See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/332801669

Plate Load Test: Getting it Right

Conference Paper · March 2018

CITATION READS

1 15,807

4 authors, including:

Brendan Atarigiya Richard Ofori-Addo

L'Afrique Testing Services Limited Engineering Services Provision Company
4 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    2 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Wave Resonance Amplications in Harbor Environments View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Brendan Atarigiya on 24 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 GHIE 50th ANNIVERSARY
ANYANG, ATARIGIYA, OFORI-ADDO & ALLOTEY

49th Ghana Institution of Engineers (GhIE) Annual Conference, March 2018

GHIE @50: ENGINEERING GHANA’S

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Plate Load Test: Getting it Right

M.Y. Anyang, B. D. Atarigiya, R. Ofori-Addo, & N. K. Allotey

[Engineering Service Provision Company Ltd.]

ABSTRACT
The plate load test is one of the most accepted and frequently used geotechnical field tests for shallow
foundation and pavement design purposes. It can be used for determining a number of ground
parameters including: deformation modulus, modulus of subgrade reaction, settlement, allowable bearing
pressure, etc. Over the years, different varying applications and interpretations of this testing method
have been encountered by the authors. This paper therefore provides the theoretical background to the
method, and provides a discussion on selected incorrect applications of the methodology in local
geotechnical practice, and highlights the correct approach that should be used.

Introduction
The Plate Load test is designed to determine the vertical deformation and strength characteristics of soil
by assessing the force and amount of penetration with time when a rigid plate is made to penetrate the
soil. The method may be used to evaluate the ultimate bearing capacity, the shear strength and
deformation parameters of the soil beneath the plate without entailing the effects of sample disturbance.
Testing may be carried out at the ground surface, in pits or in trenches (BS 1377-9 (1990).
The plate load test is considered to be one of the most frequently employed and suitable method
for its purpose on soils especially when the foundation material is such that it is practically impossible to
collect undisturbed samples for foundation testing.
The plate load test may be carried out in all soils, fills and rocks. Generally, coarse-grained and
composite soils as well as stiff to firm fine-grained soils are suitable. The test should normally not be used
for very soft fine soils. During testing, care shall be taken to ensure that the loading plate is not placed
directly on particles larger than one-quarter of its diameter.
In the case of rapidly drying, equi-granular sand, or soil which has formed a surface crust, has
been softened or has been otherwise disturbed in its upper zone, this disturbed soil shall be removed
before the plate load test is carried out. The density of the soil under test shall remain as unchanged as
possible DIN 18134 (2012).
The plate test is particularly very useful in that it gives instant results on the field and can serve as
good test for checking/quality control road compaction, piling mats, haul roads.

Apparatus
The plate load test is performed using the following equipment;
A rigid plate: Rigid plates for performing this test come in different diameters and range from 300
mm to 1000 mm. It is worth noting that the stress influence zone is generally two times the plate
diameter, therefore, it is desirable to use a bigger plate, whenever available (see Fig. 1). 4). It is also
worth noting that same pressure, the bigger the diameter the larger the kentledge / restraint, and therefore
there care should be taken in provide more useful results.
Force measuring system: A mechanical (gauge) or electrical force transducer shall be fitted
between the loading plate and the hydraulic jack. It measures the load on the plate. For the case of a

1
 GHIE 50th ANNIVERSARY
ANYANG, ATARIGIYA, OFORI-ADDO & ALLOTEY

mechanical gauge, notice should be given to the calibration of the gauge as they come in either pressure
or force.
Loading system: The loading system consists of a
hydraulic pump connected to a hydraulic jack via a high-pressure
hose. The system must be capable of applying and releasing the
load in stages. For the pressure to be properly applied, the
hydraulic jack should be hinged on both sides and secured against
tilting. The pressure piston must also act through a distance of at
least 150 mm.
Dial gauges. Dial gauges or in recent times, transducers
are used to measure the amount of settlement on the ground
caused by the reaction load. They are connected to a datum bar
and then are connected to the to the plate.
Reaction load. This is used to exert load on the ground
through the plate. A reaction load should have a weight of about
at least 1.5 times the expected weight of the structure.
Fig. 1: Stress-bulb effect
Plate Load Test Procedure
Over the years, different countries have come out with their own coded approach for performing the test
with most of the slight difference coming from the parameters to measue and how to measure it from the
test. The most widely used standards here in Ghana are the BS 1377 Part 9 (1990), the DIN 18134 (2012),
and the BS EN 1997 Part 2 (2007). Any suitable test procedures and acceptance criteria with full
justification may generally be used. The testing procedure is as follows:
• Select test location and depth at the point where the required foundation will be constructed
(assuming testing is for foundation acceptability). If the test is performed in a test pit, the width of
the pit should be at least 4 to 5 times that of the plate diameter.
• Carefully trim off and remove all loose material and any embedded fragments so that the area for
the plate is generally level and as undisturbed as possible.
• The plate should be placed on a thin layer (10 to 15 mm thick) of clean dry sand to produce a level
surface on which to bed the plate.
• A small seating load is then applied to the plate to enable adjustments to be made: this seating load
should be less than 5 kPa.
• Loading then commences with loading conducted in established small increamental steps by means
of a hydraulic jack pushing against the counter weight until reaching the maximum test load.
Unloading should also be done in the backward incremental steps. The load at every step is read
from the proving ring.
• Settlements are also read from the dial gauges placed on the plate. A minimum of 3 dial gauges
should be placed separately at 120° so there is a fair measurement of the settlement on the entire
plate.
Sample pictures of real life site tests being conducted are shown in Fig. 2 below.

2
 GHIE 50th ANNIVERSARY
ANYANG, ATARIGIYA, OFORI-ADDO & ALLOTEY

Fig 2: Pictures of Plate Load Testing Setup

Plate Load Tests (PLT) Theory

The required parameters normally required from plate load tests
are: the modulus of subgrade reaction (ks), the deformation
modulus (Ev), and the allowable bearing pressures, qall. These
parameters can be evaluated from load-deformation plots
obtained from the testing data. A schematic of a typical PLT
load-deformation curve is shown in Fig. 3.
Two simplified approaches are normally used to evaluate load
deformation problems. These are:
• The well-known Winkler Hypothesis that assumes that
the soil medium is a system of identical, independent,
Fig. 3: Typical load-deformation
closely spaced, discrete and linearly elastic springs. In
this approach the ratio between contact pressure, p, and settlement, w, produced by load application at
an arbitrary point, i, on the contact surface, is given by the modulus of subgrade reaction (ks). One
critical shortcoming of the Winkler model is the difficulty in evaluating ks. on a rational basis. ks. is
by no means an intrinsic property of the soil. Its value depends not only on soil stiffness, but also on
various geometric and mechanical factors (e.g., geometry and stiffness of structural element/soil)
• Another approach is the elastic continuum idealization, were generally soil is assumed to be linearly
elastic half space and isotropic for the sake of simplicity. This approach provides much more
information on the stress and deformation within soil mass compared to Winkler model, and it has as
input parameters, the Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio.
From Fig. 3, using elastic theory, the settlement of a rigid surface plate of diameter, d, with uniform load
pl applied on a semi-infinite isotropic soil characterised by Young’s modulus Es and Poisson’s ratio, υ, can
be evaluated as:

wl =
(
π pl d 1 − υ
2
) (Eq. 1)
4 Es
Rearranging Eq. (1), Young’s modulus, Es can be evaluated as:

Es =
π pl
4 wl
(
d 1−υ
2
) (Eq. 2)

Also, for the Winkler approach, ks, can be evaluated from Eq. (1) as:

3
 GHIE 50th ANNIVERSARY
ANYANG, ATARIGIYA, OFORI-ADDO & ALLOTEY

ks =
(
πd 1−υ
2
) (Eq. 3)
4 Es
It is important to note that since elastic theory is used to derive ks, in Eq. (3), Eq. (3) is valid only under
small levels of deformation. This would be discussed later on in this paper. Furthermore, Eq. (3) shows that
ks, is not a soil parameter and for the same soil depends primarily on the size of the loaded area. It is thus
very important to note that when the PLT is used to evaluate the ks, it is necessary to adjust the value of ks
obtained from test.

Parameter Estimation from PLT

Allowable Bearing Pressure (ABP)
There are several methods for evaluating the allowable bearing pressure for foundation design. The PLT is
one of the popular methods. It is classified depending on the way in which the test is performed; testing to
shear failure or testing based on the working pressure at a stated permissible settlement.
ABP by Shear Failure
Figure 4 (Construction Civil 2018) shows types PLT curves
obtained for different soil types when loaded until shear
failure.
• Curve I is typical for loose to medium non-cohesive
soils. It can be seen that initially this curve is a straight
line, but as the load increases it flattens out. There is
no clear point of shear failure.
• Curve II is typical for cohesive soils. This may not be
quite straight in the initial stages and leans towards
settlement axis as the settlement increases.
• Curve III is typical for partially cohesive soils.
• Curve IV is typical for purely dense non-cohesive soil.
The ABP is obtained by dividing the ultimate bearing
capacity obtained by a factor of safety (FS) that typically Fig. 4: Types of PLT curves
varies from 2 to 3.

ABP by Limiting Settlement

The ABP can also be estimated based on limiting/permissible settlement. The ABP can be obtained from
the load settlement curves by reading the value of load intensity corresponding to the desired settlement
of the “real” foundation. Traditionally, a limiting foundation settlement of 25 mm is used (NB: this can
be different on different projects, so the specific project specifications must be consulted). On projects
without explicit limiting settlement specifications, relevant design codes for the foundations in question
can be consulted.
The settlement of a foundation of width Bf, can be estimated from the settlement of the plate based on the
following equation recommended by Terzaghi and Peck (1967):
For Cohesive soils:
Bf
Sf = Sp (Eq. 4)
Bp
For Non-cohesive soils:

 ( B f ( B p + 0.3) ) 
2
= Sp  
 ( B p ( B f + 0.3) ) 
Sf (Eq. 5)

where, Sf and Sp are the respective settlements of the foundation and plate, and Bf and Bp are the widths of
the foundation and the plate.

4
 GHIE 50th ANNIVERSARY
ANYANG, ATARIGIYA, OFORI-ADDO & ALLOTEY

Elastic Modulus (Ev)

The definition of this soil parameter is as given in Eq. (2). Unlike ks, Ev is a property of the ground medium
and can be determined from PLT to be used to estimate the immediate settlement of a foundation. The
elastic modulus, or deformation modulus, as it is referred to by other texts is a secant modulus. This is a
very important point, and differentiates this method from how ks, which is a pure stiffness quantity that
focusses on the initial part of the load-deformation curve is estimated. BS EN 1997 Part 2 (2007)refers to
this in its text as the plate deformation modulus. If not determined in other ways, the Poisson ratio, υ, can be
assumed to be 0.5 for undrained conditions, and 0.3 for coarse-grained soils.

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

For the definition of ks BS EN 1997 Part 2 (EC7) (BS EN, 2007) notes that this is a stiffness value and must
be defined at an appropriate incremental load range with corresponding settlement. The guideline clearly
states that the estimated value must be stated alongside the width of the plate. Apart from this, EC7 does not
provide explicit guidelines on the estimation of ks.
The non-repetitive AASHTO T 222 (AASHTO, 1981) and ASTM D1196 (ASTM, 1997) standards,
however, recommend that based on research by the US Army Corp of Engineers, representative field values
of ks. can be estimated as ∆p / ∆w, with ∆w = 1.25 mm for a 762 mm plate. This approach is also provided
for in the Indian Standard IS 9214: 2007 (IS, 2007). This has generally come to stay as the approach used
internationally to estimate ks from PLTs. This means that for any plate diameter apart from the 762 mm
plate, the estimated value of ks must be corrected based on Eq. (6) by Terzaghi and Peck (1967) given
below.
Bp
kf = kp (Eq. 6)
Bf
where, kf and kp are the respective field and plate
subgrade moduli, and Bf and Bp are 762 mm and
plate diameter, respectively. The Indian standard, IS
924:2007 provides a graph in Fig. 5 that can be used
to directly derive the required modulus ratio.

Common Errors Encountered

Wrong Pressure Readings:
The authors have noted in various reports the
overlooking of the required computations needed to
determine the exact bearing pressure the loading
plate applies to the ground medium. In most cases,
the measured pressures on the pressure gauge are
used directly. This generally results in plate load test Fig. 5: Typical load-deformation
reports reporting load-deformation curves for soils
that have bearing pressures far in excess of 1 MPa, which is impractical and certainly incorrect, but is
encountered very often in local geotechnical practice.
Pressure gauge readings are normally calibrated in different units, mostly coming as psi, bar, MPa, or
when in force units, as kN. When a gauge is graduated in force, the pressure imposed by the plate on the
ground can be obtained as the force on the gauge divided by the area of the plate. However, when the
pressure gauge is graduated in pressure, things get a bit trickier, and some computations are required.
Recognizing that the force level is what is constant from the jack to the plate, the pressure at any point, i.e.,
in the hydraulic jack and on the loading plate can be estimated. It is important to state the pressure gauge
provides the value of the pressure in the hydraulic jack and to determine the pressure on the plate, the
following relation should be used:
qg Ap
qp = (Eq. 7)
Ag

5
 GHIE 50th ANNIVERSARY
ANYANG, ATARIGIYA, OFORI-ADDO & ALLOTEY

where qg and qp are the gauge pressures, and pressure on the plate, and Ap and Aq are the area of jack
cylinder, and the area of the plate, respectively. It is important to ensure that the units of all the above
quantities are consistent.

Estimation of ks using computed foundation settlement

Another common problem encountered is the estimation of ks using settlement estimates obtained from
either immediate foundation settlement predictions, or combined immediate settlements and consolidation
settlements. Again, this is incorrect! As noted in the above sections, ks is a stiffness parameter and must be
estimated at deformations in which the load-deformation curve is generally linear. This is the basis behind
the recommendation of the estimation of ks as slope of the load-deformation curve at a deformation of 1.25
mm, for a 762 mm diameter plate.

Assumption of plate settlement as foundation settlement

Furthermore, some plate loading reports provide the measured plate settlement as the expected settlement of
the foundation. Again, this is incorrect, and Eqs. (4 & 5) are what should be used for the determination of
the expected foundation settlement.

Use of 25 mm as the “holy grail” limiting settlement

It is important to always obtain the limiting foundation settlement from the project technical specifications.
This is particularly important when the PLT is to be used to obtain estimates of the allowable bearing
pressure. As previously discussed, there is nothing magical about a settlement of 25 mm. This can be found
in a number of standard textbooks such as that by Terzaghi and Peck (1969). This, is however, not the
required limiting settlement or all projects. Various geotechnical foundation design codes such as BS EN
1997 (2007) and the Indian code give permissible settlements for different soil and foundation types, and
should be used when a project specification does not explicitly state a permissible settlement value.

Use of any foundation plate size for any job

It is important to note that the size of plate affects the depth to which the stress bulb is felt at depth. As
noted in the earlier section, the depth of influence is generally around 2B (B is diameter of plate). In this
regard, if one seeks to assess the bearing capacity of the ground medium at depths greater than 2B, the test
would not give suitable results. In same manner, if a weak zone exists at depth, and one assesses only a
depth 2B that does not engage this weak zone, then the results of the test would be deceptively wrong. It is
thus imperative that the size of plate is chosen carefully taking into account the site-specific project
requirements.

Conclusion
The authors of this paper have encountered on timeless occasions incorrect plate load testing reports. This
has on many occasions led to a confrontation between the author of the report and our office. This is
particularly due to the report authors having a clear understanding of their work protocol, and thus not
understanding why an approach they have used for a long time is being questioned.
This paper that presents the underlying theory of the plate load test has therefore been developed to share
with the local engineering community. It is hoped that it would go a long way to enhance quality of future
plate loading reports written by local engineers.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to extend their deepest gratitude to all the hardworking staff of Engineering Services
Provision Company (ESPCo). Their questioning attitude and desire not to just apply engineering formulae,
but to have a firm grasp on basic engineering f various formulae were developed, contributed to the to the
development of this paper.

6
 GHIE 50th ANNIVERSARY
ANYANG, ATARIGIYA, OFORI-ADDO & ALLOTEY

References
AASHTO (1981). AASHTO T 222 – 94, Standard Method of Test for Non-Repetitive Static Plate Load
Test of Soils and Flexible Pavement Components, for Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport and
Highway Pavements, American Association of State Highways and Transport Officials.
ASTM D 1196 – 93: Reapproved 1997 (1997). Standard Test Method for Non-Repetitive Static Plate
Load Tests of Soils and Flexible Pavement Components, for Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport
and Highway Pavements, ASTM, US.
BS 1377 Part 9 (1990). British Standard Methods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes, Part 9:
In-situ Tests, BSI Standards, 1990.
BS EN 1997: Part 1, Eurocode 7, Part 1(2004) Geotechnical Design: Part 1: General Rules, CEN,
Brussels, Belgium.
BS EN 1997: 2007, Part 2, Eurocode 7, Part 2 (2007). Geotechnical Design: Part 2: Ground Investigation
and Testing, CEN, Brussels, Belgium.
DIN 18134 (2012). Soil – Testing Procedures and Testing Equipment – Plate Load Test, German
Construction Industry Standards Committee, Berlin, Germany.
Construction Civil (2018). Plate load test: Determining the bearing- capacity of soils,
https://www.theconstructioncivil.org/ (Accessed March 2018)
IS (2007). IS 9214: 1997 (Reaffirmed 2007), Method of Determination of Subgrade Modulus of Reaction
of Soils in the Field, Bureau of Indian Standards, India.
Terzaghi K, Peck RB, Mesri G (1967). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2nd Ed., John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.

Contact details
Michael Yaw Anyang Brendan Dagemanyima Atarigiya
Bungalow 24, P. O. Box MS 136, Mile 7
Osei Tutu Snr High School New Achimota, Accra
Akropong-Ashanti Tel: (+233) 020 9461321
Tel: (+233) 024 215 3086 Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]

View publication stats