See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293097309

Comparison Between Dynamic and Static Pile

Load Testing

Article January 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 1,441

1 author:

Elfatih Ali
University of Khartoum
34 PUBLICATIONS 82 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Elfatih Ali on 06 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Comparison Between Dynamic and
Static Pile Load Testing
Dr. Mohamed A. Osman
Partner
Engineering Services & Design (ESD)-Khartoum, Sudan
e-mail: drmao@hotmail.com

Dr. Elfatih Mohamed Ali Ahmed

Partner
Engineering Services & Design (ESD)-Khartoum, Sudan
e-mail: elfatihmali@gmail.com

Omar Babiker Elhaj Mohammed Ahmed

Geotechnical Department Manager
Engineering Services & Design (ESD)-Khartoum, Sudan
e-mail: omerbabiker75@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
Based on experience and extrapolation, it is found that the best way to predict pile behavior is
to perform a pile loading test. In this study a comparison between the static and dynamic load
tests results was made to evaluate the ability of the High Strain Dynamic Pile Testing
(HSDPT) using SIMBAT method to estimate the static capacity of bored concrete piles. Four
case studies conducted in Red Sea state were taken. The two test results are consistent to a
good extent.
The dynamic load pile test, which is a simple quality control test offering a considerable
savings of time and cost and requires less space, can be used for predicting pile capacity and
pile integrity under proper care and it should be calibrated by at least one static test.
The (settlement/pile diameter) ratios, which are less than 1% for all piles, reflected
conservative pile design. The pile design for projects should be optimized by determining the
actual ultimate pile capacity, which may need to conduct pile test to failure or near to failure.
KEYWORDS: Dynamic Pile Load Test, Compressive wave, SIMBAT Method, Static
Pile Load Test, Pile Capacity, Comparison.

INTRODUCTION
The static and the dynamic pile testing methods are the two main types of pile tests that are
periodically used to assess the pile load capacity. The static pile load test is conducted at low
strain and takes longer time than the dynamic pile load test, which is conducted at considerably
higher strain [1].

- 3615 -
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. Q 3616

The main objective of this study is to compare the static and dynamic load tests results and to
evaluate the ability of the High Strain Dynamic Pile Test (HSDPT) using SIMBAT method to
estimate the static capacity of bored piles. This will be achieved by taking four case studies,
conducted in Red Sea State in eastern Sudan.

DYNAMIC LOAD TEST

Dynamic pile load test procedure is standardized by ASTM D4945-00 Standard Test Method
for high strain dynamic testing of piles. It consists of estimating soil resistance and its distribution
from force and velocity measurements obtained near the top of a foundation impacted by a
hammer or drop weight. The impact produces a compressive wave that travels down the shaft of
the foundation.
A pair of strain transducers receives the signals necessary to compute force, while
measurements from a pair of accelerometers are integrated to yield velocity. These sensors are
connected to an instrument (such as a pile driving analyzer), that records, processes and displays
data and results [2], [3], [4].
The capacity of the hammer should be large enough to achieve sufficient pile settlement so
that the resistance of the tested pile can be fully mobilized. The load should be applied axially on
the pile. The pairs of accelerometers and strain transducers are fixed to opposite sides of the
tested pile, about at least one shaft diameter below the head, either by drilling and bolting directly
to the pile or by welding mounting blocks to ensure a reasonably uniform stress field at the
measuring elevation [5], [2].
The modern change, which is considered as one of the significant beneficial changes that
have been made to the system since the last Irish survey in 2000 is the introduction of theodolite
to measure the pile displacement during the impact [6], [7].
This dynamic pile load testing technique that has been used most often in Ireland and UK is
called SIMBAT [6].
There are two known methods, based on wave propagation theory, for the analysis and
interpretation of the dynamic pile load test. The CASE method, IMPEDANCE method and TNO
method are considered as direct methods. CAPWAP, TNO wave and SIMBAT are considered as
indirect methods [1].

SIMBAT DYNAMIC LOAD TEST METHOD

The SIMBAT is used mainly for bored piles [5] & [2]. It is well accepted in France, Eire and
the UK and to a lesser extent in Italy and Spain [8]. Essential preparations should be made before
the test is carried out in the field. A pile cap, as an extension to the shaft head (with the same
diameter as the shaft), should be constructed. The length of the cap should be at least 1.5 to 2.5
shaft diameter. The cap must be cylindrical, smooth, well-reinforced and of good quality
concrete. The side of the cap is instrumented with two strain gauges, two accelerometers and
electronic theodolite target. The electronic theodolite is placed 3 to 5m from the pile head. A
schematic sketch of SIMBAT equipment and instrumentation is presented in Figure (2), whereas
a photograph of a complete set of the equipment is shown in Figure (3). A series of hammer
blows are made with the hammer drop height progressively increased and decreased [8].
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. Q 3617

The main difference between this system and other dynamic load test systems is the using of
an electronic scanning theodolite that records penetration for each blow and records real time
elastic displacement [9].
As mentioned in [5] & [9], the interpretation of the dynamic pile load test data according to
the SIMBAT procedure includes measuring of velocity from the integral of the acceleration and
then correcting velocity using the theodolite as an adjustment signal. The measured force at the
pile top is separated into components upward and downward. The dynamic (or total) reaction,
Rdy is calculated for each hammer blow and plotted versus cumulative penetration for the whole
set of blows. The dynamic load is converted to static load and the predicted static load-settlement
curve can be plotted. The static plot is verified by modeling.

Figure 1: Schematic of SIMBAT Instrumentation

Figure 2: Complete SIMBAT kit including data collection unit, accelerometers, digital
theodolite cable reels and waterproof carry case
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. Q 3618

CASE STUDIES IN EASTERN SUDAN

Mark R. Svinkin (2011) analyzed a distinctive case history presented by Briaud et al. (2000)
toward correlation between the results of dynamic and static tests. This case showed the results of
application of CAPWAP, TNOWAVE and SIMBAT methods for dynamic testing of the same
three bored piles constructed in different soil types. He concluded that SIMBAT and TNOWAVE
methods gave good results in clay and substantially overestimated and underestimated pile
capacity in sand, whereas CAPWAP method yielded good results in sand and significatally
overestimated pile capacity in clay [10].
In this paper, four case studies in Portsudan city in Red Sea state, eastern Sudan, in which
SIMBAT method was used, will be considered. All tests were carried out on bored concrete piles.
One site in Portsudan new strategic depot Project, namely Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) site.
Three projects are residential tower buildings representing a part of the residential tower
buildings complex of Red Sea state.

GENERAL SUBSURFACE FORMATION OF THE AREA

The area considered in this research represents the second city and the main Sea port in
Sudan. This is Portsudan city, which is located in western coast of the Red Sea in eastern Sudan
[11]. The formation at this area is predominantly coralline deposits consisting of completely to
slightly weathered coral reef limestone that contains marine shells and fossils. This formation is
characterized with great variability in horizontal and vertical directions.

PERFORMANCE OF TESTS
The dynamic load test was performed using hammers weighing 1% of the test load of the
tested pile with a series of impact starting from 10.0 to 45.0cm. The test was carried out
according to SIMBAT method, see Figure (3). For the static test, kentledge reaction system was
used, refer to Figure (4)

Hammer

Steel Case

Steel Plate

Instrumented Pile
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. Q 3619

Figure 3: SIMBAT Dynamic Pile Load Test

Kentledge

Figure 4: Static Pile Load Test

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A summary of the SIMBAT dynamic load test results for all selected projects is shown in
Table 1.
Table 1: Summary of SIMBAT dynamic load test results
/D Ratio
Pile Pile Design Settlement Settlement () at /D Ratio
Project Name (%)
Diameter, D Length, L Load () at Design 1.5xdesign load (%)
For max.
(mm) (m) (kN) load (mm) (mm) For design loa
test load
Tower 1 1000 24 2450 1.40 3.00 0.14
0.30
Tower 7 1000 24 1700 0.40 0.70 0.04 0.07
Tower 8 1000 30 1800 2.00 2.90 0.20
0.29
Liquefied
Petroleum Gas 1500 10.5 5000 1.10 1.80 0.11 0.18
(LPG)

The table hereunder shows the static load test results:

Table 2: Summary of conventional static load test results
Site Second Loading /D
First Loading Cycle Total
Test Pile Cycle Permanent
Length Elastic Ratio
Diameter Max. Max. Max. Max. settlement,
(m) Rebound
(mm) Load Settlement, Load Settlement, (mm) (%)
(mm)
(kN) (mm) (kN) (mm)
Tower 1 1000 24.0 2450 0.44 3675 1.0625 0.8 0.2625 0.11
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. Q 3620

Tower 7 1000 24.0 1700 0.3425 2550 0.6925 0.5750 0.1175 0.07
Tower 8 1000 30.0 1800 0.915 2700 1.9975 1.455 0.5425 0.13

Figure (5), Figure (6) and Figure (7) reflect the comparison between the dynamic and
static load test curves for the three residential towers projects, whereas Figure (8) shows the
Load settlement curves predicted from the SIMBAT dynamic load test results for the LPG tank
project.
Load (kN)
D.L. 1.5D.L . M.T.L.
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
0

0.5

1.5
Settlement (mm)

2 Dynamic
Static
2.5

3.5

4.5

Figure 5: Load-Settlement Curves for Tower No. 1 Project

The initial part of
Load (kN)
the load-settlement 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
curves illustrated 0
0.5
in Figure (6-b) 1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Dynamic
3.5
Settlement (mm)

4 Static
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. Q 3621

Figure 6-a: Main Load-Settlement Curves

Load (KN) D.L. 1.5D.L.

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Settlement (mm)

0.4
Dynamic
0.5
Static
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2

Figure 6-b: The initial part of the load-settlement curves

Figure 6: Load-Settlement Curves for Tower No. 7 Project

D.L 1.5.D.L M.T.L

Load (KN)
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000 4400
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
Settlement (mm)

2
2.4
2.8
3.2
3.6
4
4.4
4.8
5.2

Figure 7: Load-Settlement Curves for Tower No. 8 Project

 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. Q 3622

D.L 1.5 D.L M.T..L

Load (KN)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2
2.4
Settlement (mm)

2.8
3.2
3.6
4
4.4
4.8
5.2
5.6
6
6.4
6.8

Figure 8: Load-Settlement Curves for LPG Project

The results of the dynamic and static tests indicated very conservative pile design as the
(settlement/Pile Diameter) ratios range from 0.07 to 0.85% even though the loading in dynamic
tests exceeded 2 to 3 times the pile design load. These very small values compared with the
general criterion for pile design, which indicates 10% for pile failure. In our opinion, it is wise
that to determine the actual pile ultimate capacity for a project by testing at least one pile to
failure. This will enable an economical pile design and offer a considerable saving of cost for the
project.
The comparisons of load-settlement behaviors for dynamic and static load tests, shown in
Figure (5), Figure (6) and Figure (7), indicate that the predicted settlement (from dynamic) and
the measured settlement (from static) are generally consistent to a reasonable extent as reflected
by the results of towers 7 and 8. But generally the settlements predicted by dynamic load test are
slightly higher than the settlement measured by the static load test. This is very clear especially in
the results of the pile of tower 1 project.

CONCLUSIONS
The High Strain Dynamic Pile Load Test (HSDPLT) has been introduced recently in Sudan
by ESD. This paper has been focused on this type of pile loading test. Four case studies of
dynamic and static pile loading tests conducted in the eastern of Sudan have been presented. The
load-settlement behaviors for dynamic and static load tests were compared for the three case
studies of the residential tower buildings complex project. This shows a reasonable agreement
between the two test results. But generally the dynamic load test slightly overestimates the
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. Q 3623

settlement. It can be concluded that the dynamic load pile test can be used for predicting pile
capacity and pile integrity under proper care and it should be calibrated by at least one static test.
All results of static and dynamic load tests indicate very conservative pile design as the
(settlement/pile diameter) ratios are less than 1% for all piles. Therefore, it is strongly
recommended to optimize the pile design for projects by determining the actual ultimate pile
capacity, which may need to conduct pile test to failure or near to failure. The dynamic pile test is
very useful for such tests as it is a simple quality control test offering a considerable savings of
time and cost and requires less space [12], [13] & [14].

REFERENCES
1- Federation of Piling Specialists, FPS, Forum Court, 83 Copers Cope Road,
Buckingham, Kent, BR3 1NR, (February 2006) "Handbook on Pile Load Testing".
2- Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering Department, Civil Engineering
Building, 101 Princess Margaret Road, Homantin, Kowloon, Hong Kong, (June 199)
"Pile Design and Construction".
3- Huy N. Q., (June 2010) "Primarily report on non-static pile load tests, Literature
review Quasi-static and Dynamic pile load tests".
4- ASTM STANDARD (November 2000) "Standard Test Method for High-Strain
Dynamic Testing of Piles, ASTM Designation: D 4945 00"
5- Richard T. Stain, (2005) "SIMBAT Dynamic Pile Testing Results of an
Independent Pile Capacity Prediction Event", Proceedings of 30th annual conference
on Deep Foundations, Chicago, Illinois, USA, (DFI).
6- Long, Michael (Michael M.), (January, 2007) "Comparing dynamic and static test
results of bored piles" Published by Institution of Civil Engineers.
7- Michael Angelo A/L Murugan @ Arokiasamy, (May 2006) "A Comparison Between
Static Load Test and High Strain Dynamic Test On Bored Piles", A thesis submitted
in fulfillment of the Requirements for the award of the degree of Master of
Engineering (Civil Geotechnics), Faculty of Civil Engineering, University
Technology Malaysia.
8- Bernard Hertlein, STS Consultants Ltd, USA and Allen Davis, Construction
Technology Labs Inc., USA (2006) "Nondestructive Testing f Deep Foundations".
9- Testconsult (2008), "SIMBAT Dynamic Pile Load Testing Operational Manual".
10- Mark R. Svinkin, Ph.D., M.ASCE (2011). Engineering Aspects in Evaluation of Pile
Capacity by Dynamic Testing, Structures Congress 2011 ASCE 2011.
11- Khairul Anuar Kassim & Omar Babiker Elhaj Mohamed Ahmed (2011). Comparison
of Continuous Dynamic Probing with the Standard Penetration Test for Highly
Weathered Lime Stone of Eastern Sudan, EJGE. 2011. Vol. No. 15 p. 235-249.
12- C. Rajagopal, Post Graduate Student, C. H. Solanki, Associte Professor, and Y. K.
Tandel, Research Scholar. (2012) "Comparison of Static and Dynamic Load Test of
Pile".. Vol. No. 17, p. 1905-1914, EJGE.
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. Q 3624

13- Mhaiskar, S. Y., Khare Makarand G., Vaidya Ravikiran (2010) "High Strain
Dynamic Pile Testing and Static Load Test-A correlation Study", Indian
Geotechnical Conference, GEOtrendz December 16-18, 2010.
14- S.S. Basarkar, Manish Kumar, Ravikiran Vaidya, (2011) "High Strain Dynamic Pile
Testing Practices in India- Favourable Situations and Correlations Studies",
Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference, December 15-17, 2011, Koshi
(Paper No. Q- 303)

2013, EJGE

View publication stats