Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr.

Amit Prashant

Load Tests on Piles

Note:
Piles used for initial testing are loaded to failure or at least twice the
design load. Such piles are generally not used in the final construction.

43

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Load Tests on Piles

Note:
During this test pile should be loaded upto one and half times the
working (design) load and the maximum settlement of the test should
not exceed 12 mm.
These piles may be used in the final construction
44

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Vertical Load Test: Maintained Load Test

The test can be initial or routine

test

The load is applied in increments

of 20% of the estimated safe
load. Hence the failure load is
reached in 8-10 increments.

Settlement is recorded for each

increment until the rate of
settlement is less than 0.1 mm/hr.

The ultimate load is said to have

reached when the final settlement
is more than 10% of the diameter
of pile or the settlement keeps on
increasing at constant load.

45

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Vertical Load Test: Maintained Load Test

After reaching ultimate load, the

load is released in decrements of
1/6th of the total load and
recovery is measured until full
rebound is established and next
unload is done.

After final unload the settlement

is measured for 24 hrs to
estimate full elastic recovery.

Load settlement curve depends

on the type of pile

46

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Vertical Load Test: Maintained Load Test

Ultimate Load
De Beer (1968):
Load settlement curve is plotted in a loglog plot and it is assumed to be a bilinear
relationship with its intersection as failure
load

Chin Fung Kee (1977):

Assumes hyperbolic curve.
Relationship between settlement
and its division with load is taken
as to be bilinear with its
intersection as failure load

47

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Vertical Load Test: Maintained Load Test

Ultimate Load
Mazurkiewicz method:

Assumes parabolic curve.

After initial straight portion
EQUAL settlement lines are
dra n to intersect load a
drawn
axis.
is

Intersection of lines at 45 from

points on load axis and next
settlement line are joined to form
a straight line which intersects
the load axis as failure load.

48

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Vertical Load Test: Maintained Load Test Safe

Load as per IS: 2911
Safe Load for Single Pile:

Safe Load for Pile Group:

49

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Elastic Settlement of Piles

Total settlement of pile under

vertical working load

depends on the distribution of frictional resistance over the length of

pile. =0.5 for uniform or parabolic (peak at mid point) and 0.67 for
triangular distribution.

50

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Elastic Settlement of Piles

Vesics (1977) semi-empirical method

51

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Elastic Settlement of Piles

Empirically by
Vesic (1977)

I ws = 2 + 0.35
0 35

L
D

Vesics (1977) semi-empirical method

L
Cs = 0.93 + 0.16
.C p
D

52

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Vertical Load Test: Constant Rate of Penetration Test

This test is only used as initial test to determine rapidly

the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile and can not be
performed as routine test.

Load-settlement curve can not be used to predict the

settlement under working load conditions.

The rate of penetration is taken as 0.75 mm/min for

friction piles and 1.5 mm/min for predominantly end
bearing piles.

Test is continued until the deformation reaches 0.1D or

a stage where further deformation does not increase
load significantly.

The final load at the end of test is taken as ultimate load

capacity of pile.

53

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Vertical Load Test: Cyclic Load Test

Proposed by Van Weele

(1957) with the aim of
determining strength in
friction and bearing
separately.

Generally performed as initial

test by loading the pile to
ultimate
lti t capacity
it

Safe load for pile is

determined as

54

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Vertical Load Test: Cyclic Load Test

During this test, loading

stages are performed as
in the maintained load
test.

After each loading, the

pile is again unloaded to
previous stage and
deformation is measured
for 15 min. Then, load is
again increased up to
next loading step. The
process continues until
failure load.

The recovered
settlement is treated as
elastic component and
the permanent
deformation as plastic.
55

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Vertical Load Test: Cyclic Load Test

Elastic recovery in each step is plotted against the load which

comprises of the elastic deformation
(a) for mobilizing friction,
(b) for mobilizing bearing, and
(c) due to the deformation of the pile itself. Curve C1.

Assuming that elastic shortening of pile is zero, draw a line from

the origin parallel to the straight portion of the curve, which gives
approximate value of the bearing and frictional resistance, as
shown in the adjacent figure.

Assuming that elastic shortening of pile is zero, draw a line from

the origin parallel to the straight portion of the curve, which gives
approximate value of the bearing and frictional resistance, as
shown in the adjacent figure.
56

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Vertical Load Test: Cyclic Load Test

Elastic compression of pile may be determined as

F is taken as varying
linearly from top to
g = F/2
bottom, so average

Elastic compression of sub-grade can be obtained by subtracting the

elastic compression of pile from total elastic recovery. If this value as
calculated comes out to be negative it is ignored.
This new value of deformation is plotted against the load Curve C2.
Bearing and frictional resistance are again evaluated as described on the
last slide. This process is repeated 3 to 4 times to obtain reasonable
values of frictional and bearing resistance of pile
57

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Tapered
Piles

Driven tapered piles

with larger dimension
at the top are
believed to be more
effective in sand
deposits.
Force components
acting
ti on the
th pile
il are
given below.

58

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Tapered
Piles

Value of K for
tapered piles is
recommended
between 1.7Ko to
2.2Ko by Bowels.
Meyerhof (1976)
suggested K1
K1.5.
5
Blanchet (1980)
suggested K=2Ko.

The frictional
resistance of
these piles is
relatively larger
than that of
straight piles as
indicated in the
adjacent plot.

59

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Stepped Tapered Pile

Aledg =

(r

2
i 1

ri 2

Asi = Di Li
K o = 1 sin i

Lledg

Li

Di

= 2 K o .tan i

Qledg = Aledg . .Lledg .N q

Qsi = Asi .q.

60

Qu

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Uplift Piles in Clays

Uplift resistance of pile is mainly provided by

its friction resistance and self weight.

fs

Qu = f s . As + W p

Wp

Uplift capacity of pile with bottom bulb is taken

as minimum of the following two equations by
Meyerhof and Adams (1968)

Qu = cu . As .K + Ws + W p

Qu

Qu = 2.25 D D .cu + W p
2
b

fs
Wp
Ws
D

Db

61

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Uplift Piles in Other Soils

Qu = ( c + h .tan ) . .Db .L + W p
Meyerhof and Adams (1968): Minimum of the three equations below

LH

Qu = .c.Db .L +
s = 1+

L>H

Bearing capacity
failure

s. .Db .L2 K u .tan + W p

mH
mL
with its maximum value of 1 +

Db
Db

2
Qu = .c.Db .H + s. .Db . L2 ( L H ) .K u .tan + W p

Qu =

(D

D 2 ( c.N c + v .N q ) + As . f s + W p

62

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Dynamic Pile Formula

Sanders (1850):

Wellington (1898):
Engineering News Formula

W = Weight of hammer
H = Height of fall
Qu = Pile resistance or Pile capacity
S = Pile penetration for the last blow

C = A constant accounting for energy loss

during driving
[1 in. or 25.4 mm for drop hammer]
[0.1 in or 2.54 mm for steam hammer]

A factor of safety FS = 6 is recommended for estimating the allowable capacity

Note: Dynamic pile formula are not used for soft clays due to pore pressure evolution

63

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

0.7

Based on the Newtons law of

conservation of momentum.
Assuming that coefficient of restitution
of hammer to pile is zero and hammer
moves along the pile after impact

0.6

W + P
v1 =
.v2
W

W .v1 = (W + P ) .v2

Efficiency as the ration on energy

after and before the impact

0.4
0.3
0.2

Heavier hammer
or lighter piles
give better
efficiency

0.1

0
W
=
0
1
2
W + P 2 W + P
W/P
W .v2

Efficiency of blow with a non-zero value of the coefficient of restitution e.

1 W + P 2
.v2
2 g

e=0

0.5

Efficiency of Pile Driving

1 W
2 g

For W > P =

W + Pe 2
W +P

For P > W =

W + Pe 2 W Pe

W +P W +P

negligible

64

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Dynamic Pile Formula: Modified Hiley Formula

W = Weight of hammer
H = Height of fall
Qu = Pile resistance or Pile capacity
S = Pile penetration for the last blow
= Hammer fall efficiency
= Efficiency of blow
C = Sum of temporary elastic compression
of pile, dolly, packing, and ground

Hammer Fall Efficiency:

65

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Dynamic Pile Formula: Modified Hiley Formula

Coefficient of Restitution:

Factor of Safety for Hileys Formula:

66

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Dynamic Pile Formula: Modified Hiley Formula

Temporary Elastic Compression

Driving without helmet or dolly but only a cushion or pad

off 25 mm thick
thi k on head.
h d

R
A
R
= 3.726
A
R
= 5.509
A

C1 = 1.761
1 761

C2 = 0.657

Driving of concrete or steel piles with helmet and short

dolly without cushion.
Concrete pile driven with only 75 mm packing under
helmet and without dolly.

R.L
A

C3 = 0.073 + 2.806

R
Ap

Ap = Overall cross-sectional area of pile at toe in cm2

67

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Dynamic Pile Formula: Simplex Formula for

Frictional Piles
Frictional resistance of the pile is brought into the empirical relationship in
this formula by measuring the total number of blows for driving the full
length of pile.

Ultimate driving resistance in kN

R
Np

Total number of blows to drive the pile

Length of pile in meters.

L
W
H
s

Weight of hammer in kN.

Height of free fall in meters.
Average set i.e. penetration in cm for last blow being the
average of last four blows.
68

Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Dynamic Pile Formula: Janbu Formula

Units: kN and m.
Ultimate capacity (FS)

RU

Efficiency factor (0.7 to 0.4, depending on driving conditions)

kU = Cd 1 + 1 + c Cd
W

Cd = 0.75 + 0.15 ( P W )

c =

.W .H
A.E.S 2

Weight of hammer/ram

Weight of pile

Height of free fall in meters.

Hammer fall efficiency as mentioned for modified Hileys formula

Area of pile

A
E
s

Elastic modulus of pile

Set per blow as for Simplex formula

Length of pile

69