International Conference on Advances in

Structural and Geotechnical Engineering

ICASGE17
27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

STATIC AND DYNAMIC PILE LOAD TESTS ON

CLOSED AND OPEN ENDED PIPE PILES
Marawan M. Shahien1, Hayel M. El-Naggar2, Sherif A. Akl3, Mohammad
Hagrass4
1
Professor, Tanta University & Hamza Associates, Egypt
E-mail: marawan.shahin@f-eng.tanta.edu.eg
2
Associate Lecturer, Housing & Building National Research Center, Cairo, Egypt
E-mail: hayelelnaggar@gmail.com
3
Lecturer, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
E-mail: sherif.akl@cu.edu.eg
4
Technical Manager, ORASCOM, Cairo, Egypt
E-mail: Mohammad.Hagrass@orascomci.com

ABSTRACT
A better understanding of the soil-pile interaction for closed and open ended
piles is extremely important for an accurate evaluation of the existing design
methods. In this paper, the results of a series of full scale static and dynamic
load tests carried out on pipe piles are presented. The tests are performed on
twenty trial pipe piles, sixteen of them are open ended and the remaining are
closed ended. The main goal of this paper is to assess the behavior of pipe
piles. The results of pile load tests on open ended pipe piles are compared to
those on closed ended ones. Such comparisons are carried out in case of
static tests and dynamic tests. Furthermore, the calibration between the static
and dynamic tests results are carried out. A detailed interpretation of the
results is also presented to show the pile capacities in the field. Furthermore,
pile capacities using the static axial capacity methods are estimated. The
comparison of the field capacities and the calculated capacities sheds light on
the adequacy of the popular formulas used to estimate pile capacity during
design.

Keywords: Pipe Piles, Closed and Open ended, Static load test, Dynamic load
test, Static Axial Capacity.

INTRODUCTION
It cannot be determined when exactly did the use of driven pile start in history.
It can be surmised that in 800 BC timber piles were driven by drop hammers
[1]. Through time, the material of the pile developed as well as the methods of
driving. In the late 19th and early 20th century, construction started to use
reinforced concrete piles in Europe and the US. Soon after, steel sections
were used. In the 1950s of the 20th century, post-tensioned concrete cylinder

ICASGE17 27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

 International Conference on Advances in
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering

ICASGE17
27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

piles became popular. Also, with time the method of driving evolved from
simple drop hammers to steam hammers and diesel hammers.
In Egypt, driven piles, and especially pipe piles, are the cost effective method
for relatively low capacity structures in remote places away from densely
populated urban areas. Closed ended driven pipe piles are even part of
constructing vibro piles. This type of pile is popular in Egypt as foundation for
low volume bridges. A closed ended driven pile is transformed to vibro pile by
inserting the reinforcement cage and then withdrawing the steel pipe while
pouring in the concrete [2, 3, 4].
The capacity of piles in general and particularly driven pipe piles can be
predicted or calculated using different methods. Nominal resistance of a single
pile can be predicted when the soil layers in the site are known via typical site
investigation. Several researchers over the years discussed the and
methods to derive the pile capacity [5, 6, 7, 8].
During construction, another capacity for the pile can be derived from the
hammering blow count using dynamic formulae. Almost all construction
standards including the Egyptian Code of Practice necessitate the
performance field static tests on a percentage of the piles in the site. A third
value for the capacity can be back analyzed from the results of the static load
tests. This variety in calculation methods are quite problematic in the case of
open or closed ended pipe piles. The load transfer mechanism of these piles
is affected by several factors, more importantly the soil disturbance caused by
driving, and the conditions of driving (fully coring vs. plugged conditions). The
disturbance even affects the friction between soil and pile in a time dependent
manner which is called soil setup in loose sands and soft clay. In other cases
such as dense sands, a reversed process may occur leading to a time
dependent decrease in friction called relaxation. In open ended pipe piles the
amount of soil plug attaching itself to the inner walls of the pipe significantly
affects the frictional resistance of the pile [9].
This paper presents the data of 3 open ended driven pipe piles and one closed
ended driven pipe pile constructed in East of Abou-Qir, Egypt. The site is
thoroughly investigated site and the comprehensive exploration program is
fully described herein. In general, when open steel pipe pile sections are
driven, they may behave as low displacement piles and "core" through the
soil, or act as displacement piles if a soil plug forms near the pile toe. It is
preferable that open sections remain unplugged during driving and plugged
under static loading conditions. The paper compares between the capacity
interpreted from static load test results and that predicted from the nominal
resistance of the pile and the dynamic analysis of the hammering records. The
comparison between the three approaches sheds light on how the open and
closed pipe piles are subject to significant variation in estimations of capacity.

ICASGE17 27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

 International Conference on Advances in
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering

ICASGE17
27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

DRIVEN PILES INFORMATION:

Twenty piles are driven into a 3600 m 2 site in East of Abou-Qir on the shores
of the Mediterranean to improve soil conditions there. The piles can be sorted
in five categories; A, B, C, D, and E. Table 1 shows summary of the pile
Categories and pile data driven in the site.
Table 1. Summary of pile data driven in the site
Pile Pile Wall Base
Pile Pile
Category Diameter Length Th. Soil
Number Type
(mm) (m) (mm)
4 Closed 25.40
A 500 14.30 Sand
13 Ended 23.80
7 Closed 24.13
B 600 14.30 Clay
10 Ended 23.90
3 Open 24.15
C 600 12.70 Sand
20 Ended 24.19
8 40.00
9 Open 40.14
D 500 12.70 Sand
16 Ended 46.75
19 48.00
2 40.00
5 40.00
Open
E 12 600 52.00 12.70 Sand
Ended
14 48.00
17 40.19

SOIL CONDITIONS AT TEST SITE

A comprehensive site investigation program describes the existing soil
conditions. The program includes 60 m deep boreholes, CPT tests, and field
vane tests. Laboratory tests is on Shelby tube undisturbed samples include
unconsolidated undrained, and consolidated undrained triaxial tests. Fig. 2
shows the geotechnical profile encountered in the site. The top layers to a
depth of 15 m below ground surface are weak loose sands, soft clays, or
organic peat. Dense sands are encountered at depths more than 15 m but
there is a significant variability where medium stiff clay interchanges with the
sand till a depth of 43.5 m. The thickness and top levels of the medium stiff
clay vary significantly throughout the site.

ICASGE17 27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

 International Conference on Advances in
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering

ICASGE17
27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

Fig. 1: Geomaterial profile and properties of the site

HIGH STRAIN DYNAMIC LOAD TEST (HSDLT):

Prior driving, the piles are instrumented be strain gauges and accelerometers
on the pile shaft. The strain gauges and the accelerometers are positioned on
two sets diametrically opposite to each other. The measurements are taken
near the pile head to eliminate the effects of bending stresses, and to provide
back-up in case of contingency. Immediately after driving the pile for the
planned depth, dynamic pile load test (DLT) is carried out on all piles. The
tests are carried out according to ASTM D4945 [1]. Pile driving and the
dynamic load test are performed using Diesel D45-32with rated maximum
energy of 145.3 kN.m. the hammer has mass of 4600 kg. Load-settlement
curve for each pile is presented in Fig. 2.

ICASGE17 27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

 International Conference on Advances in
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering

ICASGE17
27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

Load (kN) Load (kN)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
0 0
Pile No. 4 Pile No. 7
2 Pile No. 10
Pile No. 13 5
4

Settlement (mm)
Settlement (mm)

6
8 10
10
12 15
14
16 20
18 (A) (B)
20 25

Load (kN) Load (kN)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
0
0
Pile No. 3 Pile No. 8
5 5 Pile No. 9
Settlement (mm)

Pile No. 19
Settlement (mm)

10
10
15
15
20
20
25
(C) (D)
25 30

Load (kN)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
0
Pile No. 5
5 Pile No. 14
Settlement (mm)

10

15

20

25
(E)
30

Fig. 2: Load-Settlement Curves for piles in each category

ICASGE17 27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

 International Conference on Advances in
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering

ICASGE17
27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

STATIC LOAD TEST (SLT):

Pile load tests are carried out on the four piles listed in Table 6 in accordance
with ASTM D 1143 [9]. One of the tested piles is closed ended short pile and
the others are open ended piles; one is a short pile, and the other two piles
are long. Fig. 4 shows the static load tests results. Settlements of pile No. 10
appear to be significantly higher than that of test pile No. 3. This is attributed
to the fact that the tip of the pile No. 10 encounters the clay soil layer which
lead to the large settlement, and the test is discontinued. This pile reaches a
settlement close to the ultimate criteria for the pile (10% of pile diameter).
The ultimate load of the open ended pile No. 3 is surprisingly higher than that
of the closed ended pile No. 10. The ultimate loads of the longer piles No. 14
and 19 are higher than those of pile No. 3 and 10; and the load settlement
behavior is significantly more linear. It can be argued that the longer depth of
frictional interaction between the pile and soil mobilized higher resistance.
However, it is also surprising that the settlement in tests No. 14 and 19 are
higher than that in piles No. 3.
Table 6. Geometric and design information of the tested piles
(Compression Loads)
Test
Wall Design Test Load /
Pile D Load Design
Category. No. L (m) Thickness Load
Type (mm) (mm) (kN) Load)
(kN)
%
B 10 C.E 600 22.70 12.70 1000 2058 210
C 3 O.E 600 23.30 14.30 1000 3000 300
D 19 C.E 500 46.50 12.70 1500 4500 300
E 14 O.E 600 46.80 12.70 1500 4500 300

Load (kN) Load (kN)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0 0
5 5
10 10
Settlement (mm)
Settlement (mm)

15 15
20 20
25 25
Category (B) Category (C)
30 30
Pile No. 10 Pile No. 3
35 35
40 L. = 23.90 (m) 40 L. = 24.15 (m)
Dia. = 600 (mm) Dia. = 600 (mm)
45 45
Closed-Ended
50 50

ICASGE17 27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

 International Conference on Advances in
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering

ICASGE17
27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

Load (kN) Load (kN)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0 0
5 5
10 10

Settlement (mm)
Settlement (mm)

15 15
20 20
25 25
30 Category (D) 30 Category (E)
35 Pile No. 19 35
Pile No. 14
40 L. = 48.00 (m) 40 L. = 48.00 (m)
Dia. = 500 (mm) Dia. = 600 (mm)
45 45 Open-Ended
Open-Ended
50 50

Fig. 4: Static Load test (Load versus settlement for the four tested piles)

SLT RESULTS INTERPRETATION:

The most reliable methods to obtain the capacity form head movement
records of static loading test are presented by Fellenius [10-11]. He discussed
about nine different methods. In this study the author use two methods; Chin
1970 [12] and Davisson 1972 method [13]. The Results of the interpretation
are presented in Table 7.
Table 7. Summary of measured capacity for HSDLT and SLT

Measured Capacity (kN)

using Chin, and
Category Pile No. Davisson

SLT
C Pile 3 3333.3
B Pile 10 1920.0*
E Pile 14 10000.0
D Pile 19 10000.0
*Davisson 1972

ICASGE17 27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

 International Conference on Advances in
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering

ICASGE17
27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

Nominal axial capacity

API method is used to estimate the nominal capacity for open ended and
closed ended piles. For the open ended piles, the calculation of the capacity
has two cases of estimation and the lower value is considered. The first case
is to calculate the resistance of the pile as closed ended which is given in Eq.
1. The second case is to calculate the soil resistance using Eq. 2. Paikowsky
and Whitman [18-19], concluded that the soil stresses and displacements
induced by driving an open pile section and closed pile section are not the
same. Hence, in calculating the toe resistance of open end pipe piles, a lower
unit toe resistance, , should be used instead of that of typical closed end
condition. The value of the interior unit shaft resistance in an open ended pipe
pile is typically in the order of 1/3 to 1/2 the exterior unit shaft resistance (taken
in this study as 1/2). The length of the soil plug is influenced by soil type, pile
diameter, and pile shoe configuration. The estimation of the nominal
resistance from the pile driving record shall be the subject of another paper.
The overall capacities are shown in Table (8). In addition to, the incremental
resistances for open ended piles are calculated to predict if the soil plug
resistance has occurred at any depth as illustrated in Fig. 4.
= +
(1)
= + + (2)
Where:
= nominal resistance
= exterior unit shaft resistance
= pile exterior surface area
= unit toe resistance
= interior unit shaft resistance
= pile interior surface area
= cross sectional area of pile and soil plug at pile toe
= cross sectional area of pile material at pile toe
Table 8. Summary of Calculated capacity

API Method, (kN) P & W , (kN)

Category Test No.
Plugged Unplugged Unplugged
B Pile 10 1948.70 ---- -----
C Pile 3 5109.63 3166.01 2604.14
D Pile 19 16044.12 12272.93 10136.89
E Pile 14 21705.89 13959.99 11402.19

ICASGE17 27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

 International Conference on Advances in
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering

ICASGE17
27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

Resistance (kN)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0
API - Plugged

API - Unplugged

Paikowsky and
Whitman
5
Category (C)
Pile No. 3
Depth (m)

10

15

20

25

Resistance (kN) Resistance (kN)

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800
0 0
API - Plugged API - Plugged
Case Case
5 API - Unplugged API - Unplugged
Case
5 Case
Paikowsky and Paikowsky and
Whitman Whitman
10 10
Category (D) Category (E)
No. 19 No. 14
15 15

20 20
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40

45 45

50 50
Fig. 4: Incremental resistance for API method, and Paikowsky and
Whitman for unplugged case

ICASGE17 27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

 International Conference on Advances in
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering

ICASGE17
27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

General
There are two main factors that control the plug conditions in open ended
piles: the penetration depth; and the soil type. In this site, the significant
variability in soil conditions and layer depths made the effects of those two
factors more challenging to analyze [20].
Comparison Between HSDL and SLT
The results of HSDL and SLT are compared in Figures (5), (6), (7) and (8) for
piles of Categories (B), (C), (D) and (E), respectively.
The results of HSDL and SLT are comparable to each other only for Category
(B) for closed ended pipe piles, however, there is significant difference
between the results of HSDL and SLT for the rest of pile categories for open
ended pipe piles. Such difference may be related to the non-development of
plug at the toe of the pile during driving.
The observed difference between the results of HSDL and SLT for open ended
pipe piles may lead to conclusion the HSDL cannot be relied on as a quality
control tool for open ended pipe piles.
Comparison Between API and PW Methods For Estimating Nominal
Capacities
Looking at the results in Table (8) and the charts in Figure (4) leads to the
following conclusions in relation to open ended pipe piles:
1) There is a very good agreement between the estimated capacities
using the API-unplugged and Paikowsky & Whitman methods
2) The estimated capacities using API-unplugged method are lower than
that estimated using the API-plugged method in case the toe of the
pile is resting on sand. If on the other hand the pile is resting on clay,
both methods provide comparable capacities. Such conclusion may
be related to soil profile and depths encountered in the site.
3) None of the methods used provide conclusive prediction regarding
development of the plug.
Comparison Between Measured Capacities from SLT and the Estimated
Nominal Capacities
Looking at the results in Tables (7) and (8), the following conclusions could be
deduced:
1) In relation to close ended pipe piles (Category B Pile 10), there is
an excellent agreement between the measured and estimated
capacities.

ICASGE17 27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

 International Conference on Advances in
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering

ICASGE17
27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

2) In relation to open ended pipe piles (Categories C, D and E), there is

a very good to excellent agreement between the measured capacity
from SLT and estimated capacities by Paikowsky & Whitman method.
3) In relation to open ended pipe piles (Categories C, D and E),
Paikowsky & Whitman method provides better estimate of the
measured capacity as compared to that by API-unplugged.
Category (B):
Load (kN) 2,500.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0 SLT
5 SLT 2,000.00
HSDLT
10
Settlement (mm)

15 1,500.00

20
25 1,000.00

30
35 500.00
40
45 0.00
API-
50 Method

Fig. 5: SLT, HSDLT, and calculated capacities for Pile No. 10

Category (C):

Load (kN) 6,000.00

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0 5,000.00
SLT
4,000.00
2
Settlement (mm)

3,000.00
4
2,000.00
6 1,000.00

8 0.00

SLT
10
HSDLT
12

Fig. 6: SLT, PDR, and calculated capacities for Pile No. 3

ICASGE17 27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

 International Conference on Advances in
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering

ICASGE17
27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

Category (D):
Load (kN) 18,000.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 16,000.00
0 14,000.00 SLT
SLT 12,000.00
5 HSDLT
10,000.00
Settlement (mm)

8,000.00
10 6,000.00
4,000.00
15
2,000.00
0.00
20

25

30

Fig. 8: SLT, HSDLT, and calculated capacities for Pile No. 19

Category (E):
Load (kN) 25,000.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0 20,000.00
SLT
HSDLT
5 15,000.00 SLT
Settlement (mm)

10 10,000.00

15 5,000.00

20 0.00

25

30
Fig. 7: SLT, HSDLT, and calculated capacities for Pile No. 14

REFERENCES
1. Hannigan, P. J., Goble, G. G., Thendean, G., Likins, G. E., & Rausche, F.
(2016). Design and construction of driven pile foundations-volume I (No.
FHWA-NHI-16-0009,).
2. AbdelSalam, S. S., Baligh, F. A., & El-Naggar, H. M. (2015). A database to
ensure reliability of bored pile design in Egypt. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers-Geotechnical Engineering, 168(2), 131-143.

ICASGE17 27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

 International Conference on Advances in
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering

ICASGE17
27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

3. AbdelSalam, S. S., Baligh, F. A., & El-Naggar, H. M. (2016). Reliability and

construction control of vibro piles. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 7(2),
885-893.
4. El-Naggar, H. M. (2016). Applying of the design approach of load and
resistance factor in deep foundation design using pile load test database
in Egypt (Master dissertation, Helwan University in Egypt).
5. Meyerhof, G. (1970). Safety Factors in Soil Mechanics, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 349355.
6. Reese, J. D., O'Neil, M. W., & Wang, S. T. (1988). Drilled shaft tests.
Interchange of West Belt Roll Road and US290 Highway, Texas. Final
Report. Lymon C. and Associates. Austin.
7. Kulhawy, F. H., O'Rourke, T. D., Stewart, J. P., & Beech, J. F. (1983).
Transmission Line Structure Foundations for Uplift-compression Loading,
Load Test Summaries: Appendix to EPRI Final Report EL-2870. Electric
Power Research Institute.
8. O'Neill, M. W. (2001). Side resistance in piles and drilled shafts. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(1), 3-16.
9. ASTM D 1143Standard Test Methods for Deep Foundations under Static
Axial Compressive Load.
10. Fellenius, B. H., (1991). Summary of pile capacity predictions and
comparison with observed behavior. American Society of Civil Engineers,
ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 117, No. 1, pp. 192 - 195.
11. Fellenius, B. H. (1999). Basics of foundation design. Richmond, BC:
BiTech Publishers Limited.
12. Chin, F.K. (1970) Estimation of ultimate load of piles not carried to failure
Proceedings, 2 nd Southeast Asia Conference on Soil Engineering, 81-90.
13. Davisson, M.T. (1972) High capacity piles Proceedings, Lecture Series,
Innovations in Foundation Construction, ASCE, Illinois Section, 52 pp.
14. Tomlinson, M. J. (1980). Foundation Design and Construction, 6th
edition, Longman Scientific & Technical, Essex, England.
15. Nordlund, R. L. (1963). Bearing capacity of piles in cohesionless soils.
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, JSMFE, Vol. 89,
SM 3, pp 1-36.
16. AbdelSalam, S. S., & El-Naggar, H. M. (2014). LRFD for large-diameter
bored piles in Egypt. In Geo-Congress 2014: Geo-characterization and
Modeling for Sustainability (pp. 900-910).
17. Tomlinson, M.J. (1994). Pile Design and Construction Practice, Fourth
Edition, E & FN Spon, London, 432 p.

ICASGE17 27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

 International Conference on Advances in
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering

ICASGE17
27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt

18. Paikowsky, S.G. and Whitman, R.V. (1990). The Effects of Plugging on Pile
Performance and Design. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27, No. 4,
pp. 429-440.
19. Brown, D.A., and Thompson III, W.R. (2015). Current Practices for Design
and Load Testing of Large Diameter Open End Driven Pipe Piles. Final
Report. NCHRP Report 20-05, Topic 45-05 National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, Washington, D.C., 175 p.
20. Yu, F., and Yang, J. 2011. Base capacity of open-ended steel pipe piles in
sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 138(9):
1116 1128

ICASGE17 27-30March 2017, Hurghada, Egypt