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

net/publication/339414568

LRFD for Shallow Foundations Using Plate Load Test Data

Conference Paper · February 2020

DOI: 10.1061/9780784482780.030

CITATIONS READS
0 2,278

3 authors, including:

Sherif S. Abdelsalam Mona Badr El-Din Anwar

Nile University The German University in Cairo
35 PUBLICATIONS   321 CITATIONS    21 PUBLICATIONS   38 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Replacement of roadways soil embankment using EPS Geofoam View project

Reduction of lateral pressures on retaining walls using geofoam View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sherif S. Abdelsalam on 05 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 LRFD for Shallow Foundations using Plate Load Test Data
Sherif S. AbdelSalam, M.ASCE1, Mona B. Anwar2, and Demah I. Esmail3

1
Associate Professor and Program Director, Civil & Infrastructure Engineering & Management,
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Nile University, Giza, Egypt, 12588. Email:
sabdelsalam@nu.edu.eg
2
Associate Professor, Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Materials Science, German
University in Cairo, Cairo, Egypt. Email: mona.anwar@guc.edu.eg
3
MSc Student, Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Materials Science, German
University in Cairo, Cairo, Egypt. Email: demah.guc@gmail.com
ABSTRACT

In this study, a database was developed to house reliable results from 43-plate load tests
conducted on different types of compacted soil, including load-displacement responses and other
information about soil and testing conditions. Using information from that database, resistance
factors were developed for shallow foundations based on the prevalent first order second moment
reliability approach. The resistance factors were calculated for common equations used to
calculating the soil bearing capacity such as Terzaghi, Meyerhof, and Hansen. The calibration was
based on comparing the calculated capacity with actual field measurements acquired from the plate
load tests. After calibration, it was found that the resistance factors for footings placed on medium
dense sand vary from 0.54 to 0.69. Resistance factors for other types of soil were also provided to
cover a wide range of reliability indices.
Keywords: Resistance factor, shallow foundation, plate load test, database, bearing capacity.

BACKGROUND

Shallow foundations are frequently used worldwide to support different types of structures
due to its economy and ease of construction. The design of shallow foundations typically depends
on the classical geotechnical approach adopted for decades that is the allowable stress design, also
called working stress design (WSD), which uses a factor of safety that require experience and
subjective judgment (AbdelSalam et al., 2010). Recently, the limit state design (LSD) approach
was developed for the geotechnical design of shallow foundations to achieve reliability, economy,
and consistency in the design (Kim et al., 2015; and Abo-zeid, 2017). As per Paikowsky et al.
(2010), the load and resistance factor design (LRFD) is one of the LSD methods that depends on
developing a global resistance factor to consider most of the design variables such as soil properties
and other assumptions embedded in common soil bearing capacity equations. Other LSD methods
depend on developing partial resistance factors to be used with the soil shear strength parameters.
To review the history of the LSD development for foundations throughout the past few
decades, it was first recommended for deep foundations in the early 80th by several international
codes and design standards (Allen, 1982). In 1989, the American association of state highway and
transportation officials (AASHTO) started to approve design concepts based on the LSD approach.
Then, the federal highway administration (FHWA) mandated by 2007 the use of the LRFD global
resistance factors for deep foundations. As stated by Naser et al. (2010), various departments of
1
transportation (DOTs) in the USA developed regional LRFD resistance factors to achieve more
reliable and economic designs, based on the calibration framework suggested by AASHTO (2007).
In 2013, AASHTO released its sixth edition that served as a comprehensive framework for regional
calibration to be used by different DOTs in the USA. On the contrary, Eurocode7 (Eurocode, 2004)
was among the first international codes to provide inclusive recommendations for the design of
deep and shallow foundations based on the LSD approach. According to Bond (2011) and Simpson
(2013), Eurocode7 adopts partial resistance factors for the soil parameters used to calculate the
bearing capacity, as well as global resistance factors that are similar to those used with the LRFD
method, and that in order to give various design alternatives to cover different regional practices.
To focus on the LSD implementation for shallow foundations, Foye at al. (2004) started by
using the simple first order second moment (FOSM) reliability analysis, where the resistance
factors were calibrated for different soil properties such as cohesion, c, and friction angle, ϕ. The
resistance factor for square footings on sand were computed for different values of the dead to live
load ratios (DL/LL), and relative footing embedment depth to width ratios (D/B), where the
resistance factor ranged from 0.20 to 0.55. Fenton et al. (2005) developed resistance factor for
shallow foundations so that to control the settlement and achieve a certain level of reliability. The
resistance factor increased up to 0.80 with a coefficient of variation limited to 0.50. The calibration
of these resistance factors was a function of soil variability and site investigation intensity. Foye
et al. (2006) calculated global resistance factors for shallow foundations depending on load factors
and the soil ultimate bearing capacity. Inputs used in their study to determine the soil bearing
capacity were obtained from cone penetration test (CPT) and standard penetration test (SPT) in
sand and clay. The resistance factors for CPT ranged from 0.40 to 0.80 for reliability indices from
2.0 to 3.5, while the resistance factors for SPT ranged from 0.30 to 0.60.
Fenton et al. (2008) developed partial resistance factors for shallow foundations, these
factors were calibrated against bearing capacity failure calculated using closed form correlations.
Their main goal was to determine the footing dimensions based on the ultimate bearing capacity
acquired from the characteristic soil properties. The resistance factors achieved at an acceptable
probability of failure ranged from 0.30 to 0.96 when soil was directly sampled at the foundation
level, where these values decreased when soil samples were collected at a higher depth. Recently,
Kim et al. (2015) analyzed the LRFD resistance factor for shallow foundations constructed on
weathered soil based on plate load test (PLT) outcomes. The reliability analysis was performed for
shallow foundations using the first-order design value approach. Results yielded resistance factors
ranging from 0.36 to 0.44 at a reliability index of 2.8, where lower values corresponded to
Meyerhof (1963) and higher values corresponded to Brinch & Hansen (1970). In addition, Abo-
zeid (2017) published a regional study with partial resistance factors for soil bearing capacity under
shallow foundations using a range of soil types, and after considering serviceability and design
economy in the outcomes based on the structural life cycle. The resistance factor decreased with
increasing the friction angels and matched global factor of safety ranging from 1.15 to 1.57.
This paper presents selected outcomes from a research project that aimed at establishing
the LRFD design recommendations for shallow foundations in Egypt, and the Middle East and
North Africa (MENA) region. The project focused on developing the resistance factors for well-
known soil bearing capacity calculation methods such as Terzaghi (1943), Meyerhof (1963), and
Brinch & Hansen (1970). Actual bearing capacity herein was determined based on field
measurements using PLTs outcomes conducted on homogeneous layers of sand, which is typically
2
used in the MENA region as the main soil replacement alternative under several types of shallow
foundations. A database was formed of the PLT outcomes including information from 43 plate
load tests, while the soil ultimate bearing capacity was determined from the load-displacement
curves using the shape of curvature method, as well as the limited total settlement at 0.25 mm, 0.5
mm, and 1.0 mm. The LRFD resistance factors were calibrated using the FOSM method after
considering a large range of reliability indices, and design charts were provided.
SOIL BEARING CAPACITY

Measured bearing capacity

To measure the soil ultimate bearing capacity from the PLT load-displacement curve
(PPLTult), four methods were used. The first depends on the shape of curvature method (Butler and
Hoy, 1977), while the other three depend on the total limited settlement method (FHWA, 1997) as
the considered vertical displacement limits were 0.25, 0.50 and 1.00 mm.
For the shape of curvature method, PPLTult is the point of intersection between the two
tangents with the elastic and the plastic portions of the curve as shown in Figure 1(a). The PLT
results can also be plotted on a logarithmic scale (log-log plot) in order to acquire two straight lines
with a clearer difference between the elastic and plastic portions as shown in Figure 1(b). Thus,
PPLTult was determined in this study based on log-log plot. For the limited total settlement method,
it is initially used to determine PPLTult for piles during static load tests and its main advantage is
being an objective method. However, it was decided to attempt this method for shallow
foundations to link the plate ultimate capacity with a predefined settlement value. It is important
to highlight the fact that the settlement acquired from the PLT can be related to the expected
settlement under a footing after multiplying by the plate-to-footing area ratio, assuming that the
soil layers below the footing are constant and homogeneous within the stress influence zone.
0 1000
(b) PPLTult
10 (a)
(ultimate soil
Settlement (mm)

strength)
Pressure (kN/m2)

20
100
30
PPLTult
40
(ultimate soil
strength)
50 10
0 200 400 600 0.1 1 10 100
Pressure (kN/m2) Settlement (mm)
Figure 1. Load-settlement curve from PLT: (a) shape of curvature; and (b) log-log plot.
Calculated bearing capacity
To calculate the soil ultimate bearing capacity (Pult) using a closed form solution, three
forms of the general bearing capacity equation were used as follows: 1) Terzaghi (1943); Meyerhof
(1963); and Brinch & Hansen (1970). This was conducted in order to determine any possible
difference in Pult between these methods, and if one is closer compared with the PLT outcomes.

3
Terzaghi (1943)
In 1943, Terzaghi modified Prandtl’s solutions to evaluate the bearing capacity of soils for
shallow strip footings based on the theory of plasticity. A shallow foundation was defined as a
foundation with width (B) equal to or less than the foundation depth. The failure mechanism in the
soil was assumed to follow a general shear failure and the soil weight was included in the analysis
by assuming a uniform surcharge at the foundation level. Terzaghi suggested the equations below
to calculate Pult. This equation consist of three main terms, first for soil cohesion, second for soil
above the foundation level, and last for soil below the footing and depend on Kp or soil coefficient
of lateral pressure, whereas Nc, Nq, and N𝛾 are the bearing capacity factors (after Braja, 2010).
Pult =1.3 c Nc + γ Nq + 0.3 γ B N 𝛾 [circular shape]
Pult =1.3 c Nc + γ Nq + 0.4 γ B N𝛾 [square shape]
3π ϕ
2( − )
e 4 2 1 tanϕ
Nc = cot ϕ (Nq – 1); Nq = ϕ ; and Nγ = 2 K p γ tan2 ϕ − 2
2 cos2(45+ )
2

Meyerhof (1963)
In 1963, Meyerhof modified Terzaghi's bearing capacity equation by introducing shape
factors to account for the footing shape, depth, and load inclination. These factors should account
for possible changes in the soil shearing resistance that are developed along the failure surface.
The equation of Meyerhof is provided below, where Fcs, Fqs, F𝛾s are shape factors, Fcd, Fqd, F𝛾d are
depth factors, and Fci, Fqi, F𝛾i are load inclination factors presented in Figure 2 (after Braja, 2010).
Pult = c Nc Fcs Fcd Fci + γ Nq Fqs Fqd Fqi + 0.5 γ B N𝛾 F𝛾s F𝛾d F𝛾i
45
40
35
Friction Angle, ϕ

30
25
20
15
Nc
10 Nq
5 Nɣ
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Nc, Nq, Nɣ
Figure 2. Meyerhof bearing capacity factors (after Braja, 2010).
Brinch & Hansen (1970)
In 1970, Brinch & Hansen made another modification in Terzaghi's bearing capacity
factors such that the load eccentricity and inclination were considered, at any foundation level (Df),
and for other footing shapes including the rectangular. Ground surface inclination was also
considered in the equation as shown below. This method is referred to herein as Hansen. Table 1
summarizes the bearing capacity factors modified by Hansen (after Reese et al., 2006).
Pult = B [c Nc + γ Df Nq + 0.5 γ B N𝛾]
4
 Table 1. Hansen bearing capacity factors (after Reese et al., 2006).
ϕ 0 5 15 20 30 35 40 46 48 50
Nc 1.0 1.6 3.9 6.4 18.4 33.3 64.2 158.5 222.3 319.1
Nq 1.5 6.5 11.0 14.8 30.1 46.1 75.3 152.1 199.3 266.9
Nɣ 0.0 0.1 1.2 2.9 15.1 33.9 79.5 244.6 368.7 568.6

PLATE LOAD TEST (PLT) DATABASE

The development of regionally calibrated LRFD resistance factors for isolated footings
require a database that contains sufficient information from plate load tests to determine the
measured bearing capacity of the soil under the footings (AbdelSalam et al., 2014). In this research,
11 different PLTs were conducted in a construction site located at the German University in Cairo
(GUC) campus, and another 32 PLTs were collected from local construction companies as the tests
were conducted on same the soil type. Accordingly, the database house complete information from
43 PLTs, including basic information about the soil properties and type (see Table in Appendix).
For the 11 PLTs that were conducted as part of this study, the tested soil was a compacted
engineering fill (or soil replacement) that consist of siliceous coarse sand with thickness 150 cm.
The capacity of the hydraulic jack used was 500 kN, with a pressure cell of the same capacity. The
diameter of the steel plate was 300 mm (such that compacted soil beneath the steel plate performs
as a deep layer to allow stresses to develop a complete failure mechanism). Three dial gauges were
used to measure vertical displacement, and all other testing procedures and load increments were
conducted following DIN 18134 (DIN 2001). For each of the 11 tests, sand cone tests were
conducted to determine the soil unit weight in the field, in addition to laboratory tests such as sieve
analysis and direct shear test (DST) to classify the soil and measure its shear strength parameters
(mainly friction angle, ϕ). Laboratory test results showed that the soil varied from well-graded
sand (SW) to poor-graded sand (SP), and some soils were formed of gravel and sand mix (1:1) and
classified as (GP). The measured values of ϕ for the 11 tests points ranged from 30.48o to 39.04o.
For the remaining 32 PLTs that were collected and included in the database, the tested soil
was also formed of compacted engineering fill that mainly consisted of siliceous medium and
dense sand soils, with thicknesses varied from 50 to 250 cm. For these tests, the maximum load
reached during testing was varying around 330 kN, and the diameter of the steel plate was 600
mm. Some of the load-displacement curves acquired from the 32 tests were extrapolated using a
third-degree polynomial in order to extend the curve and achieve a clearer plastic portion. These
collected tests did not include values for ϕ. Accordingly, the ultimate soil bearing capacity was
determined for each test using the load-displacement curve, then this ultimate capacity was used
to back-calculate approximate values for the soil friction based on the bearing capacity equation.
This approach revealed that the ϕ values were ranging from 31o to 37o. Based on the ϕ values for
the 43 test points of the database, the soil was grouped in this study into three main groups as
follows: loose soil, medium soil, and dense soil (or groups A, B and C, respectively). Groups A,
B, and C contained 5, 24, and 14 tests, respectively. Another forth group (Group D) was also
formed to contain all the available 43 data points mainly formed of cohesionless material.
5
LRFD RESISTANCE FACTORS

Calibration approach
As confirmed by Scott et al. (2003) up to AbdelSalam and El-Naggar (2014), the first-order
second moment (FOSM) is a simple approach that can be used to accurately calculate the LRFD
resistance factors (φ) at a target reliability index (β). This approach assumes lognormal distribution
for loads and resistance probability density functions (PDFs). Main form of the FOSM is provided
below after Paikowsky et al. (2010), which depend on loads bias (λDL and λLL), loads coefficient
of variation (COVDL and COVLL), dead to live load ratio (QDL/QLL), and resistance bias (λR).

γ Q (1+COV2Q +COV2QLL )
λR ( DL DL +γLL )√ DL
QDL (1+COV2Q )
R
φ= γ Q
( DL DL +γLL ) exp {β√ln[(1+COV2Q )(1+COV2Q +COV2Q )]}
QDL R DL LL

According to AbdelSalam et al. (2016), determining β for foundations may vary depending
on the use and importance of the structure; therefore, a guideline is required for consistency. In the
national building code of Canada (NRC, 1995), a value for β of 3.50 was recommended for shallow
foundations. With regard to Becker (1996), β ranged from 3.0 to 4.0 and this conforms to the
recommendations indicated by Paikowsky et al. (2010).
Goodness-of-fit
To use the FOSM calibration approach, the Anderson Darling (AD) normality check
(Stephens, 1979) was adopted for each group of soil in the database, while the software package
Minitab v.18 was utilized to create the PDFs and conduct the AD checks. For each group, the ratio
(Ksx) was calculated between the measured and the calculated ultimate bearing capacity (i.e.,
PPLTult/Pult). This was conducted for the three PLT methods versus the three-bearing capacity (BC)
calculation equations, yielding nine different PDFs. After using the AD normality check, it was
confirmed that the all PDFs fit better the lognormal compared with the normal distributions.
Figures 3 and 4 represent the distribution and goodness-of-fit tests for the group D of the database
using ultimate capacity from the PLT results based on settlement (Δ) equals to 1.0 mm. It can be
noticed from Figure 3 that the distribution of Meyerhof and Hansen methods are very close, while
Terzaghi was slightly shifted closer to unity. Figure 4 provides necessary information to run the
FOSM statistical analysis such as the resistance mean bias as well as the standard deviation. The
figure also includes the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) test, which again confirmed a higher
probability (p-value) for the lognormal distribution.
Resistance factors
The reliability analysis was conducted to calculate the LRFD resistance factors for all the
groups of the database using a wide range of reliability indices and after trying several values of
DL/LL ratio. It was found that the DL/LL ratio has a negligible effect on the results. The resistance
factors (φ) are summarized in Table 2, which also includes the sample size (N) for each group,
mean bias (λ), standard deviation (σ), and the coefficient of variation (COV). The φ values
presented in the table were developed based on PPLTult at settlement, Δ = 1 mm, and corresponded
to reliability indices, β = 2.33, and 3.50. For the results at β = 2.33, it was found that the medium
6
sand (group B) and the loose sand (group A) yielded the highest φ values that ranged from 0.91 to
0.51, while the least values were attained for the dense sand (group C) with minimum φ of 0.31.
For each group, the highest φ value was always correlated with Hansen, followed by Meyerhof
and Terzaghi methods, in that order. For the results at β = 3.5, it was found the resistance factors
were reduced by an average of 29% compared to those calculated for β=2.33.

(a) (b)

Figure 3. PDFs for group D using Δ = 1 mm: (a) normal; and (b) log normal.

(a) (b)

Figure 4. Goodness-of-fit tests for group D using Δ = 1 mm: (a) normal; and (b) log normal.
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. In order to compare the efficiency of
different static methods, the efficiency factors (φ/λ) were calculated. The φ/λ factor ranges from
0.0 to 1.0, where higher φ/λ correlates to higher efficiency methods. Values of φ/λ presented in
Table 2 show that the efficiency was almost constant for each group individually, that is one of the
major advantages of using the LRFD approach. In addition, the φ/λ of group B was higher
compared with the efficiency of all other groups, whereas the lowest φ/λ was for loose sand group.

7
 Table 2. Resistance and efficiency factors for different BC methods in different soil groups
based PLT ultimate capacity using Δ = 1.00 mm.
β = 2.33 β = 3.50
Group PPLTult N BC λ σ COV
φ φ/λ φ φ/λ
A Capacity at 5 Terzaghi 2.06 1.37 0.67 0.51 0.25 0.33 0.16
(Loose settlement 5 Meyerhof 2.52 1.67 0.66 0.63 0.25 0.41 0.16
sand) = 1.00 mm 5 Hansen 2.58 1.70 0.66 0.65 0.25 0.42 0.16
B Capacity at 24 Terzaghi 1.43 0.49 0.34 0.71 0.50 0.54 0.38
(Medium settlement 24 Meyerhof 1.76 0.61 0.34 0.88 0.50 0.67 0.38
sand) = 1.00 mm 24 Hansen 1.83 0.63 0.34 0.91 0.50 0.69 0.38
C Capacity at 14 Terzaghi 0.77 0.34 0.45 0.31 0.40 0.22 0.29
(Dense settlement 14 Meyerhof 0.95 0.42 0.44 0.38 0.40 0.28 0.29
sand) = 1.00 mm 14 Hansen 1.01 0.44 0.44 0.41 0.41 0.30 0.30
D Capacity at 43 Terzaghi 1.29 0.72 0.56 0.40 0.31 0.28 0.21
(All tests settlement 43 Meyerhof 1.59 0.88 0.56 0.50 0.31 0.34 0.22
in sand) = 1.00 mm 43 Hansen 1.65 0.90 0.55 0.53 0.32 0.36 0.22

A design chart was prepared to determine the resistance factors corresponding to different
values of β as well as the corresponding probability of failure. As shown in Figure 5(a), which
presents the results based on the measured PPLTult at Δ =1 mm for all tests available in the database
(group D). The resistance factors φ decreased with increasing β from 1.5 to 4.0. From this figure,
the designer can find the appropriate φ for a given select value for β that reflects the probability of
failure and the importance of structure according to the design code. For instance, the Eurocode
determines the structural importance according to three reliability classes (RC) as follows: RC-1
at β from 1.5 to 3.3; RC-2 at β from 3.3 to 3.8; and RC-3 at β more than 3.8. Figure 5(b) also shows
the values for φ/λ corresponding to wide range of β for based on PPLTult at Δ =1 mm for group D.
Probability of Failure % Probability of Failure %
6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0
1.0 1.0
Terzaghi (b) Terzaghi
(a) Meyerhof
Meyerhof
0.8 Hansen 0.8 Hansen
Efficiency Factor (φ/λ)
Resistance Factor (φ)

0.6 0.6
Efficiency of all B.C. methods
are similar after applying the
calibrated resistance factors
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
Group D Group D
(All tests) (All tests)
0.0 0.0
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Reliability Index (β) Reliability Index (β)
Figure 5. Outcomes for different BC methods using group D with respect to various β
values and based on at Δ = 1 mm: (a) resistance factors; and (b) efficiency factors.
8
 To give a glance about the remaining analyses, Table 3 summarizes φ values of group D
using different BC methods, and based on PPLTult using shape of curvature, Δ = 0.25, 0.50, and
1.00 mm. The results indicated that the highest φ values were correlated with the shape of curvature
method, followed by Δ = 1.00 mm, 0.50 mm, and 0.25 mm, respectively. Figure 6(a) shows the
values of the resistance factors for group D using all PPLTult methods, while Figure 6(b) shows the
corresponding efficiency factors.
Table 3. Resistance and efficiency factors for different BC methods using group D and
corresponding to various PLT ultimate capacity determination methods.
β = 2.33 β = 3.50
Group PPLTult N BC λ σ COV
φ φ/λ φ φ/λ
D 43 Terzaghi 1.15 0.26 0.23 0.76 0.61 0.52 0.42
Shape of
(All tests 43 Meyerhof 1.42 0.32 0.22 0.93 0.61 0.64 0.42
curvature
in sand) 43 Hansen 1.48 0.32 0.22 0.98 0.62 0.67 0.42
D Capacity at 43 Terzaghi 0.39 0.23 0.58 0.12 0.30 0.06 0.15
(All tests settlement 43 Meyerhof 0.48 0.28 0.58 0.14 0.30 0.07 0.15
in sand) = 0.25 mm 43 Hansen 0.50 0.29 0.57 0.15 0.30 0.08 0.15
D Capacity at 43 Terzaghi 0.73 0.39 0.53 0.24 0.33 0.17 0.23
(All tests settlement 43 Meyerhof 0.9 0.48 0.53 0.30 0.33 0.21 0.23
in sand) = 0.50 mm 43 Hansen 0.94 0.49 0.53 0.31 0.34 0.22 0.23
D Capacity at 43 Terzaghi 1.29 0.72 0.56 0.40 0.31 0.21 0.16
(All tests settlement 43 Meyerhof 1.59 0.88 0.56 0.50 0.31 0.26 0.16
in sand) = 1.00 mm 43 Hansen 1.65 0.9 0.55 0.53 0.32 0.28 0.17

1.0 1.0
(a) Terzaghi Terzaghi
(b) Meyerhof
Meyerhof
Hansen Hansen
0.8 0.8
Efficiency Factor (φ/λ)
Resistance Factor (φ)

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
Reliability Index (β) Reliability Index (β)
Figure 6. Outcomes for different BC methods using group D with respect to β based on all
PLT ultimate capacity methods: (a) resistance factors; and (b) efficiency factors.

9
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The aim of this study was to develop reliability based LRFD resistance factors for shallow
foundations using data from 43 plate load tests (PLTs) conducted on homogeneous sand soils that
are typically used for ground improvement under footings. The measured ultimate bearing capacity
from each PLT was determined from the load-displacement curves using the shape of curvature
method, and the limited total settlement at 0.25 mm, 0.50 mm, and 1.00 mm. The LRFD resistance
factors were developed methods such as Terzaghi (1943), Meyerhof (1963), and Brinch & Hansen
(1970). The resistance factors were calibrated using the FOSM method after considering a large
range of reliability indices. Summarized below are the major findings:
• LRFD for shallow foundations provide a consistent design for the entire structure that is based
on ultimate loads, where working loads are not required to determine the footing dimensions.
• Medium and loose sands yielded the highest resistance factors ranging from 0.91 to 0.51
• Dense sands yielded the lowest resistance factors with minimum value of 0.31.
• The highest resistance factors were always correlated with Hansen, followed by Meyerhof and
Terzaghi methods, respectively.
• Increasing the reliability index from 2.33 to 3.50 reduced the resistance factors by around 29%.
• Efficiency of various methods was almost equal within each soil group after multiplying the
nominal capacity by the corresponding resistance factor, leading to consistent designs.
• Design charts were provided for the resistance factors using a wide range for the probability of
failure depending on the importance of the structure.
• Current calibration framework can be used with other soils, footings, and loading conditions.

REFERENCES

AASHTO (1998). "LRFD Bridge design specifications." Second edition, Washington, D.C.
AASHTO (2007). "LRFD Bridge design specifications." Fourth edition, Washington, D.C.
AASHTO (2013). "LRFD Bridge design specifications." Sixth edition, Washington, D.C.
AbdelSalam, S.S., Baligh, F.A., and El-Naggar, H.M. (2016). "Reliability and construction control
of Vibro piles." Ain Shams Eng. Journal, vol. 7(2), pp. 885 –893.
AbdelSalam, S.S., Baligh, F.A., and El-Naggar, H.M. (2014). "A database to ensure reliability of
bored pile design in Egypt." ICE J. of Geotechnical Eng., Vol. 168, No. 2, pp. 131–143.
AbdelSalam, S.S. and El-Naggar, M.E. (2014). "LRFD for large-diameter bored piles in Egypt."
Geo-Congress 2014, Geo-characterization and Modeling for Sustainability, pp. 900–910.
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.
Abu-zeid, M.M. (2017). "Calculation of bearing capacity under shallow foundations to change
from global to partial factor in geotechnical and foundations." Development for the
Egyptian code of practice - transition period, Qena, South Valley University, Egypt.
Allen, D.E. (1982). "Limit State Design, Canadian Building Digest." CBD-221, Jan. 1982.
Becker, D.E. (1996). "Eighteenth Canadian geotechnical colloquium: limit states design for
foundations." Development for the National Building Code of Canada, Canada, 24P.

10
 Bond, J.A. (2011). "Past present and future of Eurocode 7." Third ISSMGE webinar.
Braja, M.D. (2010). "Principles of foundation engineering." Seventh edition, ISBN-13: 978-0-495-
66812-1, Washington, 815P.
Butler, H.D. and Hoy, H.E. (1977). "User’s manual for the Texas quick-load method for foundation
load testing." FHWA-IP-77-8, FHWA, Washington, D.C.
DIN 18134 (2001). "Determining the deformation and strength characteristics of soil by the plate
loading test." German Standards 2001, Berlin, Germany, pp. 1–13.
Eurocode 7 (2004). "Geotechnical design - part I: general rules." European Committee for
Standardization, Central Secretariat, Brussels.
Fenton, A.G., Griffiths, V.D., and Cavers, W. (2005), "Resistance factors for settlement design."
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, v. 42, no. 5, pp 1422–1436, 2005.
Fenton, A.G., Griffiths, V.D., and Xianyue, Z. (2008). "Load and resistance factor design of
shallow foundations against bearing failure." Canadian Geo. J., 45(11), 1556–1571, 2008.
FHWA (1997). "Design and construction of driven pile foundations." Workshop manual, Volumes
I, FHWA-HI-97-013.
Foye, C.K., Abou-Jaoude, G.G., Salgado, R. (2004). "Limit states design (LSD) for shallow and
deep foundations." FHWA/IN/JTRP-2004/21, SPR-2406.
Foye, C.K., Salgado, R., and Scott, B. (2006). "Resistance factors for use in shallow foundation
LRFD." ASCE, J. of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 9.
Holtz, W. G. and Gibbs, H. J. (1956). "Engineering properties of expansive clays". Trans ASCE,
121, pp 641–663.
Kim, D., Kim, H., Suh, J., Yoo, N. (2015). "Analysis of LRFD resistance factor for shallow
foundation on weathered soil ground." Journal of the Korean Geo-Environmental Society.
Naser, A., Jerry, A.D., William, M.K., Scott, A., and Silas, N. (2010). "Implementation of LRFD
geotechnical design for bridge foundations." FHWA NHI-10-039. Updated February 2011.
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 Rep. 651, Washington, D.C., 149P.
Reese, C.L., Isenhower, W., and Wang, T.S. (2006). "Analysis and design of shallow and deep
foundations." ISBN-13 978-0-471-43159-6, Hoboken, New Jersey and Canada, 619P.
Scott, A.B., Kim, B.J., and Salgado, R. (2003). "Assessment of current load factors for use
in geotechnical load and resistance factor design." J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vo. 129, No. 4, pp. 287 –295.
Simpson, B. (2013). "British choices of geotechnical design approach and partial factors for EC7."
Modern Geotechnical Design Codes of Practice, p. Arnold et al. (Eds.), 12P.
Stephens, M.A. (1979). "Tests of fit for the logistic distribution based on the empirical
distribution function." Biometrika, vol. 66, pp. 591-595.

11

View publication stats