Acta Geotechnica (2017) 12:753–772
DOI 10.1007/s11440-016-0498-9
RESEARCH PAPER
A full-scale field study for performance evaluation of axially
loaded large-diameter cylinder piles with pipe piles and PSC piles
Murad Y. Abu-Farsakh1 • Md. Nafiul Haque2 • Ching Tsai3
Received: 10 November 2015 / Accepted: 23 September 2016 / Published online: 19 October 2016
 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016
Abstract This paper presents the results from a pile load
testing program for a bridge construction project in
Louisiana. The testing includes two 54-in. open-ended spun
cast concrete cylinder piles, one 30-in. open-ended steel
pile and two (30- and 16-in.) square prestressed concrete
(PSC) piles driven at two locations with very similar soil
conditions. Both cone penetration tests (CPTs) and soil
borings/laboratory testing were used to characterize the
subsurface soil conditions. All the test piles were instru-
mented with vibrating wire strain gauges to measure the
load distribution along the length of the test piles and
measure the skin friction and end-bearing capacity, sepa-
rately. Dynamic load tests were performed on all test piles
at different times after pile installations to quantify the
amount of setup with time. Static load tests were also
performed on the PSC and open-ended steel piles. Due to
expected large pile capacities, the statnamic test method
was used on the two open-ended cylinder piles. The pile
capacities of these piles were evaluated using various CPT
methods (such as Schmertmann, De Ruiter and Beringen,
LCPC, Lehane et al. methods). The result showed that all
the methods can estimate the skin friction with good
accuracy, but not the end-bearing capacity. The normalized
cumulative blow counts during pile installation showed
that the blow count was always higher for the PSC piles
& Murad Y. Abu-Farsakh
cefars@lsu.edu
1
Louisiana Transportation Research Center, Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, USA
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, USA
3
Engineer 6 DCL, Louisiana Department of Transportation
and Development, Baton Rouge, LA 70804, USA
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
compared to the large-diameter open-ended cylinder pile,
regardless of pile size and hammer size. Setup was
observed for all the piles, which was mainly attributed to
increase in skin frictions. The setup parameters ‘‘A’’ were
back-calculated for all the test piles and the values were
between 0.31 and 0.41.
Keywords CAPWAP  Dynamic load test  Large-
diameter cylinder pile  Pipe pile  Pile setup  PSC pile 
Open-ended pile  Statnamic load test  Static load test 
Soil plug
1 Introduction
Due to anticipated greater efficiency (capacity to weight
ratio) of the pipe piles, open-ended piles are considered a
viable option to solid piles. However, the behavior of open-
ended piles is more complicated compared to the close-
ended piles owing to possible formation of ‘‘soil plug’’
inside the open-ended pile and that the dynamic load
responses differ from static load responses. Many
researchers (e.g., [13, 18, 51]) have analyzed the behavior
of both types of piles for different purposes; however, very
few studies in the literature offer the side-by-side com-
parison of the close-ended and open-ended piles.
It is well known that the behavior of open-ended pile is
different than that of close-ended pile. The field studies
showed that the blow count necessary for driving an open-
ended pile to certain depth is lower than the close-ended pile
for same size of pile and under similar driving condition (i.e.,
similar hammer type). Thus, it is normally acknowledged
that an open-ended pile requires less installation effort than a
close-ended pile under the same soil properties [41]. How-
ever, this might be different under plugging condition. Open-
123
754
ended piles usually exhibit more settlement compared to the
close-ended piles under a specific load during performing the
static load test [41, 50]. The inference is that the capacity of
open-ended piles is typically lower than that of close-ended
piles based on load settlement criterions. Moreover, the
difference in load capacities varies depending on the degree
of soil plugging during driving and post-driving.
1.1 CPT-based design methods
The cone penetrometer is an in situ testing device that has
been used since the 1970s for site characterization and the
evaluation of different soil properties. Due to similarity
between the cone and pile, the cone can be considered as a
simple model pile. Several methods have been proposed to
estimate the axial pile capacity utilizing the cone penetra-
tion test (CPT) and piezocone penetration test (PCPT) data
(e.g., [8, 12, 14, 19, 28, 33, 45, 53, 56). A number of
investigators (e.g., [3, 6, 15, 16, 44]) have studied and
compared the predicted pile capacities from the different
CPT methods with the measured pile capacities using static
or dynamic load tests. A study carried by Robertson et al.
[44] on eight pile load tests showed that the predicted pile
capacities using Schmertmann [45], De Ruiter and Berin-
gen [12] and LCPC [8] methods fit the measured pile
capacities better than the other CPT methods. Briaud and
Tucker [6] evaluated six CPT methods for 98 pile load tests
and concluded that the LCPC [8] method gave the best fit
between the measured and predicted axial capacities of the
piles. Abu-Farsakh and Titi [2] evaluated eight different
pile–CPT methods for local Louisiana soil and concluded
that Schmertmann [45], De Ruiter and Beringen [12] and
LCPC [8] methods are the most suitable methods for pre-
dicting the pile capacity based on CPT data. They imple-
mented these three models into a computer software
‘‘Louisiana Pile Design based on CPT’’ (LPD-CPT) [52] to
facilitate the estimation of axial pile capacity based on CPT
data. In this study, the authors used the LPD-CPT software
to estimate and compare the axial load capacities of the
investigated piles. Besides these three methods, another
method recently developed by Lehane et al. [34] is also
used for comparison.
1.2 Pile setup
It is well known that the axial capacity of piles usually
increases with time after driving in cohesive soils. This
increase in pile capacity with time is known as ‘‘setup’’ or
‘‘freeze’’ [7, 17, 22, 30]. It has been well recognized that
the magnitude of setup is dependent upon pile size, pile
lengths, pile material, soil type, soil strength and consoli-
dation properties, and stress history of the soils, among
other factors.
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Acta Geotechnica (2017) 12:753–772
The increase of pile capacity over time or setup is
believed to be attributed to three main mechanisms: (1) the
increase of effective stress due to dissipation of excess pore
water pressure generated during pile driving, (2) thixo-
tropic effect and (3) stress-independent increase or ‘‘aging’’
after the completion of excess pore water pressure dissi-
pation [5, 23, 31, 46]. The excess pore water pressure
generated during pile driving starts to dissipate (consoli-
dation) immediately after end of driving (EOD), allowing
the soil to regain its strength with time and hence
increasing the pile’s total capacities [1, 9, 20, 43].
Komurka et al. [32] introduced three phases of setup based
on the above mechanisms. After the initial nonlinear log
rate of excess pore water pressure dissipation (Phase 1), the
rate of excess pore water pressure dissipation becomes
uniform (Phase 2) and the setup rate becomes log linear
with respect to time. Soils reported to exhibit aging
behavior after the dissipation of excess pore water pressure,
and their engineering properties change with time at a
constant effective stress [40, 55]. It is due to the combined
effect of secondary compression (creep), particle interfer-
ence and clay dispersion [7, 21]. Aging effects increase the
soil’s shear modulus, stiffness and dilatancy, and reduce
the soil’s compressibility [5, 46]. ‘‘Arching’’ mechanism
can also contribute to the increase of pile capacity in fine
grained granular soils [10, 11]. Setup in cohesionless soil is
related to creep-induced breakdown of driving-induced
arching mechanisms. During pile driving, a change in the
stress regime was created and creep may reduce this
arching effect around the pile which will increase the radial
effective stress around the pile and contribute to setup [11].
Several empirical models (e. g, [23, 35, 47]) have been
proposed to estimate the pile capacity change with time. Of
these, the model developed by Skov and Denver [47] is
considered the most popular one due to its simplicity and
reliability. They proposed the following model:
Rt t
1 ¼ A log10 ð1Þ
Ro to
where Rt = total pile capacity at time, t, Ro = total pile
capacity at initial time, to, t = time elapsed since end of
initial pile driving, to = a reference time before which the
capacity cannot be reliably predicted and A = setup rate
parameter.
The A parameter is defined as the rate of pile capacity
(Rt/Ro) increase per log cycle of time (t/to); both the
capacity and time are normalized against their respective
values at time to. The proposed value of to ranges from ‘
day for sand to 1 day for clay. Note that this relationship
has been used in many publications (e.g., [7, 40], and they
show reasonable agreement between the calculated
capacities and observations. Most of these studies are based
on back analyses to establish the setup parameter from a
Acta Geotechnica (2017) 12:753–772
single site. Many researchers have studied the effect of
some of the contributing factors on pile setup and hence the
A parameter (e.g., [5, 24, 31]).
1.3 Soil plugging
It is very common that when an open-ended pile is driven
to the ground, the soil enters inside of the pile at the early
stage of pile driving to very shallow depth. The soil
resistance on the inside of the pile wall increases as the pile
is driven deeper until a ‘‘soil plug’’ is formed, which may
restrict partially or fully to enter additional soil inside of
the pile [29, 42]. It is also defined as the state where the soil
within the pile has mobilized enough frictional capacity to
overcome the end-bearing capacity. A fully plugged open-
ended pile behaves similarly to a close-ended fully dis-
placement pile, with respect to driving and load test.
Plugging of pipe piles has a great influence on the pre-
diction of pile driving capacity and axial bearing capacity
[36, 37]. The deformation and stress characteristics of soil
surrounding the pipe piles change with the increase of pile
diameter. Other factors such as penetration depth and
installation method also influence the soil plugging
behavior. The skin friction and end-bearing capacity of
pipe piles change with the plugging status [39, 49];
therefore, soil plug effect has significant influence on the
prediction of pile driving capacity and axial capacity of
piles. Experimental work has been performed both in field
project (e.g., [26, 36, 38]) and in laboratory model test piles
[41]. Numerical analyses (e.g., [25, 48]) also have been
performed since it is difficult often to get the field mea-
surements about soil plug.
2 Objective and scope
This case study in this paper includes analyzing the
behavior (during driving and following load tests) of two
54-in. open-ended cylinder piles (OECP), one 30-in. steel
pipe (OESP) pile and two PSC piles that were installed side
by side in the same soil condition. Dynamic load tests
using pile driving analyzer (PDA) were performed at preset
intervals after initial installation in order to evaluate the
amount of ‘‘setup.’’ Either static (SLT) or statnamic load
test (SNLT) was performed on the test piles. The load
distribution was evaluated with the aid of strain gauges.
Finally, the load distribution was compared with the skin
friction predicted using different pile capacity design
methods based on CPT data. It is important to note that the
purpose of this paper is to present the valuable results and
observations that were gleaned during performing this full-
scale load testing program on different types of piles.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
755
3 Test site and subsurface geotechnical condition
3.1 Project description
The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Devel-
opment (LADOTD) constructed an elevated highway
between Golden Meadow and Port Fourchon to replace the
previously existing LA-1 highway. This project involved
the construction of approximately 17 miles (27.4 km) of
access-controlled, elevated roadway consisting of low-
level and medium-level bridges, two elevated interchanges
and one fixed high-level bridge over Bayou Lafourche.
End-on construction is the only feasible technique without
causing environmental damages. The end-on construction
required understanding the time-dependent foundation
behavior to optimize the construction sequence and
schedule. As such, it was the desire of the design team and
LADOTD to provide as much information as possible of
the foundation issues to the potential bidders to choose an
optimum construction method and schedule. A pre-design
pile load testing program consisting of testing various sizes
and types of piles along the project alignment was per-
formed to address the aforementioned concerns. Figure 1a
shows the existing bridge site at the project location.
3.2 Test piles (TP)
Nine test piles were driven at four different locations in this
project. These test piles consisted of six different sizes of
PSC piles, two 1.37-m (54-in) open-ended spun cast
cylinder piles and one 0.76-m (30-in) open-ended steel pipe
pile. The open-ended steel and cylinder piles were located
at the TP-2 and TP-3 locations along the LA-1. Figure 1b,
c show the test piles at TP-2 and TP-3 locations, respec-
tively. This study focuses on the comparison of open-ended
piles to that of PSC piles. Therefore, the test piles at the
TP-2 and TP-3 locations have been selected for this study.
Table 1 presents the details of these test piles (i.e., length,
width of the test piles, casing information and hammer
information). All the test piles were cast in two equal-
length sections and spliced at the mid-length. Both open-
ended cylinder piles were manufactured with 20-foot seg-
ments and post-tensioned to provide continuity and lateral
force and moment resistances.
3.3 Subsurface geotechnical condition
Extensive laboratory and in situ testing programs were
performed to characterize the subsurface soil conditions at
the test pile locations. Shelby tube samples (7.6 cm, 3 in.
diameter) were taken in cohesive soils, and standard pen-
etration tests were performed in the sandy soils. The
123
756 Acta Geotechnica (2017) 12:753–772

Fig. 1 Photographs of the project site and test piles location. a Location map of the project and test pile location. b Existing LA-1 bridge at TP-2
location. c Existing LA-1 bridge at TP-3 location. d Test setup at TP-2 location. e Test setup at TP-3 location

laboratory testing program includes water content, unit In addition to the borehole data, one piezocone pene-
weight, Atterberg limits, grain size distribution, unconsol- tration test (PCPT) was conducted close to the pile at each
idated undrained (UU) triaxial strength and consolidation test locations. The Zhang and Tumay [54] probabilistic
tests. region estimation method was used for soil classifications.

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Acta Geotechnica (2017) 12:753–772 757

Table 1 Test pile information

Pile ID Pile type Width Length No of strain gauges pairs Hammer type
Total Embedment Above G.L.
m (in.) m (feet) m (feet) m (feet)

TP-2a PSC 0.41 (16) 39.6 (130) 36.6 (120) 3.0 (10) 7 Vulcan 010
TP-2b OECP 1.37 (54) 48.8 (160) 44.5 (146) 4.3 (14) 5 Vulcan 040
TP-3a PSC 0.76 (30) 57.9 (190) 54.9 (180) 3.0 (10) 8 Vulcan 020
TP-3b OESP 0.76 (30) 59.4 (195) 56.4 (185) 3.0 (10) 9 Vulcan 020
TP-3c OECP 1.37 (54) 48.8 (160) 44.5 (146) 4.3 (14) 4 Vulcan 040
G.L. ground level

The soil stratification from soil boring, results of laboratory
tests and profiles of cone tip resistance (qc) from CPTs are
depicted in Fig. 2a, b for TP-2 and TP-3 location, respec-
tively. These figures also present the undrained shear
strengths (Su) profiles from both laboratory testing and CPT
interpretation as well as the overconsolidation ratios (OCR)
calculated from the CPTs. The Su was calculated from
PCPT using the equation Su = (qt - rvo)/Nk, with Nk = 15
in this study; and the OCR was calculated using the for-
mulation proposed by Abu-Farsakh [4] as OCR = 0.152
[(qt - rvo)/r0 vo], where qt is the corrected cone tip resis-
tance, rvo is the overburden pressure and r0 vo is the
effective overburden pressure.
gauges per level as shown in Fig. 3b. These gauges were
designed specifically to handle the high acceleration asso-
ciated with pile driving and water pressure at a depth of
200 feet. The pile was prepared by attaching heavy angle
sections down two sides approximately 180 degrees apart.
Two-foot-long windows were then cut from the angles at
the gauge locations. Gauges were placed from the bottom-
up by first threading the lead wire through the angle and
then attaching the gauge. The gauges were then bolted and
welded into place to prevent slippage. Once all the gauges
were in place, fire proof cloth was placed around the
gauges and the sections of angle previously removed were
reattached. Expanding foam was then used to secure the
lead wires inside the angle.

4 Pile instrumentation and installation 4.3 Open-ended spun cast cylinder piles (OECP)

4.1 PSC piles
Each of the PSC test piles was instrumented with seven to
eight levels of strain gauges (in pairs) in order to evaluate
load distribution along the length of the piles and measure
the skin friction and end-bearing capacity, separately. Each
PSC pile was cast in two sections of equal lengths and
spliced during driving using Sure-Lock mechanical splices.
Sister bar strain gauges were tied into places after the pile
strands had been tensioned. Two gauges were placed on
opposite faces of the pile at each level as shown in Fig. 3a.
The Sure-Lock mechanical splices were modified to pro-
vide a through hole for these lead wires. After the sections
had been spliced in the field, the wires from the bottom
section were pulled through the PVC pipes embedded in
the upper section, and exposed wires and notches were
grouted to protect the lead wires from the subsequent pile
driving damages.
4.2 Open-ended steel pipe piles (OESP)
The 30-in.-diameter open-ended steel pile was instru-
mented with nine levels of strain gauges consisting of two
The open-ended cylinder piles were instrumented with five
levels of strain gauges consisting of three gauges per level
at the upper four levels and four gauges at the bottom level
(two feet from the bottom of pile) as shown in Fig. 3c. The
sister bars were tied into the individual pile segments by
attaching them to the wire reinforcing cage. Cabling was
then routed to a junction box that was placed in the location
that would allow future access to the wire leads. Pile
instrumentation was performed prior to spin casting for
segments. Once the spin casting procedure was completed
and the concrete forms had been stripped, wires were
accessed, inspected and prepared for storage as the
remaining segments were cast. Once all the segments had
been cast and placed in the post-tensioning bed, trunk lines
were prepared and pulled through the appropriate post-
tension duct. Figure 3d shows a photograph of installed
vibrating wire strain gauges in an open-ended cylinder pile.
A thickness of 0.25 in. casing was installed at each test pile
location of TP-3 (Fig. 3e). Table 2 shows the length, width
and thickness information of the casing. Information of the
hammer to install the test piles are tabluated in Tables 3
and 4.

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

758 Acta Geotechnica (2017) 12:753–772

Particle Size Tip Probability of

Soil Type M.C.; L.L; & P.I. Distribution (%) Su (kPa) OCR Resistance, qt (MPa) Rf(%) Soil Type (%)
(a) 0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100 0 50 100 150 200 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 3 6 9 12 15 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 25 50 75 100
0 0
Very Soft Gray Su from UU OCR from CPT
3 Organic Clay (OH)
Su from CPT 12
6 Very Soft
Gray Clay (CH) 25
9

12 Loose Gray 37
Silty Sand (SM)
15 49
Very Soft Gray
18 Silty Clay (CL)
61
21
Medium Gray 74
24 Clay (CH)
Depth (m)

Depth (ft)
27 86
Very Stiff Gray
30 Clay (CH) 98
33 Stiff Gray Silty
Clay (CL) 111
36
Stiff Gray Sandy 123
39 Clay (CL)
42 Sand 135
Silt
45 Clay 148
48
160
51 Medium Gray Liquid Limit
Clay (CH) Plasticity Index 172
54
Moisture Content
57 185

60
197

Particle Size Tip Probability of

Soil Type M.C.; L.L; & P.I. Distribution (%) Su (kPa) OCR Resistance, qt (MPa) Rf(%) Soil Type (%)
(b) 0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 6 12 18 24 30 0 8 16 24 32 40 0 25 50 75 100
0 0
Su from UU
3 OCR from CPT 9
Very Soft Gray Su from CPT
Clay (CH) 18
6 SPT N
Loose Gray
9 Liquid Limit 27
Silty Sand (SM)
Firm Gray Plasticity Index 36
12 Silty Sand (SM) Moisture Content
Very Soft 46
15
Gray Clay (CH) 55
18
Stiff Gray 64
21 Clay (CH)
73
24

Depth (ft)
82
Depth (m)

Very Dense Gray

27 Silty Sand (SM) 91
30 100
Stiff Gray
33 Clay (CH) 109
36 118
Silty Sand (SM) Sand
39 Silt 127
Medium Gray Clay 137
42
Clay (CH)
45 146
Medium Gray
Silty Clay (CL) 155
48
Silty Sand (SM)
164
51 Stiff Dark
Gray Clay (CH) 173
54
Very Dense Gray 182
57 Silty Sand (SM)
191
0 25 50 75 100
SPT N

Fig. 2 Soil profile and CPT classification of test piles. a Test pile-2 (TP-2). b Test pile-3 (TP-3)

5 Load testing program used to study the setup behavior. The test schedule for
conducting SLT, SNLT and DLTs is presented in Tables 5,
The purposes of pile load tests were to confirm the pile 6, 7, 8, 9. To evaluate the setup behavior, restrikes at dif-
capacity, study the pile setup behavior and assess driv- ferent time intervals were performed. All the skin frictions
ability. Using multiple SLTs or SNLTs to measure the (Rs), end-bearing capacity (Rtip) and total capacity (Rt)
capacities was determined to be too costly. It was decided during each event are presented in Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. All
that multiple restrikes and one SLT or SNLT would be restrikes were done using the Vulcan single-acting air

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Acta Geotechnica (2017) 12:753–772 759

Strain gauge

(a) B = 0.41m
(b) (c) B = 1.37 m
B = 0.76 m
(16 inch) (30 inch) (54 inch)
3.05 m 3.05 m 4.27 m
Strain Gauges
(10 ft) (14 ft)
(10 ft) G.L.
G.L. G.L.

2.14 m
(7 ft) 12.20 m
(40 ft)
11.89 m
(39 ft)
7.01 m
(23 ft)
10.67 m
(35 ft)

10.07 m 9.14 m 44.51 m

56.40 m
(33 ft) (30 ft) 10.67 m (146 ft)
(185 ft)
36.59 m (35 ft)
(120 ft) 6.10 m
5.18 m (20 ft)
(17 ft) 6.10 m
(20 ft) 10.67m
6.10 m (35 ft)
6.10 m (20 ft)
(20 ft) 3.04 m
(10 ft) 10.67 m
5.49 m 2.44 m (35 ft)
(18 ft) (8 ft)

0.61 m (2 ft) 0.61 m (2 ft) 0.61 m (2 ft)

(d) (e) (f)

Fig. 3 Instrumentation plan, photographs and load test setup. a PSC pile. b Pipe pile. c Cylinder pile. d Photographs of instrumentation in
cylinder pile. e Casing installed at the test pile location. f Statnamic test setup for cylinder pile

hammer. The test piles were dynamically monitored using
a pile driving analyzer (PDA) during driving and restrikes.
5.1 Dynamic load test (DLT)
Each of the five test piles was monitored during driving
and at subsequent restrikes using a PDA. The monitoring
was performed in general accordance with ASTM stan-
dard D-4945. Four sets of strain gauges and accelerom-
eters were used for the 54-in. open-ended cylinder piles
for the PDA testing. All other piles were monitored with
two sets of strain gauges and accelerometers. The Case
Pile Wave Analysis Program (CAPWAP) analyses of the
measured stress and velocity data were performed on the
selected EOD blow to determine the initial pile capacity,
the skin friction distribution along the shaft and the end-
bearing capacity. The first high-energy blow of each
restrike event was also analyzed with CAPWAP to
determine the load distributions for restrike capacities.
The measured skin friction (Rs), end-bearing (Rtip) and
total (Rt) capacities during each DLT are presented on
Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. The setup ratio of skin friction (Rs/
Rso), end-bearing (Rtip/Rtipo) and total (Rt/Ro) capacities,
defined as the capacity at a certain restrike or load test
over EOD capacity, is also calculated and presented in
Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

760 Acta Geotechnica (2017) 12:753–772

Table 2 Casing information of the test piles

Pile ID Pile type Length of casing Width of casing Thickness of casing
m (feet) m (in.) mm (in.)

TP-2a PSC No
TP-2b OECP No
TP-3a PSC 21.3 (70) 1.2 (48) 6.4 (0.25)
TP-3b OESP 22.9 (75) 1.2 (48) 6.4 (0.25)
TP-3c OECP 22.3 (73) 1.8 (72) 6.4 (0.25)

Table 3 Hammer information of the test piles

Test Pile type Hammer Max. comp stress Max. tension Thickness of pile Maximum energy, Observed final
piles MPa (ksi) stress MPa (ksi) cushion mm (in.) EMX kg-m (lb-ft) set mm (in.)

TP-2a 16-in. PSC Vulcan 10 12.7 (1.84) 6.4 (0.93) 152 (6) 1604 (11,600) 34 (1.33)
TP-2b 54-in. OECP Vulcan 40 12.3 (1.78) 7.7 (1.12) 305 (12) 4784 (34,600) 24 (0.92)
TP-3a 30-in. PSC Vulcan 20 9.4 (1.37) 2.1 (0.31) 152 (6) 2323 (16,800) 0.3 (0.013)
TP-3b 30-in. OESP Vulcan 20 N/A 4493 (32,500)
TP-3c 54-in. OECP Vulcan 40 11.1 (1.61) 6.1 (0.88) 305 (12) 4189 (30,300) 11 (0.43)

Table 4 Hammer information of the test piles

Hammer Rated striking Blows per Nominal stroke Rated operating Striking velocity during Maximum force
energy kg-m (lb-ft) minute mm (in.) pressure kg/cm2, (psi) impact m/s (fps) during impact lbs

Vulcan 10 4495 (32,500) 50 991 (39) 7.39 (105) 4.42 (14.51) 3,605,500
Vulcan 20 8298 (60,000) 59 914 (36) 8.44 (120) 4.25 (13.94) 8,660,250
Vulcan 40 16,596 (120,000) 60 914 (36) 8.44 (120) 4.25 (13.94) 17,320,500

5.2 Statnamic load test (SNLT)
The two 54-in. open-ended cylinder piles were tested using
the SNLT method. The statnamic device consists of a
cylinder that supports reaction weights and is placed on top
of the pile head. The device and reaction weights are ini-
tially supported by a reaction frame constructed around the
test pile. The rapid combustion of special pelletized fuel
within the statnamic device produces gasses under high
pressure that propel the device and the reaction weights
upwards and away from the top of the pile. The pile is thus
subjected to a force that is equal to the product of the mass
of the statnamic device and its acceleration during the
launch pulse. The loading pulse is spread over a duration,
typically on the order of 50–100 ms. The load time history
(load pulse) was recorded by a load cell mounted between
the pile and statnamic device. The testing was repeated
couple of times to ensure adequacy of the collected data.
The segmental unloading method (SUP) was used to
determine static load test equivalent capacities. Figure 3f
shows the setup for cylinder pile to perform statnamic load
test (SNLT).
5.3 Static load test (SLT)
Compression axial SLTs were conducted on PSC and
open-ended steel piles in accordance with ASTM standard
D-1143. Compression axial loads were applied to the test
piles using a 11,957 kN (1200 ton) capacity hydraulic
jack. The displacement transducers and dial gauges were
rigidly attached to the reference beams and to smooth
glass plates fixed to short angle sections attached to the
face of the pile. The measured skin friction (Rs), end-
bearing (Rtip) and total (Rt) capacities during each SLT
for all test piles are presented in Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. The
load was applied in increments of 10–15 % of the pro-
posed design load with a constant time of 2.5 min
between increments. The results of SLTs at TP-2 and TP-
3 locations are presented in Fig. 4a, b, respectively. Based
on Davisson’s criteria, the ultimate capacities of the pile

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Acta Geotechnica (2017) 12:753–772 761

Table 5 Load test results for TP-2a (16-in. PSC pile)

Events Time Skin friction, Rs End-bearing capacity, Rtip Total capacity, Rt Set per blow
Hours kN (kips) Ratio (Rs/Rso) kN (kips) Ratio (Rtip/Rtipo) kN (kips) Ratio (Rt/Rto) cm (in.)

EOD – 237 (53) 1.0 153 (34) 1.0 390 (87) 1.0 –
1st DLT 2.2 613 (138) 2.6 219 (49) 1.4 832 (187) 2.1 1.3 (0.5)
2nd DLT 3.9 914 (205) 3.9 144 (32) 0.9 1058 (237) 2.7 0.6 (0.2)
3rd DLT 6.0 1077 (242) 4.5 161 (36) 1.0 1238 (278) 3.2 0.3 (0.1)
4th DLT 21.6 1253 (282) 5.3 186 (42) 1.2 1439 (324) 3.7 0.3 (0.1)
5th DLT 56.0 1317 (296) 5.6 186 (42) 1.2 1503 (338) 3.9 0.3 (0.1)
6th DLT 76.9 1543 (347) 6.5 167 (37) 1.1 1710 (384) 4.4 0.3 (0.1)
7th DLT 96.9 1615 (363) 6.8 181 (41) 1.2 1796 (404) 4.6 0.0
Static Test 168.0 1779 (400) 7.5 120 (27) 0.8 1899 (427) 4.9 –

Table 6 Load test results for TP-2b (54-in. open-ended cylinder pile)
Events Time Skin friction, Rs End-bearing capacity, Rtip Total Capacity, Rt Set per blow
Hours kN (kips) Ratio (Rs/Rso) kN (kips) Ratio (Rtip/Rtipo) kN (kips) Ratio (Rt/Rto) cm (in.)

EOD – 1009 (227) 1.0 566 (127) 1.0 1575 (354) 1.0
1st DLT 2.0 2096 (471) 2.1 695 (156) 1.2 2791 (627) 1.8 0.2 (0.1)
2nd DLT 5.0 3210 (722) 3.2 617 (139) 1.1 3827 (861) 2.4 0.05 (0.02)
3rd DLT 23.0 3879 (872) 3.8 651 (146) 1.2 4530 (1018) 2.9 0.03 (0.01)
4th DLT 46.0 4649 (1045) 4.6 632 (142) 1.1 5281 (1187) 3.4 0.04 (0.01)
5th DLT 70.0 4831 (1086) 4.8 659 (148) 1.2 5490 (1234) 3.5 0.0
6th DLT 93.0 5157 (1159) 5.1 534 (120) 0.9 5691 (1279) 3.6 0.04 (0.01)
SNLT 168.0 5333 (1199) 5.3 427 (96) 0.8 5760 (1295) 3.7

Table 7 Load test results for TP-3a (30-in. PSC pile)

Events Time Skin friction, Rs End-bearing capacity, Rtip Total capacity, Rt Set per blow
Hours kN (kips) Setup ratio (Rs/Rso) kN (kips) Setup ratio (Rtip/Rtipo) kN (kips) Setup ratio (Rt/Rto) cm (in.)

EOD – 1678 (377) 1.0 1440 (324) 1.0 3118 (701) 1.0
1st DLT 2.0 2340 (526) 1.4 1536 (345) 1.1 3876 (871) 1.2 0.01 (0.04)
2nd DLT 23.6 2767 (622) 1.6 1731 (389) 1.2 4498 (1011) 1.4 0.00
3rd DLT 69.2 3318 (746) 2.0 1513 (340) 1.0 4831 (1086) 1.5 0.00
4th DLT 162.4 4051 (911) 2.4 1090 (245) 0.8 5141 (1156) 1.6 0.00
Static test 312.0 5067 (1139) 3.0 2318 (521) 1.6 7385 (1660) 2.4 –

were computed as 1899 kN (427 kips), 5760 kN (1295
kips), 7385 kN (1660 kips), 7104 kN (1597 kips) and
6205 kN (1395 kips) for TP-2a, TP-2b, TP-3a, TP-3b and
TP-3c, respectively. In order to capture the strain gauge
measurements for every incremental load during the
SLTs, the data acquisition system was set to collect the
data at 2.5-min intervals during each SLT. The axial load
transfer is determined from the strain gauge
measurements, the cross-sectional area and the Young’s
modulus of the pile. The Young’s modulus was calibrated
based on the first applied load on the test piles using the
strain gauges that were installed on the ground level. The
load distribution plots based on the interpretation of strain
gauge measurements during the SLT and SNLTs for TP-
2a, TP-2b, TP-3a, TP-3b and TP-3c are presented in
Fig. 5a–e, respectively.

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

762 Acta Geotechnica (2017) 12:753–772

Table 8 Load test results for TP-3b (30-in. 54-in. open-ended steel pile)
Events Time Skin friction, Rs End-bearing capacity, Rtip Total capacity, Rt Set per blow
Hours kN (kips) Ratio (Rs/Rso) kN (kips) Ratio (Rtip/Rtipo) kN (kips) Ratio (Rt/Rto) cm (in.)

EOD – 910 (204) 1.0 281 (63) 1.0 1191 (267) 1.0
1st DLT 2.3 2392 (537) 2.6 351 (79) 1.2 2743 (616) 2.3 0.29 (0.11)
2nd DLT 4.1 3323 (747) 3.6 408 (92) 1.4 3731 (839) 3.1 0.10 (0.04)
3rd DLT 24.1 4328 (973) 4.7 467 (105) 1.7 4795 (1078) 4.0 0.02 (0.01)
4th DLT 48.9 4282 (962) 4.7 597 (134) 2.1 4879 (1096) 4.1 0.0
5th DLT 76.3 3795 (853) 4.2 556 (125) 2.0 4351 (978) 3.6 0.0
6th DLT 172.5 3988 (896) 4.4 534 (120) 1.9 4522 (1016) 3.8 0.0
SLT 360.0 5173 (1163) 5.7 1931 (434) 6.9 7104 (1597) 6.0

Table 9 Load test results for TP-3c (54-in. open-ended cylinder pile)
Events Time Skin friction, Rs End-bearing capacity, Rtip Total capacity, Rt Set per blow
Hours kN (kips) Ratio (Rs/Rso) kN (kips) Ratio (Rtip/Rtipo) kN (kips) Ratio (Rt/Rto) cm (in.)

EOD – 806 (181) 1.0 806 (181) 1.0 1612 (362) 1.0
1st DLT 2.0 2451 (551) 3.0 890 (200) 1.1 3341 (751) 2.1 0.35 (0.14)
2nd DLT 3.9 2660 (598) 3.3 898 (202) 1.1 3558 (800) 2.2 0.15 (0.06)
3rd DLT 24.7 3705 (833) 4.6 878 (197) 1.1 4583 (1030) 2.8 0.0
4th DLT 44.2 4144 (932) 5.1 870 (196) 1.1 5014 (1128) 3.1 0.0
5th DLT 72.4 4598 (1033) 5.7 888 (200) 1.1 5486 (1233) 3.4 0.0
6th DLT 117.4 4827 (1085) 6.0 927 (208) 1.2 5754 (1293) 3.6 0.0
7th DLT 287.7 4800 (1079) 5.9 900 (202) 1.1 5700 (1281) 3.5 0.0
SNLT 384.0 5760 (1295) 7.1 445(100) 0.5 6205 (1395) 3.9

6 Results cross-sectional area of the piles. The blow counts of the

6.1 Driving capacity
All test piles were driven using Vulcan hammers. The
hammer information was presented in Tables 3 and 4. The
hammer sizes were selected based on the anticipated pile
capacities. Two hammers were used: The 16-in PSC piles
were installed using the Vulcan 10 hammer while the other
test piles were installed using a Vulcan 20 hammer ini-
tially. The contractor switched to Vulcan 40 hammers to
complete the driving process of the two open-ended
cylinder piles. Figure 6a, b presents the cumulative ham-
mer blow counts with depths recorded during the pile
installations at TP-2 and TP-3 locations, respectively. The
total number of hammer blows required to drive the PSC
and open-ended cylinder piles were 629 and 480, respec-
tively, at TP-2 location. At TP-3 location, the blow counts
required to drive the PSC, open-ended steel and open-
ended cylinder piles were 1844, 307 and 802, respectively.
In order to eliminate the effect of pile size, the blow
counts are normalized with the toe area of the pile. The
blow counts of square PSC piles are normalized with the
open-ended pipe pile are normalized with 0.32 ft2 (the
thickness of pipe pile was 0.5 in.). The blow counts of the
open-ended cylinder piles are normalized with 4.37 ft2 (the
thickness of cylinder pile was 4 in.). The normalized blow
counts of test piles are presented in Fig. 6c, d for TP-2 and
TP-3 locations, respectively. The figures show that, at both
locations, the normalized cumulative blow counts for large-
diameter open-ended cylinder piles are lower than the PSC
piles. This is consistent with the results reported by Szechy
[50] and Paik and Salgado [41]). However, the comparison
of normalized cumulative blow counts between the open-
ended cylinder and pipe piles shows that the normalized
blow counts are higher for open-ended steel pile compared
to the large-diameter open-ended cylinder pile at TP-3
location.
6.2 Soil plugging
This load testing program was performed as part of regular
construction work and no direct measurements of soil plug
were acquired in this study. The status of plugging affects
significantly for the determination of end-bearing capacity

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Acta Geotechnica (2017) 12:753–772 763

Load (kN) Load (kN)

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
(a) 0 0 (b) 0 0
TP-3a
TP-2a
0.5 TP-3b
TP-2b1st Cycle 13 13
0.5 TP-3c 1st Cycle
TP-2b 2nd Cycle 1
Settlement (inch)

Settlement (inch)
Settlement (mm)

Settlement (mm)
TP-3c 2nd Cycle
1 25 25
1.5

1.5 38 2 38

2.5
2 51 51
3

2.5 63 3.5 63
0 450 900 1350 1800 0 450 900 1350 1800
Load (kips) Load (kips)

Load / Tip Area (kPa) Load / Tip Area (kPa)

0.0 2.1 4.2 6.3 8.4 0.0 20.9 41.8 62.6 83.5 104.4
(c) 0 0 (d) 0 0
TP-2a TP-3a
TP-2b1st Cycle 0.5 TP-3b
0.5 13 13
TP-2b 2nd Cycle TP-3c 1st Cycle
Settlement (inch)

Settlement (inch) 1
Settlement (mm)

Settlement (mm)
TP-3c 2nd Cycle
1 25 25
1.5

1.5 38 2 38

2.5
2 51 51
3

2.5 63 3.5 63
0 100 200 300 400 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Load / Tip Area (ksf) Load / Tip Area (ksf)

Fig. 4 Load–settlement plot during load tests. a Test pile location 2 (TP-2). b Test pile location 3 (TP-3). c Test pile location 2 (TP-2). d Test
pile location 3 (TP-3)

and thus the total pile capacity. However, there were several d  2:0ðDr  0:3Þ or d  0:03qc;a : ð2Þ
studies performed (i.e., Fugro-05, ICP-05, NGI-05, UWA-
05) to evaluate the end-bearing capacity of open-ended pile. where d = inner diameter of the pile (m); Dr = relative
To estimate the end-bearing capacity of open-ended piles, it density of the soil near the pile tip and qc,a = average CPT
is first necessary to determine whether the pile is plugged or resistance over a specified range in the vicinity of pile base.
not. The empirical method proposed by ICP-05 method For ICP-05 method, the vicinity zone is proposed as 1.5 D
provides the opportunity to determine about the plugging (D = Diameter of the pile). If the condition is not fulfilled,
condition of pile, and it is used in this study to determine a rigid basal plug is assumed to form and the pile is clas-
whether the open-ended pile was plugged or not. sified as fully plugged.
After analyzing Eq. (2), none of the three open-ended
6.3 ICP-05 method piles (i.e., two open-ended cylinder piles and one steel
pile) are considered as plugged during driving. The soil
The ICP-05 method, previously known as the Marine may enter the pile during driving, but it is rare to form
Technology Directorate (MTD) method, was developed soil plug for large-diameter open-ended pile during pile
from a database of pile load tests and CPT data and pro- installation, which is consistent with the findings of
posed first by Jardine and Chow [27]. The method first Jardine et al. [29].
provided the opportunity to determine whether the pile is
plugged or not. An open-ended pile is considered as 6.4 Load–settlement response
unplugged as long as either of the two following conditions
is fulfilled: Figure 4 shows the load settlement plots at both locations
for all test piles. The test piles were tested to failure and

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

764 Acta Geotechnica (2017) 12:753–772

Axial Force (kips) Axial Force (kips)

0 150 300 450 0 450 900 1350 1800
(a) 0 0 (b) 0 0

6 18 6 18

37 37
13 13

55 55
19 19
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)
73 73
25 25
91 91
32 32
110 110

38 38 128
128

45 146 45 146
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN)

Axial Force (kips) Axial Force (kips) Axial Force (kips)

0 450 900 1350 1800 0 450 900 1350 1800 0 450 900 1350 1800
(c) 0 0 (d) 0 0 (e) 0 0

5 17 5 17 5 17

10 34 10 34 10 34

15 50 15 50 15 50

21 67 21 67 21 67
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

Depth (m)
Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)
26 84 26 84 26 84

31 101 31 101 31 101

36 118 36 118 36 118

41 135 41 135 41 135

46 151 46 151 46 151

51 168 51 168 51 168

56 185 56 185 56 185

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN) Axial Force (kN)

Fig. 5 Load distribution plots during static load tests. a Test pile-2a (TP-2a). b Test pile-2b (TP-2b). c Test pile-3a (TP-3a). d Test pile-3b (TP-
3b). e Test pile-3c (TP-3c)

plunged more than 2 in. (50.8 mm). Szechy [50] found that, piles showed less resistance compared to the open-ended
the settlement of an open-ended pile is greater than that of cylinder piles under a given applied load. It is also
a close-ended pile under the same load and soil condition. observed at TP-3 location from the normalized load–set-
Similar findings were also reported by Paik and Salgado tlement plots (Fig. 6d) that the open-ended steel pile
[41]. Those observations were made for same pile size, showed more resistance compared to the large-diameter
same pile embedment lengths and same pile stiffness. open-ended cylinder pile similar to the drivability analysis.
However, it is very difficult to examine this behavior The results of SLTs at TP-3 location showed an indi-
whenever the test method, pile size or embedment depth cation of forming ‘‘soil plug’’ for the open-ended steel pile.
are different. As seen in Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, the end-bearing capacity is
Figure 4a, b shows the load–settlement response of the almost constant for all the test piles during the testing
test piles at TP-2 and TP-3 locations, respectively. In order period, with the exception of TP-3b (open-ended steel pile)
to make comparison, the load was normalized with respect during SLT. The end-bearing capacity of TP-3b also
to the toe area of the pile in Fig. 4c, d. The load–settlement exhibited similar capacity during the DLTs (Table 8).
response showed that in both test pile locations, the PSC However, the end-bearing capacity of open-ended steel pile

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Acta Geotechnica (2017) 12:753–772 765

(a) (b) (c) Cumulative Blow Count / (d) Cumulative Blow Count /
Cumulative Blow Count (Blow) Cumulative Blow Count (Blow) Tip Area (ft2) Tip Area (ft2)
0 200 400 600 800 0 550 1100 1650 2200 0 100 200 300 400 0 250 500 750 1000
0 . 0
54 inch OECP 54 inch OECP 54 inch OECP 54 inch OECP
16 inch PSC pile 30 inch OESP 16 inch PSC pile 30 inch OESP
9 30 inch PSC pile 30 inch PSC pile 29
Casing Casing

59
Depth (m)

Depth (ft)
18

27 88

36 118

45 147
0 200 400 600 800 0 550 1100 1650 2200 0 100 200 300 400 0 250 500 750 1000
Cumulative Blow Count (Blow) Cumulative Blow Count (Blow) Cumulative Blow Count / Cumulative Blow Count /
Tip Area (ft2) Tip Area (ft2)

Fig. 6 Drivability analysis for all test piles. a TP-2 location. b TP-3 location. c TP-2 location. d TP-3 location

was 6.9 times higher during the SLT compared to the end-
nearing capacity during EOD (Table 8). Since the SLT was
performed under constant compression for 3–4 h, it may
contribute to forming the ‘‘soil plug’’ at the bottom of
open-ended steel pile. In contrary, the dynamic load tests
and statnamic load test SNLT did not contribute to any
significant increase in end-bearing capacity due to the
smaller time duration of the tests.
6.5 Pile capacity from CPT data
and it is used in this study to predict the skin friction of
open-ended pile only.
6.6 Schmertmann [45] method
Schmertmann [45] developed a method to estimate pile
capacity from CPT data based on the results of model and
full-scale load tests. The unit end-bearing capacity (qb) in
this study can be calculated using the following relation:
qb ¼ ðqc1 þ qc2 Þ=2 ð3Þ

Several methods are available in the literature to predict the
axial pile capacity utilizing the CPT data. These methods
can be classified into two well-known approaches:
• Direct approach: in which the unit end-bearing capacity
(qb) of the pile is evaluated from the qc, and the unit
skin friction (f) of the pile is evaluated from either the fs
profile or qc profile.
• Indirect approach: in which the CPT data (qc and fs) are
first used to evaluate the soil strength parameters such
as the undrained shear strength (Su) and the angle of
internal friction (/). The pile parameters (qb and f) are
then evaluated using formulas derived based on semi-
empirical/theoretical methods.
Four direct CPT methods for estimating the pile capacity
are considered here in this study. These methods are:
Schmertmann method [45], De Ruiter and Beringen
method [12] and LCPC method [8], Lehane et al. [34]
method. The method developed by Lehane et al. [34] is
well suited to predict the pile capacity for open-ended pile,
where qc1 is the minimum of the average cone tip
resistances of zones ranging from 0.7 to 4 D below the
pile tip (where D is the pile diameter), and qc2 is the
average of minimum cone tip resistances over a distance
8 D above the pile tip. An upper limit of 15 MPa is
imposed on qb. The unit skin friction (f) of the pile can be
determined from fs using the following expression:
f ¼ as fs ð4Þ
where as is a correction factor and varies from 0.2 to 1.25
for clayey soil, and 0.8–2.0 for sand. An upper limit of
120 kPa is imposed on f.
6.7 De Ruiter and Beringen [12] method
De Ruiter and Beringen [12] proposed a pile-CPT method
based on the experience gained in the North Sea in northern
Europe. In clay, the Su for each soil layer is first evaluated
from qc. The unit end-bearing capacity (qb) is given by:
qb ¼ Nc Su ðtipÞ ð5Þ

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

766 Acta Geotechnica (2017) 12:753–772

Table 10 Parameters used for the developed methods

Pile nos. Schmertmann [45] method De Ruiter and Beringen [12] method Bustamante and Gianeselli (LCPC) method

Parameter used as = 0.2–1.25 for clayey soil Nc = 9 kb = 0.37 for sand/gravel

as = 0.8–2.0 for sandy soil
TP-2a qc1 = 1.26 MPa (13.1 tsf)
qc2 = 1.08 MPa (11.3 tsf)
fs = 0.03 MPa (0.29 tsf)
TP-2b qc1 = 1.61 MPa (16.8 tsf)
qc2 = 1.56 MPa (16.3 tsf)
fs = 0.03 MPa (0.32 tsf)
TP-3a qc1 = 4.80 MPa (50 tsf)
qc2 = 1.88 MPa (19.6 tsf)
fs = 0.05 MPa (0.52 tsf)
TP-3b qc1 = 11.15 MPa (116.1 tsf)
qc2 = 1.57 MPa (16.4 tsf)
fs = 0.05 MPa (0.52 tsf)
TP-3c qc1 = 2.64 MPa (27.5 tsf)
qc2 = 1.62 MPa (16.9 tsf)
fs = 0.05 MPa (0.50 tsf)
Nk = 15–20 kb = 0.60 for clay/silt
b = 1.0 for NC clay kb = 30–150
b = 0.5 for OC clay
qb is same as Schmertmann [45] method qeq (sand) = 3.25 MPa (33.81 tsf)
qeq (clay) = 0.65 MPa (6.8 tsf)
qeq (sand) = 4.21 MPa (43.9 tsf)
qeq (clay) = 1.00 MPa (10.5 tsf)
qeq (sand) = 6.27 MPa (65.3 tsf)
qeq (clay) = 1.27 MPa (13.2 tsf)
qeq (sand) = 6.27 MPa (65.3 tsf)
qeq (clay) = 1.42 MPa (14.8 tsf)
qeq (sand) = 7.66 MPa (79.8 tsf)
qeq (clay) = 0.91 MPa (9.51 tsf)

Su ðtipÞ ¼ qc ðtipÞ=Nk ð6Þ qb ¼ kb qeq ðtipÞ ð9Þ

where Nc is the bearing capacity factor (Nc = 9 in this
method), Nk is the cone factor that ranges from 15 to 20
depending on the local experience and qc(tip) is the average
of cone tip resistances around the pile tip computed similar
to the Schmertmann [45] method. The unit skin friction (f)
is given by:
f ¼ bSu ðsideÞ ð7Þ
where b is the adhesion factor equal to 1.0 for normally
consolidated clays and 0.5 for overconsolidated clays. In
sand, the unit end-bearing capacity (qb) of the pile is
calculated similar to the Schmertmann [45] method. The
unit skin friction (f) for each soil layer along the pile shaft
is given by:
8
> fs
<
qc ðsideÞ=300ðcompressionÞ
f ¼ min ð8Þ
: qc ðsideÞ=400ðtensionÞ
>
120kPa
The De Ruiter and Beringen [12] method imposes upper
limits of 15 MPa on qb and 120 kPa on f.
6.8 Bustamante and Gianeselli (LCPC) method
It is also known as the French or the LCPC (Laboratorie
Central des Ponts et Chausees) method. The unit end-
bearing capacity (qb) of the pile is given as follows:
where kb is a bearing capacity factor that varies from
0.15 to 0.60 depending on the soil type and pile
installation procedure (kb = 0.6 for piles driven into
clay–silt and kb = 0.37 for piles driven into sand–
gravel). The pile unit skin friction (f) in each soil layer
is given by:
f ¼ qeq ðsideÞ=ks ð10Þ
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. In the LCPC method, the maximum
f is determined using selected curves based on soil type,
pile type and qc (side) (Table 10).
6.9 Lehane et al. [34] method
Lehane et al. [34] proposed this method based on statis-
tical analyses of pile database. The objective of their
study was to predict the skin friction of pile capacity from
the CPT tip resistance (qt), vertical effective stress (rvo0 ),
relative location of the pile tip (h), pile slenderness ratio
(L/R), plasticity index (Ip), relative void index (Ivr) or
sensitivity (St), and pile–soil friction angle (df). Based on
their analyses, the following two expressions were
proposed:

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Acta Geotechnica (2017) 12:753–772 767

Table 11 Comparison of predicted versus measured pile capacities

Pile no./type Res. kN Predicted capacity by available methods, kN (kips) Measured capacity, kN (kips)
(kips)
Schmertmann De Ruiter and Bustamante and Gianeselli, Lehane Dynamic Static/
[45] Beringen [12] LCPC method [8] et al. [34] load testsb statnamic load
tests

TP-2a/PSC Skin friction 1603 (360) 1450 (326) 1471 (331) – 1615 (363) 1779 (400)
End-bearing 208 (47) 93 (21) 131 (29) – 181 (41) 120 (27)
Total 1811 (407) 1543 (347) 1602 (360) – 1796 (404) 1899 (427)
TP-2b/OECPa Skin friction 5731 (1288) 5313 (1194) 4965 (1116) 5258 (1182) 5157 (1159) 5333 (1199)
End-bearing 2316 (521) 1618 (363) 1494 (336) – 534 (120) 427 (96)
Total 8050 (1809) 6931 (1557) 6459 (1452) – 5691 (1279) 5760 (1295)
TP-3a/PSC Skin friction 4826 (1085) 4448 (1000) 4010 (901) – 3673 (826) 5067 (1139)
End-bearing 962 (216) 540 (121) 622 (140) – 1469 (330) 2318 (521)
Total 5788 (1301) 4988 (1121) 4632 (1041) – 5142 (1156) 7385 (1660)
TP-3b/OESP Skin friction 3838 (863) 3572 (803) 3149 (708) 4705 (1058) 3988 (896) 5173 (1163)
End-bearing 764 (171) 430 (97) 477 (107) – 534 (120) 1931 (434)
Total 4602 (1034) 4002 (900) 3626 (815) – 4522 (1016) 7104 (1597)
TP-3c/OECPa Skin friction 4665 (1049) 3956 (889) 3847 (865) 5412 (1217) 4800 (1079) 5760 (1295)
End-bearing 2121 (477) 954 (214) 1452 (326) – 900 (202) 445 (100)
Total 6786 (1525) 4910 (1103) 5299 (1191) – 5700 (1281) 6205 (1395)
a
TP-2b and TP-3c were tested by statnamic load test (SNLT)
b
For the Dynamic load tests, the last restrike before SLT/SNLT was considered

 c   and Beringen method [12] and LCPC method [8]. The

sf ¼ a½qt b r0vo h=ðR or R Þd f Ip ; Ivr
   
sf ¼ a1 ½qt b1 r0vo c1 ½h=ðR or R Þd1 f1 Ip ; Ivr tan df
where a, a1, b, b1, c, c1, d and d1 = empirical constants and
f and f1 = separate functions of Ip and Ivr and is directly
involved with tandf. It was found that many of the
empirical constants of Eqs. (11) and (12) were zero and
then Eqs. (11) and (12) reduces to:
   0:2
h Figure 7a–e presents the comparison of skin frictions for
sf ¼ 0:055qt max  ; 1 ð13Þ
R
  0:2
0:23qt max Rh ; 1
sf ¼
0:15 tan df ð14Þ
qt
r0v
where R* = (R2 - R2i )0.5; R2i is the internal radius of the
pipe pile and h = distance above the pile tip. However, this
method provides the advantages of predicting only the skin
friction.
Table 11 compares measured versus predicted capac-
ities of skin friction, end-bearing and total capacity for
all the test piles. Three different methods (i.e., [12, 45]
and LCPC [8]) are used here to predict the capacity
using the CPT data for all test piles. Lehane et al. [34]
method is used to predict the only skin friction of open-
ended pile. The authors used the previously developed
LPD-CPT software to predict the pile capacity for all
types of piles for Schmertmann method [45], De Ruiter
ð11Þ
static, statnamic and dynamic load tests were used to
ð12Þ measure the capacities. However, the tests were not
conducted at the same time, which affected the com-
parison with the predicted capacities. The DLT results
presented here are performed before conducting the SLT
or SNLT (i.e., the last restrike). The distributions of the
skin frictions along the length of the piles for both the
predicted and measured capacities are depicted in Fig. 7.
predicted and measured capacities of TP-2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
and 3c, respectively.
It is observed that all the pile-CPT-predicted methods of
all the test piles can estimate the capacity with good
accuracy. However, the capacities measured by the SLT
and SNLT were closed to the predicted capacities com-
pared to DLTs. Schmertmann [45] method is the best suited
among all the three different predicted methods to predict
the total and skin friction capacity for the PSC piles in this
study. The result showed that for the PSC piles (i.e., TP-2a
and TP-3a), all the predicted methods underestimated the
capacity measured by the SLT. The total predicted capacity
by Schmertmann [45] method for TP-2a and TP-3a
underestimated the total capacity of SLT by 5 and 27 %,
respectively. The authors believe the large difference
between the predicted and measured capacity for TP-3a is
due to the setup factor. The SLT conducted at TP-2a
location 7 days after EOD, whereas the SLT conducted for

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

768 Acta Geotechnica (2017) 12:753–772

Skin Friction (kips) Skin Friction (kips)

(b)
(a) 0 112 225 337 449 0 337 674 1012 1349
0 0
0 DeRuiter and Beringen Method 0
DeRuiter and Beringen Method
5 16 5 LCPC Method 16
LCPC Method
Schmertmann Method
Schmertmann Method
10 33 10 Measured from SLT 33
Measured from SLT

Embedment Detph (m)

Embedment Detph (m)

Embedment Detph (ft)

Embedment Detph (ft)

(7 days after EOD)
(7 days after EOD) 15 49
15 49 Lehane Method

20 66 20 66

25 82 25 82

30 98 30 98

35 115 35 115

40 131 40 131

45 148 45 148
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 1500 3000 4500 6000
Skin Friction (kN) Skin Friction (kN)

Skin Friction (kips) Skin Friction (kips) Skin Friction (kips)

0 315 630 945 1260 1575 (d) 0 315 630 945 1260 1575
(e) 0 315 630 1575 945 1260
(c) 0 0 0 0 0 0
DeRuiter and Beringen Method DeRuiter and Beringen Method DeRuiter and Beringen Method
LCPC Method LCPC Method LCPC Method
10 33 10 33 10 33
Schmertmann Method Schmertmann Method Schmertmann Method
Measured from SNLT
Embedment Detph (ft)

Measured from SLT Measured from SLT

Embedment Detph (m)

Embedment Detph (ft)

Embedment Detph (ft)
Embedment Detph (m)

Embedment Detph (m)

(13days after EOD) (15 days after EOD) (15 days after EOD) 66
20 66 20 66 20
Lehane Method Lehane Method

30 98 30 98 30 98

40 131 40 131 40 131

50 164 50 164 50 164

60 197 60 197 60 197

0 1400 2800 4200 5600 7000 0 1400 2800 4200 5600 7000 0 1400 2800 4200 5600 7000
Skin Friction (kN) Skin Friction (kN) Skin Friction (kN)

Fig. 7 Comparison of skin frictions obtained from different methods. a Test pile-2a (TP-2a). b Test pile-2b (TP-2b). c Test pile-3a (TP-3a).
d Test pile-3b (TP-3a). e Test pile-3c (TP-3c)

TP-3a at 13 days after EOD. This time difference at TP-3a pile-CPT methods is much closer to the skin friction
location assisted the increase in capacity. measured by the SNLT. For TP-2b, the Schmertmann [45]
The behavior is somehow different for the open-ended method overpredicted the skin friction by 7 % and the
piles compared to the PSC piles. It is observed that Sch- LCPC method underestimated the skin friction by 8 %.
mertmann [45], De Ruiter and Beringen [12] and LCPC [8] However, at TP-3 location, the Schmertmann [45], De
methods cannot predict the end-bearing capacity for the Ruiter and Beringen [12] and LCPC [8] methods largely
open-ended cylinder and pipe piles with good accuracy. underestimated the measured skin friction for both open-
These three methods did not incorporate plug length ratio ended piles. The skin friction for TP-3b during the SLT
(PLR), incremental filling ratio (IFR) and annulus area of was underestimated by 34, 45 and 64 % using the Sch-
toe for open-ended pile to calculate the end-bearing mertmann [45], De Ruiter and Beringen [12] and LCPC [8]
capacity of pile. Recent studies (e.g., Fugro-05, NGI-05, methods, respectively. Similar to the pile TP-3b, the skin
UWA-05, ICP-05, HKU-12) showed that incorporation of friction was underestimated by 24, 46 and 50 % using the
these parameters will aid to predict the end-bearing Schmertmann [45], De Ruiter and Beringen [12] and LCPC
capacity more accurately for open-ended piles. [8] methods, respectively, for the pile TP-3c during the
The results show that for the open-ended cylinder pile at SNLT. As mentioned earlier, the methods proposed by
TP-2 location (i.e., TP-2b), the skin friction predicted by Lehane et al. [34] are the best suited for open-ended pile to

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Acta Geotechnica (2017) 12:753–772 769

predict the skin friction. The predicted skin friction was Rst t
¼ 1 þ A log ð15Þ
underestimated by only 1, 9 and 6 % using the Lehane Rso to
et al. [34] method for TP-2b, TP-3b and TP-3c,
where Rs is the skin friction after a time, t, and Rso is
respectively.
the initial skin friction at the initial reference time (to).
Table 12 lists the setup parameter ‘‘A’’ for all the test
6.10 Setup behavior
piles. It can be observed from Fig. 8 and Table 12 that
the setup parameters ‘‘A’’ are very close for the test piles
One of the main objectives of this study was to estimate the
at TP-2 location (0.41 and 0.39 for TP-2a and TP-2b,
amount and rate of setup for different types and sizes of
respectively). The results of DLTs and the SLT for TP-
piles so that it can be incorporated into the design of pro-
3a as a function of time were best fitted to a logarithmic
duction piles. All the test piles were tested using DLT at
timescale suggesting a linear logarithmic trend exists like
EOD and several restrikes after that, and one SLT or SNLT
the results of other test piles as shown in Fig. 8c. The
at the end was performed to quantify the increase of
‘‘A’’ factor for TP-3a is 0.33 which is also very close to
capacity (or setup). The results of testing program showed
the observed ‘‘A’’ values of TP-3b (0.31) and TP-3c
that all the test piles exhibited significant amount of setup.
(0.36) (Table 12). Since the setup of the PSC piles (TP-
The dissipation of excess pore water pressure played the
2a and TP-3a) are mainly due to outside friction and the
most significant role behind setup, and the dissipation
setup rate ‘‘A’’ of the PSC piles and open-ended pipe
period was different for different types and sizes of piles.
and cylinder piles (TP-2b, TP-3b and TP-3c) are close,
The piezometers were not installed on the pile face in this
the reader can postulate that no significant amount of
project due to budget constraints and schedule of con-
setup was observed due to inside friction for the open-
struction. However, the results and analyses of consolida-
ended pipe and cylinder piles. Therefore, we can con-
tion process of the excess pore water pressure due to pile
clude that setup was mainly due to the outside friction
driving for PSC piles in local Louisiana soil can be found
between the pile surface and surrounding soil.
in the study performed by Chen et al. [9] and Haque et al.
[21].
Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 presents the skin friction (Rs), end-
7 Summary and conclusions
bearing (Rtip) and total (Rt) capacities measured during all
the DLTs, SLT or SNLT. The skin frictions (Rs) recorded
In this study, a full-scale pile load testing program was
during the final load test were 7.5, 5.3, 3.0, 5.7 and 7.1
conducted on different types of instrumented test piles that
times higher compared to the EOD skin frictions for TP-
were installed side by side at the same locations to inves-
2a, TP-2b, TP-3a, TP-3b and TP-3c, respectively
tigate their behavior during driving and following load
(Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). However, with the exception of TP-
tests. The test piles were instrumented with vibrating wire
3b during SLT (i.e., open-ended steel pile), the end-
strain gauges in order to measure the load distribution
bearing capacity for all piles was almost constant during
along the length of the piles. Laboratory and in situ testing
the whole testing program. As stated earlier, the formation
programs were performed to characterize the subsurface
of ‘‘soil plug’’ during the SLT for this open-ended steel
soil properties. Several DLTs and one SLT or SNLT were
pile may contribute to the increase in end-bearing
performed at different times after EOD to evaluate the
capacity. The test results demonstrated that the setup
setup behavior of test piles. The pile capacities were pre-
behavior is mainly attributed to increase in skin friction.
dicted using different CPT methods ([12, 45], LCPC [8]
Figure 8a–e presents the measured skin friction versus
and Lehane et al. [34] methods) and compared with the
elapsed time for TP-2a, TP-2b, TP-3a, TP-3b and TP-3c,
skin friction distribution gleaned from the SLTs or SNLTs.
respectively. As shown in the figures, the pile skin friction
The setup behaviors of the test piles were analyzed, and the
was best fitted to a linear logarithmic timescale with a
setup parameter ‘‘A’’ for skin frictions was back-calculated
coefficient of correlation (R2) of 0.97, 0.99, 0.75, 0.86 and
for the test piles. Based on the observations from this study,
0.98 for TP-2a, TP-2b, TP-3a, TP-3b and TP-3c, respec-
the following conclusions can be drawn:
tively. This suggests a linear logarithmic time relationship
do exist for setup of all test piles, as suggested by other • Cumulative blow counts were normalized with the toe
researchers (e.g., [7, 40, 47]). area of the pile for comparison. The normalized blow
The logarithmic setup parameters ‘‘A’’ for all test piles counts for open-ended cylinder piles were less than the
were back-calculated using the model proposed by Skov and PSC piles at both test pile locations. However,
Denver [47] for the skin frictions. Bullock et al. [7] used the normalized blow counts for pipe pile were higher than
following equation to predict the skin friction setup: large-diameter cylinder pile and PSC pile for this study.

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

770 Acta Geotechnica (2017) 12:753–772

500 2200 1500 6672

(a) (b)
Dynamic Load Test Dynamic Load Test
Skin Friction, Rs (kips)

Skin Friction, Rs (kips)

Skin Friction, Rs (KN)

Skin Friction, Rs (KN)

400 1760 1200 5338
Static Load Test Statnamic Load Test

1320 900 Rst/Rso = 0.39 log (t/to) + 1 4003

300 Rst/Rso = 0.41 log (t/to) + 1
R2 = 0.99
R2 = 0.97 2669
200 880 600

100 440 300 1334

0 0 0 0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Time, t (Days) Time, t (Days)

1500 6672
(c) 1500 6672 (d)
Dynamic Load Test Dynamic Load Test
Skin Friction, Rs (kips)

Skin Friction, Rs (kips)

Skin Friction, Rs (KN)

Skin Friction, Rs (KN)

1200 Static Load Test 5338
1200 Static Load Test 5338

900 4003
900 4003

600 2669
600 2669
Rst/Rso = 0.31 log (t/to) + 1
300 1334
300 Rst/Rso = 0.33 log (t/to) + 1 1334 R2 = 0.86
2
R = 0.88
0 0
0 0 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time, t (Days) Time, t (Days)

(e) 1500 6672

Dynamic Load Test

5338 Skin Friction, Rs (KN)
Skin Friction, Rs (kips)

1200 Statnamic Load Test

900 4003

600 2669

Rst/Rso = 0.36 log (t/to) + 1 1334

300
R2 = 0.98

0 0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time, t (Days)

Fig. 8 Setup results of skin frictions (Rs) of test piles. a Test pile-2a (TP-2a). b Test pile-2b (TP-2b). c Test pile-3a (TP-3a). d Test pile-3b (TP-
3b). e Test pile-3c (TP-3c)

Table 12 ‘‘A’’ values for the skin friction of the test piles load for this study. Pipe pile exhibited higher resistance
compared to the large-diameter open-ended pile for this
Test piles ‘‘A’’ value
study.
TP-2a (16-in. PSC pile) 0.41 • Pile capacities were predicted using different CPT
TP-2b (54-in. OECP) 0.39 methods. The predicted capacities using CPT methods
TP-3a (30-in. PSC) 0.33 were underestimated compared to the EOD pile capac-
TP-3b (30-in. OESP) 0.31 ities. However, the results showed that all the methods
TP-3c (54-in. OECP) 0.36 can estimate the skin friction of piles with good
accuracy while the end-bearing capacity cannot be
• The load–settlement response were normalized with the predicted well. Schmertmann [45] method is well suited
toe area of the pile for comparison. The PSC piles to estimate the capacity for the SLT of the PSC piles,
exhibited less resistance compared to the large-diam- while Lehane et al. [34] method is the best method to
eter open-ended cylinder piles under any given applied predict the capacity for the open-ended pile.

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Acta Geotechnica (2017) 12:753–772
• Soil plug was not measured directly in this study due to
construction constrains. However, ICP-05 method was
used to evaluate the plugging condition of the open-
ended pile and the results show that the open-ended
piles were not plugged during driving.
• All the test piles (i.e., both open and close-ended pile)
exhibited significant amount of setup which is mainly
due to increase in skin friction. The end-bearing
capacity was almost constant for all test piles except
for open-ended steel pile during the SLT.
• Significant amount of end-bearing capacity is observed
for the open-ended steel pile during the axial compres-
sion SLT, which is mainly due to possible formation of
‘‘soil plug’’ inside the pile. The end-bearing capacity
for the open-ended steel pile during the SLT was 6.9
times higher compared to the end-bearing capacity of
EOD. This behavior was not observed for the open-
ended cylinder pile during the quick loading test such
as the SNLT.
• The logarithmic setup parameter ‘‘A’’ for all test piles
were back-calculated, and the results revealed that for
the large-diameter open-ended cylinder piles, the ‘‘A’’
parameter was about 0.38 and that for PSC pile ‘‘A’’
was about 0.37. The ‘‘A’’ parameter for open-ended
steel pile was 0.31, slightly lower than the concrete
piles.
• No significant amount of setup was experienced inside
the open-ended pile between the inner pile surface and
plugged soil as the setup rate ‘‘A’’ for the PSC piles and
open-ended piles was very close in magnitude.
Acknowledgments This research is funded by the Louisiana Trans-
portation Research Center (LTRC Project No. 11-2GT) and Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development (State Project No.
736-99-1732). The help and support from the LADOTD geotechnical
design section personnel are also highly appreciated.
References
1. Abu-Farsakh MY, Rosti F, Souri A (2015) Evaluating pile
installation and subsequent thixotropic and consolidation effects
on setup by numerical simulation for full scale pile load tests.
Can Geotech J. doi:10.1139/cgj-2014-0470
2. Abu-Farsakh MY, Titi HH (2004) Assessment of direct cone
penetration test methods for predicting the ultimate capacity of
friction driven piles. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(9):935–944
3. Abu-Farsakh MY, Titi HH (2007) Probabilistic CPT method for
estimating the ultimate capacity of friction piles. Geotech Test J
30(5):1–15
4. Abu-Farsakh M (2004) Evaluation of consolidation characteris-
tics of cohesive soils from piezocone penetration tests. Report
No. FHWA/LA.03/386, Louisiana Transportation Research
Center, Baton Rouge, LA
5. Axelsson G (2000) Long term set-up of piles in sand. Doctoral
thesis. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
771
6. Briaud JL, Tucker LM (1988) Measured and predicted axial
response of 98 piles. J Geotech Eng 114(8):984–1001
7. Bullock PJ, Schmertmann JH, McVay MC, Townsend FC (2005)
Side shear setup I: test piles driven in Florida. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 131(3):292–300
8. Bustamante M, Gianeselli L (1982) Pile bearing capacity pre-
dictions by means of static penetrometer CPT. In: Proceedings to
2nd European symposium on penetration testing, ESOPTII,
Amsterdam, pp 493–500
9. Chen Q, Haque M, Abu-Farsakh M, Fernandez BA (2014) Field
investigation of pile set-up in mixed soil. Geotech Test J
37(2):268–281
10. Chow FC, Jardine RJ, Nauroy JF, Brucy F (1997) Time related
increase in shaft capacities of driven piles in sand. Geotechnique
47(2):353–361
11. Chow FC, Jardine RJ, Brucy F, Nauroy JF (1998) Effects of time
on capacity of pipe piles in dense Marine sand. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 124(3):254–264
12. De Ruiter J, Beringen FL (1979) Pile foundations for large North
Sea structures. Mar Geotechnol 3(3):267–314
13. Doherty P, Gavin K (2011) Shaft capacity of open-ended piles in
clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 137(11):1090–1102
14. Eslami A, Fellenius BH (1997) Pile capacity by direct CPT and
CPTU methods applied to 102 case histories. Can Geotech J
34:886–904
15. Eslami A, Fellenius BH (1995) Toe bearing capacity of piles
from cone penetration (CPT) test. In: Proceedings to international
symposium on cone penetration testing (CPT’95), Sweden,
October 4–5
16. Fawad SN, Paul WM (2013) Cone penetration test based direct
methods for evaluating static axial capacity of single piles.
Geotech Geol Eng 31(4):979–1009
17. Fellinius BH (2008) Effective stress analysis and set-up for shaft
capacity of piles in clay. In: Proceedings to from research to
practice in geotechnical engineering, Geo-Institute of the Amer-
ican Society of Civil Engineering, Alberta, Canada, pp 384–406
18. Fellenius BH (2015) The response of a ‘‘plug’’ in an open-toe
pile. Geotech Eng J SEAGS AGSSEA 46(2):82–86
19. Fugro. Axial pile capacity design methods for offshore driven
piles in sand. Report to the American Petroleum Institute, P-1003,
Issue
20. Haque MN, Abu-Farsakh M, Chen Q (2015) Pile set-up for
individual soil layers along instrumented test piles in clayey soil.
In: Manzanal D, Sfriso AO (eds) Proceedings of the 15th Pan-
American conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engi-
neering (from fundamentals to applications in geotechnics), 15–18
November. IOS Press, Buenos Aires, Argentina, pp 390–397
21. Haque MN, Abu-Farsakh M, Chen Q, Zhang Z (2014) Case study
on instrumenting and testing full scale test piles for evaluating
set-up phenomenon. J Transp Res Board 2462:37–47
22. Haque MN, Abu-Farsakh M, Tsai C (2016) Field investigation to
evaluate the effects of pile installation sequence on pile setup
behavior for instrumented test piles. Geotech Test J 39(5):769–785
23. Haque MN, Abu-Farsakh M, Zhang Z, Okeil A (2016) Devel-
oping a model to estimate pile setup for individual soil layers on
the basis of piezocone penetration test data. Transp Res Rec J
Transp Res Board 2579:17–31
24. Haque MN, Chen Q, Abu-Farsakh M, Tsai C (2014) Effects of
pile size on set-up behavior of cohesive soils. In: Proceedings of
geo-congress 2014, geocharacterization and modeling for sus-
tainability, 23–26 Feb, GSP No. 234. American Society of Civil
Engineers, Georgia, pp 1743–1749
25. Henke S, Grabe J (2008) Numerical investigation of soil plugging
inside open-ended piles with respect to the installation method.
Acta Geotech 3(3):215–223
123
772
26. Henke S, Grabe J (2013) Field measurements regarding the
influence of the installation method on soil plugging in tubular
piles. Acta Geotech 8(3):335–352
27. Jardine RJ, Chow FC. New design methods for offshore piles
MTD Publication 96/103. Marine Technology Directorate, Ltd.
London
28. Jardine RJ, Overy RF, Chow FC (1998) Axial capacity of off-
shore piles in dense North Sea sands. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
124(2):171–178
29. Jardine RJ, Chow FC, Overy R, Standing J (2005) ICP design
methods for driven piles in sands and clays. Thomas Telford,
London
30. Karlsrud K, Clausen CJF, Aas PM (2005) Bearing capacity of
driven piles in clay, the NGI approach. In: Proceedings of the 1st
international symposium on frontiers in offshore geotechnics,
Taylor & Francis, University of Western Australia, Perth,
September 19–21, pp 775–782
31. Kim D, Bica A, Salgado R, Prezzi M, Lee W (2009) Load testing
of a closed-ended pipe pile driven in multilayered soil. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 135(4):463–473
32. Komurka VE, Wagner AB, Edil TB (2003) Estimating soil/pile
set-up. Wisconsin highway research program #0092-00-14,
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
33. Lehane BM, Schneider JA, Xu X (2005) CPT based design of
driven piles in sand for offshore structures. UWA Report, GEO:
05345
34. Lehane BM, Li Y, Williams R (2013) Shaft capacity of dis-
placement piles in clay using the cone penetration test. J Geotech
Geo-Environ Eng 139(2):1–13
35. Lim JK, Lehane BM (2014) Characterisation of the effects of
time on the shaft friction of displacement piles in sand.
Geotechnique 64(6):476–485
36. Liu R, Zhou L, Lin M, Yan S (2015) Soil plug effect evaluation
for large diameter steel pipe pile in offshore engineering. In:
Proceedings of the twenty-fifth (2015) international ocean and
polar engineering conference, Kona, Big Island, Hawaii, USA,
June 21–26
37. Matsumoto T, Takei M (1991) Effects of soil plug on behavior of
driven pipe pile. Soil Found 31(2):14–34
38. Matsumoto T, Kitiyodom P, Wakisaka T, Nishimura S (2004)
Research on plugging of open-ended steel pipe piles and practice
in japan. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on
the application of stress-wave theory in piles, Selangor,
pp 133–152
39. Miller G, Lutenegger A (1997) Influence of pile plugging on skin
friction in overconsolidated clay. J Geotech Geo-Environ Eng
123(6):525–533
40. Ng KW, Roling M, AbdelSalam SS, Suleiman MT, Sritharan S
(2013) Pile set-up in cohesive soil. I: experimental investigation.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139(2):199–209
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Acta Geotechnica (2017) 12:753–772
41. Paik KH, Salgado R (2003) Determination of the bearing capacity
of open-ended piles in sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
129(1):46–57
42. Paikowsky SG, Whitman RV, Baligh MM (1990) A new look at
the phenomenon of offshore pile plugging. Mar Geotech
8(3):213–230
43. Rausche MF, Robinson B, Likins G (2004) On the prediction of
long term pile capacity from end-of-driving information. In:
Proceedings of the current practices and future trends in deep
foundation, GSP No. 125, CA, July 27–31, pp 77–95
44. Robertson PK, Campanella RG, Davis MP, Sy A (1988) Axial
capacity of driven piles in deltaic soils using CPT. In: Proceed-
ings of the 1st international symposium on penetration testing,
ISOPT-1, FL, pp 919–928
45. Schmertmann JH (1978) Guidelines for cone penetration test.
Performance and design. U.S. Department of Transportation,
Report No. FHWA-TS-78-209, Washington, DC, p 145
46. Schmertmann JH (1991) The mechanical aging of soils.
J Geotech Eng 117(9):1288–1330
47. Skov R, Denver H (1988) Time dependence of bearing capacity
of piles. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on
the application of stress-wave theory to piles, Canada,
pp 879–888
48. Suriyah T, Matsumoto T, Kobayashi S, Kitiydom P, Kurosawa K
(2011) Experimental and numerical studies on push-up load tests
for sand plugs in a steel pipe pile. Soils Found 51(5):959–974
49. Stevens R, Wiltsie E, Turton T (1982) Evaluating pile drivability
for hard clay very dense sand and rock. In: 14th offshore tech-
nology conference, Houston, OTC, pp 465–481
50. Szechy CH (1961) The effect of vibration and driving upon the
voids in granular soil surrounding a pile. In: Proceedings to 5th
international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engi-
neering, Paris, pp 161–164
51. Tan Y, Lin G (2013) Full scale testing of open-ended steel pipe
piles in thick varved clayey silt deposits along the Delaware
River in New Jersey. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139(3):518–524
52. Titi HH, Abu-Farsakh MY. Evaluation of bearing capacity of
piles from cone penetration test data. Report No. FHWA/LA
99/334, Louisiana Transportation Research Center
53. Yu F, Yang J (2013) Base capacity of open-ended steel pipe piles
in sand. J Geotech Geo-Environ Eng 138(9):116–1128
54. Zhang Z, Tumay MT (1999) Statistical to fuzzy approach toward
CPT soil classification. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
125(3):179–186
55. Zhang Z, Wang YH (2015) Examining setup mechanisms of
driven piles in sand using laboratory model pile tests. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 141(3):1–12
56. Zhihong H, McVay M, Bloomquist D, Horhota D (2012) New
ultimate pile capacity prediction method based on cone penetra-
tion test (CPT). Can Geotech J 49(8):961–967
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at

onlineservice@springernature.com