LOAD RESISTANCE BEHAVIOUR AND INSTALLATION

ASSESSMENT OF DRIVEN SPUN PILE

VIGNESHWARAN KARUNANIDEE

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

LOAD RESISTANCE BEHAVIOUR AND INSTALLATION ASSESSMENT
OF DRIVEN SPUN PILE

VIGNESHWARAN KARUNANIDEE

A Project Report Submitted as a Partial Fulfilment of The

Requirement For The Award of The Degree of Master of
Engineering (Civil-Geotechnics)

Faculty of Civil Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

APRIL 2010
 iii

Dedicated to the late Mr.Subramaniam, beloved brother who shared my every

moment of joy and sorrow
 iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to extend my utmost gratitude to my parents, whose sacrifice and

love have made me who I am today. I’m grateful to have been given a chance to
acquire proper education by them despite difficulties. Many thanks to my siblings
and dear friends, who tirelessly supported and gave encouragement through-out this
period. Ultimately, this is a special dedication to my late brother, who always
believed in me and prayed for my success, thus moulded the person I have become.
May his soul rest in peace!

I express my sincerest thanks to Ir.Narayanan Ramasamy who taught me well

and contributed so much, for me to become a person who am I now. Deepest thanks
also to Geopave Consultants Sdn Bhd for lending their support and sponsoring this
study. Not forgetting my entire working colleague for extending their help in various
forms.

My deepest appreciation to Professor Dr. Khairul Anuar Kassim for his

advices, guidance, valuable comments and all the precious time spent in the
preparation of this project paper. I would also like to thank my fellow postgraduate
course mates for their help, who constantly shared their ideas in this study. Finally,
thanks to all who have contributed directly or indirectly in completing project paper.

Thank you so much.

 v

ABSTRACT

Three (3) numbers of fully instrumented with global strain gauges and
extensometer test Spun piles, namely PILE-A, PILE-B and PILE-C were installed
using 25Ton hydraulic hammer along the coastal area which represent various
subsoil conditions based on soil investigations. The static load test on instrumented
piles provide more information on pile behaviour when loaded such as shaft
resistance at different layer and end bearing, elastic shortening, toe movement,
development of shaft and base resistance during pile displacement. This
information leads to a correlation between SPT-N value and ultimate shaft and end
bearing resistance. Therefore an attempt was made on this study to analyze the load
test results of these instrumented spun piles to develop the correlation for subsoil at
coastal area. It is assessed that the ultimate shaft friction values in the upper soft
clays generally range from about 12 kPa to 20 kPa. Ultimate Shaft friction values
for lower lying materials below soft clays with SPT N values from about 4 to 50
(blows/300mm) range of 2N kPa and a limiting shaft friction value of about 150
kPa. The ultimate end bearing values correlate to about 80N to 120 N kPa. Spun
piles need to be closely observed during installation using hydraulic impact
hammer to avoid any damages on pile and at pile joints. All the piles are fully
monitored during installation using PDA analyzer and the results assessed to verify
the installation technique. The assessment shows that all 3 piles were successfully
installed without integrity problems. A theoretical drivability study also carried out
using GRLWEAP software to provide drivability assessment and compared with
actual drivability of the piles. Results from GRLWEAP is very much similar to data
occurred during pile installation and confirms the drivability of spun piles at this
coastal area without integrity problem. The GRLWEAP software offers variety of
model and analysis option which lead to proper selection of equipments at site.
 vi

ABSTRAK

Tiga cerucuk spun yang diinstrumentasi dengan alat-alat ukur gobal

strain gauge dan Extensometer, iaitu PILE-A, PILE-B dan PILE-C didorong dengan
menggunakan tukul hidrolik 25tan di sepanjang kawasan pesisir yang terdiri
daripada pelbagai jenis lapisan tanah berdasarkan penyelidikan tanah. Ujian beban
statik pada cerucuk spun yang diinstrumentasi memberi maklumat lebih lanjut
mengenai perilaku cerucuk ketika dimuat dengan beban iaitu seperti geseran di
antara pelbagai lapisan tanah dengan cerucuk dan komponen rintangan hujung,
pemendekkan elastik, pergerakan hujung cerucuk, pembangunan rintangan dengan
permukaan cerucuk dan hujung cerucuk terhadap pergerakan cerucuk. Maklumat
ini membolehkan kepada korelasi antara nilai SPT-N dengan daya rintangan antara
permukaan cerucuk dan rintangan hujung cerucuk. Oleh kerana itu satu percubaan
dilakukan pada kajian ini untuk menganalisis hasil uji beban dari cerucuk spun
yang diinstrumentasi untuk mengembangkan korelasi di anatara lapisan tanah bagi
kawasan pesisir. Hasil daripada ujian ini menunjukkan bahawa nilai geseran
permukaan cerucuk dengan tanah liat lembut marin (soft marine clay) adalah
daripada 12 kPa hingga 20 kPa. Nilai geseran maksimum anatara permukaan
cerucuk dengan tanah di bawah tanah liat lembut marin dengan nilai N SPT
daripada 4 hingga 50 (blows/300mm) adalah 2N kPa dan nilai geseran maksimum
permukaan cerucuk dihadkan kepada 150 kPa. Nilai rintangan hujung cerucuk
dianggarkan sekitar 80N hingga 120N kPa. Pemanduan Cerucuk spun ke dalam
tanah mengunakan tukul hidrolik 25tan perlu dilakukan dengan cermat bagi
mengelakkan kerosakan pada cerucuk dan sendi cerucuk. Ketiga-tiga cerucuk spun
dipandukan ke dalam tanah dengan mengunakan tukul hidrolik 25tan dan
diperhatikan dengan PDA Analyzer bagi mengesahkan teknik panduan ini.
Penilaian ini menunjukkan bahawa ketiga-tiga cerucuk ini berjaya dipandukan
tanpa sebarang masalah integriti. Sebuah kajian secara teori dilakukan terhadap
 vii

teknik panduan ini dengan menggunakan perisian GRLWEAP untuk mengesahkan

teknik pemanduan ini dan juga dibandingkan dengan keputusan diperolehi oleh
PDA Analyzer di tapak. Keputusan analisis daripada GRLWEAP sangat mirip
dengan keputusan PDA dan ini mengesahkan teknik memandu cerucuk di kawasan
pesisir tanpa masalah integriti. Perisian GRLWEAP menawarkan pelbagai pilihan
model dan analisis yang mendorong pemilihan peralatan yang sesuai di tapak
pembinaan.
 viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

TITLE i
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS viii
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF FIGURES xii
LIST OF SYMBOLS xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES xvi

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background 1
1.2 Problem Statement 2
1.3 Objectives 3
1.4 Scope 3
1.5 Importance of the Study 4
 ix

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5

2.1 Driven Piles 5

2.2 Geotechnical Design of Driven Piles 6
2.2.1 Behaviour of Axially Loaded Piles 7
2.2.2 Geotechnical Capacity of Driven Piles 8
2.2.3 Semi Empirical Method 9
2.2.4 Simplified soil mechanics Method 11
2.2.5 Fine Grain Soils 11
2.2.6 Coarse Grain Soil 13
2.3 Analysis of pile driving 14
2.3.1 Introduction to Dynamic Method 15
2.3.2 Wave Equation Model 16
2.3.3 Wave Equation Analysis 17
2.3.4 Wave Equation Analysis Software 18
2.3.5 Wave Equation Applications 19
2.3.6 Interpretation of Wave Equation Results 20
2.3.7 Wave Equation Limitation 21
2.4 Pile Instrumentation 22
2.4.1 Interpretation of Strain gauge Measurement 24
2.5 Load Deformation Analysis 26

3 METHODOLOGY 30

3.1 Introduction 30
3.2 Data Collection 31
3.3 Data Analysis and Results 32
3.4 Summary 33

4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 34

4.1 Analysis of data 34

 x

4.2.1 Load transfer behaviour of spun pile 36

4.2.2 Ultimate shaft friction and SPT-N value 36
4.2.3 Generation of load transfer curve for
shaft and base 37
4.2.3.1Shaft friction 38
4.2.3.2 End bearing 40
4.3.1 Pile driving stresses and pile integrity
using continuous PDA monitoring 42
4.3.2 Pile drivability assessment by GRLWEAP
Software 44

5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMANDATIONS 46

5.1 Conclusion 46
5.2 Recommendations 47

REFERENCES 48

APPENDICES A – H 50 - 108
 xi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO TITLE PAGE

4.1 Spun pile properties 34

4.2 Sub-soil profile summary at BH-MLT A 35

4.3 Sub-soil profile summary at BH-MLT B 35

4.4 Sub-soil profile summary at BH-MLT C 35

4.5 Shaft friction for pile PILE-A 38

4.6 Shaft friction for pile PILE-B 39

4.7 Shaft friction for pile PILE-C 39

4.8 Base friction for test piles PILE-A, PILE-B

and PILE-C 41

4.9 Summary of continuous PDA monitoring results 43

4.10 Comparison of GRLWEAP and continuous PDA

Monitoring results 44
 xii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO TITLE PAGE

2.1 Typical distribution of a load along the length

of an axially loaded pile 6

2.2 Model of axially loaded pile 8

2.3 Critical embedment ratio and bearing capacity

factor for various soil friction angle
(after Meyerhof, 1976) 10

2.4 The α value recommended by API RP2A (1986) 12

2.5 Chart for estimating the bearing capacity factor Nq 14

2.6 Typical Wave Equation Model 17

2.7 Typical Bearing Graph 19

2.8 Constant capacity analysis 21

2.9 Typical wave equation drivability study vs depth 22

2.10 Approximate spun pile instrumentation method

diagram 23

2.11 Numerical model of an axially loaded pile 27

2.12 Load transfer curves for shaft and tip resistance 29

3.1 Flow chart of the study 31

4.1 Correlation of ultimate shaft friction and SPT-N

value 40
 xiii

4.2 Correlation between ultimate end bearing and

SPT-N Value 42
 xiv

LIST OF SYMBOLS

fsu - Ultimate shaft resistance

fbu - Ultimate base resistance
Ks - Ultimate shaft resistance factor
Kb - Ultimate base resistance factor
N - SPT value
L - Length in soil
D - Diamater of pile
Qd - Applied load
Qb - Tip load
Qs - Shaft load
f - Unit load transfer in skin friction
q - Unit load transfer in end bearing
Ab - Cross section area of base
As - Side surface area of pile
Qt - Ultimate point resistance
α - Adhesion factor
su - Undrained shear strength (kPa)
Kse - Effective stress shaft resistance factor (can assumed as Ko)
σv ’ - Vertical effective stress (kPa)
Ф’ - Effective angle of friction (degree) of fined grained soils
Nc - Bearing capacity factor
K - Coefficient of lateral earth
σ’ - Effective stress pressure at the point of interest
Ф - Friction angle between soil and pile wall
qb - End bearing
σ’v - Effective vertical stress
 xv

Nq - Bearing capacity factor

W - Ram weight
H - Ram drop height
R - Pile capacity
s - Pile penetration per blow
Rd - Dynamic soil resistance
Js - Smith damping value
Vp - Pile element velocity
Rs - Static soil resistance
P - Pile load along shaft
ε - Strain
Ec - Concrete secant modulus
Ac - Cross section area of pile section
Mt - Tangent modulus of composite pile material
β - Shaft resistance factor for coarse grained soils.
σ - Stress (load divided by cross section area)
dσ - Change of stress
dε - Change of strain
Ap - Cross-sectional area of the shaft at the plane of strain gauges
Ecomp - Composite modulus of concrete & steel at the strain gauge plane
Es - Secant modulus of composite material
E - Young’s modulus
υ - Poisson’s ratio
A - Slope of tangent modulus
B - y-intercept of tangent modulus line
D - Diameter of the pile,
 xvi

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX. TITLE PAGE

A Subsoil Profile 50

B Analysis for Instrumented Spun Pile PILE-A 54

C Analysis for Instrumented Spun Pile PILE-B 63

D Analysis for Instrumented Spun Pile PILE-C 72

E PDA continuous Monitoring Results 81

F GRLWEAP Results – 25 Ton Hammer 91

G Comparison of PDA and GRLWEAP Results 95

H GRLWEAP Results – 10 Ton Hammer 105

 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Foundation is an essential and important part of any structure that transmits

the structural loads safely to the underlying soils or rock. Foundations can be
classified into shallow foundations and deep foundations. Unlike structural materials
such as steel or concrete that can be manufactured to specifications, the subsoil
condition and geology varies from location to location and foundations are to be
designed to suit specific site conditions. Where competent soils to sustain the
structural loads are not available at a shallow depth, deep foundations such as driven
piles and bored piles are commonly used. In Malaysia, to support high loading
structures such as tall rise buildings and bridges, deep foundations are commonly
used. Considering the economy and ease of pile installation, deep foundation
comprising of driven piles are common when the method is assessed feasible at a
particular project site.

In Malaysia, pre-cast pre-stressed spun concrete piles are manufactured

locally and are commonly used to support bridges and heavy coastal structures such
as jetties and ports. They have been installed in deep marine deposits in the coastal
areas. Spun piles are basically driven into soil by two methods; with hydraulic
 2

impact hammer for high loading capacity achievement, and by jacked-in method to
minimize the noise and vibration to surrounding environment in urban areas.

Geotechnical capacity of Spun piles are normally designed based on the

standard penetration test results (soil investigation) in Malaysia and pile capacity
verified by pile tests such as high strain Pile Dynamic Test (PDA) and Static Loads
(maintain load) Test. In order to get more accurate and detailed verification, fully
instrumented pile with multi level strain gauge and extensometer can be subjected to
static load test to establish site specific correlation of the shaft and end bearing
parameters against the field test results such as Standard Penetration Tests (SPT).

Spun piles installation need to be closely observed while using hydraulic

impact hammers to avoid any damage. During driving, the piles can be monitored
continuously for driving stresses and pile integrity using a Pile Driving Analyser.
Proper pile installation and quality control is an important element in every driven
piling project. The piles must be driven to the required capacity without integrity
problems. Some drivability studies need to be carried out prior to installation using
existing data to refine the driving methods and equipments to be used.

Since the usage of large diameter spun piles driven with hydraulic impact
hammer is being commonly used, and in many occasions, installation difficulties
related with pile breakage due to improper choice of driving equipment and
installation methods have been experienced, an attempt has been made to assess the
installation of Driven Piles and also study its load resistance behaviour in this
project.

1.2 Problem Statement

There are many methods are studied to verify the load and settlement of piles.
But for the driven spun pile, the most appropriate method to verify the capacity and
pile integrity is static load test and pile driving analyser method. However, it is
 3

difficult to verify the shaft friction contributed by each different soil layers and load
transfer behaviour of pile.

Since the large diameter spun piles driven with hydraulic impact hammer is
being commonly used, and in many occasions, installation difficulties related with
pile breakage due to improper choice of driving equipment and installation methods
have been experienced. During construction Stage, verification of suitability of the
pile driving equipment, hammer performance, driving stresses induced in piles, pile
integrity; verification of the capacity at end of driving and with time and pile
settlement need to be observed.

1.3 Objectives

The aim of conducting this study is to analyze spun pile installation by driven
method and load resistance behaviour of driven spun pile. In order to achieve the
purpose of study, three objectives had been identified:

1) To develop a correlation in between ultimate shaft and base resistance and

SPT-N value using load transfer behaviour of spun pile based on
instrumented test pile.
2) To assess the drivability of large diameter spun piles at coastal area using
available continuous PDA monitoring results.
3) To compare the PDA results with GRLWEAP software output and
confirms the drivability of large diameter spun piles at this coastal area.

1.4 Scope

In this project paper special attention is provided to the fully instrumented

large diameter driven spun pile by hydraulic drop hammer method at coastal area
 4

(marine Clay) and underlain by residual soils. The spun piles are vertically tested
with both static load test and high strain dynamic test.

The data for this paper is obtained from real time projects conducted in
construction industry. In this case, the piles are fully instrumented and continuously
monitored using Pile Driving Analyser during installation.

1.5 Importance of Study

Pile instrumentation with strain gauges and extensometer should be installed

at appropriate depth will provide developed shaft friction capacity and end bearing
capacity at different type of layer and load transfer behaviour of pile during loading
and settlement. This valuable data will lead to optimization in pile length and safe
foundation as well as huge cost saving in the project. Spun pile drivability analysis
using existing continuous PDA results available and soil investigation results enable
evaluation of driving methods, pile stresses to be controlled to avoid integrity
problem, and equipment type and ability of spun pile to be driven at require depth.
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Driven Piles

A driven pile is a deep foundation which is a part of structure used to transfer

the loading of structure to bearing ground located at some depth below ground level.
Driven piles are normally manufactured at factory and installed at site using pile
driver. Generally driven piles are of timber, concrete and steel. The concrete piles are
in shape of square, octagonal and rounds in cross section. These concrete piles are
reinforced with steel bar and pre-stressed during manufacturing. Driven piles, also
known as displacement piles, is advantageous because the soil displaced by driving
the piles compresses the surrounding soil, causing greater friction against the sides of
the piles, thus increasing their load-bearing capacity.

The driven piles can installed at site by two methods, by hydraulic impact
hammer and injection method. Injection method preferably replace hammer impact
method at site where development at adjacent site already taken place to avoid noise
and vibration due hammering.
 6

2.2 Geotechnical design of Driven Piles

Piles are generally used for two purposes; 1) to increase the load carrying
capacity, 2) to reduce the post settlement of foundation. The applied load will be
transferred through soft soil stratum to stiff soil stratum which called end resistance
of pile and also distributing the loads by friction along pile shafts which called shaft
resistance. The figure 2.1 shows typical load distribution of a pile along to its full
length. The transfer of load as shown in figure is extremely difficult to predict and
difficult to quantify by analytical method.

Figure 2.1: Typical distribution of a load along the length of an axially loaded pile.

Driven piles are controlled by geotechnical capacity (load carrying capacity)

since its only can driven into certain depth into hard stratum. Generally driven pile
designed based on the pile driving formula or the static formula. The static formula
has been identified as more reliable and well known in designing driven piles. The
limit equilibrium method used in this formula to compute pile static resistance at tip
of pile and along the shaft of pile. Shaft friction has a direct application in granular
soil and less applicable in cohesive soil. However shaft friction has been traditionally
used in cohesive soil with considering minimal contribution to the total resistance.
 7

The soil parameter normally derived from field test and laboratory test to be used in
the static formula.

2.2.1 Behaviour of Axially loaded Piles

The pile stiffness for axial loading can be represented by load versus
settlement curve at the top of pile. There are few analytical methods are based on the
theory of elasticity which more possible in solving the behaviour of group of piles
spaced closely under axially loading. This method have solution proposed by
D’Appolonia and Romualdi (1963), Thurman and D’Appolonia (1965), Poulos and
Davis (1968), Poulos and Mattes (1969), Mattes and Poulos (1969) and Poulos and
Davis (1980).

The Second method for obtaining the response of pile under axial load is soil
represent with set of nonlinear mechanism which known as t-z method. This method
was developed by Seed and Reese (1957) and further studies carry out by Coyle and
Reese (1966), Coyle and Sulaiman (1967) and Kraft et al (1981). Figure 2.2 shows a
model of T-Z method where the applied load Q is in equilibrium state by a tip load of
Qb with shaft load Qs. In figure 2.2c the pile is replaced with elastic spring and soil
replaced with set of nonlinear mechanism along the pile and at the tip. From the
hypothetical set of mechanism, the t of the curves representing the load transferred
and the z shows the shaft displacement. It is understood no load will be mobilized
from pile to soil if no relative movement in between them. The movement is depends
on the applied load, position of pile, stress – strain characteristics of pile material and
load transfer curves. The load transfer curve is can only derived with based on full
scale loading test with range satisfied. The non-linear curves shown in figure 2.2d
are predicted by Coyle and Reese (1966) and Coyle and Sulaiman (1967) after few
numbers of successful field test.
 8

Figure 2.2: Model of axially loaded pile

2.2.2 Geotechnical Capacity of Driven Piles

The geotechnical capacity of pile defines as ultimate soil resistance against

load applied to resist the pile from displace further into ground without increment of
load. The static equations are well established to compute the geotechnical capacity
with few procedures. The very basic equation for compute the ultimate bearing
capacity of piles is as follows:

Qd = Qs + Qb = fAs + qAb, (2.1)

Where

Qs = total skin friction resistance, kN

Qb = total end bearing, kN
f = unit load transfer in skin friction (normally varies with depth), kPa
q = unit load transfer in end bearing (normally varies with depth), kPa
Ab = cross section area of base (m2)
As = side surface area of the pile (m2)
 9

There is no general agreement in methods of obtaining f and q. There are

several methods been adopted depends on the site and literature studies carried on.
There are two major types of methods a) semi empirical method and b) simplified
soil mechanic method.

2.2.3 Semi Empirical Method

Semi-empirical correlations have been extensively developed relating both

shaft resistance and base resistance of driven piles to N-values from Standard
Penetration Tests (SPT N-values). The mobilized resistance on the SPT is differing
from on site to other sites results. So semi empirical method used to generalize the
different results into common equation to be used in deriving the geotechnical
capacity of pile within the study area. In the correlations established, the SPT N-
values generally refer to uncorrected values before pile installation. The commonly
used modified Meyerhof Equation correlations for driven piles are as follows:

fsu = Ks x SPT N-value (kPa) (2.2)

fbu = Kb x SPT N-value (kPa) (2.3)

Where:

Ks = ultimate shaft resistance factor

Kb = ultimate base resistance factor
SPT N-value = Standard Penetration Tests blow counts (blows/300mm)

For the shaft resistance, Ks = 2 but limited to 200 kPa is proposed by

Meyerhof after many studies and field tests carried out on driven piles. At the local
practices and studies show the Ks of 2 to 2.5 extensively used based on soil types.
 10

Based on field observations, Meyerhof (1976) also suggested that the ultimate
point resistance, Qt, in a homogeneous granular soil (L = Lb) can be obtained from
standard penetration numbers as

Qt = 40NL/D ≤ 400N; limited to 10,000kPa (2.4)

where N is an average standard penetration number (about 10D above and 4D below
the pile point)

Figure 2.3: Critical embedment ratio and bearing capacity factors for various soil
friction angle (after Meyerhof, 1976)
 11

2.2.4 Simplified soil mechanics Method

Generally the simplified soil mechanics methods for bored pile design can be
classified into fine grained soils (e.g. clays, silts) and coarse grained soils (e.g. sands
and gravels).

2.2.4.1 Fine Grained Soils

The ultimate shaft resistance (fsu) of piles in cohesive soils can be estimated
based on the semi-empirical undrained method as follows:

fsu = α x su (2.5)

Where

α = coefficient that is a function of su , (adhesion factor)

su = undrained shear strength at depth (kPa)

Based on API method the adhesion factor can be obtain from figure 2.4
where the α value is correlated from the undrained shear strength. Whitaker & Cooke
(1966) proposed that α value will be lies in the between of 0.3 to 0.6 for stiff over-
consolidated clays, while Tomlinson (1994) and Reese & O’Neill (1988) report a
values in the range of 0.4 to 0.9. The α values for residual soils of Malaysia is in
range of 0.8 to 1.0 for soft clay and 0.4 is used for stiff clays is. The value of α to be
used shall be verified by preliminary pile load test.
 12

Figure 2.4: The α value recommended by API RP2A (1986)

Effective stress method also can be used in obtain the capacity of pile which
will consider the effective stress of pile. This method is representative for the pile
capacity calculation because considering the effect of effective stress change on the
Kse values to be used. This method is more appropriate to be used at site which
consist high water table. The value of ultimate shaft resistance may be estimated
from the following expression:

fsu = Kse x σv ’ x tan Φ’ (2.6)

Where

Kse = Effective Stress Shaft Resistance Factor (can be assumed as Ko)

σv ’ = Vertical Effective Stress (kPa)
Φ’ = Effective Angle of Friction (degree) of fined grained soils.

Although the theoretical ultimate base resistance for bored pile in fine grained
soil can be related to undrained shear strength as follows;

fbu = Nc x su (2.7)

Where
Nc = bearing capacity factor
 13

For depth relevant for piles, the appropriate value of Nc value is 9 (Skempton
1951) although due allowance should be made where thi tip of pile penetrates a stiff
layer by only small amount. A linear interpolation should be made between N=6 for
the case of the pile tip just reaching the bearing stratum, up to N=9 for the pile tip
penetrate the bearing stratum by 3 diameter or more.

2.2.4.2 Coarse Grained Soils

Experiment results for driven piles in sands below considerable scatter for
value of skin friction and end bearing. The following recommendation for computing
unit value of skin friction and end bearing for piles in sand are consistent with state
of practice, but still subjected to pile load test verification. The API recommendation
for side resistance for driven piles in cohesionless soils is as follows:

f = Kσ’ tan Φ (2.8)

K = coefficient of lateral earth

σ’ = effective stress pressure at the point of interest
Φ = friction angle between soil and pile wall

And K value of 0.8 was recommended for open ended pile and 1.0 is recommended
for close ended pipe piles.

For the end bearing, the qb may be expressed in terms of the effective vertical
stress σ’v and bearing capacity factors Nq as

qb = σ’v . Nq (2.9)
 14

Values of Nq quoted in the literature vary considerably, but those derived by

Berezantzev et al. (1961) are used most widely for design of deep circular
foundation. Figure 2.5 shows the variation of Nq with friction angle.

Figure 2.5: Chart for estimating the bearing capacity factor Nq

2.3 Analysis of Pile Driving

From very beginning, there many attempts been made to find conventional
method for determining the load cab carry by a pile. Dynamic data obtained during
pile driving were used to predicting the capacity. The only data we will obtain during
pile driving is numbers of blows (pile set). Concepts equating the energy delivered
by the hammer to the work done by the piles as it penetrates the soil were used to
obtain pile capacity expression which called pile formulas (dynamic method).
Another method to modelling the pile driving is wave-equation method. This method
is very interesting because of its ability not only in predict load capacity, but also
very useful yield stresses in the piles during driving. The wave-equation method is a
semitheoretical method which reliability in predicting bearing capacity and driving
stresses depends on the accuracy of the pile parameters and soil properties.
 15

2.3.1 Introduction to Dynamic Methods

The earliest attempts at developing dynamic methods were based on

empirical correlations between hammer weight, blow count, and other factors with
the static capacity. These are collectively known as the pile driving formulas. Since
the mid 1800’s, over 450 dynamic formulas for pile driving control have formulated.
In their simple form, these formulas relate hammer energy to the work of soil
resistance, or simply:

W. h = R. S (2.10)

Where

W = ram weight
H = ram drop height
R = pile capacity
s = pile penetration per blow.

Pile driving formulas are attractive, and they continue to be widely used in
practice. Unfortunately, the accuracy of these methods is less than impressive.
Although the principle of conservation of energy is certainly valid, pile driving
formulas suffer because it is very difficult to accurately account for all of the energy
losses in a real pile driving situation. The sources of these uncertainties include the
following (Coduto D.P 1994):

1) The pile, hammer, and soil types used to generate the formula may not be
the same as those at site where it is being used.
2) The hammers do not always operate at their rated efficiencies.
3) The energy absorption properties of cushions can vary significantly.
4) The formulas do not account for flexibility of the pile.
5) There is no simple relationship between the static and dynamic strength of
soils.
 16

A technically superior representation of the pile installation process can be

found in the wave equation analysis, which is a numerical solution of the pile driving
process. The development of one dimensional wave equation analysis was one of the
most remarkable engineering accomplishments of the 20th century (George Goble,
2004).

2.3.2 Wave Equation Model

The first computer solution of the wave equation was developed by Smith
(1960). In the wave equation, the pile hammer, helmet, and pile cushion are modelled
by a series of rigid mass elements connected by weightless springs. The springs are
assigned stiffness equal to EA/L for each element. E is the elastic modulus of the
material, A is the cross sectional area, and L is the length of the mass element.
Hammer and pile cushions are represented by additional springs whose stiffness are
calculated from area, modulus of elasticity, and thickness of cushion materials. In
addition, coefficient of restitution (COR) is usually specified to model energy losses
in cushion materials. The COR is equal to one for a perfectly elastic collision which
preserves all energy and is equal to zero for a perfectly plastic condition which loses
all deformation energy. In this way, the computer model accounts for the mass and
flexibility of the hammer-helmet-pile system.

The soil resistance along the embedded portion of the pile and at the pile toe
is represented by both static and dynamic components. Therefore, both static and a
dynamic soil resistance force acts on every embedded pile segment. The static soil
resistance forces are modelled by elasto-plastic springs and the dynamic soil
resistance by linear viscous dashpots. The displacement at which soil changes from
elastic to plastic behaviour is referred to as the soil ‘quake’. In the smith damping
model, the dynamic soil resistance is proportional to the pile element velocity (Vp)
and the static soil resistance (Rs). This can be presented in equation form as:
 17

Rd = Js . Vp. Rs (2.11)

where Js is the Smith damping factor. The Smith wave equation model of the ram,
hammer cushion, helmet, pile cushion, pile and soil is given in Figure-2.6.

Figure 2.6: Typical Wave Equation Model.

2.3.3 Wave Equation Analysis

The wave equation analysis is performed over extremely small, incremental

time steps. First, a soil model and pile capacity is assumed. Then, the analysis is set
in motion by selecting hammer efficiency. This efficiency is used to compute the
impact velocity of the hammer mass elements for an input hammer stroke. For each
time step, the computer calculates the acceleration, velocity, and displacement of
each element including the displacement of the pile toe element. Element forces and
notions are calculated during this time step by placing all masses in dynamic
equilibrium such that force equals mass time acceleration. This process is continued
 18

for incremental time steps until the toe segment starts to rebound. Then, the
permanent penetration of the pile is calculated by subtracting the average value of the
shaft and toe quake from the maximum toe displacement. The pile penetration can be
plotted versus the pile capacity for one point on a wave equation bearing graph. A
typical wave equation bearing graph including driving stress levels is shown in
Figure-2.7.

2.3.4 Wave Equation Analysis Software

The first publicly available wave equation software was the TTI program
developed at Texas A&M University. In 1976, researchers at the Case Institute of
Technology developed the WEAP (Wave Equation Analysis of Piles) program. It has
been in the public domain. The WEAP program has since formed the basis for other
more advanced proprietary programs.

The WEAP program computes the following:

1) The blow count (number of blows/ unit length of permanent set) of a pile
under one or more assumed ultimate resistance values and other dynamic
soil resistance parameters, given a hammer and driving system.
2) The axial stresses in a pile corresponding to the computed blow count
3) The energy transferred to the pile.
 19

Figure 2.7: Typical Bearing Graph.

Based on these results, the following can be indirectly derived:

1) The pile’s bearing capacity at the time of driving or re-striking, given its
penetration resistance (blow count)
2) The stresses during pile driving.
3) The expected blows count if the actual static bearing capacity of the pile
is known in advance (i.e. from a static soil analysis).

2.3.5 Wave Equation Applications

A bearing graph provides the wave equation analyst with two types of
information:

1) It establishes a relationship between ultimate capacity and driving

resistance. From the user’s input data on the shaft and toe bearing
 20

resistances, the analysis estimates the permanent set (mm/blow) under

one hammer blow.
2) The user usually develops a bearing graph (Figure-2.7) or an inspector’s
chart (Figure-2.8) for different pile lengths and uses these graphs in the
field, with the observed driving resistance, to determine when the pile has
been driven sufficiently for the required bearing capacity.
3) Driveability study to evaluate the ability of the pile to be driven to a
required depth and capacity. (Figure-2.9).

2.3.6 Interpretation of Wave Equation Results

Following is the methods to interpret the wave equation results obtain from
the analysis:

Check the pile stresses to see whether a safe pile installation is possible

1) If blow count is excessive (greater than 240 blows/foot or 800 blow/m),

reanalyse with more powerful hammer
2) If blow count is acceptable but compressive stresses are unacceptably
high, reanalyse with either a decreased stroke or an increased cushion
thickness.
3) If blow count is low but tension stresses are too high for concrete piles,
either increases the cushion thickness or decrease the stroke or use a
hammer with a heavier ram, and then reanalyse.
4) If both the blow count and compressive stresses are excessive, increase
cross sectional area if applicable, and reanalyse.
 21

2.3.7 Wave Equation Limitation

A wave equation analysis requires input assumptions that can significantly

affect the program results. Potential error sources include assumptions on hammer
performance, hammer and pile cushion properties, the soil resistance distribution, as
well as the soil quake and damping characteristics. Insight into these assumptions can
be obtained through dynamic measurements.

Dynamic measurements of force, velocity and energy at the pile head can
readily be compared to the wave equation computed values in the first pile segment.
Adjustment to the wave equation input parameters can be made depending upon the
agreement between the measured and computed values. This approach is the simplest
use of the data available from dynamic measurement and is an easy way to calibrate
the wave equation thereby reducing the potential error sources.

Figure 2.8: Constant Capacity Analyses

 22

Figure 2.9: Typical Wave Equation Drivability Study versus Depth

2.4 Pile Instrumentation

Pile load test is being carried out traditionally to assess the displacement of
pile when subjected to loading. For this test basically equipments required are
calibrated hydraulic jack or load cell, dial gauges or LVDT’s (Linear Variable
Differential Transformers) and direct levelling using a surveyor’s precise level and
rod referenced to a fixed datum (benchmark) to measure the displacement at pile
head.

Instrumentation is major part in pile testing to develop the load transfer curve
of pile. In the current engineering practise, understanding of the load transfer and
bearing behaviour of piles mainly through analysis of instrumentation full-scale load
tests. For driven piles, the application of instrumentation is more challenging and
difficult due to significant difference in method of pile installation. To overcome this
problem, approximate instrumentation method used by installing either an
instrumented reinforcement cage or an instrumented pipe into hollow core of spun
 23

pile and in filled with grout. Figure 2.10 shows typical section of approximate spun
pile instrumentation scheme.

Figure 2.10: Approximate spun pile instrumentation method diagram

Generally load test will be carried out to measure the displacement of the pile
head when applied with working load. Displacement is very important data during
load test and by conventional test method only the pile head displacement can be
measured will be applied in developing the load settlement curve which will not be
so accurate.

Another method to predict the exact load transfer curve along the pile, fully
instrumentation is used along the pile depth up to toe of pile to assess incremental
strain measurement along full length if pile to determine the distribution of load
transfer from pile to the soil. These provide information on pile tip movements or
deflections along the pile. Instrumentation consists of equipment such as
Extensometer (strain rods) and the electric strain gauges (or vibrating wire strain
gauges).

Extensometers used to measure shortening or displacement over specified

lengths of pile shaft. These may be single mechanical rods anchored at a designated
level to measure the shortening from the top. Vibrating wire (VW) strain gauges
 24

designed to measure strain in reinforced concrete or mass concrete, whereby this

vibrating wire strain gauge is typically tied to a reinforcing cage. Readings are
obtained with a VW readout or data logger. Advantages of strain gauge is it provides
good conformance and minimizes inclusion effects, has built-in temperature sensor
and intrinsically reliable VW signal transmission

2.4.1 Interpretation of Strain gauge Measurement

Using the test data for pile with fully instrumented, the load distribution can
be computed from the measured changes in strain gauges readings and pile
properties. The load transferred at mid-point of each anchored interval can be
computed as follows:

P = ε x Ec x Ac
(2.12)

Where
ε= average change in strain gauges readings
Ec= concrete secant modulus in pile section
Ac= cross section area of pile section

It is very difficult to predict the modulus of concrete where it is not constant

over the length and the modulus computed from pile head actually is combination of
steel and concrete. The stress-strain curve can with sufficient accuracy be assumed to
follow a second-degree line: y=ax2 + bx + c, where y is stress and x is strain
(Fellenius, 1989).

The tangent modulus method also can adopt for measuring the load transfer
of pile by measure the secant modulus of pile from tangent modulus line (Fellenius,
2001). Every measured strain value can be converted to stress via its corresponding
strain- dependent secant modulus.
 25

The equation for tangent modulus is as follows:

dσ
Mt = = Aε + B (2.13)
dε

This can integrate to:

⎛ A⎞
σ = ⎜ ⎟ε 2 + Bε (2.14)
⎝2⎠

However
σ - Es x ε (2.15)

Therefore
Es = 0.5 Aε+B (2.16)

where
Mt = tangent modulus of composite pile material
Es = secant modulus of composite pile material
σ = stress (load divided by cross section area)
dσ = changes of stress from one load increment to the next
A = slope of the tangent modulus line
ε = measured strain
dε = change of strain from one load increment to the next
B = Y-intercept of the tangent modulus line

The stress strain relation is non linear in contrast, the tangent modulus of
composite material is a straight line. This line can be used to establish the expression
for the secant modulus. Every measured strain value can therefore be converted to
stress and load via its corresponding strain-dependant secant modulus.
 26

2.5 Load Deformation Analysis

Two analytical methods are used in computation of the load settlement curve
of an axially loaded pile. The first method is known as theory of elasticity which
been discussed by D’Appolonia and Romualdi (1963), Thurman and D’Appolonia
(1965), Poulos and Davis (1968), Poulos and Mattes (1969), Mattes and Poulos
(1969) and Poulos and DFavis (1980) on methods derived from this theory. These
methods use Mindlin’s (1963) equations for stress and deformations at any point in
the interior of semi-infinite, elastic and isotropic solids resulting from a force applied
at another point of the solids. The displacement of pile is calculated by applying the
influences of load transfer in the shaft friction and tip resistance. This method takes
the stress distribution within the soil into consideration, so this method applicable in
solving the behaviour of group piles. (Poulos, 1968, Poulos and Davis, 1980). This
method also is oversimplified by allowing the elasticity based methods to work under
condition where soil stratified into different layer, strength and compressibility.

The second method used in computing the load-settlement is load transfer

method (t-z method). This method was first developed by Seed and Reese (1957) and
subsequently further studies on this carried by Coyle and Reese (1966), Coyle and
Sulaiman (1967) and Kraft et al. (1981). It is assuming Winkler concept where the
load transfer at a certain pile section and the pile tip resistance are independent of the
displacement elsewhere. This method can also differentiate the stress resist by
different layers and can deal with any complex composition of soil layers with any
nonlinear relationship of displacement versus shear force (Coyle and Reese, 1966
and Coyle and Sulaiman, 1967).

Figure 2.11 shows typical mechanics of loaded pile where axial load applied
at pile head and undergoes displacement. Based on the figure the strain in the
elements due to axial load P is calculated by neglecting the second order term dP:

dz P
=− (2.17)
dx EA
 27

dz
P = − EA p (2.18)
dx

where
P = axial force in the pile
E = Young Modulus of the pile material
Ap = cross section area of the pile

Figure 2.11: Numerical model of an axially loaded pile.

The total load transfer through an element dx is expressed by using the modulus µ in
the load transfer curve Figure 2.12a.

dP= -µ.z.l.dx (2.19)

dP
or = − µ.z.l (2.20)
dx
 28

where
l = circumstance of a cylindrical pile or the perimeter encompassing an H-pile
µ = modulus in the load transfer curve in Figure 2.12a

Equation 2.17 is differentiated with respect to x and equated with equation

2.20 to obtain:
d
EA = − µ .z.l (2.21)
dx

Pile tip resistance is the product of a secant modulus υ and the pile-tip
movement ztip (See Figure 2.12b)

Ptip = υ. ztip (2.22)

Equation 2.21 is the basic differential equation that must be solved. Boundary
condition at the tip and the top of the pile must be established. The boundary
condition at tip of the pile is given by equation 2.22. At top of the pile, the boundary
condition may be either a force or a displacement.
 29

Figure 2.12: Load-transfer curves for shaft and tip resistance

 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

The study was conducted on available data from various sources. Foremost,
data collected are from fully instrumented driven spun pile and pile subjected to high
strain dynamic testing (PDA). The site selected is at coastal line (marine stretch)
which consists of soft marine clay up to 20-30m depth.

The methodology of the whole studies is summarized in a flowchart and

shown in Figure 3.1.
 31

Spun Piles

Stage 1 – Data Collection

Instrumented driven spun pile Continuous PDA monitoring

results results and SI results
Stage 2 – Data Analysis & Results
Load transfer curve for shaft WEAP Analysis based on soil
and base parameter and driving
equipments

Driving assessment based on

continuous PDA monitoring
results data

Stage 3 - Summary

Conclusion & Suggestion

Figure 3.1 Flow Chart of the Study

3.2 Data Collection

The first stage of this study is including identification of sites that used
instrumented driven spun pile as foundation for the structure at Marine clay formation.
Based on the geological map, the marine soft clays fall under Quaternary formation
which consists of Marine and continental deposits with clays, silts, sands, peat with
minor gravel. This quaternary formation generally falls at coastal area of peninsular
Malaysia. The piles selected were pre-cast pre stressed spun concrete piles driven closed
ended with a standard X-pointed shoe. During driving, the piles were monitored
 32

continuously for driving stresses and pile integrity using a Pile Driving Analyser.
Subsequently, static load test was performed on the preliminary test piles that were
instrumented with Global Stain gauges within the annulus of the closed ended piles and
the following are obtained:

a) load versus settlement behaviour

b) obtain shaft friction in various soil layers and end bearing

For the drivability assessment of spun pile, the required data are soil
investigation results (SPT N-Values), continuous PDA monitoring results, driving
equipment details and lab test results on SI data. For the load transfer behaviour
analysis, the driven spun piles with fully instrumented with strain gauges and subjected
to static load test are isolated. The information required from instrumented spun piles is
strain gauge and rod extensometers readings and SI data. The piles are tested to failure
which will provide the most useful information in terms of ultimate shaft friction of
different soil strata, ultimate end bearing and load-transfer characteristics that can
utilized in the assessment of design working piles. All the results and data are completed
for analysis purpose.

3.3 Data Analysis and Results

The second stage of this study is analysis of the data that obtained from the sites.
Two types of analysis are proceeded to achieve the study’s objectives. For the first
objective of the study, the readings from instrumented test pile such as tell-tale
extensometer readings and strain gauge readings analysed. The load distribution is
calculated from the measured changes in global strain gauge readings and pile
properties. The ultimate average load resistance at shaft and base from instrumentation
readings analysis for different soil profile plotted against SPT N value (SI data).
 33

For the assessment of drivability of spun piles, continuous PDA monitoring

results during driving is analysed and the stresses developed are checked. At same time
the theoretical drivability studies carried out by GRLWEAP software by using soil
parameters (SI data) and driving equipments data obtained from site. This software is
produced the theoretical stresses and driving requirement for the proposed site. Data
obtained during pile driving, the continuous pile driving analyzer results also compared
with GRLWEAP results to verify the stresses developed during installation.

3.4 Summary

The third and final stage of the study is draw a conclusion based on the results of
the analysis. The result that was derived from the analysis carefully studied based on the
objectives of the research. The correlation of ultimate shaft resistance to SPT N-values
and load transfer behaviour for shaft and base of the spun piles in soft Marine clay
formation produced. The drivability of spun pile on specific formation fully analysed
and comparison provided for theoretical assessment against actual driving data.
Recommendations also included to improve the quality of the tests and results and to
refine the tests for more useful findings in the future.

The closeness and the deviation between the results obtain checked. There are
some deviations between the results and the causes are identified. Suggestion also
included to improve the quality of the tests and to refine the tests for better comparison
in the future.
 CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYIS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Analysis of data

Three (3) numbers of preliminary test piles were carried out in the marine
stretch of the proposed bridge, namely PILE-A, PILE-B and PILE-C. The piles were
pre-cast pre-stressed spun concrete piles driven closed ended with a standard X-
pointed shoe. During driving, the piles were monitored continuously for driving
stresses and pile integrity using a Pile Driving Analyzer. Subsequently, static load
test was performed on the preliminary test piles that were instrumented with Global
Stain gauges within the annulus of the closed ended piles. Following Table 4.1
describes the properties of spun pile used:

Table 4.1: Spun pile properties

Pile Diameter 1000 mm nominal

Wall Thickness 140 mm
Concrete Grade 80N/mm2
Effective Pre-stress 7 N/mm2
PILE-A – 43m
Pile penetration length below sea bed level PILE-B – 57.5 m
PILE-C – 33.8 m
 35

Subsoil profiles at the test pile location PILE-A, PILE-B and PILE-C are
shown in Appendix A. Boreholes were carried out close to PILE-A, PILE-B and
PILE-C locations namely, BH-MLTA, BH-MLT-B and BH-MLT C. Based on the
boreholes carried out adjacent to the test pile locations, the sub-soil conditions can be
summarized as follows:

Table 4.2: Subsoil profile summary at BH-MLT A

Depth below sea-bed (m) Soil Description SPT N values

(blows/300mm)
0 to 3m Very soft CLAYS 0
3 to 27m Silty CLAYS 4 to 20
27 to 46.5m Silty SANDS 20 to 50
46.5 to 57m Silty SANDS >50

Table 4.3: Subsoil profile summary at BH-MLT B

Depth below sea-bed (m) Soil Description SPT N values

(blows/300mm)
0 to 27m Very soft CLAYS <4
27 to 52.5m Silty CLAYS 20 to 50
52.5 to 66 m Silty SANDS >50

Table 4.4: Subsoil profile summary at BH-MLT C

Depth below sea-bed (m) Soil Description SPT N values

(blows/300mm)
0 to 12m Very soft CLAYS <4
12 to 24m CLAYS 6 to 15
24 to 35m SANDS 25 to 30
35 to 41m CLAY 10 to 15
41 to 47 SANDS 50
47 to 53 CLAY 10 to 20
53 to 63 SANDS > 50
 36

4.2.1 Load transfer behaviour of spun pile

The instrumentation scheme adopted for the instrumented test piles – PILE-
A, PILE-B and PILE-C is shown in appendix B, C and D respectively. The
instrumentation comprises of global strain gauges and extensometers that can be
interpreted to obtain load distribution with depth, shaft friction, end bearing and load
transfer curves (shaft friction versus mid-shaft movement and end bearing versus pile
toe movement).

4.2.2 Ultimate Shaft Friction and SPT-N value

In local practise, it is common to investigate the site by boreholes and

standard penetration test carried out to determine the resistance of soil. The number
of blows count N value is used in correlate the shaft resistance of pile and the end
bearing. The nearest boreholes used in correlate the shaft friction and end bearing
resistance of these piles. The shaft friction is divided into the section as per the
arrangement of the instruments to ease the correlation.

The shaft friction of the pile is determined as follows:

fsu = Ka x Na (kPa)

Where:
Ka = ultimate shaft resistance factor (1.7-3)
Na = SPT-N value along pile shaft

The end bearing resistance is determined as follows:

Fbu = Kb x Nb (kPa)

Where:
Kb = Ultimate end bearing resistance factor (250 – 400 for driven piles)
Nb = SPT-N Value at end of pile
 37

4.2.3 Generation of Load Transfer Curve for Shaft and Base

Friction value of each layer is derived based on instruments reading during

maintain load test. Load distribution curves along the shaft & based derived based on
the changes in strain gauge and estimated pile properties. Load transferred at each
segment calculated as follows:

1) Assuming the strains in steel is same as strains in concrete; load at strain level
is computed as follows:

Pave = εApEc

Where

Pave = load at mid-point for each segment

ε = average change in global strain gauge reading
Ap = Cross section area of pile
Ec = Concrete Modulus in pile section

Concrete modulus, Ec is non-linear and was back-calculated by measuring

the segmental strains for pile section and the pile top forces. Fellenius (2001)
method using tangent modulus estimated is approached to back calculate the
concrete modulus.

2) Average shaft resistance at each segments calculated using load distributions

computed at the strain gauge levels:

fsm = (P top of segment – P bottom of segment) / (pile cross sectional area)

3) The load transfer curve for shaft and base is generated as per following
method:

a) Pile was divided into segments between the strain gauge levels. For each
segment, the mid-segment movement of the pile shaft was linearly
interpolated between the movement of the bottom of segment and the top
of segment that are obtained using extensometers.
 38

b) The same process was repeated for the subsequent head load and head
settlement and the corresponding strain gauge and extensometer readings
along the pile length. Therefore for each pile, the load transfer curve for
shaft was generated for each pile segment and one load transfer curve for
the base.

Appendix B, C and D shows the load transfer characteristic of shaft and base of these
three piles.

4.2.3.1 Shaft Friction

The load distribution with depth for PILE-A, PILE-B and PILE-C is given in
appendix B, C and D respectively. Following are the summary of interpreted ultimate
shaft friction values based on the test pile results:

Table 4.5: Shaft friction for pile PILE-A

Depth Instrument Level Soil Type Average SPT N Ultimate

value shaft
blows/300mm friction
(SPT N range) (kPa)
0 to 7.4 Seabed to level B soft CLAY 4 20
(0 to 6)
7.4 to 21.3 Level B to level C silty CLAY 7 55
( 4 to 9)
21.3 to Level C to level D sandy 14 48
31.8 CLAY (7 to 29)
31.8 to Level D to level E silty SAND 37 58
38.2 (21 – 50)
38.2 to Level E to level F silty SAND 47 160
42.5 (40 to 50)
 39

Table 4.6: Shaft friction for pile PILE-B

Depth Instrument Level Soil Type Average SPT N Ultimate shaft

value friction (kPa)
blows/300mm
(SPT N range)
0 to 7.5 Seabed to level B soft 0 21
CLAY
7.5 to 21 Level B to level C soft 0 2
CLAY
21 to 30.5 Level C to level D silty 3 45
CLAY (1 to 8)
30.5 to 39 Level D to level E silty 27 62
SAND (20 – 50)
39 to 49 Level E to level F silty 24 22
SAND (15 to 30)
39 to 55.5 Level F to level G silty 36 22
SAND (20 to 50)

Table 4.7: Shaft friction for pile PILE-C

Depth Instrument Level Soil Type Average SPT N Ultimate shaft

value friction (kPa)
blows/300mm
(SPT N range)
0 to 5 Seabed to level B soft CLAY 0 12

5 to 13.5 Level B to level C Soft 0 27

CLAY
13.5 to Level C to level E CLAY/SAND 20 49
28.5 (6 to 30)
28.5 to Level E to level F SAND 35 312
32.2 (25 – 50)

Based on the results obtained from instrumented test pile following is the discussion
on the results:

1) The ultimate shaft friction values in the upper soft clays generally range from
about 12 kPa to 20 kPa.

2) Shaft friction values for lower lying materials (predominantly Silty SANDS /
SANDS and with some mixed layers of silty CLAY and with SPT N values
 40

ranging from about 4 to 50 blows/300mm ) are plotted against average SPT N

values in Figure 4.1. It is assessed that in these materials the ultimate shaft
friction values range from 1N to 3N with an average of 2N kPa where N is
the uncorrected SPT N value and a limiting shaft friction value of about 150
kPa

3) Few readings show unpractical values and discarded during the analysis of
the instrumentations.

Figure 4.1: Correlation of Ultimate shaft friction and SPT-N value

4.2.3.2 End Bearing

The piles are displaced during the maintain load test and it is assessed that the
load was fully mobilised in the piles. It is assessed that the load at final level of
segment is sustained by end bearing. The load sustained by end bearing is divided
 41

into cross section of base of pile to compute the end bearing resistance. The
interpreted end bearing values for all three piles are summarized as follows:

Table 4.8: Base friction for test piles PILE-A, PILE-B and PILE-C

Test Pile No. Average SPT N value for depth of Ultimate end bearing
3 x pile diameter below toe of pile (kPa)
PILE-A 35 2740
PILE-B 50 6142
PILE-C 30 2418

Based on the results of instrumented test pile, the following is assessed:

1) The ultimate end bearing values correlate to about 80N to 120 N kPa where N
is the uncorrected SPT N value. This range is low in comparison to the
recommendations in literature for driven piles in silty SANDS/SANDS (300
to 400N). When overburden correction is applied on the SPT N values, the
ultimate end bearing values correlate to about 140 to 270 N (applying Liao
and Whitman 1986 method) and 170 to 350 N (applying Skempton 1986
method) where N is the corrected SPT N value for overburden. The ultimate
end bearing correlation with SPT-N value is shown in figure 4.2.
 42

Figure 4.2: Correlation between Ultimate End Bearing and SPT-N Values

4.3.1 Pile driving stresses and pile integrity using continuous PDA monitoring

All three piles were continuously monitored during installation to control the
stresses developed in the piles. The PDA results obtained are shown in appendix E.
The pile driving stresses and the pile integrity obtained by continuous monitoring
using pile driving analyzer (PDA) during driving of the preliminary test piles
summarized as follows in table 4.9:
 43

Table 4.9: Summary of continuous PDA monitoring results

Depth at Energy
Compr
which pile Drop Transferred Tension Pile
ession
Pile No. was Height (max) Stress Integ
Stress
monitored (mm) (ton.m) (MPa) rity
(MPa)
(m)
100 -
PILE-A 11 to 43 12.28 4 to 23 0.4 – 6.2 Good
600
100 -
PILE-B 26.5 to 47 13.42 6 – 30 0.8 – 8.5 Good
600
PILE-B 200 -
47 to 57 15.57 15 - 26 1.8 – 7.1 Good
Restrike 1000
100 -
PILE-C 8.5 to 33.5 13.79 5 - 33 0.9 – 9.1 Good
800

From the PDA results, the following is the discussion of the results:

1) Based on AASHTO (1994), the recommended compression stress limit

during driving is 0.85fc – fpe = 61 MPa (where fc = concrete compressive
strength = 80 MPa and fpe = effective pre-stress = 7 MPa). The maximum
driving compression stress generated in the pile (23 to 36 MPa) are well
within the limits recommended.

2) Based on AASHTO (1994), the recommended tension stress limit during

driving is 0.25 (fc’)1/2 + fpe = 9.2MPa for normal environments (criteria 1),
and tension stress limit of fpe = 7MPa for severe corrosive environments
(criteria 2). The maximum driving tension stress generated is less than criteria
1 but slightly exceeds criteria 2 at certain depths.

3) The integrity of the piles is satisfactory and the piles had no apparent damage.
 44

4.3.2 Pile drivability assessment by GRLWEAP software

There is need of pre assessment required on the drivability of spun piles to

avoid construction problem during driving of piles. GRLWEAP software was used to
obtain the theoretical stresses of these piles and compared with actual PDA results
obtained at site during driving. The stresses obtain from GRLWEAP software and
PDA test are compared and summarized as followed in table 4.10 below:

Table 4.10: Comparison of GRLWEAP and continuous PDA monitoring results

PILE-A PILE-B PILE-C

PDA GRL- PDA GRL- PDA GRL-
WEAP WEAP WEAP
Max. Compression 23 30 30 30 33 34
Stresses (MPa)
Max. Tension Stresses 6.2 1.1 8.5 1.5 9.1 0.9
(MPa)
Max. Ultimate Bearing 507 530 555 571 501 475
capacity (ton)

Further analysis carried in GRLWEAP using 10 Ton hammer to study the

drivability of piles using same soil properties and pile properties. Following is the
discussions arise from the GRLWEAP analysis results:

1) All the stresses developed in GRLWEAP are similar to the stresses developed
during pile driving. The actual compressive stresses and capacity picked up
by PDA is showing lesser than assessed by GRLWEAP software except for
capacity of Pile-C. The GRLWEAP software also determines the set criteria
required to achieve the designed load and length required.

2) The tensile stress developed in the GRLWEAP is too low if compare to the
tensile stress measured by PDA at site during pile driving.
 45

3) The further study carried out using 10 Ton hammer shows that the piles can
be driven with limited stresses in pile. However the piles can’t penetrate
certain soil layer due to the insufficient of hammer energy. This lead to the
lower working capacity of piles. Driving large diameter piles using 10 Ton
hammer will consume more time and will delay the construction progress.

All the GRLWEAP analysis results for 25Ton hammer, comparisons of PDA and
GRLWEAP and GRLWEAP results for 10 Ton hammer are appended in appendix F,
G and H respectively
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMANDATIONS

5.1 Conclusion

The results obtained from the analysis and assessment carried out and
discussion in chapter 4, the following can be concluded:

1) The correlation between ultimate shaft and base resistance and SPT-N value
is obtained based on the analysis instrumented test pile results in this study.
The following correlation can be used as design guideline for future driven
spun pile (closed ended) at this coastal area:

a. For the Soft Marine Clay with SPT-N value equal or lesser than 4
blows/300mm, ultimate shaft friction is

fsu = 12 to 20 kPa

b. For lower lying materials below soft clays with SPT-N value more
than 50 blows/300mm, ultimate shaft friction is

fsu = 2 x SPT ‘N’ (kPa), limited to 150 kPa

c. For the lower lying material below Soft Marine Clay, the ultimate end
bearing values correlate to about

fbu = (80 to120) x SPT ‘N’ (kPa), limited to 6000 kPa

 47

2) The large diameter spun piles are can be driven to set by driven method with
hydraulic hammer into deeper level without any integrity problem to the spun
piles.

3) The GRLWEAP analysis confirms the stresses developed in piles and shows
that large diameter spun pile can be driven using hydraulic hammer.

4) All the future large diameter spun pile at this coastal area can be design and
driven using GRLWEAP software as guideline.

5) The drivability of spun piles using different type of equipments also can be
tested in the GRLWEAP in advanced to avoid construction problem.

5.2 Recommendations

Although this study provide better understanding in load resistance behaviour

of spun piles in Coastal area, further study can be carried out to resolve few issues:

1) Further study on behaviour of different type of piles at coastal area and

correlation need to be develop and confirm the correlation from current study.

2) The tension stresses obtained at site during PDA test is significantly higher
than GRLWEAP result. Further studies can be carried out to resolve this
issue.

3) The correlation of base resistance is based on 3 piles only. More test piles
need to be carried out to obtain the reasonable correlation value for end
bearing.

4) The installation of instruments needs to be closely observed to avoid any

instruments failure after pile installation.
 REFERENCES

Australian Standard (1995). AS 2150-1995. Piling-Design and Installation. Standards

Association of Australia. NSW.

Bengt H. Fellenius (22 & 23 April 1998). Recent Advance in The Design of piles for
Axial Loads, Dragloads, Downdrag, and Settlement. ASCE and Port of NY&NJ
Seminar.

Bengt H. Fellenius (14-16 February 2002). Determining the True Distributions of Load
in Instrumented Piles. ASCE International Deep Foundation Congress.
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 116. Orlando, Florida.

Faisal Hj.Ali, Lee Sieng Kai (2007), A new instrumentation method for driven
prestressed spun concrete piles, EJGE

Fellinius B.G. (1980). The analysis of results from routine pile loading tests. Ground
Engineering, London, Vol. 13, No. 6.Fellinius B.G. (1989). Tangent modulus of
piles determined from strain data. The American Society of Civil Engineers,
ASCE, Geotechnical Engineering Division, the 1989 Foundation Congress, F. H.
Kulhawy, Editor, Vol. 1.

Fellinius B.G. (2001). From Strain Measurements to Load in an instrumented

Pile.Geotechnical News Magazine, Vol 19, No.1.
 49

Goble, G.G., Rausche, F., And Likins, G (1980). The Analysis of Pile Driving – A State
of the Art. Proc. Of the 1st International Conference on Application of
Stresswave Theory to Piles. Balkema, Stockholm Sweden.

Hannigan,P.J, Goble, G.G, Thendean, G., Likins, G.E and Rausche,F.(1998), Design and
construction of driven pile foundation, Volume 1 & 2, FHWA H1-97-013,
Washington D.C

Lymon C.Reese, William M. Isenhower, Shin-Tower Wang (2006) Shallow and Deep
Foundation, USA, John Wiley & Sons.

Patrick J Hannigan (1990) Dynamic Pile Monitoring and Analysis of Pile Foundation
Installations, Deep Foundations Institute.

Pile Dynamics, Inc (2000). Capwap for Window – Manual 2000. Ohio, USA. Page 2-1
to 2-2.

Poulos H.G. and Davis E.H. (1980). Pile Foundation Analysis and Design. Wiley &
Sons, New York. (reprinted by Krieger Publishing, Malabar, Florida, 1990).

Randolph M.F. and Wroth C.P. (1978). Analysis of deformation of vertically loaded
piles. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 104 (GT12).

Seed H. B., and Reese L. C. (1957). The Action of Soft Clay Along Friction Piles
Transactions. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, Vol 122.

U.S. Department Of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (1996).

Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations. Publication No. FHWA-
HI-96-003. Two volumes.

W.G.K Fleming et al (1992), Piling Engineering, Halsted press, John Wiley & Sons.
 APPENDIX A

SUBSOIL PROFILE
 51

PILE-A
 52

PILE-B
 53

PILE-C
 54

APPENDIX B

ANALYSIS OF INSTRUMENTED SPUN PILE

PILE-A
 55

INSTRUMENTATION SCHEME

PILE-A
 56

PILE – A
 57

PILE-A
58
59
 60

LOAD TRANSFER CURVES – PILE-A

61
62
 63

APPENDIX C

ANALYSIS OF INSTRUMENTED SPUN PILE

PILE-B
 64

INSTRUMENTATION SCHEME

PILE-B
 65

PILE-A
 66

PILE-B
67
68
 69

LOAD TRANSFER CURVES – PILE-B

70
71
 72

APPENDIX D

ANALYSIS OF INSTRUMENTED SPUN PILE

PILE-C
 73

PILE-C
 74

PILE-C
 75

PILE-C
76
77
 78

LOAD TRANSFER CURVES – PILE-C

79
80
 81

APPENDIX E

PDA CONTINUOUS MONITORING RESULTS

 82

PILE-A
 83

PILE-A
 84

PILE-A
 85

PILE-B
 86

PILE-B
 87

PILE-B
 88

PILE-C
 89

PILE-C
 90

PILE-C
 91

APPENDIX F

GRLWEAP RESULTS – 25 Ton Hammer

 92

PILE-A
 93

PILE-B
 94

PILE-C
 95

APPENDIX G

COMPARISON OF PDA AND GRLWEAP RESULTS

 96

PILE-A
 97

PILE-A
 98

PILE-A
 99

PILE-B
 100

PILE-B
 101

PILE-B
 102

PILE-C
 103

PILE-C
 104

PILE-C
 105

APPENDIX H

GRLWEAP RESULTS – 10 Ton Hammer

 106

PILE-A
 107

PILE-B
 108

PILE-C