Load and Resistance Factor Design, Cost, and Risk: Designing a Drilled-Shaft Load Test Program in Florida Limestone

2003 ◽  
Vol 1849 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael C. McVay ◽  
Ralph D. Ellis ◽  
Bjorn Birgisson ◽  
Gary R. Consolazio ◽  
Sastry Putcha ◽  
...  

Currently there are few if any guidelines on estimating the number of load tests in the design of drilled-shaft foundations in Florida limestone. For instance, for many sites there may be a similar number of field load tests but a significantly different number of design shafts. Moreover, little if any information exists on risk or reliability versus cost of drilled-shaft foundations or on the cost of field load testing. The collection of a large database of drilled-shaft tests (more than 25 with Osterberg and Statnamic devices), in situ laboratory data, drilled-shaft construction costs, and field load testing costs for Florida limestone is reported on. From the field load tests, the average unit skin friction for various sites was found, as well as the predicted values based on the Florida Department of Transportation recommended design approach. Next, using load and resistance factor design (LRFD), the resistance (ϕ) values were found for various reliabilities (risk or probability of failure). Once the factored design loads were known (from plans), drilled-shaft lengths were estimated on the basis of the computed LRFD ϕ-values for different reliabilities (i.e., risk). From the linear length of the designed shaft as well as the expected cost per meter, a plot of total foundation cost versus reliability (risk) was generated for each site. On the basis of the latter plot, acceptable risk, and the cost of field load testing (bid and itemized), the designer can identify the cost savings of load testing and the appropriate number of tests to be performed.

2012 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yit-Jin Chen ◽  
Tsu-Hung Chu

Representative interpretation criteria are examined in this paper to evaluate the capacity of drilled shaft foundations under axial uplift loading in gravelly soils. A large number of uplift shaft load tests for gravelly soils are used for analysis, and the interpretation criteria are applied to these load test data to establish a consistent uplift interpretation criterion. The statistical results show that the smaller the uplift displacement, the higher the coefficient of variation. In general, the displacements required to mobilize shaft failure load in gravelly soils are larger than those in non-gravelly soils. Based on these analyses, the relative merits and interrelationships of these criteria are established. Specific design recommendations for the evaluation of uplift drilled shaft capacity are given.


2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (10) ◽  
pp. 1475-1485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mengfen Shen ◽  
Sara Khoshnevisan ◽  
Xiaohui Tan ◽  
Yongjie Zhang ◽  
C. Hsein Juang

An important step in load and resistance factor design (LRFD) is the selection of the characteristic values of uncertain soil parameters, which can be quite subjective despite the simplicity of LRFD. This paper assesses five statistical methods for the selection of characteristic values for design with LRFD, focusing on the design robustness. A framework based on the consideration of safety, cost, and design robustness is proposed for assessing these selection methods. This framework is illustrated with an example, the design of a drilled shaft in sand using LRFD, in which the best overall method for selecting the characteristic values is suggested. The implication of the outcome of this study is quite significant in geotechnical engineering practice, as it provides guidance on the selection of the characteristic values for design with LRFD.


1978 ◽  
Vol 104 (9) ◽  
pp. 1427-1441
Author(s):  
John W. Fisher ◽  
Theodore V. Galambos ◽  
Geoffrey L. Kulak ◽  
Mayasandra K. Ravindra

1980 ◽  
Vol 106 (9) ◽  
pp. 1985-1986
Author(s):  
John W. Fisher ◽  
Theodore V. Galambos ◽  
Geoffrey L. Kulak ◽  
Mayasandra K. Ravindra

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document