Search Documents

By Dongwook Kim

Recently, load and resistance factor design (LRFD) is gradually being adopted internationally in geotechnical design due to the advantages of LRFD over the existing allowable stress design (ASD). LRFD is a more advanced design method compared to the ASD because resistance factor is calibrated based on the reliability analysis for a given target reliability index. Target reliability index changes with the importance of the structure. Typically, target reliability index of offshore foundation is less than those of onshore. The widely-used Imperial College Pile (ICP) design method is used for the calculation of pullout capacity of driven piles. The uncertainties regarding pullout capacities of driven piles are assessed using the statistical data reported in the literature. The first-order reliability method (FORM) is used to calibrate resistance factors for the pullout ultimate limit states of the driven piles for three different levels (2.5, 3.0, and 3.5) of target reliability index. The load factors used in this paper are the ones proposed in the AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications.

Jan 1, 2010

By Armin W. Stuedlein, Seth C. Reddy

In this study, factors affecting the reliability of augered cast-in-place (ACIP) piles under axial compression at the serviceability limit state are addressed using a simple probabilistic hyperbolic model and a database of load tests on ACIP piles in cohesion less soils. The aleatory and model uncertainty in a selected load-displacement model is statistically characterized, and is used to simulate representative random samples from the bivariate random vector of model parameters. A first-order reliability method (FORM) was used to determine the effect of sample size on the stability and uncertainty of the reliability index. Sample sizes greater than about 40 provided relatively consistent estimates of the reliability index; however, its uncertainty continued to decrease with increasing sample sizes. Additionally, the effect of slenderness ratio on the reliability of the serviceability limit state design was characterized and found to exhibit a significant effect on the probability of exceeding a specified displacement.

Jan 1, 2013

By R. Chowdhury

The relevance of reliability studies for deep foundations is considered in this paper with special reference to pile foundations. Attention is drawn to uncertainties related to applied loads, the load-carrying capacity and the safety margin of a pile foundation. The essential steps in a reliability study are outlined. An essential goal of any study is the determination of the Reliability Index or Safety Index under different conditions of loading and operation. Calculations concerning probability of failure or success require an assumption to be made concerning the probability distribution of the safety margin. The significance of this and other assumptions should be clearly understood. Reliability approaches should be used to complement conventional deterministic studies.

Jan 1, 2010

By Rajarshi Pramanik, Nirjhar Dhang, Dilip K. Baidya

"This paper performs the reliability evaluation of pile foundation under vertical loading condition using the concept of fuzzy set theory. The uncertain parameters are expressed as fuzzy numbers. Monte Carlo simulation technique in conjunction with fuzzy set theory and fuzzy reliability index approach are implemented in evaluation of the probability of failure of pile foundations. The results are validated through some well established methods such as, First Order Reliability Method (FORM), Second Order Reliability Method (SORM), and direct Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS). Response surface method (RSM) is used to approximate the original limit state equation through second order polynomial. The effect of the position of the water table is also highlighted. Finally, the effect of the variation of applied load is examined and it is observed that the fuzzy reliability analysis gives more conservative estimate of failure probability than the other methods.INTRODUCTIONCivil engineering structures, such as high rise buildings, bridges, offshore platforms etc. are always subjected to vertical as well as horizontal loads. To support these structures, pile foundations are generally the solution in most of the situation. It transmits load from the superstructure to soil at a reasonably great depth. This transfer may be by vertical distribution of the load along the pile shaft or a direct application of load to a lower stratum through the pile tip. Different methods are available to estimate the capacity of piles embedded in different types of soil and under the application of vertical and horizontal loading. To consider the variability in soil and other unforeseen able situation, generally a reasonable value of factor of safety is used to estimate the designed capacity of the pile. Recent developments have shown a trend to place the treatment of uncertainty on a more formal basis, in particular by applying the results of reliability theory to geotechnical engineering. Keeping in mind the importance of pile foundation in the engineering structures it is essential to maintain a high structural safety which result in increase in reliability. The probability theory has been proved to be a powerful tool for representing variability in mathematical models. The variability associated with soil parameters and the modeling uncertainties are needed to be considered for the reliability assessment purpose.Recent development (Zhang et al. 2005; Misra and Roberts 2006; Haldar and Babu 2008; Basu and Salgado 2012; Teixeira et al. 2012; Pula and Rozanski 2012; and Chan and Low 2012) showed that the reliability analysis of pile foundations subjected to axial as well as lateral load has been one of the important current research topic in geotechnical field. Probabilistic based performance criteria were quantified for a single pile and pile groups in cohesionless soil by Eloseily et al. (2002). A p-multiplier approach was incorporated into the analysis to modify the p-y curve for a single pile to obtain the p-y curve for individual piles in a pile group. A statistical analysis of set up capacity of pile was carried out from the database of a large number of pile testing data in clay by Yang and Liang (2006). Load and resistance factor design (LRFD) using FORM was used for examining the different load and resistance factor for different target reliability index. Limit state analysis of drilled shaft was performed by Misra and Roberts (2006) in probabilistic framework. The fuzzy based reliability analysis (Dodagoudar and Venkatachalam 2000; and Park et al. 2012) of the earth slope was reported in the literature. Dodagoudar and Venkatachalam (2000) presented a new approach, called fuzzy point estimate method (FPEM) for reliability evaluation of earth slope. Park et al. (2012) reported a hybrid approach, fuzzy set theory in conjunction with Monte Carlo simulation technique, to determine the failure probability of earth slope. Second Order Reliability Method"

Jan 1, 2015

By António A. Henriques, António Gomes Correia, Ana Teixeira

"Abstract Pile foundations are often used for important structures, and thus, reliability evaluation is an important aspect of the design. Reliability methods have become increasingly important as decision support tools in different areas. The main benefit of reliability analysis is that it provides quantitative information about the parameters (uncertainties) that most significantly influence the behaviour under study. In particular, the design of pile foundations still involves many limitations and uncertainties, particularly when there is not enough investment in soil characterisation and/or pile load tests. In addition to the uncertainties associated with soil characterisation, physical, statistical, spatial and human uncertainties exist. In this subject, the primary purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the application of reliability methods to geotechnical pile design (axial load). It also presents a simple and practical approach to performing it using Monte Carlo Simulations, intending to provide knowledge for code harmonisation and encouraging the development of such methodologies in geotechnical practice. Sensitivity analyses are shown to understand the influence of each uncertainty type coming from different sources. An application example indicates, corroborating other studies, that the model error is the most influent uncertainty. As such, when using the different models (SPT-, CPT- and PMT-based) for bearing capacity, the results emphasise the need for a well-defined and wellcharacterised resistance model, also these results allow the engineer to understand how important the load tests can be to achieve reliable results and economic designs.1 IntroductionUnlike the approach to reliability evaluation used in structural engineering, the traditional procedure used in geotechnical designs addresses uncertainties through high global or partial safety factors (SF), mostly based on past experience. However, this approach to addressing uncertainties does not provide a rational basis for understanding their influence on design.Furthermore, the new regulation codes and social concerns, such as the sustainability or the economy, are imposing geotechnical engineers to increase their ability to deal with uncertainty in a direct and more rational way. Designs should be economic, sustainable and reliable at the same time. Concerning the reliability part of design, different approaches can be done, but the most important thing to keep in mind is the simplicity and efficiency of the tools and applied methods."

Jan 1, 2014

By Amit Srivastava, Monica Malhotra

In a congested city or urban area, so called “lifeline of the city”, i.e. Gas, Electricity, telecommunication, as well as other utilities or facilities are supplied or transported underground through buried pipes or utility tunnel. Sometimes these buried pipes or utility tunnels are deep underground and interfere with the foundation of new structure. It is highly probable that a pile foundation is placed near an existing underground buried pipe or utilities tunnel and may influence its load bearing capacity. Hence, estimation of reduce load bearing capacity of the pile foundation placed near the existing buried conduit or utility tunnel is a complex soil-buried structure interaction problem. It is further complicated owing to uncertainty in estimation of geotechnical parameters of foundation soil due to measurement and testing errors, inherent soil variability and model transation. Under such circumstances, load bearing capacity is best assessed in probabilistic framework or through reliability analysis. The present study demonstrates how concept of response surface method (RSM) in conjunction with Numerical Analysis and First Order Second Moment (FOSM) methods can be combined to per the reliability analysis. The study answers the following question “reliability in reduction in the load bearing capacity of single pile placed near the existing underground pipe or utilities tunnel”. It is demonstrated that the approach provides first hand ination on the reduction in the load bearing capacity and then estimate the reliability of that estimation in terms of an index called Reliability Index (). Such preliminary investigation can be useful for advocating the detailed analysis as well as in the decision making for relocation of pile foundation.

Sep 1, 2022

By Adam Zagorski, Rusty Lucido, Curt Scheyhing

"The current California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) practice based on AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications is to use the O’Neill and Reese method (FHWA, 1999) for calculating the side resistance and base resistance of Cast-in-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) piles / drilled shafts. In this calculation, end bearing is typically neglected for piles constructed using a wet method due to questionable reliability of end bearing resulting from soil disturbance and inadequate cleaning of the base. Pressure grouting below the tips of drilled shafts in cohesionless soils has long been used worldwide to provide reliable end bearing capacity, but for decades it was relatively unused in this country. It has been used increasingly in the United States over the last decade. Before this project tip grouting has not been utilized on or accepted by Caltrans to maximize piles end bearing capacity. This project proved that tip grouting to mobilize reliable base resistance can be successfully implemented on a full-scale bridge project requiring over 350 large diameter shafts.For the Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement Project, Shimmick/FCC/Impregilo, JV utilized a temporary Oscillator casing to the full depth to install CIDH piles. Piles were constructed by the wet method and then pressure grouted below the pile tip. A tip grouting procedure for these large diameter shafts was developed and tested to specifically address the geology and constraints of the project. This procedure was then proven during the Load Testing of test piles during the Test Shaft construction phase of the project. Tests showed a minimum reliable base resistance of 150 ksf could be mobilized in very dense sand at a downward movement of 5% of the pile diameter for piles ranging from 4.9 to 8.2 feet in diameter. By tip grouting, the length and diameter of the piles were significantly reduced."

Jan 1, 2017

By Steven D. Dapp

The use of base grouting (tip grouting) to enhance the axial capacity of drilled shaft foundations can achieve improvements in economy and reliability for many types of projects and soil profiles. Recent experiences on a range of different construction projects in the Southeastern U.S. illustrate the most attractive opportunities for utilizing this technique and some limitations of the method. The quality assurance provided by measurements obtained during post grouting the pile toe is another important aspect favoring its use; the base grouting is shown to identify weaker piles and provide a means of remediating some deficiencies so that increased foundation reliability is achieved. This paper provides an overview of the methods used to evaluate and design for base grouted shafts along with lessons learned from several case histories.

Jan 1, 2006

By Maurice Bottiau

"Abstract When addressing the performance of deep foundations, many parameters play a role, from adequate soil investigation to performance monitoring and testing. The correct understanding of pile construction, though, remains crucial. After a long period of empirical design and regulations, the last decades have been the ones of theoretical considerations and extensive codes writing. The interaction between technology and design, however, still plays a determinant role. The introduction of hydraulics and the exponential increase in available power on one hand, the miniaturization and the introduction of electronics in control and monitoring systems on the other hand have exerted a major influence on new foundation systems or the evolution and control of existing systems. It appears important to try to take execution related parameters and their control during execution more deeply into account when assessing the final result of the deep foundations and the achieved level of safety and reliability. In this contribution, we will try to analyze how systems, equipment and pile production monitoring and testing can influence the pile performance, and if/how this influence could/should be translated in adapted safety or installation factors. This analysis will run through different categories of piles: driven, augercast and displacement auger piles and bored piles. INTRODUCTIONThe global performance of a deep foundation depends on different aspects (Poulos, 2003):1. Ground investigation2. Design and analysis3. Construction4. Testing5. Performance monitoring6. Remediation and performance enhancementThis paper intends to address the importance of pile construction and the control of it on the final performance of the pile-group of piles. There has been an increasing interest for theoretical analysis over the last 20 years, followed by an increasing impact of regulation and codes. Without denying the importance of the latter, the author wants to point out how installation procedure and project specific parameters can largely influence the reliability of the deep foundation. In this context, detailed and prescriptive standards can miss their objective of intended improvement of accuracy and reliability, but even worse they can adversely impact engineering judgment. In today’s construction world, it is possible to gather installation information which can be of outmost importance for the final deep foundations performance. Therefore, the increase or decrease of installation reliability through adequate pile testing and performance monitoring should be emphasized and should be taken into account in the codes. This is the case already in most advanced codes, but in a limited and insufficiently refined way. After reviewing how codes deal with this issue today, we will show some recent examples of unexpected results due to pile installation. We will try to put these examples into a broader perspective by highlighting some reference and/or recent literature considerations. Finally we will try to summarize how pile testing and installation documentation can increase reliability and attempt to open the debate on how codes could/should allow for more engineering judgment."

Jan 1, 2014

By Kenneth Gavin

The accurate prediction of the shaft capacity of drives piles in sand continues to present problems for foundation designers. Research in this field has been carried out for many years and has yielded a wide range of design approaches -some of which have been shown by recent experimental work to be based on questionable assumptions. This Paper reviews some of the current popular design methods for piles in sand in the context of recent information obtained from high quality field tests conducted by institutions such as Imperial College London. A database of driven piles in cohesionless soils has been compiled from well documented (and reliable) case histories that have been reported in the literature. The measured shaft capacities of the piles in this database are compared with predictions made by the various methods and an assessment is made of the predictive performance and reliability of each method

Jan 1, 1996

By Steve Davidow, Ashely E. Evans, Peter M. Kandaris

"Annually thousands of deep foundations are constructed across North America supporting high voltage transmission line structures. However, a recent state of the practice survey by the Deep Foundation Institutes’ Electric Power Systems Foundation Working Group discovered that the electric power utility industry lacks consistent foundation design guidelines. The survey identified a wide variability in design assumptions, a minimal understanding of risk based analysis, and a need to standardize design methodologies. This paper summarizes the state of practice in electric system foundation design and proposes a framework for risk-based foundation design by accounting for uncertainty from both loads and resistances. Loads derived from electric system codes do not necessarily provide a compatible level of reliability for the design of foundations, as they are a mixture of probabilistic and deterministic values. Load uncertainty is derived from variability in weather conditions, structural models and material properties, typically accounted for by code derived overload factors. Resistance uncertainty arises from variability in natural soil properties, resistance models, subsurface construction techniques, material sampling methods, and limited observations. A consistent methodology is offered relating nominal resistance capacity (strength) to structure loads and service state criteria. Discussion also includes the need for risk-based assessments to account for non-structure load influences (fluvial loads, scour ground loss, liquefaction, etc.).INTRODUCTIONNearly 40 years ago the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) embarked on a major research effort to optimize reliability and economics of transmission line foundation design. Strategies focused on improvements in design models, site characterization, exploration strategies and testing to reduce uncertainty and variance in analysis. Transmission line engineers realized that safety and reliability advancements in design based on probabilistic approaches, with a focus on the unique nature of transmission line, could better control risk and cost.Some transmission line professionals took full advantage of these advancements, particularly where research led to improved software and models. Yet, even after two decades of extensive research, by 1995 the industry still had made little progress in changing design habits. The majority of designers were still characterizing sites via deterministic methods, using loads that may or may not relate to a consistent probability of occurrence, and applying a traditional global factor of safety approach (Phoon, et al. 1995). The following two decades have seen even greater developments in software and reliability-based analysis methods, but old habits seem to die hard as recent surveys show less than half of design professional quantitatively assess risk in their design process."

Jan 1, 2017

By Matthew Runion, Christopher Lawler

The Aeolus – Jim Bridger Transmission Line Project is located in southern Wyoming, home to some of the largest coal seams in the world. Coal seams present unique challenges to underground construction, as they are at high risk of coal-seam fires and do not provide a reliable bearing stratum. Accurate identification of these hazards was essential for reliable design and successful construction of foundations on this project; however, environmental restrictions and other protections created short time frames to access several sites. Coupled with a firm construction deadline, this meant that a comprehensive geotechnical investigation prior to construction would not be possible. This paper presents the project as a case study, and details how an Engineer-Procure-Construct (EPC) contracting format supported by a comprehensive Quality Assurance (QA) program provided a solution to the defined challenges. It describes the initial design process using incomplete geotechnical data and explains how the developed QA program verified design assumptions and reduced geotechnical risk through early identification of geologic conditions during construction. Specific examples will be given, and industry implications will be discussed.

By Abolfazl Eslami, Sara Heidarie Golafzani

CPT-based methods considered as complementary tools for static analyses outperform other axial pile bearing capacity predictive methods. Considering soil spatial variability and minor errors associated with procedure and operator, CPT-base methods mitigate the effect of latent uncertainties in pile design. These methods were developed based on different databases and purposes. Hence, several statistical and probabilistic attributes were defined and implemented to assess the predictive CPT-based methods’ performance via CPT and pile databases in terms of the model parameter. These features make a comparison among methods in terms of precision, accuracy, and efficiency. Furthermore, CPT-based methods can be subjected to scrutiny over their backgrounds and how they were developed via reliability analysis. In this regard, a database of sixty-two driven piles and their adjacent CPT soundings were gathered, and six commonly applied CPT-based methods were examined according to criteria other than prevailing statistical and probabilistic ones, including; (a) input variables, (b) soil behavior classification (SBC) (c) model assumption (d) Influence zone, and (e) axial loading direction. According to these introduced criteria, CPTbased methods were classified and appraised via efficiency ratio. Eventually, these reliability-based, statistical, and probabilistic criteria evaluate the understudied methods performance for the investigated compiled database and help designers select consciously appropriate predictive methods according to the site conditions.

Sep 8, 2021

By Anthony T. C. Goh

"For deep excavations in soft clay, it is common to use jet grouting piles (JGP) prior to excavation to minimize wall deflections and ground settlement, and to prevent basal heave instability. In this paper, finite element analyses were carried out to assess the basal heave factor of safety for excavations in soft clay supported by JGP. Comparison of the factor of safety from the finite element analyses with limit equilibrium methods was then performed. Subsequently, to account for the uncertainties in the soil and JGP properties, a simplified reliability analysis procedure is proposed to estimate the probability of basal heave failure for deep excavations supported by JGP.INTRODUCTIONJet grout piles (JGP) are often used to prevent basal heave instability and to minimize excessive wall and ground movements associated with deep excavations in soft clay deposits (Shirlaw 2003; Wen 2005; Ou 2006). The jet grouting process which is carried out prior to any excavation works produces a series of short overlapping grout columns resulting in a “continuous” base slab (commonly termed as jet grout pile or JGP) below the final excavation level that spans across the entire excavation (Gaba 1990; Hsieh et al. 2003; Ho and Hu 2006). Typically, the JGP thickness ranges from 2 m to 4 m.The focus of this paper is on the assessment of basal heave instability for deep excavations in clay stabilized with JGP. Finite element analyses were first conducted to determine the basal heave factor of safety for deep excavations in clay with JGP. Comparisons were then carried out with factors of safety based on conventional limit equilibrium methods. Since the conventional factor of safety approach does not explicitly reflect the uncertainties of the soil and JGP properties, it is demonstrated in this paper that a simple reliability based approach (Hasofer and Lind 1974) can be used to assess the probability of basal heave failure.LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM METHODFor excavations is clay, the Terzaghi (1943), Bjerrum and Eide (1956) and Eide et al. (1972) methods which are based on bearing capacity theory, are commonly used to determine the basal heave factor of safety. Another commonly adopted method in Japan and Taiwan is the slip circle method which involves taking moments about the lowest strut level (JSA 1988; Hsieh et al. 2008; Luo et al. 2012). The slip circle method has also been applied for excavations with a JGP at the base by incorporating the undrained shear strength of the JGP. In the slip circle method, the basal heave factor of safety FSslip is assessed by taking moments about the lowest strut level (Fig. 1)"

Jan 1, 1900

By Seth H. Hamblin, John E. Regan, Dimitrios Palantzas

"Through reliability-based calibration of larger pile load test databases, recent developments of the Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) methods, which include geotechnical load and resistance factors for deep foundations design, have advanced the state of practice for geotechnical engineering. These load test databases upon which the current geotechnical load and resistance factors have been developed are limited, however, and do not provide sufficient data to support the development of resistance factors for uplift (tension) pile capacity. As such, some recommended resistance factors for uplift capacity estimation methods are simply derived by reducing the recommended resistance factors for piles in compression by a factor of 0.10.The results of three (3) tension loading tests performed to failure on 508 mm (20- in) square precast, prestressed concrete piles, driven though granular soil in southeastern Massachusetts, are presented and compared to static pile capacity calculations and dynamic analyses performed using the Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) during installation. These results are presented along with current recommended LRFD resistance factors for driven piles under uplift (tension) loading conditions. These comparisons offer an assessment of the applicability and limitations of current resistance factors methods for piles under uplift loading and may be useful additions to the existing database for future calibrations of LRFD resistance factors for driven prestressed concrete piles in sand.IntroductionIn 2010, two (2) natural draft cooling towers were constructed by Kiewit (Kiewit) Construction Company of Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey at the Brayton Point Power Station in Somerset, Massachusetts. These massive 500 foot tall, 400 foot diameter cooling towers were designed to convert the existing “open loop” system into a “closed loop system” thereby dramatically reducing the thermal impact to Mt. Hope Bay.Based on design guidance from the German VBG Design Code and the Massachusetts State Building Code (MSBC), tension (i.e. uplift) and lateral loads due to wind loads and design seismic events represented the critical loading conditions.Weighing approximately 190,000 kips upon completion, the cooling tower loads are transferred to 44 foundation nodes (i.e. pile caps) evenly spaced along ring beams which run the circular perimeter of each tower base. Each pile cap node was designed to resist a 2,000 ton compression load, 200 tons in tension (i.e. uplift), and 600 tons in the lateral direction."

Jan 1, 2015

By Tim Chapman

This general report considers what promoters of deep basement projects want from their teams and whether they get it often enough. Most large projects are based on complex financial models where the funding is related to a future income stream. Project delays and cost over-runs can critically affect the financial model. Too often, delays and cost over-runs originate in the substructure and foundations. We must take positive steps to improve our industry's reputation for reliability.

Jan 1, 2006

By Silas C. Nichols, Jennifer E. Nicks

"Limit states design (LSD), or load and resistance factor design (LRFD), is a method to account for the uncertainty in loads and resistance through a reliability calibration that requires all applicable limit states (strength, service and extreme) to be checked during foundation design. LRFD has been in use internationally for several decades; however it wasn’t until recently that engineers working on highway projects were required to use the method for the design of highway bridges and other appurtenances. Although the bridge community has been using a form of limit states design for structural components since the early 1970s, the design of foundations for bridges, walls and other geotechnical features had long been performed using allowable stress design (ASD), whereby all uncertainty in loads and material resistance is combined in a single factor of safety. While the move to LRFD was viewed as a more rational approach for the design of bridges and structures, the transition to its use for geotechnical engineering has been met by many with confusion and difficulties in application. This article will revisit the history of transition from ASD to LRFD for geotechnical engineering, summarize the status of the transition and issues with its use, and briefly discuss some emerging research opportunities for improving and advancing the design platform.Background and HistoryUntil about a decade ago, foundations and substructures for bridges were traditionally designed using ASD, while the superstructure was designed using load factor design (LFD), a precursor to LRFD that incorporated factored design loads but no risk assessment. This combination led to uncertain and incompatible safety margins in design for the various bridge components. In 1986, the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures (SCOBS) concluded that the standard bridge specifications in use at the time for U.S. transportation projects had significant inconsistencies and gaps, wasn’t up to date with emerging technology and that the development of new specifications was warranted. The proposed solution by the subcommittee was to transition to a more coherent method of design where applicable failure and serviceability conditions could be evaluated considering the uncertainties associated with loads and resistance."

Jan 1, 2015

By Ronaldo Luna, Donald Deardorff

"The use of load and resistance factor design (LRFD) is well documented since the 1960s for structural applications when it was first adopted into the American Concrete Institute Building Code in 1963 and was established for geotechnical applications by the Danish Geotechnical Institute about the same time under the name of Limit State Design (LSD).The Federal Highway Administration required all federally funded projects to use the LRFD method by 2007. Due to this funding requirement, recent LRFD research for geotechnical applications has focused on common bridge foundations (i.e., driven or drilled shafts), resulting in good documentation for design using these methods. Unfortunately, the practicing geotechnical engineer does not intuitively know how to create resistance factors for deep foundations systems that have design methodologies and installation techniques significantly different from driven or drilled shaft foundation systems.Helical anchors typically use semiempirical methods for preliminary capacity design and a torque correlation methodology during installation to verify required capacity. Here we provide basic information on the LRFD methodology for helical anchor design. Additionally, the First- Order Second Moment (FOSM) method is applied to a previous helical anchor study (Hoyt and Clemence 1989) to determine resistance factors for an ultimate tension capacity strength limit state.MethodologyThe concept of the LRFD method is to establish factors for both the load and resistance that account for uncertainties using probability theory. The factors increase the nominal load and/or decrease the nominal resistance such that the probability of failure is an acceptable value. LRFD also accounts for the effects of load combinations (dead, live, seismic, wind, etc.) by determining the probability of the combined occurrence. The general form of the LRFD equation used by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) is:"

Jan 1, 2009

By Mary Ellen Bruce Large

"In partnership with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and with support from International Association of Foundation Drilling (ADSC), Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) organized a workshop on quality assurance (QA) practices for acceptance of post-grouted drilled shafts in conjunction with DFI’s 40th Annual Conference on Deep Foundations. The 1½-day workshop was held on October 15-16, 2015 at the Oakland Marriott City Center in Oakland, CA.Post-grouting, in the context of this workshop and report, refers to the alternative design and construction of base-grouted drilled shafts wherein a grout distribution system is installed during construction and used to grout the base under pressure after the drilled shaft concrete has gained adequate strength, resulting in a stiffer axial-compression load-displacement relationship and additional possible ground improvement effects.The primary goals of the workshop were to•?Identify and summarize the state of the practice for design, construction, inspection, verification, acceptance criteria, reliability and performance of post-grouting.•?Identify gaps and needs in quality assurance that should be addressed for successful use of post-grouting.This report is structured to follow the workshop program: workshop presentations outlined the state of practice and views from owners, engineers and contractors on acceptance of post grouting methods for drilled shafts; and subsequent workshop discussions attended by a small invited group of participants focused on identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on post-grouting best practices, acceptance criteria, design and verification procedures, and inspection requirements. A partial list of attendees of the open and closed sessions is provided as Appendix A, and copies of presentations are included as Appendix B.FHWA and Caltrans are the primary audiences for this report, and its content will be used to develop a roadmap for deploying the findings into policy and practice. The secondary audience is the broader industry group, and the report content will be disseminated in a variety of formats."

Jan 1, 2016

By Mary Ellen Bruce Large

"INTRODUCTIONIn partnership with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and with support from International Association of Foundation Drilling (ADSC), Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) organized a workshop on quality assurance (QA) practices for acceptance of post-grouted drilled shafts in conjunction with DFI’s 40th Annual Conference on Deep Foundations. The 1½-day workshop was held on October 15-16, 2015 at the Oakland Marriott City Center in Oakland, CA.Post-grouting, in the context of this workshop and report, refers to the alternative design and construction of base-grouted drilled shafts wherein a grout distribution system is installed during construction and used to grout the base under pressure after the drilled shaft concrete has gained adequate strength, resulting in a stiffer axial-compression load-displacement relationship and additional possible ground improvement effects. The primary goals of the workshop were to•?Identify and summarize the state of the practice for design, construction, inspection, verification, acceptance criteria, reliability and performance of post-grouting.•?Identify gaps and needs in quality assurance that should be addressed for successful use of post-grouting.This report is structured to follow the workshop program: workshop presentations outlined the state of practice and views from owners, engineers and contractors on acceptance of post grouting methods for drilled shafts; and subsequent workshop discussions attended by a small invited group of participants focused on identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on post-grouting best practices, acceptance criteria, design and verification procedures, and inspection requirements. A partial list of attendees of the open and closed sessions is provided as Appendix A, and copies of presentations are included as Appendix B.FHWA and Caltrans are the primary audiences for this report, and its content will be used to develop a roadmap for deploying the findings into policy and practice. The secondary audience is the broader industry group, and the report content will be disseminated in a variety of formats."

Jan 1, 2016