Missouri Department of Transportation SEP 2017

Bridge Division

Structural Engineering Procedure No. 17-01

Date: December 27, 2017

Distribution: Bridge Office
PROCEDURE: NEW INTEGRAL END BENT PILE DESIGN PROCEDURE
Contact: Gregory Sanders, Development Section
Aaron Kemna, Senior Structural Engineer, author of simple pile design procedure
Darren Kemna, Senior Structural Engineer, author of rigorous pile design procedure
Al Shawn, Senior Structural Designer, contributor
EPG Status: Simple Pile Design To Be Submitted, Rigorous Pile Design Not To Be Submitted
Effective Date: Immediately For Jobs To Be Designed
Expiration/Duration: Active Until Further Notice
Internal Development Section Job Number: 17-055-DSI

Background and Purpose:

Integral end bent pile loading design was more simple in the past when only axial loading design in
accordance with AASHTO 17th Ed. Standard Specifications Allowable Service Design (ASD) was
office practice. It was considered adequate for integral concrete bridge lengths up to 600 ft. (500 ft.
for steel) and an undefined maximum skew limit ( 45° to 50°) (1)

When AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD) was adopted for bridge substructure
design, pile lateral loading design was implemented into office practice. Integral end bent piles were
then designed for both loading types until later revised (see e-mail (2) below) thus becoming the
current office practice.

Current office practice requires comparing both past ASD and LRFD office practices to determine the
controlling size and number of piles where either not greater than as determined by ASD is required.
While both ASD and LRFD are utilized side by side initially, either ASD or LRFD is supposed to
singularly validate the final pile solution.

This has led to confusion with pile designs performed based on either method. Some designs may be
only considering ASD. Some designs may show that LRFD can produce less pile axial loading
compared with ASD and therefore fewer piles but when combined with LRFD lateral loading may
produce the same pile size and numbers as ASD. Some designs may be only considering LRFD in
excess of an ASD design check based on atypical bridge parameters of length and skew.

Therefore, to avoid the furtherance of confusion, a firm and clear direction for pile design is
necessary. Only pile axial loading design will be required for most bridge layout configurations and
it shall follow current ASD practice only.

Past successful integral bridge performance is the strongest rationale in support of a pile axial
loading-only, ASD practice. A lack of adequate codification in LRFD to formally address pile design
for these structure types is also an issue, however there have been many individual states
experimental research studies some of them reviewed for this new direction and are our own
empirical successes. It is sufficient to state that an integral end bent on steel piling is a complex
resistance system where the sum of all of its parts counteracts primarily its largest loading, thermal
movement, but provides also its greatest impediment to understanding because of the coupled
component responses to lateral loading.

Development Section Page 1 of 17

Missouri Department of Transportation SEP 2017
Bridge Division

It should be noted that field inspections do not inspect the bottoms of end bent beam caps nor piles at
the beam caps because of inaccessibility, however neither collateral damage due to overstressed piles
(front face beam cracks, wing wall cracks, end of slab cracking, beam translation, rotation, settling)
nor visibly damaged incidentally exposed piles or underside of beam caps at end bents (when exposed
due to scour, erosion) have been reported. In fairness, it should also be noted that there has been
individual state efforts in researching integral bridge end bent pile design over many years.
.
Two methods are proposed. A simple method that will cover more than ninety percent of new bridges
to be designed and a rigorous method for handling the remaining ten percent.. The simple method will
be submitted to the EPG for incorporation. The rigorous method will be utilized for in-house design
with discretionary release to consultants based on the findings from in-house since it is based on the
plastic design of piles.

Having a rigorous pile design method allows for two things: retaining knowledge and practice for
refined combined end bent pile axial and lateral loading design and a possible pathway forward to
longer integral bridges.
_________________________________________________________________________________
(1)
A quick bridge review shows that ten new integral bridges have skews greater than 45
degrees. Four of these were designed in-house (A7958, A7639, A7622 and A6221), and the
greatest skew is 50° (A7639 with 50-foot length and A6221 with 119-foot length). The greatest
skew for a consultant-designed integral bridge is 63° (A6430 with 106-foot length).

(2)
E-mail to Bridge Division revising then office practice in 2008 to current practice:

Date: 06/30/2008 10:48 AM

Subject: LRFD Substructure Design

The designers/checkers should continue to investigate based on LRFD. The axial loads should be
used to determine the number and size of the piles. Then, the lateral stability check should be
performed. If this check causes an increase in pile size or an increase in the number of piles, then
disregard/ignore this check….since the performance of our integral end bents in the field over the
years has been good. Please be sure to have the designers/checkers document in their
computations when they ignore the results of this check.

Development Section Page 2 of 17

Missouri Department of Transportation SEP 2017
Bridge Division

Integral End Bent Simple Pile Design (IEB-SPD or SPD) Procedure:

Follow bridge length and skew restrictions given in flowchart.

Potential end bent total scour and erosion, embankment failure and the like. min tip penetration
embed must account for these possible failure conditions as well as any unusual ground
conditions/soil properties like weak soils, pockets of strong soil between weak layers, rock ledges and
the like.

Seismic design and detailing may require different pile solution and modified integral end bent
design.

This procedure does not apply to intermediate pile cap bents.

Simple curved structures following similar length and skew limits are allowed. Complex thermal
movements may require rigorous procedure.

LRFD format with LRFD load factors and a modified resistance factor is utilized to represent ASD
with a factor of safety of four, however it is not reliability based as is LRFD. Either format produces
same results mathematically.
____________________________________________________________________________

Applicable: For Simple Procedure

Pile minimum penetration into ground – research would suggest longer minimum penetrations like 30
to 50 feet based on pile and soil types in order to affirm pile response and stability. While agreement
was reached to leave the minimum at 15 feet, there is encouragement to go deeper. Most end bent pile
penetrations will exceed 15 feet. For pile in rock, 15 feet would be sufficient with at least 5 feet into
precored rock. This can control minimum tip penetration (elevation) for plan reporting

Pile size minimum based on controlling pile response at bottom of cap and will also extend corrosion
and service life

Rotating piles for heavy bridge skews

Required standard preboring and size of prebore

Follow EPG 751.35 for pile spacing limits; four pile minimum is still standard
_________________________________________________________________________________

Development Section Page 3 of 17

Missouri Department of Transportation SEP 2017
Bridge Division

Using a resistance factor of 0.35 and a load factor of 1.4* is equivalent to limiting pile axial stresses
to 0.25fy using a load factor of 1.0 (ASD). This will provide a factor of safety of 4 for axial loading
without consideration for lateral loadings.

*Actual factor of safety considering DL/LL=2, γL=1.75 and γD=1.25 is 1.4167/φ (NCHRP Report
507, 2004)

Development Section Page 4 of 17

Missouri Department of Transportation SEP 2017
Bridge Division

Integral End Bent Rigorous Pile Design (IEB-RPD or RPD) Procedure:

The following procedure shall be used for designing end bent piles for integral bridges that exceed the
bridge length and/or skew limits allowed for SPD but not more 600 ft. (concrete) and 500 ft. (steel).
The number of piles determined from this procedure shall not be less than the number determined
from SPD. This procedure is developed for typical integral end bents which include the following
features:

• Turned back wings

• Pile penetration at least 15 feet below bottom of beam
• Pile embedment at least 18 inches into beam
• HP piles oriented with weak or strong axis parallel to beam
• Closed ended CIP piles
• MSE abutment walls
• Standard integral end bent reinforcement*

*This procedure does not cover reinforcement design for the beam cap, diaphragm and wings.
Bridge lengths and skews not shown for SPD can consider additional design calculations;
reliance on past successful performance up to bridge length limits and skews in excess of
limits for SPD is valid. Reference the article “Integral Abutments for Steel Bridges”, Vol. II,
Chap. 5, Highway Structures Design Handbook, pp. 13-14.
__________________________________________________________
Applicable: For Rigorous Procedure

Elastic and plastic design of HP and CIP piles

Service and strength limit approach

Correctly changed LRFD 3.4.1 load factor TU for steel substructure design from 0.5 to 1.0

Changed location of load action of wind load on live load, braking load and centrifugal load to
roadway surface (was 6 feet above roadway surface) (17-058-DSI)

Modifies load factor TU for bridge longitudinal thermal movement for piles (based on presumed end
bent rotation and calculated movement vs. measured movement from other states experimental
research studies)

Reviewed temperature range extremes and service loading considerations

Utilizes concrete filled steel tube (CFST) design method in LRFD

Follow EPG 751.35 for pile spacing limits; four pile minimum is still standard
_________________________________________________________________________________

1. Find Bottom of Beam Elevation. This can typically be determined using the minimum beam
depth (3 feet) below the lowest beam seat elevation. For sloped beam caps the average bottom of
beam elevation is recommended.

2. Determine the preliminary HP pile size or CIP diameter (use SPD).

Note: Larger pile sizes or diameters may behave less integral. A rule of thumb for pile fixity is the
embedment length should be twice the pile diameter. Our standard 18” embedment does not meet
this standard, but a fixed connection will be assumed for HP10, 12 & 14 piles and all CIP Piles.

Development Section Page 5 of 17

Missouri Department of Transportation SEP 2017
Bridge Division

3. Determine the equivalent cantilever column height, L, for longitudinal force distribution analysis.
Assume top of pile fixity at the bottom of the beam cap. The following steps should be
considered:

 Estimate the pile length from DRIVENPILES for friction piles (see Item 25).
 Estimate the distance to the thermal origin. Calculate the bridge longitudinal deflection
for temperature fall at CL bearing. Temperature Rise will not control the design of
symmetric pile shapes.

ΔTU = γTU αL Δ Tfall

Where γTU = 0.8 (LRFD 3.4.1 Use of 1.0 not implemented)

Note: First, the value for γTU considers that equal thermal movements will not be realized
at the tops of piles due to differential flexing of the abutment beam/diaphragm. One
study showed differences in lateral thermal movement for exterior and interior girder
lines. Secondly, the fixed pile head condition is conservative since some rotation of the
abutment is expected although not significant according to one study. However, a small
rotation can relieve significant pile stress. Lastly, several studies report that measured
lateral displacements at integral end bents are less than calculated displacements. For
comparison with LRFD 3.4.1 both HP and CIP piles should be treated as steel members.
The γTU factor of 0.5 for concrete substructures does not apply. Use 1.0.

Note: For bridges of symmetry (spans, support and soil stiffnesses) the thermal origin is
equidistant from either end and a longitudinal force distribution analysis will not be
necessary. (Pile deflections due to thermal movement will likely control the design for
bridge lengths greater than 200 ft.)

 Determine the thermal displacement/pile deflection vectors for HP piles (in-plane and
out-of-plane bending) if piles are skewed. Not applicable for CIP piles because of
symmetrical axes; bridge longitudinal thermal displacement (parallel to traffic) should be
used.

 Determine the soil depth to the point of fixity (POF) for each axis of bending using
LPILE. This analysis is iterative with the longitudinal force distribution analysis required
to locate the thermal point of origin. The POF should be assumed where the slope of the
pile deflection changes from negative to positive as shown in figure 1. For more
information regarding LPILE input, see Item 14. For determining the effective column
height used in the stiffness distribution the pile may be assumed to remain elastic. Do not
use the procedure outlined in Item 18.

Note: The lateral pile deflection should go back to zero above the bottom of pile. This
ensures a fixed condition, but does not represent the location of the point of fixity as
stated above.

P.O.F = 28’

Development Section Page 6 of 17

Missouri Department of Transportation SEP 2017
Bridge Division

Figure 1 – Lateral pile deflection graph from LPILE showing point of fixity as derived from the
load cases that include temperature deflection.

 The column heights, L1 and L2, can be taken as the distance between the POF and the
bottom of the beam for out-of-plane and in-plane deflections respectively (longitudinal
for CIP Piles). POF will likely be different between the in-plane and out-of-plane
bending analyses.

4. Run a longitudinal force distribution analysis to determine the percentage of force to be distributed
to the end bent and to confirm the location of the thermal origin. The in-house longitudinal force
distribution analysis program may be used for bents that are modeled as fixed-free columns.

 Determine the resultant moment of inertia of the pile group using the procedure outlined
for column bents in EPG 751.2.4.5. The following is a list of design differences for HP-
Pile abutments.
 I2 = Iy-y , I1 = Ix-x…(Standard Pile Orientation)
 J = 1/3[2bftf3 + (d – 2tf)tw3]…approximate

Table 1 – Torsional Constant for Common HP Piles

HP12x53
Pile Type HP10x42 HP14x73
Torsional Constant, J (in4) 0.81 1.12 2.01

Development Section Page 7 of 17

Missouri Department of Transportation SEP 2017
Bridge Division

 G = Es/(2(1 + ν )) = 11,197 ksi

 S1 = 12EI2/L13

 A composite modulus of elasticity should be entered for CIP Piles (see Table 1). Since
the modulus of elasticity is used for bending stiffness the effective modulus of elasticity
should be weighted based on the moment of inertias of the unfilled pipe and concrete
core (do not use a weighted modulus based on the areas). Use the nominal pipe
dimensions. Do not include the section and corrosion losses discussed in Item 15.

Note: This value should match the value entered into LPILE.

 When determining the resultant moment of inertia of a CIP pile bent the Shear Modulus,
G, should be determined using a weighted average of the torsional rigidities, J*G, of the
steel pipe and the concrete core.

Note: For symmetric pile arrangements the magnitude of the torsional stiffness, St, of
each pile does not affect the resultant bent stiffness.

5. Include vertical dead loads, DC and DW. Include FWS for superstructure and approach slab. DC
includes the following:

 Self-weight of beam cap, diaphragm, corner braces and wings

 Dead loads from superstructure analysis: slab, barrier, girders, etc.
 50% of the approach slab
 Barrier load on end bent
 Avoid duplicative/redundant loading

6. Include vertical live loads from the superstructure analysis. Consider 12-foot lanes, fully loaded
and apply the multiple presence factor. Do not use dynamic load allowance (Impact) for pile
design. Live loads on the approach slab may be ignored.

Note: Steps 7 thru 10 are shown for completion, but may be insignificant for large bridge lengths
where temperature deflection is considerably greater.

7. Superstructure Wind Loads (WS): Superstructure wind shall be calculated in the longitudinal and
transverse direction as shown in EPG 751.2.2.3. Longitudinal wind is distributed to the bent based
on the distribution analysis discussed in Item 4 and the transverse wind is distributed using the
tributary span length (1/2 end span).

 To account the for the difference between load application point and top of pile modeled
in LPILE, load magnification may be considered based on the ratio of the distances from
the point of fixity. The point of fixity calculated in Step 3 may be used for in-plane and
out-of-plane bending.
 Load application point for longitudinal forces shall be applied at the mid-depth of the
superstructure height (exclude the barrier curb height).
 Load application point for transverse forces shall be applied at the center of the
superstructure height (including barrier curb).

Development Section Page 8 of 17

Missouri Department of Transportation SEP 2017
Bridge Division

8. Wind on Live Load (WL): Wind on Live Load shall be calculated in the longitudinal and
transverse directions as shown in EPG 751.2.2.3. Longitudinal wind is distributed to the bent
based on the distribution analysis discussed in Item 4 and the transverse wind is distributed using
the tributary span length (1/2 end span).

 Similar to WS, load magnification should be considered.

 Load application point for longitudinal forces shall be applied at the top of slab.
 Load application point for transverse forces shall be applied at the top of slab.

9. Longitudinal Braking Force (BR): Braking force shall be calculated in the longitudinal direction
as shown in EPG 751.2.2.6. The total braking force shall be calculated assuming the bridge is
fully loaded with 12-foot lanes and the multiple presence factor shall be applied. The number of
lanes may be reduced if the bridge is not expected to carry one-directional traffic in its lifetime
and as approved by the SPM. The controlling force should be distributed to the end bent using the
percentage determined in the longitudinal force distribution analysis.

 Similar to WS, load magnification should be considered.

 Load application point for longitudinal forces shall be applied at the top of slab.

10. Centrifugal Force (CE): Centrifugal force shall be calculated in the transverse/radial direction for
horizontally curved bridges as shown in EPG 751.2.2.6. The total centrifugal force shall be
calculated assuming the bent is fully loaded with 12-foot lanes and the multiple presence factor
shall be applied. When multiple traffic lanes are present the Radius of Curvature may be taken as
the average radius of the lanes or at centerline of structure. The centrifugal force factor, C, should
always be applied to the total Design Truck weight (72K) unless a larger load is specified on the
Design Layout.

 Similar to WL, load magnification should be considered.

 Load application point for radial forces shall be applied at the top of slab.

11. Uniform Temperature (TU): The temperature deflection should be calculated as discussed in
Item 3 or EPG 751.2.4.7.

 Use a 0.8 factor to adjust the theoretical temperature deflection to the expected deflection
at top of pile.
 Abutment rotation is conservatively ignored primarily because a refined analysis is
required.
 Minimum design temperatures have historically followed both Procedure A and B in
LRFD 3.12.2.1 and 3.12.2.2 for thermal movement calculations using -30°F and -10°F
for steel and concrete girders respectively. However, for end bent pile design either
procedure which gives a higher minimum design temperature may be used, i.e. -10°F
and 0°F for steel and concrete girders.

12. Factor loads: Use LRFD Strength I and Strength V load combinations.

Development Section Page 9 of 17

Missouri Department of Transportation SEP 2017
Bridge Division

13. Resolve load vectors. Horizontal loads should be oriented to be orthogonal to the bent
longitudinal axis. For skewed bents the following equations may be used:

PNormal = PLongCos(skew) + PTranSin(skew)

PParallel = PLongSin(skew) + PTranCos(skew)

where “Normal” and “Parallel” refer to the direction of the applied load with respect to the
longitudinal axis of the beam cap. All horizontal and vertical loads should be equally distributed
to all piles in a beam cap.

14. LPILE Analysis (Elastic Design): LPILE will analyze a single pile embedded in varying soil
strata with forces applied at the top of pile model. The following guidelines should be considered:

 Static loading of an Elastic Section

 Enter modification factors for p-y curves per LRFD 10.7.2.4 to account for group effects.
Do not use for pre-bore into rock.
 Enter the pile section length with the top of pile modeled at bottom of beam and bottom
of pile modeled at actual bottom of pile location. Note: The section length may be
reduced for pile lengths greater than 50’ or a single stiff soil layer may be used below 50’
as soils at this depth are unlikely to affect the analysis. Also see Step 3.
 Separate files are required for strong-axis and weak axis bending.
 Ground slope is assumed to be flat.
 Soil layers should be entered using properties from the best data available. EPG Table
751.9.2.4.1 may be referenced if more reliable values are not provided in the Borings
Report. The water table shall be considered for the effective unit weights of the soil
entered. The water table location may be used as provided by the Borings report at time
of drilling. Otherwise the water table may be assumed at the ordinary high water
elevation. Note: “Stiff Clay with Free Water” should only be used where free water flow
is found and is not applicable for any stiff clay under the water table.
 Pre-bore is specified typically for drivability concerns but may also be used to reduce
stresses on the piles by oversizing the pre-bore holes. The global soil strata should be
used for standard pre-bore holes. When oversized holes are specified for pre-bore the
properties of a loose sand filler should be used.
 For a standard integral end bent the Pile-Head Loading Condition is assumed to be fixed
so a shear force or deflection with no slope is entered. Piles should be designed for the
Strength I and Strength V limit states. Four separate pile-head load conditions are
required. Each limit state requires the temperature deflection to be separated from the
other load cases that use shear forces.

 The controlling moment shall be recorded for each pile-head load condition. The design
moments are then determined for each limit state by summing the results for the

Development Section Page 10 of 17

Missouri Department of Transportation SEP 2017
Bridge Division

deflection and shear force cases. The maximum moment can be found at the end of the
Output text file or a moment vs. depth profile can be used if a more accurate location is
deemed necessary.
 A composite modulus of elasticity should be entered for CIP Piles as discussed in Item 4
(see Table 2 or 3).

15. Pile Axial Resistance (Elastic Design): Piles should be checked for the structural axial resistance
at the bottom of the pile. Piles shall be assumed to be fully braced for any soil type as long as
appropriate scour protection is used.

 The PNDC check is unlikely to control so the most conservative resistance factor may be
assumed for all cases (i.e…assume pile point reinforcement is required).
 For CIP Piles the provisions for Concrete-Filled Tubes may be used (PNDC = 0.85f’cAc
+ FyAst). This equation can be derived from LRFD Eq. 6.9.5.1-1 assuming a fully
braced pile with no reinforcing bars. The metal shell area should be determined
assuming both 12.5% section loss due to fabrication tolerances as well as a 1/16” loss due
to corrosion. The concrete core diameter is calculated using the nominal pile diameter
and nominal shell thickness. The minimum shell thickness shall be determined from the
drivability analysis outlined in Item 25 and EPG 751.36.

16. Combined Axial Compression and Flexure (Elastic Design): Interaction equations as outlined in
LRFD 6.9.2.2 shall be checked.

 Steel H-Piles: The nominal flexural resistance about the weak axis is equal to the plastic
section capacity (Mn = FyZ). The nominal flexural resistance about the strong axis is
equal to the elastic section capacity (Mn = FyS). These equations are derived from
LRFD Eq. 6.12.2.2.1-1 and LRFD Eq. 6.10.8.2.2-1 or 6.10.8.2.3-1 for fully braced piles.
 CIP Piles: The nominal flexural resistance about any axis is dependent on the pile
diameter to shell thickness ratio (D/t) per AASHTO LRFD 6.12.2.3.2. The equations for
nominal flexural resistance, Mps or Myc, may be calculated using the plastic section
modulus or elastic section modulus of the shell respectively. Local buckling need not be
considered since the concrete fill prevents the steel shell from buckling. Separate
analyses about the x and y axes are not warranted for CIP Piles.

Development Section Page 11 of 17

 Missouri Department of Transportation SEP 2017
Bridge Division

Table 2 – Design Values for Common CIP Pile (Grade 2, Fy = 35ksi, f’c = 4ksi)

Pile Shell 1
As Ac Eeff 2
PNDC rs 3
Fe Ee Z S Mps Myc
D/t
Dia. Thick. In2 In2 ksi k in ksi ksi In3 In3 k-ft k-ft

¼” 6.73 143.1 5869 721 4.83 107.4 60027 29.2 22.7 88.1 85.3 66.2
14” 3/8” 11.33 137.9 7348 865 4.78 76.4 46745 48.7 37.6 51.7 142.2 109.5
½” 15.84 132.7 8763 1006 4.73 63.5 41213 67.5 51.6 36.5 196.8 150.4
5/8” 20.27 127.7 10116 1144 4.68 56.4 38181 85.5 64.8 28.2 249.3 189.0
¼” 7.71 188.7 5595 911 5.54 118.3 64690 38.4 29.9 100.9 112.0 87.1
16” 3/8” 13.00 182.7 6901 1076 5.49 82.8 49488 64.2 49.6 59.2 187.2 144.6
½” 18.20 176.7 8158 1238 5.44 68.0 43155 89.1 68.3 41.8 253.3 199.3
5/8” 23.32 170.9 9367 1397 5.39 59.9 39683 113.1 86.2 32.3 329.9 251.3
¼” 9.67 298.7 5210 1354 6.95 140.0 74018 60.5 47.2 126.5 176.5 137.5
3/8” 16.33 291.0 6267 1561 6.90 95.6 54973 101.5 78.6 74.3 296.0 229.4
20”
½” 22.91 283.5 7294 1766 6.85 77.1 47039 141.3 108.9 52.5 412.2 317.7
5/8” 29.40 276.1 8290 1968 6.80 66.9 42689 180.1 138.0 40.5 525.2 402.5
3/8” 19.67 424.6 5840 2132 8.31 108.4 60460 147.3 114.4 89.3 429.5 333.6
24” ½” 27.62 415.5 6707 2379 8.27 86.1 50924 205.6 158.9 63.2 599.6 463.5
5/8” 35.49 406.5 7553 2624 8.22 73.9 45696 262.5 202.0 48.8 765.7 589.2
¾” 43.27 397.6 8377 2866 8.17 66.2 42395 318.2 243.7 39.7 928.0 710.8
1
Area of steel shell, As, assumes a 12.5% deduction and 1/16” deduction in wall thickness
2
Structural Nominal Axial Design Capacity for fully braced piles only
3
Applicable for the non-reinforced portion of the pile only
Note: The difference between Eeff and Ee is that the former is used for sections transformed into concrete
and the latter is for sections transformed into steel.

Table 3 – Design Values for Common CIP Pile (Grade 3, Fy = 45ksi, f’c = 4ksi)
Pile Shell 1
As Ac Eeff 2
PNDC rs 3
Fe Ee Z S Mps Myc
D/t
Dia. Thick. In2 In2 ksi k in ksi ksi In3 In3 k-ft k-ft
¼” 6.73 143.1 5869 789 4.83 117.4 60027 29.2 22.7 88.1 109.6 85.1
14” 3/8” 11.33 137.9 7348 979 4.78 86.4 46745 48.7 37.6 51.7 182.8 140.8
½” 15.84 132.7 8763 1164 4.73 73.5 41213 67.5 51.6 36.5 253.0 193.4
5/8” 20.27 127.7 10117 1346 4.68 66.4 38181 85.5 64.8 28.2 320.5 243.0
¼” 7.71 188.7 5595 988.3 5.54 128.3 64690 38.4 29.9 100.9 144.0 112.0
16” 3/8” 13.00 182.7 6901 1206 5.49 92.8 49488 64.2 49.6 59.2 240.7 185.9
½” 18.20 176.7 8158 1420 5.44 78.0 43155 89.1 68.3 41.8 334.1 256.2
5/8” 23.32 170.9 9367 1630 5.39 69.9 39683 113.1 86.2 32.3 424.2 323.1
¼” 9.67 298.7 5210 1451 6.95 150.0 74018 60.5 47.2 126.5 226.9 176.8
3/8” 16.33 291.0 6267 1725 6.90 105.6 54973 101.5 78.6 74.3 380.5 294.9
20”
½” 22.91 283.5 7294 1995 6.85 87.1 47039 141.3 108.9 52.5 530.0 408.4
5/8” 29.40 276.1 8290 2262 6.80 76.9 42689 180.1 138.0 40.5 675.3 517.5
3/8” 19.67 424.6 5840 2329 8.31 118.4 60460 147.3 114.4 89.3 552.2 428.9
24” ½” 27.62 415.5 6707 2656 8.27 96.1 50924 205.6 158.9 63.2 770.9 595.9
5/8” 35.49 406.5 7553 2979 8.22 83.9 45696 262.5 202.0 48.8 984.5 757.6
¾” 43.27 397.6 8377 3299 8.17 76.2 42395 318.2 243.7 39.7 1193.2 913.9

Development Section Page 12 of 17

Missouri Department of Transportation SEP 2017
Bridge Division

17. If pile design fails the elastic check outlined in steps 14 thru 16, than assume the pile goes plastic
at the bottom of beam cap. The pile will then be checked to prevent in-ground hinging resulting in
an unstable pile. Technically, the elastic analysis isn’t necessary, but is provided in case an elastic
design is deemed necessary.

18. LPILE Analysis (Plastic Design): LPILE will analyze a single pile embedded in varying soil
strata with forces applied at the top of pile model. The following guidelines should be considered:

 Static loading of an Elastic Section

 Enter modification factors for p-y curves per LRFD 10.7.2.4 to account for group effects.
Do not use for pre-bore into rock.
 Enter the pile section length with the top of pile modeled at bottom of beam and bottom
of pile modeled at actual bottom of pile location.
 Separate files are required for strong-axis and weak axis bending.
 Ground slope is assumed to be flat.
 Soil layers should be entered using properties from the best data available. EPG Table
751.9.2.4.1 may be referenced if more reliable values are not provided in the Borings
Report. The water table shall be considered for the effective unit weights of the soil
entered. The water table location may be used as provided by the Borings report at time
of drilling. Otherwise the water table may be assumed at the ordinary high water
elevation. Note: “Stiff Clay with Free Water” should only be used where free water flow
is found and not applicable for any stiff clay under the water table.
 Pre-bore is specified typically for drivability concerns but may also be used to reduce
stresses on the piles by oversizing the pre-bore holes. The global soil strata should be
used for standard pre-bore holes. When oversized holes are specified for pre-bore the
properties of the loose sand filler should be used.
 When the elastic check fails, the top of pile is assumed to go plastic in the weak axis for
HP piles and the resultant axis for CIP Piles. The Pile-Head Loading Condition for the
strong axis of HP Piles is the same as the condition used for the Elastic check. The
“deflection and moment” Pile-Head Loading Condition is used to model a fully
plasticized section at top of pile where the Moment value entered should be equal to the
Plastic Section capacity of the weak axis of an HP-Pile or any axis for a CIP Pile. The
lateral force effects from all forces other than temperature may be ignored. Piles should
be designed for the Strength I limit state. Strength V will not control since the axial load
is lower.

Note: The strong axis for HP Piles is not allowed to go plastic. If the LPILE strong-axis
analysis results in a moment at any section of the pile exceeding the plastic moment
capacity about the strong-axis a redesign is required.

Development Section Page 13 of 17

Missouri Department of Transportation SEP 2017
Bridge Division

Note: The shear or deflection value entered above must have the opposite sign as the value entered for
moment to model an initially fixed head condition.

Mmax for Plastic

Design

Mmax for Elastic

Design

Figure 1 – Typical bending moment graph assuming elastic behavior over full depth of
pile

Development Section Page 14 of 17

Missouri Department of Transportation SEP 2017
Bridge Division

Unbraced
Col. Length,

Mmax

Figure 2 – Typical bending moment graph assuming plastic behavior at top of pile.

 The pile length between points of zero moment should be analyzed as an unbraced
column. Use the Moment vs. Depth graph for the plastic analysis to determine the
column height.
 The controlling moments shall be recorded for each axis of analysis. Use the maximum
moment between points of zero moment for each analysis (plastic and elastic).

19. Pile Axial Resistance (Plastic Design): Check the structural axial resistance over the unbraced
length of pile (see LRFD 6.9.5.4.2 and 6.9.4)

 Use the resistance factor for undamaged pile in accordance with LRFD 6.5.4 Since this
axial check does not occur at the bottom of the pile the larger resistance factors, φC, may
be used as specified in LRFD 6.5.4 for undamaged piles.
 Calculate Q which is the slender element reduction factor used for determining Po equal
to 1.0 for HP10x42, HP12x53 and HP14x73 piles. Note: Calculation of Q for an
HP14x73 results in a value of 0.97.
 The elastic critical buckling resistance shall be taken equal to the flexural buckling
resistance specified in AASHTO LRFD 6.9.4.1.2. Ignore torsional buckling because it
will not control over flexural buckling. The effective length factor, K, can conservatively
be taken as 1.0 for a pinned-pinned column.

Development Section Page 15 of 17

Missouri Department of Transportation SEP 2017
Bridge Division

 CIP Piles: LRFD article 6.9.5.1 should be used. The steel pipe area should be determined
assuming both 12.5% section loss due to fabrication tolerances as well as a 1/16” loss due
to corrosion but shall not be less than 4% of the total area of pile. The concrete core
diameter is calculated using the nominal pile diameter and nominal pipe thickness. The
minimum pipe thickness shall be determined from the drivability analysis (see Item 25).

20. Check interaction equations for combined axial compression and flexure (plastic design) in
accordance with LRFD 6.9.2.2.

 HP Piles: Calculate the nominal flexural resistance about the weak axis in accordance
with LRFD 6.12.2.2.1. The nominal flexural resistance about the strong axis shall be
taken as the lesser of the local buckling resistance in accordance with LRFD 6.10.8.2.2
and the lateral torsional buckling resistance in accordance with LRFD 6.10.8.2.3.
 CIP Piles: The nominal flexural resistance about any axis is dependent on the pile
diameter to thickness ratio (D/t) in accordance with LRFD 6.12.2.3.2. The unbraced
length is only used in determining the Pile Axial Resistance and does not affect the
flexural resistance. The equations for the nominal flexural resistance using Mps or Myc
may be calculated using the plastic section modulus or elastic section modulus of the
unfilled pipe respectively. Local buckling need not be considered since the concrete fill
prevents the steel shell from buckling. Separate analyses about the x and y axes are not
warranted for CIP Piles. Note: LRFD 6.9.6.3.2 and C6.12.2.3.3 provide complicated
equations for composite concrete filled steel tubes (CFST) that are not expected to result
in significant cost savings. However, they could account for an increase in the elastic
design capacity and a minimal effect on the plastic design check. If the plastic design
check is used the capacity at the top of pile should include the reinforcing bars while the
unbraced column check should exclude the reinforcing bars.

Table 4 – Design Values for Common HP Piles (Grade 50)

HP 10x42 HP 12x53 HP 14x73
Nominal Flexural Resistance about the Weak axis,
82.53 114.14 189.27
Mny (k-ft)
Web Load Shedding Factor, Rb 1 1 1
Hybrid Factor, Rh 1 1 1
Local Buckling Resistance, Fnc (ksi) 43.88 39.90 38.61
Effective Radius of Gyration for Lateral Torsional
2.70 3.22 3.92
Buckling, rt (in)
Limiting Unbraced Length for Uniform Bending, Lp
65.07 77.65 94.33
(in)
Limiting Unbraced Length considering
244.35 291.57 354.19
Compression-Flange Residual Stress Effects, Lr (in)
*Moment gradient modifier, Cb 1 1 1
*Values are applicable for the unbraced column check and may vary for other applications.

21. CIP Piles: Determine pile lengths using DRIVENPILES.

22. Calculate Rndr in accordance with EPG 751.36.5.10 and LRFD 10.7.7.

Development Section Page 16 of 17

Missouri Department of Transportation SEP 2017
Bridge Division

23. Perform drivability analysis in accordance with EPG 751.36.5.11 and LRFD 10.7.8 for steel piles
in order to limit driving stresses for either HP piles or unfilled pipe piles. Note 1: This analysis is
also utilized to check that practical refusal does not occur 1.) before a pile reaches hard/strong
rock, 2.) before the required length determined by DRIVENPILES, or 3.) before a required
minimum tip penetration (elevation). Note 2: For oversized prebored holes, frictional side
resistance should be assumed as non-contributing.

Comments, questions or suggestions should be directed to the Development Section.

Development Section Page 17 of 17