1 / 79

LRFD Update for Materials/Geotechnical At GRAC Meeting John Schuler, PE Program Manager

LRFD Update for Materials/Geotechnical At GRAC Meeting John Schuler, PE Program Manager Virginia DOT Materials Division October 31, 2011. Purpose of Presentation Provide common ground between Materials & Bridge, give Materials & Geotechs background on LRFD initiative.

anise
Télécharger la présentation

LRFD Update for Materials/Geotechnical At GRAC Meeting John Schuler, PE Program Manager

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. Purpose of Presentation • Provide 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 • Required • Standard Specs no longer being updated as of about 2000 • LRFD Spec is excellent reference source – especially geotechnical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. LRFD Code Highlights Pertaining to Geotechnical Design

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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) ($$$)

  16. Geotechnical Parameters • Geotechnical Parameters – Introduction and Guidance on Choosing Them • 4 steps

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. Geotechnical Parameters

  22. 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)

  23. Geotechnical Parameters

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. Geotechnical Parameters

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. 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

  30. 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

  31. 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

  32. 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

  33. 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 6.5.4.2 – 0.60 is good driving conditions; 0.50 is severe conditions • Corresponds to 21.6 ksi in good conditions

  34. 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

  35. 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 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)

  36. 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

  37. VDOT MSE Wall Analysis Spreadsheet • Overview • Plan No. 285-18 Example • (Univ. Blvd. over 1-66, Prince William County) • John Schuler, PE • Senior Geotechnical Engineer • Virginia DOT Structure & Bridge Division • Spring 2007

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

  39. 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

More Related