TABLE OF CONTENTS – PILES

CHAPTER 23

FILE NO. TITLE DATE

TABLE OF CONTENTS AND INTRODUCTION

[Link]-1 Table of Contents ........................................................................... 30Oct2020

[Link]-2 Table of Contents ........................................................................... 30Apr2020
23.00 Introduction .................................................................................... 30Apr2019

DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

23.01-1 General Information ....................................................................... 30Oct2020

23.01-2 General Information ....................................................................... 30Apr2020
23.01-3 Driven Pile Design Process ........................................................... 30Apr2020
23.01-4 Pile Resistance .............................................................................. 30Apr2020
23.01-5 Pile Resistance .............................................................................. 30Apr2020
23.01-6 Design and Construction Considerations ...................................... 30Apr2020
23.01-7 Design and Construction Considerations ...................................... 30Apr2020
23.01-8 Design and Construction Considerations ...................................... 30Oct2020
23.01-9 Design and Construction Considerations ...................................... 30Apr2020
23.01-10 Design and Construction Considerations ...................................... 30Oct2020
23.01-11 Design and Construction Considerations ...................................... 30Apr2020
23.01-12 Design and Construction Considerations ...................................... 30Apr2020
23.01-13 Design and Construction Considerations ...................................... 30Apr2020
23.01-14 Design and Construction Considerations ...................................... 30Oct2020
23.01-15 Design and Construction Considerations……………………………30Apr2020

DESIGN GUIDE FOR LATERALLY UNSUPPORTED PILES

23.02-1 Notes and Definitions ..................................................................... 30Jan2018

23.02-2 Design Criteria ............................................................................... 30Jan2018
23.02-3 Design Criteria ............................................................................... 30Jan2018
23.02-4 Coarse Grain Soil Example ............................................................ 30Jan2018
23.02-5 Cohesive Soil Example .................................................................. 30Jan2018
23.02-6 Layered Soil Example .................................................................... 30Jan2018
23.02-7 Layered Soil Example .................................................................... 30Jan2018
23.02-8 Steel H-Pile Design Criteria ........................................................... 30Jan2018
23.02-9 Steel H-Pile Design Criteria ........................................................... 30Jan2018
23.02-10 Properties for Designing Steel H-Piles .......................................... 30Jan2018
23.02-11 Steel H-Pile Design Example ......................................................... 30Jan2018
23.02-12 Steel H-Pile Design Example ......................................................... 30Jan2018
23.02-13 Prestressed Concrete Pile Design Criteria .................................... 30Jan2018
23.02-14 Prestressed Concrete Pile Design Example .................................. 30Jan2018

PART 2
PILES DATE: 30Oct2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS – CHAPTER 23 SHEET 1 of 2
FILE NO. [Link]-1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS – PILES

CHAPTER 23

FILE NO. TITLE DATE

LATERAL LOADED PILE ANALYSIS FOR POINT OF FIXITY

23.03-1 Design Procedure .......................................................................... 30Jan2018

23.03-2 Design Assumptions and Results .................................................. 30Jan2018
23.03-3 L-Pile Results for Scour Condition ................................................. 30Jan2018
23.03-4 L-Pile Results for Non-Scour Condition ......................................... 30Jan2018

PILE RESISTANCE

23.04-1 Axial Resistance of HP Piles End Bearing on Rock ...................... 31Oct2019

23.04-2 Axial Resistance of HP Piles End Bearing on Rock ...................... 31Oct2019
23.04-3 Axial Resistance of HP Piles End Bearing on Rock ...................... 31Oct2019
23.04-4 Preliminary Pile Design Example ................................................... 30Apr2019
23.04-5 Preliminary Pile Design Example ................................................... 30Apr2019
23.04-6 Preliminary Pile Selection .............................................................. 30Apr2019

USE OF STEEL PILES IN CORROSIVE ENVIRONMENT

23.05-1 General Information ....................................................................... 30Apr2021

23.05-2 General Information ....................................................................... 30Apr2021
23.05-3 General Information ....................................................................... 30Apr2021
23.05-4 General Information ....................................................................... 30Apr2021

PART 2
PILES DATE: 30Apr2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS – CHAPTER 23 SHEET 2 of 2
FILE NO. [Link]-2
 INTRODUCTION

It is the intent of this chapter to establish the guidelines and specific requirements of the Structure
and Bridge Division for the design and analysis of laterally unsupported piles, specifically relating
to the use of steel H-piles and prestressed concrete piles subjected to scour and biaxial bending.
It provides design procedures and examples for determining the point of fixity, effective length
factor, ‘K’, and the structural capacity of these piles.

This chapter also provides a bridge specific example for determining the point of fixity for a
laterally loaded pile for use in Elastic Frame Analysis using commercially available software for
non-linear analysis of piles, L-Pile.

Point of fixities for both the existing or final profile and the scoured condition may need to be
determined. Shorter distances to points of fixities based on existing or final profile (non-scoured)
can control design in exterior spans of large units and affect bridge behavior. Example
calculations in this chapter show for scoured conditions, but non-scoured is similar.

References to the AASHTO LRFD specifications in this chapter refer to the AASHTO LRFD
th
Bridge Design Specifications, 7 Edition, 2014, and VDOT Modifications (current IIM-S&B-80).

The practices and requirements set forth herein are intended to supplement or clarify the
requirements of the AASHTO LRFD specifications, and to provide additional information to assist
the designer. In the event of conflicts(s) between the practices and requirements set forth herein
and those contained in the AASHTO LRFD specifications, the more stringent requirements shall
govern.

Standards for prestressed concrete piles are located in the Manual of the Structure and Bridge
Division, Part 3.

 Standard BPP-1 (Carbon Steel Strands)

 Standard BPP-2 (Stainless Steel Strands)
 Standard BPP-3 (Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer [CFRP] Strands)

It is expected that the users of this chapter will adhere to the guidelines and requirements stated
herein.

Major changes and/or additions to the past office practice (Part 2 of this manual) are as follows:

1. Added new section on axial resistance of HP piles end bearing on rock.

2. Added new section on use of steel piles in corrosive environment.

NOTE:

Due to various restrictions on placing files in this manual onto the Internet, portions of the
drawings shown do not necessarily reflect the correct line weights, line types, fonts, arrowheads,
etc. Wherever discrepancies occur, the written text shall take precedence over any of the drawn
views.

PART 2
PILES DATE: 30Apr2019
INTRODUCTION SHEET 1 of 1
FILE NO. 23.00
GENERAL INFORMATION
When competent bearing soil is not present near the base of the proposed foundation, structure
loads must be transferred to a deeper stratum by using deep foundations. Deep foundations can
be composed of piles, drilled shafts or micropiles.

The primary functions of a deep foundation are:

 To transmit the load of the structure through a stratum of inadequate capacity to one of
adequate bearing capacity
 To mitigate settlement
 To transfer loads from a structure through erodible soil in a scour zone to stable
underlying strata
 To resist lateral loads from earth pressure as well as external forces

PILE FOUNDATIONS:

Driven piles are the most common type of deep foundation used by VDOT.

Pile types most frequently used in Virginia are as follows:

Steel H-Piles

H-piles are used to transfer structure loads to an adequate point bearing stratum, usually
weathered rock or rock. These are considered non-displacement piles. H-piles offer high
capacity, small displacement, ability to penetrate obstructions and hard layers, simple splicing
and the availability of various sizes and lengths. Steel H-piles are better suited to penetrate
weathered rock or obstructions (boulders, buried rubble, etc.) than prestressed piles. Use
HP10x42 unless a larger pile is needed for design. Grade 50 shall be used and indicated in the
General Notes.

Prestressed Concrete Piles

Prestressed concrete piles (see BPP standards in Part 3 of this manual) are typically used as
friction piles where an adequate point bearing stratum is not achievable due to excessive depth,
primarily in the coastal plain. The advantages are high capacities and corrosion resistance,
especially when stainless steel strands or carbon fiber reinforced polymer strands are used (see
Section 12.08 of Chapter 12 in this manual). The disadvantages of prestressed concrete piles
include their vulnerability to handling damage, driving damage if stresses are not controlled and
difficulty in splicing. Prestressed concrete piles are generally square and non-tapered. Hollow
cylinder piles are sometimes used in marine applications with high axial or lateral loads. Cylinder
piles shall not be used unless approved by the District Structure and Bridge Engineer.

Minimum depths of footings and caps shall be based on the Pile Head Connection Detail from the
applicable BPP standard sheet.

Steel Pipe Piles

Pipe piles, when driven open ended, provide similar advantages to H-piles. Pipe piles also offer
improved control during installation, can be cleaned out and driven further and provide high
bending resistance. When driven closed ended, they can be installed as friction piles. Pipe piles
shall not be used unless approved by the District Structure and Bridge Engineer.

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Oct2020
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS SHEET 1 of 15
GENERAL INFORMATION FILE NO. 23.01-1
GENERAL INFORMATION (cont’d)
Timber Piles

Timber piles are not used to support vehicular structures. Timber piles can be used in fender
systems, pedestrian or shared use path bridges, culverts and as temporary piling when approved
by the District Structure and Bridge Engineer. The disadvantages of timber piles include lower
capacities when compared to other types of piles, vulnerability to damage during driving and
difficulty in splicing and subject to decay and marine borers in some cases. The advantages
include comparatively low initial cost, easy to handle and resistance to decay when permanently
submerged.

AASHTO LRFD Specifications require all pile designs to address the following:

 Nominal axial resistance, pile type, and size of pile group, pile group interaction
 Pile penetration required to meet nominal axial resistance and other design requirements
 Minimum pile penetration (tip elevation) necessary to satisfy the requirements caused by
uplift, scour, downdrag, settlement, lateral loads, shear strength loss, and seismic
conditions
 Foundation deflection should meet the established movement and associated structure
performance criteria
 Nominal and factored structural resistances
 Verification of pile drivability to confirm to acceptable driving stresses and blow counts
can be achieved
 Long-term durability of the pile in service (i.e., corrosion and deterioration)
 All limit state loading conditions and combinations applicable to the structure being
designed.

Pile Foundation Limit States

Performance Limit Strength Service Extreme Event
Axial Compressive Load  
Axial Uplift Load  
Structural Capacity  
Lateral Displacements  
Settlement  

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Apr2020
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS SHEET 2 of 15
GENERAL INFORMATION FILE NO. 23.01-2
DRIVEN PILE DESIGN PROCESS
The driven pile design process involves both the analysis of the pile’s structural capacity and the
geotechnical resistance provided by the soil or rock. The nominal bearing resistance of a pile can
be determined in various ways. In the design phase, a static analysis is performed using
subsurface information obtained from the site. In the construction phase, a load test may be
performed or dynamic data such as penetration resistance with wave equation analysis or
dynamic measurements can be obtained. The static analysis has the primary function of
providing an estimate of the pile length for contractor bidding purposes. Pile driveability is a
critical aspect of the design process and must be evaluated during the design phase.

The following steps are a guide to the driven pile design process:
1. Determine general performance requirements for the structure including, but not limited
to, settlement, angular distortion, lateral deflection, shear strength loss, scour, etc.
2. Determine structure geometry, substructure locations and elevations.
3. Define general site geotechnical conditions (e.g. office study via geologic maps and any
historic borings), scour and seismicity.
4. Perform preliminary structure modeling. Determine preliminary substructure loads and
tolerable movements.
5. Develop and execute subsurface exploration and testing program for feasible foundation
systems.
6. Evaluate information and determine candidate foundation systems.
7. Determine if a deep foundation is required.
8. Select several candidate driven pile types and sections for further evaluation.
9. Calculate nominal and factored structural resistance.
10. Calculate the nominal and factored geotechnical resistance, as well as perform a
preliminary drivability assessment of candidate pile types.
11. Estimate the preliminary number of piles, group size and resolve individual pile loads at
all limit states.
12. Estimate pile penetration depth for axial compression loads and check group efficiency in
axial compression.
13. Establish minimum pile penetration depth for axial tension loads.
14. Establish minimum penetration depth for lateral loads.
15. Establish pile penetration depths that satisfy tolerable deformations based on group
settlement computations.
16. Evaluate pile drivability.
17. Determine location of neutral plane and magnitude of downdrag forces.
18. Does the computed total settlement, differential settlement and angular distortion satisfy
design requirements?
19. Evaluate economics of candidate pile types and/or sections.
20. Complete the preliminary design for all substructure locations.
21. Refine structure modeling and loads as required.
22. Did the loads significantly change requiring reevaluation of the foundation design?
23. Re-evaluate foundation stiffness and loads.
24. Does the design meet all limit state requirements?
25. Design pile caps and abutments.
26. Prepare plans and specifications, set nominal resistance field verification procedure.
27. Review plans and specifications for conformance with design.

An expanded discussion of each of the above steps is presented in the FHWA publication Design
and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations - Volume I and II (Hannigan, et al. (2016)).

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Apr2020
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS SHEET 3 of 15
DRIVEN PILE DESIGN PROCESS FILE NO. 23.01-3
PILE RESISTANCE
Bearing Resistance

A pile foundation transfers load into the underlying strata by either skin resistance, point
resistance or a combination of both. Any driven pile will develop some amounts of both skin and
point resistance. However, a pile that receives the majority of its support capacity by friction or
adhesion from the soil along its shaft is referred to as a friction pile, whereas a pile that receives
the majority of its support from the resistance of the soil or rock near its tip is referred to as an
end bearing pile. The design pile capacity is the maximum load the pile can support without
exceeding the allowable movement criteria. When designing a pile foundation, one of two items
may govern the design – the nominal geotechnical resistance or the structural resistance of the
pile section. This section focuses primarily on the geotechnical resistance capacity of a pile.

The factored load that is applied to a single pile is carried jointly by the soil or rock beneath the tip
of the pile and by the soil around the shaft. The total factored load is not permitted to exceed the
factored resistance of the pile foundation for each limit state. There are numerous static analysis
methods available for calculating the geotechnical resistance of a single pile. The axial
compressive resistance for driven piles shall follow the procedures provided in the AASHTO
LRFD Specifications. The methods found in the AASHTO LRFD Specifications are used to satisfy
the strength, service, and extreme event limit states.

The factored bearing resistance (RR), of a pile is computed as follows:

RR = ΦRn = Φstat Rp +Φstat Rs

in which:
Rp = qp Ap
Rs = qs As

Where:
Φstat = resistance factor the bearing resistance
Rn = nominal bearing resistance
Rp = pile tip resistance (kips) Load
Rs = pile side resistance (kips)
qp = unit tip resistance of pile (ksf)
qs = unit side resistance of pile (ksf)
As = surface area of pile sides (ft2)
Ap = area of pile tip (ft2)

Rs

Rp

Pile Resistance

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Apr2020
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS SHEET 4 of 15
PILE RESISTANCE FILE NO. 23.01-4
PILE RESISTANCE (cont’d)
Resistance Distribution for Axially Loaded Piles

The nominal resistance of driven piles at the strength limit state shall include the effects of scour
(design flood). The nominal resistance shall be developed beneath the scour elevation or depth;
however, the resistance developed in the scourable soils shall be determined and added to the
normal resistance to obtain the required nominal pile driving resistance (R ndr) for use during pile
installation.

The axial compressive design methodologies are based on either stress methods (total or
effective) or soil types (cohesionless or cohesive). As indicated in the above equations, the total
axial compressive resistance of a deep foundation is based on the combination of unit side
resistance and unit tip resistance values. Another factor that affects the axial compressive
resistance of driven piles is the type of pile being installed (i.e., non-displacement vs
displacement).

For driven piles that will develop skin resistance in a layered subsurface profile consisting of both
cohesionless and cohesive soils, the appropriate method will be used for each soil type and the
nominal resistance determined by adding the results of the various layers together. For a soil
layer that is comprised of mixed cohesionless and cohesive components (i.e. clayey sand, sandy
silt, etc.), the axial resistance for the layer should be evaluated by both cohesive and
cohesionless methods with the actual resistance of the layer being the more conservative
resistance.

There are numerous computer software packages available for determining the axial compressive
resistance of driven pile foundations. The preferred software package is the current version of
APILE developed by ENSOFT, Inc. APILE uses the Nordlund method for determining axial
resistance for cohesionless soils (tip and side resistance), while for cohesive soils the  method
is used for determining the tip and side resistance. In APILE these methods are collectively called
the “FHWA Method”.

The method of installation significantly affects the degree of soil disturbance, the lateral stress
acting on the pile, the friction angle, and the area of contact. Shafts of prebored piles do not
always remain in full contact with the soil; therefore, the effective contact area is less than the
shaft surface area. Driving a pile in granular material densifies the soil and increases the friction
angle. Driving also displaces the soil laterally and increases the horizontal stress acting on the
pile. Disturbance of clay soil from driving can break down soil structure and increase pore
pressures, which greatly decreases the soil strength. However, some or all of the strength
recovers following reconsolidation of the soil due to a decrease in excess pore pressure over
time. Nonetheless, designers should use the initial soil strength values for design purposes.
Furthermore, designers should note the type and shape of a pile also affect the amount of skin
resistance developed.

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Apr2020
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS SHEET 5 of 15
PILE RESISTANCE FILE NO. 23.01-5
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
Setup

Setup, sometimes called “pile freeze”, is an increase in the nominal axial resistance that develops
over time predominantly along the pile shaft. Pore pressures increase during pile driving due to a
reduction in the soil volume, reducing the effective stress and shear strength. Setup may occur
rapidly in cohesionless soils and more slowly in finer grained cohesive soils as excess pore water
pressure dissipates. Setup can be used to carry applied load, providing the opportunity for using
larger pile nominal resistances. Signal matching analysis of dynamic pile measurements made at
the end of driving and later during restrike can be an effective tool in evaluating and quantifying
setup.

In Virginia, most piling driven east of the fall line (approximately east of Interstate I-95) in the
coastal plain will develop most of their capacity in friction. Dynamic testing on past driving
operations have shown significant pile setup after being driven. Increases of over 100% have
routinely been seen. Estimates of the setup from local experience can be used to set pile lengths
to be used in the test pile driving program for a project. However, the actual magnitude of setup
should be determined based on site specific data gathered from pile restrike testing with dynamic
monitoring performed on the driving test piles.

Pile Driveability and Field Verification

Pile driveability refers to the ability to be driven to a desired penetration depth and / or resistance.
Pile driveability checks shall be performed as part of both the design and construction process.

There are two methods for predicting and / or checking pile drivability:

 Wave Equation Analysis

 Dynamic Testing and Analysis

Unique geotechnical resistance factors for each method are provided in the AASHTO LRFD
Specifications for analysis and level of resistance determination. All tests shall be performed in
accordance with the VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications.

Driveability is treated as a strength limit state. The analysis is used to document that available
pile driving hammers are capable of driving the pile to the required nominal resistance without
exceeding the factored structural resistance available.

Stresses developed during driving often exceed those of the most critical loading condition. Wave
equation analysis shall be used to evaluate the driveability and shall consider soil disturbance
during installation and time dependent strength changes.

During construction, additional wave equation analysis should be performed on the actual driving
system and pile cushions used. The model developed should be used to check for adequate
hammer energy, establish fuel settings, check compressive and tension stresses, and to see if
the penetration rate falls within an acceptable range.

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Apr2020
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS SHEET 6 of 15
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS FILE NO. 23.01-6
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS (cont’d):
Dynamic Testing and Analysis consists of measuring strain and acceleration near the top of the
pile during driving, or restrike using a Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA). The PDA is used to calculate
information such as pile driving stresses, energy transfer, pile integrity, damping and quake
values, and the nominal pile resistance. Additional analysis of the data collected in the field can
be performed using signal matching. Unlike Static Load Testing which requires the cessation of
pile driving, PDA testing is performed during initial pile installation as well as at some point later in
time (i.e. during restrikes) to determine pile setup.

During initial pile installation PDA testing only requires time to install the monitoring equipment.
Restrikes will require some additional time to perform (they can be performed at any point after
initial pile installation but prior to any subsequent pile cap construction), but are anticipated to
require less than a day for testing. PDA testing further allows for the resistance of the pile to be
determined relatively quickly and allows for a determination of stresses induced on the pile by the
driving equipment.

Static Load Test is the most accurate method to determine nominal resistance of a pile (if carried
to failure). While this method accurately determines the achieved nominal resistance and the
penetration required to achieve that resistance, it does not determine damage to the pile
sustained during installation. If static load testing is recommended for a project with driven piles,
then dynamic testing and wave equation analysis will also be required. Static load testing can add
considerable cost and add several weeks to a construction project. Optimally, static load test
should be performed as part of the design phase of a project when the test results can be more
readily incorporated in the design.

VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications also list the FHWA Gates Formula as a method for
predicting the nominal bearing resistance of a driven pile. The advantage of dynamic formulas is
that little engineering judgement is needed to perform the calculations and the immediate
availability of the predicted resistance results in minimal delay to the pile driving operation.
However, dynamic formulas have several disadvantages: they do not consider the entire driving
system, variation in hammer performance, nor energy losses due to pile stiffness; they do not
provide the stresses in the pile. Therefore, the inherent disadvantages for dynamic formulas are
the formula accuracy and reliability. This results in the resistance factor (dyn) for the formula
being only 0.4. This low resistance factor results in significantly longer pile lengths.

The use of a dynamic formula may be justified under the following conditions:

 Small projects with a limited number of piles where the cost of the extra pile length
resulting from its use may be more economical than the cost of the testing and impact on
the construction schedule
 When piles are driven to a hard bearing layer where little additional pile length may be
necessary to achieve the higher nominal resistance required by the dynamic formula
 When more reliable resistance verification methods may not be economically justified

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Apr2020
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS SHEET 7 of 15
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS FILE NO. 23.01-7
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS (cont’d):
Geotechnical Design Data Table

When pile foundations or pile bents are used, the following table must be provided either on
abutment and pier sheets or on the sheet with the Substructure Layout.

PILE DATA TABLE

Nominal Axial Factored
Resistance Axial Estimated Minimum
Substructure Measured Resistance Tip Tip
Unit During Driving Elevation Elevation
(Tons /Pile ) (Tons/Pile )

The (_ _ _) limit state controls the pile design.

The resistance factor used to define the relationship between the nominal axial resistance and
the factored axial resistance is dependent on the method indicated in the General Notes used to
measure the nominal axial resistance during driving.

Where estimated tip elevations vary from one side of a substructure to the other (e.g. due to a
sloping rock) provide the range in the table.

Estimated tip elevations shall reflect the elevation where the required nominal axial resistance is
anticipated to be achieved and shall be shown in the table and on the geology sheets. A minimum
pile penetration should only be specified if necessary to ensure that all of the specified limit states
are met.

Minimum tip elevations must ensure the pile is of adequate length to resist the following
conditions:

 Single and group settlement (service limit state)

 Lateral deflection (service limit state)
 Uplift (strength limit state)
 Penetration into bearing soils needed to get below soil causing downdrag
 Penetration into bearing soils needed to get below soil subject to scour
 Penetration into bearing soils necessary to obtain fixity for resisting the applied lateral
loads to the foundation (strength limit state)

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Oct2020
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS SHEET 8 of 15
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS FILE NO. 23.01-8
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS (cont’d):
Pile Penetration

In general, the minimum design penetration for any pile shall be 10 feet and the estimated length
of all piling in the same footing should be the same length unless subsurface conditions dictate
otherwise. When non-uniform pile lengths are anticipated, the estimated length of each pile
should be shown on the plans. Piles driven through fill should penetrate at least 5 feet into the
original ground unless refusal or competent bearing strata occur at a lesser penetration. Pile
lengths shall be in whole foot increments.

Socketed Pile

If 10 feet of penetration is not feasible there is a possibility sufficient resistance of the pile to
lateral loads and uplift may not be achieved. Lateral capacity shall be analyzed and when the
required resistance cannot be developed, the pile should be placed in a bored hole and concreted
in place as shown below.

SECTION A - A

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Apr2020
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS SHEET 9 of 15
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS FILE NO. 23.01-9
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS (cont’d):

PILE DATA TABLE

Class T3
Rock Rock or A3 SSC Factored Minimum Rock
Socket Socket Concrete Fill Axial Tip Pile Socket
Substructure
Bearing Length Maximum Resistance Elevation Size Diameter
Unit
Material (Feet) Elevation (Tons/Pile) (Feet) (G) (Feet)
(A)
(B) (C) (Feet) (E) (F) (H)
(D)

Driving Test Piles

Driving test piles are used to determine pile installation characteristics, evaluate pile capacity with
depth and to establish production pile order lengths.

A site variability investigation should be performed for each substructure unit. Sites with very little
variation or well defined rock elevations may not require driving test piles. H-Piles that can be
easily spliced and driven to practical refusal usually do not require test pile driving. For sites
where severe driving conditions may occur the first production pile should be dynamically tested
to ensure maximum allowable pile stress is not exceeded.

For sites where friction piles are to be used, a driving test program is required. The number of
driving tests should be the greatest number of the following criteria:

 At least two per bridge

 One for every fifty (50) piles

Driving test quantity is not included in the production pile quantity. Diving test piles shall be 10
feet longer than estimated pile lengths of the production piles. See Chapter 3 for list of bid items
(and units of measurement) to include in the plans. Test pile location(s) shall be designated on
the plans.

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Oct2020
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS SHEET 10 of 15
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS FILE NO. 23.01-10
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS (cont’d):
Settlement

Settlements are determined for the service and extreme event limit states. Typically, settlement is
limited to the amount required to develop side resistance, which in turn limits the amount of
movement at the pile tip thus reducing the amount of load carried by the tip. In addition, the
elastic shorting of the pile due to load should be included in the overall settlement. The inclusion
of elastic shortening is required, since this movement will affect the performance of the structure.

The settlement of a pile group is likely to be many times greater than that of any individual pile.
This is due to the greater zone of soil undergoing increased vertical stress beneath the pile group.
Sequence of construction can be important when evaluating total settlement and angular
distortion. The effect of embankment settlements, as well as settlement due to structural loads
should be considered when the magnitude of total settlement is estimated.

Tolerable Vertical Deformations and Angular Distortions

Tolerable deformations are limited by the structure type and function, design service life, and
anticipated performance at respective displacement levels. Vertical, horizontal, and rotational
displacements should be considered during design. Total settlement shall be limited to 2 inches
at each substructure unit. Post construction settlement shall be limited to 1 inch at each
substructure unit.

Total settlement, STOT, is defined as:

STOT = Elastic settlement + Consolidation settlement + Secondary settlement

Angular distortions in the longitudinal direction should be limited to 0.004 radians for multi-span
bridges and 0.005 radians for single span bridges. Angular distortions in the transverse direction
should be limited to 0.001 radians.

When calculated total settlement and calculated differential settlement (the difference in
settlement between adjacent substructure units) are equal to or less than ½”, no addition analysis
is required.

Methods to evaluate tolerable vertical deformations and angular distortions are presented in the
FHWA publication Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations - Volume I (Hannigan, et
al. (2016)).

Downdrag

When a pile penetrates a soft layer subject to settlement, the designer must evaluate the force
effects of downdrag (negative skin resistance) on the foundation. Downdrag acts as an additional
permanent axial load on the pile. Only a small amount of settlement (approximately 0.4”) is
necessary to mobilize these additional pile (downdrag) loads. Small magnitude downdrag loads
may cause additional foundation settlement. If the downdrag load is of sufficient magnitude,
structural failure of the pile or bearing failure at the tip is possible. When this condition is present,
the design may require: additional time to allow the consolidation to occur before pile driving;
ground improvements to mitigate the effects; or specifying a nominal pile driving resistance
required to withstand the downdrag plus structure loads.

The design approach specified in the AASHTO LRFD Specifications treats downdrag force as an
additional load to be resisted in the geotechnical strength limit state analysis. However, downdrag
force does not affect geotechnical resistance.

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Apr2020
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS SHEET 11 of 15
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS FILE NO. 23.01-11
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS (cont’d):
The recommended approach to evaluate downdrag is based on the Neutral Plane Method
developed by Fellenius (1989), and modified by Siegel et al. (2013). This method should be used
in evaluating the structural strength and geotechnical service limit states respectively. The basic
concept of this method is that above the neutral plane, the soil moves relative to the pile and
downdrag develops in this zone. Conversely, below the neutral plane the pile moves relative to
the soil and positive skin resistance develops in this zone.

Additional information on evaluating downdrag and methods to reduce its effect are presented in
the FHWA publication Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations - Volume I (Hannigan,
et al. (2016)).

Lateral Loads

Battered piles are used to resist lateral loads. Vertical piles can be designed to withstand
significant lateral loads, and a foundation consisting of only vertical piles designed to resist both
axial and lateral loads is more flexible, and thus more effective at resisting dynamic loads. The
design of laterally loaded piles must evaluate the pile structural response and the soil deformation
to lateral loads. The nominal structural resistance must be determined and the pile deformation
under service loading conditions must be calculated and compared to foundation performance
criteria. The soil resistance along the pile should be modeled using P-y curves developed for the
soils at the site. Computer programs are available for analyzing single piles and pile groups.
Program output provides distributions of depth versus deflection, moment, shear, soil and pile
moduli and soil resistance for the entire length of pile, including moments and shears in
aboveground sections. Lateral deformations of the abutment shall be limited to 1.5 inches .

Scour

Scour is a hydraulic erosion process caused by flowing water that lowers the grade of a water
channel or riverbed. The design of pile foundations shall consider the effects of scour (based on
the design flood) on the resistance and length requirements of the foundation as part of the
strength and service limit state design.

The bridge designer is responsible for requesting a Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis (H&HA)
report from the Location and Design Hydraulics Section. The bridge designer will also need to
provide borings to the river mechanic for a scour analysis.

Upon receipt of the completed H&HA report the Bridge Designer should forward it to the
individual responsible for preparing the Major Structures Report (MSR). The MSR should include
recommendations on the nominal pile resistance, estimated pile tip elevations and the locations
of driving test piles. Total and differential settlements under service loads should be evaluated.
Recommendations on the type of field verification method for pile driving should also be included
in the MSR so that appropriate resistance factors can be established.

The nominal resistance of the piles shall be determined for the soils beneath the scourable soils.
Since the material in the scour zone may be present when the piles are driven, resistance in that
zone shall be included when determining the required driving resistance. Minimum tip elevation
shall be included as necessary. Pile driveability shall be investigated. Pile foundations shall also
be checked to ascertain that the soils beneath the design flood scour depth have sufficient
resistance to the extreme event II loads.

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Apr2020
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS SHEET 12 of 15
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS FILE NO. 23.01-12
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS (cont’d):
If rock is encountered in the estimated scour zone it may be necessary to form an interdisciplinary
team to conduct further study to determine if the rock is scourable. When foundation design is
finalized, the designer must complete the S&B SCOUR EVALUATION FORM and keep it with the
project document records, as well as submit a copy to the Assistant District Bridge Engineer for
Safety Inspection.

For design-build projects the scour limits should be established and included in the request for
proposals (RFPs).

Uplift

Unbalanced loads, both permanent and intermittent, acting on a pile system may induce uplift.
Such forces may occur from hydrostatic uplift, cofferdam seals, frost uplift and wind uplift.
Foundations shall be designed so that piles will not be required to resist uplift forces unless
approved by the District Structure and Bridge Engineer. The prestressed concrete piles in the
BPP standards in Part 3 shall not be used for uplift resistance.

When uplift of H-piles is allowed by the District Structure and Bridge Engineer, the uplift anchors
shown in the following figure shall be used.

When checking uplift at the strength limit states, the designer shall use a nominal resistance of
87.5 kips for each #8 V-bar with a resistance factor of 0.25 (i.e. two #8 V-bars has a total nominal
resistance of 175 kips). At the extreme event limit states, the designer shall use a resistance
factor of 0.40. The minimum pile embedment shall be 12”. But the pullout resistance of the pile
embedment shall not be taken into account.

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Apr2020
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS SHEET 13 of 15
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS FILE NO. 23.01-13
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS (cont’d):

Battered Piles

Vertical piles are preferred. Battered piles are used when there is insufficient lateral soil
resistance. If battered piles are used, a refined analysis is required. Both the lateral passive
resistance of the soil above the footing as well as the sliding resistance at the base of the footings
shall be neglected in the design. Assumed hammer efficiencies must be reduced to estimate
drivability when battered piles are used.

Piles requiring excessive batters become difficult to drive and axial resistance becomes difficult to
predict. The maximum batter shall be 1 horizontal to 3 vertical (1H:3V). Ensure that battered piles
do not intersect other piling, utilities, or structures. Battered piles shall not be used where
negative skin friction (downdrag) loads are anticipated.

Pile Points/Shoes

Heavier foundation loads, driving into sloping rock surfaces or soils with obstructions all have the
potential to cause pile damage while driving. If left unprotected under these conditions, the pile
toe may deform and separation of the H-Pile flanges and web may occur. Manufactured pile
points / shoes are available in various shapes and styles. Pile tip reinforcement (consisting of
steel plates welded to the flanges and web) is not permitted.

Open-end pipe piles are vulnerable to damage when driven through or into dense materials or
materials containing obstructions. Pile toe attachments reduce the possibilities of toe damage and
limit pile deflection. Closed-end pipe piles are most frequently installed with a flat plate welded to
the pile toe.

The specific types of pile points / shoes should be specified for the given subsurface conditions.
Pile points / shoes shall be used if driven to refusal.

Additional information on pile points / shoes is presented in the FHWA publication Design and
Construction of Driven Pile Foundations - Volume I and II (Hannigan, et al. (2016)) and the VDOT
Road and Bridge Specifications.

Spacing, Edge Distance, Driving Tolerance, Embedment into Caps/Footings

See AASHTO LRFD Specifications, Article 10.7, with VDOT Modifications, current IIM-S&B-80.

Pile embedment in footings of full integral abutments shall be 1’-6” minimum.

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Oct2020
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS SHEET 14 of 15
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS FILE NO. 23.01-14
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS (cont’d):
Vibrations

Vibration damage can be a concern during construction, especially during pile driving operations.
The selection of the pile type and hammer must consider the proximity of surrounding structures
that may be damaged due to high vibration levels. Pile driving operations can cause ground
displacement, soil densification, and other factors that can damage nearby buildings, structures,
utilities, and can be a nuisance to humans.

Whenever pile driving operations pose the potential for damage (usually pile driving located within
approximately 100 feet) a vibration monitoring program should be implemented.

This program consists of requiring and reviewing a pile driving plan submittal, conducting pre-
driving and post-driving condition surveys and conducting vibration-monitoring with an approved
seismograph during pile driving operations. The tables below provide allowable thresholds for
peak particle velocity measurements during pile driving operations.

Maximum Allowable Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) vs. Human Perception

Human Response Maximum PPV
(inch/second)
Barely Perceptible 0.01
Distinctly Perceptible 0.04
Strongly Perceptible 0.10
Severe 0.40

Maximum Allowable Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) for Structures

Maximum PPV
Structure Type and Condition
(inch/second)
Extremely fragile historic building, ruins, ancient monuments 0.08
Fragile buildings (i.e. sensitive structures and hospitals) 0.10
Historic and old buildings 0.25
Older residential structures (i.e. built with plaster and lathe) 0.30
New residential structures (i.e. built with sheetrock) 0.50
Modern industrial/commercial buildings (i.e. engineered) 0.50

PILES PART 2
DATE: 31Oct2018
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS SHEET 15 of 15
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS FILE NO. 23.01-15
 GENERAL INFORMATION:
For the 100 year storm, the factored capacity is checked using the AASHTO Strength and
Service Load Combinations and Load Factors. For the 500 year storm, the factored capacity is
checked using the AASHTO Extreme Event Load Combinations and Load Factors. AASHTO
Load Combinations and Load Factors shall be in accordance with Table 3.4.1-1.
This guide does not indicate how to determine the axial loads and moments to be used in the
formulas for analysis of piles. Because the piles are not laterally restrained, sideway is not
prevented; therefore, it is recommended that the designer utilize appropriate structural modeling
software, such as RCPier, to determine the applied axial loads and moments.

DEFINITIONS:

b = Pile width in direction of bending (ft)

D = Pile embedment length into ground (ft)
D = Depth of assumed point of fixity (ft)

N = Standard Penetration Test (STP) Blow count ( )

c = Cohesive strength = 0.125 ∙ N (ksf)

S = undrained shear strength of clays = c (ksf)

n = rate of increase of soil modulus with depth for sands as specified in Table C10.4.6.3 − 2 ( )

E = Modulus of elasticity of concrete (AASHTO C5.4.2.4)

= 586,029 (ksf) for f c = 5,000 psi
= 641,962 (ksf) for f c = 6,000 psi
E = Modulus of elasticity of pile (ksf)
E = soil modulus for clays = 0.465 ∙ S (ksi) (AASHTO C10.[Link])
A = Gross area of pile (in )
I = Moment of Interia of pile (ft )
S = Elastic section modulus of pile (in )
Z = Plastic section modulus of pile (in )
r = radius of gyration of pile (in)
L = Unsupported length of pile (ft)

δ = deflection of pile in coarse grain soils; if δ ∙ D < 4, then pinned end; otherwise fixed end ( )

β = deflection of pile in cohesive soils; if β ∙ D < 2.25, then pinned ends; otherwise fixed end ( )

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Jan2018
DESIGN GUIDE FOR LATERALLY UNSUPPORTED PILES SHEET 1 of 14
GENERAL INFORMATION AND DEFINITIONS FILE NO. 23.02-1
 DESIGN CRITERIA:
POINT OF FIXITY FOR FREE STANDING PILE DESIGN CRITERIA:
Point of fixity for both the existing or final profile and the scoured condition may need to be
determined.

D must be ≥ 3D for
fixity to be assumed

EFFECTIVE LENGTH FACTOR – K:

Top

Bottom

Top: R_free & T_free R_fixed & T_free R_free & T_fixed

Bottom: R_fixed & T_fixed R_fixed & T_fixed R_fixed & T_fixed

K = 2.1 K = 1.2 K = 0.8

Pier bent on single row Pier bent on piles with Integral abutment on
of piles with load applied load applied in piles with load applied in
in longitudinal direction transverse direction longitudinal direction

End Conditions: R = Rotation; T = Translation

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Jan2018
DESIGN GUIDE FOR LATERALLY UNSUPPORTED PILES SHEET 2 of 14
DESIGN CRITERIA FILE NO. 23.02-2
 DESIGN CRITERIA (Cont’d):
Table 1 – Rate of Increase of Soil Modulus with Depth, 𝑛 (ksi/ft)
for Sand (AASHTO Table C10.4.6.3-2)
Consistency Dry or Moist Submerged
Loose 0.417 0.208
Medium 1.11 0.556
Dense 2.78 1.39

Table 2 – Relationship between unconfined compressive strength, standard penetration

resistance, and unit weight for cohesive soils (Teng, 1962)

SHEAR STRENGTH OF COHESIVE SOILS

Very Very
Consistency Soft Medium Stiff Hard
Soft Stiff

qu = Unconfined compressive 0 500 1000 2000 4000 8000

strength, lb/ft2

Standard penetration
resistance 0 2 4 8 16 32
N = No. of blows per ft.

Unit weight, pcf (saturated) 100 - 120 110 - 130 120 - 140 130+

Cohesive (c) = ½ unconfined compression strength (𝑞 )

Table 3 – Relationship between relative density, standard penetration resistance, angle of

internal friction and unit weight for cohesive soils (Teng, 1962)

RELATIVE DENSITY OF GRANULAR SOILS

Very Very
Compactness Loose Medium Dense
Loose Dense

Relative density 𝐷 0 15% 35% 65% 85% 100%

Standard penetration resistance,
N = No. of blows per foot 0 4 10 30 50

Angle of internal friction

∅ (degrees) * 28 30 36 41

Unit weight, pcf

Moist <100 95-125 110-130 110-140 >130
Submerged <60 55-65 60-70 65-85 >75

*Highly dependent on gradation

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Jan2018
DESIGN GUIDE FOR LATERALLY UNSUPPORTED PILES SHEET 3 of 14
DESIGN CRITERIA FILE NO. 23.02-3
 POINT OF FIXITY FOR FREE STANDING PILE
– COARSE GRAIN SOIL EXAMPLE:
Coarse grain soil, medium relative density (N = 27 blows/ft), above ground water.

HP12x53 subject to biaxial bending.

Pile Length 𝑙 = 60 ft Scour Depth = 10 ft D = 50 ft

I = 393 in I = 127 in E = 29,000 ksi

r = 5.03 in r = 2.86 in

Based on N = 27, a medium-dense soil is assumed. Use Tables 1 and 3 on File No. 23.02-3 to
determine the value of nh by performing linear interpolation between a medium soil (N = 20, n h =
1.11), and a dense soil (N = 50, nh = 2.78); n = 1.5 ksi/ft

29,000(393) 29,000(127)
E I = = 79,146 kip ∙ ft E I = = 25,576 kip ∙ ft
144 144

E I 79,146
D = 1.8 = 1.8 = 5.86 ft (AASHTO C10.[Link]-2)
n in
1.5 x 144
ft

E I 25,576
D = 1.8 = 1.8 = 4.68 ft (AASHTO C10.[Link]-2)
n in
1.5 x 144
ft
n 1
δ = = 0.307 δ ∙ D = 15.35 > 4 ∴ fixed end
E I ft

n 1
δ = = 0.385 δ ∙ D = 19.24 > 4 ∴ fixed end
E I ft

D 50
D
=
5.86
= 8.53 > 3 ∴ fixed end

D 50
D
=
4.68
= 10.69 > 3 ∴ fixed end

𝑙 = Scour Depth + D = 10 ft + 5.86 ft = 15.86 ft

𝑙 = Scour Depth + D = 10 ft + 4.68 ft = 14.68 ft

Single row of piles with fixed ends in x-direction: Where: 𝑙 = Unsupported

in length of pile
K 𝑙 2.1(15.86 x 12 )
K = 2.1 = ft = 79.47 K = Effective length
r 5.03
factor
Single row of piles with fixed ends in y-direction:
R = Radius of gyration
in
K 𝑙 1.2(14.68 x 12 )
K = 1.2 = ft = 73.9
r 2.86

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Jan2018
DESIGN GUIDE FOR LATERALLY UNSUPPORTED PILES SHEET 4 of 14
COARSE GRAIN SOIL EXAMPLE FILE NO. 23.02-4
 POINT OF FIXITY FOR FREE STANDING PILE
– COHESIVE SOIL EXAMPLE:

Cohesive soil, blow count N = 12 blows/ft

Pile Length: 𝑙 = 60 ft Scour Depth = 10 ft D = 50 ft

HP12x53 subject to biaxial bending.

I = 393 in I = 127 in b = 12.045 in E = 29,000 ksi

r = 5.03 in r = 2.86 in b = 11.78 in

c = 0.125N ksf = 1.5 ksf

S = c = 1.5 ksf
E = 0.465 ∙ S = 0.698 ksi

Note: Soil modulus is reduced for pile spacing < 8 times the pile width, see Article C10.[Link].
(For this example, since a specific pile spacing is not provided, no reduction is assumed.)

E I 29000(393) 1
D = 1.4 = 1.4 x = 7.42 ft (AASHTO C10.[Link]-1)
E 0.698 in
12
ft

E I 29000(127) 1
D = 1.4 = 1.4 x = 5.59 ft (AASHTO C10.[Link]-1)
E 0.698 in
12
ft
E in 1
β =
E I
x 12 = 0.189
ft ft
β ∙ D = 9.44 > 2.25 ∴ fixed end

E in 1
β =
E I
x 12 = 0.25
ft ft
β ∙ D = 12.52 > 2.25 ∴ fixed end

D 50
D
=
7.42
= 6.74 > 3 ∴ fixed end

D 50
D
=
5.59
= 8.94 > 3 ∴ fixed end

𝑙 = Scour Depth + D = 10 ft + 7.42 ft = 17.42 ft

𝑙 = Scour Depth + D = 10 ft + 5.59 ft = 15.59 ft

Single row of piles with fixed ends in x-direction: Where: 𝑙 = Unsupported

in length of pile
K 𝑙 2.1(17.42 x 12 )
K = 2.1 ft = 87.26
= K = Effective length
r 5.03
factor
Single row of piles with fixed ends in y-direction:
R = Radius of gyration
in
K 𝑙 1.2(15.59 x 12 )
K = 1.2 = ft = 78.51
r 2.86

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Jan2018
DESIGN GUIDE FOR LATERALLY UNSUPPORTED PILES SHEET 5 of 14
COHESIVE SOIL EXAMPLE FILE NO. 23.02-5
 POINT OF FIXITY FOR FREE STANDING PILE
– LAYERED SOIL EXAMPLE:

Soil Layer 1: Sand, N = 5 blows/ft nh1 = 0.417 ksi/ft Depth, d1 = 4 ft

Soil Layer 2: Sand, N = 10 blows/ft nh2 = 0.60 ksi/ft Depth, d2 = 4 ft
Soil Layer 3: Sand, N = 20 blows/ft nh3 = 1.11 ksi/ft Depth, d3 = 20 ft

Determination of the point of fixity for a layered soil condition is based on a trial and error
approach, using an initial assumption of nh, selected based on the soil conditions observed. In
this case, the values for nh were determined using linear interpolation based on the
“compactness” description of the soil from the provided “N” values, and the n h values provided in
Table 1 on File No. 23.02-3.

Assume an initial average nh: n = 0.50 ksi/ft

Pile EI = 79,146 kip ∙ ft

EI 79,146
D = 1.8 = 1.8 = 7.303 ft d = 3.303 ft
n in
0.50 x 144
ft

Due to rigidity of pile and soil profile, point of fixity does not extend into third soil layer; therefore,
recalculate fixity based on two-layer soil profile.

Calculate second moment of area for two-layer soil diagram taken about D:

3 n d
n = + n dy
D 3

3 0.417(4) 0.60(3.303)
= + 0.417(4)(2 + 3.303) + + 0.60(3.303)(1.652)
7.303 3 3
ksi
= 0.527
ft

Use new nh to calculate new D:

79,146
D = 1.8 = 7.226 ft d = 3.226 ft
in
0.527 x 144
ft

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Jan2018
DESIGN GUIDE FOR LATERALLY UNSUPPORTED PILES SHEET 6 of 14
LAYERED SOIL EXAMPLE FILE NO. 23.02-6
 POINT OF FIXITY FOR FREE STANDING PILE
– LAYERED SOIL EXAMPLE (Cont’d):

3 0.417(4) 0.60(3.226)
n = + 0.417(4)(2 + 3.226) + + 0.60(3.226)(1.613)
7.226 3 3
ksi
= 0.526
ft

79,146
D = 1.8 = 7.228 ft
0.526 x 144
in ∴ Use this value as convergence.
ft

Where: di = depth of layer

yi = distance from assumed D to center of layer

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Jan2018
DESIGN GUIDE FOR LATERALLY UNSUPPORTED PILES SHEET 7 of 14
LAYERED SOIL EXAMPLE FILE NO. 23.02-7
 STEEL H-PILE DESIGN CRITERIA:
Compression members shall satisfy the following slenderness ratios:

K𝑙
≤ 120; For primary members
r
Determine axis for elastic critical buckling resistance:

If > , Use about the x-axis, otherwise use about the y-axis

If K 𝑙 < K 𝑙 , flexural buckling shall be applicable:

π E
P = A
K𝑙 (AASHTO [Link].2-1)
r

If K 𝑙 > K 𝑙 , torsional buckling and flexural torsional buckling shall be applicable:

π EC A
P = + GJ (AASHTO [Link].3-1)
(K 𝑙z ) I +I

Check compressive slenderness limits of member elements:

If ≤ 0.56 , then: Q = 1.0 (AASHTO [Link].1-1)

If 0.56 < ≤ 1.03 , then: Q = 1.415 − 0.74 (AASHTO [Link].2-1)

.
If > 1.03 , then: Q = (AASHTO [Link].2-2)

Determine compressive resistance:

P =Q F A

If ≥ 0. 44 , then: P = 0.658 P (AASHTO [Link].1-1)

If < 0. 44 , then: P = 0.877P (AASHTO [Link].1-2)

P =∅ P (AASHTO [Link]-1)

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Jan2018
DESIGN GUIDE FOR LATERALLY UNSUPPORTED PILES SHEET 8 of 14
STEEL H-PILE DESIGN CRITERIA FILE NO. 23.02-8
 STEEL H-PILE DESIGN CRITERIA (Cont’d):
Where: ∅ = 0.7 for combined axial & flexural resistance of H-piles as specified in Article [Link]
Cw = warping torsional constant (See HP Shapes Properties Table on Sheet 9)
G = shear modulus for elasticity for steel determined as specified in Article [Link].3
J = St. Venant torsional constant (See HP Shapes Properties Table on Sheet 9)
Qs = slender element reduction factor determined as specified in Article [Link]
Po = equivalent nominal yield resistance determined as specified in Article [Link].1
b = half-flange width of rolled I- and tee sections as specified in Table [Link].1-1

Check flexural slenderness limits of flanges:

λ = = slenderness ratio for flange (AASHTO [Link].1-3)

λ = 0.38 = limiting slenderness ratio for compact flange (AASHTO [Link].1-4)

λ = 0.83 = limiting slenderness ratio for non-compact flange (AASHTO [Link].1-5)

If λ ≤λ , then: M =M = 1.5F S
(AASHTO [Link].1-1)
M =M = 1.5F S

⎡ ⎤
S λ −λ
If λ < λ ≤ λ , then: M = ⎢1 − 1 − ⎛ ⎞⎥ F Z
⎢ Z E ⎥
0.45
⎣ ⎝ Fyf⎠⎦
(AASHTO [Link].1-2)
⎡ ⎤
S λ −λ
M = ⎢1 − 1 − ⎛ ⎞⎥ F Z
⎢ Z E ⎥
0.45
⎣ ⎝ Fyf⎠⎦
If λ >λ , then: M =F S
(AASHTO C6.[Link])
M =F S
M =∅ ∙M
(AASHTO [Link].1-1)
M =∅ ∙M

Where: ∅ = 1.0 for combined axial & flexural resistance of H-piles as specified in Article [Link]

Check combined axial and flexure:

P M M
If < 0.2 , then: + + ≤ 1.0 (AASHTO [Link]-1)
2.0P M M

P 8 M M
If ≥ 0.2 , then: + + ≤ 1.0 (AASHTO [Link]-2)
P 9 M M

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Jan2018
DESIGN GUIDE FOR LATERALLY UNSUPPORTED PILES SHEET 9 of 14
STEEL H-PILE DESIGN CRITERIA FILE NO. 23.01-9
 PROPERTIES FOR DESIGNING STEEL H-PILES:

HP Shapes
Dimensions

Web Flange
Area, Depth,
Shape A d
Thickness, Width, Thickness,
tw bf tf
in. 2 in. in. in. in.
HP14x117 34.4 14.2 0.805 14.9 0.805
x102 30.0 14.0 0.705 14.8 0.705
x89 26.1 13.8 0.615 14.7 0.615
x73 21.4 13.6 0.505 14.6 0.505
HP12x84 24.6 12.3 0.685 12.3 0.685
x74 21.8 12.1 0.605 12.2 0.610
x63 18.4 11.9 0.515 12.1 0.515
x53 15.5 11.8 0.435 12.0 0.435
HP10x57 16.8 9.99 0.565 10.2 0.565
x42 12.4 9.70 0.415 10.1 0.420

Properties

Axis X-X Axis Y-Y

Nominal
Shape Weight
l S r Z l S r Z

lb/ft in.4 in.3 in. in.3 in.4 in.3 in. in.3

HP14x117 117 1220 172 5.96 194 443 59.5 3.59 91.4
x102 102 1050 150 5.92 169 380 51.4 3.56 78.8
x89 89 904 131 5.88 146 326 44.3 3.53 67.7
x73 73 729 107 5.84 118 261 35.8 3.49 54.6

HP12x84 84 650 106 5.14 120 213 34.6 2.94 53.2

x74 74 569 93.8 5.11 105 186 30.4 2.92 46.6
x63 63 472 79.1 5.06 88.3 153 25.3 2.88 38.7
x53 53 393 66.7 5.03 74.0 127 21.1 2.86 32.2

HP10x57 57 294 58.8 4.18 66.5 101 19.7 2.45 30.3

x42 42 210 43.4 4.13 48.3 71.7 14.2 2.41 21.8

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Jan2018
DESIGN GUIDE FOR LATERALLY UNSUPPORTED PILES SHEET 10 of 14
PROPERTIES FOR DESIGNING STEEL H-PILES FILE NO. 23.02-10
 STEEL H-PILE DESIGN EXAMPLE:
Coarse grain soil, medium relative density, above ground water.

HP 12x53 Fy = 50 ksi E = 29,000 ksi Strength I Loading 100 Year Storm

Pile Length = 60 ft Scour Depth = 10 ft D = 50 ft

P = 124 kip M = 250 kip ∙ in M = 50 kip ∙ in

K = K = 2.1 K = 1.2 𝑙 = 𝑙 = 15.86 ft

Determine axis for critical buckling resistance:

K 𝑙 K 𝑙
= 79.47 = 73.9 (See coarse grain soil example.)
r r

Kl
𝑟
< 120, ∴ element satisfies limiting slenderness ratio requirement.

K 𝑙 K 𝑙 K𝑙
Since > critically bucking, , will be determined about the x-axis.
r r 𝑟

in in
K 𝑙 = 2.1(15.86) x 12 = 399.67 in K 𝑙 = 1.2(14.68) x 12 = 211.4 in
ft ft

Since K 𝑙 > K 𝑙 , torsional buckling and flexural torsional buckling shall be applicable:

π EC A
P = + GJ ; where G = 0.385 ∙ E = 1.12x10 ksi
(K 𝑙 ) I +I

π (29000)(4080) 15.5
= + 1.12x10 (1.12)
(399.67) 393 + 127

= 590.57 kip

Check compressive slenderness limits of member elements:

b 6 E E b E
=
t 0.435
= 13.79 > 0.56
F
= 13.49 ∴ By inspection, 0.56
F
< ≤ 1.03
t F

b F 6 50
Q = 1.415 − 0.74 = 1.415 − 0.74( )
t E 0.435 29000

= 0.991

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Jan2018
DESIGN GUIDE FOR LATERALLY UNSUPPORTED PILES SHEET 11 of 14
STEEL H-PILE DESIGN EXAMPLE FILE NO. 23.02-11
 STEEL H-PILE DESIGN EXAMPLE (Cont’d):
Determine compressive resistance:

P = Q F A = 0.991(50)(15.5) = 768.2 kip

P 590.6
= = 0.77 ≥ 0.44
P 768.2
.
P = 0.658 P = 0.658 . ∙ 768.2 = 445.7 kip

P = ∅ P = 0.7(445.7) = 312 kip

Check flexural slenderness limits of flanges:

b 12
λ = = = 13.79
2t 2(0.435)
E 29000
λ = 0.38 = 0.38 = 9.15
F 50

E 29000
λ = 0.83
F
= 0.83
50
= 19.99 ∴ Section is non-compact.

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
S λ −λ 66.7 13.79 − 9.15
λ <λ ≤λ , M = ⎢1 − 1 − ⎛ ⎞ ⎥ F Z = ⎢1 − 1 − ⎛ ⎞⎥ ∙ 50(74)
⎢ Z E ⎥ ⎢ 74 29000 ⎥
0.45
⎣ ⎝ Fyf⎠⎦ ⎣ ⎝ 0.45 50 ⎠⎦
M = 3.54x10 kip ∙ in

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
S λ −λ 21.1 13.79 − 9.15
M = ⎢1 − 1 − ⎛ ⎞ ⎥ F Z = ⎢1 − 1 − ⎛ ⎞⎥ ∙ 50(32.2)
⎢ Z E ⎥ ⎢ 32.2 29000 ⎥
0.45
⎣ ⎝ Fyf⎠⎦ ⎣ ⎝ 0.45 50 ⎠⎦
M = 1.37x10 kip ∙ in

M =∅M = 1.0(3.54x10 ) = 3.54x10 kip ∙ in

M =∅M = 1.0(1.37x10 ) = 1.37x10 kip ∙ in

Check combined axial and flexure:

P 124
= = 0.40 ≥ 0.2
P 312

P 8 M M 8 250 50
+
P 9 M
+
M
= 0.40 + +
9 3540 1370
= 0.49 < 1.0 ∴ Pile is adequate.

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Jan2018
DESIGN GUIDE FOR LATERALLY UNSUPPORTED PILES SHEET 12 of 14
STEEL H-PILE DESIGN EXAMPLE FILE NO. 23.02-12
 PRESTRESSED CONCRETE PILE DESIGN CRITERIA:
Per AASHTO [Link], the effects of slenderness may be neglected if:

Kl
≤ 22 : For compression members not braced against sidesway
r
Per AASHTO [Link], the allowable stresses at the serviceability limit state after prestress losses
shall be such that:

Tension stresses:

P M∙c
f + − >0 ksi, for components with unbonded prestressing tendons
A I

> −0.19 ∙ f′ ksi, for components with bonded prestressing tendons

subjected to not worse than moderate corrosion
conditions
> −0.0948 ∙ f′ ksi, for components with bonded prestressing tendons
subjected to severe corrosion conditions

Compression stresses:

P M∙c
f + + ≤ 0.45 ∙ f′ ksi, compression due to prestress plus permanent loads
A I
P M∙c
f + + ≤ 0.60 ∙ f′ ksi, compression due to prestress plus total load
A I

Where: P = applied axial load

M = applied moment = Mx + My

Properties
Compressive stress in concrete due to
Section Radius of effective prestress forces only (after
Area Moment
Size Modulus Gyration allowances for all prestess losses), fcpe
Ag of Inertia Ig
in. S r psi
in.2 in.4
in.3 in. Std. PS ** Stainless ** CFRP
Strands Steel Strands Strands
12 144 1728 288 3.46 751 871 783
14 196 3201 457 4.04 834 850 854
18 324 8748 972 5.20 835 867 861
20 400 13333 1333 5.77 806 876 839
24 576 27648 2304 6.93 751 747 783

* Values for fcpe taken from VDOT Standard BPP Plan sheets
** With square strand pattern

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Jan2018
DESIGN GUIDE FOR LATERALLY UNSUPPORTED PILES SHEET 13 of 14
PRESTRESSED CONCRETE PILE DESIGN CRITERIA FILE NO. 23.02-13
 PRESTRESSED CONCRETE PILE DESIGN EXAMPLE:
12” prestressed concrete pile using standard prestress strands (4), moderate corrosion
conditions.

f’c = 5 ksi Strength I Loading 100 Year Storm

Pile Length = 60 ft Scour Depth = 10 ft D = 50 ft K = 1.2

P = 72 kip M = 120 kip ∙ in M = 12 kip ∙ in

in
Kl 1.2(60 x 12 ft ) ∴ Slenderness effects shall be considered.
= = 249 > 22
r 3.464

Check serviceability stresses:

P M∙c
f + − > −0.19 ∙ f
A I

P M∙c 72 (132)(6)
f +
A
−
I
= 0.751 +
144
−
1728
= 0.793 ksi > −0.424 ksi ∴ Tension OK

P M∙c
f + + ≤ 0.45 ∙ f′
A I

P M∙c 72 (132)(6)
f +
A
+
I
= 0.751 +
144
+
1728
= 1.71 ksi < 2.25 ksi ∴ Compression OK

P M∙c
f + + ≤ 0.60 ∙ f′
A I

P M∙c 72 (132)(6)
f +
A
+
I
= 0.751 +
144
+
1728
= 1.71 ksi < 3.0 ksi ∴ Compression OK

For 12” prestressed concrete pile using standard prestess strands, f cpe is the same value for both
square and circular strand patterns. For pile sizes with different values, check serviceability
stresses for both patterns.

Reference:

Teng, W. C. 1962. Foundation Design. Prentice-HalI, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Jan2018
DESIGN GUIDE FOR LATERALLY UNSUPPORTED PILES SHEET 14 of 14
PRESTRESSED CONCRETE PILE DESIGN EXAMPLE FILE NO. 23.02-14
 POINT OF FIXITY ANALYSIS FOR LATERALLY LOADED SINGLE PILE:
Design Procedure for single pile analysis:

The design of a pile foundation requires the designer to consider factors involving performance,
costs and methods of construction. Two aspects of design are the computation of loading that
will cause the pile to fail as a structural member and the level of loading that will cause an
unacceptable lateral deflection. This step-by-step procedure describes the use of an acceptable
software program that has the capacity to develop p-y curves to determine the pile length to
establish fixity. The final pile length (structural length) can then be used to determine the
structural capacity of the selected pile.

1. Collect all relevant data, including the soil profile, soil properties, magnitude and type of
loading, and performance requirements for the structure being analyzed. Since limiting
deflection criteria is a service condition, the loads used will be service limit state (unfactored).
2. Select a pile type and size for analysis. If a prestressed concrete pile is chosen, reinforcing
will also be needed to determine pile properties. The analysis program selected may then
compute remaining pile information used for analysis.
3. Develop site specific p-y curves based on in-situ data. The designer can obtain the soil data
required from the selected analysis software using boring logs in conjunction with Tables 1
through 3 on File No. 23.02-3. Alternatively, soil parameters can be obtained directly from a
geotechnical engineer. Most analysis programs have the ability to select p-y curves for each
soil layer based on the provided soil input information. Alternatively, the user may input
developed p-y curves.
4. Run software analysis using an initial pile depth based on the limiting project specific
deflection criteria. Plot deflection verse depth curves for each load case under study.
Several trial sizes and depths may be required to achieve the established design criteria.
After the deflection criteria has been satisfied, the determination of fixity can be determined
from the plots of Pile Depth verse Deflection.
5. Select the point of fixity from the plotted curves. Point of fixity is where the deflection curve
crosses the zero line when subjected to service lateral loads. There is no universal opinion
as to whether fixity should occur at one or two crossings of the zero line. Choosing fixity at
the second crossing would be a conservative assumption and will be used for this example.

The software used in this sample analysis is L-Pile 2016, Version 9. L-Pile is a multi-purpose
program that can analyze a pile subjected to lateral loading. It computes deflection, shear,
bending moment and soil response with respect to depth in nonlinear soils. The soil and rock is
modeled using lateral load transfer curves (p-y) based on either published recommendations, or
alternatively, user input p-y curves developed for each soil layer. Several types of pile head
loading conditions may be selected along with the structural properties of the pile.

The determination of point of fixity for a laterally loaded pile requires a pile deflection verse pile
depth curve for all of the chosen load cases, as well as the soil profile along the length of pile.
For this analysis, loads at the service limit state were chosen. Soils information from the boring
logs was used in conjunction with the corresponding values for the soil properties provided in
Tables 1 through 3 on File No. 23.02-3. The Coefficient of Horizontal Subgrade Reaction (k) was
chosen by L-Pile using the user provided information.

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Jan2018
LATERAL LOADED PILE ANALYSIS FOR POINT OF FIXITY SHEET 1 of 4
DESIGN PROCEDURE FILE NO. 23.03-1
 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND RESULTS:
Loading:

1. The loads used for this example are per pile and unfactored. The loads used are 134 kips
vertical, 4.15 kips lateral longitudinal, 6.68 kips lateral transverse.
2. Moment at the top of pile was not used for this analysis. Both a fixed and free head (i.e., top
of pile) condition is achievable without moment input, and therefore was not calculated for
this example.
3. Since this analyses is for point of fixity, service limit state loads were used. Pile head
deflection may have a limiting value depending on performance criteria that has been
established. For this example, ½ inch at the top of pile is used.
4. Pile group effects were not considered.
5. In the longitudinal direction, the pile is assumed to be in a free head condition (i.e., rotation
free and translation free). In the transverse direction, the pile is assumed to be in a fixed
head condition (i.e., rotation fixed and translation free; slope equals zero).

Soils:

1. Soil properties used were determined using boring logs in conjunction with Tables 1 through
3 on File No. 23.02-3.
2. A 3.5 foot scour depth was assumed for this example.

Results:

1. Plots of pile head deflection verse pile depth for scour and non-scour conditions are shown
on File Nos. 23.03-3 and -4, respectively.
2. The analysis considers the nonlinear properties of the soils. For this example, the effects of
scour can be seen as negligible as shown by the top of pile deflections of the plots.
3. From both plots, the first inflection point is at a depth of approximately -18 ft. for the free head
condition and approximately -23 ft. for the fixed head condition. The second inflection point
occurs at approximately -36 ft. for both cases. The second inflection point is chosen for fixity
and an unbraced length of 36 ft. below the pile head is assumed for determining the structural
capacity of the pile.

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Jan2018
LATERAL LOADED PILE ANALYSIS FOR POINT OF FIXITY SHEET 2 of 4
DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND RESULTS FILE NO. 23.03-2
 PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Jan2018
LATERAL LOADED PILE ANALYSIS FOR POINT OF FIXITY SHEET 3 of 4
L-PILE RESULTS FOR SCOUR CONDITION FILE NO. 23.03-3
 PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Jan2018
LATERAL LOADED PILE ANALYSIS FOR POINT OF FIXITY SHEET 4 of 4
L-PILE RESULTS FOR NON-SCOUR CONDITION FILE NO. 23.03-4
 PILE RESISTANCE:

AXIAL RESISTANCE OF HP PILES END BEARING ON ROCK:

This section provides design guidelines on determining factored and nominal axial resistances of
driven steel HP piles on non-scourable rock, rock and intermediate geo-materials (IGMs) where
pile penetration is minimal and nominal axial resistance is controlled by the structural limit state
(except in karst geology). Karst geology is excluded as the geotechnical limit state may control
due to site conditions such as rock layer thickness. These guidelines were developed to enable
consistency in plans and reduce the potential to damage piles by controlling driving stresses.
For steel HP piles driven into IGMs, the geotechnical nominal axial resistance shall be
determined and compared with the structural nominal axial resistance. If the geotechnical
nominal axial resistance of HP piles driven into IGM is greater than the structural nominal axial
resistance, the structural limit state will control and the design guidelines in this document can be
used to determine the axial resistances of driven steel HP piles. However, the wave equation
analysis must demonstrate that the HP pile can be driven to the required nominal axial resistance
without exceeding allowable driving stresses and without requiring excessive hammer blow
counts (10 blows per inch or more).
Based on VDOT Structure and Bridge Division experience with dynamic pile testing results
(measured nominal axial resistance and stresses on pile during driving) and representative pile
driving hammers used by Contractors in Virginia, Table 1 was developed for determining factored
axial resistance and nominal axial resistance during driving based on field verification methods.

In Table 1,

HP Pile Size: Although many HP pile sizes are listed in the table, not all of them are readily
available in market. Designer should consider pile availability before choosing pile size.

Nominal Structural Resistance, Pn, of HP pile calculated by multiplying the pile yield stress
strength (Fy) and the pile cross sectional area (As) for a fully braced pile (i.e., the entire pile is
embedded in soil) and converting to tons. Structural resistance in combined compression and
bending shall be checked separately. Additionally, a reduced value of P n per AASHTO 6.9.4 shall
be used for piles that are partially unsupported.

Resistance Factor, ϕc, for axial resistance of piles in compression and subject to damage due to
severe driving conditions where use of a pile tip is necessary (AASHTO [Link]). ϕc of 0.4 shall
be used for VDOT projects for piles driven to hard rock and IGM (if applicable).

Factored Axial Resistance, Pr, used in design with dynamic pile testing with signal matching as
the field verification method. Pr = Pn x ϕc. Pr shall not be less than the maximum factored axial
load applied to the pile.

Nominal Axial Resistance during driving, R n,dr, with dynamic pile testing with signal matching as
the field verification method. Rn,dr = Pr / 0.65.

Factored Axial Resistance, Pr, used in design with wave equation analysis as the field verification
method. Pr = Rn,dr x 0.50.

PILES PART 2
DATE: 31Oct2019
PILE RESISTANCE SHEET 1 of 6
AXIAL RESISTANCE OF HP PILES END BEARING ON ROCK FILE NO. 23.04-1
 TABLE 1 Factored and Nominal Axial Resistances for HP piles bearing on hard rock

Field Verification Methods

Wave Equation Analysis

Dynamic Pile Testing with
with Field Confirmation of Modified Gates Equation
Nominal Signal Matching
Hammer Performance
HP Pile Structural ϕc
Size Resistance ϕdyn = 0.65 ϕdyn = 0.50 ϕdyn = 0.40
Pn (tons)
Factored Nominal Factored Nominal Factored Nominal

PILES
Axial Axial Axial Axial Axial Axial
Resistance Resistance Resistance Resistance Resistance Resistance
Pr (tons) Rn,dr (tons) Pr (tons) Rn,dr (tons) Pr (tons) Rn,dr (tons)

PILE RESISTANCE
10X42 310 0.40 124 191 95 191 76 191
12X53 388 0.40 155 238 119 238 95 238
Less commonly used HP piles
10X57 420 0.40 168 258 129 258 103 258
12X63 460 0.40 184 283 142 283 113 283
12X74 545 0.40 218 335 168 335 N/A N/A
12X84 615 0.40 246 378 189 378 N/A N/A
14X73 535 0.40 214 329 165 329 N/A N/A
AXIAL RESISTANCE OF HP PILES END BEARING ON ROCK (continued):

14X89 652 0.40 261 402 201 402 N/A N/A

AXIAL RESISTANCE OF HP PILES END BEARING ON ROCK

14X102 750 0.40 300 462 231 462 N/A N/A
14X117 860 0.40 344 529 265 529 N/A N/A

PART 2
N/A = Not Applicable

SHEET 2 of 6
FILE NO. 23.04-2
DATE: 31Oct2019
 AXIAL RESISTANCE OF HP PILES END BEARING ON ROCK (continued):

Nominal Axial Resistance during driving, R n,dr, with wave equation analysis as the field verification
method. It should be noted that Rn,dr with wave equation analysis is set to equal to the Nominal
Axial Resistance during driving, Rn,dr, with dynamic pile testing with signal matching in order to
control the driving stresses in the pile.

Factored Axial Resistance, Pr, used in design with Modified Gates Equation as the field
verification method. Pr = Rn,dr x 0.40.

Nominal Axial Resistance during driving, Rn,dr, with Modified Gates Equation as the field
verification method. It should be noted that Rn,dr with Modified Gates Equation is set to equal to
the Nominal Axial Resistance during driving, Rn,dr, with dynamic pile testing with signal matching
in order to control the driving stresses in the pile. Modified Gates Equation cannot be used when
Rn,dr is more than 300 tons.

PILES PART 2
DATE: 31Oct2019
PILE RESISTANCE SHEET 3 of 6
AXIAL RESISTANCE OF HP PILES END BEARING ON ROCK FILE NO. 23.04-3
PRELIMINARY PILE DESIGN EXAMPLE:

The following simplified example (i.e., neglecting individual loads, load position, eccentricity of the
pile group, etc.) demonstrates how to use TABLE 1 in pile design and how to prepare the PILE
DATA TABLE.

Assume an abutment footing has 10.25 ft width and 47 ft length. The maximum factored vertical
load (P) and moment (M) acting at the bottom of footing are 2505 kips and 6625 kips-ft,
respectively (see figure below). Therefore, it is determined that steel HP piles driven to hard rock
can be used to support the abutment.

Based on experience of similar abutment design and loadings, it is assumed 2 rows of HP 10X42
steel piles, i.e. front and back rows, will be sufficient. Considering the minimum and maximum
pile spacing, and minimum distance from the outer piles to the edge of footing, it was determined
that a minimum of 5 HP 10X42 piles and a maximum of 16 HP 10X42 piles can be placed within
each row.

P = 2505
kips

M= 6625 k-ft

B F
X

Distance between front

and back rows = 7.75 ft.
Rfront = 2107 kips
Rback = 398 kips
Z

Summing the forces in z-direction and taking moment about Point B, the reactions on the front
and back rows are:

Rfront = 2107 kips and Rback = 398 kips

Assuming Dynamic Pile Testing with Signal Matching will be used as the field verification
method, the factored axial resistance for HP 10X42 is 124 tons/pile or 248 kips/pile from TABLE
1.

Therefore, the number of HP 10X42 needed at the front row = 2107 kips/248 kips = 8.5.

Use a minimum of 9 piles at front row.

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Apr2019
PILE RESISTANCE SHEET 4 of 6
PRELIMINARY PILE SELECTION FILE NO. 23.04-4
PRELIMINARY PILE DESIGN EXAMPLE (continued):

The following information shall be shown on the PILE DATA TABLE:

PILE DATA TABLE

Nominal Axial Resistance Factored Axial
Substructure Unit Measured During Driving Resistance
(tons/pile) (tons/pile)
Abutment 191 124

For comparison, if Wave Equation Analysis with Field Confirmation of Hammer Performance
will be used as the field verification method instead of dynamic pile testing, the factored axial
resistance for HP 10X42 is 95 tons/pile or 190 kips/pile from TABLE 1.

Therefore, the number of HP 10X42 needed at the front row = 2107 kips/190 kips = 11.1.

Use a minimum of 12 piles at front row, which is 3 more piles than would be required if dynamic
pile testing would have been used.

The following information shall be shown on the PILE DATA TABLE:

PILE DATA TABLE

Nominal Axial Resistance Factored Axial
Substructure Unit Measured During Driving Resistance
(tons/pile) (tons/pile)
Abutment 191 95

For comparison, if Modified Gates Equation will be used as the field verification method instead
of dynamic pile testing, the factored axial resistance for HP 10X42 is 76 tons/pile or 152 kips/pile
from TABLE 1.

Therefore, the number of HP 10X42 needed at the front row = 2107 kips/152 kips = 13.8.

Use a minimum of 14 piles at front row, which is 5 more piles than would be required if dynamic
pile testing would have been used.

The following information shall be shown on the PILE DATA TABLE:

PILE DATA TABLE

Nominal Axial Resistance Factored Axial
Substructure Unit Measured During Driving Resistance
(tons/pile) (tons/pile)
Abutment 191 76

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Apr2019
PILE RESISTANCE SHEET 5 of 6
PRELIMINARY PILE SELECTION FILE NO. 23.04-5
PRELIMINARY PILE SELECTION:

Generally, the smallest pile size meeting design requirements should be used to limit the size of
hammer required. Where the number of piles required in a row would exceed the minimum pile
spacing and minimum distance to edge of footing or a wider pile spacing is desired (not
exceeding the maximum spacing), increasing the pile size can be considered.

The total preliminary cost using each field verification method should be compared to determine
the appropriate method for actual design. The total number of piles for each method should be
multiplied by the anticipated length and unit cost. The number of pile tests for each field
verification method should be determined looking at site specific aspects of the project and
minimum criteria in AASHTO Article [Link].3. The unit cost of the tests shall be multiplied by
the number and added to the cost of the piles.

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Apr2019
PILE RESISTANCE SHEET 6 of 6
PRELIMINARY PILE SELECTION FILE NO. 23.04-6
 USE OF STEEL PILES IN CORROSIVE ENVIRONMENT:
General Information:

The effects of corrosion from environmental conditions shall be considered in the selection of pile
type and in the determination of the required pile cross-section.

Factors that contribute to corrosion include the presence of soluble salts, soil and water resistivity,
soil and water pH, and the presence of oxygen. The site conditions that may lead to accelerated
corrosion include, but not limited to, landfills, cinder fills, mine or industrial drainage, salt or brackish
water, exposure to the atmosphere, abrasive water flow, deicing salts, and soil that may impose
stray electrical current.

The site shall be treated as corrosive environment if any of the following is met:

 The pH value of the soil or water is less than 6.0;

 The resistivity is less than 3000 ohm-cm;
 A chloride ion content greater than 100 parts per million (ppm);
 A sulfate ion content greater than 200 ppm.

Soil or water that has a minimum resistivity less than 3,000 ohm-cm (AASHTO T 288) or has a pH
less than 6.0 (AASHTO T 289)) is required to be tested by a certified lab for chlorides (AASHTO
T291) and sulfates (AASHTO T 290).

Steel piles may be used in corrosive soil or water environments with a corrosion allowance or
sacrificial metal loss. Sacrificial metal loss or corrosion allowance is the thickness of metal (above
what is structurally required for the pile) needed to compensate for loss of metal that will occur as
the pile corrodes.

The sacrificial steel thickness (inches) for steel piling exposed to corrosive soil, non-brackish or
non-salt water environments shall use the values in the following table. The values are based on a
75-year design life. These sacrificial thickness requirements are applicable for soils that exceed
one or more of the aggressive soil criteria. The corrosion rates provided are for steel H-piling where
the surfaces on both sides of the web and flanges are exposed to the corrosive soil or water. Where
steel pipe piles are approved, one-half the additional sacrificial steel thickness provided in the table
may be used regardless of whether the pipe is concrete filled or not.

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Apr2021
USE OF STEEL PILES IN CORROSIVE ENVIRONMENT SHEET 1 of 4
GENERAL INFORMATION FILE NO. 23.05-1
 General Information (continued):

Total Reduction in Thickness (inches) of Flanges and Web

Corrosive State Slightly Moderately Extremely (1)

Aggressive
Aggressive Aggressive Aggressive
Chlorides (ppm) 100 to 175 176 to 250 251 to 350 351 to 500
Sulfates (ppm) 200 to 300 301 to 500 501 to 800 801 to 1000
Site Condition A 0.050 0.075 0.125 0.225
Site Condition B 0.067 0.100 0.167 0.300
Site Condition C 0.083 0.125 0.208 0.375
Site Condition D 0.100 0.150 0.250 0.450

(1) H-Piles shall not be used in the areas where the chlorides or sulfates exceeds the limits
for the extremely aggressive state in the above table.

where,
Site Condition A: H-piles that are completely buried in ground. They will not be exposed to
water, or where water table, Dw > 15 feet.

Site Condition B: H-Piles that are partially buried in ground and where water table, Dw > 15
feet. For H-piles in the as-constructed condition that are “completely
buried in ground”, but are designed to account for partial exposure due
to settlement, erosion, dredging, future construction, scour, stream
channel migration or any other post construction event.

Site Condition A Site Condition B

Site Condition C: H-Piles that are completely buried in ground and totally immersed in
water.

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Apr2021
USE OF STEEL PILES IN CORROSIVE ENVIRONMENT SHEET 2 of 4
GENERAL INFORMATION FILE NO. 23.05-2
 Site Condition C

Site Condition D: H-Piles that are completely or partially buried in ground and partially
immersed in water and where water table, Dw ≤ 15 feet.

Site Condition D

When a site condition meets multiple Site Conditions, the lower reduction in thickness may
be used.

Existing fill or disturbed soils are typically more corrosive than non-disturbed soils due to the
increase of the amount of oxygen available in the disturbed soil to drive the corrosion process. A
disturbed soil is a soil in which digging, backfilling, or other soil upheaval has taken place. Driven
steel piles generally have the majority of their length in undisturbed soil. However, excavation and
backfilling for footings and pile caps creates a region of disturbed soil near the top of the piles,
increasing the availability of oxygen and the probability of corrosion. For steel piling driven into soils
(whether disturbed or undisturbed), the region of greatest concern for corrosion is the portion from
the bottom of the pile cap down to 3 feet below the lowest groundwater elevation.

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Apr2021
USE OF STEEL PILES IN CORROSIVE ENVIRONMENT SHEET 3 of 4
GENERAL INFORMATION FILE NO. 23.05-3
 Testing shall be performed within each unique soil or geological layer. Old and new fills, soil density,
presents of organic soils, industrial contamination and other environmental conditions may
accelerate corrosion. In cases where tested soil conditions fall in different aggressive conditions,
the most aggressive corrosion condition shall dictate sacrificial thickness (or eliminate steel H-piles
from consideration).

Soil evaluation for pH, Chlorides (ppm), Sulfates (ppm) and Resistivity (ohm-cm) is required at each
geological soil formation.

Resistivity should be determined under the most adverse condition (i.e., a saturated state) in order
to obtain a resistivity that is independent of seasonal and other variations in soil-moisture content.

The use of pipe piles in corrosive environment will only be allowed with the approval of the State
Structure and Bridge Engineer.

No corrosion allowance (sacrificial metal loss) is necessary if the pH value of the soil or water is
greater than 6.0 and the resistivity is greater than 3000 ohm-cm.

Other steel structural elements such as sheet piles, pipes, sign supports, sound barrier walls, post
and panel retaining walls, etc. should be evaluated for corrosive potential but are not covered in
this section.

PILES PART 2
DATE: 30Apr2021
USE OF STEEL PILES IN CORROSIVE ENVIRONMENT SHEET 4 of 4
GENERAL INFORMATION FILE NO. 23.05-4