A Study of Ultimate Capacity of Piles in Bangladesh PDF

A STUDY OF ULTIMATE CAPACITY OF PILES IN
BANGLADESH
BY
MD. SHAHNOOR ALAM KHAN

. / ~ ~~)"fii'rf"••...
(4trl\ c;'37e1.~')~
,.,<il.~~~~~~~~
. )
~ \\.'$1~ICf(aw O
'\'* ".''''-__ ...;'J*
~ci!l~l.~~'1'\
A thesis submitted to toe -- ent of Civil Engineering,
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka
in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree
of
MASTER IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
- --.. - -. - .. _-
"1111111l1li/111 1111II/III II II/II
#97045#
SEPTEMBER, 2002
The thesis titled A STUDY OF ULTIMATE CAPACITY OF PILES IN BANGLADESH
submitted by Md. Shahnoor Alam Khan, roll number 9404217P, session 1993-94-95 has been
accepted as satisfactory in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of
Engineering on September 02, 2002.
BOARD OF EXAMINERS
rm-LJl J-I"..J ..-J,.:;J

(Dr. Mehedi Ahmed Ansary)
Associate Professor Chairman
Department of Civil Engineering (Supervisor)
BUET, Dhaka.
A ,M ,1'1\. S~..u..I.- _
(Dr. A. M. M. Safiullah)
Professor
Department of Civil Engineering Member
BUET,Dhaka
(Dr. Abu Siddique)

Professor
Department of Civil Engineering Member
BUET, Dhaka.
3
CANDIDATE'S DECLARA nON
It is hereby declared that this thesis or any part of it has not been submitted elsewhere for the
award of any degree or diploma.
Signature of the candidate
Md. Shahnoor Alam Khan

~-
CONTENTS
Page no
Contents i
List of Tables iii
List of Figures IV
Notations vi
Acknowledgement vii
Abstract viii
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
1.1 General I
1.2 Types of piles used in Bangladesh 2
1.3 Objectives 3
1.4 Thesis layout 3
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General 7
2.2 Bearing capacity of piles 8
2.2.1 Pile Capacity by Static formulae 9
2.3 Ultimate Capacity of pile from pile load tests 18
2.3.1 Tests to failure 18
2.3.2 Tests not to failure 18
2.3.3 Criteria of Failure 19
2.3.3 Types of Load tests 19
2.4 Acceptance Criteria for estimation of pile load capacity 20
2.5 Current Status of pile load test in Bangladesh 22
CHAPTER THREE MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS
3.1 Introduction 35
3.2 Collection of data 35
3.3 Idealization of Soil data 35
3.4 analysis of data 36
3.4.1 Pile load Capacity from static Analysis 36
3.4.2 Pile load capacity from pile load tests 37
3.4.3 Data for further Anal ysis 37
3;5 Results and discussions: Pre-cast piles 38
3.5.1 Effects of different static Analysis 38
3.5.2 Effects of pile sizes 38
3.5.3 Effects of pile length 39
3.5.4 Correlation between settlement and ultimate pile capacity 39
3.6 Results and discussions: Cast in situ piles 39
3.6.1 Effects of different static Analysis 39
Page No.
3.6.2 Effects of pile diameter 40

3.6.3 Effects of pile lengths 40
3.6.4 Correlation between settlement and ultimate pile capacity 40
CHAPTER FOUR
4.1 Concluding remarks 61

4.2 Recommendations 63
REFERENCES 64
Appendix A Presentation of idealized soil model and pile load test data with
ultimate capacities and settlements by different methods
Appendix B Sample sub-soil investigation data, soil idealization data, static
analysis of ultimate pile capacity and corresponding ultimate
load test data (PTP-2 and CTP-6)
" ~.
,J!,
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Page No.
Table 2.1 Design values of adhesion factors for piles driven into stiff 11
cohesive soils (after Tomlinson, 1970)
Table 2.2 Values of K and 8 (after Broms, 1966) 15
Table 2.3 Rules for determination of ultimate load (after Poulus and Davies, 1980) 22
Table 2.4 Summary of information on static pile load tests 25
in Bangladesh (after Ansary et aI., 1999)
Table 3.1 Empirical relationships between standard penetration 37
resistance (N) and undrained cohesion (eu) of clays
Table 3.2 Project and pile information, and ultimate capacities from 42
pile load tests as well as static analysis of precast piles
Table 3.3 Project andpile information, and ultimate capacities from 43
pile load tests as well as static analysis of cast-in-situ piles
Table 3.4 Settlement versus ultimate capacity of piles from pile load 44
tests by different methods (precast pile)
Table 3.5 Settlement versus ultimate capacity of piles from pile 45
load tests by different methods (cast-in-situ piles)
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page No.
Fig.l.l Installation of a timber pile 5

Fig. 1.2 Installation of a pre-cast pile 5
Fig. 1.3 Typical arrangement of a static pile load test in Bangladesh 6
Fig. 1.4 Measurement of pile settlement inside a trench 6
Fig. 2.1 Load transfer in single pile 26
Fig. 2.2 Adhesion factors for driven piles in clay 26
(after McClelland, 1974)
Fig. 2.3 Adhesion factors for driven piles in clay 27
(after Tomlinson, 1970)
Fig. 2.4 Value of A for different pile penetration length 28
(after Vijaravergia and Focht,1972)
Fig. 2.5 Berezantzev's bearing capacity factor, Nq 29
(after Berezantzev's et. at 1961)
Fig. 2.6 Values of Zc/d and Kstan<t>afor piles 30
in sand (after Polous and Davis,1980)
Fig. 2.7 Pile Taper Factor Fw (after Nordland,1963) 31
Fig. 2.8 Dimensionless Plot of ultimate skin frictional capacity 32
for pile in uniform sand (after Poulos and Davis, 1980).
Fig. 2.9 Dimensionless plot of ultimate point load capacity for 33
pile in uniform sand (after Poulos and Davis 1980).
Fig. 2.10 Analysis of load settlement curves from pile load test 34
(a)end bearing pile; (b) friction and end bearing pile;
(c) broken pile (After Chin, 1978)
Fig. 3.1 Flowchart of-the study 46
Fig. 3.2 Geographical locations of pile load tests 47
Fig. 3.3 Correlation between ultimate pile capacity from static 48
analysis (a-method) and from pile load test for precast piles
Fig. 3.4 Correlation between ultimate pile capacity from static analysis 48
(~-method) and from pile load test for precast piles
Fig. 3.5 Correlation between ultimate pile capacity from static analysis 49
(A.-method) and from pile load test for precast piles
Fig. 3.6 Correlation between average ultimate pile capacity from static 49
analysis and from pile load test for precast piles
Fig. 3.7 Correlation between average ultimate pile capacity by static 50
analysis and average ultimate pile capacity from pile load
test for precast piles
analysis and average ultimate pile capacity from pile load test
based on pile size (175 x 175) for precast piles
Fig. 3.10 Correlation b~tween average ultimate pile capacity by static 51
iv
"
Page No
Fig. 3.11 Correlation between average ultimate pile capacity by 52
static analysis and average ultimate pile capacity from
pile load test based on pile length (5.5 - 7.5 m) for precast piles
test based on pile length (9.2 - 15 m) for precast piles
Fig. 3.13 Average pile settlement versus average ultimate pile 53
capacity from pile load test for precast piles
Fig. 3.14 Correlation between ultimate pile capacity by static analysis 54
(a-method) and from pile load test for cast-in-situ piles
(p-method) and from pile load test for cast-in-situ piles
(A-method) and from pile load test for cast-in-situ piles
analysis and from pile load test for cast-in-situ piles
test for cast-in-situ piles
analysis based on diameter (400 mm) and average ultimate
pile capacity from pile load test for cast-in-situ piles
analysis based on length (9 - 12 m) and average ultimate
pile capacity hom pile load test for cast-in-situ piles
Fig. 3.25 Average pile settlement versus average ultimate pile 59
capacity from pile load test for cast-in-situ piles
Fig. 3.26 Settlement versus ultimate capacity of end bearing pile 60
estimated by Chin's method
Fig. 3.27 Normalized Settlement Versus Ultimate Capacity Of End Bearing Pile 60
v
NOTATIONS
Ab Area of pile base
B Width of pile
C Perimeter of piIe
Cu Undrained Shear Strength of soil
D Diameter of pile
fs Unit skin frictional resistance of pile
fu Unit point bearing of pile
Fw Correction Factor for Tapered piles
GWT Ground water Table
K CO-efficient of lateral earth pressure
Ko Co-efficient of lateral earth pressure at rest
L Length of pile
N Standard penetration Test (SPT) Value
NAv Average value of N along the length of pile
Nc Bearing capacity factor
Nq Bearing capacity factor
Ny Bearing capacity factor
OCR Over consolidation ratio
Q Total load
Qs Skin frictional resistance
Qp Point load
Qu Ultimate total load
Qallowable Allowable load
Qsu Ultimate skin frictional load
Qpu Ultimate point load
Qc-av Average cone resistance
Zc Critical depth for arching effect is sandy soil
CTP Cast in situ test piles
PTP Pre-cast test pile
a Adhesion factor
13 Coefficient of skin friction
Y Density of soil
Ym, Saturated density of soil
Ydry Dry density of soil
A An empirical factor which depends on the length of pile
ffz Average effective vertical stress
UZb Effective vertical stress at the bottom of pile
I/J Angle of Shearing Resistance
I/J u Ultimate angle of shearing resistance
I/J Angle of shearing resistance of soil in situ
a -method Total stress approach
f3 -method Effective Stress approach
A- method . Pseudo-effective stress approach
r Correlation value
cr Standard deviation
!'>. Settlement
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to express his deepest gratitude to Dr. Mehedi Ahmed Ansary, Associate
Professor of Civil Engineering Department, BUET for his guidance, invaluable suggestions
and affectionate encouragement at different stages of the study.
The author is grateful to Dr. A. M.M. Safiullah, Professor of Civil Engineering Department
for his constructive suggestion at different stages of the study.
The author also expresses his profound gratitude to Dr. Abu Siddique, Professor of Civil
Engineering Department for his constructive suggestion at all stages of the study.
vii
ABSTRACT
Soil investigation and foundation design may together account for a significant cost of a
building while encountered. with a geologic situation that has low bearing capacity. In this
s£tuation, the greatest concem of the geotechnical engineers ought to be design of a
foundation from a number of technically acceptable alternatives based on economy of the
whole scheme. Recently, different engineering agencies (such as PWD, LGED etc.) of
Bangladesh has started using precast and cast-in-situ (bored) piles for their different projects
located in different parts of Bangladesh. There are two objectives behind using piles. Firstly,
low cost precast RCC Piles of 175 mm by 175 mm with 7m length have been used as a
replacement for the timber piles for low-rise structures constructed on soil of low bearing
capacities. On the other hand, 300 mm by 300 mm precast square RCC piles with 11 m
length and bored piles of 400 mm to 500 mm diameter with 12 m to 18m length are used for
medium rise structures. Moreover, for some high rise structures, piles of required dimensions
have been used. Ultimate load capacity of at least 1% of all those piles has been estimated by
Static Pile Load Test.
In this study ultimate pile load capacity of Bangladesh has been studied. The database
comprise of pile load test reports at thirty Public Works Department sites in different parts of
Bangladesh. Among the pile load test data, twenty one is precast RCC piles and twenty five is
RCC cast-in-situ piles. For the estimation of ultimate pile capacity in the static method, the
total soil strata has been divided into some reasonable layers with specified soil properties.
The precast piles are indexed as PTP-l, 2, 3 etc. and the cast-in-situ piles are indexed as CTp.
1,2,3 etc. .
For static analysis CJ. or total stress method, f3 or effective stress method and A. or semi.
empirical method have been used. In this study, load settlement curves from pile load test
results are used to find out the ultimate capacity of pile by Davisson, Butter & Hoy and
British Standard methods. After obtaining the ultimate pile load capacity values, correlation
between ultimate pile capacities of tested piles and ultimate capacities obtained from static
analysis as well as some correlation between ultimate pile capacities of tested piles and
corresponding settlements are drawn. These correlation are made for precast as well as for
cast-in-situ piles. The effect of different size and length of piles have also been considered. In
all these cases there exist considerable correlation between the static analysis of pile capacity
and capacity of pile from pile load test. This study has proved a higher degree of confidence
to use the static formulae to find out the ultimate capacity of the piles.
The attempt to correlate the settlement corresponding to ultimate capacity estimated from pile
load test for the whole data has been found to be futile. Regression Analysis shows that there
is little or almost no correlation with the settlement of pile with the ultimate capacity.
Correlation has only been established between settlement and ultimate pile capacity for east-
in-situ end bearing piles by following Chin's method.
viii
'"CHAPTER ONE-'-
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Piling is both an art and science. The art lies in selecting the most suitable type of pile and
method of its installation for the ground conditions and the type of loading. Science enables
the engineers to predict the behaviour of the piles once they are installed in the ground and
subjected to loading. This behaviour is influenced profoundly by the methods solely from the
physical properties of the piles and of the undisturbed soil. Knowledge of the available type
of piling and method of constructing pile foundations is essential for a thorough
understanding of the science of their behaviour. A pile foundation, even a single pile, is
statically indeterminate to a very high degree. The chance of a precise analysis of a pile is
thus even more remote than is true for most problems in geotechnical engineering Empirical
knowledge and the results of pile load tests at the site are usually adopted for the solution to
a given pile foundation problem.
Soil investigation and foundation design may together account for a significant cost of a
building while encountered with a geologic situation that has low bearing capacity. In this
kind of situation, the greatest concern of the geotechnical engineers ought to be the design of
a foundation from a number of technically acceptable alternatives based on economy of the
whole scheme. In Bangladesh, a traditional foundation for low cost housing on soft ground is
timber pile. For modest load and piling depth, timber piles are suitable. Recently Public
Works Department (PWD) of Bangladesh has started using pre-cast and cast in-situ (bored)
piles for their differenrprojects located in different parts of Bangladesh. There are two
objectives behind using piles, firstly low cost pre-cast RCC piles of 175 mm by 175 mm with
7 m length have been used as a replacement for the timber piles for low rise structures
constructed on soils with low bearing capacity. On the other hand, 300 mm by 300 mm pre-
cast square RCC piles with 11 m length and bored piles of 400 mm to 500 mm diameter with
12 m to 18 m length are used for medium rise structures. All the tests were static compressive
vertical pile load tests and were performed according to the procedure outlined in ASTM
D1l43 (ASTM 1989). This paper summarizes pile load test procedure, criteria for estimation
of pile load capacity and typical pile load test results.
-'ltt .
~;~ ..• '
Previously there was lack of field rep0l1 and pile load test results, which is a must for rational
analysis of a pile. In most cases, reliance is made on load test results to determine the load
carrying capacity of bored piles. However, considerable load test results in different types of
soils are needed to develop rational methods for design of bored piles.
1.2 TYPES OF PILES USED IN BANGLADESH
Generally, two pile types are being used in Bangladesh. One is driven (displacement) and the
other is bored pile (non-displacement) (Ansary et aI., 1999). Technology for both types is
very different being reflected both in the quality of the pile itself (Pre-cast versus cast-in-situ
concrete) and its effect on the surrounding soil (different stress variation, compression and
decompression, molding effects etc.). For driven pile one should consider heave and
settlement of the soil surface, shaft bending, vibrations due to driving, disruption of pile-soil
contact, soil dragging along the pile etc. On the other hand for bored piles, the effect of the
bentonite suspension on the shaft and tip resistance, pile shape, variability of concrete quality
of the pile shaft etc. have to be considered.
Timber Piles
Durability is one of the grave questions connected with the use of timber piles. Their
usefulness may be destroyed by fungal action. Below water, there are some dangers from
attack by marine organisms and from micro-fungal attack and wood-destroying insects when
kept dry. However, careful selection of the timber spices and the use of preservatives can
overcome many of the problems. Even then small diameter and untreated "Sal Balla" timber
piles have been using extensively apparently having ignored its severe consequences in a
fluctuating water table condition. Figure 1.1 shows installation of a timber pile.
Concrete Piles
Pre-cast concrete piles in ordinary reinforced concrete are usually square or hexagonal and of
solid cross-section for short and moderate length. To avoid problem while handling and
driving, the usual maximum lengths for square piles are more or less 45 times the width of a
pile (Siddiqueullah and Sadeque, 1997). For normal or easy driving a 3500 psi (24.1 MPa)
concrete is suitable. High stresses, which may exceed the handling stresses, can occur during
driving and it is necessary to consider the serviceability limit of cracking. A winch operated
driving rig with a hammer of 1 tonne is used to drive the pile. Driving records are maintained
2
as the number of blows required to drive per 300 mm and also the penetration at the last few
blows. Figure 1.2 shows a typical pre-cast pile driving arrangement used in Bangladesh.
For deep foundations bored cast-in-situ reinforced concrete (Ree) pile is widely used as it is
cost effective, saves appreciable time and the equipment are readily available. It has been
found that the bored cast-in-situ pile consists many major defects along the shafts with
respect to different geological conditions. These defects are identified by nondestructive pile
integrity test for some projects of Bangladesh (Amin and Karim, 1996).
Figure 1.3 shows a typical pile load test arrangement used in Bangladesh. Figure 1.4 shows a
photograph of a pile settlement measurement system. Usually the settlement of the pile top is
recorded at regular intervals from two dial gauges placed at two sides of the pile located
inside the trench. This being a cumbersome procedure, the dial gauge data are sometimes
recorded from outside the trench using a theodolite.
1.3 OBJECTIVES
It has been felt that a study on the ultimate load capacity of piles in Bangladesh will help the
'~
designers to arrive ,at a consistent value of factor of safety with subsequent benefit in safety
and economy. The specific objectives of this study are as follows:
• To analyse the pile theoretically with the help of sub-soil investigation report.
• To predict the ultimate load carrying capacity by studying time load-settlement curve
obtained during field load test.
• To compare and correlate the pile load capacity obtained from theoretical analysis with
that of the result from load test.
• To draw a conclusion regarding the theoretical pile capacity in context with Bangladesh
soil.
1.4 THESIS LAYOUT
In chapter one, soil investigation and foundation design along with types of piles used in
Bangladesh has been discussed. Moreover, status of pile load test in Bangladesh has been
focussed. The objectives ofthe study has also been stated.
"
, "1\ 3
, 'I.,
In chapter two, the general concept of pile capacity, load capacity in compression, pile
capacity by static formulae and methods of determining ultimate pile capacity from pile load
tests have been discussed.
In chapter three, description of piles and project site with sub-soil conditions have been
discussed. For every pile load test the capacity of the pile from static formulae and from pile
load test procedure have been found out. Regression analysis have been done between the
above two .capacities. The analysis have been done in different dimensions. Effect of length
and effect of size of the pile have been considered in the regression analysis. Relation
between ultimate capacity from pile load test and settlement of pile tip has also been drawn.
In chapter four, conclusions from this study and recommendations for further research have
been made.
•
.-'
Fig 1.1. Installation of a timber pile
Fig 1.2. Installation of a precast pile
5
Fig 1.3. Typical arrangement of a static pile load test in Bangladesh
Fig 1.4. Measurement of pile settlement inside a trench
6
CHAPTER TWO
LITERA TURE REVIEW
2.1 GENERAL
The capacity of a pile can be determined on the basis of (a) the structural capacity of the pile
to support the load coming on it and (b) the support provided by the surrounding and
underlying soil or rock. The pile capacity is the smaller of the two values amved from the
above two considerations.
Structural capacity is governed by the permissible stresses in the pile materials. Generally
building codes stipulate the maximum allowable material stresses. however, values based on
different codes may differ greatly and usually they tend to be conservative. The recent
practice is to design the piles as columns. However, it is necessary to realize that the factor of
safety for piles when designed as columns should be higher than that allowed for columns in
superstructures. In case of a superstructure the accuracy of the column straightness and
alignment is assured within relatively narrow limits, and these columns are inspected' after
they.are casting and also they are available for maintenance. But in case of cast in situ piles,
the alignment and straightness of piles are much less controllable. Concrete in cast in situ
piles cannot be inspected. The environmental conditions under which piles are placed are
usually more severe and also driving of piles introduces residual stress of unknown
magnitudes. These facts clearly point to the need to have higher factor of safety when piles
are designed as columns.
When the pile capacity is determined on the basis of the support provided by the surrounding
and underlying soil or rock, a number of factors affecting the properties of surrounding and
underlying soils must be considered. The degrees to which the sUITounding and underlying
soils are affected are determined by the type of pile, the type of soil, method of installation of
piles etc. The two types of piles, i.e., precast and cast-in-situ affect the surrounding and
underlying soil differently mainly because of their different installation methods.
The effect of installation of cast-in-situ piles in clay soil have been studied largely in relation
to adhesion between the pile and the soil. The adhesion has been found to be less than the
•
cohesion of soil mainly because of softening of the clay immediately adjacent to the soil
surface. This softening may arise from three causes (Sadek, 1989). These are (a) water
poured into the boring to facilitate operation of the cutting tool, (b) migration of the water
from the body of the clay toward the less highly stressed zone around the borehole and (c)
absorption of moisture from'the wet concrete. Construction problem may also arise with cast-
in-situ piles, such as, (a) caving of the borehole, resulting in necking or misalignment of the
pile, (b) aggregate separation within the pile and (c) buckling of the pile reinforcement and
(d) sedimentation at the borehole bottom. Such structural defects may be detected by using
pile integrity test.
There is relatively little quantitative information on the effects of installation of cast-in-situ

piles in sand or in any other cohesion less soil. Such piles usually require a casing and/or
drilling fluids to support the walls of the bore during sinking of the hole. Subsequent
withdrawal of the casing while concreting the shaft is likely to disturb and loosen the soil to
some extent. Also some loosening is liable to occur at the bottom of the pile as a result of
bailing the hole, and when this is done under water, the upward surge on withdrawal of the
bailer can loosen the soil for several feet below and around the pile. Thus in calculating the
load capacity of a cast-in-situpile in sand, Tomlinson (1975) suggests that the ultimate value
of angle of shearing resistance ($u) should be used, unless the pile is formed in a dense
gravel when the surging effect may not take place. If heavy compaction can be given to the
concrete at the base of the piles, then the disturbed and loosen soil may be re-compacted and
value of ($) for the dense state should be used. However, if the shaft is obstructed by the
reinforcing cage, such compaction may not be possible.
2.2 BEARING CAPACITY OF PILES
•
Vertical compressive load acting on a pile is transferred to the soil. Figure 2.1 shows this
load transfer mechanism. Part of the load on pile is resisted by shear resistance mobilized at
the pile-soil interface. This part is known as skin frictional resistance of pile. The rest of the
load is transferred through the base or tip of the pile. This component is known as point
resistance or point load. In general, the total load on pile Q can be expressed as,
Q = Q, + Qp (2.1)
Where Qs = skin frictional resistance
8
"' .• 'I'
~ fit •••••;'
'"'Ii "'IF~'
Qp = point load
Depending on soil type, one of the two components of load transfer may be much greater
than the other. For example, a pile installed in a deep clay deposit, will to a large extent
depend upon skin friction for load transfer. The pile is termed as friction pile. But if the pile
is made to rest on sound bed rock, very little relative movement between pile and soil is
possible. Skin friction is minimum and load is mostly transferred through point bearing. The
pile is referred to as point bearing pile. But, mostly both the components of skin friction and
point load are present in load transfer. It is evident that the load on the cross-section of pile
decreases with depth due to dissipation or transfer of load in the form of skin friction.
The maximum load which the pile can support through combined resistance of skin friction
and point bearing is known as the ultimate load capacity, Q". of the pile. To this value of Qu a
factor of safety is applied to determine the allowable load load, Qal/owable. on the pile. The
working load, Q. or the load actually carried by the pile must not exceed Qal/owable' The
different approaches to determine the load capacity of single piles in compression are as
follows: (i) empirical values, (ii) pile driving formulae, (iii) wave equation analysis (WEA),
(iv) finite element method and (v) static formulae; methods (i) to (iv) are applied for driven
piles only and method (v) is applied for both driven and bored piles.
2.2.1 Pile Capacity by Static Formulae
The determination of ultimate load capacity using static formulae is also called the soil
mechanics approach since it is based on the principles of soil mechanics. For the load transfer
mechanism suggested in Fig.2.l the static formulae assume that,
Q"=Q",+Qp,, (2.2)
where Qsu = ultimate skin frictional load
Qp" = ultimate point load
It is thus assumed that at the instant of ultimate load capacity of the pile the ultimate point
. and skin friction loads are mobilized simultaneously. In fact this does not occur. Very small
relative movement between pile and soil is required to mobilise full skin friction. This
movement is of the order of 13 to 25 mm. When the relative movement exceeds this value
the skin frictional resistance drops. The movement required for the full mobilisation of point
resistance is significantly higher and depends on the size of pile and method of installation.
For example, in clays, and for driven piles in sand the movement required is about 10 per
9
cent of the diameter of the pile. For piles buried in sand the required movement is as high as
25 to 30 per cent of the pile diameter. This leads to two inferences: (a)When the ultimate skin
friction resistance is mobilised only a fraction of the ultimate point load is mobilised; (b)
When the ultimate point load is mobilised the skin friction resistance has reduce to a lower
value than its peak. Hence, a true total ultimate state in the soil mechanics sense lied between
these two states. Despite this we will persist with our definition of ultimate load by equation
2.2 for reasons of simplicity and the demonstrated utility of such simplification without being
grossly in error. Since static formulae are dependable and more convenient to use these are
discussed in more detail in the following sections.
Piles in Clay
(a) Driven piles-skin friction
There are three approaches for the calculation of ultimate skin frictional capacity between
piles driven into clay. These are:
a - or total stress approach (after Tomlinson, 1970)
f3 • or effective stress approach (after Burland, 1973)
A - or semi-empirical appr~ach (after Vijayavergia and Focht, 1972)
a-method: In the a-method unit skin friction resistance on the pilei, is expressed as the
adhesion between pile and soil. Ca.
I, = Ca = aC" (2.3)
Where C" = undrained cohesion or undrained strength (5,,) of soil

a = a factor called adhesion factor
Thus the correlation between f and c" is through the adhesion factor a. In this total stress
approach skin friction is expressed in terms of undrained cohesion on the basis that
considerable time is required for the excess pore water pressure to dissipate in case of clays
and stability under untrained conditions is critical. The value of adhesion factor a depends on
the undrained strength of soil. Smaller the undrained strength more is the tendency for the
soil to adhere to the pile surface and a also tends to be close to 1. Figure 2.2 shows the
variation of a with c" for driven piles in clay (McClelland, 1974). Of the several correlations
shown in the figure Tomlinson's curve is most popularly used.
10
When piles are driven through layered soils the skin friction resistance j;. varies over the
length of pile. Also, when the pile penetrates into a lower layer it drags along with it a skin of
the upper layer for some distance. The skin friction resistance j, in the lower layer will
depend on the characteristics of the upper layer in relation to the lower layer and the length
of pile penetration into the lower layer. To account for this effect of soil layering Tomlinson
(1970) recommends modified a values, which are shown in Fig. 2.3 and Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Design values of adhesion factors for piles driven into stiff
cohesive soils (after Tomlinson, 1970)
Case Soil conditions Penetration ratios CalC.
I Sandy soils overlying stiff cohesive <20 1.25
soils >20 See Fig. 2.2
II Soft clays or silts overlying stiff >8 and <20 0.40
cohesive soils >20 0.70
III Stiff cohesive soils without overlying >8 and <20 0.40
strata >20 See Fig. 2.2
From equation. 2.3 the total skin friction load on the pile is obtained as,
Qsu = f~CJsdz (2.4)
Where C = perimeter of pile

L = total length of pile
dz = elemental length of pile
f3-method: Some investigators are of the opinion that even piles in clay should be analyzed
using effective stress approach for the following reasons:
(i) the excess pore water pressure due to pile loading is developed over a small zone
surrounding the pile. This excess pore water pressure can dissipate quickly through cracks
in soil, or relatively more permeable concrete pile itself,
. (ii) for piles in stiff over consolidated clays the drained load capacity may be critical than
undrained load capacity.
The skin friction is expressed in this method as
Is = azKtano (2.5)
11
Where 0",= Average effective vertical stress
K = coefficient of lateral earth pressure, often k" is used; for driven piles K>ko
8 = effective friction angle between pile and the soil, generally 8 is assumed to be
equal to the effecti ve angle of shearing resistance.
f3 is defined as,
f3 =Ktan 8 (2.6)
Thus the skin friction at any depth is directly proportional to the vertical effective stress at
that depth. For normally consolidated clays the lower limit for value of f3 can be expressed
as,
f3 =( I-sin ljJ)tan I/J (2.7)
where ep = in-situ angle of internal friction of soil.

From equation 2.7 for normally consolidated clay f3 varies from 0.25 to 0.29. There are
evidence to indicate that value of f3 decreases for very long piles, otherwise very high skin-
frictional resistance will be indicated at large depth, f3 could be as low as 0.15 for piles
exceeding 60m length. Bowles (1982) recommends that the f3 value should be multiplied by
a correction factor which has been modified as follows: (Kaniraj, S.R, 1988)
.
Correction factor for f3 =log 10 (180)
L < 0.5 (2.8)
Where L is total length of pile in metres.
For piles in stiff over consolidated soils the lower limit of f3 is given as,
f3 = (l - sin 4> ).J OCR tan e (2.9)
where OCR = over consolidation ratio; 8 = friction angle between pile and soil.
A -method: this is a semi-empirical method developed for driven pipe piles by Vijayavergia
and Focht (1972), who suggested an empirical relationship for average skin friction,ls.av.
from analysis of load test results on steel pipe pilesJ,-av is given by,
(2.10)
Where acm = average effective vertical stress between the ground surface and pile tip.
2cum = average undrained shear strength along the length of the pile
12
il = an empirical factor which depends on the length of pile as shown in Fig.2.4.
The ultimate skin frictional load is determined from,

Qu = fs.avCL (2.11)
Where C = perimeter of pipe pile; L = length of pile.
This method gives reliable results when piles penetrate deep into homogeneous (non-layered)
clays.
(b) Driven piles-point bearing

In the total stress approach the ultimate point load of piles driven into clays is given by,
Qpu = cutJ/"Ab (2.12)
Where Cub = undrained cohesion of soil at the pile base
Nc = bearing capacity factor
Ab = area of base
The value of N" is generally taken as 9. The pile should have been driven to a distance of at
least 5D into the bearing stratum.
In the effective stress approach Qpu is expressed as
Qpu = uztJ/ qAb (2.13)
where (J zb = vertical effective stress at the level of pile base
Nq = bearing capacity factor
Widely differing recommendations for values of Nq are found in literature. The most
commonly used among these are the values due to Berezantzev et al. (1961). Figure 2.5
shows the values of this bearing capacity factor as a function of <p and UD ratio.
(C) Bored and cast - in situ piles
During the time lag between boring of a shaft and the installation of the pile there is some
softening of the soil along the sides of the borehole due to migration of water and stress
release. To determine skin-frictional capacity by a-method, an average value of =0.45 is
recommended by Tomlinson in firm to stiff clays. However, the unit skin frictional resistance
thus obtained should not be more than 1 kglcm2• If the pile is short and they clay is heavily
13
fissued x may be taken a~ .0.3. In soft and very soft clays a may be nearer to 1..0, a
considerable time after pile installation when the remolded soil regains its strength.
For point resistance, value of N" = 9 can be used in calculations provided the pile penetrates a
minimum distance of five diameters into the bearing stratum. In the case of fissured clays the
undrained cohesion at the level of base must represent the fissured strength.
(d) Driven and cast-in situ piles

If a steel tube is driven and then the concrete is poured inside the tube without extracting the
tube the same procedure explained for precast driven piles can be used. However, if the tube
is withdrawn during concreting, the conditions are intermediate between driven piles and
bored piles. If the concrete is compacted properly, good bond between pile surface and soil
can be expected. Then the procedures explained for driven piles can be used. If compaction
results in an increase in t~e size of the base or the diameter of the pile the enlarged
dimensions must be used in the calculations.
Piles is sand.
(a) Driven piles-skin friction
For piles driven into sand the unit skin friction is given by equation 2.5. Table 2.2 gives the
values of K recommended by Broms (1966). Values of Ktan 8(= ,B) determined by Vesic
(1967) for steel tube piles and those given by Meyerhof (1976) are shown in Fig. 2.6.
Equation 2.5 suggests that j; increase continuously with depth. But there are evidences to
indicate that skin friction does not increase continuously with depth. It reaches a maximum
value at a depth of about 10-2.0 pile diameters. The variation of this critical depth (zc) for
steel pipe piles reported by Vesic is also shown in Fig. 2.6. The reason for this is attributed to
the vertical stress near the pile becoming constant. after the clitical depth due to arching
action.
The procedures discussed so far for straight sided, piles with require modifications for other
shapes. In the case of tapered piles, unit skin friction is written as.
fs = Fw u,Ktan 8 (2.14)
Where Fw = a correction factor for tapered piles.
14
Table 2.2 Values of K and 8 (after Broms, 1966)
Pile materials 8 Value of K
Low relati ve High relative

density density
Steel 20° 0.5 1.0
Concrete 0.75l/J 1.0 2.0
Wood 0.67l/J 1.5 4.0
Variation of Fw with pile taper and if! is shown in Fig. 2.7. For piles with enlarged bases, the
sand around the pile shaft will be in a loose condition. In computing skin friction this must be
properly accounted for. It is also now generally recommended that the maximum value for
unit skin friction j, should be limited to 1 kglcm2 for straight-sided piles in normal silica
sands. For piles in calcareous sands the recommended limiting value for Is is 0.2 kglcm2
(MeClelland, 1974). For H-section piles skin friction can be calculated on both the exterior
and interior surface since soil plugging is unlikely. The limiting maximum value of unit skin
friction for H-Piles in normal silica sands is 0.5 kglcm2• Based on equation 2.9, Figs 2.6 and
2.7 and limiting value of skin friction, Poulos and Davis (1980) give a dimensionless plot of
Q,u as shown in Fig. 2.8 for piles in uniform sand.
Skin friction resistance can also be computed using empirical relationships suggested by
Meyerhof (1956) which make use of static cone penetrations test data. For displacement
piles,
f ,-av -- qc-av
200 (2.15)
and for H-section pile.
f '-av -- qc-av
400 (2.16)
Where qc-av = average cone resistance (in kglcm2) over the length of pile under
consideration. Similarly in telms of standard penetration number, Meyerhof gives for

displacement piles.
15
,
Nav
f s-av =-5- (2.17)
Nav
and for H-Piles f s-av =10 (2.18)
=
where Nau average value of N along length of pile Is-au is in T/m2•
2
The maximum value of Is-au is 10 T/m for displacement piles and 5 T/m2 for H-piles.
(b) Driven piles-point bearing

The ultimate point load of driven piles in sand is given by equation 2.13. Figure 2.5 shows
the variation of bearing capacity factor Nq with 1jJ. In using this chart for Nq, Tomlinson
recommends that the in-situ angle of shearing resistance (1jJ) may be used as the value ofljJ.
Whereas Poulos and Davis .(1980) recommend that to account for soil compaction due to
driving, value of IjJmay be taken as.
(2.19)
where IjJis the in-situ angle of shearing resistance of sand. The value of unit point resistance
(qp=O' zbN q) does not increase continuously with depth. It tends to become constant after a
depth of penetration of 15 diameters into sand, because the vertical stress becomes constant
after this depth due to arching effects. The maximum value of qp is, however, limited to 110
2
kg/cm in normal silica sand. In calcareous sands the limiting value is 50 kg/cm2• For H-piles
the ultimate point load should be calculated on the basis of the net cross-sectional area of the
steel 'only. For tapered piles the area at the base must be used. Equation 2.13 is applicable
when the pile penetrates at least a distance of five diameters into the bearing stratum and
there is no weak soil below the bearing stratum. Meyerhof suggests that if the weak soil is at
a depth of more that 10D below the pile base there is no reduction in point load capacity. If
the depth to weak soil is less than 10D then the ultimate point resistance can be considered to
decrease linearly from the value at 10D above the weak layer to the value at the surface of
the weak layer. Based on equations 2.13 and 2.19. Figures 2.5 and 2.6, and the limiting value
of point resistance, Poulos and Davis give a dimensionless plot of Qpu as shown in Fig. 2.9
for piles in uniform sand.
16
Calculations for lp in this manner can result in very large depths of penetration. However,
from practical considerations the pile should be driven at least five diameters into the
bearing stratum but not more than 20 diameters, or not deeper than the level at which point
resistance of 1100 T/m2 can be attained as indicated by static cone resistance diagram.
(c) Bored and cast-in-situ piles

The load carrying capacity df'bored and cast-in-situ pile is significantly less than the capaciiy
the driven pile. It also depends on the method of construction. For preliminary estimates one-
third of Is and one half of qp calculated for driven piles can be used for unit skin friction and
unit point resistance, respectively. Tomlinson (1970) recommends the following. For piles
formed by shelling or baling equation 2.14 may be used for skin friction and equation 2.13
for point resistance. However, loose soil conditions must be assumed to account for boring
operations. For piles installed by rotary drilling under bentonite slurry the same formulae
may be used with angle of shearing resistance of in-situ undisturbed soil.
In another approach it is assumed that the angle of shearing resistance is reduced by 3° due to
loosening of soil. Then Figs 2.6, 2.8 and 2.9 can be used in conjunction with the equations
explained for driven piles to determine the ultimate load of the pile. The variation of
Ktan <5 suggested by Meyerhof for bored piles is shown in Fig. 2.6. To use this figure the in-
situ angle of shearing resistance c/J must be used.
(d) Driven and cast-ill-situ piles

A steel tube is driven into the ground and then the concrete is poured inside the tube. If the
tube is not extracted out but left inside the ground, the design approach discussed earlier for
driven piles can be used to compute the load carrying capacity. If the tube is extracted while
pouring the concrete, then the construction technique significantly influences the method of
calculation of ultimate load. The skin friction depends upon the amount of compaction given
to the concrete, for depending on that the soil can be in loose or dense state. If no compaction
is done loose conditions may be assumed and where the concrete is compacted well, medium
dense conditions can be assumed. For point resistance the enlarged dimensions of the bulb
must be used if one were to be formed by compacting the concrete.
17
2.3 ULTIMATE CAPACITY FROM: PILE LOAD TESTS
Generally two types of pile load test are performed in the field. One is for the determination
of the pile capacity by giving load up to failure on the test pile and the other one is for
checking the design load by giving 1.5 to 2.0 times design load on a service pile.
2.3.1 Tests to Failure
The loading to failure of full-scale test pile is certainly the most satisfactory basis for the
estimation of ultimate load carrying capacity of population installed in similar subsoil
conditions. Even if pile tests to failure are not earned out on all sites where piles are
installed, sufficient test data is necessary for a given type of pile and given subsoil conditions
to enable sensible predictions. to be made for future piles on the basis of the static and
dynamic formulae and the Dutch cone test.
It cannot be overemphasized that the only way to know with certainly the performance of a
particular type of pile in specific soil conditions is to carry out a series of load tests to failure.
It is a common practice that load tests are all too often restricted to a maximum applied load
of twice the design load. Only when failure is reached can sufficient information be gained to
enable safe and economical design to be achieved with that type of pile in future.
2.3.2 Tests Not to Failure
For pile load tests not earned to failure, methods of extrapolation. have been proposed for the
determination of the ultimate load capacity. One method, suggested by Davission (1973).
Davisson's limit value is defined as the load corresponding to the movement which exceeds
the elastic compression of the pile by a value of 0.15 inch (4mm) plus a factor correlated with
the diameter of the pile. The Davisson's limit was developed in conjunction with the wave
equation analysis of driven piles and has gained widespread use in phase with the increasing
popularity of this method of analysis.
18
2.3.3 Criteria of Failure
In order to measure, specify or discuss the ultimate load capacity of a pile it is necessary to
establish what is to be understood by 'failure'. Where a maximum load is reached which
either drops or is sustained as the pile settlement is increased, the definition of failure
presents no problem as long as the settlement at which this state is reached is tolerable. For
many piles, as with most spread footings, this ideal failure criterion cannot be applied (Brand
et aI, 1972) and it becomes necessary to define failure in terms of some rather arbitrary value
of the pile settlement. It is impossible to establish one maximum permissible settlement for
all piles under all circumstances, and the many existing criteria of failure based on allowable
settlement have generally been established to take account of the worst combination of
circumstances.
Terzaghi (1942) suggested that the criterion of failure for a single pile should be taken as a
settlement of O.lOd, where d is the diameter of pile in inch. This will lead to extremely large
settlements, for large diameter piles under their design loads, Such a criterion also has the
disadvantage that it does not differentiate between elastic and plastic settlement, for it is the
latter which truly determines the imminent onset of large vertical settlements for small load
increase. For piles which are essentially friction piles, it would perhaps seem logical to define
failure as the settlement at which the maximum shaft resistance is mobilized. This settlement
is generally small compared to that required to mobilize end resistance.
The allowable settlement of a pile under the design load is given by many codes. A factor of
safety of 2.0 on the working load is commonly specified for the definition of allowable
settlement. Some codes base their criterion of acceptability on total on total settlement, some
on plastic settlement, and some on a combination of the two.
2.3.4 Types of Load Test
(a) Maintained load test: Of the two types of load test employed for testing piles, the
maintained load (ML) test is by far the most common. The procedure adopted is to apply
static loads in increments of the anticipated working load. Increments of 0,25,50,75, 100,0,
100, 125, 150, 175 and 200% of the working load are often employed. Each load is
maintained until the settlement has ceased or has diminished to an acceptable rate or until a
19
certain time period has elapsed. The working load and twice the working load are maintained
on the pile for 24 hours or sometimes longer. If the load is increased to failure, this is done
by reducing the increments where failure is imminent so that the ultimate load capacity can
be accurately measured.
(b) Constant Rate of Penetration Test: The constant rate of penetration (CRP) test was first
proposed by Whitaker (1976) who suggested that a pile could be treated as a probe used for
measuring soil strength. The test is carried out by continuously loading the pile so that it
penetrates the soil at a constant rate while the load is measured continuously. The rate of
penetration selected is usually that used in shearing soil samples in the unconfined
compression test (0.0012 in/min), but the rate does not significantly affect the ultimate load
(Whitaker, 1976). As the ultimate load capacity is approached, very little increase in load is
required to maintain a constant rate of penetration, and the ultimate bearing capacity is
reached when the continuous vertical movements result in no increase in the penetration
resistance.
It is obvious that the settlement recorded for a given applied load in the CRP test will always
be lower than the comparative settlement for the ML test, because no time is permitted for
plastic settlement under sustained load; this is a disadvantage of the CRP test. Otherwise, the
CRP test has the great advantage that it can be carried out very quickly.
2.4 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR ESTIMATION OF PILE LOAD CAPACITY
A number of arbitrary or empirical methods have been used for determining the allowable
and ultimate load carrying. capacity from pile load test. Some are based on maximum
permissible gross or net settlement as measured at the pile butt while the others are based on
the performance of the pile during the progress of testing (Chellis 1961, Whitaker 1976,
Poulos & Davis 1980, Fuller 1983). The following criteria or methods are considered
prominent (Abedin et a!., 1998; Ansary et a!., 1999) and are widely used for evaluating the
allowable and ultimate load can'ying capacity of piles.
• Particularly, for pre-cast piles a very useful method of computing the ultimate failure load
has been reported by Davisson (1973). This method is based on offset method which
defines the failure load. The elastic shortening of the pile, considered as point bearing,
20
free standing column, is computed and plotted on the load-settlement curve, with the
elastic shortening line passing through the origin. The slope of the elastic shortening line
is 20°. An offset line is drawn parallel to the elastic line. The offset is usually 0.15 inch
plus a quake factor, which is a function of pile tip diameter. For normal size piles, this
factor is usually taken, as O.ID inch, where D is the diameter of pile in foot. The
intersection of the offset line with the gross load-settlement curve determines the
arbitrary ultimate failure load.
• The slope of the tangent method states that the intersection point of the tangent at the
initial straight portion of the load-settlement curve and the tangent at a slope point of 1.27
mm/tonne determines the arbitrary ultimate failure load (Butler & Hoy 1976)
• Rebound elastic method takes failure load as the load that shows a settlement on the load-
settlement curve equal to the rebound after the application of removal of the full test load
(Houssel 1966).
• Chellis (1961) reported that pile load tests shall be carried out with 200% of the proposed
design load, and should be considered unsatisfactory if, after standing 24 hours, the total
net settlement after rebound is more than 0.25 mm per tonne of total test load.
• Terzaghi (1942) reported that the ultimate load capacity of a pile may be considered as
that load which causes ,a settlement equal to 10% of the pile diameter. However, this
criteria is limited to a case where no definite failure point or trend is indicated by the
load-settlement curves (Singh 1990). This criteria has been incorporated in Code of
Practice 2004 of British Standards Institution (1962).
• Chin (1978) describes a method of analyzing the results of either CRP or ML tests to
obtain an indication of the ultimate load. The settlement t1 at each loading stage P is
divided by the load P at that stage and plotted against MP as shown in Fig. 2.10. For an
undamaged pile a straight-line plot is produced. For an end bearing pile the plot is a
single line. A combined friction and end bearing pile produces two straight lines, which
intersect. The inverse slope of the line gi ves the ultimate load at each case. Chin
describes how a curved plot detects a broken pile.
• Poulus and Davies (1980) summarized several criteria for the estimation of ultimate pile
capacities as presented in Table 2.3.
21
Table 2.3 Rules for determination of ultimate load (after Poulus and Davies, 1980)
1.Limiting total settlement
(a) Absolute 1.0 in. (Holland, New York City Code)
(b) Relative 10% of pile tip diameter (England)
2. Limiting plastic settlement
0.25 in.(AASHTO)
0.33 in. (Magnel)
0.50 in (Boston Code)
3. Limiting ratio plastic settlement / elastic settlement
1.5 (Christiani and Nielsen)
4. Maximum ratio (elastic settlement increment/plastic settlement increment)
(Szechy, 1961)
5. Limiting ratio settlement/load
(a) Total 0.01 in/ton (California, Chicago)
(b) Incremental 0.03 in/ton (Ohio)
0.05 in/ton (Raymond Co.)
6. Limiting ratio plastic settlement/load
(a) Total 0.01 in/ton (New York City Code)
(b) Incremental 0.03 in/ton (Raymond Co)
7. Maximum ratio (settlement increment/load increment)
(Vesic, 1963)
8. Maximum curvature of log w/log Q line
(De Beer, 1967)
9. Van der Veen postulate
w = f3ln(l-Q/Qmax)
(Van der Veen, 1953)
Criterion l(b) is probably the most acceptable for general engineering practice. It should be
used in the following corrected form: Unless the load settlement curve of a pile shows a
definite peak load, the ultimate load is defined as the load causing total pile settlement equal
to 10 percent of the point diameter for dri ven pi les and 25 percent of the point diameter for
bored piles.
2.5 CURRENT STATUS OF PILE LOAD TEST RESULTS IN BANGLADESH
Generally maintained load static axial compression tests is canied out on the test piles
following the Standard procedure outlined in ASTM D1l43 (ASTM 1989). After pile
driving, at least a month is allowed before the compressive load capacity of the piles being
carned out. The steps are as follows:
• Recording of load-time-settlement data during the progress of loading and unloading
the test piles.
22
• Analyses of test data, presentation of test data in graphical forms and interpretation of
the test results in order to determine the ultimate and design (i.e., allowable) capacity of the
test piles.
A number of projects have been carried out in Bangladesh by PWD (Public Works
Department, Bangladesh) to estimate the ultimate load capacity of large diameter cast-in-situ
piles and pre-cast piles of small and large dimension. Some projects have also been carried
out on prestressed pile of small dimension. Load tests were performed on both test and
service piles. Majority of the tests were carried out under the full time supervision of BUET
(Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology) consultants. The results of pile load
tests have been reported by a number of researchers (Abedin et aI., 1998; Ansary et aI., 1999;
Sadek, 1998; Khan, 1997).
Abedin et al. (1998) reported that the small dimension concrete piles are viable alternative to
replace the wooden piles that are prone to deterioration in alternative wetting and drying
conditions. He also stated that static formula for pile capacity estimation in soft ground is in
general conservative. He suggested for further study to generalize the ultimate static capacity
of piles in Bangladesh.
Ansary et al. (1999) summarized the pile load test performed by BUET in different sites of
Bangladesh as consultants of PWD between 1996 to 1999. Table 2.4 presents the summary of
their pile load test data collection.
Sadek (1989) studied pile load tests on bored pile at three different sites of Dhaka city and
compared them with the existing theoretical results. The variables considered are critical
depth, loosening effect of soil and ground water level. But due to lack of sufficient data,
Sadek could not draw any correlation between theoretical results and the actual results from
the pile load tests.
Khan (1997) studied the behavior of small size prestressed piles. Pile load tests on
prestressed piles were carried out at four sites of Dhaka City. Pile load test results were
compared with predicted pile capacities of static and dynamic methods. The measured
capacities of piles driven through Dhaka Clay and resting on Dhaka Clay can be predicted
23
•
quite well with A.-method. On the other hand, a-method is only good for predicting the skin
friction of Dhaka Clay. Again the measured capacities of pile driven through Dhaka clay but
resting on medium dense sand can be predicted well with a combination of A.and a-methods.
Khan (1997) also observed that the ultimate capacity predicted by pile driving formulae such
as Engineering news formula, Janbu formula and Hiley formula overestimate the ultimate
pile capacity.
24 •
Table 2.4. Summary of information on static pile load tests in Bangladesh
(after Ansary et al., 1999)
Location Soil Type (SPT) Structure Type Pile characteristics Range of

Ultimate load
capacity
(Tonne')
Mouluvibaz 0- 6m: Soft clay (2) I to 4-storied office Size: 175 mm x 175 mm 3 to 30
ar 6 - 15m: Fine sand (15- buildings, walls (RCC Pre-cast)
45) Length: 6-7 m
Tested Piles: 18
Narail, 0- 6m: Soft silty clay 3 to 6-storied office Size: 175 mm x 175 mm 6 to 15
Pabna & (4) buildings (RCC Pre-cast)
Sylhet 6 - 12m: Organic Length: 7 m
c1aylloose sand (3-8) Tested Piles: 26
> 14m: Medium sand
trace silt (15)
Dhaka & o- 6m: Soft to medium lO-storied office Size: 300 mm x 300 mm 83 to 116
Rajshahi stiff clayey silt (5) buildings (RCC Pre-cast)
6 - 9m: Loose to Length: 8 to 11m
medium dense sandy Tested Piles: 9
silt (9)
9 - 13m: Medium
dense to dense silty
fine sand (22)
>13m: Stiff clayey
silt(lO)
Dhaka 0- 7m: Stiff clayey, silt 8-storied Dhaka Size: 450 mm [J (RCC 135 to 170
(3) Board Office bored)
7 - 13m: Dense sandy Length: 14m
silt (10-30) Tested Piles: 4
>13m: Very dense silty
sand (45)
Chillagong 0- 4m: Very loose silt 4-storied Building, Size: 500 mm c:: (RCC 104 to 122
(4) Mosque Complex bored)
4 - 10m: Medium Length: 12 m
dense to dense si Ity Tested Piles: 3
sand (16)
>lOm: Dense silty (30)
Dhaka 0- 8m: Soft silt (4) Wall of Intellectual Size: 500 mm 0 (RCC
8 - 16m: Medium silt Mausoleum bored)
"
(9) Length: 29-35 m
16 -30m: Dense fine Tested Piles: 5
sand (20)
>30m: Dense fine sand
(35)
Dhaka 0- 9m: Stiff red clay 18-storied hospital Size: 500 mm D (RCC 156 to 212
(8) Building bored)
> 9m: Medium dense Length: 18 m
to Tested Piles: 4
dense silty sand.(20)'
, I 10nne=1000 kg
.** Load yiel~s only elastic settlement
25
Q
'" ~', r•...,'.1 ••: ~.
1
L Soft toU
'..-" .f: .•~.~. :.,-, -, •.
..L
~;t,t"""--l
or tot _ Point toad
0.,
Fig. 2.1 Load transfer in single pile
c-. kN/m2
2' 50 75 100 125 150 175
1.0
0.8
0.6
••
c;
0..
0.2
o
a 0.5 10 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0.
Und,-.ined Cohftion C. klpa/Iq It
Fig. 2.2 Adhesion factors for driven piles in clay (After McClelland, 1974)
26
Fig. 2.3 Adhesion factors for driven piles in clay (after Tomlinson, 1970)
(a) piles driven through overlying sands or sandy gravels
(b) piles driven through overlying weak clay
(c) piles driven through clay without any overlying strata
27
o 0.1 o.~ ().3 0.5
o
25
50
1',~
~~
0 \o~ '2em 11\,
•.
75
0
•
.,. •
::;
c 100
0
.;:;
l!
~
"
c
v Location
Ot.U'O\\
-
Symbol
0
Sourc.e
l-l"u",1
K
.!!
Ii: 125 • M()rganu
Cfe"eJand
•
0
Mlnwf
Peck
Drayton )(
Peck
North Sea
Lemoore
lJ. f".
Woodward
••
150 x
Stanmore
NewOdesflS •••• Tomlinson
81essev
0
Venice
Alliance
•
'<l
McClelland
McClelland
0
DonaldsonVille
MSC Hou\,on
•
0
DiJrragh
McClelland
175
0 5an franc"lsco • ~e<l
Brilish CoJumbia 0 McCammon
Bllrnside
• Peck
'200
225
Fig. 2.4 Value of I for different pile penetration length (after Vijayavergia
and Focht, 1992)
28
11lO ..
t:r
:;IE:
••
-
.~ 150
w
.Q
ra
.5 50.
~
m
:
o
15 30 35 oW 4S
Atrgte Of sheetillg •.•• iltorn ". (deg }
Fig. 2.5 Berezantzev's bearing capacity factor, Nq

(after Berezantzev's et aI., 1961)
29
(a) Zc Id \IS Q$ (b) Ks tQ.nlZl a VS ~ (c) Valuczs of K. ton 0ci Bosqd
(01"1"'120 Pilu) on ~hot (1976)
20 3.0 "6
2.5 I I I II I ,- 2
.0
&
w
0
'tl
..•.•••
u
H.
J--l!1 ~
2.0
,. :;
~
IV
1IC ~
0-8
.0.4
c:
0
••
oil
:lC
33 38 43
1 o
28 33 38 43 35
0" 0" 0' , 40
For driven piles </l= 0.75$' + 10 (Fig. 2.6a & b)

For bored piles </l= </l'- 3 (Fig. 2.6a)
$ = </l' (Fig. 2.6c)
Fig. 2.6 Values of zcld and Ks tan</la'for piles in sand (after Poulus and davies, 191980)
5
F,., 3
1
o 0,5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Pile taper angle w.
Fig. 2.7 Pile taper factor Fw (after Nordlund, 1963)
31
Valu~s
10
10
28 32 36 40 44
(2).
Fig. 2.8 Dimensionless plot of ultimate skin frictional capacity
for pile in uniform sand (after Poulus and Davies, 1980)
32
\
Valu<zsof Lid ~22

20
10
5
1000
100
28 32 40 44
Fig. 2.9 Dimensionless plot of ultimate point load capacity for pile
in uniform sand (after Poulus and Davies, 1980)
33
S.Wtrr>enl/kwI ll'~.10.'
0
"- "-
-4-- ff 20.
0
"- "-
4 -, 2.5 "-'Q 2
!
"- "-
"- 0, ]
~ -# -
~ 8
-
J-
~
12'
Ultim.lt
- bi5t, (t,isllf)(l'
l~'
b,
,
"-
/4.3 ', .... ~
Ii
~ 6-
Totalpk Tt,j,IiV/('
16. • ~
0.0.11 • 820. kN • O~J4 01940. kN
8
10. .I. fo.

(b)
S.II~rntnt/~d tilp• 10.'
a :--_--+--t f ¥ to.
4 ...
E
l; 0_
'"
<J
g.-
j
.::: f2 - -
~
f6 ( -
20.. I I I
Ie)
Fig. 2.10 Analysis of load settlement curves from pile load test (a) end
bearing pile; (b) friction and end bearing pile; (c) broken
pile (after Chin, 1978)
34
CHAPTER THREE
MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The exact analysis of a pile theoretically is impossible because of higher degree of

indeterminacy and of unpredictable behaviors. Pile may be analyzed theoretically in many
ways considering the empirical relations and suggestions offered by numerous authors. This
chapter deals mainly with the collection of pile data, development of soil model for the
estimation of ultimate pile capacity and correlations between ultimate pile capacity from
static analysis and pile load tests, and ultimate capacity from pile load tests and
corresponding settlement. Figure 3.1 gives a flowchart, which explains different components
of this study.
3.2 COLLECTION OF DA TA
Sub-soil investigation report and corresponding pile load test results have been collected from
thirty projects all over the country. Among these projects, for sixteen projects twenty one
precast piles have been tested and for fourteen projects twenty five cast-in-situ piles have
been tested. The tests are performed between 1997 to 2002 and funded by Public Works
Department (PWD), Bangladesh. Almost 90% pile load test are canied out under the direct
supervision of Department of Civil Engineering, BUET. The approximate geographical
locations of the projects are shown in Fig. 3.2.
Although most of the data are obtained from BUET and PWD, but their collection was a
difficult and lengthy process. The necessity of proper data archiving was greatly felt by the
author.
3.3 IDEALIZATION OF SOIL DATA
Identical borehole locations and test piles have been identified. For the estimation of ultimate
pile capacity in the static method, the total soil strata has been divided into some reasonable
35
layers with specified soil properties. The precast piles are indexed as PTP-I, 2, 3 etc. and the
cast-in-situ piles are indexed as CTP-I, 2, 3 etc. The soil models together with other relevant
information of the piles are presented in Appendix-A.
3.4 ANALYSIS OF DATA' ,
The exact calculation of the load caITying capacity of a pile is a complex matter, which is
based partly on theoretical concepts but mostly on empirical methods based on experience.
The practice of calculating the ultimate load carrying capacity of a pile based on the
principles of soil mechanics differs greatly from the application of these principles to shallow
spread foundations.
The conditions, which govern the supporting capacity of the pile foundation, are quite
different. No matter whether the pile is installed by driving with a hammer, by jetting, by
vibration, by jacking, screwing or drilling, the soil in contact with the pile face from which
the pile derives its support by skin friction and its resistance to lateral loads, is completely
disturbed by the method of installation. Similarly, the soil beneath the toe of a pile is
compressed or loosened t6 'some extent which may affect significantly its end bearing
resistance. Changes takes place in the conditions at the pile soil interface over periods of
days, months or years which materially affect the skin friction resistance of a pile.
3.4.1 Pile Load Capacity from Static Analysis
For static analysis a, 13 and A. methods have been used. The methods are described in details
in chapter two. For analysis purpose, saturated unit weight of soil is assumed as Ysat = 1.8
3
tlm , dry unit weight as Ydry = 1.6 tlm3 and angle of shearing resistance has been calculated
from SPT (N) by the relation. 4l = ..J(20N) + 15. Also Table 3.1 has been extensively used for
obtaining undrained shear strength value of soil where needed.
It should be pointed out here that the method termed as alpha (a), Beta (/3) and Lamda (J..)
are basically three approach for calculation of ultimate pile capacity in clayey strata. The
approach to estimate the ultimate capacity in sandy layer is uniform in this study. Three
methods are generally mentioned for the ultimate pile capacity of piles due to the presence of
36
clay layers. Two sample calculations one for precast and one for cast-in-situ are presented in
Appendix-B.
Table 3.1 Empirical Relationships between Standard Penetration Resistance Values and
Undrained Cohesion of Clays
Consistency of soil Very soft Soft Medium Stiff Very stiff Hard
Standard 0-2 2-4 4-8 8-16 16-32 >32
Penetration Value
Undrained 0-0.125 0.125-0.25 0.25-0.50 0.50-1.00 1.00-2.00 >2.00
cohesion,
2 , ,
Cu kg/cm
3.4.2 Pile Load Capacity from Pile Load Tests
Different criteria for obtaining ultimate pile load capacity from pile load test results are
mentioned in chapter two. In this study, load settlement curves (sample curve is shown in
Appendix-B) from pile load test results are used to find out the ultimate capacity of pile by
Davisson, Butter & Hoy and British Standard methods. In some projects extrapolated load
settlement curves for service pi les are used for this purpose.
3.4.3 Data for Further Analysis
After obtaining ultimate capacities from both static and load test results, Table 3.2 is
compiled for precast piles and Table 3.3 is compiled for cast-in-situ piles. From the thirty
projects twenty one results for precast pile and twenty five results for cast-in-situ piles are
obtained. For all the pile load tests, settlement corresponding to the ultimate capacity of the
piles obtained from load settlement curves by the above mentioned three methods and are
shown in Table 3.4.
37
3.5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS: PRECAST PILES
In this part of the study, ultimate pile capacities of precast piles are discussed. The effect of
various static analysis methoqs .and various pile load test analysis methods, effect of pile sizes
and pile lengths are considered. Finally different correlation are proposed considering the
above effects.
3.5.1 Effects of different Static Analysis
Three static analysis, i.e., a, B and A.methods are used together with three pile load analysis
methods (Davission, Butler and Hoy, and British Standard methods) for this study.
Correlation are drawn between each of the static analysis methods with the three pile load
analysis results as well as with their average value. Overall the correlation for precast piles
are quite high (i.e, I' value above 0.90). Among different approaches, a-method shows greater
correlation with Butler and Hoy, and Blitish Standard methods (i.e., I' value above 0.99). For
B and A.-methods, similar correlation are observed for the four pile load test analysis results.
The relation between average. ultimate pile capacity from static analysis and the different pile
load test analysis results also show good correlation (I' = 0.96). Figures 3.3 to 3.6 show all the
mentioned correlation data and present their regression analysis results.
Finally, the correlation between average ultimate pile capacity from static analysis and
average ultimate pile capacity from pile load test is presented in Fig. 3.7. This shows good
correlation (I' = 0.96) and the relation established here can be used for precast piles of
Bangladesh reliably.
3.5.2 Effects of Pile Sizes
The correlation between average ultimate pile capacity from static analysis and average
ultimate pile capacity from pile load test is checked for different pile sizes for precast piles.
The sizes are: 175 x 175, 300 x 300 and 350 x 350 mm2. Although their correlation is good,
more number of data is needed for using these relations reliably. Figures 3.8 to 3.10 show
these relations.
38
3.5.3 Effects of Pile Lengths
ultimate pile capacity from pile load test is checked for different pile lengths for precast piles.
The lengths are: 5.5 - 7.5 m and 9.0 - 15.0 m. Although their correlation is good, more'
number of data is needed for using these relations reliably. Figures 3.11 to 3.12 show these
relations.
3.5.4 Correlation between Ultimate Pile Capacity and Settlement
The correlation between average ultimate pile capacity from pile load test and corresponding
settlements for all the precast data set has been used. There exists almost no linear
correlation. There exists some trend which shows decrease of ultimate pile capacity value
with the increase of pile settlement. Figure 3.13 shows this plot. To establish correlation
between settlement and pile capacity Chin's method is followed. But due to lack of sufficient
data for precast piles comment can not be made.
3.6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS: CAST-IN-SITU PILES
In this part of the study, ultimate pile capacities of cast-in-situ piles are discussed. The effect
of various static analysis methods and various pile load test analysis methods, effect of pile
diameters and pile lengths are considered. Finally different con'elation are proposed
considering the above effects.
3.6.1 Effects of different Static Analysis
Three static analysis, i.e., a, /3 and A methods.are used together with three pile load analysis
methods similar to precast piles. Correlation are drawn between each of the static analysis
methods with the three pile load analysis results as well as with their average value. Overall
the correlation for cast-in-situ piles are lower than that for precast piles (i.e, r = 0.85). For
cast-in-situ piles a, /3 and A-methods yield similar correlation pattern for the four pile load
test analysis results. The relation between average ultimate pile capacity from static analysis
39
and the different pile load test analysis results also yield similar result (r = 0.85). Figures 3.14
to 3.17 show all the mentioned correlation data and present their regression analysis results.
Finally, the 'correlation between average ultimate pile capacity from static analysis. and
average ultimate pile capacity from pile load test for cast-in-situ piles is presented in Fig.
3.18. Although this relation does not yield good correlation like precast piles but due to
number reliable data used in this study, the relation can be proposed for use for Bangladesh.
3.6.2 Effects of Pile Diameters
ultimate pile capacity from pile load test is checked for different pile diameters for cast-in-
situ piles. The diameters are: 400,450 and 500 mm. Although their correlation is good, more
number of data is needed for using these relations reliably. Figures 3.19 to 3.21 show these
relations.
3;6.3 Effects' of Pile Lengths
ultimate pile capacity from pile load test is checked for different pile lengths for cast-in-situ
piles. The lengths are: 9.0 - 12.0 m, 14.0 - 16.0 m and 18 - 20 m. Although their cOITelation
is good, more number of data is needed for using these relations reliably. Figures 3.22 to 3.24
show these relations.
3.6.4 Correlations between Ultimate Pile Capacity and Settlement
The correlation between average ultimate pile capacity from pile load test and corresponding
settlements for all the cast-in-situ data set has been used. There exists no correlation at all as
can be seen from Fig. 3.25. To establish correlation between settlement and pile capacity
Chin's method is followed here. Figure 3.26 presents the settlement versus pile capacity of
the end bearing piles detected by Chin's method. Good correlation between pile capacity and
settlement of piles can be found, if the pile geometry and sub soil condition is almost same
for all the piles. In this particular figure data of cast-in-situ piles in Dhaka City are used, in
which case piles are resting on dense sand. In all these cases settlement of pile governs the
40
Table 3.2 Project and pile information, and ultimate capacities from pile load tests as well as static analysis of precast piles
Index Project Name (and Year) Pile Information Ultimate Pile Capacity from Pile Load Test Ultimate Pile Capacity from Static
length (m) and (Ton) Analvsis (Ton)
size (mm x mm) Davisson Butler and British Average u- 13- A- Average
Hoy Standard method method method
PTP-I Court Buildin., Pabna (1997) 7; 175x175 11.2 10.4 12.5 11.4 10.3 8.5 14.5 IJ.l
PTP-2 RDA Bhaban, Raishahi (1997) 10.67; 300x300 110 103 120 III 102 97 112 1OJ.3
PTP-3 RDA Bhaban, Rajshahi (1997) 10.67; 300x300 92 100 120 104 99 93 104 98.7
PTP-4 Court Bid •. Narail (1998) 7; 175xl75 11.3 10.5 13 11.6 12.8 8.5 15.5 12.3
PTP-5 New District Jail Building, Moulvibazar 7.5; 175xl75 23.3 22.5 24.5 23.5 20.6 18.9 20.5 . 20
(1998)
PTP-6 New District Jiil Building, 6.5; 175x175 18.8 16.6 20 18.5 16.2 14.5 18.5 16.4
Moulovibazar( 1998)
PTP-7 District Jail, Gooalgonj (2000) 7.5; 175x175 9.5 8.8 12 10 16 9.4 18 14.5
PTP-8 Intemational Training Complex, BPATC, 12; 300x300 170 165 175 170 160 146 180 162
SA V AR (2000)
PTP-9 Divisional Headauarter, Sylhet (2000) 7; 175xl75 15 14 15.5 14.9 12.2 10.9 12.7 12
PTP-IO Textile Institute Noakhali (2000) 5.5; 175xl75 25 22 25.5 24.2 20 16 21 19
PTP-ll Textile Institute, Chitta.ong (2000) 5.5; 175xl75 12 10 II II II 10 13 1J.3
PTP-12 Textile Institute Chittagonj (2000) 7.5; 175x175 15 13.5 16 14.9 14.6 12 18 14.9
PTP-13 Shishu Pari bar, Munshi.oni (2000) 12; 350x350 65 62 67 64.7 69 62 73 68
PTP-14 Imam Trainin. Centre, Khulna (200 I) 15.5; 350x350 109 100 115 108 176 156 181 171
PTP-15 Technical Training Centre, Patuakhali 7.5; 300x300 52 47 55 51.4 63 56 64 61
(2002)
PTP-16 Technical Training Centre Patuakhali 7.5; 300x300 55 58 60 57.7 88 69 102 86.2
(2002)
PTP-17 Residential Tower Buiding Motijheel, 12.20; 300x300 150 155 160 155 179 164 189 177
Dhaka (2002)
PTP-18 Residential Tower Buildin,Motijheel, 12.20; 300x300 165 163 175 168 202 186 226 205
Dhaka (2002)
PTP-19 Islamic Foundation, Agargaon, Dhaka 9.15; 300x300 140 150 150 147 160 180 172 171
(2002)
PTP-20 District Re.ister Office, Jhalukathi (200 I) 9.20; 400x400 25 22 25 24 57 46 48 50
PTP-21 Divisional Public Library, Sylhet (200 I) 12.20; 305x305 70 65 70 68 148 148 148 148
42
Table 3.3 Project and pile information, and ultimate capacities from pile load tests as well as static analysis of cast-in-situ piles
Index Project Name (and Year) Pile Information Ultimate Pile Capacity from Pile Load Test (Ton) Ultimate Pile Capacity from Static Analysis
length (m) and . (Ton)
diameter (mm) Davisson Butler and British Average n- ~. A- Average
Hoy Standard method method method
CTP-I 18-storied Hospital Building IPGMR, Dhaka 18.5; 500 156 145 180 160 182 183 184 183
(1997)
CTP-2 18-storied Hospital Building IPGMR, Dhaka 18.5; 500 212 220 250 227 196 191 197 195
(1997)
CTP-3 Jamia!ul Falah Masiid, Chittagong (1998) 12; 500 122 112 115 116 i49 147 151 149
CTP.4 Jamia!ul Falah Masiid, Chittagon. (1998) 12; 500 104 98 106 103 112 106 119 112
CTP-5 Dhaka Board Office, Dhaka (1999) 14; 400 153 154 158 155 116 110 117 114
CTP-6 Dhaka Board Office, Dhaka (-1999) 14; 400 106 III 137 118 113 112 114 113
CTP-7 Art Gallerv, Dhaka (1999) 15;510 128 132 133 131 167 163 169 166
CTP-8 Art Gallerv, Dhaka (1999) 20.5 750 260 252 270 261 353 350 356 353
CTp.9 Art Gallerv, Dhaka (1999) 15; 510 124 114 130 123 159 157 162 159
CTP-IO BG Press Staff Quarter (2000) II; 400 95 85 110 97 102 95 103 100
CTP-II Dance and Music Centre, Shilpakala Acade~y 14.475; 400 180 175 190 182 185 180 190 185
Dhaka (2000)
CTP-12 NAM Vi 11m, Dhaka (2000) 18;450 130 140 145 138 134 130 136 133
CTP-13 NAM Villa_e, Dhaka (2000) 15.5; 450 158 140 160 153 136 133 141 137
CTP-14 NAM Village, Dhaka (2000) 16.75; 450 175 167 160 167 147 144 151 147
CTP-15 National Archives, Dhaka (2000) 13.95; 450 120 115 124 120 148 136 140 141
CTP-16 National Archives, Dhaka (2000) 14.45; 450 100 90 130 107 140 134 137 137
CTP-17 Ban,gladesh Comnuter Council Shaban (200 I) 20;500 200 185 205 197 180 178 180 179
CTP-18 Bangladesh Coronuter Council Bhaban (200 I) 20;500 235 225 240 233 192 190 193 192
CTP-19 National Archives Dhaka (200 I) 18;500 160 155 170 162 184 178 185 182
CTp.20 Govl. Ladies Hostel, Khilgaon, Dhaka (2001) 16;450 185 180 190 185 145 141 145 143
CTP-21 Govl. Ladis Hostel, Khilgaon, Dhaka (2001) 16;450 180 170 180 176 143 140 143 142
CTP-22 District Registrar Bhaban, Hobi.oni (2001) 9.5; 300 30 24 30 28 24.8 23.2 24.50 24.20
CTP-23 Regional Training Institute of social welfare 15.25; 450 55 50 55 53 47 43 46 45
Department, Barisal (2001)
CTP-24 Divisional Public Librarv, Svlhet (2002) 14;450 120 115 125 120 114 114 114 114
CTP-25 Raver Bazar Badhva Bhumi, Dhaka (1998) 29; 500 - . - - 172 172 172 172
43
Table 3.4 Settlement versus ultimate capacity of piles from pile load tests by different
methods (precast pile)
Settlement (mm) Ultimate capacity (Ton)

Index Davisson Butler and British Average Davisson Butler British Average
method Hoy standard method and Hoy standard
method method method method
PTP-l 27 26 28 27 11.2 10.4 12.5 11.4
PTP-2 11.5 8 25 15 110 103 120 111
PTP-3 11 13 25 16 92 100 120 104
PTP-4 51 44 55 50 11.3 10.5 13 11.6
PTP-5 20 19 25 21 23.3 22.5 24.5 23.5
PTP-6 22.5 19.5 25 22 18.75 16.6 20 18.5
PTP-7 19 20.5 23 21 9.5 8.75 12 10
PTP-8 11 10.2 13 11.5 170 165 175 170
PTP-9 43 41 48 44 15 14 15.5 14.85
PTP-lO 6.8 6 6.9 6.5 25 22 25.5 24.2
PTP-11 1.1 .95 1.1 1.05 12 10 11 11
PTP-12 1 .95 1.2 1.05 15 13.5 16 14.85
PTP-13 38 30 45 38 65 62 67 64.7
PTP-14 14 5 17 12 109 100 115 108
PTP-15 6 4.8 7.2 6 52 47 55 51.4
PTP-16 6.9 7 7.8 7 55 58 60 57.7
PTP-17 10 12 15 12 150 155 160 155
PTP-18 16 15.5 20 17 165 163 175 168
PTP-19 18 20 20 19 140 150 150 147
PTP-20 1.85 1.55 1.85 1.77 25 22 25 24
PTP-21 6.45 6.15 6.45 6.35 70 65 70 68
44
Table 3.5 Settlement versus ultimate capacity of piles from pile load tests by different
methods (cast-in-situ piles)
Settlement(mm) Ultimate ca acitv(Ton)

Index Davisson Butler and British Average Davisson Butler British Average
method Hoy standard method and Hoy standard
method method method method
CTP-l 12 10 45 22 156 145 180 160
CTP-2 16 20 40 25 212 220 250 227
CTP-3 9 6 14 10 122 112 115 116
CTP-4 7.5 7 10.5 8 104 98 106 103
CTP-5 14 14.5 .17 15 153 154 158 155
CTP-6 11 13 25 16 106 III 137 118
CTP-7 13.5 14 14 14 128 132 133 131
CTP-8 20 12.5 21 18 260 252 270 261
CTP-9 13 6 18 12 124 114 130 123
CTP-IO 10 8 15 . 11 95 85 110 97
CTP-ll 10 9 12 10 180 175 190 182
CTP-12 17 20 22 20 130 140 145 138
CTP-13 12 10 12.5 11 158 140 160 153
CTP-14 7 1.75 4 4 175 167 160 167
CTP-15 15 12.5 18 15 120 115 124 120
CTP-16 12 8.5 18 13 100 90 130 107
CTP-17 10 6.3 12 9 200 185 205 197
CTP-18 12 11 14 12 235 225 240 233
CTP-19 8 7.5 10.5 9 160 155 170 162
CTP-20 5.5 5 7 6 185 180 190 185
CTP-21 6.5 6 6.5 6.33 180 170 180 176
CTP-22 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.2 30 24 30 28
CTP-23 0.22 0.18 0.22 0.21 55 50 55 53
CTP-24 1.02 1.15 .. 1.2 1.1 120 115 125 120
45
Collection of data I
, t-
Pile load test reports Subsoil investigation
reports
Soil idealization
Ultimate capacity from
load-settlement curve:
1. Davission method ,
2. Butler and Hoy
method Ultimate capacity from
3. British Standard static analysis:
1. a-method
2. ~-method
Settlement 3. A-method
from load-
settlement
curve
Ir ,- , ,
Correlation between Correlation between ultimate
ultimate pile capacity and pile capacity from static
corresponding settlement analysis and from pile load
test results
Fig. 3.1 Flowchart of the study
46
28
BHUTAN
INDIA
26
w
0
:J
I--
24 INDIA
• ••
I--
«
....J
•• •
• f1'•
22
BAY OF BENGAL
Site locations
20
86 88 90 92 94
LONGITUDE
Fig. 3.2 Geographical locations of pile load tests
47
250 r;::================:::;-~-I
Precast (dl data): '
C Oavissim: 0Pll = 2.1347 + 0.81220slm::; r = 0.9547; f:1 '" 17.82
o Butler & Hoy: OPlT = -1.5733 + 1.00070UAlC; r '" 0.0064: <'T = 5.10
"E 200 l::. British Standard: 0PLT = 02800 + 1.04260STATC: r = 0.0083; lJ = 3.68
i!! '2
• Average: 0PLT = 1.5942 + 0.82770STAlC: r = 0.9555: rl" '" 18
0
~!::.
" CIl
E "@150 -
~f-
~&
g..J j
lil"~ 100 0
on:
~o
D. CIl
Q)
«i
"Ci)
2" 50
S~ ~
E :g
::« ~
::>
Ii . • • .
50 100 150 200 250
Ultimate Pile Capacny from Static Analysis (a-method) (Ton)
Fig. 3.3 Correlation between ultimate pile capacity from static

analysis (a-method) and from pile load test for precast piles
250 rr=================,---'
Precast (dl data):
D Oavissim: Opu = 4.5447 + 0.8659QSTATC: r = 0.9495;" = 18.8
o Butler & Hoy: Opu = 2.8323 + 0.8741QsUTC: r = 0.9487: lJ ;- 19.13
"E 200
A British Standard: Qpu =4.9092 + 0.9043QsTATc; r =0.9495: <'T = 19.64 -
'2 • Average: Opu = 4.0938 + 0.88190sT~TC; r '" 0.9496; <'T '" 19.12
i!! 0
~!::.
" CIl
E 1;; 150 -
,gl-'"
.,."
g- ~ ..J
lil"~ 100
OD.
~o
a: en
Q)"~ 50 -
«i~
~..:i:
5
o
. ,
o 50 100 150 200 250
Ultimate Pile Capacny from Static Analysis (B-method) (Ton)

analysis (13-method) and from pile load test for precast piles
48
250r.====r:====C===C='===;-'"-i
Precast (all data):
D Oavis510n: Qfl.T '" 1.6200 + O.769:l:lsrAn::: r ;; 0.9640; (I '" 15.94
o Buller & Hoy:QPlT = =
-0.1414 .O.776BQSTArc; r 0.9635; (J 18.20 =
{). =
British Standard: QFl.T = 1.7784 + O.8044QsrAn::: r 0.9651; ri 16.40 =
• Average: Qfl.T '" 1.0757 + O.78400srArc: r '" 0.9647; "'" 16.07
o • I
o 50 100 150 200 250

Uttimate Pile Capacity from Stalic Analysis (A-method) (Ton)

analysis (A.-method) and from pile load test for precast piles
250 r;:=================]-i
Precast (all data):
o Davission: ai'll =2.66 + O.81S9QSTH1c: r =0.9571; t1 17.37 =
o =
Buder & Hoy: QPll = 0,8855 + O,8242QSTATIC:r 0.9569: <T= 17.58
l:J. British Standard: Ql'll '" 2.8736 + O.8530Qs-rAnc: r '" 0.9580: <'J '" 17.95
150 "'"
100 f- -
e
50 -
o , ,
o 50 100 150 200 250
Average Ultimate Pile Capacity from Static Analysis (Ton)
Fig. 3.6 Correlation between average ultimate pile capacity from

static analysis and from pile load test for precast piles
49
250
Precast (all data):
0A.-T :: 2.1331 + O.6315QsrAn;:: r:: 0.9578; <'I:: 17.54
g 200
>- o
''5 l?
~ ~ 150
UJ!l
'" '"
:=
0..1-
Q)
$ -c 100
'" .3'"
E
~ Q)
=>=
'"
0>
0..
50
o
o "
~
~ o
o
o 50 100 150 200 250
Fig. 3.7 Correlation between average ultimate pile capacity by static analysis
and average ultimate pile capacity from pile load test for precast piles
25
Precast (175 x 175):

"
0PLT = -5.7204 + 1.4573QsrAnc: r:: 0.8951: <T:: 2.57
E
,g
"
5
5 10 15 20 25
and average ultimate pile capacity from pile load test based on pile
size (175 x 175) for precast piles
50
225
Precast (300 x 300):
Q =2.7169+0.82340 ;r=O.8436;rf=27.46
200
o
D
D
o
o
D
25
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225
Fig. 3.9 Corr~lation between average ultimate pile capacity by static analysis
180
,
, Precast (350 x 350):
Q '" .14,0747 + 0,9745Q ; r", 0.98356: 16.53
160 CT '"
140
120
.~
~
:J
<l> 100
Ol
11
<l>
> 80
<i
60
40
20
m ~ W W 100 1m 1~ lW lW
Average Ultimate Pile Capacny from Static Analysis (Ton)
51
100
Precast (5.5 - 7.5):
Q =5.4364+0.66040 "(=0.9165"0=7.45
80
E
,g
'0 ---.
""~ S 60
",l:::- D
t) '"
0> -
:= ~
0.1-
Q.l "0 40
;; 8
E ...J
:E Q)
::J=
0> 0.
~ 20
~
«
a
a 20 40 60 80 100
Average Uttimate Pile Capacity Irom Stalic Analysis (Ton)
length (5.5 - 7.5 m) for precast piles
225
Precast (9.2.15.0):
200 a = 0.39 + 0.8490 ;r=O.B731;rr=26.18
E 175
,g D D
D
'0 C-
150
""
'"
0.0
t'3~ 125
.!l! 10
0>
ii: I- 100
0> "0
;;
E 8
...J 75
::: .E! D
::J 0
0> ii:
50
[?
l;;
> 25
« 0
a
a 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225
Averaoe Uttimate Pile Capacity from Static Analvsis (Ton)
length (9.2 - 15 m) for precast piles
52
200 ,- , ,
• Precast Piles
• •
E 150 l- I
0
':=c
•
""0
-0 t:.
~~
'" .,
o '"
.,f- 100 -
== "'C
a.
---''"
.,0
'" ~
E
•
~O-
., •
::J
50 •• -
e.,
0>
>
« • • ••
I.
, • , ,
• •,
0
0 10 20 -30 40 50 60
Average Settlement (mm)
Fig. 3.13 Average pile settlement versus average ultimate pile capacity
from pile load test for precast piles
53
400
Cast.in.silu (all data):
o Davlssion: a Pl.T" 33.78 + 0.75250 ST~Tl<::r •• 0.85; 0' 28.89 =
350 o Buller & Hoy: a =
f'l.T 29.54 + 0.74340 sT~nc; r •• 0.8435; 0' '" 29.32
I::. British Standard: a •.•.T =
36.62 + 0.79060 JUTle; r •• 0.8582; <I::: 29.29
a
,,
• Average: Pl.1 '" 33.28 + 0.76280 ~TAnc; r •• 0.6566; Cf '" 28.46
250
200
150
~
~t ~
~~A 0
~
100 8 e 0
50 e
o
o 100 200 300 400
Ultimate Pile Capacity from Stalic Analysis ( a-method) (Ton)
Fig. 3.14 Correlation between ultimate pile capacity by static analysis (a-
method) and from pile load test for cast-in-situ piles
400
Cast-in-situ (aU data):
D Oavission: Q Pl.' = 36.58 + 0.7513Q STAT"': r = 0.6502; (J = 28.87
o Butler & Hoy: Q •••.
r:: 32.41 + 0.74150 sunc: r = 0.8430; 0':: 29.36
{;}. Brijish Standard: Q P..T" 39.62 +,0.78890 sun:,:: r:: 0.6580; a 29.31 =
• Average: a F'\.T = 36,17 + 0.761 1Q sTAne: (= 0.8564; n = 28.46
C 300
l!? 6
~t:.
" '"
E 00
o CD
",I-
Z. ~ 200
'(j 0
"'...J
g-~
ua.
CD-
:=: 0
a. '"
(l) 'CiS 100
1t1~
E g
E«
:J .
o
o 100 200 300 400
Ultimate Pile Capacity from Static Analysis ( p-method) (Ton)
Fig. 3.15 Correlation between ultimate pile capacity by static analysis (/3-
method) and from pile load test for cast-in-situ piles
54
400
Cast-in-situ (all data):
350 o Davission: Q Pl.l'" 33,77 + 0.74750 sml~: r '" 0.8494; (l = 28.94

o Butler & Hoy: a PH '" 29.59 + 0.73820 SlAne: (= 0.8426; [I = 29.40
fj, British Standard: Q Pl1 = 36.93 .•. 0.78330 STATIC; r '" 0.8553; [I '" 29.56
"E _ 300 • Average: Q PlT = 33.40 + 0,7569Q STATIC: r = 0.8551: (I = 28.60
0> C
~ 0
~t:.
:cen 250
E 1ii
o
.=f-
>."C
0>
200
~ ctI
" 0
3""'-'~ 150
=0>-0
a. '"
2 .~ 100
"'-
E g!
E«
::J 50 e
e
o
o 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Ultimate Pile Capacity from Static Analysis ( A-method) (Ton)
Fig. 3.16 Correlation between ultimate pile capacity by static analysis

(A.-method) and from pile load test for cast-in-situ piles
400
Cast-In-situ (<'1'1data):
=
o Davisson: Of'll 34.86 + O.74830s-uw;: r 0_8510; ('l::: 28.80 =
350 o =
BuU9' & Hoy: 0Pl.T JO.fJl + O.7368QST •.nc: r = 0.8441; fl = 2926
t::. British Standard: ~,= 37.67 + Q.7855Qsr,mc: r 0.8585: <'I 2925 = =
c _ 300
0> C
~ 0
~t:. l>
'6 CI) 250 8
8~ f-~
~ -g 200
'M .9
@-~
() c: 150
0>'0
CL CI)
0> .~ 100
0;-
.~ ~
~«
:J 50
o
o 100 200 300 400
Fig. 3.17 Correlation between average ultimate pile capacity by static

analysis and from pile load test for cast-in-situ piles
55
400
Casl.in-silu (all data):
0P<T" 34.43 + O.75820Sl~llC; r = 0.8572: n •• 28,40
350
E
g 300
-~
"" g 250
U
"'C
'"200
U;
••
=
Q)
a.J-
<D
ro"-0~ 150
E-l
S"a.~ 100 ••
C>
~
">
50 •
« •
o
o 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

analysis and average ultimate pile capacity from pile load test for
cast-in-situ piles
160
•
E
g
~ _140
o c
'" 0
~t:.
()
" u;
'"
[L~
'E.3
* -g 120
•
S~
a.
Q)
0>
i!1
~ 100
Cast-in-situ (400 diameter):

QPLT '"' -236.15 + 3.3080 STAT+<:; r = 0.853; (I =21.67
80
80 100 120 140 160

analysis based on diameter (400 mm) and average ultimate pile
56
240
Casl.in.silu (450 diameter):

Qf'LT = 10,24 + 1.0390 ST~nc:r = 0.8891: Cl =20.04
E 200
,g
•
40
o
o 40 80 120 160 200 240
Average Ultimate Piie Capacity from Static Analysis (Ton)

analysis based on diameter (450 mm) and average ultimate pile
capacity from pile load test for cast. in-situ piles
280
Cast-in-situ (500 diameter):

Q ••.r = .100.26 + 1.55610 STATIC; r = 0.8466; ('[ =27.41
E
,g 240
••
200
160
120
•
80
80 120 160 200 240 280

analysis based on diameter (500 mm) and average ultimate. pile
capacity from pile load test for cast.in-situ piles
57
200
Cast-in-situ (9.12 rn):

QPt.T = 15.02 + 0.73710 smoc; r = 0.9784; (J :::9.99
160
E
.g
"" g
.~ 120
",I::- •
• •
l) "'
W ;;
=
a.f-
Q)
~"g 80
E ...•
'" 0
S~
wa.
Ol
~ 40
~
<{ •
o
o 40 80 120 160 200

analysis based on length (9 - 12 m) and average ultimate pile
240
Cast-ill-situ (14 - 16 m):
=
0Pl.T 37.83 + 0.78590 nu>c: r = 0.7146: (J =26.20
200
E
.g •••
"-5' '2160 •
'" 0
g.t:..
• •
••
l) "'
w ;;
~ ~ 120
w-o
•
ca ~
E ...•
=W80
:J~
wa.
Ol
~
~ 40
•
o
o 40 80 120 160 200 240
Average Ultimate Pile Capacity from Stalic Analysis (Ton)

capacity from pile load test for cast. in-situ piles
58
400
Cast-in-silu (18.20 m):

QPl.T = 116.94 + 0.41930 sune; r", 0.7026; rr =32.47
E 350
.g
z,
.0 _
'" c:
g- ~ 300
0-
"'.!!!
a: ~'"
.-
.$ -0 250
'" '"
E
E..J
0
:J.!!1
~ a: 200
l!1 •
~
150 •
100
100 150 200 250 300 350 400

300 . . I
I. Cast-in-situ
250 • -
E • •
.g
z,c
.- 0
200 ~
• •
" Co
• •
"'-
c.",
'" -'" • • • • •
o
'" Co '" 150 l- •
=-0
•
a. '"
'" 0
<;;--' • • • • ••
E.!!1
:EO::
:J
100 - • •
'"l!1
Ol
~
50 -
«
•
, ,
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Average Settlement (mm)
Fig. 3.25 Average pile settlement versus average ultimate pile capacity
from pile load test for cast-in-situ piles
59
220
I • Cast-in-situ: End Bearing I
200
~ 180
c
0
f-
~
>-
160
:!:::
• •
U
C1l
0- 140
C1l
()
OJ
120
a...
100
80
10 12 14 16 18
Settlement (mm)
Fig. 3.26 Settlement versus ultimate capacity of end bearing pile estimated
by Chin's method
100
qb = -167.33 + 13419(llid) 168675 (Ilid)'

(r =0.88; cr = 7.36J
~
90
• •
-
"-
CIl
•.••••..•
~.0
rr
80
•
~
OJ 70
0-
"-0 60
•
OJ
c
.C
C1l
OJ 50
.0
"0
C
W 40
30
0.020 0.024 0.028 0.032 0.036
Settlement normalized with pile diameter (Md)
Fig. 3.27 Normalized settlement versus ultimate capacity of end bearing pile
60
CHAPTER FOUR
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 CONCLUDING REMARKS
In this study ultimate pile' load capacity of Bangladesh has been studied. The database
comprise of pile load test reports at thirty Public Works Department sites in different parts of
Bangladesh. Among the pile load test data, twenty one is precast RCC piles and twenty five is
RCC cast-in-situ piles. The findings of this study is as follows:
In Dhaka soil, a remarkable behavior has been found. For almost all the projects the water
table is shown at shallow depth, which is not true. Recently from several piezometric
recordings, the level has been found at an approximate depth of 25m. Almost all the projects
for Dhaka City has a similar sub-soil configuration. The top 9.5m is clay and silty soil and
beyond this depth there is a deep strata of sandy soil of medium dense to very dense
cohdition. As water table is beyond the depth of 25m, the top 9.5m clay soil contribute more
effective stress for the sandy layer to increase skin friction and end bearing for the pile. In
this study, it is evident that for piles in Dhaka City, about 85% to 90% of pile capacity is
contributed by the sandy layer.
An exceptional observation is made for Khulna Soil (PTP-14). The sub-soil has a
considerable layer of organic soil. The organic layer (I0.5m) does not contribute any value to
the pile capacity. Most part of the capacity can be obtained from the underlying sandy layer.
Another interesting feature is observed from PTP-21 and CTP-24 (both are in Sylhet City).
For the same soil both pre-cast and cast-in-situ test piles have been tested. The capacity of
cast-in-situ pile is in good agreement with static analysis whereas precast pile is in
disagreement with the static analysis. This may be due to the lack of mobilization of skin
friction and end bearing during pile load test in precast pile.
In Rayer Bazar Baddhya Bhumi (CTP-25) project, it is clear that settlement of the test piles is
very small. The settlement is' approximately equal to the elastic shortening of the pile under
the applied maximum load (110 ton). In this specific case, the consultant recommended that
61
this pile length should be reduced from 29m to 18.3m to carry the same design load of 60 ton
which is also in confirmation with the static analysis.
For most of the cases where the author has used the reports of pile load test on service piles, it
is observed that the design load assumed for service piles is very conservative. The design
load could be assumed with confidence to a higher value with a reasonable factor of safety.
This can save a considerable amount of project cost by 25% to 40%, which has been incurred
in pile foundation. In this connection we recommend using of test piles in lieu of service
piles.
In the final part of our study, the author tried to draw some correlation between ultimate pile
capacities of tested piles am! ultimate capacities obtained from static analysis as well as some
correlation between ultimate pile capacities of tested piles and corresponding settlements.
These correlation are made for precast as well as for cast-in-situ piles. The effect of different
size and length of piles have also been considered. In all these cases there exist considerable
correlation between the static analysis of pile capacity and capacity of pile from pile load test.
This study has proved a higher degree of confidence to use the static formulae to find out the
ultimate capacity of the piles. Following two correlations are proposed to obtain ultimate pile
capacities from static analysis for Bangladesh:
= 2.1331 + 0.8315QSlalic(r = 0.96; cr = 17.54)
For precast piles (in ton): Qultimale
= 34.43 + 0.7582Qslalic (r = 0.86; cr = 28.40)
For cast-in-situ piles (in ton): Qullimale
These relations should be used with some caution until more data prove their validity.
The attempt to correlate the average settlement corresponding to ultimate capacity estimated
from pile load test data has.been found to be futile. Regression Analysis shows that there is
little or almost no correlation with the settlement of pile with the ultimate capacity. On the
other hand for end bearing piles which are detected by Chin's method, ultimate pile capacity
and settlement has correlation if piles resting on similar soils are used. For cast-in-situ piles in
Dhaka City which are resting on dense sand following correlation can be proposed:
qb = -167.33 + 13419 (Nd)"': 168675 (LVd)2(r = 0.88; cr = 7.36)
62
4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
• Test piles should alw~~s be loaded until failure, only then ultimate capacity and
corresponding settlement can be reliably estimated. This may sometimes reduce the total
project cost.
• The database of the pile load test and subsoil exploration data should be updated time to
time and the correlation proposed here should also be updated to use them with more
confidence.
• Public Works Department of Bangladesh is a national institute of repute, they should

develop an archive in their Headquarters for the preservation of pile load test and other
in-situ data, so that future generation can learn from those data and use them for
engineering research and practical application.
• In the present study, for static analysis base and shaft resistances are added for estimating
ultimate pile capacity. Actually these two resistances will not be mobilised with their
maximum values at the same time. So for test piles, Chin's method should be used in the
estimation of ultimate pi)e capacity along with other methods as base and shaft resistance
can also be found separately. In this method, integrity of piles can also be predicted ..
63
REFERENCES
Abedin, M. Z., Bujang B.K. Huat and Ansary, M.A. (1998). "Ultimate capacity of a low cost
pile foundation in soft ground", Proceedings of Conference on Low Cost Housing,
Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia, pp. 131-138.
Amin, M. N. and Karim, M. F. (1996). "Bored cast-in-situ RCC piles: model procedure and
specifications", Proc. 41st convention, Dhaka: Institute of Engineers, Bangladesh
(unpublished).
Ansary, M. A., Siddiquee, M,S.A., Siddique, A. and A.M.M. Safiullah (1999). "Status of
static pile load tests in Bangladesh", Proceedings of lIth Asian Regional Conference
(llARC), Seoul, Korea, Vol. I, pp. 241-244.
ASTM. (1989). "Annual book of ASTM standards", ASTM: 04.08, Soil and Rock; Building
stones; Geotextiles, pp. 179-189.
Berezantzev, V.G., Khristoforov, V. and Gombkov, V. (1961). " Load bearing capacity and
deformation of piled foundations," 5th ICSMFE, Paris, Vol. 2, pp. 11-15.
Bowles, J.E (1982). "Foundation Analysis and Design", McGraw-Hill International Book
compact, Third edition.
Brand, E.W and Apichai, J.S. (1972). "Performance of Some Driven and Cast in Situ Piles in
Bangkok Clay", AIT, Research Report NO.20.
Broms, B. B. (1966). "Methods of Calculating the Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Piles, A
Summery", Sols-Soils vol. 5, pp. 21-31.
Burland, J:B. (1973). "Shaft friction of piles in clay - a simple fundamental approach",
Ground Engineering, Vol. 6 (3), pp. 30-42.
Butler, F. G. and Morton, K. (1970). "Specification and performance of test piles in clay",
Proc. of the symp. on behaviour of piles: 67. London: Institution of Engineers.
Butler, H. D. and Hoy, H. E. (1976). "The Texas quick-load method for foundation load
testing", User's Manual IPn.8. Washington: Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. (1972). "Code of practice for foundations", CP
2004: 105-109. British Standards Institution: London.
Chellis, R. D. (1961). "Pile Foundations", McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York.
Chin, F. K. (1978). "Diagnosis of pile condition", Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 9, pp. 85-
104.
Davisson, M.T. (1973). "High capacity piles", In innovations in foundation construction, Soil
mechanics division, Illinois, Secretariat, ASCE: pp. 81-112. Chicago, USA.
.
Fleming,
, W. G. K., Weltman, A. J., Randolph, M. F. and Elson, W. K. (1985). "Piling
engineering", Surrey university press, Glasgow and London.
Fuller, F. M. (1983). "Engineering of pile installation", McGraw-Hill book company, Inc.,
New York.
Housel, W. S. (1966). "Pile load capacity: estimate and test results", Jour. of the soil
mechanics and foundation engg. division, ASCE 92 (SM 4).
64
Kaniraj, S.R (1988). "Design Aids in soil Mechanics and foundation Engineering", Tata
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi, India.
Khan, M. A (1997). "Performance of axially loaded small size prestressed concrete piles",
MSc Engineering Thesis, Department of Civil Engg., BUET, Dhaka.
McClelland, B. (1974). "Design of deep penetration piles for ocean structures," JGED ASCE, /
Vo1.100, No. Gt-7, pp. 705-747.
Meyerhof, G.G. (1956). "Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soils,"
JSMFD, ASCE, Vol. 82, SM I, pp. 1-19.
Meyerhof, G.G. (1976). "Bearing capacity and settlement of pile foundations," JGED, ASCE,
Vol. 102, No. GT. 3. Pp. 195-228. '\
Poulos, H. G. & Davis, E. H. 1980. Pile foundation analysis & design. John Wiley and Sons: \,
New York.
Sadeque, M.A (1989). "Performance of bored piles in alluvial soils of Bangladesh", M.
Engineering Thesis, Department of Civil Engg., BUET, Dhaka.
Siddiquullah, M. and Sadeque, M. A (1997). "Small size pre-cast concrete piles", Annual
Convention of PWD Engineer's Association (unpublished).
Singh, A (1990). "Modem geotechnical engineering", CBS publishers & distribution pvt.
Ltd.: New Delhi, India.
Terzaghi, K. (1942). "Discussion of the progress report of the committee on the bearing value
of pile foundations", Proc. of the ASCE 68: 311-323.
Tomlinson, MJ. (1970). "Some effects of pile driving on skin friction," Conference on
behavior of piles, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, pp. 59-66.
Tomlinson, MJ, (1975). "Foundation Design and Construction", Pitman Books Limited,
London, Third Edition.
Vesic, AS. (1967). " A study of bearing capacity of deep foundations," Final report, Project
B-189, school of Civil Engineering, Georgia Institute of technology, USA
Vijayverginya, V.N. and Focht, J.A. (1972). "A new way to predict capacity of piles in clay",
Proceedings of the off shore Technology conference, Dallas, Vol.2, pp. 865-871.
Whitaker, T. (1976). "The design of piled foundations", Pergamon Press Ltd.: Oxford, U.K.,
2nd Edition.
65
APPENDIX-A
PRESENTATION OF IDEALIZED SOIL MODEL AND PILE LOAD
TEST DATA WITH ULTIMATE CAPACITIES AND SETTLEMENTS BY
DIFFERENT METHODS
INDEX : PTP -01, OCT, 1997
LOCATION: PABNA
PROJECT:
COURT BUILDING DEPTH OF BORING: lB. 60 m
SOIL STRATA lIDEAUZED) DATA AND ULTIMATE

CAPA CITY DATA
o
I TYPE OF PILE; PRE CAST
LENGTH OF PILE ( Ll : 7 m
2 SIZE OF PILE: 175mmXI75mm
8 SOFT CLAY
3
AVG, N = 3.
4 PILE LOAD TEST RESULT
lULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON)
5
6
DAVISSON BUTLER AND BRITISH
METHOD HOY METHOD STANDARD
7
METHOD
B
1/'20 10'40 12'50
UL TIMATE PIL E CAPACITY BY

10
MEDIUM STIFF STATIC ANALYSIS IN TON
SILTY CLAY
II
AVG. N= 5
12 DC-METHOD ftMETHOD 7>METHOD
13
10'30 8'50 14'60
SETTLEMENT OF PILE TIP CORRESPOND-

ING TO ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN m m .

METHOD. HOY METHOD STANDARD
METHOD
IB
27 26 28
illI
LEGEND:
PTP • PRE-CAST TEST PILE,
CLAY SILT SAND CTP = CAST IN SITU TEST PILE.
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY: BUET, DHAKA, N = STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
(SPT) VALUE.
INDEX : PTP-02, DEC. 1997
LOCATION: RAJSHAHI
PROJECT:
RAJSHAHI DEVELOMENT DEPTH OF BORING: 18' 6 m
AU TNORI TY BHABAN.
GWT:-3'Om
DATA AND ULTIMATE

SOIL STRATA lIDEALIZE 0) CAPA CITY DATA
o
TYPE OF PILE: PRE- CAST
LENGTH OF PILEI Ll: 10.6 m

MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF
2 SIZE OF PILE: 30Dmm X 300 mm
6 CLAYEY SILT
AVG. N=6
4
PILE LOAD TEST RESULT
5 (ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON)
SILT DAVISSON BUTLER AND BRITISH

LOOSE SANOY 7
r
2'- AVG. N' 10 METHOD HOY METHOD STANDARD
8 METHOD
MEDIUM DENSE SILTY

9 110 103 120
I' 6 FINE SAND
AVG. N • 12
10
DENSE SANOY SILT
ULTIMATE PILE CAPACITY BY
2 A VG. N = 22 II
STATIC ANALYSIS IN TON
12
MEDIUM DENSE SILTY

13 O(-METHOD P-METHOD P-METHOO
2.6 SAND
AVG. N = 12 14
102 97 112
15
SETTLEMENT OF PILE TIP CORRESP
STIFF SILTY CLAY INO TO ULTIMATE CAPJCITY IN mm
4.33
AVG. N' 10 18 BRmSH
DAVISSON BUTLER AND STANDARD
METHOD HOY METHOD METHOD
II' 50 8 25
LEGEND:
PTP = PRE-CAST TEST PILE.
CTP = CAST IN SITU TEST PILE.
CLAY SILT SAND
N' STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
PD..E LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY: BUET, DHAKA. IS P T) VALUE.
"
IN DEX : PTP -03, DEC. 1997

LOCATION: RAJSHAHI
PROJECT:
RAJSHAHI DEVE LD PM E NT DEPTH OF BORING: IS. 6 m
AUTUARITY BHABAN.
GWT: - 3.0 m
THICK DATA AND ULTIMATE

NESS SOIL STRATA \IDEALIZE D) CAPA CITY DATA
1M)
o
VERY LOOSE SANDY TYPE OF PILE: PRE- CAST
3 SILT LENGTH OF PILE Ill: 10. 6 7 m
AVG. N= 6 ,2
SIZE OF PILE: 300mmX 300 mm
MEDIUM STIFF SILTY

CLAY
!ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON I
AVG. N=7
DAVISSON 8UTLER AND 8RITISH

VERY LOOSE SANDY 7
2 SIL T METHOD HOY METHOD STANDARD
AVG. N =6 B METHOD
9 92 100 120
MEDIUM DENSE TO
3.67 DENSE SILTY FINE SAN 0 10
AVG. N =23
UL TIMATE PIL E CAPACITY 8Y
II
12
13 O(-METHOD .B-METHOD PMETHOD
MEDIUM STIFF CLAYEY

14
6.93 SILT
99 93 104
AVG.N=7 15
SET11.EMENT OF PILE TIP CORRESPOND-
ING TO ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN mm.
18 BRITISH
DAVISSON BUTLER AND
STANDARD
II 13 25
LEGEND:
CLAY SILT SAND
N = STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY: BUET, DHAKA •
ISPT) VALUE.
INDEX : PTP -04, JAN,I99B
LOCATION: NARAIL
PROJECT:
COURT BUILDING DEPTH OF BORING: 16'75 m
GWT: - 2'95 m
SOIL STRATA (IDEALIZED) DATA AND ULTIMATE

CAPA CITY DATA
o
LENGTH OF PILE( Ll: 7 m

MEDIUM STIFF CLAY 2-
SIZE OF PILE: 175mm X 175m m
AVG. N' 5
3-
'"
VERY SOFT TO SOFT 6

SILTY CLAY, DAVISSON
5 BUTLER AND BRITISH
AVG. N' 4 7
METHOD "lOY METHOll STANDARD
METHOD
8
11'30 10'50 13'00

9
10
UL T1MATE PIL E CAPACITY BY
DARK ORGANIC CLAY. STATIC ANALYSIS IN TON
II
'" AVG, N="!

12
lX-ME~OO P-METHOD PMETHOD

13
14 /2' 75 8'50 15'50

LOOSE TO MEDIUM
DENSE SILTY SAND, 15 - SETTLEMENT OF PILE TIP CORRESPOND.
3'25 ING TO ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN mm,
AVG, N'12
BRITISH
16 DAVISSON BUTLER AND STANDARD
MElliOD. HOY METHOD METHOD
51 44 55
CLAY SILT
1m
SAND
LEGEND:
PTP
CTP =
• PRE-CAST
CAST IN SITU
TE ST PILE.
TEST PILE,
PILE lOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY: BUET, DHAKA. N = STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
(SPT) VALUE.
INDEX : PTP-Oll, NOV,I99S
LOCATION: MOULOVISAZA R
PROJECT:
NEW DISTRICT JAIL SUILDING DEPTH OF SORING: 15, 25 m
GWT: - 0.5",

NESS SOIL STRATA IIDEALIZED)
I MI CAPA CITY DATA
0
.
SOFT CLAY I - TYP E OF PILE: PRE- CAST

3
LENGTH OF PILE( L1: 7, 5",
AVG, N = 3
2
SIZE OF PILE: 175 "'''' X 17 5", m
= 3
MEDIUM DENSE SANDY

==
=
= 4
= PILE LOAD TEST RESULT

3 SILT
=
AVG, N. 16
=
=
-
5
6
(ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON 1

7 .
S METHOD
.
9 23'30 22'50 24'50

MEDIUM DENSE TO
9'25 DENSE SAND 10

AVG, N = 33
II UL TIMATE PIL E CAPACITY BY
IIIII 12
13 O(-METHOD P-METHOD P-METHOD
14
20'60 IS'S5 20'50

15
SETTLEMENT OF PILE TIP CORRESFaIIIJo
ING TO ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN mm
BRITISH
DAVISSON BUTL£R AND STANDARD
METHOD HOY MElllOD METHOD
20 19 25
LEGEND:
CLAY SILT
lID
SAND
PTP
CTP =
= PRE-CAST
CAST IN SITU
TEST
TEST
PILE.
PILE,
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY: BUET, DHAKA (SPT) VALUE.
INDEX : PTP-06, NOV. 1995
LOCATION: MOULOVIBA,zAR
PROJECT:
NEW DIST ICT JAIL SUILDI N G DEPTH OF BORING: 15'25 m
GWT: - 0,5 m
SOIL STRATA lIDEALIZEDI DATA AND ULTIMATE

CAPA CITY DATA
o
3 SOFT CLAY TYPE OF PILE: PRE CAST
AVG, N' 3 LENGTH OF PILE( Ll : 6, 5 m
2
SIZE OF PILE: 175 m mX 175 m m
MEDIUM DENSE
3 SANDY SILT
5 <ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON I
AVG, N. 16
7 DAVISSON BUTLER AND BRITISH

S METHOD
MEDIUM DENSE TO
9 IS'75 16'60 20'00
9, 25 DENSE SAND
AVG, N = 33 10

II
12
13 tx::-METHOD ,P.METHOD I>METHOD
14
16'20 14"50 IS'50
15
ING TO UcrlMATE CAPACITY IN mm,
DAVISSON BUTLER AND SRITISH

METHOD. STANDARD
HOYMETHOO METHOD
22'50 19'50 25'00
LEGEND:
. CLAY SILT
illI
SAND
PTP
CTP =
• PRE-CAST
CAST IN SITU
TEST PILE,
TEST PILE,
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED SY; SUET, DHAKA,
(SPT I VALUE.
•
INDEX : PTP- 07, JAN. 2000
LOCATION: GOPALGANJ
PROJECT:
DISTRICT JAIL DEPTH OF BORING: 15.25 m
GWT:- 0.5 m

NESS SOIL STRATA lIDEALIZED)
I Ml CAPA CITY DATA
o
I' TYPE OF PILE: PRE- CAST
LENGTH OF PILEI Ll: 7' 3 til

VERY SOFT DARK 2 SIZE OF PILE: 173mmX 175mm
3.3 SILTY CLAY
3
AVG. N =3
4
5 \ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON)
6
SOFT CLAYEY SILT
2.3 DAVISSON BUTLER AND BRITISH
AVG. N = 3 7
S METHOD
9 9'50 S"75 12'00

LOOSE FINE SAND
2
AVG. N = 7 10
ULTIMATE PIL E CAPACITY BY

II
12
MEDIUM STIFF CLAY
4
A V G, N' 5 13 DC-METHOD P-METHOD PMETHOD
14
16'00 9'40 IS'OO
15
MEDIUM DENSE FINE SETTLEMENT OF Pn.E TIP CORRESPOND-
1,25 SAND ING TO ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN mm
AVG. N 17 =
DAVISSON BUTLER AND BRmSH
STANDARD
19'00 20'50 23'00
LEGEND:
CTP = CAST IN SITU TEST PILE,
CLAY SILT SAND
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY INVARIANTS. DHAKA,
ISPT I VALUE.
INDEX: PTP-08, MAR, 2000
LOCATION: SAVAR. DHAKA.
PROJECT:
IN TERNATI ONAL TRAINING DEPTti OF BORING: IB m

COMPLEX. BPAT C.
GWT:
DATA AND ULTIMATE

SOIL STRATA (lDEALlZEDl
CAPA CITY DATA
MEDIUM STIFF CLAYEY

=
=
-
0
I - TYPE OF PILE: PRE- CAST

3 SILT
AVG. N= 6
=
- 2
LENGTH OF PILEI Ll:
SIZE OF PILE: 300mm

12 m
X 300mm
_.
3
=
MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF =
= 4
4.5 CLAYEY SILT

=
= 5
PILE LOAD TEST
lULTIMATE CAPACITY
RESULT
IN TON)
AVG. N=9
=
=
=
-
6
= 7
DAVISSON
METHOD
BUTLER AND BRITISH
HOY MElHOD STANDARD
8 METHOD
e---
9 170 165 175
MEDIUM DENSE SAND
5-5 10
AVG. N=16
II
12
13 D(-METHOD P-METHOD f.,.METHOD
14
MEOUM DE N SE TO
5 160 146 180
DENSE SAND 15
I. SETTLEMENT OFPILE TIP CORRESPOND-
AVG. N=24
ING TO ULTMATE CAPACITY IN mm.
STANDARD
METHOD HOY METHOD
METHOD
II' 00 10'20 13'00
1m
LEGEND:
PTP • PRE-CAST TEST PILE.
CLAY SILT SAND
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY: BUET, DHAKA.
(S P T) VALUE.
INDEX : PTP-09, MAR, 2000
LOCATION: ALAMPUR, SYLHET
PROJECT:
DIVISIONAL HEADQUARTERS DEPTH OF BORING: 18' 0 m
GWT: - 2°0 m

NESS SOIL STRATA IIDEALIZED)
1M) CAPA CITY DATA
o
TYPE OF PILE; PRE- CAST
SOFT TO MEDIUM LENGTH OF PILEI Ll: 7 m
5 STIFF CLAY 2
SIZE OF PILE: 175mmXI75m m
AVGoN=4
3
4
5 !ULTIMATE CAPACI TY IN TON)
6
VERY LOOSE FINE
4 SAND DAVISSON 8UTLER AND 8RITISH
7
AVG. N=8 METHOD HOY METHOD STANDARD
8 METHOD
9 15 14 15°50
10
8LACKISH MEDIUM ULTIMATE PILE CAPACITY 8Y

II
5 STIFF TO STIFF CLAY STATIC ANALYSIS IN TON
AVG. N =8 12
13 /X-METHOD P-METHOD PMETHOD
14
12°20 10'90 12°70
MEDIUM DENSE TO 15
5 DENSE SANDY SILT SETTLEMENT OF PILE TIP CORRESPOND-
ING 10 ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN mm
AVGo N= 25
18 DAVISSON BUTLER AND ~~l~~ARD
METHOD OY METHOD METHOD
43 41 48
LEGEND:
CLAY SILT
illI
SAND
PTP = PRE-CAST
CTP = CAST IN SITU
TEST
TEST
PILE.
PILE.
N= STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY: BUET • DHAKA. IS P T) VALUE.
INDEX :PTP-IO, MAY, 2000
LOCATION: BEGUMGANJ, NOAKHALI.
PROJECT:
COTTON SPINNING SHED AT DEPTH OF BORING: 3 O' 5 m
TEXTILE INSTITUTE G WT: - I' 5 m
DATA AND ULTIMATE

SOIL STRATA !IDEALIZED) CAPA CITY DATA
0
VERY SOFT TO MEDIUM
2 ~ TYPE OF PILE: PRE- CAST
5 STIFF CLAY ~
'l. LE NGTH OF PILE ( Ll : 5' 5 m
.
AVG. N • <I
<I
SIZE OF PILE: 175 mm X 175 m m
6
.
MEDIUM DENSE SILTY 8
SAND PILE LOAD TEST RESULT

8 'v
AVG. N= 2<1
12 - --

1:4
16 METHOD
-_._-
18 25 22 25'50
MEDIUM DENSE TO
20
17-25 DENSE SAND
AVG. N=26 ULTIMATE PIL E CAPACITY BY
22
2<1
26 DC-METHOD P-METHOD PMETHOD
28
20 16 21
30
BRITISH
DAVISSON BUTLER AND
STANDARD
METHOD HOY METHOO METHOD
6'80 6 6'90
-
LEGEND:
CLAY SILT SAND
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY : (S P T) VALUE.
DIGANTA BORING AND CONSTRUCTION,
NOAKHALI.
INDEX : PTP -II, JUN. 2000
LOCATION: ZORARGANJ, CHITTAGONG.
PROJECT:
COTTON SPINNING SHED AT DEPTIl OF BORING: 30' 5 m
TEXTILE INSTITUTE
GWT: - I' 5 m
DATA AND ULTIMATE

SOIL STRATA lIDEALlZE D) CAPA CITY DATA
I" 5 TOP SOIL o

2 TYPE OF PILE: PRE - CAST
VERY LOCBE SANDY LENGTH OF PILEI Ll: 5.5 m
SILT 4 SIZE OF PILE: 175 mm X 175mm

5"5
AVG. N : 5
6
MEDIU M DE NSE SANDY 8

3 SILT PILE LOAD TEST RESULT
AVG.N:14 (ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON)
DAVISSON BUTLER ANl) BRITISH

VERY STIFF TO HARD METHOD HOY METHOD STANDARD
14 SILTY CLAY METHOD
AVG. N: 25
12 10 11

DENSE SILTY SAND DC-METHOD P-METHOD P-METHOD
AVG. N = 30
(I 10 13
VERY STIFF CLAY
AVG. N. 26 SETTLEMENT OF PILE TIP CORRESPOND-


STANDARD
METHOD HOY METHOD METHOO
1'10 "95 1'10
LEGEND:
CLAY SILT SAND
N: STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
PILE !.DAD TEST CONDUCTED. BY :
IS P T) VALUE.
DAWOOD ALVEE CONSTRUCTION
CHITTAGONG .
INDEX: PTP-12, JUN, 2000
LOCATION: ZORARGANJ, CHITTAGONG
PROJECT:
COTTON SPINNING SHED AT DEPTH OF BORING: 30.5 m
TEXTILE INS TITUTE .
GWT:-1.5m
DATA AND ULTIMATE

SOIL STRATA lIDEALIZE D)
CAPA CITY DATA
1,5 "TOP SOIL o

VERY LOOSE SANDY LENGTH OF PILEI Ll: 7. 5 m

5.5 SILT 4 SIZE OF PILE: 175 mmX 175 m m
AVG.N=5
6
8
MEDIUM DENSE SANDY
3 SIL T
A VG. N = 14 10 !ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON)
12
VERY STIFF TO HARD DAVISSON BUTLER AND BRITISH

14
14 SILTY CLAY METHOD HOY METHOD STANDARD
AVG. N=25 16 METHOD
18 15 13'50 16
20
22
24
DENSE SILTY SAND 26 O(-METHOD ,B-METHOD PMETHOD

3
AVG. N= 30
28
14'60 12 18
VERY STIFF CLAY
3.5 30
A'" G. N = 26 SETTLEMENT OF PILE TIP CORRESPOND-
BRITISH
1'00 '95 1'20
LEGEND:
PTP • PRE-CAST TEST.PILE,
CTP = CAST IN SITU TEST PILE,
CLAY SILT SAND
N • ST AN[lAR D PENE TRATI ON TE ST
Pa.E LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY : IS P T) VALUE.
DAWOOD ALVEE CONSTRUCTION
CHITTAGONG.
INDEX : PTP -13 1 DEC. 2000
LOCATION: 8HAGGAKUL. SREENAGAR, MUNSHIGANJ.
PROJECT:
SHISHU PARI8AR, MUNSHIGANJ
DEPTH OF BORING: 25. 5 m
SOIL STRATA lIDEALIZE D) DATA AND ULTIMATE

CAPA CITY DATA
o
SOFT SILTY CLA Y 2 TYPE OF PILE: PRE- CAST
5
AVG. N' 3 LENGTH OF PILE( Ll: 12 m
4
SIZE OF PILE: 350mmX350mm
6
MEDIUM STIFF SILT
4
AVG. N' 7
8
10
(ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON)
MEDIUM DENSE
12
6 SILTY SAND
AVG. N'14 DAVI SSON BUTLE R AM> BRITISH
14
16
METHOD
18
LOOSE TO MEDIUM 65 62 67
10. 5 DENSE SANDY SI L T
20
AVG. N' 13
22 ULTIMATE PIL E CAPACITY BY
24
DC-METHOD P-METHOD P-METHOD
69 62 73
SETTLEMENT OF PILE TIP CORRESPOND

ING TO UlTIMATE CAPACITY IN mm.
DAVISSON BUTLER. AND BRITISH
METHOD
liB liD 45
LEGEND:
CLAY SILT SAND

PILE WAD TEST CONDUCTED BY; N' STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

M. AHME D ASSOCIJlTES 1 DHAKA . ( S P T) VALU E.
INDEX : PTP-14 , NOV, 2001
LOCATION: KHULNA
PROJECT:
IMAM TRAINING CENTRE DEPTH OF BORING: 30. 5 m
GWT: - '50 m
SOIL STRATA lIDEALIZE D) DATA AND ULTIMATE

CAPA CITY DATA
~ 2 TYPE OF PILE; PRE- CAST

.r-
SOFT DARK ORGANIC LENGTH OF PILE( Ll : 15'5m
4
10'5 CLAY SIZE OF PILE: 350mm X350mm
AVG. N = 5 6
B
10
-12

16
METHOD
M EDI UM DEN SE TO
IB
20 DENSE FINE SAND 109 100 115
AVG. N • 24
20
22 UL TIMATE PIL E CAPACITY BY

24
26
DC-METHOD ft.METHOD P-METHOD
28
30 176 156 181
SETltEMENT OF PILE TIP CORRESPOND-

1NG TO UcrlMATE CAPACITY IN mm.

METHOD
14 5 17
LEGEND:

N;, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
(SPT) VALUE.
INDEX: PTP-15,MAR,2002
LOCATION: PATUAKHALI
PRO~ECT :
TECHNICAL TRAINING CENTRE.
DEPTH OF BORING: 18 m
GYH: - I' 20m

THICK
NESS SOIL STRATA lIDEALIZEO) DATA AND ULTIMATE
M) CAPA CITY DATA
LENGTH OF PILE( Ll: 7' 5 m

VERY SOFT TO SOFT
SIZE OF PILE: 300mmX300mm
6 CLAY
AVG. N= 3

VERY SOFT CLAY

2 AVG. Ne I
METHOD
9
52 47 55
10
MEDIUM DENSE TO
II UL T1MATE PIL E CAPACITY BY
DENSE SAND
10 STATIC ANALYSIS IN TON
AVG. N = 18 12
13
DC-METHOD P-METHOD P-METHOD
14
63 56 64
15
SETTLEMENT OF PILE TIP CORRES'OND

ING TO ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN m m

METHOD STANDARD
HOY METHOD METHOD
6'00 4'60 7'20
LEGEND:
PTP • ;>RE-CAST TEST PILE.
CLAY SILT CTP = CAST IN SITU TEST PILE.

SAND
N;, STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY;
MD. ABDUL HAl MIA. PATUAKHALI, ( S P T) VALUE.
INDEX : PTP-16, MAR, 2002
LOCATION: PATUAKHALI
PROJECT:
TECHNICAL TRAINING CENTRE DEPTH OF BORING: 18 m
GWT: - I. 20 m
DATA AND ULTIMATE

SOIL STRATA lIDEALIZED)
CAPA CITY DATA
o
LENGTH OF PILEI Ll: 7. 5 m

SOFT TO MEDIUM 2
SIZE OF PILE: 300 mm X 300mm
6.5 STIFF CLAY
3
AVG. N=4
4
DAVISSON BUTLER AM> BRITISH

7
METHOD HOY METHOO STANDARD
LOOSE TO ME"D1UM
METHOD
2-5 DENSE SAND
AV G. N = 12
55 58 60
10

II
MEDIUM DENSE TO 12
9 DENSE SAND
13 D(-METHOD PMETHOD f.,.METHOD
AVG. N=22
14
88 69 102
15
18 DAVISSON BUTLER AND BRmSH

STANDARD
METHOD. HOY METHOD METHOD
6'9 TO 7'8
LEGEND:
CLAY SILT SAND
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY :
ISPT I VALUE.
MD. ABDUL HAl MIA, PATUAKHALI .
INDEX : PTP - 17, MAR, 2002
LOCATION: MDTIJHEEL THANA COMPOUND, DHAKA.
PROJECT:
RESIDENTIAL TOWER BUILDING DEPTH OF BORING: 30-5 m
GWT:
DATA AND ULTIMATE

SOIL STRATA lIDEALIZEDI CAPA CITY DATA
1 TOP SOIL 0
r-

3 CLAY LENGTH OFPILE( Ll: 12. 20 m
AVG. N = 7 4 SIZE OF PILE: 300 mm X 300m m
STIFF TO VERY ,STIFF
3 SILTY CLAY 6
AVG. N = 14
MEDIUM DENSE SANDY I 8

I PILE LOAD TEST RESULT
3 SILT
N.25 I 10 (ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON)
AVG. I---
MEDIUM DENS E TO
3 DENSE SAND 12 -
AVG. N = 36
14 V
DENSE TO VERY DEN SE
5 SAND 16 METHOD
AVG. N= 38
18 150 155 160
20
UL T1MATE PIL E CAPACITY BY

22
VERY DEN SE SAND STATI CANAL YSIS IN TON
12
AVG. N > 50 24
26 D(-METHOD P-METHOD P-METHOD
28
179 164 189
30

STANDARD
METHOD HOY METHOD
METHOD.
10 12 15
LEGEND:
PTP = PRE. CAST TEST PILE.
CLAY SILT SAND
N = ST ANDAR 0 PENE TRATION TE ST
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY :
(SPTI VALUE.
MASCOT BUILDERS, DHAKA .
INDEX : PT P -18, MAR, 2002
LOCATION: MOTIJHEEL THANA COMPOUND DHA
PROJECT:
RESIDEN TlAL TOWER BUILDING
DEPTH OF BORING: 30'5 m
GWT:
SOIL STRATA lIDEALIZED) DATA AND ULTIMATE

CAPA CITY DATA
TOP SOIL 0
~
I
MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF 2 TYPE OF PILE: PRE - CAST
3 CLAY
LENGTH OF PILEI Ll: 12' 20 m
AVG. N • 10
4
SIZE OF PILE : 300 mm X 300mm
STIFF TO VERY STIFF
1I SILTY CLAY 6
AVG. N' 15 ~
MEDIUM DENSE SANDY ~ 8
~
3 SILT
I
AVG. N • 21
MEDIUM DENSE TO
== 19
12
PILE LOAD TEST
(ULTIMATE CAPACITY
RESULT
IN TON)
3 DEN SE SAN 0
AVG. N • 26
14 v DAVISSON BUTLER AND BRITISH
DENSE TO VERY 16
5 DENSE SAND METHOD
AV G. No 34 18
165 163 115
20
22 UL TIMATE PIL E CAPACITY BY

VERY DENSE SAND STATIC ANALYSIS IN TON
12 24
AVG, N > SO
26
~-METHOD ..B-METHOD P-METHOD
28
30 202 186 226
SETTLEMENT OF ALE TIP CORRESroND'

ING TO ULTIMATE CAA!\CITY IN mm.
METHOD
16 15'SO 20
_ LEGEND:
_ ' PTP • PRE-CAST TEST PILE.
CLAY SILT CTP' CAST IN SITU TEST PILE,

SAND
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY: N;. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
MASCOT BUILDERS, DHAKA . ISPT) VALUE.
I
INDEX : PTP-19, JUN, 2002
LOCATION: AGARGAIIN, S.B NAGAR, DHAKA.
PROJECT:
PRESS Cl.WI- IMAM TRAININ G DEPTH OF BORING: 24 m

BUILDING OF IS L AMIC FOUIIDATION G WT:
DATA AND ULTIMATE

CAPA CITY DATA
TYPE OF PILE; PRE- CAST
STIFF TO VERY STIFF LENGTH OFPILEILl: 9'15 m

6-5 CLAY
SIZE OF PILE: 300mm X 300 m m
AV G. N' 14

<ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON)
7 DAVISSON 8UTLER AND BRITISH

MEDIUM DE flSE TO 8
METHOD
4 DENSE SAND
AV G. N' 34 9
140 150 150
10
II ULTIMATE PIL E CAPACITY BY

STATI CANAL YSIS IN TON
12
DENSE TO VERY
13.5 DENSE SAND 13
AVG. N~> 50 DC-METHOD P-METHOD P-METHOD
14
15 160 180 172

ING TO UlJlMATE CAPACITY IN mm.
METHOD
18 20 20
LEGEND:
CLAY SILT SAND CTP' CAST IN SITU TEST PILE.
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY: BUET, DHAKA. N' STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
IS P T) VALU E _
INDEX: PTP-20, DEC. 2001
LOCATION: JHALOKATHY.
PRD~ECT :.
DISTRICT REGISTER AND SUB- DEPTH OF BORING: 1!5'25 m
REGISTER .OFFICE .
GWT: - r5m
SOIL STRATA IIDEALIZED) DATA AND ULTIMATE

CAPA CITY DATA
TYPE OF PILE: PRE-CAST

LENGTH OF PILE( Ll: 9' 20 m .
2 SIZE OF PlL E: 400mm X 400 mm.
SOFT SILTY CLAY 3

9'5
AVG. N = 3
15
6
METHOD HOY METHODSTANDARD
7
METHOD
8
25 22 25
VERY LOOSE FINE SAND, 10 ULTIMATE PIL E CAPACITY BY

2
AVG. N =6 STATIC ANALYSIS IN TON
II
12
O(-METHOD ..B-METHOD PMETHOD
3'75 CLAYEY SILT.
AVG.N=!5 13
57 46 48
14
ING TO UIl1MATE CAPACITY IN m m
1!5
METHOD
ra5 1'55 1'85
LEGEND:
CLAY SILT
lID
SAND
PTP
CTP'
• PRE-CAST. TEST
CAST IN SITU TEST
PILE.
PILE.
N" STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
PILE LOADTEST CONDUCTED BY : (S P T) VALUE.
MANNA AND COMPANY, KHULNA,
INDEX : PTP-2I, FEB, 2001
LOCATION: SYUlET
PROJECT:
DIVISIONAL PUBLIC LIBRARY. DEPTH OF BORING: 18 m.
SOIL
STRATA ltDEALIZED)
-- ---.3---- ..-------.-------
BOR
GWT: -
EPlH PILE
1"5 m
PILE DATA AND ULTIMATE

- LOG POSITION LOAD CAPA CITY DATA
o
TYPE OF PILE: PRE-CAST
LENGTH OF PILEI Ll: 12'20 m.

LOOSE SILTY SAND
4'5
AVG. N = 10 SIZE OF PILE: 305mm M305mm.
2

IULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON)
5
6
DAVISSON BUTLER AN{) BRITISH
VERY LOOSE SAND METHOD HOY METHOD STANDARD
6
AVG. N = 5 7
METHOD
8
70 65 70
10 ULTIMATE PILE CAPACITY BY

STIFF COMPRESIBLE SILT 12

T5 AVG. N = 35
D(-METHOD P-METfIOD f.:-METIIOD
13
148 148 148
14
ING TO ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN mm .
15
DAVISSON BUTLER AND ~~JJg~RD
18 6'45 6'15 6'45
LEGEND:
CLAY SILT SAND
N = STANOAR D PENE TRATION TE ST
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY: IS P T) VALUE.
UNIFIED SOIL TEST a ENGINEERING, DHAKA.
INDEX : CTP - 01, JAN, 1997
LOCATION: SHAHBAG, DHAKA>.
PROJECT:
IB- STORIED HOSPITAL DEPTH OF BORING:24'4m
BUILDING, IPGMR. GWT: -

NESS SOIL STRATA (IDEALIZE D)
IMI CAPA CITY DATA
o
I' 5 TYPE OF PILE: CAST IN SITU
LENGTH OF PILEI L1: lB' 5 m

3.0
VERY SOFT CLAY
- SIZE OF PILE: 500m m DIA
6
AVG. N = I 4' 5
6-0
!ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON 1
MEDIUM DENSE SANDY - .. _---

9. 0
6.5 SILT
AVG. N= 20 5
METHOD HOY ME1liOO STANDARD
12-() METHOD
-------
13. 5 156 145 180
15 '0

.16. 5
DENSE TO VERY STATIC ANALYSIS IN TON
II- 5 DEN SE SAND
18 .0
AVG. N >42
19. 5 DC-METHOD ..a-METHOD P.METHOD
21 .0
182 183 184
22.5
- SETTLEMENT OF PILE TIP CORRESPO'ID-
ING TO ULTIMATt:: CAPACITY IN mm
.0
BUTLER AND BRITISH
DAVISSON
STANDARD
12 10 45
LEGEND:
CLAY SILT SAND
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY; BUET, DHAKA.
IS P T 1 VALUE.
INDEX : CTP-2
LOCATION: SHAH8AG, DHAKA.
PROJECT:
18- STORIED HOSPITAL DEPTH OF 80RING: 24' 4 m
8UILDIN G. IPGMR. GWT:
DATA AND ULTIMATE

SOIL STRATA lIDEALIZED) CAPA CITY DATA
MEDIUM STIFF TO
TYPE OF PILE; CAST IN SITU
4 STIFF CLAY
LENGTH OF PILE ( L1: 18.5 m
AVG. N= 8
SIZE OF PILE: 500 mm DIA
STIFF 10 VERY 4.5

2 STIFF CLAY
AVG. N = 12
7.5 (ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON)
MEDIUM DENS E TO
7 DENSE SANOY SILT 9.0
AVG. N = 24 DAVISSON BUTLER AND BRITISH
10.5
12-0 METHOD
13-5 212 220 250
15.0
DENSE TO VERY
U.LTIMATE PILE CAPACITY BY
11'4 DENSE SAND
STATI CANAL YSIS IN TON
AVG_ N > 42
IS'O
19.5 DC-METHOD P-METHOD PMETHOD
21-0
196 191 197

22.5
SETTLEMENT .OF PILE TIP CORRESPa'l-
DING TO ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN m m
24-0
DAVISSON BUTLER ANOBRITISH
STANDARD
16 20 40
LEGEND:
~
CLAY
~
SILT
illIJ
SAND
PTP
CTP =
= PRE-CAST
CAST IN SITU
TEST
TEST
PILE.
PILE.
N = ST ANDAR D PENE TRA TlON TE ST
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED 8Y: 8UET,DHAKA. (SPT) VALUE.

INDEl< : CTP-03, APR, 1998
LOCATION: DAMPARA, CHITTAGONG
PROJECT:
JAMIATUL FALAH ISLAMIC DEPTH OF BORING: 15 -25 m
CENTRE AND MASJID.
GWT: - 3.5 m
DATA AND ULTIMATE

SOIL STRATA lIDEALIZE D)
CAPA CITY DATA
o
MEDIUM STIFF CLAY LENGTH OF PILE ( Ll: 12 m

4 2 SIZE OF PILE: 500 mm D1A
AVG. N' 6
4
LOOSE SANDY SILT
2 5 (ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON I
AVG. N' 9

7
ME DIUM DENSE TO METHOD HOY METHOD STANDARD
3 DENSE SILTY SAND B METHOD
AVG _ N' 25
9 122 112 115
10

VE RY DENSE SAND II
6-25 STATIC ANALYSIS IN TON
AVG. N )45
12
13 DC-METHOD P-METHOD P.METHOD
14
149 147 151

15
SETTLEMENT OF PILE TIP CORRESPON
DAVISSON BUTLER AND BRIT1SH
METHOD
9 6 14
LEGEND:
CLAY SILT
illI
SAND
PTP
CTP =
• PRE-CAST
CAST IN SITU
TEST
TEST
PILE.
PILE.
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY: SUET. DHAKA _
(S P T I VALUE.
INDEX : CTP-04. APR. 1998
LOCATION: DAMPARA, CHITTAGONG.
PROJECT:
JAMIATUL FALAH ISLAMIC CENTRE DEPTH OF BORING: 15. 25 m
AND MASJID.
GWT: - 3. 5 m
THICI< DATA AND 'UL TlMATE

NESS SOIL STRATA lIDEALIZE DI
(M) CAPA CITY DATA
o
TYPE OF PILE: CAST IN SITU
SOFT SILTY CLAY LE NGTH OF PILE ( Ll: 12 m

4.5 2
AVG. N .5 SIZE OF PILE: 500 m m DIA
4
MEDIUM STIFF CLAYEY

6
3. 5 SILT
A,V G, N = 9 7
METHOD HOY METHOO STANDARD
8 METHOD
9 104 98 106
LOOS E SIL TV SAN D
2
AVG. N=12
10
ULTIMATE PIL E CAPACITY BV

" STATIC ANALYSIS IN TON
MEDIUM DEN S E TO
12
5.211 DENSE SAND

13 DC-METHOD P-METHOD P.METHOD
AVG, N=22
14
112 106 119
15
ING TO UU'IMATE CAPACITY IN mm .
DAVISSON BUTL ER AND BRITISH

METHOD
7"5 7 10'5
LEGEND:
CLAY SILT SAND
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY : BUET. DHAKA,
(SPT I VALUE.
INDEX : CTP- 05, JAN, 1998
LOCATION: DHAKA
PROJECT:
EXAMINATION COMPLEX, DEPTH OF BORING: 26m
EDUCATION BOARD, DHAKA.
GWT: -
DATA AND ULTIMATE

SOIL STRATA (IDEALIZE 0I CAPA CITY DATA
t==- O
1==
STIFF TO VE R Y STIFF 1==
I----
1'5 ~ TYPE OF PILE; CAST IN SITU
LENGTH OF PILE ( Ll: 14m

6'5 CLAYEY SILT
3.0
SIZE OF PILE: 400 m m DIA
AVG. N= 12
4.5
- 6'0
=
=
4
MEDIUM
DENSE
DEN S E
SANDY SILT
TO
=
-
7.5 (ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON I
AVG. N • 28 =
=
9.0 -'-'-
=
- Io-~
DAVISSON
METHOD
BUTLER
HOY
AND BRITISH
METHOD STANDARD
12-0 METHOD
~ -_._-
13-5 153 154 158
DENSE TO VERY 15.0

15-5 DENSE SAND
AVG. N >45
16.5 - TON
STATI CANAL YSIS IN
18-(
19.5 DC-METHOD P-METHOD P.METHOD
21.0
116 110 117
22'5
26 BUTLER AND BRITISH

DAVISSON
STANDARD
METHOD ~OY METHOD
METHOD
14 14-5 17
LEGEND:
CLAY SILT SAND
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY : BUET. DHAKA .
(S P T I VALUE.
INDEX : CTP-06, JAN, 1999
LOCATION: DHAKA
PROJECT:
EXAMINATION COMPLEX,
DEPTH OF BORING: 26 m
EDUCATION BOARD, DHAKA.
GWT: -
SOIL STRATA CtDEALIZE D) DATA AND ULTIMATE

CAPA CITY DATA
o
SOFT SILlY CLAY '.5 TYPE OF PILE: CAST IN SITU
5.0
AVG. N' 3 LENGTH OF PILEI Ll: 1'1 m
S'O SIZE OF PILE: '100 '" m DIA
'1.5
MEDIUM DENSE TO 6.0

'1'0 DENSE SANDY SILT PILE LOAD TEST RESULT
AVG. N = 2'1
7.5 \ULTIMATE CAPACIT Y IN TON)
9'0
10.5 DAVISSON BUTLER AND BRITISH

12-0 METHOD
DENSE TO VERY DENSE
17.0 SAND
13'5 106 III 137
AVG. N > '15
15.0

16.5
18.
19.5 ((-METHOD ..B-METHOD f--METHOD
21.0
113 112 11'1
22-5
SETTLEMENT OF PILE TIP CORRESPCJ'lD
BRITISH
2&0 DAVISS ON BUTLER AND STANDARD
II 13 2!l
LEGEND:
CLAY SILT SAND
N = ST ANDAR 0 PENE TRATION TE ST
PILE LOAD TEST CCJ'lDUCTEDBY: BUET, DHAKA. IS P T) VALUE.
INDEX : CTP- 07, AUG, 1999
LOCATION: SEGUNBAGICHA. DHAKA
PROJECT:
NATIONAL ART GALLERY AT
DEPTH OF BORING: 18' 3 m
SHILPAKALA ACADEMY COMPLEX
GWT:
SOIL STRATA !IDEALIZED) DATA AND ULTIMATE

CAPA CITY DATA
o
LENGTH OF PILE( LI : 15m

MEDIUM STIFF CLAY
2
7 AV G. N = 6 SIZE OF PILE: 510 m m DIA
4
5 (ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON I

7
METHOD
MEDIUM DENSE SILTY 8
4 SAND
129 132 133
9
AVG. N=16
.10
II STATIC ANALYSIS IN TON
12
MEDIUM DENSE TO
DC-METHOD P-METHOD PMETHOD
7.3 DENSE SAND 13
AVG. N= 31
14 /67 163 169
SETTLEMENT OF PILE TIP CORRES

15

.19 HOY MElliOD STANDARD
MElliOD .
METHOD
13'5 14 14
illII
LEGEND:
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY: BUET, DHAKA. N = STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
(SPTI VALUE.
INDEX : CTP- 08 • AUG. 1999
LOCATION: SEGUNBAGICHA, DHAKA.
PROJECT:
NATIONAL ART GALLERY AT
DEPTH OF BORING: 27' 5 m
SHILPAKALA ACADEMY COMPLEX.
GWT: -
SOIL STRATA (IDEALIZE D) DATA AND UL TlMATE

CAPA CITY DATA
o
VERY SOFT SILTY CLAY
4 TYPE OF PILE: CAST IN SITU
AVG. N= I 2
LENGTH OF PILE( Ll: 2 O. 5 m
4 SIZE OF PILE: 750 mm DIA
MEDIUM STIFF SILTY CLAY
3.5
AVG. N = 6
6
SILTY FINE SAND

8
AVG. N = 9 PILE LOAD TEST RESULT
(ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON I
10
MEDIUM DENSE TO 12
DENSE SILTY FINE SAND DAVISSON BUTLER AND BRITISH
11.5
AVG. N = 22 14 METHOD HOY METHOD STANDARD
METHOD
16
260 252 270

18
20
DENSE TO VE RY DENSE 22
FINE SAND
6
AVG. N > 35 24
DC-METHOO ,B.METHOD PMETHOD
26
353 3!lO 358

ING TO UlTIMATE ~CITV IN mm.

METHOD HOY METHOD S"D\NDARD
METHOD.
20 12'5 21
LEGEND:
CLAY SILT SAND CTP = CAST IN snu TEST PILE.
PILE WAD TEST CONDUCTED BY: BUET. DHAKA . N = ST ANDAR 0 PENE TRA nON TE ST
(S P T I VAlUE.
INDEX : CTP" 09, AUG, /999
I. 0 C ATI 0 N: SEGUNBAGICHA. DHAKA.
PROJECT:
NATIONAl. ART GAI.I.ERY AT
DEPTH OF !lORING: 18.30 m
SHII.PAKAI.A ACADEMY COMPi-EX.
GWT:
THICK
NESS DATA AND Ul. TlMATE
1M) CAPA CITY DATA
o
TYPE OF PII.E : CAST IN SITU
VERY SOFT SII.TY I.ENGTH OF PII.EII.l: 15 m
4 C I.AY 2
SIZE OF Pii. E: 510 m m DIA
AVG. N = I
3
4
PII.E 1.0AD TEST RESUI.T
MEDIUM STIFF SII.TY 5 IUUIMATE CAPACITY IN TON)
3.5 CI.AY
AVG. N = 6 6
DAVISSON BUTLER AM> BRITISH

7
METHOD HOY METHODSTANDARD
8 METHOD
SII.TY FINE SAND
2-5 AVG. N= 9 9 124 1/4 130
10
Ul. TIMATE Pii. E CAPACITY BY

1/
MEDIUM DENSE TO
8.3 DENSE SII.TY FINE SAN 12
AVG. N = 22
13 DC-METHOD P-METHOD 7>METHOD
14
159 157 162
15
SETTl.EMENT OF PIt.ETlP CORRES
ING TO UI.TlMATE CAPACITY IN mm
18 DAVISSON BUTt.ER AND ~~~
METHOD, HOY METHOD METHOD
13 6 18
LEGEND:
P T P • PRE-CAST TE ST PILE_
CI.AY SII.T SAND CTP = CAST IN SITU TEST PILE_

..
" -
N • STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
PII.E LOAD TEST CQllDUCTED BY: BUET, DHAKA _
IS P T) VALUE_
INDEX : CTP- 10 , MAR, 2000
LOCATION: TEJGAON, DHAKA.
PROJECT:
BG PRESS STAFF QUARTER DEPTH OF BORING: 15.25 m
GWT: -
DATA AND ULTIMATE

SOIL STRATA lIDEALIZE 0 I
CAPA CITY DATA
o
STIFF TO VER Y STIFF TYPE OF PILE: CAST IN SITU
3 SILTY CLAY LENGTH OF PILE( Ll: II m
AVG. N: 16 2 SIZE OF PILE: 400 m m DIA
MEDIUM STIFF TO 4
2.5 STIFF CLAY PILE LOAD TEST RESULT
AVG. N: 12 5 (ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON)
6
MEDIUM DENSE
7
SI L TY SAND
AVG. N : 16
8 METHOD
9 85 I/O
10
MEDIUM DENSE TO
UL TlMATE PIL E CAPACITY BY
II
7'25 DENSE SAND STATIC ANALYSIS IN TON
AVG. N=32
12
13 DC-METHOD .a-METHOD P-METHOD
14
102 95 103
15
SETTLEMENT OF PILE TIP coRRESPOND-
ING TO lA3'IMATE CAPACITY IN mm

METHOD
10 8 III
•
LEGEND:
CTP: CAST IN SITU TEST PILE.
CLAY SILT SAND
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY: BUET, DHAKA .
(SPT I VALUE.
INDEX : CTP - II • MAR, 2000
LOCATION: SEGUN8AGICHA. DHAKA.
PROJECT:
NATIONAL DANCE AND MUSIC DEPTH OF BORiNG: IB'3m
CENTRE. SHILPAKALA ACADEMY.
GWT:
DATA AND ULTIMATE

CAPA CITY DATA
o
MEDIUM STIFF TO
LENGTH OF PILEIU: 14'475 m
5 STIFF CLAY
2 SIZE OF PILE: 450 m m DIA
AVG. N= 9
3.
4
2 STIFF CLAYEY SILT 6

AVG. N= 12
7
8 METHOD
MEDIUM DENSE SANDY
3 SIL T 9 180 175 190
AVG. N= 16
10
ULTIMATE PILE CAPACITY 8Y

11
DENSE TO VER Y DENS E 12

8' 3 SAND
13 DC-METHOD P-METHOD f.:-METHOD
AVG. N=32
14
185 IBO 190
i5
SETTLEMENT OF PILE TIP-CORRESPOND-
ING TO ucrlMATE CAPACITY IN mm
IB DAVISSON BUn.ER AND BRITISH

METHOD
10 9 12
LEGEND:
CLAY SILT SAND
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY: aUET, DHAKA.
IS P T) VALUE.
INDEX : CTP-12, OCT. 2000
LOCATION: MANIKMIA AVENUE. DHAKA.
PROJECT:
HAM VILLAGE DEPTH OF BORING: 18 m
GWT:
DATA AND ULTIMATE

SOIL STRATA liDEALIZED)
CAPA CITY DATA
o
MEDIUM STIFF CLAYEY LENGTH OF PILE ( Ll: 14 m
4 SILT
AVG. N=6
3
4
MEDIUM DENSE SANDY
4.5 SILT 6
AVG. N= 15
DAVISSON BUTLER AI«) BRITISH
7
8 METHOD
9 130 140 145
10

II
MEDIUM DENSE TO STATIC ANALYSIS IN TON
8. 5 DENSE SAND
12
AVG. N = 30
13 lX-METHOD P-METHOD P-METHOD
14
134 130 136

15
SETTLEMENT OF PILE TIPCORRESf'ONDoo
ING TO ULIIMATE CAPACITY IN m m •
METHOD
17 20 22
LEGEND:
CLAY SILT
illI
SAND
PTP
CTP:
= PRE-CAST
CAST IN SITU
TEST
TEST
PILE.
PILE.'
N: STANClARD PENETRATION TEST
(SPT) VALUE.
INDEX : CTP-13, OCT, 2000
LOCATION : IIIANI K 1111
A AVENUE, DHAKA.
PROJECT:
NAM VILLAGE DEPTH OF BORING: 18 m
GWT:
DATA AND UL T1I11ATE

SOIL STRATA lIDEALIZE D) CAPA CITY DATA
LENGTH OF PILEI Ll : 15' 5 m

MEDIUM STIFF SILTY 2 SIZE OF PILE: 450 mm 01 A
6 CLAY
3
AVG. N = 6

5 IULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON)
DAVISSON BUTLER ANO BRITISH

7
IIIEDIUM DENSE SANI1f METHOD HOY IIIETHOD STANDARD
3 SILT IIIETHOD
B
AVG. N = 18
9 158 140 160
10
ULTIIIIATE PILE CAPACITY BY

II
MEDIUM DENSE TO STATIC ANALYSIS IN TON
9 DENSE SAND 12
AV9. N=28
13 lX-IIIETHOD P-METHOD PIIIETHOD
14
136 133 141
15
SETTLEMENT OF PILE TIP CORRESPO

METHOD
12 10 12'5
LEGEND:
CLAY SILT
illI
SAND
PTP
CTP =
• PRE-CAST
CAST IN SITU
TEST
TEST
PILE,
PILE.
N = ST ANDAR 0 PENE TRA TlON TE ST
IS P T) VALUE.
INDEX : CTP - 14, OCT, 2000
LOCATION: MANIKMIA AVENU E, DHAKA,
PROJECT:
DEPTH OF BORINr.: IB m
NAI'II VILLAGE
Gwr: - '( J' •
DATA AND ULTIMATE

o
TYPE OF PILE: CAST IN ':SITU
. LENGTH OF PILE( Ll: 16, 75

I'IIEOIUM STIFF SILTY
4' 5 CLAY
AVG, N =7
3
4
MEDIUM DENSE
3,5 SANDY SILT 6
AVG. N= 15
7
8 METHOD
9 175 167 160
10
MEDIUM DENSE TO
10 DEN SE SAND II
AVG, N= 30
12
13 D(-METHOD P-METHOD P-METHOD
14
147 144 151
15
ING TO ULTIMItrE CAPACITY IN mm
18 DAVISSON BUTLER AND ~~~~

7 1'75 4
LEGEND:
PTP = PRE-CAST TEST PILE,
CLAY SILT . SAND
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY : SUET, DHAKA, (SPT) VALUE.
INDEX : CTP-I!S, DEC, 2000
LOCATION:S.B NAGAR, DHAKA.
PROJECT:
NATIONAL ARCHIVES DEPTH OF BORING: 2 'I' 3 m
GWT:
DATA AND ULTIMATE

SOIL STRATA lIDEALIZED)
CAPA CITY DATA
-- --
0
SILTY I- 5 T YP E OF PIL E : CAST IN SITU

ME 01 UM STIFF
'I ci.AY ~ LENGTH OF PILEI Ll: 1'1' 45 m
3.0 SIZE OF PILE: 450 mm DIA
AVG. N • 6
~ '1.5
STIFF TO VERY STIFF
3 SILTY CLAY 6.0
N • 12
/: PILE LOAD TEST RESULT
AVG.
7.5 IULTIMATE CAPACIT Y IN . TON)
9.0
MEDIUM DENSE TO DAVISSON BUTLER AND BRITISH

10.5
8.3 DENSE SAND METHOD HOY METHOD STANDARD
AVG. N • 20 12'o METHOD
13. 5 120 115 124
15.o

16.5
18'o
DENS E TO VERY
9 DENSE SAND
19'5 DC-METHOD P-METHOD 7:>-METHOO
AVG, N >50
21'o
148 136 140
22.5
SETTl.EMENT OF PILE TIP CORRESPO
IllIG TO ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN mm
2'1'; ---
___ METHOD
.
1/5 12'5 18
LEGEND:
CTP' CAST IN SITU TEST PILE.

CLAY SILT SAND
Pll.E LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY: BUET. DHAKA. IS P T) VALUE.
INDEX : CTP-16, DEC, 2000
LOCATION: S.B NAGAR,DHAKA.
PROJECT:
NATIONAL ARCHIVES DEPTH OF BORING: 24. 3 m
GWT:
SOIL STRATA (IDEALIZED) DATA AND ULTIMATE

CAPA CITY DATA
o
MEDIUM STIFF SILTY
1'5 TYPE OF PILE: CAST IN SITU
4 CLAY
LENGTH OF PILE( U: 13,95 m
lIlV G. N = 6
3'0 SIZE OF PILE: 450 mm DIA
STIFF TO VERY
4.5
STIFF
3 SIL TY CLAY
AVG. 6'0
N' 12 PILE LOAD TEST RESULT
7.5
MEDIUM DENSE TO 9'0

8.3 DENSE SAND DAVISSON BUTLER AND BRITISH
AVG. N=20
10.5 METHOD HOY METHOD STANDARD
METHOD
12-0
100 90 /30
15.
16'5
DENSE TO VERY DENSE
9 SAND 18.0
AVG. N )50 /X:-METHOD P-METHOD PMETHOD
19.5
140 134 137

21.0
ING TO UlJ'IMATE CAPACITY IN rnm.
22.5
BRmSH
24.0 METHOD. HOY METHOD METHOD
12 8'Il 18
illI
LEGEND:
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY: SUET ,DHAKA. N' STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
(SPT) VALUE.
INDEX : CTP -17, FEB, 2001
LOCATION :AGARGAON. S.B NAGAR, DHAKA.
PROJECT:
BANGLADESH COMPUTER
COUNCIL DEPTH OF BORING: 29.0 m
BHABAN .
SOIL STRATA lIDEALIZED) DATA AND ULTIMATE

CAPA CITY DATA
o
MEDIUM STIFF CLAY 2 TYPE OF PILE: CAST IN SITU
6 LENGTH OF PILE ( Ll: 20m
AVG. N= 6
4 SIZE OF PILE: 500 mm DIA
MEDIUM DENSE SILT 6

2
AVG.N=24
8
MEDIUM DENSE
4 SILTY SAND (ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON)
10
AVG. N = 35
12
VERY DENSE SILTY DAVISSON BUTLER AND BRITISH
6 FINE SAND 14 METHOD HOY METHOD STANDARD
AVG. N = 60 METHOD
16
200 185 205

18
20
VERY DENSE FINE SAND UL TIMATE PIL E CAPACITY BY
II
AVG. N > 60 22
24
iX-METHOD PMETHOD PMETHOD
26
180 178 180

28

METHOD.
10 S'5 12
LEGEND:
CLAY SILT SAND

PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY: SUET, DHAKA. N' STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
(SPT) VALUE.
INDEX : CTP- 18, FEB, 2001
LOCATION: AGARGAON, SB NAGAR,DHAKA.
PROJECT:
BANGLADESH COMPUTER COUNCIL DEPTH OF BORING: 29' 0 m

BHABAN.
GWT:
THICK
NESS SOIL STRATA (IDEALIZED) DATA AND ULTIMATE
( M) CAPA CITY DATA
0
2 c-- TYPE OF PILE: CAST IN SITU
7 MEDIUM STIFF CLAY LENGTH OF PILE( Ll : 20 m
AVG. N' 6 4 SIZE OF PILE: 500 mm DIA
4 MEDIUM DENSE SILT F 8

AVG.N'22
~
I 10 (ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON I
I
12
DAVISSON BUTL E R At«! BRITISH
14 METHOD HOY METHOD STANDARD
METHOD
16
DENSE TO VERY 235 225 240

18
18 DENS E SAND
AV G. N 50 20
~ STATIC ANALYSIS IN TON
22
24
D(-METHOD P-METHOD ?>METHOD
26
28 192 190 193

ING TO ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN m m

METHOD HOY METHOD STANQIIRO
METHOD
12 II 14
LEGEND:
CLAY SILT SAND CTP' CAST IN SITU TEST PILE.
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY; BUET, DHAKA . N' STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
(SPT I VALUE.
INDEX : CTP- 19, MAR, 2001
LOCATION: S,8 NAGAR, DHAKA.
PROJECT:
NATIONAL ARCHIVES DEPTH OF BORING: 24.3 m
GWT: - 4.5 m
SOIL STRATA (IDEALIZE 0) DATA AND ULTIMATE

CAPA CITY DATA
MEDIUM STIFF SILTY TYPE OF PILE: CAST IN SITU

4 CLAY LENGTH OF PILE( Ll: IBm
AVG. N = 6
STIFF TO VERY STIFF

3 SILTY CLAY
AVG. N = 12
\ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON)
9.0
MEDIUM DENS E TO
8.3 DENSE SAND 10.5
METHOD t,lOY METHOD STANDARD
AVG. N = 20
METHOD
12.0
160 155 170

13-5
15.0
16.5 STATIC ANALYSIS IN TON
18.0
DENS E TO VERY DENSE
9 DC-METHOD ,.B.METHOD P.METHOD
SAN 0
19.5
AVG. N > 50
21.0 184 178 185
SETTLEMENT OF ALE TIP ~RESPOND-

22-5
ING TO UlJ'IMATE CAPJ¥:ITY IN mm
DAVISSON BUTLER AND BRfnSH

24'0 METHOD. STANDAD
HOY METHOD METHOD
8 7'5 10'5
LEGEND:
CLAY SILT
lID
SAND
PTP
CTP =
• PRE-CAST
CAST IN SITU
TEST
TEST
PILE.
PILE.
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY : BUET, DHAKA. N' STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
(SPT) VALUE.
INDEX : CTP-20, MAR, 2001
LOCATION: KHILGAON. DHAKA.
PROJECT:
GOVT LADIES HOSTEL DEPTH OF BOAING: 25'5m
GWT: -
SOIL STRATA liDEALIZED) DATA AND ULTIMATE

CAPA CITY DATA
MEDIUM TO STIFF CLAY
.-
2 TYPE OF PILE; CASTIN SITU
6
AVG. N=9 LENGTH OF PILE( Ll: 16 m
4
SIZE OF PILE: 450 m m DIA
3
LOOSE
AVG.
SANDY
N = 12
SILT
== 8
MEOIUM DENSE SILTY 12

5-5 SAND
AVG. N' 22 14 DAVISSON BUTLER AN) 8RITISH
16 METHOD
DENSE TO VERY 18 185 180 190

II DENSE SAND
AVG. N > 32
20 -
UL TiMATE PIL E CAPACITY BY
22
24
25 D(-METHDD PMETHOD />METHOD
145 141 145

DAVISSON BUTLER AND BRIl19i
METHOD HOY METHOD ~~~f8rD
M TH D
5'5 5 7
illI
LEGEND:
PTP • PRE. CAST TEST PILE.
CLAY SILT • SAND

PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY: SUET. DHAKA.

(S PT I VALU E •
INDEX : CTP-21, MAR, 2001
LOCATION: KHILGAON. DHAKA.
PROJECT:
G OVT, LADI ES HOSTEL DEPTH OF BORING: 25.5 m
GWT:
DATA AND ULTIMATE

I
SOFT SILTY CLAY
6 LENGTH OF PILEI Ll : 16 m
AVG. N = 4
V ERY LOOSE SANDY SILT ~

r==
3
AVG. N=B 1==
l:=
B
MEDIUM DENSE SILTY
6 SAND 12
AVG. N=20 OAVISSON BUTLER AND BRITISH
14
METHOD
18 IBO 170 IBO
20 -
MEOIUM DENSE TO
10.5 DENSE SAND ULTIMATE PILE CAPACITY BY
22
A VG. N > 30
24
25 O(-METHOD ..B-METHOD PMETHOD
143 140 143

INO TO ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN mm
DAVISSON BUTLER AND ~~g~D

6'5 6 6'5
LEGEND:
CLAY SILT SAND
IS PT) VALUE.
INDEX : CTP-22, DEC, 2001
LOCATION: HDBIGANJ
PROJECT:
DISTRICT REGISTRARS BHABAN DEPTH OF BORING: 18" 3 m
GWT: -1"Sm,
THICI< DATA AND ULTIMATE

NESS SOIL STRATA lIDEALIZED)
I MI CAPA CITY DATA
l 0
F
I I TYPE OF PILE: CAST IN SITU
I - LENGTH OF PILEI L1: 9.5 m
I
VERY SOFT 10 SOFT F 2 SIZE OF PILE: 300 m m DIA
5,5 CLAYE Y SILT.
I
I 3
AVG, N= 3 I
I
r 4
~
~ 5 (ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON I
..
6

7
8 METHOD
MEDIUM DENS E TO f----
12,8 DENSE SAND 9 30 24 30
AVG, N = 22
10

II ~ STATIC ANALYSIS IN TON
12
13 DC-METHOD P-METHOD P-METHOD
14
24"80 23'10 24'50
.15
18 BRITISH
METHOD HOY METHOD
METHOD
I" 3 1"1 1"3
..
LEGEND:
PTP = PRE-CAST TEST PILE"
CLAY SILT SAND
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY:
ISPT) VALUE.
GEOTECHNICAL EN6fNEERS. DHAKA"
INDEX: CTP-23, DEC, 2001
LOCATION: BARISAL
PRO~ECT : .
REGIONAL TRAINING INSTITute: DEPTH OF BORING: 24'25m,
OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
I'll m
THICI< DATA AND ULTIMATE

NESS SOIL STRATAIIDEALIZED) CAPACITY DATA

LENGTH OFPILEILl: 15'25 m
VERY SOFT CLAV, SIZE OF PIL E : 450 mm DIA,
6
AVG, N = 2

IULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON)
SOFT SILTV CLAV,

5 AVG, N 4 =
METHOD
12'0
55 50 55
13'5
MEDIUM DENSE
13'25 SILTV SAND,
15'0 ULTIMATE PIL E CAPACITY BY
AVG, N = 12
16'5
18'0
DC-METHODP-METHOD />METHOD
19'5
47 43 46
21'0
SETTLEMENTOF PILE TIP CORRESPON
22'5
METHOD HOV METHOD TANDARD
METHOD
'22 'IB ' 22
LEGEND:
CTP. CAST IN SITU TEST PILE,
CLAY SILT SAND N. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTEDBV: BUET, DHAKA, IS PT) VALUE.
t
INDEX : CTP - 24 I APR. 2002
LOCATION: SYLHET
PROJECT:
DIVISIONAL PUBLIC LIBRARY DEPTH Of BORING: 18m,
GWT: - 1'5 m,
llilCI< DATA AND ULTIMATE
NESS SOIL STRATA lIDEALIZE D) CAPA CITY DATA
1M)
o
TYP E Of PILE: CAST IN SITU
LENGTH OF PILEI Ll: 14 m
SIZE OF PILE: 450 mm DIA,

2
LOOSE SILTY SAND
4'5 AVa, N = 10 .
3

5
6
VERY LOOSE SAND
6 MElliOD HOY METHOD STANDARD
Ava, N' 5 7
METHOD
8
120 115 125
10 UL T1MATE PIL E CAPACITY BY

II
STIFF COMPRESIBLE SILT, 12

O(-MElliOD P-METHOD PMETHOD
7'5 AVG, N = 35 '
13
114 114 114

14
15
BRITISH
METHOD OY MElliOD METHOD
18 '98 1'2
1'02
LEGEND:
PTP,= PRE-CAST TEST PILE,
CTP' CAST IN SITU TEST 'PILE ,
CLAY SILT SAND
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY: IS P T I VALUE.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS. DHAt<A ,
INDEX: CTP-25, MAR, 1998
LOCATION: DHAKA.
PROJECT:
RAYER BAZAR BAIDDHYA BHUMI DEPTH Of BORING: 30 m.

GWT: 0°5 m
TIiICK DATA AND ULTIMATE

NESS SOIL STRATA IIDEALIZED) CAPA CITY DATA
( M)
o
TYPE Of PILE: CAST IN SITU
2
LENGTH Of PILE( Ll: 29 m.
VERY LOOSE SILTY SAND
10
AVO. N = 4 SIZE Of PILE: 500mm DIA.
4

10
12
LOOSE VERY FINE DAVISSON BUTLER AND BRITISH
6 SILTY SAND. METIiOD HOY MElHOD STANDARD
AVG. N = 9 14
METHOD
16
18
20 ULT1MATE PIL E CAPACITY BY

MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE STATIC ANALYSIS IN TON
14 FINE SAND
22
AVO. N. 35
24 O(-METIiOD P-METHOD P.METHOD
26
172 172 172
28
INO TO UlJ"IMATE CAPACITY IN mm
30
METHOD HOY METHOD ~'¥W~~
LEGEND:
CLAY SILT
lID
SAND
PTP
CTP.
• PRE-CAST
CAST IN SITU
TEST
TEST
PILE.
PilE.
N • ST ANOAR 0 PENE TRATI ON TE ST
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY: BUET, DHAKA . (SPT I VALUE.
APPENDIX-B
SAMPLE SUB-SOIL INVESTIGATION DATA, SOIL IDEALIZATION DATA,
STATIC ANALYSIS OF ULTIMATE PILE CAPACITY AND CORRESPONDING
ULTIMA TE LOAD TEST DATA (PTP.2 AND CTP-6)
PTP-2
Project: Rajshahi Development Authority Bhaban, Rajshahi.
Depth of boring : 18.6m GWT: 3.0m
R.C.C. pre-cast pile, pile length: 1O.67m, Pile size: 300mm x 300mm
2m
V
Medium stiff =260
1ft
5m to stiff clayey
Cu=3.125T/m2
silt AvgN=6
Loose sandy =29
2m silt,Av .N=lO K=l 7.2T/m2
1. 67 m Mdi'lm Den", 1ft . =300
Siltyfme sand
Avg.N=12
K=1.25 855T/m2
2m Dense Sandy sil~ 1ft =360 .83m
K=175 2
AvgN=22 .....................•......• 9.2T/m
. .............................................•........................................
9.2T/m2
Medium Dense Silty Sand Stress diagram
Avg.N=12 y dry=16.T/m3 y sat=1. 8T/m3
L/ 5.67
For sandy layer, / D = -- = 18.9
.3
For Medium dense sand 2;1; = 15 For constant stress due to arching action
for 2;1; = 15;Zc = 15(.3) = 4.5/11
Layer-I: Clay: (Skinfriction)
a -method
IsuJ =.78(3.125) = 2.44T 1/11' ........•....•....... eq" ....2.3 and fig 2.2
:. QsuJ = 4(.3)(2)(2.44) = 14.64Toll
f3 -method
. 180 "
Isu = 4.4(1- SIn25) tan 1810g-
J = 1.53T I m- eqc (2.4,2.5,2.6 & 2.7)
2.5
:. Qsu = 9. 18Toll
J
A -method
IS"J
= .38(4.4 + 2x3.125) = 4.05T I m' eq" (2.10) and Fig.2.4
:. QsuJ = 24.30Toll
Layer-2 : Sand: (Skin friction)
Isu, = 6.4(1) tan 22° = 2.6T 1m' eqn 2.5 and Table.2.2
:. Qsu, = 6.24Toll
fsu, = 7.88(1.25)tan 22.5 = 4T / m' eq" 2.5 and Table.2.2
:. Qsu, = 8.02Toll
fsu: = (8.88)(1.75) tan 27 = 7.91T / m' eq" 2.5 and Table.2.2
fsu; = (9.2)(1.75) tan 27 = 8.20T / m' eq" 2.5 and Table.2.2
:. Qsu: = 7.87Toll
:. Qsu; = 11.51Toll
End Bearing: (Sandy layer) : % = 20,I/J= 36:. Nq = 58 .Fig.2.5
fu=58(1O.2) = 592T/m2 eq" 2.13
:. Qpu =(.3x.3)(592)=53.70Ton
:. Total Capacity:
a-method
Qull=(14.64+6.24+8.02+7.87+ 11.51 )+53.70=1 OZTon.
f3 -method:
Qull=(9.18+6.24+8.02+ 7.87+ 11.5 1)+53.70=97Ton
A -method:
Qult=(24.30+6.24+8.02+ 7.87+ 11.53)+53.70=112Ton
GnoUN D LE'/EL.
CLIENT: RAJSI-IAHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
GnOUND WATER LEY EL. g'-d'
SITE: ?/i.a/ .•. I RAJ SHAHl
DI\TE. G-o- 97
BonE HOLE NO. 3'
BL.OWS ON SThNLJAlln rJ[IJE\ - \t~[)EX
v, :; 'L0 Sf'OOhl r'Er~ nATION f?E5IS f/\I~Cr: ~ZrriSi1s~
,,' .r U1 C)
z G lNCtI PEN- .-----.----.-_.-.----
-' U1
J:
U1
w D[SClllPTION OF C)
rr ETllfl.TION GLOWS PEr~ UN
w~ ~
W rl).,)l
,- C< "-
0
1- ~
,-
z-;
~.:.:
MAT [Hlfl..LS 0
<-1
0 J 0, ~Q1~~@
<l
fD<l
~U1
0
til ~ v~ _J
0 m G" G" G~ b PEN £T flf\llON
~ "'
0 :J C1
, _. - z.)?> '1 ) r.( Vane Shoar
0 I
7-
0 ,->- f- Undrain ad
shoar slrenglh
IT SF)
5' O. -I 2
t
G
0---' ~~: lHtJlJ.~lilf
~
2 3
"
Gre y \0 11gill brow/\ 10' 0.82.
17-0 SILT wilh fillu sa nd /
-
U '-1 clayoy ' " /
2. :\ j G
1)- ~ 2 mod. COll'pre:l3
___ .._________
._____ l:lJ
U---~
2 2 3 5 _.
Il - 3
.
0
U-- :j :/ Co 7
I
10
I" '. ~ I 1:0
Gru'1'
S
IncdiIJtn dOll:O;o
P lu ~, it.:
501,(1,y
/-
. / " 1
I,
11..l'Il(lll
/
/- .. j :,i I
/ .1 G 0 \/1
,
Il' ~ ..-" . - /
I I
,-
\
k l'
~~~-l----- -'-'---'-'.'
:' '-~7.'.
.,/ .
0'
"1'7
«;; ,"'~ ~ G II 17 -
<:)/(,
f), -
L FINE .J
0' "
10.0
Gro y med.dense ,Illy
mica .~~) .
SAN U Ira c c
~, 9 II 16 27 )
D .. 7 /
/ 'Ff
4 5 G
1)-- 0 "
10-0 Grey moO. dense sondy

non plostic " ~)'
5 7 '2
0..- 9 ~: " 1
-- --' ---_ ..-~----------
48' :iO'
5 G 7 '3
1)-i0 '7
,/,L 1
Brown sllff ,Illy CLAY \,Jilll 55'

13.0 fine sa nd mctl.ploslic 3 4 5 9
,
7 \,-
\
\ i
-I
1 (.~n'
1-._.- ..- ----------1
I
l'Ii
'I 5 I?\:r: ,
I
, '
_
...-- ._ •... .... _ ....--_.-_ .•-.~-_....--_ ..... -_._.- -_ ..._ .. --- ---
INDEX : PTP-02, DEC. 1997
LOCATION: RAJSHAHI
PROJECT:
RAJSHAHI DEVELDMENT DEPTH OF BOR ING: 18.6 m
AU TNORI TY BHABAN.
GWT:-3'Om
DATA AND ULTIMATE

SOIL STRATA IIDEALIZE D) CAPA CITY DATA
o
LENGTH OF PILE ( Ll: 10' 6 m

2 SIZE OF PILE:300mm X300mm
6 CLAYEY SILT
AVG. N0 6 3
4
DAVISSON BUTLER AI«) BRITISH

LOOSE SANDY SILT 7
METHOD HOY METHOD STANDARO
21 AVG. NolO
8 METHOD
MEDIUM DENSE SILTY

9 110 103 120
I' 6 FINE SAND
AVG. N • 12
10
DENSE SANDY SILT
2 A VG. N 0 22 II
12
MEDIUM DENSE SILTY

13 O(-METHOD P-METHOD r--METHOD
2.6 SAN 0
AVG. N: 12 14
102 97 112
15
SETTLEMENT OFPlLE TIP CORRESP
STIFF SILTY CLAY ING TO ULTIMATE CAPJCITY IN mm
4.33 18 BRmSH
AVG. N = 10 DAVISSON BUTLER AND STANDARD
II' 50 9 25
LEGEND:
PTP 0 PRE-CAST TEST PILE.
CTP 0 CAST IN SITU TEST PILE.
CLAY SILT SAND No STAN[)ARD PENETRATION TEST
PILE LOAD TEST CONDUCTED BY: BUET, DHAKA • (S P T) VALUE.
PILE LOAD TEST FOR }~"[AL CO!VIPRESSION
BRTC No. 18lJ/97-98/CE Date: 27/10/97
Client: Executive Engineer, Div .. l, R,~ishajJj, Public WLlrks J)~pL. Co':!, (If J3nng,iadesll
Project: II-Storied RDA Building
LocmioH: BOHo10ta Conunercial Area R,d~hahi
Pile N0: T?2, ?.iJe Type: Pre-cast. Pile leuglh: 35'. Pile ~l:ctioll: 12" x 12"
Date of Casting: Nov., 1995, Dale of driving: 25.10.97, Date of Testing: 07.11.97
Test Type: ML, Maximwn Test Load: 160 Ton. Test Method: ASTM DI143
Pile load (Ton)
o 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
, , ,
"'- ~
.!..-
"
-~-
•
.
'-1
--- i-~-
" "
!vkthod 2 I :
•••
.
1.
,
~
.
..
.\
1
.. I ". .. -
r\\
.
I
1
I!
1
\
"
I"
j:
I" I
•...
•... •... 1.
.r-,. •.••_ 1
•... •...
•... •...
•...
•...
\ 1
1
\
i
•... "\
I •.. •... .\
•.. - :,
,
•.. -
... ... Method 1
\.. - •...
I..
'--'.•... . .-
1
.
j
i •... •...
1 •...
I i .•...
\~
I
•...
"
1
1
I I
I
1
_ .. I I
.1 . J
I i I'
I i
!
I
i
! I
t
1-.. . .-
Fig. E:Z Load-settlement
Ultimate Pile Capacity:
curves of test pile TP2
Method 1 = 110 Ton
Method 2 = 103 Ton
1-. . "
j j ; , ',' i
. .-
CTP.6
Project: Examination Complex, Education Board, Dhaka.
Type of pile: Cast in Situ
Length of pile = 14m, dia of pile; 400mm GWT-
Soft silty clay

,p =22°
3.0m Cu=1.88T/m2
Avg.N=3
Medium Dense tfr=37°

4.0m to K=1.75
Dense sandy
Silt, AvgN=24 11.2T/m2
Dense to very
Dense Sand
Avg.N>45
7m
11.2T/m2
Stress diagram
Very dense sand
y dry=16T/m~}
y sat=1.8T/m;
For sandy layer, % = 1~5 = 26.25

for constant stress in dense sandy layer, Z~ = 10 t. Zc = 10(.4) = 4m.
Layer-I: Clay (Skin friction)
a -method
fsu! = .92(1.88) = 1.72T / m' eq" 2.3 and fig 2.2
:. Qsu! = n(.4)(3.0)(I.72) = 6.65Toll

f3 -method
fsu! = 2.4(I-sIn . 22) tan 161og-180 = .90T /m- '" eq (2.4,2.5,2.6 & 2.7)
. 1.5
:. Qsu! = 3.40Toll
A -method
fsu! = .48(2.4 + 2x3.88) = 2.955T / m' eq" (2.10) and Fig.2.4
:. Qsu! = 11.14Toll
Layer.2 : Sand: (Skin friction)
fsu, = 8(1.75) tan 27.5 = 2.28T / m' eq" 2.5 and Table.2.2
:. Qsuz = 37Ton
fsu3 = 11.2(2) tan 33 = 14.54T / m2 > lOT / m2
. . fsu3 = lOT / m2
:. Qsu, = 88Ton
End Bearing: (Sandy layer) : 7b = 30,~ = 45:. Nq > 200 Fig.2.5

fu=11.2(200» 1100T/m2........................ eqn 2.13
:.fu = 1100T/m2 ••••••.••.••••••••••.••. '
n(.4)2
:. Qpu = ~-x1100 = 138 ton
4
:. Total Capacity:
Quit = QSII + Qpu
1 1
a-method: Qul,=-(6.65 + 37 + 88) +-(138) = 113 ton
3 2
1 I
f3 -method:_Qult= '3 (3.40 + 37 + 88) + '2(138) = 112 ton
I I
A -method: Quh=-(l1.14 + 37 + 88) + -(138) = 114 ton
3 2
RESULTS
,"
!IT-
--~-,=-,--I~I--~
--- --
U
- --~n-t
'IN
,~"-7"",-2 =--==: '=~_:'==._-=1=--=~~I~.9---=:-"---~.~~~ 1""_

., ! I
. '--"-~ -'-"--1-1-- -.- - -
o
SILT wIth somo.cloy 6
I'
Ll __
_0
2'.S _
~2__ 2_6_
t!.:.94 ~,
~- -
_'-E_ 7G
1--lU~_ t~
1---_.
~:..?_N.A
_
/",!-I
sand.
,.,
..---- --.--.-.---..---1--
,-- - - . - ---l--
1:'>4 --- -- --9 'A
_-
I '
" 4--- -- ----\-- -- ---1----[--\ --\--\-- - --.
!
I 1'0 !:w i r-O I -I
' I 'I : i
I
I
-.---
I! '!
--- ----'---1-.-'-- '1-
Ii! I i
--1.---
,
I '
,
,
,
!
I
i
--1-
,,.1"1
-'1-I
,
i
I
,
IJ-
I
-_ .. j -- _.-! - --- i .,---

I _.- _.-
I !
_.__ 1.
! i I, II
_._-! .
i \ I I
- "--1--1--'
I ~3 i 12 I
___-I II I
Iii
I
-- - ---
1-
'
I --
I
I ,- .II'I'-J-I---.I-I ------
! ! ;
I I! ----\+-1--'
. i F
!---.J
INDEX : CTP-oe, JAN, 1999
LOCATION: DHAKA
PROJECT:
EXAMINATION COMPLEX, DEPTH OF BORING: 26 m
EDU.cATION BOARD, DHAKA.
GWT: -
DATA AND ULTIMATE

SOIL STRATA (IDEALIZE 0 I
CAPA CITY DATA
SOFT SILTY CLAY H5 - TYPE OF PILE: CAST IN SITU

5.0
AVO.' N .3 LENGTH OF PILE( Ll: 14 m
3.0
SIZE OF PIL E : 400 m m DIA
4.5
MEDIUM DENSE TO &0

4'0 DENSE SANDY SILT PILE LOAD TEST RESULT
7.5
AVG. N = 24 (ULTIMATE CAPACITY IN TON I
9-0
1TlT
10.5
12'0 METHOD
DENSE TO VERY DENSE
17.0 SAND 13.5 106 1/1 137
AVG. N >45
IIIII 15.0
- UL T1MATE PIL E CAPACITY BY

16.5
IS'O
19.5 /X-METHOD PMETHOD PMETHDD
21.0
113 1/2 114
22.5
(
2&0 DAVISSON BUTLER AND BRITISH

STANDARD
ME1llOD . HOY METHOD
METHOD
1/ 13 2/S
..
LEGEND:
CLAY SILT SAND
PILE LOAD TEST CCl'lDUCTED BY: BUET, DH4J(A • (SPT I VALUE.
PILE LOAD TEST FOR AXIAL COMPRESSION
BRTC No. i 70G!~:)-99/CE Date: 22/1\/98
Client: Executive Engineer, PWD City Division, Dh~IK~l
Project: Multi-Storied Building. Location: Dk!ka l~oard Ort\n~, l3akshi Sa/,ar
Pile No: TP3. Pile Type: Cast in-situ, Pile length: 45'. Pile diameter: 1S"
Dale of Casting: 23.1 O.{)S, Date ofTcs[ing: 1lJ.ll.9S
Test Type: ML. Muxill1lllll Test Load: 1GOTon, Test Method: ASTM D 1143
Applied load (Ton)

140 160
o 40 60 80 100 120
o
20
.--
-
~
-I. - _.I.
- -'. - ~
\
\
- -'. -
,
.
"Z \
\
\
-I()
-- - -- -- -
-- ----
- - - -- - -
!\~
--- - - --
\
\
\
\
\
-1--- ---
Ultimate Pile Capacity:
\ --- - -
D;.lvisson(197J):= IOGTon
\
\
-
Uutk:r & Hoy l197G) = 111 Tun
\
IS: 2911-1979= 107 Ton \
8S8004: 198G~ 137'1'011 \
\
-20
\\
\
\
I-
-
I ill \
\
-40 -..........
l
l-
~
I
I
I
-- iJ
I n'
. . . . . .
-50
Fig. 3 Load-settlement curve of test pile TP3

A Study of Ultimate Capacity of Piles in Bangladesh PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

A Study of Ultimate Capacity of Piles in Bangladesh PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

A STUDY OF ULTIMATE CAPACITY OF PILES IN

MD. SHAHNOOR ALAM KHAN

MASTER IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

rm-LJl J-I"..J ..-J,.:;J

(Dr. Abu Siddique)

Signature of the candidate

Md. Shahnoor Alam Khan

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER THREE MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS

3.6.2 Effects of pile diameter 40

4.1 Concluding remarks 61

Fig.l.l Installation of a timber pile 5

1.2 TYPES OF PILES USED IN BANGLADESH

1.4 THESIS LAYOUT

Fig 1.2. Installation of a precast pile

Fig 1.4. Measurement of pile settlement inside a trench

LITERA TURE REVIEW

There is relatively little quantitative information on the effects of installation of cast-in-situ

2.2 BEARING CAPACITY OF PILES

2.2.1 Pile Capacity by Static Formulae

A - or semi-empirical appr~ach (after Vijayavergia and Focht, 1972)

Where C" = undrained cohesion or undrained strength (5,,) of soil

Qsu = f~CJsdz (2.4)

Where C = perimeter of pile

The skin friction is expressed in this method as

f3 =( I-sin ljJ)tan I/J (2.7)

where ep = in-situ angle of internal friction of soil.

Where L is total length of pile in metres.

f3 = (l - sin 4> ).J OCR tan e (2.9)

The ultimate skin frictional load is determined from,

(b) Driven piles-point bearing

In the effective stress approach Qpu is expressed as

Qpu = uztJ/ qAb (2.13)

where (J zb = vertical effective stress at the level of pile base

Nq = bearing capacity factor

(C) Bored and cast - in situ piles

(d) Driven and cast-in situ piles

Pile materials 8 Value of K

Low relati ve High relative

Wood 0.67l/J 1.5 4.0

and for H-section pile.

consideration. Similarly in telms of standard penetration number, Meyerhof gives for

(b) Driven piles-point bearing

(c) Bored and cast-in-situ piles

(d) Driven and cast-ill-situ piles

2.3.1 Tests to Failure

2.3.2 Tests Not to Failure

2.3.4 Types of Load Test

2.4 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR ESTIMATION OF PILE LOAD CAPACITY

2.5 CURRENT STATUS OF PILE LOAD TEST RESULTS IN BANGLADESH

Location Soil Type (SPT) Structure Type Pile characteristics Range of

'" ~', r•...,'.1 ••: ~.

'..-" .f: .•~.~. :.,-, -, •.

Fig. 2.1 Load transfer in single pile

Fig. 2.5 Berezantzev's bearing capacity factor, Nq

For driven piles </l= 0.75$' + 10 (Fig. 2.6a & b)

Fig. 2.7 Pile taper factor Fw (after Nordlund, 1963)

Valu<zsof Lid ~22

10. .I. fo.

MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS

The exact analysis of a pile theoretically is impossible because of higher degree of

3.3 IDEALIZATION OF SOIL DATA