Professional Documents
Culture Documents
326 Cribsheet
326 Cribsheet
The spreadsheets are protected, but for a few cells, These are not locked because they are intended for user's
input. The not-protected cells have blue bold text and are shaded in yellow. No passward is used so the User is free to
unprotect the sheets. The following presents the background to the spreadsheets and explains how to use each sheet.
As evidenced in many geotechnical reports and publications, the use of common classifications of
strength and density of soil and rock are often vague and, sometimes, even incorrect. The first
spreadsheet is intended for a "look-up" reference to a few primary classifications. Clay and rock are
considered cohesive material and have strength expressed in unit force—stress. Coarse-grained soil
(sand, gravel, etc.) are not classified by strength, but by density, and, sometimes, by compressibility, the
denser the soil, the less compressible it is (see Section 2).
Characterizing soil compressibility by the Janbu modulus number, although mathematically equal to the
Cc-e0 and E-modulus approaches, is very advantageous because the modulus number characterizes the soil
compressibility in a single, whole number ranging from the softest, most compressible soil, to the densest, least
compressible soil. In contrast, characterizing compressibility conventionally by the two independent
parameters Cc and e0 turns the characterization into a difficult juggling act.
The sheet includes a table copied from the Red Book (Fellenius 2012) containing typical and normally conservative
modulus numbers. The numbers are intended for reference only. Below that table is a comparison tables that offers
direct the conversion to "m" from the "Cc- e0" and vice versa. The additional information consists of excerpts from
the Red Book. My web site has a template for calculation of lab test results: "229 Compressibility&ModulusNumber.xls".
Frequently, when pursuing geotechnical calculations, one needs a quick means to determine a soil density
value from knowing the water content, or from knowing the water content and density to determine the
degree of saturation, or from knowing the density to determine the void ratio. The spreadsheet lists the
phase system relations applicable to the calculations and displays three slightly different ways (I through IV)
for doing the phase calculations. The user can choose between either a sheet in SI-units or in English units.
Each version also shows the values converted to the other system of units. The sheets are a development
of UniSoft's former UniPhase program.
The UniSettle and UniPile software require the input of density and void ratio and the sheet simplifies the
calculation when one or the other is not directly known, saving the time to look it up.
The "TRUE" or "FALSE" cells show whether the calculated Degree of Saturation, S, is less or more than 100%.
Unrealistic input can result a calculated "S" larger than 100 %, which is an unrealistic state.
4. Fit to Loading Test Load-movement Results - kN
Ideally, the pile-head load-movement curve measured in a static loading test should turn to a continuing
movement for no increase of load, i.e., a plastic response defining the pile capacity of the test. Or even
more obvious, the curve should reach a peak value from which the load reduces with further movement.
In most actual cases, however, the load movement curve keeps increasing for increasing load. As the
foundation design based on the results of the static loading test requires deriving a capacity value from the
test results, several definitions on capacity determined from the load-movement curve have developed.
Some persons define the capacity at the applied load when the pile head movement equals 10% of the
pile diameter. This definition is not useful other than for very small pile diameters. It originates in a
misquote of Terzaghi's 1942 recommendation that capacity should not be evaluated before the pile toe has
moved 10% of the pile toe diameter. Because the maximum pile toe movement in most static loading tests
is usually no more than about 0.25 to 0.5 inch, that is, rarely more than about 15 mm, most of the times,
the mis-applied quote is not suitable.
The sheet called Fit to Loading Test - kN, enables a user to input the load movement data from a static
loading test and to fit these data to seven analysis methods: the Chin-Kondner and the Decourt hyperbolic plots,
and the Hansen 80-% method, as well as the Ratio, Vander Veen (Exponential), Zhang, and Vijayvergiya methods.
The first three provides the means for determining a capacity from the fitted curve. The sheet also provides a means
to determine the Davison Offset Limit, usually a conservative value.
For each fitting method, two or three values are input as indicated by the blue bold, yellow-shaded text.
The input values determine best fit of the theoretical curve to the test actual curve. The user selects the
input guided by the graphs for each method.
The example test data are from an actual test that reached plunging mode failure. For such a test response,
there is little need for evaluating the capacity by any of the methods. However, where no "failure" value
is obvious by eye-balling the load-movement curve, one or other of the methods will be useful.
The sheet is protected, but all graphs can be adjusted as to scale and format. Moreover, the protection
has no password, so the user is free to unprotect and change any and everything. Before doing so
however, make a back up of the sheet, so the original template copy can be restored if need be.
Sometimes results from a static loading test have been normalized to a perceived "capacity" assigned a
value of 100 %. The sheet named "Fit to Loading Test - %" is prepared to let the user fit the set of theoretical curves
to the actual test data normalized to 100 % of the "perceived "capacity".
Note, in using the Chin-Kondner (hyperbolic curve) t-z/q-z functions in UniPile, the assumed "target" resistance
is the 100-% value as input for the soil layers. The inverse of the C 1-value is the load at ultimate (infinite) movement.
When using the Hansen function in fitting to results of a static loading test, it is often useful to change the input
ultimate shaft resistance to a value of 125 % of the considered shaft shear and assign it (it becomes the "new"
100-% value) to occur at a movement four times larger than the movement actually expected for the shaft shear. The
original ultimate shaft shear is 80 % of the boosted shaft shear and it occurs at a quarter of the input movement.
Note, the t-z functions used for simulating theshaft shear response of the individual pile elements are not the same
as the t-s function that would fit the results of a simulation of the total shaft load-movement.
For additional comments on the use of t-z and q-z functions in evaluating the results of a static loading test,
see the "Red Book" Chapter 8, Section 11.
6. CPTu Soil Charts
When preparing the input for the soil layering, of course, a soil boring log is indispensable. When the
boring log is combined with the records of a CPTu sounding, the value of the information is greatly enhanced,
because the CPTu records provide the numerical values that can be used either directly or assist in choosing
the effective stress parameters. Moreover, the CPTu profile helps in detailing the soil layer delineation.
The 7th sheet is intended to assist with the latter process. It is prepared for input of CPTu data
consisting of depth, cone stress, sleeve friction, and U2 pore pressure and it is assumed that the data are
available in a text file and can be clipped and pasted into the template. The SI-units for this input are
MPa for the cone stress and kPa for the other three. Thus, if the data are in these units, no conversion is
necessary for the processing prepared in the sheet. If the data are in other units, the appropriate
conversions must be added to cells D9 through G9.
The cone data are plotted in three types of classification charts: the Eslami-Fellenius (1997), the Robertson
and Campanella (1986), and the Robertson (1990) charts. The records shown in the sheet template are from an
actual cone sounding. However, data from three intermediate depths, where the soil type gradually changed from
one type to the next, have been removed to more clearly show the differences between the soil layers.
It is an enjoyable exercise to compare the soil types determined from a set of cone data plotted in the three
graphs to each other and to the soil boring descriptions.
The user can overwrite the input columns (the four left-most columns) with own data and also add rows
as needed to see the data plotted in the charts and profile diagrams.
The sheet is protected, but all graphs can be adjusted as to scale and format. Moreover, the protection
has no password, so the user is free to unprotect and change any and everything. Before doing so
however, make a back up of the sheet, so the original template can be restored if need be.
---------------------------------------------
Fellenius, B.H., 2013. Crib Sheet for use with UniPile and UniSettle. Report to UniSoft Ltd. (www.Fellenius.net).
CLASSIFICATIONS
Quasi
Clay Strength SPT Sand SPT Bedrock Strength
τu N N
(KPa) (bl/ft) (bl/ft) (MPa)
Very Soft < 12 <2 Very Loose <4 Extremely Weak <1
Soft 12 - 25 2-4 Loose 4 - 10 Very Weak 1 - 5
Firm 25 - 50 4- 8 Compact 10 -30 Weak 5 - 25
Stiff 50 -100 8 - 15 Dense 30 -50 Medium Strong 25 - 50
Very Stiff 100 - 200 15 - 30 Very Dense > 50 Strong 50 - 100
Hard > 200 > 30 Very Strong 100 - 250
Extremely Strong >250
Quasi
Clay Strength SPT Sand SPT Bedrock Strength
τu N N
(psf) *)
(bl/ft) (bl/ft) (ksf)*)
Very Soft < 250 <2 Very Loose <4 Extremely Weak < 20
Soft 250 - 500 2-4 Loose 4 - 10 Very Weak 20 - 100
Firm 500 - 1,000 4- 8 Compact 10 -30 Weak 100 - 500
Stiff 1,000 -2,000 8 - 15 Dense 30 -50 Medium Strong 500 - 1,000
Very Stiff 2,000 - 4,000 15 - 30 Very Dense > 50 Strong 1,000 - 2,000
Hard > 4,000 > 30 Very Strong 2,000 - 5,000
Extremely Strong >5,000
*)
Conversions are "soft" *)
Conversions are "soft"
CPT, qt Clay CPT, qt For sand
Relative
(MPa) Strength (MPa) Density
*)
Conversions are "soft" and made for reference only.
In practice, only SI-units are used in determining
strength and density from CPT/CPTu soundings.
I e0 = 1.24 II
Cc = 0.31 m= 17 m= 70
Cr = 0.028 mr = 180 E (kPa) = 7,000
PARAMETER Value
Degree of Saturation, S 90
Saturated Soil Density, rSAT
e s 1 1,959
d 0.43
Porosity, n
When matching tables I thr
d
SAT ( s e w ) d w (1 d / s ) Water Density, rw
w
62.43 S
s
Soil Solid Density, rs 167
w Water Content, w w
d n 25
n 1
s Total Density, rt 120
w s d w
S s Void Ratio, e 0.742
w s d e w
Degree of Saturation, S 90
(--) Porosity, n (--)
en matching tables I through IV, differences in output's last digit are due to the input being without decimals and outpu
S
Water Density, r
pcf w 62.43 pcf
due to the input being without decimals and output decimals are not shown
Value Units
1,000 kg/m3
2,670 kg/m3
25.0 (%)
1,533 kg/m3
1,916 kg/m3
0.742 (--)
90 (%)
1,959 kg/m3
0.43 (--)
62.43 pcf
167 pcf
25 (%)
96 pcf
120 pcf
0.74 (--)
90 (%)
122 pcf
0.43 (--)
..
UniPhase for Excel I 1
PARAMETER Value
90
Degree of Saturation, S
e s 1 Saturated Soil Density, rSAT 123
d 0.43
Porosity, n
d
SAT ( s e w ) d w (1 d / s ) When matching tables I thr
s
Water Density, rw
w
1,000 S
d
w n 1 Soil Solid Density, r s 2,675
w
s Water Content, w n 25
t
d Void Ratio, e 0.740
1 w
Degree of Saturation, S 90
Porosity, n 0.43
II
(--) Porosity, n (--)
en matching tables I through IV, differences in output's last digit are due to the input being without decimals and outpu
S
Water Density, r
kg/m3 w 1,000 kg/m3
due to the input being without decimals and output decimals are not shown
Saturated Soil Density, rSAT 1,960 kg/m3 Saturated Soil Density, rSAT
Value Units
62.43 pcf
167 pcf
25 (%)
96 pcf
120 pcf
0.736 (--)
6 pcf
122 pcf
0.42 (--)
1,000 kg/m3
2,670 kg/m3
25 (%)
1,538 (--)
1,922 kg/m3
0.736 (%)
(--)
6 (%)
1,962 kg/m3
0.42 (--)
..
ACTUAL TEST DATA
LOAD, Q MVMNT, δ
(KN)
133
267
400
534
0
(mm)
Measured
0.00
0.13
0.44
0.84
1.27
CHIN
(kN)
409
618
767
--------------------------- FITTED CURVES ---------------------------
DECOURT HANSEN
LOAD, Q LOAD, Q LOAD, Q LOAD, Q LOAD, Q
(kN)
507
728
874
(kN)
210
384
520
630
Ratio
(kN)
436
595
697
774
(
Zhang
(kN)
73
231
395
541
(kN)
--------------------------------- Calculated Loads -------------------------------
149 197 57
186
331
469
Exponential Vijayvergiya
LOAD, Q LOAD, Q
(kN)
173
321
441
544
667 1.81 891 988 736 845 686 616 649
801 2.49 996 1,079 842 916 827 768 762
934 3.48 1,092 1,160 959 996 972 935 900
1,068 4.72 1,167 1,220 1,070 1,075 1,093 1,081 1,048
1,201 6.40 1,228 1,268 1,178 1,160 1,195 1,204 1,221
1,334 11.22 1,312 1,332 1,348 1,334 1,321 1,336 1,616
1,370 20.63 1,369 1,374 1,445 1,554 1,374 1,369 2,191
1,400 37.00 1,401 1,397 1,418 1,798 1,379 1,370 2,934
2,500
LOAD (kN)
2,000
1,500
Chin-
Kondner
Decourt
1,000
Ratio
Exponental
Hansen
Zhang
Vijayvergiya
500
Offset Limit
Line
ACTUAL
TEST
0
Hansen
Zhang
Vijayvergiya
500
Offset Limit
Line
ACTUAL
TEST
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
MOVEMENT (mm)
Q
C1 C 2
/ X
0.13
0.44
0.84
From Test
MVMNT, δ δ/Q
Y
0.001
0.002
0.002
Q
Decourt Hyperbo
C 2
1 C1
1 Q C1 2.49
3.48
0.003
0.004
Qu = peak load or ultimate
du = movement at the pea
From Graph Below 4.72 0.004 C1 = slope of the straight
Slope, C1 = 0.000693 6.40 0.005 movement diagram
Intercept, C2 = 0.000775 11.22 0.008 C2 = y-intercept of the str
1/C1 = Qu = 1,443 20.63 0.015 movement diagram
37.00 0.026
Q = any applied load
δ = the movement associated with Load Q Slope, C1 =
Qu = peak load or ultimate load y-Intercept, C2 =
C1 = slope of the straight line in the δ/Q versus movement diagram x-Intercept, C3 = Qu =
C2 = y-intercept of the straight line in the δ/Q versus movement diagram
MOVEMENT/LOAD
LOAD/MOVEMENT
0.0300 1,200
0.0200 800
0.0150 600
0.0100 400
Load-Mvmnt
For trend
0.0050 Linear (For trend) 200
Linear (For trend)
0.0000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
400
Load-Mvmnt
For trend
0.0050 Linear (For trend) 200
Linear (For trend)
0.0000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
MOVEMENT
Chin, F.K., 1971. Discussion on pile test. Arkansas River project. ASCE Decourt, L., 1999. Behavior of fo
Journal for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 97(SM6) 930-932. 11th Pan-American Conference o
Foz DoIguassu, Brazil, August 19
d; change to suit
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
ACTUAL
Chin-
600 Kondner
Decourt
400 Offset Limit
Line
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
MOVEMENT (mm)
/
Decourt Hyperbolic plot
1,039
603
478
421
Y
Q
Hansen 80 % plot
C1 C2
1,200
5.000E-03
1,000
4.500E-03
f(x) = 7.299552783476
800 4.000E-03 R² = 0.993582956713
3.500E-03
600 3.000E-03
Load-Mvmnt 2.500E-03
For trend
400 Linear (For 2.000E-03
trend)
1.500E-03
200 1.000E-03
5.000E-04
f(x) = − 1.24454205327169 x + 1777.13508282104
0 R² = 0.985865627347308 0.000E+00
0 5 10 15 2
400
trend)
1.500E-03
200 1.000E-03
5.000E-04
f(x) = − 1.24454205327169 x + 1777.13508282104
0 R² = 0.985865627347308 0.000E+00
0 5 10 15 2
LOAD MOVE
L., 1999. Behavior of foundations under working load conditions. Proc. of Hansen, J.B., 1963. Discussion on hyperbolic stress-s
American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE Journal for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Eng
uassu, Brazil, August 1999, Vol. 4, pp. 453 488.
1,600
LOAD (KN)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
ACTUAL
Chin- 600
Kondner
Decourt 400
Offset Limit
Line 200
0
0 5 10 15 20
5 30 35 40
MOVEMEN
m)
From Test Ratio
MVMNT, δ √δ/Q
C2 1/
u
rg C1
X Y
)
n
Qu
1 Qn QS
2 C1C 2 0.13
0.44
2.685E-03
2.493E-03
S
0.84 2.285E-03 Qn = Resistance "n" or Qtrg
From Graph Below 1.27 2.110E-03 Qz = Resistance "z"
0.000070 1.81 2.015E-03 d1 = movement mobilized at Qn or δtrg
0.0017 C2 C1u 2.49 1.972E-03 dz = movement mobilized at Qz
1,449 3.48 1.996E-03 ϴ = an exponent; 0 ≤ ϴ ≤ 1
24.29 4.72 2.035E-03
1,160 6.40 2.107E-03
6.07 11.22 2.510E-03
20.63 3.315E-03 Point selected to fit
37.00 4.345E-03 the below graph to
the measured curve
δS = 11.2214
ement associated with Load Q QS = 1,334
ad or ultimate load; can be considered = Q trg
ent at the peak load; can be considered = δ trg
the straight line in the √δ/Q versus movement diagram
ept of the straight line in the √δ/Q versus movement diagram
2,000
1,800
LOAD (KN)
3 1,600
3 1,400
f(x) = 7.29955278347612E-05 x + 0.001695951100799
3 R² = 0.993582956713164
1,200
3
1,000
3
3
800
3 600
3 400
Load-Mvmnt t-z
3 For trend Ac
Linear (For 200
4 trend) Re
0
0 0 5 10 15 20 25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
MOVEMENT
3 400
Load-Mvmnt t-z
3 For trend Ac
Linear (For 200
4 trend) Re
0
0 0 5 10 15 20 25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
MOVEMENT MOVEMENT
ACTUAL
Hansen
Zhang
Output
Peak
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
MOVEMENT (mm)
From Test Vander Veen (Exponential ) From Test
MVMNT, δ LOAD, Q LOAD, Qn MVMNT, δ
1/ Y3
) X Y
Input Exponent ("ϴ") = 0.25 Q QQ
tr g (1 e b
) Coefficientt (b) =
X
1,600
LOAD (KN)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
t-z q-z Load-Mvmnt t-z q-z Load-Mvmnt
Actual Load-Mvmnt 200 Actual Load-Mvmn
Ref. point Ref. point
0
0 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
MOVEMENT
400
t-z q-z Load-Mvmnt t-z q-z Load-Mvmnt
Actual Load-Mvmnt 200 Actual Load-Mvmn
Ref. point Ref. point
0
0 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
MOVEMENT MOVEMENT
Van der Veen, C., 1953. The Bearing Capacity of a Pile. Proceedings of the
3rd ICSMFE, Zurich, Switzerland, August 16-27, Vol. 2, pp. 84-90.
From Test Zhang From Test
LOAD, Q LOAD, Qn MVMNT, δ
( a c )
Q
0.33
Y
Coefficientt (b) =
Y
Qn
t ( a b )rg
2 u
a
b 2c
X
1 a Qu
1
b 4(b c )
133 56.83 2Q u u 0.13
267 186.19 0.44
c 1 a
400 330.53
Q inf c 0.84
534 468.56 Qu b 2 4Q u u 1.27
667 615.50 1.81
801 768.06 2.49
934 935.01 3.48
1,068 1,081.32 Choose u, δu, and a to fit 4.72
1,201 1,204.30 Peak Load = Qu = 1,380 6.40
1,334 1,336.26 Movement at Peal Load = δu = 30.0 11.22
1,370 1,368.53 Coefficient a = 0.0017 20.63
1,400 1,370.04 37.00
"a" gives b= 0.00031 Qn = Resistance
and c= 0.00012 Qu = Resistance at Peak
Q
and inf (kN) = 1,333 d1 = movement mobilized at Qn or δtrg
(Qinf must always >0) du = movement mobilized at Peak force
a = main parameter
b and c = parameters that are functions of "a"
Qinf = resistance at infinite movement (δ = ∞)
1,600
LOAD (KN)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
t-z q-z Load-
t-z q-z Load-Mvmnt
Mvmnt
Actual Load-Mvmnt 200 Actual Load-
Ref. point Mvmnt
0
25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
400
t-z q-z Load-
t-z q-z Load-Mvmnt
Mvmnt
Actual Load-Mvmnt 200 Actual Load-
Ref. point Mvmnt
0
25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
NT MOVEMENT
e. Proceedings of the Zhang Q.Q. and Zhang, Z.M., 2012. Simplified non-linear approach for single pile
settlement analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 49(11) 1256-1266.
Per
From Test Equation Vijayvergyia From Test
LOAD, Q LOAD, Qn MVMNT, δ
Y Y X
g
Q VQ trg N
133 73
trg trg 0.13
267 231
1 Q 0.44
400
534
395
541
trg 0.84
1.27
667 686 C Qtrg 1.81
801 827 2.49
934 972 Choose Qtrg, δtrg, and C to fit 3.48
1,068 1,093 Qtrg = 1,370 4.72
1,201 1,195 δtrg = 20.6 6.40
1,334 1,321 V = 1.60 11.22
1,370 1,374 N = 1.00 20.63
1,400 1,379 37.00
Q = any applied load
δ = the movement associated with Load Q
t mobilized at Qn or δtrg Qtrg = target load
mobilized at Peak force δtrg = target movement (associated with Qtrg
V = coefficient; > 0
that are functions of "a" N = coefficient; > 0, usually = 1
at infinite movement (δ = ∞)
3,500
LOAD (KN)
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
t-z q-z Load- t-z q-z Load-
Mvmnt Mvmnt
500
Actual Load- Actual load-
Mvmnt Mvmnt
0
25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
1,000
t-z q-z Load- t-z q-z Load-
Mvmnt Mvmnt
500
Actual Load- Actual load-
Mvmnt Mvmnt
0
25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
MOVEMENT
proach for single pile Vijayvergiya, V.N., 1977. Load-movement characteristics of piles. Ports '77: 4th Annual Symposium
) 1256-1266. of the Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Division, ASCE, Los Angeles, 269-284. (As cited by:
Bohn, C., Lopes dos Santos, A., and Frank R., 2016. Development of axial pile load transfer curves
based o instrumented load tests. ASCE J. of Geotechnical and Geoenviron. Engng. 15 p.
Per
From Test Equation
LOAD, Q LOAD, Qn
Y Y
133 173
267 321
400 441
534 544
667 649
801 762
934 900
1,068 1,048
1,201 1,221
1,334 1,616
1,370 2,191
1,400 2,934
30 35 40
t-z q-z Load-
Mvmnt
Actual load-
Mvmnt
30 35 40
(%)
0
10
20
29
39
(mm)
Measured
0.00
0.13
0.44
0.84
1.27
CHIN
26
40
51
9
DECOURT HANSEN
LOAD, Q MVMNT, δ LOAD, Q LOAD, Q LOAD, Q LOAD, Q LOAD, Q
(%) (%)
15
38
54
65
(%)
15
28
38
46
Ratio
(%) (
32
44
51
57
Zhang
(%)
5
16
28
39
(%)
--------------------------- FITTED CURVES ---------------------------
Expnential Vijayvergiya
LOAD, Q LOAD, Q
0
13
23
32
39
49 1.81 61 73 54 62 49 45 47
59 2.49 69 79 62 67 60 56 55
68 3.48 76 84 70 73 71 68 65
78 4.72 83 88 78 79 80 79 75
88 6.40 88 92 86 85 87 88 87
98 11.22 95 96 98 98 96 98 114
100 20.63 100 99 104 114 100 100 152
103 37.00 103 100 101 132 100 100 200
250
LOAD (%)
200
150
Chin-
Kondner
Decourt
100 Hansen
Ratio
Exponential
50 Zhang
Vijayvergia
ACTUAL
TEST
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
MOVEMENT (mm)
50
Vijayvergia
ACTUAL
TEST
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
MOVEMENT (mm)
(
Q
Chin-Kondner Hyperbolic plot
/
C 1 C 2 tr
Q C2
1 Q C1
Q
g C 2
1 C1
MVMNT, δ
X
0.13
0.44
0.84
1.27
From Test
δ/Q
Y
0.013
0.023
0.029
0.032
Decourt Hyperbol
LOAD/MOVEMENT
80
0.4000
70
0.3500 f(x) = 0.009372510297461 x + 0.01292521556168
R² = 0.999631931447042 60
0.3000
50
0.2500
40
0.2000
30
0.1500
20
0.1000
Load-Mvmnt
For trend 10
0.0500
Linear (For trend) f(
Linear (For trend) R
0.0000 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0
20
0.1000
Load-Mvmnt
For trend 10
0.0500
Linear (For trend) f(
Linear (For trend) R
0.0000 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0
MOVEMENT
Chin, F.K., 1971. Discussion on pile test. Arkansas River project. ASCE Decourt, L., 1999. Behavior of fo
Journal for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 97(SM6) 930-932. 11th Pan-American Conference o
120
LOAD (%)
100
80
60
40
ACTUAL
Chin-
20 Kondner
Decourt
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
MOVEMENT (mm)
/
Decourt Hyperbolic plot
C 2
1 C1
g
LOAD, Q
X
t
Q
10
20
29
39
From Test
rg
C1 C2
Q/δ
76
44
35
31
Y
Hansen 80 % plot
103 3
From Graph Below Q = any applied load
Slope, C1 = -1.35 (Range is too narrow for a good fit) δ = the movement associated with Load Q
y-Intercept, C2 = 138 Qu = peak load or ultimate load; can be considere
x-Intercept, C3 = Qu = 102 extrapolated: 102 0 du = movement at the peak load; can be consider
= peak load or ultimate load; can be considered = Q trg C1 = slope of the straight line in the √δ/Q versus m
C2 = y-intercept of the straight line in the √δ/Q ve
√(M O V E M E N T )/L O A D
LOAD/MOVEMENT
80
70 7.000E-02
60 6.000E-02
f(x) = 0.000996388954
R² = 0.993582956713
50 5.000E-02
40 4.000E-02
Load-Mvmnt
30 For trend 3.000E-02
Linear (For trend)
20 2.000E-02
10 1.000E-02
f(x) = − 1.24454205327169 x + 130.193046360516
R² = 0.985865627347308
0 0.000E+00
0 50 100 150 0 5 10 15 20
Linear (For trend)
20 2.000E-02
10 1.000E-02
f(x) = − 1.24454205327169 x + 130.193046360516
R² = 0.985865627347308
0 0.000E+00
0 50 100 150 0 5 10 15 20
LOAD MOVEME
L., 1999. Behavior of foundations under working load conditions. Proc. of Hansen, J.B., 1963. Discussion on hyperbolic stress-stra
American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE Journal for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engine
120
LOAD (%)
100
80
60
40
ACTUAL
Chin-
Kondner 20
Decourt
0
25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15
mm) MOVE
From Test Ratio
MVMNT, δ √δ/Q
1 / 3
C2 1 /
rg
X Y
)
Qn Q z n
u
C1
1 z
Qu
0.13 3.665E-02
2 C1C 2 Qn
0.44 3.403E-02 = Resistance "n" or Qtrg
From Graph Below 0.84 3.119E-02 Qz = Resistance "z"
0.000996 1.27 2.880E-02 d1 = movement mobilized at Qn or δtrg
0.023150 C2 C1u 1.81 2.751E-02 dz = movement mobilized at Qz
104 2.49 2.691E-02 ϴ = an exponent; 0 ≤ ϴ ≤ 1
23.24 3.48 2.725E-02
83 4.72 2.778E-02
5.81 6.40 2.876E-02
100 11.22 3.427E-02
-0.2 20.63 4.525E-02 Point selected to fit
37.00 5.931E-02 the below graph to
the measured curve
ement associated with Load Q QS = 97.76
ad or ultimate load; can be considered = Q trg δS = 11.22
ent at the peak load; can be considered = δ trg
the straight line in the √δ/Q versus movement diagram
ept of the straight line in the √δ/Q versus movement diagram
150
LOAD (%)
125
2
2 100
f(x) = 0.000996388954944 x + 0.023149732525911
R² = 0.993582956713164
2
75
2
2 50 t-z
Loa
Mv
2
Load-Mvmnt 25 Act
2
For trend Loa
Linear (For trend) Mv
0
0 0 5 10 15 20 25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
MOVEMENT
Loa
Mv
2
Load-Mvmnt 25 Act
2
For trend Loa
Linear (For trend) Mv
0
0 0 5 10 15 20 25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
MOVEMENT MOVEMENT
120
100
80
60
40
ACTUAL
Hansen
20
Zhang
Output Peak
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
MOVEMENT (mm)
From Test Vander Veen (Exponential ) From Test
MVMNT, δ LOAD, Q LOAD, Qn MVMNT, δ
3
1/ 3
)X Y Y
b
Exponent, ϴ Q
0.25 Q QtrQ
g (1 e )
X
Coefficient (b) =
t
0.13 10 32 0.13
0.44 20 44 Q = any resistance 0.44
0.84 29 51 d = the movement associated with Q 0.84
zed at Qn or δtrg 1.27 39 57 Qtrg = target resistance 1.27
1.81 49 62 b = an exponent; > 0 1.81
2.49 59 67 2.49
3.48 68 73 3.48
4.72 78 79 4.72
6.40 88 85 6.40
11.22 98 98 11.22
20.63 100 114 Point selected to fit 20.63
37.00 103 132 the below graph to 37.00
the measured curve
QS = 100.37
δS = 20.63
120
LOAD (KN)
100
80
60
t-z q-z 40
Load- t-z q-z Load-
Mvmnt Mvmnt
Actual 20 Actual Load-
Load- Mvmnt
Mvmnt
0
0 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 4
MOVEMENT
Load- t-z q-z Load-
Mvmnt Mvmnt
Actual 20 Actual Load-
Load- Mvmnt
Mvmnt
0
0 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 4
MOVEMENT MOVEMENT
Van der Veen, C., 1953. The Bearing Capacity of a Pile. Proceedings of the
3rd ICSMFE, Zurich, Switzerland, August 16-27, Vol. 2, pp. 84-90.
From Test Zhang From Test
LOAD, Q LOAD, Qn MVMNT, δ LOAD, Q
Q ( a c )
a
Y Y
Q
Qt r b 2c g
Coefficient (b) = 0.33 u
( a b )
tr2 g
1
Qu
4(b c )
10 4.16 1 a 0.13 10
20 13.64 b 1 a 0.44 20
2Q u u c
29 24.21 4Qu u 0.84 29
39 34.33 1.27 39
c
49 45.09 rinf 1.81 49
59 56.27 ru b 2 2.49 59
68 68.50 3.48 68
78 79.22 Choose Qu, δu, and a to fit 4.72 78
88 88.23 Qu = 100 6.40 88
98 97.89 δu = 25 11.22 98
100 100.26 Coefficient a = 0.0240 20.63 100
103 100.37 37.00 103
"a" gives: b= 0.00404 Qn = Resistance
and c= 0.00154 Qu = Resistance at Peak
and rinf =94 d1 = movement mobilized at Qn or δtrg
(Qinf must always >0) du = movement mobilized at Peak force
a = main parameter
b and c = parameters that are functions of "a"
Qinf = resistance at infinite movement (δ = ∞)
120
LOAD (KN)
100
80
60
40
t-z q-z Load- t-z q-z Load-
Mvmnt Mvmnt
Actual Load- 20 Actual Load-
Mvmnt Mvmnt
Ref. point (Peak)
0
25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
t-z q-z Load-
Mvmnt Mvmnt
Actual Load- 20 Actual Load-
Mvmnt Mvmnt
Ref. point (Peak)
0
25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
NT MOVEMENT
Pile. Proceedings of the Zhang Q.Q. and Zhang, Z.M., 2012. Simplified non-linear approach for single pile
2, pp. 84-90. settlement analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 49(11) 1256-1266.
Vijayvergiya From Test
LOAD, Qn MVMNT, δ
Y X
g
g
Q VQ trg N
5
trg trg 0.13
16
1 Q 0.44
28
trg 0.84
39
49
C Q trg 1.27
1.81
60 2.49
71 Choose u, δu, and a to fit 3.48
80 Qu = 103 4.72
87 δu = 20.0 6.40
96 V= 1.6 11.22
100 N= 9.0 20.63
100 37.00
Q = any applied load
δ = the movement associated with Load Q
ized at Qn or δtrg Qtrg = target load
zed at Peak force δtrg = target movement (associated with Qtrg
V = coefficient; > 0
e functions of "a" N = coefficient; > 0; usually = 1
te movement (δ = ∞)
250
LOAD (KN)
200
150
100
-z Load-
mnt
50
t-z q-z Load-Mvmnt
ual Load-
mnt Actual Load-Mvmnt
point (Peak) Ref. point
0
0 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
mnt
50
t-z q-z Load-Mvmnt
ual Load-
mnt Actual Load-Mvmnt
point (Peak) Ref. point
0
0 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
MOVEMENT
Vijayvergiya, V.N., 1977. Load-movement characteristics of piles. Ports '77: 4th Annual Symposium
of the Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Division, ASCE, Los Angeles, 269-284. (As cited by:
Bohn, C., Lopes dos Santos, A., and Frank R., 2016. Development of axial pile load transfer curves
based on instrumented load tests. ASCE J. of Geotechnical and Geoenviron. Engng. 15 p.
Per
From Test Equation
LOAD, Q LOAD, Qn
Y Y
10 13
20 23
29 32
39 39
49 47
59 55
68 65
78 75
88 87
98 114
100 152
103 200
z Load-Mvmnt
al Load-Mvmnt
point
30 35 40
z Load-Mvmnt
al Load-Mvmnt
point
30 35 40
GW depth, 4
U2 Rf U0 Robertson Normalization
Pore Friction Total Effective Norm Norm
Pressure Ratio Static Stress Stress Cone Rf
kPa % kPa kPa kPa (- - -)
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.9 1.90 1.90 464.79 0.91
5
1 = Very Soft Clays, or
4b Sensitive or
Collapsible Soils
10.0 4 4a
2 = Clay and/or Silt
3 = Clayey Silt and/or
Silty Clay
3 4a = Sandy Silt
4b = Silty Sand
5 = Sand to Sandy Gravel
1.0
2
1
0.1
1 10 100 1,000
10.0
4b
4 4a
3
1.0
2
1
0.1
0 20 40 60 80 100
oft Clays, or 8
ive or 7
sible Soils
nd/or Silt 6
y Silt and/or 5
lay 10
y Silt 4 3
Sand
to Sandy Gravel
2
1
0.1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9
11
10.0
8
5
7
6
1.0 4
3
1
0.1
1 10 100 1,000
Sleeve Friction (kPa)
Cone Stress, qt (MPa)
10.0
ROBERTSON 1986 CHART
Cone Stress,
100.0
10.0
8
6
5
7
4
3
1.0
2
0.1
0 20 40 60 80 100
1 = Sensitive Fine-Grained
2 = Organic Soil
3 = Clay
4 = Clay to Silty Clay 100
3 5 = Silty Clay to Clayey Silt
6 = Clayey Silt to Sandy Silt
7 = Sandy Silt to Silty Sand
8 = Silty Sand to Sand
9 = Sand
10 = Sand to Gravely Sand 10
11 = Very Stiff Fine-Grained
12 = Overconsolidated or
Cemented Sand to 1
2 Clayey Sand
1
0.1 1.0
7 8
Normalized Friction R
N orm alized C o ne S tress
T 8
ROBERTSON 1990 C
12 100
5
6
11 80
60
40
1
20
0
0 2 4 6
1,000
Normalized Friction R
12
12
11
0 100
6 8 9 1. Sensitive, Fine-Grained
Soils
BERTSON 1990 CHART 2. Organic Soils and Peat
3. Clays [Clay to Silty Clay
4. Silt Mixtures [Silty Clay to
Clayey Silt]
5. Sand Mixtures [Sandy Silt
5 to Silty Sand]
6. Sand [Silty Sand to Clean
4 Sand]
7. Sand to Gravely sand
3 8. Sand/Clayey Sand to “very
stiff” sand
9. Very Stiff, Fine-Grained,
Overconsolidated or
Cemented Soil
2
1.0 10.0
2
2 4 6 8 10
Peat
Clay 5 5 5
Clay to
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
ndy Silt 10 10 10
Clean
15 15 15
nd
to “very
20 20 20
ned,
r
25 25 25
30 30 30
35 35 35
40 40 40
Pore Pressure (KPa) Friction Ratio, fR (%)
5 5
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
10 10
15 15
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
..