OTC 7381

Pile Load Tests in Dense Sand: Analysis of Static Test Results

K.A. A1-Shafei,Saudi Aramco; W,R. Cox, Consulting Engineer; and S.C. Helfrich,
The Converse Professional Group

Copyright 1994, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was presented at the 26th Annual OTC in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 2-5 May 1994

This paper wee se[acted for presentation by the OTC Program Committee following review of information centalned in an ebetract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
aa presented, have not been revlawad by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(a). The material, as presentad, does not necessarily reflact
any position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers, Permission to cepy Is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be cepied. The ebstrect
should contain cunsplcuous acknowlsdgmsnt of where and by whom the paper is presented.

ABSTRACT enough so that pile installation is usually a

difficult and uncertain task.
This paper describes test results from two
tension tests and one compression test on 0.61 - A range of hammer sizes and types have been
m-diameter steel-pipe piles driven to 18-m depth used to drive these piles. Most were single
in dense sand. This paper is a sequel to ‘rPile acting steam hammers with rated energies
Load Tests in Dense Sand: Planning, ranging from 54 KN-m to 700 KN-m. For a recent
Instrumentation, and Results, Paper 4847, OTC installation a hydraulic hammer with an energy of
(1985)”. The piles were fully instrumented with 1000 KN-m was used to drive the piles to design
strain gages along the pile walls. Shaft frictions penetrations.
and pile movements from the test are analyzed.
Results confirm that piles driven into dense One common difficulty of driving piles in the
sand of the Arabian Gulf can support loads that Arabian Gulf arises when piles reach a
are up to six times the design capacities penetration less than the design penetration and
calculated by industry-accepted procedures. can not be advanced any farther (refusal) due to
the presence of strong soil at the site. Another
problem occurs when the pile is driven to the
INTRODUCTION design penetration without developing a
significant capacity.
More than 1000 piles have been installed in the
Arabian Gulf, Saudi Arabia. The piles vary in In 1982, seventeen driven well conductors were
size up to 1.22 m in diameter. Design pulled out of three platforms in the Safaniya
penetrations range up to 80 m, however most Field, Arabian Gulf, Saudi Arabia. These
are between 20 m and 40 m. Design ultimate conductors were removed by pulling with a 500
loads are usually less than 22 MN, but range up ton capacity crane on the jack-up barge, ARB-I.
to 50 MN. Soil conditions vary significantly in the The conductors could be pulled only after driving
Arabian Gulf, but in general, the soils are strong downward with a hammer to reduce the soil

References and figures at end of paper

83
2 PILE LOAD TESTS IN DENSE SAND: ANALYSIS OF STATIC TEST RESULTS OTC 7381

friction along the pile wall. The ultimate tensile illustrates density variation and friction
loads required to pull the conductors ranged resistance of soils at the site. The cone tip
from 1.5 to four times the computed tensile resistance increases from O MPa at the ground
capacities using API RP2A(1982). surface to about 45 MPa at 6-m depth. Below 6-
m depth, the cone tip resistance is generally
The unexpected hard driving, high resistance of greater than 45 MPa. Sandy clay and clayey silt
the conductors to tensile loads and high cone tip pockets were encountered between 10-m and
resistance in these dense sands led to a full 18.5-m depth, and cone tip resistance in these
scale pile load test program. pockets was about 12 MPa. Cone sleeve friction
resistance is about 25 KPa to 4-m depth, and
This paper discusses the results of full scale increases to about 140 KPa from 6 to 10-m
tests on two piles. One pile was tested only in penetration. The cone sleeve friction is greater
tension, and the second pile was tested in than 400 KPa in the soils below 10-m
compression and then tension. Also presented penetration.
are the measured load distribution and the
corresponding unit skin friction for all the tested In 1989, a higher capacity cone penetrometer
piles. Details of the test program were was used offshore in the Safaniya field. Typical
discussed in Helfrich et al (1985). cone resistance above 10 m ranged from 35 to
90 MPa and sleeve friction ranged from 125 KPa
to 880 KPa. Below 10 m the cone resistance
SOIL CONDITIONS ranged from 50 to 90 MPa, and sleeve
resistance ranged from 750 KPa to 1000 KPa.
The pile load test site was selected at an Cone resistance higher than 100 MPa (cone
onshore location near Ras Tanajib on the east limit) were reached at penetrations below 65 m.
coast of Saudi Arabia, as shown on Fig. 1. Soil
conditions at the load test site were investigated
first by a standard sample boring using rotary TEST PILE INSTALLATION
drilling and the Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
method. Another boring was drilled nearby, In May, 1983 three test piles and eight reaction
using continuous sampling with a thin-walled piles were driven at the site. The test piles were
tube, to provide samples for laboratory strength 0.61-m-diameter, Grade x60 (60,000 psi yield)
tests. A third boring was drilled for cone steel pipe with a nominal wall thickness of 28.6
penetrometer testing. mm. The bottom 1.5 m of each test pile
consisted of a 39.6 mm wall thickness driving
A composite boring log, showing results of two shoe of Grade B (35,000 psi yield) steel pipe.
borings and cone penetrometer tests, is Reaction piles were fabricated of 0.61-m-
presented on Fig. 2. The soil conditions at the diameter, Grade B steel pipe, with a nominal wall
site consist of medium-dense to very dense thickness of 46 mm. No driving shoe was used
sand and silty sand to about 10-m depth. Below on the reaction piles.
10-m depth, the soils are weakly cemented, very
dense sand and silty sand. Clay pockets and The test piles and reaction piles were driven with
sandstone and gypsum fragments were a Delmag D-62-12 diesel hammer. This hammer
encountered throughout the deposit. has a rated energy range from 109 to 224 KN-m
(80,600 to 165,000 ft-lbs). Blow count records
Cone penetrometer data, summarized on Fig. 2, for two test piles, Pile A and Pile C, are

84
OTC 7381 AL-SHAFEI, COX, and HELFRICH 3

presented on Fig. 3. Test Pile B was driven to as well as to correct for zero shifts in the gages.
27.4-m penetration, but was not tested because Measured axial load-distribution versus depth
the load frame was not designed to apply the profiles for each test are presented on Figs. 8
load that would have been required, based on through 10.
test results from the shallower test piles. In
general, the blow counts increased with depth. The data in Fig.11 is an aid in evaluating the
The final blow count on Pile A was 78 blows per distribution of skin friction back calculated from
0.3 m and on Pile C was 108 blows per 0.3 m. the measured axial load distribution. This Figure
Blows per 0.3 m are approximately equal to summarizes a preliminary analyses of Pile C-
blows per foot. Tension Test and shows three axial load
distributions. The solid line corresponds to the
axial load distribution from measured data. The
PILE LOAD TEST DATA dashed line corresponds to the axial load
distribution that would exist if the skin friction is
The pile load tests were performed in the period uniform along the entire length of the pile. The
of June 23 through July 6, 1983. The initial tests axial load distribution shown by the (— –) line is
were performed 24 to 32 days after driving the equivalent to a load distribution resulting from a
piles. skin friction which varies linearly from zero at the
surface. In this preliminary analyses of Pile C-
The data collected during the static load tests on Tension Test, the skin friction at the tip is about
Piles A and C included strains and movements 2.6 times the uniform skin friction.
of the pile, and the top load and movement.
Details of the instrumentation are described in Unit shaft friction values on the test piles were
an earlier paper (Helfrich et al, 1985). The determined by differentiating the load curves on
results of the static tension test on Pile A are Figs. 8 through 10. The resulting unit shaft
shown on Fig. 4. On Fig. 5 are shown the results friction curves at several load levels are
of cyclic tension tests on Pile A. The maximum presented on Figs. 12 through 14. Analyses of
values of load on Fig. 5 correspond to the 1st, the pile load test data then focused on three
10th, 27th, and 50th cycles respectively. On areas of investigation:
Figs. 6 and 7 the results are shown for the
compression and tension tests on Pile C, 1) What is the ultimate shaft
respectively. friction on the test piles?
2) What are the movements
Pile A in tension and Pile C in compression did required to develop the
not fail under the maximum applied load, as ultimate shall friction?
shown in Figs. 4 and 6. As shown in Fig. 7, Pile 3) How are the measurable
C failed at 12.7 MN in tension after being loaded properties of the soils at the
to 16.8 MN in compression. site related to the data
measured during the pile
Measured strains in the pile during the test were load tests?
converted to axial load by applying appropriate
calibration factors. In addition, correction factors These analyses required a review of all load test
were applied to the data to account for and soils data, plus application of theories of soil
anomalies. These correction factors were behavior to the available data.
required to correct readings from faulty gages,

85
4 PILE LOAD TESTS IN DENSE SAND: ANALYSIS OF STATIC TEST RESULTS
ULTIMATE UNIT SHAFT FRICTION
Fig. 15 presents unit shaft friction at the
maximum applied load for the three tests.
Based on the maximum unit shaft friction
presented on Fig. 15, and on the shape of the
T-Z curves, described below, the ultimate shaft
friction for the soils at the site was predicted.
The predicted ultimate compression and tension
unit shaft frictions are presented on Fig. 16. The
ultimate tension shaft friction on Pile A was
assumed equal to that from the tension test on
Pile C. Furthermore, the previous compression
test on Pile C is assumed not to have affected
the ultimate shaft friction values measured
during the tension test.
The ultimate compressive shaft friction was
reached from the ground surface to a depth of
about 7.5 m during the compression test on Pile
C. At 10-m penetration, the predicted ultimate
shaft friction is about 90 KPa greater than the
maximum measured during the test. At 18-m
penetration, the predicted ultimate shaft friction
is about 225 KPa greater than measured during
the test. These ultimate values were
extrapolated from the pre-failure T-Z curves,
using idealized curves described by Kraft, Ray,
and Kagawa (1981), as described later in the
paper.
In Figs. 13 and 15 it should be noted that as the
top load on the compression pile increases,
there is a pattern of decreasing skin friction
above the tip of the pile. This phenomena has
been observed by others and De Nicola and
Randolph (1993) include information from six
pile load tests in sand that show similar
decreasing skin friction near the tip of the piles.
They concluded that this decrease is associated
with the stress field around the base of the pile.
86
OTC 7381
PILE SHAFT LOAD-DISPLACEMENT DATA
Movements of the pile during the test were
measured with taut-wire telltales attached to the
pile (Helfrich, et al, 1985). In addition, the
movement of the pile top and the measured load
distribution in the pile can be used to determine
the theoretical movements of the pile. Due to
bending in the pile, these two methods of
calculating movements do not always agree.
However, general agreement exists between the
telltale measurements adjusted for bending and
the pile movements determined from the load
distribution, as shown on Fig. 17 for the tension
test on Pile C. The calculated pile movements
were used to develop the T-Z curves.
Measured T-Z curves from the tension test on
Pile A and the compression test on Pile C were
normalized by the predicted ultimate shaft
friction presented on Fig. 16. The measured
curves were first adjusted to account for
anomalies in their shapes. They were then
shifted so that zero load corresponded to zero
displacement. In this way the T-Z curves were
forced togo through the origin. The curves were
then normalized by dividing the adjusted shaft
friction by the ultimate shalt friction at that
elevation. The resulting curves are presented
on Figs. 18 through 21.
The pile movement required to develop the
maximum shaft friction is approximately equal for
tension and compression. Movements required
to develop maximum shaft friction are in the
range of 4 to 6 mm at depths up to 5.5 m and
are in the range of 2 to 9 mm at depths from 7.5
to 11 m. These movements are greater than 2.5
mm that is normally assumed in T-Z analyses
(Kraft, Ray, and Kagawa, 1981). We have no
explanation for the abrupt changes in the curves
from the compression test at 7.5-m, and 12-m
depths.
The measured T-Z curves from the tension test
OTC 7381 AL-SHAFEI, COX, and HELFRICH 5

on Pile C were normalized by the interpreted
ultimate shaft friction presented on Fig. 16. The
resulting curves are presented on Figs. 22 and
23. The movements required to develop
maximum shaft friction are in the range of 12 to
18 mm at depths from 2 to 10 m, and in the
range of 17 to 22 mm at depths from 12 to 17.7
m.
The pile movements required to develop the
maximum shaft friction for the tension test on
Pile C are as much as 3 times the movements
for the other tests. We believe this difference is
caused by the previous test on Pile C.
that measured during the test. Based on the
shape of the curve, the ultimate unit end bearing
on the pile may range from 30 MPa to 40 MPa
for the soils at the site.
The residual load caused by driving stresses at
the pile tip was 1.25 MN before the compression
test began. The movement that caused this load
was estimated using the procedure described by
Kraft, Ray, and Kagawa (1981). This movement
is equal to about 2 mm, based on an initial
Young’s modulus Of 780 MPa for the soil at the
pile tip.

The T-Z curves on Figs. 22 and 23 for Pile C, COMPARISON WITH COMPUTED PILE
tension test, do not show a decrease of skin CAPACITIES
frictions for large pile movements. The same is
true where ultimate skin frictions were reached in To compare with the test results, capacities were
the tension test on Pile A, Figs. 18 and 19, for calculated for a driven pipe pile using several
penetrations of 11 m and shallower, and in the published methods. Soil parameters were
compression test on Pile C, Fig. 20, for selected from field and laboratory data collected
penetrations of 7.5 m and shallower. This during the site investigation. These predictive
supports the conclusion that in the Ras Tanajib methods are described in the following
sands there is no reduction of shaft frictions with publications:
large pile movements.
1) American Petroleum Institute (API)
method, 1993
PILE TIP LOAD-MOVEMENT DATA 2) Modified de Ruiter and Beringen
(1979) method
Pile tip load-movement data measured during 3) Poulos and Davis (1980) method
the compression test were analyzed to 4) Coyle and Castello (1 981 ) method
determine information about the pile tip
behavior. Based on the evaluation of shaft In calculating pile capacities using methods 2, 3,
friction developed during the tension and and 4 the maximum unit end bearing on the test
compression tests, and the magnitude of the tip piles was estimated using data presented by
load during the compression test, the pile was Vesic (1970). These data indicate that the ratio
probably plugged during the compression test. between the unit end bearing and the unit skin
Therefore, it is appropriate to assume that the friction (qmax/fmax)on a pile driven in sand with a
measured tip load acted over the whole pile end friction angle of 45 degrees may range from
area. The pile tip load-movement curve is about 180 to 250. This far exceeds the values
presented on Fig. 24. Pile C tip moved only observed here, thus, no limits were applied to
about 6 mm from an unstressed position during the unit end bearing and the unit skin friction
the compression test. The data indicate that values used in methods 2, 3, and 4.
ultimate pile tip load may be much larger than

87
6 PILE LOAD TESTS IN DENSE SAND: ANALYSIS OF STATIC TEST RESULTS OTC 7381

Computed pile capacities were compared to the ANALYSES OF SOILS DATA

capacities of the test piles. The predicted
ultimate tensile unit shaft friction, presented on Fig. 16 clearly indicates that the soils below 10-
Fig. 16, was used to estimate the tensile m depth at the pile load test site are significantly
capacity of a pile at various penetrations at the stronger than the soils above 10-m depth. In
test site. Fig. 25 presents a comparison of the addition, the soils are much stronger than
tensile capacities. The test results indicate that predicted by the published pile capacity
the soils at the test site are significantly stronger procedures, as shown above. Field and
than predicted by the published theories. The laboratory test results were, therefore, analyzed
difference between the load tests and the to determine the reasons for the high soil
predicted capacities is most pronounced in the strength. The soil properties of primary interest
soils below 10-m depth. Above 10-m depth, the from a pile capacity standpoint are the friction
Poulos and Davis (1980) method gives results angle and the lateral earth pressure coefficient.
similar to the tension load tests. At the test pile
penetration (18 m), the predicted ultimate tensile Soil Friction Angle. Both laboratory and field
capacity is about 2.2 times the computed evaluations of friction angle were performed.
capacity from Poulos and Davis method. Laboratory direct shear tests and
consolidated-drained triaxial tests were
The ultimate compressive capacity was also performed on relatively undisturbed
computed from the predicted ultimate friction 76-mm-diameter thin-wall tube samples
curve on Fig. 16. The ratio of end bearing to recovered from borings drilled at the test site. In
shaft friction was conservatively assumed as 30, addition, the cone tip resistance was evaluated
in accordance with recommendations by Vesic using the procedures described by Villet and
(1970). Use of this ratio is supported by the Mitchell (1981 ) to determine the peak friction
observation that the ratio of predicted ultimate angle. Results of the tests and our analyses are
shaft friction and end bearing at the pile tip presented on Fig. 28. These results indicate
ranges from about 30 to 40. that the peak friction angle from the triaxial tests
ranges from 32 to 35 degrees. The friction angle
Comparison of predicated ultimate capacities from the direct shear tests and the computed
with the calculated capacities based on load friction angle from the cone penetrometer data
tests, is presented on Fig. 26. This Fig. ranges from 40 to 45 degrees. In general, the
illustrates that the pile capacity at 18-m friction angle is constant with depth, based on
penetration based on the load tests is about 1.5 the cone penetrometer data. The laboratory
times the capacity calculated by the modified de tests indicate a small decrease in the measured
Ruiter and Beringen (1979) method. friction angle with depth. This decrease may be
caused by sample disturbance, or by the
The calculated pile tension capacity using the curvature of the soil strength envelop at higher
API method (1993) was six times less than the stress levels.
measured capacity at Ras Tanajib. Fig. 27
shows Ras Tanajib load test in relation to the Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient. The cone
API data base. Note that Ras Tanajib has the penetrometer test results were analyzed to
largest capacity in the group. estimate KO using the procedure described by
Schmertmann (1977). The measured cone tip
resistance is compared with the cone tip
resistance that is expected in a Holocene,

88
OTC 7381 AL-SHAFEI, COX, and HELFRICH 7

uncemented fine sand of the same relative

density. The above K values are higher than expected,
based on published results of load tests in sand
Our estimates of KO at the pile load test site are (Vesic, 1977; Coyle and Castello, 1981). The
presented on Fig. 29. The values of KO in the Holocene sand above 10-m depth at the test site
soils above 3-m depth are probably affected by appears to follow the trend that Coyle and
compaction of the fill at the site. There also Castello (1981) developed, based on pile load
appears to be a decrease in KO below the water tests in dense sand. The large increase in K
table at about 7.2-m depth. Average KO in the values in the Pleistocene soil is not explained by
Holocene soil is about 1.1, and in the conventional theory (Vesic, 1977), which
Pleistocene deposits is about 2.2. The method suggests that K values should decrease with
suggested by Schmertmann (1977) may depth due to increasing overburden pressure.
overestimate KO in the Pleistocene deposits Other models of behavior for these very dense
because of cementation. The calculated KO soils were therefore investigated. It is apparent
values indicate that the Pleistocene soils are that the strength of Pleistocene sand may not be
heavily overconsolidated. The over directly related to the overburden pressure, as
consolidation ratio may be greater than 10 in assumed in the conventional theory. In addition,
these soils. The effect of cementation on the the lateral stresses in the Pleistocene soils are
calculated over consolidation ratio is not much higher than assumed in most theories.
evaluated in this study.

Critical Confining Pressure. The critical

ANALYSES OF ULTIMATE SHAFT FRICTION
The ultimate soil friction on the pile wall, f,
presented on Fig. 16, was used with measured
unit weights, friction angles, and the API method
of calculating pile capacity to estimate the
coefficient of lateral earth pressure, K, acting on
the pile wall during the tests. In the API method,
K maybe calculated from the following equation:
K = f/(PO * tan 5)
Where POis the effective overburden pressure at
the point in question. The friction angle between
the soil and steel, & was taken as 5 degrees
less than the angle of internal friction, +. These
results, presented on Fig. 29, indicate that the K
value is about 2 to 3 times the value of Ko. The
values of K in the upper 3 m are probably
affected by the fill compaction, and are higher
than would be expected for very dense natural
sands. The values of K in the overconsolidated
soil below 10-m depth range from about 3 to 5.
confining pressure theory (Seed and Lee, 1967)
may be used to explain the behavior of very
dense Pleistocene soils. The critical confining
pressure is defined as the confining pressure for
which a sample of granular soil will exhibit no
volume change at failure. The soil void ratio and
the particle crushing strength are the main
variables affecting the critical confining pressure.
During driving, the sand near the pile undergoes
large shear strains. At the in situ confining
stress, very dense sand has a tendency to
increase in volume as it is sheared. The sand
near the pile wall has a limited potential for
expansion due to the presence of very dense
material around the pile. Therefore, the
confining pressure in the sand increases. This
increase in confining pressure continues until the
sand ceases to be subjected to shear strain, or
until the critical confining pressure is reached.
After driving, the confining pressure is equal to
the critical confining pressure because there is

89
8 PILE LOAD TESTS IN DENSE SAND: ANALYSIS OF STATIC TEST RESULTS OTC 7381

no further tendency for volumetric expansion. immediately after pile installation, and the
changes that may occur in the soil after pile
Based on limited laboratory test results and the installation.
literature (Seed and Lee, 1967), the concept of
critical confining pressures appears to explain The pile tip load-movement, or Q-Z, behavior
the large lateral stresses on the test piles. This was modeled by Kraft, Ray, and Kagawa (1981)
theory predicts that the pressure on the pile wall using the elastic solution for a rigid punch. The
could be equal to the critical confining pressure. soil modulus is reduced as the stress level is
Based on laboratory test results, this critical increased to model non-linear behavior.
confining pressure may range from 500 to 800
KPa. The lateral pressure on the pile wall, T-Z Behavior. The model suggested by Kraft,
based on measurements made during the test, Ray, and Kagawa (1981) was used with the
is in this range for the soils below 10-m measured T-Z curves to determine its usefulness
penetration. Therefore, this concept can be for the soils at the site.
used to explain dense sand behavior.
A shear modulus profile was selected based on
empirical relationships (Seed and Idriss, 1970:
ANALYSES OF PILE MOVEMENT Hardin and Drnevich, 1972), and on cross-hole
seismic tests and resonant column tests
A common method of modeling the performed in similar soil conditions. The design
load-movement behavior of an axially-loaded shear modulus increases from about 70 MPa at
pile is to divide the pile into elements. These 2-m depth to 300 MPa at 10-m depth. The
elements are attached to springs that represent shear modulus is constant at 300 MPa for the
soil forces on the pile. These soil forces are soils below 10-m depth. The shear modulus and
modeled by discrete non-linear springs that a curve-fitting parameter, Rf, define the
apply a shear stress to the pile element as the pre-failure T-Z curves, according to the method
pile moves past the soil. The behavior of the soil proposed by Kraft, Ray and Kagawa (1981). The
at the tip of the pile is similarly modeled by a value of Rf was selected to match the predicted
spring. curves with the measured curves. The T-Z
response of the soils above 10-m depth may be
The subgrade, or T-Z (shaft load-movement) modeled with an Rf value of 0.95. Below 10-m
method suggested by Seed and Reese (1957) is depth, a value of Rf of 0.9 is adequate to match
a relatively simple means of modeling the the predicted and measured curves. These
load-movement behavior of an axially-loaded values are within the range suggested by Kraft,
pile. In this method, the soil acting on the pile is Ray, and Kagawa (1981).
assumed to be unaffected by adjacent soil
elements. Empirical procedures, based on load
test data, are available for calculating the Q-Z Behavior. The measured Q-Z curve was
relationship between the shear stress acting on analyzed by applying the Kraft, Ray, and
the pile wall, T, and the movement, Z, of the pile Kagawa (1981) method. In this method, the
needed to develop this shear stress. Kraft, Ray, shape of the Q-Z curve is affected by the soil
and Kagawa (1981) suggested a theoretical modulus, and the applied stress, among other
means of developing T-Z curves. This method is factors. Based on an initial Young’s modulus, Ei,
based on the theory of cavity expansion to of about 780 MPa, the pile tip movement that
model the radial variations in soil properties may be required to develop the ultimate end

90
OTC 7381 AL-SHAFEI, COX, and HELFRICH 9

bearing is greater than 50 mm. This movement into very dense sands at Ras Tanajib are
is much higher than was measured in the load significantly higher than conventional methods
test. Therefore, the maximum applied bearing would predict. The maximum applied loads are
pressure at the tip of the pile during the test is more than 6 times the capacities computed by
less than the ultimate bearing pressure of the industry-accepted methods. In using the
soil. Based on our analyses, we estimate that conventional pile design methods, It is
the maximum unit end bearing may range from conservative to assume that unit skin friction in
30 to 40 MPa for the soils at the site. tension is the same as that in compression.

Based on the above analyses, a movement of

about 50 to 65 mm may be required to develop The maximum shaft friction measured on test
the full end bearing on the pile. This movement Pile C was 830 KPa in compression, however
is approximately equal to 10 percent of the pile does not correspond to a failure condition, and
diameter that is often assumed in design. 790 KPa in tension. The computed values of
lateral earth pressure coefficient on the pile wall,
K, range from three (3) to six (6) in the soil below
CONCLUSIONS 10-m depth. These values are about four to six
times the maximum values that are normally
The load-carrying capability of pipe piles in used for design of piles in sand.
dense sand of the Arabian Gulf area was
investigated by performing full-scale load tests Analyses of the pile load-pile movement data
on two 0.61-m-diameter pipe piles driven at Ras indicate that the maximum compressive and
Tanajib, Saudi Arabia. Two tension tests and tensile shaft frictions are developed with a pile
one compression test were performed on these movement of about 3 to 9 mm for piles subjected
piles from June 23 to July 6, 1983. to pure tension or compression load. For a pile
subjected to reverse loading direction,
Soil conditions at the site consist of compression then tension, the required
medium-dense silty fine to medium sand movements to develop the maximum shaft
underlain by very dense fine sand and silty sand. friction are three (3) times the movements for
Pockets of clay and lenses of sandstone and other tests subjected to one way loading. These
9yPsum are present between about 10 and 18-m movements are greater than the 2.5 mm
depth. normally assumed. Furthermore, the data do
not show a decrease of skin friction for large pile
Test Pile A, driven to 18-m penetration, was movements, movements up to 22 mm were
loaded in tension to 10.9 MN without failing the required to mobilize the ultimate tensile shaft
pile. Test Pile C, also driven to 18-m friction for test Pile C.
penetration, was loaded in compression to 16.8
MN when the pile showed signs of incipient
buckling above ground and the test was ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
stopped. Test pile C was then loaded in tension
and reached a failure load of 12.7 MN at a The authors wish to express their appreciation to
displacement of 36 mm. Saudi ARAMCO for funding this research
project, and permitting publication of this paper.
The test results indicate that the ultimate tensile The assistance of Mr. Edward Wiltsie during test
and compressive capacities of pipe piles driven design and implementation is also appreciated.

91
10 PILE LOAD TESTS IN DENSE SAND: ANALYSIS OF STATIC TEST RESULTS OTC 7381

vol. 107, No. GTI 1, pp. 1543-1561.

REFERENCES 9. McClelland, B. (1974), “Design of Deep

Penetration Piles for Ocean Structures,”
. . . .
1. American Petroleum Institute (1982), Journal. Geotech nical Engineering D Ivlslon,
Recoin mended Practice for PlanninaL ASCE, Vol. 100, No. GT7, July.
. .
es[anma. and co nstructina Fixed Offshore
Platforms. API RP 2A, 13th Edition. 10. Olson, R. E., and A1-Shafei, K. A., (1988)
“Axial Load Capacities of Steel Pipe Piles in
2. American Petroleum Institute (1993), Sand”, Proc., Second Intern. Co nf. on Case
. .
Recommended Practice for PlannincL Hlstones m Geot, F a[ University of
. .
eslgnma. a onstructma Fixed Offshore Missouri, Rolls, Vol. 3, p:. 1~31-1738.
~, A~l RP 2A, 20th Edition.
11. Poulos, H. G. and Davis, E. H. (1980), “Pile
3. Coyle, H.M. and Castello, R.R. (1981), “New Foundation Analysis and design,” John Wiley
Design Correlations for Piles in Sand,” and Sons, New York.
Journal. Geotechn ical Fng inee rina Division,
ASCE, Vol. 107, No. GT7, pp. 965-986. 12. Schmertmann, J.H. (1977), Guidelines for
Cone Penetrat ion Test Performance and
4. De Nicola, Anthony and Randolph, Mark F. D-, U.S. Department of Transportation,
(1993), “Tensile and Compressive Shaft Federal Highway Administration, Publication
Capacity of Piles in Sand”, Journal of No. FHWA-TS-78-209.
Geotechnical Eng ineering , ASCE, Voi. 119,
No. 12, pp. 1952-1973. 13. Seed, H. B. and Idriss, 1. M. (1970),’’Soil
Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic
5. De Ruiter, J. and Beringen, F. L. (1979), “Pile Response Analyses,” &u_thguake
Foundations for Large North Sea Structures,”
Marine Geotechnoloay , Vol. 3, No. 3, Part 1, c 70-10. University of California,
pp. 267-314. Berkeley, December.

6. Hardin, 9.0. and Drnevich, V.P. (1972), 14. Seed, H.B. and Lee, K.L. (1967), “Undrained
“Shear Modulus and Damping in Soils -2. Strength Characteristics of Sands,” Journ_&
. . .
Design Equation and curves”, Journal, So il so i I Mechan ics and Foundations nmon
. . .
Mechanics and Foundation DWISon I , ASCE, ASCE, vol. 93, No. SM 6, pp.- 360. ‘
Vol 98, No. SM-7, pp. 667-692.
15. Seed, H.B. and Reese, L.C. (1957), “The
7. Helfrich, S. C., Wiltsie, E. A., Cox, W. R., and Action of Soft Clay Along Friction Piles,”
A1-Shafei, K. A., (1985) “Pile Load Tests on Transactions , ASCE, Vol. 122, Pp. 731-754.
Dense Sand: Planning, Instrumentation, and
Results”, Proc., Seventh Annual Offshore 16. Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1967), m
. .
I&h&WfUvol. 1! P. 55. Mechanics [n Enaineefina practice 9 J. Wiley
and Sons, New York.
8. Kraft, L. M., Jr., Ray, R. P., and Kagawa, T.
(1981), “Theoretical T-Z Curves”, ‘Journ~ 17. Vesic, A. S. (1970), “Tests on Instrumented
.
Geotechnical Eng ineerina Division , ASCE, Piles, Ogeechee River Site,” Journal. sod

92
OTC 7381 AL-SHAFEI, COX, and HELFRICH 11

~
M i Divis”on. ASC&
Vol. 96, No. SM2, pp. 561-584. 26. McClelland Engineers, Inc (1984), ~.
(lnsho re Pile Tests m Granul~ ~atenals at
18.Vesic, A.S. (1972), “Expansion of Cavities in Ras Tana-ii~, Volume IV: Analyses of Pile
Infinite Soil Mass,” Journal. So il Mechanics Load Test Results, Report No. SA82-
ad Foundat ions Division, ASCE, Vol. 98, 1054-2, submitted to Arabian American Oil
N:. SM3, pp. 265-290. Company, May 30.

19. Vesic, A.S. (1977), “Design of Pile 27. McClelland-Suhaimi Ltd. (1982a), Pile Puw
Foundations”, Transportation Research Jest. safanivah Field. A rabian Gulf, Report
Board, National Research Council. No. SA82-I 042, submitted to Arabian
American Oil Company, May 3.
20. Villet, W.C.B. and Mitchell, J.K. (1981),
“Cone Resistance, Relative Density, and
Friction Angle,” Proceedings, Cone
Penetrat ion Testina and xpenence , ASCE
National Convention, St. Louis, October 26-
30, pp. 178-207.

21.D ~y l-m f i
Loaded ~r iven Pi~e Piles in the Arabian Gulf,
Reports to Arabian American Oil Company.

22. McClelland Engineers, Inc. (1980), phase L

Survey of Current Practice and
ecommendat ions for Master Plan, Report
No. 0179-0271, July 16.

23. McClelland Engineers, Inc. (1982), Phase 11:

Onshore Pile Tests In Granular Materials in
..
Ras Tana! lb, Volume 1: Plans and Cost
Estimates, Report No. 0182-2062, October
14.

24. McClelland-Suhaimi Ltd. (1983a), phase 11:

9nShore Pile Tests in Granular Materials al
as Tan ~, Volume 11:Site Investigation at
Pile Load Test Site, Report No. SA82-I 054,
May 1.

25. McClelland Engineers, Inc (1984), Phase 11;

Onsho re P ile Tests in Granular Mu at
RaS Ta najib, Volume Ill: Field Test Results,
Report No. 01, submitted to Arabian
American Oil Company, May 30.

93
 SAFAtWYA

co NAJMAH
AL NAM +
.P
DNAHRAN 8

SAUDI ARABIA

Fig. 1 Load Test Site

 ntognl
50/0.25

(10 m) I I IH 48/o.
42/2.
k5
!+5 I 1-/
v

15“’””25EH5FITI
Very dense reddi sh brown calca-
r.so. s silty fine sand
- wi ch gypsum fragments to
11 m
- with cemented sand seams and
15”/0.071 // I /;-/ I II I I I I I I I II
nodules to 14 m
- with clayey silt pockets,
sandy clay pckets, and
cemented sand codules below
.-
17 .“
- silty fine tomedi.m sand, I jsyij~-11 ‘ ~ - I T

.. ...-. I I 3> fo. u3 II I I I

- sandstone layer, 14 to14.5 m .

nl.y,,,:rlt,cl.ymamsbe,:
m)150’0’5
“$:;’
p+--++:”:::,:’’’’”
150’0”’
IWJ-+4-4
Very dense 1 ight reddl sh brown
silty fine sand

- I Ight gray to 19 m
tol&2m .7-1-
[~1[
- weakly
- with
cemented,

18.3 to 10.5 m
18.1
sandy GlaY tmckets, I
I
I I II I I I

w :;:;jjj:
.>:>..
.~:.:.:+
:.
..%....
:+.;:.:
i..>..
Ir-”-””-
~~~
32 ;+;, . WI Very dense I ight gray
(32

calcareous
m)
I l~l=U=U=
::.
silty fine sand
;.”:
. .

341i
,., .: 1 ‘a’e’s’’o’”’”m ‘=’’0”’ : Em!
.:;

;:jll i6.4 m-” II I II 111111111 ii

36 ;::”:
,., :2
:. .,.,
~;.,
,,
.: .:;
.. . .

95
 Rate of Penetration, Blows Per 0.3 Meters
50 100 150 200 250 300 Tension Load (MN)
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 9.010.011 .012.013.014.0 15.0
o
\
\

Date: June 23, 1963

3.0

Fig. 4 TENSION LOAD - DISPLACEMENT CURVE

Test Pile A
Ras Tanajib Pile Tests

Fig. 3 BLOW COUNT RECORD

Test Pile A, C
Delmag D-62 Diesel Hammer
a
0) Ras Tanajib Pile Load Tests

Tension Load (MN) Compression Load (MN)

0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 9.010.011 .012.013.014.0 15.0 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.010 .011.012.013.014.0 15.016.017.0
0.2 o
0.4

Date: June 26-27, 1963

3.0
1,6
Fig. 6 COMPRESSION LOAD - DISPLACEMENT CURVE
2.0
Test Pile C
Fig. 5 CYCLIC TENSION TEST Ras Tanajib Pile Tests
Test Pile A
Ras Tanajib Pile Tests
 Axial Load, MN
Tension Load (MN) -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.010.011 .012.013.014.0 15.0 0 I
0 / J I
~ ~ / /[ /
/
1.0 \ . 2
!? \ I /’ 11 / /
a) \ \ / ,“ t /,
Z 2.0 — Date: July 6,1883 t04
.= 1111 &
/
II
.i ,’
/
‘ !l 1
/
,’/ ‘

TFFFE
%6
/
E II
/ l’: ‘ / , / /
: 8
c“ /
/ 1, ‘/ / 1.,’ ‘// /’
“; 10
I ‘,’ /’
,~ ‘:/
g 12
c i, 1 /,/’ /~ , / ‘
I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I g 14
I /‘ /
8.0 I I / /
[1 ,/// ‘//”
Fig. 7 TENSION LOAD - DISPLACEMENT CURVE 16 ~I“&” “
Test Pile C
Ras Tanajib Pile Tests 18 I IL@

Fig. 8 Axial Load Distributions

Pile A - Tension Test

Axial Load, MN Axial Load, MN

-18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
o v
0
1
I ;
1 \, I \\ \ \ \ ;
2 2
\ \ \ I
\ \%
4
\ \
\
6
\ \ 1, i
\ \ I
\ 8
\
} \
b 10
\ \ ‘\
\ \, I #
\ / 12
\ \
\ \’ \
\ M
14
\
\
16 \ 16

18

Fig.9 Axial Load Distributions Fig. 10 Axial Load Distributions

Pile C - Compression Test Pile C - Tension Test
 Unit Shaft FRICTION, KPa
Unit Shaft Friction KPa
-300 -150 0 150 300 450 600 750 800
o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0
0
I /
2 r 2
\ \ I 0 4
4
\ \ 0 *I 4
6 / { ~
8 k \ I A / / 06
/ 0 4 a
10 - / E8
/ / ‘
12 -PILE C c
TENSION TEST ~0
14 ‘Preliminary Analyses, / g 10
“\ L
16 a
*-
10
I Id \ c 12
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 z
14
Fiq. 11 AXIAL LOAD, MN
16
Comparison ‘of Load and Skin Fricfion Distribution
for Final Load Curve and Assumed Linearly Varying 18
and Constant Strength Skin Frictions (Preliminary Anal yses)
Pile C - Tension Test Fig. 12 SKIN FRICTION DISTRIBUTIONS
Pile A - Tension Test
%

Unit Shaft Friction, KPa Unit Shaft Friction, KPa

-900 -750 -600 450 -300 -150 0 150 300 -300 -150 0 150 300 450 600 750 900
0 0

0 , ,1 2

tn4
$
%i6
E
e8
.2 10
k
g 12
c
a 14
n
16 “’ ‘“’ ““ 16

18
(1(k% m , 4 18

Fig. 13 SKIN FRICTION DISTRIBUTIONS Fig. 14 SKIN FRICTION DISTRIBUTIONS

Pile C - Compression Test Pile C - Tension Test
 Ultimate Unit Shaft Friction, k Pa
Unit Shaft Friction, kPa o 150 300 450 600 750 900 1050
0
o 150 300 450 600 750 900
u Wdu—n.duua 2
- — . . .

2 4
rII~l !\
~ Compression Pile C ~6
1
4 c-- Compression
!?
.=08
E 6
m I
Tension
g 10
Vq dulu

8 J! 12

14
10
4
w#p&m* 16
surfnrm
12 mlid
18
Tension Pile A
\ \
Fig. 16 PREDICTED ULTIMATE UNIT
14 SHAFT FRICTION
m
u)
Ras Tanajib Pile Load Test
16
\
Axial Movement, mm
18
O 2 4 6 810121416182022242628 3032343638
-2

Fig. 15 INTERPRETED PILE SHAFT 0

FRICTION 2
CO
Maximum Applied Load $4
Ras Tanajib, Saudi Arabia ~6
c“
08
z=
~ 10
%
c
o 12
n
14

16

18
Fig. 17 TELLTALE MEASUREMENTS
Piie C - Tension Test
 1.2

1.0

)-
1-

Tmax is predicted
0.2
friction
Legend 01 I I I
“O 2 4 6 8 10 12
‘O 2 4 6 8 10 12
— 2.0 m penetration Legend
Pile Movement, mm PiJe Movement, mm
11.0 m penetration
=–: fi~ $%~%;~ Fig. 18 T-Z CURVES
——
— — — 12.2 m penetration Fig. 19 T-Z CURVES
7.5 m penetration Pile A-Tension Test — -. 13.6 m penetration
Pile A-Tension Test
— - 9.0 m penetration - — 15.5 m penetration
— — 10.0 m penetration Ras Tanajib Pile Load Tests Ras Tanajib Pile Load Tests
— — 17.8 m penetration

1.2

1.0

0.8 x

1- 0.6
2
1-
1-
f-
0.4
Tmax is predicted
Tmax is the
0.2
predicted ultimate

o
shaft friction iv I friction
II I
Legend 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Legend “O 2 4 6 8 10 12
— 2.0 m penetration Pile Movement, mm — 12.0 m penetration
Pile Movement, mm
- — — 3.6 m penetration - — — 13.5 m penetration
— - 5.5 m penetration Fig. 20 T-Z CURVES — - 15.0 m penetration Fig. 21 T-Z CURVES
- — 7.5 m penetration Pile C-Compression Test -— 16.8 m Penetration Pile C-Compression Test
— - 9.0 m penetration Ras Tanajib Pile Load Tests —- 17.7 m penetration Ras Tanajib Pile Load Tests
- — 10.0m penetration
 Z Pile Movement mm
1
0.9
✎ ✍✍
●
0.8 ✎✎ ✍

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
1
18
Penetration:
2m
Fia. 22 T-Z CURVES
‘----- 3.6m
-.—- — 5.5 m
Pie C-Tension Test
,--- - 7.5 m Ras Tanajib Pile Load Test
.— -- — 9m
A
o ,—-—
10 m

Z Pile Movement, mm
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
o 10 15 20 25
Penetration:
12 m Ficj. 23 T-Z CURVES
-— ---- 13.5m Pik C- Tension Test
.- —- — 15 m
—--— 16.8 m
Ras Tanajib Pile Load Test
—-— - 17.7 m
 12

10 PR EDICTED
‘ =4srJPa
qun
Q 30 hrPa
I

0
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Fig. 24 Tip Movement, mm

Q - Z CURVE Ultimate Compressive Capacity, MN
Pile C-Compression Test
Ultimate Tensile Capacity, MN 05 10 15 20 25 30
Ras Tanajib Pile Load Tests o
4 o 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 0
N
5
5

10

E 15
. Legend

●
“$ 20 WviOa Led
——l\\
\\
IY
\
I k.1~1
\
a
&
% —
\\vi — — Wh
1
&,d*

c 25 t I
2
,AFlfl -) W’J &d- 30
G

4-
Im (Iwl)
30 ~&
\ \
w fim- – 35 *!*
w_& I
I 9 I 1 I 1
1
v
I
35
\\\ \
Zdllti

i 40 I I I
40 Fig. 26 ULTIMATE COMPRESSIVE
Fig. 25 ULTIMATE TENSILE CAPACITY CAPACITY
0.61- m -OD Driven Pipe Pile PLUGGED CASE
Pile Load Test Site 0.61- m -OD DRIVEN PIPE PILE
Ras Tanajib, Saudi Arabia Pile Load Test Site
Ras Tanajib, Saudi Arabia
 Peak Angle of Internal Friction,
K, Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure
o 2 4 6 a
o

10000 2

E6
c“ eneion
) [(,!
08
z
g 10
a)
g 12

14 Pleistocene
\ ‘ (0.409)

16
/
18
10
10 1000o 20
Calculat;; Pile Ca~~city, Kips Fig. 28 ANGLE OF INTERNAL Fig. 29 COEFFICIENT OF LATERAL
Fig. 27 Comparison of Measured Pile Ca acities with FRICTION EARTH PRESSURE
Capacities Calculated Using the A $ I 1989 RP 2A Pile Load Test Site Ras Tanajib Pile Load Tests
(After Olson & A1-Shafei, 198S) Ras Tanajib, Saud Arabia