Re-evaluation of LRFD Resistance Factors of Driven Piles

2018Final report; January 2018 \u2013 December 2018Larry JonesPDFTech ReportBDV25-977-53Data collectionLoad and resistance factor designLoad testsPile drivingPiles (Supports)Resistance (Mechanics)Static loadsStatistical analysisEDCPDAdrivenpilesFloridaUnited StatesFlorida. Dept. of TransportationGunaratne, ManjrikerMullins, GrayWasman, Scott J.University of South Florida. Dept. of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Florida, Gainesville. Engineering School of Sustainable Infrastructure and Environment (ESSIE)Florida. Dept. of TransportationUS Transportation CollectionThe objective of this project was to evaluate the predicted capacity based on the embedded data collector(EDC) and the pile driving analyzer (PDA) compared to the corresponding static load test capacity of driven piles for the purpose of establishing appropriate Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) resistance factors for use with the EDC-FDOT method and the PDA-CAPWAP method. To this end, University of South Florida (USF) and University of Florida (UF) researchers analyzed the static load test results and the corresponding capacity predictions based on EDC-FDOT and PDA-CAPWAP methods for 27 test piles driven and tested between 2008 and 2017. In addition, PDA-CAPWAP predictions and corresponding static load test results from a number of previously available test piles were also considered to supplement the above database. The resistance factors were computed based on the three traditional methods, namely the First-order second moment (FOSM) method, the Advanced first-order second moment (AFOSM) method and the Monte Carlo (MC) method. EDC-FDOT method predictions produced marginally higher resistance factors than the PDA-CAPWAP method. An approximate confidence interval analysis of the sample data set showed that with the number of test piles available, both PDA and EDC-FDOT methods provided a satisfactory margin of error for bias factors with high confidence levels.82