Yoon, Tsai and Melton 1

PILE LOAD TEST AND IMPLEMENTATION OF LRFD SPECIFICATIONS: A CASE

STUDY OF CAMINADA BAY BRIDGE PROJECT IN LOUISIANA

Sungmin Yoon, Ph.D., P.E.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development
1201 Capitol Access Road
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Phone: 225-379-1935
E-mail: seanyoon@live.com
(Corresponding Author)

Ching Tsai, Ph.D., P.E.

Senior Geotechnical Specialist
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development
1201 Capitol Access Road
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Phone: 225-379-1843
E-mail: ching.tsai@la.gov

And

James Matt Melton

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development
1201 Capitol Access Road
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Phone: 225-379-1375
E-mail: james.melton@la.gov

Text =5,037 words

Figures = 10 250 = 2,500 words
Tables = 3 250 = 750 words
Total = 8,287 words

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Yoon, Tsai and Melton 2

PILE LOAD TEST AND IMPLEMENTATION OF LRFD SPECIFICATIONS: A CASE

STUDY OF CAMINADA BAY BRIDGE PROJECT IN LOUISIANA

ABSTRACT

An instrumented pile load test was performed as part of the foundation design for the Caminada
Bay Bridge project in south Louisiana. As part of the load test program, both static and dynamic
load tests were performed. The load-transfer curve of test pile was obtained from the strain
measurements using the sister-bar strain gages at six locations along the pile shaft. The test pile
resistance was determined using the Tomlinson method for cohesive soils and the Nordlund
method for cohesionless soils. The dynamic and static load testing results indicated that the test
pile did not achieve the desired design resistance. The static analysis model was calibrated based
on the observations of pile load testing program. The design pile length was revised to gain
benefit from the shallower scour depths for the revised pile design. Due to the low resistance of
the test pile, the engineer determined to use dynamic testing on the production piles to ensure
adequate resistances. Taking advantage of the static load test of the instrumented test pile,
instead of simply using the smaller resistance factor from dynamic tests, the engineer combined
the results of the two test methods and used a combination of resistance factors from both the
static and dynamic load tests. This paper presents the evaluation of load test results and the
rationale used for the resistance factor selection.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Yoon, Tsai and Melton 3

INTRODUCTION

Instead of the allowable stress design (ASD) method for foundation design which applies one
factor of safety (FS) to account for all uncertainties including the applied loads, site variability,
and modeling errors, AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials) adopted Load and Resistance Factors Design (LRFD) for all federally funded bridges
designed after October 2007. The values of safety factor for the ASD are empirically determined
and do not accurately reflect the true risk levels. The LRFD method applies risk analysis to
account for uncertainties for individual components such as variability of different loads, shaft
and tip resistances of a deep foundation. The intent of this design method is to achieve similar
reliability among various load components by using various load factors for different type of
loads such as dead load, live load, and wind load because of inherited uncertainties in
determining the loads. Load factors are used to account for the load effect variability. Similarly,
the individual components of the resistances such as shaft resistance and tip bearing for a deep
foundation also contain different risk levels due to various reasons such as soil behavior
differences for different modes of failure, model simplifications, variation of soil conditions, etc.
Resistance factors are used to account for the uncertainty of these factors. The load factor design
method has been used for structural designs for more than three decades. Due to higher
uncertainties associated with interpretation of soil properties and highly heterogeneous nature of
soils, the determination of resistance factors is much more difficult. The geotechnical community
falls behind the structural designers in adopting the LRFD concept. To expedite the transition to
LRFD, AASHTO provided resistance factors calibrated using load test databases collected
throughout the US. The resistance factors obtained from the national database tend to be smaller
than those obtained from the traditional practices due to greater variability resulting from
geological differences. Realizing this deficiency, AASHTO (1) recommends that states use risk
analyses to produce resistance factors from local databases. Many researchers, therefore, have
concentrated their efforts in calibrating the resistance factors using different sets of databases (2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7). However, there are very few publications dealing with implementation issues. This
paper presents a case study on the implementation of the LRFD method for the driven pile
foundation design.

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

The 2007 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (8) specifies a resistance factor of 0.70
and 0.65 for driven piles installed in medium variability soils using a static load test and a
dynamic load test, respectively. However, AASHTO does not offer guidance regarding the
resistance factors for a pile foundation installed to a different depth from that of the test pile.
This paper showcases the application of the LRFD specifications for driven pile design using a
combination of resistance factors based on the interpretation of a static and a dynamic load tests.
In order to achieve this objective, the shaft resistance distribution and the tip resistance of the
static load test were measured using embedded sister bar strain gages and the dynamic test
evaluated using CAPWAP (Case Pile Wave Analysis Program) analysis. The final production
piles were designed using a combination of the static load test results and dynamic load tests
performed on the production piles.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Yoon, Tsai and Melton 4

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The existing Caminada Bay Bridge is located on the southern tip of the Louisiana Highway 1
(LA 1) which connects the mainland to the Grand Isle, a barrier island, near the mouth of the
Mississippi River in Louisiana. The existing bridge has been deteriorating due to the severe
corrosive environment and it suffered some damages from the recent hurricanes including the
hurricane Rita. This bridge is the only access road supplying Grand Isle, a major fishing and
tourist attraction. It also serves as the hurricane evacuation route for the Grand Isle of about
5,000 residents. Currently, Grand Isle is used as the major staging area for the clean up effort of
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development (LADOTD) decided to construct a new four-lane bridge with two 8-foot shoulders
on each side to replacing the aging old bridge. The new bridge will be elevated 48 feet (14.6 m)
from the mean sea level, allowing boats to pass through. The total length of the bridge is about
4000 feet (1219 m). Figure 1 shows the location of the site and the pile driving activity at the
Grand Isle. The elevated bridge results in more than 50 feet of free standing height for the bent
piles. Due to bulkling concern, it was determined that 36 inch (0.91 m) precast-prestressed-
concrete (PPC) piles were to be used for this project. To reduce the weight and improve handling
of the piles, a 22.5-inch (571 mm) diameter void was included.

Grand Isle

Gulf of Mexico

Caminada Bay Bridge

(a) (b)

Figure 1 (a) Project Location and (b) Pile Driving at Site.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Yoon, Tsai and Melton 5

GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The site is underlain by Chenier and coastal marine deposits of mostly fine sands with
interbedded clays. The upper few feet of the soils are influenced by tidal degradation and
deposition. Large scour depths of up to 40 feet were recorded at some localized areas from the
storm surge during hurricane Rita in 2005. The Chenier is a beach that have become isolated
from the sea by strips of generally freshwater marshes, mainly found around south Louisiana.
Field exploration programs consisting of standard penetration tests (SPT) in the cohesionless
soils and undisturbed Shelby tube sampling were performed in the cohesive soils to characterize
the subsurface soil conditions. The standard penetration tests were performed using a manual
donut hammer. The laboratory testing program included moisture contents, soil unit weights,
Atterberg limits, and unconsolidated undrained (UU) triaxial tests. The soil stratification at the
test pile location from the soil boring and results of laboratory tests are depicted in Figure 2. The
average mudline elevation at the test pile location is approximately -4.5 feet (-1.4 m) North
America Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) and the average water elevation is about 0.5 feet
(0.15 m). The soil conditions primarily consist of loose to dense fine sands down to an elevation
of -60 feet (-18.3 m). Underlying the sands is a layer of soft to medium stiff clays to the depth
beyond engineering significance of this bridge construction. The clays are normally consolidated
to slightly overconsolidated.

Note: 1ksf=47.9 kPa.

Figure 2 Profile of Soil Classification and Properties.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Yoon, Tsai and Melton 6

PILE RESISTANCE CALCULATION

The static axial resistance of driven pile (Qu) consists of the end-bearing resistance (Qb) and the
shaft resistance (Qs). The driven pile resistance is calculated using the following equation:
n
Q u = Q b + Q s = q b .A b + f A
i =1
i si (1)

where qb is the unit tip bearing resistance, Ab is the cross-section area of the pile tip, fi is the
average unit shaft resistance of the soil layer i, Asi is the pile shaft area interfacing with layer i,
and n is the number of soil layers along the pile shaft. There are many different methods in
determining the shaft and tip resistances. The methods described in the following were used to
evaluate the pile resistance for this project.

Shaft Resistance

-Tomlinson method (Cohesive Soils)

The -method is based on total stress analysis for cohesive soils. he pile shaft resistance per
unit area of the pile is as follows:

f = Su (2)

where is an empirical coefficient which converts the cohesion of the surrounding soil to
adhesion and Su is the undrained shear strength. The value typically varies with the strength of
the soil. For calculating the test pile resistance for this project, the values suggested by
Tomlinson (9) are used.

The shaft resistance (Qs) is calculated as follows:

Q s = f C d dz
0
(3)

where L is length of pile in contact with soil and Cd is effective perimeter of pile. For the
Caminada Bay Bridge, Cd is 12 feet (3.7 m).

Nordlund method (Cohesionless Soils)

The pile shaft resistance (Qs) is as follows:

L
Q s = K C f PD sin( )C d dz (4)
0

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Yoon, Tsai and Melton 7

where K is a coefficient of lateral stress, PD is effective overburden pressure, is pile-soil

friction angle, Cd is effective pile perimeter, and Cf is a correction factor. In this study the values
proposed by Nordlund (10, 11) are used.

Tip Resistance
The tip resistance (Qb) for piles installed in the cohesive soils is calculated as follows:

Qb= Ab Su Nc (5)

where Ab is area of the tip of the pile and Nc is the bearing capacity factor. The magnitude of Nc
depends on the depth of pile embedment. For this project, a value of 9 is used.
In cohesionless soils, the pile tip resistance (Qb) can be calculated using the following formula:

Q b = Ab q N q (6)

where q is the effective vertical stress at tip level, is a dimensionless correction factor, and
N q is a bearing resistance factor varying with . The values proposed by Thurman (12) are used
in this study.

Test Pile Design Consideration

Thirty-six inch (914 mm) square PPC (precast, prestressed concrete) piles with a 22.5-inch (571
mm) diameter void are used for this project. The factored load of the test pile is 420 kips (1868
kN). This pile represents a design reach of 13 bents in the initial design. The deepest scour
elevation within this design reach is -25 feet (-7.6 m) and was used for all pile bents within this
design reach even though the scour depths are much shallower for other bents.
In addition to the resistance requirement for the pile penetration design, the Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development Bridge Design Manual (13) specifies that a
minimum pile penetration of 25 feet (7.6 m) below the estimated scour elevation. To ensure
adequate bearing resistance, two pile diameters below the tip should be similar or stronger than
the material at the pile tip. Otherwise, the tip bearing should be reduced.
Figure 3 (a) illustrates a static pile resistance analysis that was conducted using the software
DRIVEN ver. 1.2. (14), which uses both the Tomlinson and Nordlund methods for pile resistance
calculations. To take the advantage of higher resistance factor, the designer determined that a
load test be conducted for the project. Based on AASHTO 2007 LRFD bridge design
specifications, 4th Edition (8), a resistance factor of 0.7 was selected. Considering the pile
resistance, minimum penetration below scour elevation, and sand thickness, the designer
determined that the test pile be tipped at the elevation of -60 feet (-18.3 m). A casing was to be
installed to the scour elevation to simulate the scour condition.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Yoon, Tsai and Melton 8

The target pile resistance for the test pile was calculated by taking into account the overburden
effect. Figure 3 (b) shows the calculated static pile resistance assuming that a casing tipped at an
elevation of -25 feet (-7.6 m) is used. The calculated target pile resistance for the test pile is 1129
kips (5022 kN). Prior to the load test, the designer had expected that a slightly higher pile
resistance (1219 kips or 5422 kN) could be achieved. The variability of the calculated pile
resistance was evaluated using the graphic three-sigma rule (15). One standard deviaton of the
calculated resistance is about 336 kips (1495 kN). The calculated 95 % confidence interval for
the calculated resistance is thus between 890 kips (3959 kN) and 1548 kips (6886 kN).

(a) (b)
Figure 3 Static Pile Resistance Analyses: (a) Analysis with Total Scour and (b) Analysis
with Casing of 20.5 ft (6.2 m).

PILE LOAD TEST PROGRAM

Instrumentation

In order to better understand the distribution of pile shaft resistance, it was decided that sister-bar
strain gages be installed along the test pile. Twelve resistance type sister-bar strain gages were
installed in pairs at 6 locations as shown in Figure 4.

Pile Installation and Pile Load Tests

The test piles were driven using a Pileco D100-13 single-acting (open ended) diesel hammer
with a ram weight of 22.0 kips (97.9 kN) and a maximum rated energy of 246.8 kips-ft (334.7
kN-m) at full stroke. Preliminary Wave Equation Analyses (WEAP) results indicate that the
Pileco D100-13 hammer would be capable of installing the 36 inch (914 mm) square PPC pile to
a wide range of resistances (approximately 190 to 2000 kips (845 to 8896 kN)). The hammer

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Yoon, Tsai and Melton 9

performance was monitored using a pile driving analyzer (PDA) during pile installation. The test
pile was driven to the design tip elevation of -60 ft (-18.3 m) successfully.
A static compression load test (quick load procedure) was performed on the test pile 27 days
after initial pile driving. A 1080 kips (4804 kN) load cell was used for the load test and two dial
gages attached to the reference beams were used to measure the pile head movement. Dynamic
pile tests using a Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) were performed to monitor the initial pile driving,
7-day restrike (7-day BOR), and after static load test restrike (ASLT). CAPWAP analyses were
performed for the end of initial drive (EOD) and the two restrikes.

(a) (b)

Figure 4 (a) Layout of Test Pile Instrumentation and (b) Installed Sister-bar Strain
Gages.

RESULTS

Driving Resistance

The driving resistances versus elevations were recorded using a PDA during the test pile
installation. The results are presented in Figure 5 along with the maximum Case pile resistances
(RMX). A Case damping constant (JC) of 0.5 was used during pile driving due to the existence
of predominant fine sandy soils. The maximum pile resistance estimation in the sand layers

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Yoon, Tsai and Melton 10

appears reasonable. However the base resistance at the end of driving may be overestimated
because a Case damping constant of 0.5 may be too low for the clay soil at the pile tip.
The resistance profiles clearly indicate that the test pile penetrated the dense sand layer located at
an elevation of about -50 feet (-15.2 m) and tipped at a clay layer at about elevation -60 feet (-
18.3 m). The soil stratifications inferred from the driving resistance match closely to those
observed from the soil boring log shown in Figure 2.

Figure 5 Pile Driving Resistance with Elevation.

Dynamic Load Test Results

CAPWAP data analyses performed with PDA data obtained under representative hammer blows
from each test set (EOD, 7 days BOR and ASLT) are summarized in Table 1. Figure 6 shows the
wave matching analyses and the estimated load-settlement curves using CAPWAP. As can be
observed in Table 1 and Figure 6, the base resistance remained virtually the same even after 27
days. The shaft resistance, however, increased from 251 kips (1117 kN) to 406 kips (1806 kN),
nearly doubled. The increase in the resistance between 7 and 27 days was only about 46 kips
(205 kN) for the shaft and 30 kips (133 kN) overall, relatively small amounts, suggesting a
logarithmic time relationship similar to the model proposed by Skov and Denver (16). The
logarithmic time capacity plot for this pile is shown on Figure 7 and is consistent with the
observations made by many researchers (17) including several projects in Louisiana (18, 19).

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Yoon, Tsai and Melton 11

(a)

(b)

(c)
Note: 1 kip=4.45 kN and 1 inch=25.4 mm

Figure 6 Wave Matching Analyses and Derived Load Displacement Curve Using
CAPWAP: (a) EOD, (b) 7 days BOR and (c) ASLT.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Yoon, Tsai and Melton 12

Table 1 Summary of the Characteristic of the Investigated Piles

Total Shaft Base

Dynamic Load Tests
Kips kN kips kN kips kN
End of Initial Drive (EOD) 450 2002 251 1117 199 885
7 Days Restrike (7 days BOR) 570 2535 360 1601 210 934
Restrike After Static Load Test (ASLT) 600 2669 406 1806 194 863

Figure 7 Normalized Total Pile Resistance versus Time Ratio

Static Load Test Result

The applied axial load and pile head displacement is presented in Figure 8. The pile sustained an
axial load of 558 kips (2482 kN) with a pile head displacement of only about 0.5 inch (12.7 mm).
The pile then plunged with a slight increase in the applied load. The ultimate pile resistance was
interpreted to be 540 kips (2402 kN) using the modified Davisson method proposed by Kyfor et
al. (20) for pile size greater than 24 inches (610 mm). The interpreted resistance is about 2.1
standard deviations lower than the calculated mean resistance, which demonstrates a significant
deficency. The static load test result showed a close agreement with the dynamic load test
resistance of 600 kips (2669 kN) (ASLT). The pile resistance difference determined from the
static and dynamic tests is only about 10% (60 kips or 267 kN) well within the accuracy of the
test methods. Note that the Davissons criteria produced a smaller ultimate resistance from the
plunging load and that the dynamic testing is supposed to produce ultimate resistance close to the

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Yoon, Tsai and Melton 13

plunging load. Therefore, the proper comparison of the dynamically determined resistance
should be the plunging load. In this case, the difference is only 42 kips (187 kN), about 7%.

Figure 8 Load-Settlement Curve.

Shaft and Base Resistance Interpretation using Strain Gages

Figure 9 shows the load transfer plots corresponding to each applied load increment from the
static load test. The top and bottom strain gages were located 5 feet (1.5 m) below the casing
elevation and 2.3 feet (0.7 m) from the pile bottom, respectively. In order to properly determine
the skin friction distribution, it is assumed that the unit skin frictions do not change above the top
gage and below the tip gage. The complete load transfer curve was, therefore, obtained by
extrapolating the resistance to the pile ends. The residual stress was determined to be
insignificant due to the soil condition and relatively low base resistance. As shown in Figure 9,
about 82% of the total pile resistance is from the shaft resistance. The interpreted shaft and base
resistances at the plunging load are 460 kips (2482 kN) and 98 kips (436 kN), respectively. The
interpreted base resistance is lower than the derived base resistance using the wave matching
method while the shaft resistance is 15 % greater than the dynamically determined value. There
are two possible explanations for the differences. First, the dynamically determined tip
resistance value may be too high. This is evident by the statically calculated value of about 90
kips (400 kN) based on the clay soils at the tip. The other explanation is that the measured tip
resistance is for the plunging condition where strain softening might have reduced the tip
resistance from the peak resistance.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Yoon, Tsai and Melton 14

Load
Applied to
Pile Head

Figure 9 Load Transfer Distribution for Each Loading Increments.

PILE RESISTANCE ANALYSIS AND LRFD IMPLEMENTATION

Measured and Predicted Resistances

Table 2 shows the predicted pile resistance using static calculation methods and the results from
the static and dynamic load tests. As can be seen in the table, the static calculation significantly
overpredicted the pile resistance. To achieve the desired 1129-kip (5022-kN) factored resistance,
additional pile length will be needed for the production pile or a new test pile program be
conducted. However, considering the cost and schedule, an additional pile load test is an unlikely
solution. To investigate the causes of the large variation between the predicted value and load
test result, the authors concluded the following possibilities. First, the SPT N values obtained
using a manual donut hammer resulted in higher blow counts than actual soil densities. The
average energy ratio (Er) of a rope and pulley donut hammer is reported to be 45 about 50% of
the energy ratio of a safety automatic hammer (Er of 80-100) (21). If the blowcounts were to
corrected to the standard N60 value, the reported N values should be reduced by roughly 20
percent. Thus, a much smaller friction angle for the pile resistance calculations should have been
used. Second, the Nordlund method might overestimate pile resistance for large diameter piles
because the method was derived from the observations on piles with size ranging from 10 inch
(250 mm) to 20 inch (500 mm) only (14). Extrapolating pile size to almost twice of the

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Yoon, Tsai and Melton 15

originally studied piles might result in the large errors observed in this project. As such, it was
concluded that the static calculation method should not be used for production pile order length
determination without adjustment to the soil parameters.

Table 2 Evaluation of Test Pile Resistance

Deviation from Required

Total Shaft Base Total Resistance of 1129
Pile Resistance kips (5022 kN)
kips kN Kips kN Kips kN Kips kN
Static Analysis
(Tomlinson method 1219 5422 1189 5289 30 133 +90 +400
and Nordlund method)
Dynamic Test using
600 2669 406 1806 194 863 -529 -2353
CAPWAP
Static Load Test
Combined with Strain
Gage Monitoring 558 2482 460 2046 98 436 -571 -2540
(Plunging Load)
Static Load Test
540 2402 - - - - -589 -2620
(Davisson Criteria)

Implementation of LRFD Specifications

Based on the observations on the test pile and analyses of the results, the DRIVEN model was
calibrated to match the interpreted shaft resistance distribution based on strain measurements.
Because the test pile was driven only through in the fine sand layers to -60 ft (-18.3 m) elevation,
the DRIVEN model calibration was made on the layers that the test pile was driven in as shown
in Table 3. The reduced frictional angles of the calibrated values appear to be consistent with the
inferred low hammer energy of the SPT hammer. Figure 10 illustrates the shaft resistance profile
from the static and dynamic load tests and static analyses from both the calibrated and original
model. As can be seen in the plot the calibrated DRIVEN model matches well with the static
load test result.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Yoon, Tsai and Melton 16

Table 3 Calibration of Soil Strength Parameters

Elevation Interpreted Friction Angle, (o)
Layer
(ft) (m) Initial Calibrated
1 -4.5 to -14 -1.4 to -4.3 28.1 28.0
2 -14 to -19 -4.3 to -5.8 29.5 25.0
3 -19 to -25 -5.8 to -7.6 31.0 28.0
4 -25 to -37 -7.6 to -11.3 33.9 26.0
5 -37 to -46 -11.3 to -14.0 35.0 26.0
6 -46 to -60 -14.0 to -18.3 37.7 29.0

Resistance(kips)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
20 6.1
ShaftResistance(Strain
Measurement)
25 7.6
CalibratedDRIVEN

30 CAPWAPResistance 9.1
Dist.fromBottom(ft)

35 InitialDRIVEN 10.7

40 12.2 Elevation(m)

45 13.7

50 15.2

55 16.8

60 18.3

65 19.8
0 890 1779 2669 3559 4448 5338 6228
Resistance(KN)

Figure 10 Shaft Resistance Profile from Static and Dynamic Load Test.

To improve the accuracy of determining pile order lengths, the geotechnical engineer decided to
reduce the number of pile bents for this design reach in addition to the DRIVEN model
calibration to take the advantage of shallower scour depths for the smaller design reach. The long
term scour and pier scour depths used for revised final design are 4.0 ft (1.2 m) and 9.7 ft (3.0 m),
respectively. The contraction scour was not considered in the final design due to the small scour
depth of this component. As expected, the gain in overburden from the shallower scour shows a
significant impact on a pile static resistance in cohesionless soils.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Yoon, Tsai and Melton 17

The basic LRFD principle can be expressed in an equation form as follow,

R
n i Qi (7)

where is the resistance factor, Rn is the nominal resistance, is a load modifier to account for
effects of ductility, redundancy and operational importance, Qi is the load effect, and i is a load
factor.

For this project, the factored load effect is 420 kips (1868 kN). The shaft resistance above
elevation -60 ft (-18.3 m) was verified using the static load test. AASHTO (8) specifies a
resistance factor of 0.7 for the static load test. However the pile resistance below the elevation of
-60 ft (-18.3 m) was not tested. Considering the uncertainty of the DRIVEN model without load
test calibration and the close agreement between the dynamic and static tests, the authors decided
to perform dynamic testing on the production piles to control the pile penetration. AASHTO
specifies a resistance of 0.65 for piles installed using dynamic testing. It was decided that a
resistance of 0.7 be used for the pile resistance above the elevation of -60 feet (-18.3 m) and a
resistance factor of 0.65 be used for the pile resistance below that elevation. The final pile tip
elevation will be determined based on the dynamic test result of production piles using the above
combination of the resistance factors. Based on the laboratory test results of the clay soils below
the -60 feet (-18.3 m) elevation, the tip of the production pile is estimated to be at about -78 feet
(-23.8 m), about 18 feet (5.5 m) longer than the test pile.

Predicted Shaft Predicted Shaft Factored

Resistance and Base Load Effect
(0.7) + (0.65) (8)
above -60 ft Resistances below (420 kips/
Elevation -60 ft Elevation 1868 kN)

As a comparison, a calculation was made to determine the pile length required if no dynamic
testing is used. AASHTO (8) specifies a resistance factor of 0.35 for redundant piles when using
Tomlinsons a method in clay soils. The required pile tip elevation became -95 feet (29.0 m),
which is 17 feet (5.2 m) deeper than the one determined based on the dynamic load test. The pile
length requirement for this pile tip elevation exceeded the contractors crane capacity even when
the pile is spliced. The cost associated with additional mobilization, crane rental, and pile casting
and installation became unacceptable.

FINDINGS AND SUMMARY

This paper presents a driven pile design process based on the LRFD concept. The pile resistance
was initially predicted using the Tomlinson method for cohesive soils and the Nordlund method
for cohesionless soils and was found to be unreliable. The total pile resistances and load-transfer
distribution interpreted from the dynamic and static testing methods are in close agreement. Due
to the overestimation of the resistance during the test pile program, the test pile does not

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Yoon, Tsai and Melton 18

represent the final production pile lengths. A method of using combinations of resistance factors
is proposed. The following discussions summarize the findings from this case study.
1. Bridge scour has a great impact on the pile foundation design, especially in cohesionless
soils. A 7-foot (2.1 m) reduction in scour depth for the smaller design pile length allows
a nearly 20 percent gain in the usable pile resistance.
2. The test pile was embedded almost entirely within the sand layer with only 2 feet
embedment into the clay soil at the pile tip. Although the most of skin frictional
resistance was provided by the sandy soil, the skin frictional resistance nearly doubled
after 27-day setup period. The results show that the majority of the setup effect was
mainly developed in early period after pile driving. However, the pile continued to gain
resistance upto 27 days, the final load test performed.

3. The driven model overpredicted the pile resistance most likely due to the low efficient
SPT hammer. The use of properly calibrated SPT hammer is essential in predicting pile
resistances. Should a load test have not conducted for this project, the foundation would
have been severely under designed resulting in an unsafe condition.

4. The total pile resistance determined using dynamic load test was within 10% of the static
load test result. The static and dynamic load tests, when properly analyzed, produce
comparable results.

5. When the static load test fails to achieve the desired resistance, using a combination of
the test results and statically calculated resistance or dynamic test can compensate for the
difference. A caution should be taken when applying this implementation in order to
revise a design pile length. This implementation should be exercised only when the
geotechnical engineers have intimate knowledge of the soil conditions below the
elevation tested using static load test and the load transfer distribution of test pile.

6. The use of dynamic test for pile length control can produce significant savings over the
static calculations on the pile lengths based on the AASHTOs resistance factors.

7. The geotechnical engineer should be aware of the potential shortfall of the Norlunds
method for large diameter piles.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Steve Meunier, Administrator of the
Pavement and Geotechnical Section, LA DOTD. The assistance of Dane Drew and Chris Rome
in preparing the graphs is acknowledged.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Yoon, Tsai and Melton 19

REFERENCES

1. AASHTO. LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 5th Edition, American Association of

State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., USA, 2010.
2. Allen, Tony M. Development of the WSDOT Pile Driving Formula and Its Calibration
and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD), FHWA Report, WA-RD 610.1, Washington State
Department of Transportation, 2005.
3. Mechakhchekh, A., and M. Ghosn. Reliability-Based Procedure for Developing Load and
Resistance Factor Seismic Bridge Design Specifications. In Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2028, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 173-179.
4. Ching, J., H. Liao, and C. Sue. Calibration of Reliability-Based Resistance Factors for
Flush Drilled Soil Anchors in Taipei Basin. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 134, 2008, pp. 1348-1363.
5. Yang, X., J. Han, R. Parsons, and R. Henthorne. Resistance Factors for Drilled Shafts in
Weak Rocks Based on O-Cell Test Data. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, No. 2045, Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 62-67.
6. Yoon, S., M. Abu-Farsakh, C. Tsai, and Z. Zhang. Calibration of Resistance Factors for
Axially Loaded Concrete Piles Driven into Soft Soils. In Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2045, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 39-50.
7. Park, J., J. Huh, K. Kim, J. Lee, M. Chung, and K. Kwak. A Case Study of LRFD
Implementation for Static Bearing Capacity of Driven Steel Pipe Piles in Korea.
Geotechnical Special Publication, No. 186, 2009, pp. 419425.
8. AASHTO. LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 4th Edition, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., USA, 2007.
9. Tomlinson, M.J. Foundation Design and Construction, 4th Edition, Pitman Advanced
Publishing Program, 1980.
10. Nordlund, R.L. Bearing Capacity of Piles in Cohesionless Soils. American Society of
Civil Engineers, ASCE, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, SM3,
1963, pp. 1-35.
11. Nordlund, R.L. Point Bearing and Shaft Friction of Piles in Sand. Missouri-Rolla 5th
Annual Short Course on the Fundamentals of Deep Foundation Design, 1979.
12. Thurman, A.G. Discussion of Bearing Capacity of Piles in Cohesionless Soils. American
Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, SM1, 1964, pp. 127-129.
13. LA DOTD. Bridge Design Manual, 4th English Edition, Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development, 2005.
14. Mathias, D., and M. Cribbs. Driven 1.0. Publication FHWA-SA-98-074. FHWA, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 2002.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Yoon, Tsai and Melton 20

15. Duncan, M. Factor of Safety and Reliability of Geotechnical Engineering. Ameraican

Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 4, April 2000, pp. 307-316.
16. Skov, R., and H. Denver. Time dependence of bearing capacity of piles, Proc. Third
International Conference on the Application of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles, Ottawa, 25-
27 May, 1988, pp. 879888.
17. Bullock, P.J., J.H. Schmertmann, M.C. McVay, and F.C. Townsend. Side shear setup. I:
Test piles driven in Florida. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 131, No.3, 2005, pp. 292-300.
18. Tsai, C., and Z. Zhang. Design and Load Verification of Driven Pile Foundation. Proc.
Sixth International Conferences on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering,
Arlington, VA, August 11-16, 2008.
19. X. Wang, N. Verma, C. Tsai, and Z. Zhang. Setup Prediction of Piles Driven into
Louisiana Soft Clays. Geotechnical Special Publication, No. 199, 2010, pp. 15731582.
20. Kyfor, Z.G., A.S. Schnore, T.A. Carlo, and P.F. Bailey. Static Testing of Deep
Foundations. Report FHWA-SA-91-042. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, D.C., 1992.
21. Bowles, J. Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th Edition, McGraw Hill, 1996.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.