Dynamic and Static Load Tests on Large Diameter Bored Piles

C.S. Chen
Associate Director, SSP Geotechnics Sdn Bhd, Level 6, Wisma SSP, No.1, Jalan SR 8/3, Serdang Raya Seksyen
8, 43300 Seri Kembangan, Selangor, Malaysia.
E-mail: cschensspsb.com.my
C.S. Lim
Associate, SSP Geotechnics Sdn Bhd.
___________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: High strain dynamic load test (PDA test) on driven piles is a common test procedure Ior evaluating
the pile capacity and integrity. The derived pile capacity generally shows satisIactory agreement with the
capacity derived Irom static load test. However, the dynamic load test on large diameter bored piles is less
common. This is mainly because the large diameter bored piles are cast in-situ and the design pile capacity is
generally high. An uncommon relatively heavy hammer will be required in order to perIorm high strain dynamic
load test. This paper presents the results oI dynamic load test on two numbers oI 1.2m diameter bored piles.
These two bored piles were also tested using conventional static load test. The results are presented in the paper.
The subsoil condition is brieIly described. In general, the bored piles were constructed in a tropical residual soil
Iormation with about 10 to 20m thick soIt to medium stiII cohesive soil overlying very hard soil stratum.
Occasionally weathered rock could be encountered below the very hard soil stratum. One oI the bored piles was
Iully instrumented Ior the evaluation oI the load transIer behaviors oI subsoils at various depths. Details oI the
static and dynamic load tests are described in the paper. A comparison oI the results oI dynamic and static load
tests is presented. Generally the settlement predicted by dynamic load test is lesser as compared with the
observed pile top movement Irom static test.

Introduction
High strain dynamic load test (or sometimes it was loosely called as PDA test) has become a common pile test
procedure Ior evaluating pile capacity and pile integrity Ior the driven piles. The derived pile capacity generally
shows satisIactory agreement with the static measured capacity (Rausche et al., 1985). In addition, the test also
investigates the hammer eIIiciency and driving stresses during the installation oI pile. The most attractive
advantages are the cost oI the test is much cheaper as compared with the cost oI conventional static load test and
the duration oI the test is very short. The dynamic test is common Ior driven piles mainly because similar driver
or hammer used Ior the pile installation can be used Ior the test. As Ior the cast-in-situ piles especially the large
diameter bored piles, since the piles are Iormed by boring a hole in the ground and subsequently Iilled with
concrete and steel reinIorcements, the dynamic test is relatively less common because extra eIIort to bring in
hammer Ior the test is required. In addition, the design pile capacity Ior large diameter bored pile is generally
large, a very heavy hammer is required. As a general guideline, in order to veriIy the pile capacity, the required
hammer weight is about 1.5 oI the pile static resistance (Hussein et al. 1996). A 300 kN hammer will be
required iI a pile is designed to have ultimate pile capacity oI 20,000 kN. It is not an easy task to liIt up the 300
kN hammer and strike it onto the bored pile.
This paper presents the results oI dynamic and static load tests on two numbers oI 1.2m diameter bored
piles installed in a residual soil Iormation that generally shows complex soil characteristics. Load settlement
behaviors and load distributions Irom both tests are presented.
Subsoil Conditions
The test piles are located in Kenny Hill Iormation oI carboniIerous age. This Iormation is a residual soil
Iormation initially Iormed by a sequence oI interbedded sandstone, siltstone and shale. With the regional
metamorphic event, the sandstone and siltstone or shale had been changed to quartzite and phyllite or schist
respectively. The rocks turn into residual soil as a result oI intensive weathering process. Depends on the
mineral composition oI the parent rocks, this Iormation mainly composed oI clayey silty sand and sandy silty
clay. Details oI engineering properties oI this residual Iormation may reIer to Wong and Singh (1996) and
Komoo (1989). Boreholes carried out at the site revealed that the subsoil can be simpliIied into two major strata:
soIt to stiII silty clayey soil or loose to medium dense sandy soil overlying very dense or hard soil layer with
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results oI more than 50 blows/300mm penetration. The thickness oI the soIt to
stiII soil layer is generally in the range oI 7m to 15m. The Liquid Limit (LL) and Plasticity Index (PI) Ior the
cohesive soil generally vary Irom 30 to 60 and 10 to 20 respectively. The cohesive soil is generally oI
low plasticity to intermediate plasticity. Figure 1 shows the Atterberg Limits oI the cohesive subsoil at diIIerent
depths.
Figure 1. Atterberg Limits oI the cohesive soil.
The Dynamic and Static Load Tests
High strain dynamic load test was carried out using a 30 tons hammer with a Iew separated impacts. The
hammer was positioned on top oI the test pile by a steel cage with 4 H-beam welded together as shown in Figure
2. A very low drop height will be applied Iirst Ior the assessment oI signal quality and alignment oI the drop
hammer with the bored pile. The permanent displacement or 'set
aIter each impact will be measured Ior the assessment oI activated
capacity. The Iorces and motions due to the drop impact were
recorded by Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA). The pile capacity was
estimated at site using CASE method. CAPWAP, the more
rigorous signal matching computer program, was used to compute
the pile capacity in later stage based on the recorded data.
The static load test was carried out using kentledge as the
reaction system. The applied load on top oI the bored pile was
measured by a calibrated load cell. Each load increment is about
10 oI the designed working load and minimum duration oI each
load is about 30 minutes. The bored piles were required to be
tested to two times the designed working load Ior normal working
piles and three times designed working load or Iailure Ior
preliminary test piles. For preliminary test pile, vibrating wire
strain gauges (VWSG) and tell-tale extensometers were installed
internally in the bored pile to measure the strain development and
shortening behavior oI the bored pile during testing. For normal
working pile, only the pile top movement was measured. Figure 3
shows the setting up oI the static load test.
The Load Tests Results
Two numbers oI bored piles with 1.2m diameter were tested by
0 20 40 60 80 100
Liquid Limit %
0
5
10
15
20
25
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Plastic Limit %
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Plasticity ndex %
0
5
10
15
20
25
Figure 2. Dynamic load test at site.
the dynamic and static methods. The Test Pile A was a preliminary pile while the Test Pile B was a normal
working pile. The designed working load Ior the 1.2m diameter bored pile was 6500 kN. Preliminary test pile
was conducted prior to the construction oI working piles. The main purpose oI the preliminary pile test was to
conIirm the assumed shaIt Irictions in
the design calculation and also to study
the pile perIormance under the applied
load.
Test Pile A
Test Pile A was a preliminary pile and
was constructed on 16 December 2001.
The total pile length was 21m below the
existing ground surIace. The bored pile
was reinIorced with 18 numbers oI
25mm high yield steel bars as
longitudinal reinIorcement and 10mm
diameter circular links at 300mm
spacing. The concrete strength used Ior
this test pile was 45 MPa. The bored pile
was purposely over bored to 21.5m and
Iilled with soil so that the pile could
have a soIt toe. This was to ensure that
most oI the test load would be resisted
by shaIt Iriction. Two types oI
instruments namely vibrating wire strain
gauges (VWSG) and tell-tale
extensometers (TT) were installed in the Test Pile A.
The VWSGs were installed at six levels and each level
consists oI 4 numbers oI VWSG. Two numbers oI TT
containing a 20mm inner GI pipe housed in 50mm steel
pipe each were installed at the bottom oI the test pile.
Figure 4 shows the levels oI the installed instruments
and the subsoil condition. Static load test was perIormed
on 11 January 2002 while the dynamic load test was
carried out on 8 March 2002. The Test Pile A was
statically tested to a maximum load oI 2000 tons. The
estimated ultimate pile capacity was slightly more than
2000 tons based on Davisson`s method (1972). The
maximum pile capacity as determined Irom the dynamic
load test was about 1710 tons. Apparently the dynamic
load test had not Iully mobilized the shaIt Iriction due to
very minimum penetration oI pile aIter each impact oI
the drop weight. The top displacements oI the Test Pile
A measured Irom the static load test and estimated using
CAPWAP Irom the dynamic load test are presented in
Figure 5. Apparently the estimated pile top
displacement by CAPWAP is quite consistent with the
result Irom the static load test when the test load was
low i.e. within design working load. When the test load
became higher and closed to the ultimate capacity, the
settlement predicted by CAPWAP was less than the pile
top displacement measured Irom static test.
Figure 6 shows the measured load distribution
curves Irom the static load test at diIIerent test loads and
Irom the dynamic load test. Apparently the load
distribution Irom the dynamic load test is quite
consistent with the load distribution Irom the static test
at similar test load, i.e. at about 17520 kN. The total
shaIt Iriction and toe resistance Irom the dynamic load
Figure 3. Setting up oI the static load test.
Figure 4. Subsoil condition and levels oI instruments.
test are 15650 kN and 1530 kN respectively. Whereas
the shaIt Iriction and toe resistance Irom static load test
at similar test load are 16450 kN and 1070 kN
respectively.
The unit skin Irictions at diIIerent depths analyzed
Irom both static and dynamic load tests are as shown in
Figure 7. Larger discrepancy can be observed especially
below 12m depth. This may due to the diIIerent response
oI subsoil under static loading condition and when
subjected to a dynamic impact.
Test Pile B
Test Pile B was a working pile and was constructed on 4
January 2002. It was reinIorced with 24 numbers oI
25mm diameter longitudinal steel bars at the top 12m
and 12 numbers oI 25mm diameter longitudinal steel
bars Ior remaining pile length. The concrete strength was
40 MPa. Figure 8 shows the subsoil condition and the
pile length. Due to some construction problems, the
pouring oI concrete was delayed resulting the bored hole
collapsed. Based on the volume oI concrete used Ior this
pile, bulging was expected. As this may aIIect the shaIt
Iriction and the pile capacity, dynamic load test was
perIormed on 13 March 2002 Ior the assessment oI the pile
capacity as well as the pile integrity. The estimated pile capacity was about 23900 kN. Apparently the shaIt
Iriction had not been Iully mobilized due to very minimum pile penetration aIter the dynamic impact. Static load
test was carried out only up to 2 times the designed working load, i.e. about 13000 kN, on 12 April 2002. The
measured pile top settlement and the estimated load settlement behavior Irom the dynamic load test are shown in
Figure 9. Similar to Figure 5, the pile top displacements Irom both tests are quite consistent when the test load is
low. However, with the increase in test load, the pile settled more based on the measurement Irom the static load
test as compared with the predicted pile settlement Irom dynamic load test.
Discussions and Conclusions
High strain dynamic load test is oIten requested as an alternative to conventional static load test due to the time
consuming and high cost oI the static load test. The dynamic load test also having additional advantage on the
assessment oI the pile integrity. Although many researches had shown that the derived pile capacity Irom the
dynamic load test agreed well with that Irom the static load test, exceptions have also been reported (Davisson
1991, Gue and Chen 1998). Care should be taken in comparing the pile capacities derived Irom both tests. As
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Applied Load (ton)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Static Load Test
Dynamic Load Test
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Load (kN)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Static Test, Load=9910 kN
Static Test, Load=15320 kN
Static Test, Load=17520 kN
Static Test, Load= 20000 kN
Dynamic Test, Load=17180 kN
Figure 5. Settlement oI pile top Ior Test Pile A.
Figure 6. Load distribution curves.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Unit Friction (kPa)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Dynamic Test, Load=17180 kN
Static Test, Load=17520 kN
Static Test, Load=20000 kN
Figure 7. Unit shaIt Irictions Irom the tests.
the shaIt Iriction could only be Iully mobilized iI the penetration oI pile aIter each impact is more than 2.5mm
(Likins et. al. 2000), the derived pile capacities Irom the dynamic load tests Ior Test Piles A and B could be
underestimated due to very minimum penetration oI piles aIter each dynamic impact. Comparison oI pile
capacities could not be carried out in this case.
The load settlement behaviors oI piles as predicted Irom the dynamic load tests show good agreement with
the pile top settlements measured Irom the static load tests when the test load is low, i.e. within design working
load. When the test load increased, the dynamic load test may underestimate the settlement oI piles.
The load distribution curves along the pile shaIt Irom both tests show small variation. However, in
assessment oI the unit shaIt Iriction, larger discrepancy was observed. This implies that the dynamic load test
may be not suitable Ior evaluating the shaIt Iriction Ior diIIerent types oI soil unless a proper correlation had
been perIormed.
In engineering practice, due to time consuming and high cost, very limited number oI static load test can be
carried out in a bored pile project. Quick and much cheaper dynamic load test with additional advantage oI
evaluating the integrity oI pile provides an alternative tool Ior quality control. However, the dynamic load test
should be used with care. In determination oI unit shaIt Iriction and the load distribution characteristic, static
load test to Iailure is more appropriate. In assessment the suIIicient oI pile capacity and pile integrity, dynamic
load test could play a major role.
References
Davisson, M.T. (1972). ' High capacity piles, Proceedings, ASCE Lecture Series, Innovations in Foundation
Construction, Illinos Section.
Davisson, M.T. (1991). 'Reliability oI pile prediction methods, Proceedings of Deep Foundation Institute
Conference, Chicago.
Gue, S.S. and Chen, C.S. (1998). 'A comparison oI dynamic and static load tests on reinIorced concrete driven
pile, Proceedings of the 13
th
Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Taipei, Taiwan, 497-501.
Hussein, M., Likins, G., and Rausche, F. (1996). 'Selection oI a hammer Ior high-strain dynamic testing oI cast-
in-place shaIts, Proceedings of Fifth International Conference on the Application of Stress-Wave Theorv to
Piles, Orlando, Flo rida, USA.
Komoo, I. (1989). 'Engineering geology oI Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Proceedings of the International
Conference on Engineering Geologv in Tropical Terrains, Bangi, Malaysia, 262-273.
Likins, G., Rausche, F. and Goble, G. (2000). 'High strain dynamic pile testing, equipment and practice,
Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the Application of Stress-wave Theorv to Piles, Sao
Paulo, Brazil.
Rausche, F., Goble, G. and Likins, G. (1985). 'Dynamic determination oI pile capacity,` Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 111, No.3, 367-383.
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Load (ton)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Static Load Test
Dynamic Load Test
Figure 8. Subsoil condition Ior Test Pile B.
Figure 9. Pile top settlement oI Test Pile B.
Wong, J. and Singh, M. (1996). 'Some engineering properties oI weathered Kenny Hill Formation in Kuala
Lumpur, Proceedings of the Twelfth Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 179-187.