Ain Shams University

Faculty of Engineering
Department of Structural Engineering

Limit State Design in Geotechnical Engineering

and its Applications for Deep Foundations in
Egypt
A THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the Requirements of the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

Submitted by

Muhammad Ahmed El Sayed Zayed

B.Sc. in Civil Engineering - Structural Engineering- June 2010
Ain Shams University – Faculty of Engineering

Supervised by

Prof. Yasser M. El- Mossallamy Dr. Mohamed Maher Tawfik

Professor of Geotechnical Engineering Assistant Professor of Geotechnical
Structural Engineering Department Engineering
Faculty of Engineering Structural Engineering Department
Ain Shams University Faculty of Engineering
Ain Shams University

June 2014
 Ain Shams University
Faculty of Engineering
Department of Structural Engineering

Name : Muhammad Ahmed El Sayed Zayed

Thesis : Limit State Design in Geotechnical Engineering and its
Applications for Deep Foundations in Egypt
Degree : Master of Science in Civil Engineering (Structural)

EXAMINERS COMMITTEE
Name and Affiliation Signature

Prof. Dr. Khalid M. El-Zahaby

Professor of Geotechnical Engineering
Chairman, Housing and Building National
Research Center (HBRC)- Cairo

Prof. Dr. Fathallah M. El-Nahhas

Professor of Geotechnical Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
Ain Shams University

Prof. Dr. Yasser M. El-Mossallamy

Professor of Geotechnical Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
Ain Shams University

Date: 23 / 6 / 2014
 Ain Shams University
Faculty of Engineering
Department of Structural Engineering

Name : Muhammad Ahmed El Sayed Zayed

Thesis : Limit State Design in Geotechnical Engineering and its
Applications for Deep Foundations in Egypt
Degree : Master of Science in Civil Engineering (Structural)
SUPERVISORS COMMITTEE
Name and Affiliation Signature

Prof. Dr. Yasser M. El-Mossallamy

Professor of Geotechnical Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
Ain Shams University

Dr. Mohamed Maher Tawfik

Assistant Professor of Geotechnical Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
Ain Shams University

Date: 23 / 6 / 2014

Postgraduate Studies
Authorization stamp: The thesis is authorized at / / 2014

College Board approval University Board approval

/ / 2014 / / 2014
 CURRICULUM VITAE

Name: Muhammad Ahmed El Sayed Zayed

Date of Birth: 08, March, 1989

Place of Birth: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Nationality: Egyptian

University Degree: B.Sc.in Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,

Ain Shams University, 2010.

Current Job: Teaching Assistant at Structural Engineering

Department, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams
University
 STATEMENT

This dissertation is submitted to Ain Shams University for the degree of

Master of Science in Civil Engineering (Structural Eng.)

The work included in this thesis was carried out by the author in the
S t r u c t u r a l E n g i n e e r i n g Department, F a c u l t y o f E n g i n e e r i n g ,
Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.

No part of this thesis has been submitted for a degree or

qualification at any other university or institution.

Name: Muhammad Ahmed El Sayed Zayed

Signature:

Date:
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to express my gratitude and respect to my supervisor and

advisor, Prof. Yasser El-Mossallamy, for his support and help throughout
this research. I am also thankful to my co-supervisor, Dr. Mohamed Maher,
for his great efforts and precious advices throughout this research. Working
with Prof. El-Mossallamy and Dr. Maher has been a great experience.

I also would like to thank my colleagues and the technical staff of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Laboratory, Ain Shams University,
for their support.

I deeply thank my mother, father, sister and brother for their continuous
support and effort.
 ABSTRACT

Muhammad Ahmed El Sayed Zayed- Limit State Design in

Geotechnical Engineering and its Applications for Deep
Foundations in Egypt- MSc Thesis- Faculty of Engineering-
Ain Shams University

Supervisors:
Prof. Dr. Yasser M. El-Mossallamy
Dr. Mohamed M. Tawfik

The philosophy of Working Stress Design (WSD) has been widely used for
several areas of geotechnical design in Egypt. In accordance, the Egyptian
Code of Practice for Soil Mechanics and Foundations Design and
Construction (ECP-202, 2001) employs the WSD concept by means of
global safety factors. On the other hand, for the design of structural
elements, the Egyptian Code of Practice for Design and Construction of
Reinforced Concrete Structures (ECP-203, 2007) uses the Limit State
Design (LSD) philosophy with the concept of partial safety factors. Design
incompatibility normally arises when applying two different design
philosophies for the superstructure and its foundations, which may lead to
confusions and design misleading. Therefore, the implementation of the
LSD concept for geotechnical designs in Egyptian practices has become
mandatory.

In this study, the feasibility of applying the LSD concept for geotechnical
design of pile foundations in Egypt was examined. It was proposed that
gradual transition is highly required to smoothly transfer from the
commonly used WSD concept to the LSD concept. Hence, calibrated

i
partial safety factors were needed to be exploited in the LSD. The
calibration-by-fitting technique was utilized to find out calibrated partial
safety factors that can result in similar design values to that acquired from
the WSD. The proposed calibration methodology was applied on a number
of design methods that are currently in-use in the ECP-202 (2001) for the
design of axially loaded single piles. The major two approaches of the
LSD, i.e., the factored resistance approach and the factored strength
approach, were examined through the calibration process.

Calibrated reduction factors for the pile total, side and base resistances
were obtained from the factored resistance approach, i.e., Load and
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD). Furthermore, calibrated partial safety
factors for the soil shear strength parameters were ascertained from the
factored strength approach. The results of calibrated reduction factors in
this study were found in adequate agreement with that adopted in most
international codes for geotechnical limit state design.

Keywords: Limit state design, working stress design, global safety factor,
partial safety factors, piles, calibration

ii
 SUMMARY

Muhammad Ahmed El Sayed Zayed- Limit State Design in

Geotechnical Engineering and its Applications for Deep
Foundations in Egypt- MSc Thesis- Faculty of Engineering-
Ain Shams University

Supervisors:
Prof. Dr. Yasser M. El-Mossallamy
Dr. Mohamed M. Tawfik

Implementation of limit state design in the geotechnical design in Egypt

has become mandatory and essential due to the inconsistency and the
confusion that may arise from the incompatible design philosophies for
substructures and superstructures in the Egyptian practice. Rational
calibration procedures to calibrate reduction factors and partial safety
factors were investigated to be used with limit state design of axially
loaded single piles. The calibration process was conducted via applying
calibration-by-fitting technique aiming to obtain design estimates from
limit state design quite close to that obtained from traditional philosophy of
working stress design. Both factored resistance approach, i.e., Load and
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD), and factored strength approach were
utilized throughout the calibration of the reduction factors and the partial
safety factors, respectively.

This thesis is organized in five chapters. The contents of each chapter can
be summarized as follows:

iii
Chapter (1): This chapter provides a brief description of the problem,
objectives of the study and thesis organization.

Chapter (2): The second chapter of this thesis provides main differences
between the two design philosophies of working stress design and limit
state design regarding the geotechnical engineering design problems. A
review of literature relevant to the limit state design in geotechnical
engineering is also provided in Chapter (2), and different approaches that
can be employed for geotechnical limit state designs are also illustrated.

Chapter (3): This chapter provides a rational procedure to calibrate

reduction factors for total pile resistance and pile side and base resistances
to be used in the LSD, focusing on application to design axially loaded
single piles. The calibration of the resistance reduction factors is achieved
via applying calibration-by-fitting technique. In this chapter, reduction
factors for pile resistances are calibrated using the factored strength
approach, i.e., Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD).

Chapter (4): In this chapter, a rational procedure is provided to calibrate

partial safety factors for soil strength parameters to be used with the static
equation for limit state design of axially loaded single piles. The partial
safety factors for soil strength parameter are calibrated via applying
calibration-by-fitting technique and using the factored strength approach.

Chapter (5): This chapter presents the summary, conclusions of this

research and recommendations for future researches concerning this topic.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………… 1
1.1. General…………………………………………………………….. 2
1.2. Statement of the Problem………………………………………….. 3
1.3. Thesis Outline……………………………………………………... 4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………. 6
2.1. Introduction………………………………………………………... 6
2.2. Uncertainties in Geotechnical Design……………………………... 8
2.3. Geotechnical Engineering Design and Role of Codes of Practice... 10
2.4. Design Philosophies in Geotechnical Engineering……………... 12
2.4.1. Working Stress Design (WSD)………………………………. 14
2.4.1.1. Definition of Global Safety Factor……………………. 14
2.4.1.2. Historical Development of Working Stress Design
Method in Geotechnical Engineering……………………. 18
2.4.1.3. Limitation of the Use of Global Safety Factor………… 19
2.4.1.4. Global Safety Factor and Engineering Judgment……... 23
2.4.2. Limit State Design (LSD)……………………………………. 24
2.5. Partial Safety Factors…………………………………………….. 28
2.6. Limit State Design using Partial Safety Factors…………………. 29
2.7. Different design approaches for geotechnical ultimate limit state
design …………………………………………………………….. 31
2.7.1. Factored Strength Approach………………………………. 32
2.7.2. Factored Resistance Approach……………………………. 34
2.8. Development of partial safety factors in limit state design………. 37
2.9. Calibration of partial safety factors for ultimate limit state design..40
2.10. Calibration-by-fitting technique to calibrate partial resistance
factors for limit state design of pile foundations…………………. 40

-v-
3. CALIBRATION OF RESISTANCE REDUCTION FACTORS
FOR AXIALLY LOADED SINGLE PILES USING FACTORED
RESISTANCE APPROACH……………………………………….. 43
3.1. Introduction………………………………………………………. 43
3.2. Calibration of reduction factors for total pile resistance from static
formula…………………………………………………………… 44
3.3. Calibration of reduction factors for total pile resistance of large
diameter bored piles……………………………………………… 47
3.4. Calibration of reduction factors for driven piles in cohesionless soil
(Hiley formula design method)…………………………………… 49
3.5. Calibration of reduction factors for pile resistance from static
formula considering the vertical component of lateral loads…….. 51
3.5.1. Wind loads………………………………………………….. 51
3.5.2. Earthquake loads…………………………………………..... 55
3.6. Calibration of reduction factors for pile side and base resistance
from SPT-based empirical correlation………………………….... 56
3.6.1. Driven piles………………………………………………… 59
3.6.2. Bored piles…………………………………………………. 61
3.7. Calibration of reduction factors for pile side and base resistance
from CPT-based empirical correlation…………………………… 63
3.7.1. Driven piles………………………………………………… 65
3.7.2. Bored piles…………………………………………………. 68
3.8. Calibration of reduction factors for pile side and base resistance
from PMT-based empirical correlation…………………………... 70
3.9. Calibration of reduction factors for axially loaded single piles on
tension loading…………………………………………………… 70
3.10. Pile group in compression loading……………………………... 71
3.11. Summary ad discussion………………………………………… 71

-vi-
4. CALIBRATION OF PARTIAL SAFETY FACTORS FOR
AXIALLY LOADED SINGLE PILES USING FACTORED
STRENGTH APROACH………………………………………….... 77
4.1. Introduction………………………………………………………. 77
4.2. Working stress design for axially loaded single piles using static
formula design method adopted in ECP-202 (2001)…………....... 78
4.3. Limit state design of axially loaded single piles using static formula
of ECP-202 (2001) via factored strength approach………………. 82
4.4. Calibration of partial safety factor for soil angle of internal friction
for piles in cohesionless soil……………………………………… 86
4.4.1. Calibration of Fφ for bored piles in cohesionless soil………91
4.4.2. Calibration of Fφ for driven piles in cohesionless soil…… 101
4.5. Calibration of partial safety factor for soil cohesion for piles in
cohesive soil…………………………………………………….. 105
4.5.1. Calibration of Fc for bored piles in cohesive soil………… 108
4.5.2. Calibration of Fc for driven piles in cohesive soil……….. 110
4.6. Summary and discussions………………………………………. 114
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...116
5.1. Summary………………………………………………………… 116
5.2. Conclusions……………………………………………………… 117
5.3. Recommendations for further studies…………………………… 125

APPENDIX (A): PARTIAL RESISTANCE REDUCTION FACTORS

FOR ULS IN-SITU BASED DESIGN OF AXIALLY LOADED SINGLE
PILES…………………………………………………………………… 127

APPENDIX (B): ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES FOR THE FACTORED

RESISTANCE APPROACH…………………………………………… 132

REFERENCES………………………………………………………… 140

-vii-
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure (2.1): Design criteria for capacity verses demand (Modified after
Oliphant, 1993)……………………………………………………………. 7
Figure (2.2): Components of foundation design and codes of practice role
(After Ovesen, 1981; 1993)………………………………………………. 11
Figure (2.3): Risks of selected natural events and engineering projects
(After Whitman, 1984; Boyd, 1994)………………………………………13
Figure (2.4): Definition of global safety factor for working stress designs
(After Becker, 1996a)…………………………………………………….. 15
Figure (2.5): Variation of loads and resistances………………………… 17
Figure (2.6): Design values for loads and resistances…………………... 17
Figure (2.7): Different load and resistance distributions (after Green, 1989)
…………………………………………………………………………… 21
Figure (2.8): Three different probabilities of failure for three different
geotechnical problems having the same mean factor of safety (After,
Naghibi, 2010)…………………………………………………………… 22
Figure (2.9): Ultimate Limit State for foundations design (Modified after
Becker, 1996a)…………………………………………………………… 26
Figure (2.10): Schematic diagram for the concept of Factored Strength
Approach (After Ovesen and Orr, 1991)………………………………… 36
Figure (2.11): Schematic diagram for the concept of Factored Resistance
Approach (After Ovesen and Orr, 1991)………………………………… 37
Figure (2.12): Design approaches adopted by different European countries
for piles foundation design (After Bond, A. 2013)………………………. 39
Figure (3.1): Relation between FR and QL/QD ratio for different values FSg
…………………………………………………………………………… 49
Figure (3.2): Relation between FR and QW/QL ratio at QL/QD ratio of 0.30,
for different values FSg .............................................................................. 54

-viii-
Figure (3.3): Calibrated FRs and FRb with respect to the skin friction share
for SPT-based driven piles………………………………………………. 61
Figure (3.4): Variation of QL/QD with FRb and FRs of the intersection point
for SPT-based driven piles………………………………………………. 62
Figure (3.5): Calibrated FRs and FRb with respect to the skin friction share
for SPT-based bored piles………………………………………………... 63
Figure (3.6): Variation of QL/QD with FRb and FRs of the intersection point
for SPT-based bored piles………………………………………………... 64
Figure (3.7): Calibrated FRs and FRb with respect to the skin friction share
for CPT-based driven piles………………………………………………. 68
Figure (3.8): Variation of QL/QD with FRb and FRs of the intersection point
for CPT-based driven piles………………………………………………. 68
Figure (3.9): Calibrated FRs and FRb with respect to the skin friction share
for CPT-based bored piles………………………………………………... 70
Figure (3.10): Variation of QL/QD with FRb and FRs of the intersection point
for CPT-based bored piles……………………………………………….. 70
Figure (4.1): Definition of Po and Pb …………………………………… 89
Figure (4.2): Relationship between Fφ and φ for bored piles at QL/QD ratio
of 0.1 for different values of Lp/dp and KHC …………………………….. 92
Figure (4.3): Relationship between Fφ and φ for bored piles at QL/QD ratio
of 0.3 for different values of Lp/dp and KHC …………………………….. 93
Figure (4.4): Relationship between Fφ and φ for bored piles at QL/QD ratio
of 0.5 for different values of Lp/dp and KHC …………………………….. 94
Figure (4.5): Upper and lower boundaries for the values of Fφ for bored
piles at different KHC, QL/QD and Lp/dp values.………………………….. 96
Figure (4.6): Variations of Fφ with Lp/dp for KHC and QL/QD equals 0.5 and
0.3, respectively, at different values of φ………………………………… 98
Figure (4.7): Variations of Fφ with Lp/dp for KHC and QL/QD equals 1.5 and
0.3, respectively, at different values of φ ……………………………….. 99

-ix-