Proceedings of the 8th South African Young Geotechnical Engineers Conference,

17, 18 & 19 September 2014 Spier Conference Centre, Stellenbosch, Western Cape

Testing of Screwed-In-Casing Augered Piles using

the Osterberg Load cell at the Mt Edgecombe
Interchange

F. H. van der Merwe1, F. P. Pequenino2

1SMEC SA (Pty) Ltd, Johannesburg, Gauteng, frans.vandermerwe@smec.com
2 SMEC SA (Pty) Ltd, Johannesburg, Gauteng, fernando.pequenino@smec.com

Abstract

Screwed-in-Casing Augered Piles (SICAP) are a commonly used foundation type for bridges
around the world. This pile type is predominantly favoured on bridges which carry significant
loads under strict settlement criteria; SICAP provides higher confidence in the construction
methodology and also allows for good quality assurance tests subsequently allowing
geotechnical engineers to design for higher shaft stresses and moments being transferred into
the piles. Additionally these piles can go to depths exceeding those achievable by many other
pile types. Mt Edgecombe I/C will be founded using SICAP of up to 35m length. In order to
optimise the pile foundation design and verify design assumptions and expected pile
behaviour, full-scale pile load tests were undertaken on three test piles using the Osterberg
load cell. In addition to confirming the ultimate design parameters, the results of the load test
provided valuable insight to the load settlement performance exhibited by these piles and
enabled the design to be adjusted accordingly.

Keywords: Pile Testing, Osterberg Loadcell, Settlement, Side Shear, End Bearing

1 Introduction

The Mount Edgecombe Interchange is a four level interchange that is being constructed in
Umhlanga, Durban, KwaZulu Natal. This will be the third four-level interchange to be
constructed in Durban, all within a 30km stretch on the N2, travelling north from the N2/N3
(EB Cloete Interchange) intersection. Mt. Edgecombe Interchange will be the largest four
level interchange in South Africa, with five new structures, including two incrementally
launched structures of 443m and 947m in length respectively, and three widened structures.
The interchange is currently under construction and is scheduled to be completed in May
2016. SMEC SA (Pty) Ltd are the design engineers, whilst CMC di Ravenna is the contractor
employed by the South African Road Agency Limited (SANRAL). The geotechnical design
was undertaken by SMEC in association with Mr Alan Parrock of ARQ Consulting
Engineers.

1
8th SAYGE Conference 2014

Aeolian (wind-blown) sands are common to the KwaZulu-Natal north coast around Durban
and the site is underlain by Berea Red silty sands to depths of up to 56m. Some more clayey
soils associated with a paleo-channel are also encountered in a broad stream and attenuation
pond located on the southern quadrant of the site.

Due to the depth to bedrock, the high structural loads and strict settlement criteria, pile
foundations were the only feasible solution. The design team was tasked with optimising the
foundation design for over 75 bridge piers, whilst adhering to strict settlement criterion. The
single pile cap settlements were limited to 20mm and differential settlements to 10mm.

Screwed-in-Casing-Augered-Piles (SICAP) were identified as the most suitable pile

foundation for majority of the structures as high shaft stresses could be utilised, and the
construction of the pile would not be affected by such factors such as the high water table and
collapse of soils within the pile bore. Additionally, the piles easily penetrate and found below
a strongly cemented but variable ferricrete layer at 8m and a soft clay layer at about 15m.
Finally, there would be a high degree of confidence in the integrity of the pile shaft as the
concrete placement would be within a casing and the integrity of the pile shaft could be
checked via Cross Hole Sonic Logging (CHSL) tests.

The piles were designed in accordance to the American Petroleum Institutes Guidelines (API,
1989), a Factor of Safety (FoS) of 1.5 was adopted on side shear and 4.0 on end bearing. This
will typically entail a Limit State Design soil resistance factor of 0.4 0.5 on the combined
ultimate capacity; however, the settlement criterion for the individual piles caps on the
incrementally launched bridges need to ensure differential settlement of less than 10mm. In
order to optimise the pile foundation design and verify design assumptions and expected pile
behaviour, full-scale pile load tests were undertaken on three test piles using the Osterberg
load cell. Ultimately the O-cell test had to confirm if these factors of safeties were
appropriate.

Three locations were identified to represent the most critical loaded piers on the project in
typical Berea Red profiles as well as in the predominantly clayey profile found in the
attenuation pond. Figure 1 shows a model of the site. Whilst Figure 2 indicates the position of
the test piles TP1 to TP3.

Figure 1. Model of the Mt Edgecombe Interchange

2
 F.H. van der Merwe, F.P Pequenino

Mt Edgecombe

North Coast
Durban and Airport

Umhlanga

Figure 2. Test pile positions and Interchange Layout

2 Subsurface conditions

Drilling at the site was undertaken in 2011. A borehole was drilled at every pier and abutment
position as well as on different positions where MSE walls were proposed. This included 71
positions in total equalling some 3000m of rotary core drilling. In situ tests included Standard
Penetration Tests (SPTs), Menards Pressure Meter tests and Continuous Surface Wave tests.
Laboratory tests included shearbox, triaxial and standard material index tests. Open
standpipes were installed in all boreholes.

At TP1 the profile adjacent to the shaft length consisted some 60% silty CLAY and 40%
clayey SAND. At TP2 and TP3 the profile consisted 100% silty/clayey SAND (Berea Red
sands) adjacent to the shaft length. Based on the subsurface investigation the watertable was
found to be at 24m, 21m and 24m depth for TP1, TP2 and TP3 respectively.

3 Test Pile and O-Cell Installation

The test piles comprised 900mm diameter SICAP piles and were specified to be installed
using the same methodology and construction materials as all other project piles and prior to
the commencement of any other piles; in this way the test piles would not only verify design
assumptions but also intended construction methodologies and conditions.

The pile bore was excavated by screwing in the first length of casing, whilst augering inside
the casing. The design was based on the principle that the auger should never advance the
casing as the piles capacities are based on a coefficient of lateral earth pressure of K=1
(Assuming = 30), entailing the soil mass should remain at rest (K0) before concrete is cast.
If the auger is advanced below the casing and the casing is inserted afterwards the coefficient
of lateral earth pressure would have changed to an active state. Therefore after concrete
placement K would only be around 0.7 to 0.8 as detailed in Figure 3. Entailing a 20 30%
reduction in the side shear capacity.

3
8th SAYGE Conference 2014

Figure 3. Relationship between lateral strain and lateral pressure coefficient

After reaching the required depth, the reinforcement cage with the attached Osterberg (O-cell)
assembly (Figure 4) was inserted into the pile bores. Concrete was placed in the bore by either
a concrete bucket or by creating a ramp up to the top of the oscillator/casing and directly
discharging into the bore with a tremmie pipe. The temporary casings were removed during
concrete placement.

Figure 4 O-cell assembly

A loading assembly comprising two 330mm O-cell, with 225mm stroke, was installed in all
three of the test piles. The levels of the O-cells are summarised in Table 1. Calculating the
exact position for the O-cell position in a friction pile is an iterative process; which involves
trying to achieve a balance between the upward capacity, building up only in side shear, and
the downward capacity, which is derived from a combination of side shear and end bearing.
This is done by deriving an Everett (1991) settlement curve for the predicted side shear
settlement and end bearing settlement. If the predicted side shear capacity is almost equal to
that of the predicted end bearing the O-cell will be placed as close as possible to the toe, as
can be seen for TP1 in Table 1. If the predicted side shear capacity is higher than that of the
predicted end bearing, the preliminary estimate for the O-cell depth can be calculated by using
the following equation and the predicted Everett load-settlement curves:

4
 F.H. van der Merwe, F.P Pequenino

Qf Qp
x= L (1)
2Qf
where Qf = side shear resistance induced by xmm of settlement [kN]
Qp = End Bearing resistance induced by xmm of settlement [kN]
L = Pile length [m]
x = O-cell depth [m]

The toe deflection was taken to be 10% of the pile diameter, therefore the O-cell with 225mm
stroke was utilised (available in 150 and 225mm stroke).

After determining x, the Everett curves can be reassessed modelling the pile above and below
the O-cell as separate piles, whilst trying to match the Qf (upward) vs Settlement with the
sum of Qf (downwards) and Qb versus settlement curves. Alternatively Fugro recommends as
a rule of thumb to place the cell at two thirds (66%) down the shaft length of a friction pile.
Table 1 summarises the O-cell and strain gauge positions as well as the pile lengths.

Table 1. O-cell assembly

Test O-cell Pile Length % down Strain Gauge

Pile depth the shaft Levels
TP1 23 24 95 5,10,15,20,21
TP2 25 34 73 5,10,15,20,22,27,32
TP3 22 26 84 5,10,15,20,21,24

Pile compression and top of pile movement were recorded using telltales monitored by Linear
Vibrating Wire Displacement Transducers (LVWDTs) and a Leica automated digital survey
level, respectively. Vibrating strain gauges have the advantage over conventional electrical
resistance or semi-conductor types mainly in that the sensor output is a frequency rather that a
voltage or resistance (Hayes, 2002).

Pressure applied to the O-cell was monitored by a Bourdon pressure gauge and electronic
pressure transducers. All the instrumentation and cables where connected through a
Geologger to a laptop allowing data to be updated live and stored automatically.

The Quick Load Test method for Individual piles, in accordance with ASTM D1143 were
specified but using a smaller load-step procedure according to the manufacturers
recommendations.

4 Interpretation of strain gauge readings

In order to determine the side shear developed along the pile shaft, it is necessary to ascertain
the load in the pile at each strain gauge. This is quite complicated, as this varies (decreases)
away from the O-cell, as load is shed into the surrounding soil. Fellenius (2001) provides such
a method which is discussed below and relies on the determination of a composite Youngs
Modulus for the pile concrete and reinforcement.

As an initial estimate, the American Concrete Institute (ACI) provides the following formula
to calculate the concrete modulus (Ec):

Ec = k (fc)0.5 (2)

5
8th SAYGE Conference 2014

where fc = unconfined compressive strength of the concrete, and

k = constant of 4700 when fc is in MPa.

Table 2 summarises the ACI derived Ec.

Table 2. O-cell assembly

Test Fc at time ACI

Pile of testing Ec
(MPa) (GPa)
TP1 56 35
TP2 50.8 33.5
TP3 43.8 31

The modulus of concrete will however not be constant through the range of compressive loads
during a test. Fellenius (2001) notes that the over large stress range imposed during static
testing the difference between initial and final modulus for the pile material can be
substantial. This can be overcome by determining the Fellenius tangent modulus from the test
data. This can be explained easily by considering a strain gauge placed right above the O-Cell
and one 15m up the shaft. For the gauge immediately above the O-cell, the modulus
calculated for each increment is not affected by side shear and the tangent modulus is the
actual modulus. For the gauge at 15m, the first load increment is substantially reduced by side
shear and the actual load change experienced is smaller than the increment of load. The load
change will only be the same once the shaft capacity below the strain gauge has been fully
mobilised. Therefore at the initial stages of increment the tangent modulus will be much
larger (approaching a small strain stiffness) further away from the O-cell than the composite
tangent modulus of a strain situated just above the O-cell.

The mathematics of the method can be explained as follows:

Every measured strain value can be converted to stress via its corresponding strain dependant
secant modulus

The equation for the tangent modulus line is:

Mt = = A + B (3)

Which can be integrated to:
A 2
=( ) +B (4)
2
However:
= Es (5)
Therefore:
Es = 0.5A + B (6)
Where Mt = tangent modulus of composite pile material,
Es = secant modulus of composite pile material,
= shaft stress,

6
 F.H. van der Merwe, F.P Pequenino

d = (n +1 1) = change of stress from one load increment to the next,

A = slope of tangent modulus line,
= measured strain,
d = (n +1 1) = change of strain from one load increment to the next,
B = y-intercept of tangent modulus line (i.e. initial tangent modulus)

It is a good rule of thumb to place one or two strain gauges right above the O-cell where the
strain will not be affected by shaft resistance. Hayes (2002) suggests that although the
tangent modulus is a helpful tool it does have some limitations, namely:

The ultimate side shear values capacities should be reached or exceeded, and
50 micro-strain and preferably more than 200micron should be reached during the
tests.

Fellenius suggests that once the data reduction is complete one should start by plotting the
tangent modulus versus strain for each load increment. This is shown for TP2 in Figure 5
below (the solid line illustrates the ACI derived moduli). The Tangent Moduli will therefore
initially be large and as shaft resistance is mobilised, the calculated moduli will become
smaller.

Figure 5 Tangent Modulus Plot for TP2

Linear regressions of the slopes indicates the tangent moduli and slopes to be summarised in
Table 3.

Table 3. Derived linear regression coefficients

Position A B
(Slope of Tangent Modulus
Tangent (MPa)
Modulus)
TP1 0.122 48
TP2 0.052 48
TP3 0.039 39

From Table 3 one can see that the initial tangent moduli is higher than that reported in Table
2 as derived from the ACI formulation.

Once the tangent modulus has been obtained, the load shed along the pile can be determined
as shown in Figure 6. Subsequently, the mobilised net unit side shear for the various depth
ranges can also be calculated. These are as summarised in Table 4. It should however be
noted that the values reported might not be ultimate values.

7
8th SAYGE Conference 2014

Figure 6 Load distribution for each load applied at TP2

Table 4. Average mobilised net unit skin friction

Position 0-5m 5 10m 10-15m 15-20m 20-25m

(kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
TP1 35 50 71 46
TP2 60 92 116 98 61
TP3 26 38 91 156

From Table 4 one can conclude that the mobilised side shear capacities derived further away
from the O-cell with small strains are higher than the values that would have been derived by
using a constant Es (ACI derived). Fellenius theory thus results in a more optimised design.

5 Load displacement behaviour

Besides verifying ultimate load capacity, the O-cell also provides an indication of the load-
displacement behaviour of the pile which is critical when one considers the strict settlement
required by the bridge designers. The load-displacement behaviour recorded during the test
was analysed both in its individual components (i.e. the pile sections above and below the O-
cell) and the recombined state. The capacities derived from end bearing and side shear from
the O-cell test compared to that predicted by Everetts formulae are as shown in Figures 7 9.

Figure 7 Everett derived load-displacement curves vs. O-cell results for TP1

8
 F.H. van der Merwe, F.P Pequenino

Figure 8 Everett derived load-displacement curves vs. O-cell results for TP2

Figure 9 Everett derived load-displacement curves vs. O-cell results for TP3

When reviewing Figure 7 the predicted total allowable capacity is 3555kN with 8mm of
single pile settlement. From the O-cell test the same settlement can be expected at the
allowable capacity. It should however be noted that the ultimate capacity of the pile is much
lower than predicted, this would be due to an increase in the expected pile toe settlement from
10% of the pile diameter to some 35% and ultimately a decrease in the ultimate end bearing
capacity.

From Figure 8 one can conclude that although the combined settlement behaviour at the
predicted allowable capacity (5225kN) corresponds well to that originally predicted the side
shear buildup induces larger settlement to this point on the combined curve. The ultimate
capacity is however much higher than predicted.

Figure 9 shows that at the allowable capacity the load settlement behaviour is similar to that
predicted. The ultimate side shear capacity is however higher than predicted whilst the end
bearing ultimate capacity is lower.

6 Design Implications

Data from two of the tests showed;

that the ultimate end bearing capacities are lower than the predicted from the API
and Everett theory used in design or require settlements equal to 35% of the pile
diameter to be mobilised

9
8th SAYGE Conference 2014

the ultimate side shear capacity in two of the piles were larger than predicted
the combined settlement at the allowable capacities corresponded well to that
predicted from Everetts equation on all three test piles.

Although the ultimate side shear capacities in two piles were higher than predicted, no
changes were made to the side shear design assumptions. A number of factors contribute to
the calculation of the side shear one of these is for example that the design is based on a
conservatively assessed mean of SPT values. Schneider (1997) argues that a cautious
estimate or conservatively assessed mean with a 5% chance of a worse overall value
would lie about 0.5 standard deviations from the mean. Using an actual mean SPT value
would have in all likelihood proved to be a better assumption for these two piles. It was
however found that by using the cautious estimate SPT in TP1 the predicted ultimate capacity
were almost exactly as predicted. Consequently, no change was made to the assumed FoS on
side shear (of 1.5) nor the on the assumption

The FoS on end bearing was however increased from 4 to 8 due to the lower than predicted
end-bearing capacities and the significant settlement associated with load build-up in end
bearing. This assumption was consequently tested by doing SPTs at the pile-toe/ground
interface. These tests indicated a reduction in SPT values in the order of 50%, this
corresponds to the reduction in ultimate capacity seen during the testing. The decrease in SPT
and end bearing values is considered to be a result of backpressure at the pile toe.
Subsequently the piling construction methodology was modified to ensure that pile-hole was
excavated and concrete cast on the same day.

7 Conclusions

The O-cell testing provided valuable insights on the load-displacement behaviour of project
piles and on the verification of design assumptions of the derived capacities. The tests have
generally indicated the design to be accurate but highlighted concerns with short piles or piles
where there was an over reliance on end bearing. Some of the project piles were subsequently
lengthened but this impacted on less than half of the project piles by no more than
approximately 10%.

8 Acknowledgements

The pile load testing was funded by SANRAL. The authors thank and acknowledge SANRAL
for their support as well as Alan Parrock for his assistance with the design.

References

American Petroleum Institute. 1987. Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and
Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms. API Recommended Practice 2A (RP 2A)
Seventeenth edition, April 1.
ASTM. 1994. Standard Test Method for Piles Under Static Axial Compressive Load. ASTM.
Everett, J.P. 1991. Load transfer functions and pile performance modelling. Proceedings of
the Tenth Regional Conference for Africa on Soil Mechanics and Foundation and
Foundation Engineering and the Third International Conference on Tropical and Residual
Soils. Maseru 23-27 September. pp 229-234
Fellenius,B.H. 2001. From Strain Measurements to Load in an Instrumented Pile.
Geotechnical News Magazine, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp 35 - 38
Hayes, J., Simmonds, T. 2002. Interpreting Strain Measurements from Load Tests in Bored
Piles.

10