MnDOT Deep Foundation Design Using LRFD Methodology

LRFD Bridge Design Workshop June 12, 2007 David Dahlberg, P.E. LRFD Engineer

Presentation Overview
Previous Pile Design Method AASHTO LRFD Pile Design Method New MnDOT LRFD Method Pile Downdrag Pile Lateral Load Capacity Drilled Shaft Design

Previous Pile Design Method
Based on Allowable Stress Design (ASD) ∑ Qi ≤ Qult / FS
where

Q = service load
Qult = ultimate capacity FS = factor of safety

Previous Pile Design Method
Need to consider four things:
Capacity of soil Structural capacity of pile Driveability of pile (max driving stresses) Field verification during driving operation to ensure required resistance is obtained

Previous Pile Design Method
Design soil allowable capacity determination based on combination of:
Static analysis w/ F.S (done by geotechs) Correlation of borings with field verification method (done by Regional Construction Engineer)

Previous Pile Design Method
Typical pile was 12” dia. CIP w/0.25” wall
60 to 75 ton allowable maximum load (based on considering past practice, AASHTO, experience, and driveability of the pile)

Previous Pile Design Method
Majority of pile capacities based on field measured initial drive capacity Soil/pile setup used when warranted by soil profile
Only in low initial capacity situations

Previous Pile Design Method
Field verification during driving:
MnDOT Modified ENR Formula CIP piles
3.5E W + 0.1M P= ⋅ S + 0.2 W + M
3 .5 E W + 0 .2 M P= ⋅ S + 0 .2 W+M

H – piles

PDA sometimes used

AASHTO LRFD Design Method
Requires use of factored loads & nominal resistance ∑ ηi ⋅ γi ⋅Qi ≤ φ⋅Rn
where

η = load modifier
γ = load factor Q = service load φ = resistance factor Rn = nominal (ultimate) resistance

AASHTO LRFD Design Method
Need to consider four things:
Capacity of soil Structural capacity of pile Driveability of pile (max driving stresses) Field verification during driving operation to ensure required resistance is obtained

AASHTO LRFD Design Method
Capacity of soil:
Estimated by geotechnical engineer using static pile analysis Resistance factors φstat from LRFD Table 10.5.5.2.3-1

AASHTO LRFD Design Method
LRFD Resistance Factors for Piles LRFD Table 10.5.5.2.3-1

AASHTO LRFD Design Method
Structural capacity of pile:
CIP piles per LRFD 6.9.5.1 φc ·(Asffy+0.85f’c·Ac) H piles per LRFD 6.9.4.1 φc ·Asfy Resistance factors for axial resistance per LRFD 6.15.2 and 6.5.4.2

AASHTO LRFD Design Method
LRFD Resistance Factors for Steel Piles found in LRFD 6.5.4.2

AASHTO LRFD Design Method Driveability (max driving resistance):
Per LRFD 10.7.8: 0.9· φda·fy Resistance factor per LRFD Table 10.5.5.2.3-1 and LRFD 6.5.4.2

AASHTO LRFD Design Method
LRFD Resistance Factor for Driveability
LRFD Table 10.5.5.2.3-1

LRFD 6.5.4.2

AASHTO LRFD Design Method
Field verification during driving operation to ensure required resistance is obtained:
Verification by static load test, dynamic testing (PDA), wave equation, or dynamic formula Uses resistance factor φdyn from LRFD Table 10.5.5.2.3-1

AASHTO LRFD Design Method
LRFD Resistance Factors for Piles LRFD Table 10.5.5.2.3-1

New MnDOT LRFD Method
Capacity of soil:
Look in the Foundation Report Typical Foundation Report should include:
Project description Field investigation and foundation conditions Foundation analysis Recommendations Additional sections as needed

New MnDOT LRFD Method
Foundation analysis should include:
Nominal Resistance (ultimate capacity) estimates provided by Foundations Unit Initial drive and set-up graph which shows resistance as a function of depth

New MnDOT LRFD Method

New MnDOT LRFD Method
Pile Resistance φRn for design
Determined considering LRFD structural capacity of pile, maximum LRFD driving resistance, and past experience

Pile Capacity Table

New MnDOT LRFD Method
Field verification during driving
Typically will use MnDOT dynamic formula modified to provide nominal resistance as the output Will use PDA on larger projects by running a PDA on the test piles to calibrate the MnDOT dynamic formula for other piles

New MnDOT LRFD Method
Field Verification during driving:
MnDOT Nominal Resistance Pile Driving Formula (for both CIP & H-piles)

10.5E W + 0.1M Rn = ⋅ S + 0.2 W + M
Incorporated by special provision SB2005-2452.2

New MnDOT LRFD Method
LRFD Resistance Factors for Piles LRFD Table 10.5.5.2.3-1

New MnDOT LRFD Method Resistance factors:
Compare LRFD to ASD LRFD: ∑ γQ ≤ φRn ASD: ∑ Q ≤ Rn /F.S. Then F.S.= γ / φ Average γ ≈ 1.4 For MnDOT formula, φdyn = 1.4/3.0 ≈ 0.45 For PDA, φdyn = 1.4/2.25 ≈ 0.60

New MnDOT LRFD Method
Comparisons made with MnDOT Formula, WEAP, Gates Formula, and PDA data

New MnDOT LRFD Method
Field verification
PDA
φdyn = 0.65

MnDOT Nominal Resistance Pile Driving Formula
φdyn = 0.40

New MnDOT LRFD Method
Monitoring method determines required driving resistance for the Contractor For example, assume a factored design load of 100 tons/pile:
PDA verification Rn = Qu/ φdyn = 100/0.65 = 154 tons MnDOT Ultimate formula Rn = Qu/ φdyn = 100/0.40 = 250 tons

New MnDOT LRFD Method

Example

New MnDOT LRFD Method

New MnDOT LRFD Method

Pile Capacity Table

New MnDOT LRFD Method

New MnDOT LRFD Method

Bridge Plan Load Tables

Implementation for T.H.
MnDOT Foundation Unit (Maplewood Lab)
Providing ultimate capacity estimates

Regional Bridge Construction Engineers
Provide pile type with maximum resistance Identify verification method(s) to use

Designers
Design with LRFD methods and loads Factored loads presented on plans Compare with past ASD designs

Implementation for State Aid
Geotechnical Engineer
Providing ultimate capacity estimates

Designer
Provide pile type with maximum resistance Identify verification method(s) to use Design with LRFD methods and loads Factored loads presented on plans Compare with past ASD designs

Research
Two projects rolled into one:
Development of Resistance Factor for MnDOT Pile Driving Formula Study of Pile Setup Evaluation Methods

Research begins this year

Downdrag
Downdrag is the downward load induced in the pile by the settling soil as it grips the pile due to negative side friction Covered in LRFD 3.11.8, 10.7.1.6.2, 10.7.2.5, and 10.7.3.7

Downdrag
Estimated downdrag load will be given in the Foundation Report For piles driven to rock or a dense layer (end bearing piles), nominal pile resistance should be based on pile structural capacity

Downdrag
For piles controlled by side friction, downdrag may cause pile settlement, which will result in reduction of the downdrag load Amount of pile settlement difficult to calculate, so downdrag on friction piles to be considered on a case by case basis

Downdrag
Transient loads reduce downdrag, so do not combine live load (or other transient loads) with downdrag Consider a load combination with DC + LL and also a load combination that includes DC + DD, but do not consider LL and DD within the same load combination Discuss with Regional Construction Engineer before using battered piles

Pile Lateral Load Capacity
Past Practice Using ASD
Service loads resisted by:
battered pile component + 12 kips/pile resistance

Current Practice Using LRFD
Factored loads resisted by:
battered pile component + 18 kips/pile resistance

Pile Lateral Load Capacity
Parametric study conducted:
12” & 16” diameter CIP piles HP10x42, HP12x53 and HP14x73 Single layer of noncohesive soil with varied friction angles of 30˚, 32˚, 34˚, 36˚, and 38˚ ENSOFT program L-Pile 5.0.30 used for this study

Pile Lateral Load Capacity
Piles under combined axial compressive load and moment due to axial and lateral loads at the top of piles LRFD 6.9.2.2 interaction equation:

Pu 8 ⎛ Mu + ⎜ φ c Pn 9 ⎜ φ f M n ⎝

⎞ ⎟ ≤ 1.0 ⎟ ⎠

Pile Lateral Load Capacity
Inserting known values for Pu, φcPn, φfMn, interaction equation solved for Mu Lateral load applied at top of pile and increased until the calculated maximum Mu was reached in the pile

Pile Lateral Load Capacity
Results:
Pile Type 12" CIP 16" CIP 16" CIP 16" CIP 16" CIP HP 10x42 HP 12x53 HP 14x73 Fy (ksi) 45 45 45 45 45 50 47.8 43.9 Wall t (in.) all 1/4 5/16 3/8 1/2 NA NA NA φRnh (kips) 24 28 40 40 40 24 32 40

Pile Lateral Load Capacity
Results:
Max deflection due to factored loads was approximately 0.5” Serviceability does not govern

Drilled Shaft Design
Design process is interactive Designer, Regional Construction Engineer, and geotechnical engineer need to discuss:
Proposed construction method Permanent vs. temporary casing Shaft diameter Vertical & horizontal loads for multiple row shaft foundation Loads & moment for single shafts Rock sockets

Drilled Shaft Design

Drilled Shaft Design
Resistance factors vary: Tip/side resistance Load tests Base grouting

Drilled Shaft Design
Existing foundation load tables given in MnDOT Bridge Design Manual Appendix 2-H do not include drilled shafts Spread footing load tables were used in the past New load tables to be created for drilled shafts

Questions

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.