. The first and simplest solution is to increase the column size
(diameter of the drilled shaft) to increase Av and thus increase the shear resistance. A second
alternative is to use a higher concrete compressive strength. The third (and recommended)
alternative is to include a specific contribution for the amount of shear reinforcement. Including
the shear resistance contribution from the transverse reinforcement is the recommended
alternative as this will result in a more economical design.
The shear resistance from the transverse reinforcement can be computed per AASHTO Equation
5.8.3.3-4, as follows:

Vs =

Av f y d v (cot + cot ) sin

(AASHTO 5.8.3.3-4)

16-14

Where:
A = Area of shear reinforcement within a distance s
s = Spacing of the ties along the axis of the member (spiral pitch)

FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

16-14

16 - Structural Design
May 2010

Vs = Nominal shear resistance of transverse steel

fy = Yield strength of transverse steel
dy = Effective shear depth (see above)
= Angle of inclination of diagonal compressive stresses, taken as 45o
= Angle of inclination of transverse reinforcement to longitudinal axis
Alternatively, the shear resistance from the transverse reinforcement can be computed following
the recommendations in ATC 32-1:

Vs =

Ah f yh D
2

(ATC 32-1 Equation 7-20)

cot

16-15

Where:
Ah = Area of a single hoop
s = Spacing of the ties along the axis of the member (spiral pitch)
Vs = Nominal shear resistance of transverse steel
fyh = Yield strength of transverse steel
D' = Diameter of circular hoop (spiral)
= Angle of inclination of diagonal compressive stresses, taken as 45o
4. Determine an amount and distribution of longitudinal steel required for the section to resist axial
load and moment.
a) Assume a reasonable percentage of longitudinal reinforcement (1 percent) and generate the
interaction (P-M) diagram.
b) Check if the factored axial and moment force effects fall within the acceptable zone on the
interaction curve. If not, increase amount and distribution of longitudinal reinforcement steel.
AASHTO limits the reinforcement ratio, s, to a minimum of 1 percent and maximum of 8
percent in the portions of the shaft that behave as a column. Columns with high reinforcement
ratios (more than 4 percent reinforcement) generally result in crowding of steel with little
possibility of splicing (dowels for example). Better practice is to limit the maximum
reinforcement to less than 4 per cent (less than 2 percent is more desirable) depending on the
requirement for continuity with the supported structure. In some cases, i.e. three diameters below
moment fixity, the percentage of longitudinal reinforcement can be as small as 0.5 percent.
c) Select the actual steel reinforcement, i.e., size and number of bars, and bar spacing. Keep in
mind the requirement for designing for constructability (e.g., maintain adequate bar spacing by
bundling bars if necessary).
d) Continue to iterate until the design satisfies LRFD structural limit state criteria and
construction requirements with an efficient cross-section.
5. Select appropriate ties or spirals according to AASHTO, and ensure that the spacing between
reinforcement satisfies requirements for constructability.
Appendix A presents a comprehensive design example which illustrates this procedure, and typical design
details for drilled shafts without casing are shown in Figure 16-7 and Figure 16-8.

FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

16-15

16 - Structural Design
May 2010

Figure 16-7

Sample Elevation of Drilled Shaft without Casing

FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

16-16

16 - Structural Design
May 2010

Figure 16-8

Typical Sections without Casing

16.7.3 Depth of Transverse Reinforcement

One issue in the structural design of axially loaded drilled shafts that has not been completely resolved
with solid research is the depth below the ground surface to which the spirals or ties need to continue as if
the drilled shaft were a structural column. Historically, many agencies have required spirals or ties, as
determined from code requirements, down to a depth of 10 to 12 shaft diameters below the ground surface
when the soil is stiff or dense, or down to the top of a solid rock socket, whichever is less. While it may
seem conservative, from a structural viewpoint, to extend closely spaced transverse reinforcement to the
full length of a drilled shaft, eliminating steel reinforcement that is not necessary decreases the potential
risk of defects by providing more space for concrete to flow through the reinforcing cage. For deep
drilled shafts, extending transverse reinforcement can add costs which are not necessary. However, some

FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

16-17

16 - Structural Design
May 2010

transverse reinforcement is required even in the lower portions of the shaft to maintain stability of the
rebar cage during transportation and placement.
Current recommendations regarding the spacing and limits of transverse reinforcement are given in
Section 16.4, above. These recommendations differ depending on the Seismic Zone; more transverse
reinforcement (and at closer spacing) is required for Seismic Zones 2, 3, and 4 than for Seismic Zone 1.
For all seismic zones, a closer spacing of transverse reinforcement is required in the portion of the shaft
where it behaves as a beam-column, which is assumed to be at a depth of at least 3.0 diameters below the
computed depth of moment fixity. Below this point, the spacing of transverse reinforcement can be
increased to a maximum of 9.0 inches for Seismic Zones 2, 3 and 4, and 12.0 inches for Seismic Zone 1.

16.7.4 Splices, Connections, and Cutoffs

For constructability reasons, it is usually desirable to provide a construction joint at the head of a drilled
shaft, approximately at the ground surface. The drilled shaft may be of the same diameter as the column
(i.e. Caltrans Type I shaft) or may be of a larger diameter than the column (i.e. Caltrans Type II shaft). In
either case, if a joint is provided at the head of the drilled shaft, the required transverse reinforcement
should extend one-half of the column or drilled shaft diameter, whichever is larger, into the column, or 15
inches minimum, in accordance with AASHTO 5.10.11.4.3. This requirement for extending the
transverse reinforcement applies to all Seismic Zones.
For lap joints at the interface with the column or cap, or for lap joints within the drilled shaft, the
longitudinal shaft rebars should lap the longitudinal bars from the column or cap, or the bars in the
adjoining section of cage, by the length required to develop the full yield strength of the reinforcement, ld,
as specified in Section 5.11 of AASHTO. The same is true for the development of longitudinal drilled
shaft reinforcement into a footing or pile cap. For Seismic Zones 2, 3 and 4, the lap length is increased by
a factor of 1.25 to develop the over strength resistance of the reinforcement, per AASHTO 5.10.11.4.3.
The length required to develop the full yield strength of the reinforcement, ld, in inches, for bars in tension
is taken as the product of the basic development length, lab, and the applicable modification factors listed
under AASHTO 5.11.2.1.2 (modification factors that increase ld), and AASHTO 5.11.2.1.3 (modification
factors that increase ld). In no case should the development length lab be less than 12.0 inches for bars in
tension.
The basic development length for tension bars, lab, in inches, is taken as follows:
For No. 11 bars and smaller:
l db =

1.25 A y f y
f c'

but not less than 0.4d b f y

(AASHTO 5.11.2.1.1)

16-16

(AASHTO 5.11.2.1.1)

16-17

For No. 14 bars:

l db =

FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

2.70 f y
f c'

16-18

16 - Structural Design
May 2010

For No. 18 bars:

l db =

3.5 f y

(AASHTO 5.11.2.1.1)

f c'

16-18

The length required to develop the full yield strength of the reinforcement, ld, in inches, for bars in
compression is taken as the product of the basic development length, lab, and the applicable modification
factors listed under AASHTO 5.11.2.2.2. In no case should the development length lab be less than 8.0
inches for bars in compression.
The basic development length for compression bars, lab, in inches, is taken as the greater of the following:
l db

0.63d b f y
f c'

(AASHTO 5.11.2.2.1-1)

16-19

(AASHTO 5.11.2.2.1-2)

16-20

and

l db 0.3d b f y

In the above equations, fc' is the cylinder strength of the concrete at 28 days in ksi, fy is the nominal yield
strength of the steel in ksi, db is the diameter of the bar in inches, and Abs is the cross-sectional area of the
bar in in2.
It should be noted that, even though the drilled shaft as a whole may be in net compression for all loading
cases, the longitudinal steel may still be in tension under some loading conditions due to bending effects.
Generally, the development lengths for tension reinforcement should be used.
Similar rules apply to rebar cutoffs and to lapping of transverse steel.
For drilled shafts under axial tension only, as may occur under uplift loading, AASHTO Article 5.11.5.4
states that reinforcement splices shall be made only with full-welded splices or full-mechanical splices.

16.8 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

16.8.1 Drilled Shafts with Rock Sockets

It may be necessary for drilled shafts to extend into rock to resist the effect of lateral load. Non-linear p-y
analyses can be used to estimate the shear and moment along the length of the shaft. This type of load
and soil profile often results in the magnitude of maximum shear occurring in the rock significantly
greater than applied shear load. Additional considerations are needed to assess the limitations of current
analysis methods.
A simple example of the moment and shear distribution for a rock-socked shaft is given in Figure 16-9.
The example is for a 4-ft diameter drilled shaft docketed into rock. The analysis predicts the shear to be a
constant 20 kips along the cantilevered portion of the shaft (top 15 ft) and then upon embedment into the

FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

16-19

16 - Structural Design
May 2010

rock, the shear changes sign and reaches a maximum value of -76 kips. The moment increases linearly
and reaches a maximum of 300 k-ft at the rock surface, and then decreases with embedment. For
comparison, shear and moment diagrams are also given for a cantilevered column fixed at the ground
surface. One would expect the behavior of a cantilevered column to be similar to the behavior of a drilled
shaft docketed into very strong rock (stronger and stiffer than the concrete of the drilled shaft). The shear
and moment diagrams for the cantilevered portion of the drilled shaft and column agree exactly.
However, the drilled shaft and the column differ considerably for the estimate of maximum shear. The
maximum shear in the cantilevered column is 20 kips, while the maximum shear in the drilled shaft is
predicted to be 76 kips. If the analysis for the drilled shaft is repeated with a stronger rock, the maximum
shear becomes even greater.

Cantilever
Drilled Shaft

-80

-40

Depth (ft)

20 kips

Shear (kips)

Rock

10

20

Moment (ft-kips)
40 -100

Depth (ft)

Cantilever
Column

100

200

300

10

20
Drilled Shaft
Cantilever Column

30

Figure 16-9

30

Comparison of Moment and Shear for a Cantilevered Column and a Docketed Drilled
Shaft

This behavior may be due to the limitations of the analysis method currently employed in lateral load
analyses. The limitations are based on how the soil resistance and the drilled shaft are modeled. The soil
is modeled as a series of non-linear springs that resist horizontal loads. However, as the drilled shaft
rotates, the face of the shaft moves vertically (downward on the front face and upward on the back face).
The downward movement develops resistance in the rock which provides an additional component of
rotational resistance to the drilled shaft. The drilled shaft is modeled as a beam that acts in bending only
and ignores the shear stiffness of the drilled shaft. Including these two components will assist in providing
a more accurate estimate for shear and moment versus depth for drilled shafts embedded in rock sockets.
The distribution of shear in Figure 16-9 illustrates that the maximum shear occurs along a short portion of
the shaft. Until these issues are resolved, it is recommended to use the average shear along a length
equivalent to 1 shaft diameter for design purposes.

FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

16-20

16 - Structural Design
May 2010

16.8.2 Drilled Shafts with Permanent Casing

As discussed in detail in Chapter 6 Casing and Liners, the steel casing occasionally remains in-place
and becomes a permanent part of the drilled shaft foundation. This is always the case for drilled shafts in
water and is sometimes the case for drilled shafts on land, depending on the site conditions. The
structural design for the drilled shaft may, or may not include the effect of the permanent casing. This
section discusses the effect of the casing on the structural behavior and structural design of the drilled
shaft. Figures 16-10 and 16-11 show typical details for drilled shafts constructed with permanent casings.
Per AASHTO 5.13.4.5.2, a permanent steel casing may be considered as structurally effective in resisting
axial loads and bending moments (i.e. may be considered as part of the longitudinal reinforcement) if the
casing thickness is greater than 1/8-inch. However, the use of permanent casing to increase the structural
properties for the shaft should consider the effects of corrosion by using a thickness expected at the end of
its design life. In corrosive environments, a reduction in the casing thickness should be considered for
design purposes to allow for corrosion losses over time. The minimum reduction (per AASHTO) is 1/16inch, but consideration should be given to increasing this reduction for casings that are directly exposed to
salt water, especially in splash zones. Section 6.2.3 of this manual provides additional discussion on
corrosion losses for steel casings.
Permanent casings may also be considered effective in resisting shear forces and providing confinement,
subject to the limitations described above.
There are several advantages associated with the use of permanent casing for a drilled shaft. The casing
provides longitudinal reinforcement on the outside perimeter of the foundation, which is the most
efficient location for increasing flexural stiffness and resistance. The casing provides continuous lateral
confinement to the concrete which improves the strength and ductility of the concrete. The casing
prevents the concrete from spelling. The casing provides a barrier between the concrete and soil.
The behavior of concrete-filled steel tubes (CFT) provides the majority of the theoretical and
experimental research relevant to structural behavior of drilled shafts with permanent casing. Elremaily
and Azizinamini (2002) reviewed several experimental studies conducted on concrete filled tubes. While
most of the CFTs reviewed had diameters less than 6 inches, a few had diameters greater than 8 inches,
and they conducted several tests with a diameter equal to 12.75 inches.
They compared experimental results with predicted resistance for CFTs subjected to different
combinations of axial load and moment. They found excellent agreement for analyses when using a
moment-curvature approach (see Section 16.7.1) combined with a concrete model proposed by Mander et
al. (1988) that included the effect of lateral confinement on the stress-strain and strength of the concrete.
Lateral confinement was determined as the twice the hoop stress in the steel multiplied by the wall
thickness and divided by the tube diameter. Elremaily and Azizinamini recommend using a hoop stress
equal to one-tenth of the yield strength of the steel.
The steel for a concrete filled tube is different than for a conventional concrete column subjected to axial
load and bending. A conventional concrete column employs longitudinal steel to resist both axial loads
and transverse steel to provided lateral confinement. But the steel in the casing is simultaneously
subjected to hoop stress (from lateral confinement) and axial stress. Accordingly, the tensile stress
available for resisting axial stress is reduced to 0.95fy while the compressive stress available is increased
to 1.05fy.

FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

16-21

16 - Structural Design
May 2010

Figure 16-10

Sample Elevation with Casing

FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

16-22

16 - Structural Design
May 2010

Figure 16-11

Typical Sections with Casing

Accordingly, it appears reasonable to include the effect of permanent steel casing in a moment-curvature
analysis as described in Section 16.7.1. A more refined analysis would include the effects of lateral
constraint provided to the concrete by the steel casing; however, the tensile yield strength of the steel
casing would need to be reduced by 5 percent, while the compressive yield stress could be increased by 5
percent.
However, if one decides to count on the permanent casing as effective in resisting axial forces and
bending moments, it is probably more practical to design the cased portion of the drilled shaft as a
composite steel section, i.e. as a composite concrete-filled tube. AASHTO contains provisions for the
design of composite concrete-filled tubes, which are adopted from recommendations of the Structural
Stability Research Council (SSRC) Task Group 20 (1979).
The design of the cased portion of the shaft for axial compression alone should follow the provisions for
composite concrete-filled tubes under AASHTO Section 6.9.5. The design for bending moment should
follow AASHTO Section 6.12.2.3.2, and the design for combined interaction effects of axial compression
and bending moments should follow AASHTO Section 6.9.2.2.

FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

16-23

16 - Structural Design
May 2010

16.8.3 Structural Analysis of Plain-Concrete Underreams

The underreamed drilled shaft has become somewhat less popular in recent years due to research that has
shown the effectiveness of straight-sided shafts in carrying axial loads. Also, the construction of an
underream, or "bell," is difficult in some soils, and the settlement that is necessary for the underream to
mobilize a reasonable value of base resistance may sometimes be more than can be tolerated by the
superstructure. However, there are occasions, such as when a homogeneous stiff clay, hardpan or soft
cohesive rock exists at a shallow depth, that the underream can be easily constructed and is the least
expensive type of foundation. The shape of a typical underream is shown in Figure 16-12. The
construction of such an underream is described in Section 4.6. As noted in Section 4.6, other shapes are
possible depending on the type of tool that is employed. As can be seen by an examination of Figure
16-12, the portion of the bell that extends beyond the shaft will behave somewhat like a short, wedgeshaped cantilever beam. The soil reaction at the base of the cantilever will generate tensile stresses within
the underream, with the maximum stress concentrated at the notch angle shown in Figure 16-12. If the
underream has a flat bottom, the tensile stresses will have a pattern such as shown in Figure 16-13.
The possibility of the development and propagation of tensile cracks in unreinforced underreams has
concerned structural engineers in the past, and these concerns have resulted in generally low allowable
contact stresses, even in strong geomaterial.
To provide a rational basis for the establishment of base contact stresses from a structural perspective,
Farr (1974) conducted a study of the possible tensile failure of unreinforced underreams by performing
model tests in the laboratory and by making computations with the finite element method, developing
relationships for guidance in design. The factors that were considered by Farr were the strength of the
concrete, the toe height, the shape of the bottom of the underream, the distribution of bearing stress at the
base of the underream, and the underream angle (45 degrees or 60 degrees). Those studies suggest that as
long as the minimum thickness of the perimeter of the bell (toe height) is at least 3 inches, and as long as
fc' is at least 3.0 ksi, lower limits of nominal base resistance will be in the range of 8 ksf for 45-degree
bells and 16 ksf for 60-degree bells where minor amounts of water are present in the base of the
underream at the time of concrete placement.

Figure 16-12

Typical Underream (after Farr, 1974)

FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

16-24

16 - Structural Design
May 2010

Figure 16-13

Tensile Stress Contours for Flat-bottom Bell (after Farr, 1974)

Higher base resistances than those recommended by Farr (1974) appear to be possible if the underream is
embedded within a stiff clay or a soft rock. Based upon full-scale field tests on underreams, cut within
stiff clay and bearing upon stiff clay or clay-shale, with diameters equal to three times the shaft diameters,
the maximum average net base bearing stresses given in Table 16-2 were obtained by Sheikh and O'Neill
(1988). For the test shafts, the notch had a radius of curvature of about 1 inch, bell diameters were 7.5 ft,
the bearing surfaces were clean, and no water was present in the excavations at the time of concrete
placement. The values in Table 16-2, which are based on the bearing stress at the onset of cracking,
appear to be conservative and appropriate for design where conditions are similar to those of the study.
The values given in Table 16-2 can be considered nominal values for structural resistance; however, no
corresponding resistance factors or factors of safety have yet been developed for the structural design of
underreams. The designer must therefore prudently choose a value for the resistance factor in the LRFD
method.
TABLE 16-2

MAXIMUM NET BEARING STRESSES FOR UNREINFORCED CONCRETE

UNDERREAMS (Sheikh and ONeill, 1988)

Underream Angle
(degrees)

Toe Height
(in)

fc' (28 days)

(ksi)

45
45
60
60

3
3
3
3

4.0
4.6
4.0
4.6

Note: a - estimated value based on extrapolation of test data with finite element model

Net Bearing Stress at

Onset of Cracking
(ksf)
15
22
25
26a

Conditions for shaft if Table 16-2:

Concentric axial loading against clay soil or soft clay-based rock
Underream diameter/shaft diameter = 3
Maximum net bearing stress correlates to the onset of cracking in the notch area

FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

16-25

16 - Structural Design
May 2010

Where verification load testing is performed, it may be possible to increase the nominal bearing stress
used for belled drilled shafts. For example, a load test conducted by the Chicago Committee on HighRise Buildings (1986) indicated that 60-degree underreams with diameters in the range of 2.38 times the
shaft diameter were capable of sustaining average contact pressures exceeding 35 ksf in Chicago hardpan
before experiencing initial cracking.

16.9 SUMMARY

Structural design of drilled shafts is carried out in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Section 5 covers the design of reinforced concrete
structures. A drilled shaft is treated as a reinforced concrete beam-column, except for cases where
bending moment is small and the shaft is laterally supported, in which case the drilled shaft can be treated
as a short column. This chapter presents an overview of the LRFD design principles and a step-by-step
procedure for the structural design of drilled shafts. Appendix A presents a design example that includes
structural design of a drilled shaft using the step-by-step procedure presented herein.
The structural design of drilled shafts must also take into account drilled shaft constructability. This
includes: adequate clear spacing to allow the flow of concrete to the outside of the reinforcing cage;
convenient location of construction joints and splices; and adequate concrete cover that allows for
construction tolerances. These issues are addressed in this chapter and more extensively in Chapter 8
(Rebar Cages).

FHWA-NHI-10-016
Drilled Shaft Manual

16-26

16 - Structural Design
May 2010