GEOSS SEMINAR 2014 Date : 31 October 2014

Venue : Ramada Hotel, Sgp.

PILE LOAD TESTS IN SINGAPORE –
DIFFERENT METHODS AND GOOD PRACTICE

APPLICATION OF GLOSTREXT METHOD

FOR INSTRUMENTED LOAD TESTS FOR
VARIOUS LOCAL COMMON PILE TYPES

LEE SIENG KAI1, CHONG YIT WAH2 & LI HAIGANG3

1GlostrextTechnology (S) Pte Ltd, Singapore (Email :leesiengkai@glostrext.com.my)
2GCS
Engineers, Singapore ( E-mail: gcs.engineers@gmail.com)
3Glostrext Technology (S) Pte Ltd, Singapore (Email :lihaigang@glostrext.com.sg)

SYNOPSIS
With the availability of various pile instrumentation techniques and
numerous publications today, the use of instrumented pile load tests for
monitoring pile performance and investigating on the design parameters in
relation to pile length provision has become very popular in the local piling
industry. The common use of conventional sacrificial cast-in strain gauges and
sleeved rod tell-tales method is generally limited to bored pile application. In
the recent past 5 years, an innovative instrumentation and analysis technique,
called Glostrext method has also been used widely, providing an improved and
practical way for instrumentation application for instrumented load tests. The
Glostrext method is practically suitable for application on all commonly used
local pile types including bored piles, barrettes, micropiles, spun piles and RC
square piles. Key advantages of the Glostrext method include: (i) the method
enables installation of instrumentation after pile installation and thus virtually
eliminates the risk of instrument damage during pile production and
installation, (ii) remarkable potential of allowing a test pile to be constructed
with an efficiency close to a normal working pile due to its post-install nature,
(iii) a useful means in narrowing down the zone for damage identification
when a pile fails in the load test, and (iv) providing an improved method for
determination of pile modulus, an important parameter in the interpretation of
Year 2006
instrumented load test results. Key aspects of instrumented load tests and
recent case histories will be discussed beside comparison of pros and cons on
various pile instrumentation techniques and interpretations. A discussion on
the authors’ proposed more representative loading sequence is also included.

1
 Outline
• Introduction
• The need and trends in pile instrumentation

• Instrumentation Methods for Cast-in-place

Piles (bored piles, barrettes, micropiles)
• Conventional pile instrumentation method for cast-in-place piles
• Glostrext pile instrumentation method for cast-in-place piles

• Instrumentation Methods for Precast Piles

(spun piles, RC square piles)
• Conventional pile instrumentation method for precast piles
• Glostrext pile instrumentation method for precast piles

• Case Histories
• References for application of Glostrext Method for bored piles
• References for application of Glostrext Method for precast piles

• Discussion on Key Aspects of Instrumented

Load Tests and Interpretations of Results

Introduction :
Main construction control for piles in early years:
• Based on the measurement of set of each pile (driven); and
• A selected small number of non-instrumented static load tests to
verify the Capacity and specified Load- Settlement requirement.

Pile instrumentation for preliminary static load tests in the

Singapore piling industry:
• was an optional practice before year 2003
• In 2003, BCA had gazetted a circular called BCA/IES/ACES
Advisory Note 1/03 on site investigation and load tests, giving
specific advice to the industry to adopt instrumented pile load tests
for projects with buildings of 10 sty or more
• Since then, the use of instrumented pile load tests for monitoring
pile performance and investigating on the design parameters in
relation to pile length provision has become very popular in the
local piling industry.

2
 Introduction:
Case 1: Case 2: Case 3:
Ideal, Over- Under-
adequate, conservative, provided,
safe and
economical
not
economical
not safe • Pile length design is an “art”
0.0 m Existing GL
• Millions (or billions?) of
Soft
Layer
dollars are wasted every
year due to under-provided
/over-designed foundations
10.0 m
worldwide !
Competent
Soil Strata

• Instrumented pile load tests

20.0 m Ideal founding depth at 20.0 m
should continue to be used
as the added tools to perfect
that balancing “art”.
30.0 m

Introduction :
For pile instrumentation in general, vw strain gauges and
mechanical tell-tales are installed and cast within the pile to
allow for monitoring of axial loads and movements at various
levels down the pile shaft including the pile toe
• However, the common use of conventional sacrificial cast-in strain gauges and
sleeved rod tell-tales method is generally limited to bored pile application.
History of vibrating wire sensors:
(Recommended Reference: Long Term Monitoring Using VW Sensors by
A.J.Simmonds, The 6th International Conference on Structural Health Monitoring of
Intelligent Infrastructure, Hong Kong, 9-11 December 2013)
• Earliest recorded account: 1888 in Italy by Pietro Cardini ;
• Next is found in US Patent No. 633,471 in 1899;
• 1928 in Russia by Daviddenkoff and in France by Andre Coyne;
• 1930 A. Coyne made first commercial installation of VW sensors at Bromme Dam;
• 1931 Andre Coyne patented a VW Strain Gauge and in 1947 he founded Telemac,
who manufactured vw sonsors in commercial basis.
• Today vw sensors are manufactured in several countries.

3
 Introduction :
The Glostrext technology consists of a deformation monitoring
system which uses advanced pneumatically-anchored
extensometers coupled with high-precision spring-loaded
transducers, and a novel analytical technique to monitor loads
and displacements down the shaft and at the toe of piles.
(Recommended References: Aziz, H.M.A. & Lee, S.K. (2006), Krishnan, S. & Lee, S.K.
(2006), Lee, S.K. et al.(2007), Faisal, H.A. & Lee, S.K. (2008, 2010), Liew S.S. et al.(2010)
Chong, YW & Lee, S.K. (2013), in different regional and international conferences)

• The Glostrext method is practically suitable for application on all

commonly used local pile types including bored piles, barrettes,
micropiles, spun piles and RC square piles.

Instrumentation Methods for Cast-in-place Piles

2400t, 1994 2400t, 1995

2800t, 1997 4200t, 2007 5000t, 2008

4
Instrumentation Methods for Cast-in-place Piles

8000t MLT on 2000 mm Ø Bored Pile, Dec 2013. MB

Instrumentation Methods for Cast-in-place Piles

Examples / Illustration of
pile test instrumentation

Courtesy of Geokon Inc, USA

5
 Review of Conventional Methods : Cast-in-place piles
Instrumented Test Bored Pile
Apllied load measured by vw load cells
Pile head
1.
PTop Platform level Installation of vibrating
Verify and back-
calculate Ec Strain Gauges Lev. A wire strain gauge
(VWSG) to the main
reinforcement bar at the
designated level
PB Strain Gauges Lev. B

2.
Tell-tale Extensometer 1 VWSGs and signal
PC Strain Gauges Lev. C
cables & mechanical tell-
tales installed on
reinforcement cage
PD Strain Gauges Lev. D

3.
PE Strain Gauges Lev. E
Signal cables for VWSGs
are led along the rebar s
Tell-tale Extensometer 2
PF Strain Gauges Lev. F with strong ties to the top
Pile toe
Legend:
during lowering of cages
denotes Vibrating Wire Strain Gauges
denotes mechanical tell-tale extensometer 4.
Concreting well beyond
Fig. (a) : Sacrificial cast-in conventional midnight is common
pile instrumentation method

Review of Conventional Methods : Cast-in-place piles

Constraints:
• Long lead time;
• delays the casting of the piles
• Higher risks of forming soft toe
(due to sedimentation at toe)
• very often when there is difficulty
in pile installation (concreting time,
hole collapse..) or due to human
problem, the instruments also get
damaged
• Strain gauges capture only localised
strain measurement.
• Tell-tales performance affected by
rod friction, bowing, eccentricity,
reference beam movement.
• If no direct cut out hole provided in
pile top plate, tell-tale rods often
give erratic readings
• congestion of sleeved pipes/rods.

6
 Post-install Glostrext Method for Bored Piles
Instrumented Test Bored Pile
Apllied load measured by vw load cells
Pile head
PTop 2.5" GI/steel pipe fully
Anchored Lev. A
GLOSTREXT Sensor 1
Verify and back-
calculate Ec
accessible for housing
Anchored Lev. B VW extensometer and sensors
GLOSTREXT Sensor 2 PAve(BC)

Anchored Lev. C

GLOSTREXT Sensor 3 Gauge

PAve(CD) Length

Anchored Lev. D
GLOSTREXT Sensor 4
PAve(DE)

Anchored Lev. E
GLOSTREXT Sensor 5 PAve(EF)

Anchored Lev F
GLOSTREXT Sensor 6 PAve(FG)

Anchored Lev. G
Pile toe
Legend:
denotes GLOSTREXT anchored level
denotes GLOSTREXT Vibrating Wire Sensor
1.
Installation of pile as usual like working pile
Fig. (b) : Glostrext instrumentation without instruments during casting (only with
Method access steel/g.i. pipes for housing Glostrext sensors
post-casting of pile)

Post-install Glostrext Method for Bored Piles

A few days
after the pile 2.
has been cast Glostrext sensors are
post-installed (thus
minimise critical delay
in lowering cages),
allowing a test pile to be
constructed with an
efficiency close to a
normal working pile

7
Post-install Glostrext Method for Micropiles
Instrumented Micropile
SPT value, N (blows/30cm)

0 20 40 60 80 100
0.0 m Anchored Lev. A-0 (RL 1663.457 m)
0
0.5 m

1
1.25 m Global Strain Gauge Lev A
22
2 2.0 m Anchored Lev. 1 Extensometer Lev. 1
Micropile

3 31

4 Note : API pipe reinforcement OD 177.8mm,

4.05 m Global Strain Gauge Lev. B
ID 154.8mm, closed ended, fully accessible, will be
37
used for housing VW extensometer and sensors
5

6 42 6.1 m Anchored Lev. 2 Extensometer Lev. 2

6.8 m Global Strain Gauge Lev. C

7 rock
14 7.5 m Anchored Lev. 3
Extensometer Lev. 3
8

9
Gra nite, RQD= 81%
9.75 m Global Strain Gauge Lev. D
10
Depth below original ground level (m)

11 Granite, RQD= 65%

12 22 12.0m Anchored Lev. 4 Extensometer Lev. 4

12.5 m Global Strain Gauge Lev. E
13 13.0m Anchored Lev. 5 Extensometer Lev. 5
Gra nite, RQD= 93% 13.375 m Global Strain Gauge Lev. F Rock socket =2m
13.75m Anchored Lev. 6 Extensometer Lev. 6
14
14.125m Global Strain Gauge Lev. G
14.5m Anchored Lev. 7
Extensometer Lev. 7
15 Gra nite, RQD= 64%

Pile toe at 14.5 m depth

16

Gra nite, RQD= 77%

17

18
Gra nite, RQD= 18%

19
Granite, RQD= 0%

20

21

22

23

24
Legend:
denotes Glostrext anchored level
25
denotes Glostrext Sensor

SI Borehole : BH-1

Glostrext instrumentation Method

Post-install Glostrext Method for Micropiles

8
 Review of Conventional Methods: Precast piles
For precast driven / jack-in piles, the application of
instrumented full-scale static load tests is far more
challenging than their bored pile counterparts due to
significant difference in method of pile installation.

Due to practical shortcoming of conventional

instrumentation method and the lack of innovation in this
area, instrumented full-scale static load tests are in fact rarely
used in driven pile application in this region.

Therefore, the far lacking driven pile industry is long due for
a better technology to revolutionize the methodology in the
acquisition of design data in a more accurate and reliable
way, to catch up with the evolution in the design methods.

Conventional Instrumentation Method for

Prestressed Spun Concrete Piles
N (blows/30cm) (Pile head)
0 50 100 150
0
Existing Ground Level

Strain Gauges Lev. A

5
Clay

Hollow annular space

Spun Pile
10

Strain Gauges Lev. B

•Conventional
15
instrumentation method for
Depth (m)

Sandy
spun concrete piles piles:
Clay Strain Gauges Lev. C
20
• By incorporating high
Strain Gauges Lev. D
temperature-resistant strain
25

Sandy gauges into the autoclaved

Silt
Strain Gauges Lev. E
heat-cured “spin-cast”
Strain Gauges Lev. F
30

Pile toe at 30.0 m depth production process of

Legends:
denotes high temperature - resistant prestressed spun concrete
SI borehole log
Strain Gauges
denotes Pile Joint
piles

9
 Constraints of Conventional Method
This method is extremely unpopular and difficult to be
routinely applied in project sites due to the following
constraints:
(a) High cost of these temperature-resistant strain gauges;
(b) Tremendous difficulties involved in coordinating the
installation of the strain gauges into pile segments;
(c) Long lead-time is normally required for instrumentation
works, as the instruments have to be pre-assembled and
installed onto the high strength prestressing bar cage
prior to autoclaved heat-cured ‘spin-cast’ production
process of the piles; and
(d) Great uncertainty over the ability of the delicate
instruments to withstand the stresses arising from pile
production and driving processes.

Approximate Instrumentation Method for

Prestressed Spun Concrete Piles
N (blows/30cm) (Pile head)
0
0 50 100 150
Existing Ground Level • Due to the difficulties of
Strain GaugesvLev. A using the conventional
5 method, the engineering
Clay
Instrumented Pipe community for spun pile
Cement Grout
10 Spun Pile industry has been using an
Strain Gauges Lev. B
approximate
15 instrumentation method for
Depth (m)

Sandy
the past few decades, by
Clay Strain Gauges Lev. C
20 installing either an
instrumented reinforcement
25
Strain Gauges Lev. D steel cage or an
Sandy
Silt Strain Gauges Lev. E
instrumented pipe, into the
30 Strain Gauges Lev. F hollow core of spun piles
Pile toe at 30.0 m depth
Legends:
followed by cement grout
SI borehole log
denotes Vibrating Wire Strain Gauges infilling
denotes Pile Joint

10
Approximate Instrumentation Method for
Prestressed Spun Concrete Piles

(i) (ii)

(iii) (iv)
Typical installation process of spun pile instrumentation in Approximate Method

Approximate Instrumentation Method for

Prestressed Spun Concrete Piles

Section of instrumented spun pile after cement grout infilling in Approximate Method

11
 Shortcomings of Approximate Method
The obvious shortcomings of this approximate method include:
(a) The infilling of cement grout substantially alters the structural
properties of the piles, thus rendering them significantly different
from the actual working spun piles, which are usually not grouted
internally;
(b) The change in strain in the post-grouted core under the applied
loading may not be the same as the change in strain in the
prestressed concrete wall of the pile because of the different
stiffness of the two materials of different mix, strength and age;
(c) Structural shortening measurement of the test piles are not
representative of the actual working piles;
(d) Structural integrity of the original pile cannot be reliably
ascertained, particularly performance of pile joints, during the
static load test; and
(e) Significant time loss due to grout infilling and curing process,
beside the environmental unfriendly nature of this method.

Glostrext Method for Spun Piles

Min. 50mm thk
Bottom Steel Plate
Min. 50mm thk Top
Steel Plate
Major breakthrough :
Significant difference in
the methodology
Glostrext
adopted,
inside from sacrificial
Glostrext Sensor
Signal Cables,
pressure hole
Datalogger

Jacking System with

cast-in method used in
50mm dia. Hole
Load Cell
conventional method to a
Opening (Bottom
Plate) & 25mm
Trench (Top Plate)
Min. 50mm thk Steel Plate novel post-install
approach
Min. 50mm thk pile top
steel plate (with 50mm
dia. centre hole)
12.5mm thk
Plywood

To Datalogger

Glostrext Anchor

Glostrext Sensor
Connecting Rod,
Hose & Signal Cable
Global Strain Extensometer instrumentation
approach for typical spun pile application
Reference :
Lee, Sieng Kai (2011), “Development and
Application of a New Instrumentation
Technique for Spun Concrete Piles”. PhD
Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.

12
Glostrext Method for Spun Piles

Glostrext
inside

Actual Global Strain Extensometer

system for spun pile application

Development of Glostrext Method for Spun Piles

Glostrext
inside

Laboratory Verification Tests

13
Development of Glostrext Method for Spun Piles
4000
Pile Top Load (kN )

3000

2000
Glostrext
inside
1000 Typical Results
of Laboratory
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Verification
0
Time (hours)
Tests
S3-Global Strain Extensometer Technology
200 S3-Average VWSGs Lev A,B,C
Change in Strain (microstrain)

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

BASIC PRINCIPLE OF MEASUREMENT INVOLVED

• Review of basic deformation

Accuracy of measurement in pile by strain
0.1mm at
best by gauges and extensometers
DG/LVDT
•From a ‘strain measurement’
point of view, the strain gauge
gives strain measurement over a
very short gauge length while
Gauge
Accuracy of
Gauge the extensometer gives strain
Length Length
0.01mm or
better
measurement over a very long
gauge length!
•Extensometer that measures
strain over a very long gauge
length may be viewed as a very
large strain gauge or simply
called Global Strain
Basic concept Extensometer
(Glostrext)

14
Glostrext Method for Spun Piles
Load transferred (PAve) at mid-
point of each anchored
interval can be calculated as:
Precision
P = ε(Ec Ac )
Transducer for where,
measuring ε= average change in global
displacement,
i.e. distance strain gauge readings;
change between Ac = cross-sectional area of spun
upper and lower pile section;
extensometers.
Accuracy is
Ec = concrete secant modulus in
approx.ly pile section
0.01mm/2 to 5m
corresponding Note:
to 2 to 5 µε For conventional method, tell-tales
are normally limited to 3 nos, but for
Glostrext Method, N levels of
glostrext sensors give N levels/N
pairs of equivalent TT but without
congestion problem, and with more
than 10 times better accuracy And
provide much more information on
finite segmental deformation.
Schematic diagram of typical instrumented spun pile
using Global Strain Extensometer technology

Glostrext Method for Marine Spun Piles

SPT value, N
(blows/30cm)
0 25 50 75 100 Depth (m) Test Pile MLT-C (1000mm Ø)
0 0.0 m RL +4.5m (Pile Head (H))

1.5 m Anchored Lev. A-0

2

4 RL 0.00 m MLSD
4.5 m

6
6.5 m Glostrext Sensor 1 Global Strain Gauge Lev. A
8

10
Seabed (RL-7.0m) 11.5 m Anchored Lev. A-1 Extensometer Lev. 1
Seabed (RL-7.0m)
12
Hollow core

14

VS-1:
16 Peak=16kPa
Rem=5kPa 16.5 m Glostrext Sensor 2 Global Strain Gauge Lev. B
18
VS-2:
Peak=27kPa Spun pile
Rem=10kPa
20
Silty Clay
21.5 m Anchored Lev. A-2 Extensometer Lev. 2
22
Depth below pile top (m)

VS-3:
Peak=43kPa
24 Rem=13kPa

25.0 m Glostrext Sensor 3 Global Strain Gauge Lev. C

26
8

28 6
28.5 m Anchored Lev. A-3 Extensometer Lev. 3
7
30
7
32
8
33.25 m Glostrext Sensor 4 Global Strain Gauge Lev. D
34 14
Silty Sand
15
36
18
38
19 39.0 m Anchored Lev. A-4 Extensometer Lev. 4

40 21
40.75m Glostrext Sensor 5 Global Strain Gauge Lev. E
27
42
42.5m Anchored Lev. A-5 Extensometer Lev. 5
91
44 43.75m Glostrext Sensor 6 Global Strain Gauge Lev. F
94
45.0 m Anchored Lev. A-6 Extensometer Lev. 6
46 64

75 Pile toe at 45.3 m depth (RL -40.8m)

48
Legend:
51 denotes Glostrext anchored level

denotes Glostrext Sensor

SI Borehole BH-16

1000mm Ø (with140mm wall thickness) driven prestressed spun concrete pile

GLOSTREXT instrumentation for 23 km long 2nd Penang Bridge, Malaysia, 2008.

15
 Glostrext Method for Marine Spun Piles

1000mm Ø (with140mm wall thickness) driven prestressed spun concrete pile

GLOSTREXT instrumentation for 23 km long 2nd Penang Bridge, Malaysia, 2008.

Glostrext Method for Marine Spun Piles

SPT value, N (blows/30cm)
Date of Pile Driving: 07-12-2009
Depth (m) Test Pile PTP1-BH7 (1000mm Ø)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0.0 m RL +3.8m (Pile Head (H))
0
0.3 m Anchored Lev. A-0
1

2 1.925 m Glostrext Sensor 1 Global Strain Gauge Lev. A

3
3.55 m Anchored Lev. A-1 Extensometer Lev. 1
4
RL 0.00 m CD

5
Hollow core
6

7 Spun pile

8
8.55 m Glostrext Sensor 2 Global Strain Gauge Lev. B
9

10

11

12

13 Seabed (RL-9.433m) 13.05 m Anchored Lev. A-2 Extensometer Lev. 2

13.233m Seabed (RL-9.433m)
0
14

15
0

16
Depth below pile top (m)

17
VS-1:
Peak=14kPa Marine
18 Clay
Rem=4kPa
18.675 m Glostrext Sensor 3 Global Strain Gauge Lev. C
19

20
VS-2:
21 Peak=23kPa
Rem=8k Pa

22
VS-3:
Peak =40k Pa
23 Rem=15k Pa

24
24.3m Anchored Lev. A-3 Extensometer Lev. 3
25

43 25.3 m Glostrext Sensor 4 Global Strain Gauge Lev. D

26
26.3 m Anchored Lev. A-4 Extensometer Lev. 4
27
42 Global Strain Gauge Lev. E
27.3m Glostrext Sensor 5
28
28.3m Anchored Lev. A-5 Extensometer Lev. 5
100 28.8m Glostrext Sensor 6 Global Strain Gauge Lev. F
29
29.3m Anchored Lev. A-6 Extensometer Lev. 6
30 111.11 OA 29.8m Glostrext Sensor 7 Global Strain Gauge Lev. G
11111 30.3 m Anchored Lev. A-7 Extensometer Lev. 7
31
136.36 Pile toe at 30.579 m depth (RL -26.779m)
32 36364

33 142.85
71429
34
136.36
35 36364

Legend:
36
125 denotes Glostrext anchored level

37
denotes Glostrext Sensor

SI Borehole : BH7

1000mm Ø (with140mm wall thickness) driven prestressed spun concrete pile

GLOSTREXT instrumentation for ICT Singapore (2009).

16
 Glostrext Method for RC Square Piles

Min. 50mm thk

Photos showing provision of access pipe & (400mm x 400mm)Top
& Bottom Steel Plate

joints details for RC pile instrumentation using 350mm Square

Glostrext Method Pile Head

Glostrext Sensor
Pile top
Signal Cables,
pressure hole
Datalogger
arrangement for
Jacking System with
Load Cell
RC pile
50mm dia. Hole
Opening (Bottom
instrumented
Plate) & 25mm
with Glostrext
Min. 50mm thk Steel Plate
Trench (Top Plate)

Min. 50mm thk pile top

steel plate (with 50mm
dia. centre hole)
Method
To Datalogger 52mm Ø i.d. (60mm Ø o.d.)
2.5"Steel
MS GI/steel
Pipe pipe

RC Square Pile

RC pile with a cast-in Glostrext Anchor

Glostrext Sensor

pipe at centre, 2012. Connecting Rod,

Hose & Signal Cable

Glostrext Method for RC Square Piles

Instrumented Load Tests on 400 mm x 400mm RC

sq. pile at Tuas West MRT Extension Depot, 2012.

17
 Glostrext Method for RC Square Piles
Instrumented Pile
SPT value, N (blows/30cm)
0 50 100 150 200
(RL 40.0mm )
0
0.3 m Anchored Lev. A-0
0.8 m Glostrext Sensor 1 Global Strain Gauge Lev. A
1
1.3 m Anchored Lev. 1 Extensometer Lev. 1
3
2

3 5
Clayey Sand
4
4
4.8m Glostrext Sensor 2 Global Strain Gauge Lev. B
5
52mm Ø i.d.
6 12 steel pipe to
house instruments
7
11
8
Sand 8.3 m Anchored Lev. 2 Extensometer Lev. 2
9 13

10
8 RC pile
11
11.3 m Glostrext Sensor 3 Global Strain Gauge Lev. C
12 12
Depth below original ground level (m)

13
12
14
14.3 m Anchored Lev. 3 Extensometer Lev. 3
15 9
Sand Silt
16
12
17
17.3 m Glostrext Sensor 4 Global Strain Gauge Lev. D
18 13

19
15
20
20.3 m Anchored Lev. 4 Extensometer Lev. 4
21 12

21.8 m Glostrext Sensor 5 Global Strain Gauge Lev. E

22
15
23
Silty Sand 23.3m Anchored Lev. 5 Extensometer Lev. 5
23.8m Glostrext Sensor6 Global Strain Gauge Lev. F
24 71
24.3m Anchored Lev. 6 Extensometer Lev. 6
25
Pile toe at 24.3 m de pth
79
26

27 61

28 Legend:
71 denotes Glostrext anchored level
29
denotes Glostrext Sensor
30 79

SI Borehole : BH9

Instrumented Load Tests on 400 mm x 400mm RC sq. pile at Damansara, M’sia,

2010.

Case Histories
Recommneded References for application of
Glostrext Method for bored piles

1. Chong YW and Lee, S.K (2013). “Comparison of Global Strain

Extensometer (GLOSTREXT) Instrumentation Method against
Conventional Method in Static Pile Load Tests”. International
Symposium on Advances in Foundation Engineering (ISAFE 2013) 5-6
December 2013, Singapore
2. H.M. A. Aziz & S.K. Lee, 2006. Application of Global Strain
Extensometer (GLOSTREXT) Method for Instrumented Bored Piles in
Malaysia. Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Piling and
Deep Foundations, Amsterdam, pp 669-767
3. G&P Digest , Issue 1, July 2010. G&P Professionals Group.

18
Case Histories
Recommended References for application of
Glostrext Method for precast piles

1. Faisal Hj Ali & Lee Sieng Kai (2008). “Recent development in pile
instrumentation technique for prestressed spun concrete piles”.
Geotechnical Engineering Journal, Southeast Asian Geotechnical
Society. Vol. 19.No. 2, pp. 77-86.
2. S.K. Lee, T.K. Lau, A.H. Tan, Faisal Hj. Ali, Y.W. Chong, 2007.
“Recent Development in Pile Instrumentation Technology for
Driven and Jacked-in Prestressed Spun Concrete Piles”, Proceedings
of 16th South East Asian Geotechnical Conference, Kuala Lumpur, pp.
727-734.
3. Krishnan S. & Lee S.K., 2006. “A Novel Approach to the Performance
Evaluation of Driven Prestressed Concrete Piles and Bored Cast-in-
place Piles”. Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Piling
and Deep Foundations, Amsterdam, pp 718-726

19
Discussion on Key Aspects of Instrumented
Load Tests and Interpretations of Results
Quote:

Eistein said that the surest sign of insanity is

doing the same things repeatedly while
expecting a different result.

In our case, we are seeing the same thing done

more incompetently while expecting the same
result.
So please take my points objectively and do
make your own conclusions.

(1) Proposed more representative loading sequence

ASTM D 1143/D 143M-07 (STM for Deep Foundations Under Static Axial Comp Load):

A) Quick Test- 5% of AFL increments (4 to 15 min) to failure,

unloading in 5 to 10 steps), longer time for max load (creep
behaviour) and zero load (rebound behaviour);
B) Maintained Test -25% WL increments (0.25mm/hr, 1 to 2 hours)
to 200% WL or 15% of pile Ø, unloading in 25% of max load;

C) Loading in excess to MT- Continue from B in 50% WL

increments (20 min) to 200%WL then 10%WL (20 min) to failure,
unload in 4 steps (20 min each);
D) Constant Time Interval Loading Test – 20% WL loading
increments all in 1 hr, decrement also 1 hr;
E) Constant rate of Penetration (CRP)
F) Constant Movement Increment Test

20
(1) Proposed more representative loading sequence
Pile load testing using
Comparison the slow
of required
time for various
maintained load test test
method methods
is the(Fellenius, 1975)
most commonly
adopted method of checking the
performance of piles in Singapore
and the region.
Although several engineering
practices have their own
individual specifications for
maintained load tests, the ICE
Specification for Piling (similarly
adopted in MS 1756:2004,
Source of reference: Professor Bengt H. Fellenius’BS
CP4:2003, Lecture
8004: Note,
1986)“sets out a
One Day Short Cource on Basics of Design of Piled
suitable Foundation”
minimum
Comparison scheme and
of load-
(Organized by GETD, IEM), 14 June 2013 Petaling
limits on theJaya.
rate of movement
movement behavior for test
before next load
methods stage is1975)
(Fellenius, added.

CP4:2003, page 178, 179 & 185

(1) Proposed more representative loading sequence

Load Minimum time
(% of Working Load) of holding load

10% 30 minutes
20% 30 minutes
30% 30 minutes
40% 30 minutes
50% 30 minutes
60% 30 minutes
70% 30 minutes
80% 30 minutes
90% 30 minutes
100% 30 minutes
70% 10 minutes
100% Repeat 9 times 10 minutes
110% 30 minutes
120% 30 minutes
130% 30 minutes
140% 30 minutes
150% 30 minutes
160% 30 minutes
170% 30 minutes
180% 30 minutes
190% 30 minutes
200% 12 hours
Go higher if possible -
150% 30 minutes
100% 30 minutes
50% 30 minutes
0% 3 hours

Note:
Limit for the rate of movement of 0.25mm per hour before next load
stage provided the rate is decreasing.

21
(1) Proposed more representative loading sequence

Reference: J.T. Chin (2004), “A

Review of some pile settlement
acceptance criteria”, Malaysian
Geotechnical Conference 2004

(2) Pile top load measurement

3600

3400

3200

3000

2800

2600

2400

2200
Pile Top Load (kN )

2000

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

1st Cycle 2nd Cycle 3rd Cycle

Load Cell
Versus
Pressure
Gauge for
hydraulic jack

22
(2) Pile top load measurement

Sample calibration
sheet for Vibrating
Wire Load Cell

(2) Pile top load measurement

23
(3) Settlement monitoring
Pile Movement
Monitoring System :

(i) Four Linear Variation

Displacement
Transducers (LVDTs)
mounted to the
reference beams with its
plungers placed
vertically against glass
plates fixed on the pile
top.
(ii) Vertical scale rules
fixed to pile top sighted
by a precise level
instrument. Vertical
scales were also
provided on the
reference beams to
monitor any movement
during load testing.

(4) Tell-tale Extensometers monitoring

Note:
For conventional
method, tell-tales
are normally
limited to 3 nos, but
for Glostrext
Method, N levels of
glostrext sensors
give N levels/N
pairs of equivalent
TT but without
congestion
problem, and with
more than 10 times
better accuracy And
provide much more
information on
finite segmental
deformation.

Global Strain Extensometer:

The most accurate approach to
structural shortening measurement in
pile tests

24
(5) Synchronized readings for all insruments

Instruments Monitoring System :

The vibrating wire load cells, strain gauges/glostrext sensors, extensometers
and LVDTs are logged automatically using a Micro-1000 Datalogger and
software, normally at 2 to 5 minutes intervals for close monitoring during
loading and unloading steps. Only precise level readings were taken manually.

(6) Assessment of Pile Top Settlement / Pile Base

Settlement / Total Shortening
20000 c
b
18000 a
16000 a + b = c
14000 Typical Plot of
12000 applied pile top test
Pile Top Load (kN )

10000
load versus pile top
8000
settlement, pile base
6000
settlement and total
4000
pile shortening for
2000
an instrumented test
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 pile
Pile Top Settlement /Pile Base Settlement /
Total Shortening (mm)
Pile Top Settlement Pile Base Settlement Total Shortening

With appropriate choice of instrumentation technique and implementation,

we can bring routine pile tests work to research quality level

25
(6) Assessment of Pile Top Settlement / Pile Base
Settlement / Total Shortening

Example of Damaged Test Pile At High Loads

When a test pile fails prematurely, we may not be able to tell whether it is a
structural or geotechnical failure if we have only the piletop load-settlement
curve and there is no sign of damage at the exposed pilehead.

But with Glostrext pile instrumentation, we can identify the embedded structural
damage with the ability to narrow down the probable zone of such structural
failure as shown in this example.

Typical plot of applied load

versus pile segmental
shortening of various
instrumented intervals for
test pile

26
(7) Load Transfer Analysis
The load distribution along the shaft and at the base were normally
derived from computations based on the measured changes in strain
gauge readings and pile properties

Load transferred (P) at each level is generally calculated as follows:

P = ε (Ec Ac + Es As )
where
ε = average change in strain gauge readings
Ac = cross-sectional area of concrete
Ec = modulus of concrete
As = cross-sectional area of steel reinforcement
Es = Young's Modulus of Elasticity in steel (= 200 kN/mm2)

For instrumented piles, every measured strain value

can be converted to load and stress via its
corresponding strain-dependent secant modulus.

(7) Load Transfer Analysis

σ • Young’s Modulus
Y o u n g 's Tangent
M o d u lu s M o d u lu s The Young’s Modulus, also known as
the Modulus of Elasticity, is the measure
of material resistance to axial
deformation. Its value is obtained by
measuring the slope of the axial stress-
strain curve in the elastic region. It is
named after the English scientist
Thomas Young.
S ecant
M o d u lu s • Secant Modulus
The Secant Modulus, is the slope of a
line drawn from the origin of the
stress-strain diagram and intersecting
Typical stress-strain curve of concrete ε the curve at the point of interest.
Therefore, the Secant Modulus can
take different values depending on the
location of interest.

• Tangent Modulus
The Tangent Modulus is defined as the slope of a line tangent to the stress-strain curve at a point of
interest. Tangent Modulus can have different values depending on the point at which it is determined. For
example, Tangent Modulus is equal to the Young’s Modulus when the point of tangency falls within the
linear range of the stress-strain curve. Outside the linear elastic region, Tangent Modulus is always less
than the Young’s Modulus. Tangent Modulus is mostly used to describe the stiffness of a material in the
plastic range.

27
 (7) Load Transfer Analysis
Pile modulus is an important parameter in the interpretation of instrumented load test
results. C.Lam & S.A.Jefferis (2011) identified ten pile modulus determination methods,
of which four are based on laboratory and the remainder on in situ pile instrumentation.
Six of the methods have been used to interpret the modulus of a concrete pile subject to
an axial compression load test. From their review, based on a comparison of the derived
pile loads the secant modulus method was found to be the most satisfactory .

(7) Load Transfer Analysis

0.00 1448 2884 4254
Loads ( kN) 1.00 1448 2884 4254 Loads ( kN)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 5.00 1421 18000
14000 16000 2823 20000
4127 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
11.00 923 2141 3390
50 0 0
16.00 921 2002 3099
20.00 791 1745 2769
2 2
23.50 667 1472 2334
45
Secant Modulus of concrete, Ec ( kN/mm2 )

25.50 410 982 1628

4 4
26.50 281 688 1182
40 27.50 128 324 478 6
Depth below platform level (m)

Depth below platform level (m)

6
8 8
35
y = -5.75E-03x + 2.56E+01 10 10
30 12
12
25 14 14
16 16
20
18 18
15 20 20
y = -0.0026x + 20.909
22 22
10
24 24
Glostrext data VWSGs data From Glostrext Data From VWSGs Data
5 26 26
Linear (Glostrext data) Linear (VWSGs data)
28 28
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 P= 1448 kN P= 2884 kN P= 4254 kN P= 5538 kN P= 1448 kN P= 2884 kN P= 4254 kN P= 5538 kN
P= 7099 kN P= 8602 kN P= 10068 kN P= 11501 kN P= 7099 kN P= 8602 kN P= 10068 kN P= 11501 kN
Average Axial Segmental Strain ( x 10-6 ) from Lev A P= 12925 kN P= 14238 kN P= 15603 kN P= 17225 kN P= 12925 kN P= 14238 kN P= 15603 kN P= 17225 kN

Typical plots of concrete secant modulus

versus measured axial strain at Level A and
load distribution curves derived from both
VWSGs and Glostrext systems for a test pile

28
(8) Assessment of Shaft Friction and Endbearing

34000

32000

30000

28000

26000

24000

22000
Pile Top Load (kN )

20000

18000

16000
Weak Soil?
14000

12000
Soft toe ?
10000

8000
Weak Toe?
6000

4000

2000

0
Reference: Shamsher Prakash et al,
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200

“Pile (mm)
Pile Top Settlement /Pile Base Settlement / Total Shortening Foundations in
Engineering Practice”
Pile Top Settlement Pile Base Settlement Total Shortening

Reference: W.G.K. Fleming et al,

2nd Edition
“Piling Engineering” BTC

(8) Assessment of Shaft Friction and Endbearing

Reference: CP4:2003

29
(8) Assessment of Shaft Friction and Endbearing
1100 Mobilised Unit Shaft Friction (kN/m2) 20000
Mobilised Unit Shaft Friction ( kN/m2 )

Grd Lev to Lev B Q (Applied Load)

1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Lev B to Lev C 0 Total Shaft Resistance
900 Lev C to Lev D
2 P= 17225 kN (3xWL)

Depth below platform level (m)

Lev D to Lev E 15000 Base Resistance
800 4
Lev E to Lev F
700 Lev F to Lev G 6

Load ( kN )
600 Lev G to Lev H 8
Lev H to Lev I 10 10000
500
12
400
14
300 16 5000
200 18
100 20
0 22
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 24 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Average Movement of Pile between soil stratum ( mm ) 26
Pile Top Settlement (mm)
28

1100 10000 50
Mobilised Unit Shaft Friction ( kN/m2 )

Mobilised Unit End Bearing ( kN/m2 )

Grd Lev to Lev B
1000 Lev B to Lev C
9000 45
Lev C to Lev D
900 Lev D to Lev E
8000 40
Lev E to Lev F
800 Lev F to Lev G 7000 35
700 Lev G to Lev H

Pb/Ptop ( % )
Lev H to Lev I 6000 30
600
5000 25
500
4000 20
400
300 3000 15

200 2000 10
100 1000 5
0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Pile Top Settlement (mm) Pile Base Settlement ( mm ) Pile Top Settlement (mm)

Typical Plots of Load transfer characteristics derived

instrumentation results for a test pile

(8) Assessment of Shaft Friction and Endbearing

Loads ( kN)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
0 5838

1
5838
2

3
Depth below platform level (m)

4
5710
5

8
5530
9

10

11
5234

12
4787
13
4272
14
3752
15

16
P= 802 kN P= 1537 kN P= 2271 kN P= 3011 kN P= 3283 kN
P= 3559 kN P= 3820 kN P= 3218 kN P= 4463 kN P= 3607 kN
P= 4997 kN P= 5385 kN P= 5603 kN P= 5838 kN

typical load distribution curves plot showing

parallel lines between instrumented levels at high
load stage can be interpreted that the skin friction
there has been fully mobilized

30
(8) Assessment of Shaft Friction and Endbearing

this is reflected as a
line that flattens out
as an asymptote line
in the load transfer
characteristics plot

PLOT OF MOBILISED UNIT END BEARING VERSUS PILE BASE SETTLEMENT

(DERIVED FROM GLOSTREXT STRAIN GAUGES RESULTS)
18000
Mobilised Unit End Bearing ( kN/m2 )

16000

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

Pile Base Settlement ( mm )

Conclusion
• Ultimate test piles are usually tested to 2.5WL or 3.0WL in
present practice (CP4:2003, 7.5.4.4);
• It is meaningful only to instrument an ultimate test pile if it is
brought to and near to its geotechnical failure so that we can
derive the true Ks & Kb values;
• However normal foundation pile design usually err on
conservative side and it is unlikely to fail by testing it with the
normal design length;
• In order to enable a true geotechnical failure, there are 2 ways
out: (1) to shorten the pile length and test it to the usual 3.0WL;
or (2) to increase the max test load to 3.5WL~4.0WL;
• Our personal view is that the 2nd method is more costly and
more risky, should preferably go for the 1st method, with
appropriate and careful instrumentation implementation;
• With committed and co-operative relationship among the
authority, project owner, design/builder, specialist piling
subcontractors, pile suppliers and pile instrumentation and
testing specialists, there is no doubt every party can contribute
towards further improvement of the piling industry;

31
 Conclusion
• But undeniably we need incentives and reasonable flexibility to
encourage innovation in this not too glamourous industry.

You should also let us play with our

tools (wheelbarrow) like our friend
Therefore if you allow this machine here ….to SPARK INNOVATIVE
to run on the road……. IDEAS.

Thank you.

32