Hulme2012 Paper1

Report for TUCSS THE HULME 2012 Competition by Er.
Kee Ching Guan
REPORT ON THE EFFECTS OF THE

BASE GROUTING / DCM ON
DEEP FOUNDATION BORED PILES
AT
MARINA BAY
BUSINESS FINANCIAL CENTRE
Report Submitted by:
--------------------
Er. KEE CHING GUAN
IC: S7975339D
P.Eng. (S'pore), Grad.Eng. (M'sia),
MIES, MSSSS-StEr, Grad.IEM,
B.Eng. (Hons, NTU, S'pore),
M.Sc. (Geot. Eng., NTU, S'pore)
A Report Presented to the TUCSS for the
THE HULME PRIZE 2012 COMPETITION
31 July 2012
1
Report for TUCSS THE HULME 2012 Competition by Er. Kee Ching Guan
ABSTRACT
The author would like to submit his report on one of the project involved in his
engineering life. The project is at Marina Bay Business Financial Centre. The
author would describe his involvement in this project. The focus of this report
would describe the author’s analysis on the instrumented test piles results for the
deep foundation bored piles. The effects of base grouting and Deep Cement Mixing
(DCM) on the pile performance would be described. Encouraging results are
presented and the outcome of the analysis could help in the improvement of the
deep foundation Bored Pile design in Singapore.
2
ABSTRACT 2
CONTENT 3
EFFECT S OF BASE GROUTING ON PILES AT

MARINA BAY BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL CENTRE 4
Introduction of Project 4
Problem Analysis 5
Design and Development of Solutions 11
Back analysis and interpretation of the ultimate load tests rests 16
- Effects of base grouting 16
- Effects of improved soil layer 21
- Effects of construction method 23
Quality control & quality assurance for construction of bored piles 25
- Verification of pile performance of working piles 28
Evaluation of Outcomes and Impacts 33
Responsibility for Decisions 34
Managing Engineering Activities 34
Exercising Sound Judgement 41
Communication 41
CONCLUSION 42
3
EFFECT S OF BASE GROUTING ON PILES AT

MARINA BAY BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL CENTRE
Introduction of Project
Marina Bay Business and Financial Centre (MBFC) is one of the most iconic
project in Singapore. The author was very grateful that he was able to involve in
this large scale civil engineering works. The author was assigned as a Senior Civil
Engineer with the reputable civil engineering contractor, Tiong Seng Contractors
(Pte) Ltd (TSC). The scope of the construction works, which cost S$100 millions
and undertaken by TSC are:
¾ Deep foundation works (bored piles)

¾ Retaining walls (contiguous bored piles & secant piles)
¾ Soil improvement (deep cement mixing and jet grouting piles)
¾ Geotechnical instrumentation
¾ A&A to the existing Common Services Tunnel
The project involves residential development and commercial development.

Residential development which include 3 high rise tower blocks and 2 podiums.
The author was the Engineer-In-Charge and he has to manage the site execution of
the engineering works and to handle technical issues together with the consultants
and authorities. Design and confirmation of the founding depths for the foundation
bored piles were also his major duty in this project. The author has to work together
with the six geotechnical engineers, who were reported to him.
4
Problem Analysis
The proposed site is located at the marina bay area, which has one of the most
difficult geological formations in Singapore. In this project, about 85 numbers of
soil investigation bore holes had been carried out by the SI company, Moh &
Associates as shown. Generally, the formation comprises reclaimed sand/hydraulic
sand fill, upper marine clay, fluvial layer, lower marine clay and old alluvium. Part
of the Tower 2 is located within the area of existing seawalls. The site is next to the
Marina Bay Basin and surrounded by the existing Common Services Tunnel (CST).
The existing MRT North-South Line (NSL) is also passing through Tower 2 and
Phase 3. Both the geological formation and the strategic location determine the
challenges and difficulties for the project.
Generally, the construction sequences are:
¾ Stage 1: Installed geotechnical instruments, such as inclinometers, water

stand pipes, piezometers, vibration meters, prisms and ground settlement
markers.
¾ Stage 2: Installed DCM (If there is, all areas have DCM except R1 &
Podium block at Residential Development).
¾ Stage 3: Coring for grouted DCM layers after 28 days.
¾ Stage 4: Installed bored piles and retaining wall (secant piles & contiguous
bored piles).
5
Layout plan for MBFC
6
Organisation chart for TSC at MBFC
7
Soil investigation bore holes location at MBFC
8
EGL ~ RL 103.500m
Layer 1 - Fill material, Very loose to Thickness ~ 10 to 25m,

medium dense hydraulic sand fill N≤30
Layer 2A - Very soft to soft marine Thickness ~ 10 to 15m,

clay (upper marine clay) N≤4
Layer 3 - Loose to medium dense Thickness ~ 5m,

silty sand / clay (Fluvial material) N≤4
Layer 2B - Soft to stiff marine clay Thickness ~ 5m,

(lower marine clay) N≤15
Layer 4 - Medium dense clayey to

Thickness ~ 0 to 10m,
silty sand and stiff to very stiff silty
10≤N≤30
to sandy clay (Old Alluvium)
Layer 5A - Dense, silty sand and

hard, silty to sand clay with some
30<N≤50
gravels (Old Alluvium)
Layer 5B - Very dense, clayey to

silty sand and hard, silty to sandy
50<N≤100
clay (Old Alluvium)
Layer 6 - Very dense, silty sand and

Thickness (>>40m)
very hard, silty to sandy clay and
N>100
sandy silt (Old Alluvium)
Depth (m)
General geological formation for MBFC
9
In this report, bored piles were only discussed. Bored piles were the first
engineering works commenced in this project at Residential Development since
there was no basement and no soil improvement was required in this area. In this
project, the geotechnical design for the bored piles is the responsibility of TSC. This
was clearly stated in the contract specifications as “The contractor shall be solely
responsible for the geotechnical design and installation of working piles which
shall support the specified loads with appropriate factor of safety”. Therefore, it
was important to come out the design calculations with the reasonable and
agreeable parameters.
The total numbers of the bored piles in this project. Dia 1800mm bored piles are
designed for the tower blocks and dia 800mm to dia 1200mm are used for the
podium blocks and basement carparks. An appropriate method to construct the deep
foundation with quality control and quality assurance is also very crucial to ensure
that the piles are safe to support the skyscrapers and to complete the project on time.
Area Dia 1800mm 800 to 1200 mm Total

bored piles bored piles
R1 & Podium 112 120 232
Tower 1 & 4A Podium 107 95 202
Tower 2 & 4B Podium 207 115 322
3A & 3B Basement Carparks 0 269 269
Parcel A7 UPN 0 30 30
Total 426 629 1055
Numbers of foundation bored piles at MBFC
10
Design and Development of Solutions
In order to handle such large extent of the bored piling works at MBFC, a
systematic approach in the design and construction was required to be established
prior commencement of works.
Firstly, design equations and assumed design parameters have been discussed and
agreed with the C&S Consultant, Meinhardt (Singapore) Pte Ltd (MSPL), and
specialist contractors, Resource Piling Pte Ltd (RPPL) and KH Foges Pte Ltd (KH).
In this project, the author was very grateful to work with the following professional
personnel.
¾ MSPL: Er. Kam Mun Wai, Dr. Junied Qureshi (Qualified Person’s
representatives)
¾ TSC: Prof. Harry Tan (TSC’s specialist consultant), Er. Lim Kim Chai & Er.
Dr. Indra ( TSC’s consultants)
¾ RPPL: Er. Foo Hee Kang (Professional Engineer from the specialist
contractor)
¾ KH: Er. Dr. IH Wong (KH’s specialist consultant)
The geotechnical design for the bored pile is:
Qs ,ult f s As
Case 1: Q p ≥ =
2 .0 2 .0
Qs ,ult + Q p ,ult f s As + f p Ap
Case 2: Q p ≥ =
2 .5 2.5
Qs , psf f s , psf As , psf
Case 3: Q p ≥ ( − ηQs ,nsf ) = ( − ηf s ,nsf As , psf )
1 .5 1 .5
Where Qp = working capacity the pile;
Qs,ult = ultimate skin resistance (kN)
11
fs = ultimate skin friction (kN/m2)

As = Circumference area (m2)
Qp,ult = ultimate base resistance (kN)
fp = ultimate end bearing (kN/m2)
Qs, psf = positive skin resistance below the neutral point (kN)
Qs,nsf = downdrag forces or negative skin friction (kN)
η = mobilisation factor for downdrag forces
The bored piles depth has to be designed to satisfy all the three cases. The assumed
design parameters are shown below:
¾ Ultimate skin friction, fs = 2N for soil with SPT N <100 and fs = 300kN/m2
for soil with SPT N>100;
¾ Ultimate end bearing, fp = 7000kN/m2;
¾ Negative skin friction, fs,nsf = β x σv', where β = 0.35 for sand and β = 0.22
for marine clay.
In order to verify and confirm the design parameters are reasonably correct and
reliable. Six numbers of instrumented ultimate load tests had been conducted in
MBFC, i.e. 2 numbers for dia 1500mm piles, 1 number for dia 1000mm pile and 3
numbers for dia 1200mm piles. The load transfer curves for all the six ultimate load
tests are shown. The summaries of results of the instrumented pile loading tests are
tabulated.
12
R1-UTP01, Dia
A2-UTP03, Dia
A2-UTP01, Dia
A2-UTP02, Dia
A4-UTP01 (Additional),
Dia 1200mm
A4-UTP01, Dia
Ultimate load tests plan at MBFC
13
Load Transfer Curves for Ultimate Load Test Piles

at Marina Bay Financial Centre
Load (kN)
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000

0
DCM
5
contribute
7000kN or R1 - UTP01 (Dia 1500mm,
1.3WL base grouted)
10
DCM
A2-UTP01 (Dia 1200mm,
Layer
base grouted)
15

base grouted)
20

non-base grouted)
25

30 non-base grouted)
Depth (m)
A4-UTP01 (Additional, Dia

35 1200mm, non-base grouted)
40
45
50
55
60
65
Fig. 1 Load transfer curves for the ultimate load tests at MBFC
14
Pile Top
Pile Top Maximum
Settlement Mean Undrained Mobilised
Pile Maximum Within Settlement Elastic Mobilised Mean
Pile Pile (mm) at Residual Elastic Pile Toe Effective Shear End
Date of Sequence of Working Test Load Stabilising Base improved (mm) at Shortening / β= α=
Pile Ref. Length Dimension Pile Construction maximum Settlement Shortening Settlement Stratum Skin SPT N- Stress, σ ' fs/N Remarks
Testing Testing Load ( kN / Fluid Grouting soil layer 2 x WL , Pile Top v fs/σv' Strength, cu fs/cu Bearing, fp
(m) (mm) load , (mm) (mm) (mm) Friction, fs Value
(kN) x WL) (DCM) % of Pile Settlement (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (kN/m2)
Dimension
% of Pile (kN/m2)
Dimension
Layer 5B, very dense silty sand

34780 Constructed with 23.5m long 21.63 30.63 45 65 470.00 0.69 0.10 NA NA NA
with SPT N ~ 50 to 100
temporary casing to protect Skin friction fully
October-06 1 R1-UTP01 60.8 1500 13250 the loose and medium dense Polymer Yes No 9.00 23.17 75.7% 7.46 mobilised. End bearing
sand, boring bucket and slightly mobilised.
cleaning bucket under water. Layer 6, hard silty sand with
2.62 1.4% 2.0% 556 100 564.00 5.56 0.99 NA NA 2829.00
SPT N >100
Layer 5B, very dense silty sand

26710 Constructed with 31.5m long 20.75 38.63 175 70 478.00 2.50 0.37 NA NA NA
temporary casing to protect Skin friction fully
November-06 2 A2-UTP01 54.7 1200 8450 the loose and medium dense Polymer Yes No 12.75 25.34 65.6% 13.29 mobilised. End bearing
sand, boring bucket and substantially mobilised.
Layer 6, very dense and hard
3.16 cleaning bucket under water. 1.7% 3.2% 924 100 541.00 9.24 1.71 NA NA 5684.00
sandy clay with SPT N >100
DCM Layer within existing DCM layer contributed

sand fill layer (Marine Clay 375 NA NA NA NA 350.00 0.93 NA about 7000kN or 40% of
Constructed with 11.3m
Yes start from 16m onwards) the test load (1.3 times
18680 short casing, using bentonite 5.375 11.25
(from 9m WL). Therefore, skin
slurry to stabilise the loose Layer 5B, very dense silty sand
July-07 5 A2-UTP02 49.9 1000 5750 Bentonite Yes to 16m 0.88 11.25 100.0% 0.00 38 50 380.00 0.75 0.10 NA NA NA friction at the lower
and medium dense sand, with SPT N ~ 50 to 100
below layers, Layer 5B & Layer
boring bucket and cleaning
EGL) 6 have not mobilised.
bucket under water. Layer 6, very dense silty sand
3.25 0.5% 1.1% 214 100 450.00 2.14 0.48 NA NA 335.00 End bearing has not
with SPT N >100
mobilised.
Constructed with 26.8m long Layer 5B, very dense silty sand
33130 32.25 53.75 176 60 434.00 2.933 0.41 NA NA NA
temporary casing to protect with SPT N ~ 50 to 100 Skin friction fully
January-07 3 A2-UTP03 59.3 1500 13250 the loose and medium dense Polymer No No 35.25 17.15 31.9% 36.60 mobilised. End bearing
sand, boring bucket and slightly mobilised.
cleaning bucket under water. Layer 6, very dense silty sand
2.50 2.2% 3.6% 314 100 525.00 3.14 0.60 NA NA 2829.00
with SPT N >100
Constructed with 12.0m Layer 5B, very dense silty sand Skin fricion fully
21930 short casing, using bentonite 46.5 66.63 30 70 430.00 0.429 0.07 NA NA NA mobilised. End bering
slurry to stabilise the loose fully mobilised. Low
March-07 4 A4-UTP01 57.5 1200 8450 Bentonite No No 50.00 16.21 24.3% 50.42
and medium dense sand, skin friction may due to
boring bucket and cleaning Layer 6, very dense silty sand bentonite filter cake
2.60 bucket under water. 3.9% 5.6% 229 100 528.80 2.29 0.43 NA NA 8860.00 issue.
with SPT N >100
Constructed with 15.0m Layer 5B, very dense silty sand

26150 short casing, using bentonite 24.25 73.75 233 73 430.00 3.192 0.54 NA NA NA
A4-UTP01 with SPT N ~ 50 to 100 Skin friction fully
slurry to stabilise the loose
June-07 6 (Additional 58.3 1200 8450 Bentonite No No 54.50 20.17 27.3% 53.58 mobilised. End bearing
and medium dense sand,
) substantially mobilised.
boring bucket and cleaning Layer 6, very dense silty sand
3.09 bucket under water. 2.0% 6.1% 286 100 537.00 2.856 0.53 NA NA 3713.00
with SPT N >100
Summaries of results of the instrumented pile loading tests and interpreted results for MBFC
15
Back analysis and interpretation of the ultimate load tests results
The skin friction for the six load tests had been fully mobilised or substantially
mobilised at a relative displacement between the pile and soil of about 1.5% to 2%
pile diameter at maximum test loads, except for A2-UTP02. Generally, end bearing
for the test piles was not substantially / fully mobilised due to the fact that the piles
are rather long, from 49m to 60m. It was noted that substantial pile toe settlement of
about 0.5% to 4.5% pile diameter was required in order to slightly or substantially
mobilise the end bearing of the piles from about 2829kN/m2 to 8860kN/m2. It is
also to note that A4-UTP01 (Additional) was compensated and conducted at 6m
away from the A4-UTP01. This was because the pile performance for A4-UTP01
was not satisfactory and did not comply to the contract specifications.
The test results indicate a complex and erratic distribution of the relative pile soil
settlements, mobilised skin friction and mobilised end bearing. Various factors
would have contributed to the test results, such as base grouting, improved soil
layer (DCM) and construction method (different stabilising fluids). In the following
sections, factors affecting the test results would be discussed.
Effects of base grouting
Base grouting was required for all the foundation bored piles as specified in the
contract specifications. It involves installation of a grouting device (dia 32mm TAM
pipe) at the bottom of the steel cages or pile toe. Grouting hoses are attached to the
grouting device for preparation of three stages of post grouting after the pile has
been cast.
R1-UTP01, A2-UTP01 and A2-UTP02 had been base grouted at least 7days before
commencement of the load tests. Refer to Fig. 2, the pile toe settlement of R1-
UTP01 was 7.46mm or 0.49% pile diameter, when the end bearing had been
16
mobilised to 2829kN/m2. For A2-UTP01, the pile toe settlement was 13.29mm or
1.1% pile diameter for 5684kN/m2 of end bearing. The other three piles, which did
not base grouted, required 2.44% to 4.5% pile diameter to mobilise 2829kN/m2 to
8860kN/m2 of end bearing. The above results show that effects of base grouting on
pile toe settlements are huge. Base grouted piles required little pile toe movement to
mobilise end bearing compared with non-base grouted piles as shown below.
However, it was suggested that the base grouted pile would not contribute better
end bearing since the cement grout strength is much lesser than the compressive
strength of the pile base material. For A2-UTP02, the end bearing was only slightly
mobilised at 335kN/m2 with zero pile toe movement. The reason for such minimal
mobilisation was due to improved soil layer (DCM).
Pile toe settlement vs mobilised end bearing

in percentage of pile diameter (% D)
5.00%
3713, 4.47%
4.50% 8860, 4.20%
4.00%
Pile toe settlement
R1-UTP01 (base grouted)

3.50%
A2-UTP01 (base grouted)
3.00%
2829, 2.44%
2.50% A2-UTP02 (base grouted)
2.00%
A2-UTP03 (non-base grouted)
1.50% 5684, 1.10%
1.00% A4-UTP01 (non-base grouted)
2829, 0.49%
0.50%
335, 0.00% A4-UTP01 (non-base grouted)
0.00%
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
2
End bearing (kN/m )
Fig 2. Pile toe settlement versus mobilised end bearing due to base grouting
17
Base grouting was not only help to reduce the pile toe movement. It was also help
to enhance tremendously on the skin friction above the pile toe. For R1-UTP01, the
mobilised skin friction increased rapidly from 54m to 60.77m (4.5D from the pile
toe, where D is the pile diameter) and the skin friction was about 626kN/m2 as
shown in Fig. 1. The mobilised skin friction was 924kN/m2 from 52m to 54.7m
(2.25D from the pile toe) for A2-UTP01. However, the mobilised skin friction at the
pile base location was only 229 kN/m2 to 314 kN/m2, for piles without base
grouting. Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 show the relationship between maximum mobilised skin
friction and mean SPT N-value, and maximum mobilised skin friction and mean
vertical effective stress, respectively. The difference between base grouted and non-
base grouted piles are shown clearly in the figures and Table. For example, the
factor of fs/N for layer 6 in R1-UTP01 is 5.6 and for layer 5B is only 0.69; For A2-
UTP01, factors for layer 6 and layer 5B are 9.25 and 2.5, respectively. Based on the
test results, it was concluded that skin friction for base grouted pile shaft at 2D to
4D from toe level would increased from (2.5~3) N to about (6~9) N or from
(0.43~0.6) to (0.99~1.71) for the β-values when comparing with piles without base
grouting. The relationship between beta value and effective stress is shown below.
′
fs = β ×σ v
β = K s × tan δ
where Ks = lateral earth pressure coefficient

δ = interface friction angle in degrees
σv’ = average effective vertical stress along the pile shaft
18
fs/N = 9.0 fs/N = 8.0 fs/N = 7.0
1000 Pile toe settlement vs mobilised end bearing
900 fs/N=6.0

5.00%
800 4.50% 3713, 4.47%

Mobilised skin friction
8860,
fs/N =4.20%
5.0
4.00%
Pile toe settlement R1-UTP01 (base grouted)
700
(kN/m )
3.50%
2
A2-UTP01 (base grouted)

600 3.00% fs/N = 4.0
2.50% 2829, 2.44% A2-UTP02 (base grouted)
fs/N = 3.5
500 2.00%
fs/N = 3.0 A2-UTP03 (non-base grouted)
1.50%
400
5684, 1.10% fs/N = 2.5
19
1.00% A4-UTP01 (non-base grouted)

300 0.50% 2829, 0.49% fs/N = 2.0
335, 0.00% A4-UTP01 (non-base grouted)
0.00% fs/N = 1.5
200
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
fs/N = 1.0
100 End bearing (kPa)
fs/N = 0.5
0
0 50 100 150
SPT-N value (N)
Fig. 3 Relationship between maximum mobilised skin friction and mean SPT N-value for
ultimate test piles at MBFC
β = 2.0
1000
Fig.
Pile toe settlement vs mobilised end bearing
900 β = 1.5

5.00%
800
Mobilised skin friction
4.50% 3713, 4.47%

8860, 4.20%
4.00%
Pile toe settlement
700 R1-UTP01 (base grouted)
(kN/m )
2
3.50%
600 β = 1.0 A2-UTP01 (base grouted)
3.00%
β = 0.9
500 2.50% 2829, 2.44% A2-UTP02 (base grouted)
β = 0.8
2.00%
400 β = 0.7 A2-UTP03 (non-base grouted)
1.50%
β = 0.6
20
1.00% 5684, 1.10%

300 β = 0.5 A4-UTP01 (non-base grouted)
0.50% 2829, 0.49% β = 0.4
200 335, 0.00% A4-UTP01 (non-base grouted)
0.00% β = 0.3
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 β = 0.2
10000
100
β = 0.1
End bearing (kPa)
β = 0.05
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
2
Effective vertical stress, σ v' (kN/m )
Fig. 4 Relationship between maximum mobilised skin friction and mean vertical effective stress
for ultimate test piles at MBFC
Effects of improved soil layer
The 5th ultimate load test pile, A2-UTP02, was installed on 9 June 2007 at 4B
Podium after the DCM had been completed at that area. The improved soil layer
was from RL 94.000m to RL 87.000m (7m thick) or about 9m to 16m from EGL.
The geological profile of the pile is as shown below:
¾ Layer 1, 0 to 15.2m (EGL at RL 103.000m): Loose sand fill;

¾ Layer 2A, 15.2 to 24.6m: Soft marine clay (upper);
¾ Layer 3, 24.6 to 27.6m: Medium stiff silty clay;
¾ Layer 2B, 27.6 to 31.4m: Soft marine clay (lower);
¾ Layer 5A, 31.4 to 35.8m: Very stiff silty clay;
¾ Layer 5B, 35.8 to 39.4m: Hard silty clay and dense silty sand;
¾ Layer 6, 40 to 49.6m: Very dense silty sand.
For this pile, majority of the DCM layer was located within the loose sand layer.
The behaviour of the pile was totally different from the other five piles. The
mobilised skin friction for pile shaft at DCM layer was 375kN/m2, which is as good
as skin friction at soil with SPT N-value greater 100 (refer to Fig. 1 and the Table
above). The DCM layer had contributed about 7000kN skin resistance to the pile
load, which is about 1.3 times of the working load of the pile. Therefore, the skin
friction at the lower layers, such as Layer 5 and Layer 6, had not been substantially
mobilised. The mobilised pile bearing capacity was also minimal, at 355kN/m2.
With the combined effects of base grouting and improved soil layer, the pile toe
settlement is zero. As such, pile top settlement is same as the measured elastic
shortening.
It was noted that all the working piles would behave similar to A2-UTP02, since
DCM had to be completed prior installation of foundation bored piles. However, it
was also worthwhile to note that the rate of pile top settlement was increased
21
rapidly from 0.3233x10-3mm/kN to 0.3739x10-3mm/kN when the pile load went

beyond 7000kN/m2 due to the localised effects of high mobilised skin friction at
DCM layer as shown in Fig. 5.
0.5500
Rate of pile top settlement, Δ/P (x 10-3 mm/kN)
0.5000
0.4500
0.4000
Significant increase
in rate of settlement
0.3500 beyond 7000kN
0.3000
0.2500
0.2000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Pile Load, P (kN)
Fig. 5. Rate of pile top settlement for A2-UTP02
22
Effects of construction method
All the piles in MBFC were constructed under water instead of dry pile method due
to the geological formation of the site. The piles were deep, ranging from 50m to
80m and the construction time for one pile was long, boring and casting needed
ranging from about 18hours to 48hours.
Long temporary casings (20 to 30m depend on thickness of sand layer) were
required to protect the loose sand layer when polymer was used as stabilising fluid.
However, only short casing from 6 to 10m was required if bentonite was adopted to
stabilise the loose to medium dense sand layer, very soft to soft marine clay layer
and soft to medium stiff clay and sand layer. The reason that bentonite slurry can
stabilise and prevent the loose to medium dense layer (from toe of the temporary
casing up to the top of the very soft marine clay) from collapse during boring
operation is because the loose to medium dense sand layer is highly permeable.
Bentonite suspensions can seal the hole and provide the gel strength required to
move the solids out of the hole. In other words, it would form a filter cake on those
soil layers that are highly permeable to prevent loose to medium dense sand layer
from collapsing. Therefore, by adopting bentonite as stabilising fluid would have
the following advantages.
¾ Short casing (6 to 10m) instead of long casing (20 to 30m) for polymer;
¾ No joining and welding of casings are required for each individual piles;
¾ Smaller machine / crane is needed;
¾ No vibrator hammer or only smaller capacity of vibrator hammer (eg. 5tons
hammer) is needed for installation and extraction of casings;
¾ Minimal vibration created (this is good for this site as MBFC is located at
LTA MRT railway reserves zone and URA CST 6m protection zone);
23
These were the main reasons that driven the ultimate load tests for A2-UTP02, A4-
UTP01 & A4-UTP01 (Additional) to be carried out using bentonite. All the 232
numbers of working piles at R1 & Podium were constructed using polymer and it
required lengthy construction time of four months from October 2006 to February
2007 to complete all the piles. The purpose of carrying out the three load tests using
bentonite was to prove to the Consultants that the piles performance would not be
compromised by adopting bentonite slurry. The successful of this approach would
ultimately shorten the construction period for the commercial development, i.e.
Tower 1, Tower 2, underground carparks and podiums. Total average duration
required to install a 70meter deep foundation bored piles of dia 1800mm with
polymer and bentonite slurry are shown below. It shows that the duration was about
30 percent shorter for piles constructed with bentonite slurry comparing with
polymer slurry.
Duration for each activity (hrs)

Flushing
nd
Stabilising 1st Casing 2 Casing through
Lowering Lowering
Fluid Installation Boring tremie pipe Extraction
Installation Steel Tremie Concreting Total Remarks
(joining and Operation to pile toe, if of Casings
(max 14m) Cages Pipes
welding) sediments
>200mm
Longer
Polymer 1 5 12 3 1.5 0.5 6 1.5 30.5
time taken
about 30%
Bentonite 1 0 12 3 1.5 0 6 0.5 24.0
faster
Average duration required to construction a 70meter deep foundation bored

piles with polymer and bentonite suspensions
However, bentonite supensions do have disadvantage. The filter cake formed

around the pile shaft would affect the skin friction. This was proven in the ultimate
load test A4-UTP01. The fully mobilised skin frictions for this pile were only
24
30kN/m2 for old alluvium (soil layers above layer 6) and 229kN/m2 for layer 6. It
was also need to note that the bore hole with bentonite suspensions was untouched
for at least 24hours when the boring was only few meters to reach the toe level.
This was due to boring rig faulty during the installation. It was concluded that the
thick filter cake was formed during the stoppage period and caused the lower
mobilised skin friction.
In order to verify this finding, another ultimate load test A4-UTP01 (Additional)
was installed and tested at 6m away from A4-UTP01. The pile was constructed in
continuous sequences without any disturbance. The mobilised skin friction for this
pile is much higher than the previous one. The mobilised skin frictions were
233kN/m2 and 286kN/m2 for layer 5 and layer 6, respectively.
Quality control & quality assurance for construction of bored piles
After the analysis and interpretation of the ultimate load tests results, the C&S
Consultant and TSC had decided to adopt the following design parameters for the
working piles. Conservatively, the effects of base grouting and improved soil layer
were not taken into the consideration.
Area Skin friction Skin friction for End

(kN/m2) for soil soil (kN/m2) with bearing
with SPT N-value SPT N-value (kN/m2)
< 100 blows > 100 blows
R1 & Podium; Tower 1 & 4A 2N 300 7000
Podium; Tower 2 & 4B Podium;
Parcel A7 UPN
3A & 3B Basement Carparks 2N 280 4500
Design parameter adopted for working piles in MBFC
25
The quality control and quality assurance for the foundation bored piles must be in
placed in order to achieve the design. It was required to closely monitor the
progress of the foundation works due to the tight construction schedule.
Several forms had been created and implemented for the site supervisors and
geotechnical engineers to follow. The objective was to ensure that all the required
information was recorded, such as:
¾ Setting out of the pile

¾ Casing verticality
¾ Time taken for each individual activities, such as casing installation, boring,
lower steel cages, tremie pipes and concreting
¾ Quality of the bentonite / polymer suspensions (Strictly follow BS EN
1536:2000, Clause 6.5.2)
¾ Bored out soil classifications
¾ Ground level, casing level, pile penetration length, pay length and
reinforcement details
¾ Concreting record to verify the wet concrete raising
26
Inner casing
Collar casing
Casing installation Casings had been installed Join & weld additional
casing if required
Sand content PH value
(f or bentonite only)
Viscosity Mud balance
Seawall removal if any Boring operation Testing on bentonite/polymer

qualities prior/during boring
and before casting
Lowering steel cage with Tremie pipe installation Tremie concreting

base grouting tubes
Sequences of the bored piles construction
27
Verification of pile performance of working piles
Total 15 numbers of working load tests had been carried out on the working piles
for MBFC to verify the pile performance. It is noted that all the piles had been base
grouted prior the working load tests. In addition, all the piles are located within the
soil improvement layer except those piles at R1. Therefore, the performances of the
piles are expected to be very good as per the discussion early on the effects of base
grouting and effects of improved soil layer. The author has carried out back analysis
for the load tests on the working piles using Chin’s Stability Plot.
All the working load tests had been loaded to 2 times working load. The pile top
settlements for the four piles at R1, whereby the piles were located outside the
improved soil layer, were measured at 0.8% to 1.7% of pile dimension. Whereas,
the settlements for the 11 piles located within the improved soil layer had
experience lesser values, various from 0.4% to 0.8%. These results are comparable,
where 1.4% and 1.7% for R1-UTP01 and A2-UTP01 (with base grouting & outside
improved soil area) respectively & 0.5% of pile dimension for A2-UTP02 (with
based grouting & within improved soil area).
The estimated average ultimate skin frictions for the entire pile length based on
Chin’s Plot were also lesser, from 69 to 122kN/m2, for piles located outside the
improved soil area than the opposite with higher skin frictions from 101 to
252kN/m2. As mentioned earlier, all the piles had been base grouted before the load
tests. Generally, the skin frictions were only partially mobilised during the load tests
(2 x WL) and the end bearings were not mobilised or only slightly mobilised. The
factor of safeties for all the test piles, based on the estimate ultimate total resistance
and ultimate skin friction, are much higher than the design values of 2.5 and 2.0
respectively. These were shown clearly in the Chin’s Plots and the results on Table.
The results on the working test piles were agreeable with the previous on the effects
of improved soil layer and base grouting. Therefore, it could be concluded that
28
performance of the deep foundation in MBFC is extremely good and safe. However,
it also shows that the design of the bored piles was too conservative as resulted
from ignoring the both effects of base grouting and improved soil layer. In the
author’s opinion, the design should take into account on the effects of base grouting
and this would offer a more economical, safe and effective deep foundation system.
As for the other, the effects of improved soil layer shall not be considered in the
design as proposed by the author. The reasons are the effects of consolidation on the
piles would affect the contribution of improved soil layer and this would require
further study and research.
29
R1 - WLT#1: R1-12-P35 R1 - WLT#2: R1-10-P57

0.001400 0.000900
0.000800
0.001200
Δ/Q (mm/KN)
0.000700
Δ/Q (mm/KN)
0.001000 0.000600 y = 0.000043x + 0.000468

y = 0.000027x + 0.000649
0.000800 0.000500
0.000400
0.000600
0.000300 y = 0.000070x + 0.000353
0.000400 y = 0.000043x + 0.000477 0.000200
0.000200 0.000100
0.000000 0.000000
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Δ, Settlement (mm) Δ, Settlement (mm)
R1 - WLT#3: R1-18-T55 R1 - WLT#4: R1-18-T106

0.000600 0.000600
0.000500 0.000500
Δ/Q (mm/KN)
Δ/Q (mm/KN)
0.000400 0.000400
y = 0.000010x + 0.000289 y = 0.000008x + 0.000337
0.000300 0.000300
0.000200 0.000200 y = 0.000017x + 0.000233

y = 0.000019x + 0.000197
0.000100 0.000100
0.000000 0.000000
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Commercial - WLT#1: P4C-T18 at Tower 1 Commercial - WLT#2: P4C-T99 at Tower 1

0.000400 0.000400
0.000350 0.000350
Δ/Q (mm/KN)
Δ/Q (mm/KN)
0.000300 0.000300
y = 0.000010x + 0.000221
0.000250 0.000250
y = 0.000014x + 0.000161
0.000200 0.000200
0.000150 0.000150 y = 0.000015x + 0.000167
y = 0.000019x + 0.000124
0.000100 0.000100
0.000050 0.000050
0.000000 0.000000
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
Commercial - WLT#3: P2A-T126 at Tower 2 Commercial - WLT #4: P2A-T175A

0.000350 0.000300
0.000300 0.000250
Δ/Q (mm/KN)
Δ/Q (mm/KN)
0.000250
0.000200
0.000200
0.000150
0.000150 y = 0.000013x + 0.000170 y = 0.000020x + 0.000092
0.000100
0.000100
0.000050 0.000050
0.000000 0.000000
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
(a)
Chin’s Stability Plots for the working load tests at MBFC
30
Commercial - WLT#5: P4A-P18 at Podium Commercial - WLT#6: P4A-P12 at Podium

0.000700 0.000400
0.000600 0.000350
Δ/Q (mm/KN)
Δ/Q (mm/KN)
0.000300
0.000500
y = 0.000029x + 0.000348
0.000250
0.000400
0.000200
0.000300 y = 0.000037x + 0.000176
0.000150
0.000200 y = 0.000048x + 0.000262 0.000100
0.000100 0.000050
0.000000 0.000000
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Commercial - WLT#7: P4B-P66 at Podium

0.000700
0.000600
Δ/Q (mm/KN)
0.000500
0.000400
0.000300
0.000200
y = 0.000042x + 0.000326
0.000100
0.000000
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Δ, Settlement (mm)
Basement Carpark, Parcel A4 - Basement Carpark, Parcel A4 -

WLT#1: P3A-P71 WLT#2: P3A-P131
0.000600 0.000450
0.000400
0.000500
Δ/Q (mm/KN)
Δ/Q (mm/KN)
0.000350
0.000400 0.000300
0.000250
0.000300 y = 0.000018x + 0.000362
0.000200
0.000200 0.000150 y = 0.000013x + 0.000300
0.000100
0.000100
0.000050
0.000000 0.000000
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Basement Carpark, Parcel A4 - Basement Carpark, Parcel A4 -

WLT#3: P3A-P108 WLT#4: P3A-P53
0.000400 0.000450
0.000350 0.000400
Δ/Q (mm/KN)
Δ/Q (mm/KN)
0.000300 0.000350
0.000300
0.000250
0.000250
0.000200
y = 0.000018x + 0.000214 0.000200 y = 0.000016x + 0.000263
0.000150
0.000150
0.000100
0.000100
0.000050 0.000050
0.000000 0.000000
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
(b)
Chin’s Stability Plots for the working load tests at MBFC
31
(A) (B) = (C) - (A) (C) (D) = (A) / WL (E) = (C) / WL
Estimated ultimate Estimated

Estimated ultimate Estimated
Max. Pile Top Residual end bearing based Average ultimate Estimated
Maximum Test Within skin friction based ultimate total
Pile Working Settlement Settlement on Chin's Plot by skin friction for ultimate end Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Date of Pile Length Pile Dimension Load Stabilising Base improved on Chin's Plot by resistance
S/N Area Pile Ref. Load Pile Construction (mm), (mm), allowing 15% entire pile length bearing at pile (ultimate skin (ultimate total Remarks
Testing (m) (mm) ( kN / Fluid Grouting soil layer allowing 15% based on
(WL, kN) % of Pile % of Pile Top reduction (kN), based on Chin's base friction) resistance)
x WL) (DCM) reduction (kN), % Chin's Plot
Dimension Settlement % of total Plot (kN/m2)
of total resistance (kN)
resistance (kN/m2)
16900 Constructed with 21.7m long temporary 20.75 4.88 19767 11714 31481
WLT #1 at casing to protect the loose and medium
1 8 Feb 2007 R1-12-P35 53.2 1200 8450 Polymer Yes No 99 10357 2.34 3.73
Residential dense sand, boring bucket and cleaning
2.00 bucket under water. 1.7% 23% 63% 37% 100%
2 6 Mar 2007 R1-10-P57 56.1 1000 4750 Polymer Yes No 69 9708 2.56 4.16
3 30 Mar 2007 R1-18-T55 71.6 1800 19000 Polymer Yes No 110 15822 2.34 4.47
4 17 Apr 2007 R1-18-T106 72.2 1800 19000 Polymer Yes No 122 22105 2.63 5.59
38000 Constructed with 7.0m short temporary Yes 13.25 3.75 44737 15977 60714
WLT #1 at
casing to protect the loose and medium (from 4m
5 17 Sep 2007 Commercial, P4C-T18 60.7 1800 19000 Polymer Yes 130 6279 2.35 3.20
dense sand, boring bucket and cleaning to 16m
Tower 1 2.00 0.7% 28% 74% 26% 100%
bucket under water. from EGL)
WLT #2 at
casing to protect the loose and medium (from 3.5m
6 2 Oct 2007 Commercial, P4C-T99 62.7 1800 19000 Polymer Yes 160 11134 2.98 4.47
dense sand, boring bucket and cleaning to 15.6m
Tower 1 2.00 0.8% 11% 93% 47% 140%
WLT #3 at
casing to protect the loose and medium (from 2.5m End bearing has not
7 2 Oct 2007 Commercial, P2A-T126 66.4 1800 19000 Polymer Yes 174 NA 3.44 NA
dense sand, boring bucket and cleaning to 16.8m mobilised.
Tower 2 2.00 0.7% 13% 100% 0% 0%
WLT #4 at
8 14 Nov 2007 Commercial, P2A-T175A 72.3 1800 19000 Polymer Yes 104 NA 2.24 NA
Tower 2 1.50 0.4% 20% 100% 0% 0%
WLT #5 at
casing to protect the loose and medium (from 3.0m
9 10 Nov 2007 Commercial, P4A-P18 55.9 1000 5850 Bentonite Yes 101 14772 3.03 5.01
dense sand, boring bucket and cleaning to 16.1m
Podium 2.09 0.7% 15% 60% 40% 100%
WLT #6 at
10 26 Dec 2007 Commercial, P4A-P12 58.5 1000 5850 Polymer Yes 125 NA 3.93 NA
Podium 2.19 0.5% 11% 100% 0% 0%
WLT #7 at
11 17 Dec 2007 Commercial, P4B-P66 61.6 900 4750 Bentonite Yes 116 NA 4.26 NA
Podium 2.07 0.6% 17% 100% 0% 0%
WLT #1 at 14900 Constructed with 7.2m short temporary Yes 8.00 0.75 47222 0 0
Basement casing to protect the loose and medium (from 3.0m End bearing has not
12 15 Feb 2008 P3A-P71 63.4 1100 7100 Bentonite Yes 216 NA 6.65 NA
Carpark, dense sand, boring bucket and cleaning to 18.7m mobilised.
Parcel A4 2.10 bucket under water. from EGL) 0.7% 9% 100% 0% 0%
13 22 Mar 2008 P3A-P131 68.9 1200 8450 Bentonite Yes 252 NA 7.74 NA
14 7 Mar 2008 P3A-P108 65.7 1400 11500 Bentonite Yes 164 NA 4.11 NA
15 22 Jan 2008 P3A-P53 63.8 1200 8450 Bentonite Yes 221 NA 6.29 NA
Summaries of results for the working load tests and back analysis results for MBFC
32
Evaluation of Outcomes and Impacts
The project is situated at the Marina Bay, an artificial bay formed by reclamation,
which will be developed to further support Singapore’s continuing growth as a
major business and financial hub. Marina Bay Business Financial Centre is the first
few developments in this area. Future developments around Marina Bay would also
have the similarities as the current development, i.e. high rise buildings supported
by deep foundation and deep basements which required soil improvements works to
form the earth retaining or stabilising structure. Thus it was important to understand
the deep foundation and soil improvements behaviours and to develop more reliable
and economical in the design and construction methods in Marina Bay.
In this section, the author discussed the behaviour of the bored piles at MBFC. The
findings are useful and would have great impacts in the future projects if there are
adopted in the design and construction. The findings are summarised below:
Foundation bored piles
¾ Effect of base grouting – Take into account of the contribution of base

grouting on the skin friction, i.e. base grouted pile shaft at 2D to 4D from
toe level, adopt 6~9N or 0.99 to 1.71 (β-value).
Impacts: Pile penetration depths would have been reduced by 10 to 30%,

that will save cost and construction duration.
¾ Effect of DCM – Take into account of the contribution from the improved
soil layer, i.e. skin friction of 375kN/m2 for the pile shaft within the
improved soil layer.
Impacts: Pile penetration depths could be reduced.
33
¾ Effect of construction methods – Excavation of bored pile under bentonite

suspension would be faster compared with polymer suspension in Marina
Bay area. This is because shorter temporary casing and smaller machinery
are only required under bentonite suspension.
Impacts: The construction duration for the deep foundation works could be
reduced by at least 30%.
Responsibility for Decisions
In this large scale engineering project, the author, as Senior Civil Engineer, was
responsible for the supervision of the Geotechnical Engineers, site supervisors and
sub-contractors to ensure all the engineering activities to be carried out safely and
smoothly. The author was also involving in the decisions on the various works
methods to solve the problems encountered at MBFC including getting approval
from the authorities, such as LTA, URA and BCA. The examples are:
¾ To use Down-the-Hole method and Casing Oscillator method at the seawall

area to break through and clear off the seawall in preparation for the soil
improvement and bored piling works as shown below.
¾ To carry out load tests adjacent to the excavation area and MRT reserve
zone (refer to the figure below)
The author took accountability and responsible for the decisions which he had made
during the project period. The author was pleasure that the project was able to hand
over satisfactory to the client.
34
Casing
oscillator
Hammer
grab
Removal of existing seawalls using casing oscillator with hammer grab
Casing Oscillator was in operation to remove the existing seawall
35
Sketch showing Kentledge load test carried out near to existing MRT line
(outside zone of influence, ie. 2nd reserve but located within 3rd reserve)
Sketch showing Kentledge load test carried out near to excavation area
(10 m away from the edge of the excavation)
(a)
Working load tests using Kentledge method adjacent to MRT line and
excavation area
36
Inspection of the setup prior testing by the author and the supervisor
Load cell reader Electrical pump
Hydraulic jacks with load cells and

stacking steel plates
Photos showing 4200 tons Kentledge load test setup
(b)
Working load tests using Kentledge method adjacent to

MRT line and excavation area
37
Managing Engineering Activities
This project involved a lot of engineering activities and all the activities would have
to be carried out closely and simultaneously. The engineering activities are:
¾ Geotechnical instrumentation;
¾ Deep cement mixing;
¾ Jet grouting;
¾ Bored piles;
¾ Continuous bored piles;
¾ Down-the-hole hammer;
¾ Casing oscillator;
¾ DCM coring tests.
The overall view of the site can be seen in the following. Some of the activities are
shown. The author had to plan the daily activities based on 24-hour a day basis. The
aim was to avoid unnecessary down time for all the heavy machineries and man
powers from the sub-contractors. Various considerations had to be taken care for
the planning purpose. Such as, bored piles can only be installed after DCM has been
completed; effects of jet grouting on completed bored piles need to be taken into
considerations; etc.
Site utilities plan was also a very important issue. This was because almost all the
engineering works located on the entire site. Allocation of utilities, such as water
pond, bentonite / polymer silos, cement silos, mixing plants, machineries, boring
tools, etc, was the great challenge in this particular site, whereby existing MRT line
and existing CST are located within the site boundary. Therefore, the site utilities
plan had to be cleared and approved by LTA & URA and to make sure that the
effects on the existing tunnels are minimal due to the additional loads created. The
site utilities plan is shown also.
38
Overview of the Site
Phase 2, Tower 2 Area Phase 3, Basement Carpark Area
An over view of the site showing various on-going activities
39
Batching plants for

DCM & JGP works,
located directly on top
of the existing URA
CST tunnel
Silos & batching

plants for bentonite
& polymers
suspensions
Site utilities plan for MBFC for silos, batching plants, etc, located within the MRT 2nd & 3rd reserve zone and URA 6m reserve zone
40
Exercising Sound Judgement
The author had exercise sound judgement during his involvement in the project. He
worked together with all the professional personnel in the design and construction
of the deep foundation bored piles. He analysed the load tests results and confirmed
the design parameters with the fellow consultants for the construction of the
working piles. The design parameters were reasonably correct and all the load tests
on the working piles had passed according to the criteria. His analysis on the effects
of base grouting and DCM on the foundation bored piles could be continued with
the research and adopted in the future projects in Marina Bay area. By adopting this
approach, the design and construction of the deep foundation bored piles would be
more economical and safer. He was also exercised sound professional engineering
judgement for adopting of down-the-hole hammer and casing oscillator methods to
overcome the existing seawall problems in MBFC.
Communication
During the whole project period, the author communicated well with all range of
people, such as authorities, consultants, his colleagues at site, sub-contractors and
suppliers. He assisted his Project Manager in chairing the daily site meeting with all
the sub-contractors for all the site works. He also involved in the consultants’
progress and technical meetings to solve all the site issues. In addition, he played a
very proactive role in getting URA/LTA’s clearance for all the engineering works
within their protection zone.
41
CONCLUSION
The author describes his project involvement in the Project BFC. The effects of
base grouting on the deep foundation bored piles are heavily described. The impacts
of the outcome of the current analysis could have great impact in the future’s deep
foundation design in Singapore.
31 July 2012
42

Hulme2012 Paper1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hulme2012 Paper1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report for TUCSS THE HULME 2012 Competition by Er.

Kee Ching Guan

REPORT ON THE EFFECTS OF THE

Report Submitted by:

A Report Presented to the TUCSS for the

THE HULME PRIZE 2012 COMPETITION

EFFECT S OF BASE GROUTING ON PILES AT

EFFECT S OF BASE GROUTING ON PILES AT

¾ Deep foundation works (bored piles)

The project involves residential development and commercial development.

Generally, the construction sequences are:

¾ Stage 1: Installed geotechnical instruments, such as inclinometers, water

Layout plan for MBFC

Layer 1 - Fill material, Very loose to Thickness ~ 10 to 25m,

Layer 2A - Very soft to soft marine Thickness ~ 10 to 15m,

Layer 3 - Loose to medium dense Thickness ~ 5m,

Layer 2B - Soft to stiff marine clay Thickness ~ 5m,

Layer 4 - Medium dense clayey to

Layer 5A - Dense, silty sand and

Layer 5B - Very dense, clayey to

Layer 6 - Very dense, silty sand and

General geological formation for MBFC

Area Dia 1800mm 800 to 1200 mm Total

Numbers of foundation bored piles at MBFC

Design and Development of Solutions

The geotechnical design for the bored pile is:

fs = ultimate skin friction (kN/m2)

Load Transfer Curves for Ultimate Load Test Piles

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000

A2-UTP02 (Dia 1000mm,

A2-UTP03 (Dia 1500mm,

A4-UTP01 (Dia 1200mm,

A4-UTP01 (Additional, Dia

Layer 5B, very dense silty sand

Layer 5B, very dense silty sand

DCM Layer within existing DCM layer contributed

Constructed with 15.0m Layer 5B, very dense silty sand

Back analysis and interpretation of the ultimate load tests results

Effects of base grouting

Pile toe settlement vs mobilised end bearing

R1-UTP01 (base grouted)

where Ks = lateral earth pressure coefficient

in percentage of pile diameter (% D)

800 4.50% 3713, 4.47%

A2-UTP01 (base grouted)

1.00% A4-UTP01 (non-base grouted)

in percentage of pile diameter (% D)

4.50% 3713, 4.47%

1.00% 5684, 1.10%

Effects of improved soil layer

¾ Layer 1, 0 to 15.2m (EGL at RL 103.000m): Loose sand fill;

rapidly from 0.3233x10-3mm/kN to 0.3739x10-3mm/kN when the pile load went

Pile Load, P (kN)

Fig. 5. Rate of pile top settlement for A2-UTP02

Effects of construction method

Duration for each activity (hrs)

Average duration required to construction a 70meter deep foundation bored

However, bentonite supensions do have disadvantage. The filter cake formed

Quality control & quality assurance for construction of bored piles

Area Skin friction Skin friction for End

Design parameter adopted for working piles in MBFC

¾ Setting out of the pile

Viscosity Mud balance