Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT This paper describes a process by which pile load test data can be used
to assist in the prediction of pile foundation settlements. In the interpretation of the
load test results, the critical importance of making allowance for the load test setup
and possible interaction effects is emphasized, because of the potential for overestimation of pile stiffness. Two examples are given, one of an unsuccessful use of
pile load test data for pile foundation settlement prediction, and the other of a more
successful outcome. The reasons for the unsuccessful prediction are examined. It is
found that successful prediction of the test pile settlement does not guarantee that the
overall settlement of the foundation system will be predicted successfully.
INTRODUCTION
Pile testing is commonly carried out to assess the geotechnical capacity of piles
within a foundation system or to check on the integrity of as-constructed piles. Pile
testing also has a useful role to play as a tool in the prediction of foundation
settlements, despite the doubts expressed by many engineers that the settlement of a
single pile bears little or no relationship to that of a pile group.
Ideally, pile tests should employ instrumentation to allow estimation of the
distribution of shaft and base resistance during the loading process. Interpretation of
such tests should take account of the presence of residual stresses induced during pile
installation, otherwise misleading assessments of the shaft and base resistances can be
made (for example, Fellenius et al, 2004). Unfortunately, the vast majority of pile
tests undertaken are on uninstrumented piles, and hence it is desirable to have means
of interpreting such tests in terms of their settlement behaviour.
This paper sets out a method by which load-settlement data from pile load tests can
be interpreted and used to predict the settlement of pile groups or of single piles of
different dimensions. One of the commonly employed methods of pile group
settlement analysis, the interaction factor method, is reviewed and its practical
implementation is discussed. This method is described with respect to a simple elastic
soil model, but the principles involved can also be applied to more realistic soil
models. The use of the method is illustrated via two case studies, one in which the
Page 2/20
foundation settlement prediction was poor, and the other in which the prediction was
more satisfactory. From these cases, some indications are provided of the steps that
need to be taken to avoid unsatisfactory pile group settlement predictions.
THE PROCESS OF PILE SETTLEMENT PREDICTION
The use of load-settlement data from pile load tests to predict the settlement
behaviour of a pile group or piled raft involves the following steps.
1.
2.
Interpretation of the pile load test to assess the pile and ground stiffness
characteristics, taking into account the site stratigraphy and the load test
configuration.
3.
Application of a suitable method of pile or pile group analysis into which the
following parameters are input.
4.
a.
b.
The global ground stiffness parameters for the various strata not
influenced by the pile load test.
c.
The first and last steps should be axiomatic in any proper geotechnical assessment.
Therefore, attention will be focussed below on the second and third of the above
steps.
LOAD TEST INTERPRETATION
The Ground Profile and the Interpretation Process
For the model of ground behaviour assumed in the pile analysis, the relevant ground
parameters need first to be interpreted from the measured load-settlement behaviour.
For example, if a load transfer (t-z) approach is adopted, the initial slope and
subsequent shape of the load transfer curves must be assumed and then the
parameters for the curves derived via a process of trial and error. If an elastic-plastic
soil model is assumed, then a distribution of Youngs modulus and ultimate shaft
friction with depth must be assumed and again, a trial and error process will generally
be required to obtain a fit between the load-settlement behaviour from the theoretical
model and the measured load settlement behaviour. More often than not, there will
be no instrumentation along the pile so that there is no detailed load transfer
information along the pile shaft. Thus, an assumption has to be made regarding the
distribution of soil stiffness and strength with depth. This needs to be done in relation
to the geotechnical profile in order to obtain reliable results.
Page 3/20
If instrumentation has been installed in the pile, and if proper account is taken of
residual stresses in the interpretation of the results, then the value of Youngs
modulus of the ground, Es, between each adjacent set of instrumentation can be
interpreted by use of the following relationship developed by Randolph and Wroth
(1978).
Es = (/ws)d(1+)ln(2rm/d)
where
ws
d
rm
/ws
=
=
=
=
=
=
(1)
Page 4/20
depth and was related to the undrained shear strength, su, via the relationship
Es = Asu. The value of su at the pile tip was about 100 kPa, so that the Youngs
modulus at the level of the pile tip is 0.1A MPa. The measured load-settlement curve
is shown in Figure 2. At a load of 8 MN, the measured pile head settlement was
about 1.8mm.
wn, and LL
40
60
(%)
80
100
10
10
15
15
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
20
20
25
35
35
100
150
200
CPTUcalculated
Fill
Nilcon Vane
10
Upper
stiff
silty
clay
25
30
50
20
30
10
15
0.4 x 'z
DEPTH (m)
Pl,
0
20
25
30
NKT = 17
Sand layers
35
Lower
stiff
silty
clay
40
40
Plastic Limit
45
45
Water Content
40
45
Liquid Limit
50
50
50
LOAD (KN)
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
QL/AE
6,000
4,000
2,000
b/120
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
MOVEMENT (mm)
Page 5/20
In interpreting the load test data, two sets of calculations were made: one in which no
account was taken of the effects of the reaction piles, and the other in which the
interaction between the test pile and the reaction piles was allowed for. The
interpretation analyses were carried out using the computer program PIES (Poulos,
1989), and assuming that the soil behaviour was linear up to the 8MN load. PIES is a
boundary element program which computes the axial movement and load distribution
within a single pile or a pile within a group environment when subjected to axial load
at the pile head, and/or externally imposed vertical ground movements along the
length of the pile. The program employs a simplified boundary element formulation,
in which the pile is discretised into a series of cylindrical shaft elements and annular
base elements. The ground can be represented by an elastic continuum or by a series
of vertical springs, and in each case, the ground stiffness is characterised by the value
of Youngs modulus. For the elastic continuum, use is made of the classic equations
of elasticity developed by Mindlin (1936) to obtain the soil displacements at each of
the pile elements (Poulos and Davis, 1980). Non-linear pile-soil response is
incorporated either by specifying a limiting pile-soil stress at each pile element
(ultimate skin friction for shaft elements, ultimate bas pressure for base elements), or
else employing a hyperbolic relationship between soil stiffness and stress level at
each pile element.
Figure 3 shows the computed relationship between the assumed Youngs modulus at
the level of the pile tip and the pile head settlement at a load of 8MN, for the two sets
of calculations. By fitting the computed settlements to the measured settlement
of 1.8 mm, the following backfigured values of Youngs modulus at the pile tip, Esb,
are obtained.
Fig. 3
Page 6/20
1.
Ignoring the effects of the reaction piles: Esb = 400 MPa (i..e., the factor
A=4000).
2.
Accounting for the effects of the reaction piles: Esb = 270 MPa (A = 2700)
The latter value is considered to be more appropriate, and it can be seen that ignoring
the effect of the reaction piles results in an over-estimate of the soil modulus by
almost 50%. Consequently, pile group settlements based on this erroneous value of
Youngs modulus would tend to be under-estimated.
Use of Backfigured Parameters
Once the ground parameters have been interpreted from the test pile load-settlement
curve, and checked for reasonableness (e.g. via empirical correlations with in-situ or
available laboratory data), they may be used in at least two ways.
1.
2.
To predict the settlement of pile groups. Some of the available methods are set
out below.
Methods which employ the concept of interaction factors and the principle of
superposition (e.g. Poulos and Davis, 1980).
The settlement ratio method, in which the settlement of a single pile at the
average load level is multiplied by a group settlement ratio Rs, which reflects the
effects of group interaction.
The equivalent pier method, in which the pile group is represented by a pier
containing the piles and the soil between them. The pier is treated as a single pile
of equivalent stiffness in order to compute the average settlement of the group.
Numerical methods such as the finite element method and the finite difference
method (such as FLAC). While earlier work employed two-dimensional
analyses, it is now less uncommon for full three-dimensional analyses to be
employed (e.g., Katzenbach et al., 2000).
Page 7/20
In the following section, the interaction factor method of analysis will be described
briefly, and then some developments will be discussed with respect to the earlier
application of this method.
The Interaction Factor Method for Pile Groups
One of the common means of analyzing pile group behaviour is via the interaction
factor method described by Poulos and Davis (1980). In this method, referring to
Figure 4, the settlement wi of a pile i within a group of n piles is given as follows.
n
w = (P S )
i j = l av 1 ij
where
Pav =
S1 =
ij =
(2)
Eq. 2 can be written for each pile in the group, thus giving a total of n equations,
which together with the equilibrium equation, can be solved for two simple cases.
1.
Known load on each pile, in which case the settlement of each pile can be
computed directly. In this case, there will usually be differential settlements
among the piles in the group.
2.
A rigid (non-rotating) pile cap, in which case all piles settle equally. In this case,
there will be a uniform settlement but a non-uniform distribution of load in the
piles.
In the original approach, the interaction factors were computed from boundary
element analysis and plotted in graphical form. They usually took the form of plots of
interaction factor versus the ratio of pile spacing to diameter (s/d). Also, the
interaction factors were applied to the total flexibility S1 of the pile, including both
elastic and non-elastic components of the single pile settlement.
Pile i
Plan of
pile
group
sij
Pile j
Page 8/20
In recent years, simplified or closed-form expressions for the interaction factors have
been developed. For example, Mandolini and Viggiani (1997) have developed the
following simplified expressions for the interaction factor, in one of the following
forms.
where
A (s/d) B
(3a)
{C + D ln (s/d)}
(3b)
For four typical field cases analyzed by Mandolini and Viggiani, the values of A
ranged between 0.57 and 0.98, while the range of B was 0.60 to 1.20. For one other
case, values of C= 1.0 and D = -0.26 were computed. They also assumed that no
interaction occurred beyond a certain limiting value of pile spacing. Poulos (2008)
gives values of A and B for a wide range of cases.
The original interaction factors (Poulos and Davis, 1980) were based on the
assumption that the soil was a homogeneous elastic medium, having a constant
modulus with depth. This was clearly a great simplification of reality, and in
subsequent years, some significant improvements and extensions have been made to
the original interaction factor method, among the most important being:
1.
2.
The consideration of the influence of the bearing stratum on which the pile is
founded.
3.
The consideration of the fact that the soil between the piles may be stiffer than at
the pile-soil interface, because of the small strain levels existing between the
piles.
4.
5.
6.
The application of the interaction factor to only the elastic component of the
single pile flexibility (e.g., Randolph, 1994), and the consequent incorporation of
non-linearity of single pile response within the interaction factor for the effect of
a pile on itself (Mandolini and Viggiani, 1997).
Poulos (2006) has examined the effects of these factors and has found that, in general,
their consideration leads to interaction factors that are smaller than those obtained for
a homogeneous elastic medium. As a consequence, ignoring these factors will tend to
result in an overestimation of the group settlement.
Page 9/20
Page 10/20
Description
Thickness m
Estimated Drained
Modulus Value
MPa
Relative
Stiffness
E/E3b
30
0.06
100
0.2
Calcareous sandstone
15
500
1.0
Silty sand
10
100
0.2
Calcisiltite
20
400
0.8
Calcisiltite
15
80
0.16
Calcisiltite
Large
600
1.2
Working platform
(-0.50)
(-1.50)
Ground anchors
(-2.00)
(-5.00)
(-10.0)
1285
203
(-16.0)
No. 1 Extensometer
(-30.0)
(-36.0)
(-40.0)
Unit 4 - Calcisiltite
Page 11/20
measure of agreement in the early stages. The predicted settlements exceed the
measured values, and the maximum load of 30 MN reached exceeded the estimated
ultimate load capacity of about 23 MN.
Re-Interpretation of Load Test Data
For the purposes of the present paper, the load test data shown in Figure 6 was reinterpreted by fitting the calculated settlement at a representative working load of
12,000 kN to the observed settlement. The calculated settlements used different
values of modulus of the adopted reference layer (Unit 3), assuming that the modulus
values of the various strata had the same relative values as those shown in Table 1.
The program PIES was used for this fitting process, and linear soil behaviour was
assumed. No account was taken of the effect of the reaction anchors, as the bond
lengths were founded well below the pile tips and were assessed to have negligible
effect on the measured settlement.
Figure 7 shows the relationship between the computed settlement and the assumed
value of modulus of the reference layer (Unit 3). It can be seen that, to fit the
measured value of 10.2 mm, this reference value needs to be 500 MPa, which
(coincidentally) is the value selected in the original assessment.
30000
Predicted
Measured
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
10
20
30
Settlement (mm)
40
Page 12/20
Page 13/20
measured settlements. The use of the Case 1 interaction factors leads to substantially
larger computed settlements than for the Case 2 factors. The latter appear to be in
much better agreement with the measurements than for Case 1. A simple equivalent
raft analysis indicated a maximum settlement of 56mm for Case 1, again indicating
that the interaction factors used for this case were too large.
Fig. 8
This example thus indicates that, even if the single pile settlement is derived from the
load test data and hence is computed accurately, the computed group settlement can
vary widely, depending on the assumptions made in deriving the pile settlement
interaction factors. It seems essential that, if an accurate group settlement prediction
is to be made, account be taken of the fact that the ground stiffness increases with
decreasing strain level, and therefore with increasing depth and with increasing
distance from the pile-ground interface. It is also essential to carry out simple
analyses to check the results of more complex computer analyses.
Burj Khalifa , Dubai
Introduction
The Burj Khalifa (previously called the Burj Dubai before its official opening in
January 2010) is a 828m tall high rise tower, with a podium development around the
base of the tower, including a 4-6 storey garage. It is currently the worlds tallest
building, and is founded on a 3.7m thick raft supported on 194 bored piles, 1.5 m in
diameter, extending approximately 50m below the base of the raft. The geotechnical
aspects of this tower have been described by Poulos and Bunce (2008).
Page 14/20
Computed Values
Measured Values
Case 1
Case 2
Uniform ground
conditions below
pile tips
Stiffer ground
conditions below
pile tips and
between piles
Maximum Final
Settlement mm
98
28
Minimum Final
Settlement mm
65
17
Maximum
Settlement at
October 1998
47*
14*
10
Minimum
Settlement at
October 1998
31*
8*
Page 15/20
Soil
layer
Relative
Stiffness
E/E3b
3a
8.00
570
0.63
3b
2.00
900
1.00
7.50
750
0.83
5a
32.50
610
0.68
5b
19.00
690
0.77
17.15
630
0.70
Page 16/20
Pile
Pile
Diam.m Length m
P1
P2
P3
P4
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.9
45.15
55.15
35.15
47.10
Side
Grouted
?
No
No
Yes
No
P5
P6
P7A
0.9
0.9
0.9
47.05
36.51
37.51
Yes
No
No
Test Type
Compression
Compression
Compression
Compression
(cyclic)
Compression
Tension
Lateral
Figure 9 shows the configuration of the test piles and the reaction piles. For
comparison purposes, the three load tests were back-analysed both taking into
account, and then not taking into account, interaction between test piles and reaction
piles. The effect of this interaction is to decrease the measured settlement of the test
pile, and thus to give an overestimation of pile head stiffness.
(b) Pile P4
Page 17/20
P1
350
650
P2
700
1200
P4
850
1100
Test Pile
Page 18/20
Table 6 summarises the results of the NAPRA analysis. It can be seen that the
computed settlement using the incorrectly-interpreted Youngs modulus values is
about 25% less than that using the correctly-interpreted Youngs modulus values. It is
clear that the incorrect interpretation of load test data can lead to a significant underestimation of group settlement.
Table 6
Maximum
Settlement mm
Minimum
Settlement mm
Maximum
Differential
Settlement mm
Correct,
considering
reaction pile
interaction
58
28
30
Incorrect, ignoring
reaction pile
interaction
43
20
22
Page 19/20
CONCLUSIONS
The availability of pile load test data can be an important component of a settlement
prediction for a piled foundation. However, even with such data available, there is no
guarantee that the settlement prediction will be accurate. The factors that must be
considered for an acceptably accurate settlement prediction include the following.
1.
2.
The relative stiffness values for the ground model used in the interpretation of
the load test should reflect those derived from the ground investigation.
3.
The pile load test must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the
method to be used for the foundation settlement prediction. For example, if linear
elastic theory is to be used for the prediction, then modulus values at the average
serviceability load should be derived from the load tests.
4.
The geotechnical model used for the overall foundation settlement assessment
should take some account of the non-linear behaviour of the soil, Depending on
the method of settlement prediction employed, it may be necessary to make
allowances for the fact that the ground stiffness will tend to increase with
decreasing distance from the piles, because of the decreasing strain level.
5.
The behaviour of a single test pile may not reflect the influence of deeper
compressible layers which the group will influence but which are not
significantly influenced by the test pile. While this has not been a factor in the
two cases described in this paper, it can be a major factor in some cases, for
example as described by Golder and Osler (1968).
6.
The study and evaluation of case histories, and comparisons between predicted and
observed settlements, can be very valuable. In the two cases described in this paper,
the understanding gained from the failure to accurately predict the settlement of the
Emirates towers was used to obtain more satisfactory settlement predictions for the
Burj Khalifa.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author gratefully acknowledges the significant contribution to the analysis of the
Burj Khalifa made by Dr. Vincenzo Abagnara, and the helpful comments of Prof.
John Small.
Page 20/20
REFERENCES
Amini, A., Fellenius, B.H., Sabbagh, M, Naesgaard, E., and Buehler, M. (2008). Pile
loading tests at Golden Ears Bridge. Preprint, 61st Canadian Geotechnical
Conference, Edmonton, September 2008.
Fellenius, B.H., Harris, D.E. and Anderson, D.A. (2004). Static loading test on
a 45 m long pipe pile in Sandpoint, Idaho. Canadian Geotechnical Journal
41(4) 613-628.
Golder, H.Q. and Osler, J.C. (1968). Settlement of a furnace foundation, Sorel,
Quebec. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 5(1) 46-56.
Katzenbach, R., Arslan, U. and Moorman, C. (2000). Piled raft foundation projects
in Germany. Design Applications of Raft Foundations, Ed. J.A. Hemsley,
Ch. 13, 323-392.
Kitiyodom, P., Matsumoto, T. and Kanefusa, N. (2004). Influence of reaction piles
on the behaviour of a test pile in static load testing. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 41(3) 408 420
Mandolini, A. and Viggiani, C. (1997). Settlement of piled foundations.
Gotechnique 47(4) No 3, 791-816.
Poulos, H.G. (1988). The Mechanics of Calcareous Sediments. John Jaeger
Memorial Lecture, Australian Geomechanics, Special Edition, 8-41.
Poulos, H.G. (1989). Pile behaviour - Theory and application. 29th Rankine
Lecture. Gotechnique 39(3) 365-415.
Poulos, H.G. (1990). DEFPIG Users Manual. Centre for Geotechnical Research,
University of Sydney, Australia.
Poulos, H.G. (2000). Pile testing from the designers viewpoint. STATNAMIC
Loading Test 98, Kusakabe, Kuwabara & Matsumoto (eds), Balkema,
Rotterdam, 3-21.
Poulos, H.G. (2006). Pile Group Settlement Estimation Research to Practice.
Keynote Paper, Foundation Analysis and Design, Innovative Methods. Ed. R.L.
Parsons et al. ASCE GSP 153, 1-22.
Poulos, H.G. (2008). Simulation of the performance and remediation of imperfect
pile groups. Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles, BAP V, van Impe and
van Impe (Eds.), Taylor and Francis, London, 143-154.
Poulos, H.G. and Bunce, G. (2008). Foundation design for the Burj Dubai the
worlds tallest building. Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Case Histories in Geot. Eng.,
Arlington, VA, Paper 1.47, CD volume.
Poulos, H.G. and Davids, A.J. (2005). Foundation Design for the Emirates Twin
Towers, Dubai. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 42(3) 716-730.
Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. (1980). Pile foundation analysis and design. John
Wiley, New York.
Randolph, M.F. (1994). Design methods for pile groups and piled rafts. Proc. 13th
Int. Conf. SMFE Vol. 5, pp. 61-82.
Randolph, M.F. and Wroth, C.P. (1978). Analysis of Deformation of Vertically
Loaded Piles. Jnl. Geot. Eng., ASCE, 104(GT12) 1465-1488.
Reese, L.C. and ONeill, M.W. (1988). Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and
Design Methods. Pub. No. FHWA-HI-88-042, US Dept. Transportation.