Chapter 8

GEOTECHNICAL
LRFD DESIGN

GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN MANUAL

January 2019
Geotechnical Design Manual GEOTECHNICAL LRFD DESIGN

Table of Contents

Section Page

8.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................8-1

8.2 LRFD Design Philosophy...........................................................................................8-2
8.3 Limit States ...............................................................................................................8-2
8.4 Types of Loads ..........................................................................................................8-3
8.4.1 Permanent Loads...........................................................................................8-3
8.4.2 Transient Loads .............................................................................................8-5
8.5 Load Combination Limit States ..................................................................................8-8
8.6 Load Modifiers ...........................................................................................................8-9
8.7 Load Combination and Load Factors .........................................................................8-9
8.8 Load Combinations and Factors For Construction Loads ........................................ 8-13
8.9 Operational Classification ........................................................................................8-13
8.10 LRFD Geotechnical Design and Analysis ................................................................8-14
8.10.1 Bridge Foundations ......................................................................................8-14
8.10.2 Embankments ...........................................................................................8-15
8.10.3 Earth Retaining Structures ...........................................................................8-16
8.11 References ..............................................................................................................8-17

January 2019 8-i

Geotechnical Design Manual GEOTECHNICAL LRFD DESIGN

List of Tables

Title Page
Table 8-1, Limit States ..........................................................................................................8-3
Table 8-2, Permanent Load Descriptions ..............................................................................8-4
Table 8-3, Transient Load Descriptions .................................................................................8-5
Table 8-4, Load Combination Limit State Considerations ......................................................8-8
Table 8-5, Load Combination and Load Factors....................................................................8-9
Table 8-6, Load Factors for Permanent Loads, γp ...............................................................8-11
Table 8-7, Uniform Surcharge Pressures ............................................................................8-12
Table 8-8, Unit Weights of Common Materials ....................................................................8-13
Table 8-9, Shallow Foundation Limit States ........................................................................8-15
Table 8-10, Deep Foundation Limit States ..........................................................................8-15
Table 8-11, Embankment Limit States ................................................................................8-16
Table 8-12, Earth Retaining Structures Limit States ............................................................8-17

8-ii January 2019

 CHAPTER 8
GEOTECHNICAL LRFD DESIGN

8.1 INTRODUCTION

Geotechnical engineering analyses and designs for transportation structures have traditionally
been based on Allowable Stress Design (ASD), also known as Working Stress Design (WSD).
Transportation structures that require geotechnical engineering are bridge foundations, sign and
lighting foundations, Earth Retaining Structures (ERSs: MSE walls, reinforced concrete walls,
cantilever walls, etc.), and embankments (both bridge and road). The primary guidance for the
ASD design methodology has been the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges
(17th edition – last edition published 2002) and various Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
geotechnical engineering publications. The ASD methodology is based on limiting the stresses
induced by the applied loads (Q, which includes dead loads - DL and live loads - LL) on a
component/member from exceeding the allowable (or working) stress of the material (Rall). The
allowable stress of a material is computed by dividing the nominal strength of the material (Rn)
by an appropriate factor of safety (FS) as indicated in the following equation.

𝑹𝑹𝒏𝒏
𝑸𝑸 = ∑ 𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫 + ∑ 𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳 ≤ 𝑹𝑹𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂𝒂 = Equation 8-1
𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭

This design approach uses a single factor of safety to account for all of the geotechnical
engineering uncertainties. The ASD factors of safety do not appropriately take into account
variability associated with the predictive accuracy of dead loads, live loads, wind loads, and
seismic loads or the different levels of uncertainty associated with design methodology, material
properties, site variability, material sampling, and material testing. The assignment of ASD
factors of safety has traditionally been based on experience and judgment. This methodology
does not permit a consistent or rational method of accessing risk.

In 1986 an NCHRP study (20-7/31) concluded that the AASHTO Standard Specifications for
Highway Bridges contained gaps and inconsistencies, and did not use the latest design
philosophy and knowledge. In response, AASHTO adopted the Load and Resistance Factor
Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specification in 1994 and the Load and Resistance Factor Rating
(LRFR) Guide Specification in 2002. The current AASHTO LRFD Specifications incorporate
state-of-the-art analysis and design methodologies with load and resistance factors based on
the known variability of applied loads and material properties. These load and resistance factors
are calibrated from actual statistics to ensure a uniform level of safety. Because of LRFD's
impact on the safety, reliability, and serviceability of the Nation's bridge inventory, AASHTO, in
concurrence with the FHWA, set a transition deadline of 2007 for bridges and 2010 for culverts,
retaining walls and other miscellaneous structures. After this date, States must design all new
structures in accordance with the LRFD design methodology.

SCDOT is committed to using the LRFD design methodology on structures including all aspects
of geotechnical engineering analysis and design. In this Manual the term AASHTO LRFD
Specifications refers to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition (2017),
unless indicated otherwise. The LRFD geotechnical design approach is presented in Chapters
8, 9, and 10 of this Manual. All tables in this Chapter have been modified and adapted from the
AASHTO LRFD Specifications unless indicated otherwise. The geotechnical design
methodology presented in this Manual provides guidance on how to apply the LRFD
geotechnical design approach into geotechnical engineering analyses for SCDOT projects.

January 2019 8-1

Geotechnical Design Manual GEOTECHNICAL LRFD DESIGN

8.2 LRFD DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

Basic to all good engineering design methodologies (including ASD and LRFD) is that when a
Load (Q or Demand) is placed on a component/member, there is sufficient Resistance (R or
Capacity) to insure that an established performance criterion is not exceeded. This concept is
illustrated by the following equation:

𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳 (𝑸𝑸) ≤ 𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹 (𝑹𝑹) Equation 8-2

The Load and Resistance quantities can be expressed as force, stress, strain, displacement,
number of cycles, temperature, or some other parameter that results in structural or
performance failure of a component/member. The level of inequality between the Load and
Resistance side of Equation 8-2 represents the uncertainty. In order to have an acceptable
design the uncertainties must be mitigated by applying an appropriate margin of safety in the
design.

The LRFD design methodology mitigates the uncertainties by applying individual load factors (γ)
and a load modifier (η) to each type of load (Qi). On the resistance side of the equation a
resistance factor (ϕ) is applied to the nominal resistance (Rn). The sum of the factored loads, Q,
placed on the component/member must not exceed the factored resistance of the
component/member in order to have satisfactory performance. The following equation
illustrates the basic LRFD design concept.

𝑸𝑸 = ∑ 𝜼𝜼𝒊𝒊 𝜸𝜸𝒊𝒊 𝑸𝑸𝒊𝒊 ≤ 𝝋𝝋𝑹𝑹𝒏𝒏 = 𝑹𝑹𝒓𝒓 Equation 8-3

Where,
Q = Factored Load
Qi = Force Effect
ηi = Load modifier
γi = Load factor
Rr = Factored Resistance
Rn = Nominal Resistance (i.e., ultimate capacity)
ϕ = Resistance Factor

Equation 8-3 is applicable to more than 1 load combination as defined by the condition that
defines the “Limit State”.

8.3 LIMIT STATES

A “Limit State” is a condition beyond which a component/member of a foundation or other

structure ceases to satisfy the provisions for which the component/member was designed. The
AASHTO LRFD Specifications has defined the following limit states for use in design:

• Strength Limit State • Extreme Event Limit State

• Service Limit State • Fatigue Limit State

8-2 January 2019

Geotechnical Design Manual GEOTECHNICAL LRFD DESIGN

The Fatigue Limit State is the only limit state that is not used in geotechnical analyses or design.
A description of the limit states that are used in geotechnical engineering are provided in the
following table.

Table 8-1, Limit States

(Modified from Wilson, et al. (2007))
Limit State Description
A design boundary condition considered to ensure that strength and stability are
provided to resist specified load combinations, and avoid the total or partial
Strength collapse of the structure. Examples of Strength limit states in geotechnical
engineering include bearing failure, sliding, and earth loadings for structural
analysis.
A design boundary condition for structure performance under intended service
loads, and accounts for some acceptable measure of structure movement
throughout the structure’s performance life. Examples include vertical settlement
Service
of a foundation or lateral displacement of a retaining wall. Another example of a
Service limit state condition is the rotation of a rocker bearing on an abutment
caused by instability of the earth slope that supports the abutment.
Evaluation of a structural member/component at this limit state considers a loading
combination that represents an excessive or infrequent design boundary condition.
Extreme Event Such conditions may include vessel impacts, vehicle impact, check flood (500-year
(EE) flow event), and seismic events. Because the probability of these events occurring
during the life of the structure is relatively small, a smaller margin of safety is
appropriate when evaluating this limit state.

8.4 TYPES OF LOADS

AASHTO specifications classify loads as either permanent loads or transient loads.

8.4.1 Permanent Loads

Permanent loads are present for the life of the structure and do not change over time.
Permanent loads are generally very predictable. The following is a list of all loads identified by
AASHTO LRFD Specifications as permanent loads:

• Force Effects Due to Creep – CR • Locked-In Erection Stresses – EL

• Dead Load of Components – DC • Vertical Earth Pressure – EV
• Downdrag – DD • Earth Load Surcharge – ES
• Dead Load of Wearing Surface and • Secondary Forces from
Utilities – DW Post-tensioning – PS
• Horizontal Earth Pressures – EH • Force Effects Due to Shrinkage – SH

A brief description for each of these permanent loads is provided in Table 8-2. For a complete
description and method of computing these loads see the AASHTO LRFD Specifications.

January 2019 8-3

Geotechnical Design Manual GEOTECHNICAL LRFD DESIGN

Table 8-2, Permanent Load Descriptions

(Modified from AASHTO LRFD Specifications (2017) and Wilson, et al. (2007))
AASHTO
Definition Description
Designation
These loads are internal force effects that develop on structure
components as a result of creep and shrinkage of materials.
CR Creep
These forces should be considered for substructure design
when applicable.
Dead load of These loads include the weight of both fabricated structure
structural components (e.g., structural steel girders and prestressed
DC
components and concrete beams) and cast-in-place structure components (e.g.,
nonstructural deck slabs, abutments, and footings). DC loads also include
attachments nonstructural attachments such as lighting and signs.
When a deep foundation is installed through a soil layer that is
subject to relative settlement of the surrounding soil to the deep
foundation, downdrag forces are induced on the deep
foundation. The magnitude of DD load may be computed in a
similar manner as the positive shaft resistance calculation.
Allowance may need to be made for the possible increase in
undrained shear strength as consolidation occurs. For the
strength limit state, the factored downdrag loads are added to
DD Downdrag the factored vertical dead load in the assessment of pile
capacity. For the Service limit state, the downdrag loads are
added to the vertical dead load in the assessment of settlement.
Downdrag forces can also occur in the EE I limit state due to
downdrag forces resulting from soil liquefaction of loose sandy
soil. Measures to mitigate downdrag are typically used by
applying a thin coat of bitumen on the deep foundation surface
or some other means of reducing surface friction on the pile may
reduce downdrag forces.
Dead load of These loads include asphalt wearing surfaces, future overlays
DW wearing surfaces and planned widening, as well as miscellaneous items (e.g.,
and utilities scuppers, railings and supported utility services).
These loads are the force effects of horizontal earth pressures
due to partial or full embedment into soil. These horizontal earth
pressures are those resulting from static load effects.

The magnitude of horizontal earth pressure loads on a

substructure are a function of:
Horizontal earth • Structure type (e.g., gravity, cantilever, anchored, or MSE
EH wall)
pressure load
• Type, unit weight, and shear strength of the retained
earth
• Anticipated or permissible magnitude and direction of
horizontal substructure movement
• Compaction effort used during placement of soil backfill
• Location of the ground water table within the retained soil

8-4 January 2019

Geotechnical Design Manual GEOTECHNICAL LRFD DESIGN

Table 8-2 (Continued), Permanent Load Descriptions

(Modified from AASHTO LRFD Specifications (2017) and Wilson, et al. (2007))
These loads are accumulated locked-in force effects resulting
from the construction process, typically resulting from segmental
Locked-in
superstructure construction. These would include precast
EL erection
prestressed or post-tensioned concrete structures. For
stresses
substructure designs, these force effects are small enough and
can be ignored.
The vertical pressure of earth fill dead load acts on the top of
Vertical pressure
footings and on the back face of battered wall and abutment
EV from dead load of
stems. The load is determined by multiplying the volume of fill by
earth fill
the density and the gravitational acceleration (unit weight).
Surcharge loads are the force effects on the backs of ERSs.
Earth surcharge
ES These effects must be considered in the design of walls and
load
bridge abutments.
Post-tensioning The post-tensioning forces imposed on a continuous structure
PS
forces supports and any internal forces.
These loads are internal force effects that develop on structure
SH Shrinkage components as a result of shrinkage of materials. These forces
should be considered for substructure design when applicable.

8.4.2 Transient Loads

Transient loads may only be present for a short amount of time, may change direction, and
are generally less predictable than permanent loads. Transient loads include the following:

• Blast Loading – BL • Vehicular live load – LL

• Vehicular braking force – BR • Live load surcharge – LS
• Vehicular centrifugal force – CE • Pedestrian live load – PL
• Vehicular collision force – CT • Settlement – SE
• Vessel collision force – CV • Temperature gradient – TG
• Earthquake – EQ • Uniform temperature – TU
• Friction – FR • Water load and stream pressure – WA
• Ice load – IC • Wind on live load – WL
• Vehicular dynamic load allowance – IM • Wind load on structure – WS

A brief description for each of these transient loads is provided in Table 8-3. For a complete
description and method of computing these loads see the AASHTO LRFD Specifications.

Table 8-3, Transient Load Descriptions

(Modified from AASHTO LRFD Specifications (2017) and Wilson, et al. (2007))
AASHTO
Definition Description
Designation
The force effects of a blast loading, either intentional or
BL Blast Loading
unintentional, on either a bridge or bridge component.
The force effects of vehicle braking that are represented as a
Vehicular
BR horizontal force effect along the length of a bridge that is resisted
braking force
by the structure foundations.

January 2019 8-5

Geotechnical Design Manual GEOTECHNICAL LRFD DESIGN

Table 8-3 (Continued), Transient Load Descriptions

(Modified from AASHTO LRFD Specifications (2017) and Wilson, et al. (2007))
These loads are the force effects of vehicles traveling on a bridge
Vehicular located along a horizontal curve and that generate a centrifugal
CE
centrifugal force force effect that must be considered in design. For substructure
design, centrifugal forces represent a horizontal force effect.
Vehicular These loads are the force effects of collisions by roadway and rail
CT
collision force vehicles.
These loads are the force effects of vessel collision by ships and
barges due to their proximity to navigable waterways. The
Vessel collision
CV principal factors affecting the risk and consequences of vessel
force
collisions with substructures in a waterway are related to vessel,
waterway, and bridge characteristics.
(DO NOT USE AASHTO FOR DETERMINATION OF EQ
LOADS) These loads are the earthquake force effects that are
predominately horizontal and act through the center of mass of
the structure. Because most of the weight of a bridge is in the
superstructure, seismic loads are assumed to act through the
bridge deck. These loads are due to inertial effects and therefore
are proportional to the weight and acceleration of the
superstructure. The effects of vertical components of earthquake
ground motions are typically small and are usually neglected
except for complex bridges. The SCDOT Seismic Specs
EQ Earthquake
specifies 2 design earthquakes to be used:
• Functional Evaluation Earthquake (FEE). The ground
shaking having a 15% probability of exceedance in 75
years
• Safety Evaluation Earthquake (SEE). The ground
shaking having a 3% probability of exceedance in 75
years
For information on how to compute EQ loads for geotechnical
earthquake engineering analyses see Chapters 11, 12, 13 and 14
of this Manual and the SCDOT Seismic Specs.
FR Friction Forces due to friction as a result of sliding or rotation of surfaces.
Ice force effects on piers as a result of ice flows, thickness of ice,
and geometry of piers. In South Carolina this factor is typically
IC Ice Load not used on bridges. Ice force effects (i.e., the weight of ice)
should be considered in the design of overhead signs, signals
and sound walls.
These loads are the force effects of dynamic vehicle loading on
structures. For foundations and abutments supporting bridges,
Vehicular these force effects are incorporated into the loads used for
IM dynamic load superstructure design. For retaining walls not subject to vertical
allowance superstructure reactions and for foundation components
completely below ground level, the dynamic load allowance is not
applicable.

8-6 January 2019

Geotechnical Design Manual GEOTECHNICAL LRFD DESIGN

Table 8-3 (Continued), Transient Load Descriptions

(Modified from AASHTO LRFD Specifications (2017) and Wilson, et al. (2007))
Thees loads are the force effects of vehicular live load (truck
traffic). The force effects of truck traffic are in part modeled using
a highway design “umbrella” vehicle designated HL-93 to
represent typical variations in axle loads and spacing. The HL-93
Vehicular live vehicular live load consists of a combination of a design truck
LL
load HS20-44 and a design lane loading that simulates a truck train
combined with a concentrated load to generate a maximum
moment or shear effect for the component being designed, and
an impact load (not used on lane loadings) to account for the
sudden application of the truck loading to the structure.
These loads are the force effects of traffic loads on backfills that
must be considered in the design of walls and abutments. These
force effects are considered as an equivalent surcharge. Live
Live load load surcharge effects produce a horizontal pressure component
LS
surcharge on a wall in addition to horizontal earth loads. If traffic is
expected within a distance behind a wall equal to about half of
the wall height, the live load traffic surcharge is assumed to act
on the retained earth surface.
These loads are the force effects of pedestrian and/or bicycle
Pedestrian live
PL traffic loads that are placed on bridge sidewalks or pedestrian
load
bridges.
These loads are internal force effects that develop on structure
SE Settlement components as a result of differential settlement between
substructures and within substructure units.
These loads are internal force effects and deformations that
develop on structure components as a result of positive and
Temperature
TG negative temperature gradients with depth in component’s
gradient
cross-section. These forces should be considered for
substructure design when applicable.
These loads are internal force effects that develop on structure
Uniform components as a result of thermal movement associated with
TU
temperature uniform temperature changes in the materials. These forces
should be considered for substructure design when applicable.
These loads are the force effects on structures due to water
loading and include static pressure, buoyancy, and stream
pressure. Static water and the effects of buoyancy need to be
Water load and considered whenever substructures are constructed below a
WA
stream pressure temporary or permanent ground water level. Buoyancy effects
must be considered during the design of a spread footing or pile
cap located below the water elevation. Stream pressure effects
include stream currents and waves, and floating debris.
These loads are the wind force effects on live loads. The WL
Wind on live
WL force should only be applied to portions of the structure that add
load
to the force effect being investigated.

January 2019 8-7

Geotechnical Design Manual GEOTECHNICAL LRFD DESIGN

Table 8-3 (Continued), Transient Load Descriptions

(Modified from AASHTO LRFD Specifications (2017) and Wilson, et al. (2007))
These loads are the wind force effects of horizontal wind
pressure on the structure. The effects of vertical wind pressure
on the underside of bridges due to an interruption of the
horizontal flow of air and the effects of aero-elastic instability
represent special load conditions that are typically taken into
account for long-span bridges. For small and/or low structures,
wind loading does not usually govern the design. However, for
Wind load on
WS large and/or tall bridges, wind loading can govern the design and
structure
should be investigated.

Where wind loading is important, the wind pressure should be

evaluated from 2 or more different directions for the windward
(facing the wind), leeward (facing away from the wind), and side
pressures to determine which produce the most critical loads on
the structure.

8.5 LOAD COMBINATION LIMIT STATES

The limit states are subdivided based on consideration of applicable load. The design of
foundations supporting bridge piers or abutments should consider all limit state loading
conditions applicable to the structure being designed. A description of the load combination
limit states that are used in geotechnical engineering is provided in Table 8-4. Most
substructure designs will require the evaluation of foundation and structure performance at the
Strength I and Service I limit states. These limit states are generally similar to evaluations of
ultimate capacity and deformation behavior in ASD, respectively.

Table 8-4, Load Combination Limit State Considerations

(Modified from Wilson, et al. (2007))
Load
Combination Load Combination Considerations
Limit State
Strength I Basic load combination relating to the normal vehicular use of the bridge without wind.
Load combination relating to the use of the bridge by Owner-specified special design
Strength II
vehicles and/or evaluation permit vehicles, without wind.
Load combination relating to the bridge exposed to wind velocity exceeding 55 mph
Strength III
without live loads.
Load combination relating to very high dead load to live load force effect ratios in the
Strength IV
bridge substructures exceeding about 7.0 (e.g., for spans greater than 250 ft.).
Load combination relating to normal vehicular use of the bridge with wind velocity of 55
Strength V
mph.
Extreme Load combination including the effects of the design earthquakes. South Carolina
Event I uses 2 design earthquakes (SEE and FEE).
Extreme Load combination relating to collision by vessels and vehicles, check flood (500-year
Event II flow event), and certain hydraulic events.
Load combination relating to the normal operational use of the bridge with 55 mph
Service I
wind.

8-8 January 2019

 Geotechnical Design Manual GEOTECHNICAL LRFD DESIGN

8.6 LOAD MODIFIERS

AASHTO LRFD methodology allows each factored load to be adjusted by a load modifier, ηi.
This load modifier, ηi, accounts for the combined effects of ductility, ηD, redundancy, ηR, and
operational importance, ηI. In geotechnical design load modifiers are not used to account for
the influence of ductility, redundancy, and operational importance on structure performance.
The influences of redundancy and operational importance have been incorporated into the
selection of the geotechnical resistance factors. Therefore, a load modifier of 1.0 shall be used
by the SCDOT for all geotechnical engineering analyses.

8.7 LOAD COMBINATION AND LOAD FACTORS

Load factors vary for different load types and limit states to reflect either the certainty with which
the load can be estimated or the importance of each load category for a particular limit state.
Table 8-5 provides load combinations and appropriate load factors to be used on SCDOT
geotechnical designs. This table is based on the AASHTO LRFD Specifications.

These load factors apply only to geotechnical structures. For bridges and structures located
along roadways, the SEOR is responsible for evaluating the load combinations and load factors
and providing the loads to the geotechnical engineers for analyses. For geotechnical structures,
the GEOR will be responsible for determining the load combinations and load factors for their
geotechnical structure (embankments, MSE walls-external stability, reinforced slopes, etc.).
Some analytical methods have not been calibrated for LRFD design methodology.
Geotechnical analyses that have not been calibrated include, global stability analyses (static
and seismic), and liquefaction induced geotechnical seismic hazards. For these analyses a
load factor (γ) of unity (1.0) shall be used.

Table 8-5, Load Combination and Load Factors

(Modified from AASHTO LRFD Specifications (2017))
DC
DD
DW
Note: Use Only One of
EH
Load These Load Types at a Time
EV LL
Combination
ES IM
Limit State
EL CE TU
PS BR
CR PL
SH LS WA WS WL FR Min Max TG SE EQ BL IC CT CV
Strength I γP 1.75 1.00 ---- ---- 1.00 0.50 1.20 γTG γSE ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Strength II γP 1.35 1.00 ---- ---- 1.00 0.50 1.20 γTG γSE ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Strength III γP ---- 1.00 1.00 ---- 1.00 0.50 1.20 γTG γSE ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Strength IV γP ---- 1.00 ---- ---- 1.00 0.50 1.20 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Strength V γP 1.35 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.20 γTG γSE ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Extreme
1.00 γEQ 1.00 ---- ---- 1.00 ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.00 ---- ---- ---- ----
Event I
Extreme
1.00 0.50 1.00 ---- ---- 1.00 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Event II
Service I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.20 γTG γSE ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

January 2019 8-9

Geotechnical Design Manual GEOTECHNICAL LRFD DESIGN

Observations about the magnitude and relationship between various the load factors indicated
in Table 8-5 are listed below:

• A load factor of 1.00 is used for all permanent and most transient loads for Service I.
• The live load factor for Strength I is greater than that for Strength II
(i.e., 1.75 versus 1.35) because variability of live load is greater for normal vehicular
traffic than for a permit vehicle.
• The live load factor for Strength I is greater than that for Strength V
(i.e., 1.75 versus 1.35) because variability of live load is greater for normal vehicular
use without wind than for a bridge subjected to a wind of 55 mph, and because less
traffic is anticipated during design wind conditions.
• The live load factor for Strength III is zero because vehicular traffic is considered
unstable and therefore unlikely under extreme wind conditions.

The load factor temperature gradient (γTG) shall be selected by the SEOR in accordance with
AASHTO LRFD Specifications or other governing design specifications. The load settlement
factor (γSE) should be selected on a project-specific basis, typically it is taken as γSE = 1.0. The
blast load factor (γBL) shall only be used as directed by the Department and is not anticipated
being required in geotechnical design.

AASHTO requires that certain permanent loads and transient loads be factored using maximum
and minimum load factors, as shown in Table 8-6. The concept of using maximum and
minimum factored loads in geotechnical engineering can be associated with using these load
factors (max. and min.) to achieve a load combination that produces the largest driving force
and the smallest resisting force. Criteria for the application of the permanent load factors (γP,
γEQ) are presented below:

• Load factors should be selected to produce the largest total factored force effect
under investigation.
• Both maximum and minimum extremes should be investigated for each load
combination.
• For load combinations where a force effect decreases the effect of another force, the
minimum value should be applied to the load that reduces the force effect.
• The load factor that produces the more critical combination of permanent force
effects should be selected from Table 8-6.
• If a permanent load increases the stability or load-carrying capacity of a structural
component (e.g., load from soil backfill on the heel of a wall), the minimum value for
that permanent load must also be investigated.

8-10 January 2019

Geotechnical Design Manual GEOTECHNICAL LRFD DESIGN

Table 8-6, Load Factors for Permanent Loads, γp

(Modified from AASHTO LRFD Specifications (2017))
Load Factor
Type of Load
Maximum Minimum
DC: Component and Attachment 1.25 0.90
DC: Strength IV Only 1.50 0.90
DD: Driven Piles (α (Tomlinson) Method) 1.40 0.25
Downdrag on
Driven Piles (λ Method) 1.05 0.30
Deep
Foundations Drilled Shafts (O’Neill & Reese 2010 Method) 1.25 0.35
DW: Wearing Surface and Utilities 1.50 0.65
EH: Active 1.50 0.90
Horizontal
At-Rest 1.35 0.90
Earth
Pressure Apparent Earth Pressure (AEP) for Anchored Walls 1.35 N/A
EL: Locked-in Erection Stresses 1.00 1.00
Overall Stability 1.00 N/A
Retaining Walls and Abutments 1.35 1.00
Rigid Buried Structure 1.30 0.90
EV:
Rigid Frames 1.35 0.90
Vertical
Earth Flexible Buried Structures
Pressures Metal Box Culverts, Structural Plate Culverts with Deep
1.50 0.90
Corrugations, and Fiberglass Culverts
Thermoplastic Culverts 1.30 0.90
All Others 1.95 0.90
ES: Earth Surcharge 1.50 0.75

The load factors for downdrag loads (DD) are specific to the method used to compute the load.
Only maximum load factors for permanent loads (γp) are applicable for downdrag loads (DD),
these represent the uncertainty in accurately estimating downdrag loads on piles. If the
downdrag load acts to resist a permanent uplift force effect, the minimum load factor will be
utilized.

Typically in South Carolina the earthquake load factor (γEQ) used in Extreme Event I (EE I) live
load combinations is 0.0, unless otherwise determined by the Department.

Typical transient loads used to design geotechnical structures for pedestrian live loads (PL), and
live load surcharge (LS) shall be computed using the values indicated in Table 8-7. When traffic
live loads (LL) are necessary, the AASHTO LRFD Specifications shall be used.

January 2019 8-11

Geotechnical Design Manual GEOTECHNICAL LRFD DESIGN

Table 8-7, Uniform Surcharge Pressures

Uniform
Material Description Pressure
(psf)
Sidewalk widths 2.0 ft or wider 75
PL: Pedestrian Live Load Bridge walkways or bicycle
pathways
90
(1)
LS : Live load uniform surcharge at bridge Habut ≤ 5 ft. 500
(3)
abutments perpendicular to traffic Habut = 10 ft. 375
Where Habut = Abutment Height Habut ≥ 20 ft. 250
(1, 2)
LS : Live Load Surcharge on Retaining Hwall ≤ 5 ft. 625
Walls Parallel To Traffic Where Hwall = Wall 5 ft. < Hwall ≤ 20 ft. 440
Height and distance from back of wall = 0.0
ft. Hwall > 20 ft. 250
LS
(1, 2)
: Live Load Surcharge on Retaining Hwall ≤ 5 ft. 250
Walls Parallel To Traffic Where Hwall = Wall 5 ft. < Hwall ≤ 20 ft. 250
Height and distance from back of wall ≥ 1.0 ft Hwall > 20 ft. 250
(1)
LS : Live Load Surcharge on embankments 250
Uniform Pressure equal to γs heq as per AASHTO specifications distributed over the traffic lanes. Where the unit
(1)

weight of the soil, γs, is taken as 125 pcf and the surcharge equivalent height is heq.
(2)
Traffic lanes shall be assumed to extend up to the location of a physical barrier such as a guardrail. If no
guardrail or other type of barrier exists, traffic shall be assumed to extend to the back of the wall.
(3)
For abutment heights between 5 and 10 feet and 10 and 20 feet linearly interpolate uniform pressure.

Dead loads computed for components (DC), wearing surfaces and utilities (DW), and vertical
earth pressures (EV) shall be computed using the unit weights of the materials. In the absence
of specific unit weights of materials, the values indicated in Table 8-8 should be used.

8-12 January 2019

Geotechnical Design Manual GEOTECHNICAL LRFD DESIGN

Table 8-8, Unit Weights of Common Materials

(Modified from AASHTO LRFD Specifications (2017))
Unit Weight
Material Description
(pcf)
Bituminous (AC) Wearing Surfaces 140
Steel 490
Hard 60
Wood
Soft 50
Lightweight 110 - 135
Unreinforced
Normal Weight (f c ≤ 5.0 ksi)
’
(1) 145
Concrete
Normal Weight (5.0 ksi < f c ≤ 15.0 ksi) (f c - ksi)
’ ’ ’
140 + 0.001* f c
Compacted Soils 120
Very Loose to Loose Sand 100
Medium to Dense Sand 125
Soils
Dense to Very Dense Sand 130
(moist)
Very Soft to Soft Clay 110
Medium Clay 118
Stiff to Very Stiff Clay 125
Rolled Gravel or ballast 140
Crushed Stone 95
Rock Gravel 100
Weathered Rock (PWR) 155
Basement Metamorphic or Igneous Rock 165
Fresh 62.4
Water
Salt 64.0
1
For reinforced concrete, add 5 pcf

8.8 LOAD COMBINATIONS AND FACTORS FOR CONSTRUCTION LOADS

In the design of geotechnical structures the GEOR must take into consideration potential
construction loadings and sequence of construction into the design of geotechnical structures.
When a construction method is specified, such as staged construction, and specialty ground
improvement (prefabricated vertical drains (PVDs), surcharges, geosynthetic reinforcement,
aggregate columns, etc.), or when temporary structures such as temporary MSE walls, sheet
piling, etc. are designed, the Strength I limit state shall be used with the following modifications
to the load factors. The maximum permanent load factor (γP) for permanent loads DC and DW
shall be at least 1.25 and the maximum load factor for transient loads LL, PL, and LS shall be at
least 1.30. Construction plans and specifications of construction methods and temporary
construction structures must include construction limitations and sequence of construction used
in developing the design.

8.9 OPERATIONAL CLASSIFICATION

An Operational classification (OC) has been developed for all “typical” bridges on the South
Carolina transportation system. “Typical” bridges are those bridges whose design is governed
by the Seismic Specs. These classifications have been developed specifically for the South
Carolina transportation system and are defined in the Seismic Specs. OC serves to assist in
providing guidance as to the operational (i.e., the post-seismic event Service and Damage
Level) requirements of the structure being designed as well as the design effort that will be
required. The Performance Limits in Chapter 10 have been established for the various
structures based on the OC. This is particularly evident when evaluating geotechnical
earthquake engineering analyses/designs.

January 2019 8-13

Geotechnical Design Manual GEOTECHNICAL LRFD DESIGN

8.10 LRFD GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

The limit state that is selected for geotechnical engineering analyses/designs is dependent on
the performance limit state and the probability of the loading condition. Guidance in selecting
limit states for geotechnical analyses of Bridge Foundations, Embankments, and ERSs are
provided in the following subsections.

8.10.1 Bridge Foundations

The design of foundations supporting bridge piers or abutments should consider all limit state
loading conditions applicable. Strength limit states are used to evaluate a condition of total or
partial collapse. The Strength limit state is typically evaluated in terms of shear or bending
stress failure.

The Service limit state is typically evaluated in terms of excessive deformation in the forms of
settlement, lateral displacement, or rotation. The Service II, III and IV limit states are used to
evaluate specific critical structural components and are not generally applicable to foundation
design.

The EE I limit state is used to evaluate seismic loadings and its effect on the bridge. The EE II
limit state is used for the evaluation of vessel impact or vehicle impact and for the effect of the
check flood on the bridge structure. The EE I limit state may control the design of foundations
in seismically active areas. The EE II limit state may control the design of foundations or piers
that may be exposed to vehicle or vessel impacts or may be exposed to the check flood (500-
year flow event).

With respect to deformation, (i.e.,, horizontal deflection or settlement), the Service I limit state or
the EE I limit state will control the design. Performance measures and the corresponding limit
states for design of shallow foundations and deep foundations are provided in Tables 8-9 and
8-10, respectively.

Bridge foundation design for a given limit state shall take into account the change in foundation
condition resulting from scour analyses.

• Strength – used to determine nominal resistance for axial stability and critical
penetration depth for lateral stability (includes design (100-yr) flood scour);
• Service – used to determine displacements (includes design (100-yr) flood scour);
• Extreme Event I – used to determine axial resistance and lateral stability in seismic;
• Extreme Event II – 1) used to determine axial resistance and lateral stability for
impact (vessel/vehicle) load, and 2) used to determine axial resistance and lateral
stability for the check (500-yr) flood scour.

8-14 January 2019

Geotechnical Design Manual GEOTECHNICAL LRFD DESIGN

Table 8-9, Shallow Foundation Limit States

Limit States
Performance Measure Extreme
Strength Service
Event
Soil Bearing Resistance √ √
Sliding Frictional Resistance √ √
Sliding Passive Resistance √ √
Structural Capacity √ √
Lateral Displacement √ √
Vertical Settlement √ √

Table 8-10, Deep Foundation Limit States

Limit States
Performance Measure Extreme
Strength Service
Event
Axial Compression Load √ √
Axial Uplift Load √ √
Structural Capacity √ √
Lateral Displacements √ √
Settlement √ √

8.10.2 Embankments

The predominant loads influencing the stability of an embankment are dead weight, earth
pressure, and live load surcharge. According to Abu-Hejleh, et al. (2011):

Overall stability should be theoretically addressed under the Strength limit state
because it is the shear strength that is being evaluated and the consequence of
failure is global instability. However, it is investigated under the Service limit
state (Article 11.6.2.3, AASHTO LRFD Specifications quoted below) because soil
weight appears on both the load and resistance sides of the equation and the
analytical consequence is complex.

AASHTO LRFD Specifications (2017) states:

The overall stability of the retaining wall, retained slope and foundation soil or
rock shall be evaluated for all walls using limiting equilibrium methods of
analysis. The overall stability of temporary cut slopes to facilitate construction
shall also be evaluated.…

The evaluation of overall stability of earth slopes (embankments) with or without

a foundation unit should be investigated at the Service I Load Combination and
an appropriate resistance factor.

The Service I limit state and the EE limit states will control the deformation and overall stability
of the embankment design. When evaluating the embankment with respect to seismic loads,
the EE I limit state is used; however, see Chapter 17 for no analysis condition requirements.

January 2019 8-15

Geotechnical Design Manual GEOTECHNICAL LRFD DESIGN

The EE I limit state may control the design in seismically active areas. All bridge embankments
shall be designed for Service and EE limit states. Roadway embankments shall be designed for
the Service limit state only. It is noted the vessel/vehicle impact loading of EE II shall not be
used in the design of embankments.

• Service – used to determine the nominal stability of the slope (includes design (100-
yr) flood scour);
• Extreme Event I – used to determine the stability of the slope in seismic events;
• Extreme Event II – used to determine the stability of the slope including the check
(500-yr) flood scour

Both the SEE and FEE events shall be used in EE I design; however, if adequate resistance
factors and displacements are achieved using the SEE EE I loads, then the GEOR may elect
not to use the FEE event. The report shall indicate that the FEE event was not used and shall
indicate why this event was not used. Performance measures and corresponding limit state for
design of embankments are provided in Table 8-11.

Table 8-11, Embankment Limit States

Limit States
Performance Measure Extreme
Strength Service
Event
Lateral Squeeze √ √
Lateral Displacements √ √
Vertical Settlement √ √
Overall Stability √ √

8.10.3 Earth Retaining Structures

The predominant loads influencing the stability of ERSs are dead weight, earth pressure, and
live load surcharge. The Strength I and IV limit state load combinations have the largest dead,
earth and live load factors and therefore control the design at the Strength limit state. The
Strength limit state is evaluated for bearing, sliding, and overturning. The Service I limit state
and the EE limit states will control the deformation performance limits for ERSs. When
evaluating the ERSs with respect to seismic loads, the EE I limit state is used. The EE I limit
state may control the design in more seismically active areas. All ERSs shall be designed for
Strength, Service and EE limit states.

• Strength – used to determine nominal resistance for bearing, sliding (including

frictional and passive) as well as structural capacity (includes design (100-yr) flood
scour);
• Service – used to determine the nominal stability, the vertical and horizontal
displacements (includes design (100-yr) flood scour);
• Extreme Event I – used to determine resistance for bearing, sliding (including
frictional and passive) as well as structural capacity and the nominal stability, the
vertical and horizontal displacements during seismic events
• Extreme Event II – used to determine the stability of the slope including the check
(500-yr) flood scour

8-16 January 2019

Geotechnical Design Manual GEOTECHNICAL LRFD DESIGN

Both the SEE and FEE events shall be used in EE I design of ERSs located within the bridge
embankment. The EE I design of ERSs located within the roadway embankment shall use the
SEE only. It is noted that vehicular impact on ERSs is not used in slope stability analysis.
Performance measures and corresponding limit states for design of earth retaining structures
are provided in Table 8-12.

Table 8-12, Earth Retaining Structures Limit States

Limit States
Performance Measure Extreme
Strength Service
Event
Soil Bearing Resistance √ √
Sliding Frictional Resistance √ √
Sliding Passive Resistance √ √
Structural Capacity √ √
Lateral Load Analysis (Lateral Displacements) √ √
Settlement √ √
Overall Stability √ √

8.11 REFERENCES

Abu-Hejleh, N., DiMaggio, J. A., Kramer, W. M., Anderson, S., and Nichols, S., (2011),
Implementation of LRFD Geotechnical Design for Bridge Foundations, (Publication No. FHWA
NHI-10-039), National Highway Institute, Federal Highway Administration, US Department of
Transportation, Washington, D.C.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, (2017), AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.

NCHRP Project 20-7/31, (1986), “Development of Comprehensive Bridge Specifications and

Commentary,” National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), August 1986.

South Carolina Department of Transportation, (2006), Bridge Design Manual, South Carolina
Department of Transportation, http://www.scdot.org/doing/structural_Bridge.aspx.

South Carolina Department of Transportation, (2017), Seismic Design Specifications for

Highway Bridges, South Carolina Department of Transportation,
http://www.scdot.org/doing/structural_Seismic.aspx.

Wilson, K. E., Kimmerling, R. E., Goble, G. C., Sabatini, P. J., Zang, S. D., Zhou, J. Y., Amrhein,
W. A., Bouscher, J. W., and Danaovich, L. J., (2007), LRFD for Highway Bridge Substructures
and Earth Retaining Structures, (Publication No. FHWA-NHI-05-094) National Highway Institute,
Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.

January 2019 8-17