PAPER

Mazurkiewicz (1972), Fuller & Hoy (1977) and others, have proposed

J~ina ) sraisa
methods based on mathematical or graphical approaches. A compre-
hensive comparative study of the nine methods most commonly used
in practice has been carried out by Fellenius (1980).
o';

Because ultimate resistance Q remains the key value in most piling

>e i'. iinriIeI: roc

problems, it is worthwhile to recall that various definitions of this
concept are given by different authors and codes. For example:
Q„„plunging failure, observed sometimes insitu and correspond-
ing to a rapid increase of settlement without an increase in
load (Figure 1)

~asec on 5l,'i Q „asymptotic ultimate load derived mathematically or graphi-

cally (Figure 2) from the measured load settlement curve
Q„, „conventional ultimate load defined by many codes as the load
causing a gross settlement equal to 10% of the equivalent pile
insI:ruriIen:et diameter D (Figure 2), or the load at which the penetration
creep rate reaches a given value.
The failure derived by the Chin method falls into the mathematical-

si ei:esi:s asymptotic category and has been defined further as Q„c„,N.

Serge Borel, Michel Bustamnant, Luigi Gianeselli,
Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussees
Introdu cion
Tests on piles are generally performed to check that their structural
integrity is satisfactory and that their real capacity is in reasonable
accordance with the forecast load-settlement curve of the anticipated
working load. For the engineer the load test is considered satisfactory
when it has been possible to determine:
~ the ultimate resistance Q„
~ the pile settlement under working load Q„
~ the shaft Q, and toe Q resistances under Q„
In current practice unfortunately, it is rare that all of these loads, Q„,
Q„„Q„Q are available because the load test has not been taken to fail-
ure and liecause of lack of instrumentation. To define the ultimate
resistance Q„and possibly the shaft resistance Q„authors such as Van
der Veen (1953), Brinch Hansen (1963), Chin (1970), Davisson (1972),
Load, Q
Q4,F
This paper examines the performance of Chin's recommendations
on load tests with limited settlement and the ability of his method in
predicting the proportion of shaft load.
The Chin method
The Chin method is recognised as one of the simplest methods and has
been adopted by engineers in many countries. Primarily developed for
footings and precast floating piles, Chin observed that in many cases
the plot of the settlement, s, versus the ratio s/Q gives a linear rela-
tionship when the pile approaches failure. The response of the pile-soil
system can then be considered in terms of hyperbolic shape. It has
been expressed by Chin (1970, 1972) in the form:
s/Q =C+ ms (I]
Using different notation, equation [I] becomes:
s (ds ~ s
(2]
where for both equations:
Q the applied load on the pile head
s the pile head gross settlement
m the slope of the linear plot corresponding to the inverse of the
asymptotic value of the ultimate resistance Q„
C a constant corresponding to the initial slope (ds '] of the load
settlement curve plotted in linear coordinates dQ /g p.
In a system of hyperbolic coordinates s versus s/Q, a given
typical relationship s-Q obtained from a routine pile test (Figure 3a)
system becomes generally:
~ in most cases and according to the evidence presented by Chin (1970)
a single straight line as shown on Figure 3b.
~ for other cases, two straight lines plot with an A and B part as illus-
trated on Figure 3c.
Chin's final proposal (1978) allowing the detection of broken piles
from a particular plot will not be addressed here.
The graph in Figure 3b is supposed to model the behaviour of a pile
supporting the load mainly through shaft friction or purely in end
bearing. Because the linearity is not always explicit for the first points
of the relationship, Chin (1972) recommended that these are rejected
when determining C and m.
The bilinear plot with its two straight lines which intersect (Figure
3c) is supposed to correspond to piles supported by combined shaft fric-

Load (kN)
Load, Q 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0

22 GROUNI) ENGINEERING JANUARY 2004

 PAPER

Load, 0 Settlement/load, s/0 Settlement/load, s/0 Load, 0 (kN) Settlement/load, s/0 (mm/kN)
0 500 1000 1500 0 0.02 0 04 0.06
0
E
10
20
E 30
40
50
60
70

tion and end bearing. Because toe resistance needs higher settlement
to be mobilised than shaft resistance, it has been suggested that the
first part (A) would represent shaft resistance while the second part (B) Settlement/load, s/0 (mm/kN)
would represent total load. The validity of these assumptions will be 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
shown later. E 0
The advantages presented a priori by the method are undeniable for E
1
common practice:
~ the method is not linked with any soil parameters; e
E
~ it gives the possibility to analyse the results of either CRP or ML
tests and for piles subject to compression or tension loading;
~ it allows a continuous check while the test is being carried out;
~ the interpretation can be carried out quite simply using at most a
pocket calculator;
~ the definition of characteristic loads Q, Q„Q is based on mathe-
matical rules;
~ because of the linearity of the s vs s/Q plot, it is easy to determine
any load associated to any given gross settlement. At a settlement equal
to 10% of the pile diameter one can obtain Q„ctttN lp which is an esti-
mate of Q„„„,according to the 10% criteria.
However, Fellenius (1980), Fleming (1992) and England (1999) have
shown that considerable drawbacks can complicate the interpretation
and distort the performance of the method. They are: 10
~ the necessity to collect data at sufficiently large gross movements, s,
to avoid deducing false ultimate resistance;
~ a marked sensitivity to the chosen test procedure demanding con-
stant time increments as well as a sufficient number of load steps; steps of 100kN, each maintained for 60 minutes. The last load Q,„=
~ the validity of the method is jeopardised by the fact that the 1.3MN was applied during 15 minutes only because of the rapid
real response of the pile/soil system is not exactly a hyperbolic increase of settlement which was observed, indicating plunging failure
form. In particular, elastic shortening of the pile is a major cause under that load.
of erroneous analysis, especially in the first part (A) of the curve, Figure 4 shows the typical load settlement curve, plotted using the s
where elastic shortening can be a large proportion of the pile head values measured at the end of each load step. The load settlement curve
movement. is also plotted in the hyperbolic coordinates s vs s/Q.
Before commencing a more comprehensive study, a strict application When enlarged, the relationship s vs s/Q indicates clearly A and B
of the Chin method has been made on one pile tested by the authors at parts as shown on Figure 5 which focuses on the first loading steps.
a site in Mittersheim (France) in 2001. A linear regression made using the seven last points before failure
The pile was a 480mm diameter CFA pile, 7m long and bored through (600kN to 1,200kN) has resulted in:
marly clay (26% of CaCO,). At the pile toe level, the soil is charac-
terised by a CPT cone resistance q, = 5MPa and a PMT limit pressure C ( ) 36 0 mm k Q ctttN Qa Y
3 5 MN
p, = 1.8MPa. The water table is located at 4m depth. kdQ1 Q, m
The pile was instrumented with two strings of removable
extensometers, which made it possible to measure the mobilisation Applying the hyperbolic Chin formula to a gross settlement limited
of shaft and toe resistance during the loading stages. It was
loaded according to a maintained load test (MLT) procedure, with 13
to 48mm (10% of the equivalent diameter) gives Q GRIN 1 235MN.
The instrumentation of the pile (Figures 6a-c) makes it possible to
lp:

Pressure limit Module pressuremeter Point resistance (MPa)

(MPa) (MPa)
0 10 20 30 40
0.1 1 10 1 10 100
resistance
0 f1
O
( 'ro,3(IIo";.
3
4

10

12
0 50 100 150 200

Fnctlon (kN)
10

GROUNtl KNGINKERING JANUARY 2004 23

 PAPER

compare the shaft resistance determined according to Chin's criterion

on the first part of the curve Q, GUIN Ipn: 715kN with the measured Load, Q (kN) Settlement/load, s/Q (mm/kN)
value Q, „ip,: 860kN. For the considered case history the agreement
0
0 500 1000 1500 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
can be considered as quite good in geotechnical terms, as the difference E )
between the calculated and measured values is only 17 'o. E
Following these first encouraging results the performance of the 10
method has been investigated for a greater number of pile tests carried
E 2O
out by the authors. The following items were investigated:
~ sensitivity of the method as a function of the available field readings 30
when determining the ultimate capacity;
~ performance of the method when estimating shaft and toe resistance. 4o

The reviewed case histories

A total of 50 loading tests from around Europe, carried out by the
authors since 1990, have been examined. All tests were run under
50
—
s =
0
—
1202
1
x s+ 1.70 x 10 I
a MLT procedure up to a head settlement greater than 10% of the
pile diameter and without intermediary unloading and reloading
cycle. Each load step was maintained for a period of generally 60
minutes. 125
All of the readings were digital. The load was always checked with Qu,oian 10%/Qu,conv = 97%d
a load cell and the settlements were measured with the help of linear C s/D —6 6%
potentiometers linked to fixed reference beams. The piles were o 100
all instrumented using removable extensometers (Bustamante et 8
Doix, 1991), which made it possible to measure the shaft and the toe go75
resistances. 8 v = 92%
Z
The 50 tests have included various pile techniques and covered an
50
extensive range of soils. Four piles were loaded in tension. The loads = 81'8
applied on piles ranged from 675kN to 10,000kN, the pile lengths from s/D = 1.4%
5m to 45m, and the pile diameters from 200mm to 1,000mm. Note that 25
due to substantial elastic shortening, micropiles with free (ungrouted)
length have not been considered in this study. o
The following piles have been examined: CFA (12 tests), bored (six 10 15 20
tests), impact driven steel and concrete (17 tests), vibratory driven (five
tests) and screwed displacement auger (10 tests). The piles were Relative head settlement (s/D, %)
installed in clay (20 tests), sand (15 tests), calcareous soils (eight tests)
and mixed soils (seven cases).

llllmate resistance prediction 200

as
To assess the performance of the Chin method in determining the
ultimate resistance, two different approaches have been followed:
~ taking into account the complete load settlement curve; 150
~ considering a partial load settlement curve obtained by removing
gradually the last points, as if the test was stopped at a lower loading C
step.
I
O
100 s.~'~ 4.'s(n, „'~A eW ~.—e
Determining the ultimate resistance from the complete curves d
d
d d
Each test has been plotted in hyperbolic coordinates, to identify the d
second part of the load settlement curve (part B), from which the Chin 50 d

parameters have been calculated. The Chin ultimate resistance

0
according to the 10",d criteria Q„GRIN Ip* has been compared to
measured ultimate resistance. As shown on Figure 7, the Chin 0
0 10 15 20
method gives a very satisfactory estimation of the measured ultimate
resistance, except in five cases, where the Chin resistance exceeds the Relative head settlement (s/D, %)
measured one by more than 25%. These are cases where a plunging fail-
ure has been observed, which is obviously not anticipated by the Chin
method.

Determining the ultimate resistance from par-

tial load-settlement curves
20 To assess the sensitivity of the Chin method in func-
tion of the magnitude of available head settlement
and the number of loading steps, the load settlement
16 curves have been progressively altered by removing,
one after another, the last points.
Figure 8 shows the example of the pile tested at
z 12 the Mittersheim site. The last two points have been
removed to obtain a shortened load settlement
curve, consisting of the first 11 loading steps, of the
13 actually taken. The maximum settlement on the
curve s = 16mm is only 3.3% of the pile diameter.
The Chin method applied to the first 11 loading
steps make it possible to extrapolate the ultimate
resistance according to the 10% criteria: Q„cRIN ip.,
= 1,153kN, which is 92% of the measured ultimate
0.97 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 ) L25 resistance.
This procedure has been repeated, suppressing
Predicted ultimate resistance one after another of the points, until the load settle-
ment curve is made of the first 2 loading steps
only, which is the minimum necessary to apply the

24 GROUND ENGINEERING JANUARY 2004

 PAPER

Chin method. The results are

200 shown on Figure 9. Note that to
reduce the effects of human errors
3% 0 C +25%o and contrary to Chin's recommenda-
ot
150 tion, the first points of the load settle-
5%o 0 o:) +17% ment curve were not rejected in a first
ae
10% D 4 conventional cntena stage.
~Jo e This procedure has been repeated
z 100 o o

g~o~iti SSt Sir oo Ioo od' o

for all of the 50 loading tests (Figure
] 10). The main conclusions to be drawn
8 from this figure are the following:
50 0
~ the reliability of the Chin predic-
tion improves when the last measured
gross settlement approaches lpio of
0 the pile diameter;
0 10 15 20
~ the majority of the data (in black
Relative head settlement
circles) lie inside a clearly defined
(s/D, %)
envelope. The only cases falling out-
side, a total of seven out of 50, corre-
spond to:
Settlement/load, s/Q (mm/kN) plunging failure (five cases in
red squares), a case not
0 0.0015 0.003 0.0045 0.006 anticipated by the Chin
0 method;
tension test on driven sheet
vo 25 piles in dense coarse gravels
(two cases in blue
5.0 triangles) with an atypically
shaped curve and only
e 75 partially mobilised shaft
friction (Borel et al, 2002);
10.0 ~ according to a detailed study nei-
ther the installation technique nor the
12.5 soil type appear to have a noticeable
effect on the results;
15 ~ as soon as the head settlement
exceeds 5 io of the pile diameter, the
ultimate resistance predicted by the
Chin is in the range of 75% 'to 1107o of
Settlement/load, s/Q (mm/kN) the measured resistance.
0 0,002 0.004 0.006 0.008 The last conclusion is of practical
0 interest for piles, which have not been
E
E loaded to failure on site.
2.5 A different approach was made in a
second stage in order to avoid the
influence of the first part of the
load settlement curve, which is
representative of the shaft friction
only (part A). The two first points
10.0 and the settlements lower than 0.5%
of the pile diameter were removed
12.5 from the curves.
The new envelope obtained is
15 shown on Figure 11. Its upper and
lower limits shown in green are
expressed by equation:

predicted ultimate resistance 1+ (0' 35~0 4x Io ( head settlement s)

')

20 measured ultimate resistance ( pile diameter D / J[3]

[
a
'S 16 This procedure enabled the ultimate resistance to be predicted to an
accuracy of +17'!o for pile head settlement exceeding 5% of the pile
diameter, and +25% for gross settlement greater than 3% of the pile
16 diameter.
The new envelope is not as good as the envelope obtained by Kaniraj
12 (1988), who applied the Chin method to 24 pile tests and concluded that
the error between predicted and actual load is only 10% for a relative
Pile head settlement s/D > 2.5oro.

Determining shaft and toe resistances

0— ~ ~ ~ ~ According to Chin, a pile acting in combined friction and end-bearing
can be represented by a plot with two straight lines A and B. However,
0.2 0.4 06 08 1.0 1.2 1.4 16 1.8 2.5 3.5 4.5 such a plot does not always appear clearly in current practice because
Predicted shaft resistance of distorting factors. Out of the reviewed 50 piles the following typical
plots were identified:
~ 36 cases in good agreement with Chin's hypothesis showing A and B
parts (Figure 5).
~ six cases with a S shape curve (Figure 12a);
GROUND ENGlNEERlNG JANUARY 2004 25
 PAPER

resistance where the load is mainly resisted by the toe.

For the three cases giving the worst estimation, a geotechnical engi-
3.5 neer would probably reject the prediction according to the Chin
Scardon
'I method because of the inconsistency between the soil investigation
30
CTRL 310 Esch and the predicted shaft and toe resistance. These piles are:
I —A screw pile (L = 7.6 m D = 510/710 mm) installed through a Sm thick
2.5 0
layer of peat to refusal against a layer of dense gravelly clay (CTRL
20 310, UK);
I -A steel HP 360x370 pile (L= 9.80 m) driven through clayey sand and
15 e schistic marls (Esch, Luxembourg),

f,
otr

— An open tube (L = 21 m) driven through chalk below the water table

E
1.0

0.5
~ ~ oo( (Scardon, France).
Another approach, summarised on Figure 15, shows that the
absolute error made in the predicted shaft resistance can exceed 30%
4 of the ultimate resistance, quite independently of the percentage of
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 load resisted by the shaft.
Once the shaft and total capacities are estimated using the Chin
Load carried by shaft (measured, %o) method, it is possible to deduce the toe resistance by subtracting the
shaft resistance from the ultimate resistance. The error on the toe
resistance is the same as the error on shaft resistance plotted on
Figure 15.
Figure 16 shows that the increase of the number of loading steps
60 does not improve significantly the accuracy of the shaft resistance pre-
diction.
)4 Esch
50
g Conclusions
Scardon Chin's method has been applied to 50 full-scale pile tests in order
40
fo to assess its performance. The selected case histories are
E
representative of the most common installation techniques used
3O
310
e ~ and soil categories encountered. All of the piles were
CTRL
~ ~ instrumented using removable extensometers, which make it
20
possible to measure the distribution of load between the shaft and
41
10 ~ -o ~--V' the toe.
The Chin method makes it possible to predict the ultimate resis-
6 ~ ~~~ ~ ~ tance, according to the 10 'o criteria, even if the head settlement did not
I 0 reach 10% of the pile diameter. The estimation improves when the
O 0 20 40 60 80 100
L
ill head settlement approaches 10% of pile diameter. The ultimate resis-
Load carried by shaft (measured, %%uo)
tances were predicted in the range of:
~ +25% as soon as the head settlement exceeds 3% of the pile
diameter;
~ +17 ro for a head settlement greater than 5'/. of the pile diameter.
The method appears to be of generally poor performance in
3.5
Scardon
predicting the distribution of load between the shaft and toe:
3.O ~ the Chin method overpredicts significantly the shaft resistance
Esch CTRL 310 when the load is mainly resisted by the toe;
2.5 6 ~ the shaft resistance is estimated in the range of 60% to 120% of the
measured value when the shaft resistance is greater than 55%;
2.0 ~ the absolute error made on predicted shaft and toe resistances can
'5 exceed 30% of the ultimate resistance, quite independ-
1.5 ently of the percentage of load carried by the shaft.
1,0
~
I I~ ~ e I ~ ~
~ ~ Direct measurement of the shaft and toe resistances are still of
tremendous value even for routine tests as they provide a much
~ ~ better understanding of pile behaviour.
0.5

0 References
0 10 15
Number of loading steps
~ seven cases displaying an inverted A part (Figure 12b); these
involved piles installed in stiff clay with a measured toe resistance that
was less than 25'/o of the ultimate resistance.
Thus, it was possible to determine the shaft resistance in 43 cases,
i.e. 86% of the total. The histogram of predicted versus measured shaft
resistance using the 10%o criteria is shown on Figure 13. Due to the
cases for which the predicted value greatly exceeds the measured ones,
the average is 1.07 and the standard deviation is 0.55, even though most
of the predictions are in the range of 60% to 120'/o.
Figure 14 shows the ratio of the predicted/measured shaft friction
versus the percentage of the load carried by shaft to allow better iden-
tification of the cases for which the Chin method gives poor results.
The main conclusions are as follows:
~ the predicted shaft friction is in the range of 60% to 120% of the
measured value when the shaft resistance is greater than 55%;
~ on the contrary, the Chin method significantly overpredicts the shaft
26
20 Borel S, Bustamante M, Gianeselli L (2002) Comparative field studies of the bearing
capacity of vibratory and impact driven sheet piles, Proceedings International
Conference on Vibratory Pile Driving and Deep Soil Compaction TransVib 2002, Louvain-
la-Neuve, 167-174.
Bustamante M, Doix B (1991) A new niodel of LPC removable extensometer, Proc. 4th
International Deep Foundation Institute Conference, pp 475-480.
Bustamante M, Gianeselli L (1980-1999)LCPC internal accounts and authors publications
covering 30 reviewed case histories.
Chin FK (1970) Estimation of the ultimate load of piles from tests not carried to failure.
Proceedings of the Second Southeast Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, pp83-91.
Chin FK (1972) The inverse slope as a prediction of ultimate bearing capacity of piles,
Proceedings 3rd Southeast Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, pp83-91.
Chin FK (1978) Diagnosis of pile condition, Geotechnical Engineering, vol 9, pp85-104.
Chin FK, Vail AJ (1973) Behaviour of piles in Alluvium, Proceedings, 8th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol 2.1, pp47-52.
England M (1999) A pile behaviour model, Thesis submitted to Imperial College, 305
pages.
Fellenius BH (1980) The analysis of results from routine pile load tests, Ground
Engineering, vol13, no 6, pp 19-31.
Fleming WGK (1992) A new method for single pile settlement prediction and analysis,
Georechnique no 42, vol3, pp411-425.
Kaniraj Shenbaga R (1998) Interpretation of pile acceptance criteria from deficient data,
ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 124, no10, pp
1035-1040.
GROUND ENGINEERING JANUARY 2004