Sunteți pe pagina 1din 108
L oa d an d Resist ance F ac t or Desi g n (

Load and Resistance Fac tor Desi g n (LRFD ) for Micro piles

Jonathan Bennett, PE, D.GE – Chief Engineer May 4, 2011

ance F ac t or Desi g n ( LRFD ) for Micro piles Jonathan Bennett,
LRFD??! When you begin a discussion on “LRFD”, people have mixed emotions
LRFD??!
When you begin a discussion on “LRFD”, people
have mixed emotions
PRESENTATION OVERVIEW • Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) is a predominant design method utilized

PRESENTATION OVERVIEW

Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) is a predominant design method utilized today for a number of structura l materia l s and components, and is the primary focus of the relatively new AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.

Historically, micropile design has been performed mainly with Allowable Stress Design (ASD) methodologies and most of the foundational design manuals and specifications in existence prior to 2008 were based primarily on ASD.

With the emergence of LRFD design concepts for geotechnical features, there has been an increase in interest regarding the proper use of LRFD for micropiles. This presentation will cover the fundamentals of LRFD as it a pp lies to micro p iles, and will provide a comparison with ASD methodology.

PRESENTATION OUTLINE • What is Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)? • The Emergence of

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

What is Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)?

The Emergence of LRFD in Structural and Geotechnical Engineering

The Basic Contrast and Incompatibility between SLD and LRFD

Micropile Design Guidelines and Their Methodology Basis

Allowable Stress Design Methodologies for Micropiles

AASHTO LRFD Methodology for Micropiles

Design Example and Comparison of Results

Summary

Terms We are going to be using some terms throughout the presentation that may initially
Terms
We are going to be using some terms
throughout the presentation that may initially
appear to be interchangeable (and I may even
inadvertently use some of the terms
interchangeably) but are in fact subtly different.
So, in order to have a correct understanding, we
need to differentiate these terms right off the
bat and understand their individual roles in
regard to LRFD development so that we use
them correctly later.
Terms • Strengt h Design – Design met h o d o l ogy b
Terms
• Strengt h Design – Design met h o d o l ogy b ased on t h e
ultimate strength of a material or component as opposed
to working stresses and allowable loads.
• Limit States Design – Design methodology based on limit
states analysis. In limit states design, a structural
component or system must meet the requirements of both
St rength an d S ervi cea bilit y (an d o th er app li ca bl e) li mit
states. A Limit State is a condition beyond which a
structural component or system ceases to satisfy the
requi rement s for which it i s designed .
• Reliability Engineering – The analysis of components or
systems with respect to their ability to perform required
f unctions under stated con d itions for a specified period o f
time. Reliability engineering often makes extensive use of
probability and statistics concepts.
What is LRFD? Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) is a design methodology based on
What is LRFD?
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) is a
design methodology based on Limit States Design
and Reliability Engineering Concepts .
In Limit States Design and LRFD, a structural
member or system must meet both Strength and
Serviceability Limit State requirements. Strength
design concepts are utilized in the assessment of
resistance and reliability / probability concepts or
fitting to ASD are utilized in formulating load and
resistance factors relating applied loads to required
res i stance .
What is LRFD? Typical Limit States for Structures (Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction, Melchers, 1999)
What is LRFD?
Typical Limit States for Structures
(Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction, Melchers, 1999)
Limit State Type
Description
Examples
Ultimate (safety)
Collapse of all or part of
structure
Tipping or sliding, rupture,
progressive collapse,
plastic mechanism,
instability, corrosion,
fatigue, deterioration, fire,
etc.
Damage (Often included in
above)
Excessive or premature
cracking, deformation or
permanent i ne l astic
deformation
Serviceability
Disruption of normal use
Excessive deflections,
vibrations, local dama ge,
etc.
What is LRFD? The load and resistance factor design safety checking format was proposed by
What is LRFD?
The load and resistance factor design safety
checking format was proposed by Ravindra and
Galambos (1978) for use in codes. It has the
following form:
What is LRFD? Note that in this format, the product of load factors and mean
What is LRFD?
Note that in this format, the product of load
factors and mean load effects are combined as
opposed to combining load effects alone. This
differs from traditional Working Stress or Service
Load analysis where the load effects alone are
combined without load factors.
The Emergence of LRFD Strength Design, Limit States Design and Reliability Engineering concepts have changed
The Emergence of LRFD
Strength Design, Limit States Design and
Reliability Engineering concepts have changed
the way in which we design structural building
components and is beginning to influence the
design of geotechnical engineering systems.
Since the concept’s introduction in the 1970’s,
the utilization of LRFD has steadily increased in
Structural Design Guidelines and Specifications
for all major building material categories.
The Emergence of LRFD Traditional designs based on service loads, working loads and allowable stresses
The Emergence of LRFD
Traditional designs based on service loads,
working loads and allowable stresses are
steadily being displaced by Limit State and
Reliability focused designs based on factored
loads and resistances. Limit States design and
Load and Resistance factor Design (LRFD) are
quickly gaining ground if not having overtaken
traditional allowable stress / working stress
design in many areas.
The Emergence of LRFD SAFETY O F STRU C TURES The development of design specifications
The Emergence of LRFD
SAFETY O F STRU C TURES
The development of design specifications to provide suitable values of the margin of
safety, reliability, and probability of failure must take into consideration the following:
1. Variability of the material with respect to strength and other pertinent physical
properties.
2. Un cer ta inty in th e ex pected l oads in rega rd to poss i b l e f utu re c h a n ge as well as
with respect to present magnitude.
3. Precision with which the internal forces in the various parts of a structure are
determined.
4. Possibility of deterioration due to corrosion and other causes.
5. The extent of damage and loss of life which might result from failure.
6. Quality of workmanship.
I n v i ew of th e var i a bilit y of th e strength of a mem b er or struc ture an d th e l oa d s to
which it may be subjected, considerable effort has been devoted to the concept of
reliability or probability of failure in recent years.
(Design of Steel Str u ct u res , Third Edition , Ga ylord)
The Emergence of LRFD The American Concrete Institute was the earliest to convert to full
The Emergence of LRFD
The American Concrete Institute was the earliest
to convert to full implementation of LRFD
methodology. My first ACI 318 Code book (1989)
was the last to contain any Allowable Stress
Design Provisions.
The Emergence of LRFD In 1986, the American Institute of Steel Construction published its first
The Emergence of LRFD
In 1986, the American Institute of Steel
Construction published its first Load and
Resistance Factor Design Specification. Its
current design specification (13 th Edition)
supports both ASD and LRFD formats.
The Emergence of LRFD LRFD Design Concepts have been slower to catch on in Geotechnical
The Emergence of LRFD
LRFD Design Concepts have been slower to
catch on in Geotechnical Engineering although it
is pointed out on occasion that Donald Taylor
proposed an approach that utilized partial
Factors of Safety in his 1948 book Fundamentals
of Soil Mechanics. This approach is similar to
utilizing different resistance factors for different
types of resistance to instability that is common
in LRFD concepts today. Traditional geotechnical
engineering designs have historically been based
on Factors of Safety against Service Loads.
The Emergence of LRFD LRFD approaches for geotechnical engineering have been hastened by the introduction
The Emergence of LRFD
LRFD approaches for geotechnical engineering
have been hastened by the introduction of the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
which takes an LRFD approach to both structural
and geotechnical designs. The AASHTO LRFD is
the most comprehensive guide document for
Geotechnical LRFD Design in existence in the
United States today.
The Emergence of LRFD The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications were first introduced in 1994.
The Emergence of LRFD
The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
were first introduced in 1994. It is currently in its
5 th Edition as of 2010.
The Emergence of LRFD Although LRFD approaches are mandated by AASHTO LRFD specifications (which means
The Emergence of LRFD
Although LRFD approaches are mandated by
AASHTO LRFD specifications (which means they
are generally required by State DOTs), there is
still a lot of debate and confusion regarding the
proper application of LRFD to geotechnical
engineering features.
The Emergence of LRFD Most of the bodies that produce design specifications have indicated that
The Emergence of LRFD
Most of the bodies that produce design
specifications have indicated that LRFD will be
th e pr imary d esign approac h suppor te d if th ey
have not already switched to LRFD entirely.
ACI ‐ LRFD only for some time
FHWA / AASHTO ‐ LRFD only position
AISC – LRFD is preferred specification although
ASD is still supported
IBC is the exception in that all of its foundation
provisions are based on ASD
The Emergence of LRFD I think that it is safe to say that LRFD is
The Emergence of LRFD
I think that it is safe to say that LRFD is the way
of the future.
It IS the de facto standard for structural
engineering and there is a lot of inertia driving it
to become the standard for geotechnical
eng ineering as well alth oug h it is laggi ng more
in that area.
If you are doing engineering for transportation,
LRFD IS alread y th e requirement for b o th .
The Basic Contrast (SLD vs LRFD) T h e d esign safety o f structures
The Basic Contrast (SLD vs LRFD)
T h e d esign safety o f structures may b e eva l uated in
either of two ways:
1. The expected resistance of the structural
member, or other comp onent, usuall y ex p ressed
as a tensile stress, compressive stress, etc., is
divided by a factor of safety to obtain an
allowable or working stress , and the p art is then
chosen so that the stress induced by the
expected service load, or service load
combination , is eq u al to or less than the
allowable value. This procedure is called
allowable stress desi g n, working stress desi g n ,
or elastic design .
The Basic Contrast (SLD vs LRFD) T h e d esign safety o f structures
The Basic Contrast (SLD vs LRFD)
T h e d esign safety o f structures may b e eva l uated in
either of two ways:
2. The structural member or other component is
chosen so that its resistance multi p lied by a
resistance factor, equals or exceeds the service
load, or service load combination, multiplied by
load factors . With this p rocedure, it is a sim p le
matter to account for differing reliabilities in the
prediction of load and member resistance. This
proced u re is called by vario u s names : load
factor design, load and resistance factor design,
limit states desi g n , and (in US reinforced
concrete practice) strength design .
The Basic Contrast (SLD vs LRFD) With regard to foundation pile design, traditional methods are
The Basic Contrast (SLD vs LRFD)
With regard to foundation pile design,
traditional methods are based on Service or
Working Loads compared to Allowable Loads
and Allowable Stresses. Allowable pile loads are
based on the expected Ultimate Load divided by
a factor of safety (FS). To maintain Factor of
Safety, the Service Load or Working Load must
not exceed the Allowable Load. If allowable
stresses are considered for component design,
they are based on ultimate (or yield) stresses
divided by a factor of safety.
The Basic Contrast (SLD vs LRFD) Service Load or Working Load Desi g n Service
The Basic Contrast (SLD vs LRFD)
Service Load or Working Load Desi g n
Service Load ≤ Ultimate Load / FS
Allowable Stress or Working Stress Design
Actual Stress ≤ Yield or Ultimate Stress / FS
The Basic Contrast (SLD vs LRFD) Load and Resistance Factor Desi g n ( LRFD
The Basic Contrast (SLD vs LRFD)
Load and Resistance Factor Desi g n ( LRFD )
utilizes various Load Factors with magnitudes
based on t ype of load to account for variabilit y
in loading and various Resistance Factors of
var yin g mag nitudes based on material or
resistance type to account for variability in
resistance.
The Basic Contrast (SLD vs LRFD)
The Basic Contrast (SLD vs LRFD)
The Basic Contrast (SLD vs LRFD) (FHWA , 1997)
The Basic Contrast (SLD vs LRFD)
(FHWA , 1997)
The Basic Contrast (SLD vs LRFD) LOAD COMBINATIONS Building codes specify different load combinations for
The Basic Contrast (SLD vs LRFD)
LOAD COMBINATIONS
Building codes specify different load combinations for ASD and LRFD due to the
difference in the way loads are considered in the two different methods. The
combinations below are from ASCE 7 and the 2010 IBC.
ASD Load Combinations
LRFD Load Combinations
D+F
1.4(D+F)
D+H+F+L+T
1.2(D+F+T)+1.6(L+H)+0.5(L r or S or R)
D+H+F+( L or S or R)
1 2D+1 6( L or S or R)+(L or 0 8W)
.
.
.
r
r
D+H+F+0.75(L+T)+0.75(L r or S or R)
1.2D+1.6W+L+0.5(L r or S or R)
D+H+F+(W or 0.7E)
1.2D+1.0E+L+0.2S
D+H+F+0.75 ( W or 0.7E) +0.75L+0.75 ( L r or
S or R)
0.9D+1.6W+1.6H
0.6D+W+H
0.9D+1.0E+1.6H
0.6D+0.7E+H
D+H+F+0.75 ( W or 0.7E) +0.75L+0.75 ( L r or S or R) 0.9D+1.6W+1.6H 0.6D+W+H 0.9D+1.0E+1.6H
The Basic Contrast (SLD vs LRFD) It is difficult to directly compare SLD results and
The Basic Contrast (SLD vs LRFD)
It is difficult to directly compare SLD results and
LRFD results because in LRFD, the factored loads
used in compu ti ng requ ired resistance vary
based on how much of different types of load
are present because load factors are different
for different types of load. Otherwise, the
relationship between SLD and LRFD would be
the simple relationship:
Load Factor / Resistance Factor = Factor of
Safety
Existing Micropile Guidelines Publication Name Year of Publication Developing Design Entity Method(s) Drilled and
Existing Micropile Guidelines
Publication Name
Year of
Publication
Developing
Design
Entity
Method(s)
Drilled and Grouted Micropiles – State of
Practi ce Rev i ew (4 Vol umes)
1997
FHWA
ASD
Micropile Design and Construction
Guidelines – Implementation Manual
1997
FHWA
ASD & LFD
Guide to Drafting a Specification for
Micropiles
2004
DFI / ADSC
ASD
Micropile Design and Construction
Reference Manual
2005
FHWA / NHI
ASD
International Building Code – Micropile
Section
2006
ICC
ASD
AASHTO LRFD Br id ge D esi gn S pec ifi cati on
– Micropile Section
2007
AASHTO
LRFD
DFI / ADSC Micropile Specification
Forthcoming
DFI / ADSC
ASD & LRFD
Up d ated Micropi l e Design an d
Construction Reference Manual
Forth coming
FHWA / NHI
LRFD
Existing Micropile Guidelines As far as micropile ‐specific codes and requirements, the introduction of an
Existing Micropile Guidelines
As far as micropile ‐specific codes and
requirements, the introduction of an LRFD
based design requirement is relatively new.
The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification
didn’t adopt a micropile section until 2007.
Prior to that, all micropile design
specifications were based on SLD / ASD. In
fact, micropile design requirements included
in the International Building Code are still
based on SLD / ASD.
ASD Methodologies for Micropiles In terms of Working Stress or Allowable Stress Design methodologies for
ASD Methodologies for Micropiles
In terms of Working Stress or Allowable Stress
Design methodologies for micropiles, there are
t wo pr imary co difi ed approac h es th at h ave
substantially different allowable stresses for
st ruct ural d es i gn of micropile cross sections .
FHWA Approac h
Micropile Design and Construction Guidelines – Implementation Manual
Micropile Design and Construction ‐ Reference Manual
International Building Code Approach
DFI / ADSC Guide to Drafting a Specification fro Micropiles
International Buildin g Code
ASD Methodologies for Micropiles Micropile Structural Capacity • Compression Strength (Ultimate) P uc = 0.85f
ASD Methodologies for Micropiles
Micropile Structural Capacity
• Compression Strength (Ultimate)
P uc = 0.85f c ’ A g + F y A s
• Compression Strength (Allowable)
P ac = A f c ’ A g + B F y A s
• Tension Strength (Yield)
P ut = F y A s
• Tension Strength (Allowable)
= C F A
P at
y
s
Where A, B and C are reduction factors which express the allowable stresses as a percentage of
ultimate stress. The magnitude of these reduction factors varies depending on which design code
you are using.
The core assumption with regard to the above compressive strength formulas is that the pile is
sufficiently supported along its length by soil or rock such that buckling cannot occur. Most soils will
provide a level of support that is sufficient to preclude outright buckling. However, the stiffness of
the overburden soils can effect the actual pile capacity. This is not taken into account in the
formulas.
ASD Methodologies for Micropiles Micropile Structural Capacity ‐ FHWA • Com p ression Strength (
ASD Methodologies for Micropiles
Micropile Structural Capacity ‐ FHWA
• Com p ression Strength ( Allowable )
• P ac = 0.40 f c ’ A g + 0.47 F y A s
• Tension Stren gth (Allowable)
• P at = 0.55 F y A b
• Maximum Test Load (Allowable)
• P tc = 0.68f c ’ A g + 0.8F y A s per FHWA‐ SA‐ 97 ‐ 070
• P tt = 0.8 F y A b for ASTM A615 material
• P tt = 0.8 F u A b for ASTM A722 material
ASD Methodologies for Micropiles Micropile Structural Capacity ‐ IBC • Com p ression Loadin g
ASD Methodologies for Micropiles
Micropile Structural Capacity ‐ IBC
• Com p ression Loadin g
• P ac = 0.33 f c ’ A g + 0.40 F y A s
• Tension Loadin g
• P at = 0.60 F y A b (same as PTI)
• Steel yield stress limited to 80 ksi.
• Steel reinforcement must carry at least 40% of
the load.
ASD Methodologies for Micropiles Micropile Structural Capacity ‐ Comparison • Com p ression Loadin g
ASD Methodologies for Micropiles
Micropile Structural Capacity ‐ Comparison
• Com p ression Loadin g
• FHWA:
P ac = 0.40 f c ’ A g + 0.47 F y A s
• IBC:
P = 0 . 33 f ’ A + 0 . 40 F A
ac
c
g
y
s
• Tension Loading
• FHWA:
• IBC:
P at = 0 . 55 F y A b
P at = 0.60 F y A b
ASD Methodologies for Micropiles Micropile Geotechnical Capacity • For desi gn p urp oses, micro
ASD Methodologies for Micropiles
Micropile Geotechnical Capacity
• For desi gn p urp oses, micro p iles are usuall y
assumed to transfer their load to the ground
through grout‐ to ‐ ground skin friction, without
any contribution from end bearing (FHWA, 1997).
• This assumption results in a pile that is for the
most part geotechnically equivalent in tension
and compression.
• Suggested bond values can be found in the FHWA
Manuals as well as in the PTI Recommendations
for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors.
ASD Methodologies for Micropiles Micropile Geotechnical Capacity ‐ FHWA • • IBC Code does not
ASD Methodologies for Micropiles
Micropile Geotechnical Capacity ‐ FHWA
IBC Code does not offer specific guidance for
bond values for geotechnical design of micropiles.
ASD Methodologies for Micropiles Summary of Typical Grout to Ground Bond Values for Preliminary Micropile
ASD Methodologies for Micropiles
Summary of Typical Grout to Ground Bond Values for Preliminary Micropile Design
Soil / Rock Description
Typical Range of Grout-to-Ground Nominal Strength
Type A
Type B
Type C
Type D
English (psi)
SI (kPa)
English (psi)
SI (kPa)
English (psi)
SI (kPa)
English (psi)
SI (kPa)
min
max
avg
min
max
avg
min
max
avg
min
max
avg
min
max
avg
min
max
avg
min
max
avg
min
max
avg
Silt and Clay (some sand)
soft, medium plastic
5.1
10.2
7.6
35
70
52.5
5.1
13.8
9.4
35
95
65
7.3
17.4
12.3
50
120
85
7.3
21.0
14.1
50
145
97.5
Silt and Clay (some sand)
stiff, dense to very dense
7.3
17.4
12.3
50
120
85
10.2
27.6
18.9
70
190
130
13.8
27.6
20.7
95
190
142.5
13.8
27.6
20.7
95
190
142.5
Sand (some silt)
fine, loose-medium dense
10.2
21.0
15.6
70
145
107.5
10.2
27.6
18.9
70
190
130
13.8
27.6
20.7
95
190
142.5
13.8
34.8
24.3
95
240
167.5
Sand (some silt, gravel)
fine-coarse, med-very dense
13.8
31.2
22.5
95
215
155
17.4
52.2
34.8
120
360
240
21.0
52.2
36.6
145
360
252.5
21.0
55.8
38.4
145
385
265
Gravel (some sand)
medium-very dense
13.8
38.4
26.1
95
265
180
17.4
52.2
34.8
120
360
240
21.0
52.2
36.6
145
360
252.5
21.0
55.8
38.4
145
385
265
Glacial Till (silt, sand, gravel)
medium-very dense, cemented
13.8
27.6
20.7
95
190
142.5
13.8
45.0
29.4
95
310
202.5
17.4
45.0
31.2
120
310
215
17.4
48.6
33.0
120
335
227.5
Soft Shales
fresh-moderate fracturing
little to no weathering
29.7
79.8
54.8
205
550
377.5
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Slates and Hard Shales
fresh-moderate fracturing
little to no weathering
74 7
.
200 2
.
137 4
.
515
1380
947 5
.
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Limestone
fresh-moderate fracturing
little to no weathering
150.1
300.2
225.2
1035
2070
1553
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Sandstone
fresh-moderate fracturing
little to no weathering
75.4
250.2
162.8
520
1725
1123
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Granite and Basalt
fresh-moderate fracturing
little to no weathering
200.2
609.2
404.7
1380
4200
2790
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Type A - Gravity grout only.
Type B - Pressure grouted through the casing during casing withdrawal.
Type C - Primary grout placed under gravity head, then one phase of secondary "global" pressure grouting.
Type D - Primary grout placed under gravity head, then one or more phases of secondary "global" pressure grouting.
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles • First Edition of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Specifications was published in
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
• First Edition of AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Specifications was
published in 1994.
• It has undergone a gradual
implementation program with
an FHWA target date for full
imp lementat ion by 2007.
• Micropile Design Specification
Section adopted in 2007 as a
part o f S ec tion 10 –
Foundations.
• Micropile Construction
S pec ifi cation is currently un d er
review for adoption and
should be implemented in the
near f uture .
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles • T h e d esign provisions for Micropi l es
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
• T h e d esign provisions for Micropi l es un d er
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications are
contained in Section 3 – Loads and Load Factors
and in Section 10 – Foundations.
• Section 10 spells out the requirements for
Foun d ati ons i n general an d for Mi crop il es
specifically in various subsections of 10. It refers
back to Section 3 for Loadin g related information.
• We will review the major sections and
subsections that are applicable to micropiles.
• In terms of any detailed discussion, we will focus
on single micropiles under axial loading
conditions only.
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles Section 10 Major Divisions 10. 1 – S cope 10.2 –
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
Section 10 Major Divisions
10. 1 – S cope
10.2 – Definitions
10. 3 – Notations
10.4 – Soil and Rock Properties
10. 5 – Limit States and Resistance Factors
10.6 – Spread Footings
10.7 – Driven Piles
10.8 – Drilled Shafts
10.9 – Micropiles
10.10 ‐ References
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles Section 10.4 – Soil and Rock Properties (for Foundations in general)
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
Section 10.4 – Soil and Rock Properties (for
Foundations in general)
10. 4. 1 – Informational Needs
10.4.2 – Subsurface Exploration
10. 4. 3 – L ab oratory Tests
10.4.4 – In Situ Tests
10.4.5 – Geophysical Tests
10. 4. 6 – Selection of Design Properties
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles Section 10.5 – Limit States and Resistance Factors (for Foundations in
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
Section 10.5 – Limit States and Resistance
Factors (for Foundations in general)
10. 5. 1 – General
10.5.2 – Service Limit States
10. 5. 3 – S trength Li m it S tates
10.5.4 – Extreme Events Limit States
10.5.5 – Resistance Factors
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles Section 10.5 – Limit States and Resistance Factors 10. 5. 1
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
Section 10.5 – Limit States and Resistance
Factors
10. 5. 1 – General
“Foun d at ions sh all b e proport ioned so t h at t h e
factored resistance is not less than the effects of
t h e factored load s specifi ed in S ect ion 3.”
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles The Load Combinations and Load Factors included in Table 3.4.1 ‐1
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
The Load Combinations and Load Factors
included in Table 3.4.1 ‐1 were developed
specifically for highway / bridge structures and
may not be applicable to other structures.
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles Section 10.5 – Limit States and Resistance Factors 10.5.2 – Service
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
Section 10.5 – Limit States and Resistance Factors
10.5.2 – Service Limit States
Foundation design at the Service Limit State shall
include:
• Settlements,
• Horizontal Movements ,
• Overall Stability,
• Scour at the Design Flood
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles Section 10.5 – Limit States an d Resistance Factors 10.5.3 –
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
Section 10.5 – Limit States an d Resistance Factors
10.5.3 – Strength Limit States
10.5.3.1 – General
Design of foundations at Strength Limit States shall include
cons ideration o f t h e nom ina l geotech n ical an d structural res istances o f
the foundation elements. Design at strength limit states shall not
consider the deformations required to mobilize the nominal resistance,
unless a definition of failure based on deformation is s p ecified.
The design of all foundations at the strength limit state shall consider:
• Structural Resistance and
• Loss of lateral and vertical support due to scour at the design flood
event.
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles Section 10.5 – Limit States an d Resistance Factors 10.5.3 –
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
Section 10.5 – Limit States an d Resistance Factors
10.5.3 – Strength Limit States
10.5.3.5 – Micropiles
The design of micropile foundations at the strength limit state shall
a lso cons ider:
• Axial compression resistance for single micropile,
• Micropile group compression resistance,
• Uplift resistance for single micropile,
• Uplift resistance for micropile groups,
• Micropile group punching failure into a weaker stratum below
th e b earing st rat um, an d s ing le microp il e punching fa il ure
where tip resistance is considered,
• Single micropile and micropile group lateral resistance, and
• Constructability, including method(s) of micropile
construction.
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles Section 10.5 – Limit States an d Resistance Factors 10.5.5 –
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
Section 10.5 – Limit States an d Resistance Factors
10.5.5 – Resistance Factors
10.5.5.1 – Service Limit States
Resistance factors for the service limit states shall be taken as 1.0,
except as prov ide d for overall sta bili ty in Article 11. 6.2.3. A res istance
factor of 1.0 shall be used to assess the ability of the foundation to
meet the specified deflection criteria after scour due to the design
flood.
10.5.5.2 – Strength Limit States
Resistance factors for different types of foundation systems at the
strength limit state shall be taken as specified in Articles 10.5.5.2.2,
10.5.5.2.3, 10.5.5.2.4, and 10.5.5.2.5, unless regionally specific values
or substantial successful experience is available to justify higher values.
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles Section 10.5 – Limit States an d Resistance Factors 10.5.5 –
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
Section 10.5 – Limit States an d Resistance Factors
10.5.5 – Resistance Factors
10.5.5.2.5 – Micropiles
Resistance factors shall be selected from Table 10.5.5.2.5‐1 based on
t h e meth o d use d for d etermin ing t h e nom ina l ax ia l p il e res istance. If
the resistance factors provided in Table 10.5.5.2.5 ‐1 are to be applied
to piles in potentially creeping soils, highly plastic soils, weak rock, or
other marg inal g round t yp e , the resistance factor values in the Table
should be reduced by 20 percent to reflect greater design uncertainty.
The resistance factors in Table 10.5.5.2.5‐1 were calibrated by fitting to
ASD p rocedures temp ered with en g ineering j ud gment. The resistance
factors in Table 10.5.5.2.5. ‐2 for structural resistance were calibrated
by fitting to ASD procedures and are equal to or slightly more
conservative than corresponding resistance factors from Section 5 of
th e AASHTO LRFD Specificatio s fo ei fo ced co c ete colu desig .
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles Section 10.5 – Limit States and Resistance Factors 10.5.5 – Resistance
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
Section 10.5 – Limit States and Resistance Factors
10.5.5 – Resistance Factors
10.5.5.3 – Extreme Event Limit States
Resistance factors for extreme limit state , including
the design of foundations to resist earthquake, ice,
vehicle or vessel impact loads, shall be taken as 1.0.
For uplift resistance of piles and shafts, the
res i stance factor s h a ll b e ta ken as 0. 80 or l ess.
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles Section 10 Major Divisions 10.6 – Spread Footings 10. 7 –
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
Section 10 Major Divisions
10.6 – Spread Footings
10. 7 – Driven Piles
10.8 – Drilled Shafts
10.9 – Micropiles
10.10 ‐ References
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles Section 10.9 – Micropiles 10.9.1 – General 10. 9. 2 –
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
Section 10.9 – Micropiles
10.9.1 – General
10. 9. 2 – Service Limit State Design
10.9.3 – Strength Limit State Design
10.9.4 – Extreme Event Limit State Design
10.9.5 – Corrosion and Deterioration
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles Section 10.9.1 – General 10.9.1.1 – Scope 10.9.1.2 – Minimum Micropile
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
Section 10.9.1 – General
10.9.1.1 – Scope
10.9.1.2 – Minimum Micropile Spacing ,
Clearance and Embedment into Cap
10.9.1.3 – Microp iles t hroug h Em bank ment Fill
10.9.1.4 – Battered Micropiles
10.9.1.5 – Micropile Design Requirements
10. 9. 1. 6 – Determination of Micropile Loads
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles Section 10.9.1 – General 10.9.1.2 – Minimum Micropile Spacing, Clearance and
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
Section 10.9.1 – General
10.9.1.2 – Minimum Micropile Spacing,
Clearance and Embedment into Cap
Center‐to ‐center p il e spaci ng sh ou ld not b e less
than 30.0 in. or 3.0 pile diameters, whichever is
greater. O t h erwise, t h e prov isions o f Art icle
10.7.1.2 shall apply.
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles Section 10.9.1 – General 10.9.1.3 – Micropiles through Embankment Fill Micropiles
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
Section 10.9.1 – General
10.9.1.3 – Micropiles through Embankment Fill
Micropiles extending through embankments
sh all penetrate a m in i mum o f 10. 0 f t into
original ground, unless the required nominal
ax ial an d lateral resistance occurs at a lesser
penetration below the embankment within
b ed rock or ot h er su ita bl e support materia l s.
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles S ecti on 10. 9.1 – Genera l 10.9.1.5 – Micropile
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
S ecti on 10. 9.1 – Genera l
10.9.1.5 – Micropile Design Requirements
Micropile design shall address the following issues as appropriate:
• Nominal axial resistance to be specified in the contract and size of micropile group
r qu ir d t p r id
d qu t
upp rt, ith
n id r ti
n
f h
n min l
i
l
micropile resistance will be determined in the field;
• Group interaction;
• Pile quantity estimation from estimated pile penetration required to meet nominal
ax i a l resi stance an d other design requ i rements;
• Minimum pile penetration necessary to satisfy the requirements caused by uplift,
scour, downdrag, settlement, liquefaction, lateral loads, and seismic conditions;
• Foundation deflection to meet the established movement and associated structure
per formance cr i ter i a;
• Pile foundation nominal structural resistance; and
• Long‐ term durability of the micropile in service, i.e. corrosion and deterioration.
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles Section 10.9.2 – Service Limit State Design 10.9.2.1 – General 10.
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
Section 10.9.2 – Service Limit State Design
10.9.2.1 – General
10. 9. 2. 2 – Tolerable Movements
10.9.2.3 – Settlement
10.9.2.4 – Horizontal Micropile Foundation
Movement
10.9.2.5 – Settlement Due to Downdrag
10. 9. 2. 6 – Lateral Squeeze
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles Section 10.9.3 – Strengt h Limit State Design 10.9.3.1 – General
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
Section 10.9.3 – Strengt h Limit State Design
10.9.3.1 – General
10.9.3.2 – Ground Water and Bouyancy
10.9.3.3 – Scour
10.9.3.4 – D own d rag
10.9.3.5 ‐ Nominal Axial Compression Resistance of a Single
Micropile
10.9.3.6 – Resistance of Micropile Groups in Compression
10.9.3.7 – Nominal Uplift Resistance of a Single Micropile
10.9.3.8 – Nominal Uplift Resistance of Micropile Groups
10.9.3.9 – Nominal Horizontal Resistance of Micropiles and
Micropile Groups
10.9.3.10 – Structural Resistance
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles Section 10.9.3 – Strength Limit State Design 10.9.3.1 – General For
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
Section 10.9.3 – Strength Limit State Design
10.9.3.1 – General
For strength limit state design, the following shall
be determined:
• Loads and performance requirements;
• Micropile dimensions and nominal axial micropile resistance;
• Size and configuration of the micropile group to provide adequate
foundation support;
• Estimated micropile length to be used in the construction contract
documents to provide a basis for bidding;
• A minimum micropile penetration, if required, for the particular site
conditions an d loading , determined b ase d on t h e maximum
(deepest) penetration needed to meet all of the applicable
requirements identified in Article 10.7.6; and
• The nominal structural resistance of the micro p ile and /or micro p ile
group.
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles Section 10.9.3 – Strength Limit State Design 10.9.3.5 – Nominal Axial
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
Section 10.9.3 – Strength Limit State Design
10.9.3.5 – Nominal Axial Compression
Resistance of a Sin g le Micropile
Microp il es sh all b e d esigne d to resist fail ure o f
the bonded length in soil and rock, or for
m icrop il es b earing on rock, fail ure o f t h e rock at
the micropile tip.
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles Section 10.9.3.5 – Nominal Axial Compression Resistance of a Single Micropile
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
Section 10.9.3.5 – Nominal Axial Compression
Resistance of a Single Micropile
The factored resistance of a micropile, R R , shall be taken as:
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles Section 10.9.3.5 – Nominal Axial Compression Resistance of a Single Micropile
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
Section 10.9.3.5 – Nominal Axial Compression
Resistance of a Single Micropile
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles Section 10.9.3 – Strengt h Limit State Design 10.9.3.5 – Nominal
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
Section 10.9.3 – Strengt h Limit State Design
10.9.3.5 – Nominal Axial Com p ression Resistance of a Sin gle
Micropile
10.9 .3.5.4 – Mi crop il e L oa d Test
The load test shall follow the procedures specified in ASTM
D1143 for compressi on an d ASTM D3689 for tensi on. Th e
loading procedure should follow the Quick Load Test Method,
unless detailed longer ‐ term load settlement data is needed, in
which case t h e stan d ard l oa d ing procedure s h ou ld be used .
Unless specified otherwise by the Engineer, the pile axial
resistance shall be determined from the test data using the
Davisson Method as presented in Article 10.7.3 .8.2.
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles Section 10.9.3 – Strength Limit State Design 10.9.3.5 – Nominal Axial
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
Section 10.9.3 – Strength Limit State Design
10.9.3.5 – Nominal Axial Compression Resistance of a Single Micropile
10.9.3.5.4 – Micropile Load Test
The number of load tests required to account for site variability shall
be as specified in Article 10.5.5.2.2. The number of test micropiles
required should be increased in nonuniform subsurface conditions.
In addition, proof tests loaded to the required factored load shall be
performed on one pile per substructure unit or five percent of the
piles , whichever is greater, unless specified otherwise by the
Engineer.
The resistance factors for axial comp ressive resistance or axial u p lift
resistance shall be taken as specified in Table 10.5.5.2.5 ‐1.
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles Section 10.9.3 – Strength Limit State Design 10.9.3.7 – Nominal Uplift
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
Section 10.9.3 – Strength Limit State Design
10.9.3.7 – Nominal Uplift Resistance of a Single
Micropile
Up lift resistance shall be evaluated when
upward loads act on the micropiles. Micropiles
subjected to uplift forces shall be investigated
for resistance to pullout, for their structural
strength, and for the strength of their
connection to suppor ted component s.
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles Section 10.9.3 – Strength Limit State Design 10. 9 . 3
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
Section 10.9.3 – Strength Limit State Design
10. 9 . 3 . 10 – Structura l Res i stance
10. 9 . 3 . 10 . 2 ‐ Axia l Compressive Resistance
10.9.3.10.2a ‐ Cased Length
10. 9 . 3 . 10 . 2b ‐ Uncased Length
10.9.3.10.3 ‐ Axial Tension Resistance
10.9.3.10.3a ‐ Cased Len gth
10.9.3.10.3b ‐ Uncased Length
10.9.3.10.4 ‐ Plun ge Len gth Transfer Load
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles 10.9.3.10.2 ‐ Axial Compressive Resistance
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
10.9.3.10.2 ‐ Axial Compressive Resistance
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles 10.9.3.10.2 ‐ Axial Compressive Resistance 10.9.3.10.2a ‐ Cased Len gth
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
10.9.3.10.2 ‐ Axial Compressive Resistance
10.9.3.10.2a ‐ Cased Len gth
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles 10.9.3.10.2 ‐ Axial Compressive Resistance 10.9.3.10.2b ‐ Uncased Len gth
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
10.9.3.10.2 ‐ Axial Compressive Resistance
10.9.3.10.2b ‐ Uncased Len gth
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles 10.9.3.10.3 ‐ Axial Tension Resistance
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
10.9.3.10.3 ‐ Axial Tension Resistance
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles 10.9.3.10.3 ‐ Axial Tension Resistance 10.9.3.10.3a ‐ Cased Len gth
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
10.9.3.10.3 ‐ Axial Tension Resistance
10.9.3.10.3a ‐ Cased Len gth
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles 10.9.3.10.3 ‐ Axial Tension Resistance 10.9.3.10.3b ‐ Uncased Len gth
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
10.9.3.10.3 ‐ Axial Tension Resistance
10.9.3.10.3b ‐ Uncased Len gth
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles 10.9.3.10.4 – Plunge Length Transfer Load
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
10.9.3.10.4 – Plunge Length Transfer Load
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles 10.9.3.10.4 – Plunge Length Transfer Load
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
10.9.3.10.4 – Plunge Length Transfer Load
Limitations of AASHTO LRFD • Loa d Com b inations an d Loa d Factors
Limitations of AASHTO LRFD
• Loa d Com b inations an d Loa d Factors in Section 3 (Ta bl e
3.4.1‐1) were developed specifically for bridges and may
not be applicable to other structures.
• Current Resistance Factors are calibrated based on fitting to
ASD, not on reliability theory. Therefore does not truly
reflect reliability based design at this time except in format.
• No Strength Limit State Checks for lateral loads. Not
enough consensus exists in terms of design methodology
for LRFD.
• Includes strain compatibility related stress limitations which
have been shown to be erroneous for reinforcing in a
confined condition.
• Davisson is the criteria for determining the Resistance of a
micropile. Davisson is generally considered to be overly
conservative and inappropriate for micropiles.
Design Example and Comparison For com p arison of the different desi g n approaches;
Design Example and Comparison
For com p arison of the different desi g n
approaches; we will look at one example
micro p ile confi guration and analyze it with two
ASD methodologies (FHWA and IBC) and
AASHTO LRFD for com p arison.
Design Example and Comparison Micropile Information (Given) Casing Size: 7” OD X 0.500” Casin g
Design Example and Comparison
Micropile Information (Given)
Casing Size:
7” OD X 0.500”
Casin g Stren gth: N80 Mill Secondar y
F y = 80 ksi minimum
Core Size:
Core Strength:
#18 Full Length
ASTM A615 Gr 80
F y = 80 ksi
Grout Strength:
f ’ = 4000 psi
c
Cased Length:
40.00’
Roc k Type:
Li mestone
Socket Diameter: 7.5” = 0.625’
Plunge Length:
1.00’
Design Example and Comparison Basic Cross Section Properties #18 Bar Core, 7”OD X 0.500” Casing,
Design Example and Comparison
Basic Cross Section Properties
#18 Bar Core, 7”OD X 0.500” Casing,
7 . 5 ” S ocket Di ameter
CASED SECTION
A bar = 4.00 in 2 (#18)
A casing = 3.1416(r o 2 ‐r i 2 ) = 10.21 in 2
A grout = 3.1416(3) 2 ‐4.00 = 24.27 in 2
UNCASED SECTION
A bar = 4.00 in 2 (#18)
A grout = 3 . 1416(3.75) 2 ‐4 .00 = 40 . 18 i n 2
Design Example and Comparison Compression Structural Design – Cased Length
Design Example and Comparison
Compression Structural Design – Cased Length
Design Example and Comparison Compression Structural Design ‐ Uncased Length
Design Example and Comparison
Compression Structural Design ‐ Uncased Length
Design Example and Comparison Tension Structural Design
Design Example and Comparison
Tension Structural Design
Design Example and Comparison Tension Structural Design
Design Example and Comparison
Tension Structural Design
Design Example and Comparison Structural Design – Comparison Com p ression Case FHWA ASD P
Design Example and Comparison
Structural Design – Comparison
Com p ression Case
FHWA ASD
P ac = 0. 40 f c
A g + 0. 47 f y A s
IBC ASD
P ac = 0.33 f c ’ A g + 0.40 f y A s
AASHTO LRFD EQ UIVALENT ASD FORMULA
P ac = 0.36 f c ’ A g + 0.425 f y A s
P ac = 0. 38 f c
A g + 0. 45 f y A s
(LF avg = 1.5)
( LF avg = 1. 42)
Design Example and Comparison Structural Design – Comparison Tension Case FHWA ASD P at =
Design Example and Comparison
Structural Design – Comparison
Tension Case
FHWA ASD
P at = 0. 55 f y A b
IBC ASD
P at = 0.60 f y A b
AASHTO LRFD EQ UIVALENT ASD FORMULA
P at = 0.533 f y A b
P at = 0. 563 f y A b
(LF avg = 1.5)
( LF avg = 1. 42)
Design Example and Comparison Structural Design ‐ Comparison Compression Allowable Service Load – Cased Length
Design Example and Comparison
Structural Design ‐ Comparison
Compression
Allowable Service
Load – Cased
Length
Compression
Allowable Service
Load – Uncased
Length
Tension
Allowable
Service Load
FHWA ASD
573
k
215
k
176
k
IBC ASD
487
k
181
k
192
k
AASHTO LRFD
(LF avg =1.50)
518
k
194
k
171
k
AASHTO LRFD
(LF avg =1.42)
547
k
205
k
180
k
Design Example and Comparison Structural Design ‐ Comparison Compression Allowable Service Load Cased Length 580
Design Example and Comparison
Structural Design ‐ Comparison
Compression Allowable Service Load Cased Length
580
560
540
520
500
480
460
440
FHWA ASD
IBC ASD
AASHTO LRFD (LF = 1.50)
AASHTO LRFD (LF = 1.42)
Axial Lo a d (kips)
Design Example and Comparison Structural Design ‐ Comparison Compression Allowable Service Load Uncased Length 220
Design Example and Comparison
Structural Design ‐ Comparison
Compression Allowable Service Load Uncased Length
220
210
200
190
180
170
160
FHWA ASD
IBC ASD
AASHTO LRFD (LF = 1.50)
AASHTO LRFD (LF = 1.42)
Axial Lo a d (kips)
Design Example and Comparison Structural Design ‐ Comparison Tension Allowable Service Load 195 190 185
Design Example and Comparison
Structural Design ‐ Comparison
Tension Allowable Service Load
195
190
185
180
175
170
165
160
FHWA ASD
IBC ASD
AASHTO LRFD (LF = 1.50)
AASHTO LRFD (LF = 1.42)
Axial Lo a d (kips)
Design Example and Comparison Geotechnical Design
Design Example and Comparison
Geotechnical Design
Design Example and Comparison Geotechnical Design
Design Example and Comparison
Geotechnical Design
Design Example and Comparison Geotechnical Design
Design Example and Comparison
Geotechnical Design
Design Example and Comparison Geotechnical Design
Design Example and Comparison
Geotechnical Design
Design Example and Comparison Geotechnical Design ‐ Comparison
Design Example and Comparison
Geotechnical Design ‐ Comparison
Design Example and Comparison Geotechnical Design ‐ Comparison Geotechnical Allowable Service Load in Compression 240
Design Example and Comparison
Geotechnical Design ‐ Comparison
Geotechnical Allowable Service Load in Compression
240
230
220
210
200
190
180
FHWA ASD
IBC ASD
AASHTO LRFD (LF = 1.50)
AASHTO LRFD (LF = 1.42)
Axial Lo a d (kips)
Design Example and Comparison Overall Pile Capacity ‐ Comparison Compression Allowable Service Load Tension
Design Example and Comparison
Overall Pile Capacity ‐ Comparison
Compression
Allowable
Service Load
Tension
Required
Allowable
Socket
Service
Length
Load
FHWA ASD
236
k
176
k
11.14
feet
IBC ASD
202
k
192
k
10.05
feet
AASHTO LRFD (LF avg =1.50)
214
k
171
k
10.79
feet
AASHTO LRFD (LF avg =1.42)
226
k
180
k
10.79
feet
FHWA appears to be the most economical for compression loads. IBC
appears to be the most economical for tension loads. AASHTO LRFD appears
to be generally in the middle between the two except in the case of tension.
Summary • LRFD h as b een s low to catc h on in t
Summary
• LRFD h as b een s low to catc h on in t h e micropi le world d ue to a
predominant ASD design focus, resulting in great deal of
uncertainty and confusion about LRFD.
• AASHTO LRFD B r id ge D es i gn Specifications requ ires th e use o f LRFD
for micropiles and other codes may in the future.
• The AASHTO LRFD provisions are fairly straight forward to
imp lement but have some limitations relative to historical Service
Load design procedures.
• For structural design of micropiles in compression, AASHTO LRFD is
more conservative than FHWA designs but generally less
conservative than IBC designs .
• For structural design of micropiles in tension , AASHTO LRFD is
generally more conservative than IBC designs and less conservative
than FHWA but can be more conservative than both methods .
• For geotechnical design of micropiles in tension or compression, the
AASHTO LRFD equivalent working bond transfer value is slightly
more conservative (Δ =1.5 to 6.5%) than that determined by FHWA
ASD meth o d s.

THANK YOU!

for Your Time and Attention You will be rewarded accordingly…

Sho u ld you have f u rther q u estion , conta c t me at:

jonathan.bennett.pe@gmail.com

Visit www.micropile.org for current information on what's happening with micropile design and construction.
Visit www.micropile.org for current information on what's happening with micropile design and construction.
Visit www.micropile.org for current information on what's happening with micropile design and construction.

Visit www.micropile.org for current information on what's happening with micropile design and construction.