large diameter pipe piles, driven open-ended€¦ · geotechnical design methodology idot pile...

Large Diameter Pipe Piles, Driven Open-Ended

MLK Connector ProjectBy: Joel Cumby, P.E.October 18, 2016

Project Overview

BUSCH STADIUM

GATEWAY ARCH

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. MEMORIAL BRIDGE

I-55/I-64

POPLAR ST BRIDGE

PROJECT LIMITS

Project Limits

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. MEMORIAL BRIDGE

I-55/I-64

MLK CONNECTOR

Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC)

Pile Details

60 inch Diameter

Driven Open-ended

Pile Details

Pile Details – Driving Shoe

Plan Detail - Cast As Built - Fabricated

Photo courtesy of Horner & Shifrin, Inc.

Pile Details – Constrictor Plate

Photo courtesy of Horner & Shifrin, Inc.

Structural Design

▪ At time of Design▪ Only 1 project in midwest

▪ US 34 over Missouri River

▪ AASHTO LRFD 6.9.5 – Composite Members▪ Design as concrete column

▪ F’c between 3.0 and 8.0 ksi

▪ F’y shall not exceed 60 ksi

▪ Must transfer loads from cap

▪ Seismic design▪ 14 - #14 vertical rebar required

Geotechnical Overview

▪ “American Bottoms”

▪ Fluvial Floodplain Soils from the Mississippi River

▪ Typically Silts, Clays, Sands & Gravels

▪ Bedrock▪ Limestone

▪ 115 to 120 foot down

▪ Industrial Area▪ +/- 200 years of development

Soil Profile with Piles shown

Constrictor plates

Geotechnical Design Methodology

▪ IDOT Pile Design spreadsheet

▪ Modified with American Petroleum Institutes (API) design guidelines▪ API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD

▪ Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms – Working Stress Design

▪ Limiting values from API Table 6.4.3.1

▪ Modified with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Manual

▪ Geotechnical Resistance Factor = 0.65

▪ Seismic Geotechnical Resistance Factor = 1.0

API Table 6.4.3.1

Construction

Piling Program

▪ Pre-Construction drivability analysis performed for each pier

▪ Dynamic testing to be performed on one pile per pier during final driving

▪ Restrikes contingent upon final driving conditions

Pile Delivery

Vibratory DrivingICE 110C w/1200E power pack

Impact DrivingPileco D225-22

Pile CapacitiesPredicted vs. Achieved

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500

Pen

etra

tio

n (f

eet

)

Pile Capacity (kips)

Pier 2 South Capacity versus Depth

Case Method Capacity

Design Capacity

CAPWAP Capacity

Overnight pause in driving

Dynamic Test DataPier 2 South

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Constrictor Plate

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Constrictor Plate

Day 1 End of driving Day 2 End of driving

Pile CapacitiesPier 2 South, End of day 1 vs. day 2 restrike

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Pen

etra

tio

n (f

eet

)

Resistance (kips)

Pier 2 South Resistance Distribution

Pile CapacitiesDynamic Test Data at Final Driving

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000

Pen

etra

tio

n (f

eet)

Shaft Resistance (kips)

Pier 1 North - Constrictor Plate at 66 feet Pier 1 South - Constrictor Plate at 70 feet Pier 2 South - Constrictor Plate at 99 feet

Pier 3 North Pier 4 Right Pier 5 Right

Pier 6 Right Pier 7 Right

Bearing/Resistance Distribution

NominalRequired Bearing

(kips)

MobilizedNominal

Resistance(kips)

ShaftResistance

(%)

Resistance on Constrictor Plate

(%)End Bearing

(%)

Pier 1 Left 4,496 5,840 14% 8% 78%

Pier 1 Right 4,496 4,982 16% 7% 77%

Pier 2 – Test 3,243 4,640 35%* 5% 60%*

Pier 3 3,999 5,675 15% 85%

Pier 4 4,258 5,148 16% 84%

Pier 5 3,301 5,470 16% 84%

Pier 6 3,257 4,655 18% 82%

Pier 7 3,217 5,076 13% 87%

Averages w/ 15% 7% 78%

Averages w/o 16% 84%

Soil PlugPier 2 South – Test Pile

18 ft32 ft

44 ft

Constrictor Plate Results

▪ Did not provide substantial plugging effects

▪ Inflated blow counts and drive time with negligible added benefit

▪ False capacity due to pore water pressures, which quickly dissipated upon termination of driving

▪ Removed constrictor plates in remaining production pile

Cost Analysis

$ k

$100 k

$200 k

$300 k

$400 k

$500 k

$600 kP

ier

1

Pie

r 2

Pie

r 3

Pie

r 4

Pie

r 5

Pie

r 6

Pie

r 7

Plan As Built W/ Restrikes (hypothetical)

$2,449 k

$2,572 k

$2,839 k

Project

Obstructions

Conclusions

▪ These pile are a good alternative to drilled shafts when ease and speed of installation are considered

▪ Capacities – Actual vs. Predicted

▪ Availability of equipment and material

▪ Good seismic design and load resistance even in relatively poor soil conditions

Thank You!

Questions?

Joel Cumby, P.E.Email: Joel.Cumby@illinois.govPhone: 618-578-7302