PSZ 19: 16 (Pind.

1/97)

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

BORANG PENGESAHAN STATUS TESIS

JUDUL : PREDICTION OF ULTIMATE LOAD BEARING CAPACITY OF DRIVEN PILES SESI PENGAJIAN: 2006/2007 Saya WONG CHARNG CHEN (HURUF BESAR) mengaku membenarkan tesis (Psm/Sarjana/Doktor Flasafah)* ini disimpan di Perpustakaan Universiti Teknologi Malaysia dengan syarat-syarat kegunaan seperti berikut : Tesis adalah hakmilik Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Perpustakaan Universiti Teknologi Malaysia dibenarkan membuat salinan untuk tujuan pengajian sahaja. Perpustakaan dibenarkan membuat salinan tesis ini sebagai bahan pertukaran antara institusi pengajian tinggi. ** Sila tandakan ( ) SULIT (Mengandungi maklumat yang berdarjah keselamatan atau kepentingan Malaysia seperti yang termaktub di dalam AKTA RAHSIA RASMI 1972) (Mengandungi maklumat TERHAD yang telah ditentukan oleh organisasi/badan di mana penyelidikan dijalankan)
_______________________

TERHAD

TIDAK TERHAD Disahkan oleh __________________________________ (TANDATANGAN PENULIS) Alamat Tetap : No. 21, Jalan Punai, 96100 Sarikei, Sarawak. ___________________________________ (TANDATANGAN PENYELIA) Nama Penyelia: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Aminaton Marto

Tarikh : 22 November 2006 .

Tarikh : 22 November 2006

CATATAN:

* Potong yang tidak berkenaan. ** Jika tesis ini SULIT atau TERHAD, sila lampirkan surat daripada pihak berkuasa/organisasi berkenaan dengan menyatakan sekali sebab dan tempoh tesis ini perlu dikelaskan sebagai SULIT atau TERHAD. Tesis dimaksudkan sebagai tesis bagi Ijazah Doktor Falsafah dan Sarjana secara penyelidikan, atau disertasi bagi pengajian secara kerja kursus dan penyelidikan, atau Laporan Projek Sarjana Muda (PSM).

I declare that I have read through this project report and to my opinion this project report is sufficient in term of scope and quality for the purpose of awarding the degree of Master of Engineering (Civil-Geotechnic)

Signature Name of Supervisor Date

: : :

.. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Aminaton Marto 22 November 2006

PREDICTION OF ULTIMATE LOAD BEARING CAPACITY OF DRIVEN PILES

WONG CHARNG CHEN

A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of Master of Engineering (Civil Geotechnic)

Faculty of Civil Engineering Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

NOVEMBER 2006

ii

I declare that this project report entitled Prediction of Ultimate Load Bearing Capacity of Driven Piles is the result of my own work except as cited in the references. The report has not been accepted for any degree and is not currently submitted in candidature of any other degree.

Signature Name Date

: : :

.. Wong Charng Chen 22 November 2006

iii

To my beloved family members And all of my friends in UTM and KUiTTHO

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to phrase my heartfelt gratefulness to my project supervisor, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Aminaton Marto for her undivided attention, guidance and supports that had been given throughout the duration of this project.

Besides, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all lecturers and staff of UTM, my friends especially Mr. Michael Choy (Taisei Corporation), Mr. Sridar Krishnan (Jimah Energy Venture), Mr. Selvam and Mr. Ngui Wei Chiun and to all whom had been involved in the success of the completion of this report.

Last but not least, I would like to convey my thanks to my beloved parents for their guidance and support throughout my studies.

ABSTRACT

Due to variation in soil layers, it is not easy for engineer to be assured that theoretical design of piles comply with the actual site condition. Thus, every design of piled foundations carries its own uncertainty and risk. This project evaluates the applicability of eight methods to predict the ultimate bearing capacity of spun driven friction piles. Analyses and evaluations were conducted on four piles of different sizes and lengths that failed during pile load testing. The load test interpretation methods, pile driving formulae, as well as the Meyerhof method (static analysis) were used to estimate the bearing capacities (Qp) of the investigated piles. The failure loads were the maximum measured load carrying capacities (Qm) from pile load test. The pile capacities determined using the different methods were compared with the measured pile capacities obtained from pile load tests. Three criteria were selected as basis of evaluation: the best fit line for Qp versus Qm, the arithmetic mean and standard deviation for the ratio of Qp/Qm, and the cumulative probability for Qp/Qm. Results of the analyses show that the best performing method is Butler and Hoy method (load test interpretation method). This method is ranked number one according to the mentioned criteria.

vi

ABSTRAK

Adalah susah bagi seseorang jurutera untuk memastikan rekaan asas cerucuknya secara teori adalah sama dengan keadaan di tapak disebabkan oleh perbezaan lapisan tanah. Oleh itu, setiap rekaan asas cerucuk mempunyai Projek ini dijalankan untuk menilai ketidakpastian dan risiko yang tersendiri.

kesesuaian lapan jenis kaedah menentukan keupayaan muktamad cerucuk geseran terpacu terputar. Analisis dan penilaian telah dijalankan ke atas empat cerucuk terputar yang berlainan saiz dan panjang dan telah gagal dalam ujian beban. Kaedah interpretasi ujian beban, formula-formula penanaman cerucuk dan kaedah Meyerhof (analisis statik) telah diguna untuk menentukan keupayaan muktamad (Qp) cerucuk berkaitan. Beban gagal merupakan beban maksimum (Qm) yang telah diukur semasa ujian beban dijalankan. Nilai yang ditentukan oleh kaedah-kaedah yang dinyatakan telah dibandingkan dengan beban maksimum yang telah diukur dari ujian beban. Tiga jenis kaedah penilaian telah dikenalpasti iaitu: garisan lurus terbaik untuk Qp melawan Qm, pengiraan purata dan taburan normal piawai untuk nisbah Qp/Qm dan kebarangkalian kumulatif untuk Qp/Qm. Keputusan analisis menunjukkan kaedah Butler and Hoy (kaedah interpretasi ujian beban) merupakan kaedah paling baik. Kaedah ini terletak pada tahap nombor satu mengikut kriteria yang dinyatakan.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER DECLARATION DEDICATION

TITLE

PAGE ii iii iv v vi vii xi xii xiv xvi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ABSTRACT ABSTRAK TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF SYMBOLS LIST OF APPENDICES

INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Background of the study Objectives Scope of study Importance of study

1 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 7 8 9

LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 2.2 Foundations on Problematic Soils Deep Foundations 2.2.1 Driven Piles 2.2.2 Changes in Cohesive Soils 2.2.3 2.3 Changes in Granular Soils Pile Load Testing

viii 2.3.1 Static Pile Load Test 2.3.1.1 Normal Maintained Load Test (SM Test) 2.3.1.2 Quick Maintained Load Test (QM Test) 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 Advantages of Static Load Test Disadvantages of Static Load Test Davissons Method Chins Method 11 12 12 13 13 14 15 16 18 18 19 20 20 20 22 23 23 23 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 11 11

Interpretation of the Results from Static Load Test

2.4.3 De Beers Method 2.4.4 Brinch Hansens 80 Percent Criterion 2.4.5 2.4.6 2.4.7 2.5 2.5.1 Mazurkiewiczs Method Fuller and Hoys Method Butler and Hoys Method Load Carrying Capacity at Pile Point, Qt in Granular Soils 2.5.1.1 Meyerhof Method 2.5.1.2 Other Methods 2.5.2 Skin Resistance, Qs in Granular Soils 2.5.2.1 Meyerhof Method 2.5.2.2 Other Methods 2.5.3 2.5.4 2.5.6 2.6 Load Carrying Capacity at Pile Point, Qt in Cohesive Soils (Meyerhof Method) Skin Resistance, Qs in Cohesive Soils Comparison of Static Analysis Result with Pile Load Test Results Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Results for Design 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.7 2.7.1 Granular Soils Cohesive Soils Janbus Formula 2.5.5 Downdrag Force

Analytical Analysis for Driven Piles

Pile Driving Formulae

ix 2.7.2 2.8 2.8.1 Engineering News Record (ENR) Formula Strength Requirement 2.8.1.1 Geotechnical Strength Requirements 2.8.1.2 Structural Strength Requirements 2.8.2 Serviceability Requirements 2.8.2.1 Settlement 2.8.2.2 Heave 2.8.2.3 Tilt 2.8.2.4 Lateral Movement 2.8.2.5 Durability (Corrosion) 3 METHODOLOGY 3.1 3.2 3.3 Introduction Data Collection Compilation of Data 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.4 3.5 3.6 Soil Data SPT Data Piling Records Pile Load Tests Reports 34 36 37 37 37 37 38 39 40 40 40 42 42 42 43 44 44 44 44 45 45 46 46 47 48 49 50 50 52 53 53

Failure in Foundation Engineering

Data Analysis Comparison of the Results Evaluation of Methods 3.6.1 3.6.2 3.6.3 Best Fit Line Equation Cumulative Probability Mean () and Standard Deviation () of Qp/Qm

3.7 4

Conclusion and Recommendation

CASE STUDY 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Location of Study Piled Foundations Static Pile Load Test Pile Instrumentation

x 4.5 4.6 5 Pile Movement Monitoring System Loading Arrangement and Test Programs 54 55 56 56 56 57 57 62 62 65 70 70 70 75 75 75 76 78 84-114

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 General Presentation Characterization of the Investigated Piles Failure Criteria Predicted Versus Measured Pile Capacity Evaluation of Methods 5.5.1 5.5.2 5.5.3 5.5.4 5.6 Best Fit Line Equation Cumulative Probability (CP) Mean () and Standard Deviation () of Qp/Qm Overall Performance Discussion

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 5.1 5.2 5.3 General Conclusion Recommendations

REFERENCES APPENDICES

xi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. 2.1 2.2

TITLE Values for earth pressure coefficient, K in granular soils Values of soil-pile friction angle, in different types of piles

PAGE 24

24 28 30 35 35 36 38 39 52 57 59 69 73

2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 4.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

Summary of Briaud et als statistical analysis for H-piles Variation of CN with v Value of C for different types of hammers Value of for different types of hammers Value of n for different types of hammers Allowable total settlements, a for foundation design Allowable angular distortion, a Spun pile properties Summary of pile failure criterion Summary of piles investigated Evaluation of the performance of the prediction methods considered in this study Summary of discussion

Variation of undrained shear strength, cu with SPT N-value 32

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1 5.2 Load settlement curve

TITLE

PAGE 10 14 15 16 17 19 19 21 22 26 27 43 47 48 51 51 55 58 58

Load-movement curve of Davissons Method Load-movement curve of Chins Method Load-movement curve of De Beers Method Load-movement curve of Brinch Hansens 80 Percent Criterion Load-movement curve of Mazurkiewiczs Method Load-movement curve of Fuller and Hoys, and Butler and Hoys Method Critical embedment ratio and bearing capacity factors for various soil friction angles Variation of bearing capacity factor, Nq and earth pressure coefficient, K with L/D Variation of with undrained cohesion of clay Variation of with pile embedment length Methodology flow chart Best fit line Cumulative probability curve Site location plan Site geological cross-section Typical static axial compression load tests setup Comparison of measured and predicted pile capacity (Chin) Comparison of measured and predicted pile capacity (Brinch Hansen)

Instrumentation details for static axial compression load tests 54

xiii 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 Comparison of measured and predicted pile capacity (Fuller and Hoy) Comparison of measured and predicted pile capacity (Butler and Hoy) Comparison of measured and predicted pile capacity (De Beer) Comparison of measured and calculated pile capacity (ENR) Comparison of measured and calculated pile capacity (Meyerhof) Predicted (Brinch Hansen Criterion) versus measured pile capacity Predicted (Fuller and Hoys Method) versus measured pile capacity Predicted (Butler and Hoys Method) versus measured pile capacity Predicted (De Beers Method) versus measured pile capacity Calculated (Janbus Formula) versus measured pile capacity Calculated (ENRs Formula) versus measured pile capacity Calculated (Meyerhofs Method) versus measured pile capacity Cumulative probability plot for Qp/Qm (Chins Method) Cumulative probability plot for Qp/Qm (Brinch Hansens Criterion) Cumulative probability plot for Qp/Qm (Fuller and Hoys Method) Cumulative probability plot for Qp/Qm (Butler and Hoys Method) Cumulative probability plot for Qp/Qm (De Beers Method) Cumulative probability plot for QP/Qm (Janbus Formula) Cumulative probability plot for QP/Qm (ENRs Formula) Cumulative probability plot for QP/Qm (Meyerhofs Method) 67 67 67 68 68 66 66 65 66 63 64 64 64 63 63 61 Predicted (Chins method) versus measured ultimate capacity 62 60 61 Comparison of measured and calculated pile capacity (Janbu) 61 60 60

xiv

LIST OF SYMBOLS

A, Ap cu C CN CV D E fav H ID K L Lb n N Ncor Nq, Nc p pa P50 P90 Q, Qva Qm Qp Qs Qt R2

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Pile cross-sectional area Undrained cohesion of the soil Coefficient for different types of hammers Correction factor with variation of vertical overburden stress Coefficient of variation Diameter/width of pile Modulus elasticity of pile material Unit friction resistance at any given depth Drop of hammer Identification Earth pressure coefficient Pile length Length of pile embedded into bearing stratum Coefficient of restitution Average standard penetration number Corrected average standard penetration resistance values Bearing capacity factor Perimeter of pile Atmospheric pressure 50 percent cumulative probability 90 percent cumulative probability Applied load during pile load test Maximum measured bearing capacity of pile Predicted failure/ultimate load Skin resistance of pile Ultimate point resistance Coefficient of determinations

xv u S Sc ue Wp WR v = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Correspond settlement of each applied load Failure settlement Final set Column spacing Excess pore water pressure Weight of pile Weight of the ram Vertical effective/overburden stress Soil friction angle Empirical adhesion factor Empirical adhesion factor Efficiency factor (Janbu formula) Efficiency factor (ENR formula) Total settlement Soil-pile friction angle Allowable total settlement Differential settlement Allowable differential settlement Allowable angular distortion Tilt Mean Standard deviation

a D Da a

xvi

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1

TITLE Summary of Average Pile Top Settlement for Test Pile TP3C Bearing Capacity of Test Pile TP3C from Load Test Interpretation Method Bearing Capacity of Test Pile TP3C from Pile Driving Formulae Bearing Capacity of Test Pile TP3C from Static Analysis (Meyerhof Method) Summary of Average Pile Top Settlement for Test Pile TP5 Bearing Capacity of Test Pile TP5 from Load Test Interpretation Method Bearing Capacity of Test Pile TP5 from Pile Driving Formulae Bearing Capacity of Test Pile TP5 from Static Analysis (Meyerhof Method) Summary of Average Pile Top Settlement for Test Pile TP9 Bearing Capacity of Test Pile TP9 from Load Test Interpretation Method Bearing Capacity of Test Pile TP9 from Pile Driving Formulae Bearing Capacity of Test Pile TP9 from Static Analysis (Meyerhof Method) Summary of Average Pile Top Settlement for Test Pile TP10

PAGE

84 85 88 89 92 93 96 97 100 101 104 105 108

xvii D2 D3 D4 Bearing Capacity of Test Pile TP10 from Load Test Interpretation Method Bearing Capacity of Test Pile TP10 from Pile Driving Formulae Bearing Capacity of Test Pile TP10 from Static Analysis (Meyerhof Method) 113 112 109

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Background of Study Deep foundations are usually referred to as pile foundations. Pile foundations

are normally used due to some situation as follows (Henry, 1986):

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

When upper soil layers are weak and unable to support the structural loads. When underground water level is not constant. When upper soil layers are susceptible to large settlement. When the structure is subjected to lateral loads.

The principal function of a pile foundation is to transfer load to lower levels of the ground which are capable of sustaining it with an adequate factor of safety and without settling under normal working conditions by an amount detrimental to the structure (Henry, 1986).

There are many different types of pile in use today, such as timber piles, concrete piles, steel piles, composite piles and others. The choice of pile type for a particular job depends upon the combination of all the various soil conditions and the magnitude of the applied load; for example, timber piles are usually used in water structure while precasted concrete piles are usually used in housing estate.

2 Current practice of pile design is based on the static analysis for example Meyerhof Method, Vesic Method and Coyle & Castello methods. Due to the uncertainties associated with pile design, field tests (pile load tests) are usually conducted to verify the design loads and to evaluate the actual response of the pile under loading. Static pile load tests are a verification tool for pile design and they cannot be a substitute for the engineering analysis of the pile behavior. Maintained Load Test Method (ML Test) is considered as the standard method by Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR). This test however takes 2-3 days to complete. Due to the long period of time needed to conduct ML Test, it contradicts with the current construction industry practice which is time-saving. Hence, Dynamic Load Test (DLT) especially Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) is gaining popularity in construction industry. However, ML Test should have the final say on the ultimate bearing capacity of piles.

Due to variation in bearing stratum, it is not easy for engineer to be assured that theoretical design of piles comply with the actual site condition. Thus, every design of piled foundations carries certain amount of uncertainty and risk. This report presented the effort undertaken to identify the most appropriate methods for predicting the axial bearing capacity of piles driven to set. These methods include static analysis, pile driving formulae, and interpretation method. The static analysis is the Meyerhof Method. Five interpretation methods selected are Chins Method, De Beers Method, Brinch Hansens 80 Percent Criterion Method, Butler and Hoys Method, and Fuller and Hoys Method. These methods are described in detail by Nor Azizi (2003).

1.2

Objectives The aim of this study is to identify the most appropriate interpretation

methods to estimate the ultimate axial bearing capacity of piles. The objectives of the study are:

3 (i) (ii) (iii) To determine the ultimate bearing capacity of piles from illustrated full-scale pile load tests. To predict and calculate the bearing capacity of pile from static analysis, pile driving formulae, and interpretation method. To identify the most accurate method to predict pile bearing capacity by comparing the predicted and calculated results with the actual results from pile load tests.

1.3

Scope of Study This study is only considering the carrying capacity of spun piles of different

sizes driven to set. Other pile types such as timber piles and steel pipes were not covered in the analyses. Four sets of data were acquired from Taisei Corporation. Their testing program was conducted in Mukim Jimah power plant on November 2005. Square concrete piles are obsolete in this study due to different load transferring mechanism (Hani and Murad, 1999). Only spun friction piles that tested to failure are considered in this study.

Data acquired includes soil investigation reports, piling reports and pile load tests reports. Soil investigation reports revealed the soil strata at the site and the soils parameters, piling information and depth at which the piles set was revealed from piling records while pile load tests reports gave the actual carrying capacity of the piles.

This study focused on the applicability of proposed methods to predict the ultimate axial compression load carrying capacity of piles. Data from soil investigation reports was used in static analysis while pile load tests data is essential in interpretation method. Information from piling records was used in pile driving formulae. All of the methods are described in detail in the literature review section of this report. The predicted capacity was compared with the actual carrying capacity of piles from pile tests based on mentioned criteria. The method which

4 ranked number according to mentioned criteria is considered as the most accurate method and is recommended for pile design practice.

1.4

Importance of Study Static analysis formulae and pile driving formulae are not recommended as

the sole means of determining the acceptability of a pile, except on small jobs (Fleming, 1985). These analyses do not describe the complex mechanics of pile driving in rational way and interaction between pile and the surrounding soil is poorly modeled. Thus, it is important to determine accuracy from these formulae through comparison with actual bearing capacity from site. The differences can be used as a guideline when pile load tests are not able to be conducted.

The problems with many of the interpretation methods are that they are either empirical methods or are based on set deformation criteria. Several methods are also sensitive to the shape of the load-settlement curve and it is preferable to use a considerable number of load increment to define the shape clearly; for example, Chins Method assumes the load-deformation curve is hyperbolic and is an empirical method. An engineer may have difficulty in choosing the best method to interpret the static load test data. This study is able to help an engineer to identify the suitability of the proposed interpretation methods to predict the ultimate bearing capacity of spun piles driven to set. Moreover, through the analyses, the most appropriate method is identified.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1

Foundations on Problematic Soils The most common of these problematic soils are the soft, saturated clays and

silts often found near the mouths of rivers, along the perimeter of bays, and beneath wetlands. These soils are very weak and compressible, and thus are subject to bearing capacity and settlement problems. These soils also frequently include organic material in which will aggravate these problems.

Areas underlain by soft soils frequently below mean sea level, and thus are subjected to flooding. Therefore, it is necessary to raise the ground by placing fill. However, the weight of the fill frequently causes large settlement. For example, Scheil (1979) described a building constructed on fill underlain by varved clay in the Hackensack Meadowlands of New Jersey. About 250 mm of settlement occurred during placement of the fill, 12 mm during construction of the building, and an additional 100 mm over the following ten years.

In seismic areas, loose saturated sands can become weak through the process of liquefaction. Moderate to strong ground shaking can create large excess pore water pressures in these soils, which temporarily decrease the effective stress and shear strength. Seed (1970) described the phenomenon occurred in Niigata, Japan during 1964 earthquake. Many buildings settled more than 1 m, and these settlements were often accompanied by severe tilting.

6 However, engineers have developed several methods to alleviate the effects of problematic soils which include supporting the structure on deep foundations that penetrate through the weak soils.

2.2

Deep Foundations Deep foundations are usually referred to as pile foundations. Piles are

relatively long and generally slender structural foundation members that transfer load to lower levels of the ground which are capable of sustaining it with an adequate factor of safety and without settling under normal working conditions by an amount detrimental to the structure. In geotechnical engineering, piles usually serve as foundations when soil conditions are not suitable for the use of shallow foundations. Moreover, piles have other applications in deep excavations and in slope stability such as they can be installed to form retaining walls.

There are many types of pile in use today, with varying geometry which depends upon imposed loading and soil conditions. Generally, piles are classified according to the nature of load support (friction and end-bearing piles), the displacement properties (full-displacement, partial-displacement, and nondisplacement piles), and the composition of piles (timber, concrete, steel, and composite piles). The choice of pile for a particular job depends upon the combination of all the various soil conditions and the magnitude of the applied load. Besides its technical aspects, economical factor should also be a consideration.

The behavior of the pile depends on many different factors, including pile characteristics, soil conditions and properties, installation method, and loading conditions. The performance of piles affects the serviceability of the structure they supported. In this study, only driven piles (displacement piles) are discussed.

7 2.2.1 Driven Piles Most piles are driven into the ground by hammer or vibratory drivers. In special circumstances, piles can also be inserted by jetting or pre-boring. In the driving operation, a cap is attached to the top of the pile. A cushion may be used between the pile and the cap. This cushion has the effect of reducing the impact force and spreading it over a longer time. Pile is driven until it finds its bearing layer. Usually, the driving is halted when the penetration is less than 25 mm per 10 blows.

Driven piles also known as displacement piles based on the nature of their placement. Driven piles caused some soil to move laterally; hence, there is a tendency for the densification of soil surrounding them. Concrete piles and closedended pipe piles are high-displacement piles. However, steel H-piles displace less soil laterally during driving, and so they are low-displacement piles.

2.2.2

Changes in Cohesive Soils by Pile Driving Piles wobble during driving, thus creating gaps between them and the soil.

Tomlinson (1987) observed the gap extending to a depth of 8 to 16 diameters below the ground surface. Piles subjected to applied lateral loads also can create gaps near the ground surface. Therefore, the side friction in this zone may be unreliable, especially in stiff clay (Coduto, 2001)

As a pile is driven into the ground, the soil below the toe must move out of the way. This motion causes both shear and compressive distortions. These distortions are greatest around large displacement piles. Cooke and Price (1973) observed the distortion in London Clay as a result of driving a 168 mm diameter closed-end pipe pile. The soil within radius of 1.2 pile diameters from the edge of the pile was dragged down, while that between 1.2 and 9 diameters moved upward.

8 Besides, this remolding of the clay changes its structure and reduces its strength to a value near its residual strength.

Pile driving also compresses the adjoining soils.

If saturated clays are The greatest

present, this compression generates excess pore water pressure.

compression occurs near the pile toe, so the ratio of excess pore water pressure over original vertical effective stress (ue/v) in that region may be as high as 3 to 4 (Airhart et al., 1969). Poulus and Davis (1980) also suggest that ue/ v may be as high as 1.5 to 2.0 near the pile, gradually diminishing to zero at a distance of 30 to 40 pile radii.

For most clay, the excess pore water pressures that develop around a single isolate pile completely dissipate in less than one month, with corresponding increases in load capacity (Soderberg, 1962). This is due to the dissipation of water, thixotropic effect and consolidation. However, in pile groups, the excess pore water pressures may require a year or more to dissipate.

2.2.3

Changes in Granular Soils Soil compression from the advancing pile will generate excess pore water

pressures in loose saturated sands. However, sands have a much higher permeability than clays, so these excess pore water pressures dissipate very rapidly. Thus, the full pile capacity develops almost immediately.

Based on the observation by Coduto (2001), some local soil expansion can occur when driving piles through very dense sands. This temporarily generates negative pore water pressures that increase the shear strength and make the pile more difficult to drive. This effect is especially evident when using hammers that cycle rapidly. Suggestion by Coduto to partially or wholly negate this effect is by predrilling or jetting to install the pile.

9 2.3 Pile Load Testing Pile load testing in Malaysia is normally based on the specification developed by Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR), Malaysia. Pile load test is carried out to determine the relationship between load and settlement. It is to ensure the failure does not occur before the ultimate design load has been reached. Pile load test also being carried out with the purpose of determine the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile and so define the maximum design factor of safety. Finally, pile load test can be used to check the workmanship of any randomly selected pile is satisfactory.

The pile load test program should be considered as part of the design and construction process, and not carried hurriedly in response to an immediate construction problem (Fleming, 1985). Pile tests may be performed at various stages of construction, i.e. prior to construction and during construction. A large amount of information can be obtained from properly planned tests. This useful information may lead to refinement of the foundation design with consequent possible cost saving and certainly greater assurance of the satisfactory performance of the foundation.

Three types of tests have been recommended by the JKR, namely Maintained Load Test (ML Test), Constant Rate of Penetration Test (CRP Test) and Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA). These tests are performed based on the JKR specification or BS 8004. The standard procedures are explained in the later part of the report.

The period of time which the test should be carried out in various soils is mentioned by Bowles (1996). Piles in granular soil are often tested 24 to 48 hrs after driving when load arrangements have been made. This time lapse is sufficient for excess pore water pressure to dissipate. Pile in cohesive soils should be tested after sufficient lapse for excess pore water pressure to dissipate. additional strength from thixotropic effects. This time lapse is commonly in the duration of 30 to 90 days in order for cohesive soil to gain some

10 The failure of load test happened when either/all the following conditions are observed at the site:

(i) (ii) (iii)

Residual settlement at design load exceeds 6.5mm; Residual settlement at working load exceeds 12.5mm; Total settlement exceeds 38mm or 10% of pile diameter or width whichever is lower.

Residual Settlement

Total Settlement

Figure 2.1

Load settlement curve (Spronken, 1998)

11 2.3.1 Static Pile Load Test

2.3.1.1 Normal Maintained Load Test (SM Test) This test method is commonly considered as the ASTM Standard Test method and is generally used for site investigation prior to installing contract piles and writing specifications. In this test, the pile is loaded in eight equal increments of design load (25%, 50%, 75%, 100%, 125%, 150%, 175% and 200%) to 200% of the design load. Each load increment is maintained until the rate of settlement has decreased to 0.25mm/h (0.01 in/h) but no longer than 2 hours. 200% load is maintained for 24 hours. After the required holding time, the load is removed in decrements of 25% with one hour maintained period between decrements.

After the load has been applied and removed, as above, the pile is reloaded to the test load in increments of 50% of the design load until two times the design load. 20 minutes are lapsed between load increments. Then the load is increased in increments of 10% of design load until failure, allowing 20 minutes between load increments. The main disadvantage of this test is that it is time consuming. A typical test period may last 40 to 70 hours or more.

2.3.1.2 Quick Maintained Load Test (QM Test)

In this test method, the pile is loaded in 20 increments to 300% of the design load (each increment is 15% of the design load). Each load is maintained for a period of 5 minutes with reading taken every 2.5 minutes. Load increments is added until continuous jacking is required to maintain the test load or test load has been reached. After a 5 minutes interval, the full load is removed from the pile in four equal decrements with 5 minutes between decrements.

This method is fast and economical. Typical time of test by this method is 3 to 5 hours. This test method represents more nearly undrained conditions. This method cannot be used for settlement estimation because it is a quick method.

12 2.3.2 Advantages of Static Load Test

According to Han (1999), the static test is considered as the reference test because it is the one that corresponds the most with the way that the load is applied in reality (duration, loading rate and type of loading). The static test is generally regarded as the definitive test against which other types of tests are compared. These elements are obviously the best advantages of this kind of tests.

The data obtained are directly interpretable because they are linked to the acceptance criteria (maximum settlement and authorized stiffness and/or design load). Another reason is that the main interpretations were created with respect to this kind of test. As such, all the other methods tried to predict response comparable to the load settlement produced by the static load test. Finally, the measurements are generally independent of the pile material properties.

2.3.3

Disadvantages of Static Load Test Since the static load test is very closely related to the reality, the time needed

to carry out is relatively long (Han, 1999). This duration is costly in term of money and contract planning. Besides, to create the actual condition of loading slow loading rate is imposed. The load is applied high enough to get closer to the real load to be applied to the foundation. So the mobilization of this load and of this associated reaction is strongly expensive regarding to the obtained result (one pile tested).

The reaction supplied for the applied loading (kentledge, reaction piles, ground anchors) generates some associated effects or interaction with pile that perturb the interpretation of the results. These stresses will increase the shaft friction and the base capacity. The pile settlement is reduced and the pile head stiffness is also overestimated.

13

There are many procedures for static pile load testing. Due to the different loading paths, any pile subjected to the various tests will exhibit a different loadsettlement response influencing the conclusions because the results are influenced by loading history (steps and duration).

2.4

Interpretation of the Results from Static Load Test

The ultimate load of pile is usually not well defined. Based on Fleming (1985), two simple criteria which can be used to define ultimate load are the load at which settlement continues to increase without further increase in load and the load causing settlement of 10% of the pile diameter (base diameter). The latter limit is likely to give a low estimate of the ultimate load as it is unlikely that general yielding of the soil around the pile will have been initiated.

There are many methods that can be used to predict the ultimate load of piles. The procedure of these methods is discussed at the latter part of the report.

2.4.1

Davissons Method Davissons Method or also known as Davissons Criterion was introduced in

1972 (Tolosko, 1999). The procedures for obtaining predicted failure load, Qp, by this method consist of the following steps. First, the load-movement curve is drawn. Elastic movement, = (Qva)L / AE of the pile is obtained where Qva is the applied load, L is pile length, A is pile cross-sectional area, and E is modulus of elasticity of the pile material. A line OA is drawn based on the equation for elastic settlement, s, as identified in previous step. A line BC is drawn parallel to OA at a distance x where x = 0.15 + D/120 in, (D = diameter of pile in inch). The failure load is then at the intersection of BC with load-movement curve (i.e., point C) (Davisson, 1972). Figure 2.2 depicts the load-movement curve of Davissons method.

14

Figure 2.2

Load-movement curve of Davissons Method (Nor Azizi, 2003)

This method was originally recommended for the QM test method. The main advantage of this method is that the limit line BC can be drawn before starting the test. Therefore, it can be used as one of the acceptance criteria for proof-tested contract pile.

Based on the study by Tolosko (1999) on 63 piles, he found out that the ratio of Davissons Method and designated static analysis is in the range of 0.9 to 1.1. According to Bachand (1997), Davissons Method has the advantage of deterministic (and hence objective), while being able to consider pile properties and geometry, hence the tip size on failure zone.

2.4.2 Chins Method Chins Method was first introduced in 1971 (Tolosko, 1999). This method is shown in Figure 2.3 and consists of the following steps. The /Qva (settlement/load) versus (settlement) plot is drawn, where is the settlement and Qva is the corresponding applied load. The predicted failure load, Qp is then equal to 1/C1

15 where 1/ C1 is the gradient of the slope. The relationships given in the Figure 2.3 assume that the load movement curve is approximately hyperbolic.

Figure 2.3

Load-movement curve of Chins Method (Nor Azizi, 2003)

This method of ultimate load interpretation is applicable for both the QM and SM tests, provided that the constant time increments are used during the test. In selecting the straight line from the points, it should be understood that the data points do not appear to fall on the straight line. This method may not provide realistic failure for tests carried out as per ASTM Standard Method because it may not have constant time load increments.

Tolosko (1999) conducted the comparison on predicted ultimate bearing capacity of 63 piles with the designated bearing capacity from static analysis. The average ratio of Chins Method and designated bearing capacity is 1.69. percent. This indicates that Chins Method overpredicted the bearing capacity by more than 50

2.4.3 De Beers Method De Beers Method or De Beers Log-Log Method was first introduced in 1971 (Tolosko, 1999). As seen in Figure 2.4, this method consists of the following

16 steps. Load and movement is drawn on logarithmic scales. These values then will fall on two straight lines. The predicted failure load, Qp is then defined as the load that falls at the intersection of these two straight lines (De Beer, 1971). This method was originally proposed for maintained load test, such as SM and QM test.

Figure 2.4

Load-movement curve of De Beers Method (Nor Azizi, 2003)

Tolosko (1999) has suggested that De Beers Method generally underpredicted the designated bearing capacity of piles by 0.2. Bachand (1997) concluded that the two slopes are especially visible for piles that experienced plunging failure, yet on piles that undergone local failure, the results may be a range of values.

2.4.4 Brinch Hansens 80 Percent Criterion In 1963, Brinch and Hansen developed a method in which failure is obtained based on assumption that hyperbolic relationship exists between the load and the displacement (Tolosko, 1999). This method of interpretation is shown in Figure 2.5 and consists of the following steps. The
Qva

and curve is drawn, where is the

settlement and Qva is the load. Predicted failure load ,Qp and failure movement u are then given as follows:

17
Qp = 1 C1C 2 2

(2.1)

u = C2/C1

(2.2)

All the terms are defined in Figure 2.5. This method assumes that the loadmovement curve is approximately parabolic. The method is applicable for both QM and SM tests. The failure criteria agree well with the plunging failure. However, the plot and calculations could not be performed in advance of the test loading. This method interpretation is not suitable for test methods that include unloading cycles where plunging failure is not achieved (Nor Azizi, 2003).

Figure 2.5

Load-movement curve of Brinch Hansens 80 Percent Criterion (Nor Azizi, 2003)

Tolosko (1999) conducted the comparison on predicted ultimate bearing capacity of 63 piles with the designated bearing capacity from static analysis. The average ratio of Brinch Hansens Method and designated bearing capacity is 0.99. This indicates that this method can predict the bearing capacity near to the actual value measured at the site.

18 2.4.5 Mazurkiewiczs Method Mazurkiewicz proposed his method on prediction of ultimate bearing capacity of pile in 1972 (Spronken, 1998). As shown in Figure 2.6, this method consists of the following steps. The load-movement curve is drawn. A series of equal pile head movement is chosen and vertical lines that intersect on the curve is drawn. Then horizontal line from these intersection points is drawn on curve to intersect the load axis. From the intersection of each load, 45 line is drawn to intersect with the next load line. These intersections will fall approximately on a straight line. The point which is obtained by the intersection of the extension of the line on the vertical (load) axis is predicted failure load, Qp.

This method assumes that load-movement curve is approximately parabolic. The failure load values obtained by these method should be therefore be close to the Brinch Hansen 80 percent criterion (Spronken, 1998). judgment may be required in drawing the straight line. Furthermore, all the intersections of these lines do not always fall on straight line. Therefore, some

2.4.6 Fuller and Hoys Method Fuller and Hoys Method or also known as single tangent method was first proposed in 1976 (Spronken, 1998). This method consists of the following steps. A load-movement curve is drawn as shown in Figure 2.7. The predicted failure load Qp on the curve is determined where the tangent on the load-movement curve is sloping at 0.1 mm/kN.

This method is applicable for QM and SM test. The main disadvantage with this method may be that it penalizes the long piles because they will have larger elastic movements and therefore 0.1 mm/kN slope will occur sooner (Spronken, 1998).

19

Figure 2.6

Load-movement curve of Mazurkiewiczs Method (Nor Azizi, 2003)

Figure 2.7

Load-movement curve of Fuller and Hoys, and Butler and Hoys Methods (Nor Azizi, 2003)

2.4.7

Butler and Hoys Method Butler and Hoys Method or also known as double tangent method was first

proposed in 1977 (Spronken, 1998). As shown in Figure 2.7, this method consists of the following steps. The load-movement curve is drawn. The failure load is then the intersection of the 0.1 mm/kN slope line with either the initial straight portion of the

20 curve or the line parallel to the rebound curve or the elastic line starting from the origin. This method is applicable for the QM and SM test.

Hani and Murad (1999) mentioned that Butler and Hoys Method is the primary load test interpretation method used by Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LDOTD). 35 driven friction square concrete piles. They concluded that this method generally underpredicted the bearing capacity of prestressed concrete piles based on

2.5

Analytical Analysis for Driven Piles

2.5.1

Load Carrying Capacity at Pile Point, Qt in Granular Soils

2.5.1.1 Meyerhof Method

Meyerhof has described an analytical method in 1976 (Das, 1999). He recommended the following procedure for estimation of the point bearing capacity of a pile in granular soil:

(i)

For sand, since cohesion, c is equal to zero, the equation for load carrying capacity at pile point, Qt = ApvNq where Ap is area of the pile, v is effective overburden stress and Nq is bearing capacity factor.

(ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)

Soil friction angle, is determined. The Lb/D ratio for the pile is determined in which Lb is length of pile embedded into bearing stratum and D is the width or diameter of pile. (Lb/D)critical is obtained through Figure 2.8. Lb/D ratio should not exceed (Lb/D)critical. If otherwise, (Lb/D)critical ratio will be used as design parameter. The appropriate value of Nq corresponding to the given Lb/D ratio or (Lb/D)critical ratio is determined from Figure 2.8. The Nq value calculated in Step (v) is used to obtain the Qt.

21 (vii) The value of Qt obtained in Step (vi) should not exceed the limiting load carrying capacity at pile point given as Ap50Nq .

Figure 2.8

Critical embedment ratio and bearing capacity factors for various soil friction angles (after Meyerhof, 1976)

Based on field observations, Meyerhof (1976) also suggested that the ultimate point resistance, Qt, in a homogeneous granular soil (L = Lb) can be obtained from standard penetration numbers as

Qt = 40NL/D 400N

(2.3)

where N is an average standard penetration number (about 10D above and 4D below the pile point).

22 2.5.1.2 Other Methods Coyle and Castello (1981) have analyzed 24 large-scale field load tests of driven piles in sand. They have shown that equation Qp = ApvNq + favpL can predict the ultimate load with an error band 30% with a majority falling within an error band of 20%. Based on this study, Coyle and Castello correlated Nq with embedment ratio (L/D). Figure 2.9 shows the values of Nq for various of embedment ratios (L/D) and friction angle ( ) of the soil.

Figure 2.9

Variation oh bearing capacity factor, Nq and earth pressure coefficient, K with L/D (Coyle and Castello (1981) in Nor Azizi, 2003)

23 2.5.2 Skin Resistance, Qs in Granular Soils 2.5.2.1 Meyerhof Method The frictional or skin resistance of a pile can be written as

Qs = pLf av

(2.4)

where p is perimeter of the pile section, L is the pile length of the soil boundary and fav is unit friction resistance at any given depth.

Meyerhof indicated that the average unit frictional resistant for driven highdisplacement piles can be obtained from corrected average standard penetration resistance values as fav = 2Ncor. Thus,

Qs = pL 2 N cor

(2.5)

where Ncor is corrected average standard penetration resistance values of the soil layer.

2.5.2.2 Other Methods There are several more researchers studied on the average frictional resistance such as Broms (1965), Aas (1966) and Meyerhof (1976). All of them agree that average frictional resistance can be represented by Kvtan where K is earth pressure coefficient, v is average effective overburden pressure and is soil-pile friction angle. However, the values of the parameters are varies from one researcher to another researcher.

24 Coyle and Castello (1981) correlated that earth pressure coefficient, K with embedment ratio (L/D) and friction angle ( ) of the soil as shown in Figure 2.9. This chart is designed based on assumptions that = 0.8 .

Broms (1965) suggested the values for K in granular soils as in Table 2.1 while Aas (1966) proposed the values of as in Table 2.2:

Table 2.1 : Values for earth pressure coefficient, K in granular soils (Broms, 1965) Type of Pile Steel Concrete Timber Loose Sand 0.5 1.0 1.5 Dense Sand 1.0 2.0 3.0

Table 2.2 : Values of soil-pile friction angle, in different types of piles (Aas, 1966) Type of Pile Steel Concrete Timber Note : is the friction angle of soil Soil-Pile friction angle, 20 0.75 0.66

2.5.3 Load Carrying Capacity at Pile Point, Qt in Cohesive Soils (Meyerhof Method)

The procedure for estimation of the point bearing capacity of a pile in cohesive soil is similar as in granular soil. However, the equation for estimating load carrying capacity at pile point, Qt = Ap(cNc + vNq) where c is cohesion of the soil supporting the pile tip and Nc is bearing capacity factor. Nc is also obtained through Figure 2.8.

25 For piles in saturated clays in undrained condition ( = 0),

Qt = 9 c u A p

(2.6)

where cu is undrained cohesion of the soil below the pile tip.

2.5.4 Skin Resistance, Qs in Cohesive Soils The equation favpL is generally accepted by most of the researchers. However, the proposed procedure to obtain unit skin friction (fav) is different from one researcher to another researcher.

Tomlinson (1967) suggested a method known as method to estimate the skin resistance in clayey soils. According to this method, the unit skin resistance can be represented by the equation

f = c u

(2.7)

where is empirical adhesion factor.

The approximate variation of the value of is shown in Figure 2.10. For normally consolidated clays with cu is about 50 kN/m2, is equal to one. Thus, skin resistance is Qs = cu pL .

Flaate (1968), after a comprehensive analysis on a number of pile loading tests suggested that depended not only on the average undrained shear strength of the clay, but also on the plasticity index.

26 Tomlinson (1971) showed that the adhesion factor is influenced by other soils overlying the stiff London Clay. Overlying soft clay results in smaller adhesion factors, whereas overlying granular soils give greater factors.

Figure 2.10

Variation of with undrained cohesion of clay (Das, 1999)

Vijayvergia and Focht (1972) assumes that displacement of soil caused by pile driving results in a passive lateral pressure at any depth, and the average unit skin resistance can be given as

fav

= (v + 2cu)

(2.8)

where v is mean effective vertical stress for the entire embedment length, cu is the mean undrained shear strength ( = 0 concept) and the value for can be estimated from Figure 2.11.

27

Figure 2.11

Variation of with pile embedment length (Das, 1999)

2.5.5

Downdrag Force Construction on sites underlain by soft soil often requires placement of fills to

raise the ground surface elevation to provide protection against flooding from nearby bodies of water. The weight of these fills causes consolidation in the underlying soils, so the fill and the soft soil move downward. Because of this downward movement of the soil with respect to the foundations, the side friction force in the upper zone now acts downward instead of upward and becomes a load instead of resistance. This load is known as the downdrag load, or the negative skin friction load. It can be very large and may cause excessive settlements in the foundation (Bozozuk, 1981).

Downdrag force can cause differential settlement, and, in severe cases, these loads may pull some of the piles out of their caps (Bozozuk, 1981) because of the variations in soil properties, fill thickness, and other factors. Downdrag force is more pronounced in the soft soils and the overlying fills. One of the method to reduce this effect is by coating the bitumen in downdrag zone.

28 The bitumen acts like a rubber to reduce the coefficient of friction. This method is very effective, so long as the pile is not driven through an abrasive soil, such as sand, that might scrap off the bitumen coating.

However, this method will present another problem which is reduced the skin friction of the pile. Hutchinson and Jensen (1968) described a reinforced concrete test piles driven into soft silty clays at Khorramshar, failed to reach predicted pile bearing capacity by wide margin. They made the interesting observation that the skin friction at the pile/soil interface had been considerable weaken by the 1-2 mm thick soft bitumen applied to the piles to protect them from acid attack. The skin friction developed on the coated piles was only 30 to 80% of that on uncoated piles. Thus, Engineers should investigate before any method is implemented.

2.5.6 Comparison of Static Analysis Results with Pile Load Test Results Briaud et al. (1989) reported the results of 28 axial load tests performed by the U.S. Army Engineering District (St. Louis) on impact-driven H-piles and pipe piles in sand during the construction of the New Lock and Dam No. 26 on the Mississippi River. Briaud et al. made a statistical analysis to determine the ratio of theoretical ultimate load to measured ultimate load. The results are summarized in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 : Summary of Briaud et al.s statistical analysis for H-piles (Das, 2004) Method Coyle and Castello (1981) Briaud and Tucker (1984) Meyerhof (1976) 4.37 2.76 0.63 0.92 0.43 0.46 1.68 0.76 0.45 Note : is mean, is standard deviation, and CV is coefficient of variation 1.79 1.02 0.59 0.81 0.32 0.40 0.97 0.39 0.40 2.38 Qt 1.31 CV 0.55 0.87 Qs 0.36 CV 0.41 1.17 Qu 0.44 CV 0.38

29 A perfect prediction would have a mean of 1.0, a standard deviation of 0, and a coefficient of variation of 0. Based on the results, there is no method that gave a perfect prediction. The most accurate method is Briaud and Tucker method. In general, load carrying capacity at pile point, Qt was overpredicted and skin resistance, Qs was underpredicted. This shows the uncertainty in predicting the bearing capacity of piles.

Meyerhof (1976) also provided the results of several field load tests on long piles (L/D 10), from which the derived values of Qt were calculated. He concluded from the results that for a given friction angle, the magnitude of Qt can deviate substantially from that given in the static analysis method. Again, this shows the uncertainty in predicting the bearing capacity of piles.

2.6

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Results for Design Besides obtaining soil samples, standard penetration tests provide several

useful correlations. properties (Das, 1999).

Although the correlations are approximate, with correct

interpretation the standard penetration test provides a good evaluation of soil

The current practice in using the N-value for design is to use an average Nvalue but in the zone of majoring stress. For pile foundations, there may be merit in the simple average of blow count N for any stratum unless it is very thick. It is more accurate better to subdivide the thick stratum into several strata and average the N count for each division (Ramli, 2005). Average corrected N-value can be computed and then averaged. The average N-value is correlated with empirical formula to obtain the soil parameters and finally the bearing capacity.

30 2.6.1 Granular Soils Kovac and Salomone (1982) found that the energy impact to the sampler range about 30 to 80% while Riggs (1983) obtained energy input from 70 to 100%. Therefore, the raw SPT data need to be improved by applying certain correction factors.

In granular soils, the N-value is affected by the effective overburden pressure, v. For that reason, the N-value obtained from field exploration under different effective overburden pressure should be changed to correspond to a standard value of v. Peck, Hanson and Thornburn (1974) have recommended the following method for correcting the standard penetration numbers obtained from the field:

Ncor

= 0.77 N log

20 0.0105 ' v

(for v 23.9 kN/m2)

(2.9)

where Ncor is corrected N-value to a maximum value of v = 95.6 kN/m2, N is Nvalue obtained from the field and v is effective overburden pressure in kN/m2. For v 23.9 kN/m2, they suggested

Ncor

= CNNcor

(2.10)

where CN is a correction factor, the variation of which with v is given in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4 : Variation of CN with v (Das, 1999) v (kN/m2) 0 6 15 CN 2 1.8 1.6

31 There is a weakness in this method in which the overburden stress is not allowed to be greater than 95.6 kN/m2. Therefore, some other researchers have come out with other formula. Liao and Whitman (1986) recommended that CN =

9.78

1 2 while Skempton (1986) porposed CN = . 'v 1 + 0.01 , v

For granular soils, the corrected N-value can be used to estimate the effective friction angle of the soil, . Wolff (1989), based on research by Peck, Hanson and Thornburn in 1974 has produced an empirical formula to correlate friction angle with Ncor. The formula is shown as:

2 = 27.1 + 0.3 N cor 0.00054 N cor

(2.11)

Kulhawy and Mayne (1990), based on the work by Schmertmann in 1975 has approximate an empirical formula to estimate the friction angle:

Nf = tan 1 'v 12.2 + 20.3 p a

(2.12)

where pa is the atmospheric pressure in the same unit as v. Hatanaka and Uchida (1996) suggested = 20 N cor + 20 .

More recently,

2.6.2

Cohesive Soils Based on Code of Practice for Site Investigation (BS 5930), an approximation

can be made between stiffness and undrained shear strength, cu as shown in Table 2.5.

32 Table 2.5 : Variation of undrained shear strength, cu with SPT N-value (BS 5930) SPT N-value Less than 4 4-10 10-30 30-50 More than 50 Consistency Very soft Soft Firm Stiff Very stiff Undrained shear strength, cu (kN/m2) Less than 20 20-40 40-75 75-150 More than 150

Besides BS 5930, Stroud (1974) based on the results of undrained triaxial test suggested that cu = KN where K is a constant in the range of 3.5 6.5 kN/m2. Stroud found that the average value for K is about 4.4 kN/m2. Hara et al. (1971) also suggested that cu = 29N0.72.

2.7

Pile Driving Formulae

Many attempts have been made to determine the relationship between the dynamic resistance of pile during driving and the static load-carrying capacity of the pile. These intended relationships are called pile driving formulae and have been established empirically or theoretically. According to Simon nad Menzies (2000). Much discussion has been generated, for example, ASCE (1951), Chellis (1941), Cummings (1940), and Greulich (1941). Conflicting opinions have been expressed.

The relationship between dynamic and static resistance of pile should be independent of time if the formula is to have any validity (Simons and Menzies, 2000). This is clearly not the case with clays and, therefore, pile driving formulae should not, in general, be applied to cohesive soils, but only to granular soils, that is, sands and gravel.

Simons and Menzies (2000) suggest that the Janbu formula and the Hiley formula are convenient to use and give reasonable predictions of the ultimate bearing

33 capacity of driven piles in granular soils. Das (1986) also suggested Engineering News Record (ENR) formula besides above mentioned formulae. His reason is that ENR formula which was introduced during nineteenth century has gone through several revisions over the years and is acceptable for prediction of the ultimate load. Das also suggested a factor of safety (FOS) of 4 - 6 should be recommended to estimate the allowable load. However, McCarthy (1998) has different opinion. He suggested that the use of ENR formula should be discouraged because it does not have application for existing pile driving methods.

A detailed investigation into the validity of pile driving formulae in granular soils by Flaate (1964) suggests that there is little to choose between the Hiley and Janbu Formulae. In order to obtain a minimum factor of safety of 1.75 for any pile, Flaate showed that it is necessary to use FOS = 2.7 with Hiley formula and FOS = 3.0 for Janbu Formula. Flaate also found out that Janbu formula gave a slightly better correlation between tested and calculated bearing capacity and also the lowest arithmetic mean value of the factor of safety.

2.7.1

Janbus Formula Janbus Formula was first introduced in 1953 (Das, 1999). The ultimate

bearing capacity can be calculated based on the following formula:

Qp

W R H
Ku S

(2.13)

where Qp is calculated ultimate bearing capacity, WR is weight of the ram, H is drop of hammer, and S is final set (penetration / blow) while Ku is determined by the following formulae:

34
0.5 e = C d 1 + 1 + Cd

Ku

(2.14)

Cd

= 0.75 + 0.15

Wp WR

(2.15)

W R HL
Ap E p S 2

(2.16)

where Cd and e are constant, L is length of pile, Ap is cross-sectional area of pile, Ep is modulus elasticity of pile material, and Wp is weight of pile.

The efficiency factor, , is dependent on the pile driving equipment, the driving procedure adopted, the type of pile, and the ground conditions. Values of can be chosen as follows:

= 0.70 for good driving conditions = 0.55 for average driving conditions = 0.40 for difficult or bad conditions

A factor of safety of 4 to 5 is generally recommended for this formula.

2.7.2 Engineering News Record (ENR) Formula

ENR formula is derived on the basis of the work-energy theory. This means that energy imparted by the hammer per blow is the summation of pile resistance times penetration per hammer blow (Das, 1999).

35 The original ENR Formula has been revised for several times due to its irrational prediction on ultimate bearing capacity. The Michigan State Highway Commission (1965) undertook a study to obtain a rational pile-driving equation. At three diverse sites, a total of 88 piles were driven. Based on these results, a modified ENR had been adopted. According to the revised ENR formula (Das, 1999), the pile resistance is the calculated ultimate load, Qp and can be expressed as:

Qp

W R H W R + n 2W P
S +C x WR + W p

(2.17)

where is hammer efficiency, WR is weight of the ram, H is drop of hammer, Wp is weight of pile, S is final set (penetration / blow), C is a constant and n is coefficient of restitution between the ram and the pile cap.

The values of C recommended are shown in Table 2.6 while the efficiencies of various pile driving hammers, , are given in Table 2.7.

Table 2.6 : Value of C for different types of hammers (Das, 1999) For drop hammers: C = 2.54 cm (if the units of S and H are in centimeters) C = 1 in (if the units of S and H are in inches) For steam hammers: C = 0.254 cm (if the units of S and H are in centimeters) C = 0.1 in (if the units of S and H are in inches)

Table 2.7: Value of for different types of hammers (Das, 1999) Hammer Type Single and double-acting hammers Diesel hammers Drop hammers Efficiency, 0.7 to 0.85 0.8 to 0.9 0.7 to 0.9

36 Representative values of the coefficient of restitution, n, are given in Table 2.8.

Table 2.8 : Value of n for different types of hammers (Das, 1999) Hammer Type Cast iron hammer and concrete piles Wood Cushion on steel piles Wooden piles Coefficient of Restitution, n 0.4 to 0.5 0.3 to 0.4 0.25 to 0.3

A factor of safety 4 to 6 is generally recommended for the Modified ENR Formula.

2.8

Failure in Foundation Engineering Many people think it is a failure when foundation is incapable of supporting

the necessary loads and fail catastrophically.

This its either black or white

perspective is easy to comprehend but it is not correct.

Leonard (1982) defined failure as an unacceptable difference between expected and observed performance. For example, an expected settlement for a building is not more than 25 mm when loaded. If the actual, settlement is 27 mm, an engineer will probably not consider it is a failure because the different between observed and predicted is small and within design factor of safety. However, if the actual settlement is 50 mm, it would probably classify as failure.

Coduto (2001) explains that the foundation should not only based on strength requirements but also the serviceability requirements. The following sections will discuss on these requirements.

37 2.8.1 Strength Requirement

2.8.1.1 Geotechnical Strength Requirements Geotechnical strength requirements are those that address the ability of the soil or rock to accept the loads imparted by the foundation without failing. The strength of soil is governed by its capacity to sustain shear stresses. In other words, if the shear strength of the soils is greater than the shear stresses, then the foundation is safe. Geotechnical strength analyses are almost always performed using allowable stress design (ASD) methods.

2.8.1.2 Structural Strength Requirements Structural strength requirements address the foundations structural integrity and its ability to safely carry the applied loads. For example, pile foundations made from steel are designed to carry certain amount of load. Thus, the thickness of the steel should be chosen such that the stresses induced should not exceed the allowable value. Foundations that are loaded beyond their structural capability will, in Structural strength analyses are almost always principle, fail catastrophically.

performed using allowable stress design (ASD) methods.

2.8.2

Serviceability Requirements Foundation that satisfies strength requirements will not collapse, but they still

may not have adequate performance. For example, they may experience excessive settlement. Therefore, there are second performance requirements, which are known as serviceability requirements.

38 2.8.2.1 Settlement Most foundation experienced some downward movement as a result of the applied loads. This movement is called settlement. Keeping settlements within tolerable limits is usually the most important foundation serviceability requirement.

Total settlement, , is the change in foundation elevation from the original unloaded position to the final loaded position. Structure that experience excessive total settlements might have some problems in connections with existing structure, utility lines, surface drainage, access and aesthetics. Table 2.8 presents typical design values for the allowable total settlement, a. These values already include a factor of safety, and thus may be compared directly to the predicted settlement. The design meets total settlement requirements if the following condition is met:

(2.18)

where is total settlement of foundation.

Table 2.9 : Allowable total settlements, a for foundation design (Coduto, 2001) Type of structure Office building & house Heavy industrial building Bridges Allowable total settlement, a (mm) 12 50 (25 is the common value) 25 75 50

The differential settlement, D, is the difference in total settlement between two foundations or between two points on a single foundation. Differential settlements are generally more troublesome than total settlements because they distort the structure. This causes cracking in walls and other members, jamming in the doors and windows, and other problems. If allowed to progress to an extreme, differential settlements could threaten the integrity of the structure.

39 Table 2.10 presents synthesis of Skempton and MacDonald (1956), Polshin and Tokar (1957), and Grant et al (1974), expressed in terms of the allowable angular distortion, a. These values already include a factor of safety of at least 1.5. The allowable differential settlement, Da is computed as follows:

Da = aSc where Sc is column spacing (horizontal distance between columns). Table 2.10 : Allowable angular distortion, a (Coduto, 2001) Type of structure Steel tanks Bridges with simply-supported spans Bridges with continuous spans Buildings that are very tolerant of differential settlements, such as industrial buildings with corrugated steel siding and 1/250 no sensitive interior finishes Typical commercial and residential buildings Overhead traveling crane rails Buildings that are especially intolerant of differential settlement, such as those with sensitive wall or floor finishes 1/1000 Machinery Buildings with unreinforced masonry load-bearing walls ~ Length/height 3 ~ Length/height 5 1/2500 1/1250 1/1500 1/500 1/500

(2.19)

Allowable angular distortion, a 1/25 1/125 1/250

2.8.2.2 Heave Sometimes foundations move upward instead of downward. This kind of movement is called heave. It may be due to applied upward loads, but more often it is the result of external forces, especially those from expansive soils. The design

40 criteria for heave are the same as those for settlement. However, if some foundations are heaving while others are settling, then the differential is the sum of two.

2.8.2.3 Tilt Excessive tilt is often a concern in tall, rigid structures. To preserve

aesthetics, the tilt, from the vertical should not more than 1/500 (Tower of Pisa has tilt of about 1/10). Greater tilts would be noticeable, especially in taller structures and those that are near other structures (Coduto, 2001).

2.8.2.4 Lateral Movement Foundations subjected to lateral loads have corresponding lateral movements. These movements also have tolerable limits. For bridge foundations, Bozozuk (1978) recommended maximum lateral movements of 25 mm.

2.8.2.5 Durability (Corrosion) Studies of waterfront structures have found that steel is lost at rate of 0.075 to 0.175 mm/yr (Whitaker, 1976). This corrosion occurs most rapidly in the tidal and splash zones and can also be very extensive immediately above the sea floor. It becomes almost negligible at depths of more than about 0.5 m below the sea floor. Such structures may also prone to abrasion from moving sand, ships, floating debris, and other sources. It is common to protect such foundations with coatings or jackets.

The situation in land environments is quite different.

Romanoff (1970)

observed that no structural failures have been attributed to corrosion of steel piles. The explanation is that the natural soils contain very little oxygen and other ingredients for the corrosion process. One of the most likely places for corrosion on land piles is immediately below concrete pile cap. This is caused by local electric currents that develop. Concrete will act as cathode and soil as an anode.

41 However, piles penetrates through fill may be subjected to corrosion as fills do contain sufficient free oxygen. Tomlinson (1987) found out that steel is lost at rate up to 0.8 mm/yr.

42

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1

Introduction This chapter will discuss on methodology used of this study as shown in

Figure 3.1. The methodology used in this study includes data collection, compilation of data, data analysis, comparison of the results, evaluation of methods, and finally conclusion and recommendation. The methodology used is essential in order to achieve the studys aim which is to identify the most appropriate interpretation methods to estimate the ultimate axial bearing capacity of piles.

3.2

Data Collection The collected data include soil investigation reports, piling records, and pile

load test records. Data was acquired from Taisei Corporation. They conducted their tests in Mukim Jimah Power Plant on November 2005. Spun piles of different sizes driven to set were considered in this study.

43

Data Collection Compilation of Data

a) b) c) d) soil data SPT data piling records pile tests data

Data Analysis- Prediction of Pile Capacities

Load Test Interpretation Method

Pile Driving Formulae

Static Analysis

Comparison- Actual Versus Predicted Pile Capacities

Evaluation of Methods Arithmetic Calculations

Best Fit Line

Cumulative Probability

Conclusion

Figure 3.1

Methodology flow chart

3.3

Compilation of Data The information from the data collected was compiled. The information and

data regarding the project, soil stratification and properties, pile characteristics, load test data, SPT profiles, etc. were processed and transferred from each load test report to tables, forms, and graphs.

44 3.3.1 Soil Data The soil data consists of information on the soil boring location (station number), soil stratigraphy and other information. From soil stratification, the predominant soil type was qualitatively identified (cohesive or cohesionless). The importance of this identification is addressed in the analysis section.

3.3.2

SPT Data The standard penetration soundings information includes test location (station

number), date, soil description and lithology, water level, N value and the depth the test halted.

3.3.3

Piling Records Piling records consist of pile characteristics (pile identification, material type,

cross-section, total length, embedded length), and installation data (location of the pile, date of driving, driving record, hammer type, etc.).

3.3.4

Pile Load Tests Reports Pile load test report consist of date of loading, applied load with time, pile

head movement, pile failure under testing, and etc.

45 3.4 Data Analysis Data collected was first analyzed by Meyerhof method. Information was extracted from soil investigation reports (soil description and lithology, water level, N value, and etc) and piling records (depth at which pile driven to set). This information was useful to determine the soil parameters. From the soil parameters, the skin resistance, end bearing resistance and finally the ultimate load of the piles were able to be calculated by Meyerhof method.

The data collected was then analyzed using interpretation methods. Information from pile load test reports (applied load and pile head movement) were used. In this study, since the proof test used is slow and quick maintained pile load test, the Chin, Butler and Hoy, Fuller and Hoy, De Beer, and Brinch Hansen method were chosen because these are the methods applicable for both maintained load tests. The analyzing process was carried out based on the steps recommended by the respective methods.

Information was extracted from piling records (pile identification, material type, cross-section, total length, embedded length), and installation data (date of driving, driving record, hammer type, penetration of set, etc.). The extracted information was then substituted into the equation of proposed pile driving formulae. The end product is the predicted ultimate load carrying capacity of pile by the respective formula.

3.5

Comparison of the Results This section presents an evaluation of the ability of the proposed methods to

predict the ultimate load carrying capacity of spun piles driven to set. The performance of the different methods was evaluated based on criterion that is evaluation of the predicted and measured pile capacity. The analyses were conducted

46 only on friction piles that failed (plunged or showed large settlement) under load testing.

3.6

Evaluation of Methods In this study, an evaluation scheme using three different criteria was

considered in order to rank the performance of different methods for predicting the ultimate axial capacity of piles. These criteria are:

(i) (ii) (iii)

R1 - the equation of the best fit line of predicted versus measured capacity (Qp/Qm) with the corresponding coefficient of determinations (R2); R2 Qp/Qm at 50 and 90 percent cumulative probability (P50 and P90); R3 mean () and standard deviation () calculations of Qp/Qm

3.6.1

Best Fit Line Equation For each prediction method, analysis was conducted to obtain the best fit line

for the predicted/measured pile capacities (Figure 3.2). The relationship Qp/Qm and the corresponding coefficient of determination (R2) were determined for each method. In this criterion, the method is better when Qp/Qm is closer to unity. If there are two or more methods that produced the same answer, the method with R2 closer to one will be considered as the better method.

47

Figure 3.2

Best fit line (Hani and Murad, 1999)

3.6.2

Cumulative Probability Long et al. (1999) used the cumulative probability (CP) value to quantify the

ability of different methods to predict the measured pile capacity. The concept is to sort the ratio Qp/Qm for each method in an ascending order. The smallest Qp/Qm is given number i = 1 and the largest is given i = n where n is the number of piles considered in the analysis. The cumulative probability value for each Qp/Qm is given by:

CPi =

i n +1

(3.1)

The cumulative probability curves were used to determine the 50 percent and 90 percent cumulative probability values (P50 and P90) (Figure 3.3). The pile capacity prediction method with P50 value closer to unity and with lower P50 P90 range is considered the best. P50 is considered as the average value of Qp/Qm while P50 P90 is considered as the value examining the consistency of the data.

48

Figure 3.3

Cumulative probability curve (Hani and Murad, 1999)

3.6.3 Mean () and Standard Deviation () of Qp/Qm

The ratio of predicted to measured ultimate pile capacity (Qp/Qm) was the main variable considered in the analyses. This ratio (Qp/Qm) ranges from 0 to with an optimum value of one. The methods underpredicts the measured capacity when Qp/Qm < 1 and it overpredicts the measured capacity when Qp/Qm > 1. The mean and standard deviation of Qp/Qm are indicators of the accuracy and precision of the prediction method. An accurate and precise method gives mean (Qp/Qm) = 1 and standard deviations (Qp/Qm) = 0, respectively, which means that for each pile, the predicted pile capacity equals to the measured one. This case is ideal, however, in reality the method is better when mean (Qp/Qm) is closer to one and standard deviation (Qp/Qm) is closer to 0.

In order to calculate the mean () and standard deviation () of Qp/Qm, the following equations are used (Long et al., 1999):

49
Qp Qm 1 n Qp = n Q i =1 m

(3.2)

Qp Qm

1 n Qp Q n 1 i =1 m

(3.3)

where n is number of piles being considered.

3.7

Conclusion and Recommendation

The method with the lowest rank index is considered as the most accurate method and recommended for pile design practice. Recommendations regarding the proposed methods and further improvement for the study were also included in this section.

50

CHAPTER 4

CASE STUDY

4.1

Location of Study

The site of this study is located at Mukim Jimah. Mukim Jimah is located east of the mouth of the Sepang River and off the Kuala Lukut shoreline in the state of Negeri Sembilan in west peninsular Malaysia. It lies at an elevation of between 0 m and 5 m below the Malaysian Land Survey Datum (MLSD, approximate Mean Sea Level). Reference to the geological map of the site and its surroundings (Geological Survey Malaysia, 1985) shows that the site is underlain by very soft to soft clays, organic soils and very loose to loose sands presumably deposited during the Pleistocene and Holocene Epochs of the Quaternary Period. The solid geology of the site consists of meta-sedimentary rocks (Phyllite, Schist, Slate and Sandstone) of the Devonian Period (Krishnan and Lee, 2006).

Based on description above, it is clear that the site is seated on the problematic soils where bearing capacity and settlement problems are expected. Besides, the site lies below mean sea level, and thus is subjected to flooding. Therefore, fill materials are necessary to raise the level before any works can commence.

51

Figure 4.1

Site location plan (Krishnan and Lee, 2006)

Figure 4.2

Site geological cross-section (Krishnan and Lee, 2006)

52
4.2 Piled Foundations

Piles are chosen to support the structure to be built.

Before actual

installation, comprehensive pile testing program was implemented to determine the load-displacement relationship and the suitability of installation method. Only four of the test piles are taken into account as the other piles are not in the scope this study. These piles are TP3C, TP5, TP9, and TP10. All of the mentioned piles are spun pile.

In the site, the spun piles were driven by 11 tonne BSP hydraulic hammer (pile no. TP3C) and 9 tonne Junttan hydraulic hammer (pile no. TP5, TP9, and TP10). Pre-boring was also carried out on upper 12 m of piles TP3C and TP5. Table 4.1 summarized the properties of the mentioned piles.

Table 4.1 : Spun pile properties (Krishnan and Lee, 2006) Pile No. Nominal Diameter (mm) Wall Thickness (mm) Pile Length (m) Prestresing Bar (D = 9mm)

TP3C TP5 TP9 TP10

600 500 400 400

100 90 80 80

38.9 38.1 41.7 17.5

14 no. 10 no. 8 no. 8 no.

Construction on Mukim Jimah sites requires placement of fills to raise the ground surface elevation to provide protection against flooding from nearby bodies of water. However, placement of fills presents another problem negative skin friction load or downdrag load. This load may cause excessive settlements in the foundation (Bozozuk, 1981). Therefore, engineers had coated the pile with bitumen at downdrag zone in order to alleviate or neglect the downdrag force.

53
4.3 Static Pile Load Test

Two types of static pile load test had been conducted on the site. They are normal maintained load test and quick maintained load test. Normal maintained load tests were conducted on three piles in the site (TP3C, TP5 and TP9) while quick maintained load test was conducted on TP10. The detail procedures for these tests had been elaborated in Sections 2.3.1.1 and 2.3.1.2 respectively.

4.4

Pile Instrumentation

For the instrumented test spun piles (TP3C, TP5 and TP9), pile instrumentation was conducted using Vibrating Wire (VW) Extensometers monitoring system for determining axial loads and movements at various levels down the pile shaft including the pile base level using Global Strain Extensometer (GloStrExt) Instrumentation method (Mukim Jimah Site Report, 2005).

VW GloStrExt Strain Gauges were installed at seven designated levels while VW Extensometers were installed at eight designated anchored intervals (housed in the hollow internal diameter of test pile). The instrumentation details are illustrated in Figure 4.3.

During static load testing, the load intrigued pile deformation resulted in relative movement between each and every two anchored intervals. The relative movement causing changes in strain gauge wire tension and corresponding change in its resonant frequency of vibration. To measure the resonant frequency, Glostrext strain gauge wire was plucked using electromagnetic coil connected through a signal cable to data logger, which also measures the frequency and displays the shortening reading and strain reading. The strain reading is essential for calculation of stress value at each anchor level.

54

Figure 4.3

Instrumentation details for static axial compression load tests (Krishnan and Lee, 2006)

4.5

Pile Movement Monitoring System

The pile top settlement was monitored using two different instruments, survey precise level instrument (Figure 4.4) and Linear Vertical Displacement Transducers (LVDT).

In the first instrument, pile top was affixed with vertical scale rule and sighted by a survey precise level instrument with the use of TP3B and TP4 as temporary benchmark reference for correction purposes. JKR specification mentioned that the apparatus should be placed on the stable ground and six meters from the reaction system.

Four LVDTs were mounted to reference beams, with plunger pressing vertically against glass plates fixed to pile top. Vertical scales were also provided on reference beams to monitor frame movement during load testing for correction purposes.

55
4.6 Loading Arrangement and Test Programs

As mentioned in Section 4.2, normal and quick maintained load tests were conducted on the test piles. The tests were conducted using kentledge reaction system (Figure 4.4). In this method, kentledge was placed onto a test frame and cribs which rest upon the ground.

In the setup, a hydraulic jack was used to provide the load by acting against the main beam. The hydraulic jack was operated by electric pump. Calibrated VW Load Cell was used to indicate the applied load. The load cell was placed between the jack and the kentledge framework and a pressure gauge linked to the hydraulic pump.

Besides manual precise level survey level, all other instruments were logged automatic using Micro-10x Datalogger and Multilogger software, at 2 minutes interval during loading and unloading steps. All the instruments were calibrated before were used in the test programs.

Figure 4.4

Typical static axial compression load tests setup (Krishnan and Lee, 2006)

56

CHAPTER 5

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

5.1

General Presentation

This section presents an evaluation of the ability of the investigated methods to predict the ultimate load carrying capacity of spun piles driven into Mukim Jimah soils. The performance of the different methods was evaluated based on criteria that include evaluation of the predicted/measured pile capacity and cumulative probability. Each method was given a rank based on its performance according to the selected criterion. The final rank of each method was obtained by adding the ranks of all criteria.

5.2

Characterization of the Investigated Piles

Four spun piles were considered in the current study. However, the analyses were conducted on the piles that were failed during the pile load test. A summary of the characteristics of the investigated pile is presented in Table 5.2. All the piles are friction piles based on the data given.

57
5.3 Failure Criteria

The failure criteria are based on JKR specification as mentioned in Section 2.3. Based on the mentioned criteria, Table 5.1 summarizes the failure condition of the test piles.

Table 5.1 : Summary of pile failure criterion Pile No. Diameter Failure Criterion

TP3C TP5 TP9 TP10

600 mm 500 mm 400 mm 400 mm

Total settlement exceeds 38mm (actual settlement is 40.70 mm) Total settlement exceeds 38mm (actual settlement is 41.12 mm) Total settlement exceeds 38mm (actual settlement is 46.66 mm) Residual settlement exceeds 12.5 mm (residual settlement is 17.52 mm)

5.4

Predicted Versus Measured Pile Capacity

Table 5.2 summarizes the results of the analyses conducted on the investigated piles. Among the data presented in Table 5.2 are: the pile size, type, length, the measured ultimate load carrying capacity, and the predicted ultimate bearing capacity. The graphs and calculations to predict ultimate bearing capacities are given in Appendix A, B, C and D.

The predicted ultimate bearing capacity (Qp) is the sum of pile tip capacity (Qt) and pile shaft resistance (Qs). The pile capacities Qt, Qs, and Qp predicted by the interpretation methods, pile driving formulae, and Meyerhof method are compared with Qm in Figures 5.1 to 5.8. Based on the graph, it is observed that prediction of pile ultimate bearing capacities by Fuller and Hoys, and Butler and Hoys method are

58 near to the exact bearing capacities measured at the site whereas the other six methods showed deviation from the measured bearing capacitites.

14000 12000

Capacity (kN)

10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0

Actual
Predicted

TP3C

TP5

TP9

TP10

Pile Number

Figure 5.1

Comparison of measured and predicted pile capacity (Chin)

7000 6000

Capacity (kN)

5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

Actual
Predicted

TP3C

TP5

TP9

TP10

Pile Number

Figure 5.2

Comparison of measured and predicted pile capacity (Brinch Hansen)

59
Table 5.2 : Summary of piles investigated
Pile No. Pile ID Pile and Soil Identification Pile Classification Predominant Soil* Pile Length (m) Types of Load Test Working Load (kN) Actual Ultimate Load (kN) Measured Field Results Predicted Ultimate Load (kN) Chin Load Test Interpretation Method Brinch Hansen Fuller and Hoy Butler and Hoy De Beer Pile Driving Formulae Static Analysis Janbu ENR Meyerhof Friction Cohesive 42 Normal 2200 Qs 5116 Qs 1258 Qt 1457 Qt 2566 Qu 6573 Qu 12500 2760 6600 6400 4300 3787 2392 3824 TP3C 600 mm diameter Friction Cohesionless 48 Normal 1700 Qs 4053 Qs 352 Qt 1051 Qt 376 Qu 5104 Qu 8333 2532 5400 5200 3000 2682 1875 728 TP5 500 mm diameter Friction Cohesionless 48 Normal 1150 Qs 2692 Qs 607 Qt 671 Qt 1917 Qu 3363 Qu 5582 2051 3300 3200 2100 1545 1078 2524 TP9 400 mm diameter Friction Cohesionless 18 Quick 100 Qs Qs 71 Qt Qt 101 Qu 442 Qu 524 360 420 390 230 350 272 172 TP10 400 mm diameter

*Cohesive (mainly clayey and silty clay soils) and cohesionless (mainly sandy soils): Qs: Pile skin resistance; Qt: Pile tip capacity; Qu: Total ultimate capacity (Qs + Qt)

60

7000 6000

Capacity (kN)

5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

Actual

Predicted

TP3C

TP5

TP9

TP10

Pile Number

Figure 5.3

Comparison of measured and predicted pile capacity (Fuller and Hoy)

7000 6000

Capacity (kN)

5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

Actual

Predicted

TP3C

TP5

TP9

TP10

Pile Number

Figure 5.4

Comparison of measured and predicted pile capacity (Butler and Hoy)

7000 6000

Capacity (kN)

5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

Actual
Predicted

TP3C

TP5

TP9

TP10

Pile Number

Figure 5.5

Comparison of measured and predicted pile capacity (De Beer)

61

7000 6000

Capacity (kN)

5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

Actual

Calculated

TP3C

TP5

TP9

TP10

Pile Number

Figure 5.6

Comparison of measured and calculated pile capacity (Janbu)

7000 6000

Capacity (kN)

5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

Actual
Calculated

T3C

TP5

TP9

TP10

Pile Number

Figure 5.7

Comparison of measured and calculated pile capacity (ENR)

7000 6000

Capacity (kN)

5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

Actual
Calculated

TP3C

TP5

TP9

TP

Pile Number

Figure 5.8

Comparison of measured and calculated pile capacity (Meyerhof)

62
5.5 Evaluation of Methods

A rank index (RI) is introduced in this study to quantify the overall performance of all methods. The rank index is the sum of the ranks from the different criteria, RI= R1+R2+R3. These evaluation methods are explained in Section 3.6.

5.5.1 Best Fit Line Equation

Figures 5.9 to 5.16 show the best fit equation and coefficient of determination of each method. The summary of the results for each method and their ranks in this criterion is shown in Table 5.3.

P re d ic t e d P ile C a p a c it y , Q p (k N )

14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 QP= 1.7793 Qm R2 =0.98

Perfect fit

Meausred Pile Capacity, Qm (kN)

Figure 5.9

Predicted (Chins Method) versus measured pile capacity

63

7000

Predicted Pile Capacity, Qp (kN)

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Qp = 0.4721 Qm R 2 =0.90

Perfect fit

Meausred Pile Capacity, Qm (kN)

Figure 5.10

Predicted (Brinch Hansen Criterion) versus measured pile capacity

7000

Predicted Pile Capacity, Qp (kN)

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Qp = 1.0182 Qm R2 =0.99

Perfect fit

Meausred Pile Capacity, Qm (kN)

Figure 5.11

Predicted (Fuller and Hoys Method) versus measured pile capacity

7000

Predicted Pile Capacity, Qp (kN)

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Qp = 0.9849 Qm R2 =0.99

Perfect fit

Meausred Pile Capacity, Qm (kN)

Figure 5.12

Predicted (Butler and Hoys Method) versus measured pile capacity

64

7000

Predicted Pile Capacity, Qp (kN)

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 Qp = 0.6283 Qm 1000 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 R 2 =0.99

Perfect fit

Meausred Pile Capacity, Qm (kN)

Figure 5.13

Predicted (De Beers Method) versus measured pile capacity

Calculated Pile Capacity, Qp (kN)

7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Qp = 0.5061 Qm R 2 =0.92

Perfect fit

Meausred Pile Capacity, Qm (kN)

Figure 5.14

Calculated (Janbus Formula) versus measured pile capacity

Calculated Pile Capacity, Qp (kN)

7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Qp = 0.3596 Qm R 2 =0.99

Perfect fit

Meausred Pile Capacity, Qm (kN)

Figure 5.15

Calculated (ENRs Formula) versus measured pile capacity

65

7000

Calculated Pile Capacity, Qp (kN)

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Qp = 0.4633Qm R 2 =0.62

Perfect fit

Meausred Pile Capacity, Qm (kN)

Figure 5.16

Calculated (Meyerhofs Method) versus measured pile capacity

Inspection of Figures 5.9 to 5.16 (Qp/Qm plots) shows that Butler and Hoy method has best fit equation Qp = 0.9849Qm with R2 = 0.99. This method tends to underpredict the measured pile capacity by an average of 1 percent. Therefore, Butler and Hoy method ranks number one according to this criterion and is given R1 = 1 (R1 is the rank based on this criterion). The Fuller and Hoy method with Qp = 1.0182Qm (R2 = 0.99) tends to overpredict the measured capacity by 2 percents and therefore ranks number 2 (R1 = 2). According to this criterion, Brinch Hansen, De Beer, Janbu, ENR, and Meyerhof methods tend to underpredict the measured ultimate pile capacity, while Chin method tends to overpredict the measured ultimate pile capacity. The Chin method showed the inaccurate performance with Qp = 1.7793Qm (R2 = 0.98) and therefore was given R1= 8.

5.5.2 Cumulative Probability (CP)

Figures 5.17 to 5.24 show the values of P50 and P90 of each method. The summary of the results for each method and their ranks in this criterion is shown in Table 5.3.

66

2.5

2.10
2

1.65 Qp/Qm
1.5 1 0.5 0 0 20 40 60 80 100

Cumulative probabiity (%)

Figure 5.17

Cumulative probability plot for Qp/Qm (Chins Method)

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0

0.97

Qp/Qm

0.55

20

40

60

80

100

Cumulative probabiity (%)

Figure 5.18

Cumulative probability plot for Qp/Qm (Brinch Hansens Criterion)

1.2 1 0.8

1.12 1.00

Qp/Qm

0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 20 40 60 80 1 00

Cumulative probabiity (%)

Figure 5.19

Cumulative probability plot for Qp/Qm (Fuller and Hoys Method)

67

1.2 1

1.08 0.96

0.8

Qp/Qm

0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100

Cumulative probabiity (%)

Figure 5.20

Cumulative probability plot for Qp/Qm (Butler and Hoys Method)

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0

0.68 0.62

Qp/Qm

20

40

60

80

100

Cumulative probabiity (%)

Figure 5.21

Cumulative probability plot for Qp/Qm (De Beers Method)

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0

0.92

Qp/Qm

0.51

20

40

60

80

100

Cumulative probabiity (%)

Figure 5.22

Cumulative probability plot for QP/Qm (Janbus Formula)

68

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0

0.75

Qp/Qm

0.36

20

40

60

80

1 00

Cumulative probabiity (%)

Figure 5.23

Cumulative probability plot for QP/Qm (ENRs Formula)

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0

0.83

Qp/Qm

0.50

20

40

60

80

1 00

Cumulative probabiity (%)

Figure 5.24

Cumulative probability plot for QP/Qm (Meyerhofs Method)

The cumulative probability curves (Figures 5.17 to 5.24) were used to determine the 50 percent and 90 percent cumulative probability values (P50 and P90). The pile capacity prediction method with P50 value closer to one and with lower P50 P90 range is considered the best. Based on this criterion, the Butler and Hoy method with P50 = 0.96 and P90 = 1.28 ranks number one (R3 = 1) followed by de Fuller and Hoy with R3 = 2. The Chin method has highest P50 and P90 values and therefore ranks number eight.

69
Table 5.3 : Evaluation of the performance of the prediction methods considered in this study
Pile Capacity Prediction Methods Best fit calculations QP/Qm Chin Brinch Hansen Fuller and Hoy Butler and Hoy De Beer Janbu ENR Meyerhof 1.7793 0.4721 1.0182 0.9849 0.6283 0.5061 0.3596 0.4633 R2 0.98 0.90 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.92 0.99 0.62 Rank, R1 8 5 2 1 3 4 7 6 Arithmetic calculations Cumulative probability calculations P50 1.65 0.55 1.00 0.96 0.62 0.51 0.36 0.50 P90 2.10 0.97 1.12 1.08 0.68 0.92 0.75 0.83 Rank, R3 8 6 2 1 3 5 7 4 Rank of the methods based on their performance Rank Index, RI 24 16 5 4 9 13 20 17 Rank 8 5 2 1 3 4 7 6

1.595 0.590 0.998 0.955 0.598 0.560 0.418 0.465

0.0861 0.0317 0.0022 0.0034 0.0035 0.0286 0.0187 0.0502

Rank, R2 8 5 1 2 3 4 6 7

= Coefficient of determination = Mean = Standard deviation = R1 + R2 + R3

RI

70
5.5.3 Mean () and Standard Deviation () of Qp/Qm

The summary of the results for each method and their ranks in this criterion is shown in Table 5.3. In this criterion, the arithmetic mean () and standard deviation () of the ratio Qp/Qm values for each method were calculated. The best method is the one that gives a mean value closer to one with a lower standard deviation, which is the measure of scatter in the data around the mean. According to this criterion, Fuller and Hoy method with = 0.998 and = 0.0022 ranks number one (R2 = 1) followed by the Butler and Hoy method (R2 = 2). Brinch Hansen, De Beer, Janbu, ENR, and Meyerhof methods have < 1, which means that these methods on average are underpredicting the measured pile capacity. On the other hand, Chin method has > 1, which means that these methods on average are underpredicting the measured pile capacity.

5.5.4

Overall Performance

In order to evaluate the overall performance of the different prediction methods, all criteria were considered in a form of an index. The Rank Index (RI) is the algebraic sum of the ranks obtained using the three criteria. Considering Butler and Hoy method, the RI equals to four as evaluated from RI = R1 + R2 + R3 + R4. The Rank Index values for all other methods are presented in Table 5.3. Inspection of Table 5.3 demonstrates that Butler and Hoy method ranks number one. This method showed the best performance according to the evaluation criteria and therefore considered the best methods. The Fuller and Hoy method ranks number two. The Chin method showed the worst performance as it ranks number eight.

5.6 Discussion

The results of this study demonstrated the capability of the mentioned methods in predicting the ultimate load carrying capacity of spun piles driven into Mukim Jimah soils. Butler and Hoy method methods showed the best performance

71 in predicting the ultimate measured load carrying capacity of spun piles. It is strongly recommended that this method is implemented in design and analysis of spun piles.

Although Butler and Hoy, and Fuller and Hoy showed accuracy in predicting the ultimate load carrying capacity of spun piles, it is recommended that a factor should be introduced due to uncertainties and variations in soil profiles. The factor recommended is 1.1 as Fuller and Hoys method overpredicted the ultimate bearing capacity by 2 percent. Besides, one should be careful in determine the 0.1 mm/kN slope on load-movement curve as it is not clearly defined especially in longer piles. It is recommended that the same personnel should be responsible in determining the tangent when these two methods are implemented as the judgment will be consistent.

De Beer method defined the ultimate load falls at the intersection of the two straight lines. However, not all the intersections of these lines are clearly defined. Therefore, some judgment may be required in determine these intersections. It is recommended that the same personnel should be responsible in determining the intersection point as the judgment will be consistent. This method may be used as supplementary method when the load is more than 1000 kN (accuracy is around 60%).

Brinch Hansens 80 percent criterion is not suitable for test methods that include unloading cycles or where plunging failure is not achieved. The result of this study support the statement as the performance of this method is average (accuracy of 60%). Therefore, this method is not recommended for load tests that include unloading cycles. However, it can be used as an additional method when the load is not more than 1000 kN as the accuracy is relatively higher (83%) than the average accuracy.

Chin method shows least competency in predicting the ultimate load of spun piles driven into Mukim Jimah soils. Part of the reason is that the load tests carried out in the site did not have constant time load increments. As a result, it affected the accuracy of this method as Chin method is understood dependant on the time load

72 increments. Hence, it is not recommended for load tests that have different time load increment. However, the suitability of this method for load tests which have constant time load increments is subjected to further study. A factor of 2 is recommended as Chins method overpredicted the ultimate bearing capacity by 78 percent.

Among the two pile driving formulae evaluated in this study, Janbu formula shows better accuracy than ENR formula. However, both showed low accuracy with accuracy less than 55%. The sources of this problem may include the followings:

(i)

The pile, hammer, and soil types used to generate the formula may not be the same as those at site where it is being used. This is probably one of the major reasons for the inaccuracies in ENR Formula.

(ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

The hammers do not always operate at their rated efficiencies. The energy absorption properties of cushions can vary significantly. The formulae do not account for flexibility in the pile. There is no simple relationship between the static and dynamic strength of soils.

Because of these difficulties, there is little need to continue using pile driving formulae unless there are some correction in these formulae. For recommendation, the formula may be modified to suit the condition of the site or at least the particular area. Besides, the coefficient of efficiencies for Janbu and ENR formula should be restudied as the equipments which are used today are certainly more efficient. Finally, the formulae should include some parameters on pile flexibility and relationship between static and dynamic strength of soils. However, pile driving formulae may be used for initial design as it gives engineer some idea on the pile bearing capacity.

Based on the data, the piles are considered as friction piles.

However,

calculations based on Meyerhof method suggested that the piles are end bearing piles. Meyerhof method overpredicted the end bearing of piles but on the other hand, underpredicted the skin resistance. These differences were down to the soil

73 parameters used in the design procedure. As mentioned, these soil parameters were obtained from empirical formulae based on average SPT N-values. These empirical formulae may not be suitable for Mukim Jimah soils as the parameters are irrelevant. Laboratory tests should be conducted to obtain the actual soil parameters or at least proven empirical formulae in Malaysian soils should be implemented. Meyerhof method with the soil parameters based on the average N-value may only be used as the preliminary design. This method is found to underpredict the ultimate load. Table 5.4 summarized the results of discussion and comments.

Table 5.4 : Summary of discussion Methods Qp/Qm Comments

Chin

1.78

~least accurate due to the fact that the data did not have constant time load increment. ~factor of 2 is recommended.

Brinch Hansen

0.47

~underpredicted the bearing capacity (conservative). ~part of the reason is that this method is not suitable for the load tests that have unloading cycle. ~showed better accuracy when the load is lower (less than 1000 kN).

Fuller and Hoy

1.02

~accurate but slightly overpredicted the bearing capacity. ~factor of 1.1 is recommended ~judgment needed to determine 0.1 mm/kN slope at load-deformation curve.

Butler and Hoy

0.99

~most accurate. ~recommended for design procedure in Mukim Jimah ~judgement needed to determine 0.1 mm/kN slope at load-deformation curve.

De Beer

0.63

~ underpredicted the bearing capacity (conservative). ~ judgement needed to determine the intersections of the two straight lines. ~showed better accuracy when the load is greater (more than 1000 kN)

74 Janbu 0.51 ~ underpredicted the bearing capacity (conservative). ~showed better accuracy than ENR formula. ~not recommended for design procedure unless pile load test is unable to be conducted. ENR 0.36 ~ underpredicted the bearing capacity (conservative). ~not recommended for design procedure unless pile load test is unable to be conducted. Meyerhof 0.46 ~ underpredicted the bearing capacity (conservative). ~contradict with the field result in term of type of pile. ~not recommended for design procedure detailed laboratory tests are not conducted.

75

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1

General

This study presented an evaluation of the performance of eight methods in predicting the ultimate load carrying capacity of spun piles driven into Mukim Jimah Power Plant. Four pile load test reports, which have soil investigation report adjacent to the test pile, were collected from Taisei Corporation. Prediction of pile capacity was performed on four friction piles that failed during the pile load test.

5.2

Conclusion

(i)

Based on the results of this study, Butler and Hoy method shows the best capability in predicting the measured load carrying capacity of spun piles. Fuller and Hoy method also shows competency in predicting the ultimate load carrying capacity of piles. Other methods such as De Beer, Brinch Hansen showed an average accuracy in predicting the ultimate carrying capacity of spun piles. Chin method is found to be the least suitable in predicting ultimate load carrying capacity.

(ii)

It is concluded that six out of eight methods considered in the study underpredicted bearing capacity of spun piles. These methods are Butler and Hoy, Brinch Hansen, De Beer, Meyerhof, Janbu, and ENR method. Except

76 for Butler and Hoy method, the other five methods tend to underpredict the ultimate load in the range of forty to sixty percent. Butler and Hoy method underpredicts the ultimate load by one percent. The two methods that overpredict the ultimate carrying capacity of piles are Fuller and Hoy and Chin method. The margin of error by Fuller and Hoy is small (around two percent). (iii) However, Chin method overpredicted almost two times the measured ultimate load. Fuller and Hoy, Butler and Hoy and De Beer method show its consistency in predicting the ultimate bearing capacity of the spun piles. It is shown in standard deviation () column as all of these methods have less than 0.004. Meyerhof and Chin method shows less consistency in predicting the ultimate load as for meyerhof method is 0.05 while the standard deviation for Chin method is 0.09. (iv) Butler and Hoy method is the recommended method for pile design practice as it is precise and consistent in predicting the spun piles capabilities

5.3

Recommendation

Some recommendations for further studies are listed as follows:

(i)

At least 10 data are needed for this type of study. This is essential for cumulative probability calculations (CP) as CP at ninety percent is needed for analysis. For the current study, the value of CP ninety percent is based on interpolation.

(ii)

For further studies, driven square precasted concrete piles and bored piles may be included. End bearing piles may be useful for improvement of this study.

(iii) (iv)

Other load test interpretation methods such as Davissons, Brinch Hnasen 90% Criterion and Mazurkiewicz Methods may be included in the discussion. Pile driving formula used by various companies in the industry such as Pilecon and Hileys formulae may be included for further discussion.

77 (v) (vi) (vii) Other static analysis formulae such as Vesic, and Coyle and Castello may be included for further investigation. Detail laboratory tests reports should be included for further studies. Other evaluation methods such as histogram and log normal probability distribution may be included to further evaluation of the methods.

78
REFERENCES

Airhart, T.P. and et. al. (1969). Pile-Soil System Response in a Cohesive Soil. Performance of Deep Foundations. Philadelphia: ASTM. 264-294. Bachand, M.L.Jr. (1999). Express Method of Pile Testing by Static Cyclic Loading. University of Massachusetts Lowell: Master Thesis. Bowles, J.E. (1996). Foundation Analysis and Design. 5th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. 167-181. Bozozuk, M. (1981). Bearing Capacity of Pile Preloaded by Downdrag.

Proceedings of Tenth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Stockholm. Vol. 2. 631-636. Briaud, J.L. et. al. (1989). Analysis of Pile Load Test at Lock and Dam 26.

Proceedings of Foundation Engineering: Current Principles and Practices. American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol. 2. 925-942 British Standard Institution (1987). British Standard 5930: Code of Practice for Site Investigation. London. Broms, B.B. (1965). Methods of calculating the Ultimate Bearing capacity of Piles: A Summary. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division. American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol. 91, No. GT3. 187-222. Butler, H.D., and H.E. Hoy (1977). The Texas Quick-Load Method for Foundation Load Testing-User's Manual. Report No. FHWA-IP-77-8. Coduto, D.P. (2001). Foundation Design: Principles and Prctices. 2nd edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 24-35.

79 Coyle, H.M., and Castello, R.R. (1981). New Design Correlations for Piles in Sand. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division. American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol. 107, No. GT7. 965-986. Das, B.M. (1999). Principles of Foundation Engineering. 4th edition. Pacific Grove: Bruce/Cole Publishing Company. 605-614. Das, B.M. (2000). Fundamentals of Geotechnical Engineering. Pacific Grove: Bruce/Cole Publishing Company. 257-261, 495-523. Das, B.M. (2004). Principles of Foundation Engineering. 5th edition. Pacific Grove: Bruce/Cole Publishing Company. 524-525. Flaate, K. (1964). An Investigation of the Validity of Three Pile Driving Formulae in Cohesionless Materials. Institute Oslo. 11-22. Fleming, W.G.K., Weltman, A.J. and Randolph, M.F. (1985). Piling Engineering. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 301-340. Fuller, F.M., (1983). Engineering of Pile Installations. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co. 170-181. Han, Y. (1999). Axial Load Test and Analysis for Open-Ended Steel Tubular Piles Driven into Weathered Rock. University of Ottawa: Master Thesis. Hani, H.T. and Murad, Y.A.F. (1999). Evaluation of Capacity of Piles from Cone Penetration Data. Unites States: Louisiana Transportation Research Center. Hara, A., Ohata, T., and Niwa, M. (1971). Shear Modulus and Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils. Soils and Foundations. Vol. 14, No. 3. 1-12. Publication No. 56, Norwegian Geotechnical

80 Hatanaka, M., and Uchida, A. (1996). Empirical Correlation Between Penetration Resistance and Internal Friction Angle of Sandy Soils. Foundations. Vol. 36, No. 4. 1-10. Henry, F.D.C. (1986). The Design and Construction of Engineering Foundations. 2nd edition. London: Chapman & Hall. 652-653, 727-738. Hutchinson, J.N., and Jensen, E.v. (1968). Loading Tests on Piles Driven into Estuarine Clays at Port of Khorramshav, and Observations on the Effect of Bitumen Coatings on Shaft Bearing Capacity. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo. 119-126. Janbu, N. (1953). An Energy Analysis of Pile Driving with the Use of Publication No. 3. Norwegian Geotechnical Publication No. 78, Soils and

Dimensionless Parameters. Institute, Oslo.

Kovacs, W.D.,, and Salomone, L.A. (1981). Energy Measurements in the SPT. Building Science Series 135. Standards. Krishnan, S. and Lee, S.K. (2006). A Novel Approach to the Performance Washington, D.C: National Bureau of

Evaluation of Driven Prestressed Concrete Piles and Bored Cast-In-Place Piles. International Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations. 31st May 2nd June. Amsterdam. Kulhawy, F.H., and Jackson, C.S. (1989). Some Observations on Undrained Side Resistance of Drilled Shafts. Proceedings, Foundation Engineering: Current Principles and Practices. American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol. 2. 1011-1025. Leonard, M.W. (1978). London:

Piling Model Procedures and Specifications.

Institution of Civil Engineers. 22-30, 108-122.

81 Leonards, G.A. (1982). Investigation of Failures. Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol. 117, No. 1. 172-188. Liao, S.S.C., and Whitman, R.V. (1986). Overburden Correction Factors for SPT in Sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol. 114, No. 3. 373-377. Long, J. H., and Wysockey, M. H. (1999). Accuracy of Methods for Predicting Axial Capacity of Deep Foundations. Proceedings of OTRC 99 Conference: Analysis, Design, Construction, and Testing of Deep Foundation. Reston: ASCE, 190195. McCarthy, D.F. (1998). Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundations. 5th edition. New York: Prentice Hall Inc. 147-149, 497-503 Meyerhof, G.G. (1959). Compaction of Sands and Bearing Capacity of Piles. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division. American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol. 85. 1-29. Meyerhof, G.G. (1976). Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Pile Foundations. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division. American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol. 102. 197-228. Nor Azizi Yussoff (2003). Foundation Engineering: Lecture Notes. Batu Pahat: Kolej Universiti Teknologi Tun Hussein Onn. (Unpublished). Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E., and Thornburn, T.H. (1974). Foundation Engineering. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 514. Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. (1980). Pile Foundation Analysis and Design. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Ramli Nazir (2005). Advanced Foundation Engineering: Lecture Notes. Johore Bahru: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. (Unpublished)

82

Scheil, T.J. (1979). Long Term Monitoring of a Building over the Deep Hackensack Meadowland Varved Clays. Presented at Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. Technical Seminar. California. Simons, N.E., and Menzies, B.K. (2000). A Short Course in Foundation Engineering. 2nd edition. London: Thomas Telford Ltd. 162-221. Skempton, A.W. (1986). SPT Procedures and the Effects in Sands of Overburden Pressure, Relative Density, Particle Size, Aging and Overconsolidation. Geotechnique. Vol. 36, No. 3. 425-447. Soderberg, L. (1962). Consolidation Theory Applied to Foundation Pile Time Effects. Geotechnique. Vol. 12. 217-225. Spronken, J.T. (1998). Bearing Capacity of Tapered Piles. University of Calgary: Master Thesis. Stroud, M. (1974). SPT in Insensitive Clays. Proceedings of European Symposium on Penetration Testing. Vol. 2. 367-375. Tomlinson, M.J. (1969). 2nd edition.

Foundation Design and Construction.

London: Pitman Publishing. 785. Tomlinson, M.J. (1971). Some effects of Pile Driving on Skin Friction. Proceedings of Conference of Behavior of Piles. London: ICE. 107-114. Tomlinson, M.J. (1987). 3rd edition.

Pile Design and Construction Practices.

London: Palladian Publication. Tolosko, T.A. (1999). Extrapolation of Pile Capacity from Non-Failed Load Test. University of Massachusetts Lowell: Master Thesis.

83 Vijayvergiya, V.N., and Focht, J.A., Jr. (1972). A New Way to Predict Capacity of Piles in Clay. Proceedings of Conference of Offshore Technology. Houston: Forth Offshore Technology. Conference Paper 1718. Whitaker, T., (1976). The Design of Piled Foundations. 2nd edition. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 135-150. Wolff, T.F. (1989). 23. 96-106. Pile Capacity Prediction Using Parameter Functions.

Geotechnical Special Publication. American Society of Civil Engineers. No.

84
Appendix A1

Summary of Average Pile Top Settlement for Test Pile TP3C

85
Appendix A2

Bearing Capacity of Test Pile TP3C from Load Test Interpretation Method

Chin's Method 0.008 0.007 S ttle e t/L a (m /kN e mn od m ) 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 y = 0.00008x + 0.00367

Settlement (mm)

Ultimate Load (Qu) = 1/0.00008 = 12500 kN

Brinch Hansen's 80% Criterion

0.003

S ttle e t^ .5/L a (m ^ .5/kN e m n 0 o d m0 )

0.002

y = -0.00002x + 0.00169

0.001

0 0 10 20 30 40 50

Settlement (mm)

Ultimate Load (Qu) = 0.5/(0.00002x0.00169) = 2720 kN

86

Fuller and Hoy's Method

7000 6000 5000

Qp

Load (kN)

4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 10 20 30 40 50

Settlement (mm)

From the graph, it is estimated the ultimate bearing capacity is 6600 kN.

Butler and Hoy's Method

7000 6000 5000

Qp

Load (kN)

4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 10 20 30 40 50

Settlement (mm)

From the graph, it is estimated the ultimate bearing capacity is 6400 kN.

87

De Beer's Method
10000

Qp

Load (kN)

1000

100 1 10 100

Settlement (mm)

From the graph, it is estimated the ultimate bearing capacity is 4300 kN.

88
Appendix A3

Bearing Capacity of Test Pile TP3C from Pile Driving Formulae

Weight of ram, WR Weight of Pile, Wp Area of pile, Ap Young modulus of pile, Ep Drop of hammer, H Penetration of pile per, S hammer blow Efficiency, (Janbu) Efficiency, (ENR) Restitution factor, n Constant, C

= 107.91 kN = 165.47 kN = 0.16708 m2 = 43.25 x 106 kN/m2 = 1.2 m = 0.0012 m = 0.70 (good driving condition) = 0.9 (assuming the efficiency is maximum) = 0.5 (assuming the restitution is maximum) = 0.0254 m

Janbu Formula

Janbu formula, Qp

W R H
Ku S

= 3787 kN
0.5 e = C d 1 + 1 + Cd

where Ku Cd

= 19.9

= 0.75 + 0.15

Wp WR

= 0.98 = 366

WR HL
Ap E p S 2

Engineer News Record (ENR) Formula

ENR formula, Qp

WR H WR + n 2WP
S +C x WR + W p

= 2392 kN

89
Appendix A4

Bearing Capacity of Test Pile TP3C from Static Analysis (Meyerhof Method)

0 9.0 m Loose sand, average unit weight, avg = 16.5 kN/m2 Navg = 3

9.0 m 25.8 m Soft clay, average unit weight, avg = 17.5 kN/m2 Navg = 4 Cu = 20 kN/m2

25.8 m 38.7 m Medium dense sand, average unit weight, avg = 18.75 kN/m2 Navg = 17

38.7 m 42.0 m Very dense sand, average unit weight, avg = 18.75 kN/m2 Navg = 176

For Loose Sand Based on result from TP9, Navg is 3.

Effective overburden stress, v

= (16.5 9.81) x 9 = 60.2 kN/m2

90 Based on Peck, Hanson and Thornburn (1974) Ncor = 0.77 N f log

= 3.5 Based on Meyerhof (1976) Skin resistance, qs1 = 2NcorpL = 2 x 3.5 x 0.6 x 9 = 119 kN 20 0.0105 'v

For Soft Clay

Skin resistance, qs

= cupL

From Figure 2.15, = 1.0 Thus, qs2 = 1.0 x 20 x 0.6 x 16.8 = 633 kN

For Medium Dense Sand

Effective overburden stress, v

= (16.5 9.81) x 9.0 + (17.5 9.81) x 16.8 + (18.75 9.81) x 12.9 = 304.7 kN/m2

Based on Peck, Hanson and Thornburn (1974) Ncor = 0.77 N f log

20 0.0105 'v

= 10.4 Based on Meyerhof (1976) Skin resistance, qs3 = 2NcorpL = 2 x 10.4 x 0.6 x 6.8 = 506 kN Total skin resistance, Qs = qs1 + qs2 + qs3 = 1258 kN

91
For Hard Layer

Effective overburden stress, v

= 304.7 + ( 20.5 9.81) x 3.3 = 340 kN/m2

Based on Peck, Hanson and Thornburn (1974) Ncor = 0.77 N f log = 89 Based on Wolff (1989)
2 = 27.1 + 0.3N cor 0.00054 N cor

20 0.0105 'v

= 52 > 45. Assume friction angle is 45. The depth of penetration in bearing stratum, Lb is 0.2. Thus, Lb / D = 0.3 and is less than (Lb / D)critical. The value for (Lb / D)critical is around 24 (from Figure 2.8). Take (Lb / D). From Figure 2.8, bearing capacity factor, Nq is around 240. Ultimate point load, Qtu = Ap v Nq = 0.16708 x 340 x 240 = 13634 kN However, limiting point load, Qtl = Ap50Nqtan = 0.16708 x 50 x 240 x tan 52 = 2566 kN Since Qtl < Qtu, the point bearing capacity, Qt is 2566 kN. Thus, the bearing capacity of pile, Qp = Qt + Qs = 2566 + 1258 = 3824 kN

92
Appendix B1

Summary of Average Pile Top Settlement for Test Pile TP5

93
Appendix B2

Bearing Capacity of Test Pile TP5 from Load Test Interpretation Method

Chin's Method 0.01 0.009

S ttle e t/L a (m /k ) e mn o d m N
y = 0.00012x + 0.00385

0.008 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Settlement (mm)

Ultimate Load (Qu) = 1/0.00012 = 8333 kN

Brinch Hansen's 80% Criterion

0.004

Settlem ent^ /Load (m ^ /kN) m

0.5

0.003

0.002

0.5

y = -0.00002x + 0.00195

0.001

0 0 10 20 30 40 50

Settlement (mm)

Ultimate Load (Qu) = 0.5/(0.00002x0.00195) = 2532 kN

94

Fuller and Hoy's Method

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 10 20 30 40 50

Qp

Load (kN)

Settlement (mm)

From the graph, it is estimated the ultimate bearing capacity is 5400 kN.

Butler and Hoy's Method

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 10 20 30 40 50

Qp

Load (kN)

Settlement (mm)

From the graph, it is estimated the ultimate bearing capacity is 5200 kN.

95

De Beer's Method
10000

Qp

Load (kN)

1000

100 1 10 100

Settlement (mm)

From the graph, it is estimated the ultimate bearing capacity is 3000 kN.

96
Appendix B3

Bearing Capacity of Test Pile TP5 from Pile Driving Formulae

Weight of ram, WR Weight of Pile, Wp Area of pile, Ap Young modulus of pile, Ep Drop of hammer, H Penetration of pile per, S hammer blow Efficiency, (Janbu) Efficiency, (ENR) Restitution factor, n Constant, C

= 88.29 kN = 131.21 kN = 0.115925 m2 = 43.25 x 106 kN/m2 = 1.1 m = 0.00024 m = 0.70 (good driving condition) = 0.9 (assuming the efficiency is maximum) = 0.5 (assuming the restitution is maximum) = 0.0254 m

Janbu Formula

Janbu formula, Qp

W R H
Ku S

= 2682 kN
0.5 e = C d 1 + 1 + Cd

where Ku Cd e

= 105.6 = 0.97 = 11299

= 0.75 + 0.15 =

Wp WR

WR HL
Ap E p S 2

Engineer News Record (ENR) Formula

ENR formula, Qp

WR H WR + n 2WP
S +C x WR + W p

= 1875 kN

97
Appendix B4

Bearing Capacity of Test Pile TP5 from Static Analysis (Meyerhof Method) 0 10.5 m Loose sand, average unit weight, avg = 16.5 kN/m2 Navg = 3

10.5 m 26.0 m Soft clay, average unit weight, avg = 17.5 kN/m2 Navg = 2 Cu = 10 kN/m2

26.0 m 43.0 m Dense sand, average unit weight, avg = 18.75 kN/m2 Navg = 32

For Loose Sand

Based on result from TP9, Navg is 3. Effective overburden stress, v = (16.5 9.81) x 10.5 = 70.2 kN/m2

98 Based on Peck, Hanson and Thornburn (1974) Ncor = 0.77 N f log = 3.3 Based on Meyerhof (1976) Skin resistance, qs1 = 2NcorpL = 2 x 3.3 x 0.5 x 10.5 = 109 kN 20 0.0105 'v

For Soft Clay

Skin resistance, qs

= cupL

From Figure 2.15, = 1.0 Thus, qs2 = 1.0 x 10 x 0.5 x 15.5 = 243 kN Total skin resistance, Qs = qs1 + qs2 = 352 kN

For Medium Dense Sand

Effective overburden stress, v

= (16.5 9.81) x 10.5 + (17.5 9.81) x 15.5 + (18.75 9.81) x 17.0 = 341 kN/m2

Based on Peck, Hanson and Thornburn (1974) Ncor = 0.77 N f log = 18.4 20 0.0105 'v

Based on Wolff (1989)

2 = 27.1 + 0.3N cor 0.00054 N cor

= 33

99 The depth of penetration in bearing stratum, Lb is 12.1. Thus, Lb / D = 24.2 and is less than (Lb / D)critical. The value for (Lb / D)critical is around 7 (from Figure 2.8). Take (Lb / D)critical. From Figure 2.8, bearing capacity factor, Nq is around 100. Ultimate point load, Qtu = Ap v Nq = 0.115925 x 341 x 100 = 3953 kN However, limiting point load, Qtl = Ap50Nqtan = 0.115925 x 50 x 100 x tan 33 = 376 kN Since Qtl < Qtu, the point bearing capacity, Qt is 187 kN. Thus, the bearing capacity of pile, Qp = Qt + Qs = 376 + 352 = 728 kN

100
Appendix C1

Summary of Average Pile Top Settlement for Test Pile TP9

101
Appendix C2

Bearing Capacity of Test Pile TP9 from Load Test Interpretation Method

Chin's M e thod

0.02

y = 0.00017x + 0.00630
S ettlem ent/Load (m /kN m )

0.01

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Settlement (mm) 30 35 40 45 50

Ultimate Load (Qu) = 1/0.00017 = 5882 kN

Brinch Hansen's 80% Criterion

0.006

0.005

S tt mn /L a ( m /k ) e le e t^ o d m ^ N

0 .5

0.004

0.003

0 .5

y = -0.00002x + 0.00297

0.002

0.001

0 0 10 20 30 40 50

Settlement (mm)

Ultimate Load (Qu) = 0.5/(0.00002x0.00297) = 2051 kN

102

Fuller and Hoy's Method

4000 3500 3000 2500

Qp

L a (kN od )

2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 10 20 30 40 50

Settlement (mm)

From the graph, it is estimated the ultimate bearing capacity is 3300 kN.

Butler and Hoy's Method

4000 3500 3000 2500

Qp

L a (kN od )

2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 10 20 30 40 50

Settlement (mm)

From the graph, it is estimated the ultimate bearing capacity is 3200 kN.

103

De Beer's Method
10000

Qp

Lo (kN ad )

1000

100 1 10 100

Settlement (mm)

From the graph, it is estimated the ultimate bearing capacity is 2100 kN.

104
Appendix C3

Bearing Capacity of Test Pile TP9 from Pile Driving Formulae

Weight of ram, WR Weight of Pile, Wp Area of pile, Ap Young modulus of pile, Ep Drop of hammer, H Penetration of pile per, S hammer blow Efficiency, (Janbu) Efficiency, (ENR) Restitution factor, n Constant, C

= 88.29 kN = 91.03 kN = 0.080425 m2 = 43.25 x 106 kN/m2 = 0.6 m = 0.002 m = 0.70 (good driving condition) = 0.9 (assuming the efficiency is maximum) = 0.5 (assuming the restitution is maximum) = 0.0254 m

Janbu Formula

Janbu formula, Qp

W R H
Ku S

= 1545 kN
0.5 e = C d 1 + 1 + Cd

where Ku Cd e

= 12 = 0.9 = 128

= 0.75 + 0.15 =

Wp WR

WR HL
Ap E p S 2

Engineer News Record (ENR) Formula

ENR formula, Qp

WR H WR + n 2WP
S +C x WR + W p

= 1078 kN

105
Appendix C4

Bearing Capacity of Test Pile TP9 from Static Analysis (Meyerhof Method) 0 6.8 m Loose sand, average unit weight, avg = 16.5 kN/m3 Navg = 3 6.8 m 19.0 m Soft clay, average unit weight, avg = 17.5 kN/m3 Navg = 2 cu = 10 kN/m2 19.0 m 39.0 m Medium dense sand, average unit weight, avg = 18.75 kN/m3 Navg = 13

39.0 m 45.0 m Very dense sand, average unit weight, avg = 20.5 kN/m3 Navg = 165

For Loose Sand

Effective overburden stress, v

= (16.5 9.81) x 6.8 = 45.5 kN/m2

Based on Peck, Hanson and Thornburn (1974) Ncor = 0.77 N f log = 3.7 20 0.0105 'v

106 Based on Meyerhof (1976) Skin resistance, qs1 = 2NcorpL = 2 x 3.7 x 0.4 x 6.8 = 63 kN

For Soft Clay

Skin resistance, qs

= cupL

From Figure 2.15, = 1.0 Thus, qs2 = 1.0 x 10 x 0.4 x 12.2

For Medium Dense Sand

Effective overburden stress, v

= (16.5 9.81) x 6.8 + (17.5 9.81) x 12.2 + (18.75 9.81) x 20 = 318.1 kN/m2

Based on Peck, Hanson and Thornburn (1974) Ncor = 0.77 N f log = 7.8 Based on Meyerhof (1976) Skin resistance, qs3 = 2NcorpL = 2 x 7.8 x 0.4 x 6.8 = 391 kN Total skin resistance, Qs = qs1 + qs2 + qs3 = 607 kN 20 0.0105 'v

For Hard Layer

Effective overburden stress, v

= 318.1 + ( 20.5 9.81) x 6 = 382.2 kN/m2

107 Based on Peck, Hanson and Thornburn (1974) Ncor = 0.77 N f log = 89 Based on Wolff (1989)
2 = 27.1 + 0.3N cor 0.00054 N cor = 50 > 45. Assume friction angle is 45.

20 0.0105 'v

The depth of penetration in bearing stratum, Lb is 2.8. Thus, Lb / D = 6.8 and is less than (Lb / D)critical. The value for (Lb / D)critical is around 24 (from Figure 2.8). Take (Lb / D). From Figure 2.8, bearing capacity factor, Nq is around 400. Ultimate point load, Qtu = Ap v Nq = 0.080425 x 382.2 x 400 = 12295 kN However, limiting point load, Qtl = Ap50Nqtan = 0.080425 x 50 x 400 x tan 50 = 1917 kN Since Qtl < Qtu, the point bearing capacity, Qt is 1917 kN. Thus, the bearing capacity of pile, Qp = Qt + Qs = 1917 + 607 = 2524 kN

108
Appendix D1

Summary of Average Pile Top Settlement for Test Pile TP10

109
Appendix D2

Bearing Capacity of Test Pile TP10 from Load Test Interpretation Method

Chin's Method 0.06

0.05

y = 0.00191x + 0.01116

Settlem ent/Load (m /kN) m

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0 5 10 15 20 25

Settlement (mm)

Ultimate Load (Qu) = 1/0.00191 = 524 kN

Brinch Hansen's 80% Criterion

0.025 0.024 0.023 0.022 0.021 0.02 0.019 0.018 0.017 0.016 0.015 0.014 0.013 0.012 0.011 0.01 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0 0 5 10

S ttle e t^ /L a (m ^ /kN e m n 0.5 o d m 0.5 )

y = -0.00015x + 0.01242

15

20

25

Settlement (mm)

Ultimate Load (Qu) = 0.5/(0.00015x0.01242) = 366 kN

110

Fuller and Hoy's Method

500 450 400 350

QP

Load (kN)

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 5 10 15 20 25

Settlement (mm)

From the graph, it is estimated the ultimate bearing capacity is 420 kN.

Butler and Hoy's Method

500 450 400 350

QP

Load (kN)

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 5 10 15 20 25

Settlement (mm)

From the graph, it is estimated the ultimate bearing capacity is 390 kN.

111

De Beer's Method
1000

QP

Load (kN)

100

10 1 10 100

Settlement (mm)

From the graph, it is estimated the ultimate bearing capacity is 230 kN.

112
Appendix D3

Bearing Capacity of Test Pile TP10 from Pile Driving Formulae

Weight of ram, WR Weight of Pile, Wp Area of pile, Ap Young modulus of pile, Ep Drop of hammer, H Penetration of pile per, S hammer blow Efficiency, (Janbu) Efficiency, (ENR) Restitution factor, n Constant, C

= 88.29 kN = 34.14 kN = 0.080425 m2 = 43.25 x 106 kN/m2 = 0.2 m = 0.0208 m = 0.70 (good driving condition) = 0.9 (assuming the efficiency is maximum) = 0.5 (assuming the restitution is maximum) = 0.0254 m

Janbu Formula

Janbu formula, Qp

W R H
Ku S

= 350 kN
0.5 e = C d 1 + 1 + Cd

where Ku Cd e

= 1.7 = 0.8 = 0.15

= 0.75 + 0.15 =

Wp WR

WR HL
Ap E p S 2

Engineer News Record (ENR) Formula

ENR formula, Qp

WR H WR + n 2WP
S +C x WR + W p

= 272 kN

113
Appendix D4

Bearing Capacity of Test Pile TP10 from Static Analysis (Meyerhof Method)

0 7.8 m Loose sand, average unit weight, avg = 16.5 kN/m2 Navg = 3 7.8 m 19.0 m Soft clay, average unit weight, avg = 17.5 kN/m2 Navg = 3 cu = 15 kN/m2

19.0 m 41.2 m Medium dense sand, average unit weight, avg = 18.75 kN/m2 Navg = 26

41.2 m 46.0 m Very dense sand, average unit weight, avg = 18.75 kN/m2 Navg = 178

For Loose Sand

Effective overburden stress, v

= (16.5 9.81) x 7.8 = 52.2 kN/m2

Based on Peck, Hanson and Thornburn (1974) Ncor = 0.77 N f log = 3.6 20 0.0105 'v

114 Based on Meyerhof (1976) Skin resistance, qs1 = 71 kN = 2NcorpL = 2 x 3.6 x 0.4 x 7.8

For Soft Clay

Skin resistance, qs

= cupL

From Figure 2.15, = 1.0 Thus, qs2 = 1.0 x 15 x 0.4 x 11.2 = 101 kN Total skin resistance, Qs = qs1 + qs2 = 172 kN This pile is carry by skin resistance alone as the soft clay is not capable of generating end bearing for the pile. Thus, Qp = Qs.