Evaluation of Design Capacity of Bored Pile based on High Strain

Dynamic Test
Nurly Gofar
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
Michael Angelo
Geopave Testing Sdn Bhd, Selangor, Malaysia

ABSTRACT: In general, piles are designed analytically based on the load that is transferred from the
structure to the soil, and load tests are performed to verify the design capacity. Up to recently, static load test
is still considered as the most reliable method even though it is not practical and costly; hence it could be
done on limited numbers of pile only. High strain dynamic testing offers a less expensive alternative for pile
load test. Studies have been done to evaluate the performance of dynamic testing in evaluating the design
capacity of displacement piles. This paper focuses on the application of high strain dynamic testing in
evaluating the capacity of replacement or bored piles based on several cases in Malaysia. The study shows
that the high strain dynamic tests, if performed and interpreted correctly, can provide reasonable agreement
with the results of static load test in terms of settlement and of design capacity. Higher design capacity was
predicted by dynamic test, but the discrepancy is mainly due to the time interval between the casting of the
pile and the execution of the test which affect the development of shaft resistance in the pile. The different
contribution of friction resistance along the pile shaft observed by both tests is more dependent on the load
transfer mechanism related to the test rather than on the effect of soil setup.

Key words: pile design capacity, bored pile, dynamic pile testing

ABSTRAK: Pada umumnya pondasi tiang direncanakan secara analitis berdasarkan beban yang disalurkan
dari struktur kepada tanah dan uji beban dilakukan untuk memverifikasi kapasitas tiang. Uji beban statis
masih dianggap sebagai metode standar walaupun metode ini tidak parktis dan mahal, sehingga hanya dapat
dilakukan pada beberapa tiang saja. Uji beban dinamis merupakan alternatif yang lebih murah untuk
pengujian kapasitas beban tiang. Perbandingan antara hasil uji beban dinamis dan uji beban statis telah
dilakukan, terutama pada tiang pancang. Makalah ini membincangkan penggunaan uji beban dinamis pada
tiang bor berdasarkan beberapa studi kasus di Malaysia. Hasil studi menunjukkan bahwa uji beban dinamis,
apabila dilakukan dan diinterpretasikan dengan baik, dapat memberikan hasil yang mendekati hasil uji beban
statis dalam hal kapasitas beban dan penurunan. Kapasitas yang lebih tinggi diberikan oleh uji beban dinamis
karena perbedaan waktu pemasangan tiang dan waktu pengujian, dimana uji beban statis dilakukan lebih awal
daripada uji beban dinamis. Kontribusi beban friksi yang berbeda berdasarkan hasil kedua uji beban .lebih
disebabkan oleh mekanisma penyaluran beban daripada pengaruh peningkatan kekuatan tanah.

Kata Kunci : kapasitas disain tiang, tiang bor, uji beban dinamis

1. INTRODUCTION cause severe damage to the structure and its

Piles are designed based on the load that is
transferred from the structure to the piles; thus the
type, size and length of piles are determined
accordingly. However, load test should be
conducted to verify the design capacity. Piles that
are not properly designed, would pose danger to the
structure. Inadequate load or large settlement would
PERTEMUAN ILMIAH TAHUNAN-X HATTI, 6-7Desember 2006
occupants.
Up to recently, static load test, especially the
maintained load test type, is still considered as the
most reliable method to verify the design capacity of
piles. The test uses hydraulic jacking system against
a kentledge or a beam restrained by anchor piles.
The load is measured by the reading of pressure
gauge on the hydraulic jack. At present, the load is
147
measured directly by a load cell interposed between
the pile head and jack or between the jack and
platform to get an accurate and reliable
measurement. This test, also known as conventional
test, requires proper setup, manpower, machinery
and longer duration to maintain the load, thus the
test is not practical and costly hence it could be done
on limited numbers of pile.
There are several alternatives to static load test:
high strain dynamic test, statnamic test and
Osterberg cell load testing. The most viable and the
most common test being practiced in the industry is
the High Strain Dynamic Testing which is based on
the wave propagation.
The test requires sensors, pile driving analyzer
and the pile driving system. High strain dynamic test
or dynamic pile testing is conducted using two to
four sets of sensors known as accelerometer and
transducer attached to the pile. The sensors capture
the impact force and velocity on every impact of the
driving system, or on re-strike. The signals of strain
and acceleration were conditioned and processed by
the pile driving analyzer to produce plots of force
and velocity versus time. Standard practice requires
signal matching analysis to determine the pile
capacity from the dynamic tests. Many programs
such as TTI, WEAP and CAPWAP have been
developed for the data analysis. CAPWAP (Case
Pile Wave Analysis Program) was developed based
on an analysis of dynamic forces and accelerations
the load and corresponding settlement of the pile,
and the design capacity of the pile.
2. PILE DESCRIPTION AND
INSTRUMENTATION
The data used for this study was collected from five
instrumented bored piles obtained from three sites in
Selangor (piles 1, 2, and 3) and two sites in Johor
Bahru (piles 4 and 5). For each site, instrumentation
is mounted on trial piles. Each instrumented pile
was statically and dynamically tested. The typical
diagram of instrumentation used for the piles in this
study is shown in Figure 1. Table 1 shows the details
of the piles used in the study.
Piles 1, 2, and 3 sit on Kenny Hill Formation
which is predominantly Grade IV material with SPT
N value greater than 50. The length of piles ranges
from 7 to 12 m; thus can be categorized as short pile.
The piles were installed by dry method of
construction. Pile 3 and 4 embedded in deep
Alluvium deposit. The soil profile consists of 10 –
30 m depth of Young Alluvium with SPT N value
generally less than 15, underlain by Old Alluvium
deposit with SPT N value varies from 20 to 100.
The piles were installed by wet method of
construction to a depth of 40 to 50 m; thus they can
be categorized as long piles.
(Pile Top)

measured in the field during driving and is currently RL47.5 m (Existing GL)
the most used program to evaluate the pile capacity 0.75 m VWSG Level A (Lev A, RL 46.75 m)
from high strain dynamic testing data.
A-9 sensor 1a & 1b
Eventhough the test and the analysis methods
were originally developed for driven pile, their
application for drilled pile was made possible by re-
strike test. The ability of the high strain dynamic
test to accurately predict static capacity for dynamic
pile testing has been the subject of many studies.
3.0 m VWSG Level B (Lev B, RL 44.5 m)
Previous studies such as Siedel and Rausche (1984),
Jianren and Shihong (1992) have demonstrated good
A-9 sensor 2a & 2b
correlation of CAPWAP signal matching results on
dynamically re-strike tests with that of static load 4.0 m VWSG Level C (Lev C, RL 43.5 m)

tests for drilled piles. Based on their study on a

A-9 sensor 3a & 3b
large number of tests, Likin and Rausche (2004)
concluded that the high strain dynamic re-strike 5.0 m VWSG Level D (Lev D, RL 42.5 m)
testing with CAPWAP analysis is very reliable for
determination of ultimate capacity of both driven A-9 sensor 4a & 4b

and cast in-situ piles. Accuracy is slightly better for 6.0 m VWSG Level E (Lev E, RL 41.5 m)
driven pile as compared to bored piles.
A-9 sensor 5a & 5b
This paper focuses on the evaluation of the 6.5 m VWSG Level F (Lev F, RL 41.0 m)
dynamic re-strike test and CAPWAP analysis done
on the bored piles by comparing the results with Pile toe at 7.0 m depth (RL 40.5m)
those obtained from the static load test. The
comparisons were made based on: the distribution of Figure 1 Typical diagram of instrumented bored
load carried at the pile base and along the pile shaft, piles used in this study

PERTEMUAN ILMIAH TAHUNAN-X HATTI, 6-7Desember 2006 148

Table 1 Details of the Pile used in this study 3. TEST RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS
Work ing
Pile Length Diameter
Load
The results of static load test are presented in terms
Reference (m) (mm) of load deformation curves. The maximum load
(kN)
Pile 1(S) 7m 750 mm 3,000 applied during static load test, and the settlement
corresponding to the working load and test load
Pile 2(S) 9m 750 mm 2,250
derived from the load settlement curve are presented
Pile 3(S) 12 m 1000 mm 3,000 in Table 3.
Pile 4 (JB) 48.2 m 1000 mm 5,800 Many methods have been proposed for the
Pile 5 (JB) 41.5 m 1000 mm 8,400 determination of pile capacity based on the load
settlement data such as: Davisson method, Fuller
and Hoy method, Butler and Hoy method, Brinch
The static load test is conducted by slow
and Hansen’s 90% criteria method, de Beers
maintained load test using kentledge with load cell.
The test was carried out on the piles some time after method, Mazurkie method, and Chin’s method.
the installation. In the static load test, the piles are Each method uses different criteria for failure loads
loaded three times its estimated working load or (Felenius,1980).
until failure. An instrumented pile will enable the These methods were used to determine the
evaluation of shaft resistance, end bearing, and the capacity of the piles used in this study. The results
development of these resistances during static load showed that Davisson method (1973) gave the least
test. The development of shaft and end bearing capacity for all cases. Thus the pile capacity
resistances represent the load transfer behavior of obtained by this method is selected for comparison
the pile system. The set up might be costly, but the with the results of dynamic test. The determination
information obtained is beneficial for design of pile capacity by Davisson method seems to work
verification and optimization of pile length for a big best with the data obtained from quick maintained
scale projects. load test (Coduto, 1994). In this method, the pile
The dynamic test is performed using a drop capacity is defined as the load corresponding to the
hammer. In the pile dynamic test, the pile force and settlement (δ) of:
velocity measurements are obtained by a set of strain B PD
gauges and accelerometers attached to the pile head. δ = 0.012 Br + 0.1 + (1)
A more rigorous evaluation using the signal Br AE
matching techniques derived from computer where B is the diameter of the pile, Br is the
software is done for the evaluation of the static pile reference width (300 mm), P is the applied load, D
capacity, relative shaft distribution, and soil quake. is the depth of pile, A and E are the crossesction and
The re-strike test was done some time after the static modulus of elasticity of the pile.
load test. The modification of the method was made in
The time interval between the casting of the pile conjunction with the wave equation analysis (Likins
and the test would allow for the curing of the et.al, 1996). In this case, the pile capacity is defined
concrete and set-up of the soil. Table 2 shows the as the load corresponding to the movement which
time intervals between the installation of the pile and exceeds the elastic compression of the pile by a
the testing. value of 4 mm plus a factor equal to the diameter of
pile divided by 120. The pile capacity obtained
Table 2 Time interval between the casting of the pile and the from this method is shown in Table 3.
testing The results of Pile Dynamic test (PDA) is also
Interval Interval Interval presented in the form of load settlement curve. Table
Pile Casting – Casting – Casting – 4 shows the settlement obtained from dynamic test
Reference SLT PDA PDA for the corresponding working load and test load.
(day) (day) (day)
CAPWAP (Case Pile Wave Analysis Program)
Pile 1(S) 14 69 55
analysis is used in this study to evaluate pile
Pile 2(S) 19 54 35 capacity from the dynamic testing data. The pile
Pile 3(S) 26 48 22 capacity obtained from CAPWAP analysis on the
Pile 4 (JB) 21 283 262 PDA test results is considered to be fully mobilized
for the net set of 3 mm for a selected blow (PDA
Pile 5 (JB) 50 75 25
Manual, 1997).

PERTEMUAN ILMIAH TAHUNAN-X HATTI, 6-7Desember 2006 149

Table 3 Results of Static Load Test and Pile capacity based on Table 5 Ultimate Load and Comparison of Pile Capacity
Davisson method predicted by Static Load Test and Dynamic Test.

Working Settlement Pile Time

Pile Load, (mm) Capacity Ultimat interva
Pile
Reference WL WL TL= (kN) e Load Pile Capacity (kN) l
Referenc
(kN) 2WL (kN) SLT–
e
Pile 1(S) 3,000 2.3 4.5 8,000 SLT PDA PDA
(days)
Pile 2(S) 2,250 2.0 4.9 7,150
Pile 1(S) > 10,064 8,000 9,429 55
Pile 3(S) 3,000 3.5 9.8 7,650
Pile 2(S) 10,000 7,150 5,750* 35
Pile 4(JB) 5,800 6.5 15.0 17,500
Pile 3(S) >10,027 7,650 9,550 22
Pile 5(JB) 8,400 7.0 52.0 14,750
Pile 4(JB) >14,974 17,500 22,861 262

Table 4 Results of Dynamic Load Test and Pile capacity Pile 5(JB) >16,573 14,750 17,504 25
Note: *) Pile failed during static load test
Settlement (mm) Pile
Pile Capacity
Reference Table 6 Pile Capacity and Shaft and End bearing contribution
WL TL=2WL (kN) to pile capacity (Static Load Test)
Pile 1(S) 2.3 4.8 9,429
Pile 2(S) 2.3 6.3 5,750 Static Load Test
Pile Pile Shaft End
Pile 3(S) 2.4 5.1 9,550 Capacity Friction Bearing
Reference
Pile 4(JB) 5.3 10.7 22,861 (kN) (%) (%)
Pile 5(JB) 5.3 12.0 17,504 Pile 1(S) 8,000 65 35
Pile 2(S) 7,150 64 36
Pile 3(S) 7,650 92 8
4. DISCUSSION
Pile 4(JB) 17,500 99 1
Table 5 summarizes the comparison between the
Pile 5(JB) 14,750 88 12
actual failure load and the pile capacity predicted by
Davisson’s method from static load test and
CAPWAP analysis from dynamic load test. It is Table 7 Pile Capacity and Shaft and End bearing contribution
observed the dynamic test gives an apparently higher to pile capacity (Dynamic Load Test)
capacity compare to the static load test maybe due to
the time of execution. The last column shows the PDA Test
time interval between the executions of both tests. Pile Pile Shaft End
The dynamic test on Pile 4 was done 262 days after Reference Capacity Friction Bearing
the static load test and the predicted capacity of pile (kN) (%) (%)
is 30% higher than the capacity obtained from static
load test. Other piles, except Pile 2 which failed Pile 1(S) 9,429 36 64
during static load test, exhibit 20% higher predicted Pile 2(S) 5,750 *
45 55
capacity from dynamic load test.
It should be noted that the pile capacity presented Pile 3(S) 9,550 53 47
in Table 5 are the ultimate capacity of the pile which Pile 4(JB) 22,861 89 11
is contributed by the end bearing and shaft friction.
The contribution of each mechanism can be Pile 5(JB) 17,504 70 30
estimated based on the distribution of shaft friction Note: *) Pile failed during static load test
recorded by load cell installed at different level on
the pile during static load test (Figure 1), while Table 6 shows that the contribution of the shaft
derivation of shaft friction distribution from friction for pile at Site 1 (S), is higher compared to
dynamic testing is made by the CAPWAP analysis end bearing. Observation showed that this scenario
based on wave matching technique. The occurred due to large movement at the base of the
contribution of the shaft friction and the end bearing pile. The pile load was fully mobilized causing the
of the pile obtained from both static load test and toe to displace. Since the base of the pile started to
dynamic test are presented in Table 6 and 7 displace, the corresponding load would be taken by
respectively. the shaft.
PERTEMUAN ILMIAH TAHUNAN-X HATTI, 6-7Desember 2006 150
 The scenario is different for Site 2 where the
piles are long. Most of the load applied is resisted
by the shaft and only a small part is transferred to
the base. The development of shaft friction is
mainly due to the cohesion of the soil.
The dynamic tests were conducted based on the
force induced from the ram. Even though the force
can mobilize the shaft resistance, the major
contribution of the resistance was transferred to the
base. The shaft resistance observed by the dynamic
load test is lower compared to that obtained from the
static load test. Therefore, the load was not able to
cause movement at the pile base; hence the
contribution of end bearing is larger. This is the case
for piles in Site 1 (S). The results of dynamic test
agree with that of static load test where major
contributions of pile resistance for piles in Site 2
(JB) are from shaft resistance even though the shaft
resistance observed by the dynamic load test is
slightly lower.
Table 7 shows the comparison between the
settlement predicted by the static load test and the
dynamic test.
Table 7 Comparison on settlement predicted by static load test
and dynamic test
Settlement (mm)
Pile SLT PDA
Referenc
W TL=2W W TL=2WL
e
L L L applied to the results of dynamic load test in the
Pile 1(S) 2.3 4.8
2.3 4.5
Pile 2(S) 2.0 4.9 2.3 6.3
Pile 3(S) 3.5 9.8 2.4 5.1
Pile 4(JB) 6.5 15.0 5.3 10.7
Pile 5(JB) 7.0 52.0 5.3 12.0
For piles in Site 1 (S), it is observed that under
working load, the settlements predicted from the
dynamic tests is less compared to that of static load
test. On the other hand, under test load of twice the
working load, the settlement predicted by the
dynamic test is higher than that obtained from static
load test. This situation support the conclusion
made for the pile capacity and the load transfer
mechanism stated previously. Higher force is
required from dynamic test to mobilize the stress at
the base of the pile resulting in less settlement
obtained from test under working load but more
settlement under higher load. Less settlement was
obtained from dynamic load test on piles at Site 2
(JB) because more load is required to mobilize the
failure at pile base. This agrees with the results of
the dynamic pile testing in term of pile capacity.
Higher pile capacity was obtained from dynamic
PERTEMUAN ILMIAH TAHUNAN-X HATTI, 6-7Desember 2006
load test on pile at site 2 (JB) compared to the
results of static load test..
5. CONCLUSIONS
Predictions of pile capacity based on static load
test and dynamic test have been performed in this
study to arrive at several conclusions.
The pile capacity obtained from CAPWAP
Analysis utilized in the PDA test is generally higher
than that estimated by Davisson’s Method based on
the results of static load test due to the time of
testing.
Dynamic load test gives more settlement at
higher load as compared to due to the mechanism of
load transfer.
The contribution of friction resistance along the
pile shaft observed by both tests is more dependent
on the load transfer mechanism related to the test
rather than on the effect of soil setup.
The relationship between the results of static
load test and dynamic load test is site specific
because it depends on the load transfer mechanism,
the types of pile, the soil properties and other
factors.
Hence, only after correlation with the static load test,
more dynamic test can be carried out as quality
control to save cost and expedite construction in
large project. Higher factor of safety should be
absence of static load test results.
REFERENCES
Beim, J.W., de Rosa, R.L. (2004). Comparison of Static and
Dynamic Load Tests Results. Proc. 7th Intl. Conf. on the
Application of Stresswave Theory to Piles, Kuala Lumpur
Chin Y.K., Tan S.L. and Tan S.B. (1985). Ultimate Load Tests
on Instrumented Bored Piles in Singapore Old Alluvium.
Proc. 8th South East Asia Geotech. Conf. Kuala Lumpur.
Coduto DP. (1994) Foundation Design, Principles and
Practices, Prentice Hall.
Fellenius, B. H. (1980). The Analysis of Results from Routine
Pile Load Test. Ground Engineering.
Fellenius, B. H. (1990). Static or Dynamic Test – Which To
Trust Geotechnical News Magazines, December 1990,
Vol. 8, No.4.
Goble Rausche Likins and Associates (1996). CAPWAP
Introduction to Dynamic Pile Testing Methods. Pile
Dynamic Inc.
Jianren D. and Shihong Z. (1992) The Appraisal of Results
from PDA High Strain Dynamic Tests on Large and Long
Drilled Pile. Proc. 4th Intl. Conf. on Application of Stress
Wave Theory to Piles, The Hague.
Likins, G and Rausche, F. (2004). Correlation of CAPWAP
with Static Load Test. Proc. 7th Intl. Conf. on the
151
 Application of Stress Wave Theory to Piles 2004, Kuala
Lumpur
Pile Driving Analyser (1995). PAK User Manual. Pile
Dynamic Inc.
Rausche F., and Seidel, J. (1984) Design and Performance of
Dynamic Test on Large Diameter Drilled Shaft. Proc.2nd
Intl. Conf. on Application of Stress Wave Theory to Piles,
Stockholm. p. 9-16.
PERTEMUAN ILMIAH TAHUNAN-X HATTI, 6-7Desember 2006
Rausche, F., Moses F., and G.G. Goblen (1972). Soil
Resistance Predictions from Pile Dynamics. Journal of the
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division ASCE,
September 1972.
Seidel, J. and Rausche F. (1984) Correlation of Static and
Dynamic Pile Tests on Large Diameter Drilled Shaft.
Proc. 2nd Intl Conf. on Application of Stress Wave Theory
to Piles, Stockholm. p. 9-16.
152