## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

**Wong Kai Sin
**

WKS Geotechnical Consultants wks@wks.sg

**25 January 2011
**

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 1

Common “Mistakes” in Designing of Piles Subjected to Negative Skin Friction Mistakes Misconceptions Misunderstandings

** Misinterpretation of CP4:2003
**

Controversial issues Clarifications Proposals

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 2

1

**Known Facts about Negative Skin Friction
**

1. QNSF develops when the soil settles more than the pile. 2. QPSF develops when the pile settles more than the soil. 3. There exists a neutral point which divides QNSF and QPSF. 4. It only takes a few mm of relative movement to fully mobilise QNSF and QPSF.

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 3

d pile soil

**Issue # 1 -- Drag Load vs Downdrag
**

Negative Skin Friction Shear stress on pile due to downward soil movement relative to pile Drag Load Force on pile caused by NSF Downdrag Settlement of pile due to drag load

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 4

2

Issue #2

The soft clay layer is over-consolidated or fully consolidated under the existing fill. Therefore, NSF is not an issue.

1. Will there be settlement under future loading? 2. Do you have control over future developments?

25 January 2011

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

5

Issue #3

What happen when Q + Qnsf > Qp + Qpsf ?

Qult

Q

QNSF

? QPSF d QP

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 6

3

OA(A) L Ls Ln Soft Clay 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 8 4 .6Ls End Bearing Pile: Ln = 1. 3. Ultimate geotechnical capacity = (QP+QS). NSF is a settlement problem.6Ls Neutral Point Location CP4:2003 Friction Pile: Ln = 0. 2. No plunging failure until (QC+ hQNSF) = (QP+QS). 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 7 Issue #4 Soft Toe Qp = 0 Friction Pile Therefore Ln = 0.p.0Ls Ls = thickness of consolidating soil Ln = Distance from cut-off level to n.What will happen when ( QC + hQNSF > QP + QPSF ) ? QC 0 0 5 10 2000 Applied Load Qc (kN) 4000 6000 8000 10000 QC Q QNSF Depth (m) 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 QS QPSF d QP QULT = QP+QS QP 1.

9 to 1.p.6Ls End Bearing Pile: Ln = 1.0Ls Neutral Point Location Ls = thickness of consolidating soil Ln = Distance from cut-off level to n.7 to 0.CP4:2003 Friction Pile: Ln = 0. L Ls Ln Soft Clay Sand 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 9 Neutral point of pile end bearing in clay Ln = 0.6 L Ln = 0.0 Ls Ln= Ls= 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin Stiff to Hard Clay 10 5 .9 Ls Ls Ln Soft Clay L Ln = 0.

QC Sand Fill Soft Clay cu ≈ 20 kPa -method fs = s′v Total stress method can also be used for clayey soils.method fs = cu NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 12 OA N ≈ 80 QP 25 January 2011 6 .0 LsLs Ln Ls Neutral point of driven pile end bearing in sand & rock Ln = 0. .Ln = 1.95 LsLs Ln = h Ls Ls Ln Soft Clay L Sand 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 11 Issue #5 NSF should be computed using effective stress method only.

1987) fs = cuf where = 0.5 / (cuf / svf′) 0.5 for cuf / svf′ ≤ 1 = 0.25 for cuf / svf′ > 1 cuf = final undrained shear strength svf′ = final effective stress 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 14 7 .5 / (cuf / svf′) 0.Determination of Negative Skin Friction in Clay CP4 : 2003 (Singapore) Use either or method .method fs = cu LTA Use effective stress method -method fs = s′v 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 13 Determination of NSF in Clay using Total Stress Method Clay (Fleming et al..

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 15 OA N ≈ 80 QP 25 January 2011 Determination of NSF in Clay using Effective Stress Method Clay (Wong and Teh. trend Sin NSF Talk 25 January 2011 16 8 . It depends on the state of consolidation and the long term effective stress. higher unit weights and lower ground water table should be used. May not be appropriate to use current cu.22 for many clays OCR f = sp′ / svf′ sp′ = preconsolidation pressure svf′ = final effective stress For conservative estimation of Qnsf. 2. the opposite by Wong Kaishould be used.Issue #6 NSF can be computed using cu values from SI report. 1995) fs = svf′ where = (cu / sv′)NC OCR f 0. For conservative estimation of Qpsf. Use final cu.5 (cu / sv′)NC ~ 0.method fs = cu 1. QC Sand Fill Soft Clay cu ≈ 20 kPa .

Conservative for PSF. 2. May be too conservative below water where OCR≈ 1. May be appropriate for sand above water where OCR>>1. fs = N? 3. fs = qc / 200? 5. 18 1. = 0. 2. fs = 2N to 5 N? 4. fs = qc / 400? 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 9 .Issue #7 How to determine NSF in Sand? -method fs = s′v = Ks tan d Use one of following: 1.35? 2. fs = qc / 200? 5.35? 2. = 0. fs = qc / 400? 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 17 Determination of Negative Skin Friction in Sand 1. 1. fs = 2N to 5 N? 4. Unconservative for NSF. fs = N? 3.

QC Structural QC + h QNSF ≤ QALL.ST = fcu Ac / FS where Fs = 4 for concrete Geotechnical QC + h QNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs where Fs = 2.67 or 1 Need to check : QC = ( QP + QS ) / Fs 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 20 10 .5 h = 0.0 or 2.Determination of Negative Skin Friction in Sand -method fs = s′v = Ks tan d 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 19 Issue #8 For piles subjected to NSF we only need to check the following according to CP4:2003.

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 22 11 .2m diameter bored pile with Ln=30m. W′pile ≈ 2. 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 21 Issue #9 QC QC QC hQNSF QC + W′pile + QNSF QPSF QP QP QC+WP′ hQNSF Theoretically W′pile should be included in the design.Issue #9 Is it necessary to consider self-weight of pile? QC QC QC hQNSF QC + W′pile + QNSF QPSF QP QPSF QP QC+WP′ hQNSF For 300x300 RC pile with Ln=20m. For 1. W′pile ≈ 50 t.5 t.

1969) 25 January 2011 Tokyo Bay (Fukuya et al. A conservative QNSF can easily covered W′pile .. 1992) 24 12 . 1982) NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin Bangkok (Indraratna et al.. 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 23 Evaluation of Soil Parameters for Negative Skin Friction (Wong and Teh. it may not be necessary to include W′pile . It depends on how we compute QNSF .. 1995) Norway (Bjerrum et al.Issue #9 QC QC QC hQNSF QC + W′pile + QNSF QPSF QP QP QC+WP′ hQNSF Practically.

1969) 13 . 1995) Melborne (Walker & Darvall. 1969) 25 January 2011 End bearing pile NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin Floating friction pile 25 Japan (Nishi & Esashi. 1982) Evaluation of Soil Parameters for Negative Skin Friction (Wong and Teh.. 1995) Closed-end pipe pile (End bearing) 25 January 2011 open-end pipe pile (End bearing) NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin Closed-end pipe pile (Floating friction) 26 Tokyo (Endo et al.Evaluation of Soil Parameters for Negative Skin Friction (Wong and Teh.

ST = fcu Ac / FS where Fs = 4 for concrete CP4 allows only grade 30 concrete? fcu / Fs = 7. Japan (Fukuya et al. 1982) 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 27 Issue #10 Bored pile is limited to Grade 30 concrete.5 MPa For piles subjected to NSF 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin Bored Piles Use Grade 40 or higher Driven Piles Use as high as possible 28 14 ..Issue #9 The above comparisons show that the current method of NSF computation has implicitly included the self-weight of pile. No need to include W′pile ! Tokyo Bay. QCS Structural QCS + h QNSF ≤ QALL.

0 for low capacity piles in highly compressible clay h = 0.67 for all other cases NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 30 QP 25 January 2011 15 .0 or 2.5? Can we use Fs = 1.0 or 2.5 h = 0.67 or 1? When to use Fs = 2.Issue #11 Difficulties with h and Fs QC Geotechnical QC + h QNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs where Fs = 2.67 or 1 What is “h” ? When to use h = 0.” QC hQNSF h= QPSF h= 1.Degree of Mobilization “h” “The negative unit friction along the pile section above the neutral plane may vary between the fully mobilization value on the top and a small value close to the neutral plane.5 if Qp =0? 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 29 CP4:2003 .

1992) 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 32 16 .Effect of Bearing Stratum Stiffness on Neutral Point 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 31 Bangkok.. Thailand (Indraratna et al.

67 ! 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 34 17 . 1969) Difficult to justify h = 0. Australia (Walker & Darvall.Nishi & Esashi (1982) End Bearing Pile Floating Pile 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 33 Melborne.

67 QPSF QPSF QP 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 35 Degree of Mobilization “h” QC hQNSF For single pile or piles in group with large spacing: Use h = 1. QC hQNSF hQNSF Difficult to justify h = 0.Degree of Mobilization “h” The negative unit friction along the pile section above the neutral plane may vary between the fully mobilization value on the top and a small value close to the neutral plane.67 ! h= = 0.0 Many LTA tunnels fall into this category! QPSF QP 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 36 18 .

67 ? QP 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 37 4 3 2 1 (After Okabe. 1977) Single pile QNSF≈7000 kN 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin “corner” pile 38 QNSF≈3500 kN 19 .QC Degree of Mobilization “h” hQNSF QPSF Does that mean we should not use h =0.

Effect of Bearing Stratum Stiffness (Jeong & Briaud. 1994) h = 0.6 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 39 Group Reduction Factor "h" Downdrag = h QNSF where h ~ 0.6 h = 0.Based on AIJ Foundation Code 2004 (Hong Kong) Use group reduction factor h = 0.85 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 40 20 .5 to 1 h Corner Pile -.

67 QPSF QP 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 41 Degree of Mobilization “h” or Group Efficiency Factor “h” Single Piles or Piles in Group with Large Spacing h = 1.0 Piles in Group with Small Spacing h = 0.67 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 42 21 .Degree of Mobilization “h” Group Efficiency Factor QC hQNSF For piles in group with small spacing: Use h = 0.

67 346 212 QPSF = 663 t 2.5 With NSF QC + h QNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / (2 or 2.5 2.5 ? 1.0 Qc (t) h=1. Is it supported by code? 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 43 1m f bored pile Grade 40 concrete QC Which factor of safety should we use ? QC + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs QNSF = 282 t FS 1.5 39 132 QP = 142 t 25 January 2011 What are the corresponding settlements? NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 44 22 .5 or QALL = QP / 3 + QS / 1.Geotechnical Capacity of Piles subjected to NSF QC No NSF QALL = (QP + QPSF) / 2.5) Can we also use: QC + h QNSF ≤ QP / 3 + QS / 1. What are the implications on pile capacity? 2.0 253 119 Qc (t) h=0.

2 3870 29 1.2 FS= 1.Pile Settlement due to NSF QC QC QC QC hQNSF QS QC QPSF QP QP QC Q QC Q hQNSF D 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin D 45 What factor of safety should we use ? 1m f bored pile Grade 40 concrete QC 0 0 50 2000 QC + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs Applied Load on Pile Qc (kN) 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Pile Top Settlement (mm) hQNSF = 2820 kN FS= 2.0 1190 10 1.0 With downdrag 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 No downdrag QPSF = 6625 kN Case 1 (h=1.0) FS Qc (kN) D (mm) 2.0 5200 58 46 QP= 1415 kN 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 23 .5 FS= 2.5 390 6 2.0 FS= 1.5 2530 17 1.5 FS= 1.

What factor of safety should we use ? QC + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs Applied Load on Pile Qc (kN) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 QC 0m 4m hQNSF = 2820 kN Sand fs=15 kPa Soft Clay = 0.2 FS= 1.5 3460 17.What factor of safety should we use ? 1m f bored pile Grade 40 concrete QC 0 50 0 2000 QC + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs Applied Load on Pile Qc (kN) 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 FS= 2.0 6135 73 47 QP= 1415 kN 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 1m f bored pile Grade 40 concrete Ground water lowered by 2m.5 1320 7.0 QPSF = 6625 kN Case 1a (h=0.5 FS= 1.67) FS Qc (kN) D (mm) 2.5 FS= 1.0 FS= 1.0) FS 2.0 495 8 1.7 1.4 1.2 4797 32 1.0 2123 10.2 2700 25 1.0 No downdrag 31m QPSF = 6625 kN 47m QP= 0 Soft Toe Hard Clay cu = 200 kPa 200 250 300 350 With downdrag Case 2 (h=1.3 2.0 With downdrag FS= 2.5 1600 14 1.0 3930 51 48 400 450 500 Qc (kN) D (mm) 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 24 .5 hQNSF = 1890 kN Pile Top Settlement (mm) 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 No downdrag FS= 1.2 FS= 1.22 Pile Top Settlement (mm) 50 100 150 FS= 2.

400x400 RC Pile Grade 50 concrete Ground water lowered by 2m.0 1925 38 50 47m QP= 290 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 25 . What factor of safety should we use? QC + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs Applied Load on Pile Qc (kN) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 QC 0m 4m hQNSF = 1435 kN 31m QPSF = 3374 kN Hard Clay cu = 200 kPa Sand fs=15 kPa Soft Clay = 0.5 805 16 1.2 1365 24 1.0 245 9 1.5 100 150 No downdrag FS= 1.2 500 18 1.0 FS= 1.0) FS Qc (kN) D (mm) NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 1.0 With downdrag 31m QPSF = 2030 kN 41m QP= 290 Hard Clay cu = 200 kPa 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Case 3 (h=1.0) FS Qc (kN) D (mm) 2.0 885 34 49 25 January 2011 400x400 RC Pile Grade 50 concrete Ground water lowered by 2m.22 Pile Top Settlement (mm) FS= 1.5 FS= 1.0 No downdrag With downdrag Case 4 (h=1.2 FS= 1.22 Pile Top Settlement (mm) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 FS= 2.5 110 10 1.2 FS= 1. What factor of safety should we use ? QC + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs Applied Load on Pile Qc (kN) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 QC 0m 4m hQNSF = 1435 kN Sand fs=15 kPa 50 Soft Clay = 0.

0 (compliance with CP4) 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 51 1m f bored pile Grade 40 concrete Ground water lowered by 2m.22 Hard Clay cu = 200 kPa 26 .5 (non-compliance with CP4) or h = 0.67 Fs = 2.0 (compliance with CP4:2003) QC = 1420 kN h = 1.0 Fs = 1. h= 0.For Serviceability (SLS) Consideration: Single Pile or Pile Group with Large Spacing h = 1.67 Fs = 2.5 (non-compliance with CP4) QC = 1620 kN Therefore. Q 0m 4m hQNSF = 2820 kN 31m QPSF = 6625 kN 47m QP = 0 Soft Toe 25 January 2011 Example illustrating effect of Fs and h on QNSF QC + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs h = 0.0 Fs = 1. NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 52 Sand fs=15 kPa Soft Clay = 0.67 and Fs = 2 yield reasonable results for single piles & piles in group with large spacing.

67 and Fs=2 are used for pile group with small spacing.67 Fs = 2.22 Hard Clay cu = 200 kPa For Serviceability (SLS) Consideration: Pile Group with Small Spacing h = 0.0 (compliance with CP4) 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 54 27 . There is plenty of “fat” in the design. the computed QC is conservative.5 (non-compliance with CP4) or h = 0.0 (compliance with CP4:2003) QC = 1420 kN h = 0.67 Fs = 1.1m f bored pile Grade 40 concrete Ground water lowered by 2m. NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 53 Sand fs=15 kPa Soft Clay = 0.5 (non-compliance with CP4) QC = 2530 kN If h=0.67 Fs = 1.67 Fs = 2. Q 0m 4m hQNSF = 2820 kN 31m QPSF = 6625 kN 47m QP = 0 Soft Toe 25 January 2011 Example illustrating effect of Fs and h on QNSF QC + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs h = 0.

For Failure (ULS) Consideration: Geotechnical QC ≤ (QP + QS ) /2. What is the settlement under NSF? 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 56 28 . What is the allowable settlement? 3.ST = fcu Ac / FS where Fs = 4 for concrete 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 55 Issue #12 Difficulties with Load Test on Piles subjected to NSF Qmax Q Qmax = ? Q dall = ? QS dTOP QP 1.5 Structural QC + h QNSF ≤ QALL.5 or QC ≤ QP /3 + QS /1. What is the maximum test load? 2.

CP4 : 2003 & HDB .Settlement at (WL + 2QNSF) ≤ 10 mm Eurocode EC7 : Maximum test load = WL + 2QNSF Allowable settlement not specified. test load = 2QC+ QNSF Allowable settlement not specified. Code 2004 (Hong Kong): Max. Other . Found.Settlement at (WL + QNSF) ≤ 10 mm Q Q Q Q ? QS dTOP 25 January 2011 QP NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 57 Why Maximum Test Load = WL + 2QNSF ? Q QC QMAX Q ? QMAX QULT Q Ln QS QC + QNSF QNSF QC + QNSF QP dTOP QP 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 58 29 .

Example illustrating different code requirements Applied Load on Pile Q (kN) 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Q 0m 4m hQNSF = 2820 kN Sand fs=15 kPa Soft Clay = 0.22 50 100 No downdrag Pile Top Settlement (mm) 150 200 250 300 350 With downdrag 31m QPSF = 6625 kN 47m QP= 0 Soft Toe Hard Clay cu = 200 kPa 400 450 500 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 60 30 .Working Pile: QMAX = WL + 2hQNSF Preliminary Pile: QMAX = QULT = QP + QS QC QC QMAX Q dALL = ? QS QC +hQNSF QC + hQNSF QMAX QULT Q Ln hQNSF QP dTOP QP What is the allowable settlement? 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 59 1m f bored pile Grade 40 concrete Ground water lowered by 2m.

2004 QC+ 2QNSF QC+ 2QNSF 2QC+ QNSF 10 25 (assumed) 25 (assumed) QC+ 2hQNSF = 3700 kN -980 1620 2000 QC + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs With Fs=2 and h=1 QC = 500 kN 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 61 Long Term Settlement Subjected to NSF 1620 kN QC=500 kN 0 0 1000 QC=2000 kN 2000 3000 Applied Load (kN) 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 8 mm 13 mm 16 mm Pile Top Settlement (mm) .00 1.00 62 Fdn Code of H.K. Fs h CP4:2003 & HDB Eurocode 100 120C Q -980 1620 2000 500 13 16 8 1.K. Code of H.Code (h=1) Maximum Load Allowable Settlement (mm) Allowable Load Qc (kN) CP4:2003 & HDB Eurocode EC7 Fdn.00 1. 2004 + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs 25 January 2011 31 .37 2 1.50 1. 20 40 60 Code 80 (h=1) EC7 QC (kN) Settlement with NSF (mm) Geotech.

67) QC + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs With Fs=2 and h=0.67 0.67 64 Eurocode EC7 Fdn Code of H. 20 20 mm 40 60 Code 80 (h=0.50 1.Code (h=0.67) QC (kN) Settlement with NSF (mm) Geotech.K.K. 2004 + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs QC 120 25 January 2011 32 . 2004 QC+ 2hQNSF QC+ 2hQNSF 2QC+ hQNSF 10 25 (assumed) 25 (assumed) QC+ 2hQNSF = 3700 kN -80 2520 2200 (h=0.67 QC = 1420 kN 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 63 Long Term Settlement Subjected to NSF 2220 kN 1420 kN 0 0 1000 2000 QC=2520 kN Applied Load (kN) 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 12 mm 17 mm Pile Top Settlement (mm) . Code of H.67) Maximum Load Allowable Settlement (mm) Allowable Load Qc (kN) CP4:2003 & HDB Eurocode EC7 Fdn. Fs h CP4:2003 & HDB 100 -80 2520 2200 1420 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 20 17 12 1.62 2 0.67 0.

3. Ultimate geotechnical capacity QULT = QP + QS 4. NSF should be considered. Neutral point top of competent stratum 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 66 33 .Load Test on Piles Subjected to NSF Proposed Allowable Settlement at QC+ 2QNSF ≤ 25 mm QULT Q QMAX dALL = 25 mm dTOP 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 65 Conclusions & Recommendations 1. NSF is a settlement problem. 2. if future settlement is real regardless of current state of consolidation.

Self-weight of pile need not be considered in design. use Grade 40 concrete or higher.5WL ≤ 15 mm • Allowable settlement at 2WL ≤ 25 mm • Allowable settlement at QC+ 2hQNSF ≤ 25 mm 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 68 34 . Both and method can be used. For bored piles. 6. 8. 7.Conclusions & Recommendations (con’t) 5. For load test on working piles: • QMAX = QC+ 2hQNSF • Allowable settlement at 1.5WL ≤ 15 mm • Allowable settlement at 2WL ≤ 25 mm • Allowable settlement at QC+ 2hQNSF ≤ 25 mm 10. For load test on preliminary piles: • QMAX = QS +QP • Allowable settlement at 1. 25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 67 Conclusions & Recommendations (con’t) 9.67 and Fs=2 in all cases. Use h=0.

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 69 35 . please email to me at wks@wks.sg.Thank You for your attention ! If you have any comments and suggestions.

- Pile Design Tables to EC7
- Concrete Beams With Openings Analysis Design
- Piling Requirements
- Negative Skin Friction
- TCC82 Pilecap Design
- GUIDELINES FOR REPLACEMENT OF BAKAU PILES FOR COMMON DID STRUCTURES
- 111348580-Plaxis-Tutorial-02.pdf
- pile capacity
- Wind Load Example
- Negative Skin Friction for Piles
- Pile Design EN1997
- Analysis of Piles for Negative Skin Friction
- Pile Capacity Calculation (12!12!2011)
- Two Piles Foundation Design Examples - R. Frank EUROCODE 7
- Plaxis Mum Plaxisbai Course 2012
- 368 NSF and Pile Group Analysis
- Pile Design
- Foundation Design Using Common Sense
- 3. Appendix A - Design And Construction Of Continuous Flight Auger Piles - Geotechnical - Engineering - FHWA (1).pdf
- Car Rubba 1997
- Fellenius Response to load for four different bored piles.pdf
- Eurocode 7
- SS CP 4-2003 - Foundations
- Reinforced Concrete Design to Eurocode 2
- BS-8004-1986.pdf
- 3. Appendix a - Design and Construction of Continuous Flight Auger Piles - Geotechnical - Engineering - FHWA
- DP0901
- Pile Set Calculation-200mm
- Fhwa Nhi-06-088 Volume II - Soils and Foundations
- GEOTECNICAL Formula (2)Sdsd

- NASA Facts Building KSC's Launch Complex 39 2002
- 501 Olive - LaSalle Building National Register of Historic Places application
- Caisson Corporation v. Ingersoll-Rand Company, 622 F.2d 672, 3rd Cir. (1980)
- As 1181-1982 Method of Measurement of Civil Engineering Works and Associated Building Works
- An Approximate Analysis Procedure for Piled Raft subjected to Vertical Loading
- CREW
- The Clyde Mysterya Study in Forgeries and Folklore by Lang, Andrew, 1844-1912
- Mockingbird Pedestrian Bridge presentation
- Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. LXX, Dec. 1910Reinforced Concrete Pier Construction by Klapp, Eugene
- T.L. James & Company, Inc. v. Traylor Bros. Inc., Traylor Brothers, Inc., Defendant-Third Party v. Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, Defendant-Third Party, 294 F.3d 743, 3rd Cir. (2002)
- F. H. McGraw & Co. v. New England Foundation Co., Inc, 210 F.2d 62, 1st Cir. (1954)
- Oct 2013 Mtg Presentation_102513.pdf
- Union Wharf, Leamouth
- BUILDING A FIRM FOUNDATION
- tmp53F3.tmp
- Cleveland Terminal RR v. Steamship Co., 208 U.S. 316 (1908)
- tmp554A.tmp
- Caltrans Audit
- Additional material bridge replacements
- Marbury-Pattillo Construction Company, Inc. v. Bayside Warehouse Company, Defendant-Third Party v. The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Third Party Defendant-Fourth Party v. D. H. Marbury, Iii, and A. F. Pattillo, Fourth Party, 490 F.2d 155, 3rd Cir. (1974)
- CREW
- Purple Line Extension Construction Community Meeting
- Alaskan Way Viaduct stakeholders' meeting presentation, December 2014
- Willink v. United States, 240 U.S. 572 (1916)
- As 2159-2009 Piling - Design and Installation
- Doullut & Williams Co. v. United States, 268 U.S. 33 (1925)
- Sanctuary magazine issue 9 - Prestige prefab - Modscape green home profile
- Simpson v. United States, 172 U.S. 372 (1899)
- Oct 2013 Mtg Presentation_102513.pdf
- As NZS 2111.21-1996 Textile Floor Coverings - Tests and Measurements Non-Destructive Measurements of Pile Thi

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulClose Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Close Dialog## This title now requires a credit

Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

Loading