Back Analysis of Static Pile Load Test For SPT-Based Pile Design: A Singapore Experience

Geotechnical Special Publication No.
220 © ASCE 2011 144
Back Analysis of Static Pile Load Test for SPT-Based Pile Design:
a Singapore Experience
Daping Xiao1 and Hong Yang2

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1
China Academy of Building Research, Beijing, China; xiaodaping1234@yahoo.com.cn
2
Parsons Brinckerhoff, San Francisco, CA, USA; yangh@pbworld.com
ABSTRACT
The Chin’s plot method is the most widely used method in Singapore to assess
the ultimate skin friction and ending bearing separately based on static pile load test
results. In this study, a large number of pile load tests for driven piles were back
analyzed using the Chin’s plot method. The obtained data were examined in order to
evaluate the appropriate design ranges for skin friction coefficient, Ks and end bearing
coefficient Kb, which are the two key parameters for pile capacity estimation in
design. It was revealed that, generally, the currently adopted design ranges were
over-conservative for displacement piles. New design ranges and limits for Ks, Kb
and unit end bearing, qb, were suggested, and their typical values for conventional
designs were recommended. Further, the importance of pile load test in the design of
piling foundation was emphasized. Whenever practicable the ultimate pile bearing
capacity should be obtained from pile load tests, and all indirect estimations of pile
capacity should be evaluated against the static load test results.
INTRODUCTION
In Singapore, the ultimate axial load capacity of a pile normally is directly

estimated from the blow counts of Standard Penetration Test (i.e. the SPT N values),
and the values for the empirical parameters of skin friction coefficient (Ks), end
bearing coefficient (Kb), and unit end bearing (qb) for estimating the pile capacity are
adopted based on local experience. When pile load test results are available, the
values for Ks, Kb, and qb are also obtained from the load test results. In this study, the
Chin’s plot method (Chin, 1978) was implemented to a large number of static pile
load tests of driven piles. The obtained results were examined and analyzed to
evaluate the appropriate design ranges for Ks, Kb and qb value for the Singapore piling
practice.
ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY OF A PILE BASED ON SPT DATA
The ultimate axial load capacity of a single pile is generally calculated using
the following formula:
Advances in Pile Foundations, Geosynthetics, Geoinvestigations, and Foundation Failure Analysis and Repairs
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 220 © ASCE 2011 145
Qu = Q s + Qb = f s As + q b Ab (1)
where Qu is the ultimate pile bearing capacity; As is the surface area of the pile shaft;
and Ab is the plane area of the pile base.
The average fully mobilized skin friction per unit area of the shaft, fs, is
directly related to the average SPT N value along the pile shaft as:
f s = K s N SPT (2)
in which Ks is the skin friction coefficient (in kPa). The N value is uncorrected in this
study, given that the estimation of the fs value is approximate. For most of the
relatively low cohesion Singapore residual soils, the above expression is applicable.
In fact, the value of Ks usually depends very much on the local experience and
tradition (Broms et al., 1988). In Singapore, currently a value of Ks between 1.5 and
2.5 is normally adopted in pile design for driven piles, while the value of fs is subject
to a limit of 120 kPa.
The Ks values adopted are comparable to those reported in the available

literature. For instance, Meyerhoff (1956, 1976) suggested Ks value of 2 for piles
“with large volume displacement”; Shioi and Fukui (1982) also suggested Ks value of
2 for driven piles in sand. Both Meyerhoff and Shioi and Fukui used average of SPT
N55 value (with corrections in Meyerhoff’s method).
The ultimate end bearing per unit area of the pile toe, qb, is also related to the
SPT N value at the pile toe and expressed as the following in Singapore:
q b = K b (40 N SPT ) (3)
in which Kb is the end bearing coefficient (in kPa). The N value is also uncorrected.
Compared with Ks, Kb may vary over a much larger range since Kb is highly
influenced by the penetration depth within the bearing strata, pile installation method
and soil types. In Singapore, for driven piles the normally adopted Kb value is 3 to 6,
while qb is subject to a limit of 12,000 kPa. For bored piles, a lower Kb value from 1
to 3 are normally used based on the considerations on the effect of soil loosening at
the base due to boring, the effect of soil softening due to ingress of ground water and
the capability to clean up the borehole base. The limit for qb is also reduced to 10,000
kPa for bored piles.
Eq. (3) is similar to an equation proposed by Meyerhof (1956, 1976) for the
ultimate end bearing resistance, written as follows:
qb = (Lb/B)(40N) ≤ 380N (4)
where N is average of the SPT N55 value (with corrections) in a zone of about 8B
above to 3B below the pile point; B is width or diameter of pile point; and Lb is pile
penetration depth into point-bearing stratum. Shioi and Fukui (1982) also reported
that a similar equation was used in Japan to compute pile tip resistance from the SPT
N55 value based on the embedment depth ratio Lb/D into the point-bearing stratum.
The SPT N value is normally available in soil investigation report, and the pile
dimension is readily known. Therefore, in the estimation of ultimate pile axial bearing
capacity, the two empirical coefficients, Ks and Kb, become the critical variables. The
appropriate evaluation on Ks and Kb is very important and become essential in
practical pile design. To evaluate the two coefficients, the separated ultimate skin
friction Qs and the ultimate end bearing Qb should be quantified in advance and the
information can only be obtained from pile load tests.
A large number of pile load tests are carried out each year in Singapore.
Staged loading with a kentledge deadweight system is normally used to determine the
bearing capacity and the settlement in accordance with British Standard 8004. The
piles are normally loaded to 1.5 to 2.0 times the working loads in most proof pile load
tests. It is usually required that the total settlement of the pile at twice the working
load does not exceed 25 mm. For preliminary pile load tests, the piles are loaded to
2.5 to 3 times the working load, and similar settlement criteria are adopted. However,
few instrumented test piles have been loaded to failure due to the high expense and
complexity that may be involved. Normally, only displacement of the pile head is
measured with a dial gauge or a scale ruler. Therefore, the ultimate skin friction and
the ultimate end bearing capacity of the test pile still cannot be directly obtained. In
these cases, the Chin’s plot method (Chin, 1978) is often used in Singapore to
extrapolate and separate the Qs and Qb values.
CHIN’S PLOT METHOD
The method of Chin’s plot is based on the assumption that the relationship
between the pile settlements and the applied loads is approximately hyperbolic (Chin,
1978). Theoretically, the curve of settlement versus the ratio between settlement and
load should comprise two straight lines. A typical plot of this situation is shown in
Figure 1. The first line represents the shaft skin friction before the end-bearing
capacity is mobilised, and the second line represents the total bearing capacity
including both the shaft friction and the end bearing. The change in gradient between
the two lines occurs when the end bearing starts to mobilize. The ultimate shaft
friction is given by the reciprocal of the gradient of the first straight line. The total
ultimate pile capacity is given by the reciprocal of the gradient of the second straight
line. The ultimate end bearing capacity can be obtained by subtracting the ultimate
shaft friction from the total ultimate pile capacity.
Figure 1. Typical Chin’s plot results (x = Settlement; y = Settlement/Load).
The Chin’s plot method has been frequently used in Singapore since 1970’s.
Since the method assumes a hyperbolic load-settlement relationship, the estimated
ultimate capacity represents probably an upper limit. According to the past extensive
local experience, the results from Chin’s plot should be adjusted by 15%, which was
adopted in this study.
RESULTS OF BACK-ANALYSIS OF PILE LOAD TESTS AND

DISCUSSIONS
More than 50 static pile load tests on displacement piles were analyzed,
including reinforced concrete (RC) piles, H-steel piles and spun piles. The locations
of these test piles are around the whole island of Singapore. Table 1 presents a
summary for these test piles together with the soil conditions encountered. The pile
load test data were analyzed using the method of Chin’s plot and the Ks, Kb and qb
values were obtained.
Table 1. Summary of Analysed Pile Load Tests

Pile Location Pile Size Pile Soil Strata No.
Type (m) Length of
(m) Test
RC pile Kranji 0.2 ~ 0.4 15 ~ 32 Sandy clay (10m) + Residual sand 13
(10~20m) + Weathered sand (pile
toe)
Lorong 0.3 ~ 0.4 30 ~ 35 Sand (5~10m) + Marine clay 2

Halus (5~10m) + Sand (10m) + Silt (pile
toe)
Boon Lay 0.3 ~ 0.35 15 ~ 25 Silty clay (5~10m) + Residual silt 2
Way (10~ 20) + Silt (pile toe)
H-steel Bukit 0.35 ~ 0.4 13 ~ 23 Residual clayey silt (10~30m) + 7
pile Batok Hard silt (pile toe)
Punggol 0.35 ~ 0.4 30 ~ 47 Backfill (5~10m) + Silt (0~8m) + 22
East Sand (20~30m) + Silt (10~20m) +
Sand (pile toe)
Old 0.2 ~ 0.3 15 ~ 20 Fill (2~4m) + Soft clay (10m) + 3
Alluvium Stiff slay (2~5m) + Silt/Sand (pile
toe)
Spun Hillview 0.5 ~ 0.7 4 ~ 15 Residual silt (5~15m) + Weathered 5
pile granite (pile toe)
Figure 2 shows the variations of Ks with averaged SPT N value along the pile
shaft. The back-analyzed Ks values scattered from about 2 to 7, and averaged at about
4. No obvious trend between Ks and the averaged N value can be observed. It is also
noticed that the averaged Ks of 5 for RC piles is higher than the averaged Ks of 3.6 for
H-piles. This should be due to the fact that the RC pile, which has higher
displacement, could have induced more densification to the soils surrounding the pile
that the H-pile, and thus resulted in higher shaft friction. In generally, based on Figure
2, it could be concluded that the currently adopted Ks design range of 1.5 to 2.5 is
over-conservative, which almost fall near the lower bound of the observed Ks values.
Therefore, it is suggested that a moderately conservative Ks design range of 2 to 5 be
used for driven pile design. For general applications, a Ks value of 3 is recommended
in estimation of pile bearing capacity, while the estimated capacity is subjected to
verification using static pile load tests. The recommended Ks value is higher than
those suggested by other authors such as Meyerhoff (1956, 1976) and Shioi and Fukui
(1982), although their recommendations were based on SPT N55 values.
8
RC pile
7
H-pile
6
5
Ks
4
typical design, Ks = 3
3
1
suggested design range
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
N value (avg. along pile shaft)
Figure 2. Coefficient Ks versus SPT N value
Figure 3 shows the variations of Kb with the SPT N value near the pile toe. As
expected, Kb values scattered considerably, ranging from 7 to 30 and averaging at
about 15. Generally, the obtained Kb values increased with the N values, except those
for the spun piles which were actually set on rock. This observation is reasonable
considering the fact that, with deeper embedment in bearing stratum the end bearing
of driven pile is expected to be larger. As introduced before, in Singapore practice, a
Kb value between 3 to 6 is normally used in pile design, and the unit end bearing qb is
subjected to a limit of 12,000 kPa. Obviously, this design range is over-conservative.
Based on Figure 3, a design range of 6 to 15 is suggested with the consideration of
appropriate conservatism. For general applications, a Kb of 9 is recommended in the
estimation of pile bearing capacity, which may still be conservative considering the
variability and uncertainty of soil properties of the bearing strata that generally exist.
Higher values may be adopted, but all the Kb design values are subject to verification
using pile load tests in practice. The observed Kb values appear to be comparable with
the “equivalent” Kb values for the methods proposed by Meyerhof (1956, 1976) [Eq.
(4), based on average depth ratio of point into point-bearing stratum (Lb/B)], and
Shioi and Fukui (1982) (based on the embedment depth ratio Lb/D into the point-
bearing stratum).
35
RC pile
30 H-pile
Spun pile
25
20
Kb
15
10 typical design, Kb = 9
5
suggested design range
0
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
N value (at pile toe)
Figure 3. Coefficient Kb versus SPT N value
The limit for qb was also examined using the results from the back-analyses
and the results are presented in Figure 4. Apparently, the normally adopted limit of
12,000 kPa substantially underestimates the actual pile capacity for nearly all cases.
In Figure 4, the obtained qb values range from 15,000 kPa to as high as 70,000 kPa.
Therefore, it is suggested to increase the limit of qb to 25,000 kPa for displacement
pile design. For general applications, it is recommended a qb value of 15,000 kPa be
conservatively used for driven pile design (prior to any pile load tests, or if no load
tests are to be performed). Again, the conservative qb value is to account for the
variability and uncertainty of soil properties of the bearing strata and will also
generally limit the pipe settlements within an acceptable range. For comparison,
Meyerhof (1956, 1976) limited the qb value to 380N55 (which gives a qb value of
25,000 kPa for N55 of 66).
It should be emphasized that the ultimate pile capacity is always difficult to be

accurately evaluated even using the most sophisticated methods (Tomlinson, 1977).
In fact, the soil parameters provided in typical soil reports are generally insufficient.
For example, normally SPT N values are the only available parameters that can be
related to soil strength. The distinction in the progressive mobilizations of skin
friction and end bearing further complicates the pile capacity estimation. In addition,
the ultimate pile capacity is directly related to specific pile installation procedures,
subsurface conditions, and stress histories, etc. Consequently, static pile load test is
probably the most reliable means to ascertain the realistic ultimate pile capacity. The
test piles can be constructed by identical methods in similar soil conditions. If a
sufficient number of piles are tested, the data obtained from the tests may be used for
adjusting the design coefficients of Ks and Kb; and the ultimate bearing capacity
determined on this basis may then be considered as reliable. In other words, the
ultimate pile bearing capacity should be obtained from pile load tests whenever
practicable, and all the indirect estimations of pile capacity should be evaluated
against the static load test results.
80000
RC pile
70000
H-pile
60000
50000
qb (kPa)
40000 suggested upper limit
30000
20000 typical design, q b = 15000
10000
0
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
N value (at pile toe)
Figure 4. Pile toe unit end bearing (qb) versus SPT N value
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A large number of static pile load tests on driven piles in Singapore have been
back-analyzed using the Chin’s plot method. The obtained results show that the
currently adopted design ranges for the skin friction coefficient, Ks and the end
bearing coefficient, Kb are generally over-conservative. New design ranges for Ks and
Kb are suggested for various displacement piles. Ks may be adopted for the range of 2
to 4, while Ks of 3 is recommended for a typical design. Kb may be adopted for the
range of 6 to 15, while Kb of 9 is recommended for a typical design. The limit for the
unit end bearing, qb is increased to 25,000 kPa and qb of 15,000 kPa is recommended
in a general design calculation. It should be emphasized that whenever practicable
the ultimate pile bearing capacity should be obtained from a static pile load test, and
all the indirect estimation of the pile capacity should be evaluated against the static
load test results. As a result, the resulted pile design can be more efficient, more
reliable, and also more economical.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The test data utilized in the paper was based on the previous work performed
by the authors at Ching Soon Construction Pte Ltd, Singapore.
REFERENCES
Broms, B.B., Chang, M.F. and Goh, A.T.C. (1988). “Bored piles in residual soil and
weathered rocks in Singapore”, Proc. 1st International Geotechnical Seminar
on Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles, Ghent, Belgium, pp. 17-34.
Chin, F.K. (1978). “Diagnosis of pile condition”, Guest Lecture on 5th Southeast
Asian Conference on Soil Mechanics, Bangkok, Geotechnical Engineering,
Vol. 9, pp. 85-104.

Meyerhoff, G.G. (1956). "Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless
soils". J. of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, vol.82, SM l,
pp.1-19.
Meyerhof, G.G. (1976). "Bearing capacity and settlement of pile foundations". J. of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, vol. 102, GT 3, March, pp. 195-
228 (Terzaghi Lecture).
Shioi, Y., and Fukui, J. (1982). "Application of N-value to design of foundations in
Japan". 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, vol. l, pp.159-164.
Tomlinson, M.J. (1977). Pile Design and Construction Practice. Viewpoint
Publication, London, pp. 413.

Back Analysis of Static Pile Load Test For SPT-Based Pile Design: A Singapore Experience

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Back Analysis of Static Pile Load Test For SPT-Based Pile Design: A Singapore Experience

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical Special Publication No.

220 © ASCE 2011 144

Daping Xiao1 and Hong Yang2

In Singapore, the ultimate axial load capacity of a pile normally is directly

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY OF A PILE BASED ON SPT DATA

The Ks values adopted are comparable to those reported in the available

q b = K b (40 N SPT ) (3)

qb = (Lb/B)(40N) ≤ 380N (4)

CHIN’S PLOT METHOD

Figure 1. Typical Chin’s plot results (x = Settlement; y = Settlement/Load).

RESULTS OF BACK-ANALYSIS OF PILE LOAD TESTS AND

Table 1. Summary of Analysed Pile Load Tests

Lorong 0.3 ~ 0.4 30 ~ 35 Sand (5~10m) + Marine clay 2

It should be emphasized that the ultimate pile capacity is always difficult to be

40000 suggested upper limit

20000 typical design, q b = 15000

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Vol. 9, pp. 85-104.

You might also like