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

net/publication/328126650

Static and Dynamic Load Testing of Bored Piles

Conference Paper · December 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 1,798

1 author:

Senthilnath G T
The University of Queensland
21 PUBLICATIONS   17 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Thomson Line View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Senthilnath G T on 06 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Submitted and accepted for publication in
Structural Engineering Convention 2012

Paper ID: SEC-2012/II-01/199

Static and Dynamic Load Testing of Bored Piles

Senthilnath G T1

SMEC India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon 122002, India

senthil.nath@smec.com

Abstract
Static pile load test and High strain pile dynamic test were conducted on a set of 1200mm
diameter bored cast-in-situ reinforced concrete piles, each of 19m length. The static tests
consisted of measuring the load versus settlement of the pile. Six established correlations
were used to determine the ultimate static pile load capacities. The dynamic load tests were
conducted to determine ultimate pile capacity and total displacement under design load. A
comparison of pile load capacity predicted using the static load test and the high strain
dynamic load test has been presented. The test results show a good agreement within ±1mm
in terms of settlement at the design load. The settlement predicted by static pile load test is
smaller than that predicted by high strain dynamic load test. The ultimate pile capacity,
predicted from dynamic test is smaller than that predicted from static test. The De Beer
method (1967) gives conservative pile capacity values.

INTRODUCTION

Piles have been used extensively to transmit loads to strata having adequate bearing
capacity, both under static and dynamic loading conditions. They are generally the
preferred type of foundation for supporting heavy loads in weak sub soil conditions.
Piles are generally used in groups. However, most design calculations are usually
made for a single pile and the results are then extrapolated to account for group
action. An understanding of the behaviour of a single pile thus plays a very crucial
role. On the execution side, the difficulties during installation, excavation
procedures and lateral movements due to accidental impact can create doubt about
the integrity of any pile. In some cases, lack of inspection during installation lead the
structural or geotechnical engineer to question the foundation adequacy.

1
Geotechnical Engineer

December 19-21, 2012

 Submitted and accepted for publication in
Structural Engineering Convention 2012

Paper ID: SEC-2012/II-01/199

In India, static pile load test is the most commonly used test to prove/check the load
capacity of the pile. However, static loading for every pile is obviously an expensive
exercise. Therefore, contractors often seek other alternative tests for the quality
check of installed piles. This paper discusses the use of High strain dynamic test and
Low strain dynamic tests as a post construction testing alternative for quality control
and compares the results of Dynamic Test with that of Static Load Testing.

PILE TESTING

Static Pile Load Test

Static pile load test is the most common and established test, and is considered as the
most accurate way to determine the load capacity of the piles. To determine the pile
capacity, varieties of equipment and procedures are available. The difference in the
equipment and procedures can influence the results and become the point of debate
among engineers. Nevertheless, engineers always judge the accuracy of all other
methods by comparing them with static pile load tests.

There are two categories of static load tests: controlled stress test and controlled
strain test. The former uses predetermined loads (the independent variable) and
measured movement (the dependent variable), while the latter uses movement as
independent variable and load as dependent variable. IS 2911 (Part 4) suggests the
controlled stress test. The pile is loaded in equal increments of 20% of design load
up to twice the design load. The load is maintained under each increment until the
rate of settlement is less than 0.1mm per half an hour. At design load, the load is
maintained for a period of 24 hours. The disadvantage of this test is that it is time
consuming and involves handling huge volume of kentledge.
High Strain Dynamic Test
During the past decade, high strain dynamic testing of bored piles has gained
acceptance in the Indian geotechnical community. High strain dynamic test is a
powerful and fast test compared to static load test. The test is based on the dynamic
method of analysis. Actual field test is performed on a pile by measuring strain and
acceleration records under impact of a falling mass. High strain dynamic test is
conducted using a pair of strain transducers and accelerometers mounted near the
top of the pile and a device called Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA). The device
monitors the output from the strain transducers and accelerometers and evaluates the
data in the following manner:
• Axial force in the pile is evaluated by combining strain data (from strain
meters), modulus of elasticity and cross section area of the pile.
• Particle velocity of the waves travelling through the pile is calculated by
integrating the acceleration data from accelerometers.
• Pile set per blow is calculated by double integrating the acceleration data
from accelerometers.

December 19-21, 2012

 Submitted and accepted for publication in
Structural Engineering Convention 2012

Paper ID: SEC-2012/II-01/199

Low Strain Pile Integrity Test (PIT)

The PIT test has been commonly used in deep foundations to evaluate the integrity
of piles with suspicion of construction defects, such as, fissures, cracks or variation
of the shaft cross sectional area. The PIT might also be used to evaluate the pile
length in cases where the wave propagation speed can be assumed with a reasonable
degree of accuracy. This speed is a function of the density and the quality of the
concrete; hence, it can be correlated with the characteristic resistance of the pile. It
can also be monitored with time, thus allowing the determination of the quality of
the foundation along its normal life. The PIT test assumes that the stress (or
acoustic) wave propagates in one dimension. This will require a foundation with a
minimum ratio in term of length/diameter of about 5 to have the interpretation
model valid [1]. It has demonstrated its worth in detecting defective piles when other
methods are not practical, it requires no advance planning or access tubes so can be
applied to any concrete pile after installation. Since the testing is quick and simple,
the cost per test is quite reasonable. However, proper application and interpretation
are essential to obtain reliable results [2].

FIELD DATA

Site Information
The site is located in marine clay. The bore logs suggest that the site, in general,
consists of loose filled up soil in the top 4m, followed by 11m of marine clay
underlined by weathered rock. The site is located in Seismic Zone V with a peak
ground acceleration of 0.36g. Fig. 1 shows the general profile of soil.

0 to 4m Filled up soil, SPT N ~ 20

4m to 15m Marine Clay, SPT N ~ 10

15m to 25m Weathered Rock

Fig. 1 Soil profile of the location and Fig. 2 Load displacement curve

The design suggests 1200mm diameter piles of 19m length for a design capacity of
540 M.T. and 480 M.T. The piles were bored using hydraulic rigs and then
concreted by tremie method. Volume of concrete consumption is noted for each pile.
It was observed that most of the piles consumed 20 to 25% more concrete than the

December 19-21, 2012

 Submitted and accepted for publication in
Structural Engineering Convention 2012

Paper ID: SEC-2012/II-01/199

volume required for the nominal shaft diameter. All the piles were tested after a
minimum of 28 days from the date of casting. The following sections present the test
results for the above three piles.
Table 1 Details of Piles
Pile Diameter Length Design Capacity
Ref. [m] [m] [MT]
P1 1.20 19 540
P2 1.20 19 480
P3 1.20 19 480

Static Pile Load Test Results

Three static pile load tests were carried out using kentledge as reaction. Tests were
conducted up to an ultimate test load of twice the design load. Kentledge load of 1.2
times the ultimate test load was used as a reaction for the test. The measurements of
load and settlement were taken at the pile head. Fig. 2 presents the Load vs.
displacement curve for P1, P2 and P3.
High Strain Dynamic Test Results
In the high strain dynamic test, the pile force and velocity measurements are
obtained by a set of strain gauges and accelerometers attached to the pile head. To
determine static pile capacity, relative soil distribution, damping characteristics etc.,
a signal matching technique is utilized with computer software called Case Pile
Wave Analysis Program (CAPWAP). The program models the pile by a series of
continuous pile segments and the soil is modelled by elasto-plastic springs (static
resistance) and dashpots (damping - dynamic resistance). The idealised soil model is
represented in Fig. 3.
The force and acceleration data from PDA are used to quantify the pile force and
pile motion as described in the “Pile Testing” section. The other unknown is the soil
model. First reasonable estimates of the soil resistance distribution and damping
parameters are made. For the measured acceleration, equilibrium pile head force is
determined which can be compared to the PDA determined force. Initially these
forces do not agree with each other. Adjustments are made to the soil model
assumptions and the calculation is iterated. Fig. 4 presents the iteration program
used in CAPWAP analysis. The resulting model is considered the best estimate of
the static pile capacity, soil resistance and damping characteristics. The results of the
CAPWAP analysis are presented in Table no. 2.

December 19-21, 2012

 Submitted and accepted for publication in
Structural Engineering Convention 2012

Paper ID: SEC-2012/II-01/199

Start

Assume Pile Model,

End Bearing and
Skin Friction

Apply Pile Load and

calculate
Complementary (Fc)

Compare Fc and Fm
measured from PDA
Test

Adjust End Bearing

and Shaft Friction

Use the final model to find

Pile Capacity, resistance
distribution, Quake and
Damping characteristics

Stop

Fig. 3 Pile - Soil model in wave equation [3] & Fig. 4 Iteration Process of CAPWAP
Table 2 Summary of CAPWAP Analysis

Pile Ref. P1 P2 P3
Pile Capacity [MT] 785.7 530.0 580.0
Skin Friction [MT] 510.1 295.4 299.3
End Bearing [MT] 275.6 234.5 280.7
Net Displacement [mm] 0.5 1.0 1.0
Total Displacement [mm] 5.3 15.0 4.2
2
Compressive Stress [N/mm ] 8.6 13.2 3.3
Tensile Stress [N/mm2] 2.7 4.4 1.5
Pile Integrity [%] 76% 72% 75%

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISION

There are various methods of interpretation proposed by various authors to

obtain the pile failure load capacity from load-deformation curve obtained in a static
load test [4]. The following methods are used for obtaining the pile capacities:

December 19-21, 2012

 Submitted and accepted for publication in
Structural Engineering Convention 2012

Paper ID: SEC-2012/II-01/199

• Brich Hanson’s method (1963)

• De Beers Method (1967)
• Fuller and Hoy Method (1970)
• Chin’s method (1971)
• Davison’s Method (1972) and
• Butter and Hoy Method (1977)
Brinch Hansen (1963) defines failure as the load that gives twice the movement of
the pile head as obtained for 90% of the load. This is also known as Brinch Hansen’s
90% criterion.

De Beers (1967) proposed a method in which load movement values are plotted in a
double logarithmic diagram. When, the values fall on two approximately straight
lines, the intersection of these defines the failure value.

Fuller and Hoy (1970) defines that failure load is equal to the test load for which the
load settlement curve has a slope of 0.14mm/kN. This method underestimates the
capacity for long piles because the larger elastic settlements occur in a long pile as
opposed to the short pile, which causes the slope 0.14mm/kN to occur sooner.

Chin (1971) proposed a method that assumes that the load movement curve is of
hyperbolic shape when the load approaches the failure load. In this method, each
load value is divided by its corresponding settlement value and the resulting value is
plotted against the settlement. The plotted values will fall on a straight line. The
inverse slope of this line is the failure load.

Davison’s method (1972) proposes to obtain the load corresponding to the

settlement which exceeds the elastic compression of the pile by a value of 4mm plus
a factor equal to the diameter of the pile divided by 120. This method was developed
in conjunction with the wave equation analysis.

Butler and Hoy (1977), improvised the Fuller and Hoy (1970)’s definition defining
the failure load as the load at the intersection of the tangent sloping 0.14mm/kN and
the tangent to the initial straight portion of the curve, or to a line that is parallel to
the rebound portion of the curve. This offsets the length effect.

All the above methods will provide different ultimate capacities for the same pile
load settlement data. The pile capacity obtain for the piles are tabulated in Table 3.
De Beer (1967) method gives the conservative pile capacity for all the piles. Highest
capacity values for the piles are obtained using Chin (1971) method. Therefore, the
capacity from the De Beer (1967) method is considered for the comparison. The
ultimate pile capacity and design pile capacity are compared in Table 4.

December 19-21, 2012

 Submitted and accepted for publication in
Structural Engineering Convention 2012

Paper ID: SEC-2012/II-01/199

Table 3 Comparison of Pile Capacity

Ultimate Pile Capacity [MT]

Method
P1 P2 P3
Brich Hanson 860 650 650
De Beers 890 620 630
Fuller & Hoy 950 640 630
Chin 1300 950 870
Davison 1140 1040 930
Butler & Hoy 850 620 620
Fig. 5 gives a comparison of ultimate pile capacity calculated by different failure
criteria for the pile P1.

Fig. 5 Comparison of Failure Criteria (Pile P1)

Table 4 Ultimate Static Load Capacities of Piles

Pile Pile Capacity [MT]

Factor
Ref. Design Ultimate
P1 540 890 1.65
P2 480 620 1.30
P3 480 630 1.31
Table 5 Summarizes the comparison between De Beers’ method for static capacity
and capacity obtained from CAPWAP analysis. The static load test results are
apparently higher than the results obtained from high strain dynamic tests.

December 19-21, 2012

 Submitted and accepted for publication in
Structural Engineering Convention 2012

Paper ID: SEC-2012/II-01/199

Table 5 Comparison of Ultimate Load Capacity

Pile Pile Capacity [MT]

Ref. Static Dynamic
P1 890 785
P2 620 530
P3 630 580

The working load pile settlements from both static and high strain pile dynamic tests
are tabulated in Table 6. It can be seen that overall settlement results show that the
settlement predicted from the dynamic tests is higher compared to that from the
static load tests. The settlement at design load from dynamic tests is observed to be
within ±1mm of that obtained from static load tests.
Table 6 Comparison of settlements at design load

Pile Design Settlement at Design Load [mm]

Ref. Load [MT] Static Dynamic
P1 540 1.96 2.1

P2 480 1.48 2.6

P3 480 1.46 2.4

CONCLUSIONS

The results obtained from the analysis provide a basis for comparison between static
and dynamic load tests. The static and dynamic test results show a good agreement
in settlements within ±1mm at the design load. The settlement predicted by static
pile load test is smaller than that predicted by high strain dynamic load test. The
ultimate pile capacity, predicted from dynamic test is smaller than that predicted
from static test. It is observed that the load bearing capacity of the piles are
dependent on the method used to estimate the ultimate capacity. Based on the
results, The De Beer (1967) method gives a conservative pile capacity values from
Load Displacement graph, which is comparable to that of CAPWAP analysis. From
the point of view of economy and speed, dynamic pile testing appears to be a simple
and promising method. However, a careful data collection and experience in curve
matching is required to assess the pile capacity and integrity.

REFERENCES

[1] Pile Dynamics, Inc. (1998), PIT User’s Manual, Cleveland, Ohio

December 19-21, 2012

 Submitted and accepted for publication in
Structural Engineering Convention 2012

Paper ID: SEC-2012/II-01/199

[2] Foa, S.B et al. (2000) “Evaluation of the performance of an existing foundation
via PIT tests”, Application of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles, 2000 Belkema,
Rotterdam ISBN 90 58901503.

[3] Narasimha Rao, G. and Gandhi, S.R. (1992) "Experience with Pile Dynamic Test
in Analysing Field Data", Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference held at
Jadavpur University, Calcutta, February 1992 Vol. 1, pp 407 - 410.

[4] Bengt. H. Fellenius (1980), “The analysis of Results from Routine Pile Load
Test”. Ground Engineering, Geotechnical News Magazine, September 1980

[5] Sharma H.D and Prakash, Shamsher (1990), “Pile Foundation in Engineering
Practice”, Wiley-Interscience Publication. New York

[6] Tomlinson, M.L., (2001), “Foundation Design and Construction”, Seventh

edition Pearson Education, England.

[7] IS 2911 (Part IV) 1985, “Code for Practice for Design and Construction of Pile
Foundations – Load Test on Piles”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

December 19-21, 2012

View publication stats