technical note

A simple stability check for piling rigs

David Corke, director, DCProjectSolutions

Introduction
Although manufacturers have to
design piling rigs to comply with
Eurocode minimum stability
requirements, this cannot simulate
rig behaviour on all sites with a range
of working platform conditions
and all possible combinations of
operation and loading.
Cranes are generally equipped
with safe load indicators, but for
piling rigs, due to their variable
geometry and relatively complex
modes of operation, there has only
been a limited application of such
devices for specific types of use,
such as some driven piling.
Electronic systems for
monitoring and safely controlling
piling rig operations are becoming
more available, but may be an
optional item rather than being
fitted as standard. At present, there
is no available simple means of
checking rig stability for site specific
operations. This paper presents the
Rig Stability Factor as a proposed
solution.
Overturning of a piling rig may
be caused by inadequate bearing
capacity of the working platform
provided. However, a combination
of the rig configuration and Eurocodes BS EN 996:1995 that must be complied with by requirements for drilling and
excessive loading applied by +A3:2009, Piling Equipment. the rig manufacturers. These two foundation equipment.
winches or hydraulic rams may also Safety requirements; and BS EN Eurocodes are currently being The Eurocodes require that
result in a rig overturning, without 791:1995+A1:2009, Drill Rigs – redrafted into a single combined operational manuals provided
any bearing capacity failure of the Safety, set out requirements for document with the purpose with each rig include information
working platform. stability of piling and drilling rigs of specifying common safety on loading and stability, but

300 Maximum track load

Characteristic loading (kN/sq m)

Minimum track load

400
Track load (kN)

250

200 300 All load is on this track

when the rig body is at 90o
to the axis of the tracks
150
200
No load is on this track
100 when the rig body is at 90o
to the axis of the tracks
100 ie the track is about to lift
50 off the ground

0 0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Angle of rig body to axis of tracks (deg) Angle of body to axis of tracks (deg)

Figure 1: Characteristic track loading for penetrating. Figure 2: Track loads for penetrating.
BRE load case 2 BRE load case 2

ground engineering september 2011 45

Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers
Geotechnical Engineering 161
December 2008 Issue GE6
Pages 279–281
doi: 10.1680/geng.2008.161.6.279
Paper 14201 J. A. Charles D. Corke
Keywords:
design methods & aids/piles &
piling/temporary works
Briefing: Working platforms for tracked plant
J. Andrew Charles, Building Research Establishment, UK, David Corke, DCProject Solutions, UK
(previously Bachy Soletanche) and Hilary D. Skinner, Ramboll Whitbybird, UK (previously BRE)
If a piling rig overturns there can be a risk of casualties.
Working platforms are critical for plant stability, and a
good practice guide to the design, installation,
maintenance and repair of ground-supported working
platforms for tracked plant has been prepared. A
simplified approach to the design calculations has been
based on a punching shear failure mechanism. The
platform design is an integrated package, from track
loading through to geotechnical design.
NOTATION
cu undrained shear strength of cohesive subgrade
D depth of platform material
Kp tan
punching shearing resistance coefficient
L effective track length of plant
Nc bearing capacity factor for cohesive subgrade
Nªp bearing capacity factor for granular platform
material
R bearing resistance
Rc bearing resistance of cohesive subgrade when no
platform is present
Rp bearing resistance of working platform when
platform is sufficiently deep that bearing
resistance is unaffected by underlying cohesive
subgrade
sc , sp and sª shape factors; functions of W and L
W track width of the plant
ªp bulk unit weight of platform material
9 angle of shearing resistance of granular material
1. INTRODUCTION
Working platforms are critical for plant stability, and while
most ground-supported working platforms perform well,
overturning of rigs has occurred more frequently than it should.
Although serious incidents involving working platforms are
relatively rare, when they do occur there can be a risk of
casualties. A good practice guide for ground-supported working
platforms for tracked plant has been prepared at the instigation
of the Federation of Piling Specialists (FPS). A contract was let
by FPS to the Building Research Establishment Ltd (BRE) to
prepare the guide under the direction of a Steering Group
appointed by FPS. The guide was published in June 2004. 1
The principal objective of the guide is to facilitate the design,
specification, installation, operation, maintenance and repair of
Geotechnical Engineering 161 Issue GE6 Briefing
H. D. Skinner
ground-supported working platforms constructed of granular
material, so that an acceptable level of safety is achieved. A
secondary objective of the guide is that safety should be
achieved without unnecessary or excessive expenditure.
The guide is not intended to replace or reduce the designer’s
input, but rather to promote the implementation of minimum
design, installation and maintenance standards. The guidance
has sought to avoid being over-prescriptive, as this might limit
the scope for innovative solutions, and does not in any way
limit the responsibilities of those parties involved in the
provision and operation of a working platform, who must
exercise their own knowledge, experience and judgement.
2. GOOD PRACTICE GUIDANCE
Following an introductory chapter, the guide has four chapters
that deal with, respectively, site conditions, design, installation
and, finally, operation, maintenance and repair.
The strength of the near-surface ground is critical for the
design of the working platform, whereas for most construction
projects it is the strength at greater depths that is important.
The near-surface strength is unlikely to have been determined
in the site investigation for the construction project, and it may
be necessary to augment information obtained for the
construction project with further investigation specifically for
the working platform. The desk study and site inspection are
critically important, and should be carried out with the
platform in mind; it is particularly important to locate any
weak and variable areas. Care must be taken in backfilling trial
pits to avoid creating additional hazards.
The design of a working platform is a geotechnical design
process, and should be carried out by a competent engineer
who has full access to the health and safety plan, including the
desk study and all other site investigation information. The
quality of the granular platform material is crucial, and it
should be such that all the performance requirements, in terms
of compactibility, durability, trafficability and drainage, can be
met. Materials that will undergo significant crushing when
trafficked should be avoided for works of any significant
duration, because drainage may be impaired. Sometimes it may
be economic to incorporate geosynthetics to strengthen the
working platform as an alternative to using a greater depth of
granular material. A separating geofabric between a clay
Charles et al. 279
expression is obtained for the bearing resistance of a platform
on a cohesive subgrade with a low water table. Rp
Granular material alone
cuNcsc
5
ªp D2
1 R ¼ cu Nc sc þ K p tan
sp
W

4
There are two limiting conditions.

(a) When D ¼ 0, the bearing resistance is simply that of the

R
cohesive subgrade 3
cuNcsc

2 Rc ¼ cu Nc sc
2

(b) When D is large, the bearing resistance is simply that of

the platform material when unaffected by the underlying
Rc
clay layer 1 Subgrade alone
cuNcsc

3 Rp ¼ 0:5ªp WNªp sª
Equation 1 used in conjunction with the limiting values given
in Equations 2 and 3 indicates an increase in bearing resistance
(R) with increasing depth of the platform (D), as illustrated in
Figure 3 for some typical conditions. The graph
is in the form of a dimensionless plot of bearing resistance,
R/(cu Nc sc ), against platform depth and loaded width (D/W).
When the platform depth D ¼ 0, the bearing resistance is a
minimum, corresponding to the subgrade alone, Rc /(cu Nc sc ) (see
Equation 2); when D is large (corresponding to a very thick
platform) the maximum bearing resistance is that provided by
an infinite depth of platform material, Rp /(cu Nc sc ) (see
Equation 3). For the conditions that apply in Figure 3, the
latter state is reached when D/W ¼ 2.5 and Rp /(cu Nc sc ) ¼ 5.6.
Between these two limits the bearing resistance of the
combined system can be determined using Equation 1.
The guide recommends values for the punching shear
coefficient, Kp tan
, for a range of 9 as well as shape factors
for this coefficient and for the subgrade bearing resistance.
A simple addition to the capacity of the platform is suggested
to take account of the effect of geosynthetic reinforcement.
This approach to the calculation of the required depth of the
working platform contains many simplifying assumptions,
which cannot fully represent actual soil behaviour. The method
described in the guide has been calibrated against other design
methods for strip loadings and the experience of FPS members.
However, the results of calculations should be critically
0
0 1 2 3
D
W
Fig. 3. Typical increase in bearing resistance (R) with
increasing depth of platform (D) for well compacted granular
platform material on soft clay subgrade
appraised by an appropriately experienced engineer, and in
situations where the routine design calculations are not
appropriate it may be necessary to carry out more sophisticated
forms of analysis.
REFERENCES
1. BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT. Working Platforms for
Tracked Plant: Good Practice Guide to the Design,
Installation, Maintenance and Repair of Ground-Supported
Working Platforms. Building Research Establishment,
Watford, 2004, BR470.
2. MEYERHOF G. G. The bearing capacity of foundations under
eccentric and inclined loads. Proceedings of 3rd
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Zurich, 1953, 1, 440–445.
3. FOUNDOUKOS M. and JARDINE R. J. The effect of eccentric
loading on the bearing capacity of shallow foundations.
Proceedings of BGA International Conference on
Foundations: Innovations, Observations, Design and
Practice, Dundee, 2003, pp. 297–305.

What do you think?

To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, academics and students. Papers
should be 2000–5000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/journals for author
guidelines and further details.

Geotechnical Engineering 161 Issue GE6 Briefing Charles et al. 281


4 CASE STUDIES
4.1 Crossrail C310 North Woolwich, London
Crossrail is Europe’s largest construction project
with £19 billion invested to help improve the capi-
tal’s rail infrastructure. Based on the provided infor-
mation by Hochtief Murphy JV, The North Wool-
wich Portal constructed as part of Contract C310 in
East London by Hochtief Murphy JV provides a
structure for the reception of the Tunnel Boring Ma-
chines (TBM) for the Thames tunnel driving from
Plumstead and a transition from the over ground to
the underground sections of Crossrail. A working
platform was required to safely support various Pil-
ing Rigs and associated plant within the North
Woolwich Portal over a length of 200 m for the con-
struction of the Diaphragm Walls, Secant CFA Piling
Walls and Rotary Bored piles
The ground profile varies across the area of work-
ing platforms. The upper crust comprises Made
Ground mainly granular material, underlain by allu-
vial clay and peat of variable thicknesses. Due to the
site constraints the existing Made Ground layer was
required to be excavated to achieve the necessary
head room for the piling operation and other site ac-
tivities. So the piling platform was required to be
constructed on the alluvium clay foundation which
can be described as a very soft to firm dark grey
slightly sandy clay. Based on the soil test results, an
undrained shear strength of 15 kN/m2 for alluvial
clay and peat material was adopted for the working
platform design. The design approach given in
BR470 is not applicable where the undrained shear
strength is less than 20 kN/m2. Thus an alternative
approach was required to be adopted to provide sta-
ble, safe and economical working platform. In 2012
the JV commissioned Tensar International to carry
out the stabilised working platform design. Extensive
research background for the stabilised granular mate-
rial with hexagonal geogrids and years of experience
in similar conditions meant that an alternative to the
BR470 analysis method could be adopted. Load
spread approach through the Mechanically Stabilised
Layer (MSL) was adopted to assess the thickness of
working platform over a challenging ground and
loading conditions. These rigs induced high track
loads including a Load Case 2 equivalent UDL pres-
sure of 355kPa. The MSL with three layers of hexag-
Dalwadi and Dixon
onal geogrids was proposed and constructed using
the available recycled granular fill (6F5 Capping). In
this instance, site conditions dictated that the MSL
layer incorporated a non-woven geotextile separator
placed directly below the bottom layer of geogrid on
the formation to provide the additional function of
separation, to control any upward migration of fines.
The upper 300 mm thick granular material was re-
placed with rolled concrete in accordance with the
client’s requirement. It was acknowledged by the
construction team that despite the presence of very
low strength soils and high rig loadings, the working
platform designed with load transfer approach and
stabilised with hexagonal geogrid was extremely sta-
ble and performed as required.
Bottom layer of hexagonal stabilizing geogrid placed on
top of geotextile separator
4.2 Stoke Quay, Ipswich
An apartment block and town house development
was planned at Stoke Quay, Ipswich, UK. The
apartment required an 18,000 sq.m. piled foundation
as the ground conditions were very poor. The cleared
site which has had several former uses was covered
with a layer of made ground underlain by sand and
gravel glacial deposits on geological strata. The made
ground could be regarded as cohesive having un-
drained shear strength of 30 kPa and granular made
ground with angle of internal friction of 28-30 de-
gree. The ground water regime was locally tidal and
considered at 1 m depth for design.
An initial design assessment was carried out ac-
cording to BR 470 guidelines with and without struc-
tural geosynthetics. The proposed thickness for non-
stabilised platform and with geosynthetic reinforce-
ment (Refer- figure 6) having short term tensile
strength (T ult) of 30 kN/m was 1135 mm and 900
mm respectively. A working platform thickness in
range of 1 m was considered uneconomical and time
1399

REFERENCES
BR470- Working platforms for tracked plant, 2004
Use of ‘structural geosynthetic reinforcement’– A BRE review
seven years on, BRE2011
Jenner C.G.,Watts, G.R.A, Blackman and The performance of re-
inforced unpaved sub-bases subjected to trafficking
Dalwadi and Dixon
Watts K. & Jenner C.G. (2008) Large scale Laboratory Assess-
ment of Geogrids to reinforced Granular Working platforms, proc
4th European Geosysnthetics Conf. Edinburgh 2008.
European Technical Approval ETA12/0530, Report number KI-
WA K76041 issued by Kiwa Nederland B.V.
Tensar Case Study reference-Ref 319 for Stoke
Quay_Ipswich_Piling_Platform
Tensar Case Study reference Ref 344 for Crossrail Working Plat-
form.
1401