Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Main Organizer:
Universitas Universitas
Atma Jaya Yogyakarta Gadjah Mada
Supporting
Co-organizer: Institution:
Indonesian Society
for Geotechnical Engineering
Proceeding
International Conference on Geotechnics (IC Geotechnics)
“Sustainable Development Challenges in Geotechnics”
Organized by:
Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta
Universitas Gadjah Mada
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology
University of Southern Queensland
Publisher:
IC Geotechnics
Jl. Grafika No. 2 Kampus UGM, Yogyakarta 55281
Phone: +62-274-513665
Proceeding
International Conference on Geotechnics (IC Geotechnics)
“Sustainable Development Challenges in Geotechnics”
International Conference on Geotechnics, 24-26 July, 2018 Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Table of Contents
Title page i
Title back page ii
Foreword iii
Table of Contens iv
Pile Load Test Frequently Asked Questions 1
(T.L Gouw, A. Gunawan)
Active Faults Identification for Dam Safety Against Earthquakes 13
(D. Djarwadi)
3D Assessment of Rainfall-induced Slope Movements and Risk Mitigation Strategies 20
(Wei He, Barry Kok, Sangmin Lee)
Bridge Approach Embankments on Rigid Inclusions 29
(M. Rizal & K. Yee)
Design of Rapid Impact Compaction at the New Yogyakarta International Airport 39
(Mathew Sams, Wei He, Jeremy Gamaliel, and Barry Kok)
Effects of Model Scale Due to Displacement Factor for Nailed-slab Pavement System 49
(Anas Puri)
Initial Recommendation Criteria for Distinguishing Between Landslides 54
and Mudflows Based on Several Case Studies in Java and Bali
(B. Widjaja, D. Pascayulinda)
Slope Stability of Metamorphic Rock Based on Limit Equilibrium 61
Method of Poboyo Gold Mine, Palu, Central of Sulawesi
(Sriyati Rahmadani, Ahmad Rifa’i, Wahyu Wilopo, and Kabul Basah Suryolelono)
Deterioration Depth of Cement Treated Clay Under Sulfate Exposure 67
(T. Pradita, L. Handoko, S. Gunawan, and J. T Hatmoko)
Analysis of Failure Base Plate Anchor Flare Stack Foundation and Repair Method 78
(Sulardi)
The Analysis of Rockbolt Reinforcement on the Tunnel 83
by Mohr Coulomb Approach Model and Hardening Soil Model
(Hanindya K. Artati and Dias Dwi Hatmoko)
Effect of Matric Suction Change on Pile Foundation Capacity in Unsaturated Soils 94
(H. Pujiastuti, A. Rifa’i, A. D. Adi, and T. F. Fathani)
4
International Conference on Geotechnics, 24-26 July, 2018 Yogyakarta, Indonesia
T. L. Gouw
Associate Professor, Post Graduate Program, Universitas Katolik Parahyangan, Bandung, INDONESIA
gtloffice@gmail.com
A. Gunawan
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, INDONESIA
agunawan@connect.ust.hk
ABSTRACT
There are a few available methods to obtain load-settlement curve of a pile. Likewise, there are many methods to determine the
ultimate pile capacity from a load-settlement curves. Although pile load tests have been widely used over the past decades, there
are still many questions regarding its practice and interpretation. Frequently asked questions include: when does a pile test
considered to have failed? From an economic point of view, a failure in pile load test can cost quite a lot of money. To what load
can the pile be loaded till it is considered to have failed? Can a pile loaded to failure still be used as a working pile? Is pile driving
analyzer (PDA) test reliable? Can PDA test replace static load test? Is it necessary to calibrate PDA test results with static load
test results? Why is PDA test result interpreted as 1 dimensional wave and not 3 dimensional? What is bidirectional pile load
test (also known as O’cell)? When should O’cell be used? Can a pile tested with O’cell be used as a working pile? What are the
differences between kentledge load test, static load test with reaction piles and bidirectional pile load test? Do the three different
pile tests produce the same results? This paper aims to shed light on these questions.
Keywords: Pile static load test, Dynamic load test, Bidirectional test, Ultimate pile capacity, Fail Pile
1
International Conference on Geotechnics
type is punching failure with a relatively constant (Fellenius, 2017). The relative movement required is
capacity, in which pile continues to move under independent of pile size, but dependent on soil type and
constant load. The third type is punching failure with a roughness of the pile.
reduction in capacity. Geotechnical pile failure only
occurs when type 2 or type 3 occurs. For type 2 and 3, The magnitude of shaft resistance mobilized is
a true “ultimate” capacity can be defined. It is dependent on the magnitude of relative movement and
important to differentiate the peak and ultimate soil type. This behavior is easily observed from direct
capacity for type 3. These three types of curve obtained shear test results shown in Figure 3. For loose sand or
can be explained with ultimate shaft resistance and toe normally consolidated clay, shaft resistance (shear
resistance. resistance) continues to increase with shear
displacement. Once the displacement is large enough,
the ultimate shaft resistance is reached, in which the
resistance stays constant. For dense sand or overly
consolidated clay, shaft resistance continues to increase
until a peak shaft resistance is reached. From there, the
shaft resistance decreases with movement, until
ultimate shaft resistance is reached.
2
International Conference on Geotechnics, 24-26 July, 2018 Yogyakarta, Indonesia
shaft resistance. Hence, when the shaft resistance is Figure 1. In this example, the ultimate pile capacity is
fully mobilized, the toe does not have sufficient 2300 kN and 1480 kN based on the Eurocode 7, and
capacity to sustain the current load and self-weight of Indonesian Standard respectively. Based on the 2
pile. For the punching failure with reduction in criteria, 35% difference in ultimate capacity is
capacity, the shaft is surrounded by dense sand or obtained. Naturally, the factor of safety applied for the
overly consolidated clay, while the toe sits on soft or two failure criteria are different. For Eurocode 7, partial
loose soil. When the shaft resistance is mobilized factors design is used, while for Indonesian Standard, a
beyond its peak resistance, the drop in shaft resistance factor of safety of 2.5 is used for deep foundation.
is higher than the increase in toe resistance. Hence, an
overall drop in pile capacity occurs until the ultimate Other than settlement-based failure criteria, there are
shaft resistance is mobilized, and the pile capacity also other failure criterion which attempts to separate
remains constant. the initial relatively gentle part of the curve and the
latter steeper part of the curve. Example of such
criterion includes Hansen 80% and 90% criteria (1963),
Chin-Kondner extrapolation (Chin, 1971; Kondner
1963), Decourt extrapolation (2008), DeBeer
intersection load (1968) and many others.
Figure 4. Unit toe resistance measured on a 1.5 and 1.8 m 3 STATIC LOAD TEST
diameter bored pile constructed in silty sandy clay and
clayey sand (Fellenius, 2017). Static load test is a test whereby tested pile is loaded
axially, either through dead weight (kentledge) or
Punching failure with relatively constant capacity and reaction piles/frames. The choice of pile tested is
punching failure with reduction in capacity is rather usually based on the pile installed in the most adverse
rare. For general failure, there is no well-defined soil conditions. This is to ensure that the obtained
ultimate pile capacity. However, to ease results are most conservative, and there is no
communication between engineers, “ultimate” pile overestimation of pile capacity in other areas.
capacity is required. Hence, failure criterion is used to The main purpose of static load test is to obtain load
determine ultimate pile capacity. versus movement relationship of said pile. From the
results, based on certain failure criterion, the ultimate
2.4 Failure criterion
pile capacity can be derived. In addition to
For pile which experience general failure, failure determination of ultimate pile capacity, creep behavior
criterion need to be established to determine ultimate can also be determined by interpretation of movement
pile capacity. Eurocode 7 states that ultimate state can versus time relationship under constant load. Another
be defined as the load which causes excessive useful information that can be obtained through static
displacement (BS EN 1997-1, 2004). Therefore, the load test is the rebound behavior, when the pile tested
keyword is acceptable displacement, and a lot of is unloaded (BS EN 1997-1, 2004). More useful
standards uses pile settlement magnitude to define information can be obtained by using instrumented
ultimate pile capacity. piles, e.g. shaft resistance and toe resistance (Fellenius,
2017). In the next sections, the procedure of static load
In Eurocode 7, 10% of the pile base diameter of test by kentledge and reaction piles are discussed. Their
settlement is adopted as failure criterion (BS EN 1997- results are also discussed.
1, 2004). For Indonesian standard, the failure criterion
is 25 mm for piles with diameter smaller than 0.8 m, 3.1 Kentledge System
and 4% pile diameter for piles with diameter larger than
0.8 m (SNI 8640:2017). The failure criterion is then Figure 5 and 6 shows a schematic diagram and
used to obtain the ultimate pile capacity, as shown in photograph of static load test with kentledge system,
respectively. A pile capacity can range from a few tons
3
International Conference on Geotechnics
3.2 Reaction Piles or Anchors Figure 6. Photograph of static load test with kentledge
system (Khmer D&C, 2018).
Alternative to kentledge, reaction piles or anchors can
be used to provide the reaction force for pile loading.
Figure 7 and 8 shows a schematic diagram and
photograph of reaction pile system. Care must be taken
to ensure sufficient resistance from anchors or reaction
piles. Movement of anchors or reaction piles also must
be measured to calculate the net movement of the tested
pile. Another thing to note is the difference requirement
in clear distance between tested pile and its anchors or
reaction piles. ASTM D1143 states that the required
clear distance is 5 times the largest pile/anchor
diameter (can be the test pile or reaction pile) or 2.5 m,
whichever is larger. The required clear distance is
larger than kentledge system because for kentledge Figure 7. Schematic diagram of static load test with anchored
system, the larger the load applied on tested pile, the reaction frame (ASTM D 1143, 2007).
lower the load on the cribs. However, when reaction
piles or anchors are used, the larger the load applied on
tested pile, the larger the opposite load acts on the
reaction piles or anchors.
4
International Conference on Geotechnics, 24-26 July, 2018 Yogyakarta, Indonesia
a qualified engineer should specify the waiting period In Indonesia, the most commonly used loading
before testing. Apart from the above, for cast-in-place procedure is the second procedure. Loading up to 200%
pile or bored pile, sufficient time should be given for design load, and ultimate pile capacity is taken from 25
the concrete to gain adequate strength. mm settlement for piles with diameter smaller than
0.8 m, and 4% pile diameter for piles with diameter
ASTM D1143 approves 7 loading procedure. The first larger than 0.8 m (SNI 8640:2017).
procedure is called ‘quick test’, the pile is loaded in
increments of 5% of the anticipated failure load. After 3.4 Results, Failures in Execution of Static Load Test
reaching 100% failure load, the pile is unloaded at 5 to Results from a non-instrumented pile static load test
10 equal decrements. Each interval of increment and comes in the form of load-settlement curve (an example
decrement must be between 4 to 15 minutes. The is shown in Figure 1 and 2). From the load-settlement
second procedure is called ‘maintained test’. In this curve, the ultimate pile capacity can be determined
test, the pile is loaded in 25% increments of the design using failure criterion based on local national
load until 200% design load is reached, unless failure standards. However, without any geotechnical
is reached first. Each increment is maintained until the instrumentation, it is impossible to derive the shaft or
movement does not exceed 0.25 mm per hour toe resistance from the load-settlement curve alone.
(minimum 2 hours to verify the movement rate). After The importance of instrumentation is discussed in the
200% design load is reached, maintain the load for 24 next section.
hours unless the 0.25 mm per hour criteria is reached.
After the last loading step, unloading can be initiated at Failures in execution of pile test should not be confused
25% of the maximum test load per unloading step. Each with pile loaded to failure. For execution failure, it
unloading step is 1 hour. If failure is reached (i.e. 0.25 means the inability to produce a load-settlement curve,
mm per hour is not achieved), maintain the maximum or ‘unacceptable’ results. Although failures in static
load possible until the total axial movement equals to load test is highly unlikely if the guidelines laid out by
15% of the pile diameter. Care must be taken to ASTM D1143 are followed, they can still happen.
maintain the load in hydraulic jack, as load may
decrease as the pile deforms. The third procedure is a Failures usually occur due to unexpected malfunction
reloading procedure which can be conducted after the of loading apparatus during testing, e.g. hydraulic jack
second procedure, it is called ‘loading in excess of cannot apply or unable to maintain the correct load.
maintained test’. After the test pile is fully unloaded, Another failure could be due to malfunction of
the pile is reloaded at 50% of the design load in 20 measuring apparatus, e.g. misalignment of dial gauge.
minutes interval until the previous maximum load is Other source of errors is human negligence, such as
reached. From the previous maximum load, the pile is misreading of measurements. When the following
further loaded in 10% increments of the design load ‘accidents’ happen, the results may become
with 20 minutes interval between increments. The 10% inappropriate to be used. Failures can also happen prior
increments are continued until the settlement reached to the load test. For example, miscalculation of the
15% of the pile diameter. If failure does not occur, hold bearing capacity required by the cribs or eccentric
the final load for 2 hours, and unload at 4 equal placement of kentledge. When the aforementioned
decrements in 20 minutes interval. The fourth mistake occurs, the kentledge can experience bearing
procedure, named ‘constant time interval loading capacity failure, as shown in Figure 9. When this
test’ is similar to the first procedure, but the loading happens, it is likely that the test pile could not be used
increments is 20% of design load in 1-hour intervals. for testing, and another pile need to be chosen. Other
Unloading is also conducted in 1-hour intervals. The miscalculation include underestimation of the
fifth procedure is ‘constant rate of penetration test’. kentledge required. More than often, due to
As the name suggest, the pile is loaded at a rate of 0.25 conservatism in design load, and maximum load
to 1.25 mm per minute for cohesive soil; 0.75 to 2.5 applied on test pile being a function of design load, the
mm per minute for granular soil until a total penetration maximum load applied may not be enough to settle the
of 15% of the pile diameter. The sixth procedure is pile more than the required failure criterion. In this
‘constant movement increment test’. In this case, the results from the static load test can become
procedure, the pile is loaded at 1% movement very uninformative, with the exception that the design
increments. The load applied on pile is varied to capacity can be higher than what was initially
maintain every 1% movement until load variation is calculated.
less than 1% of the total load. Likewise, continue
loading of pile until 15% movement is achieved. The Failures in static load tests cost a lot of time and money.
pile is then unloaded at four equal decrements. Accidents that occur in Figure 9 can be prevented and
should not be allowed to occur. Accidents that happen
5
International Conference on Geotechnics
due to loading or measuring apparatus can also be as a restrike on driven piles with a pile driving hammer
reduced by doing frequent maintenance and after a set up period, or on bored piles with a drop
calibration. hammer. Due to the nature of the test, it is much
cheaper and quicker to conduct a PDA test than a static
load test.
6
International Conference on Geotechnics, 24-26 July, 2018 Yogyakarta, Indonesia
results are interpreted using 1 dimensional wave theory 13. In this model, the pile is modelled as discrete
to obtain the ultimate pile capacity. The theory is based lumped mass. Each series of mass are resisted by a
on conservation of energy and momentum. Although spring (represented by Rs in Figure 13) and dashpot
the interpretation is based on the same theory, there are (represented by Rd in Figure 13). The spring represents
many formulations that can be used to interpret the data static soil resistance, while the dashpot represents the
(Samson, 1987). dynamic resistance. For the soil resistance alone, there
a few parameters required, such as ultimate static soil
resistance, quake and viscous damping factor. These
parameters are not easy to determine, especially in
layered soils, and mainly derived empirically. The pile
properties required include wave speed and dynamic
elastic modulus of pile. The hammer weight, drop
height, as well as the cushion’s modulus of elasticity
and coefficient of restitution are required. The cushion
properties change with number of blows, making
interpretation more difficult.
7
International Conference on Geotechnics
Figure 14. (left) Bored pile under the impact of drop Figure 16. Schematic diagram of a bidirectional test (ASTM,
hammer; (right) damaged bored pile after impact. 2018).
8
International Conference on Geotechnics, 24-26 July, 2018 Yogyakarta, Indonesia
For cast-in-place pile, the reinforcement cage is Figure 18. Installation of O-cell in precast pile (YJack,
separated into 2 sections. The first section is welded 2018).
onto the top bearing plate of O-cell, while the second Figure 19 shows the typical results from an O-cell test.
section is welded onto the bottom bearing plate (see During the initial loading phase, the O-cell shows zero
Figure 17). The bearing plate needs to have sufficient movement as it has to overcome the effective weight of
spacing to allow grouting to flow through. the upper length of pile, as well as residual load. As the
For precast pile, the O-cell can be prefabricated with O-cell is further loaded, the shaft and toe resistance
the pile. Alternatively, the precast pile can be separated start to get mobilized until either the shaft or toe
into two sections, and each section can be attached to ultimate resistance is reached. It is also possible for the
the upper and lower bearing plate of O-cell (Figure 18). O-cell to reach its movement or load limit prior to
The installation of precast pile with O-cell attached is reaching either the ultimate shaft or toe resistance. Care
the same as normal precast piles. must be taken when designing the capacity and position
of O-cell.
5.2 Loading, Measurement of O-Cell and Results The upper and lower movement of the bearing plates
Loading of O-Cell is carried out by hydraulic pressure can be measured by a telltale. The total movement
by hydraulic pump from the ground surface (refer to between the top and bottom bearing plates can also be
Figure 16). The applied pressure expands the O-Cell, measured by displacement transducers. The
pushing the upper shaft upward, and the lower shaft and displacement of pile head can be measured by a
toe downward. Naturally, a fracture zone (in the case reference beam or by digital survey. The difference
of cast-in-place pile) is formed during loading of O- between the pile head movement and the top bearing
cell. The fracture zone separates the pile into an upper plate movement is the shortening of pile.
and lower length.
9
International Conference on Geotechnics
From the measurements, one can obtain load- 6.2 Using Pile Loaded to Failure as Working Pile
settlement curve for both the pile shaft and pile toe. As discussed in section 2, in most cases, piles will not
Therefore, the shaft and toe resistance can be evaluated reach ‘geotechnical’ failure during pile load test. In
separately. most soils, a pile’s toe resistance continues to increase
the further a pile is loaded. What is meant by pile
5.3 Failures in Execution of O-cell test loaded to ‘failure’ is when the tested pile is loaded
Failures in O-cell test can occur due to malfunctioning beyond a certain failure criterion, e.g. pile head settle
of the O-cell, e.g. the O-cell not expanding. Other more than 4% pile diameter or other definition.
failures can originate from poor placement of O-cell. Therefore, as long as the tested pile is not structurally
Ideally, the O-cell should be placed at a level that damage, a pile loaded to ‘failure’ does not mean it
allows full mobilization of upper length of pile, and as become unusable. In other words, a pile loaded to reach
much toe resistance as possible. Therefore, in most a failure criterion can still be used as working pile as
cases, the O-cell is placed either at the pile toe, or very long as there is no structural damage. Furthermore,
close to the pile toe. However, in cases where the pile when a pile experience unloading, the next time it is
sits on very soft soil, and depends mostly on the shaft loaded, it will show a stiffer response, until the
capacity, it may be necessary to place the O-cell near previous maximum load is exceeded (see figure 20).
the middle of the pile length. Poor placement of O-cell This behavior is very much like loading an over
can mobilize either the ultimate shaft or toe resistance consolidated soil.
too early, hence only obtaining information for 1
resistance instead of the intended 2.
6 DISCUSSION
This section is to answer most frequently asked
questions regarding the loading tests laid out in the
previous sections.
10
International Conference on Geotechnics, 24-26 July, 2018 Yogyakarta, Indonesia
In the Indonesian Standards (SNI 8460:2017), a static 6.7 Similarity of Results from Static Load Test, PDA
load test can be replaced by 4 PDA tests. However, Test and Bidirectional Test
only 40% of the required static load tests can be The main objective of conducting pile load tests,
replaced by PDA tests. For example, if 10 static load regardless the methods are to obtain the ultimate
tests are required, 4 static load tests can be replaced by capacity of the tested pile. Despite the difference in the
16 PDA tests, giving a total of 16 PDA tests and 6 static measurement system of the three types of tests,
load tests. theoretically, they should produce the same ultimate
pile capacity. However, practically it is impossible to
6.4 PDA Test with 3-Dimensional Theory obtain the same ultimate pile capacity. This is due to
It is theoretically possible to interpret PDA test with 3- the nature of interpretations from the three types of
dimensional theory. However, it is impractical and tests.
unnecessary. Many more instruments would need to be
installed, and the calculations would become Out of the three tests, static load test (be it kentledge or
unnecessarily complicated. While it is true that the reaction pile system) and bidirectional test should give
wave travelled 3-dimensionally, this is only true for a the closest match in terms of results. This is because
short distance. Hence, the requirement of transducer bidirectional test is essentially a static load test as well.
being placed 1.5 pile diameter away from the pile top. Bidirectional test can provide information on both the
After 1.5 pile diameter down the pile length, the wave shaft and toe resistance, while conventional static load
practically travelled in 1-dimension. test can only produce the total pile capacity. Fellenius
(2017) considers bidirectional test to be superior as
6.5 Manipulation of PDA Test compared to conventional static load tests.
No tests are foolproof from manipulation. Likewise, For PDA tests, with enough calibrations against static
any data can be manipulated, and it depends on the load test, a good match may be found. One should also
ethic of the individual in charge. Example of PDA test note that PDA test were initially intended for driven
manipulation include striking one pile more than the pile. It is unlikely a uniform bored pile (i.e. same
required number of blows and using those extras as diameter throughout the length) can be constructed, and
results from other piles. Manipulation, intended or this affects the dynamic modulus of the pile. Whereas,
unintended, can also be done during interpretation of the dynamic modulus of a precast pile can be tested
test. Reporting the wrong results. prior to its installation. Therefore, obtaining a good
In order to minimize manipulation of any tests, the match between PDA test on bored pile with static load
contractor should be supervised by another body, e.g. test is more difficult. A more accurate pseudo-dynamic
the owner’s consultant, to prevent conflict of interest. test that can be conducted on bored pile is statnamic.
However, to the authors’ knowledge, statnamic has yet
6.6 Using Pile Tested by Bidirectional Test as to be implemented in Indonesia, thus not discussed in
Working Pile this paper.
Similar to that discussed in Section 6.2, a pile tested by
7 CONCLUSIONS
bidirectional test can be reused as working pile.
Although there is a fracture zone in the pile, the upper This paper is intended to answer some of the most
and lower reinforcement cage are connected by the O- frequently asked questions about pile testing. Three
cell’s bearing plates. In addition, the fracture zone is methods of pile test used in Indonesia are explained,
always grouted, making the pile acts as one body. and their sources of failures are also discussed. Ways
to avoid these failures are also given. Hopefully this
It is also very costly to not use a pile tested by paper helps to improve the practice adopted during pile
bidirectional test. Bidirectional tests are common for testing.
large piles, and offshore piles. This is because building
a kentledge system or reaction piles would be too time REFERENCES
consuming and costly. And testing large piles by PDA
Allnamics (2018). Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA).
test are almost impossible. Therefore, due to
http://allnamics.eu/products-2/allnamics-pda-pile-
economical reason, most piles tested by bidirectional
driving-analyser/ [Accessed 3 June 2018]
test are reused as working pile. Of course, this is also
because conducting bidirectional test does not ASTM D 1143/D 1143M – 07 (2007). Standard Test
significantly diminish the tested pile performance. Methods for Deep Foundation Under Static Axial
Tensile Load. DOI: 10.1520/D1143
11
International Conference on Geotechnics
ASTM D 4945 – 17 (2017). Standard Test Method for Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, ASCE, 89,
High-Strain Dynamic Testing of Deep Foundations. 241-242
ASTM D 8169/D 8169M – 18 (2018). Standard Test Kondner, R. L. (1963). Hyperbolic stress-strain
Methods for Deep Foundations Under Bi-Directional response. Cohesive soils. Journal for Soil Mechanics
Static Axial Compressive Load. and Foundation Engineering, ASCE, 89, 115-143.
Axelsson, G. (2000). Long-Term Set-Up of Piles in Khmer D&C Technical Consultant (2018). Static Load
Sand. PhD thesis, Department of Civil and Test. www.khmerdandc.com/products/141380-static-
Environmental Engineering, Royal Institute of load-test [Accessed 31 May 2018]
Technology, Stockholm.
Ng, K W., Rolling, M., and AbdelSalam, S. S. (2013).
Banerjee, P. K. and Butterfield, R. (1991). Advanced Pile Setup in Cohesive Soil. I: Experimental
Geotechnical Analyses: Development in Soil Investigation. Journal of Geotechnical and
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. CRC Press. Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000751
BS EN 1997-1. (2004). Geotechnical design Part 1:
General rules. Eurocode 7. Osterberg, J. O. (1998). The Osterberg load test method
for drilled shaft and driven piles. The first ten years.
Chin, F. K. (1971). Discussion on pile test. Arkansas Deep Foundation Institute, Seventh International
River Project. Journal for Soil Mechanics and Conference and Exhibition on Piling and Deep
Foundation Engineering, 97, 930-932. Foundations, Vienna, Austria.
Das, B. M. (2014). Principles of Geotechnical Samson, C. H. (1987). Pile Driving Analysis –
Engineering (8th Edition). Cengage Learning, Historical Review, Course on Pile Driving Analysis
Stamford, United States of America. and Shaft Integrity Testing. Texas A & M University,
Texas.
DeBeer, E. E. (1968). Proefondervindelijke bijdrage tot
de studie van het grensdraag vermogen van zand onder SNI 8460:2017 (2017). Standar Nasional Indonesia -
funderingen op staal. Tijdshift der Openbar Verken van Persyaratan perancangan geoteknik. Badan
Belgie. (in Dutch) Standardisasi Nasional.
Decourt, L. (2008). Loading tests: interpretation and Structville (2018). Design of Pile Foundation Using
prediction of their results. Geo Institute Geo Congress, Pile Load Test (Eurocode 7).
ASCE, New Orleans. https://www.structville.com/2018/01/design-of-pile-
foundation-using-pile.html [Accessed 31 May 2018]
Fellenius, B. H. (2017). Basics of foundation design.
Electronic Edition. www.Fellenius.net [Accessed 31 Trishna, B. (2018). Estimating the Load Capacity of
May 2017] Pile. http://www.soilmanagementindia.com/pile-
foundations/load-capacity-of-piles/estimating-the-
Foundation Alliance (2018). Pile Tests – Osterberg load-capacity-of-pile-foundation-soil-
Cell. https://www.foundation- engineering/14285 [Accessed 3 June 2018]
alliance.com/gal_details.php?title=pile-
tests&stitle=compression-load-test&id=75 [Accessed YJack (2018). YJack pile test – Home Page.
5 June 2018] http://www.yjackpiletest.com/ [Accessed 3 June 2018]
Hansen, J. B. (1963). Discussion on hyperbolic stress-
strain response. Cohesive soils. Journal for Soil
12