Geotechnical

Context-Sensitive Conceptual Bridge Design
Copyright © Spannovation, 2020
All rights reserved.

All photos in this course were either taken by the Spannovation principals or
provided to us courtesy of our industry contacts. Where possible, these have
been referenced. Spannovation has not designed any of the bridges shown or
discussed in the course videos. The design examples are completely fictitious
and produced by the principals for educational purposes.
No part of this online course, presentation or educational material may be
reproduced or stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by
any means, electronic, mechanical, recording or otherwise, without written
permission from the author, Spannovation Bridge and Seismic School. In case
of photocopying, or other reprographic copying, a license must be obtained
from the Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency.
Module B
Design, Multi-discipline and
Constructability Considerations
2.2 Multidiscipline Considerations - Geotechnical
www.spannovation.ca/school
Module B: Critical Considerations and Challenges

2.2 Multidiscipline Considerations
g. Geotechnical
g. Geotechnical - Site classification
• Site classification is a critical step in determining the site seismic hazard for
a given location. The classification is based on Vs30, N60, or Su.
• S6-19 provides 6 different Site Classes (A-F), starting with A and B being
Hard Rock and Rock sites.
• Site classes C and D comprise very dense soil (or soft rock), and stiff soil,
respectively.
• Site class E is designated as Soft soil.
• Site Class F includes amongst others, liquefiable soils, soil susceptible to

collapse under seismic loading, high plasticity clays (PI>75 and thickness,
t > 8m), soft to medium stiff clays (t > 30m)
g. Geotechnical - Site classification
• A site-specific evaluation is required for a Site class F.
• One can use the Natural Resources Canada website to obtain the
spectral acceleration values corresponding to Site class C for various
return-period events.
• https://www.earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/hazard-
alea/interpolat/calc-en.php
• The code-based site coefficients for different periods F(T) can then be
used to determine the spectral accelerations at different periods for
other Site classes: S(T) = F(T) * Sa(T), where Sa(T) corresponds to
Site class C spectral acceleration at period T.
g. Geotechnical - Consequence classification and Degree of understanding
• The factored geotechnical resistance for ULS or SLS is given by

ψΦg(u/s)R(u/s); where ψ is the consequence factor, Φg(u/s) is the
geotechnical resistance factor for ULS or SLS, and R(u/s) is the geotechnical
resistance for ULS/SLS
• High, typical and low consequence levels are assigned to bridges and
associated geotechnical systems tied to limit state exceedance.
• The consequence classification is assigned by the Owner and in the absence

of such designation, the consequence classification must be considered as
typical.
• The consequence factors per Table 6.1 of S6-19 for SLS and ULS are 0.9, 1.0,
and 1.15 for High, Typical and Low consequence classifications, respectively.
g. Geotechnical - Consequence classification and Degree of understanding
• The geotechnical resistance factors Φg(u/s) are dependent on the failure mode
and the degree of site and prediction model understanding.
• For the above, consideration must be given to ground and geotechnical

properties understanding and the quality of the prediction models.
• High, typical and low understanding levels are defined in S6-19.
• A few examples of failure modes are bearing, sliding, settlement of shallow

foundations, etc. and compression, tension, settlement or lateral deflection of
deep foundations.
g. Geotechnical: Consequence classification and Degree of understanding
• Varying geotechnical resistance factors are assigned to different components

based on the failure mode, test method/model and degree of understanding.
• For example, using a Typical degree of understanding and carrying out static
analysis for deep foundation compression, a geotechnical resistance factor of
0.4 can be utilized for design capacity.
• In contrast, changing the degree of understanding to High and utilizing

Static testing, a geotechnical resistance factor of 0.7 can be utilized for
compression design capacity of a deep foundation component. (See Table
6.2)
• For seismic design, the consequence factor for capacity protected elements
and PBD is 1.0
g. Geotechnical: Bridge approach embankments – Interface Zone
• The slopes and embankments within the “Embankment Bridge

Interface Zone” must be designated as Lifeline, Major-route or
Other by the Owner
Bridge approach embankment interface

zone length ≥ 20 m
1
2
Bridge approach embankment interface zone
g. Geotechnical: Bridge approach embankments – Interface Zone
• Like the bridge design, the embankment and slope requirements

become more stringent with an increase in the importance category
• Lifeline geotechnical systems must have i) 100% of the travelled lanes

available for use following ground motions with a return period of at
least 975 years; and ii) 50% of the travelled lanes available for use
following ground motions with a return period of at least 2475 years.
• Major-route geotechnical systems shall have 100% of the travelled lanes

available for use following a return period of at least 475 years.
• Other geotechnical systems must not collapse following ground motions

with a return period of at least 2475 years and have 50% of the
travelled lanes, but not less than one, available for use following an
event with return period of at least 475 years.
g. Geotechnical: Bridge approach embankments – Outside the

Interface Zone
• The seismic performance criteria are less stringent outside the bridge
embankment interface zone.
• Lifeline geotechnical systems must have at least 50% of the travelled

lanes, but not less than one available for use following ground motions
with a return period of at least 975 years.
• Major-route geotechnical systems must have at least 50% of the

travelled lanes, but not less than one, available for use following ground
motions with a return period of at least 475 years.
g. Geotechnical: Design for frost potential
• When shallow foundations are used in frost-susceptible soils, the

footings must be embedded below the maximum depth of frost
potential
• Proper embedment prevents foundation heave as a result of

foundation soil volumetric expansion due to freezing as well as
settlement due to shear strength reduction as a result of thawing.
• Frost heave is usually not an issue when shallow foundations bear

on clean sand and gravel or dense till.
• Similarly, if the footing is founded in bedrock, it’s not considered

frost susceptible
g. Geotechnical: Design for permafrost
• For design of foundations underlain by permafrost, one of the

following strategies could be utilized:
 Permafrost preservation during construction and entire

design life of the structure
 Designing for permafrost thaw during construction and the
design life of the structure
 Complete permafrost thaw and soil consolidation before
construction
• Expert geotechnical advice should be sought for designing foundations

in cold climates. Where deep foundations are utilized, they should
penetrate through and be founded in non-frost susceptible soils
g. Geotechnical: Liquefaction considerations and impacts on design
• Liquefaction is a phenomenon whereby coarse grained saturated or

partially saturated soils lose their strength and stiffness as a result of
applied seismic stresses, causing the soil to behave more like a fluid.
• The phenomenon is related to saturated sandy silts and silty sands.
• The result is excessive vertical and/or lateral displacements unrelated

to the structural dynamic response.
• Soil settlements cause downdrag on the piles while lateral soil

displacements induce kinematic loads on the piles
• Structural continuity is preferred in a situation like this as simply

supported spans are particularly susceptible to span failure.
• Differential liquefaction between supports and presence of a non-

liquefiable crest on top of a liquefiable layer can exacerbate the
situation.
Soil deformation
load application
through p-y curves
Non-liquefiable
crust
p-y curves Ground
Liquefiable soil deformation
profile
Non-liquefiable
soil
Liquefiable layer overlain with a crust

g. Geotechnical
Liquefaction considerations and impacts on design
• If liquefaction causes lateral spreading, the design can be carried out

as follows:
 Design the piles to resist the forces generated by lateral

spreading. Larger piles that extend through liquefiable
strata may be required.
 Carry out ground improvements in addition to the use of
larger/stronger piles, to meet the performance criteria.
 Bridge superstructure must be designed to withstand the
anticipated foundation/soil movements and kinematic
loads.
g. Geotechnical
Liquefaction considerations and impacts on design
g. Geotechnical
Ground improvements
• Soil preloading/surcharging for consolidation settlement
• Dynamic compaction
• Vibro stone columns (vibro replacement)
• Compaction piles
• Soil mixing
• Drainage
• Vibroflotation
g. Geotechnical
Soil preloading: William R Bennet Bridge, Kelowna, BC –

courtesy Dr. Uthaya Uthayakumar, Stantec Inc.
g. Geotechnical
Dynamic compaction – courtesy Keller North America (URL: https://www.keller-

na.com/expertise/techniques/dynamic-compaction)
g. Geotechnical
Vibro stone columns – courtesy Keller North America (URL: https://www.keller-

na.com/expertise/techniques/vibro-stone-columns-vibro-replacement)
g. Geotechnical
Vibro stone columns: Fort Lauderdale Airport Expansion – courtesy Keller North
America (URL: https://www.keller-na.com/projects/fort-lauderdale-airport-expansion)
g. Geotechnical
Vibro stone columns: Centerm Berth 5/6 – courtesy Dr. Uthaya Uthayakumar,
Stantec Inc.
g. Geotechnical
Vibro stone columns: Richtor Street Condominiums, Kelowna – courtesy Dan

Bruton, Ecora
g. Geotechnical
Wet soil mixing – courtesy Keller North America (URL: https://www.keller-

na.com/expertise/techniques/wet-soil-mixing)
g. Geotechnical
Atlantic Wood Superfund site: Wick Drains – courtesy Keller North America
(URL: https://www.keller-na.com/projects/atlantic-wood-superfund-site)
g. Geotechnical
Baptist Memorial Hospital: Earthquake Drains – courtesy Keller North America

(URL: https://www.keller-na.com/projects/baptist-memorial-hospital-crittenden)
THE END
Copyright © Spannovation, 2020
All rights reserved.

No part of this online course, presentation or educational material may be
reproduced or stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by
any means, electronic, mechanical, recording or otherwise, without written
permission from the author, Spannovation Bridge and Seismic School. In
case of photocopying, or other reprographic copying, a license must be
obtained from the Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency.

Geotechnical

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Context-Sensitive Conceptual Bridge Design

Copyright © Spannovation, 2020

All rights reserved.

Module B: Critical Considerations and Challenges

g. Geotechnical - Site classification

• Site class E is designated as Soft soil.

• Site Class F includes amongst others, liquefiable soils, soil susceptible to

g. Geotechnical - Site classification

• A site-specific evaluation is required for a Site class F.

g. Geotechnical - Consequence classification and Degree of understanding

• The factored geotechnical resistance for ULS or SLS is given by

• The consequence classification is assigned by the Owner and in the absence

g. Geotechnical - Consequence classification and Degree of understanding

• For the above, consideration must be given to ground and geotechnical

• High, typical and low understanding levels are defined in S6-19.

• A few examples of failure modes are bearing, sliding, settlement of shallow

g. Geotechnical: Consequence classification and Degree of understanding

• Varying geotechnical resistance factors are assigned to different components

• In contrast, changing the degree of understanding to High and utilizing

• The slopes and embankments within the “Embankment Bridge

Bridge approach embankment interface

Bridge approach embankment interface zone

g. Geotechnical: Bridge approach embankments – Interface Zone

• Like the bridge design, the embankment and slope requirements

• Lifeline geotechnical systems must have i) 100% of the travelled lanes

• Major-route geotechnical systems shall have 100% of the travelled lanes

• Other geotechnical systems must not collapse following ground motions

g. Geotechnical: Bridge approach embankments – Outside the

• Lifeline geotechnical systems must have at least 50% of the travelled

• Major-route geotechnical systems must have at least 50% of the

g. Geotechnical: Design for frost potential

• When shallow foundations are used in frost-susceptible soils, the

• Proper embedment prevents foundation heave as a result of

• Frost heave is usually not an issue when shallow foundations bear

• Similarly, if the footing is founded in bedrock, it’s not considered

g. Geotechnical: Design for permafrost

• For design of foundations underlain by permafrost, one of the

 Permafrost preservation during construction and entire

• Expert geotechnical advice should be sought for designing foundations

g. Geotechnical: Liquefaction considerations and impacts on design

• Liquefaction is a phenomenon whereby coarse grained saturated or

• The phenomenon is related to saturated sandy silts and silty sands.

• The result is excessive vertical and/or lateral displacements unrelated

• Soil settlements cause downdrag on the piles while lateral soil

g. Geotechnical: Liquefaction considerations and impacts on design

• Structural continuity is preferred in a situation like this as simply

• Differential liquefaction between supports and presence of a non-

g. Geotechnical: Liquefaction considerations and impacts on design

Liquefiable layer overlain with a crust

Liquefaction considerations and impacts on design

• If liquefaction causes lateral spreading, the design can be carried out

 Design the piles to resist the forces generated by lateral

Liquefaction considerations and impacts on design

• Soil preloading/surcharging for consolidation settlement

• Vibro stone columns (vibro replacement)

Soil preloading: William R Bennet Bridge, Kelowna, BC –

Dynamic compaction – courtesy Keller North America (URL: https://www.keller-

Vibro stone columns – courtesy Keller North America (URL: https://www.keller-

Vibro stone columns: Richtor Street Condominiums, Kelowna – courtesy Dan

Wet soil mixing – courtesy Keller North America (URL: https://www.keller-