DESIGN VERIFICATION ON BORED PILE WITHIN KENNY HILL FORMATION

VIA STATIC LOAD TEST

ZALINA BINTI MOHAMED

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of

Master of Engineering (Civil-Geotechnics)

Faculty of Civil Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

JUNE 2010

iii

For my beloved family members

And all my friends

You’re my everything for me

iv

AKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to phrase my heartfelt to my project supervisor, Prof. Dr. Khairul

Anuar Kassim for guidance and supports that had been given throughout of the

duration of this project.

Besides, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to all MegaConsult Sdn.

Bhd staffs especially Ir. Mohd Taha Abd. Wahab, Ir. Razali Ahmad, Ir. Farhan and

Nurulhusna Mohd Hussin for encouragement guidance, critics during preparing this

thesis.

Last but not least, I would like to thanks to my beloved parents, brother and

sisters, friends especially Dzul Azmi Abu Samah, Norshida Mhd. Ali Osman, Siti

Norazela Hassan and Azhani Zukri for their support throughout my studies.

v

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 study evaluates the

applicability of six methods to predict the ultimate bearing capacity of bored pile by

static load test at site. Analyses and evaluation were conducted on six bored piles of

different sizes and length. The methods are Chin-Kondner’s Method, Brinch

Hansen’s Method, DeBeer’s Method, Butler & Hoy’s Method, Fuller & Hoy’s and

Decourt’s Method. The pile capacities determined using the different methods were

compared with the theoretical method such as semi-empirical method and simplified

soil mechanic method within Kenny Hill formation. Results of the analyses show that

the best performing method is DeBeer’s Method. Fuller & Hoys’s and Butler &

Hoy’s methods is the recommended method for bored pile design practice as it is

consistent in predicting the bored pile capability. Chin-Kondner’s method is the over

predicted most than the others interpretation methods.

vi

ABSTRAK

Berikutan terdapat perbezaan lapisan tanah, adalah rumit bagi seseorang

jurutera untuk memastikan rekaan cerucuk secara teorinya adalah sama dengan

keadaan di tapak. Oleh itu, setiap rekaan asas cerucuk mempunyai ketidakpastian dan

risiko yang tersendiri. Kajian ini dijalankan bagi menilai kesesuaian enam jenis

kaedah untuk menentukan keupayaan muktamad cerucuk gerek melalui ujian beban

static di tapak. Analisis dan penilaian telah dijalankan ke atas enam cerucuk gerek

yang berlainan saiz dan panjang. Kaedah-kaedah yang digunakan adalah Chin-

Kondner’s Method, Brinch Hansen’s Method, DeBeer’s Method, Butler & Hoy’s

Method, Fuller & Hoy’s and Decourt’s Method. Nilai yang telah ditentukan oleh

kaedah-kaedah yang dinyatakan telah dibuat perbandingan dengan beban maksimum

yang telah diukur oleh kaedah teori seperti kaedah separa empirical dan juga

mekanik tanah terubahsuai di dalam formasi Kenny Hill. Keputusan daripada analisis

menunjukkan kaedah DeBeer’s merupakan kaedah terbaik berbanding dengan

kaedah yang lain. Kaedah Fuller & Hoy’s dan kaedah Butler & Hoy merupakan

kaedah yang dicadangkan bagi rekabentuk cerucuk gerek ia agak kerana konsistan di

dalam meramalkan keupayaan cerucuk gerek. Kaedah Chin-Kondner pula

merupakan kaedah yang member nilai tertinggi berbanding kaedah-kaedah yang lain.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE

PAGE

TITLE PAGE

DECLARATION

DEDICATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ABSTRACT

ABSTRAK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF SYMBOLS

LIST OF APENDICES

i

ii

iii

iv

v

vi

vii

xi

xii

xiii

xv

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.2 Important of Study

1.3 Objectives of the Study

1.4 Scope and Limitation of the Study

1

3

3

4

viii

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

PAGE

2.1

Bored Pile

2.1.1 Types of Bored Piles

2.1.2 Construction Procedures

2.1.2.1 Dry Method

2.1.2.2 Casing Method

2.1.2.3 Wet Method

2.1.3 Techniques and Equipment

2.1.3.1 Power Augers

2.1.3.2 Boring with Casing Oscillators

2.1.3.3 Continuous Flight Auger Drilling Rigs

2.1.3.4 Drilling with Kelly

2.1.3.5 Reverse-Circulation Drilling Rigs

2.1.3.6 Tripod Rigs

5

6

6

6

7

7

8

8

8

9

9

9

10

11

11

12

12

14

17

23

23

24

24

25

26

26

27

28

29

29

30

2.2 Geotechnical Capacity of Bored Pile

2.2.1 Factor of Safety

2.2.2 Design of Geotechnical Capacity in Soil

2.2.2.1 Semi-empirical Method

2.2.2.2 Simplified Soil Mechanics Method

2.2.3 Design of Geotechnical Capacity in Rock

2.2.4 Advantage of Bored Test

2.2.5 Disadvantage of Bored Test

2.3

2.4

Pile Load Testing

2.3.1 Static Pile Load Test

2.3.1.1 Test Procedures

Interpretation of the Results from Static Load Test

2.4.1 Chin-Kondner’s Method

2.4.2 Brinch Hansen’s Method

2.4.3 DeBeer’s Method

2.4.4 Butler & Hoy’s Method

2.4.5 Fuller & Hoy’s Method

2.4.6 Decourt’s Exploration Method

ix

2.5

Kenny Hill Formation

PAGE

31

3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Data Collection

3.3 Complication of Data

3.3.1 Soil Data

3.3.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

3.3.3 Pile Load Test Report

3.4 Data Analysis

3.5 Comparison of the Results

3.6 Conclusion and Recommendation

32

32

33

34

34

34

35

35

36

4 CASE STUDY

4.1 Location of Study

4.2 Analysis of Field Data

4.3 Static Pile Load Test

4.3.1 Method of Loading

37

39

41

41

5 ANALISYS AND RESULTS

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Result from Theoretical Method

5.3 Analysis of Static Load Test

5.4 Theoretical Method versus Interpretation Method

42

42

44

45

6

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Conclusions

6.2 Recommendations

49

50

x

REFERENCES

PAGE

51

APPENDIX 53

xi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

Table 4.1 Relationship between SPT, N Value and Weathering

Grade

39

Table 4.2

Table 4.3

Subsoil Classification (Kamoo and Morgana, 1988)

Pile Details

40

41

Table 5.1

Table 5.2

Pile Capacities from Semi-empirical Method

Pile Capacities from Simplified Soil Mechanic

Method

43

43

Table 5.3

Table 5.4

Pile Capacity for Static Load Test using Various

Method

Summary of Bored Pile Investigated

44

48

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

Figure 2.1 Rock Socket reduction Factor, 19

Figure 2.2 Rock Socket reduction Factor, 20

Figure 2.3 Modulus ratio Ranges 21

Figure 2.4 Relation between Socket Roughness, Socket

Reduction Factor Normalized Rock Strength

22

Figure 2.5 Chin-Kondner Method

26

Figure 2.6 Brinch Hansen Method 27

Figure 2.7 DeBeer Method 28

Figure 2.8 Fuller & Hoy and Butler & Hoy Method

29

Figure 2.9

Figure 3.1

Figure 4.1

Figure 5.1

Figure 5.2

Figure 5.3

Figure 5.4

Figure 5.5

Decourt Method

Flow Chart of the Study

Location Plan of Site 1 at Jalan Duta

Results for Pile KDN 7/I

Results for Pile KDN 4C/1

Results for Pile KDN 14/G

Results for Pile UM G/6

Results for Pile UM B/5

30

33

38

45

46

46

47

47

xiii

LIST OF SYMBOLS

- Geotechnical capacity (have not included down-drag force, if any)

- Ultimate shaft capacity

i - Number of soil layers

- Ultimate base capacity

- Unit shaft resistance for each layer of embedded soil

- Unit base resistance for the bearing layer of soil

- Pile shaft area

- Pile base area

- Global Factor of Safety for Total Resistance

- Ultimate shaft resistance factor

- Ultimate base resistance factor

SPT’N - Standard Penetration Tests blow counts (blows/300mm)

- Adhesion factor

- Undrained shear strength (kPa)

- Effective Stress Shaft Resistance Factor

- Vertical Effective Stress (kPa)

- Effective Angle of Friction (degree) of fined grained soils

- Bearing capacity factor

- Shaft resistance factor for coarse grained soils

- Unconfined compressive strength of intact rock

- Indicator of rocket roughness

- Atmospheric pressure for normalization

xiv

-

-

-

xv

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX NO. TITLE PAGE

Appendix A1 Bearing Capacity of Pile KDN 7/1 from Semi-

Empirical Method

53

Appendix A2 Bearing Capacity of Pile KDN 7/1 from Simplified

Soil Mechanic

54

Appendix A3 Bearing Capacity of Pile KDN 7/1 from Load test

Interpretation Method

55

Appendix B1 Bearing Capacity of Pile KDN 4/C1 from Semi-

Empirical Method

58

Appendix B2 Bearing Capacity of Pile KDN 4/C1 from Soil

Simplified Method

59

Appendix B3 Bearing Capacity of Pile KDN 4/C1 from Load test

Interpretation Method

60

Appendix C1 Bearing Capacity of Pile KDN 14/G from Semi-

Empirical Method

63

Appendix C2 Bearing Capacity of Pile KDN 14/G from Soil

Simplified Method

64

Appendix C3 Bearing Capacity of Pile KDN 14/G from Load test

Interpretation Method

65

Appendix D1 Bearing Capacity of Pile UM G6 from Semi-Empirical

Method

68

xvi

Appendix D2 Bearing Capacity of Pile UM G6 from Soil Simplified

Method

69

Appendix D3 Bearing Capacity of Pile UM G6 from Load Test

Interpretation Method

70

Appendix E1 Bearing Capacity of Pile UM B5 from Semi-Empirical

Method

73

Appendix E2 Bearing Capacity of Pile UM B5 from Soil Simplified

Method

74

Appendix E3 Bearing Capacity of Pile UM B5 from Load Test

Interpretation Method

75

1

CHAPTER 1

INRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Pile foundations are the part of a heavy structure used to carry and transfer its

load to the bearing ground located at some depth below ground surface. Depending

upon various factors like nature of substrata, depth of ground water table, depth of

stronger stratum, type and quantum of load to be supported etc., piles are designed.

Pile testing is considered a fundamental part of pile foundation design. It is one of

the most effective means of dealing with uncertainties that inevitably arise during the

design and construction of piles.

There is much different type 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 various soil conditions and the

magnitude of the applied load; for example precast concrete piles (spun pile) are

usually used in water structure such as jetty and breakwater.

2

Current practice of pile design is based on the static analysis for example

Mayerholf Method, Vesic Method and Coyle & Castello methods. Due to the

uncertainties associated the pile design, field tests (pile load test) are usually

conducted to verify the designs load and to evaluate the actual response of the pile

under loading. Static pile load test are verification tool for pile design and they

cannot be a substitute for the engineering analysis of the pile behaviours.

Results of these pile load tests have been compared with the load carrying

capacity of the pile computed by empirical relations proposed by different

researchers. In addition six (6) different methods to interpret ultimate load from load

/ settlement relationship have been used with the purpose to select the method most

suitable for existing conditions.

Pile foundations are part of a heavy structure used to carry and transfer load

to the bearing ground located at some depth below ground surface. Pile are design

depending upon various factors like nature of substrata, depth of ground water table,

depth of stronger stratum, type and quantum of load to be supported etc. Pile testing

is considered a fundamental part of pile foundation design. It is one of the most

effective means of dealing with uncertainties that inevitably arise during the design

and construction of piles.

Due to the uncertainties associated with pile design, field tests (pile load test)

are usually conducted to verify the designs load and to evaluate the actual response

of the pile under loading. Static pile load test are verification tool for pile design and

they cannot be a substitute for the engineering analysis of the pile behaviours.

3

1.2 Importance of Study

The precise prediction of maximum load carrying capacity of bored piles is a

complex problem because it is function of a number of factors. These factors include

method of boring, method of concreting, quality of concrete, expertise of the

construction staff, the ground conditions etc. beside the pile geometry. The

performance of pile load tests is, therefore, of paramount importance to establish the

most economical design of piles especially where bored cast-in-situ piles are to be

provided to support a structure.

1.3 Objectives of the study

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

methods to estimate the ultimate axial bearing capacity of bored pile. The objectives

of the study are:

i. To determine the ultimate bearing capacity of bored piles from Soil

Investigation test data result used semi-empirical method and simplified soil

mechanics method.

ii. To predict the bearing capacity of bored pile by interpretation methods from

actual result from pile load tests;

iii. To compare the result from semi-empirical method and simplified soil

mechanics method with interpretation methods from the actual result of test pile

4

1.4 Scope and limitation of the study

This study is only considering the carrying capacity of bored pile of different

size and length. Other pile types such as spun pile and steel pipe were not covered in

the analysis. Two (2) sets of data were acquired from MegaConsult Sdn. Bhd. Their

testing was conducted in Kuala Lumpur area within Kenny Hill Formation.Data

acquired includes soil investigation reports and pile load tests reports.

This study focused on the applicability of proposed methods to predict the

ultimate axial compression load carrying capacity of bored pile. Data from soil

investigation was used in static analysis while pile load tests data is essential in

interpretation method. All of 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 on mentioned criteria. The method which ranked

number according to mentioned criteria is considered as the most accurate method

and is recommended for pile design practice.

51

REFERENCES

1 Geotechnical Engineering Office (1996). Pile Design and Construction..

Hong kong Publication Centre

2 Michael Tomlinson & John Woodward (2008). Pile Design and Construction

Practice. Taylor & Francis

3 Tan et. al (1998). Load Transfer Behaviour of Cast-in-place Bore Piles in Tropical

Residual Soil..Proceedings of the 13th

Southest Asean Geotechnical

Conference, Taipei

4 Toh et al (1989). Design Parameters for Bored Pile in a Weathered Sedimentary

Formation. Proceeding of 12th

International Conference on Soil Mechanics

and Foundation Engineering, Rio De Jeneir

5 Chang & Brooms(1991). Design of Bore Pile in Residual Soil Based on Field

Performance Data. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol 28

6 Nurly Gofar. (2008). MAB 7013 Advanced Soil Mechanics Lecture Note. UTM.

52

7 Whitaker, T & Cooke, R.W. (1966).An Investigation of the Shaft and Base

Resistance of large Bored Piles on London Clay.Proceedings of the

Symposium on Large Bored Pile, London

8 Reese, LC. & O’Neill, M.W. (1988).Drilled Shaft : Construction Procedures and

Design Methods, US Department of Transportation-Federal Highway

Administration (Office of Implementation, Washington)

9 Rosenberg, P.& Journeaux, NL (1976). Friction and End Bearing tests on

Bedrockfor High Capacity Socket Design, Canadian Geotechnical Journal,

13.

10 Horvath, N.B (1978). Field Load Test Data on Concrete to Rock Bond Strength

University of Toronto, Publication No. 78-07

11 William, A.F & Pells, P.J.N (1981).Side Resistance Roock Socket in Sandstone,

Mudstone and Shale. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 18

12 Nurly Gofar, Khairul Anuar Kassim (2007). Introduction to Geotechnical

Engineering. Revised Edition Part 1, Prentice Hall.

13 Braja M. D. (2004). Fundamentals of Geotechnical Enginering. 5th

Edition,

brook/Cole-Thomson.

14 Whitlow R. (2001), Basic Soil Mechanics. Fourth Edition, Prentice Hall.