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 Mean Water
vessel
Level
PS
Resistance factor of 1.0 for extreme event
loading or conditions (seismic, collision, ice,
extreme scour)
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 = load modifier for load component i
i = load factor for force component i
Qi = nominal value of force component i
i = resistance factor for resistance component i
Ri = 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) Factored Factored Nominal (unfactored)
force effects (loads)
QN
force effects
QN
< resistances
RN
resistances
RN

RN

Q RN
QN
Load Resistance
X factors, factors,
X
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 Avoid these!

Nominal Resistance Allowable load
Nominal base resistance Capacity
Factored resistance Design loads
Displacement at service limit Ultimate capacity
Factored force effects
Extreme event conditions
AASHTO Limit States for Bridge Design
AASHTO LIMIT STATES FOR BRIDGE DESIGN
Limit State Type Case Load Combination
I Normal vehicular use of the bridge without wind
Use of the bridge by Owner-specified special vehicles, evaluation permit
II vehicles, or both, without wind
Strength III Bridge exposed to wind velocity exceeding 55 mph

IV Very high dead load to live load force effect ratios

V Normal vehicular use of the bridge with wind of 55 mph

I Load combination including earthquake

Extreme Event Ice load, collision by vessels and vehicles, and certain hydraulic events with a
II reduced live load other than that which is part of the vehicular collision load, CT
I Normal operational use of the bridge with a 55 mph wind and all loads taken at
their nominal values
II Intended to control yielding of steel structures and slip of slip-critical
connections due to vehicular live load
Service Longitudinal analysis relating to tension in prestressed concrete superstructures
III
with the objective of crack control and to principal tension in the webs of
segmental concrete girders
IV Tension in prestressed concrete columns with the objective of crack control
Repetitive gravitational vehicular live load and dynamic responses under the
Fatigue effects of a single design truck
 AASHTO Load Combinations
and Load Factors
(AFTER AASHTO 2007, TABLE 3.4.1-1)
Load Use one of these at a time
Combination
Limit State PL LL WA WS WL FR TCS TG SE EQ IC CT CV
Strength I p 1.75 1.00 - - 1.00 0.50/1.20 TG SE - - - -
Strength II p 1.35 1.00 - - 1.00 0.50/1.20 TG SE - - - -
Strength III p - 1.00 1.40 - 1.00 0.50/1.20 TG SE - - - -
Strength IV p - 1.00 - - 1.00 0.50/1.20 - - - - - -
Strength V p 1.35 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00 0.50/1.20 TG SE - - - -
Extreme Event I p EQ 1.00 - - 1.00 - - - 1.00 - - -
Extreme Event II p 0.50 1.00 - - 1.00 - - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00
Service I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00/1.20 TG SE - - - -
Service II 1.00 1.30 1.00 - - 1.00 1.00/1.20 - - - - - -
Service III 1.00 0.80 1.00 - - 1.00 1.00/1.20 TG SE - - - -
Service IV 1.00 - 1.00 0.70 - 1.00 1.00/1.20 - 1.00 - - - -
Fatigue - 0.75 - - - - - - - - - - -
PL permanent load WL wind on live load EQ earthquake
LL live load FR friction IC ice load
WA water load and stream pressure TG temperature gradient CT vehicular collision force
WS wind load on structure SE settlement CV vessel collision force
TCS 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
toof the
one limit
of the limit states in Table
states in Table 10-2 10-3

VR
MR
QR
Reactions at column-shaft
Reactions at fixed-end column supports
obtained from structural analysis model
of superstructure

Q
connection obtained from
are taken as axial, shear, and moment
M
V
structural analysis model of
force effects applied to top of the
foundation

superstructure are taken

as axial, shear, and
moment force effects
applied to top of foundation
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

Lateral Deformations
Extreme Event Conditions

P (kips)
Strength at max scour, seismic

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

0.0

Displacement (inches)
-0.5

sand 23
-1.0

-1.5
38
-2.0

rock
-2.5
50 0 1000 2000 3000
Load (kips)

19-19
Interpretation of Strain Gauge Data
0.0
Segment Displacement

Toe Displacement
0
-0.5
-0.5

(inches)
(inches)

-1 -1.0

-1.5 -1.5

-2
-2.0
0 5 10 15 20
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Side Shear (ksf) Load (kips)

19-20
Resistance Factors for Drilled Shafts
Equation, Method, or Chapter Resistance
Limit State Component of Resistance Geomaterial
Reference Factor,
Overturning of individual elastic shaft; p-y method pushover analysis;
Strength I through All geomaterials 0.67
head free to rotate Ch. 12
Strength V Overturning of single row, retaining wall
or abutment; head free to rotate All geomaterials p-y pushover analysis 0.67
Geotechnical
Pushover of elastic shaft within multiple-
Lateral Resistance All geomaterials p-y pushover analysis 0.80
row group, w/ moment connection to cap
Cohesionless soil or IGM Beta method 0.55 / 0.45
Cohesive soil Alpha method 0.45 / 0.35
Side resistance in compression/uplift
Rock Eq. 13-35 0.55 / 0.45
Cohesive IGM Modified alpha method 0.60 / 0.50

Strength I through Cohesionless soil 1. N-value 0.50

Strength V Cohesive soil Bearing capacity eq. 0.40
Base resistance in compression
Geotechnical Axial 1. Eq. 13-22 0.55
Rock and Cohesive IGM
Resistance 2. CGS (1985) 0.50
Static compressive resistance from load
tests All geomaterials < 0.7
Static uplift resistance from load tests All geomaterials 0.60
Group block failure Cohesive soil 0.55
Group uplift resistance Cohesive and cohesionless soil 0.45
Strength I through Axial compression 0.75
Strength V;
Combined axial and flexure 0.75 to 0.90
Structural
Resistance of R/C Shear 0.90
Service I All cases, all geomaterials Ch. 13, Appendix B 1.00
Methods cited above for Strength
Axial geotechnical uplift resistance All geomaterials 0.80
Limit States
Extreme Event I p-y method pushover analysis; Ch.
Geotechnical lateral resistance All geomaterials 0.80
and II 12
Methods cited above for Strength
All other cases All geomaterials 1.00
Limit States
Table 10-5
Reference Manual
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!