Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr.

Amit Prashant

Load Tests on Piles

Note:
Piles used for initial testing are loaded to failure or at least twice the
design load. Such piles are generally not used in the final construction. 43
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Load Tests on Piles

Note:
Æ During this test pile should be loaded upto one and half times the
working (design) load and the maximum settlement of the test should
not exceed 12 mm
mm.
Æ These piles may be used in the final construction
44
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Vertical Load Test: Maintained Load Test

„ The test can be initial or routine
test
„ The load is applied in increments
of 20% of the estimated safe
load. Hence the failure load is
reached in 8-10 increments.
„ Settlement is recorded for each
increment until the rate of
settlement is less than 0.1 mm/hr.
„ The ultimate load is said to have
reached when the final settlement
is more than 10% of the diameter
of pile or the settlement keeps on
increasing at constant load.

45
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Vertical Load Test: Maintained Load Test

„ After reaching ultimate load

load, the
load is released in decrements of
1/6th of the total load and
recovery is measured until full
rebound is established and next
unload is done.
„ After final unload the settlement
is measured for 24 hrs to
estimate full elastic recovery.
„ Load settlement curve depends
on the type of pile

46
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Vertical Load Test: Maintained Load Test Æ

Ultimate Load

De Beer (1968):
Load settlement curve is p plotted in a log-
g
log plot and it is assumed to be a bilinear
relationship with its intersection as failure
load

Chin Fung Kee (1977):

Assumes hyperbolic
A h b li curve.
Relationship between settlement
and its division with load is taken
as to be bilinear with its
intersection as failure load
47
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Vertical Load Test: Maintained Load Test Æ

Ultimate Load

Mazurkiewicz method:
ƒ Assumes parabolic curve.
ƒ After initial straight portion
EQUAL settlement lines are
drawn to intersect load axis.
axis
ƒ Intersection of lines at 45º from
points on load axis and next
settlement line are joined to form
a straight line which intersects
the load axis as failure load
load.

48
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Vertical Load Test: Maintained Load Test Æ Safe

Load as per IS: 2911
Safe Load for Single Pile:

Safe Load for Pile Group:

49
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Elastic Settlement of Piles

„ Total settlement of pile under
vertical working load

ξ depends on the distribution of frictional resistance over the length of

pile. ξ =0.5 for uniform or parabolic (peak at mid point) and 0.67 for
triangular distribution. 50
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Elastic Settlement of Piles

Vesic’s
Vesic s (1977) semi-empirical
semi empirical method

51
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Elastic Settlement of Piles

L
Empirically by I ws = 2 + 0.35
0 35
Vesic (1977) D

V i ’ (1977)
Vesic’s (19 ) semi-empirical
i i i l method
h d

⎛ L⎞
Cs = ⎜⎜ 0.93 + 0.16 ⎟⎟ .C p
⎝ D⎠

52
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Vertical Load Test: Constant Rate of Penetration Test

„ This test is only used as initial test to determine rapidly

the
h ultimate
li b
bearing
i capacity
i off the
h pile
il andd can not b
be
performed as routine test.
„ Load-settlement curve can not be used to predict the
settlement under working load conditions.
„ The rate of penetration is taken as 0.75 mm/min for
friction piles and 1.5 mm/min for predominantly end
bearing piles
piles.
„ Test is continued until the deformation reaches 0.1D or
a stage where further deformation does not increase
load significantly.
„ The final load at the end of test is taken as ultimate load
capacity of pile.
53
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Vertical Load Test: Cyclic

y Load Test

„ Proposed by Van Weele

(1957) with the aim of
determining strength in
friction and bearing
separately.
separately
„ Generally performed as initial
test by loading the pile to
ultimate
lti t capacityit
„ Safe load for pile is
determined as

54
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Vertical Load Test: Cyclic

y Load Test
„ During this test, loading
stages are performed as
in the maintained load
test.

„ After
f each loading, the
pile is again unloaded to
previous stage and
deformation is measured
for 15 min. Then, load is
again increased up to
next loading step. The
process continues
ti until
til
failure load.

„ The recovered
Th d
settlement is treated as
elastic component and
the permanent
deformation as plastic.
55
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Vertical Load Test: Cyclic Load Test

„ Elastic recovery in each step is plotted against the load which
comprises of the elastic deformation
(a) for mobilizing friction,
(b) for mobilizing bearing, and
(c) due to the deformation of the pile itself
itself. Æ Curve C1.

„ Assuming that elastic shortening of pile is zero, draw a line from

the origin parallel to the straight portion of the curve, which gives
approximate value of the bearing and frictional resistance, as
shown in the adjacent
j figure.
g

„ Assuming that elastic shortening of pile is zero, draw a line from

th origin
the i i parallel
ll l tto th
the straight
t i ht portion
ti off th
the curve, which
hi h gives
i
approximate value of the bearing and frictional resistance, as
shown in the adjacent figure.

56
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Vertical Load Test: Cyclic Load Test

„ Elastic compression of pile may be determined as

F is taken as varying
linearly from top to
bottom, so averageg = F/2

„ Elastic compression of sub-grade can be obtained by subtracting the

elastic compression of pile from total elastic recovery. If this value as
calculated
l l d comes out to b be negative
i iit iis iignored.
d
„ This new value of deformation is plotted against the load Æ Curve C2.
Bearing g and frictional resistance are again
g evaluated as described on the
last slide. This process is repeated 3 to 4 times to obtain reasonable
values of frictional and bearing resistance of pile 57
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Tapered
Piles
„ Driven tapered piles
with larger dimension
at the top are
believed to be more
effective in sand
deposits.
„ Force components
acting
ti on ththe pile
il are
given below.

58
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Tapered
Piles
„ Value of K for
tapered piles is
recommended
between 11.7K
7Ko to
2.2Ko by Bowels.
Meyerhof (1976)
suggested K≥1
K≥1.5.5
Blanchet (1980)
suggested K=2Ko.

„ The frictional
resistance of
these piles is
relatively larger
than that of
straight
st ag tp piles
es as
indicated in the
adjacent plot.
59
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Stepped Tapered Pile

π
Aledg =
4
( r 2
i −1 − ri 2
) Lledg

Di
Asi = π Di Li Li

K o = 1 − sin φi′ β = 2 K o .tan φi′

Qledg = Aledg .γ .Lledg .N q

Qsi = Asi .q.β

60
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant
Qu
Uplift
p Piles in Clays
y
„ Uplift resistance of pile is mainly provided by fs
its friction resistance and self weight.
Qu = f s . As + W p Wp

„ Uplift capacity of pile with bottom bulb is taken

as minimum of the following two equations by
Meyerhof and Adams (1968) D

Qu = cu . As .K + Ws + W p Qu

(
Qu = 2.25π Db2 − D 2 .cu + W p ) fs
Wp
Ws

D
Db
61
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Uplift
p Piles in Other Soils
Qu = ( c′ + σ h′ .tan φ ′ ) .π .Db .L + W p
„ Meyerhof and Adams (1968): Minimum of the three equations below
π
L≤H Æ Qu = π .c′.Db .L + s.γ ′.Db .L2 K u .tan φ ′ + W p
2
mL
L ⎛ mH H⎞
s = 1+ with its maximum value of ⎜1 + ⎟
Db ⎝ Db ⎠

Qu = π .c .Db .H + s.γ .Db . L − ( L − H ) ⎤ .K u .tan φ ′ + W p

′ ′ ⎡ 2 2
L>H Æ
⎣ ⎦
π
Bearing capacity
failure Æ Qu =
4
( D b
2
)
− D 2 ( c′.N c + σ v′ .N q ) + As . f s + W p

62
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Dynamic
y Pile Formula

„ Sanders (1850): W = Weight of hammer

H = Height of fall
Qu = Pile resistance or Pile capacity
S = Pile penetration for the last blow
„ Wellington (1898):
Engineering News Formula

C = A constant accountingg for energy

gy loss
during driving
[1 in. or 25.4 mm for drop hammer]
[0.1 in or 2.54 mm for steam hammer]

A factor of safety FS = 6 is recommended for estimating the allowable capacity

Note: Dynamic pile formula are not used for soft clays due to pore pressure evolution
63
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Efficiency
y of Pile Driving
g 0.7

„ Based on the Newton’s law of 0.6 e=0

conservation of momentum.
Assuming that coefficient of restitution 05
0.5
of hammer to pile is zero and hammer
moves along the pile after impact 0.4
⎛W + P ⎞

η
W .v1 = (W + P ) .v2 v1 = ⎜ ⎟ .v2 0.3
Heavier
H i h hammer
⎝ W ⎠ or lighter piles
0.2 give better
„ Efficiency as the ration on energy efficiency
after and before the impact
0.1
1 ⎛W + P ⎞ 2
⎜
2⎝ g ⎠ ⎟ .v2 0
W
η= = 0 1 2
1 ⎛W ⎞⎛W + P ⎞ 2
2
W +P W/P
2 ⎜⎝ g ⎟ ⎜ W ⎟ .v2
⎠⎝ ⎠
„ Efficiency of blow with a non-zero value of the coefficient of restitution e.
negligible
W + Pe W + Pe ⎛ W − Pe
2
P 2
P 2
P ⎞
For W > P → η = For P > W → η = −⎜ ⎟
W +P W +P ⎝ W +P ⎠
64
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Dynamic
y Pile Formula: Modified Hiley
y Formula

W = Weight of hammer
H = Height of fall
Qu = Pile resistance or Pile capacity
S = Pile penetration for the last blow
α = Hammer fall efficiency
η = Efficiency of blow
C = Sum of temporary elastic compression
of pile, dolly, packing, and ground

Hammer Fall Efficiency:

65
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Dynamic Pile Formula: Modified Hiley Formula

Coefficient of Restitution:

Factor of Safety for Hiley’s Formula:

66
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Dynamic Pile Formula: Modified Hiley Formula

Temporary Elastic Compression

R Driving without helmet or dolly but only a cushion or pad

C1 = 1.761
1 761
A off 25 mm thi
thick
k on h
head.
d
R Driving of concrete or steel piles with helmet and short
= 3.726
A dolly without cushion
cushion.
R Concrete pile driven with only 75 mm packing under
= 5.509
A helmet and without dolly.
R.L
C2 = 0.657
A
R
C3 = 0.073 + 2.806
Ap Ap = Overall cross-sectional area of pile at toe in cm2
67
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Dynamic Pile Formula: Simplex Formula for

Frictional Piles
Frictional resistance of the pile is brought into the empirical relationship in
this formula by measuring the total number of blows for driving the full
length of pile.

R Ultimate
U t ate ddriving
g resistance
es sta ce in kN
Np Total number of blows to drive the pile
L Length of pile in meters.
W Weight of hammer in kN.
H Height of free fall in meters.
s Average set ii.e.
e penetration in cm for last blow being the
average of last four blows.
68
 Foundation Analysis and Design: Dr. Amit Prashant

Dynamic Pile Formula: Janbu Formula

Units: kN and m.

RU Ultimate capacity (FS)

η Efficiency factor (0.7 to 0.4, depending on driving conditions)
α .W .H
(
kU = Cd 1 + 1 + λc Cd ) Cd = 0.75 + 0.15 ( P W ) λc =
A.E.S 2
W Weight of hammer/ram
P Weight of pile
H Height of free fall in meters.
α Hammer fall efficiency as mentioned for modified Hiley’s
Hiley s formula
A Area of pile
E Elastic modulus of pile
s Set per blow as for Simplex formula
L Length of pile 69