Professional Documents
Culture Documents
z Preliminary Study
z Site Visit & SI Planning
z Pile Design
z Pile Installation Methods
z Types of Piles
Contents (Contd)
z Piling Supervision
z Pile Damage
z Piling Problems
z Typical Design and Construction Issues
z Myths in Piling
z Case 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
Overburden Soil
Existing
Existing Proposed Development
Development Development B
A
Bedrock
Profile
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
Closed ended
tube concreted Closed ended tube Open ended tube
Steel Pipe Concrete Spun Piles with tube left in extracted while
position concreting (Franki)
AUGERED PILES
INDICATES THAT THE PILE TYPE IS
STEEL H PILES
JACKED PILES
8
TIMPER PILES
BORED PILES
BAKAU PILES
MICROPILES
SUITABLE
SPUN PILES
PSC PILES
DESIGN
RC PILES
INDICATES THAT THE PILE TYPE IS
CONSIDERATIONS x
NOT SUITABLE
300-600 ? a a a a a a a a a a
600-1100 x ? a a a a a ? a a ? MEASURES TAKEN
COMPRESSIVE LOAD PER COLUMN
1100-2000 x ? a a a a a ? a a ?
2000-5000 x x a a a a a ? a a ?
5000-10000 x x a a a a a x a a x
>10000 x x ? a a a a x a ? x
<5m ? ? ? ? ? ? ? x a a ?
a a a a a a a ? a a a
BEARING TYPE
5-10m
MAINLY END -BEARING
10-20m ? ? a a a a a a a a a
(D=Anticipated depth of bearing)
20-30m x x a a a a a a a a a
30-60m x x a a a a a a a ? a
MAINLY FRICTION a a a a a ? a a a ? a
PARTLY FRICTION + PARTLY END BEARING a a a a a a a a a ? a
LIMESTON FORMATION ? ? ? ? ? a a a ? a a
BEARING
TYPE OF
LAYER
COHESIVE SOIL
V. STIFF SPT = 15 - 32 ? a a a a a a a a a a
HARD SPT > 32 x ? a a a a a a a a a
LOOSE SPT < 10 a a a a a a a a a a a
M. DENSE SPT = 10 - 30 ? a a a a a a a a a a
COHESIVELESS SOIL
DENSE SPT = 30 - 50 x ? a a a a a a a a a
V. DENSE SPT > 50 x x a a a a a ? a a ?
S < 100 mm x ? a a a a a a a a ?
SOIL WITH SOME BOULDERS / 100-1000mm x x ? ? ? a a ? a a x
COBBLES (S=SIZE) 1000-3000mm x x ? ? ? ? ? ? ? a x
>3000mm x x ? ? ? ? ? ? ? a x
GROUND ABOVE PILE CAP a a a a a a a a a a a
WATER BELOW PILE CAP x a a a a a a a a a a
NOISE + VIBRATION; COUNTER MEASURES ? ? ? ? ?
a a a a a a
ENVIRONME REQUIRED
NT
PREVENTION OF EFFECTS ON ADJOINING ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
a a a
STRUCTURES
UNIT COST (SUPPLY & INSTALL) RM/TON/M 0.5-2.5 0.3-2.0 1.0-3.5 1-2 0.5-2 1.5-3 1-2.5
FIG 2 : PILE SELECTION CHART
Pile Selection Based on Cost
Details: 250mm Spun Piles 300mm Spun Piles Micropile
Total Points 83 70 70
Average Length 9m 9m 9m
Average Rock Socket Length - - 2.5m
Indicative Rates :
Mob & Demob RM 50,000.00 RM 50,000.00 RM 20,000.00
Supply RM 33.00 / m RM 42.00 / m -
Drive RM 30.00 / m RM 32.00 / m -
Cut Excess, Dispose + Starter Bars RM 200.00 / Nos RM 200.00 / Nos -
Movement - - RM 200.00 / Nos
Drilling in Soil - - RM 110.00 / m
Drilling in Rock - - RM 240.00 / m
API Pipe - - RM 120.00 / m
Grouting - - RM 85.00 / m
Pile Head - - RM 150.00 / Nos
Est. Ave. Cost Per Point RM 967.00 / Nos RM 1,066.00 / Nos RM 4,297.50 / Nos
Est. Foundation Cost RM 190,261.00 RM 184,620.00 RM 380,825.00
Site Visit and SI Planning
Site Visit
Things To Look For
z Accessibility & Constraints of Site
Ground Level
Hard Material Level
Groundwater Level
EXISTING
CROSS SECTION GROUND
LEVEL
BH
BH C1, 1
, 2
W T a y er C 2
ched yL
er y e
BH P Cla
Seepage C3, 3
Water Table
Placing Boreholes in Limestone
Areas
z Stage 1 : Preliminary S.I.
- Carry out geophysical survey (for large areas)
Durability assessment
Pile Capacity Design
Structural Capacity
Qall = Allowable pile
capacity
z Concrete Pile
fcu = characteristic strength
Qall = 0.25 x fcu x Ac of concrete
fs = yield strength of steel
Ac = cross sectional area of
z Steel Pile concrete
Qall = 0.3 x fy x As As = cross sectional area of
steel
8 Upper Bound 4
10
12
6
14
16
8
18
20
Design Line
22 Lower 10
(Moderately
Bound Conservative)
24
26 12
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
SPT Blow Count per 300mm Penetration
Pile Capacity Design
Geotechnical Capacity
Collection of SI Data
Depth Vs SPT-N Blow Count Depth Vs SPT-N Blow Count
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
0 0 0 0
2 2
4 4 2
2
6 6
Depth (m)
8
Upper Bound
Depth (m)
4 4
10 10
12 12
6 6
14 14
16 16
8 8
18 Design Line 18
Upper Bound
Lower
20
20 Bound
22 10 22 Lower 10
Bound Design Line
24 24
26 12 26 12
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
SPT Blow Count per 300mm Penetration SPT Blow Count per 300mm Penetration
Pile Capacity Design
Geotechnical Capacity
Load
mobilisation for shaft
qsmob
& for tip
qbmob
5mm Settlement
Pile Capacity Design
Factor of Safety (FOS)
Partial factors of safety for shaft & base
capacities respectively
z For shaft, use 1.5 (typical)
z For base, use 3.0 (typical)
Qs = skin friction
Qb = end bearing
Overburden Soil Layer
Pile Capacity Design
Single Pile Capacity : In Cohesive Soil
Qsu Qbu
Qu = .sus.As + sub.Nc.Ab
0.6
C/Su
0.4
Adhesion
Factor
0.2
0
25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Su (kN/m2)
Meyerhof Fukuoka
su =
fsu=2.5N fsu=.su
SPT N (0.1+0.15N)*50
(kPa) (kPa)
(kPa)
0 0 5 1 5
1 2.5 12.5 1 12.5
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
Pile Capacity Design
Single Pile Capacity: In Cohesive Soil
110
100
90
80
70
60
(kPa)
fsu
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
SPT N
Meyerhof Fukuoka
Pile Capacity Design
Single Pile Capacity: In Cohesive Soil
or 9 su (kPa)
00 00
44 44
Qsu
88
Qbu 88
Depth (m)
Qsu + Qbu
12
12 12
12
20
20 20
20
00 200
200 400
400 600
600
Pile Capacity Design
Block Capacity
Pile Capacity Design
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)
Pile Capacity Design
Block Capacity: In Cohesionless Soil
Hf
Fill
OGL
0
1 2 3 Month
s
Clay
Pile Capacity Design
Negative Skin Friction
WARNING:
No free fill by the contractor to avoid
NSF
Effect of NSF
FL
OGL Sand OGL
Clay
Clay Qneg
Qsu
Qsu
Sand Sand
Qba
Qba
Pile Capacity Design
Negative Skin Friction
Increased Pile Axial Load
Check: maximum axial load < structural pile
SPT-N (Blows/300mm) Settlement (mm) Axial Compression Force (kN)
capacity 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
70 60 50 40 30 20 10
100 0 -100 -200 -300-400-500-600 -700 -800 -900-1000
0
10
15
Depth (m, bgl)
Qult
Allowable working load
FOS
With Negative Skin Friction:
Qult
(Qneg + etc)
FOS
Pile Capacity Design
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
Pile Settlement Design
In Cohesive Soil
Immediate / Consolidation
Elastic Settlement + Settlement
Pile Settlement Design
In Cohesive Soil
IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT
1
0
CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT
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 Hydraulic Hammer
Driving Driving
Jacked-In
Piling
Jacked-In Piling (Contd)
Cast -In-Situ
Cast-In-Situ
Piles
((Micropiles)
Micropiles)
Types of Piles
TYPES OF PILES
Corrosion Rate
Fatigue
OverDriving
OverDriving
of Steel Piles
Large Diameter Cast-In-Situ
Piles (Bored Piles)
z Size : 450mm to 2m
z Lengths : Varies
z Structural Capacity : 80Ton to 2,300Tons
z Concrete Grade : 20MPa to 30MPa (Tremie)
z Joints : None
z Installation Method : Drill then Cast-In-Situ
Drilling
Borepile Construction
Bedrock
Advance Drilling
Borepile Construction
Bedrock
Drilling & Advance
Borepile Construction
Casing
Bedrock
Drill to Bedrock
Borepile Construction
Bedrock
Lower
Borepile Construction
Reinforcement
Cage
Bedrock
Lower Tremie
Borepile Construction
Chute
Bedrock
Pour Tremie
Borepile Construction
Concrete
Bedrock
Completed
Borepile Construction
Borepile
Bedrock
Bored Pile Construction
BG22
Rock Reamer Rock Auger
Cleaning Bucket
Rock Chisel
Harden Steel
Bored Pile Construction
DRILLING EQUIPMENT
Coring
bucket Soil auger
Cleaning
bucket
Bored Pile Construction
BENTONITE PLANT
Desanding
Machine
Water
Tank Mixer Slurry
Tank
Drilling
Lower
Reinforcement
Place
Tremie
Concrete
Completed Boredpile
Borepile Cosiderations
Bulging / Necking
Collapse of Sidewall
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
Problems of
defective pile head
Defective pile shoe & overdriving!
Piling Problems Defective Piles
Non-
chamfered
corners
Cracks&
fractured
Piling Problems Defective Piles
Sinkholes caused by
installation method-
dewatering?
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
Extension Pile
Pile
Joint
First Contact
B/W Toe and
Inclined Rock
Pile Joint Breaks
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 Cracks!!
Not Compromised
Original House Renovation:
on Piles Construct
Extensions
Piling in Progress
No Settlement
Settlement
Soft Piles No
transfer pile
Layer Load to
Hard
Layer
Hard Layer
SPT>50
Eliminate Differential Settlement
Construct
Extension with
Suitable Piles
Piling in Progress
Soft
Layer
Hard Layer
All Load transferred to Hard
Layer No Cracks! SPT>50
Problem of Short Piles
Cracks!!
Construct
Extensions
with Short
Piling in Progress Piles
Load
transferred to
Soft Soft! Soft Layer,
Layer Extension
still Settles
Hard Layer
Load from Original House
transferred to Hard Layer SPT>50
Cracks at Extension
Typical Design and
Construction Issues #4
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.
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.
3. Insignificant Differential
Settlement between Buildings and
Platform.
Bandar Botanic
Bandar Botanic at Night
Soft Ground Engineering
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.
CASE HISTORIES
z Case 1: Structural distortion & distresses
Ground Profile
50
N=34
? ?
N=30
40 ? ?
N=5
N=40
?
? ? ? Filled ground
N=25 ? Original Ground
? ?
30 N=29
? Hard Stratum
Borehole
Pile Toe
Profile with SPT 'N'30 Pile Toe of Additional
Profile with SPT 'N'>50
Piles
20
0 40000 80000 120000 160000 200000
Coordinate-X (mm)
80 Piling
Contractor A Piling Contractor B
70
Offset 9.1m
Offset 9.1m
R e d u c e d L e v e l (m )
60
N=34
Profile with SPT 'N'30
Building Platform
N=28
50 ?
N=41
?
N=30 Original Ground Profile Filled ground
Original Ground
? ?
40 N=5 Hard Stratum
Borehole
N=29 Pile Toe
Pile Toe of Additional
? Piles
Profile with SPT 'N'>50
30
0 40000 80000 120000 160000 200000
Coordinate-X (mm)
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 Filledground: 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 NON- NON-SUSPENDED GROUND FLOOR
SUSPENDED GROUND FLOOR SLAB SLAB BEFORE SETTLEMENT
V s V <V
e > Vc V
c c e
PILE PILECAP
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 of Suitable Pile
z 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.