ENCE 4610

Foundation Analysis and Design

Static Load Tests

Pile Settlement
Pile Groups

Methods of Evaluation of
Deep Foundations
Full-scale static load
tests on test piles
Analytic methods,
based on soil
properties from
laboratory and/or insitu tests
Dynamic Methods,
based on dynamics
of pile driving or
wave propagation

Concepts to Review

Shaft and End Bearing Piles

Resistance to load

Shaft resistance (Qs )

Toe resistance (Qt)

End-bearing piles, toe resistance
predominates
Shaft Friction Piles, shaft resistance
predominates
For tension piles, shaft resistance
predominates (toe cannot be in tension)

Ultimate vs. Allowable Capacity

Ultimate capacity is the load required to

cause failure, whether by excessive
settlement or irreversible movement of
the pile relative to the soil
For driven piles, one must also
consider the resistance to driving,
which can be different from the
ultimate capacity
Allowable capacity is the ultimate
capacity divided by a factor of safety
(ASD)
Important to distinguish between the two

Prediction and
Verification
At what load will the pile fail? (Bearing Capacity)
How much will pile deflect under service loads?

(Settlement)

Prediction on basis
of site investigation
and laboratory
testing

Verification by
some method of
load testing

Static Load Tests

The most precise if not

always the most accurate
method of determining the
ultimate upward or
downward load capacity
of a deep foundation
Static load tests, however,
are time consuming and
expensive; must be used
judiciously
Object of the test is to
develop a loaddisplacement curve, from
which the load capacity
can be determined

Dead Load Test

Considered a reliable
static test method
Slow and expensive
Dangerous when
done unsafely
No longer commonly
used in the U.S.; used
where labor costs are
lower

Reaction Piles

Static Load Procedure

(ASTM D1143)

Procedure

Set up reaction stand

Apply a test load to the pile
Record the load-settlement
history for each load applied
Apply the next load
Loads are generally applied in
increments of 25, 50, 75, 100,
125, 150, 175 and 200% of
proposed design load

Two categories of tests

Controlled stress tests the

most common method
Controlled strain tests

For driven piles, need

to delay static load
test to allow pile set-up

Granular soils 2 days

Cohesive soils 30 days

Static Load Procedure

(ASTM D1143)
Load test increments in
time

Slow test maintains load until

pile movement is sufficiently
small
Quick test each load
increment is held for a
predetermined length of time,
for 2.5 15 minutes

Generally requires 2-5 hours

to complete

May be best method for

most deep foundations

Reaction Pile Test

Advantages and Disadvantages

Disadvantages

Reaction piles may pull out

If not done properly, reaction
pile capacity may result
Flexible system stores energy
during tests

Advantages

Can be installed with same

equipment as production piles
Test can be done on
inclination (batter)

STATIC LOAD TEST

Advantages

Gives reference
capacity
Relatively slow
loading minimises
dynamic
components
Can customise to
include creep
effects
Can be
instrumented to
yield static
resistance
distribution & end
bearing

Disadvantages

Time consuming
Expensive
Done on specially
designated piles
Often done
carelessly or
inaccurately

Static Load Test

Interpretation
At what point of the
measured pile top
load vs deflection
curve do we define
the failure load
R u?
Loading method
and curve
interpretation can
make significant
differences in result.

Davissons
Method
Advantages
Somewhat Conservative
Matches Dynamic Analysis
Failure Criterion (Quake)
Relatively Independent of
Judgement (E-Mod. for
concrete, timber; diameter)

Disadvantage
Capacity/Settlement a
Function of Pile Properties

NAVFAC DM 7.02
p. 7.2-229

Example of Davisson's Method

Formulas for round pile; substitute actual
area for other shapes

1.5 Uplift Test

Equivalent Curve from

Osterberg Data

Osterberg Test
Advantages and Disadvantages
Shaft is loaded upward
rather than in
downward direction
Tensile vertical strains
near toe will cause
cracking in soil
Maximum movement is
at the pile toe rather
than pile top
Only for specially
prepared piles

No reaction load
needed
Requires jack load only
half of test load

Other Topics in Pile

Capacity

Upward Load Capacity

Most deep foundations derive

their upward load capacity
from the shaft resistance
Exceptions include belled
drilled shafts (shown at left)
and bulb piles (Franki)
For driven piles, ultimate
upward load = shaft capacity,
but factors of safety/loadresistance factors can be
different from compression

Pile Group Effects

Pile Settlement

Settlement
In the case of critical
structures, settlement
analysis will be
performed using a t-z
method computer
program
o Example of one is in the wave
equation analysis routine at
vulcanhammer.info

What we need are

quick methods of
making preliminary
estimates

Most methods for designing

deep foundations for
bearing capacity insure
that settlement does not
exceed " (13 mm)
There are certain situations
where it is necessary to
know the settlement of a
deep foundation

Structures sensitive to settlement

Toe bearing predominates
Downdrag loads are present
Compressible strata are present
Need an equivalent spring for finite
element analysis

Vesis Method for

Settlement
Vesis method can give
a single number or a
load-settlement curve

o Method given as described in EI

02C067, Design of Deep
Foundations
Method described in Murthy
15.29 leaves out many steps
and confuses shaft and
elastic settlement
o Can be used with either drilled
shafts or driven piles

Drilled shafts can be

analyzed with loadtransfer curve methods

o Old drilled shaft method, as

presented in book
o New drilled shaft method,
which we will cover in LRFD

Steps for Vesis method

o
o
o

Compute ultimate shaft and toe

capacities using methods shown earlier
Compute elastic settlement
Load on the shaft is the smaller of two
loads:
the load applied to the pile
the shaft resistance
Load on the toe is the smaller of two
loads:
(The load applied to the pile)
(the shaft resistance) (= 0 if
negative)
The toe resistance
Settlement is computed by the
equation
S = Sf + Ss + Sp

where
o S = total settlement
o Sf = elastic settlement
o Ss = shaft settlement
o Sp = toe settlement

Vesis Method for

Settlement
Toe Settlement

Sp
o
o
o
o

C wQ p
Bq pu

B = pile toe size/diameter

qpu = unit toe resistance
Cw = (0.93+0.16*(L/B)1/2)Cs
Assume zero if Qp < 0

Elastic Settlement
Sf = (Qp+*Qf)L/(A*Ep)
o Qp = toe resistance = Q Qs >
0
o Qf = ultimate shaft resistance
(or working load if Q < Qf
o Q = applied or working load
o = load distribution factor
o 0.5 < < 0.7, generally assume 0.6
o L = pile length
o A = pile cross-sectional area
o Ep = elastic constant of pile
material

Vesis Method for

Settlement
Soil

Driven
Piles

Bored
Piles

Sand
(dense to
loose)

0.02-0.04

0.09-0.18

Clay (stiff
to soft)

0.02-0.03

0.03-0.06

Silt (dense
to loose)

0.03-0.05

0.09-0.12

Shaft Settlement

Ss

Cs Q f
Lq pu

Value of Cs shown in
table at the right for
both driven and bored
piles
If Q < Qf, use Q

Settlement Example

Applied Load = 50 kips

Key Variables and

Solution
Results from Dennis and
Olson Analysis

Total Shaft Friction = 103.8 kips

Total Toe Capacity = 13.3 kips
Toe Unit Capacity qpu = 7.529
ksf
Mobilized Shaft Friction Qf = 50
kips < 103.8 kips
Mobilized Toe Capacity Qp = 0

Other Key Variables

Pile diameter B = 1.5

Pile Length L = 30
Pile Cross-Sectional Area A =
0.191 sq. ft.
Pile Modulus of Elasticity E =
4,320,000 ksf

Coefficients

Use Cs = 0.03

Cw =
(0.93+0.16*(30/1.5)1/2)(0.03) =
0.049

= 0.6

Solutions

Sp = (0.049)(0)/((1.5)(7.529)) = 0

Sf =
(0+(0.6)(50))(30)/((0.191)(43200
00)) = 0.001 = 0.013

Ss = (0.03)(50)/((30)(7.529) =
0.007 = 0.080

Solution: S = 0 + 0.013 + 0.080 = 0.093

Group Effects

Piles are generally used

in groups; drilled shafts
are less frequently so
Group capacity can
be less than the sum of
the individual
capacities of the piles,
depending upon a
number of factors
Group settlements can
also be driven by
different
considerations than
settlements of single
piles

Stress Zones
in
Supporting
Soils

Basic Relationships in
Group Capacity
Basic relationship

Eg

Qgu

Qu

Cohesionless Soils
o
o

Qgu = allowable axial (down or

up) capacity of group
Eg = group efficiency factor
Qu = allowable axial (down or
up) capacity of single pile

Considerations

Pile Spacing
Drilled shafts vs. driven piles
Cohesive vs. cohesionless soils
Individual vs. block failure

Centre-to-Centre spacing of the

piles/shafts should be > 3d
Driven Piles

Group capacity can be

greater than the sum of the
individual capacities, so Eg = 1

Pile group should not be

underlain by a weak deposit,
in which case the settlement
of the weak deposit will drive
the performance of the group

Jetting or predrilling should be

avoided

Drilled Shafts

Use Eg = 2/3 for spacings = 3B;

this increases linearly to Eg = 1
for spacing = 6B and is 1
above this

Effect of Pile Spacing

Individual vs. Block

Failure

Group Capacity for

Cohesive Soils

Smallest of four
options:
Drilled shaft method for
cohesionless soils (always
good for drilled shafts)

If undrained shear strength <

2 ksf (95 kpa) and the pile
cap is in firm contact with the
g round, Eg = 1

If undrained shear strength >

2 ksf (95 kpa), Eg = 1

Use block failure criterion to

the left
As always, Centre-to-Centre
spacing of the piles/shafts should
be > 3d

D
B

N = 51+
1+
9
5B
5Z

*
c

Group Settlements
Pile group settlements can be
treated in a similar manner to
those of shallow foundations
Settlements can be divided into
two types

Immediate settlements those

shortly after foundation loading,
especially in sands
Consolidation settlements in
clays, same mechanism as with
shallow foundations

Ultimately, for more

accurate computation of
group settlements,
computer programs using
the t-z methods should be
employed

Quick Methods

Immediate
settlements group
settlement factor
Long-term
consolidation
equivalent mat
method
Cohesionless Soils: Group
Settlement Factor

o
o
o
o
o
o

Fg = Sg/S = (Hw/B)
Sg = group settlement
Fg = group settlement factor
Hw = width of pile group
B = pile diameter
S = settlement of single pile

Cohesive Soils:
Equivalent Mat Method

Replace group with a

mat along the
embedded pile length L;
this depth is 2/3 of L for
friction piles and L for end
bearing piles
Distribute the load from
the mat to the underlying
soil by the 2:1 method
Calculate settlement of
soil layers below the mat
by one-dimensional
consolidation theory; any
soil above the mat is
assumed to be
incompressible

Cohesive
Soils:
Equivalent
Mat
Method

Group Settlement
Example
Find: Immediate settlement
of 3 x 3 pile group, Hw = 22.5'

Compute group
settlement factor for
sands (use sands for
settlement calculations,
since they are at the
base of the group)

Individual settlement at 50 kip load = 0.093"

gf = (Hw/B) = (22.5/1.5) = 3.87

Compute group
settlement

g = (0.093)(3.87) = 0.36"

This method is to be used

with immediate
settlements; for long term
consolidation, use
equivalent mat method
with Terzaghi's
consolidation theory

Questions