Scribd
Upload
3K views

Deep Foundations Using LRFD Method

The document summarizes MnDOT's transition from an Allowable Stress Design (ASD) methodology to a Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) methodology for pile design. Key points include: 1) The LRFD methodology requires using factored loads and nominal resistances compared to ASD which uses service loads and ultimate resistances with safety factors. 2) MnDOT's new LRFD method determines nominal resistances from foundation reports provided by geotechnical engineers and uses resistance factors for verification during driving. 3) Research is underway to develop a resistance factor for MnDOT's pile driving formula and evaluate pile setup methods.

Uploaded by

adnan
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
3K views

Deep Foundations Using LRFD Method

The document summarizes MnDOT's transition from an Allowable Stress Design (ASD) methodology to a Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) methodology for pile design. Key points include: 1) The LRFD methodology requires using factored loads and nominal resistances compared to ASD which uses service loads and ultimate resistances with safety factors. 2) MnDOT's new LRFD method determines nominal resistances from foundation reports provided by geotechnical engineers and uses resistance factors for verification during driving. 3) Research is underway to develop a resistance factor for MnDOT's pile driving formula and evaluate pile setup methods.

Uploaded by

adnan
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 52

MnDOT Deep Foundation

Design Using LRFD


Methodology
LRFD Bridge Design Workshop
June 12, 2007

David Dahlberg, P.E.


LRFD Engineer
Presentation Overview

ƒ Previous Pile Design Method


ƒ AASHTO LRFD Pile Design
Method
ƒ New MnDOT LRFD Method
ƒ Pile Downdrag
ƒ Pile Lateral Load Capacity
ƒ Drilled Shaft Design
Previous Pile Design Method

ƒ Based on Allowable Stress Design (ASD)


∑ Qi ≤ Qult / FS
where
Q = service load
Qult = ultimate capacity
FS = factor of safety
Previous Pile Design Method

ƒ Need to consider four things:


ƒ Capacity of soil
ƒ Structural capacity of pile
ƒ Driveability of pile (max driving stresses)
ƒ Field verification during driving operation to
ensure required resistance is obtained
Previous Pile Design Method

ƒ Design soil allowable capacity determination


based on combination of:
ƒ Static analysis w/ F.S (done by geotechs)
ƒ Correlation of borings with field verification
method (done by Regional Construction
Engineer)
Previous Pile Design Method

ƒ Typical pile was 12” dia. CIP w/0.25” wall


ƒ 60 to 75 ton allowable maximum load
(based on considering past practice,
AASHTO, experience, and driveability
of the pile)
Previous Pile Design Method

ƒ Majority of pile capacities based on field


measured initial drive capacity
ƒ Soil/pile setup used when warranted by
soil profile
ƒ Only in low initial capacity situations
Previous Pile Design Method

ƒ Field verification during driving:


ƒ MnDOT Modified ENR Formula

3.5E W + 0.1M
ƒ CIP piles P= ⋅
S + 0.2 W + M

3 .5 E W + 0 .2 M
ƒ H – piles P= ⋅
S + 0 .2 W+M

ƒ PDA sometimes used


AASHTO LRFD Design Method

ƒ Requires use of factored loads & nominal


resistance
∑ ηi ⋅ γi ⋅Qi ≤ φ⋅Rn
where
η = load modifier
γ = load factor
Q = service load
φ = resistance factor
Rn = nominal (ultimate) resistance
AASHTO LRFD Design Method

ƒ Need to consider four things:


ƒ Capacity of soil
ƒ Structural capacity of pile
ƒ Driveability of pile (max driving stresses)
ƒ Field verification during driving operation to
ensure required resistance is obtained
AASHTO LRFD Design Method

ƒ Capacity of soil:
ƒ Estimated by geotechnical engineer using static
pile analysis
ƒ Resistance factors φstat from LRFD
Table 10.5.5.2.3-1
AASHTO LRFD Design Method

ƒ LRFD Resistance Factors for Piles


LRFD Table 10.5.5.2.3-1
AASHTO LRFD Design Method

ƒ Structural capacity of
pile:
ƒ CIP piles per LRFD
6.9.5.1
φc ·(Asffy+0.85f’c·Ac)
ƒ H piles per LRFD 6.9.4.1
φc ·Asfy
ƒ Resistance factors for
axial resistance per LRFD
6.15.2 and 6.5.4.2
AASHTO LRFD Design Method

ƒ LRFD Resistance Factors for Steel Piles


found in LRFD 6.5.4.2
AASHTO LRFD Design Method

ƒ Driveability (max driving resistance):


ƒ Per LRFD 10.7.8:
0.9· φda·fy
ƒ Resistance factor per LRFD
Table 10.5.5.2.3-1 and LRFD 6.5.4.2
AASHTO LRFD Design Method

ƒ LRFD Resistance Factor for Driveability


ƒ LRFD Table 10.5.5.2.3-1

ƒ LRFD 6.5.4.2
AASHTO LRFD Design Method

ƒ Field verification during driving


operation to ensure required resistance
is obtained:
ƒ Verification by static load test, dynamic
testing (PDA), wave equation, or dynamic
formula
ƒ Uses resistance factor φdyn from
LRFD Table 10.5.5.2.3-1
AASHTO LRFD Design Method

ƒ LRFD
Resistance
Factors for
Piles
LRFD Table
10.5.5.2.3-1
New MnDOT LRFD Method

ƒ Capacity of soil:
ƒ Look in the Foundation Report
ƒ Typical Foundation Report should include:
ƒ Project description
ƒ Field investigation and foundation conditions
ƒ Foundation analysis
ƒ Recommendations
ƒ Additional sections as needed
New MnDOT LRFD Method

ƒ Foundation analysis should include:


ƒ Nominal Resistance (ultimate capacity)
estimates provided by Foundations Unit
ƒ Initial drive and set-up graph which shows
resistance as a function of depth
New MnDOT LRFD Method
New MnDOT LRFD Method

ƒ Pile Resistance φRn for design


ƒ Determined considering LRFD structural
capacity of pile, maximum LRFD driving
resistance, and past experience

Pile Capacity Table


New MnDOT LRFD Method

ƒ Field verification during driving


ƒ Typically will use MnDOT dynamic formula
modified to provide nominal resistance as
the output

ƒ Will use PDA on larger projects by running


a PDA on the test piles to calibrate the
MnDOT dynamic formula for other piles
New MnDOT LRFD Method

ƒ Field Verification during driving:


ƒ MnDOT Nominal Resistance Pile Driving
Formula (for both CIP & H-piles)

10.5E W + 0.1M
Rn = ⋅
S + 0.2 W + M
ƒ Incorporated by special provision
SB2005-2452.2
New MnDOT LRFD Method
ƒ LRFD
Resistance
Factors for
Piles
ƒ LRFD Table
10.5.5.2.3-1
New MnDOT LRFD Method

ƒ Resistance factors:
ƒ Compare LRFD to ASD
LRFD: ∑ γQ ≤ φRn
ASD: ∑ Q ≤ Rn /F.S. Then F.S.= γ / φ

ƒ Average γ ≈ 1.4
For MnDOT formula, φdyn = 1.4/3.0 ≈ 0.45
For PDA, φdyn = 1.4/2.25 ≈ 0.60
New MnDOT LRFD Method

ƒ Comparisons made with MnDOT Formula,


WEAP, Gates Formula, and PDA data
New MnDOT LRFD Method

ƒ Field verification
ƒ PDA
ƒ φdyn = 0.65

ƒ MnDOT Nominal
Resistance Pile
Driving Formula
ƒ φdyn = 0.40
New MnDOT LRFD Method

ƒ Monitoring method determines required


driving resistance for the Contractor
ƒ For example, assume a factored design
load of 100 tons/pile:
ƒ PDA verification
ƒ Rn = Qu/ φdyn = 100/0.65 = 154 tons

ƒ MnDOT Ultimate formula


ƒ Rn = Qu/ φdyn = 100/0.40 = 250 tons
New MnDOT LRFD Method

Example
New MnDOT LRFD Method
New MnDOT LRFD Method

Pile Capacity Table


New MnDOT LRFD Method
New MnDOT LRFD Method

ƒ Bridge Plan
Load Tables
Implementation for T.H.
ƒ MnDOT Foundation Unit (Maplewood Lab)
ƒ Providing ultimate capacity estimates
ƒ Regional Bridge Construction Engineers
ƒ Provide pile type with maximum resistance
ƒ Identify verification method(s) to use
ƒ Designers
ƒ Design with LRFD methods and loads
ƒ Factored loads presented on plans
ƒ Compare with past ASD designs
Implementation for State Aid

ƒ Geotechnical Engineer
ƒ Providing ultimate capacity estimates
ƒ Designer
ƒ Provide pile type with maximum resistance
ƒ Identify verification method(s) to use
ƒ Design with LRFD methods and loads
ƒ Factored loads presented on plans
ƒ Compare with past ASD designs
Research

ƒ Two projects rolled into one:


ƒ Development of Resistance Factor for
MnDOT Pile Driving Formula

ƒ Study of Pile Setup Evaluation Methods

ƒ Research begins this year


Downdrag

ƒ Downdrag is the
downward load induced
in the pile by the settling
soil as it grips the pile
due to negative side
friction
ƒ Covered in LRFD 3.11.8,
10.7.1.6.2, 10.7.2.5, and
10.7.3.7
Downdrag

ƒ Estimated downdrag load will be given in


the Foundation Report
ƒ For piles driven to rock or a dense layer
(end bearing piles), nominal pile
resistance should be based on pile
structural capacity
Downdrag

ƒ For piles controlled by side friction,


downdrag may cause pile settlement,
which will result in reduction of the
downdrag load
ƒ Amount of pile settlement difficult to
calculate, so downdrag on friction piles to
be considered on a case by case basis
Downdrag

ƒ Transient loads reduce downdrag, so do not


combine live load (or other transient loads) with
downdrag
ƒ Consider a load combination with DC + LL and
also a load combination that includes DC + DD,
but do not consider LL and DD within the same
load combination
ƒ Discuss with Regional Construction Engineer
before using battered piles
Pile Lateral Load Capacity

ƒ Past Practice Using ASD


ƒ Service loads resisted by:
battered pile component
+
12 kips/pile resistance
ƒ Current Practice Using LRFD
ƒ Factored loads resisted by:
battered pile component
+
18 kips/pile resistance
Pile Lateral Load Capacity

ƒ Parametric study conducted:


ƒ 12” & 16” diameter CIP piles
ƒ HP10x42, HP12x53 and HP14x73
ƒ Single layer of noncohesive soil with
varied friction angles of 30˚, 32˚, 34˚,
36˚, and 38˚
ƒ ENSOFT program L-Pile 5.0.30 used for
this study
Pile Lateral Load Capacity

ƒ Piles under combined axial compressive


load and moment due to axial and lateral
loads at the top of piles

ƒ LRFD 6.9.2.2 interaction equation:

Pu 8 ⎛ Mu ⎞
+ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ≤ 1.0
φ c Pn 9 ⎝ φ f M n ⎠
Pile Lateral Load Capacity

ƒ Inserting known values for Pu, φcPn, φfMn,


interaction equation solved for Mu

ƒ Lateral load applied at top of pile and


increased until the calculated maximum
Mu was reached in the pile
Pile Lateral Load Capacity

ƒ Results:
Fy Wall t φRnh
Pile Type
(ksi) (in.) (kips)
12" CIP 45 all 24
16" CIP 45 1/4 28
16" CIP 45 5/16 40
16" CIP 45 3/8 40
16" CIP 45 1/2 40
HP 10x42 50 NA 24
HP 12x53 47.8 NA 32
HP 14x73 43.9 NA 40
Pile Lateral Load Capacity

ƒ Results:
ƒ Max deflection due to factored loads
was approximately 0.5”

ƒ Serviceability does not govern


Drilled Shaft Design

ƒ Design process is interactive


ƒ Designer, Regional Construction Engineer,
and geotechnical engineer need to discuss:
ƒ Proposed construction method
ƒ Permanent vs. temporary casing
ƒ Shaft diameter
ƒ Vertical & horizontal loads for multiple row
shaft foundation
ƒ Loads & moment for single shafts
ƒ Rock sockets
Drilled Shaft Design
Drilled Shaft Design

ƒ Resistance factors
vary:
ƒ Tip/side
resistance
ƒ Load tests
ƒ Base grouting
Drilled Shaft Design

ƒ Existing foundation load tables given in


MnDOT Bridge Design Manual
Appendix 2-H do not include drilled
shafts
ƒ Spread footing load tables were used in
the past
ƒ New load tables to be created for drilled
shafts
Questions

You might also like