LRFD Lecture For The Egyptian Code (Handouts)

By
Dr. Sherif S. AbdelSalam

Lecturer British University in Egypt
Housing & Building National Research Centre (HBRC)
May 18, 2011
Members of Committee # 4

Prof. Dr. Amr Darrag Eng. Ashraf Wahby Prof. Dr. Gehan El-Sayed Dr. Sherif AbdelSalam Dr. Tarek Thabet Prof. Dr. Fatma Baligh Prof. Dr. Fathalla El-Nahhas Dr. Mohamed El-Nabarawi Prof. Dr. Nadia Shenouda Prof. Dr. Nagwa El-Sakhawi Prof. Dr. Yasser El-Mossallamy
2
Outline
Pile Design Approaches
LRFD Philosophy and Advantages Current International Practices
Resistance Factors Development

Construction Control Aspects Pile Design Example
Definition of LRFD
Advantages of LRFD Typical R.F. Values WSD vs. LRFD
Conclusions and Recommendations
LRFD Philosophy Current Practices Factors Development Construction Control Design Example Conclusions & Recommendations
Pile Design Approaches

Working Stress Design (WSD or ASD)
L: Loads R: Resistances FS: Factor of Safety
FS based on experience and subjective judgment Ignores various sources and levels of uncertainties
Variation of soil properties, behavior, and GWT

Capacity and performance of deep foundations Therefore, highly conservative
No consistent degree of reliability In some cases leads to unsafe designs

Pile Design Approaches contd

Load and Resistance Factors Design (LRFD)

Qi : Loads i : Load Factors R: Resistance : Resistance Factor
Uncertainties are quantified using probability-theory Overlap area between loads and resistances is failure
Depends on: 1)mean; 2) st. dev.; and 3) best-curve-fit
Definition of LRFD

LRFD quantifies various uncertainties using statistics Achieves designs with a chosen level of reliability Loads x L.F. > 1.0 and Capacities x R.F. < 1.0 Failure is when factored loads exceed factored capacities To avoid failure, LRFD control the overlap area The overlap area is limited to an acceptable level
Advantages of LRFD
Allows for Regional Calibration to be more cost effective Constant and controllable degree of reliability
Consistent design for the entire structure Improves the construction control process Reliabilities higher than WSD approach
Higher efficiency and cost effectiveness No assumptions are needed No experience and engineering judgment Easy to use for design engineers
7 LRFD Philosophy Current Practices Factors Development Construction Control Design Example Conclusions & Recommendations 7
Typical R.F. Values

Resistance factors for H-piles in different soils using various static methods
Soil Type Static Analysis Method
SPT-Meyerhof -Method Nordlund SPT-Meyerhof -API Method -Method SPT-Meyerhof -API Method -Method Nordlund =2.33 0.42 0.32 0.31 0.53 0.40 0.35 0.42 0.32 0.34 0.34 / 0.25 0.37 0.34 0.29 0.35 0.33 0.24 0.27 0.35 0.28 0.27 0.23 0.21 0.35 0.28 0.24 Failure Region, 0.27 P 0.21 0.24 0.22 =3.00
Sand
Clay
Mixed
/ 0.16 0.27 0.24 0.19 0.24 0.23 0.16 0.18 0.24 0.18
: Reliability Index : Standard Deviation of PDF Pf : Probability of Failure
Determining the reliability index = probability of failure Depending on: 1) Pile group redundancy 2) Importance of structure 3) Allowable settlement 4) Budget
Typical R.F. Values contd

1.0 100 1.0
Resistance Factor ()
1.5 70
0.8
0.6 0.4 0.2
0.4 0.2
2.33 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Resistance Factor ()
sand
Probability of Failure % 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.01 3.5 0.001 4.0 <0.001 4.5 10 1 0.1 1.0 BlueBook SPT-Meyerhof 0.8 -API Method -Method 0.6 Nordlund
Design charts with wider range of (or probability of failure)
0.0
0.0 Efficiemcy Factor (/)
1.0 100 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4
1.5 70
Reliability Index ()
0.2
0.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.33 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
0.2
0.0
Reliability Index ()
Efficiemcy Factor (/) 9
clay
Probability of Failure % 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.01 3.5 0.001 4.0 <0.001 4.5 10 1 0.1 1.0 BlueBook SPT-Meyerhof 0.8 -API Method -Method 0.6 Nordlund 0.4
WSD vs. LRFD

350
300
250 Capacity (kips) 200
3.0 Nominal Capacity Factored Capacity 2.5 Allowable Capacity
313
Frequency
2.0 1.5 1.0
Variable K1 (Nominal) K2 (LRFD) 244 K3 (WSD)
Mean
StDev N
201
1.116 0.2826 5 1.395 0.3533 5 1.786 0.4522 216 5
150
100 50 0
130
92
90
123 104 67
125 96 81 72
132
43
0.5
0.0 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
SPT-Meyerhof
-method
KK == SLT / SPT Meyerhof Davisson/BlueBook -method Nordlund-method
BlueBook
SLT
LRFD is more consistent among different static methods LRFD is more efficient, cost effective Reliability is known and constant
10
Outline
Deep Foundations Practices

Pile Analysis Methods
LRFD Implementation
Regionally Calibrated R.F.
11
Deep Foundations Practices

WA 150 m DS, CIDH, dia. 1.5 to 3 m Nord/CPT
West Coast DP, OEP,

dia. 40 to 60 cm
15 to 60 m OR DP, OEP, dia. 30 to 50 cm //Nord
MT ID composed Soil is mainly of alluvium deposits DP, HP, WY //Nord 10 m DP, HP, 310x79 mm ///Nord/SPT
60 m DP, HP, 360x152 mm
< 15 m DP, HP, 310x79 mm Nord No response ND No response 60 m < 20 m VT NH DP, CEP, dia. 30 cm /Nord
No response ME
Pile> types: open-end 15 m DS, CIDH, Deep CA pipe piles dia. 10 to 30 cm DP and DS
//Nord/SPT > 45 m NV DP, OEP, dia. 1 to 1.5 m //Nord
-method
UT the Specific areas use CO CIDH Deep Deepthe seismic shafts due to DP, HP, DS, CIDH, 360x132 mm dia. 1.2 to 3 m requirements /SPT AZ
15 m DS, CIDH, SPT
NM
AK Nord/SPT/ In-house
> 25 m DS, CIDH, dia. 1 to 1.5 m /SPT
< 15 m DP, DS, MA Nord/SPT/CPT MI DP, HP, No response 360x109 mm all sizes NY SD /Nord < 15 m No response RI 20 m DP, HP, < 10 m WI IA CT PA DP, HP, 250x85; DP, HP, NJ IL 250x63; 310x110 mm 250x85; 310x110 mm NE No response 20 m 250x85mm Nord/SPT /Nord OH DP, HP, No response In-house DE 5 to 60 m IN ` response 250x63, No DP, HP, MD 360x132 mm > 30 m //Nord WV KS In-house DP, PSCP, KY < 15 m No response 30 to 60 cm MO VA DS, CIDH, No response < 20 m No response DP, HP, NC TN 310x79; Deep No response 360x132 mm OK DP, PSCP, SC SPT dia. 40 to 60 cm No response No response /Nord No response 10 m AR GA AL MS DP, HP, 310x79; TX LA 360x174 mm 30 m PSCP, 30 to 40 cm No response No response DP, PSCP, Nord/SPT dia. 0.5 to 1.5 m In-house
HP, MidwestDP, 250x63;
MN
Soil is mainly composed of glacial tills Pile types: steel H-piles
East Coast
Soil in mainly composed of coastal plain and glacial tills Pile types: steel H-piles and precast/prestressed concrete
FL HI Map Key
Each State contains the following information (if available): 1) Depth to bedrock 2) Used pile categories and types (see map key) 3) Used pile sizes (see map key) 4) Used static analysis methods (see map key)
DP = Driven Piles DS = Drilled Shafts HP = Steel H-piles OEP = Open End Pipe piles CEP = Closed End Pipe piles CIDH = Cast In Drilled Hole piles
PSCP = Prestressed Concrete Piles = -method = -method = -method Nord = Nordlund method SPT = SPT-methods CPT = CPT-method
Soil Regions
Glacial Alluvium Coastal Plain Other soil types
12
Pile Analysis Methods

100% 6% 80%
Static Methods
40% 45%
63%
18% Driven piles

Drilled shafts Both 76%
60% 40% 32% 6% 9% 11%
20%
0%
100% 80%
Dynamic Methods
74%
74%
100%
100% 80% 60% 40% 43% 14% 21%
Dynamic Formulas
57%
60%
40% 20% 0%
Other PDA CAPWAP
16% 20% 0%
WEAP
13
LRFD Implementation
WA
MT
OR ID WY
ND
ME
MN SD IA
NE UT IL CO KS OK MO TN AR SC IN WI MI NY
VT
NH
MA
NV CA
AZ
PA
OH KY
WV
VA NC
RI CT NJ DE MD
NM TX
10%
MS
AK LA
AL
GA
40%
50%
FL
HI
Implemented LRFD In transition from WSD to LRFD Currently using WSD
Implemented LRFD In transition from ASD to LRFD Still Using ASD
14
Regionally Calibrated R.F.

According to Soil-Pile (Shaft) types
Soil type Sand N 11 4 0.45 0.4 St. Dev. 0.11 0.23 N 12 3 Clay 0.48 0.6 St. Dev. 0.15 0.28 N 8 3 Mixed soil 0.55 0.5 St. Dev. 0.13 0.13
Pile type
Steel H-pile CIDH
Open end pipe
0.65
0.04
0.67
0.04
0.67
0.04
According to Soil-Static Analysis Methods

Soil types
Static Analysis Method Nordlund N 11 Sand 0.5 St. Dev. 0.12 N N/A Clay N/A St. Dev. N/A N 4 Mixed soil 0.53 St. Dev. 0.17
SPT method
-method
3
N/A
0.45
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
6
N/A
0.47
N/A
0.19
3
1
0.53
0.7
0.11
0
-method
CPT method
1
N/A
0.65
N/A
0
N/A
4
3
0.49
0.45
0.13
0.17
2
N/A
0.37
N/A
0.11
N/A 15
15
Outline
Calibration Requirements

Database Construction
LRFD Reliabilitybased Calibration
FOSM Equation
Verification and Comparison

16
Calibration Requirements
Adequate Database
Contains large number of pile Static Load Tests (SLT) conducted in
Egypt and corresponding soil information.
Data Collection
Survey questionnaire for code users (design engineers and consulting
firms) to stand on the current practices and future needs.
Calibration Framework
To determine the most appropriate LRFD calibration framework for
Egyptian practice.
Full-Scale Testing
Various pile SLTs accompanied by field and laboratory soil tests that
cover all possible soil types in the Egypt.
17
Database Construction
Large number of usable pile SLTs with sufficient soil data
Cairo 100 Alex. 20 Other 20
Aswan 10
Port-said 15
Mixed 25
Clay 40 Sand 100
18
Database Construction contd

Steel piles
Timber
CFA
CIDH (Bored Piles)
The database should also include information for different pile types
19
LRFD Reliability-based Calibration

Establish pile capacity from SLTs (QDavisson)
Calculate the pile capacity using Static methods (QAnalytical) Calculate bias ratio R = K = QDavisson/QAnalytical
Do the same for the entire database Draw the PDFs

Calculate mean, st. dev., and COV Assume probability of failure (ex. pf = 1%)
Calculate the resistance factor
20
FOSM Equation
Resistance factor
Dead load factor

Live load factor Bias for dead loads
Bias for live loads

Bias for resistance
Different groups (PDFs): 1) Pile type 2) Soil type 3) Pile design method (Static analysis methods)
0.0 12 10 8 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Loc 0.1157 Mean 0.95 St. Scale Dev. 0.4180 0.24 N N 35 35 3.0 12 10 8
Dead load to live load ratio Reliability index Coefficient of variation for resistance Coefficient of variation for dead loads Coefficient of variation for live loads
1.0 1 1.5 2.0 2.5 Loc 0.1284 Mean 0.96 St. Dev. 0.28 Scale 0.4268 N N 32 32 3.0 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
0.0 12 10 8
0.5
Lognormal
Lognormal
Frequency
Frequency
Sand
Clay
6 4 2 0 0.0
6 4 2 0
6 4 2 0 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Ksx = Davisson / BlueBook
Ksx = Davisson / BlueBook
21
FOSM Equation contd

Where: Resistance factor
Dead load factor (see table)

Live load factor (see table) Bias for dead loads
Bias for live loads

Bias for resistance Dead load to live load ratio Reliability index Coefficient of variation for resistance Coefficient of variation for dead loads Coefficient of variation for live loads
Figure 1: Probability of failure and reliability index (adapted from Withiam et al. 1998)
AASHTO LRFD Probabilistic characteristics of random variables for loads (after Nowak, 1999)
Load type Dead Load (D.L.) Live Load (L.L.)
Load Factor (D, L) 1.25 1.75
Load Bias (QD, QL) 1.05 1.15
Load COV ( COVQD, COVQL) 0.1 0.2

22
22 LRFD Philosophy Current Practices Factors Development Construction Control Design Example Conclusions & Recommendations
Verification SLT
Installing strain gauges and vibrating wires Welding steel angles to protect the SGs Driving the test and the anchor piles
Assembling the load frame
Monotonic loading on the test pile
Unloading and recording to DAS

23
Verification Soil Testing

SPT CPT BST/mBST P. Cells
Classification
Atterberg
Hydrometer
CU-Triaxial
24
Verification contd
250 Capacity (kips) 200 150 100 50
Sand
163
228
193
199
Design Capacity (kips)
Nominal Capacity Factored Capacity 167 127 102
450
400
350 300 250
Nominal
70
73
85 63 61
200
150 100 50
0
SPT-Meyerhof -method -method Nordlund-method Bluebook SLT
300
Capacity (kips)
250 200 150 100 50 0
Clay
153 88 52 80
279
Nominal Capacity Factored Capacity 194 205 143
243 194
BlueBook SPT-Meyerhof -API -method Nordlund 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Davisson Capacity (kips) 400 450
98
93
x Design Capacity (kips)
450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 BlueBook SPT-Meyerhof -API -method Nordlund
Factored
SPT-Meyerhof
-method
-method
Nordlund-method
BlueBook
SLT
400
Mixed
Capacity (kips) 300 201 200 130
313 244
Nominal Capacity Factored Capacity 216 165 132 76 88
103
58 65
100 0
0
SPT-Meyerhof -method -method Nordlund-method BlueBook SLT
50
100 150 200 250 300 350 x Davisson Capacity (kips)
400
450
25
Verification contd
Comparison between the Egyptian R.F. and the international codes
Soil Type Static Method
SPT-Meyer. Sand -Method Bluebook
Egypt
n/a n/a
AASHTO
0.3 N/A N/A
NCHRP
0.45 0.3
-Method
Clay Bluebook
n/a
0.25
N/A
0.2
-Method
Mixed Nordlund
n/a
n/a
0.25
N/A
0.2
0.2-0.35
Bluebook
N/A
26
Outline
Design and Construction Flowchart

Construction Control

Calibration for Static and Dynamic Methods
27
Design and Construction Flowchart

Design Stage
Site Investigation and Soil Files Testing
Determine Structural Loads and Requirements
Determine Soil Parameters
Determine Type of Deep Foundations
Perform Static Analysis
Release Bidding Documents
Completed Substructure
Modify the Design (If Needed)
Design Verification
Construction Stage
28
Construction Control
Construction control is achieved via:
Dynamic testing (PDA and CAPWAP) Wave equation (WEAP)
Static analysis is only used during the design stage of a project, and mainly for releasing the bedding documents.
Pile static load test (SLT) Dynamic formulas (ENR, Gates, etc.) Drilling to support on bedrock Driving to bedrock or until refusal
Dynamic analysis and/or SLT are conducted during the construction stage. The final capacity of the pile is established during this stage.
29
TR-573 DSPLT Database
Sort Data According to Pile and Soil Types
Determine Pile Nominal Capacity using Davisson's Criterion
Calibration for Static and Dynamic Methods

For Dynamic Analysis
For Static Analysis
Perform Static Analysis methods WEAP Analysis Determine Design Capacity Determine Pile Capacity for Each Method
For Construction Stage
Dynamic Formulas
PDA and CAPWAP
Perform Statistical Analysis
For Design Stage
Calibrate LRFD Resistance Factors using Reliability Method
Perform Statistical Analysis
Proposed Field Tests
Determine Resistance Factors for Static Analysis Methods
Calibrate LRFD Resistance Factors using Reliability Method
Determine Resistance Factors for Dynamic Analysis Methods
30
Outline

31
Design Example
For the given soil profile, consider using CIDH
piles (d=50 cm) designed for a maximum factored load of 100 ton/ pile. End-bearing in a hard soil layer with length equal to 17 m. Using WSD and LRFD, calculate the number of piles required under the pile cap. Use various static and dynamic methods.
Simply calculate the pile capacity as usual, then, instead of dividing by a FOS, multiply by a R.F.
32
Pile Design Example contd

120
117
Ultimate Capacity using different static and dynamic methods

111
89
100
Pile Capacity, ton
80
76
60
76
75 67
69 63
Inconsistency High variation Over-conservative Over-estimating
52 49 37 21
40
20
33

70
Allowable Capacity (WSD) using different methods
60
Pile Capacity, ton
63
50 40
47
44 35
Inconsistency High variation Over-conservative
30
30 21 19 8 15
30
30 27 28
20 10
34

70
Factored Capacity (LRFD) using different methods
60
Pile Capacity, ton
63
50 40 30
54 41 24
58
45
49 44
Consistent Low variation Efficient
29
25
31
35
20 10
15
35
Outline

36
Conclusions
In the USA, more than 90% of the States changed from WSD to LRFD for the design of
pile foundations, using AASHTO.

In Europe, the latest Euro Code was released using LSD with different combinations.
Using LRFD, at = 2.33 (1% probability of failure), the design efficiency may increase up
to 80% relative to the actual field measurements (SLT), compared to the WSD.
The LRFD approach is superior compared to the WSD in terms of
reliability, consistency, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness.

Engineers can use the LRFD tables and charts to design pile foundations with a selected
reliability (chosen probability of failure), depending on the degree of conservatism.

Using the reliability-based LRFD for piles, the resistance factors can be regionally
calibrated for a specific soil type or region, pile type, or any particular condition, so that
to increase the design effectiveness.

37
Recommendations
The Egyptian code should shift to the LRFD to coupe with other international codes. Changing to LRFD will lead to the following:
1.
Constant and controllable degree of reliability
2. Consistent design for the entire structure

3. Improves the construction control process 4. Higher efficiency and cost-effectiveness
5. No assumptions, experience, or judgment needed

For the LRFD, the same design practice is followed, the only difference is replacing
the FOS by a R.F. for the specific soil/pile/method used; hence it is easy to use LRFD.
38
Thank You Discussion ?
39

LRFD Lecture For The Egyptian Code (Handouts)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

LRFD Lecture For The Egyptian Code (Handouts)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

By

Dr. Sherif S. AbdelSalam

LRFD Philosophy and Advantages Current International Practices

Resistance Factors Development

Conclusions and Recommendations

Pile Design Approaches

L: Loads R: Resistances FS: Factor of Safety

Variation of soil properties, behavior, and GWT

No consistent degree of reliability In some cases leads to unsafe designs

Pile Design Approaches contd

Depends on: 1)mean; 2) st. dev.; and 3) best-curve-fit

Typical R.F. Values

: Reliability Index : Standard Deviation of PDF Pf : Probability of Failure

Typical R.F. Values contd

0.6 0.4 0.2

Design charts with wider range of (or probability of failure)

0.0 Efficiemcy Factor (/)

1.0 100 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4

Efficiemcy Factor (/) 9

WSD vs. LRFD

3.0 Nominal Capacity Factored Capacity 2.5 Allowable Capacity

2.0 1.5 1.0

Variable K1 (Nominal) K2 (LRFD) 244 K3 (WSD)

1.116 0.2826 5 1.395 0.3533 5 1.786 0.4522 216 5

KK == SLT / SPT Meyerhof Davisson/BlueBook -method Nordlund-method

Resistance Factors Development

Pile Analysis Methods

Conclusions and Recommendations

Regionally Calibrated R.F.

Deep Foundations Practices

West Coast DP, OEP,

15 to 60 m OR DP, OEP, dia. 30 to 50 cm //Nord

60 m DP, HP, 360x152 mm

15 m DS, CIDH, SPT

> 25 m DS, CIDH, dia. 1 to 1.5 m /SPT

HP, MidwestDP, 250x63;

Soil is mainly composed of glacial tills Pile types: steel H-piles

Pile Analysis Methods

18% Driven piles

60% 40% 32% 6% 9% 11%

100% 80% 60% 40% 43% 14% 21%

Implemented LRFD In transition from WSD to LRFD Currently using WSD

Implemented LRFD In transition from ASD to LRFD Still Using ASD

Regionally Calibrated R.F.

Open end pipe

According to Soil-Static Analysis Methods

LRFD Philosophy and Advantages Current International Practices

Resistance Factors Development

Conclusions and Recommendations

Verification and Comparison

Egypt and corresponding soil information.

firms) to stand on the current practices and future needs.

cover all possible soil types in the Egypt.

Database Construction contd

CIDH (Bored Piles)

LRFD Reliability-based Calibration

Do the same for the entire database Draw the PDFs

Calculate the resistance factor

Dead load factor

Bias for live loads

Ksx = Davisson / BlueBook

Ksx = Davisson / BlueBook