UWA Review Sept05 Draft PDF

The University of Western Australia
Geomechanics Group
A REVIEW OF DESIGN METHODS

FOR OFFSHORE DRIVEN PILES IN SILICEOUS SAND
by
B.M. Lehane
J.A. Schneider
X. Xu
September 2005 GEO:05358

Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to the following three members of the API piling sub-committee for
their constructive feedback to initial drafts of this report:
• Mr. Harry Kolk (Fugro Engineers B.V.)

• Prof. Richard Jardine (Imperial College)
• Prof. Mark Randolph (Centre for Offshore Foundations, UWA)
The authors also gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the following individuals who
provided the authors with case history data for the new UWA database and/or assisted the
authors with various enquiries regarding case histories and design methods.
• Ms. Aukje Baaijens (Fugro Engineers B.V.)

• Prof. Bob Bea (UC- Berkeley)
• Dr. Paul Bullock (GRL Engineers Inc)
• Dr. Mark Cassidy (Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems)
• Dr. Fiona Chow (Worley Parsons)
• Dr. Carl J. Frimann Clausen (NGI)
• Mr. Darryll Dockstader (Florida Dept. of Transport)
• Prof. Bengt Fellenius (Consultant)
• Dr. Kenneth Gavin (Univ. College Dublin)
• Mr. Steve Kay (Fugro Engineers B.V.)
• Dr. Suzanne Lacasse (NGI)
• Mr. Peter Mitchell (URS, Adelaide)
• Dr. Robert Overy (Shell UK Ltd.)
• Prof. Rodrigo Salgado (Purdue University)
• Dr. Jaime Santos (Univ. Tecnica de Lisboa, Portugal)
• Mr. Marc Senders (School of Civil & Res. Engng., UWA)
• Mr. Tom Shantz (Caltrans, California)
• Prof. Hani Titi (Univ. Wisconsin-Milwaukee)
• Dr. David White (University of Cambridge)
• Ms. Anouchka Wijfjes (Fugro Engineers B.V.)
A review of design methods for offshore driven piles in siliceous sand i

B.M. Lehane, J.A. Schneider & X. Xu
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Scope of report .......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Background................................................................................................................ 1
2 DESIGN METHODS AND CALCULATION PROCEDURES ................................................... 3
2.1 Overview of API-00, Fugro-05, ICP-05, NGI-05 & UWA-05 Methods ......................... 3
2.1.1 The API-00 recommendations for driven piles in sand....................................... 3
2.1.2 The Fugro-05 recommendations for driven piles in sand ................................... 5
2.1.3 The ICP-05 recommendations for driven piles in sand ...................................... 6
2.1.4 The NGI-05 recommendations for driven piles in sand ...................................... 8
2.1.5 The UWA-05 recommendations for driven piles in sand .................................... 9
2.2 Calculation details.................................................................................................... 12
2.2.1 General procedure........................................................................................... 12
2.2.2 Weighted average δ, Dr, qc, and qc1N spreadsheet values................................ 12
2.2.3 Contribution of clay layers to shaft capacity..................................................... 13
2.2.4 Spreadsheet output ......................................................................................... 13
2.2.5 Spreadsheet verification .................................................................................. 15
2.2.6 Effect of discretisation on calculated capacities............................................... 15
3 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED CAPACITIES IN IDEALISED & TYPICAL GOM SOIL
PROFILES ................................................................................................................................ 16
3.1 Predictions in sand deposits of constant relative density.......................................... 16
3.1.1 Shaft capacity.................................................................................................. 16
3.1.2 Base capacity .................................................................................................. 20
3.2 Relative performance of CPT-based methods in uniform sand profiles.................... 23
3.3 Predictions for sand profiles typical of the Gulf of Mexico ........................................ 28
3.3.1 Site C (reported by Focht et al. 1986).............................................................. 28
3.3.2 Site A in the Gulf of Mexico ............................................................................. 30
3.4 Concluding Remarks................................................................................................ 30
4 THE UWA DATABASE ......................................................................................................... 32
4.1 General overview of the database............................................................................ 32
4.2 Details of pile database for statistic analysis ............................................................ 41
4.3 Influence of time between installation and loading ................................................... 42
5 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF DATABASE ........................................................................... 45
5.1 Closed-ended piles in compression ......................................................................... 45
5.2 Closed-ended piles in tension .................................................................................. 46
5.3 Open-ended piles in compression............................................................................ 46
5.4 Open-ended piles in tension .................................................................................... 46
5.5 Independent assessment of statistics by NGI .......................................................... 48
A review of design methods for offshore driven piles in siliceous sand ii

5.6 Summary ................................................................................................................. 49
6 FACTORS OF SAFETY AND RELIABILITY OF DESIGN METHODS .................................. 50
6.1 Overview.................................................................................................................. 50
6.2 Factors of Safety within API RP2A........................................................................... 51
6.3 Reliability of pile design methods ............................................................................. 52
6.3.1 Distribution function ......................................................................................... 52
6.3.2 Reliability index ............................................................................................... 53
6.4 Apparent reliability of methods as compared to UWA database............................... 54
6.5 Evaluation of Qc/Qm distribution ............................................................................... 55
6.6 Extrapolation to offshore conditions ......................................................................... 57
7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 61
8 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 63
APPENDIX A PREDICTIONS AT IDEALISED SAND SITE ...................................................... 69
APPENDIX B: RATIOS OF MEASURED TO CALCULATED CAPACITIES.............................. 75
APPENDIX C: PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTIONS FOR RATIOS OF CALCULATED TO
MEASURED CAPACITIES ....................................................................................................... 96
A review of design methods for offshore driven piles in siliceous sand iii
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Scope of report

The following four design methods for driven piles in sand are currently being considered for
inclusion in the new 22nd edition of the American Petroleum Institute (API) recommendations
(2006):
• Fugro-05 (Kolk et al. 2005; Fugro 2004)
• ICP-05 (Jardine et al. 2005a)
• NGI-05 (Clausen et al. 2005; Aas et al. 2004)
• UWA-05 (Lehane et al. 2005b; Lehane et al. 2005c)
All of these methods employ the Cone Penetration Test (CPT) end resistance (qc) as the
primary input parameter. Although the NGI-05 method relates pile capacity directly to the
sand relative density (Dr), the method was derived using a specific relationship between qc
and Dr and is therefore, in essence, a CPT-based design approach.
This report is an updated version of a method evaluation report compiled by the University of
Western Australia, UWA (Lehane et al. 2005a) and presents a review of each of the four
CPT-based methods as well as a review of the existing non CPT-based API design method
as outlined in the current 21st edition of the API recommendations (API 2000), referred to here
as API-00. Updates to the initial UWA report include (i) an evaluation of the UWA-05 method,
(ii) incorporation of comments raised following a review of the original report by the API
committee (during and after the May 2005 meeting in Houston) and (iii) an improved
treatment of the assessment of reliability of the five methods considered for offshore piles.
A summary of the API-00, Fugro-05, ICP-05, NGI-05 and UWA-05 methods is provided in
Chapter 2, which also describes the UWA spreadsheet program employed for pile capacity
predictions. These predictions are then compared in Chapter 3 for idealised soil profiles and
for soil profiles typically found at sand sites in the Gulf of Mexico. The new extended UWA
database of static load tests is presented in Chapter 4 and this database is then compared in
Chapter 5 against the predictions of each of the new methods. The implications of this
database study, with respect to factors of safety and reliability of design methods for offshore
piles in siliceous sand, are discussed in Chapter 6 and conclusions are drawn in Chapter 7.
1.2 Background
The CPT qc value is now commonly used directly in design methods for onshore driven piles
(e.g. De Cock et al. 2003) and there has been growing general support for inclusion of such a
method in the API recommendations for offshore driven piles in sand. Therefore, in late 2004,
the API sub-committee on piling, chaired by Mr. Harry Kolk (Fugro Engineers B.V.), requested
the University of Western Australia (UWA) to evaluate three CPT based methods: Fugro-05,
ICP-05 and NGI-05 and to assess their predictive performance against a database including
large scale pipe pile tests at Euripides, Jamuna Bridge, Ras Tanajib and Drammen.
The results of the UWA evaluation exercise are reported in Lehane et al. (2005a), which
considered a significantly wider database of pile test data than originally envisaged by the API
piling sub-committee. The following observations were made during this study:
1. The UWA database of pile load tests with CPT data (which is also described in this report)
is larger than that employed for the derivation of the Fugro-05, ICP-05 and NGI-05 design
methods. There is, however, a significant shortage of test data for piles with dimensions
commonly used offshore.
2. When tested against the UWA database, the Fugro-05, ICP-05 and NGI-05 methods had
significantly better predictive performance than the existing API recommendations. API-00
has significant bias against both soil consistency and pile geometry, in that; (i) large
under-predictions of capacity occur in short piles (< 20m) in dense sands, becoming
progressively more-conservative as the pile length (L) reduces; (ii) the capacity of long
A review of design methods for offshore driven piles in siliceous sand 1
piles in loose sand is over-predicted significantly and (iii) the assessment of shaft capacity
of piles in tension is less conservative than that for an equivalent pile in compression.
3. Despite the CPT based methods having a broadly similar predictive performance against
the UWA database of load tests, their formulations relating the pile end bearing with the
CPT end resistance (qc) are notably different. Formulations for shaft friction also differ
although all assume a near-proportional relationship between local shaft friction (τf) and qc
and allow for the degradation of τf with distance above the pile tip (h) due to friction
fatigue.
4. The ICP-05 method indicated the lowest coefficient of variation (COV) for calculated to
measured capacities (Qc/Qm) when an equal weighting is given to each pile test in the
database. However, for various categories within the database the position is less clear.
For example, NGI-05 predictions appear best for open-ended piles in compression while
the nominal reliability of Fugro-05 is approximately the same as that of ICP-05 for open-
ended piles in tension.
5. When account was taken of the relative reliability of the pile test data, the design methods
listed below for each category of pile lead to the lowest probability of failure (i.e. defined
here as the relative probability that the calculated capacity does not exceed the measured
capacity by more than a factor of 2.)
• Closed-ended pile in compression : API-00
• Closed-ended pile in tension: Fugro-05
• Open-ended pile in compression: ICP-05 and NGI-05
• Open-ended pile in tension: ICP-05 and Fugro-05
6. The fact that API-00 gives the lowest probability of failure for closed-ended piles in
compression is primarily because that portion of the database includes a higher
percentage of shorter piles in dense sands, where API-00 generally under-predicts the
capacity of these piles. In contrast, the performance of API-00 for closed ended piles in
tension is worse than the other three proposed methods, partially because that portion of
the database has a higher percentage of longer piles in loose sand.
7. The ICP-05 method displays a tendency to under-predict pile base capacity of open
ended piles in loose sand. The Fugro-05 method indicates a tendency to under-predict
compression capacities at large L/D values and to over-predict base capacities of piles
with low average qc (short piles and loose sands). Additionally, Fugro-05 tends to under-
predict tension capacity of short piles while NGI-05 tends to over-predict capacity of piles
in gravelly sands.
This examination of the three CPT based methods coupled with a review of their various
potential deficiencies and a careful examination of the new extended database of static load
tests with CPT data prompted the authors to propose the UWA-05 method (Lehane et al.
2005b; Lehane et al. 2005c). UWA-05 accounts for effective area ratio of open ended piles, a
term which has not been explicitly included in other calibrated design methods. This term
combines the incremental filling ratio and solid area ratio of the pile (Gavin & Lehane 2003b;
White et al. 2005), which is important for evaluation of partially plugged database piles and for
extrapolation from thick walled (D/t ≈ 20) database piles to thin walled offshore piles (D/t ≈ 50).
The UWA-05 method is evaluated in this report along with the Fugro-05, ICP-05, NGI-05 and
API-00 methods.

2 DESIGN METHODS AND CALCULATION PROCEDURES
2.1 Overview of API-00, Fugro-05, ICP-05, NGI-05 & UWA-05 Methods

The total bearing capacity of the pile, Qt, is calculated as the sum of the shaft capacity, Qs,
and the base capacity, Qb, as:
 πD 2 
Q t = Q s + Q b = πD ⋅ ∫ τ f dz +   ⋅ q b 0.1 (2.1)
 4 
where
Qs = total shaft capacity
Qb = total base capacity
τf = local shaft friction at failure along the shaft of a pile
qb0.1 = base resistance
at a pile tip displacement of 0.1D for API-00, Fugro-05, and UWA-05;
at a pile head displacement of 0.1D for ICP-05 and NGI-05.
D = pile outer diameter
z = depth
In the following sections, design formulas for calculating shaft friction, τf, and base resistance,
qb0.1, for driven piles in sand are presented for each method.
2.1.1 The API-00 recommendations for driven piles in sand
The unit shaft friction is calculated from:
τ f = K f ⋅ σ' v 0 tan δ = β ⋅ σ' v 0 (API-1)
where
Kf = coefficient of lateral earth pressure
σ'v0 = vertical effective stress at the point of question
δ = friction angle between the soil and pile wall
β = Kf·tanδ
For open-ended pipe piles driven unplugged, it is usual to adopt a Kf value of 0.8 for both
tension and compression loadings. Values of Kf for full displacement piles (plugged or closed-
end) can be assumed to be 1.0. Table 2.1 (shown overleaf) may be used for selection of δ
and Kf (or Kf·tanδ), although, if a measured δ is used, an adjustment of Kf may also be
appropriate. For long piles, τf may not increase linearly with overburden stress as implied by
Equation (API-1). In such cases, it may be appropriate to limit τf to the values given in Table
2.1, so that an appropriate “average” shaft friction is calculated.
The unit end bearing, qb0.1 (in kPa), may be computed from the equation:
q b 0.1 = N q σ' v 0 (API-2)
where
σ'v0 = vertical effective stress at the pile tip level
Nq = (dimensionless) bearing capacity factor
Recommended values of Nq are presented in Table 2.1. The shaft friction, τf, is considered to
act on both the inside and outside of the piles. The internal friction is considered equal to the
external friction. However, the total resistance in excess of the external shaft friction plus
annular end bearing is the total internal shaft friction or end bearing of the plug, whichever is
less. Whether a pile is considered to be plugged or unplugged may be based on static
calculations. For example, a pile could be driven in an unplugged condition, but act as
plugged under static loading. In computing pile loading and capacity, the weight of the pile-
soil plug system and uplift from water pressures should be considered.
Table 2.1 API RP2A (2000) design guidelines for non-cohesive soils*
Density Soil Description Soil-Pile Limiting Skin Nq Limiting Unit End

Friction Angle, Friction Values Bearing Values
δ Degrees kips/ft2 (kPa) kips/ft2 (MPa)
Very loose Sand 15 1.0 (47.8) 8 40 (1.9)
Loose Sand-Silt **
Medium Silt
Loose Sand 20 1.4 (67.0) 12 60 (2.9
**
Medium Sand-Silt
Dense Silt
Medium Sand 25 1.7 (81.3) 20 100 (4.8)
**
Dense Sand-Silt
Dense Sand 30 2.0 (95.7) 40 200 (9.6)
Very Dense Sand-Silt**
Dense Gravel 35 2.4 (114.8) 50 250 (12.0)
Very Dense Sand
*
The parameters listed in this table are intended as guidelines only. Where detailed information such as
in situ cone tests, strength tests on high quality samples, model tests, or pile driving performance is
available, other values may be justified.
**
Sand-silt includes those soils with significant fractions of both sand and silt. Strength values generally
increase with increasing sand fractions and decrease with increasing silt fractions.

2.1.2 The Fugro-05 recommendations for driven piles in sand
In compression, the unit shaft friction is expressed as:

0.05 −0.90
 σ'   h 
τ f = 0.08 ⋅ q c ⋅  v 0    for h/R*≥4 (Fugro-1a)
 pa   R *
0.05
 σ' 
τ f = 0.08 ⋅ q c ⋅  v 0  (4 )−0.90  h 
 for h/R*<4 (Fugro-1b)
 pa   4R * 
In tension, the unit shaft friction is expressed as:

0.15 −0.85
 σ'    h 
τ f = 0.045 ⋅ q c  v 0   max R * ,4  (Fugro-2)
 pa    
where
qc = cone tip resistance
σ'v0 = effective vertical soil stress at depth z
h = distance behind pile tip = pile length – depth z
R = outside radius of a pile (=D/2)
Ri = inside radius of a pile (=Di/2)
R* = equivalent radius = (R2 – Ri2)0.5, which is equal to R for closed-ended piles
The unit base resistance is considered as a direct function of average cone tip resistance and
area ratio, Ar. Averaging of cone tip resistance over ± 1.5 diameters is suggested based on
the recommendations of Bustamante & Gianeselli (1982).
(
q b 0.1 p a = 8.5 ⋅ q c p a )0.5
Ar
0.25
(Fugro-3)
where
qc = averaged cone tip resistance over ±1.5D at pile tip
Ar = area ratio, 1-(Di/D)2

2.1.3 The ICP-05 recommendations for driven piles in sand
In compression, the local shear stress follows a Coulomb failure criterion as:
τ f = σ' rf tan δ cv = (σ' rc + ∆σ' rd ) tan δ cv (ICP-1a)
where
δcv = constant volume interface friction angle
σ'rf = radial effective stress at failure
σ'rc = radial effective stress after installation and equalization
∆σ'rd = change in radial stress due to loading stress path (dilation)
The constant volume interface friction angle should be measured directly in laboratory
interface shear tests, but may estimated as a function of mean effective particle diameter (d50).
In tension, the local shear stress follows a Coulomb failure criteria as:
τ f = a (0.8 ⋅ σ ' rc + ∆σ ' rd ) tan δ cv (ICP-1b)
where a = 1 for closed ended piles and 0.9 for open ended piles
The local radial effective stress after installation and equalization is considered as a function
of CPT tip resistance (qc), free field vertical effective stress (normalized by atmospheric
stress), σ'v0/pa, and the normalized distance behind the tip.
0.13 −0.38
 σ'    h 
σ' rc = 0.029 ⋅ q c  v 0   max R * ,8  (ICP-2)
 pa    
where
h = distance above the pile tip (= pile length – depth)
R = outside radius of pile (= D/2)
Ri = inside radius of pile (=Di/2)
R* = equivalent radius = (R2 – Ri2)0.5, which is equal to R for closed ended piles
For non-circular (closed-ended) piles, R* is taken as the radius of an equivalent circular pile
with the same end area.
The change in radial stress due to the loading stress path is related to dilation (lateral
expansion) at the interface during shear. Based on a cylindrical cavity expansion analogy,
∆σ'rd can be estimated as:
∆r
∆σ' rd = 2G (ICP-3)
R
where G = shear modulus and ∆r= interface dilation estimated to be ≈0.02mm for a lightly
rusted steel pile
For calculation purposes the shear modulus is taken as the small strain shear modulus (G0)
that may be estimated as a function of cone tip resistance based on Baldi et al. (1989):
[
G 0 = q c 0.0203 + 0.00125η − 1.21x10 −5 η2 ]−1
with η = qc/(σ'v0·pa)0.5 (ICP-4)
The base resistance for a closed-ended pile is considered as a direct function of average
cone tip resistance and absolute pile diameter. Averaging of cone tip resistance over ± 1.5
diameters is suggested based on the recommendations of Bustamante & Gianeselli (1982).
The unit pile base resistance is calculated as:
q b 0.1 q c = max[1 − 0.5 log(D D CPT ),0.3] (ICP-5)
where DCPT = 0.036m

A lower bound ratio of qb0.1/qc of 0.3 for closed-ended piles is set, implying that Equation (ICP-
7) is only applicable to piles with a diameter less than 0.9m.
For open-ended piles, capacity is calculated for fully plugged and unplugged piles. It is
considered that a pipe pile will plug if1:
D i < 0.2(D r − 30 ) (ICP-6a)
Di q
< 0.083 c (ICP-6b)
D CPT pa
where
Dr = relative density, in percentage
For the case of unplugged open-ended pile, the base resistance is assumed to be provided
only2 by end bearing stress acting the annular area, with the end bearing stress (qb0.1) equal
to qc.
q b 0.1 q c = A r (ICP-7)
For the case of a plugged open-ended pile, Equation (ICP-8) is recommended with qb0.1
estimated as:
qb 0.1 qc = max[0.5 − 0.25 log(D DCPT ),0.15, Ar ] (ICP-8)
A lower bound ratio of qb0.1/qc of 0.15 and Ar for open-ended piles is set, implying that
Equation (ICP-9) is only applicable to piles with a diameter less than 0.9m; this implies that
the plugged capacity could be lower than unplugged capacity in some cases. The same qc
averaging technique (± 1.5D) to that assumed for plugged piles is recommended.
For non circular (closed-ended) piles, qb0.1 is not considered to vary with the pile end area. For
D< 500mm, it is recommended that qb0.1 is evaluated as:
q b 0.1 q c = 0.7 (ICP-9)
1
Due to the increase in cone tip resistance with horizontal effective stress at a constant relative
density, Equations ICP-6a and ICP-6b are inconsistent, particularly at depths of concern for offshore
piles. Since Chow (1997) implies that a pile will not plug during static loading if the internal diameter is
greater than 1.4m, Equation ICP-6a is used for long piles to maintain consistency with that assumption.
2
The contribution of internal friction between the soil and the pile is not considered explicitly.
2.1.4 The NGI-05 recommendations for driven piles in sand
The external local shear stress is expressed as a function of depth, z, as:
τ f = z z tip ⋅ pa ⋅ FDr ⋅ Fload ⋅ Ftip ⋅ Fmat ⋅ Fsig (NGI-1)
τf (z) > 0.1×σ'v0
where
2.1(D r − 0.1)
1.7
FDr =
Fload = 1.0 for tension, 1.3 for compression

Ftip = 1.0 if driven open-ended, 1.6 closed-ended
Fmat = 1.0 for steel, 1.2 for concrete
Fsig = (σ'v0/pa)-0.25
ztip = pile tip depth
 qc 
Dr = 0.4 ⋅ ln  , Dr>1 should be accepted and used.
 22(σ' v 0 ⋅p a ) 
0. 5
It is noted that the ratio of z/ztip leads to a “friction fatigue” effect, i.e. as the pile is driven
deeper the local shear stress at depth z decreases.
The base resistance for a pile driven closed-ended is given as:
0.8q c. tip
q b 0.1 = 2
(NGI-2)
1 + Dr
where
qc,tip = the cone resistance at pile tip level
The base resistance for a pile driven open-ended is taken as the smallest of the coring and
the plugged (closed-ended) base resistance. The coring resistance is calculated assuming a
stress against the pile wall of qc, and an internal pile/plug unit skin friction taken as 3 times the
external value. The plugged base resistance of an open-ended pile is calculated as:
0.7q c. tip
q b 0.1 = 2
(NGI-3)
1 + 3D r

2.1.5 The UWA-05 recommendations for driven piles in sand
The local shear stress is expressed as:
f
τ f = σ' rf tan δcv = (σ' rc + ∆σ' rd ) tan δcv (UWA-1)
fc
where
τf = local shear stress at failure along the shaft of a pile
δcv = constant volume interface friction angle
σ'rf = radial effective stress at failure
σ'rc = radial effective stress after installation and equalization
∆σ'rd = increase in radial stress due to loading stress path (dilation)
f/fc = 1 for compression loading and 0.75 in tension
The constant volume interface friction angle, δcv, is considered to be related to the relative
roughness of the steel and soil (Uesugi & Kishida 1986). In the absence of site specific
interface shear test data, the trend shown in Figure 2.1 is proposed.
The radial effective stress after installation and equalisation is given as:
 −0.5
h  
σ' rc = 0.03 ⋅ q c ⋅ A r ,eff 0.3  max ,2   (UWA-2)
  D  
where
qc = local cone resistance
2
 Di 
Ar,eff = effective area ratio = 1 − IFR  
D
IFR = incremental filling ratio
Di = pile inner diameter
D = pile outer diameter
h = relative distance above the pile tip (=pile length - depth)
A very simplified approximation of IFR averaged over the final 20 diameters of penetration
can be expressed as a function of the inner diameter, Dii in meters:
[
IFRavg = min 1, (Di ( m ) 1.5)
0.2
]
The change (increase) in radial stress during pile loading, which may be assumed as minimal
for full scale offshore piles, is given as:
∆r
∆σ' rd = 4G (UWA-3)
D
where
−0.7
G = q c ⋅ 185 ⋅ q c1N based on Baldi et al. (1989)
= (q c p a ) (σ' v 0 p a )
0.5
qc1N

Base resistance is expressed as:
qb 0.1 qc = 0.15 + 0.45 Arb,eff (UWA-4)
where
qc = cone resistance averaged using Dutch method (see Figure 2.2)
For this averaging procedure, the pile outer diameter (D) is used for closed-ended piles, while
0.5
the effective diameter (D*=D×Arb,eq ) is used for open-ended piles where
Arb,eff = effective area ratio, =1-FFR(Di/D)2
FFR = Final filling ratio measured at end of pile driving, averaged over 3Di.
If FFR is not measured FFR can be roughly approximated as a function of Di in metres as:
[
FFR = min 1, (Di ( m ) 1.5)
0. 2
]
The UWA-05 method proposes use of the Dutch method to calculate q c , which is similar to
averaging within ±1.5D of the pile tip in situations where qc values in the vicinity of the tip do
not vary significantly.
Simplified method for offshore piles

The UWA-05 method simplifies to the following form for full scale offshore piles, as IFR=1 and
the stress path during loading (∆σ'rd) tends to zero.
In compression,
0.3
 h  
−0.5
τ f = 0.03 ⋅ q c A r  max ,2   tan δ cv (UWA-5a)

  D  
In tension,
0.3
 h  
−0.5
τ f = 0.75 ⋅ 0.03 ⋅ q c A r  max ,2   tan δ cv (UWA-5b)

  D  
q b 0.1 = q c (0.15 + 0.45A r ) (UWA-5c)
where
Ar = area ratio, 1-(Di/D)2

32
Employed for database
evaluation
30
Interface Friction Angle, δcv

tan δ < 0.55
28
Recommended for
UWA-05
26
24
22
20
0.01 0.1 1 10
Median Grain Size, D50 (mm)
Figure 2.1 Variation of δcv with D50 (modified from ICP-05 guidelines)
Figure 2.2 Calculation of the average cone tip resistance in Dutch method (Van Mierlo &
Koppejan 1952; Schmertmann 1978)

2.2 Calculation details
2.2.1 General procedure

A spreadsheet was developed using Microsoft Excel© to calculate axial pile capacity in sandy
soils based on CPT tip resistance. The general procedure followed is:
• Insert pile and background information on site.
• Add raw CPT qc data, with sleeve friction (fs) and u2 pore pressure, if available.
• Select soil layering based on CPT profile and available site data.
• Assign unit weights for each layer. If no unit weight information was available, a total unit
weight (γtot) of 19 kN/m3 was assumed.
• Assign interface friction angle information for ICP-05 and UWA-05 method. The priority
for assigning δcv was; (i) measured laboratory value or value reported in Chow (1997); (ii)
δcv estimated as a function of D50 based on Figure 2.1; (iii) δcv estimated as a function of
sand description (i.e., fine, medium, coarse, etc.) and Figure 2.1; (iv) assume that the
o
material is a fine sand (δcv = 29 ).
• Interpolate qc and γtot over 0.1m depth intervals. All calculations use a depth interval of
0.1m, which utilizes 1000 rows of the spreadsheet for a 100m long pile. Depending upon
the number of data points available for qc and γtot, the program filters or interpolates data
for each analysis depth.
• Average qc data over ± 1.5D for calculation of end bearing capacity and as shown in
Figure 2.2 for the UWA-05 method.
• Estimate nominal relative density (Dr) based on qc for API method. Dr was estimated
based on the recommendations of Jamiolkowski et al. (2003), and no averaging
techniques is used when calculating the relative density for pile end bearing.
1  qc 

Dr = ln
C 2  C 0 ⋅ p' 0 C1 

Where qc and p’0 are in units of kPa, and C0 = 300, C1 = 0.46, and C2 = 2.96 for those
units, and K0 is assumed to be 0.45 for calculation of the mean effective stress (p’0).
• Calculate pile capacity for API-00, Fugro-05, ICP-05, NGI-05, and UWA-05 methods, and
display figures of axial load transfer and unit shaft friction as compared to measured total
capacity.
• Calculate average δcv over the length of the pile based on UWA-05 and ICP-05 methods.
Weighted averaging techniques are used, and are described later in this section.
• To assist subsequent comparative studies between the various predictions, calculate the
average relative density, average cone tip resistance, and average normalized cone tip
resistance qc1N along the shaft and at the base of the pile 3 using the correlation of
Jamiolkowski et al. (2003). Weighted averaging techniques are used for averaging the
shaft friction, and the Dutch averaging method (in addition to the average within ±1.5D of
the tip) was used in assessment of average relative density influencing the end bearing.
The Dutch averaging method for pile end bearing is described in Schmertmann (1978),
CUR (2001), and Figure 2.2, among other references.
2.2.2 Weighted average δ, Dr, qc, and qc1N spreadsheet values

Weighted averaging techniques were used to calculate the average interface friction angle
used in the ICP-05 and UWA-05 methods, and the average relative density along each pile
shaft. The average value of δcv was calculated as the sum of shear stress at failure divided by
the sum of the radial stress at failure over the length of the pile using the ICP-05 method,
neglecting the influence of any clay layers, if present. This method gave a higher weight to
3
Note that the specific qc-Dr correlation proposed in the NGI-04 design method (Eqn. NGI-5) was
used in pile capacity calculations for that method.
zones that had higher unit shaft friction values, such as near the pile tip. Average interface
friction angles from the ICP-05 method were consistent with those from the UWA-05 method.
A similar method was used for assessing average relative density, in that it was weighted by
the unit shaft friction at each depth. To maintain consistency with the averaging of interface
friction angle, the shaft friction distribution of the ICP-05 method was used in averaging. For
a limited number of cases compared, the Dr average based on ICP-05 was found to be in
good agreement with that weighted to the UWA-05 and NGI-05 shaft friction distribution.
2.2.3 Contribution of clay layers to shaft capacity

Simplified expressions for assessing ultimate shaft friction on a displacement pile in clay were
employed in the spreadsheet and are described in the following. These provide a mean
estimate in the absence of site specific data on δ, sensitivity and OCR. These expressions are
based on the correlations proposed by Lehane (1992) and Lehane et al. (2000).
τ f = 0.15 ⋅ τ eq for t < Deq2
 1
τ f = 0.15 + log10 t D eq
3
2
( ) ⋅ τ eq for 355·Deq2 > t > Deq2
 
τ f = τ eq for t > 355 Deq2
where τeq is the shaft friction after full equalisation, t is the time since installation in days and
Deq is the equivalent pile diameter in metres.
Where CPT data are available, τeq values, which vary between approximately qt/20 and qt/50
are assumed equal to qt/35; see Lehane et al. (2000).
If only SPT N data are available, τeq is evaluated as:
τeq (kPa) = 4.5 N for N <10 and τeq (kPa) = 2.5 N for N >10
If only undrained strength data are available, τeq is evaluated as in API-00 as:
0. 5
 s 
τ eq = 0.5 u  for su/σ'v0 < 1
 σ' v 0 
0.75 0.25
τ eq = 0.5 ⋅ s u σ' v 0 for su/σ'v0 > 1
2.2.4 Spreadsheet output

For evaluation of each site, two tables and two figures for each pile test in the database are
produced:
• Table A. Pile details and predictions
• Table B. Stratigraphy
• Figure C. CPT Profiles
• Figure D. Axial load and shear distribution at ultimate
Three forms of Figure C were developed, as shown in Figure 2.3 to Figure 2.5. All forms of
this figure have a plot combining total unit weight and inferred relative density plot on the far
right. Relative densities were calculated using the Jamiolkowski et al. (2003) and the NGI-05
correlations. The two correlations agree quite well for low values of relative density, but NGI-
05 predicts higher relative densities for a given qc value in dense and very dense sands.
The first form of Figure C includes qc, Fr (=fs/qc) and u2, as shown in Figure 2.3. Horizontal
dashed lines are used to show the inferred layering, and details of soil type and properties are
included in Table B. In cases where no u2 pore pressure data are available, the form of
Figure C shown in Figure 2.4 is used. The only difference between Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4
is the in-situ stress state plot replaces the pore pressure plot (second from right). In the case
where only qc data are available, an inferred soil profile based on description of the reporting
author or an available boring log is included. This soil profile separates the site into “sand” or
“clay”, using diagonal striping and black dots legends for clay and sand respectively; this
version of Figure C is shown on Figure 2.5.
Figure D presents two profiles related to pile capacity; (i) the axial load distribution; and (ii) the
unit ultimate shaft friction (τf) distribution. Separate line types are used for each method, and
separate symbols are used at the top of the axial load distribution plot to emphasize the
difference between methods. The total measured capacity at the site is indicated by a solid
black triangle, and the end bearing capacity (if available) is indicated by a solid black triangle
at the pile toe. An example case is shown in Figure 2.6 for a site that includes both sand and
clay layers. Between approximately 17 and 23m, all four of the lines overlay one another, and
the lines are dominated by the thick grey curve that represents the NGI-05 method. All
methods predict the same capacity in the clay layer, since they use the same assumptions to
address that capacity.
Figure 2.3 Version of stratigraphy figure with CPT qc, Fr, and u2 profiles
Figure 2.4 Version of stratigraphy figure with CPT qc, Fr, and in situ stress profile

Figure 2.5 Version of stratigraphy figure with CPT qc, in situ stress, and inferred soil type
profiles
Figure 2.6 Axial load and shear distribution at ultimate for tension test
2.2.5 Spreadsheet verification

The accuracy of the spreadsheet program for each design method was checked by
comparing solutions for cases such as those discussed in Chapter 3 with integral solutions
derived for soil profiles with a constant relative density (of 40% and 80%). The comparisons
were performed for open and closed-ended piles (subjected to tension and compression) for
pile lengths of 10m and 70m and pile diameters of 0.5m and 1.0m. The verification studies
indicated that, for the selected discretisation interval for CPT qc data of 0.1m, the spreadsheet
predictions were in all cases within 0.5% of the capacity evaluated from the integral solutions.
2.2.6 Effect of discretisation on calculated capacities

This database study is unique in that the CPT data at all test pile sites (when available) were
digitised. A number of trials indicated that the selected discretisation depth interval (dz)
employed in the spreadsheet program of 0.1m led to insignificant errors in the evaluated shaft
frictions and base capacities. The authors also observed that relatively significant
discrepancies in capacities predicted by the new design methods can arise when ‘hand
calculations’ (which necessarily involve approximations to the CPT qc profiles) were
performed.

3 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED CAPACITIES IN IDEALISED
& TYPICAL GOM SOIL PROFILES
This chapter presents an examination and comparison of the predictions made by each of the
five design methods under consideration for (i) idealised profiles involving sand at a uniform
relative density and (ii) typical conditions encountered at sand sites in the Gulf of Mexico.
3.1 Predictions in sand deposits of constant relative density

Predictions given by each of the five design methods (as described in Chapter 2) were
performed for open-ended pipe piles with D/t ratios of 20 & 50 and L/D ratios of 35, 50 & 70
installed in sand deposits with a constant relative density4. The soil profiles considered had
normalised CPT end resistance values (qc1N) of 70 and 220, where qc1N=(qc/pa)/(σ'v0/pa)0.5 and
pa=100 kPa. The correlations of Jamiolkowski et al (2003) indicate that the qc1N values of 70
and 220 equate to sand relative densities (Dr) of ≈ 40% and ≈ 80% respectively. For the
purposes of the exercise described here, the interface friction angle required for the ICP-05
and UWA-05 methods was assumed to be 29o (and therefore in keeping with the value
assumed implicitly by Fugro-05), while the values of the filling ratios (IFR and FFR) in the
UWA-05 method were included using the simplified relationship with the pile (inner) diameter.
The predictions, which are examined in more detail below, indicated the following general
trends:
• Total (compression or tension capacities) can vary from being more than 5 times those
predicted by API to only 40 percent of the API predictions. It follows that use of any of the
four CPT-based methods in preference to API-00 will have very significant implications for
pile design.
• For typical large diameter, long pipe piles used offshore (with D>0.5m and L>20m),
compared to API-00, the four new CPT based methods generally predict higher capacities
in dense sand but lower capacities in loose sand.
3.1.1 Shaft capacity

Shaft capacity (Qshaft) may be expressed as an average ultimate shaft shear stress (τfav =
Qshaft / πDL), which is commonly related to the average vertical effective stress (σ'v0,avg) or the
average qc value (qc,avg) along the pile shaft via the β and αs parameters, respectively:
τ fav
β = K tan δ = (3.1)
σ' v 0,avg
and
q c,avg
αs = (3.2)
τ fav
The methods’ predictions for β and αs for a pipe pile with D/t and L/D ratios of 50 (typical of an
offshore pile) are compared on Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.3 for piles in sand with Dr ≈ 40% and
on Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.4 for piles in sand with Dr ≈ 80%.
Based on Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.4, as well as similar analyses for L/D of 35 and 70, the
following trends for shaft capacity were observed (which are only applicable to sand deposits
with a constant relative density and for the range of pile parameters considered):
• There are wide differences between the τfav values predicted by the respective methods;
the magnitudes of these differences vary with the sand density and the pile length (L) or
the pile slenderness ratio (L/D). In layered natural soil deposits, the discrepancies
between the methods may be expected to be even larger because of the significant
4
These predictions (in addition to others for closed-ended piles) were also used in a separate UWA
spreadsheet verification exercise which showed that they were virtually identical to predictions derived
using numerical integration. This spreadsheet verification exercise will be reported in PhD theses of Xu
(2006) and Schneider (2007).
differences in the distributions of local shaft friction assumed by each method (see
Chapter 2).
• The API method was intended specifically for long piles (> 30m) in medium dense to
dense sands (McClelland 1969) and therefore its poor performance in loose sand and for
shorter piles should perhaps be expected. API-00 predictions in sand with Dr=40% are
highest for L>10m but its predictions are lower than those of other methods for dense
sand with Dr=80%. These trends are in agreement with previous database studies (e.g.
Jardine & Chow 1996; Toolan et al. 1990).
• β reduces with increasing pile length (L). The form of this reduction in the CPT-based
methods reflects the slower rate of increase of qc with depth than that of σ’vo (in a material
with a constant Dr) and the ‘friction fatigue’ term (i.e. the h/R term in Fugro-05 and ICP-05,
h/D is UWA-05, and z/L in NGI-05). The tendency for API-00 to predict a reduction in β
with L arises because of the ‘limiting value’ of local friction included in this method. It
should be noted, however, that while the β value trends appear similar, the distribution of
local shaft friction predicted by API-00 is markedly different to that of the CPT-based
methods.
• β reduces with an increase in L/D for the Fugro-05, ICP-05 and UWA-05 methods but is
independent of the pile diameter for the NGI-05 and API-00 methods.
• ICP-05, NGI-04, and UWA-05 predict αs values of between 200 and 300 for piles less
than 20m length (typical database piles), that are broadly similar to the value of 200
recommended by Bustamante & Gianiselli (1982) for driven open-ended piles.
• The reduction of αs with depth for the Fugro-05 method is dominated by the large shaft
frictions close to the pile tip (and hence higher values of αs) and stronger friction fatigue
effects (which dominate over the increase in qc,avg with L)5.
5
This shape of the αs profiles is slightly exaggerated in tension due to the length dependant tension
to compression ratio utilized in the Fugro-05 method.
β = τ av/σ'v0,av = K tanδ
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 0
10 0.2
Typical database piles Tension
20 L/D = 50 0.4
IFR = f (Di)
30 D/t=50 0.6
qc1N = 70
40 0.8
Diameter (m)
Length (m)
50 1
API-00
60 1.2
Fugro-05
70 1.4
ICP-05
80 1.6
NGI-05
90 1.8
UW A-05
100 2
Figure 3.1 Variations of βavg=τfav/σ’v0,avg with pile length in sand with Dr=40% (qc1N=70)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0 0
10 0.2
Tension
20 Typical database piles L/D = 50 0.4
IFR = f (Di)
30 D/t=50 0.6
qc1N = 220
40 0.8
Diameter (m)
Length (m)
50 1
API-00
60 1.2
Fugro-05
70 1.4
ICP-05
80 1.6
NGI-05
90 1.8
UW A-05
100 2
Figure 3.2 Variations of βavg=τfav/σ’v0,avg with pile length in sand with Dr=80% (qc1N=220)

α s = qc,av / τ av
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0 0
10 Typical 0.2
database
20 piles 0.4
Tension
30 L/D = 50 0.6
IFR = f (Di)
40 D/t=50 0.8
Diameter (m)
Length (m)
qc1N = 70
50 1
API-00
60 1.2
Fugro-05
70 1.4
ICP-05
80 1.6
NGI-05
90 1.8
UW A-05
100 2
Figure 3.3 Variations of αs=qc,avg/τfav with pile length for sand with Dr=40% (qc1N=70)
α s = qc,av / τ av
0 200 400 600 800 1000
0 0
10 Typical 0.2
database
20 piles 0.4
Tension
30 L/D = 50 0.6
IFR = f (Di)
40 D/t=50 0.8
Diameter (m)
Length (m)
qc1N = 220
50 1
API-00
60 1.2
Fugro-05
70 1.4
ICP-05
80 1.6
NGI-05
90 1.8
UW A-05
100 2
Figure 3.4 Variations of αs=qc,avg/τfav with pile length sand with Dr=80% (qc1N=220)

3.1.2 Base capacity
Base capacities (usually defined at a base displacement of 10% of the pile diameter, qb0.1) are
commonly expressed as a ratio of the averaged qc value in the vicinity of the pile tip i.e.
q b0.1
αb = (3.3)
q c,avg
As illustrated in Chapter 2, Fugro-05 and ICP-05 use qc,1.5D (averaged over ±1.5D at pile tip
level) as the operational qc value, NGI-05 relates qb0.1 directly to qc,tip (the cone resistance at
pile tip level) inferred from a selected design profile, and UWA-05 assumes that the
operational qc value is qc,Dutch (i.e. derived using the Schmertmann/Dutch averaging
technique). The various ‘operational qc’ values depend significantly on the sand stratigraphy
near the pile tip level, but are essentially the same for the idealised soil profiles considered in
this section. Therefore qc,tip is used in the following to calculate αb values. Predictions for αb for
pipe piles with D/t ratios of 20 & 50 and L/D=50 are for piles in sand with Dr ≈ 40% and Dr ≈
80% are presented on Figures 3.5 and 3.6.
Figures 3.5-3.6 indicate the following trends for base capacity (which are only applicable to
sand deposits with a constant relative density and piles with a constant L/D for the range of
pile parameters considered):
• Predicted αb values vary by an order of magnitude (from 0.08 to 0.8). The lowest αb
values are given by ICP-05 for large diameter thin walled piles while the highest αb values
are calculated using Fugro-05 for short piles.
• As diameter increase (along with penetration depth noting that L/D is fixed at 50), values
of αb reduce to a constant value for ICP-05 and UWA-05 and to a near constant value for
Fugro-05. αb does not vary with depth for NGI-05 (being only a function of Dr) while, for
API-00, αb increases with depth to the level at which the limiting base resistance reached
and then reduces with depth again (as qc increases).
• For the soil conditions and pile geometry considered, the end bearing resistance
calculated by API-00 and NGI-05 correspond to what these methods term the ‘plugged
capacity’. In contrast, ICP-05 predicts an abrupt transition from a plugged resistance to an
unplugged/coring resistance at a pile diameter which depends on the sand Dr value.
• αb values are independent of the pile wall thickness in the API-00 and NGI-05 methods
but do depend on thickness in the ICP-05, Fugro-05 and UWA-05 methods.
• For long typical offshore piles (with D>1m) in dense sand, the αb value of 0.08 predicted
by ICP-05 is only just over half the value given by API-00. For such piles, the other CPT-
based methods predict αb values in the range from 0.17 to 0.20, which is broadly in line
with recommended values for bored piles (Lee & Salgado 1999).
• αb values for the Fugro-05 and UWA-05 method are similar in dense sand but the Fugro-
05 predictions for sand with Dr ≈40% are about double those given by UWA-05.

qb0.1/qc,avg (-)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0 0
Typical
10 database pile 0.2
20 0.4
30 0.6
Diameter (m)
40 0.8
Length (m)
qc1N=70
50 1
D/t=20
L/D=50
60 FFR=f(Di)
1.2
70 API-00 1.4
Fugro-04
80 ICP-05 1.6
UWA-05
90 1.8
NGI-04
100 2
qb0.1/qc,avg (-)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0 0
10 0.2
Typical
30 0.6
Diameter (m)
40 0.8
Length (m)
qc1N=70
50 1
D/t=50
L/D=50
60 FFR=f(Di)
1.2
70 API-00 1.4
Fugro-04
80 ICP-05 1.6
UWA-05
90 1.8
NGI-04
100 2
Figure 3.5 variations of αb=qb0.1 / qc,avg with pile length for sand with Dr=40% (qc1N=70)

qb0.1/qc,avg (-)
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
0 0
Typical
20 0.4
30 0.6
Diameter (m)
40 0.8
Length (m)
qc1N=220
50 1
D/t=20
L/D=50
60 FFR=f(Di)
1.2
70 API-00 1.4
Fugro-04
80 ICP-05 1.6
UWA-05
90 1.8
NGI-04
100 2
qb0.1/qc,avg (-)
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
0 0
Typical
20 0.4
30 0.6
Diameter (m)
40 0.8
Length (m)
qc1N=220
50 1
D/t=50
L/D=50
60 FFR=f(Di)
1.2
70 API-00 1.4
Fugro-04
80 ICP-05 1.6
UWA-05
90 1.8
NGI-04
100 2
Figure 3.6 Variation of αb=qb0.1 / qc,avg with pile length for sand with Dr=80% (qc1N=220)

3.2 Relative performance of CPT-based methods in uniform sand
profiles
The differences between the CPT-based methods are illustrated on Figure 3.7 to Figure 3.10,
which plot the ratios of the total capacity and shaft capacity (in compression) predicted by
UWA-05 to the respective capacities calculated using the API-00, Fugro-05, ICP-05 and NGI-
05 methods. The plots relate to an open-ended pile with L/D =70 driven into uniform sand
deposits with relative densities of 40% and 80% (≡qc1N values of 70 and 220). It is apparent
that:
• API-00 in relation to UWA-05 shows relatively consistent trends. API-00 under-predicts
capacity in relation to UWA-05 for piles less than 30m length in dense sands, and may
over-predict or under-predict capacity for piles less than 30m length in loose sands. For
piles of length greater than 30m, which are typical of offshore conditions, API-00 under-
predicts capacity in relation to UWA-05 for dense sands in compression and over-predicts
capacity in tension and compression for loose sands. API-00 and UWA-05 are similar for
dense sands in tension. There are noticeable differences between API-00 and UWA-05
due to pile wall thickness ratio, which API-00 does not explicitly account for.
• The Fugro-05 and UWA-05 methods show significant differences for short piles, but these
differences diminish as the pile length increases (or when D increases, as L/D is fixed at
70).
• The ICP-05 and UWA-05 methods indicate comparable total capacities in compression,
but the UWA-05 predictions for tension capacity become progressively lower than those
of ICP-05 as the pile length (or diameter, as L/D=70) increases. It can be shown that the
similarity between the predictions for total capacity arises because the ICP-05 method
assumes that ultimate end bearing stress reduces as the pile diameter increases. A
diameter dependent trend for end bearing also comes out for the UWA-05 method, since
it is assumed that the IFR decreases as diameter increases. Diameter dependence on
shaft friction will also occur for UWA-05 since the radial stress after installation is a
function effective area ratio. No bias would be evident for database piles since the
method show similar results for piles less than 40m length.
• There are distinct kinks in the trend for ratio of UWA-05 to ICP-05. These result from
discontinuities in the end bearing formulation within ICP-05 (Figure 3.6). Large changes in
end bearing capacity (over 40 percent) for small changes in geometry (1.1m diameter to
1.2m diameter) may result in arbitrary design decisions for piles sizes typical of offshore
conditions.
• For this particular example, the ratios of the UWA-05 to the NGI-05 predictions are
relatively close to unity and show no systematic variation with length for piles in dense
sand with a wall thickness ratio (D/t) of 20. Those soil and pile conditions are similar to
the interpreted soil profile for the EURIPIDES instrumented pile in dense sand. Large
differences in behaviour are observed when the wall thickness ratio increases, since
UWA-05 is based on a displacement ratio term and NGI-05 solely includes a ratio of open
to closed ended piles. This difference is significant for conditions typical of offshore
foundations, especially with trends moving towards thinner walled piles. In loose sands,
there is a very strong diameter effect (± 40 percent) on tension capacity when comparing
NGI-05 and UWA-05. For piles in compression, the end bearing formulation of NGI-05
seems to largely compensate for differences in shaft friction evaluation, but the influence
of area ratio is still significant.

0 0.5 1 1.5 Diameter (m) 2
4.5
D/t=20; qc1N=70
4.0 D/t=50; qc1N=70
D/t=20; qc1N=220
3.5 D/t=50; qc1N=220
Qtotal [UWA-05]/Qtotal [API-00]
3.0 Compression; L/D=50

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Length (m)
0 0.5 1 1.5 Diameter (m) 2

4.5
D/t=20; qc1N=70
4.0 D/t=50; qc1N=70
D/t=20; qc1N=220
3.5 D/t=50; qc1N=220
Q shaft [UWA-05] /Q shaft [API-00]
3.0 Tension; L/D=50
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Length (m)
Figure 3.7 Ratio of UWA-05 to API-00 predictions in sands for pipe piles with L/D=50 in
compression and tension

0 0.5 1 1.5 Diameter (m) 2
2.0
D/t=20; qc1N=70
1.8 D/t=50; qc1N=70
D/t=20; qc1N=220
1.6
D/t=50; qc1N=220
Qtotal [UWA-05]/Qtotal [Fugro-04]
1.4
Compression; L/D=50
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Length (m)
0 0.5 1 1.5 Diameter (m) 2

6.0
D/t=20; qc1N=70
D/t=50; qc1N=70
5.0 D/t=20; qc1N=220
D/t=50; qc1N=220
Q shaft [UWA-05] /Q shaft [Fugro-04]
4.0 Tension; L/D=50
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Length (m)
Figure 3.8 Ratio of UWA-05 to Fugro-05 predictions in sands for pipe piles with L/D=50 in

0 0.5 1 1.5 Diameter (m) 2
1.6
D/t=20; qc1N=70
1.4 D/t=50; qc1N=70
D/t=20; qc1N=220
1.2 D/t=50; qc1N=220
Qtotal [UWA-05]/Qtotal [ICP-05]
Compression; L/D=50
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Length (m)
0 0.5 1 1.5 Diameter (m) 2

1.4
D/t=20; qc1N=70
1.2 D/t=50; qc1N=70
D/t=20; qc1N=220
D/t=50; qc1N=220
Q shaft [UWA-05] /Q shaft [ICP-05]
1.0
0.8
0.6
Tension; L/D=50
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Length (m)
Figure 3.9 Ratio of UWA-05 to ICP-05 predictions in sands for pipe piles with L/D=50 in

0 0.5 1 1.5 Diameter (m) 2
1.4
D/t=20; qc1N=70
1.2 D/t=50; qc1N=70
D/t=20; qc1N=220
D/t=50; qc1N=220
Qtotal [UWA-05]/Qtotal [NGI-04]
1.0
0.8
0.6
Compression; L/D=50
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Length (m)
0 0.5 1 1.5 Diameter (m) 2

1.6
D/t=20; qc1N=70
1.4 D/t=50; qc1N=70
D/t=20; qc1N=220
1.2 D/t=50; qc1N=220
Q shaft [UWA-05] /Q shaft [NGI-04]
1.0
0.8
0.6
Tension; L/D=50
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Length (m)
Figure 3.10 Ratio of UWA-05 to NGI-05 predictions in sands for pipe piles with L/D=50 in

3.3 Predictions for sand profiles typical of the Gulf of Mexico
In view of the large variety of variables which can cause differences between the predictions
given by each design method, the API committee requested the authors to examine
predictions for ‘typical sand sites’ in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM).
3.3.1 Site C (reported by Focht et al. 1986)

The first site considered was at ‘Site C’, described by Focht et al. (1986), which involved a
1.2m (48 inch) diameter pile with a wall thickness of 25mm (1 inch) and an internal show with
a thickness of 32mm (1.25 inch). The site properties and interpreted qc profile are shown on
Figure 3.11 and predicted pile compression and tension capacities given by the five methods
are shown on Figure 3.12 for pile lengths up to 90m.
qc (MPa)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
30
40
50
60
depth (m)
70
80
90
100
Figure 3.11 CPT qc profile at Site C adopted for calculations

Qtotal, C (MN)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
30
Clay
40
API-00
50 Fugro-05
ICP-05
Depth (m)
60 NGI-04
UWA-05
70
80
Thin Clay Layer
90
100
Qshaft, T (MN)
0 10 20 30 40 50
30
Clay
40
API-00
50 Fugro-05
ICP-05
Depth (m)
60 NGI-04
UWA-05
70
80
Thin Clay Layer
90
100
Figure 3.12 Predictions for 1.22m (48 inch) pipe pile installed at “Site C”
The predictions on Figure 3.12 indicate that:
• Compared to the four CPT based methods, API-00 predicts lower capacities in both
compression and tension for pile lengths less than ~75m.
• Capacities predicted by UWA-05 method fall approximately midway between the API-00
predictions and those of the other three CPT based approaches.
• The Fugro-05 predictions are significantly higher than the other CPT-based approaches
for pile lengths less than 50m, and are significantly influenced by the lower qc values for
piles tipped in sandy layers below 81m.

3.3.2 Site A in the Gulf of Mexico
The CPT qc profile at the second Gulf of Mexico site considered, referred to here as “Site A’,
is given on Figure 3.12. Piles of 2.44m (96 inch) diameter with a wall thickness of 44.5mm
(1.75 inch) are currently being considered for this site and predictions for total compression
and tension capacity are provided on Figure 3.13.
qc (MPa)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
10
20
depth (m)
30
40
50
60
Figure 3.13 Design CPT profile at Site A (in the Gulf of Mexico)
This case history indicates that:

• Both tension and compression capacities predicted by the API-00 method are lower than
those predicted using the CPT-based methods. However, for pile lengths greater than
35m, the tension capacities given by UWA-05 are closely comparable to API-00.
• The total capacities predicted by Fugro-05 and NGI-05 are generally comparable and
greater than those predicted by ICP-05 and UWA-05 methods.
• The tension capacities given by ICP-05 are generally greater than those predicted by
other methods for piles greater than 30m length, but its predictions for total capacity fall
below those of Fugro-05 and NGI-05. This arises, as for the preceding Site C example,
because of the relatively low end bearing resistance predicted by ICP-05 for large
diameter piles.
3.4 Concluding Remarks

The significant differences, illustrated in this Chapter, between the pile capacity predictions of
the five design methods is not surprising given the empirical nature of all of these methods.
The CPT-based methods make separate assumptions regarding the relationships between
the qc profile and the shaft friction and end bearing, and consequently their respective design
formulations differ considerably. However, as will be seen later in this report, the relative
performance of these formulations against the UWA database of pile tests is broadly similar
(but significantly better than API-00). The differences between the CPT methods observed in
this Chapter need to be considered when assessing the reliability of any given design method
and it is clearly not sufficient to assess the reliability level only on the basis of a method’s
performance against a given database.

Qtotal, C (MN)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0
10
20
API-00
Depth (m)
30 Fugro-05
ICP-05
NGI-04
40
UWA-05
50
60
70
Qshaft, T (MN)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
10
20
API-00
Depth (m)
Fugro-05
30
ICP-05
NGI-04
40 UWA-05
50
60
70
Figure 3.14 Compression and tension capacity of 2.44m (96 inch) pipe pile at Site A

4 THE UWA DATABASE
This chapter describes and discusses the UWA pile test database. It is worth noting, at the
outset, that about one third of database contains pile test data from sites where CPT data
were not available and hence where reliance would need to be placed on the inference of an
equivalent qc value from reported SPT N data. The inference of equivalent qc data from SPT
N is influenced by hammer energy, particle size, soil density, among other issues, and is
considered unreliable for evaluation of CPT based pile design methods6. Sites with no CPT
data are therefore not included in analysis of offshore piles design methods in sand using the
UWA databases.
4.1 General overview of the database

Expansion of the database of pile load tests from that employed to calibrate the Fugro-05,
ICP-05 and NGI-05 methods was seen by the authors as an essential component of this
evaluation study. A considerable amount of time was devoted to following up a variety of
sources with the end result being a pile load tests database that was at least double the size
of the combined databases employed by Fugro, Imperial College and the Norwegian
Geotechnical Institute. In all, load test data for 231 displacement piles have been processed.
The UWA database of pile tests in sand is summarised in Table 4.1 to Table 4.5 for sites with
CPT data and in Table 4.6 to Table 4.7 for sites with SPT data only. The test ID No. for each
sub-database starts at 100, 200, 300, 400, and 500 respectively for closed-ended piles in
compression (CEC), closed-ended piles in tension (CET), open-ended piles in compression
(OEC), open-ended piles in tension (OET), and jacked piles (J); the numbering of piles which
are not used for statistical analysis within each respective sub-database starts from 150, 250,
350, 450 and 550. This numbering system facilitates updating of each sub-database without
altering the ID No for existing pile tests. The last column of Table 4.8 provides details on why
a particular load test is excluded from consideration in statistical analyses. Typical reasons for
exclusion include (i) the tests were re-tests conducted at the same pile embedment, (ii) the
piles were embedded in residual sand, micaceous sand or calcareous sand, or (iii) piles had a
diameter less than 200mm. It is worth noting that while excluded tests are not considered in
the analyses- which were aimed primarily at assessing the short term capacity of large scale
driven piles in siliceous sand, these tests provide valuable data concerning the effect of sand
type, ageing, pile re-loading and pile diameter.
Various discussions and correspondence with the authors of the Fugro-05, ICP-05 and NGI-
05 design methods ensured that possibility of significant errors in the UWA assessment of
load capacities was minimized e.g. see Section 5.5. While there were a few case histories
where full agreement with these authors on the actual test details or test capacities was not
reached, such discrepancies were assessed to have little or no effect on the statistical
evaluation of the various design methods.
6
Schneider’s PhD thesis (2007) will provide a detailed discussion in support of this view.
Table 4.1 Compression load tests on closed-ended piles (with CPT data)
ID Pile Pile
No. Site Name Pile No. Material Shape Do,n Lembedded time Reference Use
- - - - - (m) (m) (days) - Y/N
100 Akasaka 6C Steel Circular 0.2 11 ? (BCP-Committee 1971) Y
101 Baghdad p1 Concrete Square 0.285 11 88 (Altaee et al. 1992b) Y
102 Baghdad p2 Concrete Square 0.285 15 42 (Altaee et al. 1992b) Y
103 Cimarron River p1 Steel Circular 0.6604 19 ? (Nevels & Snethen 1994) Y
104 Cimarron River p2 Concrete Octagonal 0.6395 19.5 ? (Nevels & Snethen 1994) Y
105 Drammen A Concrete Circular 0.28 8 ? (Gregersen et al. 1973) Y
106 Drammen D/A Concrete Circular 0.28 16 ? (Gregersen et al. 1973) Y
107 Drammen E Concrete Circular 0.28 7.5 ? (Gregersen et al. 1973) Y
112 Fittja Straits D Concrete Square 0.235 12.8 5 (Axelsson 2000) Y
113 Hoogzand II Steel Circular 0.356 6.8 ? (Beringen et al. 1979) Y
114 Hsin Ta TP4 Steel Circular 0.609 34.3 33 (Yen et al. 1989) Y
116 Hunter's P S Steel Circular 0.273 7.8 24 (Briaud & Tucker 1989) Y
117 Jonkoping p23 Concrete Square 0.235 16.8 >24h (Jendeby et al. 1994) Y
118 Jonkoping p25 Concrete Square 0.235 17.8 <24h (Jendeby et al. 1994) Y
119 Jonkoping p26 Concrete Square 0.275 16.2 >24h (Jendeby et al. 1994) Y
120 Lock&Dam 26 3_1 Steel Circular 0.3048 14.2 35 (Briaud et al. 1989) Y
123 Ogeechee River H-12 Steel Circular 0.457 6.1 0.5 (Vesic 1970) Y
124 Ogeechee River H-13 Steel Circular 0.457 8.9 0.5 (Vesic 1970) Y
125 Ogeechee River H-14 Steel Circular 0.457 12 0.5 (Vesic 1970) Y
127 Ogeechee River H-2 Concrete Square? 0.406 15.2 0.5 (Vesic 1970) Y
128 Pigeon Creek 1 steel Circular 0.356 6.9 4 (Paik et al. 2003) Y
129 Sermide S Steel Circular 0.508 35.9 ? (Appendino 1981) Y
130 Tickfaw River TP2 Concrete Square 0.6879 32 ? (Titi & Abu-Farsakh 1999) Y
131 Tickfaw River TP1 Concrete Square 0.6879 25.9 ? (Titi & Abu-Farsakh 1999) Y
150 87 Mission Ave Bent 2L Concrete Square 0.3556 9.5 7 (Olson & Shantz 2004) N
(Bergdahl & Wennerstrand
151 Albysjon SII-1 Steel Circular 0.089 12.2 ? 1976) N
152 Drammen E Concrete Circular 0.28 3.5 ? (Gregersen et al. 1973) N
153 Fittja Straits D Concrete Square 0.235 13 1 (Axelsson 2000) N
(Viana da Fonseca et al.
157 ISC2, Porto C1 Concrete Square 0.35 6 90 2004) N
158 Jamuna Bridge p1-1 Concrete Square 0.45 28.8 ? (Fugro 1996) N
159 Jamuna Bridge p1-2 Concrete Square 0.45 29.5 ? (Fugro 1996) N
160 Jamuna Bridge p1-3 Concrete Square 0.45 26 ? (Fugro 1996) N
161 Kallo, Antwerp I Concrete Circular 0.908 9.7 ? (De Beer et al. 1979) N
162 Kallo, Antwerp II Concrete Circular 0.539 9.7 ? (De Beer et al. 1979) N
163 Kallo, Antwerp III Concrete Circular 0.615 9.8 ? (De Beer et al. 1979) N
164 Kallo, Antwerp IV Concrete Circular 0.8154 9.8 ? (De Beer et al. 1979) N
165 Kallo, Antwerp V Concrete Circular 0.406 9.3 ? (De Beer et al. 1979) N
166 Kallo, Antwerp VII Concrete Square 0.609 9.4 ? (De Beer et al. 1979) N
167 Louisiana TP1 Concrete Square 0.4013 9.5 ? (Titi & Abu-Farsakh 1999) N
168 Louisiana TP1 Concrete Square 0.4013 24.4 ? (Titi & Abu-Farsakh 1999) N
169 Ogeechee H-11 Steel Circular 0.457 3 0.5 (Vesic 1970) N
170 Salt Lake 1700South Steel Circular 0.324 23.2 ? (Rollins et al. 1999) N

Table 4.2 Tension load tests on closed-ended piles (with CPT data)
ID Pile Pile
- - - - - (m) (m) (days) - Y/N
200 Baghdad p1 Concrete Square 0.285 11 200 (Altaee et al. 1992a; b) Y
201 Drammen A Concrete Circular 0.28 8 ? (Gregersen et al. 1973) Y
202 Drammen D/A Concrete Circular 0.28 16 ? (Gregersen et al. 1973) Y
204 Hoogzand II Steel Circular 0.356 6.8 ? (Beringen et al. 1979) Y
206 Lock&Dam 26 38413 Steel Circular 0.3048 11 35 (Briaud et al. 1989) Y
207 Lock&Dam 26 38416 Steel Circular 0.3556 11.1 27 (Briaud et al. 1989) Y
208 Lock&Dam 26 38419 Steel Circular 0.4064 11.1 28 (Briaud et al. 1989) Y
250 58Vermont Ave. NA Concrete Square 0.3048 11.6 15 (Olson & Shantz 2004) N
251 87 Mission Ave Bent 2L Concrete Square 0.3556 9.5 7 (Olson & Shantz 2004) N
(Bergdahl & Wennerstrand

252 Albysjon SII-1 Steel Circular 0.089 12.2 ? 1976) N
253 Buckman O1 Concrete Square 0.457 9.1 0.25 (McVay et al. 1999) N
257 Buckman O1 Concrete Square 0.457 9.16 268 (McVay et al. 1999) N
258 Seabreeze O1 Concrete Square 0.457 25.12 4 (McVay et al. 1999) N
263 Seabreeze O1 Concrete Square 0.457 25.12 0.35 (McVay et al. 1999) N
264 Vilano East O1 Concrete Square 0.457 10.68 0.32 (McVay et al. 1999) N

Table 4.3 Compression load tests on open-ended piles (with CPT data)
ID Pile Pile
- - - - - (m) (m) (days) - Y/N
300 SFOBB Bent E31R Steel Circular 0.6096 13.3 25 (Olson & Shantz 2004) Y
301 Drammen 16 Steel Circular 0.813 11 2 (Tveldt & Fredriksen 2003) Y
304 Dunkirk zdh C1 Steel Circle 0.457 10 68 (Jardine & Standing 2000) Y
305 EURIPIDES Ia Steel Circlar 0.763 30.5 7 (Fugro 2004) Y
306 EURIPIDES Ib Steel Circlar 0.763 38.7 2 (Fugro 2004) Y
307 EURIPIDES Ic Steel Circlar 0.763 47 11 (Fugro 2004) Y
308 EURIPIDES II Steel Circlar 0.763 46.7 6 (Fugro 2004) Y
309 Hoogzand I Steel Circular 0.356 7 ? (Beringen et al. 1979) Y
310 Hoogzand III Steel Circular 0.356 5.3 ? (Beringen et al. 1979) Y
311 Hound Poind p Steel Circle 1.22 26 21 (Williams et al. 1997) Y
312 I-880 2-T Steel Circular 0.6096 10.7 16 (Olson & Shantz 2004) Y
313 Pigeon Creek 2 steel Circular 0.356 7 4 (Paik et al. 2003) Y
314 Shanghai ST-1 Steel Circular 0.9144 79 23 (Pump et al. 1998) Y
315 Shanghai ST-2 Steel Circular 0.9144 79.1 35 (Pump et al. 1998) Y
316 Trans-Tokyo Bay TP Steel Circular 2 30.6 52 (Shioi et al. 1992) Y
350 Dunkirk B CL-a Steel Circular 0.324 11.3 177 (Brucy et al. 1991) N
351 Dunkirk B CS-a Steel Circular 0.324 11.3 189 (Brucy et al. 1991) N
352 96 Bayshore Pile 1 Steel Circular 0.4064 16 50 (Olson & Shantz 2004) N
353 Blessington D-100 Steel Circular 0.1 1.8 ? (Gavin & Lehane 2003a) N
356 Drammen E18 25 Steel Circular 0.813 25 14 (Tveldt & Fredriksen 2003) N
357 Drammen E18 25 Steel Circular 0.813 25 156 (Tveldt & Fredriksen 2003) N
358 EURIPIDES II Steel Circular 0.763 47 541 (Fugro 2004) N
359 Jamuna Bridge PS1 Steel Circular 0.763 44 9 (Fugro 1996) N
360 Jamuna Bridge PS1D Steel Circular 0.763 78.3 4 (Fugro 1996) N
362 Ras Tanajib II 25a Steel Circular 0.7633 8 102 (Fugro 2004) N

Table 4.4 Tension load tests on open-ended piles (with CPT data)
ID Pile Pile
- - - - - (m) (m) (days) - Y/N
400 Los Coyotes NA Steel Circular 0.3556 14.9 2 (Olson & Shantz 2004) Y
401 SFOBB Bent E31R Steel Circular 0.6096 13.3 25 (Olson & Shantz 2004) Y
402 Dunkirk zdh C1 Steel Circle 0.457 10 69 (Jardine & Standing 2000) Y
403 Dunkirk zdh R1 Steel Circle 0.457 19.3 9 (Jardine & Standing 2000) Y
404 EURIPIDES Ia Steel Circular 0.763 30.5 7 (Fugro 2004) Y
405 EURIPIDES Ib Steel Circular 0.763 38.7 2 (Fugro 2004) Y
406 EURIPIDES Ic Steel Circular 0.763 47 11 (Fugro 2004) Y
407 EURIPIDES II Steel Circular 0.763 46.7 7 (Fugro 2004) Y
408 Hoogzand I Steel Circular 0.356 7 ? (Beringen et al. 1979) Y
409 Hoogzand III Steel Circular 0.356 5.3 ? (Beringen et al. 1979) Y
412 I-880 2-P Steel Circular 0.6096 12.3 28 (Olson & Shantz 2004) Y
413 I-880 2-T Steel Circular 0.6096 10.7 16 (Olson & Shantz 2004) Y
414 I-880 2-W Steel Circular 0.6096 12.3 20 (Olson & Shantz 2004) Y
450 Leman BD BD Steel Circular 0.66 38.1 0 (Jardine et al. 1998) NA
(McClelland Engineers
451 Padre Island A1 Steel Circular 0.508 17.1 0 1958) NA
(McClelland Engineers
452 Padre Island A2 Steel Circular 0.508 17.1 0 1958) NA
453 38 NE Conn NA Steel Circular 0.4064 13.1 1 (Olson & Shantz 2004) N
454 Anvers G Steel Circular 0.318 8.3 0 (De Beer & Wallays 1969) N
455 Dunkirk B CL-a Steel Circular 0.324 11.3 176 (Brucy et al. 1991) N
456 Dunkirk B CS-a Steel Circular 0.324 11.3 188 (Brucy et al. 1991) N
457 Dunkirk B LS Steel Circular 0.324 22 188 (Brucy et al. 1991) N
458 Dunkirk ZdH R2 Steel Circular 0.456 18.9 240 (Jardine & Standing 2000) N
459 Dunkirk ZdH R6 Steel Circular 0.456 18.9 80 (Jardine & Standing 2000) N
460 EURIPIDES II Steel Circular 0.763 47 541 (Fugro 2004) N
462 Jamuna Bridge PS1D Steel Circular 0.763 78.3 4 (Fugro 1996) N
464 Leman a a Steel Circular 0.61 30.5 0 (Fugro 2004) N
465 Ras Tanajib II 25a Steel Circular 0.7633 8 102 (Fugro 2004) N

Table 4.5 Load tests on jacked piles (with CPT data)
ID Pile Pile
- - - - - (m) (m) (days) - Y/N
500 Akasaka 1C Steel Circular 0.2 7 ? (BCP-Committee 1971) Y
501 Akasaka 6B Steel Circular 0.2 4 ? (BCP-Committee 1971) Y
502 Dunkirk DK1 Steel Circular 0.1016 7.4 0.55 (Chow 1997) Y
503 Dunkirk DK2 Steel Circular 0.1016 6 0.63 (Chow 1997) Y
504 Dunkirk DK3 Steel Circular 0.1016 7.4 0.61 (Chow 1997) Y
505 Labenne LB1 Steel Circular 0.1016 6 0.63 (Lehane 1992) Y
506 Labenne LB2 Steel Circular 0.1016 1.8 0.08 (Lehane 1992) Y
507 Labenne LB2 Steel Circular 0.1016 5.9 0.63 (Lehane 1992) Y
508 Beryl A dowels2&3 Steel Circular 2.34 6 ? (NGI 2001) Y
509 Beryl A dowels2&3 Steel Circular 2.34 8 ? (NGI 2001) Y
519 Blessington J-111 Steel Circular 0.111 1.1 ? (Gavin & Lehane 2003a) N
520 Blessington J-111 Steel Circular 0.111 2 ? (Gavin & Lehane 2003a) N
510 Gold Coast p1 Concrete Square 0.4 8 ? (Mitchell 2005) NA
511 Gold Coast p2 Concrete Square 0.4 6.3 ? (Mitchell 2005) NA
518 Kallo, Antwerp CPT250mm Steel Circular 0.25 8.9 ? (De Beer et al. 1979) N
Table 4.6 Load tests on driven piles (with SPT data only)
ID
No. Site Name Pile No. C/T Pile Material Pile Shape Do L Reference
- - - - - - (m) (m) -
600 Arkansas p1 Compression Steel Circular 0.32 16.2 (Mansur & Hunter 1970)
603 Arkansas p4 Compression Concrete Square 0.41 12.3 (Mansur & Hunter 1970)
604 Beech River p2 Compression Steel Circular 0.32 15.4 (Selby 1970)
605 Beech River p3 Compression Steel Circular 0.32 22.4 (Selby 1970)
606 Chiba C2 Compression Concrete Circular 0.35 10.6 (Kusakabe et al. 1989)
607 Low Sill p2 Compression Steel Circular 0.51 19.8 (Mansur & Kaufman 1958)
611 109 Neyland NA Compression Steel Circular 0.27 9.9 (Olson & Shantz 2004)
612 Seattle A Compression Concrete Octagonal 0.61 29.9 (Gurtowski & Wu 1984)
613 Seattle B Compression Concrete Octagonal 0.61 25.6 (Gurtowski & Wu 1984)
614 St. Charles River 1 Compression Concrete Hexagonal 0.32 5.8 (Tavenas 1971)

Table 4.7 (continued) Load tests on driven piles (with SPT data only)
ID
No. Site Name Pile No. C/T Pile Material Pile Shape Do L Reference
- - - - - - (m) (m) -
700 Arkansas p1 Tension Steel Circular 0.32 16.2 (Mansur & Hunter 1970)
703 Arkansas p4 Tension Concrete Square 0.41 12.3 (Mansur & Hunter 1970)
704 Beech River p2 Tension Steel Circular 0.32 15.4 (Selby 1970)
705 Beech River p3 Tension Steel Circular 0.32 22.4 (Selby 1970)
706 Low Sill p2 Tension Steel Circular 0.51 19.8 (Mansur & Kaufman 1958)
710 SR57@5 Pile 1C Tension Concrete Square 0.36 11.9 (Olson & Shantz 2004)
711 26 Tefft St. NA Tension Concrete Square 0.36 5.2 (Olson & Shantz 2004)
800 130 Brenda pier 4 Compression Steel Circular 1.07 31.4 (Olson & Shantz 2004)
801 Chiba Steel 2 Compression Steel Circular 0.80 40.6 (Kusakabe et al. 1989)
802 Chiba Steel 3 Compression Steel Circular 0.36 13.5 (Kusakabe et al. 1989)
803 Cromarty Firth TP1 Compression Steel Circular 0.61 13.1 (Chow 1996)
806 Hokkaido Steel 1 Compression Steel Circular 1.02 40.0 (Kusakabe et al. 1989)
807 41 I-5 1C Compression Pipe Circular 0.41 13.1 (Olson & Shantz 2004)
808 41 I-5 1F Compression Pipe Circular 0.36 11.3 (Olson & Shantz 2004)
809 41 I-5 2C Compression Pipe Circular 0.41 14.8 (Olson & Shantz 2004)
810 41 I-5 2F Compression Pipe Circular 0.36 13.1 (Olson & Shantz 2004)
811 I-880 1J Compression Pipe Circular 0.61 7.0 (Holloway & Beddard 1996)
812 Kimitsu H27 Compression Steel Circular 1.20 19.8 (Ishihara et al. 1977)
813 Lower Arrow Lake 1B Compression Steel Circular 0.61 45.4 (McCammon & Golder 1970)
814 Perak River S-1 Compression Steel Circular 1.50 24.2 (Williams et al. 1997)
815 Perak River N-1 Compression Steel Circular 1.50 48.7 (Williams et al. 1997)
816 93 Salinas NA Compression Pipe Circular 1.83 34.7 (Olson & Shantz 2004)
817 35 San Dieguito NA Compression Pipe Circular 0.36 8.1 (Olson & Shantz 2004)
818 85 SFOBB E28L-P17 Compression Pipe Circular 0.61 12.8 (Olson & Shantz 2004)
819 77 Southern Fwy Bent 43 Compression Pipe Circular 0.61 10.7 (Olson & Shantz 2004)
820 77 Southern Fwy Bent 45 Compression Pipe Circular 0.61 11.5 (Olson & Shantz 2004)
821 77 Southern Fwy Bent 34R Compression Pipe Circular 0.46 10.1 (Olson & Shantz 2004)
822 Tokyo Concrete1 Compression Concrete Circular 0.40 10.0 (Kusakabe et al. 1989)
823 I-880 2-P Compression Pipe Circular 0.61 12.3 (Holloway & Beddard 1996)
900 Cromarty Firth TP1 Tension Steel Circular 0.61 19.4 (Chow 1996)
901 Cromarty Firth TP2 Tension Steel Circular 0.76 28.1 (Chow 1996)
902 41 I-5 1C Tension Pipe Circular 0.41 13.1 (Olson & Shantz 2004)
903 41 I-5 1D Tension Pipe Circular 0.41 27.8 (Olson & Shantz 2004)
904 41 I-5 1F Tension Pipe Circular 0.36 11.3 (Olson & Shantz 2004)
905 41 I-5 2C Tension Pipe Circular 0.41 14.8 (Olson & Shantz 2004)
906 41 I-5 2F Tension Pipe Circular 0.36 13.1 (Olson & Shantz 2004)
907 Los Barrios P1 Tension Concrete Circular 0.91 18.5 (Mey et al. 1985)
908 Mustang Island 1 Tension Steel Circular 0.61 21.0 (Reese & Cox 1976)
909 Mustang Island 2 Tension Steel Circular 0.61 21.0 (Reese & Cox 1976)
910 93 Salinas NA Tension Pipe Circular 1.83 34.7 (Olson & Shantz 2004)
911 35 San Dieguito NA Tension Pipe Circular 0.36 8.1 (Olson & Shantz 2004)
912 85 SFOBB E28L-P17 Tension Pipe Circular 0.61 12.8 (Olson & Shantz 2004)
913 Ras Tanajib I pile c Tension Steel Circular 0.61 18.0 (Al-Shafei et al. 1994)
914 131 Los Gatos Bent 3 Tension Pipe Circular 0.61 13.9 (Olson & Shantz 2004)

Table 4.8 Summary of pile load tests excluded from consideration in statistical analyses
ID Do,n Lembedded Time

Reasons for not use
No Site Name Pile No (m) (m) (days)
132 87 Mission Ave Bent 2L 0.36 9.5 7 Aged sand / Formation materials; Friction ratio > 2
133 Albysjon SII-1 0.09 12.2 ? Diameter less than 0.2m.
134 Drammen E 0.28 3.5 ? Pile embedment length less than 5m.
135 Fittja Straits D 0.24 13 1
136 Fittja Straits D 0.24 13 9 Tests on same pile at earlier time available and
137 Fittja Straits D 0.24 13 141 included in database
138 Fittja Straits D 0.24 13 667
139 ISC2, Porto C1 0.35 6 90 Residual soil; Friction Ratio > 2
140 Jamuna Bridge p1-1 0.45 28.8 ?
141 Jamuna Bridge p1-2 0.45 29.5 ? Micaceous sand.
142 Jamuna Bridge p1-3 0.45 26 ?
143 Kallo, Antwerp I 0.91 9.7 ?
144 Kallo, Antwerp II 0.54 9.7 ?

Pile shaft embedded mostly in clay, while pile tip
145 Kallo, Antwerp III 0.62 9.8 ?
embedded in sand.
146 Kallo, Antwerp IV 0.82 9.8 ?
147 Kallo, Antwerp VII 0.61 9.4 ?
148 Louisiana TP1 0.40 9.5 ? Pile tip in clay; High FR
149 Louisiana TP1 0.40 24.4 ? Odd load test; Not loaded to failure.
Pile shaft embedded mostly in clay, while pile tip

150 Salt Lake 1700South 0.32 23.2 ? embedded in sand.
210 58 Vermont Ave. NA 0.30 11.6 15 Aged sand / Formation materials; Friction ratio > 2
211 87 Mission Ave Bent 2L 0.36 9.5 7
212 Albysjon SII-1 0.09 12.2 ? Diameter less than 0.2m.
213 Buckman O1 0.46 9.1 0.25
214 Buckman O1 0.46 9.16 3.1
215 Buckman O1 0.46 9.16 15.9
216 Buckman O1 0.46 9.16 15.9
217 Buckman O1 0.46 9.16 268
218 Seabreeze O1 0.46 25.12 4
219 Seabreeze O1 0.46 25.12 18 Potential calcareous sand deposites. Additionally,

many tests were retests on same pile.
220 Seabreeze O1 0.46 25.12 70
221 Seabreeze O1 0.46 25.12 293
222 Seabreeze O1 0.46 25.12 1057
223 Seabreeze O1 0.46 25.12 0.35
224 Vilano East O1 0.46 10.68 0.32
225 Vilano East O1 0.46 10.68 3.9
226 Vilano East O1 0.46 10.68 15.9

Table 4.9 (Continued) Summary of pile load tests excluded from consideration in statistical
analyses
ID Do,n Lembedded Time

Reasons for not use
No Site Name Pile No (m) (m) (days)
319 96 Bayshore Pile 1 0.41 16 50 Aged sand / Formation materials; Friction ratio > 2
320 Blessington D-100 0.10 1.8 ?

Diameter less than 0.2m and embedment length less
321 Blessington D-114 0.11 1.8 ?
than 5m.
322 Blessington D-75 0.08 1.4 ?
323 Drammen E18 25 0.81 25 14 Tests on same pile at earlier time available and
324 Drammen E18 25 0.81 25 156 included in database
Tests on same pile at earlier time available and

325 EURIPIDES II 0.76 47 541 included in database
326 Jamuna Bridge PS1 0.76 44 9
327 Jamuna Bridge PS1D 0.76 78.3 4 Micaceous sand.
329 Ras Tanajib II 25a 0.76 8 102 Presence of cemented silty sandy clay layers.
No CPT available at the site. Only "Regional" CPT

418 Leman BD BD 0.66 38.1 0 data calibrated to pile driving logs were presented.
419 Padre Island A1 0.508 17.1 0

Mechanical cone.
420 Padre Island A2 0.508 17.1 0
421 38 NE Conn NA 0.4064 13.1 1 Aged sand / Formation materials; Friction ratio > 2
Mechanical cone; Quite variable sand site in the

422 Anvers G 0.318 8.3 0 upper 8m; No adjacent CPT data.
423 Dunkirk ZdH R2 0.456 18.9 240 Tests at same site locaion with same pile geometry
424 Dunkirk ZdH R6 0.456 18.9 80 and earlier time available and included in database
425 EURIPIDES II 0.763 47 541 Retests.
427 Jamuna Bridge PS1D 0.763 78.3 4 Micaceous sand.
Not representative of a driven pile as there was a

blowout prior to load testing. Pile may have also been
429 Leman a a 0.61 30.5 0 installed using coring during installation.
430 Ras Tanajib II 25a 0.7633 8 102 Presence of cemented silty sandy clay layers.
Diameter less than 0.2m and embedment length less

518 Blessington J-111 0.11 1.1 ? than 5m.

4.2 Details of pile database for statistic analysis
The database may be described in terms of the frequency of occurrence of pile diameter (D),
pile length (L), slenderness ratio (L/D), averaged shaft relative density (Dr,shaft), averaged tip
relative density (Dr,tip) and inferred interface friction angle (δ) in the database7. The frequency
histograms of pile load test parameters are summarised in Figure 4.1.
It may be inferred from Figure 4.1 that:
• The database consists primarily of relatively small diameter piles with a diameter less
than about 800mm;
• Although pile lengths range from 5m to 80m, mostly piles are between about 10m and
20m long and hence shorter than typical offshore piles;
• The slenderness ratio L/D ranges from 20 to 60;
• The total database of load tests with CPT profiles contains a relatively even and wide
range of sand relative densities, although individual sub database may be biased towards
specific sand types;
• The inferred tanδ varies by about 15% from the mean tanδ value of 0.53; any bias in the
database due to variations in δ will consequently be difficult to observe.
Table 4.10 Summary of total capacity database for driven piles in sand with CPT
Closed Open All

Number of piles 42 32 74
Steel 21 32 53
Concrete 21 0 21
Circular 31 32 63
Square (other shapes included) 11 0 11
Tension tests 10 15 25
Compression tests 32 17 49
Average length (m) 16.0 25.8 20.2
Range of lengths (m) 6.1 - 35.9 5.3 - 79.1 5.3 - 79.1
Average diameter (m) 0.381 0.725 0.53
Range of diameters (m) 0.2 - 0.688 0.356 - 2 0.2 - 2
Average Dr,shaft (%) 0.50 0.74 0.60
Range of Dr,shaft (%) 0.17 - 1.01 0.23 - 1.04 0.17 - 1.04
Average Dr,tip (%) 0.41 0.68 0.49
Range of Dr,tip (%) 0.02 - 1 0.15 - 1.07 0.02 - 1.07
o
Average δ ( ) 27.1 28.7 27.8
o
Range of δ ( ) 24 - 31.8 23 - 32 23 - 32
Qs from clay >0.5 1 1 2
7
See Chapter 2 for a description on how the two Dr values and the value of δ were evaluated.
25 16
14
20
12
Frequency (%)
Frequency (%)
10
15
8
10 6
4
5
2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.8
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.7
1.9
2.0
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
Pile Diameter (m) Weighted Average Dr along shaft
18 9
16 8
14 7
12 6
Frequency (%)
Frequency (%)
10 5
8 4
3
6
2
4
1
2
0
0
0
1
3
4
6
7
8
9
1
4
10
16
22
28
34
40
46
52
58
64
70
76
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
Pile Length (m) Averaged Dr at Pile Tip
12 30
10 25
8 20
Frequency (%)
Frequency (%)
6 15
10
4
5
2
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
12
18
24
30
36
42
48
54
60
66
72
78
84
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
L/D Inferred average interface friction angle, δ ICP
Figure 4.1 Frequency histograms of pile load test parameters in UWA database
4.3 Influence of time between installation and loading

The influence of time on the capacity of piles in sand was initially related to discussion of the
variability in driving formulas for estimating pile capacity in sands (Parsons 1966; Yang 1970;
Tavenas & Audy 1972). Those studies often discussed “relaxation”, or the decrease in pile
capacity with time, as well as “set up”, or the increase in capacity with time. It is now generally
accepted that capacity of driven piles in granular soils increases with time (Skov & Denver
1988; Chow et al. 1997; Axelsson 2000; Jardine et al. 2005b; Bullock et al. 2005), and that
apparent relaxation may be due to hammer performance (Thompson & Thompson 1985) or

uplift due to installation of adjacent piles. The change in pile capacity with time is related to an
increase in shaft capacity, which may be due to a combination of the following factors:
• Increase in radial stress with time during equalization (σ'rc);
• Increase in radial stress with displacement during loading (∆σ'rd) due to increases in
stiffness and/or dilation; or
• Increase in apparent interface friction angle (δf) due to corrosion or cementation effects.
The ratios of Qm/Qc calculated using each CPT-based design method for tension tests in the
database are plotted against time8 in Figure 4.2. It should be noted that Qm/Qc is plotted on
these figures (rather than Qc/Qm as previously presented) and hence the ratio may be
expected to increase with time (i.e. as Qm increases).
No clear time bias is evident on Figure 4.3, suggesting the effects of time were not considered
in the calibration exercises performed to derive parameters for each design method. While it
is acknowledged that time between installation and load testing may have a significant effect
on shaft capacity at a given site, it does not appear significant for the range of sites in this
database (Figure 4.2). Statistical analyses of the database presented in Chapters 5 & 6
considers only tests on piles conducted for equalization times primarily between 7 and 40
days; potential variation in capacity during this time period are not considered statistically
significant9.
8
The equalisation times for some of the database pile tests were unknown and could therefore not
be included on this figure. Retests of piles at the same site with time are also not shown in this plot.
9
Database tests at the Baghdad site had an equalization period outside of this range but are
included in analyses as retests at this site showed no gain in capacity time.
3 3
Fugro-05 CET ICP-05 CET
2.5 2.5
OET OET
2 2
Qm/Qc
Qm/Qc
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
time (days) time (days)
3 3
NGI-05 CET UWA-05 CET
2.5 2.5
OET OET
2 2
Qm/Qc
Qm/Qc
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
time (days) time (days)
Figure 4.2 Influence of time on capacity ratio of tension tests within the database for CPT based methods

5 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF DATABASE
This chapter examines the predictions for pile tests in the database by reviewing ratios of
capacities calculated by each method (Qc) to measured capacities (Qm) for the following four
groupings of pile tests, which are summarised in Table 4.1 to Table 4.4:
• Driven closed-ended piles tested in compression (CEC)
• Driven closed-ended piles tested in tension (CET)
• Driven pipe piles tested in compression (OEC)
• Driven pipe piles tested in tension (OET)
As explained in Chapter 4, CPT qc data were available at the sites of all these pile tests and
only tests on piles installed in siliceous sand sites with diameters in excess of 200mm and
lengths greater than 5m are considered in the statistical analyses. Pile re-tests are also
excluded from consideration except for (a) tension tests following compression tests and (b)
when piles were installed to a depth that was at least an additional 5 pile diameters below the
initial test. Jacked piles are considered in a separate study by UWA (Xu 2006; Schneider
2007).
The Qc/Qm ratios derived by the five methods for each pile in each grouping of pile tests are
plotted on Figure 5.1 and 5.2 against the pile tip depth. Plots of Qc/Qm ratios against pile
diameter (D), pile slenderness ratio (L/D) and average relative density along the pile shaft
(Dr,shaft) have been included In Appendix B to allow assessment of any bias in predictions with
respect to these parameters. The mean and COV of Qc/Qm for each grouping of pile tests are
also listed in Table 5.1. Implications of these analyses on factors of safety and reliability of
offshore pile design in siliceous sand are presented in Chapter 6.
5.1 Closed-ended piles in compression

(i) API-00 predicts the lowest capacities, with a mean predicted to measured ratio of 0.7.
The COV of Qc/Qm for this method of 0.56 is also high. API-00 is, however, the most
conservative of the methods - with predictions for only one pile test exceeding 1.4
times the measured capacity.
(ii) API-00 predictions follow previously reported tendencies to (a) under-predict the
capacity of short piles in dense sand, and (b) over-predict the capacity of long piles in
loose sand.
(iii) Unlike API-00, the four new methods do not show any strong systematic bias with pile
length, pile aspect ratio and average sand relative density.
(iv) The four new methods over-predict the pile capacities of pile nos. 120,121 and 122
(located in gravelly sands at the Lock & Dam 26 site) by a factor of ≈2, even though
the reliability of measured capacities at this site and that of the CPT qc profiles adopted
is considered relatively high.
(v) NGI-05 tends to also over-predict the capacity for both the concrete and steel piles at
the Cimarron River site. Since both the concrete and steel pile had similar capacities,
the over-prediction of the concrete pile was more severe than that for the steel pile.
Cimarron River was also a gravely sand site.
(vi) Fugro-05 tends to significantly over-predict (by 40 percent or more) 11 of the 32
database piles.
(vii) The UWA-05 and ICP-05 methods display the lowest COV for Qc/Qm of 0.33 and have
a geometric mean (µg) of just less than unity; the COVs are clearly affected by the
significant over-predictions at Lock & Dam 26.
Although not shown on the figures (and not part of the statistical analyses), it is of interest to
point out that all methods under-predict the capacity of piles in residual sand deposits.

5.2 Closed-ended piles in tension
(i) API-00 shows a clear tendency to over-predict in loose sands and as length increases;
the greatest over-predictions occur for the long precast concrete piles in the loose
sand at Drammen. API-00 also strongly under-predicts the capacity of the short pile in
the dense sand at Hoogzand. Such poor predictive performance is reflected in the
method’s very high COV for Qc/Qm of 0.84.
(ii) Unlike API-00, the three new methods do not show a systematic bias for Qc/Qm to vary
with sand relative density. The small database for closed ended piles in tension makes
evaluation of bias for the CPT based methods relatively subjective.
(iii) The COV for Qc/Qm given by NGI-05 for this category of pile is significantly higher than
its COVs for other pile categories.
(iv) The UWA-05 method has the lowest COV for Qc/Qm of 0.29 (but only marginally better
than the ICP-05 COV of 0.30) and a geometric mean slightly below unity.
5.3 Open-ended piles in compression

(i) API-00 shows the highest COV for Qc/Qm (0.68) of all the methods and indicates
similar trends to those predicted for open-ended piles in compression.
(ii) ICP-05 shows a significant under-prediction of pile capacity for the low area ratio pipe
piles in loose sand at Drammen; this trend can be linked to the method’s formulation
for base capacity.
(iii) Fugro-05 shows a more distinct trend than for closed-ended piles in compression for
under-prediction of capacities at large L/D values.
(iv) The UWA-05 method has the lowest COV for Qc/Qm of 0.19 and a geometric mean
slightly below unity.
5.4 Open-ended piles in tension

(i) API-00 shows highest COV for Qc/Qm (0.76) of all the methods. The tendencies for
under-prediction at high sand relative densities are again evident.
(ii) The UWA-05 method has the lowest COV for Qc/Qm of 0.23 and a geometric mean of
approximately 0.9.
3.5
API-00
3
CEC CET
2.5
2 OEC OET
Qc/Qm
1.5
0.5
0
1 10 100
Tip Depth (m)
Figure 5.1 Performance of API-00 compared to database

3.5 3.5
Fugro-05 ICP-05
3 3
CEC CET CEC CET
2.5 2.5
2 OEC OET 2 OEC OET

Qc/Qm
Qc/Qm
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
1 10 100 1 10 100
Tip Depth (m) Tip Depth (m)
3.5 3.5
NGI-05 UWA-05
3 3
CEC CET CEC CET
2.5 2.5
2 OEC OET 2 OEC OET

Qc/Qm
Qc/Qm
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
1 10 100 1 10 100
Tip Depth (m) Tip Depth (m)
Figure 5.2 Performance of new CPT based pile design methods vs. UWA database

Table 5.1 Assessment of methods performance against database
Database Method Arithmetic Geometric Standard Coefficient No. of

Mean, µ Mean, µg = Deviation of Piles
exp(λm) of log, ζm Variation,
COV
API-00 0.78 0.70 0.52 0.56
Driven Closed- Fugro-05 1.24 1.16 0.38 0.39
ended
ICP-05 0.99 0.94 0.32 0.33 32
Compression
(CEC) NGI-05 1.16 1.07 0.39 0.40
UWA-05 0.98 0.93 0.32 0.33
API-00 1.12 0.88 0.73 0.84
Fugro-05 0.97 0.91 0.40 0.41
Driven Closed-
ended Tension ICP-05 1.02 0.99 0.29 0.30 10
(CET)
NGI-05 1.27 1.15 0.48 0.50
UWA-05 1.00 0.97 0.28 0.29
API-00 0.75 0.64 0.62 0.68
Driven Open- Fugro-05 1.14 1.10 0.30 0.30
ended
ICP-05 0.89 0.86 0.27 0.28 17
Compression
(OEC) NGI-05 1.01 0.99 0.25 0.25
UWA-05 0.98 0.96 0.19 0.19
API-00 0.72 0.57 0.68 0.76
Driven Open- Fugro-05 0.90 0.86 0.31 0.32

ended Tension ICP-05 0.90 0.87 0.27 0.27 15
(OET) NGI-05 1.01 0.96 0.34 0.35
UWA-05 0.91 0.88 0.23 0.23
API-00 0.81 0.68 0.61 0.67
Fugro-05 1.11 1.04 0.36 0.38
Entire
ICP-05 0.95 0.91 0.29 0.30 74
database
NGI-05 1.11 1.04 0.36 0.37
UWA-05 0.97 0.93 0.27 0.27
5.5 Independent assessment of statistics by NGI

The foregoing statistics were checked in an independent method evaluation exercise recently
performed by the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI, Clausen 2005) using their database,
which comprised 28 pile tests. The NGI statistics for the UWA-05 method are as follows and
are evidently in good agreement with the µ and COV statistics for the UWA-05 given in Table
5.1 for the entire database.
NGI µ value (UWA-05 method) = 0.95

NGI COV for Qc/Qm (UWA-05 method) =0.24

5.6 Summary
1. The COVs for Qc/Qm indicated by all of the new CPT-based methods are a significant
improvement on the existing API-00 recommendations. In addition, unlike API-00, these
new methods do not display a significant level of bias with respect to pile length and
relative density.
2. Although drawing inferences from the database has limitations, the foregoing suggests
that NGI-05 over-predicts pile capacity in gravelly sands (and possibly for concrete piles),
Fugro-05 over-predicts capacity of piles in compression (particularly for closed ended
piles) while ICP-05 has a tendency to under-predict end bearing capacity of open ended
piles in loose sands and for large diameter thin-walled piles.
3. UWA-05 indicates the lowest overall COV for Qc/Qm (of 0.27) and the lowest COV for
each category of pile. The geometric mean of Qc/Qm for this method is slightly below unity.
Many previous studies have assessed a given method’s predictive performance using the
average and COV for Qc/Qm and, on this basis, the UWA-05 method would be adjudged to be
the best-performing of the new CPT-based methods. However, given the limitations in the
size and scope of the database as well as the variability in load test and in-situ test data
quality, it was felt that, prior to deducing recommendations regarding a preferred CPT-based
method, other issues such as the reliability of the respective methods and their extrapolation
to situations outside of the database should be addressed; these issues are examined in
Chapter 6.

6 FACTORS OF SAFETY AND RELIABILITY OF DESIGN
METHODS
6.1 Overview
The use of reliability theory is becoming more prominent in pile design, particularly as a
means of calibrating resistance and safety factors as well as for platform recertification
studies (Bea et al. 1999; Gilbert & Puskar 2005; Lacasse & Nadim 1994; Lacasse & Goulois
1989; Paikowsky et al. 2004; Tang et al. 1990). Reliability is defined as the probability that a
system will perform its intended function for a specified period of time under stated conditions
(Harr 1987). Increasing the reliability of a design may come from conservatism inherent in the
method or in selection of design parameters, increasing the precision of the design method,
or increasing the applied resistance or safety factor. The goal of a recommended practice
document, such as API (2000) RP2A, is to minimize the probability of failure of a foundation
system without significantly increasing its cost. To increase reliability and decrease foundation
cost, or conservatism in a method, one must increase the precision of the method by reducing
the COV of the predictive performance. Site characterization procedures that reduce
uncertainty in model input parameters, such as the cone penetration test (CPT), may also
increase method reliability (Briaud & Tucker 1988). Due to a large number of variables
controlling axial capacity of piles and small amount of information available at the design
stage, methods are constantly evolving to provide a better representation of the mechanics of
the problem, and as the database of load test results increases. To assess method reliability,
and appropriate safety or resistance factors, an understanding of both the uncertainty (COV)
and bias (geometric mean) of the predictive ability is necessary.
Both bias and uncertainty stem from a number of factors including, but not limited to (Harr
1987; Bea et al. 1999; Melchers 1999; Paikowsky et al. 2004):
• modelling uncertainty,
• model property estimation (measurement error and inherent variability),
• correlation between model parameters,
• input loading conditions,
• load transfer to foundation elements,
• redundancy of foundation elements,
• decision uncertainty (limit state violation criteria),
• statistical uncertainty,
• human error, and
• quality control during construction (human intervention).
Each significant factor would need to be taken into consideration for a rigorous assessment of
method reliability, but since certain factors are often ignored in a reliability analysis, the
results must be considered as a lower bound or nominal value (Melchers 1999; Christian
2004). This section focuses on the reliability of models for evaluation of axial capacity of piles
in sand as compared to a database of onshore load tests with CPT data, and extrapolation of
those results to offshore conditions.
Understanding the balance between bias and COV in characterisation of method performance
is noteworthy but not always straightforward, particularly when extrapolating outside of a
database. Methods with a high COV for Qc/Qm may not necessarily be less reliable than
methods with lower values of COV, but would need to have a more conservative bias to
maintain similar levels of reliability. Additionally, methods with a lower COV may not
necessarily be more reliable than conservative methods with a high COV, and require
modifications to recommended factors of safety.

1.6
FS=2; Bias=0.7; COV=0.5;
1.4 Beta=2.2; Pf=1.3E-2
Probability Density Function

FS=2; Bias=1.0; COV=0.3;
1.2
Beta=2.4; Pf=0.9E-2
1 Geometric Mean
0.8
Low
uncertainty
0.6
High
uncertainty
0.4
Probability
0.2
of failure
0
0 1 2 3 4
Factor of Safety
Figure 6.1 Relationship between Qc/Qm COV, bias in Qc/Qm, factor of safety (FS) and
probability of failure (Pf) (after Lacasse & Nadim 1994)
The relative reliability of two hypothetical design methods is compared in Figure 6.1. The first
method has a high COV for Qc/Qm of 0.5 and a conservative bias in Qc/Qm of 0.7. The second
method is considered to have no bias, but a lower COV of 0.3. It can be seen that the two
methods have essentially the same values of the Reliability Index (β or Beta), and
probabilities of failure (Pf). The reliability index, β, is discussed in more detail in following
sections.
Model error will often result in a bias related to soil type, pile geometry or other factors, but
that error may be interpreted as variability when compared to a database if the assumed
distribution of predictive ability is considered to have a single mode (i.e., normal or lognormal).
Multi-nodal distributions may result as a function of bias in a method and characteristics of a
database, but are of limited use in assessment of reliability outside of that database since the
cause of bias is not distinguished in the distribution. Due to the limited size of databases of
pile load tests in sand with CPT profiles, and the arguably poor to moderate relevance of the
average behaviour within those databases to offshore piles, it may not be possible (or
appropriate) to quantify the bias in each method for offshore conditions from database
evaluations.
6.2 Factors of Safety within API RP2A

For calculation of pile capacity, API (2000) recommends that the allowable pile load is
assessed by dividing the calculated ultimate pile capacity by an appropriate factor of safety.
Recommended minimum factors of safety for ultimate limit state (ULS) pile design are as
shown in Table 6.1.
A detailed discussion of the historical development of the API axial pile design method, as
well as associated factors of safety for that method has been presented by Pelletier et al
(1993). The evolution of safety factors is briefly summarised in this section.
As with most factors of safety in engineering, the recommendations in the first edition of API
RP2A (1969) were based on experience gained through early engineering practice. It was
considered that for pile penetrations greater than 30m (the depth at which limiting shaft
friction values was applied in sand), a factor of safety of as low as 2 may be used for the
combination of operating loads with frequent storm events, and a factor of safety of as low as
1.5 may be employed for maximum design loads including the effects of extreme storm
events (McClelland 1969). If “below average” site investigation information was available,
minimum factors of safety were raised to 3 and 2 for operating and extreme environmental
conditions respectively (Pelletier et al. 1993). These factors of safety are acknowledged to be
less than those customarily used for onshore foundation design, which may be due to
offshore platforms being less sensitive to displacement for serviceability limit state conditions
and would be unmanned during design storm events (Pelletier et al. 1993).
Table 6.1 Recommended minimum factors of safety for pile design (API 2000)
Load Condition Factor of

Safety
Design environmental conditions with 1.5
appropriate drilling loads
Operative environmental conditions during 2.0
drilling operations
Design environmental conditions with 1.5
appropriate producing loads
Operative environmental conditions during 2.0
producing operations
Design environmental conditions with minimum 1.5
loads (for pullout)
As API RP2A was starting to be used outside of the Gulf of Mexico, the recommended
practice was modified to allow for more engineering judgement gained through local practice
in the selection of the radial stress coefficient, Kf, and limiting shaft friction values. Even
though there was more uncertainty in the design method when applied to these new
situations, minimum factors of safety of 2.0 and 1.5 were maintained. The conditional
minimum factors of safety of 3 and 2 for poor levels of site investigation were removed from
the document (Pelletier et al. 1993).
After a review of a database of onshore piles (Dennis & Olson 1983), the foundation design
section of API RP2A was changed significantly. Significant concern has been expressed with
the 1984 changes to API RP2A, particularly with respect to tension capacity in loose to
medium dense sands (Toolan & Ims 1988). Despite these concerns, and many others, factors
of safety within API RP2A have not been changed significantly since their initial conception in
1969. As the factors of safety are “minimum” recommended values, significant engineering
judgement is required to decide on appropriate factors of safety outside of those that may be
applicable to typical jacket structures in the Gulf of Mexico. Redundancy, among other effects,
may lead to higher foundation system reliability than those calculated for single piles (Bea et
al. 1999).
6.3 Reliability of pile design methods
6.3.1 Distribution function

While many types of mathematical functions may be used to estimate the distributions of load
or resistance (DNV 1996), the first and second moments, mean (µ) and standard deviation (σ),
are usually only available for characterization of the distribution of soil resistance. When only
the first two moments are known, a normal or lognormal distribution is appropriate for analysis
(Harr 1987). The lognormal distribution is favorable over the normal distribution for evaluation
of pile design methods since; (i) both the value of Qc/Qm and values within a lognormal
distribution cannot be negative; (ii) the lognormal distribution is linked to the geometric mean,
which allows for consistent assessment of over-predicted and under-predicted outliers of pile
capacity (Smith 1997).
For a lognormally distributed sample of sufficient size, symbols and characteristics may be
defined as (after Christian 2004; Bea et al. 1999; Shimizu & Crow 1988):
µ = arithmetic mean
σ = standard deviation
ζ = σ ln = standard deviation of the logarithms of the variables
σ2 = variance
 σ2 
ζ 2 = σ ln 2 = ln1 + 2  = variance of the logarithms of the variables (6.1)
 µ 
1
λ = ln µ − ζ 2 = arithmetic mean of the logarithms of the variables (6.2)
2
µ g = eλ = geometric mean (6.3)
σ
= [exp(ζ 2 ) − 1]
0.5
COV = Ω = = coefficient of variation (6.4)
µ
 1
f ( x; λ , ζ ) =
1
exp  − (ln x − λ )2  = the lognormal distribution (6.5)
ζ ⋅ x 2π  2ζ
2

The link between the mean and standard deviation of the variables and the mean and
standard deviation of the logarithms of the variables may differ due to sample size and
characteristics. Mean and standard deviation of the logarithms of the sample were used in
this study.
6.3.2 Reliability index

A common measure of the adequacy of design is the reliability index, or safety index, β. The
nominal reliability index for lognormally distributed variables is defined as (Bea et al. 1999;
Christian 2004):
R
ln 
β=
ln FS A
= Q (6.6)
ζ FS ζ 2 R + ζ 2Q
The subscripts R and Q related to the resistance and load, respectively. The variance in the
factor of safety (ζ2FS) assumes load and resistance are uncorrelated, and has also been
expressed as (Bea et al. 1999):
σ 2 ln FS = σ 2 ln R + σ 2 ln Q (6.7)
If there is a correlation between load and resistance, calculated β values would increase.
Since it is commonly assumed that load and resistance are uncorrelated, this assumption is
maintained in these analyses for comparison of nominal β values to previous
recommendations.
The nominal probability of failure, Pf, is taken as a function of the cumulative distribution
function, Φ:
Pf = 1 − Φ (β ) = Φ (− β ) (6.8)
Values of nominal probability of failure (Pf) for nominal β value are contained in Table 6.2.
Melchers (1999) suggests that the probability of failure for structural systems under extreme
loading conditions (excluding the influence of human error and intervention) should
correspond to a β value of between 3 and 3.5 (Melchers 1999).
To evaluate the nominal probability of failure of a design method for an applied factor of
safety, FSA, the bias, µg, and standard deviation, ζm, of each design method are required. As
a first step, bias, µg, and standard deviation, ζm, can be assessed from a database of good
quality load tests covering a range of pile sizes and density conditions (Table 5.1). The
modified equation used in this study for evaluation of β for each proposed design method is:

 FS 
ln A 
 µ 
β=  g  (6.9)
ζ m + ζ 2Q
2
As presented in Table 6.1, minimum FSA values for API (2000) are recommended as 1.5 or 2,
depending upon the design loading conditions. Based on DNV (1996) and Lacasse & Nadium
(1994), ζQ is assumed as approximately 0.15 for dead, live, and environmental loading
conditions for these analyses. A bias on loading conditions of unity is also assumed for
assessment of nominal β values.
Table 6.2 Nominal probability of failure as a function of nominal β value (calculated using
NORMSDIST function in Excel©)
Nominal Reliability Index, β Nominal Probability of Failure, Pf

-1
1.0 1.6 x 10
1.5 6.7 x 10-2
2.0 2.3 x 10-2
2.5 6.2 x 10-3
-3
3.0 1.3 x 10
3.5 2.3 x 10-4
6.4 Apparent reliability of methods as compared to UWA database

The nominal reliability of design methods for the minimum factors of safety in API (2000) can
be calculated as a function of parameters in Table 5.1 using Equation 6.9, with the following
assumptions (which are examined in detail in Sections 6.5 and 6.6)10:
• the distribution of Qc/Qm can be modelled using a lognormal distribution, and
• reliability assessed from small onshore database piles is relevant for large offshore piles,
The reliability index, β, is plotted for each method for factors of safety of 2 and 1.5, in Figure
6.2 and Figure 6.3, respectively. It can be seen that:
• Reliability for pipe piles is generally higher than for closed ended piles for all methods.
• At a factor of safety of 2, API-00 has a relatively consistent β value of approximately 1.75
which reduces to approximately 1.4 at a factor of safety of 1.5. For closed ended piles in
tension the reliability index is much lower, being only about unity for a factor of safety of 2
and 0.75 for a factor of safety of 1.5. The database of closed ended piles in tension is
very small, with a significant fraction of the load tests being on piles in loose sand.
• Fugro-05 has reliability indices that vary from 1.25 to 2.5 at a factor of safety of 2, and 0.6
to 1.6 at a factor of safety of 1.5. The method is apparently more reliable in tension than
in compression. These indices are consistent with the method’s high friction fatigue
coefficient and the differences predicted by this method between the shaft capacity of
open and closed ended piles.
• NGI-05 has a similar performance to Fugro-05, with reliability indices ranging from 1 to
2.5 at a factor of safety of 2 and dropping to 0.5 to 1.5 at a factor of safety of 1.5. NGI-05
contrasts with Fugro-05 in that its predictions for piles in compression are apparently
more reliable than piles in tension.
• For open ended piles, ICP-05 has consistent β values in tension and compression of 2.7
for a factor of safety of 2.0, dropping to 1.8 for a factor of safety of 1.5. ICP-05 has β
values of approximately 2.2 and 1.3 for factors of safety of 2 and 1.5, respectively.
10
Recalling that µg is equal to the geometric mean of Qc/Qm and that the bias of loading conditions is
assumed to be unity, with a standard deviation, ζQ, of 0.15.
• For UWA-05, in both tension and compression, β is approximately 3 and 1.85 for pipe
piles at factors of safety of 2 and 1.5 respectively. For closed ended piles, β reduces to
≈2.2 at a factor of safety of 2 and to ≈1.4 at a factor of safety of safety of 1.5.
It is clear that nominal reliability varies for each method and pile type, but approaches a target
β value of 3 (Melchers 1999) for open-ended piles in tension and compression assessed by
the UWA-05 method with a factor of safety of 2.
3.5
3.0 FSA = 2
2.5
2.0
β
1.5
1.0
OEC OET
0.5
CEC CET
0.0
API-00 Fugro-05 NGI-05 ICP-05 UW A-05
Figure 6.2 Reliability index based on UWA database for a factor of safety of 2
3.5
3.0 FSA = 1.5 OEC OET
2.5 CEC CET
2.0
β
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
API-00 Fugro-05 NGI-05 ICP-05 UW A-05
Figure 6.3 Reliability index based on UWA database for a factor of safety of 1.5
6.5 Evaluation of Qc/Qm distribution

The lognormal distribution of Qc/Qm assumed for assessment of method reliability is
consistent with the recommendation of Bea et al. (1999), and others. The appropriate shape
of Qc/Qm distributions can be evaluated using a frequency distribution diagram or through
combination of individual probability density functions (PDFs) from each load test into a ‘Mean
PDF’ for the method. The Mean PDF concept is described in Appendix C, where Mean PDFs
are compared with those assumed from statistical analysis of the database. An example
distribution comparison for open-ended piles in compression is shown in Figure 6.4. The COV
for Qc/Qm at each site is assumed to be uniform and equal to 0.15 in the analyses presented.
2.25

2 Lognormal
1.75
1.5 Mean PDF
1.25
Geometric Mean
1
0.75
0.5 API-00
0.25
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Qc / Qm
2.25 2.25

2 2
1.75 1.75
1.5 1.5
1.25 1.25
Fugro-05 ICP-05
1 1
0.75 0.75
0.5 0.5
0.25 0.25
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Qc / Qm Qc / Qm
2.25 2.25
2 2
1.75 1.75
1.5 1.5
1.25 1.25
NGI-05 UWA-05
1 1
0.75 0.75
0.5 0.5
0.25 0.25
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Qc / Qm Qc / Qm
Figure 6.4 Probability density functions based on geometric mean and standard deviation of
database compared with Mean PDF from each load test for Open-ended Piles in
Compression
A deviation of the Mean PDF from a lognormal distribution may arise because:
• The appropriate distribution is not lognormal;
• The method contains bias against the database;
• The database is too small to properly characterize the method.

It is inferred from Figure 6.4 and Appendix C that a lognormal distribution can reasonably be
used to model the bias and standard deviation of the new CPT-based methods. Some
deviation from the lognormal distribution is observed for each of the methods, and is primarily
considered to be a function of the small database size and some small bias towards specific
sites. However, bias in the API method as compared to database piles is very large, as
illustrated by the multi-modal Mean PDF distribution. This bias has previously been discussed
in Chapter 3 in reference to uniform sand profiles, and comes from extrapolation of the
method outside of its intended original use (i.e. for piles greater than 30m in length in medium
to dense sands, McClelland 1969).
6.6 Extrapolation to offshore conditions

Physical mechanisms influencing pile capacity in sand become of paramount importance
when attempting to evaluate the bias and reliability of a method when extrapolating outside of
a database. Over the past 20 years, a range of experimental observations have highlighted
many of the important factors influencing axial pile capacity in siliceous sands. A summary of
these factors and if/how they are incorporated in each design method is presented in Table
6.3; it is acknowledged that this table does not include all variables influencing pile capacity in
11
sand .
CPT-based methods
As seen in Table 6.3, the UWA-05 method accounts for the largest number of factors known
to affect the base and shaft capacity of driven piles in sand. Based on a series of recent peer-
reviewed publications in this area, this method assumes a diameter dependence of both the
degree of partial plugging during pile installation (as described by the incremental filling ratio,
IFR) and the increase in lateral stress (∆σ'rd) during pile loading. The IFR and the value of
∆σ’rd are significant when predicting the capacity of smaller diameter piles in the database, but
IFR ≈ 1 and ∆σ’rd ≈ 0 for typical large diameter offshore piles. The effects of assuming IFR=1
& ∆σ'rd=0 are examined for the UWA-05 method in Table 6.4, which shows that the offshore
simplification (i.e. IFR=1 and ∆σ’rd=0 leading to Equation UWA-5) leads to predicted
capacities that are 10 to 25 percent more conservative than the measured capacities and, as
should be expected, the COV for Qc/Qm increases.
A comparison of all CPT-based methods when employed to predict the capacity of full scale
offshore piles is provided in Chapter 3.
The API recommendations

The API-00 recommendations clearly do not incorporate many of the factors listed in Table
6.3 and hence it is not surprising that the method’s predictive performance for the database
piles is poor. However, given the virtual absence of pile failure offshore, it may be inferred that
the actual reliability is relatively high (and that the method is potentially over-conservative in
many instances).
It appears that the higher than anticipated level of reliability of the API-00 recommendations
results from compensating errors; these errors lead to trends of average shaft friction (τav) for
piles with a length greater than 30m in medium dense to dense sands that are not strongly
dissimilar to a more soundly based method such as UWA-05. Shaft friction distributions have
been examined for uniform sand profiles in Chapter 3 and comparisons from this chapter for
API-00 and UWA-05 are provided on Figures 6.5 and 6.6 for piles in uniform medium dense
and dense sand profiles.
11
There are many aspects in need of further study including (i) differences in friction mobilisation
between tension and compression piles, (ii) ageing and cyclic degradation for large diameter piles in a
variety of conditions and (iii) pile performance in materials such as calcareous sands, micaceous sands,
residual silty sands and sandy silts.
Table 6.3 Inclusion of primary mechanisms influencing capacity of piles in design methods
API-00 Fugro-05 ICP-05 NGI-05 UWA-05
σ’rc = f(qc) No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Tension
friction
capacity No Yes Yes Yes Yes
lower than
compression
Friction
No h/D h/D z/L h/D
Fatigue
Increase in
lateral stress
No No Yes No Yes
during pile
loading
Interface
friction angle
influenced by No No Yes 4 Yes
relative
roughness
Plugged end
bearing /
Yes Yes 3 Yes Yes
internal shaft
friction
Pile
displacement 1 Yes Yes 1 Yes
ratio of σ’rc
Incremental
Filling Ratio No No No No Yes
on σ’rc
Incremental
Filling Ratio No No No No Yes
on qb/qc
Time Effects 2 2 2 2 2
1
API-00 and NGI-05 allow for differences in capacity for open as compared to closed ended piles, but do not account
for differences between thick walled open ended piles and thin walled open ended piles.
2
No method explicitly accounts for time effects. Approximate design times have been recommended based on
performance relative to the database for certain methods, but implications of these design times and influence of time
effects after that design time still warrants additional study, particularly for large diameter piles.
3
For large diameter piles or piles in loose sands, internal shaft friction or pile plugging behaviour is not explicitly
included in ICP-05.
4
NGI-05 recommends higher shaft friction for concrete piles as opposed to steel piles, which may be related to
interface friction angle. This simplification which does not include particle size effects does not appear to work well for
all cases in the database.

Table 6.4 Comparison of UWA-05 to database considering the influence of IFR and ∆σ’rd
Database Equations Arithmetic Geometric Standard Coefficient No. of

from Mean, µ Mean, µg = Deviation of Piles
Chapter 2 exp(λm) of log, ζm Variation,
COV
Driven Closed- UWA-1 to
0.98 0.93 0.32 0.33
ended UWA-4
Compression 32
UWA-5a to
(CEC) 0.88 0.83 0.35 0.36
UWA-5c
UWA-1 to
Driven Closed- 1.00 0.97 0.28 0.29
UWA-4
ended Tension 10
(CET) UWA-5a to
0.83 0.80 0.33 0.34
UWA-5c
Driven Open- UWA-1 to
0.98 0.96 0.19 0.19
ended UWA-4
Compression 17
UWA-5a to
(OEC) 0.77 0.74 0.26 0.27
UWA-5c
UWA-1 to
Driven Open- 0.91 0.88 0.23 0.23
UWA-4
ended Tension 15
(OET) UWA-5a to
0.72 0.70 0.21 0.22
UWA-5c
It is evident from Figures 6.5 and 6.6 that:

(i) for pile lengths greater than 30m, both API-00 and UWA-05 predict similar rates of
change of α and β with pile length. However, UWA-05 predicts greater β values in
dense sand than in loose sand but its predicted αs values are relatively independent
of sand density. In contrast, API-00 predicts that β is essentially constant but that αs
is strongly density dependant.
(ii) for shorter piles (typical of the database), the differences between API-00 and UWA-
05 predictions for β and αs are more significant, with API-00 showing constant β
values and αs reducing with pile length (to L=25m for the example illustrated on these
figures).
These differences explain the relatively poor performance of API-00 against the database, the
multimodal Mean PDF for Qc/Qm (e.g. Figure 6.4) and the inferred higher reliability for API-00
for long offshore piles in medium dense and dense sand.

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0 0
10 0.2
Tension
20 Typical database piles L/D = 50 0.4
IFR = f (D i)
30 D/t=50 0.6
qc1N = 70
40 0.8
Diameter (m)
Length (m)
50 1
API-00;
60 qc1N=70 1.2
API-00;
70 qc1N=220 1.4
80 UW A-05; 1.6
qc1N=70
90 UW A-05; 1.8
qc1N=220
100 2
Figure 6.5 Comparison of average shaft friction in compression to average vertical effective
stress in uniform (constant relative density) sand profiles with constant L/D of 50 for UWA-05
and API-00
α s = qc / τ av
0 200 400 600 800 1000
0 0
10 Typical 0.2
database
20 piles 0.4
30 Compression 0.6
L/D = 50
40 0.8
Diameter (m)
IFR = f (D i)
Length (m)
D/t=50
50 1
API-00
60 qc1N=70 1.2
API-00
70 qc1N=220 1.4
80 UW A-05 1.6
qc1N=70
90 UW A-05 1.8
qc1N=220
100 2
Figure 6.6 Comparison of average shaft friction in compression to average cone tip resistance
in uniform (constant relative density) sand profiles with constant L/D of 50 for UWA-05 and
API-00

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This report has provided a detailed evaluation of the existing API recommendations and four
recently proposed CPT-based methods for assessment of the axial capacity of driven offshore
piles in siliceous sand (Fugro-05, ICP-05, NGI-05 and UWA-05).
This evaluation involved:

(i) a comparison of trends indicated by all methods for a variety of pile geometries in
idealised sand deposits with uniform relative densities of 40% and 80%;
(ii) compilation of new extended database of pile load tests in sand;
(iii) assessment of the ability of each design method to predict the capacity of the database
piles and quantification of the reliability of their predictions;
(iv) examination of the implications of using new CPT-based methods for offshore pile design.
It is concluded that:
1. Although the study involved a considerable extension to the database of pile load tests in
siliceous sand, this database suffers from a shortage of load tests on piles with the
dimensions commonly used offshore.
2. The current API recommendations provide relatively poor predictions for the database
piles and tend to (a) under-predict the capacity of short piles in dense sand, (b) over-
predict the capacity of long piles in loose sand and (c) over-estimate the ratio of the
tension to compression shaft capacity.
3. The four new CPT-based design methods provide substantially better predictions for the
database piles and generally do not exhibit significant bias with respect to pile length,
diameter and sand relative density.
4. NGI-05 appears to over-predict pile capacity in gravelly sands, and possibly for concrete
piles. Simplifications in the method’s formulation for assessment of interface friction angle
and in its assumed differences between open and closed ended piles are a limitation,
especially when extrapolating outside of the database used for its calibration.
5. Fugro-05 tends to over-predict capacity of piles in compression, particularly for closed
ended piles. The predicted high radial stresses near the pile tip, and offsetting high friction
fatigue exponent lead to a sensitivity of this method to cone tip resistance near the pile tip.
This sensitivity may not be warranted, and could be un-conservative for piles driven a
short distance into dense layers underlying soft layers.
6. ICP-05 has a tendency to under-predict end bearing capacity of open ended piles in loose
sands or for large diameter thin walled piles. The formulation for end bearing of open
ended piles is seen as a significant limitation that may result in large differences in end
bearing capacity (40 percent) for small changes in pile diameter (1.1m to 1.2m for the
uniform dense sands considered). This behaviour may lead to arbitrary and unnecessary
design decisions related to end bearing of large diameter piles in sand.
7. The UWA-05 method provides marginally better predictions for the capacities of the
database piles than the three other CPT-based method for all categories of piles (i.e.
closed ended piles tested in compression, open-ended piles tested in compression,
closed-ended piles tested in tension and open-ended piles tested in tension).
8. The nominal predictive reliability indices (β) for the UWA-05 method when applied to the
database piles are also better for all categories of pile than those of the other CPT-based
methods and also a significant improvement on the existing API recommendations; these
β values tends to be higher for open-ended piles than for closed-ended piles.
9. In view of the shortage of large piles in the database and the multitude of factors
controlling driven pile capacity in sands, the performance of a given method cannot be
judged solely on the basis of its predictions of database piles. A good design method
needs to capture the primary physical processes governing pile capacity for sound
extrapolation from the database to typical offshore piles.
10. The UWA-05 method addresses the following factors, which much recent research has
shown to have an important influence on driven pile capacity (e.g. Gourvenec & Cassidy
2005; Randolph 2003)
a. dependence of shaft friction and base capacity on the CPT qc value
b. reduction in local friction (τf) with distance above the pile tip (h)
c. influence of soil displacement on shaft friction and base capacity
d. variability in coefficient of friction between the pile and soil
e. increase in friction due to dilation at the pile-sand interface
f. effect of variability in qc near a pile tip (soft layers) on base capacity
11. While the four new CPT-based methods incorporate some of these effects, UWA-05 is
the only method which explicitly caters for all of these factors.
12. Simplifications or conservatism inherent in design methods may lead to un-conservatism
in extrapolation outside of a database. Two primary mechanisms that appear to influence
the capacity of database piles more than offshore piles are the change in radial stress
along the pile shaft during loading, and the influence of partial plugging on end bearing
and shaft friction of smaller diameter piles. These issues are incorporated in the UWA-05
method.
13. As this study was performed for siliceous sands, the same limitations of application to
calcareous or compressible soils discussed in API-00 apply to these conclusions.
14. While time effects on shaft capacity of piles at an individual site appear be significant,
those effects do not seem significant for the range of sites and pile tests considered in the
database. There is still insufficient information to recommend positive ageing effects for
large diameter offshore piles which may be subject to significant levels of cyclic loading.

8 REFERENCES
Aas, P. M., Clausen, C. J. F. & Lacasse, S. 2004, 'Bearing capacity of driven piles in sand
based on pile load tests', Presentation, 7 May 2004, Texas A&M, IOBT.
Al-Shafei, K. A., Cox, W. R. & Helfrich, S. C. 1994, 'Pile load tests in dense sand: Analysis of
static test results', in OTC 7381, Proceedings, 26th Annual OTC, Houston, pp. 83-102.
Altaee, A., Evgin, E. & Fellenius, B. H. 1992a, 'Axial load transfer for piles in sand 2.
Numerical-Analysis', Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 21-30.
Altaee, A., Fellenius, B. H. & Evgin, E. 1992b, 'Axial load transfer for piles in sand 1. Tests on
an Instrumented Precast Pile', Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 11-
20.
API 1969, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms, API RP2A, 1st Edition, American Petroleum Institute.
API 2000, RP2A-WSD: Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing
Fixed Offshore Platforms-working Stress Design, 21 edn, Washington.
API 2006, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms-working Stress Design, 22 edn, Washington.
Appendino, M. 1981, 'Interpretation of axial load tests on long piles', in Proceedings of the
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, A. A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, Neth, Stockholm, Swed, pp. 593-598.
Axelsson, G. 2000, Long term setup of driven piles in sand, PhD, Royal Institute of
Technology, Stockholm.
Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V., Jamiolkowski, M. & Lo Presti, D. F. C. 1989, 'Modulus of
sands from CPTs and DMTs', in 12th International conference on soil mechanics and
foundation engineering, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 165-170.
BCP-Committee 1971, 'Field tests on piles in sand', Soils and Foundations, vol. 11, no. 2, pp.
29-49.
Bea, R., Jin, Z. & Ramos, R. 1999, 'Evaluation of reliability of platform pile foundations',
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 125, no. 8, pp. 896 -
704.
Bergdahl, U. & Wennerstrand, J. 1976, 'Bearing capacity of driven friction piles in loose sand',
in, Venice.
Beringen, F. L., Windle, D. & Van Hooydonk, W. R. 1979, 'Results of loading tests on driven
piles in sand', in Recent development in the design and construction of piles, ICE,
London, pp. 213-225.
Briaud, J.-L., Moore, B. H. & Mitchell, G. B. 1989, 'Analysis of pile load tests at Lock and Dam
26', in Foundation Engineering: Current Principles and Practices, Evanston, IL, USA,
pp. 925-942.
Briaud, J. L. & Tucker, L. M. 1988, 'Measured and predicted axial response of 98 piles',
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 114, no. 9, pp. 984-1001.
Briaud, J.-L. & Tucker, L. M. 1989, 'Axially loaded 5 pile group and single pile in sand', in
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Br, pp. 1121-1124.
Brucy, F., Meunier, J. & Nauroy, J.-F. 1991, 'Behavior of pile plug in sandy soils during and
after driving', 23rd Annual Offshore Technology Conference, pp. 145-154.
Bullock, P. J., Schmertmann, J. H., McVay, M. C. & Townsend, F. C. 2005, 'Side shear setup.
II: Results from Florida test piles', Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, vol. 131, no. 3, pp. 301 - 310.

Bustamante, M. & Gianeselli, L. 1982, 'Pile bearing capacity prediction by means of static
penetrometer CPT', in Penetration, Testing, Proceedings of the 2nd European
Symposium., Amsterdam, pp. 493-500.
Chow, F. C. 1996, Chow's Personal communication with Tomlinson.
Chow, F. C. 1997, Investigations into the behaviour of displacement piles for offshore
foundations, PhD, Imperial College.
Chow, F. C., Jardine, F. M., Nauroy, J.-F. & Brucy, F. 1997, 'Time-related increases in the
shaft capacities of driven piles in sand', Geotechnique, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 353-361.
Christian, J. T. 2004, 'Geotechnical engineering reliability: How well do we know what we are
doing?' Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 130, no. 10,
pp. 985 - 1003.
Clausen, C. J. F. 2005, Personal Communication, Pile Capacity Comparisons,UWA-05
Method.
Clausen, C. J. F., Aas, P. M. & Karlsrud, K. 2005, 'Bearing capacity of driven piles in sand,
the NGI approach', in International Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics,
Perth, Australia.
CUR 2001, Bearing capacity of steel pipe piles, Centre of Civil Engineering Research and
Codes, Gouda, the Netherlands.
De Beer, E., Lousberg, D., De Jonghe, A., Carpentier, R. & Wallays, M. 1979, 'Analysis of the
results of loading tests performed on displacement piles of different types and sizes
penetrating at a relatively small depth into a very dense layer', in Proc. Conf. on
Recent Development in the Design and Construction of Piles, ICE, London, pp. 199-
211.
De Beer, E. & Wallays, M. 1969, 'Mesures experimentales de la resistance a l'extraction de
pieux', in Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Soil. Mech. and Fndn. Engng, Mexico, Speciality
Session No. 8, Negative skin friction and settlements of piled foundations.
De Cock, F., Legrand, C. & Huybrechts, N. 2003, 'Overview of design methods of axially
loaded piles in Europe - Report of ERTC3-Piles, ISSMGE Subcommittee', in
Proceeding 8th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, Prague, pp. 663-715.
Dennis, N. D. & Olson, R. E. 1983, 'Axial capacity of steel pipe piles in sand', in Geotechnical
Practice in Offshore Engineering, ed. S. G. Wright, ASCE, Austin, Texas, pp. 389 -
402.
DNV 1996, Guideline for offshore structural reliability, Det Norske Veritas, Høvik, Norway.
Focht Jr, J. A., Johnson, G. W. & Rivette, C. A. 1986, 'Results of recent cone penetrometer
testing in the Gulf of Mexico: OTC 5104', in 18th Annual Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, Texas, pp. 213 - 224.
Fugro 1996, Reduced scale pile load tests, Jamuna Bridge, Bangladesh, Report No. K-
2380/206.
Fugro 2004, Axial pile capacity design method for offshore driven piles in sand, P-1003, Issue
3, to API, August.
Gavin, K. & Lehane, B. 2003a, 'End bearing of small pipe piles in dense sand', in BGA
International Conference on Foundations, Innovations, Observations, Design and
Practice, Thomas Telford Services Ltd, London, United Kingdom, Dundee, United
Kingdom, pp. 321-330.
Gavin, K. G. & Lehane, B. M. 2003b, 'The shaft capacity of pipe piles in sand', Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 36-45.
Gilbert, R. B. & Puskar, F. J. 2005, 'Geohazards: An Overview of Probabilistic Approaches
and Application to Engineering Design and Risk Assessment for Offshore Facilities:
OTC 17676', in Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, pp. 1 - 8.

Gourvenec, S. & Cassidy, M. 2005, 'Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics', in Proceedings of the
First International Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics, ed. S.
Gourvenec, and Cassidy, M., Perth, Western Australia.
Gregersen, O. S., Aas, G. & DiBiagio, E. 1973, 'Load tests on friction piles in loose sand', no.
99, pp. 19-27.
Gurtowski, T. M. & Wu, M.-J. 1984, 'Compression load tests on concrete piles in alluvium', in
Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations. Proceedings of a Symposium in conjunction
with the ASCE National Convention., ASCE, New York, NY, USA, San Francisco, CA,
USA, pp. 138-153.
Harr, M. E. 1987, Reliability-Based Design in Civil Engineering, Dover Publications, Inc., New
York.
Holloway, D. M. & Beddard, D. L. 1996, 'Dynamic monitoring program results: Indicator pile
tests - I-880', in Proceedings, Application of Stress Wave Theory to Piles, pp. 480-
494.
Ishihara, K., Saito, A., Shimmi, Y., Miura, Y. & Tominage, M. 1977, 'Blast furnace foundations
in Japan', in Proceedings of the ninth international conference on soil mechanics and
foundation enginnering, Tokyo, pp. 157-236.
Jamiolkowski, M. B., Lo Presti, D. F. C. & Manassero, M. 2003, 'Evaluation of relative density
and shear strength of sands from cone penetration test', Soil behaviour and soft
ground construction, ASCE, GSP, vol. 119, pp. 201-238.
Jardine, F. M., Chow, F. C., Overy, R. F. & Standing, J. R. 2005a, ICP design methods for
driven piles in sands and clays, Thomas Telford, London.
Jardine, F. M. & Standing, J. R. 2000, Pile load testing performed for HSE cyclic loading study
at Dunkirk, France, Health & Safety Executive.
Jardine, R. J. & Chow, F. C. 1996, New design methods for offshore piles, MTD Publication
96/103. London: Marine Technology Directorate.
Jardine, R. J., Overy, R. F. & Chow, F. C. 1998, 'Axial capacity of offshore piles in dense
North Sea sands', Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol.
124, no. 2, pp. 171-177.
Jardine, R. J., Standing, J. R. & Chow, F. C. 2005b, 'Field research into the effects of time on
the shaft capacity of piles driven in sand', in Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics:
ISFOG 2005, ed. S. Gourvenec, and Cassidy, M., Taylor & Francis Group, Perth,
Australia, pp. 705 - 710.
Jendeby, L., Noren, C. & Rankka, K. 1994, 'Friction piles in sand - prediction of bearing
capacity and load/displacement curve', in Proceedings, International conference &
exhibition on piling & deep foundations, 5, DFI 94, Bruges.
Kolk, H. J., Baaijens, A. E. & Senders, M. 2005, 'Design criteria for pipe piles in silica sands',
in International Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics, Perth, Western
Australia.
Kusakabe, O., Matsumoto, T., Sandanbata, I., Kawabata, N., Kosuge, S. & Nishimura, S.
1989, 'Report on questionnaire: Predictions of bearing capacity and driveability of
piles', in Proc. 12th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. & Fndn Engng, Rio de Janeiro, 5, pp. 2957-
2962.
Lacasse, S. & Goulois, A. 1989, 'Reliability analysis of axial pile capacity', in 12th International
conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 845-
848.
Lacasse, S. & Nadim, F. 1994, 'Reliability issues and future challenges in geotechnical
engineering for offshore structures', in 7th International Conference on the Behaviour
of Offshore Structures, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp. 9-38.
Lee, J. H. & Salgado, R. 1999, 'Determination of pile base resistance in sands', Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 125, no. 8, pp. 673-683.

Lehane, B., Schneider, J. A. & Xu, X. T. 2005a, Evaluation of design methods for
displacement piles in sand, GEO: 05341.1, University of Western Australia, Perth.
Lehane, B., Schneider, J. A. & Xu, X. T. 2005b, 'The UWA-05 method for prediction of axial
capacity of driven piles in sand', in International Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore
Geotechnics, Perth, Western Australia.
Lehane, B. M. 1992, Experimental investigations of pile behaviour using instrumented field
piles, PhD, Imperial College.
Lehane, B. M., Chow, F. C., McCabe, B. A. & Jardine, R. J. 2000, 'Relationships between
shaft capacity of driven piles and CPT end resistance', Proceedings of the Institution
of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 143, no. 2, pp. 93-101.
Lehane, B. M., Schneider, J. A. & Xu, X. T. 2005c, CPT Based Design of Driven Piles in Sand
for Offshore Structures, 05345, University of Western Australia, Perth.
Mansur, C. I. & Hunter, A. H. 1970, 'Pile tests - Arkansas River project', Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division of the American Society of Civil Engineering, vol.
96, no. SM5, pp. 1545-1582.
Mansur, C. I. & Kaufman, J. M. 1958, 'Pile tests, Low-sill structure, Old river, Louisiana',
Transactions, ASCE, vol. 123, pp. 715-743.
McCammon, N. R. & Golder, H. Q. 1970, 'Some loading tests on long pipe piles',
Geotechnique, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 171-184.
McClelland, B. 1969, 'Fixed Structures: Foundations', in Handbook of Ocean and Underwater
Engineering, ed. J. J. Myers, McGraw-Hill, Sydney, pp. 8-98 - 8-125.
McClelland Engineers 1958, Pull out tests: Piles driven into sand: Padre Isl&, Texas, McLell&
Engineers Report No. 57-150,McClell& Engineers, Houston, 68 pp.
McVay, M. C., Schmertmann, J., Townsend, F. & Bullock, P. 1999, Pile Friction Freeze: A
Field and Laboratory Study, Report No. WPI 0510632,Vol. 1, Florida Department of
Transportation.
Melchers, R. E. 1999, Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction, John Wiley & Sons,
Brisbane.
Mey, R., Oteo, C. S., Sanchez del Rio, J. & Soriano, A. 1985, 'Field testing on large driven
piles', in Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. & Fndn Engng, San Francisco, 3, pp. 1559-
1564.
Mitchell, P. 2005, p. Personal Communication.
Nevels, J. B. J. & Snethen, D. R. 1994, 'Comparison of settlement predictions for single pile in
sand based on penetration test results', in Proceedings of the Conference on Vertical
and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and Embankments, College Station, TX,
USA, pp. 1028-1038.
NGI 2001, Bearing Capacity of Driven Piles, Piles in Sand, 525211-2, Norwegian
Geotechnical Institute.
Olson, R. E. & Shantz, T. J. 2004, 'Axial load capacity of piles in California in cohesionless
soils', Deep Foundations 200, ASCE, pp. 1-15.
Paik, K., Salgado, R., Lee, J. & Kim, B. 2003, 'Behavior of open- and closed-ended piles
driven into sands', Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol.
129, no. 4, pp. 296-306.
Paikowsky, S. G., Birgisson, B., McVay, M., Nguyen, T., Kuo, C., Baecher, G., Ayyub, B.,
Stenersen, K., O'Malley, K., Chernauskas, L. & O'Neil, M. 2004, Load and Resistance
Factor Design (LRFD) for Deep Foundations, NCHRP 507, Transportation Research
Board, Washington, D.C.
Parsons, J. 1966, 'Piling difficulties in the New York area', Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, vol. 92, no. SM1, pp. 43 - 64.

Pelletier, J. H., Murff, J. D. & Young, A. C. 1993, 'Historical development and assessment of
the current API design methods for axially loaded piles', in 25th Annual Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, pp. 253 - 282.
Pump, W., Korista, S. & Scott, J. 1998, 'Installation & load tests of deep piles in Shanghai
alluvium', in Proceedings, VII International Conference on Piling & Deep Foundations,
Vol. 1, Vienna, DFI, pp. 31-36.
Randolph, M. F. 2003, 'Science and empiricism in pile foundation design', Geotechnique, vol.
53, no. 10, pp. 847-875.
Reese, L. C. & Cox, W. R. 1976, 'Pullout tests of piles in sand', in Eighth annual offshore
technology conference, Houston, Texas, pp. 343-348???
Rollins, K. M., Miller, N. P. & Hemenway, D. 1999, 'Evaluation of pile capacity prediction
methods based on cone penetration testing using results from I-15 load tests',
Transportation Research Record, no. 1675, pp. 40-50.
Schmertmann, J. H. 1978, Guidelines for cone test, performance, and design, U.S. Federal
Highway Administration, FHWATS-78209.
Schneider, J. A. 2007, Methods to increase the reliability of axial capacity analyses for
offshore piles in granular soils, PhD, The University of Western Australia.
Selby, K. G. 1970, 'Pile tests at Beech River', Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 7, no. 4,
pp. 470-9.
Shimizu, K. & Crow, E. L. 1988, 'History, genesis, and properties', in Lognormal Distributions:
Theory and Application, ed. E. L. Crow, and Shimizu, K., Marcel Dekker, Inc., New
York, pp. 1 - 25.
Shioi, Y., Yoshida, O., Meta, T. & Homma, M. 1992, 'Estimation of bearing capacity of steel
pipe pile by static loading test and stress-wave theory (Trans-Tokyo Bay Highway)', in
Application of stress-wave theory to piles, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 325-330.
Skov, R. & Denver, H. 1988, 'Time-dependency of bearing capacity of piles', in International
conference on application of stress-wave theory to piles, Ottawa, pp. 879-888.
Smith, A. K. C. 1997, 'Discussion to "The Assessment of Characeristic Pile Resistance in
Limit State Design" by Lo, S-C. R., Li, K.S., and Cameron, T.' Geotechnical
Engineering, Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, vol. 125, no. 4, pp. 250 -
252.
Tang, W. H., Woodford, D. L. & Pelletier, J. H. 1990, 'Performance reliability of offshore piles:
OTC 6379', in 22nd Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, pp.
299 - 308.
Tavenas, F. & Audy, R. 1972, 'Limitations of the driving formulas for predicting the bearing
capacity of piles in sand', Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 47-62.
Tavenas, F. A. 1971, 'Load tests results on friction piles in sand', Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, vol. 8, pp. 7-22.
Thompson, C. D. & Thompson, D. E. 1985, 'Real and apparent relaxation of driven piles',
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 111, no. 2, pp. 225-237.
Titi, H. & Abu-Farsakh, M. 1999, Evaluation of bearing capacity of piles from cone pnetration
tests data, Louisiana Transportation Research Center.
Toolan, F. E. & Ims, B. W. 1988, 'Impact of recent changes in the API recommended practice
for offshore piles in sands and clays', Underwater Technology, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 9 -
29.
Toolan, F. E., Lings, M. L. & Mirza, U. A. 1990, 'An appraisal of API RP2A recommendations
for determining skin friction of piles in sand', in 22nd Annual OTC, Houston, Texas, pp.
33-42.
Tveldt, G. & Fredriksen, F. 2003, 'N18 Ny motorvegbru I Drammen Prøvebelasting av peler',
Fjellsprengningsteknikk, Bergmekanikk/Geoteknikk, pp. 37.1 - 37.32.

Uesugi, M. & Kishida, H. 1986, 'Influenctial factors of friction between steel and dry sands',
Soils and Foundations, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 33-46.
Van Mierlo, W. C. & Koppejan, A. W. 1952, 'Lengte en draagvermogen van heipalen', Bouw.
Vesic, A. S. 1970, 'Tests on instrumented piles, Ogeechee River site', Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division of the American Society of Civil Engineering, vol.
SM2, pp. 561-584.
Viana da Fonseca, A., Carvalho, J., Ferreira, C., Costa, C., Tuna, C. & Santos, J. A. 2004,
'Geotechnical characterization of a residual soil profile: the ISC'2 experimental site,
FEUP', in Proceedings, 2nd International Conference on Site Characterization, ISC'2,
Millpress, Rotterdam, pp. 1361-1369.
White, D. J., Schneider, J. A. & Lehane, B. M. 2005, 'The influence of effective area ratio on
shaft friction of displacement piles in sand', in International Symposium on Frontier in
Offshore Geotechnics, Perth, Western Australia.
Williams, R. E., Chow, F. C. & Jardine, F. M. 1997, 'Unexpected behaviour of large diameter
tubular steel piles', in Int. Conf. on Fndn Failures, Singapore.
Xu, X. 2006, Experimental investigations of displacement pile behaviour, PhD, Western
Australia.
Yang, N. 1970, 'Relaxation of piles in sand and inorganic silt', Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, vol. 96, no. SM2, pp. 395-409.
Yen, T.-L., Chin, C.-T. & Wang, R. F. 1989, 'Interpretation of instrumented driven steel pipe
piles', in Foundation Engineering: Current Principles and Practices, Evanston, IL,
USA, pp. 1293-1308.

APPENDIX A PREDICTIONS AT IDEALISED SAND SITE
Table A 1: Predictions for piles of constant slenderness ratio (=35) in compression

qc1N D/t L/D Diameter Length IFR API-00 (MN) Fugro-04 (MN) ICP-05 (MN) NGI-04 (MN) UWA-05 (MN)
- - - m m - Qshaft Qend Qshaft Qend Qshaft Qend Qshaft Qend Qshaft Qend
70 20 35 0.1 3.5 0.57 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01
70 20 35 0.2 7 0.65 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.14 0.10 0.06 0.09 0.08 0.11 0.07
70 20 35 0.3 10.5 0.71 0.19 0.15 0.17 0.34 0.24 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.27 0.17
70 20 35 0.4 14 0.75 0.46 0.35 0.35 0.64 0.48 0.20 0.42 0.44 0.52 0.34
70 20 35 0.5 17.5 0.79 0.90 0.69 0.62 1.06 0.82 0.35 0.69 0.78 0.85 0.57
70 20 35 0.6 21 0.82 1.55 1.19 0.98 1.60 1.28 0.55 1.04 1.22 1.28 0.86
70 20 35 0.7 24.5 0.84 2.43 1.85 1.46 2.27 1.88 0.81 1.48 1.80 1.82 1.23
70 20 35 0.8 28 0.86 3.49 2.41 2.05 3.06 2.62 1.13 2.00 2.51 2.46 1.67
70 20 35 0.9 31.5 0.88 4.74 3.05 2.77 3.99 3.52 1.51 2.60 3.37 3.21 2.18
70 20 35 1 35 0.90 6.16 3.77 3.62 5.06 4.60 1.97 3.30 4.39 4.07 2.77
70 20 35 1.1 38.5 0.92 7.76 4.56 4.61 6.27 5.85 2.50 4.09 5.57 5.04 3.44
70 20 35 1.2 42 0.94 9.53 5.43 5.76 7.63 7.30 3.10 4.98 6.93 6.13 4.18
70 20 35 1.3 45.5 0.95 11.49 6.37 7.06 9.13 8.95 3.79 5.96 8.46 7.33 4.99
70 20 35 1.4 49 0.97 13.62 7.39 8.53 10.79 10.81 4.56 7.05 10.18 8.64 5.88
70 20 35 1.5 52.5 0.98 15.94 8.48 10.18 12.60 12.90 5.42 8.26 12.10 10.07 6.86
70 20 35 1.6 56 0.99 18.43 9.65 12.00 14.57 15.22 6.37 9.57 14.22 11.61 7.90
70 20 35 1.7 59.5 1.00 21.10 10.90 14.00 16.70 17.79 7.41 11.02 16.55 13.33 9.08
70 20 35 1.8 63 1.00 23.95 12.21 16.20 18.99 20.61 8.55 12.60 19.09 15.32 10.47
70 20 35 1.9 66.5 1.00 26.98 13.61 18.59 21.45 23.69 9.79 14.34 21.85 17.48 11.99
70 20 35 2 70 1.00 30.19 15.08 21.19 24.07 27.04 11.13 16.26 24.84 19.81 13.63
70 50 35 0.1 3.5 0.58 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01
70 50 35 0.2 7 0.66 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.11 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.08 0.11 0.06
70 50 35 0.3 10.5 0.72 0.19 0.15 0.12 0.27 0.22 0.04 0.22 0.22 0.26 0.15
70 50 35 0.4 14 0.76 0.46 0.35 0.26 0.52 0.43 0.08 0.42 0.44 0.48 0.30
70 50 35 0.5 17.5 0.80 0.90 0.69 0.46 0.85 0.73 0.14 0.69 0.78 0.79 0.49
70 50 35 0.6 21 0.83 1.55 1.19 0.72 1.28 1.14 0.23 1.04 1.22 1.17 0.74
70 50 35 0.7 24.5 0.85 2.43 1.85 1.08 1.82 1.66 0.33 1.48 1.80 1.64 1.04
70 50 35 0.8 28 0.87 3.49 2.41 1.51 2.45 2.31 0.46 2.00 2.51 2.19 1.40
70 50 35 0.9 31.5 0.90 4.74 3.05 2.04 3.20 3.09 0.62 2.60 3.37 2.82 1.81
70 50 35 1 35 0.91 6.16 3.77 2.67 4.06 4.02 0.81 3.30 4.39 3.52 2.27
70 50 35 1.1 38.5 0.93 7.76 4.56 3.41 5.03 5.12 1.03 4.09 5.57 4.30 2.78
70 50 35 1.2 42 0.95 9.53 5.43 4.25 6.11 6.38 1.28 4.98 6.93 5.13 3.35
70 50 35 1.3 45.5 0.96 11.49 6.37 5.21 7.32 7.81 1.56 5.96 8.46 6.02 3.97
70 50 35 1.4 49 0.98 13.62 7.39 6.30 8.65 9.43 1.88 7.05 10.18 6.95 4.63
70 50 35 1.5 52.5 0.99 15.94 8.48 7.51 10.10 11.24 2.24 8.26 12.10 7.91 5.34
70 50 35 1.6 56 1.00 18.43 9.65 8.86 11.68 13.26 2.63 9.57 14.22 9.01 6.16
70 50 35 1.7 59.5 1.00 21.10 10.90 10.33 13.38 15.49 3.06 11.02 16.55 10.43 7.17
70 50 35 1.8 63 1.00 23.95 12.21 11.96 15.22 17.93 3.53 12.60 19.09 11.98 8.28
70 50 35 1.9 66.5 1.00 26.98 13.61 13.73 17.19 20.60 4.04 14.34 21.85 13.65 9.47
70 50 35 2 70 1.00 30.19 15.08 15.65 19.29 23.51 4.59 16.26 24.84 15.46 10.77
220 20 35 0.1 3.5 0.57 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.04
220 20 35 0.2 7 0.65 0.07 0.09 0.19 0.24 0.24 0.18 0.35 0.11 0.29 0.21
220 20 35 0.3 10.5 0.71 0.24 0.30 0.53 0.60 0.65 0.43 0.87 0.32 0.75 0.54
220 20 35 0.4 14 0.75 0.57 0.70 1.10 1.14 1.32 0.79 1.67 0.65 1.45 1.06
220 20 35 0.5 17.5 0.79 1.11 1.37 1.94 1.89 2.32 1.23 2.76 1.13 2.43 1.78
220 20 35 0.6 21 0.82 1.92 2.37 3.09 2.84 3.69 1.76 4.16 1.78 3.71 2.72
220 20 35 0.7 24.5 0.84 2.98 3.68 4.58 4.02 5.47 2.53 5.88 2.62 5.30 3.87
220 20 35 0.8 28 0.86 4.24 4.83 6.44 5.43 7.71 3.54 7.94 3.66 7.22 5.25
220 20 35 0.9 31.5 0.88 5.72 6.11 8.69 7.08 10.43 4.75 10.35 4.92 9.48 6.87
220 20 35 1 35 0.90 7.41 7.54 11.37 8.97 13.69 6.18 13.12 6.40 12.08 8.71
220 20 35 1.1 38.5 0.92 9.31 9.12 14.50 11.12 17.52 7.84 16.26 8.12 15.03 10.80
220 20 35 1.2 42 0.94 11.42 10.86 18.10 13.52 21.95 9.75 19.77 10.09 18.33 13.12
220 20 35 1.3 45.5 0.95 13.73 12.74 22.20 16.19 27.01 11.91 23.68 12.33 21.99 15.69
220 20 35 1.4 49 0.97 16.26 14.78 26.82 19.13 32.74 14.34 27.97 14.84 26.00 18.49
220 20 35 1.5 52.5 0.98 19.00 16.96 31.98 22.34 39.17 17.03 32.67 17.63 30.36 21.55
220 20 35 1.6 56 0.99 21.95 19.30 37.71 25.83 46.33 20.02 37.78 20.72 35.08 24.83
220 20 35 1.7 59.5 1.00 25.12 21.79 44.01 29.60 54.25 23.29 43.30 24.11 40.34 28.54
220 20 35 1.8 63 1.00 28.49 24.43 50.91 33.67 62.96 26.87 49.24 27.81 46.45 32.92
220 20 35 1.9 66.5 1.00 32.07 27.22 58.43 38.02 72.49 30.76 55.61 31.84 53.09 37.69
220 20 35 2 70 1.00 35.86 30.16 66.60 42.67 82.86 34.97 62.41 36.20 60.27 42.84
220 50 35 0.1 3.5 0.58 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.04
220 50 35 0.2 7 0.66 0.07 0.08 0.14 0.19 0.22 0.18 0.35 0.11 0.28 0.19
220 50 35 0.3 10.5 0.72 0.24 0.26 0.39 0.48 0.57 0.43 0.87 0.32 0.70 0.48
220 50 35 0.4 14 0.76 0.57 0.62 0.81 0.91 1.16 0.79 1.67 0.65 1.35 0.93
220 50 35 0.5 17.5 0.80 1.11 1.22 1.43 1.51 2.03 1.23 2.76 1.13 2.23 1.54
220 50 35 0.6 21 0.83 1.92 2.11 2.28 2.28 3.22 1.76 4.16 1.78 3.36 2.32
220 50 35 0.7 24.5 0.85 2.98 3.27 3.38 3.22 4.77 2.37 5.88 2.62 4.75 3.27
220 50 35 0.8 28 0.87 4.24 4.62 4.75 4.35 6.71 3.04 7.94 3.66 6.38 4.39
220 50 35 0.9 31.5 0.90 5.72 6.11 6.42 5.67 9.08 3.76 10.35 4.92 8.26 5.67
220 50 35 1 35 0.91 7.41 7.54 8.39 7.19 11.90 4.88 13.12 6.40 10.37 7.13
220 50 35 1.1 38.5 0.93 9.31 9.12 10.70 8.91 15.22 3.24 16.26 8.12 12.69 8.75
220 50 35 1.2 42 0.95 11.42 10.86 13.36 10.84 19.05 4.02 19.77 10.09 15.20 10.52
220 50 35 1.3 45.5 0.96 13.73 12.74 16.39 12.97 23.44 4.91 23.68 12.33 17.88 12.46
220 50 35 1.4 49 0.98 16.26 14.78 19.80 15.33 28.40 5.92 27.97 14.84 20.69 14.55
220 50 35 1.5 52.5 0.99 19.00 16.96 23.60 17.90 33.96 7.03 32.67 17.63 23.57 16.79
220 50 35 1.6 56 1.00 21.95 19.30 27.84 20.70 40.16 8.26 37.78 20.72 26.90 19.38
220 50 35 1.7 59.5 1.00 25.12 21.79 32.48 23.73 47.01 9.61 43.30 24.11 31.23 22.55
220 50 35 1.8 63 1.00 28.49 24.43 37.59 26.98 54.55 11.09 49.24 27.81 35.94 26.02
220 50 35 1.9 66.5 1.00 32.07 27.22 43.14 30.47 62.79 12.69 55.61 31.84 41.06 29.77
220 50 35 2 70 1.00 35.86 30.16 49.17 34.20 71.76 14.43 62.41 36.20 46.59 33.85

Table A 2 Predictions for piles of constant slenderness ratio (=35) in tension
qc1N D/t L/D Diameter Length IFR API-00 Fugro-04 ICP-05 NGI-04 UWA-05
- - - m m - Qshaft (MN) Qshaft (MN) Qshaft (MN) Qshaft (MN) Qshaft (MN)
70 20 35 0.1 3.5 0.57 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02
70 20 35 0.2 7 0.65 0.06 0.04 0.08 0.07 0.09
70 20 35 0.3 10.5 0.71 0.19 0.12 0.19 0.17 0.21
70 20 35 0.4 14 0.75 0.46 0.26 0.37 0.32 0.39
70 20 35 0.5 17.5 0.79 0.90 0.46 0.62 0.53 0.64
70 20 35 0.6 21 0.82 1.55 0.75 0.96 0.80 0.96
70 20 35 0.7 24.5 0.84 2.43 1.13 1.40 1.14 1.36
70 20 35 0.8 28 0.86 3.49 1.60 1.94 1.54 1.84
70 20 35 0.9 31.5 0.88 4.74 2.19 2.60 2.01 2.40
70 20 35 1 35 0.90 6.16 2.90 3.38 2.55 3.05
70 20 35 1.1 38.5 0.92 7.76 3.73 4.30 3.17 3.78
70 20 35 1.2 42 0.94 9.53 4.69 5.35 3.87 4.59
70 20 35 1.3 45.5 0.95 11.49 5.80 6.55 4.67 5.49
70 20 35 1.4 49 0.97 13.62 7.06 7.91 5.60 6.48
70 20 35 1.5 52.5 0.98 15.94 8.48 9.43 6.67 7.55
70 20 35 1.6 56 0.99 18.43 10.06 11.11 7.93 8.71
70 20 35 1.7 59.5 1.00 21.10 11.82 12.98 9.45 10.00
70 20 35 1.8 63 1.00 23.95 13.75 15.02 11.22 11.49
70 20 35 1.9 66.5 1.00 26.98 15.86 17.25 13.20 13.11
70 20 35 2 70 1.00 30.19 18.17 19.68 15.39 14.86
70 50 35 0.1 3.5 0.58 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02
70 50 35 0.2 7 0.66 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.08
70 50 35 0.3 10.5 0.72 0.19 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.19
70 50 35 0.4 14 0.76 0.46 0.19 0.33 0.32 0.36
70 50 35 0.5 17.5 0.80 0.90 0.34 0.55 0.53 0.59
70 50 35 0.6 21 0.83 1.55 0.55 0.85 0.80 0.88
70 50 35 0.7 24.5 0.85 2.43 0.83 1.24 1.14 1.23
70 50 35 0.8 28 0.87 3.49 1.18 1.71 1.54 1.64
70 50 35 0.9 31.5 0.90 4.74 1.62 2.29 2.01 2.11
70 50 35 1 35 0.91 6.16 2.14 2.97 2.55 2.64
70 50 35 1.1 38.5 0.93 7.76 2.75 3.77 3.17 3.22
70 50 35 1.2 42 0.95 9.53 3.47 4.69 3.87 3.85
70 50 35 1.3 45.5 0.96 11.49 4.28 5.74 4.67 4.52
70 50 35 1.4 49 0.98 13.62 5.21 6.91 5.60 5.21
70 50 35 1.5 52.5 0.99 15.94 6.26 8.23 6.67 5.93
70 50 35 1.6 56 1.00 18.43 7.43 9.70 7.93 6.76
70 50 35 1.7 59.5 1.00 21.10 8.72 11.32 9.45 7.82
70 50 35 1.8 63 1.00 23.95 10.15 13.09 11.22 8.98
70 50 35 1.9 66.5 1.00 26.98 11.71 15.03 13.20 10.24
70 50 35 2 70 1.00 30.19 13.42 17.14 15.39 11.59
220 20 35 0.1 3.5 0.57 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.05
220 20 35 0.2 7 0.65 0.07 0.13 0.18 0.27 0.22
220 20 35 0.3 10.5 0.71 0.24 0.37 0.48 0.67 0.56
220 20 35 0.4 14 0.75 0.57 0.80 0.98 1.28 1.09
220 20 35 0.5 17.5 0.79 1.11 1.45 1.71 2.12 1.82
220 20 35 0.6 21 0.82 1.92 2.35 2.70 3.20 2.78
220 20 35 0.7 24.5 0.84 2.98 3.54 4.00 4.52 3.98
220 20 35 0.8 28 0.86 4.24 5.04 5.62 6.11 5.42
220 20 35 0.9 31.5 0.88 5.72 6.88 7.60 7.96 7.11
220 20 35 1 35 0.90 7.41 9.10 9.96 10.09 9.06
220 20 35 1.1 38.5 0.92 9.31 11.71 12.73 12.51 11.27
220 20 35 1.2 42 0.94 11.42 14.75 15.94 15.21 13.75
220 20 35 1.3 45.5 0.95 13.73 18.24 19.60 18.21 16.49
220 20 35 1.4 49 0.97 16.26 22.20 23.74 21.52 19.50
220 20 35 1.5 52.5 0.98 19.00 26.65 28.39 25.13 22.77
220 20 35 1.6 56 0.99 21.95 31.62 33.57 29.06 26.31
220 20 35 1.7 59.5 1.00 25.12 37.13 39.29 33.31 30.25
220 20 35 1.8 63 1.00 28.49 43.20 45.58 37.88 34.84
220 20 35 1.9 66.5 1.00 32.07 49.86 52.46 42.78 39.82
220 20 35 2 70 1.00 35.86 57.12 59.95 48.01 45.20
220 50 35 0.1 3.5 0.58 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.05
220 50 35 0.2 7 0.66 0.07 0.09 0.16 0.27 0.21
220 50 35 0.3 10.5 0.72 0.24 0.28 0.43 0.67 0.53
220 50 35 0.4 14 0.76 0.57 0.59 0.86 1.28 1.01
220 50 35 0.5 17.5 0.80 1.11 1.07 1.50 2.12 1.67
220 50 35 0.6 21 0.83 1.92 1.73 2.37 3.20 2.52
220 50 35 0.7 24.5 0.85 2.98 2.61 3.49 4.52 3.56
220 50 35 0.8 28 0.87 4.24 3.72 4.90 6.11 4.79
220 50 35 0.9 31.5 0.90 5.72 5.08 6.62 7.96 6.19
220 50 35 1 35 0.91 7.41 6.72 8.67 10.09 7.77
220 50 35 1.1 38.5 0.93 9.31 8.65 11.07 12.51 9.52
220 50 35 1.2 42 0.95 11.42 10.89 13.85 15.21 11.40
220 50 35 1.3 45.5 0.96 13.73 13.46 17.03 18.21 13.41
220 50 35 1.4 49 0.98 16.26 16.39 20.62 21.52 15.52
220 50 35 1.5 52.5 0.99 19.00 19.67 24.64 25.13 17.68
220 50 35 1.6 56 1.00 21.95 23.35 29.12 29.06 20.18
220 50 35 1.7 59.5 1.00 25.12 27.41 34.08 33.31 23.42
220 50 35 1.8 63 1.00 28.49 31.90 39.52 37.88 26.96
220 50 35 1.9 66.5 1.00 32.07 36.80 45.48 42.78 30.79
220 50 35 2 70 1.00 35.86 42.17 51.96 48.01 34.94

Table A 3: Predictions for piles of constant slenderness ratio (=50) in compression
70 20 50 0.1 5 0.57 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.02
70 20 50 0.2 10 0.65 0.12 0.06 0.08 0.15 0.16 0.07 0.14 0.09 0.18 0.08
70 20 50 0.3 15 0.71 0.40 0.21 0.23 0.37 0.40 0.12 0.34 0.26 0.42 0.21
70 20 50 0.4 20 0.75 0.94 0.50 0.48 0.70 0.78 0.24 0.66 0.53 0.78 0.40
70 20 50 0.5 25 0.79 1.80 0.94 0.84 1.16 1.33 0.42 1.08 0.93 1.29 0.68
70 20 50 0.6 30 0.82 2.93 1.36 1.34 1.75 2.06 0.66 1.63 1.46 1.93 1.04
70 20 50 0.7 35 0.84 4.31 1.85 1.99 2.48 3.02 0.96 2.31 2.15 2.73 1.48
70 20 50 0.8 40 0.86 5.95 2.41 2.79 3.35 4.20 1.35 3.12 3.00 3.68 2.00
70 20 50 0.9 45 0.88 7.84 3.05 3.77 4.36 5.64 1.81 4.07 4.03 4.79 2.62
70 20 50 1 50 0.90 9.99 3.77 4.93 5.53 7.35 2.35 5.17 5.25 6.07 3.32
70 20 50 1.1 55 0.92 12.39 4.56 6.29 6.86 9.36 2.98 6.43 6.66 7.52 4.12
70 20 50 1.2 60 0.94 15.05 5.43 7.85 8.34 11.66 3.71 7.86 8.28 9.13 5.01
70 20 50 1.3 65 0.95 17.96 6.37 9.62 9.98 14.30 4.53 9.50 10.11 10.91 5.99
70 20 50 1.4 70 0.97 21.13 7.39 11.63 11.79 17.27 5.45 11.38 12.17 12.86 7.06
70 20 50 1.5 75 0.98 24.56 8.48 13.87 13.78 20.60 6.48 13.57 14.46 14.98 8.22
70 20 50 1.6 80 0.99 28.24 9.65 16.35 15.93 24.30 7.61 16.16 17.00 17.27 9.48
70 20 50 1.7 85 1.00 32.18 10.90 19.08 18.26 28.39 8.86 19.29 19.78 19.81 10.89
70 20 50 1.8 90 1.00 36.37 12.21 22.07 20.76 32.88 10.22 22.90 22.81 22.75 12.56
70 20 50 1.9 95 1.00 40.81 13.61 25.33 23.45 37.79 11.70 26.94 26.12 25.94 14.38
70 20 50 2 100 1.00 45.52 15.08 28.87 26.32 43.12 13.30 31.42 29.69 29.39 16.35
70 50 50 0.1 5 0.58 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.01
70 50 50 0.2 10 0.66 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.15 0.07 0.14 0.09 0.17 0.07
70 50 50 0.3 15 0.72 0.40 0.21 0.17 0.30 0.36 0.05 0.34 0.26 0.40 0.18
70 50 50 0.4 20 0.76 0.94 0.50 0.35 0.56 0.69 0.10 0.66 0.53 0.74 0.35
70 50 50 0.5 25 0.80 1.80 0.94 0.61 0.93 1.17 0.17 1.08 0.93 1.19 0.59
70 50 50 0.6 30 0.83 2.93 1.36 0.98 1.40 1.82 0.27 1.63 1.46 1.77 0.88
70 50 50 0.7 35 0.85 4.31 1.85 1.45 1.99 2.65 0.40 2.31 2.15 2.47 1.25
70 50 50 0.8 40 0.87 5.95 2.41 2.04 2.68 3.69 0.56 3.12 3.00 3.29 1.67
70 50 50 0.9 45 0.90 7.84 3.05 2.76 3.50 4.94 0.75 4.07 4.03 4.22 2.16
70 50 50 1 50 0.91 9.99 3.77 3.60 4.43 6.42 0.97 5.17 5.25 5.27 2.72
70 50 50 1.1 55 0.93 12.39 4.56 4.60 5.49 8.16 1.23 6.43 6.66 6.42 3.33
70 50 50 1.2 60 0.95 15.05 5.43 5.74 6.68 10.16 1.53 7.86 8.28 7.67 4.01
70 50 50 1.3 65 0.96 17.96 6.37 7.04 8.00 12.44 1.87 9.50 10.11 8.99 4.75
70 50 50 1.4 70 0.98 21.13 7.39 8.50 9.45 15.01 2.25 11.38 12.17 10.38 5.55
70 50 50 1.5 75 0.99 24.56 8.48 10.14 11.04 17.89 2.67 13.57 14.46 11.80 6.40
70 50 50 1.6 80 1.00 28.24 9.65 11.96 12.77 21.09 3.14 16.16 17.00 13.44 7.39
70 50 50 1.7 85 1.00 32.18 10.90 13.95 14.63 24.63 3.66 19.29 19.78 15.55 8.59
70 50 50 1.8 90 1.00 36.37 12.21 16.14 16.64 28.50 4.22 22.90 22.81 17.83 9.92
70 50 50 1.9 95 1.00 40.81 13.61 18.52 18.79 32.74 4.83 26.94 26.12 20.32 11.35
70 50 50 2 100 1.00 45.52 15.08 21.12 21.09 37.35 5.49 31.42 29.69 22.99 12.90
220 20 50 0.1 5 0.57 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.12 0.02 0.10 0.05
220 20 50 0.2 10 0.65 0.15 0.13 0.25 0.26 0.39 0.22 0.55 0.14 0.45 0.25
220 20 50 0.3 15 0.71 0.49 0.42 0.72 0.65 1.04 0.52 1.36 0.38 1.12 0.65
220 20 50 0.4 20 0.75 1.16 1.01 1.49 1.25 2.12 0.94 2.61 0.77 2.16 1.27
220 20 50 0.5 25 0.79 2.20 1.88 2.64 2.06 3.71 1.47 4.31 1.35 3.62 2.14
220 20 50 0.6 30 0.82 3.54 2.71 4.21 3.11 5.89 2.11 6.49 2.13 5.51 3.26
220 20 50 0.7 35 0.84 5.19 3.69 6.24 4.40 8.73 3.03 9.18 3.14 7.87 4.64
220 20 50 0.8 40 0.86 7.13 4.83 8.77 5.94 12.30 4.23 12.40 4.38 10.71 6.30
220 20 50 0.9 45 0.88 9.37 6.11 11.84 7.74 16.64 5.68 16.17 5.88 14.05 8.24
220 20 50 1 50 0.90 11.92 7.54 15.49 9.81 21.83 7.39 20.49 7.65 17.89 10.45
220 20 50 1.1 55 0.92 14.76 9.12 19.75 12.15 27.93 9.38 25.39 9.71 22.24 12.95
220 20 50 1.2 60 0.94 17.91 10.86 24.66 14.78 34.98 11.65 30.88 12.06 27.12 15.74
220 20 50 1.3 65 0.95 21.36 12.74 30.25 17.70 43.04 14.24 36.98 14.74 32.52 18.82
220 20 50 1.4 70 0.97 25.10 14.78 36.55 20.91 52.16 17.13 43.69 17.74 38.44 22.18
220 20 50 1.5 75 0.98 29.15 16.96 43.58 24.42 62.39 20.36 51.02 21.08 44.88 25.84
220 20 50 1.6 80 0.99 33.50 19.30 51.38 28.24 73.79 23.93 59.00 24.77 51.84 29.79
220 20 50 1.7 85 1.00 38.15 21.79 59.96 32.36 86.39 27.84 67.62 28.82 59.59 34.23
220 20 50 1.8 90 1.00 43.10 24.43 69.37 36.81 100.25 32.12 76.90 33.25 68.61 39.48
220 20 50 1.9 95 1.00 48.35 27.22 79.62 41.57 115.40 36.77 86.85 38.06 78.40 45.21
220 20 50 2 100 1.00 53.90 30.16 90.75 46.65 131.91 41.80 97.48 43.26 88.98 51.39
220 50 50 0.1 5 0.58 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.12 0.02 0.09 0.04
220 50 50 0.2 10 0.66 0.15 0.13 0.19 0.21 0.35 0.22 0.55 0.14 0.43 0.23
220 50 50 0.3 15 0.72 0.49 0.42 0.52 0.52 0.92 0.52 1.36 0.38 1.05 0.58
220 50 50 0.4 20 0.76 1.16 1.01 1.09 1.00 1.86 0.94 2.61 0.77 2.01 1.11
220 50 50 0.5 25 0.80 2.20 1.88 1.93 1.65 3.24 1.47 4.31 1.35 3.33 1.85
220 50 50 0.6 30 0.83 3.54 2.71 3.07 2.49 5.13 2.11 6.49 2.13 5.01 2.78
220 50 50 0.7 35 0.85 5.19 3.69 4.56 3.52 7.59 2.83 9.18 3.14 7.06 3.91
220 50 50 0.8 40 0.87 7.13 4.83 6.41 4.76 10.67 3.64 12.40 4.38 9.48 5.26
220 50 50 0.9 45 0.90 9.37 6.11 8.67 6.20 14.42 4.50 16.17 5.88 12.25 6.80
220 50 50 1 50 0.91 11.92 7.54 11.32 7.86 18.91 5.83 20.49 7.65 15.37 8.54
220 50 50 1.1 55 0.93 14.76 9.12 14.45 9.74 24.16 7.40 25.39 9.71 18.81 10.48
220 50 50 1.2 60 0.95 17.91 10.86 18.03 11.85 30.25 4.81 30.88 12.06 22.53 12.61
220 50 50 1.3 65 0.96 21.36 12.74 22.12 14.18 37.20 5.87 36.98 14.74 26.49 14.93
220 50 50 1.4 70 0.98 25.10 14.78 26.72 16.76 45.06 7.07 43.69 17.74 30.63 17.43
220 50 50 1.5 75 0.99 29.15 16.96 31.86 19.57 53.88 8.40 51.02 21.08 34.89 20.11
220 50 50 1.6 80 1.00 33.50 19.30 37.57 22.63 63.70 9.87 59.00 24.77 39.82 23.21
220 50 50 1.7 85 1.00 38.15 21.79 43.84 25.94 74.56 11.49 67.62 28.82 46.20 27.01
220 50 50 1.8 90 1.00 43.10 24.43 50.73 29.50 86.50 13.25 76.90 33.25 53.16 31.16
220 50 50 1.9 95 1.00 48.35 27.22 58.22 33.31 99.56 15.17 86.85 38.06 60.71 35.67
220 50 50 2 100 1.00 53.90 30.16 66.36 37.39 113.77 17.25 97.48 43.26 68.87 40.55

70 20 50 0.1 5 0.57 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03
70 20 50 0.2 10 0.65 0.12 0.06 0.13 0.11 0.13
70 20 50 0.3 15 0.71 0.40 0.17 0.31 0.26 0.31
70 20 50 0.4 20 0.75 0.94 0.36 0.59 0.50 0.59
70 20 50 0.5 25 0.79 1.80 0.65 1.00 0.83 0.96
70 20 50 0.6 30 0.82 2.93 1.06 1.55 1.26 1.45
70 20 50 0.7 35 0.84 4.31 1.59 2.25 1.78 2.05
70 20 50 0.8 40 0.86 5.95 2.26 3.12 2.42 2.76
70 20 50 0.9 45 0.88 7.84 3.09 4.17 3.19 3.60
70 20 50 1 50 0.90 9.99 4.09 5.42 4.12 4.55
70 20 50 1.1 55 0.92 12.39 5.26 6.88 5.28 5.64
70 20 50 1.2 60 0.94 15.05 6.63 8.57 6.79 6.85
70 20 50 1.3 65 0.95 17.96 8.19 10.48 8.63 8.18
70 20 50 1.4 70 0.97 21.13 9.97 12.65 10.78 9.65
70 20 50 1.5 75 0.98 24.56 11.97 15.07 13.25 11.24
70 20 50 1.6 80 0.99 28.24 14.20 17.76 16.08 12.95
70 20 50 1.7 85 1.00 32.18 16.68 20.73 19.29 14.86
70 20 50 1.8 90 1.00 36.37 19.40 23.98 22.90 17.06
70 20 50 1.9 95 1.00 40.81 22.39 27.54 26.94 19.46
70 20 50 2 100 1.00 45.52 25.65 31.41 31.42 22.04
70 50 50 0.1 5 0.58 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03
70 50 50 0.2 10 0.66 0.12 0.04 0.12 0.11 0.13
70 50 50 0.3 15 0.72 0.40 0.12 0.28 0.26 0.30
70 50 50 0.4 20 0.76 0.94 0.26 0.53 0.50 0.55
70 50 50 0.5 25 0.80 1.80 0.48 0.89 0.83 0.89
70 50 50 0.6 30 0.83 2.93 0.77 1.37 1.26 1.33
70 50 50 0.7 35 0.85 4.31 1.16 1.99 1.78 1.85
70 50 50 0.8 40 0.87 5.95 1.66 2.75 2.42 2.47
70 50 50 0.9 45 0.90 7.84 2.27 3.66 3.19 3.17
70 50 50 1 50 0.91 9.99 2.99 4.75 4.12 3.95
70 50 50 1.1 55 0.93 12.39 3.86 6.02 5.28 4.82
70 50 50 1.2 60 0.95 15.05 4.85 7.48 6.79 5.75
70 50 50 1.3 65 0.96 17.96 6.00 9.15 8.63 6.74
70 50 50 1.4 70 0.98 21.13 7.31 11.02 10.78 7.78
70 50 50 1.5 75 0.99 24.56 8.77 13.12 13.25 8.85
70 50 50 1.6 80 1.00 28.24 10.41 15.45 16.08 10.08
70 50 50 1.7 85 1.00 32.18 12.22 18.02 19.29 11.66
70 50 50 1.8 90 1.00 36.37 14.22 20.83 22.90 13.38
70 50 50 1.9 95 1.00 40.81 16.41 23.91 26.94 15.24
70 50 50 2 100 1.00 45.52 18.80 27.26 31.42 17.24
220 20 50 0.1 5 0.57 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.07
220 20 50 0.2 10 0.65 0.15 0.18 0.30 0.42 0.33
220 20 50 0.3 15 0.71 0.49 0.53 0.78 1.05 0.84
220 20 50 0.4 20 0.75 1.16 1.13 1.57 2.01 1.62
220 20 50 0.5 25 0.79 2.20 2.05 2.74 3.31 2.71
220 20 50 0.6 30 0.82 3.54 3.32 4.33 4.99 4.13
220 20 50 0.7 35 0.84 5.19 4.99 6.39 7.06 5.90
220 20 50 0.8 40 0.86 7.13 7.11 8.98 9.54 8.03
220 20 50 0.9 45 0.88 9.37 9.72 12.13 12.44 10.53
220 20 50 1 50 0.90 11.92 12.84 15.90 15.76 13.42
220 20 50 1.1 55 0.92 14.76 16.53 20.31 19.53 16.68
220 20 50 1.2 60 0.94 17.91 20.82 25.41 23.76 20.34
220 20 50 1.3 65 0.95 21.36 25.74 31.25 28.44 24.39
220 20 50 1.4 70 0.97 25.10 31.33 37.84 33.61 28.83
220 20 50 1.5 75 0.98 29.15 37.62 45.24 39.25 33.66
220 20 50 1.6 80 0.99 33.50 44.64 53.48 45.38 38.88
220 20 50 1.7 85 1.00 38.15 52.41 62.59 52.02 44.70
220 20 50 1.8 90 1.00 43.10 60.98 72.60 59.16 51.46
220 20 50 1.9 95 1.00 48.35 70.38 83.55 66.81 58.80
220 20 50 2 100 1.00 53.90 80.62 95.47 74.98 66.73
220 50 50 0.1 5 0.58 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.09 0.07
220 50 50 0.2 10 0.66 0.15 0.13 0.27 0.42 0.32
220 50 50 0.3 15 0.72 0.49 0.39 0.69 1.05 0.79
220 50 50 0.4 20 0.76 1.16 0.83 1.38 2.01 1.51
220 50 50 0.5 25 0.80 2.20 1.50 2.39 3.31 2.49
220 50 50 0.6 30 0.83 3.54 2.43 3.77 4.99 3.75
220 50 50 0.7 35 0.85 5.19 3.66 5.57 7.06 5.29
220 50 50 0.8 40 0.87 7.13 5.21 7.81 9.54 7.11
220 50 50 0.9 45 0.90 9.37 7.12 10.53 12.44 9.19
220 50 50 1 50 0.91 11.92 9.41 13.79 15.76 11.53
220 50 50 1.1 55 0.93 14.76 12.12 17.60 19.53 14.11
220 50 50 1.2 60 0.95 17.91 15.26 22.01 23.76 16.90
220 50 50 1.3 65 0.96 21.36 18.86 27.04 28.44 19.87
220 50 50 1.4 70 0.98 25.10 22.96 32.73 33.61 22.97
220 50 50 1.5 75 0.99 29.15 27.56 39.12 39.25 26.17
220 50 50 1.6 80 1.00 33.50 32.71 46.22 45.38 29.86
220 50 50 1.7 85 1.00 38.15 38.40 54.07 52.02 34.65
220 50 50 1.8 90 1.00 43.10 44.69 62.70 59.16 39.87
220 50 50 1.9 95 1.00 48.35 51.57 72.14 66.81 45.53
220 50 50 2 100 1.00 53.90 59.08 82.41 74.98 51.65

Table A 5 Predictions for piles of constant slenderness ratio (=70) in compression
70 20 70 0.1 7 0.57 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02
70 20 70 0.2 14 0.65 0.23 0.09 0.11 0.16 0.25 0.08 0.21 0.11 0.27 0.09
70 20 70 0.3 21 0.71 0.78 0.30 0.30 0.40 0.63 0.14 0.52 0.31 0.62 0.25
70 20 70 0.4 28 0.75 1.75 0.60 0.63 0.77 1.22 0.28 1.00 0.63 1.16 0.48
70 20 70 0.5 35 0.79 3.08 0.94 1.12 1.27 2.07 0.49 1.65 1.10 1.90 0.81
70 20 70 0.6 42 0.82 4.77 1.36 1.78 1.91 3.22 0.78 2.49 1.73 2.84 1.23
70 20 70 0.7 49 0.84 6.81 1.85 2.64 2.70 4.70 1.14 3.53 2.55 4.00 1.75
70 20 70 0.8 56 0.86 9.22 2.41 3.71 3.64 6.54 1.59 4.79 3.55 5.38 2.38
70 20 70 0.9 63 0.88 11.98 3.05 5.01 4.75 8.78 2.14 6.30 4.77 7.00 3.11
70 20 70 1 70 0.90 15.10 3.77 6.55 6.02 11.43 2.78 8.13 6.21 8.85 3.94
70 20 70 1.1 77 0.92 18.57 4.56 8.35 7.46 14.53 3.53 10.40 7.88 10.94 4.89
70 20 70 1.2 84 0.94 22.41 5.43 10.43 9.07 18.11 4.39 13.30 9.80 13.27 5.94
70 20 70 1.3 91 0.95 26.60 6.37 12.79 10.86 22.18 5.36 16.91 11.97 15.85 7.10
70 20 70 1.4 98 0.97 31.15 7.39 15.46 12.83 26.79 6.45 21.12 14.40 18.67 8.37
70 20 70 1.5 105 0.98 36.05 8.48 18.43 14.98 31.94 7.67 25.98 17.11 21.73 9.75
70 20 70 1.6 112 0.99 41.32 9.65 21.73 17.33 37.67 9.01 31.53 20.11 25.03 11.24
70 20 70 1.7 119 1.00 46.94 10.90 25.36 19.86 43.99 10.48 37.81 23.40 28.70 12.92
70 20 70 1.8 126 1.00 52.92 12.21 29.34 22.58 50.93 12.09 44.89 26.99 32.94 14.90
70 20 70 1.9 133 1.00 59.25 13.61 33.67 25.50 58.52 13.84 52.79 30.90 37.54 17.06
70 20 70 2 140 1.00 65.95 15.08 38.38 28.62 66.77 15.74 61.58 35.13 42.51 19.39
70 50 70 0.1 7 0.58 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02
70 50 70 0.2 14 0.66 0.23 0.09 0.08 0.13 0.23 0.08 0.21 0.11 0.26 0.08
70 50 70 0.3 21 0.72 0.78 0.30 0.22 0.32 0.56 0.06 0.52 0.31 0.59 0.22
70 50 70 0.4 28 0.76 1.75 0.60 0.46 0.61 1.09 0.12 1.00 0.63 1.09 0.42
70 50 70 0.5 35 0.80 3.08 0.94 0.81 1.01 1.84 0.20 1.65 1.10 1.76 0.70
70 50 70 0.6 42 0.83 4.77 1.36 1.29 1.53 2.84 0.32 2.49 1.73 2.61 1.05
70 50 70 0.7 49 0.85 6.81 1.85 1.92 2.16 4.13 0.47 3.53 2.55 3.62 1.48
70 50 70 0.8 56 0.87 9.22 2.41 2.69 2.92 5.73 0.66 4.79 3.55 4.82 1.98
70 50 70 0.9 63 0.90 11.98 3.05 3.64 3.81 7.67 0.88 6.30 4.77 6.18 2.56
70 50 70 1 70 0.91 15.10 3.77 4.75 4.82 9.96 1.15 8.13 6.21 7.70 3.22
70 50 70 1.1 77 0.93 18.57 4.56 6.06 5.98 12.65 1.46 10.40 7.88 9.37 3.95
70 50 70 1.2 84 0.95 22.41 5.43 7.57 7.27 15.74 1.81 13.30 9.80 11.18 4.75
70 50 70 1.3 91 0.96 26.60 6.37 9.28 8.70 19.26 2.21 16.91 11.97 13.10 5.63
70 50 70 1.4 98 0.98 31.15 7.39 11.22 10.28 23.23 2.66 21.12 14.40 15.11 6.57
70 50 70 1.5 105 0.99 36.05 8.48 13.37 12.01 27.67 3.16 25.98 17.11 17.18 7.58
70 50 70 1.6 112 1.00 41.32 9.65 15.77 13.89 32.61 3.72 31.53 20.11 19.55 8.75
70 50 70 1.7 119 1.00 46.94 10.90 18.40 15.92 38.06 4.32 37.81 23.40 22.60 10.18
70 50 70 1.8 126 1.00 52.92 12.21 21.29 18.10 44.05 4.99 44.89 26.99 25.90 11.75
70 50 70 1.9 133 1.00 59.25 13.61 24.43 20.44 50.58 5.71 52.79 30.90 29.49 13.45
70 50 70 2 140 1.00 65.95 15.08 27.85 22.94 57.69 6.49 61.58 35.13 33.35 15.29
220 20 70 0.1 7 0.57 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.06 0.18 0.03 0.15 0.06
220 20 70 0.2 14 0.65 0.28 0.18 0.34 0.29 0.61 0.26 0.83 0.16 0.66 0.30
220 20 70 0.3 21 0.71 0.96 0.59 0.95 0.71 1.62 0.61 2.08 0.45 1.64 0.77
220 20 70 0.4 28 0.75 2.12 1.21 1.99 1.36 3.30 1.11 3.97 0.92 3.15 1.51
220 20 70 0.5 35 0.79 3.70 1.88 3.51 2.24 5.77 1.74 6.56 1.60 5.26 2.54
220 20 70 0.6 42 0.82 5.71 2.71 5.60 3.38 9.15 2.50 9.89 2.52 7.99 3.86
220 20 70 0.7 49 0.84 8.13 3.69 8.30 4.78 13.54 3.58 13.99 3.71 11.39 5.51
220 20 70 0.8 56 0.86 10.98 4.83 11.66 6.46 19.05 5.00 18.89 5.18 15.49 7.47
220 20 70 0.9 63 0.88 14.24 6.11 15.74 8.42 25.78 6.72 24.62 6.95 20.29 9.77
220 20 70 1 70 0.90 17.93 7.54 20.59 10.67 33.81 8.74 31.21 9.05 25.82 12.39
220 20 70 1.1 77 0.92 22.04 9.12 26.26 13.22 43.23 11.09 38.67 11.48 32.09 15.36
220 20 70 1.2 84 0.94 26.57 10.86 32.78 16.08 54.12 13.79 47.03 14.27 39.11 18.67
220 20 70 1.3 91 0.95 31.52 12.74 40.21 19.25 66.58 16.85 56.31 17.44 46.87 22.32
220 20 70 1.4 98 0.97 36.89 14.78 48.58 22.74 80.67 20.27 66.53 20.99 55.38 26.31
220 20 70 1.5 105 0.98 42.68 16.96 57.93 26.56 96.49 24.09 77.70 24.94 64.64 30.65
220 20 70 1.6 112 0.99 48.89 19.30 68.29 30.72 114.09 28.31 89.85 29.30 74.64 35.33
220 20 70 1.7 119 1.00 55.53 21.79 79.70 35.20 133.56 32.94 102.98 34.10 85.79 40.60
220 20 70 1.8 126 1.00 62.58 24.43 92.20 40.04 154.96 38.00 117.11 39.34 98.73 46.83
220 20 70 1.9 133 1.00 70.06 27.22 105.83 45.21 178.38 43.50 132.26 45.03 112.79 53.61
220 20 70 2 140 1.00 77.95 30.16 120.62 50.75 203.87 49.45 148.44 51.19 127.98 60.94
220 50 70 0.1 7 0.58 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.12 0.06 0.18 0.03 0.14 0.05
220 50 70 0.2 14 0.66 0.28 0.18 0.25 0.23 0.54 0.26 0.83 0.16 0.63 0.27
220 50 70 0.3 21 0.72 0.96 0.59 0.69 0.57 1.43 0.61 2.08 0.45 1.54 0.68
220 50 70 0.4 28 0.76 2.12 1.21 1.44 1.09 2.88 1.11 3.97 0.92 2.94 1.32
220 50 70 0.5 35 0.80 3.70 1.88 2.55 1.80 5.02 1.74 6.56 1.60 4.84 2.19
220 50 70 0.6 42 0.83 5.71 2.71 4.05 2.71 7.94 2.50 9.89 2.52 7.27 3.29
220 50 70 0.7 49 0.85 8.13 3.69 6.02 3.83 11.74 3.35 13.99 3.71 10.23 4.64
220 50 70 0.8 56 0.87 10.98 4.83 8.45 5.18 16.49 4.30 18.89 5.18 13.72 6.23
220 50 70 0.9 63 0.90 14.24 6.11 11.43 6.75 22.28 5.32 24.62 6.95 17.73 8.05
220 50 70 1 70 0.91 17.93 7.54 14.94 8.55 29.19 6.90 31.21 9.05 22.22 10.12
220 50 70 1.1 77 0.93 22.04 9.12 19.06 10.60 37.30 8.76 38.67 11.48 27.17 12.41
220 50 70 1.2 84 0.95 26.57 10.86 23.79 12.89 46.67 5.69 47.03 14.27 32.53 14.94
220 50 70 1.3 91 0.96 31.52 12.74 29.17 15.43 57.38 6.95 56.31 17.44 38.24 17.69
220 50 70 1.4 98 0.98 36.89 14.78 35.25 18.23 69.50 8.37 66.53 20.99 44.21 20.66
220 50 70 1.5 105 0.99 42.68 16.96 42.02 21.29 83.09 9.94 77.70 24.94 50.34 23.83
220 50 70 1.6 112 1.00 48.89 19.30 49.56 24.62 98.21 11.68 89.85 29.30 57.44 27.50
220 50 70 1.7 119 1.00 55.53 21.79 57.83 28.22 114.94 13.59 102.98 34.10 66.61 32.01
220 50 70 1.8 126 1.00 62.58 24.43 66.92 32.09 133.32 15.68 117.11 39.34 76.62 36.93
220 50 70 1.9 133 1.00 70.06 27.22 76.79 36.24 153.43 17.95 132.26 45.03 87.47 42.27
220 50 70 2 140 1.00 77.95 30.16 87.54 40.67 175.32 20.41 148.44 51.19 99.20 48.05

70 20 70 0.1 7 0.57 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.05
70 20 70 0.2 14 0.65 0.23 0.08 0.20 0.16 0.20
70 20 70 0.3 21 0.71 0.78 0.23 0.49 0.40 0.47
70 20 70 0.4 28 0.75 1.75 0.50 0.93 0.77 0.87
70 20 70 0.5 35 0.79 3.08 0.90 1.57 1.27 1.42
70 20 70 0.6 42 0.82 4.77 1.45 2.42 1.94 2.13
70 20 70 0.7 49 0.84 6.81 2.19 3.51 2.80 3.00
70 20 70 0.8 56 0.86 9.22 3.12 4.86 3.97 4.03
70 20 70 0.9 63 0.88 11.98 4.26 6.50 5.61 5.25
70 20 70 1 70 0.90 15.10 5.63 8.44 7.70 6.64
70 20 70 1.1 77 0.92 18.57 7.24 10.71 10.24 8.20
70 20 70 1.2 84 0.94 22.41 9.12 13.32 13.30 9.95
70 20 70 1.3 91 0.95 26.60 11.28 16.29 16.91 11.89
70 20 70 1.4 98 0.97 31.15 13.72 19.64 21.12 14.00
70 20 70 1.5 105 0.98 36.05 16.48 23.39 25.98 16.30
70 20 70 1.6 112 0.99 41.32 19.55 27.55 31.53 18.77
70 20 70 1.7 119 1.00 46.94 22.96 32.14 37.81 21.52
70 20 70 1.8 126 1.00 52.92 26.71 37.19 44.89 24.71
70 20 70 1.9 133 1.00 59.25 30.82 42.69 52.79 28.16
70 20 70 2 140 1.00 65.95 35.31 48.68 61.58 31.88
70 50 70 0.1 7 0.58 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.05
70 50 70 0.2 14 0.66 0.23 0.06 0.19 0.16 0.19
70 50 70 0.3 21 0.72 0.78 0.17 0.44 0.40 0.45
70 50 70 0.4 28 0.76 1.75 0.36 0.84 0.77 0.82
70 50 70 0.5 35 0.80 3.08 0.65 1.40 1.27 1.32
70 50 70 0.6 42 0.83 4.77 1.06 2.14 1.94 1.95
70 50 70 0.7 49 0.85 6.81 1.59 3.10 2.80 2.72
70 50 70 0.8 56 0.87 9.22 2.27 4.28 3.97 3.61
70 50 70 0.9 63 0.90 11.98 3.10 5.70 5.61 4.63
70 50 70 1 70 0.91 15.10 4.10 7.39 7.70 5.78
70 50 70 1.1 77 0.93 18.57 5.28 9.35 10.24 7.03
70 50 70 1.2 84 0.95 22.41 6.64 11.61 13.30 8.39
70 50 70 1.3 91 0.96 26.60 8.21 14.18 16.91 9.83
70 50 70 1.4 98 0.98 31.15 10.00 17.08 21.12 11.33
70 50 70 1.5 105 0.99 36.05 12.00 20.32 25.98 12.88
70 50 70 1.6 112 1.00 41.32 14.24 23.91 31.53 14.67
70 50 70 1.7 119 1.00 46.94 16.72 27.88 37.81 16.95
70 50 70 1.8 126 1.00 52.92 19.46 32.23 44.89 19.43
70 50 70 1.9 133 1.00 59.25 22.45 36.98 52.79 22.11
70 50 70 2 140 1.00 65.95 25.72 42.14 61.58 25.01
220 20 70 0.1 7 0.57 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.14 0.11
220 20 70 0.2 14 0.65 0.28 0.25 0.47 0.64 0.49
220 20 70 0.3 21 0.71 0.96 0.73 1.21 1.60 1.23
220 20 70 0.4 28 0.75 2.12 1.56 2.45 3.05 2.36
220 20 70 0.5 35 0.79 3.70 2.82 4.26 5.05 3.94
220 20 70 0.6 42 0.82 5.71 4.57 6.72 7.61 5.99
220 20 70 0.7 49 0.84 8.13 6.87 9.92 10.76 8.55
220 20 70 0.8 56 0.86 10.98 9.79 13.93 14.53 11.62
220 20 70 0.9 63 0.88 14.24 13.37 18.81 18.94 15.22
220 20 70 1 70 0.90 17.93 17.68 24.63 24.00 19.37
220 20 70 1.1 77 0.92 22.04 22.76 31.46 29.75 24.07
220 20 70 1.2 84 0.94 26.57 28.66 39.35 36.18 29.33
220 20 70 1.3 91 0.95 31.52 35.44 48.36 43.32 35.15
220 20 70 1.4 98 0.97 36.89 43.13 58.56 51.18 41.54
220 20 70 1.5 105 0.98 42.68 51.78 70.00 59.77 48.48
220 20 70 1.6 112 0.99 48.89 61.44 82.73 69.12 55.98
220 20 70 1.7 119 1.00 55.53 72.15 96.80 79.22 64.34
220 20 70 1.8 126 1.00 62.58 83.94 112.27 90.09 74.05
220 20 70 1.9 133 1.00 70.06 96.87 129.19 101.75 84.59
220 20 70 2 140 1.00 77.95 110.98 147.60 114.20 95.98
220 50 70 0.1 7 0.58 0.04 0.03 0.09 0.14 0.11
220 50 70 0.2 14 0.66 0.28 0.18 0.42 0.64 0.47
220 50 70 0.3 21 0.72 0.96 0.53 1.07 1.60 1.16
220 50 70 0.4 28 0.76 2.12 1.14 2.15 3.05 2.20
220 50 70 0.5 35 0.80 3.70 2.05 3.72 5.05 3.63
220 50 70 0.6 42 0.83 5.71 3.33 5.85 7.61 5.45
220 50 70 0.7 49 0.85 8.13 5.01 8.62 10.76 7.67
220 50 70 0.8 56 0.87 10.98 7.13 12.08 14.53 10.29
220 50 70 0.9 63 0.90 14.24 9.74 16.29 18.94 13.29
220 50 70 1 70 0.91 17.93 12.88 21.31 24.00 16.67
220 50 70 1.1 77 0.93 22.04 16.58 27.19 29.75 20.38
220 50 70 1.2 84 0.95 26.57 20.88 33.98 36.18 24.40
220 50 70 1.3 91 0.96 31.52 25.81 41.74 43.32 28.68
220 50 70 1.4 98 0.98 36.89 31.41 50.52 51.18 33.16
220 50 70 1.5 105 0.99 42.68 37.71 60.35 59.77 37.76
220 50 70 1.6 112 1.00 48.89 44.75 71.30 69.12 43.08
220 50 70 1.7 119 1.00 55.53 52.55 83.39 79.22 49.96
220 50 70 1.8 126 1.00 62.58 61.15 96.69 90.09 57.46
220 50 70 1.9 133 1.00 70.06 70.56 111.23 101.75 65.60
220 50 70 2 140 1.00 77.95 80.84 127.05 114.20 74.40

APPENDIX B: RATIOS OF MEASURED TO CALCULATED
CAPACITIES

3.5
2.5
Q c [API-00] /Q m
1.5 110
130
111 131
106
112 109 121
1 108120 122 114 104
115 103
107
116
129
105
118 119
101
0.5 100 117 102
128
127
126
124
113 125
123
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Diameter (m)
3.5
2.5
Q c [API-00] /Q m
1.5 110
130
131 111
121 109
112 106
104
1 103
122 108 120 114
115
107
116
129
105 119 118
101
0.5 128
124 126
127 102100
117
113 125
123
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
L/D (-)
3.5
2.5
Q c [API-00] /Q m
1.5 110
131130 111
106 112109 121
104
1 108 114
115 103
122
120
107 116
105 129
119 118
101
0.5 102
117 127
126
124
100
128
125
123
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dr,s haft (-)
Figure B 1 Performance of API-00 for Closed-ended Piles in Compression

3.5
121
2.5
122
Q c [Fugro-05] /Q m
2 120
107
116 104
103
1.5 112 108
105
130
128
110 113 114 131
106
109
123
115
1 111 124
127 125
126
100 119 129
118 101
117
0.5 102
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Diameter (m)
3.5
121
2.5
122
Q c [Fugro-05] /Q m
2 120
107
104
116
103
1.5 105
108 130
112
128
113 131 114 110
106
109
123
115
1 124
125 127 111
126
100 119 129
101 118
117
0.5 102
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
L/D (-)
3.5
121
2.5
122
Q c [Fugro-05] /Q m
2 120
107
116 104
103
1.5 130
112108
105 128
131106 110
109 114
123
115
1 111 124
127
125
126
129 119 100
101 118
117
0.5 102
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dr,s haft (-)
Figure B 2 Performance of Fugro-05 for Closed-ended Piles in Compression

3.5
2.5
121
Q c [ICP-05] /Q m
2
122
120
1.5
112
116 130
113 104
110 103
1 100 111
108
107
106
109
128 114
118 119 115 131
105 127
117 101 126 129
125
124
123
102
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Diameter (m)
3.5
2.5
121
Q c [ICP-05] /Q m
2
122
120
1.5
112
116 130
113 104
103 110
1 128
107 108 114
100106
109
111
131 115 118
105 127 119
126 101 129
123 124 125 117
102
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
L/D (-)
3.5
2.5
121
Q c [ICP-05] /Q m
2
122
120
1.5
112
130 116
104
110 103
1 111
108
107 114 100
128
131106 109 115
119 118 127
105
101 129 126
117 125
124
123
102
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dr,s haft (-)
Figure B 3 Performance of ICP-05 for Closed-ended Piles in Compression

3.5
121
3
122
Q c [NGI-05] /Q m 2.5 120
2
104
1.5
103
116
128 127
130
118 119
112 107 113 114
1 100
110
111
108
105 124 129
126
115
109
117 106 123 131
125
101
0.5 102
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Diameter (m)
3.5
121
3
122
2.5 120
Q c [NGI-05] /Q m
2
104
1.5
103
116
128 127 130
113 107 112114119 118
1 124 105 126 108 115
100
110
129
111
123 109
106
131 117
125
101
0.5 102
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
L/D (-)
3.5
121
3
122
2.5 120
Q c [NGI-05] /Q m
2
104
1.5
103
116
127 128
130
112110
107 114115 119 118
1 111
108
105 124 100
126
109 129
131106 117 123
125
101
0.5 102
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dr,s haft (-)
Figure B 4 Performance of NGI-05 for Closed-ended Piles in Compression

3.5
Q c [UWA-05] /Q m 2.5
121
2
122
120
1.5
113
112 116 128
104 130
1 110
107
111
108
114 103
100 109
106 127 115
105 131
118 119 124
126 129
123
125
117 101
0.5 102
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Diameter (m)
3.5
2.5
Q c [UWA-05] /Q m
121
2
122
120
1.5
113
128 116 112
104 130
1 107103 114 110
111
127 108 109
100106
115
105 131
124 126 119 129 118
123 125
101 117
0.5 102
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
L/D (-)
3.5
2.5
Q c [UWA-05] /Q m
121
2
122
120
1.5
112 116 128
130 104
1 110
107
111
108
114 103
106 109 115 127 100
131 105
129 119 118 124
126123
125
101 117
0.5 102
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dr,s haft (-)
Figure B 5 Performance of UWA-05 for Closed-ended Piles in Compression

3.5
3 203
Q c [API-00] /Q m 2.5
2
202
1.5 201
205
1
206 207
200
208 209
0.5
204
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Diameter (m)
3.5
3 203
2.5
Q c [API-00] /Q m
2
202
1.5 201
205
1
207 206
208 209 200
0.5
204
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
L/D (-)
3.5
3 203
2.5
Q c [API-00] /Q m
2
202
1.5 201
205
1
207
206
200 209 208
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dr,s haft (-)
Figure B 6 Performance of API-00 for Closed-ended Piles in Tension

3.5
Q c [Fugro-05] /Q m 2.5
1.5 207
206 208
204 205
1 203
201
209
202
0.5
200
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Diameter (m)
3.5
2.5
Q c [Fugro-05] /Q m
1.5 207
208 206
204 205
1 203
201
209
202
0.5
200
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
L/D (-)
3.5
2.5
Q c [Fugro-05] /Q m
1.5 207
206
208
205
1 203
201
209
202
0.5
200
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dr,s haft (-)
Figure B 7 Performance of Fugro-05 for Closed-ended Piles in Tension

3.5
Q c [ICP-05] /Q m 2.5
203
1.5
205
201 207
206
1 202 208
204
209
200
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Diameter (m)
3.5
2.5
Q c [ICP-05] /Q m
203
1.5
205
201207
206
1 208 202
204
209
200
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
L/D (-)
3.5
2.5
Q c [ICP-05] /Q m
203
1.5
205
201 207
206
1 202 208
209
200
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dr,s haft (-)
Figure B 8 Performance of ICP-05 for Closed-ended Piles in Tension

3.5
2.5
207
Q c [NGI-05] /Q m
206
2
208
1.5
203
201 205
1 204 209
202
0.5 200
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Diameter (m)
3.5
2.5
207
Q c [NGI-05] /Q m
206
2
208
1.5
203
201 205
1 204 209
202
0.5 200
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
L/D (-)
3.5
2.5
207
Q c [NGI-05] /Q m
206
2
208
1.5
203
201 205
1 209
202
0.5 200
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dr,s haft (-)
Figure B 9 Performance of NGI-05 for Closed-ended Piles in Tension

3.5
Q c [UWA-05] /Q m 2.5
1.5
203 207
205
201
206
1 204 208
202
209
200
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Diameter (m)
3.5
2.5
Q c [UWA-05] /Q m
1.5
207 203
205
201 206
1 204 208
202
209
200
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
L/D (-)
3.5
2.5
Q c [UWA-05] /Q m
1.5
203 207
205
201 206
1 208
202
209
200
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dr,s haft (-)
Figure B 10 Performance of UWA-05 for Closed-ended Piles in Tension

3.5
Q c [API-00] /Q m 2.5
1.5 303
301
302 314
1 305
315
306
308
307
0.5 313
304 300
309 312
310
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Diameter (m)
3.5
2.5
Q c [API-00] /Q m
1.5 303
301
302 314
1 311
305
315
316 306
308
307
0.5 313
300
304
312309
310
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
L/D (-)
3.5
2.5
Q c [API-00] /Q m
1.5 303
301
302 314
1 315 311
305
316 306
308
307
0.5 304
313
300
310
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dr,s haft (-)
Figure B 11 Performance of API-00 for Open-ended Piles in Compression

3.5
Q c [Fugro-05] /Q m 2.5
301
1.5 313
305
300 302
310 306
1 309 304 312
308 303
307
314
315
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Diameter (m)
3.5
2.5
Q c [Fugro-05] /Q m
2
311
301
1.5 313
305
316 302
300
310 306
1 312309
304 303 308
307
314
315
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
L/D (-)
3.5
2.5
Q c [Fugro-05] /Q m
2
311
301
1.5 313
305
302 316
300
306 310
1 303 304 308
307
314
315
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dr,s haft (-)
Figure B 12 Performance of Fugro-05 for Open-ended Piles in Compression

3.5
Q c [ICP-05] /Q m 2.5
1.5
306
305
313 307
1 310
309 300
308
304
312 314
315
301
303
0.5 302
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Diameter (m)
3.5
2.5
Q c [ICP-05] /Q m
1.5
305 306
313 307
1 316
310 300
309
308
304
312 311 314
315
301
303
0.5 302
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
L/D (-)
3.5
2.5
Q c [ICP-05] /Q m
1.5
306
305
313 307
1 316
300
308 310
304
314 311
315
301
303
0.5 302
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dr,s haft (-)
Figure B 13 Performance of ICP-05 for Open-ended Piles in Compression

3.5
Q c [NGI-05] /Q m 2.5
1.5 301
314
306 302
305 315
1 313
300
308 303
307
304
309
310 312
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Diameter (m)
3.5
2.5
Q c [NGI-05] /Q m
311
1.5 301
316
314
302 305 306 315
1 313
300
303 308
307
304
309
310312
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
L/D (-)
3.5
2.5
Q c [NGI-05] /Q m
311
1.5 301
316
314
302 303 315 306
305
1 313 308
300 307
304
310
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dr,s haft (-)
Figure B 14 Performance of NGI-05 for Open-ended Piles in Compression

3.5
Q c [UWA-05] /Q m 2.5
1.5
306
313
310
309 305
1 304
312
307
308
301 314
300 302 315
303
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Diameter (m)
3.5
2.5
Q c [UWA-05] /Q m
1.5
306
310 313
309 305
311
1 301
312
304 307
308
314
316 302 300 315
303
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
L/D (-)
3.5
2.5
Q c [UWA-05] /Q m
1.5
306
313305 310
311
1 304 307
308
301 314
302 316 315 300
303
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dr,s haft (-)
Figure B 15 Performance of UWA-05 for Open-ended Piles in Compression

3.5
Q c [API-00] /Q m 2.5
1.5
403 404
1
400 407
402
406
405
0.5 401
412
408
409 413
414
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Diameter (m)
3.5
2.5
Q c [API-00] /Q m
411
2
410
1.5
404
403
1
407
402 400
405 406
0.5 401
412
409413408
414
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
L/D (-)
3.5
2.5
Q c [API-00] /Q m
411
2
410
1.5
403 404
1
407
402 400
405 406
0.5 401
409
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dr,s haft (-)
Figure B 16 Performance of API-00 for Open-ended Piles in Tension

3.5
Q c [Fugro-05] /Q m 2.5
1.5 404
409 402
1 408
401 407
403 413
412 405
400 406
0.5 414
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Diameter (m)
3.5
2.5
Q c [Fugro-05] /Q m
1.5 404
410
409 402 411
1 408
401 407
413412 403 405
400 406
0.5 414
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
L/D (-)
3.5
2.5
Q c [Fugro-05] /Q m
1.5 404
410
402 411 409
1
401 407
403 405
400 406
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dr,s haft (-)
Figure B 17 Performance of Fugro-05 for Open-ended Piles in Tension

3.5
Q c [ICP-05] /Q m 2.5
1.5
404
402
1 408
409
403
407
405
406
412
400 401
413
0.5 414
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Diameter (m)
3.5
2.5
Q c [ICP-05] /Q m
1.5
404
411
402 410
1 409 408
403
405 407
406
412
401 400
413
0.5 414
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
L/D (-)
3.5
2.5
Q c [ICP-05] /Q m
1.5
404
411
402 410
1 403
405 407
409
406
400 401
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dr,s haft (-)
Figure B 18 Performance of ICP-05 for Open-ended Piles in Tension

3.5
Q c [NGI-05] /Q m 2.5
1.5
402
403
404
1 408
409
407
412
401 406
405
400
413
414
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Diameter (m)
3.5
2.5
Q c [NGI-05] /Q m
2
411
410
1.5
402
403
404
1 409 408
407
412
401 405 406
400
413
414
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
L/D (-)
3.5
2.5
Q c [NGI-05] /Q m
2
411
410
1.5
402
403
404
1 407
409
400 405 401 406
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dr,s haft (-)
Figure B 19 Performance of NGI-05 for Open-ended Piles in Tension

3.5
Q c [UWA-05] /Q m 2.5
1.5
402
408
409
403
1 412 404
405
407
401 406
400 413
414
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Diameter (m)
3.5
2.5
Q c [UWA-05] /Q m
1.5
402
409 408
403
1 412
410 411 404
405 407
401 406
413 400
414
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
L/D (-)
3.5
2.5
Q c [UWA-05] /Q m
1.5
402
409
403
1 411
410 404
405 407
401 406
400
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dr,s haft (-)
Figure B 20 Performance of UWA-05 for Open-ended Piles in Tension

APPENDIX C: PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTIONS FOR
RATIOS OF CALCULATED TO MEASURED CAPACITIES

Overview
Comparison of methods using mean, or geometric mean, and coefficient of variation implicitly
assumes that the distribution of capacity ratios (Qc/Qm) can be modelled using a normal, or
lognormal, distribution. This is not the case if there is significant bias in a method, as the
calculated mean and COV will be influenced by the bias in the method in relation to database
characteristics. These effects are significant when dealing with the large number of variables
that are important for design of piles in sand and the limited databases of varying quality used
to compare predictive methods.
One way to evaluate the distribution of capacity ratios is by looking at plots of frequency
distribution of capacity ratios (i.e. Paikowsky et al 2004). Due to relatively small database
sizes, binning of data, and the implicit assumption that there is no uncertainty in predictied or
measured capacities, frequency distribution plots often do not resemble normal, lognormal, or
other type of convention distribution function.
A method to evaluate the shape of an appropriate distribution function, without the use of
binning necessary for conventional frequency distributions, is to consider each data point as a
probability density function (PDF). The mean of each point will be its capacity ratio (Qc/Qm) for
each method. The site coefficient of variation will be a function of the uncertainty in input
parameters, installation methods, capacity measurements at each site, as well as size of the
database (Wu et al 1989). PDFs for each datapoint can be combined to form a Mean PDF,
which would resemble an appropriate distribution for points in the database, as well as
provide some idea of the uncertainty in the database itself.
Probability Density Function for Each Site

The COV, Ωx, and bias, Nx, for parameters influencing prediction and measurement of pile
capacity has been discussed by Lehane et al (2005a). Primary factors controlling site
variability include:
• evaluation of cone tip resistance (Ωqc),
• influence of retesting on pile capacity (ΩR),
• time between installation and load testing (Ωt and Nt),
• maximum displacement of pile measured in the load test (Ωf), and
• non-standard pile geometry or installation factors (Ωg-i).
While not explicitly included in each method, uncertainty in interface friction angle, plugging
behaviour during installation of open ended piles, and stress path during loading are
important mechanisms that would add additional uncertainty to assessment of behaviour for
each pile load test.
The evaluation of site COV, Ωs, is subjective due to the small amount of information available
for a majority of tests. In this study, an average COV of 0.15 was assumed for each site. This
treatment of the data as having a constant coefficient of variation is consistent with
conventional statistical assessment of mean and COV from datasets (Brook & Arnold, 1985).
A lognormal distribution is assumed for each data point, which is consistent with observations
from detailed single pile reliability analyses presented by Saussus (2001). The capacity ratio,
Qc/Qm, is taken as the geometric mean of the distribution. The COV for each site, Ωs, is
considered to be a constant in this study.
 Qp 
λs = ln  after Equation 6.3
 Qm 
(
ζ s 2 = ln Ω s 2 + 1 ) after Equation 6.4
 
f (x; λQ , ζ Q ) =
1 1
exp  − (ln x − λs )2  after Equation 6.5
ζ s ⋅ x 2π  2ζ s
2


Multiple tests of the same pile configuration at the same site may have a tendency to bias the
database towards that site. One clear example of this relates to the tension tests on
EURIPIDES piles embedded to a depth of 47m. Database of open ended piles only have 15
to 17 tests, but 4 (or ≈25%) of those tests are at the EURIPIDES site. The two tests at 47m
had essentially the same CPT profile and very similar axial capacity. Possibly of more
significance are the three tests at Lock & Dam 26, which induce significant uncertainty into
each method for closed ended piles in compression. To minimize the influence of the same
pile configuration at the same site, a pile weighting factor is used. The pile weighting factor
(PWF) is calculated as:
1
PWF =
nt
where nt is the number of similar tests at the same site. A “similar” test is defined as one that
has the same pile material, same pile end condition, CPT profile within approximately 10
percent on average, equivalent pile diameter within 15 percent, and pile length within 15
percent. The PWF splits the area of the site PDF equally between two piles as:
 
f (x; λQ , ζ Q ) = (ln x − λQ )2 
PWF 1
exp  −
ζ Q ⋅ x 2π  2ζ Q
2

Treatment of the database using a PWF does not neglect any data points or bias the results
towards any one site. To evaluate a PDF representative of each site in the database for
assessment of potential bias, each site PDF within a particular database is summed and then
divided by the total area of all site PDFs to yield an area of unity for the mean PDF.
It is noted that one could increase Ωs until the Mean PDF became a smooth lognormal
function. Such a modification would lead to significantly higher evaluations of the COV in
Qc/Qm than that based on conventional statistical interpretation. The subsequent interpretation
of reliability would not necessarily be indicative of performance of the method as this
modification would combine bias against the database with uncertainty in the method.
Combining bias and uncertainty is of little relevance if extrapolating outside of the database
used to calibrate the model.

2.25

2 Lognormal
1.75
1.5 Mean PDF
1.25
Geometric Mean
1
0.75
0.5 API-00
0.25
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Qc / Qm
2.25 2.25

2 2
1.75 1.75
1.5 1.5
1.25 1.25
Fugro-05 ICP-05
1 1
0.75 0.75
0.5 0.5
0.25 0.25
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Qc / Qm Qc / Qm
2.25 2.25
2 2
1.75 1.75
1.5 1.5
1.25 1.25
NGI-05 UWA-05
1 1
0.75 0.75
0.5 0.5
0.25 0.25
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Qc / Qm Qc / Qm
Figure C 1 Probability density functions based on geometric mean and standard deviation of
database compared Mean PDF from each load test for Closed-ended Piles in Compression
(ΩS = 0.15)

2.25

2 Lognormal
1.75
1.5 Mean PDF
1.25
Geometric Mean
1
0.75
0.5 API-00
0.25
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Qc / Qm
2.25 2.25

2 2
1.75 1.75
1.5 1.5
1.25 1.25
Fugro-05 ICP-05
1 1
0.75 0.75
0.5 0.5
0.25 0.25
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Qc / Qm Qc / Qm
2.25 2.25
2 2
1.75 1.75
1.5 1.5
1.25 1.25
NGI-05 UWA-05
1 1
0.75 0.75
0.5 0.5
0.25 0.25
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Qc / Qm Qc / Qm
database compared Mean PDF from each load test for Closed-ended Piles in Tension (ΩS =
0.15)
2.25

2 Lognormal
1.75
1.5 Mean PDF
1.25
Geometric Mean
1
0.75
0.5 API-00
0.25
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Qc / Qm
2.25 2.25

2 2
1.75 1.75
1.5 1.5
1.25 1.25
Fugro-05 ICP-05
1 1
0.75 0.75
0.5 0.5
0.25 0.25
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Qc / Qm Qc / Qm
2.25 2.25
2 2
1.75 1.75
1.5 1.5
1.25 1.25
NGI-05 UWA-05
1 1
0.75 0.75
0.5 0.5
0.25 0.25
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Qc / Qm Qc / Qm
database compared Mean PDF from each load test for Open-ended Piles in Compression
(ΩS = 0.15)
2.25

2 Lognormal
1.75
1.5 Mean PDF
1.25
Geometric Mean
1
0.75
0.5 API-00
0.25
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Qc / Qm
2.25 2.25

2 2
1.75 1.75
1.5 1.5
1.25 1.25
Fugro-05 ICP-05
1 1
0.75 0.75
0.5 0.5
0.25 0.25
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Qc / Qm Qc / Qm
2.25 2.25
2 2
1.75 1.75
1.5 1.5
1.25 1.25
NGI-05 UWA-05
1 1
0.75 0.75
0.5 0.5
0.25 0.25
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Qc / Qm Qc / Qm
database compared Mean PDF from each load test for Open-ended Piles in Tension (ΩS =
0.15)

UWA Review Sept05 Draft PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UWA Review Sept05 Draft PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The University of Western Australia

A REVIEW OF DESIGN METHODS

September 2005 GEO:05358

• Mr. Harry Kolk (Fugro Engineers B.V.)

• Ms. Aukje Baaijens (Fugro Engineers B.V.)

A review of design methods for offshore driven piles in siliceous sand i

A review of design methods for offshore driven piles in siliceous sand ii

1.1 Scope of report

A review of design methods for offshore driven piles in siliceous sand 2

2.1 Overview of API-00, Fugro-05, ICP-05, NGI-05 & UWA-05 Methods

2.1.1 The API-00 recommendations for driven piles in sand

The unit shaft friction is calculated from:

τ f = K f ⋅ σ' v 0 tan δ = β ⋅ σ' v 0 (API-1)

q b 0.1 = N q σ' v 0 (API-2)

Density Soil Description Soil-Pile Limiting Skin Nq Limiting Unit End

A review of design methods for offshore driven piles in siliceous sand 4

In compression, the unit shaft friction is expressed as:

In tension, the unit shaft friction is expressed as:

qc = averaged cone tip resistance over ±1.5D at pile tip

Ar = area ratio, 1-(Di/D)2

A review of design methods for offshore driven piles in siliceous sand 5

τ f = σ' rf tan δ cv = (σ' rc + ∆σ' rd ) tan δ cv (ICP-1a)

τ f = a (0.8 ⋅ σ ' rc + ∆σ ' rd ) tan δ cv (ICP-1b)

q b 0.1 q c = max[1 − 0.5 log(D D CPT ),0.3] (ICP-5)

where DCPT = 0.036m

D i < 0.2(D r − 30 ) (ICP-6a)

qb 0.1 qc = max[0.5 − 0.25 log(D DCPT ),0.15, Ar ] (ICP-8)

q b 0.1 q c = 0.7 (ICP-9)

τ f = z z tip ⋅ pa ⋅ FDr ⋅ Fload ⋅ Ftip ⋅ Fmat ⋅ Fsig (NGI-1)

τf (z) > 0.1×σ'v0

Fload = 1.0 for tension, 1.3 for compression

A review of design methods for offshore driven piles in siliceous sand 8

A review of design methods for offshore driven piles in siliceous sand 9

qb 0.1 qc = 0.15 + 0.45 Arb,eff (UWA-4)

qc = cone resistance averaged using Dutch method (see Figure 2.2)

Simplified method for offshore piles

τ f = 0.03 ⋅ q c A r  max ,2   tan δ cv (UWA-5a)

τ f = 0.75 ⋅ 0.03 ⋅ q c A r  max ,2   tan δ cv (UWA-5b)

q b 0.1 = q c (0.15 + 0.45A r ) (UWA-5c)

A review of design methods for offshore driven piles in siliceous sand 10

Interface Friction Angle, δcv

A review of design methods for offshore driven piles in siliceous sand 11

2.2.1 General procedure

2.2.2 Weighted average δ, Dr, qc, and qc1N spreadsheet values

2.2.3 Contribution of clay layers to shaft capacity

τ f = 0.15 ⋅ τ eq for t < Deq2

2.2.4 Spreadsheet output

A review of design methods for offshore driven piles in siliceous sand 14

2.2.5 Spreadsheet verification

2.2.6 Effect of discretisation on calculated capacities

A review of design methods for offshore driven piles in siliceous sand 15

3.1 Predictions in sand deposits of constant relative density

3.1.1 Shaft capacity

A review of design methods for offshore driven piles in siliceous sand 18

A review of design methods for offshore driven piles in siliceous sand 19

A review of design methods for offshore driven piles in siliceous sand 20

A review of design methods for offshore driven piles in siliceous sand 21

A review of design methods for offshore driven piles in siliceous sand 22

A review of design methods for offshore driven piles in siliceous sand 23

3.0 Compression; L/D=50

0 0.5 1 1.5 Diameter (m) 2

3.0 Tension; L/D=50

A review of design methods for offshore driven piles in siliceous sand 24