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
E-Mail: jdimaggio2@verizon.net

ASCE LRFD Webinar Series

# Topic 2009 2010 2011 2012

1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Fundamentals of LRFD Part 1

Fundamentals of LRFD Part 2 Subsurface Explorations Shallow Foundations Deep Foundations Piles Deep Foundations Shafts Deep Foundations Micropiles Earth Retaining Structures Fill Earth Retaining Structures Cut MSE Walls Ground Anchors

1/16, 8/7
1/30, 9/8 7/24

6/30
7/15 1/6, 5/7, 11/8 2/8, 6/11 9/10 8/20 10/21

1/18, 10/13
2/4, 10/21 2/17, 8/18 5/20, 12/12 1/7, 7/8 3/3, 7/29 3/11, 9/12 9/30 4/4, 12/2 5/2 3/29 1/23 1/12 3/9 2/28 2/3

6/30, 11/5 4/15

1/25, 6/1, 12/14 6/21, 11/7

* Check ASCE website for latest information

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

Driven Pile Foundations

Topic General (Section 3, Section 10.4, 10.7.1) 10.7.2 Service Limit State 10.7.3 Strength Limit State Slides 4 18 23 31 32 58 59 65 66 69

10.5 Limit States and Resistance Factors 19 22

10.7.4 Extreme Event Limit State

10.7.5 Corrosion and Deterioration 10.7.8 Drivability Analysis

70 73
4

Section 10 Contents
Article 10.1 Topic Scope

10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9

Definitions Notation Soil and Rock Properties Limit States and Resistance Factors Spread Footings Driven Piles Drilled Shafts Micropiles Refer to Section 3 for Loads and Load Factors

Deep Foundation Types

Material Prestressed concrete Post-tensioned concrete Pre-cast concrete
Driven Piles Drilled Jacked/ Shafts/ Special Micropiles

X X X X

Cast-in-place concrete
Steel

X
X

X
X X

X
X X 6

Wood
Specialty/Composites

X
X

Section 10.7 Driven Piles

Article 10.7.1 10.7.2 10.7.3 10.7.4 10.7.5 10.7.6 10.7.7 Topic General Service Limit State Design Strength Limit State Design Extreme Event Limit State Design Corrosion and Deterioration Minimum Pile Penetration Driving Criteria for Bearing

10.7.8 10.7.9

Drivability Analysis Test Piles

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. 8

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, dont use in downdrag situations, concern in seismic situations.

Comparison of LRFD and ASD approaches for Deep Foundations

Same
Determining resistance Determining deflection

Different
Comparison of load and resistance Separation of resistance and deflection

10

AASHTO Table 3.4.1-1

DC DD DW EH EV ES EL PS CR SH p p p p p p p 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Use One of These at a Time

Load Combination Limit State

I II STRENGTH III LIMIT IV V I EXTREME II EVENT I II SERVICE LIMIT III IV I FATIGUE - LL, II IM & CE only

LL IM CE BR PL LS 1.75 1.35 1.35 EQ 0.50 1.00 1.30 0.80 1.50 0.75

WA 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

WS 1.40 0.40 0.30 0.70

WL 1.0 1.0

FR 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

TU 0.50/1.20 0.50/1.20 0.50/1.20 0.50/1.20 0.50/1.20 1.00/1.20 1.00/1.20 1.00/1.20 1.00/1.20

TG TG TG TG TG TG TG

SE SE SE SE SE SE SE 1.0

EQ 1.00

IC 1.00

CT 1.00

CV 1.00

11

EH EV ES

DC DD

DW
DC DD DW EH EV ES EL PS CR SH p p p p p p p 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

LL
LL IM CE BR PL LS 1.75 1.35 1.35 EQ 0.50 1.00 1.30 0.80 1.50 0.75

Use One of These at a Time

Load Combination Limit State

I II STRENGTH III LIMIT IV V I EXTREME II EVENT I II SERVICE LIMIT III IV I FATIGUE - LL, II IM & CE only

EQ WA
WA 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 WS 1.40 0.40 0.30 0.70 WL 1.0 1.0 FR 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 TU 0.50/1.20 0.50/1.20 0.50/1.20 0.50/1.20 0.50/1.20 1.00/1.20 1.00/1.20 1.00/1.20 1.00/1.20 TG TG TG TG TG TG TG SE SE SE SE SE SE SE 1.0 EQ 1.00

CT
IC 1.00 CT 1.00 CV 1.00

12

AASHTO Table 3.4.1-2

Load Factors for Permanent Loads, gp

Type of Load, Foundation Type, and Method Used to Calculate Downdrag Load Factor Maximum Minimum 1.25 1.50 1.4 1.05 1.25 1.50 1.50 1.35 1.35 1.00 1.00 1.35 1.30 1.35 1.95 1.50 1.50 0.90 0.90 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.65 0.90 0.90 N/A 1.00 N/A 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.75

DC: Component and Attachments DC: Strength IV only DD: Downdrag Piles, Tomlinson Method Piles, Method Drilled shafts, ONeill and Reese (1999) Method DW: Wearing Surfaces and Utilities EH: Horizontal Earth Pressure Active At-Rest AEP for anchored walls EL: Locked-in Construction Stresses EV: Vertical Earth Pressure Overall Stability Retaining Walls and Abutments Rigid Buried Structure Rigid Frames Flexible Buried Structures other than Metal Box Culverts Flexible Metal Box Culverts and Structural Plate Culverts with Deep Corrugations ES: Earth Surcharge

13

Load Type and Direction

Structural
Vertical or horizontal Permanent/Transient

Geotechnical
Vertical/Horizontal Downdrag/Setup/Relaxation
Bridge Deck New Fill

Soft Soil Consolidating Due to Fill Weight

Bearing Stratum

14

Downdrag
Geotechnical load Can be significant particularly given the max load factors Articles 3.4.1 and 3.11.8
Design Method

Bridge Deck New Fill

Soft Soil Consolidating Due to Fill Weight

Bearing Stratum

-method Piles -method Shafts Reese & ONeill (1999)

Load Factors Maximum Minimum 1.40 0.25 1.05 0.30 1.25 0.35 15

15

AASHTO Section 10.4 Soil and Rock Properties

Article Topic

10.4.1 10.4.2 10.4.3 10.4.4 10.4.5 10.4.6

Informational Needs Subsurface Exploration Laboratory Tests In Situ Tests Geophysical Tests Selection of Design Properties

DISCUSSED IN PREVIOUS WEBINAR ON SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS Next Offering on August 18, 2011
16

Deep Foundation Selection

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

17

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

18

Driven Pile Foundations

Topic Slides

General (Section 3, Section 10.4, 10.7.1) 4 18 10.5 Limit States and Resistance Factors 19 22 10.7.2 Service Limit State 23 31
10.7.3 Strength Limit State 10.7.4 Extreme Event Limit State 10.7.5 Corrosion and Deterioration 32 58 59 65 66 69

10.7.8 Drivability Analysis

70 73

19

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
20

SPECIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Negative shaft resistance (downdrag) Lateral squeeze Scour Pile and soil heave Seismic considerations

21

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 22

Driven Pile Foundations

Topic Slides

General (Section 3, Section 10.4, 10.7.1) 4 18 10.5 Limit States and Resistance Factors 19 22 10.7.2 Service Limit State 23 31
10.7.3 Strength Limit State 10.7.4 Extreme Event Limit State 10.7.5 Corrosion and Deterioration 32 61 62 65 66 69

10.7.8 Drivability Analysis

70 73

23

Service Limit State Checks

Global Stability Vertical and Horizontal Displacements

24

Settlement of Pile Groups Article 10.7.2.3.1 [Hannigan (2006)]

Treat as equivalent footings Categorize as one of the 4 cases shown here
25

10.7.2.4 Horizontal Loads and Pile Moments

Dx Dx

Fx M2

H2 M1

H1

26

Horizontal Response
Isolated Group

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

P-y Results for Single Element

10.1 k 1740 k 8000 in-k Deflection, Moment, in. in. -kx102
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0

Shear, k
0 20

20 40 60 80 -60 -40 -20

0.84

8640

Depth, ft

10

20

65.5

30

40

50

28

P-y Results for Pile Groups

AASHTO Figure 10.7.2.4-1
Row 1 Row 2 Row 3 or higher Row 1 Row 2 Row 3 or higher Applied Load Spacing

Spacing

Applied Load 5B or less Row 1

Applied Load

Spacing (S) 3B 5B

P-multiplier (Pm) Row 1 0.8 1.00 Row 2 0.4 0.85 Row 3 0.3 0.7

29

Pile Head Fixity

Dx Dx

Moment

Moment

30

30

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 (C10.5.2.2)
31

Driven Pile Foundations

Topic Slides

General (Section 3, Section 10.4, 10.7.1) 4 18 10.5 Limit States and Resistance Factors 19 22 10.7.2 Service Limit State 23 31
10.7.3 Strength Limit State 10.7.4 Extreme Event Limit State 10.7.5 Corrosion and Deterioration 32 58 59 65 66 69

10.7.8 Drivability Analysis

70 73

32

STRENGTH LIMIT STATES

Axial

Driven (Assess Drivability)

Structural

Flexure

Shear

Geotechnical Axial
33

33

Methods for Determining Structural Resistance

Axial compression Combined axial and flexure Shear
Concrete Section 5
LRFD Specifications

Steel Section 6

Wood Section 8

34

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)
35

Structural Resistance Factors

10.7.3.13 Pile Structural Resistance Concrete (5.5.4.2) Steel (6.5.4.2) Axial Comp. = 0.75 Axial = 0.5-0.7 Flexure = 0.9 (strain dependent) Combined Shear = 0.9 Axial= 0.7-0.8 Flexure = 1.0 Shear = 1.0
LRFD Specifications

Timber (8.5.2.2 and .3) Compression = 0.9 Tension = 0.8 Flexure = 0.85 Shear = 0.75 36

Determining Nominal Axial Geotechnical Resistance of Piles

Field methods
Static load test Dynamic load test (PDA) Driving Formulae Wave Equation Analysis

Static analysis methods

37

Geotechnical Safety Factors for Piles (ASD)

Basis for Design and Type of Construction Control Subsurface exploration Static analysis Dynamic formula Wave equation CAPWAP analysis Static load test Increasing Design/Construction Control X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Factor of Safety (FS)

3.50

2.75

2.25

2.00

1.90

38

Pile Testing Methods

Analysis Method Dynamic formula Wave equation Dynamic testing Resistance Factor (f)
(AASHTO 2010)

Factor of Safety (FS) 3.50

Estimated
Capacity Energy Stress

Measured
Capacity Energy Stress

0.10 or 0.40

0.50
0.65 or 0.75

2.75
2.25 2.00

X
X

X
X X X

Static load test

0.75 to 0.80

39

Geotechnical Nominal Resistance of Piles: Static Load Tests ASTM D1143 (10.7.8.2)
Test Setup

Results and Definition of Failure

40

Dynamic Load Test (PDA) ASTM D4945

10.7.3.8.3

41

Wave Equation Driven Resistance 10.7.3.8.4

vo Ram Cushion Drivehead elastic c Ground Surface
Compressive Force Pulse (Attenuated)

elastic

Compressive Force Pulse (Incident)

Pile Soft Layer c

Compressive Force Pulse Tensile or Compressive Force Pulse c (Reflected)

(a)

Dense Layer

(b)

(c)

Permanent Set (d)

42

Wave Equation Applications

Item Develop driving criterion Use Blow count for a required nominal resistance Blow count for nominal resistance as a function of energy/stroke Blow count vs penetration depth Driving stresses vs penetration depth Driving time Adjust input values based on dynamic measurements

Check drivability Determine optimal driving equipment Refined matching analysis

43

250

250

T e n s io n S tr e s s ( M P a )

GRL Engineers, Inc. FHWA - GRLWEAP EXAMPLE #1

C o m p r e s s iv e S tr e s s ( M P a )

Wave Equation Results

DELMAG D 12-42 Efficiency Helmet Hammer Cushion Skin Quake Toe Quake Skin Damping Toe Damping Pile Length Pile Penetration Pile Top Area
200

27-Aug-2003 GRLWEAP (TM) Version 2003

195 MPa

200

0.800 7.60 kN 10535 kN/mm 2.500 3.000 0.160 0.500 mm mm sec/m sec/m

150

150

100

100

50

50

U ltim a t e C a p a c ity ( k N )

0 2000

0 5.00

20.00 m 19.00 m 86.51 cm2 Skin Friction Distribution

1200

3.00

2.6 m
800 2.00

400

1.00

0 0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

125.0

0.00 150.0

S t r o k e ( m e te r )

1480 kN

1600

4.00

Pile Model

Blow Count (blows/.25m)

Res. Shaft = 84 % (Proportional)

68 blows / 0.25 m

44

Driving Formulas (Article 10.7.3.8.5)

45

Pile Testing Methods

Analysis Method Dynamic formula Resistance Factor (f)
(AASHTO 2010)

Estimated
Capacity Energy Stress

Measured
Capacity Energy Stress

0.10 or 0.40 0.50 0.65 or 0.75 0.75 to 0.80

X X X X X X X X

Wave equation Dynamic testing Static load test

46

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

47

Static Analysis Methods

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!

48

Large Pile Diameter Resistance

Total Resistance

A
Resistance Side Resistance

B C

D
Tip Resistance Vertical Displacement

RS RP

RR = fRn = fqpRp + fqsRs

49

Computation of Static Geotechnical Resistance

RR = fRn fRn = fqpRp + fqsRs RP = AP qP
RS RP

RS = AS qs
AASHTO 10.7.3.7.5-2

50

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)

51

Static Analysis Methods

Driven Piles
method b method method Nordlund -Thurman method SPT-method CPT-method

52

Resistance Factors Static Analysis Methods

AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.3-1

Method - method b- method - method Nordlund- Thurman SPT CPT Group

Resistance Factor, f Compression Tension 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.40 0.30 0.45 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.50 0.40 0.60 0.50
53

Combining Geotechnical Resistance Factors

C10.7.3.3 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.

54

Driven Pile Time Dependent Effects (Article 10.7.3.4)

Setup Relaxation

RS RP

RS RP

RS RP

RS RP 55

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 56

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 6.9.4.1 and the driving resistances in 6.5.4.2 and 6.15 for severe driving. PDA should be used when the nominal resistance exceeds 600 kips. C10.7.3.2.3 Provides qualitative guidance to minimize pile damage when driving piles on hard rock.

57

Pile Group Resistance 10.7.3.9 & 11 Static Geotechnical Resistance

Figures 10.7.3.11-1 and -2 for group uplift resistance for cohesionless and cohesive soils respectively.

Take lesser of

58

Driven Pile Foundations

Topic Slides

General (Section 3, Section 10.4, 10.7.1) 4 16 10.5 Limit States and Resistance Factors 17 20 10.7.2 Service Limit State 21 29
10.7.3 Strength Limit State 10.7.4 Extreme Event Limit State 10.7.5 Corrosion and Deterioration 30 58 59 65 66 69

10.7.8 Drivability Analysis

70 73

59

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.)

60

Piles Subject to Scour

10.5.5.3.2

61

Seismic Articles 10.7.4, 10.5.5.3.3

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
62

Driven Pile Foundations

Topic Slides

General (Section 3, Section 10.4, 10.7.1) 4 18 10.5 Limit States and Resistance Factors 19 22 10.7.2 Service Limit State 23 31
10.7.3 Strength Limit State 10.7.4 Extreme Event Limit State 10.7.5 Corrosion and Deterioration 32 58 59 62 63 66

10.7.8 Drivability Analysis

67 73

63

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

64

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)
65

Pile Driving Induced Vibrations See Hannigan (2006)

Vibration induced damage Vibration induced soil densification

66

Driven Pile Foundations

Topic Slides

General (Section 3, Section 10.4, 10.7.1) 4 18 10.5 Limit States and Resistance Factors 19 22 10.7.2 Service Limit State 23 31
10.7.3 Strength Limit State 10.7.4 Extreme Event Limit State 10.7.5 Corrosion and Deterioration 32 58 59 62 63 66

10.7.8 Drivability Analysis

67 73

67

Section 10.7.8 Driven Piles

Comp Str ksi 30 Tens Str ksi

Requirements for drivability analysis have been added and clarified

20 10 Ult Cap kips 800 600 400 200 Stroke ft 16.0 12.0 8.0 4.0

160

320

480 Blows/ft

68

Pile Type
Steel Concrete

Loading Type
Compression/Tension Compression Tension Compression

Limiting Driving Stress

dr fda (0.9 f y )
' dr fda (0.85 fc )

dr fda (0.7 fy )
' dr fda (0.85 fc fpe ) ' dr fda (0.095 fc fpe )

Prestressed

Tension Tension (in severe corrosion)

dr fda (fpe )

Timber

Compression/Tension

dr fda (fco )

69

Driven Resistance Factors

Concrete piles,fda= 1.00

Steel piles,fda= 1.00

AASHTO Article 5.5.4.2.1

AASHTO Article 6.5.4.2 AASHTO Article 8.5.2.2

Timber piles,fda= 1.15

70

Driven Pile Foundations

Topic Slides

General (Section 3, Section 10.4, 10.7.1) 4 18 10.5 Limit States and Resistance Factors 19 22 10.7.2 Service Limit State 23 31
10.7.3 Strength Limit State 10.7.4 Extreme Event Limit State 10.7.5 Corrosion and Deterioration 32 58 59 62 63 66

10.7.8 Drivability Analysis

67 71

71

5th Edition 2010 Changes Sec 10.5

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.

72

5th Edition 2010 Changes Sec 10.7

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 10.7.2.4-1, small adjustments in the p-multipliers for group lateral load analysis. Provisions for piles driven to hard rock (Article 10.7.3.2) were made more complete.

Article 10.7.3.3 changed to clarify the use and potential pitfalls of the approaches provided to estimate the pile length required.
Article C10.7.3.4.3, guidance added regarding the length of time needed for various soil conditions before a restrike should be attempted.

73

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

74

For More Information on Driven Piles

75

REFERENCES
Allen, T. M. 2005. Development of Geotechnical Resistance Factors and Downdrag Load Factors for LRFD Foundation Strength Limit State Design, FHWA-NHI-05052, FHWA, Wash. DC. Barker, R. M. et al 1991. Manuals for the Design of Bridge Foundations NCHRP Report 343. Transportation Research Board, NRC, Wash., DC. Hannigan P.J. et al, 2005. Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations, FHWA-HI-05, FHWA, Wash. DC Paikowsky S. G. et al, 2004. Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Deep Foundations, NCHRP Report 507. Transportation Research Board, NRC, Wash. DC.

76

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
E-Mail: jdimaggio2@verizon.net

77