GDM Ch-11 Foundation Design PDF

GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN MANUAL
CHAPTER 11
FOUNDATION DESIGN
NYSDOT Geotechnical Page 11-1 February 29, 2016

Design Manual
(Intentionally left blank)

Design Manual
Table of Contents
11.1 OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................. 11-7
11.2 OVERALL DESIGN PROCESS FOR STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS ..................... 11-7
11.3 DATA NEEDED FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN ...................................................... 11-11

11.3.1 Field Exploration Requirements for Foundations ............................................ 11-12
11.3.2 Laboratory and Field Testing Requirements for Foundations ......................... 11-13
11.4 FOUNDATION SELECTION CONSIDERATIONS ................................................. 11-13

11.4.1 Foundation Design Considerations .................................................................. 11-13
11.4.2 Foundation Type Considerations ..................................................................... 11-14
11.4.2.1 Spread Footings ................................................................................ 11-14
11.4.2.2 Deep Foundations ............................................................................. 11-15
11.4.2.2.1 Pile Foundations.................................................................. 11-15
11.4.2.2.2 Drilled Foundations ............................................................ 11-21
11.4.3 Nearby Structures ............................................................................................. 11-24
11.4.4 Construction Vibrations ................................................................................... 11-24
11.5 OVERVIEW OF LRFD FOUNDATIONS .................................................................. 11-25
11.6 LOADS, LOAD GROUPS AND LIMIT STATES ..................................................... 11-25

11.6.1 Foundation Analysis ........................................................................................ 11-25
11.6.2 Downdrag Loads .............................................................................................. 11-25
11.6.3 Service Limit States ......................................................................................... 11-26
11.6.3.1 Tolerable Movements ....................................................................... 11-26
11.6.3.2 Overall Stability ................................................................................ 11-28
11.6.3.3 Abutment Transitions........................................................................ 11-28
11.6.4 Strength and Extreme Limit States .................................................................. 11-28
11.7 RESISTANCE FACTORS FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN ....................................... 11-28

11.7.1 Design Parameters............................................................................................ 11-28
11.7.2 Service Limit States ......................................................................................... 11-29
11.7.3 Strength Limit States........................................................................................ 11-29
11.7.4 Extreme Event Limit States ............................................................................. 11-29
11.8 SPREAD FOOTING DESIGN .................................................................................... 11-29

11.8.1 Loads and Load Factor Application to Footing Design ................................... 11-29
11.8.2 Footing Foundation Design .............................................................................. 11-31
11.8.2.1 Footing Bearing Depth ...................................................................... 11-32
11.8.2.2 Effective Footing Dimensions .......................................................... 11-32
11.8.2.3 Bearing Stress Distributions ............................................................. 11-32
11.8.2.4 Groundwater ..................................................................................... 11-32
Design Manual
Table of Contents
11.8.2.5 Service Limit State Design of Footings ............................................ 11-32

11.8.2.5.1 General ................................................................................ 11-32
11.8.2.5.2 Tolerable Movements ......................................................... 11-32
11.8.2.5.3 Settlement Analyses ............................................................ 11-33
11.8.2.5.4 Overall Stability .................................................................. 11-34
11.8.2.5.5 Bearing Resistance at the Service Limit State .................... 11-34
11.8.2.6 Strength Limit State Design of Footings ........................................... 11-34
11.8.2.6.1 General ................................................................................ 11-34
11.8.2.6.2 Basic Formulation for Nominal Bearing Resistance ........... 11-35
11.8.2.6.3 Bearing Resistance of Footings on Rock ............................ 11-36
11.8.2.6.4 Eccentric Load Limitations ................................................. 11-36
11.8.2.6.5 Failure by Sliding ................................................................ 11-36
11.8.2.7 Extreme Event Limit State Design of Footings ................................ 11-38
11.9 DRIVEN PILE FOUNDATION DESIGN................................................................... 11-38

11.9.1 Loads and Load Factor Application to Driven Pile Design ............................. 11-38
11.9.2 Driven Pile Foundation Geotechnical Design .................................................. 11-39
11.9.2.1 Minimum Pile Spacing and Embedment .......................................... 11-40
11.9.2.2 Battered Piles .................................................................................... 11-40
11.9.2.3 Pile Design Requirements ................................................................. 11-40
11.9.2.4 Determination of Pile Lateral Resistance.......................................... 11-41
11.9.2.5 Overall Stability ................................................................................ 11-41
11.9.2.6 Service Limit State Design of Pile Foundations ............................... 11-41
11.9.2.6.1 General ................................................................................ 11-41
11.9.2.6.2 Tolerable Movements ......................................................... 11-41
11.9.2.6.3 Settlement ........................................................................... 11-42
11.9.2.6.4 Horizontal Pile Foundation Movement ............................... 11-42
11.9.2.6.5 Settlement Due to Downdrag .............................................. 11-42
11.9.2.6.6 Lateral Squeeze ................................................................... 11-42
11.9.2.7 Strength Limit State Design of Pile Foundations.............................. 11-42
11.9.2.7.1 General ................................................................................ 11-42
11.9.2.7.2 Piles to Rock ....................................................................... 11-42
11.9.2.7.3 Axial Resistance Change after Pile Driving ....................... 11-43
11.9.2.7.4 Scour ................................................................................... 11-44
11.9.2.7.5 Downdrag ............................................................................ 11-45
11.9.2.7.6 Determination of Axial Pile Resistance in Compression .... 11-46
11.9.2.7.7 Resistance of Pile Groups in Compression ......................... 11-46
11.9.2.7.8 Uplift Resistance of Single Piles......................................... 11-47
11.9.2.7.9 Uplift Resistance of Pile Groups......................................... 11-47
11.9.2.7.10 Lateral Resistance of Pile Foundations ............................. 11-47
11.9.2.7.11 Pile Structural Resistance ................................................. 11-47
11.9.2.8 Extreme Event Limit State Design of Pile Foundations ................... 11-49
11.9.2.9 Pile Splices ........................................................................................ 11-50
Design Manual
Table of Contents
11.9.2.10 Pile Shoes ........................................................................................ 11-50

11.9.2.11 Corrosion and Deterioration ........................................................... 11-51
11.9.2.12 Determination of Minimum Pile Penetration - Conventional
Foundations ..................................................................................... 11-51
11.9.2.13 Determination of Minimum Pile Penetration - Integral Abutment
Foundations ..................................................................................... 11-52
11.9.2.14 Pile Driving Analysis ...................................................................... 11-52
11.9.2.15 Reducing Effects caused by Pile Driving Vibrations ...................... 11-53
11.9.3 Pulling Piles ..................................................................................................... 11-53
11.9.4 Dynamic Pile Load Testing .............................................................................. 11-54
11.9.5 Pile Driving Inspection .................................................................................... 11-55
11.10 DRILLED SHAFT FOUNDATION DESIGN ............................................................ 11-55

11.10.1 Loads and Load Factor Application to Drilled Shaft Design .......................... 11-55
11.10.2 Drilled Shaft Foundation Design .................................................................... 11-55
11.10.2.1 Minimum Shaft Spacing and Embedment ....................................... 11-55
11.10.2.2 Battered Drilled Shafts ..................................................................... 11-56
11.10.2.3 Drilled Shaft Design Requirements ................................................. 11-56
11.10.2.4 Determination of Drilled Shaft Lateral Resistance .......................... 11-56
11.10.2.5 Overall Stability ............................................................................... 11-56
11.10.2.6 Service Limit State Design of Drilled Shaft Foundations ................ 11-57
11.10.2.6.1 General .............................................................................. 11-57
11.10.2.6.2 Tolerable Movements ....................................................... 11-57
11.10.2.6.3 Settlement ......................................................................... 11-57
11.10.2.6.4 Horizontal Drilled Shaft Foundation Movement .............. 11-57
11.10.2.6.5 Settlement Due to Downdrag ............................................ 11-57
11.10.2.6.6 Lateral Squeeze ................................................................. 11-57
11.10.2.7 Strength Limit State Design of Drilled Shaft Foundations .............. 11-58
11.10.2.7.1 General .............................................................................. 11-58
11.10.2.7.2 Scour ................................................................................. 11-58
11.10.2.7.3 Downdrag .......................................................................... 11-58
11.10.2.7.4 Determination of Single Drilled Shaft Resistance in
Compression ...................................................................... 11-59
11.10.2.7.5 Resistance of Shaft Groups in Compression ..................... 11-59
11.10.2.7.6 Uplift Resistance of Single Shafts .................................... 11-59
11.10.2.7.7 Uplift Resistance of Shaft Groups .................................... 11-59
11.10.2.7.8 Lateral Resistance of Shaft Foundations ........................... 11-59
11.10.2.7.9 Shaft Structural Resistance ............................................... 11-60
11.10.2.8 Extreme Event Limit State Design of Drilled Shaft Foundations .... 11-60
11.10.2.9 Corrosion and Deterioration ............................................................ 11-61
11.10.3 Drilled Shaft Installation ................................................................................. 11-61
11.10.4 Load Testing ................................................................................................... 11-61

Design Manual
Table of Contents
11.11 MICROPILE FOUNDATION DESIGN...................................................................... 11-62

11.11.1 Loads and Load Factor Application to Micropile Design ............................... 11-62
11.11.2 Micropile Foundation Geotechnical Design ................................................... 11-62
11.11.2.1 Minimum Micropile Spacing and Embedment ................................ 11-63
11.11.2.2 Battered Micropiles .......................................................................... 11-63
11.11.2.3 Micropile Design Requirements ...................................................... 11-63
11.11.2.4 Determination of Micropile Lateral Resistance ............................... 11-64
11.11.2.5 Overall Stability ............................................................................... 11-64
11.11.2.6 Service Limit State Design of Micropile Foundations ..................... 11-64
11.11.2.6.1 General .............................................................................. 11-64
11.11.2.6.2 Tolerable Movements ....................................................... 11-64
11.11.2.6.3 Settlement ......................................................................... 11-64
11.11.2.6.4 Horizontal Micropile Foundation Movement ................... 11-64
11.11.2.6.5 Settlement Due to Downdrag ............................................ 11-65
11.11.2.6.6 Lateral Squeeze ................................................................. 11-65
11.11.2.7 Strength Limit State Design of Micropile Foundations ................... 11-65
11.11.2.7.1 General .............................................................................. 11-65
11.11.2.7.2 Micropiles in Rock ............................................................ 11-65
11.11.2.7.3 Scour ................................................................................. 11-65
11.11.2.7.4 Downdrag .......................................................................... 11-66
11.11.2.7.5 Determination of Single Micropile Resistance in
Compression ...................................................................... 11-66
11.11.2.7.6 Resistance of Micropile Groups in Compression ............. 11-66
11.11.2.7.7 Uplift Resistance of Single Micropiles ............................. 11-66
11.11.2.7.8 Uplift Resistance of Micropile Groups ............................. 11-66
11.11.2.7.9 Lateral Resistance of Micropile Foundations ................... 11-66
11.11.2.7.10 Micropile Structural Resistance ...................................... 11-67
11.11.2.8 Extreme Event Limit State Design of Micropile Foundations ......... 11-67
11.11.2.9 Corrosion and Deterioration ............................................................ 11-67
11.11.2.10 Micropile Integral Abutment Foundations ..................................... 11-67
11.11.3 Micropile Installation ...................................................................................... 11-67
11.11.4 Static Load Testing ......................................................................................... 11-68
11.12 ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN .............................................................................. 11-68
11.13 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 11-69

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
11.1 OVERVIEW
This chapter covers the geotechnical design of bridge and culvert foundations. NYSDOT GDM
Chapter 17 covers retaining wall design, including wingwalls and abutments. NYSDOT GDM
Chapter 19 covers foundation design for signals, signs, noise barriers, culverts without footing
elements, and buildings. Both shallow (e.g., spread footings) and deep (e.g. piles, shafts, micro-
piles, etc.) foundations are addressed in this chapter. In general, the load and resistance factor
design approach (LRFD) as prescribed in the NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
shall be used, unless an LRFD design methodology is not available for the specific foundation
type being considered.
Most structure foundations that receive state or federal funding (with some exceptions that
include railroad structures) within NYSDOT Right-of-Way or whose construction is
administered by NYSDOT shall be designed in accordance with the following documents.
1. NYSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual (GDM)

2. NYSDOT Bridge Manual
3. NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO with NYSDOT revisions)
The most current versions of the above referenced manuals including all interims, design
memoranda, or Engineering Issuances (EI’s, EB’s, or ED’s) modifying the manuals shall be used.
In the case of conflict or discrepancy between manuals, the following hierarchy shall be used:
those manuals listed first in the above list shall supersede those listed below in the list.
11.2 OVERALL DESIGN PROCESS FOR STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS
The overall process for geotechnical design is addressed throughout the entirety of the NYSDOT
GDM. For design of structure foundations on Design-Bid-Build projects where the Main Office
Geotechnical Engineering Bureau is involved, the overall NYSDOT design process, including
both the geotechnical and structural design functions, is as described below.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES – In the Scoping Process, a consensus is established about the nature
of the proposed project and what is to be accomplished. The products of this process are:
• Project Objectives
• Design Criteria
• Feasible Alternates
• Reasonable Cost Estimate(s)
To develop these products, the Designer may ask many questions whose answers will help define
the products. This design step may result in informal communications produced by Departmental
Geotechnical Engineers which provide a brief description of the anticipated site conditions,
conceptual feasible foundation types, potential groundwater rise due to climate change,
staging/detours and conceptual evaluation of potential geotechnical hazards such as liquefaction.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
The purpose of these recommendations is to provide enough geotechnical information to allow

the bridge’s Preliminary Structure Plan to be produced.
SITE DATA PACKAGE – The Region prepares (or oversees its preparation) and assembles a
Site Data Package. The Regional Structures Engineer is responsible for verifying accuracy and
completeness of the data. The site data package consists of two parts:
• Bridge Data Sheet - Part 1 - Must be completed for all structures.
• Bridge Data Sheet - Part 2 - Waterway supplement, which must be completed for most
structures over a waterway.
The forms for these Parts are available in the NYSDOT Bridge Manual (Section 3 – Appendices
3A and 3B).
The Site Data Package includes the substructure boring logs for the bridge and, sometimes, the
highway. These logs are evaluated with regard to:
• Location with respect to the new bridge - The Departmental Geotechnical Engineer
will work with the Designer to assess the Preliminary Subsurface Investigations to
determine if the Designer can confidently perform a preliminary foundation assessment.
There may be a need to progress additional borings (see NYSDOT GDM Chapter 4).
• Consistency of the soil with respect to each log - The Departmental Geotechnical
Engineer will work with the Designer to interpret the information in the available
subsurface exploration logs to determine consistency and interpret rock elevations and
soil types.
• Number of borings taken - The Departmental Geotechnical Engineer will work with the
Designer to determine if there are enough borings to extrapolate information considering
preliminary structure layout (e.g. long walls). There may be a need to progress additional
borings (see NYSDOT GDM Chapter 4).
• Compatibility with the record plans of the existing bridge - The Departmental
Geotechnical Engineer will work with the Designer to assess rock elevations or pile
lengths identified on the record plans with respect to the new boring logs.
• Location of borings with respect to the proposed substructure layout - The Departmental
Geotechnical Engineer will work with the Designer to determine if there is sufficient
information to estimate pile lengths and/or design and excavation support system.
PRELIMINARY STRUCTURE PLAN – The structural engineer prepares the Preliminary

Structure Plan. The Plan is a result of numerous design decisions including:
1. Substructure Location: When deciding where to locate substructures, the Designer

identifies all appropriate horizontal offsets, standards and requirements covered in the
NYSDOT Bridge Manual. Using these constraints and the shoulder break length, the
selection of either a single or multiple span arrangement, whichever is most appropriate,
is made.
While determining substructure locations, additional geotechnical concerns may need to

be addressed such as:
Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
o Excavation support requirements for staging and substructure construction. The

Departmental Geotechnical Engineer can provide assistance in determining the need
for cantilever sheeting vs. tied-back sheeting vs. soldier pile and lagging walls to aid
the Designer in developing a cost estimate.
o Deep water cofferdam construction vs. shallower depths or causeway construction.
The Departmental Geotechnical Engineer can provide assistance in specifying
appropriate material for causeway construction to aid the Designer in developing a
cost estimate.
o Wetland encroachments - Longer spans to avoid wetlands will require additional
beam depth. This can raise a profile and move the toe of slope out or require a
retaining wall. The Departmental Geotechnical Engineer can provide assistance in
providing appropriate retaining wall options to aid the Designer in developing a cost
estimate. Shorter spans may disturb more of the area and require additional wetland
mitigation. Also, Fill Type retaining walls (FTRW) or geosynthetic reinforced soil
systems (GRSS) may be used to steepen approaches and lessen impact on wetlands.
Contact the Departmental Geotechnical Engineer for more information.
o Staging problems - Includes interference between the existing and new features,
(e.g., substructures, beams, pier caps, pile driving - especially battered piles) as well
as utilities that must remain in service. Contact the Departmental Geotechnical
Engineer for the most feasible retention and support options.
o Misalignment with features crossed - Narrow highway medians may result in large
skews for piers. For stream piers the normal direction of stream flow should be
considered to avoid the creation of eddies and turbulence. Desirable modifications of
the skew for seismic reasons may be made difficult by site geometry.
o Utility Conflicts - Avoidance of utilities that would require costly relocations can
further restrict the location of substructures. Pile driving and sheeting placement may
be limited by overhead or underground interference. The Departmental Geotechnical
Engineer can provide assistance in analyzing equipment placement vs. available work
zone area.
2. Foundation Selection: The selection of the foundation type will also depend on the
particular crossing:
o Water Crossings: As identified in the NYSDOT Bridge Manual, unless founded on

rock, all structures crossing water shall be supported on deep foundations or have
other positive protection to prevent scour of the substructure. The minimum length of
pile to be considered is 10 ft below scour elevation.
o Grade Separations: Continuous structures will normally require foundations that
minimize differential settlement within acceptable limits, since it may result in
secondary stresses detrimental to the structure. Any assumptions made that are critical
to the structure type and configuration should be verified with the Geotechnical
Engineering Bureau.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATION – The primary purpose of the

Preliminary Foundation Recommendation is to give the Structures designer enough information
to perform the initial design of the foundations and substructures. This design step results in a
memorandum produced by the Geotechnical Engineering Bureau (GEB) at the request of the
Office of Structures (or Regional Structures Engineer) that provides a recommended foundation
type for the proposed structure, along with geotechnical data encapsulating the project site
conditions. The Preliminary Foundation Recommendations are subject to change, depending on
the results of the structural analysis and modeling and the effect that modeling and analysis has
on foundation types, locations, sizes, and depths, as well as any design assumptions made by the
Departmental Geotechnical Engineer. Preliminary Foundation Recommendations may also be
subject to change depending on the construction staging needs and other constructability issues
that are discovered during this design phase. Geotechnical work conducted during this stage
typically includes completion of the field exploration program, development of foundation types
and feasible resistance values, required foundation depths, P-Y curve data and soil spring data for
seismic modeling, seismic site characterization and estimated ground acceleration, and
recommendations to address known constructability issues.
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND MODELING – The Office of Structures uses the

Preliminary Foundation Recommendations provided by the Geotechnical Engineering Bureau
(GEB) to perform the structural modeling of the foundation system. Through this modeling, the
Office of Structures determines and distributes the loads within the structure for all appropriate
load cases, factors the loads as appropriate, and sizes the foundations using the geotechnical
resistances provided by the GEB.
Constructability and construction staging needs would continue to be investigated during this
phase. The Office of Structures would also provide the following feedback to the GEB to allow a
re-assessment of the Preliminary Foundation Recommendation and produce the Foundation
Design Report for the structure:
• Anticipated foundation loads (including load groups used).

• Foundation size/diameter and depth required to meet structural needs.
• Foundation details that could affect the geotechnical design of the foundations.
• Size and configuration of deep foundation groups.
FOUNDATION DESIGN REPORT- This design step results in a formal geotechnical report
produced by the GEB that provides final geotechnical recommendations and notes to be included
in the contract plans for the subject structure. This is usually prepared after the Preliminary Plans
have been approved by the Deputy Chief Engineer of Structures. The report is based on all
geotechnical data obtained at the site, including final boring logs and laboratory test data. The
Foundation Design Report is supplemented by:
• Boring Location Plan: The Boring Location Plan is a plan view of the subject structure
depicting the available subsurface explorations progressed at the site.
• General Subsurface Profile: The General Subsurface profile is an elevation view of the
subject structure depicting the subsurface conditions at the site.
Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
At this time, the GEB will check the Preliminary Foundation Recommendation with regards to
the structural foundation design results determined by the structural designer and make
modifications as needed. This is usually an iterative process. For many projects, the FDR
becomes a summary document. It is possible that much of what was included in the Preliminary
Foundation Recommendation memorandum may be copied into the Foundation Design Report, if
no design changes are needed.
FINAL STRUCTURAL MODELING – In this phase, the Office of Structures makes any
adjustments needed to their structural model to accommodate any changes made to the
geotechnical foundation recommendations as transmitted in the Foundation Design Report. Most
of the time, the structural designer has already completed the final structural model by the time
they receive the FDR. This completes the bridge design.
DESIGN PROCESS ALTERNATIVES

Some of the steps listed above may be combined, depending on the size of the project or the time
constraints involved in design. For example, preliminary foundation recommendations may be
discussed with Structure designers prior to issuing the Preliminary Structure Plan.
11.3 DATA NEEDED FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
In summary, the data needed to progress a Foundation Design are the following:
1. Plan and Profile with Bottom of Footing (BOF) elevations

2. Soil borings and locations shown on Plans
3. Hydraulic information: Design High Water (DHW), Ordinary High Water (OHW),
Ordinary Water (OW), Low Water (LW), and Scour Elevations for design water flows
Q100, Q500. The effects of climate change shall be considered in these elevations.
4. Special Restrictions (no vibrations, buildings nearby, etc…)
5. Record Plans if available
6. Work Zone Traffic Control (WZTC) scheme (detour vs. staging vs. temp structure)
7. Foundation loads
In more detail, the data needed for foundation design shall be as described in NYSDOT GDM
Chapter 4 and in NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Section 10. The expected
project requirements and subsurface conditions should be analyzed to determine the type and
quantity of information to be developed during the geotechnical investigation. During this phase
it is necessary to:
• Identify design and constructability requirements (e.g. provide grade separation, transfer
loads from bridge superstructure, provide for dry excavation) and their effect on the
geotechnical information needed
• Identify performance criteria (e.g. limiting settlements, right of way restrictions,
proximity of adjacent structures) and schedule constraints
• Identify areas of concern on site and potential variability of local geology

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
• Develop likely sequence and phases of construction and their effect on the geotechnical
information needed
• Identify engineering analyses to be performed (e.g. bearing resistance, settlement, global
stability)
• Identify engineering properties and parameters required for these analyses
• Determine methods to obtain parameters and assess the validity of such methods for the
material type and construction methods
• Determine the number of tests/samples needed and appropriate locations for them.
NYSDOT GDM Chapter 6 covers the requirements for how the results from the field
investigation, the field testing, and the laboratory testing are to be used separately or in
combination to establish properties for design. The specific test and field investigation
requirements needed for foundation design are described in the following sections.
11.3.1 Field Exploration Requirements for Foundations
Subsurface explorations shall be performed to provide the information needed for the design and
construction of foundations. The extent of exploration shall be based on variability in the
subsurface conditions, structure type, and any project requirements that may affect the foundation
design or construction. The exploration program should be extensive enough to reveal the nature
and types of soil deposits and/or rock formations that are encountered, the engineering properties
of the soils and/or rocks, the potential for liquefaction, and the ground water conditions. The
exploration program should be sufficient to identify and delineate problematic subsurface
conditions such as mined out areas, karstic formations, existing fill or waste areas, etc.
Borings should be sufficient in number and depth to establish a reliable longitudinal and
transverse subsurface profile at areas of concern, such as at structure foundation locations,
adjacent earthwork locations, and to investigate any adjacent geologic hazards that could affect
the structure performance. Guidelines on the number and depth of borings are presented in
Chapter 4 Table 4-2, Bridge Foundations – Minimum Requirements. While engineering
judgment will need to be applied by the Departmental Geotechnical Engineer to adapt the
exploration program to the foundation types and depths needed and to the variability in the
subsurface conditions observed, the intent of Table 4-2 is to provide the minimum level of
exploration that should be carried out. Geophysical testing may be used to guide the planning of
the subsurface exploration and reduce the requirements for borings.
Table 4-2 shall be used as a starting point for determining the locations of borings. The final
exploration program should be adjusted based on the variability of the anticipated subsurface
conditions as well as the variability observed during the exploration program. If conditions are
determined to be variable, the exploration program should be increased relative to the
requirements in Table 4-2 such that the objective of establishing a reliable longitudinal and
transverse substrata profile is achieved. If conditions are observed to be homogeneous or
otherwise are likely to have minimal impact on the foundation performance, and previous local
geotechnical and construction experience has indicated that subsurface conditions are
homogeneous or otherwise are likely to have minimal impact on the foundation performance, a

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
reduced exploration program relative to what is specified in Table 4-2 may be considered. Even
the best and most detailed subsurface exploration programs may not identify every important
subsurface problem condition if conditions are highly variable. The goal of the subsurface
exploration program, however, is to reduce the risk of such problems to an acceptable minimum.
For situations where large diameter rock socketed shafts will be used or where drilled shafts are
being installed in formations known to have large boulders, or voids such as in mined or karstic
areas, it may be necessary to advance a boring at the location of each shaft.
Samples of material encountered shall be taken and preserved for future reference and/or testing.
Boring logs shall be prepared in detail sufficient to locate material strata, results of penetration
tests, groundwater, any artesian conditions, and where samples were taken. See NYSDOT GDM
Chapters 4 and 5.
11.3.2 Laboratory and Field Testing Requirements for Foundations
General requirements for laboratory and field testing, and their use in the determination of
properties for design, are addressed in NYSDOT GDM Chapter 6. In general, for foundation
design, laboratory testing should be used to augment the data obtained from the field
investigation program to refine the soil and rock properties selected for design.
Foundation design will typically heavily rely upon the SPT results obtained during the field
exploration through correlations to shear strength, compressibility, and the visual descriptions of
the soil/rock encountered, especially in non-cohesive soils. The information needed for the
assessment of ground water needed for foundation design and constructability evaluation is
typically obtained from field exploration. Primarily we use water readings in borings, nearby
stream elevations, and topography to assess water elevations. Other methods (piezometers) are
used if more information is required. The effects of climate change during the life of the structure
shall be considered in the design groundwater elevation. Index tests such as soil gradation,
Atterberg limits, water content, and organic content are used to confirm the visual field
classification of the soils encountered, but may also be used directly to obtain input parameters
for some aspects of foundation design (e.g., soil liquefaction, degree of over-consolidation, and
correlation to shear strength or compressibility of cohesive soils). Quantitative or performance
laboratory tests conducted on undisturbed soil samples are used to assess shear strength or
compressibility of finer grained soils. Site performance data, if available, can also be used to
assess design input parameters. Recommendations are provided in Chapter 6 regarding how to
make the final selection of design properties based on all of these sources of data.
11.4 FOUNDATION SELECTION CONSIDERATIONS
11.4.1 Foundation Design Considerations
The limit state requirements of NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications must be satisfied.
Knowledge of the site geology, subsurface soil and groundwater conditions are necessary.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
11.4.2 Foundation Type Considerations
Foundations are considered either shallow or deep.
Shallow foundations
Spread Footings
Deep foundations
Driven types:
 H-piles
 Cast-in-place (CIP) pipe piles
 Tapered piles
 Timber piles
 Precast Concrete piles
Drilled types:
 Drilled Shafts
 Micropiles
Foundation selection considerations to be evaluated include:

• Ability of the foundation type to meet performance requirements (e.g., deformation, bearing
resistance, uplift resistance, lateral resistance/ deformation) for all limit states, given the
soil or rock conditions encountered.
• Constructability of the foundation type.
• Impact of the foundation installation (in terms of time and space required) on traffic and
right-of-way.
• Environmental impact of the foundation construction.
• Constraints that may impact the foundation installation (e.g., overhead clearance, access,
and utilities).
• Impact of the foundation on the performance of adjacent foundations, structures, or utilities,
considering both the design of the adjacent foundations, structures, or utilities, and the
performance impact the installation of the new foundation will have on these adjacent
facilities.
• Cost of the foundation, considering all of the issues listed above.
11.4.2.1 Spread Footings
Spread footings are typically very cost effective, given the right set of conditions. Footings work
best in hard or compact soils that have adequate bearing resistance and exhibit tolerable settlement
under load.
Surcharges have been used effectively in the areas of bridge abutments located on soils such as
loose silts, fine sand, and clayey silts that consolidate rapidly. By preloading the abutment area, it
is possible to reduce the structure settlement to an amount where a spread footing foundation
may be used instead of piles.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
Strength Limit State Bearing Resistance will usually not be a controlling factor in footing
design for cohesionless soils having Standard Penetration Resistance N-values exceeding about 10
blows per foot. Tolerable settlement, used in determination of the Service Limit State Bearing
Resistance, will normally provide the necessary safety against bearing resistance failure.
Footings can get rather large in medium compact or stiff soils to keep bearing stresses low
enough to minimize settlement, or for structures with tall columns which are loaded in a manner
that results in large eccentricities at the footing level. Footings are not feasible where soil
liquefaction can occur at or below the footing level, unless the liquefiable soil is confined, not
very thick, and well below the footing level. Footings may be cost effective if inexpensive soil
improvement techniques such as over-excavation (in contrast to deep dynamic compaction or
stone columns, etc.) is feasible. Other factors that affect the desirability of spread footings
include the need for significant over-excavation of unsuitable soil, the need for significant
shoring to protect adjacent existing facilities, and inadequate overall stability when placed on
slopes that have marginally adequate stability. Since deformation (service) often controls the
feasibility of spread footings, footings may still be feasible and cost effective if the structure the
footings support can be designed to tolerate the settlement.
Details for spread footings are provided on the NYSDOT Bridge Detail sheets.
11.4.2.2 Deep Foundations
Deep foundations are often the best choice when spread footings cannot be founded on
competent soils or rock at a reasonable cost. At locations where soil conditions would normally
permit the use of spread footings but the potential exists for scour, liquefaction or lateral
spreading, deep foundations bearing on suitable materials below such susceptible soils should be
used as a protection against these problems. Deep foundations should also be used where an
unacceptable amount of spread footing settlement may occur. Deep foundations should be used
where right-of-way, space limitations, or constraints as discussed above would not allow the use
of spread footings.
Deep foundations are always used to support integral abutments in NYS.
Two general types of deep foundations are typically considered: driven pile and drilled
micropile/shaft foundations. Examples of various deep foundation types are described below.
Details for footings utilizing deep foundations are provided on NYSDOT Bridge Detail sheets.
11.4.2.2.1 Pile Foundations
Piles are generally classified into two categories: friction and end-bearing. Friction piles depend
upon the transfer of load from their surface to the surrounding soil by means of friction
throughout the length of the pile. This is commonly accomplished with displacement type piles,
such as CIP piles. End bearing piles, on the other hand, deliver the majority of the pile load to the

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
material on which the tip rests. End bearing piles are generally driven to rock, and many times
are non-displacement type piles, such as H-piles.
Timber Piles: Timber piles are not as common as they used to be on NYSDOT contracts and
are generally utilized for drainage structures, pipe cradles, docks, small walls and other minor
structures. They are driven as friction piles and usually have a nominal resistance of 40 to 80
kips. It is NYSDOT policy to not use timber piles for bridge foundations at this time.
Figure 11-1 - Timber Piles

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
Cast-In-Place: Cast-In-Place (CIP) pipe piles are commonly used on NYSDOT contracts.
They are usually driven as friction piles, but can also be driven to very dense layers or soft
rock and have significant end bearing resistance. They consist of a driven, closed-end steel
casing pipe driven to a required resistance, which is filled with concrete after driving.
Typically, NYSDOT does not use the full structural capacity of the shell because that would
result in excessive pile loads that may not be feasibly driven with typically available driving
equipment. The casing must be able to endure the stresses during driving installation. This is
analyzed using the Wave Equation Analysis Program (WEAP). It is necessary that the casing
be of the proper size, proper yield strength, have structurally sufficient welds, have no bends
or deformations, and be watertight. The minimum thicknesses of casing for cast-in-place
piles is generally 0.25 inches, but is often increased depending on lateral loading and driving
analyses.
For integral abutments where the total bridge span is 165 feet or less, CIP piles can be used,
particularly if no end bearing layer is apparent and the piles must be supported mainly
through side friction resistance.
Figure 11-2 – Cast-in-Place Piles
Details for splicing and driving shoes for cast-in-place piles are provided on NYSDOT
Bridge Detail sheet Miscellaneous Pile Details.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
Steel H-Piles: Steel H-Piles are generally driven to rock or other bearing layer, although they
may be driven to a resistance. They will penetrate hard overlying layers with much less effort
than other types of piles, and they are used when it is desirable to displace as little material as
possible. They can be damaged when boulders are present, and they cannot be inspected after
driving, although some severe types of damage can be ascertained by Dynamic Pile Testing.
The orientation of the pile cross section must be shown on the plans, since the pile is stronger
in one direction than the other.
Figure 11-3 – Steel H-piles
Details for splicing and driving shoes for steel bearing piles are provided on the NYSDOT
Bridge Detail sheet Miscellaneous Pile Details.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
Tapered CIP piles: Tapered CIP piles are uniformly tapered, steel pipe foundation piles. The
shape of a tapered pile allows for the development of the resistance with less embedment in
the bearing stratum compared to non-tapered piles. A tapered pile has a forged steel nose
attached at its tip. The fluted cross-section provides increased rigidity to withstand handling
and driving stresses and the tapered shape reduces concrete volume requirements.
Tapered piles are not used very frequently as they are more difficult to splice and they are
more expensive and not as commonly available as H-piles or CIP piles. GEB typically uses
these piles when there is a shallow competent soil layer over a deep soft soil layer.
Figure 11-4 – Tapered Piles

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
Precast: Precast concrete piles are rarely used for routine NYSDOT structures, but they are
used commonly in marine environments such as in Long Island. Hollow, precast cylinder
piles are typically jetted into place, and then driven to resistance. NYSDOT also uses solid
cross section “square” piles in sandy, marine conditions where the loading is small enough
such that the larger, cylinder piles are deemed uneconomical. In areas with a very compact
soil layer these “square” piles may include an H-pile at the bottom end, typically called a
stinger, to penetrate the bearing layer. Precast concrete piles are difficult to cut-off or splice,
and require special care in handling.
Figure 11-5 – Precast Concrete Cylinder Piles
Figure 11-6 – Precast Piles with Steel H-Pile Stinger

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
11.4.2.2.2 Drilled Foundations
Drilled Foundations are typically used in the following situations:

• Where vibrations due to pile driving operations can be expected to cause structural
damage to or settlement of adjacent buildings or utilities
• Where obstructions would otherwise impede pile driving or likely would cause significant
pile damage
• In urban environments where noise from pile driving operations would be highly
objectionable to businesses and residences
• In special locations, such as adjacent buried utilities or structures, where load transfer
along a specified length of the pile needs to be minimized.
Drilled foundations are usually expensive compared to driven pile foundations, and require
specialty contractors and extensive inspection needs.
Drilled Shaft Foundations

A drilled shaft foundation is typically a large diameter pile which is constructed by placing fresh
concrete in a drilled hole. Reinforcing steel is installed in the excavation, prior to placing the
concrete. Drilled shafts are expensive alternatives to NYSDOT’s typical driven deep foundation
elements, H-piles and CIP piles. When considering drilled shafts, the following should be taken
into account, in addition to those listed above for drilled foundations in general:
• Shafts may become cost effective where a single shaft per column can be used in lieu of a
pile group with a pile cap, especially when a cofferdam or shoring is required to construct
the pile cap
• Shafts may not be desirable where contaminated soils are present, since contaminated soil
would be removed, requiring special handling and disposal
• Artesian pressure in the bearing layer could preclude the use of drilled shafts due to the
difficulty in keeping enough head inside the shaft during excavation to prevent heave or
caving under slurry.
An example of a typical drilled shaft installation is shown in Figure 11-7.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
Figure 11-7 Typical Drilled Shaft Installation
Micropile Foundations
Micropiles are also known as mini-piles, bored-in-piles, and pin piles.
For situations where existing structures must be retrofitted to improve foundation resistance,
where limited headroom is available, or where vibrations from pile driving would be a concern,
micropiles may be the best alternative and should be considered.
Micropiles, like drilled shafts, are expensive alternatives to NYSDOT’s typical driven deep
foundation elements, H-piles and CIP piles. Micropiles should only be used in the following
situations, in addition to those listed above for drilled foundations in general:
• In low overhead or tight site conditions.
• Where numerous boulders are present. Micropiles can be more readily drilled through
boulders, unlike larger diameter drilled shafts which may grab and churn boulders.
An example of a typical micropile is shown in Figure 11-8.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
Figure 11-8 Typical Micropile Installation
Pressure and Post Grouting: Pressure and post grouting can improve the grout-soil bond
significantly over tremie grouting.
• Allows for higher loads for similar pile dimensions
• Post grouting allows “failed” piles to be “repaired” to reach desired resistance.
Continuous Flight Auger Pile Foundations

Continuous flight auger (CFA) piles are also referred to as auger-cast, augered cast-in-place,
auger-pressure grout, and screw piles. CFA piles are a type of drilled foundation in which the
pile is drilled to a final depth in one continuous flight auger. While the auger is drilled into the
ground, the flights of the auger are filled with soil, providing lateral support and maintaining the
stability of the hole. At the same time the auger is withdrawn from the hole, concrete or a grout
is placed by pumping the mix through the hollow center of the auger pipe to the base of the
auger. Reinforcement is placed into the hole filled with fluid concrete/grout immediately after
withdrawal of the auger. A schematic of the installation process is shown in Figure 11-9.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
Figure 11-9 Continuous Flight Auger Pile Construction
The ability of CFA piles to resist lateral loads is minimal, making them undesirable to support
structures where significant lateral loads must be transferred to the foundations. Furthermore,
quality assurance of CFA pile integrity and capacity needs further development. It is, therefore,
NYSDOT policy not to use CFA piles for structure foundations at this time.
11.4.3 Nearby Structures
Where foundations are placed adjacent to existing structures the effect of the foundation on the
existing structures shall be investigated. Issues to be investigated include, but are not limited to:
1. Spread Footings: Settlement of the existing structure due to the stress increase caused
by the new footing, decreased overall stability due to the additional load created by
the new footing, and the effect on the existing structure by excavation, shoring, and/or
dewatering to construct the new foundation.
2. Driven Piles: Vibration effects due to pile installation.
3. Drilled Shafts: The impact of caving soils during shaft excavation on the stability of
foundations supporting adjacent structures, and if a shaft excavation cave-in could
compromise the existing foundation in terms of stability or increased deformation the
design should require that casing be advanced as the shaft excavation proceeds.
11.4.4 Construction Vibrations
Vibration due to pile driving can cause settlement of existing foundations as well as structural
damage to the adjacent facility, especially in loose cohesionless soils. The combination of taking
measures to mitigate the vibration levels through use of nondisplacement piles, predrilling,
proper hammer choice, etc., and a good vibration monitoring program should be considered.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
Analysis of vibration effects with distance from nearby structures can be found in NYSDOT
Highway Design Manual Chapter 9 - Soils, Walls, and Foundations, 9.6 BUILDING
CONDITION SURVEY AND VIBRATION MONITORING (NON-BLASTING), which includes
references to EI 05-045 Design Guidance for Building Condition Survey and Vibration
Monitoring (Nonblasting) and EI 05-044 Special Specification for Building Condition Survey(s)
and Vibration Monitoring (Nonblasting).
11.5 OVERVIEW OF LRFD FOUNDATIONS
The basic equation for load and resistance factor design (LRFD) states that the loads multiplied
by factors to account for uncertainty, ductility, importance, and redundancy must be less than or
equal to the available resistance multiplied by factors to account for variability and uncertainty in
the resistance per the NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. The basic equation,
therefore, is as follows:
 iQi  Rn

Where,
 = Factor for ductility, redundancy, and importance of structure

 i = Load factor applicable to the i‘th load Qi
Qi = Load
 = Resistance factor
Rn = Nominal (predicted) resistance
Load and resistance factors can be found in the NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
Section 3 Loads and Load Factors and Article 10.5 Limit States and Resistance Factors.
11.6 LOADS, LOAD GROUPS AND LIMIT STATES
The specific loads and load factors for the various limit states to be used for foundation design
are as found in NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
11.6.1 Foundation Analysis
See NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.6 for the development of elastic
settlement/bearing resistance of footings for static analyses and NYSDOT GDM Chapter 9 for
soil/rock stiffness determination for spread footings and deep foundations subjected to seismic
loads. See NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.7, 10.8, and 10.9 for the
development of lateral soil stiffness values for deep foundations.
11.6.2 Downdrag Loads
Negative skin friction (downdrag load) is the downward force induced in piles where the soil
Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
around the piles moves downward relative to the piles. Downdrag is to be evaluated on piles,
shafts, or other deep foundations during design when the settlement of the soil around the
elements, after the elements are installed, will be larger than 0.4 in.
Drag loads may be accommodated by:

• Increasing foundation element size
• Adding foundation elements
Drag loads may be reduced by:

• Preloading
• Predrilling and Sleeve
• Coating driven piles
Foundation elements subject to drag have to be installed to a higher resistance because:

• They will have to resist drag loads in addition to the structural loads
• The skin friction in and above the compressible layer cannot be counted on to resist long-
term loads
Downdrag loads (DD) shall be determined and applied as specified in NYSDOT LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications Section 3 Loads and Load Factors. The load factors for DD loads
provided in NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Table 3.4.1-2 Load Factors for
Permanent Loads shall be used. This table does not address the situation in which the soil
contributing to downdrag in the strength limit state consists of cohesionless soil over a cohesive
layer that may consolidate. In this situation, we assume a load factor of 1.0 for the downdrag
load in the cohesionless layer.
11.6.3 Service Limit States
Foundation design at the service limit state shall include:

• Settlements
• Horizontal movements
• Overall stability
11.6.3.1 Tolerable Movements
The short-term and long-term settlement of the footings must be sufficiently small in magnitude
so as not to impose excessive stresses on the structure nor impede the proper function of the
bridge. NYSDOT post construction tolerable movements are as follows:
• Vertical foundation movement: 1 inch
• Horizontal foundation movement at bottom of footing elevation: 0.5 inch
Anticipated movements that are greater than this must be discussed with the Structural Designer.
Post-construction settlement limitations commence after construction and backfill of
substructures, and prior to erection of the superstructure. If total settlement is expected to be
greater than 1 inch, but settlement after backfilling the abutment will be less than 1 inch, the

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
pedestals should be constructed after the backfill is placed and the settlement has dissipated.
Foundation settlement, horizontal movement, and rotation of foundations shall be investigated

using all applicable loads in the Service Load Combinations specified in NYSDOT LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications Table 3.4.1-1 Load Combinations and Load Factors. Transient loads may
be omitted from settlement analyses for foundations bearing on or in cohesive soil deposits that
are subject to time-dependant consolidation settlements.
To mitigate:
• Get the fill settlement out before the foundation is installed (best solution).
• Replace Fill with Lightweight Fill.
• Delaying the pedestal pours until after the settlement occurs
• Post construction, jacking and shimming bearings
Bridge abutments supported on piles driven through soft compressive cohesive soils may tilt
forward or backwards depending on the geometry of the backfill and the abutment. If the
horizontal movement is large, it may cause damage to the structure. The unbalanced fill loads
displace the soil laterally. This lateral displacement may bend the piles, causing the abutment to
tilt towards or away from the fill.
Figure 11-10 Tilting Abutments
The horizontal displacement of pile and shaft foundations shall be estimated using procedures
that consider soil-structure interaction (see NYSDOT GDM Section 11.9.2.4 Determination of
Pile Lateral Resistance and NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.7.2.4
Service Limit State Design - Horizontal Pile Foundation Movement).

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
11.6.3.2 Overall Stability
The evaluation of overall stability of earth slopes with or without a foundation unit shall be
investigated at the service limit state as specified in NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications Article 11.6.2.3 Service Limit State Design - Loads. Overall stability should be
evaluated using limiting equilibrium methods described in NYSDOT GDM Chapter 10, Slope
Stability Analysis. Article 11.6.2.3 recommends that overall stability be evaluated at the Service
I limit state (i.e., a load factor of 1.0) and a resistance factor, φos, of 0.65 for slopes which support
a structural element.
11.6.3.3 Abutment Transitions
Vertical and horizontal movements caused by embankment loads behind bridge abutments shall
be investigated. Settlement of foundation soils induced by embankment loads can result in
excessive movements of substructure elements. Both short and long term settlement potential
should be considered.
Guidance for proper detailing and material requirements for abutment backfill is provided in the
Bridge Detail sheets.
In addition to the considerations for addressing the transition between the bridge and the
abutment fill provided above, an approach slab is required at the end of each bridge for
NYSDOT projects.
11.6.4 Strength and Extreme Event Limit States
Design of foundations at strength and extreme event limit states shall include evaluation of the
nominal geotechnical and structural resistances of the foundation elements as specified in the
relevant NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Sections 5, 6, 8, 10, and 11.
11.7 RESISTANCE FACTORS FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
11.7.1 Design Parameters
The load and resistance factors provided herein result from a combination of design model
uncertainty, soil/rock property uncertainty, and unknown uncertainty assumed by the previous
allowable stress design and load factor design approach included in previous AASHTO design
specifications. Therefore, the load and resistance factors account for soil/rock property
uncertainty in addition to other uncertainties.
It should be assumed that the characteristic soil/rock properties to be used in conjunction with the
load and resistance factors provided herein that have been calibrated using reliability theory are
average values obtained from laboratory test results or from correlated field in-situ test results. It
should be noted that use of lower bound soil/rock properties could result in overly conservative
foundation designs in such cases. However, depending on the availability of soil or rock property

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
data and the variability of the geologic strata under consideration, it may not be possible to
reliably estimate the average value of the properties needed for design. In such cases, the
Departmental Geotechnical Engineer may have no choice but to use a more conservative
selection of design parameters to mitigate the additional risks created by potential variability or
the paucity of relevant data.
11.7.2 Service Limit States
Resistance factors for the service limit states shall be taken as specified in the NYSDOT LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications Articles 5.5, 6.5, and 10.5 Service Limit States.
11.7.3 Strength Limit States
Resistance factors for the strength limit states shall be taken as specified in the NYSDOT LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications Articles 5.5, 6.5, and10.5 Strength Limit States.
11.7.4 Extreme Event Limit States
Design of foundations at extreme event limit states shall be consistent with the expectation that
structure collapse is prevented and that life safety is protected.
Resistance factors for extreme event limit states, including the design of foundations to resist
earthquake, liquefaction, ice, vessel impact loads, shall be taken as specified in NYSDOT LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications Articles 5.5, 6.5, and 10.5, Extreme Limit States.
Regarding overall stability of slopes that can affect structures, a resistance factor of 0.9, which is
equivalent to a factor of safety of 1.1, should in general be used for the extreme event limit state.
NYSDOT GDM Chapters 9 Seismic Design and 10 Slope Stability Analysis provide additional
information and requirements regarding seismic stability of slopes.
11.8 SPREAD FOOTING DESIGN
11.8.1 Loads and Load Factor Application to Footing Design
Load factors can be found in NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Section 3 Loads and
Load Factors.
Figure 11-11 provides definitions and locations of the forces and moments that act on structural
footings.
Table 11-1 provides cases where to use maximum or minimum load factors for various modes of
failure.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
Figure 11-11 Definition and Location of Forces for Cantilever Abutments

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
The variables shown in Figure 11-11 are defined as follows:
DC, LL, EQ = vertical structural loads applied to footing/wall (dead load, live load, EQ load,
respectively)
DCabut = structure load due to weight of abutment
EQabut = abutment inertial force due to earthquake loading
EVheel = vertical soil load on wall heel
EVtoe = vertical soil load on wall toe
EHsoil = lateral load due to active or at rest earth pressure behind abutment
LS = lateral earth pressure load due to live load
EQsoil = lateral load due to combined effect of active or at rest earth pressure plus seismic
earth pressure behind abutment
Rep = soil passive resistance (Note: NYSDOT does not include passive resistance in abutment
design in the event that the soil may be removed during the life of the bridge. Passive
resistance may be considered on a site specific analysis if the soil will remain throughout the
lifetime of the structure.)
Rτ = soil shear resistance along footing base at soil-concrete interface
σv = resultant vertical bearing stress at base of footing
R = resultant force at base of footing
eo = eccentricity calculated about point O (toe of footing)
Xo = distance to resultant R from wall toe (point O)
B = footing width
H = total height of abutment plus superstructure thickness
Load Factor to Use

Load Sliding Overturning Bearing Stress
(eo, σv)
DC, DCabut Min. load factor Min. load factor Max. load factor
LL, LS Transient load factor Transient load factor Transient load factor
(e.g. LL) (e.g. LL) (e.g. LL)
EVheel, EVtoe Min. load factor Min. load factor Max. load factor
EHsoil Max. load factor Max. load factor Max. load factor
Table 11-1 Selection of Maximum or Minimum Spread Footing Foundation Load

Factors found in NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications for Various Modes
of Failure at the Strength Limit State
11.8.2 Footing Foundation Design
Geotechnical design of footings, and all related considerations, shall be conducted as specified in
the NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.6 Spread Footings.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
11.8.2.1 Footing Bearing Depth
Spread footings are located a minimum of 4 feet below ground surface, except for the following
circumstances:
1. Footing on top of a Mechanically Stabilized Earth System
2. Footing on rock
For footings on slopes, the footing depth is measured perpendicular to the slope, and should be
located as described in the NYSDOT Bridge Manual.
11.8.2.2 Effective Footing Dimensions
For eccentrically loaded footings, a reduced effective area, B′ x L′, within the confines of the
physical footing is used in geotechnical design for settlement or bearing resistance. See
NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Article 10.6.1.3 Effective Footing Dimensions.
11.8.2.3 Bearing Stress Distributions
When proportioning footing dimensions to meet settlement and bearing resistance requirements
at all applicable limit states, the distribution of bearing stress on the effective area is assumed to
be:
• Uniform distribution for footings on soil, or
• Linearly varying; i.e., triangular or trapezoidal as applicable, for footings on rock.
11.8.2.4 Groundwater
The influence of the groundwater table is considered in the bearing resistance of soils and on the
sliding, overturning, and settlement of the structure. In cases where seepage forces are present,
they should also be included in the analyses.
11.8.2.5 Service Limit State Design of Footings

Spread footings shall be designed at the service limit state to meet the tolerable movement
criteria for the structure in accordance with NYSDOT GDM Sections 11.6.3.1 Limit States -
Tolerable Movements and 11.8.2.5.2 Spread Footing - Tolerable Movements.
11.8.2.5.1 General
Service limit state design of spread footings shall include evaluation of total and differential
settlement, and overall stability.
11.8.2.5.2 Tolerable Movements
The foundation movement limitations are specified in NYSDOT GDM Section 11.6.3.1
Tolerable Movements.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
For footings bearing on rock, settlements may generally be assumed to be less than 1 inch.
11.8.2.5.3 Settlement Analyses
Pressure Distribution
Boussinesq and the Boston Code (2 vertical - 1 horizontal) are the most commonly used
pressure distribution methods used by NYSDOT GEB. Other commonly accepted methods can
also be used.
Settlement Analyses
Total settlement, St, including elastic, consolidation, and secondary components is shown as:
St = Se + Sc + Ss
Where:
Se = elastic settlement
Sc = primary consolidation settlement
Ss = secondary settlement
Cohesionless Soils - Elastic Settlement, Se

Settlements of footings on cohesionless soils are estimated using elastic theory or
empirical procedures.
Hough’s Bearing Capacity Index is the most commonly used empirical method by
NYSDOT GEB, which generally produces conservative estimates. Other commonly
accepted methods can also be used.
For more detailed information, see NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
10.6.2.4.2 - Settlement of Footings on Cohesionless Soils
Cohesive Soils – Primary and Secondary Consolidation Settlement, Sc & Ss

Spread footings in which cohesive soils are located within the zone of stress influence
shall be investigated for consolidation settlement.
NYSDOT typically uses Classical Approach (Terzaghi 1943), however, other acceptable
methods include Elastic Theory (Baguelin et al., 1978), or the Tangent Modulus
Method (Janbu, 1963, 1967). Settlements of footings on over consolidated clay usually
occur at approximately one order of magnitude faster than soils without pre-
consolidation.
Consolidation test results obtained from undisturbed soil samples are recommended for
use in settlement calculations.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
A detailed explanation of consolidation settlement analyses can be found in NYSDOT

LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.6.2.4.3 - Settlement of Footings on
Cohesive Soils, GDM Chapter 8 Geomechanics, and GDM Chapter 12 Embankments.
11.8.2.5.4 Overall Stability
Overall (global) stability of footings is investigated using procedures described in GDM Chapter
10 Slope Stability Analysis and NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.6.2.5 -
Overall Stability.
11.8.2.5.5 Bearing Resistance at the Service Limit State
Footings on Soil
Presumptive Service Limit State bearing resistances on cohesionless soil where groundwater is
not present are:
• 6 ksf for compact soils on level ground, footing embedded 4 ft
• 5 ksf for compact soils on a 1V:2H slope or embankment, footing embedded 4 ft
• 4 ksf for a footing on top of an MSES
The Service Limit State Bearing Resistance is that maximum bearing pressure at which the
settlement limitation, mentioned in Section 11.8.2.5.2 Spread Footing - Tolerable Movements, is
achieved and overall stability is adequate. The Service Limit State Bearing Pressure will not
exceed the Strength Limit State Bearing Pressure so the Service Limit State Bearing Resistance
should not be reported as greater than the Strength Limit State Bearing Resistance.
Footings on Rock
Bearing resistance values for rock may be determined by using presumptive bearing resistances
that are settlement limited, or semi-empirical procedures that use correlation to the
Geomechanical Rock Mass Rating System.
Once the plans are prepared, the Designer should check that the Service Limit State bearing
pressure for the foundation is on the plans. This will guide the Engineering Geologist who
inspects the rock to determine that the rock can adequately meet the resistance requirements.
11.8.2.6 Strength Limit State Design of Spread Footings
11.8.2.6.1 General
Bearing resistance of spread footings are determined based on the most critical level of
groundwater level at the footing location.
The factored resistance, qR, at the strength limit state is calculated as:
qR = φb qn (NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Equation 10.6.3.1.1-1)

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
Where:
φb = resistance factor specified in NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
Article 10.5.5.2.2 Resistance Factors – Strength Limit State – Spread Footings.
qn = nominal bearing resistance (ksf)
Where loads are eccentric, the effective footing dimensions L′ and B′ (as specified in NYSDOT
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 11.6.1.3, Effective Footing Dimensions) are used
instead of the overall dimensions L and B in all equations, tables, and figures pertaining to
bearing resistance.
Footings with inclined bases shall be avoided.
11.8.2.6.2 Basic Formulation for Nominal Bearing Resistance
The nominal bearing resistance is estimated using accepted soil mechanics theories and is based
on measured soil parameters. The soil parameters used in the analyses are representative of the
soil shear strength under the considered loading.
Bearing Resistance Equations

Acceptable formulas for nominal bearing resistance, qn, are found in NYSDOT LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications Article 10.6.3.1.2 Bearing Resistance of Soil – Theoretical Estimation and
NAVFAC (May 1982) 7.2-129 thru 140 Theoretical Bearing Capacity.
Reductions in Bearing Resistance

The nominal bearing resistance will be reduced in instances where:
• Groundwater is present,
• The footing is on or near a slope, or
• A weaker layer of soil is present within twice the footing width beneath the footing.
Evaluation for these situations can be found in:

• NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.6.3.1.2c - Considerations for
Footings on Slopes
• NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.6.3.1.2d - Considerations for
Two-Layer Soil Systems
• NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.6.3.1.2e - Two-layered Soils
System in Undrained Loading
• NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.6.3.1.2f - Two-layered Soils
System in Drained Loading
• NAVFAC 7.2-132 - Ultimate Bearing Capacity with Groundwater Effect
• NAVFAC 7.2-135 & 136 - Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Shallow Footing Placed on or
Near a Slope
• NAVFAC 7.2- 137 - Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Two Layer Cohesive Soil

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
11.8.2.6.3 Bearing Resistance of Footings on Rock
The bearing resistance of the rock should be determined using the semi-empirical procedure
developed by Carter and Kulhawy (1988) which uses the Geomechanical Rock Mass Rating
System and the unconfined compressive strength of the intact rock core sample.
For spread footings on bedrock that fall within the zone of stream scour, a scourability
assessment of the rock will be performed and a Scourability Index value assigned. This value is
inherent to the rock and is independent of the hydraulic conditions at the site. The Scourability
Index value and the site hydraulic conditions are used to determine if the footing should be keyed
into bedrock to provide sacrificial rock for scour protection.
NYSDOT uses the following depths of footing keys in relation to the scourability rating:
Scour Rating Min. Depth of Footing Key

1, 2, 3 No key required
4, 5, 6 0.5 ft
7, 8, 9 1.0 ft
10 2.0 ft
Table 11-2 – Scour Rating and Depths of Footing Key in Rock
11.8.2.6.4 Eccentric Load Limitations
The eccentricity of loading at the strength limit state shall meet NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications, Article 10.6.3.3 Eccentric Load Limitations.
11.8.2.6.5 Failure by Sliding
Normally, passive resistance is not accounted for by NYSDOT GEB in determining sliding
resistance.
Before passive resistance is included as part of the shear resistance required for resisting sliding,
consideration should be given to possible future removal of the soil in front of the foundation.
Strength Limit Sliding Resistance:
The strength limit resistance against failure by sliding is calculated as:

RR = φRn = φτRτ + φepRep (AASHTO Equation 10.6.3.4-1)
Where:
R n = nominal sliding resistance against failure by sliding
φτ = resistance factor for shear resistance between soil and foundation specified
in NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Table 10.5.5.2.2-1,
Rτ = nominal sliding resistance between soil and foundation
φep = resistance factor for passive resistance specified in NYSDOT LRFD Bridge
Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
Design Specifications Table 10.5.5.2.2-1

Rep = nominal passive resistance of soil available throughout the design life of
the structure
Nominal Sliding Resistance between soil or rock and foundation

The nominal Sliding resistance depends upon the soil or rock friction angle and the footing
material.
Cohesionless Soil
If the soil beneath the footing is cohesionless, the nominal sliding resistance between soil and
foundation is calculated as:
Rτ = V tan δ
Where:
tan δ = Nominal Sliding Coefficient
tan δ = tan Φf for concrete cast against soil

= 0.8 tan Φf for precast concrete footing
Φf = internal friction angle of drained soil or rock (degrees)
V = total vertical force
Cohesive Soil
If the soil beneath the footing is cohesive, the nominal sliding resistance, Rτ, between soil and
foundation is taken as the lesser of:
• The un-drained shear strength of the clay, or
• Where footings are supported on at least 6 in. of compacted granular material, one-half
the normal stress (0.5V) on the interface between the footing and soil, as shown in
NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Figure 10.6.3.4-1 Procedure for
Estimating Nominal Sliding Resistance for Walls on Clay.
The following table is a summary of the sliding coefficients for precast and cast-in-place (CIP)
concrete foundations on a cohesionless and cohesive soil/concrete interface, using the AASHTO
cohesionless resistance factors of 0.8 for CIP, 0.9 for precast; and 0.85 for both types of concrete
on cohesive soil.
Cohesionless Soil Cohesive Soil

Nominal
Strength Limit Strength Limit
Footing Concrete Sliding
Sliding Sliding
Coefficient
Coefficient Coefficient
Cast-in-Place Tan Φf 0.8 Tan Φf 0.85 Tan Φf
Precast 0.8 Tan Φf 0.9 (0.8 Tan Φf ) 0.85 (0.8 Tan Φf )
Table 11-3 – Sliding Coefficients for Cast-in-Place and Precast Footings on Soil

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
Rock
The nominal coefficient of sliding for concrete cast on rock can be calculated by taking the
tangent of the determined friction angle of the intact or fractured rock, Tan Φf .
The strength limit coefficient of sliding friction for concrete cast on rock can be determined the
same as for cohesionless soil, 0.8 Tan Φf.
For footings on bedrock, the coefficient of friction for bedrock should be used to determine if
additional sliding resistance is needed. If so required, the footing can be doweled or keyed into
rock. Dowels are usually preferred, but should not be used with poorly cemented shales. The
depth of key for sliding resistance is in addition to the depth of key required for scour.
11.8.2.7 Extreme Event Limit State Design of Footings
Extreme limit state design checks for spread footings shall include, but not necessarily be limited
to:
• Bearing resistance
• Eccentric load limitations (overturning)
• Sliding
• Overall stability
Resistance factors are as specified in NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article
10.5.5.3 Resistance Factors – Extreme Limit States.
Footings shall not be located on or within liquefiable soil. Footings may also be located above
liquefiable soil in a non-liquefiable layer if the footing is designed to meet all Extreme Event
limit states. In this case, liquefied soil parameters shall be used for the analysis (see NYSDOT
GDM Chapter 9 Seismic Design). The footing shall be stable against an overall stability failure of
the soil (see NYSDOT GDM Section 11.6.3.2 Overall Stability) and lateral spreading resulting
from the liquefaction (see NYSDOT GDM Chapter 9).
11.9 DRIVEN PILE FOUNDATION DESIGN
11.9.1 Loads and Load Factor Application to Driven Pile Design
Figure 11-12 provides definitions and typical locations of the forces and moments that act on
deep foundations such as driven piles.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
Figure 11-12 Definition and Location of Forces for Pile or Shaft Supported
Footing
Where,
DCcol = structure load due to weight of column

EQcol = earthquake inertial force due to weight of column
qp = end bearing resistance at base of pile or shaft (unit resistance)
qs = side resistance on pile or shaft (unit resistance)
DD = down drag load on pile or shaft (total load)
DCnet = unit weight of concrete in shaft minus unit weight of soil times the shaft volume
below the ground line (may include part of the column if the top of the shaft is deep due to
scour or for other reasons
11.9.2 Driven Pile Foundation Geotechnical Design
Geotechnical designs of driven pile foundations, and all related considerations, are specified in
the NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.7 Driven Piles.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
Cohesionless Soils
In cohesionless soils, the GEB uses the method developed by Nordlund to determine the nominal
bearing resistance of a single pile. This method has been shown to accurately predict pile
resistances for most New York State soils, based on pile driving records and dynamic load test
results.
Cohesive Soils
In cohesive soils, the GEB uses total stress α Method (Tomlinson) and effective stress β Method
(Meyerhof) analyses to determine the nominal bearing resistance of a single pile.
11.9.2.1 Minimum Pile Spacing and Embedment
As per the NYSDOT Bridge Manual, center-to-center pile spacing should not be less than 3 pile
diameters or widths. Maximum pile spacing is 9 feet. The distance from the side of any pile to
the nearest edge of the pile cap shall not be less than 9 inches.
Pile embedment (within the footing) is:

• CIP Piles in a conventional abutment or pier: 0.5 ft
• H-Piles in a conventional abutment or pier: 1.0 ft
• All piles in an integral abutment: 2.0 ft
• Precast solid concrete pile 1.0 ft
Precast concrete cylinder piles are typically not embedded into the pile cap. They are usually
attached by means of a short rebar cage that extends into the top of the cylinder pile and into the
pile cap.
For more information see NYSDOT Bridge Manual and Bridge Detail Sheets.
11.9.2.2 Battered Piles
NYSDOT design preference is to use battered piles to assist with the resistance of lateral loads.
Piles are typically battered on 6V:1H, however, if more lateral resistance is required a larger
batter can be used up to a 3V:1H.
11.9.2.3 Pile Design Requirements
The pile design will address the following:

• Nominal bearing resistance
• Group interaction
• Estimated pile penetration required to meet nominal resistance
• Minimum pile penetration necessary to account for uplift, scour, downdrag, settlement,
liquefaction, lateral loads, and seismic conditions.
• Foundation deflection that meets the Service Limit State movement and structure
performance criteria.
• Nominal pile structural resistance

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
• Pile drivability to confirm that acceptable driving stresses and reasonable driving criteria
can be achieved at the nominal resistance, and that minimum pile penetration is
achievable.
• Long term pile durability, i.e. corrosion and deterioration, is achievable.
11.9.2.4 Determination of Pile Lateral Resistance
Pile foundations are subjected to horizontal loads due to several factors including, but not limited
to, earth pressure, wind, traffic loads, bridge curvature, ice, vessel or traffic impact, and
earthquake.
Determination of the soil/rock parameters required as input for lateral pile design using soil-
structure interaction methodologies is presented in NYSDOT GDM Chapter 6.
For detailed requirements regarding the determination of lateral resistance of piles see NYSDOT
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Articles 10.7.2.4 Service Limit - Horizontal Pile Foundation
Movement and 10.7.3.12 Strength Limit - Nominal Horizontal Resistance of Pile Foundations.
NYSDOT GEB uses the P-Y method in evaluating the combined axial and lateral loadings, and
thermal movements, on a pile.
The lateral resistance values are assigned to vertical piles and to battered piles. For battered piles,
these lateral resistance values are in addition to the horizontal component of the axial resistance
on the pile.
The provisions of NYSDOT GDM Chapter 10 - Slope Stability Analysis, and NYSDOT LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications, Article 10.6.2.5 - Overall Stability, shall apply.
11.9.2.6 Service Limit State Design of Pile Foundations
11.9.2.6.1 General
Driven pile foundations shall be designed at the service limit state to meet the tolerable
movements for the structure being supported. Service limit state design of driven pile
foundations includes the evaluation of settlement due to static loads and downdrag loads if
present, overall stability, lateral squeeze, and lateral deformation.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
11.9.2.6.3 Settlement
Settlement should be checked for both individual piles and pile groups when not driven to a
bearing layer or rock.
11.9.2.6.4 Horizontal Pile Foundation Movement
The horizontal movement of pile foundations shall be estimated using procedures that consider
soil-structure interaction as specified in NYSDOT GDM Section 11.9.2.4 Determination of Pile
Lateral Resistance.
The single pile lateral Service Limit State resistance is reduced using P-multipliers, dependant on
pile and row spacing, as determined in NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Blue Page
Table 10.7.2.4-1.
If the foundation is modeled as a group using P-Y curves, they shall be modified for group
effects. If the pile cap will always be embedded, the P-Y horizontal resistance of the soil on the
cap face may be included in the horizontal resistance.
11.9.2.6.5 Settlement Due to Downdrag
See NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.7.2.5 Settlement Due to
Downdrag, and GDM Section 11.6.2 Downdrag Loads for analysis.
11.9.2.6.6 Lateral Squeeze
Bridge abutments supported on pile foundations driven through soft soils that are subject to
unbalanced embankment fill loading shall be evaluated for lateral squeeze, as noted in NYSDOT
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.7.2.6 Lateral Squeeze.
11.9.2.7 Strength Limit State Design of Pile Foundations
11.9.2.7.1 General
See NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.7.3.1 General, for the items to be
determined and addressed for Strength Limit state pile design.
11.9.2.7.2 Piles to Rock
When driving to rock, H-piles are usually the preferred choice of pile. These piles are driven to
“practical” refusal, defined by NYSDOT as 20 blows per inch using a hammer with sufficient
energy to reach nominal resistance at blow counts between 20 and 120 blows per foot without
overstressing the pile.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
A geotechnical axial Strength Limit State resistance factor of 0.60 is typically used by NYSDOT
GEB.
The structural axial Strength Limit State resistance factor varies between 0.50 and 0.70,
depending on pile, soil, and rock driving conditions. These factors are shown in NYSDOT
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 6.5.4.2 - Resistance Factors.
In soft rock, where H-piles could potentially penetrate into the rock a significant depth, to
minimize pile length, Cast-in-Place Concrete piles with conical shoes can be used.
For more information, see NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Article 10.7.3.2 –
Point Bearing Piles to Rock.
11.9.2.7.3 Axial Resistance Change after Pile Driving
Set-up
In fine grained soils, driving resistance can be significantly less than calculated due to an increase
in the pore pressures caused by the pile installation. It can take from hours to weeks for the
excess pore pressure to dissipate after pile driving. For example, Lake Champlain clays take at
least 3 weeks for pore pressures to dissipate. As the pore pressure dissipates, the pile resistance
increases. This phenomenon is called “set-up”, and the magnitude can be estimated by re-driving
the pile a short distance after a waiting period and can be measured with a dynamic pile load test
or a simple re-tap based on blow count.
The reduced at-time-of-driving side resistance can be empirically estimated using the following
factors:
Soil % Reduction in Φ or C
Clay 40
Silts and
20-30
Fine Saturated Sands
Sand 5-10
Gravels 0-5
Table 6 – Empirically Reduced Skin Resistance Parameters at Time of Driving
Do not apply these reduction values to end resistance, use for side resistance only.
These values are based on NYSDOT pile driving experience. The following steps are suggested
in applying these reduction factors:
1. Perform a static analysis for the pile assuming steady state long term soil conditions in
order to determine the pile length.
2. Re-compute the static analysis using the reduced friction angle or shear strength values
along the side, and the full end bearing resistance.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
3. Perform a wave equation analysis using the end bearing and reduced side friction values
determined in step (2). If the pile length has been increased for scour or downdrag, this
should be taken into account. This will indicate the desired driving criteria during the
initial driving of the pile.
4. Now perform a wave equation analysis with the full end and side areas mobilized as
computed in step (1). This should give the desired driving criteria after the pile has been
allowed to setup.
Final driving criteria are always determined based on Step (4).
Relaxation
In certain areas of the state the soils can exhibit reduced side and end resistance on the pile after a
period of time following driving, ranging from a few minutes to a couple of weeks. This
phenomenon, termed relaxation, is usually found in some very compact silts, very compact
sands, and shales which dilate during driving. After driving has stopped, the reduced pore
pressures induced by dilation of the dense soil return to normal pressures. The reduction in pile
resistance is confirmed by doing a re-strike on the pile or performing a Dynamic Pile Load Test
(DPLT).
Areas of the state where this has been noticed is downtown Albany shales, decomposed shales
west of Utica, silty sands along the Mohawk River, and sands in the Adirondacks.
Soil Setup and relaxation are discussed in detail in NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications Article 10.7.3.4 Nominal Axial Resistance Change after Pile Driving.
11.9.2.7.4 Scour
Axial Pile Resistance

When performing a static analysis method, the pile has to attain all of its geotechnical bearing
resistance necessary to support the structure below scour elevation. When driving, the pile must
be driven to the sum of the nominal bearing resistance (required Strength limit axial load divided
by the appropriate geotechnical resistance factor) below the scour zone (Rn) plus the nominal
skin friction resistance of the soil in the scour zone (Rscour).
WEAP is used to determine final pile bearing resistance during construction. As such, the
resistance that the piles are driven to must be adjusted to account for the presence of the soil in
the scour zone. The total driving resistance, Rndr, needed to obtain Rn, accounting for the skin
friction that must be overcome during pile driving that does not contribute to the design
resistance of the pile is as follows:
Rndr  Rscour  Rn
For more information see NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Section 10.7.3.6 -
Scour

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
Lateral Pile Resistance

In general, the scour estimates can be quite large. The pile sizes and depths required to meet the
lateral load requirements at substructure foundations under such conditions can be substantial
and often very expensive.
NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications blue page 3.7.5, Change in Foundations Due to
Limit State for Scour provides a rationale for modifying foundation conditions for the service,
strength, and extreme event limit states for typical foundations supported on driven piles. For
these reasons, lateral analyses will assume scour no deeper than bottom of footing elevation for
group pile foundations at abutments. For piers, however, the full scour depth at the Q100 event
will be used to determine the lateral strength and service limit state resistances and deflections.
This policy can be found in NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications blue page 10.7.3.6,
Scour.
For further information regarding lateral pile resistance analyses, refer to NYSDOT GDM
Section 11.9.2.4 - Determination of Pile Lateral Resistance.
11.9.2.7.5 Downdrag
The nominal pile resistance available to support structure loads plus downdrag shall be estimated
by considering only the positive skin and tip resistance below the lowest layer contributing to the
downdrag. The pile foundation shall be designed to structurally resist the downdrag plus structure
loads.
When performing a static analysis method, the pile has to attain all of its geotechnical bearing
resistance necessary to support the structure below the lowest elevation of downdrag. When
driving, the pile must be driven to the sum of:
1. The nominal bearing resistance (required Strength limit state axial load divided by the
appropriate geotechnical resistance factor) below the downdrag zone (Rn)
2. The downdrag load times the load factor (DD).
3. The nominal skin friction resistance of the soil in the downdrag zone (Rsdd)
WEAP is used to determine final pile bearing resistance during construction. The total driving
resistance, Rndr, needed to obtain Rn plus DD, and accounting for the skin friction that must be
overcome during pile driving (Rsdd) that does not contribute to the design resistance of the pile is
as follows:
Rndr = Rn + DD + Rsdd
The static analysis procedures in the NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article
10.7.3.7 Downdrag may be used to estimate the available pile resistance to withstand the
downdrag plus structure loads to estimate pile lengths required to achieve the required bearing
resistance. For this calculation, it should be assumed that the soil subject to downdrag still
contributes overburden stress to the soil below the downdrag zone.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
11.9.2.7.6 Determination of Axial Pile Resistance in Compression
Static Analyses
In cohesionless soils, a Nordlund’s static pile analysis is used by GEB. In cohesive soil, α or β
methods are used. For more information, see NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
Article 10.7.3.8.6 - Static Analysis.
Dynamic Analyses
Pile driveability, using the Wave Equation Analysis of Pile Foundation (WEAP) program, is
always checked during design. During construction, pile driving criteria is determined by the
GEB using WEAP, for foundation designs performed by the GEB, based on the contractor’s
driving equipment. See Wave Equation Analysis of Pile Foundation (WEAP) Program in
NYSDOT GDM Section 11.9.2.14 Pile Driving Analysis for more information.
CIP Piles
For CIP piles in cohesionless soils, a resistance factor of 0.60 is used for both static and dynamic
analyses. This factor is based on evaluation of NYSDOT dynamic pile load test data statistically
compared to static and dynamic analyses. For more information, see NYSDOT LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications Blue Page C10.5.5.2.3 Resistance Factors - Driven Piles.
For CIP piles, the nominal geotechnical resistance is generally limited to the strength of the
concrete section inside the steel shell, mainly due to driveability concerns. Counting on the full
structural resistance of the pile will generally result in an undriveable pile using typically
available driving equipment. However, in some cases, a portion of the shell can be counted on
for structural resistance, assuming the driveability analysis has been satisfied.
H-Piles
For H-piles driven to rock or a bearing layer, a geotechnical resistance factor of 0.60 is used for
both static and dynamic analyses. For H-piles not driven to a bearing layer in cohesionless soils,
a geotechnical resistance factor of 0.45 is used for both static and dynamic analyses.
For H-piles, the nominal geotechnical resistance is generally set equal to the 0.5FyAs, due to
driveability concerns, similar to CIP piles. In some cases, a higher geotechnical resistance can be
considered, assuming the driveability analysis has been satisfied.
Southern Tier Gravels

Nordlund’s analysis has been shown to be unreliable in predicted skin friction in gravels and
sands of the river valleys in the southern tier portion of NYS (the area roughly between
Binghamton and Jamestown). This phenomenon is especially prevalent with H-piles used as
friction piles (typically for integral abutments), which can run double or more the predicted
length.
11.9.2.7.7 Resistance of Pile Groups in Compression
See NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.7.3.9 Pile Groups in Compression.
Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
11.9.2.7.8 Uplift Resistance of Single Piles
See NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.7.3.10 Uplift Resistance of Single
Piles.
11.9.2.7.9 Uplift Resistance of Pile Groups
See NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.7.3.11 Uplift Resistance of Pile
Groups.
11.9.2.7.10 Lateral Resistance of Pile Foundations
The resistance of pile foundations to horizontal loads shall be evaluated based on both
geomaterial and structural properties. The lateral soil resistance along the piles should be
modeled using P-Y curves developed for the soils at the site.
The applied strength limit loads must include both horizontal and axial loads. The analysis may
be performed on a representative single pile with the appropriate pile top boundary condition and
p-multipliers or on the entire pile group.
The LRFD combined loading analysis, found in NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
Article 6.9.2.2 Combined Axial Compression and Flexure, is used to determine the maximum
strength limit state pile moment available for the lateral strength limit pile analysis.
11.9.2.7.11 Pile Structural Resistance
For structural pile strength limit state resistances, see NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications Article 5.5 Concrete Structures Limit States, or Article 6.5 Steel Structures Limit
States. Generally, NYSDOT does not use the full structural strength limit state axial resistance
due to driveability issues. See section NYSDOT GDM Section 11.9.2.7.6 Determination of Axial
Pile Resistance in Compression for more information. A WEAP pile driving analysis must be
conducted to determine if the pile can be practically driven without overstress and with
commonly available driving equipment.
For cast-in-place piles, the structural strength limit state compressive resistance is generally
limited to the strength of the concrete section inside the steel shell. For combined loading cases,
when analyzing for the lateral pile resistance, the steel shell is counted on for structural
resistance.
For steel H-Piles, the full steel section yield strength is used for structural resistance analyses,
reduced by the appropriate resistance factors shown in NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications Article 6.5.4.2 Resistance Factors, and Article 6.15 Piles.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
In order to determine the maximum moment a combined loading analysis is required as

explained in NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 6.9.2.2 Combined Axial
Compression and Flexure, and Article 6.15.3 Compressive Resistance.
For integral abutments, a combined axial and lateral loading analysis must be performed on the
piles including the thermal bridge movements. For the pile capacity due to combined loading, see
NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 6 Steel Structures. NYSDOT GEB uses
the P-Y method in evaluating the combined axial and lateral loadings due to thermal bridge
movements. For purposes of this analysis, one half of the thermal contraction and expansion
movements are assumed to occur at each abutment, assuming similar sized abutment stems. For
short spans, generally less than 100 feet, this analysis typically results in elastic pile behavior,
and therefore, most H-piles, CIP piles, or micropiles are feasible.
For longer spans, the combined loading analysis may result in a plastic hinge forming just below
the stem. Initially, the pile connections are modeled as fixed. If the analysis shows plastic
yielding occurring, an elastic restraint equal to the plastic pile moment is added in the above
mentioned analysis to refine the moments within the pile. In these cases the piles must be
evaluated for ductility. Typically, the compact H-pile sections HP10x57 and HP12x84 provide
acceptable ductility for a wide range of thermal bridge movements at integral abutments. CIP
piles and micropiles have to be evaluated for ductility based on pile diameter, shell thickness, and
steel grade. NYSDOT’s policy is to allow CIP piles for spans up to 165 ft. For longer spans,
only H-piles can be used.
The following equations can be used to check for ductility:
For Steel H-Piles:
For hollow and concrete filled pipe piles:
Where: = one half the factored thermal movement range at the abutment (in.)
= twice the length from the bottom of the abutment to the first point of zero
moment in the pile determined taking into account the effect of the soil on
pile behavior and assuming a lateral deflection of Δ (in.)
= plastic moment of the H-pile about the axis of bending or the plastic moment
of the steel pipe pile without considering the concrete filling (kip-in)
= modulus of elasticity of the steel (ksi)
= H-pile moment of inertia about axis of bending, the moment of inertia of the
hollow pipe, or moment of inertia of the concrete-filled pipe considering both
Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
the concrete and steel (in4)

= maximum range of the factored angle of rotation of the superstructure at the
abutment calculated assuming the structure is simply supported on the
abutment (continuity of the superstructure over piers may be considered on
multi-span bridges). This rotation is the sum of the rotations due to live loads
plus all dead loads applied after making the rigid connection between the
superstructure and the abutment assuming the loads are equally distributed to
all girders (rad)
= a ductility reduction factor for the piles
= width of H-pile flange (in.)
= thickness of H-pile flange (in.)
= outer diameter of pipe pile (in.)
= thickness of pipe pile (in.)
For spans greater than 100 feet, all integral abutment piles are placed in 8 ft deep pre-augered
holes. The hole is a minimum of 6 inches greater than the diagonal of the pile. The annulus is
filled with loose cushion sand after the pile is driven. This is done to give the pile a little extra
flexibility to accommodate the thermal movements imparted by the superstructure.
For more information regarding integral abutments, see NYSDOT GDM Chapter 17 Abutments,
Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes.
For more information regarding Pile Structural Resistance, see NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications, Article 10.7.3.13 Pile Structural Resistance.
11.9.2.8 Extreme Event Limit State Design of Pile Foundations
Liquefaction
For seismic design, all soil within and above liquefiable zones, shall not be considered to
contribute axial compressive resistance. Downdrag resulting from liquefaction induced
settlement shall be determined as specified in NYSDOT GDM Chapter 9 Seismic Design,
Geotechnical Design Procedure (GDP-9) Liquefaction Potential of Cohesionless Soils, and
NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 3.11.8 Downdrag, and shall be included
in the loads applied to the foundation. Static downdrag loads due to consolidation settlement
should not be combined with seismic downdrag loads due to liquefaction. The skin friction used
to estimate downdrag due to liquefaction settlement should be conservatively assumed to be
equal to the residual soil strength in the liquefiable zone, plus the full static skin friction in the
non-liquefiable layers above the zone of liquefaction (NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications Article C3.11.8 Downdrag). Design the piles for downdrag as described in
NYSDOT GDM Section 11.9.2.7.5 Downdrag. In determining Rn, substitute φseis (resistance
factor for seismic conditions) for φdyn.
The pile foundation shall also be designed to resist the horizontal force resulting from lateral
spreading, if applicable, or the liquefiable soil shall be improved to prevent liquefaction and
Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
lateral spreading. For lateral soil resistance of the pile foundation the soil input parameters
should be reduced to account for liquefaction. To determine the amount of reduction, the
duration of strong shaking and the ability of the soil to fully develop a liquefied condition during
the period of strong shaking should be considered.
Regarding the reduction of P-Y soil strength and stiffness parameters to account for liquefaction,
see NYSDOT GDM Chapter 9 Foundation Springs, Deep Foundations.
The force resulting from lateral spreading should be calculated as described in NYSDOT GDM
Chapter 9 Lateral Spread / Slope Failure Loads on Structures.
Scour
When designing for scour at the extreme event limit state, the pile foundation shall be designed
to attain its extreme limit state geotechnical resistance below the extreme event scour elevation,
the Q500 flood. Extreme event geotechnical resistance factors are equal to 1.0. Use the
appropriate extreme event load factors. For more information, see the NYSDOT LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications Article 10.7.4 Extreme Event Limit State and blue page Article 10.7.3.6
Scour.
11.9.2.9 Pile Splices
Cast-In-Place piles and H-piles are spliced by either full penetration welding or by using
mechanical splices. As per the Bridge Manual, mechanical splices are not allowed in the
following situations:
1. Any type of pile subject to uplift loads.
2. CIP piles in integral abutments due to bending.
3. CIP piles in any substructure subject to scour, when the depth of scour from either the
Q100 or Q500 flood is below the bottom of footing.
The mechanical splices for H-piles were tested and have the same strength in bending as the rest
of the pile, so they are not subject to above restrictions 2 and 3. Tapered CIP piles (monotubes)
do not use mechanical splices.
Mechanical splices shall be located a minimum distance of 6’6” from the pile top, and a
minimum distance of 33 feet from the pile tip. This is shown in Bridge Detail Sheet MS5E
Miscellaneous Pile Details.
There are no location limitations for welded splices; however, NYSDOT prefers to keep the
number of splices in a pile to a minimum.
11.9.2.10 Pile Shoes
All NYSDOT CIP piles and H-piles have shoes.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
CIP Pile Toe Treatments

Flat Plates are the usual toe treatment and are included in the specification. The thickness of
the plate is ¾ inch. The diameter of the plate is usually ½ inch, but not more than 5/8 inch,
larger than the diameter of the pile.
Conical Shoes are used when driving through very dense material, boulders, or when driving
into a hard bearing layer.
H-pile Toe Treatment

The toe treatment is usually a reinforced shoe. The designer can specify APF HP77750 or
equivalent (i.e. a hard bite point) for sloping rock situations, or when piles are significantly
battered on a rock surface.
Tapered CIP Pile Toe Treatment

These piles come equipped with a conical shoe.
Timber Pile and Precast Concrete Pile Toe Treatments

These piles do not usually require shoes.
11.9.2.11 Corrosion and Deterioration
Selection of pile type and size shall take into consideration the environmental conditions that
could cause corrosion and deterioration. Some examples of corrosive environments include
saltwater, soda ash, cinders, industrial chemicals, areas of water fluctuation, organics, etc.
Solutions when dealing with corrosive soil are to:
• Oversize the pile to allow for sacrificial steel loss
• Apply coatings to the surface area of the pile
• Use precast concrete piles with galvanized or epoxy coated reinforcement
• Use timber piles or composite piles for small waterfront structures.
• Use CIP piles, relying solely on the concrete and internal reinforcement for resistance
For more information, see NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.7.5
Corrosion and Deterioration and Publication No. FHWA NHI-05-042 Design and Construction
of Driven Pile Foundations – Section 8.8 Design Considerations in Aggressive Subsurface
Environments.
11.9.2.12 Determination of Minimum Pile Penetration – Conventional Foundations
As a minimum, piles must penetrate the soil at least 10 feet below bottom of footing, or scour
elevation, whichever is lower in elevation. Pile penetration depths may be controlled by other
factors, such as in instances of downdrag, uplift, settlement, and fixity required to resist lateral
loads.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
Determination of Minimum Pile Penetration.
11.9.2.13 Determination of Minimum Pile Penetration – Integral Abutment

Foundations
NYSDOT’s policy is to pre-auger 8 feet for all integral abutment piles on spans greater than 100
feet. The pre-augered hole is backfilled after the piles have been driven with cushion sand to
allow for pile flexing. For integral abutments that require pre-augering, the minimum pile depth
is 20 feet below pile cut-off. This is due to the 2 feet of pile stickup above bottom of stem, the 8
feet of pre-augered soil below bottom of stem elevation, and the minimum10 feet of pile
penetration.
For spans up to 100 feet, a pre-augered hole is not required and the minimum pile penetration is
10 feet.
11.9.2.14 Pile Driving Analysis
The Wave Equation Analysis of Pile Foundations (WEAP) is a program which simulates a
foundation pile under the action of an impact pile driving hammer. The program computes:
• The blow count (number of hammer blows/unit length of permanent set) of a pile under
one or more assumed resistance values and other dynamic soil resistance parameters,
given a hammer and driving system (helmet, hammer cushion, pile cushion).
• The axial stresses in a pile corresponding to the computed blow count.
• The energy transferred to a pile.
• Hammer operation parameters.
Based on these results, the following can be indirectly derived:

• The pile’s bearing resistance at the time of driving or restriking, for a given penetration
resistance (blow count).
• The stresses during pile driving.
• The expected blow count for the static bearing resistance of the pile as calculated from a
static soil analysis.
NYSDOT performs a WEAP during design as a driveability analysis. The analysis is performed
with typically available hammers to determine if a reasonable blow count can be achieved
without overstressing the pile. As per the standard pile specifications, the acceptable blow count
range is 20 to 120 blows per foot to achieve nominal resistance. If a pile is driven to rock or
refusal, in addition to the blow count criteria, the stress is also checked at a blow count of 20
blows per inch (equivalent to 240 blows per foot).
The piles are checked for overstress in design and in construction using AASHTO specified
factors times the yield strength of the pile material in compression and tension. For the
appropriate factors and their application, see NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
Article 10.7.8 Drivability Analysis.
During construction, the contractor submits their pile driving system via Form BD-138. The
Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
submitted parameters (hammer, cushion, helmet, etc.) are used by the geotechnical designer in
WEAP to determine the driving criteria (blow count, stroke, and blow rate) and pile stress. The
driving criteria must be maintained during driving for a minimum of 18 inches when not driven
to refusal. The Analysis of Pile Driving Resistance memorandum contains the required driving
criteria and is transmitted to the project.
After a few piles are driven, the geotechnical engineer reviews the pile driving records to ensure
that the criteria have been met.
During pile installation, care must be taken to ensure that the pile driving hammer and equipment
are operating properly and are as shown in the Form BD-138 and the Analysis of Pile Driving
Resistance memorandum. Failure to do so may result in overstressing and damage of piles, not
achieving nominal pile resistance, or damage to the hammer. The proper pile sizes, tips, and
welds must also be ensured. Refer to the Geotechnical Engineering Manual (GEM-26) Pile
Driving Inspection Manual for information on driven piles, the driving components, installation
procedures and documents to complete during installation.
11.9.2.15 Reducing Effects caused by Pile Driving Vibrations
A Building Condition Survey should be conducted on structures adjacent to pile driving. See
NYSDOT GDM Section 11.4.4 Construction Vibrations. Pile supported foundations may be
installed using methods that produce significantly lower vibration levels than pile driving from
the ground surface.
• Driving in a Preaugered Hole: One method to reduce the vibrations transmitted to nearby
buildings is to increase the initial distance between the pile tip and the building
foundation by driving within a pre-drilled hole.
• Precast Concrete Pile Jetting: This method uses a downward directed jet of water to wash
a hole into which a precast concrete pile may be installed. The jet may be attached to the
pile tip. Jetting can lead to a loss of ground and will reduce the side friction of pile shaft
in the jetted zones. Piles are normally driven after being jetted to a desired depth. In this
regard, jetting is similar to pre-augering without a casing. This method must have written
approval from the Deputy Chief Engineer of Structures.
11.9.3 Pulling Piles
Disturbance caused by pile driving and pulling operations has occasionally resulted in surface
heave or subsidence and/or lateral movements in susceptible soils.
H-piles and timber piles can be pulled with vibratory hammers, however, CIP piles and precast
piles are difficult and impractical to pull. It is preferable to not pull the piles at all, but rather
locate new structures outside of the limits of existing pile foundations. If the new structure
cannot be located outside the limits of the existing pile foundation, the proposed piles should be
located to avoid existing piles.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
11.9.4 Dynamic Pile Load Testing
Situations may arise in design or construction where driven piles will need to be load tested. One
of the most economical means of testing is by performing a Dynamic Pile Load Test (DPLT).
This is performed by attaching strain gauges and accelerometer instruments onto the pile being
tested. These instruments are linked to a pile driving analyzer, which measures the velocity and
force waves through the pile as it is being driven. The results of the measurements are analyzed
using a signal matching computer program, CAPWAP, which calculates the side and end pile
resistance provided by the soil during each hammer blow.
Situations where pile testing may be necessary:

• If driving through cohesive soils pore pressures will likely increase during driving and
reduce the soil resistance on the pile. After a period of setup time, from 24 hours to a few
weeks, the pile can be measured to assess if adequate pile resistance is achieved.
• If during construction, the piles are not attaining adequate resistance at a reasonable depth
based on analyses using WEAP, a DPLT is an option to more accurately measure pile
resistance.
• If driving piles through highly variable or unpredictable soil conditions within a project
site, a DPLT can be used to refine pile depths required at each substructure.
• If driving non-displacement H-piles where very little end resistance is expected in a static
analysis, a DPLT can more accurately determine the achieved skin and end resistance
than a WEAP so that piles are not driven longer than necessary.
• If trying to minimize pile embedment and ensure adequate pile resistance above a weaker
layer.
Figure 11-18 – Example of DPLT Accelerometer (L) and Strain Gauge (R)

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
11.9.5 Pile Driving Inspection
The Geotechnical Engineering Manual (GEM-26) Pile Driving Inspection Manual provides
information for the basic understanding of how to inspect and what to record during pile
construction. These guidelines provide an individual with information to guide inspection efforts
and ensure the transfer of information between the Inspector and the Designer.
11.10 DRILLED SHAFT FOUNDATION DESIGN
The provisions of NYSDOT GDM Section 11.10 and all subsections shall apply to the design of
drilled shafts. Throughout these provisions, the use of the term “drilled shaft” shall be interpreted
to mean a cylindrical structural column transmitting loads to soil and/or rock. The drilled shaft is
constructed in a hole with a circular cross section. The hole is filled with concrete and is
reinforced with steel. NYSDOT does not use belled shafts as we typically do not have suitable
soils for their use.
The provisions of this section are not applicable to drilled piles installed with continuous flight
augers that are concreted as the auger is being extracted (e.g., this section does not apply to the
design of augercast piles, which NYSDOT does not allow).
11.10.1 Loads and Load Factor Application to Drilled Shaft Design
deep foundations such as drilled shafts.
11.10.2 Drilled Shaft Foundation Design
NYSDOT GEB follows FHWA design guidelines for drilled shafts, as described in Publication
No. FHWA-IF-99-025 Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods.
Geotechnical design of drilled shaft foundations, and all related considerations, shall be
conducted as specified in the NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.8 Drilled
Shafts except as specified in the following paragraphs and sections:
NYSDOT GEB uses the O’Neill and Reese 1999 analyses for all cohesionless soils, cohesive soils,
intermediate geomaterial, and rock.
11.10.2.1 Minimum Shaft Spacing and Embedment
As per NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.8.1.2 Shaft Spacing, if center to
center spacing is less than 4 diameters, the interaction effects between adjacent shafts shall be
evaluated.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
Shafts shall be embedded sufficiently into the cap to develop the required structural resistance.
Refer to FHWA-IF-99-025 Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods.
11.10.2.2 Battered Drilled Shafts
NYSDOT design preference is to not use battered drilled shafts due to installation difficulty.
11.10.2.3 Drilled Shaft Design Requirements
The drilled shaft design will address the following:

• Nominal bearing resistance
• Estimated shaft penetration required to meet nominal resistance
• Minimum shaft penetration necessary to account for uplift, scour, downdrag, settlement,
liquefaction, lateral loads, and seismic conditions.
• Nominal shaft structural resistance
• QA/QC testing to confirm that acceptable construction quality is achieved during
installation and that the nominal resistance can be obtained.
• Long term shaft durability, i.e. permanent casing corrosion and deterioration.
11.10.2.4 Determination of Drilled Shaft Lateral Resistance
Shaft foundations are subjected to horizontal loads including, but not limited to, earth pressure,
wind, traffic loads, bridge curvature, ice, vessel or traffic impact, and earthquake.
For detailed requirements regarding the determination of lateral resistance of drilled shafts see
NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Articles 10.8.2.3 Horizontal Movement of Shafts
and Shaft Groups and 10.8.3.8 Nominal Horizontal Resistance of Shafts and Shaft Groups, and
FHWA-IF-99-025 Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods – Chapter 13:
Design for Lateral Loading and Structural Design.
structure interaction methodologies is presented in NYSDOT GDM Chapter 6 Engineering
Properties of Soil and Rock.
NYSDOT GEB uses the P-Y method in evaluating the combined axial and lateral loadings on a
shaft.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
11.10.2.6 Service Limit State Design of Drilled Shaft Foundations
11.10.2.6.1 General
Drilled shaft foundations shall be designed at the service limit state to meet the tolerable
movements for the structure being supported. Service limit state design of drilled shaft
foundations includes the evaluation of settlement and movement due to static loads and
downdrag loads if present, overall stability, lateral squeeze, and lateral deformation.
Drilled shaft designs often require iterations with the Structures Designer in order to achieve the
tolerable movement criteria.
Settlement should be checked for both individual shafts and shaft groups when not installed to a
bearing layer or rock.
11.10.2.6.4 Horizontal Drilled Shaft Foundation Movement
The horizontal movement of drilled shaft foundations shall be estimated using procedures that
consider soil-structure interaction as specified in NYSDOT GDM Section 11.10.2.4
Determination of Drilled Shaft Lateral Resistance.
The single shaft lateral Service Limit State resistance is reduced using P-multipliers, dependant
on shaft and row spacing, as determined in NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Blue
Page Table 10.7.2.4-1.
effects. If the cap will always be embedded, the P-Y horizontal resistance of the soil on the cap
face may be included in the horizontal resistance.
Bridge abutments supported on shaft foundations installed through soft soils that are subject to
unbalanced embankment fill loading shall be evaluated for lateral squeeze, as noted in NYSDOT

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.7.2.6 Lateral Squeeze.
11.10.2.7 Strength Limit State Design of Drilled Shaft Foundations
11.10.2.7.1 General
determined and addressed for Strength Limit state drilled shaft design.
11.10.2.7.2 Scour
The effect of scour shall be considered in the determination of the shaft penetration. Resistance
after scour shall be based on the applicable provisions of NYSDOT GDM Section 11.9.2.7.4
Scour and NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.7.3.6 Scour. The shaft
foundation shall be designed so that the shaft penetration after the design scour event satisfies the
required nominal axial and lateral resistance.
Lateral Shaft Resistance

Unlike the omission of scour depths in a driven pile foundation lateral resistance analysis, drilled
shafts shall be analyzed assuming that the full depth of scour exists. This requirement is due to
the less redundant nature of drilled shaft foundations compared to driven pile foundations.
For further information regarding lateral pile resistance analyses, refer to NYSDOT GDM
Section 11.10.2.4 - Determination of Drilled Shaft Lateral Resistance.
11.10.2.7.3 Downdrag
The nominal axial shaft resistance available to support structure loads plus downdrag shall be
estimated by considering only the positive skin and tip resistance below the lowest layer
contributing to the downdrag. The shafts shall be designed to structurally resist the downdrag
plus structure loads.
The design of shafts for downdrag loads will be the same as described for driven piles in
NYSDOT GDM Section 11.9.2.7.5 Downdrag and NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications Article 10.7.3.7 Downdrag, and in FHWA-IF-99-025 Drilled Shafts: Construction
Procedures and Design Methods – Chapter 12, Design for Vertical Movement of the Ground
Surface.
The static analysis procedures in the NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article
10.7.3.7 Downdrag may be used to estimate the available shaft resistance to withstand the
downdrag plus structure loads to estimate shaft lengths required to achieve the required bearing
resistance. For this calculation, it should be assumed that the soil subject to downdrag still
contributes overburden stress to the soil below the downdrag zone.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
11.10.2.7.4 Determination of Single Drilled Shaft Resistance in Compression
For shafts in soil, the movement of the shaft will most likely mobilize both side and end
resistance. Refer to the FHWA-IF-99-025 Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design
Methods for more information.
For shafts in rock, the axial movement required to mobilize end resistance will result in a
reduction of side resistance. Refer to FHWA-IF-99-025 Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures
and Design Methods for more information. NYSDOT typically uses only side resistance or end
bearing alone, but not both. Using both skin and end resistance is not practical in most
NYSDOT applications. In general, if the shaft is socketed at least one diameter into rock, it is
NYSDOT’s policy to use only skin resistance. The added effort to account for end bearing and
the more stringent base cleaning that would then be required is not warranted for most NYS rock.
If the shaft is socketed less than one diameter, NYSDOT typically designs for only end bearing.
Design information can be found in NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article
10.8.3.5 Nominal Axial Compression Resistance of Single Drilled Shafts and in FHWA-IF-99-
025 Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods – Chapter 10: Design
Concepts for Drilled Shafts; and Chapter 11: Geotechnical Design for Axial Loading.
11.10.2.7.5 Resistance of Shaft Groups in Compression
See NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.8.3.6 Shaft Group Resistance and
FHWA-IF-99-025 Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods – Chapter 10:
Groups of Drilled Shafts; and Appendix B: Axial Group Effects.
11.10.2.7.6 Uplift Resistance of Single Shafts
See NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.8.3.7 Uplift Resistance.
11.10.2.7.7 Uplift Resistance of Shaft Groups
See NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.8.3.7.3 Group Uplift Resistance.
11.10.2.7.8 Lateral Resistance of Shaft Foundations
The resistance of shaft foundations to horizontal loads shall be evaluated based on both
geomaterial and structural properties. The lateral soil resistance along the shafts should be
The applied strength limit state loads must include both horizontal and axial loads. The analysis
may be performed on a representative single shaft with the appropriate pile top boundary
condition and p-multipliers or on the entire shaft group.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
For more information, see NYSDOT GDM Section 11.10.2.4 Determination of Drilled Shaft
Lateral Resistance.
11.10.2.7.9 Shaft Structural Resistance
For drilled shaft structural strength limit state resistance, see NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications Article 10.8.3.9 Shaft Structural Resistance and FHWA-IF-99-025 Drilled Shafts:
Construction Procedures and Design Methods – Chapter 13: Structural Design.
The NYSDOT Geotechnical engineer typically works with the Structural designer iteratively to
determine and evaluate the shaft’s structural resistance to combined axial and lateral loads.
11.10.2.8 Extreme Event Limit State Design of Drilled Shaft Foundations
Liquefaction
For seismic design, all soil within and above liquefiable zones, shall not be considered to
contribute axial compressive resistance. Downdrag resulting from liquefaction induced
settlement shall be determined as specified in NYSDOT GDM Chapter 9 Seismic Design,
Geotechnical Design Procedure (GDP-9) Liquefaction Potential of Cohesionless Soils, and
NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 3.11.8 Downdrag, and shall be included
in the loads applied to the foundation. Static downdrag loads due to consolidation settlement
should not be combined with seismic downdrag loads due to liquefaction. The skin friction used
to estimate downdrag due to liquefaction settlement should be conservatively assumed to be
equal to the residual soil strength in the liquefiable zone, and non-liquefied skin friction in non-
liquefiable layers above the zone of liquefaction (NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
Article C3.11.8). Design the shafts for downdrag as described in NYSDOT GDM Section
11.10.2.7.3 Downdrag.
The shaft foundation shall also be designed to resist the horizontal force resulting from lateral
spreading, if applicable, or the liquefiable soil shall be improved to prevent liquefaction and
lateral spreading. For lateral soil resistance of the shaft foundation the soil input parameters
should be reduced to account for liquefaction. To determine the amount of reduction, the
duration of strong shaking and the ability of the soil to fully develop a liquefied condition during
the period of strong shaking should be considered.
Regarding the reduction of P-Y soil strength and stiffness parameters to account for liquefaction,
see NYSDOT GDM Chapter 9 Foundation Springs, Deep Foundations.
The force resulting from lateral spreading should be calculated as described in NYSDOT GDM
Chapter 9 Lateral Spread / Slope Failure Loads on Structures.
Scour
When designing for scour at the extreme event limit state, the shaft foundation shall be designed
to attain its extreme limit state geotechnical resistance below the extreme event scour elevation,
from the Q500 flood. Extreme event limit state geotechnical resistance factors are equal to 1.0.
Use the appropriate extreme event limit state load factors.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
For more information, see NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.8.4 Extreme
Event Limit State and FHWA-IF-99-025 Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design
Methods for more design information.
Design of drilled shafts shall take into consideration the environmental conditions that could
cause corrosion and deterioration. Some examples of corrosive environments include saltwater,
soda ash, cinders, industrial chemicals, areas of water fluctuation, organics, etc. Solutions when
dealing with corrosive soil are to:
• Oversize the permanent casing to allow for sacrificial steel loss
• Apply coatings to the surface area of steel reinforcement/casing
Corrosion and Deterioration.
11.10.3 Drilled Shaft Installation
Geotechnical Engineering Manual (GEM-18) Drilled Shaft Inspector’s Guidelines, along with
the Drilled Shaft Inspector’s Manual (prepared by ADSC: The International Association of
Foundation Drilling and DFI: Deep Foundation Institute) provides information on drilled shaft
construction techniques. These guidelines provide an individual with information to guide
inspection efforts and ensure the transfer of information between the Inspector and the Designer.
Every shaft is required to have Crosshole Sonic Log (CSL) testing, as described in Specification
551.96000017 – Crosshole Sonic Logging of Drilled Shafts. The number of required CSL tubes
per diameter can be found in FHWA-IF-99-025 Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and
Design Methods, page 495. Based on NYSDOT’s experience, tubes are typically placed inside
the cage for shafts in rock to prevent installation damage when the cage is placed in the rock
socket, and outside the cage for shafts in soil.
Sometimes, Thermal Integrity and Gamma Gamma profile testing are used in addition to CSL
testing, as described in FHWA-IF-99-025 Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design
Methods, page 499.
If any significant anomalies are detected during CSL or other integrity testing the shaft is cored to
determine the extent of the anomalies. Based on results of the coring, remedial measures can be
evaluated.
11.10.4 Load Testing
Shafts in soil are typically load tested. The number of shafts to test per foundation is up to the
geotechnical engineer based on variability of the site conditions.
In rock, shafts may be tested at the geotechnical engineer’s discretion. In general, rock socket

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
design is very conservative and testing may not be required in the majority of NYS rock
conditions.
Depending on the size of the loading, Static Load Tests, Osterberg Load Cells, or Axial
Compressive Force Pulse (Rapid) Tests (e.g. Statnamic) can be used. For large loads, the frame
needed to perform a Static Load Test may be unmanageable, and therefore, Osterberg Load cells
or Axial Compressive Force Pulse Tests may be better suited.
See NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.8.3.5.6 Shaft Load Test and
Geotechnical Control Procedure (GCP-18) Static Load Test Manual for more information.
11.11 MICROPILE FOUNDATION DESIGN
A micropile is a small diameter, reinforced and grouted pile, constructed within a

drilled hole, which provides axial and lateral resistance for a substructure. Unlike a driven
pile, where each pile is installed to the required driving criteria, the axial resistance of each
micropile is not directly determined unless a load test is performed on it. In addition, a
micropile’s resistance is very sensitive to the installation methods used. Proper design and
installation of micropiles is as much art as science, and their use should not be employed by the
inexperienced.
NYSDOT uses micropiles that are either designed by the contractor or by the GEB. The
micropiles designed by the GEB are typically used where the rock elevation and strength
characteristics are well defined. Micropiles should only be designed by engineers with extensive
experience in micropile design and construction. Note that GEB performs preliminary analyses
for both GEB and contractor designed micropiles to ensure the feasibility of using micropiles.
Permanent casing is frequently specified in the upper portion of a micropile during design to
satisfy lateral load requirements.
11.11.1 Loads and Load Factor Application to Micropile Design
deep foundations such as micropiles.
11.11.2 Micropile Foundation Geotechnical Design
NYSDOT follows FHWA design guidelines for micropiles, as described in Publication No.
FHWA- NHI-05-039 Micropile Design and Construction.
Geotechnical design of micropiles, and all related considerations, shall be conducted as specified
in the NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Articles 10.5 Limit States and Resistance
Factors and 10.9 Micropiles except as specified in the following sections.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
11.11.2.1 Minimum Micropile Spacing and Embedment
As per NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.9.1.2 Minimum Micropile
Spacing, center-to-center pile spacing should not be less than the greater of 30 inches, or 3.0 pile
diameters. The distance from the side of any pile to the nearest edge of the pile cap shall not be
less than 9 inches.
As per the NYSDOT Bridge Manual and Bridge Detail Sheets, micropiles shall be embedded
into the footing a minimum of 6 inches for conventional abutments, and a minimum of 2 feet for
integral abutments.
Refer to NYSDOT LRFD Design Specifications Article 10.9.1.2 Minimum Micropile Spacing,
Clearance, and Embedment into Cap and NYSDOT Bridge Detail sheets for more information.
11.11.2.2 Battered Micropiles
See NYSDOT LRFD Design Specifications Article 10.9.1.4 Battered Micropiles for more
information.
NYSDOT typically does not use battered micropiles due to installation difficulties.
11.11.2.3 Micropile Design Requirements
The micropile design will address the following:

• Nominal axial bearing resistance
• Estimated micropile penetration required to meet nominal resistance
• Minimum micropile penetration necessary to account for uplift, scour, downdrag,
settlement, liquefaction, lateral loads, and seismic conditions.
• Nominal micropile structural resistance
• QA/QC testing to confirm that acceptable construction quality is achieved during
installation and that the nominal resistance is obtained.
• Long term micropile durability, i.e. permanent casing corrosion and deterioration.
Permanent casing may have to be specified for various reasons including liquefaction, lateral
loading, disturbance to structures/utilities, scour, downdrag, weak soils, landfills, etc. This
avoids poor design submittals and minimizes bids that may not account for such conditions.
Typically, permanent casing is used in the top 10 to 15 feet of a micropile to resist structure
lateral loadings.
See NYSDOT LRFD Design Specifications Article 10.9.1.5 Micropile Design Requirements for
more information.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
11.11.2.4 Determination of Micropile Lateral Resistance
Micropile foundations are subjected to horizontal loads including, but not limited to, due to earth
pressure, wind, traffic loads, bridge curvature, ice, vessel or traffic impact, and earthquake.
For detailed requirements regarding the determination of lateral resistance of micropiles see
NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Articles 10.9.2.4 Horizontal Micropile
Foundation Movement and 10.9.3.9 Nominal Horizontal Resistance of Micropiles and Micropile
Groups, FHWA- NHI-05-039 Micropile Design and Construction.
structure interaction methodologies is presented in NYSDOT GDM Chapter 6.
NYSDOT GEB uses the P-Y method in evaluating the combined axial and lateral loadings on a
micropile.
11.11.2.6 Service Limit State Design of Micropile Foundations
11.11.2.6.1 General
Micropile foundations shall be designed at the service limit state to meet the tolerable
movements for the structure being supported.
Service limit state design of micropile foundations includes the evaluation of settlement and
movement due to static loads and downdrag loads if present, overall stability, lateral squeeze, and
lateral deformation.
The foundation movement limitations are specified in NYSDOT GDM Sections 11.6.3.1
Settlement should be checked for both individual micropiles and micropile groups when not
installed to a bearing layer or rock.
11.11.2.6.4 Horizontal Micropile Foundation Movement
The horizontal movement of micropile foundations shall be estimated using procedures that

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
consider soil-structure interaction as specified in NYSDOT GDM Section 11.11.2.4

Determination of Micropile Lateral Resistance.
The single micropile lateral Service Limit State resistance is reduced using P-multipliers,
dependant on micropile and row spacing, as determined in NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications Blue Page Table 10.7.2.4-1.
effects. If the micropile cap will always be embedded, the P-Y horizontal resistance of the soil on
the cap face may be included in the horizontal resistance.
Bridge abutments supported on micropile foundations installed through soft soils that are subject
to unbalanced embankment fill loading shall be evaluated for lateral squeeze, as noted in
NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.7.2.6 Lateral Squeeze.
11.11.2.7 Strength Limit State Design of Micropile Foundations
11.11.2.7.1 General
determined and addressed for Strength Limit state micropile design.
11.11.2.7.2 Micropiles in Rock
For micropiles socketed into rock, NYSDOT GEB typically uses only side resistance.
11.11.2.7.3 Scour
The effect of scour shall be considered in the determination of the micropile penetration.
Resistance after scour shall be based on the applicable provisions of NYSDOT GDM Section
11.9.2.7.4 Scour and NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.7.3.6 Scour. The
micropile foundation shall be designed so that the micropile penetration after the design scour
event satisfies the required nominal axial and lateral resistance.
Permanent steel casings are typically installed on micropiles to a minimum of the deepest scour
elevation.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
11.11.2.7.4 Downdrag
The nominal axial micropile resistance available to support structure loads plus downdrag shall
be estimated by considering only the positive skin and tip resistance below the lowest layer
contributing to the downdrag. The micropiles shall be designed to structurally resist the
downdrag plus structure loads.
The conceptual design of micropiles for downdrag loads will be similar to the method described
for driven piles in NYSDOT GDM Section 11.9.2.7.5 Downdrag and NYSDOT LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications Article 10.7.3.7 Downdrag.
Steel casings can be used on micropiles within the downdrag zone to minimize downdrag loads.
11.11.2.7.5 Determination of Single Micropile Resistance in Compression
Design information can be found in NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article
10.9.3.5 Nominal Axial Compression Resistance of a Single Micropile and in FHWA- NHI-05-
039 Micropile Design and Construction.
11.11.2.7.6 Resistance of Micropile Groups in Compression
See NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.9.3.6 Resistance of Micropile
Groups in Compression.
11.11.2.7.7 Uplift Resistance of Single Micropiles
See NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.9.3.7 Nominal Uplift Resistance of
a Single Micropile.
11.11.2.7.8 Uplift Resistance of Micropile Groups
See NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.9.3.8 Nominal Uplift Resistance of
Micropile Groups.
11.11.2.7.9 Lateral Resistance of Micropile Foundations
The resistance of micropile foundations to horizontal loads shall be evaluated based on both
geomaterial and structural properties. The lateral soil resistance along the micropiles should be
The applied strength limit state loads must include both horizontal and axial loads. The analysis
may be performed on a representative single micropile with the appropriate pile top boundary
condition and P-multiplier or on the entire micropile group.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
Permanent steel casings can be used to structurally resist lateral loads.
For more information, see NYSDOT GDM Section 11.11.2.4 Determination of Micropile
Lateral Resistance.
11.11.2.7.10 Micropile Structural Resistance
For micropile structural strength limit state resistance, see NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications Article 10.9.3.10 Structural Resistance.
11.11.2.8 Extreme Event Limit State Design of Micropile Foundations
Extreme event design of micropile foundations is similar to that of driven pile foundations. See
NYSDOT GDM Section 11.9.2.8 Extreme Event Limit State Design of Pile Foundations and
NYSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.9.4 Extreme Event Limit State.
Design of micropiles shall take into consideration the environmental conditions that could cause
corrosion and deterioration. Some examples of corrosive environments include saltwater, soda
ash, cinders, industrial chemicals, areas of water fluctuation, organics, etc. Solutions when
dealing with corrosive soil are to:
• Oversize the permanent casing to allow for sacrificial steel loss

• Apply coatings to the surface area of steel reinforcement/casing
Corrosion and Deterioration and FHWA- NHI-05-039 Micropile Design and Construction -
Section 5.14 Corrosion Protection.
11.11.2.10 Micropile Integral Abutment Foundations
Micropiles can be used to support integral abutments. NYSDOT typically uses micropiles with
permanent casings in their upper portions to resist thermal bridge loadings. For application of
micropiles to support integral abutments see design methods and criteria in driven pile Sections
11.9.2.7.11 Pile Structural Resistance (for Integral Abutments) and 11.9.2.13 Determination of
Minimum Pile Penetration – Integral Abutment Foundations. Micropiles with permanent casing
can be modeled similarly to CIP piles when performing the ductility check and combined loading
analyses. In the laterally displaced and axially loaded P-Y analysis, the micropile can be modeled
as a round concrete shaft with permanent casing in the upper portion and a round concrete shaft
in the lower portion.
11.11.3 Micropile Installation
Geotechnical Engineering Manual (GEM-25) Micropile Inspector Guidelines provides

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
information for the basic understanding of how to inspect and what to record during micropile
construction. These guidelines provide an individual with information to guide inspection efforts
and ensure the transfer of information between the Inspector and the Designer.
On projects with a micropile load test, it is imperative that production micropiles match the
successful test pile installation, specifically grout volumes, pressures, micropile lengths, and rock
socket depths if applicable.
11.11.4 Static Load Testing
Micropiles typically require load testing. The numbers of test piles are determined by NYSDOT
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Article 10.9.3.5.4 Micropile Load Test.
11.12 ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN
For projects that are designed using Allowable Stress Design (ASD), the following equation
applies:
Where,
Rall = Allowable Capacity

Rult = Ultimate Capacity
FS = Factor of Safety
In situations where a project is designed using ASD, the same design methods are used as in
LRFD, however, geotechnical factors of safety are used instead of load and resistance factors.
The following global safety factors are used in NYS ASD foundation design:
Spread Footings Factor of Safety

Spread Footing Bearing Capacity* 3
Spread Footing Overturning 2
Spread Footing Sliding 1.5
Spread Footing Sliding incl. passive resistance 2
* Settlement of the footing must be checked and limited to 1 inch post construction, or as
required by the structural designer. Settlement may control the bearing capacity.
Driven Piles
Driven Pile Axial Capacity FS = 2
Allowable Uplift Capacity* 0.35 x ultimate skin friction
Ultimate Uplift Capacity* 0.7 x ultimate skin friction
Allowable Lateral Pile Capacity CIP piles** 15 kips
Allowable Lateral Pile Capacity H-piles** 20 kips
Downdrag Load FS = 1
Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
*The factor of safety for uplift is 2, assuming the ultimate uplift skin resistance is 70% of
the compressive skin resistance.
**These values are conservative assumptions based on short piles in loose soils. Larger
lateral capacities can be specified if a P-Y analysis is performed.
Drilled Shafts
Drilled Shaft Axial Capacity FS = 2
Allowable Uplift Capacity Cohesionless Soil/IGM 0.375 x ultimate skin friction
Ultimate Uplift Capacity Cohesionless Soil/IGM 0.75 x ultimate skin friction
Allowable Uplift Capacity Cohesive Soil/IGM & Rock 0.35 x ultimate skin friction
Ultimate Uplift Capacity Cohesive Soil/IGM & Rock 0.70 x ultimate skin friction
Allowable Lateral Shaft Capacity Determined by P-Y analysis
Micropiles
Micropile Shaft Axial Capacity FS = 2
Allowable Uplift Capacity 0.5 x ultimate skin friction
Ultimate Uplift Capacity 1.0 x ultimate skin friction
Allowable Lateral Micropile Capacity* 15 kips
*Typically permanent casing (10” - 14” diameter) is used in the top 10-15 feet and the
micropile’s lateral capacity can be assumed to be similar to a CIP pile. If more lateral
capacity is required, or if a smaller permanent casing is substituted, or if permanent
casing is not used at all, a P-Y analysis should be performed.
For further clarification of factors of safety, or for situations that are not listed in this table, see
the design sources referenced in the appropriate sections.
11.13 REFERENCES
American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications Customary U.S. Units, 4th Edition, Washington, D.C., 2007.
Allen, T. M., Development of Geotechnical Resistance Factors and Downdrag Load Factors for
LRFD Foundation Strength Limit State Design, Publication No. FHWA-NHI-05-052, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 41 pp., 2005.
Allen, T. M., Development of New Pile-Driving Formula and Its Calibration for Load and
Resistance Factor Design, Transportation Research Record 2004, TRB, National Research
Council, Washington, DC., pp. 20-27, 2007.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
Armour, T., Groneck, T., Keeley, J., and Sharma, S., Micropile Design and Construction
Guidelines Implementation Manual, FHWA-SA-97-070, 376 pp., 2000.
Ashour, M., and Norris, G. M., Liquefaction and Undrained Response Evaluation of Sands from
Drained Formulation, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol.
125, No. 8, pp. 649-658, 1999.
Ashour, M., and Norris, G. M., Lateral Loaded Pile Response in Liquefiable Soil, ASCE Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 129, No. 6, pp. 404-414, 2003.
Ashour, M., Norris, G. M., and Pilling, P., Lateral Loading of a Pile in layered Soil Using the
Strain Wedge Model, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol.
124, No. 4, pp. 303-315, 1998.
Ashour, M., Norris, G. M., and Pilling, P., Strain Wedge Model Capability of Analyzing
Behavior of Laterally Loaded Isolated Piles, Drilled Shafts, and Pile Groups, ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 245-254, 2002.
Barker, R. M., J. M. Duncan, K. B. Rojiani, P. S. K. Ooi, C. K. Tan, and S. G. Kim, Manuals for
the Design of Bridge Foundations, NCHRP Report 343, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, DC, 1991.
Bridge Manual, New York State Department of Transportation, Office of Structures, 2014
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/structures/manuals/bridge-manual-usc
Broms, B.B., Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soil, ASCE, Journal for Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Vol 90, SM2, 27-63, 1964a.
Broms, B.B., Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesionless Soil, ASCE, Journal for Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Vol 90, SM3, 123-156, 1964b.
Bruce, D.A., and Gemme, R., Current Practice in Structural Underpinning Using Pin Piles,
ASCE, Met Section Seminar.
Carter, J. P., and F. H. Kulhawy. Analysis and Design of Foundations Socketed into Rock.
Report No. EL-5918. Empire State Electric Engineering Research Corporation and Electric
Power Research Institute, New York, NY, p158, 1988.
Cheney, R. & Chassie, R., Soils and Foundations Workshop Reference Manual. Washington,
DC, National Highway Institute Publication NHI-00- 045, Federal Highway Administration,
2000.
Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), Foundations and
Earth Structures, Design Manual 7.2, May, 1982.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
DiMillio, A. F., Performance of Highway Bridge Abutments Supported by Spread Footings on

Compacted Fill, Report No. FHWA/RD-81/184, (NTIS PB83-201822). (FHWA Staff Study),
1982.
Geotechnical Engineering Bureau, Static Load Test Manual, Geotechnical Control Procedure
GCP-18, Revision #3, New York State Department of Transportation, Office of Technical
Services, April 2007, https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/technical-
services-repository/GCP-18b.pdf
Geotechnical Engineering Bureau, Liquefaction Potential of Cohesionless Soils, Geotechnical

Design Procedure GDP-9, New York State Department of Transportation, Office of Technical
Services, April 2009, https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/technical-
services-repository/GDP-9b.pdf
Geotechnical Engineering Bureau, Charts to Facilitate Computation of Skin Friction on Driven

Non-Tapered Piles in Cohesionless Soils, Geotechnical Engineering Manual GEM-11, New York
State Department of Transportation, Office of Technical Services, April 2007,
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/technical-services-
repository/GEM-11b.pdf
Geotechnical Engineering Bureau, Drilled Shaft Inspector’s Guidelines, Geotechnical

Engineering Manual GEM-18, New York State Department of Transportation, Office of
Technical Services, April 2007, https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-
services/technical-services-repository/GEM-18b.pdf
Geotechnical Engineering Bureau, Micropile Inspector Guidelines, Geotechnical Engineering

Manual GEM-25, New York State Department of Transportation, Office of Technical Services,
August 2010, https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/technical-
services-repository/GEM-25b.pdf
Geotechnical Engineering Bureau, Pile Driving Inspector Guidelines, Geotechnical Engineering

Manual GEM-26, New York State Department of Transportation, Office of Technical Services,
November 2012, https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/technical-
services-repository/GEM-26b.pdf
Geotechnical Engineering Circular (GEC) No. 8 Design And Construction Of Continuous Flight
Auger Piles, US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Report No.
FHWA-HIF-07-03, April 2007
Goble. G.G., and Rausche, F., Wave Equation Analysis of Pile Driving WEAP Program, Volume
I, Background, Publication No. FHWA-IP-76-14.1, Office of Implementation, Federal Highway
Administration, July, 1976.
II, General Users Manual, Publication No. FHWA-IP-76-14.2, Office of Implementation, Federal
Highway Administration, July, 1976.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
III, Program Documentation, Publication No. FHWA-IP-76-14.3, Office of Implementation,
Federal Highway Administration, July, 1976.
IV, Narrative Presentation, Publication No. FHWA-IP-76-14.4, Office of Implementation,
Federal Highway Administration, July, 1976.
Hannigan, P.J., G.G. Goble, G.E. Likins and F. Rausche, Design and Construction of Driven Pile
Foundations - Vol. I and II, Federal Highway Administration Report No. FHWA-HI-05-042,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 822 pp., 2006.
Hoek, E., C. Carrazna-Torres, and B. Corkum, Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion – 2002 Edition,
5th North American Rock Mechanics Symposium and 17th Tunneling Association of Canada
Conference: NARMS-TAC, pp. 267-271, 2002.
Hough, B.K., Compressibility as the Basis for Soil Bearing Value, Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 85, Part 2, 1959.
Ishihara, K., and Yoshimine, M., Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following
Liquefaction During Earthquakes.” Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE, Vol. 32, No. 1, March, pp.
173-188, 1992.
Kavazanjian, E., Jr., Matasoviæ, T. Hadj-Hamou and Sabatini, P.J., Geotechnical Engineering
Circular No. 3, Design Guidance: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering for Highways, Report
No. FHWA-SA-97-076, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 1997.
Kimmerling, R. E., Geotechnical Engineering Circular 6: Shallow Foundations, Report No.

FHWA-SA-02-054, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., September, 2002
Kyfor, Z. G., Schnore, A. R., Carlo, T. A., and Bailey, P. F., Static Testing of Deep Foundations,
Report No. FHWA-SA-91-042, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Office of Technology Applications, Washington D. C., 174, 1992.
Lam, I. P, and G. R. Martin, Seismic Design of Highway Bridge Foundations – Vol. 2: Design
Procedures and Guidelines, FHWA/RD- 86/102, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, p. 18, 1986.
Moulton, L. K., H. V. S. GangaRao, and G. T. Halverson, Tolerable Movement Criteria for

Highway Bridges, FHWA/RD-85/107, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC, p. 118, 1985.
Munfakh, G., Arman, A., Collin, J.G., Hung, J.C.-J., and Brouillette, R.P., Shallow Foundations
– Reference Manual, Publication No. FHWA-NHI- 01-023, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, D.C., 2001.

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
Murray, R.P., In-Place Roadway Foundation Stabilization, Transportation Research Record 749,
106 pp., 1980.
National Highway Institute, Micropile Design and Construction, NHI Course No. 132078,
Publication No. FHWA NHI-05-039, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 2005.
National Highway Institute, Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations, NHI Course
Nos. 132021 & 132022, Publication No. FHWA NHI-05-042, Federal Highway Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 2006.
Norris, G. M., Theoretically based BEF Laterally Loaded Pile Analysis, Proceedings, Third
International Conference on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, Nantes, France, pp. 361-386,
1986.
O’Neil, M.W., and Reese, L.C., Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods,
FHWA-IF-99-025, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC, 1999.
Reese, L.C., and Allen, J.D., Drilled Shaft Manual: Volume I – Construction Procedures and
Design for Axial Loading, FHWA/RD/IMP-77-21-VOL-1, Federal Highway Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 1977.
Reese, L.C., and Allen, J.D., Drilled Shaft Manual: Volume II – Structural Analysis and Design
for Lateral Loading, FHWA/RD/IMP-77-21-VOL-2, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 1977.
Reese, L.C., Handbook on Design of Piles and Drilled Shafts Under Lateral Load, FHWA-IP-
84/11, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC,
1984.
Reese, L.C., Behavior of Piles and Pile Groups Under Lateral Load, Report No. FHWA/RD-
85/106, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of
Engineering and Highway Operations Research and Development, Washington D. C., 311, 1986.
Sabatini, P.J, Bachus, R.C, Mayne, P.W., Schneider, J.A., Zettler, T.E., Geotechnical
Engineering Circular 5 (GEC5) - Evaluation of Soil and Rock Properties, Report No FHWA-IF-
02-034. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2002.
Seed, R. B. and Harder, L. F. Jr., SPT-Based Analysis of Cyclic Pore Pressure Generation and
Undrained Residual Strength, Proceedings, H. B. Bolton Seed Memorial Symposium, J. M.
Duncan Editor, BiTech Publishers, Vol 2, 351-376, 1990.
Tokimatsu, K. and Bolton Seed, B., Evaluation of Settlements in Sands due to Earthquake

Design Manual
CHAPTER 11
Foundation Design
Shaking, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 113, 8, 861-878, 1987.
Williams, M.E., M. McVay and M.I. Hoit, LRFD Substructure and Foundation Design
Programs, Proceedings of the 2003 International Bridge Conference, June 9-11, Pittsburgh, Pa.,
2003.
Wiss, J.F., Construction Vibrations: State-of-the-Art, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering

Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. 6T2, pp. 167-181, February, 1981.
Wiss, J.F., Damage Effects of Pile Driving Vibration, Highway Research Record, Number 155,
P.14-20, 1967.
Xanthakos, P.P., Abramson, L.W., and Bruce, D.A., Ground Control and Improvement, John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 901 pp., 1994.

Design Manual

GDM Ch-11 Foundation Design PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

GDM Ch-11 Foundation Design PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN MANUAL

NYSDOT Geotechnical Page 11-1 February 29, 2016

NYSDOT Geotechnical Page 11-2 February 29, 2016

11.1 OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................. 11-7

11.2 OVERALL DESIGN PROCESS FOR STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS ..................... 11-7

11.3 DATA NEEDED FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN ...................................................... 11-11

11.4 FOUNDATION SELECTION CONSIDERATIONS ................................................. 11-13

11.5 OVERVIEW OF LRFD FOUNDATIONS .................................................................. 11-25

11.6 LOADS, LOAD GROUPS AND LIMIT STATES ..................................................... 11-25

11.7 RESISTANCE FACTORS FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN ....................................... 11-28

11.8 SPREAD FOOTING DESIGN .................................................................................... 11-29

11.8.2.5 Service Limit State Design of Footings ............................................ 11-32

11.9 DRIVEN PILE FOUNDATION DESIGN................................................................... 11-38

11.9.2.10 Pile Shoes ........................................................................................ 11-50

11.10 DRILLED SHAFT FOUNDATION DESIGN ............................................................ 11-55

NYSDOT Geotechnical Page 11-5 February 29, 2016

11.11 MICROPILE FOUNDATION DESIGN...................................................................... 11-62

11.12 ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN .............................................................................. 11-68

11.13 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 11-69

NYSDOT Geotechnical Page 11-6 February 29, 2016

1. NYSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual (GDM)

11.2 OVERALL DESIGN PROCESS FOR STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS

NYSDOT Geotechnical Page 11-7 February 29, 2016

The purpose of these recommendations is to provide enough geotechnical information to allow

PRELIMINARY STRUCTURE PLAN – The structural engineer prepares the Preliminary

1. Substructure Location: When deciding where to locate substructures, the Designer

While determining substructure locations, additional geotechnical concerns may need to

o Excavation support requirements for staging and substructure construction. The

o Water Crossings: As identified in the NYSDOT Bridge Manual, unless founded on

NYSDOT Geotechnical Page 11-9 February 29, 2016

PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATION – The primary purpose of the

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND MODELING – The Office of Structures uses the

• Anticipated foundation loads (including load groups used).

DESIGN PROCESS ALTERNATIVES

11.3 DATA NEEDED FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN

1. Plan and Profile with Bottom of Footing (BOF) elevations

NYSDOT Geotechnical Page 11-11 February 29, 2016

11.3.1 Field Exploration Requirements for Foundations

NYSDOT Geotechnical Page 11-12 February 29, 2016

11.3.2 Laboratory and Field Testing Requirements for Foundations

11.4 FOUNDATION SELECTION CONSIDERATIONS

11.4.1 Foundation Design Considerations

NYSDOT Geotechnical Page 11-13 February 29, 2016

11.4.2 Foundation Type Considerations

Foundations are considered either shallow or deep.

Foundation selection considerations to be evaluated include:

11.4.2.1 Spread Footings

NYSDOT Geotechnical Page 11-14 February 29, 2016

11.4.2.2 Deep Foundations

Deep foundations are always used to support integral abutments in NYS.

11.4.2.2.1 Pile Foundations

NYSDOT Geotechnical Page 11-15 February 29, 2016

Figure 11-1 - Timber Piles

NYSDOT Geotechnical Page 11-16 February 29, 2016

Figure 11-2 – Cast-in-Place Piles

NYSDOT Geotechnical Page 11-17 February 29, 2016

Figure 11-3 – Steel H-piles

NYSDOT Geotechnical Page 11-18 February 29, 2016

Figure 11-4 – Tapered Piles

NYSDOT Geotechnical Page 11-19 February 29, 2016

Figure 11-5 – Precast Concrete Cylinder Piles

Figure 11-6 – Precast Piles with Steel H-Pile Stinger

NYSDOT Geotechnical Page 11-20 February 29, 2016