See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267798693

Comparison of Static and Dynamic Load Test of Pile

Article · January 2012

CITATIONS READS
10 10,417

3 authors, including:

Yogendra Tandel
Government Engineering College, Dahod
12 PUBLICATIONS   41 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ground improvement by pervious concrete column View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yogendra Tandel on 18 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Comparison of Static and Dynamic
Load Test of Pile

C. Rajagopal
Post Graduate Student
Applied Mechanics Department., S. V. National Institute of Technology,
Surat-395007, India
rajapreethigopal@rediffmail.com

C. H. Solanki
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics Department, S. V. National Institute of Technology,
Surat-395007, India
chs@amd.svnit.ac.in

Y. K. Tandel
Research scholar
Applied Mechanics Department, S. V. National Institute of Technology,
Surat-395007, India
tandel.yogendra@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
In recent decade, dynamic load test is increasingly being used for pile load testing. Compare
to static pile loading test, dynamic load test offers a considerable savings of time, cost and
requires less space. This paper discuss the results of three dynamic and static load test on
cast-in-situ bored pile of length to diameter ratio 28, 25.5 and 23.47. The load-settlement
response of dynamic and static load tests are compared. The load-settlement response of both
tests are in good agreement upto 0.50-1.3 times design load. Also, load in the pile and unit
friction developed along the length of pile was presented.
KEYWORDS: Pile, static load test, dynamic load test.

INTRODUCTION
Ordinary static pile load tests using kentledge or reaction piles are used in India. Owing to
increasing time and cost, particularly with the difficulties associated with transporting static load
testing accessories into congested city centers and the lack of space on many sites, contractors are
seeking an alternative system for pile testing. The tendency is for contractors to use dynamic
techniques in order to supplement ordinary static tests.
Dynamic load test (or PDA test) has become a common pile test procedure for evaluating pile
capacity and pile integrity for the driven and cast-in-situ pile. The derived pile capacity generally
shows satisfactory agreement with the static load carrying capacity (Rausche et al. 1985). The
most attractive advantages are the cost of the test is much cheaper as compared with the cost of
ordinary static load test and the duration of the test is very short. The dynamic test is common for

- 1905 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. M 1906

driven piles mainly because similar driven or hammer used for the pile installation can be used
for the test. As for the cast-in-situ pile especially the large diameter piles, the dynamic test is
relatively less common because extra effort to bring in hammer for the test is required. In
addition, design pile capacity for large diameter cast-in-situ pile is generally large, a very heavy
hammer is required. As a general guideline, in order to verify the pile capacity, the required
hammer weight is about 1.5% of the pile static load carrying capacity (Hussein et al. 1996).
Many researchers reported the results of static and dynamic load tests (Davisson 1991; Gue
and Chen 1998; Nayak et al. 2000; Uddin and Tungsanga 2001; Liew et al. 2004; Vaidya 2006;
Long 2007; Basarkar et al. 2011). The results of static and dynamic load tests reported by above
researchers are in good agreement. Exceptional test results were also found for some of the Test
Piles in the mention literatures.
Therefore attempt is made in this study to correlate the results of static and dynamic load tests
on bored piles. The results include load transfer mechanism through pile for dynamic load test,
the load-settlement comparison between static and dynamic load tests.

SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
Sub soil conditions at different Test Piles are described in the following paragraph.
Test pile 1: 0-3m (filled up soil); 3-6m (blackish low plastic silty clay with sand); 6-12
(yellowish low plastic silty clay with sand and gravel); 12-16.5m (yellowish low plastic silty clay
with sand and gravel); 16.5-28.5m (blackish coarse sand with gravel); 28.5-36m (yellowish
plastic silty clay with sand); 36-45m (sand with gravel). Figure 1 summarizes the variation of the
main geotechnical properties of the sub soil with depth at Test Pile 1. Ground water level can be
found at a depth of 5 m below the ground surface.
Test pile 2: 0-1.5m (blackish high plastic clay with sand and gravel); 1.5-3m (yellowish high
plastic clay with sand); 3-6m (yellowish low plastic silty clay with sand and gravel); 6-9m
(yellowish low plastic silty clay with sand and gravel); 9-13.5m (yellowish low plastic silty clay
with sand and gravel); 13.5-15m (blackish silty sand with gravel); 15-18m (yellowish low plastic
silty clay with sand and gravel); 18-30m (yellowish plastic clayey sand with gravel).
Geotechnical parameters for the different sub soil strata are shown in Figure 2. The water table
was at 16.50 m from the natural ground surface.
Test pile 3: 0-7.25m (blackish low plastic silty clay); 7.25-10.25m (blackish medium to
coarse sand); 10.25-18m (coarse sand); 18-24m (yellowish low to high plastic clay with sand);
24-35m (yellow high plastic clay with sand and conglomerate). Figure 3 shows the various
geotechnical properties of the site at Test Pile 3. The water table at this site was found at 5m
below ground level.
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. M 1907

SPT N Natural moisture Atterberg limits Particle size Density (g/cc)

0 40 80 120 content (%) 0 20 40 60 0 25 50 75100 1 1.4 1.8 2.2
0 0 20 40 0 0 0
0
5 5 5
5
10 5 10 10

15 15 10
15
10
20 20
Depth (m)

20

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

Depth (m)
15
25 25
Depth (m)

15
25
30 30 20
30 20
35 35
25
35 40 40
25
40 45 45 30
30 50
45 50
Liquid limit (%) Gravel (%) 35
Sand (%) Bulk density
50 35 Plasticity index (%) Finer (%) Dry density
Figure 1: Soil properties at the Test Pile 1

SPT N Natural moisture Atterberg limits Particle size Density (g/cc)

0 50 100 content (%) 0 25 50 75 0 25 50 75 100 1 1.4 1.8 2.2
0 0 25 50 0 0 0
0

5 5
5 5
5
10
10
10 10 10
Depth (m)

15
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

15
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

15 15 15
20
20
20 20
25 20

25 25
25 30 25

30 30 35
30 Gravel (%) 30
Liquid limit (%) Sand (%) Bulk density
35 35 Plasticity index (%) Finer (%) Dry density
Figure 2: Soil properties at the Test Pile 2
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. M 1908

SPT N Natural moisture Atterberg limits Particle size Density (g/cc)

0 25 50 75 content (%) 0 25 50 75 0 25 50 75100 1 1.5 2 2.5
0 0 25 50 0 0 0
0
2
5 5 5
5 4
10
10 10
10 6
15
15 8

Depth (m)
15

Depth (m)

Depth (m)
15
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

20 10
20 20
20
25 12
25 25
25 14
30

30 30 16
30
35
18
35 35 35
40 Gravel (%) 20
Liquid limit (%) Sand (%) Bulk density
40 40 Plasticity index (%) Finer (%) Dry density
Figure 3: Soil properties at the Test Pile 3

TESTING METHODOLOGY
Dynamic load test was carried out using 11 tons hammer with a series of impact starting from
0.5 to 3m. Cushion system consisting of plywood sheets of 50 mm was applied for transferring
impact load to pile top. The displacement after each impact was measured to assess the load
carrying capacity. Two types of sensors namely, strain gauge and accelerometer were installed at
2 times the pile diameter below the top of the pile. Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) was used for
recording forces and motion after each drop of hammer. The pile load carrying capacity was
analyzed by CASE method. A computer program, CAPWAP was used to compute the pile
capacity in later stage based on the recorded data.
For static load test, kentledge reaction system was used. The load is applied through a
hydraulic jack resting on the kentledge girder. The applied load was measured by load cell. The
load is applied in a series of vertical downward incremental each increment being of about 20
percent of safe load on the pile. Settlement on top of the pile was be recorded with four dial
gauges, each positioned at equal distance around the piles and normally held by datum bars
resting on immovable supports at a distance of three time pile diameter from the edge of the piles.
Test pile1 was cast-in-situ of 1.5 m diameter and 42 m long from ground surface, Test Pile 2
was cat-in-situ of 1m diameter and 25.5 m long form ground surface and Test Pile 3 was 1.5m
diameter, 35.2 m long from ground surface. Typical load test arrangement for dynamic and static
load test is seen in Figure 4 and 5 respectively.
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. M 1909

Figure 4: Dynamic load test at site Figure 5: Static load test at site

DISCUSSIONS AND RESULTS

Dynamic load test is commonly carried out as an alternative to ordinary static load test owing
to high cost and time consuming of the static load test. Also, pile integrity assessment is an
additional advantage of dynamic load test.
Test Pile 1: Load settlement response of top of the pile measured by dynamic and static pile
tests are plotted in Figure 6. Figure 7 and 8 shows the vertical load and unit friction measured by
the dynamic load test along the pile length. Form the Figure 5, it is seen that, at the initial stage of
load (i.e. upto 0.75 times design load), the settlement measured from static load test is consistent
with settlement predicted by dynamic load test. As the test load increase, the settlement predicted
by dynamic load test is quite less than the settlement measured from static load test.
Test Pile 2: Figure 9 shows the load settlement response of pile top measured by dynamic and
static pile tests. Similar to test pie 1, here also settlement measured by dynamic and static load
tests is consistent only for smaller load i.e. upto 0.5 times design load. Vertical load and unit
friction measured along the pile length by the dynamic load test were presented in Figure 10 and
11.
Test Pile 3: Load settlement graph is plotted for static and dynamic load test for pile 3 in
Figure 12. Test pile 3 was design for 4600 kN load carrying capacity. Form the Figure 12, is
observed that static and dynamic load test correlate well upto 1.3 times design load. Berserker et
al. (2011) reported that the static and dynamic load tests are well compare upto 1.5 times the
design load. Figure 13 and 14 presents the vertical load on the top of the pile and unit friction
measured through dynamic load test.
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. M 1910

Load (kN)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0

5
Settlement (mm)

10

15

20

25
Dynamic load test Static load test
Figure 6: Load settlement behaviour of Test Pile 1

Load (kN) Unit friction (kPa)

0 25 50 75 100
0 2500 5000 7500 10000
0
0

5
5

10
10

15 15
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40

45 45
Figure 7: Load distribution along the length of Figure 8: Unit friction along the length of
Test Pile 1 Test Pile 1
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. M 1911

Load (kN)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0

4
Settlement (mm)

10

12

14

16
Dynamic load test Static load test
Figure 9: Load settlement behaviour of Test Pile 2

Load (kN) Unit friction (kPa)

0 2500 5000 7500 10000 0 100 200 300 400
0 0

5 5

10 10
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

15 15

20 20

25 25

30 30
Figure 10: Load distribution along the length Figure 11: Unit friction along the length of Test
of Test Pile 2 Pile 2
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. M 1912

Likins et al. (2000) reported that the shaft friction could be fully mobilized if the penetration
of pile after each impact is more than 2.5 mm. The pile capacity derived from dynamic load test
for both projects could be underestimated due to very low penetration of piles after each impact.

Load (kN)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
1
2
Settlement (mm)

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Dynamic load test Static load test
Figure 12: Load settlement behaviour of Test Pile 3

Load (kN) Unit friction (kPa)

1500 4000 6500 9000 11500 0 20 40 60 80
0 0

5
5
10
10
15
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

15 20

25
20
30
25
35

30 40
Figure 13: Load distribution along the length Figure 14: Unit friction along the length of
of Test Pile 3 Test Pile 3
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. M 1913

CONCLUSIONS
This paper discusses the reliability of dynamic tests by comparing the results of dynamic and
static tests on piles from the same site. The following conclusions can be drawn.

 The load settlement behaviour of piles show good agreement with the static load test
when the test load is low. When the test load increase, the dynamic load test may
underestimate the settlement.
 Dynamic load test could play an important role for predicting the pile capacity and pile
integrity provided proper care should be taken in comparison.
 Dynamic load test could be cost effective and also less time consuming for larger
diameter bored pile as compare to static load test.
 From the present study, it is suggested that dynamic test should be calibrated by at least
one static load test for a given project.

REFERENCES
1. Basarkar, S.S., Manish, K. and Vaidya, R. (2011) “High Strain Dynamic Pile Testing
Practices in India-Favourable Situations and Correlation Studies,” Proceedings of
Indian Geotechnical Conference, Kochi, India, 1039-1042.
2. Davisson, M. T. (1991). “Reliability of Pile Prediction Methods,” Proceedings of
Deep Foundation Institute Conference, Chicago.
3. Gue, S. S. and Chen, C.S. (1998) “A Comparison of Dynamic and Static Load Tests
on Reinforced Concrete Driven Pile,” Proceedings of the 13th Southeast Asian
Geotechnical Conference, Taipei, Taiwan, 497-501.
4. Hussein, M., Likins, G. and Rausche, F. (1996) “Selection of a Hammer for High-
Strain Dynamic Testing of Cast-in-Place Shafts,” Proceedings of Fifth International
Conference on the Applications of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles, Orlando, Florida,
USA.
5. Liew, S. S., Ng, H. B. & Lee, K. K. (2004) “Comparison of High Strain Dynamic
Pile Test Results, Pile Designs and Static Load Test Results of Driven Concrete Pile
at Residual Soils in Malaysia,” Malaysian Geotechnical Conference, Sheraton
Subang, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.
6. Likins, G. Rausche, F. And Goble, G. (2000) “High Strain Dynamic Pile Testing,
Equipment and Practice,” Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the
Application of Stress-wave Theory to Piles, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
7. Long, M. (2007), “Comparing Dynamic and Static Test Results of Bored Piles,”
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Engineering 160, Issue
GE1, 43-49.
8. Nayak, N. V., Kanhere, D.K. and Vaidya, R. (2000) “Static and High Strain Dynamic
Test Co-relation Studies on Cast-in-situ Concrete Bored Piles,” Proceedings of Deep
Foundation Institute 2000, New York, USA.
9. Rausche, F., Goble, G. and Likins, G. (1985) “Dynamic Determination of Pile
Capacity,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 111 (3), 367-383.
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. M 1914

10. Uddin, M. K. and Tungsanga, K. (2001) “Dynamic Pile Testing and its Correlation
with Static Load Test,” journal of Civil Engineering, The Institution of Engineers,
Bangladesh, 29 (1), 2001.
11. Vaidya, R. (2006) “Introduction to high strain Dynamic Pile Testing and Reliability
Studies in Southern India,” Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference, Chennai,
India, 901-904.

© 2012 ejge

View publication stats