Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
vb
= total vertical stress at the pile base
Bustamante and
Gianeselli (1982)
k
c
q
ca
c
q
q
ca
= equivalent cone resistance at the pile
base (in kPa)
and k
c
= coefficients that depend on soil
type (Table 2)
than 0.7 q
ca
*, and 4) the arithmetic mean q
ca
(to be
used in design) is calculated from the modified q
c
profile (obtained in step 3) over a depth d above and
below the pile base. Unlike the German standard,
this method takes into account different soil types
through the coefficients k
c
and (Table 2).
Table 2 Values of k
c
and to calculate r
b
and r
s
for ACIP piles (Bustamante and Gianeselli, 1982)
Nature of soil
q
c
(MPa)
k
c
Soft clay and mud <1 0.5 30
Moderately compact clay 1 5 0.45 40
Silt and loose sand 5 0.5 60
Compact to stiff clay and
compact silt
> 5 0.55 60
Soft chalk 5 0.3 100
Moderately compact sand
and gravel
5 12 0.5 100
Weathered to fragmented
chalk
> 5 0.4 60
Compact to very compact
sand and gravel
> 12 0.4 150
Drilled Displacement Piles
Bustamante and Gianeselli (1993; 1998) developed
a design method for drilled displacement piles based
on the results of 24 load tests on Atlas piles. The
ultimate load for these tests was selected based on
a 10% relative settlement criterion. The ultimate
load was reached only for 14 of the load tests
performed. For the other 10 load tests, the ultimate
load was determined by extrapolating the load test
data (Bustamante and Gianeselli, 1993). According
to this method, the unit base resistance is calculated
as
r
b
= K
where represents an equivalent average of the in-
situ test results spanning over a length 2a (a above
and below the pile base) (Table 3). Table 4 provides
values of the coefficient K, which depends on soil
type. Based on the guidelines given in Table 5, a
design curve is selected (Q
1
, Q
2
, Q
3
, Q
4
, or Q
5
).
These design curves depend on pile and soil type.
Fig. 11 is then used to estimate the unit shaft
resistance r
s
for the design curve selected. This
method was proposed based on correlations
developed for the Menard pressuremeter, the SPT,
and the mechanical CPT. When using an electric
cone, the unit cone resistance q
c
needs to be
modified according to:
q
c,m
= q
c,e
where q
c,m
and q
c,e
are the unit cone resistance for a
mechanical and an electrical cone, respectively.
The coefficient can be taken equal to 1.4 - 1.7 for
clayey soils and 1.3 for saturated sands
(Bustamante and Gianeselli, 1993).
Table 3 Values of and a for drilled
displacement pile design (Bustamante and
Gianeselli, 1998)
N
1
, N
2
, N
3
and p
l1
, p
l2
, p
l3
, are calculated at and 0.5 m
above and below pile base level.
In situ Tests Description of (MPa) a
SPT
3
1 2 3
1000 N N N
0.5 m
CPT
Arithmetic Mean over
a length = 2a
1.5 D
s
PMT
3
1 2 3 l l l
p p p
0.5 m
Q5
Q4
Q3
Q5
Q1
0 1 2 3
0 3 6 9
CLAY or CLAYEY SILT
0 15 30 45
0 8 16 24
0 15 36 45
SAND or GRAVEL
0 20 40 60
0 3.5 7 10.5
0 4 8 12
MARLS
0 20 40 60
0 6-12 12-24 18-36
CHALK
r
s
(MPa)
p
l
(MPa)
Q5
0
0.1
0.2
q
c
(MPa)
N
SPT
Q2
q
c
(MPa)
N
SPT
q
c
(MPa)
N
SPT
q
c
(MPa)
N
SPT
Figure 11 Values of unit shaft resistance r
s
as a function of p
l
, q
c
, or N
SPT
.
Table 4 Values of K for drilled displacement
piles (Bustamante and Gianeselli, 1998)
Table 5 Criteria for selection of a design curve
to estimate r
s
from Fig. 11 (Bustamante and
Gianeselli, 1998)
NeSmith (2002) developed a design method for
APGD piles. It is based on 28 load tests on APGD
piles. In this method, r
b
is calculated as
r
b
= 0.4 q
cm
+ w
b
, for q
c
19 MPa, or
r
b
= 0.19 N
m
+ w
b
, for N
m
50 (r
b
in MPa)
where q
cm
and N
m
are representative values of the
cone resistance and blow count number in the
vicinity of the pile toe, and w
b
is a constant that
depends on soil gradation and angularity. For
rounded materials with up to 40% fines, w
b
is equal
to zero and the r
b
upper limit is 7.2 MPa. For well-
graded, angular materials with less than 10% fines,
w
b
is equal to 1.34 MPa and the r
b
upper limit is 8.62
MPa. To determine q
cm
and N
m
, NeSmith (2002)
suggests the method described by Fleming and
Thorburn (1983), but recommends that the influence
zone be extended to four times the diameter of the
pile above and below the pile base.
The unit shaft resistance is calculated from
r
s
= 0.01 q
c
+ w
s
, for q
c
< 19 MPa, or
r
s
= 0.005 N + w
s
, for N < 50 (r
s
in MPa)
where w
s
is a constant similar to w
b
. For uniform,
rounded materials with up to 40 % fines, w
s
is equal
to zero and the limiting value of r
s
is 0.16 MPa. For
well-graded, angular materials with less than 10 %
fines, w
s
is equal to 0.05 MPa and the limiting value
of r
s
is 0.21 MPa. Interpolation is suggested for
intermediate materials. This relationship is
recommended only for sandy soils, where
Soil Type For PMT For CPT For SPT
Clay 1.6 1.8 0.55 0.65 0.9 1.2
Sand 3.6 4.2 0.50 0.75 1.8 2.1
Gravel 3.6 0.5 --
Chalk 2.6 0.6 2.6
Marl 2.0 2.6 0.7 1.2
Curves
Soil
Type
Limit
pressure
from PMT
(MPa)
Cone
Resistance
(MPa)
C M
Clay
/Clayey
Silt
/Sandy
Clay
< 0.3
> 0.5
1.0
< 1.0
> 1.5
3.0
Q1
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q2
Sand /
Gravel
< 0.3
> 0.5
1.2
< 1.0
> 3.5
> 8.0
Q1
Q4
Q5
Q1
Q2
Q2
Chalk
> 0.5
1.2
> 1.5
> 4.5
Q4
Q5
Q2
Q2
Marl
< 1.2
1.5
< 4.0
5.0
Q4
Q5
Q2
Q2
C = Cast-in-place screw piles,
M = Screw pile with casing
displacement of the surrounding soil due to pile
installation results in soil densification.
NeSmith (2003) correlated the installation torque
and the drilling tool penetration rate with the capacity
of drilled displacement piles. In his approach, the
measured fluid pressure of the motor driving tool t
fp
and the tool penetration rate PR are normalized with
respect to some base values to obtain a torque
index TI and a penetration rate index PRI. The
product of TI and PRI is defined as the installation
effort IE, which can be used to predict the capacity
of APGD piles. Although IE could not be correlated
well with the base and shaft resistance, a
reasonable correlation was reported between IE and
the ultimate capacity of the APGD piles tested.
Discussion on the Design Methods for Drilled
Displacement Piles
A design method should capture as closely as
possible the essence of the relationship between
pile resistance and both the state and intrinsic
characteristics of the soil. As different equipment
and procedures are used to install piles, the degree
of soil displacement induced on the surrounding soil
can differ significantly. There is a pressing need to
better understand how the installation of piles
changes the state of the soil around them, as these
changes reflect directly on the load-carrying capacity
of the piles. The effect of pile installation on pile
capacity is particularly important for drilled
displacement piles because there are many different
types of these piles. Vertical and lateral soil
displacement and densification occur as the drilling
tool (with or without a sacrificial tip) advances into
sandy soil, and these changes are a function of the
design of the drilling tool and drilling operations.
Different drilling tools and different installation
procedures also create piles with different shapes.
Drilled displacement piles can have either
corrugated screw-shaped (Atlas, Olivier) or smooth
(Berkel, De Waal, Omega, etc.) shafts. For the same
outer pile diameter, a screw-shaped shaft may
develop a slightly larger shaft capacity than a
smooth shaft on account of passive pressures that
might be mobilized in sub-vertical directions, but that
has not been quantified or even demonstrated as yet.
Empirical methods are directly related to the specific
drilling tool employed to install the piles. For
example, the method presented by Bustamante and
Gianeselli (1993) (Fig.11) is based on load test
results for Atlas piles. However, the shaft and base
capacities of other drilled displacement piles will not
be the same as those of the Atlas piles, as these
quantities depend on the degree of soil
displacement and disturbance around the piles
caused by installation.
Presently available design methods were all derived
from pile load test results performed in a particular
area, which means they are only valid for the site
conditions for which they were developed. For some
types of geologic conditions, the methods are not
available. For example, Bustamante and Gianeselli
(1998) pointed out that there is a lack of experience
with drilled displacement piling technologies in soils
like marls, gravels and chalk. There is also a need
for design methods to be more discriminating, going
beyond just textbook soils (sand and clay). There is
realization of this need in practice. For example,
NeSmith (2002) proposed a method in which fines
content, particle shape and gradation are factors.
Understanding of the fundamental behavior of non-
textbook soils (silty sands, clayey sands, and other
mixtures of silt, clay and sand between the two
extremes of clean sand and pure clay) has been
increasing (Carraro et. al., 2003). This knowledge
will gradually be incorporated into pile design
methods. As an illustration of the benefits to pile
design of understanding how the clay content of the
soil affects its behavior, consider pile shaft
resistance. It is directly related to the large-strain
shear strength of soil, which in turn depends on the
clay content of the soil. The clay content of the soil
determines whether the shaft resistance is related to
the residual or critical-state shear strength of the soil.
If the clay content of a soil exceeds approximately
50%, the residual strength (the strength at which the
clay particles are aligned with the direction of
shearing) of the soil is the same as that of pure clay.
So shaft resistance depends on the same residual
friction angle in both cases. If the clay content is
less than approximately 25%, shaft resistance is
closely related to the critical-state shear strength
(the shear strength at constant effective stresses
and constant volume) of the clay-silt-sand soil. This
is so because clay particle realignment does not
happen for low clay contents. Finally, for clay
contents increasing from 25 to 52%, the residual
strength of the soil drops towards that of the pure
clay (Salgado, 2005).
Another important capability of a pile design method
is whether or not it establishes the link between pile
capacity, relative settlement, and the pertinent limit
states. Ultimately, a pile foundation supports a
structure, which must remain serviceable and safe.
A design method should allow prediction of ultimate
loads based on such criteria, as opposed to criteria
that are arbitrary in nature or ill defined.
Development of a database containing cone
penetration test results (performed before and after
pile installation) and pile load test results can help
improve the prediction capability and consistency of
design methods. These load tests should be
extended to large pile settlements (certainly in
excess of 10% of the pile diameter), and the site
must be characterized as fully as possible for the
data to be truly useful. Pile instrumentation, which
should be at least sufficient for separating base and
shaft resistance, is also extremely important.
Additional information obtained from installation
monitoring would also be helpful.
In summary, future development of pile design
methods should (1) account for the particularities of
each pile installation method and their impact on the
state of the soil around the pile; (2) capture the
interaction of the pile and soil in a way that reflects
the stress-strain response of the soil, which in turn is
a function of the soil state and intrinsic variables; (3)
take into account the limit states that must be
prevented.
Conclusions
Auger piles, namely auger cast-in-place piles and
drilled displacement piles, are used extensively in
practice. The advantages of these piles are that
their construction is fast, economic and
environmentally friendly. These piles, depending on
the method of installation, can be classified as
partial- or full-displacement piles. Hence, their
capacities are greater than that of drilled shafts with
comparable length and diameter and, in many cases,
approach that of driven piles. The installation
methods and the quality control techniques for
different types of auger piles were described, and
the available design methods based on in-situ test
results were presented. Analytical or numerical
modeling of the installation of these piles combined
with well-designed experiments and systematic
monitoring of their installation in construction
projects is needed for meaningful advances in
analysis and design of these piles.
Acknowledgments
Irem Zeynep Yildirim assisted with the drafting of the
figures. Dipanjan Basu helped research the topic
and had useful comments on the manuscript. Tracy
Brettmann and Willie NeSmith read the manuscript.
Their many helpful comments are greatly
appreciated.
References
AMERICANPILEDRIVING,INC.<americanpiledriving.
com >
BASU, D., SALGADO, R., PREZZI, M., LEE, J., and
PAIK, K., 2005. Recent advances in the design of
axially-loaded piles in sandy soils, Advances in
Deep Foundations, Proceedings of Sessions of the
Geo-Frontiers 2005 Congress, Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 132, ASCE, , Austin, Texas.
BRETTMANN, T. and NeSMITH, W., 2005.
Advances in auger pressure grouted piles: design,
construction and testing. Advances in Designing and
Testing Deep Foundations. Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 129, ASCE, pp. 262-274.
BRETTMANN, T., 2003. Constructibility of augered
cast-in-place piles. Geo-Strata, 8 11.
BROWN, D. A., 2005. Practical considerations in the
selection and use of continuous flight auger and
drilled displacement piles. Advances in auger
pressure grouted piles: design, construction and
testing. Advances in Designing and Testing Deep
Foundations. Geotechnical Special Publication No.
129, ASCE, pp. 251-261.
BROWN, D. and DREW, C., 2000. Axial capacity of
augered displacement piles at Auburn University,
New Technological and Design Developments in
Deep Foundations, Proceedings of sessions of Geo-
Denver 2000, Geotechnical Special Publication No.
100, ASCE, pp. 397-403.
BRUNNER, W. G., 2004. The development of ACIP
piling systems and equipment and the new B-Tronic
quality control system. Recent experiences and
advancements in the U.S. and abroad on the use of
auger cast-in-place piles, Proceedings from the
Michael Wayne ONeill Auger Cast-in-Place Pile
Sessions, FHWA, pp. 1-19.
BUSTAMANTE, M. and GIANESELLI, L., 1982. Pile
bearing capacity prediction by means of static
penetrometer CPT. Penetration Testing:
Proceedings of the Second European Symposium
on Penetration Testing, ESOPT II, Amsterdam, pp.
493-500.
BUSTAMANTE, M. and GIANESELLI, L., 1993.
Design of auger displacement piles from in-situ tests.
Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles, BAP II,
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 21-34.
BUSTAMANTE, M. and GIANESELLI, L., 1998.
Installation parameters and capacity of screwed
piles. Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles,
BAP III, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 95-108.
CARRARO, J. A. H., BANDINI, P. and SALGADO,
R., 2003. Liquefaction resistance of clean and non-
plastic silty sands based on cone penetration
resistance. J. Geotech. and Geoenviron. Eng.,
ASCE, 129(11), 965-976.
DE COCK, F. and IMBO, R., 1994. Atlas screw pile:
a vibration-free, full displacement, cast-in-place pile.
Transportation Research Record, n 1447, Oct, 1994,
pp 49-62.
FLEMING, W. G. K. and THORBURN, S., 1983.
Recent piling advances, state of the art report,
Proceedings of the Conference on Advances in
Piling and Ground Treatment for Foundations, ICE,
London.
GEOFORUM <geoforum.com>
MANDOLINI, A., RAMONDINI, M., RUSSO, G. and
VIGGIANI, C., 2002. Full scale loading tests on
instrumented CFA piles. Proceedings of the
International Deep Foundations Congress 2002,
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 116, Vol. 2,
ASCE, pp. 1088-1097.
MOSS, J. and STEPHENSON, R. W., 2004. A study
of design procedures for augered cast-in-place-piles
in clay. Recent experiences and advancements in
the U.S. and abroad on the use of auger cast-in-
place piles. Proceedings from the Michael Wayne
ONeill Auger Cast-in-Place Pile Sessions, FHWA,
pp. 89-95.
NeSMITH, W. M., 2002. Static capacity analysis of
augered, pressure-injected displacement piles.
Proceedings of the International Deep Foundations
Congress 2002, Geotechnical Special Publication
No. 116, Vol. 2, ASCE, pp. 1174-1186.
NeSMITH, W. M., 2003. Installation effort as an
indicator of displacement screw pile capacity. Deep
Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles, BAP IV,
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 177-181.
ONEILL, M. W., 1994. Review of augered pile
practice outside the United States. Transportation
Research Record, n 1447, Oct, 1994, pp 3-9.
RIZKALLAH, V., 1988. Comparison of predicted and
measured bearing capacity of auger piles. Deep
Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles, BAP I,
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 471-475.
SALGADO, R., 2005. The role of analysis in non-
displacement pile design. To appear in the
Proceedings of the Modern Trends in
Geomechanics Conference held in Vienna.
VAN IMPE, W. F. (2004). Two decades of full scale
research on screw piles. <http://issmge.org>
VIGGIANI, C. (1989). Influenza dei fattori tecnologici
sul comportamento dei pali. Atti, XVII Convegno
Nazionale di Geotecnica, Taormina, Vol. 2, pp. 83-
91.