Professional Documents
Culture Documents
900
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 05/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
a probability-based design approach such as the LRFD which better deals with
geotechnical designs.
With the trend toward the increased use of LRFD, codes in America and Europe
have included the implementation of limit state approach for geotechnical designs
over the past several years. In the United States (U.S.), significant efforts have been
directed towards development and application of the LRFD approach in geotechnical
engineering; however, its application to geotechnical designs has been moving
relatively slow (Withiam et al., 1998). In 1989, the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) developed their first geotechnical
LRFD specifications. Now, the current AASHTO specifications have been revised
several times to produce the 6th Edition, with 2013 interim revisions, which serves as
a framework for regional calibration for state departments of transportation (DOTs) in
the U.S. as well as an update guide for other international codes. For the degree of
LRFD implementation in the U.S., AbdelSalam et al. (2010) indicated that more than
85% of the state DOTs have adopted the design approach for bridge deep
foundations.
In Europe, the Eurocode 7 (EC7) uses partial resistance factors for the soil shear
strength properties which were developed based on the limit states design (LSD)
approach. The principal difference in philosophy between the LSD and the LRFD
design methods is in the calibration procedures to provide the desired level of safety.
The 1997 EC7 (European Standards, ENV 1997-2, and -3) dealt with driven piles and
drilled shafts at a single section using these partial resistance factors which also
depend on the number of load testes conducted in the field. Paikowsky et al. (2004)
indicated that the 1997 EC7 was complex with quantitative descriptions and limiting
conditions. After several update stages, the 2004 EC7 (EN 1997-1) was published,
which is an extensive code that become a European Standard, EN (Bond, 2011).
Presented in this paper are selected outcomes of an ongoing research project aimed
at establishing the LRFD design recommendations for bridge large-diameter bored
piles in Egypt, considering the regional practices and soil conditions. The project
focuses on developing local resistance factors for different static analysis, including
the Egyptian code method, the 2007 AASHTO and the 2010 FHWA methods in sand,
clay, and mixed soils using a newly developed electronic database that consist of
information from 90 pile load tests conducted in Egypt. Focusing on the strength limit
state, the resistance factors were calculated following the reliability-based calibration
framework suggested by Paikowsky et al. (2004). The study was extended to include
a comparison between the resistance factors calculated for three aforementioned static
methods to indicate which is more efficient for the local practice. Also the outcomes
included a sensitivity analysis to show the effect of changing the structural load
factors on the resistance factors.
STATIC ANALYSIS METHODS
The 2001 ECDF Method
The 2001 Egyptian Code of Deep Foundations (2001 ECDF) adopted a method of
prediction, from the German specification DIN 4014 Part 2 (1990 DIN), for largediameter bored piles. This method suggests the relation between load-settlement by
assuming empirical values for the pile shaft friction and base stress related to the pile
settlement. For the total shaft resistance, Qs, the amount of load can be calculated as:
2
901
902
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 05/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Qs = fs As
where fs represents the pile ultimate shaft friction as shown in Table 1 and related to a
corresponding value of settlement of about 5 mm to 10 mm regardless of the pile
diameter; and As is the pile shaft surface area, which is calculated by neglecting a
distance D, which represents the pile diameter, above the pile tip. For the total endbearing resistance, Qb, the amount of load can be calculated as:
Qb = fb Ab
where fb represents the pile ultimate base resistance as shown in Table 2 and related
to a corresponding settlement corresponding to 5% of the pile diameter; and Ab is the
pile cross-sectional area at the tip.
Table 1. Skin friction using the 2001 ECDF Method
Soil type
N-value
< 10
Depth (m)
n/a
0 to 2
2 to 5
> 5
0 to 2
2 to 7.5
> 7.5
0 to 2
2 to 10
> 10
10 to 20
Cohesionless
soils
20 to 30
> 30
Su
25
100
200
Cohesive soils
fs (kPa)
n/a
0
30
50
0
45
75
0
60
100
fs (kPa)
25
40
50
Settlement (cm)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 05/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Table 3 presents the general design equations used to estimate the tip and side
resistance of drilled shafts for different soil conditions. Details of application of these
equations in the 2007 AASHTO and the 2010 FHWA methods can be found in
ONeill and Reese (1999) and Brown et al. (2010), respectively. Regarding the format
of the design equations, there is no difference between the 2007 AASHTO and the
2010 FHWA methods. The differences between the two design methods lie in the
way to evaluate the parameters in these design equations, which are summarized in
Table 3. The major change in the 2010 FHWA method is the estimation of side
resistance coefficient in cohesionless soil. In the 2007 AASHTO method, the is
solely depth dependent and it neglects the influence of soil type and stress history;
while the in the 2010 FHWA method is able to account for soil strength and in-situ
state of stress and thus allow a foundation engineer to design a drilled shaft on the
basis of site-specific ground conditions. Yu et al. (2012) developed resistance factors
for FHWA method within the range of 0.6.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE LRFD RESISTANCE FACTORS
EGYPT Database
The development of the LRFD resistance factors for the Egyptian conditions
requires the existence of adequate local pile SLT data as well as quality soil
properties. Over the past few decades, information concerning more than 90 pile
SLTs conducted on driven and bored piles were collected as part of this research in
order to release an electronic database in the near future. The entirety of the collected
information included details concerning the site location, subsurface conditions, pile
type, driving hammer characteristics (if test pile is driven type), pile loaddisplacement response, SPT and CPT data, etc. The electronic database is called the
EGYptian Pile Test (EGYPT) database, which is intended to house the existing load
tests information, include analyses performed on the amassed dataset, and allow for
future expansions.
In EGYPT database, the total number of SLTs conducted on large-diameter bored
piles (piles with diameter equal to or more than 60 cm) with sufficient information for
predicting the pile capacity by means of static methods was 35. In order to sort
EGYPT database for different soil types, the same soil groups that were used in the
AASHTO specifications were utilized herein for consistency and comparison
purposes. These main soil groups are sand, clay, and mixed soils. Nevertheless,
AbdelSalam et al. indicated in 2011 that the AASHTO did not provide a criterion to
establish these soil groups, as the pile length that needs to be embedded in clay to
consider the predominant soil profile as clay was not determined. Consequently,
AbdelSalam et al. (2011) conducted a sensitivity analysis to define the soil profile at a
site, which led to the following criterion: the site is classified as sand or clay based on
the most predominant soil that existed more than 70% along the shaft length. If the
percentage of the predominant soils is less than 70%, the site is considered to have
mixed soil. Accordingly, EGYPT database contained 13 sites in sand, 10 in clay, and
12 in mixed soils. However, a better way to categorize the soil type can be achieved
using the percentage of resistance approach indicated by AbdelSalam et al., 2011.
But since the sample size (no. of SLTs) available in the database is considered
relatively small, using the percentage of resistance approach was not adequate herein.
4
903
904
Instead, another group was included in the analysis which combined all the available
35 SLTs for large-diameter bored piles in EGYPT database, and namely All piles
since the database variations in terms of soil and pile conditions are limited.
Table 3. Design equations of the 2007 AASHTO and the 2010 FHWA methods
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 05/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Soil type
Sort
Equations
Skin
friction
f = (MPa)
0.2 MPa
End
bearing
f
= 0.058 N (MPa)
2.9 MPa
Cohesionless soils
= (1 sin )
tan
K tan
In EGYPT database, the ultimate load capacity (Qult) of all the bored piles was
defined from the measured load-displacement curve using the Chins method (Chin,
1970). In Chins method, shown in Figure 1, a straight line between /Qva and is
plotted where is the displacement and Qva is the corresponding load. Then, the Qult
is equal to 1/C1, where C1 is explained in the figure. This method was selected herein
because it was indicated by Abdelrahman et al. (2003) that the most convenient
methods for the local practices, which give reasonable results, are Chins, Decourts,
and Hansens methods (more details on the methods in Bengt, 1980). This is due to
the fact that such methods use regression analysis for predicting the failure load, and
can reach results without loading the test piles to failure which is a repeated case in
Egypt when dealing with large-diameter bored piles due to their large capacity.
However, other methods such as Davissons (see Bengt, 1980) need the pile to be
loaded to failure or the load-displacement curve should be extrapolated.
Calibration Method
The FOSM was selected to develop the resistance factors for the design of largediameter bored piles in Egypt. Knowing that the available FOSM equation is based on
the assumption of lognormal distribution for the Probability Density Functions
(PDFs) of loads and resistances, it was important to first examine the PDFs of
different data groups in EGYPT database to make sure that they follow the lognormal
distribution. In this study, the Anderson-Darling (AD) with 95% Confidence Interval
(95% CI) statistical test was used to check the log-normality of the PDFs.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 05/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
905
99
99
Lognormal - 95% CI
95
95
90
90
Cumulative
Probability
Cumulative Probability
C ulative Probability
Cumulative
Probability
Norma l - 95% CI
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Normal
AD = 0.785
P-Value = 0.038
10
10
Lognormal
AD = 0.253
P-Value = 0.714
10
Figure 2. Goodness-of-fit tests for the 2001 ECDF method in the All piles group
20
20
Normal
Variable
2010 FHWA
2001 ECDF
2007 AASHTO
15
N
35
35
35
15
10
10
Figure 3. Normal and lognormal PDFs for Ksx of methods in the All piles group
Table 4. Goodness-of-fit tests for all static methods in different soil groups
Soil
Type
Sand
Clay
Mixed
All
piles
N
13
13
13
10
10
10
12
12
12
35
35
35
Static Method
2010 FHWA
2001 ECDF
2007 AASHTO
2010 FHWA
2001 ECDF
2007 AASHTO
2010 FHWA
2001 ECDF
2007 AASHTO
2010 FHWA
2001 ECDF
2007 AASHTO
Normal
0.081
0.083
0.012
0.375
0.762
0.618
0.04
0.309
0.027
<.005
0.038
<.005
0.624
0.62
0.943
0.359
0.223
0.263
0.735
0.398
0.799
1.184
0.785
1.664
P-value
0.226
0.498
0.103
0.335
0.804
0.632
0.221
0.778
0.092
0.277
0.714
0.019
0.454
0.318
0.585
0.378
0.21
0.258
0.455
0.222
0.6
0.439
0.253
0.889
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.73
0.73
0.73
Best Fit
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Normal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Resistance Factors
Table 2 summarizes the calibrated LRFD resistance factors for different pile design
methods in three soil types. The table includes the statistical parameters that were
used in the analysis such as the sample size (N), mean bias (), standard deviation (),
and the Coefficient of Variation (COV) for each data group. For redundant pile
groups, the results presented in Table 1 indicate that the highest resistance factor ()
7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 05/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
in sand soils was obtained for the 2010 FHWA method, followed by 2001 ECDF and
2007 AASHTO methods, with values equal to 0.53, 0.41, and 0.36, respectively. It
is also clear from Table 1 that the highest in clay soils was for the 2001 ECDF
method with a value equals to 0.86, followed by 2010 FHWA, and 2007 AASHTO, in
that order, with values equal to 0.54 and 0.48, respectively. For mixed soils, the
2001 ECDF was still providing the highest which corresponds to 0.70, and then
came the 2010 FHWA and 2007 AASHTO methods, in that order, with values
equal to 0.59 and 0.42, respectively. Table 1 also summarizes the LRFD resistance
factors calculated for the All piles group (the data set that combines all the 35 load
tests). It can be noticed from Table 1 that the highest in the All piles group was for
the 2001 ECDF method which corresponds to 0.57, followed by the 2010 FHWA and
2007 AASHTO methods, in that order, with equal to 0.52 and 0.38, respectively.
For non-redundant pile groups, it was found that the resistance factors were reduced
by an average of 30%. Nevertheless, it is important to highlight the fact that higher
resistance factors do not provide a true indication of the efficiency and economy of
the design, as the different static methods lead to different nominal pile capacities. In
order to compare the efficiency of different static methods relative to the actual pile
behavior, the efficiency factors defined as / were calculated. The / factor ranges
from 0 to 1.0, where higher / correlates to higher efficiency methods. In Table 1,
the / factors are summarized and it was found that the 2010 FHWA method is most
efficient, followed by 2007 AASHTO and 2001 ECDF methods.
Table 5. Summary of the resistance factors for static methods in all groups
=2.33
=3.00
Static Analysis
Mean
St.
COV
1
/2
Method
()
Dev.
/
13
2010 FHWA
0.97
0.29
0.30
0.54
0.42
0.53
0.41
13
2001 ECDF
1.06
0.49
0.47
0.38
0.27
Sand
0.41
0.29
13
2007 AASHTO
0.68
0.21
0.32
0.53
0.41
0.36
0.28
10
2010 FHWA
1.05
0.34
0.32
0.52
0.40
0.54
0.42
10
2001 ECDF
1.58
0.47
0.30
0.55
0.43
Clay
0.86
0.67
10
2007 AASHTO
0.92
0.30
0.32
0.52
0.40
0.48
0.37
12
2010 FHWA
1.32
0.52
0.39
0.45
0.34
0.59
0.44
12
2001 ECDF
1.73
0.76
0.44
0.40
0.29
Mixed
0.70
0.51
12
2007 AASHTO
1.01
0.44
0.43
0.41
0.30
0.42
0.31
35
2010 FHWA
1.11
0.42
0.37
0.47
0.35
0.52
0.39
All
35
2001 ECDF
1.44
0.65
0.45
0.39
0.28
0.57
0.41
piles
35
2007 AASHTO
0.86
0.35
0.41
0.44
0.32
0.38
0.28
1
LRFD geotechnical resistance factor for EGYPT database; and 2 Corresponding efficiency factor.
Soil
Type
907
908
analyses conducted for the piles in sand, clay, and mixed soils.
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0.0
1.0
2010 FHWA
2001 ECDF
2007 AASHTO
0.6
0.4
0.2
2.33
0.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
2010 FHWA
2001 ECDF
2007 AASHTO
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
2.33
0.0
3.0
3.0
All Piles
Efficiemcy Factor (/)
Resistance Factor ()
0.8
0.0
5.0
0.0
1.0
Reliability Index ()
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Reliability Index ()
Figure 4. Resistance and efficiency for a wide range of in All piles group
EXAMINATION OF THE RESISTANCE FACTORS
In this paper, the DL/LL ratio was assumed equals to 2.0, to be consistent with
Paikowsky et al. (2004) recommendations that used a DL/LL ratio ranging from 2.0
to 2.5. However, determining the effect of changing the DL/LL ratio on the calibrated
LRFD resistance factors would be important for verification purposes, especially that
the factors were mainly calibrated for bridges but can also be used for other types of
structures if the DL/LL ratio effects are limited. Consequently, a sensitivity analysis
was conducted using a wider range of DL/LL ratios starting from 1.5 to 4.0. Results
for the 2001 ECDF method were demonstrated herein, since it represents the local
practice, and the change in the resistance factors with respect to changing the DL/LL
ratio was plotted using data groups in sand, clay, and mixed soils. As shown in Figure
5(a), and it was found that changing the DL/LL ratio did not affect the resistance
factors, only a slight reduction limited to around 3% was observed.
DL/LL Ratio
DL/LL Ratio
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
0.65
Resistance Factor ()
1.00
Resistance Factor ()
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 05/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
All Piles
1.0
1.0
0.80
0.60
0.40
Sand
Clay
Mixed
0.20
(a)
Sand
Clay
Mixed
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
(b)
0.40
0.00
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0.3
4.0
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
DL/LL Ratio
DL/LL Ratio
Figure 5. Resistance variation with changing the DL/LL and the DL/LL ratios
Although the AASHTO specifications provided values for the load factors, the
loads mean bias, and the loads standard deviation; however, the Egyptian code did
not indicate any of them except for the load factors (Egyptian code uses DL = 1.4 and
LL = 1.6). Hence, conducting a sensitivity analysis to determine the effect of
changing the aforementioned parameters that are needed in the FOSM equation, on
9
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 05/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the resistance factors is believed to beneficial. The static method selected in this
analysis was the 2010 FHWA method, since it is the method which provided the
highest efficiency, and the change in the resistance factors with respect to changing
the ratio between the dead load factor and live load factor (DL/LL ratio) was plotted
using data groups in sand, clay, and mixed soils. The range of the DL/LL ratio was
determined to cover the AASHTO and the Egyptian codes. As shown in Figure 5(b),
it was found that changing the DL/LL ratio has significantly affected the resistance
factors, as is the resistance increase with increasing the DL/LL ratio.
Obviously, there are some inconsistencies between the resistance factors calibration
framework adapted in this study and that of the 2007 AASHTO specifications, such
as the pile ultimate load determination criterion (e.g., Chins criteria in this study and
Davissons criteria in the AASHTO specifications). However, a comparison between
the LRFD resistance factors calculated for EGYPT database with those provided in
the current AASHTO specifications can still be beneficial. From this comparison, it
was found that the resistance factor for the 2010 FHWA method in sand is greater
than that provided in the AASHTO specifications by about 5% (i.e., 0.53 vs. 0.5).
Also in clay and mixed soils, the 2010 FHWA method still provided higher resistance
factors by about 21% and 8%, respectively (i.e., 0.54 vs. 0.45, and 0.59 vs. 0.55,
respectively). Additionally, it is worth noting that the AASHTO specifications still
depend on the ONeill and Reese (1999) design methodology (referred to as 2007
AASHTO method), while it was proved in this study that the 2010 FHWA method
can provide higher efficiency and resistance factors.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This study aimed at establishing the LRFD design recommendations for bridge
large-diameter bored piles for EGYPT database. Following the reliability based
calibration framework, the resistance factors were developed using information from
35 static load tests, for three different static analysis methods including the Egyptian
code (ECDF), FHWA, and AASHTO methods. Summarized below are the major
findings:
For sand soils, the highest resistance factor () was obtained for the 2010
FHWA method, followed by 2001 ECDF and 2007 AASHTO methods, with
values equal to 0.53, 0.41, and 0.36, respectively.
For clay soils, the highest was for the 2001 ECDF method with a value
equals to 0.86, followed by 2010 FHWA and 2007 AASHTO methods, in that
order, with values equal to 0.54 and 0.48, respectively.
For mixed soils, the 2001 ECDF method provided the highest which
corresponds to 0.70, and then came the 2010 FHWA and 2007 AASHTO
methods, in that order, with values equal to 0.59 and 0.42, respectively.
The 2010 FHWA method generally provided the highest efficiency compared
to the 2007 AASHTO and 2001 ECDF methods in sand, clay, and mixed soils.
The LRFD approach was mainly calibrated herein for bridges but can also be
used for other types of structures since the DL/LL ratio effects on the
resistance factors are very limited.
Changing the load factors has significant effect on the resistance factors, as
they increase with increasing the ratio between the dead and live load factors.
10
909
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 05/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The study was conducted as part of an ongoing researches to development the
LRFD procedures for bridge deep foundations in Egypt. The authors express gratitude
for the support received by Prof. Dr. Fatma A. Baligh who helped in the data
collection process. Finally, thanks to SAAB EGYPT Engineering Consulting Office
(Prof. Dr. Sayed Abdel-Salam) for providing necessary funds for this research.
REFERENCES
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2007). Customary U.S. Units, 6th
edition (2013 Interim), Washington, D.C.
Abdelrahman, G. E., Shaarawi, E. M., and Abouzaid, K. S. (2003). Interpretation
of Axial Pile Load Test Results for Continuous Flight Auger Piles. Proc. of the
9th Arab Structural Engineering Conf., Abu Dhabi, UAE.
AbdelSalam, S. S., Sritharan, S., and Suleiman, M. T. (2010). "Current Design and
Construction Practices of Bridge Pile Foundations with Emphasis on
Implementation of LRFD". ASCE, Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 6.
AbdelSalam, S. S., Sritharan, S., and Suleiman, M. T. (2011). LRFD Resistance
Factors for Design of Driven H-Piles in Layered Soils. ASCE, Journal of Bridge
Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 6.
Becker, D. E., and Devata, M. (2005). Implementation and Application Issues of
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Deep Foundations. Proc. of the
Geo-Frontiers 2005, Austin, Texas.
Bengt, H. F. (1980). "The Analysis of Results from Routine Pile Load Tests,
Ground Engineering, pp. 19-31.
Bond, J. A. (2011). Past Present and Future of Eurocode 7. 3rd ISSMGE Webinar.
Brown, D.A., Turner, J.P., and Castelli, R.J., (2010). Drilled Shafts: Construction
Procedures and LRFD Design Methods. Publication FHWA-NHI-10-016,
FHWA, Washington, D.C.
DIN (1990). Large bored piles, manufacture, design, and permissible loading.
DIN 4014, Part 2, Germany.
Egyptian Code of Deep Foundations - ECDF (2001). Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering. Part 4 - Deep Foundations, 6th addition, HBRC.
Eurocode 7 (1997 / 2004). Geotechnical DesignPart I: General Rules.
European Committee for Standardization, Central Secretariat, Brussels.
Goble, G. (1999). NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 276: Geotechnical
Related Development and Implementation of Load and Resistance Factor Design
(LRFD) Methods. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
O'Neill, M. W., and Reese, L. C. (1999). Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures
and Design Methods. FHWA Report No. IF-99-025, Washington, D.C.
Paikowsky, S. G., B., McVay, M., Nguyen, T., Kuo, C., Baecher, G. Ayyab, B.,
Stenersen, K., OMalley, K., Chernauskas, L., and ONeill, M. (2004). LRFD for
Deep Foundations. NCHRP-507, TRB, Washington D.C.
Withiam, J., Voytko, E., Barker, R., Duncan, M., Kelly, B., Musser, S., and Elias,
V. (1998). LRFD of Highway Bridge Substructures. FHWA HI-98-032.
Yu X., Abu-Farsakh M., Yoon S., Tsai C., and Zhang Z., 2012, Implementation of
LRFD Design of Drilled Shafts in Louisiana, ASCE, Journal of Infrastructure
Systems. Vol. 18, number 2, pp. 103-112.
11
910