Introduction To LRFD For Foundation and Substructure Design - Module 5

Introduction to LRFD for Foundation and Substructure
Design– Module 5
132010B September 2021
1
Welcome and Introduction
Welcome to NHI Course Number 132010B, Introduction to LRFD for

Foundation and Substructure Design, Module 5: Basic Foundation Design.
2
Module and Lesson Learning Outcome:
Upon completion of this module, you will be able to recognize basic shallow
and deep foundation design by LRFD. This will be accomplished through
the completion of the lessons, where you will be able to:
• Define basic foundation analysis techniques for shallow and deep

foundations;
• Explain limit state checks for shallow and deep foundations; and
• Explain resistance for shallow and deep foundations.
This module will take approximately 135 minutes to complete.
3
Lessons in this Module
This module contains the following lessons.
1. Basic Foundation Analysis Techniques;
2. Limit State Checks for Foundation Design; and
3. Resistance for Foundations.
During each lesson, knowledge checks are provided to test your

understanding of the material presented.
4
Lesson 1: Basic Foundation Analysis Techniques
Let’s get started with the first lesson. At the end of this lesson, you will
recognize basic shallow foundation and deep foundation design by LRFD.
This lesson will take approximately 55 minutes to complete.
5
Shallow Foundations
In the first portion of this lesson, you will learn about shallow foundations.
Spread footings are the most common type of shallow foundation. All
shallow foundations must provide adequate resistance against
geotechnical and structural failure.
6
Shallow Foundation Design Considerations
Considerations during the design of shallow foundations are correctly taken

into account when:
• Frost does not cause unacceptable movements;
• Unsuitable foundation materials are avoided;
• Scour does not result in loss of bearing or stability; and
• Ground water effects are mitigated.
Limit state checks during the design of shallow foundations are correct
when:
• Overall or global stability is maintained;
• Nominal bearing resistance of soil is sufficient to avoid failure of the

ground below the bearing depth, or bearing failure;
• Deformation or settlement under expected loading conditions is within

an acceptable tolerance;
• The footing does not slide due to applied lateral loads; and
7
• Overturning does not occur.
Each of these design considerations are expressly checked with respect to

a specific LRFD limit state.
8
Shallow Foundations and Limit States
Shallow foundation design at the service limit state includes evaluation of

settlement, horizontal movement, rotational movement, overall stability, and
scour at the 100 year design flood event.
For the strength limit state, shallow foundation design considers structural
resistance and loss of lateral and vertical support due to scour at the 100
year design flood event, normal bearing resistance, overturning or
excessive loss of contact, sliding at the base of footing, and
constructability.
For the extreme limit state, scour at the 500 year flood event and seismic
activity are checked. Note that scour is checked at the service, strength,
and extreme limit states.
Typically the service limit state design considerations frequently control the
minimum footing dimension for shallow foundations. Therefore, it is
recommended that the spread footing size is designed at the service limit
state, then checked against all remaining applicable limit states.
Refer to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Articles 10.5.2.1,
9
10.5.3.1, and 10.5.3.2 for more information.
10
Shallow Foundation Minimum Depth Considerations
One of the first items to be considered for a shallow foundation design is

the minimum depth of the shallow foundation. Items to consider include the
soil bearing resistance, frost protection, unsuitable foundation material, the
maximum scour depth, and groundwater.
Soil bearing resistance will be covered in more detail in Lesson 2 of the

module.
View a minimum depth consideration to learn more.
11
Frost Protection
Shallow foundations in seasonal and permanently frozen grounds must be

embedded below the depth of frost penetration, known as frost depth. This
prevents heaving of the footings due to volumetric expansions of the
subgrade soils from freezing and/or to prevent settling due to loss of shear
strength and stiffness from thawing. The depth of frost penetration
generally is established by local experience or from published maps. Local
building codes, agency design policy, local experience, and other national
literature sources should be consulted for appropriate design values.
Discussion about special considerations for foundations in permanently

frozen regions, or permafrost regions, is beyond the scope of this lesson.
12
Unsuitable Foundation Materials
Shallow foundations should bear below obviously weak, compressible, or

loose soils. In addition, some soils exhibit the potential for changes in
volume due to the introduction or expulsion of water. These volumetric
changes can be large enough to exceed the performance limits of a
structure, even to the point of structural damage. Both expansive and
collapsible soils are regional in occurrence. These soil types are not well
suited for shallow foundation support without some sort of mitigation.
Because shallow foundations are frequently used for bridge support in both
soil types, detailed guidance for ground treatment to permit use of shallow
foundations for bridge support is not included here.
Additional information regarding expansive and collapsible soils and their

potential is provided by FHWA references which include:
• Technical Guidelines for Expansive Soils in Highway Subgrades,

Final Report, FHWA Publication No. FHWA-RD-79-51, 1980; and
• An Evaluation of Methodology for Prediction and Minimization of

Detrimental Volume Change of Expansive Soils in Highway
13
Subgrades FHWA Publication Nos. FHWA-RD-79-49 and FHWA-RD-
79-50, 1979.
14
Scour
Scour is a hydraulic erosion process that is caused by flowing water that

lowers the grade of a water channel or riverbed. For this reason, scour
vulnerability is an essential design consideration for all foundations,
especially shallow foundations. Scour can undermine or remove sufficient
overburden to redistribute foundation forces. This causes foundation
displacement and detrimental stresses to structural elements. Excessive
undermining of a spread footing leads to gross deformation and often
structure collapse.
Detailed techniques to evaluate scour is beyond the scope of this course.

However, specific techniques for scour assessment along with a detailed
discussion of scour analysis and countermeasure design can be found in
the following publications from FHWA.
• Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 18 – Evaluating Scour at Bridges,

fourth edition, May 2001;
• Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 20 – Stream Stability at Highway

Structures, fourth edition, April 2012;
15
• Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. HEC 23 V2 – Bridge Scour and
Stream Instability Countermeasures Experiences, Selection, and
Design Guidance, third edition, September 2009; and
• Hydraulic Engineering Circular No.15 – Design of Roadside Channels

with Flexible Linings, third edition, September 2005.
16
Groundwater
Groundwater needs to be known so it may be accounted for in shallow

foundation design. Shallow foundations are to be designed in consideration
of the highest anticipated groundwater table. Groundwater location is
accounted for as a correction factor or coefficient when determining the
nominal bearing resistance. Influences of groundwater on settlement must
also be considered. The influences of groundwater to both the bearing
resistance and settlement are covered in more detail later in this module.
17
Frost protection includes which of the following?
Frost protection includes which of the following?
a) Embedment of footing beneath frost depth
b) Proper compaction
c) Prevention of frost from damaging the footing
d) Determining established frost depth
The correct answers are a) Embedment of footing beneath frost depth; c)

Prevention of frost from damaging the footing; and d) Determining
established frost depth.
18
Overall or Global Stability
Let’s move on to shallow foundation limit state checks. The first one is
global stability. Global stability of shallow foundations is to be evaluated
when the footing is placed on an embankment. Slope stability is also to be
evaluated when the footing is located on, near, or within a slope, and the
stress applied by the footing loads is acting to destabilize the slope
geometry.
Global stability can be a rotational movement or a translational movement.

However, global stability is not evaluated based on movement at all, but
rather, failure of the soil along a failure surface that includes the foundation
elements (which can be circular, planar, or other shapes). It is evaluated at
the service limit state due to limitations of currently available solution
methods even though it is technically a strength failure limit.
The figure on the left shows a footing placed at the bottom of a slope and
the figure on the right shows a footing placed at the top of the slope. The
footing placed at the top of the slope generally destabilizes the slope
because of the additional load placed onto the slope by the footing. The
19
footing placed at the bottom of the slope generally helps stabilize the slope
because the footing can act to provide support to the slope.
20
Overall or Global Stability – Rupture Planes
There are three common rupture planes typically evaluated for overall or
global stability. They are:
• Shallow circular rupture plane;
• Deep seated circular rupture plane; and
• Deep seated sliding wedge rupture plane.
View each type of rupture plane to learn more.
21
Shallow Circular Rupture Plane
For the shallow circular rupture, the force driving the movement along the
shallow rupture plane is the weight of the soil. The movement of the soil
along the shallow rupture plane, causes a soil bulge to develop and the
wall to rotate backward.
The concept of maximum and minimum load factors is not easily adaptable
to this method of computation. Therefore, global stability is evaluated at the
service limit state with load factors of 1.0.
The failure mode analyzed is actually a strength limit state consideration.

However, AASHTO adopted this approach to retain the practical nature of
computing the factor of safety for global stability.
Refer to AASHTO Article 11.6.2.3 for more information.
22
Deep Seated Circular Rupture Plane
For a deep seated circular rupture plane, the deep rupture plane forms at a
greater depth than the shallow rupture plane with similar results. The
movement of the soil along the deep rupture plane causes a soil bulge to
develop and the wall to rotate backward. In this case, the soft material with
low shear strength caused the deep rupture plane to develop.
23
Deep Seated Sliding Wedge Rupture Plane
A deep seated sliding wedge rupture plane can occur when the foundation
soil contains a thin seam of weak soil or soft material with low shear
strength beneath firm soil. The results are similar to those of the shallow
and deep seated circular rupture planes. The driving force is the weight of
the soil.
Use the critical failure mode to evaluate overall or global stability.
24
Overall or Global Stability (con.)
Overall or global stability is evaluated at the service limit state because:
• Overall stability is a slope stability issue that effects safety of the

structure; and
• Accepted design methodologies are currently not available to

evaluate at the strength limit state.
Currently, global stability is evaluated at the service limit state using

appropriate resistance factors that are at least equivalent to the ASD
factors of safety that result in no failure over the life of the structure.
Resistance factors are based on reliability theory using AASHTO and

FHWA studies to account for uncertainties in the design. When statistical
information needed to support the studies was insufficient, a back-analysis
of the geotechnical design was performed to obtain a resistance factor that
maintains the current level of reliability that is inferred by the ASD design
factor of safety.
25
Overall Stability Resistance Factors for Shallow Foundations
This table compares overall stability ASD factors of safety to the overall
stability LRFD resistance factors. The ASD factors of safety for overall
stability were used when designing for overall stability by the ASD method.
For ASD, the factor of safety is commonly designated as FS. The LRFD
resistance factors are used when designing for overall stability by LRFD.
For LRFD, the resistance factor is designated by the phi symbol.
The development of the LRFD resistance factors for overall slope stability
analysis were created by generally fitting to ASD factors of safety. When
LRFD load factors, designated by the gamma symbol, are equal to 1.0, the
LRFD resistance factor, phi, is generally the inverse of the ASD factor of
safety, FS.
If geotechnical parameters are well defined by in-situ or laboratory tests, or

the slope supports a structure, the factor of safety using ASD is 1.5 and the
equivalent LRFD resistance factor, phi, is equal to 0.65.
26
If geotechnical parameters are well defined by in-situ or laboratory tests,
and the slope does not support structure, the factor of safety using ASD is
equal to 1.3, and the equivalent LRFD resistance factor phi is equal to 0.75.
If geotechnical parameters are based on limited information (or no site-

specific tests), and the slope does not support a structure, the factor of
safety using ASD is equal to 1.5, and the equivalent LRFD resistance factor
phi is equal to 0.65.
The LRFD resistance factors of 0.75 and 0.65 are provided in AASHTO
Article 11.6.2.3.
AASHTO has no correlative resistance factor when the factor of safety is

equal to 1.8 as shown in the table. This is because geotechnical design of
a slope supporting a structure without site specific tests is a poor design
practice and not recommended.
27
Nominal Bearing Resistance
The next shallow foundation limit state check is for the nominal bearing
resistance that is determined at the strength limit state by the basic nominal
equation (AASHTO 10.6.3.1.2a-1). Measured soil parameters by in-situ or
laboratory testing are to be used that are representative of the soil shear
strength under the considered loading and subsurface conditions.
AASHTO does provide the use of presumptive bearing resistance values

for bearing resistance at the service limit state. These presumptive bearing
resistance values from AASHTO Table 10.6.2.6.1-1 are settlement limited
to one inch and apply only to the service limit state.
28
Settlement
Now let’s move on to another shallow foundations limit state check,

settlement. The controlling factor in the design of shallow foundations is
usually tolerable settlement.
For LRFD, settlement is computed by using Service I load combinations.

The three components of settlement include elastic settlement, primary
consolidation, and secondary settlement.
In general, the settlement of footings on cohesionless soils, very stiff to

hard cohesive soils, and rock with tight, unfilled joints are elastic and will
occur as a load is applied. For footings on very soft to stiff cohesive soils,
the potential for primary consolidation, secondary settlement, and elastic
settlement components should be evaluated.
AASHTO Article 10.6.2.4 provides guidance for conducting the settlement

analysis required for LRFD.
29
Elastic Settlement
Elastic settlement occurs as soon as the load is applied. The change in

volume is due to a distortion of the mass or particles supporting the
foundation or because of a reduction of pore space in non-saturated soil
due to expulsion of air from the void space.
Elastic settlements are not truly elastic; it’s just an immediate distortion
response to an applied load.
Permanent and transient loads contribute to elastic settlement. Since these

deformations occur quickly, all permanent and transient loads that act to
increase the stress state in the soil mass below a footing need to be
investigated and included in the estimation of elastic settlement.
Elastic settlement is the most important deformation consideration in

cohesionless soils.
Elastic settlement is estimated using elastic theory and a value of elastic

modulus based on the results of in-situ or laboratory testing.
30
Primary Consolidation
Primary consolidation, also known as primary consolidation settlement,

occurs over time when a constant load increases the stress to a saturated
fine-grain or cohesive soil. It takes place because water that is expelled
from the pores or voids of the fine-grain or cohesive soil leads to a
reduction in pore volume over time. As water is expelled, the volume of
voids decreases resulting in a reduction of soil volume.
Primary consolidation can occur slowly or rapidly and is strongly related to

the permeability of the soil. As time passes, the process of primary
consolidation slows and eventually stops once all the excess pore water
pressure dissipates.
31
Primary Consolidation (con.)
This graph is provided to represent the relationship between volume of soil

solids and voids to the compressibility of the soil. The top graph shows the
percent of the volume of soil solids, along the left axis, compared to the
volume of voids, along the right axis, for typical soil components. This
graph assumes that the volume of soil solids represents mineral particles
and the volume of voids is saturated with water.
The second graph illustrates the compressibility of the soil that increases
as the soil void volume increases and the soil solids volume decreases.
The magnitude of settlement is directly related to the void volume. It is
important to investigate, through sampling and laboratory testing, soils in
the silt, clay, or organics range because of the high percentage of void
volume.
32
Consolidation Settlement (Spring Analogy)
Recall from previous modules, the effective stress analogy shown by the
piston figures.
For this concept, a cylinder filled with moist soil that is covered with a piston
is compared to a spring supported piston in a cylinder filled with water and
a valve that is closed within the piston. The spring represents the mineral
skeleton.
As the valve is opened, the applied load is transferred from the water to the
mineral skeleton. The total stress is composed of both the stress in the
mineral skeleton and the fluid water.
Once the water pressure is relieved, long term support is provided by the
mineral skeleton. This volume change typically leads to higher strength of
the soil.
33
Secondary Settlement
Some soils, after first experiencing primary consolidation settlement,

continue to strain after the excess pore water pressures have dissipated.
This process is termed secondary settlement and is also known as creep.
This creep is different than and not to be confused with the permanent load
CR or force effects due to creep. It can be defined as the plastic
readjustment of the soil grains in response to the continued strain in the soil
skeleton from the applied load. Cohesive soils high in moisture and organic
content are most susceptible to this kind of settlement which is very
detrimental to shallow foundations.
34
What type of process is elastic settlement?
What type of process is elastic settlement?
a) Immediate
b) Long-term
c) Secondary
d) Hydraulic
The correct answer is a) Immediate.
35
Shallow Foundation Settlement Considerations
This table shows the basic relationship of soil type to settlement types.
• Sand and gravel are subject to elastic settlement, but not primary or
secondary settlement.
• Clays experience primary settlement, and may experience elastic and

secondary settlement.
• Organic soils experience primary and secondary settlement, and may

experience elastic settlement.
36
Layered Profile Settlement Analysis
In the real world, settlement analysis encounters layers of soil with a variety
of compositions. Settlement is evaluated by a layered profile settlement
analysis.
For layered profile settlement analysis, the soil profile is divided into layers
as shown. The stress increase at the layer’s midpoint is calculated, then
the settlement for each layer is determined and added for total settlement.
37
Settlement
Elastic settlement accounts for the majority of settlement in granular or

cohesionless soils. Primary consolidation accounts for the majority of
settlement in fine grain or cohesive soils. Primary consolidation and
secondary settlement both contribute to settlement in organic soils.
38
Shallow Foundations on Rock
The design of footings bearing on rock is generally controlled by

considerations other than settlement. However, if a settlement estimate is
necessary for shallow foundations supported on rock, a method based on
elasticity theory would generally be the best approach. As with any of the
methods using elasticity theory for estimating settlement, a major limitation
is the engineer’s ability to accurately estimate the modulus parameter(s)
required by the method.
39
Impact of Settlement on Structures
Now that you understand settlement, let’s look at its impact on structures.
In this photo, the superstructure is making contact with the backwall due to
the rotation and settlement of the abutment. In an effort to mitigate this,
notice the large shim below the bearing. A settlement analysis of the soft
clay layer beneath the abutment indicates a potential for an additional 1
foot of settlement over the next 10 years. This example underscores the
importance of conducting a subsurface investigation and laboratory testing
to properly evaluate the subsurface. Note that the contact with the backwall
is only one impact and is not the only impact from settlement.
40
Vertical Stress Investigation
When a load is applied to the soil surface, the vertical and lateral stresses
within the soil mass increase. The greatest increase in stress is directly
beneath the area where the load was applied. This increase in stress
dissipates or lessens within the soil as the distance from the applied load
increases. The increase in stress is a function of the distance from the
applied load area.
The two methods used to investigate the change in vertical stress are the
Boussinesq pressure isobar method and the 2-to-1 distribution method.
View each vertical stress investigation method to learn more.
41
Boussinesq Pressure Isobars
A Boussinesq pressure isobar graph is shown on the screen and can be

used to profile vertical stress beneath an applied load, such as a shallow
foundation. This method is the most accurate, yet cumbersome method to
use when investigating the vertical pressure of a footing. The size of the
loaded area controls the distribution of vertical and lateral stress.
From the graph, the stress below and laterally to the shallow foundation
increases from the load of the shallow foundation. The size of the loaded
area or shallow foundation controls the stress distribution. The stress is
greatest beneath the shallow foundation and dissipates both vertically and
laterally with depth. The depth of influence is different between continuous
or strip and square footings of the same width.
42
2-to-1 Distribution Method
The figure on the screen is a schematic of the 2-to-1 distribution method of

estimating bearing stress at a depth beneath a loaded area with finite
dimensions for a strip footing. For this method, the total load applied to the
soil mass is distributed over a similar area with dimensions that increase
with depth at a rate of one horizontal unit for every two vertical units. The 2-
to-1 distribution method is easier to use and is a reasonably accurate
approximation of the decreases in stress with depth, but less accurate than
the Boussinesq method.
The equation with this method states that the approximate distribution
estimate is equal to the footing width divided by the sum of the footing
width and the depth all multiplied by the loading.
Nominal resistance of a spread footing on soil at the service limit state is

controlled by settlement considerations, and therefore is a function of the
bearing stress applied by the footing. Other methods are used for square,
circular, or rectangular footings.
43
Shallow Foundation Failure by Sliding
Sliding is another shallow foundation limit state check. Sliding is

investigated for footings that support horizontal or inclined loads at the
strength limit state and extreme limit state.
Sliding failure occurs when load force effect exceeds the factored shear
resistance of either the soil or the interface between the soil and
foundation.
The factored resistance of soil against sliding is provided in AASHTO

(AASHTO 10.6.3.4-1)
44
Shallow Foundations on Soil – Use of Eccentricity and
Effective Dimensions
Overturning or eccentricity is the last shallow foundation limit state check. It

is important to note that overturning should be prevented in all applicable
limit states.
In general, a moment or force that produces twisting or overturning of the

shallow foundation about an axis is said to undergo eccentric loading.
Calculating the eccentricity requires evaluation of the effective dimensions

of a footing to accurately determine the applied stresses beneath the
footing.
This course will only focus on the stress distributions for a rectangular
footing. Other stress distributions, including trapezoidal, triangular, and
circular are not covered in this course.
View each topic to learn more.
45
Eccentricity of Footings on Soil
The eccentricity is applicable to both service and strength limit states.

Application of a moment, M, to a footing on soil will shift the location of the
resultant and reduce the effective area of the footing in applying stress to
the soil bearing material. The computation of moment from the load, P and
eccentricity, e is computed separately for each axis and replaces the factor
of safety in ASD.
The first equation states that the eccentricity of the footing width, referred to
as e sub B, is equal to the moment along the footing width, referred to as M
sub B, divided by the load, referred to as P.
The second equation states that the eccentricity of the footing length,
referred to as e sub L, is equal to the moment along the footing length,
referred to as M sub L, divided by the load.
Image description 1:
Figure showing a footing of length L and width B. A load, P, is originally

applied at the center of the footing. After the application of an overturning
moment along either the footing width, referred to as M sub B, or the
46
footing length, referred to as M sub L, or both, the load shifts. The
eccentricity or shift in the load is measured along each axis. E sub B is the
eccentricity along the footing width, and e sub L is the eccentricity along the
footing length.
The variables used in this equation are eccentricity of the footing width,
referred to as e sub B, footing width, referred to as B, overturning moment
along the footing width, referred to as M sub B, and the load, referred to as
P. The equation states that the eccentricity of the footing width is equal to
the moment along the footing width divided by the load.
The variables used in this equation are eccentricity of the footing length,
referred to as e sub L, footing length, referred to as L, overturning moment
along the footing length, referred to as M sub L, and the load, referred to as
P. The equation states that the eccentricity of the footing length is equal to
the moment along the footing length divided by the load.
47
Effective Dimensions for Footings on Soil
Now that eccentricity has been calculated, the effective dimensions for the
soil footing from application of a moment, M, can be calculated. The
effective footing width, referred to as B prime, is equal to the footing width,
B, minus two times the eccentricity along the footing width, referred to as e
sub B. A similar equation to calculate the footing length states that the
effective footing length, referred to as L prime, is equal to the footing
length, L, minus two times the eccentricity along the footing length, referred
to as e sub L.
Figure showing a footing of length L and width B, the location of eccentricity

along each axis, (E sub B is the eccentricity along the footing width, and e
sub L is the eccentricity along the footing length), and the effective
dimensions B prime for width and L prime for length. The effective
dimension along an axis is the original dimension minus two times the
effective dimension along that axis.
48
The variables used in this equation are effective footing width, referred to
as B prime, footing width, referred to as B, and the eccentricity along the
footing width, referred to as e sub B. The equation states that the effective
footing width is equal to the footing width minus two times the eccentricity
along the footing width.
The variables used in this equation are effective footing length, referred to
as L prime, footing length, referred to as L, and the eccentricity along the
footing length, referred to as e sub L. The equation states that the effective
footing length is equal to the footing length minus two times the eccentricity
along the footing length.
49
Applied Stress Beneath Effective Footing Area
The basic equation states that the effective stress, q, is equal to the load,
P, divided by the effective footing width, B prime, and the effective footing
length, L prime.
The expression for applied bearing stress is for a uniform rectangular

stress distribution such as a footing on soil. The uniform rectangular
distribution is a reasonable approximation for modeling stress redistribution
in soil.
Image Description 1:
Figure showing a footing of length L and width B, the location of eccentricity

along each axis, e sub B is the eccentricity along the footing width, and e
sub L is the eccentricity along the footing length, the effective footing
dimensions B prime for width and L prime for length, and the effective
stress q. The effective stress q is an upward force acting on the effective
footing area.
Image Description 2:
50
The variables used in this equation are effective stress, referred to as q,
load, referred to as P, effective footing width, referred to as B prime, and
effective footing length, referred to as L prime. The equation states that the
effective stress is equal to the load divided by the effective footing width
and the effective footing length.
51
Eccentricity and Shape Correction Factors
LRFD accounts for eccentricity when calculating the nominal bearing

resistance in the form of footing shape correction factors that are defined
by AASHTO Table 10.6.3.1.2a-3. These shape correction factors are
applied to the cohesion term, unit weight term, and surcharge term of the
nominal bearing resistance equation that will be covered in more detail in
Lesson 3 where you’ll see how these factors are used in the bearing
resistance equation. The variables L and B in the table are to be taken as
the effective dimensions L prime and B prime.
Table Description:
AASHTO Table 10.6.3.1.2a-3 Shape Correction Factors sc, sγ, and sq.
Factor (column header); Friction angle (column header); Cohesion term (S

sub c) (column header); Unit Weight Term (S sub y) (column header);
Surcharge Term (S sub q) (Column header). Factor: Shape factors S sub c,
S sub y, S sub q; Friction Angle: phi sub f equals 0; Cohesion Term: 1 plus
B divided by 5 times L; Unit Weight term: 1.0, Surcharge Term: 1.0. Factor:
Shape factors S sub c, S sub y, S sub q; Friction angle: Phi sub f is greater
52
than 0; Cohesion Term: 1 plus B divided by 5 times L, Times N sub q
divided by n sub c; Unit Weight Term: 1 minus 0.4 times B divided by L;
Surcharge Term: 1 plus B divided by L times tangent of theta sub f.
53
Evaluation of eccentricity is performed to do what?
Evaluation of eccentricity is performed to do what?
a) Improve scour conditions
b) Decrease bearing capacity
c) Increase vehicular traffic
d) Prevent overturning
The correct answer is d) Prevent overturning.
54
Deep Foundations on Soil or Rock
Now that you’ve learned about shallow foundations, let’s move on to deep
foundations. Deep foundations are a structural element designed to
transfer substructure loads from the bottom of the substructure to
competent soil or rock materials located at some depth below the bottom of
the substructure. They must provide adequate resistance against
geotechnical and structural failure.
Two commonly used types of deep foundations include:
• Driven piles; and
• Drilled or excavated piles and shafts.
Other special or alternative deep foundation types exist but are beyond the
scope of this lesson.
View each type of deep foundation to learn more.
55
Driven Piles
Top-driven piles are long narrow structural elements that have sufficient
strength to withstand installation into the ground by repeated impacts
applied to the top of the pile. The impacts are generated by a pile-driving
hammer consisting of a heavy ram that is raised by various means and
dropped on top of the pile. Top driven piles can be subdivided into low
displacement piles and high displacement piles.
Low displacement piles have a small cross sectional area and do not push
a lot of soil out of the way when being installed. H-piles and open-ended
steel pipe piles are considered low displacement piles.
High displacement piles have a large cross sectional area and push a large
volume of soil when being installed. Precast concrete piles and closed-end
piles are examples of high displacement piles.
56
Drilled or Excavated Piles and Shafts
Drilled or excavated piles and drilled shafts are installed by removing soil
and rock using drilling methods or other excavation techniques and
inserting the foundation element into the excavated hole. The structural
element inserted into the excavated hole may be cast-in-place reinforced
concrete (as in drilled shafts), grout (as in auger cast piles), or a
combination of steel sections and grout or concrete (as in micropiles or
soldier beam and lagging wall).
Bored or excavated foundation elements are non-displacement elements

since the soil volume required for the element is physically removed prior to
installation. Thus the effective normal stress adjacent to the pile remains
unchanged or is reduced due to expansion of the soil into the hole before
insertion or construction of the load bearing element. The soil properties
and pore water pressure adjacent to the foundation elements are not
significantly impacted. Bored or excavated piles and shafts include
micropiles, drilled shafts or caissons, auger cast piles, and slurry wall load
bearing elements known as LBE’s.
57
Deep Foundations – Methods of Support
In any deep foundation design, a suitable bearing stratum must be

identified. Identification of a suitable bearing stratum involves assessing the
subsurface profile in terms of strength, settlement, and proximity to the
proposed substructure. Deep foundation elements transfer the vertical
substructure loads to the bearing stratum using two primary mechanisms,
end bearing, side friction, or a combination of these two mechanisms.
58
Methods of Support
For the end bearing method, low displacement piles such as steel H-piles
or open end pipe piles are most suitable when on hard rock. All generic pile
types are suitable on soft rock or dense soil. Side friction is used in deep
soil deposits without a hard bearing stratum. High displacement piles can
help to densify the soils around the pile and increase the side friction which
makes them well suited to this application. Deep foundations can use both
methods of support in combination. This method is used when piles are
driven a significant distance into a bearing stratum or for drilled foundations
that are socketed into a hard bearing stratum.
Estimation of pile length is simple for hard bearing surfaces as the pile will
stop when it encounters the hard surface, but is more difficult to estimate if
a bearing layer is not present or not strong enough to stop the pile.
Typically there is a high axial resistance achieved with proper driving
equipment.
59
Nominal Resistance for Typical Deep Foundation Types
The magnitude of the applied loads will influence the type of deep
foundation selected. Common deep foundation types include:
• Timber pile;
• Concrete pile;
• Steel H-pile;
• Pipe pile; and
• Drilled shaft.
The table shown on the screen is used as a guide for typical nominal
resistance values for preliminary selection. The nominal resistance required
will be a function of the loads to be supported, the space available for
foundation elements (which controls how many piles or shafts can be
used), and the resistance factor to be used.
Table Description:
Deep Foundation Typle (column header)
60
Typical Range of Nominal Resistance (kips) (column header)
Typical Length (feet) (column header)
Deep Foundation Type: Timber pile
Typical Range of Nominal Resistance: 75 to 200 kips
Typical Length: 20 to 40 feet
Deep Foundation Type: Concrete pile
Deep Foundation Type: Steel H-Pile
Deep Foundation Type: Pipe pile
Deep Foundation Type: Drilled Shaft
61
What type of support methods transfer the substructure
loads to the bearing stratum for deep foundation elements?
What type of support methods transfer the substructure loads to the

bearing stratum for deep foundation elements?
a) End bearing and side friction
b) Batter and fixit
c) Excavation and drilling
d) Grouting and boring
The correct answer is a) End bearing and side friction.
62
Deep Foundation Design Considerations
When designing a deep foundation to support a substructure the following

considerations must be kept in mind.
• Pile group configuration;
• Batter configurations;
• Soil and structure interaction;
• Pile head fixity;
• Downdrag; and
• Time-dependent effects such as relaxation and setup.
View each design consideration to learn more.
63
Pile Group Configurations
With the layout of the piles in a group, the number of rows and the number
of piles in each row can have a large impact on the foundation response.
For Case 1 in the illustration, a single pile or a single row of piles responds
to a horizontal load and overturning moment by rotating about a point
somewhere below the ground surface. For Case 1, the movement of the
pile causes the pile head to move downward. The overturning moment is
resisted by the bending of the pile. For Case 2 and Case 3, if a second row
of piles is added, the response is translational and the overturning moment
is resisted by a difference in axial force between the two rows of piles
forming a couple. If more piles are added, the distribution of forces to each
pile becomes indeterminate and simplifying assumptions are required in
order to analyze the foundation deflections and forces.
Note that for Case 3, the battered piles respond differently than Case 2
vertical piles. As the battered piles bend, the pile head moves along an arc
that tends to move the pile upward.
64
Note that a rotating foundation unit will deflect more at the bearing location
than a translating foundation unit, even though the deflection of the pile
head is the same. For this reason, it is important to evaluate the
displacement at a point where it is critical. This is usually at the bearings for
the superstructure but can be at other locations as well. The displacement
at the pile head is rarely of concern with respect to the performance of the
structure.
65
Batter Configurations
If the pile group contains battered piles or a combination of battered and

vertical piles, the response will be different. As a battered pile bends in the
direction of batter, the pile head will move along an arc that tends to make
the pile head move upward. As a vertical pile bends, it transcribes an arc
that tends to move the pile head downward. As a result of this difference,
the rotation of a substructure unit can actually be opposite of the
translation, resulting in much less displacement at the bearing location than
is realized for a similar foundation consisting of all vertical piles. The
difference in pile head movement between battered and non-battered piles
creates complexities when analyzing pile groups with more than two rows
since the distribution of loads to each pile will be a function of their
displacement relative to the pile cap. In addition, some of the horizontal
force is resisted by the horizontal component of the axial force in the
battered pile and some is resisted by bending of the piles. This can lead to
very complex interaction that requires computer simulation to adequately
model.
66
Soil and Structure Interaction
If the piles are close together in the direction of horizontal loading, the lead
pile will exhibit a stiffer response than the trailing pile. This means that the
lead pile will resist more of the horizontal load than the trailing pile. This
softened response of the trailing pile will result in larger horizontal
deflections than an equivalent pile group with more widely spaced piles.
The piles that are closer together, as in Case 1, will result in larger
horizontal deflections than an equivalent pile group with the piles widely
spaced as shown in Case 2.
Soil and structure interactions start to become significant at a pile spacing

of about five pile diameters, such as Case 2, and is very significant at a pile
spacing of about three pile diameters, such as Case 1.
67
Pile Head Fixity
The connection of the pile to the pile cap can be fixed such that rotation of
the pile head relative to the cap is not permitted. In Case 1, the piles are
not fixed to the pile cap. To fix the pile head to the cap requires that the pile
be imbedded about two to three pile diameters into the cap or be fitted with
a specially designed connection. If the pile is embedded, as in Case 2, only
a nominal amount into the cap, it behaves as a pinned connection and is
free to rotate relative to the cap, as shown in the figure on the screen. Most
pile installations are somewhere between these two extremes.
68
Downdrag
Downdrag, also known as negative skin friction, can be caused by soil

settlement relative to the pile installation. In terms of performance limits,
downdrag generally poses a foundation settlement concern for friction piles
and a strength consideration for end-bearing piles bearing on a very stiff
layer, such as very dense sand or rock.
Conditions when downdrag should be considered include when the:
• Total settlement of the ground surface is greater than 4 inches;
• Settlement of ground surface after pile driving is greater than 0.4

inches;
• Height of embankment filling on ground surface is greater than 6 feet;
• Thickness of soft compressible layer is greater than 33 feet;
• Water table is drawn down more than 13 feet; and
• Pile length is greater than 82 feet.
Downdrag is a load that is applied to a deep foundation in accordance with

the provisions of AASHTO Article 3.11.8. It is to be factored with both a
69
maximum load factor for combinations in which the downdrag increases the
load effects and with a minimum load factor for cases when the downdrag
decreases the load effects.
70
Time-dependent Effects
The nominal resistance of a deep foundation may change over time,

particularly for driven piles that disturb the subsurface materials. The
resistance may increase (setup) as high pore pressures developed during
driving dissipate or as the effective stress of the soil increases after the
driving process. The resistance may decrease (relaxation) as negative pore
pressures induced by expansion of the soil during driving is dissipated.
Relaxation may also occur as water enters fractures in soft rock that are
created by driving a pile into the formation. Water causes the rock to lose
strength over time.
The best way to evaluate time-dependent effects is to test the deep

foundation immediately after installation and then again after a waiting
period sufficient for the time-dependent effect to manifest itself. The waiting
period may be on the order of a few days for pore pressures to dissipate in
granular soils to several months for cementation to occur. Dynamic testing
is the best way to evaluate this. When time-dependent effects are
71
anticipated, it is important to include provisions for waiting and testing in the
construction documents.
72
Lesson Review
Let's take a moment to review the concepts you learned during this lesson.
73
What soil types are most susceptible to secondary
settlement or creep?
What soil types are most susceptible to secondary settlement or creep?
a) Sand
b) Organic
c) Poorly graded granular soil with high moisture content
d) Clay
The correct answers are b) Organic; and d) Clay.
74
True or False, downdrag is also known as negative skin
friction.
True or False, downdrag is also known as negative skin friction.
a) True
b) False
The correct answer is a) True.
75
What type of process is scour?
What type of process is scour?
a) Wind erosion process
b) Hydraulic erosion process
c) Vehicular impact process
d) Construction process
The correct answer is b) Hydraulic erosion process.
76
Lesson Summary
Now, let’s review the learning outcome for this lesson.
You learned to define the basic foundation analysis techniques for shallow
and deep foundations.
For shallow foundations, several design considerations are to be

considered. To determine the minimum footing size, scour, frost protection,
and unsuitable foundation materials should be closely evaluated. Footing
placement on a sloped embankment affects the stability of the slope and
you learned about the three common rupture planes associated with overall
stability. Also covered in this lesson were the types of settlement including
elastic deformation, primary consolidation, and secondary consolidation. To
calculate the stresses acting on a footing, calculating the eccentricity and
effective dimensions of a rectangular footing are necessary.
For deep foundations, the two common types are driven piles and drilled or
excavated shafts or piles. The methods of support for deep foundations are
end bearing, side friction, or a combination of both. For deep foundation
design, pile grouping and configurations, soil and structure interaction, pile
77
head fixity, downdrag, and time dependent effects are to be considered
during the design process.
78
Lesson Conclusion
If you would like to further review the material covered in this lesson,
please return to the beginning of this lesson.
If you are confident that you understand the learning outcome, please
continue on to the next lesson.
79
Lesson 2: Limit State Checks for Foundation Design
Let’s move on to the second lesson, which describes the limit state checks
required for shallow and deep foundations. At the end of this lesson, you
will be able to explain the service, strength, and extreme event limit state
checks used for shallow and deep foundations analysis.
80
Limit State Checks for Shallow Foundations
The design of shallow foundations involves consideration of following three

limit states.
• Service limit state;
• Strength limit state; and
• Extreme limit state.
The fatigue limit state is typically not considered in foundations.
Let’s begin by looking at service limit state checks.
81
Shallow Foundations – Service Limit State
For shallow foundations, service limit states affect the function of the
structure under regular service conditions and loads. Some acceptable
measure of structure movement is tolerable by the service limit state
through the structure’s performance life.
The service limit states for shallow foundations can be reached through:
• Excessive settlement;
• Excessive lateral deflection; and
• Structural deterioration of the foundation, or excessive vibration.
For example, if the footing movements due to the loads exceed the
tolerable settlement, the service limit state is reached. The design of
shallow foundations is frequently controlled by movement at the service
limit state.
82
Shallow Foundations – Service Limit State (con.)
The service limit state checks for shallow foundations include evaluation of:
• Vertical settlement;
• Horizontal displacement; and
• Overall stability.
83
Service Limit State Check for Settlement
For cohesionless soils, in service limit state, settlement can be checked

using elastic theory, empirical procedures, or Hough method.
For cohesive soils, in the service limit state, settlement can be checked
using elastic theory or other conventional methods.
The AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications for LRFD provides presumptive

values for bearing resistance at the service limit state, listed in Table
10.6.2.6.1-1. The presumptive values are bearing resistance with
settlement limited to one inch.
View AASHTO Table 10.6.2.6.1-1 below.
84
Presumptive Values AASHTO Table 10.6.2.6.1-1
Presumptive values are given in AASHTO Table 10.6.2.6.1-1.
Table Description:
Type of Bearing Material (Column header)
Consistency in Place (Column header)
Bearing Resistance (ksf) (column title)
Ordinary Range (column header)
Recommended Value of Use (column header)
Type of Bearing Material: Massive crystalline igneous and metamorphic

rock: granite, diorite, basalt, gneiss, thoroughly cemented conglomerate
(sound condition allows minor cracks)
Consistency in Place: Very hard, sound rock
Bearing Resistance Ordinary Range: 120 to 200 ksf
Bearing Resistance Recommended Value of Use: 160 ksf
85
Type of Bearing Material: Foliated metamorphic rock: slate schist (sound
condition allows minor cracks)
Consistency in Place: Hard sound rock
Type of Bearing Material: Sedimentary rock: hard cemented shales,

siltstone, sandstone, limestone without cavities
Type of Bearing Material: Weathered or broken bedrock of any kind, except

highly argillaceous rock (shale)
Consistency in Place: Medium hard rock
Type of Bearing Material: Compaction shale or highly argillaceous rock

(shale)
86
Type of Bearing Material: Well-graded mixture of fine and coarse grained
soil, glacial till, hardpan, boulder clay (GW-GC, GC, SC)
Consistency in Place: Very dense
Type of Bearing Material: Gravel, gravel-sand mixture, boulder-gravel

mixtures (GW- GP, SW, SP)
Consistency in Place: Medium dense to dense
Consistency in Place: Loose
Type of Bearing Material: Coarse to medium sand, and with little gravel
(SW, SP)
87
Type of Bearing Material: Fine to medium sand, silty or clayey medium to

coarse sand (SW, SM, SC)
Type of Bearing Material: Fine sand, silty or clayey medium to find sand
(SP, SM, SC)
88
Type of Bearing Material: Homogeneous inorganic clay, sandy or silty clay

(CL, CH)
Type of Bearing Material: Inorganic silt, sandy or clayey silt, varved silt-
clay-fine sand (ML, MH)
Consistency in Place: Very stiff to hard
89
Consistency in Place: Medium stiff to stiff
Consistency in Place: Soft
90
Service Limit State Check for Horizontal Displacement
Horizontal displacement should be evaluated where it impacts the

performance of the structure. This is usually at the location of the bearing
or at the location of the expansion joint. The actual displacement of the
footing is usually not of interest.
The horizontal displacement at the point of interest is the sum of the

displacement due to translation of the footing or pile cap under the applied
horizontal loads plus the displacement of the point interest due to rotation
of the footing or pile cap. For tall abutments or piers, the rotation
component can be quite significant. For spread footings the translation
component is often neglected but for pile foundations it can be significant
and is not neglected.
For a pier, the rotation can be in either direction and is usually a function of
the direction of the applied horizontal load or the eccentricity of the vertical
load.
For abutments, the rotation is usually “forward” in the direction of the

applied horizontal earth pressure. However, abutments can also rotate
91
“backwards” if the approach embankment induces large vertical or
horizontal displacements of the soil behind the abutment. Abutments on
battered piles can also rotate backwards due to the geometry of the piles.
The rotation of any foundation may also be caused by differing subsurface

conditions beneath various parts of the foundation. Steeply sloping rock
surfaces or soft pockets that could result in differential settlement should be
identified in the geotechnical report.
92
Service Limit State Check for Overall Stability
The next service limit check is for overall stability. Overall stability is
evaluated by LRFD as resistance factors when evaluating bearing
resistance.
• Overall stability is evaluated at the Service I load combination using

an appropriate resistance factor to the bearing resistance;
• Determine if the slope supports an abutment or other structures; and
• Determine if site-specific soil and rock tests were performed and, if

so, by in-situ or lab testing.
93
Now that you understand the service limit state checks for shallow
foundations, let's move on to the strength limit state checks.
94
Shallow Foundations – Strength Limit States
Strength limit states describe a condition to ensure strength and stability

are provided to resist specified load combinations, and to avoid the total or
partial collapse of the structure such as:
• Foundation bearing failure; and
• Substructure sliding.
95
Shallow Foundations – Strength Limit State Checks
When the bearing pressure due to the loads exceeds the bearing strength
of the soil, the strength limit state is reached and failure results. The
strength limit state is typically evaluated in terms of shear or bending stress
failure.
The strength limit state checks for shallow foundations include:
• Soil bearing resistance; and
• Sliding resistance.
View each strength limit state check to learn more.
96
Soil Bearing Resistance
Strength limit state check for bearing resistance includes evaluation using
conventional bearing resistance theory.
For the strength limit state, the nominal bearing resistance is limited by
bearing resistance variables, as compared to the service limit state where
nominal bearing resistance is limited by settlement.
97
Sliding Resistance
Strength limit state check for sliding requires an evaluation of a factored

nominal resistance against sliding that includes determination of the:
• Nominal resistance and a resistance factor between the soil and the
foundation; and
• Nominal passive resistance and passive resistance factor of the soil

throughout the shallow foundation’s life.
For the strength limit state sliding failure occurs if the horizontal loads force
effect exceed either the factored nominal bearing resistance of the soil or
the factored resistance between the soil and foundation.
98
Now that you understand the strength limit state checks for shallow
foundations, let's move on to the extreme limit state checks.
99
Shallow Foundations – Extreme Event Limit State
The final check we’ll look at is the extreme event limit state check. For the
extreme event limit state, loading combinations that result in an excessive
or improbable condition are evaluated. The Extreme Event I limit state is
used to evaluate seismic loadings and its effect on the bridge. The Extreme
Event II limit state is used to evaluate vessel impact or vehicle impact on
the bridge structure, and ice loads and scour by the check flood 500 year
event. The Extreme Event I limit state may control the design of
foundations in seismically active areas while the Extreme Event II limit state
may control the design of foundations and piers that may be exposed to
vehicle or vessel impacts.
Extreme event limit state checks for shallow foundations include:
• Total and differential settlement;
• Overall stability;
• Soil bearing resistance;
• Sliding resistance; and
100
• Scour by check flood 500 year flood event.
101
Service limit state checks for shallow foundations include
which of the following:
Service limit state checks for shallow foundations include which of the
following:
a) Vertical settlement
b) Overall stability
c) Horizontal displacement
d) Scour by check flood 100 year event
The correct answers are a) Vertical settlement; b) Overall stability; and c)

Horizontal displacement.
102
Limit State Checks for Deep Foundations
Now that you have learned about shallow foundations, let’s move on to
deep foundations. The design of deep foundations also involves
consideration of the following three limit states.
• Service limit state;
• Strength limit state; and
• Extreme limit state.
Once again, the fatigue limit state is typically not considered in foundations.
Let’s begin by looking at service limit state checks.
103
Deep Foundations – Service Limit State Checks
Service limit state checks are the same for both driven piles and drilled
shafts and include:
• Overall stability;
• Vertical displacement; and
• Horizontal displacement.
View each limit state check to learn more.
104
Horizontal and Vertical Displacement
Both horizontal and vertical deflection of a point on the substructure are

related to vertical and horizontal displacements of the piles. If the horizontal
and vertical displacement limits are exceeded, bearings and expansion
joints can be overextended leading to cracking and movement of
pavements or foundations supported by the substructure unit, as well as
unintended bending stresses in beams and other components.
105
Overall Stability
Overall stability is a service limit state check. This type of failure can
destroy a substructure, even with deep foundations. The superstructure,
substructure, and backfill weight must all be included in stability analysis to
prevent this type of failure.
106
Now that you understand the service limit state checks for deep
foundations, let's move on to the strength limit state checks.
107
Deep Foundations – Strength Limit State Checks
Strength limit state checks for driven piles include:
• Structural resistance – axial, shear, and flexure;
• Axial geotechnical resistance – tension, compression, group, and

punching failure modes; and
• Drivability is a constructability check.
• Strength limit state checks for drilled shafts include:
• Structural resistance; and
• Axial geotechnical resistance.
Structural resistance includes axial, shear, and flexure resistances. Axial

geotechnical resistance includes tension, compression, group, and
punching failure modes.
Drivability does not need to be checked for drilled shafts because they are
drilled and not driven.
108
Deep Foundations – Strength Limit State Check – Structural
Resistance
Let’s begin by looking at the strength limit state check for structural
resistance. Structural resistance includes axial, flexure, and shear
resistances.
View each type of structural resistance to learn more.
109
Resistance
Structural failure occurs as a result of bending in the pile. Depending on the

foundation properties, failure can result in either tensile or compression
failure on one side of the deep foundation from the pile bending.
110
Resistance
Structural failure occurs as a result of axial compression or tension loads.

Depending on the foundation properties, failure can result on one side of
the foundation. In this case, failure occurred along the vertical axis of the
pile.
111
Resistance
Structural failure can occur as a result of shear. The image on the screen
shows piles with structural shear failure. Shear failure of the structure is
typically due to excessive bending in the pile to a point that shear failure
occurs and the pile becomes detached from the pile cap.
112
Service limit checks for deep foundations include which of
the following?
Service limit checks for deep foundations include which of the following?
a) Overall stability
b) Vertical displacement
c) Horizontal displacement
d) Axial resistance
The correct answers are a) Overall stability; b) Vertical displacement; and

c) Horizontal displacement.
113
Deep Foundations – Axial Geotechnical Resistance
The next strength limit state check you’ll review is axial geotechnical
resistance. The deep foundation must transmit the load to subsurface
materials. If the subsurface materials are not strong enough to support the
loading, or the load transfer mechanism is not sufficient, geotechnical
failure, either through axial geotechnical resistance at the front of the deep
foundation or tension pull out at the rear of the deep foundation will occur.
114
Deep Foundations – Pile Drivability
And the final strength limit state check is for pile drivability. A pile drivability
analysis is performed during design and then while driving the pile during
construction to ensure that the pile achieves the required nominal
resistance or minimum penetration with acceptable stresses to avoid
damage to the pile. Driving analysis is also performed to evaluate a
hammer and driving system in other cases.
This animation sequence on the screen shows the stress wave generated
by the hammer’s impact traveling to the pile tip where contact with hard
rock results in excessive stresses. Tensile stress also develops in the
region behind the stress wave. Structural failure of driven piles can also
result from the stress required to drive the pile into the ground.
115
Deep Foundations – Pile Drivability (con.)
Remember, pile drivability only applies to driven piles and not drilled shafts.
Pile drivability denotes the ability of a pile to be driven to a desired
penetration depth, capacity, or both depth and capacity.
In order for a driven pile to develop its design geotechnical resistance, it

must be driven into the ground with enough energy to force the pile tip into
the intended bearing stratum. Stresses developed during driving often
exceed those developed even under the most extreme loading conditions.
The critical driving stress may be either compression, as in the case of a
steel H-pile, or tension, as in the case of a concrete pile. Drivability is truly
a construction limit state, but it is treated as a strength limit state since
AASHTO does not define a construction limit state. Evaluation of this limit
state during design consists of performing a preliminary dynamic analysis
using wave equation techniques. These techniques are used to verify that
commonly used pile driving hammers are capable of mobilizing the
required nominal resistance of the pile at driving stress levels less than the
factored driving resistance of the pile.
116
Drivability can often be the controlling strength limit state check for a pile
foundation. This is especially true for high capacity piles driven to refusal
on rock.
117
Drivability Performance Limit
Though the damage by any one impact may be small, extensive damage
can result from repeated impacts as in the case for the piles shown in the
photo on the screen.
118
Driven Performance Limit
This photo shows an exposed pile head that has deformed. In this
example, the drivability limit check at the pile head has been exceeded.
Drivability analysis not only helps prevent pile damage, but verifies if
geotechnical resistance can be mobilized by common driving techniques.
119
Now that you understand the strength limit state checks for deep
foundations, let's move on to the extreme limit state checks.
120
1.70 Deep Foundations – Extreme Limit State Checks
You’ve learned about the service and strength limit state checks for deep
foundation design, now let’s move on to the extreme limit state checks.
Deep foundation extreme limit state checks are similar to the strength and
service limit state checks but include the following considerations.
• A resistance factor of one is to be used when determining the

factored axial and lateral geotechnical resistance and 0.8 for uplift;
• Design should resist liquefiable soil, and if present, liquefiable soil is

not to be considered with bearing resistance but should include
evaluation of downdrag and lateral spread;
• Downdrag resulting from liquefication induced settlement is to be

included with the foundation load;
• Scour is evaluated based on the 500-year flood event;
• Vessel and vehicle collision;
• Seismic loading; and
• Any other site-specific situation.
121
Lesson Review
122
Structural resistance of deep foundations includes which of
the following?
Structural resistance of deep foundations includes which of the following?
a) Axial resistance
b) Shear resistance
c) Wind resistance
d) Flexure resistance
The correct answers are a) Axial resistance; b) Shear resistance; and d)

Flexure resistance.
123
Extreme Event I limit state for shallow foundations evaluates
which of the following?
Extreme Event I limit state for shallow foundations evaluates which of the
following?
a) Scour at the 100 year flood event
b) Resistance to ice loads
c) Seismic loading and effect of bridge
d) Vessel or vehicle impacts on bridge
The correct answer is c) Seismic loading and effect of bridge.
124
In order for a driven pile to develop its design geotechnical
resistance, the pile must be:
In order for a driven pile to develop its design geotechnical resistance, the
pile must be:
a) Installed into cohesive soil
b) Minimum size and length
c) Drilled to the intended bearing stratum
d) Driven with enough energy to force the pile tip into the intended
bearing stratum
The correct answer is d) Driven with enough energy to force the pile tip into
the intended bearing stratum.
125
Lesson Summary
You learned about the limit state checks for shallow and deep foundations.
For shallow foundations, service, strength, and extreme event limit states,
as well as eccentricity are to be checked. Service limit state includes
checks for vertical settlement, overall stability, and horizontal displacement.
Strength limit state includes checks for soil bearing resistance and sliding
resistance. The extreme event limit state includes checks for total and
differential settlement, overall stability, soil bearing resistance, and sliding
resistance.
For deep foundations, service, strength, and extreme event limit states are
to be checked. Service limit state includes checks for overall stability,
vertical displacement, and horizontal displacement. Strength limit state
includes checks for structural resistance, axial geotechnical resistance, and
drivability. Extreme limit state includes check flood for scour, vessel and
vehicle collision, seismic loading, and other site-specific situations the
design engineer determines should be included.
126
This concludes Lesson 2: Limit State Checks for Foundation Design.
127
Lesson Conclusion
continue on to the next lesson.
128
Lesson 3: Resistance for Foundations
Let’s move on to the third lesson, which explains the resistance for shallow
and deep foundations. At the end of this lesson, you will understand basic
soil resistance analysis for shallow foundations and understand basic
resistance of deep foundations.
129
Load and Resistance Factor Design Equation
Let’s begin Lesson 3 with a review of the Load and Resistance Factor
Design, or LRFD, equation introduced in Module 2. The equation states
that the sum of the factored dead loads plus the sum of the factored live
loads all multiplied by a load modifier is less than or equal to the nominal
resistance multiplied by a resistance factor.
If you recall, the LRFD golden rule states that the factored load is less than
or equal to the factored resistance. This lesson will focus on the resistance
side of the equation.
Equation Description: The variables used in this equation are load modifier
applied to all loads, referred to as eta, load factor applied to dead loads,
referred to as gamma sub DL, load factor applied to live loads, referred to
as gamma sub LL, deal loads, referred to as DL, live loads, referred to as
LL, resistance factor, referred to as phi, and nominal resistance or strength
of the element under consideration, referred to as R sub n. The equation
states that the sum of the factored dead loads plus the sum of the factored
130
live loads all multiplied by a load modifier is less than or equal to the
nominal resistance multiplied by a resistance factor.
131
Shallow Foundations – Soil Resistance
The strength needed by the soil to support the spread footing and avoid
failure is determined by the calculation of:
• Bearing resistance;
• Sliding;
• Settlement; and
• Overall stability of the soil.
This will be discussed in more detail, starting with the bearing resistance.
132
Shallow Foundations – Bearing Resistance of Soil
Let’s start by looking at the equation for bearing resistance. For strength
limit state design, the nominal bearing resistance of soil is to be estimated
using accepted soil mechanics theories and should be based on measured
soil properties. The nominal bearing resistance of a soil layer, in kips per
square foot, is calculated using the equation shown. This equation
represents the general shear failure of the soil. To better understand this
equation, it has been broken down into three components with each of
them covered separately.
View each equation component to learn more.
Equation description: The variables used in this equation are cohesion,

referred to as c, factored cohesion term (undrained loading) bearing
capacity, referred to as N sub cm, total moist unit weight of soil, referred to
as gamma, footing embedment depth, referred to as D sub f, factored
surcharge (embedment) term (drained or undrained loading) bearing
capacity factor, referred to as N sub qm, correction factors to account for
location of groundwater table, referred to as C sub wq, footing width,
133
referred to as B, factored unit weight (footing width) term (drained loading)
bearing capacity factor, referred to as N sub gamma m, and correction
factors to account for location of groundwater table, referred to as C sub w
gamma. The equation states that the nominal bearing resistance is equal to
cohesion times the cohesion term (undrained loading) bearing capacity
factor, plus the total moist unit weight of soil above the base of the footing
times the footing embedment depth times the factored surcharge
(embedment) term (drained or undrained loading) bearing capacity factor
times the correction factor for the groundwater table, plus one half times
the total moist unit weight of soil below the footing times the footing width
times the unit weight (footing width) term (drained loading) bearing capacity
factor times the correction factor for the groundwater table.
In which: The variables used in this equation are cohesion term (undrained
loading) bearing capacity factor, referred to as N sub c, footing shape
correction factor, referred to as s sub c, and load inclination factor, referred
to as i sub c. The equation states that the factored cohesion term
(undrained loading) bearing capacity is equal to the cohesion term
(undrained loading) bearing capacity factor times the footing shape
correction factor times the load inclination factor.
In which: The variables used in this equation are surcharge (embedment)

term (drained or undrained loading) bearing capacity factor, referred to as
N sub q, footing shape correction factor, referred to as s sub q, correction
factor for shearing resistance, referred to as d sub q, and load inclination
factor, referred to as i sub q. The equation states that the factored
surcharge (embedment) term (drained or undrained loading) bearing
134
capacity factor is equal to the surcharge (embedment) term (drained or
undrained loading) bearing capacity factor times the footing shape
correction factor times the correction factor for shearing resistance times
the load inclination factor.
In which: The variables used in this equation are unit weight (footing width)
term (drained loading) bearing capacity factor, referred to as N sub gamma,
footing shape correction factor, referred to as s sub gamma, and load
inclination factor, referred to as i sub gamma. The equation states that the
factored unit weight (footing width) term (drained loading) bearing capacity
factor is equal to the unit weight (footing width) term (drained loading)
bearing capacity factor times the footing shape correction factor times the
load inclination factor.
135
Soil Bearing Resistance – Cohesion Term
The first component of the bearing resistance equation, known as the

cohesion term, is cohesion times the combined bearing capacity factor,
inclination factor, and shape factor for cohesion. This component of the
equation is based on undrained loading.
136
Bearing Capacity Factors
AASHTO Table 10.6.3.1.2a-1 shows the bearing capacity factors. The

bearing capacity factors require knowing a friction angle, phi sub f, which
can be determined from AASHTO Table 10.4.6.2.4-1, for cohesionless soils
and from laboratory or in-situ tests for cohesive soils. AASHTO Table
10.4.6.2.4-1 can be viewed by selecting the link off the main screen.
137
Shape Correction Factors
The footing shape correction factor can be determined from AASHTO

Table 10.6.3.1.2a-3 that is shown on the screen.
Table Description: AASHTO Table 10.6.3.1.2a-3 Shape Correction Factors

sc, sγ, and sq. Factor (column header); Friction angle (column header);
Cohesion term (S sub c) (column header); Unit Weight Term (S sub y)
(column header); Surcharge Term (S sub q) (Column header). Factor:
Shape factors S sub c, S sub y, S sub q; Friction Angle: phi sub f equals 0;
Cohesion Term: 1 plus B divided by 5 times L; Unit Weight term: 1.0,
Surcharge Term: 1.0. Factor: Shape factors S sub c, S sub y, S sub q;
Friction angle: Phi sub f is greater than 0; Cohesion Term: 1 plus B divided
by 5 times L, Times N sub q divided by n sub c; Unit Weight Term: 1 minus
0.4 times B divided by L; Surcharge Term: 1 plus B divided by L times
tangent of theta sub f.
138
Load Inclination Factor
The load inclination factors account for the reduction in bearing resistance
from an inclined load. AASHTO mentions that most geotechnical engineers
nationwide have not used the load inclination factors. This may be due in
part to the lack of knowledge of the vertical and horizontal loads at the time
of the geotechnical exploration and lack of preparation of bearing
resistance recommendations. Also, the load inclination factors were derived
for footings without embedment and may be overly conservative for
footings with an embedment depth to footing width ratio greater than or
equal to one. Therefore, for footings with modest embedment,
consideration may be given for omission of the load inclination factor.
Refer to AASHTO Article 10.6.3.1.2 for more information.
Even though these factors are rarely used, the equations are shown for
informational purposes.
139
Soil Bearing Resistance – Surcharge (Embedment) Term
The second component of the bearing resistance equation uses the

surcharge (embedment) term of the bearing capacity factor and considers
drained or undrained loading. This component is equal to the total moist
unit weight of soil above the footing times the footing embedment depth
times the combined bearing capacity factor, inclination factor, depth
correction factor, and shape factor for surcharge times the correction factor
for the groundwater table.
Gamma is the total moist unit weight of the soil above or the bearing depth
of the footing. C sub wq is the correction factor to account for the location
of the groundwater table. D sub q is the correction factor to account for the
shearing resistance along the failure surface. Each of these are determined
from tables in AASHTO.
140

bearing capacity factors require knowing a friction angle, which can be
determined from laboratory or in-situ testing and, for drained cohesionless
soils, by AASHTO Table 10.4.6.2.4-1, that can be viewed by selecting the
link off the main screen.
141
Coefficient for Various Groundwater Depths
When the position of the groundwater is at a depth less than 1.5 times the
footing width below the footing base, the bearing resistance is affected. The
highest anticipated groundwater level should be used in design.
Table Description: AASHTO Table 10.6.3.1.2a-2 Coefficients for Various

Groundwater Depths. D sub w (column header); C sub wq (column
header); C sub w gamma (column header); D sub w: 0.0, C sub wq: 0.5, C
sub w gamma: 0.5; D sub w: D sub f, C sub wq: 1.0, C sub w gamma: 0.5;
D sub w: greater than 1.5 times B plus D sub f, C sub wq: 1.0, C sub w
gamma: 1.0.
142
Friction Angle
The table shown on the screen, AASHTO Table 10.4.6.2.4-1, can be used
to correlate the friction angle from the Standard Penetration Test, or SPT,
data in cohesionless soil, or can be measured directly by laboratory tests or
in-situ testing. After determining the friction angle from this table, it can then
be used with AASHTO Table 10.6.3.1.2a-1 to determine the bearing
capacity factor. For cohesive soils, the friction angle is determined by
laboratory or in-situ testing.
Table Description:
AASHTO Table 10.4.6.2.4-1 Correlation of SPT N160 Values to Drained

Friction Angle of Granular Soils. N1 sub 60 (column header); Phi sub f
(column header); N1 sub 60: Less than 4, Phi sub f: 25 to 30; N1 sub 60: 4,
Phi sub f: 27 to 32; N1 sub 60: 10, Phi sub f: 30 to 35; N sub 60: 30, Phi
sub f: 35 to 40; N1 sub 60: 50, Phi sub f: 38 to 43.
143
from an inclined load. AASHTO mentions most geotechnical engineers
144
Depth Correction Factors
AASHTO Table 10.6.3.1.2a-4 Depth Correction Factors is shown.
The depth correction factors are only to be used when the soils above the
footing bearing elevation are as competent as the soils beneath the footing
level. Otherwise, the depth correction factor should be taken as 1.0.
Table Description: AASHTO Table 10.6.3.1.2a-4 Depth Correction Factors.

Friction Angle, Phi sub f (degrees) (column header); D sub f divided by B
(column header); d sub q (column header); Friction Angle: 32 degrees, D
sub f divided by B: 1, 2, 4, 8, d sub q: 1.20, 1.30, 1.35, 1.40; Friction Angle:
37 degrees, D sub f divided by B: 1, 2, 4, 8, d sub q: 1.20, 1.25, 1.30, 1.35;
Friction Angle: 42 degrees, D sub f divided by B: 1, 2, 4, 7, D sub q: 1.15,
1.20, 1.25, 1.30.
145

146
Soil Bearing Resistance – Unit Weight Term
The third component of the bearing resistance equation, called the unit
weight term, uses the unit weight (footing width) term of the bearing
capacity factor and considers drained loading. This component is equal to
one half times the total moist unit weight of soil below the footing times the
footing width times the combined bearing capacity factor, shape factor, and
inclination factor for unit weight, times the correction factor for the
groundwater table.
Gamma, the total moist unit weight of the soil, is taken below the bearing
depth of the footing.
147
Friction Angle
The table shown on the screen, AASHTO Table 10.4.6.2.4-1, can be used
to correlate the friction angle from Standard Penetration Test, or SPT, data
in cohesionless soil, or can be measured directly by laboratory tests or in-
situ testing for cohesive and cohesionless soils. After determining the
friction angle from this table, it can then be used with AASHTO Table
10.6.3.1.2a-1 to determine the bearing capacity factor.
Table Description: AASHTO Table 10.4.6.2.4-1 Correlation of SPT N160

Values to Drained Friction Angle of Granular Soils. N1 sub 60 (column
header); Phi sub f (column header); N1 sub 60: Less than 4, Phi sub f: 25
to 30; N1 sub 60: 4, Phi sub f: 27 to 32; N1 sub 60: 10, Phi sub f: 30 to 35;
N sub 60: 30, Phi sub f: 35 to 40; N1 sub 60: 50, Phi sub f: 38 to 43.
148
Coefficient for Various Groundwater Depths
When the position of the groundwater is at a depth less than 1.5 times the
footing width below the footing base, the bearing resistance is affected. The
highest anticipated groundwater level should be used in design.
Table Description: AASHTO Table 10.6.3.1.2a-2 Coefficients for Various

Groundwater Depths. D sub w (column header); C sub wq (column
header); C sub w gamma (column header); D sub w: 0.0, C sub wq: 0.5, C
sub w gamma: 0.5; D sub w: D sub f, C sub wq: 1.0, C sub w gamma: 0.5;
D sub w: greater than 1.5 times B plus D sub f, C sub wq: 1.0, C sub w
gamma: 1.0.
149

bearing capacity factors require knowing a friction angle. For drained
cohesionless soil, the friction angle can be determined from AASHTO
Table 10.4.6.2.4-1, that can be viewed by selecting the link off the main
screen. The friction angle is also obtained from laboratory or in-situ testing
of soils.
150

Table Description: AASHTO Table 10.6.3.1.2a-3 Shape Correction Factors

sc, sγ, and sq. Factor (column header); Friction angle (column header);
Cohesion term (S sub c) (column header); Unit Weight Term (S sub y)
(column header); Surcharge Term (S sub q) (Column header). Factor:
Shape factors S sub c, S sub y, S sub q; Friction Angle: phi sub f equals 0;
Cohesion Term: 1 plus B divided by 5 times L; Unit Weight term: 1.0,
Surcharge Term: 1.0. Factor: Shape factors S sub c, S sub y, S sub q;
Friction angle: Phi sub f is greater than 0; Cohesion Term: 1 plus B divided
by 5 times L, Times N sub q divided by n sub c; Unit Weight Term: 1 minus
0.4 times B divided by L; Surcharge Term: 1 plus B divided by L times
tangent of theta sub f.
151
from an inclined load. AASHTO mentions that most geotechnical engineers
152
Which of the following are true for the bearing resistance
equation?
Which of the following are true for the bearing resistance equation?
a) Uses acceptable soil mechanics theories
b) Requires temperature loads
c) Based on measured soil properties
d) Represents the general shear failure of soil
The correct answers are a) Uses acceptable soil mechanics theories; c)

Based on measured soil properties; and d) Represents the general shear
failure of soil.
153
Presumptive Values – AASHTO Table 10.6.2.6.1-1
Now that you understand the bearing resistance equation, let’s look at
some alternatives. This table may look familiar to you, it was introduced in
Lesson 2 of this module.
When sufficient testing or appropriate data is not available, AASHTO

provides presumptive values for bearing resistance found in AASHTO
Table 10.6.2.6.1-1. These presumptive bearing resistances are settlement
limited, to one inch, and apply only at the service limit state.
Other methods identified by AASHTO to determine nominal bearing

resistance include semiempirical procedures using SPT values, Cone
Penetration Test or CPT values, and plate load tests. Also, AASHTO
provides evaluations of punching shear, footings on slopes, and how to
deal with weak and strong soil layers.
Table Description:
Type of Bearing Material (Column header)
Consistency in Place (Column header)
154
Bearing Resistance (ksf) (column title)
Ordinary Range (column header)
Recommended Value of Use (column header)
Type of Bearing Material: Massive crystalline igneous and metamorphic

rock: granite, diorite, basalt, gneiss, thoroughly cemented conglomerate
(sound condition allows minor cracks)
Consistency in Place: Very hard, sound rock
Type of Bearing Material: Foliated metamorphic rock: slate schist (sound

condition allows minor cracks)
Type of Bearing Material: Sedimentary rock: hard cemented shales,

siltstone, sandstone, limestone without cavities
Type of Bearing Material: Weathered or broken bedrock of any kind, except

highly argillaceous rock (shale)
155
Type of Bearing Material: Compaction shale or highly argillaceous rock

(shale)
Type of Bearing Material: Well-graded mixture of fine and coarse grained

soil, glacial till, hardpan, boulder clay (GW-GC, GC, SC)
Type of Bearing Material: Gravel, gravel-sand mixture, boulder-gravel

mixtures (GW- GP, SW, SP)
156
Type of Bearing Material: Coarse to medium sand, and with little gravel
(SW, SP)
Type of Bearing Material: Fine to medium sand, silty or clayey medium to

coarse sand (SW, SM, SC)
157
Type of Bearing Material: Fine sand, silty or clayey medium to find sand
(SP, SM, SC)
Type of Bearing Material: Homogeneous inorganic clay, sandy or silty clay

(CL, CH)
158
Type of Bearing Material: Inorganic silt, sandy or clayey silt, varved silt-
clay-fine sand (ML, MH)
Consistency in Place: Very stiff to hard
Consistency in Place: Medium stiff to stiff
Consistency in Place: Soft
159
Shallow Foundations – Bearing Resistance on Rock
Now, let’s look at information regarding the bearing resistance on rock for
shallow foundations.
For conditions of intact, sound rock that is stronger and less compressible
than concrete, footings on rock with small applied loads are generally
stable and do not require extensive study of the strength and
compressibility characteristics of rock behavior. However, site investigation
is still required to confirm the consistency and extent of rock formations
beneath a shallow foundation.
AASHTO provides for estimating nominal bearing resistance of rock using

the Rock Mass Rating, or RMR, procedure and AASHTO Table 10.4.6.4-1
Geomechanics Classification of Rock Masses for characterization of the
rock mass.
For deep foundations, AASHTO provides means for estimating nominal

bearing resistance by first classifying the rock using the geological strength
index as described in AASHTO Figures 10.4.6.4-1 and 10.4.6.4-2 and then
assessing the rock using the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. This
160
classification is beyond the scope of this course but is presented in
AASHTO 10.4.6.4 Rock Mass Strength.
161
Rock Mass Rating System - RMR
The Rock Mass Rating System, known as RMR, was developed for tunnel
design and includes life-safety considerations which can be thought of as a
built-in factor of safety. This procedure may yield conservative results.
In cases of weak or poor rock, approaching the problem as if the bearing

material was soil might be the best option.
View AASHTO Table 10.4.6.4-1.
162
AASHTO Table 10.4.6.4-1
A successful foundation design requires an understanding of the

characteristics of the rock mass properties. This understanding may be
obtained by a visual assessment of the conditions of the rock that identifies
any discontinuities such as fractures, bedding planes, and joints that may
be present. Since the behavior of these discontinuities can govern the
behavior of the rock mass, it is important to identify the orientation and
characteristics of the discontinuity. The length and roughness of the
discontinuity as well as the behavior of the material within the discontinuity,
such as gouge, is critical to assessing the response of the rock mass to
loading.
Table Description:
A table with 5 sections. Parameter (column title). Ranges of Values

(column title). Section 1: Parameter: Strength of intact rock material – Point
load strength index. Range of values: Greater than 175 ksf, 85 to 175 ksf,
45 to 85 ksf, 20 to 45 ksf. For the low range, uniaxial compressive test is
preferred. Parameter: Strength of intact rock material – Uniaxial
163
compressive strength. Ranges of values: Greater than 4320 ksf, 2160 to
4320 ksf, 1080 to 2160 ksf, 520 to 1080 ksf, 215 to 520 ksf, 70 to 215 ksf,
20 to 70 ksf. Relative rating: 15, 12, 7, 4, 2, 1, 0. Section 2: Parameter: Drill
core quality RQD. Range of Values: 90 percent to 100 percent, 75 percent
to 90 percent, 50 percent to 75 percent, 25 percent to 50 percent, less than
25 percent. Relative Rating: 20, 17, 13, 8, 3. Section 3: Parameter: Spacing
of joints. Range of values: less than 10 feet, 3 to 10 feet, 1 to 3 feet, 2
inches to 1 foot, less than 2 inches. Relative Rating: 30, 25, 20, 10, 50.
Section 4: Parameter: Condition of joints. Ranges of values: Very rough
surfaces, Not continuous, No separation, Hard joint wall rock; Slightly rough
surfaces, separation of less than 0.05 inches, Hard joint wall rock; Slightly
rough surfaces, Separation of less than 0.05 inches, Soft joint wall rock;
Slicken sided surfaces, or Gouge of less than 0.02 inches thick, or Joints
open 0.05 to 0.2 inches, Continuous joints; Soft gouge of more than 0.02
inches thick, or joints open greater than 0.2 inches, continuous joints.
Relative rating: 25, 20, 12, 6, 0. Section 5: Parameter: Groundwater
conditions (use one of the three evaluative criteria as appropriate to the
method of exploration). Parameter: Inflow per 30 foot tunnel length. Ranges
of values: None, less than 400 gallons per hour, 400 to 2000 gallons per
hour, greater than 2000 gallons per hour. Parameter: Ratio equals joint
water pressure/major principal stress. Ranges of values: 0, 0.0 to 0.2, 0.2
to 0.5, less than 0.5. Parameter: General conditions. Ranges of values:
Completely Dry, Moist only (interstitial water), Water under moderate
pressure, Severe water problems. Relative rating: 10, 7, 4, 0.
164
Shallow Foundations – Footings on Rock
For footings on rock, presumptive bearing values per AASHTO Table

10.6.2.6.1-1 shown on an earlier screen, are safe values for rock and
include considerations of both settlement and margin of safety against
failure. Published presumptive bearing values can be found in reference
manuals and building codes. If available, a local knowledge base should be
used.
FHWA-NHI GEC 6 and FHWA NHI Course 132037 Spread Footing: LRFD
Design and Construction Reference Manual provide summaries of

presumptive bearing values and a rationale produced for computing
settlement of footings on rock.
165
Now that you understand bearing resistance for shallow foundations, let's
move on to sliding.
166
Shallow Foundations – Nominal Sliding Resistance
Failure by sliding should be investigated for footings that support horizontal

or inclined loads or for footings that are on slopes. The factored resistance
against failure by sliding referred to as R sub r, in kips, can be determined
by the following equation.
The factored resistance against failure by sliding is equal to a resistance

factor times the nominal sliding resistance which is equal to the resistance
factor for shear resistance times the nominal sliding resistance between the
soil and foundation plus the passive resistance factor times the nominal
passive soil resistance of the soil.
The resistance factor for shear resistance between the soil and foundation,
and the resistance factor for passive resistance of shallow foundations can
be found in AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.2-1.
Refer to AASHTO Article 10.6.3.4 for more information.
Equation Description: The variables used in this equation are nominal

sliding resistance, referred to as R sub n, resistance factor for shear
between soil and foundation, referred to as phi sub tau, nominal sliding
167
resistance between soil and foundation, referred to as R sub tau,
resistance factor for passive resistance, referred to as phi sub ep, and
nominal passive resistance of soil throughout design life, referred to as R
sub ep. The equation states that nominal resistance against failure by
sliding is equal to a resistance factor times the nominal sliding resistance
which is equal to the resistance factor for shear resistance times the
nominal sliding resistance between the soil and foundation plus the passive
resistance factor times the nominal passive soil resistance of the soil.
168
Shallow Foundations – Cohesionless Soil Nominal Sliding
Resistance
The calculation for cohesionless soil nominal sliding resistance takes the
factored vertical forces at the internal friction angle into account.
The factored resistance against failure by sliding, in kips, is equal to the

resistance factor for shear resistance times the nominal sliding resistance
between the soil and foundation, which is equal to the resistance factor for
shear resistance times vertical force times the tangent of the internal
friction angle.
In practice, the second equation term of the passive earth pressure is often
ignored. This is done for the following three reasons.
1. The passive resistance requires significant deformation to mobilize.

This is part of the reasoning behind a resistance factor of 0.5 on the
passive resistance term;
2. The soil providing the passive resistance is often in the zone subject
to freezing and thawing cycles. During the thaw cycle, the strength of
169
this soil may be reduced to near zero resulting in no passive
resistance; and
3. The soil providing the passive resistance is often removed at some

point in time. It may be removed for installation of utilities. It may be
removed by scour or erosion. It may be removed during repaving of
adjacent roadways or construction of additional foundations. If the soil
is not present to provide passive resistance, a foundation failure may
result.
There are circumstances where it may be acceptable to use passive

resistance as part of the sliding resistance. These circumstances would
include deeply embedded foundations where soil removal or frost action
are not a concern or foundations embedded in rock. Even in these cases,
only a portion of the soil providing the passive resistance is typically used.
AASHTO specifies the resistance as a function of the method of

construction. The resistance factors change based on the method used.
170
When are presumptive values of bearing resistance used?
When are presumptive values of bearing resistance used?
a) When bearing resistance of the soil is greater than 50 ksf
b) When sufficient testing or appropriate data is not available
c) When settlement is greater than one inch
d) When downdrag is not sufficient
The correct answer is b) When sufficient testing or appropriate data is not

available.
171
Now that you understand nominal sliding resistance for spread footings,
let's move on to settlement.
172
Shallow Foundations – Settlement
Remember from Lesson 1, you were introduced to the various types of

settlements. In this lesson, you will also learn how to calculate the various
types of settlement based on AASHTO equations.
Soil deforms under loading. If the footing movements from the loads
exceed the tolerable settlement, the service limit state is reached. In
general, the total settlement of a foundation is the summation of elastic
settlement, primary consolidation settlement, and secondary consolidation
settlement.
View each type of settlement to learn more.
173
Se = elastic settlement (ft)
Elastic or immediate settlement is the instantaneous deformation of the soil

mass that occurs as the soil is loaded. The magnitude of elastic settlement
is estimated as a function of the applied stress beneath a footing. Where
settlement is critical, it is the most important deformation consideration in
cohesionless soil deposits and for footings bearing on rock.
174
Sc = primary consolidation settlement (ft)
Primary consolidation is the gradual compression of the soil skeleton as the

pore water is forced out of the voids in the soil. Consolidation settlement is
the most important deformation consideration in cohesive soil deposits that
possess sufficient strength to safely support a spread footing.
175
Ss = secondary settlement (ft)
Secondary settlement, also known as creep, occurs as a result of the

plastic deformation of the soil skeleton under a constant effective stress.
Secondary settlement is of principal concern in highly plastic or organic soil
deposits.
176
Se – Elastic Settlement of Shallow Foundations on
Cohesionless Soils
Now let’s take a look at the equations used to calculate the elastic
settlement on cohesionless soils.
Settlement of cohesionless soils typically occurs rapidly, essentially as

soon as the foundation is loaded. The settlement of spread footings bearing
on cohesionless soil deposits is estimated as a function of the effective
footing width and considers the effects of footing geometry and soil and
rock layering. While other procedures exist, generally conservative
settlement estimates may be obtained using the empirical method by
Hough.
Estimation of spread footing settlement on cohesionless soils by the

empirical Hough method can be determined using the equations shown on
the screen.
The first equation states that the elastic settlement is equal to the
summation of the elastic settlement of all layers of a soil. The second
equation states that the elastic settlement of a specific layer is equal to the
177
initial height of the layer times one divided by the bearing capacity index, all
multiplied by the log of the initial vertical effective stress plus the increase
in vertical stress divided by the initial vertical effective stress.
Remember from the previous screens, the effective stresses are taken at
the midpoint of the soil layer.
View AASHTO Table 10.6.2.4.2-1.
178
Bearing Capacity Index, C’
The bearing capacity index, referred to as C prime, is determined by

correlating the corrected SPT blow counts and soil type to the bearing
capacity index, per AASHTO Table 10.6.2.4.2-1. N1 shall be taken as N1
sub 60.
179
Sc - Primary Consolidation Settlement of Shallow
Foundations on Cohesive Soils
Let’s look at how settlement is calculated by AASHTO for soils in various

states of consolidation. There are two sets of equations to use when
calculating primary consolidation settlement. The links on the left side of
the screen are for equations used when the consolidation parameters are
determined based on void ratio. The other set of equations on the right side
of the screen are used when the consolidation parameters are based on
vertical strain.
Consolidation settlement is to be investigated within the zone of stress

influence while elastic and secondary settlements are to be investigated in
consideration of the timing and sequence of construction loading, and the
tolerance of the structure to total and differential movements are to be
considered.
Let’s take a look at a few definitions before we go any further.
• Overconsolidated soils have been subjected to greater stresses in the

past than exist at the present;
180
• Normally consolidated soils are soils that have never consolidated
under loads other than the current load; and
• Underconsolidated soils are those soils that present loading induced

stresses in the soil that are greater that the stress the soil has
experienced in the past.
View each void ratio or vertical strain button to learn more.
181
Consolidation Settlement (Sc) for Overconsolidated Soils
When the maximum past vertical effective stress is greater than the initial
vertical effective stress, the soil is said to be overconsolidated and
AASHTO equation 10.6.2.4.3-1 is used to calculate the consolidation
settlement when the void ratio is known. Also, note that the vertical
effective stress measurements are taken at the midpoint of the soil layer
under consideration.
For overconsolidated soils, the consolidation settlement is equal to the

initial height of compressible soil divided by one plus the initial void ratio, all
multiplied by the recompression index times the log of the maximum past
vertical effective stress over the initial vertical effective stress plus the
compression index times the log of the final vertical effective stress over
the maximum past vertical effective stress.
Sc=[Hc /1+eo][Cc log(σ’f / σ’o)+ Cc log(σ’f / σ’p)]
When σ’f > σ’o
where:
182
• Hc = initial height of compressible soil
• eo = initial void ratio
• Cc = compression index
• σ’f = final vertical effective stress in soil at midpoint of soil layer under
consideration (ksf)
• σ’pc = current effective stress in soil, not including the additional

stress due to the footing loads, at midpoint of soil layer under
consideration (ksf)
• σ’p = maximum past vertical effective stress in soil at midpoint of soil

layer under consideration (ksf)
• σ’o = initial vertical effective stress in soil at midpoint of soil layer

under consideration (ksf)
Equation Description 1: The variables used in this equation are initial height
of compressible soil, referred to as H sub c, initial void ratio, referred to as
e sub o, recompression index, referred to as C sub r, maximum past
vertical effective stress, referred to as sigma prime sub p, initial vertical
effective stress, referred to as sigma prime sub o, compression index,
referred to as C sub c, and final vertical effective stress, referred to as
sigma prime sub f. The equation states that the consolidation settlement is
equal to the initial height of compressible soil divided by one plus the initial
void ratio, all multiplied by the recompression index times the log of the
maximum past vertical effective stress over the initial vertical effective
183
stress plus the compression index times the log of the final vertical effective
stress over the maximum past vertical effective stress.
Equation Description 2: The variables used in this equation are maximum

past vertical effective stress, referred to as sigma prime sub p, and initial
vertical effective stress, referred to as sigma prime sub o. The equation
states that the maximum past vertical effective stress is greater than the
initial vertical effective stress.
184
Consolidation Settlement (Sc) for Normally Consolidated
When the maximum past vertical effective stress is equal to the initial
vertical effective stress, the soil is said to be normally consolidated and
For normally consolidated soils, the consolidation settlement is equal to the

initial height of compressible soil divided by one plus the initial void ratio,
multiplied by the compression index times the log of the final vertical
effective stress over the maximum past vertical effective stress.
Sc=[Hc /1+eo][Cc log(σ’f / σ’pc)]
where:
185
consideration (ksf)

consideration (ksf)


e sub o, compression index, referred to as C sub c, final vertical effective
stress, referred to as sigma prime sub f, and maximum past vertical
effective stress, referred to as sigma prime sub p. The equation states that
the consolidation settlement is equal to the initial height of compressible
soil divided by one plus the initial void ratio, multiplied by the compression
index times the log of the final vertical effective stress over the maximum
past vertical effective stress.

states that the maximum past vertical effective stress is equal to the initial
vertical effective stress.
186
Consolidation Settlement (Sc) for Underconsolidated
When the maximum past vertical effective stress is less than the initial
vertical effective stress, the soil is said to be underconsolidated and
For underconsolidated soils, the consolidation settlement is equal to the

initial height of compressible soil divided by one plus the initial void ratio,
multiplied by the compression index times the log of the final vertical
effective stress over the current effective stress that does not include the
stress due to the footing loads.
Sc=[Hc /1+eo][Cc log(σ’f / σ’pc)]
where:
187
consideration (ksf)

consideration (ksf)


e sub o, compression index, referred to as C sub c, final vertical effective
stress, referred to as sigma prime sub f, and the current effective stress,
referred to as sigma prime sub pc. The equation states that the
consolidation settlement is equal to the initial height of compressible soil
divided by one plus the initial void ratio, multiplied by the compression
index times the log of the final vertical effective stress over the current
effective stress that does not include the stress due to the footing loads.

188
states that the maximum past vertical effective stress is less than the initial
189
Consolidation Settlement (Sc) for Overconsolidated
When the maximum past vertical effective stress is greater than the initial
vertical effective stress, the soil is said to be overconsolidated and
settlement when the vertical strain is known. Also, note that the vertical
For overconsolidated soils, the consolidation settlement is equal to the

initial height of compressible soil multiplied by the recompression ratio
times the log of the maximum past vertical effective stress over the initial
vertical effective stress plus the compression ratio times the log of the final
vertical effective stress over the maximum past vertical effective stress.
Sc=Hc [Crε log(σ’f / σ’pc) + Ccεlog(σ’f / σ’o)]
where:
190
• Crε = recompression ratio
• Ccε = compression ratio


consideration (ksf)
of compressible soil, referred to as H sub c, recompression ratio, referred
to as C sub r epsilon, maximum past vertical effective stress, referred to as
sigma prime sub p, initial vertical effective stress, referred to as sigma
prime sub o, compression ratio, referred to as C sub c epsilon, and final
vertical effective stress, referred to as sigma prime sub f. The equation
states that the consolidation settlement is equal to the initial height of
compressible soil multiplied by the recompression ratio times the log of the
maximum past vertical effective stress over the initial vertical effective
stress plus the compression ratio times the log of the final vertical effective
stress over the maximum past vertical effective stress.

states that the maximum past vertical effective stress is greater than the
initial vertical effective stress.
191
Consolidation Settlement (Sc) for Normally Consolidated
When the maximum past vertical effective stress is equal to the initial
vertical effective stress, the soil is said to be normally consolidated and
For normally consolidated soils, the consolidation settlement is equal to the

initial height of compressible soil times the compression ratio times the log
of the final vertical effective stress over the maximum past vertical effective
stress.
Sc=HcCcε(σ’f / σ’pc)
where:
192
consideration (ksf)

consideration (ksf)


of compressible soil, referred to as H sub c, compression ratio, referred to
as C sub c epsilon, final vertical effective stress, referred to as sigma prime
sub f, and maximum past vertical effective stress, referred to as sigma
prime sub p. The equation states that the consolidation settlement is equal
to the initial height of compressible soil times the compression ratio times
the log of the final vertical effective stress over the maximum past vertical
effective stress.

states that the maximum past vertical effective stress is equal to the initial
193
Consolidation Settlement (Sc) for Underconsolidated
When the maximum past vertical effective stress is less than the initial
vertical effective stress, the soil is said to be underconsolidated and
For underconsolidated soils, the consolidation settlement is equal to the

initial height of compressible soil times the compression ratio times the log
of the final vertical effective stress over the current effective stress that
does not include the stress due to the footing loads.
Sc=HcCcε(σ’f / σ’pc)
where:
194
consideration (ksf)

consideration (ksf)


of compressible soil, referred to as H sub c, compression ratio, referred to
as C sub c epsilon, final vertical effective stress, referred to as sigma prime
sub f, and current effective stress, referred to as sigma prime sub pc. The
equation states that the consolidation settlement is equal to the initial
height of compressible soil times the compression ratio times the log of the
final vertical effective stress over the current effective stress that does not
include the stress due to the footing loads.

states that the maximum past vertical effective stress is less than the initial
195
Ss – Secondary Settlement for Shallow Foundations
Now let’s look at the final type of settlement, secondary settlement. Two
equations are used to calculate secondary settlement depending on which
laboratory tests have been conducted.
The equation used if the consolidation parameters are based on void ratio
states that the secondary settlement is equal to the secondary compression
index divided by one plus the void ratio times the initial height of
compressible soil layer times the log of the arbitrary time that could
represent the service life of the structure, divided by the time when
secondary settlement begins.
The equation used if the consolidation parameters are based on vertical

strain states that the secondary settlement is equal to the modified
secondary compression index times the initial height of compressible soil
layer times the log of the arbitrary time that could represent the service life
of the structure, divided by the time when secondary settlement begins.
196
Settlement of Shallow Foundations on Rock
Now that shallow foundation of soil settlement has been explained, let’s
look at settlement of shallow foundations on rock. For shallow foundations
bearing on fair to very good rock, using the RMR procedure, elastic
settlements are generally assumed to be less than a half inch. In most
cases, it is sufficient to determine settlement using the average bearing
stress under the footing. Where the foundations are subjected to a very
large load or where settlement tolerance may be small, settlements of
footings on rock may be estimated using elastic theory.
When elastic settlements of this magnitude are unacceptable, or when the

rock is not competent, an analysis of settlement based on rock mass
characteristics can be completed as outlined by AASHTO 10.6.2.4.4 which
is similar to the analysis for soil.
197
Now that you understand settlement, let's discuss overall stability of the
soil.
198
Overall Stability – Shallow Foundations
Overall stability is computed using unfactored loads at the service limit

state. At the service limit state, stability resistance is the control over
nominal resistance. Limit equilibrium methods of analysis are to be used to
evaluate overall stability. The modified Bishop, simplified Janbu, or
Spencer methods of analysis may be used for overall stability.
Computer programs typically produce a single factor of safety. The

specified resistance factors are essentially the inverse of the factor of
safety and should be targeted in the computer stability program.
199
True or False. When the movement of a shallow foundation is
greater than the tolerable movement of the shallow
foundation, it can be said that the extreme limit state has
been reached.
True or False. When the movement of a shallow foundation is greater than

the tolerable movement of the shallow foundation, it can be said that the
extreme limit state has been reached.
a) True
b) False
The correct answer is b) False. When the movement of a shallow

foundation is greater than the tolerable movement of the shallow
foundation, it is not the extreme limit state that has been reached. When
the movement of a shallow foundation is greater than the tolerable
movement of the shallow foundation, it can be said that the service limit
state has been reached.
200
Deep Foundations
The first portion of this lesson covered resistance for shallow foundations.
Now, let’s take a look at the resistance of deep foundations.
The resistance of deep foundations, otherwise known as driven piles and

drilled shafts, includes structural resistance, geotechnical resistance, and
overall stability. Micropiles are also included in the AASHTO Bridge Design
Specifications, but is not addressed in this module.
201
Deep Foundations – Methods for Determining Structural
Resistance
Structural resistance includes determining the axial compression, combined

axial and flexure, and the shear of the component.
The methods to determine the structural resistance of structural members

is well defined and can be found in the AASHTO Bridge Design
Specifications Sections 5, 6, and 8 for concrete, steel, and wood,
respectively. Refer to the specification for specific methods.
202
Deep Foundations – Structural Resistance Factors
The structural resistance factors found in the AASHTO Bridge Design

Specifications are dependent upon the type of material being used and the
type of stress being evaluated.
• For concrete, refer to AASHTO Article 5.5.4.2.1 for more information.
• For steel, refer to AASHTO Article 6.5.4.2 for more information.
• For timber, refer to AASHTO Article 8.5.2.2 for more information.
203
Deep Foundations – Methods to Determine Geotechnical
Resistance
Methods for determining geotechnical resistance of piles include static

analysis methods and field methods. For driven piles, field methods for
determining ultimate resistance are preferred and include, in order of
reliability, the static load test, dynamic load test also known as dynamic
testing, wave equation analysis also referred to as WEA, dynamic formula,
and static analysis. Static analysis methods should be used only to
estimate the pile lengths (and in a few other special cases, such as uplift,
scour, setup).
In contrast, drilled shaft field methods are expensive, so a greater reliance

is placed on static analysis methods for drilled shafts.
204
Deep Foundations – Computation of Static Geotechnical
Resistance
Let’s start by looking at the static methods of analysis, independent of the

method of construction control that will be employed.
The four equations shown calculate the resistance at various locations on

the pile.
• The first equation states that the factored resistance of the pile is
equal to the pile resistance factor times the resistance.
• The second equation states the factored resistance is equal to the

factored pile tip resistance plus the factored side resistance.
• The third equation states that the pile tip resistance is equal to the
area of the pile tip times the unit tip resistance of the pile.
• And the last equation states that the side resistance of the pile is
equal to the surface area of the pile side in the bearing strata times
the unit side resistance of the pile.
Refer to AASHTO Article 10.7.3.7.5-2 for more information.
205
Determining Geotechnical Resistance of Piles – Field Tests
The field methods used for determining the geotechnical resistance of piles
are:
• Static load test;
• Dynamic load test (also known as dynamic testing); and
• Driving formulae.
View each field test to learn more.
206
Static Load Test 1
The most direct field method of determining an ultimate resistance is a pile

static load test. A pile load test is an example of an attempt to reach the
geotechnical strength limit state. A static load test is a method for
estimating total load capacity based on tests (ASTM D-1143)
representative of pile, load, and subsurface conditions expected for the
production piles. The applied loads need to be high enough to fail the pile,
which is difficult to achieve with high capacity piles. Also, the static load test
is expensive, particularly with higher capacity piles.
Image Description: Photo of a pile static load test in which test piles support
a loaded beam.
207
Static Load Test 2
For this test, the pile is loaded by increasing the load on the pile in various
load increments, typically until the pile fails. The settlement is recorded at
the various load increments. The structural strength of the foundation
element or the capacity of the loading system is reached at the point of
geotechnical failure, and the subsequent settlement is recorded.
Image Description: Graph showing settlement increasing with load.
208
Driving Formulae
For driving formulas, the penetration resistance observed in the field and
the driving energy are used to compute ultimate resistance using dynamics.
Image Description 1: Photo of a pile driving hammer.
Image Description 2: Photo of blow count measurement.
209
Dynamic Testing
For a dynamic load test, the resistance is determined using dynamic

monitoring during installation or driving of the pile.
Each hammer impact during driving is essentially a short term load test that
results in geotechnical failure of the pile, which we see as penetration of
the pile. Dynamic testing equipment measures the applied load using a
strain gauge on the pile, and the displacement using an accelerometer.
Image Description: Photo showing a strain gauge and accelerometer for a

dynamic load test.
210
Deep Foundations – Static Analysis Methods
The different methods for calculating static geotechnical resistance for

driven piles include:
• For cohesive soils, the alpha method in which the unit side resistance
and the unit tip resistance of the pile are a function of the undrained
shear strength;
• For cohesionless soils, the beta method in which the unit side
resistance and the unit tip resistance of the pile are a function of
effective overburden pressure;
• The lambda method in which the unit side resistance of the pile is a
function of the passive effective lateral earth pressure;
• The Nordlund-Thurman method which is empirical, based on soil

properties and pile geometry; and
• SPT and CPT which are empirical methods based on in-situ tests.
211
Drilled shafts methods include the same alpha and beta methods used for
driven piles, but also include side friction and tip resistance in rock
methods.
212
Geotechnical Resistance Factors for Piles
AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.3-1, Geotechnical Resistance Factors for Piles, is

shown on the screen. The first four values provide pile resistance factors
calibrated for pile driving acceptance using dynamic testing and signal
matching analysis. The values in the table shown on the screen are derived
from AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.3-1.
The last three resistance factors are based on methods used for pile driving
acceptance by visual observation of pile set and hammer performance. The
resistance factors associated with these methods are lower than for
methods based on testing because they are less reliable. The resistance
factor for the ENR equation seems unusually low but is correct. The original
ENR equation incorporated a factor of safety of six, since it was written to
give an “allowable capacity” for ASD. The factor of safety was removed for
LRFD, thus the resistance factor is low to start with. It has been further
downgraded based on the poor reliability of the method.
Table Description: AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.3-1 showing pile resistance

factors calibrated for pile driving acceptance using dynamic testing and
213
signal matching analysis. Condition/Resistance Determination Method
(column header). Resistance Factor (column header). Nominal Bearing
Resistance of Single Pile - Dynamic Analysis and Static Load Test
Methods, phi subscript dyn (Row Title). Method: Driving criteria established
by successful static load test of at least one pile per site condition and
dynamic testing* of at least two piles per site condition, but no less than 2%
of the production piles. Resistance Factor: 0.80. Method: Driving criteria
established by successful static load test of at least one pile per site
condition without dynamic testing. Resistance Factor: 0.75. Method: Driving
criteria established by dynamic testing,* conducted on 100% of production
piles. Resistance Factor: 0.75. Method: Driving criteria established by
dynamic testing,* quality control by dynamic testing* of at least two piles
per site condition, but no less than 2% of the production piles. Resistance
Factor: 0.65. Method: Wave equation analysis, without pile dynamic
measurements or load test but with field confirmation of hammer
performance. Resistance Factor: 0.50. Method: FHWA-modified Gates
dynamic pile formula (End of Drive condition only). Resistance Factor: 0.40.
Method: Engineering News (as defined in Article 10.7.3.8.5) dynamic pile
formula (End of drive condition only). Resistance Factor: 0.10. * Dynamic
testing requires signal matching, and best estimates of nominal resistace
are made from a restrike. Dynamic tests are calibrated to the state load
test, when available.
214
Geotechnical Resistance Factors for Piles (con.)
There are additional resistance factors for driven piles given by AASHTO
Table 10.5.5.2.3-1 and include:
• Static analysis methods;
• Block failure of clay;
• Uplift resistance;
• Group uplift;
• Lateral geotechnical resistance;
• Structural limits; and
• Drivability analysis.
In-depth discussion of these methods is beyond the scope of this course.
Table Description: Table showing pile resistance based on methods used

for pile driving acceptance. Information derived from AASHTO Table
10.5.5.2.3-1. Condition/Resistance Determination Method (column header).
Resistance Factor (column header). Nominal Bearing Resistance of Single
215
Pile-Static Analysis Methods, phi subscript stat (row title). Method: Side
resistance and End Bearing: Clay and Mixed Soils: Alpha method
(Tomlinson, 1987; Skempton, 1951), Resistance Factor: 0.35. Beta Method
(Esrig & Kirby, 1979; Skempton, 1951), Resistance Factor: 0.25. Lambda
Method (Vijayvergiya & Focht, 1972; Skempton, 1951), Resistance Factor:
0.40. Method: Side Resistance and End Bearing: Sand: Nordlund/Thurman
Method (Hannigan et al. , 2005), Resistance Factor: 0.45. SPT-method
(Meyerhof), Resistance Factor: 0.30. Method: CPT-Method
(Schmertmann), Resistance Factor: 0.50. Method: End bearing in rock
(Canadian Geotech. Society, 1985), Resistance Factor: 0.45. Block Failure,
phi subscript b1 (row title). Method: Clay, Resistance Factor: 0.60. Uplift
resistance of Single Piles, phi subscript up (row title). Method: Nordlund
Method, Resistance Factor: 0.35. Method: Alpha method, Resistance
Factor: 0.25. Method: Beta Method, Resistance Factor: 0.20. Method:
Lambda Method, Resistance Factor: 0.30. Method: SPT Method,
Resistance Factor: 0.25. Method: CPT Method, Resistance Factor: 0.40.
Method: Static load test, Resistance Factor: 0.60. Method: Dynamic test
with signal matching, Resistance factor: 0.50. Group Uplift Resistance, Phi
subscript ug (row title). Method: All soils, Resistance Factor: 0.50. Lateral
Geotechnical Resistance of Single Pile or Pile Group (row title). Method: All
soils and rock, Resistance Factor: 1.0. Structural Limit State (row title).
Method: Steel piles - See the provisions of Article 6.5.4.2. Method:
Concrete piles - See the provisions of Article 5.5.4.2.1. Method: Timber
piles - See the provisions of Article 8.5.2.2 and 8.5.2.3. Pile Drivability
Analysis, Phi subscript da (row title). Method: Steel piles - See the
216
provisions of Article 6.5.4.2. Method: Concrete piles - See the provisions of
Article 5.5.4.2.1. Method: Timber piles - See the provisions of Article
8.5.2.2. In all three articles identified above, use phi identified as
“resistance during pile driving”.
217
Geotechnical Resistance Factors – Drilled Shafts
Now let’s look at the resistance factors for drilled shafts provided in
AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.4-1. Side friction and tip resistance are included
for rock methods. This table is continued on the following screen.
The resistance factors are provided for each method in AASHTO Section
10.5. There are no resistance factors provided for tip resistance in tension
because tip resistance does not work in tension. Resistance factors are
lower for tip resistance than for side friction because tip resistance is
dependent on the cleanliness and firmness at the bottom of excavation and
they can have higher variability.
Table Description: AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.4-1 Resistance Factors for

Geotechnical Resistance of Drilled Shafts, part one. Method / Soil
Condition (column header). Resistance Factor (column header). Nominal
Axial Compressive Resistance of Single-Drilled Shafts, Phi subscript stat
(row title). Method: Side resistance in clay: alpha method (Brown et al.,
2010), Resistance Factor: 0.45. Method: Tip resistance in clay: Total Stress
(Brown et al., 2010), Resistance Factor: 0.40. Method: Side resistance in
218
sand: Beta method (Brown et al., 2010), Resistance Factor: 0.55. Method:
Tip resistance in sand (Brown et al., 2010), Resistance Factor: 0.50.
Method: Side resistance in cohesive IGMs (Brown et al., 2010), Resistance
Factor: 0.60. Method: Tip resistance in cohesive IGMs (Brown et al., 2010),
Resistance Factor: 0.55. Method: Side resistance in rock (Kulhawy et al.,
2005; Brown et al., 2010), Resistance Factor: 0.55. Method: Side
resistance in Rock (Carter and Kulhawy, 1988), Resistance Factor: 0.50.
Method: Tip resistance in Rock: Canadian Geotechnical Society (1985),
Pressuremeter Method (Canadian Geotechnical society, 1985), Brown et
al. (2010). Resistance Factor: 0.50. Block Failure, Phi subscript b1 (row
title). Method: Clay, Resistance Factor: 0.55. Uplift Resistance Single-
Drilled Shafts, Phi subscript up (row title). Method: Clay: Alpha Method
(Brown et al., 2010), Resistance Factor: 0.35. Method: Sand: Beta Method
(Brown et al., 2010), Resistance Factor: 0.45. Method: Rock (Kulhawy et
al., 2005; Brown et al., 2010), Resistance Factor: 0.40. Ground Uplift
Resistance, Phi subscript ug (row title). Method: Sand and Clay,
Resistance Factor: 0.45.
219
Geotechnical Resistance Factors – Drilled Shafts (con.)
AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.4-1 is continued on this screen and shows the

resistance factors for uplift resistance of single drilled shafts in clay, sand,
and rock, and group uplift resistance in sand and clay. For all materials, the
resistance factors are given for the static load test in uplift and compression
conditions.
Table Description: AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.4-1 Resistance Factors for

Geotechnical Resistance of Drilled Shafts, part two.
Method / Soil Condition (column header). Resistance Factor (column

header). Uplift Resistance Single-Drilled Shafts, Phi subscript up (row title).
Method: Clay: Alpha Method (Brown et al., 2010), Resistance Factor: 0.35.
Method: Sand: Beta Method (Brown et al., 2010), Resistance Factor: 0.45.
Method: Rock (Kulhawy et al., 2005; Brown et al., 2010), Resistance
Factor: 0.40. Ground Uplift Resistance, Phi subscript ug (row title). Method:
Sand and Clay, Resistance Factor: 0.45. Horizontal Geotechnical
Resistance of Single Shaft or Shaft Group (row title). Method: All materials,
Resistance Factor: 1.0. Static load test (compression), phi subscript load
220
(row title). Method: All materials, Resistance Factor: 0.70. Static load test
(uplift), phi subscript upload (row title). Method: All materials, Resistance
Factor: 0.60.
221
Deep Foundations – Overall Stability
Overall stability of deep foundations is evaluated in the same way as for

shallow foundations using traditional methods with the following special
considerations.
• The weight of the substructure and applied superstructure load

should be added as an external load when the failure surface does
not intersect the deep foundation elements or intersects the
foundation elements below the bearing stratum; and
• The weight of the substructure and applied superstructure load

should not be added as an external load in the stability analysis when
the failure surface does intersect the deep foundation elements or
intersects the foundation elements above the bearing stratum.
222
Lesson Review
223
Which of the following is true for the settlement of footings
on fair to very good rock:
Which of the following is true for the settlement of footings on fair to very
good rock:
a) Is generally less than 0.5 inches
b) Requires primary consolidation evaluation
c) Requires secondary settlement evaluation
d) Is generally in excess of two inches
The correct answer is a) Is generally less than 0.5 inches.
224
Field tests for determining the geotechnical resistance of
piles includes which of the following:
Field tests for determining the geotechnical resistance of piles includes

which of the following:
a) SPTs and CPTs
b) Static load test
c) Dynamic testing
d) Driving formulae
The correct answers are b) Static load test; c) Dynamic testing; and d)
Driving formulae.
225
When soil deforms under load, elastic settlement refers to
which of the following?
When soil deforms under load, elastic settlement refers to which of the
following?
a) Gradual compression of the soil
b) Plastic deformation of the soil skeleton
c) Footing movement exceeding the tolerable movement
d) Instantaneous deformation of the soil mass
The correct answer is d) Instantaneous deformation of the soil mass.
226
Lesson Summary
Now that you’ve completed the third lesson of this module, you are able to
explain resistance for shallow and deep foundations. Equations used to
calculate resistance for spread footings were presented. You also learned
about the three types of settlement, elastic, primary consolidation, and
secondary, and how it differs for cohesive and cohesionless soils. Then you
moved on to learn about resistance for deep foundations. Field methods
and static analysis methods for driven piles and drilled shafts were
covered.
This concludes Lesson 3: Resistance for Foundations.
227
Lesson Conclusion
continue on to the Module Conclusion.
228
Module Summary
This module described the basic foundation analysis techniques, the limit
state checks for foundation design, and resistance for foundations.
You should now be able to:
• Define basic foundation analysis techniques for shallow and deep

foundations;
• Explain limit state checks for shallow and deep foundations; and
• Explain resistance for shallow and deep foundations.
229

Introduction To LRFD For Foundation and Substructure Design - Module 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Introduction To LRFD For Foundation and Substructure Design - Module 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction To LRFD For Foundation and Substructure Design - Module 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction to LRFD for Foundation and Substructure

Welcome to NHI Course Number 132010B, Introduction to LRFD for

• Define basic foundation analysis techniques for shallow and deep

• Explain resistance for shallow and deep foundations.

This module will take approximately 135 minutes to complete.

This module contains the following lessons.

1. Basic Foundation Analysis Techniques;

2. Limit State Checks for Foundation Design; and

3. Resistance for Foundations.

During each lesson, knowledge checks are provided to test your

This lesson will take approximately 55 minutes to complete.

Considerations during the design of shallow foundations are correctly taken

• Frost does not cause unacceptable movements;

• Unsuitable foundation materials are avoided;

• Scour does not result in loss of bearing or stability; and

• Ground water effects are mitigated.

• Overall or global stability is maintained;

• Nominal bearing resistance of soil is sufficient to avoid failure of the

• Deformation or settlement under expected loading conditions is within

Each of these design considerations are expressly checked with respect to

Shallow foundation design at the service limit state includes evaluation of

Refer to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Articles 10.5.2.1,

One of the first items to be considered for a shallow foundation design is

Soil bearing resistance will be covered in more detail in Lesson 2 of the

View a minimum depth consideration to learn more.

Shallow foundations in seasonal and permanently frozen grounds must be

Discussion about special considerations for foundations in permanently

Shallow foundations should bear below obviously weak, compressible, or

Additional information regarding expansive and collapsible soils and their

• Technical Guidelines for Expansive Soils in Highway Subgrades,

• An Evaluation of Methodology for Prediction and Minimization of

Scour is a hydraulic erosion process that is caused by flowing water that

Detailed techniques to evaluate scour is beyond the scope of this course.

• Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 18 – Evaluating Scour at Bridges,

• Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 20 – Stream Stability at Highway

• Hydraulic Engineering Circular No.15 – Design of Roadside Channels

Groundwater needs to be known so it may be accounted for in shallow

Frost protection includes which of the following?

a) Embedment of footing beneath frost depth

c) Prevention of frost from damaging the footing

d) Determining established frost depth

The correct answers are a) Embedment of footing beneath frost depth; c)

Global stability can be a rotational movement or a translational movement.

• Shallow circular rupture plane;

• Deep seated circular rupture plane; and

• Deep seated sliding wedge rupture plane.

View each type of rupture plane to learn more.

The failure mode analyzed is actually a strength limit state consideration.

Refer to AASHTO Article 11.6.2.3 for more information.

Use the critical failure mode to evaluate overall or global stability.

Overall or global stability is evaluated at the service limit state because:

• Overall stability is a slope stability issue that effects safety of the

• Accepted design methodologies are currently not available to

Currently, global stability is evaluated at the service limit state using

Resistance factors are based on reliability theory using AASHTO and

If geotechnical parameters are well defined by in-situ or laboratory tests, or

If geotechnical parameters are based on limited information (or no site-