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

net/publication/323967716

Calibrating shaft and base resistance factors for design of drilled shaft
foundations

Conference Paper · March 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 82

3 authors, including:

Duong Bach P.H.A.J.M. Van Gelder

National University of Civil Engineering, Hanoi Delft University of Technology
4 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS    372 PUBLICATIONS   3,553 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

We are working on linear and nonlinear multivariate time series analysis in modeling hydro-meteorological variables. View project

Predicting floodplain velocities due to embankment dam failure of Mosul dam View project

All content following this page was uploaded by P.H.A.J.M. Van Gelder on 23 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Safety, Reliability and Risk Analysis: Beyond the Horizon – Steenbergen et al. (Eds)
© 2014 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-00123-7

Calibrating shaft and base resistance factors for design of drilled shaft
foundations

D. Bach & P.H.A.J.M. van Gelder

Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

M.B. Hudson
AMEC, Los Angeles, California, USA

ABSTRACT: In recent studies, calibrating resistance factors of drilled shafts were mainly performed
for a common resistance factor. Uncertainties of predicted shaft and base resistances were lumped into a
unique resistance factor. This approach has not fully taken advantage of the Load and Resistance Factor
Design (LRFD) method, as opposed to when shaft and base resistance factors are calibrated separately.
A dataset including 26 Osterberg cell-tested drilled shafts is analyzed and the differences between pre-
dicted and measured resistances for the shaft and base are statistically analyzed. A reliability-based analy-
sis technique using Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) is used to calibrate the resistance factors separately in
the framework of the LRFD method with specified target reliability levels. Several benefits from the use
of separating resistance factors on shaft and base are presented.

1 INTRODUCTION and base resistance were lumped into a unique

In the last decades, taking the lead from the devel-
opment of structure design, the LRFD method
has gradually superseded the Allowable Stress
Design (ASD) method for foundation design. The
LRFD approach makes possible the application of
reliability analysis to quantify uncertainties associ-
ated with various load and resistance components.
The resistance factor calibration is performed for a
set of load factors and probability distributions for
loads that were specified in structure codes.
In pile foundations, several studies on the resist-
ance factor calibration were carried out based
on reliability analysis methods. The calibration
studies determined resistance factors for numer-
ous resistance prediction methods with different
target reliability levels. According to the First
Order Second Moment (FOSM) method, there
were Barker et al. (1991); Yoon & O’Neill (1997);
Withiam et al. (1997); McVay et al. (2000, 2002) and
Kuo et al. (2002). Based on the First Order Reli-
ability Method (FORM), there have been Honjo
et al. (2002) and Paikowsky et al. (2003, 2004). The
Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) method was used
by Allen et al. (2005); Abu-Farsakh & Yu (2010)
and Bach et al. (2012).
The resistance factors calibrated in the studies
mentioned above applied to the total resistance of
piles. This means that all uncertainties of the shaft
resistance factor. In fact, uncertainty degrees of
predicted resistances are very different for the two
responses, for example, the construction methods
affect the shaft and the base differently. Therefore,
the derived calibration results have not fully satis-
fied the requirement for the design of pile founda-
tions following the LRFD method.
In this study, a dataset comprised of results
from 26 drilled shafts tested by the Osterberg cell
(O-cell) method is used to calibrate resistance fac-
tors separately for the shaft and the base responses.
The resistances measured by the O-cell and the
theoretically predicted resistances are compared
and the difference between them is statistically
analyzed through bias factors. A reliability-based
analysis technique using MCS is used to calibrate
shaft and base resistance factors separately in the
framework of the LRFD method with target reli-
ability indices. Several benefits from the use of
separate resistance factors are presented.
2 CALIBRATION UNDER FRAMEWORK
OF THE LRFD METHOD
The LRFD method states that a factored resist-
ance of a structural component is larger than a lin-
ear combination of factored load effects as given
by a following general format:

2497

Fullpaper-Book-03-[CH201-CH300].indb 2497 8/22/2013 7:17:31 PM

 n For the case where the O-cell is placed at the
φR ∑ γ iQi (1)
i =1
where φ = resistance factor; R = theoretically pre-
dicted resistance; γi = load factor for the ith load
component; and Qi = designed value for the ith
load component. These factors are calibrated
using reliability methods based on the probabilistic
characteristics of load effects and the resistance,
including statistics and modelling uncertainties.
The factors are calibrated to meet specified target
reliability levels that were selected based on assess-
ing previous designs or cost-benefit analyses.
In case of separating the shaft and base resist-
ances from a total resistance R. Equation 1 can be
rewritten as:
n slenderness ratio of the shaft is larger than 20, the
φS RS φbRb ≥ ∑ γ iQi (2)
i =1
where φS, φb = shaft and base resistance factors,
respectively; RS, Rb = predicted resistances at the
shaft and base of piles, respectively. Hence, the aim
of this study is to calibrate separately the φS and φb
of drilled shafts for a specified prediction method
associated with different target reliability indices.
3 OSTERBERG CELL TEST (O-CELL TEST)
The high capacity of large-diameter drilled shafts
in combination with the high cost and large size
required for reaction systems sometime make
head-down compressive tests too costly or imprac-
tical (Fig. 1a). The O-cell test often provides high
capacity testing at a more affordable cost, and
therefore has become an attractive alternative for
testing drilled shafts. The O-cell is a hydraulic jack
placed within the shaft (sometimes at or near the
shaft bottom) to induce an upward and downward
vertical load (Fig. 1c).
Figure 1. Comparison of head-down compressive test and O-cell test: (a) Arrangement of head-down compressive
test; (b) Typical Load-Displacement curve in a head-down compressive test; (c) Arrangement of an O-cell test; (d)
Typical Load-Displacement curves in O-cell test.
2498
Fullpaper-Book-03-[CH201-CH300].indb 2498
bottom of the shaft, as the cell is pressurized,
the bottom of the cell moves downward, caus-
ing a reaction force at the lower plate of the cell
(base resistance, Rb), while the upper plate of the
cell moves upward, mobilizing shear forces along
the shaft (shaft resistance, Rs). They are measured
separately from each other (Fig. 1d).
An equivalent load-displacement curve as
head-down compressive tests (Fig. 1b) can be
obtained by using test results from the O-cell
tests. At an arbitrary displacement, d, there is an
upward load, Qou, and a downward load Qod. An
equivalent load at the top of shaft is the sum of
the upward load, Qou, and the downward load, Qod.
Note that the buoyant weight of shaft, W, must
be subtracted from the measured upward load in
order to obtain pile resistance values. In case the
displacement, d, needs to be added to the elastic
shortening corresponding to the axial load in the
pile (Russo et al. 2003). If the displacement, d,
being considered is beyond the measured maxi-
mum displacement of any resistance component
(Dumax or Ddmax) that does not correspond to the
ultimate resistance value, the corresponding load
is conservatively assumed constant at the value of
the maximum load applied (Qmax).
4 BIAS FACTOR FOR RESISTANCE
AND LOAD
4.1 Bias factor for resistance
Consider a dataset comprised of N drilled shafts,
where the ith shaft has a measured nominal resist-
ance, RMi, and a theoretically predicted resistance,
RPi. The resistance bias factor, λRi, for an ith shaft
is then defined as:
RM
λ Ri = Mi
(3)
RPPi
8/22/2013 7:17:31 PM
 Table 1. Load factors and probabilistic characteristics for dead and live loads.

Structure Type of load Load factor, γ Bias factor, λ COV Distribution Reference

Buildings Dead load 1.20 1.05 0.10 Normal Ellingwood and

Live load 1.60 1.00 0.25 Type I Galambos
(1982)
Bridges Dead load 1.25 1.05 0.10 Normal Nowak (1999)
Live load 1.75 1.15 0.20 Normal

The mean of resistance bias factors for whole by Paikowsky et al. (2004), the resistance fac-
dataset is obtained as: tor calibration is performed for a set of load
factors already specified in the structural code.
∑ i =1 λRi
N
Thus, the load factors are fixed. Load factors,
λR = (4) statistical parameters and probability distribu-
N tions for dead load and live load bias factors are
summarized in Table 1 for the case where only
The standard deviation of resistance bias fac-
dead load, QD, and live load, QL, are considered
tors is determined as:
in Equation 2.

∑ i =1(λRi λR )
N 2

σR = (5) 5 CALIBRATION BASED ON MONTE

N −1
CARLO SIMULATION
Finally, the coefficient of variation of resistance
bias factors is given as: This study follows the calibration procedure
based on MCS as recommended by Allen et al.
σR (2005) and Bach et al. (2012) to calibrate shaft
VR =
COV (6)
λR and base resistance factors. Based on Equa-
tion 2, if just the dead and live loads are con-
The predicted resistance is calculated using sidered following the ultimate limit state of
theoretical methods based on specific ground con- strength I, then a limit state function can be
ditions. The measured nominal resistance consists written as:
of the measured nominal shaft resistance and the
measured nominal base resistance. The measured RMs + RMb QMD − QML (7)
nominal shaft resistance is defined as the load
corresponding to a displacement that is equal to where RMs, RMb, QMD & QML = measured nominal
20 mm for sand or about 5 to 15 mm for clays shaft resistance, the measured nominal base resist-
(Osterberg 2001) or the plunging load in the O-cell ance, the measured value of the dead load and
tests, whichever comes first. Similarly, the measured the live load, respectively. If all measured terms in
nominal base resistance is defined as the load cor- Equation 7 are converted to predicted terms using
responding to a displacement that is equal to 5% of the bias factors of shaft resistance λRs, base resist-
the diameter of shaft (O’Neill & Reese 1999, Reese ance λRb, dead load λQD, and live load λQL, Equa-
et al. 2006). Paikowsky et al. (2004) concluded that tion 7 can be rewritten as:
this criterion provides a reliable and simple failure
interpretation. In case the nominal displacement
mentioned above exceeds the measured maximum RS λ RS + Rb λ Rb QD λQD − QL λQ
QL (8)
displacement, the load-displacement curve of the
O-cell tests is extrapolated using the stability plot Combining Equation 2 with Equation 8, after
method developed by Chin & Vail (1973) and dis- transformation, the limit state function is now
cussed by Neely (1991). obtained:
Statistical parameters and probability distribu-
tions for resistance bias factors are estimated in ⎡ ⎤
detail in Section 6.
g
⎢
QL ⎢
( QD
L + QL D )( Rb
RS + RS Rb )−Q
D
λQD
⎥
QL ⎥
Q − λQ
⎢ Rb QL ⎥
4.2 Bias factor for load φS + φ
⎢⎣ RS b ⎥⎦
The way to determine bias factors for loads is
also similar to that for resistances. As specified (9)

2499

Fullpaper-Book-03-[CH201-CH300].indb 2499 8/22/2013 7:17:34 PM

 where terms in Equation 9 are the same as those
mentioned in Section 4.
MCS is used to generate random numbers that
are needed to independently extrapolate the Cumu-
lative Distribution Function (CDF) value for each
random variable in the calibration process. In this
calibration, there are four random variables which
are the bias factors of shaft resistance, base resist-
ance, dead load and live load.
The computation steps are as follows:
• Step 1: assign a target reliability index, βT
• Step 2: select a trial shaft resistance factor, φS
• Step 3: select a trial base resistance factor, φb
• Step 4: generate random numbers for each set of
bias factors λRs, λRb, λQD, and λQL
• Step 5: define the limit state function, g, as
described in Equation 9. Find the number of
cases in which g ≤ 0. The probability of failure is
then computed as:
count ( g ≤ ) The measured maximum upward displacement was
Pf = (10)
NS
where NS = number of simulations. In this study,
the number of simulations is 5 × 104. The cor-
responding calculated reliability index, β, is then
defined as:
β = −Φ −1 ( ) (11)
Here Φ−1 = inverse CDF of the standard normal
distribution. If the calculated reliability index,
β, is different than the specified target reliability
index, then, βT, the trial base resistance factor,
φb, in Step 3 should be changed and a new itera-
tion needs to be repeated until |β − βT| ≤ toler-
ance. Repeat step 3 to step 5 for the next set of
trial shaft resistance factors, φS′ S .
• Step 6: from step 2 to step 5, a series of cou-
ples of value for φS and φb may be derived that
satisfies a specified target reliability index βT. A
method of selecting the couple of values needs
to be defined to help obtain the best results in
the calibration process; the choice of methodol-
ogy will be discussed in Section 6.
6 CASE STUDY
6.1 Dataset for calibration
A dataset of 26 O-cell equipped drilled shafts
was collected from reports compiled by LAW/
CRANDALL, Inc. (1994a, b, c) for the reme-
diation project for the Los Angeles Memorial
Coliseum after the Northridge earthquake in Los
Angeles in January 1994. The O-cell graphs were
2500
Fullpaper-Book-03-[CH201-CH300].indb 2500
analyzed by Fellenius (2011) and Schmertmann &
Schmertmann (2012). The shafts had 1.32 m diam-
eter and were 16.5 through 20.1 m long. They were
drilled through 7.2 through 10.5 m of artificial fill
consisting of sand and silt and into the underly-
ing natural sand with gravel. A mineral slurry was
used to keep the walls of the shaft stable during
drilling.
6.2 Bias factors for shaft and base resistances
As mentioned in Subsection 4.1, resistance bias
factors are determined by means of measured
nominal resistances and predicted shaft and base
resistances, respectively.
The values of measured nominal resistances are
estimated from the O-cell test results following the
limit displacement criteria proposed by Osterberg
(2001) and O’Neill & Reese (1999). Amongst the
26 O-cell tests, only two shafts had a measured
maximum upward displacement exceeding 20 mm.
32.3 mm (shaft 10B) and the measured minimum
upward displacement was 1.1 mm (shaft 22B).
Plunging behavior in shaft friction only occurred in
shaft 10B at the upward displacement of 25.6 mm
(see Fig. 2a). Although the upward displacement
of shaft 10 A reached a displacement of 20.6 mm,
the tendency of plunging was not clearly observed,
due to the fact that the test stopped at this level of
displacement. Obviously, the upward displacement
criterion of 20 mm for friction behavior in sand as
proposed by Osterberg (2001) is suitable based on
the test results. Therefore, the load-displacement
curves of 24 out of the total of 26 shafts have to be
extrapolated with the goal of estimating the meas-
ured nominal shaft resistance.
Regarding the measured maximum downward
displacement, there are 14 shafts with a measured
maximum downward displacement beyond the
displacement criterion of 65 mm (i.e. 5% diam-
eter) as proposed by O’Neill & Reese (1999).
However, no shaft in all of the 26 shafts showed
the tendency of plunging behavior for end bear-
ing, even with respect to shafts which have a large
displacement in combination with a large load.
For example, the results of shaft 19A indicated
a downward displacement of 83.1 mm at a rela-
tively large load of 8,663 kN, and shaft 19B also
reached a displacement of 100.8 mm at a load of
7,982 kN (see Fig. 2b). Hence, the concept of ulti-
mate resistance at the base of shaft (or the pile toe)
does not seem to be supportable, as indicated by
Fellenius (2011). Of 26 shafts, the load-displace-
ment curves of 12 shafts have to be extrapolated
in order to estimate the nominal base resistance.
Since the upper natural materials and artificial
fill at the site of the Los Angeles Coliseum are
8/22/2013 7:17:36 PM
 According to Reese et al. (2006), the recom-
mended value of unit base resistance is predicted
as:

rb 0.0575N60 ( ) (14)

and the base resistance is then:

Rb Arrb (15)

here, A = cross section area at the base of the

shaft.
Statistical parameters for the resistance bias fac-
tors are estimated through Equations 3 through 6
and their probability distributions are checked by
the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (Fenton & Griffiths
2008). All results are summarized in Table 2.

6.3 Calibration results based

on Monte Carlo Simulation
The limit state function, g, in Equation 9 is used
to calibrate the shaft and base resistance factors
with a procedure including six steps as described
in Section 5. Target reliability indices are assigned
as βT = 2.5 and 3.0, which correspond to the tar-
get probabilities of failure as Pf = 0.00621 and
0.00135.
The statistical parameters for the dead and live
loads are taken from Table 1 for buildings; the
Figure 2. Example of O-cell load-displacement curves
from the tests at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.
probability distributions for the dead load and
live load are normal and type 1, respectively. The
ratio of the dead load to the live load, QD/QL, is
predominantly sandy soils, the predicted shaft
selected as 2.5 based on the study by Ellingwood &
resistance is calculated using the β method (O’Neill
Galambos (1982).
& Reese 1999):
The statistical parameters for the shaft and base
z2 resistances are taken from Table 2; the probability
′
RS ∫z
1
β zddA (12) distribution for both is log-normal. The ratio of
the base resistance to the shaft resistance, Rb/Rs,
where RS = predicted shaft resistance; σz′ = vertical is 0.289.
effective stress in soil at depth z; dA = differential Figure 3 indicates the relation between the shaft
circumferential area along the shaft; z1 & z2 = depth resistance factor, φS, and the base resistance factor,
of the top and bottom of the soil layer considered; φb, for two target reliability indices as 2.5 and 3.0.
and β = parameter determined as follows: It can be seen that there are numerous couples of
value of φS and φb derived that satisfy specified tar-
• For the sand and silt layer (first layer): get reliability indices. An inverse relation between
φS and φb is observed, that is, φS increases when φb
β
N60
15
( ) β ≤ 1.20
Table 2. Probabilistic characteristics of resistance bias
(13a) factors.
• For the sand with gravel layer (second layer): Standard
deviation,
β 0 75
β ≤ 1.80 (13b) Location Mean, λR σR COVR Distribution

Shaft 1.138 0.299 0.263 Log-normal

where N60 = uncorrected SPT index, z = depth Base 3.029 1.210 0.399 Log-normal
considered.

2501

Fullpaper-Book-03-[CH201-CH300].indb 2501 8/22/2013 7:17:38 PM

 resistance factor continues to be used. Note that
in AASHTO 2007, shaft and base resistance fac-
tors were used separately for different prediction
methods. However, the values of these factors are
primarily obtained from experts’ judgments and
experiences.
In order to find out the difference in calculat-
ing the total resistance, two approaches are con-
sidered: (i) using a common resistance factor and
(ii) using separate shaft and base resistance fac-
Figure 3. Relation between φS and φb.
tors. Therefore, in this study, all the O-cell test
results are transformed to the equivalent head-
down compressive test results using the meth-
decreases, and vice versa. One issue arising herein
odology shown in Section 3. For demonstration,
is the question of which couple should be selected
shaft 4A is selected as an example. The O-cell
to provide the best results for the calibration proc-
test result is depicted in Fig. 4a, the equivalent
ess. Based on a study result presented in Bach et al.
head-down compressive test result obtained from
(2012), the calibrated resistance factor depends on
the O-cell test after transformation is shown in
the ratio of the coefficient of variation to the mean
Figure 4b.
of resistance bias factor, that is, COVR/λR. This
In case of using the equivalent head-down
relation seems to be linear when the limit state
compressive tests, statistical parameters of the
function is linear; the larger the ratio COVR/λR,
total resistance bias factor are estimated as
the smaller the resistance factor. From that a cer-
λR = 1.233, σR = 0.251 and COVR = 0.203. The
tain couple of φS and φb will be selected when the
probability distribution of the bias factor is log-
ratio of φS to φb approximates a ratio, temporarily
normal under the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.
called “Acceptance Correlation Ratio”—ACR as
follows:

COVRb
φS λ RS COVRb λ RS
≈ ACR = = (16)
φb COVRS COVR λ R
S b
λ RS

where λRs & λRb = mean of bias factor of the

shaft and base resistances, respectively; COVRs &
COVRb = coefficient of variation of bias factor of
the shaft and base resistances, respectively.
Based on Equation 16, the ACR derived in this
case is 0.57. The values of couple of φS and φb,
therefore, are 0.95 and 1.65 for βT = 2.5, and 0.84
and 1.46 for βT = 3.0, respectively.

6.4 Benefit when using separate

resistance factors
In fact, recent studies have mainly focused on
calibrating a unique resistance factor. There are
two reasons leading to this selection. First, data
of measured resistances are collected from dif-
ferent types of testing, i.e., from the O-cell tests
and/or from the head-down compressive tests.
Normally, one would transform all the O-cell test
results to those under the head-down compres-
sive tests. Second, until now there has not been
an approach which is able to harmonically solve
the relation between shaft and base resistance Figure 4. Load-Displacement curves by O-cell and
factors after calibration. As a result, a common equivalent head-down compressive tests for shaft 4A.

2502

Fullpaper-Book-03-[CH201-CH300].indb 2502 8/22/2013 7:17:42 PM

 Based on the calibration procedure described
in Bach et al. (2012), calibrated common resist-
ance factors are 0.92 and 0.83 corresponding to
βT = 2.5 and 3.0.
For comparison, shaft 4A is taken as an exam-
ple: shaft and base resistances calculated accord-
ing to the β method (FHWA method) are 9,692 kN
and 3,165 kN, respectively. If we use a common
resistance factor, the factored total resistance
will be: (9,692 + 3,165) x 0.83 = 10,671 kN (with
βT = 3.0); meanwhile, if we use separate resist-
ance factors, the factored total resistance is now:
9,692 × 0.84 + 3,165 × 1.46 = 12,762 kN (with
βT = 3.0). So, the calculated total resistance using
separate resistance factors, in this case, is larger
than that using a common resistance factor with
an amount of 2,091 kN. Hence, the use of sepa-
rate resistance factors may achieve a more eco-
nomical design.
6.5 Comparison with resistance
factors in ASSHTO 2007
In order to compare shaft and base resistance fac-
tors indicated in ASSHTO 2007, statistical param-
eters for the dead load and live load are taken from
Table 1 with respect to bridges; probability dis-
tributions for the dead load and the live load are
normal (Nowak 1999). The ratio of the dead load
to the live load, QD/QL, is selected as 3.46 (Bach
et al. 2012). The prediction method for the resist-
ance considered herein is the β method (FHWA
method).
The calibrated values of φS and φb with βT = 3.0,
therefore, are 0.83 and 1.44, respectively. While
in ASSHTO 2007, the values of φS and φb with
βT = 3.0 are 0.55 and 0.50, respectively. A question
arises herein regarding why there is a such consid-
erable difference in value associated with resistance
factors. This issue can be explained as follows.
First, the resistance factors in ASSHTO 2007
were developed using either statistical analysis of
shaft load tests combined with reliability theory
(Paikowsky et al. 2004), fitting to Allowable Stress
Design (ASD), or both. These two approaches
resulted in significantly different resistance fac-
tors; engineering judgment was used to establish
the final resistance factor, considering the qual-
ity and quantity of the available data used in the
calibration.
Second, Paikowsky et al. (2004) used the data
that were collected from many sites, e.g. from dif-
ferent testing methods, different soil parameters
and different construction methods. Further, the
size of tested shafts also varied considerably from
site to site. The variability or uncertainty degree
of the data was rather high, therefore, resulting in
the calibrated resistance factors that whose values
2503
Fullpaper-Book-03-[CH201-CH300].indb 2503
are not large. Conversely, in this case study where
26 shafts were located at a site, and they were con-
structed by the same method with the same size
in a relatively stable geological condition. The
uncertainty degree in the gathered dataset is not
too high and thus the calibrated resistance factors
are relatively large. Here, we can see that the pre-
dicted base resistances by the β method are much
underestimated compared to the measured nomi-
nal ones. So, the calibrated base resistance factors
are large, even greater than 1 (φb = 1.65 and 1.46,
see more in Subsection 6.3).
In the United States, several Departments of
Transportation (DOTs) approved and used cali-
brated resistance factors in a certain region with
the terminology as “regionally calibrated resist-
ance factors”. Abdel Salam et al. (2010) showed
that the LRFD regionally calibrated resistance
factors reported for sands and clays are either
equal to or greater than the AASHTO recom-
mended values. In sand, the resistance factors
are as much as 50% above those recommended
by AASHTO, while values are as much as 100%
above the recommended values used for clay.
Such large increases in resistance factors will
likely reduce the overall cost of bridge deep
foundations.
6.6 Sensitivity analysis
In order to independently evaluate the influence
of ratios, QD/QL and Rb/RS, on the value of cali-
brated resistance factors, the sensitivity analysis is
performed (see Eq. 9). For the first step, the ratio
Rb/RS is fixed with the value of 0.289 and the ratio
QD/QL is allowed to vary with values of 1.0, 1.5, 2.0,
2.5 and 3.0; the variation of φS and φb with the ratio
QD/QL will be observed. For the second step, the
variation of resistance factors with the increase of
the ratio Rb/RS will be considered, the ratio Rb/RS
is taken as 0.25, 0.289, 0.5, 0.75 and 1.0, while the
ratio QD/QL is fixed as 2.5. The analysis results are
described in Figure 5.
In Figure 5a, when the ratio Rb/Rs is fixed as
0.289, the resistance factors, φS and φb, slightly
decrease with the increase of ratio QD/QL and reach
a stable value when this ratio lies in a range from
2.5 to 3.0. In Figure 5b, the ratio QD/QL is fixed
as 2.5, and φS and φb, with an inverse tendency,
slightly increase with the increase of the ratio Rb/Rs
and also reach a stable value as this ratio lies in
a range from 0.5 to 0.75. After that the resistance
factors have a tendency of slight decrease when the
ratio Rb/Rs is larger than 0.75.
Based on the obtained results, it can be con-
cluded that the shaft and base resistance factors
are less sensitive with respect to the ratios QD/QL
and Rb/Rs.
8/22/2013 7:17:44 PM

Figure 5. Sensitivity analysis for shaft and base resist-
ance factors.
7 CONCLUSIONS
This study has presented a procedure for calibrating
shaft and base resistances of drilled shafts under
the framework of the LRFD method. A dataset
of 26 O-cell tested drilled shafts was collected and
used for the calibration. Based on the geological
condition on the site (the Los Angeles Coliseum),
the β method (FHWA method) was chosen aim-
ing to estimate shaft and base resistance factors for
this method.
In the scope of this study, only the ultimate
limit state of strength I for axially loaded drilled
shafts was used, other limit states were not men-
tioned herein. The shaft and base resistance
factors were calibrated according to two tar-
get reliability indices as 2.5 and 3.0. Based on
obtained results, conclusions drawn from the
study are as follows:
2504
Fullpaper-Book-03-[CH201-CH300].indb 2504
1. A limit state function was formulated and a cali-
bration procedure based on MCS was proposed
to separately calibrate shaft and base resistance
factors for drilled shafts under the framework
of the LRFD method.
2. A ratio, temporarily called “Acceptance Corre-
lation Ratio”—ACR, was proposed aiming to
determine a unique couple of values for the shaft
and base resistance factors from the outcomes
of the calibration process based on MCS.
3. The use of separate shaft and base resistance
factors instead of a common resistance factor
may achieve a more economical design.
4. Through the comparison of obtained resist-
ance factors in this study and those in
ASSHTO 2007, once again it is confirmed that
the use of regionally calibrated resistance fac-
tors will likely reduce the overall cost of deep
foundations.
5. The shaft and base resistance factors are less
sensitive with respect to the variation of either
the dead to live load ratio or the base to shaft
resistance ratio in the calibration process.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study is mainly funded by Project 322 of the
Vietnam Ministry of Education and Training and
partly supported by CICAT and the Section of
Hydraulic Engineering, Delft University of Tech-
nology, the Netherlands. The writers would like
to thank Ms. Dominguez, Los Angeles coliseum
administrator, and Dr. Fellenius, for supporting
and providing the material used in this paper.
REFERENCES
Abu-Farsakh, M.Y., & Yu, X. 2010. Interpretation crite-
ria to evaluate resistance factors for axial load capac-
ity of drilled shafts. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2202(1):
20–31.
Abdel Salam, S.S., Sritharan, S., & Suleiman, M.T. 2010.
Current design and construction practices of bridge
pile foundations with emphasis on implementation of
LRFD. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 15(6): 749–758.
Allen, T.M., Nowak, A.S., & Bathurst, R.J. 2005. Trans-
portation research circular E-C079: Calibration to
determine load and resistance factors for geotechni-
cal and structural design. Technical report, Trans-
portation Research Board, Foundations of Bridges
and Other Structures Committee, General Structures
Committee, Washington, D.C.
ASSHTO. 2007. LRFD bridge design specifications.
Washington, D.C.
Bach, D., van Gelder, P.H.A.J.M., Bakker, K.J. & Vri-
jling, J.K. 2012. Resistance factor calibration of drilled
shafts for bridge foundations. Proceedings of the 10th
8/22/2013 7:17:44 PM
 International Probabilistic Workshop. Stuttgart, Ger-
many, 165–187.
Barker, R.M., Duncan, J.M., Rojiani, K.B., Ooi, P.S.K.,
Tan, C.K., & Kim, S.G. 1991. National cooperative
highway research program—Report 343: Manuals for
the design of bridge foundations. Technical report,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Chin, F.K., & Vail, A.J. 1973. Behavior of piles in allu-
vium. Proceedings of the 8th International Confer-
ence on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.
Vol 2.1, Moscow, 47–52.
Ellingwood, B. & Galambos, T.V. 1982. Probability-
based criteria for structural design. Structural Safety,
1: 15–26.
Fellenius, B.H. 2011. Capacity versus deformation
analysis for design of footings and piled foundations.
Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the SEAGS &
AGSSEA, 42(2): 70–77.
Fenton, G.A. & Griffiths, D.V. 2008. Risk Assessment in
Geotechnical Engineering. John Wiley and Sons.
Honjo, Y., Suzuki, M., Shirato, M., & Fukui, J. 2002.
Determination of partial factors for a vertically loaded
pile based on reliability analysis. Soils and Founda-
tions: Journal of the Japanese Geotechnical Society,
42(5): 91–109.
Kuo, C.L., McVay, M.C., & Birgisson, B. 2002. Calibra-
tion of load and resistance factor design—Resistance
factors for drilled shaft design. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
1808: 108–111.
LAW/CRANDALL, Inc. 1994a. Final report—Geo-
technical inspection services—Los Angeles Memorial
Coliseum Repair. Los Angeles, California.
LAW/CRANDALL, Inc. 1994b. Report of Foundation
Investigation, Proposed Los Angeles Memorial Coli-
seum Repair. Los Angeles, California.
LAW/CRANDALL, Inc. 1994c. Report of Pile Load
Testing, Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Repair. Los
Angeles, California.
McVay, M.C., Birgisson, B., Zhang, L., Perez, A., &
Putcha, S. 2000. Load and resistance factor design
(LRFD) for driven piles using dynamic methods—A
Florida perspective. Geotechnical Testing Journal,
23(1): 55–66.
McVay, M.C., Birgisson, B., Nguyen, T., & Kuo, C.L.
2002. Uncertainty in load and resistance factor design
Phi factors for driven prestressed concrete piles. Trans-
portation Research Record: Journal of the Transporta-
tion Research Board, 1808: 99–107.
Neely, W.J. 1991. Bearing capacity of auger-cast piles in
sands. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 117(2):
3–16.
2505
Fullpaper-Book-03-[CH201-CH300].indb
View publication stats 2505
Nowak, A.S. 1999. National cooperative highway
research program—Report 368: Calibration of LRFD
bridge design code. Technical report, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, D.C.
O’Neill, M.W., & Reese, L.C. 1999. Federal highway
administration—Report No. FHWA-IF-99–025:
Drilled shafts: Construction procedures and design
methods. Technical report, Federal Highway Admin-
istration, Washington, D.C.
Osterberg, J.O. 2001. Load testing high capacity piles:
What have we learned?. Proceedings of the 5th Inter-
national Conference on Deep Foundation Practice,
Singapore.
Paikowsky, S.G., Baecher, G.B., & Christian, J.T. 2003.
Statistical issues of LRFD calibration for deep foun-
dations. 12th Pan-American Conference on Soil Sym-
posium, Vol. 2, 2839–2844.
Paikowsky, S.G., Birgisson, B., McVay, M., Nguyen, T.,
Kuo, C., Baecher, G.B., Ayyub, B.M., Stenersen, K.,
O’Malley, K., Chernauskas, L., & O’Neill, M. 2004.
National cooperative highway research program—Re-
port 507: Load and resistance factor design (LRFD)
for deep foundations. Technical report, Transporta-
tion Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Reese, L.C., Isenhower, W.M., & Wang, S.T. 2006. Analy-
sis and Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations. John
Wiley and Sons.
Russo, G., Recinto, B., Viggiani, C., & de-Sanctis, L.
2003. A contribution to analysis of Osterberg’s cell
load test. Proceedings of the 4th International Geotech-
nical Seminar on Deep Foundation on Bored and Auger
Piles, Ghent, Belgium, 331–338.
Schmertmann, J.H., & Schmertmann, C.P. 2012. Testing
and remediation observational method for the design
and construction of non-redundant pile foundations.
GeoCongress 2012 Full-Scale Testing and Foundation
Design, 349–361.
Withiam, J.L., Voytko, E.P., Barker, R.M., Duncan, J.M.,
Kelly, B.C., Musser, S.C., & Elias, V. 1997. Federal
Highway Administration—Report No. DTFH61-94-
C-00098: Load and resistance factor design (LRFD)
for highway bridge substructures. Technical report,
Federal Highway Administration, US Department of
Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Yang, L. 2006. Reliability-based design and quality con-
trol of driven piles. Ph.D. thesis, University of Akron,
United States of America.
Yoon, G.L., & O’Neill, M.W. 1997. Resistance factors for
single piles from experiments. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board,1569(6): 47–54.
8/22/2013 7:17:45 PM