Evaluation of Ultimate Vertical Capacity of Pile From

Full Scale Pile Load Test

Dr. Jaymin Patil1, Dr. Jay Shukla2 and Mr. Shadab A Gadhiya3
1, 3
Larsen and Tubro, Sargent and Lundy, Vadodara, India
2
Geo Dynamics, Vadodara, India
Jaymin.Jay.Shadab@springer.com

Abstract. To validate the theoretical pile capacity, full scale pile load test is the
most common approach. It is often not possible to test the pile up to failure. It
was often observed that under the test load the pile does not reach ultimate pile
capacity. Hence in such cases extrapolation of load-settlement curve is required
to arrive at ultimate load. Various methods were proposed in the past by re-
searchers such as Chin Kondner, Decourt, Davisson, Brinch Hansen etc. to
evaluate extrapolated ultimate pile capacity. Data from 14 pile load tests were
analyzed using above methods to estimate ultimate pile capacity. Based on the
comparison, it has been observed that, each method estimated different values
of ultimate load under different test loads and no specific method can be rec-
ommended based on accuracy to evaluate the ultimate pile capacity.

Keywords: Pile load test, Ultimate pile capacity, Load-settlement curve

1 Introduction

Static load test are used to confirm the actual ultimate load capacity of pile with re-
spect to theoretical ultimate capacity. The ultimate capacity of pile can be defined as
the load for which the rapid settlement occurs or when the pile plunges. However,
often the ultimate load is not established during the test. Therefore the ultimate capac-
ity of pile can be obtained with some criteria using load-settlement data. Past re-
searchers suggested different method to determine ultimate pile capacity.
As per Fellenius (2001), an old definition of capacity has been the load for which
the pile head movement exceeds a certain value, usually 10 % of the diameter of the
pile, or a given distance, often 1.5 inch. Such definitions do not consider the elastic
shortening of the pile, which can be substantial for long piles, while it is negligible for
short piles.
It is of utmost importance to arrive at ultimate capacity for the design purpose
based on some methods. Few of these methods are Davisson offset limit, Hansen
ultimate load, the Chin-Kondner extrapolation, Decourt methods etc. However, IBC
2003 permits to evaluate the ultimate load by Davisson Offset method, Brinch Hansen
Criterion and Chin-Konder Extrapolation method. The above mentioned methods
 2

have been considered to evaluate ultimate pile capacities using load-settlment curve
from static pile load test.

2 The Davisson Offset Limit Load

The method was proposed by Davisson (1972) as the load corresponding to the
movement that exceeds the elastic compression of the pile (taken as a free-standing
column) by a value of 0.15 inch (4 mm) plus a factor equal to the diameter of the pile
divided by 120. Fig. 1 shows a load-settlement curve of 750mm diameter pile for the
site Bibiyana III, Bangladesh. The Davisson ultimate load is also depicted in Fig. 1.
It can be noticed that the offset limit load is not the ultimate load. The method is
based on the assumption that capacity is reached at a certain small toe movement and
tries to estimate that movement by compensating for the stiffness (length and diame-
ter) of the pile.

Fig. 1. Davisson’s offset limit load method

 3

3 The Hansen 80-% Criterion (Fellenius, 2001)

J. Brinch Hansen in year 1963, proposed a definition for pile capacity as the load that
gives four times the movement of the pile head as obtained for 80% of that load. This
'80%- criterion’ can be estimated directly from the load movement curve, but is more
accurately determined in a plot of the square root of each movement value divided by
its load value and plotted against the movement as shown in Fig. 2 for a load-
settlement curve of 750mm diameter pile for the site Bibiyana III, Bangladesh.

Fig. 2. Hansen’s 80% criteria

Following relation can be derived for computing ultimate load:

Qu =1/2*(C1*C2)0.5 = ½* SQRT (0.00025*0.01) = 316MT (1)

δu = C2 / C1 = 0.01/0.00025 = 40mm (2)

Where Qu = Ultimate load; C1= slope of the straight line; C2= Y-intercept of the
straight line; δu = settlement at the ultimate load

Equation 1 implies that Hansen Ultimate load is 316 MT which is slightly more than
applied load of 305MT. It is utmost important to check the point 0.80 Qu – 0.25 u lies
 4

on or near to measured load-settlement curve as shown in Fig. 3. The Hansen curve

and measure curve should preferably be in close proximity between the load equal to
about 80 % of the Hansen ultimate load and the ultimate load itself.

Fig. 3. Hansen Curve and Measured Curve

4 Chin-Kondner Extrapolation

Chin (1970) proposed an application to piles of the general work by Kondner (1963).
Chin assumes that the relationship between load and settlement is hyperbolic. The
method is similar to the Hansen method. To apply the Chin-Kondner method, divide
each settlement with its corresponding load and plot the resulting value against the
settlement. As shown in Fig. 4, after some initial variation, the plotted values will fall
on straight line. The inverse slope of this line is the Chin-Kondner Extrapolation of
the ultimate load.

Qu =1/C1 = 1/ 0.00333 = 300 MT (3)

The equation of the ‘ideal’ curve is given in below equation

Q = C2δ / (1- C1δ) (4)

Where Q = applied load; C1= slope of the straight line; C2= Y-intercept of the straight
line
 5

The Chin-Kondner Extrapolation method can be used to determine load-settlment

curve as shown in Fig.5.

Fig. 4. Chin-Kondner Extrapolation

 6

Fig. 5. Chin-Kondner Curve and Measured Curve

5 Decourt Extrapolation

Decourt (1999) proposes a method, which construction is similar to those used in

Chin-Kondner and Hansen methods. To apply the method, divide each load with its
corresponding settlement and plot the resulting value against the applied load. The
Decourt extrapolation load limit is equal to the ratio between the Y- intercept and the
slope of the line as given in the equation below.

Qu = C2 / C1 = 200/ 0.67 = 300 MT (5)

Fig. 6. Decourt Extrapolation

6 Static pile load test data

The load-settlement data are from different projects located in Bangladesh. These data
are analyzed using different extrapolation methods. Table 1 summarizes the pile load
test results. The test load has been applied is 2.5 times the design load.
 7

Table 1. Pile Load Test Results

Max
De-
Pile Pile Test Settle- Da- Hasen Chin- De-
Sr. sign
Dia, Length, Load tle- vison, -80%, Kondne Court,
No load,
mm m , MT ment, MT MT r, MT MT
MT
mm
1 750 21 122 305 33 305 316 300 300
2 500 21 71 179 35 174 177 200 210
3 750 21 122 305 88 280 234 220 285
4 500 21 71 179 16.5 175 169 167 221
5 750 21 135 203 14 210 - - -
6 600 14.7 96 192 14 190 - - -
7 800 14.7 96 192 16.5 182 192 229 210
8 750 30 122 305 76 325 370 315 322
9 750 30 122 305 37.5 342 373 400 420
10 1200 38 280 700 72 530 560 500 540
350*
11 x 27.4 35 88 35 84 77 100 97
350*
305*
12 x 27.4 30.4 76 40 64 78 71 60
305*
305*
13 x 24.4 40 100 27.5 92 96 100 105
305*
355*
14 x 24.4 40 100 41 76 89 100 110
355*
Note:* represents Square Piles

7 Discussion and choice of evaluation method

It is difficult to choose the best method because the preferred method depends on
one’s past experience and idea of what constitutes the ultimate capacity of pile.
The Davisson offset limit method is very sensitive to errors in the measurement of
settlement and load and required well maintained equipment’s and accurate measure-
ments. This method offers the benefit of allowing the engineer, when proof testing a
pile for a certain allowable load, to determine in advance the maximum allowable
movement for this load with consideration of the length and size of the pile.
The Davisson offset of 0.15 inch plus a value equal to the diameter divided by 120
from the elastic line represents the settlement necessary to mobilize toe resistance.
The elastic deformation of soil proposed by Davisson is specifically for driven piles
 8

and is not appropriate where soil resistance beneath the pile toe has not been fully
mobilized at the beginning of load testing. The Davisson study evaluated piles in-
stalled by driving where a compressed soil plug forms during placement. In contrast,
cast-in-place piles and other types of drilled shafts do not compress the soil beneath
the pile toe during installation. Thus, a greater downward movement of the pile toe
would be required to mobilize the end resistance for cast-in-place piles if all other
conditions are equal.
The Brinch-Hansen 80%-criterion usually gives a ultimate value (Qu value) which
is close to what one subjectively accepts as the true ultimate resistance, determined
from the results of the static loading test.
The Chin-Kondner Extrapolation and the Decourt Extrapolation limit load values
are approached asymptotically. Therefore, these two methods are always obtained by
extrapolation. It is a sound engineering rule never to interpret the results from a static
loading test to obtain an ultimate load larger than the maximum load applied to the
pile in the test. For this reason, an allowable load cannot, must not, be determined by
dividing the limit loads according to Chin-Kondner and Decourt methods with a fac-
tor of safety (Fellenius, 2001).

8 CONCLUSION

For more accurate estimation of ultimate load, the pile must be loaded near to ultimate
load. If the test load applied is less than ultimate load, then the variations in ultimate
load can be obtained using different methods. Hence no conclusion can be drawn
about the suitability of methods for ultimate load evaluation.
The result obtained from static loading test does not provide one simple answer at
first may think. First the method of “Failure load” interpretation used in the industry
is variable. Then the effect of degree of strain softening and residual load will affect
the interpretation.
For non-complex and small projects, such lack is acceptable if the uncertainty is
covered by large factor of safety. For larger and important projects, such approach
will be costly. For these, the test pile should be instrumented and the test data evalu-
ated carefully to work out the various influencing factors.
Combining an instrumented static loading test with dynamic testing, which can be
performed on many piles at a relatively small cost, can extend the application of the
more detailed results of the instrumented static test.
As per England (1994) and England & Fleming (1994), all pile testing methods for
determining bearing capacity, from a continuous rate of penetration test to wave anal-
ysis system, appear to introduce complications related to inability of soils to reach a
stable state in terms of effective stress during the load period. Hence, no specific
method of failure load estimation is workable under all the circumstances.
 9

References
1. Chin F. K. (1970). Estimation of ultimate load of piles not carried to failure, Proceedings,
2nd Southeast Asia Conference on Soil Engineering, pp. 81-92.
2. Davisson M. T. (1972). High Capacity Piles, Proc. Soil Mechanics lecture series on Inno-
vations in Foundation Construction, ASCE, Illinois section, Chicago, pp. 81-112.
3. Decourt L. (1999). 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.
4. England M. (1994). New Techniques for Reliable Pile Installation and Pile Behavior De-
sign and Analysis, Transportation Research Record, Issue Number: 1447, Publisher:
Transportation Research Board, pp. 39-48.
5. England M. and Fleming W.G.K. (1994). Review of foundation testing methods and pro-
cedures, proceedings of Instn. Civ. Engrs Geotech. Engng, 107, July, pp. 135- 142.
6. Fellenius B. H. (2001). What capacity value to choose from the results a static loading test.
We have determined the capacity, then what?, Two articles reprinted from Deep Founda-
tion Institute, Fulcrum, Winter 2001, pp. 19 – 22 and Fall 2001, pp. 23–26.
7. Hansen J. B. (1963). 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.
8. Kondner R. (1963). Hyperbolic Stress-Straim Response of Cohesive Soils, J of SMFD,
ASCE, Vol.89, SM1, pp. 115-143.