s55_calibration of resistance factors of drilled shafts for lrfd in louisiana_ltc2013

7/29/2019 S55_Calibration of Resistance Factors of Drilled Shafts for LRFD in Louisiana_LTC2013

1/40

Murad Y. Abu-Farsakh, Ph.D., P.E.

Qiming Chen, Ph.D., P.E.Md Nafiul Haque, MS

2013 Louisiana Transportation ConferenceFeb 20, 2013

Calibration of Resistance Factors for

Drilled Shafts for the 2010 FHWA

Design Method


2/40

Background

ASD vs. LRFD

ASD involves applying a FS to account for uncertainties

in both the applied loads and soil resistances,

LRFD separates uncertainties associated with estimatedloads and resistances (load factors & resistance factors)

Since the introduction of LRFD (AASHTO 1994):

Bridge superstructures have been designed using LRFD,

Bridge foundation were designed using ASD,

This leads to inconsistent levels of reliability.


3/40

Background

To maintain a consistent level of reliability, the FHWA &

ASSHTO set up a mandate date (October 1, 2007) after

which all DOT bridge projects should be designed using

LRFD method.

To comply with this, several research efforts for LRFD

calibration of 1999 FHWA drilled shafts method

Paikowsky, 2004, UF, FHWA, and ONeil 1996

Allen, 2005, TRB Circular E-C079 Yang et al. 2008, midwestern U.S., O-cell in weak rock

Liang and Li 2009, NCHRP 24-17

Abu-Farsakh et al. 2010 (07-2GT, Report # 470)


4/40

Background

In 2010, a new design manual (Brown et al. 2010) was

published by the FHWA in which a new design

methodology for drilled shafts was introduced,

In addition, more than 10 new drilled shaft load testswere collected by Louisiana DOTD since the previous

study.

There is a need to calibrate the resistance factors (f)for the 2010 FHWA design method that reflectLouisiana soil and LA DOTD design experience.


5/40

Objectives

The main objective of this study was to calibrate

resistance factors [side (fside), tip (ftip), and total (ftotal)]of axially loaded drilled shafts installed in Louisiana

using the 2010 FHWA drilled shafts design method

based on local load test - soil profile database, and the

LA DOTD design experience/practice.

The resistance factors for the 1999 FHWA design

method were also developed for comparison. The target reliability value (bT) and the corresponding

resistance factor were developed for both design

methods.


6/40

ASD versus LRFD

In Allowable Stress Design (ASD)

where, Q = design load; Qall= allowable design load; Rn=nominal (ultimate) resistance of the structure.

In Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)

where, = resistance factor, Rn= nominal resistance; gD = loadfactor for dead load; gL= load factor for live load; QD = deadload; and QL = live load.

FS

RQQQQ nallLD

iiLLDDn QQQR gggf


7/40

LRFD Concepts

Limit state function: g (R, Q) = RQ

Probability density functions

for load and resistanceProbability of failure

1

Q

2

R

QR

g

g

)0g(PrPf


8/40

LRFD Concepts

The relationship between the

probability of failure and the reliability

index (b):

The strength limit state I requires:

The limit state LRFD design equation:

f niinii RQQ)g(R, niiRnnii RQ

)(1Pf b

Pf b10-1 1.28

10-2 2.33

10-3 3.09

10-4 3.71

10-5 4.26

10-6 4.75

10-7 5.19

10-8 5.62


9/40

Reliability Analysis Methods

for Calibration

First order second moment method (FOSM)

(Closed form solution)

Advanced First order second moment method (AFOSM)

First order reliability methods (FORM)

(Iterative procedure)

Second order reliability methods (SORM)


Monte Carlo Simulation method



10/40

Calibration Methodology

Evaluate the measured (Rm) and predicted resistance(Rp) values for drilled shafts,

Evaluate the bias factor (lR =Rm/ Rp) and COVR, Determine distribution function (Normal, lognormal) Formulate the limit state functions (g = R - Q)

Develop the reliability analysis procedure and

calculate reliability index (b) Select the target reliability index (bT) Determine the resistance factor(f) for drilled shaft

design method corresponding to bT.


11/40

Drilled Shaft Load Test Database

Approximate locations of the

investigated drilled shafts

19 cases from LA; 15 cases from MS

1519


12/40

Summary of Drilled Shaft Tests

B = 2 ft to 6 ft; L = 35.1 ft m to 138.1 ft

I.D.Dia

(feet)

Length

(feet)Soil Type

Load Test

Type

Predicted (2010

FHWA design

method (tons)

Predicted (1999

FHWA design

method) (tons)

Measured

(tons)

DS-01 2.5 53.1 Silty Clay, Sand Base Top Down 584 485 1007

DS-02 2.5 35.1 Clay and Sand with Sand Base Top Down 455 382 784

DS-03 3 54.1 Clayey Silt, Sand Base O-cell 326 247 344

DS-04 5.5 76.1 Silty Sand with Sand Base O-cell 2102 1571 1560

DS-05 6 86.9 Stiff Clay with Clay Base O-cell 1225 1045 1750

DS-06 2.5 77.4 Sand Clay with Sand Base O-cell 839 521 888

DS-07 2.5 65 Fully Sand with Clay Base O-cell 588 390 670

DS-08 2.5 49.9 Silt,Clay with Clay Base O-cell 377 325 285

DS-09 5.5 40.7 Clay,Silt with Clay Base O-cell 566 455 531

DS-10 3 44.9Clay, Silty Clay with Clay

BaseTop Down 327 270 405

DS-11 3 62 Clay with Sand Base Top Down 488 418 428

DS-12 4.5 49.9 Fully SAND O-cell 1066 881 1230

DS-13 4 73.1 Sand with Clay, Sand base O-cell 1032 900 1020

DS-14 4 123 CLAY/SAND-Sand Base O-cell 1428 920 1515

DS-15 4 138.1 SAND O-cell 1631 1047 1413

DS-16 4 119.1CLAY, SAND with SAND

BaseO-cell 2079 1610 1277

DS-17 5.5 94.1 SAND/CLAY with SAND Base O-cell 1978 1630 2145


13/40

Summary of Drilled Shaft Tests

I.D.Dia

(feet)

Length

(feet)Soil Type

Load

Test

Type

Predicted (2010

FHWA design

method (tons)

Predicted (1999

FHWA design

method) (tons)

Measured

(tons)

DS-18 4 96.1 SAND with Sand Base O-cell 1459 860 1082

DS-19 4 82 SAND/GRAVEL/Sand Base O-cell 1467 1210 1258

DS-20 4 97.1Sand with Clay Interlayer

and Sand baseO-cell 936 614 1109

DS-21 4 82 SAND with SAND Base O-cell 1159 840 875

DS-22 4 89 Clay O-cell 2558 2100 2203

DS-23 6 47.9 SAND O-cell 1585 1280 1302

DS-24 4.5 64 SAND/CLAY, Clay Base O-cell 1013 715 498

DS-25 4 64 Sand with Clay Base O-cell 600 496 445

DS-26 2 40 CLAY with Clay Base O-cell 315 262 215

DS-27 4 67.5 Fully Clay, Clay Base O-cell 425 360 549

DS-28 2.5 81.5 Fully Clay, Clay Base O-cell 455 384 570

DS-29 4 77.5 Fully Clay, Clay Base O-cell 751 639 802

DS-30 6 43 Clay, Sand with Sand Base O-cell 2431 1914 2766

DS-31 5.5 47.5 Fully Sand wth Sand Base O-cell 1874 1537 2343

DS-32 5.5 48 Sand, Clay with Sand Base O-cell 1324 1139 682

DS-33 5.5 53.85 Clay, Sand with Sand Base O-cell 1507 1347 887$

DS-34 5.5 51.12 Clay, Sand with Sand Base O-cell 1149 902 1178

B = 2 ft to 6 ft; L = 35.1 ft m to 138.1 ft


14/40

Geotechnical Conditions

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

00 15 30 45 60

mc, LL, PL

0 50 100 150SPT (N)

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

020 40 60 80

c (kPa)Soil Description

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Dep

th(ft)

Loose tan siltLoose clayey silt

Firm to stiff silty

clay with silt

Loose sandy

silt with clay

Very dense silty

fine sand

Dense to very dense

fine sand

Very dense gray and

green silty fine sand

SPT

c

mc

LL

PL

Typical summary of geotechnical data for a tested shaft


15/40

Measured Resistance from O-Cell Test

Settlement curves by O-cellSHAFT END BEARING

SHAFT

SIDE

SHEAR

SHAFT

SIDE

SHEAR

O-cell


16/40


Equivalent top-down settlement

curveSHAFT END BEARING

SHAFT

SIDE

SHEAR

SHAFT

SIDE

SHEAR

O-cell


17/40

a) Settlement curves by O-cell b) equivalent top-down settlement curve

Determine side, tip, and total resistance at 5%B from O-cell tests

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Load (MN)

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

Upwar

dTopo

fBo

ttom

O-c

ellMovemen

t(mm

)

Dow

nwar

dBo

ttomo

fBo

ttom

O-c

ellMovemen

t(mm

)

0 2 4 6 8 10Load (MN)

50

40

30

20

10

0

Settlement(mm

)

Rm-tip

Rm-side

Rm5% B5% B

5% B



18/40

FHWA Design Method for Drilled Shafts

1999 FHWA Design Method for Drilled Shafts (ONeil and Reese)

The nominal ultimate axial resistance (Rp-u) of a drilled shaft:

Rp-u = Rp-b + Rp-s = qb.Ab+ fsi.Asi

Soil Condition Resistance Component Equations

Cohesive Soil

Skin Friction

End Bearing

Cohesionless

Soil

Skin Friction

End Bearing

dAfR,SfL

0szs-puzzsz

ub

s

rrc

ubcb

3S

EI,1)I(ln1.33N

SNq

1.20.25

15Nfor)z0.135/15)(1.5(N

15Nforz0.1351.5

dA'R,tsf2.1'f

60

0.5

60

60

0.5

L

0zs-pzSZ

b

fs

qb

Rp-u

tsf300.6Nq SPTb


19/40

FHWA Design Method for Drilled Shafts

2010 FHWA Design Method for Drilled Shafts (Brown et al.)

The nominal ultimate axial resistance (Rp-u) of a drilled shaft:

Rp-u = Rp-b + Rp-s = qb.Ab + fsi.Asi

Soil Condition Resistance Component Equations

Cohesive Soil

Skin Friction

End Bearing

Cohesionless

Soil

Skin Friction

End Bearing

dAfR,SfL

0szs-puzzsz

ub

s

rrc

ubcb

3S

EI,1)I(ln1.33N

SNq

fs

qb

Rp-u

tsf300.6Nq SPTb

m60

zp

L

0

zs-pzSZ

N0.47/

an)tan/)(sin-(1

dA'R,tsf)(2.1kPa200'f

a

'

p

p

p

K

f


20/40

Predicted Resistance (1999 FHWA Method)

a) Side load transfer for cohesive soil b) End load transfer for cohesive soil

The total developed load (RT) at a specific settlement:

RT = Rp-b (developed) + Rp-s (developed)


21/40

Predicted Resistance (FHWA 2010 Method)

The total developed load (RT) at a specific settlement:

RT = Rp-sN + h Rp-bN

Normalized load transfer representing the average trend value for drilled shaft

0

50

100

150

200

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

AxialCompressionForce

FailureThreshhold

displacementdia. of shaft

Cohesionless

Cohesive

,%

,%

Failure Threshhold


22/40

Predicted Resistance (FHWA Methods)

Example of load-settlement analysis and measured value

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Displacement(in.)

Load (tons)

Measured Resistance

Calculated Resistance using 2010 FHWA Method

Calculated Resistance using 1999 FHWA Method

Rp RmRp


23/40

Predicted Resistance (FHWA Method)

Determine load settlement curves

Determine predicted side, tip, and total resistance

0 1 2 3 4Load (MN)

100

80

60

40

20

0

S

ettlement(mm)

----Predicted Resistance----Measured Resistance

5% of the shaft diameterShaft diameter = 1.52 m

Rp Rm

0 2 4 6Load (MN)

-200

-100

0

100

200

Se

ttlemen

t(mm

)

Interpreted side resistance (Rp_side)

Interpreted tip resistance (Rp_tip)

5%B

5%B

Shaft diameter = 1.52m


24/40

Measured vs. predicted resistance of drilled shafts

1999 FHWA Design Method

Results Predicted versus Measured

1999 FHWA Design MethodRfit = 1.10Rm

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0 500 1000 1500 2000

PredictedDrilledSh

aftSideResistance,

Rp(t

ons)

Measured Drilled Shaft Side Resistance, Rm (tons)

Louisiana

Mississippi


0

300

600

900

1200

1500

0 300 600 900 1200 1500

PredictedDrilledShaftTipResistance,

Rp(tons)

Measured Drilled Shaft Tip Resistance, Rm (tons)

Louisiana

Mississippi

1999 FHWA design methodRfit = 0.79Rm

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

PredictedDrilledShaftResistance,

Rp

(to

ns)

Measured Drilled Shaft Resistance, Rm (tons)

Louisiana

Mississippi


25/40


0

300

600

900

1200

1500

0 300 600 900 1200 1500

PredictedDrilledSha

ftTipResistance,

Rp(to

ns)

Measured Drilled Shaft Tip Resistance, Rm (tons)

Louisiana

Mississippi

Measured vs. predicted resistance of drilled shafts

2010 FHWA Design Method

Results Predicted versus Measured


0

500

1000

1500

2000

0 500 1000 1500 2000

PredictedDrilledSha

ftSideResistance,

Rp(to

ns)

Measured Drilled Shaft Side Resistance, Rm (tons)

Louisiana

Mississippi

2010 FHWA design methodRfit = 1.02Rm

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

PredictedDrilledSh

aftResistance,

Rp

(ton

s)

Measured Drilled Shaft Resistance, Rm (tons)

Louisiana

Mississippi


26/40

Results: Statistic Analyses

Arithmetic calculations

Best fit calculationslR= Rm/Rp Rp/Rm

Mean COV Mean Rfit/Rm

0.99 0.30 0.30 1.10 1.02

Arithmetic calculations

Best fit calculationslR= Rm/Rp Rp/RmMean COV Mean Rfit/Rm

1.27 0.38 0.30 0.87 0.79

Statistical analysis of the 2010 FHWA drilled shaft design method

Statistical analysis of the 1999 FHWA drilled shaft design method


27/40

Histograms of bias, l, for different resistancecomponents 1999 FHWA Method

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1 2 3

Probability

(%)

Rm/Rp

Log-Normal Distribution

Normal Distribution

Side Resistance (1999 FHWA design method)

0

10

20

30

0 1 2 3 4 5

Probability

(%)

Rm/Rp


Normal Distribution

Tip Resistance (1999 FHWA design method)

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 1 2 3 4

Probability

(%)

Rm/Rp


Normal Distribution

Total Resistance (1999 FHWA design method)


28/40

Histograms of bias, l, for different resistancecomponents 2010 FHWA Method

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1 2 3

Probability(%)

Rm/Rp


Normal Distribution

Side Resistance(2010 FHWA design method)

0

10

20

30

0 1 2 3 4 5

Probability(%)

Rm/Rp


Normal Distribution

Tip Resistance (2010 FHWA design method)

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 1 2 3 4

Probability(%)

Rm/Rp


Normal Distribution

Total Resistance (2010 FHWA design method)


29/40

Cumulative Density Function (CDF) of Bias Values (l)

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

StandardNor

malVariable,Z

Bias (lR)

Measured Bias Value

Predicted Normal Dist.

Predicted Log-NormalDist.Predicted Log-NormalDist. (best fit to tail)

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.50.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

StandardNormalVariable,Z

Bias (lR)

Measured Bias Value

Predicted Normal Dist.

Predicted Log-NormalDist.Predicted Log-NormalDist. (best fit to tail)

2010 FHWA Design Method1999 FHWA Design Method


30/40

Summary of Bias (l Rm/Rp) for Drilled Shafts2010 FHWA Method

Statistics Tip Side Total

Max. 5.12 1.17 1.43

Min. 0.47 0.28 0.49

Mean (l) 2.16 0.65 0.94COV 0.53 0.36 0.26

1999 FHWA Method

Statistics Tip Side TotalMax. 5.39 1.47 1.81

Min. 0.43 0.44 0.60

Mean (l) 2.26 0.91 1.22COV 0.55 0.34 0.28


31/40

Contribution of Side and Tip Resistance

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33

Predictedresistancecontribution

(%)

Shaft Number

Tip Resistance (average: 29%)

Side Resistance (average: 71%)

1999 FHWA Method

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33

Predict

edresistancecontribution

(%)

Shaft Number


Side Resistance (average: 77%)

2010 FHWA Method

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33

Measuredresistancecon

tribution

(%)

Shaft Number


Side Resistance (average: 52%)O-Cell

Measurements


32/40

LRFD Calibration Methods

Monte Carlo Simulation method (MCS method)

Target reliability index: 3.0

Dead load/Live load ratio: 3.0 Load statistics and factors (AASHTO):


33/40

Monte Carlo Simulation

Random variables:lR,lL, and lD

Number of simulation: 50000

lglgl

f

gg

LL

DLDLDLLLLLR

LL

DLDLLL

LLQ

Q-

Q

Q

Qg


34/40

Resistance factors

2010 FHWA Method 1999 FHWA Method

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

ResistanceFac

tor,f

T

From measured bias data

From "best fit to tail"

0.48

0.41

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

ResistanceFac

tor,f

T

From measured bias data

From "best f it to tail"

0.60

0.50


35/40


Resistance FactorsTip Side Total

ftip ftip/ fside fside/ ftotal ftotal/2010 FHWA design method 0.53 0.25 0.26 0.40 0.50 0.53

1999 design method 0.52 0.23 0.39 0.43 0.61 0.50


36/40


bT = 3.0 Resistance Factor, f Efficiency Factor, f/Current study (2010

FHWA design method)

0.48 in mixed soils

0.41 in mixed soils (best fit to tail)

0.48 in mixed soils

0.41 in mixed soils (best fit to tail)

Current study (1999FHWA design method)

0.60 in mixed soils0.50 in mixed soils (best fit to tail)

0.47 in mixed soils0.38 in mixed soils (best fit to tail)

Liang and Li (2009)

0.45 in clay

0.50 in sand

0.35 in mixed soils

Paikowsky (2004) and

AASHTO (2007)

0.45 in cohesive soils

0.55 in cohesionless soils


37/40

Summary and Conclusions

Statistical analyses showed that:

The 2010 FHWA design method overestimates the total

drilled shaft resistance by an average of two percent,

The 1999 FHWA design method underestimates the total

drilled shaft resistance by an average of 21 percent.

The prediction of tip resistance is much more conservative

than that of side resistance. A large scatter in the

prediction of side resistance was observed.

The tip, side, and total resistance factors for drilled shafts

were calibrated using MCS reliability-based method.

The lognormal distribution of bias was assumed.


38/40

Summary and Conclusions

Based on reliability-based analyses:

The resistance factors for 2010 FHWA method:

ftotal = 0.48, fside = 0.26, and ftip = 0.53.

The resistance factors for 1999 FHWA method:ftotal = 0.60, fside = 0.39, and ftip = 0.52.


39/40

Acknowledgement

Louisiana Transportation Research Center, LTRC

Louisiana Department of Transportation and

Development, LA DOTD.


40/40

THANK YOU

Questions?

s55_calibration of resistance factors of drilled shafts for lrfd in louisiana_ltc2013

Documents