8/18/2019 348 Static Test and Predictions 2nd CFPB
1/22
8/18/2019 348 Static Test and Predictions 2nd CFPB
2/22
May 9 2015
A Prediction Challenge to All Delegates to the 2nd CFPB, Santa Cruz, Bolivia.
Mario H. Terceros and Bengt H. Fellenius
We have constructed an instrumented pile and performed a static loading test that we intend to add a bitof spice to the conference. To this end, we challenge everyone to submit a prediction of the test results.Then, on Friday, we will start the day with a " Brief report on results of the static loading test and
outcome of the low-key prediction ". The "Prediction" referred to is yours.
The Pile
The pile, TP1, is a 600 mm diameter, 16.4 m long, bored pileconstructed on April 20 by pushing a 600-mm diameter, OD,temporary casing into the ground while augering out the core asthe pipe is pushed down taking care not to auger beyond the toeof the pipe. Once the pipe reached the intended depth and hadbeen augered out, concrete (cylinder strength 21 MPa) waspoured into the pipe while it was extracted always maintainingan inside head of concrete A 14 0 m long reinforcing cage
1 . 8
mStrainGages
Ground Surface
PILE
8/18/2019 348 Static Test and Predictions 2nd CFPB
3/22
May 9 2015
Phase 2 test was performed on May 8, 2015. It consisted of leaving the BDC open (free-draining) andperforming a head-down test by means of a conventional reaction pile arrangement. The load increments
were 100-kN, each with a 10-minute load-holding time. The prediction event deals with Phase 2 test, only.
F.y.i., TP2, a companion pile of equal length and size, was constructed on the same day 5 m away fromTP1. It was tested as a full-length pile after the tests on TP1. Pile TP2 is not a part of the prediction event.
The Soil--CPTU and SPT diagrams
The bar in the figure represents the N-indices and the bl/0.3m scale is numerically the same as the q t conestress, MPa. The SPT was performed with a constant height-of-fall. The soil profile consists of 9 m thicklayer of silty fine sand, followed by 6 m of fine sand on sand. A 0.2 m thick clay layer was encounteredat 15.0 m depth. The groundwater table is located at 5.0 m depth. The saturated solid densities of thethree soil layers are 2 100 2 000 2 100 kg/m 3 respectively
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 10 20 30 40
D E P T H ( m )
Cone Stress, q t (MPa)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 100 200 300 400
D E P T H ( m )
Sleeve Friction, f s (kPa)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 100 200 300 400
D E P T H ( m )
Pore Pressure (kPa)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 1 2 3 4
D E P T H ( m )
Friction Ratio, f R (%)
8/18/2019 348 Static Test and Predictions 2nd CFPB
4/22
2
8/18/2019 348 Static Test and Predictions 2nd CFPB
5/22
3
8/18/2019 348 Static Test and Predictions 2nd CFPB
6/22
Soil Profile
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 10 20 30 40
D E P T H ( m )
Cone Stress, q t (MPa)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 100 200 300 400
D E P T H ( m )
Sleeve Friction, fs
(kPa)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 100 200 300 400
D E P T H ( m )
Pore Pressure (kPa)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 1 2 3 4
D E P T H ( m )
Friction Ratio, fR
(%)
SPT
4
8/18/2019 348 Static Test and Predictions 2nd CFPB
7/22
5
“BDC” = Bidirectional Cell; a sacrificialhydraulic jack
1 6
. 4 m
1 3
. 8 m
9 . 3
m
1 . 8
mStrainGages
StrainGages
Ground Surface
PILE
StrainGages
BDC andtelltales
8/18/2019 348 Static Test and Predictions 2nd CFPB
8/22
6
Test Programme
Phase 1 Activate the BDC to perform a bidirectional test, pushing theupper length upward and the lower length downward. This willcreate an opening between the two pile lengths.
Phase 2 Activate the jack on the pile head to perform a head-down teston the upper pile length with the BDC free-draining The pile willthen function in shaft-bearing only with no toe resistance untilthe BDC opening is closed).
Phase 3 If the full resistance of the lower length was not engaged inPhase 1, then , the jack at the pile head will be closed and theBDC be re-engaged (The jack at the pile head will now providethe additional resistance needed).
8/18/2019 348 Static Test and Predictions 2nd CFPB
9/22
7
Test Results
Phase 1
The bidirectional (BDC) test pushed the lower length
downward a distance of abut 60 mm at the 700-kN
maximum load---plunging type response. The
measurement is approximate, only, due to friction of the
telltales in the guide pipes. The pile head showed no
movement. Upward movement at the BDC level was
small representing the pile shortening for the load.
8/18/2019 348 Static Test and Predictions 2nd CFPB
10/22
8
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
L O A D ( k N )
MOVEMENT (mm)
My Prediction
Predictions
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
L O A D ( k N )
MOVEMENT (mm)
All Predictions Received
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
L O A D ( k N )
MOVEMENT (mm)
All Predictions Received with Capacity Interpretations
The circles are the capacities as interpreted
from each curve by the particular predictor
8/18/2019 348 Static Test and Predictions 2nd CFPB
11/22
Dashed curve is my prediction prepared with full benefit of the resultsof the 2013 tests on similar piles in very similar soil — hardly Class A .
9
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
L O A D ( k N )
MOVEMENT (mm)
with Measured Load-Movement
8/18/2019 348 Static Test and Predictions 2nd CFPB
12/22
0500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,5003,000
3,500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
L O A D ( k N )
MOVEMENT (mm)
Enlarged View of Predictions and Head-down Test on TP1 Upper Length
10
8/18/2019 348 Static Test and Predictions 2nd CFPB
13/22
11
rs = βσ 'zz
Movement =function ofE-modulus
rs = f(movement )
The pile isassumed madeup of a series of
short elements,each affected bysoil resistance
?WHICHTO USEANDHOW TOMODIFY
Fitting analysis to the results
8/18/2019 348 Static Test and Predictions 2nd CFPB
14/22
12
The t-z functions actuallyused for the best fit
8/18/2019 348 Static Test and Predictions 2nd CFPB
15/22
13
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,5004,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
L O A D ( k N )
MOVEMENT (mm)
TP1 Phase 2
Head-downUniPileSimulationof Test
Head-down,Test
Load-Movement for the Upper Pile (14.8 m)
The final fit
8/18/2019 348 Static Test and Predictions 2nd CFPB
16/22
14
y = -0.0026x + 6.7169
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 200 400 600 800 S E C A N T S T I F F N E S S
, Q / μ ԑ
( G N )
STRAIN (ԑ)
TP2
Es (GPa) for zero strain = 23.8 GPaEs (GPa) for 700 μԑ = 17.3 GPa
1.7 m
y = -0.0052x + 6.7904
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 200 400 600 800
T A N G E N T S T I F F N E S S
, Δ Q / Δ μ ԑ
( G N )
STRAIN (ԑ)
TP2
E s (GPa) for zero strain = 24.0 GPaE s (GPa) for 700 μԑ = 17.6 GPa
1.7 m
The Pile Stiffness (EA) Evaluated
from the Uppermost Strain-GageUnfortunately, the other strain-gages either did notsurvive the construction or survived, but weredislocated-- – No usable strain-gage data were obtained
8/18/2019 348 Static Test and Predictions 2nd CFPB
17/22
15
Now the results of Phase 1, thebidirectional test
The downward movements are unfortunatelyimpaired due to friction along the telltales
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
L O A D
( k N )
MOVEMENT (mm)
TP1
BidirectionalDownward
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
L O A D
( k N )
MOVEMENT (mm)
TP1
BidirectionalDownward
8/18/2019 348 Static Test and Predictions 2nd CFPB
18/22
16
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
L O A D ( k N )
MOVEMENT (mm)
TP1
BidirectionalDownward
Head-down,Test
The blue curve is the probable load-movementcurve for the lower length; “Downward”
Phases 1 and 2 together
8/18/2019 348 Static Test and Predictions 2nd CFPB
19/22
17
0500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
L O A D ( k N )
MOVEMENT (mm)
TP1
BidirectionalDownward
Head-downUniPile
Simulationof TestHead-down,Test
Full Length Head-downUniPile Simulation
Combining the results to the load-movement curvefor a head-down test on the full length of pile
8/18/2019 348 Static Test and Predictions 2nd CFPB
20/22
18
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
L O A D ( k N )
MOVEMENT (mm)
TP2
TP1CompressionHead
Toe
UniPile
Simulation
Measured
The load-movement curves for the head-downtest on Pile 2 with a fit (UniPile) to the data
and a comparison to same for Pile 1.
8/18/2019 348 Static Test and Predictions 2nd CFPB
21/22
19
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
D E P T H ( m
)
LOAD (kN)
Load Distribution, TP2
From fit to Load-Movement Curveat 5mm elementCPTU E-F
SPT Decourt
Load distributions at the ≈5-mmelement movements for Phase 2
(TP1) combined with thedistribution from CPTU and SPT
analysis of shaft resistance
0
500
1,000
1,5002,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
L O A D
( k N )
MOVEMENT (mm)
TP2
TP1CompressionHead
Toe
UniPileSimulation
Measured
8/18/2019 348 Static Test and Predictions 2nd CFPB
22/22
hank You