Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 06/04/15. Copyright ASCE.

For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Evaluation of Design Methods for Auger Cast Piles

In Mixed Soil Conditions

David M. Coleman, P.E.* and Brad J. Arcement, E.I.**

*Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Aquaterra Engineering, Inc., Post Office Box 13955,
Jackson, MS 39236-3955; PH 601-956-4467; dcoleman@aquaterrainc.com
**Staff Geotechnical Engineer, Burns Cooley Dennis, Inc., Post Office Box 12828,
Jackson, MS 39236-2828; PH 601-856-9911; brada@iam.rr.com

Abstract

This paper presents an evaluation of four methods for the design of auger cast piles in
mixed soil conditions. Various failure criteria for interpreting load test results were also
evaluated. These evaluations were performed by comparing predicted capacities
determined by each design method with the results of 32 pile load tests. Recommendations
are made for defining failure when performing load tests on auger cast piles.
Modifications to the FHWA method for drilled shafts are also recommended to improve its
ability to predict the ultimate capacity of auger cast piles in mixed soils.

Introduction

Similarities between the construction of auger cast piles and drilled shafts has generally
resulted in the design of auger cast piles using design methods developed for drilled shafts.
However, the construction techniques used and grout pressures developed during
construction of auger cast piles may lead to higher capacities than an equivalent size drilled
shaft. The grout pressures may increase the horizontal stresses between the pile and the
surrounding soil and create a pile with an actual diameter greater than the nominal
diameter of the auger used to construct the pile.
The majority of the published literature related to the design of auger cast piles
address piles that are predominantly in sand. Several design methods have been developed
for this scenario. However, there is little published information on the design of auger cast
piles constructed primarily in cohesive soils or in mixed soil conditions. Auger cast piles
are often the chosen deep foundation alternative in mixed soil conditions. Typical of these
mixed soil conditions are the alluvial soils of the Mississippi River alluvial plain, Loessial
deposits, and interbedded sands and clays typical of central Mississippi and Louisiana.
Soil conditions in the alluvial deposits typically consist of weak clays and loose silts over
medium dense sands while the Loessial deposits are typically silts and clayey silts
overlying clay. Our experience indicates that predicted pile capacities for auger cast piles
in predominantly clay or silt soils often vary significantly from load test results.
The objective of this paper was to evaluate the usefulness of several design
methods for determining the axial capacity of auger cast piles in a variety of soil

1404

Deep Foundations 2002

 DEEP FOUNDATIONS 2002 1405

conditions. This paper presents a comparison between the predicted and measured axial
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 06/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

capacity of auger cast piles of various sizes and lengths in a variety of soil conditions.
Measured axial capacities were determined from 32 compressive pile load tests. Axial
capacities were predicted using four different design methods and the results compared to
the measured capacities. Based upon this comparison, the FHWA method was selected for
further study.

Design Methods For Auger Cast Piles

Four design methods were selected for our initial analysis. The analysis included methods
developed by: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for drilled shafts (Reese and
O'Neill, 1988); American Petroleum Institute (1989); Coyle, et. al. (1986) and Neely
(1991). These methods are briefly described in the following paragraphs.

F H W A M e t h o d - R e e s e a n d O ' N e i l l (1988). The FHWA method is one of the most

recognized methods for the design of drilled shaft foundations in both cohesive and
cohesionless soils. This method has become popular for predicting the axial capacity of
auger cast piles because of the similarities between auger cast piles and drilled shafts.
In cohesive soils, the unit skin friction is computed using the ~x method and the
equation:
fs = ~Su

where: fs = unit skin friction along the pile shaft

c~ : relationship between the skin friction and the soil strength
(typically assumed as 0.55 along the entire length of the pile)
su = undrained shear strength of an individual soil layer
End bearing in cohesive soils is predicted using the equation:
qp = 9Su
where: qp = unit end bearing

In cohesionless soils, the unit skin friction is computed using the [3 method and the
equation:
fs = ~v'[3
where: 13= Ktan~
c~v'= vertical effective stress at center of each layer,
K = earth pressure coefficient, and
= angle of internal friction of an individual sand layer

The [3 term is typically calculated as:

[3 = 1.5-0.244z ~
where: 0.25 _< 13< 1.2
z = depth in metres
The unit end bearing in cohesionless soils is estimated from the standard penetration test
results using the following equation:

Deep Foundations 2002

 1406 DEEP FOUNDATIONS2002

qp = 58N (kPa)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 06/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

where: qp = unit end bearing in kPa

N = SPT resistance in blows per 305 ram.

American Petroleum Institute Method (1989). Another common design method used for
deep foundations is the American Petroleum Institute (API) method. This method was
developed for the design of driven piles in both cohesive and cohesionless soil conditions.
In cohesive soils, the skin friction is computed using the ~x method and the
equation:
fs = C~Su
where: a = a function of the undrained shear strength of the soil
and ranges from 1 to 0.5.
The unit end beating in cohesive soils is predicted using the equation:
qp = 9Su
In cohesionless soils, the skin friction is computed using the equation:
fs = ~v' Ktan5
where: K = earth pressure coefficient
(taken as 0.8 for non-displacement piles)
5 = friction angle between the pile and the sand

End bearing in cohesionless soils is computed using the equation:

qp = ~rv'Nq
where: Nq = bearing capacity factor
Standard values for 6 and Nq are recommended by API (1989) for use in the procedure.
These values are dependent upon the grain size classification and relative density of the
soil.

Coyle Method (1986). This method was developed for predicting the axial capacity of
driven piles using standard penetration test data for sands and the undrained shear strength
for cohesive soils. The method uses procedures by Coyle and Castello (1981) for sand and
Coyle et al. (1986) for clay.
In cohesive soils, the skin friction is computed using the c~ method and the
equation:
fs = C~Su
where: ~x= a function of the undrained shear strength of the soil
and ranges from 0.20 to 1.0
End beating in cohesive soils is predicted using the equation:
qp = 9Su
In cohesionless soils, the skin friction is estimated using plots offs versus D/B as a
function of d~, where D is measured from the ground surface to the midpoint of the
analyzed segment, B is the pile diameter, and d~is the soil friction angle. End bearing for

Deep Foundations 2002

 DEEP FOUNDATIONS 2002 1407

cohesionless soils is estimated using plots of qp versus D/B as a function of ~b. The Coyle
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 06/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

method limits qp to 9.576 MPa.

Neely Method (1991). This method was developed for predicting the axial capacity of
auger cast piles in sands using a data base of 66 pile load tests.
With the Neely method skin friction is computed using the 13 method and the
equation:
f~ : ~v'~ (fs < 135 kPa)
where: [3 = friction factor that is a function of the total length of the pile
Cry = average effective vertical stress at the midpoint of the pile.
Neely estimated the end bearing in units of tsf using standard penetration test results at the
pile tip and the developed the following equation:
qp = 1.9N (qp < 75 tsf (7.2 Mpa))

Pile Load Test Data

Data from a total of 49 pile load tests (44 compression and 5 tension) were initially
analyzed for this project. These load tests were performed at nineteen sites throughout the
states of Mississippi and Louisiana during the period 1985 to 2001. The pile load tests
were generally conducted in accordance with ASTM D 1143 (American Society of Testing
and Materials, 2000). Geotechnical data from soil borings performed in the vicinity of the
pile load test location and associated laboratory test results were available for each of the
test piles. Each individual pile load test and associated geotechnical data are identified as a
data set.
Of the original 44 data sets of compression test results, 12 sets could not be used.
These were not used because they were terminated at a predetermined load before
sufficient deflection occurred. In the eliminated cases, either the test was terminated at
twice the design load of the pile, the maximum deflections were generally less than 0.25
inch, the load-deflection plot did not cross the elastic line, or plunging failure did not
Occur.
The pile load test data used in this study covers a wide range of auger cast pile sizes
and lengths as well as varying soil types. A summary of the pile properties and general
soil conditions at each of the 32 test locations is presented on Table 1. Also shown in
Table 1 is the design capacity required for each pile, the maximum loading applied, the
maximum deflection that was obtained, and the maximum deflection as percent of the pile
diameter. The mixed soil conditions at each of the test pile locations is indicated in Table
1 by the percentage of clay, silt, and sand along the length of the pile and the soil type at
the pile tip. The beating stratum for the majority (22/32) of the test piles consisted of sand
with 9 piles bearing in clay and one in silt. Only three of the load tests were conducted at
sites composed entirely of sands and one load test was completely in silt.

Deep Foundations 2002

 1408 DEEP FOUNDATIONS2002

Table 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 06/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Test Pile Information

Percentage of
Test Pile Characteristics Soil Type Along
Pile Shaft Soil
Data Maximum Type
Set Diameter Length Design Applied Maximum Deflection at Pile
Load Load Deflection As Percenl
m m kN kN mm of Pile Clay Silt Sand Tip
(in.) (in.) (kips) (kips) (in.) Diameter
%
0.457 22.9 738 1770 20.6
3 4.5 27 40 33 Clay
(18) (75) (166) (398) (0,813)
0,457 16.8 534 1601 11.8 0 67 33 Clayey
4 2.6
(18) (55) (120) (360) (0,466) Sand
0.356 16.8 311 934 14.6
7 4.1 18 49 33 Sand
(14) (55) (70) (210) (0.574)
0.356 20.4 623 1068 15.9
8 4.5 0 72 28 Sand
(14) (67) (140) (240) (0.628)
0.356 17.4 623 1379 23.5
9 6.6 20 53 27 Sand
(14) (57) (140) (310) (0.927)
0.356 15.1 445 1957 51.9
11 14.6 64 0 36 Sand
(14) (49.5) (100) 040) (2.045)
0.356 14.9 445 1957 26.2
12 7.4 58 0 42 Sand
(14) (49) (100) (440) (1.030)
0.356 15.2 445 2224 47.7
13 13.4 74 0 26 Sand
(14) (50) (100) (500) (1.878)
0.610 15.2 445 2224 12.0
14 2.0 62 0 38 Sand
(24) (50) (100) (500) (0.472)
0.610 15.2 445 2224 14.4
15 2.4 58 0 42 Sand
(24) (50) (100) (500) (0.568)
0.610 15.2 445 2224 40.1
16 6.6 74 0 26 Sand
(24) (50) (100) (500) (1.578)
0.406 16.8 534 2135 47.0
20 11.6 80 0 20 Clay
(16) (55) (120) (480) (1.849)
0.406 15.2 534 2358 50.8
21 12.5 76 0 24 Clay
(16) (50) (120) (530) (2.000)
0.356 9.1 356 890 53.3
22 15.0 33 30 37 Sand
(14) (30) (80) (200) (2.100)
0.356 6.1 133 534 53.3
23 45 50 5 Sand
(14) (20) (30) (120) (2.100) 15.0
0.356 32.0 534 1761 ~ -
24 (105) (120) (396) (0.637) 4.6
67 27 6 Sand
(14)
0.356 19.2 178 890
25 (63) (40) (200) (0.396) 2.8 54 46 0 Clay
(14)
0.508 18.9 1 0 6 8 2669
27 (62) (240) (600) (0.800) 4.0 0 0 1O0 Sand
(20)
0.508 14.9 1 0 6 8 2135- ~ 6 -
29 (49) (240) (480) (0.812)_ 4.1 % 0 ~ Sand
(20)

Deep Foundations 2002

 DEEP FOUNDATIONS2002 1409

Table 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 06/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Test Pile Information

(Concluded)
Percentage of Soil
Test Pile Characteristics Type Along Pile
Shaft Soil
Data Maximum Type
Set Diameter Length Design Applied Maximum Deflection at Pile
Load Load DeflectionAs Percent
m m kN kN mm of Pile Clay Silt Sand Tip
(in.) (in.) (kips) (kips) (in.) Diameter
%
0.61 15.2 498 1993 19.8
30 (24) (50) (112) (448) (0.779) 3.2 44 50 6 Clay
32 0.406 10.4 445 1334 7.874 1.9 38 18 44 Sand
(16) (34) (100) (300) (0.310)
0.457 7.6 445 1690 16.51
34 3.6 0 0 100 Sand
(18) (25) (100) (380) (0.65)
0.457 10.7 445 1157 12.7
35 (18) (35) (100) (260) (0.50) 2.8 23 0 77 Clay
0.406 12.2 445 1157 20.5
36 5.0 42.5 20 37.5 Sand
(16) (40) (100) (260) (0.807)
0.406 18.3 445 1246 20.1
37 4.9 29 13 58 Sand
(16) (60) (100) (280) (0.791)
0.457 12.2 534 934 15.95
38 (18) (40) (120) (210) (0.628) 3.5 42.5 20 37.5 Sand
0.457 18.3 534 1423 12.6
39 2.8 29 13 58 Sand
(18) (60) (120) (320) (0.496)
0.406 20.3 1246 3114 45.72
40 (16) (66.5) (280) (700) (1.800) 11.3 62 15 23 Clay
0.457 23.5 1423 3567 19.6
42 4.3 0 13 87 Sand
(18) (77) (320) (802) (0.771)
0.356 13.1 534 1230 36.8
45 10.4 0 100 0 Silt
(14) (43) (120) (276.6) (1.450)
0.610 12.2 801 2224 40.49
47 (24) (40) (180) (500) (1.594) 6.6 32.5 25 42.5 Clay
0.356 12.2 356 1183 16.83
48 (14) (40) (80) (266) (0.662) 4.7 32.5 50 17.5 Clay

Data Analysis

Predicted Capacity. The geotechnical reports for each of the project sites were reviewed,
and data from the soil borings closest to the test pile location were used to develop the
stratigraphy and engineering properties of the soils for use in the analysis. Each of the four
selected design methods were used where applicable to predict the ultimate friction
capacity, end bearing capacity and total capacity for each test pile. The Neely method is
applicable only to piles in predominately in sand and was used in the analysis on nine
piles. The predicted ultimate total capacity for each test pile is presented in Table 2.

Deep Foundations 2002

 1410 DEEP FOUNDATIONS2002

Table 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 06/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Data Used In Analysis

Measured Predicted Total Capacity(kN)

Data Total
Set Capacity FHWA API Neely Coyle
(kN)
3 1770 2380 2064 NA* 1508
4 1601 1730 1548 1899 2006
7 934 961 1281 NA 1984
8 1068 1432 1677 1495 2406
9 1379 1566 1259 1223 1059
11 1673 836 1063 NA 1695
12 1957 627 1326 NA 1793
13 2002 712 1415 NA 1713
14 2224 1730 2362 NA 2994
15 2224 1744 3247 NA 3269
16 2224 1406 3372 NA 3465
20 2113 1686 1419 NA 1512
21 2269 1455 1352 NA 1228
22 801 560 614 1205 890
23 445 231 423 NA 712
24 1761 1210 2389 NA 1828
25 890 818 454 NA 409
27 2669 2985 3630 2540 3785
29 2135 2411 2816 2117 3180
3O 1993 1183 1326 NA 1575
32 1334 1010 672 1503 1535
34 1690 885 1010 1819 2126
35 1157 1023 614 NA 672
36 1157 1014 899 NA 890
37 1246 1948 1463 NA 1076
38 934 1157 1050 NA 1103
39 1423 2220 1699 NA 1272
4O 2980 3243 2727 NA 1713
42 3567 2518 3603 1890 3376
45 1201 743 730 NA 765
47 2224 2380 2700 NA 2024
48 1183 1237 1250 NA 1019
* Neely Method for use in sand only.
"NA" indicates not used in analysis.

Deep Foundations 2002

 DEEP FOUNDATIONS2002 1411

Interpretation of Load Test Data. The design methods evaluated in this study were
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 06/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

developed using databases that defined failure using different criteria. For example, the
FHWA method was developed using a failure criteria of 5 percent of the pile diameter in
sands and plunging failure in clays while the Neely method for sands was based upon a
pile head movement of l0 percent of the pile diameter. In recently published studies,
Clemente et. al. (2000) used Davisson's method for determining the ultimate capacity of
auger cast piles bearing in clays. Zelada and Stephenson (2000) defined failure for piles in
sands using 5 and 10 percent of the nominal pile diameter.
Of the 32 test piles in this study, the maximum deflection in 19 piles (59%) was
less than 5% of the pile diameter; the maximum deflection in 5 piles (16%) was between
5% and 10% of the pile diameter; and the maximum deflection in 8 piles (25%) was
between 10% and 15%. No piles were loaded to a deflection of greater than 15% of their
diameter. For pries with tips bearing in sands and more than 42% sand along the pile shaft
this study found that the maximum deflection achieved in the majority of the load tests was
less than 5 percent of the pile diameter.
Numerous methods have been proposed for determining the failure load from a pile
load test (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1991; Davisson, 1970; Chin, 1970; Brinch
Hansen, 1963; Butler and Hoy, 1977; Fuller and Hoy, 1970). Considerable scatter was
observed in the measured capacities obtained with the various analysis methods. This
made it difficult to determine a meaningful relationship between the pile design methods
and the methods for calculating measured capacity. Some general trends in the pile load
test data and failure criteria were observed. These indicated that:
9 Davisson's Limit Value method generally resulted in the lowest
measured capacity and appears to be the most conservative of the
analysis methods;
9 Measured capacity by the Tangent method was generally higher than the
capacity from the Davisson's Limit Value method and appeared to be
within about 10% of the capacity estimated using a deflection criterion
of 10% pile diameter; and
9 The difference between the maximum applied load and the measured
capacity determined by Davisson's Limit Value method were generally
small for piles bearing in clays that did not plunge or deflect greater
than 10% of the pile diameter.
In the opinion of the authors, this study in predominately mixed soil conditions
indicates that while the load at a deflection equal to 5% of the diameter is a suitable failure
criteria for large diameter shafts, a failure criteria defined as the load at a deflection equal
to 10% of the pile diameter may be more appropriate for smaller piles such as auger cast
piles. Accordingly, for this study failure was defined as the load at a pile head movement
of 10% of the nominal pile diameter or plunging failure, whichever occurred first. If the
pile did not plunge or if the load test was terminated at less than 10% of the nominal pile
diameter, then the measured capacity was defined as the maximum applied load. The
measured total capacity of each test pile is presented in Table 2.

Deep Foundations 2002

 1412 DEEPFOUNDATIONS2002

Analysis of Capacity Ratio Data for Design Methods. After the failure load was
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 06/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

determined for each test pile using each of the four design methods, the capacity ratio,
defined as the predicted capacity (Qp) divided by the measured capacity (QM), was
calculated. For each design method the minimum, maximum, mean, standard deviation
and coefficient of variation of the capacity ratio was calculated. A plot of the mean, mean
plus one standard deviation, and mean minus one standard deviation for the four design
procedures considered in this study is presented on Figure 1.

Figure 1. Mean +/- 1 standard deviation of the capacity ratios.

Comparison of the capacity ratios reveals several significant trends. The FHWA
method has an average capacity ratio of 0.89 which indicates that the method underpredicts
the measured capacity by an average of about 11%. There was significant scatter in the
data with the capacity ratio ranging from 0.32 to 1.56. The standard deviation was found
to be 0.32 and the coefficient of variation for the data 36%. On average, the FHWA
method was the most conservative of the four methods studied.
The average capacity ratio for the API method was 0.97 with the capacity ratios
ranging from 0.50 to 1.57. The data had a standard deviation of 0.32 and a coefficient of
variation of 33%.
The Neely method was only used for auger cast piles constructed in either sands or
in silty and sandy topstratum soils that overlie sand. Only 9 data sets were analyzed using
the Neely method. Capacities ratios computed with the Neely method ranged from .53 to
1.51 with an average capacity ratio of 1.07. This data had a standard deviation of 0.27 and
a coefficient of variation of 25%.

Deep Foundations 2002

 DEEP FOUNDATIONS2002 1413

The Coyle method had an average capacity ratio of 1.07. The capacity ratios
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 06/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ranged from 0.46 to 2.25, which was the largest range for the methods studied. The Coyle
method produced a standard deviation was 0.42 and a coefficient of variation of 39%.
These observations indicate that no one procedure offers significant advantages
over another. On average, the Coyle and Neely methods slightly overpredict the capacity.
The Coyle method exhibits the largest range of capacity ratios for the four methods
studied. The Neely method exhibited the smallest range of capacity ratios, but had
smallest number of data points. Both the API and FHWA methods underpredict the
capacity on average. The range of capacity ratios was similar for both methods, although
the API method had the best average capacity ratio.

Analysis of FHWA Method

Modifications could be made to any of the method discussed above to improve their
predictive capability in mixed soils. However, we chose to focus our research on the
FHWA method. The basis of this choice was the fact that the FHWA method is widely
used and the method uses ~x and 13 factors that can be easily adjusted to modify the skin
friction component of the capacity.
The measured capacity is plotted versus the predicted capacity for the FHWA
method in Figure 2. A goal of this study was to improve the predictive capability of the
FHWA method in mixed soils conditions. The following sections present our
modifications to the FHWA method that should allow improved prediction of auger cast
pile capacity in mixed soil conditions.

Figure 2. Measured capacity versus predicted capacity using FHWA method.

In order to investigate modifications to the FHWA method it was necessary to

determine the portion of total pile capacity resulting from skin friction and the portion that
was due end bearing. None of the test piles used in this study were instrumented.
Therefore, direct determination of the friction and end bearing components from the load
tests was not possible. As an alternative, the Chin Hyperbolic method (Chin and Vail,

Deep Foundations 2002

 1414 DEEP FOUNDATIONS2002

1973) was used with each data set to estimate the percentage of total capacity due to skin
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 06/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

friction and end bearing. These percentages were then applied to the total measured
capacities determined from the load tests to provide an estimate of the measured skin
friction and end bearing.

Friction Component. The FHWA method uses a constant c~ value of 0.55 for computing
the skin friction along the pile shaft in cohesive soils. This ct is independent of the shear
strength of the soil. The approach used in our study was to determine tx as a function of
the soil shear strength. The measured friction component was used to backcalculate a
single value o f ~ for each test pile. The backcalculated a value is a function of the average
shear strength of all cohesive (clay & silt) soils along the pile. Our backcalculated ct
values versus undrained shear strength are plotted on Figure 3.

Figure 3. a versus undrained shear strength.

Regression analysis performed on this data yielded the relationship:

cc = 56.192(so 1.0162) for 0.35 < c t < 2 . 5

where: cc = function of the undrained shear strength of soil
su = undrained shear strength (kPa)
The factor D is required for the analysis of granular soils. In this study 13was back-
calculated from the measured skin friction values using the properties of the pile and the
effective overburden pressure at the center of each stratum. The individual values of 13
were then plotted versus the depth of the center of the stratum. Since both silt and sand
soils were represented within the data sets, separate correlations were developed for the silt

Deep Foundations 2002

 DEEP FOUNDATIONS2002 1415

and the sand soils. The use of [3 for silty soils may be more appropriate for the more
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 06/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

granular silts. The results of these analyses are shown graphically on Figure 4.

Figure 4. Backcalculated [3 versus depth for sands and silts compared with the FHWA.

Also shown on Figure 4 is the F H W A relationship for [3 as a function of depth for drilled
shafts:
13= KtanO = 1.5-0.244z ~ for 0.25 < [3 < 1.2
where: z = depth to center of stratum in metres
Results of this study indicate that for auger cast piles in sands 13should be determined for
each stratum using the equation:
[3 = 10.716z -1.2982 for 0.20 < 13< 2.5
where: z = depth to center of stratum in metres
For auger cast piles in silts, [3 should be determined for each stratum using the equation:
[3 = 2.2683z -0.6744 for 0.20 < [3 < 2.5
where: z = depth to center of stratum in metres

End Bearing Component, Analysis o f the end bearing component indicated significant
scatter in the predicted versus measured capacities for piles bearing in sands and clays. In
this study the end beating component was predicted using the relationship qp - 9su. The
limited amount of data we had available for auger cast piles bearing in clay was not
sufficient to develop modifications to the end beating component of this method.

Deep Foundations 2002

 1416 DEEP FOUNDATIONS2002

The end bearing component ins sands was evaluated by plotting the measured unit
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 06/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

end bearing versus the Standard Penetration Test blow count (N) at the pile tip. This data is
presented on Figure 5 along with the correlation recommended Reese and O'Neill (1988).
Review of the data from the load tests bearing in sands indicates significant scatter in the
unit tip resistance and SPT blow count. The data in Figure 5 indicates that the Reese and
O'Neill equation generally provides a reasonable and conservative estimate of end bearing
in granular soils.

Figure 5. Unit tip resistance versus SPT N values.

Verification

The final phase of this study was to verify that the proposed modifications to the FHWA
method will result in improved capacity prediction for auger cast piles. To accomplish
this, the predicted capacities were recomputed using the proposed relationships for a and
13. The recomputed predicted capacities were plotted versus the measured capacities as
shown in Figure 6.
This data appears to have a tighter grouping around the unity line with the
relationship of the measured capacity to the predicted capacity near unity. Statistics related
to the capacity ratios for pile capacities predicted with the revised a and 13factors indicate
a range of capacity ratios between 0.43 and 1.36 with an average capacity ratio of 0.93.
The standard deviation for this data was 0.24 with a coefficient of variation of 26%. These
statistics indicate that the average capacity ratio improved slightly over the FHWA
method. Although considerable scatter remains, the overall variation in the results
decreased.

Deep Foundations 2002

 DEEP FOUNDATIONS2002 1417
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 06/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 6. Measured versus predicted capacity using modified c~ and 13factors with the
FHWA method.

Conclusions

Based on the results of this study we offer the following conclusions:

9 A failure criteria defined as the load at a deflection equal to 10% of the pile diameter
may be more appropriate for auger cast piles.
9 Historically, pile load tests have been terminated at loads that resulted in deflections
less than 10% of the pile diameter. Pile load tests should be carried to loads that will
result in deflections that are greater than 10% of the pile diameter.
9 The API method is suitable for predicting capacity of auger cast piles in mixed soil
conditions. Our study indicated that this method had the best average capacity ratio.
9 The Neely method was developed for auger cast piles in sands. Our study with a
limited number of sites in granular soils indicates that this method is applicable in
sandy soils and may be applicable to auger cast piles in mixed silty and sandy soils.
9 The Coyle method exhibited the largest scatter of predicted versus measured
capacities of the four methods analyzed.
9 The FHWA method for drilled shafts is applicable for predicting auger cast pile
capacity in mixed soils conditions. Modifications to the c~ and 13 relationships
developed in this study can be used with the FHWA method to better predict the
capacity of auger cast piles in mixed soil conditions.

Deep Foundations 2002

 1418 DEEP FOUNDATIONS2002

Limitations and Future Research

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 06/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

This study used the results from 32 compressive pile load tests in predominantly mixed
soil conditions. One of the key components of this study is separation of the end bearing
and skin friction components of the measured pile capacity. These components were
estimated using the Chin method as none of the piles were instrumented and only 4 of the
load tests had companion tension tests. It is possible that this estimation could result in
inaccuracies in the data. Inclusion of data from instrumented pile load tests and test
programs with both compression and tension piles would provide better measurements of
the skin friction and end bearing components.

Deep Foundations 2002

 DEEPFOUNDATIONS2002 1419

A P P E N D I X I. R E F E R E N C E S
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 06/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

American Petroleum Institute (1989), "Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing

and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms," RP2A.

American Society of Testing and Materials (2000), "Standard Test Method for Piles Under
Static Axial Compressive Load," ASTM D-1143, Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
Volume 04.08, Philadelphia, PA.

Brinch Hansen, J. (1963), "Hyperbolic Stress-Strain Response Cohesive Soils." Journal

Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 89, No. SM4, 241-242.

Butler, H. D. and H. E. Hoy (1977), "User's Manual for the Texas Quick-Load Method for
Foundation Load Testing," Federal Highway Administration, Office of Development,
Washington, DC.

Chin, F. K. (1970), "Estimation of the Ultimate Load of Piles Not Carried to Failure,"
Proceedings 2ndSoutheast Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, Singapore, 81-90.

Chin, F. K. and A. J. Vail (1973), "Behavior of Piles in Alluvium," Proceedings Eighth

International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Moscow,
Soviet Union, 47-52.

Clemente, J. L. M., J. R. Davie, and H. Senapathy (2000), "Design and Load Testing of
Auger Cast Piles in Stiff Clay," Geotechnical Special Publication No. 100, New
Technological and Design Developments in Deep Foundations, 404-417.

Coyle, H. M., and R. R. Castello, (1981), "New Design Correlations for Piles in Sand,"
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 106, No. GT7, 965-986.

Coyle, H. M. L.M. Tucker, and J.-L. Briaud, (1986), "Development of an Improved Pile
Design Procedure for Single Piles in Clays and Sands," MSHD-RD-86-050-3, Department
of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.

Davisson, M.T. (1970) "Static Measurement of Pile Behavior," Proceedings Conference

on Design and Installation of Pile Foundations and Cellular Structures, Ed. H.Y. Fang and
T.D. Dismuke, Bethlehem, Pa.

Fuller, F. M. and H. E. Hoy (1970), "Pile Load Tests Including Quick-Load Test method
Conventional Methods and Interpretations," HRB 333, 78-86.

Neely, W. J. (1991), "Bearing Capacity of Auger-Cast Piles in Sand," Journal of

Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 117, No. GT2, 331-345.

Deep Foundations 2002

 1420 DEEPFOUNDATIONS2002

Reese, L., and M. O'Neill (1988), "Drilled Shafts, Student Workbook." Publication
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 06/04/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FHWA-HI-88-042, United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway

Administration.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1991). "Design of Pile Foundations," Engineer Manual
EM 1110-2-2906, Washington, DC.

Zelada, G. A. and R. W. Stephenson (2000), "Design Methods for Auger CIP Piles in
Compression," Geotechnical Special Publication No. 100, New Technological and Design
Developments in Deep Foundations, 418-432.

Deep Foundations 2002