A COMPARISON BETWEEN STATIC LOAD TEST AND HIGH STRAIN

DYNAMIC TEST ON BORED PILES

MICHAEL ANGELO A/L MURUGAN @ AROKIASAMY

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

 PSZ 19:16 (Pind.1/97)
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

BORANG PENGESAHAN STATUS TESISƇ

JUDUL: A COMPARISON BETWEEN STATIC LOAD TEST AND HIGH
STRAIN DYNAMIC TEST ON BORED PILES

SESI PENGAJIAN: 2005/06

Saya MICHAEL ANGELO A/L MURUGAN @ AROKIASAMY

__________________________________________________
(HURUF BESAR)

Mengaku membenarkan tesis (PSM/Sarjana/Doktor Falsafah)* ini disimpan di

perpustakaan Universiti Teknologi Malaysia dengan syarat-syarat kegunaan seperti
berikut:-

1. Tesis adalah hakmilik Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

2. Perpustakaan Universiti Teknologi Malaysia dibenarkan membuat salinan untuk
tujuan pengajian sahaja.
3. Perpustakaan dibenarkan membuat salinan tesis ini sebagai bahan pertukaran antara
institusi pengajian tinggi.
4. **Sila tandakan (¥)

SULIT (Mengandungi maklumat berdarjah keselamatan atau

kepentingan Malaysia seperti yang termaktub di dalam
AKTA RAHSIA RASMI 1972)

TERHAD (Mengandungi maklumat TERHAD yang telah ditentukan

oleh organisasi/badan dimana penyelidikan dijalankan

¥ TIDAK TERHAD
Disahkan oleh

_____________________________ _____________________________
(TANDATANGAN PENULIS) (TANDATANGAN PENYELIA)

Alamat Tetap:
No 35, E2/5A Lorong Ria, Dr. Nurly Gofar
Taman Timur,
36000 Teluk Intan, Perak.
Tarikh : 19 May 2006 Tarikh : 19 May 2006

CATATAN: * Potong yang tidak berkenaan.

** Jika tesis ini SULIT atau TERHAD, sila lampirkan surat daripada pihak berkuasa /organisasi
berkenaan dengan menyatakan sekali sebab dan tempoh tesis ini perlu dikelaskan sebagai
SULIT atau TERHAD.
A COMPARISON BETWEEN STATIC LOAD TEST AND HIGH STRAIN
DYNAMIC TEST ON BORED PILES

MICHAEL ANGELO A/L MURUGAN @ AROKIASAMY

A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the

Requirements for the award of the degree of
Master of Engineering (Civil – Geotechnic)

Faculty of Civil Engineering

University Technology Malaysia

MAY 2006
 ii

“I declare that this project report is the result of my own research

except as cited in references. This report has not been accepted for
any degree and is not concurrently submitted in candidature of any
degree”.

Signature :_______________________________

Name of Candidate: MICHAEL ANGELO S/O MURUGAN @

AROKIASAMY

Date : 19 May 2006

 iii

“I hereby declare that I have read this report and in my opinion

this report is sufficient in terms of scope and quality for the
award of Master of Engineering (Civil-Geotechnics)”.

Signature : ……………………………………….

Name of Supervisor : Dr. Nurly Gofar

Date : 19 May, 2006

 iv

DEDICATION

For my dearest mother and dad

(Mariamah & Murugan @ Arokiasamy)
My success is your gift and prayers…
To my beloved brother, sister and relations
Everyone and friends whom are the best…
Success of mine is success of all of yours…
 v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank God for giving me enough knowledge and time to
conclude this program. All the help rendered by the lecturers and friend are
appreciated. They have contributed towards the completion of this study. The time
spent in doing this program gives memories that would last for ages.

I would like to also express and record my gratitude towards my lecturer cum
supervisor Dr. Nurly Gofar, for the time she allocated and all her guidance in
preparation of this thesis.
 vi

ABSTRACT

Piles are both statically and dynamically tested to obtain the capacity and to
verify design. Both the test will provide results that may vary base on the method
applied in conducting the test. It is therefore, necessary to compare the results of a
static load test with dynamic load test. Many comparison studies are conducted
worldwide, but most of it is for displacement pile. Therefore, the results of the test
are compared for replacement piles. The piles are tested statically prior to dynamic
test. The test results shows that a good agreement have achieved between both the
test with plus minus 2mm at working load in terms of settlement. Comparatively the
settlement predicted in dynamic load test is smaller compared to static load test. In
terms of total capacity, the Davisson’s method gives the lowest value compared to
other methods. The Davisson’s method is used to compare the results because it is
more conservative. The comparison shows that the piles are within 20% relative to
the capacity obtained through Davisson’s method. Since the static test was
conducted prior to dynamic test, the capacity obtained from dynamic test is higher
due to the pile undergone elastic compression during static load test and also due to
soil setup. The shaft distribution show that large shaft distribution obtained on long
piles. They are comparable with the dynamic test taking into account the time factor.
 vii

ABSTRAK

Cerucuk biasanya diuji secara static dan dinamik untuk menentukan beban
tanggungan dan juga untuk mengesahkan rekabentuk. Kedua-dua ujian akan
menghasilkan keputusan yang berlainan berdasarkan kaedah yang digunakan untuk
melaksanakan ujian. Oleh demikian, ia adalah penting untuk memperoleh suatu
hubungan diantara ujian static dan ujian dinamik beban cerucuk. Banyak kajian yang
dijalankan di merata dunia, tetapi kajian-kajian ini tertumpu pada ‘driven pile’. Oleh
yang demikian, kajian ini adalah tertumpu terhadap ‘bored pile’. Cerucuk-cerucuk
ini diuji secara static terdahulu sebelum menjalankan ujian dinamik. Keputusan
adalah memuaskan bagi bebanan kerja dengan ±2mm. Secara ringkas boleh
dikatakan bahawa keputusan yang diperolehi pada bebanan ujian adalah lebih rendah
bagi ujian dinamik berbanding ujian statik. Dari sudut bebanan muktamad pula,
kaedah Davisson memberi nilai yang paling minima berbanding kaedah-kaedah yang
lain. Nilai ini adalah pada had yang rendah, oleh itu ia digunakan bagi tujuan kajian.
Keputusan menggunakan kaedah ini memberikan keputusan bahawa nilai ujian
dinamik adalah dalam 20% nilai yang diperoleh. Ini adalah kerana ujian static
dijalankan dahulu sebelum ujian dinamik dan ini mengakibatan cerucuk mengalami
terikan mampatan dan jugan masa perantaran mengakibatkan tanah pulih semula
keadaan asalnya. Dari segi bebanan sisi cerucuk, didapati bebanan sisi menguasai
nisbah yang lebih banyak bagi cerucuk panjang. Keputusannya dapat dipersamakan
dengan ujian dinamik jika masa perantaraan diambil kira.
 viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
ABSTRACT vi
ABSTRAK vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS viii
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF FIGURES xii
LIST OF SYMBOLS xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES xvi

1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
 ix

1.2 Problem Statement 3

1.3 Objectives 4
1.4 Scope 4

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5
2.1 Bored Pile 5
2.1.1 Types of Bored Pile 7
2.1.2 Construction Procedures 7
2.1.2.1 Dry Method 7
2.1.2.2 Casing Method 8
2.1.2.3 Wet Method 11
2.1.3 Techniques and Equipment 12
2.1.3.1 Boring by Mechanical Auger 13
2.1.3.2 Boring by Percussion or Grab-type
Rig 15
2.1.3.3 Boring by Continuous Flight Auger
Drilling 16
2.1.3.4 Under-reammed Bored Piles 17
2.2 Load Test 19
2.2.1 Static Load Test (Maintain Load Test) 20
2.2.1.1 Test Equipment and Instruments 20
2.2.1.2 Test Procedures 24
2.2.2 High Strain Dynamic Test 25
2.2.3 Correlation Studies 28

3 METHODOLOGY 30
3.1 Introduction 31
3.2 Data Collection 31
3.3 Data Analysis and Results 32
3.4 Summary 33

4 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 35

4.1 Data Description 35
 x

4.2 Analysis of field data 37

4.3 Analysis of Static Load Test Data 43
4.4 Analysis of PDA test data 47
4.5 Comparison between Static Load Test and Pile
Driving Analyzer 49

5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION FOR

FUTURE STUDY 53
5.1 Conclusion 53
5.2 Recommendations for Future Study 54

REFERENCES 55

Appendices A-E 58 – 97
 xi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

4.1 Relationship between SPT, N value and weathering

grade 38

4.2 Subsoil classification (Komoo and Morgana, 1988) 40

4.3 Pile details 41

4.4 Date and time interval between tests 42

4.5 Maximum load implied during static load test 42

4.6 Pile settlement 43

4.7 Pile capacity for static load test using various

methods 45

4.8 Pile capacity 50

4.9 Shaft and end bearing contributions 51

 xii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

2.1 Bore hole created by dry method of construction 8

2.2 Process of dry method 9

2.3 Bore hole created by casing method 9

2.4 Process of casing method 10

2.5 Bore hole created by wet method 11

2.6 Process of wet method 12

2.7 Auger a) spiral auger b) bucket auger c) rock

auger d) earth auger 14

2.8 Percussion drilling equipment 15

2.9 Continuous flight auger machinery 17

2.10 Belling tool 18

2.11 Under reamed bored pile 19

 xiii

2.12 Static load test in progress 21

2.13 Test equipments a) 30 tonne steel ram with

hydraulic release b) pile driving analyzer
c) accelerometer d) transducer 27

3.1 Flow chart of the study 32

4.1 Instrumented bore pile schematic diagram 36

4.2 Typical comparison of methods for Pile 3 46

4.3 Pile – soil model 48

4.4 CAPWAP method – iteration program 49

 xiv

LIST OF SYMBOLS

A - Cross section Area of the pile

c - Wavespeed

E - Modulus of Elasticity of the pile material or strain

gauge reading

Fm - Force measured

Fc - Force calculated

ʁc - Empirical correlation factor (Case method

damping factor)

L - Distance along the pile between two telltale

anchor plates

ǻL - Difference in movement between two telltale rods

Q - Quake

Qra - Load in the pile midway between two anchor

plates or load in the pile at the location of the
strain gauge
 xv

Rshaft - Shaft Resistance

Rtoe - Toe Resistance

Ru - Ultimate resistance in the soil ‘springs’

ǻt - Travel time

vm - Velocity measured

Z - Pile impedance

ȇ - Mass density
 xvi

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

A Results of Analysis Pile 1 58

B Results of Analysis Pile 2 66

C Results of Analysis Pile 3 74

D Results of Analysis Pile 4 82

E Results of Analysis Pile 5 90

 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Foundation is an essential part of a structure because it transmit load from the

structure to the soil below it. The foundation can be classified into shallow
foundation and deep foundation. Shallow foundations such as individual footings,
combined footings, and raft foundation are used when the supporting soil is found at
shallow depth. While, deep foundations such as caissons and piles are required when
the depth of supporting soil is significant or building is placed on soft compressible
soil. Deep foundation is also required if construction is subjected to horizontal load
or moment.

Piles are mainly classified into two categories; displacement piles and
replacement piles. Displacement piles consist of reinforced piles, pre-stressed piles,
steel-H piles, whereas replacement piles consist of bored piles, and cast in-place-
piles. All these piles are designated to a particular situation or site based on location
and type of structure, ground condition and durability.
 2

Piles are designed based on the load that is transferred from the structure to
the piles; thus the type, size and length of piles are determined accordingly.
However, load test should be conducted to verify the design capacity. Piles that are
not properly designed, would pose danger to the structure. Inadequate load or large
settlement would cause severe damage to the structure and its occupants.

There are several alternatives to load test, i.e.: maintained load test (MLT),
high strain dynamic test (PDA), statnamic test and Osterberg Cell load testing. All
the mentioned tests are rigorously being carried out in Malaysia. These tests would
provide the engineer with the load and the corresponding settlement. It actually
enables the engineer in decision making as to resume work or to make changes to the
selected design criteria. Of the four, the most viable and the most common as being
practiced in the industry are the Static Load Test and the High Strain Dynamic
Testing.

Maintained load test or static load test is commonly known in construction

industry. It uses hydraulic jacking system against a kentledge or against a beam
restraint by anchor piles. The load is measured by the reading of pressure gauge on
the hydraulic jack. At present the load is measured directly by a load cell interposed
between the pile head and jack or between the jack and platform to get an accurate
and reliable measurement. This test is also known as conventional test. It requires
proper setup, manpower, machinery and longer duration to maintain the load.

High strain dynamic test or dynamic pile testing is conducted using two to
four sets of sensors known as accelerometer and transducer attached to the pile. The
basis for this testing is wave mechanics. The test requires sensors, pile driving
analyzer and the pile driving system. On every impact of the driving system/ram, the
sensors capture the impact force and velocity. The captured signals of strain and
acceleration were conditioned and possessed by the pile driving analyzer to produce
plots of force and velocity versus time. The ability to accurately predict static
capacity for dynamic pile testing has resulted in many studies and has been the focus
 3

of dynamic pile tests on many project sites. Standard practice requires performing
signal matching on the data to more accurately determine capacity from the dynamic
tests. CAPWAP (Case Pile Wave Analysis Program) analysis is the most used
program to evaluation capacity from high strain dynamic testing data. Previous
studies have demonstrated generally good correlation of CAPWAP signal matching
results on dynamically re-striked tests with that of static load tests.

Since, the usage of static load test and high strain dynamic test is rapid and
almost conducted in every site, comparisons between the two tests for bored pile is
attempted in this project paper.

1.2 Problem Statement

There are many studies conducted on the comparison between high strain
dynamic testing and CAPWAP analysis, and static load test in Malaysia, but most of
it was made for the displacement piles. I, in this project study however, will focus on
replacement piles (bored piles). Comparison is made between the static load test
results and the CAPWAP signal matching result on dynamic re-strike test.
Furthermore, an attempt is made to compare the results obtained from the maintain
load test and the high strain dynamic test and CAPWAP analysis.
 4

1.3 Objectives

The objective of conducting this study is to compare the results obtained in

static load tests with that of high strain dynamic tests and CAPWAP analysis in
terms of:
1) The load transfer mechanism through pile;
2) The load and the corresponding settlement of the pile; and
3) The total bearing capacity of the pile.

1.4 Scope

In this project paper special attention is provided to the bored piles. The
bored piles are vertically tested with both static load test and high strain dynamic
test.

The data for this paper is obtained from real time projects conducted in
construction industry. In this case, the piles are fully instrumented for measurements
of stress and displacement. Static load test are conducted prior to the dynamic test.
The static load test is conducted using kentledge with load cell, whereas; the
dynamic test is conducted using a drop hammer.

The subject of this study is not the accuracy, but relative comparison between
static load test and high strain dynamic test to evaluate the capacity and load transfer
mechanisms within the piles.
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Bored Pile

A bored pile is a deep foundation that is constructed by placing fluid concrete

in a drilled hole. The bored piles are designed based on geotechnical engineering
properties of subsoil condition obtained from the soil investigation at proposed site
for foundation designs. In soil investigation work, in-situ test are conducted and
disturbed and undisturbed soil samples are collected for laboratory testing, and also
to determine ground water level at the site.

In a project site, piles are selected for a foundation based on loads to be

imposed, site subsurface materials, lateral capacity and also cost. In many projects,
bored pile has proven cost effective, especially in urban areas and large construction.
 6

Bored piles have many advantages compared to the displacement pile. When
the piles are properly analyzed, designed and constructed, the advantages range from
reliability, economy and versatile.

Reliability in terms of shaft that can be located easily, soil/rock can be

inspected during construction and integrity can be assessed.

It is understood that bored piles have high resistance to lateral loads. Piles
driven into clay soils may produce ground heaving and cause driven piles to move
laterally. This does not occur in bored piles. Furthermore, the surface over which
the base of the bored pile is constructed can be visually inspected.

In terms of economy, a single bored pile can be used instead of a group of

piles and the pile cap. The construction of bored piles generally utilizes mobile
equipment, which under proper soil conditions, may prove to be more economical
than methods of constructing pile foundations.

Bored piles are also versatile. Depth and diameter of piles can are easily
varied. Constructing bored piles in deposits of dense sand and gravel is easier than
driving piles. Furthermore, the base of bored pile can be enlarged to provide greater
resistance to the uplifting load. Areas where driving piles can pose danger to the
adjacent structures due to vibration can be avoided by using bored pile.
 7

2.1.1 Types of Bored Piles

Bored piles are classified according to the ways in which they are designed to
transfer the structural load to the substratum. The pile can be cased with pipe when
required. For such piles, the resistance to the applied load may develop from end
bearing and also from side friction at the shaft perimeter and soil interface.

A belled bored pile consists of a straight pile with a bell at the base, which
rests on good bearing soil. The bell can be constructed in the shape of a dome or it
can be angled. For the majority of bored piles, the entire load-carrying capacity is
assigned to the end bearing only. However, under certain circumstances, the end-
bearing capacity and the side friction are taken into account.

2.1.2 Construction Procedures

The most common construction procedure used involves drilling. There are
three major types of construction methods; the dry methods, the casing methods and
the wet methods.

2.1.2.1 Dry Method

This method is employed in soils and rocks that are above the water table as
shown in Figure 2.1. The soils are normally strong and not easily collapsible when
the hole is drilled to its full depth.
 8

Dry hole – no
water content

Figure 2.1 Bore hole created by dry method of construction

Construction in the dry method uses drilling tools to bore the hole. Spoilt of
the hole is dumped nearby or are exported to dumping yard. Concrete is then poured
into the hole and if there be any requirements for the reinforcement, then a rebar
cage is placed in the upper portion of the pile. Concreting is continued till the
required level. The process of the dry method is shown in Figure 2.2 shows.

2.1.2.2 Casing Method

The casing method is employed in soils and rocks, which are easily caving or
collapsible soils when the borehole is excavated as shown in Figure 2.3. The
 9

construction method is almost the same as the dry method but requires an
introduction of slurry during drilling when collapsible soils are encountered.

Figure 2.2 Process of dry method

Casing
introduction
into the hole

Figure 2.3 Bore Hole created by casing method

 10

The drilling is continued past the collapsible soil layer into a more stable soil
layer. Casing is then introduced into the hole and the slurry is pumped out of the
hole. A smaller drill that passes through the casing is then used to drill further into
the soil. If there be any need for reinforcement, a rebar cage is introduced to the full
length of the pile.

Concreting work starts and the casing is retrieved from the hole gradually.
Concreting is completed when the concrete fill up to the required level. The Figure
2.4 shows the process of the wet method.

Figure 2.4 Process of casing method

 11

2.1.2.3 Wet Method

This method is employed in a very soft soil condition as in the Figure 2.5.
This method is sometimes referred to as slurry displacement method. Slurry is used
to keep the borehole open during the entire depth of excavation.

Construction of a bored pile using this method starts with excavation by

drilling with the slurry in the hole. The entire depth is drilled with slurry. If needed,
reinforcement is introduced in the hole. Concreting starts by placing a tremie pipe to
the bottom of the borehole. As concreting progresses, the slurry is slowly displaced
to the ground surface where it is collected. Concreting completes when the finish
level is reached. Figure 2.6 shows the process of the wet method.

Introduction of
Slurry into the hole

Figure 2.5 Bore hole created by wet method

 12

Figure 2.6 Process of wet method

2.1.3 Techniques and Equipment

In a construction of a drilled shaft, more than one method can be employed in

accordance to the site requirement. No matter which method is employed, the boring
equipments are normally the same but require minimal adjustment for the required
work. Generally, the boring is carried out by mechanical auger, percussion/grab type
rig or continuous flight auger. The under reaming of the shaft if required is done by
using belly bucket.
 13

2.1.3.1 Boring by Mechanical Auger

The large spiral auger or bucket auger rotary drilling machines are developed
for the installation of large diameter bored piles. These machines are capable of
drilling in wide range of soil and also weak rocks using different type of auger as in
the Figure 2.7. In cases where there is a potential cave in, a length of casing is
placed into the drilled hole by means of a crane or by the mast of the machine. The
casing would provide a seal against water entry. A smaller size drill plate is then
used inside the casing for the lower part of the hole.

Boring by mechanical auger under water or bentonite slurry can cause some
loosening of the soil at pile base level. If a higher base resistance is required, then
the soil needs to be compacted by injection pressure.

A flat circular steel plate is suspended from the bottom of the reinforcing
cage, and a thin flexible steel sheet is attached to the bottom of the plate. After
concreting the pile, grout is injected around the bottom few meters of the shaft to
lock the shaft to the surrounding soil. After a hardening period grout is then injected
at high pressure to fill the space between the steel plate and the steel sheet. This
forces the sheet down and compresses the underlying soil. Resistance to uplift of the
pile at this stage is provided by grout injections around the pile shaft.
 14

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 2.7 Auger a) Spiral auger b) bucket auger c) rock auger d) earth auger
 15

2.1.3.2 Boring by Percussion or Grab-type Rig

In ground where mechanical auger drilling is impossible (in water-bearing

sands or gravels, stony or boulder clays, or very soft clays and silts), a conventional
cable percussion boring rigs are used as shown in Figure 2.8.

Figure 2.8 Percussion drilling equipment

In these type of boring, the casing is given a continuous semi-rotary motion

to keep it sinking as the borehole is advanced. The casing may be with welded joints
and left in position, or with bolted joints and withdrawn while the shaft is concreted.

A problem in drilling of bored piles in granular soils, either by cable

percussion rigs in the case of small diameter piles, or grabbing rigs for the larger
diameters, is the risk of excessive removal of soil during drilling. This is expected to
 16

happen when drilling by cable percussion methods since the soil is drawn up into the
‘shell’ or baler by a sucking action.

Water is required to induce the flow of soil into the drilling tool and if natural
ground water is not present it must be poured into the pile borehole. Violent raising
and lowering of the ‘shell’ can cause flow of soil from the surrounding ground with
the risk of settlement of any adjacent structures. It is possible to minimize the risk of
loss of ground by driving the casing ahead of the boring, but this can make it
impossible to withdraw the casing after concreting the pile shaft since driving the
casing cause the soil to tighten around it.

If there are services or buildings around the piling area than it is best to use
rotary-auger drilling method under bentonite slurry or a continuous flight auger.

2.1.3.3 Boring by Continuous Flight Auger Drilling

Continuous Flight Auger drilling machine is made of spiral auger throughout

the stem as in Figure 2.9. The auger can be withdrawn after drilling to the required
depth in a stable ground and the pile is concreted by feeding a flexible pressure hose
to the bottom of the unlined hole and withdrawing it as sand-cement mortar is
pumped down.

In cases of unstable ground, the flight auger is provided with a hollow central
stem closed by a plug at the bottom. During drilling, the walls of the borehole are
supported at all times by the soil rising within the flights. When the required depth
is reached, concrete is injected down the hollow stem, which pushes out the bottom
plug and the pile is concreted by raising the auger with or without rotation.
 17

Figure 2.9 Continuous flight auger machineries

During concreting, the auger is rotated for a number of revolutions before

raising it to ensure that the concrete has completely filled the bottom of the hole.
After removing the auger, reinforcing cage is pushed down the shaft, while the
concrete in the shaft is still in the form of fluid.

The use of continuous flight auger rig avoids many of the problems of drilling
and concreting piles experienced when using conventional power augers. However,
continuous flight auger piles operation must be monitored closely during
construction.

2.1.3.4 Under-reammed Bored Piles

An under-reammed pile (also known as a belled shaft) is one with an

enlarged base. The under-reams are made with special equipments and techniques.
The equipment used showed in the Figure 2.10 below. The larger the base of under-
reammed pile, the higher their end bearing capacity.
 18

Figure 2.10 Belling Tool

However, the displacement required to mobilize the full end bearing is

typically on the order of 10% of the base diameter, which may be more than the
structure can tolerate. Under-reammed piles also have greater uplift capacities due
to bearing between the ceiling of the under-ream and the soil above as is in Figure
2.11.

The construction of under-reammed pile can be hazardous to the workmen.

The bottom of the under ream must be cleaned of loose soil before placing concrete.
This task is typically done by hand. Thus, under-reammed shafts are not as common
as they once were.
 19

Figure 2.11 Under reamed bored pile

2.2 Load Test

Pile load test are executed in two alternative ways based on site investigation,
laboratory soil testing and desk study:
1) Test pile – piles are tested to failure. This test is done during the
preliminary design stage. Load test is then carried out to refine and
finalize the design of the pile foundation.
2) Test on working pile – piles are tested to two times the design load
(working load). This test is done in areas where previous experience
 20

is available. Pile load test are then carried out on randomly selected
actual piles to check the pile design capacities.

The equipment and the procedures for these two alternatives are essentially
similar. Generally there are two types of testing performed in most part of the
world: the static load test and the high strain dynamic test.

2.2.1 Static Load Test (Maintained Load Test)

The most accurate way to determine the load capacity is to install a full-size
prototype pile at the site of the proposed production piles and load it to failure.
However, load tests also are much more expensive, and thus must be used more
judiciously.

Varieties of equipment and procedures have been used to conduct load tests.
The differences in the equipment and procedures can influence the results and
become the point of debate among engineers. Therefore, there is no single correct
capacity for most piles. Nevertheless, engineers judge the accuracy of all other
methods by comparing them to full-scale load tests.

2.2.1.1 Test Equipment and Instruments

Test equipments and instruments consist of load application arrangements

and the instruments to measure the resulting movements or deformations. Stacking
 21

large weight on top of the pile as imposed load, posed danger because it is difficult
to place large weights without creating excessive eccentricities that can cause them
to collapse. As an alternative, a hydraulic jack is used to provide the test load. This
system is more stable and less prone to collapse.

Figure 2.12 shows the actual setup of static load test using hydraulic jack
performed on a bored pile.

Figure 2.12 Static load test in progress

Traditionally, engineers have measured the applied load by calibrating the

hydraulic jack and monitoring the pressure of the hydraulic fluid during the test.
However, even when done carefully, this method is subject to errors. Therefore,
load cells (an instrument that measures force) are developed. The load cell is placed
between the jack and the pile and is used to measure the applied load.

Displacement is another measurement that is very important in conducting

load test besides the capacity. The displacement is measured by utilizing dial gauges
mounted on the reference beams. Surveyor’s level can also be used as a cross
reference to the measured records of displacement.
 22

Another measurement employed in load test is the incremental strain

measurement along the pile length to determine the distribution of load transfer from
pile to the soil. These provide information on pile tip movements or deflections
along the pile. In order to obtain this measurement, a pile needs to be instrumented
prior to installation. Instruments that can be used are the strain rods (or telltales) and
the electric strain gauges (or vibrating wire strain gauges).

Telltales or strain rods (vibrating wire extensometer) normally consist of

polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tubing extended to steel end plates embedded inside a
concrete pile or welded on the steel pile or housed in sonic logging pipe at various
locations along the pile length. Inside the sonic logging pipe tubing, a stainless
steel/graphite/fiberglass rod is installed extending from the end plate to the top of the
pile.

Both the tubing and the steel rod extend to the top of pile. The steel rod must
be allowed to move freely in the tube. The movement of the top of the telltale or
strain rod relative to the top of the test pile is measured with a dial gauge or the
measurement of the vibrating wire extensometer is logged using a data logger.

Normally, telltale readings are referenced to the top of the pile. By noting
the location of the specific telltale rod anchor plate and by measuring the relative
movement of the individual rod, elastic shortening of pile at that location can be
obtained.

At present, data recoded by the data logger can give the elastic shortening of
the pile without having to measure the top measurements. With this information, the
load in the pile at the midpoint between two telltale anchor plates separated by a
distance L can be obtained by the following relationship:
 23

AǻLE
Q ra =
L

where

Qra = load in the pile midway between two anchor plates

A = cross section area of the pile
'L = difference in movement between two telltale rods
E = modulus of elasticity of the pile material
L = distance along the pile between the two telltale anchor plates

Electric strain gauges or vibrating wire strain gauge can be mounted along
the pile length at various locations before the pile is installed. In bored piles, these
gauges can be tied up with the reinforcing bars and wires can be brought up through
a casing just like the vibrating wire extensometer. Since these gauges are
temperature sensitive, additional temperature-compensating gauges should be used
for each strain gauge. The strain H can be determined directly by noting the changes
in the strain gauge reading from the unstrained to any desired load. At present the
measurements are data logged using a data logger. The load at the point will then be
calculated by the following relationship:

Q ra =AEH

where

Qra = load in the pile at the location of the strain gauge

A = cross section area of the pile
E = modulus of elasticity of the pile material
H = strain gauge reading
 24

2.2.1.2 Test Procedures

There are two categories of load tests: controlled stress tests and controlled
strain tests. The former uses predetermined loads (the independent variable) and
measured movements (the dependent variable), while the latter uses movement as
independent variable and load as dependent variable.

Controlled stress tests are the slow maintained load test and quick maintained
load test. In slow maintained load test, the pile is loaded in eight equal increments
(i.e. 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%, 125%, 150% 175% and 200%) to two times of the
design load. The load is maintained under each increment until the rate of settlement
is acceptably small. At two times the design load, the load is maintained for 24
hours. After the required holding time, the loading is removed in decrement of 25%
with 1 hour between decrements.

After one cycle of the load, the pile is reloaded to test load in increments of
50% of the design load, allowing 20 minutes between load increments. Then the
load is increased in increments of 10% of design load until failure, allowing 20
minutes between load increments. This method is commonly considered as the
ASTM Standard test method and is generally used for site investigation prior to
installing contract piles and writing specifications. The disadvantage of this test is
that it is time consuming.

In quick maintained test the procedure is almost the same as slow maintained
test except that each load increment is held for a predetermined time interval
regardless of the rate of pile movement at the end of that interval. Pile is loaded in
20 increments to three times of the design load (i.e. each increment is 15% of the
 25

design load). Each load increment is maintained for 5 minutes with readings taken
every 2.5 minutes until the test load has been reached.

After 5 minutes interval, the full load is removed in four equal decrements
with 5 minutes between decrements. The advantage of this test is that it is fast and
economical. The method represents a more nearly undrained condition. This
method cannot be used for settlement estimation because it is a quick method.

Controlled strain test is the constant rate of penetration test, which presses the
pile into the ground at a constant rate. As the test progresses, the load and
settlements are measured to develop a load-settlement curve. In this test, the pile
head is forced to settle at typically 0.01 to 0.05 in/min (0.25 to 1.25 mm/min) for
clays and 0.03 to 0.10 in/min (0.75 to 2.5 mm/min) for sands. The force required to
achieve the penetration rate is recorded. The test is carried out to a total penetration
of 2 to 3 in. (50 to 75 mm).

The advantage of this test method is that the test is very fast and economical.
This method can be employed for friction piles but less practical for the end bearing
piles because of high force requirements to cause penetration through hard bearing
stratum.

2.2.2 High Strain Dynamic Test

High strain dynamic test is a powerful tool to access pile driving, which may
supplement or replace static testing. This test is conducted in a fraction of time
 26

unlike the static load test. This test is based on the dynamic method of analysis.
Actual field test is performed on pile by measuring strain and acceleration records
under impact of a falling mass.

Wave equation analysis program (WEAP) is utilized to design the weight,

drop height and cushion of the hammer apparatus to assure a successful test. The
pile driving analyzer and the CAPWAP methods are used for data acquisition and
analysis. Testing results yield information regarding pile static bearing capacity,
structural integrity, and pile-soil load transfer and pile load-movement relationship.

High strain dynamic test is conducted using; a pair of strain transducers

mounted near the top of the pile, a pair of accelerometers mounted also near the top
of the pile and the a pile driving analyzer also known as PDA (pile driving analyzer)
as shown in Figure 2.13. The pile driving analyzer monitors the output from the
strain transducers and accelerometers as the pile is being driven, and evaluates the
data as follows:

1) The strain data combined with the modulus of elasticity and cross section area
of the pile, gives the axial force in the pile;
2) The acceleration data integrated with time produces the particle velocity of the
waves traveling through the pile;
3) The acceleration data, double integrated with time produces the pile set per
blow.
 27

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 2.13 Test Equipments a) 30 tonne steel ram with hydraulic release
b) Pile Driving Analyser c) accelerometer d) transducer

Using the above data, the PDA computes the Case method capacity and
displays the results immediately. Case method analysis is an analytical technique for
determining the static pile capacity from wave trace data. The Case method
computations include an empirical correlation factor, jc that can be determined from
an on-site pile load test.

It is also possible to use the Case method without an on-site pile load test by
using jc values from other similar soils. This approach is less accurate, but still very
 28

valuable. The PDA can also store the field data on a floppy disk to provide input for
a CAPWAP analysis.

The Case method, while useful, is a simplification of the true dynamics of

pile driving. The empirically obtained damping factor, jc calibrates the analysis, so
the final results are no better than the engineer’s ability to select the proper value. In
contrast, a wave equation analysis utilizes a much more precise numerical model, but
suffers from weak estimates of the actual energy delivered by the hammer.

Fortunately, the strengths and the weaknesses of these two methods are
complimentary, so we can combine them to form an improved analysis called
CAPWAP (Case Pile Wave Analysis Program). It is a rigorous numerical method
for a comprehensive analysis of pile and soil behavior under hammer impacts and
also under static loading conditions. The analysis is done in an iterative environment
using measured force and acceleration in a wave equation type analysis employing
signal matching technique that produces values of Ru (the ultimate resistance in the
soil ‘springs’), q (the quake), and jc (the Case method damping factor). CAPWAP
analyses are not a substitute for pile load tests. However, they may reduce the
required number of tests.

2.2.3 Correlation Studies

During the past decade, high-strain dynamic testing of bored piles has
enjoyed widespread acceptance around the world. Discuss here are some of the case
histories of dynamic and static test results.
 29

Case 1: Jianren and Shihong (1992). A study was conducted on drilled piles
for a 257m high tower span crossing the Yangtze River in Tai Sheng Quan Nanking,
China where test shaft consisted of two each 800 and 1500mm diameter with
corresponding lengths of 30 and 60m. Subsurface conditions at the site consisted of
clay, sand and gravel layers over highly weathered sandstone. Project specifications
required that comparisons between dynamic and static load test results be made in a
Class A prediction manner. The hammer used for the dynamic testing had a weight
of 12 tons with drop heights up to 1 and 2.5m for the 800 and 1500mm diameter
shafts respectively. Comparison of dynamic and static was performed within the
same time frame indicated that the two methods produced capacity values that were
within 2.6% relative to each other.

Case 2: Seidel and Rausche (1984). A static and dynamic test program was
initiated on drilled shafts for the West Gate Freeway in Melbourne, Australia after
questions were raised regarding the shafts bearing capacity and serviceability.
Twelve shafts ranging in size between 1100 and 1500mm diameter and 35 to 64m in
lengths were dynamically tested. Nine shafts were socketed into mudstone and the
remaining three into basalt. Six of the shafts socketed into the mudstone were also
statically tested. A hammer with a weight of 20 tons and drop heights between 1.6
and 2.5m was used for the dynamic tests. Dynamic and static tests were done totally
independently and results were compared in a Class A prediction fashion. Dynamic
activation of static pile resistance forces exceeded 3000 tons for some 1500mm
diameter shafts. Direct correlation of ultimate pile capacities was not possible since
maximum values were not usually reached during the static tests. Skin friction
predictions from dynamic tests and values obtained from instrumented shafts under
static tests were remarkably similar. Pile head load-movement relationships
obtained from both testing methods was comparable.

Case 3: Chambers and Morgano (2004). A 457 mm diameter auger-cast pile

was drilled to a depth of 19.8 m on a site in Owensboro, Kentucky. The pile was
tested dynamically to evaluate the static load capacity with further analysis by signal
matching software, CAPWAP. The test was carried out using a 3 tons ram. Four
 30

days later, the pile was tested statically using four reaction piles. The test results
from the static load test compares well with the computed static load deflection
determined from CAPWAP analysis.

Based on Case 1 and 2, a reduction on time and cost was anticipated in the
project with the use of high strain dynamic testing as a complimentary to the existing
static load test.

Likins and Rausche (1980) concluded that statistical evaluation of previous

studies and the current compilation of results showed the CAPWAP analysis of
dynamic pile testing data for re-strikes to be very reliable in determination of
ultimate capacity of both driven piles and cast-in-situ piles (e.g. drilled shafts and
auger-cast-CFA piles). Accuracy is slightly better for driven piles than for cast-in-
situ piles. Comparison of CAPWAP results with static load tests on the same piles
shows excellent agreement.
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

The study was conducted on five data from 3 sites. The data was grouped in
high strain dynamic testing and CAPWAP analysis, and static results. All the data
was analyzed separately.

High strain dynamic test and CAPWAP analysis results from the each of the
data were reviewed in terms of shaft distribution and pile load-settlement. Similarly
the same procedures were employed to instrumented static load test results. The
output of the high strain dynamic test and CAPWAP analysis, and the static load test
analysis was compared to obtain a relationship. The results were compared based on
the pile load – settlement, shaft friction and load bearing capacity. A conclusion is
made for the results obtained. Suggestion and improvement is outlined based on the
comparison as in Figure 3.1.
 32

Bored Piles

Stage 1 – Data Collection

Data of High Strain Dynamic Data of Static Load Test
Test & CAPWAP analysis

Pile Load - Settlement Pile Load - Settlement

Stage 2 – Data Analysis & Results

Shaft Distribution Shaft Distribution

Load Bearing Capacity

Relationship

Stage 3 - Summary
Conclusion & Suggestion

Figure 3.1 Flow Chart of the Study

3.2 Data Collection

The first stage of this study included identification of sites that used bored
pile as foundation for the structure. The data required was from instrumented bored
piles that were statically and dynamically load tested. The results were made sure to
be complete for comparison purpose.
 33

There were many data obtained but data that contains the static load test
results alone is rejected during this stage of study. In the same manner, data that
contains only the high strain dynamic load test results were rejected.

3.3 Data Analysis and Results

The second stage of this study was to analysis the data that was obtained from
the three sites. Based on the data, a plot on pile load – settlement was tabulated and
plotted. The pile load – settlement was for both the data obtained from the static load
test and the high strain dynamic load test. The results obtained were compared
between each other.

The data were also analyzed based on shaft distribution. The shaft
distribution was obtained from the readings of the strain gauges at different levels for
the static test, whereas for the high strain dynamic load test, results from CAPWAP
were tabulated. The percentage of shaft distribution through the length of the pile in
regards to the total capacity obtained was compared between each other.

In static load test, we obtained a certain capacity. We also obtained certain

capacity from the high strain dynamic load test. Both the capacities were compared
using various methods available and plotted to get a comparison for all the five data
that’s available.
 34

3.4 Summary

The third and final stage of the study was to draw a conclusion based on the
results of the analysis. It is understood that from previous study there has been good
correlation between high strain dynamic test and static load test. It was verified in
this stage for the piles in Malaysia.

The result that was derived from the analysis was carefully studied based on
the objectives. The closeness and the deviation between the results obtained were
checked.

If there seem to be deviation between the results, then the causes were
identified. Suggestions were included to improve the quality of the tests and to
refine the tests for better comparison in the future.
 CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the data analysis on five instrumented bored piles. The
descriptions of the piles are outlined in following section. All these piles were
founded in two types of formation. Each formation has its own characteristic and
influence on the pile and corresponding results. In Section 4.3, the static test data is
analyzed using various methods available and a brief detail on the employment of the
methods. CAPWAP (Case Pile Wave Analysis Program) is also discussed to analyze
the dynamic test data in Section 4.4. Finally the results are compared between static
load test and dynamic load test.

4.1 Data Description

In a routine static load test, the measurements of load and settlement are
taken at the pile head only. It is impossible to obtain the shaft friction values in
different soil/rock layers. It is also difficult to estimate the contribution of shaft
friction and end bearing accurately. Therefore, piles are instrumented with strain
gauges and extensometer at appropriate depths along the pile. Figure 4.1 shows an
example of the instrumented bore pile in a schematic diagram.
 36

Figure 4.1 Instrumented Bore Pile Schematic Diagram

Instrumentation is generally carried out on trial piles where the piles are
loaded three times its estimated working load or preferably to failure to obtain
maximum information. An instrumented pile will enables the evaluation of shaft
resistance, end bearing resistance and the development of these resistances during
static load test. The development of shaft and end bearing resistances represent the
load transfer behavior of the pile system. The cost may be marginal to install
 37

additional instruments to a normal static load, but the information obtained is

beneficial for design verifications and optimization of pile lengths for a project of a
big scale.

In a pile dynamic (PDA) test, the pile force and velocity measurements are
obtained by a set of strain gauges and accelerometers attached to the pile head. For
the evaluation of the static pile capacity, relative soil distribution, and soil quake and
damping characteristic, a more rigorous evaluation using the signal matching
technique is utilized with computer software, e.g. Case Pile Wave Analysis Program
(CAPWAP).

4.2 Analysis of field data

The data used for this study are collected from five numbers of instrumented
bored piles. Three of these piles were constructed using dry method of construction
and the other two using wet method of construction. Each pile was statically and
dynamically tested. Typically, the static load test was conducted prior to the PDA
test on each pile.

The data was obtained from construction site at three different sites. Based
on the Geological Map of Selangor (Scale 1:63,360) and the borehole logs, the Site 1
is located in Kenny Hill Formation. A relationship is tabulated in Table 4.1 between
the SPT (Standard Penetration Test), N value obtained from bore hole and the
weathering grade of the rocks. Site 2 and Site 3 are located in Old Alluvium based on
the Geological Map of Johor Bahru (Scale 1:63,360).
 38

Kenny Hill Formation consists of monotonous sequence of interbedded

clastic sedimentary rocks such as sandstones, siltstones, shale/mudstone. Frequently
this formation is also referred to as meta-sedimentary with interbedded meta-arenite
and meta-argillite, taking into account that the sedimentary rocks have been partly
metamorphosed into quartzite and phyllite.

Old Alluvium is consider to be of the pliestocene age that comprises of

continental deposits of consolidated sand, clay and boulder beds of fluviate and
shallow-marine origin. Holocene marine clays are nearly absent. Studies of these
types of sediments, mainly from exposures were done by Kumar (1972) in Johor and
Tai (1972) in Singapore. Their measurements of paleo-current directions show a
south to eastward trending sediment transport. From this it was concluded that
Straits of Johor did not exist at the time of deposition of the Older Alluvium (Bosch,
1988). In the drill holes data of the Public Works Department of Singapore, the base
of the formation was found between 100m and 145m below sea-level, while the
highest deposits were found at 45m above sea level.

Table 4.1: Relationship between SPT, N Value and Weathering Grade

Weathering Grade Ting (1979) – SPT Komoo (1986) - SPT
VI <50 0-20
V 20-50
IV >50 50-200
III *CRR<70%
*CRR-Core Recovery Rate

Table 4.2 shows the subsoil classification based on the weathering grade.
Based on the geological condition, Kenny Hill formation at Site 1 predominantly
Grade IV material with SPT – N value greater than 50. The subsoil exists at shallow
depth, thus the pile length ranges from 7m to 12m. These piles can be categorized as
short piles.
 39

Old Alluvium formation at Site 2 and Site 3 are generally overlain by

comparatively weak alluvium called young alluvium to depths of between 10 to 30m.
The SPT, N values are generally less than 15. The old alluvium underlies the young
alluvium extends to depths beyond the toe of all piles. The SPT, N values in this
type of formation are generally varies between 20 and 100. All the pile length in this
formation ranges between 40m to 50m. These piles can be categorized as long piles.

The location of the site and the reference number; date of casting as well as
the length and diameter of the piles are tabulated in Table 4.3. The piles from Site 1
are cylindrical with diameter of 750mm. The length of the piles ranges between 7m
to 12m. All these piles were cast in July of 2003. The pile from Site 2 pile is
1000mm in diameter and was cast on the end of 2002. The length of the pile is about
48m. The pile from Site 3 is also cylindrical with diameter 1200mm and length of
42m. The pile was cast at the end of September 2004.

Static load test was conducted on the piles at some time after the installation.
The PDA test was carried out after a certain interval of time. The date of testing and
the interval durations for the static and PDA tests are tabulated in Table 4.4.

The waiting period would allow for the curing of concrete and set-up of the
soil. The time interval between the tests will govern the capacity of the piles because
it related to the development of shaft friction along the pile. The longer the time
interval, it is expected that the shaft contribution would be larger towards the
capacity.

Table 4.2: Subsoil Classification (Komoo and Morgana, 1988)
Weathering Classification Grade
Residual Soils
Completely Weathered
Highly Weathered
Moderately Weathered
Slightly Weathered
Fresh Rock
40
Description
VI All rock material is converted to soil.
The mass structures and material
fabric are destroyed. The material has
not been significantly transported.
V All rock material is decomposed
and/or disintegrated to soil. The
original mass structure is still largely
intact.
IV More than 50% of the rock material is
decomposed and/or disintegrated to
soil. Fresh or discolored rock is
present either as a discontinuous
framework or corestones.
III Less than 50% of the rock material is
decomposed and/or disintegrated to
soil. Fresh or discolored rock is
present either as a discontinuous
framework or corestones.
II Discoloration indicates weathering of
rock material and discontinuity
surfaces. All the material may be
discolored by weathered and maybe
somewhat weaker than in its fresh
condition.
I No visible sign of rock material
weathering, some discoloration on
major discontinuity surfaces.
 41

Table 4.3: Pile Details

Pile Diameter Pile Length Date of
Location Pile Reference
(mm) (m) Casting
Pile 1 750 7 04/07/2003
Site 1 Pile 2 750 9 11/07/2003
Pile 3 750 12 17/07/2003
Site 2 Pile 4 1000 48.2 28/12/2002
Site 3 Pile 5 1200 41.5 24/09/2004

Static load test was conducted on piles at Site 1 within one month of casting.
The piles at Site 1 are consists of short piles, therefore there is no need for long wait
period to allow for soil-setup since large contribution is expected from the base of
the piles. Pile 4 and Pile 5 was tested three weeks to two months from the casting
date.

PDA tests were conducted on the piles that were earlier tested statically.
Piles at Site 1 and Site 3 were tested after about seven to eleven weeks after casting
the piles. Pile 4 at Site 2 was tested about 9 months after conducting static load test.
A large shaft friction is expected for Pile 4 from the PDA test results due to the wait
period.

The piles at Site 1 were tested 3.3 times the working load or to failure and
piles at Site 2 and Site 3 were tested 2.5 of working load or to failure. Table 4.5
show the maximum load applied to the pile during static load test.
 42

Table 4.4: Date and time interval between tests

Time Between Time Between
Pile Casting and PDA Test S.L.T. and
S.L.T. Date
Reference S.L.T. Date PDA Test
(days) (days)
Pile 1 18/07/2003 14 11/09/2003 55
Pile 2 30/07/2003 19 03/09/2003 35
Pile 3 12/08/2003 26 03/09/2003 22
Pile 4 18/01/2003 21 07/10/2003 262
Pile 5 13/11/2004 50 08/12/2004 25
Note: S.L.T. = Static Load Test

The working load and test load and the pile settlements for the given
working load and test load from both static load and pile driving analyzer are
tabulated in Table 4.6. All the tested piles have achieved the required test load of
two times the working load. It can be seen from Table 4.6 that the short piles exhibit
small settlements for both static and dynamic test. Large settlements were noted for
the long piles founded in old alluvium soil. Overview of the settlement results shows
that the settlements predicted from the PDA tests is lower compared to that of static
load test. The settlement at working load for PDA tests is observed to be plus or
minus 2mm of that obtained from static load tests.

Table 4.5: Maximum Load Implied During Static Load Test

Pile Reference Maximum Load – Static Load Test (kN)

Pile 1 10,064 (3.3xWL)

Pile 2 10,000 (Failure)
Pile 3 10,027 (3.3xWL)
Pile 4 14,974 (2.5xWL)
Pile 5 16,573 (2.0xWL)
Note: WL = working load
 43

Table 4.6: Pile Settlement

Test Settlement (mm)
Working
Pile Load,TL Static Load Test PDA Test
Load,WL
Reference (2xWL) WL TL WL TL
(kN)
(kN)
Pile 1 3,000 6,000 2.3 4.5 2.3 4.8
Pile 2 2,250 4,500 2 4.9 2.3 6.3
Pile 3 3,000 6,000 3.5 9.8 2.4 5.1
Pile 4 5,800 11,600 6.5 15 5.3 10.7
Pile 5 8,400 16,800 7 52 5.3 12

4.3 Analysis of Static Load Test Data

There are various methods of interpretation proposed by various authors to

obtain the pile failure load capacity from load-deformation curve obtained in a static
load test (Fellenius , 1980). The following methods are used for obtaining the pile
capacities:
1) Davisson’s method,
2) Fuller and Hoy method,
3) Butler and Hoy method,
4) Brinch Hanson’s 90% criteria method,
5) De Beers method,
6) Mazurkie method, and
7) Chin’s method.

The following paragraphs are discussed briefly the interpretation of the results of
static load test as outlined by Fellenius (1980).
 44

Davisson’s method is proposed by Davisson (1972) to obtain the load

corresponding to the movement which exceeds the elastic compression of the pile by
a value of 4mm plus a factor equal to the diameter of the pile divided by 120. This
method was developed in conjunction with the wave equation analysis.

Fuller and Hoy (1970), proposed a simple definition that the failure load is
equal to the test load for where the load movement curve is sloping 0.14mm/kN.
This method penalizes the long pile because the larger elastic movements occurring
for a long pile, as opposed to the short pile, causes the slope 0.14mm/kN to occur
sooner.

Butler and Hoy (1977), developed the above definition defining the failure
load as the load at the intersection of the tangent sloping 0.14mm/kN and the tangent
to the inertial straight portion of the curve, or to a line that is parallel to the rebound
portion of the curve. Butler and Hoy took into account the elastic deformation,
substantially offsetting the length effect.

Brinch Hansen (1963) defines failure as the load that gives twice the
movement of the pile head as obtained for 90% of the load. It is also known as
Brinch Hansen’s 90% criterion.

De Beer (1967) and De Beer & Wallays (1972) proposed a method, where the
load movement values are plotted in double logarithmic diagram. When, the value
fall on two approximately straight lines, the intersection of these defines the failure
value.

Mazurkiewicz (1972) illustrates a method where a series of equal pile head

movement lines are arbitrarily chosen and the corresponding load lines are
constructed from the intersection of the movement lines with the load movement
 45

curve. From the intersection of each load line with the load axis, a 45º line is drawn
to intersect with the next load line. These intersections fall approximately on a
straight line the intersection of which with the load axis defines the failure load. This
method considers an assumption that the load movement curve is approximately
parabolic.

Chin (1970 and 1971) proposed a method that assumes that the load
movement curve is of hyperbolic shape when the load approaches the failure load. In
this method, each load value is divided with its corresponding movement value and
the resulting value is plotted against the movement. After some variation, the plotted
values will fall on a straight line. The inverse slope of this line is the failure load.

All the above methods will provide different ultimate capacity for the same
pile load deformation data. The pile capacity obtain for the piles are tabulated in
Table 4.7. A typical graph consists all the failure loads obtained on from all the
methods is as in Figure 4.2.

Table 4.7: Pile capacity for static load test using various methods
Pile 1 Pile 2 Pile 3 Pile 4 Pile 5
Methods
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
1 8000 7150 7650 17500 14750
2 10600 10250 10100 21000 16833
3 10100 9300 9800 20000 16417
4 9630 9315 9180 19530 15300
5 8167 7950 8000 21333 16364
6 11929 12250 10929 21250 18400
7 11600 11467 11882 22167 19380
 46

COMPARISON OF FAILURE CRITERIA

15000

14000 7. Chin’s Method – 11,882kN

13000
6. Mazurkiewicz’s Method – 10,929kN
12000 7

11000 6

2
10000
3
Pile Top Load (kN )

4
9000
5 5. De Beer’s Method – 8,000kN
8000
1
7000 4. Brinch Hansen’s 90% Criterion – 9,180kN

6000
3. Butler & Hoy’s Method – 9,800kN
5000

4000 2. Fuller & Hoy’s Method – 10,100kN

3000
1. Davisson’s Method – 7,650kN
2000

1000

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

Figure 4.2 Typical Comparisons of Methods for Pile 3

As presented in Table 4.3, Davisson’s method gives the lowest value

compared to all the other methods for all the piles. The highest capacity values for
the piles were obtained from Chin’s method. The values obtained from Chin’s
method are 20% to 40% higher than Davisson’s method. The ultimate capacity
obtained from De Beer’s method for the piles are higher by 5% to 20% of the
capacity obtained from Davisson’s method. Therefore, the capacity from the
Davisson’s method is used because it is more conservative, allows more static tests
to reach “failure” rather than other methods (Likins et.al, 1996).
 47

4.4 Analysis of PDA test Data

Pile capacity obtained from the CAPWAP analysis on the PDA test results is
considered to be fully mobilized if the net set of 3 mm at the time of testing (PDA
Manual, 1997). In a PDA test, the capacity is obtained from CAPWAP analysis for a
selected blow.

In the CAPWAP method, the pile is modeled by a series of continuous pile

segments and the soil resistance is modeled by elasto-plastic springs (static
resistance) and dashpots (dynamic resistance) as in Figure 4.3. The force and
acceleration data from the PDA are used to quantify pile force and pile motion,
which are two of the three unknowns. The remaining unknown is the boundary
conditions, which are defined by the soil model. First reasonable estimates of the
soil resistance distribution and quake and damping parameters are made. Then the
measured acceleration is used to set the pile model in motion. The program then
computes the equilibrium pile head force, which can be compared to the PDA
determined force. Initially, the computed and measured pile head forces will not
agree with each other. Adjustments are made to the soil model assumptions and the
calculation process repeated.
 48

Mass density, U 't Pile segment

M o d u lu s, E len g t h

't Soil segment

len g t h

Wavespeed, c = —(E/U) 't

't

Travel time, 't = 'L/c

't

X-secn area, A
't Spring (static resistance)
Dashpot (dynamic resist)

't
Pile Impedance,
Z = EA/c

Model

Figure 4.3 Pile – Soil Model Used in the CAPWAP Analysis

With each analysis, the program evaluates the match quality by summing the
absolute values of the relative differences between the measured and computed
waves. The program computes a match quality number for each analysis. Through
trial and error iteration adjustment process to the soil model, the soil model is refined
until no further agreement can be obtained between measured and computed pile
forces. Figure 4.4 presents the iteration program used in CAPWAP analysis. The
resulting model is then considered the best estimate of the static pile capacity, the
 49

soil resistance distribution and the soil quake and damping characteristic. The
CAPWAP provides an automated analysis for wave matching primarily which need
subsequent adjustments to the parameters to refine the match quality (smaller match
quality number).

vm Fm
Fc

1 Set up pile model and assume

Rshaft and Rtoe

2 Apply one measured curve (vm);

Calculate complementary Fc

Rshaft 3 Compare Fc with measured Fm

4 Adjust Rshaft and Rtoe

Repeat until match
is satisfactory
5 Go to step2
Rtoe

Figure 4.4 CAPWAP Method – Iteration Program

4.5 Comparison between Static Load Test and Pile Driving Analyser

Table 4.8 summarizes the comparison between the Davisson’s method for the
static capacity and the capacity obtained from CAPWAP analysis. The static load
test results are apparently lower than the results obtained from PDA test. Pile 4 was
tested after a very long duration therefore the capacity of that pile is 30% higher than
 50

the capacity obtained from static load tests. All the other piles except for Pile 2
exhibit 20% higher capacity relative to static load test. Pile 2 was tested to 10,000kN
and the displacement was large. After a wait period the pile was tested dynamically
but, the results shows that there has been no appreciable gain in soil setup. Refer to
Table 4.2 for time between static load test and PDA test.

The overall results indicate that the gain in capacity is not appreciable in the
weathered Kenny Hill Formation – Site 1. However at Site 2 and Site 3, the capacity
appreciation reached 30%, indicating capacity gain with time for the young alluvium
underlain with old alluvium. It is not clear if the gain in the capacity was actually
due to soil setup or due to the difference in testing method.

Table 4.8: Pile Capacity

Pile Pile Capacity (kN)
Location
Reference Static Load Test PDA Test
Pile 1 8,000 9,429
Site 1 Pile 2 7,150 5,750
Pile 3 7,650 9,550
Site 2 Pile 4 17,500 22,861
Site 3 Pile 5 14,750 17,504

It should be noted that the load considered in this comparison was based on
estimation made based on the ultimate capacity of a pile obtained from Davisson’s
method. This ultimate capacity is contributed by the shaft and end bearing.
However, it is not possible to subtract the contribution of shaft friction or end bearing
from the total capacity obtained. Therefore, comparing the shaft resistance based on
the Davisson’s failure load is not possible.
 51

It is also noted that during static load test the piles were tested to 3.3 times the
working load or to failure at Site 1, 2.5 times the working load at Site 2, and 2.0
times the working load at Site 3. The instruments installed in the pile at different
level will provide the load transfer at that location, thus enable the determination of
shaft friction for the pile.

CAPWAP analysis using wave matching technique is used for derivation of

shaft friction distribution for the dynamic load test. Table 4.9 summarizes the
percentage of load distribution toward the distribution of the shaft and end bearing
based on the available information from CAPWAP analysis.

Table 4.9: Shaft and End Bearing contributions

Percentage (%)
Pile
Static Load Test PDA Test
Reference
Shaft End Bearing Shaft End Bearing
Pile 1 65 35 36 64
Pile 2 64 36 45 55
Pile 3 92 8 53 47
Pile 4 99 1 89 11
Pile 5 88 12 70 30

In static load test, for the piles at Site 1, the contribution of shaft friction was
noted to be higher as compared to end bearing. This scenario occurred even though
the piles are short due to large movement at the base of the pile. The pile load was
fully mobilized causing the toe to displace. Since the base of the pile started to be
displaced, the corresponding load would be taken by the shaft.

On the other hand, the PDA test were conducted based on the force induced
from the ram was able to mobilize the shaft resistance and a major contribution of the
 52

resistance was transferred to the base. This load is lower compared to when it was
statically loaded. Therefore, the load was not sufficient to mobilize the pile base.
Hence, the contribution from the base is larger than the shaft.

The scenario is different for Site 2 and Site 3 as the piles are long. The load
applied is taken by the shaft and only part of it had been transferred to the base. This
is mainly because of the soil-setup or normally called as re-moulded strength of the
alluvium soil. Site 2 and Site 3 results for PDA agrees well with that of static load
test, where the major contributions are from the shaft of the piles.
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE STUDY

5.1 Conclusion

The results obtained from the analysis enables a platform for comparison
between static load test results and that of dynamic test results. Based on the output,
the following conclusions can be derived:

1) The distribution of load along the pile shaft dependant on the time interval
and the effect of soil setup. The longer the time interval for the pile that been
analyzed, the shaft distribution apparently contributed substantially towards
the capacity;
2) The settlements of the piles are plus minus 2mm between static load test and
dynamic load test at working load. At test load, dynamic load test predicted
settlement is smaller compared to that of static load settlement measured;
3) The load bearing capacity of the piles are dependant on the method used to
estimate the ultimate capacity. Based on the results, the Davisson’s method
is comparable to that of CAPWAP analysis for both static and dynamic test.
 54

5.2 Recommendations for Future Study

This study focuses on the comparison of the result of Maintained Load Test
and PDA. In future, studies can be conducted in the following grey areas:

1) Comparison between Static Load Test and Statnamic Test;

2) Comparison between High Strain Dynamic Test and Statnamic Test;
3) Incoporating the impedance of the piles precisely in Instrumented
Static Load Test;
4) Evaluation of High Strain Dynamic Test on Displacement Piles and
Replacement Piles;
5) Effects of Time in different soil to determine the setup factors with
the use of Dynamic Pile Test;
6) GRLWEAP and its effectiveness in predictions of pile drivability.
 55

REFERENCES

Barends, Frans B. J., (1992). Application of Stress Wave Theory to Piles. A. A.

Balkema, Netherlands.

Bengt. H. Fellenius (1980). The Analysis of Results from Routine Pile Load Test.
Ground Engineering, Geotechnical News Magazine, September 1980.

Bengt. H. Fellenius (1990). Static or Dynamic Test – Which To Trust?

Geotechnical News Magazines, December 1990, Vol. 8, No.4.

Bengt. H. Fellenius (2001). From Strain Measurements to Load in an

Instrumented Pile. Geotechnical News Magazine, Vol. 19, No. 1.

Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, (1993). Third edition Canadian

Geotechnical Society, Technical Committee on Foundations, Canada.

Chin Y.K., Tan S.L. and Tan S.B. (1985). Ultimate Load Tests on Instrumented
Bored Piles in Singapore Old Alluvium. Eight Southeast Asian Geotechnical
Conference, Kuala Lumpur.

Coduto, Donald P., (1994). Foundation Design: Principles and Practices.

Prentice Hall, United States of America.
 56

Das, Braja M. (2004). Principles of Foundation Engineering. Fifth edition

Brooks/Cole, United States of America.

Frank Rausche, Fred Moses, George G. Goblen (1972). Soil Resistance

Predictions from Pile Dynamics. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Division ASCE, September 1972.

Garland Likins, Frank Rausche (2004). Correlation of CAPWAP with Static Load
Test. Proceedings of The Seventh International Conference on the
Application of Stresswave Theory to Piles 2004, The Institute of Engineers
Malaysia.

Goble Rausche Likins and Associates (1996). CAPWAP Introduction to Dynamic

Pile Testing Methods. Pile Dynamic Inc.

Institute of Engineers Malaysia, (2004). The Seventh International Conference on

the Application of Stresswave Theory to Piles. Geotechnical Engineering
Technical Division, Malaysia.

Jean Authier, Bengt. H. Fellenius (1981). Pile Integrity, Soil Setup and
Relaxation. Second Seminar on the Dynamics of Pile Driving. Pile Research
Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Colorado,
Boulder.

Jorge William Beim, Reynaldo Luiz De Rosa (2004). Comparison of Static and
Dynamic Load Tests Results. Proceedings of The Seventh International
Conference on the Application of Stresswave Theory to Piles, The Institute of
Engineers Malaysia.

Paul Hewitt, Dr. Wong K.Y. and Gue S.S. (1995). Properties of Kenny Hill
Formation for Piled Raft Foundation Design, Kuala Lumpur. Forum on Soil
and Rock Properties, Geotechnical Society of Malaysia.
 57

Pile Driving Analyser (1995). PAK User Manual. Pile Dynamic Inc.

Sharma, Hari D. and Prakash, Shamsher, (1990). Pile Foundation in Engineering

Practice. Wiley-Interscience Publication, New York.

Tomlinson, M. J., (2001). Foundation Design and Construction. Seventh edition

Pearson Education, England.
 58

Appendix A
Site 1/Pile 1

DAVISSON'S METHOD
11000
10500
10000
9500
9000
8500
8000 8000 kN
7500
Pile Top Load (kN )

7000
6500
6000
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

E = 28.44 kN/mm2
A = 441 786 mm2
L = 7 000 mm
P = (AEǻ)/L
P = 1795ǻ
x = 4 + (750/120)
x = 10.25

P = 8 000 kN
 59

FULLER AND HOY'S METHOD

11000
10500
10000
9500 10600 kN
9000
8500
8000
7500
Pile Top Load (kN )

7000
6500
6000
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

Slope

1 kN

0.14 mm

P = 10 600 kN
 60

BUTLER AND HOY'S METHOD

11000
10 100 kN
10500
10000
9500
9000
8500
8000
7500
Pile Top Load (kN )

7000
6500
6000
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

Slope

1 kN

0.14 mm

P = 10 100 kN
 61

BRINCH-HANSEN'S 90% METHOD

11000
10500 90% x 10 700 = 9 630 kN
10000
10 700 kN
9500
9000
8500
8000
7500
Pile Top Load (kN )

7000
6500
6000
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

P’= 10 700 kN @ set = 50 mm

90% of P @ 50% of set

90% x 10700 = 9630 kN @ 50% x 50 = 25 mm

P = 9 630 kN
 62

DEBEER'S METHOD
100000

10000
Pile Top Load (kN )

8 167 kN

1000

100
0 1 10 100

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

P = 8 167 kN
 63

MAZURKIEWICZ'S METHOD
15000

14000

13000 11 929 kN
12000

11000

10000
Pile Top Load (kN )

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

P = 11 929 kN
 64

CHIN-KONDNER'S METHOD
0.0060

0.0050
Pile Top Settlement/Pile Top Load (mm/kN )

0.0040

0.0030

0.0020
(20.3, 0.0023)

0.0010

c = 0.00055
0.0000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

y = mx + c
c = 0.00055
m = (0.0023 – 0.00055)/20.3
m = 8.62 x 10-5
P = 1/(8.62 x 10-5)
P = 11 600 kN
 65

COMPARISON OF FAILURE CRITERIA

12000
11500
11000
7 6
10500 2
10000 3
9500 4
9000
8500 5
8000
1
Pile Top Load (kN )

7500
7000
6500
6000
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

Note:
1. Davisson’s method
2. Fuller and Hoy method
3. Butler and Hoy method
4. Brinch Hanson’s 90% criterion method
5. De Beers method
6. Mazurkie method
7. Chin’s method
 66

Appendix B
Site 1/Pile 2

DAVISSON'S METHOD
11000
10500
10000
9500
9000
8500
8000
7500
Pile Top Load (kN )

7000
7 160 kN
6500
6000
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

E = 24.60 kN/mm2
A = 441 786 mm2
L = 9 000 mm
P = (AEǻ)/L
P = 1208ǻ
x = 4 + (750/120)
x = 10.25

P = 7 150 kN
 67

FULLER AND HOY'S METHOD

11000
10500
10000
9500
9000 10 250 kN
8500
8000
7500
Pile Top Load (kN )

7000
6500
6000
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

Slope

1 kN

0.14 mm

P = 10 250 kN
 68

BUTLER AND HOY'S METHOD

12000
11500
11000
10500 9 300 kN
10000
9500
9000
8500
8000
Pile Top Load (kN )

7500
7000
6500
6000
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

Slope

1 kN

0.14 mm

P = 9 300 kN
 69

BRINCH-HANSEN'S 90% METHOD

11000
10500 90% x 10 350 = 9 315 kN
10000
9500 10 350 kN
9000
8500
8000
7500
Pile Top Load (kN )

7000
6500
6000
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

P’= 10 350 kN @ set = 110 mm

90% of P @ 50% of set

90% x 10350 = 9315 kN @ 50% x 110 = 55 mm

P = 9 315 kN
 70

DEBEER'S METHOD
100000

10000
Pile Top Load (kN )

7 950 kN

1000

100
0 1 10 100 1000

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

P = 7 950 kN
 71

MAZURKIEWICZ'S METHOD
13000

12000 12 250 kN
11000

10000

9000
Pile Top Load (kN )

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

P = 12 250 kN
 72

CHIN-KONDNER'S METHOD
0.0100

0.0090
Pile Top Settlement/Pile Top Load (mm/kN )

0.0080

0.0070

0.0060

0.0050
(48.16, 0.0053)
0.0040

0.0030

0.0020

0.0010
c = 0.0011
0.0000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

y = mx + c
c = 0.0011
m = (0.0053 – 0.0011)/48.16
m = 8.72 x 10-5
P = 1/(8.72 x 10-5)
P = 11 467 kN
 73

COMPARISON OF FAILURE CRITERIA

13000

12000

6
11000 7
10000 2
4
9000 3
Pile Top Load (kN )

8000 5
7000 1

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

Note:
1. Davisson’s method
2. Fuller and Hoy method
3. Butler and Hoy method
4. Brinch Hanson’s 90% criterion method
5. De Beers method
6. Mazurkie method
7. Chin’s method
 74

Appendix C
Site 1/Pile 3

DAVISSON'S METHOD
11000
10500
10000
9500
9000
8500
8000
7 650 kN
7500
Pile Top Load (kN )

7000
6500
6000
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

E = 28.98 kN/mm2
A = 441 786 mm2
L = 12 000 mm
P = (AEǻ)/L
P = 1067ǻ
x = 4 + (750/120)
x = 10.25

P = 7 650 kN
 75

FULLER AND HOY'S METHOD

11000
10500
10000
9500 10 100 kN
9000
8500
8000
7500
Pile Top Load (kN )

7000
6500
6000
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

Slope

1 kN

0.14 mm

P = 10 100 kN
 76

BUTLER AND HOY'S METHOD

11000
9 800 kN
10500
10000
9500
9000
8500
8000
7500
Pile Top Load (kN )

7000
6500
6000
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

Slope

1 kN

0.14 mm

P = 9 800 kN
 77

BRINCH-HANSEN'S 90% METHOD

11000
10500 90% x 10 200 = 9 180 kN
10000
9500 10 200 kN
9000
8500
8000
7500
Pile Top Load (kN )

7000
6500
6000
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

P’= 10 200 kN @ set = 60 mm

90% of P @ 50% of set

90% x 10200 = 9180 kN @ 50% x 60 = 30 mm

P = 9 180 kN
 78

DEBEER'S METHOD
100000

10000
Pile Top Load (kN )

8 000 kN

1000

100
0 1 10 100

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

P = 8 000 kN
 79

MAZURKIEWICZ'S METHOD
12000

11000
10 929 kN
10000

9000

8000
Pile Top Load (kN )

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

P = 10 929 kN
 80

CHIN-KONDNER'S METHOD
0.0060

0.0050
Pile Top Settlement/Pile Top Load (mm/kN )

0.0040

0.0030
(34.46, 0.0037)

0.0020

0.0010 c = 0.008

0.0000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

y = mx + c
c = 0.008
m = (0.0037 – 0.008)/34.46
m = 8.4 x 10-5
P = 1/(8.4 x 10-5)
P = 11 882 kN
 81

COMPARISON OF FAILURE CRITERIA

12000

11000
7
6
10000 2
3
9000 4

8000 5
Pile Top Load (kN )

1
7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

Note:
1. Davisson’s method
2. Fuller and Hoy method
3. Butler and Hoy method
4. Brinch Hanson’s 90% criterion method
5. De Beers method
6. Mazurkie method
7. Chin’s method
 82

Appendix D
Site 2/Pile 4

DAVISSON'S METHOD
22000
21000
20000
19000
18000
17000 17 500 kN
16000
15000
Pile Top Load (kN )

14000
13000
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

E = 35.07 kN/mm2
A = 785 398 mm2
L = 48 200 mm
P = (AEǻ)/L
P = 571ǻ
x = 4 + (1000/120)
x = 12.3

P = 17 500 kN
 83

FULLER AND HOY'S METHOD

22000
21000
20000
19000 21 000 kN
18000
17000
16000
15000
Pile Top Load (kN )

14000
13000
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

Slope

1 kN

0.14 mm

P = 21 000 kN
 84

BUTLER AND HOY'S METHOD

22000
20 000 kN
21000
20000
19000
18000
17000
16000
15000
Pile Top Load (kN )

14000
13000
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

Slope

1 kN

0.14 mm

P = 20 000 kN
 85

BRINCH-HANSEN'S 90% METHOD

22000
21000
20000
19000 21 700 kN
18000
17000
16000
15000
90% x 21 700 = 19 530 kN
Pile Top Load (kN )

14000
13000
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

P’= 21 700 kN @ set = 110 mm

90% of P @ 50% of set

90% x 21700 = 19530 kN @ 50% x 110 = 55 mm

P = 19 530 kN
 86

DEBEER'S METHOD
100000

10000
Pile Top Load (kN )

21 333 kN

1000

100
0 1 10 100 1000

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

P = 21 333 kN
 87

MAZURKIEWICZ'S METHOD
24000
23000
22000
21000 21 250 kN
20000
19000
18000
17000
16000
Pile Top Load (kN )

15000
14000
13000
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

P = 21 250 kN
 88

CHIN-KONDNER'S METHOD
0.0100

0.0090
Pile Top Settlement/Pile Top Load (mm/kN )

0.0080

0.0070

0.0060

0.0050
(26.6, 0.0018)
0.0040

0.0030

0.0020

0.0010 c = 0.0006

0.0000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

y = mx + c
c = 0.0006
m = (0.0018 – 0.0006)/26.6
m = 4.5 x 10-5
P = 1/(4.5 x 10-5)
P = 22 167 kN
 89

COMPARISON OF FAILURE CRITERIA

23000
22000
21000
6 5 7
2
20000 3
19000 4
18000
17000 1
16000
15000
Pile Top Load (kN )

14000
13000
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

Note:
1. Davisson’s method
2. Fuller and Hoy method
3. Butler and Hoy method
4. Brinch Hanson’s 90% criterion method
5. De Beers method
6. Mazurkie method
7. Chin’s method
 90

Appendix E
Site 3/Pile 5

DAVISSON'S METHOD
20000
19000
18000
17000
16000
15000
14000
14 750 kN
13000
Pile Top Load (kN )

12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

E = 27.07 kN/mm2
A = 1 130 973 mm2
L = 41 500 mm
P = (AEǻ)/L
P = 738ǻ
x = 4 + (1200/120)
x = 14

P = 14 750 kN
 91

FULLER AND HOY'S METHOD

20000
19000
18000
17000
16000
15000 16 833 kN
14000
13000
Pile Top Load (kN )

12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

Slope

1 kN

0.14 mm

P = 16 833 kN
 92

BUTLER AND HOY'S METHOD

20000
19000
18000
16 417 kN
17000
16000
15000
14000
13000
Pile Top Load (kN )

12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

Slope

1 kN

0.14 mm

P = 16 417 kN
 93

BRINCH-HANSEN'S 90% METHOD

20000
19000
18000
17000
16000
15000 17 200 kN
14000
13000
Pile Top Load (kN )

12000
11000 90% x 17 200 = 15 300 kN
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

P’= 17 200 kN @ set = 80 mm

90% of P @ 50% of set

90% x 17200 = 15300 kN @ 50% x 80 = 40 mm

P = 15 300 kN
 94

DEBEER'S METHOD
100000

10000
Pile Top Load (kN )

16 364 kN

1000

100
0 1 10 100 1000

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

P = 16 364 kN
 95

MAZURKIEWICZ'S METHOD
21000
20000
19000
18 400 kN
18000
17000
16000
15000
14000
Pile Top Load (kN )

13000
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

P = 18 400 kN
 96

CHIN-KONDNER'S METHOD
0.0100

0.0090
Pile Top Settlement/Pile Top Load (mm/kN )

0.0080

0.0070

0.0060

0.0050
(54, 0.0033)
0.0040

0.0030

0.0020

0.0010 c = 0.0005

0.0000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

y = mx + c
c = 0.0005
m = (0.0033 – 0.0005)/54
m = 5.16 x 10-5
P = 1/(5.16 x 10-5)
P = 19 380 kN
 97

COMPARISON OF FAILURE CRITERIA

20000
19000
18000 7
17000
6
2
16000 3 5
4
15000
14000 1
13000
Pile Top Load (kN )

12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

Note:
1. Davisson’s method
2. Fuller and Hoy method
3. Butler and Hoy method
4. Brinch Hanson’s 90% criterion method
5. De Beers method
6. Mazurkie method
7. Chin’s method