100%(1)100% au considerat acest document util (1 vot)

2K vizualizări108 paginiAn overview of LRFD for micropiles including a design example with comparison between SLD methods and AASHTO LRFD. Presented at 2011 ADSC / DFI Micropile Seminar in Little Rock, AR.

May 05, 2011

© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

An overview of LRFD for micropiles including a design example with comparison between SLD methods and AASHTO LRFD. Presented at 2011 ADSC / DFI Micropile Seminar in Little Rock, AR.

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

100%(1)100% au considerat acest document util (1 vot)

2K vizualizări108 paginiAn overview of LRFD for micropiles including a design example with comparison between SLD methods and AASHTO LRFD. Presented at 2011 ADSC / DFI Micropile Seminar in Little Rock, AR.

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Sunteți pe pagina 1din 108

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

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

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 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 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

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 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 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)

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 )

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)

(FHWA , 1997)

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

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 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 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 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 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 ( 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

• 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

• 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 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 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 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 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 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 – 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)

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 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 – 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

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 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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

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 – 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 – 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

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 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 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 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. 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

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 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 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

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

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 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 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 . 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

10.9.3.10.2a ‐ Cased Len gth

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

10.9.3.10.3 ‐ 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

10.9.3.10.3b ‐ 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

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; 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 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,

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 ‐ Uncased Length

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 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 = 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

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

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

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

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 ‐ Comparison

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

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 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

## Mult mai mult decât documente.

Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.

Anulați oricând.