Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CHAPTER 5
5.1
Introduction
For analysis purpose, the relevant data and test results are collected from six
selected sites. The data and test results are obtained from the soil investigation, pile
driving records and pile load test results on site. Besides, all the data are also from
the same source. Thus, for a particular site, the driving record used in pile driving
formula should be from the same pile that selected for load testing. Also, the
designed pile length in static analysis should be same as the driven length that
obtained from the driving record. Ultimate capacity of a pile was calculated based
on the method selected as mentioned in Chapter four, which are Meyerhofs Method
for static analysis, Modified Engineering News Record (ENR) Formula, Hiley
Formula and Gates Formula for pile driving formula and Professor Chins Method
for interpretation of the load test result.
For comparison purpose, summary of the ultimate capacity for the entire site
are presented in table form, which the ultimate capacities that obtained from different
methods are compared to each other and the differences in percentages are
established. Finally, the analysis results are presented in bar chart form for
convenient reading.
63
5.2
Calculations Example
5.2.1
Static Analysis
5.2.1.1
Project 4:
From Equation 3.1:
Ultimate pile capacity, Qult = Qs + Qb
Nominal surface area of the pile in soil layer, As = 2j x L
= 2 (0.35/2) x L
= 1.1 L m2
Frictional Resistance, Qs
64
Assumption 1:
Skin friction is mobilized to the whole length of the driven pile.
For 0 10.2 m,
Cu = 18.67 Kpa,
From Figure 3.4: = 1.179
From Equation 3.13 :
Qs = p L
= 18.67 x 1.179 x 1.1 x 10.2
= 247.05 KN
Qs = p L
= 23.44 x 1.07 x 1.1 x 19.4
= 535.22 KN
Cu = correlation factor x N
= 6.67 x 8 = 53.36 kPa
Qs = p L
= 53.36 x 0.825 x 1.1 x 5.4
= 261.49 KN
Cu = correlation factor x N
= 6.67 x 12 = 80.04 kPa
Qs = pL
= 80.04 x 0.6 x 1.1 x 8.1
65
= 427.89 KN
For 43.1 48.9 m,
Take N avg = 15,
Cu = correlation factor x N
= 6.67 x 15 = 100.05 kPa
Qs = p L
= 100.05 x 0.5 x 1.1 x 5.8
= 319.16 KN
Qs = pL
= 72.90 x 1.1 x 2.52
= 282.27 KN
Ap = j2
= (0.35/2)2
= 0.096 m2
The soil is dense sand, N = 65.22, therefore, N' = 65.22 x 0.6 = 39.13
bu = 40N x Db/B
= 40 x 39.13 (1/0.35)
= 4471.97 KN
< 400N = 13200 ok.
66
Pbu = Apbu
= 0.096 x 4471.97
= 429.31 KN
From Equation 3.1:
Ultimate pile capacity, Qult = Qs + Qb
Qult = 247.05 + 535.22 + 261.49 + 427.89 + 319.16 + 282.27 + 429.31
= 2502.39 KN
Assumption 2:
Skin friction mobilized only in the stiff layers
Skin friction lost from 0 23 m,
= Qs(0-8) + (12.8 x 2j x x Cu)
= 247.05 + (23.44 x 1.07 x 1.1 x 12.8)
= 600.19 KN
Remaining ultimate pile capacity = 2502.39 600.19
= 1902.2 KN
* The calculation for the correlation factor is attached in Appendix H.
* The depth of down drag in the soil is determine by the software named CONSOL
(a special software to determine the consolidation and rate of consolidate).
On the basis of the comparison of ultimate capacity using the static analysis
and in situ testing, it is proposed to use the assumption two, thus Skin friction
mobilized only in the stiff layers, to achieve a practical results. The results of
ultimate capacity for all the six selected sites are summarized in Table 5.1 below
67
showing, while the breakdown of skin friction and end bearing capacity value are
attached in Appendix I-1 to I-6 for reference.
5.2.2
Project 1
1450.38
Project 2
1651.57
Project 3
1656.54
Project 4
1902.20
Project 5
1335.07
Project 6
1648.22
Three driving formulas were chosen in this study, thus Modified ENR
Formula, Hiley Formula and Gates Formula. The ultimate capacity are calculated
based on the driving records on site and calculation example for each of those
formula used are showing in the following part. The ultimate capacity for every
selected site that obtained from the three mentioned methods is summarized in Table
5.2 for comparison purpose. While summary of driving record and calculation steps
for the three formulas for all the selected sites are attached in Appendix J to O-3.
68
Project 4:
Pile No
Pile Size
Hammer
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Appendix P
Appendix J
(
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
BP1
350 mm Diameter
K-25
Hammer efficiency, E
Coefficient of restitution, n
Weight of ram, WR
Pile Length, L
Penetration of pile per hammer blow, S
= 0.8
= 0.5
= 24.5 KN
= 52.42 m
= 0.008 m
Solution:
From Modified ENR formula:
EWRh WR + n2WP
S + C WR + WP
Qu =
From the Standard Products Properties (Appendix Q),
Nominal weight of 350mm diameter Spun pile = 160 kg/m
= 1.5696 KN/m
The pile weight = 1.5696 KN/m * L
= 1.5696 * 52.42
= 82.278 KN
+
From
Table D.5 in Appendix P, for diesel hammer,
Weight of ram, WR = 24.5 KN
Height of hammer drop, h = 1.5 m
WRh = 24.5 * 1.5 = 36.75 KNm
Therefore,
Qu
=
(0.8)(36.75)
= 880.24
0.4221
0.008 +* 0.0254
= 371.54 KN
69
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
: Hammer efficiency, eh
: Coefficient of restitution, n
= 0.8
= 0.5
Appendix P
Appendix J
: Weight of ram, Wr
: Pile Length, L
Penetration of pile per hammer blow, s
= 24.5 KN
= 52.42 m
= 0.008 m
Solution:
From Hiley formula:
eh Eh
Qu = s + 1/2 (c1 + c2 + c3)
Wr + n2 Wp
Wr + Wp
24.5 KN
= 1.5 m
36.75 KNm
(0.8)(36.75)
0.008 + 1/2 (0.03255)
= 1211 * 0.4221
= 511.16 KN
70
Solution:
From Gates formula:
Qu = a [EHE ] (b log S)
Qu is in KN, therefore a = 104.5, b = 2.4 and E = 0.85 for diesel hammer
From Table D.5 in Appendix P, for diesel hammer,
Weight of ram, Wr = 24.5 KN
Height of hammer drop, h = 1.5 m
Rated hammer energy = WRh = 24.5 * 1.5 =
36.75 KNm
From Appendix J,
Penetration of pile per hammer blow, s =
mm
Therefore,
Qu = a [EHE ] (b log S)
= 104.5 [0.85 * 36.75 ] (2.4 log 8)
= 874.27 KN
5.2.2.4
Hiley
Diff. (%)
Gates
Diff. (%)
Project 1
243.03
322.49
32.70
575.29
136.72
Project 2
232.04
259.39
11.79
595.61
156.69
Project 3
364.73
485.80
33.19
874.27
139.70
71
Project 4
371.54
511.16
37.58
874.27
135.31
Project 5
354.70
486.74
37.23
817.67
130.53
Project 6
268.15
334.70
24.82
629.49
134.75
72
73
74
5.2.3
Project 4
Pile Size : 350 mm Diameter
Hammer : K-25
LOAD
SETTLEMENT
P
(Ton)
(mm)
0.00
0.00
0.0000
18.75
1.56
0.0832
37.50
3.56
0.0949
56.25
5.45
0.0969
75.00
8.33
0.1111
56.25
7.63
0.1356
MINUS RESIDUAL
37.50
6.94
0.1851
SETTLEMENT
P
18.75
6.03
0.3216
(mm)
0.00
3.53
0.0000
0
18.75
3.82
0.0000
0.29
0.0155
37.50
5.53
0.1475
2.00
0.0533
56.25
6.66
0.1184
3.13
0.0556
75.00
8.71
0.1161
5.18
0.0691
93.75
10.15
0.1083
6.62
0.0706
112.50
12.22
0.1086
8.69
0.0772
131.25
14.36
0.1094
10.83
0.0825
150.00
18.00
0.1200
14.47
0.0965
131.25
18.54
0.1413
112.50
16.93
0.1505
93.75
15.41
0.1644
75.00
13.26
0.1768
56.25
11.65
0.2071
37.50
10.33
0.2755
18.75
7.49
0.3995
0.00
4.83
0.0000
74
75
From the load test results, it is found that the head settlement for first cycle
and second cycle of spun piles is quiet near to each other. For example, from Table
5.3 above, the residual settlement after the first cycle is 3.53 mm. Which as for
second cycle, the residual settlement is 4.83 mm. The difference is considered very
small and exhibited similar initial residual strengths. In this condition, it is reasonable
to say that the driven pile has achieved its capacity at a constant stage. Hence, the
interpretation of ultimate capacity by using first cycle result is considered reliable.
76
Similar with the example calculation for Project 4, all the ultimate capacities
for the other selected sites are interpret from static load test results that carried out
for that particular pile by using Chins Method. The related data, stability plot as
well as the interpretation results are shown in Appendix R-1 to V-3. While the
summary of the ultimate capacity for the six selected sites are shown in Table 5.4
below.
Project 1
1904.76
Project 2
2285.71
Project 3
2230.77
Project 4
2426.52
Project 5
1818.18
Project 6
2105.26
5.3
5.3.1
Table 5.5 : Summary of ultimate capacity from load test results, pile driving formula and static analysis
ULTIMATE CAPACITY, QU (KN)
Project Name
Load Test
(Chin Method)
Modified ENR
Hiley
Gates
Static Analysis
(Meyerhof's Method)
Project 1
1904.76
243.03
322.49
575.29
1450.38
Project 2
2285.71
232.04
259.39
595.61
1651.57
Project 3
2230.77
364.73
485.80
874.27
1656.54
Project 4
2426.52
371.54
511.16
874.27
1902.20
Project 5
1818.18
354.70
486.74
817.67
1335.07
Project 6
2105.26
268.15
334.70
629.49
1648.22
78
Figure 5.3: Ultimate capacity from load test result, pile driving formulas and static analysis
79
From Table 5.5 and Figure 5.3 above, it is found that ultimate capacity
determined from pile load test result show the highest value compare with the other
two methods. This followed by static analysis and pile driving formula respectively.
Ultimate capacity, Qu obtained from Chins method is more reliable as it is
determined through the load test where installed pile are load to twice the working
load as desired by the designer. It is always more convincing the designer as the pile
has been loaded and the soil partial at the pile shaft or pile toe has been adequately
mobilized to gain its strength.
As for ultimate capacity obtained from the static analysis and pile driving
formulas, both are lower than the load test results. However, ultimate capacity from
static analysis shown a closer value to ultimate capacity from load test results as it is
based on bearing capacity theory and the soil parameters used in the analysis were
predicted from the borehole data. But pile driving formulas only a prediction of
energy transfer from the hammer drop to the driven pile only. Various empirical
assumptions may not be found satisfactory to correlate to field condition.
5.3.2
Table 5.6: Comparison of ultimate pile capacity, Qu from load test results and static analysis
Soil Characteristic
Project
Name
Driving
Depth
Comparison
Differences (%)
(m)
Type Of Soil At
Bedding Level
Average
SPT-N Value
Static
Analysis
Load Test
Results
Static Analysis vs
Load Test Results
Project 1
46.00
Silty Clay
Silty Sand
16.37
1450.38
1904.76
23.85
Project 2
68.10
7.38
1651.57
2285.71
27.74
Project 3
55.62
16.67
1656.54
2230.77
25.74
Project 4
52.42
Silty Clay
21.88
1902.20
2426.52
21.61
Project 5
50.50
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
6.15
1335.07
1818.18
26.57
Project 6
52.00
17.40
1648.22
2105.26
21.71
80
81
81
89
type of soils for the selected sites are silty clay with lamination of sand at certain
82
Figure 5.4: Correlation factor for ultimate capacity from load test result and static analysis
83
The ultimate capacities of the measured and calculated values at the six
selected sites were also used to establish a correlation chart. It is observed that the
ultimate capacity of a pile calculated from static analysis can be correlated to the
ultimate capacity measured from load test on site. It is however consistently smaller
in magnitude with a reduction factor ranging from 1.28 to 1.38. The correlation chart
also illustrates the linear relationship between these two methods, which could be
represented by the equation:
Qu SA = 0.76 Qu LT
Which calculation of ultimate pile capacity in static analysis was using Meyerhofs
Method while interpretation of load test results was based on Chins Method.
Ultimate load from load test, interpreted using Chins method is taken as a
datum data to compare with other methods. This is because result from load test is
based on actual loading and actual site condition.
78
5.3.3
Table 5.7: Comparison of ultimate capacity from static analysis and pile driving formulas
ULTIMATE CAPACITY, QU (KN)
Project Name
Static Analysis
(Meyerhof's Method)
Modified ENR
Diff.(%)
Hiley
Diff.(%)
Gates
Diff.(%)
Project 1
1450.38
243.03
83.24
322.49
77.77
575.29
60.34
Project 2
1651.57
232.04
85.95
259.39
84.29
595.61
63.94
Project 3
1656.54
364.73
77.98
485.80
70.67
874.27
47.22
Project 4
1902.20
371.54
80.47
511.16
73.13
874.27
54.04
Project 5
1335.07
354.70
73.43
486.74
63.54
817.67
38.75
Project 6
1648.22
268.15
83.73
334.70
79.69
629.49
61.81
85
Figure 5.5: Comparison of ultimate capacity based on static analysis and pile driving formulas
86
From the comparison between static analysis and pile driving formulas, it is
shown that static analysis by Meyerhofs method has a higher ultimate capacity, Qu
as compared to the three selected pile driving formulas. While among the three
driving formulas, Gates Formula shows a closer value to static analysis.
Static analysis is based on bearing capacity theory and the soil parameters
were predicted from the borehole data. These are not happening for analysis by pile
driving formulas where its assumptions depends only on types of piling equipment
and its efficiency as well as the slenderness of pile.
Pile driving formulas give the value of ultimate capacity during the driving
process. The values are significantly lower due to the soil that has been remolded
during the driving process especially when involving clayey soils. This can be
observed from the calculated ultimate capacity that using driving formulas in Project
2 always shows the lowest value as compared with other projects even though it
achieved the highest value of driving depth. Besides, Project 2 also indicated a
highest percentage of difference when compared to the value from static analysis. As
described in Geotechnical Information Of The Selected Sites in Chapter 4 and
Table 5.4 in previous part, Project 2 obtained the clayey soil at both along the middle
strata and bedding level of pile. As therefore, the significantly lower value and
higher percentage of difference established in Project 2 is because of the remolding
of soil that due to the driving works has created greater disturbance to clayey soil.
5.3.4
Table 5.8 : Comparison of ultimate capacity from load test results and pile driving formulas
ULTIMATE CAPACITY, QU (KN)
Project Name
Stability Plot
Modified ENR
Diff.(%)
Hiley
Diff.(%)
Gates
Diff.(%)
Project 1
1904.76
243.03
87.24
322.49
83.07
575.29
69.80
Project 2
2285.71
232.04
89.85
259.39
88.65
595.61
73.94
Project 3
2230.77
364.73
83.65
485.80
78.22
874.27
60.81
Project 4
2426.52
371.54
84.69
511.16
78.93
874.27
63.97
Project 5
1818.18
354.70
80.49
486.74
73.23
817.67
50.03
Project 6
2105.26
268.15
87.26
334.70
84.10
629.49
70.10
87
88
Figure 5.6: Comparison of ultimate capacity based on load test result and pile driving formulas
89
From the comparison between load test and pile driving formulas, it is noted
that ultimate capacity from interpretation of load test results by Chins method
achieved a 60% to 90% higher value as compare to the three selected pile driving
formulas. As the comparison between static analysis and pile driving formulas, the
ultimate capacity from Gates Formula still shows a closer value from load test result
than the other two methods.
The pile driving formulas are only the prediction of pile capacity to be
achieved during the driving process and significantly affected by the type of piling
equipment but the relationship of pile to the soil properties is not precisely described.
However, the ultimate capacity from these driving formulas would be even lower
when the sites involved more clay layer. This can be observed from the calculated
ultimate capacity of Project 2, which it shown a lowest value as compared with other
projects as well as obtained a highest difference when compared with load test results
even though it achieved the highest value of driving depth. The significant lower
value and higher percentage of difference established in Project 2 may be able to be
explained by the remolding of soil that due to the driving works has created greater
disturbance to clayey soil as compared to sandy soil.
The load test results are more reliable due to the following reasons:
The
The
condition,
Although
it does not pre-determine the pile slenderness, the effect still will