AASHTOs LRFD Specifications for

Foundation and Earth Retaining

Structure Design

(Through 2006 Interims and Beyond)
Jerry A. DiMaggio, P.E.
Principal Bridge/Geotechnical Engineer
FHWA, Washington D. C.
Existing Specifications
Standard
17
th
Edition
LRFD
3
rd
Edition
AASHTO and FHWA
have agreed that all
state DOTs will use
LRFD for design of
NEW structures by
2007.
0 - 2 - 2 NE
60%
MO
TN NC
VA
WV
80%
PA
100%
NY
50%
ME
100%
IA
5%
IL
5%
KY
FL
100%
GA
TX
13%
OK
100%
KS
50%
OH
WA
100%
OR
100%
WI
CA
CO
90%
SC
50%
NJ
MA
CT
DE
MD
VT
5%
MN
40%
MI
IN
UT
75%
ND
SD
10%
ID
100%
WY
NM AZ
NV
MT
35%
AR
5%
LA
MS
AL
NH
RI
0 - 24 - 10
0 - 2 - 2
NE
MO
TN NC
VA
WV
PA
NY
ME
IA
IL
KY
FL
GA
TX
OK
KS
OH
WA
OR WI
CA
AASHTO LRFD Survey
May 2005
CO
SC
VT
MN
MI
IN
UT
ND
SD
ID
WY
NM AZ
NV
MT
AR
LA
MS
AL
AK
95%
AK
HI
PR
Full Implementation

50-90% Partial Implementation

1-10% Partial Implementation
q
No Implementation

26-50% Partial Implementation

11-25% Partial Implementation
Superstructure: LRFD
Substructure: LRFD/ASD
Foundations: ASD
Earthwork and walls: ASD
Reasons for Not Adopting
Human nature.
No perceived benefits.
Unfamiliarity with LRFD methods.
Lack of confidence in the computed
results.
Perceived errors and inconsistencies.
A specification that did not reflect
current design practices.

What is FHWA doing?
Bridge Design examples.
NHI LRFD Training Courses.
FHWA Technical Assistance.
FHWA/ NCHRP Calibration efforts.
AASHTO Section 11 and 10
Revisions.
Bridge Design Examples
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/lrfd/examples.htm
Concrete Steel
NHI LRFD Training Courses
Course 130082A
LRFD for Highway
Bridge Substructures
and Earth Retaining
Structures
FHWA/ NCHRP Activities
NCHRP Project 12-66, Specifications for
Serviceability in the Design of Bridge
Foundations
NCHRP Report 507, Load and
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for
Deep Foundations
FHWA/ NCHRP Activities
Publication No. FHWA-NHI-05-052,
Development of Geotechnical
Resistance Factors and Downdrag
Load Factors for LRFD Foundation
Strength Limit State Design
Revisions to Section 10
Compiled by a Technical Expert Panel
Review and input from A Technical
Working Group (TWG)
Accepted by AASHTO Subcommittee
T-15 in June 2005 in Newport, Rhode
Island
To be published in 2006 Interim
http://bridges.transportation.org/?siteid=34&c=downloads
Attachments to Agenda Item 39 Section 3 revisions
Attachments to Agenda item 40 Section 10 revisions
Topics Included
Subsurface
investigations
Soil and rock properties
Shallow foundations
Driven piles
Drilled shafts
Rigid and flexible
culverts
Abutments
Walls (All types)
Integral abutments
Micropiles
Augercast piles
Soil nails
Reinforced slopes
All soil and rock
earthwork features.


Topics NOT Included
Section 10 Contents
10.1 SCOPE
10.2 DEFINITIONS
10.3 NOTATION
10.4 SOIL AND ROCK PROPERTIES
10.5 LIMIT STATES AND RESISTANCE FACTORS
10.6 SPREAD FOOTINGS
10.7 DRIVEN PILES
10.8 DRILLED SHAFTS
PROPERTY INFO
NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
UPDATED
UPDATED, CONSISTANT
REORGANIZED,
NEW CONTENT
NEW CONTENT
Section 10.4 Soil and Rock Properties
GEC 5
Sabatini, 2002
Subsurface
Investigations
Mayne, 2002
Section 10.4 Soil and Rock Properties
Soil Strength
Soil Deformation
Rock Mass Strength
Rock Mass Deformation
Erodibility of rock
10.4.6 SELECTION OF DESIGN PROPERTIES
Section 10.5 Limit States and
Resistance Factors
Resistance factors revised
Additional discussion on the basis for
resistance factors
Additional discussion of extreme event
considerations
Articles 3.4.1 and 3.11.8
Maximum Minimum
Piles, o-method 1.4 0.25
Piles, -method 1.05 0.30
Drilled Shafts, Oneill
and Reese (1999)
1.25 0.35
Downdrag
Methods for computing
Load Factors
Use of minimum load factors clarified
Section 10.6 Spread Footings
Eccentricity provisions clarified
B = B 2e
B
L = L 2e
L
Q = P/(B L)

M
L M
B
L
B
e
B
e
L
B

P
q
Applies to
geotechnical design
for settlement and
bearing resistance
Section 10.6 Spread Footings
Hough method

Elastic Settlement of
cohesionless soils
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
=
vo
v vo
c
'
'
log
C'
1
H H
Section 10.6 Spread Footings
q
n
= c N
cm
+ D
f
N
qm
C
wq
+ 0.5 B N
m
C
w
NOMINAL RESISTANCE
N
c
s
c
i
c
N
q
s
q
d
q
i
q
N

i

Shape Correction Factors
COHESION
UNIT WEIGHT
DEPTH WIDTH
Bearing Capacity Factors
Inclination Factors
Shear through overburden
correction factor
Water table correction
Settlement correction factors removed
Section 10.7 Driven Piles
Settlement of pile groups
4 new diagrams

From:
Hannigan (2005)
Section 10.7 Driven Piles
H
t
Q
t
M
t
P

y

The P-y method specified
for horizontal deflection
Section 10.7 Driven Piles
P
y
P
m
* P
P
Spacing (S) Row 1 Row 2 Row 3
3D 0.7 0.5 0.35
5D 1.0 0.85 0.7
P-multiplier (P
m
)
D
S
Section 10.7 Driven Piles
Field determination of nominal resistance
Static load test Dynamic load test
Section 10.7 Driven Piles
Static analysis methods
Nordlund
Thurman method
added

Section 10.7 Driven Piles
Static analysis methods
Primary use is for pile length estimation
for contract drawings
Secondary use for estimation of downdrag,
uplift resistance and scour effects
Should rarely be used as sole means of
determining pile resistance


Section 10.7 Driven Piles
Comp Str
ksi
30
20
10
Ult Cap
200
400
600
800
kips
0 160 320 480 Blows/ft
4.0
8.0
12.0
16.0
ft
Stroke
Tens Str
ksi
Requirements for
driveability analysis
have been added and
clarified
Section 10.7 Driven Piles
10.7.3.2 PILE LENGTH ESTIMATES FOR
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
10.7.6 Determination of minimum pile
penetration

Section 10.8 Drilled shafts

Refers to driven piles section where possible
Downdrag
Group settlement
Horizontal displacement (single and group)
Lateral squeeze
Water table and buoyancy
Scour
Group resistance (cohesive soil only)
Uplift (group and load test sections)
Buckling
Extreme event limit state
Section 10.8 Drilled shafts

Static analysis methods
for soil and rock have
been updated
Consideration of both
base and side
resistance in rock is
now included

ONeill and Reese (1999)
Section 10.8 Drilled shafts

A + B
Q
P
Q
S
Displacement
R
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

Side Resistance
Tip Resistance
Total Resistance
B
C
D
A
A + D
B + C
Conclusion

Future Enhancements

Overall stability
Weight is both a load and a resistance
Service limit state (should be strength
limit state)

+
W
T
W
T
W
T
W
T
N

N

T

T

T

T

l

l

cl

cl

N tan |

N tan |

Future Enhancements

Inclination Factors
Ignored by many practicing engineers
Based on small scale tests and theory
Effect of embedment (D
f
)
Resistance factors are for vertical load
Q
D
f
Future Enhancements

Nominal bearing resistance of rock
Very little guidance available
CSIR Rock Mass Rating System proposed
CSIR developed for tunnel design
Includes life safety considerations and
therefore, margin of safety
May be conservative



Future Enhancements

Pile head fixity
Connection details
Effects of axial loads

H H
V
Future Enhancements
Serviceability limits
NCHRP 12-66
Due April 2006
Ax
Az
What Should I Know and Do?
Become familiar with BOTH the
AASHTO standard specifications
and LRFD specs.
Develop an understanding of your
agencys current design practice
What Should I Know and Do?
Develop and compare results for
SEVERAL example problems with
LRFD and YOUR standard design
practice
Translate your current practice to an
LRFD format
What Should I Know and Do?
Communicate your findings to
AASHTOs SubCommitteee members
AASHTO Section 11
Design specifications for:
Conventional
gravity/semigravity walls
Non-gravity cantilevered walls
Anchored walls
Mechanically Stabilized Earth
(MSE) walls
Prefabricated modular walls




LRFD Specifications for
Foundation/ Earth Retaining
Structure Design
Questions?