LRFD and Its Implications for QC/QA of Deep Foundations

"The move to LRFD methods for structural design by AASHTO, ACI, AISC , ASCE, and the FHWA has been a major change for the American construction industry. The deep foundations industry has arguably been placed most at risk by this situation, because of the need for, and the difficulty of providing, reliable quality assurance.LRFD is attractive for both the owner and the engineer because it promises cost reductions, but the assumption underlying LRFD is often overlooked - that the acceptable margin of safety can be rationally reduced, thus saving costs, provided that all the factors involved are closely controlled. This means that both the quality of the materials and the quality of the construction work must be closely monitored, and held to an acceptable standard.This paper describes the type of comprehensive quality management program that is needed in deep foundation construction projects based on LRFD. Case histories are used to illustrate the importance of both adequate inspection and reliable testing to a comprehensive quality management program.IntroductionOver the last thirty years, the major organizations that set standards and practice policies for the American construction industry, such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO), the American Concrete Institute (ACI) , The American Institute for Steel Construction (AISC), the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), have embraced Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) as an alternative to, and in some cases, a complete replacement for, Allowable Stress Design (ASD). AASHTO first published a new set of LRFD-based design guidelines for bridges in 1996, with several revisions in 1997, 1998, and 1999 (AASHTO, 1996). The 1996 AASHTO Bridge Design Code was the first in the United States that required foundations to be designed using LRFD procedures. LRFD has a clear advantage over conventional ASD where variability in material strength, bias in design methodology, and degree of construction quality can be rationally accounted for to achieve an acceptable level of risk."