Luo Yang and Robert Liang 1

Title: Incorporating Long-term Set-up into Load and Resistance Factor Design of Driven

Piles in Sand

Article Author: Luo Yang; Robert Liang

Author’s Affiliation and Address:

Luo Yang, Project Engineer, Fugro-McClelland Marine Geosciences, Inc. 6100 Hillcroft,

Houston, TX 77081; Phone: 713-369-5630; Fax: 713-369-5570; Email: lyang@fugro.com.

Formerly, graduate student in Univ. of Akron.

Robert Liang, Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Akron, Akron, OH 44325-

3905; Phone: 330-972-7190; Fax: 330-972-6020; Email: rliang@uakron.edu

Author Responsible for Correspondence:

Luo Yang

Fugro-McClelland Marine Geosciences, Inc.

6100 Hillcroft, Houston, TX 77081

Phone: 713-369-5630

Fax: 713-369-5570

Email: lyang@fugro.com

This paper is submitted to the TRB 86th Annual Meeting Committee (AFS30) for the technical

session “Soil Set-up and Relaxation Effects on Bearing Capacity of Driven Piles”. In this paper,

the number of words in text is about 4500; the number of tables is 4; the number of figures is 6.

TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Luo Yang and Robert Liang 2

ABSTRACT: It has been known that after initial pile driving, pile capacity gain over time (set-
up) could constitute a significant portion of the total pile capacity. In the past, there has been
very little guidance for incorporating pile set-up capacity in design. This may be due to large
uncertainties involved in predicting the pile set-up. A comprehensive statistical database is
developed to describe the set-up for piles driven into sand. Based on the collected pile testing
data, pile set-up is significant and continues to develop for a long time after pile installation. The
mechanisms of pile set-up in sand are discussed in detail. The statistical database shows that
lognormal distribution can be used to properly describe the probabilistic characteristics of the
predicted set-up capacity using Skov and Denver’s equation. The main objective of this paper is
to incorporate the set-up effect into a reliability-based Load and Resistance Factor Design
(LRFD) of driven piles in sand. First Order Reliability Method (FORM) is used to derive
separate resistance factors that would account for different degrees of uncertainties associated
with measured short-term capacity and predicted set-up capacity. The incorporation of set-up
effects in the LRFD helps improve the prediction of total capacity of driven piles, resulting in
more economical design. A practical design procedure within LRFD framework to incorporate
the pile set-up effects is outlined at the end of the paper.

INTRODUCTION
Pile set-up in sand was first reported by Tavenas and Audy (1) and Samson and Authier (2).
Subsequently, a number of other case histories have been reported in the literature. Chow et al.
(3) summarized the results from 11 case histories with long-term set-up effects for driven pile in
sand, indicating that most of pile capacities increase by around 50% (±25%) per log cycle of
time from 1 day after pile driving. It means that, compared to the pile capacities at 1 day after
pile driving, the pile capacities approximately increase half at 10 day after pile driving and one
time at 100 day after pile driving. Long et al. (4) also compiled a database of set-up cases, and
categorized the soil into three main groups: clayey soil, mixed soil, and sand. The sand group
contained 6 case histories; many of them are the same as in Chow et al. (3). Axial pile capacity
was found to increase from 30% to more than 100% of the pile capacity at the end of driving
(EOD). Axelsson (5) presented a database showing the set-up rate ranging from 15% to 65% per
log cycle of time. Komurka et al. (6) provided an extensive bibliography related to the topic of
pile set-up. Although there are a number of observed data on pile set-up, the beneficial effect of
long-term set-up of driven piles in sand has very seldom been utilized to any significant extent in
piling projects, due to high uncertainties of predicting the development of set-up.
Recently, with an accumulation of more data and knowledge on set-up phenomenon,
some researchers have suggested that the set-up be formally incorporated into the prediction
method to determine total pile capacity. For example, Bullock et al. (7, 8) proposed a
conservative method for incorporating side shear set-up into the total pile capacity. The predicted
set-up capacity was assumed to have the same degree of uncertainties as the measured reference
capacity; thus a single safety factor in ASD (Allowable Stress Design) was used to account for
all uncertainties of loads and resistances. Recognizing different uncertainties associated with the
measured initial capacity and the predicted set-up capacity, Komurka et al. (9) proposed a
method to apply separate safety factors to EOD and set-up components of driven pile capacity.
Furthermore, the set-up capacity was characterized as a function of pile penetration based on
dynamic monitoring during both initial driving and restrike testing.
With the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) migration from ASD method to LRFD method for foundation design, there is a need
to develop separate resistance factors for measured short-term capacity and set-up capacity,

TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Luo Yang and Robert Liang 3

respectively. This paper presents a database containing a large number of pile testing data in
sand, from which the set-up effect is statistically analyzed. The dynamic test results obtained
during a short-time restrike (usually 1 day after initial pile driving) are used to predict the long-
term capacity based on the formula proposed by Skov and Denver (10). The compilation of the
statistical database of set-up capacity makes it possible to apply the reliability-based analysis
techniques to develop separate resistance factors to account for different degrees of uncertainties
associated with the measured reference capacity and the predicted set-up capacity. The First-
Order Reliability Method (FORM) is used to calibrate the separate resistance factors for various
target reliability levels. The application of separate resistance factors in LRFD for the measured
reference capacity and the predicted set-up capacity can improve the prediction of driven pile
capacity as well as reduce pile length or number of piles.

A COMPILED DATABASE OF CASE HISTORIES

A database containing both static and dynamic load tests was collected and listed in Table 1
based on the published studies of the driven piles in sand. The database consists of 190 loading
tests in total, performed on 73 piles where at least two separate tests at different times are
performed on each pile to determine the set-up.

TABLE 1 Summary of load test database for driven piles in sand

References Site Number Main soil type Pile type Depth Testing
locations of piles (m) type
Tevenas and Audy, Canada 27 Uniform medium D=305mm Concrete 8.5~13 Static
1972 (1) sand, SPT N 23 hex.
Samson and Authier, Canada 1 Medium sand, HP 12*63 22 Stat. &
1986 (2) gravel CAPWAP
Seidel et al., 1988 Australia 1 Loose to dense 450*450mm 10.5 Stat. &
(35) sand prestressed concrete CAPWAP
Skov and Denver, Germany 2 Medium to coarse 350*350mm 21, 33.7 Stat. &
1988 (10) sand concrete, and CAPWAP
D=762mm pipe
Zai, 1988(36) China 5 Fine sand D=610mm pipe 40~45 Stat.
Preim et al., 1989 USA 2 Loose to medium 355*355mm 27, 25 Stat. &
(11) fine sand concrete, and CAPWAP
D=323mm closed-
end pipe
Svinkin et al., 1994 USA 6 Silty sand 457~915mm square 19.5~22.9 Stat. &
(18) concrete CAPWAP
York et al., 1994 USA 15 Medium dense D=355mm 10.7~21.6 Stat. &
(16) sand monotube WEAP
Chow et al., 1998 (3) France 2 medium to very D=324mm open-end 11, 22 Stat. &
dense sand, pipe CAPWAP
Dr 75%
Axelsson, 1998 (12) Sweden 3 Loose to medium 235*235mm 19 CAPWAP
dense glacial sand concrete
Attwooll et al., 1999 USA 1 Unsaturated, D=324mm pipe 10.1 Stat. &
(37) dense sand CAPWAP
Tan et al., 2004 (13) USA 5 Loose to medium 356mm H-pile, 34~37 CAPWAP
dense sand D=610mm closed-
end pipe
Bullock et al., 2005 USA 3 Dense fine sand 457*457mm 9~25 O-Cell
(7,8) prestressed concrete

TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Luo Yang and Robert Liang 4

Table 1 provides information about the test pile, soil conditions of the site, and the
sources of references. However, it should be noted that the database suffers from the following
shortcomings:
• There exists a difference in the definition of the reference capacity Qre. Tavenas and Audy
(1) and Bullock et al. (7, 8) assessed Qre from tests conducted about 0.5 days after driving. In the
remaining cases, Qre was defined as the measured capacity at EOD.
• The capacity was determined either by static or dynamic testing, but both dynamic and
static load test results could have been used in the same test series without distinguishing them.
Furthermore, the different static loading failure criteria have been used in the references.
• It is generally believed that the set-up mainly takes place along the pile shaft. However,
only total capacity was available in this database, making it not possible to separate the toe and
shaft capacities with sufficient accuracy in many cases in the database. The testing results from
Bullock et al. (7, 8) are for changes in shaft capacity only.

4
Tavenas and Audy (1972)
Samson and Authier (1986)
Skov and Denver (1988)
3. 5 Seidel et al. (1988)
Nor mal i zed Pi l e Capaci t y Qt / Qr e

Zai (1988)
Preim et al. (1989)
York et al. (1994)
3 Svinkin et al. (1994)
Chow et al. (1998)
Attwooll et al. (1999)
Axelsson (1998)
Tan et al. (2004)
2. 5 Bullock et al. (2005)

1. 5

0. 5
0. 01 0. 1 1 10 100 1000
Ti me af t er EOD ( days)

Figure 1 Case histories of pile set-up in the compiled database

Pile axial capacities are shown to increase with time after driving in Fig. 1. It is noted
that, in some cases, the long-term axial capacity after the installation reaches 3 to 4 times the
axial capacity at EOD. Most of piles experience an increase of 20% ~ 100% of EOD pile
capacity. The soil types in the database vary from loose to dense sand. It can be seen that the
piles driven into loose sand experience relatively more pronounced set-up, such as the cases
reported by Preim et al. (11), Axelsson (12), and Tan et al. (13). The sizes of driven piles in the
database are relatively uniform with the diameter in the range of 300~600 mm, such that it is not
possible to investigate the effect of the pile size on the set-up. Therefore, it should be noted that

TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Luo Yang and Robert Liang 5

the statistical analysis results based on the compiled database must be carefully applied for the
piles with the diameter out of this range.
No cases of relaxation in sand were found in the compiled database. Parsons (14)
reported the relaxation of driven piles in New York area based on the reduction of pile
penetration resistance in granular soils from EOD to BOR (beginning of restrike), but provided
no alternative explanations for the observations. Yang (15) also reported the relaxation of piles in
sand, but did not provide the actual load test results. York et al. (16) argued that the relaxation
could be initiated in pile group when driving pile into saturated sand. Pile-driving vibrations
densify the surrounding soils. Subsequently, driving additional piles may cause the sand to dilate
rather than compress, resulting in the conditions for potential relaxation. However, York et al.
(16) also proposed that set-up can occur following cessation of relaxation and result in a net
increase of pile capacity.

MECHANISM OF SET-UP IN SAND

Set-up is defined as an increase in bearing capacity with time that takes place after pile
installation. It is believed that excess pore pressures induced during driving dissipates very
quickly in sand, usually within a few hours. Tavenas and Audy (1) first reported the well-
documented cases of pile long-term set-up in sand, which was not attributable to pore pressure
changes.
Based on the pile tests at Lebenne, Lehane et al. (17) presented that the ultimate shear
stress, f, acting on a pile shaft could be described by the simple Coulumb failure criterion:

f = '
rf tan f =( '
rc + '
r ) tan f (1)

Where rf’ = total radial effective stress on pile shaft at the failure; f = interface angle of friction
at failure; rc’ = radial effective stress on pile shaft at stationary equilibrium; and r’ =
increasing radial effective stress on pile shaft during pile loading (primarily due to the dilation).
Based on Equation (1), Chow et al. (3) attributed the long-term increase in pile capacity
to three possible reasons: corrosions, effects of age on sand properties, and stress relaxation in
the soil arching generated during pile driving. Chow et al. (3) demonstrated that the corrosion is
unlikely to be the principle cause of pile set-up in sand, based on the observation that f increased
most apparently below the water table where corrosion tends to happen much slightly at
Dunkirk. The compiled database in this paper show similar degrees of pile set-up development
for the concrete (non-corroding material) and steel (corroding material) piles, further diminishing
the notion that corrosion may contribute to pile set-up. Chow et al. (3) also argued that the
marked set-up effects on driven piles were mainly due to the stress relaxation in the soil arching
surrounding the pile shaft, resulting in an increase of rc’. Changes in soil properties (such as
shear stiffness and dilation angle) through soil aging were only believed to have little influence
on the overall set-up.
In order to investigate the principle mechanisms behind long-term set-up of driven piles
in sand, Axelsson (5, 12) investigated extensive full-scale field tests involving both dynamic
testing and torque testing on driven rods, as well as dynamic and static testing on driven concrete
piles instrumented with earth pressure cells on the shaft. The field test results from shaft earth
pressure cell revealed that the horizontal stress on the pile shaft experienced a surprisingly large
increase during the actual loading. It was concluded that the effect of increasing dilatant behavior
due to soil aging in combination with soil particles interlocking with the surface roughness was
the major cause of the observed long-term set-up of the piles. The earth pressure cell readings

TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Luo Yang and Robert Liang 6

with time also showed that the stress relaxation of soil arching surrounding the piles lead to an
increase in horizontal stress on the pile shaft, which contributed in a minor degree to the long-
term set-up of the piles. Bullock et al. (8) presented that the pile shaft showed set-up with similar
average magnitudes in all soils, continuing long after the dissipation of pore pressures, and with
long-term set-up due to aging effects at approximately constant horizontal effective stress. They
suggested that much of the long-term set-up in sand occurs as a result of something other than
increases in horizontal effective stress. The test results by Bullock et al. (7, 8) also demonstrated
that the set-up mainly takes place along the pile shaft.
Based on review presented, one may surmise that the long-term set-up of the piles in sand
could be attributed to two main causes: stress relaxation and soil aging. However, there was no
strong consensus as to which one is the principle cause. Actually, the stress relaxation and the
soil aging are interrelated in leading to the increase in the horizontal effective stress, dilatant
behavior during loading, and soil particles interlocking with the shaft surface roughness. The
magnitude of the long-term set-up of the piles in sand is primarily dependent on the pile
dimension and other pile characteristics that would affect the disturbance of the surrounding sand
and the increase of horizontal stress during loading, as well as the sand properties (i.e., stiffness,
particle size, and particle shape). Further research is clearly necessary to investigate the effect of
the above factors on the long-term set-up behavior.

EMPIRICAL RELATIONSHIPS
Empirical relationships have been proposed for predicting the set-up by many researchers. Skov
and Denver (10) presented an empirical equation for the set-up based on a logarithmic increase
of pile capacity with time. Svinkin et al. (18) developed a formula predicting the set-up based on
load test data on five concrete piles in dense silty sand. Long et al. (4) proposed an equation
predicting the rate at which the pile capacity increases with time. The equation proposed by Long
et al. is very similar to Svinkin et al.’s where the pile capacity after installation is proportional to
the time with an exponential efficiency. An alternative method of using a hyperbolic function to
predict the set-up was proposed by Bogard and Matlock (19) and Tan et al. (13). Zhu (20)
presented an equation for the set-up in soft clay based on the soil sensitivity. Huang (21) also
presented a formula predicting the development of pile capacity in the soft soil of Shanghai,
China. These empirical formulas are listed in Table 2.
Among those proposed formulas, the Skov and Denver (10) logarithmic empirical
relationship in Eq. (6) has been commonly used for the prediction of the set-up by most of
researchers. Based on Eq. (6), the predicted set-up capacity can be expressed as:

t
Qset up = Q0 A log (2)
t0

where Qset-up = predicted set-up capacity at time t after driving, Q0 = measured axial capacity at
time t0, A = a factor that is a function of soil type and can be determined as the slope of the linear
portion of the normalized capacity Qset-up/Q0 versus log(t) plot, t = time since pile installation,
and t0 = time after installation at which the capacity gain becomes linear on a log(t) plot.
Skov and Denver also recommended numerical values for A and t0 as 0.6 and 1 day in
clay and 0.2 and 0.5 day in sand, respectively. Researchers such as Svinkin et al. (18), Camp and
Parmar (22), and Bullock et al. (8), also provided a range of numerical values for these two
parameters.

TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Luo Yang and Robert Liang 7

TABLE 2 Empirical formulas for predicting pile capacity with time

References Equation Comments
Skov and Denver t where
1988 (10) Q t = Q 0 (1 + A log ) (6) t0=0.5 and A=0.2 in sand
t0
t0=1.0 and A=0.6 in clay
Svinkin et al. 1994 Qt = BQ EOD t 0. 1
(7) B = 1.4 upper bound
(18) B = 1.025 lower bound
Long et al. 1999 Qt = 1.1QEOD t (8) values of : average = 0.13,
(4) lower bound = 0.05, upper
bound = 0.18,
Bogard and t / T50 Qu = ultimate capacity with
Matlock 1990 (19) Qt = Qu [0.2 + 0.8(1 + t / T )] (9) 100% of setup realized
50
T50 = time required to realize
50% of pile set-up
Zhu 1988 (20) Q14 = (0.375S t + 1)QEOD (10) Q14 = pile capacity at 14 day
after EOD
St = sensitivity of soil
Huang 1988 (21) Qt = QEOD + 0.236[1 + (Qmax Q EOD ) log t ] Qmax = maximum pile capacity
(11) with 100% of setup realized

4. 0
Tavenas and Audy (1972)
Samson and Authier (1986)
3. 5
Skov and Denver (1988)
Nor mal i zed Pi l e Capaci t y Qt / Q0

Seidel et al. (1988) A=0.9

Svinkin et al. (1994)
3. 0
Axelsson (1998)
Tan et al. (2004)
Bullock et al. (2005)
2. 5
A=0.4
2. 0

1. 5

A=0.1
1. 0

0. 5

0. 0
1 10 100 1000
Ti me af t er EOD ( days)
Figure 2 Variation of normalized capacity with time based on Skov and Denver’s equation

Based on Skov and Denver’s equation, the normalized axial pile capacity (i.e., Qt/Q0)
versus the logarithm of time is plotted in Fig. 2 for the 47 pile cases where at least two separate
load tests were performed after EOD. The reference capacity Q0 was measured between 0.5 days
to 2 days after EOD. The capacity Qt was measured days, weeks, and months after EOD. The

TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Luo Yang and Robert Liang 8

dashed lines define an approximate range of A from 0.1 to 0.9. The mean value of A for all 47
testing piles is close to the value of 0.4.

STATISTICAL STUDY OF PILE SET-UP

Comparing Fig. 1 to Fig. 2, it can be found that the case taking QEOD as the reference capacity
shows more scattered normalized capacities than that taking Q0 at 1 day after EOD. It can be
attributed to the highly disturbed state of the soil during a brief period following installation that
the initial rate of capacity gain with time is different from the later rate. During this period, the
affected soil experiences an increase in effective and horizontal stress, consolidates, and gains
strength in a manner, which is not well understood and is difficult to model and predict
(Komurka et al. (6)). The use of QEOD as the reference capacity inevitably needs to account for
the high variability in the change of pile capacity in this period. Therefore, Skov and Denver’s
equation where t0= 1 day after driving is used to predict the set-up in the statistical study.
Based on the compiled database, most of pile testing data show that the pile capacity gain
becomes approximately linear with the logarithm of time 1 day after pile installation.
Researchers, such as Svinkin et al. (18), Axelsson (5, 12), McVay (23), and Bullock et al. (7, 8),
have proposed the use of t0 = 1 day in Skov and Denver’s equation. The time t0 is a function of
the soil type, the permeability and sensitivity of the soil, the pile type, and the permeability and
size of the pile. The less permeable the soil and pile and the greater volume of soil displaced by
pile driving, the longer the time t0. The A parameter is a function of soil type, pile material, type,
size, and capacity, to account for the degree of the capacity gain with the elapse of time (Camp
and Parmar (22); Svinkin et al. (18); Svinkin and Skov (24)). Although there should be physical
meanings behind these parameters, both the parameters t0 and A are back-calculated from field
data (e.g., Skov and Denver (10); Svinkin et al. (18); Chow et al. (3); Axelsson (5, 12); Camp
and Parmar (22); Bullock et al. (7, 8)). It should be noted that the determination of A is
dependent on the value used for t0, and visa-versa; these two variables are not independent.
Chow (3) reported the values of A around 0.5 (±0.25). Studies by Axelsson (5) yielded
the average value of 0.4 for A, with a range from 0.15 to 0.65. The observations from the
compiled database in Fig. 2 seem to confirm the previous experiences. Therefore, the reference
time t0 = 1 day and A = 0.4 are used for the subsequent statistical analyses in this paper. When
further data becomes available, the values of t0 and A could be modified. Most of pile tests are
performed in 30 days after EOD in the compiled database. It can be seen that pile capacity
increases approximately linearly with the logarithm of time within 30 days after EOD. Tevenas
and Audy (1) concluded that the ultimate pile capacity increase during the first 15 to 20 days
after EOD could be 70% higher than that observed at 0.5 day. Studies by York et al. (16) showed
that set-up could have approached a maximum value within 15 to 25 days. Although some piles
in the compiled database exhibit set-up after months or years; nevertheless, the increase of pile
capacity with time after 30 days becomes less pronounced compared to those during the first 30
days after driving. Therefore, 30 days after EOD can be conservatively taken as the time after
which the set-up effect in sand would be minimal.
The accuracy of Skov and Denver’s equation is analyzed by examining the ratio of the
measured set-up capacities to the predicted using t0 = 1 day and A = 0.4. The frequency
distribution for 47 piles is shown in Fig. 3. It can be seen that a lognormal distribution seems to
be able to represent the distribution. The mean value µlnx and standard deviation lnx of the fitted
lognormal distribution are -0.122 and 0.538, respectively. To verify the assumed theoretical
lognormal distributions, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (Ang and Tang (25)) was carried out. Fig.
4 shows the empirical cumulative frequency and the theoretical cumulative distribution of the

TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Luo Yang and Robert Liang 9

ratio of the measured to the predicted set-up capacity. Based on the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test,
the critical value Dn for the sample size of the compiled database is 0.200 at the 5% significance
level. The maximum difference in cumulative frequency between the observed data and the
theoretical distributions is Dn = 0.096, that is smaller than the critical value of 0.200 at the 5%
significance level. Therefore, the assumed lognormal distribution for the ratio of the measured
set-up capacities to the predicted set-up capacity is valid.

0.25

0.20
Relative Frequency of Number of Pile Cases

0.15

Lognormal distribution
µlnx=-0.122 lnx=0.538
0.10

0.05

0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
R atio of M easurd Set-up C apacity over Predicted
Set-up Capacity from Eq. (1) (A=0.4)
Figure 3 Frequency distribution of the ratio of measured set-up capacities to the predicted
100

Theoretical
80
Cumulative Distribution

Lognormal

60

Empirical ratio of the measured

to the predicted set-up capacity
40

20

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Ratio of the measured to the predicted set-up capacity
Figure 4 Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for assumed lognormal distribution

TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Luo Yang and Robert Liang 10

CAPWAP approach (Rausche et al. (26, 27)) has been widely used for quality control and
capacity determination of driven piles. Also, most of pile testing data in the compiled database
are from CAPWAP results; therefore, CAPWAP approach is recommended for determining the
measured short-term capacity Q0. The bias factors of set-up capacity is calculated as the mean
value of the ratio of the measured pile capacity to the predicted pile capacity by Skov and
Denver’s equation where A=0.4 and t0=1 day. The statistical analysis results of the predicted set-
up capacity by the Skov and Denver’s equation, along with those for the CAPWAP BOR
capacity are summarized in Table 3. Comparing the COV values, it is found that predicting pile
set-up effect involves significantly higher uncertainties than measuring capacity Q0 by CAPWAP
BOR. Therefore, it is necessary to separate the resistance factors to account for the different
degrees of uncertainties associated with the measured reference capacity and the predicted set-up
capacity. The relationship between the measured reference capacity Q0 and the predicted set-up
capacity Qset-up is not at all clear. However, since the uncertainties of pile set-up prediction are
mainly due to empirical relationship of Skov and Denver, it may be reasonable to assume that the
measured Q0 by CAPWAP and the predicted Qset-up by Skov and Denver are independent of each
other. In this paper, the uncertainties associated with dead and live loads as well as the measured
reference capacity Q0 and the predicted set-up capacity Qset-up are systemically accounted for in a
framework of FORM. Separate resistance factors are derived for Q0 and Qset-up for adoption in
the LRFD of driven piles in sand.

TABLE 3 Probabilistic characteristics of random variables of loads and resistances

Random Bias factor Standard Coefficient of Distribution References
variables deviation variation, COV type
Q0 1.158 0.393 0.339 Lognormal Paikowsky et al.(29)
Qset-up 1.023 0.593 0.580 Lognormal Current Study
LL 1.150 0.230 0.200 Lognormal AASHTO (Nowak (28))
LD 1.050 0.105 0.100 Lognormal AASHTO (Nowak (28))

PRACTICAL LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTORS

When incorporating the set-up effect into the design of driven pile, the LRFD criterion can be
expressed as
0 Q 0 + set up Q set up L LL + D LD (3)
where 0 and set-up = resistance factors for reference resistance at t0 and set-up resistance,
respectively; Q0 and Qset-up = measured reference resistance at t0 and predicted set-up resistance,
respectively; L and D = load factors for live and dead loads, respectively; LL and LD = live load
and dead load, respectively.
The probabilistic characteristics of the random variables LD and LL are well documented
in AASHTO by Nowak (28). The probabilistic characteristics of the random variables Q0 is
taken from Paikowsky et al. (29). The probabilistic characteristics of the random variables Qset-up,
according to the compiled database, are described as a lognormal distribution. Table 3
summarizes the statistical parameters and distribution function for each random variable. With
the known load and resistance statistical characteristics, the iterative solution of FORM approach
can be applied to determine the load and resistance factors for the chosen target reliability index.
Detailed descriptions and applications of FORM can be found in Ang and Tang (30), Phoon et al.
(31, 32), Paikowsky et al. (29), and Allen et al. (33).
For a given reliability index and probability distributions for resistance and load effects,
the partial safety factors determined by the FORM approach may differ for different failure

TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Luo Yang and Robert Liang 11

modes. For this reason, calibration of load and resistance factors is important in order to maintain
the consistence with the current experience in LRFD. As suggested in NCHRP Report 507
(Paikowsky et al. 29), the target reliability index of =2.33 corresponding to the probability of
failure Pf = 1% is recommended for redundant piles defined as 5 or more piles per pile cap; the
target reliability index of =3.00 corresponding to the probability of failure Pf = 0.1% is
recommended for nonredundant piles defined as 4 or fewer piles per pile cap. The resistance
factors are 0 = 0.65 and 0 = 0.50 for CAPWAP approach at =2.33 and =3.00, respectively.
As specified by AASHTO (Novak 28), the load factors L=1.75 and D=1.25 are used for live and
dead loads, respectively. The above load and resistance factors can be used to determine the
resistance factor set-up for predicted set-up capacity in the following algorithm based on the
FORM approach.

µL µL µQ
+
L L D D 0 0

=
Ll LD Q0
(4)
set up
µQ set up

Qset up

where µ LL , µ LD , µ Q0 , and µ Qset up are the mean values of random variables LL, LD, Q0, and Qset-up,
respectively, calculated from FORM approach; Ll , LD , Q0 , and Qset up
are the bias factors of
random variables LL, LD, Q0, and Qset-up, respectively.
1.0
0.9
Resistance factor for Qset-up

0.8
0.7
0.6
=2.33
0.5
=3.00
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 1 2 3 4
Ratio of Dead Load to Live load

Figure 5 Variation of resistance factor for Qset-up versus the ratio of dead load to live load

Fig. 5 shows the effect of the variation of the ratio of dead to live load on the calculated
resistance factors for predicted set-up capacity at the reliability level =2.33 and =3.00,
respectively. The load factors for dead and live loads and the resistance factor for Q0 are fixed as
mentioned earlier when calculating the resistance factor for Qset-up. It can be seen that the
calculated resistance factor for Qset-up decreases slightly with an increase in the ratio of dead to
live load. In general, however, the calculated resistance factor for Qset-up is not very sensitive to
the ratio of dead to live load. Based on AASHTO (34), the ratio of dead to live load is a function

TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Luo Yang and Robert Liang 12

of a bridge’s span length and increases with the increase in the bridge’s span length. The ratio of
dead to live load for the bridge with the span length of 60 m is recommended as 3.5. Therefore,
the calculated resistance factor for Qset-up can be conservatively taken as 0.4 for the span length
less than 60 m for the target reliability index =3.00, when the predefined resistance factor for
Q0, dead load factor, and live load factor are 0.50, 1.25, and 1.75, respectively. The resistance
factor for Qset-up can be conservatively taken as 0.5 for the span length less than 60 m for the
target reliability index =2.33, when the predefined resistance factor for Q0, dead load factor, and
live load factor are 0.65, 1.25, and 1.75, respectively.

TABLE 4 Recommended partial safety factors (i.e. load and resistance factors) for driven
piles in sand
Random Bias Coefficient of Partial safety Partial safety References
variables factor variation COV factor ( =2.33) factor ( =3.00)
Q0 1.158 0.339 0.65 0.50 Paikowsky et al.(29)
Qset-up 1.023 0.580 0.50 0.40 Current Study
LL 1.150 0.200 1.75 1.75 AASHTO (Nowak (28))
LD 1.050 0.100 1.25 1.25 AASHTO (Nowak (28))

The recommended load and resistance factors are tabulated in Table 4 for different
reliability levels. The corresponding F.S. (Factor of Safety) in ASD (Allowable Stress Design)
can be calculated as follows:

DLD / L L + L
L D / LL + 1
F .S . = (5)
0 Q0 / Q set up + set up

Q0 / Qset up +1

Fig. 6 shows the relationship between the corresponding F.S. in ASD and the ratio of
dead to live load. The corresponding F.S. decreases with an increase in the ratio of dead to live
load. The corresponding F.S. are about 2.40 and 3.00 for the recommended load and resistance
factors at target reliability index =2.33 and =3.00, respectively.
4.0

3.5
Corresponding Factor of Safety

3.0
=3.00
2.5
=2.33
2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 1 2 3 4
Ratio of Dead to Live Load

Figure 6 Variation of the F.S versus the ratio of dead load to live load

TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Luo Yang and Robert Liang 13

PROPOSED PROCEDURE TO INCORPORATE SET-UP INTO LRFD OF DRIVEN

PILES IN SAND
The incorporation of set-up effect can efficiently improve the estimation of total capacity of
driven piles so that pile length or numbers of piles can be economically reduced. The proposed
procedure for incorporating set-up into LRFD of driven piles in sand is illustrated as follows:
1. Assign a pile diameter, length, and type for preliminary design using available site
information and a static analytical design method.
2. Perform CAPWAP dynamic testing 1 day after pile installation and record the measured
capacity as Q0.
3. Estimate the set-up capacity based on the proposed semi-logarithmic empirical
t
relationship: Qset up = Q0 A log (where A = 0.4, t = 30 days, and t0 = 1 day).
t0
4. Use the recommended resistance and load factors in Table 4 and the following
formula, 0 Q0 + set up Q set up L L L + D L D , to evaluate the reasonableness of the

preliminary design.
5. Based on the result from step 4, change the pile diameter, length or number as desired to
optimize the design.
The engineering judgment is very important in a given project site when using the
proposed procedure to consider the set-up capacity, because the database in this paper is
collected based on a wide range of site variability. The site-specific experience on set-up
capacity is more desirable when the pile test results are available to estimate the development of
long-term set-up at the given site.
Also, it is recommended that additional pile testing data be obtained to supplement the
current database, thus allowing for more comprehensive statistical analysis of the pile set-up and
more detailed investigation on the set-up mechanism. As it is generally believed that the set-up
mainly takes place along the pile shaft, monitoring the separate set-up development along the
shaft and at the toe is desirable to identify the set-up mechanism. CAPWAP analysis is
recommended for the monitoring of the set-up development, since it is one of the most widely
acceptable and efficient methods and has the ability to separate shaft and toe resistances. The
time of the CAPWAP performed is suggested as EOD, 1 day, 10 days, 30 days, and 100 days
after pile driving. Soil and pile properties are also desirable to be reported with the CPWAP
testing results to supplement the current database. The soil properties, including friction angles,
relative densities, and particle sizes and shapes, are believed to be the primary factors affecting
the set-up development. The pile materials, types, and geometry are needed to clarify the
relationship between the pile properties and the set-up effect.

CONCLUSIONS
A database of pile set-up capacity in sand has been compiled and presented in this paper. The
compiled database showed that the logarithmic empirical relationship proposed by Skov and
Denver (10) could be used to predict pile set-up. The reference time t0 = 1 day and mean value A
= 0.4 were suggested for Skov and Denver’s equation. The pile set-up database indicated that the
time duration of 30 days after EOD may be considered as the point after which the set-up effect
would be minimal. Based on the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the lognormal distribution was
shown to adequately represent the probabilistic characteristics of the ratio of the measured set-up
capacity to the predicted pile set-up capacity. The mean value µlnx and the standard deviation lnx
of the fitted lognormal distribution are -0.122 and 0.538, respectively.

TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Luo Yang and Robert Liang 14

The statistical parameters of the pile set-up capacity derived from the compiled database,
together with previous statistical analysis of CAPWAP BOR published by Paikowsky et al. (29),
were systematically incorporated within the framework of FORM to calibrate the resistance
factors for the predicted set-up capacity by Skov and Denver equation using the load conditions
specified in AASHTO by Novak (28). The incorporation of set-up effect into the prediction of
total pile capacity gives advantageous contribution to the estimated total pile capacity. For piles
driven into sand, the resistance factor for Qset-up can be taken as 0.4 for a bridge span length less
than 60 m if a target reliability index =3.00 is chosen and the pre-set resistance factor for Q0,
dead load factor, and live load factor are 0.50, 1.25, and 1.75, respectively. The resistance factor
for Qset-up can be taken as 0.5 for a bridge span length less than 60 m if a target reliability index
=2.33 is chosen and the pre-set resistance factor for Q0, dead load factor, and live load factor
are 0.65, 1.25, and 1.75, respectively. The corresponding F.S. in ASD are about 2.40 and 3.00 for
the recommended load and resistance factors in LRFD at the target reliability index =2.33 and
=3.00, respectively.

REFERENCES
1. Tavenas, F., and R. Audy. Limitation of the Driving Formulas for Predicting the Bearing
Capacities of Piles in Sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 9(1), 1972, pp. 47-62.
2. Samson, L., and J. Authier. Change in Pile Capacity with Time: Case Histories. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 23(1), 1986, pp. 174-180.
3. Chow, F. C., R. J. Jardine, F. Brucy, and J. F. Nauroy. Effects of Time on Capacity of Pipe
Piles in Dense Marine Sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
Vol. 124, No. 3, 1998, ASCE, pp. 254-264.
4. Long, J. H., J. A. Kerrigan, and M. H. Wysockey. Measured Time Effects for Axial Capacity
of Driven Piles. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1663, Washington, DC,
1999, pp. 8-15.
5. Axelsson G. A Conceptual of Pile Set-up for Driven Piles in Non-cohesive Soils. Conference
Proceedings, Deep Foundations 2002, ASCE GSP No. 116, 2002, pp. 64-79.
6. Komurka, V. E., A. B. Wanger, and B. E. Tuncer. Estimating Soil/Pile Set-up. Final Report,
Wisconsin Highway Research Program #0092-0014, Prepared for The Wisconsin
Department of Transportation, 2003.
7. Bullock, P. J., J. H. Schmertmann, M. C. McVay, and F. C. Townsend. Side Shear Setup. I:
Test Piles Driven in Florida. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 131, No. 3, 2005, pp. 292-300.
8. Bullock, P. J., J. H. Schmertmann, M. C. McVay, and F. C. Townsend. Side Shear Setup. II:
Results from Florida Test Piles. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 131, No. 3, 2005, pp. 301-310.
9. Komurka, V. E., C. J. Winter, and S. Maxwell. Applying Separate Safety Factors to End-of-
Drive and Set-up Components of Driven Pile Capacity. Proceedings of the 13th Great Lakes
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Conference, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA, 2005, pp.
65-80.
10. Skov, R., and H. Denver. Time Dependence of Bearing Capacity of Piles. Proceedings of 3rd
International Conference on the Application of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles, Bi-Tech
Publishers, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1988, pp. 879-888.
11. Preim, M. J., R., March, and M. Hussein. Bearing Capacity of Piles in Soils with Time
Dependent Characteristics. Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Piling and Deep foundations, J. B.
Burland and J. M. Mitchell, eds. Balkema, Brookfield, Vt. 1989, pp. 363-370.

TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Luo Yang and Robert Liang 15

12. Axelsson, G. Long-Term Set-up of Driven Piles in Sand Evaluated from Dynamic Tests on
Penetration Rods. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Site Characterization,
Vol. 2, 1998, pp. 895-900.
13. Tan, S. L., J. Cuthbertson, and R. E. Kimmerling. Prediction of Pile Set-up in Non-cohesive
Soils. Current Practices and Future Trends in Deep Foundations, Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 125, 2004, pp. 50-65.
14. Parsons, J. D. Piling Difficulties in the New York Area. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 92, No. 1, 1966, pp. 43-64.
15. Yang, N. Relaxation of Piles in Sand and Inorganic Silt. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, SM2, 1970, pp. 395-409.
16. York, D. L., W. G. Brusey, F., M. Clemente, and S. K. Law. Set-up and Relaxation in Glacial
Sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120, No. 9, 1994, pp. 1498-1513.
17. Lehane, B. M., R. J. Jardine, A. J. Bond, and R. Frank. Mechanisms of Shaft Friction in Sand
from Instrumented Pile Tests. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 119, No. 1,
1993, pp. 19-35.
18. Svinkin, M.R., C. M. Morgano, and M. Morvant. Pile Capacity as a Function of Time in
Clayey and Sandy Soils. Proceedings of 5th International Conference and Exhibition on
Piling and Deep Foundations, Belgium, 1994, pp. 1.11.1-1.11.8.
19. Bogard, J. D., and H. Matlock. Application of Model Pile Tests to Axial Pile Design.
Proceedings, 22nd Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, Vol. 3, 1990,
pp. 271-278.
20. Zhu, G. Wave Equation Applications for Piles in Soft Ground. Proceedings of 3rd
International Conference on the Application of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles, Bi-Tech
Publishers, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1988, pp. 831-836.
21. Huang, S. Application of Dynamic Measurement on Long H-Pile Driven into Soft Ground in
Shanghai. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on the Application of Stress-Wave
Theory to Piles, Bi-Tech Publishers, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1988, pp. 635-643.
22. Camp, W. M., and H. S. Parmar. Characterization of Pile Capacity with Time in the Cooper
Marl – Study of Application of A Past Approach to Predict Long-Term Pile Capacity.
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1663, Washington, DC, 1999, pp. 16-24.
23. McVay, M. C., J. Schmertmann, F. Townsend, and P. J. Bullock. Pile Friction Freeze: A
Field and Laboratory Study. Research Report WPI 0510632, Florida Department of
Transportation, 1999.
24. Svinkin, M. R., and R. Skov. Set-up Effect of Cohesive Soils in Pile Capacity. Proceedings
of 6th International Conference On Application of Stress Waves to Piles, Sao Paulo, Brazil,
2000, pp. 107-111.
25. Ang, A. H-S., and W. H. Tang. Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning and Design.
Volume I. John Wiley & Sons, 1975.
26. Rausche, F., G. Goble, and G. Likins. “Dynamic Determination of Pile Capacity,” Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 3, 1985, pp. 367-383.
27. Rausche, F., F. Moses, and G. Goble. “Soil Resistance Predictions from Pile Dynamics,”
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 98, No. SM9, 1972, pp.
917-937.
28. Nowak, A. Calibration of LRFD Bridge Design Code. National Cooperative Highway
Research Program Report 368, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1999.

TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Luo Yang and Robert Liang 16

29. Paikowsky, S. G., B. Birgisson, M. McVay, T. Nguyen, C. Kuo, G. Beacher, B. Ayyub, K.

Stenersen, K. O’Malley, L. Chernauskas, and M. O’Neill. Load and Resistance Factor
Design (LRFD) for Deep Foundations. National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Report 507, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington D.C.,
2004.
30. Ang, A. H-S., and W. H. Tang. Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning and Design.
Volume II. John Wiley & Sons, 1984.
31. Phoon, K. K., F. H. Kulhawy, and M. D. Grigoriu. Development of A Reliability-Based
Design Framework for Transmission Line Structure Foundations. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 129, No. 9, 2003, pp. 798 - 806.
32. Phoon, K. K., F. H. Kulhawy, and M. D. Grigoriu. Multiple Resistance Factor Design
(MRFD) for Shallow Transmission Line Structure Foundations. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 129, No. 9, 2003, pp. 807 - 818.
33. Allen, T. M., A. S. Nowak, and R. J. Bathurst. Calibration to Determine Load and
Resistance Factors for Geotechnical and Structural Design. Transportation Research
Circular, No. E-C079, 2005.
34. AASHTO, LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Third Edition, 2006 Interim Revisions.
AASHTO, Washington, D. C., 2006.
35. Seidel, J. P., I. J. Haustorfer, and S. Plesiotis. Comparison of Static and Dynamic Testing for
Piles Founded into Limestone. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on the
Application of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles, Bi-Tech Publishers, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada,
1988, pp. 717-723.
36. Zai, J. Pile Dynamic Testing Experience in Shanghai. Proceedings of 3rd International
Conference on the Application of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles, Bi-Tech Publishers, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada, 1988, pp. 781-792.
37. Attwooll, W. J., D. M. Holloway, K. M. Rollins, M. I. Esrig, S. Sakhai, and D. Hemenway.
Measured Pile Set-up during Load Testing and Production Piling – I-15 Corridor
Reconstruction Project in Salt Lake City, Utah. Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 1663, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 1-7.

TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.