2012 Ohio Geotechnical Consultant Workshop Columbus, Ohio; May 8, 2012 Overview of New FHWA Course: NHI-132083

Implementation of LRFD Geotechnical Design for Bridge Foundation

Naser Abu-Hejleh, Ph.D., P.E Geotechnical Engineering Specialist FHWA Resource Center
Implementation of LRFD Geotechnical Design for Bridge Foundations
Lesson 2: Implementation Plan Slide 1

NHI-132083 Course: Implementation of LRFD Geotechnical Design for Bridge Foundations Summary..

Background
Standard Specifications 17th Edition, 2002 (Final Edition)

LRFD Specifications 5th Edition, 2010

Status of LRFD Implementation for Foundations

DOTs are at various stages of implementation
Do you have guidance or a process for implementing LRFD?

Continued LRFD requests from State DOT LRFD to FHWA NHI Course 130082 is not adequate

Goal of the New Course

Assist State DOTs with successful development of LRFD design guidance for bridge foundations based on AASHTO LRFD Section 10 and their local experience

State DOT LRFD Design Guidance for Bridge Foundations

Course Sessions and Lessons

Session 1 Lessons: 2. LRFD Implementation plan 3. Changes in AASHTO Design from ASD to LRFD 4. Calibration Methods for Resistance Factors Session 2 Lessons: 5. Calibration Conditions/Assessment of Site Variability 6. Selection of LRFD Design Method 7. Development of LRFD Design Guidance
6

Lesson 2: Implementation Plan

Step 1

Form LRFD Implementation Committee Review Key LRFD Design References Identify Changes to Transition to LRFD Select LRFD Geotechnical Design Methods Develop LRFD Design Specifications Develop LRFD Design Delivery Processes
Implementation of LRFD Geotechnical Design for Bridge Foundations
Lesson 2: Implementation Plan Slide 7

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

Step 6

Step 3. Identify Changes to Transition to LRFD

How? Compare ASD design specifications against AASHTO LRFD Section 10 design specifications The changes to LRFD can be either: In accordance with AASHTO LRFD Section 10 Exceptions from AASHTO LRFD Section 10 (deletions, additions, or significant modifications).

Implementation of LRFD Geotechnical Design for Bridge Foundations

Lesson 2: Implementation Plan Slide 8

Lesson 3: Changes in AASHTO Design from ASD to LRFD

Three principal changes: 1. Incorporation of limit state designs 2. Load and resistance factors to account for uncertainties 3. New and improved methods to determine foundation loads, displacements, and resistances

1st Change: Incorporation of Limit State Designs

All possible structural and geotechnical failure for foundations that could lead to bridge failure are grouped into three distinct limit states: Service Limit States Strength Limit States Extreme Events Limit States

LRFD Design Equations at all Limit States

For all applicable geotechnical limit states
i Qi i Rni

For all applicable structural limit states

i Qi i Pni

Where is summation for a failure mode (e.g., bearing capacity) identified in the limit state

2nd Change: Use of Load and Resistance Factors

ASD Qi Rni/ FSi Safety Factor, FS LRFD Qi i Rni , Load factors , Resistance factors , reliability index Factored Load e.g., = Dl DL+ LL LL Factored Resistance = i Rni

Design or Service Load e.g., = DL+LL Allowable capacity = Rni/ FSi

Use of Load and Resistance Factors

Service and extreme event limit states LRFD: = 1 for most resistances; =1 for most loads ASD: FS= 1 Conclusion: no major design changes

Strength limit: Changes with LRFD are significant Resistance factors Five load combinations

Load Factors for the Strength Limit

Why? To account for all possible loads that may act on the bridge during its entire design life

3rd Change: New and Improved Methods to determine Foundation Loads, Displacements and Resistances
ASD: Qi Rni/Fsi vs. LRFD: i Qi i Rni

Design loads (Q) and nominal resistances (Rn) are used in both platforms, BUT AASHTO LRFD: continue to improve/update methods to compute Q & Rn AASHTO Standard Specifications: final update in 2002

AASHTO LRFD Methods to Calculate Loads

Increased live loads from trucks New: Downdrag (DD) loads= lost nominal side geotechnical resistance above the level contributing to DD At all limit states, total factored axial compressive load per a pile= i Qi + DDp
i Qi

Types of AASHTOs Methods to Determine Foundation Resistances/Displacements

1. Field static load test: measure resistances/displacements 2. Analytical expressions: predict resistances/displacements
Static analysis methods (design phase) based on soil and rock properties from subsurface exploration Field dynamic analysis methods for driven piles based on field driving information (e.g., blow count, hammer energy) EOD and BOR conditions

AASHTO LRFD Resistance/Displacement Determination Methods at all Limit States

AASHTO Article 10.4: Soil and Rock Properties AASHTO Article 10.5.2.2: Tolerable Movements AASHTO Article 10.6: Spread Footings AASHTO Section 10.7: Driven Piles: major changes AASHTO Section 10.8: Drilled Shafts AASHTO Section 10.9: Micropiles

Geotechnical resistance losses to foundations due to downdrag, scour, and liquefaction are discussed.

AASHTO Allows for Exceptions from AASTHO

AASHTO approves development of local LRFD design methods if justified: Long-term successful experience Research, and Local issues not addressed in AASHTO

AASHTOs were developed based on calibration by fitting to ASD and reliability analysis

Implementation of LRFD Geotechnical Design for Bridge Foundations

Lesson 2: Implementation Plan Slide 19

Step 4: Select LRFD Geotechnical Design Methods

State DOTs have three options: Adopt AASHTOs LRFD methods

Develop local LRFD methods by fitting to ASD methods Develop local LRFD methods through reliability analysis of data at load test sites
Implementation of LRFD Geotechnical Design for Bridge Foundations
Lesson 2: Implementation Plan Slide 20

Lesson 4: Calibration Methods for Geotechnical Resistance Factors

Calibration by fitting to ASD methods Reliability Analysis of Data at Load Test Sites AASHTOs Calibration Methods

Focus on: Strength 1 Limit Load combination Axial compression resistance

Calibration by Fitting to ASD Methods

ASD: Qs Rn/ FS Information needed: FS of the method to be calibrated Average load factor, ave = Qf/Qs (around 1.4) Calibration rules: I. = ave/FS ; LRFD: Qf R n

II. Factored Resistance= ave x Allowable Capacity

Reliability Analysis of Data at Load Test Sites

Reliability Analysis Procedure Step 1. Compile Data at Load Test Sites Step 2. Statistical Analysis Step 3. Reliability Analysis to determine

Applications of the Reliability Analysis Results

Step 1. Compile Data at Load Test Sites

At load test sites, collect for test foundations: Measured resistances from load tests, Rm, and all the conditions used to measure them Predicted resistances from the calibrated method, Rn and all the conditions used to predict them
The design and construction conditions for test and production foundations need to be similar

2. Statistical Analysis of Bias Resistances: Rm/Rn

Base Resistance 2 (base area, A = 1 ft ) Bias Predicted Resistance = Resistance from Measured the Calibrated Resistance Measured Design Method = Resistance from /Predicted NA Resistance Load Test (Kips) (Kips) 4.5 5 0.90 20 22.5 0.89 15 12 0.80 16.5 23.5 1.42 10 15 1.50 For Normal Distribution: Resistance Mean Bias ( ) Standard Deviation COV 1.10 0.33 0.30

# of Data 1 2 3 4 5 .

Location Colorado New York Florida California Egypt

SPT-N for the Base Material (Bpf) 5 22.5 15 16.5 10 . . . . .

.
. . .

. . . . .

 is a function of and COV

Resistance Mean Bias = . Measures the overall tendency of the calibrated method to underestimate or overestimate resistances
= (Rm/Rn)/n

Coefficient of Variation (COV). Measures the variability of the method in predicting the measured resistance from load tests.

Reliability Analysis: Function of and COV

Figure from NCHRP Report 507

Economics of the Resistance Determination Method

The economics of the method is function of its Efficiency = / not just

The larger / of the method, the More economical is the method Smaller the pile length or # of piles

Example of Reliability Calibrated Results

Design Method
Static Analysis Methods Nordlund Method: H-Piles, sand -Method, Concrete Pile, Clay -Tomlinson -API, Concrete Pile, Clay FHWA CPT, Concrete Pile, Mixed Soil Nordlund Method: H-Piles, sand Dynamic Analysis Methods Dynamic Load Test WEAP EOD BOR EOD BOR* 125 162 99 99 135 1.63 1.16 1.66 0.94 1.07 0.49 0.34 0.72 0.42 0.53 0.64 0.65 0.39 0.43 0.38 0.4 0.56 0.24 0.46* 0.36 19 8 18 17 30 19 0.94 0.81 0.87 0.81 0.84 0.94 0.4 0.51 0.48 0.26 0.31 0.4 0.46 0.32 0.36 0.54 0.51 0.46 0.49 0.39 0.41 0.67 0.6 0.49

# of Cases

COV

Efficiency /

FHWA, Modified Gates, EOD

Topic 3. AASHTOs Calibration Methods (Key References)

AASHTOs Axial Compression Resistance Determination Methods of a Driven pile and a Drilled Shaft
2006-2009 AASHTO LRFD. Based on NCHRP Report 507 reliability analysis and load test results

2010 AASHTO LRFD. Significant changes to reflect past ASD practices and the need for engineering judgment: for driven piles handling site variability Redundancy for driven piles

Lesson 5: Calibration Conditions and Assessment of Site Variability

AASHTOs Conditions Conditions for Development of Local LRD Design Methods Assessment of Site Variability
Adopt AASHTO LRFDs loads Adhere to AASHTO LRFD Article 10.4.2, #, location, and depth of borings

AASHTO LRFD Section 10.5 and NCHRP Report 507

AASHTOs Conditions

Design Soil and rock properties Design methods for driven piles Construction Load Testing Statistical and Reliability Analyses

AASHTOs Compression Resistance Determination Methods for a for a Single Pile

AASHTO Standards: finalize pile length in the field AASHTO LRFD: is calibrated for Field dynamic analysis methods, dyn at BOR or/and EOD conditions Static analysis methods, sta
Static analysis methods can be used to finalize pile length in the design if site variability is addressed

Impact of Foundation Redundancy on

No changes to when # of piles 5

# of shafts 2 Driven Piles: reduce by 20% for a small pile group Drilled Shafts: reduce by 20% for a single shaft

Conditions for Local Calibration by Fitting to ASD

As those in the ASD geotechnical design methods For example: continue the use of the same ASD testing methods and practice to determine and select design soil and rock properties

Conditions for Local Reliability Calibration

Three types of conditions are discussed: From AASHTOs reliability calibration Statistical and reliability Analyses Local design and construction conditions Load test data can be obtained from: New load test data on large projects Published load test data

Topic 3. Assessment of Site Variability

Site Variability: Horizontal variation of subsurface material. Quantified through: COV of the measured design soil properties across the site from various borings Site inherent variability, COVinherent: acceptable level of site variability considered in the resistance factor Uniform Site OR Zone: Site OR Zone COV < COVinherent

Lesson 6: Selection of LRFD Geotechnical Design Methods

Comparison of AASHTO LRFD and AASHTO Standards Comparison of AASHTO LRFD and Local ASD Design Methods Advantages of Local Reliability Calibration

AASHTOs Piles Field Design Methods

Static load test: implied from AASHTO Standards is 0.7 in AASHTO LRFD ranges from 0.75 to 0.8 Dynamic testing with signal matching: implied from AASHTO Standards is 0.62 in AASHTO LRFD ranges from 0.65 to 0.75
AASHTO LRFD rewards use of better methods and increased level of quality control

Comparison of AASHTO LRFD and Local ASD

Use AASHTO LRFD Loads in both Platforms Reliability

Economics. Compare: Results of ASD and LRFD on actual projects Factored geotechnical resistance from ASD and LRFD methods

Advantages of Local Reliability Calibration

Advantages over LRFD methods developed from calibration by fitting AASHTOs LRFD methods

Lesson 7: Development of LRFD Design Guidance

Development of LRFD design specifications Materials needed for development Roles and responsibilities Contents Development of LRFD design delivery processes Roles and responsibilities

Questions?