VERIFICATIO OF PILE DESIG MODIFIED CHI METHOD

Chua Chai Guan1

PARAMETERS USI G

ABSTRACT The fitting of the load settlement curve has been widely used in the back-analyses of static load test as an indicator to verify the pile design parameters. This paper points out in a mathematical way that the conventional approach is baseless because there are infinite solutions available to fit the curve. This brings out the need to have additional measurements either on the pile toe or along the pile shaft to have a valid verification on design parameters. With these measurements, the Chin method is modified to interpret the ultimate soil resistances. The new approach is demonstrated using a case history and is found agreed well with the measured values. Keywords: Pile; Static load test; Verification; Design parameters

1.

I TRODUCTIO

The conventional way of back-analyzing the test pile results is to match the load settlement curve measured at the pile head level by adjusting soil parameters e.g. ultimate skin and end bearing resistances and soil elastic modulus of the pile shaft and pile toe. However, this method does not take into account the load distribution characteristic along the pile shaft and the movement at the pile toe. Mathematically speaking, it does not satisfy the boundary conditions of the problem domain. This would result in more than one solution available for the curve-fitting exercise and thus make the back-analyses of static load test meaningless. RELATIO SHIP BETWEE SOIL PARAMETERS A D Pt-t CURVE

2.

This section explains the lack of uniqueness of the conventional curve-fitting exercise by examining the relationship between the design parameters and load settlement behavior exhibited at the pile head level. The relationship is illustrated as follows:

t = b + e
b =
Pb (1 2 ) Db Eb Ab P e = z dz E p Ap
z Pz = ( Pt Pb )(1 ) + Pb L
___________________
1

(1)

(2) (3)
n

(4)

Engineer, Macroworks Sdn Bhd

299

e =

( Pt Pb )nL PL + b E p A p (n + 1) E p A p

0<n<5

(5)

Pb = kPt

0<k<1

(6)

Pt = t [

k (1 2 ) Db (n k ) L 1 + ] E b Ab E p Ap

(7)

where t, b, e denote the vertical displacement at the pile head, pile toe and pile elastic shortening, respectively, Pt = the vertical load applied at the pile head level, Pb = the vertical load transferred at the pile toe, Db = the pile toe diameter, Eb = the soil modulus at the pile toe, Ab = the pile toe cross sectional area, L = the pile length, Ep = the pile elastic modulus, Ap = the pile cross sectional area, k = the ratio of Pb to Pt and n = the distribution number along the pile shaft; 1 = triangular distribution, 2 = parabolic distribution and etc. The k and n are not constant variables. Their relationships to soil characteristics are difficult to quantify. However, the n should be governed by the mobilization of skin friction and should vary among different soil stratum. While the k is controlled by n and the mobilization of end bearing. Implicitly, the k and n can be related to soil parameters as follows:

k = Fb ( Pbu , bu , Gbi , n) n = Fs ( Psu , su , G si )

(8) (9)

where Pbu, bu, Gbi denote the ultimate end bearing, movement required to mobilize ultimate state, the initial shear modulus of soil at the pile toe, respectively and Psu, su, Gsi denote the ultimate skin friction, movement required to mobilize ultimate state, the initial shear modulus of soil along the pile shaft, respectively. Equation 7 illustrates that Pt is a function of four unknown variables, k, n, Eb, and t while v, Db, Ab, Ap and Ep are the known variables which can be established easily. By matching the Pt-t curve is actually solving Equation 7, which solely relies on the measured Pt and t, for every incremental stage of the static load test. Mathematically, matching the Pt-t curve alone is not able to provide solution for a problem consists of four unknown variables. Hence the false solution given by the curve-fitting methodology is baseless as infinite set parameters of k, n, and Eb can perfectly fit the Pt -t curve as explained by the flow chart shown in Figure 1. 3. ESSE TIAL MEASUREME TS FROM A STATIC LOAD TEST

As revealed in Section 2, to have a valid verification on the pile design parameters, it is essential to obtain one of the following information other than Pt-t curve from a static load test. a) Pz and e along the pile shaft from strain gauges and extensometer, respectively or b) Pb at the pile toe and e of whole pile shaft from load cell and tell-tale rod, respectively or c) Pz along the pile shaft from strain gauges

300

From Equations 1, 2 and 6 and an assumed Eb, k can be obtained for any arbitrarily desirable e

From k and Equation 5, n can be tuned to have an exact e of Step 1

False solution (n, k) available =

Matching load settlement curve is meaningless without knowing the boundary conditions

Figure 1: False solutions based on the matching of load-settlement curve only

In the Case (a), the design parameters can be established directly as explained by Chua (2003). For the Case (b) and Case (c), n and Pb, b, are to be resolved respectively using Equations 1, 3 and 5 for every incremental loading stage of a static load test. By knowing the n and Pb, b , the stress-strain characteristic of soils i.e. t-z relationships of the pile shaft and pile toe can be interpreted easily. However, it is difficult to obtain the ultimate soil resistances i.e. Pbu and Psu directly from the t-z relationship as significant movement are required to reach ultimate resistance state which are seldom achieved by normal static load test, particularly for the lower part of pile shaft and pile toe. 4. ULTIMATE RESISTA CE FROM HYPERBOLIC RELATIO SHIP

Chin (1970, 1972 and 1973) proposed a hyperbolic plotting method to estimate the ultimate load of piles from tests not carried to failure. However the method ignored the pile elastic shortening and assumed the skin friction would be substantially mobilized before toe resistance started contributing to bearing capacity. Fleming (1992) improved Chin method by separating the pile elastic shortening from the pile head settlement and used the hyperbolic function to describe individual shaft and base performance with the assumption the pile was then truly rigid. This may not be true because the pile would mobilize skin resistance while it was undergoing elastic shortening. The scale of mobilization should depend on the relative movement of the pile to its adjacent soil movement. A new method is therefore proposed to incorporate the pile elastic shortening into Chin method as follows:

Pbu =

b b
1 Pb Gbi

(10)

301

Psu =

s s
1 Ps G si

(11)

s = b + e / 2
Ps = Pt Pb

(12) (13)

Equations 10 and 11 are the hyperbolic functions (Fleming 1992) to describe individual shaft and base behaviour. Equation 12 is a sum of rigid body movement at toe and average elastic shortening. The method illustrated seems simple but it requires additional measurement of pile toe movement or elastic shortening from a fully instrumented test pile. The following figure depicts the differences between Chin method and the modified Chin method.
mobilization/load, s /Ps or b/Pb fbu 1 fsu
b

pile head settlement/applied load, t /Pt fsu 1

pile head settlement,

mobilization,

or

fbu + fsu 1

modified Chin method

Chin method

Figure 2: Modified Chin method 5. CASE STUDY

A case history of test piles (Wong et al., 2002) was reanalyzed to validate the new proposed method. The test pile was 18m long 400x400x168 H-pile and was instrumented with vibrating wire strain gauges and tell-tale rods. The pile was driven to a depth of 15m and the final set was 54mm at the last blow and temporary compression was 4mm. The details of test pile, driving records and soil conditions can be found in Wong et al. (2002). The measured load settlement curve at the pile head level and load transfer curves along the pile shaft are as presented in Figures 3 and 4. These two figures were reproduced by scaling the figures of Wong et al. (2002). As such, they may not be exactly similar to the original data form.

302

2000 1800 1600 Applied load, kN 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 pile settlement, mm

Figure 3: Measured load settlement curve of test pile (Data from Wong et. al, 2002)

Axial Pile Shaft Load, kN

0 0

500

1000

1500

2000

6
Depth, m

10

12

14

16

Figure 4: Measured load transfer curve at various applied loads (Data from Wong et al., 2002) As the information available for this test pile is limited to Pt-t and load-transfer curves, the pile elastic shortening and pile toe movement were calculated using Equations 1, 5 and 12. The results are tabulated in Table 1. The modified Chin plots are as shown in Figure 5. The beauty of this hyperbolic method is that the ultimate load can be extrapolated even though the test load has not reached ultimate limit state as

303

shown in Figure 5 i.e. the lines are still linear and in same gradient even though the last test point not incorporated. Table 1 Summary of calculated pile elastic shortenings, pile toe settlement and shaft mobilization at various applied loads. Pt, kN 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 e,mm 0.36 0.67 1.06 1.50 1.94 2.38 2.83 3.27 3.59 t,mm 0.51 1.05 1.64 2.29 3.01 3.83 4.80 6.02 14.00 b, mm 0.15 0.37 0.58 0.79 1.06 1.45 1.97 2.75 10.41 s, mm 0.33 0.71 1.11 1.54 2.03 2.64 3.39 4.39 12.20

The ultimate soil resistances and shear modulus for skin friction and end bearing components can be directly interpreted from the gradient and the intercept on the horizontal axis of plot, respectively. The comparison of computed and measured pile resistance and shear modulus is presented in Table 2. The computed results generally agree well with the measured values.

Table 2 Comparison of computed and measured pile resistance. End bearing, kN Side resistance, kN

Initial shear modulus at toe, kPa

622000

Initial shear modulus along pile shaft, kPa

33000

Computed Measured

161 210

2053 1600

/P, m m /kN

0 0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

2.00

4.00

y = 161.47x - 1.6215
End bearing Skin friction

6.00
, mm

8.00

10.00

y = 2052.8x - 2.5774

12.00

14.00

Figure 5: Modified Chin plots for end bearing and skin friction.

304

6.

CO CLUSIO S

This paper firstly illustrates in a mathematical way that the solutions obtained from the conventional fitting of the load settlement curve in the back-analyses exercise of a static load test are lacking of uniqueness. Simply speaking, we should not expect to resolve the function, Pt which consists of four unknown variables by measuring only one of unknown variables i.e. t. This brings out the essential of measuring at least the other two unknown variables in an instrumented static load test in order to convincingly conclude and verify the pile design parameters. With the measurements, the Chin method is modified to interpret the ultimate skin and end bearing resistances and is demonstrated using a case history of instrumented test pile. The good agreement between the computed and the measured values confirmed the validity of the proposed approach. REFERE CES Chin, F.K. (1970). Estimation of The Ultimate Load of Piles From Tests Not Carried To Failure. Proc. 2nd SE Asian Conf. Soil Engng, Singapore, p.81-92. Chin, F.K. (1972). The Inverse Slope As A Prediction Of Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Piles. Proc. 3rd SE Asian Conf. Soil Engng, Hong Kong, p.83-91. Chin, F.K. (1983). Bilateral Plate Bearing Test. Proceedings of International Symposium on Soil and Rock Investigation by In-Situ Testing, Paris Vol. 2, p.37-44. Chua, C.G. (2003). A New Approach To Verify Design Parameters From Instrumented Test Piles. 2nd International Conference on Advances In Soft Soil Engineering and Technology, 2-4 July, Putrajaya, Malaysia, p.691-701. Fleming, W.G.K (1992). A New Method For Single Pile Settlement Prediction and Analysis. Geotechnique 42, No. 3, p.411-425. Wong, K.S., Chow, S.H., Wei, J., Heng, Y.S., Wa, Y.L, Tan, T.L, Lim, S.T. and Lionel Ang, L.J (2002). Capacity of H-Pile In Old Alluvium A Prediction Exercise. Journal of The Institution of Engineers, Singapore, Vol. 4, No. 6, p.23-29.

305