Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

560

A few comments on pile design


Yves Robert

Abstract: Sixty-three static pile load tests were analyzed with respect to published soil properties to validate or refine
well-known pile design methods. Even though most of the data used to carry out this study are for driven piles, some
consideration was given to bored piles. Some comments were made concerning pile design in general.
Key words: bearing capacity, skin friction, end bearing, pile design, pile load test.

Résumé : Soixante trois essais de chargement statique de pieux ont été analysés en fonction des propriétés des sols qui ont été
publiées afin de valider ou de raffiner des méthodes de conception de pieux bien connues. Même si la plupart des données
utilisées pour réaliser la présente étude correspondent à des pieux battus, les pieux forés ont aussi été considérés. Des
commentaires ont aussi été donnés pour la conception des pieux en général.
Mots clés : capacité portante, résistance en frottement, résistance en pointe, conception des pieux, essai de chargement sur pieux.

Introduction the effective vertical stress at the centre of pile segment i, and
The ultimate bearing capacity of a pile (Qu) can be defined as δi is the effective friction angle between the soil and the pile
the sum of the skin resistance (QS) and the toe resistance (QP) material at the location of this pile segment.
as shown by The engineer who uses eqs. [2]–[5] to design piles must
know the total unit weight γ, the internal friction angle φ′, the
effective cohesion c, the coefficient of horizontal earth pres-
[1] Qu = QS + QP = ∑ fSi ASi + qP AP sure K, and the effective friction angle δ′ between the soil and
the pile material for each soil layers. These parameters cannot
where fSi is the unit skin friction on shaft segment i, ASi is the be measured directly during a standard geotechnical investiga-
area of this pile segment, qP is the unit toe resistance, and AP is tion in granular soils. They can, however, be estimated through
the toe area. correlations with in situ test results and laboratory tests carried
The unit toe resistance is often calculated using bearing out on reconstituted granular samples, since getting undis-
capacity formulas similar to the following: turbed granular samples is rather difficult. Recovering intact
clay samples is generally fairly easy, but the cost of measuring
[2] qP = cNC + σt′Nq + 0.5DγNγ some of those soil properties in the laboratory can often be
difficult to justify for small- and even medium-size projects.
where c is the effective cohesion; D is the pile diameter; σt′ is
It is for these reasons that empirical design methods are often
the vertical effective stress at the pile toe; γ is the unit weight
used to design piles.
of the soil; and Nγ, Nq, and Nc are bearing capacity factors. The
Meyerhof (1976) linked both fs and qP (in kPa) to the stand-
Nγ term is usually neglected, and eqs. [3] and [4] are used to
ard penetration test index N using eqs. [6] and [7]:
compute the unit toe resistance in granular and cohesive soils,
respectively: L
[6a] qP = 40NPT ≤ 400N (driven piles)
D
[3] qP = σt′Nq
L
[4] qP = cNC [6b] qP = 12NPT ≤ 120N (bored piles)
D
The value of Nq is a function of the internal friction angle [7a] fs = 2NA (driven piles)
φ′ of the soil and of the assumed shape of the shear pattern near
the pile toe. As shown by Coyle and Castello (1981) and [7b] fs = NA (low-displacement piles)
Coduto (1994), there are major variations in the value of Nq
where L is the penetration of the pile into a soil layer; NA is the
predicted by the different theories and choosing the right value average standard penetration resistance within the embedded
is usually difficult. The value of NC is generally close to 9. length of the pile in uniform soil deposits or within each soil
The unit skin friction fSi can be calculated as layer in stratified deposits; and NPT is the standard penetration
[5] fSi = Kiσ Vi
′ tan δi resistance, near the pile toe, corrected for an overburden pres-
sure of 100 kPa using the method proposed by Peck et al.
where Ki is the coefficient of horizontal earth pressure, σ Vi
′ is
(1974). Meyerhof also used the concept of critical depth below
which the unit skin and toe resistances remain constant. This
critical-depth concept has also been used by Tavenas (1971)
Received November 21, 1996. Accepted March 26, 1997. and Vesic (1970).
Y. Robert. Quéformat Ltd., 591 Le Breton, Longueuil, QC According to Fellenius (1994), the critical-depth concept is
J4G 1R9, Canada. the result of the neglect of residual loads in the test piles. Coyle

Can. Geotech. J. 34: 5 6 0–5 67 (1997). © 1997 NRC Canada


Robert 561

and Castello (1981) found that, rather than becoming constant between the elastic deformation curve of the pile, shifted along
below a certain critical depth, the unit skin and toe resistances the deformation axis by a value equal to 3.81 plus the diameter of
will continue to increase with increasing depth, although at a the pile (in millimetres) divided by 120, and the load-deformation
decreasing rate. Kraft (1991) discussed extensively the criti- curve recorded during the load test.
cal-depth concept and concluded that it does not exist. The The Davisson capacity was computed by the author when-
Canadian foundation engineering manual (Canadian ever it was not provided and all load-deformation data were
Geotechnical Society 1992) used to recommend application of included in the paper. In some cases, however, the Davisson
the concept of critical depth when designing pile foundations. capacity had to be estimated using some load-deformation data
The third edition of the manual mentions, however, that the provided in the paper or through a rough correlation between
evidence available is sufficient to cast some doubt on the rele- the Davisson criterion and some other failure criterion. The
vance of the critical-depth concept and caution should be used results of these estimations were always within 10% of the
in designing long piles in cohesionless soils. published capacities. In the case of brittle failure, when the
It should be mentioned that residual loads are loads which load reaches a maximum value after a small deformation and
are present in the piles before any measurements are taken decreases afterward, the maximum load applied to the pile was
during the load tests and neglecting them will cause an over- used as the ultimate capacity. Table 1 shows a summary of the
estimation of the skin resistance and an underestimation of the load tests used to build the database.
toe resistance during a compressive load test. Furthermore,
according to Kraft (1991), neglecting the residual loads has
little effect on the computed axial capacity of piles 15–25 m Pile design
long and might underpredict it in the cases of piles 75–90 m In this study, the author did not try to match the published unit
long. skin and toe resistances because the residual stresses locked in
In cohesive soils, the α method is often used to design piles. the test piles probably hid their true distribution. Some of the
It is a simple design method which uses the undrained shear papers used to build the database are more than 20 years old
strength of the cohesive soil (Su) to calculate the unit skin and the published resistance distributions may not be accurate.
resistance as shown by However, as mentioned in the Introduction, residual stresses
[8] fs = αSu have little influence on the measured total capacity of piles
with length smaller than 75 m. It was therefore decided to only
where α is equal to 1 for low values of Su and decreases using try to predict the total bearing capacity of the test piles and
a nonlinear function to about 0.3 for high values of Su. This optimize the different design equations to minimize the differ-
method is very popular, since values of Su can be easily ob- ence between the computed capacity and the values given in
tained from vane shear tests or unconfined compression tests. Table 1.
Equation [4] is normally used to compute the unit toe resis- The first step in predicting the bearing capacity of a pile is
tance in cohesive soil, with NC equal to 9 and c replaced by Su. to divide the soil deposits into layers of constant geotechnical
It should be pointed out that other pile design methods are properties. The thickness of these soil layers will be a function
available. They are often based on empirical relationships and of the natural stratigraphy of the site and of the uniformity of
use data from laboratory tests or in situ testing devices such as each soil stratum. Each layer will have a constant unit weight,
the static cone penetrometer, the piezocone, or the pressure- standard penetration resistance, or undrained shear strength
meter. It is, however, beyond the scope of this paper to review and will provide a constant unit skin friction.
these design methods. The assumed shape of the shear pattern and its extent above
and below the pile toe vary depending on the theory. It is fairly
Database certain, however, that the unit resistance in this part of the pile
will be a function of the geotechnical properties of the soils
A database of 63 compression pile load tests was used to carry found above and below the pile toe. The author tried to predict
out this study. Fifty-three of these load tests were carried out the bearing capacity of the test piles using the average toe
on driven piles, and bored piles were used for the remaining bearing capacity calculated with the geotechnical properties of
load tests. The data for these load tests were gathered from the the soils found 1.5 pile diameters above and below the pile toe,
available literature. To be included in the database, a load test 3 pile diameters above and below the pile toe, and within 4
had to have been carried out to failure on a pile with a uniform pile diameters below and 6 pile diameters above the pile toe.
cross section. Some timber piles with their conical shape and A shear area extending 3 pile diameters above and below the
cast in place concrete piles with their more or less uniform pile toe provided the best overall prediction. The average toe
cross sections were also included because they are widely bearing capacity was calculated by subdividing the soil depos-
used. The geotechnical data provided in each paper had to be its near the pile toe into quarter-diameter-thick layers. The
sufficient to allow the author to predict the bearing capacity of geotechnical properties of these soil layers were used to com-
the test pile(s) using conventional design methods. However, pute toe bearing capacity values, which were then averaged to
some engineering judgement was usually required to complete compute the actual toe bearing capacity of the test piles.
the data provided in the papers. In some cases, however, when the pile toe comes close to
To correlate soil and load test data for different test sites, a a weaker soil stratum, a punching failure might occur. In these
single failure criterion must be used. The author chose to use cases, whenever the unit end bearing capacity, within 3 pile
the Davisson (1972) failure criterion, since it is well known diameters below the pile toe, drops to a value that is less than
and widely used. With this failure criterion, the ultimate bearing 55% of the value found at the pile toe, the lower bearing value
capacity is defined as the load corresponding to the intersection will be used until the shear strength of the soils starts to increase

© 1997 NRC Canada


562 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 34, 1997

Table 1. Summary of the pile load tests.


Embedded Soil type along Soil type Ultimate
Authors Pile type and dimensions depth (m) the shaft at the toe capacity (kN)
Ahmed and Sowers 1985 457 mm square concrete 41.30 Cohesive Cohesive 1872
Blanchet et al. 1980 Closed-bottom, 219 mm pipe 23.80 Cohesive Cohesive 390
Blanchet et al. 1980 Herkules H420 23.80 Cohesive Cohesive 585
Blanchet et al. 1980 Hercules H420 37.50 Cohesive Cohesive 845
Blanchet et al. 1980 368 mm timber 15.25 Cohesive Cohesive 698
Blanchet et al. 1980 374 mm timber 15.25 Cohesive Cohesive 640
Bowles 1977 Closed-bottom, 356 mm pipe 15.24 Granular Granular 1212
Canadian Wood Council 1991 360 mm timber 12.70 Granular Granular 670
Endley et al. 1979 Closed-bottom, 273 mm pipe 32.00 Cohesive Cohesive 1560
FHWA 1991 457 mm square concrete 19.75 Granular Granular 1667
FHWA 1991 457 mm square concrete 23.00 Granular Granular 2540
FHWA 1991 Hollow, 610 mm square concrete 19.66 Granular Granular 2870
FHWA 1991 Hollow, 610 mm square concrete 22.92 Granular Granular 3726
FHWA 1991 Hollow, 914 mm square concrete 22.25 Granular Granular 4903
Ismael and Klym 1979 1070 mm bored 6.40 Granular Granular 1783
Jaime and Romo 1990 310 mm square concrete 15.00 Cohesive Cohesive 540
Laier 1994 12-H–74 36.30 Granular Granular 2000
Mansur and Hunter 1970 406 mm square concrete 12.25 Granular Granular 1667
Mansur and Hunter 1970 14-BP–73 16.21 Granular Granular 1917
Mansur and Hunter 1970 14-BP–73 12.19 Granular Granular 1310a
Mansur and Hunter 1970 380 mm timber 11.77 Granular Granular 731
Mansur and Hunter 1970 14-BP–73 15.88 Granular Granular 1646
McCammon and Golder 1970 610 mm, open-bottom pipe 45.40 Granular Granular 1560
McCammon and Golder 1970 610 mm, closed-bottom pipe 47.24 Granular Granular 3967
McCammon and Golder 1970 610 mm, open-bottom pipe 30.48 Cohesive Cohesive 1961
McCammon and Golder 1970 610 mm, closed-bottom pipe 48.15 Cohesive Cohesive 3495
Nordlund 1963 324 mm, closed-bottom pipe 24.40 Granular Granular 1114
Nordlund 1963 324 mm, closed-bottom pipe 16.80 Granular Granular 445
Nordlund 1963 324 mm, closed-bottom pipe 18.30 Granular Granular 845
O’Neill and Reese 1972 763 mm bored 7.00 Cohesive Cohesive 1150
O’Neill and Reese 1972 763 mm bored 14.00 Cohesive Cohesive 2550
O’Neill and Reese 1972 763 mm bored 7.00 Cohesive Cohesive 1070
Parsons 1966 203 mm, closed-bottom pipe 14.30 Granular Granular 392
Reese et al. 1976 850 mm bored 18.30 Cohesive Cohesive 6660a
Reese et al. 1976 762 mm bored 7.74 Granular Granular 4010a
Reese et al. 1976 762 mm bored 22.40 Cohesive Granular 5535a
Tavenas 1971 Herkules H800 21.00 Granular Granular 1235
Tavenas 1971 Herkules H800 18.00 Granular Granular 1040
Tavenas 1971 Herkules H800 14.94 Granular Granular 929
Tavenas 1971 Herkules H800 11.89 Granular Granular 691
Tavenas 1971 Herkules H800 8.81 Granular Granular 490
Tavenas 1971 Herkules H800 5.80 Granular Granular 312
Tavenas 1971 12-BP–74 20.75 Granular Granular 1872
Tavenas 1971 12-BP–74 17.70 Granular Granular 1003
Tavenas 1971 12-BP–74 11.60 Granular Granular 700
Tavenas 1971 12-BP–74 8.50 Granular Granular 446
Thompson 1979 305 mm square concrete 15.10 Granular Cohesive 1560
Vesic 1970 457 mm, closed-bottom pipe 15.00 Granular Granular 3200
Vesic 1970 457 mm, closed-bottom pipe 12.00 Granular Granular 2630
Vesic 1970 457 mm, closed-bottom pipe 8.90 Granular Granular 1872
Vesic 1970 457 mm, closed-bottom pipe 6.10 Granular Granular 1533
Vesic 1970 457 mm, closed-bottom pipe 3.00 Granular Granular 411
Vesic 1970 406 mm square concrete 15.20 Granular Granular 2310
Walkinshaw and Healow 1994 356 mm square concrete 39.60 Cohesive Cohesive 2805a
Walkinshaw and Healow 1994 406 mm, closed-bottom pipe 32.20 Cohesive Cohesive 1335a
Walkinshaw and Healow 1994 356 mm square concrete 32.60 Cohesive Cohesive 1160a
Walkinshaw and Healow 1994 437 mm timber 32.00 Cohesive Cohesive 1335a

© 1997 NRC Canada


Robert 563

Table 1 (concluded).
Embedded Soil type along Soil type Ultimate
Authors Pile type and dimensions depth (m) the shaft at the toe capacity (kN)
Walkinshaw and Healow 1994 477 mm timber 32.10 Cohesive Cohesive 1650a
Walkinshaw and Healow 1994 14-HP–89 32.30 Cohesive Cohesive 1315a
Webster et al. 1994 610 mm square concrete 13.80 Granular Granular 2200
Webster et al. 1994 460 mm square concrete 27.00 Granular Granular 3200
Wong 1994 500 mm bored 21.30 Cohesive Cohesive 2136
Wong 1994 472 mm bored 25.90 Cohesive Cohesive 2136
a
Estimated Davisson capacity.

again. The 55% value was chosen because it gave the best Fig. 1. Total unit weight vs. standard penetration index (Bowles
overall bearing capacity predictions. It should be noted, how- 1977).
ever, that any value between 40 and 60% will give the same
bearing capacity prediction for the driven piles included in the
database.
Whenever an open-bottom pile is considered, the full toe
area is normally used to compute its toe bearing capacity. This
assumption is only true if the friction between the soil plug and
the pile inner walls is greater than the pressure applied to the
soil by the pile toe. When piles of this type get close to or start
to penetrate a soil stratum resting underneath a somewhat
weaker soil deposit, the true cross section of the pile should be
used to compute its toe bearing capacity, even though such an
approach is conservative because it ignores the friction be-
tween the soil plug and the pile.

Design of piles in granular soils


Meyerhof (1976) proposed a simple pile design method for
granular soils. It is based on the standard penetration test (SPT)
N values. He used the relation proposed by Peck et al. (1974)
to correct the SPT N values. Samson et al. (1986) proposed the
more general correction factor CN given by
It should be pointed out, however, that this conclusion is only
[9] CN = 
√ 95.76
σv′
valid for single piles. The bearing capacity of piles driven in-
side a large group of piles is likely to be affected by the com-
paction of the soil caused by nearby piles. It should also be
This relation is very similar to the one used by Meyerhof, but noted that these comments are only true for piles with uniform
it is easier to include into a computer program. The unit weight cross sections. Timber piles, with their conical shape, will mo-
of the soils must be known to compute the effective vertical bilize a higher unit skin friction than uniform steel and con-
stress σv′. Bowles (1977) suggested the relation between the crete piles. According to Tavenas (1971) the predicted unit
unit weight of granular materials and the corrected SPT N skin friction of a cone-shaped timber pile should be multiplied
values shown in Fig. 1. The author found that this relation by a factor as high as 1.8, and Meyerhof mentioned that this
works well enough with uncorrected SPT N values and used it value should be 1.5. Blanchet et al. (1980) suggested a value
to estimate the unit weight of the soils whenever it was not of 2 for timber piles driven into a soft clay deposit. The author
provided in the papers. found that a value of 1.8 gave the best overall bearing capacity
As mentioned by Meyerhof (1976), the author found that prediction for timber piles driven either into sand or clay. He
using SPT N values which are corrected for the overburden also used the actual pile skin surface in each soil layer to pre-
pressure to estimate the unit toe resistance and uncorrected dict their bearing capacity instead of an average shaft area as
SPT N values to predict the unit skin friction will provide the is often done.
best total bearing capacity prediction. The best overall prediction of the ultimate bearing capacity
The following equation was found to give the best overall of the test piles installed in granular soils was given by
prediction of the ultimate capacity of the test piles installed in
granular soils: [11a] qP = 115NPT (bored piles)
[10] fs = 1.9N [11a] qP = 190NPT (driven piles)
It is very close to eq. [7a] proposed by Meyerhof and seems Although eq. [11a] is quite close to eq. [6b], eq. [11b] will
to work equally well for displacement piles and so-called low- predict a toe bearing capacity which is about half the value
displacement driven piles (H piles and open-bottom pipe computed by eq. [6a]. This large difference may be related to the
piles). It also seems to give good results for bored piles in sand. use of the Davisson failure criterion, which is often conservative

© 1997 NRC Canada


564 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 34, 1997

Fig. 2. Undrained shear strength vs. α for (a) bored and (b) driven Fig. 3. Influence of pile type on calculated vs. ultimate bearing
piles (from Coduto 1994). capacity for (a) driven and (b) bored piles.

Table 2. Toe bearing capacity factors. α method or other similar design methods should be used to
design piles installed in clay deposits.
Pile toe Bearing
The Canadian foundation engineering manual (Canadian
diameter (m) capacity factor
Geotechnical Society 1992) suggests the use of the α values
<0.5 9 published by Tomlinson (1957) to design piles installed in clay
0.5–1.0 7 with an undrained shear strength smaller or equal to 100 kPa.
>1.0 6 Using these α values gave good results but, since the clay
found at some of the sites had an undrained shear strength
greater than 100 kPa, another relation was needed.
Coduto (1994) published the α values shown in Figs. 2a
and 2b for compression load tests carried out on bored and
with respect to plunging failure or other failure criteria. It
driven piles, respectively. The curves also shown in these fig-
should be noted that it was assumed that all the SPT N values
ures are close to the arithmetic average of the data points and
were recorded using a donut-shaped hammer and a
can be expressed by the following equations:
rope–cathead system which transfer a lower amount of energy
to the drill rod than a true free fall driving system. SPT N [12a] α = 1 (bored piles, Su ≤ 51 kPa)
recorded with the latter system should therefore be increased
to take into account the greater efficiency of these hammers. [12b] α = 0.32 + 250Su –1.5 (bored piles, Su > 51 kPa)

Design of piles in cohesive soils [13a] α = 1 (driven piles, Su ≤ 32 kPa)


The standard penetration test should not be used in clayey soils [13b] α = 0.35 + 170Su –1.6 (driven piles, Su > 32 kPa)
unless their sand and silt contents are high enough for them to
behave as granular materials. Marine and lacustrine clays are Equations [12a]–[13b] were used to predict the ultimate skin
better characterized by their undrained shear strength, and the friction of the test piles installed in cohesive soil deposits and

© 1997 NRC Canada


Robert 565

Fig. 4. Influence of soil type on calculated vs. ultimate bearing Fig. 5. Error distribution of the predicted capacity for all test piles.
capacity for (a) driven and (b) bored piles.

Table 3. Statistics for predicted versus ultimate capacity.


Error (%) Driven piles Bored piles
Minimum –48.5 –42.3
Average –2.8 –8.3
Maximum 40.5 12.6
Standard deviation 19.3 16.2

respect to the soil type. In this figure, sand and clay represent
the main soil types. Some thin clay or sand strata may also be
present. The term sand–clay means the shaft and the toe of a
pile are in a different soil type. Table 3 summarizes the results
shown in Figs. 3 and 4. In this table, the error is calculated with
respect to the actual Davisson capacity of the test piles. The error
distribution of the predicted capacity is also shown in Fig. 5.
As mentioned previously, the author only tried to match the
gave slightly better overall predictions than the relation suggested total capacity of the test piles. On two test sites, however,
in the Canadian Foundation Manual. The unit toe bearing ca- procedures were used to insure that the test piles had no toe
pacity was computed using equation [4] and the NC values resistance during some of the load tests. In these cases, it is
recommended in the Canadian foundation engineering man- therefore possible to verify the accuracy of the predicted shaft
ual (Canadian Geotechnical Society 1992). These values are bearing capacity.
summarized in Table 2. As mentioned earlier, NC is usually The first of these test programs was described by O’Neill
equal to 9. The author found, however, that the lower NC values and Reese (1972). Four 763 mm bored piles were installed in
gave a better overall prediction for large-diameter piles. the clay deposit found on the test site. One of these piles had
a 2.3 m belled toe and was therefore discarded. Another pile
Bearing capacity prediction contained a vented void beneath the toe and was used to meas-
ure the true skin friction on this pile. Table 4 gives a summary
The design methods described above were used by the author of the characteristics of the test piles, including their ultimate
to predict the bearing capacity of the test piles included in the and predicted capacities.
database. Each test site was analyzed and a typical soil profile The second of these test programs was described by
was chosen for each of the piles. Engineering judgement was McCammon and Golder (1970). Two 610 mm open-bottom
sometimes required to locate the groundwater surface or to pipe piles were driven and tested at different depth intervals in
estimate other geotechnical properties not included in the pa- thick granular (pile 1) and cohesive (pile 2) deposits. Pile 1
pers. Any load test which required too much engineering was cleaned after each 12 m long section was driven. The test
judgement was discarded. pile was driven to a depth of 45.4 m, a 0.3 m void was created
Figures 3 and 4 show the calculated bearing capacity values beneath the pile toe to eliminate any end bearing resistance
(Q) with respect to the actual ultimate bearing capacity (Qu) that might increase its total capacity, and the pile was load
of each test pile. Figure 3 shows the influence of the pile type on tested. The test pile was then closed with a 10 m concrete plug,
the quality of the prediction. Figure 4 shows the same results with driven to a depth of 47.2 m, and load tested again. Pile 2 was

© 1997 NRC Canada


566 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 34, 1997

Table 4. Summary of the test piles described by O’Neill and Reese (1972).
Pile No. Embedded depth (m) Ultimate capacity (kN) Predicted capacity (kN) Error (%) Comments
S–1 7.00 1150 1382 6.9
S–2 14.00 2550 2801 12.6
S–3 7.00 1070 1015 –5.1 Vented void under the toe

Table 5. Summary of the test piles described by McCammon and Golder (1970).
Pile No. Embedded depth (m) Ultimate capacity (kN) Predicted capacity (kN) Error (%) Comments
1 45.4 1560 1775 13.8 Driven in sand, no toe resistance
1 47.2 3967 3688 –7.0 Driven in sand
2 30.5 1961 1960 0.0 Driven in clay, no toe resistance
2 48.2 3495 3691 5.6 Driven in clay

driven successively to depths of 30.5 and 46.6 m, cleaned out Coduto, D.P. 1994. Foundation design, principles and practices. Prentice-
to 0.3 m ahead of the pile toe, and load tested. It was then Hall Inc., Englewood Clifs, N.J.
closed with a 10 m concrete plug, driven to a depth of 48.2 m, Coyle, H.M., and Castello, R.R. 1981. New design correlations for
and load tested again. Table 5 provides a summary of the char- piles in sand. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
acteristics of the test piles, including their ultimate and pre- ASCE, 107(GT7): 965–986
Davisson, M.T. 1972. High capacity piles. Proceedings, Soil Mechan-
dicted capacities. ics Lecture Series on Innovations in Foundation Construction,
Tables 4 and 5 show that there was good agreement be- American Society of Civil Engineers, Illinois Section, Chicago
tween the measured and predicted skin resistances. The total 1972, pp. 81–112.
capacity values are also within acceptable limits. Endley, S.N., Ulrich, E.J., and Gray, J.B. 1979. A study of axial pile
load tests. ASCE, Symposium on Deep Foundations, Atlanta, Ga.,
October 1979, pp. 101–121.
Conclusions Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1991. Federal Highway
Administration Demonstration project 66. Dynamic pile monitor-
The results given in Tables 3–5 indicate that the design proce- ing and pile load test report I–165 1(2), Mobile County, Alabama.
dures given in this paper for driven piles generally predict the Fellenius, B.H. 1994. The critical depth. How it came into being and
bearing capacity of the test piles included in the database with why it does not exist. Background to a presentation to the 1994
an acceptable accuracy. In some cases the error with respect to PDI User’s Day, Orlando, Fla. Pile Dynamics Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.
the Davisson capacity is larger than ±40%, but in most cases Ismael, N.F., and Klym, T.W. 1979. Uplift and bearing capacity of
the predicted capacities are within ±25% of the measured values short piers in sand. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Divi-
as shown in Fig. 5. sion, ASCE, 105(GT5): 579–594
Jaime, A., and Romo, M.P. 1990. Behaviour of friction piles in Mexico
clay. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
Acknowledgements 116: 915–931.
Kraft, L.M.,Jr. 1991. Performance of axially loaded pipe piles in sand.
The author would like to thank Mr. Renald Blanchet, the engi- Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 117:
neering director of Queformat Ltd., for reviewing this paper 272–296.
and providing useful comments. Laier, J.E. 1994. Predicting the ultimate compressive capacity of a
long 12–H–74 steel pile. Proceedings, International Conference
on Design and Construction of Deep Foundations, Orlando, Fla.,
References December 1994, Vol. 3, pp. 1804–1818.
Mansur, C.I., and Hunter, A.H. 1970. Pile tests—Arkansas River pro-
Ahmed, S., and Sowers, G.F. 1985. Pile capacity and drivability—a ject. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
case study. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Pene- ASCE, 96(SM5): 1545–1582.
trability and Drivability of Piles, San Francisco, Calif., August McCammon, N.R., and Golder, H.Q. 1970. Some loading tests on
1985, pp 155–158. long pipe piles. Géotechnique, 20: 171–184.
Blanchet, R., Tavenas, F., and Garneau, R. 1980. Behaviour of fric- Meyerhof, G.G. 1976. Bearing capacity and settlement of pile foun-
tion piles in soft sensitive clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, dations. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
17: 203–224. 102(GT3): 196–228.
Bowles, E.B. 1977. Foundation analysis and design. 2nd ed. Nordlund, R.L. 1963. Bearing capacity of piles in cohesionless soils.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE,
Canadian Geotechnical Society. 1992. Canadian foundation engi- 89(SM3): 1–131.
neering manual. 3rd ed. Canadian Geotechnical Society. BiTech O’Neill, M.W., and Reese, L.C. 1972. Behaviour of bored piles in
Publishers Ltd., Richmond, B.C. Beaumont clay. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Canadian Wood Council. 1991. Wood piles. Canadian Wood Council, Division, ASCE, 98(SM2): 195–213.
Ottawa, Ont. Parsons, J.D. 1966. Piling difficulties in the New York area. Journal

© 1997 NRC Canada


Robert 567

of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, List of symbols


89(SM3): 43–64.
Peck, B.P., Hanson, W.E., and Thornburn, T.H. 1974. Foundation AP pile toe area
engineering. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York. AS pile shaft area
Reese, L.C., Touma, F.T., and O’Neill, M.W. 1976. Behaviour of α factor used to calculate the unit skin friction from
drilled piers under axial loading. Journal of the Geotechnical En- the undrained shear strength of cohesive soil
gineering Division, ASCE, 102(GT3): 493–510.
c effective cohesion
Samson, S.C., Liao, A.M., and Whitman, F. 1986. Overburden cor-
rection factors for SPT in sand. Journal of the Geotechnical Engi- CN factor used to correct the SPT N values with
neering Division, ASCE, 112(GT3): 373–377. respect to the vertical effective stress
Tavenas, F.A. 1971. Load tests results on friction piles in sand. Cana- D pile diameter
dian Geotechnical Journal, 8: 7–22. δ friction angle between the pile shaft and the soil
Thompson, C.D., 1979. Effects of pile driving systems on drivability fS unit skin friction
and capacity of concrete piles. ASCE, Symposium on Deep Foun- γ unit weight of the soil
dations, Atlanta, Ga., October 1979, pp. 420–443.
Tomlinson, M.J. 1957. The adhesion of piles driven in clay soils. K horizontal earth pressure coefficient
Proceedings, 4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and L pile length
Foundation Engineering, London, Vol. 2, pp. 66–71. N standard penetration test value (blows / 0.3 m)
Vesic, A.S. 1970. Tests on instrumented piles, Ogeechee river site. NA average SPT N value along the pile shaft
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, NC, Nγ, Nq bearing capacity coefficients
96(SM2): 561–584.
NPT average SPT N value at the pile toe
Walkinshaw, J.L., and Healow, S. 1994. Tension and compression
testing of various piles in San Francisco Bay mud. Proceedings, φ′ effective internal friction angle
International Conference on Design and Construction of Deep Q predicted ultimate capacity
Foundations, Orlando, Fla., December 1994, Vol. 3, pp. qP unit toe resistance
1691–1716. QP toe bearing capacity
Webster, S.D., Hannigan, P.J., and Lawler, D.A. 1994. Dynamic pile QS shaft bearing capacity
testing for five mile bridge and tunnel crossing. Proceedings, In-
Qu ultimate bearing capacity
ternational Conference on Design and Construction of Deep Foun-
dations, Orlando, Fla., December 1994, Vol. 3, pp. 1441–1454. σt′ effective vertical stress at the pile toe
Wong, D.O. 1994. Auger-cast piles in clays. Proceedings, Interna- σV′ effective vertical stress
tional Conference on Design and Construction of Deep Founda- Su undrained shear strength
tions, Orlando, Fla., December 1994, Vol. 3, pp. 368–384.

© 1997 NRC Canada

Potrebbero piacerti anche