Journal of Engineering Technology and Education

The 2012 International Conference on Green Technology and Sustainable Development (GTSD2012)

SOME PROBLEMS OF ESTIMATING THE DRILLED SHAFT AXIAL

RESISTANCE IN 22TCN 272-05 AND AASHTO LRFD 2007 SPECIFICATIONS.

Ngo Chau Phuong and Tran Duc Nhiem

University of Transport and Communications

ABSTRACT
This paper summarizes some actual experience in estimating the pile axial resistance of
drilled shafts/bored piles in existing Vietnamese and other countries specifications. From
these facts, it is suggested some appropriate supplements, updates in bored pile calculation,
design of bridge foundation and support engineers to master their calculating results in term
of integration.

KEYWORDS: drilled shafts, bored piles, pile axial resistance, bridge foundation, resistance
factor.

1. INTRODUCTION 22TCN272-05 design Specifications bases

on the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
The analysis and evaluation and the
Specifications of the United States which is
Research and Development (R&D) of
a open standard, so it is very necessary to
matters relating to subjects of an existing
research, develop and update regularly in
standard become an annual task which
term of international standards integration.
requires very high budget in developed
Therefore, for achieving a consistent
countries. For example, in drilled shaft
calculating, creating opportunities of
industry, Federal Highway Administration
communication between design engineers
(FHWA) carried out R&D and, as the result,
and in consultancy for the investor as well,
has four times of bored pile Design and
this paper focuses on analysis and
Construction publications (1977, 1988,
evaluation deeply some existing matters in
1999 and 2010). Based on these results, the
calculating bored pile axial resistance based
republications of AASHTO LRFD 1994,
on 22TCN 272-05 and AASHTO LRFD
1998, 2004, 2007 and 2010 were also
2007. In this paper, the author only refers to
updated, supplemented and adjusted [3].
the bored pile axial resistance in cohesive
22TCN272-05 (AASHTO LRFD 1998) has and non-cohesive soil conditions.
been applied in Vietnam more than ten
years. At the moment, R&D for the 2. THE PROBLEMS IN APPLYING
supplement and update purpose still is 22TCN 272-05 AND AASHTO
restricted. However, some matters have LRFD 2007 STANDARDS TO
been discovered and, particularly, in ESTIMATE DRILLED SHAFT
forecasting bored pile axial resistance, they AXIAL RESISTANCE
are, there are too many approaches to The nominal resistance or ultimate
calculate pile axial resistance of the various resistance (Q n or Q u) of drilled shafts
authors from the years before 1980, there is includes the end bearing resistance (Q b hay
no resistance factor for cohesionless soil Q p ) and the shaft friction resistance
case. Thus, calculating results usually are (Q s ).The ultimate resistance of drilled
less accurate because mainly based on shafts is given by [1],[6],[7],[8],[9]:
designers’ subjective and, so higher cost or n
less safe. Qu = p + s = p p +∑ si si (1)
i=1

131
 Journal of Engineering Technology and Education
The 2012 International Conference on Green Technology and Sustainable Development (GTSD2012)

Q R = φQ = φ Q + φ Q (2) the pile (N); A p: area of the tip of the pile

u qs s qp p (mm2); q p : ultimate unit tip resistance of the
Where Q u : the nominal resistance of single pile (MPa) (see Table 2.&4.); A si : surface
pile (N); Q R : the calculated resistance of area of the shaft of the pile (mm2), q s :
the pile (N); Q s : the shaft friction resistance ultimate unit side resistance of the pile shaft
of the pile (N); Q p: end bearing resistance (MPa) (see Table 3.&4.) and n: the number
of of soil layers along the pile; ϕ: resistance
factor, ϕ qs : resistance factor for tip, ϕ qp :
resistance factor for side (see Table 1).
Table 1. Resistance factors of the strength limit state for single bored piles under axial loading in
22TCN 272-05 and AASHTO LRFD 2007 Specifications
22TCN 272-05 [1] AASHTO LRFD 2007 [8]
Soil/Condition
Method ϕ (ϕ qs , ϕ qp) Method ϕ (ϕ qs , ϕ qp)

Side resistance in α− method α− method

0.65 0.45
cohesive soil (Reese & O'Neill 1988) (Reese&O'Neill, 1999)

Tip resistance in Total stress Total stress

0.55 0.4
cohesive soil (Reese & O'Neill 1988) (Reese&O'Neill, 1999)

Touma & Reese (1974)

Meyerhof (1976)
Side resistance in - See 10.8.3.4 β− method
Quiros & Reese (1977) 0.55
cohesionless soil (N/A) (Reese&O'Neill, 1999)
Reese & Wright (1997)
(Reese & O'Neil 1988)

Touma & Reese (1974)

Meyerhof (1976)
Tip resistance in See 10.8.3.4
Quiros & Reese (1977) Reese & O'Neill (1999) 0.50
cohesionless soil (N/A)
Reese & Wright (1997)
(Reese & O'Neill 1988)

Comment: In the specifications [1], the estimating the pile axial resistance in
resistance factor is not available when cohesive soil in specifications [1] is
estimating the bored pile axial resistance in larger than in specifications [8] from
cohesionless soil; resistance factor when 37.5% to 44.4%
Table 2. Summary of the bored pile unit resistance formulas in cohesive soils

22TCN 272-05 (Reese & O’Neill,1988)[1] AASHTO LRFD 2007(Reese&O’Neill,1999)[7]

Side resistance, q s Tip resistance, q p (MPa) Side resistance, q s (MPa) Tip resistance, q p (MPa)
(MPa)(α-method) (Total stress-method) (α-method) (Total stress-method)

136
 Journal of Engineering Technology and Education
The 2012 International Conference on Green Technology and Sustainable Development (GTSD2012)

q s = αSu ; α = 0.55
q s =αSu q p = N cSu ≤ 4 , where
α q p =N cSu ≤ 4 , where where Su /pa ≤ 1.5
S u (MPa) N c = 6[1 + 0.2(Z/D)] ≤ 9
<0.2 0.55
0.2-0.3 0.49
N c = 6[1 + 0.2(Z/D)] ≤ 9 α = 0.55 - 0.1(Su /pa -1.5) N c =0.67, S u <0.024 Mpa
...-.. ...
0.8-0.9 0.31
N c =0.33, S u < 0.024 MPa 1.5 ≤ Su /pa ≤ 2.5 (only change Nc if compared
with [1])
>0.9 - P a =0.101MPa

in 22TCN 272-05 and AASHTO LRFD 2007

Note: S u : average undrained shear strength(MPa); α: adhesion factor of cohesive soil; Z: penetration
of drilled shaft(mm); D: diameter of drilled shaft(mm); P a : atmospheric pressure (MPa)
depends on S u /P a index; Total stress
Comment: The difference in α-method [1]
method demonstrates the tip resistance that
is factor-α from 0.31-0.55 derived from the
based on specification [1] and [7] basically
table that depends on S u index (value of
0.2-0.9), but α-method [7] has factor-α from are similar, only N c adjusted.
0.45-0.55 calculated from the formula that
Table 3. Summary of the drilled shaft unit side resistance formulas, q s (MPa) in cohesionless soil in
22TCN 272-05 and AASHTO LRFD 2007 Specifications.
22TCN 272-05 [1] AASHTO LRFD 2007 [8]
Touma & Reese (1974): q s = Kσ 'v tanφ f < 0.24MPa

For which: K=0.7, for D b ≤ 7500mm

N/A
K=0.6, for 7500mm < D b ≤ 12000mm
K=0.5, for D b > 12000mm
Meyerhof (1976): q s = 0.00096N N/A

Quiros & Reese (1977): q s = 0.0025N < 0.19MPa N/A

Reese & Wright (1977): for N ≤ 53, q s = 0.0028N

N/A
For 53 < N ≤ 100 , q s = 0.00021(N-53)+ 0.15
(Reese & O’Neill,1999):
Reese & O’Neill (1988): q s = βσ 'v ≤ 0.19MPa , for 0.25 ≤ β ≤ 1.2
q s = βσ v ≤ 0.19MPa , for 0.25 ≤ β ≤ 1.2
'
For which: β =1.5-7.7? 0-3 Z , for N 60 ≥ 15
For which: β=1.5-7.7? 0
-3
Z N 60
=
β (1.5-7.7? 0-3 Z) , for N 60 < 15
15

Note: σ’ v: vertical effective stress (MPa); ϕ f : friction angle of cohesionless soil (DEG); D b :
embedment of drilled shaft in sand bearing layer (mm); N: uncorrected SPT blow count (Blows/300
mm); N 60 : corrected SPT blow count (Blows/300 mm) adjusted to 60% useful energy; Z: penetration
of drilled shaft (mm); P a : atmospheric pressure (MPa).
Table 4. Summary of drilled shaft unit tip resistance q p (MPa) for cohesionless soil
in 22TCN 272-05 and AASHTO LRFD 2007 Specifications.
22TCN 272-05 [1] AASHTO LRFD 2007 [8]
Touma & Reese (1974):
N/A
Loose: q p (MPa)=0.0

137
 Journal of Engineering Technology and Education
The 2012 International Conference on Green Technology and Sustainable Development (GTSD2012)

22TCN 272-05 [1] AASHTO LRFD 2007 [8]

Medium Dense: q p (MPa)=1.5/K
Very Dense: q p (MPa)=3.8/K
For which: K=1 for D p ≤500mm; K=0.6D p for
500mm≤ D p , Applicable only if D b >10D
Meyerhof (1976):
q p (MPa) = 0.013N corr D b D p < 0.13N corr , for sand
N/A
<0.096N corr , for nonplastic silts
N corr = [0,77lg(1,92/σ’ v )]N
Reese & Wright (1977): q p (MPa)=0.064N, for N
N/A
≤60; q p (MPa)=3.8, for N>60
(Reese & O’Neill,1999):
Reese & O’Neil (1988): q p (MPa) =1.2N 60 , for 0.057N 60 ≤50
q p (MPa)=0.057N , for N ≤ 75 (In this formula, coefficent 1.2 is not correct for SI –
q p (MPa) = 4.3 , for N > 75 the international system of units, it should be 0.057)
0.8
q p =0.59  N 60 *pa σ 'v  σ 'v , for N 60 >50, P a =0.101MPa
Note: D p : tip diameter of drilled shaft (mm); D, D b , σ’ v , N, N 60 , P a : see note of table 2 & table 3.
0.48m(T26L) to 24.0m(T5R) depth, SPT–
Comment: Specification [1] uses 5
value 4-27; Layer 3: clay sand, medium
methods of five various authors to estimate
dense to dense, undefined depth, the highest
the side resistance and tip resistance,
depth is 77.35m (T29R), SPT-value 10-49;
Specification [8] only uses β-method
(Reese & O'Neill (1999)) to estimate the Layer 4: sandy clay, very hard to solid,
depth from 1.4m (T60L) to 11.10m (T21R),
side resistance and Reese & O'Neill (1999)
SPT-value 31-84; Layer 5: clay sand, silt
method to estimate the tip resistance; β-
sand, dense to very dense undefined depth,
method [1], β is given by a formula that
depend on the depth; β-method [8], β is the highest depth is 16.00m (T18L), SPT-
value 39-70. Static loading test results
given by one of two formulas that depend
on depth-z and value of N 60 and Pa/σ’ v . carried out for 8 test piles, including a test
pile to 300%P max and 7 test pile to
3. RESULTS OF THE STUDY AND 150%P max , P max : is the maximum load
DISCUSSION effect applied to pile head, from 5.018KN –
To clarify these comments above, the 5.207KN, [2].
author applied 22TCN 272-05 and The author used 2 methods: method (b) –
AASHTO LRFD 2007 Specifications to the formula of Reese&O'Neill (1988) in
estimate the drilled shaft axial resistance for 22TCN272-05 and method (c) of
a part of a bridge belong to the HoChiMinh Reese&O'Neill (1999) in AASHTO LRFD
city – LongThanh – DauGiay Expressway 2007. From these, a comparison with a
Project: Characteristics of the bridge: uses combination of 3 methods: Reese&Wright
Super- T beams, belong to the contract (1977) - Meyerhof (1976) - Reese&O'Neill
package-1a (Km4+000.00 to Km7+500.00); (1988), 22TCN272-05 that is applied and
bridge foundation with 6 drilled shafts, pile compared with static loading test results by
diameter of 1,2m, 65,5m-74m pile length. Consultancy is implemented. The
Piles penetrate 3-4 soil layers of 5 layers, calculated and analysed results as shown in
they are: Layer 1: soft silt, depth from 2.0m Table 5. &6., [2], [4].
(boring T50L) to 22.8m(T78L), SPT- value
0-4; Layer 2: sandy clay, medium-hard,

138
 Journal of Engineering Technology and Education
The 2012 International Conference on Green Technology and Sustainable Development (GTSD2012)

Table 5. The estimated single drilled shaft nominal resistance (Q u ) results based on 22TCN 72-05 and
AASHTO LRFD 2007 Specifications compared with static loading test results.
Test
Test Method (a), (KN) [1] Method (b), (KN) [1] Method (c), (KN) [7]
load,Q max Note
No

position Q u Deviation Qu Deviation Qu Deviation (KN)

(4)=(3)-(9)/(3 (6)=(5) -(9)/(3 or (8)=(7)-(9)/(3 or
(1) (2) (3) (5) (7) (9)
or 1,5) 1,5) 1,5)
1 T96 18.231 13.024 19.874 14.667 19.889 14.682 15.621 =300%P max
2 T17L6 17.253 12.229 18.134 13.110 17.762 12.738 7.536 =150%P max
3 T20L6 20.294 15.270 21.161 16.137 19.783 14.759 7.536 Ditto
4 T13L6 14.202 9.178 16.940 11.916 16.169 11.145 7.536 Ditto
5 T15L6 17.001 11.977 17.745 12.721 17.717 12.693 7.536 Ditto
6 T9L6 24.156 19.132 27.763 22.739 20.575 15.551 7.536 Ditto
7 T1L4 16.317 11.179 16.948 11.811 16.948 11.811 7.706 Ditto
8 T7L2 19.693 14.674 19.748 14.729 19.615 14.596 7.529 Ditto
µ (KN) 18.393 13.333 19.789 14.729 18.557 13.497 7.559
σ (KN) 3.016 3.029 3.557 3.570 1.608 1.604 2.851
β=µ/σ 4,40 4,13 8,41
Reliability 99,999% 99,998% 100,000%
Note: (a)=Reese&Wright (1977)-Meyerhof (1976)-Reese&O'Neill (1988), 22TCN272-05;
(b)=Reese&O'Neill (1988), 22TCN272-05; (c)=Reese&O'Neill (1999), AASHTO LRFD 2007; µ=
mean; σ=the standard deviation; β=reliability index [5].
Table 6. The estimated drilled shaft calculated resistance (Q R ) results based on 22TCN 72-05 and
AASHTO LRFD 2007 Specifications compared with static loading test results.
Test Method (a), (KN) [1] Method (b), (KN) [1] Method (c), (KN) [8] Test load,
No

Note
position Q R Deviation Q R Deviation QR Deviation Q max (KN)
(4)=(3)-(9)/(3 (6)=(5) -(9)/(3 (8)=(7)-(9)/(3
(1) (2) (3) (5) (7) (9)
or 1,5) or 1,5) or 1,5)
1 T96 6.993 1.786 8.507 3.300 7.530 2.323 15.621 =300%P max
2 T17L6 6.986 1.962 7.332 2.308 7.096 2.072 7.536 =150%P max
3 T20L6 8.268 3.244 8.549 3.525 7.772 2.748 7.536 Ditto
4 T13L6 5.980 956 7.013 1.989 6.364 1.340 7.536 Ditto
5 T15L6 6.978 1.954 7.268 2.244 7.059 2.035 7.536 Ditto
6 T9L6 9.740 4.716 8.794 3.770 8.079 3.055 7.536 Ditto
7 T1L4 6.641 1.504 6.891 1.753 6.812 1.675 7.706 Ditto
8 T7L2 8.043 3.023 8.068 3.048 7.697 2.677 7.529 Ditto
µ (KN) 7.453 2.393 7.803 2.742 7.301 2.241
σ (KN) 1.179 1.202 763 761 567 576
β=µ/σ 1,99 3,60 3,89
Reliability 0,97673 0,99984 0,99995
Note: The values of resistance factor which are not available in 22TCN272-05 would be based
temporarily on AASHTO LRFD 2007; drilled shaft groups factor is 0,7

Comment: The single drilled shaft nominal 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOM-

resistance and calculated drilled shaft MENDATIONS
resistance basing on method (c)-[7] have As has been analyzed above, some
the highest reliability indexes, respectively,
conclusions and recommendations about
0,99998 and 0,99984 and method (a)-[1] estimating drilled shaft axial resistance in
has the lowest indexes, 0,99999 and
grounds are described as follow:
0,97673 (See Table 5.&6.).

139
 Journal of Engineering Technology and Education
The 2012 International Conference on Green Technology and Sustainable Development (GTSD2012)

It is said that a number of existing matters [2] Design Documents, Geologic Survey
in 22TCN272-05 Specifications (AASHTO Report, Calculating Description (2008)
LRFD 1998, 2004) are found such as, there and Static load test Report (2010)
are too many estimating drilled shaft axial
resistance methods of various authors from contract package 1A, The Ho Chi
the years before 1980; the resistance factor Minh- Long Thanh- Dau Giay
is larger than [8] from 37.5 to 44.4% and no expressway Project.
available for cohesionless soil case. The
calculating results indicate a high deviation [3] Vu Cong Ngu, Nguyen Thai (2006),
and the low reliability indexes of methods Pile Foundation, Analysis and Design,
are in the range of 97,673% to 99,984%. The Publisher of Science and
On the other hand, AASHTO LRFD 2007 Technology, Ha Noi, 2006.
(SI), AASHTO LRFD 2010 (US)
Specification could basically resolve
matters of versions 2004 and earlier.
However, the fact that there is a wrong
factor in (10.8.3.5.2c-1) [8] when transfer
units system from US to SI. It is recognized
that the margin of deviations are small and
reliability index of calculating methods are
fairly high, 99,995% after a comparison
between the calculated and actual results. [4] Ngo Chau Phuong et al (2011),
Analysis, Evaluation of Estimating
Thus, it is suggested that a manual of
supplements and updates for 22TCN272-05 bored pile axial resistance on the soft
Specifications based on AASHTO LRFD ground based on 22TCN 272-05 and
2007 Specifications (SI) from the AASHTO LRFD 2007 Specifications,
controlling agency is extremely necessary A scientific research project, The
for calculating the drilled shafts axial University of Transport and
resistance. In the long run, we should have
in-dept assessment studies on the use of Communications.
drilled shafts in accordance with conditions [5] Tran Duc Nhiem (1996), Probability
in Vietnam that based on the reliability methods and Reliability theory in
theory combined with experimental data of
drilled shafts on the site to propose structural design , The Publisher of
consistent conditions, parameters with soil UTC, Ha Noi, 1996.
conditions, drilled shafts construction
[6] AASHTO(1998), LRFD Bridge Design
methods. Since then, suggest calculating
methods (models) and suitable resistance Specifications 2th Edition, American
factors for conditions in Vietnam as well Association of State Highway and
that would give a estimated resistance close Transportation Officials, Washington D.
to reality./. C.
5. REFERENCES [7] AASHTO(2004), LRFD Bridge Design
[1] The Ministry of Transport (2005) The Specifications, 3th Edition. American
Bridge Design Specifications Association of State Highway and
22TCN272-05. The Publisher of Transportation Officials, Washington,
Transport, Ha Noi, 2005. D.C.

140
 Journal of Engineering Technology and Education
The 2012 International Conference on Green Technology and Sustainable Development (GTSD2012)

[8] AASHTO(2007), LRFD Bridge Design

Specifications (SI), 4th Edition.
American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials,
Washington, D.C.

141