APPENDIX C

HYBRID α-β METHODOLOGY FOR DRILLED SHAFT

DESIGN
 HYBRID α-β METHODOLOGY FOR DRILLED SHAFT
DESIGN
Background
Originally proposed by Mayne and Harris (1993), this method was derived specifically
for design of drilled shafts in Piedmont soils. An effective stress analysis is used to
estimate side shear, while a total stress analysis is used to estimate end bearing. This is to
account for partial drainage of Piedmont silty sands and silts. Mayne and Harris (1993)
give several reasons for this approach:

(1) Rate of loading can affect drainage; the load tests used to develop this method
were performed using the quick test procedure (ASTM D 1143);

(2) The effective stress method has been successfully applied to both cohessionless
and cohesive soils;

(3) The interface between the soil and the shaft may act as a drainage path. As
hypothesized by Mayne and Harris (1993), experiments by Konrad and Roy
(1987) and Coop and Wroth (1989) show that no excess pore pressure developed
along the shaft of a pile tested in undrained loading in clay. However, in soft and
stiff clays, positive excess pore pressure was measured at the pile tip during axial
compression; and

(4) Two piezocone tests were performed near Atlanta Hartsfield Airport, one with a
porous element on the face of the cone, and one with a porous element on the
shaft, just above the cone tip. Positive excess pore pressures developed in the
element on the face of the cone, while negative (or zero excess) pore pressures
developed in the element on the shaft.

Two recommended amendments have also been incorporated into the following
description of the hybrid method: (1) Per O’Neill et al. (1996), Majano et al. (1994) state
that if the shaft hole is excavated under a slurry, skin friction resistance is reduced; and
(2) O’Neill et al. (1996) suggest an upper limit of 100 for SPT N-values, rather than an
N-value of 200, as might be extrapolated from 50blows/3in, for any 5-foot interval, in
order to calculate reasonably accurate design parameters.

Axial Capacity
Ultimate axial capacity of a drilled shaft is calculated by equation C-1.

Qt = Σ (fsi Asi) + qult Atip (eq. C-1)

where: Qt = total ultimate capacity;

fsi = ultimate unit side shear resistance for a layer;
Asi = area of shaft surface for a layer;
qult = ultimate unit end bearing resistance; and
Atip = area of shaft tip.

C-1
Side Shear
Ultimate unit side shear is estimated using equation C-2.

fs = σ' H tan δ ≅ K 0 σ' v0 tan φ' (eq. C-2)

where: K 0 = (1 − sin φ') OCR sin φ' ;

 0.34
 
 N60 
φ' = arctan (eq. C-3)
 σ' vo 
 12.2 + 20.3 
 pa 
N60 = Average SPT N-value along a section of the shaft, corrected
for energy;
pa = Atmospheric pressure = 1atm = 1bar ≈ 1tsf ≈ 1kg/cm2 ≈100kPa;
σ' p = 0.2 N 60 p a ; and
σ' p
OCR =
σ' v0

Mayne and Harris (1993) assume the interface between the concrete and soil is perfectly
rough and therefore δ = φ’. This is based on the assumption that the drilled shaft is
properly constructed, which therefore implies that the disturbance of the supporting soil
has been minimal. This assumption is applicable if the concrete is placed shortly after
excavation and ambient geostatic stress state is fully recovered prior to placing the
foundation in service. When slurry construction methods are used, O’Neill et al. (1996)
state that Majano et al. (1994) suggest δ = 0.75φ’. Additionally, O’Neill et al. (1996)
suggest an upper limit of N60 = 100 blows/ft.

End Bearing
O’Neill and Reese (1999) simplified Mayne and Harris’ (1993) equation for calculating
ultimate unit end bearing. Ultimate unit end bearing is calculated using equation C-4.

  pa  
0.8
qmax = 0.59  N60    σ' vb (eq. C-4)
  σ' vb  

where: σ’vb = Vertical effective stress at the base of the drilled shaft; and
N60 = Average SPT blow count between the base of the drilled shaft and an
elevation 2B below the base of the shaft (limited to a maximum of
100, per O’Neill et al., 1996).

O’Neill and Reese (1999) suggest reducing the ultimate end bearing when settlement
estimates are not made and the base diameter exceeds 50 inches (1.27 meters). This is
recommended to ensure that the service loads will not result in excessive settlements of
large diameter shafts. The reduced end bearing is calculated using equation C-5.

C-2
  1.27 
qmax =   qmax (eq. C-5)
 db 

where: db = Diameter of the base of the shaft (in meters).

Load Transfer
Mayne and Harris (1993) use the elastic continuum method as proposed by Poulos and
Davis (1980) and Randolph and Wroth (1979) to analyze the ratio of side shear to end
bearing in a drilled shaft subjected to axial compression. Two elastic constants are used
to describe the behavior of the soil: soil modulus, Es, and Poisson’s ratio, νs. The soil
modulus can be uniform with depth, or linearly increasing with depth, which is known as
a Gibson profile. Mayne and Harris (1993) recommend a Gibson profile, shown in
Figure C-1, for Piedmont soils based on their measured soil moduli profiles using the
dilatometer and geophysical spectral analysis of surface waves. The percentage of load
transmitted to the base can be calculated by equation C-6.

Figure C-1. Example of a Gibson profile (from Mayne and Harris, 1993).

Pb Iρ
= (eq. C-6)
Pt ξ η cosh (µL) (1 − υ s ) (1 + υ s )

where: Pb = axial load transmitted to the base of the shaft;

Pt = axial load applied to top of shaft;

C-3
 Iρ = influence factor, calculated with equation C-7;
ξ = xi factor = EsL/Eb (=1 for a floating, or skin friction only, shaft);
EsL = soil modulus at foundation base (pile tip);
Eb = soil modulus below foundation base;
η = eta factor = db/d (= 1 for constant diameter shafts)
db = diameter of base;
d = shaft diameter;
µL = mu factor = 2 (2/ςλ)0.5 (L/d)
ς = zeta factor = ln [(0.25 + ξ{2.5 ρ(1−νs) – 0.25}) (2L/d)];
ρ = rho factor = Esm/EsL (= 0.5 for Piedmont soils based on Mayne and
Harris, 1993);
L = shaft length;
Esm = soil modulus at mid-depth of shaft;
λ = lambda factor = 2(1 + νs) Ep/EsL;
Ep = pile modulus (concrete plus reinforcement steel); and
νs = Poisson’s ratio, typically = 0.33.

Note that Mayne and Harris (1993) limit the application of equation C-6 for values of ξ =
EsL/Eb less than or equal to 20. A correlation between soil modulus, Es, and SPT N-values
is also provided by Mayne and Harris (1993) in the form of Es = 22 pa N600.82.

 8 η tanh (µ L) L  
 1 + 
 π λ (1 − υ s ) ξ µL d  
Iρ = 4(1 + υ s ) (eq. C-7)
4η 4 π ρ tanh(µ L) L
+
(1 − υ s ) ξ ς µL d

Settlement
Mayne and Harris (1993) use the elastic continuum method to calculate settlement of a
drilled shaft subject to axial compression. The axial displacement (settlement) at the top
of the shaft is calculated using equation C-8.

Pt Iρ
wt = (eq. C-8)
EsL d

where: wt = displacement (settlement) at the top of the shaft;

Pt = axial load applied at the top of the shaft;
Iρ = influence factor (from equation C-7);
EsL = soil modulus at the foundation base; and
d = shaft base diameter.

The ratio of tip displacement to base displacement is given by equation C-9.

C-4
 wt
= cosh (µL) (eq. C-9)
wb

where: wb = displacement at the base of the shaft, calculated from equation C-10;
Pb (1 - υ s ) (1 + υ s ) η
= (eq. C-10)
Ebd

Pb = magnitude of load at the base;

Eb = soil modulus below foundation base; and
µL = mu factor = 2 (2/ςλ)0.5 (L/d).

Example calculation
As described in detail in Mayne and Harris (1993) and in Appendix D as Case History
#2, two drilled shafts were installed on the Georgia Tech campus for a joint study by
ADSC and ASCE. The example calculation is for the end-bearing Shaft C-1. Note that
the calculations reflect the original hybrid method proposed by Mayne and Harris (1993).
Values italicized in parentheses reflect computations using the modified method with
amendments by O’Neill et al (1996).

Calculate Side Shear Capacity:

Determine the average N60 to be used.
average N60 = 4 from 0-5 feet
average N60 = 14 from 5-55 feet
average N60 = 118 (average N60 = 100) from 55-72 feet

Calculate overburden stress at the center of the shaft. Groundwater is at 55 feet

and an average unit weight of 120 pcf is assumed.
σ’vo = 0.15tsf from 0-5 feet
σ’vo = 1.80tsf from 5-55 feet
σ’vo = 3.54tsf from 55-72 feet

Calculate σ’p.
σ’p = 0.2(4)(1tsf) = 0.80tsf from 0-55 feet
σ’p = 0.2(14)(1tsf) = 2.80tsf from 0-55 feet
σ’p = 0.2(118)(1tsf) = 23.6tsf (σ’p = 0.2(100)(1tsf) = 20.0tsf) from 55-72 feet

Calculate OCR.
OCR = 0.80/0.15 = 5.3 from 0-5 feet
OCR = 2.80/1.80 = 1.6 from 5-55 feet
OCR = 23.6/3.54 = 6.7 (OCR = 20.0/3.54 = 5.6) from 55-72 feet.
Calculate φ’.

C-5
  0.34
 
− 1  4 
φ' = tan = 32 o from 0-5 feet
  0.15tsf 
 12.2 + 20.3  
  1tsf 
 0.34
 
− 1  14 
φ' = tan = 33 o from 5-55 feet
  1.80tsf  
 12.2 + 20.3  
  1tsf  
 0.34
 
− 1  118 
φ' = tan = 48 o
  3.54tsf  
 12.2 + 20.3  
  1tsf  
 0.34
 
 100 
( φ' = tan − 1   = 47 o ) from 55-72 feet
 
 12.2 + 20.3  3.54tsf  
  1tsf  
  

Calculate Ko.
Ko = (1-sin(32˚))(5.3)sin(32°) = 1.14 from 0-5 feet
Ko = (1-sin(33˚))(1.6)sin(33°) = 0.59 from 5-55 feet
Ko = (1-sin(48˚))(6.7)sin(48°) = 1.06
(Ko = (1-sin(47˚))(5.6)sin(47°) = 0.95) from 55-72 feet

Calculate side shear stress, fs.

fs = (1.14)(0.15tsf)(tan(32˚)) = 0.11tsf from 0-5 feet
fs = (0.59)(1.80tsf)(tan(33˚)) = 0.69tsf from 5-55 feet
fs = (1.06)(3.54tsf) tan(48˚)) = 4.17tsf
(fs = (0.95)(3.54tsf) tan(47˚)) = 3.61tsf) from 55-72 feet

Calculate ultimate side shear capacity, Σ (fsi Asi).

= π ( 2.5 ) [( 0.11 )( 5 ) + ( 0.69 )( 50 ) + ( 4.17 )( 17 )] = 832 tons
( = π ( 2.5 ) [( 0.11 )( 5 ) + ( 0.69 )( 50 ) + ( 3.61 )( 17 )] = 757 tons )

Calculate End Bearing Capacity:

Calculate vertical effective stress at the base of the shaft.
σ’vb = (120pcf)(55ft) + (120-62.4pcf)(72-55ft) = 3.79tsf

Determine the average N60 from the base of the shaft to two diameters below it.
N60 = 360blows/ft (N60 = 100blows/ft)

C-6
 Determine end-bearing stress.
  1tsf  0.8
qmax = 0.59 360  (3.79 tsf ) = 85.4 tsf
  3.79 tsf 
  1tsf 0.8
(qmax = 0.59 100  (3.79tsf ) = 30.7 tsf )
  3.79tsf 

Determine ultimate end bearing capacity.

= 85.4tsf (π)(2.5ft)2/4 = 419 tons
(= 30.7tsf (π)(2.5ft)2/4 = 151 tons)

Determine Load Transfer:

Calculate influence factor Iρ
Assume EsL = 450tsf
Assume Eb = 2400tsf
Assume Ep = 28.8x104tsf
ξ = EsL/Eb = 450/2400 = 0.19
η = db/d = 1
d = 30” = 2.5’
λ = 2 (1+0.33) (28.8x104tsf/450tsf) = 1702
ς = ln ([0.25+((2.5)(0.5)(1-0.33)-2.5)0.19](2)(70)/2.5) = 3.03
µL = 2 (2/ςλ)0.5 (L/d) = 2 [2/(3.03)(1702)]0.5 (70/2.5) = 1.1
8 (1)(70' ) tanh (1.1)
1+
π (1702) (1 − 0.33) (0.19) (1.1) ( 2.5' )
Iρ = 4 (1 + 0 .33) = 0.15
4 (1) 4 π (0.5)(70' ) tanh(1.1)
+
(1 − 0.33) (0.19) 3.03 (1.1) ( 2.5)

Calculate percent of axial load applied transmitted to base

Pb 0.15
= = 0.53 = 53%
Pt (0.19) (1) cosh (1.1) (1 − 0.33) (1 + 0.33)

Calculate Settlement at the top of the shaft:

1000 tons (0.15)
wt = = 0.133' = 1.6 inches
450 tsf (2.5' )

C-7