Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018 146

Program Considerations for Analysis of Drilled Shaft Foundations

Sanchit Chitre1; Joel Coker, P.E.2; and Brian Sedgwick, P.E., P.G.3
1
Transmission Line Engineer, Leidos Engineering, 200 N. LaSalle, Suite 700, Chicago, IL
60601. E-mail: [email protected]
2
TLine Lead Engineer, Leidos Engineering, Home Site, Palmetto, FL 34221. E-mail:
[email protected]
3
Sr. Transmission Engineer, Leidos Engineering, Home Site, Park City, UT 84098. E-mail:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pedro Bengochea on 04/13/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

[email protected]

ABSTRACT
The various software suites for concrete drilled shaft foundation designs utilized in the
electric transmission line utility industry make different modeling assumptions for analysis. The
objective of this study was to conduct a comparative analysis of drilled shafts, subject to
transmission line monopole structure loading conditions, designed using the programs LPile by
Ensoft, Inc., moment foundation analysis and design (MFAD) by Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI), maintained by DiGioia Gray and Associates, and CAISSON by Power Line
Systems, Inc. While the programs' main difference is the modeling of the drilled pier behavior,
this study focused on how each program accounted for the interaction of the foundation shafts
with the surrounding subsurface. Additionally, the effect of the submerged unit weight of the
subsurface due to the presence of groundwater, is also considered as an input variation parameter
in this study. Multiple foundation shaft sizes, with varying aspect ratios, were analyzed for a
combination of different subsurface material properties and structural loads. The performance of
each of the foundation designs was assessed based on the strength and deflection criteria. By
comparing the resulting designs, this study provides guidelines to help optimize a drilled shaft
design for a given set of parameters.

INTRODUCTION
Drilled shaft and direct embedded foundation types have been widely utilized to support
transmission line structures subjected to line loads. In general, any transmission line structure
can be categorized into a rigid or rotational structure based on the system’s resistance to
deformations. In contrast to rigid structures such as lattice towers and braced H-frames where
uplift, compression and shear demands are of significance, foundations of rotational structures
such as monopoles and unbraced H-frames need to be resisted for large overturning moment and
shear demands. Monopole structures, in general, are considered to be aesthetically acceptable
and easier to install than two and four-legged lattice structures. While direct embedded
foundation designs are mostly limited to lightly loaded tangent pole structures, drilled shaft
foundations are more applicable for resisting heavier transmission line loads. This study is
limited to the analysis and design of drilled shaft foundations of rotational structures (e.g.: steel
monopoles).
There is a variety of software tools that perform the analysis and design of drilled shaft
foundations of rotational structures (moment-governed). This study focuses on the software
suites most commonly utilized for the design of Transmission Line Structures Foundations –
MFAD, LPile and CAISSON. The design outputs of all three foundation software packages are
dependent on a set of user-specified inputs that can be categorized based on geotechnical

© ASCE

Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018

 Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018 147

conditions, geometry of the shaft and applied loads. Based on the structural specifications of
different utilities and the geography of the project-site, these input parameters can vary
significantly, thus resulting in vastly different output designs. The primary objective of this study
is to assess the drilled shaft foundation design outputs generated by MFAD, LPile and CAISSON
for a given set of controllably varied geotechnical parameters.
The following sections of this paper not only detail the design methodologies of all three
programs but also delve into several design examples showcasing the effect of geotechnical
parameters on program outputs. Effect of groundwater is studied in this paper by considering
saturated and unsaturated subsurface conditions. This paper also focusses on comparing the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pedro Bengochea on 04/13/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

output results between the three programs while considering the impact of spring contributions
utilized within MFAD. With the results obtained and the observations made, this paper thereby
acknowledges the differences in the methodologies of these programs and ascertains the
significance of performance criteria.

DESIGN METHODOLOGIES
It is crucial to have an understanding of how the subsurface material and shaft capacities are
computed within each program in order to determine the appropriate applicability and degree of
conservatism. As in the case of foundation engineering, soil-structure interaction becomes
significant because of the difference in mobilization of the structure with respect to the soil. Both
LPile and MFAD utilize nonlinear Winkler-spring mechanisms to model the appropriate
nonlinear response of the subsurface material. These responses are then calibrated using results
of full-scale lateral load tests.

A. MFAD, part of FAD Tools International, LLC Design Software

MFAD uses a four-spring load-deflection model to reflect the interaction between the drilled
shaft and the surrounding subsurface, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1- Free-body Diagram (left) and Schematic Diagram (right) [4] of Spring Model used
in MFAD

© ASCE

Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018

 Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018 148

These four types of springs relate the resisting forces acting on the drilled shaft with the
resulting deformations, as follows:
 Lateral translational springs associates the horizontal subsurface reaction on the side of
the shaft. The degree of stiffness of these translational springs depends on the stiffness of
the layer and is quantified using the Deformation Modulus input specified by the user in
MFAD. In short, the lateral resistance offered by the subsurface material layer is a
measure of its stiffness.
 Base shear translational spring associates the horizontal shearing force imposed at the
base of the shaft because of the relative translation of the shaft and the material
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pedro Bengochea on 04/13/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

underneath.
 Base moment rotational spring associates the bending moment imposed at the base of the
shaft because of the relative rotation of the shaft and the material underneath.
 Side shear spring associates the vertical shear force that the shaft experiences due to the
shear friction at the interface.
The capacity of a drilled shaft is a combination of contributions of all these four springs, of
which, the contribution of lateral translational spring in providing resistance is generally the most
significant. MFAD further allows users to turn off the three remaining springs (base shear, base
moment and side shear) to account for conservatism or to further customize the design scenario
(smooth casing, etc.). MFAD assumes that the drilled shaft undergoes a rigid deformation.
MFAD = RIGID
Deformation moduli utilized by MFAD to compute lateral resistance offered by the soil, is a
measure of the consistency and the unconfined compressive strength of the resisting material. In
general, soil consistency is determined by resistance tests performed in the field such as the
Standard Penetration Test (SPT). Depending on the type of soil, the MFAD technical manual
provides charts correlating deformation moduli with SPT results.

B. LPile
The subsurface surrounding the pile is modeled as a set of nonlinear springs in LPile to
reflect that the soil resistance p is a nonlinear function of pile deflection y.

Figure 2- Free-body Diagram (left) and Schematic Diagram (right) of Spring Model used in
LPile

© ASCE

Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018

 Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018 149

Table 1 - Geometric and Loading Inputs for Geotechnical Variation Design Example
Loading Inputs Geometric Inputs
Moment 26631 k-ft Diameter 10ft
Shear 266 k Depth 68ft
Axial 189 k Reveal 2ft

Table 2 - Geotechnical Variation Results for cohesive soils

Unit Weight (pcf) Undrained Internal Angle
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pedro Bengochea on 04/13/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Soil Profile Shear Strength of Friction

Total Effective
(ksf), c (degrees), ϕ
Poor 110 47 0.7 30
Average 125 62 1.2 33
Good 135 72 4 40

Table 3- Results for Variation in Cohesive Soils

Maximum Maximum
Maximum Maximum Total Total
Input Pier Internal Pier
Moment Shear Rotation Deflection
Variation Moment (k- Internal
Depth (ft) Depth (ft) (deg) (in)
ft) Shear (k)
28757 13.1 940.6 42.8 2.13 17.8
Poor Clay 28324 8.9 707.5 39.6 0.68 5.6
28582 9.8 791.5 39.4 0.84 6.9
28563 12.4 916.5 42.8 0.44 2.8
Average
27903 6.2 656.6 38.8 0.23 1.9
Clay
28073 6.5 732.4 37.1 0.29 2.2
27833 6.9 1061.2 31.1 0.19 0.6
Good Clay 28120 7.7 699.0 40.2 0.06 0.5
28131 7.3 762.0 38.1 0.07 0.6

LPILE
MFAD
MFAD - Springs OFF

Unlike MFAD, the subsurface model in LPile only utilizes lateral translational springs for
different subsurface material layers, as shown in Figure 2. The p-y curve corresponding to the
top translational spring is used to indicate that the pile is subject to a finite deflection with no
subsurface resistance. LPile assumes that the drilled shaft undergoes a flexible deformation.
LPILE=FLEXIBLE
Derivation of p-y curve models in LPile is based on the results of full-scale foundation load tests.
During a load test on a laterally loaded pile, strain gauges are installed along the length of the
pile that records the strains at each gauge location. From the direct measurement of strain and
curvature, bending moment values can be further derived. Evaluation of mobilized subsurface
resistance along the length of the pile requires two differentiations of bending moment curves

© ASCE

Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018

 Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018 150

with respect to depth. The experimental p-y curves are then plotted showing the distribution of
deflection and subsurface resistance.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pedro Bengochea on 04/13/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 3 - Moment (left), Shear (center) and Deflection (right) Plots for Poor Clay Profile
C. CAISSON
CAISSON fundamentally utilizes modified Broms’ theory to characterize the subsurface
conditions of cohesive and granular soils. Using the empirical test data of single layered, uniform
strength soils, Broms’ theory estimates the lateral soil resistance. In order to demonstrate a
realistic soil model to predict the behavior of a drilled shaft in a layered soil system, Broms’
assumptions are incorporated in CAISSON with certain modifications.
As a result, CAISSON assumes that the drilled shaft undergoes a rigid deformation. The limit
state of failure is total displacement of soil. Based on this assumption, the program doesn’t assess
the performance criteria of a shaft. For the design examples considered in the following sections,
CAISSON computed embedment depths ranging between 25ft and 55ft depending on the grade
of soil profile. These rather liberal results are concordant with the program’s limit state of soil
failure over the drilled shaft. Hence, typically this program is used in conjunction with other
software suites to design a drilled shaft satisfying both strength and performance criteria.
IMPORTANT
DESIGN EXAMPLE SHOWING VARIATION IN GEOTECHNICAL INPUTS
Maximum internal reactions (bending moment and shear force) and the degrees of
deformation (deflection and rotation) of the drilled shaft directly depend on the input parameters
(geotechnical, geometric, and loading). This section covers design examples showing a
systematic variation of geotechnical input conditions while maintaining constant geometric and
loading inputs. Based on their interaction with the foundation shaft, most subsurface materials
can be categorized into cohesive and cohesion-less types. Cohesive soils are fine-grained in

© ASCE

Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018

 Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018 151

nature and provide resistance due to shear strength being developed. Cohesion-less soils are
coarse-grained in nature and provide resistance due to internal friction.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pedro Bengochea on 04/13/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 4 - Moment (left), Shear (center) and Deflection (right) Plots for Average Clay
Profile

Figure 5 - Moment (left), Shear (center) and Deflection (right) Plots for Good Clay Profile

© ASCE

Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018

 Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018 152

Table 4- Results for Variation in Cohesion-less Soils Results for cohesion-less soils
Maximum Maximum
Maximum Maximum Total Total
Input Pier Internal Pier
Moment Shear Rotation Deflection
Variation Moment (k- Internal
Depth (ft) Depth (ft) (deg) (in)
ft) Shear (k)
28931 12.4 794.2 39.3 0.27 1.2
Poor Sand
28741 10.5 757.4 43.7 0.24 2.2
28896 10.5 828.2 42.3 0.29 2.6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pedro Bengochea on 04/13/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Average 28730 11.0 845.7 33.1 0.23 0.9

Sand 28632 10.3 745.6 42.5 0.12 1.1
28757 10.2 808.0 41.4 0.15 1.3
28464 9.0 1004.3 28.3 0.19 0.6
Good Sand
28543 10.0 718.6 40.7 0.06 0.5
28627 9.9 775.0 39.5 0.07 0.5

LPILE
MFAD
MFAD - Springs OFF

Figure 6 - Moment (left), Shear (center) and Deflection (right)

Plots for Poor Sand Profile

© ASCE

Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018

 Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018 153
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pedro Bengochea on 04/13/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 7 - Moment (left), Shear (center) and Deflection (right) Plots for Average Sand
Profile

Figure 8 - Moment (left), Shear (center) and Deflection (right) Plots for Good Sand Profile

© ASCE

Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018

 Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018 154

Problem Statement
A double circuit 150 feet, 90 degree, dead-end 138 kV steel monopole is considered in a
National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) light loading district. Maximum base reactions provided
by the vendor are utilized for the drilled shaft design. Consistent shaft geometry is used in this
design example as tabulated in Table 1. Geotechnical input parameters that are subject to
variation as parts of this example are tabulated in Table 2. Monolithic soil profiles with depths of
75 feet for cohesive and cohesion-less soil types are utilized.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pedro Bengochea on 04/13/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

GROUNDWATER EFFECTS
Karl Terzaghi (1939) once said – “In Engineering practice, difficulties in soils are almost
exclusively due not to the soils themselves but to the water contained in their voids. On a planet
without any water, there would be no need for soil mechanics.”
Seasonal fluctuations in ground water tables caused by floods and heavy rainfalls can
potentially raise the water tables up to or beyond the drilled shaft foundations. The soil loses its
stiffness when submerged, and thus is prone to larger deformations due to the effect of
groundwater. Presence of ground water is more specifically known to have adverse effects on
cohesive type of soils which, during dynamic loading, loses its cohesion.
Within the foundation design software suites, the water table is usually taken into account by
calculating effective soil pressures which excludes the contribution from water.
As part of this comparative study, the same steel monopole is considered within an average
clay soil profile. Scenarios resulting in fully submerged soil profile and fully unsaturated soil
profile are considered to assess how MFAD and LPile results are affected due to the presence of
ground water.

Figure 9 - Moment (left), Shear (center) and Deflection (right) Plots for fully saturated and
unsaturated average clay profiles

© ASCE

Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018

 Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018 155

KEY OBSERVATIONS

 Strength-based observations depict consistent internal moment values calculated across

both programs, with very small percentage differences (less than 3 percent). Comparing
the internal shear results calculated by MFAD and LPile, larger differences in maximum
shear and location (on average 25-30 percent difference) were observed. In general, LPile
calculates larger design capacity outputs than MFAD.
 Performance-based observations depict vast differences in the total deflection and
rotation values calculated by LPile and MFAD. LPile typically calculates larger
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pedro Bengochea on 04/13/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

performance outputs than MFAD. This is due to LPile’s primary modeling assumption of
considering a flexible behavior of a drilled shaft which, in contrast, is assumed as rigid
behavior in MFAD.
 The effect of springs is demonstrated by observing the close resemblance of results in
clay between LPile and MFAD with springs turned off. When springs are turned off in
MFAD, side shear, base shear and base moment contributions are eliminated and only
lateral pressure contribution is in effect. This is very similar to the LPile program’s
methodology of solely considering lateral pressure contribution in calculating soil
capacity.
 Comparing results in clay and sand profiles depict large conservatism in clay type p-y
curve models considered in LPile. Cohesive soils develop more side friction resistance
than cohesion-less soils which has an apparent effect on the conservatism. However, the
p-y curve for ‘Sand’ model selection (Reese) in LPile closely agrees with the empirical
test results utilized in MFAD.
 When studying the effects of groundwater in the structural behavior of drilled shafts, it
can be seen that MFAD has a relatively low sensitivity to its effects compared to LPile.
Within LPile, when ‘Stiff clay with free water’ p-y curve model is chosen to indicate the
presence of groundwater in cohesive soils, lower deflection is magnitude as seen in
Figure 9. This is not truly reflective of the effect of groundwater on cohesive soils. ‘Stiff
clay with free water’ model is typically used for instances with flowing water above the
top of the shaft. ‘Stiff clay without free water’ model is used with effective unit weights
to indicate the presence of groundwater on a drilled shaft design in LPile.

REFERENCES
[1] Nikos Gerolymos, George Gazetas. Development of Winkler model for static and dynamic
response of caisson foundations with soil and interface nonlinearities. Greece; 2005.
[2] David Bonhoff, Ph.D., P.E. Modeling Soil Behavior with Simple Springs. USA.
[3] William M. Isenhower, Ph.D., P.E., Shin-Tower Wang, Ph.D., P.E., L. Gonzalo Vasquez,
Ph.D., P.E. Technical Manual for LPile 2016. USA; 2016.
[4] Electric Power Research Institute, FAD Tools, FAD 5.1 User’s Guide. USA; 2015.
[5] Donald P. Coduto, Foundation Design Principles and Practices Second Edition. USA; 2001.
[6] Transmission Substation Design Operation Symposium (2017), Transmission Line Drilled
Pier Design, Limiting Rotation and Creating a Balanced Performance Criteria. Greg. C.
Parent, P.E., S.E.
[7] Transmission Substation Design Operation Symposium (2017), Comparative Analysis of
Drilled Shafts using LPile and MFAD. Sanchit Chitre, Joel Coker, P.E. and Brian Sedgwick,
P.E.

© ASCE

Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018

 Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018 156

[8] GeoCongress 2012 ASCE 2012, Evaluation of Performance Criteria for Short Laterally
Loaded Drilled Shafts. P.M. Kandaris, P.E., A.M. DiGioia, Jr. Ph.D., P.E., and Z. J. Heim,
P.E.
[9] Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures Conference SEI & ASCE (2015), Study of
Electric Transmission Line Deep Foundation Design. P.M. Kandaris, P.E., and Davidow,
P.E.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pedro Bengochea on 04/13/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

© ASCE

Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures 2018