PAPER

J~ina ) sraisa
>e i'. iinriIeI: roc
o';

~asec on 5l,'i
insI:ruriIen:et
si

ei:esi:s

Serge Borel, Michel Bustamnant, Luigi Gianeselli,

Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussees
Introdu cion
Tests on piles are generally performed to check that their structural
integrity is satisfactory and that their real capacity is in reasonable
accordance with the forecast load-settlement curve of the anticipated
working load. For the engineer the load test is considered satisfactory
when it has been possible to determine:
~ the ultimate resistance Q
~ the pile settlement under working load Q
~ the shaft Q, and toe Q resistances under Q
In current practice unfortunately, it is rare that all of these loads, Q,
QQQ are available because the load test has not been taken to failure and liecause of lack of instrumentation. To define the ultimate
resistance Qand possibly the shaft resistance Qauthors such as Van
der Veen (1953), Brinch Hansen (1963), Chin (1970), Davisson (1972),
Load, Q

Q4,F

Mazurkiewicz (1972), Fuller & Hoy (1977) and others, have proposed
methods based on mathematical or graphical approaches. A comprehensive comparative study of the nine methods most commonly used
in practice has been carried out by Fellenius (1980).
Because ultimate resistance Q remains the key value in most piling
problems, it is worthwhile to recall that various definitions of this
concept are given by different authors and codes. For example:
Qplunging failure, observed sometimes insitu and corresponding to a rapid increase of settlement without an increase in
load (Figure 1)
Q asymptotic ultimate load derived mathematically or graphically (Figure 2) from the measured load settlement curve
Q, conventional ultimate load defined by many codes as the load
causing a gross settlement equal to 10% of the equivalent pile
diameter D (Figure 2), or the load at which the penetration
creep rate reaches a given value.
The failure derived by the Chin method falls into the mathematicalasymptotic category and has been defined further as Qc,N.
This paper examines the performance of Chin's recommendations
on load tests with limited settlement and the ability of his method in
predicting the proportion of shaft load.

The Chin method

The Chin method is recognised as one of the simplest methods and has
been adopted by engineers in many countries. Primarily developed for
footings and precast floating piles, Chin observed that in many cases
the plot of the settlement, s, versus the ratio s/Q gives a linear relationship when the pile approaches failure. The response of the pile-soil
system can then be considered in terms of hyperbolic shape. It has
been expressed by Chin (1970, 1972) in the form:

s/Q =C+ ms

(I]

Using different notation, equation

s
s
(ds ~

[I] becomes:

(2]
where for both equations:
the applied load on the pile head
Q
s
the pile head gross settlement
m
the slope of the linear plot corresponding to the inverse of the
asymptotic value of the ultimate resistance Q
C
a constant corresponding to the initial slope (ds '] of the load
settlement curve plotted in linear coordinates dQ /g p.
In a system of hyperbolic coordinates s versus s/Q, a given
typical relationship s-Q obtained from a routine pile test (Figure 3a)
system becomes generally:
~ in most cases and according to the evidence presented by Chin (1970)
a single straight line as shown on Figure 3b.
~ for other cases, two straight lines plot with an A and B part as illustrated on Figure 3c.
Chin's final proposal (1978) allowing the detection of broken piles
from a particular plot will not be addressed here.
The graph in Figure 3b is supposed to model the behaviour of a pile
supporting the load mainly through shaft friction or purely in end
bearing. Because the linearity is not always explicit for the first points
of the relationship, Chin (1972) recommended that these are rejected
when determining C and m.
The bilinear plot with its two straight lines which intersect (Figure
3c) is supposed to correspond to piles supported by combined shaft fric-

Load (kN)

Load, Q

22

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

GROUNI) ENGINEERING JANUARY

2004

PAPER

Load,

Settlement/load,

s/0

Settlement/load,

0 (kN)

Load,

s/0
0

500

1000

1500

Settlement/load,

s/0

0.02

(mm/kN)

0.06

0 04

10
20

30

40
50

60
70

tion and end bearing. Because toe resistance needs higher settlement
to be mobilised than shaft resistance, it has been suggested that the
first part (A) would represent shaft resistance while the second part (B)
would represent total load. The validity of these assumptions will be
shown later.
The advantages presented a priori by the method are undeniable for
common practice:
~ the method is not linked with any soil parameters;
~ it gives the possibility to analyse the results of either CRP or ML
tests and for piles subject to compression or tension loading;
~ it allows a continuous check while the test is being carried out;
~ the interpretation can be carried out quite simply using at most a
pocket calculator;
~ the definition of characteristic loads Q, QQ is based on mathematical rules;
~ because of the linearity of the s vs s/Q plot, it is easy to determine
any load associated to any given gross settlement. At a settlement equal
to 10% of the pile diameter one can obtain QctttN lp which is an estimate of Q,according to the 10% criteria.
However, Fellenius (1980), Fleming (1992) and England (1999) have
shown that considerable drawbacks can complicate the interpretation
and distort the performance of the method. They are:
~ the necessity to collect data at sufficiently large gross movements, s,
to avoid deducing false ultimate resistance;
~ a marked sensitivity to the chosen test procedure demanding constant time increments as well as a sufficient number of load steps;
~ the validity of the method is jeopardised by the fact that the
real response of the pile/soil system is not exactly a hyperbolic
form. In particular, elastic shortening of the pile is a major cause
of erroneous analysis, especially in the first part (A) of the curve,
where elastic shortening can be a large proportion of the pile head
movement.
Before commencing a more comprehensive study, a strict application
of the Chin method has been made on one pile tested by the authors at
a site in Mittersheim (France) in 2001.
The pile was a 480mm diameter CFA pile, 7m long and bored through
marly clay (26% of CaCO,). At the pile toe level, the soil is characterised by a CPT cone resistance q, = 5MPa and a PMT limit pressure
p, = 1.8MPa. The water table is located at 4m depth.
with two strings of removable
The pile was instrumented
extensometers, which made it possible to measure the mobilisation
of shaft and toe resistance during the loading stages. It was
loaded according to a maintained load test (MLT) procedure, with 13

Pressure limit
(MPa)

0.1

( 'ro,3(IIo";.

10

Settlement/load,

0.002

0
0

E
E

10

0.006

s/0

(mm/kN)

0.01

0.008

10

Q,=

steps of 100kN, each maintained for 60 minutes. The last load

1.3MN was applied during 15 minutes only because of the rapid
increase of settlement which was observed, indicating plunging failure
under that load.
Figure 4 shows the typical load settlement curve, plotted using the s
values measured at the end of each load step. The load settlement curve
is also plotted in the hyperbolic coordinates s vs s/Q.
When enlarged, the relationship s vs s/Q indicates clearly A and B
parts as shown on Figure 5 which focuses on the first loading steps.
A linear regression made using the seven last points before failure
(600kN to 1,200kN) has resulted in:
C

kdQ1

36 0 mm k

ctttN

Q,

Qa

3 5 MN

Applying the hyperbolic Chin formula to a gross settlement limited

to 48mm (10% of the equivalent diameter) gives Q GRIN
1 235MN.
The instrumentation of the pile (Figures 6a-c) makes it possible to

lp:

Point resistance (MPa)

Module pressuremeter
(MPa)
1

0.004

100

10

20

30

40
resistance
0 f1

O
3

10
12

10

GROUNtl KNGINKERING JANUARY

2004

50

100

150

200
Fnctlon (kN)

23

PAPER
compare the shaft resistance determined according to Chin's criterion
on the first part of the curve Q, GUIN Ipn: 715kN with the measured
value Q,
860kN. For the considered case history the agreement
can be considered as quite good in geotechnical terms, as the difference
between the calculated and measured values is only 17 'o.
Following these first encouraging results the performance of the
method has been investigated for a greater number of pile tests carried
out by the authors. The following items were investigated:
~ sensitivity of the method as a function of the available field readings
when determining the ultimate capacity;
~ performance of the method when estimating shaft and toe resistance.

resistances.
The 50 tests have included various pile techniques and covered an
extensive range of soils. Four piles were loaded in tension. The loads
applied on piles ranged from 675kN to 10,000kN, the pile lengths from
5m to 45m, and the pile diameters from 200mm to 1,000mm. Note that
due to substantial elastic shortening, micropiles with free (ungrouted)
length have not been considered in this study.
The following piles have been examined: CFA (12 tests), bored (six
tests), impact driven steel and concrete (17 tests), vibratory driven (five
tests) and screwed displacement auger (10 tests). The piles were
installed in clay (20 tests), sand (15 tests), calcareous soils (eight tests)
and mixed soils (seven cases).

llllmate resistance prediction

1500

1000

500

s/Q (mm/kN)

0.02

0.04

0.06
)

E
10
E

2O

30
4o

The reviewed case histories

A total of 50 loading tests from around Europe, carried out by the
authors since 1990, have been examined. All tests were run under
a MLT procedure up to a head settlement greater than 10% of the
pile diameter and without intermediary
unloading and reloading
cycle. Each load step was maintained for a period of generally 60
minutes.
All of the readings were digital. The load was always checked with
a load cell and the settlements were measured with the help of linear
potentiometers linked to fixed reference beams. The piles were
all instrumented
using removable extensometers (Bustamante et
Doix, 1991), which made it possible to measure the shaft and the toe

Settlement/load,

Load, Q (kN)

ip,:

50

s =

1202
1

s+ 1.70 x 10 I

125
Qu,oian 10%/Qu,conv = 97%d
s/D 6 6%

100

8
go75
8

v =

50
=

s/D =

92%

81'8

1.4%

25

15

10

Relative head settlement

To assess the performance of the Chin method in determining the

ultimate resistance, two different approaches have been followed:
~ taking into account the complete load settlement curve;
~ considering a partial load settlement curve obtained by removing
gradually the last points, as if the test was stopped at a lower loading
step.

as

Determining the ultimate resistance from the complete curves

Each test has been plotted in hyperbolic coordinates, to identify the
second part of the load settlement curve (part B), from which the Chin
parameters have been calculated. The Chin ultimate resistance
according to the 10",d criteria QGRIN Ip* has been compared to
measured ultimate resistance. As shown on Figure 7, the Chin
method gives a very satisfactory estimation of the measured ultimate
resistance, except in five cases, where the Chin resistance exceeds the
measured one by more than 25%. These are cases where a plunging failure has been observed, which is obviously not anticipated by the Chin

20
(s/D, %)

200

150

100

s.~'~ 4.'s(n,

'~A eW

~.e

d
d

50

10

15

Relative head settlement

20
(s/D, %)

method.

Determining the ultimate resistance from partial load-settlement curves

To assess the sensitivity of the Chin method in function of the magnitude of available head settlement
and the number of loading steps, the load settlement

20

16

12

0.97

0.98 0.99

1.00 1.01

1.02

1.03 1.04

) L25

Predicted ultimate resistance

24

curves have been progressively altered by removing,

one after another, the last points.
Figure 8 shows the example of the pile tested at
the Mittersheim site. The last two points have been
removed to obtain a shortened load settlement
curve, consisting of the first 11 loading steps, of the
13 actually taken. The maximum settlement on the
curve s = 16mm is only 3.3% of the pile diameter.
The Chin method applied to the first 11 loading
steps make it possible to extrapolate the ultimate
resistance according to the 10% criteria: QcRIN ip.,
= 1,153kN, which is 92% of the measured ultimate
resistance.
This procedure has been repeated, suppressing
one after another of the points, until the load settlement curve is made of the first 2 loading steps
only, which is the minimum necessary to apply the
GROUND ENGINEERING JANUARY

2004

PAPER
Chin method.
The results
are
shown on Figure 9. Note that to
reduce the effects of human errors
and contrary to Chin's recommendation, the first points of the load settlement curve were not rejected in a first
stage.
This procedure has been repeated
for all of the 50 loading tests (Figure
10). The main conclusions to be drawn
from this figure are the following:
~ the reliability of the Chin prediction improves when the last measured
gross settlement approaches lpio of
the pile diameter;
~ the majority of the data (in black
circles) lie inside a clearly defined
envelope. The only cases falling outside, a total of seven out of 50, correspond to:
plunging failure (five cases in
red
a case
not
squares),
anticipated
Chin
the
by

200
3%
ot

0 C

+25%o

150

5%o

o:) +17%

ae

10% D

100

]
50

g~o~iti

SSt Sir oo

Ioo

4 conventional
~Jo

od'

cntena

10

15

20

Relative head settlement

Settlement/load,

0
vo

0.0015

(s/D, %)

s/Q (mm/kN)

0.006

0.0045

0.003

method;

tension test on driven sheet

piles in dense coarse gravels
cases
in
(two
blue
with an atypically
triangles)
curve
shaped
and
only
mobilised
shaft
partially
friction (Borel et al, 2002);
~ according to a detailed study neither the installation technique nor the
soil type appear to have a noticeable
effect on the results;
~ as soon as the head settlement
exceeds 5 io of the pile diameter, the
ultimate resistance predicted by the
Chin is in the range of 75% 'to 1107o of
the measured resistance.
The last conclusion is of practical
interest for piles, which have not been
loaded to failure on site.
A different approach was made in a
second stage in order to avoid the
influence of the first part of the
load settlement
curve, which is
representative of the shaft friction
only (part A). The two first points
and the settlements lower than 0.5%
of the pile diameter were removed
from the curves.
The new envelope obtained is
shown on Figure 11. Its upper and
lower limits shown in green are
expressed by equation:

25
5.0

75
10.0
12.5
15

Settlement/load,

0.008

0.006

0.004

0,002

s/Q (mm/kN)

2.5

10.0
12.5
15

predicted ultimate resistance

measured ultimate resistance

20

'S

16

This procedure enabled the ultimate resistance to be predicted to an

accuracy of +17'!o for pile head settlement exceeding 5% of the pile
diameter, and +25% for gross settlement greater than 3% of the pile
diameter.
The new envelope is not as good as the envelope obtained by Kaniraj
(1988), who applied the Chin method to 24 pile tests and concluded that
the error between predicted and actual load is only 10% for a relative
Pile head settlement s/D > 2.5oro.

16
12

Determining

0
0.2 0.4

06 08 1.0

~ ~ ~
1.2

1.4

16 1.8 2.5 3.5 4.5

Predicted shaft resistance

GROUND ENGlNEERlNG

')
1+ (0' 35~0 4x Io ( head settlement s)
( pile diameter D / J[3]
[

JANUARY

2004

shaft and toe resistances

According to Chin, a pile acting in combined friction and end-bearing

can be represented by a plot with two straight lines A and B. However,
such a plot does not always appear clearly in current practice because
of distorting factors. Out of the reviewed 50 piles the following typical
plots were identified:
~ 36 cases in good agreement with Chin's hypothesis showing A and B
parts (Figure 5).
~ six cases with a S shape curve (Figure 12a);
25

PAPER

3.5

'I

Scardon

30
CTRL

310 Esch

2.5

20
I
otr

15

1.0
0.5

40

20

f,

oo(

60

100

80

Load carried by shaft (measured,

%o)

resistance where the load is mainly resisted by the toe.

For the three cases giving the worst estimation, a geotechnical engineer would probably reject the prediction according to the Chin
method because of the inconsistency between the soil investigation
and the predicted shaft and toe resistance. These piles are:
A screw pile (L = 7.6 m D = 510/710 mm) installed through a Sm thick
layer of peat to refusal against a layer of dense gravelly clay (CTRL
310, UK);
-A steel HP 360x370 pile (L= 9.80 m) driven through clayey sand and
schistic marls (Esch, Luxembourg),
An open tube (L = 21 m) driven through chalk below the water table
(Scardon, France).
Another approach, summarised on Figure 15, shows that the
absolute error made in the predicted shaft resistance can exceed 30%
of the ultimate resistance, quite independently of the percentage of
load resisted by the shaft.
Once the shaft and total capacities are estimated using the Chin
method, it is possible to deduce the toe resistance by subtracting the
shaft resistance from the ultimate resistance. The error on the toe
resistance is the same as the error on shaft resistance plotted on

Figure 15.
Figure 16 shows that the increase of the number of loading steps
does not improve significantly the accuracy of the shaft resistance prediction.

60
)4

Esch

50

Conclusions

Scardon

40
fo

3O
CTRL

310

~ ~

20
41

~ -o

10

6
I

0
0

40

20

~--V'
~ ~~~ ~ ~

60

100

80

ill

Load carried by shaft (measured,

%%uo)

3.5
Scardon

3.O
Esch

2.5

CTRL

310

2.0
'5

1.5
1,0

0.5
0

I I~ ~ e I ~
~ ~

~ ~
~

References
0

10

15

20

Number of loading steps

seven cases displaying an inverted A part (Figure 12b); these

involved piles installed in stiff clay with a measured toe resistance that
was less than 25'/o of the ultimate resistance.
Thus, it was possible to determine the shaft resistance in 43 cases,

i.e. 86% of the total. The histogram of predicted versus measured shaft
resistance using the 10%o criteria is shown on Figure 13. Due to the
cases for which the predicted value greatly exceeds the measured ones,
the average is 1.07 and the standard deviation is 0.55, even though most
of the predictions are in the range of 60% to 120'/o.
Figure 14 shows the ratio of the predicted/measured shaft friction
versus the percentage of the load carried by shaft to allow better identification of the cases for which the Chin method gives poor results.
The main conclusions are as follows:
~ the predicted shaft friction is in the range of 60% to 120% of the
measured value when the shaft resistance is greater than 55%;
~ on the contrary, the Chin method significantly overpredicts the shaft
26

Chin's method has been applied to 50 full-scale pile tests in order

to assess its performance.
The selected case histories are
representative of the most common installation techniques used
and soil categories
encountered.
All of the piles
were
instrumented
which make it
using removable extensometers,
possible to measure the distribution of load between the shaft and
the toe.
The Chin method makes it possible to predict the ultimate resistance, according to the 10 'o criteria, even if the head settlement did not
reach 10% of the pile diameter. The estimation improves when the
head settlement approaches 10% of pile diameter. The ultimate resistances were predicted in the range of:
~ +25% as soon as the head settlement exceeds 3% of the pile
diameter;
~ +17 ro for a head settlement greater than 5'/. of the pile diameter.
The method appears to be of generally poor performance in
predicting the distribution of load between the shaft and toe:
~ the Chin method overpredicts significantly the shaft resistance
when the load is mainly resisted by the toe;
~ the shaft resistance is estimated in the range of 60% to 120% of the
measured value when the shaft resistance is greater than 55%;
~ the absolute error made on predicted shaft and toe resistances can
independexceed 30% of the ultimate
resistance,
quite
ently of the percentage of load carried by the shaft.
Direct measurement of the shaft and toe resistances are still of
tremendous value even for routine tests as they provide a much
better understanding of pile behaviour.
Borel S, Bustamante M, Gianeselli L (2002) Comparative field studies of the bearing
capacity of vibratory and impact driven sheet piles, Proceedings International
Conference on Vibratory Pile Driving and Deep Soil Compaction TransVib 2002, Louvainla-Neuve, 167-174.
Bustamante M, Doix B (1991) A new niodel of LPC removable extensometer, Proc. 4th
International Deep Foundation Institute Conference, pp 475-480.
Bustamante M, Gianeselli L (1980-1999)LCPC internal accounts and authors publications
covering 30 reviewed case histories.
Chin FK (1970) Estimation of the ultimate load of piles from tests not carried to failure.
Proceedings of the Second Southeast Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, pp83-91.
Chin FK (1972) The inverse slope as a prediction of ultimate bearing capacity of piles,
Proceedings 3rd Southeast Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, pp83-91.
Chin FK (1978) Diagnosis of pile condition, Geotechnical Engineering, vol 9, pp85-104.
Chin FK, Vail AJ (1973) Behaviour of piles in Alluvium, Proceedings, 8th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol 2.1, pp47-52.
England M (1999) A pile behaviour model, Thesis submitted to Imperial College, 305

pages.
Fellenius BH (1980) The analysis of results from routine pile load tests, Ground
Engineering, vol13, no 6, pp 19-31.
Fleming WGK (1992) A new method for single pile settlement prediction and analysis,
Georechnique no 42, vol3, pp411-425.
Kaniraj Shenbaga R (1998) Interpretation of pile acceptance criteria from deficient data,
Engineering, vol. 124, no10, pp
ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
1035-1040.

GROUND ENGINEERING JANUARY

2004