Desain Fondasi Utk Gedung Tinggi Berdasarkan SNI Geoteknik, SNI Gempa - KonsensusTABG

Disiapkan oleh:
Dedi Apriadi
Wayan Sengara
Geotechnical Engineering Research Group
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung
Dedi Apriadi & Wayan Sengara – Pelatihan SNI Geoteknik
Foundation Design Concept

Dedi Apriadi – SI 2223 Pengantar Apriadi – SA
DediMekanika Tanah
5104
dan
Geoteknik
Fondasi
Foundation in Civil Engineering
• Uncertainties
• Limited knowledge of the soil conditions
• Limitations in our understanding of the interaction
between a foundation and the soil
• To predict the actual service loads that will act on a
foundation
• Rationalism and Empiricism

• Rational techniques are those developed from the principles
of physics and engineering science
• Empirical techniques are based primarily on experimental
data
Dedi Apriadi – SI 2223 Pengantar Apriadi – SA
DediMekanika Tanah
5104
dan
Geoteknik
Fondasi
Foundation in Civil Engineering (cont.)
• Factors of Safety
• Required reliability (i.e. the acceptable probability of failure)
• Consequences of a failure
• Uncertainties in soil properties and applied loads
• Construction tolerances (i.e. the potential differences
between design and as-built dimensions)
• Ignorance of the true behavior of foundations
• Cost-benefit ratio of additional conservatism in the design
• Accuracy of Computations
Dedi Apriadi & Wayan Sengara – Pelatihan
Dedi Apriadi – SA 5104
SNI Geoteknik
Selection criteria
Depends on
1. Ground condition
• Existence of obstruction layer => driven or bored pile?
• Supporting layer condition => deep hard soil layer or soft?
• Ground water condition => tension pile?
2. Structure characteristic
• Magnitude of load => horizontal or vertical load is
dominant?
• Dominant supporting mechanism => end bearing or
friction pile?
3. Construction workability
• Water table
• Construction space
• Environment impact
SNI Geoteknik
Performance Requirements
If a builder builds a house for a man and

does not make its construction firm, and
the house which he has built collapses
and causes the death of the owner of the
house, that builder shall be put to death
From The Code of Hammurabi, Babylon, circa 2000 B.C.
SNI Geoteknik
Performance Requirements
1. Design requirements
• Design loads
• Strength requirements
• Serviceability requirements
2. Construction requirements
3. Economic requirements
SNI Geoteknik
Design Requirements
• Design loads by types
(Coduto, 2010)
SNI Geoteknik
Design Requirements
• Design loads by sources
(Coduto, 2010)
SNI Geoteknik
Design Requirements
• Design loads by sources
(Coduto, 2010)
SNI Geoteknik
Design Requirements
• Design loads by methods
• Allowable or Working Stress Design (ASD/WSD)
The design loads reflect conservative estimates
of the actual loads
• Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) or

Ultimate Strength Design
It applies load factor, most of which are greater
than one, to the nominal loads to obtain factored
load and also applies resistance factor (nearly
less than one) to the ultimate capacity.
SNI Geoteknik
Design Requirements
• Strength requirements
• Geotechnical strength requirements
The ability of the soil to accept the loads imparted
by the foundation without failing -> bearing capacity
• Structural strength requirements

Address the foundation’s structural integrity and its
ability to safely carry the applied loads.
SNI Geoteknik
Design Requirements
• Serviceability requirements
Foundation may experience excessive settlement

when subjected to the service load.
SNI Geoteknik
Constructibility Requirements
Do not design on paper what you have to wish

into the ground
Karl Terzaghi
SNI Geoteknik
Economic Requirements
An engineer’s job is that of “ doing well with one

dollar which any bungler can do it with two”
Arthur Wellington
SNI Geoteknik
General Design Practice
• Check bearing capacity

Control by shear strength parameters of soil
• Conduct settlement analysis

Control by elastic and compressibility parameters
of soil
• Check foundation material strength
• Design Quality Control

SNI 8460:2017
Persyaratan Perancangan Geoteknik
(Pasal 9 Fondasi)
SNI Geoteknik

• Survey Lapangan & Penyelidikan Tanah
Jenis, jumlah dan kedalaman penyelidikan lapangan
(Pasal 5) => mendapatkan representative subsurface condition & soil
and rock parameters
• Persyaratan Dasar
Strength and serviceability requirements: metode perhitungan dan
kriteria desain
• Pembebanan pada Fondasi

Beban Minimum Untuk Perancangan Bangunan Gedung dan Struktur
Lain, SNI 1727: 2013.
Tata Cara Perencanaan Ketahanan Gempa Untuk Struktur Bangunan
Gedung dan Non Gedung, SNI 1726: 2012
• Uji Pembebanan dan Integritas

SNI Geoteknik
Survey Lapangan dan Penyelidikan Tanah
• Survey Lapangan
Survey topografi, survey geologi, survey geofisik dan struktur bawah
tanah
• Penyelidikan Tanah
Pengeboran, pengambilan contoh (DS dan UDS), serta
pengujian lapangan dan laboratorium
SNI Geoteknik
Survey Lapangan dan Penyelidikan Tanah
• Penyelidikan Tanah
SNI Geoteknik
Design Soil Parameters
Important Issues
• Correlation from insitu testing? Or from laboratory tests? Or
both?
• Soil shear strength: Unconsolidated or Consolidated?

Undrained (total) or Drained (effective)?
• Soil stiffness: Undrained (total) or Drained (effective)?
• Soil compressibility: Cc or Cs?

SNI Geoteknik

Pertamina Energy Tower

Consolidation Parameter
Po'; Pc' (kg/cm2) OCR

0 10 20 30 40 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
0 0
50 50
100 100
OCR
Pc' Lower
Depth (m)
depth (m)
Bound
Po' Average
150 150
200 200
250
250
300
300
23
Distribution of Cc, Cs, and e0 parameters
Cc, Cs eo
0 0.5 1 -0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5
0 0
Cc
50 50
Cs
Lower Bound Cs
100 100
average Cs
eo
Depth (m)
depth (m)
Upper Bound eo design
150 Cs 150
Lower Bound
Cc
200 average Cc 200
Upper Bound
Cc
250 250
300 300 24
SNI Geoteknik
Hubungan antara  dengan N-SPT pada uji SPT untuk Sandy

Soil (After K. Terzaghi)
SNI Geoteknik
Untuk tanah lempung

terkonsolidasi berlebih
(overconsoolidated), Sorensen
dan Okkels (2013)
menyarankan sudut geser
dalam puncak (’peak)
Hubungan antara ’ dan Indeks Plastisitas pada tanah

terkonsolidasi normal (After Sorensen dan Okkels, 2013)
SNI Geoteknik

Hubungan antara modulus undrained dari
tanah lempung, undrained shear strength,
Plasticity Index (PI) dan OCR (Padfield,
C.J., and Sharrock, M.J., 1983).
Drained modulus E’ = 0.6 Eu

SNI Geoteknik
Contoh Metode Penentuan Beban Ultimate pada Fondasi Tiang

DESAIN KRITERIA
FAKTOR KEAMANAN (DAYA DUKUNG IJIN AKSIAL SINGLE PILE)

• Qijin => minimum SF = 2,5 untuk kondisi layan
• Untuk kondisi gempa nominal Qijin dapat dinaikkan 1.3x
• Untuk kondisi gempa kuat Qijin dapat dinaikkan 1.56x
DEFORMASI LATERAL IJIN (SINGLE PILE KONDISI FREE HEAD)

• Deformasi maksimum kondisi gempa nominal 12 mm
• Deformasi maksimum kondisi gempa kuat 25 mm
Uji Pembebanan dan Integritas Fondasi Tiang
Pile Loading Test:

• Static Loading Test: bored pile min 1 test for every 75 piles
and driven pile min 1 test for every 100 piles
• PDA: max 40% of total SLT
Pile Integrity:
• Pile Integrity Test: min 1 for every 5 piles (20%) with same
diameter
• Sonic Logging Test: min 1 for every 20 piles (5%) with same
diameter
• Thermal Integrity Profiling
SNI 8460:2017
(Pasal 12 Kegempaan)
SNI Geoteknik
Earthquale Design Criteria

SNI Geoteknik
Site Class
SNI Geoteknik
Persyaratan Desain Gempa pada Fondasi

SNI Geoteknik
Evaluasi Deformasi Tanah Akibat Likuifaksi

Dedi Apriadi – SI 4121 Pengantar Dinamika Tanah dan Rekayasa Gempa
Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential

Use of Total/Effective Stress Site-Specific Response Analyses
(Total/Effective SSRA) => 1-D wave propagation analysis
• Evaluate the excess pore pressure ratio (ru) and maximum
earthquake induced shear stresses at any depth during
earthquake event. u
ru =
 'v 0
• Selected and scaled input motions are developed to get
expected PGA for specific earthquake level design associated
with earthquake return period, design life time of structure and
levels of risk accepted by the owner or governmental
regulations (Deterministic and/or Probabilistic SHA)
• Affected by selection of a soil constitutive model

• Total Stress Site-Specific Response Analyses (NERA/SHAKE):
mobilized shear strain => Ru (Dobry, 1985)

• Effective Stress Site-Specific Response Analyses
(DMOD/DEEPSOIL): mobilized u => Ru
u
ru =
 'v 0
Comparison between SP and SSRA

0
Factor of Safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Excess pore pressure
0 -5
Initial effective stress
amax = 0.362g (Earthquake Level 2)
2 Medium dense sand
-10
4
Depth (m)
6 -15
Depth (m)
8 High potential damage Medium stiff clay

-20
10
Medium dense sand
12 -25
ZK-06
14 ZK-07
ZK-13 -30
16 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Excess pore pressure/Initial effective stress (kPa)
Comparison between SP and SSRA

0
-5
-10 Medium dense sand

Depth (m)
-15
Medium stiff clay

-20
Medium dense sand

-25 Ru
-30
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Excess pore pressure ratio r u
SNI Geoteknik
Efek likuifaksi pada perancangan fondasi
• Pengurangan kapasitas lateral dan aksial serta kekakuan

fondasi dalam
• Lateral spreading
• Penurunan tanah dan kemungkinan efek downdrag

Liquefaction-induced instability in pile foundation
Buckling instability Bearing Failure

Madhabushi et al., 2010


SNI Geoteknik
Efek likuifaksi pada perancangan fondasi

Recommended analysis considering liquefaction-

induced instability in pile foundation for practical use
• Lateral capacity
- Use standard p-y curve for non-liquefied layer (ex. API)
- Use p-multiplier due to liquefaction effect for liquefied layer
(Boulanger, et al., 2003)
- Use dynamic time histories analysis (free-field displacement)
to predict additional load due to lateral spreading
• Axial capacity: Use our proposed simple calculation
considering mobilized excess pore pressure ratio (Dedi Apriadi,
2010)
fs= K . (1-ru) .’v0. tan  (unit skin friction)
q = (1-ru) .’v0. Nq (unit end bearing)
Proposed mobilized shear resistance for

liquefiable soil
S = (1-ru) .’v0. tan  (Dedi Apriadi, 2010)
S/'v0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
0
2
Dobry (1995)
4
Calculated by proposed
Dobry, 1995)
S/’v0 of 0.07 (loose
6
relationship
sand), 0.085 (medium
Depth (m)
8 sand) and 0.10 (dense

10
sand)
12
14
16
Penentuan p-multiplier
Penentuan P-Multiplier dilakukan pada tanah non kohesif
yang berpotensi likuifaksi.
1. Menentukan nilai Pu likuifaksi
𝑘𝑜 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛽 𝑡𝑎𝑛2 𝛽𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛼
𝑆 = 1 − 𝑟𝑢 × 𝜎′𝑣𝑜 × 𝑡𝑎𝑛ф 𝑐1 = + + 𝑘𝑜 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛽 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛽 − 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛼
𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝛽 − 𝜙 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛼𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛽𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝛽 − 𝜙
𝑃𝑢 𝑙𝑖𝑞 = 9 × 𝑆 × 𝐷𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑔 𝑐2 = − 𝑘𝑜
𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝛽 − 𝜙
2. Menentukan koefisien c1, c2 dan c3.

𝜙
𝜙 = 12 × 𝑁𝑆𝑃𝑇 + 20 𝛼=
2
𝜙
𝛽 = 45 + 𝜙
2 𝑘𝑜 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛2 45 −
2
3. Menentukan nilai Pu drained
𝑃𝑢1 = 𝑐1 × 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ + 𝑐2 × 𝐷𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 × 𝛾′ × 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ
𝑃𝑢2 = 𝑐3 × 𝐷𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 × 𝛾′ × 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ
𝑃𝑜 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑃𝑢1 , 𝑃𝑢2 = Pu drained Koefisien sebagai fungsi dari Φ
4. Menentukan nilai P Multiplier (Mp)

𝑃𝑢 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑢𝑖𝑓𝑎𝑘𝑠𝑖
𝑀𝑝 =
0,9 × 𝑃𝑢 𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑
P-Y Curve Likuifaksi
P-Y curve saat kedalaman 13 meter pada tanah non P-Y curve saat kedalaman 13 meter pada tanah
likuifaksi dan likuifaksi 0,2 detik non likuifaksi dan likuifaksi 0,2 detik
PROJECT EXAMPLES
Geological Condition of Jakarta
(Turkandi T. et al., 1992)
Jakarta lies on the formation of Quaternary (Qav) surficial

Alluvial fan deposit
The formation consists of:

1. Upper part: Interbedded Silt-Clay, Silt and Sand with Gravel.
2. Lower part: Interbedded Clay-Silt and Sand.
Proposed Pertamina Energy Tower (PET)
❑532 meters tall

❑99 storey
❑Supporting buildings
❑Concert and Exhibition Hall
❑Mosque
❑Central Energy Plant
❑Sport Facility
❑Etc.
❑Challenges:
❑Load at main tower = + 2100 kPa
❑Geometry is very complex
❑Needs more than 2000 piles
❑Deep and large area of excavation
(Source: PT Pertamina, SOM)

PET – Subsurface Investigation

Geotechnical Investigations
A. Field
1. Borings to 150-300m depth
2. UDS (with standard Shelby tube and Mazier Sampler)
3. SPT, CPT
4. PMT
5. Pumping Test
6. SDH and SCH for shallow depth to 50m
7. Microtremor seismic survey for greater depth
to max depth of 300m
B. Laboratory
1. Index Properties
2. Triaxial UU and CU under high σ3 for deep soil layer
3. Oedometer test under high σc for deep soil layer
4. Permeability
5. Mineralogy and X-Ray
Investigations conducted by: LAPI-ITB and PT Soilens

Mazier Sampler of Stiff to Hard Soils

Key to Main Parts of Mazier Core Barrel
Assembly
Complete core barrel
consists of:
1. Core Barrel Head
2. Outer Tube
3. Inner Tube
4. PVC Coreliner
5. Basket Core Lifter
6. Cutting Shoe Mazier
Core Samples
7. T.C. Core Bit Depth:132m
Apriadi & Wayan Sengara – Pelatihan SNI Geoteknik
PET (Cross Section BT-01 toDedi
BT-06)
Clayshale at depth of 100 – 120 m,

Montmorillonite ranging from 10 - 33%
Cross Section BT-05, BT-03, BT-01, BT-02, BT-06, & BT-04

CLAYSHALE layer at PET Site
Clayshale is found at 100-120 meters depth
Mazier Core Samples

Depth : 114-115m.
Result of Triaxial CU Test
 Mohr’s circle in term of Total Stress  Stress-strain curve for each confining
pressure
Pertamina SNI Geoteknik
Energy Tower
Distribution of Undrained Shear Strength (Su)
Su (kPa) Su (kPa) 0 500 1000

0 BT-01
0 200 400 600 BT-01 0 500 1000 BC-01 UU
0 0 Triaxial Test BT-02
BT-02
BC-02 UU
BT-03 BT-03
Triaxial Test
BT-04
BM-01 UU 50 BT-04
50 BT-05 50 Triaxial Test
BT-05
BT-06 BM-02 UU
Triaxial Test BT-06
BP-01
BM-03 UU
BP-02 100 BP-01
100 100 Triaxial Test
BP-03
BM-04 UU BP-02
BP-04 Triaxial Test
BP-03
Depth (m)
BC-01 BP-01 UU
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Triaxial Test 150 BP-04

150 BC-02 150
BP-02 UU
BM-01 BC-01
Triaxial Test
BM-02
BP-03 UU BC-02
BM-03 Triaxial Test
200 200 200 BM-01
BM-04 BS-01 UU
Triaxial Test BM-02
BS-01
BS-02 UU
BS-02 BM-03
Triaxial Test
250 BS-03 250 250
BS-03 UU BM-04
BS-04 Triaxial Test
BS-01
BS-05 BS-04 UU
Triaxial Test
300 300
300
Distribution of Su from SPT empirical Distribution of Su from Triaxial UU, CPT and Distribution of Su from all tests of SPT,
correlation PMT Triaxial UU, CPT and PMT 59
Energy Tower
Soil Strength Parameter from Triaxial CU Tests
effective cohesion, c' (kPa) effective friction angle, φ' (degree)

BC-01 CU Triaxial Test BC-01 CU Triaxial
0 100 200 300 0 20 40 60 Test
0 0
BC-02 CU Triaxial Test BC-02 CU Triaxial
Test
BM-01 CU Triaxial BM-01 CU Triaxial
50 Test 50 Test
Test Test
100 BM-03 CU Triaxial 100 BM-03 CU Triaxial
Test Test
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Test Test
150 150
BP-01 CU Triaxial Test BP-01 CU Triaxial Test
BP-02 CU Triaxial Test BP-02 CU Triaxial Test

200 200
BS-01 CU Triaxial Test BS-01 CU Triaxial Test
250 BS-02 CU Triaxial Test 250 BS-02 CU Triaxial Test
BS-03 CU Triaxial Test BS-03 CU Triaxial Test

300 300
Distribution of c’ from Triaxial CU test for cohesive soil Distribution of φ’ ’ from Triaxial CU test for cohesive soil60
SIGNATURE TOWER
❑ Located at Lot 6 and 7 SCBD
❑ Proposed 111 story
❑ Proposed 7-Level Basement
(Source: PT Grahamas Adisentosa)

Geotechnical Investigations
A. Field
1. Borings to 80-200m depth
2. UDS (with standard Shelby tube and Mazier Sampler)
3. SPT
4. PMT
5. Pumping Test
6. SDH for shallow depth to 50m
7. Microtremor seismic survey for greater depth to
max depth of 300m
B. Laboratory
1. Index Properties
2. Triaxial UU and CU under high σ3 for deep soil layer
3. Oedometer test under high σc for deep soil layer
4. Permeability
Investigations conducted by: PT Pondasi Kisocon Raya

Soil Profile at Signature Tower Site (Section A-A)
Prepared by: PT Pondasi Kisocon Raya

What is microtremors ?
Sea waves, Traffic, factory, etc
atmospheric pressure Human activities
Natural activities
These waves: Microtremors
Microtremors exist always, but their amplitudes are very

small from unknown many sources.
Mictrotremor Test
Seismic Downhole Test

SIGNATURE SITE
Dynamic Soil Parameters
Vs (m/s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0
N-SPT B01 2012

50
N-SPT B02 2012
N-SPT B03 2012
N-SPT B04 2012
N-SPT B05 2012
100
N-SPT B06 2012
N-SPT B07 2012
N-SPT B08 2012
Depth (m)
150 N-SPT B09 2012

N-SPT B10 2012
N-SPT B11 2012
SDT-B8 2012
200
SDT-B2 2012
Microtremor
Vs Profile for SSRA
250
Data Sources:
• Seismic Downhole Test
300
• Microtremor Test
• N-SPT
3D SETTLEMENT OF DEEP FOUNDATION

Case Study : PET
Foundation geometry and loading

Energy Tower
Consolidation Parameter
Po'; Pc' (kg/cm2) OCR
0 10 20 30 40 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
0 0
50 50
100 100
OCR
Pc' Lower
Depth (m)
depth (m)
Bound
Po' Average
150 150
200 200
250
250
300
300
70
Distribution of Cc, Cs, and e0 parameters
Cc, Cs eo
0 0.5 1 -0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5
0 0
Cc
50 50
Cs
Lower Bound Cs
100 100
average Cs
eo
Depth (m)
depth (m)
Upper Bound eo design
150 Cs 150
Lower Bound
Cc
200 average Cc 200
Upper Bound
Cc
250 250
300 300 71
Distribution of Undrained Young’s Modulus (Eu) parameter

0 100000 200000 300000
0 (kPa)
50
BT-01 SPT
BT-02 SPT
100
BT-03 SPT
BT-04 SPT
Depth (m)
150 BT-05 SPT
BT-06 SPT
From UU Triaxial Test

200 (Tower-BT)
From PMT
250
300 72
SETTLE3D Analysis
75
Immediate
Settlement (cm)
-1.5
0.0
1.5
3.0
4.5
50
6.0
7.5
9.0
10.5
12.0
13.5
25
max (stage): 13.3 cm

max (all): 13.3 cm
0
-25
SETTLE 3D
-50
-75
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
Max Consolidation Max Total

Effective Pile Length Max Elastic Settlement
Settlement Settlement
(m) (cm)
(cm) (cm)
85.0 20.6 25.8 46.4

95.0 16.8 22.5 39.3
135.0 10.4 13.3 23.7
Soil-Pile spring stiffness and Iterative Process
(Model by LAPI-ITB)
3D Finite Element Modeling of PET

Soil Layers 1. Soil layers are defined as 3D solid
element
2. Pile is defined as beam element
3. Raft and wall are modeled as shell
element
4. Model consist of around 40,000
elements
5. MC and MCC models were utilized
Pile, wall and raft
(ABAQUS Model by LAPI-ITB)

Parameters of MC Model
Parameters of MCC/Soft Soil Model

Embedded Elements
1. is used to specify an element or a
group of elements that lie
embedded in a group of host
elements
2. Constrain the translational
degrees of freedom
3. For 3-D analysis
1. Beam-in-Solid
2. Shell-in-Solid
3. Solid-in-Solid
4. For this case:
1. Piles into soils
2. Wall into soils
Typical Settlement Distribution
Long term settlement

(a) Immediate Settlement
(b)
Results and Comparison
ABAQUS 3D
Effective Pile Length Of Main Tower Max Long-Term Max Total
Max Elastic Settlement
Foundation Settlement Settlement
[cm]
[m] [cm] [cm]
85.0 17.1 20.5 37.6

95.0 16.3 17.1 33.4
135.0 11.9 12.5 24.5
SETTLE 3D
Max Consolidation Max Total

Effective Pile Length Max Elastic Settlement
Settlement Settlement
(m) (cm)
(cm) (cm)
85.0 20.6 25.8 46.4

95.0 16.8 22.5 39.3
135.0 10.4 13.3 23.7
MCC Vs MC
Long Term (Consolidation) Settlement

MC = 24.6 cm
MCC = 23.4 cm
Settlement Distribution with 95 m Effective Length
of Tower Group Pile (MC Model)
Axial Force
Cross Section #01
Cross Section #02

Axial Force – Short Term Condition

40000
Cross Section #01
35000
30000
Axial Force, [kN]
25000
20000
L = 135m
15000 L = 95m
L = 85m
10000
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
Cross Section DIstance, [m] 50000
45000
40000
Axial Force, [kN]
35000
30000
25000
L = 135m
20000
L = 95m
15000 L = 85m
10000
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0
Cross Section #02 Cross Section DIstance, [m]

Axial Force – Long Term Condition

40000
Cross Section #01
35000
30000
Axial Force, [kN]
25000
20000
L = 135m
15000 L = 95m
L = 85m
10000
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
Cross Section DIstance, [m] 50000
45000
40000
Axial Force, [kN]
35000
30000
25000
20000 L = 135m
L = 95m
15000
L = 85m
10000
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0
Cross Section #02 Cross Section DIstance, [m]

DEEP FOUNDATION DESIGN AND

PERFORMANCE
Axial Capacity Prediction and Performance

❑ Axial Capacity General Foundation Design for Highrise Building in Jakarta
❑ Drilled Shaft, Diameter 1000 mm and 1200 mm
❑ Performed using Reese and O’Neill (1988) method
❑ For Cohesice Solis: Su = (6.67 – 10.0) N-SPT
❑ FoS 2.5
❑ Axial pile load test is interpreted using Davisson, Chin, and Mazurkiewiz
Axial capacity using SHAFT

Computer Program (Ensoft, Inc., 2012),
based on Reese (1998).
fs =  . Cu
≤ 3.2 tons/ft2 (300 kPa)

Foundation Capacity Performance

1000 mm
Bored-Pile Capacity (ton)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0
P-allowable
P-ult for SF=2.50 Load Test data sites:
Davisson
10 Chin
• SCBD complex
Mazurkiewich • Kuningan complex
Linear (P-allowable) • Jl. Gatot Subroto
20
Linear (P-ult for SF=2.50)
• JL. Penjernihan
Pile Length (meter)
30
40
50
60
Foundation Capacity Performance

1200 mm
Bored-Pile Capacity (ton)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0
P-allowable Load Test data sites:
P-ult for SF=2.50
Davisson
• SCBD complex
10 Chin • Kuningan complex
Mazurkiewich
Linear (P-allowable)
Linear (P-ult for SF=2.50)
20
Pile Length (meter)
30
40
50
60
Foundation Design
❑ Case of PET: 0
Allowable Compression (kN)
10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Need to consider: 0
Allowable BT-01
❑ Variations in the soil borings 10 Allowable BT-02
❑ Variation in SS soil layers 20

Allowable BT-03
Allowable BT-04
❑ Uncertainties in construction method Allowable BT-05
30
Allowable BT-06
 Upper and lower bound prediction

40 Allowable BT-01 Lower Bound
Allowable BT-02 Lower Bound

50

60
Depth (m)
70
AVERAGE
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
BI-DIRECTIONAL STATIC LOAD TEST (BDSLT)

PILE PERFORMANCE
Case Study : PET
Upper jack – pushing up to test skin

2. Pile segments friction
move both
upward and
downward
1. Hydraulic jack
Lower jack - pushing down to test
is pressured
skin friction + end-bearing
Bored Pile Ø 1800 mm Dedi Apriadi & Wayan Sengara – Pelatihan SNI Geoteknik
±0.00
GWL -6.10
BDSLT Design
Friction less
Top of Basement
Raft ~ 6m Initial Osterberg-Cell Pile Load
-24.0 Cut - off Level
Test Design
Vibrating Wire Strain Gauge
-49.5 Load Cell #3

(Capacity 2000 ton)

86 m
-75.0 Osterberg Cell

(Capacity 4000 ton)
-91.5 Load Cell #2

(Capacity 2000 ton)
Load Cell #1
-110.0 Max. 1 x Ø of Pile (Capacity 1500 ton)
BDSLT Design
Instrumentation schematic
showing the pile layout for a
Bidirectional Static Load Test
at TP 1-1. The hydraulic jack’s
position at 65.0 meters depth
(el. -55.0m).
40 m
55m
Installation
Reverse Circulation Drilling

(RCD) method
Drilling for TP 1-1 (Pile Contractor: TungFeng)

Installation
Rebar cage
Installation
Rebar cage installations into borehole

Testing
Displacement gauges Data logger for VWSG
(Instrumentation by: StrainStall)

Results
Load vs Movement Plot Curve at TP 1-1
Equivalent Top Load vs Settlement Curve

at TP 1-1
Results
Side Shear Load Distribution Curve at TP 1-1

Results
Mobilised Unit Shaft Friction

Curve for Segmen above
Hydraulic Jack Assembly
at TP 1-1
Mobilised Unit Shaft Friction Curve for

Segment below
Hydraulic Jack Assembly
at TP 1-1
Summary:
Average computed fs from VWSG :
164 kN/m2 (top of the jack), and
178 kN/m2 (bottom of the jack)
at 225% WL.
Dedi Apriadi Ultimate
& Wayan CompressionSengara
(kN) – Pelatihan SNI Geoteknik
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000
0
Pile capacity
Ultimate TP #1-1 (BT-03)
10
Ultimate TP #1-2 (BT-02)
20
calibrated from BDSLT 30
40
50
60
Depth (m)
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Pile capacity
prediction
calibrated from
BDSLT
THANK YOU
Acknowledgements
 Dr. Erza Rismantojo and PT Soilens,
 Dr. F.X. Toha - ITB
 Dr. Dedi Apriadi - ITB
 Dr Gunawan Handayani – GEL PRI-ITB,
 Ade Mahajana D, MSc. – WSP Engineering
 Mr. Josef Aliwarga - PT Grahamas Adisentosa,
 Mr. Hermawan - PT Pertamina,
 Prof. Widi Merati - PT LAPI-ITB,
 Mr. YP Chandra - PT Pondasi Kisocon Raya,
 PT Gistama Intisemesta,
 Thornton Tomasetti,
 PT Wiratman Associates,
 SOM Consultant,
 PT Meinhardt Indonesia

Desain Fondasi Utk Gedung Tinggi Berdasarkan SNI Geoteknik, SNI Gempa - KonsensusTABG

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

Desain Fondasi Utk Gedung Tinggi Berdasarkan SNI Geoteknik, SNI Gempa - KonsensusTABG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Disiapkan oleh:

Foundation Design Concept

Foundation in Civil Engineering

• Rationalism and Empiricism

Foundation in Civil Engineering (cont.)

If a builder builds a house for a man and

• Design loads by types

• Design loads by sources

• Design loads by sources

• Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) or

• Structural strength requirements

Foundation may experience excessive settlement

Do not design on paper what you have to wish

An engineer’s job is that of “ doing well with one

General Design Practice

• Check bearing capacity

• Conduct settlement analysis

• Check foundation material strength

• Design Quality Control

Persyaratan Perancangan Geoteknik

• Pembebanan pada Fondasi

• Uji Pembebanan dan Integritas

Survey Lapangan dan Penyelidikan Tanah

Survey Lapangan dan Penyelidikan Tanah

Design Soil Parameters

• Soil shear strength: Unconsolidated or Consolidated?

• Soil stiffness: Undrained (total) or Drained (effective)?

• Soil compressibility: Cc or Cs?

Design Soil Parameters

Design Soil Parameters

Po'; Pc' (kg/cm2) OCR

Design Soil Parameters

Hubungan antara  dengan N-SPT pada uji SPT untuk Sandy

Design Soil Parameters

Untuk tanah lempung

Hubungan antara ’ dan Indeks Plastisitas pada tanah

Design Soil Parameters

Drained modulus E’ = 0.6 Eu

Contoh Metode Penentuan Beban Ultimate pada Fondasi Tiang

FAKTOR KEAMANAN (DAYA DUKUNG IJIN AKSIAL SINGLE PILE)

DEFORMASI LATERAL IJIN (SINGLE PILE KONDISI FREE HEAD)

Pile Loading Test:

Earthquale Design Criteria

Persyaratan Desain Gempa pada Fondasi

Evaluasi Deformasi Tanah Akibat Likuifaksi

Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential

Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential

Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential

Comparison between SP and SSRA

8 High potential damage Medium stiff clay

Comparison between SP and SSRA

-10 Medium dense sand

Medium stiff clay

Medium dense sand

Efek likuifaksi pada perancangan fondasi

• Pengurangan kapasitas lateral dan aksial serta kekakuan

• Penurunan tanah dan kemungkinan efek downdrag

Liquefaction-induced instability in pile foundation

Buckling instability Bearing Failure

Liquefaction-induced instability in pile foundation

Liquefaction-induced instability in pile foundation

Efek likuifaksi pada perancangan fondasi

Recommended analysis considering liquefaction-