INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR

SOIL MECHANICS AND

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

This paper was downloaded from the Online Library of

the International Society for Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE). The library is
available here:

https://www.issmge.org/publications/online-library

This is an open-access database that archives thousands

of papers published under the Auspices of the ISSMGE and
maintained by the Innovation and Development
Committee of ISSMGE.
Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
© 2005–2006 Millpress Science Publishers/IOS Press.
Published with Open Access under the Creative Commons BY-NC Licence by IOS Press.
doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-656-9-2079

Modification of Davisson’s method

Modification de la methode de Davisson

F.A. Baligh
Faculty of Engineering, Helwan University
G.E. Abdelrahman
Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University-Fayoum Branch

ABSTRACT
Davisson’s method (Offset Limit Method) is probably the best-known and most widely used method for predicting the ultimate pile
load from load test results. This method when applied to the load-settlement curve of a tested pile, usually fails, unless the pile is
loaded close to failure. Results of eighty static axial load tests on different types of piles carried out in Egypt were analyzed according
to Davisson’s method to obtain the ultimate load. Only four out of the eighty tests satisfied the method and predicted the ultimate
load.
Elastic and plastic settlements were measured for each pile load test at test load. These values were compared with those obtained
from their relevant parts in Davisson’s equation. Davisson’s equation, when applied at test load equal to either one and a half or twice
the working load, gives values higher than those measured for both the elastic and plastic parts.
Davisson’s equation was modified to accommodate the difference between the calculated and the measured values at the test load.
The suggested form of Davisson’s equation allows the prediction of the pile ultimate load using the pile test load without having to
extrapolate the load-settlement curve.
RÉSUMÉ
La méthode de Davisson une des plus propagé méthode pour prédire le poids le plus grand charge ultime pour les pieux et cette
méthode quand elle faite sur le courbe du poids et la rupture du pieu examiné toujours ne reussi pas sauf si que le pieu se met presque
au poids détructeur. Les résultats de 80 expériences pour les poids verticales sur plusieurs genres des pieux ont étaient faite en Egypte
et elles étaient calculées par la méthode du Davisson pour produire la charge ultime du poids du pieu , il’ya4 expériences seulement
des 80 expériences satisfées la méthode et la prédiction de la charge ultime.
Le tassement de l’élastic et le plastic sont mesurés pour chaque expérience a une poids expériencelle . Ces valeurs sont compares avec
ceux qui sont calcules de la équation de Davisson . L’équation de Davisson quand elle applique au poids expériencelle une fois et
demi ou deux fois donne des résultats plus grand que les mesures de l’expérience de l’élastic et le plastic.
L’équation de Davisson était modifiée pour accommoder le difference entre la valeur qui était calculée et la valeur qui était mesurée
au poids expériencelle. La forme proposé du méthode de Davisson permit la prédiction du charge la plus grand ultime pour le pieu
par utiliser le poids experiencelle a l’allongement du poids et du tassement du pieu .

1 INTRODUCTION 2 THE DAVISSON OFFSET LIMIT LOAD

The working load or design load is the load a pile is designed to The method was proposed by Davisson (1972) as the load
carry safely within a limited range of settlement; this limited corresponding to the movement that exceeds the elastic
settlement range depends on the nature of the building, its compression of the pile (taken as a free standing column) by a
importance and also the properties of soil in which the pile is value of 3.8 mm plus a factor equal to the diameter of the pile
installed. Design load is pre-calculated using field and (in cm) divided by 10.
laboratory test results. Load tests are performed to prove the The method is based on the assumption that ultimate
design load and check the pre-chosen factor of safety. capacity is reached at a certain small toe movement. It was
A method to insure the above was proposed by Davisson primarily intended for test results from driven piles, but when
(1972); which is easy to apply and has gained wide acceptance. applied to bored piles, it becomes impractically conservative.
The Offset Method defines failure as the intersection of the The offset limit criterion is intended for interpretation of quick
elastic stiffness of the pile drawn through an offset on the testing, in which each load increment is held for periods not
abscissa that depends on the pile diameter. Since the offset is exceeding one hour. It can also be used when interpreting
defined by the pile diameter, the capacity is dependent on the results from slow methods. This method also gained widespread
pile diameter. use in phase with the increasing popularity of wave equation
The proposed modified method estimates the ultimate pile analysis of driven piles and dynamic testing.
load from the axial pile load test by using a reduction factor for The load settlement curve is plotted to a convenient scale, so
Davisson equation. For the purpose of this study, results of that the line OO1 makes an angle of about 20 degrees with the
seventy six field axial load tests database on different pile types load axis, (Figure1). The line OO1 represents the relationship
were compiled. The tested piles included driven, bored, and between the load and shortening of an elastic free axially loaded
continuous flight auger piles with different diameters. The tests column which equals QL/AE. The line CC1 is drawn parallel to
were carried out at various locations in different Egyptian soils. OO1 at an offset distance OC, where: D is in cm and OC equals
The soils for all the sites consisted of different layers of silty clay (3.8+ 0.08 D) in mm. The intersection of CC1 with the load-
to fine sand along the pile length and the pile tip ended in medium settlement curve gives the ultimate pile load Qult or 0.9 Qult
to graded sand. according to Egyptian code of practice [4], as shown by the
following equation:

2079
Sult = (0.08 *D+3.8) + (QultL/AE) (1) Table 1: Results of Axial Load Tests for One and Half the
Working Load
Where: Sult: settlement (mm) of pile at ultimate load, D:
diameter of the pile at the pile tip (cm), Qult: ultimate load (ton), Test Measured settlement at
Test L D load Test Load
A: base area of the pile (mm2), E: modulus of elasticity of the
(ton) (mm)
pile material (2 ton/mm2) and L: length of the pile shaft (mm). Elastic Plastic Total
No m mm 1.5 W.L
Sett. Sett. Sett..
Load, Q Dr1 13 450 67.5 1.85 0.38 2.23
0 50 100 150 200 250 Q
300
ult
350
Dr2 17.5 500 67.5 4.00 0.41 4.40
O0
2 Dr3 14.75 530 120 2.43 0.33 2.75
4
Dr4 22.25 430 75 2.68 0.12 2.80
Settlement, S

6 QL/AE O1
C8 Dr5 19.3 400 60 2.18 1.62 3.80
10
12
Dr6 15 400 60 1.98 0.40 2.38
14
C1 Dr7 26.5 600 195 4.37 0.67 5.04
16
18
Dr8 13 400 80 2.98 1.30 4.28
20 B9 22.85 800 262.5 0.94 1.13 2.06
Figure 1. The Offset Limit Method (after Davisson 1972). B10 13.1 500 105 2.09 1.19 3.27
B11 11 500 75 1.02 0.97 1.99
In Davisson’s Offset Limit Method, the predicted failure load
B12 12 500 85 1.59 2.57 4.16
value tends to be conservative [3]. The actual limit line can be
drawn on the load-settlement curve already before starting the B13 14.55 600 90 0.49 0.26 0.75
test. The ultimate load can, therefore, be used as an acceptance B14 13.35 450 52.5 0.62 0.32 0.94
criterion to proof tested piles in contract specifications. This
B15 13.5 800 187.5 1.48 4.25 5.73
method is not suitable for tests that involve loading and
unloading cycles. B16 17.25 600 150 2.19 2.37 4.56
B17 12.5 800 240 2.62 7.78 10.40
B18 13 600 153.75 5.23 5.04 10.27
3 PROPOSED DAVISSON MODIFICATION
B19 22.5 600 120 0.90 0.58 1.48
Davisson’s method can not be applied unless the pile is loaded B20 21 600 75 1.15 0.33 1.48
close to failure. The problem is that in most static load tests B21 14.8 400 45 1.21 0.20 1.41
where the pile is loaded to one and a half or twice the design
load, failure rarely occurs. For this reason it was found B22 20 600 150 0.96 1.63 2.58
necessary to modify Davisson’s method so as to estimate the B23 20 600 157.5 2.45 1.56 4.01
ultimate pile load from the test load. B24 13.35 450 52.5 0.56 0.32 0.88
For the purpose of this study, results of seventy six axial load
tests on different pile types (driven, bored and augered), lengths F25 18 650 210 2.48 1.33 3.81
and diameters were considered as shown in table (1) for one and F26 18 600 180 2.95 1.29 4.24
half the working load and table (2) for twice the working load. F27 18 600 180 3.22 1.65 4.87
Brinch-Hansen, (1961, 1963) considered that the shape of
F28 14 600 120 1.33 0.75 2.08
the pile load-settlement curve is a parabolic curve which can be
calculated by using the following equation: F29 14 600 120 1.24 0.28 1.52

S=aQ 2
(2) F30 14 600 120 0.99 0.66 1.65
F31 13.6 400 45 1.78 2.22 4
a = 1/ (C1 S + C2)2 (3) F32 13.6 400 45 1.22 1.65 2.87
F33 12 600 90 0.63 0.54 1.17
Where S is pile settlement at pile load Q, C1 and C2 are
constants, for the same pile load test. At test load equation (2) F34 13.2 400 30 0.48 0.26 0.74
can be written as follows: F35 12.2 400 30 0.46 0.23 0.69
F36 12.2 400 30 0.49 0.26 0.75
STL = a QTL2 (4)
F37 15 400 30 0.41 0.21 0.62
Where STL is pile settlement at pile load test, and QTL is the test F38 12.2 400 30 0.35 0.37 0.72
pile load. F39 21 500 97.5 0.79 0.57 1.36
By dividing equation (2) at ultimate load by equation (4) the
following relation was obtained: F40 21 500 97.5 1.77 0.57 2.34
F41 15 600 150 2.95 3.3 6.25
Qult2 = QTL2 [Sult / STL] (5) F42 25 400 55.5 0.81 0.37 1.18

Ultimate pile settlement, Sult, was taken according to Davisson

(1972), as in equation (1) and pile settlement at test load, STL,
can be written in a similar form:

STL= (0.08 D+ 3.8) + (QTL L /A E) (6)

2080
Table 2: Results of Axial Load Tests for Twice the Working Comparing separately the two terms of equation (6) at test load
Load to the measured plastic and elastic settlement at test load, the
results are shown in Figures (2 to 5). It can be seen that the
Test Measured settlement at plastic part presented in Figure (2) and the elastic part presented
Test L D load Test Load
in Figure (3) for test load at one and half the working load, and
(ton) (mm)
Elastic Plastic Total similarly in Figures (4) and (5) for the case where the test load
No m mm 2 W.L is twice the working load, equation (6) over estimates the plastic
Sett. Sett. Sett.
and elastic pile behavior. In order to predict the modified
Dr1 23 500 120 1.79 0.55 2.33
Davisson’s equation using pile test load, QT.L, in case of the test
Dr2 17 430 80 2.65 0.79 3.44 load one and half, and twice the working load, the following
equations were suggested respectively:
Dr3 13.6 500 95 2.00 0.56 2.56
Dr4 20 400 50 2.30 0.59 2.89 STL= (0.06 D – 1.9) + 0.5 (QT.LL/EA) (mm) (7)
Dr5 26 450 90 2.26 1.65 3.91
STL= (0.12 D – 4) + 0.85 ((QT.LL/EA) -2) (mm) (8)
Dr6 19.7 400 60 1.30 0.12 1.41
Where: D = pile diameter (cm), QT.L= pile load test at one and
Dr7 11.75 400 70 0.92 0.71 1.63
half the working load (ton) L = pile length (mm), E = pile
Dr8 23.75 400 70 2.82 0.29 3.11 Young’s modulus (2 ton/mm2), and A = pile cross section area
(mm2).
Dr9 12 500 34 0.91 0.36 1.26
By substituting in equation (5) in case the test load is one
Dr10 14.75 400 70 1.68 0.63 2.31 and half the working load the ultimate pile load Qult may be
calculated using pile test load, QTL, as follows:
Dr11 17.2 400 128 1.17 0.39 1.56
Dr12 19.5 400 80 5.27 2.30 7.57 Q L
Dr13 12 400 80 1.16 0.25 1.41 [0.08D + 3.8] + ult
Q ult = QTL
2 2 EA (9)
Dr14 19.5 450 50 0.49 0.09 0.58 QTL L
Dr15 23.5 450 90 3.06 1.20 4.26
[0.06 D − 1.9] +
2 EA
B16 25.2 800 350 2.72 2.27 4.99
Similarly, if the test load is twice the working load the ultimate
B17 13.5 500 120 2.16 4.10 6.26
pile load Qult may be calculated using pile test load, QTL, as
B18 14 600 130 2.68 2.82 5.50 follows:
B19 14 600 130 2.57 3.10 5.67
B20 15.5 600 120 3.21 1.49 4.70 [0.08D + 3.8] + Qult L
B21 17.5 800 350 8.65 5.74 14.39 Q ult = QTL
2 2 EA (10)
QTL L
B22 12.8 800 350 5.88 9.30 15.18 [0.12 D − 4] + 0.85[ − 2]
EA
B23 17 800 120 6.65 10.74 17.39
B24 18 800 340 6.35 5.27 11.62
B25 20 800 350 3.55 1.81 5.36 Comparisson Between Suggested, Measured, and Davisson
Plastic Behavior
B26 16.5 600 147 1.67 2.155 3.82 15
Measured
F27 19.6 600 210 3.27 0.42 3.69
12 Suggested
Pile Settlem ent S m m

F28 19.6 600 210 2.10 0.47 2.57 Davisson

9
F29 19.6 600 210 4.14 0.905 5.047 Measured trendline
6 Suggested trendline
F30 19.6 600 210 3.46 6.15 9.61
Davisson trendline
F31 19.6 600 210 2.09 0.52 2.61 3
F32 19.6 600 210 3.34 0.24 3.58
0
F33 19.6 600 210 3.38 0.22 3.6 0 100 200 300 400
F34 13.6 400 60 0.81 1.1 1.91 Test Load Q ton

Figure 2. Plastic behavior for test load one and half the working
Dr: driven pile cast in situ. load.
B: bored pile.
F: continuous flight augered pile.
L: pile length.
D: pile diameter.

2081
 Comparisson Between Suggested, Meassured, and Davisson
Comparisson Between Suggested and Measured Elastic
Elastic Behavior
15 Settlement
10
12 Suggested
Pile Settlement mm

M easured 8

Suggested Settlement. mm
9 elastic settlement
Davisson Plastic settlement
Suggested trendline 6
6
M easured trendline
Davisson trendline 4
3

0 2
0 100 200 300 400
Test Load Q ton 0

Figure 3. Elastic behavior for test load one and half the working 0 2 Measured4 Settlement6 mm 8 10
load. Figure 6. Measured and suggested elastic and plastic pile
settlement in case the test load is one and half the working load.
Comparisson Between Suggested, Measured, and Davisson Plastic
Behavior
Comparisson Between Suggested and Measured Elastic
15
Settlement
12 Measured 10
Pile Settlement S mm

Suggested Elastic settlement

9 Plastic settlement
Davison Suggested Settlement. mm
8
6 Suggested trendline
Davisson trendline
6
3 Measured trendline

0 4
0 100 200 300 400
2
Test Load Q ton

Figure 4. Plastic behavior for test load twice the working load. 0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Measured Settlement mm
Comparison Between Suggested, Measured, and Davisson Elastic
Behavior ฀ Figure 7. Measured and suggested elastic and plastic pile
15 settlement in case the test load is twice the working load.
12 Suggested
Pile Settlem ent S m m

Measured
9 Davisson
Suggested trendline REFERENCES
6
Measured trendline
3 Davisson trendline Canadian Geotechnical Society, 1992. Canadian Foundation
Engineering Manual.
0 Davisson, M.T. 1970. Design Pile Capacity. Proc., Conf. on Design and
0 100 200 300 400 Installation of Pile Foundations and Cellular Structures, Lehigh
Univ., Envo Public. Co. pp. 75-85.
Test Load Q ton
Davisson, M.T. 1972. High Capacity Piles. Proceedings, Lecture Series,
Figure 5. Elastic behavior for test loads twice the working load. Innovations in Foundation Construction, ASCE, Illinois Section,
Chicago, March 22, pp. 81-112.
Egyptian Code of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1995.
Part 4.
A comparison was carried out between measured and suggested
elastic and plastic pile settlements as shown in Figure (6) in
case the test load is one and half the working load and Figure
(7) in case the test load is twice the working load.

4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Davisson’s method needs the pile to be loaded near to failure

to be applicable. Davisson’s equation when applied for test
load it highly over estimated the elastic and plastic settlements.
The suggested form of Davisson’s equation allows the
prediction of the pile ultimate load using the pile test load
without having to extrapolate the load-settlement curve. Since
equations (9 and 10) are equations of the second degree in Qult
they can be easily solved to obtain the ultimate pile load.

2082