ALTERNATIVE DESIGN APPROACH FOR DRAG LOAD

AND DOWNDRAG OF DEEP FOUNDATIONS WITHIN THE

LRFD FRAMEWORK

Timothy C. Siegel, P.E., G.E., D.GE with Dan Brown and Associates PC
Rich A. Lamb, P.E. with the Minnesota Department of Transportation
Derrick D. Dasenbrock, P.E. with the Minnesota Department of Transportation
Paul J. Axtell, P.E., D.GE with Dan Brown and Associates PC

DAN
BROWN
AND ASSOCIATES

CURRENT AASHTO LRFD APPROACH (2012)

Requires that downdrag [load] be evaluated

where:

- Sites are underlain by compressible

material such as clays silts and organic
soils

1
 CURRENT AASHTO LRFD APPROACH (2012)

Requires that downdrag [load] be evaluated

where:

- Sites are underlain by compressible

material such as clays silts and organic
soils

- Fill will be or has been recently placed

adjacent to piles or shafts

CURRENT AASHTO LRFD APPROACH (2012)

Requires that downdrag [load] be evaluated

where:

- Sites are underlain by compressible

material such as clays silts and organic
soils

- Fill will be or has been recently placed

adjacent to piles or shafts

- Groundwater is substantially lowered

2
 CURRENT AASHTO LRFD APPROACH (2012)

Requires that downdrag [load] be evaluated

where:

- Sites are underlain by compressible

material such as clays silts and organic
soils

- Fill will be or has been recently placed

adjacent to piles or shafts

- Groundwater is substantially lowered

- Liquefaction of loose sandy soil can occur

CURRENT AASHTO LRFD APPROACH (2012)

Where an evaluation is required, the

downdrag load (DD) is factored and then
incorporated as a top load for geotechnical
and structural design

3
CURRENT AASHTO LRFD APPROACH (2012)

Where an evaluation is required, the

downdrag load (DD) is factored and then
incorporated as a top load for geotechnical
and structural design

unless:

The potential for downdrag load is eliminated

through the use of embankment surcharge
loads, ground improvement techniques,
and/or vertical drainage and settlement
monitoring measurements.

Matrix, 1999

4
NEGATIVE SKIN FRICTION

..side resistance mobilized as the ground moves downward relative to

the pile.

DRAG FORCE

..axial compressive force induced in a pile due to accumulated negative

skin friction.

The 2012 AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications use the term downdrag
load.

5
NEUTRAL PLANE

..the location along the pile where there is no relative movement

between the pile and adjacent soil.

It is also the location of the maximum axial compressive stress.

The side resistance is negative above the neutral plane.

The side resistance is positive below the neutral plane.

DOWNDRAG

..the downward movement of a pile resulting from ground settlement.

The downdrag is equal to the settlement of the ground at the neutral

plane.

6
PERMANENT LOADS

.. are constant over time (weight).

TRANSIENT LOADS

.. act only a short time (e.g., wind, seismic, traffic).

7
CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Qpermanent

Arrows indicate direction of side resistance

Negative skin friction

Neutral
Plane

Positive side resistance

Mobilized tip resistance

Rtip

CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Profile of Qpermanent
Ground Settlement
Arrows indicate direction of side resistance

Soil moves downward

relative to pile

Neutral
Plane

Pile moves downward

relative to soil
Spile

0 Smax
Rtip

8
CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Profile of Qpermanent Axial Compressive Load in Pile
Ground Settlement Qpermanent

Arrows indicate direction of side resistance

Drag
Force Neutral
Plane

Spile
0 Smax 0 Rtip
Rtip

CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Profile of Qpermanent Axial Compressive Load in Pile
Ground Settlement Qpermanent
Arrows indicate direction of side resistance

If drag force is greater than the transient top load

(which is usually the case) then:

The transient top load temporarily reverses the

Drag
direction of the side resistance and replacesForce
part Neutral
of the drag force. There is no net change in the Plane
maximum pile compressive load.

Spile
0 Smax 0 Rtip
Rtip

9
MISCONCEPTIONS

Negative skin friction only occurs where

there is lots of ground settlement

Long term monitoring of piles has shown that

negative skin friction develops in all piles.

MISCONCEPTIONS

You should represent the drag load as a top

load when determining the required
nominal geotechnical resistance.

@Qult

Negative skin friction and drag load

do not exist at the geotechnical
ultimate strength limit state.

10
PROPOSED APPROACH

Step 1 Assume ground consolidation will occur.

PROPOSED APPROACH
Hypothetical example 40 ft pile in sand with
Step 2 Draw the axial load-resistance a permanent top load of 40 tons
diagram for an individual pile where:

One curve is the permanent top load

added to the negative skin friction;

Ref: Fellenius, B.H. (1989) Unified design of piles

and pile groups, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, TRB Record 1169, 75-82.

11
PROPOSED APPROACH
Hypothetical example 40 ft pile in sand with
Step 2 Draw the axial load-resistance a permanent top load of 40 tons
diagram for an individual pile where:

One curve is the permanent top load

added to the negative skin friction;

A second curve is the mobilized toe

resistance plus the positive side
resistance.

Ref: Fellenius, B.H. (1989) Unified design of piles

and pile groups, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, TRB Record 1169, 75-82.

PROPOSED APPROACH
Hypothetical example 40 ft pile in sand with
Step 2 Draw the axial load-resistance a permanent top load of 40 tons
diagram for an individual pile where:

One curve is the permanent top load

added to the negative skin friction;

A second curve is the mobilized toe

resistance plus the positive side
resistance.

The intersection of the two curves is the

neutral plane.

Ref: Fellenius, B.H. (1989) Unified design of piles Drag load = 28 tons (that is the internal load
and pile groups, Transportation Research Board, in the pile due to negative skin friction)
Washington, TRB Record 1169, 75-82.

12
PROPOSED APPROACH
Important -

Ideally, the neutral plane should be determined using the actual, unfactored
permanent load. The Strength IV load excluding a downdrag load (DD) is the
nearest option in LRFD.

PROPOSED APPROACH
Important -

Ideally, the neutral plane should be determined using the actual, unfactored
permanent load. The Strength IV load excluding a downdrag load (DD) is the
nearest option in LRFD.

The neutral plane should be determined using nominal side/tip resistances.

13
PROPOSED APPROACH
Important -

Ideally, the neutral plane should be determined using the actual, unfactored
permanent load. The Strength IV load excluding a downdrag load (DD) is the
nearest option in LRFD.

The neutral plane should be determined using nominal side/tip resistances.

The mobilized tip resistance is unknown and must be assumed. Tip load versus
displacement curves (or t-z curves) may be used in a more refined iterative
approach.

PROPOSED APPROACH
Hypothetical example 40 ft pile in sand
Step 3 Re-draw the load and resistance after 5 feet of fill placed in the pile area.
curves (in red) considering new
stress/load conditions.

14
PROPOSED APPROACH
Hypothetical example 40 ft pile in sand
Step 3 Re-draw the load and resistance after 5 feet of fill placed in the pile area.
curves (in red) considering new
stress/load conditions.

Increase in drag load (8 tons) which is

factored for structural analysis.

PROPOSED APPROACH
Hypothetical example 40 ft pile in sand
Step 3 Re-draw the load and resistance after 5 feet of fill placed in the pile area.
curves (in red) considering new
stress/load conditions.

Increase in drag load (8 tons) which is

factored for structural analysis.

Downdrag is equal to compression of soil

layer(s) beneath the neutral plane.

15
PROPOSED APPROACH
Hypothetical example 40 ft pile in sand
Step 3 Re-draw the load and resistance after 5 feet of fill placed in the pile area.
curves (in red) considering new
stress/load conditions.

Increase in drag load (8 tons) which is

factored for structural analysis

Downdrag is equal to compression of soil

layer(s) beneath the neutral plane

If the beta value is assumed to be

constant, the nominal geotechnical
resistance increases (as does
geotechnical FOS).

RECAP
Drag load and downdrag are important considerations in deep foundation
design.

The current AASHTO LRFD Approach has limitations.

This paper proposes to use the concepts of the unified

design of piles (Fellenius, 1988) within the LRFD
framework.

16
FINAL REMARKS

Neo leaving the Matrix.

For more info, see also:

Kuhns, G.L. (2008) Downdrag in pile design: positive aspects of negative skin friction, From Research to
Practice in Geotechnical Engineering, GSP No. 180, 489-506.

THANKS!

FINAL REMARKS
Neos stunt double.

For more info, see also:

Kuhns, G.L. (2008) Downdrag in pile design: positive aspects of negative skin friction, From Research to
Practice in Geotechnical Engineering, GSP No. 180, 489-506.

THANKS!

17