You are on page 1of 54

FAD 5.

1
Users Guide
Revision 0
December 2015

CONTENTS

1 DEVELOPMENT OF GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS .......................................1-1


Introduction .........................................................................................................................1-1
Cohesive Soils.....................................................................................................................1-1
In-situ Density and Undrained Shear Strength ................................................................1-1
Deformation Modulus ......................................................................................................1-3
Granular Soils .....................................................................................................................1-5
In-situ Density and Angle of Internal Friction ...................................................................1-5
Deformation Modulus ......................................................................................................1-7
Rock ....................................................................................................................................1-8
Rock Mass Rating System Shear Strength Parameters ...............................................1-8
Rock Mass Shear Strength ...........................................................................................1-10
Deformation Modulus ....................................................................................................1-12
Rock/Concrete Bond Strength ...........................................................................................1-13
Correlations for Rock/Concrete Bond Strength .............................................................1-13
2 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN (RBD) .................................................................................2-1
Introduction .........................................................................................................................2-1
Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Format ..................................................................2-2
3 CALIBRATION OF THE MFAD 5.1 DESIGN MODEL ..........................................................3-1
Introduction .........................................................................................................................3-1
Moment, Lateral Shear and Compression Loads for Drilled Shafts ......................................3-1
Moment, Lateral Shear, and Compression Loads for Direct Embedded Poles .....................3-2
Calibration of the MFAD 5.1 Design Model ..........................................................................3-2
MFAD 5.1 Calibration Results .............................................................................................3-3
4 CALIBRATION OF THE HFAD 5.1 DESIGN MODEL ..........................................................4-1
Introduction .........................................................................................................................4-1
Moment and Lateral Shear Loads .......................................................................................4-1
i

Uplift Loads .........................................................................................................................4-2


Compression Loads ............................................................................................................4-3
Calibration HFAD 5.1 Side Shear Design Model..................................................................4-4
HFAD 5.1 Design Model Calibration Results .......................................................................4-5
Drilled Shafts and Direct Embedded Poles in Soil and/or Rock and Subject to
Moment and Lateral Shear Loads ...................................................................................4-5
Drilled Shafts in Granular Soils and Subjected to Uplift Loads ........................................4-5
Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils and Subjected to Uplift Loads .......................................4-6
Strength Factors for Remaining HFAD 5.1 Design Models .............................................4-6
5 CALIBRATION OF THE TFAD 5.1 DESIGN MODEL ...........................................................5-1
Introduction .........................................................................................................................5-1
Moment and Lateral Shear Loads .......................................................................................5-1
Uplift Loads .........................................................................................................................5-1
Compression Loads ............................................................................................................5-2
Calibration of Various TFAD 5.1 Design Models ..................................................................5-3
6 DRILLED SHAFT CONCRETE DESIGN ..............................................................................6-1
Introduction .........................................................................................................................6-1
Methodology ........................................................................................................................6-1
Combined Bending and Axial Loading .................................................................................6-1
Minimum Longitudinal Steel.................................................................................................6-3
Shear Loading .....................................................................................................................6-4
Concrete Design Input .........................................................................................................6-5
7 REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................7-1

ii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Saturated Unit Weight and Unconfined Compressive Strength Correlations for
Cohesive Soils (Teng, 1962) ............................................................................................1-2
Figure 1-2 Saturated Unit Weight Correlations for Cohesive Soils............................................1-2
Figure 1-3 Unconfined Compressive Strength Correlations for Cohesive Soils ........................1-3
Figure 1-4 Modulus of Deformation for Cohesive Soils as a Function of Standard
Penetration Resistance, Unconfined Compressive Strength and Soil Consistency
(DiGioia, Donovan and Cortese, 1975) .............................................................................1-4
Figure 1-5 Angle of Internal Friction and Moist Unit Weight Correlations for Granular
Soils .................................................................................................................................1-5
Figure 1-6 Moist Unit Weight Correlations for Granular Soils ...................................................1-6
Figure 1-7 Angle of Internal Friction Correlations for Granular Soils .........................................1-6
Figure 1-8 Modulus of Deformation as a Function of Standard Penetration Resistance
and Granular Soil Types (after Schmertmann, 1970) ........................................................1-7
Figure 1-9 Effective Friction Angle () versus RMR76 ............................................................1-11
Figure 1-10 Effective Cohesion (c) versus RMR76 .................................................................1-11
Figure 1-11 Modulus of Deformation (E) versus RMR76 .........................................................1-12
Figure 2-1 Allowable Design Approach ....................................................................................2-1
Figure 2-2 Reliability-Based Design Approach .........................................................................2-3
Figure 2-3 Foundation Strength Factor (5) versus Design Model Coefficient of Variation,
Vm.....................................................................................................................................2-4
Figure 3-1 Schematic of MFAD 5.1 Drilled Shaft Design Model ...............................................3-1
Figure 3-2 Schematic of MFAD 5.1 Direct Embedded Pole Design Model ...............................3-2
Figure 3-3 MFAD Predicted Nominal Ultimate Moment Capacity (Rn) Versus Interpreted
Test Moment Capacity (RT) for Drilled Shafts in Soil and/or Rock .....................................3-3
Figure 3-4 Predicted Nominal Ultimate Moment Capacity (Rn) Versus Interpreted Test
Moment Capacity (RT) for Direct Embedded Poles in Soil and/or Rock ............................3-4
Figure 4-1 Free-body Diagrams for Moment and Lateral Shear Loads .....................................4-2
Figure 4-2

Free-body Diagrams for Uplift Loads ................................................................4-3

Figure 4-3 Free-body Diagrams for Compression Loads ..........................................................4-4


Figure 4-4 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)............................................................................4-5
Figure 4-5 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)...........................................................................4-6
Figure 5-1 Free-body Diagrams for Moment and Lateral Shear Loads .....................................5-1
Figure 5-2 Free-body Diagrams for Uplift Loads.......................................................................5-2
Figure 5-3 Free-body Diagrams for Compression Loads ..........................................................5-3

iii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Parameters and Point Contributions for Using the RMR76 System of Rock
Classification (Hoek and Brown, 1980) .............................................................................1-9
Table 1-2 Rock Mass Classes Based on RMR76 Values (Hoek and Brown, 1980) .................1-10
Table 1-3 Rock Mass Shear Strength Parameters Based on RMR76 ......................................1-10
Table 1-4 Average Side Shear from O-Cell Tests ..................................................................1-13
Table 1-5 Typical Average Ultimate Bond Stresses-Rock/Grout from PTI (2004) ...................1-14
Table 4-1 Recommended Strength Factors (5) for HFAD 5.1 for the Cylindrical Shear
Design Model and Uplift Loads (AASHTO 2004) ..............................................................4-7
Table 4-2 Recommended Strength Factors (5) for HFAD 5.1 for the Cylindrical Shear
and End Bearing Design Models and Compression Loads (AASHTO 2004) ....................4-8

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 full-scale 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 full-scale 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.

1 DEVELOPMENT OF GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN


PARAMETERS

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 in-situ 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
EL-6800 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 regional-specific data when developing geotechnical
design parameters.

Cohesive Soils
In-situ Density and Undrained Shear Strength
The top portion of Figure 1-1 shows correlations that can be used to establish the in-situ density
of saturated cohesive soils. The correlations shown are based on consistency and Standard
Penetration Resistance Test data (N-blows per ft). Figure 1-2 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 1-1 provides correlations that can be used to establish unconfined
compressive strength (qu) based on soil consistency and Standard Penetration Resistance Test
data (N-blows per ft). Figure 1-3 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

1-1

Care should be exercised in using the correlations shown in Figure 1-1, Figure 1-2, and Figure
1-3 due to the impact of excess pore water pressures that occur during the performance of
Standard Penetration Resistance Tests.

1-1

Figure 1-1
Saturated Unit Weight and Unconfined Compressive Strength Correlations for
Cohesive Soils (Teng, 1962)

160

140
135
130

Saturated Unit Weight, (pcf)

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

Standard Penetration Number, N (blows/ft)

Figure 1-2
Saturated Unit Weight Correlations for Cohesive Soils

1-2

30

35
|

HARD

4.5
4.00

Unconfined Compressive Strength, qu (tsf)

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

Standard Penetration Number, N (blows/ft)

Figure 1-3
Unconfined Compressive Strength Correlations for Cohesive Soils

Deformation Modulus
Figure 1-4 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:

Standard Penetrations Resistance Test data,

Unconfined compression strength tests, and

Soil consistency.

Figure 1-4 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.

1-3

Standard Penetration Resistance (blows/ft)


2

16

32

64

Unconfined Compressive Strength (ton/ft2)


0.25
0.5
1.0
2.0
4.0

Modulus of Deformation, ED (ksi)

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 1-4
Modulus of Deformation for Cohesive Soils as a Function of Standard Penetration
Resistance, Unconfined Compressive Strength and Soil Consistency (DiGioia,
Donovan and Cortese, 1975)

1-4

Granular Soils
In-situ Density and Angle of Internal Friction
Figure 1-5 shows correlations that can be used to establish the in-situ density and angle of
internal friction of granular soils. Based on relative density or Standard Penetration Resistance
Data (N-Blows per ft), the angle of internal friction () and moist unit weight (-pcf) can be
estimated. Figure 1-6 and Figure 1-7 show the correlation data in the form of a graph for the insitu density and angle of interal friction, respectively.

Figure 1-5
Angle of Internal Friction and Moist Unit Weight Correlations for Granular Soils

1-5

160

140

Moist Unit Weight, (pcf)

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

Standard Penetration Number, N (blows/ft)

Figure 1-6
Moist Unit Weight Correlations for Granular Soils

50
45

Angle of Internal Friction, (degrees)

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

Standard Penetration Number, N (blows/ft)

Figure 1-7
Angle of Internal Friction Correlations for Granular Soils

1-6

45

50
| VERY DENSE

Deformation Modulus
Figure 1-8 provides correlations that can be used to estimate modulus of deformation (ED) as a
function of Standard Penetration Resistance (N-Blows per ft) for the following four (4) granular
soil types:

Silts, sandy silt, and slightly cohesive silt-sand mixtures,

Fine sand,

Sandy gravel or gravel, and

Coarse sand or sand-some gravel.

Moduli for a given granular soil type are obtained from Figure 1-8 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

Modulus of Deformation, ED (ksi)

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

Standard Penetration Resistance, N (blows/ft)


Note: The Standard Penetration Resistance is for a 2 O.D. Sampler, Not Correct for Overburden Pressure

Figure 1-8
Modulus of Deformation as a Function of Standard Penetration Resistance and
Granular Soil Types (after Schmertmann, 1970)

1-7

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 Mohr-Coulomb strength
parameters, (the effective stress friction angle) and c (the effective stress cohesion) of the
rock mass. The load-deflection 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 1-1 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 1-1. The RMR76 value of each rock layer is obtained by adding the point contributions for
all six parameters.

1-8

Table 1-1
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

0.3-0.6
ksi

0.15-0.3
ksi

Uniaxial
Comp.
Strength

>29
ksi

14.5-29
ksi

7.314.5
ksi

1.67.3ksi

1.53.6 ksi

0.4-1.5
ksi

0.15-0.4
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 ft-9.8 ft

1 ft-3.3ft

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 1-5 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

1-9

Once the RMR76 values are estimated for each rock layer, each layer can be assigned a rock mass
classification description as shown in Table 1-2, i.e., very poor rock, poor rock, fair rock, good
rock, and very good rock.
Table 1-2
Rock Mass Classes Based on RMR76 Values (Hoek and Brown, 1980)
RMR76

81-100

61-80

41-60

21-40

<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 1-1 may not be available at each boring site. However, based
on the results of borings drilled in conjunction with seven full-scale 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 1-2, 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 1-3 presents rock effective shear strength parameters ( and c) for each rock
classification number.
Table 1-3
Rock Mass Shear Strength Parameters Based on RMR76
Class No

II

III

IV

RMR76

81-100

61-80

41-60

21-40

<20

Effective
Cohesion of the
Rock Mass - c

>6.3ksf

4.2-6.3
ksf

3.1-4.2 ksf

2.1-3.1 ksf

<2.1 ksf

Effective Friction
Angle of the Rock
Mass

>45
degrees

40-45 deg

35-40 deg

30-35 deg

<30 deg

Figure 1-9 and Figure 1-10 present the shear strength data shown in Table 1-3 in the form of
graphs of RMR76 versus effective friction angle () and effective cohesion (c), respectively.

1-10

Figure 1-9
Effective Friction Angle () versus RMR76

Figure 1-10
Effective Cohesion (c) versus RMR76

1-11

Deformation Modulus
Figure 1-11 presents the relationship between the rock mass modulus of deformation (E) and
RMR76. As shown in Figure 1-11, equations have been fitted to the data as follows:
E(ksi) = 0.564 RMR761.958
E(ksi) = 290 RMR76 14,500

For RMR76 <60


For RMR76 >60

Since RMR76 values for near-surface rock mass layers are normally less than 60. The user
should have quality rock testing data to justify using Equation 1-3.

Figure 1-11
Modulus of Deformation (E) versus RMR76

1-12

1-2
1-3

Rock/Concrete Bond Strength


MFAD 5.1 includes the option of accounting for side shear forces in the resistance of overturning
loads. Thus, for the portion of a drilled shaft or direct embedded pole constructed in rock,
MFAD evaluates vertical side shear ultimate capacities at the following interfaces;

Drilled shaft concrete/rock interface,

Direct embedded pole pole/granular soil backfill interface,

Direct embedded pole pole/concrete backfill interface,

Direct embedded pole granular soil backfill/rock interface, and

Direct embedded pole concrete backfill /rock interface.

Correlations for Rock/Concrete Bond Strength


Based on an evaluation of 88 full scale drilled shaft Osterberg Cell (O-Cell) tests (EPRI
1024138) the average rock/concrete bond strengths in Table 1-4 were calculated. In general, the
harder rocks such as sandstone, limestone, granite and schist, and other metamorphic rocks
exhibit higher concrete/rock bond than the less hard siltstones and shales.
Table 1-4
Average Side Shear from O-Cell Tests

Measured Concrete / Rock


Bond
Rock Type
# Tests

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

Granite and Schist

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
1-13

within the test zones, seams of dis-similar rock within the test zones, and the geometry of the
shaft and the thickness and location of the rock layer with respect to the O-cell.
Only a few of the O-cell 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

1-4

Where f = side resistance, C = Constant, qu = average uniaxial compressive strength of


rock mass, n = 0.5, and pa = atmospheric pressure. C = 1 for interpreted L2 failure, and

The Post-Tensioning Institute (2004), provide ranges of average ultimate rock/concrete


bond strength for small-diameter anchors, as presented in Table 1-5.

Table 1-5
Typical Average Ultimate Bond Stresses-Rock/Grout from PTI (2004)

Rock

Average Ultimate Rock/Grout Bond


Strength (psi)

Granite & Basalt

250 450

Dolomite Limestone

200 300

Soft Limestone

150 200

Slates & Hard Shales

120 200

Soft Shales

30 120

Sandstones

120 250

Weathered Sandstones

100 120

Chalk

30 155

Weathered Marl

25 35

Concrete

1-14

200 400

2
RELIABILITY-BASED 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 2-1. 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 2-1
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 20-30 years reliability-based design (RBD) methods have been developed and
implemented for the design of foundations for buildings, bridges, and other structures. A
2-1

significant effort has been made by professional societies and standard-developing organizations
to publish design manuals and standards concerning RBD of transmission line structures and
foundations. The following is a partial list of published RBD-oriented 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 2-2 is a schematic representation of the variability of component load (Q) and of
component strength, R. In Figure 2-2, 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.

Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Format


In ASCE Manual 74, the relative location of fQ with respect to fR is set by the following Load
Resistance Factor Designs (LRFD) design equation:
R5 (Component Design Capacity) > Effect of [Dead Load + Q50]
Where:

2-2

R5 is the lower 5% exclusive limit component capacity,

is a load factor that is used to modify the reliability level of a line (normally set
at 1.0), and

Q50 is the 50-year return period climatic load event.

Figure 2-2
Reliability-Based 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 [1-0.01 (1.64-0.00925Vm)Vm]Rn

2-1

Rewriting Equation 2-1 gives:


R5 = 5Rn

2-2

Where 5 = mm [1-0.01 (1.64-00925 Vm) Vm]

2-3

In Equation 2-3:

5 is the 5% lower limit strength factor.

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.

RT is the test capacity for a specific full-scale foundation load test.

Rn is the predicted nominal capacity for a specific full-scale foundation load test
using the foundation design method being calibrated.

Vm is the coefficient of variation of the foundation design model in %.


2-3

Figure 2-3 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 2-3
Foundation Strength Factor (5) versus Design Model Coefficient of Variation, Vm

Figure 2-3 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 2-3. 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

(2-4)

Alternately, the value of 5 can be computed using Equation 2-3 as follows:


5 = mm [1-0.01 (1.64-0.00925Vm)Vm]
5 = 1.0 [1-0.01 (1.65-0.00925(30))30] = 0.59

2-4

Chapter 3 presents the results of calibrating the MFAD 5.1 drilled shaft and direct embedded
pole design models against the results of full-scale 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 full-scale foundation load tests for the determination of strength factors. Chapter 4
also summarizes recommended strength factors for design models where no full-scale foundation
load tests are available.
Chapter 5 presents the results of calibrating the various design models within TFAD 5.1 against
the results of full-scale foundation load tests for the determination of strength factors. Chapter 5
also summarizes recommended strength factors for design models where no full-scale foundation
load tests are available.

2-5

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.

Moment, Lateral Shear and Compression Loads for Drilled Shafts


The schematic model of MFAD 5.1 for drilled shaft foundations embedded in soil and/or rock is
shown in Figure 3-1. The model shows that the applied loads are resisted by a combination of
lateral pressure, vertical side shear forces, a base shear, and a base moment.

Figure 3-1
Schematic of MFAD 5.1 Drilled Shaft Design Model

3-1

Moment, Lateral Shear, and Compression Loads for Direct Embedded


Poles
The schematic model of MFAD 5.1 for direct embedded poles in soil and/or rock is shown in
Figure 3-2. The model shows that the applied loads are resisted by a combination of lateral
pressure and vertical side shear forces. Base resistance is not included in the direct embedment
design model.

Figure 3-2
Schematic of MFAD 5.1 Direct Embedded Pole Design Model

Calibration of the MFAD 5.1 Design Model


The MFAD 5.1 design model was calibrated by comparing the program results to the results of
full-scale foundation load tests. The steps used in the calibration process were as follows:
5. Assembled full-scale foundation load test data for drilled shaft and direct embedded poles
tested in soil and/or rock subsurface profiles for moment, lateral shear, and compression
loads.
6. Based on the field test data for drilled shafts and direct embedded poles, determined the
interpreted test moment capacity (RT). For drilled shafts, used the capacity measured at a
groundline displacement of 4 inches for RT. For direct embedded poles, used the maximum
capacity measured in the test for RT. The D/B ratio for all tests was less than or equal to 10.
7. Developed in-situ geotechnical parameters at each test site as discussed in Chapter 1.
8. Used MFAD 5.1 to predict the nominal ultimate moment capacity (Rn) of each test.
3-2

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.

MFAD 5.1 Calibration Results


Figure 3-3 presents the results of calibrating MFAD 5.1 against the results of full-scale laterally
loaded drilled shafts in soil and/or rock.
Figure 3-3 shows that MFAD 5.1 has a strength factor (5) of 0.63 for the design of drilled shafts
in soil and/or rock. This strength factor is based on an mm value of 0.99 and a design model
coefficient of variation (Vm) of 23.1%.
7000

Interpreted Test Moment Capacity, RT (kip-ft)

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 (kip-ft)

7000

Figure 3-3
MFAD Predicted Nominal Ultimate Moment Capacity (Rn) Versus Interpreted Test
Moment Capacity (RT) for Drilled Shafts in Soil and/or Rock

3-3

Figure 3-4 presents the results of calibrating MFAD 5.1 against the results of full-scale laterally
loaded direct embedded poles in soil and/or rock. Figure 3-4 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

Interpreted Test Moment Capacity, RT (kip-ft)

DE Soil Only

3500

DE Soil & Rock

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 (kip-ft)

4000

Figure 3-4
Predicted Nominal Ultimate Moment Capacity (Rn) Versus Interpreted Test Moment
Capacity (RT) for Direct Embedded Poles in Soil and/or Rock

3-4

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 H-Frame 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 H-Frame Legs
MFAD 5.1 Design Model utilizing Lateral Soil Resistance only,

Uplift Loads for Drilled Shaft and Direct Embedded H-Frame 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 H-Frame Legs Cylindrical Shear Design
Model.

The following sections provide a description of the above listed design models.

Moment and Lateral Shear Loads


The HFAD 5.1 free-body diagrams for moment and lateral shear loads is shown is Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1a and Figure 4-1b are free-body diagrams for a drilled shaft and direct embedded pole,
respectively. The HFAD 5.1 model uses the lateral resistance-only portion of the MFAD 5.1
model, that is the applied shear (V) and moment (M) loads are resisted solely by lateral
resistance for both drilled shafts and direct embedded poles.

4-1

Figure 4-1
Free-body Diagrams for Moment and Lateral Shear Loads

Uplift Loads
The HFAD 5.1 free-body diagrams for uplift loads are shown in Figure 4-2. 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 layer-by-layer basis (Figure
Figure 4-2a). For direct embedded H-Frame 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 4-2b).

4-2

Figure 4-2
Free-body Diagrams for Uplift Loads

Compression Loads
The HFAD 5.1 free-body diagrams for compression loads are shown in Figure 4-3. As shown in
Figure 4-3a, 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 end-bearing. The cylindrical shear
model is used to compute side shear resistance and the end-bearing resistance is based on the
model developed by Vesic (1973).
As shown in Figure 4-3b, for direct embedded H-Frame 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.

4-3

Figure 4-3
Free-body Diagrams for Compression Loads

Calibration HFAD 5.1 Side Shear Design Model


The HFAD 5.1 cylindrical side shear design model was calibrated by comparing the program
results to the results of full-scale uplift foundation load tests. The steps used in the calibration
process were as follows:
1. Assemble foundation uplift load test data for drilled shafts in granular and cohesive soil
subsurface profiles for each of the following load conditions:
2. Choose the uplift test capacity (RT) at each site as the maximum applied test load. Limit the
test database to a depth of embedment to diameter (D/B) ratio of 10 or less.
3. Develop in-situ geotechnical parameters at each test site as discussed in Chapter 1, use
HFAD 5.1 to compute the predicted nominal geotechnical load capacity (Rn) for each test.
4. Plot the data developed in Steps 2 and 3 in a graph of interpreted test capacity (RT) versus
predicted nominal ultimate capacity (Rn).
5. Perform a constant coefficient of variation least square fit to the data plotted in Step 6 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.
6. Determine the slope of the lower 5% exclusion limit line which is the lower 5% exclusion
limit strength factor, 5.

4-4

HFAD 5.1 Design Model Calibration Results


Drilled Shafts and Direct Embedded Poles in Soil and/or Rock and Subject to
Moment and Lateral Shear Loads
A strength factor of 0.63 was assigned to the calculated lateral capacity in HFAD 5.1 for both
drilled shaft and direct embedded poles based on the MFAD calibration analysis presented in
Chapter 3.
Drilled Shafts in Granular Soils and Subjected to Uplift Loads
Figure 4-4 presents the results of calibrating the cylindrical shear design model in HFAD 5.1
using the results of 11 full-scale drilled shaft uplift load tests conducted in granular soils. Figure
4-4 shows that the granular soil cylindrical shear design module has a strength factor (5) of
0.56. This strength factor is based on an mm value of 1.12 and a design module coefficient of
variation, Vm of 38.6%.

100.0

Interpreted Axial Uplift Capacity, RT (tons)

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 4-4
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)

4-5

Drilled Shafts in Cohesive Soils and Subjected to Uplift Loads


Figure 4-5 presents the results of calibrating the cylindrical shear design model in HFAD 5.1
against the results of 71 full-scale drilled shafts uplift load tests conducted in cohesive soils.
Figure 4-5 shows that the cohesive soil cylindrical shear design model has a strength factor (5)
of 0.65. This strength factor is based on an mm value of 1.05 and a design model coefficient of
variation (Vm) of 24.6%.

Interpreted Axial Uplift Capacity, RT (tons)

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 4-5
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)

Strength Factors for Remaining HFAD 5.1 Design Models


Since no full-scale foundations load tests have been conducted for a number of the HFAD 5.1
design models, assumed strength factors for those design models were incorporated into the
HFAD 5.1 program. Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 present a summary of the recommended strength
factors incorporated into HFAD 5.1 for uplift and compression design models. The
recommended values are based on professional judgment, similarity of resistance model to
existing calibrations, and strength factor data available from AASHTO publications.
4-6

Table 4-1
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

4-7

Table 4-2
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

* Foundation Weight is added to the applied loads.

4-8

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.

Moment and Lateral Shear Loads


The TFAD 5.1 free-body diagram for lateral shear loads acting on a drilled shaft foundation is
shown in Figure 5-1. The TFAD 5.1 model uses the lateral resistance-only portion of the MFAD
5.1 model, that is the applied shear (V) is resisted solely by lateral resistance for drilled shafts.

Figure 5-1
Free-body Diagrams for Moment and Lateral Shear Loads

Uplift Loads
The TFAD 5.1 free-body diagram for uplift load is shown in Figure 5-2. The TFAD 5.1 model
for drilled shafts uses the cylindrical shear design model and determines the uplift capacity at the
5-1

drilled shaft concrete/soil and/or rock interface on a layer-by-layer basis and selects the
minimum total uplift capacity.

Figure 5-2
Free-body Diagrams for Uplift Loads

Compression Loads
The TFAD 5.1 free-body diagram for compression load is shown in Figure 5-3. 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 end-bearing. The cylindrical shear model is used to
compute side shear resistance and the end-bearing resistance is based on the model developed by
Vesic (1973).

5-2

Figure 5-3
Free-body Diagrams for Compression Loads

Calibration of Various TFAD 5.1 Design Models


The TFAD design models for lateral, uplift, and compression resistance are the same as
utilized within HFAD 5.1. Calibration results and strength factors used within TFAD are
described in Chapter 4.

5-3

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 ACI-318-11 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 7-05.

Combined Bending and Axial Loading


The following considerations are made when calculating strength for combined uniaxial bending
and axial load:
1. Cross sectional strength is calculated based on satisfying the equilibrium of stresses and the
compatibility of strains (ACI Section 10.2.1).

6-1

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

6-1

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

6-2

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

6-3

1 = 1.05 0.05 fc

6-4

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.
6-2

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

6-5

where:
t = net tensile strain in the extreme tension steel.

Minimum Longitudinal Steel


FAD Tools 5.1 calculates the minimum required area of longitudinal steel based on the
requirements of ACI Sections 10.9.1 and 10.8.4. The following procedure is used to determine
minimum steel requirements.
7. The design moment capacity of the drilled shaft (Mn) is calculated at the design section for
the applied axial load assuming the minimum allowable reinforcing ratio of 1% (Section
10.9.1). If Mn is less than the maximum internal moment then the amount of longitudinal
reinforcing is controlled by strength considerations and the reinforcing ratio is increased until
a satisfactory design is achieved. If Mn is greater than the maximum internal moment then
the cross section is considered to be larger than required by considerations of loading and the
longitudinal reinforcing area is reduced per Section 10.8.4.
8. The minimum longitudinal steel is calculated by incrementally reducing the drilled pier
diameter and re-calculating the design moment capacity until the smallest circular concrete
section required to resist the maximum applied moment is found. The area of longitudinal
steel in the reduced section is calculated as 1% of the reduced gross concrete area.
9. The minimum required longitudinal steel area for the full cross section is taken as the steel
area in the reduced cross section from step 2, however, the reinforcing ratio is limited to
0.5% of the gross concrete area of the full section.
Note that the procedure described above is an interpretation of ACI Sections 10.9.1 and 10.8.4
that is new in FAD Tools 5.1.16 and later versions. In previous versions, the minimum
reinforcement ratio was assumed to be 0.5% based on the full diameter of the shaft and then
incrementally increased until an acceptable amount of steel was achieved. The method
incorporated in FAD Tools 5.1.16 and later versions may calculate a larger reinforcement ratio,
when compared to previous versions, for shafts where the required reinforcement ratio is less
than 1%.

6-3

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

6-6

ACI Method:

Vc = 2.0 (fc ) B d

6-7

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) )

6-8

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
6-4

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.

Concrete Design Input


The drilled shaft is assumed to consist of a cylindrical concrete straight-sided shaft with constant
diameter. Reinforcing consists of longitudinal bars arranged in a circular pattern and shear
reinforcement (tie-bars) transverse to the longitudinal axis of the shaft.
The input used for concrete design is a combination of data already existing in FAD Tools 5.1
and from the geotechnical design calculations, and data that is input directly by the user.
Data Already Existing in FAD Tools 5.1
The concrete design modules use the following internal load information already calculated by
FAD Tools 5.1 from the applied loads at the top of foundation:

Shear forces as a function of depth, kips.

Bending moments as a function of depth, kip-ft.

Applied vertical load, kips.

Required Additional Data


To perform the concrete design, FAD Tools 5.1 requires the following additional data from the
user:

Selection of Method for calculating the nominal concrete shear capacity

Cover provided for shear tie reinforcement, in.

Concrete compressive strength (fc), ksi.

Yield strength of steel reinforcement (fy), ksi.

Bar size to be used for longitudinal reinforcement for bending and axial loads.

Bar size to be used for shear reinforcement as circular ties.

6-5

7 REFERENCES
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Third Edition 2004
ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 111, Reliability-Based Design of
Utility Pole Structures, Prepared by the Reliability-Based 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 7-05 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures
ASTM D 158699, Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of
Soils, Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2006, Section Four, Construction, Volume 04.08, Soil
and Rock (l): D420-D5611, pp. 137-142.
ASTM D 2113-06 Practice for Rock Core Drilling and Sampling of Rock for Site
Investigation
ASTM D 2166-06 Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soils
ACI 318-11 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
ASTM D 3441-05, 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): D420-D5611, pp. 378-383.
ASTM D 5778-07 Test Method for Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration
Testing of Soils
ASTM D 5878-08, Standard Guides for Using Rock-Mass Classification Systems for
Engineering Purposes, Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2009, Section Four, Construction,
Volume 04.09, Soil and Rock (II): D5877 - latest, pp. 20-25.
ASTM D 6032-09 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.

7-1

Broms, B., Design of Laterally Loaded Piles, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, ASCE, Vol. 91, No. SM3, May 1965, pp. 79-99.
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.27-63.
CAISSON Users Guide, Anaylsis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Pier Foundations,
Powerline Systems, Inc., Madison, WI
DiGioia, Donovan and Cortese A Multi-Layered/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., Rojas-Gonzalez, L.M., Application of Reliability- Based Design Concepts
to Transmission Line Structure Foundations, IEEE, Power Engineering Society, Paper 90 SM
307-9 PWRD, New York 1990.
DiGioia, A.M., Jr., Rojas-Gonzalez, L.M., Application of Reliability- Based Design Concepts
to Transmission Line Structure Foundations, Part II, IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter
Meeting, Paper 91 WM 091-0 PWRD, New York.
DiGioia, A.M., Jr., Rojas-Gonzalez, L.M., Rock Socket Transmission Line Foundation
Performance, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 9, No. 3, July, 1994.
EPRI EL-2197, Laterally Loaded Drilled Pier Research, Volume 1: Design Methodology,
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Project 1280-1, Final Report, January 1982.
EPRI EL-2197, Laterally Loaded Drilled Pier Research, Volume 2: Research Documentation,
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Project 1280-1, Final Report, January 1982.
EPRI-4793, Colorado University, Reliability-Based Design of Foundations for Transmission
Line Structures, July 1995
EPRI EL-6309, Direct Embedment Foundation Research, Empire State Electric Energy
Research Corporation and Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Project 1280-3,
Final Report, April 1989.
EPRI TR-105000, Phoon, K.K., Kulhawy, F.H. and Grigori, M.D., Reliability-based design of
foundations for transmission line structures. Palo Alto, CA, 1995

7-2

EPRI TR-108254, Laterally Loaded Rock-Socketed Foundation Research, Electric Power


Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Final Report, October 1997.
EPRI 1024138, Transmission Structure Foundation Design Guide. Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, CA, 2012.
Hansen, J.B., The Ultimate Resistance of Rigid Piles against Transversal Forces, The Danish
Geotechnical Institute, Bulletin No. 12, Copenhagen 1961.
Hansen The Ultimate Resistance of Rigid Piles Against Transversal Forces, The Danish
Geotechnical Institute Bulletin, No. 12, p 5-9, 1961.
Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T., Underground Excavations in Rock, The Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, 1980.
Kulhowy, F.H., Prakoso, W.A., Akbas, S.O, Evaluation of Capacity of Rock Foundation
Sockets, Alaska Rock 2005 (Proc., 40th US Symp. Rock Mech.), Anchorage, June 2005, Paper
05-767, 8p.
Kulhawy, F.H., Phoon, K.K., Observations on Geotechnical Reliability-Based Development in
North America, International Workshop on Foundation Design Codes and Soil Investigation in
view of International Harmonization and Performance Based Design: 31 48. Balkema:
Netherlands.
Mozer, J.D., Peyrot, A.H., DiGioia, A.M. Jr., Probabilistic Design of Transmission Line
Structures, ASCE Spring Convention, May 16-20, 1983.
Phoon, K.K., Kulhawy, F.H., Grigoriu, M.D., Development of A Reliability-Based Design
Framework for Transmission Line Structure Foundations, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, September 2003.
Post Tensioning Institute (PTI), Recommendations for prestressed rock and soil anchors.
Fourth Edition, 2004.
Reese, L.C., Wang, S.T., Isenhower, W.M., Arrellaga, J.A., Hendrix, J., A Program for the
Anaylsis of Piles and Drilled Shafts Under Lateral Loads, LPILE Plus 5.0 Users Manual,
ENSOFT, Inc. Engineering Software, Austin, TX, July 2004
Rose, A.T, DiGioia, A.M, Hirany, A., Use of rock mass rating (RMR) to estimate rock
properties for laterally loaded, rock-socketed transmission line foundations, Rock Mechanics
in the National Interest, Elsworth, Tinucci & Healy (eds.), 2001 Swets & Zeitlinger Lisse,
ISBN 90 2651 827 7.
Schmertmann, J. H. (1970). Static Cone to Compute Static Settlement Over Sand. Journal of
the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 96(3), 10111043.

7-3

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, Prentice-Hall Inc., 1962.
Vesic, A.S., Analysis of Ultimate Loads of Shallow Foundation, Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, Vol. 99, No. SM1, 45-73, 1973.

7-4