Acta Geotechnica (2013) 8:1731
DOI 10.1007/s11440-012-0177-4
RESEARCH PAPER
Experimental investigations and analysis on different pile
load testing procedures
Gianpiero Russo
Received: 9 January 2012 / Accepted: 8 May 2012 / Published online: 20 June 2012
Springer-Verlag 2012
Abstract The paper presents experimental results of two
Osterbergs cell load tests (OLTs) and three conventional
load tests (COLTs) in the same subsoil conditions on
Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) piles carefully monitored
during construction stages. The instrumentation along the
pile shaft in all the tests allows interesting comparisons of
both global behaviour and local load transfer. Significant
differences in the stiffness of the soil-pile system with the
different test procedures is outlined. The main differences
between the two test procedures occur at the two opposite
ends of the pile, as could have been expected, while the
observed behaviour in the middle part of the tested piles is
close for the two models. A relatively simple FEM model
has been calibrated on the basis of the OLTs results. The
same model is capable of accurately matching the experi-
mental results of the COLTs, proving that the observed
differences are not due to random factors. Furthermore, the
same model has been used to simulate ideal load tests.
Such a reliable simulation shows that both the experimental
procedures are actually responsible for significant differ-
ences in the behaviour of the soil-pile system even in the
simple case of a concentrated axial load. Large differences
arise in terms of the stiffness of the system with the OLTs
providing by far the stiffest response. Despite being inter-
mediate between the OLT and the ILT, the COLTs provide
a response of the pile-soil system, which is on the average
about two times stiffer than the Ideal test, where the force
applied on top of the pile does not depend on a tangible
reaction system. Care should be thus taken when consid-
ering the results of such tests in the prediction of the
G. Russo (&)
University of Napoli Federico II, Naples, Italy
e-mail: pierusso@unina.it
settlement of a piled foundation. Correction factors should
be applied to the experimentally observed behaviour.
Keywords Kentledge Load test Osterberg Pile
Stiffness
1 Introduction
As recalled by the title of its Rankines lecture [13] Ran-
dolph claims that at the state of the art, a mix of science
and empiricism governs the design of piled foundations,
while the design of a single isolated pile is still essentially
dominated by empiricism, due to the strong influence of
technology and constructional details [12, 19, 20].
It is widely accepted that a static load test to failure is by
far the most reliable method to determine both the bearing
capacity and the loadsettlement relationship of a pile.
Consequently, the most significant progresses in the field of
pile design have been obtained just by collecting and inter-
preting data from load tests. Until a few years ago, research
was mainly focused on the bearing capacity; only recently,
attention has been switched to settlement under live load.
Two main factors have pushed the research in this
direction:
the increasing use of large-diameter bored piles and
barrettes whose current design methods are settlement
based, while capacity-based methods are still widely
used for medium-diameter bored or driven piles;
the development of new settlement-based design criteria
for piled raft foundations, with piles as a mean to reduce
the absolute and/or differential settlement of the raft.
The static load test may be very expensive, except for
small- and medium-diameter piles. The cost is mainly
13
18 Acta Geotechnica (2013) 8:1731

related to the arrangement of the reaction system. To this

end, kentledge or tension piles are alternatively used in
order to find the cheapest of the two. In both cases, the
results should be checked for corrections due to the inter-
action between the reaction system and the tested pile
[7, 11].
Statnamic and dynamic load tests maybe considered as
cheaper alternatives to the conventional static load test with
the further advantage of not requiring any correction due
to the absence of the reaction system. On the other
hand, they both need a substantial and not straightforward
process of interpretation to obtain the equivalent static
performance.
Osterbergs cell load test [9, 17] is again a cheaper
alternative to the conventional static top-down load test, at
least when the load to be applied exceeds 34 MN [1]. The
higher the load to be applied, the more the saving on the
total cost of the load test. To transform the experimental
results of such a test into those of an equivalent top-down
load test, an interpretation based on several hypotheses is
needed [15]. The approximations induced by these
hypotheses, even if generally accepted, have never been
investigated neither experimentally nor theoretically. Fur-
thermore, in the literature, a substantial lack of direct
comparisons between top-down standard load tests and
Osterbergs cell load test may be recognised.
In this paper, first of all direct comparisons between two
COnventional top-down static Load Tests (COLTs) and
two Osterbergs cell Load Tests (OLTs) on the same pile
type (CFA piles) in the same subsoil conditions are pre- Fig. 1 A schematic section of a pile with an Osterbergs cell (after
sented. The four tested piles were all instrumented to [8])
measure axial strains along the pile shaft. Interesting con-
clusions will be deduced directly from the experimental Later on, the cell design was modified and refined,
data and from the observed differences, while FEM back evolving to the current status. The present load cell is a
analyses carried out for all the tests will allow a deeper hydraulic jack placed at the bottom of the pile to be tested.
comprehension of the emerged differences. A pressure is applied, and the jack expands applying equal
upward and downward loads at the bottom of the pile.
A telltale rod is fastened to the top plate of the jack to
2 Brief historical background measure its upward movement, while the total extension
between the top and the bottom plate is usually measured
The Osterbergs cell load was first used in a test on a bored by a couple of linear vibrating wire displacement trans-
pile in 1984 [8]. At that time, the device looked like a sort ducers (see Fig. 2). If the pile head movement is also
of bellows with a bottom and a top steel plate, placed at the measured, the elastic compression of the pile can be easily
bottom of the pile to be tested. An inner pipe was attached deduced, although it is generally assumed that the upward
to the bottom plate extending up to the surface through an movement of the top plate of the jack is equal to the
outer pipe that was also used to pressurise the bellows. As a movement of the head of the pile, that is, the axial stiffness
consequence of this action, both an upward force on the of the pile is infinite.
pile shaft and an equal but opposite downward force on the The test is driven until either the base or the shaft
soil below the pile tip were applied. The downward resistance is reached.
movement of the inner pipe and the upward movement of The idea to apply the load at the bottom of a pile using a
the head of the pile were usually measured by a couple of sort of hydraulic jack had, however, previous applications.
dial gauges, while a pressure gauge allowed to measure the The pre-loading cell, for instance, has been used at the
pressure in the hydraulic circuit (see Fig. 1). bottom of large-diameter bored piles, in order to improve

13
Acta Geotechnica (2013) 8:1731
Fig. 2 O-cell test instrumentation (after [10])
the loadsettlement behaviour of the pile base. The early
applications of this technique merely relied upon the
cement grouting below the pile base [18]. This technique
proved unsatisfactory in some instances, especially in fine-
grained soils where a uniform grouting is not easily
obtained. As a consequence, rather than trying to grout the
soil below the pile base, the cells were used to consolidate it
by means of a displacement grout acting as a flat jack [4, 5].
The injection is usually stopped when either the pile top
begins to show significant upward displacements or the
volume of injected grout increases without further increase
in the pressure. In the former case, the value of the pressure
p times the area of the pile base A equals total shaft
resistance, while in the latter case, it equals the total base
resistance. As suggested by Lizzi [4], in both cases, the
quantity 2pA is a safe lower bound of the total bearing
capacity of the pile. The principle on which the Osterbergs
cell load test is based upon and the information directly
provided by such a load test method are basically the same
of the pre-loading cell.
3 Test site: subsoil conditions and layout of the
tests
The test site is located in the plain east of Napoli where the
subsoil is composed of products of the Vesuvius and
Phlegrean volcanoes. The groundwater table is located
19
close to the ground surface. The load tests were carried out
in the framework of the design of the foundations of a new
big trade centre; on the whole, five design load tests to
failure and twelve proof load tests have been carried out.
The design tests included three conventional, top-down,
maintained stage load tests (COLTs) on piles with different
lengths and diameter and two OLTs on piles with similar
geometry and length. Finally, during the construction stage,
twelve proof COLTs were carried on the piles of the
foundations.
The paper will focus on the design load tests and mainly
on four of these: those which were carried out on piles with
the same diameter, and provided with instrumentation
along the shaft to measure the axial strains.
In Fig. 3, a plan view of the test site with the locations
of the main site investigations and of the tested piles is
reported. The available site investigations are summarised
in Table 1. Eleven boreholes allow the description of the
soil profile over the whole area. Made ground is first found
in all the boreholes with thickness ranging between 1 and
3 m. A second layer with a total thickness ranging between
8 and 11 m consists of pyroclastic sandy soil. Finally, at a
depth ranging between 10 and 12 m below the ground
surface, the bedrock is encountered. It is a volcanic grey
tuff characterised by a rather variable degree of cementa-
tion in the upper few metres. A few deep boreholes show
that the thickness of the tuff layer is rather uniform on the
whole area and on average equal to at least 20 m. Coastal
deposits of fine-grained sandy soil are found at depths
larger than 35 m from the ground surface.
In Fig. 4, the results of CPTs and SPTs are plotted
against the depth together with a schematic soil profile
derived by the available boreholes.
The intermediate pyroclastic soils have a grain size
distribution in the range of silt and sand, with a gravel
fraction consisting in pumices and not exceeding 10% (see
Fig. 5).
In the middle of the layer, the silt (volcanic ashes)
slightly prevails over the coarser fraction as it is confirmed
by the CPT profiles.
In Fig. 5, the values of the friction angles / are plotted
versus the depth. The values were deduced by a correlation
[16] with the soil densities derived by the average end
resistance measured during the six CPTs and by the SPTs
[3]. The values derived by the correlations based on SPTs
are slightly larger than those derived by the correlations
based on CPTs, even if the trend with the depth is rather
similar: this result is quite common in pyroclastic soils. On
the basis of the less scattered values derived by CPTs, it
can be summarised that the friction angle ranges between
31 and 37 for all the soil layers above the tuff. In the
upper layer and in the lower part of the pyroclastic sand
layer, the friction angle approaches the upper bound of the
13
20 Acta Geotechnica (2013) 8:1731

Table 1 Site investigations

Borehole Depth (m) Samples Number of SPT

S1 20.00 3 3
S2 20.00 2 5
S3 20.00 2 5
S4 50.00 6 7
S5 20.00 5 4
S6 20.00 2 5
S7 60.00 8 6
S8 20.00 2 5
S9 20.00 7 6
S10 20.00 5 6
S11 20.00 5 5
CPT1 10.00
CPT2 10.00
CPT3 11.00
CPT4 10.40
CPT5 10.20
CPT6 10.20

characterised by a MohrCoulomb envelope with an

Fig. 3 Plan view of the test site with the locations of the pile tests
and of the site investigations
range. In the middle of the pyroclastic sand layer, where
the silty fraction is prevailing, the friction angle approaches
the lower bound of the range. The underlying layer of
volcanic tuff was not directly investigated, but it represents
a very common and well-known formation in the urban
area of Napoli. The strength of such a material is typically
effective cohesion c0 = 400800 kPa and a friction angle
/0 = 28.
The piles are standard CFA ones constructed with the
ordinary sequence which may be summarised in the fol-
lowing steps:
1. an auger with the same nominal diameter of the pile is
screwed within the soil down to the designed depth;
2. a rather fluid concrete is pumped down through the
central stem of the auger while the auger is retrieved
upwards, thus removing the soil sequestered in the
swirls of the auger;
3. Finally, the reinforcement cage is slowly lowered
down through the fresh concrete;
In Table 2, the geometry of the tested piles, the maxi-
mum applied load and the maximum recorded displace-
ment are summarised. All the piles were embedded in the
tuff layer with a socket depth ranging between 2 and 5
diameters and were instrumented with vibrating wire
gauges to measure the load transfer along the pile shaft.
The reaction to the hydraulic jack used to load the pile was
provided by a kentledge supported by two provisional
rectangular foundations placed on two opposite sides rel-
ative to the pile to be tested. The plan area of the foun-
dations was 1.5 9 6 m2 each, the minimum distance from
the axis of the pile to be tested being about 3.5 m.
For the OLTs, the settlement is not reported, because
two different values are available: one is the settlement of
the tip of the pile and the other is the upward displacement
of the head of the pile. The two piles were instrumented to

13
Acta Geotechnica (2013) 8:1731 21

qc [MPa] Nspt
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 50 100
0 0

ground
made
2

6
4

CPT1
CPT2 8
Depth [m]

CPT3
CPT4
pyroclastic sand

Depth [m]
6
CPT5
10
CPT6

12
8

14

10
16
bedrock-
tuff

18
12

Spt's in 11 boreholes
20

Fig. 4 Cpt, Spt and soil layering as deduced by boreholes

measure the load transfer with the depth. In Fig. 6, the
sections of the two test piles with the depth of the instal-
lations of the vibrating wire gauges are sketched. These
two piles were expressly built for the purpose of the test. In
such a case, the hydraulic jack was linked to the bottom of
the reinforcement cage, which had to be lowered down in
the fresh concrete as usual for CFA piles. Particular care
was dedicated to this step that was supposed to be a critical
one, but, however, no special difficulties were recorded.
Since the reinforcement cage as long as the pile shaft, the
hydraulic jack was placed exactly at the pile base.
The settlement of the pile head for the COLTs and the
vertical displacement of three points for the OLTsthat is,
the pile head, the top and the bottom plate of the embedded
load cellwere measured using a precision survey and
adopting a benchmark sufficiently far away from the area
of the test, as a fixed reference point. Ordinary telltales
linked to the plates of the embedded load cell were adopted
to allow the measurements of their displacement at the
ground level.
In both cases (OLTs and COLTs), the vibrating wire
gauges were installed after the pile execution cementing

13
22 Acta Geotechnica (2013) 8:1731

1
2
3
4
Depth (m)

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

gravel sand silt Percentage(%)

[kN/m3]
0 5 10 15 20 25

0 20 30 40 50
0

2
4

6
4
Depth [m]

Depth [m]

10 6

12

8
14

16
10

18 -SPT Fig. 6 Sections of the two piles tested with the Osterbergs cell load
and locations of the vibrating wire gauges used to measure the axial
-CPT
12 strain along the shaft
20

Fig. 5 Grain size, unit weight and friction angle deduced by

penetration tests 4 Global loaddisplacement test results

them in a closed-end steel pipe linked to the reinforcement The five piles tested were carefully monitored in the exe-
cage and centred in the pile section [14]. cution stage. The piling machine had a data logger on
It is to be noted that the piling machine, the construction board, which registered data from the sensors and provided
sequence, the concrete and the reinforcement cages adop- useful real-time data to the operator. As a result of this
ted were the same for both the groups of piles tested either careful control, the piles to be tested had, expressly chosen,
conventionally or by the Osterbergs cell load. slightly different geometries, but on the other hand, they

Table 2 Summary of conventional top-down load tests (COLTs) and Osterbergs cell load tests (OLTs) data
Pile test L (m) d (m) Applied Settlement (m) Maximum stress in the
load (MN) pile section (MPa)

COLT1 14.40 0.80 8.00 0.008 15.9

COLT2 13.00 0.80 8.56 0.010 17.0
COLT3 13.00 0.60 6.04 0.027 21.4
OLT1 12.60 0.80 5.75 11.4
OLT2 13.90 0.80 7.75 15.4

13
Acta Geotechnica (2013) 8:1731 23

were similar for many constructional details. The applied displacement of the head of the pile. The maximum dif-
torque and the axial force on the auger, the downwards and ference between these two quantities at the end of pile test
the upward speed of the auger, and the programmed extra was only about 1 mm due to the little elastic shortening of
volumes of concrete (about 10% of the nominal section) the compressed pile shaft. The sharp increase in the upward
poured along the pile shaft were all kept as constant as displacement at the end of both tests shows clearly that the
possible in order to have piles as similar as possible. limiting value of the shaft friction was nearly reached while
The loadsettlement relationships of the three COLTs
are represented in Fig. 7. The curves show that only the
third test, COLT3, carried out on a pile with a diameter of
0.6 m, has fully mobilised the shaft friction, showing a
sudden increase in the settlement at about the maximum
applied load. The two tests COLT1 and COLT2 were
executed on piles with the same diameter (d = 0.8 m) but
with different socket lengths: both the piles are far from
failure and exhibit similar behaviour mainly governed by
the shaft friction along the shaft. The end-bearing mobi-
lised in all the tests was rather small. It can be noted by the
values reported in Table 2 that at the maximum test load,
the average stress in the structural section was fairly high
and not so far from the yielding stress of the concrete (20
25 MPa). The load tests were stopped both for this reason
and for having almost equated the available weight
provided by the installed kentledge.
In Fig. 8, the load displacement relationships measured
in the two OLTs are plotted. In such a case, as usual for this
test type, for each pile test, two separate curves for the shaft
friction, S, and for the end bearing, P, are reported. The
upward displacement adopted for plotting the S curve is the
average of two nearly equal measured quantities, that is,
the displacement of the top plate of the cell and the Fig. 7 Results from conventional load tests on three different piles

Q [MN]
Q [MN]
0 2 4 6 8
0 2 4 6 8 10
-0,03 -0,015

-0,01
-0,02

-0,005
-0,01
OLT 1 -S
OLT2 -S 0
0,00 OLT 1 - P
OLT2 -P
w [m]

0,005
w [m]

0,01
0,01
0,02
0,015

0,03
0,02

0,04
0,025

0,05
0,03

Fig. 8 Osterbergs cell load tests: loaddisplacement curves

13
24
the full end bearing in the tuff socket was still far to be
mobilised, as shown by its linear trend. The pile in the case
of the OLT1 was 12.60 m long, while in the case of OLT2
was 13.90 m long. As it could be expected in similar soil
conditions, the shaft friction mobilised in the OLT1 was
about 6 MN, while in the OLT2 at the same upward dis-
placement, the mobilised shaft friction was about 7 MN,
the ratio between these two values being very similar to the
ratio between the two different lengths. For both tests, the
end bearing is far to be fully mobilised at the end of the test
and the maximum stress applied at the tip being as high as
15 MPa in the OLT2.
In the Fig. 9, the shaft resistance and the point resistance
mobilised during the conventional load test 1 and 2 are
superimposed to the values obtained by the OLT1 and the
OLT2. To facilitate the comparison, the shaft resistance
mobilised during the COLTs is plotted against an upward
displacement, which is simply the observed downward
displacement changed in sign. The selection of two con-
ventional load tests out of the three available has been
made on the obvious basis of the geometric similarity with
the piles tested with the Osterbergs cell load. All the piles
have the same diameter, but not exactly the same length,
the piles conventionally tested being 5070 cm longer than
those submitted to the OLTs. First of all, a general agree-
ment between the results obtained with the two different
test procedures must be remarked. Nevertheless, some
minor differences can be noted and commented. In both the
compared couple of tests, the measured loaddisplacement
relationships at the pile shaft show that the stiffness
Q [MN]
0 2 4 6
-0,015
-0,01
-0,005
0
0,005 OLT 1 -S
w [m]
COLT2 -S
0,01 OLT 1 - P
COLT2 - P
0,015
0,02
0,025
0,03
Fig. 9 Comparison between shaft and tip loaddisplacement curves as mobilised in the OLTs and in the COLTs
13
Acta Geotechnica (2013) 8:1731
revealed by the OLTs is higher than the one deduced by the
COLTs. The opposite occur in terms of strength. This
statement is clearly supported by the measurements only in
the former comparison, while in the latter, some extrapo-
lation could lead to the same conclusions. As shown by the
same figure, the two test procedures allow to investigate
the tip or point resistance in largely different ranges, the
OLT being capable of investigating the mobilisation of
the tip resistance at much larger displacements than the
COLTs ones. Little can be said on the comparisons for
the ultimate tip resistance, while the comparisons show that
the stiffer behaviour, if any, is that obtained during a
COLT. Of course, the results of the OLTs provide valuable
information about the large tip resistance available in the
tuff socket for the tested piles.
Further to the separation between shaft and base resis-
tance, the gauges installed along the pile shaft allowed the
building of local load transfer functions widely known as t-
w curves [2]. These results will be presented in the next
sections in order to clarify the origin of the differences
between the two load tests procedure.
5 Equivalent top-down loadsettlement curves
Osterberg [9] and Schmertmann and Hayes [17] suggest the
possibility of deriving an equivalent loadsettlement curve
of the pile head from the results of the OLT, similar to that
obtained via a COLT. The suggested procedure relies upon
two main hypotheses:
Q [MN]
8 0 2 4 6 8 10
-0,03
-0,02
-0,01
0,00
OLT2 -S
w [m]
0,01 COLT1 - S
OLT2 -P
0,02 COLT1 - P
0,03
0,04
0,05
Acta Geotechnica (2013) 8:1731
1. the pile is rigid;
2. the loaddisplacement relationship for the shaft resis-
tance is independent of the direction of the relative
movement between the pile and the surrounding soil.
A third implicit and often neglected assumption is that
the stressstrain field at the pile base and along the pile
shaft is not mutually interacting, that is, the loadsettle-
ment relationship of the base and of the shaft are practi-
cally independent and can be considered separately.
The first assumption, indeed, could easily be removed at
the cost of a slight complication in the interpretation of the
experimental results. The remaining two assumptions are
mandatory, not only to work out the equivalent loadset-
tlement relationship at the pile head, but also to use simply
the results of the OLT in any design method for piles under
axial top load.
The main steps of the suggested procedure, keeping the
assumption of a rigid pile, are as follows:
an arbitrary value of the settlement is selected; since the
pile is assumed to be rigid, the settlement has a unique
value along the whole shaft;
the values of both the shaft and the end-bearing
resistance mobilised at the selected value of the
settlement are evaluated on the appropriate load
displacement curves;
the two values are simply added obtaining the value of
the total head load corresponding to the selected value
of the settlement in the equivalent curve.
A point of the equivalent loadsettlement curve of the
head of the pile is thus obtained. A complete loadsettle-
ment curve can be obtained by repeating the procedure,
adopting different values of the tentative settlement.
The equivalent curves obtained by the two available
OLTs are compared with the loadsettlement curves mea-
sured during the two COLTs in Fig. 10. The curves derived
by the OLTs were obtained, removing the hypothesis of
Q [MN]
0 2 4 6 8 10
0,000
0,002
0,004
0,006
wh [m]
0,008
0,010 OLT 1
0,012 COLT 2
0,014
Fig. 10 Comparison between equivalent top loadsettlement curves derived by OLTs and loadsettlement derived by COLTs
25
rigid pile, using the average between the two recorded
values of the pile head and the pile tip (i.e. the upward
displacement of the top plate of the embedded load cell) as
the displacement entered in the shaft curve.
As clearly shown by the plotted curves, the initial stiffness
obtained by the equivalent curves of the OLTs is much higher
than the initial stiffness of the piles measured during con-
ventional load tests. This occurs even though the piles con-
ventionally tested were a bit longer than the corresponding
ones submitted to OLTs. This result is not surprising and may
be mainly a straightforward consequence of the different
location of the loading system at the boundary of the piles
embedded in the soil. To support such a statement, Russo
et al. [15] carried out analyses on piles embedded in an elastic
homogeneous halfspace via FEM. It emerged that the ratio
between the stiffness exhibited by piles under the two dif-
ferent testing conditions was generally comprised in the
range between two and three depending on the slenderness
ratio of the pile. The experimental observations reported in
this paper strongly confirm such a finding.
The difference between the two load test procedures
mitigates at increasing load and, at least for the first
comparison, at the maximum test load, with the shaft
friction fully mobilised in the OLT; the two experimental
curves tend to superimpose almost perfectly. For the sec-
ond comparison, the curve measured during the COLTs
stops before approaching the equivalent curve obtained by
the OLT. Even in this second case, however, the differ-
ences between the two curves are clearly attenuated at
larger loads.
6 Local load transfer differences for different
testing procedures
The two CFA piles tested with the Osterbergs cell load
were instrumented with vibrating wire gauges to measure
Q [MN]
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0,000
0,004
0,008
0,012
wh [m]
0,016
OLT 2
0,020
0,024 COLT 1
0,028
13
26
the load transfer along the pile shaft. A sketch of the two
piles with the depth of the installation of the gauges was
already reported in Fig. 7.
The load transfer curves for each load step are plotted in
Fig. 11. The values of the axial load were obtained simply
multiplying the strains measured by the vibrating wire
gauges times the axial stiffness of the pile EpA. The value
of EpA was experimentally derived equating the bottom
value of the axial force to the nominal load applied via the
load cell at the bottom of the pile. The experimentally
derived EpA was about 20% higher than the theoretical
value obtained multiplying the Youngs modulus of the
concrete (Ep = 28GPa) adopted for the construction of the
pile shaft for the nominal section of the pile (d = 0.80 m).
This experimental finding is mainly due to the fact that the
true section of the pile was a bit larger than the nominal
one. The true size of the transversal section of the piles was
known via the data logged on the computer of the piling
machine. From these data, the average true diameter of the
pile resulted about 0.88 m, implying about 20% increase in
the transverse area A of the tested piles.
The two piles show similar axial load transfer. Both the
piles were socketed into the deep layer of volcanic tuff for
a total length of about twothree diameters. In the bottom
part of the piles, between the point depth and 8 m, nearly
65% of the total load applied at the pile tip is transferred to
the surrounding soil. Only the residual 35% is transferred
to the upper part of the pile where the curves of the axial
force N show a rather small gradient. Obviously, the gra-
dient of these curves is proportional to the friction devel-
oped along the pile shaft. From the curves of the axial force
N, the classical t-w curves can be deduced, such curves
(a) N [MN]
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0
0
2
4 4
Depth [m]
6 6
8 8
10
12
14
Fig. 11 Load transfer along the shaft for the OLT 1 (a) and OLT 2 (b)
13
Acta Geotechnica (2013) 8:1731
being a local relationship between the unit friction t and the
local settlement w.
In Fig. 12, the t-w curves as derived by the two OLTs
are reported. The available data have been averaged mainly
on the basis of the soil layering reported in the Fig. 4.
Three different soil layers have been considered. The last
three sections have been attributed to a soil layer that
includes the tuff and a small part of the overlying sand
layer (lower sand). Two intermediate sections have been
averaged to provide the curve referred to the intermediate
sand layer, which is the worst part of the subsoil due also to
the presence of erratic lens of organic materials. The top
three sections of the instrumented pile have been attributed
to the layer called as made ground and upper sand. As it
could be expected, the higher strength is available in the
bottom layer, which includes the tuff socket with limiting
shaft friction mobilised at the end of the test as high as
0.40.45 MPa. The lowest mobilised friction, in the inter-
mediate sand layer, is in the range 0.090.12 MPa, while in
the upper sand, the mobilised friction ranges between 0.15
and 0.18 MPa.
In Fig. 13, all the available t-w curves derived by both
OLTs and COLTs for each of the three main soil layers are
directly compared.
The plots of Fig. 13 reveal the exact location of the
differences emerged between the two load tests procedures.
As already commented before on the global shaft and base
behaviour, the comparison between the two test procedure
in terms of strength is rather satisfactory, even being the
COLTs generally far from the entire mobilisation of the
full strength available along the shaft in the tuff socket and
at the pile base. Little more can be said on the same topic
(b) N [MN]
0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0
7,0
0
2
Depth [m]
10
12
14
Acta Geotechnica (2013) 8:1731 27

(a) 0,45 (b) 0,45

0,4
0,4

0,35
shaft friction , t [MPa]
0,35

shaft friction , t [MPa]

0,3 0,3

0,25 0,25

0,2 0,2
made ground and
0,15 upper sand 0,15

0,1 intermediate sand 0,1

0,05 tuff and lower sand 0,05

0 0
0 0,005 0,01 0,015 0 0,005 0,01 0,015 0,02 0,025
Vertical displacement, w [m] Vertical displacement, w [m]

Fig. 12 t-w curves along the shaft for the OLT 1 (a) and the OLT 2 (b)

looking at the local behaviour represented by the t-w In other words, in the two tests, the mechanism of the
curves. Particularly in the upper layer of sand and made interference between the stress field around the shaft and
ground, the COLTs approach larger values of the limiting the tip of the pile is completely different.
shaft friction compared to the OLTs. This fact may be at
least partially due to the beneficial influence of the weight
of the kentledge used in the COLTs on the confining stress 7 Bearing capacity issues
around the piles in this top layer. A scattered behaviour
emerges from the comparison between the two test pro- The CFA pile is essentially a replacement pile due to the
cedures in the intermediate layer whose thickness, as high ratio between the external diameter of the auger and
shown by the CPTs profiles, is largely variable around the the diameter of the internal pipe (i.e. d/d0 & 0.15). A
test site. In the tuff socket, a rather brittle behaviour is standard worldwide diffused approach for calculating the
local (at a given depth) ultimate value of the shaft friction
obtained during the OLTs, and little can be said on the
for such piles in sandy soil is that of multiplying the value
comparison between the two test procedures due to the
of b = k x l & 0.3 times the effective vertical stress at the
early stop of the COLTs.
same depth. This approach known as b method or static
The comparison on the stiffness looks more interesting
formulas does not work properly for such piles in pyro-
The results reported in Fig. 13 can be summarised stating
clastic sandy soil. As a matter of fact, in the upper sand and
that while in the upper layer, the stiffness measured during
in the intermediate sand layer, we would calculate an
the COLTs is higher than the one measured during the
ultimate value of the shaft friction, respectively, equal to
OLTs, the opposite occurs in the bottom layer. The scatter
18 and 22 kPa, while even the lowest experimental values
of the data in the intermediate layer allows only to state
obtained by the OLTs (not affected by the beneficial effect
that in terms of average behaviour, no substantial differ-
of the weight of the kentledge) are about 140150 and 80
ences arise between the two test procedures.
100 kPa for the two mentioned layers. These latter values
As it could be expected, the larger differences between
are 56 times higher than the calculated ones. It seems that
the two test procedures arise in the top part of the pile and values of b or k appropriate for displacement piles should
at the pile bottom, while in the middle of the piles, the
be adopted in order to get a better agreement between the
comparison shows only minor differences. The expectation
aforementioned b method and the measured values. Vig-
is justified on the obvious basis of the main differences
giani [20] proposed a design method for CFA in pyroclastic
between the two test procedures. In the case of the OLTs,
sandy soil based on the values of CPTs. Such a method
the pile top is pushed upwards and is close to the boundary
defines a value of the coefficient a for the relationship
surface while the load source is on the other end of the pile,
Sult = a x qc the value of a being equal to the following
while in the COLTs, the pile top is pushed downwards by
expression:
the applied load being the pile tip far from the load source.

13
28 Acta Geotechnica (2013) 8:1731

0,3 6:6 0:32 qc

a 300 60 q
c
0,25
Applying such a relationship to the available CPTs
shaft friction , t [MPa]

profiles, Sult, respectively, equal to 100 and 60 kPa for the

0,2 upper and the intermediate sandy layers are obtained.
These values even if lower than the measured values, as it
0,15
could be expected by a conservative design method, are
incomparably higher than the values obtained via the
OLT2
conventional b method. As stated by Poulos et al. [12] in
0,1 OLT1
COLT1 their state-of-the-art report, the bearing capacity estimate
COLT2 of a pile should be always based on local experience, and
0,05 COLT3 worldwide diffused approaches should be disregarded.
The OLTs allowed also to investigate the end bearing of
0
such piles in the tuff socket at stress level higher than the
0 0,005 0,01 0,015 0,02 0,025 COLTs. Both the OLTs show a very stiff and a substan-
Vertical displacement, w [m] tially linear behaviour of the end bearing. In the two tests,
the stiffness ranges between 180 and 220 MN/m, and the
0,3
maximum mobilised value of the end bearing is about
12 MPa, rather high when compared with the uniaxial
0,25 compressive strength of such a rock that usually ranges
shaft friction , t [MPa]

between 10 and 25 MPa.

0,2

0,15
8 Numerical simulations

FEM analyses were carried out with the main aim to

0,1 compare the two test procedures and to throw light on the
OLT1
observed differences. Furthermore, once the soil model was
OLT2
0,05 calibrated, an ideal load test (ILT) was simulated, the ideal
COLT3
load test being one where no reaction is provided to the
COLT3
applied top load. The subsoil was modelled as a four layer
0
0 0,004 0,008 0,012 0,016 0,02 0,024 system with each soil layer modelled as a simple Mohr
Vertical displacement, w [m] Coulomb material. The Plaxis 2D software was used
0,5 adopting the hypothesis of axial symmetry. In this soft-
ware, a MohrCoulomb material is a linearly elastic per-
0,45
fectly plastic material with yielding surface corresponding
0,4 to the MohrCoulomb failure criterion. The piles were
shaft friction , t [MPa]

0,35
modelled as a solid linearly elastic body with their effec-
tive geometry (d = 0.88 m; Ep = 28GPa; tp = 0.2), the
0,3
elastic modulus being assumed on the basis of standard
0,25 relationships with the strength of the used concrete.
OLT2 The pile on the axis of symmetry was not set as wished
0,2
OLT1 in place. Its execution was partially simulated starting from
0,15 COLT3 lythostatic initial conditions (K0i-th layer = 1 - sin/i-th layer).
COLT3
The groundwater table was set at 1 m below the ground
0,1
COLT2
surface. The fresh and very fluid concrete usually adopted
0,05 for the shaft of the CFA piles was first set in place as a
COLT1
viscous fluid with its own weight (cconcrete = 24 kN/m3).
0
0 0,004 0,008 0,012 0,016 0,02 0,024 New equilibrium conditions were obtained with very
Vertical displacement, w [m] high horizontal stresses in a relatively thin annular area
Fig. 13 Comparison among t-w curves for each layer derived by around the pile. Once the new equilibrium was reached, the
OLTs and COLTs concrete material with its long-term elastic properties

13
Acta Geotechnica (2013) 8:1731 29

(Ep = 28GPa, tp = 0.2) was switched on into the hole
substituting the previous viscous fluid.
The very high ultimate shaft friction measured during
the tests was substantially matched in the analyses using
such a modelling of the execution stage.
The first set of analyses was carried out to simulate the
OLTs. The load cell was simulated as a small elastic solid
body with low Youngs modulus; at the horizontal
boundaries, two equal and opposite distributed load were
applied incrementally up to the maximum test load.
A best fitting exercise was carried out changing both
the strength and mainly the stiffness of the Mohrcou-
lomb materials adopted to model the four fundamental
layers in which the piles are embedded. In Fig. 14, the
loaddisplacement relationships obtained are plotted sep-
arately for each pile test and compared with the experi-
mental results. In Table 3, the final values of the adopted
parameters are summarised. The final agreement is rather
satisfactory, as it could be expected in a best fitting
exercise, while the adopted stiffness reported in the
Table 3 deserves some comments. It can be outlined that
the ratios between the Youngs moduli and the average qc
value for each layer are rather high varying from 10 to
17. In the local experience, these high ratios are only a
bit lower than the values normally adopted to estimate low-
strain Youngs moduli of the pyroclastic sandy soils. This
is not new, as Mancuso et al. [6] have shown that the
initial stiffness derived by loadsettlement relation- ships
measured during COLTs is accurately predicted adopting
in a BEM linear analysis low-strain Youngs moduli.
The same subsoil profile calibrated on the basis of the
OLTs has been used for simulating the two COLTs with
the kentledge on piles with the nominal diameter
d = 0.80 m (i.e. COLT1 and COLT2 see Table 2). Fur-
thermore, for these latter piles, two ILTs have been finally
simulated.
The COLTs with the kentledge have been simulated first
applying the load of the kentledge on a circular crown
equivalent to the rectangular foundation of the kentledge
system. During the application of the vertical load on tested
piles, the load on the foundation of the kentledge has been

Q [MN] Q [MN]

0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 10
-0,04 -0,06

OLT 1 -S
OLT 1 - P -0,04

-0,02 FEM - S
FEM - P
-0,02

0
0,00
w [m]
w [m]

OLT2 -S
OLT2 -P
0,02
0,02 FEM - S
FEM - P
0,04

0,04
0,06

0,06 0,08

Fig. 14 FEM simulations of the OLTs

Table 3 MohrCoulomb parameters in the FEM model

Depth (m) csat (kN/m3) c0 (kPa) u0 () E (kPa) qc (kPa)

Upper sand 4 19 0 37 120,000 700

Intermediate sand 7 18 0 32 30,000 300
Lower sand 10 19 0 37 110,000 1,000
Tuff 30 17 600 28 280,000

13
30 Acta Geotechnica (2013) 8:1731

accordingly reduced. This step produces significant effects
on the loadsettlement relationships of the tested piles as
well as on the load transfer with the depth. Both the
apparent stiffness of the pile-soil system and the ultimate
value of the shaft friction available in the upper layers of
the soil profile are increased by simulating the presence of
the kentledge. The first effect is visible when comparing
Fig. 15 Experimental curves from the COLTs versus FEM simula-
tions of the COLTs and of the ILTs
the ILTs with the COLTs, while the second effect is
already visible in the experimental comparison between the
OLTS, where there is no kentledge, and the COLTs (see in
Fig. 14 t-w curves for the upper sandy layer).
In Fig. 15 a, summary of the FEM computations and of
the experimental results of the COLTs is reported. It can be
noted that the subsoil model calibrated on the basis of the
OLTs is adequate to provide a fairly accurate simulation of
the two COLTs on piles whose geometry is only slightly
different from the previous ones. Furthermore, the stiff-
ening effect of the kentledge is clearly evident when
comparing the ILTs with the COLTs.
Finally, the Fig. 16 reports the comparison among
the equivalent top-down loadsettlement relationships
obtained by the OLTs, the corresponding experimental
loadsettlement relationships obtained via the COLTs
and the simulated loadsettlement relationships for the
ILTs. Mandolini et al. [7] showed comparisons among
these different tests based on numerical simulations only;
for L/D in the range between 10 and 20, the ratios of the
initial stiffness were about 2.6 for OLTs with respect to
the ILTs and 1.4 for COLTs with respect to the ILTs.
Consequently, the initial stiffness of the piles submitted
to the OLTs was more than two times the stiffness of the
piles submitted to the COLTs. On the basis of the experi-
mental results reported in this paper, this last ratio ranges
between 1.6 and 2.7 for the two couple of tests. On the
basis of the numerical simulations of the ILTs and of
the corresponding experimental results for the OLTs and
the COLTs, the ratios of the initial stiffness range,
respectively, between 4.8 and 3.5 for the OLTs compared
to the ILTs and between 2.2 and 1.7 for the COLTs com-
pared to the ILTs. These numbers, which have now a sound
basis, are even larger than the ones reported by Mandolini
et al. [7], which were obtained uniquely via numerical
analyses, and show how potentially large may be the dif-
ferences in the stiffness of the piles obtained via different
testing procedures.

Q [MN] Q [MN]
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0,000 0,000

0,002 0,004

0,004
0,008
wh [m]
wh [m]

0,006
0,012
0,008
0,016
0,010

0,012 0,020
OLT 1 COLT 2 FEM ideal 2 OLT 2 COLT 1 FEM ideal 1
0,014 0,024

Fig. 16 Load displacement relationships as a function of test procedure (OLTs, COLTs, ILTs)

13
Acta Geotechnica (2013) 8:1731
9 Conclusions
The paper has presented experimental results of two OLTs
and three COLTs in the same subsoil conditions on CFA
piles carefully monitored during construction stages. The
instrumentation along the pile shaft in all the tests has
allowed interesting comparisons on both global behaviour
and local load transfer. Significant differences on the
stiffness of the soil-pile system with the different tests
procedures have been outlined, while on the other hand, the
investigated behaviour looked more similar in terms of
bearing capacity. The main differences between the two
test procedures are located at the two opposite ends of the
pile, as it could be expected, while the observed behaviour
in the middle part of the tested piles looks more similar.
A relatively simple FEM model was calibrated on the
basis of the available site investigations and by fitting the
results of the OLTs. The same model was capable of
accurately matching the experimental results of the
COLTs, proving that the observed differences are due
neither to random factors nor to details of the complex soil
behaviour, neglected in the adopted MohrCoulomb
model. The differences are indeed simply due to the dif-
ferent location of the load source that produces significant
differences in the mechanism of the interferences between
the stress field around the shaft and at the base of the pile.
Furthermore, the same model was used to simulate an ideal
load tests. Very high differences arise in terms of the
stiffness of the system with the OLTs providing by far the
stiffest response. Even being intermediate between the
OLT and the ILT, the COLT was shown to provide a
response of the pile-soil system, which is on the average
about two times stiffer than the Ideal test, where the force
applied on top of the pile does not depend on a tangible
reaction system. Care should be thus taken when consid-
ering the results of pile tests in the prediction of the set-
tlement of a piled foundation under live load. Significant
correction factors should be applied to the experimentally
measured loadsettlement curves.
References
1. England M (2003) Bi-directional static load testingState of art.
In: Proceedings of 4th international geotechnical seminar on deep
foundations on BAP, Ghent, Belgium, June 2003, pp 309313
2. Kraft L, Ray RP, Kagawa T (1981) Theoretical t-z curve.
J Geotech Eng Div Asce 108(11):15431560
31
3. Kulhawy FH, Mayne PW (1990) Manual on estimating soil
properties for foundation design. Research Project 1493-6,
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California
4. Lizzi F (1976) Pieux de fondation fondedile a` cellule de pre-
charge. Construction, n. 6, Paris, pp 3238
5. Lizzi F, Viggiani C, Vinale F (1983) Some experiences with pre-
loading cells at the base of large diameter bored piles. In: Pro-
ceedings of VII Asian reg. conf. soil mech. found. eng, Haifa,
pp 265270
6. Mancuso C, Mandolini A, Silvestri F, Viggiani C (1999) Pre-
diction and performance of axially loaded piles under working
loads. In: Lo Presti D (ed) Proceedings of II international sym-
posium on prefailure deformation of geomaterials, Torino, vol 1.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 801808
7. Mandolini A, Russo G, Viggiani C (2005) Pile foundations:
experimental investigations, analysis and design. State of the Art
Report. In: Proceedings of the sixteenth international conference
on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, vol I. Osaka,
Japan, pp 123168
8. Osterberg JO (1984) A new simplified method for load testing
drilled shafts. Found Drill 23(6) (July/August 1984, pub. Asso-
ciation of Drilled Shaft Contractors, ADSC, pp 911)
9. Osterberg JO (1989) Breakthrough in load testing methodology.
Found Drill Ed ADSC 28(8):13
10. Osterberg JO (2001) Load testing high capacity piles. What have
we learned? In: Proceedings of Vth international conference on
deep foundational practice, April, 2001
11. Poulos HG (1998) Pile testing-from the designers viewpoint. In:
Proceedings of 2nd international statnamic seminar, Tokyo,
pp 322
12. Poulos HG, Carter JP, Small JC (2001) Foundations and retaining
structuresresearch and practice, vol 4. In: Proceedings of XV
ICSMGE, Istanbul, pp 25272606
13. Randolph MF (2003) Science and empiricism in pile foundations
design. Geotechnique 53(10):847875
14. Russo G (2004) Full scale load tests on instrumented micropiles.
J Geotech Eng ICE 57(GE3):127137
15. Russo G, Recinto B, Viggiani C, de Sanctis L (2003) A contri-
bution to the analysis of Osterbergs cell load test. In: Proceed-
ings of 4th international geotechnical seminar on deep
foundations on bored and auger piles, Ghent, Belgium, June
2003, pp 331338
16. Schmertmann JH (1975) Measurement of in situ shear strength.
State of the art report. ASCE speciality conference on in situ
measurements of soil properties, vol 2, pp 57138
17. Schmertmann JH, Hayes JA (1997) The Osterberg cell and bored
pile testinga symbiosis. The third international geotechnical
engineering conference, Cairo, Egypt
18. Simons MH (1961) Discussion session 3B. In: Proceedings of V
ICSMFE, Paris, vol 3, pp 257261
19. Van Weele AF (1988) Cast in situ piles. Installation methods, soil
disturbance and resulting pile behaviour. In: Proceedings of I
seminar on deep foundations on bored and auger piles, Ghent,
June 1988, pp 219232
20. Viggiani C (1989) Influenza dei fattori tecnologici nel progetto
dei pali di fondazione. Panel report, Sess. 1, XVII Italian geo-
technical conference, Taormina, pp 232238
13