Database Assessment of CPT-Based Design Methods

for Axial Capacity of Driven Piles in Siliceous Sands

James A. Schneider1; Xiangtao Xu2; and Barry M. Lehane3

Abstract: Numerous cone penetration test 共CPT兲-based methods exist for calculation of the axial pile capacity in sands, but no clear
guidance is presently available to assist designers in the selection of the most appropriate method. To assist in this regard, this paper
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 03/10/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

examines the predictive performance of a range of pile design methods against a newly compiled database of static load tests on driven
piles in siliceous sands with adjacent CPT profiles. Seven driven pile design methods are considered, including the conventional American
Petroleum Institute 共API兲 approach, simplified CPT alpha methods, and four new CPT-based methods, which are now presented in the
commentary of the 22nd edition of the API recommendations. Mean and standard deviation database statistics for the design methods are
presented for the entire 77 pile database, as well as for smaller subset databases separated by pile material 共steel and concrete兲, end
condition 共open versus closed兲, and direction of loading 共tension versus compression兲. Certain methods are seen to exhibit bias toward
length, relative density, cone tip resistance, and pile end condition. Other methods do not exhibit any apparent bias 共even though their
formulations differ significantly兲 due to the limited size of the database subsets and the large number of factors known to influence pile
capacity in sand. The database statistics for the best performing methods are substantially better than those for the API approach and the
simplified alpha methods. Improved predictive reliability will emerge with an extension of the database and the inclusion of additional
important controlling factors affecting capacity.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2008兲134:9共1227兲
CE Database subject headings: Driven piles; Cone penetration tests; Foundation design; Compression; Sand; Pile load tests;
Databases.

Introduction methods for prediction of the soil response during and after pile
installation coupled with the large number of variables known to
The static axial bearing capacity 共Qt兲 of a deep foundation is affect pile axial capacities in sand 共Randolph 2003兲. Further, Den-
given as the sum of the shaft capacity 共Qs兲 and base capacity nis and Olson 共1983兲 concluded that while soil density influences
共Qb兲: shaft friction and base capacity of open-ended piles, interpretation
of the influence of density is highly uncertain due to poor defini-

冕
ztip
Qt = Qs + Qb = P ␶ f dz + qbAb
ztip−Lemb
where P = pile perimeter; ␶ f = local ultimate shaft friction; qb
= ultimate unit base resistance; Ab = pile base area; ztip = tip depth;
and Lemb = embedded pile length. The value of qb 共which is zero
for a pile loaded in tension兲 is normally limited to that mobilized
at a pile tip settlement of 10% of the pile diameter.
A wide range of empirical approaches are currently used to
calculate ␶ f and qb for driven piles in coarse grained soils. This
range has arisen because of the inadequacy of existing theoretical
1
Ph.D. Student, School of Civil and Resource Engineering, The Univ.
of Western Australia, Crawley, Perth WA 6009, Australia 共corresponding
author兲. E-mail: schneider@civil.uwa.edu.au
2
Ph.D. Student, School of Civil and Resource Engineering, The Univ.
of Western Australia, Crawley, Perth WA 6009, Australia.
3
Professor, School of Civil and Resource Engineering, The Univ. of
Western Australia, Crawley, Perth WA 6009, Australia.
Note. Discussion open until February 1, 2009. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. The manuscript for this paper
was submitted for review and possible publication on June 15, 2006;
approved on October 29, 2007. This paper is part of the Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 9,
September 1, 2008. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2008/9-1227–1244/
$25.00.
tion of soil properties along the length of a pile. Use of the cone
共1兲 penetration test 共CPT兲 for site characterization provides a large
amount of repeatable information on the vertical variability of soil
strength and compressibility and therefore leads to increased de-
sign reliability 共i.e., Briaud and Tucker 1988兲. This paper, as well
as additional parametric studies presented by Lehane et al.
共2005a兲 and Schneider 共2007兲 seek to assist designers in making
informed decisions regarding axial pile capacity based on an un-
derstanding of the basis of a given empirical approach and of the
associated relative level of uncertainty and bias.
Although site specific static 共and dynamic兲 load tests reduce
the level of uncertainty for onshore practice, load tests are pro-
hibitively expensive in the offshore environment and reliance is
placed on extrapolation of empirical correlations derived for on-
shore applications 共McClelland et al. 1969兲. Although the deriva-
tion of ␶ f and qb in Eq. 共1兲 for offshore piles in sand has
historically been based on “visual classification methods” placed
within frameworks of bearing capacity theory and an earth pres-
sure approach 共McClelland et al. 1969兲, four CPT-based methods
are now included in the commentary of the 22nd edition of the
American Petroleum Institute 共API兲 recommended practice
共RP2A兲 for fixed offshore structures API 共2006兲. The CPT is
often thought of as a model pile and has a long history of use for
estimations of static axial pile capacity 共Delft 1936兲. There is,
however, a wide variation of CPT-based design methods in use

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1227

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1227-1244.

 worldwide 共e.g., DeCock et al. 2003兲 because the factors control-
ling axial pile capacity are influenced by more soil parameters
than those affecting the CPT tip resistance, qc, 共e.g., Lehane et al.
1993兲.
Empirical design methods rely on calibration with databases of
static load tests. The number of published high quality case his-
tories with adjacent CPT profiles remains surprisingly small and
hence previous calibration exercises make arbitrary and often
subjective assumptions to allow for issues such as 共1兲 the effect of
the pile end condition 共closed, open, or partially plugged兲; 共2兲 the
interface friction angle between the in situ sand and concrete,
steel or timber pile shafts; 共3兲 the selection of a design CPT qc
profile; 共4兲 the absence of reliable axial load data near pile tips to
assess the relative contributions of shaft friction and base resis-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 03/10/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tance; and 共5兲 the ratio of the shaft friction in tension to that in
compression. Adequate allowance for these factors requires divi-
sion of a database into relatively small database subsets.
This paper evaluates the predictive performance of the API
RP2A static axial pile design method and six CPT qc methods
against a new database of load tests on driven piles in siliceous
sands at sites with CPT data. All CPT data were collected with
electric cone penetrometers except adjacent to the concrete piles
at Drammen and pipe piles at Padre Island. Mechanical CPTs at
Drammen were shown to be equivalent to electric CPTs per-
formed at a later date 共Lunne et al. 2003兲 whereas the mechanical
and electric CPT qc values in the medium dense sands at Padre
Island were considered equal. Twenty design methods were as-
sessed during the initial phases of this study and two of the best
performing simplified CPT “alpha” methods are considered here.
A general overview of the seven selected methods is provided in
the following after an initial description of the terms uncertainty
and bias, which aims to place the subsequent assessment of de-
sign method predictive performance in context. Method reliability
is discussed by Lehane et al. 共2005a兲 and Schneider 共2007兲 and a
detailed discussion of end bearing formulations is presented by
Xu et al. 共2008兲. Driven pile capacities in more compressible
calcareous/micaceous sands or in sands with high CPT friction
ratios 共Fr ⬎ 3 % 兲 are discussed by Schneider et al. 共2007兲.
Uncertainty and Bias
The level of uncertainty associated with empirical correlations
共such as that used for driven piles兲 can be reduced through in-
creased site investigation and testing, as well as improved incor-
poration of the mechanics governing the behavior into the design
model 共Zhang et al. 2004兲. The database of load tests on driven
piles with adjacent CPT data reported here is influenced to some
degree by uncertainty with input parameters as well as model
uncertainty. This study minimizes errors associated with poor and
discontinuous site investigation data provided by the standard
penetration test 共e.g., see Dennis and Olson 1983兲 as well as those
induced by the dependence of pile capacity on installation tech-
nique so that an assessment of the relative level of uncertainty
related to any given method’s capacity prediction may be ob-
tained. Uncertainty in pile capacity predictions due to site vari-
ability is not quantified, as reported data at each site generally
included one representative CPT profile.
Statistical bias is defined as the systematic distortion of an
expected result due to neglect of controlling variables 共Simpson
and Weiner 1989兲. The influence of bias on the quantification of
共relative兲 reliability is discussed in this paper as well as by Le-
1228 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1227-1244.
hane et al. 共2005a兲 and Schneider 共2007兲. Developing a better
understanding of where that bias lays and how it influences cal-
culations is necessary when using new design methods in prac-
tice. The models/methods discussed in this paper make various
assumptions related to variables that influence the axial capacity
of driven piles in siliceous sands. Linear trend lines are fitted to
plots of the ratio of the natural log of calculated to measured
capacity 关ln共Qc / Qm兲兴 against a design parameter 共such as, qc,
qc1N, D, L, Leff, IFR, time, as defined in the Appendix兲 to examine
bias in design methods, or bias in subset database characteristics.
The influence of extrapolation bias due to design method formu-
lation on the calculation of relative reliability is discussed by
Lehane et al. 共2005a兲 and Schneider 共2007兲.
API Method
The API 共2000, 2006兲 design method assumes that both ␶ f and qb
vary in direct proportion with the free field vertical effective
stress 共␴⬘v0兲, but its imposed limiting values on shaft friction
共␶ f,lim兲 and end bearing 共qb,lim兲 generally control the capacity of
long piles, such as those used offshore. ␶ f is given as
␶ f = K f ␴⬘v0 tan ␦ f = ␤␴⬘v0 艋 ␶ f,lim 共2兲
where K f = coefficient of lateral earth pressure and ␦ f = interface
friction angle between the soil and pile wall. For open-ended pipe
piles driven unplugged, it is usual to adopt a K f value of 0.8 for
both tension and compression loading. Values of K f for full dis-
placement piles 共plugged or closed end兲 are assumed to be 1.0,
with recommended values of ␦ f contained in Table 1. API 共2006兲
combines K f and ␦ f into the parameter ␤ 共=K f tan ␦ f 兲 in Table 2,
implying that it is not appropriate to modify the empirical method
with a measured ␦ f angle.
The unit end bearing at a tip displacement of 10% of the pile
diameter, qb0.1, is calculated using the bearing capacity factor 共Nq兲
and the effective overburden stress 共␴⬘v0兲, which must be less than
a limiting value 共qb,lim兲; see Tables 1 and 2:
qb0.1 = Nq␴⬘v0 艋 qb,lim 共3兲
Statistics from the database study of API RP2A presented in this
paper are based on the parameters in Table 1 for API-00. API
共2006兲 removes some soils types from Table 1 共which were con-
sidered to result in overestimations of pile capacity兲, and there-
fore API 共2006兲 could not be applied to a large number of sites in
the database.
CPT Alpha Methods
Although sleeve friction, f s, measured during a CPT has been
related to pile shaft friction 共e.g., Begemann 1965兲, due to greater
variability in f s measurements 共among other issues兲, qc-based
methods for shaft friction generally dominate practice. These
methods can simply be referred to as alpha methods, as qc is
related to qb and ␶ f by a factor, ␣, i.e.,
 Table 1. Conventional Design Guidelines for Offshore Pile Capacity in Granular Soils 共Adapted from API 2000兲
“Earth “Interface Limiting Bearing
pressure” friction shaft capacity Limiting unit
Soil coefficient, angle,” ␦ f friction, factor, end bearing,
description Density K = ␴rf⬘ / ␴⬘v0 共deg兲 ␶ f,lim 共kPa兲 Nq = q / ␴⬘v0 q 共MPa兲
Sand Very loose 15 48 8 1.9
Sand–Silt Loose
Silt Medium
Sand Loose Open-ended piles, K = 0.8 20 67 12 2.9
Sand–silt Medium
Silt Dense
Sand Medium 25 80 20 4.8
Sand–silt Dense Closed-ended piles, K = 1.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 03/10/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Sand Dense 30 96 40 9.6

Sand–silt Very dense
Gravel Dense 35 115 50 12.0
Sand Very dense

qb = ␣bqc,avg 艋 qb,lim
qc
␶f = 艋 ␶ f,lim
␣s
The calculation of pile end bearing from qc was the focus of early
research in The Netherlands, as piles were typically driven
through soft clays to bear on a dense sand layer. Meyerhof 共1956兲
extended the research to include pile shaft friction, proposing ap-
proximate values of ␣s of 200 in sandy soils with ␣b = 1 共when the
tip depth to diameter ratio exceeded 10兲. In a summary of current
European practice, De Cock et al. 共2003兲 report design ␣b values
ranging from 0.4 to 1.0 and ␣s values ranging from 50 to 400 for
sandy soils. Some alpha methods impose limits on the maximum
values of qb and ␶ f .
Two popular versions of the alpha method are discussed in this
paper, namely LCPC-82 共Bustamante and Gianeselli 1982兲 and
EF-97 共Eslami and Fellenius 1997兲. Parameters for each of these
methods are presented in Table 3. LCPC-82 is not considered
applicable to open-ended piles 共due to the database employed for
共4兲 its calibration兲, whereas the single EF-97 formulation is presented
as being equally applicable to pipe piles, concrete piles, and H
piles.
共5兲
CPT-Based Methods for Offshore Piles
The four CPT-based methods now included in the commentary of
the new 22nd edition of the API RP 2A Recommendations 共2006兲
are referred to as:
• Fugro-05 共Kolk et al. 2005a兲.
• ICP-05 共Jardine et al. 2005兲.
• NGI-05 共Clausen et al. 2005兲.
• UWA-05 共Lehane et al. 2005b兲.
These “offshore” CPT methods are intended to better reflect the
mechanisms that influence the capacity of displacement piles in
sand, and their formulations are provided in Tables 4 and 5. The
more complicated form of these expressions, compared to the
alpha method, has arisen due to attempts by the respective authors
to allow for factors, other than qc, affecting pile capacity. This

Table 2. Updated Design Guidelines for Offshore Pile Capacity in Granular Soils 共Adapted from API 2006兲
Shaft Limiting Bearing
friction shaft capacity Limiting unit
Soil Relative factor,a friction, factor, end bearing,
description density ␶ f = ␤␴⬘v0 ␶ f,lim 共kPa兲 Nq = q / ␴⬘v0 q 共MPa兲
Sand Very loose Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
Sand Loose
Sand–silt Loose
Silt Medium dense
Silt Dense
Gravel Dense
Sand–silt Medium dense 0.29 67 12 3
Sand Medium 0.37 81 20 5
Sand–silt Dense
Sand Dense 0.46 96 40 10
Sand–silt Very dense
Sand Very dense 0.56 115 50 12
a
Values applicable to open-ended piles, values for closed-ended piles considered to be 25% higher.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1229

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1227-1244.

 Table 3. Input Parameters for Selected CPT Alpha Methods in Sandy Soils
qc
Applicable Applicable range End-bearing ␶ f,lim
Method pile type material 共MPa兲 ␣b averaging ␣s 共kPa兲 Reference
LCPC-82 Closed Steel ⬍5 0.5 Arithmetic mean⫾ 2D 120 35 Bustamante and Gianeselli 1982
5–12 0.5 200 80
⬎12 0.4 200 120
Closed Concrete ⬍5 0.5 Arithmetic mean⫾ 2D 60 35 Bustamante and Gianeselli 1982
5–12 0.5 100 80
⬎12 0.4 150 120
EF-97 Pipe, square, round, octagonal, Steel and concrete Class 5a 1 Effective geometric averageb 250 None Eslami and Fellenius 1997
H section, round, and triangular Class 4a 1 100 None
a
Specific soil classification based on qc, f s, and u2 as described in Eslami and Fellenius 共1997兲; Class 5—Sand and gravel; Class 4—Silty sand and sandy
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 03/10/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

silt; other categories not discussed.

b
Zone of averaging varies from 4D below pile tip to 8D above pile tip if pile is installed from weak soil into dense soil, and from 4D below pile toe to
2D above pile toe when pile is installed from dense soil into weak soil.

Table 4. Offshore CPT-Based Design Methods for Local Shaft Friction of Driven Piles in Siliceous Sand
Methods Design equations

共 兲 共 兲␴⬘v0
a 0.05 −0.90
Fugro-05 h 共compression loading for h / R* 艌 4兲
␶ f = 0.08qc
pref R*

共 兲 共 ␴⬘v0 0.05
h 共compression loading for h / R* 艋 4兲
␶ f = 0.08qc 共4兲−0.90 兲
pref 4R*

共 兲 关 共 兲兴
␴⬘v0 共tension loading兲
0.15 −0.85
h
␶ f = 0.045qc max ,4
pref R*

关 共 兲 关 共 兲兴 ␴⬘v0
兴
0.13 −0.38
ICP-05 h
␶ f = a 0.029bqc max ,8 ⬘ tan ␦ f
+ ⌬␴rd
pref R*

a = 0.9 for open-ended piles in tension and 1.0 for all other
cases
b = 0.8 for piles in tension and 1.0 for piles in compression
NGI-05 ␶ f = z / LprefFDrFsigFtipFloadFmat 艌 ␶min
FDr = 2.1共Dr − 0.1兲1.7
Dr = 0.4 ln共qc1N / 22兲 关nominal relative density 共which may be greater than 1.0兲兴
Fsig = 共␴⬘v0 / p pa兲0.25
Ftip = 1.0 for driven open ended and 1.6 for driven closed
ended
Fload = 1.0 for tension and 1.3 for compression
Fmat = 1.0 for steel and 1.2 for concrete
␶min = 0.1␴⬘v0

关 关 共 兲 兴 兴
−0.5
UWA-05 ft h
␶f = 0.3
0.03qcArs,eff max , 2 ⬘ tan ␦ f
+ ⌬␴rd
fc D

Ars,eff共effective area ratio兲 = 1 − IFR共Di / D兲2

Ar共area ratio兲 = 1 − 共Di / D兲2
IFR共=⌬L p / ⌬z兲. When IFR is not measured, average IFR
= min关1 , 共Di共m兲 / 1.5兲0.2兴
f t / f c = ratio of tension to compression capacity 共equal to 1 for
compression and 0.75 in tension兲
Note: ␶ f = local ultimate shaft friction; ␦ f = interface friction angle; pref = 100 kPa= reference stress; L = pile length; z = element depth; h = height above pile
tip; R* = equivalent pile radius= 共R2 − Ri2兲0.5 where Ri⫽internal pile radius= Di / 2. For noncircular piles, an equivalent circular area is used to assess R* and
D. ⌬␴rd⬘ ⬇ 4G⌬y / D = change in radial stress during pile loading; G ⬇ 185qcqc1N −0.7
= operational level of shear modulus; see Eq. 共8b兲 for calculation of qc1N;
⌬y ⬇ 2Ra ⬇ 0.02 mm= radial displacement during pile loading; and Ra = average roughness of the pile.
a
The format of the equation for compression shaft friction within 4R* of the pile tip differs slightly from Kolk et al. 共2005a兲 due to a typing error in that
paper.

1230 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1227-1244.

 Table 5. Offshore CPT-Based Design Methods for Base Resistance of Driven Piles in Siliceous Sand
Methods End condition
Fugro-05 Closed and open ended
ICP-05 Closed ended
Open ended
NGI-05 Closed ended
Open ended
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 03/10/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
UWA-05 Closed and open ended
Notes: D: pile outer diameter; Di: pile inner diameter; pref = 100 kPa; DCPT = 0.036 m; Ar 共area ratio兲 = 1 − 共Di / D兲2; Arb,eff 共effective area ratio兲 = 1
− FFR共Di / D兲2; FFR: IFR 共=⌬L p / ⌬z兲 averaged over last 3D of the pile penetration; qc,avg = qc averaged⫾ 1.5D over pile tip level for Fugro-05 and ICP-05
methods; qc,avg = qc averaged using Dutch averaging technique for UWA-05 method; Dr = 0.4 ln共qc1N / 22兲; as decimal, nominal relative density which may
be greater than 1.0 for NGI method.
higher level of detail is clearly warranted given that the methods
are based on calibrations with static tests on relatively small on-
shore piles whereas their intended use is for much larger offshore
piles.
Formulations for Shaft Capacity
The local ultimate friction 共␶ f 兲 that can develop on the shaft of a
displacement pile in sand is a function of the radial stress after
installation and equalization 共␴rc ⬘ 兲, the change in radial stress dur-
ing loading 共⌬␴rd⬘ 兲, and the interface friction angle 共␦ f 兲 as 共Lehane
et al. 1993兲
⬘ + ⌬␴rd
␶ f = 共␴rc ⬘ 兲tan ␦ f = ␴rf⬘ tan ␦ f 共6兲
Two notable features included in the shaft capacity calculations
for these four methods are: 共1兲 the recognition that ␶ f in a given
soil horizon reduces as a pile is driven deeper, i.e., “friction fa-
tigue” 共Toolan et al. 1990; Lehane et al. 1993; Randolph et al.
1994; White and Lehane 2004; and others兲 and 共2兲 open-ended
piles tend to have lower ␶ f values than closed-ended piles. These
issues are important for long, large diameter offshore piles, which
are primarily driven open ended in a coring manner.
Although refined based on different assumptions, the shaft
friction formulations of ICP-05, Fugro-05, and UWA-05 are gen-
erally similar. The equation formats are based on studies with the
instrumented jacked closed-ended Imperial College Model Pile
共Lehane et al. 1993; Chow 1997兲, which showed that radial stress
after installation and equalization at a given depth is related to
cone tip resistance and the distance above the pile tip 共h兲 normal-
ized by the pile radius 共R兲. ICP-05 was extended from the closed-
ended jacked model pile studies to open-end driven piles using
studies performed at the Dunkirk test site in France and a thor-
ough evaluation of a database of pile load tests 共Chow 1997兲.
Fugro-05 was modified from the design equations of Lehane
and Jardine 共1994兲 and Chow 共1997兲 and was primarily calibrated
using ␶ f values measured in load tests on heavily instrumented
0.76 m diameter driven pipe piles for EURIPIDES 共Kolk et al.
2005b兲, Ras Tanajib II 共Kolk et al. 2005c兲, and the micaceous
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1231
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1227-1244.
Design equations
qb0.1 / qc,avg = 8.5共pref / qc,avg兲0.5Ar0.25
qb0.1 / qc,avg = maximum 关1 − 0.5 log共D / DCPT兲 , 0.3兴
if Di 艌 2.0共Dr − 0.3兲 or Di 艌 0.083qc,avg / prefDCPT, Di in meters,
then the pile is “unplugged,” and qb0.1 / qc,avg = Ar
if not, the pile is “plugged,” and qb0.1 / qc,avg = maximum 关0.5
− 0.25 log共D / DCPT兲 , 0.15, Ar兴
qb0.1 / qc,tip = FDr = 0.8/ 共1 + Dr2兲
qb0.1 = minimum 关plugged qb0.1 , unplugged qb0.1兴
the plugged qb0.1 value is calculated as:
qb0.1 / qc,tip = FDr = 0.7/ 共1 + 3Dr2兲
the unplugged qb0.1 is calculated as:
qb0.1 = qb,annAr + qb,plug共1 − Ar兲; qb,ann = qc,tip, and qb,plug
= 12␶ f,avgL / 共␲ Di兲
␶ f,avg: averaged external skin friction 共Clausen et al. 2005兲; L:
pile embedment depth
qb0.1 / qc,avg = 0.15+ 0.45Arb,eff
sands at Jamuna Bridge 共Fugro 1995兲. A 共relatively small兲 data-
base of additional loads tests was used to assist the calibration
exercise 共Kolk et al. 2005a兲. The method assumes that the inter-
face friction angle is relatively constant sand-steel after installa-
tion of the pile and that ⌬␴rd⬘ is minimal for all database piles.
The separate effects of the pile end condition and friction fa-
tigue are incorporated in the Fugro-05 and ICP-05 methods using
the h / R* term, where R* = 共R2 − R2i 兲0.5 and Ri = internal radius of a
pipe pile. The UWA-05 method avoids the use of this lumped
approach and proposes a 共h / D兲−0.5 term to allow for friction fa-
tigue and the following effective area ratio term, Ars,eff, to allow
for varying levels of soil displacement induced in any given soil
horizon during pile installation 共White et al. 2005兲:
D2i
Ars,eff = 1 − IFR 共7兲
D2
where IFR= incremental filling ratio. The value of Ar,eff⫽measure
of the soil displacement induced during installation, which has
been shown experimentally by Gavin and Lehane 共2003兲, and
others, to influence the radial stresses developed on the pile shaft.
As Ar,eff = 共R* / R兲2 when IFR= unity, the h / R* term in Fugro-05
and ICP-05 can be expressed as a product of 共h / D兲−c times the
area ratio, Ar, raised to the power of “c / 2,” i.e., there is interde-
pendence of the two terms representing the effects of friction
fatigue and end condition, each of which is controlled by different
factors. Friction fatigue is influenced by the number and charac-
teristics of installation cycles 共e.g., White and Lehane 2004兲,
whereas the degree of partial plugging during driven pile instal-
lation tends to reduce as the pile diameter increases.
The formulations proposed by NGI-05 differ in format from
the other three CPT methods. Cone tip resistance is included
through a specified correlation between nominal relative density
and normalized cone tip resistance. Friction fatigue is based on
the floating triangle distribution of ␶ f using z / L degradation of
local shaft friction 共Toolan et al. 1990兲, as opposed to the pile
diameter dependent terms, h / D or h / R, recommended by other
methods. As parameters for describing differences in end condi-
 tion and material type are fixed 共unlike the three other offshore
CPT-based methods兲, they are tied to the characteristics of the
database and additional bias may arise when extrapolating to
other soil types and pile geometries.
All methods assume that the ultimate shaft friction mobilized
in tension is lower than that in compression. Fugro-05 assumes
different ␶ f distributions under tension and compression loading
whereas the three other methods apply equivalent f t / f c multiples
on the total shaft friction of between about 0.7 and 0.8.
Formulations for End Bearing
End-bearing formulations for the four offshore CPT methods are
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 03/10/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
summarized in Table 5. Each method is quite different, with the
ratio of qb to an average qc value in the vicinity of the pile tip
being assumed to vary with the pile diameter in ICP-05, with
relative density in NGI-05, with cone tip resistance in Fugro-05,
and with the effective area ratio in UWA-05. A critical review of
these end-bearing formulations is presented in Xu et al. 共2008兲.
Database Characteristics
A database of static load tests was compiled by the writers and is
referred to here as the UWA database. It was derived primarily
from the geotechnical literature, with information on additional
case histories provided by Fugro Engineers, B.V., the California
Department of Transportation 共Caltrans兲, the Florida Department
of Transportation, the Louisiana Transportation Research Center
共LTRC兲, Imperial College London, and the Norwegian Geotech-
nical Institute 共NGI兲. Primary differences between this database
study and previous studies include:
• All CPT data were digitized to a depth interval of 0.1 m or
smaller. The digitization of profiles minimizes ambiguity and
errors associated with selection of a “design profile.” The
study showed that this level of detail was required to obtain an
adequate assessment of offshore CPT methods 共each of which
predicts distributions of ␶ f / qc along the pile shaft兲.
• Although the database contains static pile test data at sites
which only contain standard penetration test 共SPT兲 data, these
data were not included in this assessment of CPT qc-based
correlations because of the significant uncertainty associated
with deriving an equivalent qc value from an SPT N blowcount
and the reduced level of detail in vertical soil variability pro-
vided by a typical SPT profile.
• Piles included in the database were limited to impact driven
piles. No jacked piles, vibratory driven piles, or bored piles
were included due to the influence of installation method on
pile capacity.
• The database was limited to sites where the pile tip was bear-
ing in a siliceous sand layer and where siliceous sand contri-
buted to more than 50% of the shaft capacity.
In total, the data from over 200 pile load tests were processed.
This database was filtered and subdivided into five categories
comprising a total of 77 load tests; the statistics presented in this
paper relate to these load tests. Typical reasons for exclusion of
pile load tests from database analyses have been summarized ear-
lier. In addition, 共1兲 retests on piles at the same pile embedment;
共2兲 piles with a diameter less than 0.2 m; and 共3兲 piles with an
embedded length less than 5 m were all omitted from consider-
ation. Characteristics of the pile load tests considered within this
study are contained in Tables 10–14 of this paper.
The database subsets examined are:
1232 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1227-1244.
• Closed-ended concrete piles in compression 共CECC兲—17
piles.
• Closed-ended steel piles in compression 共CECS兲—15 piles.
• Closed-ended piles in tension 共CET兲—12 piles.
• Open-ended steel pipe piles in compression 共OEC兲—17 piles.
• Open-ended steel pipe piles in tension 共OET兲—16 piles.
The database of closed-ended piles in tension was not separated
further into steel and concrete piles due to the small number of
load tests from different sites for this category of test. The use of
this database subset was justified later when insignificant bias was
observed when comparing closed-ended steel and concrete piles
in compression.
Pile capacity in tension was defined as the maximum uplift
load less the pile weight. Pile capacity in compression was de-
fined at a tip displacement of 10% of the pile diameter 共0.1D兲. In
6 of the 77 cases, neither a tip displacement of 0.1D or a plunging
failure was reached during a load test. For those cases, hyperbolic
extrapolation using the Chin 共1978兲 method was used to estimate
capacity at a displacement of 0.1D. Extrapolation typically led to
a 5% increase in the maximum measured capacity and did not
exceed 15%. Maximum measured loads and associated tip dis-
placements are also indicated in Tables 10–14, when available.
Histograms of soil relative density, pile geometry, and load test
characteristics are presented in Fig. 1 for the UWA database.
Nominal relative density for an assumed normally consolidated
sand 共Dr兲 has been estimated as a function of the normalized cone
tip resistance 共qc1N兲 using the following empirical relationship
共Jamiolkowski et al. 2003兲:
Dr = 0.35 ln共qc1N/20兲 共8a兲
where
qc1N = 共qc/pref兲/共␴⬘v0/pref兲0.5, pref = 100 kPa 共8b兲
To account for soil layering, the plotted relative densities have
been weighted based on the shaft friction distribution estimated
using the UWA-05 method.
For 64 of the 77 piles, CPT friction ratios were also available
at the test sites. Weighted average normalized tip resistance and
friction ratio 共Fr兲 for each site are plotted on a soil behavior type
chart in Fig. 2, which was developed based on recommendations
of Robertson and Wride 共1998兲.
Based on Figs. 1 and 2, it is apparent that:
• Piles in the database typically have a capacity less than 5 MN.
• The database of 77 piles consists primarily of piles with diam-
eters less than 0.8 m.
• While pile lengths vary from 5 to 80 m, most pile lengths are
between 10 and 20 m.
• The 77 pile database contains a relatively even and wide range
of nominal sand relative density, although individual subset
databases may be biased toward specific sand densities.
• The time between installation and load testing is typically less
than 4 weeks.
• Most soils in the database classify as clean sand to silty sand
in Zone 6 with some points in Zone 5 共silty sand to sandy silt兲.
Assuming a near zero value of the pore pressure parameter Bq,
these soil behavior types correspond to Zones 5 and 4 of the
Eslami and Fellenius 共1997兲 classification chart mentioned in
Table 3.
Future analyses of the omitted tests will provide more infor-
mation to assist CPT-based design for piles in nonsiliceous sands
共e.g., Schneider et al. 2007兲, residual soils, and aged deposits. It is
noted that all of the prediction methods considered tended to
overpredict pile capacity in calcareous or micaceous sands and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 03/10/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Frequency of occurrence of soil and pile parameters within analyzed database

underpredict pile capacity in residual soils. In addition, measured
capacities at a given site tended to increase with time.
Calculation Procedures
A spreadsheet was developed to calculate axial pile capacity in
sandy soils based on CPT parameters. For shaft friction calcula-
tions, discretization for numerical integration was set at 0.1 m
intervals. Method input and the accuracy of numerical integration
using the spreadsheet solution were validated using integral solu-
tions of pile capacity in uniform sand profiles. Soils with constant
relative density of approximately 0.4 and 0.8 were analyzed for
open- and closed-ended piles of 10 and 70 m length, with diam-
eters of 0.5 and 1 m. The verification studies showed that spread-
sheet calculations were within 0.5% of the integral solutions for
all methods and cases using a discretization interval of 0.1 m
共Lehane et al. 2005a兲.
The following assumptions were also made in the absence of
site-specific data:
• The in situ bulk unit weight was 19 kN/ m3.
• For the ICP-05 and UWA-05 methods, if ␦ f was not measured
in laboratory interface tests, ␦ f was estimated as a function of
D50 or sand description 共i.e., fine, medium, coarse兲 as dis-
cussed in Lehane et al. 共2005a兲. If no grading data were avail-
able, ␦ f was assumed to be 29°.
• For UWA-05, when profiles of IFR were not available, IFR
was assumed equal to the final filling ratio and taken as either
the plug length ratio or estimated as a function of pile inner
diameter 共Lehane et al. 2005a兲.
• Based on a number of studies relating CPT data to shaft fric-
tion of displacement piles in clay 共e.g., Lehane et al. 2000兲 and

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1233

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1227-1244.

 to avoid introducing unnecessary complexity, the analyses as-
sumed a fully equalized ultimate shaft friction value of qt / 35
to calculate the contribution of the clay layers within the sand
profiles at the test sites. The time between installation and load
testing of the test piles was such that, for those involving clay
layers, full equalization of pore pressures was expected to be
effectively completed.
Additionally, the equivalent radius 共Req兲 or diameter 共Deq兲 for
square piles 共for use in offshore pile design method “friction fa-
tigue” formulations兲 is derived assuming equivalence in area, i.e.,
Deq = 2B / ␲0.5, where B = side width of the square pile 共Jardine
et al. 2005兲.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 03/10/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Relative Performance of Methods

Fig. 2. Soil behavior type classification 共after Robertson and Wride
1998兲 for average CPT parameters corresponding to 64 load tests
within the database
The ratio of the calculated to the measured capacities 共Qc / Qm兲 for
each method was evaluated and the predictive performance was
expressed in terms of the geometric mean 共␮gR兲 and the standard
deviation of the natural log of the Qc / Qm ratios 共␴ ln R兲. These
statistical parameters, as well as sample median, are summarized
in Tables 6–9 and Fig. 3 for each of the database subsets dis-
cussed earlier, as well for the entire database. The LCPC-82
method may not have been initially intended for application to
open-ended piles, but performance is presented for discussion
purposes. To prevent bias toward sites with multiple tests of simi-
lar pile geometry, the average Qc / Qm ratio of similar piles at the
same site was used in statistical analysis. A pile with a similar
geometry was defined as one constructed of the same material
with the same end condition in a sand deposit where the qc values
at the respective pile locations are within 10% of their average
and where diameters and pile lengths differ by less than 15%.
Multiple piles of similar geometry at the same site are indicated in
Tables 10–14.
Fig. 4 illustrates the well known 共Toolan et al. 1990; Chow

Table 6. Performance of Design Methods for Closed-Ended Concrete 共CECC兲 and Steel Piles 共CECS兲 in Compression
CECC CECS
Method ␮gR Median ␴ln R ␮gR Median ␴ln R
API-00 0.99 0.90 0.36 0.55 0.63 0.46
LCPC-82 1.20 1.23 0.27 0.95 0.84 0.33
EF-97 1.25 1.38 0.17 1.22 0.96 0.33
Fugro-05 1.16 1.24 0.33 1.14 1.02 0.33
ICP-05 0.94 0.93 0.24 0.88 0.85 0.35
NGI-05 0.96 0.99 0.30 1.10 0.89 0.33
UWA-05 0.88 0.89 0.24 0.93 0.84 0.33

Table 7. Performance of Design Methods for Closed 共CEC兲 and Open 共OEC兲 Ended Piles in Compression
CEC OEC
Method ␮gR Median ␴ln R ␮gR Median ␴ln R
API-00 0.76 0.81 0.50 0.72 0.84 0.59
LCPC-82 1.08 1.12 0.31 1.44 1.41 0.21
EF-97 1.24 1.23 0.25 2.34 2.38 0.28
Fugro-05 1.16 1.16 0.32 1.13 1.18 0.31
ICP-05 0.92 0.89 0.29 0.87 0.98 0.29
NGI-05 1.02 0.94 0.32 1.00 1.02 0.25
UWA-05 0.90 0.85 0.28 0.96 0.95 0.19

1234 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1227-1244.

 Table 8. Performance of Design Methods for Closed 共CET兲 and Open 共OET兲 Ended Piles in Tension
CET OET
Method ␮gR Median ␴ln R ␮gR Median ␴ln R
API-00 0.84 0.79 0.90 0.73 0.66 0.64
LCPC-82 1.33 1.44 0.65 1.26 1.23 0.46
EF-97 1.02 1.09 0.47 1.25 1.21 0.25
Fugro-05 0.78 0.89 0.38 0.92 0.85 0.32
ICP-05 0.88 0.84 0.31 0.96 0.92 0.16
NGI-05 0.92 0.90 0.42 1.04 0.97 0.29
UWA-05 0.85 0.89 0.29 0.97 0.98 0.19
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 03/10/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1997兲 bias toward density 共weighted average normalized cone tip steel and concrete pile. Each method accounts for steel and
resistance along the pile shaft兲 and tip depth for API-00. Fig. 4 concrete piles in different ways, with EF-97 and Fugro-05 not
shows bias plots toward weighted average cone tip resistance for distinguishing between the two material types. Evidently, due
the six CPT-based methods discussed. To account for the influ- to the small database of sites and pile sizes, variability in
ence of layered profiles on average parameters, cone tip resistance method performance due to pile geometry and soil consistency
is weighted by the inferred local shaft friction at a specific depth. exceeds variability in pile capacity due to material type.
The shaft friction distribution of the UWA-05 method is used for • LCPC-82 tends to have a bias toward cone tip resistance. On
weighted averaging, although similar values are obtained when average, the method overpredicts the capacity of database piles
using shaft friction distributions of ICP-05 or NGI-05. by about 40%. Predictions can, however, exceed measured ca-
Inspection of Figs. 3–5 along with statistics provided in Tables pacities by a factor of up to 4.
6–9 indicates inconsistent performance between methods for each • The use of a constant ␣s for sand in the EF-97 method tends to
database subset. Some of the differences are a function of the soil eliminate the bias toward cone tip resistance observed for
consistency and pile geometry within each database subset, al- LCPC-82.
though differences also result from method formulation. General • The simplified ␣ CPT methods overpredict the capacity of
observations of method performance are summarized as follows:
• API-00 has the highest coefficient of variation 关COV
= 共exp共␴2ln兲 − 1兲0.5, and is approximately equal to ␴ln for ␴ln
⬍ 0.5兴 for each of the subset databases, which is two to four
times higher than the COV of CPT-based methods.
• Bias in length and density result in apparently conservative
statistics toward the database for API-00, although the same
method gives Qc / Qm = 3.4 for the tension test on the 23.5 m
long pile in loose sand at Drammen, Norway. This tendency
toward unconservatism for longer piles in looser sand has been
identified previously 共e.g., Toolan et al. 1990兲 and is discussed
in more detail by Lehane et al. 共2005a兲 and Schneider 共2007兲.
• As indicated in Fig. 4, all CPT methods significantly overpre-
dicted the compression capacity of closed-ended steel piles at
Lock and Dam 26 by approximately a factor of 2. It is uncer-
tain whether the poor predictions resulted from scale effects on
CPT qc measurements in the gravelly sand, site variability, or
other factors. In the original reference, Briaud et al. 共1989b兲
also note that the measured capacities are unusually low as
compared to predictions using CPT-based methods.
• No consistent trends were observed regarding the ability of a
given method to predict the difference in capacity between a

Table 9. Performance of Design Methods for Entire 77 Pile Database

Entire database
Method ␮gR Median ␴ln R
API-00 0.76 0.78 0.60
LCPC-82 1.23 1.27 0.40
EF-97 1.40 1.36 0.42
Fugro-05 1.04 1.11 0.35
ICP-05 0.91 0.92 0.27
NGI-05 1.01 0.96 0.31 Fig. 3. Statistical values 共␮gR and ␴ln R兲 for design methods based on
UWA-05 0.92 0.90 0.25 database of driven piles in siliceous sands presented

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1235

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1227-1244.

 Table 10. Characteristics of Load Tests on Concrete Closed-Ended Piles in Compression 共CECC兲
B or ztip Water Average Average Average Database Maximum Clay
Pile Pile Pile D t 关Leff兴 table Time qc1N qc1N Fr Qt Qt 共MN兲 Qs Average Number of
ID Site number material shape 共m兲 共mm兲 共m兲 共m兲 共days兲 shaft tip 共%兲 共MN兲 关w 共mm兲兴 共MN兲 IFR Piles Reference
101 Baghdad p1 Concrete Square 0.253 — 11.0 6.2 88 60 38 2.63 0.98 1.1 — Closed 1 Altaee et al. 1992
关6.8兴 关110兴
102 Baghdad p2 Concrete Square 0.253 — 15.0 6.0 42 54 49 2.60 1.61 1.61 — Closed 1 Altaee et al. 1992
关9.4兴 关29兴
104 Cimarron River p2 Concrete Octagonal 0.610 — 19.5 1.0 ? 111 37 0.42 3.56 3.56 — Closed 1 Nevels and Snethen 1994
关13.1兴 关65兴
105 Drammen A Concrete Circular 0.280 — 8.0 1.7 ? 48 25 0.39 0.28 0.29 — Closed 1 Gregersen et al. 1973
关4.9兴 关39兴
106 Drammen D/A Concrete Circular 0.280 — 16.0 1.7 ? 39 32 0.40 0.49 0.50 — Closed 1 Gregersen et al. 1973
关11兴 关41兴
107 Drammen E Concrete Circular 0.280 — 7.5 1.7 ? 50 21 0.40 0.21 0.21 — Closed 1 Gregersen et al. 1973
关4.5兴 关32兴
108 Drammen E Concrete Circular 0.280 — 11.5 1.7 ? 41 27 0.39 0.33 0.33 — Closed 1 Gregersen et al. 1973
关7.6兴 关30兴
109 Drammen E Concrete Circular 0.280 — 15.5 1.7 ? 39 32 0.39 0.47 0.48 — Closed 1 Gregersen et al. 1973
关10.7兴 关35兴
110 Drammen E Concrete Circular 0.280 — 19.5 1.7 ? 41 50 0.42 0.64 0.65 — Closed 1 Gregersen et al. 1973
关12.2兴 关32兴
111 Drammen E Concrete Circular 0.280 — 23.5 1.7 ? 49 62 0.41 0.84 0.90 — Closed 1 Gregersen et al. 1973
关12.9兴 关40兴
112 Fittja Straits D Concrete Square 0.235 — 12.8 2.0 5 42 39 0.44 0.34 0.36 0.03 Closed 1 Axelsson 2000
关8.2兴 关35兴
117 Jonkoping p23 Concrete Square 0.235 — 16.8 1.3 ⬎1 93 112 0.44 1.72 1.72 0.06 Closed 3 Jendeby et al. 1994
关10.9兴 关50兴
118 Jonkoping p25 Concrete Square 0.235 — 17.8 1.3 ⬍1 114 144 0.46 1.65 1.50 0.06 Closed 3 Jendeby et al. 1994
关10.9兴 关14兴
119 Jonkoping p26 Concrete Square 0.275 — 16.2 1.3 ⬎1 91 78 0.44 1.40 1.40 0.07 Closed 3 Jendeby et al. 1994
关10.5兴 关50兴
127 Ogeechee River H-2 Concrete Square 0.406 — 15.2 1.5 0.5 130 112 0.25 2.75 3.16 — Closed 1 Vesic 1970
关8.2兴 关133兴
130 Tickfaw River TP2 Concrete Square 0.610 — 32.0 1.0 ? 41 24 0.77 2.96 2.60 1.04 Closed 1 Titi and Abu-Farsakh 1999
关26.1兴 关19兴
131 Tickfaw River TP1 Concrete Square 0.610 — 25.9 1.0 ? 43 11 0.77 2.47 2.35 0.53 Closed 1 Titi and Abu-Farsakh 1999

1236 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008

关20.3兴 关25兴

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 03/10/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1227-1244.
 Table 11. Characteristics of Load Tests on Steel Closed-Ended Piles in Compression 共CECS兲
Maximum
ztip Water Average Average Average Database Qt Clay
Pile Pile Pile D t 关Leff兴 table Time qc1N qc1N Fr Qt 共MN兲 Qs Average Number of
ID Site number material shape 共m兲 共mm兲 共m兲 共m兲 共days兲 shaft tip 共%兲 共MN兲 关w 共mm兲兴 共MN兲 IFR Piles Reference
100 Akasaka 6C Steel Circular 0.200 — 11.0 9.0 ? 168 189 — 1.21 ⬃1.5 — Closed 1 BCP Committe 1971
关4.9兴 关1,000兴
103 Cimarron River p1 Steel Circular 0.660 — 19.0 1.0 ? 112 39 0.43 3.57 3.58 — Closed 1 Nevels and Snethen 1994
关12.9兴 关80兴
113 Hoogzand II Steel Circular 0.356 — 6.8 3.2 ? 430 388 0.86 2.85 3.10 — Closed 1 Beringen et al. 1979
关2.6兴 关64兴
114 Hsin Ta TP4 Steel Circular 0.609 — 34.3 2.0 33 62 36 — 4.26 4.26 0.72 Closed 2 Yen et al. 1989
关20.2兴 关78兴
115 Hsin Ta TP6 Steel Circular 0.609 — 34.3 2.0 30 74 28 — 4.91 4.40 0.61 Closed 2 Yen et al. 1989
关23.9兴 关21兴
116 Hunter’s Point S Steel Circular 0.273 — 9.2a 2.4 24 88 63 0.27 0.44 0.50 — Closed 1 Briaud et al. 1989a
关6.1兴 关83兴
120 Ogeechee River H-12 Steel Circular 0.457 — 6.1 1.5 0.5 155 111 0.38 2.08 2.14 — Closed 1 Vesic 1970
关2.6兴 关130兴
121 Ogeechee River H-13 Steel Circular 0.457 — 8.9 1.5 0.5 144 118 0.33 2.64 2.81 — Closed 1 Vesic 1970
关4.5兴 关132兴
122 Ogeechee River H-14 Steel Circular 0.457 — 12.0 1.5 0.5 134 83 0.28 3.21 3.56 — Closed 1 Vesic 1970
关6.7兴 关131兴
123 Ogeechee River H-15 Steel Circular 0.457 — 15.0 1.5 0.5 131 102 0.25 3.95 3.83 — Closed 1 Vesic 1970
关8.1兴 关61兴
124 Pigeon Creek 1 Steel Circular 0.356 — 6.9 3.0 4 203 190 0.55 1.50 1.77 0.01 Closed 1 Paik et al. 2003
关3.0兴 关150兴
125 Sermide S Steel Circular 0.508 — 35.9 0.0 ? 91 81 — 5.49 5.62 0.29 Closed 1 Appendino 1981
关19.6兴 关84兴
126 Lock and Dam 26 3-1 Steel Circular 0.305 — 14.2 0.0 35 235 167 0.38 1.17 1.32 — Closed 3 Briaud et al. 1989b
关7.8兴 关76兴
128 Lock and Dam 26 3-4 Steel Circular 0.356 — 14.4 0.0 27 235 155 0.38 1.15 1.13 — Closed 3 Briaud et al. 1989b
关7.9兴 关33兴
129 Lock and Dam 26 3-7 Steel Circular 0.406 — 14.6 0.0 28 234 145 0.37 1.62 1.79 — Closed 3 Briaud et al. 1989b
关8.0兴 关76兴
a
Embedded length for Hunter’s Point in 7.8 m.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 03/10/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1237
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1227-1244.
 Table 12. Characteristics of Load Tests on Closed Ended Piles in Tension 共CET兲
B or ztip Water Average Average Average Database Maximum Clay
Pile Pile Pile D t 关Leff兴 table Time qc1N qc1N Fr Qt Qt 共MN兲 Qs Average Number of
ID Site number material shape 共m兲 共mm兲 共m兲 共m兲 共days兲 shaft tip 共%兲 共MN兲 关w 共mm兲兴 共MN兲 IFR Piles Reference
200 Baghdad p1 Concrete Square 0.253 — 11.0 6.2 200 62 — 2.63 0.58 0.58 — Closed 1 Altaee et al. 1992
关6.8兴 关65兴
201 Drammen A Concrete Circular 0.280 — 8.0 1.7 ? 49 — 0.39 0.09 0.09 — Closed 1 Gregersen et al. 1973
关4.9兴 关18兴
202 Drammen D/A Concrete Circular 0.280 — 16.0 1.7 ? 38 — 0.40 0.25 0.25 — Closed 1 Gregersen et al. 1973
关11.0兴 关37兴
203 Drammen E Concrete Circular 0.280 — 23.5 1.7 ? 49 — 0.41 0.29 0.29 — Closed 1 Gregersen et al. 1973
关12.9兴 关37兴
204 Hoogzand II Steel Circular 0.356 — 6.8 3.2 ? 430 — 0.86 1.21 1.21 — Closed 1 Beringen et al. 1979
关2.6兴 关57兴
205 Hsin Ta TP5 Steel Circular 0.609 — 34.3 2.0 28 54 — — 2.63 2.45 0.18 Closed 1 Yen et al. 1989
关17.5兴 关21兴
206 Ogeechee River H-16 Steel Circular 0.457 — 15.0 1.5 1.5 131 — 0.25 1.54 1.54 — Closed 1 Vesic 1970
关8.1兴 关10兴
207 Lock and Dam 26 3-2 Steel Circular 0.305 — 11.0 0.0 35 221 — 0.39 0.54 0.54 — Closed 3 Briaud et al. 1989b
关6.0兴 关62兴
208 Lock and Dam 26 3-5 Steel Circular 0.356 — 11.1 0.0 27 222 — 0.40 0.61 0.61 — Closed 3 Briaud et al. 1989b
关6.1兴 关43兴
209 Lock and Dam 26 3-8 Steel Circular 0.406 — 11.1 0.0 28 222 — 0.40 0.90 0.90 — Closed 3 Briaud et al. 1989b
关6.1兴 关60兴
210 I-880 2-T Steel Circular 0.610 — 10.7 0.0 16 455 — 1.99 2.00 2.00 0.21 Closed 2 Olson and Shantz 2004
关4.8兴 关32兴
211 I-880 2-W Steel Circular 0.610 — 12.3 0.0 20 459 — 2.15 3.20 3.20 0.29 Closed 2 Olson and Shantz 2004
关5.8兴 关38兴

1238 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 03/10/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1227-1244.
 Table 13. Characteristics of Load Tests on Steel Open-Ended Pipe Piles in Compression 共OEC兲
ztip Water Average Average Average Database Maximum Clay
Pile Pile Pile D t 关Leff兴 table Time qc1N qc1N Fr Qt Qt 共MN兲 Qs Average Number of
ID Site number material shape 共m兲 共mm兲 共m兲 共m兲 共days兲 shaft tip 共%兲 共MN兲 关w 共mm兲兴 共MN兲 IFR piles Reference
300 SFOBB Bent Steel Circular 0.610 12.5 13.3 0.0 25 318 96 1.53 2.87 2.71 0.66 0.83c 1 Olson and Shantz 2004
E31R 关5.2兴 关28兴
301 Drammen 16 Steel Circular 0.813 12.5 11.0 3.0 2 58 29 0.58 1.21 1.60 — 0.88c 1 Tveldt and Fredriksen 2003
关6.3兴 关204兴
302 Drammen 25 Steel Circular 0.813 12.5 15.0 3.0 2 41 53 0.42 1.89 2.05 — 0.88c 1 Tveldt and Fredriksen 2003
关7.0兴 关NA兴
303 Drammen 25 Steel Circular 0.813 12.5 25.0 3.0 2 46 32 0.64 2.70 3.28 — 0.88c 1 Tveldt and Fredriksen 2003
关12.0兴 关NA兴
304 Dunkirk zdh C1 Steel Circular 0.457 13.5 10.0 4.0 68 299 244 0.85 2.94 2.82 — 0.78c 1 Jardine and Standing 2000
关6.6兴 关34兴
305 EURIPIDES Ia Steel Circular 0.763 35.6 30.5 1.0 7 246 307 1.22 8.25 11.60 — 0.99a 1 Kolk et al. 2005b
关7.3兴 关260兴
306 EURIPIDES Ib Steel Circular 0.763 35.6 38.7 1.0 2 293 231 1.43 13.00 16.26 — 0.97a 1 Kolk et al. 2005b
关8.8兴 关249兴
307 EURIPIDES Ic Steel Circular 0.763 35.6 47.0 1.0 11 284 230 1.32 19.50 23.41 — 0.96a 2 Kolk et al. 2005b
关15.2兴 关260兴
308 EURIPIDES II Steel Circular 0.763 35.6 46.7 1.0 6 296 230 1.54 19.50 21.53 — 0.95a 2 Kolk et al. 2005b
关14.6兴 关190兴
309 Hoogzand I Steel Circular 0.356 16.0 7.0 3.2 37 425 385 0.86 2.27 2.50 — 0.66b 1 Beringen et al. 1979
关2.8兴 关64兴
310 Hoogzand III Steel Circular 0.356 20.0 5.3 3.2 19 420 428 0.90 1.85 2.00 — 0.77b 1 Beringen et al. 1979
关1.7兴 关64兴
311 Hound Point p Steel Circular 1.220 24.2 26.0 0.0 21 144 138 — 7.00 7.50 0.44 0.95c 1 Williams et al. 1997
关7.5兴 关215兴
313 Pigeon Creek 2 Steel Circular 0.356 32.0 7.0 3.0 4 202 192 0.56 1.03 1.28 0.02 0.83a 1 Paik et al. 2003
关3.2兴 关135兴
314 Shanghai ST-1 Steel Circular 0.914 20.0 79.0 0.5 23 95 81 — 15.56 16.36 1.72 0.80b 2 Pump et al. 1998
关45.5兴 关121兴
315 Shanghai ST-2 Steel Circular 0.914 20.0 79.1 0.5 35 95 82 — 17.08 17.82 1.74 0.85b 2 Pump et al. 1998
关46.9兴 关130兴
316 Trans-Tokyo Bay TP Steel Circular 2.000 34.0 30.6 0.0 52 296 58 — 34.68 34.68 1.32 1.00b 1 Shioi et al. 1992
关17.4兴 关203兴
317 SEUS MT Steel Circular 0.324 38.1 42.4 3.7 21 123 86 1.29 3.58 3.72 0.32 0.50b 1 —
关25.2兴 关91兴
a
IFR measured.
b
PLR measured.
c
IFR estimated from pile inner diameter 关after Lehane et al. 共2005a兲兴.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 03/10/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1239
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1227-1244.
 Table 14. Characteristics of Load Tests on Steel Open-Ended Pipe Piles in Tension 共OET兲
ztip Water Average Average Average Database Maximum Clay
Pile Pile Pile D t 关Leff兴 table Time qc1N qc1N Fr Qt Qt 共MN兲 Qs Average Number of
ID Site number material shape 共m兲 共mm兲 共m兲 共m兲 共days兲 shaft tip 共%兲 共MN兲 关w 共mm兲兴 共MN兲 IFR piles Reference
400 Los Coyotes 5 Steel Circular 0.356 11.2 14.9 5.0 2 146 — 2.15 1.51 1.51 0.64 0.74c 1 Olson and Shantz 2004
关8.9兴 关26兴
401 SFOBB Bent E31R Steel Circular 0.610 12.5 13.3 0.0 25 320 — 1.55 1.34 1.34 0.66 0.83c 1 Olson and Shantz 2004
关5.3兴 关34兴
402 Dunkirk zdh C1 Steel Circular 0.457 13.5 10.0 4.0 69 299 — 0.85 0.82 0.82 — 0.78c 1 Jardine and Standing 2000
关6.6兴 关46兴
403 Dunkirk zdh R1 Steel Circular 0.457 13.5 19.3 4.0 9 234 — 0.99 1.45 1.45 — 0.78c 1 Jardine and Standing 2000
关12.6兴 关31兴
404 EURIPIDES Ia Steel Circular 0.763 35.6 30.5 1.0 7 246 — 1.22 3.00 3.00 — 0.99a 1 Kolk et al. 2005b
关7.3兴 关76兴
405 EURIPIDES Ib Steel Circular 0.763 35.6 38.7 1.0 2 293 — 1.43 9.75 9.75 — 0.97a 1 Kolk et al. 2005b
关8.8兴 关36兴
406 EURIPIDES Ic Steel Circular 0.763 35.6 47.0 1.0 11 284 — 1.32 13.75 13.75 — 0.96a 2 Kolk et al. 2005b
关15.2兴 关72兴
407 EURIPIDES II Steel Circular 0.763 35.6 46.7 1.0 7 296 — 1.54 11.00 11.00 — 0.95a 2 Kolk et al. 2005b
关14.6兴 关76兴
408 Hoogzand I Steel Circular 0.356 16.0 7.0 3.2 37 425 — 0.86 0.82 0.82 — 0.66b 1 Beringen et al. 1979
关2.8兴 关20兴
409 Hoogzand III Steel Circular 0.356 20.0 5.3 3.2 19 420 — 0.90 0.53 0.53 — 0.77b 1 Beringen et al. 1979
关1.7兴 关10兴
410 Hound Point p Steel Circular 1.220 24.2 34.0 0.0 11 172 — — 3.86 3.86 0.41 0.95c 1 Williams et al. 1997
关13兴 关25兴
411 Hound Point p Steel Circular 1.220 24.2 41.0 0.0 4 140 — — 3.74 3.74 0.34 0.95c 1 Williams et al. 1997
关18.7兴 关NA兴
412 I-880 2-P Steel Circular 0.610 19.1 12.3 0.0 28 461 — 2.17 2.00 2.00 0.40 0.82c 1 Olson and Shantz 2004
关5.8兴 关43兴
413 SEUS MT Steel Circular 0.324 38.1 42.4 3.7 28 130 — 1.37 2.44 2.44 0.32 0.50b 1 —
关25.2兴 关62兴
414 Padre Island A Steel Circular 0.508 12.7 14.6 1.0 2 127 — — 0.48 0.48 — 0.87b 1 McClelland 1974
关9.9兴 关37兴
415 Padre Island A Steel Circular 0.508 12.7 17.1 1.0 2 115 — — 0.65 0.65 — 0.80a,b 1 McClelland 1974
关11.9兴 关NA兴
a
IFR measured.

1240 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008

b
PLR measured.
c
IFR estimated from pile inner diameter 关after Lehane et al. 共2005a兲兴.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 03/10/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1227-1244.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 03/10/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Bias toward density 共weighted qc1N兲 along pile shaft and effective pile length for API-00
open-ended piles in tension and compression. As these meth-
ods do not recommend differences in capacity calculation for
open-ended piles, and may or may not have been intended for
analysis of these types of piles, differences in method perfor-
mance highlight the importance of distinguishing open- and
closed-ended piles. Predictions for piles in compression are
much worse than for piles in tension, indicating significant
errors in the respective end-bearing formulations; see Xu et al.
共2008兲.
• Fugro-05 tends to overpredict the capacity of piles in compres-
sion and slightly underpredict the capacity of piles in tension.
This tendency is believed to be partly related to an end-bearing
formulation, which allows qb / qc to be greater than unity 共Xu
et al. 2008兲, and to the comparatively high friction fatigue
共h / R*兲 exponent of 0.85–0.9.
• NGI-05 tends to be slightly less conservative 共␮g ⬇ 0.9– 1.1兲
and less precise 共␴ln R = 0.25– 0.4兲 than UWA-05 and ICP-05
共␮g ⬇ 0.85 to 1.0, ␴ln R ⬇ 0.2– 0.3兲.
• UWA-05 generally has improved performance for the database
of open-ended piles in compression 共␮gR = 0.96; ␴ln R = 0.19兲 as
compared to other methods. This is primarily considered due
to treatment of the influence of partial plugging on end bearing
共as well as shaft friction兲 within the framework for UWA-05
共Xu et al. 2008兲.
Summary and Conclusions
Static axial pile design in sands is still an area of great uncer-
tainty. This paper has discussed a number of static design
methods, which roughly cover the evolution from an earth
pressure-based approach to simplified CPT alpha methods, to
more detailed CPT-based methods developed for extrapolation to
offshore piles. A relatively large database of pile test sites in
siliceous sands with CPT data is presented, which covers a rep-
resentative range of sand relative density, although pile geometry
is more typical of onshore conditions than those offshore. Data-
base studies show that the COV has reduced with each of those
improvements in design theory, with API-00 having a ␴ln R of
0.4–0.9 which is biased to database subset characteristics, CPT
alpha methods having a ␴ln R on the order of 0.3–0.6, and offshore
CPT methods having a ␴ln R of 0.2–0.4.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1241
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1227-1244.
Although this trend of improving statistics is encouraging, the
following limitations should be noted:
• As pile geometry 共length, diameter, end condition, direction of
loading兲 and soil profile 共density, in situ stress state, soil lay-
ering兲 appear to be the most significant factors influencing
axial pile capacity for the range of pile sizes within the data-
base, the relative size of the subset databases is too small to
assess the influence of minor features. These minor features
may be of significant importance when extrapolating to pile
geometries and soil conditions outside of the database.
• Many more load tests would be necessary to attempt an unbi-
ased regression analysis, and presented statistics are signifi-
cantly biased toward the soil and pile conditions within this
database. Direct application of statistics from database studies
to calibration of resistance and safety factors and reliability
analyses should be used with caution, as the potential for ex-
trapolation bias may be more significant than ␴ln R. Applica-
tions of these results to reliability analyses for offshore piles
are addressed in more detail by Lehane et al. 共2005a兲 and
Schneider 共2007兲.
Despite these limitations, the evaluation presented in this
paper has indicated that:
• The API-00 method performs poorly against database piles. An
investigation into bias of the method 共e.g., Lehane et al.
2005a; Schneider 2007兲 is required to explain why the method
has shown acceptable performance in practice.
• CPT alpha methods need to distinguish between open- and
closed-ended piles. Assuming qb / qc of unity within EF-97
leads to much larger errors for open-ended piles than qb / qc of
0.4–0.5 recommended by LCPC-82. Extrapolation of alpha
methods to piles outside of database characteristics may be
expected to lead to greater uncertainty than the four offshore
CPT-based methods.
• The more detailed method formulation of UWA-05 共which is
based on recent research into the controlling mechanisms that
influence pile capacity in sands兲 is thought to be the primary
reason for its slightly better predictive performance against the
database than that of ICP-05, NGI-05, and Fugro-05.
• None of the published methods is equipped to deal with the
complex time-dependent behavior of driven piles in sands.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 03/10/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Potential bias toward weighted average qc along pile shaft for CPT methods

Acknowledgments personnel involved in the development of the Fugro-05, ICP-05,

and NGI-05 methods.
The writers gratefully acknowledge the support provided by the
Australian Research Council. The first and second writers were Appendix
also supported through International Postgraduate Research
scholarships and University Postgraduate awards from the Uni- Tables 10–14 present summary information for load tests in the
versity of Western Australia. The writers wish to acknowledge the database discussed in this paper. A short description of each col-
assistance and willingness to share data and opinions of various umn is listed in the following.

1242 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1227-1244.

 Column Heading
1 ID
2 Site
3 Pile number
4 Pile Material
5 Pile shape
6 B or D 共m兲
7 t 共mm兲
8a ztip
关Leff兴
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 03/10/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Description
ID number for UWA database.
Site name based on descriptions in
reference.
Pile identification.
Material from which pile was
constructed.
Exterior shape of pile.
Outer width 共B兲 of square or octagonal
piles or diameter 共D兲 of circular piles.
Wall thickness of open ended piles.
Tip depth of pile. Only one pile 共ID 116
at Hunters Point兲 had an embedded
length less that tip depth, with that
American Petroleum Institute 共API兲. 共2000兲. Recommended practice for
planning, designing, and constructing fixed offshore platforms—
Working stress design, API RP2A, 21st Ed., Washington, D.C.
American Petroleum Institute 共API兲. 共2006兲. DRAFT recommended prac-
tice for planning, designing, and constructing fixed offshore
platforms—Working stress design, API RP2A, 22nd Ed., Washington,
D.C.
Appendino, M. 共1981兲. “Interpretation of axial load tests on long piles.”
Proc., 10th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineer-
ing, Vol. 2, Balkema, Rotterdam, 593–598.
Axelsson, G. 共2000兲. “Long term setup of driven piles in sand.” Ph.D.
thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
BCP-Committee. 共1971兲. “Field tests on piles in sand.” Soils Found.,
11共2兲, 29–49.

共m兲 Begemann, H. K. S. Ph. 共1965兲. “The maximum pulling force of a single

value contained
in a footnote below the table.
8b 关Leff兴 Of interest is the “effective length” of the
共m兲 pile which is the length behind the tip in
which 80% of the pile shaft friction is
estimated to be generated using the
UWA-05 method. The effective length,
Leff, is contained in square brackets 关 兴
below the tip depth. Effective length
using the distribution of ICP-05 or
NGI-05 is similar.
9 Water Depth to water table at time of driving.
table
共m兲
10 Time 共days兲 Time between installation and load
testing.
11 Average qc1N Weighted average normalized cone
shaft tip resistance, based on UWA-05 shaft
friction formulation.
12 Average qc1N Average normalized cone tip resistance
tip at pile tip, using Dutch averaging
technique.
13 Average Fr 共%兲 Weighted average CPT friction ratio,
based on UWA-05 shaft friction
formulation.
14 Database Qt 共MN兲 Pile capacity at a tip displacement of
0.1D, used in database assessment of
Q c / Q m.
15a Maximum Qt 共MN兲 Maximum load measured in pile load
test.
15b 关w 共mm兲兴 Maximum displacement measured in
pile load test. This value is contained in
关square brackets兴 below the maximum
load value.
16 Clay Qs 共MN兲 Estimated value of shaft friction
occurring in clay layers.
17 Average IFR Weighted average incremental filling
ratio 共IFR兲 of open ended pile, based
on UWA-05 shaft friction formulation.
The IFR was estimated from 共a兲
continuous field measurements; 共b兲
plug length ratio measured at the end
of driving; 共c兲 as a function of pile inner
diameter after Lehane et al. 共2005b兲.
18 Number of piles Number of “similar” piles at same site.
Qc / Qm for piles at a site with this value
greater than one were averaged prior to
assessment of database statistics to
minimize the potential for bias towards
a given site.
19 Reference Reference which contains information
describing pile load test.
References
Altaee, A., Fellenius, B. H., and Evgin, E. 共1992兲. “Axial load transfer for
piles in sand. I. Tests on an instrumented precast pile.” Can. Geotech.
J., 29共1兲, 11–20.
tension pile calculated on the basis of results of the adhesion jacket
cone.” Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engi-
neering, Vol. 2, Balkema, Rotterdam, 229–233.
Beringen, F. L., Windle, D., and Van Hooydonk, W. R. 共1979兲. “Results
of loading tests on driven piles in sand.” Recent development in the
design and construction of piles, ICE, London, 213–225.
Briaud, J.-L., Moore, B. H., and Mitchell, G. B. 共1989b兲. “Analysis of
pile load tests at Lock and Dam 26.” Foundation engineering: Cur-
rent principles and practices, Evanston, Ill., ACSE, Reston, Va., 925–
942.
Briaud, J.-L., and Tucker, L. M. 共1988兲. “Measured and predicted axial
response of 98 piles.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 114共9兲, 984–1001.
Briaud, J.-L., Tucker, L. M., and Ng, E. 共1989a兲. “Axially loaded 5 pile
group and single pile in sand.” Proc., 12th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechan-
ics and Foundaton Engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1121–1124.
Bustamante, M., and Gianeselli, L. 共1982兲. “Pile bearing capacity predic-
tion by means of static penetrometer CPT.” Proc., 2nd European
Symp. on Penetration Test., Balkema, Rotterdam, 493–500.
Chin, F. K. 共1978兲. “Diagnosis of pile condition.” Geotech. Eng., 9共2兲,
85–104.
Chow, F. C. 共1997兲. “Investigations into the behaviour of displacement
piles for offshore foundations.” Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College,
London.
Clausen, C. J. F., Aas, P. M., and Karlsrud, K. 共2005兲. “Bearing capacity
of driven piles in sand, the NGI approach.” Proc., Int. Symp. on Fron-
tiers in Offshore Geomechanics, ISFOG, Taylor & Francis, London,
677–681.
De Cock, F., Legrand, C., and Huybrechts, N. 共2003兲. “Overview of
design methods of axially loaded piles in Europe—Report of ERTC3-
Piles, ISSMGE Subcommittee.” Proc., 8th European Conf. on Soil
Mechanics, and Geotechnical Engineering, CGtS, Prague, 663–715.
Delft Laboratory of Soil Mechanics 共Delft兲. 共1936兲. “The predetermina-
tion of the required length and the prediction of the toe resistance of
piles.” Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engi-
neering, Harvad Univ., Boston, 181–184.
Dennis, N. D., Jr., and Olson, R. E. 共1983兲. “Axial capacity of steel pipe
piles in sand.” Proc., Conf. on Geotechnical Practice in Offshore
Engineering, ASCE, Reston, Va, 389–402.
Eslami, A., and Fellenius, B. 共1997兲. “Pile capacity by direct CPT and
CPTu methods applied to 102 case histories.” Can. Geotech. J.,
34共6兲, 886–904.
Fugro. 共1995兲. “Reduced scale pile load tests, Jamuna Bridge, Bang-
ladesh.” Rep. No. K-2380/206, Fugro, The Netherlands.
Gavin, K. G., and Lehane, B. M. 共2003兲. “The shaft capacity of pipe piles
in sand.” Can. Geotech. J., 40共1兲, 36–45.
Gregersen, O. S., Aas, G., and DiBiagio, E. 共1973兲. “Load tests on fric-
tion piles in loose sand.” Proc., 8th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics, and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2.1, 109–117.
Jamiolkowski, M. B., Lo Presti, D. F. C., and Manassero, M. 共2003兲.
“Evaluation of relative density and shear strength of sands from cone
penetration test.” Soil behaviour and soft ground construction, Geo-

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1243

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1227-1244.

 technical Special Publication No. 119, ASCE, Reston, Va., 201–238.
Jardine, R. J., Chow, F. C., Overy, R. F., and Standing, J. R. 共2005兲. ICP
design methods for driven piles in sands and clays, Telford, London.
Jardine, R. J., and Standing, J. R. 共2000兲. “Pile load testing performed for
HSE cyclic loading study at Dunkirk, France.” Rep. No. OTO 2000
007, Health and Safety Executive, London.
Jendeby, L., Noren, C., and Rankka, K. 共1994兲. “Friction piles in sand—
Prediction of bearing capacity and load/displacement curve.” Proc.,
Int. Conf., and Exhibition on Piling and Deep Foundations, DFI,
Hawthorn, N.J., 5, DFI 94, 3.6.1–3.6.5.
Kolk, H. J., Baaijens, A. E., Al-Shafei, K., and Dakhil, O. A. 共2005c兲.
“Axial load tests on pipe piles in very dense sands at Ras Tanajib.”
Proc., Int. Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore Geomechanics, ISFOG,
Taylor & Francis, London, 765–771.
Kolk, H. J., Baaijens, A. E., and Senders, M. 共2005a兲. “Design criteria for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Brighton on 03/10/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
pipe piles in silica sands.” Proc., Int. Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore
Geomechanics, ISFOG, Taylor & Francis, London, 711–716.
Kolk, H. J., Baaijens, A. E., and Vergobi, P. 共2005b兲. “Results of axial
load tests on pipe piles in very dense sands: The EURIPIDES JIP.”
Proc., Int. Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore Geomechanics, ISFOG,
Taylor & Francis, London, 661–667.
Lehane, B. M., Chow, F. C., McCabe, B. A., and Jardine, R. J. 共2000兲.
“Relationships between shaft capacity of driven piles and CPT end
resistance.” Proc. Inst. of Civ. Eng. (UK), 143共2兲, 93–101.
Lehane, B. M., and Jardine, R. J. 共1994兲. “Shaft capacity of driven piles
in sand: A new design approach.” Proc., 7th Int. Conf. on Behavior of
Offshore Structures, MIT, Cambridge, Mass., 23–36.
Lehane, B. M., Jardine, R. J., Bond, A. J., and Frank, R. 共1993兲. “Mecha-
nisms of shaft friction in sand from instrumented pile tests.” J. Geo-
tech. Engrg., 119共1兲, 19–35.
Lehane, B. M., Schneider, J. A., and Xu, X. 共2005a兲. “A review of design
methods for offshore driven piles in siliceous sand.” UWA Rep. No.
GEO 05358, The Univ. of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Lehane, B. M., Schneider, J. A., and Xu, X. 共2005b兲. “The UWA-05
method for prediction of axial capacity of driven piles in sand.” Proc.,
Int. Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore Geomechanics ISFOG, Taylor &
Francis, London, 683–689.
Lunne, T., Long, M., and Forsberg, C. F. 共2003兲. “Characterization and
engineering properties of Holman, Drammen sand.” Charact. Eng.
Prop. Nat. Soils, 2, 1121–1148.
McClelland, B. 共1974兲. “Design of deep penetration piles for ocean struc-
tures.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 100共7兲, 709–747.
McClelland, B., Focht, J. A., and Emrich, W. J. 共1969兲. “Problems in
design and installation of offshore piles.” J. Soil Mech. and Found.
Div., 95共6兲, 1491–1514.
Meyerhof, G. G. 共1956兲. “Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohe-
sionless soils.” J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 82共1兲, 1–19.
Nevels, J. B. J., and Snethen, D. R. 共1994兲. “Comparison of settlement
predictions for single pile in sand based on penetration test results.”
Proc., Conf. on Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations
and Embankments, ASCE, Reston, Va, 1028–1038.
Olson, R. E., and Shantz, T. J. 共2004兲. “Axial load capacity of piles in
California in cohesionless soils.” Deep foundations 2002, Geotechni-
cal Special Publication No. 116, ASCE, Reston, Va., 1–15.
Paik, K., Salgado, R., Lee, J., and Kim, B. 共2003兲. “Behavior of open-
and closed-ended piles driven into sands.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 129共4兲, 296–306.
1244 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2008
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1227-1244.
Pump, W., Korista, S., and Scott, J. 共1998兲. “Installation & load tests of
deep piles in Shanghai alluvium.” Proc., 7th Int. Conf. on Piling and
Deep Foundations, 1, DFI, Vienna, 31–36.
Randolph, M. F. 共2003兲. “Science and empiricism in pile foundation de-
sign.” Geotechnique, 53共10兲, 847–875.
Randolph, M. F., Dolwin, J., and Beck, R. 共1994兲. “Design of driven piles
in sand.” Geotechnique, 44共3兲, 427–448.
Robertson, P. K., and Wride, C. E. 共1998兲. “Evaluating cyclic liquefaction
potential using cone penetration test.” Can. Geotech. J., 35共3兲, 442–
459.
Schneider, J. A. 共2007兲. “Analysis of piezocone data for displacement
pile design.” Ph.D. thesis, The Univ. of Western Australia, Perth,
Australia.
Schneider, J. A., White, D. J., and Lehane, B. M. 共2007兲. “Shaft friction
of piles driven in siliceous, calcareous, and micaceous sands.” Proc.
6th Int. Conf. on Site Investigation and Geotechnics, Society for Un-
derwater Technology 共SUT兲, SUT, London, 367–382.
Shioi, Y., Yoshida, O., Meta, T., and Homma, M. 共1992兲. “Estimation of
bearing capacity of steel pipe pile by static loading test and stress-
wave theory 共Trans-Tokyo Bay Highway兲.” Application of stress-wave
theory to piles, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 325–330.
Simpson, J. A., and Weiner, E. S. C. 共1989兲. The Oxford English dictio-
nary, 2nd Ed., Vol. II, Clarendon, Oxford, U.K.
Titi, H., and Abu-Farsakh, M. 共1999兲. “Evaluation of bearing capacity of
piles from cone penetration tests data.” Louisiana Transportation Re-
search Centre, Baton Rouge, La.
Toolan, F. E., Lings, M. L., and Mirza, U. A. 共1990兲. “An appraisal of
API RP2A recommendations for determining skin friction of piles in
sand.” Proc., 22nd Offshore Technol. Conf., OTC, Houston, OTC
6422, 33–42.
Tveldt, G., and Fredriksen, F. 共2003兲. “N18 Ny motorvegbru I Drammen
Prøvebelasting av peler.” Conf., Rock and Blasting Geotechnics, Oslo,
NO, 37.1–37.32.
Vesic, A. S. 共1970兲. “Tests on instrumented piles, Ogeechee River site.” J.
Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 96共2兲, 561–584.
White, D. J., and Lehane, B. M. 共2004兲. “Friction fatigue on displacement
piles in sand.” Geotechnique, 54共10兲, 645–658.
White, D. J., Schneider, J. A., and Lehane, B. M. 共2005兲. “The influence
of effective area ratio on shaft friction of displacement piles in sand.”
Proc., Int. Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore Geomechanics, ISFOG,
Taylor & Francis, London, 741–747.
Williams, R. E., Chow, F. C., and Jardine, R. J. 共1997兲. “Unexpected
behaviour of large diameter tubular steel piles.” Int. Conf. on Foun-
dation Failures, IES, NTU, NUS, and Institution of Structural Engi-
neers, Singapore.
Xu, X., Schneider, J. A., and Lehane, B. M. 共2008兲. “End bearing of open
and closed ended driven piles in siliceous sand using the CPT.” Can.
Geotech. J., in press.
Yen, T.-L., Chin, C.-T., and Wang, R. F. 共1989兲. “Interpretation of instru-
mented driven steel pipe piles.” Foundation engineering: Current
principles and practices, Evanston, Ill., ASCE, Reston, Va., 1293–
1308.
Zhang, L., Tang, W. H., Zhang, L., and Zheng, J. 共2004兲. “Reducing
uncertainty of prediction from empirical correlations.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 130共5兲, 526–534.