A Record of Pile Load Test and Ground

Improvement within the Coastal Plain Sands,

Southeastern Nigeria
G. A. Akwagiobe
Civil Engineer, Cross River State Water Limited, Calabar Nigeria.

J.C. Becket
Project Civil Engineer For SGI consulting.
and

A.O. Ilori
Civil Engineer, Federal Airports of Nigeria. Civil Engineering Department,
Calabar Airport, Calabar. Nigeria
e-mail bidemiini@yahoo.com

ABSRACT
A maintained load test was carried out on randomly selected grouted small
diameter steel end piles at a water treatment plant site in Calabar, southeastern
Nigeria. At a load of 75tons, which is about one and half times the design
working load of the pile, settlement value obtained was 3.75mm and 2.95mm for
the filter and clarifier respectively. The maximum estimated settlement for the
pile group based on Skemptons relation is 37.8mm thus satisfying the designed
permissible settlement of 60mm allowed for the structure. Settlement of the
structures monitored over eight months indicates values between 6mm to 21mm.

INTRODUCTION
Every piling works should normally include a load test carried out to estimate
limiting values for safe working load and settlement on piles proposed to be
installed. Although

Piling works is not very common within the area being reported upon especially
for building structures except for long bridges across some of the major rivers in
the locality. The record of a load test programme is therefore thought to be a
valuable asset for practicing engineers within the locality; serving as reference as
there is not much in published works; also a comparison of similar load test
within the Coastal Plain Sands from other parts of the world is welcome.

LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION

At a water treatment plant site located in Calabar, Southeastern Nigeria,(Calabar
has a geographical coordinates of 040 55 -050 55 N and 0800 15-0800 25
E) ,two of the treatment units (filter and clarifiers 3 in number) have to be
founded on small diameter end bearing grouted piles. The site in question is
underlain with what is known as the Benin Formation, a geological Formation
locally referred to as the Coastal Plain Sands. The Benin Formation, which is
Tertiary, is the terminal stratigraghic unit of the three Formations that make up
the Niger Delta. Its type section according to Allen (1967) is made up of finegrained, poorly cemented sands and gravels with clay and shale intercalation.
The sands are sub-angular to well-rounded; although there are local variations of
the type section. Calabar generally is underlain with a water table aquifer with
water table averaging 54.0m below the surface.
The filter and the clarifiers (three numbers) were to be reinforced concrete. The
filter structure is 79.10m x 19.7m x 4.0m high with uniform wall thickness of
0.4m and imposes a surcharge of 60kPa. The clarifiers each with a diameter of
40m, 5.0m high with center of each located at the apex of a common triangle..
Each clarifier imposes a load of 58kPa. Due to the presence of compressible
clayey sand and silty clay on the site the two treatment structures are to be
founded on piles.
From few exploratory drillings carried out, the small diameter Tubix piles,
grouted, were to be founded on gravel bed, which were deposited with clayey
sand. This bearing stratum occurs at two significantly different depth ranges on
the site. The first ranges between 6.0-13.0m from the ground surface. Within this
depth range the gravel bed varies in lateral continuity and vertical thickness
around the site. The second depth range is at around 23.0m. This resulted in piles
of different lengths for different parts of the filter and clarifiers. Based on the
above, the filter structure has six zones (Table1)

Table 1. Pile lengths for different zones

of the filter structure

Zone

Size of zone
(m x m)

Pile length
(m)

A
B
C
D
E
F

10.58 x 19.35
5.95 x 67.50
14.0 x 67.00
2.60 x 2.40
7.05 x 19.75
0.40 x 12.60

9
11
13
11
11
6

All piles were founded in first depth range, and pile lengths ranges from 10.013.0m
The average cone resistance qc, for this gravel layer from cone penetration
campaign around the site is 12MPa.

TUBIX MICRO-PILE DESIGN

For the pile design, the filter load was employed. The expected total load from
the filter structure is 85,704.85KN. Axial pile capacity determined for both
drained and undrained condition considering skin friction and end bearing
resistance is estimated at 604KN.
Buckling analysis of micro pile using a design length of 23.0m, axial load of
604KN,and lateral pressure, gives a buckling load of 425KN(42.5tons).
For the pile group a pile inter-axis of 3.0m is assumed with a radial axis of
2.60m.
Grouting of the soil surrounding each pile was to be carried out; this essentially
was to reduce the void ratio in the soil. Grouting pressure was determined by
estimating the lateral pressure surrounding the pile and a mortar core. The
grouting pressure was made equal to the lateral pressure with a maximum of
10bars for the longest pile.
With a buckling load of 425KN,and a total load of 86,000KN, a total of 202
micro-piles will be required. The spatial arrangement of micro-piles using the
earlier specified radial axis leads to a total of 253 piles for the filter structure.

PILE INSTALLATION PROGRAMME

For each zone of the filter and clarifier units dry drilling using with a auger was
employed. 150mm diameter holes were bored to the bearing stratum. Small
diameter steel piles (micro-Tubix piles, Table 2) with two holes made on opposite
sides of the piles at
every 0.5m intervals along the length of each pile. Rubber tubing was used to
cover the holes.

Table 2. Micro-pile and grout specifications

Borehole diameter

150mm

Length of boring
6-9-11-13m
Pile- steel grade
55
Steel pile external diameter/thickness 88.9mm/8.0mm
Minimum volume of grout
60 liters
Cement type
Type1 (100kg)
Plasticizer agent
1kg

The piles were then lowered into drilled holes. The hole drilling and installation
of piles were carried out in different zones. After the piles have been lowered,
bentonite slurry with a setting retarder-Rheobuild 501 was poured down each
hole around the piles to hold the pile in position until grouting. The retarder
prevents the bentonite slurry from setting until grouting material, which displaces
the slurry, is forced into place.
A packer device placed inside the piles was systematically used to break the
rubber seal enclosing the perforated holes starting from the bottom part of the
pile upward. The packer device ensures that only one rubber is broken at a time,
thereafter grouting of that length of the pile is carried out under pressure into the
pile hole, the hole surrounding the pile, and the surrounding soil at that level.
Grouting at each of the hole was carried out at pressures between five to six Bars.
When grouting reaches ten Bars or 6oliters of grouting materials was used at a
level, the grout is considered to have filled and fully penetrate the available
spaces around the pile and voids in the surrounding soil at that horizon. Further
grouting could lead to a blow out .The pressure of 10 Bars or 60 liters of grout
volume is therefore considered as refusal.

A total numbers of 253 steel piles were install for the filter using the procedure
describe above.
The pile heads were at about 400 mm above ground level. Near the top were
welded brackets, which serves to carry the top reinforcement for the structures.

THE PILE LOAD TEST

A pile load test was conducted about six weeks after the commencement of pile
installation. A maintained load test as against constant rate penetration test was
carried on randomly selected piles. Load on piles for testing is usually one-half to
two times the expected working load. For the piles under discussion the test load
was between 50 and 75 tons.The typical maintained load test is described as
follows:
A block weighing 50 tons was carefully set up on supporting blocks in a
rectangular pattern around the pile to be tested. A manual hydraulic jack was set
up against the 50ton concrete block with the other end on a steel plate placed on
the pile to be tested. Four dial gauges placed on a relatively flat surface were set
up in a rectangular fashion against the steel plate placed on the pile such that the
initial readings of all the dial gauges were at zero. The hydraulic was first loaded
to 15tons and subsequently in steps of ten tons up to 45tons. For each load the
four dial gauges readings were noted at every five minutes, with readings
averaged to give a settlement value. Each load was maintained for 20minutes
giving four settlement readings at each load increment or reduction (the
unloading cycle). A second cycle of loading was carried out by adding another
50ton concrete block weight, a new cycle of loading was repeated in the manner
earlier described (that is in steps of 10tons) but with a load peak of 75tons.The 75
ton load was maintained up to five hours at which the dial gauge readings (both
individual and the average remains practically the same. An unloading cycle in
steps of 10 tons was also carried out.

RESULT AND ANALYSIS

Tables 3 and 4 present representative settlements readings of the load tests for the
filter and one of the clarifiers respectively;

Table 3. Representative readings for pile load test for a pile in zone c of filter

Dial gauge readings (mm)

Time

Load (Tons)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Mean of dial gauge

readings (mm)

8:55
9:15
9:35
9:55
10:15
10:35
11:55
13:55
14:55
16:05
16:15
16:25
16:35
16:55

15.
25
35
45
55
65
75
75
75
65
55
45
35
15

0.84
1.54
2.11
2.70
3.23
3.23
4.41
4.47
4.50
4.40
4.18
3.85
3.45
1.94

0.76
1.40
1.94
2.53
3.04
3.04
4.20
4.28
4.30
4.15
3.87
3.61
3.23
1.80

0.43
0.80
1.17
1.53
1.87
1.87
2.77
2.82
2.85
2.76
2.57
2.40
2.18
1.18

0.39
0.83
1.23
1.62
1.98
1.98
2.95
3.01
3.06
3.01
2.83
2.60
2.35
1.25

0.605
1.142
1.612
2.095
2.530
2.530
3.582
3.645
3.677
3.580
3.262
3.115
2.802
1.542

Table 4. Representative readings for a test pile at the clarifier location

Time Load Dial gauge readings (mm)

10:20
10:40
11:00
11:20
11:40
12:00
12:20
14:00
16:00
17:10
17:20
17:30
17:40
17:50

15
25
35
45
55
65
75
75
75
65
55
45
35
25

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

0.73
1.04
1.30
1.60
1.90
2.16
2.89
2.24
3.30
3.21
2.99
2.73
2.42
2.05

0.41
0.65
0.86
1.19
1.38
1.72
2.34
2.67
2.74
2.66
2.48
2.25
1.99
1.62

0.28
0.61
0.86
1.16
1.42
1.76
2.39
2.70
2.74
2.63
2.42
2.19
1.86
1.48

0.62
0.93
1.17
1.45
1.71
2.07
2.59
2.92
3.01
2.96
2.76
2.51
2.30
1.88

Mean of dial gauge

readings (mm)

0.51
0.808
1.050
1.333
1.603
1.928
2.553
2.895
2.950
2.865
2.663
2.420
2.143
1.756

Table 5. Monitored settlement values for different parts of the filter and clarifier
Structures

Filter
Settlement
Positio
(mm)
n

Clarifier A

Clarifier B

Clarifier C

Clarifier
Clarifier
Clarifier
A
Settlement(mm)
B
Settlement(mm)
C
Settlement(mm)
Position
Position
Position
T1
T2
T3
FN1
FN2
FN3
FN4
FN5
FN6
FN7
FN8

6
3
4
1
5
0
2
2
5
6
1

A1
A2
A3
A4

18
16
16
7

B1
B2
B3
B4
Top

13
13
18
16
22

C1
C2
C3
C4
Top

Figure 1. Load-Settlement curve for micropile in zone 'C' of Filter Structure

21
20
19
13
9

Figure 2. Load-Settlement curve for micropile in Clarifier 'B' Structure

Figures 1 and 2 show the load -settlement curve for the load tests. The 75 tons
load represents one and half times the expected working load of each piles. For
the pile group, Tomlinson (1980) stated that for most engineering structures the
load to be applied to the group is usually determined by settlement consideration
rather than from ultimate carrying capacity of the group divided by an arbitrary
factor of safety. Fellenius (2001), in a similar vein argued that settlement should
form the basis of determining pile capacity. The pile load test gives such
information on settlement. Estimating settlement reliably from pile load tests is
somewhat difficult due to time effects and group action. However, empirical
relationships for example Skempton et al (1953), gives an expression from which
settlement of pile group (driven or bored) in cohesionless soil can be estimated. It
predicts a settlement value of 2-16 times the settlement of a single pile.
The Skempton relationship as reported by Broms (2001), can be written as
(1)

Settlement Monitoring
Settlements of the filter were monitored over a period of eight months
(November, 2000 to June, 2001). Table 5 presents the observed settlement values
for the different parts of the structures. The maximum settlement obtained for the
filter over this period was 6 mm at location T (Figure 3) while the clarifier
records the maximum of all the settlement values over this period at 21 mm at
point C1 on clarifier C.

Figure 3. Positions of settlement monitoring in Clarifiers and Filter Structures

Table 5. Monitored settlement values for different parts of the filter and clarifier
Structures
Filter Settlement
Position
(mm)

Clarifier A

Clarifier B

Clarifier C

Clarifier
Clarifier
Clarifier
A
Settlement(mm)
B
Settlement(mm)
C
Settlement(mm)
Position
Position
Position
T1

A1

18

B1

13

C1

21

T2
T3
FN1
FN2
FN3
FN4
FN5
FN6
FN7
FN8

3
4
1
5
0
2
2
5
6
1

A2
A3
A4

16
16
7

B2
B3
B4
Top

13
18
16
22

C2
C3
C4
Top

DISCCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

No doubt many pile load tests have been carried out and published, but post
construction monitoring on them are not very common; however values of
settlement reported by Da Costa Nunes and Vargas(1953), showed pile group
settlement of between ten to fifteen times the settlements of a single pile from
load tests. Fuller and Couper (1955), reports a settlement of between four to
seventeen times that of a single pile for the Dartford creek Bridge in Britain,
although Skempton et als equation predicts a ten times value of settlement of a
single pile. For the pile being reported upon the settlement observed so far is
about seven times the settlement of a single pile. The ultimate settlements of the
pile groups for the structures will only be evident with passage of time; though
design called for a maximum allowable settlement of 60mm for the structures, it
is doubtful if such a value will be reached during the useful life of the structures.
However if pile load test is to be evaluated based on settlement the question
arises to what load should a pile test be carried to that will adequately indicate
settlement value that will be considered safe for expected structure? It is the
authors opinion that a load two times the expected working load of the pile
should be at least attained during pile test with corresponding settlement used to
predict pile behaviour.

REFERENCES

Broms, B.B, (2001). Foundation Engineering. Geo Texts and Publication

On-line geoforum.com chapter14.

Fellnius, B. H.,1999. On preparation of a piling paper. Deep Foundation

Institute Annual General Meeting October 14-16, Dearborn, Michighan.

20
19
13
9

Fellenius, B. H., (2001). We have determined the capacity, then what?.

Deep foundation institute, Fulcrum winter. Pp.23-26.

Da Costa Nunes, A. J. and Vargas, M., (1953). Computed bearing

capacity of piles in residual soils compared with laboratory and load
tests. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Soil
Mechanics, Zurich. Vol. 2 pp 75-79.

Fuller, F.M. and Couper, J.N.C., (1955). The reconstruction of Deptford

Creek Bridge. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. 4, 314364.

Skempton, A. W., Yassin, A. A. and Gibson, R.E.,(1953). Theorie de la

force portante des px dans le sable, Annales de Linstitut Technique
Batimment. 6 285-290.

Tomlinson, M. J.,(1980). Foundation Design and Construction. 4th

Edition. Pitman Advanced Publishers, London Pp. 413-415.

ACKNOWLEGEMENT
The lead author wishes to express his appreciation to the Cross River state water
board and SGI consulting (Nigeria) for the opportunity given to him to
participate in the project as one the site engineers.