Rapid Pile Load Test From Theory To Practices DR Chew

Rapid Load Test from Theory to Practice in Singapore Dr S H Chew (NUS) Rapid Load Test from Theory to Practice
actice in Singapore Dr S H Chew (NUS)
GEOSS SEMINAR 2014

on PILE LOAD TESTS IN SINGAPORE Outline of Presentation
1. Introduction
Presentation on
2. Theory Concept and Basic Features of
Rapid Load Test from Theory to Rapid Load test
Practice in Singapore 3. Interpretation of Rapid Load Test
4. Practices -- Case study of Rapid load test
By
in Singapore and Malaysia
Dr. Chew Soon Hoe 5.Correlation of Rapid Load Test with SLT
Assistant Professor
National University of Singapore 6.CONCLUSION - Peroductivity
ceecsh@nus.edu.sg Improvement using Rapid Load test
1 2
Rapid Load Test from Theory to Practice in Singapore Dr S H Chew (NUS) Rapid Load Test from Theory to Practice in Singapore Dr S H Chew (NUS)
1. Introduction TraditionalPileloadtest StaticMaintainedLoad

TestusingKentledgeblocksorsteelplates
Pile Load Tests are needed to
1. Determine the bearing capacity of piles Morerecently,inMalaysiaandSingapore,dueto

2. Determine the settlement of pile when it is rapiddevelopment,thereisadriveandneedto
subjected to n times working load condition improvetheproductivityofconstructionindustry
3. Verify the soil parameters used in pile design
(i.e. unit skin friction and unit end bearing particularly,toreducethetimeneededto
capacity) verifythesoilparametersusedinpiledesign,and
4. Check the quality of pile construction Proof
Load Test.
speeduptheprocessoftheproofloadtestsfor
manyhundredsofpilesperproject..
3 4
2. Theory -- Concept and

Basic Features of Rapid Pile
Load Testing
F=m.a
5 6
Patrick Bermingham
Statnamic
Longduration
load,quasistatic
pileandsoil
behavior
Acceleratingamassandgeneratingapushloadon
thepileheadiscalledtheStatnamic method
7 8
Peter Middendorp StatRapid

a=~ 20g
mRLT =1/20mSLT
Longduration
load,quasistatic
pileandsoil
Decelerationofamass behavior
fromadropmassontoa m.a=F
springsystemtoprolong
loadingtime,andgenerate
apushloadonthepile Pile
headiscalledtheStatRapid
STRmethod.
9 10
Modular and adjustable spring system
11 12
In Europe, there is a growing awareness that in Dynamics

Test the pile capacities is determined by signal matching
techniques which is heavily depend on the assumptions
made by the person analyzing the test results and yield a
wide range of results, especially for cast in situ piles (i.e.
cross-section area non-uniform).
This is one of the reasons that in 2010 the Dutch CUR
commission adopted the Rapid Load Testing technique
(over the Dynamic testing method) as the results are
consistent and virtually independent of the person
analyzing the test data.
In Japan, The statnamic Pile testing method is
accepted in Japanese Code since 2002.
13 14
Comparison between Static, Rapid

In 2008 This method is officially accepted as ASTM
Standard Method -- ASTM D7383-08 & Dynamic Pile Load Tests
Static Rapid Dynamic

Unit Cost - For
Marine Piles, $/Ton
Loading
1 week 100 - 120 ms 10 - 20 ms
Duration
Reaction mass
100% 5% 1 - 1.5%
(% test load)
Total test days to 1 week 1 -2 days
>1 Month
Duration
Very Complex
Interpretation V.Easy Easy
(many uncertainty)
15 16
Load Test STATIC

Dead weight 100 %
Methods Load
Displacement 3. Interpretation and Analysis
DYNAMIC TESTING
of Rapid Load Test Results
RAPID LOAD TESTING
Drop mass STATNAMIC STATRAPID
1-2 %
Reaction
mass
Drop mass
5-10% 5-10%
Strain High
pressure Soft
Acceleration gas cushioning
Load Load
Displacement Displacement
Signal matching
Unloading Point Method (UPM)

18
Analysis of Rapid Load Test Equation of motion -- single d.o.f model
In Rapid load test (e.g. Statnamic and

StatRapid), the loading duration is many times
longer than the pile length such that the stress-
waves effect can be ignored, hence the analysis
of a Rapid Load Test is greatly simplified in where
m = mass of pile,
comparison to a Dynamic Load Test. c = damping coefficient,
stat F (t)
k = spring constant,
Although stress-waves may be ignored, the a(t) = acceleration at time t,
v(t) = velocity at time t,
dynamic effects of INERTIA, as well as
u(t) = displacement at time t,
DAMPING part of soil respond CANNOT! FRLT(t) = applied Rapid Load Test force.
20
Converting RAPID (STATNAMIC) to STATIC ..

Typical response of a Rapid Load Test
Load
Corrected Static Equivalent curve Load F
time Dynamic effects
Disp
Load
Rate effects
Fmax
Peak Force Point Rapid Load (statnamic)

(Ppp, pp) Corrected Equivalent Static
Disp
(Correction for Damping and rate effect)
Unloading Point Displacement u

(Pup, up) Unloading point
21 22
Unloading Point Method (UPM) Measurements Rapid Load Testing

Developed by Peter Middendorp and A : Load cells
Patrick Bermingham in 1989 B : Reflector Plate
Used for calculating the static bearing C : Acceleration sensor
D : Pile head
capacity of piles from rapid load tests
E : Loading Plate
Assumptions: F : Spring system plate
Long duration of the load in relation to the pile
length Load Cells -> F(t) (known)
Rigid Pile Acc.Sensor -> a(t) (known)
No wave phenomenon Laser/Optical reflector plate > u(t) (known)
23 24
Unloading Point Method (UPM) Equilibrium:

F(t) F(t) = FSOIL(t) + Finertia(t)
F(t) = Applied force on the F(t) = Measured load on the pile head [N]
pile top FSOIL(t) = Force from the soil on the pile [N]
Finertia(t) = Internal force [N]
FSOIL(t) = Reaction force of a(t) = Measured acceleration [m/s2]

Finertia(t)
the soil on the pile. m = Mass of the pile [kg]

Shaft and toe. Finertia(t) = m a(t)
Finertia(t) = Reaction force of Therefore:
FSOIL(t)
the mass of the pile.
FSOIL(t) = F(t) - m a(t)
26
25
FSOIL : Fstatic-spring = F(t) - m x a(t) C x v(t)

FSOIL = Fstatic-spring + FV At t = twmax then v = 0
Fstatder FV Fstatic spring = F(twmax) - m x a(twmax)
k
c
F(t)
Fstatic-spring= Force dependent
F
on displacement (Plastic Example:
F(t) = 2.8 MN
spring) Static Resistance F m = 3619 kg w=max
a = -30 m/s2
k
-
Fstatic spring = 2.8 - 3619* 30/1e6
FV = Force dependent on U
Fstatic spring = 2.8 + 0,11 = 2.91MN
v=0
velocity (Linear damper) F
FV = C x v c w
V=0 a0
v Unloading point
Fstatic = FRLT M x a C x v
27 28
Multiple Cyclic Testing

Determining C
C mean
29 30
Sheffield Method (SHM) Sheffield Method (SHM)

Unloading Point Method is less aureate in Uses all data points of the measured signals
pure clay soils Analysis is performed numerically
Rate effects are large in clay soils FSTR is corrected with the inertia force FA
Therefore the Sheffield Method is developed. Then the force is corrected for rate effects with ,
Overview ofapplicabilityofavailableinterpretationmethods.
, depend on type of clay and pile velocity
Method Property Clay Silt Sand Rock
UPM Bearingcapacity + ++ ++ ++
Preferred practice : , determined from Lab. Tests
Initialstiffness ++ ++ ++ ++ But practical factors are available
SHM Bearingcapacity ++ +
Initialstiffness + + For calculating the static load displacement also a
++Verysuitable,+Suitable,+ Questionable, loading rate vstatic and a reference velocity vref is
Notreallysuitable, Notsuitable used.
31 32
RLT Test Criteria Load DLT RequirementsforRLT

RLT Time
Pile Tf
Inertia force < 20% of F(t) Time
L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(in Singapore, most of time <5%)
Depth
L/c
10 < Tf / (L/cp) < 1000

Tf = Duration of the load [s]
L = Length of the pile [m] Tf = Load duration(s)
Cp = wave velocity in the pile [m/s] L = Pile lengthe (m)
c = stress wave velocity pile material (m/s).
33
Loading duration requirement in ASTM D7838 Video showing the modelling of Dynamic vs Rapid load
test From Mr. Martijn van Delft, Allnamics Internation Ltd
36
Comparison of Load Tests

4. Practices Case Study of RLT
-- A. Examples of projects using

RAPID LOAD TEST
-- where and why it was used

effectively?
37 38
3000 Tons Test at Jn P. Ramlee & Mont Kiara, Kuala Lumpur

500 Tons Tests at
Jurong Port & Penang
Port
39 40
Test in Progress Kuala Lumpur 1400 Tons Test at Jalan Cheras Upgrading
Video
41 42
1600 Tons Test at Quay West, Melbourne 600 Tons Test in Kobe, Japan
43 44
3000 Tons Test at Second Link, Johor Singapore Practices - STATNAMIC
Tuas West Extension : LTA C1687 & C1688

Barrette piles of up to 4,750 tonnes
45 46
Singapore Practices - STATNAMIC Singapore Practices - STATRAPID
Tuas West Extension : C1687 & C1688 HDB Yishun and Bukit Merah
Barrette piles of up to 4,750 tonnes
47 48
Other StatRapid Photos - STATRAPID
4. Practices Case Study of RLT
-- B. Case Study of projects using

RAPID LOAD TEST
-- real number!!
49 50
Static & Statnamic Load Test

Case Study 1
Calibration of Statnamics Test
via Static load test
at Punggol East Contract 40
16th Aug 2012
51 52
UTP 5 - 1st & 2nd Cycle Load Transfer Curve

Static Load Test UTP 5
Pile ref. : UTP 5
Pile Diameter : 900 mm
Pile Length : 56.80 m
Ref. Borehole : BH-9
Pile installed : 2nd Dec
2011
Test : 17th Dec
commenced 2011
Test completed : 24th Dec
2011
Working Load : 492.0 tons
1st Cycle 2nd Cycle
*T1&T2 Telltales
53 54
UTP 5 Load vs Settlement Curve (Dial Statnamic Test UTP 3

Gauge)
Pileref. : UTP3
PileDiameter : 900mm
PileLength : 55.20m
Ref.Borehole : ABH9
3.0 WL Testcompleted : 12th Mar2012
1.0 WL WorkingLoad : 477.0tons
Permanentsettlement=4.1mm
16mm
55 56
UTP 3 Statnamic Load Transfer Curve

UTP 3 - Statnamic Pile Top & Toe Displacement vs Time Plot
57 58
UTP 3 Statnamic Load vs Settlement Plot Static & Statnamic Test Results Comparison
Pileref.No. UTP3 UTP5 UTP6 UTP7
LoadTestmethod Statnamic Static Statnamic Static
1.0 WL 3.0 WL PileDiameter 900mm 900mm 700mm 700mm
PileLength 55.200m 56.800m 41.505m 46.098m
Ref.Borehole ABH9 BH9 ABH16 ABH20
DesignWL(tons) 477.0 492.0 288.0 295.0
Max.loadapplied 1,506.0 1,446.0 966.0 871.0
(tons) (3.15xWL) (2.94xWL) (3.35xWL) (2.95xWL)
Max.staticLoad 1,498.0 Sameasabove 949.0 Sameasabove
(tons)tested (3.14xWL) (3.29xWL)
Max.Displacementat 19.00mm 15.13mm 16.50mm 11.25mm
19mm 3.0xWL
Max.Displacementat ~4.5mm ~4.24.5 ~3mm ~3mm
1.0xWL
mm
Permanent 3.74mm 4.50mm 2.74mm 3.20mm
Settlement
59 60
Contribution from Mr Foo H K of
RESOURCE PILING PTE LTD
Compare Statnamic Pile Load Test Result

Against Punggol
Kentledge Load Test Result C40
PILESIZE TESTDATE SETTLEMENT(mm)

NEARESTBOREHOLE
UTP-3&6: Statnamic UTP DATECAST
REFERENCE
(mm) FROM TO 1xWL 2xWL 3xWL
UTP-1,2,4,5,7&8: Kentledge
1 700 5/12/2011 4/1/2012 11/1/2012 3.50 8.00 13.50 ABH2
Compare UTP-2 vs. UTP-3

2 900 7/12/2011 23/12/2011 29/12/2011 4.88 10.25 18.00 BH07
Compare UTP-6 vs. UTP-7
3 900 1/3/2012 12/3/2012 12/3/2012 4.58 10.55 19.05 ABH09 Stn
4 700 9/12/2011 28/12/2011 3/1/2012 3.50 8.00 13.13 BH10
5 900 2/12/2011 17/12/2011 24/12/2011 4.75 9.25 16.75 BH09
6 700 2/3/2012 20/3/2012 20/3/2012 3.24 8.08 17.12 ABH16

Stn
7 700 30/11/2011 9/12/2011 15/12/2011 3.50 7.63 13.38 ABH20
8 900 12/12/2011 7/1/2012 16/1/2012 4.25 7.79 14.75 BH16

UTP-2 UTP-7
UTP-6
UTP-3 UTP-6
0.00 2000.00 4000.00 6000.00 8000.00 10000.00 12000.00 14000.00 16000.00 0.00 2000.00 4000.00 6000.00 8000.00 10000.00
0.00 0.00
-5.00
-5.00
-10.00
-10.00
UTP-3
-15.00
-15.00
-20.00
-20.00
-25.00
-25.00
-30.00
UTP-7
-35.00 -30.00
UTP-6
-40.00
-35.00
UTP-2
-45.00
-40.00
-50.00
-45.00
-55.00
Rapid Load Test from Theory to Practice in Singapore Dr S H Chew (NUS)
Summary
Statnamic test works very well as

compared with static load test in this site!
70
Project 1 Geylang HDB project C18

Totalnoofpileonthissite=714
Case Study 2
Calibration of StatRapid Test
via Static load test
at Punggol waterway C36 and
At Geylang C16 Project
May-June 2013 Additional

StstRapidTest 72
doneonthis
71
StatRapid Setup at test Site
73 74
Video of StatRapid Test in Singapore
75 76
77 78
N
NearBH3and
BH6 0
0
0
2
18
37
78
80
80
100
79 80
Additional Comparing with Static Load Test Results

StstRapidTest
doneonthis
Settlement Settlement Settlement

@2.0WL=9.2mm @2.0WL=11.0mm @2.0WL=7.0mm
@2.5WL=11.2mm @2.3WL=12.3mm @2.3WL=8.6mm
81 82
Settlement using Scale Rule
P=3.7MN,d=4.5mm
StatRapidResults
P=7.4MN,d=9.0mm
83 84
Settlement Rate Correlation of Statnamic

Issue
vs Static test Recent
Malaysia Case
9.6 mm 10.0 mm
85 86
1. Pile and Testing Details Testing conducted on 18 July 2014
Pile Pile Pile Working Test Test Date

ID Dia. Length Load Load Method
(m) (m) (kN) (kN)
TP1 1.0 34.50 9,000 22,500 Statnamic 18th July
2014
TP2 1.2 29.10 12,900 32,250 Static 2nd to 6th
(Kent- July 2014
ledge)
87 88
N-Values of Boreholes near to test piles Summary Result for TP 1 and TP2
Pile Cut-off level
89 90
1. Load Settlement Respond Specific Settlement 2. Normalised Load Settlement Respond of Static
at Specific Load Test Pile (TP 1) and Statnamic Test Pile (TP 2)
91 92
In summary, the overall load-settlement respond 3. Load Transfer Curves

of static equivalent from statnamic compares TP 1 TP 2
very well with the conventional static load test
results.
Note that the two piles TP1 and TP2 do not have
the same length, not the same diameter, and not
exactly the same soil profile, yet their
normalised load-settlement performance are
very rational and very close to one another.
93 94
Comparison of Load Transfer Curves from Comparison of Load Transfer Curves from
Static and Statnamic Non-dimensional Static and Statnamic with Normalized Depth
Debonded
95 96
4. Mobilised Shaft Friction for TP 1 Mobilised Shaft Friction for TP 2 (Static test )
(Statnamic test )
97 98
Mobilized End Bearing for TP1 and TP 2 1. The load-settlement behavior of the test piles subjected to
Static test and Statnamics test was very similar.
2. Correlation between the two was found to be excellent in

terms of (a) specific settlement values at specific load, as
well as (b) non-dimensional load settlement respond, where
settlement is normalized by pile diameter, and load is
normalized by working load.
3. d. The load-transfer curves of the two test piles are very

much the same in nature and again, correlation between the
two test methods (Statnamic and static) were excellent.
4. The mobilized unit shaft friction and unit end bearing

mobilized were found to be very consistent between results
of static test and Statnamic test.
99 100
5. Correlation --
In conclusion, Statnamic Test was well Summary of correlation tests conducted

correlated with the Static Test conducted between Rapid Load tests and Static
at this particular site. load tests in Singapore/Malaysia soils
101 102
A. Test sequence HDB Punggol C36 Pile 7C47/1 (STATIC -> STATRAPID)
Four (4) possible arrangements of Correlation
Tests
Same Pile : StatRapid load test -> Static load test
Same Pile : Static load test -> StatRapid load test
Different nearby piles (with same diameter) with similar
soil profile
Different nearby piles (with different diameters) with
similar soil profile. Simplified Soil Profile
B. Soil Profiles 15m of loose silty sand
3m of firm clay (Kallang Formation)
Typical ..Kallang, OA 3m of dense silty sand
Kallang, Jurong Formation 3m of stiff sandy organic clay (Kallang Formation)
27m of dense to very dense silty sand (OA)
Residual Soils, Jurong Formation
103 104
HDB Punggol C36 Pile 7C47/1 (STATIC -> STATRAPID) HDB Punggol C36 Pile G74/5 (STATRAPID -> STATIC)
74/5 Simplified Soil Profile

12m of soft to firm sandy silt (Kallang Formation)
12m of sandy clay (Kallang Formation)
22.2m of medium to very dense silty sand (OA)
105 106
HDB Punggol C36 Pile G74/5 (STATRAPID -> STATIC)
Very good correlation for piles socketed in

OA even with thick layer of loose silt on
top!
Noted that there was very little permanent

settlement in both piles during virgin load
cycles by StatRapid or Static Test.
107 108
95 Marine Parade (STATRAPID -> STATIC (2 weeks later)

95 Marine Parade (STATRAPID -> STATIC (2 weeks later)
Simplified Soil Profile

3m of sandy silt (fill)
3m of silty sand
9m of marine clay (Kallang Formation)
24m of sandy clay (Kallang Formation)
16.5m of sandy silt (OA)
109 110
Bukit Merah
Very good correlation for the pile
socketed in OA even with thick layer
of marine clay
Care is required for correlation as

permanent settlement from virgin
load by quasi-static test need to be
accounted for. This is also true vice
versa Simplified Soil Profile
4m of sandy clay Residual soil - fill)

16.18m of hard silt (Jurong Formation)
111 112
Bukit Merah
Very good correlation for the pile socketed in
Jurong Formation after accounting for
permanent settlement.
Care is required for correlation as permanent

settlement from virgin load by static test
need to be accounted for. This is also true
vice versa.
113 114
Yishun N5C6 Yishun N5C6 4 StatRapid vs 4 Static test on different nearby piles
Pile - Pile Working Settlement @ Load
Testing Dia., D Load Cycle (Settlement/pile diameter, %) Soil Profile
Method (mm) WL (MN) 1.0 x WL 2.0 x WL
P9 1st 5.04 mm (0.56%) -
G41-1 900 4.7 6m of sandy silt
Static 2nd - 10.41 mm (1.16%) 6m of hard sandy
silt
P10 1st 3.90 mm (0.39%) - 11.3m of silty sand
G14-2 1000 5.75 4.91m of silty sand
StatRapid 2nd - 9.60 mm (0.96%)
StatRapid % - Static % -0.17% -0.20%

12m firm sandy silt
1st 4.36 mm (0.55%) -
P11 3m of very stiff
G50-6 800 3.7 sandy silt
Static 2nd - 8.48 mm (1.06%) 15.07m of dense
silty sand
6m of sandy silt
P12 1st 3.80 mm (0.42%) -
6m of sandy clay
G3-2 900 4.7
15.03m of silty
StatRapid 2nd - 9.80 mm (1.09%)
sand
StatRapid % - Static % -0.13% 0.03%
115 116
Yishun N5C6 4 StatRapid vs 4 Static test CONCLUSIONS

on different neighbouring piles
RapidLoadTest(RLT)isaworldwideacceptedpiletestingmethod,
whichiscoveredbymanynationalandinternationalcodes,
STR vs
ST regulationsandguidelines.
STR
Smaller
Statnamic(STN)andStatRapid(STR)areRapidLoadTests(RLT)and
generatesimilarpiletestingresults.
STR
Larger RLTincombinationwiththeUPManalysismethod,yieldsconsistent
anduserindependentpileloadtestresultscomparablewithstatic
loadtests.Creepphenomenahoweverarenotconsidered.
STR
Larger
WiththedevelopmentofStatRapid(STR)asafe,productiveandeasy
STR
tousedevicehasbecomeavailable,whichallowstoperformseveral
Larger
piletestperdayeconomicallyandreliably.
118
CONCLUSION ON CORELLECTION PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT

WITH STATIC TEST CASE STUDY OF STATRAPID TEST @PUNGGOL C36
Activity Kentledge Load Test StatRapid Load
- Excellent correlation were obtained between Rapid Method Test Method
Load test vs static test for various type of correlation Construction of kentledge base
1. Kentledge base 1 day -
sequence, and at typical Singapore soils (KF, OA, Mob / Setup
FJ). 1. Test beam and leg setting up 1 set / 0.5 day NA
2. Concrete block setting up 360 Ton / day NA
- Care need to taken for same pile correlation test 3. Equipment setting up NA 1.5 day
conducted for virgin load-settlement cycle vs 4. Testing Duration
Demob / Removal
4days 1 day
Unloaded-reloaded cycles. 1. Test beam and leg removal 1 set / 0.5 day NA
- Rate effect is negligible for Singapore / Malaysia 2. Concrete block removal
3. Equipment removal
360 Ton / day
NA
NA
1 day
piling practices as most of the piles design are well Trailer Trips ~40tonnespertrailer, Fourtrailertrips
socketed into stiff soil/weathered rock. NO pile ESTIMATED DURATION FOR 2,000 ton
~Hundredsoftripseachway
~16days
eachway
3.5days
embedded in stiff clay (floating friction pile).
- Productivity increase. 119
PRODUCTIVITYINCREASEOF~400%! 120
Punggol East Contract 36 & Common Green

Original Piling Contract Duration:
6.5 months
(March Mid-October)
Conventional Load Test (Est. Duration) Thank You !!

14 Nos of SLT
7 Nos of SLT were replaced with
STATRAPID
(Selection of SLTs on the critical path)
PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:

All SLTs completed by end August
Project completed 1.5

months ahead of schedule!!
Productivity gain !!
121

Rapid Pile Load Test From Theory To Practices DR Chew

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Rapid Pile Load Test From Theory To Practices DR Chew

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Rapid Load Test from Theory to Practice in Singapore Dr S H Chew (NUS) Rapid Load Test from Theory to Practice

actice in Singapore Dr S H Chew (NUS)

GEOSS SEMINAR 2014

1. Introduction TraditionalPileloadtest StaticMaintainedLoad

1. Determine the bearing capacity of piles Morerecently,inMalaysiaandSingapore,dueto

2. Theory -- Concept and

Peter Middendorp StatRapid

Modular and adjustable spring system

In Europe, there is a growing awareness that in Dynamics

Comparison between Static, Rapid

Static Rapid Dynamic

Load Test STATIC

Unloading Point Method (UPM)

Analysis of Rapid Load Test Equation of motion -- single d.o.f model

In Rapid load test (e.g. Statnamic and

Converting RAPID (STATNAMIC) to STATIC ..

time Dynamic effects

Peak Force Point Rapid Load (statnamic)

(Correction for Damping and rate effect)

Unloading Point Displacement u

Unloading Point Method (UPM) Measurements Rapid Load Testing

Unloading Point Method (UPM) Equilibrium:

FSOIL(t) = Reaction force of a(t) = Measured acceleration [m/s2]

the soil on the pile. m = Mass of the pile [kg]

FSOIL : Fstatic-spring = F(t) - m x a(t) C x v(t)

Multiple Cyclic Testing

Sheffield Method (SHM) Sheffield Method (SHM)

RLT Test Criteria Load DLT RequirementsforRLT

10 < Tf / (L/cp) < 1000

Comparison of Load Tests

-- A. Examples of projects using

-- where and why it was used

3000 Tons Test at Jn P. Ramlee & Mont Kiara, Kuala Lumpur

3000 Tons Test at Second Link, Johor Singapore Practices - STATNAMIC

Tuas West Extension : LTA C1687 & C1688

Singapore Practices - STATNAMIC Singapore Practices - STATRAPID

Other StatRapid Photos - STATRAPID

4. Practices Case Study of RLT

-- B. Case Study of projects using

Static & Statnamic Load Test

16th Aug 2012

UTP 5 - 1st & 2nd Cycle Load Transfer Curve

1st Cycle 2nd Cycle

UTP 5 Load vs Settlement Curve (Dial Statnamic Test UTP 3

UTP 3 Statnamic Load Transfer Curve

Compare Statnamic Pile Load Test Result

PILESIZE TESTDATE SETTLEMENT(mm)

Compare UTP-2 vs. UTP-3

5 900 2/12/2011 17/12/2011 24/12/2011 4.75 9.25 16.75 BH09

6 700 2/3/2012 20/3/2012 20/3/2012 3.24 8.08 17.12 ABH16

8 900 12/12/2011 7/1/2012 16/1/2012 4.25 7.79 14.75 BH16

Statnamic test works very well as

Project 1 Geylang HDB project C18

May-June 2013 Additional

StatRapid Setup at test Site

Video of StatRapid Test in Singapore

Additional Comparing with Static Load Test Results

Settlement Settlement Settlement

Settlement using Scale Rule

Settlement Rate Correlation of Statnamic

1. Pile and Testing Details Testing conducted on 18 July 2014

Pile Pile Pile Working Test Test Date

Pile Cut-off level