2010 California Amendment to the AASHTO LRFD LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Forth Edition LRFD for the

Design of Retaining Walls

September 9, 2011 Presented by:

Dr. Ted Liu

Senior Transportation Engineer

References
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification (4th Edition) CA Amendments to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Spec (Sep 2010) Caltrans Memo To Designers 1-35: Foundation Recommendation and Reports Caltrans Memo To Designers 3-1: Deep Foundations Caltrans Memo To Designers 4-1: Spread Footings Caltrans Memo To Designers 5-20: Foundation Report/Geotechnical Design Report Checklist for Earth Retaining Systems

References
TRB Webinar February 17, 2010: Load and Resistance Factor Design Analysis for Seismic Design of Slopes and Retaining Walls NCHRP Report 611 (Volumes 1 and 2): Seismic Analysis and Design of Retaining Walls, Slopes & Embankments, and Buried Structures NHI Course 130094 (New!): LRFD Seismic Analysis and Design of Transportation Structures, Features, and Foundations Caltrans Standard Plans, 2006 Edition Caltrans Standard Plans, 2010 Edition

Current Design in Caltrans

LRFD for bridge supports LRFD for Abutments, Earth retention systems and Buried structures effective October 4, 2010. For more information, please refer to website of Office of Special Funded Projects, LRFD Information http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/osfp/lrfdinformation/lrfd-information.htm

RETAINING WALLS MAY 2006 EDITION STANDARD PLANS Retaining Wall Type 1 - H = 4' through 30', Plan No. B3-1 Retaining Wall Type 1 - H = 32' through 36', Plan No. B3-2 Retaining Wall Type 1A, Plan No. B3-3 Retaining Wall Type 2, Plan No. B3-4 Counterfort Retaining Wall Type 3, Plan No. B3-5 Counterfort Retaining Wall Type 4, Plan No. B3-6 Retaining Wall Type 5, Plan No. B3-7 Retaining Wall Details No. 1, Plan No. B3-8 Retaining Wall Details No. 2, Plan No. B3-9 Retaining Wall Type 6 - 6'-0" Maximum, Plan No. B3-11 Retaining Wall Type 5, Plan No. B3-4 Retaining Wall Details No. 1, Plan No. B3-5 Retaining Wall Details No. 2, Plan No. B3-6 Retaining Wall Type 6 Details No. 1 - 6'-0" Maximun, Plan No. B3-7 Retaining Wall Type 6 Details No. 2 - 6'-0" Maximum, Plan No. B3-8 2010 EDITION STANDARD PLANS Retaining Wall Type 1 - H = 4' through 30', Plan No. B3-1 Retaining Wall Type 1 - H = 32' through 36', Plan No. B3-2 Retaining Wall Type 1A, Plan No. B3-3

Retaining Wall Type 1 - H = 4' through 30' 2006 Standard Plan

2010 Standard Plan

Retaining Wall Type 1A 2006 Standard Plan

2010 Standard Plan

Retaining Wall Type 5 2006 Standard Plan

2010 Standard Plan

Retaining Wall Type 6A - 6'-0" Maximum 2006 Standard Plan

2010 Standard Plan

Retaining Wall Type 6B - 6'-0" Maximum 2006 Standard Plan

2010 Standard Plan

TRB Webinar on February 17, 2010

NCHRP 12-70 Project

Need for NCHRP 12-70 Project

TRB Webinar February 17, 2010: Load and Resistance Factor Design Analysis for Seismic Design of Slopes and Retaining Walls

Difficulties with retaining wall seismic design M-O method blows up with high back slopes, high PGAs, not appropriate for passive Appropriate seismic coefficient Soldier pile, tieback, soil nail, and MSE walls Lack of guidance for slope stability Pseudo-static versus deformation approach Appropriate seismic coefficient Ground motion amplification Liquefaction effects

LRFD BACKGROUND Load and resistance factor design principles AASHTO seismic damage philosophy Design ground motions

Review LRFD Principles

What is LRFD?
Load and Resistance Factor Design
Resistance Factor Nominal Resistance

Load Modifier Load factor

Load

Capacity/Demand Ratio.
TRB Webinar February 17, 2010: Load and Resistance Factor Design Analysis for Seismic Design of Slopes and Retaining Walls

LRFD versus ASD

The following condition must be satisfied Load Effects Resistance Difference in LRFD and ASD methods is based on how uncertainties in loads and resistances are accounted for LRFD: Load and resistance factors will be refined with time

Load Combinations and Load Factors

TRB Webinar February 17, 2010: Load and Resistance Factor Design Analysis for Seismic Design of Slopes and Retaining Walls

Limit States for Earthquake Design

TRB Webinar February 17, 2010: Load and Resistance Factor Design Analysis for Seismic Design of Slopes and Retaining Walls

Load Factors for Seismic Design

TRB Webinar February 17, 2010: Load and Resistance Factor Design Analysis for Seismic Design of Slopes and Retaining Walls

Resistance Factors
TRB Webinar February 17, 2010: Load and Resistance Factor Design Analysis for Seismic Design of Slopes and Retaining Walls

Limit states for LRFD

Service Limit State: Load combinations (LCs) to ensure structure performance for service life Strength Limit State: LCs to ensure structural integrity despite distress and damage Extreme Event Limit State: LCs to ensure structural survival during extreme events (EQ, VC) Fatigue and Fracture Limit State: Not an issue in foundation design

How LRFD applied to Foundation Design

Service Limit State (Permanent & total load):
pile settlement, pile top deflection (=1.0)

Strength Limit State (Comp & Tension):

Determine pile length w/ load from SLS (=0.7)
=0.5 for CIDH tip resistance =1.0 for uplift group (only for block analysis) in cohesionless material

Extreme Event Limit State (Comp & Tension):

Determine pile length w/ load from EELS (=1.0)

Information from Structure Designer

Foundation type (CIDH, Concrete pile, Steel pile) Scour Data Finished Grade Elevation Cut-off Elevation Pile Cap size Permissible Settlement under Service Load Number of Pile per Support

 At the early stage of design (PFR)

Preliminary Foundation Design Data Sheet Support Abut 1 Bent 2 Bent 3 Abut 4 Foundation Type(s) Considered Class 140 Class 200 Pile Group 60 inch CIDH Pile Shaft 30 inch CIDH Pile Group 60 inch CIDH Pile Shaft 24 inch CIDH Pile Group Estimate of Maximum Factored Compression Loads (kips) 140 per pile 280 per pile 1850 per column 1950 per column 170 per pile

 At the foundation design stage (FR)

Finish Grade Elevatio n (ft) Cut-off Elevatio n (ft) Pile Cap Size (ft) Permissible Movement under Service Load (in)

Support No.

Design Metho d

Pile Type

Number of Piles per Support

DV

DH

Abut 1

LRFD

0.25

Bent 2

LRFD

0.25

Abut 3

LRFD

0.25

Total Vertical Load per Support (kip) Support No. Total Load Abut 1 Permanent Load** Lateral Load at Abutments (kip)

Bent 2 Abut 3

Strength Limit State (Controlling Group) Compression Per Support Abut 1 Bent 2 Abut 3 Max. Per Pile Tension Per Support Max. Per Pile

Extreme Event Limit State (Controlling Group) Compression Per Support Max. Per Pile Tension Per Support Max. Per Pile

Support No.

Base Flood Scour (ft) Support No. Degradation Scour (ft) Contraction Local Total Scour (ft)

Abut 1

Bent 2

Abut 3

 Foundation Recommendation for Bents (MTD 3-1 Attachment 1)

Bent Pile Group

1.

Calculate Required Nominal Resistance for compression per pile (=0.7).

2.

Calculate tip elevation for Required Nominal Resistance for single pile.

3.

Calculate Required Nominal Resistance for total load per Support (=0.7).

4.

Calculate group nominal resistance using the tip elevation calculated for total load per pile (Group efficiency factor).

5.

If the group nominal resistance is greater than the required nominal resistance per support, the tip elevation from single pile is Design Tip Elevation.

6.

If the group nominal resistance is smaller than the required nominal resistance per support, increase pile spacing or length of piles.

Pile Data Table for Design Example

390 420

Group Pile in LRFD Spec

1. Minimum pile spacing - For driven pile, 36 inch or 2.0 pile diameters (CA Amendment 10.7.1.2)

- For CIDH pile, 2.5 pile diameters (CA Amendments 10.8.1.2): sequence of CIDH pile installation required in the contract documents (less than 3.0 pile dia).

Group Pile in LRFD Spec

2. CIDH and Driven pile group capacity in cohesive soil - For compression, lesser of 1) Nominal axial resistance of each pile 2) Nominal axial resistance of equivalent pier - For uplift, lesser of 1) Nominal uplift resistance of each pile 2) Nominal uplift resistance of pile group considered as a block

Group Pile in LRFD Spec

3. CIDH pile and Driven pile group in cohesionless soil - For compression, 1) group efficiency factor for CIDH pile, 2) Nominal axial resistance of each pile for Driven pile - For uplift, lesser of 1) Nominal uplift resistance of each pile 2) Nominal uplift resistance of pile group considered as a block (resistance factor=1.0 even for strength limit state)

AASHTO Seismic Damage Philosophy

Seismic Design Philosophy

Prescriptive Approach Explicit (quantified): Sustain damage without loss of life or collapse in a large, rare earthquake 7% probability of occurrence in 75 yr (1000 yr Rp) Implicit (not quantified): Withstand smaller, more frequent seismic events Without significant damage or With repairable damage

Seismic Design Philosophy

Alternative approaches (Owners discretion) More rigorous performance standard e.g., 3% probability of occurrence in 75 yr Multi-level (performance-based) design standard Upper level event for No Collapse Lower level event for No Damage Often applied to facilities of high importance Critical bridges Lifelines routes

Design Ground Motions

Design Ground Motions

TRB Webinar February 17, 2010: Load and Resistance Factor Design Analysis for Seismic Design of Slopes and Retaining Walls

Design Ground Motions

TRB Webinar February 17, 2010: Load and Resistance Factor Design Analysis for Seismic Design of Slopes and Retaining Walls

Site Classification System

TRB Webinar February 17, 2010: Load and Resistance Factor Design Analysis for Seismic Design of Slopes and Retaining Walls

PGA Site Factor, FPGA

TRB Webinar February 17, 2010: Load and Resistance Factor Design Analysis for Seismic Design of Slopes and Retaining Walls

Long-Period Site Factor, FV

TRB Webinar February 17, 2010: Load and Resistance Factor Design Analysis for Seismic Design of Slopes and Retaining Walls

Retaining wall design

TRB Webinar February 17, 2010: Load and Resistance Factor Design Analysis for Seismic Design of Slopes and Retaining Walls

Earth pressure determination External, internal, and global stability Guidance on AASHTO walls

Retaining Walls
Types of Walls
Conventional Gravity and Semi-Gravity Walls Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls Metallic Strips Polymeric Reinforcement Non-gravity Cantilever / Anchored Walls Discrete Elements (drilled shafts) with lagging Continuous Wall Elements (e.g., sheetpiles or tangent piles) Soil Nailed Walls

Types of Walls

Types of Walls

Gravity Walls AASHTO LRFD M-O Equations

TRB Webinar February 17, 2010: Load and Resistance Factor Design Analysis for Seismic Design of Slopes and Retaining Walls

Active Earth Pressures with Cohesion

TRB Webinar February 17, 2010: Load and Resistance Factor Design Analysis for Seismic Design of Slopes and Retaining Walls

Passive Earth Pressure

TRB Webinar February 17, 2010: Load and Resistance Factor Design Analysis for Seismic Design of Slopes and Retaining Walls

Design Approach
TRB Webinar February 17, 2010: Load and Resistance Factor Design Analysis for Seismic Design of Slopes and Retaining Walls

Design Approach
TRB Webinar February 17, 2010: Load and Resistance Factor Design Analysis for Seismic Design of Slopes and Retaining Walls

Retaining Walls Design Guidelines

TRB Webinar February 17, 2010: Load and Resistance Factor Design Analysis for Seismic Design of Slopes and Retaining Walls

Seismic slope stability

TRB Webinar February 17, 2010: Load and Resistance Factor Design Analysis for Seismic Design of Slopes and Retaining Walls

Factor of safety (C/D) approach Displacement-based approach Liquefaction issues Mitigation

Seismic Coefficient
TRB Webinar February 17, 2010: Load and Resistance Factor Design Analysis for Seismic Design of Slopes and Retaining Walls

Seismic Coefficient
TRB Webinar February 17, 2010: Load and Resistance Factor Design Analysis for Seismic Design of Slopes and Retaining Walls

Seismic Coefficient
TRB Webinar February 17, 2010: Load and Resistance Factor Design Analysis for Seismic Design of Slopes and Retaining Walls

Slopes and Embankments Design Guidelines

TRB Webinar February 17, 2010: Load and Resistance Factor Design Analysis for Seismic Design of Slopes and Retaining Walls

Questions about Caltrans LRFD

Geotechnical consultants working on Caltrans Projects may contact Caltrans LRFD Technical Committee through geotechnical reviewer. Any question about AASHTO LRFD Specification should be directed to AASHTO.

Thank you