1. FIRST SLIDE

2. LRFD Update for Materials/Geotechnical
At GRAC Meeting
John Schuler, PE
Program Manager
Virginia DOT Materials Division
October 31, 2011

3. Purpose of Presentation
Provide common ground between Materials & Bridge, give Materials & Geotechs background on LRFD initiative

4. LRFD – poor choice of words
LRFD – poor choice of words? Concrete – 1950s Steel – 1960s Transportation (Geotech) – 1990s

5. Why LRFD. Steel vs Pre-Stressed Industries
Why LRFD? Steel vs Pre-Stressed Industries? Purpose – Uniform Safety (not economy)

6. Data obtained from instrumentation Main bridge members mostly Supporting members/substructures hardly Geotech – not a thought (later calibration Tony Allen WSDOT)

7. Main Players Modjeski & Masters D’Appolonia – Geotech Baker – later Geotech Prof. Nowak – Michigan – statistics

8. FHWA – LRFD by October 2007 for bridges LRFD by October 2010 for walls, culverts, etc. Eventually left up to each state FHWA Phased in for various items

9. Importance now? Required Standard Specs no longer being updated as of about 2000 LRFD Spec is excellent reference source – especially geotechnical

10. Biggest problem states had in going LRFD – finding software
Biggest problem states had in going LRFD – finding software! This was impact to structural side, not geotech nearly as much.

11. Every VDOT Bridge Engineer who was at VDOT in Spring 2007 received following geotechnical guidance training from CO S & B Division.

12. LRFD Code Highlights Pertaining to Geotechnical Design

13. LRFD Code Highlights AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
Section 3 for Loads and load factors
Section 10 for Foundations
Section 11 for Abutments, Piers, Walls
Section 12 for Buried Structures

14. LRFD Code Highlights
In general, LRFD made to match ASD for geotechnical design
C , criticality of scour and economy of scour protection
C3.4.1,expect sliding to control often for spread footings, as horizontal soil force is always maximized
Scour is the leading cause of bridge failure in America. Don’t skimp on scour protection to save money.

15. LRFD Code Highlights
3.11, Earth Pressures (anchored wall pressure distribution change)
Table , better exploration or field testing can increase resistance factor 10%-20% for shallow foundations
RMR for bearing capacity preferred
RMR is Rock Mass Rating System – LRFD code prefers this method to compute bearing capacity on rock, but it is not required.

16. LRFD Code Highlights
Tables for driven pile resistance factors
Need to do minimum of 3-4 PDAs on a job
Can increase resistance factor 40% over PDA use if do static load test(s) ($$$)
Be aware, you may need to increase your PDA (Pile Dynamic Test) test quantities over what you previously used.

17. Geotechnical Parameters
Geotechnical Parameters – Introduction and Guidance on Choosing Them
4 steps
These slides will not be discussed in depth here in class. For students’ future use if so desired.

18. Geotechnical Parameters
Step 1: Determine soil type
2 broad classifications of soil
Granular (Gravel, Sand, Silt)
Cohesive (Clay)
The types are determined by sieve test
Boring logs in bridge plans will show soil type

20. Geotechnical Parameters
Step 2: Determine soil weight
Standard correlations typically used to estimate unit weights
Typically, assume saturated unit weight is pcf more than moist unit weight

21. These simple index charts are used by geotechnical engineers much more often than not.

22. Geotechnical Parameters
Step 3: Determine soil strength
Look at boring logs for substructure
If soil is granular (gravel, sand, silt) it will have a friction angle
If soil is cohesive (clay, maybe clayey silt) it will have an undrained shear strength
Clayey (sand, silt) may have both cohesion and friction angle

24. Geotechnical Parameters
Step 3 (cont’d): Determine soil strength
Determine either friction angle or shear strength from SPT corrected blow count N160, CPT data, lab test data
SPT is most common by far
In given column of boring logs, SPT blow counts are a set of 3 numbers – sum the last 2 of 3 to obtain N

25. Geotechnical Parameters

26. Geotechnical Parameters
Step 3 (cont’d): Determine soil strength
If soil is granular, correct blow count per correction sheet:
Po is effective vertical soil pressure at depth of N value
N1 = CN*N (AASHTO )
Effective means use buoyant weight of soil (unit weight – 62.4 pcf)
Only granular soils are corrected for overburden pressure, as for granular soils their strength depends on confinement.

27. Geotechnical Parameters

28. Geotechnical Parameters
Further SPT N corrections:
N60 = (ER/60%)*N (AASHTO )
N160 = CN*N60 (AASHTO )
ER = 60% for drop hammer
ER = 80% for automatic hammer
Unusual to correct for other items

29. Geotechnical Parameters
Step 3 (cont’d): Determine soil strength
Determine friction angle for granular soils or shear strength for clays from testing (preferred) or standard correlations

30. Geotechnical Parameters

31. Geotechnical Parameters
Step 4: Determine soil settlement parameters
Elastic modulus values of soil obtained by testing or correlations
Tables in AASHTO
Poisson’s Ratio
Can use 0.3 for all non-saturated soils
Use 0.5 for all saturated soils

32. Geotechnical Parameters
Rock
Type of rock is shown on boring logs
RQD is shown on boring logs
Groundwater table shown on boring logs
Need spacing and condition of joints
Need point load or UC tests of rock
Friction between concrete and rock is based on rock friction angle – obtain from tables – typically between 35 and 45

33. Geotechnical Parameters
Rock (cont’d)
Obtain elastic modulus from AASHTO LRFD (Table C )
Obtain Poisson’s Ratio from AASHTO LRFD (Table C )
0.2 is a good approximation

35. Geotechnical Parameters
Exploration
Follow Materials Division MOI Chapter III for number and depth of borings (same as AASHTO, except 20 ft under piles/shafts)
Reckon depth of borings based on applied stresses and pile lengths
Always sample at least 10-ft below EPTE and always core at least 10-ft of rock
Good heuristic – bore 100-ft minimum

36. Geotechnical Parameters
Exploration (cont’d)
Use drill rig to get SPT N values. Sample frequently within 2B of footing bottom
Use split spoon to get disturbed soil samples for sieve analysis, Atterberg limits, corrosivity tests
Get GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS!
Affects bearing, settlement, constructability, downdrag, corrosivity, earth pressures

37. Pile capacities in ABLRFD
Example - Plan No
Pile capacities in ABLRFD
Generally, you will specify a strength axial capacity and a service axial capacity for a pile
Service axial capacity will essentially be matched to ASD capacity
The specified capacity is generally linked to the structural capacity of the pile – ensure geotechnical capacity is available

38. Example - Plan No. 285-84 Steel H-Piles End-bearing
Service Axial Capacity = 0.25*Fy*Area
Corresponds to 9 ksi – same as ASD
Advantage of 50 ksi steel can be counted on during driving, not for long-term static capacity
Strength Axial Capacity = 0.60*Fy*Area
Article – 0.60 is good driving conditions; 0.50 is severe conditions
Corresponds to 21.6 ksi in good conditions
Use of 36 ksi yield strength has a long history

39. Example - Plan No. 285-84 Steel H-Piles Friction
Service Axial Capacity = Ultimate Geotechnical Capacity / 3
Matches ASD
Strength Axial Capacity = Ultimate Geotechnical Capacity / 2

40. Example - Plan No. 285-84 P/S Concrete Piles End-bearing
Service Axial Capacity – match to ASD value of about 1.44 ksi (0.33f’c – 0.27fpe, Article of ASD code);
HOWEVER, VDOT practice is limit to ~0.80 ksi
Strength Axial Capacity – use 0.70*f’c*Area (Article of LRFD code, simple compression bearing)
The 0.80 ksi limit corresponds to about 60 tons on a 12” square p/s pile, and about 230 tons on a 24” square p/s pile – traditional upper limits at VDOT.

41. Example - Plan No. 285-84 P/S Concrete Piles Friction
Service Axial Capacity = Ultimate Geotechnical Capacity / 3
Matches ASD
Again, LIMIT to bearing stress of ~0.80 ksi
Strength Axial Capacity = Ultimate Geotechnical Capacity / 2

42. VDOT MSE Wall Analysis Spreadsheet Overview
Plan No Example
(Univ. Blvd. over 1-66, Prince William County)
John Schuler, PE
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Virginia DOT Structure & Bridge Division
Spring 2007

43. Example - Plan No. 285-18 – MSE Wingwalls
VDOT MSE Wall Spreadsheet
Analyze & Iteratively Design MSE walls
Objectives:
Accurate
User-friendly
Transparent

44. Example - Plan No. 285-18 – MSE Wingwalls
Use the VDOT MSE Wall Spreadsheet
External Stability (Bearing, Sliding, Eccentricity)
Internal Stability for Steel Strips and Steel Grids
Pullout, Tensile Strength, Connection Rupture

50. Yellow cells are input (may show up as green on screen)
Yellow cells are input (may show up as green on screen). AASHTO says reinforcement length has to be at least 70% of wall height and all reinforcement layers must be of equal length.

51. Only Str I Limit State really applies.

54. Example - Plan No. 285-18 – MSE Wingwalls
The 22-ft strip length works. This is 70% of wall height and is the minimum allowed by AASHTO.
Now look at internal stability

55. Change user inputs as appropriate
Change user inputs as appropriate. Strip dimension and strengths come from vendor. Only certain suppliers are approved for use on VDOT projects.

57. Again, yellow cells are input. Input as many rows as you call for
Again, yellow cells are input. Input as many rows as you call for. Calculations are checked at each row in this table for rupture strengths of strips and of connections to panels.

58. Pullout of strips is checked.

59. Example - Plan No. 285-18 – MSE Wingwalls
Strips with given input data work for pullout
Strips don’t work for tensile strength or connection strength as input (just an example – use actual manufacturer data)

60. Example - Plan No. 285-18 – MSE Wingwalls
QUESTIONS?
¿PREGUNTAS?
FRAGEN?

61. VDOT Anchored Wall Analysis Spreadsheet
Overview
Example
John Schuler, PE
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Virginia DOT Structure & Bridge Division
Spring 2007

62. Example – Anchored Wall
VDOT Anchored Wall Spreadsheet
Analyze & Iteratively Design MSE walls
Objectives:
Accurate
User-friendly
Transparent

63. Example – Anchored Wall
Use the VDOT Anchored Wall Spreadsheet
Checks wall/soldier pile bending
Designs anchor length
Checks anchor strength
Designs soldier pile embedment – against rotation and vertical load
Currently cannot be used for a cantilever sheeting wall
Design and construction details are a little more detailed than for MSE walls.

64. Example problem

65. Main input cells – again in yellow. AASHTO references listed.

66. Earth pressure diagrams from AASHTO/FHWA Geotechnical Engineering Circular (GEC) 4. The pressure diagrams vary slightly for varying rows of anchors, hence the spreadsheet is broken up into worksheets for 1, 2, and up to 3 anchors.

67. Anchor loads are calculated here.

68. Total anchor length = anchor bond length + unbonded anchor length (this latter must extend from the wall face through the anticipated failure zone and for a minimum of 3 feet beyond that.

69. Wall element design checked here.

70. This table checks that the discrete vertical elements (typically a soldier pile embedded in a 3-ft diameter concrete caisson, about 8’ on centers) are embedded deep enough to provide rotational restraint against the active earth pressure behind the wall.

71. This input cell that allows user to vary how much vertical anchor component load transfers to the embedded portion of soldier pile below excavation level is important. There is no guidance in AASHTO on this, other than to assume a very, very conservative 100% is transferred.

72. This table checks the embedment of the soldier pile for bearing resistance against vertical loads.

73. Materials developing plastic, metal, and concrete pipe LRFD design capability Plastic already on TeamSite

79. http://www. virginiadot. org/business/bridge-LRFD
VDOT Materials Geotechnical TeamSite