21 views

Uploaded by Fredy Quispe Ledesma

- 13chapter 3a
- Dc_b051_Driven Prestressed Concrete Piles
- 11c - Pile Cap Details - Structural (1)
- FoundationCode2004
- 2012 Workshop LRFD Implementation in Geotechnical Design
- Drafting a Performance Specification
- اسئلة واجوابة فى الجسور
- Ds en 1997 1 Dk Na 2013 09 Geoteknik
- Vic rd specification Sec606
- Important Notes-Piled Raft Foundation
- analysisanddesignofamulti-storeyreinforcedconcrete-120923065657-phpapp01.pdf
- Applications
- Pile Driving Analysis via Driving Test
- 22477_rf.pdf
- 19 Sakr2008_Helical Piles for Power Transmission Lines_Case study in Northern manitoba Canada.pdf
- Untitled
- Deepfoundations Sakonnet Feature
- ACF-01 Foundation Design and Geo-Technical Engineering
- QC-03
- NSF Thesis_SRF.pdf

You are on page 1of 0

P.O. Box 94245

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9245

KATHLEEN BABINEAUX BLANCO

GOVERNOR

www.dotd.louisiana.gov

Bridge Design Section

JOHNNY B. BRADBERRY

SECRETARY

LRFD

BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

Prepared by staff of the Bridge Design Section,

under the direction of

Hossein Ghara,

Bridge Design Engineer Administrator

First Edition

Version 2006.1

September 1, 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE

MANUAL REVISION HISTORY

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 2 GENERAL DESIGN FEATURES

CHAPTER 3 LOAD AND LOAD COMBINATIONS

CHAPTER 4 NOT PRESENTLY USED

CHAPTER 5 SUPERSTRUCTURE

CHAPTER 6 SUBSTRUCTURE

PREFACE

A target date of October 2007 has been set as a goal by AASHTO member states to reach

their full transition to the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD). Therefore, by October

2006 all LADOTD new bridge projects beginning with preliminary design should be

designed by the latest edition of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Designs for

the reconstruction or rehabilitation of existing bridge structures should be completed with

guidance from the Bridge Design Engineer.

This manual documents policy on LRFD bridge design in Louisiana. It is a supplement to the

3

rd

edition of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, which designers should be

adhere to unless directed otherwise by this document.

Refer to the latest edition of LADOTD Bridge Design Manual (4

th

English Edition) for

information not covered in this manual.

Revisions to this manual shall be noted in the Manual Revision History sheet.

Copies of this manual may be downloaded from the LA DOTD Website under Bridge Design.

Copies of this manual may be obtained from:

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

Headquarters Administration Building Room 100

1201 Capitol Access Road

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802

Mail orders should be sent to:

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

General File Unit

P.O. Box 94245

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802

Price - $10.00 per copy

Any questions or comments on the contents of the manual should be directed to Bridge

Design Section of Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development.

Contact Number: (225) 379-1321

E-mail: zhengzhengfu@dotd.louisiana.gov

MANUAL REVISION HISTORY

Edition Version Publication Date Summary of Changes

1

st

2006.1 September 1, 2006 Issue new manual.

1 (i)

I NTRODUCTI ON

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IMPLEMENTATION..................................................................................................................................... 1

PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................................... 1

LIMIT STATES ............................................................................................................................................ 1

CHAPTER

1

1 (1)

INTRODUCTION

IMPLEMENTATION

A target date of October 2007 has been set as a goal by AASHTO member states to reach their

full transition to the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD). Therefore, by October 2006 all

LADOTD new bridge projects beginning with preliminary design should be designed by the

latest edition of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Designs for the reconstruction or

rehabilitation of existing bridge structures should be completed with guidance from the Bridge

Design Engineer.

PURPOSE

This manual documents policy on LRFD bridge design in Louisiana. It is a supplement to the

current edition of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, which designers should be

adhere to unless directed otherwise by this document.

The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications articles referenced in this manual is shown in

boldface type within brackets, i.e., [1.3].

LIMIT STATES

The LRFD bridge design philosophy is based on the premise that four Limit States are stipulated

to achieve the basic design objectives of constructability, safety and serviceability. All limit

states are given equal importance.

The four limit states are:

Service Limit State

Stress, deformation and crack width are limited under service conditions.

Fatigue and Fracture Limit State

Fatigue stress range is limited for the expected number of stress cycles due to a single design

truck in order to control crack initiation and propagation and to prevent fracture during the

design life of the bridge.

Strength Limit State

Strength and stability are provided to resist the significant load combinations that a bridge is

expected to experience in its design life.

1 (2)

Extreme Event Limit State

Structures are proportioned to resist collapse due to extreme events, such as, a major

earthquake, flood, ice flow, collision by a vessel, etc.

Equation [1.3.2.1-1] of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, unless specified

otherwise, must be satisfied for each limit state.

i

i

Q

i

R

n

R

r

in which:

For loads for which a maximum value of

i

is appropriate:

For loads for which a minimum value of

i

is appropriate:

where

i

,

i,

Q

i,

, R

n

, R

r

and

D

are defined in section [1.3.2].

The value of the Redundancy Factor [1.3.4],

R,

should be as follows:

For the strength limit state:

R

= 1.05 For Pile Bents with 3 piles or less

For Column Bents with 2 columns or less

For Fracture-Critical members

R

= 1.00 For other elements and components

For all other limit states:

R

= 1.00

The value of Ductility,

D,

shall follow the LRFD Specifications [1.3.3].

i

D

R

I

0.95

i

1

D

R

I

1.0

1 (3)

The value of the Operational Importance Factor [1.3.5],

I

, should be as follows:

I

= 1.05 For NHS bridges or any bridges with truck traffic > 2500 per day

I

= 1.05 For all moveable bridges

I

= 0.95 For Off - System bridges with ADT < 3000

I

= 1.0 For other bridges

Bridges on National Highway System are defined as NHS bridges. The LA DOTD Office of

Planning and Programming Section may be contacted to determine National Highway System

routes in Louisiana. Bridges on parish roads are defined as Off-System bridges.

2 (i)

GENERAL DESI GN FEATURES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEFLECTION CRITERIA....................................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER

2

2 (1)

DEFLECTION CRITERIA

Optional criteria for span-to-depth ratio in Section [2.5.2.6.3] of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design

Specifications should be applied for the deflection control of the structures included in [Table

2.5.2.6.3-1].

Section [2.5.2.6.2] of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications should be applied for the

deflection control of orthotropic decks, precast reinforced concrete three-sided structures, metal

grid decks, light weight metal and concrete bridge decks, and structures that are not included in

[Table 2.5.2.6.3-1] or not meeting the minimum depth defined in [Table 2.5.2.6.3-1].

Approval from the Bridge Design Engineer is required if the deflection of a structure does not

meet the criteria in Section [2.5.2.6.2] or [2.5.2.6.3].

3 (i)

LOAD AND LOAD COMBI NATI ONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LOAD........................................................................................................................................................... 1

DESIGN VEHICULAR LIVE LOAD .............................................................................................................. 1

VEHICULAR COLLISION FORCE ................................................................................................................ 1

LOAD FACTORS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS................................................................................ 2

CHAPTER

3

3 (1)

LOAD

DESIGN VEHICULAR LIVE LOAD

Section [3.6] of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications shall be applied for the design

vehicular live load. Vehicular live loading on the roadway of bridges or incidental structures

shall use the HL-93 live load as per section [3.6.1.2]. The design vehicular live load shall be

applied per section [3.6.1.3]. Multiple presence factors shall be applied per section [3.6.1.1.2].

Dynamic load allowance shall be applied per section [3.6.2].

VEHICULAR COLLISION FORCE

Vehicular collision force shall be applied as per section [3.6.5]. The structures should be

protected from vehicular collision as per section [3.6.5.1]. Otherwise, the structures should be

designed for the collision force specified in section [3.6.5.2].

3 (2)

LOAD FACTORS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS

Load factors and load combinations specified in [Table 3.4.1-1] and [Table 3.4.1-2] of

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications shall be followed except for extreme events with

scour and storm surge forces. For extreme events with scour, the Extreme Event III to VI as

defined in page 118 of NCHRP Report 489, Design of Highway Bridges for Extreme Events,

shall be followed. For storm surge forces, the following load combinations shall be followed:

Load Factors

DC DW

Limit States

Max Min Max Min S

1

S

2

WS WL FR

TU

3

CR

SH

Storm Surge I 1.25 0.9 - - 1.4 - 1.4

4

- 1.0 0.5/1.2

Storm Surge II 1.25 0.9 - - - 1.0 0.3

4

- 1.0 -

1

Quasi-Static Storm Surge Forces

2

Dynamic or Impact Storm Surge Forces

3

See AASHTO LFRD Specification Section 3.4.1 for the application of load factors 0.5, 1.0 and 1.2 for TU, CR

and SH.

4

Apply wind load on structure (WS) only to the surfaces where storm surge forces (S) are absent.

5(i)

SUPERSTRUCTURE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BRIDGE RAILING .................................................................................................................................... 1

DECK DESIGN........................................................................................................................................... 2

DESIGN METHOD...................................................................................................................................... 2

EMPIRICAL DECK DESIGN......................................................................................................................... 2

Material ................................................................................................................................................ 2

Curing Method ..................................................................................................................................... 2

Deck Thickness .................................................................................................................................... 2

Reinforcement at Interior Deck............................................................................................................ 3

Reinforcement at Deck Overhang ........................................................................................................ 3

Deck. on Bridges Composed of Simple Span Precast Girders Made Continuous................................ 4

Deck on Bridges Composed of Continuous Steel Girders ................................................................... 4

Skewed Decks ...................................................................................................................................... 4

Curved Decks ....................................................................................................................................... 4

Flared Decks......................................................................................................................................... 4

Edge Support ........................................................................................................................................ 4

TRADITIONAL DECK DESIGN.................................................................................................................... 5

DECK DETAILS.......................................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 5.1 ............................................................................................................................................. 7

Figure 5.2 ............................................................................................................................................. 8

Figure 5.3 ............................................................................................................................................. 9

STEEL GIRDERS .................................................................................................................................... 10

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE GIRDERS ............................................................................................. 10

CHAPTER

5

5(1)

BRIDGE RAILING

The following bridge railing test levels TL-1 to TL-6 are included in Section [13.7.2] of the 3

rd

edition of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Design forces for the testing levels are

defined in [Table A13.2-1].

TL-1 Test Level One

Taken to be generally acceptable for work zones with low posted speeds and very low

volume, low speed local streets.

TL-2 Test Level Two (Equivalent to PL-1

1

)

Taken to be generally acceptable for work zones and most local and collector roads with

favorable site conditions as well as a small number of heavy vehicles is expected and posted

speeds are reduced.

TL-3 Test Level Three

Taken to be generally acceptable for a wide range of high speed arterial highways with very

low mixture of heavy vehicles and with favorable site conditions.

TL-4 Test Level Four (Equivalent to PL-2

2

)

Taken to be generally acceptable for the majority of applications on high-speed highways,

freeways, expressways, and Interstate highways with a mixture of trucks and heavy vehicles.

TL-5 Test Level Five (Equivalent to PL-3

3

)

Taken to be generally acceptable for the same application of as TL-4 and where large trucks

make up a significant portion of the average daily traffic or when unfavorable site conditions

justify a higher level of rail resistance.

TL-6 Test Level Six

Taken to be generally acceptable for applications where tanker-type trucks or similar high

center of gravity vehicles are anticipated, particularly along with unfavorable site conditions.

The selection criteria of bridge railings and the railing details included in Chapter 5 of LADOTD

Bridge Design Manual (4

th

English Edition) shall be followed.

1

PL-1 is defined on page 5(3) of LADOTD Bridge Design Manual (4

th

English Edition).

2

PL-2 is defined on page 5(3) of LADOTD Bridge Design Manual (4

th

English Edition).

3

PL-3 is defined on page 5(3) of LADOTD Bridge Design Manual (4

th

English Edition).

5(2)

DECK DESIGN

DESIGN METHOD

The Empirical Deck Design should be applied if the design conditions in Section [9.7.2.4] are

satisfied. Otherwise the Traditional Design Methods [9.7.3] should be used. The Empirical

design shall not be applied to the overhangs. Overhangs shall be designed per Sections [9.7.1.5,

9.7.2.2 & A13.4].

EMPIRICAL DECK DESIGN

The following provisions should be followed for Empirical Deck Design [9.7.2]:

MATERIAL

Concrete Class AA(M) with minimum design concrete strength, f

c

for all bridges. All reinforcing steel shall be grade 60 bars, f

y

= 60 ksi.

CURING METHOD

Bridge deck shall be fully cast-in-place and water cured. Optional span details will not be

permitted using the empirical deck design.

DECK THICKNESS

Deck thickness should be as stated below, based on the effective length between girders. The

effective length L is defined in Section [9.7.2.3] and shown in Figure 5.1 on page 5(7). The

deck thickness T includes a one-half inch sacrificial thickness to be included in the dead load

of the deck slab but omitted from its section properties. The ratio of effective length and deck

thickness excluding inch sacrificial thickness (T-1/2) is limited to 16 for decks supported on

steel girders and 18 for decks supported on concrete girders.

For Decks on Steel Girders:

Effective Length L, feet Deck Thickness T, inches

L 9.33 7.5

9.33 < L 10 8.0

10 < L 10.67 8.5

10.67 < L 11.33 9.0

11.33 < L 12 9.5

5(3)

For Decks on Concrete Girders:

REINFORCEMENT AT INTERIOR DECK

A. Main Transverse Bars

Provide #5 @ 12 inch spacing on top and bottom of slab. Transverse bars shall be placed

as the outmost layers in each face of slab. See Figure 5.1 on page 5(7) for details.

B. Main Longitudinal Bars

Provide #5 @ 12 inch maximum spacing on top and bottom of slab. See Figure 5.1 on

page 5(7) for details.

REINFORCEMENT AT DECK OVERHANG

Deck overhang length is defined as the distance between the centerline of exterior girder to the

edge of deck. Minimum overhang length should be five times the thickness of main deck for

discontinuous barrier, and three times the thickness of main deck for continuous barrier [9.7.2.4].

Overhang length exceeding 6-0 shall be approved by Bridge Design Engineer.

The main transverse bars and main longitudinal bars specified for the interior deck bays shall be

extended to the overhang. In addition to these extended bars from the interior deck bays,

additional minimum overhang reinforcement, as per the table below, shall be placed between the

extended bars. See Figure 5.1 on page 5(7) and Figure 5.3 on page 5(9) for details.

Additional overhang reinforcement shall be provided per Sections [9.7.1.5, 9.7.2.2, and A13.4].

4

Equivalent to TL-4/PL-2 and TL-5/PL-3 crash test requirement for F-Shape bridge barrier.

Effective Length L, feet Deck Thickness T, inches

L 10.5 7.5

10.5 < L 11.25 8.0

11.25 < L 12 8.5

12 < L 12.75 9.0

12.75 < L 13.5 9.5

Deck Overhang Length D Minimum Overhang Reinforcement

D 4-6 #5 @ 12

4

4-6 < D 5-6 #6 @ 12

5-6 < L 6-0 #7 @ 12

5(4)

DECK. ON BRIDGES COMPOSED OF SIMPLE SPAN PRECAST GIRDERS MADE CONTINUOUS

Continuity rebar should be placed on top of deck to resist 100% live load negative moment

developed as a result of the continuity. Main longitudinal rebar in the deck can be utilized as part

of total longitudinal reinforcement required [5.14.1.2.7b]. Use the girder concrete strength for

the analysis in the connection/continuity zone even though the concrete applied in this zone may

have lower strength [5.14.1.2.7a]. See Figure 5.2 on page 5(8) for detail.

DECK ON BRIDGES COMPOSED OF CONTINUOUS STEEL GIRDERS

Continuity rebar should be placed in the negative moment regions over the piers per section

[6.10.1.7].

SKEWED DECKS

Transverse rebar should be placed perpendicular to the main supporting components when the

deck skew angle exceeds 25

[9.7.1.3]. For decks with equal girder spans and skew angle not

exceeding 25

studs in girders shall be adjusted accordingly to avoid any interference. When the skew angle

exceeds 25

, both main transverse and longitudinal rebar shall be doubled in the end zones of the

deck [9.7.2.5]. Each end zone should be taken as a longitudinal distance equal to the girder

spacing. Refer to Figure 5.3 on page 5(9) for details.

CURVED DECKS

For curved decks on steel girders, the longitudinal rebar should be placed along the curve and the

transverse rebar should be placed along the radius line on top and bottom of slab.

For curved decks on precast prestressed girders, the longitudinal rebar should be placed along

the curve on top of slab and along the girder line on bottom of slab. The transverse rebar should

be placed along the radius line on top and bottom of slab.

FLARED DECKS

The longitudinal rebar should be placed along the girder line and the transverse rebar should be

placed perpendicular to the direction of main line or along the radius line for curved deck.

EDGE SUPPORT

At the lines of discontinuity, the edge of the deck shall be either strengthened or be supported by

a beam or other line component as per section [9.7.1.4].

5(5)

TRADITIONAL DECK DESIGN

General provisions and typical deck details for empirical design are applicable for traditional

desk design, except the rebar size and spacing should be designed using one of the Traditional

Methods specified in section [9.7.3]: the approximate method - Equivalent Strip Method

[4.6.2.1] or the refined method [4.6.3.2].

[Table A4-1] in the Appendix of Section 4 of 3

rd

edition of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design

Specifications lists the maximum live load moments per unit width of deck using the equivalent

strip method. The assumptions and limitations in developing the table are also included.

[Table A4-1] does not apply to the deck overhangs and the adjacent regions of the deck that

need to be designed per sections [9.7.1.5, 9.7.2.2 & A13.4].

5(6)

DECK DETAILS

5(7)

FIGURE 5.1

5(8)

FIGURE 5.2

5(9)

FIGURE 5.3

5(10)

STEEL GIRDERS

Simple and continuous steel girders shall be designed for composite action. Shear connectors

shall be placed in both positive and negative moment regions. The longitudinal reinforcement

within the effective width of the concrete deck can be considered as a part of the composite

section in the negative moment region per section [6.10.1.1.1c]. The negative moment

reinforcement should be provided per section [6.10.1.7].

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE GIRDERS

The minimum prestressed concrete girder age shall be 90 days when the continuity is

established.

6(i)

SUBSTRUCTURE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GENERAL................................................................................................................................................... 1

DRIVEN PILE ............................................................................................................................................ 2

PILE DESIGN LOAD.................................................................................................................................... 2

RESISTANCE FACTOR................................................................................................................................. 3

PILE DESIGN.............................................................................................................................................. 3

Simplified method................................................................................................................................ 3

Table 6.1 Maximum Factored Axial Compresive Load Allowed ........................................................ 4

Detail Method....................................................................................................................................... 5

PILE DATA SHEETS .................................................................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER

6

6(1)

GENERAL

This chapter supplements AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Section 10 and

provides general LRFD guidance on the design of specific bridge substructure components. The

Bridge Design Engineer and Geotechnical engineer shall work together in the selection and

design of the foundation system.

Refer to the latest edition of LADOTD Bridge Design Manual (4th English Edition) Chapter 6

for information not covered here.

6(2)

DRIVEN PILE

PILE DESIGN LOAD

Pile design loads including factored and service load shall be determined according to AASHTO

LRFD Bridge Design Specifications for all applicable limit states, including strength, service,

and extreme limit states unless specified otherwise.

The design of pile foundations at the strength limit shall consider the following:

1) Compression resistance for single piles,

2) Compression resistance for pile groups,

3) Uplift resistance for single piles,

4) Uplift resistance for pile groups,

5) Pile punching failure into a weaker stratum below the bearing stratum,

6) Lateral resistance for single piles and pile groups, and

7) Constructability, including pile drivability.

The design of pile foundations at the service limit state shall include the following:

1) Settlements

2) Horizontal movements

Bridge Engineer is responsible for providing Geotechnical Engineer both factored and service

loads as specified in Table below.

Service Load

1

(single pile)

Service Load

1

(pile group)

DL

(DC+DW)

LL

DL

(DC+DW)

LL

Max. Factored Load

1

and

Load Combination Case

(single pile)

Max. Factored Load

1

and

Load Combination Case

(pile group)

LADOTD Geotechnical Section shall be consulted for the settlement and horizontal movement

criteria.

1

It may be compression, uplift and lateral load.

6(3)

RESISTANCE FACTOR

The resistance factors for the driven piles shall be determined by Geotechnical Engineer in

accordance with [Table 10.5.5.2.3-1] and [Table 10.5.5.2.3-2] of AASHTO LRFD Bridge

Design Specifications and shall consult with LADOTD Geotechnical Section for any additional

guidance. Approval from LADOTD Geotechnical Section and Bridge Design Section is required

if a resistance factor higher than 0.7 is used with a load test.

PILE DESIGN

The design of driven pile foundation shall follow Section [10.7] of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge

Design Specifications unless specified otherwise.

For typical pile bents with small lateral load (no marine vessel collision loads) for non-critical

small projects, a simplified method as specified below is allowed.

For consultant projects, the design method to be used for pile design shall be specified in the

contract documents.

SIMPLIFIED METHOD

The simplified method as specified here can only be applied to the typical pile bents with small

lateral load (no marine vessel collision loads) for non-critical small projects.

The general design steps of the simplified method are:

1) Assume pile cap size, number and size of piles to be used.

2) Determine LRFD factored axial compression load considering dead and live loads only.

3) The maximum factored compression pile load shall fall within the range shown in the Table

6.1 on page 6(4). The maximum slenderness ratio L/d shall be less than or equal to 20. L is the

unsupported pile length in feet. The unsupported length is measured down below the channel

bottom or ground line accounting for estimated scour, if appropriate (5 feet minimum), plus a

distance to the assumed point of fixity. In general, point of fixity can be assumed at 5 feet below

scour or ground line.

4) Adjust piles and cap size and recompute if needed. Design cap for required reinforcement.

5) Geotechnical Engineer computes the final pile length based on the pile loads submitted by

structural engineer applying appropriate pile resistance factors. LADOTD Geotechnical Section

shall be consulted for the guidance on the geotechnical design and pile resistance factor

determination.

6(4)

TABLE 6.1 MAXIMUM FACTORED AXIAL COMPRESIVE LOAD ALLOWED

PILE TYPE PILE SIZE

MAXIMUM

FACTORED AXIAL

COMPRESSIVE LOAD

ALLOWED

STANDARD DETAIL

NAME

Precast Prestressed

Concrete Piles (square)

14

16

18

24

30

36

55 - 85 tons

70 100 tons

75 - 115 tons

120 180 tons

200 300 tons

260 400 tons

CS-216

Precast Prestressed

Cylinder Piles

54 340 420 tons

54 Prestressed

Cylinder Pile

Cast-in-place Concrete

Steel Pipe Piles

14

16

85 tons

130 tons

Concrete Pile Alternates

Cast-in-place Concrete :

Tapered: Raymond

Helcor or

Corwell

Monotube

14, 16

14, 16

14, 16

85 tons, 130 tons

85 tons, 130 tons

85 tons, 130 tons

Concrete Pile Alternates

Timber

Butt Dia. (20-12)

Tip Dia. (9-5)

45 tons

60 tons (Special Cases)

N/A

Steel "H"

(common sizes)

HP1042

HP1057

HP1473

HP1489

HP14102

HP14117

85 - 115 tons

115 - 150 tons

145 - 190 tons

180 - 235 tons

210 - 270 tons

235 - 310 tons

N/A

Steel Pipe

(other sizes available,

check w/suppliers)

PP183/8

PP241/2

PP305/8

145 190 tons

250 330 tons

390 520 tons

N/A

6(5)

DETAILED METHOD

When specified by the bridge engineer or called for by this manual, a detailed analysis of the

foundation system shall be performed and pile loads shall be determined for all applicable limit

states. The structural pile capacity (P

n

- M

n

Interaction Diagram) shall be calculated based on

the slenderness of the pile and the specific soil conditions. The pile design loads including axial

load and moments shall be within 75% of the structural capacity of the piles.

The general design steps are described as follows:

Case 1 Bents Subject to Small Pile Load (No Marine Vessel Loads)

1) Assume preliminary foundation element size, number and size of piles and pile length.

2) Model the bent using STAAD or other equivalent software. Determine the preliminary depth

of the pile fixity point below ground using the equations in Section [10.7.3.13.4] of AASHTO

LFRD Bridge Design Specifications. Determine factored pile loads including axial, lateral and

moments for all limit states.

3) Use LPILE or FB-pier software to model the soil-pile interaction to determine the depth of the

pile fixity point. Coordination with Geotechnical Engineer is needed so that the soil parameters

are interpreted and input correctly by the structural engineer.

4) Revise the bent model with the new depth of the fixity point and recompute the pile loads.

5) Compute the pile structural capacity (P

n

- M

n

Interaction Diagram) for the slenderness of

the pile using applicable software, such as PCI prestressed concrete pile design Excel file, RC-

pier or FB-Pier, etc. The pile loads shall be within 75% of the structural capacity of the piles

(P

n

- M

n

Interaction Diagram). Design cap for required reinforcement.

6) Geotechnical Engineer computes the final pile length based on the pile loads submitted by

structural engineer and appropriate pile resistance factors. LADOTD Geotechnical Section shall

be consulted for the guidance on the geotechnical design and pile resistance factors

determination.

Case 2 Bents Subject to Marine Vessel Collision Loads or High Lateral Loads

Same steps as Case 1 except the soil-structure interaction analysis will require the use of FB-Pier

software (Version 4.09 or higher).

6(6)

PILE DATA SHEETS

The following pile load information shall be included in the pile data sheet as minimum:

Factored Load Pile Resistance Factor ()

Compression Uplift Compression Uplift

Sour Zone Resistance

Ultimate Pile

Compression

Capacity

Ultimate Pile Comp. Capacity = Factored Load / Pile Resistance Factor + Scour Zone Resistance

If a load test is to be performed, the test pile shall be tested to 1.5 times the ultimate pile

capacity.

- 13chapter 3aUploaded byAlbert Nguyen
- Dc_b051_Driven Prestressed Concrete PilesUploaded byrobertsonyc
- 11c - Pile Cap Details - Structural (1)Uploaded byAnthony Federico
- FoundationCode2004Uploaded byPatie Zheng
- 2012 Workshop LRFD Implementation in Geotechnical DesignUploaded byhassscribed
- Drafting a Performance SpecificationUploaded byAlpha
- اسئلة واجوابة فى الجسورUploaded byKhalid Elazhary
- Ds en 1997 1 Dk Na 2013 09 GeoteknikUploaded byMiguel Sacristán
- Vic rd specification Sec606Uploaded bynishan_ravin
- Important Notes-Piled Raft FoundationUploaded byHoo Yen How
- analysisanddesignofamulti-storeyreinforcedconcrete-120923065657-phpapp01.pdfUploaded byAboalmaali
- ApplicationsUploaded bypuretone711
- Pile Driving Analysis via Driving TestUploaded byKengin
- 22477_rf.pdfUploaded byAndres Barra Salaues
- 19 Sakr2008_Helical Piles for Power Transmission Lines_Case study in Northern manitoba Canada.pdfUploaded byAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
- UntitledUploaded byBaluku Sam
- Deepfoundations Sakonnet FeatureUploaded byFernando Smith
- ACF-01 Foundation Design and Geo-Technical EngineeringUploaded byJovelyn
- QC-03Uploaded bycdnaveen
- NSF Thesis_SRF.pdfUploaded byarslanpasa
- Swinburne HES5175 Cost Engineering Caisson Assign FullUploaded byApril Ingram
- lec23-nptelUploaded bySajid Iqbal
- Foundation DesignUploaded bymm
- Combined Foundation PDFUploaded byJorge
- 04we Schuppener Worked Example Characterstic ValuesUploaded byPaco
- Design of Pile Raft IndexUploaded bymafiapumba
- BQ Warehouse FIX2.xlsxUploaded byboas sitanggang
- Deep Foundations Students 2006Uploaded byapratiwo
- IHAWAN Bridge ABUT B-TEST PILE ID B17-Modified Hiley_s Formula.pdfUploaded byRammiris Man
- 1615 HZhangHewittYipLin C09Uploaded bykrainajacka

- 3. L Calidad NC-HyUploaded byFredy Quispe Ledesma
- Status Rdi 07.01.17Uploaded byFredy Quispe Ledesma
- MEMORIA_PFC_TORRES_TELEFONIA_MOVIL.pdfUploaded byNelson Manzanares
- Relación y estado de planos.xlsxUploaded byFredy Quispe Ledesma
- Aplicacion de SikaUploaded byFredy Quispe Ledesma
- 140052198 Acero 2012 Ing Arturo RodriguezUploaded byFredy Quispe Ledesma
- Calculo de Gastos Generales en Consultoria de Ingenieria y de ObrasUploaded byWalter Melendez
- Memoria Calculo TijeralUploaded byJuan Carlos Aguilar Plasencia
- 5.2 Trasporte Con VolquetesUploaded byFranz Ayuque Quiñonez
- 10 Programacion de Obra-projectUploaded byJoel Pacheco Diaz
- Expociondeconstrucion 150708152334 Lva1 App6891Uploaded byFredy Quispe Ledesma
- Rendimiento de MaquinasUploaded byFredy Quispe Ledesma
- Construccion de Pavimentos FlexiblesUploaded bySebastian Ñuste Guapacha
- vitteri_sjUploaded byJose Carlos Guerrero Lopez
- Cotizacion 001-2017Uploaded byFredy Quispe Ledesma
- Analisis Hidrometeorologico-doble Masa (Final Corregido)Uploaded byFredy Quispe Ledesma
- Resumen Desplome-HARMONY 29.09.16 (1)Uploaded byFredy Quispe Ledesma
- metradosUploaded byFredy Quispe Ledesma
- ApusUploaded byFredy Quispe Ledesma
- Datos Del RequdderimientoUploaded byFredy Quispe Ledesma
- Tareo Sem 16- Ot 200416 - CopiaUploaded byFredy Quispe Ledesma
- monografiadecimentacionesarmadas-131128204736-phpapp01Uploaded byANTOINE
- A.p.u Sistema Con TanqueUploaded byFredy Quispe Ledesma
- Manual EbimUploaded byingjhonlopez
- 103798389 Analisis de PreciosUploaded byFredy Quispe Ledesma
- apunteshhUploaded byFredy Quispe Ledesma
- Itemizado Plaza SantiagoUploaded byFredy Quispe Ledesma
- E-01 Planta Muestra Ubicacion de Edificios y Relacion de PlanosUploaded byFredy Quispe Ledesma
- Analisis de Precios Unitarios de IEUploaded byIvan Urbina Monterola
- A.p.u. Sistema Con BateriaUploaded byFredy Quispe Ledesma

- PrintingUploaded byRichard Othwonh
- IRJET-Behavior of Eccentrically Loaded R.C. Columns Confined with CFRP CompositesUploaded byIRJET Journal
- DMSR7-10-Developing Nations Steel ReviewUploaded byDeepa Ranganath
- HighStrength_WWR-PC-DeValve-4-19-16Uploaded byeros
- EartquakeUploaded byAjay Sastry
- [Paper] Fire and Concrete StructuresUploaded byGregory Simmon
- 194288266-Example-PROGRESS-Report-of-a-High-Rise-Build.xlsxUploaded byAllan Lampitoc
- culvertsUploaded byAmmar A. Ali
- PCPS Specification ExampleUploaded byhacikadi
- Safe 2016 Release NotesUploaded byJayChristian Quimson
- FloodWay.xlsUploaded byazamislam726537
- Schedule of Beam and Slab SampleUploaded byerwin sarmiento
- 7-68-0631 Rev 5Uploaded byAnonymous ikcpefzUXt
- Welding and Reinforcement.pdfUploaded byScottBuchholz
- Concrete CapabilityUploaded byThein Htun Aung
- 2.AStrutTie2016UserManual-20170317Uploaded byShishir Kumar Nayak
- D4349-10_Classification_System_and_Basis_for_Specification_for_Polyphenylene_Ether_(PPE)_Materials.pdfUploaded byAhmed Abbas Ghubin
- Bridge Detailing GuideUploaded byAfnan Ali
- Theconstructor Org Structural Engg Strengthening Techniques r c Slab 1921Uploaded byДраган Милевски
- Evaluation of Steel Fiber Reinforcement for Punching Shear Resistance in Slab-Column Connections Part II: Lateral Displacement ReversalsUploaded byProfessor Dr. Nabeel Al-Bayati-Consultant Engineer
- composite in construstion.pdfUploaded byM Rashid Khan
- Project Report.pdfUploaded byroan stha
- Design of Pile FoundationUploaded byNarnindi Venkata Ramananda Sagar
- Section IIUploaded byAnonymous nwByj9L
- EXPERIMENTAL AND ANALYTICAL SEISMIC STUDIES OF A.pdfUploaded byJUAN RULFO
- ASTM A700-05Uploaded byİlter Kilerci
- 57582906Uploaded byNeven Ahmed Hassan
- Reinforcing Steel in Slabs on Grade_tcm45-346883Uploaded byRalf Snell
- Reviewer Matl's EngrUploaded byJosiflor Vicente
- hear Load ConnectorsUploaded byLouis Lai