DEVELOPMENT AND EXPERIENCES ON VERSATILE APPLICATIONS OF RD-

PILE WALL
Harald Ihler, Ruukki Norge AS, Oslo, Norway, +4797529608, harald.ihler@ruukki.com

Veli-Matti Uotinen, Finnish Transport Agency, Helsinki, Finland, +358503877807, veli-

matti.uotinen@fta.fi

Fredrik Sarvell, Ruukki Sverige AB,Danderyd, Sverige, +46709833416, fredrik.sarvell@ruukki.com

Leo-Ville Miettinen, Finnmap Consulting Oy, Helsinki, Finland +358401362230, leo-

ville.miettinen@finnmapcons.fi

Abstract The continued concentration of building activities in cramped areas of city centres means
more underground construction and facilities. Demand to minimize execution time and any kind of
disturbance to business, general traffic, people and nearby technical structures is increasing. To
answer these challenges foundation business has to develop schedule-wise and technically reliable
deep excavation and foundation solutions in vulnerable surroundings and challenging soil conditions.

Drilled pipe pile wall – RD-pile wall – is a combination of Ruukki drilled steel pipe piles and
interlocking sections. Individual RD piles, typical diameters between 219 mm to 610 mm, are
connected to each other with interlocks welded to the piles on the automated welding line at the
workshop. The matching dimensions of the drilling system and interlocking sections allow the
installation of RD piles through stones and boulders and even into the bedrock, if necessary, in a
single operation. Installation is done by a down-the-hole hammer (DTH) using the centric drilling
system and oversized ring bits or a drilling system consisting of a pilot bit and reamer wings.

RD-pile walls have been used as permanent and temporary retaining walls for different kinds of
demanding excavations and structures, such as bridge foundation, as quay wall and as sealing
structure in rehabilitation of an existing dam. Rigidity and watertightness of the lower end of the RD-
pile wall is being researched as well as fire design issues examined. One of the most fascinating RD-
pile wall solution is to utilize the wall as a permanent underground basement wall. Reliable and rigid
connection to bedrock decreases the bending moment and deflection of the wall and good fire
resistance in addition to large variety of pile dimensions and steel grades gives possibilities to design
and execute a cost-efficient basement wall and foundations without temporary retaining wall works.

1. Introduction

In northern Scandinavian soil conditions, installation of sheet pile walls, or even secant pile walls, is
often problematic due to the existence of hard and large boulders in the overburden, and especially
when the retaining wall structure should penetrate to or into the hard bedrock. On the other hand, an
efficient and reliable piling technique suitable for the demanding soil conditions described above,
percussion drilling, has been developed since the 1960’s, and especially from the mid-1990’s, when
the concentric drilling method with the ring bit and pilot was introduced. A new retaining wall
application, the RD pile wall was developed by combining that drilling method with the widely used
retaining wall solution based on steel pipe piles and welded interlocks (a pipe pile wall normally
installed with vibratory or impact hammers).

2. Principle of the method and development

The wall consists of drilled steel pipe piles with interlocks in between, see Figure 1. The steel pipe
piles are installed using a down-to-hole hammer and the concentric drilling method. The matching
dimensions of ring bits and interlocking sections allow the installation of RD piles through stones and
boulders and even into the bedrock, if necessary. A specially designed oversized ring bit enables the
piles and interlocks, and thus the whole wall, to be drilled through the overburden including stones
and boulders all the way into bedrock, if necessary.
Figure 1. Principle of pipe piles and interlocks

Increasing demand for a new tyype of retaining wall based on drilled piles ledd to the research and
development work. From the beginning,
b the goal was that the method shoulld enable building a
retaining wall reliably through stones all the way into Scandinavian hard (uuniaxial compression
strength up to 300 MPa or more)) bedrock. The main issue was how to combine thhe existing concentric
drilling technique with existing interlocking
i sections.

Drilling of piles with interlockks requires oversized ring bits, meaning that thhey have a sufficient
t pile and the interlock. But the diameter must also be small enough
diameter to drill a hole for both the
to avoid scraping the adjacent piile when drilling. The interlock needs to penetratee easily through both
soil and bedrock, just like the piile itself, without getting jammed. It was evidentt that the diameter of
the oversized ring bit should be kept
k as small as possible to minimize the soil voluume extracted during
drilling and also to minimize the stress on the pilot bit and the cost of the ring bit.

The first generation interlock, thhe Ruukki E21, was developed in 2008 based onn an interlock widely
used in combi-wall structures, seee Figure 2.

Figure 2. First generation interloock, Ruukki E21.

The radius of the oversized ringg bit of the Ruukki E21 is 47 mm larger than thhe radius of the pile.
Ruukki conducted a test drilling with RD400 (diameter 406.4mm) piles and Ruuukki E21 interlocks in
Ylitornio, Finland in January 2009, see Figure 3. The successful drilling of four RD400 piles (L=6m)
attached to each other by interloccks into dense moraine and bedrock proved the method
m to be usable.

Figure 3. Test drilling in Ylitorniio, Finland.

A second test with RD400 piles (L=12m) was executed in Helsinki in November 2009. Six piles were
drilled, and the aim of that study was to analyze more carefully the possibility of drilling interlocked
piles into the bedrock, the proper installation speed, occurrence of settlements near the wall and wear
of the pilot bit. In a nutshell, the conclusions were that piles could be drilled 1.3 to 2.2 meters in hard
bedrock without problems and the drilling speed was approx. 12 to 15 minutes/meter in bedrock. A
12” DTH and separate ring bits were used. It took 50 to 60 minutes to install one pile including all
work phases. The area where the installation of the RD pile wall caused noticeable settlements
extended about 3 to 4 meters from the RD wall on both sides. Settlements were 40 to 80 mm at a
distance of 1 to 2 meters from the centerline of the RD pile wall. Settlements were assumed to be the
result of the theoretical void between the drill hole and pipe which gets filled with surrounding soil as
well as the disturbance and compaction of loose fill, clay, silt and sand layers below the groundwater
table during installation. It was also estimated that the volume of compressed air was too large and the
pressure too high during installation, but there were also settlements of 20 to 40 mm measured in the
immediate vicinity of individual RD 400 piles at the same site in similar soil conditions. The observed
settlements were one reason for developing a narrower interlock type.

Ruukki E21 interlocks have been used successfully in the Motala retaining wall project (Larsson
2010) and Kiruna bridge project (Bäck 2011) in Sweden and in the Kalasatama project in Helsinki.
Chapter 3 deals with all reference projects; all listed in a table and some more closely described. A
second interlock of the ball-and-socket type was also designed. The measurements of the interlock
sections were modified so that the ring bit was oversize by 30 mm and the width of the interlock pair
was 64 mm. The new interlock was introduced in Norway in the Trondheim E6 project where a total
of 350 piles or 7500 m of RD600/10 S355J2H were installed by combining the vibrating and drilling
techniques in an innovative way in 2010 to build two parallel walls in a quick clay area. In this large
project, interlock sealant was used for the first time in an RD pile wall to ensure the watertightness of
the interlock pair. The RD pile wall was estimated during design to be the most reliable and the safest
retaining wall solution in challenging soil conditions even before any experiences from the new
interlock type and only little experience from drilling RD600 piles with oversized ring bits had been
acquired. The successful execution of the retaining wall proved the reliability of the method. More
details of the entire E6 project – its design and execution and experiences from the retaining wall –
can be found in recent articles by Ihler (2012), Haugen (2011), Rønning (2011) and Beitnes (2011).

As the diameter of the pile decreases, the ratio of the diameter of the ring bit to the pilot bit increases.
That means that an oversize ring bit causes proportionally larger stresses on the pilot bit than standard
ring bits as the diameter of the pile decreases. An installation test in Tampere in December 2010
(Figure 4) with second generation interlocks and RD170/10 piles (diameter 168.3mm and wall
thickness 10 mm) was conducted to find out whether it is possible to use quite small diameter piles in
an RD pile wall. It was known from experience that it is possible to install piles with those dimensions
but that their installation speed is somewhat slower than when using individual RD170 piles with
standard ring bits. Presently, it is estimated that with narrow interlocks the absolute minimum pile
diameter is 168.3 mm while the recommended minimum diameter is 219.1 mm or more.

Figure 4. Test RD-pile wall, RD 170/10 piles.

Around the turn of the year 2010/2011 a test installation with RD400 piles (L=12m) was performed in
Nummela, Finland using second generation interlocks. Two different kinds of ring bits and a flushing
system were tested and settlements in dense frictional soil near the wall and longitudinal tolerances of
the wall were also studied. The soil consisted mainly of dense silty sand with a penetration resistance
of 15 to 50 blows/0.2m and the ground water table was at a depth of 5 to 7 meters. No settlements
were found near the wall, instead some small areas of ground heave, mainly less than 10 mm, were
observed. It was assumed that drill cuttings fill and densify the void caused by an oversize ring bit. A
considerable portion of the cuttings got flushed out along the outside of the pipe, not through it as
“normally”. It was visually observed that some of the cuttings did not get flushed onto the soil surface
which resulted in minor soil displacement. The minor soil displacement and possible escape of
compressed air to the surrounding soil caused the slight soil heave. There is 3 to 4 mm play in the
interlock. According to measurements, the length of the wall exceeded by 0.5% the theoretical length
for an interlock pair 64 mm wide. That means that during installation some tension tends to build
between interlock sections and the interlocks tighten. The second generation interlock has also been
used in the Kalasatama and Western Metroline projects in Helsinki, the latter described in chapter 3.2.

In most projects it is crucial to ensure the watertightness of the lower end of retaining walls to prevent
seepage into the excavation. When interlocking sections connect piles to each other, there is no risk of
misaligned drilled piles which sometimes is a problem with secant pile walls where the piles do not
overlap and provide a direct route for water through the retaining wall. Interlocks cannot be extended
to the very end of the pile, especially if you want to install a pile deeper than the previous one. That
results in a gap where, at least in theory, seepage can occur. Based on experiences and assumptions,
the space is filled and packed with fine-grained cuttings from drilling, and if piles are installed deep
enough into solid bedrock, the seepage is more or less theoretical. On the other hand, often when the
excavation level is higher than bedrock, it is impossible to discover whether there is any seepage
through the lower part of the retaining wall.

In realized and on-going RD pile wall projects where high watertightness is required, the gap has been
injected before excavation. Injections have been done through separate injection pipes attached by
welding before installation of the piles. The latest, third generation interlock, the RM/RF (Figure 5,
also presented in Fig. 1), has an injection line in the wider interlock section. That allows post-grouting
the lower ends of piles and postponing the decision whether it is needed to after the installation.
Another improvement is that the radius oversize of the ring bit could be decreased to 27 mm.

Watertightness of the interlocks can be secured with interlock sealants. The need of sealant and the
type of sealant is strongly dependent on the watertightness requirements for the wall in the project,
soil conditions and differential water pressure in case. There are two basic sealant materials, a hot
bitumen-based filling material or different kinds of swelling filler material. The outmost secure
method is welding shut the space between the interlocking section and the pipe pile after the
excavation has completed. If water leaking through the interlocking section prevents closing the
interlocking section by welding, a flat bar can be welded in front of the interlock. Watertightness of
the interlocks without any filler material is comparable to joints of regular sheet pile walls.

Figure 5. 3rd generation interlock, Ruukki RM/RF.

3. Reference projects

3.1 General information

More than 3 200 piles and 36 000 m of drilled steel pipe piles have been successfully installed in the
form of RD pile walls in different projects and test installations since 2009 in the Nordic countries.
Table 1 presents the completed projects excluding test installations.

Table 1. RD pile wall projects

Site Year Application Pile Lengths (m)

Trondheim E6 2010- watertight retaining wall for RD600/10 10 to 32
2011 tunnel construction

Motala 2010 temporary retaining wall for RD400/12.5 8 to 12

excavation for bridge
Kiiruna bridge 2010 bridge foundations (4 RD500/14.2 10 to 15
supports with 3 x RD-piles)

Western Metroline /Helsinki, 2011 retaining wall for ventilation RD400/12.5 16 to 20

Katajaharju shaft, no tieback anchors

Kalasatama Center, Helsinki 2011- watertight retaining wall for RD600/12.5 3 to 14

2012 access tunnels and parking
space
Western Metroline / Helsinki, 2011- watertight retaining wall RD600/12.5 6 to 12
Koivusaari 2012 excavation for metro station

Espoo Tapiola Keskuskuilu FK/1 2012 retaining wall for shaft RD220/10 8 to 9
excavation
Fredriksdal bussdepå Stockholm 2012 temporary retaining wall for RD400/12.5 10 to 15
excavation
Stockholm Strömkajen 2012 retaining wall for excavation RD220/10 5 to 9

Espoo Tapiola Keskuskuilu EK/3 2013 retaining wall for shaft RD220/10 10 to 11
excavation, no tieback
anchors
Western Metroline / 2012/2013 permanent retaining wall RD610/10 5 to appr. 20
Urheilupuisto (repair of partly unsuccesful
sheet pile + jet grouting
retaining wall)

Stavanger, Fiskå Mølle. Norway 2013 quay wall (upgrade of RD500/12.5 8 to appr. 15
existing harbor)

Lahti, retaining wall 2013 permanent retaining wall for a RD320/10 6

ramp

Voimsjö, Sweden 2013 repair / waterproofing of RD320/8 4.5 to 13.5

existing dam

Nøstet Panorama, Bergen. 2013 temporary retaining and RD320/10 appr. 10

Norway watertight wall for
underground parking
Western metroline LU4 Tapiola 2013 permanent retaining wall for RD600/12.5 appr. 10 to 20
metrostation and
underpinning
The listed RD pile wall projects above all have unique conditions and experiences from installation
attached to them. Most of the projects have challenging soil conditions where installation of regular
sheet piles would have been impossible or would have had very high risks. But for this article’s
purpose 2 of the projects are highlighted in the following description, adding new experiences to the
earlier description made by Uotinen and Jokiniemi (2012) and Uotinen and Rantala (2013).

3.2 RD-pile walls in Helsinki-Espoo metroline project

RD-pile walls have been used in several sites in Helsinki-Espoo, the western metroline project and
other related projects. For more information see http://www.lansimetro.fi/en/frontpage or Figure 6.

Figure 6. RD-pile wall projects in western metroline project.

3.2.1 Katajaharju ventilation shaft

RD-pile wall solution has been utilized in construction of a ventilation shaft where 98 RD400/12.5
piles (L=16 to 20 m) formed a rectangular retaining wall. RD-pilewall was installed with DTH and
solitary ringbits through soil layers 0.5 m into hard bedrock. The RD pile wall was chosen due to soil
conditions and watertightness requirements. From a depth of 7 to 8 meters to the bedrock surface the
soil is very dense moraine impossible to penetrate using regular sheet piles. Watertightness of
interlocks was secured by hot feeding the female interlocks with Beltan interlock sealant before
installation of the piles.

Figure 7. Left: Western metroline, retaining wall for ventilation shaft. Right: Geotechnical section.

Piles were concreted and d=50 mm L=1500 mm steel dowels were drilled into every other pile to
secure the horizontal resistance of the lower end of the wall. A reinforced concrete frame structure,
700 to 1500 mm in thickness, was cast inside the rectangular RD pile wall to serve as a permanent
ventilation shaft structure. The concrete frame was cast in appr. 3 meter high stages from the top-
down so that no tiebacks were needed. Below RD-wall a 30 m high ventilation shaft was rock blasted
to reach the underlaying metrotunnel. Upmost 4 meters of bedrock was curtain grouted before rock
blasting. There was an apartment building very near the excavation pit, closest point being 4 m from
RD-pile wall. According to measurements no harmful settlements or vibration occurred.

3.2.2 Koivusaari metrostation

Koivusaari metrostation will be situated in reclaimed area by the shore of the Gulf of Finland. RD-pile
walls have been used as retaining walls in excavations of both entrancies to metrostation. Soil consists
a 2 to 4 m thick mixed fill layer including in some areas construction waste and boulders, under fill
layer there is a thin clay - silt layer, and above bedrock sand and moraine. Surface level of bedrock
varies appr. between 5 to 12 m from soil surface. Due to chosen sequence of construction set by the
client, the retaining wall had to be absolutely safe in any situation because massive failure of the
retaining wall would had cause catastrophic flooding in excavations and metrotunnels even far away
from the site. RD-wall was chosen to meet the high requirements.

Figure 8. Left picture. Western metroline project, retaining wall for entrance to metrostation, in
Koivusaari (photo WSP Finland Ltd). Right picture show the gap between pile wall and rock fully
grouted. Gap is in sight because part of bed rock have been extracted. Photo Lemminkäinen Infra Oy.

Alltogether 594 pcs (5000 m) of RD610/12.5 S355J2H piles were used in two excavations. Piles were
drilled 1.5 to 2.0 meters into bedrock. Piles were installed first time with drilling system consisting of
a pilot bit and reamer wings. Piles were concreted and reinforced. The bedrock was grouted with
cement grout at least 6 meter under the lower end of the RD-pile wall, through casings. The gap in
bedrock between outer surface of pile and rock hole was grouted via injection pipes attached to the
piles. After excavation of the soil, grouting was found to be successful. The gap between rock hole
and pile was full of grout and there were no water leaks at the level of bedrock. Retaining wall was
designed for fire situation which resulted that anchors and walings had to be fire protected. There
were mainly two tie-back rock anchor levels to support the retaining wall. The holes through
reinforced piles for anchors were done with diamond drill. Watertightness of the interlocks was
secured by welding a flat bar on front of the interlocks and the space between interlocks and flat bar
was grouted. A permanent watertight reinforced concrete structure is being built inside excavation.

4. Rigidity and water tightness of the lower end of the RD pile wall

Due to the installation method, there is a small gap between the piles and the bedrock. This gap is
generally filled with drill cuttings or soil. When the gap is grouted, grout will replace drill cuttings or
soil partly or totally. The objective of the recent study (Miettinen 2014) was to determine the
rotational stiffness of the base of the pile wall both theoretically and in practice at a test site (Figure
9). The second objective was to determine the effect of grouting on watertightness in bedrock hole.
The material in the gap must be established when the gap is not grouted to have data for
watertightness and rotational stiffness calculations. In this study, different grouting methods were
tested to determine optimal grouting practices. Samples of grout, bedrock, and drill cuttings were
collected to determine their material properties. To determine rotational stiffness, a horizontal load
tests (Figure 9) were implemented on single piles excavated up to the bedrock. During horizontal
loading displacements and strains of the pile were measured in three points. On the other hand,
rotational stiffness was verified through FEM calculations based on test site results. Calculations
showed the dependency on bedrock drilling depth and rigidity, deeper the pile is in bedrock, more
rigid is the joint (charts 1 and 2). Main conclusion concerning rigidity was that piles with grouted
gaps were quite rigid. The other result was that both stiff grouted connection and also less stiff clay in
the gap connection will reduce displacement of the wall and therefore smaller pile sizes may be used
or rock anchor quantity or size may be reduced compared to design assumption of nominally pinned
connection of the lower end of the pile wall.

To verify watertightness of the gap, single piles were tested, with two pieces of pile with different
grouting methods. The water pressure on each pile was increased in a step-by-step fashion. Case
where there was tightly packed dense drill cuttings, the water leakage was about 1/50 compared to
case where there was loose soil in the gap. According to measurements, piles with grouting had
slightly better watertightness than piles with tightly packed drill cuttings. Both material types did not
have hydraulic failure at a pressure of 10 bar.

Figure 9: Horizontal load test.

Chart 1: Calculated (FEM, ANSYS R14.5) rotational stiffness of a single 500/12.5 RD pile drilled
254mm = 0.5*diameter to 2000mm = 3.94*diameter into the bedrock. Drill hole d=562 mm and the
gap is grouted.
Chart 2: Calculated (FEM, ANSYS14.5) rotational stiffness of a single 500/12.5 RD pile drilled
254mm = 0.5*diameter to 2540 mm = 5*diameter into the bedrock. Drill hole d=562 mm and gap is
filled with clay.

Results of the study will help designers choose optimal pile size, guide in calculations of stresses on
the wall and anchors by taking into account the rigidity of the lower end of the wall (Table 2) and give
guidance for estimating the watertightness of the wall. More experiences on projects or test sites, is
needed to get comprehensive knowledge of suitable grouting techniques especially concerning
watertightness in different soil conditions.

Table 2. Calculated (FEM, ANSYS R14.5) rotational stiffness of the grouted piles drilled 1d into the
bedrock at 0.5*elastic bending moment level. This table can be used only at bending moment levels
ranging from 0 to 0.5*elastic bending moment. Si [MNm/rad] is the rotational stiffness of the pile’s
connection to the bedrock. Three piles were analyzed and the rest of piles were fitted by using the
method of least squares.

5. Best practices and conclusive remarks

RD-pile walls have been used as permanent and temporary retaining walls for different kinds of
demanding excavations and structures, such as bridge foundation, as quay wall and as sealing
structure in rehabilitation of an existing dam. Rigidity and watertightness of the lower end of the RD-
pile wall is being researched. Results of a recent study will help designers choose optimal pile size,
guide in calculations of stresses on the wall and anchors by taking into account the rigidity of the
lower end of the wall and give guidance for estimating the watertightness of the wall. According to
theoretical study case (de Neumann 2014) based on fire simulation, the RD pile wall solution
represents a good robust solution with natural ability to perform in a fire and presents a good
opportunity to save on costs associated with additional fire protection measures.

In practice, the importance of starter pile is remarkable, especially when there are tight tolerances
related to position and inclination of the wall. A rigid guide frame is recommended when tolerances
are small. It’s also found out that the jaws of the piling rig have to have a support that comes against
the interlocking section to prevent the pile from rotating during installation. By welding special
sections to interlocks even slightly inclined wall may be fixed to be vertical. To select suitable drilling
method, a sufficient knowledge of soil conditions, especially existence of boulders, is crucial and also
level and inclination of bedrock surface. Pile installation capacities have been varied from appr. 3 to
15 piles per work shift, and usually have been around 5 – 8 piles (40 to 100 linear metres).

After the first in test January 2009, the RD-pile wall solution has been successfully used in more than
15 projects in Scandinavia, and at the moment more than 20 000 m2 of wall has been installed.
Besides real projects there have been test installations to ensure the functionality of the system and to
develop new interlocks and also to measure and analyse soil movements near the RD-pile wall.
Common features to almost all the projects are high requirements for water impermeability,
challenging soil conditions where other retaining wall methods were evaluated to be infeasible or to
have too high risks related to technical issues or schedule.

6. References

Beitnes, A. (2011). E6 Trondheim – Stjørdal, section Trondheim – cut and cover tunnel. Special
challenges calling for special measures. Proceedings of the 49th Fjellsprengningsdagen,
Bergmekanikkdagen, Geoteknikkdagen, 2011, paper no. 22, 10 p.

Bäck, J. (2011). Projekt Kiruna. Presentasjon på Stålpåledagen 2011 på www.ruukki.se/Producter-

och-losningas/Infrastruktus--grundlaggning/Eventmaterial

de Neumann, S. (2014). RD-pile wall performance in fire case study. Presentation in Steel Pile Day
2014 at http://www.ruukki.fi/Tuotteet-ja-ratkaisut/Infrastruktuuriratkaisut/Lataa-seminaarimateri-
aaleja

Haugen, T. (2011). Deep excavation at Møllenberg. Technical solutions and challenges. Proceedings
of the 49th Fjellsprengningsdagen, Bergmekanikkdagen, Geoteknikkdagen, 2011, paper no. 33, 21 p.

Ihler, H. (2012). RD-pile wall - A new retaining wall for demanding soil conditions, Proceedings of
the 16th Nordic Geotechnical Meeting, Copenhagen, pages 599-607

Larsson, M. (2011). RD-pålvägg säkrar schakt i känslig stadsmiljö. Husbyggaren nr. 6, 2011.

Miettinen, L-V (2014). The rotational stiffness and watertightness of RD pile walls in the bedrock and
pile interface. Master of science thesis, Tampere University of Technology.

Rønning, S. (2011). E6 Trondheim – Stjørdal, parcel Trondheim – cut and cover tunnel. Geotechnical
aspects around the drilled steel pipe wall. Results from instrumentation and of the test steel pipes, and
some experiences from the installation of the drilled steel pipe wall. Proceedings of the 49th
Fjellsprengningsdagen, Bergmekanikkdagen, Geoteknikkdagen, 2011, paper no. 34, 11 p.

Uotinen, V-M. and Jokiniemi, H. (2012). RD pile wall – a new way to build micropile retaining wall
structures. Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Micropiles, 2012, paper no. 17, 13 p.

Uotinen, V-M. and Rantala, J. (2013). Applications and development of modern steel pile technology.
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Modern Building Materials, Structures and
Techniques, 2013, Procedia Engineering, Volume 57, 2013, Pages 1173-1182.