reliability index for pile group G associated with the allowable stress design (ASD) practice

range from 2.0 to 4.1, with most values greater than 2.4 if no system effects are considered. If a
system factor of x = 1.25 is considered, the corresponding range will be from 2.3 to 4.2, with
most values greater than 2.7. Based on the calculated G values and the common range of
reliability of superstructures and shallow foundations, a target reliability index TG between 3.0
and 3.5 may be sufficient for pile groups.
Lehane (1991) studied mechanisms of shaft friction in sand from instrumented pile tests and
obtained the following conclusions, the ultimate shaft shear stress may be described by the simple
Coulomb failure criterion.
Local shaft resistance is controlled by the criterion f = `rf tandf. The radial effective stress at
failure (`rf) has two main components: 'rc and 'r Local values of the equilibrium radial
effective stress ('rc) depend on relative density, the depth of the particular layer, and the relative
position of the tip (h/R). The directly observed reductions of 'rc with h/R provide a rational
explanation for the tendency for the average shaft shear stresses (av) to stabilize with depth. The
CPT qc profiles indicate how 'rc is likely to vary with depth for fixed values of h/R. Changes in
radial effective stress are caused by pile loading ('r) that may be related to interface dilation
and the effects of principal stress rotation in the sand mass. The operative interface friction angle
is dcv. Appropriate design values may be found from relatively inexpensive laboratory interface
shear tests.

A 98-pile load test data base was collected to evaluate 13 methods to predict the ultimate load of
a pile and five methods to predict the settlement of a pile by Briaud and Tucker (1988). They
compared the various methods and summarized the ultimate load results and predicted settlements.
From their analysis for ultimate load, the LPC cone method was judged to be the best method. For
piles driven all in sand, the Coyle method performed the best. For piles driven all in clay, the
Mississippi State Highway Department method performed the best. For piles driven in sand and
clay with tip in clay, a combination of the Briaud-Tucker method in the sand layers and the Coyle
method in the clay layers gave the best method. For piles driven in sand and clay with tip in sand,
the EN formula was the best method; most other methods over predicted the ultimate load by a
high amount. For bored piles in clay, the LPC cone method was the best method. For settlement,
overall, the best method was the Penpile method.
Abu Kiefa (1998) used artificial neural network (ANN) and demonstrated the feasibility of using
ANN to predict the capacity of driven piles in cohesionless soils. In this paper, three regression
neural network models were introduced and verified as new and stand-alone procedures and data
from various good quality pile load tests in granular soils were utilized to construct the network
and then pile capacity prediction using the networks were made and compared with the existing
empirical methods and actual measurements. One model predicted pile capacity, another predicted
tip capacity and the last one predicted shaft capacity. Predictions made by the neural model and
other empirical methods when compared, the neural models proved to provide the best predictions
for both the shaft and tip pile capacity. The author suggests that better tests be carried out and those
values obtained from said tests be used to train the neural networks and hence further improving
the prediction accuracy of the models.

The papers discussed above are some representative research that has been carried out in the field
after Meyerhof (1976). It can be observed that better prediction models for the performance of the
pile foundation have been developed using the advancement in computing power. Also various
development in obtaining more accurate and refined understanding of the behavior of the pile
foundation has also been carried out.