See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264004137

Estimation of Pile Bearing Capacity

Using Dynamic Probing in Tropical
Soils

Conference Paper · January 2008

CITATIONS READS

0 479

All content following this page was uploaded by Miriam Gonçalves Miguel on 17 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization – Huang & Mayne (eds)
© 2008 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-46936-4

Estimation of pile bearing capacity using dynamic probing

in tropical soils

D.F. Silva
Department of Civil Enginering, Center of Technology and Urbanization, The State University of Londrina,
Londrina, Paraná, Brazil

M.G. Miguel
Departament of Geotechnics and Transports, Department of Civil Enginering, Arquitecture and Urbanism,
The State University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil

ABSTRACT: When dimensioning pile bearing foundations, it is necessary to estimate the bearing capacity,
which can be done by using theoretical, empirical and semi-empirical methods. The most commonly used
methods in Brazil are semi-empirical and the great majority is based on SPT-T (Standard Penetration Test –
with Torque Measurement) and CPT (Cone Penetration Test) geotechnical field tests. However, besides these
tests, are several others such as, for instance, those represented by dynamic probing (DP) tests. The aim of this
research was to propose a semi-empirical estimate method for bearing capacity of small diameter piles, based
on parameters of dynamic probing tests (DPL and DPSH), using back-analysis of static compression load tests
in embedded piles in residual basalt and colluvial soils, both silty and tropical clay, typical of the Londrina (the
state of Parana) and Campinas (the state of São Paulo) regions respectively, Brazil.

1 INTRODUCTION In DPL, the cone possesses a 90◦ base angle and

Nowadays, there are several field tests with the objec-
tive of soil sampling and/or to estimate their geotech-
nical properties. The most well-known and used are
SPT-T (Standard Penetration Test – with Torque mea-
surement) and CPT (Cone Penetration Test). Each one
of them has their own particularities, advantages and
disadvantages. Among the tests used nowadays there is
also DP (Dynamic Probing), including DPL (Dynamic
Probing Light) and DPSH (Dynamic Probing Super
Heavy).
The advantages of DP tests are: the speed of exe-
cution, the low perforated meter cost, the lack of
necessity to use test reaction equipment and the adapt-
ability of the penetration energy with soil rigidity
characteristics.
1.1 DPL and DPSH tests
DPL and DPSH tests are dynamic and they work by
penetrating a solid cone into the soil.This is done by the
fall free of a hammer on the top of an anvil composition
linked to the cone.
Both tests are based on ISSMFE (1989) technical
specifications, such as dimensions of the anvil and of
the cone, procedures and particularities of the field
test.
area of 10 cm2 . The hammer used in the penetration
of the cone has a mass of 10 kg, which is suspended
at a height of 50 cm, which produces a gravitational
potential energy of approximately 50 Joules.
The parameter determined in the DPL essay is the
necessary number of blows for the cone to penetrate
10 centimeters each time, called N10. Based on this
procedure, this test is quite sensitive to small soil
rigidity variations.
The procedure of a DPSH test is similar to DPL,
however the cone possesses twice the base area, that is,
20 cm2 . The mass of the hammer used is 63.5 kg. The
hammer weighs 63.5 kg, and is suspended at a height
of 75 cm, generating a gravitational potential energy of
approximately 480 Joules. The measured parameter in
the test is N20 , in other words, the number of necessary
blows for the cone to penetrate 20 cm at each blow.
1.2 Geotechnical profiles studied
The geology of the region of Londrina/PR is largely
characterized by Basalt from the formation of the Serra
Geral hills. Due to intemperic and pedogenetic pro-
cesses, such as temperature variations and rain, thick
layers of silty-clay residual soils were formed, with
the top layer presenting, lateritic origin and behavior,
(Teixeira et al, 2003) apart from collapsible behaviour.

523
 The underground soil at the Geotechnical Engineer- Table 1. Average values for N10 and N20 and their respective
ing Experimental Field (CEEG) of UEL (Universidede coefficients of variation (CV) for CEEG.
Estadual de Londrina), according to Miguel et al
(2002), has the same characteristics as the soil of Depth(m) N10 CV N20 CV
Londrina. The results of the field test analysis (SPT-T),
0–1 3.52 0.53 2.57 0.13
carried out in CEEG, and of the laboratory tests, car-
1–2 1.45 0.39 0.88 0.20
ried out with soil samples from those tests, led the 2–3 1.22 0.18 1.44 0.32
authors to suggest that the soil at CEEG be divided 3–4 1.23 0.21 1.60 0.03
into four layers until a depth of 23 m (maximum depth 4–5 1.29 0.19 1.86 0.40
reached by the tests). The results of these tests can be 5–6 1.47 0.25 2.19 0.21
seen in Miguel et al (2002) and in Teixeira et al (2003). 6–7 1.60 0.16 2.44 0.17
The soil in the area of Campinas/SP is formed by 7–8 1.71 0.23 4.36 0.65
basic Migmatites, where there are basic intrusive rocks 8–9 1.77 0.18 2.39 0.21
from the Formation of the Serra Geral (diabase), a 9–10 2.02 0.17 2.46 0.10
10–11 2.23 0.21 3.72 0.21
total of 98 km2 (14%) of the area of Campinas. Frac-
11–12 2.22 0.18 4.38 0.13
tured diabase bodies from the Itararé formation and the 12–13 2.47 0.13 4.32 0.01
Crystalline Complex are also found in this area, and in 13–14 2.44 0.12 3.86 0.10
the shape of sills and dikes (Albuquerque et al, 2001).
The soil at the Experimental Field of Soil and Foun-
dation Mechanics, Unicamp (CEMSF) has the same
characteristic as this area, which was determined by Table 2. Average values for N10 and their respective
SPT-T, CPT and other tests. The details of this profile coefficients of variation (CV) for CEMSF.
can be seen in Giacheti (1991).
This Experimental Field presents a soil profile that Depth(m) N10 CV
is made up of approximately a 6.5 m thick superfi-
cial porous, lateritic and collapsible colluvial layer of 0–1 6.50 5.69
1–2 6.87 0.49
sandy silt clay soil, and a 20 cm deep non-lateritic 2–3 8.03 1.21
underlying layer of clay sandy silt, with inherited char- 3–4 9.03 1.38
acteristics from the origin Diabase rock. The water 4–5 10.93 1.12
level is 17 m. Between 6.5 m and 7.0 m deep, the pro- 5–6 15.22 2.41
file presents a layer of concretionary material which 6–7 16.48 0.60
is made up of not very compact, brown yellowish 7–8 14.42 0.50
sandy silt. 8–9 14.28 0.61
Besides the SPT-T field tests, DPL field tests were 9–10 13.53 0.49
also carried out at CEEG and CEMSF. In CEEG, 10–11 15.12 0.78
11–12 18.73 1.01
14 DPL test holes and 2 DPSH test holes were made. 12–13 18.80 0.94
In CEMSF, 6 DPL test holes were made. The level of
water was not found in any of the tests.
The N20 and N10 values, considered in the method
proposed, were the ones obtained by the arithmetic
made with the fall free from the solid crusher on the
average of the values of the holes, considering the same
soil. However, in the former the concreting is carried
depth in each hole, and the dispersion indicated for the
out by casting the low slump concrete in layers that
variation coefficient (CV), according to Tables 1 and 2.
are pounded with a crusher that has a smaller diame-
ter than the one used to make the opening of the hole.
2 PRESENT FOUNDATIONS IN THE REGION However in the latter, the filling of the hole is done
by casting auto-densed concrete without pounding,
Several types of foundations, embedded in regional nevertheless prior to this filling there is the casting
soil, were carried out in CEEG and in CEMSF with and the pounding of approximately of one wheelbar-
the objective of studying their behavior using static row load of pebbles at the bottom of the holeforming
bearing capacity tests. at the bottom what is know as “pebble foot”. Several
The small diameter piles in CEEG which are used types of foundations in CEMSF were carried out and
nowadays in small and medium sized constructions among them, those opened with a mechanical auger,
can be mentioned: bored piles with a compacted are analyzed in this work.
cement soil and a plastic cement soil. The latter is used In terms of the bearing capacity estimate meth-
in the region with two variations: the pounded piles ods, the semi-empirical ones based on NSPT values
with concrete pounding and the pounded piles with are very much used in these areas. However, those
manual concrete filling. In both variations, the hole is methods are very conservative, due to the lateritic

524
character of the clay from the upper layer, that has
greater rigidity when in a non-saturated state, than the
other non-lateritic clays.
Knowing the lateritic character of the upper layer
of the soil in the areas of Londrina and of Campinas,
which is something that the semi-empirical methods
used lately do not contemplate in their formulations,
and also knowing the advantages that the DP tests have
in terms of the most commonly used tests nowadays
(SPT and CPT), a semi-empirical bearing capacity
estimate method in small and medium sized diameter
piles is proposed. This method was used in the lat-
eritic soils of Londrina/PR and of Campinas/SP, using
parameters obtained in the penetrometric tests (DPL
and DPSH), based on the back-analysis of the results
obtained in static compression load tests.
3 METHOD OF ANALYSIS
The method proposed herewith (Silva et al, 2006)
follows expressions (1), (2), (3) and (4).
where:
Pu : ultimate load (kN); Rp : point resistance (kN);
R
: lateral friction resistance (kN);
ηp : non-dimensional soil factor in terms of the
point resistance (The soil at CEEG was
considered a reference and the value adopted
was equal to 1 for this region);
qd : average resistance value at the base of
the cone (kPa); Ap : area of the circular section
at the point of the pile (m2 );
ϕ1 : transformation coefficient for the point
resistance that considers the type
of pile (non-dimensional);
ϕ2 : lateral friction resistance transformation
coefficient that considers the type of pile
(non-dimensional);
U: perimeter of the transversal section of the
pile (m);
525
η
: non-dimensional factor that is a characteristic
of the soil in relation to lateral friction
resistance (The soil at CEEG was considered
a reference and the value adopted was equal to
1 for this region);

: the thickness of each layer along the lenght of
pile where the bearing capacity can be
considered constant (m).
So as to provide agility when applying the method
and also considering the fact that the tension that the
pile transmits to the soil, influences its behavior in
some diameters above and below the point of the pile,
the qd value was adopted, in this method, as an aver-
age resistance value at the base of the cone one meter
above and below the foundation elevation of the point
of the pile.
ISSMFE (1989) proposes expression (5) to trans-
form the N10 or N20 parameters into tension. This
equation considers the influence of the mass of the
anvil, the main anvil, the hammer in the resistance
values at the base of the cone, due to the fact that
while the depth increases, the first term of the equation
diminishes because of the increase of M .
where:
qd : resistance at the base of the cone (MPa);
M: mass of the hammer (kg);
M : total mass of the extension rods, the anvil
and the guiding rods (kg);
g: acceleration of gravity, generally considered
to be 10 m/s2 ;
h: height of the fall of the hammer (m);
A: area of the base of the cone (cm2 );
e: average penetration per blow (cm).
Table 3 presents a summary of the characteristics
of the piles used in this study which were set up and
tested in CEEG and in CEMSF, including the types,
dimensions, amount and adopted symbols.
4 RESULTS AND ANALYSES
The Table 4 shows the average values obtained for
physical rupture load (Pu ), point resistance (Rp ) and
lateral friction resistance (R
), for each pile type. The
point resistance (Rp ) of the bored piles were consid-
ered equal to zero, due to only being be mobilized after
large settling.
ϕ1 and ϕ2 values were determined first for the soil in
Londrina, considering each pile type, matching equa-
tions (2) and (3) to (Rp ) and (R
),values respectively,
from Table 4 and isolating the ϕ1 and ϕ2 coefficients
Table 3. Summary of the piles used. Table 5. Values of ϕ1 and ϕ2 and their respective coefficient
of variation (CV) for N10 values (DPL).
Pile Amount Diameter (m) Length (m)
Average Average CV CV
ETMECc 3 0.40 12 Piles ϕ1 ϕ2 ϕ1 ϕ2
ETMECL 3 0.25 12
ETMC 3 0.20 3 ETMEC12D25 0.0 44.1 0.00 0.13
ETMC 3 0.20 6 ETMC3D20 0.0 99.2 0.00 0.06
ETMC 3 0.25 3 ETMC3D25 0.0 87.0 0.00 0.17
ETMC 3 0.25 6 ETMC6D20 0.0 65.5 0.00 0.08
ETMSC 3 0.20 3 ETMC6D25 0.0 63.2 0.00 0.04
ETMSC 3 0.25 3 ETMSC3D20 0.0 75.5 0.00 0.02
ACA 3 0.20 3 ETMSC3D25 0.0 78.3 0.00 0.04
ACA 3 0.20 6 ACA3D20 1.1 30.7 0.83 0.11
ACL 3 0.20 3 ACA6D20 0.8 32.0 1.10 0.08
ACL 3 0.20 6 ACL3D20 0.7 56.4 0.24 0.05
ACL6D20 0.2 50.5 0.00 0.09
Obs.: ETMECC = Bored with a mechanical auger filled
up with concrete in Campinas, ETMECL = Bored with
a mechanical auger filled up with concrete in Londrina,
ETMC = Bored with a manual auger filled up with concrete, Table 6. ϕ1 and ϕ2 values and their respective coefficient
ETMSC = Bored with manual auger filled up with soil- of variation (CV) for N20 values (DPSH).
cement, ACA = Pounded with concrete pounding, ACL =
Pounded with concrete casting. ϕ1 ϕ2 CV CV
Pile médio médio ϕ1 ϕ2

Table 4. Average resistance to lateral friction resistance ETMEC12D25 0.0 26.5 0.00 0.16
(R
), average resistance of the point (Rp ) and the average ETMC3D20 0.0 35.7 0.00 0.13
rupture load (Pu ) obtained for each pile. ETMC3D25 0.0 31.3 0.00 0.15
ETMC6D20 0.0 31.3 0.00 0.08
Pile R
(kN) Rp (kN) Pu (kN) ETMC6D25 0.0 30.2 0.00 0.06
ETMSC3D20 0.0 27.2 0.00 0.01
ETMEC12D40 682.3 0.0 682.3 ETMSC3D25 0.0 28.2 0.00 0.04
ETMEC12D25 348.6 0.0 348.6 ACA3D20 0.74 11.1 0.65 0.27
ETMC3(1)D20 31.7 0.0 31.7 ACA6D20 0.67 15.3 1.16 0.10
ETMC3(1)D25 45.1 0.0 45.1 ACL3D20 0.44 20.3 0.32 0.16
ETMC6(1)D20 84.4 0.0 84.4 ACL6D20 0.18 24.1 0.01 0.28
ETMC6(1)D25 109.3 0.0 109.3
ETMSC3(1)D20 41.6 0.0 41.6
ETMSC3(1)D25 50.1 0.0 50.1
ACA3(1)D20 102.2 35.4 137.6
ACA6(1)D20 172.7 57.2 230.0
the ACL piles, 38% among the ACA piles and, up to
ACL3(1)D20 55.7 59.3 115.0 35%, among the ETM piles. However for ϕ1 values,
ACL6(2)D20 109.4 215.1 324.6 the largest variation was among the ACL piles with
values up to 145% greater.
Considering an average ϕ2 value for the ETM piles,
this value would be of 30.1%. Applying the average
which refer to the type of foundation set up. The results value and using the minimum global security fac-
obtained are presented in Table 5 for DPL and in the tor proposed by NBR 6122/1996, in the case of the
Table 6 for DPSH, with the indication of the level of carrying out of resistance test (1,2), in the Pu val-
dispersion of the results based on the values of the ues obtained, the value found by the method being
coefficient of variation. The large dispersion of results analysed would be still in favor of safety.
can be noticed, mainly among the ACA piles, which Making the same analysis for the ACA and ACL
is mainly caused by the setting up procedures and soil piles, in other words, calculating the average ϕ1 and ϕ2
heterogeneity. values and comparing them to Pu values obtained in the
It can be noticed that, even for piles with similar bearing tests, reduced due to minimum global security
setting up proceedings, the ϕ2 values had up to 57% factor, the same situation would not be observed, thus
variation (ETMC3D20 and ETMC6D25) in the case the Pu value would be calculated above the Pu value
of N10 . In the case of the ACL piles, still in terms of observed. Comparing the ϕ1 values obtained with DPL
N10 , the ϕ1 variation reached 250%. A similar analysis to those obtained with DPSH, it can be noted that the
was made for the case of the use of the DPSH test relationship among them varies between 1.11 and 1.59.
parameters, the ϕ2 values varied up to 19% among However, for ϕ2 values this ratio varies depending on

526
Table 7. η
values and their respective coefficients of
variation (CV) for the soil at CEMSF.
Average CV
ETMEC12D40 η
η
η

ETMEC12D40 (1) 0.546
ETMEC12D40 (2) 0.510 0.518 0.047
ETMEC12D40 (3) 0.499
the depth, which is approximately, 2.78 for 3 m long
piles, 2.09 for 6 m long piles, and 1.66 for 12 m long
piles.
Based on the ϕ2 average values obtained for the
DPL values, in relation to bored pile with a mechan-
ical auger (ETMEC12D25) at CEEG (Table 5), the
values for the non-dimensional characteristic factor of
the soil in relation to lateral friction resistance (η
)
were determined for the soil at CEMSF, considering
the three bored piles with a mechanical auger carried
out in loco (Table 7).
It can be observed that the average η
value obtained
for the soil at CEMSF is smaller, about 50%, than the
unit value, proposed as a soil reference for CEEG.
This reduction can be associated to the contribution of
the layer of non-lateritic residual diabase soil, in the
behavior of the bored piles with a mechanical auger,
because, unlike CEEG, these piles were embedded,
practically, half in lateritic soil and the other half in
non-lateritic soil.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The proposed method is still being tested and should
be applied to other types of presently used founda-
tions for the soil of Londrina so that it can express
transformation coefficient values, for point resistance
and lateral friction resistance, much more concisely.
In addition to this, other applications of that method
in areas where there is the occurrence of lateritic soil
should be carried out, with the purpose of obtaining the
527
non-dimensional characteristic of the soil in relation
to the point and lateral friction resistance.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Town Hall of UEL
University Campus, SOLUM Engenharia e Geologia
Ltda, DATAGEO S/C Ltda, THOMAS NILSSON
Consultores Ltda and Professor David de Carvalho
PhD from Unicamp.
REFERENCES
ABNT – Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas – Projeto
e Execução de Fundações. 1996. NBR 6122.
Albuquerque, P.J.R. de Massad, F. Carvalho, D. de e Ferreira,
M.A.M. 2001. Comportamento à Compressão de Esta-
cas Escavadas, Hélice Contínua e Hélice Tipo Ômega,
em Solo Residual de Diabásio. Campinas/SP: Unicamp,
198p.
Giacheti, H.L. 1991. Estudo Experimental de Parâmetros
Dinâmicos de Alguns Solos Tropicais do Estado de São
Paulo. Tese de Doutorado. EESC/USP. 232f.
International Reference Test procedure for dynamic probing
(DP) 1989. Report of the ISSMFE Technical Committee on
Penetration Testing of Soils – TC 16 with Reference Test
Procedures. Swedish Geotechnical Society, 49p.
Miguel, M.G., Belincanta, A., Branco, C.J.M.C, Pinese,
J.P.P. e Teixeira, R.S. 2002. Caracterização Geotécnica
do Subsolo da Cidade de Londrina/PR. In: 10˚ Con-
gresso Brasileiro de Geologia de Engenharia e Ambiental.
ABGE. Ouro Preto/MG. CD-Rom.
Silva, D. F. da, Miguel, M. G., Belincanta, A. Estudo Prelim-
inar de Estimativa de Capacidade de Carga de Estacas
Através de Ensaios DPL e DPSH em Londrina/Pr.
2006. In: XIII Congresso Brasileiro de Mecânica dos
Solos e Engenharia Geotécnica, Cobramseg, Curitiba/PR:
ABMS, 2006. v.2. p. 879–884.
Teixeira, R. S., Lopes, F. F., Miguel, M. G., Branco, C.J.M.C.,
Belincanta, A. 2003. O Comportamento Colapsível da
Camada de Solo Superficial da Cidade de Londrina/
Pr, Anais: I Encontro Geotécnico do Terceiro Planalto
Paranaense. Maringá/PR. pp. 183–199.
View publication stats