CPT Based Design of Driven Piles in Sand For Offs

The University of Western Australia
GEOMECHANICS GROUP
CPT BASED DESIGN OF DRIVEN PILES

IN SAND FOR OFFSHORE STRUCTURES
BY
B.M. LEHANE
J.A. SCHNEIDER
X. Xu
20 May 2005 GEO:05345

CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND........................................................ 1
2 THE UWA-05 DESIGN METHOD FOR PILES IN SAND .............................. 3
2.1 End Bearing.........................................................................................3

2.2 Shaft Friction .......................................................................................7
3 PREDICTIVE PERFORMANCE OF UWA-05.............................................. 10
4 PREDICTIONS FOR OFFSHORE PILES.................................................... 14
5 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................... 17
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................... 17
REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 18
APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................... 20
APPENDIX B ....................................................................................................... 33
CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures i

B.M. Lehane, J.A. Schneider & X. Xu
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
This report provides a description and evaluation of a new pile design method developed by the
authors for driven piles in siliceous sand. The method, which is referred to as UWA-05, has
emerged following an evaluation by the same authors at the University of Western Australia
(UWA) of three other Cone Penetration Test (CPT) based methods for driven piles in sand
namely: Fugro-04 (documented in Fugro 2004), ICP-05 (presented by Jardine et al. 2005) and
NGI-04 (presented by Aas et al. 2004). The UWA evaluation study, which also included
examination of the predictive performance of existing API recommendations (API-00), is
provided in Lehane, Schneider & Xu. (2005). This evaluation report was distributed to the API-
ISO committee in April 2005 and presented at the committee meeting on May 6th 2005. Because
of time constraints, the UWA-05 method presented and assessed here was not included in the
UWA evaluation report.
The UWA evaluation report included the development and description of an extensive database
of static load test results on piles in sand and made the following observations:
1) All three CPT based design methods considered (Fugro-04, ICP-05 & NGI-04) had
significantly better predictive performance than the existing API recommendations,
which were seen to lead large under-predictions in dense sands and become
progressively non-conservative as the pile length (L) or aspect ratio (L/D) increased.
2) 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 (f) and qc and allow for the degradation of f with distance above the pile tip (h)
due to friction fatigue.
3) The ICP-05 method indicated the lowest coefficient of variation (COV) for calculated to
measured capacities (Qc/Qm) of 0.32, 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-04 predictions appear best for open-ended piles in
compression while the COV of Qc/Qm given by Fugro-04 is the same as that of ICP-05
for open-ended piles in tension.
4) 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-04
Open-ended pile in compression: ICP-05 and NGI-04
Open-ended pile in tension: ICP-05 and Fugro-04
The fact that API-00 gives the lowest probability of failure for closed-ended piles is
partly because the method generally under-predicts the capacity of these piles1.
1
However, while the same average level of under-prediction also applies to API-00 predictions for closed-ended piles in
tension, the estimated probability of failure is larger than the three alternative design methods.
CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures 1

5) The ICP-05 method displays a tendency to under-predict pile base capacities (when
assuming capacity solely from annular end bearing) and to become non-conservative
for tension capacity as the pile aspect ratio (L/D) increases. The Fugro-04 method
indicates a tendency to under-predict compression capacities at large L/D values and to
over-predict base capacities in loose sand.
6) The shapes of the (weighted) probability density functions (PDFs) for Qc/Qm provided
for each category of pile indicate that the Qc/Qm variances for the ICP-05 and Fugro-04
methods are much lower than those of API-00 and marginally lower (on average) than
NGI-04.
This examination of the three CPT based methods coupled with a review of their various
deficiencies and a careful examination of the new extended database of static load tests
prompted the authors to propose the UWA-05 method presented here. This method is believed
to represent a significant improvement on Fugro-04, ICP-05 and NGI-04 methods. Particular
comparisons are made in this report with the ICP-05 method, which was provisionally selected
to form the basis of new API recommendations at the May 6th 2005 API-ISO committee meeting.
It will be shown in this report that the UWA-05 method:
has superior predictive performance to ICP-05 for the existing database of pile load
tests;
adopts more widely acceptable formulations for end bearing than those proposed by
ICP-05;
allows directly for the inclusion of the effects of partial plugging (and hence increased
level of soil displacement) on both the shaft and base capacity of pipe piles;
provides a more conservative extrapolation than ICP-05 from the existing database of
test piles to full scale offshore piles;
removes the bias shown by ICP-05 to over-predict tension pile capacity for large
diameter slender piles.
Supplementary data in support of the main text is provided in Appendix A, while Appendix B
provides detailed responses to a number of issues raised by the API- piling subcommittee on
review of the initial draft of this document issued on May 16th 2005.

2 THE UWA-05 DESIGN METHOD FOR PILES IN SAND
This Chapter presents the UWA-05 formulations for calculation of the base capacity and shaft
capacity of driven piles in siliceous sand. A brief background to the factors considered in the
derivation of these formulations is also provided and a number of supporting figures are
provided in Appendix A. The predictive performance of the UWA-05 method is then compared
against the UWA database of static load tests of piles in sand. The reader is referred to Lehane,
Schneider & Xu (2005) for a more detailed commentary regarding factors affecting pile capacity
and for a full description of the load test database.
2.1 End Bearing

Factors that were considered in the development of the UWA method for base capacity are
listed in the following. The base capacity is defined here as the pile end bearing resistance at a
pile base movement of 10% of the pile diameter, qb0.1.
Closed-ended piles
The strong direct relationship between the end bearing resistance of a closed-ended driven
pile and the CPT end resistance qc has been recognised for many years and arises because
of the similarity between their modes of penetration.
Given the difference in size between a pile and a CPT penetrometer, a correlation between
qb0.1 and qc requires use of an appropriate averaging technique to deduce an average qc =
q c . Xu & Lehane (2005) show that, for many stratigraphies encountered in practice, q c may
be taken as the average qc value taken in the zone 1.5 pile diameters (D) above and below
the pile tip.
Xu & Lehane (2005), however, also show that when qc varies significantly in the vicinity of
the pile tip (i.e. within a number of diameters), the Dutch averaging technique (Van Mierlo &
Koppejan 1952 and Schmertmann 1978) provides the most consistent relationship for end
bearing and should be employed e.g. see Figure 1.
A simplified (and conservative) means of determination of the Dutch q c value is provided in

Appendix A (to facilitate use of offshore CPT data which are often not continuous)
The values of qb0.1 for driven piles is less than q c because the displacement of 0.1D is
insufficient to mobilise the ultimate value (of q c ).
The findings of Randolph (2003), White & Bolton (2005), and others, are consistent with the
UWA-05 proposal to adopt a constant ratio of qb0.1/ q c .
The UWA-05 method employs a constant qb0.1/ q c ratio of 0.6, which is independent of pile
diameter, pile length and sand relative density i.e.
For closed-ended driven piles:
2
Q b = q b 0. 1 D where q b 0.1 / q c = 0.6 (1)
4
The available database of base capacity measurements shown on Figure 1 confirms the
suitability of equation (1).

1.4
Akasaka
1.2 Baghdad
Ogeechee River Drammen
1.0
Hoogzand
Hsin Ta
0.8
qb0.1 / qc
Hunter's Point
0.6 Indiana
Kallo
0.4
Ogeechee
0.2 Sermide
Salt Lake
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Pile diameter (m)
________________________________________________________________________
Figure 1: Database of qb0.1 values for closed-ended piles compiled by Xu & Lehane (2005)
(noting that qc is derived using the Dutch averaging technique)
Open-ended piles
The relationship between qb0.1 and q c may be expected to be less consistent than that for
closed-ended piles in view of the differences between the mode of penetration of a cone and
that of a coring or partially plugging pile during installation.
Salgado et al. (2002), Lehane & Gavin (2001, 2004), and others, have shown that a
relatively consistent relationship between qb0.1 for a pipe pile and the CPT qc value becomes
apparent when the effects of sand displacement close to the tip during pile driving are
accounted for. This installation effect is best described by the incremental filling ratio (IFR)
measured over the final stages of installation- and is referred to here as the final filling ratio
(FFR). As the FFR approaches zero, the value of qb0.1 approaches that of a closed-ended
pile.
The displacement induced to the sand in the vicinity of the base is most conveniently
expressed in the terms of the effective area ratio Arb*, defined below. This ratio depends on
the piles D/t ratio and the FFR value and varies from unity for a pile installed in a fully
plugged mode to about 0.08 for a pile installed in coring mode with a D/t ratio of 50.
Lehane & Randolph (2002), and others, have shown that if the length of the soil plug is
greater than between 3 and 5 internal pile diameters (3 to 5Di), the plug will not fail under
static loading, regardless of the pile diameter.
Experimental data indicate that the resistance that can develop on the tip annulus at a base
movement of 0.1D varies between about 0.6 and 1.0 times the CPT qc value (e.g. Bruno
1999, Salgado et al. 2002, Lehane & Gavin 2001, Paik et al 2003).

Lehane & Randolph (2002) suggest that the base resistance provided by the soil plug for a
fully coring pile (with FFR =1) is approximately equivalent to that of a bored pile.
Recommended values of qb/ q c at 10% pile tip displacement for bored piles range from 0.15
to 0.23 (Bustamante & Gianeselli 1982, Jamiolkowski & Lancellotta 1988, Ghionna et al.
1993, Franke 1989). These ratios are not dependent on the pile diameter.
The value of q c should be evaluated in the same way as that employed for closed-ended
piles, but employing an effective diameter (D*) related to the effective area ratio, Arb* i.e. D*
= D Arb*0.5.
There are relatively few documented case histories, which report the incremental or final
filling ratios. In the absence of FFR measurements, a reasonable estimate of the likely FFR
may be obtained from the trend line through existing measurements shown on Figure 2; an
equation for this trend line is provided in equation 2d.
1.2
0.8 IFR measured

IFR=PLR
IFRmean
0.6
0.4
D (m)
0.2

IFRmean = min1, i
0.2
1.5

0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Inner Diameter, Di (m)
___________________________________________________________________________
Figure 2: Database of incremental filling ratios averaged over the last 20D of penetration; note
that these IFRmean values are virtually identical to the FFR values measured at the case history
sites considered in Figure 3.

The UWA-05 proposal for end bearing of driven pipe piles is provided in equation (2). This
proposal is seen to compare favourably with open-ended pile database values of qb0.1 on Figure
3. Justification for the format of equation 2b is also provided in Appendix A..
For open-ended driven piles:

2
Q b = q b 0. 1 D
4 (2a)
q b 0.1 / q c = 0.15 + 0.45 A *rb (2b)
D i2
where A = 1 FFR 2
*
rb

D (2c)
and, in absence of FFR measurement:
D (m ) 0.2
FFR = min 1, i
1.5m (2d)
0.60
0.50
0.40
qb0.1/qc
Dunkirk
0.30
Euripides
Hoogzand
0.20 Indiana
Ras Tanajib
0.10 Shanghai
Tokyo
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Effective area ratio, Arb*
____________________________________________________________________
Figure 3: Database of qb0.1 values for open-ended piles in sand

2.2 Shaft Friction
Factors that were considered in the development of the UWA method for shaft friction include:
Local shaft friction (f) shows a strong correlation with the CPT end resistance (qc). This
correlation, which has been observed directly in instrumented field tests (e.g. Lehane et al.
1993), has been employed successfully in well known design methods such as that reported
by Bustamante & Gianiselli (1982).
The radial stress acting on the pile shaft (and hence the available f value) in any given soil
horizon reduces as the tip advances to deeper levels. This phenomenon is now an accepted
feature of displacement pile behaviour (e.g. see Randolph 2003) and has been incorporated
in all three of the CPT based methods evaluated in Lehane, Schneider & Xu (2005).
The rate of this radial stress and f reduction with distance above the tip (h) depends largely
on the magnitude and type of cycles imposed by the installation method. White & Lehane
(2004) show that the rate of decay is stronger for piles experiencing hard driving and much
lower for jacked piles, which are typically installed with a relatively low number of (one-way)
installation cycles2.
White & Lehane (2004), and others, also show that the rate of degradation with h is greater
at higher levels of radial stiffness (4G/D) and therefore f at a fixed h value (i.e. after a
specific number of installation cycles) in a sand with the same operational shear modulus (G)
reduces as D increases.
The foregoing plus the tendency for hammer selection to be such that the number of
hammer blows is broadly proportional to the pile slenderness ratio (L/D) suggest that f may
be tentatively considered a function of h/D. This approximation is supported by field
measurements such as those provided in Lehane, Schneider & Xu (2005) and is also
compatible with the occurrence of a critical depth at an embedment related to a fixed
multiple of the pile diameter (such as 20D proposed by Vesic 1970 and a number of workers).
The same approximation is employed by the ICP-05 and Fugro-04 design methods.
Based on the former point, the ICP-05 method proposes that f varies in proportion to (h/D)-c,
where c = 0.38. However, given that this value of c was estimated on the basis of field tests
with jacked piles (Lehane 1992 and Chow 1997) where the type of cycling imposed is less
severe than is typical of driven piles, a higher value of c is considered more appropriate for
offshore piles.
The radial effective stress acting on a driven pile increases during pile axial loading and its
magnitude (when f is mobilised and dilation has ceased) increases as the pile diameter
reduces, the sand shear stiffness around the pile shaft increases and the radial movement
during shear (dilation) of the sand at the shaft interface increases. These increases are not
significant for offshore piles (with large D) but need to be considered when extrapolating
from load test data for small diameter piles in a database. The recommendations of the ICP-
05 are considered reasonable for assessment of the increase in radial stress (rd), but with
a slightly modified expression for the shear stiffness derived from the CPT data.
f varies in proportion to tan cv (where cv is the constant volume interface friction angle
between the sand and pile); this cv value, which should be measured routinely, increases as
the normalised roughness (Rn/D50) increases. Verification for the dependence of f on tancv
has been provided by Lehane et al. (1993), Chow (1997), and others. The trends between
cv and D50 recommended by ICP-05 are considered reasonable in the absence of specific
laboratory measurements of cv. However, due to the potential for changes in roughness
during pile installation, a maximum value of tancv of 0.55 is suggested; this resulting cv vs.
D50 relationship is shown on Figure 4.
2
Strong indirect evidence in support of this observation is also apparent in Lehane, Schneider & Xu (2005), which
shows that the Fugro-04, ICP-05 and NGI-04 progressively under-predict the shaft capacity of jacked piles as the pile
length increases.

The shaft friction that can develop on a pile in tension is smaller than that which can be
mobilised by a pile loaded in compression for the reasons described by Lehane et al. (1993),
de Nicola & Randolph (1993) and Jardine et al. (2005)
The shaft friction that can develop on a displacement pile is related to the degree of soil
displacement imparted during pile installation. The higher capacity developed by the new
generation of screw piles compared to that of a bored and continuous flight auger piles is just
one example of this effect.
The degree of displacement imparted to any given soil horizon is related to the displacement
experienced by that horizon when it was located in the vicinity of the tip. This level of
displacement can be expressed in terms of an effective area ratio, Ars*, which includes
displacement due to the pile material itself and the additional displacement imparted when
the pile is partially (or fully) plugging during driving. White et al. (2005) use a cavity
expansion analogy to deduce that the equalized lateral effective stress is likely to vary with
the effective area ratio raised to a power of between 0.30 and 0.40 i.e. f varies with
0.350.05
A*rs .
The incremental filling ratio is a function of a number of different parameters, including soil
layering, pile inner diameter, pile wall thickness, plug densification or dilation, and installation
method. For the (limited) database of incremental filling ratios (IFRs) reported, the mean IFR
over the final 20D of penetration (where most friction is generated) can also be reasonably
approximated using Figure 2 and equation (2d) for relatively uniform dense to very dense
sands in the database. The mean IFR is used to derive the effective area ratio, A*rs.
Because of the shortage of high quality measurements of f very close to the tip of a driven
pile and the variable and inconsistent trends shown by the available measurements, one
simplifying option is to assume f is constant over the lower two diameter length of the pile
shaft for both closed and open-ended piles in tension and compression.
Shaft capacity increases with time as shown by Axelsson (1998), Jardine et al. (2005a), and
others. Lehane, Schneider & Xu (2005) show, however, that rate of increase over the period
3 days to 50 days is not statistically significant for the UWA database of load tests. A design
time of 10 to 20 days is considered appropriate for shaft friction calculated using the UWA
method.
32
Employed for
database evaluation
30
Interface Friction Angel, cv
tan < 0.55

UWA-05
28 recommendation
26
24
22
20
0.01 0.1 1 10
Median Grain Size, D50 (mm)
Figure 4 Variation of cv with D50 (modified from ICP-05 guidelines)

The UWA-05 proposal for evaluation of shaft friction consequently takes the form given in
equation (3) and relates to the capacity at between 10 and 20 days after pile installation.
Q s = D f dz
(3a)
where
f = local shear stress at failure along the shaft of a pile, and
f
f = ' rf tan cv = (' rc + ' rd ) tan cv
fc (3b)
with
cv = constant volume interface friction angle; see Figure 4
'rf = radial effective stress at failure
'rc = radial effective stress after installation and equalization
'rd = increase in radial stress due to loading stress path (dilation)
f / fc = 1 for compression loading and 0.75 in tension
The radial effective stress after installation and equalisation is given as:
0 .5
( )
' rc = 0.03 q c A rs
* 0 .3 h
max D ,2 where
(3c)
D 2
A rs = 1 IFR mean i 2
*
D
(3d)
where IFRmean is the average IFR measured over the final 20 diameters of
penetrations Where an IFR profile is not measured, IFRmean may be estimated
from:
D i (m) 0.2
IFR mean = max 1,
1.5m (3e)
The change (increase) in radial stress during pile loading, which may be
assumed to be zero for a full scale offshore pile, is given as:
r
and q c1 N = (q c p atm ) / ( ' vo p atm )
0 .7 0 .5
' rd = 4G with G = q c 185 q c1 N
D (3f)
where G = operational shear modulus (assumed equal to the in-situ very small
strain value), r = interface dilation (assumed =0.02mm for the database) and
patm is a reference stress=100 kPa.

3 PREDICTIVE PERFORMANCE OF UWA-05
The UWA database of static loads tests is employed here to assess the predictive performance
of the proposed UWA-05 method and to compare its predictions with those given by the ICP-05
method, which was adjudged by Lehane, Schneider & Xu (2005) to have the best predictive
performance of the three CPT based method considered. For ease of reference, the tables
summarising the database have been included in Tables A1-A8 in Appendix A. These tables
provide the pile test ID numbers which are used in plots presented in this section. The database
considered differs very slightly from that used in Lehane, Schneider & Xu (2005) in that it now
replaces the Dunkirk CLAROM tests reported by Brucy et al. (1991) and Chow (1997) with the
more reliable Dunkirk Zip des Huttes (ZdH) load tests reported by Jardine & Standing (2000)3.
This substitution resulted in slightly better statistics for the ICP-05 method (as well as for all
other methods discussed).
The predictions described here for the UWA-05 method employed equations (1), (2) and (3) with
the following additional considerations:
Measured interface friction angles when available were adopted. If no cv values were
measured, the angles recommended by Chow (1997) for pile tests incorporated in the
ICP-05 method were employed. The correlation between cv and D50 shown on Figure 4
was used for piles outside of the ICP-05 database, when no measured cv values were
available.
When the incremental filling ratio (IFR) was recorded, Arb* was assessed using the
mean IFR value measured over the final 3D of pile penetration while the value of Ars*
was assessed from the mean IFR value recorded over the final 20D of penetration. In
the absence of IFR data, Arb* and Ars* were derived using equations 2d and 3e
respectively.
The database of pile tests was divided into the following four categories:
(i) Driven closed-ended piles tested in compression (CEC)
(ii) Driven closed-ended piles tested in tension (CET)
(iii) Driven open-ended piles tested in compression (OEC)
(iv) Driven open-ended piles tested in tension (OET)
The ratios of calculated to measured capacities (Qc/Qm) within each category are plotted against
the pile aspect ratios (L/D) on Figures 5 to 8 and against pile diameter, pile length and average
relative density in Figures A3, A4, A5 & A6 in Appendix A. The Qc/Qm ratios obtained using the
ICP-05 predictions are also included on Figures 5 to 8 for comparative purposes. The (weighted)
probability density functions for the UWA-05 method for each category of pile were evaluated in
an identical manner to those described in Lehane, Schneider & Xu (2005) and are presented in
Figure A2 in Appendix A. Table 1 provides a corresponding summary of the mean values of
Qc/Qm and the coefficients of variation (COV) for the UWA-05 method as well as for the API-00,
Fugro-04, ICP-05 and NGI-04 methods.
On inspection of these figures and tables, it is evident that:
(i) The UWA-05 method has the lowest COV for Qc/Qm of all five methods considered for
all open-ended piles and for closed-ended piles tested in tension. The COV for Qc/Qm
predicted by UWA-05 for closed-ended piles in compression is also the lowest but equal
to that of ICP-05.
(ii) The UWA-05 method has the lowest overall COV for Qc/Qm of 0.29 for the database
taken as a whole (i.e. including all pile categories).
3
Professor Jardine expressed reliability concerns for the CLAROM piles due to multiple restriking of the piles, re-
testing, their relatively small diameter, as well as the time period allowed between installation and load testing.
Additionally, the single qc profile available for the CLAROM tests did not allow for the same confidence levels in the qc
profiles at the test pile locations as the five CPTs at the Dunkirk ZdH site.

(iii) The COV for Qc/Qm of the UWA-05 method for open-ended piles in compression is
significantly lower than that of ICP-05 and the other methods.
(iv) UWA-05 shows no apparent bias of Qc/Qm with L/D, and as seen in Appendix A, no bias
with respect to pile length, pile diameter and average sand relative density.
It may be concluded, therefore, that the UWA-05 method is a significant improvement on the
ICP-05 method and also on the API-00, Fugro-04 and NGI-04 methods.
Table 1: Assessment of the performance of UWA-05 and that of API-00, ICP-05, Fugro-04, NGI-
04 for the database of load tests on driven piles in siliceous sand
Database Method Mean COV Number of

Driven API-00 0.78 0.45
Closed-ended Fugro-04 1.30 0.39 32
Compression ICP-05 0.99 0.37
NGI-04 1.16 0.49
UWA-05 0.98 0.37
Driven API-00 1.12 0.74

Closed-ended Fugro-04 0.97 0.33 10
Tension ICP-05 1.02 0.28
NGI-04 1.27 0.45
UWA-05 1.02 0.27
Driven API-00 0.75 0.50

Open-ended Fugro-04 1.19 0.29 17
Compression ICP-05 0.89 0.25
NGI-04 1.01 0.25
UWA-05 0.98 0.19
Driven API-00 0.72 0.75

Open-ended Fugro-04 0.90 0.31 15
Tension ICP-05 0.90 0.25
NGI-04 1.01 0.36
UWA-05 0.91 0.23
Complete API-00 0.81 0.60

Database Fugro-04 1.15 0.38 74
ICP-05 0.95 0.32
NGI-04 1.11 0.43
UWA-05 0.97 0.29

2.5 2.5
UWA-05 ICP-05
average=0.98 121 average=0.99
121
cov=0.37 cov=0.37
2 2
122 122
120
120
Qc [UWA-05]/Qm
Qc [ICP-05]/Qm
1.5 1.5
113 112
128 116 112 116 130

113 104
104 130
103 110
1 107 114 110 1 128
103 111 107 108 114 111
100
127 108 109
100
106
115 131 106
109
115 118
105 127 119
124 131 129 118 105
123 126 119
125 126 101 129
101 123 124 125 117
117
102
0.5 102 0.5
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
L/D (-) L/D (-)
Figure 5: Performances of UWA-05 and ICP-05 for Closed-ended Piles in Compression
2.5 2.5
UWA-05 ICP-05
average=1.02 average=1.02
cov=0.27 cov=0.28
2 2
Qc [UWA-05]/Qm
203
Qc [ICP-05]/Qm
1.5 1.5
205
207 203 205

201
207
201 206
206
1 204 208 1 202
208
202 204
209 209
200
200
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
L/D (-) L/D (-)
Figure 6: Performances of UWA-05 and ICP-05 for Closed-ended Piles in Tension
2.5 2.5
UWA-05 ICP-05
cov=0.19 cov=0.25
2 2
Qc [UWA-05]/Qm
Qc [ICP-05]/Qm
1.5 1.5
306 307
313
310 306
318 309
311 314 308
307 309
1 317
312 308 1 317
311 300
301 314 310
318
302300 316
315 313 315
312 316
303
301
303
0.5 0.5 302
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
L/D (-) L/D (-)
Figure 7: Performances of UWA-05 and ICP-05 for Open-ended Piles in Compression

2.5 2.5
UWA-05 ICP-05
cov=0.23 cov=0.25
2 2
Qc [UWA-05]/Qm
Qc [ICP-05]/Qm
1.5 1.5
414
405
407 412
408 416 411
415
1 410 409
416 1 409
417
408
411 410 406
417 407
406 413
401 405
412 400 400
401
413 414
0.5 0.5 415
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
L/D (-) L/D (-)
Figure 8: Performances of UWA-05 and ICP-05 for Open-ended Piles in Tension
One of the factors giving rise to the superior performance of the UWA-05 method for pipe piles
is the inclusion of the effective ratio terms in the expressions for base and capacity of open-
ended piles. This is not surprising given the acknowledged importance of soil displacement on
capacity and the fact that many of the database piles showed evidence of partial plugging.
However, given that the incremental filling ratio (IFR) is not commonly measured in practice, the
sensitivity of the predictive performance summarised in Table 1 to the IFR parameter employed
was re-examined and a summary of this exercise is provided in Table 2.
Table 2: Sensitivity of predictive performance to estimated IFR to calculate Ar*

Method for calculation of Ar* Mean Qc/Qm COV for Qc/Qm
Compression Using Equations 2d & 3e for all tests 0.99 0.23
Assuming IFR= 1 0.81 0.24
Using measured IFR when available 0.98 0.19
Tension Using Equations 2d & 3e for all tests 0.97 0.26
Assuming IFR=1 0.77 0.22
Using measured IFR when available 0.91 0.23
It is clear from Table 2 that the estimation of IFR using the empirical equations 2d & 3e (plotted
on Figure 2), rather than direct use of the measured IFRs to deduce Ar* values has only a
minimal impact on the COV values for Qc/Qm. It may also be inferred from Figure 2 that the
assumption in UWA-05 of a fully coring pile (i.e. IFR=1) for the database piles (most of which
had diameters less than 800mm) will lead, on average, to a 20% under-prediction of capacity.
This is in keeping with observed levels of partial plugging of database piles and suggests that
other design methods, such as ICP-05, which provide a best fit to the existing database of load
tests, but do not include an appropriate soil displacement term (such as the effective area ratio),
will over-predict the capacity of full scale offshore piles.

4 PREDICTIONS FOR OFFSHORE PILES
The UWA-05 method simplifies to the following form for full scale offshore piles, as IFR=1 and
the dilation term (rd) can be ignored.
2
Q comp = Q b + Q s = q b 0.1 D + D f dz
4 (4a)
Q tens = 0.75 D f dz
(4b)
q b 0.1 = q c (0.15 + 0.45A r ) (4c)
0 .5
0 .3 h
f = 0.03 q c A r max D ,2 tan cv
(4d)
Di 2
where A r = 1
D 2
(4e)
There is currently no load test data available for piles with diameters typically used in offshore
practice (i.e. in excess of 1.8m) and reliance is placed in design for appropriate extrapolation
from the existing database of load tests. The extrapolation to offshore piles in sand deposits
with uniform relative densities of 40% and 80% is presented on Figures 9 and 10 for various
piles with a slenderness ratio (L/D) of 35 and 75; the extrapolation is represented as the ratio of
the capacity predicted by UWA-05 to the capacity predicted by ICP-05. It is seen that both
methods provide broadly similar capacities within the pile diameter range typical of the database.
However, as the diameter increases beyond this range, the UWA-05 predictions for tension
capacity fall below those of ICP-05 and are about 70% of the ICP-05 predictions for a 2m
diameter pile. The ratio of the predictions for compression capacities4 given by UWA-05 to those
of ICP-05 are a little higher (due to the very conservative assumption of ICP-05 for end bearing),
but still fall to about 0.9 for typical offshore piles. Extrapolation of the ICP-05 method to offshore
piles is evidently non-conservative compared to UWA-05; this is primarily because ICP-05
under-estimates the effects of partial plugging of the piles in the database.
4
The jumps in these plots for compression capacities arise due to the discontinuity predicted for end bearing by ICP-
05 at Di =0.02 (Dr-30) which represents its presumed transition between a pile failing statically in a plugged and coring
mode. Note that the jump may appear as a transition because of the pile length interval selected for calculation. No
such discontinuity arises for UWA-05 which does not consider that failure in a coring mode is possible if the plug length
is greater than 5D.

Diameter (m)
0 0.5 1
1.6
1.5 D/t = 20; qc1N = 70
1.4 Typical D/t = 50; qc1N = 70
Qs (UWA-05)/Qs (ICP-05)
database D/t = 20; qc1N = 220

1.3
piles D/t = 50; qc1N = 220
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8 Tension
L/D = 70
0.7
IFR = f (Di)
0.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Length (m)
Diameter (m)
0 0.5 1
1.6
1.5 D/t = 20; qc1N = 70
1.4 D/t = 50; qc1N = 70
Qt (UWA-05)/Qt (ICP-05)
1.3 D/t = 20; qc1N = 220
1.2 D/t = 50; qc1N = 220
1.1
1
0.9 Typical
database
0.8 piles Compression
0.7 L/D = 70
IFR = f (Di)
0.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Length (m)
Figure 9: Ratio of UWA-05 to ICP-05 predictions in sands with relative densities of 40% and
80% ( qc1N=70 and 220 respectively) for pipe piles with L/D=70 in tension and compression

Diameter (m)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
1.6
1.5 D/t = 20; qc1N = 70
1.4 Typical D/t = 50; qc1N = 70

Qs (UWA-05)/Qs (ICP-05)
database D/t = 20; qc1N = 220

1.3
piles
D/t = 50; qc1N = 220
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8 Tension
L/D = 35
0.7
IFR = f (Di)
0.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Length (m)
Diameter (m)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
1.6
1.5 D/t = 20; qc1N = 70
1.4 D/t = 50; qc1N = 70
Qt (UWA-05)/Qt (ICP-05)
1.3 D/t = 20; qc1N = 220

D/t = 50; qc1N = 220
1.2
1.1
Typical
1
database
0.9 piles
0.8 Compression
0.7 L/D = 35
IFR = f (Di)
0.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Length (m)
Figure 10: Ratio of UWA-05 to ICP-05 predictions in sands with relative densities of 40% and
80% ( qc1N=70 and 220 respectively) for pipe piles with L/D=35 in tension and compression

5 CONCLUSIONS
This report describes and evaluates a new method, referred to as UWA-05, for predicting the
capacity of driven piles in siliceous sand. The motivation to produce this method has been
provided by the deficiencies identified in Lehane, Schneider & Xu (2005) in the three CPT-
based design methods including the ICP-05 design method, which has provisionally been
selected by the API-ISO committee as the preferred method for inclusion in the new API
recommendations.
This report has shown that the UWA-05 method should be considered in preference to ICP-05
as:
1) The method provides better predictions for the existing database of load tests than the
ICP-05 design method (as well as better predictions than the API-00, Fugro-04 and
NGI-04 design methods).
2) The UWA-05 provides a more conservative extrapolation than ICP-05 from the existing
database to full scale offshore piles. Such conservatism (if indeed it is simply not over-
prediction by ICP-05) is warranted in the absence of load test data on full scale piles.
3) The UWA-05 formulations are soundly based and draw on the considerable recent
developments in our understanding of the axial response of displacement piles in sand.
4) The UWA-05 method has been evaluated in the same (impartial) way that the ICP-05,
API-00, Fugro-04 and NGI-04 design methods were examined in Lehane, Schneider &
Xu (2005).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to the members of the API-ISO committee for their feedback on the
UWA evaluation study, which ultimately led to the design method presented here. In particular,
the authors would like to acknowledge the numerous constructive comments raised in
discussions with the following three members of the API piling sub-committee: Mr. Harry Kolk
(Fugro Engineers B.V.), Prof. Richard Jardine (Imperial College) and Prof. Mark Randolph
(Centre for Offshore Foundations, UWA).

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.
Axelsson G. 1998, 'Long-term increase in shaft capacity of driven piles in sand'. Proc., 4th Int.
Con. on Case Histories in Geotechnical Eng., St. Louis, Missouri, paper 1-25.
Brucy, F., Meunier, J., & Nauroy, J.-F. 1991. 'Behaviour of pile plug in sandy soils during and
after driving'. OTC 6514, Proc., 23rd Annual OTC, Houston:145 154.
Bruno, D. 1999, Dynamic and static load testing of driven piles in sand, PhD Thesis, University
of Western Australia.
Bustamante, M. & Gianeselli, L. 1982. 'Pile bearing capacity by means of static penetrometer
CPT'. Proc., 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Amsterdam:493 499.
Chow, F. C. 1997, Investigations into the behaviour of displacement piles for offshore
foundations, PhD, Imperial College.
de Nicola, A. and Randolph, M.F. (1993), 'Tensile and compressive shaft capacity of piles in
sand', Jnl. Geotech. Engrg. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs 119, (12), 1952-1973.
Focht, J.A., Johnson, G.W., & Rivette, C.A. (1986), Results of recent cone penetrometer testing
in Gulf of Mexico, 18th Offshore Technology Conference, paper number: OTC5104.
Franke, E. 1989, 'Prediction of the bearing behaviour of piles, especially large bored piles', in
Proc. XII ICSMFE, RIO de Janeiro.
Fugro Engineers B.V. (Fugro) 2004, Axial pile capacity design method for offshore driven piles
in sand, P-1003, Issue 3, to API, August 2004.
Ghionna, V. N., Jamiolkowski, M., Lancellotta, R. & Pedroni, S. 1993, 'Base capacity of bored
piles in sands from in situ tests', in Deep Foundation on Bored and Auger Piles, ed. V. Impe,
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 67-75.
Jamiolkowski, M. & Lancellotta, R. 1988, 'Relevance of in-situ test results for evaluation of
allowable base resistance of bored piles in sands', in Deep Foundation on Bored and Auger
Piles,, ed. V. Impe, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 107-120.
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., Overy, R., and Standing, J. 2005, ICP design methods for driven
piles in sands and clays, Thomas Telford, London.
Jardine, R.J., Standing, J.R., & Chow, F.C. 2005a. 'Field research into the effects of time on the
shaft capacity of piles driven in sand', Proc., ISFOG, Perth:5 pp
Lehane, B. M. & Gavin, K. G. 2001, 'Base resistance of jacked pipe piles in sand', Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 127, no. 6, pp. 473-480.
Lehane B.M. and Gavin K. 2004, Discussion: Determination of bearing capacity of open-ended
piles in sand J. Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engrg. ASCE 130 (6), 656-658.
Lehane, B. M. & Randolph, M. F. 2002, 'Evaluation of a minimum base resistance for driven
pipe piles in siliceous sand', Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol.
128, no. 3, pp. 198-205.
Lehane, B. M. 1992, Experimental investigations of pile behaviour using instrumented field piles,
PhD, Imperial College.
Lehane, B.M., Jardine, R.J., Bond, A.J., & Frank, R. 1993. 'Mechanisms of shaft friction in sand
from instrumented pile tests', Journal of Geotech. Eng., 119 (1):19 35.
Lehane, B.M., Schneider, J.A., and Xu, X. 2005, Evaluation of design methods for displacement
piles in sand, UWA Report, GEO: 05341.1.

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.
Randolph, M. F. 2003, 'Science and empiricism in pile foundation design', Geotechnique, vol. 53,
no. 10, pp. 847-875.
Salgado, R. Lee, J. And Kim, K. 2002, Load tests on pipe piles for development of CPT-based
design method, FHWA/IN/JTRP-2002/4.
Schmertmann, J. H. 1978. Guidelines for cone test, performance, and design. U.S. Federal
Highway Administration, FHWATS-78209.
Van Mierlo, W.C. and Koppejan, A.W. 1952, 'Lengte en draagvermogen van heipalen', Bouw,
January.
Vesic, A. S. 1970. 'Tests on instrumented piles, Ogeechee River site'. Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division ASCE SM2: 561-584.
White, D. J. & Bolton, M. D. 2005, 'Comparing CPT and pile base resistance in sand', ICE,
Geotechnical Enginnering, vol. 158, pp. 3-14.
White, D. J. & Lehane, B. M. 2004, 'Friction fatigue on displacement piles in sand',
Geotechnique, vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 645-658.
White, D.J., Schneider, J.A., and Lehane, B.M. 2005. The influence of effective area ratio on
shaft friction of displacement piles in sand, Proc., ISFOG, Perth.
Xu, X, & Lehane, B.M. 2005, 'Evaluation of end-bearing capacity of closed-ended pile in sand
from cone penetration data', in Proc., ISFOG, Perth.

.
APPENDIX A

Table A1: UWA Database compression load tests on closed-ended piles (with CPT data)
ID No. Site Name Pile No. Pile Material Pile 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. 1992a Y
102 Baghdad p2 Concrete Square 0.285 15 42 Altaee et al. 1992a 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 Point S Steel Circular 0.273 7.8 24 Briaud & Tucker 1989 Y
117 Jonkoping p23 Concrete Square 0.235 16.8 3 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 H-12 Steel Circular 0.457 6.1 0.5 Vesic, A. 1970 Y
124 Ogeechee H-13 Steel Circular 0.457 8.9 0.5 Vesic, A. 1970 Y
125 Ogeechee H-14 Steel Circular 0.457 12 0.5 Vesic, A. 1970 Y
126 Ogeechee H-15 Steel Circular 0.457 15 0.5 Vesic, A. 1970 Y
127 Ogeechee H-2 Concrete Square 0.406 15.2 0.5 Vesic, A. 1970 Y
128 Pigeon Creek CEP steel Circular 0.356 6.9 4 Paik, K. etal 2003 Y
129 Sermide S Steel Circular 0.508 35.9 ? Appendino 1981 Y
130 Tickfaw River, L TP2 Concrete Square 0.6879 32 ? Titi & Abu-Farsakh 1999 Y
131 Tickfaw River, L TP1 Concrete Square 0.6879 25.9 ? Titi & Abu-Farsakh 1999 Y
132 87 Mission Ave Bent 2L Concrete Square 0.3556 9.5 7 Olson & Shantz 2004 N
133 Albysjon SII-1 Steel Circular 0.089 12.2 ? Bergdahl, U. etal 1976 N
134 Drammen E Concrete Circular 0.28 3.5 ? Gregersen et al. 1973 N
135 Fittja Straits D Concrete Square 0.235 13 1 Axelsson 2000 N
139 ISC2, Porto C1 Concrete Square 0.35 6 90 Viana da Fonseca et al. 2004 N
140 Jamuna Bridge p1-1 Concrete Square 0.45 28.8 ? Fugro Report. 1996 N
141 Jamuna Bridge p1-2 Concrete Square 0.45 29.5 ? Fugro Report. 1996 N
142 Jamuna Bridge p1-3 Concrete Square 0.45 26 ? Fugro Report. 1996 N
143 Kallo, Antwerp I Concrete Circular 0.908 9.7 ? De Beer et al. 1979 N
144 Kallo, Antwerp II Concrete Circular 0.539 9.7 ? De Beer et al. 1979 N
145 Kallo, Antwerp III Concrete Circular 0.615 9.8 ? De Beer et al. 1979 N
146 Kallo, Antwerp IV Concrete Circular 0.8154 9.8 ? De Beer et al. 1979 N
147 Kallo, Antwerp VII Concrete Square 0.609 9.4 ? De Beer et al. 1979 N
148 Louisiana TP1 Concrete Square 0.4013 9.5 ? Titi & Abu-Farsakh 1999 N
149 Louisiana TP1 Concrete Square 0.4013 24.4 ? Titi & Abu-Farsakh 1999 N
150 Salt Lake 1700South Steel Circular 0.324 23.2 ? Rollins, K. etal 1999 N

Table A2: Variances and weighting factors for closed-ended piles in compression
ID Name qc Nt t R f g-i Q CWF PWF
100 Akasaka 0.1 1.00 0.25 0 0 0 0.27 1.00 1.00
101 Baghdad 0.1 1.09 0.2 0.15 0 0 0.27 1.00 1.00
102 Baghdad 0.1 1.06 0.15 0.15 0 0 0.23 1.00 1.00
103 Cimarron R 0.1 1.00 0.25 0 0 0 0.27 1.00 1.00
104 Cimarron R 0.1 1.00 0.25 0 0 0 0.27 1.00 1.00
105 Drammen 0.1 1.00 0.25 0 0 0 0.27 1.00 0.50
106 Drammen 0.1 1.00 0.25 0 0 0 0.27 1.00 1.00
107 Drammen 0.1 1.00 0.25 0 0 0 0.27 1.00 1.00
108 Drammen 0.1 1.00 0.25 0 0 0 0.27 1.00 1.00
109 Drammen 0.1 1.00 0.25 0 0 0 0.27 1.00 1.00
110 Drammen 0.1 1.00 0.25 0 0 0 0.27 1.00 1.00
111 Drammen 0.1 1.00 0.25 0 0 0 0.27 1.00 1.00
112 Fittja Straits 0.1 0.97 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 0.87 1.00
113 Hoogzand 0.1 1.00 0.25 0 0 0 0.27 1.00 1.00
114 Hsin Ta 0.1 1.05 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 0.60 0.50
115 Hsin Ta 0.1 1.05 0.15 0 0.1 0 0.21 0.53 0.50
116 Hunter's Point 0.1 1.04 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 1.00 1.00
117 Jonkoping 0.1 0.95 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 0.91 0.50
118 Jonkoping 0.1 0.95 0.15 0 0.1 0 0.21 0.93 0.50
119 Jonkoping 0.1 0.95 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 0.91 1.00
120 Lock&Dam 26 0.1 1.05 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 1.00 0.33
121 Lock&Dam 26 0.1 1.04 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 1.00 0.33
122 Lock&Dam 26 0.1 1.04 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 1.00 0.33
123 Ogeechee 0.1 0.95 0.15 0 0.05 0 0.19 1.00 1.00
124 Ogeechee 0.1 0.95 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 1.00 1.00
125 Ogeechee 0.1 0.95 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 1.00 1.00
126 Ogeechee 0.1 0.95 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 1.00 1.00
127 Ogeechee 0.1 0.95 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 1.00 1.00
128 Pigeon Creek 0.1 0.96 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 0.98 1.00
129 Sermide 0.1 1.00 0.25 0 0 0 0.27 0.89 1.00
130 Tickfaw River 0.1 1.00 0.25 0 0.1 0 0.29 0.59 1.00
131 Tickfaw River 0.1 1.00 0.25 0 0.05 0 0.27 0.69 1.00

Table A3: UWA Database tension load tests on closed-ended piles (with CPT data)
- - - - - (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 3-2 Steel Circular 0.3048 11 35 Briaud et al. 1989 Y
207 Lock&Dam 26 3-5 Steel Circular 0.3556 11.1 27 Briaud et al. 1989 Y
208 Lock&Dam 26 3-8 Steel Circular 0.4064 11.1 28 Briaud et al. 1989 Y
209 Ogeechee H-16 Steel Circular 0.457 15 1.5 Vesic 1970 Y
210 58 Vermont Ave NA Concrete Square 0.3048 11.6 15 Olson & Shantz 2004 N
211 87 Mission Ave Bent 2L Concrete Square 0.3556 9.5 7 Olson & Shantz 2004 N
212 Albysjon SII-1 Steel Circular 0.089 12.2 ? Bergdahl & Wenner.1976 N
213 Buckman O1 Concrete Square 0.457 9.1 0.25 McVay et al. 1999 N
217 Buckman O1 Concrete Square 0.457 9.16 268 McVay et al. 1999 N
218 Seabreeze O1 Concrete Square 0.457 25.12 4 McVay et al. 1999 N
223 Seabreeze O1 Concrete Square 0.457 25.12 0.35 McVay et al. 1999 N
224 Vilano East O1 Concrete Square 0.457 10.68 0.32 McVay et al. 1999 N
Table A4: Variances and weighting factors for closed-ended piles in tension
200 Baghdad 0.1 1.33 0.25 0.15 0 0 0.31 1.00 1.00
201 Drammen 0.1 1.00 0.25 0.15 0 0 0.31 1.00 1.00
202 Drammen 0.1 1.00 0.25 0.15 0 0 0.31 1.00 1.00
203 Drammen 0.1 1.00 0.25 0.15 0 0 0.31 1.00 1.00
204 Hoogzand 0.1 1.00 0.25 0.15 0 0 0.31 1.00 1.00
205 Hsin Ta 0.1 1.11 0.15 0 0.08 0 0.20 0.27 1.00
206 Lock&Dam 26 0.1 1.14 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 1.00 0.33
207 Lock&Dam 26 0.1 1.11 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 1.00 0.33
208 Lock&Dam 26 0.1 1.11 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 1.00 0.33
209 Ogeechee 0.1 0.87 0.15 0.15 0 0 0.23 1.00 1.00

Table A5: UWA Database for compression load tests on open-ended piles (with CPT data)
- - - - - (m) (m) (days) - Y/N
300 85 SFOBB Bent E31R Steel Circular 0.6096 13.3 25 Olson & Shantz 2004 Y
301 Drammen E18 16 Steel Circular 0.813 11 2 Tveldt & Fredriksen 2003 Y
304 Dunkirk B CL-a Steel Circular 0.324 11.3 177 Brucy et al. 1991 N
305 Dunkirk B CS-a Steel Circular 0.324 11.3 189 Brucy et al. 1991 N
306 EURIPIDES Ia Steel Circular 0.763 30.5 7 Fugro 2004 Y
307 EURIPIDES Ib Steel Circular 0.763 38.7 2 Fugro 2004 Y
308 EURIPIDES Ic Steel Circular 0.763 47 11 Fugro 2004 Y
309 EURIPIDES II Steel Circular 0.763 46.7 6 Fugro 2004 Y
310 Hoogzand I Steel Circular 0.356 7 37 Beringen et al. 1979 Y
311 Hoogzand III Steel Circular 0.356 5.3 19 Beringen et al. 1979 Y
312 Hound Poind p Steel Circular 1.22 26 21 Williams et al. 1997 Y
313 I-880 2-T Steel Circular 0.6096 10.7 16 Olson & Shantz 2004 Y
314 Pigeon Creek 2 Steel Circular 0.356 7 4 Paik et al. 2003 Y
315 Shanghai ST-1 Steel Circular 0.9144 79 23 Pump et al. 1998 Y
316 Shanghai ST-2 Steel Circular 0.9144 79.1 35 Pump et al. 1998 Y
317 Trans-Tokyo Ba TP Steel Circular 2 30.6 52 Shioi et al. 1992 Y
318 Dunkirk zdh C1 Steel Circle 0.457 10 68 Jardine & Standing, 2000 Y
319 96 Bayshore Pile 1 Steel Circular 0.4064 16 50 Olson & Shantz 2004 N
320 Blessington D-100 Steel Circular 0.1 1.8 ? Gavin, K. etal 2003 N
323 Drammen E18 25 Steel Circular 0.813 25 14 Tveldt & Fredriksen 2003 N
324 Drammen E18 25 Steel Circular 0.813 25 156 Tveldt & Fredriksen 2003 N
325 EURIPIDES II Steel Circular 0.763 47 541 Fugro 2004 N
326 Jamuna Bridge PS1 Steel Circular 0.763 44 9 Fugro 1996 N
327 Jamuna Bridge PS1D Steel Circular 0.763 78.3 4 Fugro 1996 N
329 Ras Tanajib II 25a Steel Circular 0.7633 8 102 Fugro 2004 N
Table A6: Variances and weighting factors for open-ended piles in compression
300 85 SFOBB 0.1 1.04 0.15 0 0.05 0 0.19 0.81 1.00
301 Drammen E18 0.1 0.95 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 1.00 1.00
302 Drammen E18 0.1 0.95 0.15 0 0.05 0 0.19 1.00 1.00
303 Drammen E18 0.1 0.95 0.15 0.15 0.05 0 0.24 1.00 1.00
306 EURIPIDES 0.1 0.98 0.15 0 0.1 0 0.21 1.00 1.00
307 EURIPIDES 0.1 0.95 0.15 0.15 0.05 0 0.24 1.00 1.00
308 EURIPIDES 0.1 1.00 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 1.00 0.50
309 EURIPIDES 0.1 0.98 0.15 0 0.05 0 0.19 1.00 0.50
310 Hoogzand 0.1 1.06 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 1.00 1.00
311 Hoogzand 0.1 1.03 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 1.00 1.00
312 Hound Poind 0.1 1.03 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 0.88 1.00
313 I-880 0.1 1.02 0.15 0 0.05 0 0.19 0.80 1.00
314 Pigeon Creek 0.1 0.96 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 0.97 1.00
315 Shanghai 0.1 1.04 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 0.84 0.50
316 Shanghai 0.1 1.05 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 0.84 0.50
317 Trans-Tokyo B 0.1 1.07 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 0.94 1.00
318 Dunkirk ZdH 0.1 1.08 0.2 0 0.05 0 0.23 1.00 1.00

Table A7: UWA Database for tension load tests on open-ended piles (with CPT data)
- - - - - (m) (m) (days) - Y/N
400 56 Los Coyotes NA Steel Circular 0.3556 14.9 2 Olson & Shantz 2004 Y
401 85 SFOBB Bent E31R Steel Circular 0.6096 13.3 25 Olson & Shantz 2004 Y
402 Dunkirk B CL-a Steel Circular 0.324 11.3 176 Brucy et al. 1991 N
403 Dunkirk B CS-a Steel Circular 0.324 11.3 188 Brucy et al. 1991 N
404 Dunkirk B LS Steel Circular 0.324 22 188 Brucy et al. 1991 N
405 EURIPIDES Ia Steel Circular 0.763 30.5 7 Fugro 2004 Y
406 EURIPIDES Ib Steel Circular 0.763 38.7 2 Fugro 2004 Y
407 EURIPIDES Ic Steel Circular 0.763 47 11 Fugro 2004 Y
408 EURIPIDES II Steel Circular 0.763 46.7 7 Fugro 2004 Y
409 Hoogzand I Steel Circular 0.356 7 37 Beringen et al. 1979 Y
410 Hoogzand III Steel Circular 0.356 5.3 19 Beringen et al. 1979 Y
411 Hound Poind p Steel Circle 1.22 34 11 Williams et al. 1997 Y
412 Hound Poind p Steel Circle 1.22 41 4 Williams et al. 1997 Y
413 I-880 2-P Steel Circular 0.6096 12.3 28 Olson & Shantz 2004 Y
414 I-880 2-T Steel Circular 0.6096 10.7 16 Olson & Shantz 2004 Y
415 I-880 2-W Steel Circular 0.6096 12.3 20 Olson & Shantz 2004 Y
416 Dunkirk zdh C1 Steel Circle 0.457 10 69 Jardine & Standing, 2000 Y
417 Dunkirk zdh R1 Steel Circle 0.457 19.3 9 Jardine & Standing, 2000 Y
418 Leman BD BD Steel Circular 0.66 38.1 0 Jardine et al. 1998 NA
419 Padre Island A1 Steel Circular 0.508 17.1 0 McClelland Engineers 1958 NA
420 Padre Island A2 Steel Circular 0.508 17.1 0 McClelland Engineers 1958 NA
421 38 NE Conn NA Steel Circular 0.4064 13.1 1 Olson & Shantz 2004 N
422 Anvers G Steel Circular 0.318 8.3 0 De Beer & Wallays 1969 N
423 Dunkirk ZdH R2 Steel Circular 0.456 18.9 240 Jardine & Standing, 2000 N
424 Dunkirk ZdH R6 Steel Circular 0.456 18.9 80 Jardine & Standing, 2000 N
425 EURIPIDES II Steel Circular 0.763 47 541 Fugro 2004 N
427 Jamuna Bridge PS1D Steel Circular 0.763 78.3 4 Fugro 1996 N
429 Leman a a Steel Circular 0.61 30.5 0 Fugro 2004 N
430 Ras Tanajib II 25a Steel Circular 0.7633 8 102 Fugro 2004 N
Table A8: Variances and weighting factors for open-ended piles in compression
56 Los
400 Coyotes 0.1 0.87 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 0.39 1.00
401 85 SFOBB 0.1 1.10 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 0.76 1.00
405 EURIPIDES 0.1 0.96 0.15 0.15 0.75 0 0.79 1.00 1.00
406 EURIPIDES 0.1 0.87 0.15 0 0.15 0 0.23 1.00 1.00
407 EURIPIDES 0.1 1.01 0.15 0.15 0.1 0 0.25 1.00 0.50
408 EURIPIDES 0.1 0.96 0.15 0.15 0.1 0 0.25 1.00 0.50
409 Hoogzand 0.1 1.14 0.15 0.15 0 0 0.23 1.00 1.00
410 Hoogzand 0.1 1.07 0.15 0.15 0 0 0.23 1.00 1.00
411 Hound Poind 0.1 1.01 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 0.92 1.00
412 Hound Poind 0.1 0.90 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 0.94 1.00
413 I-880 0.1 1.11 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 0.71 0.50
414 I-880 0.1 1.05 0.15 0.15 0 0 0.23 0.74 1.00
415 I-880 0.1 1.08 0.15 0 0 0 0.18 0.71 0.50
416 Dunkirk ZdH 0.1 1.21 0.2 0.15 0 0 0.27 1.00 1.00

Derivation of Equation (2b)
2
Q b = q b,ann
4
(D D i2 ) + q b,plug D i2
4
The unit end bearing resistance acting over the whole base area qb will be:
Qb q b,an (D 2 D i2 ) + q b,plug D i2
qb = =
4 D2 D2
q b = q b,ann A r + q b,plug (1 A r )
Assume q b,ann / q c = 0.6 (i.e. as for closed-ended piles)
q b,plug / q c = 0.65 (0.6 0.15) FFR = 0.6 0.45 FFR (i.e. as shown on Figure A1)
1 A*rb 1 A *rb
FFR = =
(Di D)2 1 A r
1 A *rb
q b,plug / q c = 0.6 0.45
1 Ar
q b = q b,an A r + q b,plug (1 A r )
1 A *rb
= 0.6 q c A r + 0.6 0.45 q c (1 A r )
1 A r
1 A *rb
q b / q c = 0.6 A r + 0.6 (1 A r ) 0.45 (1 A r )
1 Ar
= 0.6 0.45 (1 A *rb )
= 0.15 + 0.45 A *rb
Therefore,
q b / q c = 0.15 + 0.45 A *rb
0.60
0.50
0.40
qb,plug/qc
0.30 Dunkirk
Euripides
Hoogzand
0.20
Indiana
Ras Tanajib
0.10 Shanghai
Tokyo
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
FFR
Figure A1: Ratio of qplug to the averaged CPT qc value versus FFR

Determination of q c using the Dutch averaging technique
The determination of q c using the Dutch technique (illustrated above) for offshore conditions is
hampered by the fact that continuous CPT profiles are often not available (e.g. when seabed
CPT methods are not employed). It is proposed that a conservative estimate of the Dutch
q c value may be estimated as:
q c = (qca + qcb)/2
where qca is the minimum value of qc over the depth interval extending from the pile tip to a
depth of between 0.7D* to 4D* below the tip (where D* = D Arb*0.5) and qcb is the average qc
value from the tip to a height of 8D* above the pile tip.

1.8 1.8
Probability Density Function

1.6 UWA-05 1.6 UWA-05
1.4 ICP-05 1.4 ICP-05
1.2 1.2
1 CEC 1 CET
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Qc / Qm Q c / Qm
1.8 1.8

1.6 UWA-05 1.6 UWA-05
1.4 ICP-05 1.4 ICP-05
1.2 1.2
1 OEC 1 OET
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Qc / Qm Q c / Qm
Figure A2. Weighted probability density functions for UWA-05 and ICP-05

2.5
UWA-05
average=0.98
121
cov=0.37
2
122
120
Qc [UWA-05]/Qm
1.5
113
112 116 128

104 130
1 110
107
111
114 103
108
109 127
100 106 115
105 131
118 119 124 129
126
123
125
101
117
0.5 102
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Diameter (m)
2.5
UWA-05
average=0.98
121
cov=0.37
2
122
120
Qc [UWA-05]/Qm
1.5
113
128 116 112

104 130
1 107 110
103 111
114
108 127
109
100 106 115
105 131 129
123
124 126119 118
125
101
117
0.5 102
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
L (m)
2.5
UWA-05
average=0.98
121
cov=0.37
2
122
120
Qc [UWA-05]/Qm
1.5
113
112 116 128

130 104
1 110
107
111
114 103
108 127
106 109 115 100
105
131 129 119 118 124
126123
125
101
117
0.5 102
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Averaged Dr,shaft (-)
Figure A3: Performance of UWA-05 for closed-ended piles in compression

2.5
UWA-05
average=1.02
cov=0.27
2
Qc [UWA-05]/Qm
1.5
205
203 207
201206
1 204 208
202
209
200
0.5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Diameter (m)
2.5
UWA-05
average=1.02
cov=0.27
2
Qc [UWA-05]/Qm
1.5
205
207 203
201 206
1 204 208
202
209
200
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
L (m)
2.5
UWA-05
average=1.02
cov=0.27
2
Qc [UWA-05]/Qm
1.5
205
203
207
201 206
1 208 204
202
209
200
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Figure A4: Performance of UWA-05 for closed-ended piles in tension

2.5
UWA-05
average=0.98
cov=0.19
2
Qc [UWA-05]/Qm
1.5
306
310 318 313 309
311
307
1 308 312
317
314 301
300 316
302 315
303
0.5
0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1
Diameter (m)
2.5
UWA-05
average=0.98
cov=0.19
2
Qc [UWA-05]/Qm
1.5
306
313
310318 309
311
307
1 312
317 308
314 301
302
300 316
315
303
0.5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
L (m)
2.5
UWA-05
average=0.98
cov=0.19
2
Qc [UWA-05]/Qm
1.5
306
318 309 310
313
311
307
1 317
312 308
301 314
302 316 315 300
303
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Figure A5: Performance of UWA-05 for open-ended piles in compression

2.5
UWA-05
average=0.91
cov=0.23
2
Qc [UWA-05]/Qm
1.5
414
407
408
415
1 410
409
416
411
417 406
401 405
400 412
413
0.5
0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1
Diameter (m)
2.5
UWA-05
average=0.91
cov=0.23
2
Qc [UWA-05]/Qm
1.5
414
407
408
1 409 415
410
416
411
417 406
401 405
400 412
413
0.5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
L (m)
2.5
UWA-05
average=0.91
cov=0.23
2
Qc [UWA-05]/Qm
1.5
414
407
408
415
1 416
410
409
411
417 406
400 405 401
412
413
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Figure A6: Performance of UWA-05 for open-ended piles in tension

APPENDIX B
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED
Part (i) Response to Philippe Jeanjean email (19th May 2005)

Part (ii) Response to Harry Kolk e-mail 18 May 2005
Part (iii) Response to Harry Kolk e-mail 19 May 2005

Part (i) Response to the following comment from Philippe Jeanjean
(19th May 2005)
I am very interested in Table 6.2 which lists the Pf for the various methods. You used a safety
factor of 1.5 and 2.0, as per API RP2A WSD. These are total safety factors and therefore are
also capturing uncertainties in the loads. In API RP2A LRFD, it is recommended to use a
resistance factor of 0.8 for operating conditions, and 0.7 for design conditions. These factors
are in terms associated with proper load factors.
It therefore seems to me that what we really would like to have is the probability of failure for the
various methods for safety factors of 1/0.8= 1.25 and 1/0.7= 1.43. Then we would properly
assess the risks associated with various methods, for the resistance part of the foundation
design.
Question: how much work would it be to update or redo Table 6.2 with safety factors of 1.25 and
1.43? If it is not too much work I would love to have the results so I can pass those on to
SC2. I would like to be able to say that the new method has Pf comparable with API-00. Only
then I feel we have the proper justification for using the updated method without changing our
safety factors.
We have provided a response to this enquiry by providing a comparison between existing API
recommendations and the proposed UWA-05 method of (a) the weighted probability density
functions on Figure B1 and (b) the relative probability of failure (Pf) plotted as a function of the
factor of safety on Figure B2. The reader is referred to Lehane, Schneider & Xu (2005) for a full
description of the procedures involved in the derivation of these figures.
Please note that:
(i) Eqns 1 & 3 and Eqns 2 & 3 are the general UWA recommendations for driven piles,
while Eqn. (4) is the simplified proposal for offshore piles where dilation and partial
plugging effects are assumed to be negligible.
(ii) However, because of time constraints, the probability density functions and Pf values for
the UWA-05 method labelled as Eqn. 4 on Figure B2 still include the contribution of
dilation to shaft capacity; this will be rectified in due course. As a consequence, the
actual Pf values for all categories of piles determined using Eqn. 4 will be lower than
those plotted.
(iii) The Pf values are not actual probabilities of failure and merely provide a means for
comparison of the predictive performance of the API-00 and UWA-05 methods for the
database piles (most of which are smaller than full scale offshore piles).
(iv) The Pf values obtained for capacity predictions using Eqn. 4 (i.e. the UWA-05
recommendation for offshore piles) are equal 5 or lower to the equivalent values
obtained by API-00 for all categories of piles. Given the comment in (ii) and estimating
that dilation effects contribute to an average of about 10% of the shaft capacity of the
database piles, it is concluded that Eqn. 4 of UWA-05 leads to substantially improved Pf
values over current recommendations.
5
Arising for closed-ended piles in compression for which API-00 significantly under-predicts the capacity of the
database piles. However the bias with respect to pile length and sand relative density for this method are such that API-
00 will tend to have higher Pf values for long piles as well as in loose sands.

1.8 1.8
UWA-05 UWA-05

1.6 1.6
API-00 API-00
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1 CEC 1 CET
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
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
1.8 UWA-05: Eqns 2&3 1.8

UWA-05: Eqns 2& 3
UWA-05: Eqn 4

1.6 1.6 UWA-05: Eqn 4
API-00 API-00
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1 OEC 1 OET
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
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 B1. Weighted probability density functions for API-00 and UWA-05

1.E+00 1.E+00
CEC CET
Relative Probability of Failure

1.E-01 1.E-01
1.E-02 1.E-02
API-00 API-00
1.E-03 1.E-03
UWA-05: UWA-05:
Eqns 1& 3 Eqns 1&3
1.E-04 1.E-04
1 1.5 2 2.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
1.E+00 1.E+00
API-00
OET

UWA-05:
1.E-01 Eqns 2& 3 1.E-01
UWA-05:
Eqn 4
1.E-02 1.E-02
OEC
1.E-03 1.E-03 API-00
UWA-05: Eqns 2&3
UWA-05: Eqn 4
1.E-04 1.E-04
1 1.5 2 2.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Figure B2. Relative probability of failure as a function of factor of safety

Part (ii) Response to Harry Kolk e-mail 18 May 2005
(a) Please confirm that the recommended method for offshore piles (equations 5) include an
upper limit on tan delta of 0.55 and determine qc at tip using the Dutch method.
Apologies for our ambiguity which we have now rectified in a new Figure 4 of the main text
(included in this file). The database analyses used measured cv values and values that were
employed in ICP-05 predictions (to ensure compatibility between the comparison of UWA-05
and ICP-05 predictions). For tests outside of the ICP-05 database, when no interface data were
available, the database analyses employed the trend line shown on Figure 4. As seen on Figure
4, this trend line differs very slightly from the recommendations of UWA-05 (which are in line
with those agreed at the API-ISO meeting in early May 2005).
The UWA-05 method proposes use of the Dutch method to calculate qc average, but accepts
averaging within 1.5D of the tip in situations where qc values in the vicinity of the tip do not vary
significantly; see note also in Appendix A which deals with the Dutch method.
Please also note that equation (5) is now equation (4) there was previously no equation (4).
(b) Are figures 9 and 10 made for the simplified UWA method or the full UWA method (i.e incl.
Dilatancy and IFR)?
Figures 9 and 10 do include dilatancy and partial plugging effects i.e. they use equations (2)
and (3) which reduce to equation (4) for typical offshore piles.
(c) Are you sure that curves in Fig. 9 and 10 are correct? I would in particular double-check the
compression curves for D/t=50 and qc1N=70. (by the way I forgot definition for qc1N; can you
provide this please?)
Yes we are sure that the curves are correct and have had them checked independently. The
jumps arise due to the discontinuity predicted for end bearing by ICP-05 at Di =0.02 (Dr-30)
which represents its presumed transition between a pile failing statically in a plugged and coring
mode. Note that the jump may appear as a transition because of the pile length interval
selected for calculation. No such discontinuity arises for UWA-05 which does not consider that
failure in a coring mode is possible if the plug length is greater than 5D.
The equation for qc1N is provided in equation 3f.
(d) I fully agree with the concern on ICP potentially being unconservative for typical offshore
piles. Therefore I find the trends in Figs 7 & 8 just as important as the statistical data (for same
reason might be good to have Figs A5 & A6 also for ICP & eventually other methods)
These plots are provided in the UWA evaluation study report.
(e) It would be good to get a "feel" for how the new method(s) would compare with the
traditional API method for typical GoM pile/soils (48 inch OD, t=1.25 inch?, I will check by
separate mail). Would it be possible to have pile capacity curves made at short notice for UWA,
ICP and traditional API (and eventually other methods) for site C given in OTC 1986 paper 5104
("Results of recent CPT in GoM" by Focht et al.)?
We include in Figures B4 & B5, predictions (for compression loading) made for 72 and 96
piles with a wall thickness of 1.75 currently being considered for a site in the Gulf of Mexico.
The design CPT profile for this project is provided in Figure B3.
We also include (on Figure B6 & B7) plots of ratios of predictions made using UWA-05 with
those given by API-00 for idealized sand profiles (Dr=40% qc1N=70 and Dr=80% qc1N=220).

qt (MPa)
0 20 40 60 80
0
10
20
Depth (m)
30
40
50
60
Figure B3: CPT profile at GoM site

Qtotal, C (MN)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
72" pile
10
Pile Length (m)
20
30 API-00
Fugro-05
ICP-05
40
NGI-04
UWA-05
50
Qend, C (MN)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
10
20
Pile length (m)
30
40 API-00
Fugro-05
ICP-05
50 NGI-04
UWA-05
60
Qshaft, C (MN)
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
API-00
Fugro-05
10 ICP-05
NGI-04
UWA-05
Pile length (m)
20
30
40
50
Figure B4: GoM Example 72 pipe pile for qc profile on Figure B3

Q total, C (MN)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0
96" pile
10
Pile length (m)
20 API-00
Fugro-05
ICP-05
30
NGI-04
UWA-05
40
50
Qend, C (MN)
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
10
Pile length (m)
20
30
API-00
Fugro-05
40 ICP-05
NGI-04
UWA-05
50
Qshaft, C (MN)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
10
Pile length (m)
20
30 API-00
Fugro-05
ICP-05
40 NGI-04
UWA-05
50
Figure B5: GoM example 96 pipe pile for qc profile on Figure B3

2.50
D/t=20; qc1N=70
D/t=50; qc1N=70
2.00 D/t=20; qc1N=220
D/t=50; qc1N=220
Qt [UWA-05] /Qt [API-00]
1.50
1.00
0.50
L/D=70 Compression
0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Length (m)
D/t=20; qc1N=70
2.00 D/t=50; qc1N=70
D/t=20; qc1N=220
D/t=50; qc1N=220
1.80
Q end [UWA-05] /Qend [API-00]
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
L/D=70 Compression
0.60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Length (m)
2.50
D/t=20; qc1N=70
D/t=50; qc1N=70
2.00 D/t=20; qc1N=220
Qshaft [UWA-05]/Qshaft [API-00]
D/t=50; qc1N=220
1.50
1.00
0.50
L/D=70 Compression
0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Length (m)
Figure B6: Ratio of UWA-05 to API-00 predictions for piles with L/D=70 in compression

3.0
D/t=20; qc1N=70
2.5 D/t=50; qc1N=70

D/t=20; qc1N=220
Qt [UWA-05] /Qt [API-00] D/t=50; qc1N=220
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
L/D=35, compression
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Length (m)
3.0
D/t=20; qc1N=70
2.5 D/t=50; qc1N=70

D/t=20; qc1N=220
Qend [UWA-05] /Qend [API-00]
D/t=50; qc1N=220
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
L/D=35, compression
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Length (m)
3.0
D/t=20; qc1N=70
2.5 D/t=50; qc1N=70

Qshaft [UWA-05]/Qshaft [API-00]
D/t=20; qc1N=220
D/t=50; qc1N=220
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
L/D=35, compression
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Length (m)
Figure B7: Ratio of UWA-05 to API-00 predictions for piles with L/D=35 in compression

Part (iii) Response to Harry Kolk e-mail 19 May 2005
(a) The Dutch CPT averaging method is not practicable for offshore design purposes because
one needs to continuous CPT profile for it, which one generally does not have offshore. The
normal practice when using ICP and Fugro method is to schematize entire CPT profile first
before computing friction and end bearing. The latter is done with the 1.5D/1.5D method. It is
more practicable to maintain this method in offshore design criteria, but put some words of
warning in when encountering strongly varying CPT profiles. If one has such profiles, one has to
be very careful anyhow because of lateral variability. May be wording could be made to combine
these two variability issues at the same time.
These issues have clear and important implications for any CPT based method and any choice
of qc averaging technique.
The derivation of a design CPT profile from the discontinuous type of profile often obtained
offshore requires good engineering judgment which obviously increases as the available
number of CPT profiles at a particular site increases. However, the continuous profiles
achievable with seabed systems are obviously more desirable.
We are proponents of the Dutch averaging technique (applied to the design CPT profile) as it is
slightly more conservative than the straight averaging technique (being weighted more towards
the lower qc values in the profile) and it also automatically accounts for effects such as low
depths of embedment into a bearing stratum. A simplification (which errs on the conservative
side for capacity calculation) to the proposed averaging technique is now included in Appendix
A of this document
The text in Section 2.1 does state that, for many stratigraphies encountered in practice, the
1.5D averaging technique is sufficient.
(b) My guess is that the 1.5D/1.5D method was used in the UWA database analyses of
compression pile load tests, but that your recommendation for the Dutch averaging method was
due to your review of some end bearing data. I agree with this approach/conclusion, but again it
is not practicable for offshore application as noted above.
No, the Dutch averaging technique was used for the prediction of base capacity using the UWA-
05 method, and other averaging techniques recommended by each of the other methods
considered were used i.e. qc,1.5D was used for ICP-05 and Fugro-04 and qc,tip was used for NGI.
(c) Possibly the Dutch method may also have provided a better estimate for the shallowest test
at Euripides, in particular if one uses full pile diameter rater than reduced diameter.
We used the equivalent diameter (derived from the area ratio, Ar) in application of the Dutch
method (for this pile and all other open-ended piles in compression). The average qc given by
the 1.5D averaging technique is about 9% higher than that given by the Dutch averaging
technique for the test with the pile tip at 30.5m depth at Euripides..
(d) I looked at some typical actual pile designs we did offshore Netherlands. In this case the
ranking of the three methods was (for compression): API=<Fugro=<ICP. My guess, based on
charts you provided,would be that ranking including UWA would be: API=<Fugro=<UWA=<ICP.
I find this satisfactory (in view of my recommendation previously to to use the lower of the ICP
and the Fugro method predictions).
This ranking is not independent of the pile and sand type and can vary significantly as shown
for example in Chapter 3 of Lehane, Schneider & Xu (2005) and by Figures B4-B7.
(e) The GoM example with large diameter pile which you provided is not typical. The OTC paper
I referred to gives typical GoM design case. This is not well covered by your charts. My guess
(based on your charts) is that for this case 0.6API=<UWA=<1.2API. It would be better to have
actual calcs done (note: typical GoM qc values are less than 50MPa you quoted. Again pile
capacity curve for the case presented in the paper would give a better feel on the implications
for typical GoM piles).
Robert F. Stevens indicated that a check of the drivability studies performed for the last five
years shows that for 48-in.-diameter pile the typical configuration is a pile with a 1-inch wall
having a 5-ft long shoe with a 1.25-inch wall thickness.

We have performed a number of predictions using this pile type (48 diameter pile with a wall
thickness of 1 and an internal show with a thickness of 1.25). These were performed for Site
C in the GoM, details for which are provided on Figure B8, which was extracted from Focht et al.
(1986). The interpreted qc profile employed for these predictions is shown on Figure B9 and the
predictions obtained using all five methods under consideration are shown on Figure B10. The
predictions reported by Focht et al. (1986) using two variations of API recommendations are
shown on Figure B11 to be compatible with the API predictions obtained in the current study.
Figure B8: Borehole and CPT data at Site C from GoM given in Focht et. al. (1986)
qc (MPa)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
30
40
50
depth (m)
60
70
80
90
100
Figure B9: Interpreted CPT qc profile from Figure B8

Qtotal, C (MN)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
30
40
50
API-00
Tip depth (m)
Fugro-05
60 ICP-05
NGI-04
70 UWA-05, Eqn 4
80
90
100
Qend, C (MN)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
30
40 API-00
Fugro-05
50 ICP-05
NGI-04
Tip depth (m)
UWA-05, Eqn 4
60
70
80
90
100
Qshaft, C (MN)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
30
40
API-00
Fugro-05
50
ICP-05
Tip depth (m)
NGI-04
60 UWA-05, Eqn 4
70
80
90
100
Figure B10: Predictions for typical 48 pipe pile installed at Site C in GoM

Q total, C (MN)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
30
40
50 API-2000 UWA
API-1984 (Gradation Based)
Depth (m)
60 API-1984 (CPT Based)
70
80
90
100
Figure B11: Predictions using API reported by Focht et al. (1986) compared with UWA
predictions derived using API-00


CPT Based Design of Driven Piles in Sand For Offs

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CPT Based Design of Driven Piles in Sand For Offs

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The University of Western Australia

CPT BASED DESIGN OF DRIVEN PILES

20 May 2005 GEO:05345

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND........................................................ 1

2 THE UWA-05 DESIGN METHOD FOR PILES IN SAND .............................. 3

2.1 End Bearing.........................................................................................3

4 PREDICTIONS FOR OFFSHORE PILES.................................................... 14

CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures i

Closed-ended pile in compression : API-00

CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures 1

CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures 2

2.1 End Bearing

A simplified (and conservative) means of determination of the Dutch q c value is provided in

For closed-ended driven piles:

CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures 3

CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures 4

0.8 IFR measured

Inner Diameter, Di (m)

CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures 5

For open-ended driven piles:

q b 0.1 / q c = 0.15 + 0.45 A *rb (2b)

and, in absence of FFR measurement:

CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures 6

CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures 7

tan < 0.55

Figure 4 Variation of cv with D50 (modified from ICP-05 guidelines)

CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures 8

CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures 9

CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures 10

Database Method Mean COV Number of

Driven API-00 1.12 0.74

Driven API-00 0.75 0.50

Driven API-00 0.72 0.75

Complete API-00 0.81 0.60

CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures 11

128 116 112 116 130

Figure 5: Performances of UWA-05 and ICP-05 for Closed-ended Piles in Compression

207 203 205

Figure 6: Performances of UWA-05 and ICP-05 for Closed-ended Piles in Tension

Figure 7: Performances of UWA-05 and ICP-05 for Open-ended Piles in Compression

CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures 12

Figure 8: Performances of UWA-05 and ICP-05 for Open-ended Piles in Tension

Table 2: Sensitivity of predictive performance to estimated IFR to calculate Ar*

CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures 13

q b 0.1 = q c (0.15 + 0.45A r ) (4c)

CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures 14

database D/t = 20; qc1N = 220

1.3 D/t = 20; qc1N = 220

1.2 D/t = 50; qc1N = 220

CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures 15

1.4 Typical D/t = 50; qc1N = 70

database D/t = 20; qc1N = 220

1.3 D/t = 20; qc1N = 220

CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures 16

CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures 17

CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures 18

CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures 19

CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures 20

CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures 21

CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures 22

CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures 23

CPT based design of driven piles in sand for offshore structures 24