University of Sydney

Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, 2007

PILE TESTING
1.

INTRODUCTION

In relatively recent times, pile testing has been revolutionised largely as a consequence of high
powered computers. Fifteen to twenty years ago, testing options were restricted to static loading
tests, with some costly and slow forms of integrity testing available. Now, a variety of tests are
available to estimate or measure pile resistance, together with numerous methods available for
quickly and economically testing piles for structural integrity.
This paper presents details on the pile testing regime used in Australia today. Attention will be
focussed on:

2.

static loading tests

dynamic testing

Statnamic testing

integrity testing

STATIC LOAD TESTING

This test simply involves application of a static load to a pile. Tests are performed for
compression, tension and lateral loadings. The load is most commonly applied via a jack acting
against a reaction beam that is restrained by an anchorage system (comprising cable anchors or
reaction piles), or by jacking up against a mass (kentledge). The load is usually measured by a
calibrated hydraulic jack (now illegal under AS2159-1995) or a load cell. Pile movements are
normally measured by dial gauges acting off simply supported reference beams. Typical static
pile testing setups for axial loading are shown in Fig 1.

Compression

Tension
Fig 1
Typical static pile test setup

Page 1 of 22

University of Sydney
Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, 2007

Static load testing remains the most reliable form of testing of a pile or pile group. However, a
number of sources of error may occur if the test is not carried out in accordance with proper
procedures. The sources of error are well documented (Pile Foundation Analysis and Design,
Poulos and Davis, Wiley, 1980) and will not be elaborated on here. Suffice to say that the major
sources of error are associated with interaction effects between the pile and/or the anchorage
system; and also the interaction between the measuring system and the kentledge. It should be
noted that these errors may be accounted for by reasonably rigorous analyses. It is most
important to note however, that the above errors are usually not of significance when common
sense and normal sound testing procedures, as outlined in AS2159-1995, are adhered to.
Static loading tests in Australia are usually limited to about 4000kN (compression loading) for
small diameter piles. Tests to significantly higher loads have been performed, but those are
unusual because of the high costs involved.
It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of tests performed in Australia are not
performed to determine the ultimate capacity of a pile. Most tests are done to prove that a pile
will satisfactorily support the design serviceability load plus some measure of overload to ensure
the pile has a satisfactory reserve capacity (load factor) above the serviceability load.
Acceptance criteria for pile performance is written into the Specification, or simply referred to as
a requirement to comply with the criteria imposed of AS2159-1995.
The major problems with Static loading tests are the time required to setup and do the test, and
the high costs involved. For these reasons, static load testing has reduced dramatically in recent
times, in favour of less expensive methods.
3.

DYNAMIC PILE TESTING

Dynamic pile testing was introduced into Australia in 1982, to test large diameter bored piles
socketed into rock. The results of those tests, when compared with static loading tests performed
on the same piles, were in good agreement (see Fig 2).

CAPWAP Prediction (MN)

WEST G A TE FR EEWA Y: C OR R ELA TION OF

C A PWA P PR EDIC TION S WITH STA TIC
LOA DI N G TEST R ESU LTS
Correlation line
3
+30%

2.5
2

Fig 2
Dynamic & Static Loading Tests on
Bored Piles

-30%

1.5
1
0.5
0
0

Static Loading Test Result (MN)

Page 2 of 22

University of Sydney
Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, 2007

By the early 1990's, dynamic pile testing had become the predominant means of pile testing in
this country.
3.1

The Test

The purpose of dynamic pile load testing is to ESTIMATE the performance of a pile. In the
process, an estimate of the suitability of the pile to perform its design task, is made. It is most
important to appreciate that direct measurements of the pile load and associated movements are
not made with the dynamic test. The resistance mobilised during the test is a prediction, as is the
subsequent load-movement behaviour, of the pile performance.
As with static load testing, dynamic tests are seldom done to determine the ultimate loads.
They are normally done to prove pile performance.
The equipment used for carrying out dynamic pile loading tests comprises the following:

At least two sets of strain gauges and accelerometers (bolted at diametrically

opposite faces of the pile).

Portable field computer to condition and collect the data, and to store the signals.

The impact for the test is usually provided by a piling hammer. This causes a stress wave to be
propagated down the pile, to reflect off the toe. The downwards travelling wave may be partially
or completely reflected by irregularities or discontinuities in the pile shaft, and by interaction
with the surrounding soil to produce upward travelling waves. The field computer receives the
measured signals of strains and accelerations, and these are integrated to produce force and
velocity results. A number of relationships are used to model the passage of upward and
downward travelling waves and it is from these relationships that a prediction of pile
performance is made.
The predictions are made initially by PDA (Pile Driving
Analysis/Analyser) methods and should be confirmed by signal matching methods.
3.2

PDA

The PDA produces an instantaneous prediction of the resistance mobilised during the blow,
using methods such as the Case or TNO or Impedance methods, the differences between
the methods being shown in Fig 3. The most commonly used PDA method is the Case method.
The Case method basically assumes a model incorporating a spring and dashpot at the toe of the
pile. The shaft performance is not modelled with this method, so it is best suited to piles
deriving essentially all resistance from end bearing.
The magnitude of the mobilised load can be heavily dependent upon the soil damping factor (the
so-called J value) adopted by the operator. Mathematically, the expression for mobilised pile
resistance is given as follows:

Page 3 of 22

University of Sydney
Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, 2007

Rtotal

Rstatic + Rdynamic

&
Rdynamic = J. vtoe

where J
vtoe

= damping constant
= velocity of pile

So it can be seen that the J value may have an important influence on the magnitude of the pile
resistance predicted by the Case method.
The appropriate J value is often little better than an educated guess and should always be
correlated to static loading tests to produce the most reliable results. Under no circumstances
should pile testing for prediction of load resistance comprise PDA testing only. A minimum
requirement should be to perform more detailed analyses using signal matching techniques
(discussed later) and preferably, correlated with well executed static loading tests for greatest
reliability.
It should be noted that a prediction of the load distribution between the shaft and the pile toe can
not be made with PDA methods only.

Fig 3
PDA methods

A typical PDA output, as most frequently viewed by the operator, is shown in Fig 4.

Page 4 of 22

University of Sydney
Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, 2007

Fig 4. Typical PDA Screen

3.3

Signal Matching

Signal matching provides the most reliable means of predicting the performance of a pile tested
by dynamic methods. The pile and the soil data are modelled according to the best estimates
made by the operator performing the analysis, and a calculation is made using wave equation
methods. The calculated signals are displayed on the computer screen along with the measured
signals. The operator then performs a number of iterations, varying the input data until a
satisfactory match between the measured and calculated signals is obtained. Once a satisfactory
match is obtained, a plausible model of the pile-soil system is deemed to be established, and
from this, the mobilised static loading can be predicted. An example of a satisfactory signal
match is shown in Fig 5.

Fig 5: Results of signal matching analysis

Page 5 of 22

University of Sydney
Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, 2007

A further advantage of signal matching methods is that the distribution of the resistance of the
pile down the pile shaft and the pile toe is predicted.
A further sub-routine of the signal matching process permits a prediction of the static loadmovement performance to be made, and example of which is depicted in Fig 6.

Fig 6
Prediction of Load-Movement Performance
3.4

Monitored Results

The information that is collected and may be displayed during a dynamic test is most impressive,
and includes the following:
(i)

Force:

The impact forces imparted to the pile plotted against real time for
each gauge. Average forces are also shown.

(ii)

Velocity:

The velocity of the pile at the measuring level against time

determined from each gauge. Average velocity is also shown.

(iii)

Force and Velocity times Impedance:

A graph of the force imparted to the pile, plotted against the
product of the velocity times impedance (impedance being defined
as the product of the pile modulus and area, divided by the wave
speed), plotted against time. An example of a Force - Velocity
curve is shown in Fig 4 above. The characteristics of the curves
may provide valuable information to an experienced operator,
including an idea of the relative distribution of the shaft and toe
resistance of the pile. The shape of the curves also provides
Page 6 of 22

University of Sydney
Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, 1999

information on the structural integrity of the pile, as shown in Fig

7.
(iv)

Downward wave:

The computed downward travelling stress wave plotted against

time.

(v)

Upward wave:

The computed upward travelling stress wave developed by

reflections at discontinuities (eg pile toe, mechanical joints, cracks)
and the interaction with the surrounding soil.

(vi)

Total static and total dynamic resistance:

These are computed from the force-velocity curves.

(vii)

Displacement:

The displacement of a pile is shown for the period prior to impact

through the testing period, to residual displacement.

(viii) Energy transfer:

The energy transfer from the impact, as calculated at the measuring

level, displayed against time.

(ix)

Compression and tension stresses can be continuously monitored

for every blow during driving if desired, to provide a check that
driving stresses do not become excessive so as to cause possible
structural damage to a pile. This is especially important for
concrete piles where tensile stresses are easily established during
driving through soft soils in particular.

Driving stresses:

All of the above items are stored automatically during the test, and may be displayed during the
test, with selected items being presented for reporting purposes.

Sound pile
Damaged pile
Fig 7: Typical Force and Velocity times Impedance Curves showing damaged pile.
3.5

Comments

The following selected items may assist in clarifying a number of misconceptions relating to the
performance and subsequent analyses of dynamic pile loading tests.
Page 7 of 22

University of Sydney
Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, 1999

3.5.1 Accuracy
The accuracy of dynamic testing, when compared with static loading tests performed on the
same pile have been reported at numerous venues to be unerringly accurate; often within a few
percent, thus demonstrating that exceptional results can be achieved. However, a series of well
conducted comparative tests performed during various contests both locally (eg 4th ANZ
Conference) and internationally (Brussels, 5th Stress Wave Conference) provide not so glowing
results. The results of such a contest, held at the 4th Stress Wave Conference are shown in Fig 8
below.

Fig 8
Results of Prediction Exercise - 4th Stress Wave Conference
Fig 8 shows large discrepancies in the pile performance as predicted from dynamic tests and the
actual static test results, but it is emphasised that the majority of participants managed to be in
reasonable agreement with their predictions.
Results such as the above tend to be less convincing than the glowing reports that have been
issued by us practitioners in the past, but overall it can be concluded that dynamic pile loading
tests can usually predict the static test result within an order of accuracy of around 10% to 25%,
which should be regarded as being acceptable for geotechnical work. Also, there appears to be
no doubt that the order of accuracy increases for tests performed on preformed piles in
comparison to cast insitu piles. Notwithstanding, good results have been reported for all pile
types.
When the above-mentioned accuracy is put into context with the comparison of the costs of
dynamic pile load testing to static pile load testing, the value of dynamic testing should become
immediately apparent.
3.5.2 Operator Error
Contrary to claims made by some practitioners with the introduction of dynamic pile loading
tests, the solution/prediction obtained upon completion of the signal matching process is by no
means unique. Different operators achieve different results. Fellenius (1988), in a study that
Page 8 of 22

University of Sydney
Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, 1999

involved 18 participating CAPWAP practitioners evaluating the same data for preformed piles,
showed standard deviations of between 5% and 14% for the four piles studied.
Personal experience of the author suggests that a greater variability can be expected for both
preformed and cast insitu piles.
It is clear then, that different operators will produce differing answers. There is no one unique
answer to any set of monitored data, but generally, experienced operators will produce
reasonably similar predictions given the same set of data.
3.5.3 PDA Results vs Signal Matching
There appears to be two schools of thought with respect to how many pile should be subjected to
analyses involving detailed signal matching on any specific project.
Probably the most common practice, nationally and internationally, is to test a proportion
(typically 5 to 10%) of piles on a project and a representative number of these selected for the
more rigorous CAPWAP/TNOWAVE analyses. It should be noted that the more piles tested and
subjected to signal matching, the greater the confidence in the piles and hence higher reduction
factors can be incorporated into the design or the required proving load. This is clearly
highlighted in AS2159-1995.
Upon completion of these analyses, the average soil characteristics via the J value, are then
applied to all other piles tested by PDA methods only, to come up with a more reliable estimate
of the mobilised pile capacity than that indicated from raw PDA methods only. The intention of
this practice is simply to test a large number of piles; establish an average soil characteristic
appropriate for the site/area and to use this value to predict the performance of all piles. The
objective of restricting the number of CAPWAP/TNOWAVE analyses is quite simply to reduce
costs, ostensibly without compromising technical standards.
An alternative practice, particularly promoted by the TNO organisation of The Netherlands, is to
subject all piles to the more rigorous signal matching procedure. The philosophy adopted in
promoting this practice is to obtain the highest possible degree of confidence in the results, at a
relatively low cost. In further support of this argument, it can be stated that once an accurate
signal match has been obtained for one pile, relatively little work has to be done to obtain
satisfactory matches for other piles tested.
Many practitioner argue as to the correct practice that should be adopted. It is probably best
left to the designer and the testing authority to arrive at an acceptable testing regime best suited
for the project, prior to testing and subsequent analyses.
Under no circumstances however, should piles be tested by PDA methods only, as significant
errors in mobilised pile resistances may result. It is not sufficient to adopt J values from the
literature as being sacrosanct, for considerable departures from the published values are
common. A minimum requirement should be to perform a representative number of signal
matches to obtain a representative J value. A preferred alternative is to correlate dynamic test
results with a well executed static loading test.

Page 9 of 22

University of Sydney
Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, 1999

3.5.4 Mobilised vs Ultimate Load

One of the major problems with dynamic pile load testing is that hammer blows of insufficient
energy might be used to predict/prove the load capacity of the pile. Most dynamic tests are
used as a means of providing a satisfactory proof load, not to predict the ultimate load. As a
consequence, sufficient energy is seldom imparted to the pile to produce geotechnical pile
failure, nor is it required.
Many engineers appear to have difficulty in accepting the concept of mobilised load. Put
simply, a light tap from a hammer will move the pile toe nil to a negligibly small distance, and
will not then mobilise anywhere near the available geotechnical resistance. With a heavy blow,
the pile toe can be made to move a greater distance and hence realising a higher load as a
consequence of mobilising more end-bearing resistance. In short, if the pile toe can not be made
to penetrate the end-bearing layer, then only a proportion of the maximum available pile
resistance will be mobilised. It stands to reason then, that if a pile is founded on strong rock and
a nil set is registered with an appropriate blow from an appropriate hammer, then the pile will
fail structurally before reaching the maximum available geotechnical support.
As a general guide, a 6 tonne and 8 tonne hydraulic hammer can be relied upon to mobilise
around 3000kN and 4000kN respectively for precast piles commonly used in the Australian
piling market. A 20 tonne drop hammer has been used to mobilise almost 30MN!
3.5.5 Time effects
The resistance of a driven pile usually exhibits some form of set up or increase in capacity,
with time. Usually these set up effects are the consequences of the dissipation of pore water
pressures and can be most dramatic. In clay soils, increases in capacity of 2 to 6 greater than that
registered upon completion of driving, have been obtained. Even in sands, increases of up to
70% have been reported.
These aspects are most important for dynamic pile load testing. If the magnitude of proof
loading is required to prove a maximum load factor, then clearly, dynamic testing should not be
performed until an appropriate time delay and the test is referred to as a restrike test. Often a
restrike test is performed 1 to 2 days after completion of driving, but obviously this time can
be varied to suit site circumstances. The practice of firstly mobilising a pile by subjecting it to a
number of blows prior to restrike testing should not be followed, as this directly conflicts with
the objective of performing the restrike test.
Testing performed at the completion of driving can usually provide better information relating to
the potential end-bearing resistance. Restrike testing, which incorporates set up effects, will
provide a better indication of maximum available shaft friction. It is acceptable to assume that
the maximum mobilised pile resistance is the sum of the shaft resistance determined from
restrike testing, and the end-bearing resistance as obtained from the end of drive conditions.
Some specifications require that dynamic tests performed at the completion of driving and with a
restrike test to be carried out at a nominated time (typically not less than hours) later. The value
of such testing may be insufficient for set up effects of any significance to be established. Often
an indication of the set up effects can be gauged simply by comparing the traditional set at the
end of drive and at restrike testing.
Page 10 of 22

University of Sydney
Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, 1999

It should be obvious, but nonetheless needs to be stated, that long term effects such as creep can
not be assessed by dynamic testing methods.
3.5.6 Driving stresses
One of the major advantages offered by dynamic testing is that driving stresses may be
continually monitored, hence providing a control measure to ensure that piles are not damaged
through over driving. This is true in the overwhelming number of tests performed. However,
personal communication between the author and a number of practitioners indicates that most
practitioners have reported that tension stresses as indicated by the PDA are not always correct.
It has been reported that when driving reinforced concrete piles onto rock, unrealistically high
(>10MPA) tensile stresses have been indicated by the PDA. That magnitude of tensile stress, if
real, would result in pile damage which would be detected by the shape of the Force-Velocity
curve. This phenomenon, whilst not being infrequent, is not what might be termed as being a
common occurrence.
3.5.7 Youngs Modulus
The PDA program requires the value of Youngs Modulus to be input, from which the computer
estimates the Forces in the pile using conventional stress - strain relationships. The value of
Youngs Modulus, if over-estimated, will result in higher forces and hence an over-prediction of
the pile resistance.
Correct values of Youngs Modulus can be deduced during signal matching, where the average
values can be determined by conventional stress wave mechanics.
3.5.8 Impact equipment
Dynamic pile load testing is a relatively complex task, but as with all technical data, the accuracy
of the predictions is very much dependent upon the quality of the data obtained during the tests.
Dynamic testing equipment, regardless of the brand name used, is of comparable high quality.
It is most important then, that the energy delivered to the pile is delivered by a hammer that has a
high degree of control. It is not satisfactory to believe that any mass, dropped from a nominated
height, will produce good signals. A piling frame, because it can be manoeuvred to reduce force
eccentricities as measured by the gauges, is preferred. This will result in higher quality signals,
which in turn will provide operators a better chance of making higher quality predictions and
help to reduce uncertainties that may otherwise result.
3.5.9 Concluding statements
The dynamic pile loading test procedure has been outlined in simplistic terms which hopefully
will provide those who have not had direct experience with the test, some insight of the value of
the test.
Dynamic testing has been a rapidly evolving field that has justifiably established itself as a cost
effective test that can produce results of sufficient accuracy to be regarded as a valuable means
of testing piles.
However, it is the authors opinion that the test enjoys a greater reputation for precision than can
Page 11 of 22

University of Sydney
Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, 1999

be reliably produced for the all cases in the field. The test enables estimates of sufficient
accuracy to be regarded as an invaluable asset to the construction industry, particularly when the
low costs of the test are considered.
4.

PILE INTEGRITY TESTING

As mentioned above, dynamic testing provides an indication of the structural integrity of a pile.
As this requires a large hammer to provide the impact, relatively large pile movements result.
For this reason the test is referred to as a high strain test. The more common means of testing
piles for integrity only is termed a low strain test and this is elaborated on in this section.
The sonic pile integrity test is a non-destructive test that quickly and economically checks the
structural integrity of a pile shaft. The test can be used on cast insitu piles and preformed driven
piles (concrete, steel, timber). The test does not, and cannot, give any information on the
load capacity of the pile.
4.1

The equipment

Testing equipment comprises a field computer, hand-held transducer and a plastic mallet. The
equipment is robust and portable (fitting into one briefcase) and requires only one person to carry
out the tests.
4.2

Basic principles

The hammer blow induces a stress wave which travels down the pile shaft as a packet of energy,
reflects off the toe and is registered by the transducer at the surface as a toe reflex (Fig. 6).
If the pile material is homogeneous, the wave will travel at a generally constant velocity. The
time taken between the hammer blow and the wave to travel down, then up the pile shaft will be:
t = 2 L / c

where t = time (ms)

L = pile length (m)
c = wave speed (m/s)

The wave speed c for say concrete is dependent upon concrete quality as follows:
c = ( E/)

where c = wave speed (m/s)

E = Youngs Modulus (N/m2)
= density (kg/m3)

It is well known that the density of poor concrete is about the same as that for high quality
concrete. However, Youngs Modulus for poor quality concrete is much lower than for high
quality concrete, and this is reflected by the wave speed. In many cases the pile length is known
with a reasonably high degree of certainty. The operator performing the test then adjusts the
wave speed until the pile length and the toe reflex correspond. In this way, the concrete
consistency is indirectly indicated.

Page 12 of 22

University of Sydney
Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, 1999

Fig. 9. Stress Wave Propagation for Intact Pile

The stress wave paths for a pile with a reduced cross section (neck) are shown in Fig. 7 below.
Here, the stress paths are more complex, with waves being reflected off the necked section
eventually meeting waves reflecting off the full cross section. The depth to the neck is calculated
by the computer knowing the time for the wave to travel down to, then up from, the neck and
also the wave speed.

Fig. 10. Stress Wave propagation for Necked Pile

Reflectograms are displayed as velocity versus pile depth.
provides a qualitative indication of major pile discontinuities.

The shape of the reflectogram

Reflections of stress waves occur not only at the locations of pile discontinuities, but also at the
boundary of soil layers. A soft soil may, for example, produce a reflection similar to a pile neck.
It is essential therefore, that the operator be provided with all available information, which
includes the following items:

piling records showing nominal pile depths and geometry

construction details (eg lengths of temporary casing, concrete consumption, pile

driving records.

soils details
Page 13 of 22

University of Sydney
Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, 1999

4.2

structural details (eg concrete strengths, reinforcement details)

any unusual occurrences during construction (eg delays during concreting)

Soil Effects

Shaft friction usually plays a major role in pile performance. It also plays an important role in
pile integrity testing. Together with internal damping characteristics of the pile material, shaft
friction dampens or decreases the magnitude of the signal. This reduction in amplitude depends
on the pile length, pile type, soil type and consistency and the length to diameter ratio of the pile.
A practical on length for sonic pile integrity testing is about 50 diameters, although in stronger
soils a limit of 30 diameters may be appropriate.
4.3

4.4

4.5

Phenomena Detected

reflections from the toe (in most instances)

reflections from significant inclusions ( 5 to 10% of pile diameter)

reflections from horizontal cracks

reflections from joints (as for precast concrete piles)

reflections from increases and decreases in cross sections

reflections from changes in soil layers

reflections from changes in material properties

Phenomena NOT Detectable

gradual increases or decreases in cross section

curved forms

small inclusions of foreign materials

local loss of cover

debris at the toe of the pile

cracks parallel to the pile axis

The Test

The test is performed by pressing the transducer on the pile head and hitting the pile head with a
sharp blow from the plastic mallet. The induced stress wave travel down, then up the pile shaft,
to be registered on the screen of the field computer. The signals (reflectograms) are reflected
off discontinuities in the pile, such as necks, cracks, enlargements, etc. Once satisfactory signals
have been obtained, they are stored in the internal memory of the computer, from which they can
be down loaded onto a PC for further enhancement and reporting at a later stage.
The signals are recorded either in the time domain (eg as used by TNO, Pile dynamics, IFCO).
Testing authorities using this method are Ground Engineering, Franki and Wagstaff Piling). The
alternative method records signals in the frequency domain (eg using equipment developed
initially by CEBTP, France), as used by Pile Test International, Vibropile and Integrity Testing.
Recording in the time or frequency domain produces similar results, with one method having no
Page 14 of 22

University of Sydney
Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, 1999

major advantage over the other, although it could be argued that measuring in the frequency
domain provides and indication of the pile head stiffness, which is basically the limit of elastic
stiffness. Pile head stiffness is not to be confused with static load capacity. The value of Pile
Head stiffness is to compare numerical values of different piles. Obviously, piles having
significantly lower values require further investigation. The following presentation is oriented
towards results produced in the time domain, for the sake of brevity.
An experienced operator can, in most cases, provide an immediate on-site interpretation of the
test result. The test usually takes between 1 and 5 minutes per pile, so production rates of 100 to
300 piles tested in one day are theoretically achievable in ideal conditions.
It is a wise policy to test a number of piles on a project, so that reflectograms which differ from
the norm, may be targeted for further investigation.
Requirements for testing are simple and oriented towards achievement of high quality signals
necessary for interpretation. Firstly, access to the heads of the piles tested should be such as to
allow a hammer blow to be delivered, preferably without impediments such as spiral wire or pile
cap reinforcing cages. Cracks or voids in concrete under the transducer or hammer impact
locations can produce false signals, so the surface of the pile should be trimmed back to sound
material and be free of water or other debris. No surface grinding or other special treatment is
required.
Best results are achieved when tests are carried out as soon as possible after installation. For
driven piles this means that piles should preferably tested immediately after driving, when shaft
friction will be minimal. Cast insitu piles can not be tested until the concrete or grout is cured to
a sufficient degree (about 80% of its ultimate strength), which is normally reached 5 to 14 days
after installation.
At this stage, results of tests on piles which have been cast into a pile cap or floor slab have
usually not been successful. So where possible, access to the head of the pile is desirable.
4.6

Typical Results

The results of a reflectogram for an intact pile is shown in Fig. 11. This cast insitu pile was
constructed in soils comprising 6m of soft clays overlying very stiff clays and medium sands.
The reflectogram clearly shows the influence of the soil strata. The pile toe is visible with a wave
speed of 3900m/s, which is typical of that expected for high quality concrete. No shaft defects
are indicated.

Fig 11. Reflectogram of a sound pile

Page 15 of 22

University of Sydney
Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, 1999

By contrast, Fig. 12 shows a reflectogram of a 600mm diameter bored pile that did not exhibit
the characteristics expected for the pile in the given soil conditions.

Fig 12. Reflectogram of an unsound pile

Soil details for the pile depicted in Fig 12 were understood to comprise 2 to 3m of loose or soft
soils overlying stiff clays, in turn overlying weathered rock at 7 to 8m depth. Temporary casing
was used during construction. During the concreting process, some piles were reported to be
making water and concrete was discharged directly into the excavation. The reflectogram
indicates a change in impedance at 2.7m, consistent with a change in soil conditions or reduced
pile diameter. A further change in impedance occurred below 4m, consistent with a reduced
diameter or loss of concrete consistency. The pile toe is visible at 7.5m depth with a wave speed
of 2200m/s only, which is not typical of that expected for good quality concrete. Subsequent
coring of the pile proved the concrete to be porous. Below 4m depth, clay inclusions of up to
100mm were found down the length of the pile shaft. The total pile length was found to be 7.4m.
The pile was rejected and replaced.
4.7

4.8

Advantages of Sonic Pile Integrity Testing

tests are performed quickly and economically.

an immediate indication of pile integrity may be provided, permitting

immediate rectification work to be carried whilst piling equipment is still
on site, thus eliminating costly re-mobilisation costs and delays to the
project.

no special treatment is required to prepare pile surfaces prior to testing.

Software is now available to assess the influence of defective piles on the

pile group, thus providing an indication of the extent of desirable remedial
works, if any.

Future Directions

Quantification of pile defects, using computer simulation techniques, are available. A new
development is that Coffey Geosciences have undertaken some Research and Development to
assess the influence that defective piles may have on the performance of single piles or pile
groups.
Page 16 of 22

University of Sydney
Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, 1999

Present developments in the Netherlands will in future provide for testing of piles which have
been cast into a pile cap using measurements from the time domain, which is often possible with
existing equipment that measure results in the frequency domain.

5.

STATNAMIC LOAD TESTING

Statnamic is the most recent form of testing introduced into Australia.

Statnamic is a relatively new technology, having being jointly developed by the Berminghammer
Foundation Equipment (Canada) and the TNO organisation of the Netherlands in the late 80's.
5.1

The test

The principle of the Statnamic test is depicted in Fig 13.

The Statnamic test is one in which the downward directed force on the pile is obtained by
burning fast-expanding solid fuel in a combustion chamber, resulting in a large pressure acting
upward on a reaction mass (Fig. 14).

Statnamic set up
Gravel container
Gravel
Reaction masses
Silencer
Cylinder
Platform
Laser sensor
Laser
Laser beam
Piston
Load cell
Pile to be tested

Fig 13:
Fig 13
Principle of Statnamic test

Fig 14
Fig 14
Statnamic set up

The mass is accelerated to 20g, in turn producing an equal and opposite force acting downward
on the pile. The load is applied in a linearly increasing manner, followed by a gradual unloading
which is achieved by controlled venting of the pressure. The reaction mass, usually rings of
concrete or steel, provide the resistance, and needs to be only 5% of the total load to be applied
to the pile. During the test, a state-of-the-art load cell and laser sensor, built into the Statnamic
device, act in concert with a high speed laptop computer to measure load and pile movement
directly, taking up to 4000 readings per second. Although the test appears more exciting and
Page 17 of 22

University of Sydney
Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, 1999

dramatic than conventional static load testing, the procedure is safe and quiet. Comparative tests
on piles subjected to Statnamic testing and conventional static loading tests have provided very
good agreement in load-settlement performance. Statnamic devices are now available for
routine testing of piles to loads in excess of 3000 tonnes and the technology exists to increase
loadings well beyond 3000 tonnes. It is understood that a device that would enable test loading
to 6000 tonnes is under consideration for manufacture at present. Tests have been conducted in
the UK, USA, Canada, Malaysia, China, Japan, Korea, Indonesia, Germany, Israel, and now,
Australia.
5.2

Typical results

Results from the Statnamic tests are immediately visible on computer screen during the test, and
stored for subsequent reporting purposes. Results from three tests are shown, as reproduced
from the field data, are shown in Fig 15. For the tests shown, the pile working loads were
around 5.2MN, thus all piles were effectively proof loaded to a load factor of about 3.

Fig 15
Statnamic Test results, Quay West Project, Melbourne.
5.3

Advantages of Statnamic testing

The advantages of Statnamic testing include the following:

the test is quick and easily mobilised.

pile performance is measured cost-effectively

high loading capacity is available

the system is flexible and adaptable eg single piles or pile groups can be tested for
Page 18 of 22

University of Sydney
Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, 1999

compression loading and also lateral loading characteristics.

the test is quasi-static, and does not produce harmful compression and tension stresses that
have the potential of damaging a pile.
Statnamic test results are in good agreement with static loading test results, particularly
for piles founded in stiff soils or rock.

the test can be used not only for testing pile foundations, but also to confirm the bearing
capacity of soils or rock suited to pad footings, thus enabling optimisation of footing
design.

RELATIVE MERITS OF VARIOUS METHODS OF LOAD TESTING

Static load testing remains the definitive testing method, with the development of all of the more
modern methods resulting in comprehensive comparative testing with static methods required
to gain acceptance in the engineering community.
However, static load testing is slow and expensive and generally being suitable for relatively low
loads. It is for this reason that other methods such as dynamic and Statnamic have been devised
and accepted. It may be of use to compare the three main methods of testing, which is discussed
below.
Fig. 16 summarises the three main methods schematically.

Fig. 16
Major load testing methods

Page 19 of 22

University of Sydney
Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, 1999

The resultant phenomena associated with the tests are shown in Fig. 17.

Comparison Load Tests

STN

DLT

LOAD

TIME

DEPTH
H

DLT

STN

SLT

Fig 17.
Phenomena resulting from various test methods.
The following observations become apparent:
$ the load for Statnamic testing is significantly longer than for dynamic testing, typically being
10 to 15 times longer. For this reason, it is closer to modelling static load performance.
$ the stresses resulting from the tests are similar for static and Statnamic testing, whereas stress
wave phenomena result from dynamic testing.
$ velocity effects in dynamic testing vary down the length of the pile; are relatively constant
during Statnamic testing; and non-existent during static testing.
$ resultant displacements during dynamic testing vary down the length of the pile, but are
relatively constant during static and Statnamic testing
In short, the static test is closely simulated by Statnamic testing, especially for piles founded on
an end-bearing stratum compared with dynamic testing.
Poulos (Pile testing - from the designers viewpoint, 2nd Statnamic Seminar, Tokyo, 1998)
Page 20 of 22

University of Sydney
Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, 1999

tabulated a summary of the capabilities of various forms of load testing, which are reproduced
below.
Table 1. Summary of capabilities of various pile load tests with respect to the results
obtained.
Test
Type

Ult.
Axial
Geot.
Capacity

Ult.
Lateral
Geot.
Capacity

Loadsettlmt

Lateral
defln

Group
Effects

Struct.
Capacity
&
Integrity

Special
Loadings

Ground
Movs.

Static
Uninstrumented

Static
Instrumented

Static Lateral

Dynamic (PDA)

Osterberg Cell

Statnamic
Uninstrumented

1-2

1-2

Statnamic
Instrumented

2-3

Legend:
3 = very suitable; 2 = may be suitable under some circumstances; 1= possible but unlikely to be suitable; 0 = not
suitable

Table 2. Summary of Various Pile Load Tests with Respect to the Accuracy and Relevance
of the Results
Test
Type

Pile Loaded in
Same Way?

Additional
Stress Changes
(Side effects)

Accuracy of
Movement
Measurement

Accuracy of
Load
Measurement

Similar
Duration of
Loading to
Prototype?

Static
Uninstrumented

Static
Instrumented

Static Lateral

Dynamic (PDA)

Osterberg Cell

Statnamic

Legend:
3 = good; 2 = may be adequate; 1 = generally not good

This paper has not presented information on Osterberg Cell testing as this is not a test that has
Page 21 of 22

University of Sydney
Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, 1999

been used to any great extent in Australia.

Page 22 of 22