Serviceability in the Design of Bridge Foundations

S. G. Paikowsky
Professor, Geotechnical Engineering Research Laboratory, Department
of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Massachusetts
Lowell, Lowell, MA 01854, USA. Email: Samuel_Paikowsky@uml.edu,
Principal, Geosciences Testing and Research, Inc. (GTR), 55 Middlesex
St., Suite 225, N. Chelmsford, MA 01863, USA.

ABSTRACT
An ongoing research project supported by the USA National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) under the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academy
of Science is aimed at developing the AASHTO LRFD Specifications for Serviceability in the
Design of Bridge Foundations. The AASHTO specifications are traditionally observed on all
federally aided projects and generally viewed as a national code of US highway practice,
hence influencing the construction of all highway bridges throughout the USA.
The main challenges in the development of the specifications include; establishing
serviceability criteria, compilation of databases for foundation displacements, determination
of analyses methods and their uncertainty as well as development of methodology and LRFD
parameters for serviceability. The various stages of the project are outlined and examples are
provided. The need for a multiphase approach in the development of serviceability criteria is
presented and its feasibility is demonstrated.

1 INTRODUCTION

A demand for a more economical design, and an attempt to improve structural safety has
resulted over the past 50 years in the re-examination of the entire design process.
A design of a structure need to ensure that while being economically viable, it will suit the
intended purpose during its working life. Limit State (LS) is a condition beyond which the
structure (i.e. bridge in the relevant case), or a component, fails to fulfil in some way the
intended purpose for which it was designed. Limit State Design (LSD) comes to meet the
requirements for safety, serviceability, and economy. LSD generally refers, therefore, to two
types of limit states; Ultimate Limit State (ULS), which deals with the maximum loading
capacity of the structure, and Serviceability Limit State (SLS), which deals with the
functionality and service requirements of a structure to ensure adequate performance under
expected conditions (e.g. normal expected loads, impact, or earthquake).
The ULS design of a structure and its components (e.g. column, pile) depends upon the
predicted loads and the capacity of the component to resist them. Both loads and capacity
have various sources and levels of uncertainty. Engineering design has historically
compensated for these uncertainties by using experience and subjective judgment. The new
approach that has been evolved aims to quantify these uncertainties and achieve more rational
engineering designs with consistent levels of reliability. These uncertainties can be quantified

251
using probability-based methods resulting with the Load and Resistance Factor Design
(LRFD) allowing to separate uncertainties in loading from uncertainties in resistance, and
then to use procedures from probability theory to assure a prescribed margin of safety.
The same principles used in the LRFD for ULS can be applied to the SLS, substituting the
capacity of the component with a serviceability limit, may it be quantified deflection, crack,
or vibration. Since failure under the SLS will not lead to collapse, the prescribed margin of
safety can be smaller, i.e. the SLS can tolerate a higher probability for failure (i.e.
exceedance of criteria) compared with that for the ULS.
A variation of LRFD was first adopted by AASHTO (American Association of State
Highway Transportation Officials) for the design of certain types of bridge superstructures in
1977 under a design procedure known as Load Factor Design (LFD). The AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design and Construction Specifications were published in 1994 based on NCHRP
project 12-33. Since 1996 (16th edition, 1st LRFD addition) the AASHTO LRFD
Specifications are applied to Geotechnical Engineering utilizing the work performed by
Barker et al., (1991). This code was mostly based on adaptation of Working Stress Design
(WSD) to LRFD and only marginally addresses the SLS. A continuous attempt has been
made since to improve upon the scientific basis on which the specifications were developed,
including NCHRP 20-7 Task 88, NCHRP 12-35 and 12-55 for earth pressures and retaining
walls, NCHRP 12-24 for soil-nailing, and NCHRP 24-17 that calibrated for the first time the
LRFD parameters for deep foundations based on extensive databases of deep foundation
testing (NCHRP Report 507, Paikowsky, 2004).
The current study (NCHRP 12-66) is a major effort addressing the needs of SLS in design
of bridge foundations. A complete approach requires developing serviceability criteria for
bridges based on foundation performance, defining methods for the evaluation of foundation
displacements and establishing their uncertainty, and calibrating the resistance factors
assigned for the use of these methods based on the established SLS and a decided target
reliability.
The main challenges of the study are:
1. Establish serviceability criteria for bridges under normal operation.
2. Compile large high quality databases for foundation displacements.
3. Determine the analyses methods used for calculating foundation displacements
and establish their uncertainty.
4. Develop methodology and establish LRFD parameters for serviceability.
The following sections outline briefly the aforementioned challenges and some of the
preliminary results obtained in the study.

2 SERVICEABILITY CRITERIA OF BRIDGES

A limit state is a point at which the structure fails to serve its intended purpose in some way.
Serviceability Limit State (SLS), deals with the functionality and service requirements of a
structure to ensure adequate performance under expected conditions (e.g. normal expected
loads, impact, or earthquake). Unlike ultimate limit state, serviceability limit state is more
subjective and deals with the everyday usefulness of the structure, or the in-service
performance. In order for the structure to fulfil the requirements for SLS, the structure must
perform satisfactorily under normal service loads without causing discomfort to the users by
giving them an unsafe perception or disrupting the functions of the structural system, e.g. the
passage of vehicles on the bridge. SLS is generally classified in one of three ways:
deflections, cracks, and vibrations. Unacceptable deflections may affect the efficient use of
the structure. Cracks and other local damage may reduce the durability of the structure and
affect the efficiency of the structural elements. Excessive vibrations may affect the non-
structural elements while deflections and cracks may also spoil the aesthetic appearance of the
structure. Deflections and vibrations may also affect the transportation on the bridge.
Excessive deflections, cracks, or vibrations may cause discomfort and an unsafe perception to
the motorists and pedestrians. In foundations, SLS is defined by deformation or settlement of
foundations and deterioration of the structure or the foundation system.

252
 Figure 1 outlines the plan taken to establish the serviceability criteria for bridge
foundations under normal operation. Integration of available data, state of practice and
structural analyses of selected typical bridges are used to achieve serviceability criteria.
Figure 2 illustrates available data and its interpretation. Large database was accumulated
by Moulton (1986) and is summarized in Table 1. The utilization of that data can be observed
in the current AASHTO specifications as outlined in Table 2.
A detailed questionnaire that was developed and distributed to all the transportation
officials across the US was aimed at addressing the following issues:
1. Establish bridge construction details allowing to choose representative bridges for
close examination.
2. Examine possible serviceability criteria and related design practices.
3. Survey the design and construction practices of substructures.
The response included information relevant to 8,281 new/replacement bridges and 5,421
rehabilitated bridges that were constructed/repaired over a five-year period (1999 2004) in
the states responding to the questionnaire. The major superstructure findings indicated that
46.6% of the constructed bridges are integral abutment bridges (10.7% single span, 35.9%
multispan), 36.0% are multispan bridges (8.5% simple supported and 27.5% continuous),
14.4% single span simple supported structures and 2.5% all other specialty bridges. Using
this information, a set of twelve representative bridges (see Table 3) was selected for
structural analysis and evaluation under various displacements of the supports. Figure 3
provides an example for the results obtained, where angular distortion obtained via a support
settlement is examined along with an angular distortion criteria.

Review of Available
Structures and Practices
Massachusetts Highway Questionnaire
Department Tolerable Movement
Establish the State of Criteria of Bridges
Practice in Design and Assembly of Available
Construction Data
Establish Typical
Bridge Structures

Structural Analysis of Determination of

the Typical Bridges Bridges Geometric
Subjected to Constraints
Displacements at the
Supports

Determination of
Tolerable Movements of
Bridge Foundations

Figure 1. The Components Used for Establishing the Serviceability Criteria for Bridge Foundations
Under Normal Operation

253
 Vertical Movements (mm) (in)
Tolerable < 50 <2
Harmful but tolerable 50-100 2-4
Intolerable > 100 >4
Horizontal Movements (mm) (in)
Tolerable < 25 <1
Harmful but tolerable 25-50 1-2
Intolerable > 50 >2

Figure 2. Engineering Performance of Bridge Abutments and Piers on Spread Footings (Bozozuk,
1978)

Table 1. Field Studies of Observed and Moved Supports Detailing the Type of Movements (Moulton,
1986).
Total Number
Support % Moved
Observed Moved
Abutment 580 439 76
Pier 1068 269 25

Support Vertical Horizontal Combined

Abutments 86% 31% 18%
Piers 87% 19% 6%

Table 2. Existing AASHTO LRFD Specifications for Serviceability

Section Foundations Criteria Reference
/l < 1/200 simple span
4.4.7.2.5 Footings
/ l < 1/250 continuous
h 1.0inch when h & Moulton, 1985
10.7.2.2 Pile and Groups v combined
h 1.5inch only h

254
 2000

1800 #5
#6 Span 1,3
1600 #6 Span 2,4
#8 Span 1,6
Angular distortion /l = 1/y

1400 #8 Span 2,4

#8 Span 3
1200 #9 Fixed; Span 1,3
#9 Fixed; Span 2
1000 #9 Pinned; Span 1,3
#9 Pinned; Span 2
800 #10 Fixed; Span 1,3
#10 Fixed; Span 2
600
#10 Pinned; Span 1,3
#10 Pinned; Span 2
400

200

0
0 1 2 3 4
Abutment Settlement (inch)
(a)

#5
#6 Span 1,3
#6 Span 2,4
#8 Pier I, Span 1,6
#8 Pier I; Span 2,4
#8 Pier I; Span 3
#8 Pier II; Span 1,6
#8 Pier II; Span 2,4
#8 Pier II; Span 3
#8 Pier III; Span 1,6
#8 Pier III; Span 2,4
#8 Pier III; Span 3
2000
#9 Fixed; Span 1,3
#9 Fixed; Span 2
#9 Pinned; Span 1,3
#9 Pinned; Span 2
#10 Fixed; Span 1,3
#10 Fixed; Span 2
#10 Pinned; Span 1,3
#10 Pinned; Span 2

1800

1600
Angular distortion /l = 1/y

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 1 2 3 4
Pier Settlement (inch)

(b)
Figure 3. Angular Distortion vs. Settlement for the Selected Steel Bridges; (a) abutment and (b) Pier.

255
 Table 3. Number of Bridges per Type and Span Selected as Typical Bridges (represent 97.5% of
Constructed Bridges)
Bridge Type / Case No.
Span Length Simple Single Continuous Integral
& Multi-Span Multi-Span Abutment
Short 20 125ft #1 #5 #9
*Medium 125 400ft #2, #3 #6, #7 #10, #11
Long > 400ft #4 #8 #12
* Steel & concrete construction for each medium span length bridge type

The integration of all the components in the above process, lead to the conclusion that a
serviceability criteria need to be closely related to structural type and construction stage.
Preliminary criteria were developed and presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Summary of Proposed Serviceability Criteria (Preliminary)

Criteria Bridge Type Limit State Limitations Comments
l 50ft subjected to limit vertical
Simple displacements
Angular distortion /l < 1/200
Support exc. rigid frame
structures
l 50ft steel exc. integral abutment
bridges assuming pinned
Angular distortion Continuous /l < 1/250 connection at the
abutment
l 50ft steel Moulton, 1986, Table 7;
Abutment differential Steel VA < 3in
vert. displacement for I/l 20in3 Current study Table 4.14
bridge lifetime Concrete VA < 3in l 100ft Moulton, 1986, p.58;
Current study Table 4.14
Pier differential vert. Steel VP < 2in l 50ft Moulton, 1986, Table 7;
displacement for Current study Table 4.14
bridge lifetime Concrete VP < 2in
Abutment differential Steel VA < 2in l 50ft
vert. displacement
following bridge Concrete VA < 2in
completion
Pier differential Steel VP < 1.25in
displacement
following bridge Concrete VP < 1.50in
completion
All AASHTO; Moulton 1986,
Horiz. displacements
Substructures h < 1.5in Controlling criteria
h < 2.0in
Horiz. displacements
All AASHTO; Moulton 1986,
combined with vert.
Substructures h < 1.0in Controlling criteria
h < 1.5in
displacements

3 DATABASES

Five types of databases are required to address the needs of establishing the performance of
the methods used for evaluating the displacements of bridge foundations. These databases are
categorized according to the foundation type and loading conditions in the following way:
(a) Performance of driven piles under compression, tension and lateral loads
subcategorized according to pile and soil types.
(b) Performance of In Place Constructed Deep Foundations (IPCDF, a.k.a. drilled
foundations) under compression, tension and lateral load subcategorized
according to construction methods and soil types.

256
 (c) Performance of pile groups, categorized under installation method (driven vs.
IPCDF), load direction (vertical and lateral) and soil types.
(d) Performance of shallow foundations categorized according to foundation size
(plate B < 1m, small 1m < B < 3m, large 3m < B < 6m, rafts B > 6m and tanks),
load orientation and soil types.
(e) Performance of full-scale structures like bridge piers, abutments, complete
bridges.
Table 5 outlines as an example the database gathered for evaluating the uncertainty
associated with the displacement analyses of a single deep foundation.

Table 5. UML SDF/LT2005 Database Considered for Analysis in NCHRP 12-66

Pile Type Test Type Total

C T LL Tests
CFA 50 8 0 58
IPCDF

DS 395 64 41 500
CEP 176 36 29 241
OEP 72 27 20 119
Driven

PPC 519 20 15 554

H 210 34 26 270
COEP 25 0 0 25
Total 1,447 189 131 1,767

Legend:
Test Type
C=Compression Test
LL=Lateral Load Test
T=Tension Test (uplift)
IPCDF
CFA= Continuous Flight Auger
DS=Drilled Shaft
Driven
CEP=Closed Ended Pipe Pile
COEP=Concrete Open Ended Pile
H=H Pile
OEP=Open Ended Pipe Pile
PPC=Prestressed, Precast Concrete pile

4 ANALYSES METHODS USED FOR EVALUATING FOUNDATION

DISPLACEMENT

In order to establish the uncertainty associated with the evaluation of the foundation
displacement, one needs to consider four factors:
(a) The state of practice in construction, i.e. what type of foundations are being used
and under what load and soil conditions.
(b) The state of practice in design, i.e. what methods are practically used in bridge
design across the USA.
(c) The existing specifications and the design methods they refer to, and,
(d) Best proposed methods if neither of the above two considerations (b and c) is
met.
In addition, a need exists to establish a clear and consistent methodology, in which the
specific displacement analysis method is being applied, e.g. interpretation of soil parameters
from field tests, correlations between one soil parameter to another, etc.

257
 The state of practice in construction was established via a questionnaire. An example of
foundation alternatives and their use follows:
1. Foundation alternatives include 62% driven piles, 21% In Place Constructed
Deep Foundations (IPCDF) and 17% shallow foundations.
2. Shallow foundations are founded on rock (55%), frictional soil (23%), IGM
(19%), and cohesive soils (3%). About half of the shallow foundations built on
clay are constructed with ground improvement measures, i.e. only about 0.25% of
the total bridge foundations are built on clay with some states indicating they
construct shallow foundations on rock only (AK, TN), dont use shallow
foundations at all (LA, TX) but utilize the analyses for retaining walls, etc. (TX).
3. Lateral loads in piers and abutments, respectively are resolved by batter driven
piles (42%, 50%), vertical driven piles (30%), drilled shafts (25%, 17%), and pile
cap resistance (1%). Rock anchored pipe piles are used in Maine and shallow
foundations in limited cases in MA and CA.
4. Most batter piles range in batter between 1H:5V to 1H:9V
5. Lateral loading and movements due to embankments are considered by 69% of
the responders utilizing lateral earth pressure analysis and p-y lateral pile analysis
(LPile).
6. Tension loads in piers and abutments are resolved by vertical driven piles (69%),
drilled shafts in piers (35%) and in abutments (25%) with the remainder resolved
by anchors.
Details of foundation use and design methods lead to practical conclusions in choosing the
prevailing analyses methods for evaluation. For example, as no new shallow foundations are
built on untreated clay, no need seems to exist in evaluating the settlement of shallow
foundations due to consolidation. Table 6 provides the details for the methods planned for the
evaluation of the displacement analyses of deep foundations.

Table 6. Planned Methods for Evaluation of Displacement Analyses of Deep Foundations.

Deep Foundation Loading Analysis Analysis
Configuration Type Method Tool
p-y COM624P
Single DF SWM SWM ver. 6
Lateral
DP & IPCDF Broms Spreadsheet
Normalized Spreadsheet
Elastic Poulos (1994) Spreadsheet
Single DF
Compression
DP & IPCDF Load-transfer
Spreadsheet
(t-z)
Normalized
IPCDF Compression ONeill & Reese (1999)
relations
Load-transfer
Single DF Tension (t-z) Spreadsheet
Withiam & Kulhawy (1981)
Single pile multi piles COM624P
Lateral FB-Pier or
FEM
Group
Pile Group
Equivalent Pier Elastic Poulos (1994) Spreadsheet
Compression FB-Pier or
FEM
Group
DF = Deep Foundation DP = Driven Pile IPCDF = In-place Constructed Deep Foundation

The establishment of the uncertainty of a method is demonstrated via the analysis of H

piles under lateral loads. Figure 4 presents lateral load test results with the prediction of the
load-displacement relations of the same pile using four different methods of analysis. Figure
5 provides the histograms and frequency distribution of the bias, i.e. the relationship between

258
 Pile Top Deflection (inch)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
35.0
300.0

30.0
250.0
25.0
Applied Load (tons)

Applied Load (kN)

LT 200.0
20.0
150.0
15.0 LT Load Test
LT
COM624 Analysis
100.0
10.0 Broms Analysis
Normalized Relations
5.0 SWM Analysis 50.0

0.0 0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Pile Top Deflection (mm)
Figure 4. Load Test vs. COM624P, Broms, SWM and Normalized Analyses Results HP 3-3-3
(10x42, 23.8ft Embedment, Upper 18ft in Silty Clay Underlain by Shale/Claystone

8 8
Deflection = 1.0 inch Deflection = 1.0 inch
7 # of Data Points = 24 0.3
7 # of Data Points = 23 0.3
Log-Normal
Number of H-Pile Cases

Normal
Number of H-Pile Cases

6 6 Log-Normal Normal
Distribution
Relative Frequency

Distribution

Relative Frequency
Avg. = -0.027 Avg. = 1.03 Distribution Distribution
5 St. Div. = 0.337 0.2 5 Avg. = -0.133 Avg. = 0.913
St. Div. = 0.319 0.2
Std. Div. = 0.292 Std. Div. = 0.276
4 4
3 3
0.1
2 0.1
2
1 1
0 0 0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
Measured Load/ Calculated Load Measured Load/ Calculated Load
(a) p-y Curves (COM624P) (b) Broms
8 8
Deflection = 1.0 inch Deflection = 1.0 inch
# of Data Point = 24 0.3 7 # of Data Point = 24 0.3
7
Log-Normal Normal
Number of H-Pile Cases
Number of H-Pile Cases

6 Log-Normal Normal 6
Distribution Distribution Relative Frequency
Relative Frequency

Distribution Distribution
Avg. = 0.970 Avg. = -0.057 Avg. = 0.986
5 Avg. = -0.077 0.2
5 St. Div. = 0.304 St. Div. = 0.292 0.2
St. Div. = 0.323 St. Div. = 0.295
4 4

3 3
0.1 0.1
2 2

1 1

0 0.0 0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
Measured Load/ Modified Calculated Load Measured Load/ Modified Calculated Load
(c) Normalized Curves (d) Strain Wedge Method (SWM)

Figure 5. Histogram and Frequency Distribution of the Relationship between Test Measured and
Calculated Load Required to Cause a Lateral Deflection of 1.0in in H Piles

259
test measured and calculated load required to develop a deflection of 25mm (1in) in the pile
top (point of measurement). Figure 6 provides the variation of the bias and coefficient of
variation with the displacement. The presented results demonstrate the ability of quantifying
the uncertainty associated with the analysis of the displacements of bridge foundations. The
relationships between the uncertainty associated with a single pile analysis to a group analysis
is an additional requirement in order to be able and quantify the relationships between the
behaviour of a single element to that of a group.

1.2 0.50
p-y
p-y
SWM 0.45
1.1 SWM
Brom's
Brom's
Normalized 0.40
Normalized
1.0
0.35
Bias

COV
0.9 0.30

0.25
0.8

0.20
0.7
0.15

0.6 0.10
0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50
Lateral Deflection (inches) Lateral Deflection (inches)
(a) (b)
Figure 6. Performance of Lateral Displacement Prediction of H Piles for Four Different Methods of
Analysis; (a) Bias (measured/calculated) vs. Lateral Displacement, and (b) COV vs. Lateral
Displacement.

5 METHODOLOGY AND LRFD PARAMETERS

The general formulation of the LRFD equation when applied to serviceability follow the
earlier use of the method when applied to ULS:
dd x < da (1)
where da = deterministic threshold (allowable) DRQ constitutes the SLS criteria as
presented in Table 4.
dd = calculated DRQ for specific foundation type and calculation method
DRQ Displacement Related Quantity
The resistance factors are planned to be determined in two ways:
(a) Make use the bias and COV from the direct calibration (as demonstrated in
Figures 5 and 6) to calculate a resistance factor employing MC simulation. The
resistance factor can then be applied directly to the results obtained by the
specific displacement method being calibrated.
(b) Comprehensive structural based global PBD considering a 2-D model of a bridge,
variability of the spring parameters and loading along with the established
serviceability criteria. This approach is described by Honjo (2005).
Both analyses require the establishment of a probability of failure (Pf) to be associated
with the development of the resistance factors. The establishment of the appropriate Pf (or
target reliability, ) has to consider the outcome in case of exceedance of the criterion and can
be defined via comparable codes (e.g. Eurocode 7, ISO, both use = 1.5) and the databases.
The probability of failure can be evaluated by the examination of the relations between the
service criteria (e.g. vertical displacement) and the displacement associated with the ULS.

260
6 CONCLUSIONS

The quantitative development of serviceability based design requires a multiphase approach

in establishing the serviceability criteria and the parameters used in design to comply by it.
The development of such parameters and its use is feasible, but demands careful progress as
most designers do not consider the serviceability requirements in routine design, and hence do
not see the need for it.
The presented material needs, therefore, to be examined in the general context of design
practices, which is expected to be available (to some extent) upon completion of the research
study.

7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The presented research is sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), under project 12-66. The panel of the research project
and Mr. David Beal of the NCHRP are acknowledged. The Research Team includes:
Samuel G. Paikowsky (P.I.), and Mary Canniff of GTR, Inc.
Lu Ye, Yu Fu, Roiy Guy, Geotechnical Eng. Research Lab., University of
Massachusetts Lowell
Zeidan Ashraf, Guy Levi, Wisam Mualem and Sam Frydman, Technion Israel
Institute of Technology, Structural Engineering and Construction Management
area of the Civil Engineering Department (during the PI sabbatical, Spring 2004).
Japan Team including: Yusuke Honjo, Gifu University, Ikumasa Yoshida,
Shuichi Suzuki, Hyoudou Junichi, TEPSCO, Tokyo, Masahiro Shirato, PWRI,
Japan
Susan Faraji, Faraji Consulting, Inc., Winchester, MA

REFERENCES

AASHTO (1977). Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges: 16th Edition (1996 with 1997
interims). American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
Barker, R., Duncan, J., Rojiani, K., Ooi, P., Tan, C., and Kim, S. (1991). Manuals for the Design of
Bridge Foundations, NCHRP Report 343, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C.
Bozozuk, M. (1978). Bridge Foundation Move, Transportation Research Record No. 678,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, pp. 17-21.
Honjo, Y. (2005). Reliability Analysis for Serviceability and the Problems of Code Calibration,
ERTC10/GeoTechNet WP2 Workshop, Evaluation of Eurocode7, Trinity College, Dublin.
Moulton, L. (1986). Tolerable Movement Criteria for Highway Bridges, FHWA Report, FHWA-TS-
85-228, February, pp. 86.
Moulton, L. (1985). Tolerable Movement Criteria for Highway Bridges, Federal Highway
Administration Publication Report No. FHWA-TS-85-228, 93 pp.
ONeill, M.W., and Reese, L.C. (1999). Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods,
Vol. 2, Publication No. FHWA-IF-99-025.
Paikowsky, S. (2004). NCHRP Report 507, Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Deep
Foundations, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Poulos, H.G. (1994). Settlement Prediction for Driven Piles and Pile Groups, Settlement 94:
Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and Embankments, Texas A&M University,
June 16-18, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 40, pp.1629-1649.
Withiam, J.L., and Kulhawy, F.H. (1981). Analysis Procedure for Drilled Shaft Uplift Capacity,
Drilled Piers and Caissons, ASCE, pp. 82-97.

261