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
3.5E W + 0.1M
CIP piles P= ⋅
S + 0.2 W + M
3 .5 E W + 0 .2 M
H – piles P= ⋅
S + 0 .2 W+M
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 ⎞
+ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ≤ 1.0
φ c Pn 9 ⎝ φ f M n ⎠
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:
Fy Wall t φRnh
Pile Type
(ksi) (in.) (kips)
12" CIP 45 all 24
16" CIP 45 1/4 28
16" CIP 45 5/16 40
16" CIP 45 3/8 40
16" CIP 45 1/2 40
HP 10x42 50 NA 24
HP 12x53 47.8 NA 32
HP 14x73 43.9 NA 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
