## 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

**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. No plunging failure until (QC+ hQNSF) = (QP+QS). 2. NSF is a settlement problem. 3. Ultimate geotechnical capacity = (QP+QS).

25 January 2011

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

7

Issue #4

Soft Toe Qp = 0 Friction Pile Therefore Ln = 0.6Ls

Neutral Point Location CP4:2003 Friction Pile: Ln = 0.6Ls End Bearing Pile: Ln = 1.0Ls Ls = thickness of consolidating soil Ln = Distance from cut-off level to n.p.

OA(A)

L

Ls

Ln

Soft Clay

25 January 2011

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

8

4

CP4:2003 Friction Pile: Ln = 0.6Ls End Bearing Pile: Ln = 1.0Ls

**Neutral Point Location
**

Ls = thickness of consolidating soil Ln = Distance from cut-off level to n.p.

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 = 0.7 to 0.9 Ls Ls Ln

Soft Clay

L Ln = 0.9 to 1.0 Ls

Ln= Ls=

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

Stiff to Hard Clay

10

5

Ln = 1.0 LsLs

Ln Ls

Neutral point of driven pile end bearing in sand & rock

Ln = 0.95 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.

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

**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., 1987)
**

fs = cuf where = 0.5 / (cuf / svf′) 0.5 for cuf / svf′ ≤ 1 = 0.5 / (cuf / svf′) 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

Issue #6

NSF can be computed using cu values from SI report.

QC Sand Fill Soft Clay cu ≈ 20 kPa

- method fs = cu

1. Use final cu. 2. May not be appropriate to use current cu. It depends on the state of consolidation and the long term effective stress.

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, 1995)
**

fs = svf′ where = (cu / sv′)NC OCR f 0.5 (cu / sv′)NC ~ 0.22 for many clays OCR f = sp′ / svf′ sp′ = preconsolidation pressure svf′ = final effective stress For conservative estimation of Qnsf, higher unit weights and lower ground water table should be used. For conservative estimation of Qpsf, the opposite trend should be used. NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

25 January 2011

16

8

Issue #7

How to determine NSF in Sand?

-method fs = s′v = Ks tan d

**Use one of following:
**

1. = 0.35?

2. fs = N? 3. fs = 2N to 5 N? 4. fs = qc / 200? 5. fs = qc / 400?

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 17

**Determination of Negative Skin Friction in Sand
**

1. May be appropriate for sand above water where OCR>>1. 2. May be too conservative below water where OCR≈ 1. 1. Conservative for PSF. 2. Unconservative for NSF.

18

1. = 0.35?

2. fs = N? 3. fs = 2N to 5 N? 4. fs = qc / 200? 5. fs = qc / 400?

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

9

**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.

QC

Structural QC + h QNSF ≤ QALL,ST = fcu Ac / FS where Fs = 4 for concrete Geotechnical

**QC + h QNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs
**

where Fs = 2.0 or 2.5 h = 0.67 or 1

Need to check : QC = ( QP + QS ) / Fs

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 20

10

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, W′pile ≈ 2.5 t. For 1.2m diameter bored pile with Ln=30m, W′pile ≈ 50 t.
**

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.
**

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 22

11

Issue #9

QC

QC

QC

hQNSF QC + W′pile + QNSF QPSF QP QP

QC+WP′ hQNSF

Practically, it may not be necessary to include W′pile . It depends on how we compute QNSF . A conservative QNSF can easily covered W′pile .

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 23

Evaluation of Soil Parameters for Negative Skin Friction (Wong and Teh, 1995)

**Norway (Bjerrum et al., 1969)
**

25 January 2011

**Tokyo Bay (Fukuya et al., 1982)
**

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

**Bangkok (Indraratna et al., 1992)
**

24

12

Evaluation of Soil Parameters for Negative Skin Friction (Wong and Teh, 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., 1969)

13

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, 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.

QCS Structural QCS + h QNSF ≤ QALL,ST = fcu Ac / FS where Fs = 4 for concrete CP4 allows only grade 30 concrete? fcu / Fs = 7.5 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 #11

Difficulties with h and Fs

QC Geotechnical QC + h QNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs where Fs = 2.0 or 2.5

h = 0.67 or 1

What is “h” ? When to use h = 0.67 or 1? When to use Fs = 2.0 or 2.5? Can we use Fs = 1.5 if Qp =0?

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 29

**CP4:2003 - 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.”

QC

hQNSF

h=

QPSF

h= 1.0 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

Effect of Bearing Stratum Stiffness on Neutral Point

25 January 2011

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

31

Bangkok, Thailand

(Indraratna et al., 1992)

25 January 2011

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

32

16

Nishi & Esashi (1982)

End Bearing Pile

Floating Pile

25 January 2011

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

33

Melborne, Australia (Walker & Darvall, 1969)

Difficult to justify h = 0.67 !

25 January 2011

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

34

17

**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.

QC

hQNSF

hQNSF

Difficult to justify h = 0.67 ! h=

= 0.67

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 = 1.0 Many LTA tunnels fall into this category!

QPSF

QP

25 January 2011

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

36

18

QC

Degree of Mobilization “h ”

hQNSF

QPSF

Does that mean we should not use h =0.67 ?

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 kN QNSF≈3500

19

**Effect of Bearing Stratum Stiffness
**

(Jeong & Briaud, 1994)

h = 0.6

h = 0.6

25 January 2011

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

39

**Group Reduction Factor "h"
**

Downdrag = h QNSF where h ~ 0.5 to 1 h

Corner Pile -- 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

**Degree of Mobilization “h” Group Efficiency Factor
**

QC

hQNSF

For piles in group with small spacing: Use h = 0.67

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

**Geotechnical Capacity of Piles subjected to NSF
**

QC No NSF

QALL = (QP + QPSF) / 2.5

or QALL = QP / 3 + QS / 1.5 With NSF QC + h QNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / (2 or 2.5) Can we also use: QC + h QNSF ≤ QP / 3 + QS / 1.5 ?

**1. What are the implications on pile capacity? 2. 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 2.0

Qc (t) h=1.0 253 119

Qc (t) h=0.67 346 212

QPSF = 663 t

2.5

39

132

QP = 142 t

25 January 2011

**What are the corresponding settlements?
**

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 44

22

**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= 2.5 FS= 2.0 FS= 1.5 FS= 1.2 FS= 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) 2.5 390 6 2.0 1190 10 1.5 2530 17 1.2 3870 29 1.0 5200 58

46

QP= 1415 kN

25 January 2011

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

23

**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= 2.5 hQNSF = 1890 kN
**

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

No downdrag FS= 1.5 FS= 1.2 FS= 1.0 With downdrag

FS= 2.0

QPSF = 6625 kN

Case 1a (h=0.67)

FS Qc (kN) D (mm) 2.5 1320 7.3 2.0 2123 10.4 1.5 3460 17.7 1.2 4797 32 1.0 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.

**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 = 0.22

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

50 100 150

FS= 2.0 FS= 1.5 FS= 1.2 FS= 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=1.0)

FS 2.0 495 8 1.5 1600 14 1.2 2700 25 1.0 3930 51

48

400 450 500

Qc (kN) D (mm)

25 January 2011

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

24

**400x400 RC Pile Grade 50 concrete
**

Ground water lowered by 2m.

**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 = 0.22

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

FS= 1.5

100 150

No downdrag FS= 1.2 FS= 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)

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

1.5 110 10

1.2 500 18

1.0 885 34

49

25 January 2011

**400x400 RC Pile Grade 50 concrete
**

Ground water lowered by 2m.

**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 = 0.22

Pile Top Settlement (mm)

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

FS= 2.0 FS= 1.5 FS= 1.2 FS= 1.0

No downdrag With downdrag

Case 4 (h=1.0)

FS Qc (kN) D (mm) 2.0 245 9 1.5 805 16 1.2 1365 24 1.0 1925 38

50

47m QP= 290

25 January 2011

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

25

**For Serviceability (SLS) Consideration:
**

Single Pile or Pile Group with Large Spacing h = 1.0 Fs = 1.5 (non-compliance with CP4) or h = 0.67 Fs = 2.0 (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. 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 = 0.67 Fs = 2.0 (compliance with CP4:2003) QC = 1420 kN h = 1.0 Fs = 1.5 (non-compliance with CP4) QC = 1620 kN Therefore, h= 0.67 and Fs = 2 yield reasonable results for single piles & piles in group with large spacing.

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 52

Sand fs=15 kPa Soft Clay = 0.22

Hard Clay cu = 200 kPa

26

1m f bored pile Grade 40 concrete Ground water lowered by 2m. 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 = 0.67 Fs = 2.0 (compliance with CP4:2003) QC = 1420 kN h = 0.67 Fs = 1.5 (non-compliance with CP4) QC = 2530 kN If h=0.67 and Fs=2 are used for pile group with small spacing, the computed QC is conservative. There is plenty of “fat” in the design.

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 53

Sand fs=15 kPa Soft Clay = 0.22

Hard Clay cu = 200 kPa

**For Serviceability (SLS) Consideration:
**

Pile Group with Small Spacing h = 0.67 Fs = 1.5 (non-compliance with CP4) or h = 0.67 Fs = 2.0 (compliance with CP4)

25 January 2011

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

54

27

**For Failure (ULS) Consideration:
**

Geotechnical QC ≤ (QP + QS ) /2.5 or QC ≤ QP /3 + QS /1.5

**Structural QC + h QNSF ≤ QALL,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. What is the maximum test load? 2. What is the allowable settlement? 3. What is the settlement under NSF?

25 January 2011

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

56

28

CP4 : 2003 & HDB - Settlement at (WL + 2QNSF) ≤ 10 mm Eurocode EC7 : Maximum test load = WL + 2QNSF Allowable settlement not specified. Found. Code 2004 (Hong Kong): Max. test load = 2QC+ QNSF Allowable settlement not specified. Other - 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

Working Pile:

QMAX = WL + 2hQNSF

**Preliminary Pile: QMAX = QULT = QP + QS
**

QC QC QMAX Q dALL = ? QS

QC + hQNSF QMAX QULT Q

Ln QC +hQNSF 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.

**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

Code

(h=1)

Maximum Load

Allowable Settlement (mm)

Allowable Load Qc (kN)

CP4:2003 & HDB Eurocode EC7 Fdn. Code of H.K. 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) .

20

40

60

Code

80

(h=1)

EC7

QC (kN)

Settlement with NSF (mm)

Geotech. Fs

h

**CP4:2003 & HDB Eurocode 100
**

120 QC

-980 1620 2000 500

13 16 8

1.50 1.37 2 1.00 1.00 1.00

62

**Fdn Code of H.K. 2004 + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs
**

25 January 2011

31

Code

(h=0.67)

Maximum Load

Allowable Settlement (mm)

Allowable Load Qc (kN)

CP4:2003 & HDB Eurocode EC7 Fdn. Code of H.K. 2004

QC+ 2hQNSF QC+ 2hQNSF 2QC+ hQNSF

**10 25 (assumed) 25 (assumed)
**

QC+ 2hQNSF = 3700 kN

-80 2520 2200

(h=0.67)

**QC + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs With Fs=2 and 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) .

20

20 mm

40

60

Code

80

(h=0.67)

QC (kN)

Settlement with NSF (mm)

Geotech. Fs

h

**CP4:2003 & HDB
**

100

**-80 2520 2200 1420
**

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

20 17 12

1.50 1.62 2 0.67 0.67 0.67

64

Eurocode EC7 Fdn Code of H.K. 2004 + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs

QC 120

25 January 2011

32

**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 should be considered, if future settlement is real regardless of current state of consolidation. 2. NSF is a settlement problem. 3. Ultimate geotechnical capacity QULT = QP + QS

4. Neutral point top of competent stratum

25 January 2011

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

66

33

**Conclusions & Recommendations (con’t)
**

5. Both and method can be used. 6. Use h=0.67 and Fs=2 in all cases. 7. For bored piles, use Grade 40 concrete or higher. 8. Self-weight of pile need not be considered in design.

25 January 2011

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

67

**Conclusions & Recommendations (con’t)
**

9. For load test on preliminary piles: • QMAX = QS +QP • 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 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

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 68

34

**Thank You for your attention !
**

If you have any comments and suggestions, please email to me at wks@wks.sg.

25 January 2011

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

69

35

- Pile Design EN1997
- Analysis of Piles for Negative Skin Friction
- Soil Compact Theory
- Designers’ Guide to Eurocode 7 Geothechnical Design
- Advisory Note 1-09 on Earth Retaining or Stabilising Structures (Erss)
- Pile Capacity Calculation (12!12!2011)
- Two Piles Foundation Design Examples - R. Frank EUROCODE 7
- Plaxis Mum Plaxisbai Course 2012
- Pile Design Tables to EC7
- Piling Requirements
- Negative Skin Friction
- TCC82 Pilecap Design
- 111348580-Plaxis-Tutorial-02.pdf
- Wind Load Example
- Negative Skin Friction for Piles
- 268 Analysis of Piles in a Residual Soil - The ISC2 Prediction
- Osterberg Cell
- BS-8004-1986.pdf
- Calculation
- Pile Set Calculation-200mm
- Geo 2017 Paper 190
- NP 045-2000_1.doc
- Keller F_ Brochure Dec2010
- Concrete Beams With Openings Analysis Design
- GUIDELINES FOR REPLACEMENT OF BAKAU PILES FOR COMMON DID STRUCTURES
- A Good Quality Task 1 Report-For Guidance Only
- pile capacity
- SS CP 4-2003 - Foundations
- Reinforced Concrete Design to Eurocode 2
- 148735441 STE03020 PIP Tank Foundation Guidelines May 2005

Skip carousel

- 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)
- 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
- The Clyde Mysterya Study in Forgeries and Folklore by Lang, Andrew, 1844-1912
- Mockingbird Pedestrian Bridge presentation
- CREW
- Alaskan Way Viaduct stakeholders' meeting presentation, December 2014
- McKinney Drilling Company v. The Collins Company, Inc. And United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, 701 F.2d 132, 11th Cir. (1983)
- 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
- tmpF82B.tmp
- tmp554A.tmp
- Caltrans Audit
- CREW
- 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)

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