DJ 1017 - Cochin Shipyard Limited
Construction Works of New Dry Dock Project
Document Title
Document Reference Number
RHDHV Doc Review No :
Sr. No. Reference
1 Within this submission, the Engineer has assumed there are no
2 Page 12
3 Figure 6
4 Figure 4 to Figure 6
5 Figure 1 to Figure 6
6 Figure 5 and Figure 6
7 Result and Interpretation
# Sensitivity: LNT Construction Internal Use
Comments Sheet
Report on Cyclic Pile Load Test TPL 3
DC-0071
DR 0059_C/Report on Cyclic Pile Load Test TPL 3/SDK/01
Engineer's comments dtd 05/06/2019
deviations from the Employer’s Requirements unless specifically
stated and / or highlighted in the document and the necessary
Engineer’s approval, as demonstrated by a signed Request for
Deviation, has been obtained. The comments below are based on
this assumption.
Calculation:
Since the elastic shortening of the pile can be determined directly
from the strain gauge readings, this should be used in the formula
instead of (T - F/2) x L/AE.
On this basis, the iterations in Figure 4 & 5 are not required.
Page 13 of 62 (pdf pages) states the split between end bearing and
skin friction based on Fig 6. Figure 6 appears to be incorrectly
plotted for cycles 7 & 8 and therefore the conclusions appear to be
incorrect.
Supporting calculations for the elastic compression of the subgrade
being plotted shall be provided.
The interpretation from the figures 1 to 6 are not clearly indicated
and not marked up with end bearing/skin friction split. The
intercept on the axis has to be marked and reported.
The two blue parallel lines drawn should be appropriately labelled
on the graph.
In page 13, reference of A-2.1.3 is understood to from IS 2911-4. If
so, the same shall be stated.
Code Designer's Reply dtd 01/07/2019 Engineer's Reply dtd 05/07/2019 Code
The elastic compression obtained from cyclic pile load test is Engineer is in agreement with the approach, however, load-
comprises of both subgrade and pile compression. The prime settlement calculation using skin friction from strain gauge data is
assumption in cyclic pile load test is initially there is no elastic not submitted. Please revise as stated previously.
shortening of pile but it may not be the actual scenario. To separate
out the pile compression trials have been made. But the strain
gauge data showing the initial and final reading (after unloading) is
zero which indicates that the whatever compression undergone in
pile during loading is fully recovered in unloading. As per Engineer's 1
suggestion, now the elastic compression of the pile is calculated
from the strain gauge data and it is deducted from the total
recovery obtained from the load-settlement data. By doing like this,
the trials can be eliminated and then the graph is plotted to
separate the skin friction and end bearing which is now
incorporated in the report.
Noted. A sudden hike is observed in 8th cycle hence it was Engineer is in agreement with the logic. Trial 3 appears approprate
neglected in the interpretation. Now as per Engineer's observation to develop a split of the end bearing and friction component. The
the actual reading (7th and 8th cycle) is incorporated for the skin restriction on end bearing pressure evident from the plot of time vs
2 1
friction and end bearing evaluation which is included in the report. microstrain is not shown. Design calculations shall take into account
the maximum end bearing pressure of 5 MPa.
Noted and incorporated.
2 1
Noted and incorporated.
2 1
Noted and incorporated.
2 1
Noted and incorporated.
2 1
1
 Sr. No. Reference Engineer's comments dtd 05/06/2019
Strain gauge results
8 Result and Interpretation The results and interpretation on page 13 does not make reference
to the strain gauge results. An overall interpretation for both
load/settlement data and strain gauge data shall be provided.
9 Figure 1 Fig 1 shows load vs micro strain for each gauge but no
interpretation is provided how this relates to the skin friction break-
up down the pile. The records are only showing a strain gauge
difference/micro strain against load cycle for each gauge but the
report does not interpret this data to give information on how the
skin friction is generated along the pile. Interpretation of strain
gauge data shall be provided for clear understanding.
10 Batch factor There is a difference in the batch factor adopted in the calculations
from the calibration certificate.
Analysis of the interpreted pile shall be done with the relevant bore
log.
11 Interpretation
Interpretation shall particularly include evaluation of strain gauges
L5 and L6 which indicate that there is no further increase in end
bearing after 6th cycle, and that in the final cycle (Fig 3) the end
bearing plateaus rather than increasing as the load is increased.
12 Interpretation
Overall Observations
The load/settlement analysis and interpretation appears to be
incorrect due to errors in plotting elastic recovery for 8th & 9th
13 General
cycles.
The strain gauge analysis & interpretation is not provided.
14 General
Due to above two points the conclusions about end bearing and skin
friction appear to be incorrect. Contractor review above points and
15 General
explain.
# Sensitivity: LNT Construction Internal Use
Code Designer's Reply dtd 01/07/2019 Engineer's Reply dtd 05/07/2019 Code
Please note that initial purpose of providing strain gauge is to Designer's response is noted.
identify from which depth the skin friction effectively starts
mobilizing. However as per Engineer's requirement, the elastic
shortening of pile is estimated from strain gauge data and it is
2 1
deducted from the total recovery obtained from the load-
settlement data and the graph is plotted to separate the skin
friction and end bearing which is included in the report.
Designer's intention of providing strain gauge is to identify from Designer's response is noted.
which level, the mobilization of skin friction starts effectively. Now,
as per Engineer's requirement, the break-up of skin friction and end
bearing from strain gauge data is now incorporated in the report.
2 1
Noted. It is Typo error in the document. However, the factor used in Designer's response is noted.
2 the calibration certificate and in the interpretation is same. 1
Please note that the test pile is designed based on the relevant The submission is still deemed incomplete in absence of the revised
borehole (DDBH 07, LBH 05A) and also LCPT 33 & 37. Based on these pile capacity calculation with interpreted paratmeters, particularly
borehole information, geotechnical ground model was arrived and end bearing pressure. Since the skin friction upto -25m CD is
2 the theoretical pile capacity is calculated. Now the interpretation is reported as zero, LBH-5A seems most appropriate. 2
done based on cyclic pile load test and strain gauge data and the
safe capacity has been verified based on cyclic load test.
Noted. The skin friction is still under mobilization upon loading. Engineer is not in agreement with the explanation. This is entirely
Therefore, there is not much increase in end bearing. Please note contrary to the load-settlement as per IS 2911 Part 4 submitted in
that End bearing starts mobilizing only after skin friction completely the report which shows limited end bearing. It can be concluded
mobilized. Please note that pile is embedded into layer where sand that the end bearing pressure is restricted to a maximum value of 5
2 content is more than 85% and SPT observed also is high (Close to MPa. 2
refusal) before concreting was done. Hence end bearing is under
mobilization and it will be mobilized at further higher loads.
Noted. Now the interpretation is carried out considering all the The report is deemed incomplete for the points listed above,
cycles and the safe load is found out. The skin friction and end particularly comments 2 and 12.
2 2
bearing break-up is also found and presented in the report.
Noted and incorporated. Interpretation of restriction in end bearing pressure is not shown.
2 2
Designer shall incorporate the same and resubmit.
Please refer the response to the general comments is addressed in Please refer to comment no. 13.
comment no's 3,8,9,11 and 12. As per Engineer's requirement,
2 2
strain gauge interpretations also carried out and it is presented in
the report.
2