AASHTOs LRFD Specifications for

Foundation and Earth Retaining

Structure Design
(Through 2006 Interims and Beyond)
Jerry A. DiMaggio, P.E.
Principal Bridge/Geotechnical Engineer
FHWA, Washington D. C.

Existing Specifications

Standard
17th Edition

LRFD
3rd Edition

AASHTO and FHWA

have agreed that all
state DOTs will use
LRFD for design of
NEW structures by
2007.

AK
95%

AK

AASHTO LRFD Survey

May 2005
WA
100%

WA

MT
35%

MT

OR
100%

OR

ND

ND

MN
40%

MN

ID

WY

WY

WI

WI
IA

NE

UT
75%

UT

CO
90%

CO

KS
50%

KS

MO

MO

IL
5%

IL ININ

AZ

NM

OK
100%

OK

TX
13%

TX

PA
WV
80%

WV

TN

TN

AR
AR
MS
MS

VA

VA
NC

SC
50%

NC

VT
5%

VT
0- 24 - 10
0- 2-2

NJ
DE
MD

SC

5%

LA
LA

PA
100%

OH
OH

KY

CA
NM

NY

KY

CA

AZ

NY
50%

MI
MI

IA
5%

NE
60%

NV

ME

SD

ID
100%

NV

ME
100%

SD
10%

AL
AL

GA

GA

HI

Full
Implementation

50-90%
Partial Implementation

26-50%
Partial Implementation

11-25%
Partial Implementation

1-10% Partial Implementation

q o Implementation
N

FL
100%

FL
PR

NH
MA
RI
CT

Earthwork and walls: ASD

Superstructure: LRFD
Substructure: LRFD/ASD
Foundations: ASD

Reasons for Not Adopting

Human nature.
No perceived benefits.
Unfamiliarity with LRFD methods.
Lack of confidence in the computed
results.
Perceived errors and inconsistencies.
A specification that did not reflect
current design practices.

What is FHWA doing?

Bridge Design examples.

NHI LRFD Training Courses.
FHWA Technical Assistance.
FHWA/ NCHRP Calibration efforts.
AASHTO Section 11 and 10
Revisions.

Bridge Design Examples

Concrete

Steel

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/lrfd/examples.htm

NHI LRFD Training Courses

Course 130082A
LRFD for Highway
Bridge Substructures
and Earth Retaining
Structures

FHWA/ NCHRP Activities

NCHRP Project 12-66, Specifications
for Serviceability in the Design of
Bridge Foundations
NCHRP Report 507, Load and
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for
Deep Foundations

FHWA/ NCHRP Activities

Publication No. FHWA-NHI-05-052,
Development of Geotechnical
Resistance Factors and Downdrag
Load Factors for LRFD Foundation
Strength Limit State Design

Revisions to Section 10

Compiled by a Technical Expert Panel

Review and input from A Technical
Working Group (TWG)
Accepted by AASHTO Subcommittee
T-15 in June 2005 in Newport, Rhode
Island
To be published in 2006 Interim

http://bridges.transportation.org/?siteid=34&c=downloads
Attachments to Agenda Item 39 Section 3 revisions
Attachments to Agenda item 40 Section 10 revisions

Topics Included

Subsurface
investigations
Soil and rock
properties
Shallow
foundations
Driven piles
Drilled shafts
Rigid and flexible
culverts
Abutments
Walls (All types)

Integral
Topics
NOT Included

abutments
Micropiles
Augercast piles
Soil nails
Reinforced
slopes
All soil and rock
earthwork
features.

Section 10 Contents
10.1 SCOPE
NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
10.2 DEFINITIONS UPDATED
10.3 NOTATION
UPDATED, CONSISTANT
10.4 SOIL AND ROCK PROPERTIES
10.5 LIMIT STATES AND RESISTANCE FACTORS
10.6 SPREAD FOOTINGS
REORGANIZED,
10.7 DRIVEN PILES
NEW CONTENT
10.8 DRILLED SHAFTS
NEW CONTENT
PROPERTY INFO

Section 10.4 Soil and Rock Properties

GEC 5
Sabatini, 2002

Subsurface
Investigations
Mayne, 2002

Section 10.4 Soil and Rock Properties

!
W
E
N
10.4.6 SELECTION OF DESIGN PROPERTIES

Soil Strength
Soil Deformation
Rock Mass Strength
Rock Mass Deformation
Erodibility of rock

NE
W!

Section 10.5 Limit States and

Resistance Factors

Resistance factors revised

Additional discussion on the basis for
resistance factors
Additional discussion of extreme event
considerations

Articles 3.4.1 and 3.11.8

Downdrag
Methods for computing
Load Factors
Use of minimum load factors clarified
Piles, -method
Piles, -method
Drilled Shafts, Oneill
and Reese (1999)

Maximum
1.4

Minimum
0.25

1.05

0.30

1.25

0.35

Section 10.6 Spread Footings

Eccentricity provisions clarified
B = B 2eB
L = L 2eL

ML

Q = P/(B L)
Applies to
geotechnical design
for settlement and
bearing resistance

MB

Section 10.6 Spread Footings

Hough method
Elastic Settlement of
cohesionless soils

' vo v
1

H H c log
C'
' vo

Section 10.6 Spread Footings

NOMINAL RESISTANCE
COHESION
UNIT WEIGHT
DEPTH

WIDTH

qn = c Ncm + Df Nqm Cwq + 0.5 B Nm Cw

Nc sc ic

Nq sq dq iq

Nsi

Water
table
correction
Shear
through
overburden
Inclination
Factors
Bearing
Capacity
Factors
Shape
Correction
Factors
correction
factor
Settlement
correction
factors removed

Section 10.7 Driven Piles

Settlement of pile groups

4 new diagrams
From:
Hannigan (2005)

Section 10.7 Driven Piles

Qt
Ht

Mt

The P-y method specified

for horizontal deflection
P

Section 10.7 Driven Piles

S

P
ig
r
O

l
a
in

d
o
M

e
v
r
u
c

d
e
i
if

e
v
r
cu

Pm * P
y

P-multiplier (Pm)
Spacing (S) Row 1 Row 2
3D
0.7
0.5
5D
1.0
0.85

Row 3
0.35
0.7

Section 10.7 Driven Piles

Field determination of nominal resistance

Static load test

Dynamic load test

Section 10.7 Driven Piles

Static analysis methods

Nordlund
Thurman method
added

Section 10.7 Driven Piles

Static analysis methods

Primary use is for pile length estimation

for contract drawings
Secondary use for estimation of downdrag,
uplift resistance and scour effects
Should rarely be used as sole means of
determining pile resistance

Section 10.7 Driven Piles

Requirements for
driveability analysis
have been added and
clarified

Section 10.7 Driven Piles

!
W
E
N
10.7.3.2
10.7.6

NE
W!

PILE LENGTH ESTIMATES FOR

CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
Determination of minimum pile
penetration

Section 10.8 Drilled shafts

Refers to driven piles section where possible
Downdrag
Group settlement
Horizontal displacement (single and group)
Lateral squeeze
Water table and buoyancy
Scour
Group resistance (cohesive soil only)
Uplift (group and load test sections)
Buckling
Extreme event limit state

Section 10.8 Drilled shafts

Static analysis methods

for soil and rock have
been updated
Consideration of both
base and side
resistance in rock is
now included

ONeill and Reese (1999)

Section 10.8 Drilled shafts

A+B
A+D

QS

Resistance

Total Resistance
A

B+C

Side Resistance

Tip Resistance
QP

Displacement

B
C

Conclusion

Future Enhancements
Overall stability
Weight is both a load and a resistance
Service limit state (should be strength
limit state)
+
WT
N tan f
c
lT
N
T

WT

l
WT

l
WT

N
T

N tan f
cl
T

Future Enhancements
Inclination Factors
Ignored by many practicing engineers
Based on small scale tests and theory
Effect of embedment (D )
f

Resistance factors are for vertical load

Q
Df

Future Enhancements
Nominal bearing resistance of rock
Very little guidance available
CSIR Rock Mass Rating System
proposed
CSIR developed for tunnel design
Includes life safety considerations and
therefore, margin of safety
May be conservative

Future Enhancements
V
HH
Pile head fixity
Connection details
Effects of axial loads

Future Enhancements
Dx
Dz

Serviceability limits
NCHRP 12-66
Due April 2006

What Should I Know and Do?

Become familiar with BOTH

the AASHTO standard
specifications and LRFD
specs.
Develop an understanding
of your agencys current
design practice

What Should I Know and Do?

Develop and compare results

for SEVERAL example
problems with LRFD and
YOUR standard design
practice
Translate your current
practice to an LRFD format

What Should I Know and Do?

Communicate your findings to

AASHTOs SubCommitteee
members

AASHTO Section 11

Design specifications for:

Conventional
gravity/semigravity walls
Non-gravity cantilevered walls
Anchored walls
Mechanically Stabilized Earth
(MSE) walls
Prefabricated modular walls

LRFD Specifications for

Foundation/ Earth Retaining
Structure Design
Questions?