LRFD For Micropiles

LLoad and Resistance Factor
d dR i t F t
Design (LRFD) for Micropiles
g ( ) p
Jonathan Bennett, PE, D.GE – Chief Engineer
May 4, 2011
LRFD??!
When you begin a discussion on “LRFD”, people
have mixed emotions...
...
PRESENTATION OVERVIEW
• Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) is a predominant design method utilized
today for a number of structural materials and components and is the primary
today for a number of structural materials and components, and is the primary
focus of the relatively new AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
• Historically, micropile design has been performed mainly with Allowable Stress
Design (ASD) methodologies and most of the foundational design manuals and
specifications in existence prior to 2008 were based primarily on ASD.
• With the emergence of LRFD design concepts for geotechnical features, there has
been an increase in interest regarding the proper use of LRFD for micropiles. This
presentation will cover the fundamentals of LRFD as it applies to micropiles and
presentation will cover the fundamentals of LRFD as it applies to micropiles, and
will provide a comparison with ASD methodology.
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
• What is Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)?
• The Emergence of LRFD in Structural and Geotechnical Engineering
• The Basic Contrast and Incompatibility between SLD and LRFD
• Micropile Design Guidelines and Their Methodology Basis
• Allowable Stress Design Methodologies for Micropiles
• AASHTO LRFD Methodology for Micropiles
• Design Example and Comparison of Results
• Summary
Terms
We are going to be using some terms
throughout the presentation that may initially
appear to be interchangeable (and I may even
inadvertently use some of the terms
interchangeably) but are in fact subtly different.
So, in order to have a correct understanding, we
need to differentiate these terms right off the
bat and understand their individual roles in
regard to LRFD development so that we use
them correctly later.
Terms
• Strength Design –
h Design methodology based on the
h d l b d h
ultimate strength of a material or component as opposed
to working stresses and allowable loads.
• Limit States Design – Design methodology based on limit
states analysis. In limit states design, a structural
component or system must meet the requirements of both
Strength and Serviceability (and other applicable) limit
St th d S i bilit ( d th li bl ) li it
states. A Limit State is a condition beyond which a
structural component or system ceases to satisfy the
requirements for which it is designed
requirements for which it is designed.
• Reliability Engineering – The analysis of components or
systems with respect to their ability to perform required
functions under stated conditions for a specified period of
functions under stated conditions for a specified period of
time. Reliability engineering often makes extensive use of
probability and statistics concepts.
What is LRFD?
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) is a
design methodology based on Limit States Design
and Reliability Engineering Concepts
and Reliability Engineering Concepts.
In Limit States Design and LRFD, a structural
In Limit States Design and LRFD a structural
member or system must meet both Strength and
Serviceability Limit State requirements. Strength
Serviceability Limit State requirements. Strength
design concepts are utilized in the assessment of
resistance and reliability / probability concepts or
fitting to ASD are utilized in formulating load and
resistance factors relating applied loads to required
resistance.
resistance
What is LRFD?
Typical Limit States for Structures
(Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction, Melchers, 1999)
Limit State Type Description Examples

Ultimate (safety) Collapse of all or part of Tipping or sliding, rupture,
structure progressive collapse,
progressive collapse,
plastic mechanism,
instability, corrosion,
fatigue, deterioration, fire,
etc.
t
Damage (Often included in Excessive or premature
above) cracking, deformation or
permanent inelastic
permanent inelastic
deformation
Serviceability Disruption of normal use Excessive deflections,
, g ,
vibrations, local damage,
etc.
What is LRFD?
The load and resistance factor design safety
checking format was proposed by Ravindra and
Galambos (1978) for use in codes. It has the
following form:
What is LRFD?
Note that in this format, the product of load
factors and mean load effects are combined as
opposed to combining load effects alone. This
differs from traditional Working Stress or Service
Load analysis where the load effects alone are
combined without load factors.
The Emergence of LRFD
Strength Design, Limit States Design and
Reliability Engineering concepts have changed
the way in which we design structural building
components and is beginning to influence the
design of geotechnical engineering systems.
Since the concept’s introduction in the 1970’s,
the utilization of LRFD has steadily increased in
the utilization of LRFD has steadily increased in
Structural Design Guidelines and Specifications
for all major building material categories.
for all major building material categories
Traditional designs based on service loads,
working loads and allowable stresses are
steadily being displaced by Limit State and
Reliability focused designs based on factored
loads and resistances. Limit States design and
Load and Resistance factor Design (LRFD) are
quickly gaining ground if not having overtaken
traditional allowable stress / working stress
design in many areas.
S
SAFETY OF STRUCTURES
O S C S
The development of design specifications to provide suitable values of the margin of
safety, reliability, and probability of failure must take into consideration the following:
1. Variability of the material with respect to strength and other pertinent physical
properties.
2. y p g p g
Uncertainty in the expected loads in regard to possible future change as well as
with respect to present magnitude.
3. Precision with which the internal forces in the various parts of a structure are
determined.
4. Possibility of deterioration due to corrosion and other causes.
Possibility of deterioration due to corrosion and other causes.
5. The extent of damage and loss of life which might result from failure.
6. Quality of workmanship.
I i f th i bilit f th t th f b t t d th l d t
In view of the variability of the strength of a member or structure and the loads to
which it may be subjected, considerable effort has been devoted to the concept of
reliability or probability of failure in recent years.
(Design of Steel Structures, Third Edition, Gaylord)
(D i f St l St t Thi d Editi G l d)
The American Concrete Institute was the earliest
to convert to full implementation of LRFD
methodology. My first ACI 318 Code book (1989)
was the last to contain any Allowable Stress
Design Provisions.
In 1986, the American Institute of Steel
Construction published its first Load and
Resistance Factor Design Specification. Its
current design specification (13th Edition)
supports both ASD and LRFD formats.
LRFD Design Concepts have been slower to
catch on in Geotechnical Engineering although it
is pointed out on occasion that Donald Taylor
proposed an approach that utilized partial
Factors of Safety in his 1948 book Fundamentals
of Soil Mechanics. This approach is similar to
utilizing different resistance factors for different
types of resistance to instability that is common
in LRFD concepts today. Traditional geotechnical
engineering designs have historically been based
on Factors of Safety against Service Loads.
LRFD approaches for geotechnical engineering
have been hastened by the introduction of the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
which takes an LRFD approach to both structural
and geotechnical designs. The AASHTO LRFD is
the most comprehensive guide document for
Geotechnical LRFD Design in existence in the
United States today.
The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
were first introduced in 1994. It is currently in its
5th Edition as of 2010.
Although LRFD approaches are mandated by
AASHTO LRFD specifications (which means they
are generally required by State DOTs), there is
still a lot of debate and confusion regarding the
proper application of LRFD to geotechnical
engineering features.
Most of the bodies that produce design
specifications have indicated that LRFD will be
th
the primary design approach supported if they
i d i h t d if th
have not already switched to LRFD entirely.
ACI ‐ LRFD only for some time
FHWA / AASHTO ‐ LRFD only position
AISC – LRFD is preferred specification although
ASD is still supported
IBC is the exception in that all of its foundation
provisions are based on ASD
I think that it is safe to say that LRFD is the way
of the future.
It IS the de facto standard for structural
engineering and there is a lot of inertia driving it
to become the standard for geotechnical
engineering as well although it is lagging more
i i ll lth h it i l i
in that area.
If you are doing engineering for transportation,
LRFD IS
LRFD IS already the requirement for both.
l d th i t f b th
The Basic Contrast (SLD vs LRFD)
The design safety of structures may be evaluated in
h d f f b l d
either of two ways:
1. The expected resistance of the structural
p y p
member, or other component, usually expressed
as a tensile stress, compressive stress, etc., is
divided by a factor of safety to obtain an
allowable or working stress, and the part is then
or working stress and the part is then
chosen so that the stress induced by the
expected service load, or service load
combination is eq al to or less than the
combination, is equal to or less than the
allowable value. This procedure is called
allowable stress design, working stress design,
or elastic design.
The design safety of structures may be evaluated in
h d f f b l d
either of two ways:
2. The structural member or other component is
p y
chosen so that its resistance multiplied by a
resistance factor, equals or exceeds the service
load, or service load combination, multiplied by
load factors With this procedure it is a simple
load factors. With this procedure, it is a simple
matter to account for differing reliabilities in the
prediction of load and member resistance. This
proced re is called b ario s names load
procedure is called by various names: load
factor design, load and resistance factor design,
limit states design, and (in US reinforced
concrete practice) strength design.
With regard to foundation pile design,
traditional methods are based on Service or
Working Loads compared to Allowable Loads
and Allowable Stresses. Allowable pile loads are
based on the expected Ultimate Load divided by
a factor of safety (FS). To maintain Factor of
Safety, the Service Load or Working Load must
not exceed the Allowable Load. If allowable
stresses are considered for component design,
they are based on ultimate (or yield) stresses
divided by a factor of safety.
Service Load or Working Load Design
g g
Service Load ≤ Ultimate Load / FS
Allowable Stress or Working Stress Design
Actual Stress ≤ Yield or Ultimate Stress / FS
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
g ( )
utilizes various Load Factors with magnitudes
yp
based on type of load to account for variability y
in loading and various Resistance Factors of
y g g
varying magnitudes based on material or
resistance type to account for variability in
resistance.
(FHWA, 1997)
(FHWA 1997)
LOAD COMBINATIONS
Building codes specify different load combinations for ASD and LRFD due to the
difference in the way loads are considered in the two different methods The
difference in the way loads are considered in the two different methods. The
combinations below are from ASCE 7 and the 2010 IBC.
ASD Load Combinations LRFD Load Combinations
D+F 1.4(D+F)
D+H+F+L+T 1.2(D+F+T)+1.6(L+H)+0.5(Lr or S or R)
D+H+F+(Lr or S or R)
or S or R) 1.2D+1.6(Lr or S or R)+(L
or S or R)+(L or 0.8W)
or 0.8W)
D+H+F+0.75(L+T)+0.75(Lr or S or R) 1.2D+1.6W+L+0.5(Lr or S or R)
D+H+F+(W or 0.7E) 1.2D+1.0E+L+0.2S
D+H+F+0.75(W
( or 0.7E)+0.75L+0.75(L
) ( r or 0.9D+1.6W+1.6H
S or R)
0.6D+W+H 0.9D+1.0E+1.6H
0.6D+0.7E+H
It is difficult to directly compare SLD results and
LRFD results because in LRFD, the factored loads
used in computing required resistance vary
di ti i d it
based on how much of different types of load
are present because load factors are different
are present because load factors are different
for different types of load. Otherwise, the
relationship between SLD and LRFD would be
relationship between SLD and LRFD would be
the simple relationship:
Load Factor / Resistance Factor = Factor of
Safety
Existing Micropile Guidelines
Publication Name Year of Developing Design
Publication Entity Method(s)
Drilled and Grouted Micropiles – State of 1997 FHWA ASD
P ti R i (4 V l
Practice Review (4 Volumes)
)
Micropile Design and Construction 1997 FHWA ASD & LFD
Guidelines – Implementation Manual
Guide to Drafting a Specification for 2004 DFI / ADSC
/ ASD
Micropiles
Micropile Design and Construction 2005 FHWA / NHI ASD
Reference Manual
Reference Manual
International Building Code – Micropile 2006 ICC ASD
Section
AASHTO LRFD B id D i S ifi ti
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification 2007 AASHTO LRFD
– Micropile Section
DFI / ADSC Micropile Specification Forthcoming DFI / ADSC ASD & LRFD
Updated Micropile
d d l Design and
d Forthcoming
h FHWA / NHI
/ LRFD
Construction Reference Manual
Existing Micropile Guidelines
As far as micropile‐specific codes and
requirements, the introduction of an LRFD
based design requirement is relatively new.
The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification
didn’t adopt a micropile section until 2007.
Prior to that, all micropile design
specifications were based on SLD / ASD. In
fact, micropile design requirements included
in the International Building Code are still
based on SLD / ASD.
ASD Methodologies for Micropiles
In terms of Working Stress or Allowable Stress
Design methodologies for micropiles, there are
t
two primary codified approaches that have
i difi d h th t h
substantially different allowable stresses for
structural design of micropile
structural design of micropile cross sections.
cross sections
FHWA A
FHWA Approach
h
Micropile Design and Construction Guidelines – Implementation Manual
Micropile Design and Construction ‐ Reference Manual
International Building Code Approach
DFI / ADSC Guide to Drafting a Specification fro Micropiles
International Building Code
International Building Code
Micropile
l Structural Capacity
l
• Compression Strength (Ultimate)
Puc = 0.85fc’ Ag + Fy As
• Compression Strength (Allowable)
Pac = A fc’ Ag + B Fy As
• Tension Strength (Yield)
T i St th (Yi ld)
Put = Fy As
• Tension Strength (Allowable)
Pat = C F
C Fy As
Where A, B and C are reduction factors which express the allowable stresses as a percentage of
ultimate stress. The magnitude of these reduction factors varies depending on which design code
you are using.
The core assumption with regard to the above compressive strength formulas is that the pile is
sufficiently supported along its length by soil or rock such that buckling cannot occur. Most soils will
provide a level of support that is sufficient to preclude outright buckling. However, the stiffness of
the overburden soils can effect the actual pile capacity. This is not taken into account in the
formulas.
f l
Micropile Structural Capacity ‐ FHWA
• Compression Strength (Allowable)
p g ( )
• Pac = 0.40 fc’ Ag + 0.47 Fy As
• Tension Strength (Allowable)
Tension Strength (Allowable)
• Pat = 0.55 Fy Ab
• Maximum Test Load (Allowable)
• Ptc = 0.68fc’ Ag + 0.8Fy As per FHWA‐SA‐97‐070
• Ptt = 0.8 Fy Ab for ASTM A615 material
• Ptt = 0.8 Fu Ab for ASTM A722 material
Micropile Structural Capacity ‐ IBC
• Compression Loading
p g
• Pac = 0.33 fc’ Ag + 0.40 Fy As
• Tension Loading
Tension Loading
• Pat = 0.60 Fy Ab (same as PTI)
• Steel yield stress limited to 80 ksi.
• Steel reinforcement must carry at least 40% of
the load.
Micropile Structural Capacity ‐ Comparison
• Compression Loading
p g
• FHWA: Pac = 0.40 fc’ Ag + 0.47 Fy As
• IBC:
IBC: Pac = 0.33 f
0.33 fc’ A
Ag + 0.40 F
+ 0.40 Fy As
• Tension Loading
• FHWA: Pat = 0.55 F
= 0 55 Fy Ab
• IBC: Pat = 0.60 Fy Ab
Micropile Geotechnical Capacity
• For design purposes, micropiles
g p p p are usually
y
assumed to transfer their load to the ground
through grout‐to‐ground skin friction, without
any contribution from end bearing (FHWA, 1997).
• This assumption results in a pile that is for the
most part geotechnically equivalent in tension
and compression.
• Suggested bond values can be found in the FHWA
Manuals as well as in the PTI Recommendations
for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors.
Micropile Geotechnical Capacity ‐ FHWA
•
• IBC Code does not offer specific guidance for
bond values for geotechnical design of micropiles.
Summary of Typical Grout to Ground Bond Values for Preliminary Micropile Design
Soil / Rock Description Typical Range of Grout-to-Ground Nominal Strength
Type A Type B Type C Type D
English (psi) SI (kPa) English (psi) SI (kPa) English (psi) SI (kPa) English (psi) SI (kPa)
min max avg min max avg min max avg min max avg min max avg min max avg min max avg min max avg
Silt and Clay (some sand) 5.1 10.2 7.6 35 70 52.5 5.1 13.8 9.4 35 95 65 7.3 17.4 12.3 50 120 85 7.3 21.0 14.1 50 145 97.5
soft, medium plastic
Silt and Clay (some sand) 7.3 17.4 12.3 50 120 85 10.2 27.6 18.9 70 190 130 13.8 27.6 20.7 95 190 142.5 13.8 27.6 20.7 95 190 142.5
stiff, dense to very dense
Sand (some silt) 10.2 21.0 15.6 70 145 107.5 10.2 27.6 18.9 70 190 130 13.8 27.6 20.7 95 190 142.5 13.8 34.8 24.3 95 240 167.5
fine, loose-medium dense
Sand (some silt, gravel) 13.8 31.2 22.5 95 215 155 17.4 52.2 34.8 120 360 240 21.0 52.2 36.6 145 360 252.5 21.0 55.8 38.4 145 385 265
fine-coarse,, med-veryy dense
Gravel (some sand) 13.8 38.4 26.1 95 265 180 17.4 52.2 34.8 120 360 240 21.0 52.2 36.6 145 360 252.5 21.0 55.8 38.4 145 385 265
medium-very dense
Glacial Till (silt, sand, gravel) 13.8 27.6 20.7 95 190 142.5 13.8 45.0 29.4 95 310 202.5 17.4 45.0 31.2 120 310 215 17.4 48.6 33.0 120 335 227.5
medium-very dense, cemented
Soft Shales 29.7 79.8 54.8 205 550 377.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
fresh-moderate fracturing
little to no weathering
Slates and Hard Shales 74 7 200.2
74.7 200 2 137.4
137 4 515 1380 947.5
947 5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Limestone 150.1 300.2 225.2 1035 2070 1553 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Sandstone 75.4 250.2 162.8 520 1725 1123 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Granite and Basalt 200.2 609.2 404.7 1380 4200 2790 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Type A - Gravity grout only.
Type B - Pressure grouted through the casing during casing withdrawal.
Type C - Primary grout placed under gravity head, then one phase of secondary "global" pressure grouting.
Type D - Primary grout placed under gravity head, then one or more phases of secondary "global" pressure grouting.
AASHTO LRFD for Micropiles
• First Edition of AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Specifications was
published in 1994.
• It has undergone a gradual
implementation program with
an FHWA target date for full
implementation by 2007.
i l i b 2007
• Micropile Design Specification
Section adopted in 2007 as a
part of Section 10 –
t f S ti 10
Foundations.
• Micropile Construction
S ifi ti i tl d
Specification is currently under
review for adoption and
should be implemented in the
near future.
near future
• The design provisions for Micropiles
h d f l under
d
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications are
contained in Section 3 – Loads and Load Factors
contained in Section 3 Loads and Load Factors
and in Section 10 – Foundations.
• Section 10 spells out the requirements for
Foundations in general and for Micropiles
F d ti i l d f Mi il
specifically in various subsections of 10. It refers
back to Section 3 for Loading related information.
g
• We will review the major sections and
subsections that are applicable to micropiles.
• In terms of any detailed discussion, we will focus
on single micropiles under axial loading
conditions only.
conditions only.
Section 10 Major Divisions
10.1 –
10 1 Scope
S
10.2 – Definitions
10.3 –
10 3 Notations
10.4 – Soil and Rock Properties
10 5 – Limit States and Resistance Factors
10.5 Limit States and Resistance Factors
10.6 – Spread Footings
10.7 –
0 Driven Piles
e es
10.8 – Drilled Shafts
10.9 – Micropiles
10.10 ‐ References
Section 10.4 – Soil and Rock Properties (for
Foundations in general)
10.4.1
10 4 1 – Informational Needs
Informational Needs
10.4.2 – Subsurface Exploration
10 4 3 Laboratory Tests
10.4.3 – L b T
10.4.4 – In Situ Tests
10.4.5 – Geophysical Tests
10.4.6
10 4 6 – Selection of Design Properties
Selection of Design Properties
Section 10.5 – Limit States and Resistance
Factors (for Foundations in general)
10.5.1
10 5 1 – General
10.5.2 – Service Limit States
10 5 3 Strength Limit States
10.5.3 – S h Li i S
10.5.4 – Extreme Events Limit States
10.5.5 – Resistance Factors
Section 10.5 – Limit States and Resistance
Factors
10.5.1
10 5 1 – General
“Foundations shall be proportioned so that the
“F d i h ll b i d h h
factored resistance is not less than the effects of
h f dl d ifi d i S i 3 ”
the factored loads specified in Section 3.”
The Load Combinations and Load Factors
included in Table 3.4.1‐1 were developed
specifically for highway / bridge structures and
may not be applicable to other structures.
Section 10.5 – Limit States and Resistance Factors
10.5.2 – Service Limit States
Foundation design at the Service Limit State shall
include:
• Settlements,
Horizontal Movements
• Horizontal Movements,
• Overall Stability,
• Scour at the Design Flood
d
10.5.3 – Strength Limit States
10.5.3.1 – General
Design of foundations at Strength Limit States shall include
consideration of the nominal geotechnical and structural resistances of
id i f h i l h i l d l i f
the foundation elements. Design at strength limit states shall not
consider the deformations required to mobilize the nominal resistance,
unless a definition of failure based on deformation is specified.
p
The design of all foundations at the strength limit state shall consider:
• Structural Resistance and
• Loss of lateral and vertical support due to scour at the design flood
event.
d
10.5.3 – Strength Limit States
10.5.3.5 – Micropiles
The design of micropile foundations at the strength limit state shall
also consider:
l id
• Axial compression resistance for single micropile,
• Micropile group compression resistance,
• Uplift resistance for single micropile,
• Uplift resistance for micropile groups,
• Micropile group punching failure into a weaker stratum below
th b i t t d i l i il punching failure
the bearing stratum, and single micropile hi f il
where tip resistance is considered,
• Single micropile and micropile group lateral resistance, and
• Constructability, including method(s) of micropile
Constructability including method(s) of micropile
construction.
d
10.5.5.1 – Service Limit States
Resistance factors for the service limit states shall be taken as 1.0,
except as provided for overall stability in Article 11.6.2.3. A resistance
id d f ll bili i A i l 11 6 2 3 A i
factor of 1.0 shall be used to assess the ability of the foundation to
meet the specified deflection criteria after scour due to the design
flood.
10.5.5.2 – Strength Limit States
Resistance factors for different types of foundation systems at the
Resistance factors for different types of foundation systems at the
strength limit state shall be taken as specified in Articles 10.5.5.2.2,
10.5.5.2.3, 10.5.5.2.4, and 10.5.5.2.5, unless regionally specific values
or substantial successful experience is available to justify higher values.
d
10.5.5.2.5 – Micropiles
Resistance factors shall be selected from Table 10.5.5.2.5‐1 based on
the method used for determining the nominal axial pile resistance. If
h h d df d i i h i l i l il i If
the resistance factors provided in Table 10.5.5.2.5‐1 are to be applied
to piles in potentially creeping soils, highly plastic soils, weak rock, or
other marginal ground type, the resistance factor values in the Table
g g yp ,
should be reduced by 20 percent to reflect greater design uncertainty.
The resistance factors in Table 10.5.5.2.5‐1 were calibrated by fitting to
ASD procedures tempered with engineering judgment. The resistance
p p g gj g
factors in Table 10.5.5.2.5.‐2 for structural resistance were calibrated
by fitting to ASD procedures and are equal to or slightly more
conservative than corresponding resistance factors from Section 5 of
the AASHTO LRFD Specifications for reinforced concrete column design.
the AASHTO LRFD Specifications for reinforced concrete column design
10.5.5.3 – Extreme Event Limit States
Resistance factors for extreme limit state including
Resistance factors for extreme limit state, including
the design of foundations to resist earthquake, ice,
vehicle or vessel impact loads, shall be taken as 1.0.
For uplift resistance of piles and shafts, the
resistance factor shall be taken as 0.80 or less.
it f t h ll b t k 0 80 l
Section 10 Major Divisions
10.6 – Spread Footings
10.7 –
10 7 Driven Piles
Driven Piles
10.8 – Drilled Shafts
10.9 – Micropiles
10.10 ‐ References
Section 10.9 – Micropiles
10.9.1 – General
10.9.2 –
10 9 2 Service Limit State Design
Service Limit State Design
10.9.3 – Strength Limit State Design
10.9.4 – Extreme Event Limit State Design
10.9.5 – Corrosion and Deterioration
Section 10.9.1 – General
10.9.1.1 – Scope
10.9.1.2 –
10 9 1 2 Minimum Micropile
Minimum Micropile Spacing,
Spacing
Clearance and Embedment into Cap
10 9 1 3 Micropiles
10.9.1.3 – Mi il through Embankment Fill
h hE b k Fill
10.9.1.4 – Battered Micropiles
10.9.1.5 – Micropile Design Requirements
10.9.1.6
10 9 1 6 – Determination of Micropile
Determination of Micropile Loads
10.9.1.2 – Minimum Micropile Spacing,

Center‐to‐center pile spacing should not be less
C il i h ld b l
than 30.0 in. or 3.0 pile diameters, whichever is
Oh i h ii fA i l
greater. Otherwise, the provisions of Article
10.7.1.2 shall apply.
10.9.1.3 – Micropiles through Embankment Fill
Micropiles extending through embankments
shall penetrate a minimum of 10.0 ft into
h ll i i f 10 0 f i
original ground, unless the required nominal
i l dl l i l
axial and lateral resistance occurs at a lesser
penetration below the embankment within
bedrock or other suitable support materials.
b d k h i bl i l
S i
Section 10.9.1 –
09 G
General
l
10.9.1.5 – Micropile Design Requirements
Micropile design shall address the following issues as appropriate:
• Nominal axial resistance to be specified in the contract and size of micropile group
required to provide adequate support, with consideration of how nominal axial
required to provide adequate support with consideration of how nominal axial
micropile resistance will be determined in the field;
• Group interaction;
• Pile quantity estimation from estimated pile penetration required to meet nominal
axial resistance and other design requirements;
axial resistance and other design requirements;
• Minimum pile penetration necessary to satisfy the requirements caused by uplift,
scour, downdrag, settlement, liquefaction, lateral loads, and seismic conditions;
• Foundation deflection to meet the established movement and associated structure
performance criteria;
performance criteria;
• Pile foundation nominal structural resistance; and
• Long‐term durability of the micropile in service, i.e. corrosion and deterioration.
Section 10.9.2 – Service Limit State Design
10.9.2.1 – General
10.9.2.2 –
10 9 2 2 Tolerable Movements
Tolerable Movements
10.9.2.3 – Settlement
10.9.2.4 – Horizontal Micropile Foundation
Movement
10.9.2.5 – Settlement Due to Downdrag
10.9.2.6
10 9 2 6 – Lateral Squeeze
Lateral Squeeze
Section 10.9.3 – Strength Limit State Design
h
10.9.3.1 – General
10.9.3.2 – Ground Water and Bouyancy
10.9.3.3 – Scour
10.9.3.4 –
10 9 3 4 Downdrag
D d
10.9.3.5 ‐ Nominal Axial Compression Resistance of a Single
Micropile
10.9.3.6 – Resistance of Micropile Groups in Compression
10.9.3.7 – Nominal Uplift Resistance of a Single Micropile
10.9.3.8 – Nominal Uplift Resistance of Micropile
10.9.3.8 Nominal Uplift Resistance of Micropile Groups
10.9.3.9 – Nominal Horizontal Resistance of Micropiles and
Micropile Groups
10.9.3.10 –
10 9 3 10 Structural Resistance
Structural Resistance
h
10.9.3.1 – General
For strength limit state design, the following shall
be determined:
• Loads and performance requirements;
• Micropile dimensions and nominal axial micropile resistance;
• Size and configuration of the micropile group to provide adequate
foundation support;
• Estimated micropile length to be used in the construction contract
documents to provide a basis for bidding;
• A minimum micropile penetration, if required, for the particular site
conditions and loading determined based on the maximum
conditions and loading, determined based on the maximum
(deepest) penetration needed to meet all of the applicable
requirements identified in Article 10.7.6; and
• p and/or micropile
The nominal structural resistance of the micropile / p
group.
10.9.3.5 – Nominal Axial Compression
Resistance of a Single Micropile
Micropiles
Mi il shall be designed to resist failure of
h ll b d i d i f il f
the bonded length in soil and rock, or for
i il bearing on rock, failure of the rock at
micropiles b i k f il f h k
the micropile tip.
Section 10.9.3.5 – Nominal Axial Compression
The factored resistance of a micropile, RR, shall be taken as:
Section 10.9.3.5 – Nominal Axial Compression
h
10.9.3.5 – Nominal Axial Compression Resistance of a Single
p g
Micropile
10.9.3.5.4 –
10 9 3 5 4 – Micropile Load Test
Load Test
The load test shall follow the procedures specified in ASTM
D1143 f
D1143 for compression and ASTM D3689 for tension. The
i d ASTM D3689 f t i Th
loading procedure should follow the Quick Load Test Method,
unless detailed longer‐term load settlement data is needed, in
which case the standard loading procedure should be used
which case the standard loading procedure should be used.
Unless specified otherwise by the Engineer, the pile axial
resistance shall be determined from the test data using the
Davisson Method as presented in Article 10.7.3.8.2.
Davisson Method as presented in Article 10 7 3 8 2
h
10.9.3.5 – Nominal Axial Compression Resistance of a Single Micropile
10.9.3.5.4 – Micropile Load Test
The number of load tests required to account for site variability shall
be as specified in Article 10.5.5.2.2. The number of test micropiles
required should be increased in nonuniform subsurface conditions.
In addition, proof tests loaded to the required factored load shall be
performed on one pile per substructure unit or five percent of the
piles, whichever is greater, unless specified otherwise by the
piles, whichever is greater, unless specified otherwise by the
Engineer.
p p
The resistance factors for axial compressive resistance or axial uplift
resistance shall be taken as specified in Table 10.5.5.2.5‐1.
10.9.3.7 – Nominal Uplift Resistance of a Single
Micropile
Uplift resistance shall be evaluated when
p
upward loads act on the micropiles. Micropiles
subjected to uplift forces shall be investigated
for resistance to pullout, for their structural
strength, and for the strength of their
connection to supported components.
ti t t d t
h
10 9 3 10 Structural Resistance
10.9.3.10 – St t l R i t
10.9.3.10.2 ‐
10 9 3 10 2 Axial Compressive Resistance
Axial Compressive Resistance
10.9.3.10.2a ‐ Cased Length
10 9 3 10 2b ‐ Uncased Length
10.9.3.10.2b Uncased Length
10.9.3.10.3 ‐ Axial Tension Resistance
10.9.3.10.3a ‐
0 9 3 0 3a Cased Length
ased e gt
10.9.3.10.3b ‐ Uncased Length
10.9.3.10.4 ‐ Plunge Length Transfer Load
10.9.3.10.2 ‐ Axial Compressive Resistance
g
10.9.3.10.2b ‐ Uncased Length
g
g
10.9.3.10.3b ‐ Uncased Lengthg
10.9.3.10.4 – Plunge Length Transfer Load
10.9.3.10.4 – Plunge Length Transfer Load
Limitations of AASHTO LRFD
• Load Combinations and Load Factors in Section 3 (Table
d b d d ( bl
3.4.1‐1) were developed specifically for bridges and may
not be applicable to other structures.
• Current Resistance Factors are calibrated based on fitting to
ASD, not on reliability theory. Therefore does not truly
reflect reliability based design at this time except in format.
• No Strength Limit State Checks for lateral loads. Not
enough consensus exists in terms of design methodology
for LRFD.
• Includes strain compatibility related stress limitations which
have been shown to be erroneous for reinforcing in a
confined condition.
• Davisson is the criteria for determining the Resistance of a
micropile. Davisson is generally considered to be overly
conservative and inappropriate for micropiles.
Design Example and Comparison
For comparison of the different design
p g
approaches; we will look at one example
p configuration and analyze it with two
micropile g y
ASD methodologies (FHWA and IBC) and
p
AASHTO LRFD for comparison.
Micropile Information (Given)
Casing Size: 7” OD X 0.500”
Casing Strength:
Casing Strength: N80 Mill Secondary
N80 Mill Secondary
Fy = 80 ksi minimum
Core Size: #18 Full Length
Core Strength: ASTM A615 Gr 80
Fy = 80 ksi
Grout Strength:
Grout Strength: fc’ = 4000 psi
4000 psi
Cased Length: 40.00’
R kT
Rock Type: Li t
Limestone
Socket Diameter: 7.5” = 0.625’
Plunge Length: 1.00’
Basic Cross Section Properties
#18 Bar Core, 7”OD X 0.500” Casing,
7 5” S k t Di
7.5” Socket Diameter
t
CASED SECTION
CASED SECTION
Abar = 4.00 in2 (#18)
( o2‐ri2)) = 10.21 in2
Acasing = 3.1416(r
Agrout = 3.1416(3)2‐4.00 = 24.27 in2
UNCASED SECTION
Abar = 4.00 in2 (#18)
3 1416(3 75)2‐4.00 = 40.18 in
Agrout = 3.1416(3.75) 4 00 40 18 i 2
Compression Structural Design– Cased Length
Compression Structural Design ‐ Uncased Length
Tension Structural Design
Tension Structural Design
Structural Design – Comparison
Compression Case
p
FHWA ASD
Pac = 0.40 f
= 0 40 fc’ A
Ag + 0.47 f
+ 0 47 fy As
IBC ASD
Pac = 0.33 fc’ Ag + 0.40 fy As
AASHTO LRFD EQUIVALENT ASD FORMULA
Q
Pac = 0.36 fc’ Ag + 0.425 fy As (LFavg = 1.5)
Pac = 0.38 f
= 0 38 fc’ A
Ag + 0.45 f
+ 0 45 fy As (LFavg = 1.42)
= 1 42)
Structural Design – Comparison
Tension Case
FHWA ASD
Pat = 0.55 f
= 0 55 fy Ab
IBC ASD
Pat = 0.60 fy Ab
AASHTO LRFD EQUIVALENT ASD FORMULA
Q
Pat = 0.533 fy Ab (LFavg = 1.5)
Pat = 0.563 f
= 0 563 fy Ab (LFavg = 1.42)
= 1 42)
Structural Design ‐ Comparison
Compression Compression Tension

Allowable Service Allowable Service Allowable
Load – Cased Load – Uncased Service Load
Length Length
FHWA ASD 573 k 215 k 176 k
IBC ASD 487 k 181 k 192 k
AASHTO LRFD 518 k 194 k 171 k
(LFavg=1.50)
AASHTO LRFD 547 k 205 k 180 k
(LFavg=1.42)
Compression Allowable Service Load Cased Length
580
560
540
Axial Loaad (kips)
520
500
480
460
440
FHWA ASD IBC ASD AASHTO LRFD (LF = 1.50) AASHTO LRFD (LF = 1.42)
Compression Allowable Service Load Uncased Length
220
210
200
Axial Loaad (kips)
190
180
170
160
Tension Allowable Service Load
195
190
185
Axial Loaad (kips)
180
175
170
165
160
Geotechnical Design
Geotechnical Design
Geotechnical Design
Geotechnical Design
Geotechnical Design ‐ Comparison
Geotechnical Design ‐ Comparison
Geotechnical Allowable Service Load in Compression
240
230
220
Axial Loaad (kips)
210
200
190
180
Overall Pile Capacity ‐ Comparison
Compression Tension Required

Allowable Allowable Socket
Service Load Service Length
Load
FHWA ASD 236 k 176 k 11.14 feet
IBC ASD 202 k 192 k 10.05 feet
AASHTO LRFD (LFavg=1.50) 214 k 171 k 10.79 feet
AASHTO LRFD (LFavg=1.42) 226 k 180 k 10.79 feet
FHWA appears to be the most economical for compression loads. IBC
appears to be the most economical for tension loads. AASHTO LRFD appears
to be generally in the middle between the two except in the case of tension.
Summary
• LRFD has been slow to catch on in the micropile
h b l h h l world due to a
ld d
predominant ASD design focus, resulting in great deal of
uncertainty and confusion about LRFD.
• AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications requires the use of LRFD
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications requires the use of LRFD
for micropiles and other codes may in the future.
• The AASHTO LRFD provisions are fairly straight forward to
p
implement but have some limitations relative to historical Service
Load design procedures.
• For structural design of micropiles in compression, AASHTO LRFD is
more conservative than FHWA designs but generally less
conservative than IBC designs
conservative than IBC designs.
• For structural design of micropiles in tension, AASHTO LRFD is
generally more conservative than IBC designs and less conservative
than FHWA but can be more conservative than both methods.
than FHWA but can be more conservative than both methods.
• For geotechnical design of micropiles in tension or compression, the
AASHTO LRFD equivalent working bond transfer value is slightly
more conservative (Δ=1.5 to 6.5%) than that determined by FHWA
ASD methods.
h d
THANK YOU!
for Your Time and Attention
You will be rewarded accordingly…
Sho ld o ha e f rther q estion onta t me at

Should you have further question, contact me at:
jonathan.bennett.pe@gmail.com
Visit www.micropile.org for current
information on what's happening
with micropile design and
construction.

LRFD For Micropiles

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

LRFD For Micropiles

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

LLoad and Resistance Factor

Limit State Type Description Examples

Type A - Gravity grout only.

Type B - Pressure grouted through the casing during casing withdrawal.

10.9.1.2 – Minimum Micropile Spacing,

10.9.1.3 – Micropiles through Embankment Fill

10.9.1.5 – Micropile Design Requirements

10.9.3.5.4 – Micropile Load Test

Compression Compression Tension

Compression Tension Required

Sho ld o ha e f rther q estion onta t me at

Вам также может понравиться