See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269053045

LRFD for large-diameter bored piles in Egypt

Conference Paper  in  Geotechnical Special Publication · February 2014

DOI: 10.1061/9780784413272.088

CITATIONS READS
10 215

2 authors:

Sherif S. Abdelsalam Hayel M. El-Naggar

Nile University Housing and Building National Research Center
32 PUBLICATIONS   210 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   31 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Deep Foundation View project

Reduction of lateral pressures on retaining walls using geofoam View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hayel M. El-Naggar on 04 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 © ASCE 2014 900
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 05/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

LRFD for Large-diameter Bored Piles in Egypt

Sherif S. AbdelSalam, M. ASCE1; Hayel M. El-Naggar2

1
Assistant Professor and Program Director, Civil Engineering Dep’t, Faculty of
Engineering, the British University in Egypt, Cairo-Suez Road, Al-Sherouk City,
Egypt, 11837. E-mail: [email protected]
2
Research Assistant, Civil Engineering Dep’t, El-Mataria Faculty of Engineering,
Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt, 11790. Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT: The main goal of this study is to implement the Load and Resistance
Factors Design (LRFD) approach for large-diameter bored piles considering the use
of various static analysis methods available in the AASHTO specifications and the
Egyptian code of practice. Exclusively, reliability-based LRFD resistance factors
were calibrated for the O’Neill and Reese (1999), the ECDF (2001), and the Brown et
al. (2010) methods using a wide range of soil types –knowing that these design
methods are used in the current AASHTO specifications, the 2001 Egyptian code, and
the 2010 FHWA design manual for deep foundations, respectively. The analysis was
based on a newly developed national electronic database that consists of information
from more than 90 static load tests. From the main findings, the values of the
resistance factors for the 2001 ECDF method ranged from 0.86 to 0.41. However, the
2010 FHWA method generally provided higher efficiency compared with the 2007
AASHTO method as well as the 2001 ECDF in sand, clay, and mixed soils.

INTRODUCTION
Bored pile (or drilled shaft) foundations are frequently used in Egypt and the
Middle east to support bridge structures and their capacity is typically estimated using
static and dynamic analysis methods. For a selected static method, the pile design
may be achieved using the Working Stress Design (WSD) approach, Limit State
Design (LSD), or the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) approach.
Generally, engineers assumed the Factor of Safety (FS) of the WSD based on
different levels of control in the design and construction stages. Particularly for deep
foundations, experience and subjective judgment are greatly important for selecting
the appropriate FS (Paikowsky et al., 2004). However, it has long been recognized
that pile designs based on the WSD approach cannot ensure consistent and reliable
performance of substructures (Goble, 1999). This major drawback of the WSD stems
from ignoring various sources and levels of uncertainties associated with loads and
capacities of deep foundations, causing highly conservative FS to be used (Paikowsky
et al., 2004). As stated by Becker and Devata (2005), loads and capacities are
probabilistic and not deterministic in nature. Thus, artificial FS should be replaced by

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers

 Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 © ASCE 2014 901

a probability-based design approach such as the LRFD which better deals with
geotechnical designs.
With the trend toward the increased use of LRFD, codes in America and Europe
have included the implementation of limit state approach for geotechnical designs
over the past several years. In the United States (U.S.), significant efforts have been
directed towards development and application of the LRFD approach in geotechnical
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 05/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

engineering; however, its application to geotechnical designs has been moving

relatively slow (Withiam et al., 1998). In 1989, the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) developed their first geotechnical
LRFD specifications. Now, the current AASHTO specifications have been revised
several times to produce the 6th Edition, with 2013 interim revisions, which serves as
a framework for regional calibration for state departments of transportation (DOTs) in
the U.S. as well as an update guide for other international codes. For the degree of
LRFD implementation in the U.S., AbdelSalam et al. (2010) indicated that more than
85% of the state DOTs have adopted the design approach for bridge deep
foundations.
In Europe, the Eurocode 7 (EC7) uses partial resistance factors for the soil shear
strength properties which were developed based on the limit states design (LSD)
approach. The principal difference in philosophy between the LSD and the LRFD
design methods is in the calibration procedures to provide the desired level of safety.
The 1997 EC7 (European Standards, ENV 1997-2, and -3) dealt with driven piles and
drilled shafts at a single section using these partial resistance factors which also
depend on the number of load testes conducted in the field. Paikowsky et al. (2004)
indicated that the 1997 EC7 was complex with quantitative descriptions and limiting
conditions. After several update stages, the 2004 EC7 (EN 1997-1) was published,
which is an extensive code that become a European Standard, EN (Bond, 2011).
Presented in this paper are selected outcomes of an ongoing research project aimed
at establishing the LRFD design recommendations for bridge large-diameter bored
piles in Egypt, considering the regional practices and soil conditions. The project
focuses on developing local resistance factors for different static analysis, including
the Egyptian code method, the 2007 AASHTO and the 2010 FHWA methods in sand,
clay, and mixed soils using a newly developed electronic database that consist of
information from 90 pile load tests conducted in Egypt. Focusing on the strength limit
state, the resistance factors were calculated following the reliability-based calibration
framework suggested by Paikowsky et al. (2004). The study was extended to include
a comparison between the resistance factors calculated for three aforementioned static
methods to indicate which is more efficient for the local practice. Also the outcomes
included a sensitivity analysis to show the effect of changing the structural load
factors on the resistance factors.

STATIC ANALYSIS METHODS

The 2001 ECDF Method
The 2001 Egyptian Code of Deep Foundations (2001 ECDF) adopted a method of
prediction, from the German specification DIN 4014 – Part 2 (1990 DIN), for large-
diameter bored piles. This method suggests the relation between load-settlement by
assuming empirical values for the pile shaft friction and base stress related to the pile
settlement. For the total shaft resistance, Qs, the amount of load can be calculated as:
2

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers

 Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 © ASCE 2014 902

Qs = ∑ fs As
where fs represents the pile ultimate shaft friction as shown in Table 1 and related to a
corresponding value of settlement of about 5 mm to 10 mm regardless of the pile
diameter; and As is the pile shaft surface area, which is calculated by neglecting a
distance D, which represents the pile diameter, above the pile tip. For the total end-
bearing resistance, Qb, the amount of load can be calculated as:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 05/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Qb = fb Ab
where fb represents the pile ultimate base resistance as shown in Table 2 and related
to a corresponding settlement corresponding to 5% of the pile diameter; and Ab is the
pile cross-sectional area at the tip.
Table 1. Skin friction using the 2001 ECDF Method
Soil type N-value Depth (m) fs (kPa)
< 10 n/a n/a
0 to 2 0
10 to 20 2 to 5 30
> 5 50
Cohesionless 0 to 2 0
soils 20 to 30 2 to 7.5 45
> 7.5 75
0 to 2 0
> 30 2 to 10 60
> 10 100
Su fs (kPa)
25 25
Cohesive soils
100 40
200 50

Table 2. End-bearing using the 2001 ECDF Method

fb (kPa)
Soil type Settlement (cm)
Enlarged base Uniform base
1 350 500
Cohesionless 2 650 800
soils 3 900 1100
15 2400 3400
0.2 S* n/a 350
0.3 S n/a 650
Cohesive soils
S n/a 900
*S is the settlement equals to 5% of the pile tip diameter.

The 2007 AASHTO and 2010 FHWA Methods

The current AASHTO bridge design specifications adopt the methodology by
O’Neill and Reese (1999) for the design of drilled shafts. This methodology was first
recommended in the 2007 AASHTO specifications and it is referred to in this paper
as the “2007 AASHTO method.” In 2010, a new design manual published by the
FHWA introduced a modified design methodology in calculating the resistance of
drilled shafts and load displacements (Brown et al. 2010). The method is referred to
herein as the “2010 FHWA method.” For both methods, the nominal ultimate total
resistance of a drilled shaft, Qt, can be calculated using the following equation:
Qt = Qs + Qb = ∑ fs As + ∑ fb Ab

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers

 Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 © ASCE 2014 903

Table 3 presents the general design equations used to estimate the tip and side
resistance of drilled shafts for different soil conditions. Details of application of these
equations in the 2007 AASHTO and the 2010 FHWA methods can be found in
O’Neill and Reese (1999) and Brown et al. (2010), respectively. Regarding the format
of the design equations, there is no difference between the 2007 AASHTO and the
2010 FHWA methods. The differences between the two design methods lie in the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 05/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

way to evaluate the parameters in these design equations, which are summarized in
Table 3. The major change in the 2010 FHWA method is the estimation of side
resistance coefficient β in cohesionless soil. In the 2007 AASHTO method, the β is
solely depth dependent and it neglects the influence of soil type and stress history;
while the β in the 2010 FHWA method is able to account for soil strength and in-situ
state of stress and thus allow a foundation engineer to design a drilled shaft on the
basis of site-specific ground conditions. Yu et al. (2012) developed resistance factors
for FHWA method within the range of 0.6.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE LRFD RESISTANCE FACTORS

EGYPT Database
The development of the LRFD resistance factors for the Egyptian conditions
requires the existence of adequate local pile SLT data as well as quality soil
properties. Over the past few decades, information concerning more than 90 pile
SLTs conducted on driven and bored piles were collected as part of this research in
order to release an electronic database in the near future. The entirety of the collected
information included details concerning the site location, subsurface conditions, pile
type, driving hammer characteristics (if test pile is driven type), pile load-
displacement response, SPT and CPT data, etc. The electronic database is called the
EGYptian Pile Test (EGYPT) database, which is intended to house the existing load
tests information, include analyses performed on the amassed dataset, and allow for
future expansions.
In EGYPT database, the total number of SLTs conducted on large-diameter bored
piles (piles with diameter equal to or more than 60 cm) with sufficient information for
predicting the pile capacity by means of static methods was 35. In order to sort
EGYPT database for different soil types, the same soil groups that were used in the
AASHTO specifications were utilized herein for consistency and comparison
purposes. These main soil groups are sand, clay, and mixed soils. Nevertheless,
AbdelSalam et al. indicated in 2011 that the AASHTO did not provide a criterion to
establish these soil groups, as the pile length that needs to be embedded in clay to
consider the predominant soil profile as clay was not determined. Consequently,
AbdelSalam et al. (2011) conducted a sensitivity analysis to define the soil profile at a
site, which led to the following criterion: the site is classified as sand or clay based on
the most predominant soil that existed more than 70% along the shaft length. If the
percentage of the predominant soils is less than 70%, the site is considered to have
mixed soil. Accordingly, EGYPT database contained 13 sites in sand, 10 in clay, and
12 in mixed soils. However, a better way to categorize the soil type can be achieved
using the percentage of resistance approach indicated by AbdelSalam et al., 2011.
But since the sample size (no. of SLTs) available in the database is considered
relatively small, using the percentage of resistance approach was not adequate herein.

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers

 Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 © ASCE 2014 904

Instead, another group was included in the analysis which combined all the available
35 SLTs for large-diameter bored piles in EGYPT database, and namely “All piles” –
since the database variations in terms of soil and pile conditions are limited.

Table 3. Design equations of the 2007 AASHTO and the 2010 FHWA methods
Soil type Sort Equations 2007 AASHTO method 2010 FHWA method
z (ft); coeff. is limited to 0.25 ≤ β ≤ 1.2 σ
β = (1 − sinϕ ) tanϕ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 05/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Skin f = β σ (MPa) β = 1.5 − 0.135 z . for N ≥ 15 σ

friction ≤ 0.2 MPa N ≤ K tanϕ
Cohesion- β= 1.5 − 0.135 z . for N < 15
15
less soils N60: average SPT blow counts along 2D
f
End below the pile tip (blows/0.3 m)
= 0.058 N (MPa) . if N60 > 50; f ≤ 2.9 MPa
bearing
≤ 2.9 MPa if N60 > 50; f = σ (0.59) N
α = 0.55 for S /P ≤ 1.5 α = 0.55 for S /P ≤ 1.5
for 1.5 ≤ S /P ≤ 2.5 for 1.5 ≤ S /P ≤ 2.5
S S
Skin α = 0.55 − 0.1 − 1.5 α = 0.55 − 0.1 − 1.5
f = α .S P P
Cohesive friction
ignore friction within distance 1.5 m from ignore friction within
soils the ground surface and along a distance D distance 1.5 m from the
above the pile tip ground surface
z
End f = N . S (MPa) N = 6 1 + 0.2 ≤9
D same as 2007 AASHTO
bearing ≤ 4 MPa if Su < 25 kPa, Nc is multiplied by 0.67
β is Bjerrum-Burland skin friction coefficient; α is adhesion factor (skin friction reduction factor); Su is undrained shear strength
of soil; D is pile diameter; Nc is bearing capacity factor; N60 is SPT blow count corrected for the hammer efficiency only
(blow/0.3 m); σ is vertical effective stress in soil; σ is effective pre-consolidation pressure of soil; Pa is atmospheric pressure =
2.12 ksf; ϕ is soil angle of internal friction; z is depth below ground surface at mid layer; and Kp is earth pressure coefficient.

In EGYPT database, the ultimate load capacity (Qult) of all the bored piles was
defined from the measured load-displacement curve using the Chin’s method (Chin,
1970). In Chin’s method, shown in Figure 1, a straight line between ∆/Qva and ∆ is
plotted where ∆ is the displacement and Qva is the corresponding load. Then, the Qult
is equal to 1/C1, where C1 is explained in the figure. This method was selected herein
because it was indicated by Abdelrahman et al. (2003) that the most convenient
methods for the local practices, which give reasonable results, are Chin’s, Decourt’s,
and Hansen’s methods (more details on the methods in Bengt, 1980). This is due to
the fact that such methods use regression analysis for predicting the failure load, and
can reach results without loading the test piles to failure – which is a repeated case in
Egypt when dealing with large-diameter bored piles due to their large capacity.
However, other methods such as Davisson’s (see Bengt, 1980) need the pile to be
loaded to failure or the load-displacement curve should be extrapolated.

Calibration Method
The FOSM was selected to develop the resistance factors for the design of large-
diameter bored piles in Egypt. Knowing that the available FOSM equation is based on
the assumption of lognormal distribution for the Probability Density Functions
(PDFs) of loads and resistances, it was important to first examine the PDFs of
different data groups in EGYPT database to make sure that they follow the lognormal
distribution. In this study, the Anderson-Darling (AD) with 95% Confidence Interval
(95% CI) statistical test was used to check the log-normality of the PDFs.

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers

 Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 © ASCE 2014 905
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 05/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 1. Pile ultimate capacity using Chin’s method

Paikowsky et al. (2004) recommended the use of reliability index (β) values of 2.33
and 3.00 for redundant and non-redundant piles, respectively. Consequently, the main
target values selected for this study were β = 2.33 (probability of failure, pf = 1%) for
redundant pile groups (5 or more piles/cap), and β = 3.0 (pf = 0.1%) for non-
redundant pile groups (less than 5 piles/cap). As for the Dead Load to Live Load
(DL/LL) ratio required for the FOSM analysis, no specific recommendations are
provided in 2001 ECDF. This ratio is typically controlled by the bridge span, traffic
volume, importance of the structure, as well as the conditions associated with
construction. Without adding an excessive conservatism, a DL/LL ratio of 2.0 was
selected for the study presented herein, in addition to a sensitivity analysis that is
presented in the following sections to show the effect of changing the DL/LL ratio on
the calibrated resistance factors for large-diameter bored piles of EGYPT database.

Goodness-of-Fit
Each data set (or PDF) is represented by the mean bias ratio between the measured
and calculated resistances (Ksx) obtained for the bored piles embedded in the three
main soil groups (i.e., sand, clay, and mixed) as well as the All piles group, where the
calculated resistance was found from a chosen static method out of the three methods
addressed in this study. As indicated in Figure 2, the AD and the 95% CI tests
confirmed by providing lower AD coefficient and higher p-value that the lognormal
distribution best-fits the probability distribution for the resistances of 35 piles
calculated using the 2001 ECDF method in the All piles group. The AD test was
conducted and summarized in Table 1 for probability distributions obtained from
resistances calculated using other static analysis methods in sand, clay, mixed
profiles, as well as the All piles group. From Table 1, it can be seen that the lognormal
distribution best-fits all the PDFs. Furthermore, Figure 3 shows the normal and
lognormal frequency distributions for all the PDFs representing the piles resistances
calculated using the three static methods for the All piles group. As seen from the
lognormal distributions in the figure, the 2010 FHWA method provides the closest
conservative mean to unity, while the 2007 AASHTO method provides the smallest
standard deviation in comparison to other static methods. Also, 2001 ECDF method
provided a relatively high scatter and standard deviation.

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers

 99 99
Norma l - 95% CI Lognormal - 95% CI
95 95

90 90

Probability

Probability
C ulative Probability

Cumulative Probability
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
Cumulative

Cumulative
40 40
30 30 Goo dness of Fit Tes t
20 20 Normal
AD = 0.785
10 10 P-Value = 0.038

5 5 Lognormal
AD = 0.253
P-Value = 0.714
1 1
0 1 2 3 1 10
Ksx = SLT (Chin) / 2001 ECDF Ksx = SLT (Chin) / 2001 ECDF
Figure 2. Goodness-of-fit tests for the 2001 ECDF method in the All piles group

20 20
Normal
Variable Mean St. Dev N
2010 FHWA 1.10 0.41 35
15 2001 ECDF 1.44 0.65 35 15
2007 AASHTO 0.86 0.35 35

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Ksx = SLT (Chin) / Static Method Ksx = SLT (Chin) / Static Method
Figure 3. Normal and lognormal PDFs for Ksx of methods in the All piles group
Table 4. Goodness-of-fit tests for all static methods in different soil groups
Anderson-Darling Normality Test
Soil
N Static Method P-value AD P-value AD
Type Normal Normal Lognormal Lognormal CV Best Fit
13 2010 FHWA 0.081 0.624 0.226 0.454 0.70 Lognormal
Sand 13 2001 ECDF 0.083 0.62 0.498 0.318 0.70 Lognormal
13 2007 AASHTO 0.012 0.943 0.103 0.585 0.70 Lognormal
10 2010 FHWA 0.375 0.359 0.335 0.378 0.69 Normal
Clay 10 2001 ECDF 0.762 0.223 0.804 0.21 0.69 Lognormal
10 2007 AASHTO 0.618 0.263 0.632 0.258 0.69 Lognormal
12 2010 FHWA 0.04 0.735 0.221 0.455 0.70 Lognormal
Mixed 12 2001 ECDF 0.309 0.398 0.778 0.222 0.70 Lognormal
12 2007 AASHTO 0.027 0.799 0.092 0.6 0.70 Lognormal
35 2010 FHWA <.005 1.184 0.277 0.439 0.73 Lognormal
All
35 2001 ECDF 0.038 0.785 0.714 0.253 0.73 Lognormal
piles
35 2007 AASHTO <.005 1.664 0.019 0.889 0.73 Lognormal

Resistance Factors
Table 2 summarizes the calibrated LRFD resistance factors for different pile design
methods in three soil types. The table includes the statistical parameters that were
used in the analysis such as the sample size (N), mean bias (λ), standard deviation (σ),
and the Coefficient of Variation (COV) for each data group. For redundant pile
groups, the results presented in Table 1 indicate that the highest resistance factor (φ)
7
 Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 © ASCE 2014 907

in sand soils was obtained for the 2010 FHWA method, followed by 2001 ECDF and
2007 AASHTO methods, with φ values equal to 0.53, 0.41, and 0.36, respectively. It
is also clear from Table 1 that the highest φ in clay soils was for the 2001 ECDF
method with a value equals to 0.86, followed by 2010 FHWA, and 2007 AASHTO, in
that order, with φ values equal to 0.54 and 0.48, respectively. For mixed soils, the
2001 ECDF was still providing the highest φ which corresponds to 0.70, and then
came the 2010 FHWA and 2007 AASHTO methods, in that order, with φ values
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 05/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

equal to 0.59 and 0.42, respectively. Table 1 also summarizes the LRFD resistance
factors calculated for the All piles group (the data set that combines all the 35 load
tests). It can be noticed from Table 1 that the highest φ in the All piles group was for
the 2001 ECDF method which corresponds to 0.57, followed by the 2010 FHWA and
2007 AASHTO methods, in that order, with φ equal to 0.52 and 0.38, respectively.
For non-redundant pile groups, it was found that the resistance factors were reduced
by an average of 30%. Nevertheless, it is important to highlight the fact that higher
resistance factors do not provide a true indication of the efficiency and economy of
the design, as the different static methods lead to different nominal pile capacities. In
order to compare the efficiency of different static methods relative to the actual pile
behavior, the efficiency factors defined as φ/λ were calculated. The φ/λ factor ranges
from 0 to 1.0, where higher φ/λ correlates to higher efficiency methods. In Table 1,
the φ/λ factors are summarized and it was found that the 2010 FHWA method is most
efficient, followed by 2007 AASHTO and 2001 ECDF methods.
Table 5. Summary of the resistance factors for static methods in all groups
Soil Static Analysis Mean St. β=2.33 β=3.00
N COV
Type Method (λ) Dev. φ1 φ/λ2 φ φ/λ
13 2010 FHWA 0.97 0.29 0.30 0.53 0.54 0.41 0.42
Sand 13 2001 ECDF 1.06 0.49 0.47 0.41 0.38 0.29 0.27
13 2007 AASHTO 0.68 0.21 0.32 0.36 0.53 0.28 0.41
10 2010 FHWA 1.05 0.34 0.32 0.54 0.52 0.42 0.40
Clay 10 2001 ECDF 1.58 0.47 0.30 0.86 0.55 0.67 0.43
10 2007 AASHTO 0.92 0.30 0.32 0.48 0.52 0.37 0.40
12 2010 FHWA 1.32 0.52 0.39 0.59 0.45 0.44 0.34
Mixed 12 2001 ECDF 1.73 0.76 0.44 0.70 0.40 0.51 0.29
12 2007 AASHTO 1.01 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.41 0.31 0.30
35 2010 FHWA 1.11 0.42 0.37 0.52 0.47 0.39 0.35
All
35 2001 ECDF 1.44 0.65 0.45 0.57 0.39 0.41 0.28
piles
35 2007 AASHTO 0.86 0.35 0.41 0.38 0.44 0.28 0.32
1
LRFD geotechnical resistance factor for EGYPT database; and 2 Corresponding efficiency factor.

A design chart was prepared to determine the resistance factors corresponding to

different values of β (or probability of failure). As shown in Figure 4 for All piles
group, φ was found to reduce with increasing β value. From this figure, a designer
can find the appropriate φ for a given select β that reflects the pile redundancy, life
time, bridge importance, degree of quality control, and the extent of design
conservatism. Also included in the figure is the φ/λ corresponding to different β
values and static methods in All piles. Two observations are apparent from Figure 2:
1) the order of the efficiency remains the same for the different methods regardless of
the β values; and 2) the efficiency of the method reduces with increasing β; and 3) the
2010 FHWA method is the most efficient, followed by the 2007 AASHTO method,
and then the 2001 ECDF method. Similar observations were made from the same

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers

 Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 © ASCE 2014 908

analyses conducted for the piles in sand, clay, and mixed soils.
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
1.0 1.0
All Piles 2010 FHWA 2010 FHWA
All Piles
2001 ECDF 2001 ECDF

Efficiemcy Factor (φ/λ)

0.8
Resistance Factor (φ)
2007 AASHTO 0.8 2007 AASHTO

0.6 0.6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 05/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

2.33 2.33
0.0 0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Reliability Index (β) Reliability Index (β)
Figure 4. Resistance and efficiency for a wide range of β in All piles group

EXAMINATION OF THE RESISTANCE FACTORS

In this paper, the DL/LL ratio was assumed equals to 2.0, to be consistent with
Paikowsky et al. (2004) recommendations that used a DL/LL ratio ranging from 2.0
to 2.5. However, determining the effect of changing the DL/LL ratio on the calibrated
LRFD resistance factors would be important for verification purposes, especially that
the factors were mainly calibrated for bridges but can also be used for other types of
structures if the DL/LL ratio effects are limited. Consequently, a sensitivity analysis
was conducted using a wider range of DL/LL ratios starting from 1.5 to 4.0. Results
for the 2001 ECDF method were demonstrated herein, since it represents the local
practice, and the change in the resistance factors with respect to changing the DL/LL
ratio was plotted using data groups in sand, clay, and mixed soils. As shown in Figure
5(a), and it was found that changing the DL/LL ratio did not affect the resistance
factors, only a slight reduction limited to around 3% was observed.
DL/LL Ratio γDL/γLL Ratio
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1
1.00 0.65
Sand
Clay
Resistance Factor (φ)
Resistance Factor (φ)

0.80 0.60
Mixed
0.60 0.55

0.40 0.50
2001 ECDF method Sand
0.20 Clay 0.45
(a) Mixed (b) 2001 ECDF method

0.00 0.40
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1
DL/LL Ratio γDL/γLL Ratio
Figure 5. Resistance variation with changing the DL/LL and the γDL/γLL ratios

Although the AASHTO specifications provided values for the load factors, the
loads mean bias, and the loads standard deviation; however, the Egyptian code did
not indicate any of them except for the load factors (Egyptian code uses γDL = 1.4 and
γLL = 1.6). Hence, conducting a sensitivity analysis to determine the effect of
changing the aforementioned parameters that are needed in the FOSM equation, on

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers

 Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 © ASCE 2014 909

the resistance factors is believed to beneficial. The static method selected in this
analysis was the 2010 FHWA method, since it is the method which provided the
highest efficiency, and the change in the resistance factors with respect to changing
the ratio between the dead load factor and live load factor (γDL/γLL ratio) was plotted
using data groups in sand, clay, and mixed soils. The range of the γDL/γLL ratio was
determined to cover the AASHTO and the Egyptian codes. As shown in Figure 5(b),
it was found that changing the γDL/γLL ratio has significantly affected the resistance
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 05/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

factors, as is the resistance increase with increasing the γDL/γLL ratio.

Obviously, there are some inconsistencies between the resistance factors calibration
framework adapted in this study and that of the 2007 AASHTO specifications, such
as the pile ultimate load determination criterion (e.g., Chin’s criteria in this study and
Davisson’s criteria in the AASHTO specifications). However, a comparison between
the LRFD resistance factors calculated for EGYPT database with those provided in
the current AASHTO specifications can still be beneficial. From this comparison, it
was found that the resistance factor for the 2010 FHWA method in sand is greater
than that provided in the AASHTO specifications by about 5% (i.e., 0.53 vs. 0.5).
Also in clay and mixed soils, the 2010 FHWA method still provided higher resistance
factors by about 21% and 8%, respectively (i.e., 0.54 vs. 0.45, and 0.59 vs. 0.55,
respectively). Additionally, it is worth noting that the AASHTO specifications still
depend on the O’Neill and Reese (1999) design methodology (referred to as 2007
AASHTO method), while it was proved in this study that the 2010 FHWA method
can provide higher efficiency and resistance factors.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study aimed at establishing the LRFD design recommendations for bridge
large-diameter bored piles for EGYPT database. Following the reliability based
calibration framework, the resistance factors were developed using information from
35 static load tests, for three different static analysis methods including the Egyptian
code (ECDF), FHWA, and AASHTO methods. Summarized below are the major
findings:
• For sand soils, the highest resistance factor (φ) was obtained for the 2010
FHWA method, followed by 2001 ECDF and 2007 AASHTO methods, with
φ values equal to 0.53, 0.41, and 0.36, respectively.
• For clay soils, the highest φ was for the 2001 ECDF method with a value
equals to 0.86, followed by 2010 FHWA and 2007 AASHTO methods, in that
order, with φ values equal to 0.54 and 0.48, respectively.
• For mixed soils, the 2001 ECDF method provided the highest φ which
corresponds to 0.70, and then came the 2010 FHWA and 2007 AASHTO
methods, in that order, with φ values equal to 0.59 and 0.42, respectively.
• The 2010 FHWA method generally provided the highest efficiency compared
to the 2007 AASHTO and 2001 ECDF methods in sand, clay, and mixed soils.
• The LRFD approach was mainly calibrated herein for bridges but can also be
used for other types of structures since the DL/LL ratio effects on the
resistance factors are very limited.
• Changing the load factors has significant effect on the resistance factors, as
they increase with increasing the ratio between the dead and live load factors.

10

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers

 Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 © ASCE 2014 910

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The study was conducted as part of an ongoing researches to development the
LRFD procedures for bridge deep foundations in Egypt. The authors express gratitude
for the support received by Prof. Dr. Fatma A. Baligh who helped in the data
collection process. Finally, thanks to SAAB EGYPT Engineering Consulting Office
(Prof. Dr. Sayed Abdel-Salam) for providing necessary funds for this research.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 05/24/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

REFERENCES
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2007). Customary U.S. Units, 6th
edition (2013 Interim), Washington, D.C.
Abdelrahman, G. E., Shaarawi, E. M., and Abouzaid, K. S. (2003). “Interpretation
of Axial Pile Load Test Results for Continuous Flight Auger Piles”. Proc. of the
9th Arab Structural Engineering Conf., Abu Dhabi, UAE.
AbdelSalam, S. S., Sritharan, S., and Suleiman, M. T. (2010). "Current Design and
Construction Practices of Bridge Pile Foundations with Emphasis on
Implementation of LRFD". ASCE, Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 6.
AbdelSalam, S. S., Sritharan, S., and Suleiman, M. T. (2011). “LRFD Resistance
Factors for Design of Driven H-Piles in Layered Soils.” ASCE, Journal of Bridge
Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 6.
Becker, D. E., and Devata, M. (2005). “Implementation and Application Issues of
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Deep Foundations.” Proc. of the
Geo-Frontiers 2005, Austin, Texas.
Bengt, H. F. (1980). "The Analysis of Results from Routine Pile Load Tests,”
Ground Engineering, pp. 19-31.
Bond, J. A. (2011). “Past Present and Future of Eurocode 7”. 3rd ISSMGE Webinar.
Brown, D.A., Turner, J.P., and Castelli, R.J., (2010). “Drilled Shafts: Construction
Procedures and LRFD Design Methods”. Publication FHWA-NHI-10-016,
FHWA, Washington, D.C.
DIN (1990). “Large bored piles, manufacture, design, and permissible loading.”
DIN 4014, Part 2, Germany.
Egyptian Code of Deep Foundations - ECDF (2001). “Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering”. Part 4 - Deep Foundations, 6th addition, HBRC.
Eurocode 7 (1997 / 2004). “Geotechnical Design—Part I: General Rules.”
European Committee for Standardization, Central Secretariat, Brussels.
Goble, G. (1999). “NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 276: Geotechnical
Related Development and Implementation of Load and Resistance Factor Design
(LRFD) Methods.” TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
O'Neill, M. W., and Reese, L. C. (1999). “Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures
and Design Methods.” FHWA Report No. IF-99-025, Washington, D.C.
Paikowsky, S. G., B., McVay, M., Nguyen, T., Kuo, C., Baecher, G. Ayyab, B.,
Stenersen, K., O’Malley, K., Chernauskas, L., and O’Neill, M. (2004). “LRFD for
Deep Foundations”. NCHRP-507, TRB, Washington D.C.
Withiam, J., Voytko, E., Barker, R., Duncan, M., Kelly, B., Musser, S., and Elias,
V. (1998). “LRFD of Highway Bridge Substructures.” FHWA HI-98-032.
Yu X., Abu-Farsakh M., Yoon S., Tsai C., and Zhang Z., 2012, “Implementation of
LRFD Design of Drilled Shafts in Louisiana,” ASCE, Journal of Infrastructure
Systems. Vol. 18, number 2, pp. 103-112.
11

View publication stats Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers