Structures and Buildings

Assessment of the Theoretical Methods to Estimate the Tension Load Capacity of CFA
Piles
--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number: SB-D-19-00164

Full Title: Assessment of the Theoretical Methods to Estimate the Tension Load Capacity of CFA
Piles

Article Type: General paper

Corresponding Author: RAMI MAHMOUD BAKR, ph.D.

College of Engineering, Delta University for Science and Technology
Mansoura, Dakahlia EGYPT

Corresponding Author Secondary

Information:

Corresponding Author's Institution: College of Engineering, Delta University for Science and Technology

Corresponding Author's Secondary

Institution:

First Author: RAMI MAHMOUD BAKR, ph.D.

First Author Secondary Information:

Order of Authors: RAMI MAHMOUD BAKR, ph.D.

Order of Authors Secondary Information:

Abstract: This paper studies the behavior of three continuous flight auger piles executed in
unsaturated soil subjected to tension forces. Field tests and laboratory tests were
conducted on representative samples collected from a borehole 17m deep. The water
table does not exist until a depth of 17m. The author carried out slow static load tests
to check the behavior of the piles when subjected to tension forces. The tension
capacity of these piles was also investigated using theoretical methods and semi-
empirical approaches. The author compared the values estimated from the theoretical
and semi-empirical methods considered with those obtained using field load tests. One
of the tested piles was loaded until removal from the soil to investigate its geometry.
The results showed that the theoretical methods give higher values compared with
static load tests while semi-empirical methods give low estimates

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Main text Click here to download Main text CFA piles in
unsatsoil.edited.edited.edited.pdf

1
Assessment of the Theoretical Methods to Estimate the
2
3
Tension Load Capacity of CFA Piles
4 Rami Bakr, ramibakr2000@yahoo.com
5 Assistant Professor of Geotechnical Engineering,
6 Delta University for Science and Technology
7
8 Abstract
9
10
This paper studies the behavior of three continuous flight auger piles
11 executed in unsaturated soil subjected to tension forces. Field tests and
12 laboratory tests were conducted on representative samples collected from
13
14 a borehole 17m deep. The water table does not exist until a depth of 17m.
15 The author carried out slow static load tests to check the behavior of the
16
17 piles when subjected to tension forces. The tension capacity of these piles
18 was also investigated using theoretical methods and semi-empirical
19
20
approaches. The author compared the values estimated from the theoretical
21 and semi-empirical methods considered with those obtained using field
22 load tests. One of the tested piles was loaded until removal from the soil to
23
24 investigate its geometry. The results showed that the theoretical methods
25 give higher values compared with static load tests while semi-empirical
26
27 methods give low estimates.
28
29
1. INTRODUCTION
30 Recently, the use of continuous flight auger piles has significantly
31
32 increased. Higher productivity and greater capacity to transfer larger loads
33 to the subsoil.
34
35 The Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) pile, installed using a continuous
36 helix auger, was first used in the United States during the fifties and in the
37 seventies in Europe. In Egypt, the use of this type of piling has become
38
39 more prevalent, especially in the Delta region. One of the factors that led
40 to the spread of this type of piles is its suitability for the soil in the delta
41
42 region where the top soil is mostly medium to stiff clay, followed by sandy
43 soil. Since the use of this pile is increasing, it becomes imperative to
44
45
understand its behavior.
46 1.1 Historical review.
47
48
49
Since the beginning of the invention of CFA piles so far there has been a
50 significant development in technology, and presently they can be installed
51 up to 32m deep, 1200mm in diameter, and torque of up to 390 kN.m.
52
53 CFA piles became very widespread due to their technical advantages
54
55 combined with relatively low cost (Brons & Kool, 1988). However, these
56 authors warn from the adverse effects during the production process which
57
58
may need special attention, especially with pile continuity, soil disturbance
59 due to auger extraction and failure in weak soils due to high applied
60 pressures causing a significant waste of concrete.
61
62
63
64
65
 Operator skills play an essential role to control the construction of CFA
1
2 piles is the most severe limitation of these piles (Bottiau, 1993). The pilling
3 contractor must take all necessary precautions during the installation
4 process, including excavation, auger extraction, and positioning the
5
6 reinforcements. The method of construction of CFA piles is illustrated in
7
8 1.2 Advantages
9
10 There are many advantages of continuous flight auger piles, the most
11
12 important of which are resists compressive, uplift, and lateral loads, cost
13 efficient foundation solution, can be installed in most soil conditions such
14
15
as sands, clays, silts, gravels and soft rock, can achieve pile depths up to
16 32m and with various diameters of 300 mm to 1000mm, low noise level
17 and no vibration and low noise level so ideal in built-up areas with weak
18
19 soil conditions and high levels of ground water, compared to bored piles,
20 construction is very quick as temporary casings or support systems are not
21
22 required, and eliminates the soil relaxation. Marchetti dilatometer was used
23 before and after installing a pile to investigate this effect. It was noted that
24
25
the CFA piling construction method did not cause this relaxation. Bottiau
26 (1993) emphasizes that another critical advantage of the CFA pile is the
27 possibility of continuous monitoring, which furnishes documentation on
28
29 the pile´s installation.
30
31
32
33
1.3 Tension Capacity of Piles
34
35 The tension capacity of piles depends on several factors; these are
36 construction methods, properties of the pile, and properties of soil,
37
38 Orlando (1999).
39
40 The design of piles to resist tension forces is widespread in the construction
41
42 field. There are many situations in which this type of structures is
43 mandatory, for example; foundations of power transmission towers,
44
45 foundations that cross over extensive soils, foundations of lighting poles
46
47 subjected to lateral wind forces.
48 There are many theoretical methods to estimate the tension capacity for
49
50 piles. However, the use of these methods is minimal because the
51
52
parameters involved with these methods are complicated to obtain.
53 Besides, these methods also may present very optimistic and/or very
54
55 conservative tension capacity.
56
57 In Egypt, estimating tension capacity for piles using semi-empirical
58
59
methods developed for compressive forces is a common practice among
60 foundation engineers. In these cases, the tension capacity may be assumed
61
62
63
64
65
 a percentage of the total skin friction resistance of pile under compressive
1
2 loading conditions.
3
4
There are many methods to obtain the tension capacity of a pile. These
5 methods are described by other researchers, such as Danziger (1983),
6
7 Carvalho (1991), Paschoalin Filho et al. (2008a, 2008b), etc.
8
9 Field tests
10
11 Field tests, such as SPT, and refraction
12
13
14 Laboratory tests
15
16 laboratory tests were conducted out to determine the soil properties, on
17 disturbed samples and undisturbed samples including; triaxial, unconfined
18
19 compression, odometer, permeability tests, etc. Static and Dynamic Load
20
21 tests also performed.
22
23 The subsoil comprises of a superficial layer approximately 6.5m thick,
24 composed of high porosity silty-sand clay, followed by clayey-sandy silt
25
26 to a depth of 19m; the water table encountered at depth 17m.
27
28 The upper layer is collapsible, presenting collapse ratios ranging from
29
30 2.4% to 24%, depending on the applied pressure, according to Vargas
31 (1978). Some geotechnical characteristics of the experimental area
32
33 presented in the following tables.
34
35 Table 1. Average results of the field tests.
36
37 Soil Depth Nspt qc fs
38 (m) (kPa) (kPa)
39 brown silty- 1 3.0 392 28
40 sandy clay 2 3.0 589 19
41
42
3 3.0 883 36
43 4 4.0 1324 63
44 5 5.0 1864 85
45 6 7.0 2502 130
46 Clayey sandy 7 6.0 2453 168
47
48 Silt 8 7.0 2256 192
49 9 8.0 2158 210
50 10 9.0 2009 228
51 11 10.0 2551 256
52
53
12 10.0 2404 240
54 13 10.0 2600 250
55 14 11.0 2551 265
56 15 10.0 2354 240
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 Key: qc and fs are, respectively, the end-bearing resistance for the unit area
1
2 of pile cross-section and frictional resistance for the unit surface area from
3
4
CPT (Cone Penetration Test).
5
6 Table 2. Average geotechnical parameters obtained by laboratory tests.
7
8
Depth 𝛾𝑛𝑎𝑡 𝐺s e c 𝜑o * 𝑞c
9 (m) 𝑘𝑁/𝑚3 (kPa)* (kPa)
10 1 13.41 2.96 1.78 5 32 26
11 2 13.1 2.92 1.77 11 32 48
12 3 13.1 2.95 1.80 2 31 41
13
14 4 13.1 3.02 1.87 0 27 11
15 6 15.42 3.02 1.45 18 19 54
16 7 15.42 2.92 1.41 31 23 76
17 8 14.82 2.96 1.57 18 26 60
18
19
9 15.1 3.02 1.61 64 15 51
20 10 15.2 3.02 1.61 78 23 67
21 12 16.2 2.97 1.47 87 18 145
22 14 16.5 3.07 1.49 76 19 185
23 16 16.75 3.02 1.52 55 22 219
24
25 Key: 𝛾𝑛𝑎𝑡 , 𝐺𝑠 , c*, Ø*, and qc are, unit weight, specific gravity, void ratio,
26
27
total cohesion, total friction angle, compression resistance, respectively.
28 2. Test piles and loading system
29
30
31 Three Continuous Flight Auger piles constructed in the study area.
32
33 The CFA pile has the following dimensions: nominal diameter 0.40m
34
35 and length 12m. The piles followed a predefined alignment, and spacing
36
37
between them was 4.80m.
38
39 Three pile caps were constructed with dimensions of 0.70 x 0.70 x 0.70 𝑚3
40
41 for each pile studied.
42
43 A concrete with strength, fcu= 25MPa was used in the pile cap. Vertical
44 steel reinforcement of 5Ø 16mm, 6m in length was used.
45
46
47 3. Static load tests
48
49 For each pile, a static load test was carried out with a maintained load
50
51 method. The static load tests were carried out ASTM guidelines.
52
53
54
The test load was applied in steps of 120kN, up to the load at which the
55 displacements indicated a rupture of the pile. Unloading was performed in
56
57 four stages.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 4. Theoretical and semi-theoretical approaches to estimate the tension
1
2 capacity.
3
4 The tension capacity of the piles included in this study was estimated using
5
6 theoretical methods. These are Meyerhof (1973), Levacher & Sieffert
7
8 (1984) and the method of the University of Grenoble, based on Martin
9 (1973.) Semi-empirical methods were also used to estimate the lateral
10
11 resistance as a percent of compression forces. The following methods
12
13
studied were used; Décourt & Quaresma (1978), Aoki & Velloso (1975,
14 CPT and SPT), P.P.Veloso (1981), and Antunes& Cabral (1996). The
15
16 results of theoretical analysis were compared to those obtained using the
17 load tests.
18
19 5. Results of load tests
20
21
22 The load vs. settlement curves for all cases are shown in Fig. 1. The
23 magnitudes of the ultimate load and corresponding maximum displacement
24
25 for each pile are presented in Table 3.
26
27
28 0
Pile 1
29
2
30 Pile 2
31 4
32 Pile 3
33 6
34
Settlement, mm

35 8
36
37 10
38
12
39
40 14
41
42 16
43
44 18
45 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
46 Load, kN
47
48
49
50
Figure 1 Load vs. settlement for all piles studied.
51
52 Table 3. Ultimate loads and corresponding displacements reached in the
53
54
loading tests.
55 Pile Ultimate Load Maximum Displacement
56 (kN) (mm)
57
CFA 01 600 12.4
58
59 CFA 02 600 10.8
60 CFA 03 600 16.4
61
62
63
64
65
 All load tests were stopped prematurely because of the inadequacy of the
1
2 reaction system. So the ultimate loads as estimated by the Van der Veen
3
4
method (1953). These values are presented in table 4.
5
6 Table 4. Estimated ultimate loads by Van der Veen´s Method (1953)
7
8
Pile Estimated Estimated ultimate Standard
9 ultimate load load mean deviation
10 (kN) (kN)
11 CFA 01 700
12 CFA 02 600 667 58
13 CFA 03 700
14
15
16
17 6. Lateral capacity estimated by semi-empirical methods
18
19
20 The lateral resistance estimated by semiempirical methods is presented in
21 table 5.
22
23
24 Table 5. Lateral resistance estimated using the studied methods.
25
26 Pile Estimated ultimate 𝑄est /𝑃load test∗ Mean
27 Method Load (kN)
28
Decourt & CFA 01 413 0.6
29
30 Quaresma, CFA 02 413 0.7 0.63
31 1978 CFA 03 413 0.6
32 Aoki & CFA 01 230 0.3
33 Velloso, CFA 02 230 0.4 0.33
34 1975, (SPT) CFA 03 230 0.3
35 Aoki & CFA 01 320 0.45
36 Velloso, CFA 02 320 0.5 0.47
37 1975, (CPT) CFA 03 320 0.45
38
39 Antumes & CFA 01 260 0.37 0.38
40 Cabral, 1996 CFA 02 260 0.4
41 CFA 03 260 0.37
42 CFA 01 442 0.63
43 P.P Veloso, CFA 02 442 0.74 0.67
44 1981 CFA 03 442 0.63
45
46
47
48 A comparison between the mean values obtained of 𝑄est /𝑃load , determined
49
50 by each semiempirical method considered, is presented in Fig. 2.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 0.8
1
2 0.7
3
4 0.6
5 0.5
6
7 0.4
8
9 0.3
10
11 0.2
12 0.1
13
14 0
15 D&Q A&V(SPT) A&V(CPT)
1 A&c(1996) PPVel(1981)
16
17
18
19
20 Fig. 2 Comparison between mean values
21
22
23 Mean values of 𝑄est /𝑃load * test obtained by each semi-empirical method
24 considered.
25
26 Fig. 2, presents the method of P.P Velloso (1981) the mean value of 𝑄est
27
28 /𝑃load test* closest to unity compared with other methods. The purpose of
29 Aoki & Velloso(SPT) gave the most conservative value of 𝑄est /𝑃load test*
30
31 of all the methods studied. All methods give lower values than those
32
33
obtained from load tests.
34
35
36 7. Tension Capacity Estimated by Theoretical Methods
37
38 The estimated tension load capacity using the theoretical methods studied
39
40 are presented in table 6. The comparison between the mean
41
42 𝑄est /𝑃load test ** values obtained, as determined by each theoretical method
43 considered, is shown in figure 3.
44
45
46
47
Table 6. Tension capacity by the studied methods
48 Method Pile Estimated 𝑄est /𝑃load test ** Mean
49 ultimate load
50
51
(kN)
52 𝑀𝑒𝑦𝑒𝑟ℎ𝑜𝑓𝑓 1 CFA 01 1063 1.52
53 (1973) CFA 02 1063 1.77 1.6
54 CFA 03 1063 1.52
55
𝑀𝑒𝑦𝑒𝑟ℎ𝑜𝑓𝑓 2 CFA 01 1208 1.72
56
57 (1973) CFA 02 1208 2.0 1.81
58 CFA 03 1208 1.72
59 Levacher CFA 01 844 1.2
60 & CFA 02 844 1.4 1.27
61
62
63
64
65
 Sieffert CFA 03 844 1.2
1 (1984)
2
3
CFA 01 908 1.3
#
4 𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑏𝑙𝑒 CFA 02 908 1.5 1.37
5 CFA 03 908 1.3
6 CFA 01 981 1.4
7 Grenoble* CFA 02 981 1.6 1.47
8
9 CFA 03 981 1.4
10 Key: 1= ca=0.8c, δ=0.95Ø and Ku=1.0; 2= ca=c, δ=Ø and Ku=1.0; #=λ=0;
11
12 *= λ=-Ø/8; Pload test**= Ultimate load estimated by Van der Veen´s
13 Method (1953).
14
15 2
16
1.8
17
18 1.6
19
1.4
20
21 1.2
22
1
23
24 0.8
25
0.6
26
27 0.4
28
0.2
29
30 0
31
32 mey1(1973) mey2(1973) L&S(1984) GRB# GRB*
33
34
35 Fig. 3 Mean values of 𝑄est /𝑃load ** test obtained by each theoretical
36
37 method considered.
38
39 According to Fig. 3, the method of Levacher & Sieffert (1984) gave the
40
41 mean value of Pest/Pload test** closest to unity with respect to other
42
43 theoretical methods.
44
45 The method of Meyerhoff (1973), for ca=c, δ=Ø, presented the
46
47 mean 𝑄est /𝑃load test ** value, which was furthest from unity. All the
48
49
theoretical methods employed presented 𝑄est /𝑃load test ** values, on
50 average, at least 27% higher than the measured values obtained in the load
51
52 tests.
53
54 8. Removal of the Pile
55
56
57 After performing the load tests, one pile was removed to investigate its
58 geometric characteristics. To execute this task, a complete study was
59
60 required on the possible methods to remove the pile from the soil. Several
61
62
63
64
65
 attempts were done to make the removal viable. The procedure of pile
1
2 removal is described as follows:
3
4 9.1 Removal of the pile head block
5
6
7 Removal of the pile needs the pile head to be demolished, to reduce the
8
9
pile mass and also not to jeopardize the soil excavation along the shaft.
10
11 9.2 Device to fix the hoist
12
13
14
To permit hoisting the piles, it was noted that adequate means would be to
15 fix a split metallic ring around the top of the pile. To fix the ring, it was
16
17 necessary to determine the pile perimeter to obtain its diameter with
18 accuracy, so that each ring would fit perfectly onto the pile. The ring was
19
20 fixed onto the pile using bolts to connect its two parts and filling the gap
21
22 between pile and ring with cement slurry, to assure titginess of the
23 connection between them.
24
25
26 9.3 Pile removal
27
28 Thirty days after the ring was fixed, pile removal was performed. For this,
29
30 it was necessary to excavate around its shaft manually. To lift the piles
31
32 upward vertically, an appropriate hoist was used, since it should lift the pile
33 to a level 1 m above the ground at least.
34
35
36 9.4 Post-extraction analysis of the pile
37
38 A comprehensive investigation of the pile was performed, revealing
39
40 essential data of the geometry of the shaft surface and the pile toe.
41
42
43
a) Shaft surface somehow was slightly wavy, due to the drill, along the
44 shaft.
45
46
47 Figure 5. Extracted pile.
48
49 b) A survey of the pile perimeter was conducted and thus to get the average
50
51 diameter. It was possible to verify an increase of the diameter from 1.5 to
52 3.0m in length.
53
54
55 c) The shaft perimeter was also determined, thus obtaining its average
56
57
diameter; it was verified that the actual diameter (40.4cm) was on average
58 1% greater than the nominal diameter (40cm).
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 10 CONCLUSIONS
1
2
3 The following conclusions may be extracted from this research:
4
5 a) The semi-empirical methods used in this research give tension capacity
6
7 lower values compared with results obtained from the load tests. The
8
9
process with the closest benefits got average values of 67% of the values
10 obtained in the load tests.
11
12
13 b) The theoretical methods used in the estimation of tension capacity give
14 higher values than those obtained from the load tests.
15
16
17 c) The use of theoretical techniques depends on the adoption of parameters
18
19
like ca, δ, Ø, etc. This situation, due to the lack of useful soil value data
20 along the length of the pile shaft, may lead to the wrong estimation of
21
22 tension capacity.
23
24 d) The helix auger may make the pile shaft crimpy. An increase in pile
25
26 diameter was noted between 1.5m and 3m depths, due to the existence of
27
28
weak soil at this depth.
29
30 REFERENCES
31
32
33
Antunes, W.R., Cabral, D. A., 1996. The load capacity of continuous flight
34 auger pile. In: Seminar of Engineering of Special Foundations. 3rd, 1996,
35
36 São Paulo-Brazil.
37
38 Proceedings… São Paulo: ABMS, v.2, 1996.p.105-109.
39
40
41 Aoki, N.; Velloso, D.A. 1975. An approximate method to estimate the
42
43
bearing capacity of piles. In: Pan-American Congress of Soil Mechanics
44 and Foundation Engineering, 5th, 1975, Buenos Aires-Argentina.
45
46 Proceedings…p.367- 376.
47
48 Bottiau, M., 1993. Pile walling with the PCS Method. In:I.G.S.D.F.B.A.P.,
49
50 2nd, 1993, Ghent-Belgiun. Proceedings…Rotterdam: A.A. Balkeman,
51
52
1993. p.185- 190.
53
54 Brazilian Technical Standards Association: Static load tests:
55
56 NBR 12.131/92. Rio de Janeiro: A.B.N.T., 1992. (In Portuguese).
57
58 Brons, K.F., Kool, A.F.1988. Methods to improve the quality of auger
59
60 piles. In: International Geotechnical Seminar on Deep Foundations on
61
62
63
64
65
 Bored Auger Piles, 1st, 1998, Ghent- Belgium. Proceedings…Rotterdam:
1
2 A.A.Balkema, 1988, p.269-272.
3
4 Carvalho, D., 1991. Analysis of tension loads of instrumented excavated
5
6 piles built at the Experimental Field of São Carlos. 204p. Thesis. The
7
8 University of São Paulo. São Carlos. 1991. (In Portuguese).
9
10 Danziger, F.A.B., 1983. The load capacity of foundations submitted to
11
12 vertical tension forces. 331 p. (Dissertation) Federal University of Rio de
13 Janeiro. 1983. (In Portuguese).
14
15
16 Décourt, L.; Quaresma, A.R. 1978. Capacidade de carga de estacas a partir
17
18
de valores de SPT. In: Brazilian Congress of Soil Mechanics and
19 Foundation Engineering, 4th , 1978, Rio de Janeiro-Brazil.
20
21 Proceedings…São Paulo: ABMS, 1978, p.367-376. (In Portuguese).
22
23 Levasher, D.R.; Sieffert, J.G. 1984. Tests on model tension piles. Journal
24
25 of Geotechnical Engineering. A.S.C.E., v.110, n12, p1735-1747. Dec.
26
27 1984.
28
29 Martin, D. 1973. Calcul des pieux et foundations à dalle des pylônes de
30
31 transport d’énergie électrique. Etude théorique et resultats d’essais en
32 laboratorie et in-situ. Annales De L’Institut Technique du Bâtiment et des
33
34 Travaux Publics, v.307-308, p. 105-130, juil.-oct.,1973
35
36
37
Meyerhoff, G.G. 1973.The tension capacity of foundations underoblique
38 loads. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, v10 p64-70, 1973.
39
40
41 Paschoalin Filho J.A. Albuquerque, P.J.R.A,Carvalho, D.,
42 Nogueira, R.C.R. 2008a. Behavior of root piles submitted to tension loads
43
44 performed in diabasic soil, typical of the region of Campinas, Brazil. In:
45
46 Congresso Luso-Brasileiro de Geotecnia, 4th, 2008, Porto. Portugal.
47 Proceedings…Porto: ABMS, 2008, cd-rom (In Portuguese).
48
49
50 Paschoalin Filho J.A. Pereira, M.; Carvalho, D.; Nogueira, R.C.R;
51 Albuquerque, P.J.R. 2008b. The behavior of excavated piles built-in
52
53 diabasic soil submitted to tension forces. In: Brazilian Congress of
54
55 Agricultural Engineering, 36th, 2008, Bonito. Brazil.
56 Proceedings…Jaboticabal: Sbea, 2008, cdrom (In Portuguese).
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 Van der Veen, C. 1953. The bearing capacity of a pile. In: Procedures of
1
2 Third International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
3
4
Engineering. Vol 2 , pp 84-90, Zurich. 1953.
5
6 Vargas, M. 1978. Soil Mechanics. São Paulo, McGraw Hill –
7
8 Brazil Ltda. 1978.509p. (In Portuguese).
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65