Guidelines for the Use of

Steel Piling for Bridge

Foundations
TxDOT Steel Piling Task Force:
Michael Hyzak, P.E.
Marcus Galvan, P.E.
Marie Fisk, P.E.
Amy Smith, P.E.
Dennis Johnson, P.E. (HOU)
Denzel Caldwell, E.I.T.
Johnnie Miller, P.E. (CST)
TxDOT Bridge Division
Published October 24, 2014. 2014 Texas Department of Transportation.

Introduction
TxDOT bridge substructures are supported by a variety of methods. The most common are:

drilled shafts

prestressed concrete square piling

steel H-piling

Less common are:

steel round piling

steel pipe piling

sheet piling abutments

prestressed concrete cylinder piling

reinforced concrete spread footings

Among the advantages of steel H-piling are: easier driving when overburden is very stiff or
contains cobbly features; high point bearing resistance; easier shipping and handling; and
easier build-up or cut-off in the field. Generally displacement piles (such as prestressed
concrete piles and closed ended steel pipe piles) are better at obtaining the required driving
resistance than non-displacement piles (such as steel H-piles and some open-ended pipe
piles). In stiff soils, displacement piles often require pilot holes and/or jetting to facilitate
installation and avoid the increased risk of damage. In such cases, non-displacement piles
are often a better choice, since they advance more easily and may avoid damage. Steel
piling can be designed to avoid damage in riskier profiles if pile tip reinforcement (shown on
the FD standard) is specified and proper installation practice is followed. Steel piling does
require additional measures such as coatings and sacrificial thickness to overcome the longterm tendency of steel to corrode in certain environments.
The purpose of this document is to provide guidance on the use of steel piling for bridge
foundations. Additional background information on current design and specification
practices for piling usage can be found in the Background section of this document.

Pile Material Guidance

Common pile types that can be used effectively for Texas bridges include steel H-piling
and square prestressed concrete piling.

Considerations for Steel and Concrete Piling

When piling is in contact with soil or water known to be corrosive, both prestressed concrete
and steel piling require corrosion mitigation measures. Prestressed concrete requires High
Performance Concrete (HPC) when used in potentially corrosive environments. The
precompression built into prestressed concrete piling to resist tensile stresses during
installation, does have the secondary benefit of having a generally crack free element in
service. Steel piling requires coatings and sacrificial thickness in potentially corrosive
environments. AASHTO R 27-01 Standard Practice for Assessment of Corrosion of Steel
Piling for Non-Marine Applications provides guidance on assessing the corrosion risk of a
project location. AASHTO LRFD 10.7.5 provides additional guidance, as well.
Being a displacement element, prestressed concrete piling is generally better suited than
steel H-piling for use in loose to medium density sands and weak clays. This is due to the
potential difficulty in obtaining driving resistance, and the possible long lengths requiring
very long stiff sections. Steel H-piles are suitable when driving through stiff clays or gravels
to get to a harder bearing strata and when difficult or erratic driving is anticipated in the
upper materials, which must be penetrated for stability. Steel H-piles are also well-suited for
designs relying on point bearing, though measurable skin friction can be mobilized as well.
For perimeter and area calculationsi.e., skin friction and point bearing, respectively
assume the H-pile acts as an equivalent square. Research has shown that H-piling act as an
equivalent square when load tested. Chapter 5 of the Geotechnical Manual provides
guidance and considerations for determining foundation lengths. Please contact the
Geotechnical Branch of the Bridge Division for additional guidance.
Steel H-piles lend themselves to ease of buildup and cut-off, which is desirable in profiles
where there are significant uncertainties of the final length versus the specified length.
Contact the Bridge Geotechnical Section if assistance is needed to determine whether a
given soil profile might pose such an uncertainty and warrant steel piling.
Protective measures, i.e. protective coatings and sacrificial steel thickness must be used if
steel piling are used in areas that are known to have high salt, chlorides, or sulphate levels
in the soils. TxDOTs current specifications require an inorganic zinc primer currently as a
minimum level of protection.

Pile Use Recommendations by Bridge Site:

Grade Separations
Trestle bents are not recommended for grade separation bridges, since they are seen as
vulnerable to vehicular impact. Both steel and concrete piling can be used for pile-supported
footings and abutments in grade separation bridges. If recent historical cost data doesnt
clearly point to one pile material having an advantage over the other, provide alternate
designs with both steel and concrete to ensure low construction cost.
2

Stream Crossings
Foundation elements for stream crossings are subject to scour, drift impact, and
corrosion. Both steel and concrete piling can be used for stream crossings, with some
restrictions. For instance, trestle bents should not be used in streams if the scour
analysis predicts excessive exposed pile length during the expected structure life,
where there is evidence or history of drift load; or, in the case of steel pile trestle bents,
in certain environments without considering corrosion and need for coatings and sacrificial
thickness. Likewise, pile-supported footings should not be used for stream crossings if the
scour analysis indicates the piling would be exposed excessively during the expected
structure life.
When using steel piling for stream crossings, it is recommended to require, by plan
note, that the piling be coated to a minimum depth of 15' below the maximum predicted
scour elevation (for trestle bents), and for 15' below the bottom of footings (for pile
supported footings). The specified coating can be found in Item 407 Steel Piling.
Both steel and prestressed concrete piling can be used for stub-type abutments in stream
crossings.
If used on bridges with high salt, chloride, or sulphate levels in the soil, steel piling must use
sacrificial thickness in addition to coatings. Sacrificial thickness and coatings guidance is
shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Steel Piling Corrosion Protection for TxDOT Bridges
Steel
Component

Location and
Embedment

H-piles
and
Pipe piles

On land or
under water,
completely
buried in
ground
On land,
partially buried
in ground
In water,
partially buried
in ground

Corrosion
Protection

Sacrificial Thickness required (in.)

Moderately
Extremely
Nonaggressive
Aggressive
Aggressive

None
(See Note)

0.0

0.15

0.225

Per Item
407

0.0

0.18

0.27

Per Item
407

0.09

0.18

Not allowed

Values in table are for a design life of 75 years.

Moderately aggressive swamp; bayou waters; sulfate or chloride soils
Extremely aggressive industrially polluted soils

Note 1: Corrosion Protection per Item 407 is recommended for multi-pile footings in stream
environments.
Note 2: If sacrificial thickness is required, a pile section other than that shown on the standards
must be used. As an example, the BTIG-24 standard which covers Trestle Bents for Tx28 through
Tx54 girders on a 24' roadway indicates that bents up to 20 ft tall require either 18" Prestressed
Concrete Piling or HP 14 x 117 Steel Piling. Looking up pile dimensions in an AISC Steel Manual or
vendor catalog, the flanges and webs of an HP 14 x 117 are 0.805 in. In a swamp or bayou with
trestle bents in the water, the table would direct the user to an In Water, Partially Buried in Ground
Condition in a Moderately Aggressive environment. This requires 0.18" of additional thickness as
well as corrosion protection using inorganic zinc primer as noted in Item 407. An H-pile with a flange
and web thickness of 0.985" minimum is required. Since HP 14 x 117 is the largest size of the
HP14 class, an HP 16 x 162 which has 1.000" thick flanges and webs is required.
______________________________________________________________________________

Bay Crossings
Prestressed concrete piling fabricated with HPC is recommended for all bridges in salt water,
with the exception that steel piling may be considered if the final installation condition keeps
the piling out of the oxygenated zone. Steel sheet piling using marine coatings described in
the draft Item 407 Steel Piling specification for the 2014 TxDOT Standard Specifications
for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets, and Bridges is sufficient for saltwater application. Typical applications for sheet piling in this environment are bulkhead and
dolphin structures and generally have a shorter design life than bridge structures. The
marine coating is not recommended to be used on H-pile supported bridges in a saltwater
environment at this time, until further evidence of long term reliability is available. An
exception to this recommendation is the use of steel piling (typically round instead of Hpiling) in dense coastal sands where driveability of concrete piling is a concern, provided
that the piling final installation condition keeps the piling out of the oxygenated zone. For
example, the main piers of the Galveston Bay Causeway and Quintana segmental bridges
over saltwater bays were founded on 24" diameter steel pipe piles below a footing at the
waterline.

Structural Design of Steel Piling

Designers shall use provisions of AASHTO LRFD 6.15 for the structural design of steel piling
for in-service conditions. Higher stresses during driving are permitted by the provisions of
AASHTO LRFD 10.7.8. Sacrificial thickness as outlined in Table 1, Steel Piling Protection for
Waterway, only needs to be considered for the long term in-service condition and not for the
temporal condition during driving. Refer to Chapter 5 of the TxDOT Geotechnical Manual for
guidance on determining piling length based on skin friction and point bearing, which is a
departure from methods in AASHTO LRFD.

Piling Alternates in PS&E

To ensure the most economical pile type is used for TxDOT projects, designers should
evaluate steel piling alternates to prestressed concrete piling. This requirement will be
limited to certain conditions for projects letting in September 2015 or later. The Bridge
Division will work collaboratively with Districts to identify pilot projects for earlier lettings.
These conditions include:
All single-span bridges regardless of type
All grade-separation structures
Select multi-span stream crossings (as collaboratively determined by the Bridge
Division and District) that follow the pile recommendations with regard to durability
provisions
Case-by-case exceptions to this requirement will be allowed if written justification is
submitted to the Bridge Project Development Section during 30% Preliminary Layout Review.
Exceptions might be pursued due to not having an alternate design in the scope for
consultant designs already underway, or due to a clear technical or cost consideration that
makes steel piling impractical. Bid codes and tracking methods are being developed under
the new 2014 Specifications Book to capture the relative bids of piling when bid as
alternates against one another, as well as to capture the cost of corrosion mitigation
measures.

Choosing Between Drilled Shafts and Piling

Soil conditions in large parts of Texas are more conducive to drilled shafts as an appropriate
foundation choice. However, drilled shafts can be problematic in high-risk soil profiles such
as water-bearing sands and hard strata overlaid with loose overburden. During 30%
Preliminary Layout Review, the Bridge Geotechnical Section actively evaluates such higher
risk installations where drilled shafts are specified. This review will either recommend a
change in foundation type (prestressed concrete and steel H-piling) or provide a piling
alternate to the drilled shafts. Steel piling may be included as one of the alternates. The
drilled shaft primary bid will include enhanced notes notifying the contractor of specific
conditions of concern in the borings and enhanced construction requirements for the drilled
shafts. Bid codes and tracking methods are being developed under the new 2014
Specifications Book to capture the relative bids of drilled shafts versus piling when bid as
alternates against one another.

Background
Current TxDOT Practices
TxDOT practices are described in the manuals and web-based documents listed below.
1. Title:
URL:

Geotechnical Manual
http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/geo/geo.pdf

Chapter 3 of this manual covers the Texas Cone Penetrometer (TCP) test, among other
soil investigation features. Chapter 5 of this manual covers Foundation Design,
including Section 1 on Foundation Type Selection, Section 2 on Interpretation of Soil
Data, and Section 4 on Piling. Section 1 states: The use of steel piling in corrosive
environments is not recommended if steel piling must be used, an appropriate
protective coating must be selected, additional steel section provided or a combination
of these methods utilized to ensure proper performance of the foundation elements.
Section 4 discusses the method for setting foundation lengths for piling. Section 4
includes a discussion of Steel Piling Special Considerations which include:

The use of steel trestle piles for grade separations is discouraged due to potential
vehicle impact.

Trestle steel piles for stream crossings may be considered when scour analysis
indicates load carrying capacity is not compromised, where there is no history of drift,
or where no highly corrosive soil/water exists.

Piling in stream crossings must be coated a minimum of 15' below the maximum
predicted scour elevation for trestle bents and 15' below footing for pile supported
footings.

No restrictions are placed on the use of piling at abutments or under pile supported
footings regardless of type of crossing, except steel pile supported footings in stream
crossings must be set below the maximum predicted scour depth.

2. Title:
URL:

Pile Type Selection - Geotech

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/brg/pile_type.pdf

This content is proposed to be replaced by the Pile Material Guidance indicated

previously.
3. Title:
URL:

Construction Bulletin C-8: Pile Driving Manual (1979, Under revision 2014)
http://crossroads/org/brg/TS/Papers/Pile%20Driving%20Manual.pdf
Request a copy from the Bridge Division Geotechnical Section if not a member
of TxDOT staff.

The May 1979 TxDOT Pile Driving Manual still resides on the TxDOT Bridge Division's
Intranet site and does give some more detailed information with regard to pile selection.
It does indicate that steel H-piling is generally used where it is necessary to penetrate
through or into strata of high-bearing resistance such as gravel, sand, shale, etc., but it is
versatile enough to be used in other conditions.
4. Title:
URL:

Bridge Standards (see sections on Trestle Bents and FD)

http://www.txdot.gov/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/standard/bridge-e.htm

TxDOT maintains a series of bridge standards, including those for substructure elements.
For nearly the entire range of superstructure types with standards for given widths, the
substructure standards have both drilled shaft/column and trestle pile bent options
using both prestressed concrete piling and steel piling. The predominant sizes of steel
trestle piling in these standards include HP 14 x 73, 14 x 117, and 18 x 135 depending
on the application. These sizes do not include provision for sacrificial thickness at this
time. The Common Foundation Details (FD) standard includes standard drilled shaft
details, piling batter, orientation and embedment, steel H pile tip reinforcement and field
splicing, and multi-pile footing details.
5. Titles:

TxDOT Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of

Highways, Streets, and Bridges (2004)
Special Provision 407---001 Steel Piling
400 Items: Structures (Draft TxDOT Standard Specifications 2014)

URL:

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/des/specs/specbook.pdf

URL:

ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdotinfo/cmd/cserve/specs/2004/prov/sp407001.pdf

URL:

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/des/specs/400-item-series.pdf

The TxDOT Specification Book (2004) has a standard specification and pay item for steel
H-piling and steel sheet piling under Item 407. Item 407 includes specifications for
material type/grade, construction/fabrication practice, and painting. The 2004
Specification Book is currently in force until the 2014 version being developed is
released.
For H-piles, the 2004 Specification Book calls for ASTM A572 Grade 50 or ASTM A588
materials and allows for shop welding of up to three sections of minimum length 5 ft.
The specification calls for shop-painting piling with 3 mils minimum dry film thickness of
inorganic zinc primer in accordance with the TxDOT System III or IV paint system
7

specification in Item 446 Cleaning and Painting Steel. No other intermediate or

appearance coatings are required unless indicated otherwise in the plans. The
specification indicates to paint the portion of the pile to be above ground, in water, and a
minimum distance of 10 ft below ground based on the ground line shown in the plans. It
should be noted that the 10 ft minimum distance is not consistent with the 15 ft
requirement of the current TxDOT steel piling guideline, nor makes mention of
considering the maximum scour depth.
For H-piles, the draft steel piling specification for the 2014 Specification Book calls for
ASTM A690 or ASTM A572 Grade 50 materials. Do not use unpainted ASTM A588
weathering material for piling (was formerly in 2004 Specification Book). Weathering
steel does not perform well in pile foundation applications. As previously stated, the
specification calls for shop-painting piling with 3 mils minimum dry film thickness of
inorganic zinc primer in accordance with the TxDOT System III or IV paint system
specification in Item 407 Steel Piling and Item 441 Steel Structures. No other
intermediate or appearance coatings are required unless indicated otherwise in the
plans. The specification indicates to paint the portion of the pile to be above ground or
dredge line, in water, and a minimum distance of 15 ft below finished grade or dredge
line ground based on the ground line shown in the plans. For marine environments, the
specification requires a marine-grade immersion coating system meeting the
requirements of NORSOK Standard M-501 Coating System No. 7. The NORSOK
standards were developed by the Norwegian petroleum industry for the selection of
coating materials, surface preparation, application procedures and inspection for
protective coatings to be applied during the construction and installation of offshore
installations and associated facilities. As noted earlier, trestle H-pile supported bridges
in marine environments with these enhanced coatings are not recommended until
TxDOT determines sufficient performance data is available.

Historic TxDOT Usage of Steel Piling and Performance

Usage of Piles on TxDOT Bridges
As indicated in Figure 1, TxDOT has 25 Districts geographically distributed across the state.
The Bridge Division used National Bridge Inventory data to look at both on-system and offsystem bridge populations to look at geographic usage trends with regard to the piling used.
The collected data was also sorted into the type of piling substructure, including:

Trestle pile bents with concrete piles

Trestle pile bents with steel piles

Footings with concrete piles

Footings with steel piles

Among the key numbers indicated, pile-supported bridges represent 17.8% and 16.8% of
our total bridge inventory in the on-system and off-system populations, respectively. The
remaining 82%+ are supported on drilled shafts or non-pile footings. For the cases of the
pile-supported bridge population, 60% of these bridges are supported by concrete piles in a

trestle pile bent configuration. Steel trestle pile bents are used more significantly in the offsystem environment with 37% of all pile-supported bridges, compared to only 13% in the onsystem environment. For bridges with footings that are supported by piles, concrete was
used 3.3 times more often than steel in the on-system environment. Not surprisingly, the
off-system environment has virtually no pile-supported footings since these are typically
stream bridges with short heights, a logical trestle pile situation. Tables 1 through 4 give
detailed information of this analysis.

Figure 1. TxDOT Districts

9

Table 2. TxDOT On-System Bridge Usage of Piling (NBI Data) Showing Number of Bridges
Using Piles and Geographic Percentages
District

Concrete
Trestle

Steel
Trestle

Conc
under Ftg

Steel
under Ftg

Total

Abilene
Amarillo
Atlanta
Austin
Beaumont
Brownwood
Bryan
Childress
Corpus
Christi
Dallas
El Paso
Fort Worth
Houston
Laredo
Lubbock
Lufkin
Odessa
Paris
Pharr
San Angelo
San Antonio
Tyler
Waco
Wichita
Falls
Yoakum
Total
Pct Usage
by Type
Statewide

29
52
223
67
382
25
297
33
235

21
74
12
38
20
27
69
78
41

3
2
38
11
156
2
21
5
138

12
11
9
13
24
2
24
16
4

65
139
282
129
582
56
411
132
418

Share of
Statewide
Pile Usage
1.1%
2.3%
4.6%
2.1%
9.6%
0.9%
6.8%
2.2%
6.9%

88
104
30
626
54
6
233
16
165
152
8
92
342
72
31

78
20
19
7
1
0
45
4
74
0
3
16
22
63
19

4
48
3
472
1
0
12
8
0
125
0
13
5
0
4

33
14
0
13
4
0
7
0
0
0
0
41
44
1
5

203
186
52
1118
60
6
297
28
239
277
11
162
413
136
59

3.3%
3.1%
0.9%
18.4%
1.0%
0.1%
4.9%
0.5%
3.9%
4.6%
0.2%
2.7%
6.8%
2.2%
1.0%

397
3759
61.8%

36
787
12.9%

110
1181
19.4%

80
357
5.9%

623
6084

10.2%

10

10

Table 3. TxDOT On-System Bridge Usage of Steel Piling (NBI Data)

District
Abilene
Amarillo
Atlanta
Austin
Beaumont
Brownwood
Bryan
Childress
Corpus Christi
Dallas
El Paso
Fort Worth
Houston
Laredo
Lubbock
Lufkin
Odessa
Paris
Pharr
San Angelo
San Antonio
Tyler
Waco
Wichita Falls
Yoakum

% Steel in Trestles
42.0%
58.7%
5.1%
36.2%
5.0%
51.9%
18.9%
70.3%
14.9%
47.0%
16.1%
38.8%
1.1%
1.8%
0.0%
16.2%
20.0%
31.0%
0.0%
27.3%
14.8%
6.0%
46.7%
38.0%
8.3%

11

% Steel under Ftg

80.0%
84.6%
19.1%
54.2%
13.3%
50.0%
53.3%
76.2%
2.8%
89.2%
22.6%
0.0%
2.7%
80.0%
---36.8%
0.0%
---0.0%
---75.9%
89.8%
100.0%
55.6%
42.1%

Table 4. TxDOT Off-System Bridge Usage of Piling (NBI Data) Showing Number of Bridges
Using Piles and Geographic Percentages
District

Concrete
Trestle

Steel
Trestle

Conc
under Ftg

Steel
under Ftg

Total

Abilene
Amarillo
Atlanta
Austin
Beaumont
Brownwood
Bryan
Childress
Corpus
Christi
Dallas
El Paso
Fort Worth
Houston
Laredo
Lubbock
Lufkin
Odessa
Paris
Pharr
San Angelo
San Antonio
Tyler
Waco
Wichita Falls
Yoakum
Total
Pilings Used

3
2
26
9
147
1
33
2

30
23
5
27
24
38
97
17

0
1
1
1
2
0
0
0

0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0

33
26
32
39
174
40
130
19

48
20
5
28
1091
1
0
23
0
11
185
4
9
51
2
2
115
1818
60.1%

5
123
0
124
17
3
1
133
0
135
0
3
12
89
100
50
69
1125
37.2%

3
1
3
0
33
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
6
53
1.8%

0
4
0
7
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
30
1.0%

56
148
8
159
1153
5
1
156
0
146
186
7
23
140
102
52
191
3026

12

Share of
Statewide
Pile Usage
1.1%
0.9%
1.1%
1.3%
5.8%
1.3%
4.3%
0.6%
1.9%
4.9%
0.3%
5.3%
38.1%
0.2%
0.0%
5.2%
0.0%
4.8%
6.1%
0.2%
0.8%
4.6%
3.4%
1.7%
6.3%

12

Table 5. TxDOT Off-System Bridge Usage of Steel Piling (NBI Data)

District
Abilene
Amarillo
Atlanta
Austin
Beaumont
Brownwood
Bryan
Childress
Corpus Christi
Dallas
El Paso
Fort Worth
Houston
Laredo
Lubbock
Lufkin
Odessa
Paris
Pharr
San Angelo
San Antonio
Tyler
Waco
Wichita Falls
Yoakum

% Steel in Trestles

% Steel under Ftg

90.9%
92.0%
16.1%
75.0%
14.0%
97.4%
74.6%
89.5%
9.4%
86.0%
0.0%
81.6%
1.5%
75.0%
100.0%
85.3%
---92.5%
0.0%
42.9%
57.1%
63.6%
98.0%
96.2%
37.5%

---0.0%
0.0%
66.7%
33.3%
100.0%
------0.0%
80.0%
0.0%
100.0%
26.7%
0.0%
------------0.0%
---100.0%
---------14.3%

13

Recent Usage of Piles and Drilled Shafts on TxDOT Bridges

Historical bid data was examined over the last 10 years via TxDOT bid tabulation results.
Costs and quantity of steel H-piling, square prestressed concrete piling, and steel and
prestressed concrete sheet piling were examined. The data shows that prestressed piling
was somewhat more economical in a number of districts when compared with steel piling.
Exceptions include the Amarillo District, which has soil conditions, remoteness from precast
plants, and local preferences that have made steel the preferred piling type. Both piling
types were somewhat less economical compared to drilled shafts. However, cost should not
be the primary consideration in choosing a foundation type. Appropriateness for the
subsurface conditions should be the primary basis. Table 6 compares the two general piling
material types to gauge current usage practice for new designs. The data provided
previously based on NBI data was for the entire in-service bridge population, but not
necessarily representative of current practice.

14

14

Table 6. Piling Usage by General Type over the Last 10 Years

(Percentages in Bold are Districts with Heavy Piling Usage)
District
Abilene
Amarillo
Atlanta
Austin
Beaumont
Brownwood
Bryan
Childress
Corpus
Christi
Dallas
El Paso
Fort Worth
Houston
Laredo
Lubbock
Lufkin
Odessa
Paris
Pharr
San Angelo
San Antonio
Tyler
Waco
Wichita Falls
Yoakum

Total Steel HPiling (LF)

11,768
3,452
1,414
420
86
878
11,420
26,266
-

Total Conc
Sq Piling (LF)
7,974
40,955
291,922
2,957
10,977
3,244

Total Piling
(LF)
19,742
44,407
1,414
292,342
2,957
11,063
3,244

134,741
1,857
402,540
6,125
147,611
8,200
770
87,067

134,741
1,857
878
413,960
6,125
147,611
34,466
770
87,067

15

Steel
Percentage
NA
60%
8%
100%
0%
0%
1%
0%

Concrete
Percentage
NA
40%
92%
0%
100%
100%
99%
100%

0%
NA
0%
100%
3%
NA
NA
0%
NA
NA
0%
NA
76%
NA
NA
0%
0%

100%
NA
100%
0%
97%
NA
NA
100%
NA
NA
100%
NA
24%
NA
NA
100%
100%

Performance of Piles on TxDOT Bridges

To date, the performance of steel piling at interior bents of stream crossings has been less
than desirable and has required significant maintenance and, in some cases, complete
bridge replacement. Retrofit of corrosion-damaged piling to restore load-carrying capacity is
a common bridge rehabilitation using either concrete jacketing or steel plate splicing.
TxDOT currently is sponsoring research project 6731, Repair Systems for Deteriorated
Bridge Piles, being performed by a team from the University of Houston and Texas Tech
University. This research will identify cost-effective, durable, and rapidly deployable
alternatives for the repair and rehabilitation of steel piles. In a national survey of DOTs
around the country (23 responded), the researchers indicated that 78% use steel piling in
new construction, but 26% had cited corrosion of steel piles as a frequent problem and
another 48% as an occasional problem. A few states (Michigan, New Mexico, Montana) use
steel piling in new construction and dont report problems with performance. Their practices
may provide some good guidance on prevention of corrosion-related deterioration.
The performance offset between steel and concrete piles can be seen in the substructure
rating NBI data as shown in Figures 3 and 4. For the off-system case, trestle pile bents
exhibit nearly a point lower rating than their concrete pile counterparts. The difference is
not significant for piles under footings since typically there is no exposure to moisture in the
oxygenated zone, but also because they are hidden from view because they are buried.
TxDOT has successfully reused existing steel piles under footings on some bridge
replacements in the Amarillo District after having exposed them and determining that little
or no section loss had occurred. Trestle pile bents in waterways with steel piling are the
most problematic case, as shown in Figure 5. However, even steel piles under footings can
be problematic if scour exposes the piles, as exhibited in Figure 6.

16

16

On-System: Age v. Condition Rating

Substructure Condition Rating

8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0

Concrete Trestle

5.5

Steel Trestle

5.0

Conc under Ftg

4.5

Steel under Ftg

4.0

Year Built

Figure 3. NBI Substructure Condition Rating Versus Age On System

Off-System: Age v. Condition Rating

Substructure Condition Rating

8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0

Concrete Trestle

5.5

Steel Trestle

5.0

Conc under Ftg

4.5

Steel under Ftg

4.0

Year Built

Figure 4. NBI Substructure Condition Rating Versus Age Off System

17

Figure 5. Pile Section Loss on a Texas Bridge with Steel Trestle Piles

Figure 6. Pile Section Loss on a Texas Bridge with Steel Piles Under a Footing

18

18

Corrosion Mitigation Methods Investigated

Other than restrictions in steel piling use, methods were investigated to mitigate corrosion,
particularly sacrificial thickness and coatings. The state DOTs of Florida, California, and
Illinois have best documented mitigation methods for piling applications.
The sacrificial thickness guidance presented earlier is essentially the same as the Florida
DOT criteria.
Coatings typically are inorganic zinc primers alone or in combination with an acrylic latex or
urethane appearance coat--perhaps with an epoxy intermediate coat, inorganic zinc primers
with a coat or coats of coal tar epoxy, or dense high-end epoxies with a corresponding
primer. Metalizing with zinc or aluminium has also been done, but is not considered the
best system because it is sacrificial over time. Based on current recommendations of the
TxDOT Construction Division, piling coatings in normal benign environments will consist of
inorganic zinc primer because of its good performance. If additional corrosion protection or
a desire for a specific color is warranted, an epoxy intermediate coat and urethane coat may
be specified. Alternately, a higher-end coating can be pursued using the marine grade
NORSOK M-501 Table 7 coating that will be in the 2014 TxDOT Specifications. The
Construction Division is developing a Department Material Specification (DMS) and MPL
(Material Producer List) to provide contractors with better access to information regarding
NORSOK M-501 Table 7 compliant coatings. The cost of this type of coating is preliminarily
expected to be an additional 2 to 4 times cost premium over normal inorganic zinc.
According to the TxDOT Construction Division, coal tar epoxies are becoming less desirable
due to worker hazards, environmental issues, and installation sensitivity. There are several
states that still use coal tar epoxies in conjunction with zinc primers, and their performance
history is longer than the proposed marine grade specification. This is an aspect that
warrants further investigation.
For repair and maintenance of in-service piling, the Construction Division recommends
organic zinc epoxy.

19