02-Rapid Load Tests Practice in Japan PDF

BCA-GeoSS Seminar on Use of Rapid Load Test for Pile Foundation
RAPID LOAD TESTING

- JAPAN EXPERIENCES -
Tatsunori MATSUMOTO
Kanazawa University, Japan
Contents
1. Introduction
2. History of RLT in Japan & Standards
3. RLT devices used in Japan
4. RLT cases including interpretation methods
5. Summary
1/
INTRODUCTION
Background （in 1990s）
Estimation of bearing capacity of piles has been mainly
based on empirical equations using SPT N-value in Japan .
Displacement (settlement) of a pile at working load is
scarcely considered in pile design, because a high factor of
safety, usually 3, is employed.
Situations in which bearing capacity and pile head stiffness
of piles having the same configuration vary widely even in a
narrow area, are often encountered.
In order to precisely estimate bearing characteristics of

many piles in a pile construction site, increase in the
number of pile load tests in the construction site is vital.
However, cost and time for the conventional static pile

load test have hindered such practice.
2/
Japanese experiences of
Statnamic test
 First Statnamic test May 1992
 69 Statnamic tests 39 sites until 1998
 Research Group 1993

 Research Committee in JGS 1997
 Standardization Committee in JGS 1998
3/
Research group in 1993
general contractors, piling contractors,
pile load test companies, pile
manufactures, academic
Objectives
 compile the existing knowledge
 examine basic characteristics and
applicability to Japanese soil
 establish interpretation methods
 research of 3 years, Final report Dec. 1996

4/
Research Committee
 Japanese Geotechnical Society in 1997
Research targets
 Definition of rapid load test
 Interpretation methods
 Testing manual
 Standard testing method
5/
Standardization Committee
(started in 1998 in JGS)
 Static compressive load test
 Static tensile load test
 Osterberg Cell method
 Dynamic load test
 Rapid load test
 Published in 2002
6/
7/
Methods for Rapid Load Test of Single Piles (JGS 1815-2002)
1. GENERAL 4. TEST EQUIPMENT
1.1 Scope 4.1 Composition of test equipment
1.2 Objectives of test 4.2 Loading devices
1.3 Terminology 4.3 Measurement devices
4.4 Reference points
2. BASIC PLANNING
2.1 Basic items 5. METHOD OF LOADING AND
2.2 Planner maximum load MEASUREMENTS
2.3 Planned loading duration 5.1 Loading pattern
2.4 Specification, number and 5.2 Items to be measured
location of test piles 5.3 Sampling periods and intervals
2.5 Method of loading and
measurements 6. EXECUTION OF TEST
6.1 Testing personnel
3. TEST PREPARATION 6.2 Tasks of the testing personnel
3.1 Preparation of execution plan 6.3 Commencement and completion
3.2 Design of test piles of the test
3.3 Installation and curing of test piles 6.4 Test record
3.4 Setting up test equipment and test
site 7. SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
8/
Definition of Rapid Load Test
The relative loading time Tr, which is an index for
classification in the rapid loading test, is defined as:
Pile head force

𝑇r = 𝑡L /(2𝐿/𝑐) ≥ 5
tL = the load duration,
L = the pile length,
c = the bar wave velocity
Loading duration, tL Time

If Tr ≥ 5,
 wave propagation phenomena in the pile is negligible.
 pile can be modelled as a single mass.
 simplified interpretation methods can be employd.
9/
Various pile load test methods Rapid load test (RLT)
Launching mass type:

Statnamic (Berminghammer, Canada & TNO, NL)
The first Statnamic test in Japan was carried out by Takenaka

Komuten Corp. in 1991.
More than 300 Statnamic tests have been carried out in Japan.
Falling mass type:

Dynatest (France), Psuedo-static (Fundex, NL)
Soft cushion, Spring hammer (in Japan).
10/
Dynatest Statnamic test Pseudo-static load test
(Gonin & Leonard 1984) (Bermingham & (Schellingerhout &
Janes 1989) Revoort 1996).
11/
Statnamic test in Kanazawa in 2001
Steel pipe pile for foundation of a bridge of Shinkan-sen (bullet) train
12/
Statnamic (video)
(Launching mass type)
13/
Sakoyama bridge
14/
Maizuru
thermal
power plant
15/
SpringHammer (Kanazawa Univ.) video
Falling mass type
16/
SpringHammer (Kanazawa Univ.) video
Falling mass type
17/
SPRING HAMMER TEST METHOD
Test device, and signal measuring and acquisition system
Loading and measuring system of SH rapid load test.

18/
Test procedure
19/
Non-linear Damping Interpretation Method
20/
Hybridnamic (Jibanshikenjo Co., Ltd.)
Falling mass type
21/
Hybridnamic (Jibanshikenjo Co.)
Falling mass type 22/
Hybridnamic (Jibanshikenjo Co.) Falling mass type (Video)
23/
Advantages of each rapid load test type
Launching mass type (Statnamic)

High loading capacity: 60 MN
Falling mass type

Repeatable blows with increasing applied load
24/
Advantages of the rapid load test over other test types
1. The test is quick and easily executed. Poulos (1998)
2. High loading capacity is available. 2nd STN Seminar
3. The loading is accurately centered and can be applied to both

single piles and pile groups.
4. The test does not require any pre-installation of the loading
and reaction equipment.
5. The test is quasi-static, and does not involve the development
of potentially damaging compressive and tensile stresses in
the test pile.
6. The test can be carried out on both uninstrumented and
instrumented piles.
7. The load is measured via a load cell and does not rely on pile
material and cross-section properties.
25/
Methods of Interpretation of RLT signals
Force (MN)
Unloading Point Method (ULP method) F u(max) F soil(max)
0 1 2 3 4 5
0
Frapid
Didsplacment, w (mm)
F soil
10
Pile mass, m
20
FstatF u
Soil spring,K Dashpot, C 30
(Fstat) (F dyn) w max

C v*
40
Unloading point
(v=0)
50
Frapid = ma + Fsoil = ma + Fdyn + Fstat

Fsoil = Fdyn + Fstat = Frapid - ma
m = pile mass
Fdyn = Cv a = pile acceleration:
v = pile velocity
Fstat = Frapid - ma - Fdyn
26/
Case 1 (1/5): Hybridnamic rapid load tests for cast-in-situ piles in sandy gravel soil
(Aoki et al., IS-Kanazawa 2012)
D = 1.0 m
L = 11.5 m
Site 1: Takaoka Site 2: Imizu D = 1.0 m

L = 16.5 m
Soil profile and test pile
27/
Case 1 (2/5): Hybridnamic rapid load tests for cast-in-situ pile in sandy gravel soil
D = 1.0 m
L = 11.5 m
Site 3: Oyabe
28/
Hybridnamic (Jibanshikenjo Co., Ltd.)
29/
Site 1: Takaoka Site 2: Imizu Site 3: Oyabe

L = 11.5 m L = 16.5 m L = 11.5 m
𝑇r = 𝑡L /(2𝐿/𝑐) = 12 𝑇r = 𝑡L /(2𝐿/𝑐) = 8 𝑇r = 𝑡L /(2𝐿/𝑐) = 12
30/
F0,S0 Comparison of matching analysis and
F1,S1 sequential unloading point method
Site Analysis Static shaft Static toe
F2,S2 resistance resistance
(kN) (kN)
1. Takaoka Matching 4,398
Analysis
8,272
FN,SN
Sequential 3,202
U. P. M.
9,468
2. Imizu Matching 2,238
Analysis
12,121
Sequential 2,606
F0 F1 F2 FN
U. P. M.
11,753
3. Oyabe Matching 8,718
Analysis
13,042
S0 S1 S2 SN Sequential
11,773 9,987
U. P. M.
Sequential Unloading point method
The results from the Sequential Unloading Point method

are comparable to those from the wave matching analysis.
31/
Case 2 (1/5): Rapid load test for cast-in-place concrete pile sat on a thin bearing layer
(Kojima et al., IS-Kanazawa 2012)
N-value
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
OP+4.70m
5
first section
OP+2.46m
gravel
strain gauge
0
2 points
second section
23.2m
silt cohesive sandy
-5 OP-6.54m
clay
depth（OP-m）
strain gauge
2 points
test pile -10
soil
boring
-15 third section
OP-17.5m
cast-in-place concrete pile 1500 strain gauge
gravel
number=40/silo -20 4 points
φ1.5m
cohesive
soil
-25 strain gauge
accelerometer
-30
Side view of the petroleum coke silo,

Profiles of SPT N-values and soil
and plan view of pile arrangement
layers, together with the test pile
seating
32/
2,100mm
Frame
7,600mm
Hammer
mass
20 t Elastic rubber cushion
Computer， Laser projector
Conditioner
Load cell
Laser displacement sensor Test pile
7,000mm
Illustration of FT-Impact test device and measurement system

(Fugro Japan & Tama Blasting Co.)
33/
Force, Frapid (MN)

Force, Frapid (MN) 6 6
Blow No. 1 Blow No. 5
4 4
2 2
0 0
4 4
Disp., w (mm)
Disp., w (mm)
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0.3
Velocity, v (m/s)
0.3
Velocity, v (m/s)
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
-0.1 -0.1
-0.2 -0.2
-0.3 -0.3
30 30
Acc., a (m/s )
20
2
20
Acc., a (m/s )
2
10 10
0 0
-10 -10
-20 -20
-30 -30
0 50 100 150 200 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Time, t (ms) Time, t (ms)
Blow No.1, H = 0.3 m Blow No.5, H = 1.1 m

Examples of measured dynamic signals
34/
10000 10000
Frapid1 Frapidtoe1
Rsoil1 Rsoiltoe1
8000 8000
Axial force, Fa(kN)

Axial force, F(kN)
Frapid2 Frapidtoe2
Rsoil2 Rsoiltoe2
6000 Frapid3 6000 Frapidtoe3
Rsoil3 Rsoiltoe3
Frapid4 Frapidtoe4
4000 Rsoil4 4000 Rsoiltoe4
Frapid5 Frapidtoe5
Rsoil5 Rsoiltoe5
2000 RULP 2000 RULPtoe
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Dispplacement, W(mm)
Displacement, w (mm) Displacement, W(mm)
Displacement, w (mm)
Load-displacement curves at Load-displacement curves at

pile head pile tip
35/
Axial force, F (MN)
The bearing capacity, Ru, of the
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 test pile was estimated from SPT
5 N-values using empirical
equations specified in
Depth from O.P. (m)
0 Recommendations for Design of

Building Foundations (AIJ, 2001)
as follows:
-5
1st End-bearing capacity
2nd Rp = 4,980 kN
-10 3rd
4th Shaft friction capacity
5th Rf = 5,391 kN
-15
Ultimate capacity
Ru = Rp + Rf = 10,371 kN
0 Axial
1000 force
2000 3000distributions
4000 5000 6000 7000
From the rapid load test, Rp = 1 MN and Rf = 5 MN.
Pile load test results are much more reliable then
codes or standards. 36/
Case 3: A Comparison between Static Load Test and Rapid Load Test for Steel
Pipe Pile Installed by Water Jet Vibratory Technique
(Hoshino., IS-Kanazawa 2012)
Sandy
silt
Sand
rock
Static load test equipment
Sand Steel pipe pile
rock D = 1.0 m
L = 15.5 m
tw = 14 mm
Soil property and test pile
37/
Case 3 (2/7): Comparison between SLT and RLT for SPP Installed by Water Jet
Vibratory Technique
Static load test

10000
8000
6000
Load ：P（kN）
4000
2000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time ：ｔ（hour）
Load step sequence Pile head load vs. displacement
38/
Case 3 (3/7): Comparison between SLT and RLT for SPP Installed by Water Jet
Vibratory Technique
Static load test
Water pressure (Mpa) Axial force Ｐ (kN) Shaft resistance τ (kN/m2)
0 5 10 15 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 200 400 600 800
0 0 Water pressure (Mpa) 0 force Ｐ (kN)
Axial Shaft
0 5 10 15 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 200
0 0 0
2 2 2
2 2 2
4 4 4
4 4 4
6 6 6
6 6 6
Depth (ｍ)
DEpth (ｍ)
8 8 8
Depth (ｍ)
DEpth (ｍ)
Depth (m)
8 8 8
Depth (m)
10 10 10
10 10 10
12 12 12
12 12 12
14 14 14
14 14 14
1000kN 2000kN 3000kN 4000kN 5000kN
16 16 16 6000kN 7000kN 8000kN 9000kN
1000kN 2000kN
16 16 16 6000kN 7000kN
18
18
Axial force and shaft resistance distributions

from SLT
39/
Case 3 (4/7): Comparison between SLT and RLT for SPP
8000
Rapid load test 7000 Section 1

Section 2
6000 Section 3
Section 4
5000 Section 5
Load (kN)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24
Time(sec)
Rapid load vs. time

12000
10000
Soil resistance Rsoil(kN)
8000
6000
4000
Hybridnamic 2000
(Jibanshikenjo Co., Ltd.) 0
0 10 20 30 40
Displacement (mm)
Load vs. displacement 40/

SLT & RLT

10000
Static load test

Rapid load test
8000
Static soil resistance (kN)
6000
4000
2000
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm)
Comparison of load vs. displacement from SLT and RLT
41/
SLT & RLT

10000
10000
Static load test Static load test

Rapid load test Rapid load test
8000 8000

6000
6000
4000
4000
2000
0 2000
0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm)
Comparison of load vs. displacement

from SLT and RLT
42/
SLT & RLT

0 0
SLT
2 2
RLT
SLT
4 RLT 4
6 6
Depth (m)
8 8
10 10
12 12
14 14
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 200 400 600 800

2
Axial force (kN) Shaft resistance (kN/m )
Distributions of the axial forces and the shaft

resistance from SLT and RLT
43/
Case 4 (1/3): A rapid load test for the long steel pipe pile installed into the soft
rock under the soft silty ground (Kato et al., 48JGS Conf. 2013)
A bridge of Tohoku-Chuo Highway, Japan

South North
Bridge section
Test pile (SPP) Soft soils

D = 800 mm
L = 86.5 m
Elevation (m)
Soft soils
Soft rock

44/
Case 4 (2/3): RLT for the long steel pipe pile on the soft rock under the soft silty
ground
Pile head load (kN)

Pile head displacement (mm)
Pile tip load (kN)
Hybridnamic
(Jibanshikenjo Co., Ltd.)
Pile tip displacement (mm)

45/
rock under the soft silty ground
Axial force (MN) Shaft resistance (kPa)
0 5 10 15 0 100 200 300
0
20
40
Emprical design
Emprical
60 design
80
m
Axial forces Shaft resistance

46/
Conducting (Rapid)
rock under load
the soft silty groundtest is very important.
Axial force (MN) Shaft resistance (kPa)
0 5 10 15 0 100 200 300
0
20
40
Emprical design
Emprical
60 design
80
m
Axial forces Shaft resistance

47/
Case 5 (1/3): Rapid load tests on steel pile having screwed wing plate
(Takano et al., 49JGS Conf. 2014)
9.7 m
D = 191 mm
Dw = 381 mm
L = 11.3 m
Hybridnamic
(Jibanshikenjo Co., Ltd.) Soil profile and test pile
48/
Test pile No.1

Pile V1 RLT Pile V1 SLT & RLT
1200 1200
1000 1000
Pile head load (kN)
Pile head load (kN)

800 800
SLT
600 600 RLT
400 400
200 200
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 40 80 120 160 200
Pile head disp. (mm) Pile head disp. (mm)
RLT results Results of SLT and RLT
49/
Test pile No.2

Pile V2 RLT Pile V2 SLT & RLT
1200 1200
RLT
1000 1000
Pile head load (kN)
Pile head load (kN)

800 800
SLT
600 600
400 400
200 200
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 40 80 120 160 200
RLT results Results of SLT and RLT
Results from the SLTs and the RLTs were almost equal.
Performance of a new type of pile was successfully

estimated by RLT.
50/
Case 6 (1/4): Rapid load tests on steel pipe piles for foundation of a wharf
(Minami et al., 50JGS Conf. 2015)
D = 1.3 m CJV WJV D = 1.3 m

(Vibro-hammer with (Vibro-hammer with L = 21.0 m
L = 24.5 m cement milk jetting) water jetting)
t = 17 mm t = 19 mm
SPPs for foundation of a wharf

51/
Hybridnamic
(Jibanshikenjo Co., Ltd.)
52/
(Vibro-hammer with water jetting) (Vibro-hammer with cement milk jetting)
1200 1200
WJV CJV
1000 1000
Pile head load (kN)

Pile head load (kN)
800 800
600 600
400 400
200 200
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Pile head load vs pile head displacement from RLT
53/
Axial force of pile (MN) Axial force of pile (MN)

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
5 5
WJV CJV
0 0 Although the
embedment length is
Depth from sea level (m)

-5 -5
less for CJV pile, larger
shaft resistance can be
expected in CJV pile.
-10 -10
-15 -15
-20 -20
-25 -25
WJV CJV
Axial forces in piles
54/
Performances
Case 6 (4/4): Rapidof SPPｓ
load constructed
tests on byfordifferent
steel pipe piles foundationmethods
of a wharf were
successfully obtained from RLTs.
Axial force of pile (MN) Axial force of pile (MN)
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
5 5
WJV CJV
0 0

-5 -5
-10 -10
-15 -15
-20 -20
-25 -25
WJV CJV
Axial forces in piles
55/
Case 7 (1/10): Load tests on cast-in-place concrete piles for foundation of New
Nile Bridge at Jinja (Takano et al., 50JGS Conf. 2015)
Jinja Bridg e
Total length 525 m
Cable stayed bridge

56/
Pile
Soil profile at Pier No. 2

57/
RLT p
i
l
e
f
o
SLT pile r
S
L
SLT T
Pile arrangement at Pier No. 2

Piles at Pier No. 2 Piles at Abutment No. 1
Cast-in-place concrete pile Cast-in-place concrete pile
D = 2.0 m D = 1.5 m
L = 19.4 m L = 23.0 m
58/
D = 1.5 m
L = 23 m Hammer
D = 2.0 m
L = 19.4
Cushion
Load cel l Accel. meter
Strain gauge
Strain
gauge
Pile
Accel. meter
Strain gauge
Equipments for RLT
Pier No.2 Abutment No.1
59/
25
Pile head
Pile tip Pier No. 2
20
Pile head load (MN)

15
10
0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Load vs. displacement from RLT
RLT signals of pile at pier

60/
Axial force of pile (MN) Shaft resistance (kPa)

25
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1000 2000
Pier No. 2 0
20
Pile head load (MN)
Depth from G.L. (m)

15 -5
10
-10
5 Emprical eq.
-15
0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Pile head displacement (mm) -20
Load vs. displacement from RLT Axial forces and shaft resistance
from RLT
61/
25 12
Pier No. 2
10 Abut. No. 1
20
Pile head load (MN)
Pile head load (MN)

8
15
6
10
4
5 2
0 0
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Load vs. displacement from RLT
62/
35
30 Pile in Piear No.2
Load (MN)
25 Pile in Abut. No.1

20
15
10
5
0
0 20 40 60 80
Time (hour)
Loading steps employed in SLT
63/
35 9
8
30 Pile tip
Pile head load (MN)

Pile head load (MN)
7
25
6
Pile head
20 5
15 4
3
10
Pier No. 2 Abut. No. 1
2
5
1
0 0
0 2 4 6 8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Pile
Piledisplacement (mm)
head dsp. (mm) Pile head displacement (mm)
Load vs displacement from SLT
64/
35
30
Pile head load (MN)

25
20
15
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Pile head disp. (mm)
Load vs displacement from SLT and RLT
65/
Case 8 (1/3): Statnamic tests on open-ended steel pipe piles for the foundation of
a bridge in Yangon, Myanmar (Tama Blasting Company, 2016)
P1 EL（ｍ）
P2
0.0
EL（ｍ）
0.0
Strain gauge D = 1.2 m Strain gauge D = 1.2 m
Acceleration
Acceleration
tw = 14 mm tw = 14 mm
SAND-Ⅰ
CLAY-Ⅰ
L = 48 m -10.0 N=0～10 L = 40 m
N=0～3
Ｐ２　40m
-10.0
Design capacity
Ｐ１　48m
CLAY-Ⅱ Design capacity -20.0 CLAY-Ⅱ

-20.0
N=5～50
= 13.5 MN
N=5～10
= 13.7 MN
SAND-Ⅱ
-30.0
-30.0 N=10～25
SAND-Ⅱ
N=20～50
-40.0 CLAY-Ⅲ
-40.0 N=25～50
CLAY-Ⅲ
N=20～50 -50.0
-50.0
SAND-Ⅲ SAND-Ⅲ
N=50 N=50
-60.0
-60.0
66/
Case 8 (2/3): Statnamic tests on SPP
P1_Top
for the foundation of a bridge in Yangon
25000
25
rapid (MN)
20000
20
P1
Force, FForce(kN)
15000
15
10000
10
5000
5
0
100
100
75
75
(mm)
Disp.(mm)
Wmax
50
50
Disp.
25
25
00
44
(m/s)
22
Velo.(m/sec)
00
Veloc.
-2
-4
400
400
Load vs displacement from ULPM
Acc.(m/sec2)
(m/s2)
200
200
P1
0
Acc.
-200
-200
D = 1.2 m
-400
-400
0.0
0 50 0.1
100 150 0.2
200 250 0.3
300
tw = 14 mm
Time(sec)
Time, t (ms)
L = 48 m
Design capacity = 13.5 MN
Measured dynamic signals of P1
67/
Case 8 (3/3): Statnamic tests on SPP for the foundation of a bridge in Yangon
P2
Load vs displacement from ULPM

P2
D = 1.2 m
tw = 14 mm
L = 40 m
Design capacity = 13.7 MN
Measured dynamic signals of P2
68/
Safety factors for piles in various countries (as in 2006)
Country S. F. S. F. S. F. Number of load tests required in a site and notes
w/o LT with SLT with DLT
Japan 3.0 2.7 2.7 not specified, number load tests is not taken into account.
Kazakhstan 1.5 1.2 ----- SLTs on 1% of constructed piles (2 SLTs at least in a site)
Mexico 3.0 2.0 2.0 to 2.5 Between 1% to 5% depending the project. Minimum 3 piles.
Netherelands 2.05 ----- pile design based on CPT
1.78 pile design based on CPT
1.71
Norway 1.6 1.4 1.4 not specified
Singapore 3.0 when there is less certainty of the value of the ultimate capacity.
2.0 where the ultimate has been determined by a number of loading
tests or where they may be justified by local experience.
Sweden 3.0 ?
1980 2.5 if 5% of piles are tested.
2.0 if 25% of piles are tested.
Sweden 2.0 if 25% of piles are tested.
USA 3.0 theoretical or empirical prediction
ASCE 1996 1.6 to 1.9 1.7 to 2.0 in case of design capacity is 0.4 to 1.0 MN.
1.8 to 2.2 2.0 to 2.4 in case of design capacity is over 1.0 MN.
Vietanam not ≥2 2 2 tests at least, normally 1% of piles and maximum is 2% of piles.
specified
69/
Safety factors for piles in various countries (as in 2006)
Country S. F. S. F. S. F. Number of load tests required in a site and notes
w/o LT with SLT with DLT
Japan 3.0 2.5 2.5 not specified, number load tests is not taken into account.
Kazakhstan 1.5 1.2 ----- SLTs on 1% of constructed piles (2 SLTs at least in a site)
Mexico 3.0 2.0 2.0 to 2.5 Between 1% to 5% depending the project. Minimum 3 piles.
Netherelands 2.05 ----- pile design based on CPT
1.78 pile design based on CPT
1.71
Norway 1.6 1.4 1.4 not specified
Singapore 3.0 when there is less certainty of the value of the ultimate capacity.
2.0 where the ultimate has been determined by a number of loading
tests or where they may be justified by local experience.
Sweden 3.0 ?
2.0 if 25% of piles are tested.
Sweden 2.0 if 25% of piles are tested.
USA 3.0 theoretical or empirical prediction
ASCE 1996 1.6 to 1.9 1.7 to 2.0 in case of design capacity is 0.4 to 1.0 MN.
1.8 to 2.2 2.0 to 2.4 in case of design capacity is over 1.0 MN.
Vietanam not ≥2 2 2 tests at least, normally 1% of piles and maximum is 2% of piles.
specified
70/
Summary
Rapid load testing of falling mass type is widely used for

piles in Japan, as an alternative of the conventional
static load test.
Pile load tests are carried out to confirm the design

bearing capacity, and/or to obtain parameters for pile
design.
71/

02-Rapid Load Tests Practice in Japan PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

02-Rapid Load Tests Practice in Japan PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

BCA-GeoSS Seminar on Use of Rapid Load Test for Pile Foundation

RAPID LOAD TESTING

In order to precisely estimate bearing characteristics of

However, cost and time for the conventional static pile

 Research Group 1993

 research of 3 years, Final report Dec. 1996

 Osterberg Cell method

 Dynamic load test

 Rapid load test

Pile head force

Loading duration, tL Time

Launching mass type:

The first Statnamic test in Japan was carried out by Takenaka

Falling mass type:

Loading and measuring system of SH rapid load test.

Launching mass type (Statnamic)

Falling mass type

3. The loading is accurately centered and can be applied to both

(Fstat) (F dyn) w max

Frapid = ma + Fsoil = ma + Fdyn + Fstat

Site 1: Takaoka Site 2: Imizu D = 1.0 m

Soil profile and test pile

Hybridnamic (Jibanshikenjo Co., Ltd.)

Site 1: Takaoka Site 2: Imizu Site 3: Oyabe

The results from the Sequential Unloading Point method

Side view of the petroleum coke silo,

Illustration of FT-Impact test device and measurement system

Force, Frapid (MN)

Blow No.1, H = 0.3 m Blow No.5, H = 1.1 m

Axial force, Fa(kN)

Load-displacement curves at Load-displacement curves at

0 Recommendations for Design of

Static load test

Load step sequence Pile head load vs. displacement

Axial force and shaft resistance distributions

Rapid load test 7000 Section 1

Rapid load vs. time

Load vs. displacement 40/

SLT & RLT

Static load test

Comparison of load vs. displacement from SLT and RLT

SLT & RLT

Static load test Static load test

Static soil resistance (kN)

Comparison of load vs. displacement

SLT & RLT

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 200 400 600 800

Distributions of the axial forces and the shaft

A bridge of Tohoku-Chuo Highway, Japan

Test pile (SPP) Soft soils

Soil profile and test pile

Pile head load (kN)

Pile tip load (kN)

Pile tip displacement (mm)

Axial forces Shaft resistance

Axial forces Shaft resistance

Test pile No.1

Pile head load (kN)

RLT results Results of SLT and RLT

Test pile No.2

Pile head load (kN)

RLT results Results of SLT and RLT

Performance of a new type of pile was successfully

D = 1.3 m CJV WJV D = 1.3 m