Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
1
VERIFICATION OF BRIDGE FOUNDATION
DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND CALCULATIONS
Rodrigo Salgado, Monica Prezzi and Fei Han
Jeremy Hunter
Athar Khan
Mir Zaheer
Tim Wells
Barry Partridge
Mahmoud Hailat
Matthew Kohut, Sean Porter and Derek Barnes
Superior Construction Company
Acknowledgments
1
2
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
2
Project Background
Location - Lafayette, IN, USA
3
4
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
3
Old timber piles
Built 1936; rehabilitated 1984
Dead loads at foundation level and span lengths
152 ft❑ Total length: 1000 ft
❑ 7-span bridge
❑ Typical span length: 152 ft
❑ Budget estimate: $ 18 million
130'-6"
Span "A"
WABASH RIVER
152'
Span "B"
152'
Span "C"
Span "D"
Pier no. 4Pier no. 3
Pier no. 2
Bend no. 1
N. RIVER RD.
Approx. existing ground Q100- 532.34 Q100- 532.34
OHWM Elev. 510.00
Flowline Elev. 500.94
152' 92' 132'
Span "E" Span "F" Span "G"
Approx. existing ground
Q100- 532.34
Pier no. 5 Pier no. 6 Pier no. 7
Bend no. 8
152'
2121
kips
4200
kips
5490
kips
5418
kips
5364
kips
4734
kips
5040
kips
1824
kips
Pier 7
92 ft 132 ft
5
6
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
4
New bridge
130'-6"
Span "A"
WABASH RIVER
152'
Span "B"
152'
Span "C"
Span "D"
Pier no. 4Pier no. 3
Pier no. 2
Bend no. 1
N. RIVER RD.
Approx. existing ground Q100- 532.34 Q100- 532.34
OHWM Elev. 510.00
Flowline Elev. 500.94
152' 92' 132'
Span "E" Span "F" Span "G"
Approx. existing ground
Q100- 532.34
Pier no. 5 Pier no. 6 Pier no. 7
Bend no. 8
152'
Bridge pier
Piles
Bridge deck
Foundation loads (per pile)
Bent 1 Pier 2 Pier 3 Pier 4 Pier 5 Pier 6 Pier 7 Bent 8
Number of piles 7 15 18 18 18 18 15 8
Type of piles CE CE OE OE OE OE OE CE
Dead load (kips) 303 280 305 301 298 263 336 228
Live load (kips) 151 187 267 220 196 257 185 115
Lateral load (kips) 10 12 12 11 10 11
7
8
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
5
LRFD design for pile group
( )n n n n
b b s sL g DL LLRF Q RF Q LF DL LF LL+ +Factored load
(obtained from structural engineer)
Group efficiency
Resistance factors
(must be the right ones for the analysis method used!)
Nominal resistance (geotechnical analysis)
This approach is general and could be used both for ULSs and SLSs
but so far resistance factors have been developed only for specific
analyses and ULSs
Where are the Questions?
10
( )n n n n
b b s sL g DL LLRF Q RF Q LF DL LF LL+ +
Calculated with Purdue
Pile Design Method -
Verified in JTRP SPR
4040 research project
Group efficiency:
One of the greater
uncertainties in such
calculations: for a
given soil profile, it
depends on type of
pile, c-c spacing, cap
resistance, settlement
From structural design:
conservative?
Studied in JTRP SPR
4165 research project
9
10
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
6
Where are the Questions?
11
( )n n n n
b b s sL g DL LLRF Q RF Q LF DL LF LL+ +
For what settlement are these calculated?
Ultimate limit states of a bridge are fundamentally similar to
those that would be observed in structures that have been
better studied, such as frame buildings
Serviceability is defined differently, relating to ride quality
and maintenance preferences
Tolerable Movement of Bridge Foundations
11
12
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
7
SLS in bridges are related to the riding conditions
Uncomfortable/dangerous ride if pavement is wavy or cracked
Settlements or horizontal displacements of the foundations causing such conditions are clearly not tolerable
Lower initial cost or lower maintenance costs?
It may be advantageous to save on the foundations (an initial cost) even if it means more frequent repair and maintenance of pavements (delayed costs)
Defects caused by vertical movements are easier to correct than those caused by lateral movements, which may lead to an undesirable closing of expansion joints
Bridge Foundations
δ
l
:
:l
Difference in settlement between foundations
Distance between adjacent foundations
13
14
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
8
Bozozuk (1978)
Empirical limits on vertical settlement
Barker, R. M., Duncan, J. M., Rojiani, K. B., Ooi, P. S. K., Tan, C. K., and Kim, S. G. (1991). “Manuals for the design of bridge foundations: Shallow
foundations, driven piles, retaining walls and abutments, drilled shafts, estimating tolerable movements, and load factor design specifica- tions and
commentary.” NCHRP Rep. 343, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Settlement
magnitude
Basis for recommendation Reference
50 mm Not harmful Bozozuk (1978)
60 mm Ride quality Walkinshaw (1978)
>60 mm Structural distress Walkinshaw (1978)
100 mm Ride quality and structural distress Grover (1978)
100 mm Harmful but tolerable Bozozuk (1978)
>100 mm Usually intolerable Wahls (1990)
15
16
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
9
Tolerable Horizontal Movements of Bridges
Horizontal movement
(mm)Basis for recommendation Reference
25 Not harmful Bozozuk (1978)
38 Tolerable in most cases Moulton, et al. (1985)
51 Structural distress Walkinshaw (1978)
51 Harmful but tolerable Bozozuk (1978)
51 Usually intolerable Wahls (1990)
δ
l
:
:l
Difference in Settlement between Foundations
Distance between Foundations
Maximum Angular
Distortion, δ / lBasis for Recommendation Recommended by
0.004 Tolerable for multiple-span bridges Moulton, et al. (1985)
0.005 Tolerable for single-span bridges Moulton, et al. (1985)
'Standard specifications for highway bridges 2000 interim version.’
Maximum Angular
Distortion, δ / lBasis for Recommendation Recommended by
0.004 Tolerable for multiple-span bridgesMoulton, et al. (1985)
Barker, et al. (1991)
0.008 Tolerable for single-span bridgesMoulton, et al. (1985)
Barker, et al. (1991)
'LRFD bridge design specifications 2005 interim version'
17
18
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
10
Tolerable Angular Distortion for Bridges
Value of
Angular
Distortion
Percent of 119 continuous-span bridges
for which this amount of angular distortion
was considered to be tolerable
Percent of 56 simple-span bridges for
which this amount of angular distortion
was considered to be tolerable
0.000-0.001 100% 98%
0.001-0.002 97% 98%
0.002-0.003 97% 98%
0.003-0.004 96% 98%
0.004-0.005 92% 98%
0.005-0.006 88% 96%
0.006-0.008 85% 93%
MOULTON ET AL. (1985)
Allowable angular distortion by AASHTO (2018)
20
Continuous-span bridges
0.004
Simple-span bridges
0.008
(AASHTO. (2018). AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.)
19
20
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
11
Allowable settlement for the Sagamore Bridge
For pier 7 (span length = 92 ft)
Allowable differential settlement: 92 ft 0.004 = 112 mm
Assuming: differential settlement/total settlement = 0.75
Allowable total settlement = 112/0.75 = 150 mm
For a typical pier (span length = 152 ft)
Allowable differential settlement: 152 ft 0.004 = 185 mm
Assuming: differential settlement/total settlement = 0.75
Allowable total settlement = 185/0.75 = 247 mm
Site Investigation
21
22
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
12
Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
23
24
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
13
In-situ test locations
CEP OEP
6' 12' 12' 12'9'
50'
5'
5'29'
7'
19'TB-4
TB-6
Pier-7
CPT-2
CPT-3
ROEP: reaction open-ended pipe pile
CEP: closed-ended pipe pile
OEP: open-ended pipe pile)
: CPT
: SPT
CPT-5
Soil samples
80 ft65 ft25 ft 110 ft
25
26
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
14
Existence of large particles
Gravel content
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 20 40 60 80
Dep
th (
ft)
Gravel content (%)
27
28
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
15
In-situ tests - SPT & CPT
OEP
CEP
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 20 40 60 80
Dep
th (
ft)
qc (MPa)
CPT-5
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 50 100 150
Dep
th(f
t)
N60
TB-4
TB-6
Pier 7
Pile Instrumentation
29
30
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
16
Bridge Foundations – Test Piles
Closed-
ended pipe
piles
Open-
ended
pipe piles
Closed-ended steel pipe pile
32
Soil
31
32
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
17
Closed-ended steel pipe pile
33
Soil
Axial load Q
Shaft resistance
Base resistance
Layout of Strain Gauges – closed-ended pile
33
34
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
18
Open-ended steel pipe pile
35
Soil
Open-ended steel pipe piles - sands
36
Soil
Axial load Q
Soil plug
35
36
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
19
Double-wall system for open-ended pile
37
Qannulus
Qs
Qplug
A B
C
𝑄 = 𝑄𝑠 + 𝑄𝑝𝑙𝑢𝑔 + 𝑄𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠
Measurements:
A: outer shaft
B: plug + annulus
C: annulus
B-C: plug
Axial load Q
Layout of Strain Gauges – Open-ended pile
Fabricated in two
segments:
Double-wall bottom
segment
Single-wall top
segment
37
38
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
20
Pipe pile
Electrical-resistance
strain gauges
Vibrating-wire
strain gauges
Installation of sensors
Surface polishing
Pile instrumentation
50 VW strain gauges
104 ER strain gauges
5 miles of cables
Pile instrumentation
39
40
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
21
Double wall assembly
Sensors
Inner pile
Inner pile slid into the outer pile
Outer pile
Double wall assembly
Spacing rod
Strain gauge cables
ER strain gauge
Rollers
Cables from
the inner pipe
Hole (ϕ=5cm)
drilled on outer
pipe
Inner pipeSliding
41
42
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
22
Double wall assembly
Double wall assembly – driving shoe
Silicon
Bolt
Pile shoe
43
44
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
23
Piles ready for driving
Channels placed on
outer pipe to
prevent damage to
wires during driving
Measurement of Plug Formation
45
46
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
24
Open-ended steel pipe piles - sands
47
Case 1: fully coring (unplugged)
Soil
Open-ended steel pipe piles - sands
48
Case 2: plugged penetration
Soil
47
48
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
25
Open-ended steel pipe piles - sands
49
Case 3: Partial plugging
Soil
Importance of plug measurement
50
IFR and PLR are recognized as the key factors in
modern design methods (Purdue method, UWA
method) for open-ended piles
Study is still needed to learn how to predict plug
formation and its effect on the pile’s resistances
Paik, K., and Salgado, R. (2003). “Determination of Bearing Capacity of Open-Ended Piles in Sand.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 129(1), 46–57.
Lehane, B. M., Schneider, J. a., and Xu, X. (2005). “The UWA-05 Method for Prediction of Axial Capacity of Driven Piles in Sand.” Proceedings of the
International Symposium. on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics (IS-FOG 2005), 683–689.
49
50
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
26
Plug measurement
51
Plug length
Animation shows the case of
partial plugging
Pile Driving
51
52
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
27
Pile positioning
Pile driving
53
54
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
28
Driving resistance - closed-ended pile
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
0 10 20 30 40 50
Ele
vat
ion
(ft
)
Blow count (blows/ft)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80
Dep
th (
ft)
qc (MPa)
Pile driving resistance – open-ended pile
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
0 10 20 30 40 50
Ele
vat
ion
(ft
)
Blow count (blows/ft)
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 20 40 60 80
Dep
th (
ft)
qc (MPa)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
40% 60% 80% 100%
Penetr
ation d
epth
(ft
)
Incremental filling ratio (%)
55
56
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
29
Plug measurement
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Penetr
ation d
epth
(ft
)
Plug length (ft)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
40% 60% 80% 100%
Penetr
ation d
epth
(ft
)
Incremental filling ratio (%)
Driving resistance - comparison
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
0 10 20 30 40 50
Ele
vat
ion
(ft
)
Blow count (blows/ft)
OE
CE
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 20 40 60 80
Dep
th (
ft)
qc (MPa)
57
58
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
30
Static Pile Load Test
Static load test - layout
Test Pile
CEP
Test Pile
OEP
ROEP-1
6'
10' 9''
12' 12' 12'
ROEP-2 ROEP-3 ROEP-4 ROEP-5 ROEP-6
ROEP-7 ROEP-8 ROEP-9 ROEP-10 ROEP-11 ROEP-12
9'
ϕ = 24'' ϕ = 26''
ϕ = 24''
(ROEP: reaction open-ended pipe pile; CEP: closed-ended pipe pile; OEP: open-ended pipe pile)
59
60
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
31
Static load test
Static load test
61
62
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
32
Static load test
Load cell
Hydraulic
jack
Spherical
seating
Reference
beam
Dial gauge
Reaction beam
Timelapse video prepared by Wayne Bunnell, courtesy of Darcy Bullock, Purdue Univeristy, JTRP
63
64
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
33
Load settlement curve
Ultimate load: 1025 kips
Plunging load: 1225 kips
Resistance components
Shaft: 537 kips
Base: 488 kips
Closed-ended pipe pile
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Load (
kip
s)
Relative settlement at pile head (%)
1025 kip1025 kip
Load settlement curve
Ultimate load: 1075 kips
Plunging load: 1400 kips
Resistance components
Shaft: 576 kips
Plug: 80 kips
Annulus: 419 kips
Open-ended pipe pile
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Load (
kip
s)
Relative settlement at pile head (%)
1075 kip1075 kip1075 kip
65
66
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
34
Resistance components - closed-ended pile
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Resi
stance
(kip
s)
Relative settlement at pile head (%)
Shaft resistance
Base resistance
Resistance components - open-ended pile
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Load (
kip
)
Relative settlement at pile head (%)
Shaft resistance
Annulus resistance
Plug resistance
67
68
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
35
Load transfer curve
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Ele
va
tio
n (
ft)
Axial load (kips)
Open-ended pileClosed-ended pile
410
430
450
470
490
510
530
0 400 800 1200
Ele
va
tio
n (
ft)
Axial load (kips)
Upper segment
Inner pipe
Outer pipe
Unit shaft resistance calculation
Axial load Q
depth
A
B
QA
QB
qsL 𝑞𝑠𝐿 =𝑄𝐴 − 𝑄𝐵𝜋𝐵𝐿L
69
70
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
36
Unit shaft resistance
Open-ended pile Closed-ended pile
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
elev
ati
on
(ft
)
Unit shaft resistance (ksf)
Upper segment
Outer pipe
Inner pipe
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Ele
va
tio
n (
ft)
Unit shaft resistance (ksf)
Unit shaft resistance - comparisons
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
0 1 2 3 4
Ele
vation (
ft)
Unit shaft resistance (ksf)
Open-ended pile-upper segment
Open-ended pile-outer pipe
Closed-ended pile
71
72
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
37
Components of Pile Resistance
Axial load
Shaft resistance
Base resistance
Soil
Total resistance +
Cone resistance qc
Unit shaft resistance qsL
CPT resistances
correlated with
measured
resistances in
PLTs
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
0 1 2 3 4
Ele
vation (
ft)
Unit shaft resistance (ksf)
Open-ended pile-upper segment
Open-ended pile-outer pipe
Closed-ended pile
CPT PLTsDesign Methods
73
74
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
38
Bridge Monitoring
Construction stages
Pile installation
76
75
76
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
39
Construction stages
Pile cap pouring
77
Construction stages
Bridge pier pouring
78
77
78
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
40
Construction stages
Pier cap
(“hammer head”)
Backfilling of the cofferdam
and pier cap pouring
79
Construction stages
Placement of beams over
span 7-8
Pier 7Pier 6 Bent 8
80
79
80
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
41
Construction stages
Beams
81
Construction stages
Placement of beams over
span 6-7
Pier 7Pier 6 Bent 8
82
81
82
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
42
Construction stages
Construction of the bridge deck
83
Construction completed
84
83
84
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
43
85
Concrete-embedded and sister-bar strain
gauges in bridge pier
Arc-weldable strain gauges on pile
heads
Bridge deck
Beams
Pier
Pile cap
Piles
Cofferdam
Backfill
Pier cap
Data logger
Cables for sensors in the bridge pier
Cables for sensors on pile heads
Instrumentation scheme
86
Bridge deck
Beams
Pile cap
Piles
Cofferdam
Backfill
Pier cap
Instrumentation scheme
Bridge pier
Concrete-embedded
strain gauge
Rebar
strain gauge
Arc-weldable
strain gauge
85
86
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
44
87
End of stage 2
01/18/2018
2 beams,1/18/18
3 beams, 1/18/18
4 beams,1/18/185 beams,1/19/18
10 beams,1/20/18
6/20/2018
Deck pouring,7/26/18
Deck pouring,7/26/18
Deck complete,11/16/19
12/4/2019
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Tota
l lo
ad
on p
ile c
ap s
ince s
tage
2
(kip
s)
Settlement of pier 7 since stage 2 (mm)
Load-settlement response of bridge pier
3/17/2020
88
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Avera
ge
load
in e
ach
pile
(kip
s)
Pile head settlement (mm)
Average pile in the
pile group supporting
pier 7
Settlement measurement started
Pile load test on a single pile
Stiffness of the single test pile
at 5 mm
= 76.4 kips/ mm
Stiffness of an average pile in
the group at 5 mm
= 46.4 kips/ mm
Load-settlement response of piles
87
88
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
45
89
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 5 Stage 5
Load (
kip
s)
Total load applied on pile cap
Total load carried by piles
Monitoring
start
12/12/17 1/18/18 1/19/18 1/20/18 7/23/18 11/16/18 6/25/19 12/4/19
Total load on pile cap
Qpg
Pile capQcap
Qtotal = Qcap + QpgQcap
Load transfer from bridge pier to piles
Total load on pile cap
Qpg
Pile capQcap
Qtotal = Qcap + Qpg
Stage Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 5 Stage 5
Date 1/18/2018 1/19/2018 1/20/2018 7/23/2018 11/16/2018 12/04/2019 3/17/2020
Qpg/Qtotal 67% 66% 65% 89% 76% 78% 78%
Qcap/Qtotal 33% 34% 35% 11% 24% 22% 22%
Load transfer from bridge pier to piles
89
90
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
46
91
Load distribution among piles in the group
Stage 1
(12/12/2017)
Stage 2
(1/18/2018)
Stage 3
(1/19/2018)
Stage 4
(1/20/2018)
(kips)
N
92
Load distribution among piles in the group
(kips)
Stage 4
(7/23/2018)
Stage 5
(11/16/2018)
Stage 5
(6/25/2019)
Stage 5
(12/4/2019)
N
91
92
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
47
Live Load Test
93
94
132'92'
Live load test – load step 0
N
Top view
Bent 8
Pier 7Pier 6
93
94
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
48
95
132'92'
Live load test – load step 1
N
Top view
Bent 8
Pier 7Pier 6
96
132'92'
N
Top viewLive load test – load step 2
Bent 8
Pier 7Pier 6
95
96
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
49
97
132'92'
N
Top viewLive load test – load step 3
Bent 8
Pier 7Pier 6
98
132'92'
N
Top viewLive load test – load step 4
Bent 8
Pier 7Pier 6
97
98
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
50
99
132'92'
N
Top viewLive load test – load step 5
Bent 8
Pier 7Pier 6
10
0
132'92'
N
Top viewLive load test – load step 6
Bent 8
Pier 7Pier 6
99
100
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
51
10
1
132'92'
N
Top viewLive load test – load step 7
Bent 8
Pier 7Pier 6
10
2
132'92'
Live load test – load step 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
Bridge pier
Pile group
200
150
100
50
0
Legendkips
kips
Bent 8
Pier 7Pier 6
101
102
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
52
10
3
132'92'
Live load test – load step 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
Bridge pier
Pile group
200
150
100
50
0
Legendkips
kips
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
Bent 8
Pier 7Pier 6
10
4
132'92'
Live load test – load step 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
Bridge pier
Pile group
200
150
100
50
0
Legendkips
kips
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
Bent 8
Pier 7Pier 6
103
104
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
53
10
5
132'92'
Live load test – load step 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
Bridge pier
Pile group
200
150
100
50
0
Legendkips
kips
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
Bent 8
Pier 7Pier 6
10
6
132'92'
Live load test – load step 4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
Bridge pier
Pile group
200
150
100
50
0
Legendkips
kips
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
Bent 8
Pier 7Pier 6
105
106
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
54
10
7
132'92'
Live load test – load step 5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
Bridge pier
Pile group
200
150
100
50
0
Legendkips
kips
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
Bent 8
Pier 7Pier 6
10
8
132'92'
Live load test – load step 6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
Bridge pier
Pile group
200
150
100
50
0
Legendkips
kips
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
Bent 8
Pier 7Pier 6
107
108
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
55
10
9
132'92'
Live load test – load step 7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
Bridge pier
Pile group
200
150
100
50
0
Legendkips
kips
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
Bent 8
Pier 7Pier 6
11
0
Live load test – load history
0
0
0
0
0
N
Bridge pier
Pile group
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
4
-1
3
-1
-2
101
59
42
20
6
158
95
64
33
12
61
32
23
11
-1
117
68
46
25
7
step 1
174
105
70
38
13
196
120
80
step 7
North
step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6
44
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
step 0 step 1 step 2 step 3 step 4 step 5 step 6 step 7
109
110
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
56
11
1
Live load test – load eccentricity
e = 5'
Pedestrian
walkway10' 11' 24' 6'
Shoulder Driveway Shoulder
Resultant force
10' Multi-use path
6'Shoulder
24'Driveway
11'Shoulder
N
Top view
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
22:10 22:50 23:30 0:10 0:50
Liv
e lo
ad
(kip
s)
Time (hh:mm)
Total live load in pier 7
Total live load carried by piles
11
2
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
Step 7
The difference represents the cap
resistance Qcap
Live load test – load transfer
111
112
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
57
11
3
Live load test – load-settlement response
Step 0
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
Step 70
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Liv
e lo
ad
in
bri
dge
pie
r (k
ips)
Settlement of the bridge pier (mm)
Step 0
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
Step 7
0
5
10
15
20
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Ave
rag
e liv
e lo
ad
in
ea
ch
pile
(kip
s)
Pile head settlement (mm)
11
4
113
114
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
58
Highlights and Implementation
Rare case history with complete dataset
❑ Full site investigation and soil characterization
❑ Dynamic and static load tests on fully instrumented test piles
❑ Load and settlement monitoring of the bridge pier and its foundation
elements under dead and live loads during and after bridge
construction
115
116
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
59
11
7
Implementation: instrumentation scheme
Bridge deck
Beams
Pile cap
Piles
Cofferdam
Backfill
Pier cap
Bridge pier
Concrete-embedded
strain gauge
Rebar
strain gauge
Arc-weldable
strain gauge
Barcode sticker
attached to pier 7
Barcode sticker
attached to the old pier
Implementation: instrumentation scheme
Bridge pier
Digital level
Barcode
sticker on
the pier
Reference station
Level staff
117
118
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
60
Pile cap contribution
Stage Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 5 Stage 5
Date 1/18/2018 1/19/2018 1/20/2018 7/23/2018 11/16/2018 12/04/2019 3/17/2020
Qpg/Qtotal 67% 66% 65% 89% 76% 78% 78%
Qcap/Qtotal 33% 34% 35% 11% 24% 22% 22%
12
0
Group pile interactions
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Avera
ge
load
in e
ach
pile
(kip
s)
Pile head settlement (mm)
Average pile in the
pile group
supporting pier 7
Settlement measurement started
Pile load test on a single pile
Peak load in
live load test
FE simulation
119
120
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
61
Dead load per pile:
Design load = 336 kips
Measured at the end of construction (direct measurement) = 248 kips
Measured at the end of construction (assuming zero cap resistance) = 325 kips
Live load per pile:
AASHTO design load (vehicular+wind+water…) = 185 kips
AASHTO design load (vehicular) = 81 kips
Simulation of live load test (assuming continuous-span) = 62 kips
Simulation of live load test (assuming simple-span) = 51 kips
Measured in live load test (direct measurement) = 23 kips
Measured in live load test (assuming zero cap resistance) = 53 kips
Comparison between measured and estimated loads
Purdue Method
Unit shaft resistance (qsL) for closed-ended pipe piles
Unit base resistance (qb,ult) for closed-ended pipe piles
( )m A h0 Acax
0
min max min
0.01
tan
( )exp( )
sL v c
qK P P
q K
hK K K K
B
=
=
= + − −
• h = distance from the pile base
• Kmin = 0.2
• = 0.05
• B = pile diameter
• DR = relative density
• δc = interface friction angle
• qcb,avg = average cone resistance
near the pile base
h
z
B
( ), ,1 0.0058 cbu vgl aRb t D qq = −
Han et al. 2019; Salgado et al. 2011; Salgado & Prezzi 2007
0
0
'ln 0.4947 0.1041 0.841ln
(%) 100%'
0.0264 0.0002 0.0047 ln
c hc
A A
R
hc
A
q
p pD
p
− − −
=
− −
121
122
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
62
Purdue Method
Unit shaft resistance (qsL) for open-ended pipe piles
Unit base resistance (qb,ult) for open-ended pipe piles
( )
( )
( )
sL v0 cs
min max min
m x h0 Aca A
1 0.6 tanL6P R
e
0.2
xp
0
, 0
.01
.05min
q K
hK K K K
B
K P
K
q P
= −
−
= =
= + −
=
• δcs = interface friction angle
• D = penetration depth
• Lplug = soil plug length
• B = outer pile diameter
• Bi = inner pile diameter( )1
cb,avg cb,avul g
.2
b, t0.21 IF 0.6R q qq
−=
Han et al. 2019; Paik & Salgado 2003
Lplug
D
Bi
B
IFR ≈ min[1, (Bi /1.5)0.2], Bi in
meters (Lehane et al. 2005)
Bridge foundation design in gravelly sand
Elevation range
(ft)
Soil description Unit shaft
resistance
(ksf)
Gravel
content
(%)
qc
(ksf)
qsL/qc
522-513Clayey silt with
sand0.11 - 20 0.0056
513-501Clayey silt with
sand0.58 9 80 0.0073
501-486 Sandy gravel 0.55 24 390 0.0014
486-482 Sand with gravel 0.35 15 156 0.0022
482-475 Sand with gravel 0.60 10 234 0.0026
475-464 Gravelly sand 0.95 27 427 0.0022
464-456 Gravelly sand 0.81 41 696 0.0012
456-444 Gravelly sand 0.66 29 801 0.0008
444-432 Gravelly sand 1.11 27 565 0.0020
432-422 Gravelly sand 1.83 30 538 0.0034
123
124
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
63
Dissemination
❑ Road School 2019, Purdue University
❑ TRB 2020, Washington, DC
❑ Geo-Congress 2020, Minneapolis, MN
❑ Indiana Bridge Design Conference, 2021
❑ IFCEE 2021, Dallas, TX
❑ ICSMGE 2021, Sydney, Australia
❑ TRB AKG70, Foundations of Bridges and Other Structures, Washington, DC, January
2021
Thank you ☺
125
126
Center for Offshore Foundation and Energy Engineering
3/3/2021
64
127