1. Practical Implementation of LRFD for Geotechnical Engineering Features Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations Wednesday, June 22, 2011 PDCA Professors Workshop By
Jerry A. DiMaggio, PE, D. GE, M. ASCE

2. ASCE LRFD Webinar Series
ASCE Drilled Shaft Webinar
February 08, 2010
ASCE LRFD Webinar Series #
Topic
2009
2010
2011
2012 1
Fundamentals of LRFD – Part 1
1/16, 8/7
6/30
1/18, 10/13 2
Fundamentals of LRFD – Part 2
1/30, 9/8
7/15
2/4, 10/21 3
Subsurface Explorations
6/30, 11/5
4/15
2/17, 8/18
2/3 4
Shallow Foundations
7/24
1/6, 5/7, 11/8
5/20, 12/12 5
Deep Foundations – Piles
1/25, 6/1, 12/14
6/21, 11/7 6
Deep Foundations – Shafts
2/8, 6/11
1/7, 7/8
1/23 7
Deep Foundations – Micropiles
9/10
3/3, 7/29
1/12 8
Earth Retaining Structures – Fill
8/20
3/11, 9/12
3/9 9
Earth Retaining Structures – Cut
10/21
9/30
2/28 10
MSE Walls
4/4, 12/2 11
Ground Anchors
5/2
3/29
* Check ASCE website for latest information
Developed by NCS Consultants, LLC

3. Presnetation Assumptions/References
CE A
Presnetation Assumptions/References
Basic knowledge of:
LRFD (previous webinars)
Basic Deep Foundation Design and Construction
Primary References:
Section 10 of AASHTO (2010, 5th Edition)
List of other references provided at end

4. Driven Pile Foundations
CE A
Driven Pile Foundations
Topic
Slides
General (Section 3, Section 10.4, )
4 – 18
10.5 Limit States and Resistance Factors
19 – 22
Service Limit State
23 – 31
Strength Limit State
32 – 58
Extreme Event Limit State
59 – 65
Corrosion and Deterioration
66 – 69
Drivability Analysis
70 – 73

5. 12th Bridge Design Workshop
Printed: October 7, 2005
Section 10 Contents
Slide control
Bullets appear one at a time or other appropriate slide control.
This information is Arial 14 pt. font in text box on the notes view page.
Key Message
Summarize the point that you want everyone to remember from slide.
Background Information
Explain any background or related information to support the slide that may be used to answer questions or to elaborate, if necessary. This is in 12 pt Arial font
Interactivity
If there are special comments, or facilitation techniques, that are recommended for the instructors to use, they should be stated here. It is important, that the instructional methodology supports the Learning Outcomes (LOs).
Notes
Describe any factors that might make it difficult for learners to understand/accept a key message, identifying typical questions, regional, political or demographic issues and possible solutions.
Article
Topic
10.1
Scope
10.2
Definitions
10.3
Notation
10.4
Soil and Rock Properties
10.5
Limit States and Resistance Factors
10.6
Spread Footings
10.7
Driven Piles
10.8
Drilled Shafts
10.9
Micropiles
Refer to Section 3 for Loads and Load Factors
This is a Power point slide inserted in the notes view. This description was placed in the file outside the printable area of the motes pages
LRFD Specifications for Foundation Design

6. Drilled Shafts/ Micropiles
Deep Foundation Types
Material
Driven Piles
Drilled Shafts/ Micropiles
Jacked/ Special
Prestressed concrete X
Post-tensioned concrete
Pre-cast concrete
Cast-in-place concrete
Steel
Wood
Specialty/Composites
NO open end pipe and composite driven pile guidance.

7. 12th Bridge Design Workshop
Printed: October 7, 2005
Section 10.7 Driven Piles
Slide control
Bullets appear one at a time or other appropriate slide control.
This information is Arial 14 pt. font in text box on the notes view page.
Key Message
Summarize the point that you want everyone to remember from slide.
Background Information
Explain any background or related information to support the slide that may be used to answer questions or to elaborate, if necessary. This is in 12 pt Arial font
Interactivity
If there are special comments, or facilitation techniques, that are recommended for the instructors to use, they should be stated here. It is important, that the instructional methodology supports the Learning Outcomes (LOs).
Notes
Describe any factors that might make it difficult for learners to understand/accept a key message, identifying typical questions, regional, political or demographic issues and possible solutions.
Article
Topic
10.7.1
General
10.7.2
Service Limit State Design
10.7.3
Strength Limit State Design
10.7.4
Extreme Event Limit State Design
10.7.5
Corrosion and Deterioration
10.7.6
Minimum Pile Penetration
10.7.7
Driving Criteria for Bearing
10.7.8
Drivability Analysis
10.7.9
Test Piles
This is a Power point slide inserted in the notes view. This description was placed in the file outside the printable area of the motes pages
LRFD Specifications for Foundation Design

8. Professional Discipline Communication
Geotechnical, Structural, Hydraulic, and Construction specialists all play an important role and have different responsibilities on deep foundation projects.
Project specific loads, extreme events, performance requirements, scour, pile cap details, specifications, plans construction, pile damage are ALL KEY issues for a successful project!
The Geotechnical Design Report is a key communication tool.

9. 10.7.1 GENERAL Consider spread footings first.
Basic guidelines for driven pile configurations
Minimum spacing 2.5 pile diameters or 30 inches.
Minimum of 9 inches pile cap edge and be embedded 12 inches into the pile cap or if with strands or bars then the pile embedment should be 6 inches.
Piles through embankments should extend 10 ft into original ground or refusal on rock. Maximum of 6 inch fill size.
Batter Piles: stiffness, don’t use in downdrag situations, concern in seismic situations.

10. Comparison of LRFD and ASD approaches for Deep Foundations
Same
Different
Determining resistance
Comparison of load and resistance
Determining deflection
Separation of resistance and deflection

11. ASCE Drilled Shaft Webinar
June 11, 2010
AASHTO Table
Developed by NCS Consultants, LLC

12. ASCE Drilled Shaft Webinar
June 11, 2010 EH EV ES DC DW DD LL EQ CT WA
Permanent Loads
DC = dead load of structural components and nonstructural attachments
DW = dead load of wearing surfaces and utilities
EH = horizontal earth pressure load
ES = earth surcharge load
EV = vertical pressure from dead load of earth fill
• Transient Loads
LS = live load surcharge
WA = water load and stream pressure
Developed by NCS Consultants, LLC

13. Load Factors for Permanent Loads, gp
ASCE Drilled Shaft Webinar
June 11, 2010
Load Factors for Permanent Loads, gp
AASHTO Table
Developed by NCS Consultants, LLC

14. Load Type and Direction
Structural
Geotechnical
Vertical or horizontal
Permanent/Transient
Vertical/Horizontal
Downdrag/Setup/Relaxation

15. 12th Bridge Design Workshop
Printed: October 7, 2005
Downdrag
Slide control
Bullets appear one at a time or other appropriate slide control.
This information is Arial 14 pt. font in text box on the notes view page.
Key Message
Summarize the point that you want everyone to remember from slide.
Background Information
Explain any background or related information to support the slide that may be used to answer questions or to elaborate, if necessary. This is in 12 pt Arial font
Interactivity
If there are special comments, or facilitation techniques, that are recommended for the instructors to use, they should be stated here. It is important, that the instructional methodology supports the Learning Outcomes (LOs).
Notes
Describe any factors that might make it difficult for learners to understand/accept a key message, identifying typical questions, regional, political or demographic issues and possible solutions.
“Geotechnical” load
Can be significant particularly given the max load factors
Articles and
This is a Power point slide inserted in the notes view. This description was placed in the file outside the printable area of the motes pages
Design Method
Load Factors
Maximum
Minimum
Piles
a-method
1.40
0.25
l-method
1.05
0.30
Shafts
Reese & O’Neill (1999)
1.25
0.35 15
LRFD Specifications for Foundation Design

16. AASHTO Section 10.4 Soil and Rock Properties
Article
Topic
10.4.1
Informational Needs
10.4.2
Subsurface Exploration
10.4.3
Laboratory Tests
10.4.4
In Situ Tests
10.4.5
Geophysical Tests
10.4.6
Selection of Design Properties
DISCUSSED IN PREVIOUS WEBINAR ON SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS – Next Offering on August 18, 2011

17. Deep Foundation Selection
Method of support
Bearing material depth
Load type, direction and magnitude
Constructability
Cost
Expressed in $/kip capacity
Include all possible costs

18. Pile Types Based on Soil Displacement During Driving
Low Displacement
High Displacement

19. Driven Pile Foundations
CE A
Driven Pile Foundations
Topic
Slides
General (Section 3, Section 10.4, )
4 – 18
10.5 Limit States and Resistance Factors
19 – 22
Service Limit State
23 – 31
Strength Limit State
32 – 58
Extreme Event Limit State
59 – 65
Corrosion and Deterioration
66 – 69
Drivability Analysis
70 – 73

20. Strength Limit State Driven Piles ARTICLE 10.5.3.3
Axial compression resistance for single piles
Pile group compression resistance
Uplift resistance of single piles
Uplift resistance of pile groups
Pile punching failure in weaker stratum
Single pile and pile group lateral resistance
Constructability, including pile drivability

21. SPECIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Negative shaft resistance (downdrag)
Lateral squeeze
Scour
Pile and soil heave
Seismic considerations

22. 10.5 LIMIT STATES AND RESISTANCE
Strength Limit State (will be discussed later)
Structural Resistance
Geotechnical Resistance
Driven Resistance
Service Limit State
Resistance Factor = 1.0 (except for global stability)
Extreme Event Limit State
Seismic, superflood, vessel, vehicle
Use nominal resistance

23. Driven Pile Foundations
CE A
Driven Pile Foundations
Topic
Slides
General (Section 3, Section 10.4, )
4 – 18
10.5 Limit States and Resistance Factors
19 – 22
Service Limit State
23 – 31
Strength Limit State
32 – 61
Extreme Event Limit State
62 – 65
Corrosion and Deterioration
66 – 69
Drivability Analysis
70 – 73

24. Service Limit State Checks
Global Stability
Vertical and Horizontal Displacements

25. Settlement of Pile Groups Article 10.7.2.3.1 [Hannigan (2006)]
12th Bridge Design Workshop
Printed: October 7, 2005
Settlement of Pile Groups Article [Hannigan (2006)]
Slide control
Bullets appear one at a time or other appropriate slide control.
This information is Arial 14 pt. font in text box on the notes view page.
Key Message
Summarize the point that you want everyone to remember from slide.
Background Information
Explain any background or related information to support the slide that may be used to answer questions or to elaborate, if necessary. This is in 12 pt Arial font
Interactivity
If there are special comments, or facilitation techniques, that are recommended for the instructors to use, they should be stated here. It is important, that the instructional methodology supports the Learning Outcomes (LOs).
Notes
Describe any factors that might make it difficult for learners to understand/accept a key message, identifying typical questions, regional, political or demographic issues and possible solutions.
This is a Power point slide inserted in the notes view. This description was placed in the file outside the printable area of the motes pages
Treat as equivalent footings
Categorize as one of the 4 cases shown here
LRFD Specifications for Foundation Design

26. 10.7.2.4 Horizontal Loads and Pile MomentsFx H1 H2 Dx M1 M2

27. Horizontal Response Assumes nominal resistance is adequate
Isolated
Group
Assumes nominal resistance is adequate
No consideration of possible brittle response of geomaterial
LPILE type p-y model or Strain Wedge Method

28. P-y Results for Single Element

29. P-y Results for Pile Groups
12th Bridge Design Workshop
P-y Results for Pile Groups
Printed: October 7, 2005
AASHTO Figure
Slide control
Bullets appear one at a time or other appropriate slide control.
This information is Arial 14 pt. font in text box on the notes view page.
Key Message
Summarize the point that you want everyone to remember from slide.
Background Information
Explain any background or related information to support the slide that may be used to answer questions or to elaborate, if necessary. This is in 12 pt Arial font
Interactivity
If there are special comments, or facilitation techniques, that are recommended for the instructors to use, they should be stated here. It is important, that the instructional methodology supports the Learning Outcomes (LOs).
Notes
Describe any factors that might make it difficult for learners to understand/accept a key message, identifying typical questions, regional, political or demographic issues and possible solutions.
This is a Power point slide inserted in the notes view. This description was placed in the file outside the printable area of the motes pages
Strain Wedge Method does not use p-multipliers.
Spacing (S)
P-multiplier (Pm)
Row 1
Row 2
Row 3 3B
0.8
0.4
0.3 5B
1.00
0.85
0.7
LRFD Specifications for Foundation Design

30. Pile Head Fixity Dx Dx
Moment
Moment 30

31. Tolerable Movements and Movement Criteria 10.5.2.2
Service loads for settlements, horizontal movements and rotations.
Omit transient loads for cohesive soils
Reference movements to the top of the substructure unit.
Angular Distortion (C )

32. Driven Pile Foundations
CE A
Driven Pile Foundations
Topic
Slides
General (Section 3, Section 10.4, )
4 – 18
10.5 Limit States and Resistance Factors
19 – 22
Service Limit State
23 – 31
Strength Limit State
32 – 58
Extreme Event Limit State
59 – 65
Corrosion and Deterioration
66 – 69
Drivability Analysis
70 – 73

33. STRENGTH LIMIT STATES Driven (Assess Drivability) 33 Structural Axial
Flexure
Shear
Geotechnical 33

34. Methods for Determining Structural Resistance
Axial compression
Combined axial and flexure
Shear
Concrete – Section 5
LRFD
Specifications
Steel – Section 6
Wood – Section 8

35. Factors Affecting Allowable Structural Pile Stresses
Average section strength (Fy, fc’, wood crushing strength)
Defects (knots in timber)
Section treatment (preservation for timber)
Variation in materials
Load factor (overloads or pile damage)

36. Structural Resistance Factors 10.7.3.13 Pile Structural Resistance
Concrete ( )
Axial Comp. = 0.75
Flexure = 0.9 (strain dependent)
Shear = 0.9
Steel ( )
Axial =
Combined
Axial=
Flexure = 1.0
Shear = 1.0
LRFD
Specifications
Timber ( and .3)
Compression = 0.9
Tension = 0.8
Flexure = 0.85
Shear = 0.75
Resistance factors dependent upon:
Type of material
Type of stress
Placement conditions (confidence)
Pile Structural Resistance
Steel Piles: See Article for noncomposite piles and Article for composite piles. For unsupported noncomposite piles see Eqs or and an d-2 for composite piles. The effective unsupported length is determined by Article Resistance factors for the compresssion limit state are specified in Article
Concrete Piles: See Article nominal compressive resistance of precast and prestressed concrete piles. Unsupported pile compressive resistance is provided in Articles and and the effective length is as determined in Article Resistance factors for the compression limit state is given in Article Article includes limits on longitudinal reinforcements, spirals and ties. This Article includes methods for determining nominal compression but not for prestressed members.
Timber Piles: See article for both laterally supported and unsupported piles. Article requires a reduction for long term loads of 0.75 for the Strength Load Combination IV.
Buckling and Lateral Stability: For stability the effective is equal to the unsupported length plus the embedded depth to fixity. Potential for buckling should be as in Article Preliminary design for the depth to fixity for clays and sands are provided by 2 equations in

37. Determining Nominal Axial Geotechnical Resistance of Piles
Field methods
Static load test
Dynamic load test (PDA)
Driving Formulae
Wave Equation Analysis
Static analysis methods

38. Geotechnical Safety Factors for Piles (ASD)
Basis for Design and Type of Construction Control
Increasing Design/Construction Control
Subsurface exploration X
Static analysis
Dynamic formula
Wave equation
CAPWAP analysis
Static load test
Factor of Safety (FS)
3.50
2.75
2.25
2.00
1.90

39. Pile Testing Methods Analysis Method Resistance Factor (f)
(AASHTO 2010)
Factor of Safety
(FS)
Estimated
Measured
Capacity
Stress
Energy
Dynamic formula
0.10 or 0.40
3.50 X
Wave equation
0.50
2.75
Dynamic testing
0.65 or 0.75
2.25
Static load test
0.75 to 0.80
2.00

40. Results and Definition of Failure
Geotechnical Nominal Resistance of Piles: Static Load Tests ASTM D1143 ( )
Test Setup
Results and Definition of Failure
Static load tests as per ASTM D1143, Quick Load Test Method: Davisson 24in and less; larger than 36 diameter s = QL/12AE + B/2.5 (B is in ft.)

41. Dynamic Load Test (PDA) ASTM D4945 10.7.3.8.3
Dynamic Testing : follow ASTM D4945. Testing should be performed by certified and experienced testers.
Dynamic Testing
Added commentary on restrike capacity matching with PDA from Hannigan.

42. Wave Equation Driven Resistance 10.7.3.8.4
Note that the static analysis resistance factors are much less than the field tested resistance factors.
Ask Participants why (answer less uncertainty from fielded tested resistance)

43. Wave Equation Applications
Item
Use
Develop driving criterion
Blow count for a required nominal resistance
Blow count for nominal resistance as a function of energy/stroke
Check drivability
Blow count vs penetration depth
Driving stresses vs penetration depth
Determine optimal driving equipment
Driving time
Refined matching analysis
Adjust input values based on dynamic measurements

44. Wave Equation Results
195 MPa
1480 kN
2.6 m
68 blows / 0.25 m

45. Driving Formulas (Article 10.7.3.8.5)

46. Pile Testing Methods Analysis Method Resistance Factor (f) Estimated
(AASHTO 2010)
Estimated
Measured
Capacity
Stress
Energy
Dynamic formula
0.10 or 0.40 X
Wave equation
0.50
Dynamic testing
0.65 or 0.75
Static load test
0.75 to 0.80

47. Static Analysis Methods (Article 10.7.3.8.6)
Static analysis methods and computer solutions are used to:
● Calculate pile length for loads
● Determine number of piles
● Determine most cost effective pile type
● Calculate foundation settlement
● Calculate performance under uplift and lateral loads

48. Static Analysis Methods
12th Bridge Design Workshop
Printed: October 7, 2005
Static Analysis Methods
Slide control
Bullets appear one at a time or other appropriate slide control.
This information is Arial 14 pt. font in text box on the notes view page.
Key Message
Summarize the point that you want everyone to remember from slide.
Background Information
Explain any background or related information to support the slide that may be used to answer questions or to elaborate, if necessary. This is in 12 pt Arial font
Interactivity
If there are special comments, or facilitation techniques, that are recommended for the instructors to use, they should be stated here. It is important, that the instructional methodology supports the Learning Outcomes (LOs).
Notes
Describe any factors that might make it difficult for learners to understand/accept a key message, identifying typical questions, regional, political or demographic issues and possible solutions.
This is a Power point slide inserted in the notes view. This description was placed in the file outside the printable area of the motes pages
Primary use is for pile length estimation for contract drawings and feasibility.
Secondary use for estimation of downdrag, uplift resistance and scour effects
Should rarely be used as sole means of determining pile resistance. ONLY IN SPECIAL SITUATIONS!
LRFD Specifications for Foundation Design

49. Large Pile Diameter Resistance
Total Resistance A
Side Resistance B
Resistance D C
Tip Resistance RS
Vertical Displacement RP
RR = fRn = fqpRp + fqsRs

50. Computation of Static Geotechnical Resistance
RR = fRn
fRn = fqpRp + fqsRs
RP = AP qP
RS = AS qs RS RP
AASHTO

51. EXAMPLE SOIL PROFILE Nominal Resistance: Rn = Rs1 + Rs2 + Rs3 +Rt
Factored Resistance: RR = fRn= f(Rs3 + Rt)
Soil Resistance to Driving (SRD):
SRD = Rs1 + Rs2 + Rs3 +Rt
((with no soil strength changes)
SRD = Rs1 + Rs2 / 2 + Rs3 +Rt
(with clay soil strength change)

52. Static Analysis Methods
Driven Piles
a method
b method
l method
Nordlund -Thurman method
SPT-method
CPT-method
Note that the static analysis resistance factors are much less than the field tested resistance factors.
Ask Participants why (answer less uncertainty from fielded tested resistance)

53. Resistance Factors Static Analysis Methods
AASHTO Table
Method
Resistance Factor, f
Compression
Tension
a- method
0.35
0.25
b- method
0.20
l- method
0.40
0.30
Nordlund- Thurman
0.45
SPT
CPT
0.50
Group
0.60
Static analysis resistance factors reflect an average value since research has indicted that the static analysis vary depending on pile type.

54. Combining Geotechnical Resistance Factors
C fdyn x Rn = f stat x Rnstat
The length predicted by this method may be overly conservative and need to be adjusted to reflect experience.
Local experience replaces this suggested relationship.

55. Driven Pile Time Dependent Effects
(Article )
Setup
Relaxation
Add relaxation discussion RS RS RS RS RP RP RP RP

56. SOIL SETUP
Soil setup is a time dependent increase in the static pile resistance
Large excess positive pore pressures are often generated during pile driving
Soil setup frequently occurs for piles driven in saturated clays as well as loose to medium dense silts and fine sands as the excess pore pressure dissipate
Magnitude of setup depends on soil characteristics and pile material and type

57. Point Bearing on Rock (Article 10.7.3.2)
Soft rock that can be penetrated by pile driving may be treated similar to soils.
Steel piles driven into soft rock may not require tip reinforcement.
On hard rock the nominal resistance is controlled by the structural capacity. See Article and the driving resistances in and 6.15 for severe driving.
PDA should be used when the nominal resistance exceeds 600 kips.
C Provides qualitative guidance to minimize pile damage when driving piles on hard rock.

58. Pile Group Resistance 10.7.3.9 & 11 Static Geotechnical Resistance
Figures and -2 for group uplift resistance for cohesionless and cohesive soils respectively.
Take lesser of
Resistance of Pile Groups in Compression
Pile Groups in Clay = 0.65 for soft soil and cap contact at 2.5 diameters and 1.0 at 6.0 diameters. No reduction is applied in clays if the cap is in contact with the soil and the soil is stiff. In cohesionless soils regardless of the cap condition = 1.0 provided the pile spacing is 2.5 or greater. If the group is tipped in a strong deposit overlying a weaker deposit the block bearing resistance should evaluated as to the pile group punching into the weaker deposit.
and 11 Uplift Resistance of Single Piles and Pile Groups
Uplift test ASTM D 3689 and evaluated as stated in Hannigan.
Resistance factors for single piles are reduced to 0.80 of static compressive resistance.

59. Driven Pile Foundations
CE A
Driven Pile Foundations
Topic
Slides
General (Section 3, Section 10.4, )
4 – 16
10.5 Limit States and Resistance Factors
17 – 20
Service Limit State
21 – 29
Strength Limit State
30 – 58
Extreme Event Limit State
59 – 65
Corrosion and Deterioration
66 – 69
Drivability Analysis
70 – 73

60. EXTREME EVENT LIMIT STATES 10.5.5.3
Scour
Vessel and Vehicle collision
Seismic loading and site specific situations.
(Uplift Resistance should be 0.80 rather than 1.00 for all extreme checks.)

61. Piles Subject to Scour 10.5.5.3.2 10.5.5.3.2 Scour
The provisions of Articles and shall apply to the changed foundation conditions resulting from scour. Resistance factors at the strength limit state shall be taken as specified herein. Resistance factors at the extreme event shall be taken as 1.0 except that for uplift resistance of piles and shafts, the resistance factor shall be taken as 0.80 or less.

62. Seismic – Articles ,
Liquefaction: Neglect axial resistance in liquefiable zone
Lateral Spreading: Either consider forces due to lateral spreading or improve ground; reduce P-y curve based on duration of strong shaking and ability of the ground to fully liquefy during strong shaking
Downdrag: Do not combine “seismic” downdrag with “static” downdrag

63. Driven Pile Foundations
CE A
Driven Pile Foundations
Topic
Slides
General (Section 3, Section 10.4, )
4 – 18
10.5 Limit States and Resistance Factors
19 – 22
Service Limit State
23 – 31
Strength Limit State
32 – 58
Extreme Event Limit State
59 – 62
Corrosion and Deterioration
63 – 66
Drivability Analysis
67 – 73

64. 10.7.5 Corrosion and Deterioration
Identified by soil resistivity & pH testing
If pH < 4.5, design should be based on an aggressive environment
Corrosion of steel pile foundations, particularly in fill soils, low pH soils and marine environments
Sulfate, chloride, and acid attack of concrete pile foundations
Decay of timber piles from wetting and drying cycles from insects and marine borers
General guidance on minimizing corrosion and deterioration in Section, page 118 but in general it directs you to Hannigan for detailed guidance in the specification commentary.

65. Aggressive Subsurface Environments
Resistivity < 2000 ohms-cm
pH < 5.5
pH between 5.5 and 8.5 in soils with high organic content
Sulfates > 1,000 ppm
Landfills and cinder fills
Soils subject to mine or industrial drainage
Areas of mixed resistivity (high and low)
Insects (wood piles)

66. Pile Driving Induced Vibrations See Hannigan (2006)
Vibration induced damage
Vibration induced soil densification

67. Driven Pile Foundations
CE A
Driven Pile Foundations
Topic
Slides
General (Section 3, Section 10.4, )
4 – 18
10.5 Limit States and Resistance Factors
19 – 22
Service Limit State
23 – 31
Strength Limit State
32 – 58
Extreme Event Limit State
59 – 62
Corrosion and Deterioration
63 – 66
Drivability Analysis
67 – 73

68. 12th Bridge Design Workshop
Printed: October 7, 2005
Section Driven Piles
Slide control
Bullets appear one at a time or other appropriate slide control.
This information is Arial 14 pt. font in text box on the notes view page.
Key Message
Summarize the point that you want everyone to remember from slide.
Background Information
Explain any background or related information to support the slide that may be used to answer questions or to elaborate, if necessary. This is in 12 pt Arial font
Interactivity
If there are special comments, or facilitation techniques, that are recommended for the instructors to use, they should be stated here. It is important, that the instructional methodology supports the Learning Outcomes (LOs).
Notes
Describe any factors that might make it difficult for learners to understand/accept a key message, identifying typical questions, regional, political or demographic issues and possible solutions.
This is a Power point slide inserted in the notes view. This description was placed in the file outside the printable area of the motes pages
Requirements for drivability analysis have been added
and clarified
LRFD Specifications for Foundation Design

69. 10.7.8 Drivability Analysis Pile Type Loading Type
Limiting Driving Stress
Steel
Compression/Tension
Concrete
Compression
Tension
Prestressed
Tension (in severe corrosion)
Timber

70. Driven Resistance Factors
Concrete piles, = 1.00
AASHTO Article
Steel piles, = 1.00
AASHTO Article
Timber piles, = 1.15
AASHTO Article

71. Driven Pile Foundations
CE A
Driven Pile Foundations
Topic
Slides
General (Section 3, Section 10.4, )
4 – 18
10.5 Limit States and Resistance Factors
19 – 22
Service Limit State
23 – 31
Strength Limit State
32 – 58
Extreme Event Limit State
59 – 62
Corrosion and Deterioration
63 – 66
Drivability Analysis
67 – 71

72. 12th Bridge Design Workshop
Printed: October 7, 2005
5th Edition 2010 Changes Sec 10.5
Slide control
Bullets appear one at a time or other appropriate slide control.
This information is Arial 14 pt. font in text box on the notes view page.
Key Message
Summarize the point that you want everyone to remember from slide.
Background Information
Explain any background or related information to support the slide that may be used to answer questions or to elaborate, if necessary. This is in 12 pt Arial font
Interactivity
If there are special comments, or facilitation techniques, that are recommended for the instructors to use, they should be stated here. It is important, that the instructional methodology supports the Learning Outcomes (LOs).
Notes
Describe any factors that might make it difficult for learners to understand/accept a key message, identifying typical questions, regional, political or demographic issues and possible solutions.
Specification references to changes in resistance factors based on pile group size moved to the commentary.
The definition of foundation redundancy (in commentary) was simplified.
Tables relating resistance factor to site variability were removed from the specifications and decisions were deferred to the engineer. The site variability method was retained as an acceptable option to aid in engineering judgment.
Precaution for static analysis predictions for piles greater than 24“ was added.
The resulting changes based on the above was a modest increase for several resistance factors.
This is a Power point slide inserted in the notes view. This description was placed in the file outside the printable area of the motes pages
LRFD Specifications for Foundation Design

73. 12th Bridge Design Workshop
Printed: October 7, 2005
5th Edition 2010 Changes Sec 10.7
Slide control
Bullets appear one at a time or other appropriate slide control.
This information is Arial 14 pt. font in text box on the notes view page.
Key Message
Summarize the point that you want everyone to remember from slide.
Background Information
Explain any background or related information to support the slide that may be used to answer questions or to elaborate, if necessary. This is in 12 pt Arial font
Interactivity
If there are special comments, or facilitation techniques, that are recommended for the instructors to use, they should be stated here. It is important, that the instructional methodology supports the Learning Outcomes (LOs).
Notes
Describe any factors that might make it difficult for learners to understand/accept a key message, identifying typical questions, regional, political or demographic issues and possible solutions.
This is a Power point slide inserted in the notes view. This description was placed in the file outside the printable area of the motes pages
Use of dynamic tests with signal matching to estimate side friction were added as a reasonable alternative to static analysis methods or load testing.
Table , small adjustments in the p-multipliers for group lateral load analysis.
Provisions for piles driven to hard rock (Article ) were made more complete.
Article changed to clarify the use and potential pitfalls of the approaches provided to estimate the pile length required.
Article C , guidance added regarding the length of time needed for various soil conditions before a restrike should be attempted.
LRFD Specifications for Foundation Design

74. Table 10.5.5.2.3-1 Resistance Factors for Driven Piles
Static Load Test with Dynamic Tests – 0.80 (minimum test number 2 and minimum percentage 2% of tests)
Static Load Test without Dynamic Tests – 0.75
Dynamic Testing 100% production piles – 0.75
Dynamic Tests – 0.65 (minimum test number 2 and minimum percentage 2% of tests)
Wave Equation – 0.50

75. For More Information on Driven Piles

76. 12th Bridge Design Workshop
Printed: October 7, 2005
REFERENCES
Slide control
Bullets appear one at a time or other appropriate slide control.
This information is Arial 14 pt. font in text box on the notes view page.
Key Message
Summarize the point that you want everyone to remember from slide.
Background Information
Explain any background or related information to support the slide that may be used to answer questions or to elaborate, if necessary. This is in 12 pt Arial font
Interactivity
If there are special comments, or facilitation techniques, that are recommended for the instructors to use, they should be stated here. It is important, that the instructional methodology supports the Learning Outcomes (LOs).
Notes
Describe any factors that might make it difficult for learners to understand/accept a key message, identifying typical questions, regional, political or demographic issues and possible solutions.
Allen, T. M “Development of Geotechnical Resistance Factors and Downdrag Load Factors for LRFD Foundation Strength Limit State Design”, FHWA-NHI , FHWA, Wash. DC.
Barker, R. M. et al “Manuals for the Design of Bridge Foundations” NCHRP Report 343. Transportation Research Board, NRC, Wash., DC.
Hannigan P.J. et al, “Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations”, FHWA-HI-05, FHWA, Wash. DC
Paikowsky S. G. et al, “Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Deep Foundations”, NCHRP Report 507. Transportation Research Board, NRC, Wash. DC.
This is a Power point slide inserted in the notes view. This description was placed in the file outside the printable area of the motes pages
LRFD Specifications for Foundation Design

77. By Jerry A. DiMaggio, PE, D.GE, M. ASCE E-Mail: jdimaggio2@verizon.net
Practical Implementation of LRFD for Geotechnical Engineering Features Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations Wednesday, June 22, 2011 PDCA Professors Workshop By
Jerry A. DiMaggio, PE, D.GE, M. ASCE