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

technical note
When the rig is working
parallel to the axis of the
tracks there is equal load
on both tracks
Figure 3: the minimum track bearing load always occurs when the rig body is working at
90 to the axis of the tracks
this may not cover all possible
loading combinations and rig
configurations that a rig user may
wish to apply under working site
conditions. Also, the method of
stability calculation used in the
Eurocodes does not recognise the
different levels of risk associated
with different types of operations,
as does the BRE Report Working
platforms for tracked plant. There
is no conflict between the Eurocode
stability calculations and the BRE
working platform design method,
however, it is simply that they serve
different purposes, are each based
on information available at the
time, and use different analytical
processes accordingly.
Experience of calculating
rig track bearing pressures, and
checking rig stability has shown that
occasionally, the applied loading
specified by a rig user can result in
one track being close to lifting off
the ground or, in extreme cases,
being sufficient to cause the rig
to overturn. The situation can be
remedied by a number of means,
such as by controlling the rig
geometry that can be used, limiting
winch loads by mechanical means
or modifying the rig, for example
by adding a mast footpad. However,
if the rig track loads are calculated
without any stability check and
the loading imposed is such that
one track could be close to lifting
off the ground, then a potentially
dangerous situation exists of which
the track loading calculator, the
working platform designer and rig
user are unaware.
Rig loading data included in
the rig operational manual should
always be checked in the first
instance. However, the particular
operating condition required may
not be covered in the manual, or the
maximum track bearing pressure
required to ensure stability may
46 ground engineering september
When the rig is working perpendicular to the axis of
the tracks, at the limit, all the load is on one track
and the other track is about to lift off the ground, at
which point the rig would overturn
not be achievable with the available
working platform. What is needed
is a simple stability check that rig
operators can use, not to replace
the BS EN 996:1995 calculations,
but to provide some warning that
the envisaged operating condition
and loading should be further
investigated, to ensure the rig will be
operated within safe limits.
The Eurocode stability
calculations are complex and take
into account own weight, wind,
accelerations, working loads and
even a degree of unintentional
loading and are not easily
replicated by a user wishing to
check a particular combination of
operating conditions. As there is
no simple means currently available
of assessing if the loading and
operating conditions required
for a rig are safe from the risk of
overturning, the Rig Stability Factor
is proposed for this purpose.
Rig track loading example
Figure 1 shows an example of track
loading for a typical medium size
piling rig. The maximum track
loading pressure is not particularly
high but, as can be seen from Figure
2, when the rig is operating with the
rig body near to perpendicular to the
axis of the tracks, one track is about
to lift off the ground.
The calculated track loading
gives no indication of any potential
stability problem and there is clearly
a need to limit operating conditions
to ensure safe working of the rig.
Rig Stability Factor
Introduction
The maximum track bearing
pressures are usually found to occur
when the rig body is working at
between 15 and 45 to the axis of
the tracks and the working platform
must be designed so that the rig
can be safely supported for this
maximum pressure. However, the
minimum track bearing load always
occurs when the rig body is working
at 90 to the axis of the tracks.
When the rig is working parallel
to the axis of the tracks there is
equal load on both tracks.
When the rig is working
perpendicular to the axis of the
tracks, at the limit, all the load is on
one track and the other track is about
to lift off the ground, at which point
the rig would overturn (see Figure 3).
The Rig Stability Factor has been
developed as a simple check to
calculate how close the rig loading is
to reducing the lower track bearing
load to zero, i.e. to the rig being on
the point of overturning.
Derivation
To assess how close a rig is to the
point of one track lifting off the
ground, a Rig Stability Factor has
been defined as:
Rig Lateral moment to reduce
Stability = load on one track to zero
Factor Lateral moment due to include:
applied rig loading
M and reinforcement cages).
Pmax Pmin
s
Pmax = Maximum track load when the
rig is working perpendicular to the axis
of the tracks
Pmin = Minimum track load when the
rig is working perpendicular to the axis
of the tracks
M = Overturning moment
S = Track spacing (centreline to
centreline)
Total vertical load = Pmax + Pmin
Overturning moment with total
load on one track [Mo] = (Pmax +
Pmin) x S
Overturning moment at working
load [Mw] = (Pmax Pmin) x S
Rig Mo Pmax + Pmin
Stability = Mw = Pmax - Pmin
Factor
When one track is about to lift off
the ground (Pmin = 0), and the rig is
about to overturn, the Rig Stability
Factor = 1.0.
It should be noted that in practice,
the total load on the tracks may vary
as more load is applied, affecting
the overturning moment, or the rig
geometry may be varied, by moving
the mast position or rake, which may
also affect the overturning moment.
This analysis will not reflect the
effect of all possible variations in
loading and rig geometry, but does
provide a very simple calculation.
Application
Calculation of the Rig Stability
Factor provides a means of
comparing a working condition
with loading that could result in
a rig overturning. However, there
needs to be some margin against
the extreme condition of a rig
overturning, for which the following
is proposed, and relates to the two
loading cases used in the BRE
design method (Reference BRE
470).
Case 1 loading
These loading conditions may apply
when the rig or crane operator is
unlikely to be able to aid recovery
from an imminent platform failure.
Operations in which this type of
loading condition applies could
n Standing
n Travelling
n Handling (in crane mode, for
example lifting a precast concrete
pile into the leader, handling casings
Case 2 loading
These loading conditions may apply
when the rig or crane operator can
control the load safely, for example
by releasing the line load, or by
reducing power, to aid recovery
from an imminent platform failure.
Case 2 loading is generally given
by the worst combination of load
and orientation of the rig.
Operations in which this type of
loading condition applies to a piling
rig could include:
n Installing casing
n Drilling
n Extracting an auger
2011
n Extracting casing
n Rig travelling or slewing with a
fixed mast which has a foot or fixed
load (for example a pile held in the
leader) close to the platform surface.
Reflecting the difference between
these two loading cases, BRE 470
sets out that for Case 1 a loading
factor of 1.6 should be applied to the
characteristic loading (working load)
and for Case 2 the loading factor
should be 1.2. These different loading
factors are not factors of safety
or partial load factors, but simply
empirical factors incorporated into
the BRE design method to reflect
whether or not the rig driver may or
may not be able to aid recovery from
an imminent failure.
It would be consistent with the
BRE philosophy to adopt a similar
approach to an appropriate margin
against the extreme condition of
a rig overturning due to excessive
loading, and therefore the following
is proposed:
n For Case 1 loading, the Rig
Stability Factor should not be less
than 1.6
n For Case 2 loading, the Rig
Stability Factor should not be less
than 1.2
Adopting these limits would
Graduate
Awards 2011
Call For
Entries
Sponsored by
ground engineering may 2011 47
effectively impose the same factors
on instability due to excessive
loading as the BRE design method
imposes the design strength of the
working platform.
Experience
Calculation of the maximum track
bearing pressures alone may give
no indication of any impending
instability due to the input loading.
Without any check on rig stability for
the required operating conditions,
the calculated maximum track
loadings could be reported to the
working platform designer and the
rig user with nobody being aware of
whether or not the rig stability may
be in question.
The authors experience of
using the Rig Stability Factor has
shown that the proposed minimum
Rig Stability Factors are usually
achieved. However, there have been
occasions when applied loading had
to be restricted, or the rig modified,
in order to provide some margin
against a potential overturning
failure, and avoid a potentially
dangerous situation.
An example of such a situation
was when a rig operator requested
extraction winch loading that would
have been sufficient to overturn the
rig, if applied in full. As the full
extraction force was required for
operational reasons, a mast footpad
was designed, to provide additional
overturning resistance, and ensure
adequate stability.
Conclusions
The purpose of this paper is to
improve safety by increasing
awareness of which conditions may
result in a piling rig being at the
limiting point of overturning. As
such we can conclude:
n Complex stability calculations
required to be carried out by
manufacturers in accordance
with EN 996:1995 are intended
to provide a consistent degree of
inherent stability for the purposes
of rig design, but do not necessarily
guarantee stability under all loading
combinations and rig configurations
that a rig user may wish to apply
under working site conditions.
n There is no simple means
currently available of assessing
whether the specific loading and
operating conditions required for
a rig are safe and provide some
margin against the rig overturning,
not due to any inadequacy in the
Did you graduate from a civil
engineering - or related - degree
course in 2010?
If so it could be you receiving prizes and praise in our
industrys top Graduate Awards.
For information and an entry form visit:
nce.co.uk/graduateawards
or contact David Hayward on
01325 461149
hayward.david@virgin.net
Entries deadline: 20 September 2011
working platform, but due to the
applied loading.
n The Rig Stability Factor is very
simple to calculate and is proposed
to fulfil the stability check function.
n Experience of using the Rig
Stability Factor has shown that
the proposed minimum factors are
usually exceeded. But there have
been occasions when the applied
loading had to be restricted, or the
rig modified, in order to ensure there
was an acceptable margin against
a potential overturning failure
and avoid a potentially dangerous
situation.
References
BR470. Working platforms for tracked
plant: good practice guide to the design,
installation, maintenance and repair of
ground-supported working platforms.
Building Research Establishment,
2004.
BS EN 996:1995 +A3:2009, Piling
equipment. Safety requirements
BS EN 791:1995+A1:2009, Drill
rigs Safety