3rd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA - 2014

Calibration of resistance factors for CPT-based design methods of ax-

ially load driven piles
Murad Y. Abu-Farsakh
Louisiana Transportation Research Center, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Sungmin Yoon
Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas.
Ching Tsai and Zhongjie Zhang
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

ABSTRACT: This paper presents the calibration of resistance factors for the static and CPT pile design
methods based on reliability theory using fifty three precast prestressed concrete driven pile database.
The predictions of pile capacities were determined based on static analysis (α-method for clay and Nord-
lund method for sand) and three direct CPT methods (Schmertmann, De Ruiter and Beringen, and
Bustamante and Gianeselli (LCPC) methods). Reliability based analyses using the First Order Second
Moment method, the First Order Reliability Method, and the Monte Carlo simulation method were con-
ducted to calibrate the resistance factors (φ) for the investigated pile design methods. The resistance fac-
tors at the target reliability (βＴ) of 2.33 for the different design methods were determined and compared
with the AASHTO recommended values. The calibration showed that the De Ruiter and Beringen meth-
od has the highest resistance factor, while the Schmertmann method showed the lowest resistance factor,
which is lower than the AASHTO recommended value of 0.5.
1 INTRODUCTION
Since the introduction of the load and resistance factor design (LRFD) methodology, bridge superstruc-
tures were designed using the LRFD method, while the bridge substructures were designed using the al-
lowable stress design (ASD) method. This can lead to inconsistent levels of reliability between the su-
perstructures and substructures. In an effort to maintain a consist level of reliability, the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and the American Association of Highway and Transportation Offi-
cials (AASHTO) (1998) set a mandate date of October 1, 2007, after which all federal-funded new
bridges shall be designed using the LRFD method. Accordingly, significant research efforts have been
directed to implement the LRFD design method in bridge substructure to calibrate the proper resistance
factors for local soil conditions and design practice in compliance with this mandate (e.g., Nowak 2005;
McVay et al. 2000; Paikowsky, 2004; Allen, 2005, 2006; Abu-Farsakh and Titi, 2007; Yoon et al.,
2008).
The current AASHTO (2007) design recommends resistance factors, φ, for single driven piles in ax-
ial compression that range from 0.10 to 0.65, depending on the design method. However, the existing re-
sistance factors are recommended based on pile database that was collected from sites that do not neces-
sary reflect local soil conditions or design practice. For example, the driven pile database used in the
existing AASHTO code is based on the data gathered by the Florida DOT and the FHWA (Paikowsky et
al., 1994; DiMaggio et al., 1998). Therefore, the resistance factors recommended by the existing
AASHTO code need to be verified before being applied to local soil conditions and design practice. Di-
rect application of the AASHTO resistance factors without calibration may result in over-conservative
or unsafe design.
Several methods have been developed to estimate the ultimate axial bearing resistance of driven
piles. This includes static pile load tests, Statnamic pile load tests, dynamic analysis, and traditional stat-
ic analysis based on laboratory tests or in-situ tests such as the Cone Penetration Test (CPT). The appli-
cation of CPT in predicting the ultimate bearing resistance of piles has increased over the last two dec-
931
ades due to the similarity between the cone penetrometer and the pile, in which the cone can be consid-
ered as a model pile (e.g., Schmertmann, 1978; De Ruiter and Beringen 1979; Bustamante and Gianesel-
li, 1982; Eslami and Fellenius, 1979; Abu-Farsakh and Titi, 2007). The CPT is a simple, fast, repeatable,
and cost-effective in situ test that can provide continuous subsurface soundings with depth. The meas-
ured CPT data (tip resistance, qc, sleeve friction, fs, and porewater pressure, u) can be utilized for many
geotechnical engineering applications including the prediction of ultimate pile resistance.

2 PREDICTION OF ULTIMATE PILE RESISTANCE

The ultimate axial resistance (Qu) of a driven pile consists of end-bearing resistance (Qb) and skin fric-
tional resistance (Qs). The ultimate pile resistance can be calculated using the following equation:
n
Q u = Q b + Q s = q b .A b + ∑ f i A si                                                                                                                                                                            (1)  
i =1

where qb is the unit tip bearing resistance, Ab is the cross-section area of the pile tip, fi is the average unit
skin friction of the soil layer i, Asi is the area of the pile shaft interfacing with layer i, and n is the num-
ber of soil layers along the pile shaft. In soft clay profiles, the shaft frictional resistance usually domi-
nates, while in sand profiles, the end-bearing resistance can contribute up to 50% of the ultimate pile re-
sistance.

2.1 Static method

In this study, the α-Tomlinson method was used for clay layers and the Nordlund method was used for
sand layers. The α- method is based on total stress analysis. In total stress analysis, the ultimate skin re-
sistance per unit area of the pile can be calculated as follows (Tomlinson, 1980):
f = α Su (2)
where α is an empirical adhesion coefficient and Su is the undrained shear strength. In this research
study, the α values suggested by Tomlinson were used. The skin friction resistance (Qs) is calculated as
follows:
L
Q s = f C d dz ∫ (3)
0
where L is length of the pile in contact with soil and Cd is the effective perimeter of the pile. The pile tip
resistance (Qb) is calculated as follows:
Q b = Ab Su Nc (4)
where Ab is the cross sectional area of the pile and Nc = 9.
In Nordlund method, the pile tip resistance (Qb) for sand can be calculated as follows:
Qb = A b .q.α .N 'q (5)
where, q is the effective vertical stress at tip level, α is a dimensionless correction factor, and N qʹ′ is a
bearing resistance factor varying with φ. In this research, the values proposed by Thurman (1964) were
used for calculation.
The skin friction resistance (Qs) was evaluated using the equation proposed by Nordlund (1979) as
follows: L
Qs = ∫ Kδ C f PD sin( δ ).Cd dz (6)
0

932
where, K is a coefficient of lateral stress, Cf is a correction factor, PD is the effective overburden pres-
δ

sure, δ is the pile-soil friction angle, and Cd is the effective pile perimeter. In this study, the soil parame-
ters (i.e., Su, φ) for static analysis were determined from laboratory tests.

2.2 Direct CPT methods

There are two main approaches for estimation of pile resistance using CPT data: the indirect methods
and the direct methods. In the indirect method, CPT data (qc and fs) are used to estimate the soil strength
parameters, such as Su and φ, to predict the pile resistance. While in the direct method, the unit end bear-
ing resistance (qb) of the pile is evaluated from the qc, and the unit skin friction (f) of the pile is evaluat-
ed from either fs or qc profiles. It is believed that the direct method is more suitable in engineering prac-
tice (Eslami and Fellenius, 1997).
In the direct CPT methods, the pile resistance is estimated using a pile tip resistance (Qb) and the
skin friction resistance (Qs), which can be expressed by the following equations:
Q b = q b A b = (c b .q c,avg ).A b (7)
Qs = f.As = (α c .f s )As (8)
or Qs = f.As = (cs .q c ).As (9)
where qb is the unit end bearing resistance, qc is the cone tip resistance, qc,avg is the average cone tip re-
sistance in the zone above and below the pile tip, f is the unit skin friction, fs is the sleeve friction, cb is
the correlation coefficient of tip resistance, αc is the reduction factor, cs is the correlation coefficient of
friction resistance, Ab is the pile tip area, and As is the pile surface area.
In this study, the predicted pile capacities were calculated using three direct CPT design methods,
Schmertmann, LCPC, and De Ruiter and Beringen methods.

2.2.1 Schmertmann method

Schmertmann (1978) proposed a direct CPT method based on model and full scale pile load tests. To es-
timate the pile tip resistance (Qb), the average cone tip resistance (qc,avg) is obtained in the zone ranging
from 8D above to 0.7D - 4D below the pile tip. Schmertmann suggested cb value of 1.0 for sand and 0.6
for clay. The unit skin friction is calculated from the sleeve friction (fs) using αc value of 0.2 to 1.25 for
clayey soil.
 
2.2.2 De Ruiter and Beringen method
De Ruiter and Beringen (1979) method is based on the experience gained from offshore (steel pipe) piles
tested in the North Sea. In sand, the unit tip resistance (qb) is calculated similar to Schmertmann (1978)
method. The unit skin friction (f) for the compression piles is the minimum among (fs, qc(side)/300, and
20 kPa). In clay, the unit tip resistance (qb) is determined from the conventional bearing resistance theo-
ry as follows:
q b = N c Su (tip) (10)
q c (tip)
Su (tip) = (11)
Nk
where Nc is the bearing resistance factor (Nc = 9 in this method), and Nk is the cone factor ranging from
15 to 20, depending on soil type and pile type. The unit skin friction (f) can be obtained as:
f = β Su(side) (12)
where β is the adhesion factor: β =1 for NC clay and 0.5 for OC clay.

933
2.2.3 Bustamante and Gianeselli method (LCPC method)
Bustamante and Gianeselli (1982) method is known as the LCPC (LCPC - Laboratorie Central des Ponts
et Chausees) method. In this method, both the unit tip resistance (qb) and the unit skin friction (f) are
calculated from the cone tip resistance (qc). The average cone tip resistance (qc,avg) is obtained by aver-
aging qc values over a zone ranging from 1.5D below the pile tip to 1.5D above the pile tip (D is the pile
diameter). The correlation coefficient of the tip resistance (cb) from 0.15 to 0.6 was proposed for differ-
ent soil types and pile installation procedures based on empirical correlations (e.g. cb = 0.6 for piles
driven into clay-silt and cb = 0.375 for piles driven into sand-gravel). The pile unit skin friction (f) in
each soil layer is given as follows:
q eq (side)
f=     (13)  
ks
where qeq(side) is the equivalent cone tip resistance of the soil layer, and ks is an empirical friction
coefficient that varies from 30 to 150 depending on soil type, pile type, and installation procedure.

3. LRFD CALIBRATION OF RESISTANCE FACTORS

The basis of the LRFD methodology in geotechnical engineering involves the reliability-based calibra-
tion of a parameter called a resistance factor, φ, which is applied to the calculated nominal resistance of
the driven piles. It is usually considered that the design of deep foundations is controlled by the strength
limit state. Therefore, only the strength I limit state is considered in this calibration. For strength limit
state I, the limit state function for LRFD design is given below:
g(R, Q) = φ R n − ∑ γ i Q ni ≥ 0     (14)  
where, γi is the load factor applicable to specific load, Qni is the specific nominal load, Rn is the nominal
resistance, and φ is the resistance factor.

3.1 Reliability Analyses Methods

Several reliability based analysis methods are available in the literature to perform LRFD calibration.
The most widely used methods are the First Order Second Moment (FOSM) method, the First Order Re-
liability Method (FORM) and the Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) method. In this paper, the three relia-
bility based analyses methods were used to calibrate the resistance factors (φ) for the static and three di-
rect CPT pile design methods.

3.1.1 First Order Second Moment (FOSM) Method

In the FOSM method, the limit state function is linearized by expanding the Taylor series expansion
about the mean value of variable. Since only the mean and variance are used in the expansion, it is
called First (Mean) order second (variance) Moment. For Lognormal distribution of resistance and load
statistics, Barker et al. (1991) suggested a relationship for calculating the reliability index, β. This equa-
tion was later modified for LRFD calibration by replacing the overall factor of safety (FS) by partial fac-
tor of safety and then rearranged to express relation for resistance factor (φ) as follows:
2 2
⎛ Q ⎞ 1 + COVQD + COVQL
λ R ⎜⎜ γ D D + γ L ⎟⎟
⎝ Q L ⎠ 1 + COVR2   (15)  
φ=
⎛
⎜⎜ λ QD
QD
QL
⎞
( [( )(
+ λ QL ⎟⎟exp β T ln 1 + COVR2 1 + COVQD
2 2
+ COVQL )])
⎝ ⎠

934
3.1.2 First Order Reliability Method (FORM)
Hasofer and Lind (1974) proposed a modified reliability index that did not exhibit the invariance prob-
lem. The “correction” is to evaluate the limit state function at a point known as the “design point” in-
stead of the mean values. The design point is a point on the failure surface g = 0. Since the design point
is generally not known in advance, an iteration technique must be used to solve the reliability index. De-
tailed procedure regarding FORM can be found in Nowak and Collins (2000). Only information on the
means and the standard deviations of the resistances and the loads are needed, while detailed infor-
mation on the type of distribution for each random variable is not needed. In this study, the reliability
index was calculated using Rackwitz and Fiessler (1978) algorithm following the procedure recom-
mended in Transportation Research Circular E-C079 (Allen et al., 2005).

3.1.3 Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) Method

The MCS method is a technique that employs generating random numbers that are used to solve deter-
ministic problems. Random values for bias of loads and resistances are generated according to basic sta-
tistical parameters. i.e., mean (µ), coefficient of variation (COV) and an assigned distribution, e.g.
lognormal distribution for both loads and resistances in this study. The random values are then combined
to form a limit state function, g, according to a pre-determined combination such as g = φR - γQ. Based
on the definition of failure, e.g., g < 0, the number of failure simulations is counted and the probability
of failure is therefore determined. Reliability index can then be calculated from known probability of
failure.

3.2 Statistical Characterization of Load Components

For calibration, the statistical characteristics of load components are necessary. In this study, load statis-
tics and factors from the AASHTO LRFD specifications (AASHTO 2007), which were originally rec-
ommended by Nowak (1999), were adopted as follows: γL = 1.75, λQL = 1.15, COVQL = 0.18, γD = 1.25,
λQD = 1.08, COVQD = 0.13. Here γD and γL are the load factors for dead load and live load, respectively.
λQD and λ QL are the load bias factors for the dead load and live load, respectively. COVQD and COVQL
are the coefficient of variation values for the dead load and live load, respectively.  
The dead load to live load ratio (QD/QL) varies depending on the span length. In this study, a QD/QL
ratio of 3 is used for calibration, since the calibration is insensitive to QD/QL ratio above 3 (Abu-Farsakh
and Titi, 2007).

4. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF RESULTS

4.1 Statistical Analyses on Predicted versus Measured Pile Resistances

Based on the analysis of pile load test results on 53 precast prestressed concrete driven piles, a statistical
analysis was performed to evaluate the accuracy and performance of the different pile capacity estima-
tion methods. The mean, standard deviation (σ), and coefficient of variation (COV) of the predicted to
measured pile capacity ratios (Rp/Rm), which are the inverses of the bias factor (λR = Rm/Rp), were calcu-
lated for the different pile resistance prediction methods and summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Evaluation of different pile capacity prediction methods

Pile Resistance Prediction Rp/Rm Best fit calculations

Method
Mean σ COV Rfit/Rm R2
Static (α-method for clay and Nord-
1.12 0.32 0.29 1.00 0.84
lund method for sand)
Schmertmann (1978) 1.20 0.37 0.31 1.20 0.81

935
 LCPC (1982) 1.05 0.38 0.36 1.11 0.78
De Ruiter & Beringen (1979) 0.90 0.28 0.31 0.94 0.84

Figures 1a through 1d present the comparison between the predicted and measured pile capacities
for the different pile design methods. Regression analyses were conducted on all methods to obtain the
best fit line of the predicted/measured pile resistances. The relationships Rfit/Rm and the corresponding
R2 for all prediction methods are presented in Figures 1a to 1d, and are also summarized in Table 1. The
Rfit/Rm for static method is 1.0 with R2 = 0.84, implies that the relative bias of the pile capacity predic-
tion based on the static method does not vary with the measured capacities. The mean and standard de-
viation of the Rp/Rm ratio for static method are 1.12 and 0.32, respectively, indicating an average of 12
percent overestimation using the static method. The resulted Rfit/Rm ratios for the CPT estimation meth-
ods range from 0.94 to 1.20. The De Ruiter Beringen method had the lowest ratio of 0.94. All other
methods had Rfit/Rm ratios higher than 1 indicating an increasing bias in pile capacity estimation with the
increase in actual capacity. The average ratios of Rp/Rm of the CPT methods range from 0.90 to 1.20.
The De Ruiter-Beringen method has the smallest ratio implying an average of 10 percent underestima-
tion of pile capacity, while the other CPT methods overestimate the capacity by 5 to 20 percent. On av-
erage, the LCPC method overestimates the ultimate pile capacity by 5 percent and the Schmertmann
method overestimates the pile capacity by 20 percent.
Measured pile capacity, Rm (kN)
Measured pile capacity, Rm (kN)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
800 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
800
700 RFit = 1.00 * Rm 7000
700 RFit = 1.20 * Rm 7000
Estimated pile capacity, Rest (tons)

R2 = 0.84
Estimated pile capacity, Rest (kN)

Estimated pile capacity, Rest (tons)

Estimated pile capacity, Rest (kN)

6000 R2 = 0.81
600 6000
600

500 5000
500 5000

400 4000 4000

400

300 3000 3000

300

200 2000 200 2000

100 1000 100 1000

0 0 0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Measured pile capacity, Rm (tons)                     Measured pile capacity, Rm (tons)

(a) Static analysis (b) Schmertmann method

Measured pile capacity, Rm (kN) Measured pile capacity, Rm (kN)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
800 800

700 RFit = 1.11 * Rm 7000 7000

700 RFit = 0.94 * Rm
Estimated pile capacity, Rest (tons)

Estimated pile capacity, Rest (tons)

Estimated pile capacity, Rest (kN)

Estimated pile capacity, Rest (kN)

R2 = 0.78 R2 = 0.84
600 6000 600 6000

500 5000 500 5000

400 4000 400 4000

300 3000 300 3000

200 2000 200 2000

100 1000 100 1000

0 0 0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Measured pile capacity, Rm (tons) Measured pile capacity, Rm (tons)

(c) LCPC method (d) De Ruiter & Beringen method  

Figure 1 Measured (Rm) versus Predicted (Rp) pile capacities.

936
4.2 LRFD Calibration
Figures 2a to 2d present the histogram and the normal and log-normal distributions of the measured to
predicted pile resistance (Rm/Rp) of the static method and three CPT methods, respectively. As shown in
the figures, generally the log-normal distribution matches better the histogram than the normal distribu-
tion. In addition, the resistance bias factor (λR=Rm/Rp) can range theoretically from 0 to infinity, with an
optimum value of one, therefore the distribution of the resistance bias can be assumed to follow a log-
normal distribution (Briaud and Tucker, 1988). In this study, the log-normal distribution was used to
evaluate the different methods based on their prediction accuracy.
30 30

25 Static Method 25 Schmertmann Method

20 Log-Normal Distribution 20 Normal Distribution

Probability (%)
Probability (%)

Normal Distribution Log-Normal Distribution

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0

Rm / R P                                 Rm / RP  
(a) Static analysis (b) Schmertmann method
30 30

25 LCPC Method 25 De Ruiter Method

20 Log-Normal Distribution 20 Log-Normal Distribution

Probability (%)
Probability (%)

Normal Distribution Normal Distribution

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0

Rm / RP                               RP / Rm  
(c) LCPC method (d) De Ruiter & Beringen method  
Figure 2 Histogram and probability density function of resistance bias factors.

Reliability analyses were conducted and the resistance factors for all pile design methods were cali-
brated at QD/QL=3. This ratio was selected since the reliability index (β) converges for QD/QL exceeding
3 (Abu-Farsakh and Titi, 2007). Figures 3a through 3d present the resistance factors determined for var-
ious reliability indices (β) for the different pile design methods. As shown, the resistance factors (φ) de-
termined by the advanced methods (FORM and MCS) are relatively close and generally higher than the
resistance factors (φ) obtained from FOSM. A review of the literature indicates that the required reliabil-

937
ity indices are between 2.33 and 3 for geotechnical applications. The resistance factors (φ) for different
design method corresponding to reliability index of 2.33 are tabulated in Table 2.

1.5 1.5
Static Analysis Schmertmann Analysis
Monte Carlo Monte Carlo
FORM FORM
FOSM FOSM

φ (Schmertmann Analysis)
1 1
φ (Static Analysis)

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
βT                                   βT  
(a) Static analysis (b) Schmertmann method
1.5 1.5 CPT De Ruiter & Beringen Analysis
CPT LCPC Analysis
Monte Carlo
Monte Carlo
FORM
FORM
φ (CPT De Ruiter & Beringen Analysis)
FOSM
FOSM
φ (CPT LCPC Analysis)

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
βT βT

(c) LCPC method (d) De Ruiter & Beringen method  

Figure 3 Resistance factors for different reliability indexes.

Table 2 Resistance Factors (φ) for Driven Piles (βT = 2.33)

Resistance Factor (φ) and Efficiency Factor (φ/λ) for
AASHTO
Louisiana Soil
Design Method Resistance
FOSM FORM MCSM Factor, φ
φ φ/λ φ φ/λ φ φ/λ
α-Tomlinson and
Static method 0.56 0.58 0.63 0.66 0.63 0.66 0.35-0.45
Nordlund
Schmertmann 0.44 0.47 0.48 0.52 0.49 0.53 0.50
Direct CPT LCPC 0.54 0.51 0.60 0.56 0.59 0.56 —
methods De Ruiter and
0.66 0.55 0.74 0.62 0.73 0.61 —
Beringen
 

938
 The resistance factors for the static method determined in this study are 0.56 (FOSM) and 0.63
(FORM and MCS), which is higher than the φ value recommended by AASHTO (2007) (e.g., φ = 0.34-
0.45). It should be noted here that this value is only valid for precast prestressed concrete piles driven into
subsurface soil conditions similar to Louisiana soils that consist mainly of soft cohesive soils with some
cohesionless inter-layer soils, with the pile resistance determined using α-Tomlinson method for clay lay-
ers and Nordlund method for cohesionless inter-layers. Among the three CPT methods, the De Ruiter and
Beringen method shows the highest resistance factor [φ = 0.66 (FOSM), 0.74 (FORM), and 0.73 (MCS)],
while the Schmertmann method shows the lowest resistance factor [φ = 0.44 (FOSM), 0.48 (FORM), and
0.49 (MCSM)], which is lower than the AASHTO value of 0.5. However, the LCPC method has a re-
sistance factor (φ) equal to 0.54 (FOSM), 0.60 (FORM), and 0.59 (MCSM).

5. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a reliability based evaluation of a static and three direct CPT design methods for esti-
mating the ultimate axial capacity of precast prestressed concrete (PPC) driven piles into soft Louisiana
soils. A pile load test database of fifty three square PPC driven piles of different sizes and lengths that
were tested to failure were collected and used to calibrate the resistance factors (φ) of the different design
methods needed to implement the LRFD design methodology. The measured ultimate pile capacity was
estimated using the Davisson interpretation method and modified Davisson method for piles with larger
sizes. In addition, the load carrying resistance of each pile was predicted using a static method and three
CPT direct methods (Schmertmann, De Ruiter-Beringen, and LCPC).
Statistical analyses comparing the predicted and measured pile resistances were conducted to evalu-
ate the performance of the different pile design methods. The results of the statistical analyses showed
that the static method (α- method and Nordlund method) over- predicted the pile resistance by 12 percent.
Among the three direct CPT methods, the De Ruiter-Beringen method was the most consistent prediction
method with the lowest COV.
Reliability analyses based on FOSM, FORM and MCS methods were conducted to calibrate the re-
sistance factors (φ) for the investigated pile design methods. The design input parameters were adopted
from the AASHTO LRFD design specifications for bridge substructure. The resistance factors (φ) corre-
sponding to a dead load to live load ratio (QD/QL) of 3 as a function of target reliability index (βT) were
presented. Based on the results of reliability analyses for β T = 2.33, the De Ruiter-Beringen method
showed the highest resistance factor while the Schmertmann method showed the lowest resistance factor,
which is lower than the AASHTO recommended value of 0.5.
 
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research project is funded by the Louisiana Transportation Research Center (LTRC) (Project No.
07-2GT) and Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LA DOTD) (State Project No.
736-99-1408). The authors gratefully acknowledge the help and support of Mark Morvant of LTRC.

7. REFERENCES
AASHTO. LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 2nd Edition, American Association of State Highway and Trans-
portation Officials, Washington, D.C., USA, 1998.
AASHTO. LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 4th Edition, American Association of State Highway and Trans-
portation Officials, Washington, D.C., USA, 2007.
Abu-Farsakh M. Y., Titi H., Probabilistic CPT Method for Estimating the Ultimate Capacity of Friction Piles,
ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 30, No. 5, 2007, pp. 387-398.
Allen, Tony M. Development of the WSDOT Pile Driving Formula and Its Calibration and Resistance Factor De-
sign (LRFD), FHWA Report, WA-RD 610.1, Washington State Department of Transportation, 2005.

939
Allen, Tony. Development of a New Pile Driving Formula and Its Calibration for Load and Resistance Factor De-
sign, Proceedings for the 86th TRB Annual meeting. Washington, DC, TRB, 2006.
Allen, T., Nowak, A., and Bathurst, R. Calibration to Determine Load and Resistance Factors for Geotechnical
and Structural Design. TRB Circular E-C079, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2005.
Barker, R. M., Duncan, J. M., Rojiani, K. B., Ooi, P. S. K., Tan, C. K., and Kim, S. G. Manuals for the Design of
Bridge Foundations: Shallow Foundations, Driven Piles, Retaining Walls and Abutments, Drilled Shafts, Es-
timating Tolerable Movements, and Load Factor Design Specifications and Commentary, NCHRP Report
343, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1991.
Briaud, J-L and Tucker, L.M. Measured and Predicted Axial Response of 98 Piles, Journal of Geotechnical Engi-
neering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 8, 1988, pp. 984-1001.
Bustamante, M., and Gianeselli L. Pile Bearing Capacity Prediction by Means of Static Penetrometer CPT. Proc.
2nd European Symposium Penetration Testing, Vol. 2, Balkema, Amsterdam, 1982, pp. 493-500.
De Ruiter, J., and Beringen F. L. Pile Foundations for Large North Sea Structures. Marine Geotechnology, Vol. 3,
No. 3, 1979, pp. 267-314.
DiMaggio, J., Saad, T., Allen, T., Passe, P., Goble, G., Christopher, B., DiMillio, A., Person, G., and Shike, T.
FHWA Summary Report of the Geotechnical Engineering Study Tour (GEST). FHWA International Tech-
nology Scanning Program, December, FHWA, 1998.
Eslami, A., and Fellenius, B. H. Pile Capacity by Direct CPT and CPTU Methods Applied to 102 Case Histories,
Canadian Geotech. Journal, Vol. 34, 1997, pp. 886-904.
Hasofer, A. M., and Lind, N. C. “An Exact and Invariant First-Order Reliability Format.” Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, Vol. 100. No. EM1, 1974, pp. 111-121.
Nowak, S., A., Collins, K., R., Reliability of structures, McGraw Hill, International edition, 2000.
Nowak, A. S., Calibration of LRFD Bridge Design Code, NCHRP Report 368, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC., 1999.
McVay, M., Birgisson, B., Zhang, L., Perez, A, and Putcha, S. Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for
Driven Piles Using Dynamic Methods - A Florida Perspective. Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1,
2000, pp. 55-66.
Paikowsky, S., Regan, J., and McDonnell, J. A Simplified Field Method for Capacity Evaluation of Driven Piles.
FHWA RD- 94-042, FHWA, 1994.
Paikowsky, S. G. Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Deep Foundations, NCHRP Report 507, Trans-
portation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2004.
Rackwitz, R., and Fiessler, B. Structural Reliability Under Combined Random Load Sequences, Computers and
Structures, Vol. 9, 1978, pp. 489-494.
Schmertmann, J. H. Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test, Performance, and Design. Report No. FHWA-TS-79-
209, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 1978.
Tomlinson, M.J. Foundation Design and Construction, 4th Edition, Pitman Advanced Publishing Program, 1980.
Thurman, A.G. “Discussion of Bearing Capacity of Piles in Cohesionless Soils.” American Society of Civil Engi-
neers, ASCE, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, SM1, 1964, pp. 127-129.
Yoon, S., Abu-Farsakh, M., Tsai C., and Zhang Z., “LRFD Calibration of Axially-Loaded Concrete Piles Driven
into Soft Soils,” Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2045, Soil Mechanics, 2008, pp. 39-50.

940