Professional Documents
Culture Documents
http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geng.13.00140
Paper 1300140
Received 21/10/2013
Accepted 08/09/2014
Keywords: field testing & monitoring/geotechnical engineering/strength &
testing of materials
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved
2
Hossein Moayedi PhD
j
1
j
2
j
3
j
3
j
Mansour Mosallanezhad PhD
4
Alireza Tourtiz MSc
j
4
j
The design of bored piles in Malaysia is usually based on the results of the standard penetration test. It is important
to predict the geotechnical capacity of a designed bored pile through the multilayer soil strata. The back-analysis of a
test pile is a reliable means of obtaining the range for the ultimate skin factor (Ksu) and the ultimate end-bearing
factor (Kbu). In this research, two case histories of maintained load tests on single bored piles (PTP-1 and 2) under
full-scale static load (up to twice designed load) are examined. Measurements are taken using various embedded
transducers, including both conventional instrumentation and a state-of-the-art global strain extensometer. The
results show the rates of the pile base and pile head load mobilisation with settlement, the variation of the skin
friction factors and stresses along the pile, and their proportion in relation to the total pile capacity. The Ksu and Kbu
factors for both tested piles are obtained and compared using a conventional vibrating-wire global strain gauge and
a global strain extensometer. It is also observed that for the stiff soil layers the skin friction is significant. However,
the increase in the applied load increases the proportion carried by the end-bearing.
1.
Introduction
(Meyerhof and Yalcin, 1983; Poulos, 1989, 2007). For largediameter piles, settlement can be large; therefore, a safety factor
of 22 .5 is usually used on the working load. Accordingly, a safe
load (or designed load) can be calculated from the working load
divided by the factor of safety specified for a particular project.
It should be mentioned that, in maintained load tests (MLTs), the
piles are loaded up to a point near the safety factor times the
maximum load transferred from the above structures. However,
the pile will not approach failure during the test. Prakash and
Sharma (1990) have stated that the design load may be
determined by consideration of either shear failure or settlement,
and that it is the lower of the following two values: (a) the
allowable load obtained by dividing the ultimate failure load with
a particular factor, or (b) the load corresponding to an allowable
settlement of the pile.
Numerous studies exist regarding the prediction of the geotechnical capacity of bored piles through soft soil and weak rock
(Hooley and Brooks, 1993; Ng et al., 2001; Xu et al., 2009; Zou,
2013). There are also various studies on the long-term measurement of strain in instrumented piles. Kister et al. (2007) used
Bragg grating sensors for the strain and temperature monitoring
1
Geotechnical Engineering
2.
Experimental set-up
Geotechnical Engineering
Test pile
PTP-1
PTP-2
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L1
L2
L3
L4
Soil stratum
Depth: m
SPT-N values
Average SPT-N
08
810
1017
1724
2436 .95
012
1217
1823
2531 .65
316
1650
50111
111150
143150
430
1939
54125
176200
15 .50
27 .5
110
122
150
30
39
122
195
Pile No.
PTP-1
PTP-2
Diameter: mm
1800
1000
Working load: kN
22 200
6750
Pile length: m
36 .95
32 .56
Test load: kN
44 400
13 500
7
5
Depth: m
Geotechnical Engineering
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
SPT-N
50 100 150 200 250
0
Stiff, sandy silt
with little gravel
8
Very stiff, sandy silt
Hard, yellowish,
sandy silt with
little gravel
17
Very stiff, sandy silt
Hard, yellowish,
sandy silt with
little gravel
24
Fractured
limestone
Depth: m
(a)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
SPT-N
50 100 150 200 250
Sandy silt
12
Sandy clay
17
Silt
23
Weathered
sandstone
(b)
Figure 1. Variation of SPT with depth for soil in the vicinity of:
(a) PTP-1; (b) PTP-2
art GSE system can measure shortening and strains over an entire
section of the test pile during each loading step of a typical static
pile load test; thus, it integrates the strains over a larger and more
representative sample. With the proper implementation of an
instrumentation scheme, the collected data from an instrumented
pile are more reliable, and a better and more meaningful
interpretation can be made. The obtained results from the GSE
method (PTP-1) were compared with the bored pile with conventional instrumentation (PTP-2) results. For PTP-2, the Geokon
VWSG and tell-tale extensometers were installed internally in the
test pile to monitor the strain development and shortening behaviour of the pile during testing.
GSE instrumentation has been placed at seven levels for PTP-1.
The number of required GSEs depends on the length of the pile
and the vertical variation of the subsoil conditions, through sonic
logging tubes (Figure 2). A calibrated GSE sensor was installed
near the pile head (where no interaction from the soil friction to
the pile shaft is expected) for the calibration of the applied axial
load and the measured average strain. The GSE sensors measure
the strain and the axial load transferred through each section of
the pile shaft. In addition, the GSE sensor at the toe of the pile
measures the load contributed by the toe or else by end-bearing
resistance.
The VW extensometer was installed at eight depths at the
anchored intervals (Figure 3). Deformation of the pile under
loading produces relative movement between each anchored
interval. This causes a change in the strain gauge wire tension of
the VW transducers and a corresponding change in its resonant
frequency of vibration. The VWSG instruments for PTP-2 were
also installed at five levels (levels A through to level E), with
four per level (as shown in Figure 3). A schematic view of the
VWSG attached to the steel cage can be seen in Figure 4.
The gauges were checked before and after installation, after the
placement of the cage in the borehole and after concreting. For
the rod extensometer, galvanised iron (GI) pipes were tied to the
main reinforcement cage with steel wires at each terminating
depth, as shown in Figure 5. The 10 mm mild steel rod was
inserted until it touched the bottom of the pipe. A steel plate was
welded onto the end of the rod for the plunger to sit on during
the load test.
The pile head displacements were also measured by dial
gauges and LVDTs with readings to an accuracy of 0 .01 mm.
These displacement measurement instruments were mounted
on stable reference beams, and the whole system was
protected from direct sunlight and disturbance by the personnel who were performing the pile testing and instrumentation
work. Settlement measurements using a precise levelling
technique were also taken as a useful backup, as well as to
check the movement of the reference beams. The VWLCs,
strain gauges, retrievable extensometers and LVDTs were
logged automatically using a Micro-103 data logger and the
MultiLogger software at 3 min intervals for close monitoring
Geotechnical Engineering
10 m
20 m
9375
575 m
950 m
Anchored level A-
230 m
Anchored level A-
3.
Geotechnical Engineering
Bored pile
4286 m
COL RL 66106 m
TT1
TT2
Reinforcement bar
TT3
Attached
Tell-tale extensometer
(TT, one on each level)
32068 m VWSG and extensometer
level E
Geotechnical Engineering
50 000
45 000
Applied load: kN
Applied load: kN
40 000
35 000
30 000
25 000
20 000
15 000
10 000
5000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Total pile top settlement: mm
PTP 1 first cycle
PTP 1 second cycle
(a)
14 000
14 000
12 000
12 000
10 000
10 000
8000
6000
4000
4
5
7
6
8
3
Total pile base settlement: mm
PTP 1 first cycle
(a)
Applied load: kN
Applied load: kN
50 000
45 000
40 000
35 000
30 000
25 000
20 000
15 000
10 000
5000
0
9
10
8000
6000
4000
2000
2000
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Total pile top settlement: mm
PTP 2 first cycle
PTP 2 second cycle
(b)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total pile base settlement: mm
PTP 2 first cycle
PTP 2 second cycle
(b)
3.2
Geotechnical Engineering
5000
Load registered: kN
10 000
15 000
20 000
25 000
10 000
Load registered: kN
20 000
30 000
40 000
50 000
10
15
20
25
10
15
20
25
30
30
35
35
40
40
PTP-1-C1-3313 kN
PTP-1-C1-4698 kN
PTP-1-C1-6883 kN
PTP-1-C1-8897 kN
PTP-1-C1-11 061 kN
PTP-1-C1-14 016 kN
PTP-1-C1-16 056 kN
PTP-1-C1-17 973 kN
PTP-1-C1-20 370 kN
PTP-1-C1-22 418 kN
(a)
PTP-1-C2-5627 kN
PTP-1-C2-11 351 kN
PTP-1-C2-16 664 kN
PTP-1-C2-22 391 kN
PTP-1-C2-24 479 kN
PTP-1-C2-27 138 kN
PTP-1-C2-29 181 kN
PTP-1-C2-31 072 kN
PTP-1-C2-33 186 kN
PTP-1-C2-35 465 kN
PTP-1-C2-37 716 kN
PTP-1-C2-40 475 kN
PTP-1-C2-42 184 kN
(b)
PTP-1-C2-44 036 kN
Figure 8. Load distribution curve for PTP-1 in: (a) first cycle and
(b) second cycle, computed from VWSG
Geotechnical Engineering
2000
Load registered: kN
4000
6000
8000
Load registered: kN
5000
10 000
15 000
10
15
20
10
15
20
25
25
30
30
35
35
PTP-2-C1-738 kN
PTP-2-C1-1316 kN
PTP-2-C1-2013 kN
PTP-2-C1-2759 kN
PTP-2-C1-3320 kN
PTP-2-C1-3986 kN
PTP-2-C1-4741 kN
PTP-2-C1-5596 kN
PTP-2-C1-6051 kN
PTP-2-C1-6735 kN
(a)
PTP-2-C2-1750 kN
PTP-2-C2-3381 kN
PTP-2-C2-5025 kN
PTP-2-C2-6714 kN
PTP-2-C2-7321 kN
PTP-2-C2-7976 kN
PTP-2-C2-8661 kN
PTP-2-C2-9370 kN
PTP-2-C2-10 072 kN
PTP-2-C2-10 584 kN
PTP-2-C2-11 429 kN
PTP-2-C2-12 123 kN
PTP-2-C2-12 714 kN
(b)
PTP-2-C2-12 904 kN
Figure 9. Load distribution curve for PTP-2 in: (a) first cycle and
(b) second cycle, computed from VWSG
11 .61 mm for the applied loads 6735 kN and 12 904 kN, respectively. However, the corresponding plastic deformations of test
pile PTP-2 were less than 1 mm and 2 mm for the same loading
conditions, respectively.
3.4 Back-analysis of the full-scale pile-load test
As stated earlier, for bored piles the axial load capacity can be
evaluated empirically from the correlation of SPT-N values using
the modified Meyerhof method, where the ultimate bearing
capacity of a pile in compression is given by Equation 1
1:
Qu K s N s As K b (40N b )Ab
value for the pile base (blows/300 mm); and Ab is the crosssectional area of the pile base (m2).
Generally, the results of the load-transfer parameters for each of
the soil layers are summarised in the corresponding correlation of
SPT-N values plotted against maximum mobilised unit shaft
resistance. The skin friction factor will be calculated as the
changes in the mobilised unit friction resistance over the changes
in the SPT-N for a 0 .3 m penetration. A summary of the results of
the back-analysis of the ultimate skin friction factor (Ksu) for
PTP-1 and PTP-2 is given in Table 3.
The results of back-analysis of the ultimate end-bearing factor
Kbu for PTP-1 and PTP-2 are summarised in Table 4. The Kbu
values corresponding to the allowable settlement of 40 mm for
PTP-1 and PTP-2 were 7 .8 kPa and 2 .23 kPa, respectively. The
expected ultimate end-bearing capacities from the SPT-N results
for both PTP-1 and PTP-2 were 2977 .3 kN and 309 .2 kN, respectively. Compared to the obtained values for skin friction from the
SPT-N results for PTP-1 and PTP-2, the end-bearing values are
considered quite small. It is important to note that the base
9
100
8000
96
6000
Applied load: kN
Geotechnical Engineering
92
88
4000
2000
84
0
80
10 000
20 000
30 000
Applied load: kN
PTP-1-C1-skin friction
40 000
50 000
PTP-1-C2-skin friction
(a)
100
2
3
4
5
Total pile shortening: mm
PTP-2 first cycle TT1 z 556 m
PTP-2 first cycle TT2 z 7816 m
PTP-2 first cycle TT3 z 17816 m
PTP-2 first cycle TT4 z 22816 m
12 000
96
Applied load: kN
(a)
14 000
92
88
10 000
8000
6000
4000
2000
2000
4000
PTP-2-C1-skin friction
(b)
PTP-2-C2-skin friction
Figure 10. The portions of the skin friction and end bearing varied
with the applied load for: (a) PTP-1 depth z 36 .45 m; (b) in
PTP-2 depth z 32 .06 m
6
9
12
Total pile shortening: mm
PTP-2 second cycle TT1 z 556 m
PTP-2 second cycle TT2 z 7816 m
15
50 000
Applied load: kN
40 000
30 000
20 000
10 000
0
0
10
15
20
Total pile shortening: mm
PTP-1 first cycle
PTP-1 second cycle
10
Geotechnical Engineering
PTP-1
PTP-2
Level
Depth: m
GL to level B
Level B to level C
Level C to level D
Level D to level E
Level E to level F
Level F to level G
GL to level B
Level B to level C
Level C to level D
Level D to level E
5 .75
7 .125
6 .75
8 .50
6 .475
1 .85
3 .53
10 .0
6 .0
8 .252
Average
SPT-N
Unit skin
friction, fsu:
kPa
Ultimate skin
friction factor, Ksu:
kPa
15 .50
27 .50
110
122
150
160
30
39
122
195
29 .30
22 .90
243 .50
263 .50
284 .20
348 .50
68 .8
44 .6
72 .5
117 .7
1 .89
1 .20
2 .21
2 .16
1 .90
2 .18
2 .29
1 .14
0 .59
0 .60
168 .48
129 .5
1376 .9
1490 .0
1607 .1
1970 .6
216 .0
140 .0
227 .7
369 .6
Test pile
PTP-1
PTP-2
Depth: m
36 .95
32 .56
SPT-N
values
150
176
Area: m2
7 .8
2 .23
2 .5447
0 .7854
2977 .3
309 .2
4.
Conclusion
This study can help engineers evaluate a pile under designed load
conditions. From the preceding analysis and discussion, the
following conclusions can be derived.
(a) The GSE method significantly simplifies the effort involved
in instrumentation by enabling the sensors to be post-installed
after casting the piles. This method also minimises the risk of
the instruments being damaged during concreting work,
compared with the conventional method.
(b) For the stiff soil layers where skin friction is significant,
increasing the applied load reduces the effect of skin friction
while increasing the effect of the end-bearing portion. It can be
concluded that an increasing proportion is taken up by endbearing as the shaft is fully mobilised. The obtained unit skin
friction resistance in soft soil layers between 0 , z , 15 m (for
PTP-1) and 0 , z , 5 m (for PTP-2) was insignificant in
relation to the total resistance capacity of the pile.
(c) The results imply that when the pile is loaded higher, the
influence of shaft friction is lower.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Research Management
Centre of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) and Ministry of
Higher Education (MOHE) for providing financial support
through research vote R.J130000.7822.4L130, thereby bringing
the idea into fruition.
REFERENCES
Geotechnical Engineering