AdamiNasim2013 PDF

AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF
Nasim Adami for the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering presented
on October 28, 2013.
Title: Development of an ACIP Pile-Specific Load-Displacement Model.
Abstract approved:
_________________________________________________________________
Armin W. Stuedlein
Augered cast-in-place piles, also known as ACIP piles, have been used for more than
seven decades in the United States and have gained in popularity due to their relatively
quick installation and cost-effectiveness. Owing to the reduced impact on the neighboring
environment as compared to some other deep foundation installation methods, ACIP piles
are appropriate for use in urban areas. Although there has been an increase in application
of ACIP piles, relatively little research on this type of pile has been performed as
compared to similar deep foundations, such as drilled shafts. The insufficient
experimental work on ACIP pile behavior and lack of ACIP pile specific load-
displacement models have led practicing engineers to use the results and methodologies
from drilled shafts. An example of this is the use of t-z and q-z based load transfer models
from drilled shaft-specific relationships to estimate the load-displacement behavior of
ACIP piles. Such applications can result in an underestimation of shaft resistance and
consequently disagreement between the predicted and measured load-displacement
behavior of the ACIP piles.
This thesis evaluates the ability of currently used load-displacement models to
estimate the measured load-displacement behavior of ACIP piles. Also, a new
empirically-based ACIP pile-specific t-z model is proposed that, in combination with the
O’Neill and Reese (1999) q-z model and ACIP pile-specific toe bearing resistance model,
forms an ACIP pile specific load-displacement model. Experiments of instrumented
ACIP piles installed in the granular soils of Western Washington were used to develop
the ACIP pile specific t-z model. Comparison between the results from the currently used
load-displacement models with the proposed model showed that the proposed model
provides an improvement in the prediction of the load-displacement behavior of ACIP
piles.
Finally, an analysis of variability is performed using the Monte Carlo Simulation
with the sample probability distributions of the uncertain variables in load-displacement
model. These analyses result in provide a set of possible loads for a number of common
service level displacements, which are reported as cumulative density function (CDF)
curves. The CDF curves for loads corresponding to a displacement considered can be a
useful tool in design procedure of ACIP piles.

©Copyright by Nasim Adami
October 28, 2013
All Rights Reserved
Development of an ACIP Pile-Specific Load-Displacement Model
by
Nasim Adami
A THESIS
submitted to
Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Master of Science
Presented October 28, 2013

Commencement June 2014
Master of Science thesis of Nasim Adami presented on October 28, 2013.
APPROVED:
Major Professor, representing Civil Engineering
Head of the School of Civil and Construction Engineering
Dean of the Graduate School
I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection of

Oregon State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my
thesis to any reader upon request.
Nasim Adami, Author

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my very great appreciation to my major advisor Dr.

Armin Stuedlein for his guidance along this research and providing an
environment for me to realize my abilities. I also want to thank my graduate
committee members, Dr. Sessions, Dr. Mason, and Dr. Leshchinsky for their
helpful suggestions.
I would like to offer my special thanks to faculty and staff of the Oregon State
University School of Civil and Construction Engineering for their dedication and
support. Finally, I am particularly grateful for the support given by all my friends
and graduate students of Geotechnical Engineering.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Problem Statement .................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Research Outline ..................................................................................................... 1
2 Literature Review........................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3
2.1.1 Drilled Shaft Foundations ................................................................................. 5

2.1.2 Augered Cast-in-Place Piles ............................................................................. 5
2.2 Bearing Capacity of Drilled Deep Foundations ...................................................... 7
2.2.1 Estimation of Bearing Capacity of Drilled Shaft Foundations ..........................

in Granular Soils ............................................................................................... 8
2.2.2 Estimation of Bearing Capacity of Augered Cast-in-Place Piles .................... 16
2.3 Prediction Models of Pile Settlement in Granular Soils ........................................ 21
2.3.1 Vesic (1977) Settlement Method .................................................................... 21

2.3.2 Introduction to t-z and q-z Models .................................................................. 24
2.4 Summary ............................................................................................................... 34
3 Research Objectives ..................................................................................................... 35
4 Database of Loading Test Cases .................................................................................. 37
4.1 Static Pile Load Test Data for 1997 Test Series .................................................... 37
4.1.1 General ............................................................................................................ 37

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
4.1.2 Development of Soil Profile and Soil Parameters for the 1997 Test Series ... 40
4.2 Load Transfer and Static Load Test Results for 2009 Test Series ........................ 45
4.2.1 General ............................................................................................................ 45

4.2.2 Development of Soil Profiles and Soil Parameters for the 2009 Test Series .. 46
4.2.3 Description of the instrumentation of Piles in 2009 Test Series ..................... 51
4.2.4 Determination of Composite Modulus ............................................................ 51
4.2.5 Load Transfer .................................................................................................. 53
4.3 Summary ............................................................................................................... 57
5 Development of a Load Transfer Model for Augered Cast-in Place Piles................... 58
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 58
5.2 Development of the t-z Model ............................................................................... 58
5.2.1 Calculation of Pile Shear Stress, t ................................................................... 59

5.2.2 Calculation the Relative Soil-Pile Movement, z ............................................. 61
5.2.3 Normalizing Parameters.................................................................................. 63
5.2.4 Proposed t-z Model Parameters....................................................................... 64
5.3 Selected q-z Model ................................................................................................ 72
5.4 Evaluation of the Proposed Load-Transfer Model ................................................72
5.5 Comparison of Results to 2009 and 1997 Test Series ........................................... 74
5.6 Summary ............................................................................................................... 87

Page
6 Analysis of the Proposed t-z Model by Use of Monte Carlo Simulations ................... 88
6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 88
6.2 Monte Carlo Simulation in Geotechnical Engineering ......................................... 89
6.3 Input Variables and Probability Distribution of Uncertain Parameters ................. 91
6.3.1 Uncertain Variables of the Proposed Prediction Model .................................. 91

6.3.2 Probability Distribution of Uncertain Variables ............................................. 92
6.3.3 Monte Carlo Simulation of Random Variables............................................... 97
6.4 Monte Carlo Simulation Correction .................................................................... 101
6.5 Discussion of the Results .................................................................................... 108
6.6 Summary ............................................................................................................. 112
7 Summary and Conclusion .......................................................................................... 113
7.1 Summary ............................................................................................................. 113
7.2 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 115
7.3 Suggestions for Future Study .............................................................................. 117
References ....................................................................................................................... 118

Page
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 127
Appendix A: MATLAB® Code for Generating the Random Variables ..................... 128
Appendix B: MATLAB® Code for Calculating the Load-Displacement Response

of ACIP Piles Using t-z and q-z Models ..................................................................... 131
Appendix C: Comparison of Deterministic Coefficients Results with Results from

Random Variable Generation...................................................................................... 135
Appendix D: Detailed Monte Carlo Simulation Results............................................. 147

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Figure 2.1: Situations in which deep foundations may be needed. (a) weak soil layer with
a dense stratum within a reasonable depth, (b) weak soil layer without a dense
stratum, (c) uplift forces, (d) and (f) horizontal force resist by a single pile, (e)
horizontal forces and moments resist by pile group,(g) erosion around the footing,
(h) liquefaction susceptible layer, (i) deep foundation acting as a fender system, (j)
probability of future excavation in adjacent region, (k) swelling soil layer(FHWA
2006, after Vesic 1977). ............................................................................................ 4
Figure 2.2: ACIP construction steps, (1) drilling, (2) concrete injection, (3) inserting the
reinforcements (after Mainwinch 2013).................................................................... 6
Figure 2.3: A conceptual sketch of resisting parameters (Das 2004). ................................. 8
Figure 2.4: Bearing capacity factor from Prakash and Sharmad (1990). .......................... 10
Figure 2.5: The relationship between SPT N values and the toe bearing resistance, after
Neely 1991. ............................................................................................................. 17
Figure 2.6: The relationship between SPT N values and the toe bearing resistance, with
comparison between the Stuedlein et al. (2012) expression with FHWA method,
after Stuedlein et al. (2012). .................................................................................... 18
Figure 2.7: Average β-coefficient for use in Equation 2.15 (Neely 1991). ....................... 19
Figure 2.8: The relationship between depth of embedment and β coefficient. The data
points consist of experiments conducted in the Stuedlein et al. (2012) and Neely
(1991) experiment. after Stuedlein et al. (2012). .................................................... 20
Figure 2.9: The load distribution factor for different typical loading cases: (a) uniform
distribution, α = 0.5, (b) extreme case of linear distribution, α = 0.67, (c) extreme
case of linear distribution, α = 0.33. After Vesic (1977). ........................................ 23
Figure 2.10: Schematic concept used in t-z method modeling (after FHWA 2013).......... 25
Figure 2.11: Concentric cylinder model for settlement analysis of axially loaded piles
(modified from Randolph and Wroth 1978). .......................................................... 26
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
Figure 2.12: Linear t-z curve obtained using Randolph and Wroth (1978) (after FHWA
2013). ...................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 2.13: (a) Normalized load transfer curves for clay proposed by Coyle and Reese
1966 and (b) Normalized skin friction curves for sand proposed by Coyle and
Solaiman 1967......................................................................................................... 29
Figure 2.14: Normalized skin friction curve for clay and sand proposed by Vijayverjia
(1977). ..................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 2.15: Normalized curves of load transfer in side friction vs. settlement for drilled
shafts in sand (O'Neill and Reese 1999). ................................................................ 31
Figure 2.16: Normalized q-z curve for clay and sand (Vijayverjia 1977). ........................ 32
Figure 2.17: Normalized curves of load transfer in toe bearing vs. settlement for drilled
shafts in sand (after O'Neill and Reese 1999). ........................................................ 33
Figure 4.1: Comparison between actual load-displacement and predications from the
stability plot method, along with the ultimate loads proposed by Gurtowski (1997)
................................................................................................................................. 39
Figure 4.2: Subsurface information for test pile 1997-1: (a) SPT N-value, (b) unit weight,
(c) friction angle, (d) soil profile. ............................................................................ 41
Figure 4.3: Subsurface information for test pile 1997-2: (a) SPT N-value, (b) Unit weight,
Figure Page
Figure 4.8: Comparison between actual load-displacement and the ultimate loads
proposed by Gurtowski (2009)................................................................................ 47
Figure 4.10: Subsurface information for test pile 2009-2: (a) SPT N-value, (b) Unit
weight, (c) friction angle, (d) soil profile. ............................................................... 48
Figure 4.15: Calculations of tangentmodulus for all strain gages on pile 2009-4 and
demonstration of their approach to the lower limit presented by strin gages near
pile head, after Stuedlein and Gurtowski (2012)..................................................... 52
Figure 4.16: Tangent modulus slope for 2009 Test Series, adopted from Stuedlein and
Gurtowski (2012). ................................................................................................... 53
Figure Page
Figure 4.17: An example of the interpolation of pile 2009-6: (a) as observed, (b) after
interpolation. ........................................................................................................... 54
Figure 4.18: Interpolated load transfer curve for test pile 2009-1. .................................... 54
Figure 5.1: Schematic illustration showing definitions of depths and corresponding loads
from load transfer curves in the calculation procedure. .......................................... 61
Figure 5.2: A Schematic illustration of Pd,i and Ld,i product, as an area on a load transfer
curve. ....................................................................................................................... 63
Figure 5.3: Comparison of experimental and fitted t-z curves for pile 2009-1 ................. 66
Figure 5.7: Comparison between the experimentally-derived coefficient a and the

proposed relationship. ............................................................................................. 71
Figure 5.8: Comparison between the experimentally-derived coefficient b and the

proposed relationship. ............................................................................................. 71
Figure Page
Figure ‎5.9: Comparison between the measured load transfers and those approximated by
the proposed t-z model for piles, (a) 2009-1, (b) 2009-2, (c) 2009-4, (d) 2009-5.
………..………………………………………………………………….………...73
Figure 5.10: Comparison between field measurements and predictions of proposed model:
(a)Test pile 2009-1, (b) Test pile 2009-2, (c) Test pile 2009-4, (d) Test pile 2009-5.
................................................................................................................................. 75
Figure 5.11: Comparison between field measurements and predictions of proposed model
for: (a) Test pile 1997-1, (b) Test pile 1997-2......................................................... 76
Figure 5.12: Comparison between field measurements and predictions of proposed model
for driven grout piles: (a) Test pile 2009-3, (b) Test pile 2009-6. .......................... 78
Figure 5.13: Point by point comparison of bias with respect to normalized head
displacement, for the 2009 Test Series.................................................................... 79
Figure 5.14: Point by point comparison of bias with respect to normalized head
displacement, for the 1997 Test Series.................................................................... 80
Figure 5.15: Comparison between the load-displacements produced by the proposed

model with models proposed by Vijayvergia (1977) and O’Neill and Reese (1999):
(a) ACIP pile 2009-1, (b) ACIP pile 2009-2, (c) DG pile 2009-3. ......................... 83

model with models proposed by Vijayvergia (1977) and O’Neill and Reese (1999):
(a) ACIP pile 2009-4, (b) ACIP pile 2009-5, (c) DG piles 2009-6. ........................ 84

model with models proposed by Vijayvergia (1977) and O’Neill and Reese (1999),
ACIP piles: (a) 1997-1, (b) 1997-2, (c) 1997-3...................................................... 85

model with models proposed by Vijayvergia (1977) and O’Neill and Reese (1999),
ACIP piles: (a) 1997-4, (b) 1997-5. ........................................................................ 86
Figure Page
Figure 6.1: Cumulative distribution function for the bias of the a coefficient. ................. 94
Figure 6.2: Cumulative distribution function for the bias of the b coefficient. ................. 95
Figure 6.3: Cumulative distribution function for the bias of the . ............................. 96
Figure 6.4: The load displacement predictions produced by MCS and the proposed
prediction model for 2009 Test Series .................................................................... 98
Figure 6.5: The load displacement predictions produced by MCS and the proposed
prediction model for 1997 Test Series .................................................................. 100
Figure 6.6: The load displacement predictions produced by corrected MCS and the
proposed model for 2009 Test Series .................................................................... 105
Figure 6.7: The load displacement predictions produced by corrected MCS and the
proposed model for 1997 Test Series .................................................................... 107
Figure 6.8: Cumulative density functions of loads for four displacements of 5, 10, 15 and
25mm of 2009 Test Series..................................................................................... 110
Figure 6.9: Cumulative density functions of loads for four displacements of 5, 10, 15 and
25 mm of 1997 Test Series.................................................................................... 111
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Table 2.1: Approximate φ'f ⁄φ' values for the interface between deep foundations and soil
(after Kulhawy et al. 1983 and Kulhawy 1991). .................................................... 13
Table 2.2: Approximate ratio of coefficient of lateral earth pressure after construction to
that before construction (after Kulhawy et aI. 1983 and Kulhawy 1991). ........... 14
Table 2.3: Values for Cp coefficient (after Vesic 1977).................................................... 23
Table 4.1: Geometric details and locations of test piles for the 1997 Test Series, after
Gurtowski (1997).................................................................................................... 37
Table 4.2: Criteria for the estimation of unit weight, adopted from ODT Geotechnical
Design Manual (2009). ........................................................................................... 41
Table 4.3: Geometric details and locations of test piles for the 2009 Test Series, after
Gurtowski (2009).................................................................................................... 45
Table 5.1: Comparison between predicted ultimate loads with those by Gurtowski (1997,
2009)....................................................................................................................... 81
Table 5.2: A comparison between the load mean bias obtained from the proposed model
by those created by O’Neill and Reese (1999) and Vijayvergia (1977) models. ... 82
Table 6.1: Comparison of number of realization from Equations 6.1 and 6.2, from Phoon
(2008). .................................................................................................................... 90
Table 6.2: Statistical characteristics of distribution fitting for the a coefficient. .............. 94
Table 6.3: Statistical characteristics of distribution fitting for the b coefficient. .............. 95
Table 6.4: Statistical characteristics of distribution fitting for the . .............................. 96
Table 6.5: Statistical characteristics of each actual displacement for test pile 2009-6. .. 102
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
Table 6.6: Statistical characteristics of corrected MCS results. ...................................... 103
Table 7.1: The comparison of the results obtained using Vijayvergia (1977) and O’Neill
and Reese (1999) models...................................................................................... 115
Table 7.2: The average mean bias in load and COV in load bias results from the proposed
load-displacement model. ..................................................................................... 116
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES
Table Page
Table C. 1: Comparison of Deterministic Coefficients Results with Results from Random

Variable Generation, pile 2009-1. ........................................................................ 136








Table C. 10: Comparison of Deterministic Coefficients Results with Results from

Random Variable Generation, pile 1997-4. .......................................................... 145
Table C. 11: Comparison of Deterministic Coefficients Results with Results from

Random Variable Generation, pile 1997-5. .......................................................... 146
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
Table D. 1: The detailed results of the corrected Monte Carlo Simulation for all the head
displacements of test pile 2009-1. ………………………………………………148
displacements of test pile 2009-2. ........................................................................ 149
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Applied load, constant

Load resisted by shaft
Load resisted by toe
Area of the pile
Vertical effective stress

Horizontal effective stress
Bearing capacity factor
Shape factor
Depth factor
Dt The diameter of the pile toe
Ultimate unit toe bearing capacity
SPT N value corrected for 60 percent hammer efficiency
Unit shaft resistance
Effective soil-foundation friction angle
K The lateral earth pressure coefficient after installation

K0 The lateral earth pressure coefficient prior to the installation
Pile length
Settlement of the pile head
t The mobilized shaft resistance, shear stress along the shaft
z Relative displacement between the pile and soil
q Mobilized toe resistance
Tangent modulus
Strain
Area of steel
Circumference of pile
H Observed pile head displacement
P Load, changing value along the pile
Relative soil-pile movement
Bias
̅ Mean bias
Standard deviation
COV Coefficient of variation
Probability of occurrence
Zi Standard normal variate
Probability density function
i Sample ranking
N Number of realizations
CDF Cumulative density function
Mean value
Tolerance margins of the target probability
Level of confidence
1
1 Introduction
Augered cast-in-place piles, also known as ACIP piles, have been used for more than
70 years in the United States. Augered cast-in-place piles have gained in popularity
because they are relatively fast to install and are economical for a wide range of projects.
Additionally, the installation of ACIP piles poses less impact on the neighboring
environment than some other deep foundation installation methods.
1.1 Problem Statement
Although there has been an increase in application of ACIP piles, relatively little
research on this type of pile has been performed as compared to drilled shafts or driven
piles. The insufficient experimental work on ACIP piles behavior and lack of an ACIP
pile specific load-displacement model has led practicing engineers to use the results and
methodologies from similar cases, such as drilled shafts. An example of this is the use of
load transfer models, known as t-z curves when shaft resistance is concerned.
Implementation of drilled shaft specific t-z models results in an underestimation of the
shaft resistance of ACIP piles and consequently a disagreement between the predicted
and measured load-displacement behavior of the ACIP piles.
1.2 Research Outline
The goal of this study is to develop an ACIP pile specific t-z model to generate load-
displacement estimates that are more accurate than currently used models. Chapter 2
2
includes a detailed literature review on the previously proposed and currently used load-
displacement models for ACIP piles.
Chapter 3 provides the objectives of this research.
Chapter 4 describes the experimental database that is used in this study along with
the procedure necessary to generate the experimental load transfer curves.
Chapter 5 presents the methodology for developing the individual t-z curves from the
experimental datasets and the proposed load-displacement model. Also, the comparisons
between the actual field measurements and existing load-displacement models are
included with the results obtained from the proposed model.
Chapter 6 provides a statistical analysis using Monte Carlo Simulation to estimate the
variability associated with the proposed load-displacement model.
Finally, Chapter 7 provides a summary and conclusions derived from this research. A
complete list of references and four appendices follow Chapter 7. Appendix A presents
the code developed in MATLAB® to generate the random variables, a, b and ,
parameters required for calculation of the load-displacement. Appendix B presents the
code developed in MATLAB® to calculate the load-displacement behavior of the piles
based on the proposed model. Appendix C contains the details of comparison between
values of the random variables, a, b and calculated from deterministic formulation
with those obtained from random variable generation and Appendix D provides a point
by point comparison of the bias between the measured and simulated load-displacement
curves of all piles.

3
2 Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
Deep foundations are considered to be one of the most commonly implemented
foundation types in geotechnical engineering practices (Prezzi 2007). A summary of the
conditions for which implementation of piles could be a solution is presented by Vesic
(1977). These typical situations are illustrated in Figure 2.1. Some of the reasons that
might influence an engineer’s decision to use a deep foundation over a shallow
foundation include the following (Coduto 2001):
1. The upper soil layers do not provide sufficient strength for use of shallow
foundations.
2. High loads that would require large and impractical dimensions of shallow
foundations.
3. Possibility of scour or undermining that could result in failure of the shallow
foundation.
4. Constraints and obstacles, such as water, for accessing the ground surface.
5. Need for uplift support.
6. Requirement to resist large lateral loads.
Shallow foundations and deep foundations can be distinguished by their depth of
embedment. A deep foundation is defined as a foundation that transfers the applied loads
to the soil layers below the ground surface to the depths in range of 15 to 45 m or more.
4
Figure ‎2.1: Situations in which deep foundations may be needed. (a) weak soil layer with a dense
stratum within a reasonable depth, (b) weak soil layer without a dense stratum, (c) uplift forces, (d)
and (f) horizontal force resist by a single pile, (e) horizontal forces and moments resist by pile group,(g)
erosion around the footing, (h) liquefaction susceptible layer, (i) deep foundation acting as a fender
system, (j) probability of future excavation in adjacent region, (k) swelling soil layer(FHWA 2006, after
Vesic 1977).
The decision regarding the type of deep foundation to use is based on several factors
such as the type and magnitude of loading, soil properties, and construction site
constraints. Among all types of deep foundations, the focus of this thesis is mainly on
augered cast-in-place piles, but in some cases where no ACIP pile specific relationships
are available, expressions were adopted from a comparable kind of deep foundation,
5
drilled shafts. Therefore, these two deep foundation types are described in the following
sections.
2.1.1 Drilled Shaft Foundations
Drilled shafts are a common type of deep foundation that is usually constructed using
a cast-in-place procedure, installed using a drill rig. Drilled shafts may be constructed up
to 6 m in diameter and up to 45 m long, or more, and are able to support a variety of
loading modes. The construction procedure is considered more appropriate in urban areas
due to the production of lower noise levels and vibrations than other types of installation
methods like pile driving. Additionally, if soils that were not anticipated during design
are observed, engineers are able to change the dimensions of the shaft during
construction.
As with any engineering tool there are some disadvantages to drilled shaft
foundations. Human proficiency plays a critical role in the quality of the foundation;
therefore construction is very dependent on the contractor’s skill. Because drilled shafts
are constructed using excavation, they may have less unit side and toe bearing resistance
than driven foundations (Coduto 2001).
2.1.2 Augered Cast-in-Place Piles
Augered cast-in-place piles (ACIP piles) also known as Continuous Flight Auger
piles (CFA) have been used in the United States since 1940s (Neate 1989). The typical
6
diameter of ACIP piles ranges from 0.3 to 1.0 m (Brown 2005) and their lengths can
extend more than 30 to 35 m (Brettmann and NeSmith 2005, Mandolini et al. 2002).
ACIP piles are installed by drilling a plugged hollow-stem, continuous-flight auger
into the ground to the depth of interest, during which soil is removed by auger flights.
After reaching the depth of interest, concrete or grout is pumped into the hollow stem and
auger slowly removed under a head of grout. The steel reinforcement cage is then
inserted and tied off at the surface. The construction technique is illustrated in Figure 2.2
(Prezzi 2007).
Augered cast-in-place piles are more economical than other type of piles, like driven
piles, although they typically do not provide as high capacities. In addition to sharing the
advantages of drilled shafts, the ACIP pile construction technique is more effective for
caving soils and is most often used in granular soils (Coduto 2001).
Figure ‎2.2: ACIP construction steps, (1) drilling, (2) concrete injection, (3) inserting the reinforcements
(after Mainwinch 2013).
7
Similar to drilled shaft foundations, ACIP piles are highly dependent on contractor’s
skill. Placement of steel caging into the grout is another difficulty associated with
construction of ACIP’s and it can be problematic if heavy steel cages are required in
squeezing soils. Augered cast-in-place piles are inappropriate for use in soils that
contains cobbles or boulders. Additionally, if the stratigraphy includes a soil layer with
high compressibility, such as organic deposits, use of ACIP piles may not be appropriate.
2.2 Bearing Capacity of Drilled Deep Foundations
The controlling factor for the bearing capacity of piles subjected to axial loads is the
load transfer mechanism by which the load is transferred from the pile shaft and toe to the
surrounding soil. The basic concept of load transfer is the same for all types of piles,
although the rate of load transfer can vary significantly between different deep foundation
and soil types.
The applied load, Q, on a pile with length of L, is resisted by shaft friction that is
mobilized along the length of the shaft (Qs), and resistance of the soil below the toe of the
pile (Qt), as demonstrated in Figure 2.3.

8
Figure ‎2.3: A conceptual sketch of resisting parameters (Das 2004).
The ultimate shaft resistance is usually completely mobilized at displacements
relatively lower than those for the ultimate toe resistance. The amount of displacement
for full mobilization of shaft resistance is about 5 to 10 mm, whereas the value of
displacement required to mobilize the ultimate toe bearing capacity is about 10% to 25%
of the footing diameter (Vesic 1977). The methods to calculate these ultimate values are
presented in following sections.
2.2.1 Estimation of Bearing Capacity of Drilled Shaft Foundations in

Granular Soils
2.2.1.1 Toe Bearing Capacity of Drilled Shafts
Since most of the bearing capacity design models in geotechnical engineering have
their roots in empiricism, there is usually more than one single approach for each
9
parameter of interest. In fact, most of these approaches have shown to provide results
within the same order, with small differences due to the assumptions used. One of the
first relationships for the ultimate toe bearing capacity of drilled shaft piles in granular
soils, provided by Meyerhof (1963) is:
[ ]
where is the area of the toe and equals whereas Dt is the diameter of the pile
toe, is effective vertical stress at the base of the shaft, is the bearing capacity factor
and equals , is a shape factor that equals , and
is depth factor that could be obtained by . Chen and
Kulhawy (1994) suggested the use of the critical rigidity index and reduced rigidity index
factors to account for soil compressibility effects.
Prakash and Sharmad (1990) proposed a relationship for calculating the ultimate toe
bearing capacity as:
where is the ultimate unit toe bearing capacity, is the bearing capacity factor which
is a function of the friction angle as shown in Figure 2.4, and equals vertical effective
stress at the pile toe.

10
80
Proposed data points
70
Power fit
60
8 8 3
50
Nq
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
φ (Degrees)
Figure ‎2.4: Bearing capacity factor from Prakash and Sharmad (1990).
One of the criteria that should be considered in calculation of the ultimate toe bearing
capacity is the displacement of the pile itself. O’Neill and Reese (1999), recommend:
for the ultimate toe bearing capacity of drilled shafts based on settlement equal to 5
percent of the toe diameter, where equals the ultimate unit toe bearing capacity, is
the mean SPT N-value between the pile toe and a depth of 2Dt below the toe, and Dt is
the toe diameter of drilled shafts. This relationship is valid for N60 50, where N60 is
mean SPT N-value, corrected for 60% hummer efficiency, between the toe and a depth of
2Dt below the toe. O’Neill and Reese (1999) considered soils with N60 50 as an
“intermediate geomaterial”, and further soil testing may be necessary to determine the
ultimate toe bearing capacity of drilled shafts in these soils or rock conditions.
11
Considerable displacement is required to develop significant toe resistance, and
serviceability of the supported structure must be taken into account. Typically, 25 mm is
considered as the maximum allowable settlement although in reality, the critical
maximum displacement depends on the structure. There are two approaches for
incorporating the relationship between displacement and resistance; first, one can reduce
the magnitude of used in the ultimate resistance calculation, one can perform a
settlement analysis as described in Section 2.3.1 and evaluate the ultimate toe bearing
capacity accordingly.
As described earlier, Equation 2.4 is only valid for the cases where N60 50. In the
cases where N60 50 and the soil is non-cohesive, O’Neill and Reese (1999)
recommended:
[ ] 8
where is the ultimate unit toe bearing capacity, defines as corrected SPT N-value,
and equals the vertical effective stress at toe of the drilled shaft.
The O’Neill and Reese (1999) relationship was modified by Brown et al. (2007) for
determination of the ultimate unit toe resistance of ACIP piles as:
where represents the SPT N values corrected for 60 percent hammer efficiency.
12
2.2.1.2 Shaft Resistance of Drilled Shafts
The majority of load in normal service loading cases is transferred through the shaft
by mobilized frictional resistance, since the ultimate values of shaft friction could be
mobilized under smaller displacements relative to toe bearing resistance. Therefore,
determination of the shaft resistance has been a leading concern and many research
studies have been carried out on this subject. The shaft resistance can be estimated by
performing an effective stress or total stress analysis (Coduto 2001), based on the
generation and/or persistence of excess pore water pressure. If the time for dissipation of
excessive pore water pressure that was generated during the installation procedure is
comparable with some portion of service life of pile, then a total stress analysis may be
considered. On the other hand, if dissipation is rather rapid, effective stress analysis is
more appropriate. In case of the construction of drilled shafts in granular soils, dissipation
is usually rapid, so the predominant condition during the service life is the steady-state
condition and calculations will be more appropriate using an effective stress analysis. The
relationship for the ultimate unit shaft resistance, , can be described as (Coduto 2001):
where equals the horizontal effective stress, and is the effective soil-foundation
friction angle. The value of is usually developed through field investigations and
laboratory tests. An example of such efforts may be found in Kulhawy et al. (1983) and
Kulhawy (1991) and is presented in Table 2.1. Also, since the construction and
installation of the pile introduces disturbance in the surrounding soil and the lateral earth
13
pressure is not certain after installation, relationships for the lateral earth pressure
coefficient after installation, K, are reported as a function of their values prior to the
installation, K0, in a same manner as for the soil-foundation friction angle. One such
relationship is presented by Kulhawy et al. (1983) and Kulhawy (1991) and shown in
Table 2.2.
Table ‎2.1: Approximate‎φ'f ⁄φ'‎values‎for‎the‎interface‎between‎deep‎foundations‎and‎soil‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎

(after Kulhawy et al. 1983 and Kulhawy 1991).
Foundation Type ⁄
Rough concrete 1.0
Smooth concrete (i.e., precast pile) 0.8 - 1.0
Rough steel (i.e., step-taper pile) 0.7 - 0.9
Smooth steel (i.e., pipe pile or H-pile) 0.5 - 0.7
Wood (i.e., timber pile) 0.8 - 0.9
Drilled shaft built using dry method or with temporary

1.0
casing and good construction techniques
Drilled shaft built with slurry method (higher values

0.8 - 1.0
correspond to more careful construction methods)
14
Table ‎2.2: Approximate ratio of coefficient of lateral earth pressure after construction to that
before construction (after Kulhawy et aI. 1983 and Kulhawy 1991).
Foundation Type and Method of Construction ⁄
Pile-jetted 0.5 - 0.7
Pile-small displacement, driven 0.7 - 1.2
Pile-large displacement, driven 1.0 2.0
Drilled shaft-built using dry method with minimal sidewall 0.9 - 1.0
disturbance and prompt concreting
Drilled shaft-Slurry construction with good workmanship 0.9 - 1.0
Drilled shaft-slurry construction with poor workmanship 0.6 - 0.7
Drilled shaft-casing method below water table 0.6 - 0.9
In a similar approach, Tomlinson and Woodward (2008) suggested the following
approximation:
where K represents the coefficient of lateral earth pressure which here obtained from
, is the average vertical effective stress along the soil layer, and
is the effective friction angle of the soil layer.
To eliminate the individual evaluation of the parameters such as lateral earth pressure
coefficient and pile-soil friction angle, Burland (1973) suggested the implementation of
the -method. The -method is an alternative approach to Equation 2.7, with the values
15
of acquired from full-scale static load tests. The values of are then used for similar
soil profiles and foundations. To benefit from this method, the original soil layer is
divided into several sub-layers, and appropriate values of is used for each layer
according to characteristics of soil in the layer considered, as:
where all of the parameters have been previously defined. For drilled shafts installed in
granular soil, especially sand, with N60 15, O'Neill and Reese (1999) recommend:
for calculation of with a maximum value of 190 kPa, where, z is the depth to midpoint
of soil layer. Rollins et al. (2005) suggested a modification to this equation for cases
where gravel is present.
where z is the depth to midpoint of soil layer in meters.

16
2.2.2 Estimation of Bearing Capacity of Augered Cast-in-Place Piles
2.2.2.1 Ultimate Toe Bearing Capacity of ACIP piles
Despite the use of augered cast-in-place piles for seven decades, there are fewer
relationships available for them as compared to conventional drilled shafts. Neely (1991)
studied 66 ACIP piles that were installed mostly in sand. Neely (1991) assumed that the
ultimate pile resistance occurs at pile head movement of 10 percent of pile diameter;
therefore, the values for ultimate loads were obtained either from the field measurements
or stability plot method and corresponding toe bearing capacities were calculated.
Consequently, an empirical relationship was developed for toe bearing capacity of
augered cast-in-place piles in granular soil, specifically in sand:
where is the ultimate unit toe bearing capacity in kPa, is the SPT blow count
below toe and a depth of about Dt. Figure 2.5 illustrates the experimental data used by
Neely (1991) to generate Equation 2.13.

17
Figure ‎2.5: The relationship between SPT N values and the toe bearing resistance, after Neely 1991.
Recently, a modification to the Neely (1991) relationship was made by Stuedlein et
al. (2012), in which the results from 11 test cases reported by Gurtowski (1997, 2009)
were added to data base created by Neely (1991). Stuedlein et al. (2012) suggested a
lower value for the upper bound of the ultimate toe bearing capacity as:
based on the new load test data, where represents the SPT N value. This relationship
described by mean bias, where bias defines as ratio of measured values to those predicted
using proposed model, of 1.01 and COV in bias of 23 percent. Stuedlein et al. (2012)
proposed relationship provides more appropriate results than the expression
recommended by O’Neill and Reese (1999), as presented in Figure 2.6.

18
Figure ‎2.6: The relationship between SPT N values and the toe bearing resistance, with comparison
between the Stuedlein et al. (2012) expression with FHWA method, after Stuedlein et al. (2012).
2.2.2.2 Ultimate Shaft Resistance of ACIP Piles
For the calculation of the ultimate shaft resistance of ACIP piles, Neely (1991) used
the same database of 66 ACIP test piles and found out that the coefficient varies with
depth until 24 m, and remains constant for pile length greater than 24 meters. He also
proposed a maximum value for ultimate shaft resistance based on filed observations as:
̅ ̅ ̅̅̅
where ̅ is the average unit shaft resistance, ̅ represents the average β coefficient that
could be obtained from the values demonstrated in Figure 2.7, and ̅̅̅ is the average
vertical effective stress along length of pile.

19
10
Length of Pile (m)

15
20
25
30
0 1 2 3
β-Coefficient
Figure ‎2.7: Average β-coefficient for use in Equation 2.15 (Neely 1991).
Stuedlein et al. (2012) suggested a relationship for -coefficient values based on the
results reported by Gurtowski (1997, 2009) in addition to database prepared by Neely
(1991). To determine this expression, the ultimate shaft resistance was assumed to be
mobilized at pile head movements of 5 to 7.5 percent of pile diameter. This relationship
is:
( )
( )
20
where the coefficient is defined as function of pile length and is pile length. This
expression was characterized with a mean bias and COV in bias of 1.08 and 40 percent
respectively, as shown in Figure 2.8.
Since the expressions for toe bearing capacity and ultimate shaft resistance suggested
by Stuedlein et al. (2012) provide more adequate predictions than those developed for
drilled shafts, Equations 2.14 and 2.16 will be used to calculate the ultimate toe bearing
capacity and ultimate shaft resistance as described in chapter 5.

Length of Pile (m)
Figure ‎2.8: The relationship between depth of embedment and β coefficient. The data points consist of
experiments conducted in the Stuedlein et al. (2012) and Neely (1991) experiment. after Stuedlein et al.
(2012).
21
2.3 Prediction Models of Pile Settlement in Granular Soils
2.3.1 Vesic (1977) Settlement Method
One of the widely used tools to predict and calculate the settlement of piles was
proposed by Vesic (1977) which can be included in the category of empirical
relationships. This method can be used with either drilled shafts or driven piles. The
Vesic (1977) method separates the total settlement of a pile into three components:
settlements due to load transferred to the pile toe, , settlement due to load transferred
along the pile shaft, , and the settlement due to the distortion of shaft, , as:
In the Vesic (1977) method, load on the shaft is defined as the smaller of the applied
load on the pile head and the ultimate shaft resistance. Load on the toe is chosen as the
smaller of the difference between the applied load and the shaft resistance, which should
be considered as zero if the shaft resistance were greater than applied load, and the toe
resistance. The Vesic (1977) method requires that the ultimate shaft and toe bearing
resistance by means of a selected capacity model, such as those described in Section 2.2.
Then, the settlement due to the elastic deformation of the shaft can be calculated by:
22
where represents the load on the toe, is the load on the shaft, equals to the pile
length, is the pile cross sectional area, equals elastic modulus of the pile material,
and is the load distribution factor, which ranges from and generally
assumed to be 0.6. Figure 2.9 illustrates the effects of load distribution factor along a pile.
The settlements in pile toe; due to load transferred through pile toe and along the pile, can
be calculated by:
where is the toe settlement of the pile due to load transferred through the toe of the
pile, equals the toe settlement of the pile due to load transferred along the shaft, is
the net load on the toe, is the load on the shaft, equals the pile toe diameter,
equals the ultimate unit toe resistance, and are empirical coefficients depending on
the soil type and installation method. Table 2.3 presents some typical values for
according to soil type and pile installation method. The values for can be calculated
using:
⁄
( ⁄ )
23
Table ‎2.3: Values for Cp coefficient (after Vesic 1977).
Driven Drilled
Soil
Piles Piles
Sand
0.02-0.04 0.09-0.18
(dense to loose)
Clay
0.02-0.03 0.03-0.06
(stiff to soft)
Silt 0.03-0.05 0.09-0.12

(dense to loose)
Figure ‎2.9: The‎load‎distribution‎factor‎for‎different‎typical‎loading‎cases:‎(a)‎uniform‎distribution,‎α‎=‎

0.5,‎(b)‎extreme‎case‎of‎linear‎distribution,‎α‎=‎0.67,‎(c)‎extreme‎case‎of‎linear‎distribution,‎α‎=‎0.33.‎
After Vesic (1977).
24
2.3.2 Introduction to t-z and q-z Models
A significant assumption that is invoked when calculating the bearing capacity of
piles using the relationships described in Section 2.2 is that the ultimate shaft and toe
resistance was mobilized completely and simultaneously. This assumption is not valid for
serviceability limit states, which is prevalent over the service life of a pile.
Load transfer models help to overcome this problem by introducing a relationship
between mobilized resistance and its ultimate value as function of a particular parameter
such as the head movement of the pile or relative movement of each point on the pile
relative to the surrounding soil. These models consist of an expression for the mobilized
shaft resistance (also known as shear stress along the shaft, t, which equals fs in the
ultimate case), and mobilized toe resistance (which is known by q and qt in ultimate case)
as function of the relative displacement between the pile and soil, z. The load transfer
models for shaft and toe resistance are termed t-z and q-z models, respectively.
The main idea behind t-z and q-z method is to model the behavior of the surrounding
soil as a series of springs with nonlinear stiffness. Employment of nonlinear stiffness is
one of the advantages of t-z and q-z models over conventional approaches, since they can
estimate the expected nonlinear behavior of the soil during loading. A schematic
demonstration of one such model is presented in Figure 2.10. There are two methods to
produce t-z and q-z models, theoretical and empirical. In the theoretical approach, the
load transfer mechanism is usually developed based on theoretical concepts such as

25
elasticity, whereas in empirical approaches the load transfer is estimated using actual
measurements.
Figure ‎2.10: Schematic concept used in t-z method modeling (after FHWA 2013).
2.3.2.1 Theoretical t-z Curves for Linear Elastic Soils
Kraft, et al. (1981) reasoned that geometric parameters of piles, such as diameter and
length, and soil characteristics have a critical influence on pile stresses, empirical
relationships that are established using a limited number of experiments cannot be used
as a general model for all conditions. Kraft, et al. (1981) proposed that the load transfer
mechanism is more significant than ultimate resistances where considering service loads.
Therefore, they adapted existing approaches to obtain ultimate resistances and used
26
theoretical concepts to create a t-z model. For piles under service load, Kraft, et al. (1981)
used a linear elastic soil model developed by Randolph and Wroth (1978). The
assumptions used included that the deformation mode of the soil around the pile is
considered to be the shearing of concentric cylinders, and radial deformations are
neglected. A brief outline of the expressions, mostly from Randolph and Wroth (1978)
are presented in the following pages.
Figure ‎2.11: Concentric cylinder model for settlement analysis of axially loaded piles (modified from
Randolph and Wroth 1978).
Vertical equilibrium of the soil element of Figure 2.11 can be expressed as:
where is the shear stress, and is the total vertical stress. Since after loading a pile, the
rate of change in shear stress around the pile is much larger than the vertical total stress,
which can be considered constant, the Equation 2.22 can be simplified to:
27
The shear strain can be calculated from in which is the radial
displacement and is neglected, represents the vertical displacement. According to the
relationship between shear strain and shear stress for linear elastic soils as
, the settlement of the pile shaft can be determined from (Randolph and Wroth 1978):
where equals the distance at which shear stresses in the soil become negligible, and
equals the shear modulus of the soil at distance . There are several, mostly empirical,
relationships for calculating , such as the relationship proposed by Randolph and
Wroth (1978):
where is the pile embedment depth, represents the factor of vertical homogeneity of
soil stiffness which is the ratio of soil shear modulus at the middle of the pile to its
amount at pile tip, and is the Poisson's ratio of the soil. This model results in an
equivalent linear t-z curve, as shown in Figure 2.12.

28
Figure ‎2.12: Linear t-z curve obtained using Randolph and Wroth (1978) (after FHWA 2013).
2.3.2.2 Empirical t-z Curves
Equation 2.1 implies that the maximum shaft resistance and toe bearing are mobilized
simultaneously, and is independent of pile movement. However, results from load tests
on instrumented piles do not support this assumption. It has been observed that for small
loading, pile movement occurs mostly near the top of the pile and is resisted largely by
shaft resistance. Further increases in the applied load results in larger movements of the
pile head due to the elastic deformation of the pile and downward movement of the pile
toe, such that the total pile head movement is described by (Vijayvergiya 1977):
where is the movement of the pile head, represents the movement of the pile toe,
and is the elastic compression of the pile.

29
The downward movement of any desired depth of the pile can be calculated by
knowing the load distribution as a function of the pile depth.
where is the downward movement of pile at any desire depth, represents the
movement of the pile head, is the area of the pile, defined as pile modulus, and
is the load at the considered depth. Coyle and Reese (1966) proposed a criterion for the
determination of load transfer in clay, presented in Figure 2.13(a). Later, a similar
criterion by Coyle and Sulaiman (1967) was proposed for sand as demonstrated in Figure
2.13(b).
Figure ‎2.13: (a) Normalized load transfer curves for clay proposed by Coyle and Reese 1966 and (b)
Normalized skin friction curves for sand proposed by Coyle and Solaiman 1967.
According to Vijayverjia (1977) the load transfer mobilized at any depth can be
represented using:
( √ ⁄ ⁄ )
30
where is the unit shaft resistance mobilized along a pile segment at movement ,
represents the ultimate unit shaft resistance, and defines as the critical movement of
the pile segment at which is mobilized. According to experiments by Vijayverjia
(1977), can considered equal to about 0.3 inches or 8 mm for sands.
Figure ‎2.14: Normalized skin friction curve for clay and sand proposed by Vijayverjia (1977).
O’Neill and Reese (1999) developed charts from full scale experiments of drilled
shafts to relate mobilized shaft resistance normalized by the ultimate shaft resistance,
with pile settlement normalized by the pile toe diameter in percent, shown in Figure 2.15.
As indicated in the graph, O’Neil and Reese (1999) predicted that the ultimate shaft
resistance would be reached in a settlement of about 1 percent of the pile diameter. They
also included minor decreasing trend in the shaft resistance values after reaching the
maximum value, for use with deflection softening soils.

31
1.2
0.8
𝑀𝑜𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑
𝑈𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒
0.6
𝑓𝑠 𝐴𝑠
𝑓𝑠 𝐴𝑠
0.4
Range for Deflection Softening

Response
0.2 Range for Deflection Hardening
Response
Trend
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
δ/B (%)
Figure ‎2.15: Normalized curves of load transfer in side friction vs. settlement for drilled shafts in sand
(O'Neill and Reese 1999).
2.3.2.3 q-z Curves for Toe Bearing Capacity
Results from load tests show that ultimate toe resistance, if at all possible to be
achieved, is mobilized at very large toe movements. Therefore, , the critical
displacement, can be defined as the point at which the maximum unit bearing capacity of
the pile toe is mobilized. The critical displacement also is typically defined as a function
32
of the pile toe diameter and ranges from 0.04Dt to 0.06Dt where Dt is pile toe diameter.
The mobilized unit toe bearing pressure at any movement can be obtained from
(Vijayverjia 1977):
where is the ultimate toe bearing, equals the critical displacement corresponding to
the , and refers to the toe bearing mobilized at movement of . Values for at
the pile toe can be obtained from Equation 2.3 or other proposed relationships.
Figure 2.16 shows normalized q-z curve described by (Vijayverjia 1977) for clay and
sand, where the ratio of ⁄ gradually increases to its maximum value and remains
constant thereafter. This behavior is not typical of most piles bearing in sand.
Figure ‎2.16: Normalized q-z curve for clay and sand (Vijayverjia 1977).
Later, O’Neill and Reese (1999) developed charts from the full scale experiments to
define a relationship between the mobilized toe bearing resistance normalized by the
ultimate toe resistance, and the pile settlement normalized by the pile toe diameter in
percent. The resultant graph is provided in Figure 2.17. This graph does not indicate an
33
ultimate resistance, as there typically is not an ‘ultimate’ toe bearing resistance in
granular soils. However, in practice, the pile settlement of about 10 percent of the pile
diameter is considered as the point where the toe bearing capacity would be mobilized.
1.8
1.6
1.4
𝑀𝑜𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑
𝑈𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒
1.2
1
𝑞𝑡 𝐴𝑡
𝑞𝑡 𝐴𝑡
0.8
0.6
Range
Trend
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
δ/B (%)
Figure ‎2.17: Normalized curves of load transfer in toe bearing vs. settlement for drilled shafts in sand
(after O'Neill and Reese 1999).
34
2.4 Summary
In this chapter, a brief overview of drilled foundations and their applications were
presented. A detailed description of augered cast-in-place (ACIP) piles, including
installation method, was provided. The existing relationships for calculation of ultimate
shaft and toe resistances were discussed and relevant load transfer models were
summarized. It has been noted that most of the existing relationships and load transfer
models are generated from the drilled shaft specific experimental results; therefore,
application of such expressions for ACIP piles can reduce the accuracy of the load-
displacement model. In the following chapters the database and procedures to generate a
ACIP pile specific load-displacement model will be presented to address the apparent gap
in ACIP pile design.

35
3 Research Objectives
The global objective of this study is to develop an ACIP pile specific t-z model to use
with the granular soils of Western Washington. The proposed t-z model will be
incorporated with previously established q-z models, such as those by O’Neill and Reese
(1999), to create a load-displacement and load transfer prediction model that can be used
to estimate the behavior of augered cast-in-place piles. The following specific objectives
comprise the goals of this study:
1. Develop the load transfer behavior for each of six instrumented piles based on
strain gage measurements;
2. Determine empirical t-z curves derived from field measurements of each of six
instrumented test piles;
3. Determination of a suitable approach for determining the uncertainty in the
empirical t-z model;
4. Generate a general t-z model and quantify the associated uncertainty; and,
5. Simulate the observed load test data and evaluate the accuracy and variability of
the load-displacement behavior.
The research program performed to achieve the objectives outlined above includes:
1. Development of the soil profiles for each test case and the determination of
appropriate geotechnical parameters;
2. Generation of the empirical t-z curves and normalizing the curves to generalize
the observed behavior;

36
3. Selecting and calibrating existing q-z curves for use with ACIP piles;
4. Predicting the observed load-displacement curves of the instrumented and
independent un-instrumented ACIP piles in West Washington granular soils;
5. Using the statistics of variability in the t-z and q-z model to simulate numerous
load-displacement curves using Monte Carlo Simulation; and,
6. Comparing the actual and estimated loads at specific displacements to estimate
the variability of the new procedure.

37
4 Database of Loading Test Cases
This chapter provides the details of the full-scale experimental load tests previously
conducted on ACIP piles that form the basis for this study. The experimental data are
used in this study to develop a new t-z and q-z model based load-displacement prediction
tool. The measurements in this database are adopted from two sets of test series, termed
the 1997 and 2009 Test Series.
4.1 Static Pile Load Test Data for 1997 Test Series
4.1.1 General
A series of static load tests were performed in the state of Washington and reported
by Gurtowski (1997). The loading tests were performed in accordance with the Quick
Load Test Method as described in ASTM D-1143-74. Static load tests were performed
for six ACIP piles, the length and diameter of which varied from 9 to 22 m and 406 to
460 mm, respectively. Table 4.1 summarizes the geometric details and location of the test
piles.
Table ‎4.1: Geometric details and locations of test piles for the 1997 Test Series, after Gurtowski (1997).
Load Test Diameter Length

Location
Name (mm) (m)
1997-1 406.4 9.45 Keyport, WA
1997-2 406.4 9.45 Keyport, WA
1997-3 406.4 14.94 Bremerton, WA
1997-4 406.4 21.34 Bremerton, WA
1997-5 406.4 12.2 Richland, WA
1997-6 457.2 10.36 Seattle, WA
38
The pile loading tests were conducted in the Western Washington region, for which
the geological strata consists of dense sand to silty sand and very dense gravel to gravelly
sand. Occasionally, a relatively thin weak silt or clay layer was observed in some boring
logs.
None of the test cases in the 1997 Test Series reached an ultimate resistance;
therefore, Gurtowski (1997) applied the stability plot procedure to estimate the value of
the ultimate loads. The stability plot procedure is described by Neely (1991) and does not
account for soil-pile interaction effects. To improve the results from stability plot method,
Gurtowski (1997) applied the t-z model proposed by Kraft (1981) and a q-z model by
Vijayvergiya (1977) to estimate loads at large displacements. The simulated loads
resulted in a 12 to 30 mm deflection of the pile heads, which corresponded to a deflection
of 3 to 7.5 percent of pile diameter. The ultimate values proposed by Gurtowski (1997)
will be utilized as references for comparison purposes. Figure 4.1 presents the loading
test results along with stability plot method prediction and proposed ultimate loads
reported by Gurtowski (1997).
Test piles in the 1997 Test Series were subjected to loads up to 3336 kN, achieved for
pile 1997-6 and which resulted in a maximum head deflection of 28 mm. On the other
hand, the smallest maximum load corresponded to pile 1997-2, equal to 884 kN and 3.6
mm of pile head movement. The ultimate loads and corresponding pile head
displacements proposed by Gurtowski (1997) showed a wide range of values, with the
minimum of 1446 kN and pile head displacement of 12.7 mm for pile 1997-1 and the
maximum head deflection of 31 mm with 3114 kN load for pile 1997-4.

39
Load (kN) Load (kN)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
0 0
(a) (b)
5 5
Head Displacement (mm)

10 10
15 15
20 20
Actual measurements Actual measurements
25 Stability plot results 25 Stability plot results
Proposed ultimate by Gurtowski (1997) Proposed ultimate by Gurtowski (1997)
30 30
Load (kN) Load (kN)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
0 0
(c) (d)
5
10
10
20
15
30
20
Stability plot results 40 Stability plot results
25
30 50
Load (kN) Load (kN)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
0 0
(e) (f)
10 10
20 20
30 30
40 Actual measurements 40 Actual measurements

Stability plot results Stability plot results
50 Proposed ultimate by Gurtowski (1997) 50 Proposed ultimate by Gurtowski (1997)
Figure ‎4.1: Comparison between actual load-displacement and predications from the stability plot
method, along with the ultimate loads proposed by Gurtowski (1997): (a) Test 1997-1, (b) Test 1997-2,
(c) Test 1997-3, (d) Test 1997-4, (e) Test 1997-5, (f) Test 1997-6.
40
4.1.2 Development of Soil Profile and Soil Parameters for the 1997 Test Series
In order to evaluate the load-displacement response of the test piles, the soil profile
for each pile must be developed from the vicinity of the pile. In the 1997 Test Series, at
least one boring with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was performed near each test
pile. Boring logs indicated the SPT N-values, soil stratigraphy, and ground water table
elevations. These SPT N-values were used with empirical relationships to estimate soil
parameters such as the unit weight and the friction angle. To determine the friction angle,
the relationship proposed by Wolff (1989) was used.
where is the friction angle in degrees and represents the SPT N-value. The unit
weight of the soil layers was estimated using the range of values recommended in the
ODOT Geotechnical Design Manual (2009), which is modified from Meyerhof (1956),
and outlined in Table 4.2.
Soil profiles and parameters for all the piles were generated from boring data by
means of Equation 4.1 and Table 4.2. A linear regression was assumed for computing the
unit weights from Table 4.2. Figures 4.2 through 4.7 illustrate the SPT N-values, unit
weight, friction angle, and a simplified soil profile for each test case. The observed
ground water elevation is shown with a dashed line on the soil profiles.
41
Table ‎4.2: Criteria for the estimation of unit weight, adopted from ODOT Geotechnical Design Manual
(2009).
Unit Weight
SPT N-value
(kN/m3)
0 to 4 11.0 - 15.7
4 to 10 14.1 - 18.1
10 to 30 17.3 - 20.4
30 to 50 18.9 - 22.0
greater than 50 20.4 - 23.6
(a) (b) (c) (d)

(a) (a) (a)
) ) )
Figure ‎4.2: Subsurface information for test pile 1997-1: (a) SPT N-value, (b) unit weight, (c) friction
angle, (d) soil profile.
42
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure ‎4.3: Subsurface information for test pile 1997-2: (a) SPT N-value, (b) Unit weight, (c) friction
(a) (b) (c) (d)
43
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(a) (b) (c) (d)
44
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Generally, SPT N-values in granular soils, and hence the unit weight and friction
angles, usually increase with depth. Despite some minor variations, this behavior is noted
in the 1997 Test Series. Except for pile 1997-2 and 1997-6, which contains layers of
cohesive soil in their profiles, the 1997 Test Series are embedded in mostly granular
strata. Furthermore, the values of unit weight and friction angle extend from 14 to 23
kN/m3 and 28 to 50 degrees. The unit weights are used to calculate the vertical effective
stress along each pile. For cases where a layer of cohesive soil was presented in the soil
profile, such as piles 1997-2, 1997-4 and 1997-6, no values of the friction angle are
reported for cohesive layers.

45
4.2 Load Transfer and Static Load Test Results for 2009 Test Series
4.2.1 General
The 2009 Test Series, completed in the Western Washington region and reported by
Gurtowski (2009), provided second database measurements. Static loading tests were
performed on six piles, including four augered cast-in-place (ACIP) piles and two driven
grout (DG) piles, in accordance with the Quick Load Test Method as described in ASTM
D-1143-74. Additionally, these piles were instrumented vertically along the shaft by pairs
of strain gages, as described in Section 4.2.3. Table 4.3 shows the geometric details and
locations of the piles tested. The length and diameter of piles in 2009 Test Series are
varied from 21.9 to 29 m and 406.4 to 508 mm respectively.
Table ‎4.3: Geometric details and locations of test piles for the 2009 Test Series, after Gurtowski (2009).
Load Test Diameter Length

Pile Type Location
Name (mm) (m)
2009-1 457 29 ACIP Kent, WA
2009-2 457 29 ACIP Kent, WA
2009-3 406 24.4 DG Kent, WA
2009-4 508 21.9 ACIP Tukwila, WA
2009-5 508 23.9 ACIP Tukwila, WA
2009-6 406 24.7 DG Tukwila, WA
Similar to 1997 Test Series, none of the piles in 2009 Test Series were subjected to
ultimate loading condition. Therefore, the stability plot and load transfer functions, in this
case the O’Neill and Reese (1999) method, allowed the approximation of the ultimate
loads and corresponding displacements (Gurtowski, 2009). Ultimate loads were assumed
46
to occur at pile head movements of about 10 percent of pile diameter which is about 38 to
51 mm pile head deflection. Figure 4.8 presents the load displacement measurements and
ultimate loads estimations by Gurtowski (2009).
Although the 1997 and 2009 Test Series were completed in a similar geologic
environment in Western Washington, the capacity differed significantly between the two
groups of piles. The source of these apparent differences is that, piles are much longer in
the 2009 Test Series, and resulted in a greater mobilized shaft resistance. Test piles in the
2009 Test Series were subjected to load up to 3793 kN, achieved for pile 2009-1 and
which resulted in 25.2 mm pile head deflection. Also, ultimate loads predicted by
Gurtowski (2009) ranged from the maximum of 6477 kN for pile 2009-1 with pile head
movement of 51 mm to the minimum of 5480 kN for both driven grout (DG) piles of
2009-3 and 2009-6.
4.2.2 Development of Soil Profiles and Soil Parameters for the 2009 Test Series
Similar to the 1997 Test Series, boring logs from the 2009 Test Series were used with
Equation 4.1 and Table 4.2 to estimate the soil parameters. Figures 4.9 to 4.14 present the
SPT N-values, unit weight, friction angle and simplified soil profile for each test case.
The observed ground elevation is demonstrated by a dashed line on the soil profiles. It is
noted that the values of unit weight and friction angle ranged from 12 to 23 kN/m3 and 27
to 48 degrees. Thin layers of cohesive soils were observed for all the piles in 2009 Test
Series, except for 2009-1 and 2009-2 test piles, and therefore, no values of friction angle
are calculated for these layers.

47
Load (kN) Load (kN)

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
0 0
(a)
10 10 (b)

20 20
30 30
40 40
50 Actual measurements 50
Actual measurements
Load (kN) Load (kN)

0 2000 4000 6000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
0 0
(c) (d)
10 10
20 20
30 30
40 40
50 50
60 60
Load (kN) Load (kN)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000
0 0
(e) 5 (f)
10
10
20 15
20
30
25
40 30
35
50
Actual measurements 40 Actual measurements
Figure ‎4.8: Comparison between actual load-displacement and the ultimate loads proposed by
Gurtowski (2009): (a) Test 2009-1, (b) Test 2009-2, (c) Test 2009-3, (d), (e) Test 2009-5, (f) Test 2009-6.
48
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(a) (b) (c) (d)
49
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(a) (b) (c) (d)
50
(a) (b) (c) (d)

(a)
)
(a) (b) (c) (d)

(a)
)
51
4.2.3 Description of the instrumentation of Piles in 2009 Test Series
Piles in the 2009 Test Series were instrumented vertically along the shaft by pairs of
strain gages of the vibrating wire concrete embedment-type, to allow the calculation of
the actual load transfer along the pile. These strain gages were installed in intervals of
approximately 3 m, beginning from the depth equal to twice the pile diameter. The total
number of strain gages on each pile depended on the resolution of load transfer
distribution and extra strain gages were added in intervals less than 3 m where needed.
4.2.4 Determination of Composite Modulus
To determine the actual load transfer behavior of instrumented ACIP piles, data from
the strain gages must be interpreted into the corresponding stresses, and loads, along the
pile. The conversion of strain to stress requires the use of the composite modulus of the
pile to define the strain-stress relationship. As a rough approximation, the percentage of
concrete and steel at each section of the pile can be used to calculate the composite
modulus, however, Stuedlein and Gurtowski (2012) suggested that the implementation of
such a simple composite modulus could result in significant errors in the load transfer
calculations. To improve the load transfer distributions presented in Gurtowski (2009),
Stuedlein and Gurtowski (2012) analyzed strain gages using the Fellenius (1989) tangent
modulus method given by:

52
where equals the tangent modulus, represents the best fit slope, and equals the
intercept of best fit line. Stuedlein and Gurtowski (2012) calculated the tangent modulus
values for six instrumented test piles and found that the tangent modulus decreases with
increasing strain, to a lower limit line, which equals the tangent modulus that was obtained
from the first strain gage near pile head. An example of such a calculation is presented in
Figure 4.15 for test pile 2009-4. Stuedlein and Gurtowski (2012) performed this
calculation for all the instrumented test piles to obtain a relationship between the best fit
slope (m) and the amount of steel in pile. The proposed relationship for the coefficient m
can be estimated using:
where is area of steel at considered pile section, developed by Stuedlein and Gurtowski
(2012), and provided in Figure 4.16.
Figure ‎4.15: Calculations of tangentmodulus for all strain gages on pile 2009-4 and demonstration of
their approach to the lower limit presented by strin gages near pile head, after Stuedlein and
Gurtowski (2012).
53
Figure ‎4.16: Tangent modulus slope for 2009 Test Series, adopted from Stuedlein and Gurtowski
(2012).
4.2.5 Load Transfer
Strain readings from strain gages were interpreted by means of Equations 4.2 and 4.3
to develop the load transfer distribution of each instrumented pile. After generating the
load transfer distributions, these curves were investigated for reasonableness of load
transfer along the pile. At some depths a sudden increase in load was observed, which
may be the result of one or two contributing effects: the effect of the residual loads, and
errors in the instrumentation. For further investigation of the errors, corresponding soil
profiles were studied and it was observed that such unusual behaviors typically occurs in
strain gages close to an abrupt change in soil profile. The problematic strain readings
were replaced by a linear interpolation of the neighboring load values. An example of
such justifications, which were performed at maximum of two depths, is presented in
Figure 4.17 for test pile 2009-5. Figures 4.18 through 4.23 provide the interpolated load
transfer curves for the 2009 Test Series.

54
Load (kN) Load (kN)

0 2000 4000 0 2000 4000
0 0
(a) (b)
5 5
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
10 10
15 15
20 20
Figure ‎4.17: An example of the interpolation of pile 2009-6: (a) as observed, (b) after interpolation.
Load (kN)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
0
5 116
231
347
Depth (m)
10 463
694
810
925
15 1041
1157
1272
20 1388
1503
1619
1735
25 1850
1966
2082
30 2197
Figure ‎4.18: Interpolated load transfer curve for test pile 2009-1.
55
Load (kN)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
0
5 116
231
347
Depth (m)
10 463
578
694
15 810
925
1041
20 1157
1272
1388
25 1503
1619
1735
30 1850
1966
Load (kN)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0
116
231
347
5 463
578
694
810
925
Depth (m)
10 1041
1157
1272
1388
1503
15 1619
1735
1850
1966
20 2082
2197
2313
2544
2776
25
56
Load (kN)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0
167
334
5 501
667
834
Depth (m)
10 1001
1168
1334
1501
15
1835
2002
2335
20 2669
3003
3203
25
Load (kN)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0
334
Depth (m)
10 667
1001
1334
15 1668
2002
2335
2669
20
3003
3203
25
57
Load (kN)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0
10
334
Depth (m)
667
15 1001
1334
1668
20
2002
2335
25 2669
30
4.3 Summary
In this chapter a general description of databases of two test series, 1997 and 2009,
was presented, including the results of static loading tests. Also, for each test series, soil
profiles and soil parameters were obtained by using boring log records and empirical
relationships. For Test Series 2009, which contained the results of instrumented test piles,
load transfer distributions were generated by using the tangent modulus values and
reading of the strain gages along each test pile. This data will be used to provide the
required parameters for development of the new ACIP pile specific t-z model.
58
5 Development of a Load Transfer Model for Augered Cast-in Place Piles
5.1 Introduction
To predict the load-displacement behavior of a pile under an axial loading condition,
the mechanism of load transfer from the pile to the surrounding soil should be known.
Although there are several existing static capacity analysis methods to estimate the
distribution of the mobilized resistance, these methods are only valid for the assumed
condition of ultimate resistance. To account for all loading cases, prediction models
require a relationship between the mobilized resistance and the relative displacement
between the pile and the soil. None of the t-z or q-z based prediction models discussed in
the literature review chapter are directly applicable for ACIP piles. As many previous
studies revealed, such as Neely (1991), Gurtowski (2000) and O’Neill et al. (2002),
application of drilled shaft load-displacement relationships for ACIP piles might lead to
an underestimation of the ultimate and mobilized pile resistance, particularly the shaft
resistance. Therefore, a more appropriate prediction model for ACIP piles may be needed
and could result in more accurate load-displacement model. The following section will
discuss the development of a new load-displacement using t-z curves developed for the
ACIP piles described in Chapter 4.
5.2 Development of the t-z Model
Soil adjacent to a pile can be approximated by a series of nonlinear springs along and
at the pile toe, to represent the constitutive behavior of the soil-pile interface. The
59
nonlinear stiffness for springs along the pile is defined by relationship between mobilized
load per unit area, as a shear stress, t, and the relative movement between pile and soil, z,
as described in Chapter 2. Since t-z models are typically established from the
experimental results, their performance is significantly dependent on the specific pile
type and installation method, pile geometry and soil profile. The 2009 Test Series include
six instrumented piles, four of which are ACIP piles and two are driven grout piles, hence
the results from four ACIP piles are employed to develop an ACIP pile specific t-z
model.
To determine t-z model parameters, the load-displacement curve and load transfer for
each loading case is required. Load transfer curves are employed to calculate t and
combination of the load-displacement curve and load transfer results are used to obtain
the relative soil-pile displacement, z. The t-z model parameters are obtained for each
instrumented depth of the ACIP piles.
5.2.1 Calculation of Pile Shear Stress, t
Load transfer curves provide the amount of load being transferred to the surrounding
soil at any depth. Therefore, the load transfer rate, , at each particular depth, , can be
defined as the rate of change in load per unit length of the pile. This ratio is calculated
from the central difference scheme, except for last depth of each pile where the backward
scheme is used, as explained in Equation 5.1:

60
where represents the load transfer per unit length at depth ⁄ , and and
are the amount of load at depth and as indicated in Figure 5.1,
respectively. Consequently to determine value of t, the load transfer per unit length is
divided by the corresponding pile circumference as shown in Equation 5.2:
where t is the load transfer per unit area (kPa) and equals the circumference of the pile
at the desired depth. By calculating Equations 5.1 and 5.2 at each depth, for all loading
cases, a series of values for parameter t is achieved for each pile head displacement and
for each of four ACIP piles.

61
Load (kN)
𝑸𝒅𝒊 𝟏 𝑸𝒅𝒊 𝟏
𝒅𝒊 𝟏
𝒅𝒊
𝒅𝒊 𝟏
Depth (m)
Figure ‎5.1: Schematic illustration showing definitions of depths and corresponding loads from load
transfer curves in the calculation procedure.
5.2.2 Calculation the Relative Soil-Pile Movement, z
The relative movement of each point of a pile to the surrounding soil, z, can be
defined using the pile head movement and the cumulative elastic deformation at a desired
depth. The elastic deformation at each point includes the effect of load distribution and
modulus along the pile up to the point considered. Consequently, the amount of relative
movement, z, decreases due to increase in cumulative elastic deformation, with depth.
Equation 5.3 describes the calculation of z:
∑
62
where z equals the relative movement between pile and soil, H is the observed pile head
displacement from load-displacement results, and equals the elastic deformation of
pile segment d,i. To obtain the elastic deformation, , of each pile segment, the
classical relationship for elastic deformation, as defined in Equation 5.4, is used:
where is the load that changes with depth, represents the length of pile on which
load is applied, is the tangent modulus that is assumed to be constant along each
particular segment of pile for a given loading increment, as described in Chapter 4, and
equals area of the pile at the segment considered. Since the load is known at each
instrumented depth, by assuming a linear variation of load between two consecutive
depths, the average of two consecutive loads is considered as a constant load, Pd,i, for
each segment of length Ld,i. Similarly, the product of Pd,i and Ld,i can be calculated from
the load transfer curve as the area between the curve and depth axis, as presented in
Figure 5.2. By combining Equations 5.3 and 5.4 at each depth for all loading cases, a
series of values for z was generated for each of four ACIP piles.
63
Load (kN)
𝑷𝑳 𝟏
𝒅𝟏
𝑷𝑳 𝟐
𝒅𝟐
𝑷𝑳 𝟑
𝒅𝟑
Depth (m)
Figure ‎5.2: A Schematic illustration of Pd,i and Ld,i product, as an area on a load transfer curve.
5.2.3 Normalizing Parameters
In order to develop a general expression for a load-displacement model, the dataset of
t-z curves, which are specified for different depths of different piles, should be
aggregated into a global formulation. This study attempts to generalize the formulation
by introducing normalizing parameters that can help reduce the variability between piles
with different soil parameters and geometries. Two normalizing parameters are proposed
for each of the factors in t-z model: shear stress and displacement.
64
For many previously suggested t-z models, such as models proposed by Vijayvergiya
(1977) and O’Neill and Reese (1999), the parameter that was used for normalizing the t
parameter is the ultimate shaft resistance, . Although ultimate shaft resistance is a term
that includes relevant soil characteristics, this value is associated with the uncertainty
associated with the coefficient, which will be transferred to the load-displacement
model. An alternative approach is to normalize t by the vertical effective stress. The
tabulated values of t are normalized with vertical effective stress in order to create a
dataset for calibrating an ACIP pile specific t-z model. Additionally, the pile diameter is
used to normalize the z parameter to further reduce the variability in the t-z model.
5.2.4 Proposed t-z Model Parameters
The t-z values are computed according to Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 for each depth,
corresponding to strain gage locations on the original test piles. Then the values of t-z are
normalized according to Section 5.2.3 with and for t and z, respectively. In order to
generalize the t-z model formulation, each series of normalized t-z values are
approximated by a power expression fitted using ordinary least square minimization:
( )
where is vertical effective stress at the depth considered, D equals pile diameter, and a
and b are the fitting parameters which defined for each depth. Figures 5.3 to 5.6 compare
the experimental and fitted normalized t-z curves for each ACIP pile. The relative pile-
soil movement, , decreased noticeably with depth, in a manner such that the
65
maximum and minimum values of relative pile-soil movement occurred at first and last
instrumented depth of each pile. For example, the relative pile-soil movement was as 0.08
at depth of 0.6 m in Pile 2009-2 and 0.008 at depth of 11 m in Pile 2009-4. The reason for
this decrease is the transfer of load to the soil and therefore a decrease in the elastic
compression with depth. Additionally, the t-z curves exhibit a post-peak displacement-
softening response for near surface pile-soil locations. This behavior is attributed to the
effect of dilation at low confining pressures. This post-peak displacement-softening
response is most noticeable for depths of 0.9 m for the Pile 2009-1 and 0.6 m for Pile
2009-2.
66
1.5 4
(a) 3
1
(b)
t/σ'
t/σ'
2
0.5
1
0 0
0 0.02 Z/D 0.04 0.06 0 0.01 0.02 Z/D 0.03 0.04 0.05
2.5 1
(c) (d)
2
1.5
t/σ'
t/σ'
0.5
1
0.5
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 Z/D 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.01 0.02 Z/D 0.03 0.04 0.05
0.6
1.2 (e) (f)
0.4
0.8
t/σ'
t/σ'
0.4 0.2
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Z/D Z/D
0.5 0.8
(g) (h)
0.6
t/σ'
0.25
t/σ'
0.4
0.2
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Z/D Z/D
0.6 0.25
(i) (j)
0.5 0.2
0.4
0.15
t/σ'
t/σ'
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1 0.05
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
Z/D Z/D
Figure ‎5.3: Comparison of experimental and fitted t-z curves for pile 2009-1: (a) d = 0.91 m, (b) d =
3.96 m, (c) d = 7 m, (d) d = 10.06 m, (e) d = 13.11 m, (f) d = 16.15 m(g) d = 19.2 m, (h) d = 22.25 m, (i) d
= 25.3 m, (j) d = 26.2 m.
67
8
(a) 2.5 (b)
6 2
t/σ' 1.5
4
t/σ'
1
2
0.5
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Z/D Z/D
2.5 2.5
(c)
2 2 (d)
1.5 1.5
t/σ'
t/σ'
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Z/D Z/D
1.2 0.5
1 (e) 0.4 (f)
0.8 0.3
t/σ'
t/σ'
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.2 0.1
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Z/D Z/D
(g) 0.5
(h)
0.45
0.3
0.25
t/σ'
t/σ'
0.15
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Z/D Z/D
0.5 0.5
(i) (j)
0.25 0.25
t/σ'
t/σ'
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Z/D Z/D
0.4
(k)
0.2
t/σ'
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Z/D
Figure ‎5.4: Comparison of experimental and fitted t-z curves for pile 2009-2: (a) d = 0.61 m, (b) d =
3.05 m(c) d = 6.1 m, (d) d = 9.14 m, (e) d = 12.19 m, (f) d = 15.24 m, (g) d = 18.3 m, (h) d = 21.34 m:(i) d
= 24.4 m, (j) d = 27.4 m, (k) d = 28.4 m.
68
1.8 (a) 0.45 (b)
1.2 0.3
t/σ'
t/σ'
0.6 0.15
0 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Z/D Z/D
0.16 (c) 0.14 (d)
0.12
t/σ'
t/σ'
0.08 0.07
0.04
0 0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
Z/D Z/D
Figure ‎5.5: Comparison of experimental and fitted t-z curves for pile 2009-4: (a) d = 2.0 m, (b) d = 5.2
m, (c) d = 8.2 m, (d) d = 11.0 m.
69
1.6 1.2 (b)

(a)
1.2
0.8
t/σ'
t/σ'
0.8
0.4
0.4
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
Z/D Z/D
0.8
(c)
0.4 (d)
0.6 0.3
t/σ'
0.4 0.2
t/σ'
0.2 0.1
0 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Z/D Z/D
0.25 0.35
(e) (f)
0.2 0.28
0.15 0.21
t/σ'
t/σ'
0.1 0.14
0.05 0.07
0 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Z/D Z/D
0.45 0.35
(g) (h)
0.36 0.28
0.27 0.21
t/σ'
t/σ'
0.18 0.14
0.09 0.07
0 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0 0.004 0.008 0.012
Z/D Z/D
Figure ‎5.6: Comparison of experimental and fitted t-z curves for pile 2009-5: (a) d = 2.0 m, (b) d = 5.0
m(c) d = 8.0 m, (d) d = 11.0 m, (e) d = 14.2 m, (f) d = 17.2 m, (g) d = 20.3 m, (h) d = 23.3 m.
70
Following the calculation of the fitted t-z model parameters (i.e. a and b), a dataset
consisting of a and b as function of normalized depth was pooled together for analysis.
In order to generalize the variation of a and b with depth for use in an augered cast-in-
place pile specific t-z model, various functions, such as power and exponential
expressions, for a and b were investigated. Equation 5.6 and 5.7 describe the proposed
functions for a and b in the t-z model, which were derived by minimization of the square
errors:
( )
( )
Figure 5.7 and 5.8 provide a comparison between proposed expression and actual
measurements for a and b respectively. Equation 5.6 is characterized with a mean bias of
1.10 and COV in bias of 96 percent. For Equation 5.7, the mean bias equals 1.0 and the
COV in bias equals 20 percent.

71
a-Coefficient
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
10
20
30
d*
40
50
Fitted to Measurements
60
Proposed Relationship
70
Figure ‎5.7: Comparison between the experimentally-derived coefficient a and the proposed
relationship.
b-Coefficient
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
0
10
20
30
d*
40
50
60
Fitted to Measurements
70 Proposed Relationship
Figure ‎5.8: Comparison between the experimentally-derived coefficient b and the proposed
relationship.
72
5.3 Selected q-z Model
Where t-z models are used to estimate the relationships of stiffness and resistance of
approximating springs along the pile, q-z models are responsible for defining the stiffness
and capacity of the pile toe. One of the previously proposed q-z models recommended by
the FHWA (O’Neill and Reese 1999), presented in Figure 2.17, is adapted along with
Equation 2.14 from Stuedlein et al. (2012) to determine the ultimate toe resistance for use
with the proposed t-z relationship to create an ACIP specific load-displacement model.
5.4 Evaluation of the Proposed Load-Transfer Model
To examine the ability of the proposed t-z model in capturing the load transfer
mechanism, a comparison was performed for the four instrumented ACIP piles in 2009
Test Series. For each ACIP pile, the measured load transfer values were compared to
those predicted by the proposed t-z model and results for five loading cases are presented
in Figure 5.9. Although some minor differences were observed for larger loads on piles
2009-4 and 2009-5, the comparison indicated that the proposed model can provide
suitable estimates of the load transfer for ACIP piles, particularly for service level
displacements.
73
Load (kN) Load (kN)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
0 0
5 5
10 10
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
15 15
Measured
Measured
Predicted
20 20 Predicted
25 25
(a) (b)
30 30
Load (kN) Load (kN)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
0 0
3 3
6 6
9 9
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
12 12
15 15
Measured
Measured
Predicted Predicted
18 18
21 21
(c) (d)
Figure ‎5.9: Comparison between the measured load transfers and those approximated by the proposed
t-z model for piles, (a) 2009-1, (b) 2009-2, (c) 2009-4, (d) 2009-5.
74
5.5 Comparison of Results to 2009 and 1997 Test Series
To evaluate the proposed prediction model, the suggested t-z expressions along with
O’Neill and Reese (1999) q-z model are employed to predict the load-displacement
behavior of the ACIP piles in both test series. Figure 5.10 shows the comparison between
the measured and predicted load-displacement behavior of piles in the 2009 Test Series.
The proposed model provides a good agreement with actual measurements, as shown in
the figures; however the displacements are slightly under-predicted. This under-
prediction is the most noticeable for Pile 2009-5, which may be caused by the presence of
a layer of cohesive for this pile. Statistical analysis of the model will be discussed in
Chapter 6.
75
Load (kN) Load (kN)

0 2000 4000 6000 0 2000 4000 6000
0 0
(a) (b)
5
5
Proposed Model Proposed Model
Measurements 10 Measurements
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
10
15
15
20
20
25
25 30
30 35
Load (kN) Load (kN)

0 2000 4000 0 2000 4000 6000
0 0
(c) (d)
2
2 Proposed Model Proposed Model
4
Measurements Measurements
6
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
4
8
6 10
12
8
14
16
10
18
12 20
Figure ‎5.10: Comparison between field measurements and predictions of proposed model: (a)Test pile
2009-1, (b) Test pile 2009-2, (c) Test pile 2009-4, (d) Test pile 2009-5.
76
Figure 5.11 provides the comparison between predicted load-displacement behavior
of the 1997 Test Series with actual measurements, supplemented with the predictions
suggested by Gurtowski (1997). There is a good agreement between the predicted load-
displacement behavior and the field measurements. A difference is noted between the
slope of the load-displacement predictions suggested by Gurtowski (1997) and the
proposed model results which can be attributed to the implementation of a different q-z
model and the extrapolation used by Gurtowski (1997). Due to the fact that toe of pile
1997-6 is embedded in glacial till, the selected q-z model does not appear appropriate for
this geologic unit.
Load (kN) Load (kN)

0 1000 2000 3000 0 1000 2000 3000
0 0
(a) (b)
5 5
10 10
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
15 15
20 20
25 25
Proposed Model
Proposed Model
30 Proposed By Gurtowski (1997) 30 Proposed By Gurtowski (1997)
Figure ‎5.11: Comparison between field measurements and predictions of proposed model for: (a) Test
pile 1997-1, (b) Test pile 1997-2.
77
Load (kN) Load (kN)

0 2000 4000 0 2000 4000
0 0
(c) (d)
5
5
10
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
10 15
20
15
25
20 30
35
25
Proposed Model 40 Proposed Model
30 Proposed By Gurtowski (1997) 45 Proposed By Gurtowski (1997)
Load (kN) Load (kN)

0 2000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
0 0
(e) (f)
5 5
10 10
Displacement (mm)
15
Displacement (mm)
15
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 Proposed Model 40 Proposed Model
45 Proposed By Gurtowski (1997) Suggested by Gurtowski (1997)
45
Figure 5.11(continued): Comparison between field measurements and predictions of proposed model
for: (c) Test pile 1997-3, (d) Test pile 1997-4, (e) Test pile 1997-5, (f) Test pile 1997-6.
78
The proposed model may be used to evaluate driven grout piles 2009-3 and 2009-6 as
shown in Figure 5.12. The results show a good agreement for pile 2009-6, although the
displacements are over-predicted in case of 2009-3. Although model provides acceptable
results, the implementation of the proposed model for the driven grout piles appears to
require additional consideration.
Load (kN) Load (kN)

0 1000 2000 3000 0 2000 4000
0 0
(a) (b)
2
Proposed Model 2
Proposed Model
4 Measurements Measurements
4
6
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
6
8
10 8
12
10
14
12
16
14
18
20 16
Figure ‎5.12: Comparison between field measurements and predictions of proposed model for driven
grout piles: (a) Test pile 2009-3, (b) Test pile 2009-6.
79
To be more specific about the accuracy of the proposed load-displacement model, a
point by point bias analysis was performed separately for the 1997 and 2009 Test Series.
It can be noticed from the Figures 5.13 and 5.14 that for relatively small head
displacements, less than 5 percent of the pile diameter, the proposed model under-
predicts and over-predicts the actual loads for the 1997 and 2009 Test Series,
respectively. But, as the head displacement reaches larger settlements, about 5 to 7
percent of the pile diameter, the load bias merges to value of 1, an indication of the
accuracy of the proposed model for ACIP piles.
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Load Bias
0.8
0.6
ACIP Piles
0.4
Driven Grout Piles
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Head Displacement / Pile Diameter (%)
Figure ‎5.13: Point by point comparison of bias with respect to normalized head displacement, for the
2009 Test Series.
80
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
Load Bias
1
0.8
0.6
Bias with Actual Measurements
0.4
Bias with Gurtowski (1997)
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Head Displacement / Pile Diameter (%)
Figure ‎5.14: Point by point comparison of bias with respect to normalized head displacement, for the
1997 Test Series.
For a comparison of the accuracy of the proposed model, the predicted ultimate
resistances were compared to those of Gurtowski (1997, 2009). This procedure is
performed by selecting the ultimate displacements suggested by Gurtowski (1997, 2009).
Table 5.1 provides the comparison and indicates that almost all of the predicted ultimate
resistances are within 10 percent of those by Gurtowski (1997, 2009).

81
Table ‎5.1: Comparison between predicted ultimate loads with those by Gurtowski (1997, 2009).
Ultimate
Ultimate Load Ultimate Percent
Load
Pile Pile Type Predicted Displacement Difference
by Proposed
by Gurtowski (kN) (mm) (%)
Model (kN)
2009-1 ACIP 6477 51 6387 1.40
2009-2 ACIP 5978 51 5978 0.01
2009-3 DG 5480 51 3937 28.20
2009-4 ACIP 6178 51 6284 1.70
2009-5 ACIP 5978 51 5476 8.40
2009-6 DG 5480 38 4990 8.90
1997-1 ACIP 1446 13 1214 16.00
1997-2 ACIP 1779 15 1653 7.10
1997-3 ACIP 2891 20 2869 0.80
1997-4 ACIP 3114 30 3235 3.90
1997-5 ACIP 2224 20 1994 10.40
As described earlier in this chapter, the previously proposed t-z models are mostly
drilled shaft-specific and when used for creating a load-displacement model for ACIP
piles, an over-prediction in load would occur. To examine the improvement in the load-
displacement predictions that the proposed model produces, the results from the proposed
model are compared to the results obtained from the Vijayvergiya (1977) and the O’Neill
and Reese (1999) models. For calculation of the ultimate shaft resistance and the ultimate
toe bearing capacity of the piles, to be used in Vijayvergiya (1977) and the O’Neill and
Reese (1999) models, the Stuedlein et al. (2012) proposed relationships for β-coefficient
and ultimate toe bearing capacity, Equations 2.16 and 2.14 were implemented.
The role and importance of the ACIP pile specific t-z model can be seen from the
results presented in Figures 5.15 to 5.18. Using an ACIP pile specific t-z model, instead
of drilled shaft specific model results in a noticeable improvement in the prediction of the
82
load-displacement behavior. To demonstrate this improvement, Table 5.2 represents the
mean load bias for proposed model and two existing model, Vijayvergiya (1977) and the
O’Neill and Reese (1999), which indicates that the load biases in the proposed model are
significantly closer to 1. The proposed model also provides improvement in the results of
driven grout piles 2009-3 and 2009-6 and indicates that the proposed model can be a
more appropriate t-z model to use for driven grout piles than those generated for drilled
shafts.
Table ‎5.2: A comparison between the load mean bias obtained from the proposed model by those
created by O’Neill‎and‎Reese‎(1999) and Vijayvergia (1977) models.
Mean Load Bias COV in Load Bias

Test Pile Pile Type
RO VJ NA RO VJ NA
1997-1 ACIP 0.50 0.50 0.72 46% 47% 42%
1997-2 ACIP 0.47 0.44 0.95 40% 41% 33%
1997-3 ACIP 0.64 0.64 0.97 38% 38% 33%
1997-4 ACIP 0.38 0.37 0.66 37% 37% 34%
1997-5 ACIP 0.61 0.58 0.90 40% 44% 35%
2009-1 ACIP 0.68 0.77 0.81 27% 17% 8%
2009-2 ACIP 0.69 0.67 0.73 29% 45% 22%
2009-3 DG 0.78 0.91 1.18 50% 44% 22%
2009-4 ACIP 0.65 0.79 0.92 22% 17% 18%
2009-5 ACIP 0.54 0.59 0.73 35% 31% 20%
2009-6 DG 0.62 0.72 0.89 29% 23% 9%
Average 0.59 0.63 0.86 36% 35% 25%
RO : O’Neill and Reese (1999) , VJ : Vijayverjia (1977), NA : Proposed Model
83
Load (kN)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0
5 (a)
Displacement (mm)
10
15
20
25
30
35
Load (kN)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
5 (b)
Displacement (mm)
10
15
20
25
30
35
Load (kN)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0
5 (c)
Displacement (mm)
10
15
20
25
30
35
Figure ‎5.15: Comparison between the load-displacements produced by the proposed model with
models proposed by Vijayvergia (1977)‎and‎O’Neill and Reese (1999): (a) ACIP pile 2009-1, (b) ACIP
pile 2009-2, (c) DG pile 2009-3.
84
Load (kN)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0
(a)
Displacement (mm)
2
4
6
8
10
12
Load (kN)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0
2
(b)
Displacement (mm)
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Load (kN)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0
2 (c)
Displacement (mm)
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
models‎proposed‎by‎Vijayvergia‎(1977)‎and‎O’Neill and Reese (1999): (a) ACIP pile 2009-4, (b) ACIP
pile 2009-5, (c) DG piles 2009-6.
85
Load (kN)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0
5 (a)
Displacement (mm)
10
15
20
25
30
Load (kN)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
0
5 (b)
Displacement (mm)
10
15
20
25
30
Load (kN)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0
(c)
5
Displacement (mm)
10
15
20
25
30
models‎proposed‎by‎Vijayvergia‎(1977)‎and‎O’Neill and Reese (1999), ACIP piles: (a) 1997-1, (b) 1997-
2, (c) 1997-3.
86
Load (kN)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
5
(a)
10
Displacement (mm)
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Load (kN)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
0
5 (b)
10
Displacement (mm)
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
models‎proposed‎by‎Vijayvergia‎(1977)‎and‎O’Neill and Reese (1999), ACIP piles: (a) 1997-4, (b) 1997-
5.
87
5.6 Summary
In this chapter, the methodology for obtaining load-displacement curves and load
transfer datasets from the results of four instrumented ACIP piles was described. This
dataset was used to generate new relationships for an ACIP pile specific t-z model.
Finally, a load-displacement model was generated by combining the proposed t-z model
with a q-z model proposed by O’Neill and Reese (1999). The predicted load-
displacement curves were compared with actual measurements and showed good
agreement to actual loads at specific displacements. Finally, a comparison between the
results from the proposed load-displacement model with two previously developed
models was conducted and showed a significant improvement in the prediction of load-
displacement behavior of ACIP and DG piles. To provide a more in depth analysis of the
variability for the proposed model, the results of a more comprehensive statistical
analysis is presented in the next chapter.

88
6 Analysis of the Proposed t-z Model by Use of Monte Carlo Simulations
6.1 Introduction
The uncertainties accompanying soil and its mechanics and applications in
engineering can be related to four major sources, the most important of which is inherent
soil variability associated with deposition and other geological processes. Two other
sources of uncertainty include errors incurred from field measurements and
transformation uncertainty arising from the use of correlations that are used to obtain
design soil parameters from in-situ and laboratory measurements. The last source of
uncertainty is related to the error associated with a given design model (Phoon and
Kulhawy 1999). The combination of the uncertainties associated with soil and those
associated with the design model can result in an estimation of soil-structure behavior,
such as the load-displacement performance of a pile, with low levels of accuracy. In
conventional deterministic methods, the direct effects of uncertainties are ignored and
instead, a “safety factor” is used to account for all possible uncertainty, including those
associated with loading. These safety factors could result in unknown risks during
construction, installation, and over the service life of the structure. On the other hand,
probability-based methods can cover a range of possible conditions for uncertain
variables and provide the estimated probability of occurrence of a design objective, such
as cumulative density functions (CDFs) of loads resulting for certain pile head
displacements. These types of analyses can provide a more realistic picture of the soil-
structure system and can lead to a more optimal design.

89
6.2 Monte Carlo Simulation in Geotechnical Engineering
Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) is a practical tool that can include the uncertainty of
various input parameters in a design procedure and produce estimates of the probability
of occurrence in the form of either a probability density function (PDF) or cumulative
density function (CDF). The main idea behind MCS is to randomly sample from a range
of possible values from a probability density function for each input parameter. These
values can then be used as random variables for a design model to generate a range in
possible design outcomes. This simple idea enables MCS to be applicable for even the
most complex systems, however, the accuracy and confidence intervals of the results are
highly dependent on the number of realizations (i.e., combination of various input
parameters) and the accuracy of selected continuous distributions of the parameters
varied. Although a greater number of realizations can result in a more accurate prediction
with better levels of confidence, it requires more computation time.
The relationship between the number of realizations and the accuracy of simulations
can be expressed using Chebyshev’s (1867) inequality, given by:
where is the required number of realizations, equals the desired confidence level in
percent, is the acceptable tolerance level in precision of desired probability, and
equals the desired probability of occurrence. Equation 6.1 produces rather conservative
values of the number of realizations. In a more recent evaluation by Broding et al. (1964),
the number of necessary realizations can be defined by (Melchers 1999):

90
in which all the variables were previously defined. It should be mentioned that Equations
6.1 and 6.2 will provide the number of required realizations when one random variable is
considered. In the case of multiple random input variables, the number of realization,
obtained for each individual variable, should be multiplied by the number of variables.
Table 6.1 presents the comparison of number of realizations obtained from Equations 6.1
and 6.2.
Table ‎6.1: Comparison of number of realization from Equations 6.1 and 6.2, from Phoon (2008).
𝑷 by Chebyshev by Broding et
Tolerance margins of Level of
the target probability confidence
(1867) al. (1964)
0.1 0.95 1.00E-02 2.0E+05 3.0E+02
1.00E-04 2.0E+07 3.0E+04
1.00E-06 2.0E+09 3.0E+06
0.5 0.95 1.00E-02 8.0E+03 3.0E+02
1.00E-04 8.0E+05 3.0E+04
1.00E-06 8.0E+07 3.0E+06
1 0.95 1.00E-02 2.0E+03 3.0E+02
1.00E-04 2.0E+05 3.0E+04
1.00E-06 2.0E+07 3.0E+06
5 0.95 1.00E-02 8.0E+01 3.0E+02
1.00E-04 8.0E+03 3.0E+04
1.00E-06 8.0E+05 3.0E+06
The relationship by Broding et al. (1964) neglects the tolerance margins of the
desired probability and provides the same confidence levels with a lower number of
realizations. Therefore, in this study and for the target probability of significance of 1
percent with 95 percent confidence level, 300 realizations for each variable were
generated, the details of which are presented in following sections.

91
6.3 Input Variables and Probability Distribution of Uncertain Parameters
In geotechnical practice almost all of the variables required in a particular analysis
are accompanied with some amount of uncertainty, ranging from small uncertainties in
length and diameter of the pile due to construction procedures to relatively larger
variations in the soil properties. However, these variations are usually simplified to a
smaller group of variables by normalizing or linearization procedures and some
uncertainties are reduced through averaging of soil properties.
6.3.1 Uncertain Variables of the Proposed Prediction Model
The ACIP pile-specific prediction model used in this study consists of two separate
models: the proposed t-z (described in Chapter 5) and the O’Neill and Reese (1999) q-z
model. The parameters defining the proposed t-z model, a and b, are obtained from a
normalized dataset and the shear stress and displacement was normalized by the vertical
effective stress and pile diameter, respectively, to minimize the variability of the t-z
model. Note, for the O’Neill and Reese (1999) q-z model, the mobilized toe bearing
values are normalized by the maximum toe bearing resistance, . Since is
calculated from SPT N-values (Equation 2.14), and represents the soil properties, the
uncertain input variable was considered to be the value of maximum toe bearing
resistance, . Therefore, the total number of uncertain variables in the prediction
model equals three, which are coefficients a and b, and . According to Table 6.1 and
Broding (1964), for the target probability of significance of 0.01 with 95 percent
92
confidence level, a total of realizations should be generated. Consequently, in this
study same number of realizations, 900, is used to achieve the target confidence level.
6.3.2 Probability Distribution of Uncertain Variables
To generate appropriate realizations for use with the MCS, the probability
distribution of the relevant variables must be established. The procedure for choosing the
appropriate distribution for the relevant variables begins with ranking the sample bias
values for t-z and q-z model parameters a, b and the in ascending order. These
values are obtained from the actual measurements and result from the proposed t-z model
(given in Equations 5.6 and 5.7) and the Stuedlein et al. (2012) relationship for ultimate
toe bearing resistance (Equation 2.14). The probability of occurrence, represented by a
cumulative density function (CDF), is calculated by:
where is the probability of occurrence, is the total number of sample bias group and
equals the rank of each sample bias. The standard normal variate (Z) can be obtained
from the CDF values as:
where is an inverse function for tabulating the normal standard variates (Z) from the
CDF. The parameters required for generating a normal distribution of a random variable
are the normal mean bias, and the standard deviation of the sample biases. These
93
parameters are used to calculate the statistical parameters required to generate a
lognormal distribution using the following relationships:
in which equals the mean value for the lognormal distribution, is the mean value
for normal distribution, is the standard deviation for lognormal distribution, and
represents the coefficient of variation for a normal distribution. The values of
and for normal and lognormal distribution of the a samples are 1.1, 1.06 and -0.23,
0.81, respectively. In case of the b parameter, the values of and for normal and
lognormal distribution are found to be 1, 0.21 and -0.021, 0.204, respectively. By
knowing the normal standard variate (Z) and corresponding parameters of normal and
lognormal distributions, the bias values following the lognormal or normal distribution
can be calculated by:
( )
where is the random bias for the realization of , equals the mean value for
lognormal distribution of the variable , is the standard deviation for lognormal
distribution of the variable , represents the randomly produced standard normal
variate, is the mean value for normal distribution of the variable , and is the
standard deviation for normal distribution of the variable . Equations 6.3 through 6.8
were used to evaluate the statistical distribution of parameters a, b and . Tables 6.2
94
through 6.4 present the summary of the distribution parameters for each of the model
uncertain variables.
Figure 6.1 shows that the a coefficient is better represented by the lognormal
distribution than the normal distribution, with parameters presented in Table 6.2.
Therefore, a lognormal distribution was selected for generation of the realizations for a
coefficient.
2.0
1.5
1.0
Standard Normal Variate, Z
0.5
0.0
-0.5
Sample bias
-1.0
Normal distribution
-1.5 Lognormal distribution
-2.0
0 1 2 3 4
Bias, λ
Figure ‎6.1: Cumulative distribution function for the bias of the a coefficient.
Table ‎6.2: Statistical characteristics of distribution fitting for the a coefficient.
Normal Distribution 1.1 1.06
Lognormal Distribution -0.23 0.81

95
For the case of the b coefficient, the lognormal distribution was also found to be
more accurate than the fitted normal distribution, with parameters presented in Table 6.3
and shown in Figure 6.2. Therefore, a lognormal distribution was selected for producing
the realizations of the b coefficient.
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
Sample bias
-1.0
Normal distribution
Lognormal distribution
-1.5
-2.0
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Bias, λ
Figure ‎6.2: Cumulative distribution function for the bias of the b coefficient.
Table ‎6.3: Statistical characteristics of distribution fitting for the b coefficient.

96
For random variable in O’Neill and Reese (1999) q-z model, a normal distribution
characterized with the parameters presented by Stuedlein et al. (2012) and presented in
Table 6.4 and Figure 6.3, produced better correlation in comparison to the lognormal
distribution. A normal distribution was therefore selected for producing the realizations
of .
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
Sample bias
-1.0 Normal distribution
Lognormal distribution
-1.5
-2.0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Bias, λ
Figure ‎6.3: Cumulative distribution function for the bias of the .
Table ‎6.4: Statistical characteristics of distribution fitting for the .

97
6.3.3 Monte Carlo Simulation of Random Variables
Random realizations for each variable were produced using the appropriate
probability distribution of that variable presented in the previous section. The procedure
begins with generating a series of random numbers ranging from 0 to 1 and calculating
the corresponding standard normal variate (Z). The standard normal variates are used in
combination with the appropriate probability distribution to produce random values for
the bias. The randomly produced bias values are then utilized to generate random input
variables for use with the deterministic formulation of the t-z and q-z models.
Generating random numbers is a complex and advanced topic in mathematical
studies and hence, development of a new approach is out of the scope of this study.
Therefore, MATLAB® and Microsoft Excel® default functions were used to generate the
initial random number series and the corresponding standard normal variate values.
MATLAB® codes (presented in Appendix A and B) were developed to generate and
incorporate the randomly produced variables of a, b, and in their respective models
to obtain a series of possible load-displacement curves for each test pile in the 1997 and
2009 Test Series. A comparison between the randomly generated values of a, b,
from their corresponding probability distributions (presented in Appendix C), with those
obtained from deterministic approach showed that the average value of coefficient a was
about 10 percent greater than that given by Equation 5.6, as it is reported in Appendix C.
Due to the increase in the mean value of coefficient a, the mean load values resulting
from the MCS was about 10 percent higher than those given by the deterministic results.
98
This trend can be noted from Figures 6.4 and 6.5. This effect is ascribed to the highly
lognormal distribution that characterizes the sample distribution of coefficient a.
0 0
Actual Actual
Mean Mean
STDV STDV
Deterministic Deterministic
5 5
10 10
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
15 15
20 20
25 25
(a) (b)
30 30
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Load (kN) Load (kN)
0 0
Actual
Actual
Mean
Mean
STDV
2 STDV
Deterministic
2 Deterministic
4
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
8 6
10
8
12
10
14
(c) (d)
16 12
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Load (kN) Load (kN)
Figure ‎6.4: The load displacement predictions produced by MCS and the proposed prediction model
for 2009 Test Series: (a) test pile 2009-1, (b) test pile 2009-2, (c) test pile 2009-3, (d) test pile 2009-4.
99
0 0
Actual Actual
Mean Mean
2 STDV STDV
6 5
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
8
10
12 10
14
16
(e) (f)
18 15
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Load (kN) Load (kN)
Figure 6.4(continued): The load displacement predictions produced by MCS and the proposed
prediction model for 2009 Test Series: (e) test pile 2009-5, (f) test pile 2009-6.
100
0
0
Actual
Mean Actual
STDV Mean
1 Deterministic 0.5 STDV
Deterministic
1
2
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
1.5
3
2.5
5
3
6
3.5
(a) (b)
7 4
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 500 1000 1500
Load (kN) Load (kN)
0 0
Actual
Actual Mean
Mean 0.5 STDV
STDV Deterministic
2 Deterministic
1
1.5
4
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
6 2.5
8
3.5
4
10
4.5
(c) (d)
12 5
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Load (kN) Load (kN)
Figure ‎6.5: The load displacement predictions produced by MCS and the proposed prediction model
for 1997 Test Series: (a) test pile 1997-1, (b) test pile 1997-2, (c) test pile 1997-3, (d) test pile 1997-4.
101
0
Actual
Mean
STDV
Deterministic
2
Displacement (mm)
10
(e)
12
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Load (kN)
Figure 6.5(continued): The load displacement predictions produced by MCS and the proposed
prediction model for 1997 Test Series: (e) test pile 1997-5.
6.4 Monte Carlo Simulation Correction
The mean load values obtained from Monte Carlo simulation were higher than those
resulting from the deterministic approach due to the fact that the coefficient a was biased
by 10 percent, as described in chapter 5, and distributed lognormally with a high standard
deviation, associated with the high degree of scatter. To eliminate this apparent and
undesirable increase, all the randomly generated a coefficients were decreased by 10
percent and the MCS re-simulated, as presented in Figures 6.6 and 6.7.
102
To determine the appropriateness of the load-displacement results from the corrected
MCS, the mean load, mean bias in load, and COV in load at each measured displacement
were calculated from the 900 load-displacement curves simulated for each loading test.
These statistics are provided in Table 6.6. The standard deviations at each displacement
were employed to create the margins of one standard deviation about the mean values,
presented in dashed lines in Figures 6.6 and 6.7 for the 2009 and 1997 Test Series,
respectively. An example of one such calculation is provided in Table 6.5 for test pile
2009-6; the remainder is presented in Appendix D. The mean trend and statistical
characteristics for each pile are provided in Table 6.6, which were generated from the
calculated load values for each displacement of each pile and the bias in estimated load.
In Table 6.6 the mean bias in load values were calculated for each displacement, then the
average of all the mean biases in load was calculated for each pile.
Table ‎6.5: Statistical characteristics of each actual displacement for test pile 2009-6.
Actual Mean loads

Actual load Mean bias in Standard deviation COV in
displacement from Corrected
(kN) load, in load, load
(mm) MCS (kN)
1.1 334 442 0.75 72 0.16
2.4 667 809 0.82 113 0.14
3.8 1001 1160 0.86 153 0.13
5.5 1334 1546 0.86 196 0.13
7.3 1668 1923 0.87 237 0.12
9.4 2002 2335 0.86 281 0.12
11.8 2335 2778 0.84 328 0.12
14.4 2669 3233 0.83 376 0.12
103
Table ‎6.6: Statistical characteristics of corrected MCS results.
Test pile ̅
2009-1 0.78 12%
2009-2 0.74 8%
2009-3 1.14 13%
2009-4 0.85 17%
2009-5 0.71 11%
2009-6 0.84 4%
1997-1 0.88 6%
1997-2 0.99 24%
1997-3 1.03 9%
1997-4 0.84 12%
1997-5 0.94 19%
Average 0.89 12%
The results of corrected Monte Carlo Simulations covers a wide range of possible
load-displacement curves and generally encapsulates the actual measurements for the
instrumented test piles associated with the 2009 Test Series, which were used to develop
the t-z model in Chapter 5. Figures 6.6c and 6.6f show that the t-z model might be
applicable for driven grout piles.
Especially good agreement was exhibited for the 1997 Test Series, which reflect an
independent assessment of the proposed t-z model. The actual load displacement curves
of 2009-2 and 2009-5 test piles are located close to the lower band of the MCS results;
however, by increasing the number of realizations, the simulated load displacement
curves might fit better. The results from assessment of the prediction model with an
independent test series indicates that this proposed t-z model can be applicable for ACIP
104
piles embedded in all types of granular soils. Table 6.6 shows that the proposed t-z model
slightly over-predicts the load magnitudes for all of test cases, with a mean bias and COV
in bias of 0.89 and 12%.
As described earlier in Chapter 4, piles from the 1997 and 2009 Test Series were
mostly embedded in granular soil. Test pile 1997-6, however, was embedded in glacial
till. Since the adopted q-z model from O’Neill and Reese (1999) is appropriate for
granular soils, therefore, the proposed model is not applicable for the pile 1997-6 and
hence the Monte Carlo simulation was not performed for this pile.
105
0 0
Actual Actual
Mean Mean
STDV STDV
5 5
10 10
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
15 15
20 20
25 25
(a) (b)
30 30
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Load (kN) Load (kN)
0 0
Actual Actual
Mean Mean
STDV STDV
2 Deterministic Deterministic
2
4
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
8 6
10
8
12
10
14
16
(c) 12
(d)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Load (kN) Load (kN)
Figure ‎6.6: The load displacement predictions produced by corrected MCS and the proposed model for
2009 Test Series: (a) test pile 2009-1, (b) test pile 2009-2, (c) test pile 2009-3, (d) test pile 2009-4.
106
0 0
Actual Actual
Mean Mean
2 STDV STDV
6 5
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
8
10
12 10
14
16
(e) (f)
18 15
0 2000 4000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Load (kN) Load (kN)
Figure 6.6(continued): The load displacement predictions produced by corrected MCS and the
proposed model for 2009 Test Series: (e) test pile 2009-5, (f) test pile 2009-6.
107
0 0
Actual Actual
Mean Mean
STDV 0.5 STDV
1 Deterministic Deterministic
1
2
Displacement (mm)
1.5
Displacement (mm)
3
4
2.5
5
3
6
3.5
7
(a) 4
(b)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500
Load (kN) Load (kN)
0 0
Actual Actual
Mean Mean
STDV 0.5 STDV
2
1
1.5
4
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
6 2.5
8
3.5
4
10
4.5
12
(c) 5
(d)
0 1000 2000 3000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Load (kN) Load (kN)
Figure ‎6.7: The load displacement predictions produced by corrected MCS and the proposed model for
1997 Test Series: (a) test pile 1997-1, (b) test pile 1997-2, (c) test pile 1997-3, (d) test pile 1997-4.
108
0
Actual
Mean
STDV
Deterministic
2
Displacement (mm)
6
10
12
(e)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Load (kN)
Figure 6.7(continued): The load displacement predictions produced by corrected MCS and the
proposed model for 1997 Test Series: (e) test pile 1997-5.
6.5 Discussion of the Results
Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) is an engineering tool that enables the estimation of
the probability of occurrence of parameters of interest to provide a better insight for the
understanding of the performance of soil-structure systems. In the present study, the
results of the corrected MCS for ACIP piles were used to build a cumulative probability
density function (CDF) of loads for four typical working displacements of 5, 10, 15, and
25 mm. The CDF results for 2009 and 1997 Test Series are provided in Figures 6.8 and
6.9. It was noted from Figures 6.8 and 6.9 that with increasing pile head displacement,
109
the range of possible loads increased. Since none of the tested piles have reached an
ultimate resistance, relatively large head displacements were not experienced by most of
the test piles. Therefore, by considering service displacements such as 15 and 25 mm, a
more practical dataset for load-displacement behavior of the pile under service loads can
be generated.
110
1 1
0.9 (a) 0.9 (b)

0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
CDF
0.5 0.5
CDF
0.4 0.4 5mm

5mm
10mm
0.3 10mm 0.3
15mm
0.2 15mm 0.2
25mm 25mm
0.1 0.1 Measured
Measured
0 0
900 2900 4900 6900 900 2900 4900 6900
Load (kN) Load (kN)
1
1
0.9 (d)
0.9 (c)
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
CDF
0.5
CDF
0.5
5mm 0.4 5mm
0.4
10mm
10mm 0.3
0.3 15mm
15mm 25mm
25mm 0.2
0.2 Measured
Measured 0.1
0.1
0
0
1400 3400 5400 7400 9400
600 1600 2600 3600 4600 5600
Load (kN) Load (kN)
1 1
0.9 0.9 (f)

(e)
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
CDF
CDF
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
5mm
0.3 0.3
5mm 10mm
0.2 10mm 0.2 15mm
15mm 25mm
0.1 25mm 0.1 Measured
Measured
0 0
1000 3000 5000 7000 9000 1000 3000 5000 7000 9000
Load (kN) Load (kN)
Figure ‎6.8: Cumulative density functions of loads for four displacements of 5, 10, 15 and 25mm of 2009
Test Series: (a) test pile 2009-1with maximum displacement of 25 (mm), (b) test pile 2009-2 1with
maximum displacement of 29 (mm), (c) test pile 2009-3 with maximum displacement of 15 (mm), (d)
test pile 2009-4with maximum displacement of 11 (mm), (e) test pile 2009-5 with maximum
displacement of 17 (mm), (f) test pile 2009-6 with maximum displacement of 14 (mm).
111
1 1
0.9 (a) 0.9
(b)
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
CDF
CDF
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
5mm 5mm
0.3 10mm 0.3 10mm
15mm 15mm
0.2 0.2
25mm 25mm
0.1 Measured 0.1
0 0
400 1400 2400 3400 500 1500 2500 3500 4500
Load (kN) Load (kN)
1 1
0.9 (c) 0.9

(d)
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
CDF
CDF
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
5mm
5mm
0.3 10mm 0.3 10mm
15mm 15mm
0.2 0.2
25mm 25mm
0.1 Measured 0.1
0 0
800 1800 2800 3800 4800 800 1800 2800 3800 4800
Load (kN) Load (kN)
1
0.9
(e)
0.8
0.7
0.6
CDF
0.5
0.4 5mm
0.3 10mm
15mm
0.2 25mm
0.1 Measured
0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Load (kN)
Figure ‎6.9: Cumulative density functions of loads for four displacements of 5, 10, 15 and 25 mm of
1997 Test Series: (a) test pile 1997-1with maximum displacement of 7 (mm), (b) test pile 1997-2 with
maximum displacement of 4 (mm), (c) test pile 1997-3 with maximum displacement of 11 (mm), (d) test
pile1997-4 with maximum displacement of 4 (mm), (e) test pile 1997-5 with maximum displacement of
12 (mm).
112
6.6 Summary
Monte Carlo Simulations (MCS) were used to estimate the range in possible load-
displacement behavior for ACIP piles. Uncertain variables, which are required for MCS,
were defined for the proposed load-displacement model and the corresponding
probability distributions were determined. Based on the probability distributions a series
of random model input parameters were generated and load-displacement curves
predicted for each pile. The resulting load-displacement curves generally showed
acceptable agreement, especially for 1997 Test Series, with actual measurements. Finally,
a statistical analysis was performed on the resulting load displacement curves and
cumulative density functions were developed for pile head displacement of 5, 10, 15 and
25 mm. The applications and conclusions derived from the statistical analysis presented
in this chapter, along with the possible future research and extensions to this study will be
discussed in the next chapter.

113
7 Summary and Conclusion
7.1 Summary
Augered cast-in-place piles (ACIP) have been used for over 70 years in the United
States. Despite their gaining popularity, the research on this type of piles is still relatively
scarce as compared to other foundation types, such as driven piles or drilled shafts. Even
today, most of the relationships and load-displacement models recommended to for use
with ACIP piles are adopted from drilled shafts. This inconsistency can result in an
inaccurate pile analysis and design, which could lead to an uneconomical design and/or
failure of the pile during its service life. In the present study, the performance of the
currently used load-displacement models were evaluated, and, based on study of the
observed load-displacement behavior of the ACIP piles, an ACIP pile specific load-
displacement model was developed.
A database of static load test results of 6 test piles, 4 ACIP piles and 2 driven grout
piles, all of which were instrumented using strain gages, formed the experimental basis
for this study. The data from strain gage readings were translated to load transfer curves
and the parameters required for generation of a t-z model were derived and an ACIP pile
specific t-z relationships were proposed as:

114
( )
( )
( )
in which all the parameters have been introduced previousely. The proposed t-z model
was implemented with an existing q-z model (e.g. Reese and O’Neill 1999) to create an
ACIP pile-specific load-displacement model. This model was later used to predict the
load-displacement behavior of the same 6 test piles, as a dependent test case, and the
results from 6 other ACIP pile static load tests, as an independent test case. The results
from these load-displacement predictions were compared with those by O’Neill and
Reese (1999) and Vijayvergia (1977) that are commonly used for ACIP pile. The
proposed model showed a significant improvement in predicted load-displacement
results. Finally, the uncertainty in the proposed load-displacement model was evaluated
using Monte Carlo Simulations.

115
7.2 Conclusions
Based on the results obtained from the proposed and existing load-displacement
models and the assessment of uncertainty derived using Monte Carlo Simulation, the
following conclusions can be made:
o The evaluation of two currently used load-displacement models,
Vijayvergia (1977) and O’Neill and Reese (1999), indicated that the models
that were developed based on the experiment results of drill shafts over-
predict the load values for ACIP piles. The over-prediction is presented in
Table 7.1, through the average mean bias in load and COV in load bias for
Test Series of 1997 and 2009.
Table ‎7.1: The comparison of the results obtained using Vijayvergia (1977) and O’Neill‎and‎Reese‎
(1999) models.
Vijayvergia (1977) O’Neill and Reese (1999)

Test Averaged Averaged
COV in load bias
Series mean bias in load COV in load bias mean bias in load
1997 0.50 22% 0.52 20%
2009 0.74 15% 0.66 12%
Average 0.62 18% 0.59 16%
o The load-displacement results from the proposed model provided a better
representation of the load-displacement behavior of ACIP piles, with an
average mean bias in load of 0.86 and averaged COV in load bias of 18
percent, as it is indicated in Table 7.2.

116
o The proposed model showed almost same characteristics in results for
dependent test cases of the 2009 Test Series, with average mean load bias of
0.88 and averaged COV in load bias of 19 percent, as for the independent
case of the 1997 Test Series, with average mean load bias of 0.84 and
averaged COV in load bias of 17 percent. These results are also presented in
Table 7.2.
Table ‎7.2: The average mean bias in load and COV in load bias results from the proposed load-
displacement model.
NA ( proposed model)
Test Averaged
COV in load bias
Series Mean Bias in Load
1997 0.84 17%
2009 0.88 19%
Average 0.86 18%
o For the case of two instrumented driven grout piles, 2009-3 and 2009-6, the
proposed model estimated the load-displacement results with mean load
bias of 1.18 and 0.89 and COV in load bias of 22 and 9 percent,
respectively. These results indicate that the proposed model may be
cautiously used for driven grout piles.
o The proposed model performs more accurately around service settlements
of about 5 to 7 percent of the pile diameter, and therefore may be more
suitable for these displacements.
o The results of the corrected Monte Carlo simulations were presented using
CDF curves that indicate the likely range of possible loads for the service
head displacements of 5, 10, 15, and 25 mm.

117
The proposed model was developed from the experimental results conducted in
mostly granular soils from Western Washington. Therefore, the application of the
proposed model for other regions with granular soils must accompanied with a
preliminary assessment of the soil profiles of the region of interest.
7.3 Suggestions for Future Study
The proposed ACIP pile-specific load-displacement model has made a noticeable
improvement in the predicted values of load-displacement of ACIP piles in granular soils
of the Western Washington region. As it mentioned before, the topic of the ACIP pile
behavior is relatively new and the finding here could be improved by considering the
following topics:
o A more general load-displacement model could be generated using a larger
database of instrumented ACIP piles from different regions to reduce the
uncertainty in load-displacement behavior.
o The effect of installation, for instance residual loads, on the load-displacement
behavior could be investigated.
o An independent model for cohesive soils should be developed as there are very
few ACIP pile load test data available for these soils.
o Further research is required to accurately evaluate the applicability of the
proposed model for driven grout piles.

118
References
Alonso, E.E., Josa, A., and Ledesma, A. (1984) “Negative Skin Friction on Piles: a
Simplified Analysis and Prediction Procedure,” Géotechnique 34, No. 3, pp. 341-
357.
Baecher, Gregory B., Christian, John T. (2003) “Reliability and Statistics in Geotechnical
Engineering,” John Wiley & Sons Ltd, the Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West
Sussex PO19 8SQ, England.
Brettmann, T., NeSmith, W. (2005) “Advances in Auger Pressure Grouted Piles: Design,
Construction and Testing,” Advances in Designing and Testing Deep Foundations .
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 129, ASCE, pp. 262-274.
Broding, W. C., Diederich, F. W. Parker, P. S. (1964) "Structural Optimization and
Design Based on a Reliability Design Criterion," J. Spacecraft, 1(1), 56-61.
Brown, D. A. (2005) “Practical Considerations in the Selection and Use of Continuous
Flight Auger and Drilled Displacement Piles. Advances in Auger Pressure Grouted
Piles: Design, Construction and Testing,” Advances in Designing and Testing Deep
Foundations . Geotechnical Special Publication No. 129, ASCE, pp. 251-261.
Brown, D.A., Dapp, S.D., Thompson, W.R., Lazarte, C.A. (2007) “Design and
Construction of Continuous Flight Auger Piles,” Geotechnical Circular No. 8,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 293 pp.

119
Burland, J.B. (1973) “Shaft Friction of Piles in Clay,” Ground Engineering, London,
Vol.6., No.3, pp.3042.
Chen, Y.-J., Kulhawy, F. H. (1994) “Case History Evaluation of the Behavior of Drilled
Shafts Under Axial and Lateral Loading,” Rep. TR-104601 , Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, Calif.
Ching, Jianye, Hsieh, Yi-Hung, (2006) “Updating Reliability of Instrumented
Geotechnical Systems via Simple Monte Carlo Simulation,” Journal of
GeoEngineering, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 71-78.
Chingm, Jianye (2010) “Practical Monte Carlo Based Reliability Analysis and Design
Methods for Geotechnical Problems,” National Taiwan University, Taiwan, Republic
of China, 25 p.
Coduto, Donald P. (2001) “Foundation Design, Principles and Practices,” Second
Edition, Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersy.
Coyle, H. M., Reese, L. C. (1966) “Load-Transfer for Axially Loaded Piles in Clay,” J.
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Div. ASCE, Vol. 92, No. SM2, Proc. Paper 4702,
pp. 1-26.
Coyle, H. M., Sulaiman, I. H. (1967) “Skin Friction for Steel Piles in Sand,” J. Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Div. ASCE, Vol. 93, No. SM6.

120
Coyle, H.M. (1967) “Skin Friction for Steel Piles in Sand,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Division, ASCE, 93 (6) 261-278.
Department of the Army, (1991) “Design of Pile Foundation,” US Army Corps of
Engineers, Engineering and Design, EM 1110-2-2906, 186 p.
Fellenius, B. H. (2002) “Determining the Resistance Distribution in Piles. Part 1: Notes
on Shift of No-Load Reading and Residual Load,” Geotechnical News Magazine,
Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 35 - 38.
Fellenius, B. H., (1984) “Negative skin friction and settlement of piles,” Second
International Seminar, Pile Foundations, Nanyang Technological Institute, Singapore,
12 p.
Gurtowski, M. T. (2000) “Augered Cast Pile Design in Granular Glacial Soils,” The
Newsletter of the Deep Foundations Institute, Winter-Spring 2000, pp. 19-22.
Gurtowski, T.M. (1997) “Augercast Pile Design in Northwest Glacial Soils,” Proc. 14th
Annual Spring Seminar, ASCE Seattle Section - Geotechnical Group, Seattle, WA.
20 pp.
Gurtowski, T.M. (2009) “Augercast and Driven Grout Pile Design Parameters in
Granular Soils,” Proc. 26th Annual Spring Seminar, ASCE Seattle Section -
Geotechnical Group, Seattle, WA. 17 pp.

121
Jones, Allen L., Kramer, Steven L., and Arduino, Pedro (2001) “Estimation of
Uncertainty in Geotechnical Properties for Performance-Based Earthquake
Engineering,” PEER Report 2002/16 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 114 p.
Kim, Sung-Ryul, Chung, Sung-Gyo, and Fellenius, Bengt H. (2010) “Distribution of
Residual Load and True Shaft Resistance for a Driven Instrumented Test Pile,”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, (48)4 583-598.
Kraft, L.M. (1981) “Theoretical t-z Curves,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, pp. 1543-1561.
Kulhawy, F. (1984) “Limiting Tip and Side Resistance: Fact or Fallacy,” Analysis and
Design of Pile Foundations, ASCE, N.Y.
Kulhawy, F. H. (1991) “Drilled Shaft Foundations,” Foundation engineering handbook ,
2nd Ed., H. Y. Fang, ed., Van Nostrand-Reinhold, New York.
Kulhawy, F. H., Trautmann, C. H., Beech, J. F., O‘Rourke, T. D., McGuire, W., Wood,
W. A., and Capano, C. (1983) “Transmission Line Structure Foundations for Uplift-
Compression Loading,” Report EL-2870, EPRI, Palo Alto.
Lam, Carlos, and Jefferis, Stephan A. (2011) “Critical assessment of pile modulus
determination methods,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 48, pp. 1433-1448.

122
Long, Richard P., and Healy, Kent A. (1974) “Negative Skin Friction on Piles,” Final
Report JHR 74-77, Project 73-1, Joint Highway Research Advisory Council of the
University of Connecticut, 23 p.
Mainwinch Staff (2012) “CFA – Continuous Flight Auger,” installation of the CFA,
Retrieved from http://mainwinch.com.
Mandolini, A., Ramondini, M., Russo, G., Viggiani, C. (2002) “Full Scale Loading Tests
on Instrumented CFA Piles,” Proceedings of the International Deep Foundations
Congress 2002 , Geotechnical Special Publication No. 116, Vol. 2, ASCE, pp. 1088-
1097.
Melchers , RE (1999) “Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction (Second Edition),”
John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (reprinted June 2001, July 2002, and now reprinted
on demand). (First edition 1986).
Meyerhof, G.G. (1963) “Some Recent Research on the Bearing Capacity of
Foundations,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 16-26.
Meyerhof, G.G. (1976) “Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Pile Foundations,”
J.Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 102(3)195–228.
Mullins, Gray (2010) “Drilled Shafts,” Department of Civil & Environmental
Engineering 4202 East Fowler Ave., ENB 118 Tampa, Florida.

123
Najjar, Shadi S., and Sadek, Salah (2010) “A Reliability-Based Approach to the Design
of Spread Footings on Granular Soil,” GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis,
Modeling & Design, ASCE, pp. 2143-2152.
Neate, J.J. (1989) “Augered Cast in Place Piles,” Foundation Engineering: Current
Principles and Practice: Vol.2, ASCE, N.Y.
Neely, W.J. (1991) “Bearing Capacity of Auger-Cast Piles in Sand,” J. of the Geotech.
Engrg. Div., ASCE, 117(2)331-346.
O’Neill, M.W. (2001) “Side Resistance in Piles and Drilled Shafts,” J. of Geotech. and
Geoenv. Engrg., ASCE, 127(1)3–16.
O’Neill, M.W. and Reese, L.C. (1999) “Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and
Design Methods,” Federal Highways Administration, Washington, D.C., 758 pp.
Park, Sungwon, Roberts, Lance A., and Misra, Anil (2011) “Static load test interpretation
using the t-z model and LRFD resistance factors for auger cast-in-place (AC IP) and
drilled displacement (DD) piles,” International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
5: 283-295.
Park, Sungwon, Roberts, Lance A., and Misra, Anil (2012) “Design Methodology for
Axially Loaded Auger Cast-In-Place (ACIP) and Drilled Displacement (DD) Piles,”
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 33 p.

124
Phoon, K.K., Quek, S.T., Chow, Y.K., and Lee, S. L. (1990) “Reliability Analysis of Pile
Settlement,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 116(11)1717-1734.
Phoon, Kok-Kwang (2008) “Reliability-Based Design in Geotechnical Engineering
Computations and Applications,” Taylor & Francis, New York, NY.
Prakash, S., Sharmad H. (1990) “Pile Foundations in Engineering Practice,” John Wiley
& Sons, New York, pp. 221—222.
Prezzi, M. and Basu, P. (2005) “Overview of Construction and Design of Auger Cast-in-
Place and Drilled Displacement Piles,” Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference
on Deep Foundations , Chicago , IL , pp. 497-512.
Quek, S. T., Chow, Y. K., and Phoon, K. K. (1992) “Further Contribution to Reliability-
Based Pile Settlement Analysis,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
118(5)726-741.
Randolph, Mark F., Roth, C. Peter (1978) “Analysis of Deformation of Vertically Loaded
Piles,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Proc. ASCE, Vol. 104, No.
GT12.
Rollins, Kyle M., Clayton, Robert J., Mikesell, Rodney C., and Blaise, Bradford C.
(2005) “Drilled Shaft Side Friction in Gravelly Soils,” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 8,pp.987–1003.

125
Stuedlein, W., Neely, J., and Gurtowski, M. (2011) “Reliability-Based Design of
Augered Cast-in-Place Piles in Granular Soils,” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 138, No. 6, 709–717.
Tomlinson M., Woodward, J. (2008) “Pile Design and Construction Practice,” 5th ed.
Taylor & Francis, New York pp.165—171.
Turner, J., Brown, D., AASHTO T-15 (2010) “The Updated Drilled Shaft Manual:
Potential Impacts on AASHTO Specifications” Update and Revision of NHI Manual
by O’Neill and Reese (1999), Sacramento, CA, 22 p.
Vaidogas, Egidijus R. (2007) “Probabilistic Assessment of Geotechnical Objects By
Means Of Monte Carlo Methode,” Vilnius Gediminas technical university, Lithuania,
ERASMUS/SOCRATES program, 38 p.
Vesi , A. S. (1977) “Design of pile foundations,” Transportation Research Board
Business Office, 68 pp.
Vijayvergiya, V.N. (1977) “Load Movement Characteristics of Piles,” Proceedings Ports
77 Conference, ASCE, Long Beach, Vol. 2, pp. 269-284.
Virginia Department Of Transportation (2011) “Geotechnical Manual for Structures,”
Volume V, Part 11, Section 9, 97 P.

126
Walsh, Kenneth D., Houston, Sandra L., and Houston, William N. (1995) “Development
of t-z Curves for Cemented Fine-Grained Soil Deposits,” Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, 121(12)886-895.
Zhang, J., Tang, Wilson H., Zhang, L.M., Huang, H.W. (2012) “Characterising
geotechnical model uncertainty by hybrid Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation,”
Computers and Geotechnics, ELSEVIER, 43: 26–36.
Zhang, Limin (2004) “Reliability Verification Using Proof Pile Load Tests,” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 11,pp.1203–1213.
Zhu, Hong, and Chang, Ming-Fang (2002) “Load Transfer Curves along Bored Piles
Considering Modulus Degradation,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
128(9)764-774.
127
APPENDICES
128
Appendix A:
MATLAB® Code for Generating the Random Variables

129
clear; % Clears all the previous variables

clc; % Clears the screen
load 'random_a.mat'% A matrix of 50*900 normal standard variates
created randomly by EXCEL® random number generator for each pile,
50 segment along the pile and 900 realizations
load 'random_b.mat'% A matrix of 50*900 normal standard variates
50 segment along the pile and 900 realizations
load 'random_q.mat'% A matrix of 1*900 normal standard variates
one value at the pile toe and 900 realizations
load 'predicted_a.mat'% A matrix of 50*1 containing the values
of the a coefficient calculated from the deterministic proposed
relationship along each pile
load 'predicted_b.mat'% A matrix of 50*1 containing the values
of the b coefficient calculated from the deterministic proposed
relationship along each pile
load 'q.mat'% A matrix of 1*1 containing the value of q_max
calculated using the Stuedlein et al. (2012) model
for i=1:50 % Outer loop, indicates the calculations are performed
for 50 segment along each pile
for j=1:size(random_a,2) % Inner loop, indicates the
calculations are performed for all the realizations
bias_a(i,j)=exp(0.810*random_a(i,j)-0.2296); % calculating
the bias in a coefficient, following a lognormal distribution by
mean of -0.2296 and standard deviation of 0.81
bias_b(i,j)=exp(0.204*random_b(i,j)-0.0208); % calculating
the bias in b coefficient, following a lognormal distribution by
mean of -0.0208 and standard deviation of 0.204
bias_q(j)=0.235*random_q(j)+1.01; % calculating the bias in
q_max , following a normal distribution by mean of 1.01 and
standard deviation of 0.235
a(i,j)=bias_a(i,j)*predicted_a(i); % calculating the
randomly generated values for a coefficient
130
b(i,j)=bias_b(i,j)*predicted_b(i); % calculating the

randomly generated values for b coefficient
q_max(j)=bias_q(j)*q; % calculating the randomly generated
values for q_max values
end
end
131
Appendix B:
MATLAB® Code for Calculating the Load-Displacement Response
of ACIP Piles Using t-z and q-z Models

132
clear; % Clears all the previous variables

clc; % Clears the screen
load '1997-1.mat' % A pile matrix, such as 1997-1, including the
modulus, a and b coefficients, and effective stresses for each
segment and ultimate values for toe bearing capacity calculated
from the Stuedlein et al. (2012) model
n=1; % A variable assigned for capturing the number of possible
errors that could happen during the calculation procedure
ls=0.188; % Length of each segment, by considering 50 segment
for each pile, in meters
D=0.4064; % Pile Diameter in meters
C=pi*D; % Circumference of the pile, in meters
zc_toe=0.1*D; % Critical displacement of toe for ultimate toe
bearing resistance mobilization, in meters
delta=1e-06; % The assumed step that will be used in numerically
calculation of the displacements, in meters
z_toe=0; % Initial assumed value for displacement of the pile toe
prior to the loading, in meters
z(1)=0; % initial assumed value for head displacement of the pile
z_temp=0; % A temporary variable that is used for saving the
calculated displacements, in meters
options = optimset('FunValCheck','on'); % Option for checking the
roots of the function in fzero command
for NR=1:900 % Beginning of the main loop, for deterministic
evaluation, NR=1:1 and for Monte Carlo simulation, NR=1:900
z_toe=0; % Initial assumed value for displacement of the pile toe
for j=1:size(original_disp,1) % Inner loop indicating the
calculation is performed for all the measured displacements
while abs(z(1)*1000-original_disp(j))>1e-03 % A condition
for checking the tolerance of the calculations, here for instant,
the tolerance was set to be 0.001 mm between calculated and
measured displacements
133
if (z_toe>=zc_toe) % Checking if the toe displacement

has reached the critical value or not
q_toe=pi*D^2/4*q_max(NR); % The ultimate toe
bearing capacity calculated from Stuedlein et al. (2012) model
else % If the critical displacement of the toe was
not achieved, then:
q_toe=pi*D^2/4*q_max(NR)*((-18.4245)*(1-
exp(0.00264915*((z_toe*100)/D)))+1.3274764*(1-
1/(1+1.3274764*0.1941*((z_toe*100)/D)))); % O’Neill and Reese
(1999) q-z model
end
q(51)=q_toe; % Load at the toe, in Newton
z(51)=z_toe; % Displacement at the toe, in Meters
try % A loop for catching any possible numerical errors
during the implementation of the t-z model
for i=50:-1:1 % Inner loop, indicating the t-z
calculations is performed for 50 segments along each pile
q(i)=fzero(@(x) % Calculated load at each segment in
Kilo Newton
q(i+1)+ls*C*sigma(i)*a(i,NR)*((((x+q(i+1))*ls/(4*EA(i)))+z(i+1))/
D)^b(i,NR)-x,[0,50000],options);
z(i)=z(i+1)+(q(i)+q(i+1))*ls/(2*EA(i)); % Calculated
displacement at center of each segment, in meters
if(z(i+1)+(q(i)+q(i+1))*ls/(4*EA(i))>=0.01*D) %
Checking if the displacement of the center of the segment is
greater than the critical displacement, here 10 percent of the
pile diameter, in meters
q(i)=q(i+1)+ls*C*sigma(i)*a(i,NR)*(0.01)^b(i,NR);
z(i)=z(i+1)+(q(i)+q(i+1))*ls/(2*EA(i));
end
end
if (z(1)*1000<=original_disp(j)) % From this point to
the end, the displacements and corresponding load are being
calculated by adding the steps defined at the beginning, until
134
they reach the allowable tolerance level indicated at the

beginning of the main loop
z_toe=z_toe+delta;
else
if (z_temp<original_disp(j))
z_toe=z_toe-delta/10;
else
z_toe=z_toe-delta/100;
end, end
z_temp=z(1)*1000;
catch
Error(n)=NR;
q(1)=0;
n=n+1;
break
end
end
final_load(j,NR)=q(1);
head_disp(j,NR)=z(1)*1000;
end
NR
End
135
Appendix C:
Comparison of Deterministic Coefficients Results with Results from Random
Variable Generation
136
Table C. 1: Comparison of Deterministic Coefficients Results with Results from Random Variable
Generation, pile 2009-1.
Averaged Averaged
Depth/Diameter values of Bias in a values of Bias in b
a values b values
random a random b
0.6 20.00 22.15 1.11 0.65 0.63 0.98
1.9 20.00 21.75 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.00
3.2 20.00 22.51 1.13 0.65 0.64 0.99
4.4 20.00 22.52 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.01
5.7 20.00 22.85 1.14 0.65 0.64 1.00
7.0 20.00 21.82 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.00
8.2 20.00 22.63 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.01
9.5 20.00 21.34 1.07 0.65 0.64 0.99
10.8 20.00 23.03 1.15 0.65 0.64 1.00
12.1 20.00 22.55 1.13 0.65 0.64 1.00
13.3 20.00 22.54 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.00
14.6 17.41 18.74 1.08 0.65 0.65 1.01
15.9 15.32 16.96 1.11 0.65 0.64 0.99
17.1 13.70 15.36 1.12 0.65 0.65 1.00
18.4 12.40 14.15 1.14 0.65 0.65 1.00
19.7 11.34 11.90 1.05 0.65 0.65 1.01
20.9 10.46 11.60 1.11 0.65 0.64 0.99
22.2 9.72 10.71 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.00
23.5 9.08 9.75 1.07 0.65 0.65 1.00
24.7 8.53 9.41 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.01
26.0 8.05 8.69 1.08 0.65 0.65 1.00
27.3 7.63 8.52 1.12 0.65 0.64 0.99
28.5 7.26 7.88 1.09 0.65 0.64 0.99
29.8 6.93 7.52 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.00
31.1 6.63 7.45 1.12 0.65 0.64 1.00
32.3 6.36 6.72 1.06 0.65 0.65 1.00
33.6 6.11 6.91 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.01
34.9 5.89 6.68 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.01
36.2 5.68 5.91 1.04 0.65 0.64 1.00
37.4 5.49 5.91 1.08 0.65 0.64 1.00
38.7 5.32 5.70 1.07 0.65 0.65 1.00
40.0 5.16 5.66 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.00
41.2 5.01 5.88 1.17 0.65 0.65 1.00
42.5 4.87 5.28 1.08 0.65 0.64 0.99
43.8 4.74 5.08 1.07 0.65 0.64 0.98
45.0 4.62 5.20 1.13 0.65 0.64 1.00
46.3 4.50 5.12 1.14 0.65 0.65 1.00
47.6 4.40 4.73 1.08 0.65 0.64 1.00
48.8 4.30 4.78 1.11 0.65 0.64 1.00
50.1 4.20 4.47 1.06 0.65 0.65 1.00
51.4 4.11 4.66 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.01
52.6 4.03 4.40 1.09 0.65 0.64 0.99
53.9 3.94 4.33 1.10 0.65 0.64 0.99
55.2 3.87 4.21 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.00
56.5 3.79 4.17 1.10 0.65 0.64 1.00
57.7 3.73 4.20 1.13 0.65 0.64 1.00
59.0 3.66 4.02 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.01
60.3 3.60 3.88 1.08 0.65 0.64 1.00
61.5 3.54 3.89 1.10 0.65 0.64 1.00
62.8 3.48 3.73 1.07 0.65 0.65 1.00
Mean bias a Mean bias b
1.1 1.00
Deterministic
Averaged values of random q_max (KN) Bias in q_max
q_max (kN)
8325.00 8436.41 1.01
137
Averaged Averaged
a values b values
random a random b
0.6 20.00 22.60 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.00
1.9 20.00 21.09 1.05 0.65 0.64 1.00
3.2 20.00 22.73 1.14 0.65 0.64 1.00
4.4 20.00 21.87 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.00
5.7 20.00 23.29 1.16 0.65 0.65 1.00
7.0 20.00 22.74 1.14 0.65 0.65 1.00
8.2 20.00 22.64 1.13 0.65 0.64 1.00
9.5 20.00 22.80 1.14 0.65 0.65 1.00
10.8 20.00 22.26 1.11 0.65 0.64 1.00
12.1 20.00 21.79 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.01
13.3 20.00 22.35 1.12 0.65 0.64 1.00
14.6 17.41 19.01 1.09 0.65 0.64 0.99
15.9 15.32 16.69 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.01
17.1 13.70 15.40 1.12 0.65 0.65 1.01
18.4 12.40 13.58 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.00
19.7 11.34 12.46 1.10 0.65 0.64 0.99
20.9 10.46 11.74 1.12 0.65 0.65 1.01
22.2 9.72 11.15 1.15 0.65 0.64 1.00
23.5 9.08 9.82 1.08 0.65 0.64 1.00
24.7 8.53 9.59 1.12 0.65 0.65 1.01
26.0 8.05 8.88 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.01
27.3 7.63 8.60 1.13 0.65 0.64 1.00
28.5 7.26 8.38 1.15 0.65 0.64 1.00
29.8 6.93 7.48 1.08 0.65 0.65 1.00
31.1 6.63 7.30 1.10 0.65 0.64 1.00
32.3 6.36 7.26 1.14 0.65 0.65 1.01
33.6 6.11 6.49 1.06 0.65 0.64 0.99
34.9 5.89 6.93 1.18 0.65 0.64 1.00
36.2 5.68 6.30 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.01
37.4 5.49 6.10 1.11 0.65 0.64 1.00
38.7 5.32 6.11 1.15 0.65 0.65 1.00
40.0 5.16 5.85 1.14 0.65 0.64 1.00
41.2 5.01 5.37 1.07 0.65 0.65 1.01
42.5 4.87 5.37 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.00
43.8 4.74 5.22 1.10 0.65 0.64 1.00
45.0 4.62 5.00 1.08 0.65 0.65 1.01
46.3 4.50 5.30 1.18 0.65 0.64 0.99
47.6 4.40 4.71 1.07 0.65 0.65 1.00
48.8 4.30 4.49 1.05 0.65 0.65 1.01
50.1 4.20 4.48 1.07 0.65 0.65 1.00
51.4 4.11 4.60 1.12 0.65 0.65 1.00
52.6 4.03 4.60 1.14 0.65 0.64 1.00
53.9 3.94 4.39 1.11 0.65 0.64 1.00
55.2 3.87 4.33 1.12 0.65 0.64 0.99
56.5 3.79 4.13 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.00
57.7 3.73 4.15 1.12 0.65 0.65 1.00
59.0 3.66 4.14 1.13 0.65 0.64 0.99
60.3 3.60 3.96 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.00
61.5 3.54 3.96 1.12 0.65 0.65 1.01
62.8 3.48 3.91 1.12 0.65 0.64 1.00
1.11 1.00
Deterministic
Averaged values of random q_max (kN) Bias in q_max
q_max (kN)
7215.00 7198.43 1.00
138
Averaged Averaged
a values b values
random a random b
0.6 20.00 20.93 1.05 0.65 0.65 1.01
1.8 20.00 21.85 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.01
3.0 20.00 22.37 1.12 0.65 0.64 1.00
4.2 20.00 22.01 1.10 0.65 0.64 0.99
5.4 20.00 23.25 1.16 0.65 0.65 1.01
6.6 20.00 22.39 1.12 0.65 0.64 1.00
7.8 20.00 21.36 1.07 0.65 0.64 1.00
9.0 20.00 21.79 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.00
10.2 20.00 21.77 1.09 0.65 0.64 1.00
11.4 20.00 21.73 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.01
12.6 20.00 21.60 1.08 0.65 0.65 1.00
13.8 19.01 21.64 1.14 0.65 0.64 1.00
15.0 16.65 19.06 1.14 0.65 0.64 1.00
16.2 14.83 15.49 1.04 0.65 0.64 1.00
17.4 13.38 15.29 1.14 0.65 0.64 0.99
18.6 12.20 13.30 1.09 0.65 0.64 1.00
19.8 11.23 12.74 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.01
21.0 10.41 11.49 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.01
22.2 9.71 10.47 1.08 0.65 0.65 1.00
23.4 9.11 10.07 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.00
24.6 8.58 9.87 1.15 0.65 0.64 0.99
25.8 8.12 8.92 1.10 0.65 0.64 1.00
27.0 7.71 8.38 1.09 0.65 0.64 1.00
28.2 7.35 7.82 1.06 0.65 0.65 1.00
29.4 7.03 7.98 1.14 0.65 0.64 1.00
30.6 6.73 7.45 1.11 0.65 0.64 0.99
31.8 6.47 7.49 1.16 0.65 0.65 1.00
33.0 6.22 6.52 1.05 0.65 0.65 1.00
34.2 6.00 6.58 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.00
35.4 5.80 6.35 1.10 0.65 0.64 1.00
36.6 5.61 5.95 1.06 0.65 0.64 1.00
37.8 5.44 6.08 1.12 0.65 0.64 1.00
39.0 5.27 6.01 1.14 0.65 0.65 1.00
40.2 5.12 5.78 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.00
41.4 4.99 5.43 1.09 0.65 0.64 0.99
42.6 4.85 5.20 1.07 0.65 0.64 0.99
43.8 4.73 5.29 1.12 0.65 0.66 1.02
45.0 4.62 5.29 1.15 0.65 0.65 1.01
46.2 4.51 4.89 1.09 0.65 0.64 1.00
47.4 4.41 4.77 1.08 0.65 0.64 1.00
48.6 4.31 4.86 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.00
49.8 4.22 4.59 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.01
51.0 4.13 4.45 1.08 0.65 0.65 1.00
52.2 4.05 4.56 1.12 0.65 0.65 1.01
53.4 3.97 4.28 1.08 0.65 0.64 0.99
54.6 3.90 4.23 1.08 0.65 0.65 1.00
55.8 3.83 4.25 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.00
57.0 3.76 4.12 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.01
58.2 3.70 4.16 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.01
59.4 3.64 4.03 1.11 0.65 0.64 1.00
1.1 1.00
Deterministic Averaged values of random
Bias in q_max
q_max (kN) q_max (kN)
5920 5985 1
139
Averaged Averaged
Deterministic Deterministic b
a values values
random a random b
0.4 20.00 21.19 1.06 0.65 0.65 1.00
1.3 20.00 23.13 1.16 0.65 0.65 1.01
2.2 20.00 21.78 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.00
3.0 20.00 21.76 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.00
3.9 20.00 22.65 1.13 0.65 0.64 0.99
4.7 20.00 22.61 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.00
5.6 20.00 21.80 1.09 0.65 0.64 1.00
6.5 20.00 21.28 1.06 0.65 0.65 1.00
7.3 20.00 22.48 1.12 0.65 0.64 1.00
8.2 20.00 22.84 1.14 0.65 0.64 1.00
9.1 20.00 22.07 1.10 0.65 0.64 1.00
9.9 20.00 22.88 1.14 0.65 0.65 1.01
10.8 20.00 21.42 1.07 0.65 0.64 0.99
11.6 20.00 21.81 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.00
12.5 20.00 22.80 1.14 0.65 0.64 1.00
13.4 20.00 22.78 1.14 0.65 0.64 0.99
14.2 18.12 19.79 1.09 0.65 0.66 1.02
15.1 16.52 18.15 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.00
16.0 15.19 17.05 1.12 0.65 0.65 1.01
16.8 14.06 15.59 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.01
17.7 13.10 14.12 1.08 0.65 0.65 1.01
18.5 12.27 12.94 1.05 0.65 0.64 0.99
19.4 11.54 12.61 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.00
20.3 10.90 11.92 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.00
21.1 10.34 11.36 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.00
22.0 9.83 10.98 1.12 0.65 0.65 1.01
22.8 9.38 10.24 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.00
23.7 8.97 10.12 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.00
24.6 8.60 9.77 1.14 0.65 0.65 1.00
25.4 8.26 8.98 1.09 0.65 0.64 1.00
26.3 7.95 8.52 1.07 0.65 0.64 1.00
27.2 7.67 8.48 1.11 0.65 0.64 1.00
28.0 7.41 8.28 1.12 0.65 0.64 0.99
28.9 7.17 7.84 1.09 0.65 0.64 1.00
29.7 6.94 7.29 1.05 0.65 0.65 1.01
30.6 6.73 7.41 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.01
31.5 6.54 7.53 1.15 0.65 0.65 1.01
32.3 6.36 7.08 1.11 0.65 0.64 0.99
33.2 6.19 6.87 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.00
34.1 6.03 6.42 1.07 0.65 0.65 1.00
34.9 5.88 6.69 1.14 0.65 0.65 1.00
35.8 5.74 6.32 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.00
36.6 5.61 6.20 1.11 0.65 0.64 0.99
37.5 5.48 5.87 1.07 0.65 0.65 1.00
38.4 5.36 6.14 1.15 0.65 0.64 1.00
39.2 5.25 5.99 1.14 0.65 0.65 1.00
40.1 5.14 5.53 1.08 0.65 0.64 0.99
41.0 5.04 5.70 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.01
41.8 4.94 5.15 1.04 0.65 0.65 1.00
42.7 4.85 5.06 1.04 0.65 0.64 1.00
1.10 1.00
Deterministic q_max Averaged values of random q_max
Bias in q_max
(kN) (KN)
15355 15421 1.00432
140
Averaged Averaged
a values b values
random a random b
0.5 20.00 22.78 1.14 0.65 0.65 0.99
`1.4 20.00 22.28 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.00
2.4 20.00 22.55 1.13 0.65 0.64 1.01
3.3 20.00 21.81 1.09 0.65 0.65 0.99
4.2 20.00 21.53 1.08 0.65 0.65 0.99
5.2 20.00 21.95 1.10 0.65 0.64 1.01
6.1 20.00 20.43 1.02 0.65 0.64 1.00
7.1 20.00 21.93 1.10 0.65 0.64 1.00
8.0 20.00 22.10 1.10 0.65 0.65 0.99
8.9 20.00 22.14 1.11 0.65 0.64 1.00
9.9 20.00 21.98 1.10 0.65 0.64 1.01
10.8 20.00 22.49 1.12 0.65 0.64 1.00
11.8 20.00 22.76 1.14 0.65 0.63 1.02
12.7 20.00 22.15 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.00
13.6 19.39 20.30 1.05 0.65 0.65 1.00
14.6 17.41 18.90 1.09 0.65 0.65 0.99
15.5 15.82 17.63 1.11 0.65 0.65 0.99
16.5 14.49 15.32 1.06 0.65 0.64 1.00
17.4 13.38 14.52 1.08 0.65 0.65 0.99
18.3 12.44 14.00 1.13 0.65 0.64 1.00
19.3 11.63 14.17 1.22 0.65 0.65 1.00
20.2 10.93 12.32 1.13 0.65 0.64 1.00
21.2 10.31 11.63 1.13 0.65 0.64 1.01
22.1 9.76 11.04 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.00
23.1 9.28 9.78 1.05 0.65 0.65 1.00
24.0 8.84 10.19 1.15 0.65 0.65 0.99
24.9 8.45 9.41 1.11 0.65 0.64 1.00
25.9 8.10 9.20 1.14 0.65 0.64 1.00
26.8 7.78 8.09 1.04 0.65 0.64 1.00
27.8 7.49 8.25 1.10 0.65 0.64 1.00
28.7 7.22 7.99 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.00
29.6 6.97 7.67 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.00
30.6 6.74 7.45 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.00
31.5 6.53 7.21 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.00
32.5 6.33 7.37 1.16 0.65 0.64 1.01
33.4 6.15 7.06 1.15 0.65 0.64 1.01
34.3 5.98 6.18 1.03 0.65 0.64 1.00
35.3 5.82 6.39 1.10 0.65 0.64 1.01
36.2 5.67 5.95 1.05 0.65 0.66 0.98
37.2 5.53 6.01 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.00
38.1 5.40 5.78 1.07 0.65 0.65 0.99
39.0 5.27 6.03 1.14 0.65 0.65 1.00
40.0 5.15 5.75 1.11 0.65 0.64 1.01
40.9 5.04 5.20 1.03 0.65 0.64 1.00
41.9 4.94 5.36 1.09 0.65 0.65 0.99
42.8 4.84 5.59 1.16 0.65 0.65 1.00
43.8 4.74 5.09 1.07 0.65 0.65 0.99
44.7 4.65 5.22 1.12 0.65 0.66 0.98
45.6 4.56 4.92 1.08 0.65 0.64 1.01
46.6 4.48 5.11 1.14 0.65 0.64 1.01
1.10 1.00
Deterministic q_max Averaged values of random q_max
Bias in q_max
(kN) (kN)
11285 11407 0.99
141
Depth/Dia Deterministic a Averaged values of Deterministic Averaged values of Bias in
Bias in a
meter values random a b values random b b
0.6 20.00 21.89 1.09 0.65 0.64 1.00
1.8 20.00 22.30 1.12 0.65 0.65 1.00
3.0 20.00 22.83 1.14 0.65 0.65 1.00
4.3 20.00 22.12 1.11 0.65 0.64 0.99
5.5 20.00 23.70 1.19 0.65 0.64 0.99
6.7 20.00 23.32 1.17 0.65 0.65 1.00
7.9 20.00 21.55 1.08 0.65 0.65 1.00
9.1 20.00 22.98 1.15 0.65 0.65 1.01
10.3 20.00 21.61 1.08 0.65 0.66 1.02
11.5 20.00 23.40 1.17 0.65 0.64 0.99
12.8 20.00 22.98 1.15 0.65 0.64 0.99
14.0 18.63 20.89 1.12 0.65 0.64 0.99
15.2 16.34 17.47 1.07 0.65 0.64 0.99
16.4 14.57 15.53 1.07 0.65 0.65 1.01
17.6 13.15 14.86 1.13 0.65 0.64 1.00
18.8 12.00 13.35 1.11 0.65 0.64 1.00
20.1 11.05 12.76 1.16 0.65 0.64 0.99
21.3 10.25 11.92 1.16 0.65 0.65 1.00
22.5 9.56 10.29 1.08 0.65 0.64 1.00
23.7 8.97 9.77 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.01
24.9 8.46 9.63 1.14 0.65 0.65 1.01
26.1 8.01 8.89 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.00
27.3 7.61 8.25 1.08 0.65 0.65 1.01
28.6 7.25 7.60 1.05 0.65 0.65 1.01
29.8 6.93 7.49 1.08 0.65 0.64 0.99
31.0 6.65 7.64 1.15 0.65 0.64 0.99
32.2 6.38 6.79 1.06 0.65 0.65 1.01
33.4 6.15 6.91 1.12 0.65 0.64 0.99
34.6 5.93 6.46 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.01
35.9 5.73 6.72 1.17 0.65 0.65 1.01
37.1 5.54 6.10 1.10 0.65 0.64 0.99
38.3 5.37 5.92 1.10 0.65 0.64 1.00
39.5 5.21 5.53 1.06 0.65 0.64 1.00
40.7 5.07 5.68 1.12 0.65 0.64 1.00
41.9 4.93 5.43 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.01
43.2 4.80 5.34 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.01
44.4 4.68 5.00 1.07 0.65 0.65 1.01
45.6 4.57 5.11 1.12 0.65 0.64 1.00
46.8 4.46 4.82 1.08 0.65 0.64 1.00
48.0 4.36 4.45 1.02 0.65 0.64 1.00
49.2 4.27 4.62 1.08 0.65 0.65 1.01
50.4 4.18 4.51 1.08 0.65 0.64 0.99
51.7 4.09 4.54 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.01
52.9 4.01 4.33 1.08 0.65 0.65 1.00
54.1 3.93 4.24 1.08 0.65 0.64 1.00
55.3 3.86 4.25 1.10 0.65 0.64 0.99
56.5 3.79 4.07 1.07 0.65 0.65 1.00
57.7 3.72 4.09 1.10 0.65 0.64 0.99
59.0 3.66 4.09 1.12 0.65 0.65 1.00
60.2 3.60 4.14 1.15 0.65 0.65 1.01
Mean Mean
bias a bias b
1.11 1.000
Deterministic Averaged values of random q_max Bias in
q_max values (kN) (kN) q_max
11285 11562 0.98
142
Depth/Dia Deterministic a Averaged values Deterministic Averaged values Bias in
Bias in a
meter values of random a b values of random b b
0.2 20.00 23.62 1.18 0.65 0.64 1.00
0.7 20.00 21.74 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.00
1.2 20.00 22.10 1.11 0.65 0.64 0.99
1.6 20.00 22.52 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.01
2.1 20.00 21.84 1.09 0.65 0.64 1.00
2.5 20.00 22.77 1.14 0.65 0.64 0.99
3.0 20.00 21.48 1.07 0.65 0.65 1.00
3.5 20.00 22.68 1.13 0.65 0.64 1.00
3.9 20.00 21.86 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.00
4.4 20.00 22.77 1.14 0.65 0.64 0.99
4.9 20.00 23.86 1.19 0.65 0.64 0.99
5.3 20.00 21.15 1.06 0.65 0.65 1.00
5.8 20.00 22.98 1.15 0.65 0.65 1.01
6.2 20.00 21.53 1.08 0.65 0.64 1.00
6.7 20.00 22.73 1.14 0.65 0.64 1.00
7.2 20.00 21.55 1.08 0.65 0.64 0.99
7.6 20.00 22.03 1.10 0.65 0.64 1.00
8.1 20.00 21.70 1.08 0.65 0.64 0.99
8.6 20.00 21.96 1.10 0.65 0.63 0.98
9.0 20.00 21.32 1.07 0.65 0.65 1.00
9.5 20.00 22.48 1.12 0.65 0.65 1.00
9.9 20.00 21.27 1.06 0.65 0.65 1.00
10.4 20.00 22.21 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.01
10.9 20.00 22.51 1.13 0.65 0.64 1.00
11.3 20.00 22.58 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.01
11.8 20.00 22.34 1.12 0.65 0.65 1.00
12.3 20.00 21.55 1.08 0.65 0.64 0.99
12.7 20.00 22.84 1.14 0.65 0.64 0.99
13.2 20.00 23.73 1.19 0.65 0.65 1.01
13.6 19.38 20.91 1.08 0.65 0.65 1.00
14.1 18.36 20.39 1.11 0.65 0.64 0.99
14.6 17.44 19.88 1.14 0.65 0.64 0.99
15.0 16.61 18.25 1.10 0.65 0.64 1.00
15.5 15.86 17.48 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.00
16.0 15.18 16.49 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.01
16.4 14.55 16.12 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.01
16.9 13.98 15.32 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.01
17.3 13.45 14.34 1.07 0.65 0.65 1.01
17.8 12.96 14.07 1.09 0.65 0.64 0.99
18.3 12.51 13.63 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.00
18.7 12.09 12.75 1.05 0.65 0.64 1.00
19.2 11.70 12.62 1.08 0.65 0.65 1.00
19.7 11.34 12.24 1.08 0.65 0.65 1.00
20.1 11.00 11.88 1.08 0.65 0.65 1.00
20.6 10.68 11.68 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.01
21.0 10.38 10.85 1.05 0.65 0.65 1.01
21.5 10.10 11.70 1.16 0.65 0.64 1.00
22.0 9.84 10.71 1.09 0.65 0.63 0.98
22.4 9.59 11.01 1.15 0.65 0.65 1.00
22.9 9.35 10.53 1.13 0.65 0.64 0.99
Mean Mean
bias a bias b
1.11 1.00
Deterministic q_max Averaged values of random Bias in
values (kN) q_max (kN) q_max
9435 9521.2 0.99
143
Depth/Di Deterministic a Averaged values of Bias in Deterministi Averaged values Bias in
ameter values random a a c b values of random b b
0.2 20.00 20.84 1.04 0.65 0.65 1.00
0.7 20.00 21.26 1.06 0.65 0.64 1.00
1.2 20.00 23.22 1.16 0.65 0.64 1.00
1.6 20.00 23.22 1.16 0.65 0.64 0.99
2.1 20.00 22.35 1.12 0.65 0.64 1.00
2.5 20.00 21.97 1.10 0.65 0.64 0.99
3.0 20.00 22.15 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.01
3.5 20.00 21.99 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.00
3.9 20.00 22.26 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.00
4.4 20.00 21.65 1.08 0.65 0.66 1.02
4.9 20.00 23.53 1.18 0.65 0.64 0.99
5.3 20.00 23.17 1.16 0.65 0.65 1.01
5.8 20.00 20.21 1.01 0.65 0.64 0.99
6.2 20.00 22.57 1.13 0.65 0.64 0.99
6.7 20.00 21.50 1.08 0.65 0.65 1.00
7.2 20.00 23.51 1.18 0.65 0.65 1.01
7.6 20.00 22.60 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.01
8.1 20.00 22.40 1.12 0.65 0.66 1.02
8.6 20.00 23.71 1.19 0.65 0.65 1.01
9.0 20.00 22.26 1.11 0.65 0.64 1.00
9.5 20.00 22.94 1.15 0.65 0.65 1.00
9.9 20.00 22.80 1.14 0.65 0.65 1.00
10.4 20.00 22.53 1.13 0.65 0.64 0.99
10.9 20.00 22.88 1.14 0.65 0.65 1.01
11.3 20.00 20.90 1.04 0.65 0.64 1.00
11.8 20.00 22.57 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.00
12.3 20.00 22.08 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.00
12.7 20.00 21.53 1.08 0.65 0.65 1.00
13.2 20.00 23.21 1.16 0.65 0.64 1.00
13.6 19.38 21.40 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.00
14.1 18.36 19.91 1.08 0.65 0.64 1.00
14.6 17.44 20.05 1.15 0.65 0.64 0.99
15.0 16.61 18.78 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.00
15.5 15.86 17.34 1.09 0.65 0.64 0.99
16.0 15.18 16.58 1.09 0.65 0.64 0.99
16.4 14.55 16.85 1.16 0.65 0.64 1.00
16.9 13.98 14.99 1.07 0.65 0.64 1.00
17.3 13.45 15.70 1.17 0.65 0.64 1.00
17.8 12.96 13.81 1.07 0.65 0.64 0.99
18.3 12.51 13.47 1.08 0.65 0.65 1.00
18.7 12.09 13.30 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.01
19.2 11.70 13.75 1.18 0.65 0.63 0.98
19.7 11.34 12.50 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.01
20.1 11.00 11.90 1.08 0.65 0.65 1.00
20.6 10.68 11.13 1.04 0.65 0.64 1.00
21.0 10.38 11.41 1.10 0.65 0.64 0.99
21.5 10.10 11.03 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.01
22.0 9.84 11.28 1.15 0.65 0.64 0.99
22.4 9.59 10.28 1.07 0.65 0.64 1.00
22.9 9.35 10.29 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.00
Mean Mean
bias a bias b
1.11 1.00
Deterministic Averaged values of Bias in
q_max (kN) random q_max (kN) q_max
16650 16974.2 0.98
144
Averaged Averaged
Deterministic a Deterministic
values b values
random a random b
0.4 20.00 22.35 1.12 0.65 0.65 1.00
1.1 20.00 22.23 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.00
1.8 20.00 21.75 1.09 0.65 0.64 0.99
2.6 20.00 21.86 1.09 0.65 0.64 1.00
3.3 20.00 22.22 1.11 0.65 0.64 1.00
4.0 20.00 20.78 1.04 0.65 0.65 1.00
4.8 20.00 22.16 1.11 0.65 0.64 1.00
5.5 20.00 19.99 1.00 0.65 0.65 1.00
6.2 20.00 20.39 1.02 0.65 0.64 0.99
7.0 20.00 21.39 1.07 0.65 0.64 0.99
7.7 20.00 22.44 1.12 0.65 0.65 1.00
8.4 20.00 23.21 1.16 0.65 0.64 1.00
9.2 20.00 21.38 1.07 0.65 0.64 0.99
9.9 20.00 22.20 1.11 0.65 0.64 1.00
10.6 20.00 21.10 1.05 0.65 0.64 0.99
11.4 20.00 22.06 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.00
12.1 20.00 21.85 1.09 0.65 0.64 0.99
12.8 20.00 22.90 1.15 0.65 0.65 1.00
13.6 19.57 20.34 1.04 0.65 0.65 1.00
14.3 17.97 19.11 1.06 0.65 0.64 1.00
15.0 16.61 18.52 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.00
15.8 15.46 17.79 1.15 0.65 0.65 1.01
16.5 14.45 15.43 1.07 0.65 0.64 1.00
17.2 13.58 15.18 1.12 0.65 0.64 1.00
18.0 12.81 14.03 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.01
18.7 12.13 12.96 1.07 0.65 0.65 1.01
19.4 11.52 13.24 1.15 0.65 0.64 0.99
20.2 10.97 12.32 1.12 0.65 0.65 1.01
20.9 10.48 11.77 1.12 0.65 0.65 1.01
21.6 10.03 10.94 1.09 0.65 0.64 0.99
22.4 9.63 10.71 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.01
23.1 9.26 10.17 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.00
23.8 8.92 10.25 1.15 0.65 0.65 1.00
24.6 8.60 9.67 1.12 0.65 0.64 0.99
25.3 8.31 9.55 1.15 0.65 0.65 1.00
26.0 8.05 8.84 1.10 0.65 0.64 1.00
26.8 7.80 9.10 1.17 0.65 0.65 1.00
27.5 7.56 8.33 1.10 0.65 0.64 0.99
28.2 7.35 8.63 1.17 0.65 0.65 1.00
29.0 7.14 8.12 1.14 0.65 0.65 1.01
29.7 6.95 7.59 1.09 0.65 0.64 1.00
30.4 6.78 7.41 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.01
31.2 6.61 7.33 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.00
31.9 6.45 7.28 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.00
32.6 6.30 6.94 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.02
33.4 6.16 7.07 1.15 0.65 0.64 0.99
34.1 6.02 6.35 1.05 0.65 0.64 1.00
34.8 5.90 6.64 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.01
35.6 5.77 6.60 1.14 0.65 0.65 1.01
36.3 5.66 6.40 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.00
1.11 1
Deterministic q_max Averaged values of Bias in
(kN) random q_max (kN) q_max
20350 20439 1.00
145
Bias in a
0.5 20.00 22.11 1.11 0.65 0.64 0.99
1.6 20.00 23.24 1.16 0.65 0.64 1.00
2.6 20.00 21.20 1.06 0.65 0.65 1.01
3.7 20.00 21.77 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.00
4.7 20.00 22.66 1.13 0.65 0.64 1.00
5.8 20.00 21.28 1.06 0.65 0.64 1.00
6.8 20.00 20.94 1.05 0.65 0.65 1.01
7.9 20.00 22.55 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.00
8.9 20.00 22.93 1.15 0.65 0.65 1.00
10.0 20.00 21.47 1.07 0.65 0.64 1.00
11.0 20.00 22.63 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.00
12.1 20.00 22.40 1.12 0.65 0.64 1.00
13.1 20.00 22.47 1.12 0.65 0.65 1.01
14.2 18.27 20.24 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.00
15.2 16.33 18.08 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.01
16.2 14.78 16.41 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.01
17.3 13.51 14.63 1.08 0.65 0.65 1.00
18.3 12.45 14.16 1.14 0.65 0.65 1.01
19.4 11.55 12.31 1.07 0.65 0.64 1.00
20.4 10.78 11.85 1.10 0.65 0.64 0.99
21.5 10.12 10.48 1.04 0.65 0.65 1.01
22.5 9.54 10.36 1.09 0.65 0.64 1.00
23.6 9.03 9.70 1.07 0.65 0.64 1.00
24.6 8.57 8.89 1.04 0.65 0.64 0.99
25.7 8.17 9.32 1.14 0.65 0.64 0.99
26.7 7.81 8.52 1.09 0.65 0.64 0.99
27.8 7.48 8.36 1.12 0.65 0.64 1.00
28.8 7.18 7.69 1.07 0.65 0.65 1.00
29.9 6.91 7.73 1.12 0.65 0.65 1.00
30.9 6.66 7.08 1.06 0.65 0.65 1.00
32.0 6.43 7.03 1.09 0.65 0.64 1.00
33.0 6.22 6.87 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.00
34.1 6.03 6.41 1.06 0.65 0.65 1.00
35.1 5.85 6.32 1.08 0.65 0.65 1.01
36.2 5.68 6.34 1.12 0.65 0.65 1.01
37.2 5.52 6.09 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.00
38.3 5.38 5.82 1.08 0.65 0.64 1.00
39.3 5.24 5.81 1.11 0.65 0.64 1.00
40.4 5.11 5.51 1.08 0.65 0.65 1.01
41.4 4.99 5.60 1.12 0.65 0.65 1.00
42.5 4.87 5.61 1.15 0.65 0.64 0.99
43.5 4.76 5.18 1.09 0.65 0.64 1.00
44.5 4.66 5.31 1.14 0.65 0.65 1.01
45.6 4.57 5.14 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.00
46.6 4.47 5.05 1.13 0.65 0.64 1.00
47.7 4.39 4.95 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.00
48.7 4.30 4.50 1.05 0.65 0.65 1.00
49.8 4.22 4.70 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.00
50.8 4.15 4.55 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.00
51.9 4.08 4.43 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.01
Mean Mean
bias a bias b
1.10 1.00
18500.00 18785 1.0
146
Bias in a
0.3 20.00 21.14 1.06 0.65 0.64 1.00
0.9 20.00 21.52 1.08 0.65 0.64 0.99
1.5 20.00 22.56 1.13 0.65 0.64 0.99
2.1 20.00 22.64 1.13 0.65 0.65 1.00
2.7 20.00 21.47 1.07 0.65 0.64 0.99
3.3 20.00 22.94 1.15 0.65 0.65 1.00
3.9 20.00 21.87 1.09 0.65 0.64 0.99
4.5 20.00 22.24 1.11 0.65 0.64 0.99
5.1 20.00 21.98 1.10 0.65 0.64 0.99
5.7 20.00 21.68 1.08 0.65 0.64 1.00
6.3 20.00 22.38 1.12 0.65 0.65 1.00
6.9 20.00 21.20 1.06 0.65 0.65 1.00
7.5 20.00 23.07 1.15 0.65 0.64 1.00
8.1 20.00 21.74 1.09 0.65 0.64 1.00
8.7 20.00 22.01 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.01
9.3 20.00 21.45 1.07 0.65 0.64 1.00
9.9 20.00 21.87 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.00
10.5 20.00 21.41 1.07 0.65 0.65 1.01
11.1 20.00 21.39 1.07 0.65 0.64 1.00
11.7 20.00 21.88 1.09 0.65 0.64 0.99
12.3 20.00 22.29 1.11 0.65 0.64 0.99
12.9 20.00 21.04 1.05 0.65 0.64 0.99
13.5 19.71 20.60 1.05 0.65 0.64 0.99
14.1 18.36 20.26 1.10 0.65 0.65 1.00
14.7 17.18 18.95 1.10 0.65 0.64 1.00
15.3 16.15 17.63 1.09 0.65 0.65 1.01
15.9 15.25 16.89 1.11 0.65 0.64 0.99
16.5 14.44 16.25 1.13 0.65 0.64 0.99
17.1 13.71 15.72 1.15 0.65 0.65 1.00
17.7 13.06 14.14 1.08 0.65 0.65 1.00
18.3 12.48 13.84 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.01
18.9 11.94 14.21 1.19 0.65 0.65 1.00
19.5 11.45 12.86 1.12 0.65 0.64 0.99
20.1 11.01 11.21 1.02 0.65 0.64 0.99
20.7 10.60 11.72 1.11 0.65 0.65 1.00
21.3 10.22 10.92 1.07 0.65 0.65 1.01
21.9 9.87 11.53 1.17 0.65 0.64 0.99
22.5 9.55 10.69 1.12 0.65 0.65 1.00
23.1 9.25 9.88 1.07 0.65 0.64 0.99
23.7 8.97 10.27 1.15 0.65 0.65 1.00
24.3 8.71 9.83 1.13 0.65 0.64 0.99
24.9 8.46 9.13 1.08 0.65 0.64 0.99
25.5 8.23 8.84 1.07 0.65 0.65 1.01
26.1 8.01 8.71 1.09 0.65 0.64 0.99
26.7 7.81 8.19 1.05 0.65 0.65 1.00
27.3 7.62 8.12 1.07 0.65 0.65 1.00
27.9 7.44 8.10 1.09 0.65 0.64 1.00
28.5 7.27 7.97 1.10 0.65 0.64 0.99
29.1 7.10 7.79 1.10 0.65 0.64 0.99
29.7 6.95 8.06 1.16 0.65 0.65 1.00
Mean Mean
bias a bias b
1.10 1.00
15355 15258 1.01
147
Appendix D:
Detailed Monte Carlo Simulation Results

148
Table D. 1: The detailed results of the corrected Monte Carlo Simulation for all the head displacements
of test pile 2009-1.
Actual
Actual load Mean loads from ̅
displacement COV
(kN) MCS (kN)
(mm)
0.5 115 272 48 0.18 0.42
1.0 234 401 54 0.13 0.58
1.5 349 554 68 0.12 0.63
2 467 670 80 0.12 0.70
2.5 583 807 94 0.12 0.72
3 698 911 104 0.11 0.77
3.5 814 1036 117 0.11 0.79
4 930 1157 129 0.11 0.80
4.5 1045 1296 143 0.11 0.81
5 1163 1409 154 0.11 0.83
5.5 1276 1540 167 0.11 0.83
6 1391 1668 179 0.11 0.83
7 1507 1813 193 0.11 0.83
7.5 1622 1934 205 0.11 0.84
8 1738 2071 218 0.11 0.84
9 1856 2206 231 0.10 0.84
10 1969 2357 246 0.10 0.84
10.5 2087 2504 260 0.10 0.83
11 2199 2648 274 0.10 0.83
12 2315 2807 289 0.10 0.82
14 2546 3097 317 0.10 0.82
16 2779 3410 348 0.10 0.81
18 3010 3712 377 0.10 0.81
20 3238 4035 409 0.10 0.80
22 3474 4375 443 0.10 0.79
25 3793 4826 488 0.10 0.79
149
Actual displacement Actual load Mean loads from ̅

COV
(mm) (kN) MCS (kN)
0.5 116 226 44 0.20 0.51
1 235 378 50 0.13 0.62
1.5 351 553 67 0.12 0.63
2 464 661 78 0.12 0.70
2.5 581 814 94 0.12 0.71
3 699 958 109 0.11 0.73
4 813 1073 121 0.11 0.76
4.5 929 1227 137 0.11 0.76
5 1045 1354 150 0.11 0.77
6 1159 1517 166 0.11 0.76
6.5 1275 1655 180 0.11 0.77
7 1391 1808 196 0.11 0.77
8 1507 2030 218 0.11 0.74
9 1621 2119 227 0.11 0.76
10 1737 2260 242 0.11 0.77
11 1851 2414 257 0.11 0.77
12 1970 2582 274 0.11 0.76
13 2080 2729 289 0.11 0.76
14 2199 2889 306 0.11 0.76
15 2316 3029 320 0.11 0.76
16 2543 3318 350 0.11 0.77
18 2776 3612 380 0.11 0.77
21 3005 3923 413 0.11 0.77
23 3235 4237 446 0.11 0.76
25 3468 4549 480 0.11 0.76
29 3791 4995 536 0.11 0.76
150

COV
(mm) (kN) MCS (kN)
0.5 116 174 31 0.18 0.67
1 231 278 36 0.13 0.83
1.5 347 366 44 0.12 0.95
2 463 458 54 0.12 1.01
2.5 578 544 63 0.12 1.06
3 694 630 72 0.11 1.10
3.5 810 713 80 0.11 1.14
4 925 796 89 0.11 1.16
4.5 1041 881 97 0.11 1.18
5 1156 967 106 0.11 1.20
5.5 1272 1064 116 0.11 1.20
6 1388 1149 125 0.11 1.21
7 1503 1234 133 0.11 1.22
7.5 1619 1321 142 0.11 1.23
8 1735 1405 150 0.11 1.23
9 1850 1495 159 0.11 1.24
9.5 1966 1585 169 0.11 1.24
10 2082 1667 177 0.11 1.25
11 2197 1764 187 0.11 1.25
12 2313 1858 196 0.11 1.25
13 2544 2043 215 0.11 1.25
15 2776 2249 236 0.11 1.23
151

COV
(mm) (kN) MCS (kN)
0.5 167 361 53 0.15 0.46
1 334 508 69 0.14 0.66
1.5 500 688 80 0.12 0.73
2 667 867 92 0.11 0.77
2.5 834 1041 106 0.10 0.80
3 1001 1208 120 0.10 0.83
3.5 1168 1340 131 0.10 0.87
4 1334 1530 146 0.10 0.87
4.5 1501 1655 155 0.09 0.91
5 1668 1834 170 0.09 0.91
5.5 1835 1977 182 0.09 0.93
6 2002 2113 193 0.09 0.95
7 2335 2437 220 0.09 0.96
9 2669 2703 242 0.09 0.99
10 3002 2997 265 0.09 1.00
11 3203 3139 277 0.09 1.02
152

COV
(mm) (kN) MCS (kN)
1 183 366 64 0.17 0.50
1.5 367 660 81 0.12 0.56
2 548 870 102 0.12 0.63
3 728 1068 122 0.11 0.68
3.5 908 1257 142 0.11 0.72
4 1079 1466 162 0.11 0.74
5 1259 1668 183 0.11 0.76
5.5 1433 1889 204 0.11 0.76
6 1608 2104 225 0.11 0.76
7 1786 2362 250 0.11 0.76
8 1959 2612 274 0.10 0.75
9 2137 2873 300 0.10 0.74
11 2310 3116 326 0.10 0.74
12 2490 3395 359 0.11 0.73
13 2665 3624 387 0.11 0.74
15 2843 3842 415 0.11 0.74
16 3023 4021 439 0.11 0.75
17 3198 4203 465 0.11 0.76

COV
(mm) (kN) MCS (kN)
1 334 442 72 0.16 0.75
2 667 809 113 0.14 0.82
4 1001 1160 153 0.13 0.86
6 1334 1545 196 0.13 0.86
7 1668 1923 237 0.12 0.87
9 2002 2335 281 0.12 0.86
12 2335 2778 328 0.12 0.84
14 2669 3233 376 0.12 0.83
153

COV
(mm) (kN) MCS (kN)
0.5 143 182 27 0.15 0.78
1 252 278 39 0.14 0.91
1 380 409 55 0.13 0.93
2 513 575 74 0.13 0.89
3 641 733 92 0.13 0.87
4 750 862 107 0.12 0.87
5 893 1040 133 0.13 0.86
7 1072 1139 152 0.13 0.94

COV
(mm) (kN) MCS (kN)
2 435 532 74 0.14 0.82
4 884 767 101 0.13 1.15

COV
(mm) (kN) MCS (kN)
1 439 495 60 0.12 0.89
3 892 894 100 0.11 1.00
4 1347 1256 134 0.11 1.07
6 1783 1606 179 0.11 1.11
11 2305 2125 249 0.12 1.08
154
displacements of test pile 1997-4.
Actual
Actual load Mean loads from MCS ̅
displacement COV
(kN) (kN)
(mm)
2 444 613 87 0.14 0.72
3 895 998 141 0.14 0.90
4 1095 1215 171 0.14 0.90
displacements of test pile 1997-5.
Actual
Actual load Mean loads from ̅
displacement COV
(kN) MCS (kN)
(mm)
2 441 621.71 73 0.12 0.71
4 898 1000.06 117 0.12 0.90
7 1333 1285.55 157 0.12 1.04
12 1846 1633.51 218 0.13 1.13

AdamiNasim2013 PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

AdamiNasim2013 PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF

Title: Development of an ACIP Pile-Specific Load-Displacement Model.

compared to similar deep foundations, such as drilled shafts. The insufficient

consequently disagreement between the predicted and measured load-displacement

behavior of the ACIP piles.

This thesis evaluates the ability of currently used load-displacement models to

estimate the measured load-displacement behavior of ACIP piles. Also, a new

forms an ACIP pile specific load-displacement model. Experiments of instrumented

provides an improvement in the prediction of the load-displacement behavior of ACIP

Finally, an analysis of variability is performed using the Monte Carlo Simulation

with the sample probability distributions of the uncertain variables in load-displacement

useful tool in design procedure of ACIP piles.

Oregon State University

Presented October 28, 2013

Major Professor, representing Civil Engineering

Head of the School of Civil and Construction Engineering

Dean of the Graduate School

I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection of

Nasim Adami, Author

I would like to express my very great appreciation to my major advisor Dr.

1.1 Problem Statement .................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Research Outline ..................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3

2.1.1 Drilled Shaft Foundations ................................................................................. 5

2.2 Bearing Capacity of Drilled Deep Foundations ...................................................... 7

2.2.1 Estimation of Bearing Capacity of Drilled Shaft Foundations ..........................

2.3 Prediction Models of Pile Settlement in Granular Soils ........................................ 21

2.3.1 Vesic (1977) Settlement Method .................................................................... 21

2.4 Summary ............................................................................................................... 34

3 Research Objectives ..................................................................................................... 35

4 Database of Loading Test Cases .................................................................................. 37

4.1.1 General ............................................................................................................ 37

4.2.1 General ............................................................................................................ 45

4.3 Summary ............................................................................................................... 57

5 Development of a Load Transfer Model for Augered Cast-in Place Piles................... 58

5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 58

5.2 Development of the t-z Model ............................................................................... 58

5.2.1 Calculation of Pile Shear Stress, t ................................................................... 59

5.3 Selected q-z Model ................................................................................................ 72

5.4 Evaluation of the Proposed Load-Transfer Model ................................................72

5.5 Comparison of Results to 2009 and 1997 Test Series ........................................... 74

5.6 Summary ............................................................................................................... 87

6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 88

6.2 Monte Carlo Simulation in Geotechnical Engineering ......................................... 89

6.3 Input Variables and Probability Distribution of Uncertain Parameters ................. 91

6.3.1 Uncertain Variables of the Proposed Prediction Model .................................. 91

6.4 Monte Carlo Simulation Correction .................................................................... 101

6.5 Discussion of the Results .................................................................................... 108

6.6 Summary ............................................................................................................. 112

7 Summary and Conclusion .......................................................................................... 113

7.1 Summary ............................................................................................................. 113

7.2 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 115

7.3 Suggestions for Future Study .............................................................................. 117

References ....................................................................................................................... 118

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 127

Appendix B: MATLAB® Code for Calculating the Load-Displacement Response

Appendix C: Comparison of Deterministic Coefficients Results with Results from

Appendix D: Detailed Monte Carlo Simulation Results............................................. 147

Figure 2.3: A conceptual sketch of resisting parameters (Das 2004). ................................. 8

Figure 5.7: Comparison between the experimentally-derived coefficient a and the

Figure 5.8: Comparison between the experimentally-derived coefficient b and the

Figure 5.15: Comparison between the load-displacements produced by the proposed

Figure 5.16: Comparison between the load-displacements produced by the proposed