Final Report - 449 Calibration of Resistance Factors Needed in The LRFD Design of Driven Piles

TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD PAGE
2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

1. Report No. FHWA/LA.09/449
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
Calibration of Resistance Factors Needed in the LRFD May 2009
Design of Driven Piles 6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Murad Y. Abu-Farsakh, Sungmin Yoon, and 449
Ching Tsai
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.
Louisiana Transportation Research Center
11. Contract or Grant No.
4101 Gourrier Avenue
Baton Rouge, LA 70808 LTRC Number: 07-2GT
State Project Number: 736-99-1408
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Louisiana Transportation Research Center Final Report
4101 Gourrier Avenue November 2006–May 2009
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
15. Supplementary Notes
Conducted in Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
16. Abstract
This research project presents the calibration of resistance factors for the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) method of driven
piles driven into Louisiana soils based on reliability theory. Fifty-three square Precast-Prestressed-Concrete (PPC) piles that were tested to
failure were included in this investigation. The predictions of pile resistances were based on static analysis (-method for clay and
Nordlund method for sand), three direct CPT methods [Schmertmann method, De Ruiter and Beringen method, and Bustamante and
Gianeselli (LCPC) method], and the average of the three CPT methods. Also, dynamic measurements with signal matching analysis of pile
resistances using the Case Pile Wave Analysis Program (CAPWAP), which is based on the measured force and velocity signals obtained
near the pile top during driving, were calibrated. The Davisson and modified Davisson interpretation methods were used to determine
measured ultimate load carrying resistances from pile load tests. The predicted ultimate pile resistances obtained using the different
prediction methods were compared with measured resistances determined from pile load tests. Statistical analyses were carried out to
evaluate the capability of the prediction design methods to estimate measured ultimate pile resistance of driven piles. The results showed
that the static method over-predicts pile resistance, while the dynamic measurement with signal matching analysis [CAPWAP-EOD (end of
drive) and 14 days BOR (beginning of restrike)] under-predicts pile resistance. Among the three direct CPT methods, the De Ruiter and
Beringen method was the most consistent prediction method with the lowest COV. Reliability based analyses using the First Order Second
Moment (FOSM) method, the First Order Reliability Method (FORM), and the Monte Carlo (MC) simulation method were also conducted
to calibrate the resistance factors () for the investigated pile design methods. The resistance factors with the target reliability (Ｔ）of 2.33
for the different design methods were determined and compared with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) recommendation values. In addition, the evaluation of different design methods was performed.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

LRFD, Reliability Analysis, CPT, Static Unrestricted. This document is available
Analysis, Driven Pile capacity, Static load test. through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA 21161.
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 122

Calibration of Resistance Factors Needed in the
LRFD Design of Driven Piles
by
Murad Y. Abu-Farsakh, Ph.D., P.E.

Sungmin Yoon, Ph.D., P.E.
and
Ching Tsai, Ph.D., P.E.

4101 Gourrier Avenue
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
LTRC Project No. 07-2GT

State Project No. 736-99-1408
conducted for
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

The contents of this report reflect the views of the author/principal investigator who is
responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not
necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development or the Louisiana Transportation Research Center. This report does not
constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
May 2009
i

ABSTRACT
This research project presents the calibration of resistance factors for the Load and
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) method of driven piles driven into Louisiana soils based
on reliability theory. Fifty-three square Precast-Prestressed-Concrete (PPC) piles that were
tested to failure were included in this investigation. The predictions of pile resistances were
based on static analysis (-method for clay and Nordlund method for sand), three direct CPT
methods [Schmertmann method, De Ruiter and Beringen method, and Bustamante and
Gianeselli (LCPC) method], and the average of the three CPT methods. Also, dynamic
measurements with signal matching analysis of pile resistances using the Case Pile Wave
Analysis Program (CAPWAP), which is based on the measured force and velocity signals
obtained near the pile top during driving, were calibrated. The Davisson and modified
Davisson interpretation methods were used to determine measured ultimate load carrying
resistances from pile load tests. The predicted ultimate pile resistances obtained using the
different prediction methods were compared with measured resistances determined from pile
load tests. Statistical analyses were carried out to evaluate the capability of the prediction
design methods to estimate measured ultimate pile resistance of driven piles. The results
showed that the static method over-predicts pile resistance, while the dynamic measurement
with signal matching analysis [CAPWAP-EOD (end of drive) and 14 days BOR (beginning
of restrike)] under-predicts pile resistance. Among the three direct CPT methods, the De
Ruiter and Beringen method was the most consistent prediction method with the lowest
COV. Reliability based analyses using the First Order Second Moment (FOSM) method, the
First Order Reliability Method (FORM), and the Monte Carlo (MC) simulation method were
also conducted to calibrate the resistance factors () for the investigated pile design methods.
The resistance factors with the target reliability (Ｔ）of 2.33 for the different design
methods were determined and compared with American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recommendation values. In addition, the evaluation of
different design methods was performed.
iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research project was funded by the Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development (LADOTD) and the Louisiana Transportation Research Center (LTRC). The
comments and suggestions of Mark Morvant, P.E. and Zhongjie Zhang, P.E., Ph.D. of LTRC
are gratefully acknowledged.
v

IMPLEMENTATION STATEMENT
The Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO set a transition date of October 1, 2007
after which all new federal-funded bridges shall be designed using the LRFD design method.
The LRFD Code is the first attempt by AASHTO to establish a National Bridge Code
addressing geotechnical design for bridges. This fact calls for the establishment of a local
calibration that takes into account the geology of Louisiana. This research project aims at
calibrating resistance factors associated with different pile design methods used by engineers
designing bridges for LADOTD. Reliability indexes and corresponding resistance factors for
different pile design methods are recommended and ready for immediate implementation.
Engineers designing bridges for Louisiana should use the recommended resistance factors in
lieu of factors shown in Section 10 of the LRFD Code. As experience is gained in the
application of LRFD to design, the role of past successful allowable stress design (ASD)
practices will become less important, and the advantage of the LRFD design can be fully
addressed by achieving consistent levels of reliability in the design of both superstructures
and foundations. In addition, calibration efforts in this research are documented so that the
calibration results become a heritage for future users of LADOTD and thereby enhance
future LRFD research and development. One project will be selected to perform a
cost/benefit analysis by comparing the design results obtained by using the related indexes
and resistance factors obtained in this research and those recommended by the AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2007) and ASD Design.
vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................ v
IMPLEMENTATION STATEMENT .................................................................................... vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................. xiiii
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
OBJECTIVE ............................................................................................................................. 3
SCOPE ...................................................................................................................................... 5
BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 7
Predication of Ultimate Pile Resistance ...............................................................................7
Static Methods ...............................................................................................................7
Direct CPT Methods ..........................................................................................................13
Dynamic Measurement with Signal Matching Analysis (CAPWAP) .........................18
LRFD Calibration Using Reliability Theory .....................................................................19
LRFD Calibration via WSD.........................................................................................21
Statistical Characterization of the Data Collected .......................................................22
First Order Second Moment (FOSM) Method.............................................................23
First Order Reliability Method (FORM)......................................................................24
Monte Carlo Simulation Method .................................................................................27
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 29
Collecting of Pile Load Test Database...............................................................................29
Compilation of Pile Load Test Reports .............................................................................30
Ultimate Capacity of Piles from Load Test .......................................................................31
Soil Identification and Classification .................................................................................32
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS................................................................................................. 35
Predicted versus Measured Ultimate Pile Resistances.......................................................35
LRFD Calibration ..............................................................................................................55
CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................... 69
RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................ 71
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS ......................................................... 73
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 75
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................. 79
Summary of Geotechnical Data for the State Projects Investigated ..................................79
ix

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 K for non-tapered piles [19] ..................................................................................... 11

Table 2 Friction coefficient, ks (from Bustamante and Gianeselli, [16]) ............................. 16
Table 3 Summary of the characteristics of the investigated piles ........................................... 31
Table 4 Results of the analysis conducted on square precast prestressed concrete piles driven
into Louisiana soils ............................................................................................... 37-50
Table 5 Evaluation summary of the different prediction methods ....................................... 51
Table 6 Resistance Factors () for Driven Piles (T = 2.33) ................................................. 67
xi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1  factors for driven piles in clay [19] ...................................................................... 9

Figure 2 Chart for bearing capacity factor N’q [19]............................................................. 10
Figure 3 Correction factors (Cf) for coefficient of lateral stress (K) [19] ........................... 12
Figure 4 Average cone tip resistance (qc,avg) in Schmertmann [14] method ........................ 15
Figure 5 General features of Louisiana Pile Design by Cone Penetration Test (LPD-CPT)
program (www.ltrc.lsu.edu/downloads.html)......................................................... 17
Figure 6 Probability density functions for load effect and resistance ................................... 20
Figure 7 Approximate locations of the investigated piles .................................................... 30
Figure 8 Estimation of ultimate bearing resistance using Davisson [39] method after
Salgado [41] ........................................................................................................... 32
Figure 9 Typical summary of geotechnical data for a tested pile ......................................... 33
Figure 10 Rm versus Rp (Static method) ................................................................................ 51
Figure 11 Rm versus Rp (Schmertmann method)........................................................................ 52
Figure 12 Rm versus Rp (LCPC method) ............................................................................... 52
Figure 13 Rm versus Rp (De Ruiter method) .............................................................................. 53
Figure 14 Rm versus Rp (CPT - Average method) ................................................................ 53
Figure 15 Rm versus Rp (CAPWAP-EOD)................................................................................. 54
Figure 16 Rm versus Rp (CAPWAP-14 days BOR) ..................................................................... 54
Figure 17 Histogram and PDF of resistance bias factors (Static method) ............................ 56
Figure 18 Histogram and PDF of resistance bias factors (Schmertmann method) .................. 57
Figure 19 Histogram and PDF of resistance bias factors (LCPC method) ........................... 57
Figure 20 Histogram and PDF of resistance bias factors (De Ruiter method) ........................ 58
Figure 21 Histogram and PDF of resistance bias factors (CPT - Average method) ............. 58
Figure 22 Histogram and PDF of resistance bias factors (CAPWAP-EOD)........................... 59
Figure 23 Histogram and PDF of resistance bias factors (CAPWAP-14 days BOR) ............... 59
Figure 24 Cumulative distribution function (CDF) of bias values (Static method) .............. 60
Figure 25 Cumulative distribution function (CDF) of bias values (Schmertmann method).... 60
Figure 26 Cumulative distribution function (CDF) of bias values (LCPC method) ............. 61
Figure 27 Cumulative distribution function (CDF) of bias values (De Ruiter method) .......... 61
Figure 28 Cumulative distribution function (CDF) of bias values (CPT-Average method) 62
Figure 29 Cumulative distribution function (CDF) of bias values (CAPWAP-EOD) ............ 62
Figure 30 Cumulative distribution function (CDF) of bias values (CAPWAP-14 days BOR). 63
Figure 31 Resistance factors for different reliability indexes (Static method) ....................... 63
Figure 32 Resistance factors for different reliability indexes (Schmertmann method) ............. 64
xiii
Figure 33 Figure 26 Resistance factors for different reliability indexes (LCPC method) ...... 64
Figure 34 Resistance factors for different reliability indexes (De Ruiter method) ................... 65
Figure 35 Resistance factors for different reliability indexes (CPT - Average method) ........ 65
Figure 36 Resistance factors for different reliability indexes (CAPWAP-EOD)...................... 66
Figure 37 Resistance factors for different reliability indexes (CAPWAP-14 days BOR) .......... 66
xiv
INTRODUCTION
The allowable stress design (ASD) method had been used in the design of bridges, which
involves applying a factor of safety (FS). FS, defined as the fraction of the ultimate
geotechnical pile resistance, that is traditionally known as pile capacity, over the allowable
design load, accounts for uncertainties in the applied loads and soil resistance. The
magnitude of FS has been empirically developed over time depending on the importance of
the structure, the confidence levels of material properties, and the design methodology.
However this approach suffers from the disadvantage that the uncertainties of the different
sources of load and resistance are combined together in a single factor. Consequently, ASD
may lead to a design with a different level of safety for similar structures. The LRFD method
aims at separating uncertainties of load effect from uncertainties of resistance and then
applying statistical theory to ensure the same level of structure safety.
The Bridge Design Specifications published by the American Association of Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has introduced the LRFD method to account for
uncertainties associated with estimated loads and resistances [1], [2]. Since then, bridge
superstructures have been designed using the LRFD method in most U.S. states. However,
the LRFD method for design of bridge foundation is progressively gaining its prevalence;
while the ASD method is still used for the bridge foundation design in practice. This can lead
to inconsistent levels of reliability between superstructures and substructures. In an effort to
maintain a consistent level of reliability, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and
AASHTO a mandated a date of October 1, 2007 after which all federal-funded new bridges
including substructures shall be designed using the LRFD method. Accordingly, significant
research efforts have been directed to implement the LRFD design methodology in bridge
substructure and establish and to calibrate the proper resistance factors, which will be
explained in greater detail in a later section, for local soil conditions in compliance with this
mandate [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].
The current AASHTO design specification recommends resistance factors,, for single
driven piles in axial compression ranging from 0.10 to 0.65, depending on the design method
[11]. However, the existing resistance factors are recommended based on a pile load test—a
soil database that was collected from sites that do not necessary reflect Louisiana soils or
design practice. For example, the driven pile database used in the existing AASHTO design
specification is based on the data gathered by Florida DOT and FHWA [12], [13]. Therefore,
the resistance factors recommended by the existing AASHTO Code need to be verified
before being applied to local soil condition and design practice. Direct application of the
1
AASHTO resistance factors without calibration may result in over-conservative or unsafe
design. When local experience and databases are available, the AASHTO recommends
calibrating the resistance factor, , using reliability analyses to produce an overall reliability
level that is consistent with local practice.
Several methods have been developed and used in geotechnical engineering practice to
estimate ultimate axial bearing resistance of driven piles. This includes static pile load tests,
statnamic pile load tests, traditional static analysis, dynamic analysis, and static analysis
using the results of in-situ testing such as the Cone Penetration Test (CPT). Static analyses
based on soil properties obtained from borings and laboratory tests have been the main
method used in practice by LADOTD engineers. However, the application of CPT in
predicting ultimate bearing resistance of piles has increased over the last two decades due to
the similarity between the cone penetrometer and the pile in which the cone can be
considered as a model pile (e.g., [14], [15], [16], and [17]). The CPT is a simple, fast,
repeatable, and cost effective in-situ test that can provide continuous subsurface soundings
with depth. The measured CPT data (tip resistance, qc; sleeve friction, fs; and porewater
pressure, u) can be effectively utilized for many geotechnical engineering applications
including the prediction of ultimate pile resistance. Compared with traditional static design,
CPT design methods can provide more economical estimations of the ultimate pile
resistance. In addition, the dynamic measurement with signal matching analysis using
CAPWAP is also gaining popularity due to its simplicity and economical advantage.
Although the dynamic measurement with signal matching analysis cannot be a substitute of
pile design analysis, it is mainly used for pile drivability and usually helps in verifying the
pile design resistance.
In this research project, design methods used by LADOTD were calibrated based on data
collected in Louisiana. For each design method, target reliability values and corresponding
resistance factors were developed depending on availability of test data.
2
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this research project is to calibrate resistance factors for different pile design
methods needed in LRFD design of driven piles based on the Louisiana pile load test soil
database, and LADOTD experience. The findings of this research effort will help Louisiana
geotechnical engineers begin implementing the LRFD design methodology for the design of
all driven piles in future Louisiana projects as mandated by AASHTO.
3

SCOPE
To achieve the objective of this study, reliability based analyses were performed on different
design methods used by LADOTD for the estimation of axial load resistance of driven piles
in soft Louisiana soils. A database of 53 precast-prestressed-concrete (PPC) piles of different
lengths and sizes that were loaded to failure were investigated in this study. Statistical
analyses were conducted to evaluate different pile design methods, including the static design
method (-method and Nordlund method), three different direct CPT design methods:
[Schmertmann method, De Ruiter and Beringen method, and Bustamante and Gianeselli
(LCPC) method], CAPWAP method. The target reliability (T) of 2.33 was selected. In
addition, reliability analyses based on the FOSM, FORM, and MC simulation method were
conducted to calibrate resistance factors () for different design methods needed in the LRFD
design of single piles.
5

BACKGROUND
Predication of Ultimate Pile Resistance
The ultimate axial resistance (Qu) of a driven pile consists of the end bearing resistance (Qb)
and the skin frictional resistance (Qs). The ultimate pile resistance can be calculated using the
following equation:
n
Q u  Q b  Q s  q b .A b  f A
i 1
i si (1)
where, qb is the unit tip bearing resistance, Ab is the cross section area of the pile tip, fi is the
average unit skin friction of the soil layer i, Asi is the area of the pile shaft area interfacing
with layer i, and n is the number of soil layers along the pile shaft. In clayey stratigraphies,
the shaft frictional resistance dominates in many cases, while in sandy stratigraphies, the end
bearing resistance can contribute to more than 50 percent of the ultimate pile resistance.
Since Louisiana soils are mainly clay and silty clay deposits, the side friction (Qs) is
dominant in the total ultimate bearing resistance (Qu) compared to the end bearing resistance
(Qb).
Static Methods
 Tomlinson Method. The method is based on total stress analysis. For a soil
with an angle of internal friction,  = 0, or in total stress analysis, the ultimate skin resistance
per unit area of the pile can be calculated as follows [18]:
f =  Su (2)
where,  is an empirical adhesion coefficient, and Su is the undrained shear strength. In this
research study,  values suggested by Tomlinson are used [18]. Figure 1 shows the  values
versus the undrained shear strength (Su).
The skin friction resistance (Qs) is as follows:

Q s  f C d dz
0
(3)
where, L is length of the pile in contact with soil, and Cd is the effective perimeter of the pile.
7
The pile tip resistance (Qb) is calculated as follows:
Qb= Ab Su Nc (4)
where, Ab is the cross sectional area of the pile, and Nc of 9 is used in this study as
recommended by FHWA [19].
Nordlund Method. In sand, the pile tip resistance (Qb) can be calculated as:
Q b  A b .q. .N 'q (5)
where, q is the effective vertical stress at tip level,  is a dimensionless correction factor,
and N q is a bearing resistance factor varying with . In this research, the values proposed by
Thurman are used for calculation [20]. Figure 2 presents the bearing resistance factor ( N q )
versus the friction angle ().
The skin friction resistance (Qs) was evaluated using the equation proposed by Nordlund in
this research as follows [21], [22]:
L
Q s   K  C f PD sin( ).C d dz (6)
0
where, K is a coefficient of lateral stress, Cf is a correction factor, PD is the effective

overburden pressure, is the pile-soil friction angle, and Cd is the effective pile perimeter.
Table 1 and Figure 3 present the coefficient of lateral stress (K) and the correction factor
(Cf), respectively.
8
(a) Sand layer over stiff clay layer
(b) Soft clay layer over stiff clay layer
(c) Clay layer only
Figure 1
 factors for driven piles in clay [19]
9
Figure 2
Chart for bearing capacity factor N’q [19]
10
Table 1
K for non-tapered piles [19]
Volume of soil displaced per unit length (ft3/ft)


0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 10.0
25 0.70 0.77 0.80 0.83 0.85 0.92 0.95 0.98 1.00
26 0.73 0.82 0.86 0.88 0.91 1.00 1.04 1.06 1.09
27 0.76 0.86 0.91 0.94 0.97 1.07 1.12 1.15 1.18
28 0.79 0.90 0.96 0.99 1.03 1.14 1.2 1.23 1.27
29 0.82 0.95 1.01 1.05 1.09 1.22 1.28 1.32 1.36
30 0.85 0.99 1.06 1.10 1.15 1.29 1.36 1.40 1.45
31 0.91 1.08 1.16 1.21 1.27 1.44 1.52 1.57 1.63
32 0.97 1.17 1.26 1.32 1.39 1.59 1.68 1.74 1.81
33 1.03 1.26 1.37 1.44 1.51 1.74 1.85 1.92 1.99
34 1.09 1.35 1.47 1.55 1.63 1.89 2.01 2.09 2.17
35 1.15 1.44 1.57 1.66 1.75 2.04 2.17 2.26 2.35
36 1.26 1.61 1.78 1.89 2.00 2.35 2.52 2.63 2.74
37 1.37 1.79 1.99 2.11 2.25 2.67 2.87 2.99 3.13
38 1.48 1.97 2.19 2.34 2.50 2.99 3.21 3.36 3.52
39 1.59 2.14 2.40 2.57 2.75 3.30 3.56 3.73 3.91
40 1.70 2.32 2.61 2.80 3.00 3.62 3.91 4.10 4.30
11
Figure 3
Correction factors (Cf) for coefficient of lateral stress (K) [19]
12
Direct CPT Methods
There are two main approaches in the estimation of pile resistance using CPT data, the
indirect method and the direct method. In the indirect method, CPT data (qc and fs) is used to
estimate the soil strength parameters, such as the undrained shear strength (Su) and the angle
of internal friction (), to predict pile resistance. While in the direct method, the unit end
bearing resistance (qb) of the pile is evaluated from the qc, and the unit skin friction (f) of the
pile is evaluated from either fs or qc profiles. It is believed that the direct method is more
suitable in engineering practices [17].
In the direct CPT methods, the pile resistance is predicted using a pile tip resistance (Qb) and
the skin friction resistance (Qs), which can be expressed as the following equations:
Q b  q b A b  (c b .q c,avg ).A b (7)
Q s   f i .A si   α c f si A si (8)
or
Q s   f i .A si   (c s .q ci ).A si (9)
where qb is the unit end bearing resistance, qc is the cone tip resistance, qc,avg is the average
cone tip resistance in the zone above and below the pile tip, fi is the unit skin friction, fsi is
the sleeve friction, cb is the correlation coefficient of tip resistance, c is the reduction factor,
cs is the correlation coefficient of friction resistance, Ab is the pile tip area, and Asi is the pile
surface area of each layer.
Schmertmann Method. Schmertmann proposed a direct CPT method based on

model and full scale pile tests [14]. To estimate the pile tip resistance (Qb), the average cone
tip resistance (qc,avg) is obtained in the zone ranging from 8D above to 0.7D-4D below the
pile tip (see Figure 4). Schmertmann suggested a cb of 1.0 for sand and 0.6 for clay. The unit
skin friction is calculated from the sleeve friction (fs) using an c value of 0.2 to 1.25 for
clayey soil. A maximum fs of 1.25 tsf is proposed.
13
De Ruiter and Beringen Method. The De Ruiter and Beringen method is known as
the European method [15]. It is based on experience from offshore piles tested in the North
Sea. In sand, unit tip resistance (qb) is obtained similarly to the Schmertmann method [14].
The unit skin friction (f) for the compression piles is the minimum among fs, qc(side)/300, and
0.2 tsf. In clay, the unit tip resistance (qb) is determined from the conventional bearing
resistance theory as follows:
q b  N c S u ( tip) (10)
q c (tip)
S u (tip)  (11)
Nk
where, Nc is the bearing resistance factor, and Nk is the cone factor ranging from 15 to 20
depending on soil type and pile type. The unit skin friction (f) can be obtained from:
f =  Su(side) (12)
where  is the adhesion factor and =1 for normally consolidated (NC) clay and 0.5 for
overconsolidated (OC) clay.
Bustamante and Gianeselli Method (LCPC Method). Bustamante and Gianeselli

method is known as the French method or the LCPC (Laboratoire Central des Ponts et
Chaussees) method [16]. In this method, both unit tip resistance (qb) and unit skin friction (f)
are calculated from cone tip resistance (qc). Average cone tip resistance (qc,avg) is obtained in
the zone ranging 1.5 D above and below the pile tip. A correlation coefficient of the tip
resistance (cb) from 0.15 to 0.6 was proposed for different soil types and installation
procedures based on the empirical correlation (cb = 0.6 for piles driven into clay and silt and
cb = 0.375 for piles driven into sand and gravel).
The unit skin friction (f) is obtained from cone tip resistance (qc) and the correlation
coefficient of friction resistance (ks) as follows:
q eq (side)
f  (13)
ks
14
where, qeq(side) is the equivalent cone tip resistance of the soil layer, and ks is an empirical
friction coefficient that varies from 30 to 150 depending on soil type, pile type, and
installation procedure given in Table 2.
In this study, ultimate pile resistance was calculated using the Louisiana Pile Design by Cone
Penetration Test (LPD-CPT) program developed by Louisiana Transportation Research
Center. The program is capable of soil classification based on the probabilistic region
estimation method proposed by Zhang and Tumay and provides the profile of the ultimate
pile resistances with soil depth [24]. The ultimate pile resistances are predicted using the
Schmertmann Method, De Ruiter and Beringen Method, LCPC Method, and the average of
three CPT methods [14], [15], [16]. Figure 5 presents the general features of the LPD-CPT
program. The program is available for free downloading at the LTRC Web site
(www.ltrc.lsu.edu/downloads.html).
Cone tip resistance qc
qc1 < qc2
e
D
Depth
qc1 8D
d
a
Envelope of
minimum qc values
4D
qc2
b
Figure 4
Average cone tip resistance (qc,avg) in Schmertmann [14] method
(from Abu-Farsakh and Titi [23])
15
Table 2
Friction coefficient, ks (from Bustamante and Gianeselli, [16])
Nature of Soil qc (MPa) ks
Soft clay and mud <1 30
Soft chalk 5 100
Silt and loose sand 5 60
Moderately compact clay 1 to 5 40
Moderately compact sand and gravel 5 to 12 100
Compact to stiff clay and compact silt >5 60
Weathered to fragment chalk >5 60
Compact to very compact sand and gravel > 12 150
(a) Data input screen
16
(b) CPT profiles and soil classification
(c) Soil classification and predicted pile resistance
Figure 5
General features of Louisiana Pile Design by Cone Penetration Test (LPD-CPT)
program (www.ltrc.lsu.edu/downloads.html)
17
Dynamic Measurement with Signal Matching Analysis (CAPWAP)
The evaluation of static capacity from pile driving is based on the concept that the driving
operation includes failure in the pile-soil system in which a very fast load test is carried out
under each blow. There are two main methods to estimate the ultimate capacity of driven
piles on the basis of dynamic driving resistance. One method is using pile driving formulas
(i.e., dynamic equations) and the second is wave-equation analysis. Dynamic equations
predict total resistance based on work done by the pile during penetration. Wave equation
methods are based on a numerical solution of the one-dimensional wave equation. Stress-
wave propagation in a pile during driving can be described by the following one-dimensional
wave equation modified by Paikowsky and Whitman to include frictional resistance along the
pile [25]:
 2u S P  2u
EP  f S   P (14)
 2 x 2 AP t 2
where, EP is the modulus of elasticity, ρp is the unit density of the pile material, u(x,t) =
longitudinal displacement of infinitesimal segment, fs = frictional stress along the pile, Ap is
the pile area, and Sp is the pile circumference.
The numerical solution uses mathematical models for the pile and the pile-soil system. The
wave equation formulation is used in two general ways: pre-driving analysis and post-driving
analysis. When the one-dimensional wave equation solution is used for pre-driving analysis,
the driving system is also modeled. Post-driving analyses use the measured force signal
(calculated from strain readings) and the measured velocity signal (integrated from
acceleration readings) obtained near the pile top during driving. At that point the velocity
signal is used as a boundary condition while varying the parameters describing soil resistance
in order to match calculated and measured force signals. These parameters include the side
and tip quake, side and tip damping, pile shaft resistance, and pile tip resistance. Additional
parameters may be used to describe soil resistance and rebound ratio for unloading different
from that of loading. Iterations are performed by changing soil-model variables for each pile
in contact with soil until the best match between force signals is obtained. The results of
these analyses are assumed to represent the actual distribution of the ultimate static resistance
of the pile. The procedure was first suggested by Goble et al., using the computer program
CAPWAP [26].
18
LRFD Calibration Using Reliability Theory
The uncertainties of load effect and resistance are attributed to various sources and their
levels of uncertainties are wide in range. Generally, resistance has higher uncertainty
compared to the load effect [3]. Figure 6 shows the probability density functions for the load
effect and resistance. Failure can be defined as load exceeding resistance, and probability of
failure is related to the shaded area where two probability density functions overlap. In
traditional allowable stress design (ASD), the mean factor of safety is the fraction of the
mean resistance over the mean load effect. The mean safety factor for the resistance with
lower uncertainty (solid curve) and resistance with higher uncertainty (dotted curve) is
unchanged. Whereas in LRFD, the larger variability in resistance effect (dotted curve) will
lead to a larger probability of failure, which is represented as a larger overlapped area.
Accordingly, it is very important to incorporate with the uncertainties in the foundation
design by using reliability based theory.
The LRFD method intends to separate uncertainties of load effect from uncertainties of
resistance and then apply the statistical theory to ensure the same level of structure safety. To
achieve this level of safety, load and resistance factors should be calibrated. This process is
performed using measured data to derive statistical parameters characteristic of design
methods and determine the magnitude of load and resistance factors needed to obtain
acceptable margins of safety. There are mainly two procedures for LRFD calibration: (1)
LRFD calibration to achieve consistency with traditional safety factors in ASD but not with
target reliability when data is not available and (2) LRFD calibration using reliability theory
[27]. When the LRFD design code is calibrated, local experience should be included for
several reasons. First, different states have different soil deposition and foundation designers
have developed well-established design methods which implicitly incorporate past
experience. Such experience can result in cost saving designs but is not included in the
existing AASHTO LRFD code, which was developed based on limited databases from other
geological origins or stress histories [11]. Under this situation, if the design is performed by
the existing code, such experience will be lost, which will cause either over conservative or
unsafe design. Instead, if the calibration is performed by including local experience, cost
saving designs can be obtained. This calibration can be performed by simply fitting the ASD
to LRFD to achieve at least the same cost efficiency. Second, load tests are usually
conducted to verify the design loads to evaluate the actual response of the pile under loading
and to establish local load test databases. If these local databases are included, the
uncertainties are reduced and design is expected to be improved.
19
Load Effect Resistance
Q R
Probability
FS=R/Q
Load Effect (Q) or Resistance (R)
Figure 6
Probability density functions for load effect and resistance
20
LRFD Calibration via WSD
When there is not sufficient statistical data available for a statistical theory based calibration,
calibration through fitting to the ASD method can be used [28]:
QD
D L
QL
 (15)
Q
FS ( D  1)
QL
where,  is the resistance factor; QD and QL are the dead load and live load, respectively; D
and L are the load factors for dead load and live load, respectively; and FS is the factor of
safety.
Using equation (15), the resistance factors that need to be used in the LRFD method can be
calculated to obtain a level of safety equal to that of the ASD method. This process provides
the engineer with a visualization of uncertainty rather than the lumped single factor of safety
in ASD. However, using the resistance factor obtained by fitting to the ASD method is not
likely to improve the reliability of the design. Improved design can only be achieved when
resistance factors are evaluated directly through statistical data based on reliability theory,
rather than through calibration with existing factors of safety in ASD [29]. Thus, there is no
difference in the design between the LRFD and ASD methods if the resistance factor is
calibrated via ASD.
Ultimate pile resistances for the same site obtained by using different design methods show
some variation depending on its reliability. Therefore, resistance factors () associated with
different design methods should reflect its accuracy in predicting the ultimate bearing
resistance of piles. In this research, resistance factors () were determined for the static
design methods (Tomlinson method for clay and Nordlund method for sand), three direct
CPT methods (Schmertmann method, De Ruiter and Beringen method, and LCPC method),
the average of three CPT methods, and the dynamic measurement with signal matching
analysis method (CAPWAP).
21
Statistical Characterization of the Data Collected
To perform an LRFD calibration, the performance limit state equations must first be
determined. Two limit states that are usually checked in the design of piles are the ultimate
limit state (ULS) or the strength limit state and the serviceability limit state (SLS). Both limit
states designs are carried out to satisfy the following criteria [30]:
Ultimate limit state (ULS): Factored resistance ≥ Factored load effects
Serviceability limit state (SLS): Deformation ≤ Tolerable deformation to remain serviceable
It is usually considered that the design of deep foundations is controlled by the ultimate limit
state. Therefore, in the following discussion, only the ultimate limit state is considered. The
following basic equation is recommended to represent limit states design by AASHTO [11]:
Rn   . i .Qi (16)
where,  is the Resistance factor, Rn is the Nominal resistance, and  is the Load modifier to
account for effects of ductility, redundancy, and operational importance. The value of η
usually is 1.00. Qi is the Load effect, and γi is the Load factor.
Most driven piles develop both skin and toe resistances, but the percentage of skin or toe
resistance to total resistance is not constant. Therefore, it is not possible to provide a fixed
correlation between the three resistance factors (skin, toe, and total resistances). In this
research, only the resistance for total resistance was calibrated. Thus, it should be noted that
the same resistance factors for skin and end bearing are assumed, and the calibrated
resistance factors are valid only for the ranges of pile dimensions (length and diameter) that
employed in this study.
Considering the load combination of dead load and live load for AASHTO Strength I case,
the performance limit equation is as follows [31]:
 Rn   D Q D   L Q L (17)
The loads applied to piles are traditionally based on superstructure analysis, whereas actual
load transfer to substructure, which is actually a pile-superstructure interaction problem, is
poorly researched. Most researchers employ the load statistics and the load factors from
22
AASHTO LRFD specifications, which were originally recommended by Nowak, to make
pile foundation design consistent with the bridge superstructure design [9]. For example,
Zhang et al., Kim et al., and McVay et al., selected the statistical parameters of dead and live
loads, which were used in the AASHTO LRFD specifications as follows [31], [32], [33]:
 L  1.75  L  1.15 COVL  0.18

 D  1.25  D  1.08 COVD  0.13
where, λD and λL are the load bias factors (mean ratio of measured over predicted value) for
the dead load and live load, respectively. COVD and COVL are the coefficient of variation
values for the dead load and live load, respectively.
The QD/QL is the dead load to live load ratio which varies depending on the span length [34].
In this research, a QD/QL of 3 is used for calibration.
The resistance statistics were calculated in terms of the bias factors. The bias factor is defined
as the ratio of the measured pile resistance over the predicted pile resistance, i.e.:
Rm
R  (18)
Rp
where, Rm is the measured resistance and Rp is the predicted (nominal resistance = Rn).
First Order Second Moment (FOSM) Method

Since FOSM is easy to use and valid for preliminary analyses, it was initially used in this
study for calibration of resistance factors of driven piles. In the FOSM method, limit state
function is linearized by expanding the Taylor series expansion about the mean value of the
variable. Since only the mean and the variance are used in the expansion, it is called First
(Mean) Order Second (variance) Moment. For the lognormal distribution of resistance and
load statistics, Barker et al. derived the following relation for calculating the reliability index,
 [35]:
23
  QD  
  1  1  COV 2  COV 2  COV 2 
QL
ln  λ R FS  R D L

 λ Q D
2
  λL  1  COVR 
 
D QL  
β (19)
 
ln 1  COVR2 1  COVD2  COVL2 
For LRFD, this equation is modified by replacing overall factor of safety (FS) by partial
factor of safety and then rearranging to express relation to resistance factor () as follows:
 Q  1 + COVD2 + COVL2
λR  γ D D +γ L 
 QL  1 + COVR2
= (20)
 QD
 λD

 
+λ L exp βT ln 1 + COVR2 1 + COVD2 + COVL2  
 QL   
When statistical data is available, the calibration can be performed based on reliability theory.
The design based on the resistance factors obtained from this process is expected to be better
than ASD and fully achieved the advantages of the LRFD method. If both the resistances and
the load are log-normally distributed and the performance limit state design equation is linear,
the First Order Second Moment method can be used to obtain the reliability index.
Unfortunately, for deep foundations, under some conditions, neither the loads nor the
resistance are normally or log-normally distributed, and sometimes the design equation may
be nonlinear. Therefore, advance reliability theory based methods are needed. In this study,
FORM and the Monte Carlo simulation were also used with FOSM for the LRFD calibration
of pile design methods [36], [37].
First Order Reliability Method (FORM)

Hasofer and Lind proposed a modified reliability index that did not exhibit the invariance
problem [36]. The “correction” is to evaluate the limit state function at a point known as the
“design point” instead of the mean values. The design point is a point on the failure surface g
= 0. Since the design point is generally not known in advance, an iteration technique must be
used to solve the reliability index. Detailed procedure regarding FORM can be found in
Nowak and Collins [37]. Only information on the means and the standard deviations of the
24
resistances and the loads are needed while detailed information on the type of distribution for
each random variable are not needed.
FORM is an analytical scheme that is used to approximate probability integral when basic
variables have strictly increasing continuous joint cumulative distribution function (CDF).
Steps for FORM using the Rackwitz-Fiessler method [38]:
1. Define limit state function, g(x1, x2, x3....).
The limit state function for LRFD is developed as follows:
Q  Q D  Q L  λD Q D  λL Q L (21)
R  γ D Q D  γ L Q L (22)
from (21) and (22)
 γ Q  γ L QL 
g(R.L)   D D  λ R  (λ D Q D  λ L Q L )  0 (23)
  
Now the specified live load to dead load ratio,(QL/QD) equation (23) can be
rearranged as:
 γ  γL  κ 
g(R.L)   D  λ R  (λ D  λ L*κ )  0 (24)
  
QL
where, κ 
QD
2. Assuming initial design point (xi*), mean values are a reasonable choice for most cases.
In this case, initial design values for dead load and live load (x2 and x3) assumed and that
for resistance (x1) is determined by equating the limit state function equal to zero. Also
for lognormal variables equivalent normal parameters are then determined as:

μ e x  x * σ e x Φ 1 (Fx (x)  (25)
25
σe x 
1  x * μ e x 
φ e 
fx(x*)  σ x  fx(x*)
1

φ Φ 1 (Fx (x*)  (26)
where,  and  denotes the mass probability density function (PDF) and the
cumulative distribution function (CDF) for normal distribution, respectively.
3. Corresponding to the design point x*, the reduced variable is found as:
x * x μ e x i
z *i  (27)
σe xi
4. Partial derivatives of the limit state function is found at the design point and vector G is
defined as:
 G1 
  g g
G  G 2 where, G i   at design point   * (σ e x i ) at design point (28)
G 3  Zi Xi
 
 z *1 
β
GT z *  
where, z *   z * 2  (29)
GT G z * 
 3
α
G (30)
GT G
5. The new design point is determined in the reduced variable as:
z *i  α i β (31)
x *i  μ e xi  z i σ e xi (32)
Also at this step, the new design point for resistance (x1) is determined by inserting new
design values for loads (x2 and x3) into the g function. With new design points, steps from 1
to 5 are followed. The process is repeated until  and the design point converges. In this
study, the excel sheet was used to get the FOSM solution with the “Goal seek” function for
given load and resistance statistics. Iterations for FORM is done using the “SOLVER” tool.
26
Monte Carlo Simulation Method
For more complicated limit state functions, the application of the general statistical method
for the calculation of the reliability index is either extremely difficult or impossible. Under
this circumstance, the Monte Carlo simulation provides the only feasible way to determine
the reliability index or the probability of failure. The procedures of the Monte Carlo
simulation are described in the following paragraphs.
First, simulated values of the random variables in the limit state equation are generated.
These values are then used to simulate values of the limit state function itself. Finally, the
simulated values of the limit state function are plotted on normal probability paper. The
probability of failure can be found by reading the probability value at the location where the
plotted data curve intersects a vertical line passing through the origin. If there are too few
data points and the plotted curve does not intersect the vertical axis, the plotted curve can be
extrapolated.
The Monte Carlo method is a technique by which a random number generator is used to
extrapolate CDF values for each random variable. Extrapolation of CDF makes estimating 
possible; otherwise, a limited quantity of data would restrict the reliable estimate of . Once
the reliability index, , is estimated, the probability of failure can be estimated by assuming
the distribution of g(x). The steps of the Monte Carlo simulation method are as follows;
1. Generate random numbers for each set of variables. Here there are three variables
(resistance, dead load and live load bias factor), so three sets of random variable have
to be generated independently for each one. The number of simulations required is
found using the following equation:
1  Ptrue
N 2
(33)
Vp * (Ptrue )
where, Ptrue is the lowest magnitude of probability that is to be determined using

Monte Carlo, and Vp is the desired coefficient of variation of the simulation result. To
estimate a probability as low as 10-2 and keep variance under 10 percent, the number
of points to be generated in the Monte-Carlo simulation is 9900.
27
For each lognormal variable, the sample value xi is estimated as:
x *i  exp(μ lnx  z i σ lnx ) (34)
1
where, σ 2 ln x  ln (V 2 x  1 ) and  ln x  ln(x)   2 ln x
2
In the previous expressions, μx, and Vx are the arithmetic mean and variance of x,
respectively, and μlnx and σlnx are the equivalent lognormal mean and standard
deviation [mean and standard deviation of ln(x)] and z i  NORMSINV(RAND()) is
the random standard normal variable generated using the EXCEL function.
2. Define the limit state function. This is done in step 1 for FORM.
3. Find the number of cases where g(xi)  0. The probability of failure is then defined
as:
count(g  0)
Pf  (35)
N
and reliability index β is estimated as:
β  Φ 1 (Pf) (36)
28
METHODOLOGY
As discussed earlier, the objective of this research study is to calibrate resistance factors for
different pile design methods needed in the LRFD design of driven piles based on the
Louisiana database and experience. A total of 53 pile load tests, their corresponding borings
and CPT tests were identified and collected from LADOTD files. The collected pile load test
data, soil properties, and CPT profiles were compiled and analyzed. This section describes
the methodology of collecting, compiling, and analyzing the pile load test reports.
Collecting of Pile Load Test Database
The LADOTD practice for pile load tests is mainly to validate and verify the pile capacity
estimates based on a selected design method/procedure. If the tested pile fails to provide the
required support for design loads, more piles will be added to increase the load carrying
capacity and/or increase the lengths of the driven piles. The reports of all pile load tests
conducted in Louisiana projects are available in the general files section at LADOTD
headquarters in Baton Rouge. In this study, pile load test reports were obtained from the
pavement and geotechnical design section at LADOTD.
The research team carefully reviewed and evaluated the collected pile load test reports from
LADOTD for potential inclusion in the current research. The criterion for including a pile
load test case in the analysis was based on the availability of proper documentation on pile
data (installation and testing), pile failed during loading, adequate subsurface exploration and
soil testing from borings, CPT soundings, and site location. If a pile load test report was
found to be satisfactory, the report was then considered for inclusion in this study.
The pile load test database used for calibration was established by conducting an extensive
search in LADOTD’s project files. Only PPC piles that have been tested to failure and
include adequate soil information were included in this study. The use of PPC piles is more
economical in Louisiana where the driving of piles is not a problem. A total of 53 pile load
tests met this criterion. Figure 7 presents a map of Louisiana with locations of the test piles
that were investigated in this research. A summary of the characteristics of the investigated
piles is presented in Table 3.
29
Figure 7
Approximate locations of the investigated piles
Compilation of Pile Load Test Reports
The data on the selected pile load test reports were compiled. The information and data
regarding the project, soil stratification and properties, pile characteristics, load test data,
CPT profiles, dynamic test data, etc. were processed and transferred from each load test
report to tables, forms, and graphs. Some of the CPT soundings were obtained in digital
format. The remainder of the CPT profiles were scanned using a high resolution scanner and
then were converted to a digital format using the automated digitizing software UN-SCAN-
IT. The following data and information were collected and compiled for each pile load test
report.
The site data provide the necessary information to identify the location of the project. The
site identification used herein is the Louisiana state project number. For example, the site ID
005-05-0065 is the state project number for St. Louis Canal Bridge.
30
Table 3
Summary of the characteristics of the investigated piles
Pile Type Predominant Soil Type

Square PPC
Pile Size Limit of
Friction End-Bearing Cohesive Cohesionless
Information
14" 22 0 19 3 0
16" 5 0 3 0 2
18" 2 0 1 1 0
24" 9 1 7 3 0
30" 13 1 9 5 0
Total 51 2 39 12 2
The soil data consist of information on the soil boring location (station number), soil
stratigraphy, unit weight, Atterberg limits, laboratory testing (shear strength, physical
properties, etc.), and in-situ test results (e.g., SPT for cohesionless soil).
The foundation data consist of pile characteristics (pile ID, material type, cross-section, total
length, and embedded length), installation data (location of the pile, date of driving, driving
record, hammer type, etc.), and pile load test (date of loading, applied load with time, pile
head movement, pile failure under testing, etc.).
The cone penetration soundings include test location (station number), date, cone tip
resistance, and sleeve friction profiles with depth.
Ultimate Capacity of Piles from Load Test
The measured ultimate pile resistance (Qu) was interpreted from the load-deformation curve
using the Davisson method for piles with a size less than 24 inches and the modified
Davisson method proposed by Kyfor et al. for piles exceeding a size of 24 inches [39], [40].
31
In the Davisson method, the ultimate bearing resistance is determined from the intersection
between a load-settlement curve and a straight line with a slope of L/AE and an initial
settlement intercept of 0.15 + D/120 (in.) [(L: pile length, A: cross-sectional area of the pile,
E: Young’s modulus of the pile, and D: pile diameter (in.)]. Figure 8 illustrates a sample
load-deformation test analysis using the Davisson method. In addition to load test results, all
other relevant information such as soil borings, pile driving logs, and CPT data were also
collected. Figure 9 shows a typical summary of geotechnical data for a tested pile. The
summary of geotechnical data for all projects investigated in this research is presented in the
Appendix.
Load (Q) Qult QL
0.15+D/120
0.004LR + B/120
1
L/AE
QultL/AE
Deformation (S)
Figure 8
Estimation of ultimate bearing resistance using Davisson [39] method after Salgado [41]
Soil Identification and Classification
In addition to the soil classification determined based on soil borings and results of
laboratory testing, the probabilistic region estimation CPT method was also used for soil
classification and identification of site stratigraphy [24]. This method is similar to the classic
soil classification methods since it is based on soil composition. It identifies three soil types:
32
clayey, silty, and sandy soils. The probabilistic region classification method provides a
profile of the probability or the chance of having each soil type (clay, silt, and sand) with
depth. In this study, the probability of soil types for each soil layer was used in connection
with CPT pile prediction methods to calculate the appropriate correlation factors needed to
estimate qb and f from CPT data. A typical soil profile obtained by the probabilistic region
estimation is shown in Figure 9.
Soil Description Su (MPa) Cone Tip Resistance qc (MPa)

m.c, L.L. and P.L. Probability of soil type (%)
0 30 60 90 120 150 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 5 10 15 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
1 Medium gray silty clay 1 1 Su 1 1

(m.c = 25.9 - 44.1) SPT-N
2 2 2 2 2
Medium brown silty clay
3 (m.c = 31.6 - 39.7) 3 3 3 3
Clayey
4 4 4 4 4
Loose gray clayey silt
5 (m.c = 29.8 - 32.2) 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7 7
Loose gray fine silty
Depth (m)
8 sand with lenses of 8 8 8 8

clayey sand and silt qc Silty
9 (m.c = 30.2 - 40.2) 9 9 9 Rf 9
10 10 10 10 10
11 11 11 11 11
Strong medium gray
sand with lenses
12 of silty clay 12 12 12 12
13 (m.c = 22.5 - 38.9) 13 13 13 13

Sandy
14 14 14 14 14
15 Dense to medium 15 15 15 15
PL
gray sand
m.c.
16 16 LL 16 16 16
17 17 17 17 17
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 2 4 6 8 10
Standard Penetration Test (N) Friction Ratio Rf (%)
Figure 9
Typical summary of geotechnical data for a tested pile
33

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Predicted versus Measured Ultimate Pile Resistances
Based on the analysis of 53 driven piles, a statistical analysis was performed on the collected
database to evaluate the accuracy and performance of the different pile capacity estimation
methods. Table 4 presents the summary of the analysis performed on the investigated piles.
The table shows the pile size, type, length, location of the pile, measured ultimate load
resistance, and predicted load capacities of different methods. The mean and standard
deviation of the predicted to measured pile capacity ratios (Rp/Rm), which are the inverses of
the bias factor (), were calculated for the previously mentioned methods and are
summarized in Table 5. Figures 10 through 16 present the comparison between the estimated
pile capacities and the measured pile capacity using the Davisson method and modified
Davisson method for the different pile design methods. Linear regression analysis was
conducted on all methods to obtain the best fit line of the predicted/measured pile capacities
(Rp/Rm) assuming zero intercept. The relationship Rp/Rm and the corresponding coefficient of
determination (R2) determined for all estimation methods are presented in Figures 10 through
16 and also summarized in Table 5.
The comparison of static calculated pile capacities versus the measured load tests compiled
from all soil types are presented in Figure 10. The results indicated the ratio Rfit/Rm for the
static calculation method is 1.0 with an R2 of 0.84. The coefficient (slope) of 1.0 from the
regression analysis implies that the relative bias of the pile capacity prediction based on the
static calculation method does not vary with the measured capacities because the adhesion
factor  already included the adjustment of biases inherent in the soil strengths. The mean
and standard deviation of the Rp/Rm ratio for static method are 1.12 and 0.32, respectively,
indicating an average of 12 percent overestimation using the static calculation method which
includes Tomlinson’s method in clay and Nordlund’s method in sand.
Figures 11 through 14 depict the comparison between the CPT estimation methods and
measured pile capacities using the Davisson interpretation method. It should be noted that the
correlations resulted in Rfit/Rm ratios ranging from 0.94 to 1.20. The De Ruiter Beringen
method had the lowest ratio of 0.94. All other methods had Rfit/Rm ratios higher than 1
indicating an increasing bias in pile capacity estimation with the increase in actual capacity.
In other work, the CPT methods tend to overestimate the capacity for high capacity piles.
The average ratios of Rp/Rm of the CPT methods range from 0.90 to 1.20. The De Ruiter-
Beringen method has the smallest ratio implying an average of 10 percent underestimation of
35
pile capacity while the other CPT methods overestimate the capacity by 5 to 20 percent. On
average, the LCPC method overestimates the ultimate pile capacity by 5 percent and the
Schmertmann method overestimates the pile capacity by 20 percent. The comparison
between the average of CPT methods (CPT-average method) and measured pile capacities
are presented in Figure 14. The Rfit/Rm for the average of CPT methods is 1.08 with R2 =
0.82. This is not surprising due to the fact that the CPT methods generally overestimate pile
capacities for high capacity piles as discussed earlier. The mean and standard deviation of the
ratio Rp/Rm for CPT-average method are 1.05 and 0.33, respectively. The use of the average
CPT methods overestimates the pile capacity by 5 percent in average.
Figures 15 and 16 present the results of signal matching using CAPWAP, which show the
average end of driving (EOD) resistance is about 35 percent of the average load test value
indicating a setup factor of about 2.9. The 14-day beginning of restrike (BOR) data show the
CAPWAP estimation of pile resistance still underestimated the measured value by 17
percent.
36
Table 4
Results of the analysis conducted on square precast prestressed concrete piles driven into Louisiana soils
003-07-0019 005-01-0056 005-01-0056 005-01-0056
State Project
Identification BNSS Overpass - Southern pacfic Southern pacfic Southern pacfic
Jennings railroad overpass railroad overpass railroad overpass
TP1, 24" Square TP1, 24" Square TP3, 24" Square
Pile ID TP2, 14" Square PPC
PPC PPC PPC
Pile and Soil Pile Length (ft.) 60 90 74 92
Identification Embedded Length (ft.) 54.2 85 63.7 87
Pile Classification Friction Skin Skin Skin
Predominant Soil* Cohesive Cohesive Cohesive Cohesive
Predicted Ultimate Load
Methods of Qu Qu Qu Qu
(ton)
Predicting
Pile Capacity Schmertmann — 246.0 94.6 324.5
by Cone de Ruiter & Beringen — 174.9 75.4 293.8
Penetration LCPC — 196.5 92.7 340.7
Test Average — 205.8 87.6 319.6
Static α-method and Nordlund
217.3 271 — 363.7
Analysis method
Dynamic CAPWAP (EOD) 75.0 — — —
measurement CAPWAP (14 days-BOR) 238.8 — — —
Load Test
Interpretation Davisson method 272 225 132 320
Method
* Cohesive (mainly clayey and silty clay soils) and Cohesionless (mainly sandy soils); Qu: Total ultimate capacity
37
Table 4
Results of the analysis conducted on square precast prestressed concrete piles driven into Louisiana soils (continued)
005-05-0065 008-01-0042 065-90-0024 065-90-0024
State Project Identification St. Louis Canal Houma I.C.W.W. Houma I.C.W.W.
La 415 - La 983
Bridge Bridges Bridges
PPC PPC PPC
Pile and Soil Pile Length (ft.) 92 81.3 85 73.5
Identification Embedded Length (ft.) 79.2 50.7 80 70
Pile Classification Skin Skin Skin Skin
Predominant Soil* — — Cohesive Cohesive
(ton)
Predicting
Pile Capacity Schmertmann — — 174.4 90.0
by Cone de Ruiter & Beringen — — 110.6 82.1
Penetration LCPC — — 152.6 79.7
Test Average — — 145.9 83.9
— — 162.4 115.5
Analysis method
Dynamic CAPWAP (EOD) 20 10.6 — —
measurement CAPWAP (14 days-BOR) 70 — — —
Load Test
Method
38
Table 4
065-90-0024 260-05-0020 260-05-0020 260-05-0020
State Project Identification Tichfaw River Tichfaw River Tichfaw River

Houma I.C.W.W.
Bridge and Bridge and Bridge and
Bridges
Approaches Approaches Approaches
TP3, 14" Square TP1, 30" Square TP2, 30" Square TP3, 30" Square
Pile ID
PPC PPC PPC PPC
Pile and Soil Pile Length (ft.) 94.5 73 118 81
Identification Embedded Length (ft.) 80 59.3 61.2 73.9
*
Predominant Soil Cohesive Cohesive Cohesionless Cohesive
Methods of Predicted Ultimate Load
Qu Qu Qu Qu
Predicting (ton)
Pile Capacity Schmertmann 184.3 361.5 — 344.5
by Cone de Ruiter & Beringen 72.2 325.6 — 288.7
Penetration LCPC 94.7 301.9 — 325.5
Test Average 117.1 329.7 — 319.6
139.9 441.9 578.9 396.9
Analysis method
Dynamic CAPWAP (EOD) — 136.3 — 182.3
measurement CAPWAP (14 days-BOR) — 517.1 — 379.6
Load Test
Interpretation Davisson method 120 478 542.5 464
Method
39
Table 4
262-06-0009
424-05-0078 424-05-0078 424-04-0027
& 262-07-0012
State Project Identification
Bridge #1 Tickfaw Bayou Boeuf Bridge Bayou Boeuf Bridge US 90 Interchange
River Main Span Main Span at John Darnell Rd.
Pile ID
PPC PPC PPC PPC
Identification Embedded Length (ft.) 84.9 77 75 38
Predominant Soil* Cohesionless Cohesionless Cohesionless Cohesive
(ton)
Predicting
Pile Capacity Schmertmann 443.3 — 123.9 —
by Cone de Ruiter & Beringen 371.8 — 118.8 —
Penetration LCPC 536.0 — 149.1 —
Test Average 450.3 — 130.6 —
— 185.6 147.3 104.1
Analysis method
Dynamic CAPWAP (EOD) — — — 39
measurement CAPWAP (14 days-BOR) — — — —
Load Test
Interpretation Davisson method 240 165 112.5 135
Method
40
Table 4
424-05-0078 424-05-0081 424-05-0081 424-06-0005
State Project Identification Bayou Boeuf Bayou Boeuf Bridge Bayou Boeuf Bridge Bayou Boeuf
Bridge Main Span (West Approach) (West Approach) Bridge
Pile ID
PPC PPC PPC PPC
Identification Embedded Length (ft.) 80.5 89.5 69.9 67
(ton)
Predicting
Pile Capacity Schmertmann 71 134.9 130.4 85.9
by Cone de Ruiter & Beringen 88.2 86.9 84.8 66.7
Penetration LCPC 75.4 110.1 96.4 66.4
Test Average 78.2 110.6 103.8 73.0
118.0 124.9 100.7 122.9
Analysis method
Dynamic CAPWAP (EOD) — — — —
measurement CAPWAP (14 days-BOR) — 113.4 96 —
Load Test
Method
41
Table 4
424-06-0005 424-07-0021 450-15-0085 424-05-0087
State Project Identification I-10 Williams

Bayou Boeuf Morgan City -
Bayou L’ourse Boulevard
Bridge Gibson Highway
Interchange
TP2, 14" Square TP1, 30" Square TP3A, 14" Square TP1, 16" Square
Pile ID
PPC PPC PPC PPC
Identification Embedded Length (ft.) 71 117 75.5 69.5
Qu Qu Qu Qu
Predicting (ton)
Test Average 81.9 320.3 — 98.6
111.5 411.9 140.2 —
Analysis method
Dynamic CAPWAP (EOD) — 123.3 — —
measurement CAPWAP (14 days-BOR) — 374.6 150.1 —
Load Test
Method
42
Table 4
424-05-0087 424-05-0087 424-05-0087 424-05-0081
State Project Identification Morgan City - Morgan City - Morgan City - Bayou Boeuf Bridge
Gibson Highway Gibson Highway Gibson Highway (West Approach)
PPC PPC PPC
Identification Embedded Length (ft.) 104.1 113 77 64.5
*
Predominant Soil Cohesionless Cohesive Cohesive Cohesive
(ton)
Predicting
Pile Capacity Schmertmann 603.1 794.5 131.5 135.0
Test Average 582.5 724.8 112.9 124.9
526.6 454.7 133.1 119.7
Analysis method
measurement CAPWAP (14 days - BOR) — — — 66.5
Load Test
Method
43
Table 4
424-06-0005 424-06-0005 014-02-0018 047-02-0022
State Project Identification Bayou Boeuf Union Pacific Bogue Chitto
Bayou Boeuf Bridge
Bridge Railroad Overpass Bridge
Pile ID
PPC PPC PPC PPC
Predominant Soil* Cohesive Cohesive Cohesive Cohesionless
(ton)
Predicting
Test Average 84.7 73.1 — 463.4
98.8 100.6 289.1 475.8
Analysis method
Dynamic CAPWAP (EOD) — — 162.5 120
Load Test
Method
44
Table 4
424-05-0087 064-06-0036 090-01-0015 090-01-0015
State Project Identification Bayou Lafourche

Morgan City - Lake Bistineau Lake Bistineau
Bridge and
Gibson Highway Spillway Bridge Spillway Bridge
Approaches
Pile ID
PPC PPC PPC PPC
Pile and Soil Pile Length (ft.) 115 59.1 56.5 65
*
Predominant Soil Cohesionless Cohesionless Cohesive Cohesionless
Qu Qu Qu Qu
Predicting (ton)
Test Average 606.3 55.4 252.9 608.6
590.9 72.8 172.5 262.6
Analysis method
Dynamic CAPWAP (EOD) — 17.5 149.9 60
Load Test
Method
45
Table 4
424-05-0087 713-48-0083 713-48-0083 455-05-0036
State Project Identification Bayou Milhomme Bayou Milhomme

Morgan City -
Bridge & Bridge & Sugarhouse Road
Gibson Highway
Approaches Approaches
Pile ID
PPC PPC PPC PPC
Predominant Soil* Cohesionless Cohesive Cohesive Cohesive
Qu Qu Qu Qu
Predicting (ton)
Pile Capacity Schmertmann 546.3 — — 130.9
by Cone de Ruiter & Beringen 433.7 — — 90.3
Penetration LCPC 574.8 — — 98.9
Test Average 518.3 — — 106.7
415.1 78.4 201.5 —
Analysis method
Load Test
Interpretation Davisson method 518 83.2 153 96
Method
46
Table 4
455-05-0036 455-05-0036 434-01-0002 239-01-0080
State Project Identification Mississippi River ICWW Bridge

Sugarhouse Road Sugarhouse Road Bridge at Gramercy Approaches
(West Approaches) (Louisa)
Pile ID
PPC PPC PPC PPC
Identification Embedded Length (ft.) 70 59 64 55
*
Predominant Soil Cohesive Cohesive Cohesionless Cohesive

Qu Qu Qu Qu
Predicting (ton)
Pile Capacity Schmertmann 111.6 121 201.8 130.5
by Cone de Ruiter & Beringen 95.4 69 175.8 107.6
Penetration LCPC 105 80.5 182.8 108.1
Test Average 104 90.2 186.8 115.4
— — — —
Analysis method
Load Test
Interpretation Davisson method 96.5 69 230 115.5
Method
47
Table 4
239-01-0080 855-14-0003 Alexandria 424-06-0005
State Project Identification ICWW Bridge Intercoastal Pinville-Tioga

Bayou Boeuf
Approaches Waterway Bridge Highway Railroad
Bridge
(Louisa) (Prospect Ave.) Overpass
Pile ID
PPC PPC PPC PPC
Pile and Soil Pile Length (ft.) 91.9 85
Qu Qu Qu Qu
Predicting (ton)
Penetration LCPC 310 112.2 110.1 97.4
Test Average 347.7 112.2 107.6 100.4
— — — —
Analysis method
Load Test
Interpretatio Davisson method 360.8 216 90 120
n Method
48
Table 4
283-03-0052
424-07-0009 424-07-0009 450-36-0002
(New Orleans)
State Project Identification
Gibson-raceland Gibson-raceland Luling Bridge - West Bank
highway highway US61 Expressway
TP4A, 30" Square TP4, 30" Square TP8, 30" Square TP1, 18" Square
Pile ID
PPC PPC PPC PPC
Pile and Soil Pile Length (ft.) 125 125 120
Identification Embedded Length (ft.) 124 120 112 120
Pile Classification — Skin End Bearing Skin
Predominant Soil* — Cohesive Cohesive Cohesive

Qu Qu Qu Qu
Predicting (ton)
by Cone de Ruiter & Beringen 506 507 656.4 179.2
Test Average 617.2 618.2 749.2 159
— — — —
Analysis method
Load Test
Method
49
Table 4
090-01-0015
State Project Identification Lake Bistineau

Spillway Bridge
& Approaches
TP6, 24" Square
Pile ID
PPC
Pile and Soil Pile Length (ft) —
Identification Embedded Length (ft) 60
Pile Classification End Bearing
*
Predominant Soil Cohesive
Qu
Predicting (ton)
Pile Capacity Schmertmann 347.7
by Cone de Ruiter & Beringen 241.5
Penetration LCPC 258.3
Test Average 282.5
—
Analysis method
Dynamic CAPWAP (EOD) —
measurement CAPWAP (14 days - BOR) —
Load Test
Interpretation Davisson method 270.5
Method
50
Table 5
Evaluation summary of the different prediction methods
Rp/Rm* Best fit calculations

Pile Capacity Prediction Method
Mean  Rfit/Rm* R2
Static α-method 1.12 0.32 1.00 0.84

Schmertmann method 1.20 0.37 1.20 0.81
LCPC method 1.05 0.38 1.11 0.78
de-Ruiter & Beringen method 0.90 0.28 0.94 0.84
Average of CPT methods 1.05 0.33 1.08 0.82
CAPWAP–EOD method 0.35 0.23 0.32 0.69
CAPWAP–14 days BOR method 0.83 0.22 0.92 0.91
* Davisson method and modified Davisson method
800
700 RFit = 1.00 * Rm

Predicted pile capacity, RP (tons)
R2 = 0.84
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Measured pile capacity, Rm (tons)
Figure 10
Rm versus Rp (Static method)
51
800
700 RFit = 1.20 * Rm

R2 = 0.81
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Figure 11
Rm versus Rp (Schmertmann method)
800
700 RFit = 1.11 * Rm

R2 = 0.78
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Figure 12
Rm versus Rp (LCPC method)
52
800
700 RFit = 0.94 * Rm

R2 = 0.84
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Figure 13
Rm versus Rp (De Ruiter method)
800
700 RFit = 1.08 * Rm

Predicted pile capacity, Rp (tons)
R2 = 0.82
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Figure 14
Rm versus Rp (CPT - Average method)
53
800
700 RFit = 0.32 * Rm

R2 = 0.69
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Figure 15
Rm versus Rp (CAPWAP-EOD)
800
700 RFit = 0.92 * Rm

R2 = 0.91
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Figure 16
Rm versus Rp (CAPWAP-14 days BOR)
54
LRFD Calibration
Figures 17 to 23 present the histogram and the normal and log-normal distribution of the
measured to predicted pile resistance (Rm/Rp) of the static method, three CPT methods, the
average of three CPT methods, and dynamic measurement with signal matching analysis
(CAPWAP), respectively. Also Figures 24 to 30 illustrate the cumulative distribution
function (CDF) of the bias values for each design method. As shown in the figures, generally
the log-normal distribution matches the histogram and CDF better than the normal
distribution. In addition, the resistance bias factor (R = Rm/Rp) can range theoretically from 0
to infinity with an optimum value of one; therefore, the distribution of the resistance bias can
be assumed to follow a log-normal distribution [42]. In this study, the log-normal
distribution was used to evaluate the different methods based on prediction accuracy and to
calibrate the resistance factors.
Reliability analyses were conducted and the resistance factors for all pile design methods
were calibrated at QD/QL = 3. This ratio was selected since the reliability index (converges
for QD/QL exceeding 3 [23]. Figures 31 through 37 present the resistance factors determined
for various reliability indexes (β) for the different pile design methods. As shown in the
figures, the resistance factors () determined by the advanced methods (FORM and Monte
Carlo simulation method) are relatively close and generally higher than the resistance factors
() obtained from FOSM.
A review of the literature indicates that the required target reliability indexes are between
2.33 and 3 for geotechnical applications. The resistance factors () determined by FOSM,
FORM, and the Monte Carlo simulation method for different pile design methods
corresponding to reliability index of 2.33 are tabulated in Table 6. The resistance factors for
the static method determined in this study are 0.56 (FOSM) and 0.63 (FORM and Monte
Carlo simulation method), which is higher than the  value recommended by AASHTO (e.g.,
 = 0.34-0.45 for static method, and  = 0.50 for Schmertmann method) [11]. It should be
noted that this value is only valid for subsurface conditions similar to Louisiana soils that
consist mainly of soft cohesive soils with some cohesionless inter-layering soils. For this
condition, the driven pile resistance was determined using the -Tomlinson method
dominantly and the Nordlund method was employed for cohesionless inter-layering soils.
Among the three direct CPT methods, the De Ruiter and Beringen method shows the highest
resistance factor [ = 0.66 (FOSM), 0.74 (FORM), and 0.73 (Monte Carlo simulation
method)], while the Schmertmann method shows the lowest resistance factor [= 0.44
(FOSM), 0.48 (FORM), and 0.49 (Monte Carlo simulation)], which is lower than the
55
AASHTO value of 0.5. For the dynamic measurement with signal matching analysis, the
resistance factors obtained for the CAPWAP (EOD) is 1.31 (FOSM) and 1.41 (FORM),
which is higher than those of CAPWAP (14 days BOR) of 0.55 (FOSM), 0.61 (FORM) and
0.62 (Monte Carlo simulation method). This is mainly due to the pile setup effect. Although
the CAPWAP (EOD) has a high resistance factor, it is not an economical and reliable
approach because it significantly underestimates the resistance and has low efficiency factors
of 0.36 (FOSM) and 0.39 (FORM). The dynamic measurement is mainly used for pile
drivability rather than for design.
30
25 Static Method
20 Log-Normal Distribution
Probability (%)
Normal Distribution
15
10
0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0
Rm / RP
Figure 17
Histogram and PDF of resistance bias factors (Static method)
56
30
25 Schmertmann Method
20 Normal Distribution
Probability (%)
Log-Normal Distribution
15
10
0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0
Rm / RP
Figure 18
Histogram and PDF of resistance bias factors (Schmertmann method)
30
25 LCPC Method
Probability (%)
Normal Distribution
15
10
0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0
Rm / RP
Figure 19
Histogram and PDF of resistance bias factors (LCPC method)
57
30
25 De Ruiter Method
Probability (%)
Normal Distribution
15
10
0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0
RP / Rm
Figure 20
Histogram and PDF of resistance bias factors (De Ruiter method)
30
25 CPT Average
Probability (%)
Normal Distribution
15
10
0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0
Rm / RP
Figure 21
Histogram and PDF of resistance bias factors (CPT - Average method)
58
30
25 CAPWAP (EOD) Method
Probability (%)
Normal Distribution
15
10
0
0.0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6 4.2 4.8 5.4 6.0 6.6 7.2 7.8 8.4
R m / RP
Figure 22
Histogram and PDF of resistance bias factors (CAPWAP-EOD)
30
CAPWAP (BOR) Method

25
20
Probability (%)
Log-Normal Distribution
15 Normal Distribution
10
0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0
Rm / RP
Figure 23
Histogram and PDF of resistance bias factors (CAPWAP-14 days BOR)
59
3
Static Method
Measured Bias Vlaue
Predicted Normal Dist.
2 Predicted Log-Normal Dist.
Standard Normal Variable, z

1
-1
-2
-3
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Bias ()
Figure 24
Cumulative distribution function (CDF) of bias values (Static method)
3
Schmertmann Method
Measured Bias Vlaue
-1
-2
-3
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Bias ()
Figure 25
Cumulative distribution function (CDF) of bias values (Schmertmann method)
60
3
LCPC Method
Measured Bias Vlaue

1
-1
-2
-3
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Bias ()
Figure 26
Cumulative distribution function (CDF) of bias values (LCPC method)
3
De Ruiter& Beringen Method
Measured Bias Vlaue
-1
-2
-3
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Bias ()
Figure 27
Cumulative distribution function (CDF) of bias values (De Ruiter method)
61
3
CPT Average
Measured Bias Vlaue

1
-1
-2
-3
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4

Bias ()
Figure 28
Cumulative distribution function (CDF) of bias values (CPT-Average method)
3
CAPWAP - EOD
Measured Bias Vlaue
-1
-2
-3
-4 0 4 8 12
Bias ()
Figure 29
Cumulative distribution function (CDF) of bias values (CAPWAP-EOD)
62
3
CAPWAP - 14 Day BOR
Measured Bias Vlaue

1
-1
-2
-3
0 1 2 3 4
Bias ()
Figure 30
Cumulative distribution function (CDF) of bias values (CAPWAP-14 days BOR)
1.5
Static Analysis
Monte Carlo
FORM
FOSM
1
Static Analysis)
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T
Figure 31
Resistance factors for different reliability indexes (Static method)
63
1.5
Schmertmann Analysis
Monte Carlo
FORM
FOSM
Schmertmann Analysis)
1
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T
Figure 32
Resistance factors for different reliability indexes (Schmertmann method)
1.5
CPT LCPC Analysis
Monte Carlo
FORM
FOSM
CPT LCPC Analysis)
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T
Figure 33
Figure 26 Resistance factors for different reliability indexes (LCPC method)
64
1.5 CPT De Ruiter & Beringen Analysis
Monte Carlo
FORM
CPT De Ruiter & Beringen Analysis)

FOSM
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T
Figure 34
Resistance factors for different reliability indexes (De Ruiter method)
1.5
CPT Average Analysis
Monte Carlo
FORM
FOSM
CPT Average Analysis)
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T
Figure 35
Resistance factors for different reliability indexes (CPT - Average method)
65
3.5
CAPWAP-EOD Analysis
FORM
FOSM
3
CAPWAP-EOD Analysis)
2.5
1.5
0.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T
Figure 36
Resistance factors for different reliability indexes (CAPWAP-EOD)
1.5
CAPWAP 14-day BOR
Monte Carlo
FORM
FOSM
CPT CAPWAP-BOR Analysis)
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T
Figure 37
Resistance factors for different reliability indexes (CAPWAP-14 days BOR)
66
Table 6
Resistance Factors () for Driven Piles (T = 2.33)
Proposed Resistance Factor () and

Efficiency Factor () for Louisiana Soil Resistance
Design Method Monte Carlo Factor, 

FOSM FORM
Simulation [AASHTO
(11)]
     
-Tomlinson
method and
Static method 0.56 0.58 0.63 0.66 0.63 0.66 0.35-0.45
Nordlund
method
Schmertmann 0.44 0.47 0.48 0.52 0.49 0.53 0.50
LCPC/LCP 0.54 0.51 0.60 0.56 0.59 0.56 —

Direct CPT
method De Ruiter and
0.66 0.55 0.74 0.62 0.73 0.61 —
Beringen
CPT average 0.55 0.53 0.61 0.59 0.62 0.59 —
CAPWAP
1.31 0.36 1.41 0.39 — — —
(EOD)
Dynamic
measurement
CAPWAP (14
0.55 0.44 0.61 0.52 0.62 0.47 0.65
days BOR)
67
CONCLUSIONS
This study presents a reliability based evaluation of different design methods for predicting
the ultimate axial resistance of piles driven into Louisiana soils. Resistance factors () of
single driven piles needed to implement the LRFD design methodology were determined for
each design method. A pile load test (a soil database of 53 square PPC piles of different sizes
and lengths) that was tested to failure was collected from LADOTD archives and used to
calibrate the resistance factors. For each pile load test, the measured ultimate pile resistance
was estimated using the Davisson interpretation method and modified Davisson method for
piles with a larger size. In addition, the load carrying resistance of each pile was predicted
using the static method, three CPT methods (Schmertmann, De Ruiter-Beringen, and LCPC
methods), the average of three CPT methods, and the dynamic CAPWAP (EOD and BOR)
methods.
Statistical analyses comparing the predicted and measured pile resistances were conducted to
evaluate the performance of the different pile design methods. The results of the statistical
analyses showed that the static method (-Tomlinson method and Nordlund method) over-
predicted the pile resistance by 12 percent. Among the three direct CPT methods, the De
Ruiter-Beringen method was the most consistent prediction method with the lowest COV.
Both dynamic measurements with signal matching analysis methods (CAPWAP-EOD and 14
days BOR) showed under-predication of pile resistance with a setup factor of 2.9.
Reliability analyses based on FOSM, FORM, and the Monte Carlo simulation method were
conducted to calibrate the resistance factors () for the investigated pile design methods.
These factors are needed to comply with the FHWA mandate in the LRFD design of single
driven piles. The design input parameters were adopted from the AASHTO LRFD design
specifications for bridge substructure. The resistance factors () that corresponded to a dead
load to live load ratio (QD/QL) of 3 as a function of target reliability index (βT) were
presented. Based on the results of reliability analyses for βT = 2.33, the De Ruiter-Beringen
method showed the highest resistance factor [De-Ruiter = 0.66 (FOSM), 0.74 (FORM), and
0.73 (Monte Carlo simulation method)], while the Schmertmann method showed the lowest
resistance factor [Schmertmann = 0.44 (FOSM), 0.48 (FORM), and 0.49 (Monte Carlo
simulation method)], which is lower than the AASHTO recommended value of 0.5. The
resistance factors obtained for the CAPWAP (EOD) were 1.31 (FOSM), 1.41 (FORM),
which is higher than CAPWAP (14 day BOR) resistance factors of 0.55 (FOSM), 0.61
(FORM), and 0.62 (Monte Carlo simulation method). This is mainly due to pile setup.
Although the CAPWAP (EOD) has a high resistance factor, it is not an economical and
69
reliable approach because it significantly underestimates the resistance and has a low
efficiency factor. However, the dynamic measurement is mainly used for pile drivability
rather than for design.
70
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. LADOTD engineers need to start implementing the resistance factors () recommended
for the different pile design methods based on Louisiana pile load test—a soil database in
the LRFD design of driven piles for all future state projects.
2. It is recommended to select a few projects to demonstrate the cost benefit study and
comparison between the LRFD design and the traditional ASD design.
3. It is recommended to hold a workshop to train LADOTD engineers in the LRFD design

of pile foundations.
4. It is recommended to continue collecting pile load test data from new projects, especially
for those cases in which the end bearing and side frictional capacities can be separated for
possible future re-calibration of resistance factors of different pile design methods every
two years.
5. Since the Co-PI’s are from the geotechnical design section at LADOTD, they are already
in the process of implementing previously mentioned recommendation items 1, 2, and 3
based on the findings of this research project.
6. It should be noted that performing complete reliability analyses of a pile foundation

requires the inclusions of all risk factors. Scour is a critical factor in the selection of pile
tip elevations. The risk associated with scouring directly impacts the reliability of pile
foundations. This is mainly due to expected changes on the in-situ stress state
(overburden and stress history) of the subsurface soil that will affect the laboratory and
in-situ test results. However, the scope of this study does not include the evaluation of
scour and is recommended to be considered in the future.
71

ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS
AASHTO American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials

ASD Allowable Stress Design
BOR Beginning of Restrike
CAPWAP Case Pile Wave Analysis Program
EOD End of Driving
CDF Cumulative Distribution Function
COV Coefficient of Variation
CPT Cone Penetration Test
DOT Department of Transportation
EOD End of Driving
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FORM First Order Reliability Method
FOSM Fisrt Order Second Moment
FS Factor of Safety
LADOTD Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development
LCPC Laboratiore Central Des Ponts et Chausses
LDP-CPT Louisiana Pile Design by Cone Penetration Test
LRFD Load and Resistance Factor Design
LTRC Louisiana Transportation Research Center
MC Monte Carlo Method
NC Normally Consolidated
OC Overconsolidated
PDF Probability Density Function
PPC Precast-Prestressed Concrete
SLS Serviceability Limit State
SPT Standard Penetration Test
ULS Ultimate Limit State or Strength Limit State
73

REFERENCES
1. AASHTO. “LRFD Highway Bridge Design Specifications,” 1st Edition, American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., USA,
1994.
2. AASHTO. “LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,” 2nd Edition, American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., USA, 1998.
3. Paikowsky, S. G. “Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Deep
Foundations,” NCHRP Report 507, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC., 2004.
4. Allen, Tony M. “Development of the WSDOT Pile Driving Formula and Its
Calibration and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD),” FHWA Report, WA-RD 610.1,
Washington State Department of Transportation, 2005.
5. McVay, M.; Birgisson, B.; Zhang, L.; Perez, A; and Putcha, S. “Load and Resistance
Factor Design (LRFD) for Driven Piles Using Dynamic Methods—A Florida
Perspective.” Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2000, pp. 55-66.
6. McVay, M;, Birgisson, B.; Nguyen, T.; and Kuo, C. “Uncertainty in LRFD phi, ,
Factors for Driven Prestressed Concrete Piles,” In Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1808, TRB, National Research
Council, Washington, DC., 2002, pp. 99-107.
7. Allen, T. “Development of a New Pile Driving Formula and Its Calibration for Load
and Resistance Factor Design,” Proceedings for the 86th TRB Annual meeting.
Washington, DC, TRB, 2006.
8. Yang, L, and Liang, R. “Incorporating Setup into Load and Resistance Factor Design
of Driven Piles in Sand,” Proceedings for the 86th TRB Annual meeting.
Washington, DC, TRB, 2006.
9. Nowak, A. S., “Calibration of LRFD Bridge Design Code,” NCHRP Report 368,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC., 1999.
10. Allen, T.; Nowak, A.; and Bathurst, R. “Calibration to Determine Load and
Resistance Factors for Geotechnical and Structural Design.” TRB Circular E-C079,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2005.
11. AASHTO. “LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,” 4th Edition, American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., USA, 2007.
12. DiMaggio, J.; Saad, T.; Allen, T.; Passe, P.; Goble, G.; Christopher, B.; DiMillio, A.;
Person, G.; and Shike, T. “FHWA Summary Report of the Geotechnical Engineering
Study Tour (GEST).” FHWA International Technology Scanning Program,
December, FHWA, 1998.
75
13. Paikowsky, S.; Regan, J.; and McDonnell, J. “A Simplified Field Method for
Capacity Evaluation of Driven Piles.” FHWA RD- 94-042, FHWA, 1994.
14. Schmertmann, J. H. “Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test, Performance, and
Design.” Report No. FHWA-TS-79-209, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 1978.
15. De Ruiter, J., and Beringen F. L. “Pile Foundations for Large North Sea Structures.”
Marine Geotechnology, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1979, pp. 267-314.
16. Bustamante, M., and Gianeselli L. “Pile Bearing Capacity Prediction by Means of
Static Penetrometer CPT.” Proc. 2nd European Symposium Penetration Testing, Vol.
2, Balkema, Amsterdam, 1982, pp. 493-500.
17. Eslami, A., and Fellenius, B. H. “Pile Capacity by Direct CPT and CPTU Methods
Applied to 102 Case Histories,” Canadian Geotech. Journal, Vol. 34, 1997, pp. 886-
904.
18. Tomlinson, M.J. Foundation Design and Construction, 4th Edition, Pitman Advanced
Publishing Program, 1980.
19. Hannigan, P.; Goble, G.; Thendean, G; Likins, G; and Rausche, F. “Design and
Construction of Driven Pile Foundations, Volume 1.” FHWA-HI-97-013, Federal
Highway Administration. 1998.
20. Thurman, A.G. “Discussion of Bearing Capacity of Piles in Cohesionless Soils.”
American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, SM1, 1964, pp. 127-129.
21. Nordlund, R.L. “Bearing Capacity of Piles in Cohesionless Soils.” American Society
of Civil Engineers, ASCE, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
SM3, 1963, pp. 1-35.
22. Nordlund, R.L. “Point Bearing and Shaft Friction of Piles in Sand.” Missouri-Rolla
5th Annual Short Course on the Fundamentals of Deep Foundation Design, 1979.
23. Abu-Farsakh M. Y., and Titi H., “Probabilistic CPT Method for Estimating the
Ultimate Capacity of Friction Piles,” Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 30, Issue 5
(September 2007), ASTM, 2007.
24. Zhang, Z., and Tumay, M.T. “Statistical to Fuzzy Approach Toward CPT Soil
Classification.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 125, No. 3, 1999, pp. 179-186.
25. Paikowsky, S., and Whitman, R. “The Effect of Plugging on Pile Performance and
Design.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27, No. 4, 1990, pp. 429-440.
26. Goble, G.; Linkins, G.; and Rausche, F. “Dyanmic Studies on the Bearing Capacity of
Piles-Phase III.” Report No. 48. Division of Solid Mechanics, Structures, and
76
Mechanical Design. Case Western Reserve University, 1970.
27. Paikowsky, S.G., Baecher, G.B., and Christian, J.T., “Statistical Issues of LRFD
Calibration for Deep Foundations.” Proceedings of Soil and Rock America (SARA),
12th Pan-American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
and the 39th U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium. MIT, Cambridge, MA, June 22-26,
2003, Vol. 2, pp. 2839-2844.
28. Withiam, J. L.; Voytko, E. P.; Barker, R. M.; Duncan, J. M.; Kelly, B. C.; Musser, S.
C.; and Elias, V. Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Highway Bridge
Substructures, FHWA HI-98-032, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
D.C. 1998.
29. O’Neill, M. “LRFD Factors for Deep Foundations through Direct Experimentation.”
In Proceedings of US/Taiwan Geotechnical Engineering Collaboration Workshop.
Sponsored by the National Science Foundation (USA) and the National Science
Council (Taiwan, ROC), Taipei, 1995. pp. 100-114.
30. Becker, D. E. “Eighteenth Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium: Limit States Design
for Foundations. Parts I and II. An Overview of the Foundation Design Process,”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 33, 1996, pp. 956-1007.
31. Zhang, L.; Tang, W. H.; and Ng, C. W. W. “Reliability of Axially Loaded Driven pile
Groups,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol.
127, No. 12, 2001, pp. 1051-1060.
32. Kim, J.; Gao, X.; and Srivatsan, T.S. “Modeling of Void Growth in Ductile Solids:
Effects of Stress Triaxiality and Initial Porosity.” Engineering Fracture Mechanics,
Volume 71, No. 3, 2004. pp. 379-400.
33. McVay, M.C. “Load and Resistance Factor Design, Cost, and Risk: Designing a
Drilled Shaft Load Test in Florida Limestone,” Soil Mechanics, 2003, pp. 98-106.
34. Hansell, W. C., and Viest I. M. “Load Factor Design for Steel Highway Bridges,”
AISC Engineering Journal, Vol. 8, No. 4, 1971, pp. 113-123.
35. Barker, R. M.; Duncan, J. M.; Rojiani, K. B.; Ooi, P. S. K.; Tan, C. K.; and Kim, S.
G. “Manuals for the Design of Bridge Foundations: Shallow Foundations, Driven
Piles, Retaining Walls and Abutments, Drilled Shafts, Estimating Tolerable
Movements, and Load Factor Design Specifications and Commentary,” NCHRP
Report 343, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1991.
36. Hasofer, A. M., and Lind, N. C. “An Exact and Invariant First-Order Reliability
Format.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 100. No. EM1, 1974. pp. 111-121.
37. Nowak, S., A., Collins, K., R., Reliability of structures, McGraw Hill, International
edition, 2000.
77
38. Rackwitz, R., and Fiessler, B. “Structural Reliablity under combined Random Loads.”
Computers and Structures, Vol. 9, 1978.
39. Davisson, M. T. Pile Load Capacity. Proc. ASCE Conf. “Design Construction and
Performance of Deep Foundations,” ASCE, University of California, Berkeley, 1975.
40. Kyfor, Z.G., Schnore, A.S., Carlo, T.A. and Bailey, P.F. “Static Testing of Deep
Foundations.” Report No. FHWA-SA-91-042, U.S. Department of Transportation,
FHWA, Washington, D.C., 1992.
41. Salgado, R. Engineering of Foundations, 1st Edition, McGraw Hill, 2007.
42. Briaud, J-L and Tucker, L.M., “Measured and Predicted Axial Response of 98 Piles,”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 8, 1988, pp. 984-1001.
78
APPENDIX
Summary of Geotechnical Data for the State Projects Investigated

Soil Description mc, LL, PL Su (psf) Cone Tip Resistance q c(tsf) Probability of Soil Type(%)
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 100 200 300 400 0 20 40 60 80 100
0
GR BR CL W/ LEN SI IR OX, RTS ORG=7%
0 0 0 0
GR & BR CL W/IR OX SH ORG=4%
GR & BR SI CL Clayey
10 BR & GR CL W/ STR SI & IR OX 10 10 10 10
BR & GR CL W/ IR OX
BR & GR CL W/CONC & IR OX
20 20 20 20 20
BR CL SI W/ STR CL & TR CONC
BR FI SI SA & GR SI CL W/TR CONC mc
BR FI SI SA CL & TR CONC
30 30 30 SPT 30 30
BR FI SI SA LL
BR FI SI SA CL PL Su
40 40 40 40 40
GR & BR CL
50 50 50 50 50
GR & BR CL W/LEN SI
Depth (ft)
GR & BR SI CL W/ LEN SI Slity

60 60 60 60 60
GR & BR CL W/TR ORG
GR & BR CL
W/TR CONC & ROT WD
70 70 70 70 70
GR CL W/ORG
80 80 80 80 80
GR SI CL
90 90 90 90 90
GR CL SI
Sandy
100 100 100 100 100
110 GR MED, FI MED, MED 110 110 110 qc 110

CO SI SA
Rf
120 120 120 120 120
0 50 100 150 200 0 2 4 6 8 10

SPT (N) Friction Ratio Rf (%)
Figure 38
003-07-0019 TP#1
Soil Description mc, LL, PL Su (psf) Cone Tip Resistance qc(tsf)Probability of Soil Type(%)
0 20 40 60 80 400 800 1200 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
GR SI CL W/TR SH ORG=7%
10 10 10 SPT 10 10
Clayey
Su
20 GR CL 20 20 20 20
30 GR SA CL SI 30 30 30 30 Sandy
40 40 40 40 40
50 50 50 50 50
Depth (ft)
GR SI CL W/LEN SI
60 60 60 60 60
qc
70 70 70 70 70
Rf
80 80 80 80 80 Silty
GR SI CL W/LEN CL SI
90 GR CL SI 90 90 90 90
mc
LL
100 100 100 100 100
GR SI CL W/ LEN SI PL
110 110 110 110 110

GR SA CL W/LEN SA
120 120 120 120 120

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 4 8 12 16
Figure 39
005-01-0056 TP#1
79
Soil Description mc, LL, PL Su (psf) Cone Tip Resistance q c (tsf) Probability of Soil Type (%)
0 20 40 60 80 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 100 200 300 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10 10
20 20 20 20 20
30 30 30 30 30
qc
Clayey
40 40 40 40 Rf 40
50 50 50 50 50
60 60 60 60 60
Depth (ft)
70 NONE 70 NONE 70 NONE 70 70
80 80 80 80 80
90 90 90 90 90
Sandy
100 100 100 100 100
110 110 110 110 110
120 120 120 120 120

Silty
130 130 130 130 130
140 140 140 140 140
150 150 150 150 150

0 50 100 150 200 0 5 10 15 20 25
SPT (N) Friction Ratio R f (%)
Figure 40
005-01-0056 TP#2
Soil Description mc, LL, PL Su (psf) Cone Tip Resistance qc (tsf)Probabiltiy of Soil Type(%)
0 5 10 15 20 25 800 1600 2400 0 100 200 300 400 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
GR BR SI CL
W/ TR IR OX ORG=62%
10 10 10 10 10
GR BR CL
20 GR SI CL 20 20 20 20 Clayey
GR CL ORG=8%
30 30 30 30 30
GR CL W/TR ORG
40 40 40 40 40
GR CL W/STR SA
GR SI CL
50 50 50 50 50
GR CL W/LEN SA
60 60 mc 60 60 60 Silty
Depth (ft)
GR SA CL SI LL SPT qc
70 70 PL 70 Su 70 Rf 70
80 GR SI CL W/LEN SI 80 80 80 80
GR FI SI SA
GR SI CL W/LEN FI SA
GR FI SI SA W/LEN CL
90 90 90 90 90
GR SA CL SI W/ LEN CL
100 100 100 100 100
GR SI CL W/ LEN SA
110 110 110 110 110
GR FI SI SA
120 GR SI CL W/LEN SA 120 120 120 120 Sandy
GR FI CL SI SA
130 130 130 130 130
140 140 140 140 140

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 4 8 12 16
Figure 41
005-01-0056 TP#3
80
Soil Description mc, LL, PL Su (psf) Cone Tip Resistance qc (tsf) Probability of Soil Type(%)
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 40 80 120 160 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
qc
10 10 10 10 Rf 10
Clayey
20 20 20 20 20
30 30 30 30 30
40 40 40 40 40
50 50 50 50 50
Depth (ft)
70 70 70 70 70
80 80 80 80 80
90 90 90 90 90 Sandy
100 100 100 100 100
110 110 110 110 110

Slity
120 120 120 120 120
0 50 100 150 200 0 4 8 12 16

Figure 42
005-05-0065 TP#1
Soil Description mc, LL, PL Su (psf) Cone Tip Resistance qc(tsf) Probability of Soil Type(%)
0 30 60 90 120 0 700 1400 0 40 80 120 160 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 BR SA SI W/TR SH & IR OX 0 0 0 0
GR SI CL SA
5 5 5 5 5 Silty
10 10 mc 10 SPT 10 10
GR FI SI SA
15 15 LL 15 Su 15 15
PL
20 GR MED SA 20 20 20 20 Sandy
25 25 25 25 25
GR MED SI SA
30 30 30 30 30
GR SI CL W/TR ORG
35 35 35 35 35
GR CL Clayey
40 40 40 40 40
Depth (ft)
W/STR CL SI & ORG & WD
45 45 45 45 45
GR CL W/ORG & WD
50 50 50 50 50
GR SA CL SI
55 55 55 55 55
60 60 60 60 60
qc
65 65 65 65 65
GR CL W/LEN SI Rf
70 70 70 70 70
75 75 75 75 75
GR CL W/LEN SI
80 W/TR ORG & SH 80 80 80 80
GR CL W/LEN SI
85 85 85 85 85
90 90 90 90 90
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10
Figure 43
065-90-0024 TP#1
81
Soil Description mc, LL, PL Su (psf) Cone Tip Resistance qc (tsf)Probability of Soil Type(%)
0 20 40 60 80 100 400 800 1200 1600 0 40 80 120 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 GR SI CL
0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10 10
mc
GR SA SI W/LEN CL SPT
20 20 LL 20 20 20
Su
PL
30 GR CL 30 30 30 30
Sandy Silty
GR CL W/ORG & ROT WD
40 40 40 40 40
GR CL W/ ROT WD
50 50 50 50 50
60 GR SA SI W/ LEN CL 60 60 60 60
70 GR CL W/LEN SI & TR CONC 70 70 70 70

Depth (ft)
80 80 80 80 80
GR CL
W/ LEN SI & SH & ROT WD
90 90 90 90 90
Clayey
100 100 100 100 100
GR MED SA W/STR CL
110 110 110 110 110
GR CL
W/LEN SI & TR ORG & CONC
120 120 120 120 120
130 GR MED SA 130 130 130 130
140 GR SA SI 140 140 140 qc 140

GR FI MED SI SA
Rf
150 150 150 150 150
160 160 160 160 160

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40
SPT (N) Friction Ratio Rf
Figure 44
065-90-0024 TP#2
Soil Descirption mc, LL, PL Su (psf) Cone TIp Resistance qc (tsf)Probability of Soil Type(%)
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 40 80 120 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
10 GR CL SI W/LEN CL 10 10 SPT 10 10
mc Su
20 20 LL 20 20 20
GR FI MED SA W/TR ORG PL Sandy Silty
30 30 30 30 30
GR FI MED SA W/ TR SH
40 40 40 40 40
50 GR SI CL W/STR CL & SI 50 50 50 50
GR CL W/STR SI
60 60 60 60 60
70 70 70 70 70
Depth (ft)
Clayey
GR CL W/LEN SI
80 W/CON TR SH
80 80 80 80
90 90 90 90 90
100 100 100 100 100

GR CL W/LEN SI TR ORG & CONC
110 GR CL W/STR SI 110 110 110 110
120 GR CL SI W/LEN SA & TR ROT WD
120 120 120 120
ALT STR GR CL & CL SI
130 GR CL SI W/STR SI & TR ORG 130 130 130 130
GR FI MED SI SA
qc
140 GR FI SI SA 140 140 140 Rf 140
150 150 150 150 150
160 160 160 160 160

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
SPT ( N) Friction Ratio Rf (%)
Figure 45
065-90-0024 TP#3
82
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 2000 4000 6000 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
BR LEAN CL
GR LEAN CL W/TR IR OX
10 10 10 10 10
BR & GR SA LEAN CL
GR LEAN CL
mc
20 W/TR IR OX ORG=3% 20 LL 20 20 20
Sandy
GR SI SA W/LEN CL PL
30 30 30 SPT 30 30
GR SI CL W/SA & TR ORG
Su qc
GR LEAN CL W/TR ROT WD Rf
40 40 40 40 40
GR ELASTIC SI W/CONC
Depth (ft)
50 GR CL 50 50 50 50
W/TR CONC & IR OX & ORG Silty
BR & GR CL
60 60 60 60 60
BR RD & GR ELASTIC SI
GR LEAN CL
70 70 70 70 70
BR & GR CL Clayey
GR LEAN CL W/TR SA
80 80 80 80 80
GR & BR LEAN CL W/TR SA
GR LEAN CL W/TR SA & IR OX

90 90 90 90 90
GR CL W/TR IR OX & CONC

100 100 100 100 100
110 110 110 110 110

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 4 8 12
Figure 46
260-05-0020 TP#1
0 20 40 60 80 100 1000 2000 3000 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
GN LEAN CL
W/TR SA & STR CL SI
10 10 10 10 10
GR WH SA
W/SI & W/TR GRAV 20
20 20 20 20
30 GR SA W/SI 30 30 30 30
GR SI SA W/TR ROT WD
40 40 40 40 40
GR SI
W/LEN SA & TR ROT WD
50 GR ELASTIC SI W/TR CONC
50 50 50 50
GR LEAN CL W/TR SA
60GR SI W/TR SA (B)W/LEN & STR CL60 60 60 60
Depth (ft)
GR LEAN CL
70 W/LEN SA 70 70 70 NONE 70 NONE
GR SA LEAN CL
80 GR ELASTIC SI 80 80 80 80
GR SI SA
90 90 90 90 90
GR CL
GR LEAN CL W/SA
SPT
100 100 100 Su 100 100
GR SI SA
110 110 110 110 110

mc
120 120 LL 120 120 120
PL
130 130 130 130 130
140 140 140 140 140

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 47
260-05-0020 TP#2
83
0 40 80 120 160 0 2000 4000 6000 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
BR SI ORG=48%
10 10 mc 10
SPT 10 10
LL Su
GR SI ORG=32-33%
PL
20 20 20 20 qc 20
GR ELASTIC SI ORG=14%
Rf
30 30 30 30 30
GR SA W/SI & ORG
Sandy
40 40 40 40 40
Depth (ft)
GR LEAN CL W/CONC
GR CL
50 W/TR CONC & IR OX
50 50 50 50
60 60 60 60 60
GR LEAN CL
W/TR CONC & IR OX & SA
70 70 70 70 70
GR CL Clayey
W/IR OX & TR CONC
80 80 80 80 80
GR ELASTIC SI
W/ORG CONC & IR OX Silty
90 90 90 90 90
0 10 20 30 40 0 4 8 12 16 20
Figure 48
260-05-0020 TP#3
Soil Description mc, LL, PL Su (psf) Cone Tip Resistance q c (tsf) Probability of Soil Type(%)
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10 10
20 20 20 20 20
30 30 30 30 30
40 40 40 40 40
50 50 50 50 50
Sandy
Depth (ft)
70 70 70 70 70
qc
Rf
80 80 80 80 80
90 90 90 90 90
Clayey
100 100 100 100 100 Slity
110 110 110 110 110
120 120 120 120 120
0 50 100 150 200 0 2 4 6 8

Figure 49
262-06-0009 & 262-07-0012 TP#1
84
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 200 400 600 800 0 100 200 300 400 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
GR & TN CL
W/SI & SA STK &
POC & TR ORG
10 10 SPT 10 10 Sandy
10
Su
20 20 20 20
20
30 30 30 30
GR & TN SI 30
W/FI SA & TR CL
mc
40 LL 40 40 40
Depth (ft)
40 PL
Silty
50 50 50 50
Clayey
50
60 60 60 60
GR CL W/ALT LY FI SA & SI 60
70 70 70 70
FI SA W/TR SI & CL
70 80
80 80 80
90 80 90 90 90
0 10 20 30 40 0 2 4 6 8
Figure 50
424-05-0078 TP#1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 400 600 800 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
GR CL W/SI STK & POC
Clayey
10 10 10 10 10
mc SPT
LT GR SI
20 W/SA & CL POC
20 LL 20 Su 20 20
PL Silty
30 GR CL W/SI POC & LY & TR SA 30 30 30 30
Sandy
40 40 40 40 40
GR SI W/FI SA & CL POC
50 50 50 50 50
Depth (ft)
60 GR SI CL 60 60 60 60
W/CL POC & SA STK
70 70 70 70 70
80 80 80 80 80
GR FI SA W/SI & CL BALLS
90 90 90 90 90
100 100 100 100 100
110 110 110 110 qc 110

FI SA W/SI & CL BALLS
Rf
120 120 120 120 120
130 130 130 130 130

0 20 40 60 80 0 4 8 12 16
Figure 51
424-05-0078 TP#2
85
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 1000 2000 3000 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 TN & GR SI CL 0 0 0 0
TN & GR CL SI
TN & GR SI CL
10 10 10 10 10
20 20 20 20 20
SPT
TN & GR CL
W/SI PKT & SI SMS Su
30 30 30 30 30
40 40 40 40 40
Depth (ft)
TN & GR SI CL W/SI LYR

50 50 50 50 NONE 50 NONE
TN & GR SI CL W/CL SI LYR
60 60 60 60 60
TN & GR CL W/SI TRA
70 70 70 70 70
GR & TN CL
W/SI PKT & FI SI PKT
80 80 80 80 80
mc
90 TN & GR SI CL W/SA SI SMS 90 LL 90 90 90
PL
100 100 100 100 100

0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 52
424-04-0027 TP#2
Soil Description mc, LL, Pl Su (psf) Cone Tip Resistance q c (tsf)Probability of Soil Type(%)
0 20 40 60 80 0 400 800 1200 1600 0 10 20 30 40 0 20 40 60 80 100
TN & LT0GR SI CL W/SA STK & FERROUS NODULES
0
LT GR & BR CL W/SI POC & FERROUS NODULES
0 0 0
Clayey
10 10 10 10 10
GR SI CL
W/SI POC & TR ORG
20 20 20 20 20
30 30 30 30 30
40 40 40 SPT 40 40
GR SI CL
W/SI LY CL POC & TR FI SA Su Silty
50 50 50 50 50
60 60 60 60 60
Sandy
70 GR CL W/ORG POC & 70 70 70 70
Depth (ft)
CALAREOUS NODULES
80 SI W/TR FI SA & CL POC
80 80 80 80
GR CL
GR SI CL W/SI POC
90CALCAREOUS NODULES & TR ORG90 90 90 90
100 GR CL W/SI POC & ORG

100 100 100 100
qc
110 110 110 110 Rf 110
GR SI W/TR SA & CL POC
120 120 120 120 120
GR CL W/TR SI & ORG
130 130 130 130 130

mc
140 140 140 140 140
LL
150 150 PL 150 150 150
160 160 160 160 160

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 53
424-05-0078 TP#5
86
0 30 60 90 120 400 600 800 1000 0 100 200 300 400 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 50 0 0 0
10 10 10 10
60
20 20 SPT 20 20
Clayey
70 Su
30 30 30 30
40 40 40 40
80
50 GR & BX CL 50 50 50
W/TR SI & ORG
GR CL SI W/TR SA & POC CL 90
60 60 60 60
GR CL Silty
W/SA & SI POC & LEN
70 70 70 70
Depth (ft)
GR CL 100
W/TR SI & ORG & NO PIECES
80 80 80 80
GR SI CL W/FI SA & CL POC
GR CL W/FI SA POC STK 110
90 90 90 90
mc
100 120
LL 100 100 100
GR SI W/TR SA & CL PL qc
110 110 110 110
Rf
130
120 120 120 120
Sandy
130 140 130 130 130
140 140 140 140

150
150 150 150 150
160 160 160 160 160

0 15 30 45 60 75 0 2 4 6 8 10
Figure 54
424-05-0081 TP#1
0 40 80 120 400 600 800 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10 10
mc Clayey
20 20 20 SPT 20 20
LL Su
30 30 PL 30 30 30
40 40 40 40 40
qc
Rf
50 GR & BX CL 50 50 50 50
W/TR SI & ORG
GR CL SI W/TR SA & POC CL
60 60 60 60 60
GR CL
W/SA & SI POC & LEN
70 70 70 70 70
Depth (ft)
GR CL
W/TR SI & ORG & NO PIECES
80 80 80 80 80
GR SI CL W/FI SA & CL POC
GR CL W/FI SA POC STK
90 90 90 90 90 Silty
100 100 100 100 100

GR SI W/TR SA & CL
110 110 110 110 110
120 120 120 120 120
130 130 130 130 130 Sandy
140 140 140 140 140
150 150 150 150 150
160 160 160 160 160

0 20 40 60 80 0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 55
424-05-0081 TP#4
87
Soil Description mc, LL, PL Su (psf) Cone Tip Resistance q c (tsf)Probability of Soil Type(%)
0 20 40 60 80 400 800 1200 1600 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 GR CL 0 0 0 0
W/SI STK & POC & TR ORG
10 10 10 10 10 Clayey
GR SI CL
W/CL POC & TR FI SA
20 20 20 SPT 20 20
Su
30 GR CL W/SI & SA POC ORG 30 30 30 30
40 40 40 40 40
Silty
50 50 50 50 50
GR SI CL
60 W/ STK & TR ORG 60 60 60 60
70 70 70 70 70
Depth (ft)
80 80 80 80 80
qc
Rf
90 90 90 90 90
GR CL
W/CALCARROUS NODULES
100 100 100 100 100
110 110 110 110 110

GR FI SA W/CL BALLS & TR SI
120 120 120 120 120
130 130 LL 130 130 130

Sandy
mc
140 140 PL 140 140 140
150 150 150 150 150
160 160 160 160 160

0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16
Figure 56
424-06-0005 TP#1
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 800 1600 0 100 200 300 400 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
LT GR & TN CL
10 W/FERROUS NODULES 10 10 10 10
& SI & SA STK Clayey
20 LT GR & BR SI CL W/FI SA POC 20 20 20 20
30 30 30 SPT 30 30
BK & GR CL Su
40 W/SI STK & FI SA POC 40 40 40 qc 40
Rf
50 50 50 50 50
GR CL SI W/FI SA POC
60 60 60 60 60
ALT LY BK & GR SI CL mc
& CLSI W/FI SA
70 70 LL 70 70 70
Depth (ft)
BK & GR CL
W/SI STK & POC &
PL
80 CALCAREOUS NODULES 80 80 80 80
ALT LY SI CL & CL SI
90 W/CALCAREOUS NODULES 90 90 90 90
100 100 100 100 100

BK & GR CL
Silty
110 W/SI POC & TR SA 110 110 110 110
120 120 120 120 120
130 130 130 130 130
140 140 140 140 140

Sandy
150 150 150 150 150
160 160 160 160 160

0 5 10 15 20 25 0 10 20 30 40
Figure 57
424-06-0005 TP#2
88
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 400 800 1200 1600 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10 10
20 20 mc 20 20 20 Clayey
SPT
LL
Su
30 30 PL 30 30 30
40 40 40 40 qc 40
Rf
50 50 50 50 50
BK & GR CL
60 W/ SI POC & TR ORG 60 60 60 60
70 70
GR SA SI W/CL POC & CL LY & TR ORG 70 70 70
Depth (ft)
80 80 80 80 80
90 90 90 90 90
BK & GR CL
100 W/ RTS & ORG 100 100 100 100 Silty
110 110 110 110 110
120 120 120 120 120

BK GR CL W/
130 SA & SI POC & TR ORG 130 130 130 130
140 BK & GR CL W/
140 140 140 140
SA & SI POC & TR ORG Sandy
150 150 150 150 150
160 160 160 160 160

0 5 10 15 20 25 0 4 8 12
Figure 58
424-07-0021 TP#1
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 1000 2000 3000 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
BR SI SA W/GRAV & SH
BR SA
10 10 10 10 10
GR SA SI
20 20 20 20 20
SPT
GR ELASTIC SI
30 30 30 Su 30 30
GR CL SA W/SH
40 40 40 40 40
GR SI CL SA W/TR SH
GR ELASTIC SI W/ SH
50 GR SI W/SH
50 50 50 50
GR & BR SA LEAN CL
60 60 60 60 60
BR LEAN CL W/TR SA & IR OX
GR & BR CL W/LEN SA & TR IR OX
70 70 70 70 70
Depth (ft)
BR ELASTIC SI W/LEN SA
GR & BR CL W/LEN SA
80 80 80 80 NONE 80 NONE
GR & BR ELASTIC SI
ALT STR CR ELASTIC SI
90 90 90 90 90
GR SI W/TR SA
GR & BR ELASTIC SI
100 W/LEN SI & TR CONC 100 100 100 100
GR CL
110 GR LEAN CL W/TR SA
110 110 110 110
ALT STR GR SI W/SA SI W/TR SA
120 120 120 120 120
ALT STR GR SA SI GR LEAN CL W/SA
mc
130 130 LL 130 130 130
GR SI SA
PL
140 140 140 140 140
150 150 150 150 150
160 160 160 160 160

0 20 40 60 80 0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 59
450-15-0085 TP#3A
89
0 20 40 60 80 100 300 600 900120015001800 0 40 80 120 160 200 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
GR CL ORG=5-8%
10 GR SI W/TR SA 10 10 10 10
GR CL Clayey
20 20 20 20 20
GR ELASTIC SI
30 W/ORG & CONC 30 30 30 30
ORG=6-8% Silty
40 40 40 40 40
GR CL W/ORG
50 50 50 50 50
GR ELASTIC SI W/ORG
60 60 60 60 60
GR SI SA
70 70 70 70 70
Depth (ft)
GR ELASTIC SI
W/ORG & CONC
80 GR LEAN CL W/TR ORG
80 80 80 80
90 90 90 90 90
SPT
GR ELASTIC SI
100 W/ORG & CONC & STR SI 100 100 Su 100 100
110 110 110 110 110 Sandy
120 120 120 120 120

mc
130 GR SA 130 130 130 130
LL
140 140 PL 140 140 qc 140
Rf
150 150 150 150 150
160 160 160 160 160

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 2 4 6 8 10
Figure 60
424-05-0087 TP#1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 300 600 900 1200 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10 10
mc
Clayey
20 20 20 SPT 20 20
LL
Su
30 30 PL 30 30 30 Silty
40 40 40 40 40
qc
50 50 50 50 Rf 50 Sandy
GR FI SA W/SI & TR CL
60 60 60 60 60
GR CL W/SA LEN & MIXED CL & SA
70 70 70 70 70
Depth (ft)
GR FI SA
W/SI & TR CL & ORG
80 80 80 80 80
GR CL SI W/FI SA
90 90 90 90 90
100 GR FI SA 100 100 100 100

W/SI & TR CL & ORG
110 110 110 110 110

GR SA SI W/TR CL & ORG
120 120 120 120 120
ALT LY GR FI SA SI CL & CL
130 130 130 130 130

GR CL SI W/FI SA & STK CL
140 140 140 140 140
150 150 150 150 150
160 160 160 160 160

0 5 10 15 20 25 0 2 4 6 8
Figure 61
424-05-0087 TP#3
90
0 30 60 90 120 150 300 600 900 1200 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10 10
mc SPT
20 20 20 20 20
LL Su
30 30 PL 30 30 30
Silty
40 40 40 40 40
50 50 50 50 50
BK & GR CL W/WD & ORG
60 60 60 60 60
GR CL SI
70 70 70 70 70
Depth (ft)
Clayey
80 80 80 80 80
qc
90 90 90 90 Rf
90
100 BK & GR CL W/ORG & TR SI 100 100 100 100
110 110 110 110 110
120 120 120 120 120

Sandy
130 130 130 130 130
140 140 140 140 140
150 150 150 150 150
160 160 160 160 160

0 3 6 9 12 15 0 4 8 12 16
Figure 62
424-05-0087 TP#5
0 20 40 60 80 100 400 800 1200 0 100 200 300 400 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10 10
mc SPT Clayey
20 20 20 20 20
LL Su
30 30 PL 30 30 30
40 40 40 40 40
Silty
50 50 50 50 50
? W/SI POC & ORG
60 60 60 60 60
ALTY CL W/FI POC
70 70 70 70 70
Depth (ft)
80 80 80 80 80
? W/SI STK & ORG
90 90 90 90 90
100 100 100 100 100
110 110 110 110 110

? SA W/TR SI
120 120 120 120 120
Sandy
130 130 130 130 130
140 140 140 140 140

qc
150 150 150 150 Rf 150
160 160 160 160 160

0 20 40 60 80 0 4 8 12 16
Figure 63
424-05-0087 TP#7
91
0 20 40 60 80 0 400 800 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 20 40 60 80 100
0BX & GR CL W/TR ORG FI SA & RTS 0 0 0 0
GR SL CL W/ORG MAT
10 GR CL W/SI & SA STK 10 10 10 10 Clayey
20 20 20 20 20
GR ALT LY
CL SI CL & CL SI
30 30 30 30 30
Silty
40 40 40 40 40
GR ALT LY CL & SA SI
50 50 50 50 50
60 60 60 60 60
GR & TN CL
W/FI SA & TR SI
70 70 70 70 70
Depth (ft)
mc
SPT
80 80 LL 80 80 80
Su
PL
90 90 90 90 90
GR FI SA W/TR SI Sandy
100 100 100 100 100
110 110 110 110 110
120 GR FI SA W/CL STK

120 120 120 120
130 130 130 130 130

FR FI SA
140 140 140 140 140
qc
150 150 150 150 Rf 150
160 160 160 160 160

0 60 120 180 0 4 8 12
Figure 64
424-05-0081 TP#3
0 20 40 60 80 0 300 600 900 1200 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 LT GR & TN CL 0 0 0 0
W/FERROUS NODULES
& SI & SA STK
10 10 10 10 10
LT GR & BR SI CL W/FI SA POC Clayey
20 20 20 20 20
BK & GR CL
30 W/SI STK & FI SA POC 30 30 30 30
40 40 40 40 qc 40
INTERMIXED GR SI CL & CL SI W/CL POC SA & WD
Rf
BK GR CL W/SI STK TR FI SA & ORG
50 50 50 50 50
GR SI W/FI SA & TR CL
60 60 60 60 60
70 70 70 70 70
Depth (ft)
80 80 80 80 80 Silty
GR CL W/SI STK & POC
90 90 90 90 90
100 100 100 100 100
110 110 110 110 110

SPT
120 120 120 120 120
GR FI SA W/TR SI & CL Su
130 130 130 130 130 Sandy
mc
140 140 LL 140 140 140
PL
150 150 150 150 150
160 160 160 160 160

0 30 60 90 120 0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 65
424-06-0005 TP#3
92
0 20 40 60 80 100 300 600 900 1200 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 LIGHT GR. & TAN CL.
0 0 0 0
w/FERROUS NODULES
& SI. & SA. STK.
10 10 10 10 10
LIGHT GR. & BR. SILTY CL.
20 20 20 20 20 Clayey
BK. & GR. CL.
30 w/SI. STK. & FI. SA. POC. 30 30 30 30
40 40 40 40 qc 40
GR CL W/SI STK &
POC & TR FI SA
Rf
50 50 50 50 50
GR SI CL W/FI SA & STK CL Silty
60 60 60 60 60
70 BK & GR CL W/SI POC 70 70 70 70

Depth (ft)
BK GR SI CL W/FI SA STK
80 80 80 80 80
BK & GR CL
90 W/WD ORG & TR SI 90 90 90 90
100 BK & GR SI CL 100 100 100 100

W/SI & FI SA STK
110 BK & GR CL 110 110 110 110

W/SI POC & TR ORG
120 120 120 120 120
130 130 130 130 130

mc SPT
Su Sandy
140 140 LL 140 140 140
PL
150 150 150 150 150
160 160 160 160 160

0 5 10 15 20 25 0 10 20 30 40 50
Figure 66
424-06-0005 TP#5
Soil Description mc, LL, PL Su (psf) Cone Tip Resistance q c(tsf)Probability of Soil Type(%)
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 2000 4000 6000 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 BR+GR CL ORG=6%
0 0 0 0
5 BR LEAN CL W/TR SHELL 5 5 5 5
10 10 10 SPT 10 10
GR LEAN CL W/6" STR SH
Su
15 15 15 15 15
20 GR CL W/TR ORG & SH 20 20 20 20
25 25 25 25 25
30 30 30 30 30
mc
35 35 LL 35 35 35
Depth (ft)
GR LEAN CL W/TR ORG & SA
40 40 PL 40 40 NONE 40 NONE
45 BR & GR ELASTIC SI 45 45 45 45
50 BR CL W/STRATA SA SI 50 50 50 50
55 GR & BR CL W/ TR ORG 55 55 55 55
60 60 60 60 60
GR & BR LEAN CL
W/TR IR OX & ORG
65 65 65 65 65
70 GR & BR ELASTIC SI 70 70 70 70
W/TR ORG
75 BR CL W/TR ORG 75 75 75 75
BR ELASTIC SI
80 W/TR ORG & CONC 80 80 80 80
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 67
014-02-0018 TP#1
93
Soil Description mc, LL, PL Su (psf) Cone Tip Resistace qc (tsf) Probability of Soil Type(%)
0 20 40 60 80 400 800 1200 1600 2000 0 100 200 300 400 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
BR SI SA qc
10 NO SAMPLE 10 10 10 Rf 10
WH SI SA W/TR PEA GRAV
SPT
20 GR W/ SA 20 20 Su 20 20
GR SA SI W/IR OX
30 GR ELASTIC SI W/IR OX &TR ORG30 30 30 30
40 40 40 40 40 Clayey
GR SI W/SA & IR OX
Silty
50 GR SA SI W/STR GR SI & TR IR OX50 50 50 50
60 GR SI SA 60 60 60 60
GR SA W/ SI
70 70 70 70 70
Depth (ft)
GR SI SA
GR SA SI
80 80 80 80 80
GR SI
90 GR ELASTIC SI W/TR ORG
90 90 90 90
GR SI SA
100 100 100 100 100
BR SI SA W/IR OX
mc
110 110 110 110 110
LL
120 BR SA W/IR OX 120 PL 120 120 120
130 130 130 130 130 Sandy

140 140 140 140 140
150 150 150 150 150
160 160 160 160 160

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 1 2 3 4
Figure 68
047-02-0022 TP#2
0 20 40 60 80 100 800 1200 1600 0 200 400 600 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10 10 Clayey
mc SPT
20 20 20 20 20
LL Su
30 30 PL 30 30 30
40 40 40 40 qc 40
Rf
Silty
50 50 50 50 50
LAM LY SI SA &
CL W/ORG
60 60 60 60 60
GR & LT GR CL
70 W/STK & POC SA & SI 70 70 70 70
Depth (ft)
? W/TR SI
80 80 80 80 80
GR SA SI ? CL
90 GR FI SA 90 90 90 90
W/TR SI CL & ORG
GR CL W/SI & SA
100 100 100 100 100
GR & TN FI SA
W/POC SI & CL
110 110 110 110 110
ALT LY TN FI SA & GR CL
120 GR FI SA W/TR SI & CL 120 120 120 120

Sandy
GR SI SA W/TR CL
130 130 130 130 130
140 GR & GR CL 140 140 140 140

W/CALCAREOUS NODULES
150 150 150 150 150
160 160 160 160 160

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Figure 69
424-05-0087 TP#4
94
0 20 40 60 80 0 400 800 1200 1600 0 100 200 300 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 GR LEAN CL ORG=6% 0 0 0 0
5 5 5
GR SI W/TR SA & ORG
ORG=5-7%
10 10 10 10 10
Clayey
15 15 15 qc
GR CL W/TR SA & TR ORG SPT
Rf
GR LEAN CL Su
W/TR SA & TR ORG
20 20 20 20 20
GR SI SA W/TR ORG
25 GR SI W/SA & TR ORG 25 25

Depth (ft)
ALT STRA GR CL
W/TR SA SI W/SA & TR ORG
30 30 30 30 30
mc
35 GR SA SI W/TR ORG 35 35
LL
PL
40 40 40 40 40
45 GR CL W/TR SA 45 45
W/ TR ORG
Silty
50 50 50 50 50
Sandy
55 55 55
60 60 60 60 60
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 4 8 12 16
Figure 70
064-06-0036 TP#1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 800 1600 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
RD TN CL SA SI
5 65-75% FINER 5 5 5 5
mc SPT
10 10 LL 10 Su 10 10
15 15
PL 15 15 15
20 RD BR GR CL 20 20 20 20
25 25 25 25 25
30 30 30 30 30
35 35 35 35 35
Depth (ft)
RD & GR LAM SI SA CL
40 40 40 40 NONE 40 NONE
45 45 45 45 45
GR LAM CL SA SI
50 50 50 50 50
55 55 55 55 55
60 60 60 60 60
65 GR LAM CL SI SA 65 65 65 65
70 70 70 70 70
75 75 75 75 75
80 80 80 80 80
0 50 100 150 200 0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 71
090-01-0015 TP#1
95
0 20 40 60 80 800 1200 1600 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 GR & BR ELASTIC SI W/ORG 0 0 0 0
RD BR ELASTIC SI W/TR ORG
10 RD BR CIL W/TR ORG 10 10 10 10

GR SI W/ORG
20 BR & GR SA LEAN CL W/TR ORG 20 20 20 20

GR SI SA
30 30 30 30 30
GR SA
mc
40 40 40 40 40
LL
50 50 PL 50 50 50
GR SI SA W/GRAV
60 60 60 60 60
70 70 70 70 70
Depth (ft)
80 80 80 80 NONE 80 NONE
SPT
90 90 90 Su 90 90
GR LEAN CL W/TR SA
100 100 100 100 100
110 110 110 110 110
120 120 120 120 120
130 130 130 130 130
140 140 140 140 140
150 150 150 150 150
160 160 160 160 160

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 5 10 15 20 25
SPT (N) Friction Ratio Rf
Figure 72
090-01-0015 TP#2
0 20 40 60 80 0 200 400 600 800 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
GR & TN CL
10 W/SI LY & TR ORG 10 10 10 10
20 20 20 20 20
GR SI CL W/TR FI SA
30 30 30 30 30
GR CL STK
40 W/SI & TR SA 40 40 SPT 40 40
Su
50 50 50 50 50
GR SI CL W/SA SI POC
60 ALT LY GR CL
60 60 60 60
& CL SI & SI FI
70 GR CL W/SI SA 70 70 70 70
Depth (ft)
80 GR FI SA W/TR SI & CL
80 80 80 NONE 80 NONE
GR SI SA W/TR CL
90 90 mc 90 90 90
LL
GR SI
100 W/TR CL & FI SA & ORG 100 PL 100 100 100
110 110 110 110 110

INTERMIXED
120 GR CL & SA SI & CL SI 120 120 120 120
130 130 130 130 130
140 140 140 140 140
150 150 150 150 150
160 160 160 160 160

0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 73
424-05-0087 TP#2
96
0 30 60 90 120 0 300 600 900 1200 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
0 0 0 0 0
8' WATER AT SURFACE
10 10 10 10 10
SPT
GR CL ORG=11-13%
20 20 20 Su 20 20
30 30 30 30 30
GR CL W/TR CONC & ORG
40 40 40 40 40
GR CL W/LEN SI & TR ORG
50 50 50 50 50
GR CL W/CONC & TR ORG
60 60 60 60 60
GR SA SI
GR CL W/LEN SA
70 70 70 70 70
Depth (ft)
GR CL W/TR ORG
80 80 80 80 NONE 80 NONE
GR CL W/TR SH
90 90 90 90 90
GR CL W/TR ORG
100 100 100 100 100
GR SI CL
110 110 110 110 110
GR SA SI
120 120 mc 120 120 120
GR FI SI SA
LL
130 GR CO SA & PEA GRAV 130 130 130 130
PL
GR MED CO SA W/TR ORG
140 140 140 140 140
GR CO SA
150 150 150 150 150
160 160 160 160 160

0 20 40 60 80 0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 74
713-48-0083 TP#1
Soil Description mc, LL, PL Su (psf) Cone Tip Resistance qc(psf)Probability of Soil Type(%)
0 40 80 120 160 200 0 800 1600 2400 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 GR CL W/ROT WD ORG=20-27% 0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10 10
20 20 20 SPT 20 20
GR CL W/TR CONC & TR ORG
ORG=8%
Su
30 30 30 30 30
40 40 40 40 40
50ALT SRT GR CL & SA SI W/TR ORG50 50 50 50
60 60 60 60 60
GR CL W/TR CONC & ORG
70 70 70 70 70
Depth (ft)
GR CL W/TR SH
80 GR SI CL 80 80 80 NONE 80 NONE
GR CL W/TR SH
90 GR FI SI SA 90 90 90 90
GR SA SI
mc
100 100 100 100 100
GR FI SA W/TR ORG LL
110 110 PL 110 110 110
GR MED CO SA W/TR GR & ORG
120 GR FI CO SA W/TR ORG 120 120 120 120

GR CO SA
130 130 130 130 130
140 140 140 140 140
150 150 150 150 150
160 160 160 160 160

20 40 60 80 100 120 0 5 10 15 20 25
SPT (N) Frictio Ratio Rf (%)
Figure 75
713-48-0083 TP#2
97
Soil Description mc, LL, PL Su (psf) Cone Tip Resistance q c (tsf) Probability of Soil Type(%)
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 40 80 120 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
qc
Rf
10 10 10 10 10
20 20 20 20 20
Slity
30 30 30 30 30
40 40 40 40 40
Depth (ft)
NONE NONE NONE
50 50 50 50 50
60 60 60 60 60
70 70 70 70 70 Clayey
80 80 80 80 80
Sandy
90 90 90 90 90
0 50 100 150 200 0 4 8 12 16
Figure 76
455-05-0036 TP#1
Soil Description mc, LL, PL Su (psf) Cone Tip Resistance qc(tsf) Probability of Soil Type(%)
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10 10
20 20 20 20 20
Sandy
30 30 30 30 30 Slity
40 40 40 40 40
Depth (ft)
NONE NONE NONE
50 50 50 50 50
Clayey
60 60 60 60 60
70 70 70 70 70
80 80 80 80 qc 80
Rf
90 90 90 90 90
0 50 100 150 200 0 100 200 300
Figure 77
455-05-0036 TP#2
98
Soil Description mc, LL, PL Su (psf) Cone Tip Resistance qc (tsf) Probability of Soil Type(%)
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10 10
20 20 20 20 20 Slity
Depth (ft)
30 30 30 30 30
NONE NONE NONE
40 40 40 40 40
50 50 50 50 50 Clayey
60 60 60 60 qc 60
Sandy
Rf
0 50 100 150 200 0 4 8 12 16

Figure 78
455-05-0036 TP#3
0 20 40 60 80 100 200 400 600 800 1000 0 100 200 300 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 G &T CL POC & RTS 0 0 0 0
G & T CL W/SI POC
G & T FI CL
Clayey
10 10 10 10 10
G CL SI
G CL SI SPT qc
20 W/WD RTS & SA SI LAY
20 20 20 20
Su Rf
WD Silty
G SI SA W/CL LEN
30 30 30 30 30
G SA SI W/CL LAY
G SI SA W/CL LAY
mc
40 G SA SI W/CL LAY 40 40 40 40
LL
G CL W/SI SA LEN PL
50 G FI SA 50 50 50 50
Depth (ft)
G CL W/CL SI LEN E LAY

60 G FI SA 60 60 60 60
G SI SA W/ORG
G SI SA W/TR ORG
70 70 70 70 70
G FI SA
G CL W/SI LEN
80 80 80 80 80
Sandy
90 G FI SA 90 90 90 90
100 100 100 100 100
110 110 110 110 110
120 120 120 120 120
0 50 100 150 200 0 4 8 12

Figure 79
434-01-0002 TP#3
99
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 2000 4000 6000 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
LI GR SI CL
10 10 10 SPT 10 10
Clayey
Su
20 TN LI GR CL 20 20 20 20
30 GR SLIGHTLY ORG CL
30 30 30 30
40 GR SLIGHTLY SI CL
40 40 40 40
TN & LI GR CL
50 50 50 50 50
GR CL
Depth (ft)
TN & LI GR CL
60 60 60 60 60 Silty
TN & LI GR SA CL NONE
TN SI CL
70 70 70 70 70
TN & LI GR CL
80 80 80 80 80
Sandy
90 90 90 90 qc 90
Rf
100 100 100 100 100
110 110 110 110 110
120 120 120 120 120
0 50 100 150 200 0 4 8 12 16

Figure 80
239-01-0080 TP#3
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 100 200 300 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 GR CL W/SI STK
0 0 0 0
10 GR & TN CL W/SI STK 10 10 10 10

Clayey
20 GR CL
20 20 20 20
GR SLIGHTLY ORG CL SPT

30 30 30 30 30
GR CL W/ORG MATTER Su
GR & TN CL
40 40 40 40 40
50 LT GR & TN CL 50 50 50 50
Silty
Depth (ft)
60 60 NONE 60 60 60
TN & LT GR VERY SI CL
TN SLIGHTLY SI CL
70 70 70 70 70
TN SI CL
80 TN & GR CL 80 80 80 80
TN & GR CL SI
90 90 90 90 90
TN & GR SI
Sandy
100 100 100 100 100
110 110 110 110 110

qc
120 120 120 120 Rf 120
0 50 100 150 200 0 4 8 12 16

Figure 81
239-01-0080 TP#4
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 800 1600 0 40 80 120 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
GR SI CL
10 GR FI SA 10 10 10 10 Clayey
SPT
20 20 20 Su 20 20
30 30 30 30 30
40 40 40 40 40
50 50 50 50 50
60 60 60 60 60
70 70 70 70 70
Depth (ft)
GR SI CL
qc
80 80 mc 80 80 80
Rf
LL Silty
90 90 PL 90 90 90
100 100 100 100 100
110 110 110 110 110
120 120 120 120 120
130 130 130 130 130
140 140 140 140 140

GR MED SA
150 150 150 150 150
GR FI SA
Sandy
160 160 160 160 160
0 50 100 150 200 0 2 4 6 8
Figure 82
855-14-0036 (Houma) TP#1
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 2000 4000 6000 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
BR SA LOAM
Clayey
GR BR MED FI SA
SPT 6 6
6 6 6
BL GR BR SA LOAM
Su
GR BR SI CL
12 12 12 12 12
BK GR SI CL
GR BR SI CL
18 18 18 18 18
BR GR SI SA CL
Sandy
BK GR SA CL
24 24 24 24 24
BR BL GR SA CL
Depth (ft)
RD BR SI CL
30 30 30 30 30
mc
36 BR GR SI CL 36 LL 36 36 36
PL
Silty
42 42 42 42 42
qc
GR BR SI CL
Rf
48 48 48 48 48
BR SI CL
54 54 54 54 54
60 60 60 60 60
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 2 4 6 8 10
Figure 83
Alexandria TP#1
101
0 20 40 60 80 100 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
5 5 5 5 5
10 10 10 10 10
Clayey
mc SPT
15 15 15 15 15
LL Su
20 20 PL 20 20 20
qc
CL (ASSUMED
FROM DB 51 & 52) Rf
25 25 25 25 25
30 30 30 30 30 Silty
35 35 35 35 35
Depth (ft)
40 40 40 40 40
45 GR SI CL W/SA & SI STK 45 45 45 45
50 50 50 50 50
55 GR CL SI LATY CL W/FI SA
55 55 55 55
60 60 60 60 60
GR CL W/SA & STK &TR SH 65 65
65 65 65
70 GR CL SI FI SA 70 70 70 70
Sandy
75 75 75 75 75
80 BK CL W/SA & STK & TR WD 80 80 80 80
85 85 85 85 85
0 50 100 150 200 0 4 8 12 16 20
Figure 84
424-06-0005 TP#4
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 400 800 1200 1600 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
CL W/...& SI
10 CL W/SI 10 10 10 10 Clayey
mc
SI W/CL
SPT
20 20 LL 20 20 20
Su
CL W/SA PL
30 30 30 30 30
SA
40 40 40 40 40
CL W/SA & SH FRAG
50 50 50 50 50
60 CL W/SA 60 60 60 60
Depth (ft)
70 70 70 70 70
80 CL W/SA & ORG 80 80 80 qc 80

Rf
90 90 90 90 90 Silty
CL W/SA SH FRAG
100 100 100 100 100
110 110 110 110 110

GR CL W/ORG MAT & WD
120 120 120 120 120
130 130 130 130 130 Sandy

GR FI SA
140 140 140 140 140
150 150 150 150 150

0 50 100 150 200 0 4 8 12 16 20
Figure 85
424-07-0009 TP#4 and 4A
102
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 1000 2000 3000 0 200 400 600 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
GR CL ORG=8-10%
10 10 10 10 10
SPT
20 20 20 Su 20 20 Clayey
GR CL W/LEN SI
30 30 30 30 30
40 40 40 40 40
GR CL W/LEN SI & TR SH
qc
50 50 50 50 Rf 50
60 60 60 60 60
Depth (ft)
GR BR SI CL SA W/LEN SA
70 70 70 70 70 Silty
GR BR BL W/LEN SA
80 80 80 80 80
BR FI SI SA
90 90 mc 90 90 90
LL
100 GR FI SI SA 100 PL 100 100 100
110 110 110 110 110
120 GR FI SA
120 120 120 120 Sandy
130 130 130 130 130
140 140 140 140 140

0 50 100 150 200 0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 86
450-36-0002 TP#8
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 2000 4000 0 40 80 120 160 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10 10
20 20 20 20 20 Clayey
SPT
30 30 30 Su 30 30
qc
40 40 40 40 Rf 40
50 50 50 50 50
60 60 60 60 60
Depth (ft)
NONE
70 70 70 70 70
80 80 80 80 80 Silty
90 90 90 90 90
100 100 100 100 100
110 110 110 110 110

mc
120 120 120 120 120
LL
PL
130 130 130 130 130
Sandy
140 140 140 140 140
0 50 100 150 200 0 1 2 3 4
Figure 87
283-03-0052 (New Orleans) TP#1
103
0 20 40 60 80 100 200 400 600 800 1000 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 SPFT RD BR SI CL MUD 0 0 0 0
5 5 5 5 5
Clayey
TN & GR SI SA CL SPT
10 10 10 10 10
Su
15 15 15 15 15 Silty
20 20 20 20 20
TN SA 3-11% FINER mc
25 25 25 25 25
LL
30 30 PL 30 30 30
35 35 35 35 35
Depth (ft)
GR & TN SI SA W/SI CL LAM
40 40 40 40 40
45 45 45 45 45
50 GR LAM SI SA 14-23% FINER 50 50 50 50
55 55 55 55 55 Sandy
60 60 60 60 60
qc
65 65 65 65 Rf 65
GR SI CL W/SA SI LAM
70 70 70 70 70
75 75 75 75 75
80 80 80 80 80
0 50 100 150 200 0 2 4 6 8 10
Figure 88
090-01-0015 TP#6
104

Final Report - 449 Calibration of Resistance Factors Needed in The LRFD Design of Driven Piles

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Report - 449 Calibration of Resistance Factors Needed in The LRFD Design of Driven Piles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD PAGE

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Murad Y. Abu-Farsakh, Ph.D., P.E.

Ching Tsai, Ph.D., P.E.

Louisiana Transportation Research Center

LTRC Project No. 07-2GT

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. iii

Table 1 K for non-tapered piles [19] ..................................................................................... 11

Figure 1  factors for driven piles in clay [19] ...................................................................... 9

Predication of Ultimate Pile Resistance

The skin friction resistance (Qs) is as follows:

Q b  A b .q. .N 'q (5)

where, K is a coefficient of lateral stress, Cf is a correction factor, PD is the effective

(b) Soft clay layer over stiff clay layer

(c) Clay layer only

Volume of soil displaced per unit length (ft3/ft)

25 0.70 0.77 0.80 0.83 0.85 0.92 0.95 0.98 1.00

26 0.73 0.82 0.86 0.88 0.91 1.00 1.04 1.06 1.09

27 0.76 0.86 0.91 0.94 0.97 1.07 1.12 1.15 1.18

28 0.79 0.90 0.96 0.99 1.03 1.14 1.2 1.23 1.27

29 0.82 0.95 1.01 1.05 1.09 1.22 1.28 1.32 1.36

30 0.85 0.99 1.06 1.10 1.15 1.29 1.36 1.40 1.45

31 0.91 1.08 1.16 1.21 1.27 1.44 1.52 1.57 1.63

32 0.97 1.17 1.26 1.32 1.39 1.59 1.68 1.74 1.81

33 1.03 1.26 1.37 1.44 1.51 1.74 1.85 1.92 1.99

34 1.09 1.35 1.47 1.55 1.63 1.89 2.01 2.09 2.17

35 1.15 1.44 1.57 1.66 1.75 2.04 2.17 2.26 2.35

36 1.26 1.61 1.78 1.89 2.00 2.35 2.52 2.63 2.74

37 1.37 1.79 1.99 2.11 2.25 2.67 2.87 2.99 3.13

38 1.48 1.97 2.19 2.34 2.50 2.99 3.21 3.36 3.52

39 1.59 2.14 2.40 2.57 2.75 3.30 3.56 3.73 3.91

40 1.70 2.32 2.61 2.80 3.00 3.62 3.91 4.10 4.30

Q b  q b A b  (c b .q c,avg ).A b (7)

Schmertmann Method. Schmertmann proposed a direct CPT method based on

Bustamante and Gianeselli Method (LCPC Method). Bustamante and Gianeselli

Cone tip resistance qc

qc1 < qc2

Nature of Soil qc (MPa) ks

Soft clay and mud <1 30

Soft chalk 5 100

Silt and loose sand 5 60

Moderately compact clay 1 to 5 40

Moderately compact sand and gravel 5 to 12 100

Compact to stiff clay and compact silt >5 60

Weathered to fragment chalk >5 60

Compact to very compact sand and gravel > 12 150

(a) Data input screen

(c) Soil classification and predicted pile resistance

Load Effect (Q) or Resistance (R)

Ultimate limit state (ULS): Factored resistance ≥ Factored load effects

Serviceability limit state (SLS): Deformation ≤ Tolerable deformation to remain serviceable

Rn   . i .Qi (16)

 L  1.75  L  1.15 COVL  0.18

First Order Second Moment (FOSM) Method

First Order Reliability Method (FORM)

Steps for FORM using the Rackwitz-Fiessler method [38]:

1. Define limit state function, g(x1, x2, x3....).

The limit state function for LRFD is developed as follows:

from (21) and (22)