Sunteți pe pagina 1din 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