Seafco Research Development TH

()
144 10510
0-2919-0090 - 7 0-2919-0098
www.seafco.co.th
WE BUILD MODERN FOUNDATIONS
40 ()
40

40 ()
19 2557

40
()
37

2557
40 ()
19 2557

40 ()

()
40

()

()
27
65
77
87
95
, ,
,
,
103
109
115
123
,
,

131
137
143
175
181
187
205
221
227
233
,
,

, ,
,

, ,
, ,
,
239
249
257
263
275
281
287
, ,

, ,
297
,
303
323
Diaphragm wall
351
361
,

Sonic logging
367
375
379
389
,
395
40
4 2540 08.00-17.00 . A
1.

30

WET PROCESS
REVERSE CIRCULATION
,
..2510

.. 2514
, DRY
PROCESS TRIPOD (), CONTINOUS
FLIGHT AUGER, CASING OSCILLATOR, BENOTO
DRY PROCESS

.. 2520 ROTARY
DRILLING RIG
DRY PROCESS WET PROCESS
ROYAL ORCHID, TAI PING TOWER
WET PROCESS
30 - 35.00
200 - 300 (DIA. 1.00 .)
2526
ROTARY DRILLING RIG
2 3 ( 40-70 )
60

(BARRETTE
PILE)
(BASE GROUTED
BORED PILE)
DRY PROCESS WET PROCESS
MICRO PILE MINI PILE
20-40 ..

2.
2.1 (DRY PROCESS)

TRI
POD RIG
() ,
BENOTO RIG, OSCILLATOR RIG WITH FULL CASING
CFA
2.1.1 TRIPOD RIG ( )
2514
35-60 .. 25.00 .

40-80
-
-
1
1 TRI-POD
2.1.2. PERCUSSION DRILLING

. 2
2.1.2.1. OSCILLATOR RIG WITH FULL CASING

OSCILLATOR
MECHANICAL CABLE GRAB

2-3

2
2
CASING OSCILLATOR
2.1.2.2. BENOTO
3 Benoto
(after Tomlinson, 1995)
Benoto Rig
.. 2520
OSCILLATOR WITH PULL CASING

2.1.2.1.
10

3
2.1.3 ROTARY DRILL

ROTARY DRILLING RIG
15
(AUGER)
25 .
1 .

4
4 ROTARY DRILL
2.1.4
.. 2511
PREPAC - INTRUSION PILE

PREPAC

PREPAC

CFA PILE (CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER
PILE) CFA PILE
5 6
5
CONTINUOUS FLIGHT
AUGER ()
-5-5
6
CONTINUOUS FLIGHT
AUGER ()
2.2 (WET PROCESS)

2.1 ( WET PROCESS)

2.2.1. (MICRO PILE OR
MINI PILE
7
MICRO PILE

( )
WASH OUT
( )
(GROUT)

,
7, 8 9
9 MICRO PILE
8 MICRO PILE
-6-
2.2.2 REVERSE CIRCULATION

REVERSE CIRCULATION (R.C.)

,

GRAB
R.C. R.C.

,
(TREMIE PIPE) R.C.
10 11

DIA. 1.50 .
50 1,000
1 - 2

R.C.

R.C.

10

REVERSE CIRCULATION
11
REVERSE
CIRCULATION
7
-7-
2.2.3. ROTARY DRILL (R.D.)

ROTARY DRILL (R.D.)

R.D.
ROTARY DRILLING RIG 2 CRANE
MOUNTED RIG CRANE
12 13
12 ROTARY DRILL
13 ROTARY DRILL
R.D.
.
15.00 .
.
21.00 .
.
.
(BUCKET)
.
. (TREMIE)
. 14
14 ROTARY DRILL
R.D.
4 80 .. , 100 .., 120
.., 150 .. 40 70

180 ..
300 - 1000
2.2.4

1000

4-5
BARRETTE STRIP PILE
LOAD BEARING ELEMENT (L.B.E.)

DIAPHRAGM WALL
( 15 )
15
10
60 .. , 80.. ,
100 .., 120 .. 150 .. 2.50 . 6.00 . ( 16)
60
60 36 .

80 x 270 .. 100 x 270 ..
60.00 1100-1350
16
3. (BASED GROUTED BORED PILE)
(BEARING RESISTANT)
.)
.)
OVERBURDEN PRESSURE
STRESS RELIEF

(DISTURBED)

11

300 - 500
EFFECTIVE STRESS 800-1000
)
30 .. PACKER
PACKER 2, 3 4
( 17)
CROSS HOLE ULTRASONIC
TESTING SENSOR
( 18 )
18 CROSS- HOLE ULTRASONIC
17
12
-12-
) GROUTING CELL (FLAT-JECK)

GROUTING CELL

GROUTING CELL

GROUTING CELL

GROUTING CELL 19
19 GROUTING CELL
13
) NONE RETURN VALVE

TUBE-A-MANCHETTES (U)
( 20) 2 (2 CIRCUITES)
TUBE A - MANCHETTES
1/2
GROUTING PUMP NONE RETURN VALVE
20 TUBE-A- MANCHETTE
3
TUBE-A-MANCHETTES
3500
TUBE-A-MANCHETTES ,
14
4. TUBE-A-MANCHETTES
4.1

(MULTI-STAGES)
2
4.2
CIRCUITS
( 15 ..)
( 12 - 24 .. )
FLUSH
VALVE TUBE-A-MANCHETTES
24 ..
10 - 25 BARS
VALVE TUBE-A-MANCHETTES
5 - 10
(STAGE)
FLUSH
( )

12 - 24 ..
21 22
15
21
22
16
4.3

500 , 1000
2
1000
500 40 BARS 60 BARS

40 - 60 BARS
3 3000 - 10000
3 - 10
40 - 60 BARS

10 - 15
(CEMENTED)
4.4
100
50-55 (W/C) 0.50-0.55
55 100
90 1-2

4.5

17
)

1 12 ..

60 BARS 3
3 - 4 10
HYDROFRACTURE

1 2
1000 5 - 10

2
)
CIRCUITS TUBE-AMANCHETTES CRACK

2 3 %

CIRCUITS
FLUSH CIRCUITS
4.6
(BASE GROUTED)
(SINGLE STAGE) 2 (TWO STAGE) 3 (MULTI
STAGES) (NON BASED GROUTED)

18
4.6.1 SP
1.50 . 55 . 500

(NON GROUTED) 60 . BASE
GROUTED 55 . 60 . BASE GROUTED
3 1000 500
60 BARS
10 8
10000
NON GROUTED
2500 3000
18 .. 45 ..
BASE GROUTED 55 60 .
3250 3500
28 .. 58 ..
23 BASE GROUTED
55
Non Grouted vs. Toe Grouted (Silom) - SP
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
N
o
n
T
o
e
T
o
e
G
r
o
u
t
e
d
G
r
o
u
t
e
d
G
r
o
u
t
e
d
Stiff Clay
Silty Clay
10
P
i
l
e
P
i
l
e
P
i
l
e
Load (ton)
0
Dense Sand
Hard Clay
Settlement (mm)
-10
Soft Clay
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Age: 94 days
20
30
Age: 55 days
40
50
Dense Sand
60
Non-Grouted Pile - Dia. 1.5x 60.0m
T oe Grouted Pile A - Dia. 1.5x 55.16m (3 Stages - total 2000 ltr)
T oe Grouted Pile B - Dia. 1.5x 60.0m (3 Stages - total 2000 litr)
23 SP
19
-19-
4000
4.6.2 J.T.C.
1.50 . 60.0 .
300 NON
GROUTED

NON GROUTED

2500 3000
20 .. 55 ..

NON GROUTED NON
GROUTED SP 4.6.1
4
4
30 - 50 .. PACKER
2 1000 500
40 BARS 55
3000
3000 24 .. 20 ..
3 (60 BARS) SP 4.6.1
3000 25 .. 24
Non Grouted vs. Toe Grouted (Silom) - JTC
-20
Load (ton)
Soft Clay
0
Stiff Clay
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Age: 115 days
10
Clayey Sand
20
-30
Dense Sand
-40
Silty Clay
-50
Dense Sand
50
Silty Clay
60
-60
500
Settlement (mm)
-10
30
40
Age: 60 days
Dense Sand
Non-Grouted Pile - Dia. 1.5x63.72m

Toe Grouted Pile - Dia. 1.5x63.72m (2 Stages - total 1000 ltr)
24 J.T.C.
20
4.6.3
G.D.P. ()
NON GROUTED BASE

GROUTED
1.50 . 60 .
57 61
NONGROUTED 2175
18 .. PROGRESSIVE SETTLEMENT
2175 15 .. PROGRESSIVE
SETTLEMENT 43 ..
BASE GROUTED 2 1000
500
40 BARS
1500
2925 21 ..

25
Non Grouted vs. Toe Grouted (Prathu-Nam) GDP
-20
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
10
Hard Clay
-50
-60
500
Stiff Clay
-30
-40
Load (ton)
Soft Clay
Settlement (mm)
-10
20
Age: 61 days
30
40
50
Age: 57 days
60
Dense Sand
70
Sandy Clay
25 G.D.P.
21
4.6.4
CNW
NON GROUTED BASE GROUTED

1.50 . 60 .
1000 500
40 BARS 1500
2
NON GROUTED 2325
24 .. 16 .. BASE
GROUTED 3150 24 .. 17.5
.. LOAD VS SETTLEMENT (16
..) NON GROUTED BASE GROUTED
2300 3000 26
Non Grouted vs. Toe Grouted (V-Rangsit) -CNW
-20
500
10
Hard Clay
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Stiff Clay
-30
-40
Load (ton)
Soft Clay
Settlement (mm)
-10
Age: 82 days
20
Age: 62 days
-50
-60
Dense Sand
Sandy Clay
30
26 CNW
22
4.6. 5 YWW 3 (DIA . 1.50 .)

TURN KEY PROJECT
1000
DIA. 1.50 . 500 1.00 .
PILOT PILE TEST 1.50 . 60 .

1500 15 ..
PROGRESSIVE SETTLEMENT 50
.. 1600
60 . SOFT TOE

55 . BASE GROUTED
1 (SINGLE STAGE) 500
40 BARS
BASE GROUTED 2500 24
.. 28 .. 27
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
T
o
e
G
r
o
u
t
e
d
G
r
o
u
t
e
d
P
i
l
e
P
i
l
e
Soft-toe vs. Toe Grouted (Rama III Road) YWW
Load (ton)
Soft Clay
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Stiff Clay
10
Hard Clay
Settlement (mm)
-10
N
o
n
20
30
40
Dense Sand
with
Clay seams
50
Silty Clay
Silty Clay

Toe Grouted Pile - Dia. 1.5x55.0m (500 ltr 1 Stage)
27 YWW . 3 Dia.1.50 .
23
4.6.5
YWW 3 (DIA. 1.00 .)
4.6.5
NON GROUTED 1.50 .
60
1.00 .
1250 24 .. 32 ..
BASE GROUTED 55
. 1.50 . 4.6.5
1250 24
.. 17.5 .. NON GROUTED
14.50 .. 28
Non Grouted vs. Toe Grouted (Rama III Road) YWW
-20
-30
-40
-50
N
o
n
T
o
e
G
r
o
u
t
e
d
G
r
o
u
t
e
d
P
i
l
e
P
i
l
e
Soft Clay
Stiff Clay
Hard Clay
Dense Sand
with
Clay seams
-60
Load (ton)
Silty Clay
Dense Sand
Silty Clay
500
1000
1500
Settlement (mm)
-10
10
20
30
40

Toe Grouted Pile - Dia. 1.0x55.0m (500 ltr 1 Stage)
28 YWW . 3 Dia. 1.00.
5.

NON GROUTED BASE GROUTED 4
BASE
24
GROUTED NON GROUTED

BASE GROUTED NON GROUTED
BASE GROUTED

BASE GROUTED
BASE GROUTED
CP BASE GROUTED
500 1.20 . 56 .
1000 500
PILOT PILE TEST 1 4
BASE GROUTING 1875 (2.5
750 ) 1875 24 ..
22 .. CONTRACT PILE
BASE GROUTED PILE
1000
1
80 1875
24 .. 14 ..
29
Non Grouted vs. Toe Grouted - CP
-20
Clayey Sand
500
1000
1500
Stiff Clay
Silty Clay
-30
Sand
-40
Silty Clay
-50
Silty Clay
Dense Sand
-60
Load (ton)
Soft Clay
Dense Sand
Settlement (mm)
-10
10
20
30
Silty Clay
Toe Grouted Pile - Dia. 1.2x55.87m (Grouted Soil)

Toe Grouted Pile - Dia. 1.2x55.90m (Virgin Soil)
29 CP
25
-25-
2000

(DENSIFIED)
(80 ) BASE STIFFNESS
6.

ROTARY DRILL

7.
- 2534. ,
, .
- , . 2539. ,
, .
- M.J. Tomlinson. 1955. Pile Design snd Construction Practice (Fourth Edition) , Published by E & FN Spon, UK.
- W. Teparaksa 1992. Behaviour of Base-Grouted Bored Pile in Bangkok Subsoil, Piling: European Practice and Worldwide
Trend., Thomas Telford. London
- D.E.Sherwood & J.M. Milchell 1989. Base Grouted Piles in Thanet Sand, London.Proceeding of the International
Conference on Piling and Deep Foundation.,London
-J.A. Yeats & N.J.O. Riordan 1989. The Design and Construction of Large Diameter Base Grouted Piles in Thanet Sand at
Blackwall Yard, London. Proceeding of the International Conference on Piling and Deep Foundation, London
-M. Francescon & S.A. Solera 1992. Base Grouting to Improve Performance of Pile Bored Under Bentonite
in the Thanet Sands. Grouting in the Ground., Proceeding of the Conference organized by the Institution of Civil
Engineer and Held in London on November
-The Institution of Civil Engineers1996. Specification for Piling and Embeded Retaining Walls, Published
by Thomas Telford
26
2000
14-15 2543
Experiences & Developments of Deep Bored Piles Construction in Bangkok Subsoils

26/10 109
.10510
Home page: www.seafco.co.th
E-mail: seafco@seafco.co.th

33 33

Abstract
Deep wet process bored piles become one of the major foundation elements used to support medium
to large scale structures. This piling system has been introduced in Bangkok since more than 33 years ago. It's
technique has been continuously developed since the beginning, and nowadays the performance, quality and
bearing behavior of piles are far better than those of 33 years ago. As a result this piling system become
popular among designers and contractors. This paper presents experience and development of the deep wet
process bored piles constructed in Bangkok subsoil, covering the actual problematic aspects of parameters
which influence both performance and bearing behavior of the bored piles. The possible problems and
difficulties during construction, which both design engineers and inspectors need to know and take into
consideration in design and site work are also described.
1.
.. 2510

( , 2528)
Reverse circulation drilling Technique ( 1)
27
1
20 ..2520
Rotary Drilling under bentonite
slurry displacement technique ( 2)
,
,
1.
2.
3.
4.
1 Reverse circulation drilling technique ( 2528)

VIBRATOR
TEMPORARY
CASING
REINFORCEMENT
CAGE
TREMIE PIPE
BUCKET
INSTALLATION OF
TEMP. CASING
DRILLING
REINFORCEMENT
INSTALLATION
CONCRETING
(TREMIE METHOD)
REMOVAL OF
TEMP. CASING
2 Rotary drilling technique ( ,2542 )

(Barrette)
(Rectangular) (L-Shape) (T-Shape) (Cruciform)
3
(Parameters)

28
2
TREMIE PIPE
REINFORCEMENT
CAGE
EXCAVATION
INSTALLATION OF
REINFORCEMENT
CONCRETING
(TREMIE METHOD)
3 Barrette (, 2542 )
1.1

(Performance Versus Design)
(Designed parameters)
Katzenbach & Moormann (1998)
1.1.1
(Realistic prognosis of the bearing behaviour of bored piles based on a reliable
design method.)
1.1.2
(Influences of the installation effect on the bearing behaviour of bored piles.)
1.1.3 (Evolution & technical progress of the
drilling and bore techniques.)
1.1.4
(Measures to prevent damages of bored piles due to mistakes during execution)
1.1.5 (Supervision & monitoring
of executing bored piles.)
1.1.6
(Quality assurance & control during piling work & on finished bored piles.)
1.1.7 (Problematic aspects of bored piles
design.)
29
2.2
(Parameters)
1

1 (Parameters
influencing the bearing behavior of bored piles)
(Soil type)
(Stratification)
(Properties of the
soils)
(Hydraulic
conditions)

(Chemical ingredient of soil &ground
water)
(Diameter &
length)
(Type of
concrete)
(Reinforcement)

(Condition of surface & base of piles)

(Grouted or none -grouted)
(Type of drilling equipment )

(Type of slurry)
(Method of excavation)
(Grouting method)
(Experience of
tremie concrete )
( Method of extraction of casing )
(Negative skin friction)

(Tension forces)
(Shinking & swelling

of subsoil)

(Durability )
.. 2528-2540
30

2.0
70
(Base grouted bored pile) (Shaft
grouted bored pile) Barrette

2-3 Barrette
( 4)
4 3.80 (After Tonnisen et al, 1985)
2.
2.1
2.1.1
(Rotary drilling under bentonite slurry displacement technique)
.. 2520 30-35
80-100
200-300

2.1.2 .. 2523-2524

31
5

( 2524)
( 2524)
80,100.120 150 250,350,450 800
150. 32 1600
2.0 60 ( 5)
2.1.3 .. 2524-2526
55
80,100,120150 300,450,550950
2.5
15 ( 6)
Load (Ton)
Load (tons)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
20
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Settlement (mm)
40
Settlement (mm)
60
80
100
10
120
Tai Ping Towers Condominium Project

Bored Pile 150x32m, Tested on August 1980
1000 . 53

.. 2524-2526
.. 2523
2.1.4
..2527-2540 60
150
(Performance
& bearing behavior of piles)
32

(Durability)

(Durability)
150 .

( 7) ( , 2542)
L o a d (to n )
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Soft Clay
-10
P ile B
S e ttle m e nt (m m )
10
-20
-30
20
P ile A
Pile B (Toe Grouted)
500
Pile A (Non Grouted)
Stiff Clay
Hard Clay
-40
30
-50
40
-60
Dense Sand with

Clay Seam
Silty Clay
Sand
Silty Clay
50
7
( , 2542) : Pile A: Plain bored pile, Pile B: Base grouted bored pile
2.00
(Base grouted bored pile)
9 .. 2527 2528
(Morrison et al, 1987)
Rotary drilling technique

8 100 .
32.8 200 .
55
500 Silom Precious Tower (
Royal Chareonkrung ) ..2533 9
33
Load (ton)
0
LOAD (Tons)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2000
1100
10
AFTER GROUTED THE BASE
Settlement (mm)
5
PILE WITH SOFT BASE
10
15
3000
4000
SETTLEMENT (mm)
1000
Age: 94 days
20
30
Age: 55 days
40
50
20
60
25

Toe Grouted Pile A - Dia. 1.5x55.16m (3 Stages - total 2000 ltr)
Toe Grouted Pile B - Dia. 1.5x60.0m (3 Stages - total 2000 litr)
8

9 (, 2540)
9
2 Silom
Precious Tower
2.1.5 ..2540
2.2
2.2.1 (Rotary drilling rigs)
Rotary
drilling rig ..2520 Mechanical
(Crawler crane) 40-80 (10)
..2535 Hydraulic
Fully hydraulic & self erection drilling rig ( 11)
(Torque) 80
,
60
34
8
10 Mechanical drilling rig

(Crane mounted rig)
11 Full hydraulic &self

erection rig
(Auger) (Bucket) ( 12)

Friction Lock Kelly Bar
Mechanical Internal Kelly Lock
Rock Augur Core Barrel ( 12) 13
Core Barrel
(Auger)
(Bucket)
Rock Auger
12 Auger Bucket
Core Barrels
12 Rock Auger Core Barrels
35
9
13 Core Barrels 1.20m

2.2.2 (Grabs)

(Barrette)
() ..2521 Kelly grab (14)
Cable hang grab (15) International
Trade Center (Thasnanipan et al 1998) ..2528

Hydraulic Grab ( 16) Hydromill ( 17)
Mechanical Hang Grab
Baby hang grab (18)
Rotary (, , , 2542)
14 barrette Kelly grab
36
10
15 Barrette Mechanical Hang grab
16 Barrette Hydraulic Hang Grab
17 Barrette Hydromill
18 Baby hang grab (2542)

2.2.3

(Silt) (Clay) Silty clay (Sand) Silty
sand ..2520-2535

(Desander unit) (Silt)

(,, 2543) (Silt)
Desander unit
(19) ..2535

Desander Desilting unit
37
11
Silt
(20)
19 Desander
Silt
20 Desander Desilting unit

Silt (,2542 )
2.2.4

Density, Viscosity, Sand content pH value
Mud balance, Mash cone, Sand screen set pH testing paper ( 21)

(Filter cake) (Shear strength)

Fluid loss testing unit Shearometer (22)
21 Density, Viscosity,
Sand content
38
12
22 Filter &Fluid loss

Shearometer
3.
3.1
4
500 (Balasubramanium, 1991) 23
60 2-3
12
(Medium clay) 15-18
(Stiff to very stiff or hard clay) 5-10
25-30
(Actual pore pressure) (Hydrostatic
pressure) Piezometric drawn down pressure
Effective overburden pressure
20 (Depressurization of sand layer)
P o re P re ss ure (t/m )
Average Engineering
Parameters
20
30
40
50
40
60
Bangkok Soft Clay (BSC)

(CH)
Su = 10 - 20 KPa
t = 14-16 KN/m3
-1 0
Medium to Very Stiff Clay Su = 40 - 140 KPa

-2 0
(CH)
t = 17-21.0 KN/m3
Dense to Very Dense

Sand (SM)
-3 0
SPT-N = 20 - 50
t = 20.0 KN/m3
Su = 250 KPa -4 0
Hard Clay (CL)
t = 21.2 KN/m3
ine
cL
tati
ros
Hy
ine
nL
ow
wD
Dra
etric
om
iez
al P
Actu
Depth (m)
10
20
Weathered Crust
-5 0
Dense to Very Dense
Sand (SM)
SPT-N = 50 - 100
t = 20.0 KN/m3
60
-6 0
23 Piezometic Level (Thasnanipan et al ,1998)
3.2

(Piles embedment condition) ( 24)
,

39
13
1.
2.
3.
0
BANGKOK SOFT CLAY
10
20
FIRST STIFF CLAY
FIRST STIFF CLAY

SAND
30
DARK GREY CLAY
40
50
60
10
30
40
STIFF CLAY
STIFF CLAY
SAND
HARD CLAY
20
50
60
SAND
HARD CLAY
70
70
24
Meiner et al, 1993
t/d=2 (t d )
(Punching mechanism)
( 25)
Qs = Shaft
Capacity
Qb = Base
Capacity
25
(Meiner et al, 1993)
4.

40
4.1 (Bentonite slurry)

Fort Benton Wyoming
Bentonite Benton 3
Natural Sodium Bentonite (Swelling Ability) Liquid Limit
Fluid Loss
Natural Calcium Bentonite Liquid Limit
Filter Loss Fluid Loss
Sodium-activated Calcium Bentonite Sodium Carbonate

Calcium Bentonite Natural Sodium Bentonite

4.1.1.
(Viscous Slurry) ( Exposure time Contact

Time) (Thick) (Thin)
(Agitation) Thixotropy Characteristic (, 2543)

(Gel) (Agitated)
(Disperse)
(Fluid)
4.1.2
Hutchinson et al (1974)
(Functions)
)
)
)
)
)
)
41
15
) ) (Thick slurries)
) ) (Fluid slurries) Reese et al (1985)

(An Ideal Slurry, therefore, is impossible. However, effective slurry is
possible with control.)
4.1.3
2
2
2
Density, March Viscosity, pH Value,
Sand Content Fluid Loss 3.5-6.0%
Density 1.02-1.04 g/cm3
Density 1.20 g/cm3
3 ICE (1996)
Silt ( ,
2543)
2
Authors
FPS (1975, Hutchingson et FDOT (1987,

1977)
al. (1975)
1988)
Reese and
O' Neil
ICE (1988)
(1988)
ACI (1989)
*AASHTO
(1992)
Bentonite
Bentonite or
Bentonite or
or
Bentonite Bentonite or Polymer
Attapulgite
Attapulgite
Attapulgite
<1.36 (bearing pile)
1.03 to 1.10
1.03 to 1.20 1.03 to 1.20
<1.10
<1.12 (firction pile)
1.03 to 1.20
<1.02 (Polymer)
8 to 11
8 to 12
8 to 11
9.5 to 12
8 to 12
8 to 11
<4% (bearing pile)
<4%
<4%
<25% (friction pile)
<4%
(by volume)
<1% (Polymer)
(by volume)
Slurry Type
Bentonite
Calcium
Bentonite
Density
(gm/cc)
<1.10
1.024 to 1.218
pH
9.5 to 12
<11.7
Sand Content
<6%
(by weight)
<35% (by
weight)
30 to 90
28 to 40
28 to 45
30 to 90
26 to 50
28 to 45
28 to 45
<20
<20
<20
<20
Marsh Funnel
Viscosity
(sec/Qt)
Plastic Viscosity
(cP)
Yield Point
(Pa)
10 min. Gel
Strength (Pa)
Differential Head
(m)
Fluid Loss
(30 minute test)
**Maximum
Contact Time
(hr.)
Notes :
*Majano & O' *ICE & FPS

Neil (1993)
(1996)
Bentonite
Bentonite
1.02 to 1.07
1.02 to 1.13
<1.10
<1.15
8 to 10
8 to 10
9.5 to 10.8
9.5 to 11.7
<4 %
<10%
<2%
<2%
32 to 60
32 to 60
30 to 70
< 90
6 to 8.5
6 to 10.0
2 to 6.0
2 to 6.5
4 to 40
3.6 to 20
1.9 to 10
4 to 40
4 to 40
4 to 40
>1
1.5
< 40
<60
* Upper line for as supplied to pile and lower line for sample from pile prior to placing concrete
** Without agitation and sidewall cleaning
42
3 Test and compliance values for support fluid (ICE, 1996)

Property to be measured
Density
Fluid loss
(30 minute test)
Viscosity
Shear strength
(10 min gel strength)
Sand Content
PH
Test Method and

apparatus
Mud balance
Low temperature
test fluid loss
Marsh Cone
Fann Viscometer
Sand screen set
Compliance values measured at 20 C

Sample from pile prior to
As Supplied to pile
placing concrete
API RP13
Section
Less than 1.10 g/ml
2
2
4
(2)
Less than 1.15 g/ml
Less than 40 ml
Less than 60 ml
30 to 70 seconds
(27 - 50)(1)
4 to 40 N/m2
Less than 90 sec.

( Less than 60 sec.) (1)
4 to 40 N/m2
Less than 2%
9.5 - 10.8
(8 - 11) (1)
Less than 2%
9.5 - 11.7
(<12) (1)
1). 2.) Electrical pH meter pH paper

4.1.4.
(Filter Cake) Filter Cake

Filter Cake
Surface Filtration
(Rheological
Blocking) Deep Filtration
Filter Cake
Filter Cake 26 27
Filter Cake Filter
Cake
26 Tremie (Reese et al,

1985)
27 Tremie
filter cake (Reese et al, 1985)
4.1.5
Filter Cake
43
17
Wates & Knight (1975)

(Non Agitation) Filter Cake
Fleming et al (1977) 24

(Agitated) Filter Cake
Filter Cake
Exposure Time Contact Time
ACI 336.1.94 (Non
Agitation) 4 24
Filter Cake

Littlechild et al (1988a)
Hopewel
24 ( 28)
Viscosity Viscosity 35 sec/quart

24 Viscosity 35 sec/quart
4

11 (VWSGs Extensometer)
40
11
4 24

44
18
1.25
1.60
SRT1
Actual / Estimated Shaft Capacity
Actual / calculated shaft resistance
1.50
SRT3
1.00
C10
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
10
25
29 (pile age at load testing, days)
1.40
18
32
27
32
39
1.20
24
19
1.00
32
15
0.80
0.60
15
20
25
30
35
40
5.0
45
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Construction Time (hours)
Construction time (hrs)
29 Effect of construction time on shaft

capacity of bored piles. (Thasnanipan et al, 1998)
28 Performance of plain bentonite piles

versus construction time (Littlechild et al, 1998a)
4.1.6

Cleaning Bucket
Recycle (Air Lift)
( 30)
Soft toe

30
(Flemming et al, 1977)
5.2 (Polymer Slurry )

Hydrocarbon
(Biodegradation)
(, , , 2543)
45
19
(Strand) Gel
( 31)
POLYMER STRANDS
Increasing Formation
Cohesion
POLYMER
GELS
POLYMER
STRANDS
POLYMER-FORMATION
INTERFACE
POLYMER
SLURRY
ASSOCIATIVE POLYMER GELS &

POLYMER STRANDS
Plugging Formation Pores &
Increasing Soil Cohesion
PORES
ASSOCIATIVE POLYMER GELS

Plugging Formation Pores
SOIL
GRAINS
31
( 32)
33

High Fluid Loss

Density
Load (Tons)
0
120
79.1
74.5
76.3
400
600
800
1000
1200
79.9
97.7
92.3
82.0
10.0
Settlemet (mm)
Skin friction
(%)
Total load
80
98.1
Using Polymer Slurry
100
200
0.0
Using Bentonite Slurry
60
40
20
0
20.0
Project X
Thon buri
Bangkok
MRTA
TP-10
TP-6
TP-3
TP1
30.0
40.0
32

Bored Pile at Bangkok Side

Diameter = 800mm
Pile tip = -49.00 m
33
800mm 47 (
, 2543)
46
20
5.
Fleming
Slewinski (1977)
(Normal Soil Conditions) 1977
4 Bartholomew (1979) Cement Content Water Cement Ratio
(Normal)
(Highly very highly agressive)
5
4 Suggested Concrete Mix for Bored Piles Cast under Bentonite (After Fleming & Sliwinski 1977)
Slump
Water/Cement
Aggregate Type
Sand Type
Sand Content
Cement Content
Admixture
>175 mm.
Below 0.6
Natural round stone if possible, 20 mm. max. size
Natural and complying with zone 2 or 3 grading
30% to 45% of total aggregate weight
Not less than 400 kg./m3
The use suitable admixture which will improve the workability and extend
the period during which such workability is maintained are to be advocated.
5 Range of Cement Content and Water Cement Ratio in General use for Concrete Mixes (After
Bartholomew 1979)
Pile Type
Precast
Bored Piles Dry Process
Bored Piles with Tremie
Process
Driven Cast-In-Situ Piles
Cement
Normal
Content (kg/m3)
w/c
Content (kg/m3)
w/c
Content (kg/m3)
w/c
Content (kg/m3)
w/c
450-475
0.4 - 0.5
300-450
0.5 - 0.55
350-450
0.5 - 0.6
280-370
0.25 - 0.6
Conditions
Moderately
Aggressive
450-475
0.4
350-450
0.475 - 0.5
350-450
0.475 - 0.5
330-450
0.3 - 0.55
Highly and Very Highly

Aggressive
450-475
0.4
380-500
0.45 - 0.5
400-500
0.43 - 0.45
370-500
0.3 - 0.45
5.1
Reese O' Neil (1988)

(Excellent Fluidity)
(Self Compaction under Self Weight)
(Resistance to Segregation)
(Controlled Setting)
(Resistance to Hash Environment)
47
21
(Resistance to Leaching)
(Appropriate Strength and Stiffness)

(Slump Test), (Retardation Time)
(Compressive Strength)

(Cohesiveness Resistance to Segregation)

5.1.1

(Bleeding) (34)
,
(Water Cement Ratio)
(High Permeability)
(Tremie Pipe)
(Blocked)
(35)
34
(Thorborn et al 1977)
35
Slewinski & Fleming (1982) (Bleeding)

(Tremie)
(Cement Content)
(Water Cement Ratio) Bartholomew (1977)
48
22
(Aggressive Subsurface
Condition)
Thorburn & Thorburn, (1979)
(Permeable Material)

Reese & ONeil (1988) -

(Leaching)

(36) 37
(High Permeability)
Crust Soil
Capillary Suction Thru
Previous Tremie
Location
Permeable
Soil
Water Flow into High

Permeable Concrete
Soft to Stiff
Clay
36
37
5.1.2
(Aggressive Subsurface Condition)
Fleming et al, (1992) (Highly

Saline Ground Water)
49
23
5.2 (Permeability)
, (2536) (Durability)

(Permeability)

(Permeability)

(38) (Capillary porosity)
(W/C Ratio) (Degree of Hydration)
W/C Ratio 0.6 (39)
38
( 2536)
39
(, 2536)
Capillary Pore Inter Connection Void ( 40)

(41)
Full Self Compaction
50
24
40 -
Capillary Pore ( 2536)
41 - Capillary
Pore ( 2536)
5.3
(Inter Connection Void)

Permeable Material -
5.3.1 Hydraulic Permeability

, ,

5.3.2 Water Absorbed by Capillary Action
Inter Connection Void ( 42) Inter
Connection Void
(43) (Bleeding)
43
(, 2536)
42
( 2536)
51
25
6.

0.5%

1%

44 (Flemming
( 44)
et al, 1977)
7.
(Tremie Concrete)
(End Product)
(Integrity)
7.1 (First Batch) (Plug)

7.2 ( 45)
45 (Reese et al, 1985)

7.3
7.4
, , Filter Cake
52
26
7.5

filter cake (46)
7.6
7.7 (Jarring) ( 47)
Bentonite
Mix zone
Mix zone
New
concrete
Rigidification
area
Fluidization
area
Previous
concrete
1
1.
2.
3.
1.
46
2.
3.
47
7.8
7.9 (
48)
7.10 Workability , ,
,
49
48
49
53
27
7.11 Slump Flowability

7.12 (Stiff) (Initial Set)

8. (Grouted Bored Pile)
(Soil relaxation)
Overburden Pressure Stress Refief
(Disturbed)

8.1 (Shaft grouted bored piles)

Hopewell ( BERTS
) 50 51
50 Arrangement of initial shaft grout circuit 51 Arrangements of final shaft grout detail
(Littlechild et al, 1998b)
detail (Littlechild et al, 1998b)
54
28

52
52 Load versus pile head movement for pile shaft grouted in sand showing initial
and reload test loading (Littlechid et al, 1998b)
8.2 (Base grouted bored piles)

.. 2527
9
Tube-A-Manchette 53
54
Load (ton)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
P.E. TUBE
I.D. = 25mm
Settlement (mm)
10
RUBBER
SLEEVE
RUBBER
SLEEVE
20
30
Age: 61 days
40
50
Age: 57 days
60
SECTION AT BASE
PILE BASE
70
ELEVATION

53
Tube-A-Manchette (, 2540)
54
(, 2540)
55
9.
9.1
(Preliminary pile load test)
()
2
9.1.1 (Static Load Testing)
(Anchor piles) 4 Hydraulic
(Reaction Frame)
Dial Gauge Instruments

5,000
55 56
Applied Load (Tons)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Pile Head Movement (mm)
20
40
60
Barrette
80
55 Test frame Barrette 1.5x3.0

57.0
1.50mx3.0m pile tip at -57.5m
56 barrette
9.1.2 (Dynamic Load Testing)

30%

57
56
30
Post analysis:
e.g.:
Signal matching
Soil/pile modelling
Soil resistance
Hammer modelling
Plotter/printer
Storage of signals
and data
Display
Signal
conditioning
and on-site
analysis
Printed
output
Connection box
Accelerometer signals
Strain signals
57
9.2 (Integrity Test)

2
9.2.1 Sonic Integrity Test

Impedance (EA/c: E=Youngs modulus , A= , c=
) Sensor
Reflectogram ( 58)
58 Principle of time-based low strain integrity test (Turner, 1997)

Deflectogram 3 (Turner, 1997)
57
31
9.2.1.1 (Type 0)
( 59)
59 Reflectogram Type 0 (Turner, 1997)

9.2.1.2 (Type 1)
60

9.2.1.3 (Type 2)

Impedance
61
58
9.2.2 Sonic Integrity Test (beta method)

Sonic Integrity Test Impedance
Impedance
0.85
(Rejected)

Reflectogram
15
Shoe 2 3 . 15
5-10 . 62 (Thasananipan et al, 2000)
Med.
clay
Very soft clay
Stiff clay Dense sand
Temporary casing
bottom level
Pile Cut-off level
Nominal dia./dia. of
drilling tool
Outer diameter of
casing collar
11.0 cm/s
Pile 66
25 Jun 97
12
15 18
4000 m/s
exp : 20
21
24
27
f: 8
30 v2-88c
sr
62
60 .
67 . ( 3524
..) 60 . (
2826 . .) Impedance
2826/3524 = 0.80

9.2.3 Sonic Logging Test

Sonic Logging Test
(Transit Time or Travelling Time) Sonic/Ultrasonic 2
(Piezo-Electric Probe)
59
33
(Transmitter or Emitter) (Receiver)

Schematic (63)
Probes Sonic/Ultrasonic Probe
Density Log Probe X
Y 64
Signal
generator
Electrical
impulse
Winch with
sensor
Zero
Signal
Processing
Received
signal
Thermal
printer
Digital
oscilloscope
Sonic profile
print-out
Voltage proportional
to the depth of the test
Concrete pile
Transmitter
Receiver
63 Elements of sonic logging system

(after Strain and Williams, 1991)
64 Typical Sonic profile from sonic

logging
Sonic Logging Profile (homogenous

concrete) Sonic Logging Test (no
anomalies) sonic
65 sonic
sonic 66 2
Sonic Profile
65 Typical horizontal positioning of probes

66 Possible diversion of signal

67
60
()
()
()
()
()
()
() (bleeding)
()
() 12.5 13
()
67 Sonic logging test ( , 2542)
10.
,

5,000
(Parameters)

1) ,
,
2)
3)

4) 4
24
5)
61
6)

11.
12.
AASHO (1992), Standard and specification for highway bridges.

ACI (1994), Standard specification for end bearing drilled piers, (ACI 336.1)
ADSC (1995) Standard and specification for the foundation drilling industry. (Incorporating ACI 336.1 94)
ADSC and DFI (1989), Drill shaft inspector's manual.
Balasubramanium, A. S. (1991), Inaugural Lecture on Contributions in Geotechnical Engineering Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, AIT, Bangkok.
British Standard Institution, BS8004: Code of practice for foundation, BSI London.
Flemming, W. G. K. and Sliwinski, Z. J. (1977), The use and influence of bentonite in bored pile
construction, CIRIA report PG3.
Fleming, W. G. K., Weltman, A. J., Randolph, M. F., Elson, W. K. (1992), Piling Engineering, John
Wiley&Sons, Inc.
Katzenbach, R. and Moormann, C. (1998), Large Diameter Bored Pile, Performance versus Design,
Keynote Lecture, 3rd International Geotechnical Seminar on Bored&Auger Piles, Ghent, Belgium.
Littlechild B., Plumbridge G. (1998a), Effect of Construction Technique on the Behavior of Plain Bored
Cast In-situ Piles Constructed Under Drilling Slurry, Conference Papers of 7th International Conference and
Exhibition on Piling and Deep Foundations, Vienna, Austria, pp. 1.6.1 to1.6.8.
Littlechild B., Plumbridge G., Free M. W. (1998b), Shaft Grouted Piles in Sand and Clay in Bangkok,
Conference Papers of 7th International Conference and Exhibition on Piling and Deep Foundations, Vienna,
Austria, pp. 1.7.1 to1.7.8.
Morrison, I. M., Freeman, R. A., Paveenchana T., Ferguson, D. R., (1987), Bored Piled Foundations for
Chao Phya River Crossing at Wat Sai, Bangkok, Proc. 9th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference,
Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 6-207 to 6-218.
Reese, L. C. and Tucker, K. L. (1985), Bentonite slurry in constructing drilled piers, Drilled piers and
caisson II, ASCE convention., Denver, Colorado, USA.
Reese, L. C. and ONiel, M. W. (1988), Drill Shafts Construction Procedures and Design Methods, US.
Department of Transportation Incorporation with ADSC.
62
36
Sliwinski, Z. J. and Fleming, W. G. K. (1974), Practical consideration affecting the performance of

diaphragm walls, Proceedings of the conference on diaphragm wall and anchorage, ICE, London.
Sliwinski, Z. J. and Fleming, W. G. K. (1982), The Integrity and performance of bored piles, Advance in
Piling&Ground Treatment for Foundation, ICE, London., pp.153-165
Stain, R.T. & Williams, H.T. (1991) Interpretation of Sonic Coring Results: A research Project. , 4th
international DFI conference Piling and Deep Foundations., Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1991, pp.
633-640
Thasananipan N., Anwar M.A., Muang, A.W. & Tansengs, P. (1999), Performance comparison of bored
and excavated piles in the layered soils of Bangkok., Symposium on Innovative solutions in structural and
geotechnical engineering, In honor of professor Seng Lip Lee, AIT, Bangkok., Thailand, pp. 345-353.
Thasananipan N., Baskaran G. & Anwar, M. A (1998), Effect of construction time and bentonite viscosity
on shaft capacity of bored piles, 3rd Intl. Geotechnical seminar on deep foundations on bored and auger
piles, Ghent, Belgium, Balkema, pp. 171-177.
Thasananipan N., Anwar M. A. and Muang A. W. (1999a), Failure Mechanism of Long Bored Piles in
Layer Soils of Bangkok, Civil and Environmental Engineering Conference New Frontiers and Challenges,
AIT, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. V69 V74.
Thasananipan, N., Muang, A. W., Navaneethan, T. (2000), Non-Destructive Integrity Testing on Piles
Founded in Bangkok Subsoils, 6th International Conference on the Application of Stress Wave Theory to
Piles (Stress Wave 2000), So Paulo City, Brazil, (Paper has been accepted by organizing committee)
The Institution of Civil Engineers, ICE (1996), Specification for piling and Embedded Retaining wall
(1996) Thomas Telford. London.
Thorburn, S. and Thorburn J. Q. (1977), Review of problems associated with the construction of cast-inplace piles, CIRIA report PG.2
Tonnisen, J. Y., Den Haan, E. J., Luger, H. J., and Dobie M. J. D. (1985), Pier foundations of the Saudi
Arabia-Bahrain causeway, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, pp. 1575-1578
Turner, M.J. (1997) Integrity testing in piling practice, Construction Industry Research and Information
Association. CIRIA Report 144 , London, UK., pp. 208-229
(2536) Concrete Technology, CPAC
(2528), ,
(2524),
, 1 , ., 63 70
(2540), ,
40, ..., . ,, 1-26
63
37
(2542),
, 2542, . 9-16
, , (2542),
, 5, , GTE144-GTE149
, , (2543),
: ,
6, , GTE211-GTE216
(2543)
, 6, ,
GTE115-GTE120
, (2542),
Sonic Logging ,
2542, . 1-8
(2540),
, 40, ..., . ,,
27-47
(2524), , 1, , .,
1 54
64
38
16 17 2543
2543
Thai Standardization of the Construction of Wet Process Bored Piles

in Line with Global Standards

26/10 109 10510
. 9190090 . 5183088
E-Mail: seafco@seafco.co.th
50
20

,
Abstract
Wet process bored piles have become popular in many countries since over 50 years ago, and
have been first constructed in Bangkok subsoil over 20 years ago. In the past few decades, piles
constructed with this system in Bangkok have been designed to carry the load significantly less than
the pile capacities at this day. The positive development in application of these piles today comes from
the proper selection of modern piling equipment, advanced construction techniques and practical
specifications. Hence, bored piles constructed in recent days provide better integrity with higher load
carrying capacity as well as less impact to the environment than those constructed in the past. This
paper discusses on the clauses of impractical construction specifications used in Thailand which need
to be improved to suit the global standards of wet process bored piling works.
30
65
1.
, ,
2.

(Installation) ,
(Maximum construction time and Maximum contact time),
(Allowable Tolerances)

3.
20

(, 2542)
31
66
3.1
3.1.1
Density, Viscosity, Sand content pH Value

(ICE, 1996)
(ADSC,1995) (Fluid Loss)
(Filter Cake)
1
1
Authors

1977)
al. (1975)
1988)
Reese and
O' Neil
ICE (1988)
(1988)
ACI (1989)
*AASHTO
(1992)
Bentonite
Bentonite or
Bentonite or
or
Attapulgite
Attapulgite
Attapulgite
1.03 to 1.10
1.03 to 1.20 1.03 to 1.20
<1.10
1.03 to 1.20
<1.02 (Polymer)
8 to 11
8 to 12
8 to 11
9.5 to 12
8 to 12
8 to 11
<4% (bearing pile)
<4%
<4%
<4%
(by volume)
(by volume)
<1% (Polymer)
Slurry Type
Bentonite
Calcium
Bentonite
Density
(gm/cc)
<1.10
1.024 to 1.218
pH
9.5 to 12
<11.7
Sand Content
<6%
(by weight)
<35% (by
weight)
30 to 90
28 to 40
28 to 45
30 to 90
26 to 50
28 to 45
28 to 45
<20
<20
<20
<20
Marsh Funnel
Viscosity
(sec/Qt)
Plastic Viscosity
(cP)
Yield Point
(Pa)
10 min. Gel
Strength (Pa)
Differential Head
(m)
Fluid Loss
(30 minute test)
**Maximum
Contact Time
(hr.)
Notes :

Neil (1993)
(1996)
Bentonite
Bentonite
1.02 to 1.07
1.02 to 1.13
<1.10
<1.15
8 to 10
8 to 10
9.5 to 10.8
9.5 to 11.7
<4 %
<10%
<2%
<2%
32 to 60
32 to 60
30 to 70
< 90
6 to 8.5
6 to 10.0
2 to 6.0
2 to 6.5
4 to 40
3.6 to 20
1.9 to 10
4 to 40
4 to 40
4 to 40
>1
1.5
< 40
<60

2 Viscosity pH
(Silt)
32
67

Density
Fluid loss
(30 minute test)
Viscosity
Shear strength
Sand Content
pH
Test Method and

apparatus

placing concrete
API RP13
Section
As Supplied to pile
Mud balance
Low temperature
Less than 1.10 g/ml
test fluid loss
Marsh Cone
Fann Viscometer
Sand screen set
2
2
4
(2)
Less than 1.15 g/ml
Less than 40 ml
Less than 60 ml
30 to 70 seconds
(27 - 50)(1)
2
4 to 40 N/m
Less than 90 sec.

2
4 to 40 N/m
Less than 2%
9.5 - 10.8
(8 - 11) (1)
Less than 2%
9.5 - 11.7
(<12) (1)

3.1.2
( ICE, 1996 ADSC, 1995 )
3.1.3

(Construction Time)
Thixothropy Characteristic (Explosure Time / Contact Time)
(Thick Slurry) (Agitation)
(Thin Slurry)
(Pervious Materials)
1

2 ADSC
24 4
33
68
1.60
Bentonite
Suspension
Bentonite
Particle
Hydrostatic
Pressure
25
1.40
18
32
27
32
39
1.20
24
19
1.00
32
15
0.80
Soil grains
0.60
5.0
Bentonite
filter cake
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
2 Effect of construction time on shaft capacity of

bored piles. (Thasnanipan et al, 1998)
1 Surface Filtration (Flemming et al, 1977)
3.2
3.2.1 :
3
Sand Content
3 ADSC, 1995 ( 3 C )
Item to be measured
1.
2
3
4.
Density before concreting, l gg/cc,

for slurry 30 cm. from pile toe
a. No end bearing
b. With end bearing
c. Polymer slurry
Marsh Funnel Viscosity, sec/qt, for
entry slurry and pile slurry.
Sand content by volume, percent,
before concreting for
Slurry 30 cm. from pile bottom.
a. Pile with design end bearing
and no side friction
b. Pile with no design end
bearing.
c. Polymer slurry.
pH, during excavation.
Range of results
at 20 o C
1.36 maximum
1.12 maximum
1.024 maximum
26 to 50
Test methods
API 13B, section1 (Mud

balance)
ASTM D 4380
API 13B, Section 2 (Marsh

Funnel and Cup)
API 13B, Section 4 (Sand
Screen Set ) ASTM D 4381
4% maximum
25% maximum
1% maximum
8 to 12
34
69
API 13B, Section 6 (Paper Test

Strips or Glass Electrode pH
Meter)
3.2.2
Thixotropy Characteristic
Majano and O Neil (1993)
3.

(after Majano et al, 1993)
3.

(after Majano et al, 1993)
4. (Allowable Tolerances)
35
70
4.1
(Horizontal
Deviation) (Vertical Deviation)
4.1.1 : , ICE (1996) ,ADSC (1995)
(Cut Off Level) . (Working
Platform Level) 7.5 . ()

7.5
.(
2-20 )
4.1.2 : ICE(1996), ADSC (1995)

1:80
1: 100 1:200 1:100
8 1:100

8 . 5 .
13 .
()
4.11 4.1.2
4.2
(Cast In-Situ Concrete)

36
71
(Bleeding)

1.00 2.00
( 6 )
ICE (1996)
4
4 Casting tolerance above cut-off levels for specified conditions (after ICE, 1996)
5.

,, (W/C),

4 5
(Bleeding) 6
7 8
(High Permeability Concrete)
37
72
6
(, 2536)
8
Tremie (,2543)
38
73

Bartholomew , ( 1979 ) 2
2 Range of cement content and w/c in general use for concrete mixed ( after Batholomew 1979 )
Conditions
Pile Type
Normal
Moderately
Highly and very
aggressive
highly aggressive
3
Bored Piles
Cement content ( kg/m )
300 450
350 450
380 500
Dry Process
Water/cement Ratio
0.5 0.55
0.475 0.5
0.45- 0.5
3
Bored Piles
Cement content ( kg/m )
350-450
350 450
400 500
Wet process
Water/cement Ratio
0.5 0.6
0.475 0.5
0.43 0.45
Reese and O Neil, (1988)
) (Excellent Fluidity)
) (Self compaction under self-weight)
) (Resistance to Segregation and Bleeding)
) (Controlled setting )
) (Resistance to harsh environment)
) ( Resistance to leaching )
) (Appropriate Strength and Stiffness)
Valenta,(1968)
20 ., W/C Ratio 0.6
(Dense)
10-10 m/sec

,
Xanthakos, (1994) (Tremie Concrete)
Compaction Ratio 0.95 0.96
39
74
6.
7.
1. , (2536) Concrete Technology , CPAC.

.2. , (2543) ,
2000 .
P 38
3. ADSC (1995) Standard and specification for the foundation drilling industry. (Incorporating ACI 336.1 94)
4. Bartholomew, R.F., (1979). The protection of concrete pile in aggressive ground conditions: An international
appreciation in Proc. Conf. Recent Piling Developments in the Design and Construction of Piles. ICE, London, pp
131 141
5. Flemming, W. G. K. and Sliwinski, Z. J. (1997), The use and influence of bentonite in bored pile construction
CIRIA report PG3
6. Majano, R. E. and O Neill, M. W. (1993, Effect of Mineral and Polymer Slurries on Perimeter Load Transfer in
Drill Shafts. A Report to ADSC: The Inter. Asso. Of Foundation Drilling. University of Houston, Department of
Civil Engineereing and Environmental Engineering, UHCE 93-1.
7. Reese, L. C.,ONeil, M. W., (1988). Drill shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Method. U.S. Department
of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Virginia. Incorperation with ADSC, Dallas. Texas. USA.
8. The Institution of Civil Engineers, ICE (1996), Specification for piling and Embedded Retaining wall (1996)
Thomas Telford. London.
9. Valenta, O., (1968). Durability of Concrete. Proc. 5th Int. Symp. On the Chemistry of Cement, tokyo, Part III, 193
10. Xanthakos, P. P., (1994) Slurry Walls as Structural Systems. McGraw Hill Inc.
40
75
EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION TIME AND BENTONITE SLURRY VISCOSITY ON THE SHAFT

CAPACITY OF BORED PILES
1, 2, 3 4
1
, 2 , 3

4

55 sec/quart.

(Exponential Decrease)
40
Abstract: Effect of construction time and bentonite slurry viscosity on the shaft friction capacity of bored
piles have been studied by various investigators in the past but the extent to which these parameters effect the
shaft capacity is still not clear. Major obstacle in this regard is that it is hard to normalize the shaft capacity
degradation against other numerous parameters, which are influencing simultaneously. Results from eleven
instrumented pile load tests, constructed with different bentonite slurry viscosities and construction times, in
Bangkok are presented in this paper. It has been concluded that bentonite slurry viscosity, do not have
significant effect on the shaft load transfer but considerably reduced with increase in construction time.
Reduction in capacity seem to follow an exponential decrease with increase in construction time with major
part of degradation within first 24 hours . Load carrying capacity would be reduced below design capacity at
construction time beyond 40 hours.
KEYWORDS: Instrumented pile load test, Bentonite slurry viscosity, Thixotropy Characteristic.
For further details, contact Mr. Narong Thasnanipan, Seafco Co., Ltd. 26/10 Rarm Intra 109, Bangchan,
Klongsamwah, Bangkok 10510,Thailand.
77
GTE-21
1.
(Exposure time or Contact time)

(Construction Time)
(Parameters)

2.
(Viscous Slurry)
Filter Cake
(Agitated)
Thixotropy Characteristic
(Viscosity)
Filter Cake
1
1
Filter
Cake (after Reese et
al, 1985)
3.
(Shaft Degradation) Filter Cake
(Softening)
Corbette, [3] 48
Cernak, [2] (Barrettes) (Sandy Gravel)

8 97
43% 56%
GTE-22
78
Littechild and Plumbridge, [5]

ONeill et al, [9]

37 49 Sec/Quart 5 7
Fleming and Sliwinski, [4]

2
2

(after
Fleming and Sliwinski, 1977)
Majano and O Neill, [6]

(Geomaterials), , ,

72 0.5 psi.
4 24 Filter Cake 3.14 4.5 ..
Filter Cake
Cake
10 psi Filter Cake 6 ..
4.
43 62 9.8 43 24
GTE-23
79
1
Slurry Property
Viscosity (Marsh Cone)
Density (g/ml)
pH
Sand Content
Control Limit
30 - 60
1.04 1.15
7 11
Less than 4%
Total Stress Effective Stress

(Adhesion Factor), Suchada, [12] Suchada
3 Tomlinson, [15] Stas and Kulhawy [12] Cu (Undrained
shear strength) Cu (Stiff to Hard
Clay) SPT (N- Value) Cu = C1. N-value (ton/m2) C1 0.674 0.507
High Low Plasticity C1 Samphantharak and
Pitupakorn, [11] f = v.Ks.tan ( ton/m2) Coefficient of
horizontal earth pressure (Ks) 0.7, 0.75 , Ks Fleming et al, [4]
Filter Cake 0.75, Bowels, [1]
(Angle of internal friction) SPT-N values N-Value
Overburden (Empirical Factor) Ks.tan
Empirical Parameters Effective Overburden
Pressure (v) (Hydrostatic Condition)
(Piezometric Draw Down Conditions)
5.
11 2 (Vibrating Strain Gages,

VWSG) (Telltale
Extensometer Rods) (Elastic Shortening)

1.20

Bored Cast Insitu
Piles
1.00
(MLT)

0.80

0.60
Quick Test
0.40

2 TP-2 TP-10
0.20
0.00

0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
Undrained Shear Strength (ton/m )
3 adhesion factor
Tomlinson,1957
Adhesion Factor ,
Stas and Kulhawy, 1984
Suchada,1989
for bored piles in Bangkok soils
GTE-24
80
4 VWSG 2 G
Applied Load (Tons)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0
20
TP-1
Movement (mm
TP-2
TP-3
40
TP-4
TP-5
TP-6
60
TP-7
TP-8
TP-9
80
TP-10
TP-11
100
120
4 (after Thasnanipan et al, 1998)

2 11 ( Thasnanipan et al, 1998 )
Pile
No.
(A)
TP-
TP-2
TP-3
TP-4
TP-5
TP-6
TP-7
TP-8
TP-9
TP-10
TP-11
Pile
Dimensions
(m)
(B)
1.2 X 57.1
1.2 X 46.3
1.0 X 46.5
1.0 X 49.5
1.0 X 43.0
1.0 X 46.0
1.2 X 43.6
1.2 X43.5
1.0 X 43.5
1.2 X 62.0
1.2 X 54.2
Bentonite
Slurry
Viscosity
( sec )
(C)
38
38
37
37
38
45
55
38
37
41
38
Construction
Time
( hrs )
Pile Age
(D)
43.0
13.1
9.8
38.7
26.0
11.8
16.8
12.3
11.3
32.4
30.0
(E)
32
29
25
15
19
32
32
24
18
27
39
( days )
GTE-25
81
Estimated
Shaft
Capacity
( ton )
(F)
1230
930
800
930
690
620
850
640
530
1534
1050
Actual Shaft
Capacity
( ton )
Actual/Estimated
Shaft
Capacity
(G)
1200
1300
1250
750
700
800
1100
750
700
2000
1300
(H = G/H)
0.98
1.40
1.56
0.81
1.01
1.29
1.29
1.17
1.32
1.30
1.24
6.
5 (Actual/Estimated Shaft
Capacity) (Viscosity)
TP-6, 7 9 11.8, 16.8,
11.3 45, 55 37 sec
Actual / Estimated
55 sec TP-1, 4 5 Actual/Estimated
0.98, 0.81 1.01 38,37 38 sec 43,38.7
26

1.60
25
TP-1
1.40
29(Pile age at load testing, days)

18
27
TP-2
TP-3
32
32
39
1.20
TP-4
24
TP-5
TP-6
19
32
1.00
TP-7
TP-8
TP-9
15
0.80
TP-10
TP-11
0.60
35
40
45
50
Bentonite Viscosity (sec)
55
60
5
(after Thasnanipan et al 1998)
7.
9 11
37 41 sec 6

Exponential Decrease
24 (
GTE-26
82
) Fleming, [4]
24 Martin, [7]
5 MaJano et al, [6] ONeill, [8]
4 2 TP-4 0.81
37 sec 38.7
15

24
8.
6 40
40
, , Ks

30 psi.
Majano et al [6] Filter Cake
Filter Cake
Filter Cake
1.60
25
TP-1(Tip in SAND)
TP-2(Tip in SAND)
1.40
18
1.20
32
TP-3(Tip in SAND)
27
32
TP-4(Tip in CLAY)
39
TP-5(Tip in SAND)
24
TP-6(Tip in SAND)
TP-7(Tip in CLAY)
19
1.00
32
TP-8(Tip in SAND)
TP-9(Tip in SAND)
15
0.80
TP-10(Tip in
SAND,Base Grouted)
TP-11(Tip in
SAND,Base Grouted)
0.60
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
6
(after Thasnanipan et al, 1998)
GTE-27
83
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

24
24

40
55 sec/qt.

1. Bowles, J.E, Foundation Analysis and Design., McGraw-Hill Inc., 1988.

2. Cernak, B., The Time Effect of Suspension on the Behaviour of Piers., Sixth European Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering., Vienna , Austria., 1976
3. Corbett, B. O., Davie, R.V. and Landford, A.D. , A Load Bearing Diaphragm Wall at Keinsington and Chelsa
Town Hall, London. Conf. on Diaphragm Walls and Anchorages , ICE , London. Pp.57-62., 1975.
4. Fleming, W. K., Sliwinski, Z.J., The Use and Influence of Bentonite in Bored pile Construction., CIRIA Report
PG3., 1977
5. Littlechild, B. and Plumbridge, G., Effect of Construction Technique on The Behaviour of Plain Bored Cast In
Situ Piles Constructed under Drilling Slurry., 7th Intl Conf. and Exh. on Piling and Deep Foundation., Vienna,Pp.
1.6.1 1.6.8., 1998.
6. Majano, R. E. and O Neill , M. W., Effect of Slurry Dosage and Exposure Time on Perimeter Load Transfer of
Drill Shaft., ADSC Publication.,1993.
7. Martin, W. S., Site Guide to Foundation Construction., CIRIA Special Publication 136.,1996
8. .ONeill, M.W.., Effect of Mineral and Polymer Slurries on Drill Shafts. DFI. 16thAnnual Member Meeting
Conference. Recognizing Solutions to Todays Problems and Defining Tomorrows Challenges., Chicago.
Pp.141-154 , 1991
9. ONeill, M.W.and Reese, L.C, Behavior of Axially Loaded Drilled Shafts in Beaumont Clay. Report No. 89-8,
The University of Texas at Austin. U.S.A., 1992.
10. Reese, L. C. and Tucker, K. L. (1985), Bentonite slurry in constructing drilled piers, Drilled piers and caisson II,
ASCE convention., Denver, Colorado, USA .1985
GTE-28
84
11. Samphantharak, S. and Pitupakorn, W., Prediction of Prestressed Concrete Pile Capacity in Bangkok Stiff Clay
and Clayey Sand., Eighth Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 1985.
12. .Stas, C. V. and Kulhawy, F. H., Critical Evaluation of Design Methods for Foundations Under Axial Uplift and
Compression Loading, Report EL-3771, EPRI, Palo Alto, California, USA., 1984.
13. Suchada, . Bored Piles in Bangkok Subsoil., M. Engg. Thesis., AIT., Bangkok., 1989.
14. Thasnanipan, N., Baskaran, G. and Anwar, M. A., Effect of Construction Time and Bentonite Viscosity on Shaft
Capacity of Bored Piles. 3rd Intl. Seminar Deep Foundation on Bored and Auger Piles., Ghent, Belgium. Pp 171177.,1998.
15. Tomlinson, M. J., Pile Design and Construction Practice. 4th edition., Chapman & Hall,1995
GTE-29
85
DAMAGES TO BORED PILES AT THE POST INSTALLATION STAGE
1, 2 3
1
, 2 , 3

(Structural Defects) (Geotechnical Defects)

(Post
Installation Stage) ,

()
Abstract: Structural and geotechnical defects in bored piles can be developed in many phases of
construction works. However, according to the investigations, higher percentage of defects were caused at
post installation stage and commonly caused by pile head cutting, adjacent excavation works and flow of
ground water through newly formed concrete of bored piles or from bleeding of concrete. Therefore, in
order to prevent damages to bored piles at post installation stage, all parties concerned should employ
appropriate and careful construction methods.
KEYWORDS: Pile Damages, Underground water flow, Collapsible Loess

87
1.
() Thorburn and Thorburn

[10] Low Strain Integrity Test (Seismic Test)

Sliwinski et al, [6] 5,000 1982
73 (1.46%)
33 %, 6%, 3%
58%, Fleming et al, [3] 9,550
1981 1982 0.5%
1.5 2.0%
Ellway, [2] 4,400 1985 1.33%
1.33%
1.33%

, [1]
80 .
1 2
Seismic Test

1
Thasnanipan et al, [7] Sonic Integrity
(, 2538)
Test 8,629
3.3% (285)
3 0.1%,
1.0%
2.2%
2
(, 2538)
88
2.
Poulos, [5]
((Structural Defects) , , (Geotechnical
Defects)

(Construction
Industry Research and Information
Association), CIRIA
Turner, [11]

3
3
(after Turner 1997)

2.1 (Type A):

3
(Necks), (Waists), (Bulbs), (Expansions), Steps 4 Type B
(Bites)
(after Turner, 1997 )
2.2 ( Type B):
4
Structural Defects
,

(Shrinkage) (Ground Heave)
2.3 ( Type C):

5 5 Type C
( , ( after Turner, 1997 )
)
89
Structural Defect

2.4 4 (Type D): Geotechnical Defects (Poor Toe

Conditions) (Softening of Bored Hole) Filter Cake

3.
3.1

1.0, 1.2 1.5 59
90
FSP III 16
6 8.10
6

(Temporary Raking Strut)
450 Sonic integrity test (Seismic Test)
32 7 Type B
Structural Defect
Soft Clay
6.2cm/s
Med. Very Stiff

Clay Clay
Pile 681A
29 May 96
Dense Sand
12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
4000m/s
f:8
exp : 20
Pile 681
8 Apr 96
4.1cm/s
Dense Sand
12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
4000m/s
exp : 20
f:8
v2-88c
sr
v2-88c
sr
8
90

8
3.2 (Soil Heave
or Swelling)

15 17
25
60 . 26
16 . 6 143
14 FSP III
9
1.0 3.5 0.85 5.95

Seismic Test
71 (84%)
5.5 13.8
24 1
20.2cm/s
V2-88c
Pile 103
4000m/s
f:8
sr
Dynamic Load Test
17 Feb 93
exp : 20
22
90% 2
13.3cm/s
V2-88c
50% 1 9 10
Pile 48
4000m/s
f:8
sr
17 Feb 93
exp : 20

18.8cm/s
V2-88c
Pile 50
4000m/s
Plaxis 11
f:8
sr
17 Feb 93
exp : 20
10 ,
(Swelling Heaving)
(Tension Force)
Moment
Ultimate Moment Capacity
12 Sonic Integrity test (Seismic Test)
Type B Structural Defect
()
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
91
GTE-49
Bending Moment
(T-m)
-10
10
20
Displacement
(mm)
20
EXCAVATION AND BRACING SYSTEM

40
0.00
1ST STRUT
2ND STRUT
5.00
SHEET PILE
BORED PILE
10.00
Depth
(m)
15.00
Cracking
Moment of
Pile
Interface
between Soft
and Stiff
Clay
20.00
SOFT TO MEDIUM
CLAY
STIFF CLAY
MEDIUM CLAY
STIFF CLAY
25.00
HARD CLAY
30.00
12
11 FEM
3.3
3.3.1 1.50
6.00
13
(Capillary Porosity) Capillary Suction
(Inter Connection Pore)

Type C Structural Defect
3.3.2 Thorburn et al, [9]

14 Structural Defect
13 ()
14 ()
(Thorburn et al,. 1977)
92
3.3.3 (Collapsible Soil)

Loess Deposits
Alluvial Deposits (Loess)
(Moisture Content)

( Loess)

(Bleeding)
Structural Defect 400-500 ./3
0.45 Gasaluck et al, 2000.

3.4
(Pilot Piles)

Sonic Integrity Test

Institution of Civil Engineers and the Federal of
Piling Specialists, London, [9 ]

300 .
15
15 ()
()
30 .(after ICE/FPS,1999)
4.
93
GTE-51

(Collapsible Loess)

1.
CE 81 94, 2538
2. Ellway. K., Practical guidance on the use of integrity tests for the quality control of cast-in-situ piles.
Proceeding of the International. Conference on Foundation and Tunnels., London. Pp. 228-234, 1987
3. Fleming, W.K., Weltman, A.J., Randolph, M.F.& Elson, W.K, Piling Engineer, second edition, John Willy &
Sons. Inc, 1992.
4. Gasaluck, W., Luthisungnoen, P., Angsuwotai, P. Muktabhant,P. and Mobkhuntod, P. On thw Design of
Foundation in Collapsible Khon Kaen Loess., Geo Eng 2000. An International Conference on Geotechnical
and Geological Enineering., Melbourne, Australia, 19-24 November 2000. Pp in CD Rom.
5. Poulos, H.G, Behavior of pile groups with defective piles. Proceeding of the 14th International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, Germany. Pp. 871 876, 1997
6. Sliwinski, Z.J., & Fleming, W.K., The Integrity & Performance of Bored Piles. Advance in Piling and
Ground Treatment for Foundation. Technical Conference Organized by ICE London. Pp.153165,1982Thasnanipan, N., Maung, A.W., & Tanseng , P., Damages to Piles Associated with Excavation
Works in Bangkok Soft Clay. Proceeding of the Sixth International conference on Problem of Pile Foundation
Engineering. Russia. Pp.91-98 (Volume III), 1998
7. Thasnanipan, N., Maung, A. W., and Tanseng, P. Damages to Piles Associated with Excavation Works in
Bangkok Soft Clay. Proceeding of the Sixth International Conference on Problem of Pile Foundation
Engineering. Russia. Pp. 91-98 (Volume III) 1998.
8. Thasnanipan, N., Maung, A.W., Tanseng, P. and Aye, Z.Z., .Sonic Integrity Test of piles Integrity Effected
by Basement Excavation in Bangkok Subsoil. Proceeding of the Sixth International. Conference on the
Application of Stress Wave Theory to piles. Quality Assurance on Land and 0ffshore Piling. Su
Paulo/Brazil/ 11-13 September 2000. Pp 163-170, 2000
9. The Institution of Civil Engineers and The Federal of Piling Specialists. (ICE/FPS), The Essential Guide to
the ICE Specification for Piling and Embedded Retaining Walls. Thomas Telford, 1999.
10. Thorburn, S., & Thorburn, J.G., Review of Problems with the Construction of CastIn- Place Concrete Piles.
Construction Industry Research and Information Association. (CIRIA Report PG 2) 1977.
11. Turner, M. J., Integrity Testing in Piling Practice. Construction Industry Research and Information
Association. (CIRIA Report 144) 1997
94
GTE-52
PROBLEMS IN BORED PILING WORKS CAUSED BY IMPROPER CONCRETE MIXED
1, 2 3
1
, 2 , 3

: (Tremie Concreting)

, ,
, , ,
Abstract: Concreting of Cast-In- Situ Reinforce Concrete Wet Process Bored piles has to be done by
tremie method, which concrete could not be compacted by vibrator. It is essential to design the better
quality and characteristics mix than the concrete for other structural works in some aspects, considering
the process of work. Due to the nature and environment of wet process bored piling is much differently
from the normal concreting of the above ground structures. If the quality of concrete used did not meet
the basic characteristics would cause some problems both during green consrete and after setting and
would affecting the integrity and durability of piles. Therefore, the concrete use in bored piles works shall
consist of the following characteristics:, excellent fluidity, self compaction under self weight, resistance
to segregation, controlled setting, resistance to harsh environment, resistance to leaching and has an
appropriate strength and stiffness.
KEYWORD: Self compaction concrete, Compaction ratio of concrete, Bleeding of concrete.

For fuether details contact Mr.Narong Thasnanipan, Seafco Co., Ltd., 26/10 Rarm Intra 109, Bangchan,
Klongsamwah, Bangkok 10510, Thailand.
1.
95
GTE-37
, , , ,
(Plasticiser)
(, 2536)

2.
Fleming and Sliwinski, [4]
1 Bartholomew, [3]

2
1 [4]
> 175
0.6
, 20
(Natural and complying with zone 2 or 3 grading)
30 45%
400
2 [3]
()
(. )
(W/C)
(. )
(W/C)
300 450
0.5 0.55
350-450
0.5 0.6
96
()
()
350 450
380 500
0.475 0.5
0.45- 0.5
350 450
400 500
0.475 0.5
0.43 0.45
Reese and ONeill, [7]

(Excellent Fluidity), (Self compaction under self-weight),
(Resistance to Segregation and Bleeding),
(Controlled setting), (Resistance to harsh environment),
(Resistance to leaching) (Appropriate Strength and
Stiffness)
3.

Tremie Pipe
, ,
,
, ,

3.1 :
,

,

3.2 : , , , ,

,

(Bleeding) 1
2
(Air Pocket ) (Segregation)
(High Permeability Concrete) Fleming et al, [5]
97

(Tremie Pipe)
3
20 .
( 1)
80 (
) 5
4

(Dense)

(Bleeding occurs during the dormant period before the initial
setting of the concrete: Sliwinski and Fleming,[7] )

(W/C)
(Gravity) (Blockage) 5
(Anti-Bleed Admixture)
()
2
( ,2536 )
98
Tremie
(after
Thasnanipan et al, 2000)
5
Ttemie
(, 2543)
3.3 :

, Xanthakos, [11 ]
Compaction Ratio
0.95 0.96
4. (Aggressive Subsurface Conditions)

4.1 (Permeability):
(k)

k
, k W/C 0.6
( Capillary Pore )
(Bleeding) ( Inter-Connection Void )
99
4.2 :
4.2.1 Hydraulic Permeability
,
Diaphragm walls
4.2.2 Water Absorbed by Capillary Suction:
Capillary Action
4.2.1 4.2.2 6 Reese and ONeill, [7]
4.2.2 Capillary Action
Valenta, [10]
20 ., W/C 0.6 (Dense)
10-10 m/sec
6
Hydraulic pressure
Capillary suction (, 2536)
4.3 (Collapsible Loess):
(Alluvial Deposit)
(Water Content)

Loess Deposits
(None-Plastic) Sandy Silt Silty Sand (ML or SM) 0.005 0.042
200-500 m 1 (Gasaluck et
al, 2000)
2
(Collapsible Loess)

( 7)
100
Bartholomew [3]
2 ()
(Dry loess layer)
7 (Dry Loess)
4.4 :

, ,
,
, ,
,
5.

1.
2.
3.
4.
(Cohesive Mixed)
Compaction Ratio 0.95 0.96
(k) 10-10
(Segregation) (Bleeding)
101
5.
6. (Collapsible Loess)
400-500 /3 0.45
7.

1. , Concrete Technology , CPAC., 2536

2. , ,
2000 .
P 38, 2543
3. Bartholomew, R.F., The Protection of Concrete Pile in Aggressive Ground Conditions: An International
Appreciation in Proceeding. Conference on. Recent Piling Developments in the Design and Construction of
Piles. Organized by Institution of Civil Engineers, London, pp 131 141.,1979
4. Fleming, W.K and Sliwinski, Z. J.,The Use and Influent of Bentonite in Bored Piles Construction.
Construction Industry Research and Information Association. (CIRIA Report PG 3)., 1977
5. Fleming,W.K., Weltman,A.J., Randolph,M.F., and Elson,W.K.,. Piling Engineer 2nd Edition John Willy &
Sons Inc ,1992
6. Gasaluck, W., Luthisungnoen, P., Angsuwotai, P., Muktabhant, C. and Mobkhuntod, P. On the Design of
Foundation in Collapsible Khon Kaen Loess. Geo Eng 2000., An International Conference on Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering. Melbourne, Australia., 19-24 November 2000., Pp. Jn CD Rom
7. Reese, L.C, ONeill, M. W., Drill Shafts:Construction Procedures and Design Method. U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Virginia. Incorperation with ADSC, Dallas. Texas.
USA.,1988
8. Sliwinski, Z. J. and Fleming, W. G. K. The Integrity and Performance of Bored Piles. Advances in Piling and
Ground Treatment for Foundation., Organized by the Engineering of Civil Engineers,London. 1983
9. .Thasnanipan, N., Win, M. A.,Tanseng, P. and Thiruchelvam, N. Concrete for Wet Bored Piles. Proc. of the
Geotech - Year 2000., Developments in Geotechnical Engineering. Organized by Asian Institute of
Technology., Bangkok. Pp 347-354. November 2000.
10. Valenta, O., (1968). Durability of Concrete. Proc. 5th Int. Symp. On the Chemistry of Cement, Tokyo, Part
III, 193., 1968
11. .Xanthakos, P. P., Slurry Walls as Structural Systems . McGraw Hill Inc., 1994
102
THE HIGHEST STATIC LOAD WHICH EVER BEEN TESTED ON PILES IN BANGKOK SUBSOILS
1, 2 3
, 2

3
,
1
: (Barrette)
2,000
(VWSG)
5,290
6,000

8%
17%
ABSTRACT: Recently, the largest barrettes, which can carry the safe load more than 2,000 tons, have
been constructed in Bangkok and one barrette was tested with full instrumentation up to 5,290 tons. A
gigantic test frame having maximum capacity of 6,000 tons was constructed from the available test
frames. The instrumented load test results of circular shape bored pile and barrette constructed in the
same project area show that unit skin friction of bored pile and barrette are in a similar range. However,
barrettes have more surface area than circular bored piles thus they can be designed to have more
friction shaft area to carry larger load. Difference of load transferred to the toe of the test barrette and
pile are about 8% and 17% of the total applied load respectively, it is believed that this caused from
using different type of tools and method of excavations.
KEYWORDS: Instrumented pile load test, Base grouting bored pile, Barrette.
For Further Details, Contact Mr. Kamol Singtokaew, Seafco Co., Ltd, 26/10 Rarm Intra 109,
Bangchan, Klongsamwah, Bangk0k 10510
103
1.
Diaphragm Wall

9 1.20 1.50 560
(Barrette) 1.50x3.00 24 ( 1)
Barrettes
(Building Core) 57.00
(Base Grout)
(Working Piles)
Vibrating Wire Strain Gauges
Barrette

, ,
Barrette
5.00
132.10
5.00
2nd Cross Beam
1st Cross Beam (R)
5.00
ANCHOR PILE
TESTED BARRETTE
Main Beam
TESTED PILE
Hydraulic Jacks
5.00
132.68
2nd Cross Beam
1st Cross Beam
2nd Cross Beam
Test arrangement details
1
2.
2
(Weathered Crust) 2-3 12
(Medium Clay) 15-18
25-30
2
45-60
NORTH
BANGKOK SOFT CLAY
10
10
FIRST STIFF
CLAY
FIRST STIFF CLAY
20
30
CLAY SILTY SAND POCKETS
40
50
SOUTH
MADE GROUND
MADE GROUND
SAND
DARK GREY CLAY
STIFF CLAY
SAND
STIFF CLAY
70
SAND
STIFF CLAY
30
40
STIFF CLAY
60
20
50
60
70
104
3.
Barrette

(Auger)
(Bucket) (Barrette) (Guide
Wall) Clamp
Shell Grab Thasnanipan et al, [5] , [7]

Barrette
1

Bored Pile
Barrette
Before
Before
Before
Before
Barrette
feeding to the concreting
feeding to concreting (near
borehole
(near borehole the trench
trench base)
base)
33
36
36
49
Viscosity (sec)
Density (g/cc)
1.08
1.10
1.10
1.17
8
8
8
9
pH value
Sand content (%)
0.1
0.8
1.0
1.1
Filter Cake

Barrette 1
28 Barrette 75 (
Instrument)
Drilling Monitoring Koden Test 1:100
4.
Barrette Vibrating Wire Strain Gauges (VWSGs)
5

(Working Pile)
(Reaction Frame)
Static Load Test (

3 6,000
)
105
6,000 3
500 16 (8,000 )
5.
Hosoi et al [1] Barrette
(Numerical Analysis)
Barrette Plane Strain
(Barrette)
Barrette
Thasnanipan et al, [6]
(End Effect)
Hoop Action
6.
Barrette
4 2
Barrette 5 7
Barrette VWSGs 6 8

Barrette
17% 8% Barrette
Zhang et al, [4]
Fuzhou 10%
Barrette

12-24

4 Barrette
5,290
Tons
2,700
Tons
20
40
60
80
2000
4000
2700
Soft Clay
Unit Skin friction

(t/m2)
Axial Load (Tons)
SPT-N (Blows/ft)
0.00
6000 0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
5290
Stiff Clay
30.00
Medium
Dense
Sand
Bored Pile
20.00
Barrette
Depth (m)
10.00
40.00
Hard Clay
Barrette
Bored Pile
50.00
Dense
Sand
60.00
Base grouting
106
Barrette
Bored Pile
Filter Cake Liu et al,

[3]
Barrette
(Percussion)
Barrette
2 Barrette
Depth
Soil type
0.0-13.5
soft clay
13.5-25.0 Stiff to very stiff clay
25.0-35.0 Med. dense silty sand
35.0-50.0 Hard silty clay
50.0-55.0
hard clay + clayey sand
Max mobilized end bearing (t/sq. m.)
Mobilized skin friction (t/sq. m.)

Bored pile
Barrette
Design load Max. mobi. Design load Max. mobi.
0.20
2.63
0.26
2.24
5.90
7.01
3.58
8.86
11.46
22.76
13.25
25.28
3.09
11.11
3.55
9.61
3.43
14.84
3.19
7.49
270
101
107
7.
1. (Barrette) 1.50 x 3.00 57
2.
3. Tube-A-Manchettes
(12-24 )
4.

8.

1. Hosoi T, Yagi N and Enoki M. , Consideration to the Skin Friction of Diaphragm Wall Foundation, 3 rd
International Conference on Deep Foundation Practice Incorporating PILETALK, Singapore.,1994.
2. Thasnanipan, N., Anwar, M. A., Maung, A.W. and Tanseng, P. Performance Comparision of Bored and
Excavated Piles in the Layered Soils of Bangkok., Proceeding of the Symposium in Honor of Professor Seng
Lip Lee., Innovative Solutions in Structural and Geotechnical Engineering. Organized by Asian Institute of
Technology., Bangkok, Pp 345-353. May 1999
3. Lui, J., Zhu, Z. and Zhang, Y. The Technology and Application of Post Grouting for Slurry Bored Piles.
Proc. of 14th Intl. Conf. on Soil Mechanice and Foundation Engineering. Hamburg/6-12 September 1997.
Pp.831-834, 1997.
4. Zhang, Y. and Huang,W., Large Bored Piles with Grouted End in Fuzhou., Geo Eng 2000. An International
Conference on Geotechnical and Geological Engineering., Melbourne ,Australia, 19-24 N0vember 2000, Pp
in CD Rom
108
QUALITY CONTROL OF DRY PROCESS BORED PILES EXCAVATED BY TRIPOD RIG
1, 2 3
1
, 2 , 3

:
(Pressure Bored Piling)
(Installation)

(Integrity)

, (Free Fall Method)
(Pressure)

Abstract: Dry process bored pile excavated by tripod rig has been introduced in to Bangkok since 28
years ago in the name of Pressure Bored Piling. Installation method of this piling system has been very
well designed, and its system is reliable and suitable for small to medium scale structures.The name of
this piling system has been called as tripod bored pile at later stage. Recently, many records shown that
some piling contractors have ignored many necessary techniques during installation such as did not apply
pressure during extraction of casing and resulting poor integrity to piles. Therefore, in order to get the
good pile integrity without increasing the cost, the inspectors need to know the proper installation
techniques and to ensure that the construction is not deviated from the method i.e., temporary casing shall
be long enough to protect soft soil squeeze in, segregation of concrete from free fall pouring shall be
prevented by pouring through the funnel and pressure shall be applied to assist the extraction and to press
the top of concrete not to be lifted by casing during extraction process.
KEYWORDS: Pressure bored piling, Quality assurance, Free fall concrete.

For further details, contact Mr.Pakpong Sriwannawit, Seafco Co., Ltd. 26/10 Rarm Intra 109, Bangchan,
109
1.

(Poor Integrity)

2.

(Pressure Bored Piling) . 2515
() . . 2517

4 5

(Quality
Assurance)
3.
) , )
, ) , ) )

110

3.1 :
(Soft Clay) (Medium Clay)
(Stiff Clay)

(Medium Clay)
( 60 .)
(Squeeze) (Neck)
1 1
(Stiff
1 1
Clay )
(after Thorburn et al, 1977)
Soft Clay
Medium Clay
Stiff Clay
3.2 :

(Pile Toe (Sand Layer or Clayey/ Silty Sand

Layer) (Stiff to
Hard Sandy /Silty Clay) (Impermeable Soil)
(Clay
Cutter)

111
3.3.:
(Slumping of Concrete) 2
7.5 .

3.4
3.4.1
(Self Compaction under Self Weight)
(Cohesive Concrete), (Resistance to Segregation or Bleeding)
, (Good Workability Concrete) (High Durability
Concrete) (Concrete Slump) 10.5 15.5 .

3.4.2
ADSC, [1]

3 4


( 3)
112

ADSC, [1]
Free Fall 5 . Thorburn
and Thorburn, [2] 4
3.5 :

(Pressure)
(Pressure Piling) 1
(5)
( 6
7)

7
5 Pressure ()

6 Pressure ()
4.
Thorburn and Thorburn [2]
{2}
(Sonic Integrity Test)
8 -8

(Medium Clay) 12 13 ,
113
(Pressure)
8 - 8 8 15
, (Pressure) (Air Compressor)

5.

(Poor Integrity)

,
1. ADSC: The International Association of Foundation Drilling, The Effect of Free Fall Concrete in Drilled
Shafts A Report to The Federal Highway Administration, 1994.
2. Thorburn, S. and Thorburn, J.Q., Review of Problems Associated with the Construction of CastInPlace
Concrete Piles., Construction Industry Research and Information Association. (CIRIA) Report PG 2, 1977.
114
2542
, . , 1-2 2542
Performance of Bentonite Bored Piles Constructed in Bangkok Subsoil

61/141 9 10320
643956172, 2472290-4, 2462177
be designed to carry the safe load up to 2,000 tons per
pile.
Although this bored pile type has many
advantages, the performance of pile highly depends on
the construction experience and knowledge of the piling
contractors. Sometimes, poor performance of piles,
which cannot carry the designed load can lead to severe
damages to, the superstructure supported. In this regard,
to control the construction quality necessitates a standard
specification for this pile type. In overseas countries like
the UK, standards and codes of practice such as BS, CP
8004 (for foundation) have been developed by the
British Standards Institution and by the Institution of
Civil Engineers (ICE) and the Federation of Piling
Specialists (FPS).
In the USA, ACI, the Deep
Foundation Institute (DFI) and AASHTO have
developed the similar standards and specifications such
as ACI 336.1,94. At present in Thailand there is no
unified piling specification to follow and construct the
piles to the same standard covering both integrity and
load carrying capacity. It is recommended that a
national piling specification needs to be jointly
developed by the authorities, engineering institutions
and professionals. Performances of poorly constructed
piles are also discussed in this paper.
20
10

2,000

BS, CP8004 (for foundation)
British standard, Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE)
Federal of piling specialists (FPS)
American Concrete Institute (ACI), Deep Foundation Institute (DFI)
American Association of the State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO)
ACI 336.1.94
1.
( Cast In-Situ Bored Piles)

Tomlinson (1994)
,

(Integrity) (Load
Carrying Capacity)
Abstract
Piles bored under slurry or wet process bored

piles have become popular and been used in Thailand
over 20 years already. There are more than 10 piling
contractors locally and from an overseas. This type of
pile is versatile and can be constructed in various sizes
and to a great depth unlike pre-cast driven piles. It can
115
9
2.
20
80 . 150
. 60

4
550
1
60 2-3
(Weathered Crust)
12
(Medium Clay) 15-18
510 25 30

(Actual Pore Pressure) Hydrostatic
Pressure Piezometric Drawn Down
( 1) Piezometric Drawn Down
Effective Overburden Pressure
20
(Depressurization of Sand Layers)
Average Engineering
Parameters
20
30
Weathered Crust
Bangkok Soft Clay (BSC)

(CH)
Medium to Very Stiff Clay

(CH)
Dense to Very Dense

Sand (SM)
40
50
Hard Clay (CL)
P o re P re s sure (t/m )
20
40
60
Su = 10 - 20 KPa
t = 14-16 KN/m3
-1 0
Su = 40 - 140 KPa
-2 0
t = 17-21.0 KN/m3
-3 0
SPT-N = 20 - 50
t = 20.0 KN/m3
Su = 250 KPa -4 0
t = 21.2 KN/m3
e
Lin
atic
ost
Hyr
ine
nL
ow
wD
Dra
etric
zom
Pie
ual
Act
Depth (m)
10
-5 0
Dense to Very Dense
Sand (SM)
60
SPT-N = 50 - 100
t = 20.0 KN/m3
-6 0
1 Piezometric
drawdown
3.
Rotary (Auger) (Bucket)

Cleaning Bucket
Recycle
(Tremie Pipe) 2
60
10-20
,
VIBRATOR
TEMPORARY
CASING
REINFORCEMENT
CAGE
TREMIE PIPE
BUCKET
INSTALLATION OF
TEMP. CASING
DRILLING
REINFORCEMENT
INSTALLATION
CONCRETING
(TREMIE METHOD)
REMOVAL OF
TEMP. CASING
4. (Bentonite Slurry)

Hutchinson et al (1974)
(Functions) ()
()
()
()
()
()
() () (Thick
slurries) () ()
(Fluid slurries) 1 Reese et al (1985)

(An Ideal Slurry, therefore, is impossible. However, an effective slurry

is possible with control.)
116
10
1 Slurry specifications
Function of Suspension
Form filter cake and stabilize bore by hydrostatic pressure
application
Reduce cavitation caused by tool disturbance
Minimize loss of fluid in previous strata
Minimize loss of fluid in excavation spoil
Prevent accumulation of dense particles at base of
excavation prior to concreting
Ensure free flow of concrete from tremie and easy
displacement of bentonite from excavation and
reinforcement
Allow easy pumping of bentonite fluid
Prevent sedimentation in pipes and tanks
Viscosity
Shear
Strength
Parameter
Density
Moderate to
High
High
High
Low
High
Moderate to
High
High
High
Low
High
High
Low
Low
Moderate
4.1.
2
2

2
Density, March Viscosity, pH Value,
Sand Content Fluid Loss
3.5.-6.0% Density 1.021.04 g/cm3
Density
1.20 g/cm3
4.2.
(Filter Cake)
Filter Cake 3 4
Filter Cake

Surface Filtration

Fluid Loss
pH
------High
Moderate to
Low
Moderate
-------
Low
Low
-----
Low
Low
---
Low
Low
High
Low
High
-----
-----
4 Deep Filtration (Reese et al, 1985)

Deep Filtration
Filter Cake

ACI336.1.94
(Non Agitation) 4
24
Filter Cake

5.
0.5%

1%
( 5)
3 Surface Filtration (Reese et al, 1985)
117
11
2
Authors

1977)
al. (1975)
1988)
Reese and
O' Neil
ICE (1988)
(1988)
ACI (1989)
*AASHTO
(1992)
Bentonite
Bentonite or
Bentonite or
or
Attapulgite
Attapulgite
Attapulgite
1.03 to 1.10
1.03 to 1.20 1.03 to 1.20
<1.10
1.03 to 1.20
<1.02 (Polymer)
8 to 11
8 to 12
8 to 11
9.5 to 12
8 to 12
8 to 11
<4% (bearing pile)
<4%
<4%
<4%
(by volume)
<1% (Polymer)
(by volume)
Slurry Type
Bentonite
Calcium
Bentonite
Density
(gm/cc)
<1.10
1.024 to 1.218
pH
9.5 to 12
<11.7
Sand Content
<6%
(by weight)
<35% (by
weight)
30 to 90
28 to 40
28 to 45
30 to 90
26 to 50
28 to 45
28 to 45
<20
<20
<20
<20
Marsh Funnel
Viscosity
(sec/Qt)
Plastic Viscosity
(cP)
Yield Point
(Pa)
10 min. Gel
Strength (Pa)
Differential Head
(m)
Fluid Loss
(30 minute test)
**Maximum
Contact Time
(hr.)
Notes :

Neil (1993)
(1996)
Bentonite
Bentonite
1.02 to 1.07
1.02 to 1.13
<1.10
<1.15
8 to 10
8 to 10
9.5 to 10.8
9.5 to 11.7
<4 %
<10%
<2%
<2%
32 to 60
32 to 60
30 to 70
< 90
6 to 8.5
6 to 10.0
2 to 6.0
2 to 6.5
4 to 40
3.6 to 20
1.9 to 10
4 to 40
>1
1.5
4 to 40
4 to 40
< 40
<60

Flowable Concrete
Plastic Concrete Initial Shear Strength

Self Compaction Concrete,
(Cohesive Concrete) (Segregation)
(Bleeding) Bleeding
(Disintregate) (Void),
(Stiffen or Set)

Workability
Xanthakos
(1994) Workability
(Filter Cake)
( 6 6)
(Bond)
Round Shape
Flakie Shape Flakie Shape Workability
Admixture Plasticizers
Workability 3
5
6.

(Tremie Pipe)
(Fresh
Concrete)
Gravity Action
Density
1.80 2.01
Flowable
Workability (Mixed Design)
Strength Workability
(Retardation Time)
118
12
7
Soft toe

6 Tremie (Reese et al,

1985)
8.
(Tremie Concrete)
(End
Product)
(Integrity)

8.1 (First Batch) (Plug)
8.2
( 8)
6 Tremie
filter cake (Reese et al, 1985)
3
Cylinder compressive
strength at 28 days
Cement content
Slump
Retardation time
Max. size aggregate
Water cement ratio
210-280 ksc.
Not less than 375 kg/cu.m.

17.5-22.5 cm.
More than 6 Hrs.
Less than 20 mm.
Less than 0.60

8.3
8.4

, , Filter Cake

8.5

filter cake
(9)
8.6
8.7 (Jarring)
( 10)
7.

Cleaning Bucket Recycle (Air
Lift)

( 7)
119
13
8.8
( 7
8)
8.10 Workability ,
,
,
12
Bentonite
Mix zone
New
concrete
Previous
concrete
1
1.
2.
12
3.
8.11 Slump Flowability

8.12 (Stiff)
(Initial Set)
9.

24 ACI 336.1 94

Fleming et al (1977)
24

(Agitated)
Filter Cake Recycle
Filter Cake
Mix zone
Rigidification
area
Fluidization
area
1.
2.
3.
10
8.9
( 11)
1.60
25
1.40
18
32
27
32
39
1.20
24
19
1.00
32
15
0.80
0.60
5.0
11
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
120
14
13 Effect of construction time on shaft capacity of

bored piles. (Thasnanipan et al, 1998)
10.2. (Poor Integrity Piles)

, , ,

Sonic Logging Test (2542)
15( ) 15()
13 (Thasnanipan et al,
1998) 11
(Fully Instrumented Piles)
(Shaft Friction
Capacity)
10.
2 ()
()
()
10.1. (Low Carrying Load Capacity)
, ,
Filter Cake

1.50 . 60.00 . (Pile A)
1,500 50 .

1.50 . 55 .
2500 28 (Pile B) 14
Pile A ,
20
()
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0
P ile B
10
S e ttle m e nt (m m )
()
()
()
()
(bleeding)
()
() 12.5 13
()
L o a d (ton )
0
()
20
P ile A
30
15 Sonic logging test

( 2542)
40
11. (Pile with High Performance)
50
14 Load settlement curve pile A pile B

(Barrette)

121
15
1.50x3.00 57
2,000 75

5,290 (Thasnanipan et al 1999) 16
6.
7.
Applied Load (Tons)

0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
8.
Pile Head Movement (mm)
20
40
9.
60
Barrette
80
1.50mx3.0m pile tip at -57.5m
16 barrette
12. (Conclusions)
10.

, ,

11.
12.
13.
14.
13.
14.
1.
2.

ACI (1994), Standard specification for end bearing drilled piers,
(ACI 336.1)
3. ADSC (1995) Standard and specification for the foundation
drilling industry. (Incorporating ACI 336.1 94)
4. ADSC and DFI (1989), Drill shaft inspectors manual.
5. British Standard Institution, BS8004: Code of practice for
foundation, BSI London.
16
122
15.
16.
17.
18.
Flemming, W. G. K. and Sliwinski, Z. J. (1977), The use and

influence of bentonite in bored pile construction, CIRIA report
PG3.
Hutchinson, M. T. , Daw, G. P., Shotton, P.G. and James, A. N.
(1975), The properties of bentonite slurries used in diaphragm
walling and their control., Diaphragm Walls and Anchorages,
ICE, London, pp.33-39.
Reese, L. C. and Tucker, K. L. (1985), Bentonite slurry in
constructing drilled piers, Drilled piers and caisson II, ASCE
convention., Denver, Colorado, USA.
Sliwinski, Z. J. and Fleming, W. G. K. (1974), Practical
consideration affecting the performance of diaphragm walls,
Proceedings of the conference on diaphragm wall and anchorage,
ICE, London.
Thasnanipan N., Baskaran G. & Anwar, M. A (1998), Effect of
construction time and bentonite viscosity on shaft capacity of
bored piles, 3rd Intl. Geotechnical seminar on deep foundations on
bored and auger piles, Ghent, Belgium, Balkema, pp. 171-177.
Thasnanipan N., Anwar M.A., Muang, A.W. & Tansengs, P.
(1999), Performance comparison of bored and excavated piles in
the layered soils of Bangkok., Symposium on Innovative solutions
in structural and geotechnical engineering, In honor of professor
Seng Lip Lee, AIT, Bangkok., Thailand, pp. 345-353.
The Institution of Civil Engineers, ICE (1996), Specification for
piling and Embedded Retaining wall (1996) Thomas Telford.
London.
Tomlinson, M. J. (1994), Pile design and construction practice (4th
edition), E & FN Spon.
Wates, J. A. and Knight. K. (1975), The effect of bentonite on the
skin friction in cast in place piles and diaphragm walls, Proc. of 6th
regional conf. For Africa on soil mechanics and foundation
engineering, Dorhan, South Africa, pp. 183 188.
Xanthakos, P. P. (1994), Slurry wall as structural systems 2nd
edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc.
(2524),
,
1, ., 63 70
(2540),
,
40, ..., . ,,
1-26
, (2542),
Sonic Logging ,
2542, .
2542
, . , 1-2 2542
(Hazards & Safety In Bored Piling Works)

,

61/141 9 10320
643956172, 2472290-4, 2462177
2.

(Specific Hazards in Bored Pilings)

2.1.

(Trailer)

Crane Trailer Crane

Trailer
Abstract

The methods and sequences of large bored piling constructions

can cause several kinds of accidents, depending on the type of pile and
Trailer Crane
the operated equipment. In this article rises up the example accidents,
Counter Weight
which often break out, and describes their causes follow the sequence of
Trailer Crane
works. In the end the safety plan is discussed and the example of the
Crane
safety plan for bored piling work is also given. This safety plan can be
Counter Weight Boom
applied and implemented for bored piling works to provide a safe
working environment and prevent the accidents.

1. (Introduction)
Crane

2.2.

17
123
Boom Crane
Sling Crane
Sling
Boom

2.3.3

10

(U-grip)

2.3.
2.3.4
Trimmie

Crane
Crane
Boom Crane

[4]

2.3.5

2.3.1

10

(Vibro Hammer)

S
l
i
n
g 1 Sling Boom
Crane
2.3.2

124
18

1
Boom Crane
2.4.
1.
2.
3. 4

Crane
Crane

2 3
2
Crane Crane
3 Crane
1. , Crane
2. Crane
3.
Crane
4. Crane
5. Hydraulic
6.
7.
-
-
8. (
, , )
9.
10.
11.
12.
125
19
.
.
.
.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18. Platform
19.
20.
) (, , )
) (, )
3. (Safety Plan)
3.1 [3]
3.1.1
3.1.1.1. 88%
3.1.1.2.
3.1.1.3.
3.1.2
3.1.2.1.
1.
.
12620
- - ,
- -
2.
.
.
3.
.
.
.
3.1.2.2.
3.1.2.3.
3.1.2.4.
3.1.3
3.1.3.1
3.1.3.2
1.
2.
.
.
. ()
.
3.1.3.3.
( 5)
.
.
. ,
.
.
(
9)

( 10)
3.1.4
3.1.4.1.
1.
.
(
6)

( 7&8)
()
.
2.
.
127
21
3.1.6.1
3.1.6.2 (Augers)
1.

2. Auger
3.1.6.3. (Buckets)
1.
2.
3.1.6.4.
1.
2.
3.
10
3.1.5
3.1.5.1
3.1.5.2
3.1.5.3
3.1.5.4
3.1.5.5
3.1.5.6
3.1.5.7
3.1.5.8
( 11)
3.1.7
3.1.7.1.
1.
( 12)
2.
12
11
3.1.6
3.1.7.2.
1.
2.
3.
3.1.8
3.1.8.1
( 9)
3.1.8.2 Crane
128
22
3.1.8.3
3.1.8.4
( 14)
3.1.8.5
3.1.8.6
3.1.8.7
3.1.8.8
2. (Air Blower)
( 15)
3. Casing
4.
5.
15 (Air Blower)
3.1.9.3.
1. ,
2.
( 16 &17)
3.
13
16
14
3.1.9.
3.1.9.1
3.1.9.2
1.
17
129
23
4. Yvan A. Rodriguez & Edward J. Jaselskis and Jeffrey S.

Russell [1996] Relationship between project performance and
accidents. IMPLEMENTATION OF SAFETY AND HEALTH
ON CONSTRUCTION SITES: PROCEEDING OF THE FIRST
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CIB WORKING
COMMISSION W99/LISBON/POTUGAL/4-7 SEPTEMBER
1996: Page 251-257.
4.
5.
3.1.10
3.1.10.1
3.1.10.2
3.1.10.3
1.
2.
3.
3.1.10.4
3.1.10.5
4. (Conclusion)
5. (Acknowledgement)
6. (References)
1. .. [1993]
, 2, .
2. K. Waninger [1991] Hazards and Safety in Piling and
Drilling 4th International DFI Conference 1991, Balkema,
Rotterdam: Page 29-30.
3. Safety in Foundation Drilling Prepared by ADSC:
Association of Drilled Shaft Contractors.
130
24
... . 24-26 2542
EXPERIENCE IN CONSTRUCTION OF BARRETTE
NARONG THASNANIPAN
SEAFCO CO., LTD.
KAMOL SINGTOWKAEW
SEAFCO CO. LTD.
PORNPOT TANSENG
SEAFCO CO., LTD.

(Barrette)
(Round Shape Bored Pile) Barrette
(Ultimate Capacity) 5,290
(Stiffness)
2-3 Barrette (Cruciform
Barrette)
ABSTRACT
Increased building heights have ended up with gigantic column loads, which, sometime makes difficulty to
arrange circular bored piles. Limited headroom conditions under existing bridges or power lines also inhibit the use of
drilling rigs required for bored piles. Barrette piles become a suitable choice under these conditions. Recently a
barrette has been tested up to 5,290 tons. Cruciform barrette can be used to resist of all type of moment and horizontal
load efficiently.
GTE-144
131

Barrette (), Strip Pile (), Load Bearing Element (), Trench Pier (
) Barrette Barrette
.. 2528 International Trade Center
Barrette
, ,

Barrette
Barrette
Barrette
Barrette
Barrette Diaphragm Wall
Diaphragm Wall (Guide Wall)
2 Barrette (Casing)
(Bentonite Slurry)
( [1])
1
1
1 Barrette
Density
Viscosity (Marsh Cone Test)
PH
Sand Content
Filtrate Loss
132
GTE-145
1.02-1.15 g/ml
30-50 sec
8-11.5
< 4%
< 40 ml
GUIDE WALL
REINFORCEMENT
CAGE
BENTONITE
SLURRY
EXCAVATION
INSTALL REINFORCEMNT
CONCRETING
1 (Barrette)
Barrette
Barrette 2

Barrette
20
40
60
5,290
Tons
2,700
Tons
Bored Pile
SPT-N (Blows/ft)
96.20
Barrette
Barrette
) 50
( 2) Barrette
1.5x3.0 60 (Base Grouting) 3
Barrette
24 Barrette Barrette 5,290
61.24 4 5
80
0.00
Soft Clay
Depth (m)
10.00
94.00
20.00
Stiff Clay
30.00
Medium
Dense Sand
40.00
Hard Clay
50.00
Dense Sand
60.00
2
GTE-146
133
Base grouting
L O AD (T o n s )
0
2000
4000
6000
0 .0
SET T LEM ENT (mm)
2 0 .0
4 0 .0
6 0 .0
B a rr e tte (1 .5 x 3 .0 m )
B o re d P ile (d ia . 1 .5 0 m )
8 0 .0
4 Barrette 6,000
5 Static Load Test

Barrette
) Jewelry Trade Center Barrette 0.82x2.70

61.80 Barrette Barrette Static Load Test
3500 17
6 7 ( [2])
SPT-N (BLOWS/FT)
0
50
Max Test load

3,500 tons
L o ad (T o n s)
100
1000
2000
3000
4000
SOFT CLAY
10
16
STIFF CLAY
DEPTH (M)
28
DENSE SAND
34
STIFF SILTY CLAY
40
46
DENSE SAND
S ettlement (mm)
22
10
15
20
STIFF SILTY
CLAY
58
64
Base
grouting
Cycle 1
Cycle 2
Cycle 3
52
25
2.70
0.82
CROSS SECTION
DENSE SAND
70
30
7 Static Load Test
Barrette
)

8 Barrette
9
0.8x2.70 -43.00 Barrette
968 Barrette 2 -3
134
GTE-147
4.00m
4.60m
mm
Barrette
0.80x2.70x-43.00m
9 Barrette
) -
11
Barrette 1.0x2.70 49.0 Barrette

0.8x2.70 14 2 2
Dynamic Load Test
2,055
10 Barrette
11
)
( 12 13)

2
Barrette 0.8x2.70 20
GTE-148
135
2.47
2.67
GAS PIPE LINE

34"
15.90
15.90
3.48
4.47
BARRETTE
0.80X2.70
0.
80
70
2.
GAS PIPE LINE

34"
12 Barrette
13
(Monopole) 2,584 -
63
Barrette 1.0x2.70
(Cruciform Barrette) 20 ( 14 15) Cruciform
Barrette 2
14 Barrette (Cruciform Barrette)
15 Cruciform Barrette

Barrette

1. , ,
40 , , 1-25, 2540
2.
N. Thasnanipan , A. W. Munag and P. Tanseng, Barrettes Found in Bangkok Subsoils, Construction and
Performance, 13th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Taipei Taiwan, 573-578, 1998.
136
GTE-149
POLYMER IN WET PROCESS BORED PILES CONSTRUCTION IN BANGKOK SUBSOIL
: (Wet Process Bored Pile)

20

VWSG
ABSTRACT: Bentonite was widely used for stabilizing the bored hole of wet process bored piles in
Bangkok over 20 years because at that time environmental problem is not a serious concern. But now
Bangkok becomes a big city and environmental problem also becomes a major concern. Using bentonite
may cause a problem on cleanliness of the site. To solve this problem may cause a lot costly. Therefore
polymer is another choice of drilling fluid for bored pile construction which could reduces
environmental problem. This paper will present mechanism of polymer to stabilize bore holes and report
about bored pile construction using polymer slurry. It also presents the test results from VWSG readings
of the piles constructed with polymer slurry showing high skin friction ratio.
KEYWORDS: Bored Pile, Polymer Slurry, and Bentonite Slurry

For further details, contact: SEAFCO Co., Ltd., 26/10 Rarm Intra 109 Road, Bangchan, Klong Sam
Was, Bangkok 10510, Homepage: www.seafco.co.th, Email: seafco@seafco.co.th
137
GTE-115
1.
20

[2]

[1]
2.
Filtration 1

Filter Cake
[3] Filtration (Strand)
(Gel) ( 2)
POLYMER
GELS
Bentonite
Suspension
Bentonite
Particle
POLYMER-FORMATION
INTERFACE
Hydrostatic
Pressure
1 Filter Cake Formation
POLYMER
STRANDS
POLYMER
SLURRY
Soil grains
Bentonite
filter cake
POLYMER STRANDS
Cohesion

POLYMER STRANDS

PORES
SOIL
GRAINS
(Polymer gel) (Polymer strands)

High Viscosity Gel Fluid
138
( )
Electrochemical
gel-permeated, cohesion-enhanced soil Gel Membrane Gel
Membrane
Filtration
Thixotropy
(gel) 3
Desander Desilter
Polymer (gel)
4

Cleaning Bucket
(Viscosity)

Viscosity
Suspended
soil particle
in bentonite
slurry
Soil particles
are settling
Polymer
slurry
Bentonite
slurry
Sediments at
base of borehole
3
Desander
Desilter
139
Cleaning Bucket
1:50 1:200 [2]
4. Pilot Pile
4.1

(Pilot Pile)
800 .
Vibrating Wire Strain Gauge (VWSG) 6
49.00
50.19

Cleaning Bucket

2 5
Drilling Monitoring 6
50
Sediment (cm.)
40
30
20
Pile No. 1 (0.80m dia.)

Test Pile (0.80m dia.)
10
0
0
50
100
150
200
Time after excavation (min)
140
6
Drilling Monitoring
Static Load Test

.
7 8 Load (Tons)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Load (tons)
1200
0.0
Settlement (mm)
Settlemet (mm)
400
600
800
1000
1200
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
200

Diameter = 800mm
Pile tip = -49.00 m
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
Bored Pile at Thonburi Side

Diameter = 800mm
Pile tip = -50.19 m
8 Load-Settlement curve
7 Load-Settlement curve
,
9 10 1
SPT (Blows/ft)
0
20
40
60
100
0.0
Soft to Medium
Clay
BORED PILE Dia. = 800mm
10.0
20.0
Loose Sand
Stiff to Very
Stiff Clay
30.0
Medium to Very
Dense Sand
Very Stiff to
Hard Clay
40.0
1000
1500
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
Max test load

25% of max. load
50% of max. load
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
49.0
50.0
Medium to Very
Dense Sand
500
0.0
Stiff to Very
Stiff Clay
Medium Dense
Sand
Unit Skin Friction (T/m 2)
Load (Tons)
80
50.0
60.0
9 , , Pilot Pile
Load (Tons)
SPT (Blows/ft)
0
40
80
0.0
0.0
10.0
10.0
Loose Sand
Very Stiff
Clay
Very Dense Sand
BORED PILE Dia. = 800mm
Soft Clay
20.0
30.0
Medium to
Dense Sand
Medium Clay
40.0
400
800
Unit Load (T/m2)

1200
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Max test load

25% of max. load
50% of max. load
20.0
30.0
40.0
Medium
Dense Sand
Very Dense
Sand
50.0
50.19
50.0
60.0
10 , , Pilot Pile
141
GTE-119
800mm. x 49.0m
800mm. x 50.19m

()
()
()
(%)
990
971
19
98.1
990
967
23
97.7
4.2

(nontoxic) (degradable)
5.

Filter Cake

6.
Mr. Aung Win Muang
7.
1. , , (2541),
,
2. A. A. Ata and M. W. ONeill (1988), Side-wall stability and side-shear resistance in bored piles constructed
with high-molecular-weight polymer slurry, Pro. Of the 3rd International Geotechnical Seminar on Deep
Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles, Ghent, Belgium.
3. (2542).
. 2542 ... 9-16
142
-301

. , 7-9 2544
Bored Piling Construction and Their Associated Problems

1
30
30

Abstract
Bored piles have been introduced in to Thailand over 30 year ago. Within 3
decades, various bored piles construction methods have been introduced. Among then
however many construction methods are impractical for Bangkok subsoils condition and
hence they were finally out from the market. Three popular types have remained in the
construction market namely, rotary type, tripod type and excavation type. This paper
discusses on the guide lines in construction and associated problems of the popular bored
piles types in Thailand.
26 / 10 109 10510
143
-302-
1.

1 Tomlinson (1994)

NON-DISPLACEMENT
Grout intruded
A bore is formed by
means of a hollowcentred flight auger
Grout is intruded and
either displaces or is
mixed with bore spoil
A Void is formed by
boring or excavation
Partially preformed piles

The void is
Percussion bored
Preformed
units are
grouted in
place
Rotary bored
Excavation
Barrete
Small diameter
Large diameter
Using tripod
Using crane
Large diameter
Straight shafted
Minipile
Under-reamed
Small diameter
Micro pile
1 after Weltman et al. (1977)

1. (Percussion Type) :

(Dry Process)
144
-303-

(Direct Circulation Method)
2
2. (Rotary Type)
(Dry Process)
(Wet Process) Rotary Drilling
Rig 3 Rotary Drilling Rig
Reverse Circulation Rig
3. (Excavation Type)
(Grab) Diaphragm Wall
Barrette
4
618
2.
2.1 (Tripod bored pile)
60
(Clay soil)
.. 2515
(Pressure bored pile)
145
-304-

2.2. (Rotary bored piles using auger and bucket)
.. 2520

400 . 2000 .
5
2.3. (Excavation pile)

(Barrette)
Diaphragm walls 6

146
-305-
3.
3
2
3.1. (Dry Process Bored Pile)

7 8
1. Boring the pile shaft in granular soil using temporary casing and shell
2. Reinforcement and tremie tube inserted in pile shaft at the start of the concreting operation
3. Concreting commenced with water and silty slurry being displaced
4. Water and Slurry discharging as concreting proceeds
5. Withdrawing temporary casing
6. Complete pile
618
Bentonite
Out
1. Insert steel casing by a high frequency

2. Start drilling by auger until bored tothe final depth
3. Lowering rebar cages
4. Placing concrete through short funnel on the top of casing
5. Extracting the casing by hydraulic Vibartor
6. Completed pile
147
-306-
3.2. (Wet Process Bored Pile)

3.2.1.

VIBRATOR
618
TEMPORARY
CASING
B e nto nite
O ut
REINFORCEMENT
C A GE
TRIMIE PIPE
BUCKET
I NSTAL L ATION OF
T E M P . C A S I NG
DRILLING
REINFORCEMENT
I N S T A L L ATI ON
CONCRETING
( T R I M I E M ETHOD)
REMOVAL OF
T E M P . CAS ING
. :
(Stiff clay)

. (Earth auger)

(Bucket)
148
-307-
.

(Desander and desilting)
. :
7.5 .
. : (Tremie concrete)
10
.

. :
Vibro Hammer
3.2.2
( 10)
(Grab)
(Guide wall)
1.5

(Barrette Pile)
GUIDE WALL
TREMIE PIPE
REINFORCEMENT
CAGE
BENTONITE
SLURRY
EXCAVATION
INSTALLATION OF
REINFORCEMENT
CONCRETING
(TREMIE METHOD)
10 Barrette
149
-308-
3.2.3.

3.2.3.1. (Bentonite slurry)
Hutchinson
et al (1974) (Functions)
)
)
)
)
)

)
) ) (Thick
slurries) ) ) (Fluid slurries)
Reese et al (1985)
(An Ideal
Slurry, therefore, is impossible. However, effective slurry is possible with control.)

1
1
1
Density, March Viscosity, pH Value, Sand Content Fluid Loss
3.5-6.0% Density 1.02-
150
-309-
1.04 g/cm3
Density 1.20 g/cm3
2 ICE (1996)
Silt
( , 2543)
1
1977)
al. (1975)
1988)
Authors
Reese and
O' Neil
ICE (1988)
(1988)
ACI (1989)
*AASHTO
(1992)
Bentonite
Bentonite or
Bentonite or
or
Attapulgite
Attapulgite
Attapulgite
1.03 to 1.10
1.03 to 1.20 1.03 to 1.20
<1.10
1.03 to 1.20
<1.02 (Polymer)
8 to 11
8 to 12
8 to 11
9.5 to 12
8 to 12
8 to 11
<4%
<4% (bearing pile)
<4%
<4%
(by volume)
(by volume)
<1% (Polymer)
Slurry Type
Bentonite
Calcium
Bentonite
Density
(gm/cc)
<1.10
1.024 to 1.218
pH
9.5 to 12
<11.7
Sand Content
<6%
(by weight)
<35% (by
weight)
30 to 90
28 to 40
28 to 45
30 to 90
26 to 50
28 to 45
28 to 45
<20
<20
<20
<20
Marsh Funnel
Viscosity
(sec/Qt)
Plastic Viscosity
(cP)
Yield Point
(Pa)
10 min. Gel
Strength (Pa)
Differential Head
(m)
Fluid Loss
(30 minute test)
**Maximum
Contact Time
(hr.)
Notes :

Neil (1993)
(1996)
Bentonite
Bentonite
1.02 to 1.07
1.02 to 1.13
<1.10
<1.15
8 to 10
8 to 10
9.5 to 10.8
9.5 to 11.7
<4 %
<10%
<2%
<2%
32 to 60
32 to 60
30 to 70
< 90
6 to 8.5
6 to 10.0
2 to 6.0
2 to 6.5
4 to 40
3.6 to 20
1.9 to 10
4 to 40
4 to 40
4 to 40
>1
1.5
< 40
<60

Sample from pile prior
As Supplied to pile
to placing concrete
Test Method and API RP13

apparatus
Section
Density
Mud balance
Low temperature
Less than 1.10 g/ml
Less than 1.15 g/ml
Test fluid loss
Less than 40 ml
Less than 60 ml
30 to 70 seconds
(27 - 50)(1)
4 to 40 N/m2
Less than 90 sec.

4 to 40 N/m2
Less than 2%
9.5 - 10.8
(8 - 11) (1)
Less than 2%
9.5 - 11.7
(<12) (1)
Fluid loss
(30 minute test)
Viscosity
Shear strength
Sand Content
PH
Marsh Cone
Fann Viscometer
Sand screen set
2
2
4
(2)
1)
2) Electrical pH meter pH paper
151
-310-
3.2.3.2. (Polymer Slurry)

Hydrocarbon
(Biodegradation)

(, 2543)
(Strand) Gel
( 11)
POLYMER
GELS
POLYMER-FORMATION
INTERFACE
POLYMER
STRANDS
POLYMER
SLURRY

POLYMER STRANDS
POLYMER STRANDS
Cohesion

PORES
SOIL
GRAINS
11
( 12)
13
High Fluid Loss Density

152
-311Load (Tons)
0
120
74.5
76.3
79.9
97.7
600
800
1000
1200
92.3
82.0
10.0
Settlemet (mm)
Skin friction
(%)
Total load
80
98.1
Using Polymer Slurry
79.1
400
0.0
Using Bentonite Slurry
100
200
60
40
20
20.0
30.0
Project X
Thon buri
Bangkok
MRTA
TP-10
TP-6
TP-3
TP1
40.0
12

Diameter = 800mm
Pile tip = -49.00 m
13
800mm 47 ( ,
2543)
3.2.4.
0.5%

1%

( 14)
14
3.2.5.
Fleming and
Sliwinski (1977) 3 Bartholomew
(1979)
153
-312-
4
3 Fleming and Sliwinski
(1977)
> 175
0.6
, 20
(Natural and complying with zone 2 or 3 grading)
30 45%
400
4 W / C Bartholomew (1979)

()

()
()
350 450
380 500
(. )
300 450
(W/C)
0.5 0.55
0.475 0.5
0.45- 0.5
(. )
(W/C)
350-450
0.5 0.6
350 450
0.475 0.5
400 500
0.43 0.45
Reese and ONeill (1988)

(Excellent Fluidity),
(Self compaction under self-weight),
(Resistance to Segregation and Bleeding), (Controlled
setting), (Resistance to harsh environment),
(Resistance to leaching)
(Appropriate Strength and Stiffness)
154
-313-

(Slump Test), (Retardation Time)
(Compressive Strength)

(Cohesiveness Resistance to
Segregation)

4.
4.1
4.1.1.
()

Vibro hammer

15
(Stiff clay)
Soft Clay
Medium
Clay
Stiff Clay
15

155
-314-
4.1.2.
16
17

(Pile Toe)
(Sand Layer or Clayey/ Silty Sand Layer)
(Stiff to Hard Sandy /Silty
Clay) (Impermeable Soil)

(Clay Cutter)

16
17
156
-315-
4.1.3.

(Slumping of Concrete)
18 7.5 .

18
4.1.4.
(Cohesive Concrete)
(Resistance to Segregation or Bleeding)
(Good Workability Concrete) (High Durability Concrete)
(Concrete Slump) 10.5 15.5 .
Thorburn et al, (1977) (Low workability

concrete) 19

157
-316-
19 Low workability concrete mix
ADSC (1995)

20
ADSC (1995)
Free Fall 5 . Thorburn et
al (1997) Free fall
21
20

21
158
-317-
4.1.5.

(Pressure)
(Pressure Piling)

( 22)

( 23 .
23 .)

22 Pressure
23 . Pressure
159
23 .
after Thorburn et al, 1977
-318-
4.2
4.2.1

Cleaning Bucket Recycle (Air Lift)
( 24)
Soft toe 24

4.2.2.

Tremie Pipe ,
, ,

, ,

4.2.2.1 :
,

160
-319-
4.2.2.2 :
, , , ,

,

(Bleeding) 25
26
(Air Pocket ) (Segregation)
(High Permeability
Concrete) Fleming et al (1992)

(Tremie Pipe)
27
20 .

80
(
)
5
28

(Dense)

161
-320-

(Bleeding
occurs during the dormant period before the initial setting of the concrete: Sliwinski and
Fleming, 1982)

(W/C)
(Gravity) (Blockage) 29
(Anti-Bleed Admixture)
()
26
( ,2536 )
25
27
Tremie(, 2543)
28

(after Thasnanipan
et al, 2000)
162
29
Ttemie
(, 2543)
-321-
4.2.2.3 :

,
Xanthakos (1994)
Compaction Ratio
0.95 0.96
4.2.3.
(Tremie Concrete)
(End Product)
(Integrity)

1. (First Batch) (Plug)
2.
( 30)
3.
4.
,
, Filter Cake
163
-322-
5.

filter cake
( 31)
6.
7. (Jarring)
( 32)
Bentonite
Mix zone
Mix zone
Rigidification
area
New
concrete
Fluidization
area
Previous
concrete
1
1
1.
2.
1.
3.
31
2.
3.
32
8.
9.
( 33)
10. Workability , ,
,
34
33
164
34
-323-
11. Slump Flowability

12. (Stiff)
(Initial Set)
4.3.
4.3.1

1.0, 1.2
1.5 59 900
FSP III 16
35 35
8.10

450 Sonic integrity test (Seismic Test)

32 36 Type B Structural Defect

37
Soft Clay
6.2cm/s
Med. Very Stiff

Clay Clay
4.1cm/s
Dense Sand
12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
4000m/s
f:8
exp : 20
Pile 681
8 Apr 96
Pile 681A
29 May 96
Dense Sand
12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
4000m/s
exp : 20
f:8
v2-88c
sr
v2-88c
sr
37
36
165
-324-
4.3.2 (Soil Heave or Swelling)

15
17
25
60 . 26
16 . 6 143
14 38
FSP III 1.0 3.5 (after Thasnanipan et al, 1998)
0.85 5.95
Seismic Test 71
(84%) 5.5 13.8
24 1 Dynamic Load Test
22 90%
2 50% 1 38
39

20.2cm/s
Plaxis 40
V2-88c
Pile 103
4000m/s
f:8
sr
17 Feb 93
exp : 20
13.3cm/s
V2-88c
(Swelling Heaving)
Pile 48
f:8
4000m/s
sr
17 Feb 93
exp : 20
(Tension Force)
18.8cm/s

V2-88c
Pile 50
4000m/s
f:8
sr
Moment
17 Feb 93
exp : 20
Ultimate Moment Capacity
39 ,
41 Sonic Integrity test (Seismic

Test)
Type B Structural Defect ()
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
166
-325Bending Moment
(T-m)
-10
10
20
Displacement
(mm)
20
EXCAVATION AND BRACING SYSTEM

40
0.00
1ST STRUT
2ND STRUT
5.00
SHEET PILE
BORED PILE
10.00
Depth
(m)
15.00
Cracking
Moment of
Pile
Interface
between Soft
and Stiff
Clay
20.00
SOFT TO MEDIUM
CLAY
STIFF CLAY
MEDIUM CLAY
STIFF CLAY
25.00
HARD CLAY
30.00
40 FEM
41
4.3.3
- 1.50
6.00
42

Capillary Suction (Inter Connection Pore)

Type C Structural Defect

- Thorburn et al, (1977)

43 Structural Defect
42
43
(Thorburn et al,. 1977)
167
-326-
4.3.4

Sonic Integrity Test

(ICE/FPS,
1999)
44 ()

()

300 . 30 .(after ICE/FPS,1999)
44
5. (Grouted Bored Pile)
(Soil relaxation)
Overburden Pressure
(Stress Relief)
(Disturbed)

168
-327-
5.1 (Shaft grouted bored piles)

Hopewell (
BERTS ) 45 46
46 Arrangements of final shaft grout detail
45 Arrangement of initial shaft grout circuit
(Littlechild et al, 1998b)
detail (Littlechild et al, 1998b)

47
47 Load versus pile head movement for pile shaft grouted in sand showing initial and
reload test loading (Littlechid et al, 1998b)
169
-328-
5.2 (Base grouted bored piles)

..
2527 9

)
30 .. PACKER
PACKER
2, 3 4
( 48) CROSS
HOLE ULTRASONIC TESTING SENSOR
( 49)
48
49 CROSS- HOLE
ULTRASONIC
) GROUTING CELL (FLAT-JECK)

GROUTING CELL

GROUTING CELL

GROUTING CELL

GROUTING CELL 50
170
-329-
50 GROUTING CELL
) NONE RETURN VALVE

TUBE-A-MANCHETTES (U) ( 51 .)
2 (2 CIRCUITES) TUBE-A-MANCHETTES
1/2
GROUTING PUMP NONE RETURN VALVE
Tube-A-Manchette
( 51.)
51 .
Load (ton)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Settlement (mm)
10
P.E. TUBE
I.D. = 25mm
RUBBER
SLEEVE
RUBBER
SLEEVE
SECTION AT BASE
PILE BASE
20
30
Age: 61 days
40
50
Age: 57 days
60
70
ELEVATION

51 .
Tube-A-Manchette (, 2540)
51 .
(, 2540)
171
-330-
6.
,

7.


ACI (1994), Standard specification for end bearing drilled piers, (ACI 336.1)
ADSC (1995) Standard and specification for the foundation drilling industry.
(Incorporating ACI 336.1 94)
ADSC and DFI (1989), Drill shaft inspector's manual.
Bartholomew, R.F.(1979), The Protection of Concrete Pile in Aggressive Ground
Conditions: An International Appreciation in Proceeding. Conference on. Recent Piling
Developments in the Design and Construction of Piles. Organized by Institution of Civil
Engineers, London, pp 131 141.
British Standard Institution, BS8004: Code of practice for foundation, BSI London.
Flemming, W. G. K. and Sliwinski, Z. J. (1977), The use and influence of bentonite in
bored pile construction, CIRIA report PG3.
172
-331
Fleming, W. G. K., Weltman, A. J., Randolph, M. F., Elson, W. K. (1992), Piling

Engineering, John Wiley&Sons, Inc.
Gasaluck, W., Luthisungnoen, P., Angsuwotai, P. Muktabhant,P. and Mobkhuntod,
P(2000). On thw Design of Foundation in Collapsible Khon Kaen Loess., Geo Eng 2000.
An International Conference on Geotechnical and Geological Enineering., Melbourne,
Australia, 19-24 November 2000. Pp in CD Rom.
Hutchinson, M. T., Daw, G. P., Shotton, P. G. and Jame, A. N(1974). The properties of
Bentonite Slurries used in Diaphragm Walling and their control. Diaphragm Walls &
Anchorages. Proc. of the conf. Organized by The Institution of Civil Engineers and Held
in London, 18 20 Sep 1974. (Printed in 1975). Pp 33 39
Littlechild B., Plumbridge G. (1998a), Effect of Construction Technique on the Behavior of
Plain Bored Cast In-situ Piles Constructed Under Drilling Slurry, Conference Papers of 7th
International Conference and Exhibition on Piling and Deep Foundations, Vienna, Austria,
pp. 1.6.1 to1.6.8.
Littlechild B., Plumbridge G., Free M. W. (1998b), Shaft Grouted Piles in Sand and Clay in
Bangkok, Conference Papers of 7th International Conference and Exhibition on Piling and
Deep Foundations, Vienna, Austria, pp. 1.7.1 to1.7.8.
Reese, L. C. and Tucker, K. L. (1985), Bentonite slurry in constructing drilled piers,
Drilled piers and caisson II, ASCE convention., Denver, Colorado, USA.
Reese, L. C. and O Niel, M. W. (1988), Drill Shafts Construction Procedures and Design
Methods, US. Department of Transportation Incorporation with ADSC.
Sliwinski, Z. J. and Fleming, W. G. K. (1974), Practical consideration affecting the
performance of diaphragm walls, Proceedings of the conference on diaphragm wall and
anchorage, ICE, London.
Sliwinski, Z. J. and Fleming, W. G. K. (1982), The Integrity and performance of bored
piles, Advance in Piling&Ground Treatment for Foundation, ICE, London., pp.153-165
Thasnanipan, N., Maung, A. W., and Tanseng, P. (1998) Damages to Piles Associated
with Excavation Works in Bangkok Soft Clay. Proceeding of the Sixth International
Conference on Problem of Pile Foundation Engineering. Russia. Pp. 91-98 (Volume III) .
Thasananipan, N., Muang, A. W., Navaneethan, T. (2000), Non-Destructive Integrity
Testing on Piles Founded in Bangkok Subsoils, 6th International Conference on the
173
-332-
Application of Stress Wave Theory to Piles (Stress Wave 2000), So Paulo City, Brazil,
(Paper has been accepted by organizing committee)
The Institution of Civil Engineers, ICE (1996), Specification for piling and Embedded
Retaining wall (1996) Thomas Telford. London.
The Institution of Civil Engineers and The Federal of Piling Specialists, ICE/FPS. (1999),
The Essential Guide to the ICE Specification for Piling and Embedded Retaining Walls.
Thomas Telford.
Thorburn, S. and Thorburn J. Q. (1977), Review of problems associated with the
construction of cast-in-place piles, CIRIA report PG.2
Tomlinson M. J. (1994), Pile Design and Construction Pratice, 4th Edition, E&FN Spon.
Weltman, A.J, Little J.A (1977), A Review of Bearing Pile Types, Construction Industry
Research and Information Association , CIRIA Report PG.1.
Xanthakos(1994), P. P., Slurry Walls as Structural Systems . McGraw Hill Inc.
(2536) Concrete Technology, CPAC
(2540),
, 40, ..., . ,
, 1-26
(2543),
, 2000
. P 38.
, , (2543),
: ,
6, , GTE211-GTE216
(2543)
, 6,
, GTE115-GTE120
174

BEHAVIOR OF POLYMER SLURRY FOR WET-PROCESS BORED PILE
CONSTRUCTION IN BANGKOK SUBSOILS
. 1 2
Wanchai Teparaksa1 and Thayanan Boonyarak2
1
, 2
: (Polymer Slurry) (Bentonite Slurry)

(1) (2) (Time for Initial Cake Formation,
Tc) (3) (Filter Cake)

()
()
ABSTRACT: Polymer slurry has been adopted to replace the bentonite slurry as the hole stabilizing slurry for wetprocess bored pile construction in Bangkok subsoils. This research aims to study the behavior of polymer slurry by
means of models testing and field investigation. The results show that, in case of increasing ratio of bentonite in the
slurry, (1) the filtrate volume through sand layer decreases, (2) the time for initial cake formation (Tc) decreases and
(3) the thickness of filter cake increases. On the other hand, in case of using pure polymer slurry, the filtration rate of
slurry remains steady. The adhesion factor () for estimating unit skin friction in clay layer of bored piles using
polymer slurry are in the same range as those of bored piles using bentonite slurry. The friction factor () for
estimating unit skin friction in sand layer of bored piles using polymer slurry are significantly increased compared
with the case of bentonite slurry.
KEYWORDS: POLYMER SLURRY, BENTONITE SLURRY, WET-PROCESS BORED PILE, FILTRATION
1.

(Filter Cake),
(Air Lift) (Desander),

,
,

175
2.
1 2

(Clay Mineral)
Na-Montmorillonite
Mc-Gel
3-6% (
[5] )
(Hydrated) (Colloid)

(Filter Cake)
3
(Long
Chain Molecule) PHPA (Partially Hydrolized
Polyacrylamides)
JF-Mud P 0.05-0.1%

(Drag Force)
(0.5-1.5%)
4
Suspended
soil particle
in bentonite
slurry
Thick filter
cake is
formed
Bentonite
slurry
Soft sediment
at base of
bored hole
Soil particle
is settling
Thin filter
cake is
formed
Sand
Particle
Polymer slurry
mix with very
little amount of
Bentonite
Dense sediment
at base of
bored hole
Polymer Chain
Structure
1
4
3.
(Filter Cake) (Clay

Particle)

(Model Test)
(Teparaksa and Boonyarak [3], [6] )
5

(Time of Initial Cake
Formation, Tc) (Hutchinson et al [1] ) 6

(Bentonite 5%)
176
Filtrate Volume (cm )
7
(Bentonite 5%)

(Polymer 0.05% Bentonite 1%)

(Polymer 0.15%)

4000
3500
3000
2500
Polymer 0% Bentonite 5%
Polymer 0.05% Bentonite 1%
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
Polymer 0% Bentonite 5%
Filtrate Volume (cm )
1500
1000
10
20
30
Time (sec)0.5
40
50
60
7 60
4.
500
0
0
Tc
5
10
15
Time (sec)0.5
20
25
30
(Polymer 0.15%)

7

(Polymer 0.05% Bentonite 1%)

Tc

(Filter Cake)
177

(Pocket Penetrometer)
()

8
9

10

(Bentonite = 1% Polymer = 0.1% )

5.
60
(Shear Box Sampler)

(Upper Shear Box) (Mortar)

(Lower Shear Box) 11
(Direct Shear Testing
Apparatus) 12
()

(Normal Stress) 13

( )

Shear Strength (kN/m2)
250
200
Pocket
Penetrometer
150
100
Bentonite
Bentonite
Bentonite
Bentonite
Bentonite
50
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
% of Polymer
0.2
0%
1%
1.5%
2%
5%
0.25
10
(Pocket Penetrometer)
11 (Upper Shear
Box) (Mortar)
178
(Undrained Shear Strength, Su)
() (Angle of
Shearing Resistance, )

(Filter Cake)

15
12
(Direct Shear Testing Apparatus)
= 23.4
1.25
= 18.9
80
= 17.1
60
Adhesion factor,
Max. Friction (kN/m2)
100
40
1st sand-mortar (no slurry)
polymer 0.1%+bentonite 1.5%
bentonite 5%
20
0
0
50
100
150
200
Normal Stress (kN/m2)
250
Bored Pile using Bentonite

Bored Pile using Polymer
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
300
13
100
200
300
Undrained Shear Strength (kN/m2)
14
() (Su)
6.
( )
179
0.6
Friction factor, = (Ks.tan )
8
( [4],
[7] )
(Adhesion
Factor, )
(Friction Factor, ) 14
( )

Polymer
0.4
0.2
Bentonite
0.0
30.0
31.0
32.0
33.0
34.0
Angle of Internal Friction, '
35.0
36.0
15
() ()
7.

(Cleaning Bucket)

,
, , ,
,
(R. Edmundo Majano and Micheal W. Oneil [2] )

Proceeding of the fourteenth KKNN Seminar on Civil Engineering,

Kyoto, November, pp 439-444, 2001.
[4] ,
,
, 2542
[5] , ,
,
6, 2543
[6] ,
,
, 2545
[7] ,
,
6, 2543
For further information, contact: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Wanchai

Teparaksa, Department of Civil Engineering, Chulalongkorn
University, Bangkok 10330 E-mail: fcewtp@eng.chula.ac.th
8.

,
,

[1] Hutchinson, M.T. et al, Properties of Bentonite Slurries used in

Diaphragm walling and their control, pp 33-39. Institution of Civil
Engineers, London, 1975.
[2] Edmundo, M. R. and Oneil, M. W., Effect of Mineral and Polymer
Slurries on Perimeter Load Transfer in Drilled Shafts, ADSC: The
International Association of Foundation Drilling, Houston, Texas,
1993.
[3] Teparaksa, W and Boonyarak, T, Performance and Behavior of
Polymer Slurry in Wet-Process Bored Pile in Bangkok Subsoils,
180

Concrete Technology for Deep-Seated Wet-Process Bored Piling
1 2 3 4
1
2 3 4
: (Tremie)
20-75

(Bleeding)

ABSTRACT: Deep-seated wet-process bored pile is considered as a special structure constructed in the ground where
concrete must be placed through tremie pipe to cast in-situ under the support fluid. Most of the deep bored piles have
been designed with full length of steel cage and with slenderness ratio ranging from 20 to 75. Placing of concrete in
bored pile is also different from other works as it required continuous placing without interruption till completion.
Moreover, due to the nature of the construction process, concrete for bored piles cannot flow or being compacted by
vibrator. Many of the designers and concrete suppliers usually miss the essential characteristics of the green concrete
for bored piles, which must be poured under special conditions such as flowing through the tremie pipe by gravity to the
base of the borehole, displacing support fluid and flowing up through the steel cage without mixing with the support
fluid, ground water and soil. Such fresh concrete required resistance to segregation and bleeding, resistance to leaching
and compaction under self-weight with appropriate strength and durability after hardening. This paper discusses the
basic characteristics required for the concrete in deep wet-process bored pile construction.
1.

1 2

181
(Slump)
17-20
.
1 [6]
2
(Tremie)
2.1.2

(Tremie)

(Bleeding)

4

(w/b)
0.4
5

(Water-reducing agent)
[5]
2.

2.1
2.1.1 (Workability)

(Tremie) 3
3 (Tremie) (Hopper)
182
(Friction and end bearing type)

( fc 240-280 ksc )
4
[4]
2.2.2

5
[4]
2.1.3 (Setting Time)

(Tremie)

4
100 .
6
2.2
2.2.1

(Friction type)
183
6 100 . 4
[6]
3.
3.1

380 ./..
400 ./..

3.1.1
(Ordinary
Portland Cement)

(Sulphate Resistance Portland Cement)

200 ./..
3.1.2

(Coal fly ash) 7

[7]

20-50%

60%
3.3

3.3.1 (Water-reducing Agent)

8

9
7 ( )
( ) [7]
3.2

15-20
.

8 ( )
( )
[4]
184
4.

- 2 .

- (Plug)

9 ( )
( )
[4]
3.3.2 (Retarder)

3.3.3 (Air-entraining Agent)

[4]

185
- (
3-5 .)

(Filter Cake)

[2]
10
10

(Filter cake)
-
(
7.5 .)

11
11

-
(
)
12
5.
6.
[1] ICE, Specification for Piling and embedded retaining

wall, Thomas Telford Publishing, London, 1996
[2] Teparaksa, W and Boonyarak, T, Performance and
Behavior of Polymer Slurry in Wet-Process Bored
Pile in Bangkok Subsoils, Proceeding of the
fourteenth KKNN Seminar on Civil Engineering,
Kyoto, November, pp 439-444, 2001.
[3] Xanthakos, P. P., Slurry Walls as Structural Systems .
McGraw Hill Inc., 1994
[4] , ,
, 2536
[5] ,
,
, 7,
GTE 37-44, , 2544
[6] , ,
,
,
8, GTE 322-327, , 2545
[7] ... 2544, 1
2544
12

-

10
,
, 26/10 109, ,
, 10510, . 0-2919-0090
0-2919-0098 seafco@seafco.co.th
186
PREPARATION AND INSPECTION OF FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION IN HISTORICAL AREA
1 2 2
1
:

3
ABSTRACT: Foundation construction adjacent to historical building has many constraints and
requirements. Contractor needs to have thorough site preparation and proper plan to minimize adverse
effect induced by construction on historical structure. During construction period, appropriate observation
and monitoring should be carried out. In some cases, construction sequences or techniques need to be
modified in order to minimize damage to structures. This paper presents effects from foundation
construction on structure, construction planning, site preparation and construction monitoring. Three case
studies of foundation construction nearby historical area are also presented.
KEYWORDS : Foundation, Pile, Retaining Wall

For further details, contact Chanchai Submaneewong, 26/10 Ram Intra 109 Rd., Bangchan, Khlong
Sam Wah, Bangkok 10510, Tel : 0-2919-0090-7, Fax: 0-2919-0098, E-mail: seafco@seafco.co.th
187
Paper No. __________________________First author name ________ _______ Page 1 of 18
1.

-

Sheet Pile Diaphragm Wall

( 1)

2.

2
188

2.1.

2.1.1.
(Ground movement) (Ground heave)
Premchitt et al (1988)
150 . Marine Deposit
2.1.2.
(Hammer)
2.1.3.
(Compaction)
(O Neill, 1971)

2.2.4
2.2.

(Casing)
189
2.2.1.

( 3)
(
, 2543) Hydrocarbon
(Biodegradation) ( 4)
(Strand) Gel

190
2.2.2.

( 5)

-
2.2.3.

191
2.2.4.

(Casing Installation) (Vibro Hammer)

5-8 . (Vibro Hammer)
2.3.

(
) (
)
2.3.1. (Sheet Pile Wall)
(Flexible Wall)
8 (Rigid Wall)
Diaphragm Wall Secant Pile Wall Sheet Pile

192
. :
( )

. :
16

. :

. Sheet Pile Sheet Pile

( 6)
6 (after Williams et al, 1993)
2.3.2. (Rigid Wall)

(Rigid Wall) Diaphragm Wall Secant Pile Wall

193
3.
3.1.

-
-
14

-

-

7

7 . 50 m

7 . 50 m

194
3.2.

8
3.3
3.3.1. (Vibration Test)
(Peak Particle Velocity,
PPV) (Vibration Monitor) 9
3
NAVFAC
10 DIN 4150
(Historical Structure) (PPV)
5 . /
195
10 NAVFAC
3.3.2.
Tilt Meter
Tilt Sensor Tilt Plate 11
Tilt meter

( )
19
196
11 Tilt meter
3.2.3.
Sheet Pile Diaphragm Wall
Secant Pile Inclinometer 12

Cum. Displacement , mm.

0
20
40
60
80
-20
100
Depth, m.
Depth, m.
-20
10
12
14
16
18
20
7-Apr-01
28-May-01
25-Jun-01
23-Jul-01
22-Aug-01
2-Oct-01
Design
20
40
60
80
100
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
7-Apr-01
28-May-01
25-Jun-01
23-Jul-01
22-Aug-01
3-Oct-01
Design
12 Inclinometer
3.2.4.
Settlement Plate
Plate
Settlement plate
13
197
13 Settlement plate
3.4. (Trigger Level)

Inclinometer
Settlement Plate
(Trigger Level)
3 (, 2545)
Alert Level 70 %

Alarm Level 80 %

Action Level 90 %

198
4.
4.1. 8
8
800 .
12.7 .

14 8
14 (PPV)
0.2-1.0 ./
NAVFAC

199
4.2.

.
3 4 (
) 15
C h a o P h ra ya R iv e r
ya R iv e r
C h a o P h ra
I1 -7
I1 -6
D 1 -1
T1 -1
E1 -2
S2 - 10
S 2 -3
D 2 -3
S 2 -9
D 2 -9
T2 - 10
S 2 -1
I2 -6
T1 -2
5 St or ey
il d in g
F ir s t B u
I1 -8
I2 -1
D 2 -1
T2 -1
B3
D 1 -3
D 2 - 10
D 2 -4 S 2 -4
D 1 -6
S 2 -2
E2 -1
T2 -2
T2 -9
S 2 -8
D 2 -8
S eco nd B u ilding
D 2 -2
B ui ld ing
T1 -3
I1 -5
E2 -5
I2 -3
D 1 -2
E1 -5
l
H is to r ica
B uil d ing
)
( 2 S to rey
T1 - 10
D 2 -7
T1 -4
I1 -2
B6
T2 -8
E2 -4
T2 -3
T1 -8
E1 -4
T1 -9
E1 -1
S 2 -5
T2 -4
I1 -3
B1
I2 -5
S 2 -6
D 2 -5
I2 -4
B4
T2 -5 E2 -2
D 1 -8
E1 -3
T2 -6
T2 -7
0
D 1 -2
B2
D 2 -6 S 2 -7
T1 -5
I1 -4
E2 -3
B5
6 10
20
Legend
I n clin o m e te r in D - W all
T ilt p la te
Ve rtic a l b e a m se n so r
Su rfa c e se ttle m e n t pla te (1 . 0 m )
T1 -6
B uil d ing
7 S to rey
D e e p se ttle m e n t pla te (5 . 0 m )
VW Stra in ga u g e
Ea rth p re s su re ga u g e
P re - lo a d lo ca tio n
15

16 Diaphragm wall
(Inclinometers) Diaphragm
Wall (Settlement points) (Tilt Meters)
Diaphragm Wall 80 . 28
80 . 150 . 48
17
200
16 Diaphragm wall
17
0
20
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
0.00
RIVER
40
40
20
0.00
-1.50
20
40
60
Displacement (mm)
80
80
60
5.00
-6.50
-7.00
Day 155
-9.70
10.00
15.00
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
PREDICTED
OBSERVATION
Day 67
Day 133
Day 221
-12.70
15.00
Day 155
Day 221
Prediction
20.00
25.00
Day
25.00
30.00
20
Day 67
Day 133
10.00
20.00
40
-2.00
River
5.00
Inclinometer
No. I-7
67
133
155
221
Inclinometer
No. I-2
30.00
Inclinometer
No. I-2
18 . 1
Description
Excavate to -2.5m
Excavate to -7.5m
Excavate to -9.70m
Remove strut at -7.00m
Inclinometer
No. I-4
18 . 2
201
Excavation Re co rd
0
50
Excavation Record
Time , Days
10 0
15 0
2 00
2 50
Exc. Depth, m
Exc. D e pth, m
2
6
10
Excav. near the river
12
Excava. aw ay from the river
14
250
300
350
6.0
8.0
10.0
Tilt Me ter and EL Sensor Data

200
1 00
100
T1-1 (B3)
T1-6 (B2)
T1-8 (B1)
Tilt, Second
Tilt, Se cond
200
4.0
Tilt M e te r Data
-1 00
150
2.0
2 00
Time, Days
100
0.0
50
0
-100
E2-2 (B4)
T2-4 (B4)
T2-8 (B5)
T2-10 (B6)
-200
-2 00
19 . Tilt meter 1
(Pornpot et al, 2001)
19 . Tilt meter 2
(Pornpot et al, 2001)

(Pre- Load) 16

18
19
4.3.

9
(
)
704 20
20
202

Diaphragm Wall 60 . 16-25
(Pre - Load)
60 . 700

Diaphragm Wall 3
Normal Alarm Action 21

0
-2
20
40
60
80
NORMAL
100
ALARM
120
140
ACTION
MOST PROBABLE PREDICTION
2
4
Depth, m.
6
MOST UNFAVORABLE
PREDICTION
8
10
Stage 1
Stage 2
12
Stage 3
14
Stage 4
Alarm Trigger Level
16
Action Trigger Level
18
Prediction without buttress
20
21
5.

203
1. , (2543).
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
. 6,
, GTE-115 - GTE-120
(2545).
. 8, ,
GTE-70-GTE-79
DIN 4150 Part 3. (1986). Vibrations in buildings; influence on structures. Deutches Institut fur
Normung.
O Neill, D.B. (1971). Vibration and dynamic settlement from pile driving. Proceedings of the
Conference on Behaviour of Piles, London, pp 135-140.
Premchitt, J., Gray, I. & Massey, J.B. (1988). Initial measurements of skin friction on some driven piles
in reclamation. Hong Kong Engineer, vol. 16 no. 5 pp 25-38.
Pornpot, T., Z Z Aye, Chanchai, S. (2001). Monitoring of diaphragm wall displacement and associated
ground movement, braced excavation adjacent to historical building at the bank of Chao Phraya river.
NCCE 7. Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, GTE 53-60
Williams, B.P and Waite, D. (1993).The design and construction of sheet - piled cofferdams.
Construction Industry Research and Information Association (Special Publication 95), Thomas Telford
Publication.
204
Design Capacity of Wet Process Bored Piles

from the Past to the Present
1
1
: (Wet Process Large Diameter Bored Piles)
30

ABTRACT: Wet process large diameter bored piles have been introduced to use as the foundation piles
in Bangkok subsoil for approximately 30 years ago. At the early stage of using this pile type, the design
engineers and the piling contractors were new to this piling system. So the design engineers have
designed the safe working load based on the conservative limit and the contractors also had no experience
to install the high load capacity piles. But at present the design engineers and the piling contractors all
have better experience in the design and installation technology of bored piles than the past. As a result
the wet process bored piles are nowadays designed and installed with the capacity far higher than those of
the past.
KEYWORD: Wet process bored pile, Load bearing capacity

For further details, contact Mr. Narong Thasnanipan, Seafco Co., Ltd., 26/10 Ram Intra 109 Road,
Bangchan, Klong sam wah, Bangkok 10510, Tel. 0-2919-0090 Fax 0-2919-0098. e-mail:
narong@seafco.co.th
205
Paper No.
First author name
Page
1 of 16 .
1.
(Wet Process Large Diameter Bored Piles)

30

(Support fluid)
(Feeling)

( )

(Support fluids)
(Construction time)
Filter cake

2.

(Rotary drilling under bentonite slurry displacement technique)
(Reverse circulation method: RC) (Auger and Bucket method: A&B)
Reversed circulation .. 2514
45 ( )
45 49 .. 2520 2525
Auger and bucket
(
) 33 32
2522 2523

1
206
Paper No.
First author name
Page
2 of 16 .
1 (Ng, 1983)

(2514)
()
410
(.)
2.20
()
(.)
820
5.00
(.)
0.90
RC
BP 2
1.50
45
RC
(2522)
RC
(2525)
A&B
(2522)
A&B
(2523)
BP 7
1.50
45
BP 10
1.50
49
1.00
33
500
3.14
1200
7.76
2.50
550
3.14
1100
8.15
1.62
320
2.30
750*
24.6
16.8
1.50
32
1.00
32
* Ultimate load of the pile
800
5.18
1600
100.8
94.0
300
2.64
1125*
118.3
108.3
1 .. 2514 - 2525
1.50 Reverse circulation 410 500 550
Auger and bucket 1.50

30
50 50

207
Paper No.
First author name
Page
3 of 16 .

Effective overburden pressure Hydrostatic line
Piezometric drawdown line ( 1)

410 550
Pore Pressure (kN/m 2)
Geotechnical
Parameters
0
400
600
Su= 10-25 KPa

t = 14-16kN/m 3
-
10
Hard Clay
50
Dense to Very
Dense Sand
(Second Sand)
Su> 200 KPa

= 21KN/m 3
t
SPT-N= 50-100
t = 21KN/m 3
60
40
50
e
Lin
wn
40
30
SPT-N= 20-40
t = 20kN/m 3
i ne
tic L
Medium
Dense Sand
(First Sand)
wdo
D ra
30
Su= 50-14020- KPa

t = 17-21kN/m 3
ta
ros
Hyd
Medium to
Stiff Clay
c
etri
zom
Pi e
20
ual
Act
Depth (m)
10
200
Weathered Crust
Bangkok Soft
Clay
60
1
2526 Ng, Kim Cheng (1983)
1
Ng (1983) (Adhesion factors for clay)
2 Nq* 3
2 Adhesion for clays (Ng, 1983)
208
Paper No.
First author name
Page
4 of 16 .
3 Relation between Resistance , Nq and N Value for Bored Piles (Ng, 1983)
Ng (1983)

2
Earth pressure coefficient at rest Ko

(assuming the sand is practically normally consolidated) effective
overburden pressure: OV Pore pressure decline

Nq* 3
(more clayey) 1,000
Overall factor of safety 2.5

3.
Ng, Kim Cheng (1983)

209

.. 2526
.. 2540
50

.. 2526 ( Time Square)

45 75
2
Auger and Bucket Reverse circulation
800 .
1000 .
1200 .
1500 .
300
450
600
950
(.)
3 -4
3-4
3-5
3-6
()
750
11250
1500
2250

(.)
10 - 12
12 - 18
16 - 20
18 - 25

(.)
2-3
24
35
36
3
50% 3

210
3 .. 2514 2523 2533 2538

2514
2538
2523
2533
()
1.5x45
1.2x 45
()
410
700
()
820
1400

(.)
5.00
27.00
1.0x32
1.0x32
300
390
1125
975
118.00
23.00

3.1.
3.1.1

(Viscous Slurry) ( Exposure time Contact Time)
(Thick) (Thin)
(Agitation) (Thixotropy Characteristic)
(Flocculated)
(Gel)
(Disperse)
3.1.2
4
4
4
211
Paper No.
First author name
Page
7 of 16 .
4
Authors

1977)
al. (1975)
1988)
Reese and
O' Neil
ICE (1988)
(1988)
ACI (1989)
*AASHTO
(1992)
Bentonite
Bentonite or
Bentonite or
or
Attapulgite
Attapulgite
Attapulgite
1.03 to 1.10
1.03 to 1.20 1.03 to 1.20
<1.10
1.03 to 1.20
<1.02 (Polymer)
8 to 11
8 to 12
8 to 11
9.5 to 12
8 to 12
8 to 11
<4%
<4% (bearing pile)
<4%
<4%
(by volume)
<1% (Polymer)
(by volume)
Slurry Type
Bentonite
Calcium
Bentonite
Density
(gm/cc)
<1.10
1.024 to 1.218
pH
9.5 to 12
<11.7
Sand Content
<6%
(by weight)
<35% (by
weight)
30 to 90
28 to 40
28 to 45
30 to 90
26 to 50
28 to 45
28 to 45
<20
<20
<20
<20
Marsh Funnel
Viscosity
(sec/Qt)
Plastic Viscosity
(cP)
Yield Point
(Pa)
10 min. Gel
Strength (Pa)
Differential Head
(m)
Fluid Loss
(30 minute test)
**Maximum
Contact Time
(hr.)
Notes :

Neil (1993)
(1996)
Bentonite
Bentonite
1.02 to 1.07
1.02 to 1.13
<1.10
<1.15
8 to 10
8 to 10
9.5 to 10.8
9.5 to 11.7
<4 %
<10%
<2%
<2%
32 to 60
32 to 60
30 to 70
< 90
6 to 8.5
6 to 10.0
2 to 6.0
2 to 6.5
4 to 40
3.6 to 20
1.9 to 10
4 to 40
4 to 40
4 to 40
>1
1.5
< 40
<60

Property to be
measured
Test Method and

apparatus
API
RP13
Section

As Supplied to pile
placing concrete
Density
Mud balance
Low temperature
Less than 1.10 g/ml
Less than 1.15 g/ml
Less than 40 ml
Less than 60 ml
Fluid loss
test fluid loss
(30 minute test)
Marsh Cone
Viscosity
30 to 70 seconds. (27 - 50)(1) Less than 90 sec.

4 to 40 N/m2
4 to 40 N/m2
Shear strength Fann Viscometer

(10 min gel
2
strength)
Sand Content
Sand screen set
4
Less than 2%
Less than 2%
PH
(2)
9.5 - 10.8. (8 - 11) (1)
9.5 - 11.7. (<12) (1)
1) 2) Electrical pH meter pH paper
212
Density, March Cone Viscosity, pH Value,

Sand Content Fluid Loss
3.5-6.0% Density
1.02-1.04 g/cm3
Density 1.20 g/cm3
5 ICE (1996)
Silt
3.2.

(Filter Cake)
Filter Cake
Filter Cake
Filter cake

Filter Cake

Filter Cake 4 5
Filter Cake Filter Cake

4
Tremie pipe (Reese et al, 1985)
213
Paper No.
First author name
Page
9 of 16 .
5 Tremie pipe
filter cake
(Reese et al, 1985)
3.3

Filter Cake

Fleming et al (1977) 24

(Agitated) Filter Cake
Filter Cake
ACI 336.1.94 (Non
Agitation) 4 24
Filter Cake

Littlechild et al (1988)
Hopewell
Littlechild et al (1988) 24
( 6) Viscosity
Viscosity 35 sec/quart

4
214
Paper No.
First author name
Page
10 of 16 .
Actual / calculated shaft resistance
1.50
1.25
SRT1
SRT3
1.00
C10
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Construction time (hrs)
6 Performance of plain bentonite piles versus construction time (Littlechild et al, 1998a)

11 (VWSGs
Extensometer) 40
7
Viscosity 55 sec/quart
11
4 24
Filter cake
7 Effect of construction time

on shaft capacity of bored piles.
(Thasnanipan et al, 1998)
1.60
25
1.40
18
32
27
32
39
1.20
24
19
1.00
32
15
0.80
0.60
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
215
3.4

Cleaning Bucket Recycle Air
Lift

( 8)
Soft toe Soft toe 9
8
(Fleming et al, 1977)
9 Soft toe Grout base (Ng, 1983)

3.5

(Instrument)

(2542)
10,11 12
Effective overburden pressure Piezometric drawdown
216
1.2
Adhesion factor,

0.8
0.4
0.0
0
100
200
300
400
Undrained Shear Strength (kN/m )
10 (), ( 2542)
0.6
= Ks.tan

0.4
0.2
0.0
30
32
34
36
11 (),( 2542)
4.0
Nq*
3.0
2.0
1.0
Bored Piles using Bentonite

0.0
30.0
32.0
34.0
36.0
38.0
40.0
12 (Nq),( 2542)
217
Paper No.
First author name
Page
13 of 16 .
4.
.. 2541
(Littlechild et al, 1998 Thasnanipan et al, 1998)

(7 10 1 ..)

6
6
()
0.80 X 49
0.80 X 50
1.20 X 51
1.80 X 62
1.50 X 54
1.00 X 51
1.00 X 30
0.80 X 41
0.80 X 43
0.60 X 26
0.60 X24

()
330
330
720
1100
1200
450
260
330
330
100
80

()
(.)
(.)
990
3.90
14.95
990
5.20
21.05
1800
4.61
19.76
3300
4.00
12.96
3200
8.60
23.03
1125
2.49
9.15
650
1.67
5.38
990
2.75
11.60
660
4.52
11.20
250
1.61
4.55
200
1.09
4.22
4.1 Instruments
(Instruments) Friction Coefficient of Bangkok Sand (-value)

13

Filter cake

218
Instrument
()
(Teparaksa et al, 2001)
14
0.6
= (Ks.tan )
Polymer
0.4
0.2
Bentonite
0.0
30.0
31.0
32.0
33.0
34.0
35.0
36.0
13 Friction Coefficient of Bangkok Sand () (Teparaksa et al, 2001)
Adhesion factor,
1.25

1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0
100
200
300
14 Friction Coefficient of Bangkok Clay () (Teparaksa et al, 2001)
219
5.

1.
30 50 -100 %
2.
20 - 30 %
3.

1. . .
. . (2542)
2. Fleming, W.K., Sliwinski, Z.J. The Use and Influence of Bentonite in Bored Pile Construction. CIRIA
Report PG3. London. (1977)
3. Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE). Specification for Piling and Embedded Walls. Thomas Telford,
London. (1996)
4. Ng, K.C. The Construction Problems and Performance of Large Bored Piles in Second Sand Layer.
Masters Thesis, GT-82-26 Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok. (1983)
5. Littlechild, B. and Plumbridge, G. Effect of Construction Technique on the Behavior of Plain Bored Cast
In Situ Piles Constructed under Bentonite Slurry. 7th Intl. Conf. and Exhibition on Piling and Deep
Foundation. Vienna Pp. 1.6.1-1.6.8 (1998)
6. Reese, L.C. and Tucker, K.L. Bentonite Slurry in Construction Drill Piers. Drilled Piers and Caisson II.
ASCE Convention., Denver, Colorado, USA. (1985)
7. Teparaksa, W. and Boonyarak, T. Performance and Behavior of Polymer Slurry in Wet Process Bored
Pile in Bangkok Subsoils. 14th KKNN Seminar on Civil Engineering Kyoto, Japan. (2001)
8. Thasnanipan, N., Baskaran, G. and Anwar, M.A. Effect of Construction Time and Bentonite Viscosity
on Shaft Capacity of Bored Piles. 3rd Intl. Seminar Deep Foundation on Bored and Auger Piles., Ghent,
Belgium. Pp 171-177. (1998)
220
EXPERIENCE IN CONSTRUCTION OF LARGEST DIAMETER DEEP SEATED

BORED PILES AT THE BANK OF CHAOPRAYA RIVER
(Narong Thasnanipan)1
(Chalermpol Manosuthisan)2
(Thayanan Boonyarak)3
(Chakkrit Chanchad)3
1
() narong@seafco.co.th
2
() seafco@seafco.co.th
3
:
Pylon Back span
2.0 . 60 65 .

4 2

5,400 Static
1,600
ABSTRACT : The wet-processed bored piles of diameter 2.0m founded 60 to 65m below existing ground level were designed for
foundation of pylon and back-span structures of cable-stayed bridge across the Chaophaya river in Bangkok. Bored piles were
constructed by rotary drilling method under polymer-based slurry. Construction experience of the deepest and largest diameter wetprocessed bored piles ever constructed in multi-layered soil of Bangkok is highlighted in this paper. Four instrumented bored piles
were tested. The maximum load tested was 5,400 ton which marked the highest static pile load test conducted on single circularshape bored pile. Results obtained from both conventional static load test and bi-directional load test are presented. Load transfer
mechanism of this largest diameter deep-seated bored pile is discussed. Ultimate capacity of bored pile derived from the load test
results are compared with those obtained from empirical formula. Apparently, from the test result, the pile could carry a significantly
higher load than the original pre-defined safe design load of 1,600 ton.
KEYWORDS : Wet-process bored pile, Bi-directional load test, Ultimate pile capacity, Instrumented bored piles testing
221
1.
-

(Pylon) 2
(Back Span)
2.0 .

60 65 .

160 (
) 1
1
Su
SPT
Elevation
Soil type
Unit weigt
3
2
(t/m ) (blow/ft)
(t/m )
0.0-3.0
Fill
1.80
3.0-10.0
Soft clay, CH
1.60
1.0-2.5
10.0-15.0 Medium clay, CH
1.75
2.5-5.0
15.0-36.0 Stiff to very stiff
1.85
14-35
clay, CL
36.0-44.0 Dense to very
1.80
31->60
dense sand, SM
44.0-54.0 Hard clay, CL
1.85
28-57
54.0-61.0 Very dense sand,
1.95
47->60
SM
(Soft toe punching failure)

(Tube-a-manchette
grouting) 1 2
2.

2.05 .
18.0 . (Auger)

(Drilling bucket) (Supporting fluid)
60 65 .
(Cleaning bucket)

(Sonic logging test) (Tremie

pipe)
222
2 (Tube-a-manchette
grouting)

24 20

30 bar 5
2200

170 ksc 28
3.
2.0 .
(
0.6 1.80 .)

(Compression hoop)
18.0 .

(Polymer based supporting fluid)

2

(Filter cake)

[1]

(Sonic caliper test)

(Stiffen bar)
(Starter ring)
3
223

50%
2
Stiffen bar (2DB20mm.@2.00 m.)
Starter ring (BD20mm.@2.00m.)
Perimeter of Bored Pile
(Bored Pile Wall)
3 (Stiffen bar) (Starter ring)

(Cofferdam) 4
(Sheet Pile) 16.0 . 2

4
(Temporary cofferdam)
4.
2.00 . 62 .
1600 3.0
4,800
3.0 , 1.0 2.0
6 Load settlement
curve SPP-1
4.1
Sonic caliper test Koden test
1:100
SOUTHERN OUTER BANGKOK RING ROAD PROJECT

SPP-1
LOAD, (ton)
0
4.3
2
(Static load test) Osterberg load test (Bidirectional load test)
4,800 4,000
4.3.1 (Static load test)
224
SETTLEMENT, (mm)
5.0
4.2 [2]
Sonic logging test

(Homogenous concrete)
160
manchette 55 .
6
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0.0
10.0
Cycle1
5.75 mm
Cycle2
Cycle3
5.44 mm
5.11 mm
10.62 mm
15.0
15.73 mm
20.0
22.76 mm
25.0
BORED PILE DIA. 2000 mm

30.0
6 Load settlement curve SPP-1 [3]
4.3.2 Osterberg Load Test

(Bi-directional load test )[4]
Osterberg Load Test
2.00 . 63.5 . 1600
2.5
350
3 8
1

(End bearing)
( O-cell)
2 Dial
gauge Telltale O-cell
INITIAL
STAGE 1
END BEARING
ULTIMATE
STAGE 2
MIDDLE SIDE SHEAR
ULTIMATE
Top Cell Closed
STAGE 3
UPPER SIDE SHEAR
ULTIMATE
Top Cell Pressurized
Bottom Cell Pressurized
Top Cell Pressurized
Bottom Cell Closed
Bottom Cell Draining
8 Osterberg load test

Southern Outer Bangkok Ring Road Project
Bidirectional Static Load Test on 1st Feb 2005 on Pile No. OT-1
CHART 1A - Load Settlement Curve for Cycle 1 Loading
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
10
5
Displacement (mm)
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
Load (tonnes)
pile Top
Cell Top
Cell Bottom
9 Load-settlement curve Cycle 1 (Stage 1)[5]

CHART 1B - Load Settlement Curve for Cycle 2 Loading
3
2
1
Displacement (mm)

Osterberg load test
2
(Upward movement)
(Downward movement) O-Cell ()
Loadsettlement curve

Load-settlement curve Cycle 1
Cycle 2 9 10
Load-settlement curve
Static load test Top down
equivalent curve

Load settlement curve 11
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Load (tonnes)
Pile Top
Cell Top
Cell Bottom
10 Load-settlement curve Cycle 2 (Stage 2

Stage 3)[5]
Upper Side Shear

CHART 2 - Equivalent Top-Loaded Load vs Settlement Chart
Settlement (mm)
Top Cell
Middle Side Shear
Lower Side Shear
Bottom Cell
10
15
20
7 Osterberg load
test
225
25
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Load (tonnes)
Rigid Pile
Adjusted for Elastic Compression
11 Equivalent top-loaded vs. Settlement [5]
5000
4.3.3
2
(Skin friction)
Vibrating Wire Strain Gauge (VWSG)
3 Load
settlement curve
SPP-1 OT-1 10
12 Load-settlement
SPP-1 10.62 .
1,600 22.76 .
4,800 OT-1
7.2 . 19.2
. 4,000
3 SPP-1 OT-1

(/2)
(.)
Static Load Test
Bi-D 90% of
Test load
0-12
0.0
Soft Clay
12-29
7.5
7.2
Stiff Clay
29-37
14.0
5.9*
Medium Clay
37-47
9.0
29.7-11.5
Hard Clay
47-56
30.0*
23.1
Dense Sand
56-58.5
>40.0*
Dense Sand
7.
Note *not fully mobilized

SOUTHERN OUTER BANGKOK RING ROAD PROJECT
STATIC LOAD TEST (SPP-1) VS BIDIRECTIONAL LOAD TEST (OT-1)

LOAD, (ton)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
SETTLEMENT,(mm)
0.0
5.0
5.75 mm
10.0
5.44 mm
5.11 mm
1.

Koden test
2.
(Stiffen
bar) (Starter bar)

50%
2.0 .

1,600
(Mazurkiewiczs Method)
Cycle1
Cycle2
Cycle3
BI-DIRECTION
10.62 mm
15.0
15.73 mm
20.0
22.76 mm
25.0
BORED PILE DIA. 2000 mm

30.0
12 SPP-1 OT-1
5.

226
[1] , 2544.
.

[2] , 2548.
Sonic Logging Test -
,
[3] , 2548.
Static Pile Load Test -
,
[4] . Osterberg Load Cell Test.
[5] , 2548.
Bidirectional Load Test -
,

REVIEW OF THE STATIC LOAD TEST RESULTS OF DEEP-SEATED LARGE
DIAMETER BORED PILES IN BANGKOK
(Zaw Zaw Aye)2
(Chanchai Submaneewong)4
1
() zaw@seafco.co.th
3
() thayanan@seafco.co.th
4
() chanchai@seafco.co.th
30

ABSTRACT : This paper presents a review of the static load test results of deep-seated large diameter bored piles conducted in
Bangkok in past 30 years. Load-transfer mechanism of large diameter bored piles in multi-layered soil is discussed. Safe design loads
of different pile sizes in relation to different pile tip levels applied in various projects are summarized. Information present in this
paper is aimed to serve as source of reference for practicing engineers in construction industry of Thailand.
KEYWORDS : Large diameter bored pile, Load bearing capacity, Load transfer mechanism
1.
227
(Empirical formula)
2.
(VWSG) 1
1 Vibrating
Wire Strain Gauge
Peak unit friction

Brittle failure

Residual unit friction
2
[1]
3
[1]
3.
Total stress analysis

Effective stress analysis

(Back analysis)
228
3.1
-Method
fs = .Su -Method fs= .vi
Ks.tan .vi
(Su)
Ks
tan

(Back
Analysis)
Design Load (T)
1,700
3.2

Su.Nc Nc
9
vi . Nq* Nq*
Nq*
4.

4

.. 2545 2550
0.80 1.80 .
229
1,500
1.00 m
1.20 m
1,300
1.35 m
1.50 m
1,100
1.80 m
0.80 m
900
700
500
300
100
25
35
45
Depth (m)
55
65
1
[2]

(kN/m2)
Soft Clay
17 22
Medium Clay
40 60
Stiff to Very Stiff Clay
75 120
Hard Clay
110 135
Dense to very dense Sand
(80*) 140-220
: *
5.
5.1

(Plunging failure) 5

4.5 . P1

P2

6 P1
P2 P1 800
Plunging failure

Peak unit friction
5 2
[1]
P2 1400

6
2
[1]
5.2
(Reverse Circulation, RC) (Ng, 1983) [3]
(Auger and Bucket, AB)

(Filter cake)
Reverse circulation
Auger &
Bucket
Bucket
( Thixotropy)

Reverse circulation
Auger & Bucket
2

Reverse circulation ..
2514 -2525

Auger & Bucket
3
230
5.3

(Filter cake)

7 8 (, 2542 [5], ,
2545 [6])
() ()
231
1.25
Adhesion factor,
3
[4]

(.)
()
(.)
800 . 300 3-4
750
10 - 12
1000 . 450 3-4
11250
12 - 18
1200 . 600 3-5
1500
16 - 20
1500 . 950 3-6
2250
18 - 25

(Filter cake)

9 () [6]

Cernak (1976) [7]

9 () (, 2545 [6])

1.0-1.5%

1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0
100
200
300
Undrained Shear Strength (kN/m2)
7
() (Su)
0.6
Friction factor, = (Ks.tan )
2
Reverse circulation (Ng, 1983) [3]
. .
.
() (.)
()
RC 1.50x45 . 410
820
5.00
RC 1.50x45 . 500
1200
7.76
RC 1.50x49 . 550
1100
8.15

Polymer
0.4
0.2
Bentonite
0.0
30.0
31.0
32.0
33.0
34.0
35.0
36.0
8
() ()
9 () 9 ()

5.4
Hydro static water pressure

.. 2542 [2]
20 .
10 Nq
Effective overburden stress (v)

Nq
Hydro static water pressure

Conservative
10 .. 2542
[2]
[1] Thasnanipan N, Anwar M.A., Maung A.W.. Failure mechanism of

long bored piles in layered soils of Bangkok. Civil and
Environmental Engineering Conference New Frontiers and
Challenges. Bangkok.1999.
[2] Thasnanipan N, Aye Z.Z, Submaneewong C and Teparaksa W.
Performance of Wet-Process Bored Piles Constructed with PolymerBased Slurry in Bangkok Subsoil. Deep Foundations 2002. Orlando.
2002
[3] Ng, K.C., The Construction Problems and Performance of Large
Bored Piles in Second Sand Layer. Masters Thesis, GT-82-26 Asian
Institute of Technology, Bangkok, 1983.
[4] , , .
. 9.
. 2547
[5] ,
,
, 2542.
[6] ,
,
, 2545
[7] Cernak, B. The Time Effect of Suspension on the Behavior of Piers.
Proceedings, Sixth European Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Found. Eng., 1.1, Vienna. March. 1976.
232
14
13-15 2552

Pile Movement Induced by Basement Construction in Bangkok Sub-soils
(Zaw Zaw Aye)2
1
() zaw@seafco.co.th
3

Finite element
4-15 .

ABSTRACT : Piles with cut-off level deeper than existing ground level are widely used for large buildings or infrastructures in
Bangkok subsoils. Excavation work adjacent to piles for basement or footing construction can cause large soil movement due to low
soil stiffness of Bangkok soft clay. For this reason, appropriate soil protection system is required to pile movement induced by
excavation work. This paper presents theoretical behavior of pile movement caused by excavation work and analysis of pile
movement by finite element program and data collecting from site with excavation depth from 4-15 m deep. Pile movement data can
be collected by indirect calculation from retaining wall movement and observe the movement direction as well as magnitude at pile
cut-off level. Recommended preventive measure of excavation induced pile movement is also presented.
KEYWORDS : Pile movement, Soil and structure stiffness, Soil-structure interaction, Excavation induced soil movement
1.
233
(Local failure)
14
13-15 2552
(2538) [1]
(Steel sheet pile)

Finite
element Poulos & Chen
(1997) [2]

Phienwej and Kanoknukulchai (1989) [3]

Phienwej et al. (1996) [4]

Finite element

(Flexible wall) (Rigid wall)
max/H =0.2-0.7 %
max/H =0.5-1.5 %
Thasnanipan et al (1998) [5]
Sonic integrity testing
8,629

2.2%

234
Displacement
2.

2.1

(Marine deposit)
12-18 .
Liquid limit 70-96%
60-70%
6-20 kPa E50 150-500Su

6-10 .
3-15
.

2.2
(Stiffness) (1)
D
EI = E 64
(1)

0.8 m EI = 51,200 T.m2
4
14
13-15 2552
1.0 m EI = 124,900 T.m 0.8 m

240% 25%
(2)
M
x = f EI
(2)

1.0 .
2.3

Phienwej et al. [4]

EI

(Flexible wall)
(Sheet pile wall)

(Rigid wall)

Bottom-up Top-down
Top-down
Bottom-up
2.6

1.5-3.0
. (Overcast
concrete)

3. FEM
2.4

Finite element
2.5
235
2

Finite element

PLAXIS
version 7.1
Plane strain
Equivalent pile EI

1.0 . Diaphragm wall 0.8 .
-18.0 . -8.0 . 2
-1.0 . -5.0 . H 400x400-172
13-15 2552
kg/m 3.0 . c/c

0-13 .
2
1

Pile head displacement (%)
14
200
100
152.00
145.21
150
100.00
107.81
78.98
94.97
112.41
50
-
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7
3
( 1)
2

1
Item
Case Case Case Case Case Case Case
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
Pile Dia. (m)
1.0 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
DW DW DW SP DW DW DW
Wall type1
Dist. (m)2
Bracing3
3.0
2L
Steel
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
2L
Steel
2L
Steel
3L
Steel
2L
Steel
2L
RC
2L
Steel
Soil layer4
Soft Soft Stiff Soft Soft Soft Soft
Excavation5 Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq. Uneq.
Excavation
8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
depth (m)
Note: 1. DW = Diaphragm wall 0.8 m -18.0
m, SP = Sheet pile wall, type IV -18.0 m
2. Dist. = (c/c)
3. Bracing: 2L = 2-layer bracing, Steel = H400x400-172 kg/m,
RC = Reinforced concrete slab, 0.3 m thk
4. Soil layer: Soft = Bangkok Soil layer, Stiff = Assumed
medium to stiff clay layer in top part
5. Excavation: Eq.= , Uneq. =

> 2 m
236
FEM 3
1
100%

( 4)
Diaphragm wall 0.8 .
Type IV 2 3
152%
(2538) [1]
(Flexible)

( 2)

2 .
( 7) 112%

14
13-15 2552

(
2.0 .)
(Sliding) [5]
5
1.0 .
3.0 .
107%
3.0 .

6 0.3 .
Top-down

6 95%
3

(79%
)

(Soil improvement)

(2550) [6]
Diaphragm wall

237
4.

(Inclinometer)

Finite
element

D-wall

0.8-1.20 . 183
8.00 10.30 .
type IV 3
4
(Inclinometer) 4
2 46
0.80
. 35 1.0 . 11
2 Sheet pile Inclinometer

Inclinometer
(.)
(.)
I-1
150
7.50
I-2
128
8.50
I-3
75
8.00
I-4
159
8.50
14
13-15 2552
6.
I-1
I-2
I-4
I-3
4 Sheet pile

41 89%
46 0.80 .
20-200 . 1.0 .
30-70 .
75-159 .

5.

( 0.801.00 .)

238

2 FEM

Diaphragm wall
(Contiguous pile wall)

7.
[1] , 2538.

. 2538 , .
[2] H.G. Poulos and L.T. Chen, 1996. Pile response due to unsupported
excavation-induced lateral soil movement. Can. Geotech Journal Vol.
33 , pp 670-677
[3] N. Phienwej and W. Kanoknukulchai, 1989. Excavation induced pile
movement & damage- A case history in Bangkok. Piletalk
international 1989, Kuala Lumpur.
[4] N. Phienwej, K. Akawanlop, and A.S. Balasubramaniam, 1995.
Comparative Evaluation of Ground Movements Associated with
Braced - Excavation in Bangkok Soft Clay, 10th Asian Regional
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Beijing,
1995. pp 341-344
[5] N. Thasnanipan, A.W. Maung, P. Tanseng and Z.Z. Aye, 1998.
Damage to Piles Associated with Excavation Works in Bangkok Soft
Clay, 6th International Conference on Problem of Pile Foundation
Engineering, Russia, pp 91-98
[6] , , 2550.

, 12,
2542
, . , 1-2 2542
:
Diaphragm Walls Construction in Bangkok Subsoils: Possible Defects and Their Control.
,

61/141 9 10320
6439561-72, 2472290-4, 2462177
Home Page: www.seafco.co.th.
E-mail: seafco@seafco.co.th.
(Deep Basements) ,
(Subway Stations)

(15.00-30.00 )
(Diaphragm Wall)

, ,
,
(Water Tightness)

Diaphragm Wall
Abstract
Underground Construction for deep basements
like car parks, subway Stations, etc., comes to be found
considerably frequently in various projects in Bangkok.
Common excavation level for these underground
structures is about 15.00 30.00 m below ground level.
Cast-In-Situ concrete diaphragm walls, a type of earth
retaining walls, are designed to be temporary wall during
underground construction stage and be modified to be
part of permanent structures later. Therefore, these walls
should have strength as design, smooth surface and good
alignment. Subsequently, the walls surface and panel
joints connections need to be watertight. This paper
presents quality control and avoidance of possible wall
defects in diaphragm wall construction in Bangkok
subsoil.
1. (Introduction)
(Cast-In-Situ
Reinforce Concrete Diaphragm Wall)
(Deep Basement Construction)
10
(Sheet Pile
Wall)

,
2. (Cast-InSitu Reinforced Concrete Diaphragm Wall)
(Diaphragm Wall)
(Panels) ( 1)
(Joint) (Xanthakos
1994) Diaphragm Wall
(Water Stop) ( 2)
1 Diaphragm Wall Panels (Xanthakos, 1994)
239
25
() ()
()
2 (Xanthakos, 1994)
3. (Construction Method)
Diaphragm Wall ( 3)

1.50-2.00 ( 4) Guide
Wall 1:200
TREMIE PIPE
BENTONITE
SLURRY
EXCAVATION
REINFORCEMENT
CAGE
INSTALLATION OF
REINFORCEMENT
CONCRETING
(TREMIE METHOD)
5 Diaphragm Wall Cable Hang Grab

3.2.
Recycle
Bentonite Slurry
(Stop End
Plates) ( 6 6)
( 7)
2-3
3 Diaphragm Wall
6 Stop End Plates

4 Guide Walls
3.1. Cable Hang Grab ( 5)
Mechanical Hydraulic Grab
Guide Wall Guide Wall
(Bentonite Slurry)
Guide Wall
240
26
6 Stop End Plate
4.
Diaphragm Wall (Causes of Defects)
4.1.
7
3.3.
(Tremie Concrete)
Recycle

3.50 2 ( 8)

Desander & Desilter Unit (
9)
1.50
(, 2542)
Martin (1996) 5
20
0-15

(Fluid
Loss)
( 10)

( 11)
10
(Xanthakos, 1994)
8 (Tremie concreting)
11 Guide Wall
4.2. Guide Wall
9 Sand Silt
Desander&Desilter unit
Guide Wall
Guide wall
Guide Wall
241
27
Guide Wall Guide

Wall

Guide Wall
4.3. Diaphragm Wall
Diaphragm Wall

Gravity Action

( 12),
10 .
7.5
.
12
4.4.
(Fresh Mixed Slurry)
(Reused Slurry)
, ( 13)
13

3-6 % 1
(Chemical Additive)
Caroxymethyl Cellulose, CMC
) (Impermeable
Filter Cake)
)

(Contaminated)
,

Density, Viscosity, pH Value, Sand Content Filter Loss

Woo et al, (1993)
pH Value

8-9
(7.5-9) pH
Value 12

(Flocculated of Slurry Mud)

3.50

pH Viscosity
242
28
3
Cement
Contaminated Zone pH, Viscosity Density

3

2.5
( 14)
Sand Content
2%
15
14 2.5
16
4.5.

(Flowability) , Slump
17.5 .-20 ., (Setting Time)
6 ., (Cement Content)
400 . 20 .
Flakie Shape
4.5.3

17
4.5.1 (Tremies)
3.50 6.00 2

4.5.2
Plug Plug ( 15)
,
( 16)
17 (Xanthakos, 1994)
4.5.4 Sand Content
2%
Sand Content 2%
243
29

( 18)
(Jaring)

( 20)
Mix zone
Rigidification
area
Fluidization
area
18 (Puller, 1996)
4.5.5 Cut Off 1.00

Cut Off
30-40 . Cut Off Concrete
4.5.6
(Primary Panel)

Primary
19

Primary Panel
2.
1.
3.
20
4.5.8 (Tremie Pipe)

( 21)
(Filter Cake) Filter Cake

Dowels
Bentonite
Mix zone
New
concrete
Previous
concrete
1
19
(Fuchberger, 1994)
4.5.7
1.50

1.
2. 3.
21
4.6.
4.6.1. Guide Wall
Guide Wall

244
30

Drilling Monitor
( 22)
() Drilling monitoring

5.00
4.7.
50%

(
)

() Trench Profile
22
4.6.2
2.5 6.0

5.0

4.8
Diaphragm Wall
1
1 Diaphragm Wall
1 LAY OUT
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.3 ( 5.00 )
1.4
1.4
2.1
2.1
2.2. (Sensitivity) 2.2
2.3 (Loose Sand)

2.3
245
31
3.1 Surcharge
3.1 Guide Wall
3.2
3.2 Guide Wall
3.3
3.3 Guide Wall
4 Guide Wall
4.1 Guide Wall
4.1 Guide Wall
4.2 Guide Wall
4.2
4.3 Guide Wall
4.3 Guide Wall ,
5.1
5.2 ,
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.3
6.1 ( 6.1
)
6.2 (Flocculated
6.2 ,
Sediment)
,
6.3
6.3 ,
32
246
7.1
7.1 ,
7.2
7.2 ,
7.3 7.3 ,
(Non Agitation)
7.4
7.4 Dowel
7.5 Box Out
7.5 Box Out
8.1 Slump
8.1 , , Slime
8.2 Slump
8.2
8.3 Tremie
8.3
8.4 Tremie -
8.4
8.5 Tremie
8.5
8.6
8.7 , , ,
(Blockage)
8.8 Filter Cake
,
8.6 Tremie
8.7 (Plug)
8.8
5.
(Cast-In-Situ
Reinforce Concrete Diaphragm Wall)

, ,

6.
7.
1.
33
247
Construction Industry Research and Information Association

(1995), WaterResisting Basement Construction-A Guide, CIRIA
Report 139, Thomas Telford.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Fleming, W.G.K., Sliwinski, Z. J. (1977, Reprinted 1991), The

Use and Influence of Bentonite in Bored Pile Construction, CIRIA
Report PG.3
Fuchberger. M. (1994), Improvement in Diaphragm Wall
Execution-Possible Defects and Their Control, XIII ICSMFE.
New Delhi, India, Volume 5 pp. 315-316
Hutchinson, M. T., Daw, G. P., Shotton, P.G., and James, A. N.
(1974), The Properties of Bentonite Slurries used in Diaphragm
Walling and Their Control. Diaphragm Wall and Anchorage. ICE,
London. pp 33-39.
Martin, W. S. (1996), Site Guide to Foundation Construction,
CIRIA Special Publication 136.
Puller M. (1996), Deep Excavations; a practical manual, Thomas
Telford.
Sliwinski, Z. J. and Fleming, W. G. K. (1974), Principle
Considerations Affecting the Construction of Diaphragm Walls &
Anchorages. ICE. London. Pp. 1-10.
Teparaksa W., Thasananipan N., Muang A., and Wei S. (1998):
Prediction and performances of short embeded cast in-situ
diaphragm wall for deep excavation in Bangkok subsoils, Proc.
4th Int. Conf. on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, St.
Louis, Missouri, USA.
248
34
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Thasnanipan, N., Maung A. W., Tanseng P. and Wei S. H. (1998).

Performance of a braced excavation in Bangkok clay, diaphragm
wall subject to unbalanced loading conditions. Thirteenth
Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, 16-20 November,1998,
Taipei, Taiwan. pp. 655-660.
The Institution of Civil Engineers. (1996), Specification for Piling
and Embedded Retaining Walls. Thomas Telford, pp. 65-74.
Woo, S. M., Lee, K. S. and Hsieh, K. J. (1993), The Caused of
Cast-In-Situ Diaphragm Wall Defects, Eleventh Southeast Asia
Geotechnical Conference, Singapore. Pp.793-798
Xanthakos. P. P. (1994), Slurry Walls as Structural Systems,
McGraw-Hill INC.
(2539),
,
, .
.
(2542),
, 2542,
.
Lessons from the collapse of Yannawa Inlet Pumping Station

1
1
: 17 2540
(Cast-In-Situ R.C. Diaphragm Wall) 1.00 .

(Crane) 40

(2536)

ABSTRACT: On 17 th August 1997, An Inlet Pumping Station of Yannawa Waste Water Plant
collapsed. Results of the caused western part of the diaphragm wall 1.00 m. in thickness broken
and fell down into the pit. Also,soil mass caved in and several adjacent wooden houses and one 40 tons
crawler crane standing next to the pit slipped down. The soil mass slided and buried the collapsed wall
and two backhoes used for excavation in the pit. No human casualties in the incident were reported as
loud noise from bracing system prior to the collapse alarmed people not to work. This paper reports the
occurances which were discovered before the collapse, which can be useful information for preventing the
similar incident or calamity happening in the future. Ekasit (1993) suggested that now, it is the time for all
engineers and involved parties to learn and analyze all the past collapse in order to find out proper
prevention in the future. In addition, this report presents the results of investigation on the collapse.
KEYWORDS: Soil Excavation, Temporary Bracing and Soil Instrumentation

For further details, contact Mr. Narong Thasnanipan, Seafco Co., Ltd. 26/10 Rarm Intra 109,
Bangchan, Klongsamwah, Bangkok 10510,Thailand.
249
GEN-19
1.
3 Turnkey
Project (Design & Build Contract) Inlet
Pumpings Stations (IPS)
(Deaphragm Wall) Inclinometers 4
(Sail Excavation & Installation of Temporaly Bracing System)

18.00 (Toe)
16
2540 22.00
3

Design & Build Contract Wood
(1998) (Forensic Engineer) 35
Design & Build Contract
2. IPS
IPS Inlet
Chamber Pumping Chamber
20.30 20.20 Diaphragm Wall 1.00
25 5 Inlet Pumping Chamber
(Intermediate Strut) 5
1 Inclinometer 4
(Lacing Beam)
King Post (Sway) 1
2 I-1 I-3 (A B) Effective Length 2
250
Legend
Main strut +Diagonal Strut
-2.20
-3.95
Intermediate Strut
-5.70
I-2
-7.95
-10.20
-11.95
I-1
Diagonal
Struts
Main Strut +
Intermediate Strut
I-4
I-3
-13.70
-15.45
-17.20
-19.10
-21.0
B+
A+
I-3
SECTION A-A
-21.0
SECTION B-B
1 ( )
2 ()
3.

Irvine (1992.) 1973 1980
12% 20%
-

(2534 2539)

(2540) Retaining Structure

Soil Instrumentation Retaining Structure
- (2540)
()
-Puller (1996)

-William & Waite (1993)

251
GEN-21
-Lamb & Whitman (1993)

(Brittle)
Limit State Design
4.

4.1. Inclinometers I-1 I-2 ( 1 ) Capping Beam
2
4.2. Crack Capping Beam
( I-1 I-3)
4.3. Walling
Beam ( 3)
4.4. Walling Beam Strut
( 4 )
5 (, 2540)
252
GEN-22
6 1
(Teparaksa et al, 1999)
4.5. Inlet Chamber Pumping Chamber

2.00 Pumping
Pumping Chamber Inlet Chamber ( 5) Hoop Compression
4.6. (22.00 ) 16 2540
6, 8 10 ( 6 )
4.7. 40 Inclinometer I-1
16 2540
5.
Diaphragm Wall Inclinometer 4
15 2540
Inclinometers

Inclinometers, Capping Beam
2540
Inclinometer I-1
I-3 I-4
A-axis I-3 Cantilever/Unsupported
Condition B-axis (Supported) 7
A-axis
I-1 I-3

Effective Length
( I-1 I-3)
Effective Length
7
2
Inclinometer I-3 (Teparaksa et al, 1999)
Torsional Stress
Capping Beam A B Capping Beam
I-4 14 . (Toe)
Inclinometer
Displacement (mm)
0
50
Displacement (mm)
5.00
5.00
10.00
10.00
15.00
-50
15.00
20.00
20.00
20-Jun-97
4-Jul-97
12-Jul-97
18-Jul-97
25-Jul-97
5-Aug-97
13-Aug-97
25.00
30.00
A-Axis
253
-100
0.00
100
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
-50
0.00
25.00
30.00
20-Jun-97
4-Jul-97
12-Jul-97
18-Jul-97
25-Jul-97
5-Aug-97
13-Aug-97
B-Axis
50
Capping Beam A B

Capping Beam
22.00 17 2540
2 3 6 24

40 ,
( 8 9)

Capping Beam
Diaphragm Wall

Soft Clay
Stiff Clay
9
( 2542)
6.

3 (1) IPS (2)
Diaphragm Wall (3)
6.1. IPS
20.00 ( 10) Frankfurt, Germany
(Katzenbach, et al 1998 ) IPS
6.2. Diaphragm Wall Diaphragm Wall

(2542) IPS
(Toe)
Sliding Toe

6.3. 3

254
GEN-24
FEM (Kanak- Nukulchai, et al 1998) A B A-C (

2)

( 5) (Built Up Section)
30%

( 6)
Capping Beam Torsional Stress
A-axis
I-3 Cantilever Mode

Capping Beam
10
A-Axis I-3 Cantilever Mode
IPS (Katzenbach et al., 1998)
7.

7.1 Soil Instrumentation

7.2
7.3 Limit State Design
7.4
Plateform
7.5
Design & Build

7.6

255
8.
1) (2540) Inlet Pumping Station
3 17 2540
2540
2) (2534) .
. 2534. .
1/1 1/26.
3) (2539) .
39. . 2539.
4) (2542) .
- 2542 42
5) (2540), , 2540,
.
6) (2540). .
2540 . 2540 121 125.
7) (2536). .
2536 2536 399 412
8) Irvine, D.J. & Smith, R.J. (1992). Trenching Practice. CIRIA. Report 97.
9) Kanok - Nukulchai, W. & Phien - Wej, N. .(1998). Investigation on Collapse of an Inlet Pumping Station Looking into Modeling, Design and Construction Considerations. ACECOMS News and Views, July September 1998. AIT.
10) Katzenbach, R., Moorman, C. & Quick, H. (1998). A New Concept for the Excavation of Deep Building Pits
in inner Urban Areas Combining Top/Down Method and Piled - Raft Foundation., 7th Intl. Conference and
Exhibition on Pile and Deep Foundation( DFI ), Vienna, Austria.
11) Lamb, T. W. & Whitman, R. V.(1979). Soil Mechanics. John Weley & Sons, Inc.
12) Padfield, C. J., Mair, R. J.(1984).Design of Retaining Walls Embedded in Stiff Clay.CIRIAreport 104.
13) Puller, M.(1996). Deep Excavation, A Practical Manual. Thomas Telford. pp. .........
14) Teparaksa, W., Thasnanipan, N., Muang, A. W. & Tanseng, P.( 1999 ). Lesson on the collapse of an Inlet
Pumping Station During Construction - Geotechnical Instrumentation Aspect. 5th Int. Symposium on Field
Measurements in Geomechanics. 1 - 3 December 1999., Singapore.pp.......
15) William B. P. & Waite, D.(1993). The Design and Construction of Sheet Piled Cofferdam. CIRIA. Special
Publication 95. Thomas Telford.
16) Wood, J.G., M. (1998). Applying Lessons from Failures To Management and Design. Forensic Engineering :
A Professional Approch to Investigate. Proc. Of the Intl. Conf. Organizeal by ICE, London. PP. 148-156
256

BENTONITE SLURRY USED IN DIAPHRAGM WALL CONSTRUCTION IN BANGKOK SUBSOIL:
THE PROPERTIES & THEIR CONTROL
, ,

: (Cast-In-Situ Diaphragm Walls)

(Bentonite Slurry) (Thick Slurry) (Fluid Slurry)
Reese et al (1985)

ABSTRACT: Bentonite slurries used in diaphragm wall construction can vary in both physical and
chemical properties. Depending on the requirement of the specific function of the slurry, thick slurry is
required at some stages of construction while very fluid slurry is necessary at some other stages. Ideal
slurry, therefore is impossible. However effective slurry is possible with control (Reese et. al 1985).
This paper discusses on practical control of the properties and improvement of bentonite slurries in the
field.
1.
KEYWORDS: Bentonite Slurry, Filter Cake, and Thixotropy Characteristic

For Further Details Contact: SEAFCO Co., Ltd., 26/10 Rarm Intra 109 Road, Bangchan, Klong Sam
Wah, Bangkok 10510, Homepage: www.seafco.co.th, Email: seafco@seafco.co.th
257
GTE-211

15
,
Silt Silt, Clay Sand
Desander Silt Clay
Silt Clay
Particle Desilting
Desander Desilter

,
2. (Bentonite Slurry)

3 - 6% 3
2.1
Natural Sodium Bentonite (Swelling Ability) Liquid Limit
Filter Loss
2.2
Natural Calcium Bentonite
Liquid Limit Filter Fluid Loss Natural Sodium Bentonite

2.3
Sodium -Activated Bentonite Sodium Carbonate
Calcuim Bentonite Natural Sodium Bentonite

3. Thixotropy characteristic
(Viscous Slurry) (Thick)

(Thin) (Agitation) Thixotropy Characteristic (ICE
1996)
(Gel)
(Agitated)
(Dispersed) (Fluid) Martin (1996)
(Non Agitation) 5 Tremie Concrete
258
4. (Impermeable Seals)
(Permeable Soils)
(Seals)

(Seals) 3
4.1
Surface Filtration ( 1)
Filter Cake
Filter Cake Fluid Loss
4.2
Deep Filtration ( 2)
40-50 .
4.3
Rheological Blocking Deep Filtration
(Flow)

3 Surface Filtration
(Seal)
Filter Cake
( 2542)
Bentonite
Suspension
Bentonite
Suspension
Bentonite
Particle
Soil grains
Hydrostatic
Pressure
Bentonite
particle
Soil grains
Hydrostatic
Pressure
Slow clogging of
pores in soil by
bentonite particle
Bentonite
filter cake
1 Surface Filtration (Flemming et al, 1977)

2 Deep Filtration ( Flemming et al, 1977)
5. (Properties of Bentonite Slurries)
()
()
()
() ()
()
() () (Thick Slurry) ()
() (Fluid Slurry)
Institution of Civil Engineers (1996)
1 ( Viscosity pH 1
259
Silt Viscosity 60 Sec/Quart pH

8 - 12 )
Density
Fluid loss
(30 minute test)
Test Method and

apparatus
API RP13
Section
Mud balance
Low temperature
test fluid loss
Marsh Cone
Viscosity
Shear strength
Sand Content
pH
Fann Viscometer
Sand screen set
(2)

Sample from pile prior
As Supplied to pile
to placing concrete
Less than 1.10 g/ml
Less than 1.15 g/ml
Less than 40 ml
Less than 60 ml
30 to 70 seconds
(1)
(27 - 50)
2
4 to 40 N/m
Less than 90 sec.

(1)
( Less than 60 sec.)
2
4 to 40 N/m
Less than 2%
9.5 - 10.8
(1)
(8 - 11)
Less than 2%
9.5 - 11.7
(1)
(<12)
6. (Control Limit in the Field)
6.1
(Thick Slurry)
(Fluid Slurry)
, , ,

,
, Mud Sampler
2
2
Density
Viscosity
Filtration
Fluid loss
pH
10 min.gel
Sand
g/ml
sec/quart
mm.
ml.
N/m2
%
1.03-1.10
27 - 45
<3
<40
8 - 11
4 - 40
<2
<1.10
<50
<3
<40
8 - 11
<4
<1.15
<60
<3
<60
8 - 12
<2
<1.10
<50
<3
<40
8 - 11
4 - 40
<4
* Mud Sampler .
6.2

, (Contaminated)
Additive
6.3

(Thicker) Thixotropic Characteristics
Viscosity Gel Strength
260
GTE-214
Viscosity Gel Strength

6.4
Cement
Sodium Base Calcium Cement
Permeable Filter Cake

Calcium Sodium Flocculation Effect (
)
6.5

Viscosity Gel Flocculation Effect
Viscosity Gel 6.4
7. (Problems and Their Control)

(Xanthakos 1994)
3
3
Viscosity Gel
Viscosity Gel
Viscosity Gel
Viscosity Gel
Viscosity Gel

Cake
(Filter
Rate, Thickness and Fluid loss)
, CMC (Sodium
Carboxymethyl Cellulose) 2
(Desander and Desilter)
CMC

Thinners(1)
Thinners
Thinners ,
Viscosity CMC
CMC Viscosity
FCL
Thinners
Viscosity Gel
261
( Gel Strength
Density Viscosity Filter Cake
Film (Seal) Fluid loss
Loss Circulation
CMC
Cement FCL Thinners
(Contamination with Cement)
Cement Bleeding
pH
pH10
(1) Thinners = Sodium Tretraphosphate, Tannin, Ferrochrome Lignosulfonate (FCL) etc.
8. (Conclusions)
(Diaphragm Wall)
, ,

Mac-Gel
10. (References)
1. (2524).
. 1. . 63 70
2. , 2542),
: , 2542, .
25 34
3. Fleming, W. G. K. and Sliwingski, Z. J.(1977 reprint 1991), The Use and Influence of Bentonite in Bored
Pile Construction, CIRIA Report.. PG.3.
4. ICE (1996), Specifications for Piling and Embedded Retaining Walls, Thomas Telford.
5. Martin, W. S. (1996), Site Guide to Foundation Construction, CIRIA Special Publication 136.
6. Reese, L. C. and Tucker, K. (1985), Bentonite Slurry in Constructions Drilled Piers and Caisson II, ASCE
Convention, Denver, Colorado, USA.
7. Xanthakos, P. P. (1994). Slurry Walls as Structural Systems. McGraw - Hill Inc.
262

Case Study on the Catastrophic Failure
of the Deep Braced Excavation in Bangkok Subsoil
1 2
1

Geotechnical Instrumentation
Abstract
Braced excavation is a high risk work. The parties who involved in this excavation must follow
the sequence of work according to the design. Omitting the sequence and avoiding the small problems
could lead to an unexpected catastrophic failure. Geotechnical instrumentation shall be considered as an
important part of the work, and the parties must consider the temporary bracing system as essential as
permanent structures.
KEYWORDS: Deep excavation, Catastrophe, Temporary bracing.

For further details, contact Mr. Narong Thasnanipan, Seafco Co., Ltd., 26/10 Ram Intra 109 Road,
Bangchan, Klong sam wah, Bangkok 10510, Tel. 0-2919-0090 Fax 0-2919-0098. e-mail:
narong@seafco.co.th
263
Paper No.
First author name
Page 1 of 12 .
1.
15

3
(Sheet piles) 10
(Rigid Walls) Diaphragm Wall
Cantilever Walls (Braced Walls)
1 ()
1 ()
1 () 20

1
)

)

)

2.
(Inlet Pumping Station) 2
Inlet Chamber
(Straight Line Wall) Pumping Chamber
264
Paper No.
First author name
Page 2 of 12 .
20.30 20.20
(Cast In Situ Reinforced Concrete
Diaphragm Wall) 1.00 25
Inlet Chamber
(Main Struts) 5 Pumping
Chamber
Inlet Chamber 10 (Main Struts) 5
(Intermediate Struts) 5 (Compression Hoop)

(Lacing Beam)
(Sway) King Post
Legend
Main strut +Diagonal Strut
-2.20
-3.95
Intermediate Strut
-5.70
I-2
2
[1]
-7.95
-10.20
-11.95
I-1
I-3
Diagonal
Struts
-13.70
-15.45
-17.20
Main Strut +
Intermediate Strut
I-4
-19.10
-21.0
B+
A+
I-3
SECTION A-A
-21.0
SECTION B-B
(Inclinometers)
4 I-1, I-2, I-3 I-4 2
(Lacing Beams)
2 3
3
Lacing Beams
265
Paper No.
First author name
Page 3 of 12 .
3.

Irvine et al
[10] 1973 1980
7 1
1 [10]

12%
20%
68%
( )

[3] [4]

[7] Retaining Structure

Soil Instrumentation Retaining Structure

[6]
( )
266
Paper No.
First author name
Page 4 of 12 .
Puller [15]

William & Waite [17]

Lamb & Whitman [13]
(Brittle)
Limit State Design

FitzSimons [9] (Forensic Engineers)
(Hammurabi, the great Babylonian
King)

(If a contractor builds a house and it collapse killing its owner, the contractor will be kill. If
the son of the owner is killed, then so will be the son of the contractor)
Day, [8] .. 1804

(If a structure had a loss of within 10 years of its
completion, due to poor workmanship or foundation failure, then the builder would be sent to prison.,
4.
17 2540
Diaphragm Wall 1.00

1
Diaphragm Wall

18
Diaphragm Wall
267
Paper No.
First author name
Page 5 of 12 .
Diaphragm Wall
16 2540
22 7
Diaphragm Wall
5.
Diaphragm Wall

)
Inclinometer 4 2
2

4 Inclinometer
)
Inlet Chamber

Pumping Chamber Inlet Chamber
Compression
Compression Hoop Pumping Chamber
Inlet Chamber 5 Compression

)
Capping Beam
Waling Beam
6
)
Walling Beam Struts

7
268
Paper No.
First author name
Page 6 of 12 .
5 [2]
6 [2]
7 [2]
)
(22 ) 16 2540 1
(Intermediate Struts) 3 6, 8 10 8
8 1
Teparaksa et al. [14]
269
Paper No.
First author name
Page 7 of 12 .
)
Inclinometer I-1
16 2546
6. Inclinometers
Capping Beam Inclinometer I-1 I-2
I-3
I-4
I-3 A I-3
Cantilever/Unsupported Condition 9 ()
B (Supported) 9 ()
Displacement (mm)
0
50
Displacement (mm)
-100
0.00
100
5.00
5.00
10.00
10.00
Depth (m)
9
Inclinometer I-3
Teparaksa et al. [14]
Depth (m)
-50
0.00
15.00
-50
50
15.00
20.00
20.00
20-Jun-97
4-Jul-97
12-Jul-97
18-Jul-97
25-Jul-97
5-Aug-97
13-Aug-97
25.00
30.00
A-Axis
25.00
30.00
20-Jun-97
4-Jul-97
12-Jul-97
18-Jul-97
25-Jul-97
5-Aug-97
13-Aug-97
B-Axis
A

Capping Beam

2
Cantilever/Unsupported
Torsion Stress Capping Beam
Capping Beam
I-4 14 (Toe)
270
Paper No.
First author name
Page 8 of 12 .
Inclinometer
Capping Beam

Inlet Chamber 22
7.
17 2540
6, 8 10 8 24
40
,
( 10 11)

Capping Beam
Diaphragm Wall

Soft Clay
Stiff Clay
10 2542 [5]
11 ( . )
271
Paper No.
First author name
Page 9 of 12 .
8.

3 (1)
(2) Diaphragm Wall (3)

8.1.
20.00 ( 12 )
Frankfurt, Germany Katzenbach, et al. [12]
( 12 )
12 [11]
8.2. Diaphragm Wall Diaphragm Wall
[5]
(Toe)
Sliding Toe .

8.3.

FEM Kanak - Nukulchai, et al. [11] A B
A - C ( 2)

( 5)
(Built Up Section)

( 8)
272
Paper No.
First author name
Page 10 of 12 .
Capping Beam Torsion Stress

A-axis I-3 Cantilever Mode

Capping Beam A-Axis I-3
Cantilever Mode
9.

9.1 Geotechnical Instrumentation

9.2

9.3 Limit State Design

9.4
(Platform)
9.5
Design & Build

9.6

1) (2540) Inlet Pumping Station

3 17 2540
2540
273
Paper No.
First author name
Page 11 of 12 .
2) (2543)
6
2543 GEN-19 GEN - 26
3) (2534) .
... 2534. .
1/1 1/26.
4) (2539) .
39. ... 2539.
5) (2542) .
- 2542 42
6) (2540), ,
2540, ...
7) (2540). .
2540 ... 2540 121 125.
8) Day, R.W. (1998) Forensic Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering. McGraw Hill. Pp1
9) FitzSimons, N. (1986) W An Historic Perspective of Failure of Civil Engineering Works. Forensic
Engineering, Learning from Faikures. ASCE, New York. Pp 38-45
10) Irvine, D.J. & Smith, R.J. (1992). Trenching Practice. CIRIA. Report 97.
11) Kanok - Nukulchai, W. & Phien - Wej, N. (1998). Investigation on Collapse of an Inlet Pumping Station Looking into Modeling, Design and Construction Considerations. ACECOMS News and Views, July September 1998. AIT.
12) Katzenbach, R., Moorman, C. & Quick, H. (1998). A New Concept for the Excavation of Deep Building Pits
in inner Urban Areas Combining Top/Down Method and Piled - Raft Foundation., 7th Intl. Conference and
Exhibition on Pile and Deep Foundation( DFI ), Vienna, Austria.
13) Lamb, T. W. & Whitman, R. V. (1979). Soil Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
14) Padfield, C. J., Mair, R. J. (1984).Design of Retaining Walls Embedded in Stiff Clay.CIRIA report 104.
15) Puller, M. (1996). Deep Excavation, A Practical Manual. Thomas Telford.
16) Teparaksa, W., Thasnanipan, N., Muang, A. W. & Tanseng, P. (1999). Lesson on the collapse of an Inlet
Pumping Station during Construction - Geotechnical Instrumentation Aspect. 5th Intl. Symposium on Field
Measurements in Geomechanics. 1 - 3 December 1999., Singapore.
17) William B. P. & Waite, D. (1993). The Design and Construction of Sheet Piled Cofferdam. CIRIA. Special
Publication 95. Thomas Telford.
274
Paper No.
First author name
Page 12 of 12 .
PERFORMANCE OF THIN DIAPHRAGM WALL FOR UNDERGROUND CAR

PARK IN BANGKOK
(Chanchai Submaneewong)
E-mail : seafco@seafco.co.th
(Zaw Zaw Aye)
(Thayanan Boonyarak)
: 2
Diaphragm Wall 0.60

Diaphragm Wall

Diaphragm
Inclinometer

ABSTRACT: For construction of the two-level underground car park building, located in the center of Rattanakosin Island, 0.60 m
thick diaphragm walls with temporary bracing were designed to resist soil pressure and to keep soil movement in acceptable value.
Contractor needs to have thorough site preparation and proper plan to minimize adverse effect induced by construction on adjacent
historical structure. This paper presents the geotechnical aspect of the construction of underground car park building located in the
culturally and historically significant area of Bangkok. Performance of buttressed-support diaphragm wall is reported based on the
inclinometer monitoring results. Intensive modification of construction sequence in actual work execution with value engineering
options different from tender stage design is demonstrated along with application of observational method.
KEYWORDS: DIAPHRAGM WALL, INCLINOMETER, UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION
275
1.
CITY HALL
CITY
HALL
OPENING
SIRIPONG ROAD
OPENING
OPENING
BAMRUNG MUANG ROAD

GIANT-SWING
3.
2.
Depth from ground surface (m)
5
10
15
20
35
50
5.00
Medium stiff clay 10.00

Stiff clay
Very Stiff clay
15.00
20.00
25.00
Medium Dense
Sand
30.00
35.00
40.00
40
45

50
100
150
200
0.00
Soft clay
25
30
Dense sand
45.00
50.00
0
20
40
60
SPT N-Value (blows / ft)
Su BH-1
Su BH-3
SPT BH-1
SPT BH-3
276
SHOP-HOUSES
OPENING
OPENING
OPENING
SHOP-HOUSES
DINGSOR ROAD
OPENING
3
BH-1, BH-2 BH-3

/
0.8 1.5
2.5
13.8
15.0

50.0
2
OPENING
MAHUNNOP ROAD
BRAHMIN TEMPLE

2
9

()

560
150
1

Diaphragm Wall

(Sheet Pile) 14
Su BH-2
Design (Su)
SPT BH-2
Design (SPT)
80
TIE BEAM CONSTRUCTED IN BAYS
TEMPORARY WALER
BUTTRESS
DIAGONAL STRUT
DIAPHRAGM WALL
TEMPORARY KING-POST
CAPPING BEAM
RAKER
BERM
3.1
TEMPORARY
STEEL BEAM
PILE
CAP
(Rigid retaining wall)

- (Diaphragm wall)

-6.0 . Diaphragm wall

(Sheet pile)
3.2

D-wall
Sheet pile D-wall vs D-wall (

-) 1 , D-wall vs sheet pile
1 2
sheet pile , 1 D-wall (
)
T
PLE
COM
LAB
DS
3 D-wall , Berm
(Buttress)
3.4
B1
(Cantilever)
(Buttress) (Landscape)

4
+0.20 ROOF SLAB
0.00
CAPPING
BEAM
RC BUTTRESS
G.W.L
TIE
BEAM
-9m
-12m
-16m
WALE
BEAM
DIAPHRAGM
WALL
FOUNDATION
PILES
DIA.600MM.
-2.70 SLAB (B1)

PILE CAP
-5.60 (B2)
SOFT CLAY
Su = 18 kN/m2
Eu = 7000 kN/m2, = 16.5 kN/m3
MEDIUM CLAY
Su = 30 kN/m2
Eu = 19250 kN/m2, = 17.5 kN/m3
STIFF CLAY
Su = 60 kN/m2
Eu = 45000 kN/m2, = 19 kN/m3
BARRETTE
3.3
-20m.
(Berm)

(Tie beam)
(Buttresses) D-wall
Berm

(-6.0 .)
0.1 .
3
277
3.5
(Wale beam)
(Strut)
Finite element
-

4.
-
(Diaphragm wall) 0.60 . -16.0 .
(Buttress)
0.6x1.0 . -20.0 .

0.60 . -20.0 .
2
4.1 1
( 5)
- Diaphragm wall+buttress 3
- 2
- 1 - (D-wall vs D-wall)
(Berm) ( 7)
- 1 - (D-wall vs sheet pile)
(Berm) (Raker)
Sheet pile 1 ( 6)
HORIZONTAL STRUT
SLAB
HORIZONTAL STRUT
BERM
RAKING STRUT
BARRETTE
D-WALL
-16m
SLAB
SHEET PILE
-16m
-20m
-20m
EAST & WEST D-WALL
-14m
BORED PILE
7 D-wall 1 Berm
Buttress
2 1
- -
(D-wall vs D-wall)
(D-wall vs sheet pile)
-2.2 .
1
-2.2 .
st
(1st layer)
(1 layer)
2
-4.0 .
-4.0 .
(2nd layer)
3
-6.0 .
-6.0 .
Berm
Berm
4
Berm
Berm
5

SOUTH D-WALL vs SHEET PILE
4.2 2
5 1
.
( 8)
- Diaphragm wall+buttress 3
- 1 - (D-wall vs D-wall)
(Berm) ( 7)
- (Raker) 1
(Berm) ( 9)
(-6.0 .)
6 Sheet pile 2
1 2
278
SLAB
COMPLETED PHASE 1
STRUCTURE
RAKING STRUT
SLAB
D-WALL
BERM
NORTH D-WALL
-16m
-20m
I-4
PHASE 2
WEST D-WALL
NORTH D-WALL with raker support
8 2
SHEET PILE
I-6
124 m
-20m
EAST & WEST D-WALL
I-5
D-WALL
BARRETTE
-16m
BERM

(Inclinometer) 6 10
EAST D-WALL
HORIZONTAL STRUT
See details in (b)
I-3
PHASE 1
SOUTH D-WALL
I-1
I-2
78 m
10
9 D-wall (Raker) 1
Berm ( 2)
2 2
-

(D-wall vs D-wall)
(D-wall vs footing )
-2.2 .
1
-2.2 .
-6.0 .
st
Berm
(1 layer)
2
-4.0 .
Raker (1st layer)

3
-6.0 .
Berm
Berm
4
Berm
5.
Inclinometer

Inclinometer

5.1 (Trigger Level)

Inclinometer

(Trigger Level)
3 [1]
- Alert Level
70 %
- Alarm Level
80 %
- Action Level
90 %
279

40
60
80
100
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
with buttress
without buttress
Tender Stage
Depth, m.
Depth, m.
20
20
40
60
80
100
14
16
18
40
60
80 100
10
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
with buttress
without buttress
12
14
16
18
Depth, m.
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
8
10
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Prediction
12
14
16
18
20
20
(a)
(b)
13 Phase 2 [2]
14
D-wall

10
12
20
Depth, m.
11
1 (Phase 1)
(Buttress)
D-wall
D-wall vs D-wall Simple support beam
D-wall vs sheet pile Cantilever beam

Sheet pile (Stiffness)
D-wall [2] 12 1
(Phase) 2 ( 13) Dwall D-wall vs D-wall
Raker
1 Raker Berm
Raker
[2] 14
0
5.2
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
with buttress
without buttress
Tender Stage
20
(a)
(b)
11 Phase 1 [2]
[1] (2545).
.
8, ,
GTE-70-GTE-79
[2] Thasananipan, N. Aye, Z Z. Submaneewong, C. (2003) Performance
of Buttress-Support Thin Diaphragm Wall for Underground Car Park
in Bangkok. 12th Asian reginal conferences on soil mechanics and
geotechnical engineering. Singapore, 841-844
12 1
280
-
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION OF DIAPHRAGM WALL DESIGN
FOR UNDERGROUND STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION
(Kamol Singtokeaw)1
(Sumate Pravetwararat)2
(Chanchai Submaneewong)3
1
() (kamolsing@seafco.co.th)
2
() (sumate@seafco.co.th)
3
() (chanchai@seafco.co.th)
4
() (seafco@seafco.co.th)
: - (Diaphragm Wall)

Diaphragm Wall
Diaphragm Wall
Diaphragm Wall
Diaphragm Wall
ABSTRACT: Underground structure construction using diaphragm wall as a retaining structure has become more popular in
urban area. Due to its high rigidity and the fact that it can be used as permanent structure, diaphragm wall is one of the most suitable
solutions for deep excavation work adjacent to sensitive structures such as historical buildings. To design the connection between
diaphragm wall and basement floor, designers should have good understanding of diaphragm wall characteristics, limitation and
sequence of both diaphragm wall and basement construction. This paper presents characteristic of diaphragm wall, its limitation,
sequence of construction and additional factors to consider for appropriate connection design.
KEYWORDS: Diaphragm wall, Pile leg, Basement construction

1.
- (Diaphragm
wall)
281
Diaphragm Wall

(Tremie method)
Diaphragm Wall

Diaphragm Wall

Diaphragm Wall
2. Diaphragm
Wall
(Diaphragm wall)

Diaphragm Wall

Diaphragm Wall
Diaphragm Wall
1
1 Diaphragm Wall
Diaphragm Wall

282
3. Diaphragm
Wall
3.1 Diaphragm Wall
Diaphragm Wall

Diaphragm Wall

Diaphragm
Wall 0.40, 0.60, 0.80, 1.00, 1.20
1.50 .
3.2 Diaphragm Wall (Panel

Length)
Diaphragm Wall
Diaphragm Wall
(Grab width)
2
2.50 3.00 .

[1]
6.0 .
Diaphragm Wall
(Primary panel)
(Secondary panel)
Diaphragm
Wall
Diaphragm Wall
4.2
3.3 Diaphragm Wall

Diaphragm Wall

4.
4.1
283
4.3 Diaphragm
Wall

150 200 .
(Stop-end)
4.4
DB12 DB16

(Tremie
Pipe)
4.5

U-bolt

U-bolt

3

(Mechanical coupler)
U-Bolt
support) (Hinge support)

5.2

4
Diaphragm Wall
Tremie Pipe
joint
Coupler Couplers
4 Coupler
3 U-bolt
5.3
4.6
5. Diaphragm Wall
5.1
Diaphragm Wall
Diaphragm
Wall (Fix
284
Diaphragm Wall

5.3.1 (Bent-out rebar)
(Dowel bar) 5
(Round bar-SR24)

7

(Box-out)

Bent-out rebar
5.3.2 (Mechanical coupler)
Diaphragm
Wall
Coupler
6
Coupler
Drill position Box-out
6. Diaphragm Wall
Diaphragm Wall
(Capping Beam)

Diaphragm Wall

Diaphragm Wall 2
6.1 Diaphragm Wall (Barrette

Leg)
6
5.3.3 - (Drill and Grout

Rebar)
Diaphragm Wall

Diaphragm Wall
Diaphragm Wall
285
Diaphragm Wall

Diaphragm Wall

6.2 Diaphragm Wall (Bored Pile Leg)

Diaphragm Wall
Diaphragm Wall 8
Diaphragm Wall

Diaphragm Wall 9
8.
[1] Thasnanipan, N., Maung, A. W., Boonyarak, T., and Aye, Z. Z.,
2004, Stability of a Trial Trench Excavated under Polymer Slurry in
Bangkok Soft Clay, 15th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference,
Vol. 2, Bangkok, Thailand
Diaphragm
Wall
Pile Leg
8 Diaphragm Wall
Diaphragm Wall
9 Diaphragm Wall
7.
Diaphragm Wall

Diaphragm Wall
286
Annual Concrete Conference 4
WATER-RESISTING DEEP BASEMENT IN BANGKOK SOIL

1
2
3
3
1
() win@seafco.co.th
3
2
: 6

BS 8102: 1990

ABSTRACT: At present, construction of deep basement in Bangkok soil rapidly increases in number. In some projects, up to
6 basements were constructed without considering protection of water leakage and dampness. For this reason, this paper
presents preventive measures of water leakage and dampness occur in basements constructed in Bangkok soil with regards to
required internal environment, outlined in BS 8102: 1990. Guide lines of preventive measures associated with various methods
of basements excavation and constructions are discussed. A case study on water leakage problem into basements constructed
with diaphragm walls is also presented.
KEYWORDS: Water-resisting basement, Water leakage, Tank membrane, Drain cavity

1.

2520 2550
. 3 (.. 2543) [1]

3 6
(Tanking
membranes) (Water vapour)
(Liquid)
[2]

287
(Hydraulic pressure)

Capillary suction

(Capillary pore) [3]

(External hydrostatic pressure)

(Waterproof watch)

British Standard Institute (BSI)
2.
(Deep basement)
BS8102:1990 [4]
4
1 (Basic utility):
()
2 (Better
utility):
3 (Habitable):

4 (Special):
288
3.
BS8102:1990 [4]

1
1

(after BS 8102: 1990)
Loading coat
Protection to membrane
Water-resisting membrane
A
Type A (Tank protection)
Additional protection if
required
B
Optional position for
construction joint
Type B (Structural integral protection)

( BS8110: 1 2 BS8007)
(Sheet pile)
BS8110 BS8007

A C
4
1 ()
(after BS 8102: 1990)
Engineering brick with open

joints at intervals
Drained and
Floor finishes
ventilated cavity
Membrane
C1
Preformed
drain
C2
Tiles
No fines
concrete
Bored pile or diaphragm wall

Block work
Drained and ventilated cavity
75 mm concrete
Water-resisting membrane
and vapour barrier
Cavity floor system
drained to sumps
Gulley
To sump
Engineering brick with open

joints at intervals
C3
Sealed access cover
Bored pile or diaphragm wall

Basement floor strutting external wall
Cavity 75 mm
Drain from upper floor
Engineering brick with open joints at intervals
Relief provide through slab local to gulley
to prevent build up of hydrostatic pressure
To sump and
pump
May be trapped or untrapped
Type C (Drained protection)

D-wall (
)

Type C (Drained protection)

D-wall

3 ()
C1 C2 1 2 (
) C3
: C3
4.
(Required
internal
environment)

(External environment)

Tanking membrane Drain cavity
289
CIRIA report 139:1995 [2] Table 1 BS8102:1990

2 (after CIRIA report 139:1995 [2])
*
1 BS8102:1990
1
Type
B

(Basic utility)

BS8110
BS8110 1
(
)
1

3.4.2

BS8102 C
3 (Habitable)

2
Type A
(Better utility)
Type
B

1
BS8007
3
Type A
2
(Habitable)
Type
B

BS8007

Type C

3
4 (Special): Type A
B
Type

BS8007

Type C
* 1
290

Tanking membrane

Bored pile wall Diaphragm wall
Drain cavity
5.1 (Open excavation)

Tanking membrane

Tanking
membrane
1 2
Slab
Slab
Retaining Wall
Slab
Slab
Backfill
Sand
5.
Tanking membrane
Tanking membrane
5.2 (Sheet pile)
6-7
(Sheet pile)
1
(Strut)
Tanking membrane
Tanking membrane
(
)

3 6
Retaining Wall
Sheet pile wall
Slab
Slab
1 (Slope)
(Tanking membrane)
3 (Sheet pile)
291
Sheet pile wall
Bracing
4
Tanking membrane
Slab
Sheet pile wall
Slab
Retaining Wall
Backfill
sand
Slab
5
(Tanking membrane)
Sheet pile
Tanking membrane
Slab
Slab
Retaining Wall
Slab
Backfill
sand
5.3
3
7.5
(Pile wall)
(D-wall) (Rigid wall)

Bottom up Top down
5.3.1 Bottom up construction: 7-10
Pile wall D-wall
(Capping beam)
(Strut)

( Capping
beam Cohesive soil)
External tanking membrane

Capping beam
Drain cavity
1 Type C2 C3
Bottom-up
Backfill with cohesive soil
6 (Sheet pile)
5.1
5.2

(Tanking
protection)
Capping beam
Diaphragm wall
or Pile wall
7 Diaphragm wall Pile wall
(Capping beam)
292
4
Capping beam
Bracing
Diaphragm wall
or Pile wall
8
Slab
Capping beam
Diaphragm wall
or Pile wall
Slab
Slab
9

Slab
Diaphragm wall
or Pile wall
Inner wall
(if required)
Slab
Slab
10 (
)
5.3.2 Top - down construction: Pile wall

D-wall Capping beam

Stanchion

Cohesive soil
Capping beam
Drain cavity
1 Type C2
C3
Dwall
Capping beam 5.3.1 5.3.2
D-wall

Capillary pore
( D-wall
Capillary
pore D-wall )
Top-down
11-14
293
4
Stanchion
Capping
beam
Composite column Slab

Inner
wall
Diaphragm wall
or Pile wall
Diaphragm wall
or Pile wall
Slab
11 Diaphragm wall Pile wall

Stanchion (Capping beam)
Slab
Stanchion
Capping
beam
Diaphragm wall
or Pile wall
12
Stanchion
Slab
Capping
beam
14
(
)
6. D-wall
Dwall

D-wall
D-wall
D-wall
15 -18
Diaphragm wall
or Pile wall
Slab
13
15 D-wall
D-wall
294

Tanking protection /

Diaphragm wall Tanking protection

Capillary pore

Drain cavity
BS 8102,1990 [4]
Capping beam Diaphragm wall

Cohesive soil
D-Wall
Sheet pile wall
16

D-wall D- wall Sheet pile
Water tank
D-Wall
Sand backfill
17
D-wall
[1] 3 (.. 2543)

[2] CIRIA.1995. Water-Resisting Basements, report 139. Thomas Telford,
ISBN 07277 2042-2, London, United Kingdom
[3] , 2536.
[4] British Standard Institution, 1990. Code of Practice for protection of
structures against water from the ground. BS8102: 1990.
18 D-wall

7.

295
297
298
299
300
301
302

1 2 3
()
144 . 10510
0-2919-0090-7 0-2518-3088
E-Mail: seafco@seafco.co.th
1.

4
4
1 2
4 13
Diaphragm Wall
(Top down Construction)

1
1
.
.
3
.
2
B-1
303
2.

2.1
2.2 .
2.3
4
1
2,800

2.4
2.5
()
2.6 299,979,850
B-2
304
3.
0-28
29 3
Undrained Shear Strength (t/m2)
1
0
5
10
Soft clay
Depth from ground surface (m)
5.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
35
Dense sand
35.00
40
Hard clay
40.00
55
60
Very dense sand

Hard clay
Very dense sand
50.00
55.00
60.00
70.00
70
75
45.00
65.00
65
Hard silty clay
80
SPT - N Value
7.5
20
40
60
80
100
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
55.00
60.00
65.00
70.00
75.00
80.00
25.00
30
50
5.0
15.00
Very stiff to hard clay
25
45
2.5
0.00
15
20
0.0
75.00
80.00
4.
4.1 Diaphragm Wall

Stanchion

Stanchion 1.80
30 480 2.5
69 (Uplift Force)
4
Diaphragm Wall 0.80 20
13 Diaphragm wall
Finite Element
B-3
305

(Split Level) 2 (Transfer Steel Frame)
( 5)
4 Diaphragm wall
P
5 (Transfer frame)
1 Mesh FEM
6
B-4
306
-1.00 ..(Skeleton Beam) -0.50 .
-5.60 .-7.00 . B3 -5.30 -6.70 .
-13.00 . Mat foundation B1
B2 -8.10 -9.50 .
B4 -2.50 -3.90 .
GF
6 Finite Element Mesh

Diaphragm Wall

( 7)
B-5
307
Shear force (t/m)
Bending moment (t-m / m)

0
-100
100
-200
50
-50
0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100
-5
-5
-5
-10
-10
-10
-15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
100
Displacement (m)
-15
-15
-20
-20
-20
-25
-25
-25
7 Diaphragm wall
4.2 Stanchion
Stanchion
H-400

Stanchion
( 8)
8 Stanchion
B-6
308
4.3
Diaphragm wall

2
Ramp 9
. (Temporary Platform)
5.
5.1 Diaphragm Wall
Diaphragm Wall

Stanchion Stanchion
Stanchion
(Post-Concreting Installation Method)
Stanchion
(Steel Casing) 10
11
B-7
309
Concrete
Guide frame
Slurry
Slurry
Slurry
Stanchion
Temporary
casing
Temporary
casing
Temporary
casing
Backfill
Tremie pipe
Stanchion
Pile Cut-off
level
Pile Cut-off
level
Pile Cut-off
level
Complete drilling and
reinforcement installation
Concreting by tremie
method
Pile Cut-off
level
Installing stanchion by
Complete casing extraction
Stanchion
plunging into concreted pile

and backfilling
10 stanchion
11
5.1.1
1.80 30

(Casing) 15

(Bucket) -30
(Tremie Pie) Stanchion
12
B-8
310
. (Bucket)
. Stanchion
. Backfill
.
12
B-9
311
5.1.2 Diaphragm wall

Diaphragm Wall 0.80 20 Pile Leg
Diaphragm Wall Pile Leg Barrette
-30
Mechanical Hang Grab

Diaphragm Wall
Barrette -30
13
.
.
13 Diaphragm Wall

(SEAFCO)
( 14)
B-10
312
14
5.2
Diaphragm Wall
. Diaphragm Wall . (Skeleton Beam) 0.50 ( 15) (Platform)

13.0
1 2
(Skeleton Beam) -0.50 ( 15) B3 -5.30 -6.70 .
(Split Level) (Transfer Steel Frame)
( 16)
B-11
313
15 (Skeleton Beam)
16 (Transfer Steel Frame) (Split Level)
13.0 17
B-12
314
17
B-13
315
17 ()
B-14
316
17 ()
B-15
317
17 ()
B-16
318
6. Diaphragm Wall
Diaphragm Wall
Diaphragm Wall
FEM Diaphragm Wall
Inclinometer Diaphragm Wall
(Trigger Level)
Inclinometer 4
I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4 18 Diaphragm Wall
-13.00 .( 19)
I-1
I-4
I-2
I-3
18 Inclinometer
B-17
319

-30 -20
-10
10
20
30
40
50
60
-40 -30 -20 -10
10
10
Depth, m.
Depth, m.
-40
15
20
25
25
30
30
10
20
Design Line by SEAFCO

18-Feb-06 (Initial)
28-Feb-06 (Exc. To -5.0 m)
14-Mar-06 (Exc. To -5.7m)
27-Apr-06
19-May-06
20-Jun-06 (Exc. To -11.0m)
25 J l 06 (Af C
M
) Inclinometer I-1
) Inclinometer I-2
19 Inclinometer
B-18
320
30
40
50
60
15
20

18-Feb-06 (Initial)
28-Feb-06 (Exc. To -2.0 m)
14-Mar-06 (Exc. To -5.7m)
30-Mar-06
19-May-06
20-Jun-06 (Exc. To -11.0m)
25 J l 06 (Af C
M

-10
10
20
30
40
50
60
-40 -30 -20 -10
10
10
Depth, m.
Depth, m.
-40 -30 -20
15
10
20
30
40
15
20
20
25
25
30
30
18-Feb-06 (Initial)
28-Feb-06 (Exc. To -2.0 m)
14-Mar-06 (Exc. To -2.0 m)
27-Apr-06 (Exc. To -7.0 m)
19-May-06
20-Jun-06
2
06 (
2
)

18-Feb-06 (Initial)
28-Feb-06 (Exc. To -2.0 m)
14-Mar-06 (Exc. To -2.5m)
27-Apr-06 (Exc. To -7.0m)
19-May-06
20-Jun-06
) Inclinometer I-3
) Inclinometer I-4
19 () Inclinometer
B-19
321
50
60
7.
4 -30.0 .
Diaphragm
Wall 0.80 . -20.0 .
Platform Stanchion

(Top-down) Diaphragm Wall
(Rigid Wall)
B-20
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
VIBRATOR
AUGER
BUCKET
TEMPORARY
CASING
TREMIE PIPE
REINFORCEMENT
CAGE
332
CONCRETE
PULL OUT
GUIDE WALL
STOP-END TUBE
BENTONITE
REINFORCEMENT
FINISHED PANEL
PANEL EXCAVATION
BENTONITE
REINFORCEMENT
EXCAVATED PANEL
FINISHED PANEL
GUIDE WALL
GUIDE WALL
STOP-END TUBE
STAGE 1
EXCAVATION
STAGE 2
REINFORCEMENT
STAGE 3
CONCRETING
STAGE 4
WITHDRAW STOP-END TUBES
333
334
1.
2.
3.
335
1.
2.

4.

3.
5.
336
1.

2.

3.
4.
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
seafco@seafco.co.th
2
chanchai@seafco.co.th
: tttttttt
ttttt.ttt.tt
tttttttttt.
ttttttttt
t tt t t t t. t t
t t . t t tt t
tttt.
:ttttttt
..
: 39 :
351
352
: 40 :
CONCRETE
GL
PULL OUT
GUIDE WALL
GL
CONCRETE
WL
GUIDE WALL
WL
PULL OUT
STOP-END TUBE
BENTONITE
STOP-END TUBE
BENTONITE
REINFORCEMENT
REINFORCEMENT
PANEL EXCAVATION
FINISHED PANEL
BENTONITE
FINISHED PANEL
PANEL EXCAVATION
EXCAVATED PANEL
BENTONITE
REINFORCEMENT
FINISHED PANEL
GUIDE WALL
GUIDE WALL
EXCAVATED PANEL
GUIDE WALL
GUIDE WALL
STAGE 1
STAGEEXCAVATION
1
EXCAVATION
REINFORCEMENT
STOP-END TUBE
STAGE 2
STOP-END TUBE
REINFORCEMENT
STAGE
2
REINFORCEMENT
L
FINISHED PANEL
L
STAGE 4
STAGE 3
CONCRETING
STAGE 3
CONCRETING

STAGE 4
353
: 41 :
3.1
..
: 354
42 :
3.2
..222
: 355
43 :
2.
1.
2.
1.2
21.
1.
2.
1.2
12.2
2.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
13.
21
1.
1.
2
2
12.
2 1
3
1
1.
1.

2.
2.

3.
3.
356
: 44 :
1.
4.
2.

3.
5.
1. 1.
2. 2.
3. 3.
1.
2.

3.
4.

.
2122
357
: 45 :
358
: 46 :
:359
47 :
iaram
all
iaramall
all
max
illnniumuumit
rtusum
ammasat
atornComlx
laia
Cntralosital
oaumrunmun
ic
m
i
m

tontal
iaramall

ii all
iaram all

iaramall
at
i acin
i stinss all
ullr xcaations a ractical manual omas

lor
illiamsanaitsinanconstructiono
st il corams Construction nustr sarc an
normationssociationcialulicationomaslor
ulication

artinituitoounationConstructionC
cialulication

360
: 48 :
EXPERIENCE ON THE SONIC INTEGRITY TESTING IN BORED PILING PRACTICE
1, 2
3
1
,2 ,3

: (Sonic Integrity Test)
Seismic Test Echo Test

(Features)

Abstract: Indirect testing of integrity of bored piles by Sonic Integrity Testing (SIT) also known as
Seismic Test or Echo Test. has been widely used around the world as a method of testing is quick and
economy. But reliable evaluation and interpretation of the testing results must be carried out by specialist
engineers who have a good practice both in piling construction and subsoil properties. Manny countries,
have set up the practical guidelines for testing and evaluation of trace signals to be followed. In
Thailand where bored piles are commonly used, but no engineering organization has established the
guideline in certifying and controlling the professional interpretators. As a result, some conclusions which
were interpreted by inexperience testing firm were found not correspond to the real feature of the piles.
This paper presents the method of evaluation and interpretation on trace signals collected from various
references and from authors own experiences. The parties involved may take these methods into
consideration on their testing and interpretation works as appropriate.
KEYWORDS: Low Strain Sonic Integrity Test, Seismic Test and Impedance
361
GTE-31
1.
(Integrity) Low-Strain Sonic Integrity Testing (LST)

(Indirect Testing)

Sensor
(Structural Conditions) (Geotechnical Conditions)

.
AS 2159-1995 Section 8.5[3], ASTM D 5882[1],
JGJ/T93-95 [4], Norme Francaise NFP94-160-2[7], ICE Specification for Piling
[5], German Society for Geotechiques E.V. Dynamic Pile Integrity Tests-Draft[6]
.. 1980
2. Sonic Integrity test

Pile Integrity; ,
(Stress Wave)
(Sensor)

Impedance,(z); (Stress
Wave)

Impedance, (z) Low Strain Integrity Test (1)

z = .c. A
(1)
( = pile material density , c = propagation velocity of the wave, A = cross - sectional of the pile )

(Major Defect)
(Minor Defect)
Turner, [10]
Pile Defects;
362
GTE-32
3.

Sensor 1

(Compressive shock wave)

Impedance

Stress wave
c, t (
1
) Stress wave
(after Turner,1997)
t = 2L/c L = c.t /2 L
c t

(Feature)

4.
Low Strain Sonic Integrity Test (LST)

(Pile-Soil System)
(Uniform Homogeneous Soils)
() () (Stiffness) ()

( None Homogeneous Soils)
Stress wave

), ) )
363
GTE-33
5.

Turner, [10]
3
5.1 Type 0 signal:
(Damping Effect)

2 Type 0 Signal
(after Turner, 1997)
2
5.2 Type 1 Signal:

(
3 Type 1 Signal
50%) Type 1 Signal
(after Turner,1997)
3

4 4
5.3 Type 2 Signal:
Type 0 Type 1
5 Type 2 Signal
(after Turner, 1997)
5
Type 2
Type 2
Turner [10] Type 2

364
GTE-34
Amir, [2] (Artistical Approach)

(Palm Readers)
(the more ambiguous the reflectogram ,the better.)
Sliwinski and Fleming,[5]
(Experience and skill are necessary in the execution and interpretation of all such
tests and that it is not a suitable activity for unskilled amateurs.)
6.
(Reflectogram)

-

( Structural Impedance Change)
(Acoustic Interpretation)
- (Features)
,
(,
, )
,

Low Strain Sonic Integrity Test (Pile Features)

7. Beta Method
Beta - method () Dynamic Load Test
Rausche and Goble [8] LST LST

(Structural Change), (Geotechnical Change)
(Construction Method) X-Ray Ultra Sound

365
GTE-35
15 ( 6)

15 7 4
Med.
clay
Very soft clay
Stiff clay
Dense sand
Pile Cut-off level
Nominal dia./dia. of
drilling tool
Outer diameter of
casing collar
11.0 cm/s
Pile 66
25 Jun 97
12
15
18
4000 m/s
exp : 20
21
24
27
f: 8
30
v2-88c
sr
6
8.
,

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ASTM D5882-96 Standard Test Method of Low Strain Integrity Testing of Piles. American Society
for Testing and Materials., 1916 Race Street., Philadelphia, PA 19103
Amir, J. M., A Buyer Guide to Pile Integrity Testing., DFI 24th Annual Members Conference.,
Decades of Technology Advancing into the Future. Michigan. Pp.213-223, 1999.
Australian Standard AS2159-1995 Piling Design and Installation. Published by Standard Association
of Auatralia.,1 the Crescent, Homebussh, NSW 2140, ISBN 0 7262 9884 0.
JGJ/T93-95 Specification for Low Strain Dynamic Testing of Piles.The Ministry of Building and
Construction of the People s Republic of China.& The Ministry of Geology and Mineral of the PRC.
Institution of Civil Engineers. Specification for Piling and Embedded Retaining Walls. Thomas
Telford. London 1996
German Society for Geotechniques E.V. Dynamic Pile Integrity Tests. Draft of September 1997.
Norme Francaise NFP94-160-2 Sols:reconnaissance et assals, Auscultation d un element de
foundation; Partie 2 Methode par reflexion. L association francaise de normalisation (afnor) Tour
europe cedex 792049, Paris la defense, November 1993.
Rausche, F. and Goble, G.G., Determination of Pile Damage by Top Measurements. Behavior of
Deep Foundations, American Society for Testing and Material, 1979 ASTM STP-670, pp 500-506.
Thasnanipan, N., Muang, A. W., Navaneethan, T. and Aye, Z. Z., None- Destructive Testing on piles
Founded in Bangkok Subsoil. Proc. of the 6th Intl. Conf. on the Application of Stress Wave Theory to
piles. Quality Assurance on Land and Offshore Piling. Su Paulo/Brazil. Pp. 171-177, 2000.
Turner, M. J., Integrity Testing in Piling Practice. Construction Industry Research and Information
Association.(CIRIA Report 144) , 1997.
366
GTE-36
2542
, . , 1-2 2542
Sonic Logging
Integrity Tests on Deep Bored Piles Constructed in Bangkok Subsoil

by Sonic Logging Method & Signals Interpretation
,
,

61/141 9 10320
643956172, 2472290-4, 2462177
projects ; bridges crossing the Chao Phraya river,

expressways, subway stations, etc. This paper presents
discussion on test results with anomalies shown by test
signals obtained from 9 tested model piles ; diameter 80
cm. and 1.0 m in length. The interpretation on the test
signals and the actual integrity of piles were compared.
The findings from the model pile tests may be used as
interpretation guides for the field tests. Samples of test
signals tested on bored piles of diameter 120 cm. from
one of the major infrastructure projects are also
presented
Sonic Logging Test

( Bored Pile) (Diaphragm Wall)
, ( Barrette Pile ) Caissons
Sonic Logging Test

,

(Anomalies)
(Model Piles) 80 . 1.0
9
(Interpretation)
1.20
1. (Introduction)
Sonic Logging Test
(Transit Time or
Travelling Time) Sonic/Ultrasonic
2
(Piezo-Electric Probe)
(Transmitter or Emitter)
(Receiver)
Schematic ( 1)
Probes Sonic/Ultrasonic
Probe
Density Log
- Probe
X
Y 2
ABSTRACT
Sonic logging test is one of the testing methods
to check the integrity of pile foundations such as cast initu bored piles, diaphragm walls, barrettes and caissons.
Sonic logging test has been used in Thailand in many
367
1
3 Typical horizontal positioning of probes
1 Elements of sonic logging system

(after Strain and Williams,1991)
4 Possible diversion of signal

Sonic Profile

2. (Model Tests)
2 Typical Sonic profile from sonic logging
80
. 100 .
50 .
60 . 5

1.
Sonic Logging Profile

(homogenous concrete)
Sonic Logging Test (no
anomalies) sonic
3
sonic
sonic
4 2
368
2
50 .
100 cm
80 cm.
60 cm.
80 cm.
5
1 Sonic Logging Profiles 30
Case Concrete & Material Properties

1 Standard good concrete pile with
clean tubes and clean water
Profile
Discussion of signal
(no -anomaly)
Good concrete pile with dirty tubes

and clean water

Bleeding
Good concrete pile with dirty tubes

and dirty water (contaminated with
bentonite slurry) filled

Bleeding

2
369

4 Good concrete with
Layer of bentonite
Slurry,sand,gravel
filled (30 cm.
Thickness whole Section) at middle
of the pile
Profile
0.40 . 0.70 .
Good concrete with

Clay on surface of
one tube (50 cm.
from top of concrete

0.50 .
Concrete mixed with bentonite

slurry

Poor concrete, non-homogenous concrete
Thin smear of 2 . Bentonite

slurry on tubes (50 cm. from top of
concrete)

0 0.50 . top of
concrete
370
4

8
Thick smear of 5 . Bentonite
slurry on tubes (50 cm. from top of
concrete)
Profile
0 0.50 . top of
concrete
Weak concrete(high w/c ratio)

(homogenous low
strength concrete)
3. (Test on working piles)
(Anomalies)
1.20 . 41
2 Anomaly signals and causes
(Anomaly signals)
(Causes of anomaly signals)

Sonic Logging Profile 3
.

5
371
5

(Anomaly signals)
(Causes of anomaly signals)

(mortar) Bleeding
2 3
Sonic Logging Profile 3.0 7.0 .

-
6
Sonic Logging Profile 12.5 13.0 .

Coring
4

coring
4. (Analysis and
Interpretation)
37 6,865
3 4
3. Defect classification criteria monitored by means of 2 tubes

(Interpretation)
Faiella et al (1998)
Ta/Ts
<1.15
1.15+1.45
1.45+2.0
>2.0
372
6
Tk/D
<3
>3
<1
>1
<0.5
>0.5
TYPE OF DEFECT
Non-homogeneous concrete
Light
Probably serious
Light
Probably serious
Probably serious
Light
4. Defect classification criteria for piles monitored
by means of 3 and 4 tubes

Ta/Ts
<1.15
1.15+1.45
Pa/Pt
Pa<Pt
Pa=Pt
Pa<Pt
Pa=Pt
1.45+2.0
Pa<Pt
Pa=Pt
>2.0
Pa<Pt
Pa=Pt
Tk/D
<3
>3
<3
>3
<1
1+3
>3
<1
>1
<0.5
0.5+3
>3
<0.5
>0.5
5.4
TYPE OF DEFECT
Non-homogeneous
concrete
Non-homogeneous
concrete
Light
Light
Serious
Non-homogeneous
concrete
Light
Serious
Light
Serious
Light
Serious
Serious
Light
Serious
5.5
Where:
Ta = Travel time of sonic waves in the anomalous zone
Ts= Travel time of sonic waves in the sound concrete
Tk= Thickness of the anomalous zone
Pa= Number of measurement paths affected by sonic
anomalies
Pt= Total number of travel paths for each pile
D =Pile diameter
5. (Conclusion)
Sonic Logging Profiles
5.1
(Transit time)

4
1.20 .
5.2 Sonic
2 . 5 .
(Transit time) 7
8
5.3 Sonic

373
7
5.6
5.7
(Transit time)
5
1.20 .

(homogenous low
strength concrete) Transit time
9

Profile Poor concrete ,
none homogenous concrete
(Transit time)
6
1.20 .
Bleeding
Sonic Logging Profile Profile
(Transit
time)
1.20 .
Sonic Logging Test
Sonic Integrity (Seismic Test)

(Pile constructed with high performance)

,

Sonic Logging Test
7. (References)
Faiella, D. & Superbo, S. (1998) Integrity non destructive tests of
deep foundations by means of sonic methods - Analysis of the
results collected on 37 sites in Italy , Deep Foundations on Bored
and Auger Piles BAP III, Balkema, Rotterdam ,Netherlands ,1998 , pp.
209-213
Stain, R.T. & Williams, H.T. (1991) Interpretation of Sonic Coring
Results: A research Project. , 4th international DFI conference
Piling and Deep Foundations., Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1991,
pp. 633-640
Turner, M.J. (1997) Integrity testing in piling practice,
Construction Industry Research and Information Association. CIRIA
Report 144 , London, UK., pp. 208-229
374

APPLICATION OF CROSS-HOLE SONIC LOGGING TESTS IN JUSTIFYING
PILE HEAD CONDITION BEFORE BASEMENT EXCAVATION
(Zaw Zaw Aye)2
1
3

ABSTRACT : In wet process bored piles construction, it is necessary that concrete is continued to be placed until good quality
of concrete is formed above the design pile cut-off level to avoid contamination of slurry within the design pile length.
Controlling the excessive overcast length to maintain the appropriate pile top level is one of the major problems particularly for
the piles with low cut-off level. If the pile head condition of recently cast bored piles could be justified in the initial stage of the
project, it would be better and easier for the piling engineers to efficiently decide the optimum overcast length of the pile which
in turn would provide effective saving of unnecessary concrete consumption. Application of sonic logging tests in justifying
overcast pile length is demonstrated in this paper.
KEYWORDS : cross-hole sonic logging test, wet-process bored pile, pile integrity
1.
CSL (cross-hole sonic logging test)
.. 2525
CSL

375

CSL

2.

(Supporting fluid)

(Tremie pipe) [Narong
2003, 1]
3. CSL (Cross-hole Sonic logging test)

CSL (Sonic tube)

(Cored sample)

1 1
[STS 2004, 2]
CSL
1 CSL
Category
A
< 10%
B
10% 25%
C
> 25%
4. (Overcast
length)

2a 2b
1 CSL
Sound concrete
Contaminated concrete
2a 2b

(Recycle)

376
(Cleaning bucket)

1 [ICE 1996, 3]

(1)
Lovercast = 1.0 + H/12 + C/8
H = (.), (Hmax = 10.0 .)
C =

3

5.

377

1
2 2
CSL
2 CSL
1
2
,
()
400
174
,
(.)
1.50
1.00
,
(.)
52.0
50.0
()
2
0
C
(%)
0.5
0

(.)
2.5
2.2
(%)
95
76

Overcast length 2.5 .

6. CSL

CSL 10-15 .

CSL
10 .

CSL

6.1 2

Overcast length 4-6 .

CSL 174 76%
Overcast length 2.2 . 18% Overcast length
2.2 3.0 . 6% Overcast length
3.0 .
4-6 .

CSL 4

CSL
7.
- CSL 10-15
.
-

-

-
10 CSL
Overcast length (

CSL)
8.
CSL

10-15 .

CSL

Contaminated concrete
Cut-off level
[1] Narong et al, 2003. Behaviour of Polymer-bases Slurry for Deepseated Bored Piles in Multi-layered Soil of Bangkok, Proceedings
of the 4th International Geotechnical Seminar on Deep Foundation
on Bored and Auger Piles, Ghent, Belgium.
[2] STS Instruments Co., Ltd., 2004. Proposal for sonic logging test
(unpublished), Bangkok, Thailand
[3] Institution of Civil Engineers, 1996. Specification for piling and
embedded retaining walls. Thomas Telford Services Ltd. London,
United Kingdom
378
15
12-14 2553

GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION ROLLS IN
DEEP BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION IN BANGKOK
(Zaw Zaw Aye)2
1
2
() zaw@seafco.co.th
3
ABSTRACT : The objectives of geotechnical instrumentation are to monitor excavation induced movement, observe changes in
stress state due to basement construction activities and impact of construction to existing buildings or infrastructures. Instrumentation
can be applied to retaining wall, soil, building or infrastructure that is influenced by basement construction works. Geotechnical
instrumentation is considered essential in order to verify the design criteria, to observe safety of basement construction works and to
evaluate impact of construction to existing building foundations or infrastructures. In addition, monitoring data is a key factor to
make a decision for adjusting construction plan or method of construction in each situation within the right time to increase safety or
efficiency. This paper presents an overview of geotechnical instrumentation applications in Bangkok, importance of geotechnical
instrumentation to basement excavation works, monitoring concept of each instrument and interpretation of monitoring results.
Furthermore, a case study of geotechnical instrumentation application in basement construction in Bangkok is also demonstrated.
KEYWORDS : Geotechnical instrumentation, basement construction, excavation induced movement
379
15
12-14 2553
1.

[1]

2.

11-18 .
(...2520, [2]) 1
1 (...2520, [2])
380

1 [3]
1 [3]
Inclinometer
Diaphragm wall

Diaphragm wall
Inclinometer
Extensometer
Extensometer
Inclinometer

( )

(
)
15
12-14 2553
1 [3] ()
Tilt-meter
Crack Meter, Crack Gauge

(Observation Well )
Piezometer (Standpipe,
Vibrating wire)
Tape Extensometer
Convergence Point

Inclinometer

3.

Empirical

381

1.
2.

3. 4.

15
12-14 2553
(Calibrate)

4.

( )

382

Trigger value

(Trigger value)
5.
5.1 (Inclinometer)
Inclinometer

Diaphragm wall
(Sheet pile)
Inclinometer
(Access tube) (Probe)
(Servoaccelerometer)

2
Inclinometer

Inclinometer
2 Inclinometer
15
12-14 2553

Pneumatic Settlement Cell
VW Settlement Cell

2 Inclinometer
Inclinometer

Inclinometer

5.2 (Surface settlement point)

30-50 .

3

(Theodolite)
383
5.3 (Extensometer)

(Sondex)

(Magnetic extensometer) Inclinometer

15
12-14 2553
Extensometer
2 Sondex Extensometer Magnetic
Extensometer 4
() Piezometer

4 (Extensometer)
5 (Piezometer)
5.4 (Piezometer)
Piezometer
(Excess pore water pressure)
Piezometer Active Piezometer

Dummy Piezometer

Piezometer

Piezometer 3
Standpipe Piezometer, Pneumatic
Piezometer 5 () Vibrating Wire Piezometer 5
5.5 (Tiltmeter)

(Tiltmeter)

Tiltmeter
Tilt Sensor
Tilt Plate

6

384
15
12-14 2553
Dangerous Line
Measured Values
Prediction
(Big measured value)
Countermeasure
Rationalization
Rationalization Line
6 Tiltmeter
Prediction
(Small measured value)
6.

[4]

2
(Trigger
level)

7
385
Design Values
Before
excavation
First
stage
Second
stage
Third
stage
Fourth
stage
7
[5]
7.
:

x = 68x105 . 2

-7.0 .
720 45,000
..
Island
method

(Sheet pile)

8
15
12-14 2553

4
10
8 Island method

Flexible Sheet pile

Finite element

Diaphragm wall Top-down

9
10

(Inclinometer)
(Settlement point)
(Tiltmeter) 11
Displacement (m)
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0
-2
-4
Depth (m)
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
11
Diaphragm Wall with Top-Down Construction

Sheet Pile with Island Method
9 2
386
15
12-14 2553

7.1
Inclinometer Diaphragm
wall -16.0 -18.5 m 8

-20.0 m 4
12

0
10
20
30
40
50
-10
Depth, m.
Depth, m.
-10
10
20
30
40
50
7.2

8

7-9
Inclinometer

Diaphragm wall
Empirical formula

5-12 . 5-7.5 .
13
Distant from diaphragm wall (m)
10
10
12
12
14
14
16
16
20
Initial
24-Nov-08 (Excavate to -7.20m)
11-Dec-08
14-Feb-09
17-Mar-09
23 Apr 09
4-Jun-09
Prediction
Inclinometer in D-wall, I5
Settlement (mm)
18
18
20
2.5
7.5
10
12.5
15
17.5
20
Initial
18-Nov-08 (Exc. To -7.2m)
16-Dec-08
13-Jan-09
27-Feb-09
23-Apr-09
4-Jun-09
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
3 Oct 08
28 Dec 08
Inclinometer in soil, I11
12

Diaphragm wall
387
13 S1
7.3

7.1 7.2
12 .
Tiltmeter
4 4
15
12-14 2553
14
Alarm limit 1:700
Inclination Measurement T1 - T4, Direction 1 - 3

0.0040
T1
Action limit 1:300
T2
T3
T4
0.0020
Inclination (Rad)
Alarm limit 1:700
0.0000
9.
Alarm limit 1:700

0.0020
Action limit 1:300
3/8/2009
17/8/2009
31/8/2009
8/6/2009
22/6/2009
6/7/2009
20/7/2009
13/4/2009
27/4/2009
11/5/2009
25/5/2009
16/2/2009
2/3/2009
16/3/2009
30/3/2009
22/12/2008
5/1/2009
19/1/2009
2/2/2009
10/11/2008
24/11/2008
8/12/2008
15/9/2008
29/9/2008
13/10/2008
27/10/2008
21/7/2008
4/8/2008
18/8/2008
1/9/2008
26/5/2008
9/6/2008
23/6/2008
7/7/2008
0.0040
Date
14 S1

Island method
Top-down Diaphragm wall

8.
388
[1] Aye ZZ, Submaneewong C and Boonyarak T (2007),

Observational Method and Risk Management in Geotechnical
Engineering, Seafco-AIT-EIT Seminar on Value of the
Observational Method in Geotechnical Engineering in Major
Construction Projects, Bangkok
[2] . (2520). .
.
[3] . (2544).
.
7. .
[4] Powderham, A.J. (1998), The Observational Method-Application
Through Progressive Modification. Journal of Civil Engineering
Practice (BSCE/ASCE) Vol 13, No. 2, pp 87-109
[5] Ikuta, Y., Maruoka, M., Aoki, M. & Sato, E. (1994). Application
of the observational method to a deep basement excavation using
top-down method. Geotechnique 44. No 4, pp 655-664
. 2-4 2550

MINIMIZING GROUND MOVEMENT BY USING DEEP SOIL MIXING TECHNIQUE
(Aung Win Maung)2
1
2
() win@seafco.co.th
3
ABSTRACT : Ground engineering activities in soft clay or loose sand layer, changing in soil stress, can cause large amount of soil
displacement. Soil improvement using deep cement mixing technique is one of the suitable methods to minimize the movement. This
paper covers design concept, construction sequence and quality control process involved in deep soil mixing. It also covers
construction induced soil movement monitoring. It was found that appropriate soil improving, also serve as an additional safety
measure during construction stage, is one of the most effective solutions to minimize construction-induced soil movement.
KEYWORDS : Soil improvement, Ground movement, Deep excavation, Embankment

1.
389

(E50) Baker et
al, 2005 [1]
200 MPa
. 2-4 2550
10 kPa
Bergado, D.T. [2]
3

70% 90% 1
7

(Mixing blade) 0.60 1.20 .
(Grouting hose)
(Grouting and mixing plant) 1
1.
2. 3.
4. 5.
(Secondary column) (
) (Primary Column)
2
2.

(Deep soil-cement mechanical mixing)

390
1.
Primary
column
2.
3.
4. Primary 5. Secondary
column column
Primary column
. 2-4 2550

(Field Trial Test)
1 [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]

20%
(Index)

(Su (lab))
(Su (field))

(Eu )
3-15%
3.
(Strength)

()
500 2000 kPa

()
0.3 - 0.6 Su (lab)
()
30 100 Su
( )
0.25 - 0.45
Poisson's ratio
CR&RR
(Consolidation)
'p / (qu)
1.3
: *
E50 (T/m )
30
Su (T/m )
60
90
120
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
Water Content (%)

6,000
7,000
8,000
20
40
60
80
100
120
0
1
2
3
4
5
Depth (m)
2
(Hydration)

(Cementation)

(Pozzolanic)

(Clay mineral)
(Cementatious agent)
[8]

1. 2.
3.
4.
5.
1

()
28
3 50%
10-20
2-50%
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Natural soil
Stabilized Soil-Max
Stabilized Soil-Min
Undrained Shear Strength of Soil
Natural soil
Stabilized Soil-Min
Modulus at 50% stress level
Natural soil
Stabilized soil-Max
Stabilized soil-Min
Water Content of Soil
4.
391
. 2-4 2550

1

(Field pilot test)

4

1.
(UCS Test)
2.
(Coring)

3. (Pull-out test)
4

4.
(Static load test) 5
392
5.
()
. Diaphragm wall

-10.80 .
6.30 .
. 2-4 2550
7.80 .
15.0 .
rigid wall
(Deep Soil
mixing) (Excavation side)

6.0 . -13.5 .
6

(Inclinometer)

20-27 .

15-18 .
7.80 m
15.0 m
6.30 m
18.50 m
Influence zone
- 10.80 m
Soil-cement 6.0x13.50 m
D-wall 0.8x20.00 m
6
Diaphragm wall

2
4 .

8 .
5.70 . 7

2
393
200%

7
2
N/A
30 - 110
(T/m2)
SPT-N (blow/ft)
3 - 12
N/A

2000 - 4000
7000 - 15 000
(T/m2)
SPT-N
UCS-cored sample
Esand = 300 N
E50 from UCS
3
Wet Process
0.60 . 12 . 1.50 .
8
. 2-4 2550

UCS Test (E50)
10
3

(Qu.Ab) 2.1 .
9

LOAD (TONS)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
0.0
SETTLEMENT (mm)
1.0
2.0
1 Hrs(Constant Load)
Cycle1
3.0
6.
[1] Baker, S., Sallfors, G., Alen, C. 2005. Deformation properties of

lime/cement columns; Evaluation from in-situ full scale tests of
stabilized clay. Deep Mixing 05. Stockholm, Sweden.
[2] D.T. Bergado, G.A. Lorenzo & T. Duangchan. 2004. Consolidation
settlement of Reinforced Embankment on Deep mixing cement piles.
15th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society Conference. Bangkok.
Thailand.
[3] Japan Cement Association, 1994, Soil improvement manual using
cement stabilizer (in Japanese), Japan
[4] Kawasaki,T,A. Niina, S. Saitoh&R. Babasaki , 1978, Studies on
Engineering Characteristics of cement-base stabilized soil, Takenaka
Technical Research Report (in Japanese), Japan
[5] Terashi, M., T. Okumura & T. Mitsumoto, 1977, Fundamental
properties of lime treated soil (1st Report), Report of the Port and
Harbour Research Institute (in Japanese), Japan
[6] Terashi, M., H. Tanaka, T. Mitsumoto, Y. Niidome & S. Honma,
1980, Fundamental properties of lime and cement treated soil (2nd
Report), Report of the Port and Harbour Research Institute (in
Japanese), Japan
[7] Terashi, M., H. Tanaka, T. Mitsumoto, S. Honma & T. Ohhashi, 1983,
Fundamental properties of lime and cement treated soil (3rd Report),
Report of the Port and Harbour Research Institute (in Japanese),
Japan
[8] , 2547, ,
,
394

()
144 .
10510
. 0-2919-0090-97 0-2919-3363
www.seafco.co.th

APPLICATION OF SOIL-CEMENT COLUMN
AS SOIL PROTECTION SYSTEM IN SOFT CLAY
(Aung Win Maung)2
1
2
() win@seafco.co.th
3
:

30%
ABSTRACT: Soil cement columns can be effectively used as a soil retaining system for excavation
work. In addition, it also strengthens surrounding soil of other conventional retaining walls to
minimized excavation induced soil movement. However, compared to some other geotechnical works,
the information on design and construction of this technique is relatively limited. Therefore, it is
necessary to understand the engineering properties, structural behavior, construction sequences and
also the limitation of soil-cement retaining wall. The objective of this paper is to present an overview
of soil-cement column in excavation works, construction techniques, properties of improved soil,
395
relationship between mixing factor and stabilized soils strength, design concept and quality control
process. It was found that appropriate designed soil-cement columns can provide convenient,
economical and environmental friendly soil retaining system. Furthermore, using soil-cement columns
incorporated with other soil retaining systems for geotechnically sensitive projects can reduce
excavation-induced soil movement by 30%. Case studies on a number of projects are also presented.
KEYWORDS: Soil improvement, Soil-cement column, Deep excavation
1.

(Deep mixing)

(Medium clay) 13-17 .

(Stiffness)

(Shrinkage crack)

396

2.
Topolnicki (2004)
1 (
/ ) ( / +Jet / Jet)
( / )
1 Topolnicki (2004)
397
2.1 (Cement Deep Mixing, CDM)

(Binder) (Mixing blade)
( 5-10 bar)

0.60 1.20 . 2 (Grouting hose)
(Grouting and mixing plant) 3
4
1. 2.
3.
4. 5. (Secondary column)
( ) (Primary Column) 5
6
(Cement Deep Mixing)

398
1.
2.
3.
Primary column
4
(Deep mixing)
4. Primary
5. Secondary
column
column
Primary column
5
Deep mixing
6 (Larsson, 2005)
399
2.2 (Jet grouting)

Jet grouting 1980s
300 mm
4000 mm
(Imanishi & Yamauchi, 1996)
Jet grouting

400 bar (40 MPa) 7 ( , 2547)
50 L/
200 bar (20 MPA)

Turbojet (Italy) Geojet (USA)
Jet grouting 8
30 . (Pre-jet)
Pre-jet
Jet grouting

Jet grouting

(Imanishi & Yamauchi, 1996
, 2544)
7 Jet grouting (, 2547)
400
8 Jet grouting (, 2547)
2.3 (Dry Jet Mixing, DJM)

(Water content)
(Organic soil) 2
(prEN 14679 (2005)

Aoi & Tsujii (1996) 9
Dry mix 0.60 1.20 .

(Wiggers & Perzon, 2005)
401
9 (Raito, Inc. [online])
3.

(Field Trial Test)
2
(Hydration)
(Cementation)

(Pozzolanic)
(Clay mineral) (Cementatious agent)
[, 2547] 12

1
()
28 10
50% 10-20
2-50%
402
9
1 [JCA, 1994; Kawasaki et al., 1978, Terashi et al., 1977,
1980,1983]

(Physical properties)

*
20%
3-15%

( ) 500 2000
kPa
( ) 0.3 - 0.6 Su
(lab)
( ) 175 500 Su
( ) 0.25
- 0.45

(Su (lab))

(Engineering
properties)
(Su (field))
(Eu )
Poisson's ratio
CR&RR
(Consolidation)
'p / (qu)
1.3
: *
2
E50 (T/m )
30
Su (T/m )
60
90
120
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
Water Content (%)

6,000
7,000
8,000
20
40
60
80
100
120
0
1
2
3
4
Depth (m)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Natural soil
Stabilized Soil-Max
Stabilized Soil-Min
Undrained Shear Strength of Soil
Natural soil
Stabilized Soil-Min
Modulus at 50% stress level
10
403
Natural soil
Stabilized soil-Max
Stabilized soil-Min
Water Content of Soil
10
11 (After Honjo, 1982)
Cement stabilization
Lime stabilization
12 (After Kitasume, 2005)
Honjo 1982 ( 11)

Failure strain
Terashi et al., 1980
0.15 Qu
0.10-0.60 Qu
CDIT, 1999; Terashi &
Kitazume, 1992 Yoshida et al., 1992
7 5,000
Logarithm
404
11
(Angle of
internal friction) 0 () (Niina et al.,
1977)
4.

4 2
1.
2.
3.
4.

-

(Degree of mixing)

1. 2.
3.
4. 5.
(w/c)
w/c = 0
405
12
Jet grouting w/c = 1 w/c

XX
w/c 1 2
Niina et al., 1977
60%

2544
NaCl

(pH 7)

(Degree of mixing)
13 14
(Larsson, 2005) (Nakamura et al., 1982)

Dong et al., 1996

(Anti-rotation vane)
Kawasaki et al., 1981

Saito et al.,
1980
Larsson (2005)
3

406
13
3 (Larsson, 2005)
13
(Larsson, 2005)
14

(Nakamura et al., 1982)
5.

(Gravity wall)
(Terashi et al., 1980)

407
14
50-100 .

5.1 Conventional method

5.1.1
- Sliding failure resistance
- Overturning failure resistance
- Bearing capacity of retaining wall
- Slip circle analysis
5.1.2
- Toe pressure
- Shear stress analysis
- Extrusion of untreated soil (through the gap of wall)
5.1.3
- Immediate settlement
- Long term settlement
5.2 Finite element
Conventional method

Finite element analysis

-
-
408
15
-
-
-
-

5.3

28 ()

(Inclinometer)
6.

409
16
(Field pilot test)

16

1.
(UCS Test)
2. (Coring)
4
( 15 16) 1.0 m

( 17)
3. (Pull-out test) 18 (
19) ( 20) ( 21)

4. (Static load test) 22

15 4
16
410
17
18
17
19
20
21
22
411
18
7. ()

1
. Diaphragm wall
2
1.1 -10.80 .
6.30 .
7.80 . 15.0 .
rigid wall
(Deep Soil mixing) (Excavation side)
6.0 .
-13.5 . 23

(Inclinometer)
20-27 .
15-18 .
7.80 m
Soil-Cement Column
Block
18.50 m
Influence zone
15.0 m
- 10.80 m
6.30 m
Soil-cement 6.0x13.50 m
D-wall 0.8x20.00 m
Section
Plan
23 Diaphragm wall
412
19
1.2 -10.20 .

6.30 .
7.00 . 10.5 .
(Contiguous pile) rigid wall
1.1
(Excavation side)

7.1 . 3.6 .
24 -13.5 .
Inclinometer 4
15-17 .
11-12 .
-6.50 . 1.1
25
Soil-Cement Column
Block
25

24
2
4 .

413
20
8 . 5.70 . 26

4
200%
27 28

Section
Plan
26
4

(T/m2)
SPT-N (blow/ft)

(T/m2)
N/A
30 - 110
3 - 12
2000 - 4000
N/A
7000 - 15 000
SPT-N
Esand = 300 N
UCS-cored sample
E50 from UCS
414
21
27

28

3 4.0 .
-12.5 -13.0 . 29
-7.0 -8.5 . -2.5 -3.0 .

Gravity wall
30 31
Cement Column Block
Excavated Area
Cement Column
Block Type
-12.50 to -13.0 m
Section
Plan
29
415
22
7-8 m
30
31
4
2.2 . -11.0 .
-3.0 -5.5 . H100x100-17.6 kg/m

32
33

32
33

5
1.5-2.2 . -10.0
. 34 -3.0 -7.0 .
H100x100-17.6 kg/m -7.0 .
416
23
35

34
35
8.

417
24
, 2544,
,
,
, 2547, , ,

Aoi, M. and Tsujii, T. 1996. Mechanism of machine for dry jet mixing method. Proc. IS-Tokyo, 579584
CDIT. 1999. Deep Mixing Method Technical Manual for Marine Works. Japan, 147
Honjo, Y. 1982. A Probabilistic approach to evaluate shear strength of heterogeneous stabilized
ground by deep mixing method. Soils and Foundations, 22(1), 23-28
Imanishi, H. and Yamauchi, Y. 1996. Ground behavior during soil improvement by Jet Grouting.
Grouting and Deep Mixing. Balkema. Rotterdam
Japan Cement Association, 1994, Soil improvement manual using cement stabilizer (in Japanese),
Japan
Jun Dong, Keiji Hiroi & Kazuyuki Nakamura. 1996. Experimental study on behavior of composite
ground improvement by deep mixing method under earth pressure. Grouting and Deep Mixing.
Balkema. Rotterdam
Kawasaki, Niina, A. Saitoh, S. Suzuki, Y. Honjo, Y. 1981. Deep mixing method using cement
hardening agent. Proc. 10th ICSMFE. Stockholm,3, 721-724
Kawasaki,T,A. Niina, S. Saitoh&R. Babasaki , 1978, Studies on Engineering Characteristics of
cement-base stabilized soil, Takenaka Technical Research Report , Japan
Larsson, S. 2005. State of Practice Report-Execution, monitoring and quality control. Proc. Int. Conf.
on Deep Mixing Best Practice and Recent Advances, Stockholm, Vol 2. 732-785
Nakamura, M. Matsuzawa, S. and Matsushita, M. 1982. Study of agitation mixing of improvement
agent. Proc. Of the 17th Japan National Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering: 2585-2588
Niina, A. Saitoh, H, Babasaki, R. Tsutsumi, I. & Kawasaki, T. 1977. Study on DMM using cement
hardening agent (Part 1). Proc. Of the 12th Japan National Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering: 1325-1328
prEN 14679. 2005. Execution of special geotechnical works-Deep mixing. CEN TC 288, AFNOR,
Approved standard, 50
418
25
Raito, Inc. [online] http://www.raitoinc.com/

Terashi, M. and Kitazume, M. 1992. An investigation of the long-term strength of a lime treated
marine clay. Technical Note of Port and Harbour Research Institute. 732
Terashi, M., H. Tanaka, T. Mitsumoto, S. Honma & T. Ohhashi, 1983, Fundamental properties of
lime and cement treated soil (3rd Report), Report of the Port and Harbour Research Institute (in
Japanese), Japan
Terashi, M., H. Tanaka, T. Mitsumoto, Y. Niidome & S. Honma, 1980, Fundamental properties of
lime and cement treated soil (2nd Report), Report of the Port and Harbour Research Institute (in
Japanese), Japan
Terashi, M., T. Okumura & T. Mitsumoto, 1977, Fundamental properties of lime treated soil (1st
Report), Report of the Port and Harbour Research Institute , Japan
Topolnicki, M. 2004. In situ soil mixing. Chapter 9 in Ground Improvement, 2nd ed. Spon Press,
Oxon, 331-428
Wiggers, A.G. and Perzon, J. 2005. The Lekkerkerk trial: Mixed-in-place dike improvement in the
Netherlands. Proc. Int. Conf. on Deep Mixing Best Practice and Recent Advances, Stockholm,
Vol 1, 179-183
Yoshida, N. Kuno, G & Kataoka, H. 1992. Long-term strength on cement treated soil by the shallow
mixing method. Proc. Of the 27th Japan National Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering: 2323-2326
419

1. . .
40, :
, 2540.
2. . .
2000, :
, 2543.
3. .
.
2543 , :
, 2543.
4. , , .
.
7, :
, 2544.
5. , .
. 7,
: , 2544.
6. , .
. 7,
: , 2544.
7. , .
7,
: , 2544.
8. , .
. 7,
: , 2544.
9. .
. 2542,
: , 2542.
420
10. , .
. 2542,
: , 2542.
11. , .
. 5, :
, 2542.
12. , .
. 6,
: , 2543.
13. . .
, : , 2544.
14. .
. 8,
: , 2545.
15. , , .
. 1, :
, 2546.
16. , .
. 46,
: , 2546.
17. . .
46, :
, 2546.
18. , , .

. 11, :
, 2549.
19. , , .
.
13, : , 2551.
20. , .
. 14,
: , 2552.
421
21. , .
: .
2542, : , 2542.
22. . .
6, : ,
2543.
23. , .
: .
6, :
, 2543.
24. .
. 46, :
, 2546.
25. , .
-.
9, : , 2547.
26. , , .
-.
11, :
, 2549.
27. , , .
.
4, : , 2551.
28. , .
.
10, : , 2548.
29. , .
.
, : ,
2549.
30. . .
, . 2551.
422
31. . Diaphragm wall .

14, :
, 2552.
32. , .
.
7, : , 2544.
33. , .
Sonic logging .
2542, :
, 2542.
34. , .
.
10, : , 2548.
35. , .
.
15, : , 2553.
36. , .
.
12, : , 2550.
37. , .
.
-, : , 2552.
423

Seafco Research Development TH

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seafco Research Development TH

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

()

WE BUILD MODERN FOUNDATIONS

2.1.2. PERCUSSION DRILLING

2.1.3 ROTARY DRILL

2.2 (WET PROCESS)

2.2.2 REVERSE CIRCULATION

2.2.3. ROTARY DRILL (R.D.)

3. (BASED GROUTED BORED PILE)

18 CROSS- HOLE ULTRASONIC

) GROUTING CELL (FLAT-JECK)

) NONE RETURN VALVE

Age: 115 days

Non-Grouted Pile - Dia. 1.5x63.72m

NON GROUTED BASE

Non Grouted vs. Toe Grouted (Prathu-Nam) GDP

NON GROUTED BASE GROUTED

4.6. 5 YWW 3 (DIA . 1.50 .)

PILOT PILE TEST 1.50 . 60 .

Soft-toe vs. Toe Grouted (Rama III Road) YWW

Non-Grouted Pile - Dia. 1.5x60.0m

YWW 3 (DIA. 1.00 .)

Non-Grouted Pile - Dia. 1.0x53.0m

28 YWW . 3 Dia. 1.00.

GROUTED NON GROUTED

Toe Grouted Pile - Dia. 1.2x55.87m (Grouted Soil)

Experiences & Developments of Deep Bored Piles Construction in Bangkok Subsoils

1 Reverse circulation drilling technique ( 2528)

2 Rotary drilling technique ( ,2542 )

(Type of drilling equipment )

(Negative skin friction)

(Shinking & swelling

4 3.80 (After Tonnisen et al, 1985)

Tai Ping Towers Condominium Project

Pile B (Toe Grouted)

Pile A (Non Grouted)

Dense Sand with

Rotary drilling technique

AFTER GROUTED THE BASE

Non-Grouted Pile - Dia. 1.5x60.0m

10 Mechanical drilling rig

11 Full hydraulic &self

(Auger) (Bucket) ( 12)

12 Rock Auger Core Barrels

13 Core Barrels 1.20m

14 barrette Kelly grab

15 Barrette Mechanical Hang grab

16 Barrette Hydraulic Hang Grab

18 Baby hang grab (2542)

20 Desander Desilting unit

(Filter cake) (Shear strength)

22 Filter &Fluid loss

Bangkok Soft Clay (BSC)

Medium to Very Stiff Clay Su = 40 - 140 KPa

Dense to Very Dense

Hard Clay (CL)

23 Piezometic Level (Thasnanipan et al ,1998)

FIRST STIFF CLAY

FIRST STIFF CLAY

DARK GREY CLAY

4.1 (Bentonite slurry)

Sodium-activated Calcium Bentonite Sodium Carbonate

(Viscous Slurry) ( Exposure time Contact

FPS (1975, Hutchingson et FDOT (1987,

Majano & O' ICE & FPS

Majano & O' ICE & FPS