Geotech Geol Eng
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-022-02163-0
ORIGINAL PAPER
Reliability‑Based Serviceability Limit State Design
of Driven Piles in Glacial Deposits
Markus Jesswein · Jinyuan Liu 
Received: 11 June 2020 / Accepted: 28 April 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022
Abstract  The reliability-based design (RBD) was
investigated in this study on the serviceability limit
state of steel piles driven in glacial deposits. A data-
base of 42 high-quality pile load tests was used to
quantify the uncertainties of the standard penetration
test (SPT)—based design methods. A two-parameter
hyperbolic model was adopted to represent the meas-
ured load–displacement response of a pile, and the
load component of the model was normalized with
the capacity identified from the pile load test. A statis-
tical analysis was conducted on the performances of
11 different failure load identification methods. The
De Beer method was selected due to its low variations
and relatively conservative estimation. The measured
capacities were compared to predictions from three
SPT-based design methods. The statistical properties
of the capacity bias, a ratio of the measured to pre-
dicted capacity, were evaluated for characterizing the
uncertainties of a pile design in glacial deposits. The
average of the capacity bias varied from 0.96 to 1.13
with the coefficient of variations ranging from 36.4 to
50.9%. From the pile load tests, probability distribu-
tions were fitted to the collected capacity biases and
hyperbolic model parameters, and several copulas
M. Jesswein · J. Liu (*)  be selected subjectively from previous experiences
Department of Civil Engineering, Ryerson University, 350
Victoria St, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada
e-mail: jinyuan.liu@ryerson.ca
M. Jesswein 
e-mail: markus.jesswein@ryerson.ca
were evaluated to represent the observed correla-
tions between the two hyperbolic parameters. Lastly,
the resistance factors in the RBD were calibrated
with Monte Carlo simulations. In the end, a series
of resistance factors were developed for an allow-
able displacement of 5 to 25 mm for three SPT-based
design methods. Based on this study, the values of
the resistance factors ranged from 0.04 to 0.49, which
were largely influenced by the design methods due to
their capacity biases and variations.
Keywords  Serviceability limit state · Reliability-
based design · Driven piles · Standard penetration
test · Glacial deposits
1 Introduction
Many kinds of uncertainties have been encountered
during the design process of foundations. These
uncertainties are caused by varying material proper-
ties, especially from the ground; inconsistencies from
the loads; and inaccuracies in the design formulas
or methods. The allowable stress design (ASD) phi-
losophy has combined all these uncertainties into a
global factor of safety (FOS), but a global FOS can
and judgements and correspond to varying levels of
risk (Becker 1996; Duncan 2000; Phoon et al. 2003).
On the contrary, a reliability-based design (RBD)
considers the likelihood of failure with probabilistic
Vol.: (0123456789)
13

methods and reliability theories and has been gradu-
ally replacing ASD over the last few decades in geo-
technical engineering (Paikowsky 2004; Phoon and
Kulhawy 2008; Fenton et al. 2016).
As a scheme of RBD, the load and resistance
factor design (LRFD) has been adopted in North
America by several design codes and specifications,
such as American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2014),
Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC)
(CSA 2019), and National Building Code of Canada
(NRCC 2015). LRFD separates the failure modes into
individual limit states, and two conditions need to be
met to offer a safe and suitable design for a pile foun-
dation: (1) the ultimate limit state (ULS) is related to
the load capacity; and (2) the serviceability limit state
(SLS) considers the tolerable movement. Currently,
the ULS has been calibrated for driven piles located
various regions by many researchers over the last few
decades (Paikowsky 2004; Abu-Farsakh et  al. 2009;
AbdelSalam et al. 2012; Dithinde et al.2011, Salgado
et al. 2011); however, the SLS has received less atten-
tion due to challenges in accurately representing the
load-deformation behaviours of a pile.
Recently, several curve-fitting methods have been
proposed to characterize the uncertainties for the SLS
of foundations (Misra and Roberts 2009; Uzielli and
Mayne 2011; Huffman et al. 2015, 2016; Reddy and
Stuedlein 2017; Tang and Phoon 2018a, b, c; Tang
et al. 2019; Wu and Xin 2019). In these studies, the
soil conditions were simplified into either cohesive
or cohesionless soils. These ideal soil types may not
properly characterize the ground conditions encoun-
tered in the field, such as glacial deposits. Glacial
deposits, commonly found across northern regions
of North America, are one of most challenging geo-
materials with their unsorted grain distributions and
inconsistent material properties (Legget 1965; Mil-
ligan 1976; Barnett 1992; Clarke 2017). To make
things even more challenging, there is only a limited
number of site investigation techniques available for
this kind of soil because of its dense or stiff nature
and high gravel or boulder bearing potentials. The
standard penetration test (SPT) is the most popular
and, in many cases, may be the only available site
investigation technique for such a ground.
The goal of this paper is to statistically assess the
model factors of RBD at the SLS for driven steel piles
in glacial deposits with SPT blow counts (N-values).
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng
The focus is on axially loaded piles subjected to static
compression loads. A reliability analysis was con-
ducted for the pile deformation, and the pile SLS was
represented with an allowable load that corresponds
to a tolerable settlement. First, a database of pile tests
was collected with high-quality load–displacement
responses along with soil measurements. Second, the
load–displacement curves were normalized by their
pile capacities identified by the De Beer failure cri-
terion. Third, a hyperbolic model was selected to rep-
resent the normalized load–displacement responses,
and the hyperbolic model parameters were collected
by fitting the model to the normalized load–displace-
ment curves. Fourth, the hyperbolic model param-
eters were assessed on their statistical properties,
which includes their mean, coefficient of variation
(COV), and probability distribution. Their correlation
structure was represented with copula theory. Lastly,
according to recommendations by AASHTO (2014),
resistance factors were computed for the SLS with
Monte Carlo simulations (MCS). In all, this study
intends to promote the application of RBD for pile
designs in glacial deposits.
2 Serviceability Limit State Design
The SLS considers the deformation, cracking, or
vibration of a structure (AASHTO 2014; CSA 2019),
but the SLS will be defined here as the maximum per-
missible displacement,  sa , obtained at the pile head
under a compressive load. Then, for a simple and
familiar application of LRFD, the SLS design can be
represented in terms of the factored allowable load
( Q∗a ) instead of the displacement. Similar to the ULS,
Q∗a for the SLS is produced from the pile nominal
allowable load, Qan , factored by a resistance factor,
𝜓SLS , and Q∗a should not be exceeded by the summa-
tion of factored applied loads:
∑
Q∗a = 𝜓SLS Qan ≥ 𝛾i Qni (1)
where Qni is the ith nominal applied load and 𝛾i is
the corresponding load factor. A failure of the SLS
is defined as when the displacement from an applied
load, Q , is greater than sa , which corresponds to Qa .
The probability of failure, pf   , should meet a tar-
get probability of failure, pfT  , which depends on the
structural importance and/or intent. The pf is then
Geotech Geol Eng

expressed with the loads in the following perfor-
mance function (Reddy and Stuedlein 2017; Tang and
Phoon 2018a; Tang et al. 2019):
(2)
( )
pf = Pr Qa − Q ≤ 0 ≤ pfT
The symbol Pr () represents the probability of the
event. To determine Q∗a , a reliability analysis was con-
ducted to calibrate 𝜓SLS for pfT  , and the methodology
in this study was similar to those applied by others
(Misra and Roberts 2009; Uzielli and Mayne 2011;
Huffman et  al. 2015, 2016; Reddy and Stuedlein
2017; Tang and Phoon 2018a, b, c; Tang et al. 2019).
In order to assess Eq. 2, a simple hyperbolic rela-
tionship was adopted to represent the load–displace-
ment response of a pile:
Q∕Qum = s∕(a + bs) (3)
where Qum is the ultimate capacity identified from
the load–displacement response of the pile, s is the
displacement (in mm) at the pile head; and a and b
are the hyperbolic parameters. In this formula, Q is
normalized by Qum . Equation  3 has provided a good
representation of the load–displacement response for
many foundation elements, such as driven piles (Dith-
inde et  al.2011; Tang and Phoon 2018a, b), bored
piles (Dithinde et al. 2011; Tang et al. 2019), helical
piles (Tang and Phoon 2018c), augered cast-in-place
piles (Reddy and Stuedlein 2017), cement-fly ash-
gravel piles (Wu and Xin 2019), and shallow footings
(Uzielli and Mayne 2011; Huffman et al. 2015, 2016).
This relationship is preferred due to its simplicity. In
addition, the hyperbolic parameters ( a and b ) have
physical meanings, where the initial stiffness, or
slope, of the pile response is represented by a and the
asymptote of the normalized load is represented by b.
The Qa can be approximated by the hyperbolic
model for a given sa:
(4)
( )
Qa = sa ∕ a + bsa Qum
The SLS model factor, Ms 
, is defined by the
following:
(5)
( )
Ms = sa ∕ a + bsa
Then, Qa is simplified as shown below.
Qa = Ms Qum (6)
In practice, the Qum may be replaced by the pre-
dicted capacity,  Qup , since the measured value may
not be available if site-specific load tests are not con-
ducted. The uncertainty of predicting the capacity is
generally characterized by the capacity bias, Mu  ,
which is a ratio of Qum to Qup:
Mu = Qum ∕Qup (7)
Qum is evaluated by a failure criterion on pile load–
displacement responses, while Qup is calculated by a
design method. Thus, Qa is expressed after consider-
ing Mu:
Qa = Ms Mu Qup (8)
For the AASHTO (2014) Strength limit I, Q is a
combination of dead ( QDL ) and live loads ( QLL):
Q = 𝜆DL QDL + 𝜆LL QLL (9)
where 𝜆DL and 𝜆LL are the bias factors for QDL and
QLL , respectively. As suggested by AASHTO (2014),
𝜆DL and 𝜆LL were assumed for this analysis to have a
mean of 1.05 and 1.15, respectively, and the COV of
𝜆DL and 𝜆LL was 10% and 20%, respectively. Equa-
tion 1 is rearranged after letting the predicted nominal
capacity be equal to Qan:
( )
Qup = 𝛾DL QDL + 𝛾LL QLL ∕𝜓SLS (10)
where 𝛾DL and 𝛾LL are respectively the dead load fac-
tor and live load factor, which can be equal to unity
for SLS.
The SLS limit state function, g , is specified:
(11)
( )
g = Qa − Q = Qa − 𝜆DL QDL + 𝜆LL QLL
After combining Eqs. 8 and 10 into Eq. 11, the modi-
fied g is provided (Tang et al. 2019):
( ) ( )
g=
𝛾DL QDL + 𝛾LL QLL
⋅
sa
⋅
𝜓SLS a + bsa (12)
( )
Mu − 𝜆DL QDL + 𝜆LL QLL
Finally, the applied loads are replaced by the QDL
to QLL ratio, 𝜂 , and the following g is used to calculate
pf for the SLS (Tang et al. 2019).

Vol.: (0123456789)
13

( ) ( )
𝛾DL + 𝛾LL ∕𝜂 sa ( )
g= ⋅ Mu − 𝜆DL + 𝜆LL ∕𝜂
⋅
𝜓SLS a + bsa
(13)
If g is assumed to be normally distributed, the reli-
ability index, 𝛽 ′ , can be determined from pf by apply-
ing the inverse standard normal cumulative function,
𝜙−1 (Phoon et al. 2003; Reddy and Stuedlein 2017):
𝛽 � = −𝜙−1 pf (14)
( )
3 Studied pile load test database from MTO
3.1 Pile Load Test Database
The pile load tests were conducted for the Ministry of
Transportation of Ontario (MTO) in various regions
of Ontario, Canada. For this study, the focus was on
driven steel piles, particularly pipe and H piles, sub-
jected to axial compression loads. The testing pro-
cedures were similar to the ASTM (2013) D1143/
D1143M standard for a standard (slow) static-main-
tained load test, and loads were applied to the top
of the piles by hydraulic jacks that acted against an
anchored reaction frame, weighted box, or weighted
platform.
The pile test results were accompanied with geo-
technical borehole logs that provided the soil clas-
sifications and strength measurement information,
such as SPT N-values. Glacial deposits, also referred
to as tills, are routinely encountered in the Province
of Ontario. Due to their formation process, tills are
vertically and horizontally heterogeneous in situ, and
glacial deposits usually contain an inconsistent mix-
ture of particle sizes, mineral types, and weathered
rock types (Legget 1965; Milligan 1976; Barnett
1992; Clarke 2017). The tills formed from igneous
and metamorphic rocks can contain over 70% sand
and less than 5% clay (Barnett 1992). These tills
likely range from non-plastic to slightly plastic due to
the low clay content (Milligan 1976). However, tills
from carbonate rocks, limestones, and dolostones can
have a content of 40–50% silt and 15–30% clay (Leg-
get 1965; Barnett 1992). Well-graded sediments from
carbonate rocks lead to compact to very compact tills.
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng
Fine-grained tills were likely formed by the addi-
tion of glaciolacustrine deposits and contain clay to
a maximum of approximately 55% (Barnett 1992).
The different origins and geological processes created
glacial tills in Ontario with a variety of soil charac-
teristics and contents. For example, Site 5 near Mara-
thon contained varved silty clays and clayey silts,
while Site 33 near Buttonville had intermittent layers
of clayey silts and silty sands. In all, a variety of soil
conditions were encountered in the studied sites.
3.2 Selection of Test Data for the Analysis
According to Abu-Hejleh et  al. (2015), the load test
database should contain information on the (1) sub-
surface ground conditions at the test site; (2) pile
information; and (3) load–displacement curves. The
MTO load test data were further divided into two
categories: Group 1 considers the load–displacement
response and Group 2 has sufficient measurements for
determining the pile capacity.
For Group 1, the piles were selected based on the
following conditions: plunging failure, where the
capacity can be identified without extrapolation; non-
organic ground; and steel driven piles. In the end,
a total of 42 piles (22 pipe piles; 20 H piles) were
selected.
In addition to meeting the requirements for Group
1, a total of 36 piles (19 pipe piles; 17 H piles) were
selected for Group 2, where sufficient soil measure-
ments, in particular SPT N-values and the corre-
sponding soil type, along the pile length were known
from borehole logs.
The details of the pile geometry, site conditions,
and load test data are shown in Table  1. The pipe
piles were closed-ended and filled with concrete,
except for two that were open-ended. The outside
diameter of the pipe piles was 305  mm to 324  mm,
and the H piles were either 310 × 79 or 310 × 110
designations (mm × kg/m). The embedment lengths
( L ) ranged from 3 to 35 m, and the slenderness ratio
( L∕D ), where D is the pile width or diameter, varied
from approximately 9–110. With the recommenda-
tions from Canadian Geotechnical Society (CGS)
(2006), the field SPT N-values were corrected to N60
Geotech Geol Eng

Table 1  Summary of studied piles

Case no. Site no. Pile no. Pile ­typea Lengthb (m) Embedded soil t­ypec Qum(kN) Qs(kN) Qp(kN) Notes

1 2 5 305 OD Pipe 5.85 Sand 812 Open-ended

2 4 2 324 OD Pipe 35.94 Silt and Clayey Silt 553 343 mm ∅ shoe
3 5 43 HP 310 × 79 20.73 Varved Silty Clay 217
4 7 2 HP 310 × 79 21.70 Clay and Silty Sand 827
5 11 1 HP 310 × 79 26.82 Sand to Silt 550
6 14 2 324 OD Pipe 18.29 Silty Clay 298 343 mm ∅ shoe
7 17 2 HP 310 × 110 26.47 Clayey Silt to Sand 2482
8 22 3 324 OD Pipe 15.30 Clayey Silt 163 148 15 343 mm ∅ shoe
9 22 4 324 OD Pipe 30.15 Clayey Silt 937 343 mm ∅ shoe
10 22 5 324 OD Pipe 15.28 Clayey Silt 233 324 mm ∅ shoe
11 23 2 324 OD Pipe 3.02 Silty Clay 442 217 225 343 mm ∅ shoe
12 23 3 HP 310 × 110 3.05 Silty Clay 425 255 170
13 24 2 324 OD Pipe 15.39 Sand 608 402 206 343 mm ∅ shoe
14 24 3 324 OD Pipe 22.40 Sand 667 443 224 343 mm ∅ shoe
15 24 4 HP 310 × 79 22.40 Sand 1371 420 951
16 24 5 HP 310 × 79 15.39 Sand 702 275 427
17 25 1 324 OD Pipe 5.64 Silty Clay 343 343 mm ∅ shoe
18 25 4 HP 310 × 79 18.44 Silty Clay 873
19 25 5 324 OD Pipe 18.35 Silty Clay 667 343 mm ∅ shoe
20 25 6 324 OD Pipe 9.27 Silty Clay 472 343 mm ∅ shoe
21 25 9 HP 310 × 79 9.39 Silty Clay 489
22 28 1 HP 310 × 79 6.10 Clayey Silt 502
23 28 2 HP 310 × 79 18.29 Clayey Silt 471 331 141
24 28 3 HP 310 × 79 12.19 Clayey Silt 563
25 28 7 324 OD Pipe 6.10 Clayey Silt 658 569 89 343 mm ∅ shoe
26 28 8 324 OD Pipe 18.29 Clayey Silt 659 442 217 343 mm ∅ shoe
27 28 9 324 OD Pipe 12.19 Clayey Silt 567 343 mm ∅ shoe
28 33 2 324 OD Pipe 32.95 Clayey Silt and Silty Sand 2095 342 mm ∅ shoe
29 35 1 HP 310 × 110 14.69 Layered Clayey Silt and 1592 523 1069
Silty Sand
30 35 4 324 OD Pipe 14.69 Layered Clayey Silt and 1507 759 748 343 mm ∅ shoe
Silty Sand
31 35 5 HP 310 × 110 27.58 Layered Clayey Silt and 2714 1524 1190
Silty Sand
32 35 6 324 OD Pipe 28.01 Layered Clayey Silt and 2396 343 mm ∅ shoe
Silty Sand
33 37 3 HP 310 × 79 14.48 Sand to Silty Sand 1042 345 700
34 37 5 HP 310 × 79 31.24 Sand to Sandy Silt 1609 444 1165
35 37 6 HP 310 × 110 14.48 Sand to Silty Sand 717 413 304
36 37 8 HP 310 × 110 30.92 Sand to Silty Sand 1566 699 867
37 38 4 324 OD Pipe 11.30 Silty Clay and Silt to Silty 842 Open-ended
Sand
38 38 5 324 OD Pipe 15.50 Silty Clay and Silt to Silty 2007 Open-ended
Sand
39 39 2 HP 310 × 110 25.50 Silty Sand; Layered Clay 1279 733 546
and Silt

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 1  (continued)
Case no. Site no. Pile no. Pile ­typea Lengthb (m) Embedded soil t­ypec Qum(kN) Qs(kN) Qp(kN) Notes

40 39 3 324 OD Pipe 25.40 Silty Sand; Layered Clay 1152 525 627 343 mm ∅ shoe
and Silt
41 40 2 HP 310 × 110 24.50 Layered Sand and Silty Clay 1205 625 580
42 40 3 324 OD Pipe 17.20 Sandy Silt to Sand 1128 544 584 343 mm ∅ shoe
a
 Steel H pile designations are size (mm) by weight (kg/m). Steel pipe piles were filled with concrete before testing, and OD is the
outside diameter (mm)
b
 Embedment Length
c
 The dominating soil type, and classifications are according to MTO standards

for 60% hammer efficiency in cohesive soils and to
(N 1 )60 with an additional overburden pressure cor-
rection in cohesionless soils. A few assumptions
were taken for all cases to correct the SPT N-value,
including a donut hammer type with an estimated rod
energy ratio of 45%; a standard sampler; and a bore-
hole diameter of approximately 100 mm. The average
corrected SPT N-value ( Navg ), using N60 for cohesive
soils and (N 1 )60 for cohesionless soils, along the piles
ranged from 5 to 55, and the corrected N-value ( Ntip )
at the base of the piles ranged from 5 to 68. Figure 1
shows histograms of Navg , Ntip , and L∕D among the
two pile types. In general, the tested piles have a
diverse set of lengths and soil strengths.
4 Collection of Model Factors
4.1 Introduction to Model Factors
For 𝜓SLS to be calibrated, Eq.  13 requires several
model factors, namely Mu and hyperbolic parameters
a and b . For a specific pfT  , 𝜓SLS was determined in
this study with MCS using the statistical properties

Fig. 1  Histograms of pile
slenderness ratio, average
corrected N-value along
piles, and corrected N-value
at base of piles

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng
of the model factors. MCS assesses the pf by gen-
erating many sets of input or model parameters that
formulate the limit state function (Eq.  13). Each set
of parameters is a simulation, and the parameters are
randomly sampled from their fitted probability distri-
butions. MCS was applied because it is not limited to
a single type of probability distribution, such as nor-
mal, lognormal, or Weibull, and is applicable for non-
linear limit state functions (Allen et al. 2005; Uzielli
and Mayne 2011; Reddy and Stuedlein 2017).
4.2 Measured Axial Capacity ( Qum)
The capacity is a key component in the hyper-
bolic model, but according to Hirany and Kulhawy
(1989), at least 42 different methods exist to iden-
tify the capacity from measured load–displacement
responses. A total of 11 failure identification meth-
ods were evaluated for their performances in this
study, including Butler and Hoy (1977); Chin (1970);
Davisson (1972); De Beer (1967, 1968); Decourt
(1999); Fuller and Hoy (1970); Hansen 80% (Hansen
1963); Hansen 90% (Fellenius 1980); both L1 and
L2 from the L1-L2 method (Hirany and Kulhawy
1989); and Van Der Veen (1953). An example of the
results is given on the same load–displacement curve
by a 324 mm-diameter pipe pile with an embedment
length of 30  m. Figure  2a shows the site conditions
of the tested pile, while Fig. 2b shows the variations
of different failure methods. The performances of 11
Fig. 2  Example of ground
profiles and load–displace-
ment curve for pile 4 at
site 22
different methods on the 42 pile load tests are pre-
sented by boxplots in Fig. 3, where a line dividing a
box is the median, a black diamond is the mean load
by a criterion, and edges of a box are the first and
third quartiles. The differences between the median
and mean or quartiles in Fig. 3a indicate the capaci-
ties are likely asymmetrically or non-normally dis-
tributed. The figure also shows minimum and maxi-
mum failure loads by the whiskers. The ratios of Qum
to the average capacity, ( Qum  ), by each criterion are
shown in Fig.  3b. Based on the analysis, it is found
that most methods provide a similar range of vari-
ability. The main difference between the failure meth-
ods is the average location on the load–displacement
curve. Thus, the magnitude of the identified capacity
differs depending on the selected criterion, which will
influence the results of the remaining analysis.
Although the Davisson Offset Method is one of
the most popular methods, it is an empirical method
and may inaccurately estimate the yielding point
(Fellenius 1980). The yielding loads for the remain-
ing investigation were evaluated with the De Beer
method, which identifies the pile capacity as the load
at the intersection of two slopes from the load–dis-
placement curve plotted in a double-log scale (De
Beer 1967, 1968). This method was selected because
it is one of the methods with the lowest interquartile
range. In addition, it provides a relatively conserva-
tive estimation of the pile capacity by roughly corre-
sponding to the point of maximum curvature on the
Vol.: (0123456789)
13

Fig. 3  Variability of a capacity and b normalized capacity by failure criteria
load–displacement curve and does not provide an
excessively large failure load, like the Chin, Decourt,
or Hansen 80% criteria shown in Fig. 2b.
4.3 Predicted Axial Capacity ( Qup)
The capacity of a pile subjected to a compressive load
is composed of the side resistance ( Qs ) and tip resist-
ance ( Qp):
Qup = Qs + Qp = Σqs As + qp Ap
where qs is the unit side resistance, qp is the unit tip
resistance, As is the side area of the pile, and Ap is the
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng
area of the pile base. For SPT measurements, Qup can
be calculated with direct or indirect design methods.
Direct design methods are empirical correlations
linking the pile resistances directly with SPT N-val-
ues. Many linear correlations have been proposed for
a variety of soil types (Thorburn and MacVicar 1971;
Aoki and Velloso 1975; Meyerhof 1956, 1976; Shioi
and Fukui 1982; Martin et  al. 1987; Decourt 1982,
1995; Brown 2001; Shariatmadari et  al. 2008), but
they can be limited to the regional soil conditions. For
(15) indirect methods, SPT N-values first derive the soil
strength parameters, such as the undrained shear
strength ( Cu ) and the friction angle ( 𝜙′ ), and the pile
Geotech Geol Eng

resistances are then predicted with the strength
parameters based on classical soil mechanics theory.
Common indirect design methods can generally be
categorized as 𝛼 methods (Tomlinson 1957; API
2000) for cohesive soils and 𝛽 methods (Berezantzev
et  al. 1961; Nordlund 1963, 1979) for cohesionless
soils or the long-term conditions of cohesive soils.
cohesive soils and the 𝛽 method by Berezantzev et al.
(1961) for cohesionless soils. These approaches are
simple and are examples of the traditional 𝛼 and 𝛽
methods. As recommended by Tomlinson and Wood-
ward (2008), the Berezantzev et al. method applied a
friction angle of the soil-pile interface, δ, that was
65% of 𝜙 and an installation coefficient, Kf  , that was
′

In this study, Qup was calculated with both direct
and indirect design methods that can account for het-
erogeneous soil profiles and different pile geometries,
namely pipe and H piles. The three selected methods
are summarized in Table 2 for the side resistance and
Table  3 for the tip resistance. The first method is a
combination of the 𝛼 method by Tomlinson (1957) for
0.75 for H Piles and 1.0 for pipe piles. The second
method was based on recommendations from Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) (Hannigan et  al.
2016) for layered soil profiles and included the 𝛼
method adopted by API (2000) for cohesive soils and
the 𝛽 method by Nordlund (1963, 1979) for cohesion-
less soils. According to a survey conducted by

Table 2  Summary of selected design methods for the pile side resistance

Method Soil type Equation for qs Remarks

Tomlinson (1957) + Berezantzev Cohesive qs = 𝛼Cu 𝛼 is an adhesion factor

et al. (1961) Cohesionless qs = Kf Ko 𝜎 � tan 𝛿 Kf is installation coefficient, Ko is the lateral earth
coefficient at rest, σ′ is the effective stress, and δ is
the friction angle of the soil-pile interface
API (2000) + Nordlund (1963, Cohesive qs = 𝛼Cu ( )−0.5
𝛼 = 0.5 Cu
1979) ( 𝜎 � )−0.25for 𝜎 ′ ≤ 1
Cu

Jesswein and Liu (2021)
𝛼 = 0.5 𝜎 �Cu
for Cu
𝜎′
>1
Cohesionless qs = K𝛿 CF 𝜎 � sin 𝛿 K𝛿 is the coefficient of lateral earth pressure, and CF
is an empirical correction factor for when 𝛿 is not
equal to 𝜙′
Cohesive and qs = AN1cor 𝜎 � A is an empirical coefficient. For pipe piles, A ranges
cohesionless from 0.132 for desiccated clays to 0.01 for gravels
or gravelly soils (content > 20 %). For H piles, A
ranges from 0.125 for desiccated clays to 0.0038 for
gravels or gravelly soils. Ncor is N60 for cohesion-
less soils and (­ N1)60 for cohesive soils.

Table 3  Summary of Selected Design Methods for the Pile Tip Resistance

Method Soil Type Equation for qp Remarks

Tomlinson (1957) + Berezantzev Cohesive qp = Nc Cu Nc is an end bearing factor and is equal to 9 (Meyerhof

et al. (1961) 1976)
Cohesionless qp = Nq 𝜎t� Nq is an end bearing factor, and 𝜎t′ is the effective stress
at the pile tip
API (2000) + Nordlund (1963, Cohesive qp = Nc Cu Nc is equal to 9 (Meyerhof 1976)
1979) Cohesionless qp = 𝛼t Nq 𝜎t� 𝛼t is an end bearing correction factor for consideration of
the pile slenderness ratio
Jesswein and Liu (2021) Cohesive and qp = 1.3Ntip 𝜎t� For cohesionless soils, Ntip is (N1 )60 , for cohesive soils,
cohesionless (N1 )60

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 Geotech Geol Eng

AbdelSalam et  al. (2012) in America, the Nordlund and 1.16 for H piles. For the two H and pipe pile
method is one of the most popular approaches for a types, the variability is generally high as the COV of
static analysis. For qp by the Nordlund method, the Mu is 50.9% for the API and Nordlund approaches
effective vertical stress at the pile base, 𝜎t′ , was lim- and 47.4% for the Tomlinson and Berezantzev et  al.
ited to 150  kPa as suggested by Hannigan et  al. approaches. Most of the variabilities by these indirect
(2016). The third method is the direct approach pro- design methods are due to the difficulties in accurately
posed by Jesswein and Liu (2021) based on an earlier characterizing the shear strength parameters, namely
study with the same pile load database. It further clas- Cu and 𝜙′ . Many of the cohesionless soils were classi-
sified cohesive soils into more sub-types based on silt fied as dense ( 30 ≤ field N-value ≤ 50 ) to very dense
contents and moisture changes and considers the (field N-value > 50 ). In addition, the gravel content in
gravel content in cohesionless soils. the ground can lead to excessively high N-values. For
For indirect methods with cohesionless soils, 𝜙′ example, field N-values ranged from 38 to 154 at Site
was determined by the correlation from Wolff (1989): 38 as the gravel content varied between 10 and 50%.
Although corrected N-values were capped to 50, high
𝜙� = 27.1 + 0.3N60 − 0.00054N60 (16)
2
field N-values do not proportionally reflect the shear
strength of the soil with the correlations for Cu and
For cohesive soils, Cu was determined based on
𝜙′ and would result in a greater strength than reality.
the empirical relationships by Sivrikaya and Toğrol
The direct design method by Jesswein and Liu (2021)
(2006). Cu was equal to 4 N60 for clays, 3.8N60 for
provides unbiased predictions with an average Mu of
silty clays, 3N60 for clayey silts, and 9N60 for desic-
0.97 for pipe piles and 1.00 for H piles. The method
cated (hard) clays.
also has a smaller COV of 44.4% for pipe piles and
The load capacity calculations were conducted
25.4% for H piles. Some of the reasons are due to the
with all 36 piles in Group 2 from the database. The
consideration of silts in cohesive soils and the gravel
changing soil profiles and SPT-N-values were consid-
content in cohesionless soils. The main reason is the
ered by dividing the pile length into small segments.
method was developed with the same database, and
The corrected N-values were capped to a maximum
the effectiveness of this method requires further veri-
value of 50. Both H piles and open-ended pipe piles
fications with pile tests in glacial deposits from other
were assumed to be fully plugged as suggested by
sources. In general, variabilities are also found due
Hannigan et al. (2016).
to the inconsistencies in the SPT measurements and
factors related to the pile length, such as the residual
4.4 Comparison between Measured and Predicted
loads and load transfer along piles of different lengths
Capacities
(Nordlund 1963; Semple and Rigden 1986; Fellenius
2019).
The predictions were compared to the measured
results, as shown in Fig. 4, for both H and pipe piles.
4.5 Hyperbolic Parameters
A perfect prediction exists if a datapoint is located on
the solid black 1:1 line. The lower and upper dashed
The load–displacement responses of pipe piles
lines indicate an underprediction or overprediction of
are shown in Fig.  5a with the normalized curves in
the measured capacity by 30%, respectively. For each
Fig.  5b. For H piles, the load–displacement curves
design method, Table  4 summarizes the descriptive
and their normalized ones are shown in Fig. 5c and d,
statistics of Mu , which shows the uncertainties of the
respectively. In Fig. 5b and d, the elastic and plung-
predictions. The API and Nordlund approaches tend
ing slopes on the normalized curves vary due to the
to overpredict the pile capacity by a factor of 1.28
different failure mechanisms, pile geometries, and
on average. This is also indicated by a Mu lower than
soil conditions. The hyperbolic parameters a and b in
one, such as the average Mu of 0.90 for H piles. The
Eq. 3 were collected for each normalized curve with
Tomlinson and Berezantzev et al. approaches slightly
nonlinear least squares regression.
underpredict with an average Mu of 1.10 for pipe piles

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 4  Comparison of predicted and measured capacities: (a and b) API and Nordlund, (c and d) Tomlinson and Berezantzev et al.,
and (e and f) Jesswein and Liu

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 4  Descriptive Statistics of Mu for Driven Piles 5 Statistical Analysis of Model Factors

Pile type n Design method Mean COV (%)
During the MCS, the model factors ( a , b , and Mu )
Pipe piles 19 Tomlinson + Berezantzev 1.10 54.6 are simulated by their source probability distributions
et al
and should be considered as random variables. The
API + Nordlund 1.00 57.3
statistical properties of the model factors were inves-
Jesswein and Liu 0.97 44.4
tigated for all 42 pile load tests. The statistical prop-
H Piles 17 Tomlinson + Berezantzev 1.16 38.6
et al
erties were evaluated by verifying the randomness;
API + Nordlund 0.90 39.4
collecting descriptive statistics, such as the mean and
Jesswein & Liu 1.00 25.4
COV; and fitting probability distributions.

Fig. 5  Measured load–displacement responses from load tests

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng

5.1 Verification of Randomness be due to the different pile geometries, soil condi-

Before assuming the model parameters are ran-
dom variables, the parameters need to be checked
for potential biases from the soil or pile properties
(Uzielli and Mayne 2011; Reddy and Stuedlein 2017;
Tang and Phoon 2018a; Tang et al. 2019). Potentially
influential variables include Navg , Ntip , and L∕D . If
any correlation exists, the model factor is transformed
with a function to remove the statistical dependency,
and the COV of the transformed model factor can be
reduced compared to the non-transformed model fac-
tor (Tang and Phoon 2018a).
Correlations between the model factors and L∕D ,
Ntip , and Navg can be assessed with statistical tests,
such as the Pearson Product-Moment correlation test
or Spearman rank-correlation test (Howell 2002).
The Spearman rank-correlation was used since it can
assess monotonic relationships, including both lin-
ear and non-constant trends, between two variables
(Howell 2002). If the p-value is less than 0.05, the
null hypothesis can be rejected within the 95% con-
fidence interval, and the correlation indicated by the
coefficient, r , is significantly different from zero, indi-
cating a dependence between the variables (Howell
2002). If the p-value is greater than 0.05 or r is less
than 0.40, a weak correlation likely exists, and it can
be ignored.
For the hyperbolic model factors, Table  5 shows
the results of the Spearman rank-correlation test and
the number of analyzed samples, n . For deep foun-
dations, there are discrepancies among the findings:
some researchers noticed a and b were biased by L∕D
(Reddy and Stuedlein 2017; Tang and Phoon 2018b),
while others (Dithinde et  al. 2011; Tang and Phoon
2018a, c; Tang et  al. 2019) did not find any biases
within their model factors. These discrepancies may
tions, and failure criteria applied within the studies.
Depending on the pile type in this study, a was found
to have a fairly strong positive correlation with L∕D ,
Ntip , and/or Navg . This dependency can be expected
due to the rigidity of the pile material and soil condi-
tions. The load-transfer effect within a pile is related
to L∕D , and a short pile will likely mobilize both the
side and tip resistance simultaneously and have less
elastic displacement than a long pile. A greater Ntip
indicates a denser and less compressible soil, and the
pile deformation may rely more on the tip resistance.
For pipe piles, b had a negative correlation with L∕D
and Navg , while b solely had a negative correlation
with L∕D for H piles. Overall, the correlations in this
study indicate long piles, especially in strong soils,
will likely have a more gradual failure response than
short piles.
Since dependencies were found among the model
parameters ( a and b ), the correlations were removed
by empirically transforming a and b to their inde-
pendent counterparts, at or bt . For pipe piles, the
following transformation functions were obtained
by regressing L∕D , Navg , and/or Ntip to the original
model parameter:
0.60
a = 0.291 ⋅ exp (0.014 ⋅ L∕D) ⋅ Ntip ⋅ at (17)
( ( ) )
b = (−0.060 ⋅ ln(L∕D) + 0.96) −0.11 ⋅ ln Navg + 1.29 ⋅ bt
(18)
For H piles, the following expressions were
obtained:
a = 0.99 ⋅ exp(0.018 ⋅ L∕D) ⋅ at (19)
b = (−0.0028 ⋅ ln (L∕D) + 0.94) ⋅ bt (20)

Table 5  Results of Pile type Variable n a b

spearman rank-correlation
for hyperbolic parameters r p-value r p-value

Pipe piles L∕D 22 0.60 0.00  − 0.55 0.01

Navg 19 0.55 0.01  − 0.65 0.00
Ntip 19 0.59 0.01  − 0.27 0.26
H piles L∕D 22 0.65 0.00  − 0.65 0.00
Bold values indicate a Navg 19 0.33 0.18  − 0.12 0.63
potential correlation with Ntip 19 0.61 0.01  − 0.45 0.06
the model factor

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 6  Results of Pile type Variable n API + Nordlund Tomlin- Jesswein and Liu

spearman rank-correlation son + Berezantzev
for Mu by design method et al
r p-value r p-value r p-value

Pipe Piles L∕D 19  − 0.62 0.00  − 0.39 0.10  − 0.39 0.10

Navg 19  − 0.09 0.70  − 0.13 0.60  − 0.16 0.23
Ntip 19  − 0.01 0.96  − 0.05 0.85 0.18 0.45
Qum 19 0.25 0.30 0.39 0.10 0.40 0.09
H Piles L∕D 17  − 0.72 0.00  − 0.34 0.18  − 0.15 0.57
Navg 17  − 0.21 0.42  − 0.30 0.25 0.23 0.38
Bold values indicate a Ntip 17  − 0.31 0.23  − 0.26 0.31 0.26 0.31
potential correlation with Qum 17  − 0.20 0.44  − 0.05 0.85 0.39 0.13
the model factor

Reddy and Stuedlein (2017) and Tang and Phoon
(2018b) offered different functions because the corre-
lations vary with the capacity failure criterion, data-
base, and foundation type.
For the three design methods, Table  6 shows the
potential correlations between Mu and L∕D , Ntip , Navg ,
and Qum . Bathurst and Bozorgzadeh (2019) suggested
small or large Qum values may influence Mu , but none
of the design methods or pile types indicated a signif-
icant relationship. Notably, predictions for the capac-
ity with the API and Nordlund methods were biased
by L∕D , and Mu was transformed to Mut with the
function below for pipe piles:
Mu = (−0.62 ⋅ ln (L∕D) + 3.41) ⋅ Mut (21)
5.2 Fitting of Probability Distributions
In order to conduct MCS, the statistical distributions
of the model factors need to be identified. Distribu-
tions were considered if they assumed the model fac-
tors could only possess values greater than zero (posi-
tive values), and the goodness-of-fit was conducted
with the Anderson–Darling test (Anderson and Dar-
ling 1952) at the 95% confidence interval. Mu and Mut
were fitted to lognormal distributions, while at and
bt were fitted to Weibull distributions with a best-fit
scale 𝛼w and shape 𝛽w parameter obtained from maxi-
mum likelihood estimation. Figures 6 and 7 show the
fitted cumulative distribution functions offer a reason-
able representation of the model factors.

5.3 Simulation of Hyperbolic Parameters

while H piles had transformation function below.
Figure 8 shows that the hyperbolic parameters a and
Mu = 1.72 ⋅ exp (−0.011 ⋅ L∕D) ⋅ Mut (22) b are weakly and inversely correlated, and this is con-
firmed with a Pearson Product-Moment correlation
Many of the studied piles in cohesive soils have
coefficient, 𝜌 , of -0.64 for pipe piles and -0.48 for
high Cu values at shallow depths. Yet, for high
H piles. The figure also shows the Kendall tau coef-
strength ratios ( Cu∕𝜎 � ), the API 𝛼 method uses a low
ficient, 𝜌𝜏 , between a and b . However, for the trans-
adhesion factor and underestimates the side resistance
formed parameters ( at and bt ), the relationships are
of short piles as a result. Longer piles generally have
significantly weaker with a 𝜌 of − 0.45 for pipe piles
low Cu∕𝜎 � ratios as 𝜎 ′ increases, but the API method
and − 0.085 for H piles. This change in dependency
applies a higher adhesion factor, which overestimates
may indicate that a and b are likely indirectly corre-
the side resistance. Overpredictions may also occur
lated by the underlying soil and pile properties.
with cohesionless soils due to the difficulty to prop-
The relationship between at and bt for both pipe
erly determine the shear strength from high N-values.
and H piles must be considered in the analysis; oth-
The Mu from the Jesswein and Liu and Tomlinson
erwise, biased results may develop during the reli-
and Berezantzev et al. methods did not share signifi-
ability analysis if these two parameters were assumed
cant correlations with the variables.
to be independent. Copulas represent the correlation

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 6  Cumulative distribution for at and bt

Fig. 7  Cumulative distribution for Mu or Mut for a Pipe piles and b H piles

structure between two or more variables by math- piles, similar to several other studies (Uzielli and
ematically joining their cumulative probabilities Mayne 2011; Reddy and Stuedlein 2017; Tang et al.
(Nelsen 2007). Copula theory was used in this study 2019). For the Gaussian, Clayton, Frank, Plackett,
to simulate the load–displacement response of the Gumbel, and Joe copulas, the Multivariate Copula

Vol.: (0123456789)
13

Fig. 8  Observed and simulated correlation of hyperbolic parameters
Analysis Toolbox (MvCAT) by Sadegh et  al. (2017)
in Matlab (Mathworks 2017) was used to estimate
the copula parameter 𝜃 , which indicates the strength
of the correlation between at and bt . With the cumu-
lative probabilities of at and bt from the previously
fitted Weibull distributions, MvCAT finds 𝜃 with
two approaches: a local optimization algorithm and
Bayesian framework (Sadegh et  al. 2017). Sadegh
et  al. (2017) suggests local optimization approaches
may lead to biased values for 𝜃 as an algorithm may
become trapped on a local minimum. On the other
hand, a Bayesian approach can be more robust to
locate the global optimum and can describe the
underlying uncertainty to estimate 𝜃 . It should be
noted that the Clayton, Gumbel, and Joe copulas were
intended for positively correlated data. While deter-
mining 𝜃 with these copulas, the observed negative
correlation between at and bt was rotated 90 degrees
by replacing the cumulative probability ( u ) of at with
1-u (Reddy and Stuedlein 2017).
Figures  9 and 10 show the results from MvCAT
for pipe piles and H piles, respectively. Both opti-
mization approaches were applied to estimate 𝜃 .
The red star is the result from local optimization,
while a histogram shows the posterior distribution
of 𝜃 from the Bayesian analysis. A black cross shows
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng
the mode and maximum likelihood estimate (MLE)
of the parameter. For the pipe piles, the 𝜃 by MLE
was − 0.27, 1.80, 0.45, 1.95, and 2.69 for the Gauss-
ian, Clayton, Plackett, Gumbel, and Joe copulas,
respectively. These values were similar to the results
from local optimization, which provided a 𝜃 of − 0.49,
1.12, 0.45, 1.54, and 2.69 for the Gaussian, Clayton,
Plackett, Gumbel, and Joe copulas, respectively. For
the Frank copula (Fig.  9c), the local optimization
approach likely became trapped, and the estimated 𝜃
significantly differed from the Bayesian analysis. For
H piles, 𝜃 mostly coincided between the local optimi-
zation and Bayesian approaches. For both pile types,
as indicated by the estimated 𝜃 with the Gumbel and
Clayton copulas, the Bayesian analysis suggests the
correlations between at and bt are slightly stronger
compared to the local optimization, but the correla-
tions are slightly weaker with the Gaussian and Frank
copulas by the Bayesian analysis.
As shown in Table  7, the copulas were assessed
with the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). Based
on that a lower BIC suggests a better fit, a Clayton-
type copula was selected with a 𝜃 of 1.80 for pipe
piles, and a Gumbel-type copula was chosen with a
𝜃 of 1.36 for H piles. To verify the fit, these copu-
las were used to simulate 5000 pairs of hyperbolic
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 9  Posterior distribution of the copula parameter for pipe piles with a Gaussian, b Clayton, c Frank, d Plackett, e Gumbel, and f
Joe Copula

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 10  Posterior distribution of the Copula Parameter for H Piles with a Gaussian, b Clayton, c Frank, d Plackett, e Gumbel, and f
Joe Copula

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng

Table 7  Goodness-of-fit Test for the Selected Copula of parameters at and bt . Equations  17–20 transform
Hyperbolic Parameters at and bt to a and b to simulate the load–displace-
Pile type n Copula Copula BIC ment responses. For the simulations, L∕D , Navg , and
Parameter,𝜃 Ntip were assumed to range from 10 to 110, 5 to 50,
Pipe Piles 22 Gaussiana  − 0.27  − 134.5
and 5 to 50, respectively, with a uniform distribu-
Claytona,c 1.80  − 152.3
tion for both pile types. These ranges were based on
Franka  − 1.61  − 136.1
the collected database, and corrected N-values may
Placketta 0.45  − 136.2
be limited to 50 to prevent overestimations in prac-
Gumbel1,3 1.95  − 137.5
tice (Brown  2001). The range for L∕D roughly cor-
Joea,c 2.69  − 127.0
responds to a pile length of 3  m to 35  m. Then, for
H Piles 20 Gaussianb  − 0.10  − 125.0
both pipe piles and H piles, Eq.  3 allowed Q to be
Claytona,c 0.67  − 130.3
determined for each set of L∕D , Navg , Ntip , at , and bt .
Franka  − 0.92  − 124.6
If a simulation provided b with a value greater than
Placketta 1.16  − 124.6
one, the simulation was removed. Logically, b should
Gumbela,c 1.36  − 139.2
be less than one since the identified failure load by
Joea,c 1.62  − 135.9
the De Beer criterion is normally conservative. This
situation occurred with less than 1.5% of the total
Bold text indicates the selected copula samples. The results of the simulations are shown in
a
 𝜃 is maximum likelihood estimate Fig. 8 for the two hyperbolic parameters and Fig. 11
b
 𝜃 is from localoptimization for the load–displacement curves. The figures help
c
 copula was rotated 90 degrees verify the process to create the simulations and show
the simulated load–displacement responses are within
a similar range as the observed responses; thus, the

Fig. 11  Observed and simulated load–displacement responses

Vol.: (0123456789)
13

results indicate the copulas can satisfactorily repre-
sent the pile load–displacement responses.
6 Calibration of Resistance Factors for SLS
For a sa that ranged from 5 to 25  mm and a 𝜂 that
ranged from 1 to 10, MCS calibrated 𝜓SLS with the
following steps suggested by Abu-Farsakh et  al.
(2009, 2010, 2013) and Tang et al. (2019):
1. Chose a starting value for 𝜓SLS.
2. For a given sa and 𝜂 , generated values for L∕D ,
Navg , Ntip , 𝜆DL , 𝜆LL , and Mu or Mut by indepen-
dently sampling them from their source distri-
butions. Lognormal distributions were assumed
to represent 𝜆DL and 𝜆LL . Model factors at and bt
were first randomly sampled using a Gaussian
copula with their probability distributions. Equa-
tions  17–20 transformed the simulated at and
bt to a and b to consider the dependencies with
L∕D , Navg , and/or Ntip . For the API and Nordlund
design methods, Eqs. 21 and 22 transformed Mut
to Mu.
3. Counted the number of failures, where the result
from the limit state function (Eq. 13) is equal to
or less than zero. Calculated pf as the number of
failures divided by the total number of samples
and 𝛽 ′ with Eq. 14. The total number of simula-
tions was slightly less than five million since the
simulations were removed when b was greater
than one. However, less than 2% and 0.02% of
the total simulations were affected for H piles and
pipe piles, respectively.
4. Repeated Steps 1 to 3 until the absolute differ-
ence between calculated ( 𝛽 ′ ) and target reliabil-
ity index ( 𝛽T  ) was less than the desired tolerance,
which was set as 0.01 in this study. 𝛽T was 2.33,
3, and 3.5 that respectively corresponds to redun-
dant piles, non-redundant piles (typical geotech-
nical designs), and bridge designs (AASHTO
2014).
Figure  12 shows the resulting 𝜓SLS for the three
design methods for pipe piles and H piles subjected
to compression loads. In general, the resistance factor
increases as the sa increases, and the most significant
change is between 5 and 10 mm. With less variability
from the live load, the resistance factor also slightly
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng
increases with a greater 𝜂 , but the difference is almost
negligible between a 𝜂 of 3 to 10. With 𝜂 equal to 3,
Table  8 also summarizes the calibrated 𝜓SLS values
for an sa of 13  mm (approximately 0.5 inches) and
25 mm (1 inch).
Among the three design approaches, the API and
Nordlund method has the lowest 𝜓SLS because it tends
to overpredict the capacity the most with the high-
est variability, which increases the chances of fail-
ure. Most of the uncertainty is due to the bias with
L∕D and the Qs predictions with H piles. Particularly
for cohesive soils, it is difficult to accurately deter-
mine the settlement as the design method relies on
empirical relationships with SPT N-values to deter-
mine Cu . In addition, the API method tends to give
higher predictions for the capacity than the Tomlin-
son method. The Tomlinson and Berezantzev et  al.
methods are more robust than the API and Nordlund
methods and have higher 𝜓SLS values as a result. For
instance, 𝛿 and Kf for the Berezantzev et al. 𝛽 method
can be empirically adjusted for various pile geom-
etries and soil conditions, but the equivalent param-
eters depend on the displaced soil volume by the pile
and soil shear strength with the Nordlund 𝛽 method.
The Tomlinson and Berezantzev et  al. methods are
slightly conservative compared to the Jesswein and
Liu direct method, and these approaches provide a
similar range of 𝜓SLS for pipe piles. For H piles, the
Jesswein and Liu method offers the lowest variabil-
ity and provided approximately 15% higher resistance
factors. Although the accuracy of the Jesswein and
Liu method requires further confirmation with more
tests on driven piles, these results indicate the impor-
tance of applying robust methods that consider the
soil gradation, in particular the gravel content, with
SPT N-values.
7 Conclusions and Discussions
With a database of 42 pile load tests, reliability-based
design methods were calibrated for the serviceability
limit state (SLS) of driven piles in glacial deposits.
The SLS was simulated by adopting a hyperbolic rela-
tionship for the load–displacement responses. First,
the model parameters ( Mu , a , and b ) were collected
from the pile load–displacement responses. Then, a
statistical analysis was conducted to characterize the
dependency of the model factors and to fit them to
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 12  Variation of 𝜓SLS with sa and 𝛽T for the design methods

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 8  Variation of Pile type sa (mm) Design method 𝜓SLS

𝜓SLS for an 𝜂 of three and
different values of sa and 𝛽T 𝛽T = 2.33 𝛽T = 3.00 𝛽T = 3.50

Pipe piles 13 Tomlinson + Berezantzev et al 0.23 0.16 0.12

API + Nordlund 0.16 0.11 0.08
Jesswein & Liu 0.22 0.16 0.12
25 Tomlinson + Berezantzev et al 0.30 0.21 0.16
API + Nordlund 0.22 0.16 0.12
Jesswein & Liu 0.29 0.21 0.16
H Piles 13 Tomlinson + Berezantzev et al 0.34 0.25 0.20
API + Nordlund 0.25 0.19 0.16
Jesswein & Liu 0.39 0.30 0.25
25 Tomlinson + Berezantzev et al 0.42 0.31 0.26
API + Nordlund 0.35 0.27 0.23
Jesswein and Liu 0.49 0.40 0.34

probability distributions. With the source distribu-
tions of the model factors, Monte Carlo simulations
were used to calibrate the resistance factors, as shown
in Fig.  12 and Table  8, for three SPT-based design
methods: (1) Tomlinson (1957) and Berezantzev et al.
(1961); (2) API (2000) and Nordlund (1963, 1979);
and (3) Jesswein and Liu (2021).
The calibrated resistance factors ranged from 0.16
to 0.40 for a sa of 25 mm for the conditions of 𝛽T of 3
and 𝜂 of 3, and these values mainly depended on the
selected design method. Among all these piles, the
combination of Tomlinson (1957) and Berezantzev
et al. (1961) methods had a Mu with a mean of 1.10
and COV of 47.4%. These approaches had less vari-
ability and were less likely to overpredict compared
to the combination of API and Nordlund methods,
which had a mean of 0.96 and COV of 50.9% for
Mu . In particular, the Berezantzev et  al. method for
cohesionless soils can be robust as its design vari-
ables, namely 𝛿 and Kf  , can be empirically adjusted
based on the pile type and local soil conditions. Due
to the reduced variability with the Jesswein and Liu
method, which had a COV of 36.4%, resistance fac-
tors were par to 45% higher than those from the other
two approaches. This heightened performance is a
result of the method being developed with the same
database, and its accuracy requires further confirma-
tion with pile tests from other sources. In general, the
analysis demonstrates the importance of using locally
developed and robust design methods for the capacity.
It is recommended to use the calibrated 𝜓SLS with
the De Beer method for the pile capacity as the find-
ings will likely differ on the selected failure criterion.
Among the studied piles, the average capacity was
891 kN by the De Beer method, which would be 46%
lower by the L1 method and 140% more by the Chin
method. The failure criterion also controls the magni-
tude and variability of the model factors ( Mu , a , and
b ). However, the calibrated 𝜓SLS mainly depends on
the ability to predict the capacity since many of the
design methods had the same statistical characteris-
tics with a and b for a pile type.
Due to the number of available pile load tests, the
presented analysis mainly considers the difference
between pipe piles and H piles and does not differen-
tiate 𝜓SLS between embedded soil types. The biases,
correlations, and load–displacement responses would
likely vary by the soil type. Although SPT N-values
may be the only available soil testing technique, piles
in cohesive soils may be influenced by the soil plas-
ticity, sensitivity, and stress history. A larger database
would help to confirm the findings.
Acknowledgements  The presented research was made pos-
sible with funding from the Ministry of Transportation of
Ontario (MTO) and support through a graduate scholarship
from the National Sciences and Engineering Research Coun-
cil of Canada. In addition, the authors would like to thank Mr.
David Staseff and Ms. Minkyung Kwak from MTO for sharing
the data of pile load tests.

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng
Funding  This research was funded by Ministry of Trans-
portation Ontario Highway Infrastructure Innovations Fund-
ing Program grant entitled "Improving Pile Design in Ontario
Soils."
Data availability  Some or all data, models, or code gener-
ated or used during the study are proprietary or confidential in
nature and may only be provided with restrictions.
Declarations  internal stability analysis and design of reinforced soil
Conflict of interest  The authors have not disclosed any com-
peting interests.
References
AbdelSalam SS, Ng KW, Sritharan S, Suleiman MT, Roling
M (2012) Development of LRFD procedures for bridge
pile foundations in Iowa. Vol. III: Recommended resist-
ance factors with consideration of construction control
and setup (Report No. IHRB: Project TR-584). Ames, IA:
Iowa Department of Transportation
Abu-Farsakh MY, Yoon SM, Tsai C (2009) Calibration of
resistance factors needed in the LRFD design of driven
piles (Report FHWA-LA-09–449). Baton Rouge, LA:
Louisiana Transportation Research Center
Abu-Farsakh MY, Yu XB, Yoon SM, Tsai C (2010) Calibra-
tion of resistance factors needed in the LRFD design of
drilled shafts (Report FHWA-LA-10-470). Baton Rouge,
LA: Louisiana Transportation Research Center
Abu-Farsakh MY, Chen QM, Haque MN (2013) Calibration
of resistance factors for drilled shafts for the new FHWA
design method (Report FHWA-LA-12–495). Baton
Rouge, LA: Louisiana Transportation Research Center
Abu-Hejleh NM, Abu-Farsakh M, Suleiman MT, Tsai C (2015)
Development and use of high-quality databases of deep
foundation load tests. Transp Res Rec 2511:27–36. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​3141/​2511-​04
Allen TM, Nowak AS, Bathurst RJ (2005) Calibration to deter-
mine load and resistance factors for geotechnical and
structural design. Transportation Research Board Circular
E-C079. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) (2014) AASHTO LRFD bridge
design specifications. AASHTO, Washington, DC
American Petroleum Institute (API) (2000) Recommended
practice for planning, designing, and constructing fixed
offshore platforms-working stress design: API Recom-
mended Practice 2A-WSD (RP 2A-WSD), 21st edn. API,
Washington, DC
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2013)
Standard test methods for deep foundations under static
axial compressive load (D1143/D1143M-07). West Con-
shohocken, PA: ASTM
Anderson TW, Darling DA (1952) Asymptotic theory of cer-
tain goodness-of-fit criteria based on stochastic process.
Ann Math Stat 23(2):193–212
Aoki N, Velloso DA (1975) An approximate method to esti-
mate the bearing capacity of piles. In: Proceedings of
the Fifth Pan-American Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Buenos Aires, Argentina,
367–376
Barnett PJ (1992) Chapter 21: quaternary geology of Ontario.
In Thurston PC, Williams HR, Sutcliffe RH, Scott GM
(Eds.) Geology of Ontario: Ontario Geological Survey
(Special Vol 4, Part 2, pp 1011–1088). Sudbury, ON:
Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Bathurst RJ, Bozorgzadeh N (2019) A simple probabilistic
walls. GeoSt.John’s 2019, St. John’s, NL: CGS. Retrieved
from, http://​www.​geost​johns​2019.​ca/
Becker DE (1996) Eighteenth Canadian Geotechnical Col-
loquium: limit states design for foundations. Part I: an
overview of the foundation design process. Can Geotech
J 33:956–983
De Beer EE (1967) Proefondervindelijke bijdrage tot de studie
van het grensdraagvermogen van zand onder funderingen
op staal (Deel 1). Annales des travaux publics de Belgique
(2nd series), 68(6), 481–504
De Beer EE (1968) Proefondervindelijke bijdrage tot de studie
van het grensdraagvermogen van zand onder funderingen
op staal (Deel 2–3). Annales des travaux publics de Bel-
gique (2nd series), 69(1), 44–88; 69(4), 321–360
Berezantzev, V.G., Khristoforov, V.S., & Golubkov, V. N.
(1961). Load bearing capacity and deformation of piled
foundations. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Con-
ference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
2, 11–15
Brown RP (2001) Predicting the ultimate axial resistance of
single driven piles (Doctoral dissertation). University of
Texas, Austin, TX, Department of Civil Engineering
Butler HD, Hoy HE (1977) Users manual for the Texas quick-
load method for foundation load testing (Report IP-77-8).
FHWA, Washington, DC
Canadian Geotechnical Society (CGS) (2006) Canadian foun-
dation engineering manual, 4th edn. CGS, Richmond, BC
Canadian Standards Association (CSA) (2019) Canadian High-
way Bridge Design Code. Mississauga, ON: CSA
Chin FK (1970) Estimation of the ultimate load of piles from
tests not carried to failure. In: Proceedings of second
southeast asian conference on soil engineering, Singapore
City, Singapore, 81–92
Clarke BG (2017) Engineering of glacial deposits. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL
Davisson MT (1972) High capacity piles. In: Proceedings of
Lecture Series on Innovations in Foundation Construc-
tion, Chicago, IL: ASCE, March 22, 81–112
Decourt L (1995) Prediction of load-settlement relationships
for foundations on the basis of the SPT-T. Ciclo De Con-
ferencias Internationale, Mexico City, Mexico 1:85–104
Decourt L (1982) Predictions of bearing capacity based exclu-
sively on N values of the SPT. In: Proceedings of the 2nd
European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Amster-
dam, 1, 29–34
Decourt L (1999) Behavior of foundations under working load
conditions. In: Proceedings of the 11th Pan-American
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engi-
neering, Foz DoIguassu, Brazil, August, 4, 453–488
Vol.: (0123456789)
13

Dithinde M, Phoon K-K, De Wet M, Retief JV (2011) Char-
acterization of model uncertainty in the static pile design
formula. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 137(1):70–85
Duncan JM (2000) Factors of safety and reliability in geo-
technical engineering. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE
126(4):307–316
Fellenius BH (1980) The analysis of results from routine pile
load tests. Ground Eng 13(6):19–31
Fellenius BH (2019) Basics of foundation design. Pile Buck
International Inc, Vero Beach, FL
Fenton GA, Naghibi F, Griffiths DV (2016) On a unified the-
ory for the reliability-based geotechnical design. Comput
Geotech 78:110–122
Fuller FM, Hoy HE (1970) Pile load tests including quick load
test method, conventional methods, and interpretations
(Record 333). Highway Research Board, Washington, DC
Hannigan PJ, Rausche F, Likins GE, Robinson BR, Becker ML
(2016) Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 12 – Vol-
ume I: Design and construction of driven pile foundations
(Publication No. FHWA-NHI-16-009). Washington, DC:
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Hansen JB (1963) Discussion on hyperbolic stress-strain
response of cohesive soils. J Soil Mech Found Eng
89(4):241–242
Hirany A, Kulhawy FH (1989) Interpretation of load tests on
drilled shafts, part 1: axial compression. In: Kulhawy FH
(ed) Foundation engineering: current principles and prac-
tices, vol 2. ASCE, New York, NY, pp 1132–1149
Howell DC (2002) Statistical methods for psychology, 5th edn.
Duxbury, Pacific Grove, CA
Huffman JC, Strahler AW, Stuedlein AW (2015) Reliability-
based serviceability limit state design for immediate set-
tlement of spread footings on clay. Soils Found 55(4):798–
812. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​sandf.​2015.​06.​012
Huffman JC, Martin JP, Stuedlein AW (2016) Calibration and
assessment of reliability-based serviceability limit state
procedures for foundation engineering. Georisk Assess
Manag Risk Eng Syst Geohazards 10(4):280–293. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1080/​17499​518.​2016.​11837​97
Jesswein, M., & Liu, J. (2021). A new SPT-based method for
estimating axial capacity of driven piles in glacial depos-
its. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 40, 1043–
1060.https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10706-​021-​01941-6  case histories. Iranian J Sci Tech 32(B2):125–140
Legget RF (ed) (1965) Soils in Canada: Geological, Pedologi-
cal, and Engineering Studies (Special Publications No. 3).
The Royal Society of Canada, Toronto, ON
Martin RE, Seli JJ, Powell GW, Bertoulin M (1987) Concrete
pile design in Tidewater, Virginia. J Geotech Eng ASCE
113(6):568–585
Mathworks (2017) Matlab [Computer software]. Natick, MA:
Matworks
Meyerhof GG (1956) Penetration tests and bearing capac-
ity of cohesionless soils. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE
82(1):1–19
Meyerhof GG (1976) Bearing capacity and settlement of pile
foundations. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 102(3):197–228
Milligan V (1976) Geotechnical aspects of glacial tills. In R.F.
Legget (Ed.), Glacial Till: An Inter-Disciplinary Study
(Special Publication No. 12) (pp. 269–291). Ottawa, ON:
The Royal Society of Canada
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Geotech Geol Eng
Misra A, Roberts LA (2009) Service limit state resistance fac-
tors for drilled shafts. Geotechnique 59(1):53–61
National Research Council Canada (NRCC) (2015) National
Building Code of Canada. Ottawa, ON: NRCC​
Nelsen RB (2007) An introduction to copulas (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Springer. Retrieved from, https://​ebook​centr​
al-​proqu​est-​com.​ezpro​xy.​lib.​ryers​on.​ca/​lib/​ryers​on/​reader.​
action?​docID=​371373#
Nordlund RL (1963) Bearing capacity of piles in cohesionless
soils. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 89(3):1–36
Nordlund RL (1979) Point bearing and shaft friction of piles
in sand. In: Missouri-Rolla 5­ th Annual short course on the
fundamental of deep foundation design, St. Louis, MI.
Paikowsky SG (2004) Load and resistance factor design
(LRFD) for deep foundations, vol 507. Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC
Phoon K-K, Kulhawy FH (2008) Serviceability limit state
reliability-based design. In: Phoon K-K (ed) Reliability-
based design in geotechnical engineering: computations
and applications. Taylor & Francis, New York, NY, pp
344–384
Phoon K-K, Kulhawy FH, Grigoriu MD (2003) Development
of a reliability-based design framework for transmission
line structure foundations. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
ASCE 129(9):798–806
Reddy SC, Stuedlein AW (2017) Serviceability limit state
reliability-based design of augered cast-in-place piles in
granular soils. Can Geotech J 54(12):1704–1715
Sadegh M, Ragno E, AghaKouchak A (2017) Multivariate
copula analysis toolbox (MvCAT): describing dependence
and underlying uncertainty using a Bayesian framework.
Water Resour Res 53:5166–5183. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​
2016W​R0202​42
Salgado S, Woo SI, Kim D (2011) Development of load and
resistance factor design for ultimate and serviceability
limit states of transportation structure foundations (Report
FHWA/IN/JTRP-2011/03). Indianapolis, IN: Indiana
Department of Transportation
Semple RM, Rigden WJ (1986) Shaft capacity of driven pipe
piles in clay. Ground Engineering, 11–19
Shariatmadari N, Eslami A, Karimpour-Fard M (2008) Bearing
capacity of driven piles in sands from SPT-applied to 60
Shioi Y, Fukui J (1982) Application of N-value to design
foundations in Japan. In: Proceedings of the 2­nd Euro-
pean Symposium on Penetration Testing, Amsterdam, 1,
159–164.
Sivrikaya O, Toğrol E (2006) Determination of undrained
shear strength of fine-grained soils by means of SPT and
its applications in Turkey. Eng Geol 86(1):52–69
Tang C, Phoon K-K (2018a) Statistics of model factors in reli-
ability-based design of axially loaded driven piles in sand.
Can Geotech J 55:1592–1610
Tang C, Phoon K-K (2018b) Evaluation of model uncertainties
in reliability-based design of steel H-piles in axial com-
pression. Can Geotech J 55:1513–1532
Tang C, Phoon K-K (2018c) Statistics of model factors and
consideration in reliability-based design of axially loaded
helical piles. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​GT.​1943-​5606.​00018​94
Geotech Geol Eng
Tang C, Phoon KK, Chen YJ (2019) Statistical analysis of
model factors in reliability-based limit-state design of
drilled shafts under axial loading. J Geotech Geoenvi-
ron Eng. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​GT.​1943-​5606.​
00020​87
Thorburn S, MacVicar SL (1971) Pile load tests to failure in
the Clyde alluvium. Behav Piles Lond UK Inst Civil Eng
1(7):53–54
Tomlinson MJ, Woodward J (2008) Pile design and construc-
tion practice, 5th edn. Taylor and Francis, New York, NY
Tomlinson, M. J. (1957). The adhesion of piles driven in clay
soils. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference
of Soil Mechanics, 2, 66–71
Uzielli M, Mayne PW (2011) Serviceability limit state CPT-
based design for vertically loaded shallow footings on
sand. Geomech Geoeng 6(2):91–97
Van Der Veen C (1953) The bearing capacity of a pile. In: Pro-
ceedings of 3rd ICSMFE. Zurich, Switzerland
Wolff TF (1989) Pile capacity prediction using parameter func-
tions. In: Predicted and observed axial behavior of piles:
results of a pile prediction symposium (ASCE Geotechni-
cal Special Publication No. 23), 96–106
Wu XZ, Xin J-X (2019) Probabilistic analysis of site-specific
load-displacement behavior of cement-fly ash-gravel
piles. Soils Found 59(5):1613–1630. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​sandf.​2019.​07.​003
Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
Vol.: (0123456789)
13