TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii LIST OF TABLES . v LIST OF FIGURES . vii ABSTRACT . x CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION . 1 1.1 Shortcomings of Traditional Pile Design . 2 1.1.1 Shortcomings of the Drilling and Sampling Phase 2 1.1.2 Shortcomings of the Laboratory Testing Phase 2 1.1.3 Shortcomings of the Design Phase 3 1.2 Recent Improvements in Pile Design 3 1.2.1 Cone Penetrometer as a Pile Design Tool . 3 1.2.2 High‐Strain Dynamic Testing as a Pile Design Tool . 4 1.3 Research Objectives . 4 1.3.1 Evaluation of Probabilistic Classification Approach to Grain Size Distribution 4 1.3.2 Evaluation of Piezocone for Predicting Pile Capacity 5 1.3.3 Evaluation of the Case Damping Constant for Dynamic Testing 5 CHAPTER 2. CASE STUDY – LOUISIANA HIGHWAY 1 RELOCATED PROJECT 6 2.1 Case Study Background 6 2.2 Environmental Factors 7 2.3 Geological Background . 7 2.4 Planned Construction . 9 2.5 Subsurface Investigation 9 2.5.1 Field Investigation Methods 9 2.5.2 Soil Borings ‐ Marsh . 9 2.5.3 CPT Soundings . 10 2.5.4 Subsurface Investigation Results 11 CHAPTER 3. CPT PREDICTION OF GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION . 12 3.1 Literature Review . 12 3.1.1 Introduction to Cone Penetration Testing 12 3.1.2 Measured Parameters . 12 3.1.3 Computed Parameters 15 3.1.4 Typical Methods of Soil Classification Using CPT 15 3.1.5 Shortcomings of Traditional CPT Classification Methods . 20 3.1.6 Statistical to Fuzzy Approach to Soil Classification . 21 3.2 Evaluation of Statistical Method for Grain Size Prediction 22 3.2.1 Comparison Methodology . 23 iii 3.3 Conclusions . 31 CHAPTER 4. CPT PREDICTION OF PILE CAPACITY USING PWP MEASUREMENTS . 33 4.1 Literature Review . 33 4.1.1 Schmertmann and Nottingham Method . 33 4.1.2 Bustamante and Gianeselli (LCPC) Method 35 4.1.3 De Ruiter and Beringen (European) Method 36 4.1.4 Fellenius and Eslami (CPTu) Method . 37 4.2 Evaluation of Fellenius and Eslami Method . 38 4.2.1 Comparison Methodology . 39 4.3 Conclusions . 48 CHAPTER 5. EVALUATION OF DAMPING FACTOR SELECTION IN HSDPT 51 5.1 Literature Review ‐ High‐Strain Dynamic Testing . 51 5.1.1 Pulse‐Echo Method . 51 5.1.2 High‐Strain Dynamic Testing . 55 5.1.3 CAPWAP Analysis 63 5.2 Evaluation of Damping Constant Selection 64 5.2.1 Evaluation Methodology . 65 5.3 Conclusions . 67 CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 69 6.1 Limitations 69 6.2 CPT Prediction of Grain Size Distribution . 69 6.3 CPT Prediction of Pile Capacity Using Pore Water Pressure 70 6.4 Damping Constant Selection 70 REFERENCES 72 APPENDIX A. TABULATED RMSE TRIALS . 75 APPENDIX B. CPT SOUNDING RESULTS AT TEST PILE LOCATIONS 101 APPENDIX C. STATIC LOAD TEST PLOTS 105 APPENDIX D. PREDICTED VERSUS MEASURED PILE CAPACITY PLOTS 111 APPENDIX E. CAPWAP OUTPUT FILES . 115 VITA . 131 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1: Soil Type as a Function of Friction Ratio (Vos, 1982) . 16 Table 3.2: Summary of Laboratory Grain Size Analyses . 24 Table 4.1: Test Pile Summary 40 Table 4.2: Correlation Between Rf and Cs . 41 Table 4.3: Pile Capacity Prediction as a Percentage of Ultimate Static Load . 48 Table 5.1: Recommended Case Damping Constants 63 Table 5.2: Test Pile Side Friction, End Bearing, and Ultimate Capacities . 66 Table 5.3: Case Damping Constants Obtained from CAPWAP Model 67 Table A.1: RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐3, 11.59 to 12.2 m 75 Table A.2: RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐4, 1.83 to 2.44 m 76 Table A.3: RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐23, 3.96 to 4.57 m 77 Table A.4: RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐23, 10.06 to 10.67 m 78 Table A.5: RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐23, 13.11 to 13.72 m 79 Table A.6: RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐23, 16.16 to 16.77 m 80 Table A.7: RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐23, 19.21 to 19.82 m 81 Table A.8 RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐23, 22.26 to 22.87 m . 82 Table A.9: RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐23, 28.35 to 28.96 m 83 Table A.10: RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐33, 11.89 to 12.50 m 84 Table A.11: RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐33, 14.94 to 15.55 m 85 Table A.12: RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐33, 17.99 to 18.60 m 86 Table A.13: RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐36, 3.35 to 3.96 m 87 v Table A.14: RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐36, 11.59 to 12.20 m 88 Table A.15: RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐38, 5.79 6.40 m 89 Table A.16: RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐38, 8.84 to 9.45 m 90 Table A.17: RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐38, 27.13 to 27.44 m 91 Table A.18: RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐43, 17.68 to 18.29 m 92 Table A.19: RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐43, 19.21 to 19.82 m 93 Table A.20: RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐52, 2.74 to 3.35 m 94 Table A.21 RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐52, 3.96 to 4.57 m . 95 Table A.22: RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐52, 10.06 to 10.67 m 96 Table A.23 RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐52, 25.30 to 25.91 m . 97 Table A.24 RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐54, 10.06 to 10.67 m . 98 Table A.25: RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐54, 13.11 to 13.72 m 99 Table A.26: RMSE Trial Calculations for B‐54, 23.78 to 24.39 m 100