Geotechnics for Sustainable Infrastructure Development - Geotec Hanoi 2016, Phung (edt).

ISBN 978-604-82-0013-8

Problems of cycled head-down pile load tests in soft soil region

Nguyen Minh Hai

Dept. of Civil Engineering, Uni. of Texas at Arlington, TX76019, USA, haitdmu@gmail.com

Anand Puppala
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Uni. of Texas at Arlington, TX76019, USA, anand@uta.edu

Patil Ujwalkumar
Dept. of Civil Engg., Univ. of Texas at Arlington, TX 76019, USA; ujwalkumar.patil@mavs.uta.edu

Bach Vu Hoang Lan

Ho Chi Minh City Uni. of Architecture, HCM, Vietnam, bachvuhoanglan@yahoo.com.vn

Keywords: head-down load test, loading cycles, residual load, movement, load distribution

ABSTRACT: This paper addresses the problems of cycled head-down load tests on two instrumented
boring piles installed in soft soil region of the Tropic Garden project, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. The
soil profile consisted of layers of organic soft clay and silt to about 35 m depth on compact silty sand to
about 70 m depth and followed by dense to very dense silty sand. Two bored piles in 1.2 m diameter were
constructed using bucket drill technique with bentonite slurry into 71 m depth. The vibrating wire strain-
gages were attached into the steel cages at seven levels below the ground surface. The head-down pile
load tests were performed after placing concrete about 43 and 75 days. For both piles, the maximum test
load was about 16.2 MN and the maximum movements were about 18 through 20 mm. Detailed analysis
showed that Young’s modulus values was about 22 through 31 GPa when based on the nominal pile
diameter. The strain gage analysis shows that the pile shaft resistances in soft soil layers were increased
dramatically by the setting-up of kentledge and influenced significantly by the cycled load tests.

pile and transferred into deeper soft soil layers

1. INTRODUCTION
The static load tests using Kentledge system has
been used widely for many piled foundation
projects in Vietnam.
One of the main reasons that this test type of
pile selected seems to be due to loads applied to the
pile heads similar to the weights of structures after
completed construction. However, for the long
large-diameter piles are constructed to support the
super-weight structures in soft soil area, the static
load test using Kentledge system becomes
problems for reliability of recorded data and the
analysis of pile capacity.
Normally, before testing, a Kentledge system is
set up over the pile heads with a total weight at
least 10% greater than the maximum test load,
which is placed on platform prepared for the tested
surrounding the test piles. This counter-weight
causes a significant increase of the shear
resistances of the top soft soil layers and thus most
of the pile test results have not reflected the actual
soil condition at the sites.
Moreover, the pile load test in many cycles also
cause difficulties for evaluating the shaft
resistances of the instrumented test piles due to the
residual load induced after each unload-reload
cycle.
The paper presents the results of static load tests
using Kentledge system on the instrumented and
non-instrumented bored piles of Tropic Garden 2
project, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam and addresses
to the above mentioned problems.
2. SOIL CONDITIONS
150 BH15
The soil profile at the test piles (Borehole BH5 in

Thousands
TP10 TP13

BH14
Figure 2) consists of organic soft clay to about 20 100 BH5 TP12 BH6
BH17
m depth on medium firm silty clay to 34 m depth

WEST-EAST
followed by medium dense to dense silty sand to 50
86 m and underlain by clayey silt to 90 m depth.
The pore pressure distribution is hydrostatic and 0

corresponds to a groundwater table at 0.7 m depth

-50
below the ground surface.
Figure 1 displays the distribution of water
-100
content, consistency limits, grain size distribution, -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
and SPT N-indices. The average natural water NORTH-SOUTH Thousands

content ranges from about 80 % to 20 m depth,

Figure 2. Layout of test piles and boreholes
about 50% from 20 m through 34 m depth and
about 22% below this depth to 90 m depth. The
Two instrumented bored piles TP10 and TP13
satuated density of organic soft clay is about 1,500
in 1,200 mm diameter were installed into 71.45 m
kg/m3 (from Wn = 80 %) and of silty clay is about
on August 09 and August 05, 2011, respectively.
1,700 kg/m3 (from Wn = 47 %). The density of
The piles were supplied with a reinforcing cage of
silty sand is about 2,000 kg/m3 throughout
twenty 25 mm bars into 23 m depth and twenty
thickness of silty sand layers (from Wn = 22 %).
20 mm bars below this depth to the pile toe. Each
The average of SPT N-indices is zero to 20 m
test pile was instrumented with three vibrating wire
depth below ground surface and has increased to 3
strain-gages on each cross section area at seven
blows/0.3m between 20 and 34 m depth. Below 34
levels below the ground surface as indicated in
m to 90m depth, the average of SPT N-indices is
Figure 3.
about 27 blows/0.3m.
Figure 3 also shows the non-instrumented Pile
WATER CONTENT (%) GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
SPT N-INDICES
(blows/0.3 m)
TP12 in 1,000 mm diameter was installed into
0 25 50 75 100
+ 0.0 m
0 25 50 75 100 0 20 40 60 66.45 m depth on August 06, 2011. This pile was
0 0 0
- 0.7 m GWL
CLAY
supplied with a reinforcing cage of sixteen 25 mm
10 10 10
wP wL bars into 23 m depth and sixteen 20 mm bars below
20 20 20
30 30
SILT
30
this depth to the pile toe
40 40 40 Pile TP10 Pile TP12 Pile TP13
D1200 0.0 m
50 wn 50 50 D1000 D1200 Ground Surface
DEPTH (m)

DEPTH (m)

DEPTH (m)

SAND 0
60 60 60 GL1 2.05 m GL1 2.55 m
70 70 70
10
80 80 80
GL2 15.45 m
90 90 90 GL2 18.25 m CLAY
GRAVEL 20
100 100 100
GL3 27.15 m
30 34 m
GL3 31.65 m
Figure 1. Diagram of water content and Atterberg
DEPTH (m)

GL4 36.25 m GL4 35.75 m

Limits, grain size distribution, and SPT N-indices 40
GL5 45.35 m GL5 45.35 m
3. CONSTRUCTION OF TESTED PILES 50

To verify the capacity of the designed piles for the 60

GL6 57.35 m GL6 57.35 m SILTY
SAND
27-story Buildings of Tropic Garden 2 Project
under sustained dead loads of 5.5 MN and 8.0 MN, 70 GL7 70.25 m 66.45 m GL7 70.25 m
the three bored piles, in 1,000 mm and 1,200 mm 71.45 m 71.45 m

diameter, were constructed using bucket drill 80

technology with bentonite slurry to serve the head- Figure 3. Details of instrumented test piles
down tests using Kentledge system. Layout of
project and location of test piles are shown in Before concreting each shaft, the shafts were
Figure 2. cleaned and then a 300 mm O.D. tremie pipe was
inserted to the bottom of the shaft to start tremie of load increments and varying load-holding
placing concrete until completed construction. durations were additional sources of disturbance.

4. PILE TESTS AND MEASUREMENTS 4.2 Load-movement at pile heads

4.1 Loading schedule
The static loading tests for all piles were carried
out in two loading cycles (ADCOM South, JSC.
2011). The loading of Piles TP10 and TP13 is
similar. Figure 4 displays the load versus time
schedule for three tested piles. The Cycle 1 loading
for Piles TP12 and TP13 was performed by means
of a first load-increment of 0.28 and 0.40 MN,
respectively, followed by four increments ranging
from about 1.38 through 2.00 MN to a maximum
load of 5.50 and 8.00 MN, respectively. The test
piles were unloaded in three steps. Each of the first
four load increments of Cycle 1 was held constant
during one hour and the 5th was held for 12 hours.
In Cycle 2, the piles were first reloaded to the same
5.50 and 8.00 MN loads in three increments, then
the loading continued in ten and four additional
increments ranging from about 0.55 through 2.00
MN until a maximum load of 16.5 and 16.0 MN,
respectively.
The head-down tests using Kentledge system of
Piles TP10, TP12 and TP13 were carried out on
October 23, October 07 and September 17, 2011,
respectively. The load-movement measurements
are represented in Figure 5 through Figure 7,
respectively.
In cycle 1, the maximum test load and measured
movement of Piles TP10 and TP13 in Figure 5 and
7 were about 8 MN and 8 mm, respectively. The
maximum test load and measured movement of
Pile TP12 (Figure 6) were about 5.5 MN and 6
mm, respectively.
For loading cycle 2, the maximum test load of
Piles TP10 and TP13 were about 16 MN. The
maximum measured movements were about 20 and
18 mm, respectively. The maximum test load and
measured movement of Pile TP12 were about 16.5
MN and 26 mm, respectively.
20
TP10
15
LOAD (MN)

20
TP10 & 13 TP12
16 10
LOAD (MN)

12 5

8
0
4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
MOVEMENT (mm)

0 Figure 5. Load-movement curves of piles TP10

0 30 60 90 120
TIME (hours) 20
TP12
Figure 4. Loading schedule of the tested Piles
15
LOAD (MN)

All load levels were maintained for 60 minutes,

but for Levels 7 and 14, which loads were held for
10
24 hours. The unloading in cycle 2 was done in six
and four steps for Pile TP12 and TP13,
respectively. It should be noted that the unloading 5
and reloading and long load-holding imposed on
the subject tests is regrettable because such
0
interruptions of the test progress greatly impair the
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
consistency of the strain-gage measurements, while
MOVEMENT (mm)
providing no benefit whatsoever to the information
to be gained from the test. The uneven magnitude Figure 6. Load-movement curves of piles TP12
 INCREMENTAL STIFFNESS AE (GN)
20 200
TP13 TP10 GL-1A GL-1B
160 GL-1C GL-2A
15
LOAD (MN)

GL-2B GL-2C
120

10
80

AE = 25 (GN)
5 40

0
0
0 200 400 600 800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 STRAIN(μS)
MOVEMENT (mm)
Figure 8. Increment stiffness plot of records from
Figure 7. Load-movement curves of piles TP13
Levels 1 to 2, Pile TP10
4.3 Modulus determination of pile material
200

INCREMENTAL STIFFNESS AE (GN)

To convert the strain values to load, it is necessary TP13 GL-1A GL-1B
to know the modulus of the concrete. Although 160 GL-1C GL-2A
there is a relation between concrete strength— GL-2B GL-2C
cylinder or cube—and modulus, the relation is not 120
sufficiently strict to provide accurate strain to load
relations for the test data. The relation is best 80
determined from studying the actual load-strain AE = 35 (GN)
relations of the test. In the present, there are many 40
available methods to determine modulus of
concrete as indicated by Lam and Jefferis (2011) 0
and therefore the selected method to estimate 0 200 400 600 800
modulus of pile material from the measured strain STRAIN(μS)

data is one of the key factors to result in a

successful analysis of the tested piles.
Fellenius (1989; 2016) indicates that the best
way of determining the pile modulus is by means
of a so-called "tangent modulus" or "incremental
stiffness" plot, that is, the applied increment of
load over the induced increment of strain plotted
versus the measured strain. This is shown in
Figures 8 and 9 for Pile TP10 and TP13,
respectively. This method aims to determine the
secant modulus for a modulus relation that reduces
with strain. It is a differentiation process and,
therefore, it is very sensitive to small variations of
accuracy of both load and strain measurements.
Moreover, it requires that the shaft response shows
neither strain-hardening nor strain-softening. The
incremental stiffness method assumes that for load
increments applied after the shaft resistance at the
studied gage level has been fully mobilized, the
continued incremental stiffness values will plot
along a slightly sloping line. The line defines the
tangent modulus relation for the pile cross section.
Figure 9. Increment stiffness plot of records from
Levels 1 to 2, Pile TP13
The tangent modulus can then be converted to
secant modulus as indicated by Fellenius (1989;
2016). Because of the combined effect of the
strain-softening and the scatter of values, the
incremental stiffness method did not provide
reliable values for the tangent and secant
stiffnesses. The authors prefer to rely on the linear
portions of load-strain relations and estimate that
the measured strains can be converted to load using
constant stiffnesses, AE, of 25 GN and 35 GN for
Piles TP10 and TP13, respectively. Correlated to
the nominal cross sectional areas, the E-modulus
values are about 22 GPa and 31 GPa, respectively.
4.4 Load distribution along pile shafts
Figure 10 and 11 shows the load distribution
curves of Pile TP10 and TP13 in two loading
cycles, respectively. In these test piles, the counter-
weight of kentledge system was about 20 MN.
Each platform carried on about 10 MN and this
load was distributed on an area of about 50 m2. LOAD (MN) LOAD (MN)
0 2 4 6 8 0 4 8 12 16 20
Thus, average stress of each platform imposed into 0 0
the top soft soil layer surrounding the tested piles is

β = 0.20 β = 0.10
about 200 kPa. For this stress, the influenced depth 10 10

of the soft soil layer below the platform for the test 20 20
pile was about 35 m. As a result, before testing Unload
30 30
piles, the counter-weight of kentledge system was a
preload on the soft soil layer around the test piles

DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
40 40
and this preload improved significantly the shear

resistance of the soft soil layer.
As can be seen clearly from the diagrams of
Figure 10 and 11, the shaft resistance measured
from ground surface to about 20 m depth has
become significantly for both piles, about 5 and 8
MN in cycle 1 and 2, respectively. It has become
clearly that the measured shaft resistances have not
reflected the actual soil condition at the site
because the SPT N-indices at this depth is zero as
indicated in Figure 1.
If the shaft resistance of this depth is ignored in
designing pile due to the SPT N-indices equal to
zero, it is apparent that the set-up of kentledge
system caused a the shaft resistance increase
greater than a half of the maximum load imposed
at the pile head. This leads to the shaft resistance at
the lower depths not mobilized fully and the pile
tests have not obtained the expected results.
As shown in the left diagram of Figure 10 and
11, the unloading of cycle 1 caused the residual
loads along the pile shaft. The maximum residual
load was found at 45 and 32 m depth for Piles
TP10 and TP13, respectively. These residual loads
were accumulated for the reloading in cycle 2 and
it leaded to the unreasonable load distribution
curves, especially at about 45 and 32 m depth for
Piles TP10 and TP13 as indicated in the right
diagrams of Figure 10 and 11, respectively.
LOAD (MN)
0 2 4 6 8 0
0 0
β = 0.25
50 50
60 60
70 70
CYCLE 1 CYCLE 2
TP13
80 80
Figure11. Load Distributions of Pile TP13
Assuming that the shaft resistance would show a
uniform proportionality to overburden stress, the
latter load-distribution curves of the right diagrams
in Figure 10 and 11 are obtained by an effective
stress calculation for β-coefficients of 0.10, 0.20
and 0.25 for the pile lengths from 0 to 20 m, 20 to
34 m and 34 to 71.5 m, respectively. As indicated
in the right diagram of Figure 11, the load
distribution from effective stress analysis shows a
good agreement with the load measured at the pile
head and toe. In this case, it is completely
reasonable to conclude that the measured load
distribution throughout the pile length did not
reflect the actual shear resistance of soil.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The static load tests and the measurements of the
three bored pile constructed in soft soil region were
presented. The analysis of the test results was also
performed. The following conclusions can be
drawn from the present study.
LOAD (MN)
4 8 12 16 20  For loading cycle 1, the maximum test load
and measured movement of Piles TP10 and
β = 0.20 β = 0.10

10 10 TP13 were about 8 MN and 8 mm,

respectively. The maximum test load and
20 20
measured movement of Pile TP12 were about
DEPTH (m)

Unload
30 30 5.5 MN and 6 mm, respectively.
 For loading cycle 2, the maximum test load
DEPTH (m)

40 40
of Piles TP10 and TP13 were about 16 MN.
β = 0.25

50 50
The maximum measured movements were
60 60 about 20 and 18 mm, respectively. The
70 70 maximum test load and measured movement
TP10 CYCLE 1 CYCLE 2 of Pile TP12 were about 16.5 MN and 26
80 80
mm, respectively.
Figure 10. Load Distributions of Pile TP10
  The analysis of strain-gage records showed
an average Young’s modulus value of about
22 and 31 GPa for the nominal cross section
of Piles TP10 and TP13, respectively.
 The load distribution curves of the
instrumented Piles TP10 and TP13 indicated
that the counter-weight of kentledge system
influenced significantly on the measured
shaft resistance.
 The static load test in many loading cycles
affected dramatically the strain-gage
measurements and added difficulties for
evaluating the shaft resistances.
 The effective stress analysis of β-coefficients
of 0.10 through 0.25 has shown a good
agreement with the measured head and toe
load of pile TP13. This indicated that the
measured load distribution throughout the
pile length reflected the actual condition of
soil at the site.

6. REFERENCES

ADCOM South, JSC (2011). Report on static load

test of the bored piles, Tropic Garden Project,
18p.
Fellenius, B.H., 2016. Basics of foundation design,
a text book. Revised Electronic Edition,
[www.Fellenius.net], 453 p.
Fellenius, B.H. (1989). Tangent modulus of piles
determined from strain data. ASCE,
Geotechnical Engineering Division, the 1989
Foundation Congress, F.H. Kulhawy, Editor,
Vol. 1, pp. 500-510.
Lam, C., and Jefferis, S.A. (2011). Critical
assessment of pile modulus determination
methods. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
48(10): 1433–1448.
Union of Science on Geology, Foundation
Engineering & Building Materials (2011). Soil
Investigation Report of Tropic Garden Project,
Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, 125p.