Marine Bridge Substructure Construction Spun Pile: Main Span Pilecap Construction

Penang Second Bridge
Marine Bridge Substructure

Construction
 Spun Pile
 Main Span Pilecap Construction
by
Ir. Cheng Kim Bong

Senior Resident Engineer
MMSB Consult Sdn. Bhd.
Content
• Penang Second Bridge Alignment
• Type Of Piles
• Summary of Piles
• Pile Testing Locations
• Pile Testing of Spun Pile, Steel Pile & Bored Pile
 Spun Pile
• Spun Pile Detail
• Spun Pile Length
• Spun Pile PDA Test
• Spun Pile Test For BHT11 (P163)
• Mobilization Factor of Spun Pile
• Pile Head Damage Analysis
• Validation of Spun Pile
 Main Span Pilecap Construction
Penang Second Bridge
Penang Second Bridge Alignment
Type Of Piles
P0-P11 : Spun Pile P24-P27 : P28-P43 : Steel Pile P145-P282 : Spun Pile
P12-P23 : Steel Pile Bored Pile P44-P144 : Spun Pile P283-P292 : Bored Pile
Approach Span Main Span Approach Span Approach Span
P000 P023 P024 P027 P028 P144 P145 P292

Batu Maung Batu Kawan
Summary of Piles
Description Passed Pile Rejected Pile Total Pile

(Nos.) (Nos.) (Nos.)
Steel Pile (Ø1.6m) 368 - 368
Spun Pile (Ø1.0m) 5158+19* 10 5168+19*
Bored Pile (Ø2.3m-2.0m) 66 1 66+1 (P26-20 rejected)
Bored Pile (Ø1.5m) 80 - 80
* 19 nos. replacement spun piles P107-07 A & B, P102-12 A & B, P061-13 A & B,
P120-04 A & B, P122-07A & B, 8A, P137-7A & 7B, P193-21A & B, P9-17
A&B, P280-R15 A&B
Pile Testing Locations
BHT8 BHT9
BHT10
BHT7 BHT4
BHT6
BHT3&5
BHT2
BHT11
BHT1
BHT12
Pile Testing On Spun Pile, Steel Pile & Bored Pile
Pile Test No. Chainage Location Pile Type Working Total Test Total Not
(near to) Load (kN) Done Passed Conclusive
O-Cell Test BHT 3 CH 9+700 P161 Ø1.2m Steel Pile 5,800 1 1 -
O-Cell Test BHT 7 CH 2+688 P33 Ø1.6m Steel Pile 8,100 1 - 1
O-Cell Test BHT 9 CH 1+981 P25 Ø2.3~2.0m 25,500 1 - 1
Bored Pile
MLT & PDA BHT 1 CH 15+900 P273 Ø1.0m Spun Pile 3,800 1 1 -
MLT BHT 4 CH 3+500 P48 Ø1.0m Spun Pile 3,800 1 - 1
MLT & PDA BHT 3 CH 9+700 P161 Ø1.2m Steel Pile 5,800 1 1 -
Statnamic - CH 11+028 P185-L08 Ø1.0m Spun Pile 3,100 1 1 -
Statnamic BHT 11 CH 9+818 P163 Ø1.0m Spun Pile 3,720 1 1 -
MLT & (Statnamic BHT 12 CH 16+913 P292 Ø1.5m Bored Pile 8,000 1 - 1
on Anchor Pile)
MLT & (Statnamic BHT 8 CH 1+368 P15 Ø1.6m Steel Pile 7,210 1 1 -
on Anchor Pile)
Statnamic - CH 3+548 P49-R15 Ø1.0m Spun Pile 3,410 1 1 -
Statnamic - CH 1+980 P25-09 Ø2.0m Bored Pile 27,200 1 1 -
SPUN PILE
Spun Pile Detail
 ICP Spun Pile Sectional Details
Revised pile shoe

detail as per next
slide
SEE DETAIL “X”

Spun Pile Detail
 Pile Shoe Details
DETAILS OF PILESHOE
Spun Pile Detail
 Extension Joint
Spun Pile Detail
 Extension Joint
Spun Pile Detail
 4 Lifting Points of Spun Pile
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5
L= Pile Length L1 = 0.05L L2 = 0.28L L3 = 0.31L L4 = 0.23L L5 = 0.13L

* Average Pile Length is about 58.5m
Spun Pile Length
 Design Pile Length vs Actual Pile Length
Difference Between Design Pile Length & Actual

Pile Length
Description Total Pile 0 to 2m 2 to 5m > 5m
(Nos.)
Spun Pile 5187 4744 (92%) 329 (6%) 114 (2%)
(Ø1.0m)
Average Design Length = 58.67m

Average Nett Length = 57.28m
Average Cut-off Length = 1.38m (2.4%)
Spun Pile Length
 Bore Log Record For BHT 11 (near P163)
~ -55.00 SPT = 50
Spun Pile Length
 Design Pile Length vs Actual Pile Length
Pier Design Pile Design Toe Actual Toe Differences

Length (m) Level (m) Level (m)
P161 59 -57.62 to -58.42 -56.14 to -57.02 <2m
P162 58 -56.63 to -57.42 -55.13 to -55.95 <2m
P163 56 -54.66 to -55.42 -53.20 to -54.49 <2m
P164 55 -53.67 to -54.42 -52.17 to -52.97 <2m
P165 53 -51.70 to -52.42 -49.71 to -51.09 <2m
Spun Pile PDA Test
 PDA Test Summary
Description Initial Strike BTA Re-strike Total PDA

for Pile <80% Done
Integrity
Total (nos.) 331 8 396 735
 PDA Test Frequency
•At least two PDA to be carried out at a pair of pilecap :

i) PDA initial : to verify pile integrity
ii) PDA re-strike : to verify pile capacity
Spun Pile Test For BHT11 (P163)
 Objective Of Pile Load Test
• To determine the pile ultimate bearing capacity

• To determine the pile ultimate resistance at pile base
• To determine pile shaft skin friction parameter at each soil layer
• To determine correlation between Static Load Test, PDA & Statnamic
• To provide the basis for the revision of pile final set criteria
• To provide parameters for verification or modification basis for working pile
PDA analysis
• To obtain Load vs Settlement relationship
 PDA Test...
 Statnamic Test...
 Static Load Test...

Load Cell
 BHT 11 (P 163) Setting Up
Anchor Pile, Anchor Pile,

Pile Spun Pile Pile Design Toe Actual Toe
M2-1 M2-2
Length Level Level
M2-1 Ø1000mm 59m -57.0 -56.98
4m
M2-2 Ø1000mm 59m -56.0 -56.00
Reference Pile, Test Pile, S2
J2-1 Reference Pile, M2-3 Ø1000mm 59m -56.0 -55.97
J2-2 M2-4 Ø1000mm 59m -56.0 -55.95
4m J2-1 Ø1000mm 50m -46.5 -46.43

J2-2 Ø1000mm 50m -46.5 -46.41
S2 Ø1000mm 61m -57.0 -56.88
Anchor Pile, Anchor Pile,
M2-3 4m 4m M2-4
* Working load = 3720kN
 BHT 11 (P 163) Testing Process
Anchor Pile, M2-1 Test Pile, S2
PDA (EOD) PDA (EOD)

Min. 7 days after pile installation
Statnamic PDA (Restrike)

w/o instrumentation
Min. 28 days after pile installation
MLT
Min. 15 days after MLT
Statnamic
 Comparison of Static 2nd Cycle Static and Statnamic Load

Test Results
 Comparison of Static 2nd Cycle Nett Static and Statnamic

Load Test Results
 Comparison of Static and Statnamic Load Test Displacement

Table 1 : Comparison of Static & Statnamic Load Test Displacement
Table 2 : Comparison of 2nd Cycle Nett Static & Statnamic Load Test Displacement
• From Table 1, settlement recorded from Statnamic test for M2-1 at 2.0 WL is 5.14mm less than
Static test for S2
• From Table 2, settlement recorded from Statnamic test for M2-1 at 2.0 WL is 2.38mm less than
Static test for S2
 Summary – Comparison Between Statnamic & Static Load Test

 Comparison Between PDA & Static Load Test
Test Pile Penetrated Set Ultimate Initial Restrike Restrike / MLT / PDA
Pile Length Length (mm) Capacity of PDA PDA Initial Initial
(m) (m) MLT(kN) (kN) (kN)
S2 64 54.68 5.9 > 11,160 5150 10,800 2.10 >2.17
 - Summary – Comparison Between PDA & Static Load Test

• It can be observed the analytical results of PDA test are accurate verified by BHT11’s MLT
test result and can be concluded that the PDA test procedures are in order.
Mobilization Factor of Spun Pile
 M-Factor of Spun Pile Using PDA

• Major objective of PDA restrike test is to verify the pile capacity to satisfy the required
design capacity (2.5 times of working load)
• In order to verify the capacity of piles which no restrike test but only end of drive test
(EOD) was performed, recommended mobilization factor is proposed based on :
i) pile embedment
ii) pile toe founding layer
iii) total number of blow
• Mobilization factor of bearing capacity of a given pile can be obtained by dividing restrike
test capacity (Q2) by EOD test capacity (Q1)
 M-Factor vs Pile Embedment

Relationship Diagram Between Pile Embedment & Mobilization
Factor
3
2.5
Mobilization
2
Factor
1.5
0.5
0
40 45 50 55 60
LP (m)
 M-Factor vs Blow Count

Relationship Diagram Between Blow Count & Mobilization Factor
3
2.5
Mobilization
1.5
Factor
0.5
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Blow Count
 Mobilization vs Set
Relationship Diagram Between SET & Mobilization Factor
3
2.5
Mobilization
1.5
Factor
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
SET (mm)
 Mobilization vs Period
Relationship Diagram Between Period & Mobilization Factor
3
2.5
Mobilization
1.5
Factor
0.5
0
0 5 10 15
Period (Day)
 Recommended M-Factor of Spun Pile Using PDA

Conservative Considering
•According to the statistical result of comparison between M-factor and pile embedment,
final set and period, it is found that the effect of EOD set to M-factor is most dominant and
relatively obvious among the three factors considered.
• 98% of the restriked piles have penetration of 0.0mm. It is understood that most piles did
not achieve its maximum capacity during restrike test due to limited energy.
• From the data collected from tested working piles, the average M-factor is 1.77. On the
other hand, the M-factor for BHT 11 test pile is 2.17.
• Therefore, M-factor of 1.77 to 2.00 is a conservative engineering selection.
Recommended M-Factor
• Based on the abovementioned analysis and statistics, it is recommended to use M-factor
of 1.7 for spun pile.
Pile Head Damage Analysis
 Pile Head Damage Cases vs Month

14
13
12
11
10
9
Cases
8
7 Pile Head
6 Damage Cases
5 Total cases = 55
4
3
2
1
0 MayJuneJulyAugSepOct NovDec JanFebMarAprMayJuneJulyAugSepOct NovDecJanFebMarAprMayJuneJulyAugSep
09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Month
 % Pile Head Damage vs Monthly Progress

8%
7%
% Pile Head Damage
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
90
94
73
68
2
220
225
112
145
169
185
226
327
247
270
208
209
195
252
256
175
148
156
160
244
279
177
125
150
May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJune July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep
09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Monthly Progress (nos.)

 % Pile Head Damage vs Cumulative Piles Driven

1.59%
1.37%
% Pile Head Damage
1.14%
0.91%
0.68%
0.46%
0.23%
0.00%
220
310
535
629
741
814
959
1128
1313
1539
1866
2113
2383
2591
2800
2995
3247
3503
3571
3746
3894
4050
4210
4454
4733
4910
5035
5185
5187
May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJuneJuly Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep
09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Cumulative Piles Driven (nos.)

 List of Preventive Actions

No Actions Taken Remarks
1 QC on standard operating procedure •Mould inspection
with introduction of additional •Concrete feeding process
checklist (Spun pile production) •Spinning process
•Steam curing
•Staking yard
•More frequent checking on raw material
•Concrete cubes & cores strength
•Calibration certificates
2 QC on standard operating procedure •To replace hammer cushion once worn out
(Piling Operation) •Provide sufficient cushion materials
•Ensure hammer hits pile evenly and axially
•Reduce pile driving stresses by controlling hammer drop
height during hard driving
3 Factory visit, inspection and QAQC
procedure auditing at ICP factory
 – Other Stringent QAQC Measures
• Production data for each produced pile is recorded in In-process checklist.
• 2 hours waiting time was set aside for pile which has undergone spinning
process. On top of that, 8 hours of steam curing time is above the usual practice
of 5 hours.
• Audit to supplier raw material suppliers (sand, aggregate) was conducted on a

regular basis to ensure the conformity of material supplied.
• The allowable gap between end plates is only 2mm, which is much more
stringent than 5mm tolerance stated in MS1314: Part4:2004.
• Monthly inspection from CHEC & MMSB to ensure all piles produced to the
highest standard as stipulated in the Technical Requirements for Spun Pile.
 Other Stringent QAQC Measures
Welding facilities at ICP factory enable

us to overcome constraints of on-site
welding and reduce the possibility of
pile damage, which usually associate
with on-site welding. MIG wire was
used to ensure top quality welding work
was performed.
The welding quality of jointed pile was

further inspected with the use of
Magnetic Particle Test.
Top Beam Of Jacking Frame
Jack
Test Pile
Dial Gauges
Support Support
Pile Bending Test (MS1314 Part 2:2004)

Pile Bending Test

 List of Investigation Actions
No. Actions Taken Remarks

1 Thorough investigation involving ICP’s
R&D department
2 Additional tests been carried out •Petrographic examination
•X-ray diffraction (XRD)
3 Additional PDA tests been carried out •P160 (10nos)
•P121-P123 (18 nos)
 Comments On Additional Test Results
•Raw material testing found comply to requirement

•Petrographic examination & XRD found satisfactory except
some air and water voids
•Additional PDA test results shown no pile integrity problem
 Repair Method For Pile Head Damage
Carry out pile head strengthening work (with carbon fiber & ICP method)
PDA Test
Coring Test
PDA & coring test result found satisfactory
Pile considered acceptable

Validation of Spun Pile
 Validation Process
Piling work done in accordance with :
Pile Certification Report
- Approved construction drawing
-PDA test report
- Set criteria Pile Driving Record
- PDAR if required
- HPDI revised pile length confirmation
- SOR / NCR closure if any
- Shop drawing (if any changes)
Pile Cutting
 Set Criteria
 Piling Record
H>2m
 PDA Result
> 80%
> 2.5 x WL
 Pile Driving Acceptance Record (PDAR)

• PDAR is required when the different between design toe level and actual toe level
> 2m.
• The pile is considered acceptable if :
- Pile capacity shown in PDA test > 2.5WL
- Pile integrity, BTA value in PDA test > 80%
BTA value classification:
i) 100 % : Uniform. No apparent anomaly was detected
ii) 80-99% : Minor anomaly. Relatively minor impedance reduction detected
iii) 60-79% : Moderate anomaly. Relatively moderate impedance reduction detected
iv) <60% : Major anomaly. Relatively major impedance reduction detected
 Pile Driving Acceptance Record (PDAR)

 Pile Certification Report

Cost Comparison For Different Types Of Pile Foundation
Average Number / Economic

Diameter
Pile Type Length Pier Rate
(m) (m) - -
PHC 1.0 53m 10 1.00
Driven
Spun Pile
Driven 1.6 83m 6 2.87
Steel Pile
Bored Pile 1.5 105m 4 3.62
Main Span
Pilecap Construction
Main Span Pilecap Construction
 Main Span Structure Location
P24
P25
P26
P27
Main Navigation Span
 Span Length
p26
p25
p27
p24 117.5 m
240 m
117.5 m
150 m
Navigation
Navigation ChannelChannel
 Pylon Detail
30m
5m
 General Description
• Main Span arrangement : 117.5m – 240m – 117.5m

• Cable at 6m (typical) spacing
• Deck constructed by cast-insitu balanced cantilever method
• Deck post-tensioned longitudinally and transversely
• The structure design service life is 120 years.
 P25 & P26 Pilecap Layout
17.5m
48.1m
6m
 P25 & P26 Steel Fender Layout

 P24 & P27 Steel Fender Layout

 Steel Fender Cross Section
STEEL FENDER steel fender
P025 & P026 P024 & P027

 Construction Flow Chart

Clearing of formwork
platform
Demarcation of
platform Discharge seawater, load
Installation of supporting transfer
brackets and bearing beams Fabrication of rebar
onshore
Platform clearing and 1st
Installation of hydraulic stage rebar fixing
jacks
Installation of 1st stage 3m thk. pilecap
Hydraulic jacks in operation platform concreting
operation
Construction joint
Remove corbels below Fabrication of rebar
platform onshore
2nd stage rebar fixing
Installation of steel fender
Platform leveling and 2nd stage 3m thk. pilecap
verticality check concreting
Lower down formwork to
design level
Mass concrete casting

 Mechanism Of Lowering Down Steel Fender

 Mechanism Of Lowering Down Steel Fender

 Hydraulic Jack Arrangement
Steel
St eelCasing
case Steel
St eelCasing
case
 Steel Fender Installation

 Lowering Mechanism Installation

 Steel Fender At Design Level

 Lean Concrete Casting

 Transferring Of Support System

The transferring of supporting system will be carried out after water is
pumped out from mass concrete and before proceeding for installation
of 1st layer pilecap reinforcement.
+3.48m
-3.32m
-5.12m
Corbels as loading transferring points of hanging rods

 Concreting Of Pilecap
+3.48m
+2.68m
the
2nd Layer
ndsecond layer concrete
2 Layer the second layer concrete
of the pilecap(3.0m)
(2.0m)
(3.0m) steel fender

+0.68m
1sttheLayer
first layer concrete of
steel fender (2.0m)
the pilecap(2.0m)
-1.32m
st Layer
1the second layer concrete
(3.0m) Mass
mass Concrete
concrete(1.2m)
-2.52m
(1.2m)
Mass Concrete
mass concrete(1.8m)
(1.8m)
P024 & P027

P025 & P026
 Temperature Control
JKR Specification
NO. Items Requirement
1 Placing Temperature ≤ 36℃
2 Maximum Internal Temperature ≤ 70℃
3 Maximum Temperature Gradient ≤27.7℃
4 Rise rate in Temperature ≤ 10℃/30min

 Temperature Control Measures
• Low heat cement (Portland Pulverised-Fuel Ash Cement) to be

used
• Additive like GGBS and silica fume are added to the design mix
to minimize the cement content
• Water cooling pipe with cycling of ice water and thermocoupler

to be embedded in the concrete
 Cooling Pipe System
Water boat
Thermocoupler
Cooling pipe
 Temperature Monitoring For P24 & P27



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Ambient Tempt.
Peak Temperature
80
70
Temperature/ ℃
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time/h
Thank You

Marine Bridge Substructure Construction Spun Pile: Main Span Pilecap Construction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marine Bridge Substructure Construction Spun Pile: Main Span Pilecap Construction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Penang Second Bridge

Marine Bridge Substructure

Ir. Cheng Kim Bong

Approach Span Main Span Approach Span Approach Span

P000 P023 P024 P027 P028 P144 P145 P292

Description Passed Pile Rejected Pile Total Pile

 ICP Spun Pile Sectional Details

Revised pile shoe

SEE DETAIL “X”

 Pile Shoe Details

 4 Lifting Points of Spun Pile

L= Pile Length L1 = 0.05L L2 = 0.28L L3 = 0.31L L4 = 0.23L L5 = 0.13L

 Design Pile Length vs Actual Pile Length

Difference Between Design Pile Length & Actual

Average Design Length = 58.67m

 Bore Log Record For BHT 11 (near P163)

 Design Pile Length vs Actual Pile Length

Pier Design Pile Design Toe Actual Toe Differences

 PDA Test Summary

Description Initial Strike BTA Re-strike Total PDA

 PDA Test Frequency

•At least two PDA to be carried out at a pair of pilecap :

 Objective Of Pile Load Test

• To determine the pile ultimate bearing capacity

 Static Load Test...

 BHT 11 (P 163) Setting Up

Anchor Pile, Anchor Pile,

4m J2-1 Ø1000mm 50m -46.5 -46.43

 BHT 11 (P 163) Testing Process

Anchor Pile, M2-1 Test Pile, S2

PDA (EOD) PDA (EOD)

Statnamic PDA (Restrike)

 Comparison of Static 2nd Cycle Static and Statnamic Load

 Comparison of Static 2nd Cycle Nett Static and Statnamic

 Comparison of Static and Statnamic Load Test Displacement

 Summary – Comparison Between Statnamic & Static Load Test

 Comparison Between PDA & Static Load Test

 - Summary – Comparison Between PDA & Static Load Test

 M-Factor of Spun Pile Using PDA

 M-Factor vs Pile Embedment

 M-Factor vs Blow Count

 Recommended M-Factor of Spun Pile Using PDA

 Pile Head Damage Cases vs Month

 % Pile Head Damage vs Monthly Progress

Monthly Progress (nos.)

 % Pile Head Damage vs Cumulative Piles Driven

Cumulative Piles Driven (nos.)

 List of Preventive Actions

 – Other Stringent QAQC Measures

• Production data for each produced pile is recorded in In-process checklist.

• Audit to supplier raw material suppliers (sand, aggregate) was conducted on a

 Other Stringent QAQC Measures

Welding facilities at ICP factory enable

The welding quality of jointed pile was

 Other Stringent QAQC Measures

Top Beam Of Jacking Frame

Pile Bending Test (MS1314 Part 2:2004)

 Other Stringent QAQC Measures

Pile Bending Test

 List of Investigation Actions

No. Actions Taken Remarks

 Comments On Additional Test Results