IFCEE 2018 GSP 295 431

Geotechnical Load Factored Resistance Design (LFRD) Calculations of

Settlement and Bearing Capacity for Shallow Bridge Foundations

Shehab S. Agaiby1; Adebola Adelakun, P.E.2; Ian D. Rish, P.E.3;

and Paul W. Mayne, Ph.D.4

1
Geosystems Engineering, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 06/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0355. E-mail: sagaiby3@gatech.edu

2
Office of Materials and Research, Georgia Dept. of Transportation, Forest Park, GA 30297-
2534. E-mail: aadelakun@dot.ga.gov
3
Office of Materials and Research, Georgia Dept. of Transportation, Forest Park, GA 30297-
2534. E-mail: irish@dot.ga.gov
4
Geosystems Engineering, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0355. E-mail: paul.mayne@ce.gatech.edu

Abstract

Following AASHTO design recommendations, civil engineering designs of shallow bridge

foundations must change from allowable stress design (ASD) to load resistance factor design
(LRFD) specifications regarding limit states concerning allowable bearing stresses and tolerable
settlement magnitudes. Two LRFD criteria (limit state and service state) can be used to develop
design charts of applied foundation stress (factored bearing capacity) versus footing effective
width at various adopted settlement. In the presented methodology, the bearing capacity is
evaluated using limit plasticity theory, settlement values are predicted using elastic continuum
solutions, and geoparameter evaluations are based on site-specific data input using in situ field
data from either standard penetration tests (SPT) or cone penetration tests (CPT). The focus is on
shallow foundations resting on sands, granular soils, and geomaterials exhibiting drained
behavior given the relatively small use of shallow foundations on clays for bridge structures in
the U.S. since these should be dealt with on case-by-case basis because of additional concerns
regarding time-rate-of-settlement, undrained distortion, creep, and other concerns. Two case
studies are presented for comparing the in situ measured load-displacement curves with the
LRFD recommended design values obtained using in situ tests.

INTRODUCTION

Per the 2007 AASHTO bridge specifications, a systematic means for calculating bearing stresses
and corresponding settlements of shallow foundations supporting bridge piers and retaining walls
is identified by changing from Allowable Stress Design (ASD) to Load Resistance Factor Design
(LRFD), as discussed by Sargand & Masada (2006) and Samtani et al., (2010). This paper
provides a methodology for the sizing of spread footing foundations on granular soils and sandy

© ASCE

IFCEE 2018
 IFCEE 2018 GSP 295 432

mixed soils exhibiting drained behavior, notably since less than 1% of shallow foundations for
highway bridges in the USA are placed directly on clay soils (Paikowsky et al. 2010).
LRFD design criteria which include the strength limit state and service state are
combined to provide design plots of factored bearing resistance contours versus the footing size
at different adopted settlement values, as detailed in Agaiby et al., 2016. The design plots
address geometries for a given foundation length (L) and width (B), or rectangular distortion
(L/B ratio), as presented in Figure 1a. The provided methodology can also provide factored
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 06/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

bearing resistance vs. settlement behavior graphs for different footing width values, as presented
in Figure 1b. In-situ measurements using either SPT or CPT are used to provide the needed
geotechnical input parameters to be used in bearing capacity and settlement calculations.

Figure 1. Schematic Bearing resistance chart showing strength limit state and service limit
state criteria for a range of: a) settlements; b) footing widths (after Agaiby et al., 2016)

BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

Foundations must be designed to preclude ultimate collapse or failure of the soil under loading.
For a vertically-loaded foundation, an ultimate stress condition exists. The maximum force is
referred to as the bearing capacity which is associated with full mobilization of the shear strength
of the underlying soil along a prescribed failure surface. In LRFD, this is termed as "limit state".
Theoretical solutions of the limit state or geotechnical bearing capacity problem have been
developed using upper and lower bound plasticity theorems, limit equilibrium, and cavity
expansion theory, as well as numerical modeling simulations.
The general shear solution used in conventional practice is based on limit plasticity
theory and a set of solutions as summarized by Vesić (1975):
qn = c ∙ Nc + 0.5 · B · γ · N γ + σvo' · Nq (1)

where c is either undrained shear strength (su) for undrained loading or effective cohesion
intercept (c′) for drained loading, σvo' = effective overburden vertical stress, B = foundation
width, γ = average total unit weight of the soil (depending on groundwater conditions), and the N

© ASCE

IFCEE 2018
 IFCEE 2018 GSP 295 433

terms are bearing factors that are functions of the foundation shape and effective stress friction
angle (') of the soil accounting for cohesion (Nc), self-weight (Nγ), and overburden or surcharge
(Nq), as defined by Vesić (1975) and Kulhawy et al.(1983). The bearing factors must be modified
to account for foundation shape (rectangular distortion ratio, L/B), embedment depth (Df),
groundwater depth (Dw), and load inclination. This results in:
qn = c ∙ Ncm + 0.5 · B · γ · N γm · C wγ + γ · Df · Nqm · C wq (2)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 06/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

where Cwq and Cw γ are correction factors to account for the buoyancy effect of the groundwater,
if appropriate, and the modified bearing factor terms (Ncm, Nm, Nqm) can be obtained following
AASHTO (2014).

LOAD RESISTANCE FACTORED DESIGN (LRFD)

After computing the nominal bearing stress (qn) of the shallow foundation under design, it is
recommended per AASHTO (2008) bridge specifications to compute a factored bearing
resistance (qR) following the LRFD method. Here, a bearing resistance factor φb is used to
compute the factored resistance where:
q = ϕ .q (3)
The values of the bearing resistance factor φb can be obtained following AASHTO (2014)
using reliability theory and/or calibration by fitting substantial representative statistic data to the
Allowable Stress Design (ASD), where the calculated factors of safety (FS) range from 2.5 to 3.0
and correspond to φb of 0.55 to 0.45, respectively. The main issue with such an approach is the
applicability of the same resistance factor value for all grades of soil type regardless of the
loading conditions or the particular strength characteristics.
To overcome the wide applicability of the values recommended by AASHTO, a second
approach is recommended by Paikowsky et al. (2010) focusing on granular soils with friction
angles ranging from 30° < ' < 45° and relative densities with DR > 35%. Soils were divided into
distinct classes based on effective friction angle and different loading conditions. Corresponding
LRFD reduction factors were suggested based on statistical analyses of computed bias resistance,
defined as the ratio of measured/predicted resistance for a database of well documented case
studies. Hence, the main soil input parameters for bearing capacity determinations are unit
weight () and effective friction angle (') as determined from in-situ test results.

SETTLEMENT COMPUTATION OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

Foundation settlements can be assessed using a variety of different methods including theoretical
(elasticity solutions), empirical/statistical approaches, and numerical simulations. The utilization
of elastic continuum theory provides a sound and rational framework that permits consideration
of all foundation sizes, shapes, and various ground conditions (Harr 1966; Poulos & Davis 1974)

© ASCE

IFCEE 2018
 IFCEE 2018 GSP 295 434

Elastic solution
The general form of the settlement equation for shallow foundations relies on elasticity solutions
that account for finite layer thickness, footing flexibility, soil modulus profile (i.e., homogeneous
vs. Gibson soil), and embedment, as given by Mayne & Poulos (1991):
q  d  I G  I F  I E  (1  2 ) (4)
sc 
E0
where sc = centerpoint settlement, q = uniform applied stress, d = diameter of circular footing or
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 06/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

equivalent diameter, IG = elastic displacement influence factor, IF = foundation flexibility factor,

IE = embedment factor, and E0 = representative elastic modulus of the supporting soil medium.
The elastic displacement influence factor (IG) can be expressed in terms of the rate of
increase of elastic soil modulus (E) with depth (kE = ΔE/Δz) and normalized layer thickness
(h/d), where h = soil layer thickness. An approximate algorithm is given by (Elhakim, 2005):
(5)
1
IG  2
 0.23 
0.6   0.8    1
h/d 
where β = E0 /(kE·d) is a dimensionless Gibson modulus parameter and E0 = soil modulus of
elasticity at the foundation bearing elevation.
Foundation stiffness affects the overall distribution of stresses and corresponding
displacements. For a rectangular raft or structural mat or footing, Horikoshi and Randolph (1997)
discuss the expressions available for foundation flexibility. The most rational definition for a
rectangular foundation is given by:
(1   s )  B 
2 0.5 3
E t
KF  5.57  mat      (6)
E soil (1   mat 2 )  L  L
where B = foundation width, L = foundation length, Emat = elastic modulus of foundation
material (reinforced concrete), Esoil = representative elastic soil modulus, and t = foundation
thickness. An approximate modification factor for foundation flexibility can be expressed as:
 1 (7)
IF  
4 4.6  10  K F 

As for the effects of embedment, a numerical assessment by Burland (1970) using finite
elements shows that the influence factor (IE) is a function of the soil Poisson’s ratio (ν),
embedment depth (ze), and foundation diameter (d) that can be expressed as:
1 (8)
IE  1
 d
3.5  exp 1.22   0.4  1.6  
 ze 
The soil input parameters for settlement calculations requires the evaluation of the elastic
soil modulus (E) which can be determined from in-situ test results (SPT and/ or CPT).

© ASCE

IFCEE 2018
 IFCEE 2018 GSP 295 435

INPUT PARAMETERS FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS (SPT)

The standard penetration test (SPT) is performed during the advancement of a soil boring to
obtain an approximate measure of the dynamic soil resistance, as well as a disturbed drive
sample (split barrel type). The SPT is one of the most common in-situ test worldwide following
ASTM D-1586. Numerous correction factors are applied to the measured SPT N-values, but
most significant is that due to energy inefficiencies which is outlined in ASTM D-4633. Energy
ratios (ER) in practice vary from 30% to 95% with different hammer systems. As of 1985, SPT-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 06/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

N values corresponding to a mean ER = 60 % are termed the corrected value N60, as given by:

= ( ⁄ ) (9)

Since SPT N-values in the same geomaterial will increase with effective overburden stress, N60
is often stress-normalized to an equivalent value of one atmosphere ≈ 100 kPa, known as
overburden correction. The stress-normalized and energy-corrected blow count is referred to as
(N1)60, and for sands and granular soils is calculated from:
( ) = . (10)
where CN = (atm/vo')n' is the stress normalization parameter, atm is atmospheric pressure, and n'
is a stress exponent equal to 0.5 in clean sands (Kulhawy & Mayne 1990).

Soil Unit Weight from SPT

When undisturbed samples or natural water contents are unavailable, unit weight can be
estimated from shear wave velocity (Vs in m/s) and depth (z in m) as given by Mayne (2001):
( ⁄ )= . ( ) . ( )     
Using the SPT resistance, (11) can be used once the shear wave velocity (Vs) is estimated from
relationship given by Imai and Tonouchi (1982):
.
( )= . (12)

Effective Friction Angle from SPT

For sands, a developed correlation between the effective stress friction angle (') and stress-
normalized and energy-corrected SPT resistance, (N1)60, was derived by Hatanaka and Uchida
(1996). For a reference 60% efficiency in the U.S., the expression for peak ' is given as:

= √ . ( ) (13)

Soil Modulus of Elasticity from SPT

Mayne & Frost (1988) investigated results for Appalachian Piedmont soils compiling flat
dilatometer tests (DMT). The in-situ measured elastic moduli (ED) were found comparable to

© ASCE

IFCEE 2018
 IFCEE 2018 GSP 295 436

back-calculated moduli (E') from full-scale foundation measurements. A direct relationship

between the derived elastic moduli (E' = ED) and corrected SPT penetration resistance (N60) was
found:
( )= ( ) .
(14)

Case Study Application Using SPT

A highway bridge site in Ohio was selected as a case study for the application of LRFD design
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 06/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

using SPT data (Sargand et al. 1997; 2003). The settlement behavior of the spread foundations
resting on cohesionless soils was monitored at different construction loading stages. For the
presented case study, SPT boring conducted at West footing for bridge C was chosen where the
settlement of a strip footing (1.2 x 14.9 m) was monitored. Figure 2 presents raw N and corrected
N60 values yielding an average ’ = 30.7°, unit weight = 18.2 kN/m3 and modulus, E = 150 bar.

Figure 2. Raw SPT N and N60 values at bridge C site in Ohio (after Sargand et al. 2003)

Figure 3 presents the factored bearing resistance versus settlement response for the
studied strip footing. It can be observed that the evaluated curve provides reasonable agreement
with the field measured data fulfilling the service limit state for settlement and is far below the
ultimate bearing resistance envelope fulfilling LRFD strength limit state with b = 0.55.

© ASCE

IFCEE 2018
 IFCEE 2018 GSP 295 437

INPUT PARAMETERS FROM CONE PENETRATION TESTS (CPT)

The cone penetration test (CPT) involves the hydraulic pushing of an instrumented electronic
steel probe to obtain vertical profiles of cone resistance (qt), sleeve friction (fs), and porewater
pressures (u2) with depth. CPT procedures are performed in accordance with ASTM D-5778.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 06/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 3. LRFD factored bearing resistance vs. settlement using SPT data for settlements
compared to actual values in Ohio (data after Sargand et al. 2003)

Soil Unit Weight from CPT

A direct unit weight relationship with the CPT sleeve friction has been investigated by Mayne
(2014) from a comprehensive database of sands, silts, and clays, which can be expressed:

t = w∙ [1.22 + 0.15∙ ln(100∙fs/atm+0.01)] (15)

where w = unit weight of water.

Effective Friction Angle from CPT

For evaluating the friction angle of sands, an elite database was compiled from special expensive
undisturbed samples of clean sands (Mayne 2006), the derived expression:

( ⁄ )
= . . ( ) (16)
√( ⁄ )

© ASCE

IFCEE 2018
 IFCEE 2018 GSP 295 438

Soil Modulus of Elasticity from CPT

Elastic theory allows for interrelationships between the equivalent elastic Young's modulus (E)
and constrained modulus (D) in terms of the Poisson's ratio, such that:
(1  ' )
D'  E'  (17)
(1  ' )(1  2' )
For a value ’ ≈ 0.2 that is characteristic of sands and granular soils, the ratio D'/E' = 1.1. An
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 06/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

approximate evaluation of the constrained modulus (and drained Young's modulus) from CPT
results, the common approach is expressed in the form (Mayne 2007):
(q ) (18)
where D is an empirical scaling factor ≈ 5 from numerous studies in the literature.
Case Study Application Using CPT

Using the same bridge site in Ohio, data from a CPT sounding advanced to a depth of 11 m were
used for the LRFD spread footing evaluation. Figure 4 presents raw CPT readings; qt, fs and u2;
yielding an average ’ = 31.3°, unit weight = 17.5 kN/m3 and modulus of elasticity, E = 105 bar.

Figure 4. CPT readings; qt, fs, and u2; at bridge C site in Ohio (after Sargand et al. 2003)

Figure 5 presents the evaluated bearing resistance versus settlement curve for the footing
under study where the settlement is evaluated using elastic continuum solutions achieving
service limit state of LRFD, also presented is the factored bearing capacity evaluated using limit
plasticity achieving LRFD strength limit state. The predicted curve is compared with field
monitored data showing a reasonable agreement within the service limit state and far below the
strength limit state.

© ASCE

IFCEE 2018
 IFCEE 2018 GSP 295 439

CONC LUSIONS

The AASHTO codes for Load Resistance Factored Design (LRFD) regarding shallow bridge
foundations have been implemented to facilitate the calculations of bearing capacity and footing
settlements on sands, granular soils, and geomaterials exhibiting essentially drained behavior.
The presented methodology permits the sizing of foundations based on site-specific data input
for a given project, using in-situ field data from either standard penetration tests or cone
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 06/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

penetration tests. The paper provides a technical review covering the calculations of bearing
capacity from limit plasticity theory, settlement predictions using elastic continuum solutions,
and geoparameter evaluations from SPT and CPT with case study application for each test.

Figure 5. Factored bearing resistance vs. settlement curve using CPT data compared to
actual values at Ohio bridge site (data from Sargand et al. 2003)

REFERENCES

Agaiby, S. and Mayne, P.W. (2016). Geotechnical LRFD Calculations of Settlement and Bearing
Capacity of GDOT Shallow Bridge Foundations and Retaining Walls. Report No.
FHWA-GA-16-1426 prepared by Georgia Tech Research Corp. for Georgia Dept. of
Transportation, Forest Park, GA: 160 p.
AASHTO (2008). Interim Revisions to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 4th
Edition, 2007. American Association of State Highway&Transportation
Officials,Washington, DC.
AASHTO (2014). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 7th Edition, with 2015 and
2016 Interim Revisions, LRFDUS-7-M. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. www.transportation.org

© ASCE

IFCEE 2018
 IFCEE 2018 GSP 295 440

Burland, J.B. (1970). Discussion of Session A, Proceedings, Conference on In-Situ

Investigations in Soils and Rocks, British Geotechnical Society, London, 61-62.
Elhakim, A.F. (2005), Evaluation of shallow foundations displacements using small strain
stiffness. PhD Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA: 433 p.
Harr, M. (1966), Foundations of Theoretical Soil Mechanics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 81-100.
Hatanaka, M. and Uchida, A. (1996). Empirical correlation between penetration resistance and
effective friction of sandy soil. Soils & Foundations, Vol. 36(4): 1-9.
Horikoshi, K. and Randolph, M.F. (1997). On the definition of raft-soil stiffness ratio for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 06/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

rectangular rafts. Geotechnique Vol. 47 (5), 1055-1061.

Imai, T., and Tonouchi, K. (1982). Correlation of N-value with S-wave velocity and shear
modulus. Proc. 2nd European Symp. on Penetration Testing, Vol.1, Amsterdam: 67 – 72.
Kulhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W. (1990). Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation
Design. Report EL-6800, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, 306 p.
Kulhawy, F.H., Trautmann, C.H. Beech, J.F. O’Rourke, T.D. & McGuire, W. 1983.Transmission
line structure foundations for uplift-compression loading, Report EL-2870, EPRI, Electric
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, 412 p. www.epri.com
Mayne, P.W. and Poulos, H.G. (1999). Approximate displacement influence factors for elastic
shallow foundation systems, J. of Geotech & Geoenviron. Eng., Vol. 125, No. 6, 453-
460.
Mayne, P.W. (2001). Stress-strain-strength-flow parameters from enhanced in-situ tests, Proc.
Intl. Conf. In-Situ Measurement of Soil Properties&Case Histories,Bali,Indonesia, 27-47.
Mayne, P.W. (2006). The 2006 James K. Mitchell lecture: undisturbed sand strength from
seismic cone tests. Geomechanics & Geoengineering: Vol. 1 (4): 239-257.
Mayne, P.W. (2007). In-situ test calibrations for evaluating soil parameters, Characterization &
Engineering Properties of Natural Soils, Vol. 3 (Proc. Singapore 2006), Taylor & Francis
Group, London: 1602-1652.
Mayne, P.W. (2014). Keynote: Interpretation of geotechnical parameters from seismic
piezocone tests. Proceedings, 3rd Intl. Symp. Cone Penetration Testing, Las Vegas
(CPT'14, edited by P.K. Robertson and K.L. Cabal): 47-73. www.cpt14.com
Mayne, P.W. and Frost, D.D. (1988). Dilatometer experience in Washington, DC and vicinity,
Transportation Research Record 1169, National Academy Press, Washington, DC:16-23.
Paikowsky, S.G., Canniff, M.C., Lesny, K., Kisse, A., Amatya, S., and Muganga, R. (2010).
LRFD Design and Construction of Shallow Foundations for Highway Bridge Structures.
NCHRP Report 651, Washington, DC: 149 p. www.trb.org
Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. (1974). Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock Mechanics. John Wiley
& Sons, New York: 411 p. www.usucger.org
Samtani, N.C., Nowatzki, E.A., and Mertz, D.R. (2010). Selection of Spread Footings on Soils to
Support Highway Bridge Structures (No. FHWA-RC/TD-10-001). Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC: 98 p.
Sargand, S. M., Hazen, G. A., and Masada, T. (1997). Field and laboratory performance
evaluations of spread footings for highway bridges. Rep. No. FHWA/OH-98/017, Ohio
Dept. of Transportation & Federal Highway Adm., Ohio Univ., Athens, Ohio.

© ASCE

IFCEE 2018
 IFCEE 2018 GSP 295 441

Sargand, S. M., Masada, T., and Abdalla, B. (2003). Evaluation of cone penetration test-based
settlement prediction methods for shallow foundations on cohesionless soils at highway
construction sites. J. of Geotech. & Geoenvironmental Eng., Vol. 129, No. 10: 900-908.
Sargand, S.M. and Masada, T. (2006). Further Use of Spread Footing Foundations for Highway
Bridges. Final Rept. FHWA-OH-2006/8, Ohio University and Ohio Research Institute for
Transportation and the Environment (ORITE), Athens, OH: 332 p.
Vesić, A. (1975). Bearing capacity of shallow foundations. Foundation Engineering Handbook,
H. F. Winterkorn and H. Y. Fang, eds., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York: 121–147.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 06/11/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

© ASCE

IFCEE 2018