PILED FOUNDATION

PILED FOUNDATION
DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION
DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION
By Ir. Dr. Gue See Sew
http://www.gnpgeo.com.my
Contents
Contents
Overview
Preliminary Study
Site Visit & SI Planning
Pile Design
Pile Installation Methods
Types of Piles
Contents (Cont
Contents (Cont


d)
d)
Piling Supervision
Pile Damage
Piling Problems
Typical Design and Construction Issues
Myths in Piling
Case Histories
Conclusions
Overview
What is a Pile Foundation
It is a foundation system that
transfers loads to a deeper
and competent soil layer.
When To Use Pile Foundations
•Inadequate Bearing Capacity of Shallow
Foundations
•To Prevent Uplift Forces
•To Reduce Excessive Settlement
PILE CLASSIFICATION
PILE CLASSIFICATION
Friction Pile
– Load Bearing Resistance derived mainly
from skin friction
End Bearing Pile
– Load Bearing Resistance derived mainly
from base
Friction Pile
Overburden Soil Layer
End Bearing Pile
Rock / Hard Layer
Overburden Soil
Preliminary Study
Preliminary Study
Preliminary Study
Type & Requirements of Superstructure
Proposed Platform Level (ieCUT or FILL)
Geology of Area
Previous Data or Case Histories
Subsurface Investigation Planning
Selection of Types & Size of Piles
Previous Data & Case
Previous Data & Case
Histories
Histories
Bedrock
Profile
Existing
Development
A
Existing
Development
B
Proposed
Development
Only Need Minimal
Number of Boreholes
Challenge The Norm Thru
Innovation To Excel
SELECTION OF PILES
SELECTION OF PILES
Factors Influencing Pile Selection
– Types of Piles Available in Market (see Fig. 1)
– Installation Method
– Contractual Requirements
– Ground Conditions (egLimestone, etc)
– Site Conditions & Constraints (egAccessibility)
– Type and Magnitude of Loading
– Development Program & Cost
– etc
TYPE OF PILES
DISPLACEMENT PILES NON-DISPLACEMENT PILES
TOTALLY PREFORMED PILES
(A ready-made pile is driven or jacked
into the ground)
DRIVEN CAST IN-PLACE PILES
(a tube is driven into ground to
form void)
Bored piles
Micro piles
Hollow
Small displacement
Solid
Steel Pipe Concrete Spun Piles
Concrete Tube
Closed ended
tube concreted
with tube left in
position
Closed ended tube
Steel Tube
Open ended tube
extracted while
concreting (Franki)
Concrete
Steel H-piles
(small displacement)
Bakau piles
Treated timber pile
Precast R.C.
piles
Precast prestressed
piles
FIG 1: CLASSIFICATION OF PILES
B
A
K
A
U

P
I
L
E
S
T
I
M
P
E
R

P
I
L
E
S
R
C

P
I
L
E
S
P
S
C

P
I
L
E
S
S
P
U
N

P
I
L
E
S
S
T
E
E
L

H

P
I
L
E
S
S
T
E
E
L

P
I
P
E

P
I
L
E
S
J
A
C
K
E
D

P
I
L
E
S
<100 KN a a a
? ? ? ?
a
x ?
a
100-300 a a a
? ?
a a a
x
a a
300-600
?
a a a a a a a a a a
600-1100
x ?
a a a a a
?
a a
?
1100-2000
x ?
a a a a a
?
a a
?
2000-5000
x x
a a a a a
?
a a
?
5000-10000
x x
a a a a a
x
a a
x
>10000
x x ?
a a a a
x
a
? x
<5m
? ? ? ? ? ? ? x
a a
?
5-10m a a a a a a a
?
a a a
10-20m
? ?
a a a a a a a a a
20-30m
x x
a a a a a a a a a
30-60m
x x
a a a a a a a
?
a
a a a a a
?
a a a
?
a
a a a a a a a a a
?
a
? ? ? ? ?
a a a
?
a a
x x
a a a a a
?
a a
?
x x ? ? ?
a a
?
a a
?
x ?
a a a a a a a a a
a a a a a a a a a
?
a
a a a a a a a a a a a
?
a a a a a a a a a a
x ?
a a a a a a a a a
a a a a a a a a a a a
?
a a a a a a a a a a
x ?
a a a a a a a a a
V. DENSE SPT >50
x x
a a a a a
?
a a
?
S <100 mm
x ?
a a a a a a a a
?
100-1000mm
x x ? ? ?
a a
?
a a
x
1000-3000mm
x x ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
a
x
>3000mm
x x ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
a
x
a a a a a a a a a a a
x
a a a a a a a a a a
a a
? ? ? ? ?
a a a a
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
a
?
a a
1-2 0.5-2 1.5-3 1-2.5
A
U
G
E
R
E
D

P
I
L
E
S
COMPRESSIVE LOAD PER COLUMN
S
C
A
L
E

O
F

L
O
A
D

(
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
)
1.0-3.5
PREVENTION OF EFFECTS ON ADJ OINING
STRUCTURES
(SUPPLY & INSTALL) RM/TON/M 0.5-2.5 0.3-2.0
LOOSE SPT <10
UNIT COST
GROUND
WATER
T
Y
P
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
M
E
D
I
A
T
E

L
A
Y
E
R
G
E
O
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
L
T
Y
P
E

O
F

B
E
A
R
I
N
G

L
A
Y
E
R
B
E
A
R
I
N
G

T
Y
P
E
ENVIRONME
NT
M
I
C
R
O
P
I
L
E
S
B
O
R
E
D

P
I
L
E
S
PREFORMED PILES
M. DENSE SPT =10 - 30
MAINLY END -BEARING
(D=Anticipated depth of bearing)
PARTLY FRICTION +PARTLY END BEARING
MAINLY FRICTION
LIMESTON FORMATION
M. STIFF SPT =4 - 15
V. STIFF SPT =15 - 32
HARD SPT >32
DENSE / VERY DENSE SAND
SOFT SPT <4
WEATHERED ROCK / SOFT ROCK
NOISE +VIBRATION; COUNTER MEASURES
REQUIRED
BELOW PILE CAP
ROCK (RQD >70%)
DENSE SPT =30 - 50
COHESIVE SOIL
COHESIVELESS SOIL
SOIL WITH SOME BOULDERS /
COBBLES (S=SIZE)
ABOVE PILE CAP
DESIGN
CONSIDERATIONS
TYPE OF PILE
LEGEND :
8
x
?
INDICATES THAT THE PILE TYPE IS
SUITABLE
INDICATES THAT THE PILE TYPE IS
NOT SUITABLE
INDICATES THAT THE USE OF PILE
TYPE IS DOUBTFUL OR NOT COST
EFFECTIVE UNLESS ADDITIONAL
MEASURES TAKEN
FIG 2 : PILE SELECTION CHART
Pile Selection Based on Cost
RM 110.00 / m - - Drilling in Soil
RM 240.00 / m - - Drilling in Rock
RM 120.00 / m - - API Pipe
RM 85.00 / m - - Grouting
RM 150.00 / Nos - - Pile Head
RM 4,297.50 / Nos RM 1,066.00 / Nos RM 967.00 / Nos Est. Ave. Cost Per Point
RM 380,825.00 RM 184,620.00 RM 190,261.00 Est. Foundation Cost

RM 200.00 / Nos - - Movement
- RM 200.00 / Nos RM 200.00 / Nos Cut Excess, Dispose +Starter Bars
- RM 32.00 / m RM 30.00 / m Drive
- RM 42.00 / m RM 33.00 / m Supply
RM 20,000.00 RM 50,000.00 RM 50,000.00 Mob & Demob
Indicative Rates :
2.5m - - Average Rock Socket Length
9m 9m 9m Average Length
70 70 83 Total Points
Micropile 300mm Spun Piles 250mm Spun Piles Details:
Site Visit and SI Planning
Site Visit
Site Visit
Things To Look For …
Accessibility & Constraints of Site
Adjacent Structures/Slopes, Rivers,
Boulders, etc
Adjacent Activities (egexcavation)
Confirm Topography & Site Conditions
Any Other Observations that may affect
Design and Construction of Foundation
Subsurface Investigation (SI)
Subsurface Investigation (SI)
Planning
Planning
Provide Sufficient Boreholes to get Subsoil Profile
Collect Rock Samples for Strength Tests (egUCT)
In-Situ Tests to get consistency of ground (egSPT)
Classification Tests to Determine Soil Type
Profile
Soil Strength Tests (egCIU)
Chemical Tests (egChlorine, Sulphate, etc)
Typical Cross
Typical Cross
-
-
Section at Hill Site
Section at Hill Site
Ground Level
Bedrock Level
Very Hard Material Level
Hard Material Level
Groundwater Level
EXISTING
GROUND
LEVEL
Water Table
C

2
,

ø

2
C
l
a
y
e
y

L
a
y
e
r
C’
3
, ø’
3
C’
1
, ø’
1
BH
BH
BH
P
e
r
c
h
e
d

W
T
Seepage
CROSS SECTION
Placing Boreholes in Limestone
Areas
Stage 1 : Preliminary S.I.
- Carry out geophysical survey (for large areas)
Stage 2: Detailed S.I.
- Boreholes at Critical Areas Interpreted from
Stage 1
Stage 3: During Construction
- Rock Probing at Selected Columns to
supplement Stage 2
Pile Design
PILE DESIGN
PILE DESIGN
Allowable Pile Capacity is the minimum of :
1) Allowable Structural Capacity
2) Allowable Geotechnical Capacity
a. Negative Skin Friction
b. Settlement Control
PILE DESIGN
PILE DESIGN
Structural consideration
• Not overstressed during handling, installation & in
servicefor pile body, pile head, joint & shoe.
• Dimension & alignment tolerances (common
defects?)
• Compute the allowable load in soft soil (<10kPa)
over hard stratum
• Durability assessment
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Structural Capacity
Structural Capacity
Concrete Pile
Steel Pile
PrestressedConcrete Pile
Q
Q
all all
= 0.25 x
= 0.25 x
f
f
cu cu
x A
x A
c c
Q
Q
all all
= 0.3 x
= 0.3 x
f
f
y y
x A
x A
s s
Q
Q
all all
= 0.25 (
= 0.25 (
f
f
cu cu


Prestress
Prestress
after loss) x A
after loss) x A
c c
Q
all
= Allowable pile
capacity
f
cu
= characteristic strength
of concrete
f
s
= yield strength of steel
A
c
= cross sectional area of
concrete
A
s
= cross sectional area of
steel
SPT Blow Count per 300mm Penetration
Collection of SI Data Collection of SI Data
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Geotechnical Capacity
Geotechnical Capacity
400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Upper Bound
Lower
Bound
Design Line
(Moderately
Conservative)
Depth Vs SPT-N Blow Count
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Upper Bound
Lower
Bound
Design Line
Upper Bound
Lower
Bound
Design Line
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Depth Vs SPT-N Blow Count
SPT Blow Count per 300mm Penetration
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Depth Vs SPT-N Blow Count
SPT Blow Count per 300mm Penetration
Collection of SI Data Collection of SI Data
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Geotechnical Capacity
Geotechnical Capacity


Piles installed in a group may fail:
Piles installed in a group may fail:
•Individually
•As a block
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Geotechnical Capacity
Geotechnical Capacity
• Piles fail individually
• When installed at large spacing
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Geotechnical Capacity
Geotechnical Capacity
• Piles fail as a block
• When installed at close spacing
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Geotechnical Capacity
Geotechnical Capacity
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Single Pile Capacity
Single Pile Capacity
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Factor of Safety (FOS)
Factor of Safety (FOS)
Factor of Safety (FOS) is required
for
Natural
variations in soil strength &
variations in soil strength &
compressibility
compressibility
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Factor of Safety (FOS)
Factor of Safety (FOS)
Factor of Safety is
(FOS) required for

Different degree of
Different degree of
mobilisation
mobilisation
for shaft
for shaft
& for tip
& for tip
L
o
a
d
Settlement ≈ 5mm
q
smob
q
bmob
L
o
a
d
Settlement ≈ 5mm
q
smob
q
bmob
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Factor of Safety (FOS)
Factor of Safety (FOS)
Partial
Partial
factors of safety for shaft & base
factors of safety for shaft & base
capacities respectively
capacities respectively

For shaft, use 1.5 (typical)
For shaft, use 1.5 (typical)

For base, use 3.0 (typical)
For base, use 3.0 (typical)

ΣQ
su
+ Q
bu
1.5 3.0
Q
all
=
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Factor of Safety (FOS)
Factor of Safety (FOS)
Global
Global
factor of safety for total ultimate
factor of safety for total ultimate
capacity
capacity

Use 2.0 (typical)
Use 2.0 (typical)

ΣQ
su
+ Q
bu
2.0
Q
all
=
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Factor of Safety (FOS)
Factor of Safety (FOS)

Calculate using
Calculate using
BOTH
BOTH
approaches
approaches
(Partial & Global)
(Partial & Global)

Choose the
Choose the
lower
lower
of the
of the
Q
Q
all all
values
values
Q
Q
u u
= Q
= Q
s s
+
+
Q
Q
b b
Overburden Soil Layer
Q
s
= skin friction
Q
b
= end bearing
Q
u
= ultimate bearing capacity
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Single Pile Capacity
Single Pile Capacity
Q
u
= α.s
us
.A
s
+ s
ub
.N
c
.A
b
Q
su
Q
bu
Q
u
=Ultimate bearing capacity of the pile
a =adhesion factor (see next slide)
s
us
=average undrainedshear strength for shaft
A
s
=surface area of shaft
s
ub
=undrainedshear strength at pile base
N
c
=bearing capacity factor (taken as 9.0)
A
b
=cross sectional area of pile base
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Single Pile Capacity : In Cohesive Soil
Single Pile Capacity : In Cohesive Soil
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Single Pile Capacity:
Single Pile Capacity:
In Cohesive Soil
In Cohesive Soil
Adhesion factor (
Adhesion factor (
α
α
)
)


Shear strength (S
Shear strength (S
u u
)
)
(McClelland, 1974)
(McClelland, 1974)
Adhesion
Factor
Su (kN/m
2
)
25 75 100 125 150 175
50
0
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.8
1.0
C
α
/S
u
Preferred
Design Line
91.5 0.3 305 100 40
69 0.3 230 75 30
51.15 0.33 155 50 20
47 0.4 117.5 37.5 15
41.6 0.52 80 25 10
29.75 0.7 42.5 12.5 5
12.5 1 12.5 2.5 1
5 1 5 0 0
f
su
=
α.
s
u
(kPa)
α
s
u
=
(0.1+0.15N)*50
(kPa)
f
su
=2.5N
(kPa)
SPT N
Fukuoka Meyerhof
Correlation Between SPT N and
Correlation Between SPT N and
f
f
su su
f
su
vs SPT N
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
SPT N
f
s
u

(
k
P
a
)
Meyerhof Fukuoka
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Single Pile Capacity:
Single Pile Capacity:
In Cohesive Soil
In Cohesive Soil
Values of undrainedshear strength, s
u
can be
obtained from the following:
Unconfined compressive test
Field vane shear test
Deduce based on Fukuoka’s Plot (minimum s
u
)
Deduce from SPT-N values based on Meyerhof
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Single Pile Capacity:
Single Pile Capacity:
In Cohesive Soil
In Cohesive Soil
NOTE: Use only direct field data for shaft friction prediction
instead of Meyerhof
Modified Meyerhof (1976):
Ult. Shaft friction = Q
su
≅ 2.5N (kPa)
Ult. Toe capacity = Q
bu
≅ 250N (kPa)
or 9 s
u
(kPa)
(Beware of base cleaning for bored piles –
ignore base capacity if doubtful)
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Single Pile Capacity:
Single Pile Capacity:
In Cohesive Soil
In Cohesive Soil
Modified
Modified
Meyerhof
Meyerhof
(1976):
(1976):

Ult
Ult
. Shaft Friction =
. Shaft Friction =
Q
Q
su su


2.0N (
2.0N (
kPa
kPa
)
)

Ult
Ult
. Toe Capacity=
. Toe Capacity=
Q
Q
bu bu


250N
250N


400N
400N
(
(
kPa
kPa
)
)
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Single Pile Capacity:
Single Pile Capacity:
In
In
Cohesionless
Cohesionless
Soil
Soil
0 200 400 600
20
16
12
8
4
0
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
0 100 200 300 400 500
Load (kN)
20
16
12
8
4
0
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
ΣQ
su
Q
bu
ΣQ
su
+ Q
bu
0 200 400 600
20
16
12
8
4
0
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
0 100 200 300 400 500
Load (kN)
20
16
12
8
4
0
0 200 400 600
20
16
12
8
4
0
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
0 100 200 300 400 500
Load (kN)
20
16
12
8
4
0
0 200 400 600
20
16
12
8
4
0
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
0 100 200 300 400 500
Load (kN)
20
16
12
8
4
0
ΣQ
su
+ Q
bu
2.0
0 200 400 600
20
16
12
8
4
0
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
0 100 200 300 400 500
Load (kN)
20
16
12
8
4
0
ΣQ
su
+ Q
bu
1.5 3.0
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Block Capacity
Block Capacity
Q
u
= 2D(B+L) s + 1.3(s
b
.N
c
.B.L)
Where
Q
u
= ultimate bearing capacity of pile group
D = depth of pile below pile cap level
B = width of pile group
L = length of pile group
s = average cohesion of clay around group
s
b
= cohesion of clay beneath group
N
c
= bearing capacity factor = 9.0
(Refer to Text by Tomlinson, 1995)
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Block Capacity:In Cohesive Soil
Block Capacity:In Cohesive Soil
No risk of group failure
if FOS of individual pile is
adequate
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Block Capacity:
Block Capacity:
In
In
Cohesionless
Cohesionless
Soil
Soil
No risk of block failure
if the piles are properly
seated in the rock
formation
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Block Capacity:
Block Capacity:
On Rock
On Rock
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Negative Skin Friction (NSF)
Negative Skin Friction (NSF)
Compressible soil layer consolidates
with time due to:
Surcharge of fill
Lowering of groundwater table
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Negative Skin Friction
Negative Skin Friction
Clay
Fill
OGL
1 2 3
0
H
f
ρ
s
Month
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Negative Skin Friction
Negative Skin Friction
Pile to length (floating pile)
Pile settles with consolidating soil
NO NSF
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Negative Skin Friction
Negative Skin Friction
Pile to set at hard stratum (end-
bearing pile)
Consolidation causes downdrag forces on
piles as soil settles more than the pile
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Negative Skin Friction
Negative Skin Friction
WARNING:
No free fill by the contractor to avoid
NSF
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Negative Skin Friction
Negative Skin Friction
Effect of NSF
Effect of NSF


Reduction of Pile Carrying Capacity
Effect of NSF
Effect of NSF


NSF Preventive Measures
NSF Preventive Measures
Avoid Filling
Carry Out Surcharging
Sleeve the Pile Shaft
Slip Coating
Reserve Structural Capacity for NSF
Allow for Larger Settlements
Clay
Sand
OGL
Q
ba
Q
neg
Sand
FL
Clay
Sand
OGL
Q
ba
Q
su
Q
all
= (Q
su
/1.5 + Q
bu
/3.0) - Q
neg
Q
su
Q
all
= (Q
su
/1.5 + Q
bu
/3.0)
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Negative Skin Friction
Negative Skin Friction
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Settlement (mm)
100 0 -100-200-300-400-500-600-700-800-900-1000
Axial Compression Force (kN)
Settlement Curves &
Axial Compression Force
14 May 98
15 May 98
18 May 98
21 May 98
04 J un 98
09 J un 98
19 J un 98
02 J ul 98
13 J ul 98
0 10 20 30 40 50
SPT-N (Blows/300mm)
Borehole
BH-1
BH-2
Datum = 36.300m
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
,

b
g
l
)
Increased Pile Axial Load
Increased Pile Axial Load
Check: maximum axial load < structural pile
Check: maximum axial load < structural pile
capacity
capacity
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Negative Skin Friction
Negative Skin Friction
Maximum
axial load
Allowable working load
Q
ult
FOS
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Factor of Safety (FOS)
Factor of Safety (FOS)
Allowable working load
Q
ult
FOS
(Q
neg
+ etc)
Without Negative Skin Friction:
With Negative Skin Friction:
Pile Capacity Design
Pile Capacity Design
Static Pile Load Test (Piles with NSF)
Static Pile Load Test (Piles with NSF)
•Specified Working Load (SWL) = Specified foundation
load at pile head
•Design Verification Load (DVL) = SWL + 2 Q
neg
•Proof Load: will not normally exceed
DVL + SWL
Pile Settlement Design
Pile Settlement Design
Pile Settlement Design
Pile Settlement Design
In Cohesive Soil
In Cohesive Soil
Design for
Design for total
settlement &
settlement &
differential
settlement for design
settlement for design
tolerance
tolerance
In certain cases
In certain cases, total
settlement not an
settlement not an
issue
issue
Differential
settlement can cause
settlement can cause
damage to structures
damage to structures
Pile Group Settlement in Clay
=
Immediate /
Elastic Settlement
+
Consolidation
Settlement
Pile Settlement Design
Pile Settlement Design
In Cohesive Soil
In Cohesive Soil
Where
p
i
= average immediate settlement
q
n=
pressure at base of equivalent raft
B = width of the equivalent raft
E
u
= deformation modulus
μ
1,
μ
0
= influence factors for pile group width, B at depth D
below ground surface
by by Janbu Janbu, , Bjerrum Bjerrum and and
Kjaernsli Kjaernsli (1956) (1956)
IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT
IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT
Pile Settlement Design
Pile Settlement Design
In Cohesive Soil
In Cohesive Soil
u
n
i
E
B q
p
0 1
μ μ
=
μ
1
μ
0
Influence factors (after
J anbu, Bjerrumand
Kjaernsli, 1956)
IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT
IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT
Pile Settlement Design
Pile Settlement Design
In Cohesive Soil
In Cohesive Soil
As per footing (references given later)
CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT
CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT
Pile Settlement Design
Pile Settlement Design
In Cohesive Soil
In Cohesive Soil
No risk of excessive
settlement
Pile Settlement Design
Pile Settlement Design
On Rock
On Rock
Pile Installation Methods
PILE INSTALLATION
PILE INSTALLATION
METHODS
METHODS
•Diesel / Hydraulic / Drop Hammer
Driving
•J acked-In
•Prebore Then Drive
•Prebore Then J acked In
•Cast-In-Situ Pile
Diesel Drop Hammer
Driving
Diesel Drop Hammer
Diesel Drop Hammer
Driving
Driving
Hydraulic Hammer
Driving
Hydraulic Hammer
Hydraulic Hammer
Driving
Driving
J acked
J acked
-
-
In
In
Piling
Piling
J acked
J acked
-
-
In Piling (Cont
In Piling (Cont


d)
d)
Cast-In-Situ
Piles
(Micropiles)
Cast
Cast
-
-
In
In
-
-
Situ
Situ
Piles
Piles
(
(
Micropiles
Micropiles
)
)
Types of Piles
TYPES OF PILES
TYPES OF PILES
•Treated Timber
Piles
•BakauPiles
•R.C. Square Piles
•Pre-Stressed
Concrete Spun
Piles
•Steel Piles
•Boredpiles
•Micropiles
•Caisson Piles
R.C. Square Piles
R.C. Square Piles
Size : 150mm to 400mm
Lengths : 3m, 6m, 9m and 12m
Structural Capacity : 25Ton to 185Ton
Material : Grade 40MPa Concrete
J oints: Welded
Installation Method :
–Drop Hammer
–J ack-In
RC
RC
Square
Square
Piles
Piles
Pile Marking
Pile Marking
Pile Lifting
Pile Lifting
Pile Fitting to Piling Machine
Pile Fitting to Piling Machine
Pile
Pile
Positioning
Positioning
Pile J oining
Pile J oining
Considerations in Using RC
Considerations in Using RC
Square Piles
Square Piles


•Pile Quality
•Pile Handling Stresses
•Driving Stresses
•Tensile Stresses
•Lateral Loads
•J ointing
Pre
Pre
-
-
stressed Concrete Spun
stressed Concrete Spun
Piles
Piles
Size : 250mm to 1000mm
Lengths : 6m, 9m and 12m (Typical)
Structural Capacity : 45Ton to 520Ton
Material : Grade 60MPa & 80MPa Concrete
J oints: Welded
Installation Method :
–Drop Hammer
–J ack-In
Spun Piles
Spun Piles
Spun Piles
Spun Piles
vs
vs
RC Square Piles
RC Square Piles
Spun Piles have …
•Better Bending Resistance
•Higher Axial Capacity
•Better Manufacturing Quality
•Able to Sustain Higher Driving Stresses
•Higher Tensile Capacity
•Easier to Check Integrity of Pile
•Similar cost as RC Square Piles
Steel H Piles
Steel H Piles
Size : 200mm to 400m
Lengths : 6m and 12m
Structural Capacity : 40Ton to 1,000Ton
Material : 250N/mm
2
to 410N/mm
2
Steel
J oints: Welded
Installation Method :
–Hydraulic Hammer
–J ack-In
Steel H
Steel H
Piles
Piles
Steel H Piles (Cont
Steel H Piles (Cont


d)
d)
Steel H Piles Notes
Steel H Piles Notes


•Corrosion Rate
•Fatigue
•OverDriving
OverDriving
OverDriving
of Steel Piles
of Steel Piles
Large Diameter Cast
Large Diameter Cast
-
-
In
In
-
-
Situ
Situ
Piles (Bored Piles)
Piles (Bored Piles)
Size : 450mm to 2m
Lengths : Varies
Structural Capacity : 80Ton to 2,300Tons
Concrete Grade : 20MPa to 30MPa (Tremie)
J oints : None
Installation Method : Drill then Cast-In-Situ
Overburden Soil Layer
Bedrock
Drilling
Borepile
Borepile
Construction
Construction
Overburden Soil Layer
Bedrock
Advance Drilling
Borepile
Borepile
Construction
Construction
Overburden Soil Layer
Bedrock
Drilling & Advance
Casing
Borepile
Borepile
Construction
Construction
Overburden Soil Layer
Bedrock
Drill to Bedrock
Borepile
Borepile
Construction
Construction
Borepile
Borepile
Construction
Construction
Overburden Soil Layer
Bedrock
Lower
Reinforcement
Cage
Overburden Soil Layer
Bedrock
Borepile
Borepile
Construction
Construction
Lower Tremie
Chute
Overburden Soil Layer
Bedrock
Pour Tremie
Concrete
Borepile
Borepile
Construction
Construction
Borepile
Borepile
Construction
Construction
Overburden Soil Layer
Bedrock
Completed
Borepile
BORED PILING MACHINE
BORED PILING MACHINE
Bored Pile Construction
BG22
Cleaning Bucket
Rock Reamer
Rock Auger
Harden Steel
Rock Chisel
DRILLING EQUIPMENT
DRILLING EQUIPMENT
Bored Pile Construction
Soil auger
Coring
bucket
Cleaning
bucket
BENTONITE PLANT
BENTONITE PLANT
Bored Pile Construction
Mixer
Water
Tank
Slurry
Tank
Desanding
Machine
Drilling
Drilling
Lower
Lower
Reinforcement
Reinforcement
Place
Place
Tremie
Tremie
Concrete
Concrete
Completed
Completed
Boredpile
Boredpile
Borepile
Borepile
Cosiderations
Cosiderations


•BorepileBase Difficult to Clean
•Bulging / Necking
•Collapse of Sidewall
•Dispute on Level of Weathered Rock
Micropiles
Micropiles
Size : 100mm to 350mm Diameter
Lengths : Varies
Structural Capacity : 20Ton to 250Ton
Material : Grade 25MPa to 35MPa Grout
N80 API Pipe as Reinforcement
J oints: None
Installation Method :
–Drill then Cast-In-Situ
–Percussion Then Cast-In-Situ
Cast
Cast
-
-
In
In
-
-
Situ
Situ
Piles
Piles
(
(
Micropiles
Micropiles
)
)
TYPES OF PILE SHOES
TYPES OF PILE SHOES
•Flat Ended Shoe
•Oslo Point
•Cast-Iron Pointed Tip
•Cross Fin Shoe
•H-Section
Cross Fin Shoe
Cross Fin Shoe
Oslo Point Shoe
Oslo Point Shoe
Cast Iron Tip Shoe
Cast Iron Tip Shoe
H
H
-
-
Section Shoe
Section Shoe
Piling Supervision
Uniform Building By
Uniform Building By
Law (UBBL)1984
Law (UBBL)1984
PILING SUPERVISION
PILING SUPERVISION
•Ensure That Piles Are Stacked Properly
•Ensure that Piles are Vertical During Driving
•Keep Proper Piling Records
•Ensure Correct Pile Types and Sizes are Used
•Ensure that Pile J oints are Properly Welded with
NO GAPS
•Ensure Use of Correct Hammer Weights and Drop
Heights
PILING SUPERVISION
PILING SUPERVISION
(Cont
(Cont


d)
d)
•Ensure that Proper Types of Pile Shoes are Used.
•Check Pile Quality
•Ensure that the Piles are Driven to the Required
Lengths
•Monitor Pile Driving
FAILURE OF PILING
FAILURE OF PILING
SUPERVISION
SUPERVISION
Failing to Provide Proper Supervision
WILL Result in
Higher Instances of Pile Damage
& Wastage
Pile Damage
Driven concrete piles are vulnerable
Driven concrete piles are vulnerable
to damages by overdriving.
to damages by overdriving.
Damage to Timber Pile
Damage to Timber Pile
Weak
Weak
Timber
Timber
J oint
J oint
Damage To RC Pile Toe
Damage To RC Pile Toe
Damage to
Damage to
RC Pile
RC Pile
Head
Head
Damage to
Damage to
RC Piles
RC Piles
Damage to RC Piles
Damage to RC Piles


cont
cont


d
d
Tilted RC
Tilted RC
Piles
Piles
Damage to Steel Piles
Damage to Steel Piles
Damaged Steel Pipe Piles
Damaged Steel Pipe Piles
Detection of Pile Damage
Detection of Pile Damage
Through Piling Records
Through Piling Records
Piling Problems
Piling Problems – Soft Ground
Gr ound heave due t o
pr essur e r el i ef at base &
sur c har ge near
ex c avat i on
Pi l e t i l t s & moves/w al k s
Piling Problems – Soft Ground
Piling Problems – Soft Ground
Piling in Kuala Lumpur Limestone
Piling in Kuala Lumpur Limestone
Important Points to Note:
•Highly Irregular Bedrock Profile
•Presence of Cavities & Solution Channels
•Very Soft Soil Immediately Above Limestone
Bedrock
Results in …
•High Rates of Pile Damage
•High Bending Stresses
Piling Problems in Typical Limestone
Piling Problems in Typical Limestone
Bedrock
Bedrock
Piling Problems
Piling Problems


Undetected
Undetected
Problems
Problems
Piling Problems
Piling Problems – Coastal Alluvium
Piling Problems
Piling Problems


Defective Piles
Defective Piles
Ser i ousl y damaged
pi l e due t o sever e
dr i vi ng st r ess i n sof t
gr ound (t ensi on)
Def ec t due t o poor
w or k manshi p of pi l e
c ast i ng
Def ec t i ve pi l e shoe
Pr obl ems of
def ec t i ve pi l e head
& over dr i vi ng!
Piling Problems
Piling Problems


Defective Piles
Defective Piles
Cr ac k s&
f r ac t ur ed
Non-
c hamf er ed
c or ner s
Piling Problems
Piling Problems


Defective Piles
Defective Piles
Pi l e head def ec t due t o
har d dr i vi ng or and poor
w or k manshi p
Piling Problems
Piling Problems


Defective Piles
Defective Piles
Piling Problem - Micropiles
Si nk hol es c aused by
i nst al l at i on met hod-
dew at er i ng?
Piling in Fill Ground
Piling in Fill Ground
Important Points to Note:
•High Consolidation Settlements If Original Ground is
Soft
•Uneven Settlement Due to Uneven Fill Thickness
•Collapse Settlement of Fill Layer If Not Compacted
Properly
Results in …
•Negative Skin Friction (NSF) & Crushing of Pile Due
to High Compressive Stresses
•Uneven Settlements
Typical Design and
Typical Design and
Construction Issues #1
Construction Issues #1
Pile Toe Slippage Due to Steep Incline Bedrock
Use Oslo Point Shoe To Minimize Pile Damage
Issue #1
Solution #1
Pile Breakage on Inclined
Pile Breakage on Inclined
Rock Surface
Rock Surface
No Proper Pile
Shoe
Extension Pile
Pile
J oint
First Contact
B/W Toe and
Inclined Rock
Toe “Kicked Off”
on Driving
Pile Body Bends
Pile J oint Breaks
Pile Breakage on Inclined
Pile Breakage on Inclined
Rock Surface
Rock Surface
Continue
“Sliding” of
Toe
Use Oslo Point Shoe to Minimize
Use Oslo Point Shoe to Minimize
Damage
Damage
Design and Construction
Design and Construction
Issues #2
Issues #2
Presence of Cavity
Detect Cavities through Cavity Probing then
perform Compaction Grouting
Issue #2
Solution #2
Presence of Cavity
Presence of Cavity
Pile Sitting on
Limestone
with Cavity
Application of
Building Load
Application of
Building Load
Roof of Cavity
starts to Crack …
Collapse of
Cavity Roof
Pile Plunges !
Building Collapse
Design and Construction
Design and Construction
Issues #3
Issues #3
Differential Settlement
Carry out analyses to check the settlement
compatibility if different piling system is adopted
Issue #3
Solution #3
Piling in Progress
Differential Settlement of Foundation
Original House
on Piles
Hard Layer
SPT>50
Cracks!!
No
pile
Settlement
Soft
Layer
Link House
Construction
Renovation:
Construct
Extensions
Piles
transfer
Load to
Hard
Layer
No Settlement
SAFETY of
Original Building
Not Compromised
Piling in Progress
Eliminate Differential Settlement
Eliminate Differential Settlement
Hard Layer
SPT>50
Soft
Layer
Construct
Extension with
Suitable Piles
All Load transferred to Hard
Layer – No Cracks!
Piling in Progress
Problem of Short Piles
Problem of Short Piles
Hard Layer
SPT>50
Soft
Layer
Load from Original House
transferred to Hard Layer
Cracks!!
Soft!
Load
transferred to
Soft Layer,
Extension
still Settles
Construct
Extensions
with Short
Piles
Cracks at Extension
Cracks at Extension
Typical Design and
Typical Design and
Construction Issues #4
Construction Issues #4
Costly conventional piling design – piled to set to
deep layer in soft ground
-Strip footings / Raft
-Floating Piles
Issue #4
Solution #4
“Conventional” Foundation for
Low Rise Buildings
Foundation for
Low Rise Buildings (Soil Settlement)
Exposed Pile
Settlement
Settling Platform Detached from Building
Conceptual Design of
Conceptual Design of
FOUNDATION SYSTEM
FOUNDATION SYSTEM
1. Low Rise Buildings :-
(Double-Storey Houses)
= Strip Footings or Raft or
Combination.
2. Medium Rise Buildings :-
= Floating Piles System.
Low Rise Buildings on
Piled Raft/Strips
St r i p / Raf t
Syst em
St i f f
St r at um
Har d Layer
Fi l l
25-30m
Sof t Cl ay
Comparison
St r i p
Syst em
St i f f
St r at um
Har d Layer
Fi l l
25-30m
Sof t Cl ay
Building on Piles Building on Piled Strips
Comparison (after settlement)
Building on Piles Building on Piled Strips
St r i p
Syst em
St i f f
St r at um
Har d Layer
Fi l l
25-30m
Sof t Cl ay
Advantages of
Advantages of
Floating Piles System
Floating Piles System
1. Cost Effective.
2. No Downdrag problems on the
Piles.
3. Insignificant Differential
Settlement between Buildings and
Platform.
Bandar Botanic
Bandar Botanic at Night
Soft Ground Engineering
Myths in Piling
MYTHS IN PILING #1
MYTHS IN PILING #1
Dynamic Formulae such as Hiley’sFormula
Tells us the Capacity of the Pile
Pile Capacity can only be verified by using:
(i) Maintained (Static) Load Tests
(ii)Pile Dynamic Analyser (PDA) Tests
Myth:
Truth:
MYTHS IN PILING #2
MYTHS IN PILING #2
Pile Achieves Capacity When It is Set.
Myth:
Truth:
Pile May Only “Set” on Intermediate Hard
Layer BUT May Still Not Achieve Required
Capacity within Allowable Settlement.
CASE HISTORIES
CASE HISTORIES
Case 1: Structural distortion & distresses
Case 2: Distresses at houses
CASE HISTORY 1
CASE HISTORY 1
Max. 20m BoulderyFill on
Undulating Terrain
Platform Settlement
Short Piling Problems
Downdragon Piles
Distortion & Distresses on 40
Single/ 70 Double Storey Houses
Distresses on Structures
Void
0 40000 80000 120000 160000 200000
Coordinate-X (mm)
20
30
40
50
60
70
R
e
d
u
c
e
d

L
e
v
e
l

(
m
)
Profile with SPT 'N'>50
Filled ground
Original Ground
Hard Stratum
Borehole
Pile Toe
Pile Toe of Additional
Piles
Original
Ground Profile
Building
Platform
Offset 13.1m
Offset 13.1m
N=25
N=40
N=34
Profile with SPT 'N'≅30
Offset 13.1m
N=29
N=30
N=5
Offset 36.2m
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Piling Contractor A
0 40000 80000 120000 160000 200000
Coordinate-X (mm)
30
40
50
60
70
80
R
e
d
u
c
e
d

L
e
v
e
l

(
m
)
Filled ground
Original Ground
Hard Stratum
Borehole
Pile Toe
Pile Toe of Additional
Piles
Profile with SPT 'N'>50
Building Platform
Original Ground Profile
N=30
N=34
N=28
N=41
N=5
N=29
Profile with SPT 'N'≅30
Offset 9.1m
Offset 9.1m
?
?
?
?
?
Piling
Contractor A Piling Contractor B
Prevention Measures
Prevention Measures
Design:
– Consider downdragin foundation design
– Alternative strip system
Construction:
– Proper QA/QC
– Supervision
CASE HISTORY 2
CASE HISTORY 2
Filled ground: platform settlement
Design problem: non-suspended floor
with semi-suspended detailing
Bad earthwork & layout design
Short piling problem
Distresses on 12 Double Storey
Houses & 42 Townhouses
Diagonal cracks due
to differential
settlement between
columns
Larger column
settlement

Sagging
Ground
Floor Slab
SAGGING PROFILE OF NON-
SUSPENDED GROUND FLOOR SLAB
NON-SUSPENDED GROUND FLOOR
SLAB BEFORE SETTLEMENT
BUILDING PLATFORM PROFILE AFTER
SETTLEMENT
PILE
PILECAP
V
e
>V
c
V
c
<V
e
V
c
ρ
s
ρ
s
ACTUAL FILLED PLATFORM SETTLEMENT
Distorted Car Porch Roof
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 1
Silt trap
Temporary
earth drain
Poor Earthwork Layout
Prevention Measures
Prevention Measures
Planning:
– Proper building layout planningto suit terrain
(eg. uniform fill thickness)
– Sufficient SI
Design:
– Consider filled platform settlement
– Earthwork layout
Construction:
– Supervisionon earthwork & piling
SUMMARY
SUMMARY
Importance of Preliminary Study
Understanding the Site Geology
Carry out Proper Subsurface Investigation
that Suits the Terrain & Subsoil
Selection of Suitable Pile
Pile Design Concepts
SUMMARY
SUMMARY
Importance of Piling Supervision
Typical Piling Problems Encountered
Present Some Case Histories
FERRARI ‘S PITSTOP WAS COMPLETED BY
15 MECHANICS (FUEL AND TYRES) IN 6.0
SECONDS FLAT.
54 PEOPLE TOOK PART IN THIS
CONCERTED ACROBATIC JUMP.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful