KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2011) 15(7):1185-1196 DOI 10.

1007/s12205-011-1254-1

Geotechnical Engineering

www.springer.com/12205

Resistance Factor Calculations for LRFD of Axially Loaded Driven Piles in Sands
Dongwook Kim*, Moonkyung Chung**, and Kiseok Kwak***
Received June 23, 2010/Revised November 11, 2010/Accepted December 30, 2010

Abstract
This paper presents the development of Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) of axially-loaded driven piles in sands. The resistance factors of base and shaft resistances were calculated separately to account for their different uncertainty levels. The ratios of dead-to-live load and ultimate base resistance to limit shaft resistance change the uncertainty levels of total load and total pile capacity, respectively; thus, those ratios should be reflected in the calculation of base and shaft resistance factors. For the development of LRFD for axially-loaded driven piles in sands, the ultimate limit state for an axially-loaded driven pile was established based on the Imperial College Pile (ICP) design method; the uncertainties of loads and resistance were accessed; reliability analyses were performed using the First-order Reliability Method (FORM); and finally, reasonable resistance factors of base and shaft resistances were calculated based on the results of reliability analyses for different target reliability index levels. The load factors used for the calculation of resistance factors are the ones proposed by AASHTO and ASCE/SEI 7-05. From the results of extensible reliability analyses using FORM, the resistance factors for base and shaft resistances were found to be highly dependent on the ratios of the dead-to-live load and the ultimate base resistance to the limit shaft resistance. Resistance factors are proposed for different combinations of these ratios within their possible ranges. Keywords: load and resistance factor design, driven pile, imperial college pile design method, reliability analysis, resistance factor, load factor, first-order reliability method

1. Introduction
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) is conceptually a more advanced design method than the existing Allowable Stress Design (ASD). Successful implementation of LRFD on geotechnical structures contributes to an economical and safe design. Recently, many countries, such as the United States, Canada, China, Japan, and Korea, commence to replace or already have replaced the ASD with the LRFD. For example, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in the United States mandated the use of LRFD for new bridge designs after October 1, 2007. LRFD in structural engineering was developed in the mid-1980s and has been successfully implemented in design practice. However, LRFD in geotechnical engineering has not been fully developed for most geotechnical structures. There has been research into LRFD for driven piles (Zhang et al., 2001; Paikowsky et al., 2004; Allen, 2005), and these research results were obtained based on reliability analyses and are reflected in the AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications (2007). For geotechnical structures other than piles, such as mechanically stabilized

earth walls, slopes, and shallow foundations, the values of Resistance Factors (RFs) proposed in the AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications (2007) are not based on reliability analyses, but rather are back-calculated from the existing Factor of Safety (FS) values. A rational framework for LRFD development should be established for the replacement of these back-calculated RF values with reasonable RF values calculated based on reliability analyses. A large number of studies were done for the calibration of resistance factors of geotechnical structures. Phoon and Kulhawy (2003) corroborated the importance of implementing the multiple resistance factor design concept for foundations. Phoon and Kulhawy (2002) performed FORM for the calculation of multiple resistance factors of drilled shafts for a given target reliability level. The multiple resistance factors for uplifts of drilled shafts include the resistance factors for side resistance and resistance from the self-weight of the drilled shaft. For shallow transmission line structures, Phoon et al. (2003) also calibrated different uplift resistance factors for uplift side resistance, uplift tip resistance and dead weight of foundation against uplift force. Honjo et

*Member, Post-doctoral Researcher, Geotechnical Engineering and Tunnelling Research Division, Korea Institute of Construction Technology, Goyang 411-712, Korea (Corresponding Author, E-mail: dwkim@kict.re.kr) **Member, Research Fellow, Geotechnical Engineering and Tunnelling Research Division, Korea Institute of Construction Technology, Goyang 411-712, Korea (E-mail: mkchung@kict.re.kr) ***Member, Research Fellow, Geotechnical Engineering and Tunnelling Research Division, Korea Institute of Construction Technology, Goyang 411-712, Korea (E-mail: kskwak@kict.re.kr) 1185

Dongwook Kim, Moonkyung Chung, and Kiseok Kwak

al. (2002) established a procedure for the calculation of partial factors for dead load, seismic load, base resistance and shaft resistance of axially-loaded case-in situ piles. Kim et al. (2005) calibrated local resistance factors of driven piles based on 140 Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) data and 35 static load test data from North Carolina Department of Transportation in the United States. Most of the research performed to date regarding resistance factor calculations of driven piles have focused on calibrating a single RF value of the total pile capacity, which is the sum of the ultimate base resistance Qb,ult and the limit shaft resistance QsL, for a given target reliability index (McVay et al., 2000; Paikowsky et al., 2004; Titi et al., 2004; Kwak et al., 2010; Allen, 2005). The RF values proposed in the current AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications for driven piles were also developed for the total pile capacity calculated based on reliability analysis for the given target reliability index. In other words, the current AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications (2007) also use a single RF value for both Qb,ult and QsL for driven piles. However, Foye (2005) and Foye et al. (2009) proposed different RF values for Qb,ult and QsL for open-ended and closed-ended driven piles, but those RF values were calculated for a conservative single dead-to-live load ratio (DL/LL) and a single target reliability index ( T) of 3.0. The uncertainty levels (bias factors, coefficients of variation, and distribution types) of Qb,ult and QsL are quite different. Accordingly, it is reasonable to assign different RF values for Qb,ult and QsL reflecting their own uncertainties. The uncertainty levels of Qb,ult and QsL are highly dependent on the method of prediction of Qb,ult and QsL (Jardine et al., 2005; Schneider, 2007). If the physics underlying the Ultimate Limit State (ULS) of driven piles are reasonably incorporated in the prediction methods of Qb,ult and QsL, the prediction methods will have less uncertainty. In this paper, the uncertainties of Qb,ult and QsL are assessed based on the qualitative pile load test database constructed for the development of Imperial College Pile (ICP) design methods (Jardine et al, 2005). Using the Load Factors (LFs) given in the design specifications (AASHTO, 2007; ASCE/SEI 7-05, 2005), the RF values of Qb,ult and QsL are calculated from extensive reliability analyses using the First-order Reliability Method (FORM) for different combinations of DL/LL and Qb,ult/QsL. The FORM, as set forth by Hasofer and Lind (1974) and Low and Tang (1997), is used to calculate reliability index in this paper.

3. Assess the uncertainties of Qb,ult and QsL using a high-quality database including the results of pile load tests and site investigations; 4. Determine an appropriate target reliability index (or target probability of failure) considering the importance of the structure; 5. Perform reliability analysis based on the uncertainties of the loads and resistances; 6. Calculate the RF values of the base and shaft resistances.

3. LRFD of Axially-Loaded Driven Piles in Sands

3.1 Identification of the ULS Equation using Imperial College Pile Design Method In order to identify the ULS of an axially-loaded driven pile in sands, the ICP design method is selected for the calculation of Qb,ult and QsL. This design method has been proven to predict Qb,ult and QsL accurately by many researchers (Jardine, 1985; Lehane, 1992; Chow, 1997). The ICP design method predicts Qb,ult and QsL using the tip resistance qc values measured from cone penetration tests (CPTs). The ICP design method has been successfully implemented worldwide for offshore, marine, and onshore sites (Jardine et al, 2005). The structures designed using ICP methods are offshore platforms, large bridges, and relatively small piles supporting light industrial facilities (Jardine et al, 2005). The ultimate pile resistance (or total pile capacity) Qult is represented by the sum of the ultimate base resistance Qb,ult and the limit shaft resistance QsL: Q ult = Qb, ult + QsL (1)

The ultimate base resistance Qb,ult, which is the base capacity mobilized at a pile head settlement of 10% of its pile diameter, is the product of the unit ultimate base resistance qb,ult and the pile base area Ab: Q b, ult = qb, ult Ab (2)

If the layer along the pile shaft is divided into n sublayers, the limit shaft resistance QsL is the sum of the unit limit shaft resistances qsL,i multiplied by the pile shaft areas As,i of n sublayers: Q sL =

i=1

qsL,i As, i ( i = 1, , n )

(3)

2. Procedure of Resistance Factor Calculation

For the successful calculation of reasonable RF values of Qb,ult and QsL for axially-loaded driven piles, a rational framework should be established. In this paper, the following steps are used for the calculation of RF values for Qb,ult and QsL. 1. Select a reasonable equation representing the ULS of driven piles; 2. Select a LF for each load type (e.g. dead load or live load) from the design specifications and investigate the uncertainty of each load;

The proposed qb,ult for closed-ended piles in the literature (Jardine et al., 2005) are as follows:
[ 1 0.5ln ( Dpile DCPT ) ]qcb, avg if Dpile 0.9m qb, ult = max [ 1 0.5ln ( Dpile DCPT ), 0.3 ]qcb, avg if Dpile > 0.9m

(4) where Dpile is the outer diameter of the pile, DCPT is the diameter of cone (typical DCPT = 0.036 m), and qcb,avg is the average cone resistance at the location of pile base. For open-ended piles, qb,ult depends on the plugged mode inside the pile. For fully plugged
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

1186

Resistance Factor Calculations for LRFD of Axially Loaded Driven Piles in Sands

mode, qb,ult of open-ended piles is assumed as the half of qb,ult of closed-ended piles:
[ 0.5 0.25ln ( Dpile DCPT ) ]qcb, avg if Dpile 0.9m qb, ult = max[ 0.5 0.25ln( Dpile DCPT ), 0.15 ]qcb, avg if Dpile > 0.9m

x is defined as the ratio of its mean value x to nominal value xn.

x x = ---xn

(8)

(5) For unplugged open-ended piles, qb,ult is calculated by the following equation: qb, ult = q cb, avg (6)

The coefficient of variation COVx of variable x is the ratio of its standard deviation to mean value.
x COVx = ----

(9)

The same equation is proposed for the unit limit shaft resistances of closed-ended piles and open-ended piles:
' 0.13 h qsL = 0.029qc -----v max -------------- , 8 pA A b
0.38

r + 2G -------------- tan cv A b

(7) where qc is the cone resistance, 'v is the vertical effective stress, pA is the reference stress (100 kPa), h is the distance along the pile shaft from the pile base, G is the shear stiffness calculated by qc[0.0203 + 0.00125qc(pA v)0.51.216 106 qc2(pA v)1]1, and r is the radial displacement during pile loading (typically assumed to be 0.02 mm), and cv is the critical-state interface friction angle between pile and soils contacted to the pile shaft. 3.2 Load Factors and Uncertainties of Loads In our analysis, two types of axial load are assumed: dead load DL and live load LL on a pile head. According to ASCE/SEI 705 (2005), the load factors (LFDL and LFLL) of DL and LL for building structures are 1.2 and 1.6, respectively. The uncertainties of DL and LL for building structures are summarized in Table 1. The uncertainties of the loads include specifying bias factors (), Coefficients of Variation (COV), and distribution types. In our analysis, the distribution types and the values of bias factors and COVs in Table 1 are used for the simulation of the uncertainties of DL and LL for building structures. The bias factor x of variable
Table 1. Bias Factors, Coefficients of Variation, and Distribution Types of DL and LL for Building Structures (Ellingwood, 1999) Load type DL LL Bias factor () 1.05 1.0 Coefficient of variation (COV) 0.10 0.25 Distribution type Normal Type I based on largest extreme

The AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications (2007) propose that the load factors for DL and LL for transportation facilities are 1.25 and 1.75, respectively. The uncertainties of DL and LL reported in the AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications (2007) are summarized in Table 2. The assessment of load uncertainties are carried out based on the work done by Nowak (1999). The bias factor and the coefficient of variation (COV) of DL varies with the material used in bridge construction, while those of LL change depending on a bridges span length and the number of lanes. For DL, the COV value depends on the material property as shown in Table 2. Considering that the dead load induced by the asphaltic wearing surfaces is generally a small portion of the total DL, in our analysis, we conservatively used a COV of 0.10 for DL. The bias factor of 1.05 is also conservatively selected and used in our analysis. Likewise, the LL bias factor of 1.2 and the COV of 0.205 were conservatively chosen. 3.3 Uncertainties of Ultimate Base Resistance Qb,ult and Limit Shaft Resistance QsL The measured values (Qb,ult, meas. and QsL,meas.) of the ultimate base resistances and the limit shaft resistances are obtained from the compression pile load test results, whereas their predicted values (Qb,ult, pred. and QsL,pred.) are calculated using the ICP design methods introduced in the earlier section. The ratios (Qb,ult, meas./ Qb,ult, pred. and QsL, meas./QsL, pred.) of the measured-to-predicted ultimate base resistance Qb,ult and limit shaft resistance QsL are reconstructed based on the data available (data are obtained by accurately digitizing the figures provided in the book) from Jardine et al. (2005). The mean and COV of the digitized data were the same as the values proposed in the literature. Jardine et al. (2005) stated that the database was constructed based on pile load test results reported by Chow (1997), Willliams et al. (1997), Zuidberg and Vergobii (1996), CUR (2001), Jardine and Standing (2000), Jardine et al. (2001), and Jardine et al. (1998). The piles used in the pile load tests were closed-ended or open-ended driven piles made of steel or concrete.

Table 2. Bias Factors, Coefficients of Variation, and Distribution Types of DL and LL (AASHTO, 2007 and Nowak, 1999) Load type DL Bias factor 1.0-1.05 COV 0.08-0.25 Distribution type Normal Note Factory-made: =1.03, COV=0.08 Cast-in-place: =1.05, COV=0.10 Asphaltic wearing surface: =1.0, COV=0.25 COV=0.17 for span 9 m and No. of lanes 4 in one direction. COV=0.205 for span = 3 m and No. of lanes = 1 in one direction.
1187

LL

0.6-1.2

0.17-0.205

Lognormal

=0.6 for No. of lanes 4 in one direction. =1.2 for No. of lanes = 1 in one direction.

Vol. 15, No. 7 / September 2011

Dongwook Kim, Moonkyung Chung, and Kiseok Kwak

Fig. 1. Distributions of (a) Ultimate Base Resistance Qb,ult and (b) Limit Shaft Resistance QsL

for foundation design practice (Paikowsky et al., 2004; Allen, 2005; Foye et al., 2006; and Foye et al., 2009). In general, the AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications (2007) propose to use a T of 3.5 (an approximate probability of failure of 0.0002) in the designs of the main elements and components, the failure of which may ultimately cause bridge failure. Lower levels of T can be used for less important elements and components of bridges. For group piles, which allow redundancy, a lower T (2.33) could be assumed (AASHTO, 2007 and Zhang et al., 2001). In this paper, three levels (2.5, 3.0, and 3.5) of target reliability index are considered and the corresponding resistance factors are calculated. 3.5 Resistance Factor Calculation For the reliability analysis using the FORM, the assessment of uncertainties of total resistance and total load (sum of loads) are required. The uncertainty of total resistance is a function of the Qb,ult/QsL ratio and the uncertainties of Qb,ult, and QsL while that of total load is a function of the DL/LL ratio and the uncertainties of DL and LL. In addition to the uncertainties of DL, LL, Qb,ult, and QsL summarized in Table 3, the ratios of DL/LL and Qb,ult/QsL are required to account for the uncertainty of the total resistance and the sum of the loads. Reliability analyses are performed reflecting the uncertainties of DL, LL, Qb,ult, and QsL with different ratios of DL/LL and Qb,ult/QsL. The results of a reliability analysis include the calculations of the reliability index and the most probable failure point (or the most probable ULS values of DL, LL, Qb,ult, and QsL). To account for the different uncertainty levels of the ultimate base resistance Qb,ult and the limit shaft resistance QsL, the resistance factors for Qb,ult and QsL are calibrated separately. Accordingly, the LRFD criterion for axially-loaded driven piles can be mathematically expressed as the following inequality: ( RFbase )Qb, ult, n + ( RFshaft )QsL, n ( LFi )Qi, n (10)

The measured-to-predicted ratios (Qb,ult, meas./Qb,ult, pred. and QsL, meas./ QsL, pred.) of Qb,ult and QsL were calculated and were plotted as distributions in Fig. 1. The forty eight Qb,ult, meas./Qb,ult, pred. values and forty QsL, meas./QsL, pred. values in Fig. 1 were used for the assessment of the uncertainties of Qb,ult and QsL predictions, respectively. The driven piles used in the assessment of Qb,ult uncertainty had various pile geometries (pile length = 1.1-47 m; pile diameter = 0.07-2.0 m) and a wide range of relative density at the pile bases (25-96%). Qb,ult, meas./Qb,ult, pred. values were not biased with respect to the relative densities near pile bases and a pile diameters. The QsL uncertainty was assessed based on pile tests with diverse pile dimensions (pile length = 1.8-47 m; pile diameter = 0.1-2.0m) and different average relative densities (31-100%) along the pile shaft. QsL, meas./QsL, pred. values were also no biased with respect to the relative densities along pile shafts and slenderness ratio (ratio of pile length to pile diameter). The distribution of Qb,ult, meas./Qb,ult, pred. is well-fitted to a lognormal distribution with a mean (bias factor of Qb,ult, meas./Qb,ult, pred.) of 1.023 and a COV of 0.201, while that of QsL, meas./QsL, pred. nearly follows a lognormal distribution with a mean of 1.088 and a COV of 0.287. These uncertainties (bias factors, COVs, and distribution types) of Qb,ult and QsL are used in the reliability analyses. 3.4 Target Reliability Index Conceptually, structures designed using LRFD methods guarantee a certain level of reliability, which is called the target reliability index T. In other words, the reliability of a system designed using LRFD is greater than or equal to the target reliability index. A target reliability index of 3.0 is generally used

where RFbase and Qb,ult,n are the resistance factor for base resistance and the nominal Qb,ult, RFshaft and QsL,n are the resistance factor for shaft resistance and the nominal QsL, LFi is the load factors from the design specifications, such as AASHTO (2007) and AISC/SEI 7-05 (2005), and Qi,n is the nominal applied load (or design load). When a driven pile is axially loaded to the ULS, many possible combinations of Qb,ult, QsL and Qi (in this paper, DL and LL) exist that satisfy the ULS. The surface consisting of these combina-

Table 3. Summary of the Bias Factors, COVs, and Distribution Types of the Resistances and Loads Used in the Reliability Analysis Force Resistance Qb,ult QsL ASCE-7 Load AASHTO DL LL DL LL Bias factor () 1.023 1.088 1.05 1.0 1.05 1.2 COV 0.201 0.287 0.1 0.25 0.1 0.205
1188

Distribution type Lognormal '' Normal Type I Normal Lognormal

Note (Jardine et al., 2005) '' Building and other structures (Ellingwood, 1999) Bridge substructures (AASHTO, 2007; Nowak, 1999)

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

Resistance Factor Calculations for LRFD of Axially Loaded Driven Piles in Sands

tions of Qb,ult, QsL and Qi values can be defined as the failure surface. Out of these numerous combinations of Qb,ult, QsL and Qi values, probabilistically a combination of the most probable ULS (or the most probable failure) values of Qb,ult, QsL, and Qi is unique and these values are denoted as Qbase,LS, Qshaft,LS, and Qi,LS, respectively. These ULS values (Qbase,LS, Qshaft,LS, and Qi,LS) are obtained from the results of reliability analysis based on the well-defined ULS equation, which in turn yield well-assessed uncertainties associated with the ULS equation, and the DL/LL and Qb,ult/QsL ratios. The optimum base and shaft resistance factors (RF * and base RF* ) and optimum load factors (LF * and LF* ) are defined as shaft DL LL the ratios of the most probable ULS to the nominal values as follows: Qbase, LS Qshaft, LS * * RFbase = ---------------- and RFshaft = ---------------Qb, ult, n QsL, n QDL, LS QLL, LS * * LFDL = ------------- and LFLL = ------------QDL, n QLL, n (11) (12)

Then, RFbase and RFshaft can be obtained without violating the LRFD criterion [Inequality (10)] using the following equations, proposed by Foye (2005): LFDL LFLL * RFbase = min ----------- , ---------- RFbase * * LFDL LFLL LFDL LFLL * RFshaft = min ----------- , ---------- RFshaft * * LFDL LFLL (13) (14)

Fig. 2. Flow Chart of Resistance Factor Calculation using FORM

4. Parametric Studies
As we mentioned in an earlier section, the DL/LL and Qb,ult/QsL ratios are important in assessing the uncertainties of total pile capacity and total load in addition to the uncertainties of DL, LL, Qb,ult, and QsL. From a designers point of view, the nominal ratios (QDL,n/QLL,n and Qb,ult,n/QsL,n) of DL/LL and Qb,ult/QsL are more meaningful than the mean values of DL/LL and Qb,ult/QsL because calculation of the nominal values (QDL,n, QLL,n, Qb,ult,n, and QsL,n) of DL, LL, Qb,ult, and QsL are necessary for pile designs, but the calculation of their mean values are not required. In this paper, by performing a series of reliability analyses varying the ratio (QDL,n/QLL,n) of the nominal dead load to the nominal live load and the ratio (Qb,ult,n/QsL,n) of the nominal ultimate base resistance to the nominal limit shaft resistance, tentative RFbase and RFshaft values were calibrated that are compatible with the ASCE/SEI 7-05 (2005) load factors and the AASHTO (2007) load factors following a flow chart shown in Fig. 2. Before a direct calculation of RF values is conducted, it is worthwhile to examine the changes of optimum factors with changes in QDL,n/QLL,n and Qb,ult,n/QsL,n. Due to the different uncertainty levels of DL and LL, the change of QDL,n /QLL,n results in a change of uncertainty of total load. Similarly, Qb,ult,n/QsL,n determines the uncertainty level of total pile capacity. An optimum factor implies a relative distance between the most probable ULS value
Vol. 15, No. 7 / September 2011

and its nominal value [Eqs. (11) and (12)]. Optimum factors of loads are generally higher than a unity while those of resistances are less than a unity. To reach the ULS of a pile, it is likely that the loads are maximized and the resistances are minimized; therefore, the Qi,LS values are likely to be maximized (greater than Qi,n) while Qbase,LS and Qshaft,LS tend to be minimized (less than Qb,ult,n and QsL,n). For building structures, the QDL,n /QLL,n ratio may vary with the materials used for building construction, the building dimensions (length, width, and height), the building use types (residential, commercial, public, or industrial). The QDL,n /QLL,n ratio for bridge structures changes with the span lengths for bridges (Hansell and Viest, 1971; AASHTO, 2007; Withiam et al., 2001). The QDL,n / QLL,n ratio is calculated as 0.5 for a bridge with a span length of 10 m using the empirical equation proposed by Hansell and Viest (1971), while the calculated QDL,n /QLL,n is nearly equal to 4.0 with span length of 70 m. In our analysis, the range of QDL,n /QLL,n is assumed 0.5-4 for both building and bridge structures. The ratio of Qb,ult,n/QsL,n is determined based on the Qb,ult and QsL equations proposed in the design specifications considering the pile characteristics (pile diameter, pile length, and roughness along pile shaft) and the foundation conditions (soil profiles, and strengths along pile shaft and at bearing layer). In our analysis, to account for numerous possible design cases, we assumed a wide range of Qb,ult,n/QsL,n, from 0 to 10. However, a Qb,ult,n /QsL,n ratio of 0 may not be possible to happen in practice because we do not expect Qb,ult,n = 0 for sand layers near the pile base. However, the Qb,ult,n/ QsL,n ratio of 0 is included in our paper for illustration purpose. Due to the different levels of load uncertainties between building structures (Ellingwood, 1999) and bridge structures (Nowak,

1189

Dongwook Kim, Moonkyung Chung, and Kiseok Kwak

* * * * Table 4. Optimum Factors (LFDL, LFLL, RFbase, and RFshaft) of Axially-loaded Single Driven Piles Used as Foundations of Building Structures

QDL,n/ QLL,n 0.5

LF*DL Qb,ult,n/QsL,n 0 0.5 1 5 10 0

LF*LL Qb,ult,n/QsL,n 0.5 1 5 10 0

RF*base Qb,ult,n/QsL,n 0.5 1 5 10 0

RF*shaft Qb,ult,n/QsL,n 0.5 1 5 10

1.07 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.34 1.48 1.52 1.52 1.50 N/A 0.86 0.81 0.73 0.71 0.62 0.70 0.76 0.95 1.02 1.09 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.26 1.39 1.43 1.42 1.41 N/A 0.85 0.79 0.70 0.69 0.59 0.67 0.73 0.93 1.00 1.10 1.12 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.15 1.25 1.28 1.27 1.26 N/A 0.83 0.77 0.67 0.66 0.58 0.64 0.70 0.91 0.99 1.12 1.14 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.07 1.12 1.14 1.13 1.13 N/A 0.82 0.76 0.66 0.65 0.57 0.63 0.69 0.90 0.99 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.44 1.63 1.67 1.67 1.65 N/A 0.84 0.78 0.69 0.67 0.55 0.65 0.71 0.92 1.00 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.11 1.10 1.33 1.51 1.56 1.56 1.54 N/A 0.81 0.75 0.66 0.64 0.52 0.61 0.68 0.89 0.97 1.11 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.20 1.33 1.37 1.36 1.34 N/A 0.79 0.73 0.63 0.61 0.51 0.58 0.64 0.87 0.96 1.13 1.16 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.09 1.16 1.18 1.18 1.17 N/A 0.78 0.71 0.61 0.59 0.50 0.57 0.63 0.85 0.95 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.55 1.79 1.85 1.84 1.82 N/A 0.81 0.75 0.65 0.63 0.49 0.60 0.67 0.89 0.97 1.10 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.42 1.65 1.71 1.71 1.67 N/A 0.78 0.72 0.62 0.60 0.46 0.56 0.63 0.86 0.95 1.12 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.25 1.42 1.46 1.46 1.44 N/A 0.76 0.69 0.58 0.56 0.44 0.53 0.59 0.83 0.93 1.14 1.18 1.19 1.19 1.18 1.12 1.20 1.22 1.22 1.21 N/A 0.74 0.67 0.56 0.55 0.44 0.51 0.58 0.81 0.91

2.5

1 2 4 0.5

3.0

1 2 4 0.5

3.5

1 2 4

1999), the optimum factors of DL, LL, Qb,ult, and QsL for both cases are examined. The optimum factors of DL, LL, Qb,ult, and QsL are functions of the bias factors, COVs, and distribution types of DL, LL, Qb,ult, and QsL as well as QDL,n/QLL,n, and Qb,ult,n/ QsL,n . Three different target reliability index values are used; T = 2.5, 3.0, and 3.5. For each T, a series of reliability analyses were performed, varying QDL,n/QLL,n, and Qb,ult,n /QsL,n, for which the calculated reliability indices were equal to the T. Optimum factors of driven piles used as building substructures are calculated and summarized in Table 4, and the optimum LFs and RFs are plotted in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively. A higher value for an optimum load factor (LF* or LF* ) DL LL represents that the most probable ULS value of the load (QDL,LS or QLL,LS) is determined as being relatively greater than its nominal value (QDL,n or QLL,n). As shown in Fig. 3, LF* and LF* DL LL increase with an increasing target reliability index T. LF* and DL

LF* are determined not only from the uncertainties of the loads LL (DL and LL) and the QDL,n /QLL,n ratio, but also from the uncertainties of the pile resistances (Qb,ult and QsL) and the Qb,ult,n/QsL,n ratio. Overall, LF* tends to increase with an increasing QDL,n / DL QLL,n and with an increasing Qb,ult,n /QsL,n while LF* is likely to LL increase with a decreasing QDL,n /QLL,n and with an increasing Qb,ult,n/QsL,n. Fig. 3 shows that, for a given Qb,ult,n/QsL,n,, the increase of LF* and the decrease of LF* coupled with an increasing DL LL QDL,n/QLL,n mean that the unit contribution of the DL (DL at the most probable ULS normalized by its nominal value) to pile failures (attainment of ULS of piles) increases with an increasing QDL,n/QLL,n while that (LL at the most probable ULS normalized by its nominal value) of LL to pile failures decreases with an increasing QDL,n /QLL,n. In Fig. 4, a higher RF value indicates that the resistance at the ULS is determined closer to its nominal resistance. Similarly to

Fig. 3. Optimum LFs for (a) DL and (b) LL for Driven Piles Used as Foundations of Building Structures, Resulting from Reliability Analyses using the Load Uncertainties Proposed by Ellingwood (1999) (the optimum LFs in the figures are given as values in Table 4)

Fig. 4. Optimum RFs for (a) Qb,ult and (b) QsL for Driven Piles Used as Foundations of Building Structures, Resulting from Reliability Analyses Corresponding to the Load Uncertainties Proposed by Ellingwood (1999) (the optimum RFs in the figures are given as values in Table 4)
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

1190

Resistance Factor Calculations for LRFD of Axially Loaded Driven Piles in Sands
* * * * Table 5. Optimum Factors (LFDL, LFLL, RFbase, and RFshaft) of Axially-loaded Single Driven Piles Used as Foundations of Bridge Structures

QDL,n/ QLL,n 0.5 1 2 4 0.5 1 2 4 0.5 1 2 4

2.5

3.0

3.5

1.07 1.09 1.10 1.12 1.07 1.09 1.11 1.13 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.14 1.07

LF*DL Qb,ult,n/QsL,n 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.12 1.13 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.15 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.10 1.11 1.11 1.13 1.14 1.14 1.16 1.17 1.17 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.08 1.08 1.08

1.08 1.10 1.12 1.14 1.08 1.10 1.14 1.16 1.08 1.11 1.15 1.18 1.08

1.49 1.42 1.34 1.27 1.57 1.48 1.38 1.29 1.65 1.55 1.42 1.31 1.49

LF*LL Qb,ult,n/QsL,n 1.62 1.65 1.65 1.54 1.57 1.57 1.42 1.45 1.45 1.32 1.33 1.33 1.73 1.77 1.77 1.64 1.67 1.67 1.49 1.51 1.51 1.35 1.36 1.36 1.86 1.91 1.91 1.74 1.79 1.79 1.56 1.59 1.59 1.38 1.40 1.40 1.62 1.65 1.65

1.63 1.55 1.43 1.33 1.75 1.65 1.50 1.35 1.88 1.76 1.57 1.39 1.63

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

RF*base Qb,ult,n/QsL,n 0.85 0.80 0.71 0.84 0.78 0.69 0.83 0.76 0.67 0.82 0.76 0.66 0.82 0.76 0.67 0.80 0.74 0.64 0.79 0.72 0.62 0.78 0.71 0.61 0.79 0.72 0.62 0.77 0.70 0.60 0.75 0.68 0.57 0.74 0.66 0.56 0.85 0.80 0.71

0.69 0.67 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.62 0.60 0.59 0.60 0.58 0.55 0.54 0.69

0.56 0.55 0.54 0.53 0.50 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.44 0.43 0.41 0.41 0.56

RF*shaft Qb,ult,n/QsL,n 0.64 0.70 0.88 0.62 0.68 0.87 0.60 0.66 0.85 0.59 0.64 0.85 0.59 0.65 0.85 0.56 0.63 0.83 0.54 0.60 0.81 0.53 0.59 0.80 0.54 0.61 0.82 0.51 0.58 0.80 0.49 0.55 0.77 0.48 0.54 0.76 0.64 0.70 0.88

0.95 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.91 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.95

Fig. 5. Optimum LFs for (a) DL and (b) LL for Driven Piles Used as Bridge Substructures, Resulting from Reliability Analyses Using the Load Uncertainties Proposed by Nowak (1999) (the optimum LFs in the figures are given as values in Table 5)

Fig. 6. Optimum RFs for (a) Qb,ult and (b) QsL for Driven Piles Used as Bridge Substructures, Resulting from Reliability Analyses Corresponding to the Load Uncertainties Proposed by Nowak (1999) (the optimum RFs in the figures are given as values in Table 5)

the load cases, for a given QDL,n/QLL,n in Fig. 4, the decrease of RF* and the increase of RF* with an increasing Qb,ult,n/QsL,n base shaft imply that the unit contribution of Qb,ult (Qb,ult at the most probable ULS normalized by its nominal value) to Qult decreases with an increasing Qb,ult,n/QsL,n while that (QsL at the most probable ULS normalized by its nominal value) of QsL to Qult increases with an increasing Qb,ult,n/QsL,n. Since the uncertainty levels of loads for bridge substructures are different from those for building substructures, in addition to the reliability analyses performed for driven pile cases of building substructures, the reliability analyses are carried out for calculation of the optimum load and resistance factors (LF * , LF* , RF* , DL LL base and RF* ) for the driven piles used as the bridge substructures. shaft The optimum factors are summarized in Table 5, and the optimum LFs and RFs are plotted in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. The optimum factors (Table 5) for the driven piles used as substructures of bridges are slightly different from those calculated for the piles used as building substructures (Table 4) because the uncertainty levels of DL, Qb,ult, and QsL are the same for both the building and bridge cases, but only the uncertainty levels of
Vol. 15, No. 7 / September 2011

LL for both cases are slightly different (Table 3). Even though the COV value (0.25) of LL for building substructures is greater than that (0.205) for bridge substructures, the effect of the COV difference on the RF values is reduced because of the greater bias factor (1.2) of LL for bridge substructures compared to that (1.0) for building structures. These optimum factors are used for calculation of the resistance factors of the base and shaft resistance of axially-loaded driven piles using Eqs. (13) and (14).

5. Results
Based on the results of the reliability analyses for building substructures, the RFbase and RFshaft values compatible with ASCE/ SEI 7-05 LFs are calculated for different QDL,n/QLL,n and Qb,ult,n/ QsL,n ratios and different target reliability indices using Eqs. and . The RFbase and RFshaft values are summarized in Table 6 and plotted in Fig. 7. For driven piles used as foundations of building structures, the calculated RFbase and RFshaft values varied within ranges of 0.68-0.93 and 0.62-1.03 for T = 2.5, 0.61-0.86 and 0.55-0.96 for T = 3.0, and 0.55-0.79 and 0.49-0.91 for T = 3.5,

1191

Dongwook Kim, Moonkyung Chung, and Kiseok Kwak

Table 6. RFbase and RFshaft Values of Axially-loaded Single Driven Piles Used as Foundations of Building Structures; Compatible with ASCE/SEI 7-05 LFs (ASCE, 2005)

QDL,n/QLL,n 0.5 1 2 4 0.5 1 2 4 0.5 1 2 4 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.5 0.93 0.93 0.89 0.86 0.82 0.86 0.84 0.81 0.72 0.76 0.79 0.76

2.5

3.0

3.5

RFbase Qb,ult,n/QsL,n 1 0.86 0.86 0.82 0.79 0.75 0.77 0.76 0.73 0.65 0.67 0.71 0.67

5 0.77 0.77 0.72 0.69 0.66 0.68 0.66 0.63 0.56 0.58 0.61 0.57

10 0.76 0.75 0.70 0.68 0.65 0.67 0.64 0.61 0.56 0.57 0.59 0.55

0 0.65 0.61 0.59 0.57 0.57 0.54 0.51 0.50 0.47 0.48 0.45 0.43

0.5 0.71 0.69 0.65 0.62 0.60 0.61 0.58 0.55 0.51 0.52 0.52 0.49

RFshaft Qb,ult,n/QsL,n 1 0.76 0.75 0.70 0.67 0.65 0.66 0.64 0.61 0.55 0.56 0.58 0.55

5 0.94 0.96 0.91 0.88 0.83 0.87 0.86 0.82 0.73 0.76 0.81 0.78

10 1.02 1.03 0.99 0.96 0.90 0.96 0.95 0.92 0.80 0.86 0.91 0.87

Fig. 7. RFs for (a) Qb,ult and (b) QsL for Building Structures Compatible with ASCE-7 LFs

respectively, depending on the QDL,n/QLL,n and Qb,ult,n/QsL,n ratios (QDL,n/QLL,n and Qb,ult,n/QsL,n ranges of 0.5-4 and 0.5-10, respecti-

vely). The RFshaft corresponding to Qb,ult,n/QsL,n = 0 are not highlighted in Table 6 and are excluded in the tentative RFshaft recommendations because it is unlikely to find Qb,ult,n/QsL,n = 0 cases in practice (Qb,ult,n = 0 may not be possible for a pile base located at a sand layer). The RFbase and RFshaft corresponding to specific QDL,n/QLL,n and Qb,ult,n/QsL,n ratios for the piles used as bridge substructures are summarized in Table 7 and are represented in Fig. 8. The calculated RFbase and RFshaft values for driven piles used as bridge substructures are not much different from those values for building cases. For driven piles used as bridge substructures, the specific values of RFbase and RFshaft are within ranges of 0.710.96 and 0.65-1.06 for T = 2.5, 0.64-0.87 and 0.57-0.99 for T = 3.0, 0.56-0.82 and 0.51-0.94 for T = 3.5, respectively, depending on the QDL,n/QLL,n and Qb,ult,n/QsL,n ratios (RFshaft values for Qb,ult,n/ QsL,n = 0 are excluded).

Table 7. RFbase and RFshaft Values of Axially-loaded Single Driven Piles Used as Foundations of Bridge Structures; Compatible with AASHTO LFS (AASHTO, 2007)

QDL,n/QLL,n 0.5 1 2 4 0.5 1 2 4 0.5 1 2 4 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.5 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.90 0.83 0.86 0.87 0.84 0.74 0.77 0.82 0.79

2.5

3.0

3.5

RFbase Qb,ult,n/QsL,n 1 0.85 0.87 0.85 0.82 0.75 0.77 0.79 0.76 0.66 0.69 0.73 0.70

5 0.75 0.77 0.74 0.72 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.65 0.57 0.59 0.62 0.59

10 0.74 0.76 0.73 0.71 0.65 0.66 0.66 0.64 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.57

0 0.66 0.63 0.61 0.60 0.56 0.55 0.53 0.52 0.47 0.48 0.46 0.45

0.5 0.69 0.70 0.67 0.65 0.59 0.60 0.60 0.57 0.51 0.52 0.53 0.51

RFshaft Qb,ult,n/QsL,n 1 0.74 0.75 0.73 0.70 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.63 0.56 0.57 0.60 0.57

5 0.94 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.84 0.87 0.89 0.86 0.75 0.78 0.84 0.81

10 1.01 1.06 1.03 1.01 0.92 0.96 0.99 0.96 0.84 0.88 0.94 0.91

1192

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

Resistance Factor Calculations for LRFD of Axially Loaded Driven Piles in Sands

Fig. 8. RFs for (a) Qb,ult and (b) QsL for Bridge Structures Compatible with AASHTO LFs

The equivalent RF (RFeq) values of total capacities were calculated from RFbase and RFshaft using the following equation: RFbase Qb, ult, n + RF shaft QsL, n eq RF = ------------------------------------------------------------Qb, ult, n + QsL, n (15)

For three different levels of T (2.5, 3.0, and 3.5), RFeq values were calculated for different ratios of QDL,n/QLL,n and Qb,ult,n/QsL,n, and they are summarized in Table 8. As mentioned earlier, a lower value of Qb,ult,n/QsL,n (0-0.5) may not be encountered in practice; therefore, RFeq values corresponding to Qb,ult,n/QsL,n = 0 are excluded in the RFeq comparison for the given T. It is found that, for a given target reliability index, there is a substantial change of RFeq with respect to QDL,n /QLL,n and QDL,n/QLL,n. The current LRFD design specifications and other literature propose a single RF value for total capacity for a given target reliability index. If we were to propose a single value of RF for the total pile capacity without differentiating QDL,n /QLL,n and Qb,ult,n /QsL,n for a given target reliability index, we may suggest the lowest RFeq value among the RFeq values (Table 8) calculated for the target reliability index. Designs of driven piles in sands using these lowest RFeq values result in uneconomical designs by imposing an extra margin of safety in pile designs, which can be represented by the difference between the RFeq values for each

Table 8. Equivalent Resistance Factor (RFeq) of Total Pile Capacity Qult of Axially-loaded Single Driven Piles Used as Foundations of Building and Bridge Structures

QDL,n/QLL,n 0.5 1 2 4 0.5 1 2 4 0.5 1 2 4

2.5

3.0

3.5

Driven piles used for building substructures Qb,ult,n/QsL,n 0 0.5 1 5 10 0.65 0.78 0.81 0.80 0.78 0.61 0.77 0.81 0.80 0.78 0.59 0.73 0.76 0.75 0.73 0.57 0.70 0.73 0.72 0.71 0.57 0.67 0.70 0.69 0.67 0.54 0.69 0.72 0.71 0.70 0.51 0.67 0.70 0.69 0.67 0.50 0.64 0.67 0.66 0.64 0.47 0.58 0.60 0.59 0.58 0.48 0.60 0.62 0.61 0.60 0.45 0.61 0.65 0.64 0.62 0.43 0.58 0.61 0.61 0.58

0 0.66 0.63 0.61 0.60 0.56 0.55 0.53 0.52 0.47 0.48 0.46 0.45

Driven piles used for bridge substructures Qb,ult,n/QsL,n 0.5 1 5 0.77 0.79 0.78 0.79 0.81 0.80 0.75 0.79 0.78 0.73 0.76 0.75 0.67 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.71 0.70 0.69 0.72 0.71 0.66 0.69 0.69 0.58 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.63 0.62 0.63 0.67 0.66 0.60 0.63 0.63

10 0.77 0.79 0.76 0.73 0.67 0.69 0.69 0.67 0.59 0.60 0.63 0.60

Table 9. Equivalent Factor of Safety (FSeq) of Axially-loaded Single Driven Piles Used as Foundations of Building and Bridge Structures

QDL,n/QLL,n 0.5 1 2 4 0.5 1 2 4 0.5 1 2 4

2.5

3.0

3.5

Driven piles used for building substructures Qb,ult,n/QsL,n 0 0.5 1 5 10 2.26 1.87 1.81 1.84 1.87 2.30 1.82 1.74 1.75 1.81 2.26 1.83 1.75 1.77 1.84 2.25 1.83 1.75 1.77 1.81 2.57 2.18 2.10 2.13 2.18 2.59 2.02 1.96 1.97 2.01 2.61 2.00 1.90 1.92 2.00 2.56 2.01 1.91 1.93 2.01 3.12 2.53 2.44 2.49 2.52 2.92 2.33 2.28 2.30 2.35 2.96 2.19 2.07 2.07 2.15 2.98 2.21 2.10 2.12 2.21
1193

0 2.41 2.38 2.32 2.26 2.85 2.72 2.68 2.61 3.38 3.12 3.08 3.02

Driven piles used for bridge substructures Qb,ult,n/QsL,n 0.5 1 5 2.06 2.00 2.02 1.91 1.85 1.87 1.89 1.80 1.83 1.85 1.77 1.80 2.36 2.28 2.31 2.18 2.10 2.13 2.07 1.96 1.99 2.04 1.94 1.97 2.71 2.60 2.63 2.49 2.39 2.42 2.26 2.13 2.15 2.25 2.13 2.16

10 2.06 1.91 1.88 1.84 2.36 2.18 2.05 2.03 2.70 2.48 2.23 2.23

Vol. 15, No. 7 / September 2011

Dongwook Kim, Moonkyung Chung, and Kiseok Kwak

QDL,n /QLL,n and Qb,ult,n/QsL,n and the lowest value of RFeq within each target reliability index. The design guides or specifications (AASHTO, 2002; USACE, 1993) regarding driven piles propose to use a FS range of 2.5-3.0 for pile designs using the ASD. The equivalent FS (FSeq) values are calculated using the following equation: Qb, ult, n + QsL, n LFDL QDL, n + LFLL QLL, eq FS = ------------------------------ = ----------------------------------------------------n eq QDL, n + QLL, n RF ( QDL, n + QLL, n ) (16)

than using a single conservative resistance factor of total pile capacity, designers may use the RF values that reflect different QDL,n/QLL,n and Qb,ult,n/QsL,n ratios.

Notations
Ab: Pile base area As,i: Pile shaft area of ith sublayer ASD: Allowable stress design COV: Coefficient of variation DCPT: Diameter of cone Dpile: Outer diameter of pile DL: Dead load FORM: First-order reliability method : Factor of safety FSeq: Equivalent factor of safety G: Shear stiffness h: Distance along pile shaft from pile base ICP: Imperial College Pile LF: Load factor LF * : Optimum dead load factor DL LF* : Optimum live load factor LL LL: Live load LRFD: Load and resistance factor design RF: Resistance factor RFbase: Resistance factor for base resistance RFshaft: Resistance factor for shaft resistance RF* : Optimum resistance factor for base resistance base RF * : Optimum resistance factor for shaft resistance shaft RFeq: Equivalent resistance factor pA: Reference stress (100kPa) QDL,n: Nominal dead load QLL,n: Nominal live load Qi,n: Nominal load Qi,LS: Load corresponding to the most probable ultimate limit state Qb,ult: Ultimate base resistance Qb,ult,n: Nominal ultimate base resistance Qbase,LS: Base resistance corresponding to the most probable ultimate limit state Qshaft,LS: Shaft resistance corresponding to the most probable ultimate limit state QsL: Limit shaft resistance QsL,n: Nominal limit shaft resistance qb,ult: Unit ultimate base resistance qc: Cone resistance qcb,avg: Average cone resistance at the location of pile base qsL: Unit limit shaft resistance ULS: Ultimate limit state : Reliability index T: Target reliability index r: Radial displacement during pile loading cv: Critical-state interface friction angle between pile shaft and surrounding soils
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

For each T (2.5, 3.0, and 3.5), FSeq values were calculated using Eq. (16) for different ratios of QDL,n/QLL,n and Qb,ult,n/QsL,n (Table 9). As shown in Table 9, the FSeq values for driven piles used for building substructures were less than those values for bridge substructures. The FSeq values were within ranges of 1.742.06 for T = 2.5, 1.90-2.36 for T = 3.0, and 2.07-2.71 for T = 3.5. From the comparison between the FSeq values in Table 9 and the FS values (2.5-3.0) proposed in ASD design guides and specifications, it is inferred that driven piles designed using the RF values (LRFD) proposed in this paper could lead to more economical designs of axially-loaded driven piles in sands than those designed using FS (ASD).

6. Conclusions
In this study, we separated the RF for total pile capacity into two resistance factors, RFbase for Qb,ult and RFshaft for QsL. The equations used for Qb,ult and QsL predictions of axially-loaded driven piles in sands are the ones proposed in the ICP design methods. The uncertainties of Qb,ult and QsL are assessed by identifying their bias factors, coefficients of variation, and distribution types obtained from the existing database used for ICP design method development. For three different T values (2.5, 3.0, and 3.5), RFbase and RFshaft are calculated based on reliability analyses for different combinations of QDL,n/QLL,n, and Qb,ult,n/QsL,n, within their possible ranges (QDL,n/QLL,n = 0.5-4 and Qb,ult,n/QsL,n = 0.5-10). As a result, for a given T, RFbase and RFshaft were highly dependent on QDL,n/QLL,n, and Qb,ult,n/QsL,n. The benefit of selecting RF values (RFbase and RFshaft) with differentiating QDL,n/QLL,n, and Qb,ult,n/QsL,n was evaluated by comparing the corresponding RFeq values for different QDL,n/QLL,n, and Qb,ult,n/QsL,n ratios. For a given T, among the calculated RFeq values for different QDL,n/QLL,n, and Qb,ult,n/QsL,n ratios, a difference between the minimum to the maximum RFeq was more than 10% of the maximum RFeq. In this paper, tentative RFbase and RFshaft values are calculated and suggested in Table 6 (resistance factors for driven piles used as building substructures) and Table 7 (resistance factors for driven piles used as bridge substructures) for LRFD of axiallyloaded driven piles in sands. From the comparison between the FS values proposed for driven pile ASDs and the FSeq values (Table 9) calculated from RFeq (Table 8), it is inferred that the designs of driven piles using the tentative RF values proposed in this paper could contribute economical designs. For an economical driven pile design with a given target reliability index, rather

1194

Resistance Factor Calculations for LRFD of Axially Loaded Driven Piles in Sands

eq: Equivalent mean : Standard deviation eq: Equivalent standard deviation 'v: Vertical effective stress

: Bias factor : Mean

Acknowledgements
The research presented in this paper was performed as parts of the Super long span bridge research project funded by the Ministry of land, transport and maritime affairs of South Korea and the Development of hybrid large-scale foundation with high efficiency project funded by Korea Institute of Construction Technology. The authors acknowledge the support from these two organizations.

References
AASHTO. (2002). AASHTO standard specifications for highway bridges, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 17th Edition, Washington, D.C. AASHTO (2007). AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 4th Edition, Washington, D.C. Allen, T. M. (2005). Development of geotechnical resistance factors and downdrag load factors for LRFD, Publication No. FHWA-NHI-05052, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., p. 41. ASCE (2005). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE/SEI 7-05, ASCE, Reston, Virginia, p. 424. Chow, F. C. (1997). Investigations into dispacement pile behaviour for offshore foundations. PhD Thesis, Imperial College, London. CUR (2001). Bearing capacity of steel pipe piles, Report 2001-8 Centre for Civil Engineering Research and Codes, Gouda, The Netherlands. Ellingwood, B. R. (1999). Wind load statistics for probability-based structural design. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE. Vol. 125, No. 4, pp. 453-463. Foye, K. C. (2005). A rational, probabilistic method for the development of geotechnical load and resistance factor design, PhD Thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. Foye, K. C., Salgado, R., and Scott, B. (2006). Resistance factors for use in shallow foundation LRFD. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 9, pp. 1197-1207. Foye, K. C., Abou-Jaoude, G., Prezzi, M., and Salgado, R. (2009). Resistance factors for use in load and resistance factor design of driven pipe piles in sands. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 1, pp. 1-13. Hansell, W. C. and Viest, I. M. (1971). Load factor design for steel highway bridges. AISC Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 113-123. Hasofer, A. M. and Lind, N. C. (1974). Exact and invariant secondmoment code format. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 100, No. 1, pp. 111-121. Honjo, Y., Suzuki, M., Shirato, M., and Fukui, J. (2002). Determination of partial factors for a vertically loaded pile based on reliability analysis. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp. 91-109. Jardine, R. J. (1985). Investigation of pile-soil behaviour, with special reference to the foundations of offshore structures, PhD Thesis,
Vol. 15, No. 7 / September 2011

Imperial College, London. Jardine, R. J. and Standing, J. R. (2000). Pile load testing performed for HSE cyclic loading study at dunkirk, France, Offshore Technology Report OTO 2000 007, Health and Safety Executive, London. Jardine, R. J., Overy, R. F., and Chow, F. C. (1998). Axial capacity of offshore piles in dense sand. Proceedings of 28th Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, OUC7973, pp. 161-170. Jardine, R. J., Standing, J. R, Jardine, F. M., Bond, A. J., and Parker, E. (2001). A competition to assess the reliability of pile prediction methods. Proceedings of 15th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Istanbul, Vol. 2, pp. 911914. Jardine, R. J., Chow, F. C., Overy, R. F., and Standing, J. R, (2005). ICP design methods for driven piles in sand and clays, Thomas Telford, London. Kim, K. J., Rahman, M. S., Gabr, M. A., Sarica, R. Z., and Hossain, M. S. (2005). Reliability based calibration of resistance factors for axial capacity of driven piles. Advances in Deep Foundations 2005 (GSP132), pp. 1-12. Kwak, K., Kim, K. J., Huh, J., Lee, J. H., and Park, J. H. (2010). Reliability based calibration of resistance factors for static bearing capacity of driven steel pipe piles. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 47, No. 5, pp. 528-538. Lehane, B. M. (1992). Experimental investigations of pile behaviour using instrumented field piles, PhD Thesis, Imperial College, London, UK. Low, B. K. and Tang, W. H. (1997). Efficient reliability evaluation using spreadsheet. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 123, No. 7, pp. 749-752. McVay, M. C., Birgisson, B., Zhang, L., Perez, A., and Putcha, S. (2000). Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for driven piles using dynamic methods - A Florida perspective. Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 55-66. Nowak, A. S. (1999). Calibration of LRFD bridge design code, NCHRP Report 368, Washington, D.C., Transportation Research Board. Paikowsky, S. G. (2004). Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for deep foundations, NCHRP Report 507, Washington, D.C., Transportation Research Board. Phoon, K. K. and Kulhawy, F. H. (2002). Drilled shaft design for transmission line structure using LRFD and MRFD, Deep Foundations 2002 (GSP116), pp. 1006-1017. Phoon, K. K., Kulhawy, F. H., and Grigoriu, M. D. (2003). Development of a reliability-based design framework for transmission line structure foundations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 129, No. 9, pp. 798-806. Phoon, K. K., Kulhawy, F. H., and Grigoriu, M. D. (2003) Multiple Resistance Factor Design (MRFD) for spread foundations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 129, No. 9, pp. 807-818. Schneider, J. A. (2007). Analysis of piezocone data for displacement pile design, PhD Thesis, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia. Titi, H. H., Mahamid, M., Abu-Farsakh, M. Y., and Elias, M. (2004) Evaluation of CPT methods for load and resistance factor design of driven piles. Proceeding of Geo-Trans 2004, Geotechnical Engineering for Transportation Projects, GSP 126, pp. 687-696. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1993). Design of pile foundations, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, p. 106. Williams, R. E., Chow, F. C., and Jardine, R. J. (1997). Unexpected behaviour of large diameter tubular steel piles. Proceedings of

1195

Dongwook Kim, Moonkyung Chung, and Kiseok Kwak

International Conference on Foundation Failures, IES, NTU, NUS and Inistitute of Structural Engineers, Singapore, pp. 363-378. Withiam, J. L., Voytko, E. P., Barker, R. M., Duncan, J. M., Kelly, B. C., Musser, S. C., and Elias, V. (2001). Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for highway bridge substructures, FHWA HI-98032, NHI Course No. 13068, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.

Zhang, L. M., Tang, W. H., and Ng, C. W. W. (2001). Reliability of Axially Loaded Driven Pile Groups, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 12, pp. 1051-1060. Zuidberg, H. M. and Vergobbi, P. (1996). EURIPIDES: Load tests on large driven piles in dense Silica sands, tubular steel piles. Proceedings of 28th Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Paper OTC7977.

1196

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering