PILED FOUNDATION

DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION

By Ir. Dr. Gue See Sew &

Ir. Chow Chee Meng
http://www.gnpgeo.com.my
 Contents
z Overview

z Preliminary Study
z Site Visit & SI Planning
z Pile Design
z Pile Installation Methods
z Types of Piles
 Contents (Contd)
z Piling Supervision
z Pile Damage
z Piling Problems
z Typical Design and Construction Issues
z Myths in Piling
z Case Histories
z Conclusions
Overview
What is a Pile Foundation
It is a foundation system that
transfers loads to a deeper
and competent soil layer.
When To Use Pile Foundations

Inadequate Bearing Capacity of Shallow

Foundations
To Prevent Uplift Forces
To Reduce Excessive Settlement
 PILE CLASSIFICATION
z Friction Pile
Load Bearing Resistance derived mainly
from skin friction

z End Bearing Pile

Load Bearing Resistance derived mainly
from base
 Friction Pile

Overburden Soil Layer

 End Bearing Pile

Overburden Soil

Rock / Hard Layer

Preliminary Study
 Preliminary Study

z Type & Requirements of Superstructure

z Proposed Platform Level (ie CUT or FILL)
z Geology of Area
z Previous Data or Case Histories
z Subsurface Investigation Planning
z Selection of Types & Size of Piles
 Previous Data & Case
Histories

Existing
Existing Proposed Development
Development Development B
A

Only Need Minimal

Number of Boreholes

Bedrock
Profile
Challenge The Norm Thru
Innovation To Excel
 SELECTION OF PILES
Factors Influencing Pile Selection
Types of Piles Available in Market (see Fig. 1)
Installation Method
Contractual Requirements
Ground Conditions (eg Limestone, etc)
Site Conditions & Constraints (eg Accessibility)
Type and Magnitude of Loading
Development Program & Cost
etc
 TYPE OF PILES

DISPLACEMENT PILES NON-DISPLACEMENT PILES

TOTALLY PREFORMED PILES DRIVEN CAST IN-PLACE PILES Bored piles

(A ready-made pile is driven or jacked (a tube is driven into ground to Micro piles
into the ground) form void)

Hollow Solid Concrete Tube Steel Tube

Small displacement

Closed ended
tube concreted Closed ended tube Open ended tube
Steel Pipe Concrete Spun Piles with tube left in extracted while
position concreting (Franki)

Restricted use due to

Concrete Steel H-piles Bakau piles environmental
(small displacement) Treated timber pile
considerations

Precast R.C. Precast prestressed

piles piles

FIG 1: CLASSIFICATION OF PILES

 PREFORMED PILES
LEGEND :

STEEL PIPE PILES

TYPE OF PILE

AUGERED PILES
INDICATES THAT THE PILE TYPE IS

STEEL H PILES

JACKED PILES
8

TIMPER PILES

BORED PILES
BAKAU PILES

MICROPILES
SUITABLE

SPUN PILES
PSC PILES
DESIGN

RC PILES
INDICATES THAT THE PILE TYPE IS
CONSIDERATIONS x
NOT SUITABLE

? ? ? ? x ? INDICATES THAT THE USE OF PILE

<100 KN a a a a a
? ? x ? TYPE IS DOUBTFUL OR NOT COST
100-300 a a a a a a a a
SCALE OF LOAD

EFFECTIVE UNLESS ADDITIONAL

(STRUCTURAL)

300-600 ? a a a a a a a a a a
600-1100 x ? a a a a a ? a a ? MEASURES TAKEN
COMPRESSIVE LOAD PER COLUMN
1100-2000 x ? a a a a a ? a a ?
2000-5000 x x a a a a a ? a a ?
5000-10000 x x a a a a a x a a x
>10000 x x ? a a a a x a ? x
<5m ? ? ? ? ? ? ? x a a ?
a a a a a a a ? a a a
BEARING TYPE

5-10m
MAINLY END -BEARING
10-20m ? ? a a a a a a a a a
(D=Anticipated depth of bearing)
20-30m x x a a a a a a a a a
30-60m x x a a a a a a a ? a
MAINLY FRICTION a a a a a ? a a a ? a
PARTLY FRICTION + PARTLY END BEARING a a a a a a a a a ? a
LIMESTON FORMATION ? ? ? ? ? a a a ? a a
BEARING
TYPE OF

LAYER

WEATHERED ROCK / SOFT ROCK x x a a a a a ? a a ?

ROCK (RQD > 70%) x x ? ? ? a a ? a a ?
x ?
GEOTECHNICAL

DENSE / VERY DENSE SAND a a a a a a a a a

SOFT SPT < 4 a a a a a a a a a ? a
M. STIFF SPT = 4 - 15 a a a a a a a a a a a
TYPE OF INTERMEDIATE LAYER

COHESIVE SOIL
V. STIFF SPT = 15 - 32 ? a a a a a a a a a a
HARD SPT > 32 x ? a a a a a a a a a
LOOSE SPT < 10 a a a a a a a a a a a
M. DENSE SPT = 10 - 30 ? a a a a a a a a a a
COHESIVELESS SOIL
DENSE SPT = 30 - 50 x ? a a a a a a a a a
V. DENSE SPT > 50 x x a a a a a ? a a ?
S < 100 mm x ? a a a a a a a a ?
SOIL WITH SOME BOULDERS / 100-1000mm x x ? ? ? a a ? a a x
COBBLES (S=SIZE) 1000-3000mm x x ? ? ? ? ? ? ? a x
>3000mm x x ? ? ? ? ? ? ? a x
GROUND ABOVE PILE CAP a a a a a a a a a a a
WATER BELOW PILE CAP x a a a a a a a a a a
NOISE + VIBRATION; COUNTER MEASURES ? ? ? ? ?
a a a a a a
ENVIRONME REQUIRED
NT
PREVENTION OF EFFECTS ON ADJOINING ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
a a a
STRUCTURES
UNIT COST (SUPPLY & INSTALL) RM/TON/M 0.5-2.5 0.3-2.0 1.0-3.5 1-2 0.5-2 1.5-3 1-2.5
FIG 2 : PILE SELECTION CHART
Site Visit and SI Planning
 Site Visit
Things To Look For
z Accessibility & Constraints of Site

z Adjacent Structures/Slopes, Rivers,

Boulders, etc
z Adjacent Activities (eg excavation)
z Confirm Topography & Site Conditions
z Any Other Observations that may affect
Design and Construction of Foundation
 Subsurface Investigation (SI)
Planning
z Provide Sufficient Boreholes to get Subsoil Profile
z Collect Rock Samples for Strength Tests (eg UCT)
z In-Situ Tests to get consistency of ground (eg SPT)
z Classification Tests to Determine Soil Type
Profile
z Soil Strength Tests (eg CIU)
z Chemical Tests (eg Chlorine, Sulphate, etc)
Typical Cross-Section at Hill Site

Ground Level
Hard Material Level

Very Hard Material Level

Bedrock Level

Groundwater Level
 EXISTING
CROSS SECTION GROUND
LEVEL
BH
BH C1, 1

, 2
W T a y er C 2

ched yL
er y e
BH P Cla

Seepage C3, 3

Water Table
Placing Boreholes in Limestone
Areas
z Stage 1 : Preliminary S.I.
- Carry out geophysical survey (for large areas)

z Stage 2: Detailed S.I.

- Boreholes at Critical Areas Interpreted from
Stage 1

z Stage 3: During Construction

- Rock Probing at Selected Columns to
supplement Stage 2
Pile Design
 PILE DESIGN

Allowable Pile Capacity is the minimum of :

1) Allowable Structural Capacity

2) Allowable Geotechnical Capacity

a. Negative Skin Friction
b. Settlement Control
 PILE DESIGN
Structural consideration

Not overstressed during handling, installation & in

service for pile body, pile head, joint & shoe.

Dimension & alignment tolerances (common

defects?)

Compute the allowable load in soft soil (<10kPa)

over hard stratum (buckling load)

Durability assessment
 Pile Capacity Design
Structural Capacity
Qall = Allowable pile
capacity
z Concrete Pile
fcu = characteristic strength
Qall = 0.25 x fcu x Ac of concrete
fs = yield strength of steel
Ac = cross sectional area of
z Steel Pile concrete
Qall = 0.3 x fy x As As = cross sectional area of
steel

z Prestressed Concrete Pile

Qall = 0.25 (fcu Prestress after loss) x Ac
 Pile Capacity Design
Geotechnical Capacity
Collection of SI Data
Depth Vs SPT-N Blow Count
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
0 0
2
4 2
6
Depth (m)

8 Upper Bound 4
10
12
6
14
16
8
18
20
Design Line
22 Lower 10
(Moderately
Bound Conservative)
24
26 12
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
SPT Blow Count per 300mm Penetration
 Pile Capacity Design
Geotechnical Capacity
Collection of SI Data
Depth Vs SPT-N Blow Count Depth Vs SPT-N Blow Count
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

0 0 0 0

2 2

4 4 2
2

6 6

Depth (m)
8
Upper Bound
Depth (m)

4 4
10 10

12 12
6 6
14 14

16 16

8 8
18 Design Line 18
Upper Bound
Lower
20
20 Bound
22 10 22 Lower 10
Bound Design Line
24 24

26 12 26 12

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

SPT Blow Count per 300mm Penetration SPT Blow Count per 300mm Penetration
 Moderately Conservative
Design Parameters
z Eurocode 7 definition:
Characteristic value of a geotechnical
parameter shall be selected as a cautious
estimate of the value affecting the occurrence
of the limit state

In other words, moderately conservative

 Moderately Conservative
Design Parameters
z If at least 10 test results are available:

A value of 0.5D below the mean of the test

results provides a useful indication of the
characteristic value

1. Contribution to Discussion Session 2.3, XIV ICSMFE, Hamburg, Balkema, Schneider H R (1997) Definition and
determination of characteristic soil properties. Discussion to ISSMFE Conference, Hamburg.
2. Extracted from Prof. Brian Simpsons Course Note (2-day Course on Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design to EC7, 13-14
November 2007, PJ, Malaysia).
Extracted from Prof. Brian Simpsons Course Note (2-day Course on Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design to EC7, 13-14
November 2007, PJ, Malaysia).
 Pile Capacity Design
Geotechnical Capacity

Piles installed in a group may fail:

Individually
As a block
 Pile Capacity Design
Geotechnical Capacity

Piles fail individually

When installed at large spacing
 Pile Capacity Design
Geotechnical Capacity

Piles fail as a block

When installed at close spacing
Pile Capacity Design
Single Pile Capacity
 Pile Capacity Design
Factor of Safety (FOS)

Factor of Safety (FOS) is required

for
z Natural variations in soil strength &
compressibility
 Pile Capacity Design
Factor of Safety (FOS)
Factor of Safety is
(FOS) required for
z Different degree of

Load
mobilisation for shaft
qsmob
& for tip

qbmob

5mm Settlement
 Pile Capacity Design
Factor of Safety (FOS)
Partial factors of safety for shaft & base
capacities respectively
z For shaft, use 1.5 (typical)
z For base, use 3.0 (typical)

z Qall = Qsu + Qbu

1.5 3.0
 Pile Capacity Design
Factor of Safety (FOS)

Global factor of safety for total ultimate

capacity
z Use 2.0 (typical)

z Qall = Qsu + Qbu

2.0
 Pile Capacity Design
Factor of Safety (FOS)

z Calculate using BOTH approaches

(Partial & Global)
z Choose the lower of the Qall values
 Pile Capacity Design
Single Pile Capacity
Qu = ultimate bearing capacity
Qu = Qs + Qb

Qs = skin friction

Qb = end bearing
Overburden Soil Layer
 Pile Capacity Design
Single Pile Capacity : In Cohesive Soil
Qsu Qbu
Qu = .sus.As + sub.Nc.Ab

Qu = Ultimate bearing capacity of the pile

a = adhesion factor (see next slide)
sus = average undrained shear strength for shaft
As = surface area of shaft
sub = undrained shear strength at pile base
Nc = bearing capacity factor (taken as 9.0)
Ab = cross sectional area of pile base
 Pile Capacity Design
Single Pile Capacity: In Cohesive Soil
Adhesion factor () Shear strength (Su)
(McClelland, 1974)
1.0
Preferred
Design Line
0.8

0.6

C/Su
0.4

Adhesion
Factor
0.2

0
25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Su (kN/m2)
 Meyerhof Fukuoka
su =
fsu=2.5N fsu=.su
SPT N (0.1+0.15N)*50
(kPa) (kPa)
(kPa)
0 0 5 1 5
1 2.5 12.5 1 12.5
5 12.5 42.5 0.7 29.75
10 25 80 0.52 41.6
15 37.5 117.5 0.4 47
20 50 155 0.33 51.15
30 75 230 0.3 69
40 100 305 0.3 91.5
 Pile Capacity Design
Single Pile Capacity: In Cohesive Soil

Correlation Between SPT N and fsu

fsu vs SPT N

110

100

90

80

70

60
(kPa)
fsu

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
SPT N

Meyerhof Fukuoka
 Pile Capacity Design
Single Pile Capacity: In Cohesive Soil

z Values of undrained shear strength, su can be

obtained from the following:
9 Unconfined compressive test

9 Field vane shear test

9 Deduce based on Fukuokas Plot (minimum su )

Deduce from SPT-N values based on Meyerhof

NOTE: Use only direct field data for shaft friction prediction
instead of Meyerhof
 Pile Capacity Design
Single Pile Capacity: In Cohesive Soil

Modified Meyerhof (1976):

Ult. Shaft friction = Qsu 2.5N (kPa)

Ult. Toe capacity = Qbu 250N (kPa)

or 9 su (kPa)

(Beware of base cleaning for bored piles

ignore base capacity if doubtful)
 Pile Capacity Design
Single Pile Capacity: In Cohesionless Soil

Modified Meyerhof (1976):

z Ult. Shaft Friction = Qsu 2.0N (kPa)

z Ult. Toe Capacity= Qbu 250N 400N

(kPa)
Pile Capacity Design
Load (kN)
00 100
100 200
200 300
300 400
400 500
500

00 00

44 44

Qsu
88
Qbu 88
Depth (m)

Qsu + Qbu
12
12 12
12

Qsu + Qbu Qsu + Qbu

1.5 3.0 2.0
16
16 16
16

20
20 20
20

00 200
200 400
400 600
600
 Pile Capacity Design
Single Pile Capacity: For Bored Piles

Semi-empirical Method (SPT-N)

Shaft : fsu = Ksu SPT-N
Tip : fbu = Kbu SPT-N

From Malaysian experience:

Ksu = 2.0
Kbu = 7.0 to 60 (depending on workmanship)
 Pile Capacity Design
Single Pile Capacity: For Bored Piles
z Base cleaning of bored piles
Difficult and no practical means of verification
during construction avaliable

z Baseresistance require large movement to

mobilise

z Basecontribution in bored pile design

ignored unless proper base cleaning can be
assured and verified (or base grouting, etc.)
 Rock Socket Design
Rock Socket Design Factors :
Socket Roughness (Shearing Dilation)
Intact Rock UCS, quc
Confining Stiffness (Rock mass fractures
& Pile Diameter)
Socket Geometry Ratio

Socket Resistance, fs = quc

 - Factor (after Tomlinson, 1995)
 - Factor (after Tomlinson, 1995)
 Point Load Test
(UCS of Intact Rock)
Load Transfer Profile of Rock Socket
(after Pells & Tuner, 1979)
Summary of Rock Socket Friction Design
Values (updated from Tan & Chow, 2003)
Rock Formation Working Rock Socket Friction* Source

Limestone 300kPa for RQD < 30% Authors

400kPa for RQD = 30 %
500kPa for RQD =40 %
600kPa for RQD =55 %
700kPa for RQD =70 %
800kPa for RQD > 85%
The above design values are subject to 0.05x
minimum of {quc, fcu} whichever is smaller.

Sandstone 0.10quc Thorne (1977)

Shale 0.05quc Thorne (1977)

Granite 1000 1500kPa for quc > 30N/mm2 Tan & Chow (2003)

Where:
RQD = Rock Quality Designation
quc = Unconfined Compressive Strength of rock
fcu = Concrete grade
 End Bearing Design in Rock

Only designed when

Dry Hole
Base Cleaning & Inspection are possible
Pile Capacity Design
Block Capacity
 Pile Capacity Design
Block Capacity:In Cohesive Soil

Qu = 2D(B+L) s + 1.3(sb.Nc.B.L)
Where
Qu= ultimate bearing capacity of pile group
D = depth of pile below pile cap level
B = width of pile group
L = length of pile group
s = average cohesion of clay around group
sb = cohesion of clay beneath group
Nc= bearing capacity factor = 9.0
(Refer to Text by Tomlinson, 1995)
 Pile Capacity Design
Block Capacity: In Cohesionless Soil

No risk of group failure

if FOS of individual pile is
adequate
 Pile Capacity Design
Block Capacity: On Rock

No risk of block failure

if the piles are properly
seated in the rock
formation
 Pile Capacity Design
Negative Skin Friction (NSF)
 Pile Capacity Design
Negative Skin Friction

z Compressible soil layer consolidates

with time due to:
Surcharge of fill
Lowering of groundwater table
 Pile Capacity Design
Negative Skin Friction

Hf
Fill
OGL
0
1 2 3 Month
s

Clay
 Pile Capacity Design
Negative Skin Friction

Pile to length (floating pile)

Pile settles with consolidating soil
NO NSF
 Pile Capacity Design
Negative Skin Friction

Pile to set at hard stratum (end-

bearing pile)
Consolidation causes downdrag forces on
piles as soil settles more than the pile
Design Considerations
Skin Friction
Load
Original Ground Level

Soil Settlement > Pile Settlement

Positive Skin
Negative Skin
Friction
Friction
Negative Skin Friction
Load
Original Ground Level

Soil Settlement > Pile Settlement

Negative Skin
Friction
End-Bearing
Crushing of Pile!!!
Negative Skin Friction
Load
Load Original Ground Level
Load

Soil Settlement > Pile Settlement

Friction Pile
Excessive Settlement
 Negative Skin Friction
Pile Settlement >
Soil Settlement > Pile Settlement
Soil Settlement

Load Load

Load
Negative
Skin Friction Pile

Positive Skin Friction Excessive

Friction Settlement
End-Bearing
Pile
Crushing of
Pile!!!
 Pile Capacity Design
Negative Skin Friction

WARNING:
No free fill by the contractor to avoid
NSF
 Effect of NSF

Reduction of Pile Carrying Capacity

Effect of NSF
NSF Preventive Measures
z Avoid Filling
z Carry Out Surcharging
z Sleeve the Pile Shaft
z Slip Coating
z Reserve Structural Capacity for NSF
z Allow for Larger Settlements
 Pile Capacity Design
Negative Skin Friction
Qall = (Qsu/1.5 + Qbu/3.0)
Qall = (Qsu/1.5 + Qbu/3.0) - Qneg

FL
OGL Sand OGL

Clay
Clay Qneg
Qsu

Qsu
Sand Sand

Qba
Qba
 Pile Capacity Design
Negative Skin Friction
Increased Pile Axial Load
Check: maximum axial load < structural pile
SPT-N (Blows/300mm) Settlement (mm) Axial Compression Force (kN)
capacity 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
70 60 50 40 30 20 10
100 0 -100 -200 -300-400-500-600 -700 -800 -900-1000
0

10

15
Depth (m, bgl)

Settlement Curves &

20 Axial Compression Force
14 May 98
15 May 98
18 May 98
25 21 May 98
04 Jun 98
09 Jun 98
30 19 Jun 98
02 Jul 98
13 Jul 98
Maximum
Borehole
35
BH-1 Datum = 36.300m axial load
BH-2
40
 Pile Capacity Design
Factor of Safety (FOS)
Without Negative Skin Friction:

Qult
Allowable working load
FOS
With Negative Skin Friction:

Allowable working load

Qult
(Qneg + etc)
FOS
 Pile Capacity Design
Static Pile Load Test (Piles with NSF)
Specified Working Load (SWL) = Specified foundation
load at pile head
Design Verification Load (DVL) = SWL + 2 Qneg
Proof Load: will not normally exceed
DVL + SWL
Pile Settlement Design
 Pile Settlement Design
In Cohesive Soil

Design for total settlement &

differential settlement for design
tolerance
In certain cases,
cases total settlement not an
issue
Differential settlement can cause
damage to structures
 Pile Settlement Design
In Cohesive Soil

Pile Group Settlement in Clay

=

Immediate / Consolidation
Elastic Settlement + Settlement
 Pile Settlement Design
In Cohesive Soil
IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT

1 0 qn B by Janbu, Bjerrum and

pi = Kjaernsli (1956)
Eu
Where
pi = average immediate settlement
qn= pressure at base of equivalent raft
B = width of the equivalent raft
Eu= deformation modulus
1, 0= influence factors for pile group width, B at depth D
below ground surface
 Pile Settlement Design
In Cohesive Soil
IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT

1
0

Influence factors (after

Janbu, Bjerrum and
Kjaernsli, 1956)
 Pile Settlement Design
In Cohesive Soil

CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT

As per footing (references given later)

Pile Settlement Design
On Rock

No risk of excessive
settlement
Pile Installation Methods
 PILE INSTALLATION
METHODS
Diesel / Hydraulic / Drop Hammer
Driving
Jacked-In
Prebore Then Drive
Prebore Then Jacked In
Cast-In-Situ Pile
Diesel Drop Hammer Hydraulic Hammer
Driving Driving
Jacked-In
Piling
Jacked-In Piling (Contd)
Cast -In-Situ
Cast-In-Situ
Piles
((Micropiles)
Micropiles)
Types of Piles
 TYPES OF PILES

Treated Timber Steel Piles

Piles
Boredpiles
Bakau Piles
Micropiles
R.C. Square Piles
Caisson Piles
Pre-Stressed
Concrete Spun
Piles
 R.C. Square Piles

zSize : 150mm to 400mm

zLengths : 3m, 6m, 9m and 12m
zStructural Capacity : 25Ton to 185Ton
zMaterial : Grade 40MPa Concrete
zJoints: Welded
zInstallation Method :
Drop Hammer
Jack-In
 RC
Square
Piles
Pile Marking
Pile Lifting
Pile Fitting to Piling Machine
 Pile
Positioning
Pile Joining
Considerations in Using RC
Square Piles
Pile Quality
Pile Handling Stresses
Driving Stresses
Tensile Stresses
Lateral Loads
Jointing
Pre-stressed Concrete Spun
Piles
zSize : 250mm to 1000mm
zLengths : 6m, 9m and 12m (Typical)
zStructural Capacity : 45Ton to 520Ton
zMaterial : Grade 60MPa & 80MPa Concrete
zJoints: Welded
zInstallation Method :
Drop Hammer
Jack-In
Spun Piles
Spun Piles vs RC Square Piles
Spun Piles have
Better Bending Resistance
Higher Axial Capacity
Better Manufacturing Quality
Able to Sustain Higher Driving Stresses
Higher Tensile Capacity
Easier to Check Integrity of Pile
Similar cost as RC Square Piles
 Steel H Piles

zSize : 200mm to 400m

zLengths : 6m and 12m
zStructural Capacity : 40Ton to 1,000Ton
zMaterial : 250N/mm2 to 410N/mm2 Steel
zJoints: Welded
zInstallation Method :
Hydraulic Hammer
Jack-In
Steel H
Piles
Steel H Piles (Contd)
Steel H Piles Notes

Corrosion Rate
Fatigue
OverDriving
 OverDriving
of Steel Piles
 Large Diameter Cast-In-Situ
Piles (Bored Piles)

z Size : 450mm to 2m
(Up to 3.0m for special case)
z Lengths : Varies
z Structural Capacity : 80Ton to 2,300Tons
z Concrete Grade : 20MPa to 35MPa (Tremie)
z Joints : None
z Installation Method : Drill then Cast-In-Situ
 Drilling
Borepile Construction

Overburden Soil Layer

Bedrock
 Advance Drilling
Borepile Construction

Overburden Soil Layer

Bedrock
 Drilling & Advance
Borepile Construction
Casing

Overburden Soil Layer

Bedrock
 Drill to Bedrock
Borepile Construction

Overburden Soil Layer

Bedrock
 Lower
Borepile Construction
Reinforcement
Cage

Overburden Soil Layer

Bedrock
 Lower Tremie
Borepile Construction
Chute

Overburden Soil Layer

Bedrock
 Pour Tremie
Borepile Construction
Concrete

Overburden Soil Layer

Bedrock
 Completed
Borepile Construction
Borepile

Overburden Soil Layer

Bedrock
 Bored Pile Construction

BORED PILING MACHINE

BG22
 Rock Reamer Rock Auger
Cleaning Bucket
Rock Chisel

Harden Steel
 Bored Pile Construction

DRILLING EQUIPMENT

Coring
bucket Soil auger
Cleaning
bucket
 Bored Pile Construction

BENTONITE PLANT
Desanding
Machine

Water
Tank Mixer Slurry
Tank
Drilling
 Lower
Reinforcement
 Place
Tremie
Concrete
Completed Boredpile
 Borepile Cosiderations

Borepile Base Difficult to Clean

Bulging / Necking

Collapse of Sidewall

Dispute on Level of Weathered Rock

 Micropiles

zSize : 100mm to 350mm Diameter

zLengths : Varies
zStructural Capacity : 20Ton to 250Ton
zMaterial : Grade 25MPa to 35MPa Grout
N80 API Pipe as Reinforcement
zJoints: None
zInstallation Method :
Drill then Cast-In-Situ
Percussion Then Cast-In-Situ
Cast-In-Situ
Piles
(Micropiles)
TYPES OF PILE SHOES

Flat Ended Shoe

Oslo Point
Cast-Iron Pointed Tip
Cross Fin Shoe
H-Section
Cross Fin Shoe

Do more harm in
inclined rock surface!
Oslo Point Shoe
Cast Iron Tip Shoe

Do more harm in
inclined rock surface!
H-Section Shoe
Do more harm in
inclined rock surface!
Piling Supervision
Uniform Building By
Law (UBBL)1984
 PILING SUPERVISION
Ensure That Piles Are Stacked Properly
Ensure that Piles are Vertical During Driving
Keep Proper Piling Records
Ensure Correct Pile Types and Sizes are Used
Ensure that Pile Joints are Properly Welded with
NO GAPS
Ensure Use of Correct Hammer Weights and Drop
Heights
 PILING SUPERVISION
(Contd)
Ensure that Proper Types of Pile Shoes are Used.
Check Pile Quality
Ensure that the Piles are Driven to the Required
Lengths
Monitor Pile Driving
 FAILURE OF PILING
SUPERVISION

Failing to Provide Proper Supervision

WILL Result in
Higher Instances of Pile Damage
& Wastage
Pile Damage
Driven concrete piles are vulnerable
to damages by overdriving.
Damage to Timber Pile
Damage To RC Pile Toe
Damage to
RC Pile
Head
Damage to
RC Piles
Damage to RC Piles contd
Damage to Steel Piles
Damaged Steel Pipe Piles
Piling Problems
Piling Problems Soft Ground
 Piling Problems Soft Ground
Ground heave due to
pressure relief at base &
surcharge near
excavation

Pile tilts & moves/walks

Piling Problems Soft Ground
Piling in Kuala Lumpur Limestone
Important Points to Note:
Highly Irregular Bedrock Profile
Presence of Cavities & Solution Channels
Very Soft Soil Immediately Above Limestone
Bedrock

Results in
High Rates of Pile Damage
High Bending Stresses
Piling Problems in Typical Limestone
Bedrock
Piling Problems Undetected
Problems
Piling Problems Coastal Alluvium
 Piling Problems Defective Piles

Defect due to poor

Seriously damaged workmanship of pile
pile due to severe casting
driving stress in soft
ground (tension)
Piling Problems Defective Piles

Problems of
defective pile head
Defective pile shoe & overdriving!
Piling Problems Defective Piles
Non-
chamfered
corners

Cracks&
fractured
Piling Problems Defective Piles

Pile head defect due to

hard driving or and poor
workmanship
Piling Problem - Micropiles

Sinkholes caused by
installation method-
dewatering?
 Piling in Fill Ground
Important Points to Note:
High Consolidation Settlements If Original Ground is
Soft
Uneven Settlement Due to Uneven Fill Thickness
Collapse Settlement of Fill Layer If Not Compacted
Properly

Results in
Negative Skin Friction (NSF) & Crushing of Pile Due
to High Compressive Stresses
Uneven Settlements
 Typical Design and
Construction Issues #1
Issue #1
Pile Toe Slippage Due to Steep Incline Bedrock

Solution #1
Use Oslo Point Shoe To Minimize Pile Damage
Pile Breakage on Inclined
Rock Surface

No Proper Pile
Shoe
 Extension Pile
Pile
Joint
 First Contact
B/W Toe and
Inclined Rock
Pile Joint Breaks

Pile Body Bends

Toe Kicked Off

on Driving
Pile Breakage on Inclined
Rock Surface

Continue
Sliding of
Toe
Use Oslo Point Shoe to Minimize
Damage
 Design and Construction
Issues #2
Issue #2
Presence of Cavity

Solution #2
Detect Cavities through Cavity Probing then
perform Compaction Grouting
Presence of Cavity

Pile Sitting on
Limestone
with Cavity
Application of
Building Load
Application of
Building Load

Roof of Cavity
starts to Crack
 Building Collapse

Pile Plunges !

Collapse of
Cavity Roof
 Design and Construction
Issues #3
Issue #3
Differential Settlement

Solution #3
Carry out analyses to check the settlement
compatibility if different piling system is adopted
 Differential Settlement of Foundation
SAFETY
Link House of
Original Building
Construction Cracks!!
Not Compromised
Original House Renovation:
on Piles Construct
Extensions
Piling in Progress
No Settlement
Settlement
Soft Piles No
transfer pile
Layer Load to
Hard
Layer

Hard Layer
SPT>50
 Eliminate Differential Settlement
Construct
Extension with
Suitable Piles

Piling in Progress

Soft
Layer

Hard Layer
All Load transferred to Hard
Layer No Cracks! SPT>50
 Problem of Short Piles
Cracks!!
Construct
Extensions
with Short
Piling in Progress Piles

Load
transferred to
Soft Soft! Soft Layer,
Layer Extension
still Settles

Hard Layer
Load from Original House
transferred to Hard Layer SPT>50
Cracks at Extension
 Typical Design and
Construction Issues #4
Issue #4
Costly conventional piling design piled to set to
deep layer in soft ground

Solution #4
-Strip footings / Raft
-Floating Piles
Conventional Foundation for
Low Rise Buildings
 Foundation for
Low Rise Buildings (Soil Settlement)
Settling Platform Detached from Building

Settlement

Exposed Pile
 Conceptual Design of
FOUNDATION SYSTEM
1. Low Rise Buildings :-
(Double-Storey Houses)
= Strip Footings or Raft or
Combination.

2. Medium Rise Buildings :-

= Floating Piles System.
 Low Rise Buildings on
Piled Raft/Strips

Fill

Strip / Raft
System
25-30m
Soft Clay

Stiff
Stratum

Hard Layer
 Comparison
Building on Piles Building on Piled Strips

Fill

25-30m
Soft Clay

Strip
System

Stiff
Stratum

Hard Layer
 Comparison (after settlement)
Building on Piles Building on Piled Strips

Fill

25-30m
Soft Clay

Strip
System

Stiff
Stratum

Hard Layer
 Advantages of
Floating Piles System
1. Cost Effective.

2. No Downdrag problems on the

Piles.

3. Insignificant Differential
Settlement between Buildings and
Platform.
Bandar Botanic
Bandar Botanic at Night
Soft Ground Engineering
 Typical Design and
Construction Issues #5
Issue #5
Load test results far below predicted pile capacity

Solution #5
-Modifications to test set-up
-Change of pile installation method
-Adequate soil plug to prevent toe softening
Testing Set-up Using Reaction
Piles
 Testing Set-up
z Long reaction piles at close spacing
used

z Case histories:
Load tests using reaction piles give
ERRATIC results
Reference: Weele (1993)
 Ref: A.F.
van Weele,
1993

Tested
using
anchor
piles

Tested
using
kentledge

Approx. 2
2100kN
1100kN times
smaller
using
reaction
piles!
 Reaction
piles

Zone of
interaction
with test
pile Test
pile
 Testing Set-up
z Latestversion of ASTM D1143
z Published April 2007
 Testing Set-up
z ASTM D1143
Clear distance of at least 5 times
the maximum diameter
Caution on factors influencing
results:
z Possible interaction .from
anchor piles..
Drilling to the Casing Tip
to Form Bored Pile
 Drilling to Form Bored Pile
z Disturbanceto soil at tip and
surrounding the pile

z Potentialhydraulic/basal heave
failure resulting in lower soil strength

z Effect more severe for longer pile

 Construction of Bored Pile
1. Install Permanent Steel
Casing to Pile Toe
2. Removal of Soil within Steel
Casing to Toe of Casing
3. Installation of
Reinforcement and
Concreting
 Drilling to Form Bored Pile
z Pile behaviour COMPLICATED!

Influenced by steel casing which behave

like DRIVEN PILE
Influenced by soil removal which behave
like BORED PILE
 SAND
UPHEAVAL
AFTER 3
HRS
 Zone of Weakened Soil due to
Installation of Steel Casing using
Vibro-hammer

Further Soil Disturbance

Magnitude of Disturbance????? Pressure
from
Drilling
Fluid

Pressure from Pressure from

Soil + Water > Drilling Fluid

Pressure from
Soil + Water
z Probablecauses of erratic and
unpredictable pile capacities:

Testing set-up using reaction piles

Drilling to the casing tip to form bored pile
 Original Load Test
1st Load Test Failed at 90% of WL
z After 32 days

2nd Load Test Failed at 110% of WL

z After 94 days
z Recommendations:

Open-ended spun pile or steel pipe pile with

adequate soil plug
Use of impact hammer instead of vibro-
hammer
Trial piles for correlation between static load
test and high strain dynamic load test
 Result for
Empty
Casing

Result for
Concreted
Pile

Pile performs
satisfactorily
within
Settlement at 1WL = 12.5mm acceptable
settlement
limits!!!
 Load Test Results at P52W
Result for Empty Casing
z 1xWL: pile settlement= 20mm

(residual settlement= 1mm)

z 1.9xWL: pile settlement= 50mm

(residual settlement= 3mm)

The Pile is
Result for Cast Pile Stiffer after
Concreting !!
z 1xWL: pile settlement= 12.5mm

(residual settlement= 1mm)

Larger Residual
z 2xWL: pile settlement= 33.4mm Settlement due to
(residual settlement= 7mm) Disturbance from
RCD work !!
 Load Test Results at P52W

Research by Ng et al., 2001:

z Elastic compression of large diameter bored

piles:
PL/AE - Piles founded in soil
PL/AE - Piles founded in rocks
Piles founded in
SOIL: PL/AE

Piles founded in
ROCK: 3/4 PL/AE

Settlement
is in
accordance
Result for
Concreted Pile
to
prediction!
!
ELASTIC COMPRESSION OF PILE
z Depends on:
E Elastic Modulus of Pile Material
A Cross-sectional Area of Pile
L Pile Length

Elastic Compression = f (PL / AE)

Therefore, after concreting of pile:

- A increased significantly (composite E due to
steel and concrete reduced slightly)
- Elastic compression will reduce
 Pile Settlement Criteria
z Pile settlement criteria depends on
Pile Size
Pile Material (e.g. steel, concrete, etc.)
Pile Length

z Unrealistic to adopt same settlement

criteria (e.g. 12mm) for all piles (regardless
of length, size, etc.)
Myths in Piling
 MYTHS IN PILING #1
Myth:
Dynamic Formulae such as Hileys Formula
Tells us the Capacity of the Pile

Truth:
Pile Capacity can only be verified by using:
(i) Maintained (Static) Load Tests
(ii)Pile Dynamic Analyser (PDA) Tests
 MYTHS IN PILING #2
Myth:
Pile Achieves Capacity When It is Set.

Truth:
Pile May Only Set on Intermediate Hard
Layer BUT May Still Not Achieve Required
Capacity within Allowable Settlement.
 MYTHS IN PILING #3
Myth:
Pile settlement at 2 times working load must
be less than certain magnitude (e.g. 38mm)

Truth:
Pile designed to Factor of Safety of 2.0.
Therefore, at 2 times working load:
Pile expected to fail unless capacity under-
predicted significantly
 Pile Capacity Design
Factor of Safety (FOS)

Global factor of safety for total ultimate

capacity
z Use 2.0 (typical)

z Qall = Qsu + Qbu

2.0
 CASE HISTORIES
z Case 1: Structural distortion & distresses

z Case 2: Distresses at houses

 CASE HISTORY 1
Distortion & Distresses on 40
Single/ 70 Double Storey Houses

z Max. 20m Bouldery Fill on

Undulating Terrain
z Platform Settlement
z Short Piling Problems
z Downdrag on Piles
Distresses on Structures
Void
 70
Piling Contractor A
Offset 36.2m Offset 13.1m Building
Offset 13.1m Platform
60 Offset 13.1m
Original
R e d u c e d L e v e l (m )

Ground Profile
50
N=34

? ?
N=30
40 ? ?
N=5

N=40
?
? ? ? Filled ground
N=25 ? Original Ground
? ?
30 N=29
? Hard Stratum
Borehole
Pile Toe
Profile with SPT 'N'30 Pile Toe of Additional
Profile with SPT 'N'>50
Piles
20
0 40000 80000 120000 160000 200000
Coordinate-X (mm)
 80 Piling
Contractor A Piling Contractor B
70
Offset 9.1m
Offset 9.1m
R e d u c e d L e v e l (m )

60
N=34
Profile with SPT 'N'30
Building Platform
N=28
50 ?
N=41

?
N=30 Original Ground Profile Filled ground
Original Ground
? ?
40 N=5 Hard Stratum
Borehole
N=29 Pile Toe
Pile Toe of Additional
? Piles
Profile with SPT 'N'>50
30
0 40000 80000 120000 160000 200000
Coordinate-X (mm)
 Prevention Measures
z Design:
Consider downdrag in foundation design
Alternative strip system
z Construction:
Proper QA/QC
Supervision
 CASE HISTORY 2
Distresses on 12 Double Storey
Houses & 42 Townhouses
z Filledground: platform settlement
z Design problem: non-suspended floor
with semi-suspended detailing
z Bad earthwork & layout design
z Short piling problem
Diagonal cracks due
to differential
settlement between
columns
Larger column
settlement
 Sagging
Ground
Floor Slab
SAGGING PROFILE OF NON- NON-SUSPENDED GROUND FLOOR
SUSPENDED GROUND FLOOR SLAB SLAB BEFORE SETTLEMENT

V s V <V
e > Vc V
c c e

PILE PILECAP

BUILDING PLATFORM PROFILE AFTER

SETTLEMENT

s ACTUAL FILLED PLATFORM SETTLEMENT

Distorted Car Porch Roof
Poor Earthwork Layout

Silt trap

BLOCK 2

Temporary
earth drain
BLOCK 1
 Prevention Measures
z Planning:
Proper building layout planning to suit terrain
(eg. uniform fill thickness)
Sufficient SI
z Design:
Consider filled platform settlement
Earthwork layout
z Construction:
Supervision on earthwork & piling
 SUMMARY
z Importance of Preliminary Study
z Understanding the Site Geology
z Carry out Proper Subsurface Investigation
that Suits the Terrain & Subsoil
z Selection of Suitable Pile
z Pile Design Concepts
 SUMMARY
z Importance of Piling Supervision
z Typical Piling Problems Encountered
z Present Some Case Histories
 54 PEOPLE TOOK PART IN THIS
CONCERTED ACROBATIC JUMP.
FERRARI S PITSTOP WAS COMPLETED BY
15 MECHANICS (FUEL AND TYRES) IN 6.0
SECONDS FLAT.