1
Users Guide
Revision 0
December 2015
CONTENTS
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 11 Saturated Unit Weight and Unconfined Compressive Strength Correlations for
Cohesive Soils (Teng, 1962) ............................................................................................12
Figure 12 Saturated Unit Weight Correlations for Cohesive Soils............................................12
Figure 13 Unconfined Compressive Strength Correlations for Cohesive Soils ........................13
Figure 14 Modulus of Deformation for Cohesive Soils as a Function of Standard
Penetration Resistance, Unconfined Compressive Strength and Soil Consistency
(DiGioia, Donovan and Cortese, 1975) .............................................................................14
Figure 15 Angle of Internal Friction and Moist Unit Weight Correlations for Granular
Soils .................................................................................................................................15
Figure 16 Moist Unit Weight Correlations for Granular Soils ...................................................16
Figure 17 Angle of Internal Friction Correlations for Granular Soils .........................................16
Figure 18 Modulus of Deformation as a Function of Standard Penetration Resistance
and Granular Soil Types (after Schmertmann, 1970) ........................................................17
Figure 19 Effective Friction Angle () versus RMR76 ............................................................111
Figure 110 Effective Cohesion (c) versus RMR76 .................................................................111
Figure 111 Modulus of Deformation (E) versus RMR76 .........................................................112
Figure 21 Allowable Design Approach ....................................................................................21
Figure 22 ReliabilityBased Design Approach .........................................................................23
Figure 23 Foundation Strength Factor (5) versus Design Model Coefficient of Variation,
Vm.....................................................................................................................................24
Figure 31 Schematic of MFAD 5.1 Drilled Shaft Design Model ...............................................31
Figure 32 Schematic of MFAD 5.1 Direct Embedded Pole Design Model ...............................32
Figure 33 MFAD Predicted Nominal Ultimate Moment Capacity (Rn) Versus Interpreted
Test Moment Capacity (RT) for Drilled Shafts in Soil and/or Rock .....................................33
Figure 34 Predicted Nominal Ultimate Moment Capacity (Rn) Versus Interpreted Test
Moment Capacity (RT) for Direct Embedded Poles in Soil and/or Rock ............................34
Figure 41 Freebody Diagrams for Moment and Lateral Shear Loads .....................................42
Figure 42
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 11 Parameters and Point Contributions for Using the RMR76 System of Rock
Classification (Hoek and Brown, 1980) .............................................................................19
Table 12 Rock Mass Classes Based on RMR76 Values (Hoek and Brown, 1980) .................110
Table 13 Rock Mass Shear Strength Parameters Based on RMR76 ......................................110
Table 14 Average Side Shear from OCell Tests ..................................................................113
Table 15 Typical Average Ultimate Bond StressesRock/Grout from PTI (2004) ...................114
Table 41 Recommended Strength Factors (5) for HFAD 5.1 for the Cylindrical Shear
Design Model and Uplift Loads (AASHTO 2004) ..............................................................47
Table 42 Recommended Strength Factors (5) for HFAD 5.1 for the Cylindrical Shear
and End Bearing Design Models and Compression Loads (AASHTO 2004) ....................48
iv
DISCLAIMER
This manual does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. No responsibility is
assumed by the authors for any errors, mistakes, or misrepresentations that may be contained
within.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this manual is to document the calibration of FAD Tools 5.1 and to present the
methodogy used to assign geotechnical design parameters for the calibration process.
The user is assumed to recognize that the assumed geotechnical parameters used in design will
have a significant effect on foundation performance and reliability. Ultimately, the user is
responsible for selection of geotechnical design parameters, understanding the impact of the
selected parameters on the reliability of the foundation design, and all acceptance, interpretation,
and use of the FAD Tools program output.
Also, the user is responsible for understanding the basis and assumptions associated with the
model being used for foundation design. For example, the model presented in Chapter 3 for
MFAD 5.1 was calibrated based on the selection of average parameters from the correlations
presented herein. Through that calibration process, a strength reduction factor of 0.63 was built
into the program to calculate a 5% lower exclusion limit capacity. Therefore, if using FAD 5.1,
the user is encouraged to maintain usage of average parameters unless special circumstances
warrant a deviation(s) from this approach.
FAD Tools 5.1 Limitations
FAD Tools 5.1 has been calibrated to adequately model the behavior of drilled shafts constructed
of reinforced concrete and hollow steel direct embedded poles through a comparison analysis
with fullscale load tests. The main limitations to the use of FAD Tools 5.1 are due to the ranges
of variables tested in the full scale load tests.
The ratio of foundation depth (D) to drilled shaft diameter (B) should be equal to or less than 10.
This limitation ensures that the shaft will behave essentially as a rigid body, as observed when
performing the fullscale load tests. The bending flexibility of drilled shafts can be a factor in
foundations with D/B higher than 10. For direct embedded poles, the ratio of foundation depth
(D) to pole diameter (B) should be equal to or below 10. Also the ratio of foundation depth (D)
to diameter (B) should be equal to or greater than 2.
Introduction
The correlation in this chapter can be used to assist the user in the development of geotechnical
design parameters. Ideally geotechnical design parameters should be assigned based on the
results of insitu and laboratory testing of undisturbed samples for soil and rock for which stress
histories were appropriately accounted. However, when such data is limited, the user may
consider using the correlations presented in this chapter. It is stressed that, all correlations
contain uncertainties and must be considered within the context of stress history. EPRI Report
EL6800 Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design is a comprehensive
reference for estimating engineering soil parameters from field and laboratory test data. Users
are recommended to also consider available regionalspecific data when developing geotechnical
design parameters.
Cohesive Soils
Insitu Density and Undrained Shear Strength
The top portion of Figure 11 shows correlations that can be used to establish the insitu density
of saturated cohesive soils. The correlations shown are based on consistency and Standard
Penetration Resistance Test data (Nblows per ft). Figure 12 shows this relationship in the form
of a graph. Based on the consistency of the cohesive soil obtained from the split spoon and the
standard penetration resistance (N) a saturated unit weight of cohesive soils can be
approximated.
The lower portion of Figure 11 provides correlations that can be used to establish unconfined
compressive strength (qu) based on soil consistency and Standard Penetration Resistance Test
data (Nblows per ft). Figure 13 shows this relationship in the form of a graph. The relationship
between unconfined compressive strength (qu) and undrained shear strength (Su) is as follows:
Su = qu/2
11
Care should be exercised in using the correlations shown in Figure 11, Figure 12, and Figure
13 due to the impact of excess pore water pressures that occur during the performance of
Standard Penetration Resistance Tests.
11
Figure 11
Saturated Unit Weight and Unconfined Compressive Strength Correlations for
Cohesive Soils (Teng, 1962)
160
140
135
130
120
120
110
100
80
60
40
Lower Bound
20
Upper Bound
Mean
0
0
VERY 
SOFT
5
SOFT 
MEDIUM
STIFF
10

15
STIFF
20

25
VERY STIFF
Figure 12
Saturated Unit Weight Correlations for Cohesive Soils
12
30
35

HARD
4.5
4.00
4
3.5
3
2.5
2.00
2
1.5
1.00
1
0.50
0.5
0.25
0
0
VERY 
SOFT
5
SOFT 
MEDIUM
STIFF
10

15
STIFF
20

25
VERY STIFF
30
35

HARD
Figure 13
Unconfined Compressive Strength Correlations for Cohesive Soils
Deformation Modulus
Figure 14 shows correlations that can be used to estimate the modulus of deformation (ED) of
cohesive soils. The correlations shown are based on the following three parameters:
Soil consistency.
Figure 14 can be used to approximate ED values based on any of the above three parameters.
When data on more than one of these parameters is available, one approach would be to
approximate ED as the average value.
13
16
32
64
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
Cohesive
Soil
Decomposed
or Soft Rock
0.2
V. Hard Soil
or V. Soft Rock
Soil Consistency
Hard
V. Stiff
Stiff
M. Stiff
Soft
V. Soft
0.1
Figure 14
Modulus of Deformation for Cohesive Soils as a Function of Standard Penetration
Resistance, Unconfined Compressive Strength and Soil Consistency (DiGioia,
Donovan and Cortese, 1975)
14
Granular Soils
Insitu Density and Angle of Internal Friction
Figure 15 shows correlations that can be used to establish the insitu density and angle of
internal friction of granular soils. Based on relative density or Standard Penetration Resistance
Data (NBlows per ft), the angle of internal friction () and moist unit weight (pcf) can be
estimated. Figure 16 and Figure 17 show the correlation data in the form of a graph for the insitu density and angle of interal friction, respectively.
Figure 15
Angle of Internal Friction and Moist Unit Weight Correlations for Granular Soils
15
160
140
120
125
120
100
102.5
85
80
60
40
Lower Bound
20
Upper Bound
Mean
0
0
5
VERY 
LOOSE
10
LOOSE
15
20
25
MEDIUM
30
40
35
45
DENSE
50
 VERY DENSE
Figure 16
Moist Unit Weight Correlations for Granular Soils
50
45
40
41
37.5
35
32.5
30
29.5
25
20
15
10
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Mean
0
0
5
VERY 
LOOSE
10
LOOSE
15
20
MEDIUM
25
30
35
40
DENSE
Figure 17
Angle of Internal Friction Correlations for Granular Soils
16
45
50
 VERY DENSE
Deformation Modulus
Figure 18 provides correlations that can be used to estimate modulus of deformation (ED) as a
function of Standard Penetration Resistance (NBlows per ft) for the following four (4) granular
soil types:
Fine sand,
Moduli for a given granular soil type are obtained from Figure 18 by entering the figure with the
Standard Penetration Resistance, proceeding vertically to the granular soil type and then
horizontally to the deformation modulus value.
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
Silty Sand
Silty Sand and Gravel
Sand
Silt  Sandy Silt
0.2
0.1
1
8 10
20
40
60 80100
1000
Figure 18
Modulus of Deformation as a Function of Standard Penetration Resistance and
Granular Soil Types (after Schmertmann, 1970)
17
Rock
Rock Mass Rating System Shear Strength Parameters
In order to use MFAD 5.1 to predict the behavior of laterally loaded drilled shafts in soil and
rock, the user must enter the strength and deformation parameters of the rock mass. The ultimate
capacity model utilized by MFAD 5.1 (Hansen; 1961) requires MohrCoulomb strength
parameters, (the effective stress friction angle) and c (the effective stress cohesion) of the
rock mass. The loaddeflection behavior predicted by MFAD 5.1 is based on the deformation
modulus (E) for each rock layer in the rock mass. The Rock Mass Rating (RMR76) system
developed by Bieniawski (1973, 1976) was used to develop the shear strength and deformation
properties for the calibration studies. As shown in Table 11 the RMR76 system considers six
parameters in classifying a rock mass:
1. Uniaxial Compressive Strength of the Intact Rock,
2. Rock Quality Designation (RQD),
3. Spacing of Joints,
4. Condition of Joints,
5. Groundwater Conditions, and
6. Adustment for Rock Orientation.
At a given boring site, the rock mass is divided into appropriate layers based on factors such as
rock type (i.e., shale, sandstone, limestone, etc.) and quality. For each layer of rock, a point
contribution is assigned for each of the six parameters based on the descriptions provided in
Table 11. The RMR76 value of each rock layer is obtained by adding the point contributions for
all six parameters.
18
Table 11
Parameters and Point Contributions for Using the RMR76 System of Rock
Classification (Hoek and Brown, 1980)
Parameter
Strength
of Intact
Rock
Point Load
Strength
Index
>1.16
ksi
0.61.16
ksi
0.30.6
ksi
0.150.3
ksi
Uniaxial
Comp.
Strength
>29
ksi
14.529
ksi
7.314.5
ksi
1.67.3ksi
1.53.6 ksi
0.41.5
ksi
0.150.4
ksi
Points
15
12
RQD
90%100%
75%90%
50%75%
25%50%
<25%
Points
20
17
13
Spacing of
Joints
Spacing
>9.8 ft
3.3 ft9.8 ft
1 ft3.3ft
2 in 1 ft
<2 in
Points
30
25
20
10
Condition
of Joints
Description
of Joint
Conditions
Very rough
surfaces
Not
continuous
No
separation
Hard joint
wall rock
Slightly
rough
surfaces
Separation
<1mm
Hard joint
wall rock
Slight rough
surfaces
Separation
<1mm
Soft joint
wall rock
Slickensided
surfaces or
Gauge
<5mm thick
or Joints
open 15 mm
Continuous
joints
Soft gauge
>5mm thick
or Joint
open >5mm
Continuous
joints
Rating
25
20
12
RQD
Description
Completely
Dry
Moist only
(Interstitual
Water)
Water under
moderate
pressure
Severe water
problems
Rating
10
Strike and
Dip
Orientation
of Joint
Relative to
Loading
Very
Favorable
Favorable
Fair
Unfavorable
Very
Unfavorable
Points
2
7
15
25
Ground
Water
Conditions
Adjustment
for Joint
Orientations
for
Foundations
19
Once the RMR76 values are estimated for each rock layer, each layer can be assigned a rock mass
classification description as shown in Table 12, i.e., very poor rock, poor rock, fair rock, good
rock, and very good rock.
Table 12
Rock Mass Classes Based on RMR76 Values (Hoek and Brown, 1980)
RMR76
81100
6180
4160
2140
<20
Class No
II
III
IV
Description
Very good
rock
Good rock
Fair rock
Poor rock
Very poor
rock
In general, it is difficult to compute the RMR76 values for each rock layer, since data for each of
the parameters described in Table 11 may not be available at each boring site. However, based
on the results of borings drilled in conjunction with seven fullscale load tests conducted on
drilled shafts, RMR76 values varied from 20 to 45 for the sixteen rock layers at the seven test
sites. Thus, as presented in Table 12, all of the rock layers fell within the very poor rock (Class
V) to fair rock (Class III) range. This is not unexpected since the test drilled shafts constructed
at the seven test sites were embedded in the surficial rock which is the weathered zone. Thus,
the user may choose to assume for design purposes, that the rock layers at each foundation site
will vary from very poor to fair rock.
Rock Mass Shear Strength
Table 13 presents rock effective shear strength parameters ( and c) for each rock
classification number.
Table 13
Rock Mass Shear Strength Parameters Based on RMR76
Class No
II
III
IV
RMR76
81100
6180
4160
2140
<20
Effective
Cohesion of the
Rock Mass  c
>6.3ksf
4.26.3
ksf
3.14.2 ksf
2.13.1 ksf
<2.1 ksf
Effective Friction
Angle of the Rock
Mass
>45
degrees
4045 deg
3540 deg
3035 deg
<30 deg
Figure 19 and Figure 110 present the shear strength data shown in Table 13 in the form of
graphs of RMR76 versus effective friction angle () and effective cohesion (c), respectively.
110
Figure 19
Effective Friction Angle () versus RMR76
Figure 110
Effective Cohesion (c) versus RMR76
111
Deformation Modulus
Figure 111 presents the relationship between the rock mass modulus of deformation (E) and
RMR76. As shown in Figure 111, equations have been fitted to the data as follows:
E(ksi) = 0.564 RMR761.958
E(ksi) = 290 RMR76 14,500
Since RMR76 values for nearsurface rock mass layers are normally less than 60. The user
should have quality rock testing data to justify using Equation 13.
Figure 111
Modulus of Deformation (E) versus RMR76
112
12
13
Avg.
COV(1)
(psi / ksf)
Sandstone
14
296 / 43
0.60
Limestone
17
136 / 20
0.65
Siltstone
91 / 13
Shale
35
101 / 15
0.63
12
153 / 22
0.43
Other Metamorphic
Rock
169 / 24
0.50
Note 1 Coefficient of Variation (COV) values are shown for databases having five (5)
or more data points.
The high coefficients of variation (COV) show that there is a high variability in the measured
values. This high variability can be attributed to a number of factors such as variable weathering
113
within the test zones, seams of dissimilar rock within the test zones, and the geometry of the
shaft and the thickness and location of the rock layer with respect to the Ocell.
Only a few of the Ocell tests were able to reach maximum capacity in side shear. For these
tests, the reported values are the maximum achieved but not ultimate capacity.
Other references:
Kulhawy, Prokoso, Akbas (2005) concluded, based on evaluation of load tests in rock,
the side resistance of a drilled shaft in rock can be estimated as,
f/pa = C (qu/pa)n
14
Table 15
Typical Average Ultimate Bond StressesRock/Grout from PTI (2004)
Rock
250 450
Dolomite Limestone
200 300
Soft Limestone
150 200
120 200
Soft Shales
30 120
Sandstones
120 250
Weathered Sandstones
100 120
Chalk
30 155
Weathered Marl
25 35
Concrete
114
200 400
2
RELIABILITYBASED DESIGN (RBD)
Introduction
In the past, the allowable stress design approach was the most commonly used method to design
foundations for transmission line structures. The allowable stress design approach is shown
schematically in Figure 21. This design method is based on the assumption that component
loads and component capacities can be determined as unique quantities, i.e. component loads and
component capacities have no variability and can be represented by straight vertical lines (100%
probability of being a straight line).
QD
RD
Figure 21
Allowable Design Approach
Knowing that variability in loads and capacities exist, the foundation designer introduces safety
in their design by separating the component design load (QD) from component design capacity,
RD through the use of a safety factor. The selection of an adequate safety factor requires a great
deal of professional judgment and experience and can vary significantly from one foundation
designer to another; thus the level of reliability of foundations designed by the allowable stress
design approach can be quite variable.
Over the past 2030 years reliabilitybased design (RBD) methods have been developed and
implemented for the design of foundations for buildings, bridges, and other structures. A
21
significant effort has been made by professional societies and standarddeveloping organizations
to publish design manuals and standards concerning RBD of transmission line structures and
foundations. The following is a partial list of published RBDoriented design manuals and
standards:
1. ASCE Manual and Reports of Engineering Practice No. 74 Guidelines for Transmission
Line Structural Loading, 1991
2. ASCE Manual and Reports of Engineering Practice No. 111 Reliability Based Designs of
Utility Pole Structures, 2005
3. EPRITR1005000 Reliability Based Designs of Foundations for Transmission Line
Structures, 1995
4. EPRI EL4793 Reliability Based Design of Transmission Line Structures, 1987
Figure 22 is a schematic representation of the variability of component load (Q) and of
component strength, R. In Figure 22, the variability of component load is schematically shown
by the probability distribution function (fQ) and the component strength is schematically shown
by the probability distribution function, fR. The goal in RBD is to separate the two functions (fQ
and fR) so that the probability of failure, and thus the level of reliability, of components are
acceptable.
22
is a load factor that is used to modify the reliability level of a line (normally set
at 1.0), and
Figure 22
ReliabilityBased Design Approach
Depending upon the assumed shape of fR, there is a relationship between R5 and Rn, where Rn is
the nominal component capacity. The shape of fR is often assumed to be either normal or log
normal. For a log normal distribution of fR, the following equation provides the relationship
between R5 and Rn:
R5 = mm [10.01 (1.640.00925Vm)Vm]Rn
21
22
23
In Equation 23:
mm is the slope of the least square fit line of a plot of test capacities (RT) versus
nominal foundation capacities (Rn) for the design model being calibrated,
assuming a constant coefficient of variation least square fit.
Rn is the predicted nominal capacity for a specific fullscale foundation load test
using the foundation design method being calibrated.
Figure 23 shows the relationship between the coefficient of variation (Vm) for the design model
being calibrated and the strength factor (5) for various values of mm.
Figure 23
Foundation Strength Factor (5) versus Design Model Coefficient of Variation, Vm
Figure 23 can be used in the following manner. If the coefficient of variation (Vm) of a design
model is 30% and the slope (mm) of the least square fit line for the design model is 1.00, a
strength factor (5) of 0.59 is obtained from Figure 23. Rounding 5 to 0.6, the design capacity
(R5) of foundations designed by the calibrated model this method is given by:
R5 5 Rn= 0.6 Rn
(24)
24
Chapter 3 presents the results of calibrating the MFAD 5.1 drilled shaft and direct embedded
pole design models against the results of fullscale foundation load tests for the determination of
a strength factor, 5.
Chapter 4 presents the results of calibrating the various design models within HFAD 5.1 against
the results of fullscale foundation load tests for the determination of strength factors. Chapter 4
also summarizes recommended strength factors for design models where no fullscale foundation
load tests are available.
Chapter 5 presents the results of calibrating the various design models within TFAD 5.1 against
the results of fullscale foundation load tests for the determination of strength factors. Chapter 5
also summarizes recommended strength factors for design models where no fullscale foundation
load tests are available.
25
3
CALIBRATION OF THE MFAD 5.1 DESIGN MODEL
Introduction
The MFAD 5.1 model is intended for use in designing drilled shaft and direct embedded
foundations subjected to high overturning loads (moment and lateral shear) and relatively low
axial compression loads, such as foundations for single poles. The following two sections
provide a description of the MFAD 5.1 design model.
Figure 31
Schematic of MFAD 5.1 Drilled Shaft Design Model
31
Figure 32
Schematic of MFAD 5.1 Direct Embedded Pole Design Model
9. Ploted the data developed in Steps 2 and 4 on a graph of interpreted test moment capacity
(RT) versus predicted ultimate nominal moment capacity (Rn).
10. Performed a constant coefficient of variation least square fit to the data plotted in Step 5 to
establish the slope (mm) of the least square fit line and the coefficient of variation (Vm) of the
design model about the least square fit line.
11. Determined the slope of the 5% lower exclusion limit (LEL) line which is the 5% lower limit
strength factor, 5.
Soil Only
Soil & Rock
6000
5000
n = 26
COV = 23.16%
Constant COF
Least Square Fit
RT = mmRn
RT = 0.99Rn
4000
3000
2000
R5 = 5Rn
f5 = 0.63
(Lognormal)
1000
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Predicted Nominal Moment Capacity, Rn (kipft)
7000
Figure 33
MFAD Predicted Nominal Ultimate Moment Capacity (Rn) Versus Interpreted Test
Moment Capacity (RT) for Drilled Shafts in Soil and/or Rock
33
Figure 34 presents the results of calibrating MFAD 5.1 against the results of fullscale laterally
loaded direct embedded poles in soil and/or rock. Figure 34 shows that MFAD 5.1 has a
strength factor (5) of 0.63 for the design of direct embedded poles in soil and/or rock. This
strength factor is based on an mm value of 1.25 and a design model coefficient of variation (Vm)
of 38.4%.
Based on the above data, it is recommended that MFAD 5.1 be used with a strength factor of
0.63 for both drilled shafts and direct embedded poles in soil and/or rock to achieve the 5% LEL.
The 0.63 strength factor has been incorporated in the MFAD 5.1 code.
4000
DE Soil Only
3500
n = 18
COV = 38.4%
Constant COF
Least Square Fit
RT = mmRn
RT = 1.25Rn
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
R5 = 5Rn
f55 ==0.63
0.63
(Lognormal)
500
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Predicted Nominal Moment Capacity, Rn (kipft)
4000
Figure 34
Predicted Nominal Ultimate Moment Capacity (Rn) Versus Interpreted Test Moment
Capacity (RT) for Direct Embedded Poles in Soil and/or Rock
34
4
CALIBRATION OF THE HFAD 5.1 DESIGN MODEL
Introduction
The HFAD 5.1 model is intended for use in designing drilled shaft and direct embedded
foundations for HFrame structures subjected to combinations of large overturning loads
(moment and lateral shear) and large uplift and compression loads. The following design models
are implemented to resist each mode of loading:
Moment and Lateral Shear Loads for Drilled Shafts and Direct Embedded HFrame Legs
MFAD 5.1 Design Model utilizing Lateral Soil Resistance only,
Uplift Loads for Drilled Shaft and Direct Embedded HFrame legs Cylindrical Shear
Design Model,
Compression Loads for Drilled Shafts Cylindrical Shear Design Model for Side Shear
Resistance and the Vesic (1963) design model for end bearing capacity, and
Compression Loads for Direct Embedded HFrame Legs Cylindrical Shear Design
Model.
The following sections provide a description of the above listed design models.
41
Figure 41
Freebody Diagrams for Moment and Lateral Shear Loads
Uplift Loads
The HFAD 5.1 freebody diagrams for uplift loads are shown in Figure 42. The HFAD 5.1
model for drilled shafts uses the cylindrical shear design model and determines the uplift
capacity at the drilled shaft concrete/soil and/or rock interface on a layerbylayer basis (Figure
Figure 42a). For direct embedded HFrame poles, HFAD 5.1 uses the cylindrical shear model
for uplift loads and checks the uplift capacity at both the pole/backfill interface and at the
backfill/soil and/or rock interface and selects the minimum uplift capacity (Figure 42b).
42
Figure 42
Freebody Diagrams for Uplift Loads
Compression Loads
The HFAD 5.1 freebody diagrams for compression loads are shown in Figure 43. As shown in
Figure 43a, the HFAD 5.1 model calculates the capacity of a drilled shaft under a compression
load (P) through a combination of side shear resistance and endbearing. The cylindrical shear
model is used to compute side shear resistance and the endbearing resistance is based on the
model developed by Vesic (1973).
As shown in Figure 43b, for direct embedded HFrame poles, it is assumed that compression
loads are resisted by side shear only. The HFAD 5.1 model neglects any end bearing resistance
for direct embedded poles. The HFAD 5.1 program computes the compression capacity at both
the pole/backfill interface and at the backfill/soil and/or rock interface and selects the minimum
side shear compression capacity.
43
Figure 43
Freebody Diagrams for Compression Loads
44
100.0
90.0
n = 11
COV = 38.6%
Constant COF
Least Square Fit
RT = mmRn
RT = 1.12Rn
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
R5 = 5Rn
5 = 0.56
(Lognormal)
10.0
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Predicted Axial Uplift Capacity, Rn (tons)
80
90
Figure 44
Cylindrical Side Shear Design Model Predicted Nominal Ultimate Uplift Capacity
(Rn) Versus InterpretedTest Uplift Capacity (RT) for Drilled Shafts Embedded in
Granular Soils (D/B < 10)
45
250.0
n = 71
COV = 24.6%
Constant COF
Least Square Fit
RT = mmRn
RT = 1.05Rn
200.0
150.0
100.0
R5 = 5Rn
5 = 0.65
(Lognormal)
50.0
0.0
0
50
100
150
Predicted Axial Uplift Capacity, Rn (tons)
200
250
Figure 45
Cylindrical Side Shear Design Model Predicted Nominal Ultimate Uplift Capacity
(Rn) Versus Interpreted Test Uplift Capacity (RT) for Drilled Shafts Embedded in
Cohesive Soils (D/B < 10)
Table 41
Recommended Strength Factors (5) for HFAD 5.1 for the Cylindrical Shear
Design Model and Uplift Loads (AASHTO 2004)
Mode of
Loading
Foundation
Type
Design
Model
Soil/Rock
Type
Recommended
5
Remarks
Uplift
Drilled Shaft
/ Direct
Embedded
Pole
Cylindrical
Side Shear
Granular
0.56
Calibrated
Uplift
Drilled Shaft
/ Direct
Embedded
Pole
Cylindrical
Side Shear
Cohesive
0.65
Calibrated
Uplift
Drilled Shaft
/ Direct
Embedded
Pole
Cylindrical
Side Shear
Rock
0.50
Prof.
Judgement
Uplift
Drilled Shaft
Foundation
Weight
0.9
Prof.
Judgement
47
Table 42
Recommended Strength Factors (5) for HFAD 5.1 for the Cylindrical Shear and
End Bearing Design Models and Compression Loads (AASHTO 2004)
Mode of
Loading
Compression
Foundation
Type
Design
Model
Soil/Rock
Type
Recommend
ed 5
Remarks
Drilled Shaft
/ Direct
Embedded
Pole
Cylindrical
Side Shear
Granular
0.56
Calibrated
Compression
Drilled Shaft
Vesic End
Bearing
Granular,
N and Nq
Terms
0.45
AASHTO
Compression
Drilled Shaft
/ Direct
Embedded
Pole
Cylindrical
Side Shear
Cohesive
0.65
Calibrated
Compression
Drilled Shaft
Vesic End
Bearing
Cohesive
Nc Term
0.55
AASHTO
Compression
Drilled Shaft
/ Direct
Embedded
Pole
Cylindrical
Side Shear
Rock
0.50
Prof.
Judgement
Compression
Drilled Shaft
Vesic End
Bearing
Rock, Nc
Term
0.55
AASHTO
Compression
Drilled Shaft
Vesic End
Bearing
Rock, N
and Nq
Terms
0.45
AASHTO
Compression
Drilled Shaft
Foundation
Weight
1.1*
Prof.
Judgement
48
5
CALIBRATION OF THE TFAD 5.1 DESIGN MODEL
Introduction
The TFAD 5.1 model is intended for use in designing drilled shaft foundations for tower legs
subjected to combinations of lateral shear under uplift and compression loads. The following
design models are implemented to resist each mode of loading:
Lateral Shear Loads for Drilled Shafts MFAD Design Model utilizing Lateral soil
Resistance only,
Uplift Loads for Drilled Shaft Cylindrical Shear Design Model, and
Compression Loads for Drilled Shafts Cylindrical Shear Design Model for Side Shear
Resistance and the Vesic (1963) design model for end bearing capacity.
The following sections provide a description of the above listed design models.
Figure 51
Freebody Diagrams for Moment and Lateral Shear Loads
Uplift Loads
The TFAD 5.1 freebody diagram for uplift load is shown in Figure 52. The TFAD 5.1 model
for drilled shafts uses the cylindrical shear design model and determines the uplift capacity at the
51
drilled shaft concrete/soil and/or rock interface on a layerbylayer basis and selects the
minimum total uplift capacity.
Figure 52
Freebody Diagrams for Uplift Loads
Compression Loads
The TFAD 5.1 freebody diagram for compression load is shown in Figure 53. The TFAD 5.1
model calculates the capacity of a drilled shaft under a compression load (P) through a
combination of side shear resistance and endbearing. The cylindrical shear model is used to
compute side shear resistance and the endbearing resistance is based on the model developed by
Vesic (1973).
52
Figure 53
Freebody Diagrams for Compression Loads
53
6
DRILLED SHAFT CONCRETE DESIGN
Introduction
The purpose of the concrete design module of FAD Tools 5.1 is to determine the steel
reinforcement for concrete drilled shafts to resist combined axial, moment and shear loads
calculated using the FAD Tools 5.1 geotechnical analysis modules (MFAD, HFAD and TFAD).
In MFAD, the concrete design is performed for the load case that controls geotechnical design.
In HFAD and TFAD, the concrete design accounts for all four (4) input modes of loading.
The concrete design methodology within FAD Tools 5.1 adheres to the strength requirements of
Chapter 9 of the ACI31811 Code, hereafter refered to as the ACI Code. The number of
longitudinal bars is determined to resist the maximum bending moment in the shaft along with
the corresponding axial force. The program verifies that the number of bars and the bars
spacing are within the requirements of the ACI Code and verifies that the required amount of
steel does not exceed the maximum allowed by ACI.
FAD Tools 5.1 also determines the required spacing of shear reinforcement hoops along the
entire depth of the shaft to resist the applied shear loads and soil pressures. When shear
reinforcement is not required by analysis, rebar spacing is calculated using minimum shear
reinforcement requirements of ACI.
Methodology
This chapter stipulates a Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) approach where
combinations of factored loads are less than, or equal to, the design capacity which is calculated
as the nominal strength multiplied by strength factors.
FAD Tools 5.1 assumes that the input loads already include appropriate load factors. The
strength factors prescribed in Section 9.3 of the ACI Code have been incorporated in the concrete
design procedure. It is noted that the strength factors listed in ACI Chapter 9 are encoded in
FAD Tools 5.1, rather than the traditional strength factors provided in Appendix C of ACI. The
strength factors in ACI Chapter 9 are consistent with loads determined in agreement with ASCE
Standards, in particular with ASCE Standard 705.
61
2. The strain is directly proportional to the distance from the neutral axis (ACI Section 10.2.2).
3. The maximum usable strain at the extreme concrete compression fiber is equal to 0.003 (ACI
Section 10.2.3).
4. In compliance with ACI Section 10.2.4, the tensile or compressive stress (fs) in each steel
reinforcement bar is calculated as:
fs = Es s
61
Where Es is the modulus of elasticity of the steel, taken to be 29,000,000 psi, in agreement
with ACI Section 8.5.2 and s is the strain in each steel reinforcement bar.
When the absolute value of fs is greater than the specified yield strength, fy, the magnitude of
the steel stress is set equal to fy, with the sign of the corresponding strain.
5. The concrete compressive stress versus strain relationship is represented by an equivalent
distribution, as prescribed in ACI Sections 10.2.6 and 10.2.7. Following ACI Sections
10.2.7.1 and 10.2.7.2, the uniform stress in the compression zone is equal to:
fc = 0.85 fc
62
where:
fc = concrete stress in the same units as fc
fc = the concrete unconfined compressive strength
The compression zone extends over a zone bounded by the compression edge of the cross
section and a straight line located parallel to the neutral axis at a distance a from the concrete
fiber under maximum compression strain (0.003). In agreement with ACI Section 10.2.7.3,
the distance a is calculated as follows:
a = 1 c
63
1 = 1.05 0.05 fc
64
0.65 1 0.85
where:
c = distance from the point of maximum compressive strain to the neutral axis, in.
fc = the concrete unconfined compressive strength, ksi.
6. The tensile strength of concrete is neglected (ACI Section 10.2.5).
The program calculates the longitudinal steel reinforcement ratio required to resist the maximum
applied moment and associated axial force. The steel reinforcement ratio is calculated assuming
that the longitudinal steel is distributed as 36 equal lumped areas of steel separated by 10 degrees
thereby distributing them evenly throughout the drilled shaft.
The longitudinal steel design is conducted at the drilled shaft section where the maximum
bending moment occurs. The acting compressive axial force is calculated as the sum of the
applied axial load, with uplift loads being negative, plus the weight of concrete above the depth
of the design section. The unit weight of concrete is taken equal to 150 pounds per cubic foot.
62
In agreement with Section 9.3.2.2 of ACI, the concrete strength reduction factor () is calculated
as follows for combined axial and bending resistance:
= 0.65, for t 0.002
= 0.90, for t 0.005
Otherwise:
= 0.65 + 250 (t 0.002)/ 3
65
where:
t = net tensile strain in the extreme tension steel.
63
Shear Loading
FAD Tools 5.1 performs the shear design for the entire depth of the drilled shaft, at 1.0 ft
intervals. The user can select between two methods for calculating the nominal concrete shear
capacity (Vc): The FAD Method and the ACI Method.
FAD Method:
Vc = 3.5 (fc ) B d
66
ACI Method:
Vc = 2.0 (fc ) B d
67
where
Vc = shear carried by concrete, lbs.
fc = concrete compressive strength, psi.
B = diameter of the drilled shaft, in.
d = distance from extreme compressive fiber to the centroid of longitudinal tension
reinforcement in inches; taken equal to 0.8 B per ACI Section 11.2.3.
The FAD Method was developed for the shear tie design of drilled piers for transmission
structures to be used in the early versions of the FAD program. The concrete shear strength was
based on quarter scale drilled shaft tests presented in EPRI EL 2197 (1982) with zero to
minimal shear reinforcement and subjected to load distributions similar to that imposed by lateral
soil pressures on a pier. The EPRI funded study was undertaken with recognition that typical
utility practice at the time, which had not led to numerous shear failures, was to provide adequate
shear reinforcement to tie the cage together or to resist the applied shear at the top of the pier
regardless of the magnitude of the below ground shear.
FAD Tools 5.1 conservatively ignores any increase in concrete shear strength due to compressive
stresses but does decrease the concrete shear strength for drilled shafts in uplift. For shafts in
uplift, Vc is decremented by the equation below which is consistent with ACI 318 Section
11.2.2.3.
Vc,uplift = Vc (1  Nu/(500Ag) )
68
where
Nu = axial uplift force, lbs.
Ag = Gross concrete area, in2.
In agreement with Section 9.3.2.3 of ACI, the strength factor for shear is = 0.75. It is noted
that this value is lower than the ACI strength factor of 0.85 that was incorporated in MFAD
version 4.0 and earlier.
The minimum spacing limits for shear reinforcement, defined in Sections 11.4.5, 7.10.5.1, and
7.10.5.2 of ACI, are included in FAD Tools 5.1. In addition, when minimum shear
reinforcement is required as per Section 11.4.6.1, FAD Tools 5.1 verifies that the tie spacings
satisfy the minimum area requirements of Section 11.4.6.3.
The concrete output report tabulates the calculated shear strength of the concrete (Vc) the
required shear strength to be provided by the hoop steel (Vs) and the maximum tie bar spacing
64
based on considerations of strength and minimum spacing requirements. When the required steel
strength, Vs, is zero, then the tie bar spacing is controlled by the minimum spacing limits listed
in the previous paragraph.
Bar size to be used for longitudinal reinforcement for bending and axial loads.
65
7 REFERENCES
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Third Edition 2004
ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 111, ReliabilityBased Design of
Utility Pole Structures, Prepared by the ReliabilityBased Design Committee of the Structural
Engineering Institute (SEI) of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 2006.
ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 74, Guidelines for Electrical
Transmission Line Structural Loading, Prepared by the Task Committee on Structural
Loadings of the Committee on Electrical Transmission Structures of the Committee on
Analysis and Design of Structures of the Structural Division of the American Society of Civil
Engineers, 1991.
ASCE 1991 Manual 74; Guidelines for Transmission Line Structural Loading
ASCE 2005 Manual 111; Reliability Based Design of Utility Pole Structures
ASCE/SEI 705 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures
ASTM D 158699, Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and SplitBarrel Sampling of
Soils, Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2006, Section Four, Construction, Volume 04.08, Soil
and Rock (l): D420D5611, pp. 137142.
ASTM D 211306 Practice for Rock Core Drilling and Sampling of Rock for Site
Investigation
ASTM D 216606 Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soils
ACI 31811 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
ASTM D 344105, Standard Test Method for Mechanical Cone Penetration Tests of Soil.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2006, Section Four, Construction, Volume 04.08, Soil and
Rock (l): D420D5611, pp. 378383.
ASTM D 577807 Test Method for Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration
Testing of Soils
ASTM D 587808, Standard Guides for Using RockMass Classification Systems for
Engineering Purposes, Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2009, Section Four, Construction,
Volume 04.09, Soil and Rock (II): D5877  latest, pp. 2025.
ASTM D 603209 Determining Rock Quality Designation (RQD) of Rock Core
Bieniawski, Z. 1976 Rock Mass Classification in Rock Engineering, Exploration for Rock
Engineering, Proceedings of the Symposium, Bieniawski and Balkema, Vol. 1, pp 97 106.
71
Broms, B., Design of Laterally Loaded Piles, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, ASCE, Vol. 91, No. SM3, May 1965, pp. 7999.
Broms, B., Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesionless Soils, Journal of Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 90, No. SM3, March 1964, pp. 123  156.
Broms, B., Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soils, Journal of Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 90, No. SM2, March 1964, pp.2763.
CAISSON Users Guide, Anaylsis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Pier Foundations,
Powerline Systems, Inc., Madison, WI
DiGioia, Donovan and Cortese A MultiLayered/Pressuremeter Approach to Laterally
Loaded Rigid Caisson Design, ASCE Conference on Lateral Pressures Related to Large
Diameter Pipes, Piles, Tunnels and Caissons; Dayton, Ohio Feb. 1975
DiGioia, A.M., Jr., Pohlman, J.C., Ralston, P., A New Method for Determining the Structural
Reliability of Transmission Lines, Cigre, International Conference on Large High Voltage
Electric Systems, September 1982.
DiGioia, A.M., Jr., RojasGonzalez, L.M., Application of Reliability Based Design Concepts
to Transmission Line Structure Foundations, IEEE, Power Engineering Society, Paper 90 SM
3079 PWRD, New York 1990.
DiGioia, A.M., Jr., RojasGonzalez, L.M., Application of Reliability Based Design Concepts
to Transmission Line Structure Foundations, Part II, IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter
Meeting, Paper 91 WM 0910 PWRD, New York.
DiGioia, A.M., Jr., RojasGonzalez, L.M., Rock Socket Transmission Line Foundation
Performance, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 9, No. 3, July, 1994.
EPRI EL2197, Laterally Loaded Drilled Pier Research, Volume 1: Design Methodology,
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Project 12801, Final Report, January 1982.
EPRI EL2197, Laterally Loaded Drilled Pier Research, Volume 2: Research Documentation,
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Project 12801, Final Report, January 1982.
EPRI4793, Colorado University, ReliabilityBased Design of Foundations for Transmission
Line Structures, July 1995
EPRI EL6309, Direct Embedment Foundation Research, Empire State Electric Energy
Research Corporation and Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Project 12803,
Final Report, April 1989.
EPRI TR105000, Phoon, K.K., Kulhawy, F.H. and Grigori, M.D., Reliabilitybased design of
foundations for transmission line structures. Palo Alto, CA, 1995
72
73
Schmertman, J.H., Static Cone to Compute Static Settlement over Sands; ASCE Soil
Mechanics Journal, Vol. 103; No. GT3, March 1977.
Teng, W.C., Foundation Design, PrenticeHall Inc., 1962.
Vesic, A.S., Analysis of Ultimate Loads of Shallow Foundation, Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, Vol. 99, No. SM1, 4573, 1973.
74