Current U.S.

Practice for
LRFD Design of Drilled Shafts
Dan Brown, P.E.
Dan Brown and Associates

Major Factors Favoring Selection/Use of

Drilled Shafts
Magnitude of loads
Presence of strong bearing stratum at suitable
depth
Urban / Environmental (e.g., avoidance of pile
driving noise & vibration)
Elimination of footing (e.g., top down
construction, cofferdams, congested area)
Seismic or other high lateral demands

Trends
Larger diameters and depths: up to 13ft
(4m) dia and 260ft (80m) deep
Greater demands for flexure, including
considerations of seismic or other extreme
event loads
Greater acceptance of slurry or wet-hole
techniques
More congested sites, challenging
applications
Increased use of load testing and integrity
testing
Applications other than foundations; e.g.,
secant or tangent walls, cutoff walls

Axial Resistance AASHTO (LRFD)

Computed static side & base resistance from
FHWA & State DOT guidelines
Strength limit state, serviceability limit state
Resistance factor increase for site-specific
load testing (0.7 max for strength limit)
20% reduction in axial resistance for
monoshaft foundation on single column pier
Resistance factor of 1.0 for extreme event
loading or conditions (seismic, collision, ice,
extreme scour)

vessel

PS

Mean Water
Level

Concept of Limit State

A condition for which some component of the structure
does not fulfill its design function
Can be defined in terms of:

strength: for example, bearing capacity failure,

structural yield in flexure
serviceability: e.g., excessive settlement
or in terms of strength or serviceability but for an
extreme event, e.g., earthquake

LRFD Design Equation

i i Qi i Ri
i

Qi

Ri

= load modifier for load component i

= load factor for force component i
= nominal value of force component i
= resistance factor for resistance component i
= nominal value of resistance component i

Notations
(phi) is used for the LRFD resistance factor;
not to be confused with f (phi) used for the soil
friction angle

(gamma) is used for both soil unit weight and

LRFD load factor

Load factors are subscripted to differentiate load

source, e.g., p = permanent load, L = live load

LRFD: The Basic Idea

Force
Frequency of
Occurrence

Resistance

Magnitude of Force Effect or Resistance

LRFD: The Basic Idea (Contd)

Nominal (unfactored)
force effects (loads)

Factored
force effects

QN

QN

<

Factored
resistances

RN

Nominal (unfactored)
resistances
RN

RN
Q

RN

QN
Load

X factors,

Resistance
X
factors,

Resistance Factor: What Does it Mean?

Resistance Factor: a multiplier used to reduce the
nominal (calculated) resistance to achieve a design that
is safe
Safe: the probability that force effects will exceed
resistance is sufficiently low
Sufficiently low: 1 : 1,000 typical varies with limit state,
consequences of failure, other factors

Terminology
Acceptable terms
Nominal Resistance
Nominal base resistance
Factored resistance
Displacement at service limit
Factored force effects
Extreme event conditions

Avoid these!
Allowable load
Capacity
Design loads
Ultimate capacity

AASHTO Limit States for Bridge Design

Limit State Type

Strength

AASHTO LIMIT STATES FOR BRIDGE DESIGN

Case
Load Combination
I

Normal vehicular use of the bridge without wind

II

Use of the bridge by Owner-specified special vehicles, evaluation permit

vehicles, or both, without wind

III

Bridge exposed to wind velocity exceeding 55 mph

IV

Very high dead load to live load force effect ratios

Normal vehicular use of the bridge with wind of 55 mph

Load combination including earthquake

Extreme Event
II
I
II
Service

III
IV

Fatigue

Ice load, collision by vessels and vehicles, and certain hydraulic events with a
reduced live load other than that which is part of the vehicular collision load, CT
Normal operational use of the bridge with a 55 mph wind and all loads taken at
their nominal values
Intended to control yielding of steel structures and slip of slip-critical
connections due to vehicular live load
Longitudinal analysis relating to tension in prestressed concrete superstructures
with the objective of crack control and to principal tension in the webs of
segmental concrete girders
Tension in prestressed concrete columns with the objective of crack control
Repetitive gravitational vehicular live load and dynamic responses under the
effects of a single design truck

AASHTO Load Combinations

and Load Factors
(AFTER AASHTO 2007, TABLE 3.4.1-1)
Load
Combination
Limit State

Strength I
Strength II
Strength III
Strength IV
Strength V
Extreme Event I
Extreme Event II

Service I
Service II
Service III
Service IV
Fatigue
PL
LL
WA
WS

Use one of these at a time

PL
p
p
p

LL
1.75
1.35
-

WA
1.00
1.00
1.00

WS
1.40

WL
-

FR
1.00
1.00
1.00

TCS
0.50/1.20
0.50/1.20
0.50/1.20

p
p
p
p
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.35
EQ
0.50

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

0.40
-

1.00
-

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

0.50/1.20
0.50/1.20
-

1.00
1.30
0.80
-

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

0.30
0.70

1.00
-

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00/1.20
1.00/1.20
1.00/1.20
1.00/1.20

0.75
permanent load
live load
water load and stream pressure
wind load on structure

WL
FR
TG
SE
TCS

TG
TG
TG
TG
-

SE
SE
SE
SE
-

TG
-

SE
-

TG
-

SE
-

TG
-

SE
1.00

EQ
-

IC
-

CT
-

CV
-

1.00
-

1.00

1.00

1.00

wind on live load

EQ
earthquake
friction
IC
ice load
temperature gradient
CT
vehicular collision force
settlement
CV
vessel collision force
uniform temperature, creep, and shrinkage

Structural Analysis of Bridge Used to Establish

Foundation Force Effects
Bridge subjected to load combination corresponding to one
Bridge subjected to load combination corresponding
the
limit
in Table
10-3
toof
one
of the
limit states
states in Table
10-2

VR
QR
Q

MR

M
V

Reactions at column-shaft
connection obtained from
are taken as axial, shear, and moment
force effects applied to top of the
structural analysis model of
foundation
superstructure are taken
as axial, shear, and
moment force effects
applied to top of foundation
Reactions at fixed-end column supports
obtained from structural analysis model
of superstructure

Strength Limit States for Drilled Shafts

Lateral geotechnical resistance of soil and rock stratum,
for single shafts and shaft groups
Geotechnical axial resistance (compression and uplift),
for single shafts and shaft groups
Structural resistance of shafts, including checks for axial,
lateral, and flexural resistances
Resistance when scour or other unusual conditions occur

Service Limit States for Drilled Shafts

Settlement (vertical deformation)
Horizontal movements at the top of the foundation
Rotations at the top of the foundation
Settlement and horizontal movements under scour at the
design flood
Settlement due to downdrag

Design for Lateral Loading

Geotechnical Strength Limit State
Pushover failure minimum embedment

Structural Strength Limit State

Yield in flexure

Serviceability Limit State

Nominal Resistance
Factored Resistance

Extreme Event Conditions

Strength at max scour, seismic

P (kips)

Lateral Deformations

Permissible

Moment (ft-kips)

7-17

Design for Axial Loading

Geotechnical Strength Limit State
Axial failure plunging or 5% displacement

Structural Strength Limit State

Serviceability Limit State
Settlement

Extreme Event Conditions

Strength at max scour, seismic

Interpretation of Axial Load Test Data

Test Shaft

sand

23

38
rock
50

Displacement (inches)

0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
0

1000

2000

3000

Load (kips)

19-19

0.0

Toe Displacement
(inches)

Segment Displacement
(inches)

Interpretation of Strain Gauge Data

0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
0

10

15

Side Shear (ksf)

20

-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
0

200

400

600

800 1000 1200

Load (kips)

19-20

Resistance Factors for Drilled Shafts

Limit State

Component of Resistance

Strength I through
Strength V
Geotechnical
Lateral Resistance

Overturning of individual elastic shaft;

head free to rotate
Overturning of single row, retaining wall
or abutment; head free to rotate
Pushover of elastic shaft within multiplerow group, w/ moment connection to cap

Side resistance in compression/uplift

Strength I through
Strength V

Base resistance in compression

Geotechnical Axial
Resistance

Geomaterial

p-y method pushover analysis;

Ch. 12

0.67

All geomaterials

p-y pushover analysis

0.67

All geomaterials

p-y pushover analysis

0.80

Cohesionless soil or IGM

Beta method

0.55 / 0.45

Cohesive soil

Alpha method

0.45 / 0.35

Rock

Eq. 13-35

0.55 / 0.45

Cohesive IGM

Modified alpha method

0.60 / 0.50

Cohesionless soil

1. N-value

0.50

Cohesive soil

Bearing capacity eq.

0.40

Static compressive resistance from load

tests
Static uplift resistance from load tests

Group uplift resistance

Extreme Event
and II

Table 10-5
Reference Manual

Eq. 13-22
CGS (1985)

0.55
0.50
< 0.7

All geomaterials

0.60

Cohesive soil

0.55

Cohesive and cohesionless soil

0.45

Axial compression

0.75

Combined axial and flexure

0.75 to 0.90

Shear

0.90

All cases, all geomaterials

1.
2.

All geomaterials

Group block failure

Structural
Resistance of R/C
Service I

Resistance
Factor,

All geomaterials

Rock and Cohesive IGM

Strength I through
Strength V;

Equation, Method, or Chapter

Reference

Ch. 13, Appendix B

Axial geotechnical uplift resistance

All geomaterials

Geotechnical lateral resistance

All geomaterials

All other cases

All geomaterials

Methods cited above for Strength

Limit States
p-y method pushover analysis; Ch.
12
Methods cited above for Strength
Limit States

1.00
0.80
0.80
1.00

Resistance Factors: Redundancy

Resistance factor values in AASHTO and in
the Reference Manual are based on the
assumption that drilled shafts are used in
groups of 2 to 4 shafts
-values decreased by 20% for single shaft
supporting a bridge pier

Agency-Specific Resistance Factors

For design equations not covered in AASHTO or in the
Reference Manual
For specific geomaterials encountered locally or
regionally
For local construction practices
Agencies have the option, in fact are encouraged, to
conduct in-house calibration studies to establish
resistance factors for the cases above
Section 10.1.1.2 of Reference Manual
Transportation Research Circular No. E-C079

Summary
LRFD base design approach is now well-established
Basis for design includes rational approach for:
Serviceability
Strength
Extreme event conditions

We need to use consistent terminology to avoid confusion and

mistakes!
Thanks for Listening!