gaveslightlybetteroverallpredictionsthantherelationsuggestedin the Canadian Foundation Manual.

The unit toe bearing ca-pacity was comput ed using equation [4] and the N C valuesrecommended in the Canadian foundation engineering man-ual (Canadian Geotechnical Society 1992). These values aresummarized in Table 2. As mentioned earlier, N C is usuallye q u a l t o9 . T h ea u t h or f ou n d, h o w e v er , t ha t t h el o w er N C valuesgave a better overall prediction for large-diameter piles. Bearing capacity prediction The design methods described above were used by the authorto predict the bearing capacity of the test piles included in thedatabase. Each test site was analyzed and a typical soil profilewas chosen for each of the piles. Engineering judgement wassometimes required to locat e the groundwater surface or toestimate other geotechnical properties not included in the pap er s . A n y l oa d t es t w hi c h r e qu i r e d t o o mu c h e n g i n e er i n g judgement was discarded.Figures3 and 4showthe calculat edbearingcapacityvalues ( Q ) with respect to the actual ultimat e bearing capacity ( Q u )of each test pile. Figure 3 shows the influence of the pile type onthequalityoftheprediction.Figure4s howsthesamer esultswithrespect to the soil type. In this figure, sand and clay representthe main soil types. Some thin clay or sand strata may also bepres ent. The t er m sandclay means the shaft and the toe of a pile are in a different soil type. Table 3 summarizes the resultss h o w n i n F i g s . 3 a n d 4 . I n t h i s t a b l e , t h e e r r o r i s c a l c u l a t e d w i t h respect to the actualDavissoncapacity ofthe testpiles.The errordistribution of the predicted capacity is also shown in Fig. 5.As mentioned previously, the author only tried to match thetotal capacity of the test piles. On two test sites, however,procedures were us ed to insure that the test piles had no toer esistance during some of the load tests. In thes e cas es, it istherefore possible to verify the accuracy of the predicted shaftbearing capacity.The first of these test programs was described by ONeilland Reese (1972). Four 763 mm bored piles were installed inthe clay deposit found on the test site. One of these piles hada 2.3 m belled toe and was ther efor e discarded. Anot her pilecontained a vented void beneath the toe and was used to meas-ure the true skin friction on this pile. Table 4 gives a summaryof the characteristics of the test piles, including their ultimateand predicted capacities.T h e s e c o n d o f t h e s e t e s t p r o g r a m s w a s d e s c r i b e d b y McCammon and Golder (1970). Two 610 mm open-bott ompipe piles were driven and tested at different depth intervals inthick granular (pile 1) and cohesive (pile 2) deposits. Pile 1 was cleaned after each 12 m long section was driven. The testpile was driven to a depth of 45.4 m, a 0.3 m void was createdbeneath the pile toe to eliminat e any end bearing resistancethat might increase its total capacity, and the pile was loadtested.The testpile was then clos ed with a 10 mconcr ete plug,driven to a depth of 47.2 m, and load t est ed again. Pile 2 was

Fig. 4. Influence of soil type on calculated vs. ultimate bearingcapacity for ( a ) driven and ( b ) bored piles. Fig. 5. Error distribution of the predicted capacity for all test piles.E r r o r D r i v e n p i l e s B o r e d p i l e s M i n i m u m 4 8 . 5 4 2 . 3 A v e r a g e 2 . 8 8 . 3 M a x i m u m 4 0 . 5 1 2 . 6 S t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n 1 9 . 3 1 6 . 2 Table 3. Statistics for predicted versus ultimate capacity. Robert565 1997 NRC Canada

% )

driven successively to depths of 30.5 and 46.6 m, cleaned outt o 0 . 3 m a h e a d o f t h e p i l e t o e , a n d l o a d t e s t e d . I t w a s t h e n closed with a 10 m concrete plug, driven to a depth of 48.2 m,and load tested again. Table 5 provides a summary of the char-acteristics of the test piles, including their ultimate and pre-dicted capacities.Tables 4 and 5 show that there was good agreement be-tween the measured and predicted skin resistances. The totalcapacity values are also within acceptable limits. Conclusions The results given in Tables 35 indicate that the design proce-dures given in this paper for driven piles generally predict thebearing capacity of the test piles included in the database withan acceptable accuracy. In some cases the error with respect tothe Davisson capacity is larger than 40%, but in most casesthe predicted capacities are within 25% of the measured valuesas shown in Fig. 5. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Mr. Renald Blanchet, the engi-neering director of Queformat Ltd., for reviewing this paper and providing useful comments. References Ahmed, S., and Sowers, G.F. 1985. Pile capacity and drivability acase study. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Pene-trability and Drivability of Piles, San Francisco, Calif., August1985, pp 155158.Blanchet, R., Tavenas, F., and Garneau, R. 1980. Behaviour of fric-tion piles in soft sensitive clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 17 : 203224.B o w l e s , E . B . 1 9 7 7 . F o u n d a t i o n a n a l ys i s a n d d es i g n . 2 n d e d . McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.Canadian Geotechnical Society. 1992. Canadian foundation engi-neering manual. 3rd ed. Canadian Geotechnical Society. BiTechPublishers Ltd., Richmond, B.C.Canadian Wood Council. 1991. Wood piles. Canadian Wood Council,Ottawa, Ont.Coduto,D.P.1994.Foundationdesign,principlesandpractices.Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Clifs, N.J.Coyle, H.M., and Castello, R.R. 1981. New design correlations forpiles in sand. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,ASCE, 107 (GT7): 965986Davisson,M.T.1972.Highcapacit ypiles.Proceedings,SoilMechan -ics Lecture Series on Innovations in Foundation Construction,American Society of Civil Engineers, Illinois Section, Chicago1972, pp. 81112.Endley, S.N., Ulrich, E.J., and Gray, J.B. 1979. A study of axial pileload tests.ASCE,Symposiumon Deep Foundations,Atlanta,Ga., October 1979, pp. 101 121.Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1991. Federal HighwayAdministration Demonstration project 66. Dynamic pile monitor-ing and pile load test report I165 1(2), Mobile County, Alabama.Fellenius, B.H. 1994. The critical depth. How it came into being andwhy it does not exist. Background to a presentation to the 1994PDI Users Day,Orlando, Fla.Pile Dynamics Inc.,Cleveland, Ohio.Ismael, N.F., and Klym, T.W. 1979. Uplift and bearing capacity of short piers in sand. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Divi-sion, ASCE, 105 (GT5): 579594Jaime, A., and Romo, M.P. 1990. Behaviour of friction piles in Mexicoclay. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 116 : 915931.Kraft,L.M.,Jr.1991.Performanceofaxiallyloadedpipepilesinsand. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 117 :272296.Laier, J.E. 1994. Predicting the ultimate compressive capacity of along 12H74 steel pile. Proceedings, International Conferenceon Design and Construction of Deep Foundations, Orlando, Fla.,December 1994, Vol. 3, pp. 1804 1818.Mansur,C.I.,andHunter,A.H.1970.Piletests ArkansasRiverpro -ject. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 96

(SM5): 15451582.McCammon, N.R., and Golder, H.Q. 1970. Some loading tests onlong pipe piles. Gotechnique, 20 : 171184.Meyerhof, G.G. 1976. Bearing capacity and settlement of pile foundations.JournaloftheGeotechnicalEngineeringDivision,ASCE, 102 (GT3): 196228.Nordlund, R.L. 1963. Bearing capacity of piles in cohesionless soils.Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 89 (SM3): 1131.ONeill, M.W., and Reese, L.C. 1972. Behaviour of bored piles inBeaumont clay. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and FoundationsDivision, ASCE, 98 (SM2): 195213.Parsons, J.D. 1966. Piling difficulties in the New York area. JournalP i l e N o . E mb e d d e d d ep t h ( m) Ul t i ma t e ca p a ci t y ( k N ) P r ed i ct e d ca p a ci t y ( k N ) E r r o r ( % ) C o m m e n t sS 1 7 . 0 0 1 1 5 0 1 3 8 2 6 . 9 S 2 1 4 . 0 0 2 5 5 0 2 8 0 1 1 2 . 6 S 3 7 . 0 0 1 0 7 0 1 0 1 5 5 . 1 V e n t e d v o i d u n d e r t h e t o e Table 4. Summary of the test piles described by ONeill and Reese (1972).P i l e N o . E m b e d d e d depth (m) Ultimate capacity (kN) Predicted capacity (kN) Error (%) Comments1 4 5 . 4 1 5 6 0 1 7 7 5 1 3 . 8 D r i v e n i n s a n d , n o t o e r e s i s t a n c e 1 4 7 . 2 3 9 6 7 3 6 8 8 7 . 0 D r i v e n i n s a n d 2 3 0 . 5 1 9 6 1 1 9 6 0 0 . 0 D r i v e n i n c l a y , n o t o e r e s i s t a n c e 2 4 8 . 2 3 4 9 5 3 6 9 1 5 . 6 D r i v e n i n c l a y Table 5. Summary of the test piles described by McCammon and Golder (1970). Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 34, 1997 566 1997 NRC Canada

of t he S oi l Me cha ni cs a nd F oundat i ons D i vi s i on, AS C E, 89 (SM3): 4364.Peck, B.P., Hanson, W.E., and Thornburn, T.H. 1974. Foundationengineering. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.Reese, L.C., Touma, F.T., and ONeill, M.W. 1976. Behaviour of drilled piers under axial loading. Journal of the Geotechnical En-gineering Division, ASCE, 102 (GT3): 493510.Samson, S.C., Liao, A.M., and Whitman, F. 1986. Overburden cor-rection factors for SPT in sand. Journal of the Geotechnical Engi-neering Division, ASCE, 112 (GT3): 373377.Tavenas, F.A. 1971. Load tests results on friction piles in sand.Cana-dian Geotechnical Journal, 8 : 722.Thompson, C.D., 1979. Effects of pile driving systems on drivabilityand capacity of concrete piles. ASCE,Symposiumon Deep Foun-dations, Atlanta, Ga., October 1979, pp. 420443.Tomlinson, M.J. 1957. The adhesion of piles driven in clay soils. Proceedings, 4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics andFoundation Engineering, London, Vol. 2, pp. 6671.Vesic, A.S. 1970. Tests on instrumented piles, Ogeechee river site.Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 96 (SM2): 561584.Walkinshaw, J.L., and Healow, S. 1994. Tension and compressiontesting of various piles in San Francisco Bay mud. Proceedings,International Conference on Design and Construction of DeepF o u n d a t i o n s , O r l a n d o , F l a . , D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 4 , V o l . 3 , p p . 16911716.Webster, S.D., Hannigan, P.J., and Lawler, D.A. 1994. Dynamic piletesting for five mile bridge and tunnel crossing. Proceedings, In-ternationalC onferenceonD esignandC onstructionofDeepFoun dations, Orlando, Fla., December 1994, Vol. 3, pp. 14411454.Wong, D.O. 1994. Auger-cast piles in clays. Proceedings, Interna-tional Conference on Design and Construction of Deep Founda-tions, Orlando, Fla., December 1994, Vol. 3, pp. 368384. List of symbols A P pile toe area A S

pile shaft area factor used to calculate the unit skin friction fromthe undrained shear strength of cohesive soil c effective cohesion C N factor used to correct the SPT N values withrespect to the vertical effective stress D pile diameter friction angle between the pile shaft and the soil f S unit skin friction unit weight of the soil K horizontal earth pressure coefficient L pile length N standard penetration test value (blows / 0.3 m) N A average SPT N value along the pile shaft N C , N , N q bearing capacity coefficients N PT average SPT N value at the pile toe effective internal friction angle Q predicted ultimate capacity q P unit toe resistance Q P toe bearing capacity Q

S shaft bearing capacity Q u ultimate bearing capacity t effective vertical stress at the pile toe V effective vertical stress S u undrained shear strength Robert567 1997 NRC Canada