ANALYSIS OF PILE LOAD TESTS DATA

D. M. Dewaikar
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400076. Email:dmde@civil.iitb.ac.in

Pallavi M. Joshi
Postgraduate student, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400076. Email:pallavi_j@iitb.ac.in
ABSTRACT: To ascertain the field performance and estimate load carrying capacities of piles, in-situ pile load tests are conducted. Due to practical and time constraints, it is not possible to load the pile up-to failure particularly in case of rock socketed piles. These considerations have given greater impetus into search of alternative methods for determining the pile load-settlement behaviour up-to failure to estimate ultimate axial load. In this paper, field pile load tests data is analyzed to estimate the ultimate load. The analysis is based on the forty pile load tests results collected from various infrastructure and building sites in Mumbai region. Collected data is analyzed using various graphical/ semi-empirical methods available in literature. A new method of extrapolation of field data is also proposed in this paper. Keywords: Pile load test; Ultimate Load; Safe Load; Factor of Safety; Method of Extrapolation

1. INTRODUCTION Piling is one of the ancient foundation methods and the uses of pile as a foundation element are well established. To ascertain the field performance and estimate load carrying capacity, in-situ pile load tests are conducted, whereupon piles may be subjected to static, dynamic or cyclic loads. The scope of this paper is limited to the analysis of pile load tests data for axially loaded piles. Pile load tests give the load settlement behavior up-to some preassigned load or load up-to failure. The practical constraints and cost considerations have given greater impetus into search of alternative methods for determining the pile load-settlement behaviour. The analysis in this paper is based on forty detailed load tests data compiled from information collected from various sites of infrastructures as well as building projects in Mumbai region. Bored cast in situ piles socketed in rocks are preferred in Mumbai region as foundations for tall structures and flyovers. Typical profile of Mumbai consists of soft soil followed by completely weathered rock and then bed rock i.e. discontinuous, strong rock like Basalt and weak rocks like Breccia or Tuff. 2. ULTIMATE CAPACITY OF A PILE For a pile stronger than soil, the ultimate failure load is reached when rapid settlements occur under sustained load and the pile plunges. For pile foundation projects, it is usually necessary 1

to confirm capacity and to verify that the behavior of a pile agrees with the assumptions of the design. Ultimate pile capacity can be determined theoretically and also by performing static or dynamic field pile load test. In this paper, various methods of determining pile capacity based on the static field load test data are used and results are presented. The methods available for determining pile capacity from field load tests data are reviewed in the following sections. 3. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 3.1. Van der Veen Method (1953) The load-settlement curve is approximated as an exponential function. A plot of s vs Ln (1-P/Pu) is drawn for various assumed values of ultimate load (s=settlement, P= corresponding load, Pu = assumed ultimate load and Ln represents natural logarithm). The ultimate capacity is defined as that value of assumed ultimate load at which curve becomes closest to a straight line (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Ultimate load by Van der Veens Method (Hwang et. al., 2003)

3.2. Brinch Hansen Method (1963) The square root of each settlement value from field load tests data divided by corresponding load value is plotted against the settlement (Fig. 2).
0.0018 0.0016 0.0014 0.0012 0.001 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 0.0002 0 0 y = 1E-04x + 0.0007

axial compression tests and the tests carried out with piles in field and in laboratory showed that, load-settlement relation was hyperbolic, i.e., = m + c (2) P Where, P = Load = Settlement m = slope of the straight line c = y intercept of the straight line To apply Chins method, a plot is made between settlement divided by corresponding load and the settlement. As shown in Fig. 4, after some initial variation, the plotted values fall on a straight line. The inverse slope of this line gives the ultimate load as proposed by Chin.

Sqrt(settlement)/load

Settlement (inches)

Fig.2. Estimation of ultimate load by Brinch Hansen Method

Ultimate load is given as Q = 2CC2 u 1 Where, Qu = ultimate load capacity C1 = slope of the best fitting straight line C2 = y-intercept of the straight line

(1)

Fig. 4: Ultimate Load by Chins Method

3.3. De Beer Method (1968) De Beer (1968) made use of the logarithmic linearity by plotting the load-settlement data in a double-logarithmic form as shown in Fig. 3. The intersection point of two straight lines on a loglog plot gives the magnitude of ultimate load. But the use of this method has a constraint due to the reason that in most of the load tests, pile is not loaded up-to failure.

3.5. F. Ahmad et. al. (1997) F. Ahmad et.al. (1997) proposed a reduction factor to Chins extrapolated value of the ultimate capacity. In the settlement/load vs settlement plot, it was observed that, generally two straight lines could be drawn through these points. As shown in Fig. 5, the ratio of settlement s (settlement between the point of intersection of two straight lines and that corresponding to final test load) to s (total settlement) is taken to be the reduction factor (RF) for that set of test data.

Fig. 3. De Beers Double Logarithmic Method

3.4. Chins Method (1970) The experimental study of shear deformation characteristics obtained from shear box and tri2

Fig. 5: Ultimate Load (Modified Chins Method)

s RF = s Qmod = RF * Qch

(3)

Where, RF = reduction factor Qmod = modified Chins value of ultimate capacity Qch = Chins value of ultimate capacity 3.6. Fuller and Hoy Method (1970) The method is based on the concept of tangent flexibility of load vs settlement curve. Ultimate capacity (Fig. 6) is defined as the load corresponding to the point on load vs settlement curve whose tangent slope equals to 1 Ton/1.27 mm (1 Ton/0.05).

3.8. Butler and Hoy Method (1977) This method is similar to Fuller and Hoy method. Failure load corresponds to the point of intersection of tangent sloping at 1 Ton/1.27 mm (1 Ton/0.05) and tangent to the initial straight portion of the curve (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8. Ultimate Load (Butler and Hoy)

3.9. Shens Method (1980) Load-settlement curve is drawn with settlement vs log load coordinates and a curve with linear tail is obtained. Starting point of linear tail is defined as the ultimate load (Fig. 9).

Fig. 6. Ultimate Load (Fuller and Hoy)

3.7. Mazurkiewiczs Method (1972) The method assumes the load-settlement curve to be a parabola. A series of arbitrarily chosen equal pile head settlement lines with corresponding load lines are constructed. From the intersection of each load line with the load axis, a 450 line is drawn to intersect with the next load line. These intersection points approximately fall on the same line, and its intersection with the load axis gives ultimate load as shown Fig. 7.

Fig. 9. Ultimate Load by Shens Method (Hwang et. al., 2003)

3.10. Decourts Extrapolation (1999) Divide each load with its corresponding settlement and plot the resulting value against the applied load. A linear regression over the apparent line (last four points in the example case) determines the line. Decourt identified the ultimate load as intersection of this line with load axis (Fig. 10).

Fig. 7. Ultimate Load by Mazurkiewiczs Method (Fellenius, 1980)

Where Q1-h and Q2-h are the predicted safe loads according to the first and second criterion of IS code, respectively. Lower of the two is recommended as the safe load. The safe load is the minimum of two thirds of the final load at which total settlement attains a value of 12 mm or fifty percent of the total load at which total settlement equals 10 percent of pile diameter (IS 2911, Part IV, 1985).

4.0. PROPOSED METHOD OF ANALYSIS

In the proposed analysis, load vs settlement behaviour of the pile reported in a static load tests is extrapolated using a mathematical / numerical method. The estimation of ultimate load consists of four steps as given below. a. Plotting load settlement curve from field load test data (Fig. 12)

Fig. 10. Decourts Method

3.11. Muthukrishnaiah and Muthukumar Method (2000) This method is based on the procedure suggested by Kaniraj and Samantha (1996). Settlement and load are expressed as non-dimensional parameters (Q' and S'). Q' = Q/Qr (4) S' = S/D (5) Where, S = settlement of pile at load Q Q' = Ratio of Q to reference load Qr S' = Ratio of settlement s to pile diameter D The load-settlement curve is assumed to be a hyperbola, with the relationship between Q' and S' given as Q' (6) = a + bS '
S'

Fig. 12

b. Choosing best fit curve for the data plotted (Fig. 13)

The constants a, b are determined from linear regression analysis of Q'/S' and S' (Fig. 11).

Fig. 11. Muthukrishnaiah and Muthukumar Method

Fig. 13

The expressions for two loads proposed by this method are as follows. 8Qr (7) Q1 h = aD + 12b 0.05Qr Q2 h = (8) a + 0.1b 4

c. Extension of curve for generating extrapolated values (Fig. 14)

Fig. 14 d. Estimation of ultimate load using De Beers Method (Fig. 15)

Chins and modified Chins methods show large variations in results. Mazurkiewiczs method shows only one case with FS between 2.5 to 3.5. Ultimate loads estimated using Butler and Hoy method show 21 cases with FS between 2.5 to 3.5, 16 cases with FS less than 2.5 and 3 cases with FS more than 3.5. Decourts method shows 8 results with FS between 2.5 to 3.5. In rest of the cases, FS values are less than 2.5. Therefore, all the above mentioned methods are not suitable for the estimation of ultimate loads. Using safe loads obtained by Muthukrishnaiah and Muthukumar method and ultimate loads by proposed method, FS values are computed as given below. Number of Cases FS 18 2.5 3.5 13 <2.5 9 >3.5 Safe loads obtained as per IS 2911 (using proposed extrapolation method) and Muthukrishnaiah and Muthukumar method show large deviations (Table 3). Therefore, Muthukrishnaiah and Muthukumar method is not suitable for the estimation of safe/ ultimate loads. Ultimate loads obtained by Shens method show FS values less than 2.5 in all forty cases. Loads predicted by Shens method and safe loads obtained by the proposed method of extrapolation are compared (Table 3). The variation is 25 % to + 20% and therefore Shens method can be used for approximate estimation of safe loads only. In respect to the proposed method of extrapolation, 24 cases out of 40 show FS more than 2.5, and in other cases it is close to 2.5. Brinch Hansen method shows FS more than 2.5 in all forty cases and Fuller and Hoy method shows FS more than 2.5 in 29 cases. Proposed method of extrapolation, Brinch Hansen method and Fuller & Hoy method are good enough for estimating the ultimate load from the pile load tests data. For further refinement, the above methods are examined for FS in the range 2.5 to 3 and the results are given below. 5

Fig. 15

5.0. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Factor of safety (FS) is calculated as Ultimate Load FS = (9) Safe Load Selection of FS governs the design of any substructural or super-structural element. Higher FS gives more safety but less economy and viceversa. Therefore, an efficient design is a blend of safety plus economy. As per IS criteria, FS should be minimum 2.5. Analysis of field load tests data is carried out using available methods in literature. For application of some of these methods, it is required to conduct pile load test up-to failure. Since load tests cannot be conducted up-to failure in rock socketed piles; extrapolated load-settlement data is used to estimate the ultimate load, for such methods. Extrapolated data is used in respect to the following methods. (i) Butler and Hoy Method (ii) Fuller and Hoy Method Brinch Hansen Method (iii) Safe loads (Table 1) are estimated as per IS 2911, Part IV, (1985) and the values of FS are reported in Table 2.

Proposed method of analysis 17 cases Brinch Hansen method 20 cases Fuller and Hoy method 9 cases Brinch Hansen and proposed method appear to be equally good. However, computation of safe load is easier/ faster with the proposed method.
Table 1: Safe loads as per IS 2911
Test No 2/3rd of load corresponding to settlement of 12 mm 50 % of load corresponding to settlement of 10% of pile diameter No Safe load (T) 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 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Test No

2/3rd of load corresponding to settlement of 12 mm

50 % of load corresponding to settlement of 10% of pile diameter

Safe load (T)

39 40

181.04 252.99

251.905 295.345

181.04 252.99

Table 2: Factors of Safety by Various Methods

Factors of safety 1 2.63 2.58 2.70 2.68 2.93 3.87 -3.60 3.20 2.99 3.42 3.40 2.69 2.50 2.51 3.73 2.90 2.41 3.08 2.94 -2.78 2.98 2.69 3.71 --2.77 2.70 3.75 3.30 3.50 2.96 2.88 2.53 2.43 2.77 3.80 3.70 2.95 2 3.55 1.10 1.72 1.28 3.16 3.15 1.32 0.89 1.24 1.93 1.23 2.09 2.33 2.28 1.62 1.26 4.43 3.07 3.44 3.28 1.84 1.41 1.28 1.05 1.43 0.69 3.09 1.09 2.25 1.09 4.47 0.72 1.59 1.49 2.11 2.20 2.44 1.84 2.51 1.10 3 1.99 0.44 1.41 0.96 2.39 2.21 1.03 0.63 0.90 1.08 0.63 1.05 1.16 1.82 1.00 1.06 3.45 2.39 3.03 2.07 1.16 1.23 0.96 0.70 0.71 0.58 2.17 0.75 2.00 0.89 3.08 0.49 1.06 0.49 1.26 1.10 1.95 1.45 2.01 1.01 4 2.49 2.04 3.00 3.17 2.97 0.00 2.93 3.43 3.04 6.28 3.03 2.90 3.01 3.04 2.18 3.60 3.27 2.46 2.61 3.17 4.97 2.85 5.30 3.04 3.61 2.04 2.55 3.39 3.74 4.23 3.21 4.30 3.08 1.78 2.37 1.81 3.11 2.82 2.70 1.49 5 2.55 1.07 1.32 1.25 1.28 1.68 1.46 0.98 1.11 0.94 0.93 1.33 1.46 1.64 1.39 1.24 2.05 1.95 1.21 2.14 1.43 1.49 1.48 1.47 1.28 0.50 1.09 1.47 1.98 1.42 1.34 -1.56 1.49 1.22 1.56 1.89 1.27 1.02 1.12 6 2.38 1.82 2.31 2.35 2.35 2.51 3.52 2.65 2.28 5.47 2.45 2.27 2.13 2.20 1.82 2.77 2.29 1.85 1.94 2.38 4.07 2.49 4.54 2.44 2.97 1.79 2.25 2.60 3.01 3.33 2.28 3.44 2.20 1.80 2.32 3.20 3.19 2.50 2.61 2.95 7 1.07 0.86 1.20 1.19 1.16 2.72 1.13 1.09 1.08 1.38 1.01 1.21 1.26 1.27 1.13 1.20 1.21 1.30 1.10 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.00 1.03 1.41 0.85 1.12 1.11 1.14 1.07 1.02 1.04 1.05 1.17 1.06 0.73 0.77 0.97 0.93 0.61 8 3.10 0.92 1.18 1.57 1.44 1.65 1.17 1.37 1.26 1.39 1.14 1.43 1.57 1.44 1.39 1.30 1.66 1.70 1.30 1.52 3.70 1.40 3.74 1.06 1.13 1.43 1.27 1.56 2.67 1.85 1.41 1.16 1.43 1.63 -1.27 2.87 2.53 2.85 3.10 9 2.86 2.63 2.34 2.52 2.45 2.52 2.60 2.52 2.50 2.73 2.03 2.49 2.50 2.57 2.51 1.75 2.01 2.00 2.03 2.62 2.50 2.49 2.04 1.48 2.08 2.50 2.50 2.55 2.04 2.34 2.01 2.75 2.52 2.25 2.47 2.27 2.17 2.46 2.46 2.03

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 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

718.80 282.57 395.28 398.20 322.37 323.53 1266.35 802.37 822.75 704.55 1034.92 486.95 438.44 448.07 1051.25 403.96 287.90 332.53 296.54 310.96 553.21 803.67 553.21 415.01 477.07 2239.69 1077.21 1167.09 553.21 468.30 456.28 697.91 203.37 181.19 316.65 650.73 682.35 181.04

917.175 396.45 559.705 568.125 450.255 461.155 2072 1306.2 1269.9 1847.99 1675.46 691.265 661.88 651.06 1194.3 1444.96 420.03 393.25 413.41 427.695 880.215 1082.41 880.215 604.445 759.6 1316.34 2136.87 1872.48 880.215 854.235 691.925 1293.68 246.475 280.585 390.03 930.92 821.85 251.905

718.80 282.57 395.28 398.20 322.37 323.53 1266.35 802.37 822.75 704.55 1034.92 486.95 438.44 448.07 1051.25 403.96 287.90 332.53 296.54 310.96 553.21 803.67 553.21 415.01 477.07 1316.34 1077.21 1167.09 553.21 468.30 456.28 697.91 203.37 181.19 316.65 650.73 682.35 181.04

1: Brinch Hansen 5: Mazurkiewiczs Method 2: Chins Method 6: Butler and Hoy Method 3: Modified Chins 7: Shens Method 4: Fuller and Hoy 8: Decourts Method 9: Proposed method of extrapolation Table 3: Comparison of Loads L1/L2 1.08 1.31 1.00 1.48 1.22 0.96 0.77 1.08 2.33 1.21 0.87 1.16 1.05 1.15 1.20 1.42 1.16 1.21 1.61 0.92 1.07 1.34 1.03 1.25 1.12 3.47 1.01 2.19 1.02 1.20 1.68 1.24 1.31 1.43 1.34 0.89 1.16 1.12 0.83 1.91

L2: Safe load as per Muthukrishnaiah and Muthukumar method L3: Ultimate Load (Shen) Van der Veens plots for ultimate loads obtained by the proposed method show a linear trend in all cases (Fig. 16). This further strengthens the validity of proposed method.

Test No 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 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

L1/L3 0.94 1.16 0.83 0.84 0.86 1.02 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.72 0.99 0.83 0.79 0.79 0.89 0.83 0.83 0.77 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.71 1.17 0.89 0.90 0.88 0.93 0.98 0.96 0.95 0.86 0.95 0.87 1.30 1.04 1.08 0.88

Fig. 16. Van der Veen Plots

L1: Safe load as per IS (using extrapolated loadsettlement curve) 7

6.0. CONCLUDING REMARKS The load test on rock socketed piles cannot be carried till failure, on account of the stiff resistance of socket material and limitation of jack capacity. This necessitates extrapolation of the loadsettlement data in order to follow IS code procedure for the estimation of allowable load. Proposed method of extrapolation enables prediction of entire loadsettlement history of a pile. Also, the safe load based on IS criteria can be predicted using the proposed method only. The extrapolated data is found to be giving satisfactory results, since the factor of safety ranges from 2.5 3.5 in a large number of cases. Brinch Hansens method can be applied for the estimation of ultimate loads. However it also uses the extrapolated data. Computations using the proposed

method are easier and faster as compared to this method. Method proposed by Van der Veen is based on a trial and error technique and hence it is a time consuming method. This method is suitable for verification of ultimate loads obtained by other methods. Shens method shows FS close to unity in all forty cases and hence it is recommended as an approximate method fort estimating safe loads only. Perhaps separate codal provisions are required for bored cast-in-situ rock socketed piles in Mumbai region as the load tests cannot be carried out up-to failure to develop a full load-settlement history.

Muthukrishnaiash, K. and Muthukumar, S.: Interpretation of Pile Load Test Data, IGC-2000, the Millennium Conference, pp 111-114, 2000

REFERENCES
Butler, H.D. & Hoy H.E.: Users manual for the Texas quick-load method for foundation load testing. FHWA, Office of Development, Washington, 1977. Chin, F.K.: Estimation of the ultimate load of piles from tests not carried to failure. Proceedings of Second SE Asian Conference on Soil Engineering., Singapore, 1115th June 1970, pp. 81-92, 1970. De Beer, E. E.: Proefondervindlijke bijdrage tot de studie van het grensdraag vermogen van zand onder funderingen op staal. Tijdshift der Openbar Verken van Belgie, No. 6, 1967 and No. 4, 5, and 6, 1968. Decourt, L.: Behavior of foundations under working load conditions, Proceedings of the 11th Pan-American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Foz DoIguassu, Brazil, August 1999, Vol. 4, pp. 453 488, 1999. F. Ahmed & P. J. Pise: Pile load test data-Interpretation & correlation study, Indian Geotechnical Conference, Vadodara, December, 17-20, 1997, pp. 443-446, 1997. Fellenius, B.H.: What capacity value to choose from the results a static loading test, Deep Foundation Institute, Fulcrum, winter 2001, pp. 19-22 and fall 2001, pp. 23-26, 2001. Fellenius, B.H.: The analysis of results from routine pile load tests, Ground Engineering, September, 1980. Fuller, R.M. & Hoy H.E.: Pile load tests including quick -load test method, conventional methods and interpretations. HRB 333: 76-86, 1970. Hansen, J.B.: Discussion on hyperbolic stress-strain response, cohesive soils. American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, Journal for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 89, SM4, pp. 241 242, 1963. Hwang, J. H., Li, J. C. C. Liang, N.: On methods for interpreting bearing capacity from a pile load test, Journal of Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society, April 2003, pp. 27-39, 2003. IS2911 (Part 4): Code of practice for Design and Construction of Pile Foundation- load tests on piles, 1985, Reaffirmed 1995.