CHAPTER 5

RESULT AND ANALYSIS

5.1

Introduction

For analysis purpose, the relevant data and test results are collected from six selected sites. The data and test results are obtained from the soil investigation, pile driving records and pile load test results on site. Besides, all the data are also from the same source. Thus, for a particular site, the driving record used in pile driving formula should be from the same pile that selected for load testing. Also, the designed pile length in static analysis should be same as the driven length that obtained from the driving record. Ultimate capacity of a pile was calculated based on the method selected as mentioned in Chapter four, which are Meyerhofs Method for static analysis, Modified Engineering News Record (ENR) Formula, Hiley Formula and Gates Formula for pile driving formula and Professor Chins Method for interpretation of the load test result. For comparison purpose, summary of the ultimate capacity for the entire site are presented in table form, which the ultimate capacities that obtained from different methods are compared to each other and the differences in percentages are

63

established. Finally, the analysis results are presented in bar chart form for convenient reading. 5.2 Calculations Example

For easy understanding purpose, a calculation example for each of those selected methods that showing all the detail steps in obtaining the ultimate capacities are attached.

5.2.1

Static Analysis

5.2.1.1 Calculation Example Meyerhofs Method

Project 4: From Equation 3.1: Ultimate pile capacity, Qult = Qs + Qb Nominal surface area of the pile in soil layer, As = 2 j x L = 2 (0.35/2) x L = 1.1 L m2 Frictional Resistance, Qs

64

350 mm spun pile

Assumption 1: Skin friction is mobilized to the whole length of the driven pile. For 0 10.2 m, Cu = 18.67 Kpa, From Figure 3.4: = 1.179 From Equation 3.13 : Qs = p L = 18.67 x 1.179 x 1.1 x 10.2 = 247.05 KN For 10.2 29.60 m, Cu = 23.44 Kpa, From Figure 3.4: = 1.07 From Equation 3.13 : Qs = p L = 23.44 x 1.07 x 1.1 x 19.4 = 535.22 KN For 29.6 35.0 m, Take N avg = 8, Cu = correlation factor x N = 6.67 x 8 = 53.36 kPa From Figure 3.4: = 0.825 From Equation 3.13 : Qs = p L = 53.36 x 0.825 x 1.1 x 5.4 = 261.49 KN For 35.0 43.1 m, Take N avg = 12, Cu = correlation factor x N = 6.67 x 12 = 80.04 kPa From Figure 3.4: = 0.6

65

From Equation 3.13 :

Qs = p L = 80.04 x 0.6 x 1.1 x 8.1 = 427.89 KN

For 43.1 48.9 m, Take N avg = 15, Cu = correlation factor x N = 6.67 x 15 = 100.05 kPa From Figure 3.4: = 0.5 From Equation 3.13 : Qs = p L = 100.05 x 0.5 x 1.1 x 5.8 = 319.16 KN For 48.9 52.42 m, The soil is silty sand, therefore from the SPT test, The SPT N-value = 60.75, N = 0.6 x 60.75 = 36.45 cu = 2N = 72.90 From Equation 3.13 : Qs = p L = 72.90 x 1.1 x 2.52 = 282.27 KN Assumed bedding level, RL= - 52.42 m

Ap = j2 = (0.35/2)2 = 0.096 m2

The soil is dense sand, N = 65.22, therefore, N' = 65.22 x 0.6 = 39.13 bu = 40N x Db/B = 40 x 39.13 (1/0.35) = 4471.97 KN

66

< 400N = 13200 ok. Pbu = Apbu = 0.096 x 4471.97 = 429.31 KN From Equation 3.1: Ultimate pile capacity, Qult = Qs + Qb Qult = 247.05 + 535.22 + 261.49 + 427.89 + 319.16 + 282.27 + 429.31 = 2502.39 KN

Assumption 2: Skin friction mobilized only in the stiff layers Skin friction lost from 0 23 m, = Qs(0-8) + (12.8 x 2j x x Cu) = 247.05 + (23.44 x 1.07 x 1.1 x 12.8) = 600.19 KN Remaining ultimate pile capacity = 2502.39 600.19 = 1902.2 KN * The calculation for the correlation factor is attached in Appendix H. * The depth of down drag in the soil is determine by the software named CONSOL (a special software to determine the consolidation and rate of consolidate).

5.2.1.2 Summary Of Ultimate Capacity From Static Analysis

On the basis of the comparison of ultimate capacity using the static analysis and in situ testing, it is proposed to use the assumption two, thus Skin friction

67

mobilized only in the stiff layers, to achieve a practical results. The results of ultimate capacity for all the six selected sites are summarized in Table 5.1 below showing, while the breakdown of skin friction and end bearing capacity value are attached in Appendix I-1 to I-6 for reference.

Table 5.1: Summary of ultimate capacity from static analysis Project Name Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 Project 6 Ultimate Capacity, Qu (KN) 1450.38 1651.57 1656.54 1902.20 1335.07 1648.22

5.2.2

Pile Driving Formula

Three driving formulas were chosen in this study, thus Modified ENR Formula, Hiley Formula and Gates Formula. The ultimate capacity are calculated based on the driving records on site and calculation example for each of those formula used are showing in the following part. The ultimate capacity for every selected site that obtained from the three mentioned methods is summarized in Table 5.2 for comparison purpose. While summary of driving record and calculation steps for the three formulas for all the selected sites are attached in Appendix J to O-3.

5.2.2.1 Modified ENR Formula

68

Project 4: Pile No Pile Size Hammer Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Appendix P Appendix J ( Solution: From Modified ENR formula: EWRh WR + n2WP S + C W R + WP Qu = From the Standard Products Properties (Appendix Q), Nominal weight of 350mm diameter Spun pile = 160 kg/m = 1.5696 KN/m The pile weight = 1.5696 KN/m * L = 1.5696 * 52.42 = 82.278 KN
+ From Table D.5 in Appendix P, for diesel hammer, Weight of ram, WR = 24.5 KN Height of hammer drop, h = 1.5 m WRh = 24.5 * 1.5 = 36.75 KNm

: : : : : : :

BP1 350 mm Diameter K-25 Hammer efficiency, E Coefficient of restitution, n Weight of ram, WR Pile Length, L Penetration of pile per hammer blow, S

= 0.8 = 0.5 = 24.5 KN = 52.42 m = 0.008 m

Therefore, Qu = (0.8)(36.75) 880.2 0.008 + = 4 * 0.0254 0.4221 371.5 = 4 KN 24.5 + (0.5)2 (82.278) 24.5 + 82.278

69

5.2.2.2 Hiley Formula

Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Appendix P Appendix J

: Hammer efficiency, eh : Coefficient of restitution, n : Weight of ram, Wr : Pile Length, L Penetration of pile per hammer blow, s

= 0.8 = 0.5 = 24.5 KN = 52.42 m = 0.008 m

Solution: From Hiley formula: eh Eh Qu = s + 1/2 (c1 + c2 + c3) Wr + n2 Wp Wr + W p

From the Standard Products Properties given (Appendix Q), Nominal weight of 350mm dia. Spun pile = 160 kg/m = 1.5696 KN/m The pile weight = 1.5696 KN/m * L = 1.5696 * 52.42 = 82.278 KN From Table D.5 in Appendix P, for diesel hammer, Weight of ram, Wr = Height of hammer drop, h WRh = 24.5 * 1.5 = 24.5 KN = 1.5 m 36.75 KNm

From Table 3.4 - Manufacturer Printed Manual, The driving on site is in the category of Medium Driving - 0.006 'l' Cap compression, c1 = 0.10 inch = 0.00254 m Length of pile = 52.42 m = 171.94 ft 0.006 'l' = 0.006 (171.94) = 1.0316 Pile compression, c2 =1.0316 inch = 0.02620 m Ground compression, c3 = 0.15 inch = 0.00381 m Therefore, Qu = (0.8)(36.75) 0.008 + 1/2 (0.03255) 24.5 + (0.5)2 (82.278) 24.5 + 82.278

70

= 1211 * 0.4221 511.1 = 6 KN

5.2.2.3 Gates Formula

Solution: From Gates formula: Qu = a [EHE ] (b log S) Qu is in KN, therefore a = 104.5, b = 2.4 and E = 0.85 for diesel hammer From Table D.5 in Appendix P, for diesel hammer, Weight of ram, Wr = 24.5 KN Height of hammer drop, h = 1.5 m Rated hammer energy = WRh = 24.5 * 1.5 = From Appendix J, Penetration of pile per hammer blow, s = Therefore, Qu = a [EHE ] (b log S) = 104.5 [0.85 * 36.75 ] (2.4 log 8) = 874.27 KN 36.75 KNm

mm

5.2.2.4 Comparison Of Ultimate Capacity From Pile Driving Formulas

Table 5.2: Summary of ultimate capacity from pile driving formulas Project Name QU FROM PILE DRIVING FORMULAS (KN) Modified ENR Hiley Diff. (%) Gates Diff. (%)

71

Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 Project 6

243.03 232.04 364.73 371.54 354.70 268.15

322.49 259.39 485.80 511.16 486.74 334.70

32.70 11.79 33.19 37.58 37.23 24.82

575.29 595.61 874.27 874.27 817.67 629.49

136.72 156.69 139.70 135.31 130.53 134.75

72

Comparison Of Ultimate Capacity Based On Different Pile Driving Formulas

1000

900

800

700

Ultimate Capacity, Qu (KN)

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 Project 6

Selected Project
Modified ENR Hiley Gates

Figure 5.1: Comparison of ultimate capacity from pile driving formulas

73

Three pile driving formulas using momentum conservation is considered in this study, i.e. Modified ENR Formula, Hiley Formula and Gates Formula. The type of soil that dominated in the selected sites is clayey soil. For this type of soil, it is found that the ultimate capacity obtained from the Modified ENR Formula gives the lowest value among the three formulas while Gates formula shows the highest value of ultimate capacity. In most cases, the ultimate capacities from Hiley Formula are 30% to 40% higher than the Modified ENR Formula. While the ultimate capacities from Gates Formula show a different around 1.3 times higher than the Modified ENR Formula. The concept for Modified ENR method and Hiley method is almost the same, which both of it consider the factor of hammer efficiency, pile weight, average penetration per hammer blow and also coefficient of restitution between the ram and the pile capacity. It is found that the differences in value of the ultimate capacity of these two formulas very much depend on the temporary compression. In Modified ENR Formula, C is equal to 0.0254 mm. Where as in Hiley Formula, a more conservative value is computes from c1, c2 and c3. It is essentially to say that Hiley method is to be more reliable as compared to Modified ENR Formula as it has concern about the relationship between the pile and the driven ground condition during the driving process. Where it looks into the type of driving, thus medium driving, hard driving or very hard driving as well as the temporary compression that occur during driving process, which including cap compression, pile compression and ground compression. All the pile driving formulas except the Gates Formula are derived using various assumptions. The assumption usually depends on personal experiences and it may couple with wide variability of soils and hammer conditions. As for Gates Formula, it is a more simplify equation to be used and it is not really subjected to variation due to the compression effect and all the coefficient of restitution. It is therefore, the ultimate value from Gates Formula to be higher from the other two formulas.

74

5.2.3

Pile Load Test - Chins Method

5.2.3.1 Example Calculation

Project 4 Pile Size : 350 mm Diameter Hammer : K-25

Table 5.3: Load-settlement relationship of the pile (For first cycle and minus residual) LOAD SETTLEMENT P (Ton) (mm) 0.00 0.00 0.0000 18.75 1.56 0.0832 37.50 3.56 0.0949 56.25 5.45 0.0969 75.00 8.33 0.1111 56.25 7.63 0.1356 MINUS RESIDUAL 37.50 6.94 0.1851 SETTLEMENT P 18.75 6.03 0.3216 (mm) 0.00 3.53 0.0000 0 18.75 3.82 0.0000 0.29 0.0155 37.50 5.53 0.1475 2.00 0.0533 56.25 6.66 0.1184 3.13 0.0556 75.00 8.71 0.1161 5.18 0.0691 93.75 10.15 0.1083 6.62 0.0706 112.50 12.22 0.1086 8.69 0.0772 131.25 14.36 0.1094 10.83 0.0825 150.00 18.00 0.1200 14.47 0.0965 131.25 18.54 0.1413 112.50 16.93 0.1505 93.75 15.41 0.1644 75.00 13.26 0.1768 56.25 11.65 0.2071 37.50 10.33 0.2755 18.75 7.49 0.3995 0.00 4.83 0.0000

5.2.3.2 Interpretation Of Load Test Result By Chins Method Stability Plot

Stability Plot For Spun Pile at BP1, Project 4

( Chin's Met hod ) Settlement (mm)
0 0.12 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0.10

/P (mm/Ton)

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

First Cycle Linear (First Cycle)

Minus Residual

Figure 5.2: Stability plot

74

75

5.2.3.3 Estimation Of Ultimate Pile Capacity From Stability Plot

From the stability plot,

For 1st Cycle: Slope of the plot = (0.1111 - 0.0832) / (8.33 - 1.56) = 0.0279 / 6.77 = 0.0041 ton-1 Know that the inverse slop of the plot gives the ultimate capacity, Thus, Ultimate Capacity of the pile, Qult = 1/ 0.004 ton-1 = 242.652 ton = 2426.52 KN For Minus Residual: Slope of the plot = (0.0965 - 0.0535) / (14.5 - 2) = 0.0430 / 12.5 = 0.0034 ton-1 Know that the inverse slop of the plot gives the ultimate capacity, Thus, Ultimate Capacity of the pile, Qult = 1/ 0.003 ton-1 = 290.698 ton = 2906.98 KN

From the load test results, it is found that the head settlement for first cycle and second cycle of spun piles is quiet near to each other. For example, from Table 5.3 above, the residual settlement after the first cycle is 3.53 mm. Which as for second cycle, the residual settlement is 4.83 mm. The difference is considered very small and exhibited similar initial residual strengths. In this condition, it is reasonable to say that the driven pile has achieved its capacity at a constant stage. Hence, the interpretation of ultimate capacity by using first cycle result is considered reliable.

76

5.2.3.4 Summary Of Ultimate Capacity From Load Test Results

Similar with the example calculation for Project 4, all the ultimate capacities for the other selected sites are interpret from static load test results that carried out for that particular pile by using Chins Method. The related data, stability plot as well as the interpretation results are shown in Appendix R-1 to V-3. While the summary of the ultimate capacity for the six selected sites are shown in Table 5.4 below.

Table 5.4: Summary of ultimate capacity from load test results Project Name Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 Project 6 Ultimate Capacity, Qu (KN) 1904.76 2285.71 2230.77 2426.52 1818.18 2105.26

5.3

Comparison Of Ultimate Pile Capacity, Qu

5.3.1

Comparison Of Ultimate Capacity Between Theoretical Formula And In-Situ Testing

Table 5.5 : Summary of ultimate capacity from load test results, pile driving formula and static analysis ULTIMATE CAPACITY, QU (KN) Project Name Load Test (Chin Method) 1904.76 2285.71 2230.77 2426.52 1818.18 2105.26 Pile Driving Formula Modified ENR 243.03 232.04 364.73 371.54 354.70 268.15 Hiley 322.49 259.39 485.80 511.16 486.74 334.70 Gates 575.29 595.61 874.27 874.27 817.67 629.49 Static Analysis (Meyerhof's Method) 1450.38 1651.57 1656.54 1902.20 1335.07 1648.22

Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 Project 6

Ultimate Capacity From Load Test Result, Pile Driving Formulas And Static Analysis
Ultimate Capacity, Qu (KN)
2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Selected Project
Load Test (Chin Method) Modified ENR Hiley Gates Static Analysis (Meyerhof's Method)

Figure 5.3: Ultimate capacity from load test result, pile driving formulas and static analysis

78

79

From Table 5.5 and Figure 5.3 above, it is found that ultimate capacity determined from pile load test result show the highest value compare with the other two methods. This followed by static analysis and pile driving formula respectively. Ultimate capacity, Qu obtained from Chins method is more reliable as it is determined through the load test where installed pile are load to twice the working load as desired by the designer. It is always more convincing the designer as the pile has been loaded and the soil partial at the pile shaft or pile toe has been adequately mobilized to gain its strength. As for ultimate capacity obtained from the static analysis and pile driving formulas, both are lower than the load test results. However, ultimate capacity from static analysis shown a closer value to ultimate capacity from load test results as it is based on bearing capacity theory and the soil parameters used in the analysis were predicted from the borehole data. But pile driving formulas only a prediction of energy transfer from the hammer drop to the driven pile only. Various empirical assumptions may not be found satisfactory to correlate to field condition.

5.3.2

Comparison Between Static Analysis And Load Test Results

Table 5.6: Comparison of ultimate pile capacity, Qu from load test results and static analysis Soil Characteristic Project Name Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 Project 6 Driving Depth (m) 46.00 68.10 55.62 52.42 50.50 52.00 Type Of Soil Along Middle Strata Silty Clay Stiff Silty Clay Sandy Silty Clay Silty Clay Silty Clay Soft Silty Clay Type Of Soil At Bedding Level Silty Sand Stiff Silty Clay Sandy Silty Clay Silty Gravelly Sand Silty Clay Clayey Silty Sand Average SPT-N Value 16.37 7.38 16.67 21.88 6.15 17.40 Ultimate Capacity (KN) Static Analysis 1450.38 1651.57 1656.54 1902.20 1335.07 1648.22 Load Test Results 1904.76 2285.71 2230.77 2426.52 1818.18 2105.26 Comparison Differences (%) Static Analysis vs Load Test Results 23.85 27.74 25.74 21.61 26.57 21.71

80

81
81

Comparison between ultimate capacities from interpretation of load test results (Chins method) and static analysis (Meyerhofs method) show the percentages difference ranging from 21.61% to 27.74%. As stated in Geotechnical Information Of The Selected Sites in Chapter 4, type of soils for the selected sites are silty clay with lamination of sand at certain layers. In purpose of studying the soils characteristics factor to the differences between these two methods, few criteria have been highlighted, thus the driving depth, type of soil along middle strata, type of soil at bedding level as well as average SPT-N value. As observed in Table 5.6, Project 2 and 5 can be categorized in a different group from Project 1, 3, 4 and 6. These two projects achieved a lower value in standard penetration test as well as having the same type of soil at both the middle strata and bedding level of pile, thus silty clay while the other projects were bedding on a sand strata. From the table, it is found that ultimate capacity calculated from static analysis for Project 2 and 5 achieved a lower value when their piles were bedding on clayey strata, even though they were driven deeper. At the same time, a higher percentage of differences achieved when compared to the load test results. As from Meyerhofs formula, calculation of end bearing capacity in clayey soil is using equation of 9 Cu Ap while sandy soil is using 40N (Db/B)Ap. It is found the larger difference was established when the base stratum is of clayey soil where the clay formula needs to be used. This is because the clay formula for end bearing capacity in Meyerhofs Method gave a lower value, which is therefore underestimated. 89

CORRELATION CHART
2000

Qu Static Analysis (Meyerhof's Method), KN

1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500

y = 0.76 x

Qu Load Test (Chin's Method), KN

Figure 5.4: Correlation factor for ultimate capacity from load test result and static analysis

82

83

The ultimate capacities of the measured and calculated values at the six selected sites were also used to establish a correlation chart. It is observed that the ultimate capacity of a pile calculated from static analysis can be correlated to the ultimate capacity measured from load test on site. It is however consistently smaller in magnitude with a reduction factor ranging from 1.28 to 1.38. The correlation chart also illustrates the linear relationship between these two methods, which could be represented by the equation: Qu SA = 0.76 Qu LT Which calculation of ultimate pile capacity in static analysis was using Meyerhofs Method while interpretation of load test results was based on Chins Method. Ultimate load from load test, interpreted using Chins method is taken as a datum data to compare with other methods. This is because result from load test is based on actual loading and actual site condition. 78

5.3.3

Comparison Between Static Analysis And Pile Driving Formulas

Table 5.7: Comparison of ultimate capacity from static analysis and pile driving formulas ULTIMATE CAPACITY, QU (KN) Project Name Static Analysis (Meyerhof's Method) Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 Project 6 1450.38 1651.57 1656.54 1902.20 1335.07 1648.22 Modified ENR 243.03 232.04 364.73 371.54 354.70 268.15 Diff.(%) 83.24 85.95 77.98 80.47 73.43 83.73 Pile Driving Formulas Hiley 322.49 259.39 485.80 511.16 486.74 334.70 Diff.(%) 77.77 84.29 70.67 73.13 63.54 79.69 Gates 575.29 595.61 874.27 874.27 817.67 629.49 Diff.(%) 60.34 63.94 47.22 54.04 38.75 61.81

COMPARISON OF ULTIMATE CAPACITY BASED ON STATIC ANALYSIS AND PILE DRIVING FORMULAS
2000 1750 1500 1250 1000 750 500 250 0 Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 Project 6

ULTIMATE CAPACITY, Qu (KN)

SELECTED PROJECT Static Analysis (Meyerhof's Method) Modified ENR Formula Hile y Formula Gates Formula

Figure 5.5: Comparison of ultimate capacity based on static analysis and pile driving formulas

85

86

From the comparison between static analysis and pile driving formulas, it is shown that static analysis by Meyerhofs method has a higher ultimate capacity, Qu as compared to the three selected pile driving formulas. While among the three driving formulas, Gates Formula shows a closer value to static analysis. Static analysis is based on bearing capacity theory and the soil parameters were predicted from the borehole data. These are not happening for analysis by pile driving formulas where its assumptions depends only on types of piling equipment and its efficiency as well as the slenderness of pile. Pile driving formulas give the value of ultimate capacity during the driving process. The values are significantly lower due to the soil that has been remolded during the driving process especially when involving clayey soils. This can be observed from the calculated ultimate capacity that using driving formulas in Project 2 always shows the lowest value as compared with other projects even though it achieved the highest value of driving depth. Besides, Project 2 also indicated a highest percentage of difference when compared to the value from static analysis. As described in Geotechnical Information Of The Selected Sites in Chapter 4 and Table 5.4 in previous part, Project 2 obtained the clayey soil at both along the middle strata and bedding level of pile. As therefore, the significantly lower value and higher percentage of difference established in Project 2 is because of the remolding of soil that due to the driving works has created greater disturbance to clayey soil.

5.3.4

Comparison Between Load Test Result And Pile Driving Formulas

Table 5.8 : Comparison of ultimate capacity from load test results and pile driving formulas ULTIMATE CAPACITY, QU (KN) Project Name Load Test Results Stability Plot Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 Project 6 1904.76 2285.71 2230.77 2426.52 1818.18 2105.26 Modified ENR 243.03 232.04 364.73 371.54 354.70 268.15 Diff.(%) 87.24 89.85 83.65 84.69 80.49 87.26 Pile Driving Formula Hiley 322.49 259.39 485.80 511.16 486.74 334.70 Diff.(%) 83.07 88.65 78.22 78.93 73.23 84.10 Gates 575.29 595.61 874.27 874.27 817.67 629.49 Diff.(%) 69.80 73.94 60.81 63.97 50.03 70.10

87

COMPARISON OF ULTIMATE CAPACITY BASED ON LOAD TEST RESULT AND PILE DRIVING FORMULAS
2500 2250

ULTIMATE CAPACITY, Qu (KN)

2000 1750 1500 1250 1000 750 500 250 0 Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 Project 6

SELECTED PROJECT Load Te st Re sults Modifie d ENR Formula Hile y Formula Gate s Formula

Figure 5.6: Comparison of ultimate capacity based on load test result and pile driving formulas

88

89

From the comparison between load test and pile driving formulas, it is noted that ultimate capacity from interpretation of load test results by Chins method achieved a 60% to 90% higher value as compare to the three selected pile driving formulas. As the comparison between static analysis and pile driving formulas, the ultimate capacity from Gates Formula still shows a closer value from load test result than the other two methods. The pile driving formulas are only the prediction of pile capacity to be achieved during the driving process and significantly affected by the type of piling equipment but the relationship of pile to the soil properties is not precisely described. However, the ultimate capacity from these driving formulas would be even lower when the sites involved more clay layer. This can be observed from the calculated ultimate capacity of Project 2, which it shown a lowest value as compared with other projects as well as obtained a highest difference when compared with load test results even though it achieved the highest value of driving depth. The significant lower value and higher percentage of difference established in Project 2 may be able to be explained by the remolding of soil that due to the driving works has created greater disturbance to clayey soil as compared to sandy soil. The load test results are more reliable due to the following reasons:
The The

pile has been driven and loaded, actual behavior of pile will be established based on the actual site it does not pre-determine the pile slenderness, the effect still will

condition,
Although

be reflected during the load test.