1. 2 LRFD Update for Materials/Geotechnical At GRAC Meeting John Schuler, PE Program Manager...
-
Upload
miguel-broadhurst -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
1
Transcript of 1. 2 LRFD Update for Materials/Geotechnical At GRAC Meeting John Schuler, PE Program Manager...
1
2
LRFD Update for Materials/Geotechnical
At GRAC Meeting
John Schuler, PEProgram ManagerVirginia DOT Materials DivisionOctober 31, 2011
Purpose of PresentationProvide common ground between
Materials & Bridge, give Materials & Geotechs background on LRFD initiative
3
LRFD – poor choice of words?
Concrete – 1950s
Steel – 1960s
Transportation (Geotech) – 1990s
4
Why LRFD?
Steel vs Pre-Stressed Industries?
Purpose – Uniform Safety (not economy)
5
Data obtained from instrumentation
Main bridge members mostly
Supporting members/substructures hardly
Geotech – not a thought (later calibration Tony Allen WSDOT)
6
Main Players
Modjeski & Masters
D’Appolonia – Geotech
Baker – later Geotech
Prof. Nowak – Michigan – statistics
7
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
8
Importance now?
Required
Standard Specs no longer being updated as of about 2000
LRFD Spec is excellent reference source – especially geotechnical
9
Biggest problem states had in going LRFD – finding software!
This was impact to structural side, not geotech nearly as much.
10
Every VDOT Bridge Engineer who was at VDOT in Spring 2007 received following geotechnical guidance training from CO S & B Division.
11
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
• C2.6.4.4.2, 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
15
LRFD Code Highlights
• 3.11, Earth Pressures (anchored wall pressure distribution change)
• Table 10.5.5.2.2-1, better exploration or field testing can increase resistance factor 10%-20% for shallow foundations
• RMR for bearing capacity preferred
16
LRFD Code Highlights
• Tables 10.5.5.2.3-1 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) ($$$)
17
Geotechnical Parameters
Geotechnical Parameters – Introduction and Guidance on Choosing Them• 4 steps
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
19
20
Geotechnical Parameters
Step 2: Determine soil weight• Standard correlations typically used to
estimate unit weights• Typically, assume saturated unit weight is
10-20 pcf more than moist unit weight
21
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
23
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 10.4.6.2.4-1)
• Effective means use buoyant weight of soil (unit weight – 62.4 pcf)
27
Geotechnical Parameters
28
Geotechnical Parameters
Further SPT N corrections:• N60 = (ER/60%)*N (AASHTO 10.4.6.2.4-2)
• N160 = CN*N60 (AASHTO 10.4.6.2.4-3)
• 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 C10.4.6.5-1)• Obtain Poisson’s Ratio from AASHTO LRFD
(Table C10.4.6.5-2)• 0.2 is a good approximation
34
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
Example - Plan No. 285-84
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-PilesEnd-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 6.5.4.2 – 0.60 is good driving
conditions; 0.50 is severe conditions– Corresponds to 21.6 ksi in good conditions
39
Example - Plan No. 285-84
Steel H-PilesFriction• 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 PilesEnd-bearing• Service Axial Capacity – match to ASD value of
about 1.44 ksi (0.33f’c – 0.27fpe, Article 4.5.7.3 of ASD code);
• HOWEVER, VDOT practice is limit to ~0.80 ksi• Strength Axial Capacity – use 0.70*f’c*Area
(Article 5.5.4.2.1 of LRFD code, simple compression bearing)
41
Example - Plan No. 285-84
P/S Concrete PilesFriction• 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 SpreadsheetOverview
Plan No. 285-18 Example(Univ. Blvd. over 1-66, Prince William County)
John Schuler, PESenior Geotechnical EngineerVirginia DOT Structure & Bridge DivisionSpring 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
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
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
56
57
58
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 SpreadsheetOverviewExample
John Schuler, PESenior Geotechnical EngineerVirginia DOT Structure & Bridge DivisionSpring 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
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
Materials developing plastic, metal, and concrete pipe LRFD design capability
Plastic already on TeamSite
73
74
75
76
77
78
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/bridge-LRFD.asp
VDOT Materials Geotechnical TeamSite
79