Piled Foundation Design & Construction

PILED FOUNDATION
DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION
By Ir. Dr. Gue See Sew &

Ir. Chow Chee Meng
http://www.gnpgeo.com.my
Contents
z Overview
z Preliminary
Study
z Site
Visit & SI Planning
z Pile
Design
z Pile
Installation Methods
z Types
of Piles
Contents (Contd)
z Piling
z Pile
Supervision
Damage
z Piling
Problems
z Typical
z Myths
z Case
Design and Construction Issues
in Piling
Histories
z Conclusions
Overview
What is a Pile Foundation

It is a foundation system that
transfers loads to a deeper
and competent soil layer.
When To Use Pile Foundations

Inadequate Bearing Capacity of Shallow
Foundations
To Prevent Uplift Forces
To Reduce Excessive Settlement
PILE CLASSIFICATION
z Friction
Pile
Load Bearing Resistance derived mainly
from skin friction

z End
Bearing Pile
Load Bearing Resistance derived mainly
from base
Friction Pile
Overburden Soil Layer
End Bearing Pile
Overburden Soil
Rock / Hard Layer
Preliminary Study
Preliminary Study
z Type
& Requirements of Superstructure
z Proposed
Platform Level (ie CUT or FILL)
z Geology
of Area
z Previous
Data or Case Histories
z Subsurface
z Selection
Investigation Planning
of Types & Size of Piles
Previous Data & Case

Histories
Existing
Development
A
Proposed
Development
Only Need Minimal

Number of Boreholes
Bedrock
Profile
Existing
Development
B
Challenge The Norm Thru

Innovation To Excel
SELECTION OF PILES
Factors Influencing Pile Selection
Types of Piles Available in Market (see Fig. 1)
Installation Method
Contractual Requirements
Ground Conditions (eg Limestone, etc)
Site Conditions & Constraints (eg Accessibility)
Type and Magnitude of Loading
Development Program & Cost
etc
TYPE OF PILES
DISPLACEMENT PILES
TOTALLY PREFORMED PILES

(A ready-made pile is driven or jacked
into the ground)
Hollow
Small displacement
Steel Pipe
Precast R.C.
piles
Bored piles
Micro piles
DRIVEN CAST IN-PLACE PILES

(a tube is driven into ground to
form void)
Solid
Concrete Spun Piles
Concrete
NON-DISPLACEMENT PILES
Steel H-piles
(small displacement)
Concrete Tube
Closed ended
tube concreted
with tube left in
position
Bakau piles
Treated timber pile
Precast prestressed
piles
FIG 1: CLASSIFICATION OF PILES
Steel Tube
Closed ended tube
Open ended tube

extracted while
concreting (Franki)
Restricted use due to

environmental
considerations
PREFORMED PILES
<100 KN
300-600
a
?
SCALE OF LOAD
(STRUCTURAL)
100-300
BEARING TYPE
?
?
AUGERED PILES
MICROPILES
BORED PILES
STEEL H PILES
SPUN PILES
PSC PILES
600-1100
a
?
a
?
1100-2000
2000-5000
5000-10000
a
?
a
?
a
?
<5m
a
?
a
?
>10000
a
?
5-10m
a
?
a
?
10-20m
20-30m
30-60m
MAINLY FRICTION
a
?
a
?
PARTLY FRICTION + PARTLY END BEARING
a
?
a
?
a
?
a
?
WEATHERED ROCK / SOFT ROCK
a
?
a
?
a
?
ROCK (RQD > 70%)
a
?
a
?
a
?
LIMESTON FORMATION
a
?
DENSE / VERY DENSE SAND
SOFT SPT < 4
a
?
M. STIFF SPT = 4 - 15
V. STIFF SPT = 15 - 32
a
?
HARD SPT > 32
a
?
LOOSE SPT < 10
M. DENSE SPT = 10 - 30
a
?
DENSE SPT = 30 - 50
a
?
V. DENSE SPT > 50
a
?
a
?
?
MAINLY END -BEARING

(D=Anticipated depth of bearing)
TYPE OF INTERMEDIATE LAYER
a
a
?
COMPRESSIVE LOAD PER COLUMN
TYPE OF
BEARING
LAYER
GEOTECHNICAL
RC PILES
BAKAU PILES
DESIGN
CONSIDERATIONS
COHESIVE SOIL
COHESIVELESS SOIL
SOIL WITH SOME BOULDERS /

COBBLES (S=SIZE)
S < 100 mm
100-1000mm
a
?
a
?
a
?
1000-3000mm
>3000mm
a
x
GROUND ABOVE PILE CAP

WATER BELOW PILE CAP
NOISE + VIBRATION; COUNTER MEASURES
ENVIRONME REQUIRED
NT
PREVENTION OF EFFECTS ON ADJOINING
STRUCTURES
UNIT COST
TIMPER PILES
TYPE OF PILE
JACKED PILES
STEEL PIPE PILES
LEGEND :
(SUPPLY & INSTALL) RM/TON/M
a
?
a
?
0.5-2.5
0.3-2.0
INDICATES THAT THE PILE TYPE IS

SUITABLE
INDICATES THAT THE PILE TYPE IS

NOT SUITABLE
INDICATES THAT THE USE OF PILE

TYPE IS DOUBTFUL OR NOT COST
EFFECTIVE UNLESS ADDITIONAL
MEASURES TAKEN
a
a
a
?
1-2
0.5-2
1.5-3
1-2.5
1.0-3.5
a
?
FIG 2 : PILE SELECTION CHART
Site Visit and SI Planning
Site Visit
Things To Look For
z Accessibility & Constraints of Site
z Adjacent
Structures/Slopes, Rivers,
Boulders, etc
z Adjacent
Activities (eg excavation)
z Confirm
Topography & Site Conditions
z Any
Other Observations that may affect

Design and Construction of Foundation
Subsurface Investigation (SI)

Planning
z
Provide Sufficient Boreholes to get Subsoil Profile
Collect Rock Samples for Strength Tests (eg UCT)
In-Situ Tests to get consistency of ground (eg SPT)
Classification Tests to Determine Soil Type

Profile
Soil Strength Tests (eg CIU)
Chemical Tests (eg Chlorine, Sulphate, etc)
Typical Cross-Section at Hill Site
Ground Level
Hard Material Level
Very Hard Material Level

Bedrock Level
Groundwater Level
CROSS SECTION
BH
BH
BH
Seepage
Water Table
EXISTING
GROUND
LEVEL
C1, 1
2
,
2
er C
T
y
W
a
d
he
yL
c
e
r
y
e
P
Cla
C3, 3
Placing Boreholes in Limestone

Areas
z
Stage 1 : Preliminary S.I.

- Carry out geophysical survey (for large areas)
Stage 2: Detailed S.I.

- Boreholes at Critical Areas Interpreted from
Stage 1
Stage 3: During Construction

- Rock Probing at Selected Columns to
supplement Stage 2
Pile Design
PILE DESIGN
Allowable Pile Capacity is the minimum of :
1) Allowable Structural Capacity
2) Allowable Geotechnical Capacity
a. Negative Skin Friction
b. Settlement Control
PILE DESIGN
Structural consideration
Not overstressed during handling, installation & in

service for pile body, pile head, joint & shoe.
Dimension & alignment tolerances (common

defects?)
Compute the allowable load in soft soil (<10kPa)

over hard stratum (buckling load)
Durability assessment
Pile Capacity Design

Structural Capacity
Qall = Allowable pile
Concrete Pile
Qall = 0.25 x fcu x Ac
capacity
fcu = characteristic strength
of concrete
fs = yield strength of steel
Steel Pile
Qall = 0.3 x fy x As
Ac = cross sectional area of

concrete
As = cross sectional area of
steel
Prestressed Concrete Pile

Qall = 0.25 (fcu Prestress after loss) x Ac

Geotechnical Capacity
Collection of SI Data
Depth Vs SPT-N Blow Count

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Depth (m)
6
8
Upper Bound
10
12
6
14
16
8
18
20
Lower
Bound
22
24
Design Line
(Moderately
Conservative)
10
26
12
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
SPT Blow Count per 300mm Penetration

Collection of SI Data

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2
4
Upper Bound
10
12
6
14
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
50
10
12
6
14
16
16
18
Lower
Bound
20
Design Line
18
Upper Bound
20
10
22
22
Lower
Bound
10
Design Line
24
24
26
12
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
26
12
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Moderately Conservative
Design Parameters
z Eurocode
7 definition:
Characteristic value of a geotechnical
parameter shall be selected as a cautious

estimate of the value affecting the occurrence
of the limit state
In other words, moderately conservative
Moderately Conservative
Design Parameters
z If
at least 10 test results are available:
A value of 0.5D below the mean of the test
results provides a useful indication of the

characteristic value
1. Contribution to Discussion Session 2.3, XIV ICSMFE, Hamburg, Balkema, Schneider H R (1997) Definition and
determination of characteristic soil properties. Discussion to ISSMFE Conference, Hamburg.
2. Extracted from Prof. Brian Simpsons Course Note (2-day Course on Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design to EC7, 13-14
November 2007, PJ, Malaysia).
Extracted from Prof. Brian Simpsons Course Note (2-day Course on Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design to EC7, 13-14
November 2007, PJ, Malaysia).

Piles installed in a group may fail:
Individually
As a block

Piles fail individually
When installed at large spacing

Piles fail as a block
When installed at close spacing
Single Pile Capacity

Factor of Safety (FOS)
Factor of Safety (FOS) is required

for
z Natural variations in soil strength &
compressibility

z Different degree of
mobilisation for shaft

& for tip
Load
Factor of Safety is
(FOS) required for
qsmob
qbmob
5mm
Settlement

Partial factors of safety for shaft & base
capacities respectively
z For shaft, use 1.5 (typical)
z For base, use 3.0 (typical)
z Qall = Qsu + Qbu

1.5
3.0
Global factor of safety for total ultimate

capacity
z Use 2.0 (typical)
z Qall = Qsu + Qbu

2.0
z Calculate using BOTH approaches
(Partial & Global)

z Choose the lower of the Qall values

Single Pile Capacity
Qu = Qs + Qb
Qu = ultimate bearing capacity
Qs = skin friction
Qb = end bearing

Single Pile Capacity : In Cohesive Soil
Qsu
Qbu
Qu = .sus.As + sub.Nc.Ab
Qu = Ultimate bearing capacity of the pile
a = adhesion factor (see next slide)
sus = average undrained shear strength for shaft
As = surface area of shaft
sub = undrained shear strength at pile base
Nc = bearing capacity factor (taken as 9.0)
Ab = cross sectional area of pile base

Single Pile Capacity: In Cohesive Soil
Adhesion factor () Shear strength (Su)
(McClelland, 1974)
1.0
Preferred
Design Line
0.8
0.6
C/Su
0.4
Adhesion
Factor
0.2
0
25
50
75
100
Su (kN/m2)
125
150
175
Meyerhof
Fukuoka
SPT N
fsu=2.5N
(kPa)
su =
(0.1+0.15N)*50
(kPa)
fsu=.su
(kPa)
2.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
42.5
0.7
29.75
10
25
80
0.52
41.6
15
37.5
117.5
0.4
47
20
50
155
0.33
51.15
30
75
230
0.3
69
40
100
305
0.3
91.5

Correlation Between SPT N and fsu
fsu vs SPT N
110
100
90
80
fsu
(kPa)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
SPT N
Meyerhof
Fukuoka
35
40
45

z Values of undrained shear strength, su can be
obtained from the following:
9 Unconfined compressive test
9 Field vane shear test
9 Deduce based on Fukuokas Plot (minimum su )
Deduce from SPT-N values based on Meyerhof
NOTE: Use only direct field data for shaft friction prediction
instead of Meyerhof

Modified Meyerhof (1976):

Ult. Shaft friction = Qsu 2.5N (kPa)
Ult. Toe capacity = Qbu 250N (kPa)
or 9 su (kPa)
(Beware of base cleaning for bored piles
ignore base capacity if doubtful)

Single Pile Capacity: In Cohesionless Soil
Modified Meyerhof (1976):

z Ult. Shaft Friction = Qsu 2.0N (kPa)
z Ult. Toe Capacity= Qbu 250N 400N
(kPa)

Load (kN)
00
100
100
200
200
300
300
400
400
500
500
00
00
44
44
Depth (m)
Qsu
Qbu
Qsu + Qbu
88
12
12
88
Qsu + Qbu
2.0
Qsu + Qbu
1.5
3.0
12
12
16
16
16
16
20
20
20
20
00
200
200
400
400
600
600

Single Pile Capacity: For Bored Piles
Semi-empirical Method (SPT-N)

Shaft : fsu = Ksu SPT-N
Tip : fbu = Kbu SPT-N
From Malaysian experience:
Ksu = 2.0
Kbu = 7.0 to 60 (depending on workmanship)

Single Pile Capacity: For Bored Piles
z Base
cleaning of bored piles
Difficult and no practical means of verification
during construction avaliable

z Base
resistance require large movement to

mobilise
z Base
contribution in bored pile design

ignored unless proper base cleaning can be
assured and verified (or base grouting, etc.)
Rock Socket Design

Rock Socket Design Factors :
Socket Roughness (Shearing Dilation)
Intact Rock UCS, quc
Confining Stiffness (Rock mass fractures
& Pile Diameter)
Socket Geometry Ratio
Socket Resistance, fs = quc
- Factor (after Tomlinson, 1995)
- Factor (after Tomlinson, 1995)
Point Load Test

(UCS of Intact Rock)
Load Transfer Profile of Rock Socket

(after Pells & Tuner, 1979)
Summary of Rock Socket Friction Design

Values (updated from Tan & Chow, 2003)
Rock Formation
Working Rock Socket Friction*
Source
Limestone
300kPa for RQD < 30%

400kPa for RQD = 30 %
500kPa for RQD =40 %
800kPa for RQD > 85%
The above design values are subject to 0.05x
minimum of {quc, fcu} whichever is smaller.
Authors
Sandstone
0.10quc
Thorne (1977)
Shale
0.05quc
Thorne (1977)
Granite
1000 1500kPa for quc > 30N/mm2
Where:
RQD =
quc
=
fcu
=
Tan & Chow (2003)
Rock Quality Designation

Unconfined Compressive Strength of rock
Concrete grade
End Bearing Design in Rock
Only designed when

Dry Hole
Base Cleaning & Inspection are possible

Block Capacity

Block Capacity:In Cohesive Soil
Qu = 2D(B+L) s + 1.3(sb.Nc.B.L)
Where
Qu= ultimate bearing capacity of pile group
D = depth of pile below pile cap level
B = width of pile group
L = length of pile group
s = average cohesion of clay around group
sb = cohesion of clay beneath group
Nc= bearing capacity factor = 9.0
(Refer to Text by Tomlinson, 1995)

Block Capacity: In Cohesionless Soil
No risk of group failure

if FOS of individual pile is
adequate

Block Capacity: On Rock
No risk of block failure

if the piles are properly
seated in the rock
formation

Negative Skin Friction (NSF)

Negative Skin Friction
z
Compressible soil layer consolidates

with time due to:
Surcharge of fill
Lowering of groundwater table

Hf
OGL
Fill
0
s
Clay
3 Month

Pile to length (floating pile)

Pile settles with consolidating soil
NO NSF

Pile to set at hard stratum (endbearing pile)
Consolidation causes downdrag forces on

piles as soil settles more than the pile
Design Considerations
Skin Friction
Load
Original Ground Level
Soil Settlement > Pile Settlement

Positive Skin
Negative
Skin
Friction
Friction

Load

Negative Skin
Friction
End-Bearing
Crushing of Pile!!!

Load
Load
Load
Friction Pile
Excessive Settlement

Pile Settlement >
Soil Settlement
Load
Load
Load
Negative
Positive Skin
Friction
Skin
Friction Pile
Friction
Excessive
Settlement
End-Bearing
Pile
Crushing of
Pile!!!

WARNING:
No free fill by the contractor to avoid

NSF
Effect of NSF
Reduction of Pile Carrying Capacity
Effect of NSF
NSF Preventive Measures

z Avoid
Filling
z Carry
Out Surcharging
z Sleeve
z Slip
the Pile Shaft
Coating
z Reserve
z Allow
Structural Capacity for NSF
for Larger Settlements

Qall = (Qsu/1.5 + Qbu/3.0)
Qall = (Qsu/1.5 + Qbu/3.0) - Qneg

FL
Clay
OGL
Sand
OGL
Qsu
Clay
Qneg
Qsu
Sand
Sand
Qba
Qba

Increased Pile Axial Load
Check: maximum axial load < structural pile

capacity
SPT-N (Blows/300mm)
0 10 20 30 40 50
70
Settlement (mm)
60
50
40
30
20
Axial Compression Force (kN)
10
100 0 -100 -200 -300-400-500-600 -700 -800 -900-1000
Depth (m, bgl)
10
15
Settlement Curves &
Axial Compression Force
20
14 May 98
15 May 98
18 May 98
21 May 98
04 Jun 98
09 Jun 98
19 Jun 98
02 Jul 98
13 Jul 98
25
30
35
40
Borehole
BH-1
BH-2
Datum = 36.300m
Maximum
axial load

Without Negative Skin Friction:
Allowable working load

With Negative Skin Friction:
Allowable working load
Qult
FOS
(Qneg + etc)
Qult
FOS

Static Pile Load Test (Piles with NSF)
Specified Working Load (SWL) = Specified foundation
load at pile head
Design Verification Load (DVL) = SWL + 2 Qneg
Proof Load: will not normally exceed
DVL + SWL
Pile Settlement Design

In Cohesive Soil
Design for total settlement &

differential settlement for design
tolerance
In certain cases,
cases total settlement not an
issue
Differential settlement can cause
damage to structures

In Cohesive Soil
Pile Group Settlement in Clay

=
Immediate /
Elastic Settlement
Consolidation
Settlement

In Cohesive Soil
IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT
pi =
1 0 qn B
Eu
by Janbu, Bjerrum and

Kjaernsli (1956)
Where
pi = average immediate settlement
qn= pressure at base of equivalent raft
B = width of the equivalent raft
Eu= deformation modulus
1, 0= influence factors for pile group width, B at depth D
below ground surface

In Cohesive Soil
IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT
1
0
Influence factors (after

Janbu, Bjerrum and
Kjaernsli, 1956)

In Cohesive Soil
CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT
As per footing (references given later)

On Rock
No risk of excessive
settlement
Pile Installation Methods
PILE INSTALLATION
METHODS
Diesel / Hydraulic / Drop Hammer
Driving
Jacked-In
Prebore Then Drive
Prebore Then Jacked In
Cast-In-Situ Pile
Diesel Drop Hammer

Driving
Hydraulic Hammer
Driving
Jacked-In
Piling
Jacked-In Piling (Contd)
Cast
-In-Situ
Cast-In-Situ
Piles
((Micropiles)
Micropiles)
Types of Piles
TYPES OF PILES
Treated Timber
Piles
Bakau Piles
R.C. Square Piles
Pre-Stressed
Concrete Spun
Piles
Steel Piles
Boredpiles
Micropiles
Caisson Piles
R.C. Square Piles

zSize
: 150mm to 400mm
zLengths : 3m, 6m, 9m and 12m
zStructural Capacity : 25Ton to 185Ton
zMaterial : Grade 40MPa Concrete
zJoints: Welded
zInstallation Method :
Drop Hammer
Jack-In
RC
Square
Piles
Pile Marking
Pile Lifting
Pile Fitting to Piling Machine
Pile
Positioning
Pile Joining
Considerations in Using RC
Square Piles
Pile Quality
Pile Handling Stresses
Driving Stresses
Tensile Stresses
Lateral Loads
Jointing
Pre-stressed Concrete Spun

Piles
zSize
: 250mm to 1000mm
zLengths
: 6m, 9m and 12m (Typical)
zStructural
zMaterial
zJoints:
Capacity : 45Ton to 520Ton
: Grade 60MPa & 80MPa Concrete
Welded
zInstallation
Method :
Drop Hammer
Jack-In
Spun Piles
Spun Piles vs RC Square Piles

Spun Piles have
Better Bending Resistance
Higher Axial Capacity
Better Manufacturing Quality
Able to Sustain Higher Driving Stresses
Higher Tensile Capacity
Easier to Check Integrity of Pile
Similar cost as RC Square Piles
Steel H Piles
zSize
: 200mm to 400m
zLengths : 6m and 12m
zStructural Capacity : 40Ton to 1,000Ton
zMaterial : 250N/mm2 to 410N/mm2 Steel
zJoints: Welded
zInstallation Method :
Hydraulic Hammer
Jack-In
Steel H
Piles
Steel H Piles (Contd)
Steel H Piles Notes

Corrosion Rate
Fatigue
OverDriving
OverDriving
of Steel Piles
Large Diameter Cast-In-Situ

Piles (Bored Piles)
z Size
: 450mm to 2m
(Up to 3.0m for special case)
z Lengths : Varies
z Structural Capacity : 80Ton to 2,300Tons
z Concrete Grade : 20MPa to 35MPa (Tremie)
z Joints : None
z Installation Method : Drill then Cast-In-Situ
Drilling

Bedrock
Borepile Construction
Advance Drilling

Bedrock
Drilling & Advance

Casing

Bedrock
Drill to Bedrock

Bedrock
Lower
Reinforcement
Cage

Bedrock
Lower Tremie
Chute

Bedrock
Pour Tremie
Concrete

Bedrock
Completed
Borepile

Bedrock
Bored Pile Construction
BORED PILING MACHINE
BG22
Rock Reamer
Cleaning Bucket
Rock Auger
Rock Chisel
Harden Steel
DRILLING EQUIPMENT
Cleaning
bucket
Coring
bucket
Soil auger
BENTONITE PLANT
Desanding
Machine
Water
Tank
Mixer
Slurry
Tank
Drilling
Lower
Reinforcement
Place
Tremie
Concrete
Completed Boredpile
Borepile Cosiderations
Borepile Base Difficult to Clean
Bulging / Necking
Collapse of Sidewall
Dispute on Level of Weathered Rock
Micropiles
zSize
: 100mm to 350mm Diameter
zLengths
: Varies
zStructural
zMaterial
Capacity : 20Ton to 250Ton
: Grade 25MPa to 35MPa Grout

N80 API Pipe as Reinforcement
zJoints:
None
zInstallation
Method :
Drill then Cast-In-Situ

Percussion Then Cast-In-Situ
Cast-In-Situ
Piles
(Micropiles)
TYPES OF PILE SHOES

Flat Ended Shoe
Oslo Point
Cast-Iron Pointed Tip
Cross Fin Shoe
H-Section
Cross Fin Shoe

Do more harm in
inclined rock surface!
Oslo Point Shoe
Cast Iron Tip Shoe

Do more harm in
H-Section Shoe
Do more harm in
Piling Supervision
Uniform Building By
Law (UBBL)1984
PILING SUPERVISION
Ensure That Piles Are Stacked Properly
Ensure that Piles are Vertical During Driving
Keep Proper Piling Records
Ensure Correct Pile Types and Sizes are Used
Ensure that Pile Joints are Properly Welded with
NO GAPS
Ensure Use of Correct Hammer Weights and Drop
Heights
PILING SUPERVISION
(Contd)
Ensure that Proper Types of Pile Shoes are Used.
Check Pile Quality
Ensure that the Piles are Driven to the Required
Lengths
Monitor Pile Driving
FAILURE OF PILING
SUPERVISION
Failing to Provide Proper Supervision
WILL Result in
Higher Instances of Pile Damage
& Wastage
Pile Damage
Driven concrete piles are vulnerable

to damages by overdriving.
Damage to Timber Pile
Damage To RC Pile Toe
Damage to
RC Pile
Head
Damage to
RC Piles
Damage to RC Piles contd
Damage to Steel Piles
Damaged Steel Pipe Piles
Piling Problems
Piling Problems Soft Ground

Ground heave due to
pressure relief at base &
surcharge near
excavation
Pile tilts & moves/walks
Piling in Kuala Lumpur Limestone

Important Points to Note:
Highly Irregular Bedrock Profile
Presence of Cavities & Solution Channels
Very Soft Soil Immediately Above Limestone
Bedrock
Results in
High Rates of Pile Damage
High Bending Stresses
Piling Problems in Typical Limestone

Bedrock
Piling Problems Undetected

Problems
Piling Problems Coastal Alluvium
Piling Problems Defective Piles
Seriously damaged
pile due to severe
driving stress in soft
ground (tension)
Defect due to poor

workmanship of pile
casting
Defective pile shoe
Problems of
defective pile head
& overdriving!

Nonchamfered
corners
Cracks&
fractured
Pile head defect due to

hard driving or and poor
workmanship
Piling Problem - Micropiles
Sinkholes caused by
installation methoddewatering?
Piling in Fill Ground

Important Points to Note:
High Consolidation Settlements If Original Ground is
Soft
Uneven Settlement Due to Uneven Fill Thickness
Collapse Settlement of Fill Layer If Not Compacted
Properly
Results in
Negative Skin Friction (NSF) & Crushing of Pile Due
to High Compressive Stresses
Uneven Settlements
Typical Design and

Construction Issues #1
Issue #1
Pile Toe Slippage Due to Steep Incline Bedrock
Solution #1
Use Oslo Point Shoe To Minimize Pile Damage
Pile Breakage on Inclined

Rock Surface
No Proper Pile
Shoe
Pile
Joint
Extension Pile
First Contact
B/W Toe and
Inclined Rock
Pile Joint Breaks
Pile Body Bends

Toe Kicked Off
on Driving
Pile Breakage on Inclined

Rock Surface
Continue
Sliding of
Toe
Use Oslo Point Shoe to Minimize

Damage
Design and Construction

Issues #2
Issue #2
Presence of Cavity
Solution #2
Detect Cavities through Cavity Probing then
perform Compaction Grouting
Presence of Cavity
Pile Sitting on
Limestone
with Cavity
Application of
Building Load
Application of
Building Load
Roof of Cavity
starts to Crack
Building Collapse
Pile Plunges !
Collapse of
Cavity Roof
Design and Construction

Issues #3
Issue #3
Differential Settlement
Solution #3
Carry out analyses to check the settlement
compatibility if different piling system is adopted
Differential Settlement of Foundation

SAFETY
Link
House of
Original Building
Construction
Not Compromised
Cracks!!
Renovation:
Construct
Extensions
Original House
on Piles
Piling in Progress
No Settlement
Soft
Layer
Piles
transfer
Load to
Hard
Layer
No
pile
Settlement
Hard Layer
SPT>50
Eliminate Differential Settlement

Construct
Extension with
Suitable Piles
Piling in Progress
Soft
Layer
All Load transferred to Hard

Layer No Cracks!
Hard Layer
SPT>50
Problem of Short Piles

Cracks!!
Construct
Extensions
with Short
Piles
Piling in Progress
Soft
Layer
Soft!
Load from Original House

transferred to Hard Layer
Load
transferred to
Soft Layer,
Extension
still Settles
Hard Layer
SPT>50
Cracks at Extension
Typical Design and

Issue #4
Costly conventional piling design piled to set to
deep layer in soft ground
Solution #4
-Strip footings / Raft
-Floating Piles
Conventional Foundation for

Low Rise Buildings
Foundation for
Low Rise Buildings (Soil Settlement)
Settling Platform Detached from Building
Settlement
Exposed Pile
Conceptual Design of
FOUNDATION SYSTEM
1.
Low Rise Buildings :(Double-Storey Houses)
= Strip Footings or Raft or

Combination.
2.
Medium Rise Buildings := Floating Piles System.
Low Rise Buildings on

Piled Raft/Strips
Fill
Strip / Raft
System
25-30m
Soft Clay
Stiff
Stratum
Hard Layer
Comparison
Building on Piles
Building on Piled Strips
Fill
25-30m
Soft Clay
Strip
System
Stiff
Stratum
Hard Layer
Comparison (after settlement)

Building on Piles
Building on Piled Strips
Fill
25-30m
Soft Clay
Strip
System
Stiff
Stratum
Hard Layer
Advantages of
Floating Piles System
1. Cost Effective.
2. No Downdrag problems on the
Piles.
3. Insignificant Differential
Settlement between Buildings and
Platform.
Bandar Botanic
Bandar Botanic at Night
Soft Ground Engineering
Typical Design and

Issue #5
Load test results far below predicted pile capacity
Solution #5
-Modifications to test set-up
-Change of pile installation method
-Adequate soil plug to prevent toe softening
Testing Set-up Using Reaction

Piles
Testing Set-up
z Long
reaction piles at close spacing
used
z Case
histories:
Load tests using reaction piles give
ERRATIC results
Reference: Weele (1993)
Ref: A.F.
van Weele,
1993
Tested
using
anchor
piles
Tested
using
kentledge
1100kN
Approx. 2
2100kN
times
smaller
using
reaction
piles!
Reaction
piles
Zone of
interaction
with test
pile
Test
pile
Testing Set-up
z Latest
version of ASTM D1143

z Published April 2007
Testing Set-up
z ASTM
D1143
Clear distance of at least 5 times
the maximum diameter

Caution on factors influencing
results:
z
Possible interaction .from

anchor piles..
Drilling to the Casing Tip

to Form Bored Pile
Drilling to Form Bored Pile

z Disturbance
to soil at tip and

surrounding the pile
z Potential
hydraulic/basal heave
failure resulting in lower soil strength
z Effect
more severe for longer pile
Construction of Bored Pile

1. Install Permanent Steel
Casing to Pile Toe
2. Removal of Soil within Steel
Casing to Toe of Casing
3. Installation of
Reinforcement and
Concreting
Drilling to Form Bored Pile

z Pile
behaviour COMPLICATED!
Influenced by steel casing which behave
like DRIVEN PILE

Influenced by soil removal which behave
like BORED PILE
SAND
UPHEAVAL
AFTER 3
HRS
Zone of Weakened Soil due to

Installation of Steel Casing using
Vibro-hammer
Further Soil Disturbance

Magnitude of Disturbance????? Pressure
from
Drilling
Fluid
Pressure from
Soil + Water
Pressure from
Soil + Water
>
Pressure from
Drilling Fluid
z Probable
causes of erratic and

unpredictable pile capacities:
Testing set-up using reaction piles
Drilling to the casing tip to form bored pile
Original Load Test

1st Load Test Failed at 90% of WL
z
After 32 days
2nd Load Test Failed at 110% of WL

z
After 94 days
z Recommendations:
Open-ended spun pile or steel pipe pile with
adequate soil plug

Use of impact hammer instead of vibrohammer
Trial piles for correlation between static load
test and high strain dynamic load test
Result for
Empty
Casing
Result for
Concreted
Pile
Settlement at 1WL = 12.5mm
Pile performs
satisfactorily
within
acceptable
settlement
limits!!!
Load Test Results at P52W

Result for Empty Casing
z 1xWL: pile settlement= 20mm
(residual settlement= 1mm)
z 1.9xWL: pile settlement= 50mm
Result for Cast Pile
z 1xWL: pile settlement= 12.5mm
z 2xWL: pile settlement= 33.4mm
The Pile is
Stiffer after
Concreting !!
Larger Residual
Settlement due to
Disturbance from
RCD work !!
Load Test Results at P52W

Research by Ng et al., 2001:
z Elastic compression of large diameter bored
piles:
PL/AE - Piles founded in soil

PL/AE - Piles founded in rocks
Piles founded in
SOIL: PL/AE
Piles founded in
ROCK: 3/4 PL/AE
Result for
Concreted Pile
Settlement
is in
accordance
to
prediction!
!
ELASTIC COMPRESSION OF PILE

z
Depends on:
E Elastic Modulus of Pile Material
A Cross-sectional Area of Pile
L Pile Length
Elastic Compression = f (PL / AE)

Therefore, after concreting of pile:
- A increased significantly (composite E due to
steel and concrete reduced slightly)
- Elastic compression will reduce
Pile Settlement Criteria

z Pile
settlement criteria depends on
Pile Size
Pile Material (e.g. steel, concrete, etc.)
Pile Length
z Unrealistic
to adopt same settlement

criteria (e.g. 12mm) for all piles (regardless
of length, size, etc.)
Myths in Piling
MYTHS IN PILING #1
Myth:
Dynamic Formulae such as Hileys Formula
Tells us the Capacity of the Pile
Truth:
Pile Capacity can only be verified by using:
(i) Maintained (Static) Load Tests
(ii)Pile Dynamic Analyser (PDA) Tests
MYTHS IN PILING #2
Myth:
Pile Achieves Capacity When It is Set.
Truth:
Pile May Only Set on Intermediate Hard
Layer BUT May Still Not Achieve Required
Capacity within Allowable Settlement.
MYTHS IN PILING #3
Myth:
Pile settlement at 2 times working load must
be less than certain magnitude (e.g. 38mm)
Truth:
Pile designed to Factor of Safety of 2.0.
Therefore, at 2 times working load:
Pile expected to fail unless capacity underpredicted significantly
Global factor of safety for total ultimate

capacity
z Use 2.0 (typical)
z Qall = Qsu + Qbu

2.0
CASE HISTORIES
z Case
1: Structural distortion & distresses
z Case
2: Distresses at houses
CASE HISTORY 1
Distortion & Distresses on 40
Single/ 70 Double Storey Houses
z Max.
20m Bouldery Fill on

Undulating Terrain
z Platform Settlement
z Short Piling Problems
z Downdrag on Piles
Distresses on Structures
Void
70
Piling Contractor A
Offset 36.2m
R e d u c e d L e v e l (m )
60
Building
Platform
Offset 13.1m
Offset 13.1m
Offset 13.1m
Original
Ground Profile
50
N=34
?
N=30
40
? ?
N=5
30
N=29
?
?
N=25
Profile with SPT 'N'>50
N=40
Profile with SPT 'N'30
20
0
40000
80000
120000
Coordinate-X (mm)
Filled ground
Original Ground
Hard Stratum
Borehole
Pile Toe
Pile Toe of Additional
Piles
160000
200000
Piling
Contractor A
80
Piling Contractor B
R e d u c e d L e v e l (m )
70
Offset 9.1m
Offset 9.1m
60
N=34
Profile with SPT 'N'30
50
Building Platform
N=28
N=41
?
?
N=30
40
N=5
Original Ground Profile
N=29
30
0
Profile with SPT 'N'>50
40000
80000
120000
Coordinate-X (mm)
Filled ground
Original Ground
Hard Stratum
Borehole
Pile Toe
Pile Toe of Additional
Piles
160000
200000
Prevention Measures
z Design:
Consider downdrag in foundation design
Alternative strip system
z Construction:
Proper QA/QC
Supervision
CASE HISTORY 2
Distresses on 12 Double Storey
Houses & 42 Townhouses
z Filled
ground: platform settlement

z Design problem: non-suspended floor
with semi-suspended detailing
z Bad earthwork & layout design
z Short piling problem
Diagonal cracks due

to differential
settlement between
columns
Larger column
settlement
Sagging
Ground
Floor Slab
SAGGING PROFILE OF NONSUSPENDED GROUND FLOOR SLAB
e > Vc
NON-SUSPENDED GROUND FLOOR

SLAB BEFORE SETTLEMENT
V <V
PILECAP
PILE
BUILDING PLATFORM PROFILE AFTER

SETTLEMENT
ACTUAL FILLED PLATFORM SETTLEMENT
Distorted Car Porch Roof
Poor Earthwork Layout

Silt trap
BLOCK 2
Temporary
earth drain
BLOCK 1
Prevention Measures
z Planning:
Proper building layout planning to suit terrain
(eg. uniform fill thickness)

Sufficient SI
z Design:
Consider filled platform settlement
Earthwork layout
z Construction:
Supervision on earthwork & piling
SUMMARY
z Importance
of Preliminary Study
z Understanding
the Site Geology
z Carry
out Proper Subsurface Investigation

that Suits the Terrain & Subsoil
z Selection
z Pile
of Suitable Pile
Design Concepts
SUMMARY
z Importance
of Piling Supervision
z Typical
Piling Problems Encountered
z Present
Some Case Histories
54 PEOPLE TOOK PART IN THIS

CONCERTED ACROBATIC JUMP.
FERRARI S PITSTOP WAS COMPLETED BY

15 MECHANICS (FUEL AND TYRES) IN 6.0
SECONDS FLAT.

Piled Foundation Design & Construction

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

Piled Foundation Design & Construction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PILED FOUNDATION

DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION

By Ir. Dr. Gue See Sew &

Visit & SI Planning

Design and Construction Issues

What is a Pile Foundation

When To Use Pile Foundations

Load Bearing Resistance derived mainly

from skin friction

Load Bearing Resistance derived mainly

Overburden Soil Layer

End Bearing Pile

Rock / Hard Layer

& Requirements of Superstructure

Platform Level (ie CUT or FILL)

Data or Case Histories

of Types & Size of Piles

Previous Data & Case

Only Need Minimal

Challenge The Norm Thru

TOTALLY PREFORMED PILES

DRIVEN CAST IN-PLACE PILES

Concrete Spun Piles

FIG 1: CLASSIFICATION OF PILES

Closed ended tube

Open ended tube

Restricted use due to

PARTLY FRICTION + PARTLY END BEARING

WEATHERED ROCK / SOFT ROCK

ROCK (RQD > 70%)

DENSE / VERY DENSE SAND

SOFT SPT < 4

HARD SPT > 32

LOOSE SPT < 10

V. DENSE SPT > 50

MAINLY END -BEARING

TYPE OF INTERMEDIATE LAYER

COMPRESSIVE LOAD PER COLUMN

SOIL WITH SOME BOULDERS /

GROUND ABOVE PILE CAP

STEEL PIPE PILES

(SUPPLY & INSTALL) RM/TON/M

INDICATES THAT THE PILE TYPE IS

INDICATES THAT THE PILE TYPE IS

INDICATES THAT THE USE OF PILE

FIG 2 : PILE SELECTION CHART

Site Visit and SI Planning

Activities (eg excavation)

Topography & Site Conditions

Other Observations that may affect

Subsurface Investigation (SI)

Provide Sufficient Boreholes to get Subsoil Profile

Collect Rock Samples for Strength Tests (eg UCT)

In-Situ Tests to get consistency of ground (eg SPT)

Classification Tests to Determine Soil Type

Soil Strength Tests (eg CIU)

Chemical Tests (eg Chlorine, Sulphate, etc)

Typical Cross-Section at Hill Site

Very Hard Material Level

Placing Boreholes in Limestone

Stage 1 : Preliminary S.I.

Stage 2: Detailed S.I.

Stage 3: During Construction