168 tayangan

Diunggah oleh Ken Liew

Civil Design Handbook
Design Working Manual
Part 1: Geotechnical Parameters and Foundations
This handbook is intended as a quick guide on the design of foundations and reinforced
concrete structures based on the relevant standards and codes of practice. It is a collation of
the requirements covered in the various documents for convenient and easy reference
during design. Commonly used formulae, charts and tables are complied for quick
reference. They are useful for conceptual design, preliminary sizing and detail design
check. This handbook is suitable for designers familiar with the theoretical background of
the relevant subjects. Worked examples that illustrate the full design process are included.
This design manual consists of two parts as follows:-
Part 1 Geotechnical parameters and foundations,
Part 2 Reinforced concrete structures.

- Seismic Design of RC Structures Using UBC_ACI Provisions
- Design Working Manual Part2
- Handbook Review Temporaywork Deep Excavation
- Batter Pile
- Bearing capacity testing of pre-cast driven-in piles
- Ch-12
- BCA - RC Spreadsheet User Guide Version 3
- Handbook of Concrete Engineering, 2nd Ed
- GDR for ERS_April 2013.pdf
- simplified design of reinforced concrete buildings.pdf
- Handbook of Concrete Engineering-Mark Fintel_ACI
- Seismic and Wind Design of Concrete Buildings
- Structural Concrete Theory and Design, Sixth Edition M. Nadim Hassoun South Dakota State University Akthem Al-Manaseer San Jose State University
- 22477_rf.pdf
- Micro Piles
- 64431 ICDF Vol 3 Conference Program_proof00
- Piling___Deep_Foundations_India_2010
- Pile_(by_Meyerhof).xls
- Corporate Member Companies Are in ALLCAPS and Have Links
- Slope Stability Vol2

Anda di halaman 1dari 93

Part 1: Geotechnical Parameters and Foundations

May 2004

To provide an efficient and cost-effective land transport system for different needs.

Amendments issued since this publication

Amd. No. Date

Affected Clause(s)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval

system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,

photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Civil Design

Department, Land Transport Authority.

Although this publication is believed to be correct at the time of its printing, the Land

Transport Authority does not accept responsibility for any consequence arising from the

use of the information contained in it. People using the information should apply, and rely

upon, their own skill and judgement to the particular issue which they are considering.

Engineering Division

No. 1 Hampshire Road, Singapore 219428

Tel: (65) 1800 CALL LTA Fax: (65) 6396 1383

PREFACE

This handbook is intended as a quick guide on the design of foundations and reinforced

concrete structures based on the relevant standards and codes of practice. It is a collation of

the requirements covered in the various documents for convenient and easy reference

during design. Commonly used formulae, charts and tables are complied for quick

reference. They are useful for conceptual design, preliminary sizing and detail design

check. This handbook is suitable for designers familiar with the theoretical background of

the relevant subjects. Worked examples that illustrate the full design process are included.

Geotechnical parameters and foundations,

Part 2

Reinforced concrete structures.

Table of Content

Content

Page

Geotechnical Parameters

1

1.1 Soil Correlation

3

3

2.1 Index Properties

2.2 Soil Classification and Engineering Behaviour

4

4

7

3.1 At Rest Condition (Ko)

3.2 Active and Passive Conditions (Ka and Kp) in Cohesionless Soil

3.3 Lateral Earth Pressure in Soil with Cohesion

8

9

10

12

Soil Strength

4.1 Effective Stress Analysis

4.2 Total Stress Analysis

4.3 Relevance of Laboratory Strength Tests to Field Conditions

4.4 Correlations with Index Parameters for Undisturbed Clays

12

12

14

15

17

Elastic Deformability

5.1 Definition of Various Coefficient and Modulus

18

18

6.1 Compression Index Cc and Modified Compression Index Cc

6.2 Effective Preconsolidation Stress (p) in Cohesive Soil

6.3 Coefficient of Consolidation cv

6.4 Coefficient of Secondary Compression

22

22

24

25

26

Permeability

27

References

28

Deep Foundations

1

Pile Foundation

1.1 Design of Piles

30

30

Geotechnical Capacity

2.1 Static Method

2.2 Empirical Method

31

32

37

3.1 Bored Pile

3.2 Steel Pile

3.3 Precast Pile

3.4 Reinforced Concrete Pile

38

Dynamic Formulae

4.1 Hileys formula (Trial and error method)

4.2 ENF (modified) formula

4.3 Janbus Formula

38

39

39

41

Pile group

5.1 In Clay

5.2 In Sand

5.3 In Rock

42

42

44

44

Settlement

6.1 Friction Pile

6.2 End Bearing Pile

6.3 Non Homogeneous Soil

6.4 Soil Parameters

6.5 Pile Group Analysis

44

44

46

48

48

49

7.1 Distribution of Negative Skin Friction on Single Pile

7.2 Magnitude of Negative Skin Friction on Single Pile

7.3 Safety Factor For Negative Skin Friction

54

54

54

55

8.1 Static Load Test

8.2 Dynamic Load Test

55

55

56

Special Topics

9.1 Micropiles

9.2 Timber Piles

9.3 Bakau Piles

59

59

60

61

10 Typical Sizes

10.1 Bored Piles

10.2 H-piles

10.3 Precast Piles

10.4 Timber Piles

10.5 Micropiles

61

61

61

63

63

63

11 Worked Examples

64

Shallow Foundations

1

Footing

70

71

Contact Pressure

74

75

Plate Test

84

85

Examples

86

1.

various geological, environmental, and chemical processes. These processes, both

natural or man made are ongoing. Thus soil properties are not unique or constant but

vary with many environmental factors such as time, stress history, water table

fluctuation, etc.

Due to the complexity of soil behaviour, empirical correlations are used extensively in

evaluating soil parameters.

1.1

Soil correlation

analysis based on the soil engineering parameters for that site. The parameters are

often obtained through field/laboratory tests conducted as part of a borehole/CPT site

investigation programme. Sometimes, the engineer may be expected to perform a

preliminary assessment/analysis at short notice and with limited soil information. In

such a situation, correlations are very useful.

However, one must avoid using correlations as a black box to obtain the required

soil properties. The source, extent, and limitation of each correlation should be

examined carefully before use.

Items to look out for when using correlation include:

1) Number of data points, n

2) Standard deviation, s.d.

3) Coefficient of determination, r2 (r2 = 0 no correlation, r2 = 1 perfect correlation)

4) r is the statistic for testing the significance of a simple two variable linear

relationship, i.e. how well the data fit a linear relationship

Local calibrations, where available, should be preferred over any generalised

correlations.

Values for various geotechnical parameters are indicated in Table 1. It should be

noted that the values are meant for preliminary design when site specific data are not

available. For final design, site specific soil investigation data should always be used

to obtain the parameters required. Also, as the LTA Design Criteria has specified the

values of various geotechnical parameters to be used, Table 1 and site specific data

will provide a verification or for knowing the design safety margin available.

Suggested correlations are available in the later sections.

2.

2.1

Index Properties

Cohesive Soils

Cohesive soils are represented by simple index parameters which are expressed as water

contents at particular soil states known as Atterberg limits; they also represent boundaries

between different engineering behaviours.

The commonly used index parameters for geotechnical engineering are:

wn

wL or LL

= Liquid limit

wp or PL

= Plastic limit

PI or Ip

= Plasticity index

LI or IL

= Liquidity index

Liquid limit is the minimum water content of the soil to make it behave like a viscous

liquid. Plastic limit is the minimum water content of the soil to make it assume a plastic

state.

Plasticity Index (PI)

Plasticity Index, PI (or Ip) is an index to describe the range of water content over which a

soil was plastic. Therefore, PI = LL PL (or WL WP)

High PI, i.e. > (25 30) may mean troublesome soils with low strength and high

compressibility.

Liquidity Index (LI)

The Liquidity Index, LI (or IL) tells us the likelihood for the sample to behave as a plastic, a

brittle solid or even possibly a liquid. It is defined as:

LI = (wn PL) / PI or (wn PL) / (LL PL)

The LI is also an excellent indicator of geologic history and relative soil properties, as

shown in Table 2, Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.

LI < 0 i.e. wn < PL

(rule of the thumb:- LI > 0.5: likely to be NC;

LI < 0.5: likely to be OC)

soil will be a very viscous liquid when sheared

LL

p

Sensitive

NC

wn

PL

p

HOC

LOC

Increasing OCR, Ko

Increasing strength, modulus

Decreasing compressibility

>1

<0

Decreasing LI

NC = normally consolidated

Semisolid:

Brittle

solid

State:

Plastic solid

Liquid

Water content:

SL

(Solid Limit)

Liquidity

index:

PL

LI = 0

LI < 0

0 < LI < 1

LI = 1

wn (%)

LL

LI > 1

w PL

Stress

w < PL

w LL

w > LL

Strain

Figure 3 Water content continuum showing the various states of a soil as well as

the generalised stress-strain response. (adapted from Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)

Cohesionless Soil

Cohesionless soil are represented by simple index parameters expressed in terms of either

unit weight or density.

The relative density or density index of sand is defined as:

Dr =

emax e

( d min )

= d max d

emax emin d ( d max d min )

Note: The above definition is only limited to cohesionless soils having less than 15% fines

The relative density of sand may be described as below (note that the range definition may

vary slightly from source to source):

Sand

Dr (%)

Very loose

0 to 20

Loose

20 to 40

Medium

40 to 60

Dense

60 to 80

Very dense

80 to 100

2.2

probable engineering behaviour.

Soil Classification System used in LTA

The current soil classification used by LTA is the British Standard Soil Classification for

Engineering Purposes, which has been adopted since 1999. Previously, the Unified Soil

Classification System (USCS) was used.

For plastic soils, the plasticity chart is also used (only 1 plasticity chart exists

Casagrandes Plasticity Chart), as shown in Fig. 4.

1) Any soils plot above the U line in the plasticity chart, the data should be questioned and

verified.

2) The A line generally separates the more claylike materials from those that are silty and also the

organics from the inorganics. The exception is organic clays (OL and OH) which are below the

A-line. However, these soils do behave similarly to soils of lower plasticity.

3) The dividing line between low and high liquid limits was set arbitrarily at 50. Several different

soil types tend to be plotted in approximately the same area on the LL-PI chart, which means

that these soils tend to have about the same engineering behaviour.

4) The chart should be used as a reference and not as an absolute measure of the behaviour of soil.

From the plasticity chart, we can observe the behaviour of soil as it moves on the chart:

Table 4 Behaviour of soil in relation to plasticity.

Characteristic

Soils at Equal LL

Soils at Equal PI

with Increasing LL

Dry Strength

Increases

Decreases

Permeability

Decreases

Increases

Compressibility

Increases

Decreases

3.

K=

'h

'v

K is an indicator of the lateral earth pressures acting on a retaining wall.

Three important soil conditions are defined: the at rest condition (Ko), the active condition

(Ka), and the passive condition (Kp), where Ka < Ko < Kp.

3.1

Ko is called the coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest (i.e. no lateral strain).

The general formula for Ko is:

Ko = (1 sin )OCR sin (1 + 0.5 tan )

or

where:

= friction angle of soil

OCR = overconsolidation ratio of soil

= inclination of ground surface from horizontal

Ko = 0.44 + 0.42(PI/100)

Ko = 0.4 + 0.007(PI)

Ko = 0.64 + 0.001(PI)

Massarsch, 1979

for 0 < PI < 40

for 40 < PI < 80

}

Type

Ko

Sedimentary soils

0.4 0.5

0.5 0.9

Over-consolidated clay

>1

Loose sand

0.45 0.6

Dense sand

0.3 0.5

(extracted from various sources, see reference list)

1) Within a homogenous soil, Ko is a constant, independent of the depth and the location of ground

water table.

2) For sand, Ko = 1 sin provides reasonable estimates.

3) For clay, Ko tends to increase with PI and OCR.

4) The magnitude of Ko may be measured directly either in the laboratory using special testing

equipment, or in the field using devices such as the pressuremeter or total stress cells. However,

these direct methods may be subject to unavoidable disturbance effects during sampling and insitu testing.

3.2

The Active and Passive Conditions (Ka and Kp) in Cohesionless Soil

A small movement in soil would alter the lateral earth pressure. Fig. 5 Shows the relative

magnitude and the relative movement required to mobilise Ka and Kp in sands of differing

density.

(extract from Coduto, 1994).

The active and passive earth pressure coefficient developed by Rankine and Coulomb are

widely used. The equations are given in Table 4.

10

Active

Passive

Rankine

(Fig. 6)

Ka =

Kp =

2

cos cos 2 cos 2

or

1

Ka

K a = tan 2 45

2

K p = tan 2 45 +

2

Coulomb

Ka =

(Fig. 7)

cos2 ( )

sin (w + )sin ( )

cos2 cos(w + )1 +

cos( w + )cos( )

Kp =

cos2 ( + )

sin (w + ) sin ( + )

cos cos( w )1

cos(w ) cos( )

b) When designing concrete walls it is common practice to use w = 0.67. Steel

walls have less sliding friction, perhaps on the order of w = 0.33

1) The above coefficients of earth pressure are the value of K derived for a cohesionless soil.

2) For Ka, use either Rankine or Coulomb. For Kp, use Rankine as Coulombs theory produces

erroneously high values of Kp.

W/

W/

T/b

Pa/b

T/b

Va/

N/b

Pp/

Vp/

N/b

45 +

45 -

(a)

(b)

Rankines solution: (a) active case; and (b) passive case.

H

Pa/b

w

Va/b

11

3.3

Creep in clayey soil was not considered in Rankine or Coulombs equation. If the soil

behind the wall is clayey, the value of K would be higher. Earth pressure distributions in

cohesionless soil and cohesive soil are different as illustrated in Fig 8.

Suggest: Use K between active and at-rest values and not to rely on full passive pressure.

Hc

H

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 8 Distributions of earth pressures for (a) cohesionless soil in active and passive

condition, (b) cohesive soil in active condition (c 0, 0) ,and (c) cohesive soil in passive

condition (c 0, 0).

Theoretically, if H < Hc, the earth will stand vertically without a wall. In practice, we need to apply

some factor of safety to Hc before deciding not to build a wall. The potential of surface erosion and

other modes of failure e.g. slope failure needs to be considered too.

4.

Soil Strength

The soil strength is not uniquely defined but varies with many parameters. The strength of

soils is commonly expressed by the Coulomb-Mohr failure criterion:

= c + tan

The criterion is usually used in two alternative forms, based on effective stress or total

stress analysis.

4.1

= c + tan

where c is the effective cohesion

is the effective friction angle

12

Effective stress laboratory test data are often interpreted incorrectly to show a moderately

high c and an unrealistically low because the true failure envelope curvature is not

(fm Kulhawy, 1990).

being addressed.

Fig. 9 shows the correct interpretation of where c = 0 for a wide range of soil type.

Linear interpolation of any of these data over a limited stress range would suggest a c and

, but these values would not be the true soil strength parameters.

For a given soil at a constant normal effective stress (), the friction angle will varies with

density state and strain, as shown in Fig. 10.

13

Type

Typical Strain

at Peak Strength

< 5%

Structured clay

4 7%

10 to 20%

Note on c and :

1) c = 0 (except in truly cemented soils, partially saturated soils, and heavily overconsolidated

clays). For the stability of some numercial analysis, a small value of c is assumed, e.g. c = 1.

2) At very large strain (excess of 100%), cv is reduced to the residual state. This residual state is

only considered for very large strain problems, such as in soil containing pre-existing shear

failures.

4.2

= c + tan ;

= 0 and = c =cu = su*

The total stress analysis is normally adopted for simplicity. In reality, the failure of all soils

(sand, silts, and clay) occurs on the effective stress envelope. In low permeability soils

such as clays, loading generates changes in pore water stresses (u). These pore water

stresses change the effective stress envelope. Since the total stress loading path and the

magnitude of the changes in pore water stresses may not be known with confidence, a total

stress analysis provides a simple analysis alternative.

*In many older references, the term cohesion was used to designate su. In recent references, su is

referred to as the undrained shear strength or undrained shearing resistance. The older definition

has led to much confusion and misinterpretation with the effective stress cohesion intercept (c)

1) all the four terms can be used interchangeably to represent the undrained shear strength of the

soil.

2) Detailed studies conducted have shown that the UU and UCT tests often in gross error because of

sampling disturbance effects and omission of a reconsolidation phase. Strictly speaking, these

tests should only be considered as general indicators or relative behaviour and not to be used

directly in design.

3) Simple hand held devices are intended primarily for field inspection purposes; not to obtain

parameters for design.

14

4.3

The strength of soils can be measured by a number of different laboratory and field strength

tests (see Fig 11 and Fig 12). Each of these tests will give different results (both c and )

because each subjects the soil to different boundary conditions and loading stress path.

15

To adopt various tests pertinent for a particular field condition is likely to be an excessive

requirement for common and routine design cases. It is recommended that the isotropically

consolidated, triaxial compression test for undrained/drained loading be carried out. The

results of this test can then be used as the standard reference to compare the results of all

other tests. For example, the value of (tc), as shown in Table 7.

16

Test Type

1

1.0tc

1.22tc

1.10tc

1.34tc

tan-1[tanpsccoscv]

2 Speculative, based on results from sand

4.4

Correlation with PI

For NC, non-fisssured, organic, sensitive, or unusual clays, the correlation by Skempton

(153)may be used.

su (vst) / vo = 0.11 + 0.0037PI

Correlation with preconsolidation stress, p

For low OCR clays and low to moderate PI, the approximation (to DSS) by Jamiolkowski

(1988) is useful:

su /p = 0.23 0.04

Correlation with CPT qc value

The theoretical relationship for the cone tip resistance in clay is given by:

qc = Nk su + vo

Different theoretical models adopted general different range of values for Nk. Thus, Nk is

usually determined empirically by calibrating CPT data with a know measured value of su.

To get a correct Nk, consistent reference su, cone type and correction for qc must be applied.

17

The applied stress (normalised with atmospheric pressure) is plotted against the volumetric

strain as shown in Fig. 13. The slope is su/Pa. This su should be close to the value obtained

from plane strain compression (PSC) tests.

5.

Elastic Deformability

foundations under static loads. These deformation properties vary with many parameters

and therefore are not defined uniquely.

The deformation properties of elastic materials are described most often by Youngs

modulus (E) and Poissons ratio (v). Although these parameters are strictly defined only

for elastic materials under uniaxial loading, they are used commonly in a generic sense

with inelastic material such as soils.

It should be noted that the following properties are non-linear and stress dependent.

5.1

Youngs Modulus, E

E = stress/strain is often obtained from the results of triaxial compression tests, i.e. the

slope of the curve.

E can be defined as the initial tangent modulus (Ei), the tangent modulus (Et) at a specified

stress level, or the secant modulus (Es) at a specified stress level as shown in Fig. 14.

18

Table 8 General ranges of E (from Bowles, 1997).

Soil

Undrained Modulus,

SPT

Eu (MPa)

Very soft

2 to 5

0-2

Soft

5 to 15

3-5

Medium

15 to 50

6-9

Hard

50 to 100

10 - 30

Sandy

25 to 200

Clay

Sand

Silty

5 to 20

Loose

10 to 25

4 10

Dense

50 to 80

30 - 50

Loose

50 to 150

Dense

100 to 200

The pressuremeter test provides a measurement of the horizontal modulus (EPMT) in soils.

In clays, it is commonly assumed that EPMT = Eu.

Note on E:

1) In sophisticated numerical models, the actual stress path can be followed, and the modulus can

be evaluated for each stress strain state along the stress path. In simpler closed-form solutions,

an effort must be made to estimate the overall average modulus from the initial to the final stress

states.

19

2) Factors affecting su will also affect Eu. Therefore, the value of Eu will be dependent on test type

and test specifics.

Poissons Ratio, v

Poissons ratio is defined in an analogous form for triaxial tests in which both axial and

volumetric strains are measured.

Poissons ratio = radial strain/axial strain

For drained loading, volume change occurs, and the drained Poissons ratio (vd) varies with

soil type and consistency. Typical values are give below, which are representative of

secant values at common design stress levels:

Table 9 Typical range of vd (from Kulhawy, 1990).

Soil

Clay

0.2 to 0.4

Dense sand

0.3 to 0.4

Loose sand

0.1 to 0.3

Note for v:

1) The range of v is relatively small compared with the range of E

2) For isotropic elastic materials, the entire range of v is from 0 to 0.5.

3) For undrained ( = 0) loading of saturated cohesive soil, no volume change occurs. Therefore,

the undrained Poissons ratio (vu) is equal to 0.5 by definition.

4) General, vd is higher for soil with higher PI and OCR.

Shear Modulus, G

For undrained loading, the modulus of cohesive soils can be described by either the

undrained Youngs modulus (Eu) or the shear modulus (G). The shear modulus actually

describes the soil skeleton response, so it is independent of drainage conditions, all other

factors being equal. The shear modulus is the slope of the shear stress-strain curve from

tests such as the Direct shear or Direct simple shear results. As with E and v, G is nonlinear

and stress-dependent.

For undrained loading,

Eu = 3G (vu = 0.5).

For elastic materials, Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio are interrelated uniquely with

the shear modulus (G) as follows:

20

G = E/2(1 + v)

Constrained Modulus, M

This modulus is defined for one-dimensional compression, where the lateral strains are

zero. From elastic theory, M is related to E and v as follows:

M =

E (1 )

(1 + )(1 2 )

Coefficient of Compressibility, av

The slope of the compression curve (void ratio versus effective stress), when the results are

plotted arithmetically, is called the coefficient of compressibility, av. Since the curve is not

linear, av is approximately constant over a small pressure range, 1 to 2; or

av =

e1 e2

' 2 '1

When the results are plotted in terms of the percent consolidation or strain, then the slope of

the compression curve is the coefficient of volume change, mv

mv =

a

1

v

= v =

v' 1 + eo M

M or Eoed is the contrained or oedometric modulus

In one dimensional compression, v is equal to e/(1+eo)

Subgrade Reaction, ks

The concept of subgrade reaction is often used for evaluation the behaviour of footings,

mat/raft foundations, and laterally loaded deep foundations. In subgrade reaction models,

there is a basic parameter which is analogous to a spring constant. This parameter is

defined as the modulus of subgrade reaction (ks), given by:

ks = p/ unit is force per length cubed

p = applied stress,

= displacement under p

As with Youngs modulus, ks varies with stress level. However, unlike Youngs modulus,

ks also varies with foundation width.

The most logical procedure to evaluate ks is to present it in terms of Youngs modulus (E)

and Poissons ration (v) of the soil as given by Vesic below:

21

4

0.65 EB

ks =

B E f I f

12 E

1 v 2

If = foundation moment of inertia

EfIf = foundation stiffness

6.

The parameters that define the time-dependent deformability of soils are important for

evaluating the settlement of foundations.

6.1

When the results are plotted in terms of the void ratio versus the logarithm of effective

stress, then the slope of the virgin compression curve is called the compression index Cc, or

Cc =

e1 e2

'

log 2

'1

below:

Table 10 Degree of compressibility

Compressibility

Cc

Slight or low

< 0.2

Moderate or Intermediate

0.2 to 0.4

High

> 0.4

Correlation for Cc

Based on modified Cam Clay model, Wroth and Wood showed that:

Cc 0.5Gs(PI/100)

for Gs = 2.7; Cc PI/74 and;

Cr PI/370 , which is about 20% of Cc.

The table below shows some compilation of estimates of Cc using eo and wn.

Table 11 Various correlation for Cc and Cc.

22

Equation

Regions of Applicability

Cc = 1.15(eo 0.35)

All clays

Cc = 0.30(eo 0.27)

silty clay

Cc = 1.15(10-2wn)

Organic clay

Cc = 0.75(eo 0.50)

Cc = 0.156 eo + 0.0107

All clays

The slope of the virgin compression curve when the tests results are plotted as percent

consolidation or vertical strain versus logarithm of effective stress is called the modified

compression index, Cc:

C c =

v

Cc

=

' 1 + eo

log 2

1'

There are a few advantages in using the percent consolidation or vertical strain versus logarithm of

effective stress curve to compute settlements:

1) Estimating field settlement is simple. The percent compression can be read directly from the

graph once the in situ vertical overburden stress is known.

2) The graph can be plotted during the test itself. This enables early evaluation compared to the

void ratio versus log effective stress curve which requires the determination of the dry mass of

solid to compute the initial and final void ratio. By looking at development of the curve during

the test, the load increment near the preconsolidation pressure can be reduced to obtain a better

definition of the transition between the reloading curve and the virgin compresson curve.

3) Two samples may show very different e versus log vc plots but may have similar vertical

strain versus log effective stress curves because of difference in void ratio.

23

(a) effect of sample disturbance; and (b) effect of load.

6.2

p can be estimated from the index parameter using the following by Stas and Kulhawy

(1984):

p/Pa = 10(1.11 1.62LI)

where Pa is the atmospheric pressure = 1 bar = 100 kPa

24

samples.

Sample disturbance will cause the transition part of the consolidation curve to be less sharp.

As a result, lower p and Cc are obtained compare to actual in-situ values while a higher Cr

is obtained.

For soft, sensitive clays, small stress change or even vibration may drastically alter the soil

structure. For such soils, the load increment ratio (/initial) should be smaller than 1.

6.3

Coefficient of Consolidation cv

The field value of the coefficient of consolidation (cv) is a difficult parameter to estimate

because common field situations include seams, lenses and boulders, etc., which laboratory

predicted values of cv different from in-situ values.

A first order estimate for cv of clays can be obtained using the liquid limit (LL) as in Fig.

16.

(fm Kulhawy, 1990).

25

The piezocone tests have been used to give field estimates of horizontal permeability (kh)

and horizontal coefficient of consolidation (cvh) in clays. The basic equation for the

horizontal coefficient of consolidation is:

cvh = TR2/t

T = time factor

R = equivalent cavity (piezocone) radius

t = time to achieve desired degree of excess pore water stress dissipation.

The approach is based on cavity expansion theory, and therefore it depends on the rigidity

index of the soil.

Fig. 17 gives the piezocone time factors. Most commonly, the dissipation test is conducted

for a period of time (t) which will allow 50% dissipation of the original insertion excess

pore water stress (u). The time factor corresponding to this dissipation time is then

introduced to the equation above to compute the coefficient of consolidation. Cylinderical

theory would be used for a pore water sensor behind the tip, while spherical theory would

be used for a sensor at the tip.

Fig. 17 Pore water stress decay vesus Piezocone time factor (fm Kulhawy, 1990).

6.4

The coefficient of secondary compression (C) defines the rate of settlement with time after

primary consolidation is complete. This coefficient may be expressed either in units of

strain (C) or void ratio (Ce) per log cycle of time.

For a wide variety of clays, C has been correlated to the natural water content.

For NC clay: C 0.0001wn

For most OC clay: 0.0005 < C < 0.001

26

For NC clays, the ratio of the coefficient of secondary compression to the compression

index is relatively constant for a given soil. Table 16 lists C/Cc for a variety of soils.

Table 12 Ratio of C/Cc for various types of soil (as cited in Kulhawy, 1990)

Soil Type

C/Cc

Soft Clay

0.025

Other Clay

0.025 to 0.06

Silty Clay

0.03

Silt

0.03 to 0.06

0.04 to 0.06

In inorganic soil, primary consolidation is usually the largest component of total settlement,

whereas secondary compression constitutes a major part of the total settlement of peats and other

highly organic soils.

In engineering practice, only estimates of the time rate of settlement can be made because of the

great dependence that the rate of settlement has on the drainage path. Another factor is our inability

to accurately predict cv. If possible, estimates should be field checked, especially for important

jobs.

7.

Permeability

The coefficient of permeability (k) of soil, also known as the hydraulic conductivity,

describes the rate of water flow through soil. This soil property is often difficult to evaluate

with certainty, because it varies over many orders of magnitude and in-situ soil conditions

are highly variable. In addition to controlling the amount and rate of ground water inflow

into foundation excavations, the coefficient of permeability also governs the rate of primary

consolidation and equalisation of pore water stresses.

The value of the coefficient of permeability can vary over a wide range, as shown in Table

13. It is also clear that k is highly dependent upon the soil particle size.

27

Soil

Coefficient of

Relative Permeability

Permeability, k (m/sec)

> 10-3

Gravel

High

sand

10-3 to 10-5

Medium

10-5 to 10-7

Low

-7

10 to 10

-9

-9

Clay

< 10

Very Low

Practically

impermeable

In geotechnical problems, drainage can occur horizontally as well as vertically. The ratio

of horizontal to vertical permeability (kh/kv) is generally less than 1.5 for marine clays and

other massive deposits (Kulhawy, 1990). However, in varved clays and stratified fluvial

deposits, kh/kv can easily exceed 10.

k can also be obtained indirectly from the consolidation test:

k=

c v w ga v

1 + eo

where

w = density of water

g = gravitational force (10ms-2)

cv = coefficient of consolidation

av = coefficient of compressibility

eo = initial void ratio

The value of eo is the void ratio at the start of the time rate readings for a given load

increment.

8.

References

1.

Singapore, 5th Edition.

2.

Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632.

3.

Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632.

4.

Research Project 1493-6, Geotechnical Engineering Group, Cornell University,

Ithaca, New York.

28

5.

6.

Chiam, S.L., LTA-CDE.

7.

D.Z., LTA-CDE.

29

1.

Pile Foundation

Piled foundation is selected when large settlement is likely for shallow foundation or where

no stratum of sufficient bearing capacity exists close to the surface.

The main function of bearing piles is to transfer the load from the structure to the lower

levels of the grounds where are capable of sustaining the load with an adequate factor of

safety and without settling at the working loads by an amount detrimental to the structure

that they support. Piles derive their carrying capacity from a combination of friction along

their sides and end bearing at the pile toes. The former is likely to predominate for piles in

clays and silts and the latter for piles terminating in a stratum such as compact gravel, hard

clay or rock.

When friction piles are driven into a deep deposit of fairly uniform consistency in order to

transfer the foundation pressure to the lower levels, they should be long enough to ensure a

substantial advantage over a shallow foundation. In these circumstances, it should be borne

in mind that for the same superficial area of pile surface, a few long piles forming a pile

foundation are more effective and will support the load with smaller settlement than many

short piles.

The load should be applied concentrically and the axis of the pile is at the centre of gravity

of the pile group. Allowance should be made in the design for inaccuracies in positioning

the piles, particularly for isolated piles or pairs of piles. Such piles should be designed to

accommodate the resulting moments or should be restrained by an adequately designed pile

cap to resist lateral and rotational movements.

The types of piled foundation system adopted by LTA for structures are

a. Bored piles

b. Driven H-piles

c. Precast piles

d. Micropiles

The types of piles that are not commonly used like

e. Timber piles

f. Bakau piles

The design of piles requires specialised knowledge of the ground and the environmental

conditions, the properties of the various types of piles and the effects produced by the

applied load on the piles and the supporting soils. The type of piles to be chosen should be

carefully considered to ensure its suitability in relation to the ground and environmental

conditions. The conditions must be properly defined by means of adequate site

investigation works to permit appropriate selection of piles type and the design of the pile.

30

Where piles are installed in groups, the effects of the placing a number of piles in close

proximity to each other will need to be taken into account.

The design of pile should satisfy the following requirements

a) An adequate factor of safety against failure of the pile element or its surrounding

soil shall be adopted.

b) The settlement of the piles foundation as a whole and the differential settlements of

the piles shall be kept within permissible limits.

The design of the structural strength (commonly referred to as nominal working load) of a

pile shall be based on its required material strength with an adequate factor of safety to

ensure that the pile has necessary strength when installed to transmit the loads imposed on

it to the soil. For a driven pile, it shall be capable of withstanding without damaging the

stresses arising during handling and installation.

In designing the pile, allowance should be made for the additional weight of the pile cap

and pile. These additional weights of the pile cap and the pile can contribute up to 15% of

the column load. In addition, pile group action is taken into account. Thus, these factors

should be taken into consideration.

2.

Qu

Geotechnical capacity

= Qb + Qs

= qbAb + fsAs

Where Qb = Total base resistance

Qs = Total shaft resistance

qb = Unit base resistance

Ab = Cross Sectional area of pile

fs = Unit shaft resistance

As = Surface area of pile

A factor of safety (FOS) is used to evaluate the allowable load

Qa

Qu

FOS

The minimum geotechnical length required as practised in LTA is based on the factor of

safety imposed for skin friction and end bearing as show in the table below:

31

Loading Condition

FOS for Qs

FOS for Qb

Compression

2.5

2.5

Compression

1.5

2.5

3.5

i)

(1)

Shaft resistance

Qs

Where

= fsAs

fs = Ks po tan fl

Ks = Coefficient of lateral earth pressure

po = Vertical earth pressure

fl = Limiting friction = 100 kN/m2

1. can be estimated from N values obtained from standard penetration test of cone

penetration test (See Figure 2 ). Alternatively, may be taken as (28+15RD) where RD is

the relative density of sand.

(Note fl can be increased up to 200kN/m2 provided the value can be verified by pile load

tests numerous in the case of local soils)

32

tests. (a) Relationship between SPT (N values) and angle of shearing resistance of

granular soil (Peck, Hanson & Thorburn). (b) Meyerhofs correlation between static

cone penetration resistance and angle of shearing resistance of sand.

33

(2)

End bearing

Qb

= qbAb

Where

qb = poNq ql

po = Effective overburden pressure at the pile tip

Nq = Bearing capacity factor (See Figure 3)

ql = Limiting value (See Figure 4) for driven pile

= 200 to 1100 t/m2 for bored piles

34

for sand (Meyerhof, 1976)

ii)

(1)

Nq

Nq

Shaft resistance

qs

= Cu

Where

= Adhesion/reduction factor to take into account the loss in shear strength

due to pile installation

Typical values for bored piles,

Type of Soil

0.3-0.6

0.8-1.0

Adverse ground

0.3

35

a. There is adequate load testing

b. Cu >/ 100 KN/m2.

See Figure 5 for different values in different grounds.

(Tomlinson, 1969)

(2)

End Bearing

qb

= qCu

The end bearing is unlikely to be in clay, more likely to be on silt or sand. This can be

evaluated from the equation given for cohesionless soil. Alternatively, this can also be

estimated by Meyerhorfs method based on SPT values.

36

iii)

Qu

= C1 Ns As + C2 Nb Ab

Where

C1 = 2 KN/m2 for driven pile

= 1 KN/m2 for bored pile

C2 = 40 (Db/B) for driven pile with a limiting value of 400kPa

= (40/3) (Db/B) for bored pile with a limiting value of 400/3 kPa

Db = Depth of pile in bearing stratum

B = Pile width or diameter

Ns, Nb = SPT values along pile shaft (average) and pile base (corrected)

respectively in blow/300mm.

As, Ab = Area of pile shaft and pile base respectively in m2

Bearing

Stratum

Db

Note :

C2 Nb qbl

Where qbl

= 2000 11000 KN/m2 (for bored pile)

Broms et al. suggested fs = 2N for residual soil in Singapore (max 120 KN/m2).

iv)

Qu

= qcb Ab + 2 fs As

Where qcb = CPT value at base of pile

fs = Average shaft friction as measured on friction jacket

or fs

= 0.0025 qcb (for steel H-piles)

37

3.

Qa

= 0.25fcuAb

Where

fcu

Ab

= Cross sectional area of pile

Qa

= 0.5fyAb (For jacked pile)

Where

fy

= 275 N/mm2 for Grade 43A

Qa

Qa

= 0.25fcuAb

4.

Dynamic Formulae

The formulae are limited to cohesionless soil and driven pile. In its simplest form,

Energy of hammer

Wh

= Ru s

Where

W

h

Ru

s

= Work Done

= Height of hammer

= Soil resistance

= Set

This formula has been modified to take into account the energy losses in pile, cap and soil.

38

a. Hileys formula

b. ENF (Modified) formula

c. Janbus formula

Energy = Work + Impact loss + Losses in cap, pile, soil

Qu

= (ef W H ) / (s + c/2)

Where

c

= (W + n2Wp) / (W + Wp)

Assume an initial driving resistance Q. Iterate until Q Qu

Qu

Where

ef

W

Wp

H

s

c

n

= Hammer coefficient

= Weight of hammer

= Weight of pile

= Height of hammer drop

= Efficiency of driving system

= Pile penetration for last blow or set

= Sum of temporary elastic compression

= Coefficient of restitution

39

40

Qu

= (1/Ku) (WH/s)

Where

Ku

Cd

e

L

Ap

Ep

= 0.75 + 0.15 Wp/W

= (WHL) / (ApEps2)

= Pile length

= Pile cross sectional area

= Modulus of elasticity of pile

1. Assumptions made in the formulae pay little attention to the actual forces and

motions occurring during driving a real pile or to the nature of the soil and its

behaviour.

2. Formulae are unreliable for long piles.

41

3. Formulae are applicable to granular soil (sand, gravel) where changes with time are

very small.

4. Formulae neglect influence of pile grouping may have to modify predictions to

5.

Pile group

The ultimate load capacity of a pile group is not necessarily equal to the sum of the ultimate

load capacities of the individual piles in the group. The ratio of the two loads is defined as

the efficiency of the pile group. In general, the pressure bulbs of neighbouring piles tend to

overlap, creating a greater stress concentration on the surrounding soil. Such phenomenon

leads to greater settlement of the pile group and is termed as group action. With sufficient

stress overlap, either the soil will fail in shear (local failure) or pile group will settle

excessively (block failure).

Other important factors for design consideration include the influence of pile spacing and

pile cap. BS8004 recommended that

1. For friction piles, the spacing centre to centre should be not less than the perimeter

2. For end bearing piles, the distance between the surfaces of the shafts of adjacent

piles should not be less than the least width of the pile.

5.1 In clay

Group action is important in the case of friction piles in clay. The ultimate load capacity of

a pile group (QG) in clay is the lesser of the two following relationships :

i)

Local failure

=mnQ

QG

Where

m

n

d

s

= 1 /90 [{(n-1)m + (m-1)n}/m n]

= Number of rows of piles

= Number of piles in a row

= Diameter of piles

= Centre to centre spacing of piles

= tan-1 (d/s)

= Ultimate capacity of single pile

42

ii)

Block failure

QG

= cb Nc Bg Lg + Cu [2 D (Bg + Lg)]

Where

D

Bg

Lg

= Width of pile group

= Length of pile group

43

5.2 In sand

Action of driving piles is to compact the sand around the pile to a radius of at least 3 times

the width of the pile. In loose sand, the pile group efficiency may be greater than 1 because

of the effects of densification of the sand between the piles. In dense sand, pile driving

causes loosening and efficiency less than 1 may result.

In general, block failure is a consideration only if the pile centre to centre spacing is less

than 7 diameters. The ultimate load capacity of a pile group in sand is the lesser of (a) sum

of load capacity of individual piles and (b) load capacity of the pile group block.

5.3 In rock

The ultimate capacity of a pile group installed to rock is the sum of capacity of individual

piles in the group. Block failure is a consideration only if foundations are on a sloping rock

formation, and sliding may occur along favourable weakness planes. The possibility of

such an occurrence must be evaluated from the site geology and field exploration.

6.

Settlement

One of the most widely used approach to compute settlement of piles is the elastic theory.

Poulos provided dimensionless parametric solutions from which estimates of pile

settlement behaviour can be rapidly obtained based on given pile and soil properties. Both

friction piles and end bearing piles are considered in the analysis.

The pile is considered to be a cylinder of length L, shaft diameter d, and base diameter db,

and loaded with an axial force P at the ground surface. In a homogeneous soil mass having

constant Youngs modulus Es and Poissons ratio s, the settlement of the pile head is

given by

= P I / (Es d)

Where

I

Io

Rk

Rh

R

= Io Rk Rh R

= Settlement influence factor for incompressible pile in semi-infinite mass

for s = 0.5 (Figure 7)

= Correction factor for pile compressibility [Where the pile stiffness factor

k = Ep RA / Es where RA = area ratio = Ap / (d4/4) = 1 for a solid pile] See

Figure 8

= Correction factor for finite depth of layer on a rigid base. See Figure 9

= Correction factor for s. See Figure 10

44

compressibility, Rk

45

The settlement of pile head is given by

= P I / (Es d)

Where

I

Rb

= Io Rk Rb R

= Correction factor for stiffness of bearing stratum. See Figure 11

46

47

If the modulus variation between successive layers along the length of the pile is not large,

the settlement may be calculated from the expressions for a pile in uniform soil using an

average soil modulus Eav as follows

Eav

Where

Ei

hi

= Modulus of layer i

= Thickness of layer i

In cases where the pile passes through distinct layers of soil, having large difference in soil

modulus, the uniform soil solutions may be utilized in an approximate manner. For

example, for a simple case of a pile penetrating one layer and founded in a second layer, the

settlement may be estimated by treating the portion of the pile in the first layer as an end

bearing pile and determining the settlement of this and the amount of load in the pile at the

interface of the two layers. The settlement is added to the previously calculated settlement

of the upper portion to obtain the overall settlement of the pile head.

iii)

Clay

The total settlement of pile head TF = i + CF where i is the immediate settlement and

CF is the final consolidation settlement. Drained parameters such as Es and should be

used to calculate TF . On the other hand, undrained soil parameters such Eu and u should

be used to determine i.

Eu

= 1.5 Es / (1+? )

iv)

Soil

0.1 0.2

0.2 0.35

0.35 0.45

Sand

For piles in sand, the final settlement may be considered to occur immediately on

application of the load, so that drained soil parameters such as Es and ? should be used in

calculating the settlement of the pile. In general, the soil modulus at the pile base Eb is

considerably greater than the average modulus along the shaft.

48

Sand density

Range of

relative

density

Range of Es

(MPa)

Loose

< 0.4

27.5 - 55

Medium

0.4 0.6

55 70

Dense

> 0.6

70 - 110

Poulos suggested that as an upper limit Eb = 10Es may be used for driven pile in dense sand

and as lower limit Eb = 5Es may be used for bored piles in loose sand. An average value of

? = 0.3 is reasonable when no test data are available.

v)

Rock

The modulus for rock mass Em is highly affected by its joint spacing,

Em

= j Mr quc

Where

j

Mr

= Modulus ratio

Values of Poissons ratio lie between 0.1 0.4 depending on the type of rock

To analyse the settlement behaviour of a general pile group, superposition of two pile

interaction factors may be employed. Thus for a group of n identical piles, the settlement

k of any pile k in the group is given by superposition as

k

= 1 ( Pj kj ) + 1 Pk

j=1

jk

Where

1

Pj

kj

= Load in pile j

= Interaction factor for spacing between piles k and j.

For groups containing piles of different size and geometry, k may be expressed as

k

= 1 ( ij Pj kj ) + 1k Pk

j=1

jk

49

Where

ij

kj

= Interaction factor for spacing between piles k and j and for the

geometrical parameters of pile j.

For vertical load equilibrium, the total pile group load PG is given as

PG

n

= Pj

j=i

For a pile group of n piles, there will be n settlement and one load equations and these can

be solved for two simple conditions

vi)

Equal load or known load on all piles i.e. all the Pj are given to solve for all the j and

hence the differential settlement between piles.

For groups with equally loaded piles, the maximum settlement occurs at the centre pile,

while the minimum settlement occurs at the corner pile. The ratio of the maximum

differential settlement to the maximum settlement is shown in Figure 12 for some typical

groups of incompressible friction piles in a semi infinite mass. The ratio increases with

increasing spacing but decreases if the layer depth is decreased or L/D is increased. The

value of K has relatively little influence.

For typical end bearing pile groups, the corresponding values are shown in Figure 13 for K

= 100. For such compressible piles, relatively large differential settlement may occur,

especially for large groups and slender piles. However, the relative differential settlement

decreases rapidly with increasing K and is zero for piles that can be considered

compressible.

50

groups with equally loaded piles

loaded piles

vii)

Equal settlement for all the piles. All the j are equal and only PG is given: Pj and hence

distribution of loads in the pile group as well as group settlement are to be computed.

51

However for most practical purpose, the average settlement of a group with equally loaded

piles is found to be equal to that of a group with a rigid cap. Thus the assumption of equal

loading should be adequate in most cases, and the group settlement may be approximately

calculated from a representative pile that is neither at the centre nor at the corner of the

group.

The group settlement g can be expressed in terms of the settlement ratio Rs where

Rs

Theoretical values of Rs are shown in Table 4 for friction pile group in a deep layer of

uniform soil and in Table 5 for pile groups bearing in a rigid stratum.

The exact configuration of the piles in a group does not significantly influence Rs so that

values for other numbers of piles may be interpolated from the Tables 4 & 5. For groups

containing more than 16 piles, it has been found that

Table 4 Theoretical values of settlement ratio Rs. Friction pile group, with rigid cap,

on deep uniform soil mass

52

Table 5 Theoretical values of settlement ratio Rs. End-bearing pile group, with rigid

cap, on deep uniform soil mass

Rs varies approximately linearly with the square root of the number of piles in the group.

Thus for a given value of pile spacing, K and L/d, Rs may be extrapolated from the values

for a 16 pile group and 25 pile group as follows

Rs

Where

R25

n

= Number of piles in group

g

= Rs Pav 1

Where

Pav

1

= Settlement of a single pile under unit load

53

7.

downdrag forces or negative skin friction along the shaft which results from downward

movement of adjacent soil relative to the pile. Negative skin friction results primarily from

consolidation of a soft deposit caused be dewatering or permanent placement of fill.

The distribution and magnitude of negative skin friction along the shaft depends on

a) Relative movement between compressible soil and pile shaft.

b) Relative movement between upper fill and pile shaft.

c) Elastic compression of pile under working load

d) Rate of consolidation of compressible soils

Negative skin friction develops along the portion of the pile shaft where settlement of the

adjacent soil exceeds the downdrag displacement of the shaft. The neutral point is that

point of no relative movement between the pile and adjacent soil. Below this point, skin

friction acts to support the pile loads. The ratio of the depth of the neutral point to the

length of the pile in compressible strata may be roughly between 0.67 0.75. The position

of the neutral point may be estimated by trial and error procedure that compares the

settlement of the soil to the displacement of adjacent sections of the pile.

The peak negative skin friction in granular soils and cohesive soils is determined as for

positive skin friction.

The peak unit negative skin friction can be estimated from

fn = Po

Where

fn = Unit negative skin friction

(to be multiplied by area of shaft in zone of subsiding soil)

Po = Effective vertical stress

= Empirical factor from full scale tests

Table 6 - values from full scale tests

Soil

Clay

0.20 0.35

Silt

0.25 0.35

Sand

0.35 0.50

54

Since negative skin friction is usually estimated on the safe side, the factor of safety

associated with the load is usually unity.

Qa

Qu

Fs

Pn

Where

Qa

Qu

Fs

Pn

8.

= Ultimate Pile load

= Factor of safety

= Ultimate negative skin friction load

Pile tests are conducted on site to determine whether the foundation design is adequate.

Namely they are:

a) Static Load Test

b) Dynamic Load Test

A load test is carried out for the following reasons

1. To determine the load settlement relationship, particularly in the region of the

anticipated working load

2. To serve as a proof test to ensure that failure does not occur before a load is reached

which is a selected multiple of the chosen working load. The value of the multiple

is then treated as a factor of safety.

3. To determine the real ultimate bearing capacity as a check on the value calculated

from the dynamic or static formulae, or to obtain information that will enable other

piles to be designed by empirical methods.

a. Direct load placed on a platform bearing on the pile.

b. Kentledge heavier than the required test load of a platform supported clear of the

pile under test and brought to bear on the pile by the reaction of a jack.

55

settlement of pile

Dynamic load test is normally carried out on piles to evaluate the pile load capacity and

pile integrity.

56

During the hammer impact on the pile, the Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) process the

records and calculate the values for the maximum hammer transferred energy, maximum

compressive force and an evaluation of the piles mobilised static bearing capacity is

calculated by Case Method.

The field records from the test are further analysed using the computer CAPWAPC (Case

Pile Wave Analysis Program Continuous Version). This method combines the wave equal

pile and soil model with the Case Method measurements. Thus the solution includes not

only the total and static bearing capacity values but also the skin friction, end bearing,

damping factors and soil stiffness. A simulated static load test using the established soil

characteristics is then performed yielding the load versus settlement curve.

A dynamic load test is deemed to have failed if the maximum resistance of pile (RMX) at

any time during blow, using a Case Damping Coefficient (J) as approved by the Engineer,

is less than 2 times the nominal working load of a working pile under test.

Test Setup

57

Test completed

Checking of pile

58

viii)

Case Method

The Case Method is a closed form solution based on a few simplifying assumptions such as

ideal plastic soil behaviour in an ideally elastic and uniform pile. Given the measured pile

top force F(t) and pile top velocity v(t), the total soil resistance R(t) is

R(t)

Where

Z

L

c

E

rho

A

M

= Pile length below gauges

= (E/rho)0.5 is the speed of the speed wave

= Elastic modulus of the pile

= Pile mass density

= Pile cross sectional area

= Pile mass below gauges

EA/c)

The total resistance consists of a dynamic (Rd) and a static (Rs) component. Thus

Rs(t)

= R (t) Rd(t)

The static resistance component is of course the desired pile bearing capacity. The

dynamic component may be computed from a soil damping factor, J and a pile velocity, vt

(t) that is conveniently calculated for the pile toe. Using wave consideration, this approach

leads immediately to the dynamic resistance

Rd(t)

and finally to the static resistance by subtracting from the total soil resistance. This

solution is simple enough to evaluate in real time i.e. between hammer blows, using the

PDA.

9.

Special Topics

9.1 Micropiles

Micropiles can be defined as bored piles with small diameter which derived their strength

capacity from the structural steel core.

The conditions on which micropiles could be adopted are as follows

a) Micropiles are used as an alternative piling system to overcome boulders or to form

short piles in shallow granite outcrops which are too deep for footing.

59

b) They are also used as an alternative piling system to overcome site constraints e.g.

low headroom, restricted access or piling close to existing structures.

c) Micropiles are used for carrying high compressive loads

d) Where minimal noise and ground vibration are critical considerations, micropiles

can be an effective alternative

Qa

= 0.25fcuAc + 0.35fyAst

Where

fy

Ast

fcu

Ac

= Cross sectional area of reinforcement

= Design concrete strength

= Cross sectional area of pile

Timber piles are made of tree trunk with branches carefully trimmed off, usually treated

with a preservative and driven with small end as a point. They are generally used as

foundation piles or in dolphins or fender systems to protect waterfront structures. The

timbers Keruing and Kempas are recommended for use as foundation piles because of the

following properties :

a) High strength in compression parallel to grain

b) Ease of treatment good permeability enabling preservative to penetrate deeply into

the pile

Qa

= Ap fa

Where

Ap

fa

= Allowable design stress value for the type of timber.

60

Baukau piles can only be used as friction piles. The shaft friction can be calculated using

the empirical formula

F

W H N0.5

100 A

Where

F

W

H

N

A

= Weight of hammer (Tonnes)

= Drop height of hammer (m)

= Average number of blows per metre

= Cross sectional area of pile (m2)

10.1 Bored Piles

The bored pile sizes adopted by LTA vary from 500mm diameter to 1500mm diameter.

Details of the sizes and nominal working loads of the piles are given in the Tables below:

Diameter

(mm)

Area of

Pile (mm2)

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

196350

282743

384845

502655

636173

785398

950332

1130973

1327322

1539380

1767146

(kN)

fcu = 35 MPa fcu = 40 MPa

1718

1964

2474

2827

3367

3848

4398

5027

5567

6362

6872

7854

8315

9503

9896

11310

11614

13273

13470

15394

15463

17671

Bar size

(mm)

No of

Bars

Area of

Steel (mm2)

20

20

25

25

25

32

32

32

32

32

32

7

9

8

11

13

10

12

14

18

20

22

2199

2827

3927

5400

6381

8042

9651

11259

14476

16085

17693

61

Links

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

10

10

10

10

10

13

13

13

13

13

13

250

250

225

200

175

275

250

225

200

175

175

Pile Type

Sectional

Zx

Zy

Structural Working

area (mm2) (cm3) (cm3)

Load (kN)

100x50x9.3 kg/m

1185

38

6

94

100x100x17.2 kg/m

2190

77

27

174

125x60x13.2 kg/m

125x125x23.8 kg/m

1684

3031

56

136

10

47

134

241

150x75x14.0 kg/m

150x100x21.1 kg/m

150x150x31.5 kg/m

1785

2684

4014

87

138

219

13

30

75

142

213

319

175x90x18.1 kg/m

175x175x40.2 kg/m

2304

5121

139

330

22

112

183

407

200x100x18.2 kg/m

200x100x21.3 kg/m

200x150x30.5 kg/m

200x200x49.9 kg/m

200x200x56.2 kg/m

200x200x65.7 kg/m

2318

2716

3901

6353

7153

8369

160

164

277

472

498

628

23

27

68

160

167

218

184

216

310

505

569

665

250x125x25.7 kg/m

250x125x29.6 kg/m

250x175x44.1 kg/m

250x250x64.4 kg/m

250x250x66.5 kg/m

250x250x72.4 kg/m

250x250x82.2 kg/m

3268

3766

5624

8206

8470

9218

10470

285

324

502

720

801

857

919

41

47

113

233

269

292

304

260

299

447

652

673

733

832

300x150x32.0 kg/m

300x150x36.7 kg/m

300x200x56.8 kg/m

4080

4638

7238

424

481

771

59

68

160

324

369

575

300x200x65.0 kg/m

8238

890

189

655

300x300x84.5 kg/m

300x300x87.0 kg/m

300x300x94.0 kg/m

10700

11080

11980

1150

1270

1360

365

417

450

851

881

952

300x300x106.0 kg/m

13480

1440

466

1072

62

Pile Size (mm)

Allowable Pile Capacity

(Tonnes)

Main Reinforcement (mm)

12m

10m

8m

6m

4m

Cover to main reinforcement

(mm)

Percentage of reinforcement

(%)

Distance for end links (mm)

Links Spacing (mm)

Joint Plate Size (mm)

Joint Plate Thickness (mm)

Collar Band Size (mm)

Collar Band Thickness (mm)

Anchor Bar Size, 32 (mm)

Anchor Bar Length (mm)

155

28.67

180

39.92

205

50.97

230

67.41

255

79.64

280

102.05

305

114.68

330

138.76

355

159.68

380

184.00

405

139.81

4T110

4T110

30

4T10

4T10

30

4T13

4T13

4T13

30

4T16

4T16

4T13

4T13

30

4T16

4T16

4T16

4T16

40

4T16

4T16

4T16

4T16

4T16

40

4T20

4T20

4T20

4T20

4T20

40

4T20

4T20

4T20

4T20

4T20

40

4T20

4T20

4T20

4T20

4T20

40

4T22

4T22

4T22

4T22

4T22

40

4T22

4T22

4T22

4T22

4T22

40

1.40

1.00

1.33

1.00

1.29

1.00

1.40

1.15

1.00

1.05

1.00

450

7R6

150

6

40

1.5

4T10

320

531

9R6

172

6

40

1.5

4T10

320

600

10R6

198

6

40

1.5

4T13

416

690

12R6

225

6

50

1.5

4T13

416

750

16R6

250

8

50

1.5

4T16

512

849

19R6

278

8

50

1.5

4T16

512

900

21R6

298

8

50

1.5

4T20

640

990

26R6

325

8

50

1.5

4T20

640

1062

29R6

350

9

75

1.5

4T20

640

1140

33R6

378

9

75

1.5

4T22

704

1170

36R6

400

9

75

1.5

4T22

704

Size

100

125

150

175

x

x

x

x

100

125

150

175

Area of pile

(mm2)

10000

15625

22500

30625

Structural working

load (kN)

80

140

200

270

Pile diameter

(mm)

150

175

200

225

250

300

Area of

pile (mm2)

17671

24053

31416

39761

49087

70686

Structural

working load (kN)

430

569

843

1107

1177

1339

Reinforcement

3

3

3

4

4

4

63

T

T

T

T

T

T

28

32

40

40

40

40

Area of steel

(mm2)

1847

2413

3770

5027

5027

5027

Example 1

NEGATIVE SKIN FRICTION

NSF =

PoAs

=

Po=

EMPRIRICAL FACTOR

As=

SOIL

CLAY

SILT

SAND

BOREHOLE

DEPTH

FROM

TO

DESCRIPTION

0.20 - 0.25

0.25 - 0.35

0.35 - 0.5

UTR 001

THICKNESS

h

EFFECTIVE

UNIT

WEIGHT

EFFECTIVE STRESS

TOP

BOTTOM MEAN

EMPIRICAL

FACTOR

(m)

(m)

0

1

1.8

6

1

1.8

6

8

Top of pilecap

Pile COL :Fill

Fill

Sandy Clay

(m)

(kN/m )

(kN/m )

(kN/m )

(kN/m )

1

0.8

4.2

2

19

19

19

18

0

19

34.2

114

19

34.2

114

150

9.5

26.6

74.1

132

64

0

0

0.35

0.25

STRESS By H-Pile Surface perimeter

Pile Type

125x125x23.8 300x300x94

perimeter (mm)

2

(kN/m )

500

1200

0

0

25.9

33

0

0

13.0

16.5

0

0

31.1

39.6

29

71

Example 2

Calculation of structural and geotechnical capacity of H-pile

H-PILE DESIGN

1. PILE DATA

PILE SECTION

Steel Grade

Properties :

kg/m

kN/mm

sectional area, Ag

flange width, B

section depth, D

flange thickness, T

web thickness, t

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

Pile Working load :

Compression Load, N

Tension Load, T

Pile Structural Capacity, Qs

=

=

=

=

H 300 x 300 x 94

43A

2

800

kN

410

kN

0.3*fy Ag kN

856

kN

265

10770

302

294

12

12

=>OK

Ultimate Frictional Resistance, Qs

Ultimate Capacity of Base, Qb

Ulitmate bearing Capacity, Qult

Case (i)

Case (ii)

Case (iii)

=

=

=

2* N* As

200* N* Ab

Qs + Qb

kN

kN

kN

Pile Working Load, Pw = Qs/1.5

Qb=0

Pile Working Load, Pw = Qs/3.5

Qb=0

BOREHOLE REFERENCE

GROUND LEVEL OF SOIL INVESTIGATION

(m)

UTR 001

114.4

Assume mode of failure

Sectional area , Ab

Perimeter , P

88788

1192

=

=

Depth

From

To

mm

mm

Effective

Depth

SPT

N

G.L. to C.O.L

FILL

Sandy CLAY

Sandy SILT

Very Stiff Sandy SILT

Hard Sandy SILT

0

0.5

6

8

16

24

0.5

6

8

16

24

30

qb

2

(kN/m ) (kN/m )

(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

qs

0.5

5.5

2

8

8

6

Qs

Qs

Qb

(kN)

(kN)

(kN)

0

66

19

210

496

701

0

0

0

0

0

65.56

84.63

294.42

790.30

1491.19

1491.19

1491.19

1491.19

1491.19

870.12

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0

5

4

11

26

49

CASE (i)

CASE (ii)

CASE (ii)

Pw =

Pw =

Pw =

944.526 kN

994.128 kN

426.055 kN

=>PILE OK

=>PILE OK

=>PILE OK

65

Example 3

Calculation of structural and geotechnical capacity of timber or wood pile

WOOD PILE DESIGN

1. PILE DATA

PILE SECTION

Kempas

kg/m

2

N/mm

2

mm

mm

mm

Properties :

sectional area, Ag

flange width, B

section depth, D

Pile Working load :

Compression Load, N

Tension Load, T

Pile Structural Capacity, Qs

=

=

=

=

135

0

fy Ag

327

10.69

30625

175

175

kN

kN

kN

kN

=>OK

Ultimate Frictional Resistance, Qs

Ultimate Capacity of Base, Qb

Ulitmate bearing Capacity, Qult

Case (i)

Case (ii)

Case (iii)

=

=

=

2* N* As

200* N* Ab

Qs + Qb

kN

kN

kN

Pile Working Load, Pw = Qs/1.5

Qb=0

Pile Working Load, Pw = Qs/3.5

Qb=0

BOREHOLE REFERENCE

GROUND LEVEL OF SOIL INVESTIGATION

WORKING PLATEFORM LEVEL

CUT-OFF-LEVEL

Sectional area , Ab

Perimeter , P

BH 116

103.5

103.5

102.5

(m)

(m)

(m)

Depth

From

30625

700

=

=

To

mm

mm

Effective

Depth

SPT

N

G.L. to C.O.L

Peaty CLAY

Silty CLAY

Sandy CLAY

Sandy Silt

GRANITE

0

1

9

12

15

0

1.0

9

12

15

17

0

qs

qb

2

(kN/m ) (kN/m )

(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1

8

3

3

2

0

0

0

0

0

Qs

Qs

Qb

(kN)

(kN)

(kN)

0

0

67

46

168

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.00

67.20

113.40

281.40

281.40

281.40

281.40

281.40

281.40

612.50

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0

0

16

11

60

100

CASE (i)

CASE (ii)

CASE (ii)

Pw =

Pw =

Pw =

357.56 kN

187.6 kN

80.4 kN

66

=>PILE OK

=>PILE OK

=>PILE OK

Example 4

Design of a pile cap for 6-pile group

Project Title :

Revision :

Designed By :

Checked By :

Approved By :

Date :

Date :

Date :

6-pile group

DESIGN OF PILECAP FOR 6-PILE GROUP

TO SS CP 65: PART 1 : 1999

THIS VERSION DATED 27TH JUNE 2001

(A) PILE DETAILS

B

Pile Type

Pile Width

Pile depth

Pile x-area

pile capacity

Pile Compression Load

Pile tension Load

pile spacing // to l

pile spacing // to b

Pile embedment

Pileedge to pilecap overhang,

H-pile = 300*300*84.5

302

B=

294

D=

10770

Ast =

265

py =

856

P=

800

Pw =

PT =

360

900

Sl =

1400

Sb =

100

e=

150

Ov =

kg/m

mm

mm

mm2

N/mm2

kN

kN

kN

mm

mm

mm

mm

P =0.3 py Ast

< 3B

> 3D

Column Load

Column Length

Column Width

F=

C1 =

C2 =

3230

900

900

kN

mm

mm

sl

(C)

sl

PILECAP DETAILS

Pilecap Length

Pilecap Width

Pilecap Depth

Concrete Cover

Effective depth

l=

b=

h=

c=

d=

2400

2000

800

50

637.5

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

C1

sb

C2

Length,l

d = h - c -e -bar/2

(D)

MATERIAL STRENGTH

Concrete characteristic strength

Main Bar characteristic strength

(E)

O.K.

(F)

40

460

N/mm

N/mm

Column perimeter

Shear force

Shear Stress

Max concrete Stress

Pr =

V=

v=

vmax =

3600

4845

2.11

5.00

mm

kN

N/mm

N/mm

Pr = 2*(C1 + C2)

V = 1.5 * F

v = V / (d * Pr)

vc =min (5, 0.8 *sqrt(fcu))

// to pilecap length

// to pilecap width

O.K.

fcu=

fy=

Concrete stress

Enhance. factor

Enhance stress

Shear Stress

avl =

avb =

100As/bd=

400/d =

vc =

f=

allow vc =

v=

299

103

1.59

1

0.86

4.26

3.68

2.25

mm

mm

N/mm

N/mm

N/mm

67

av =Sl-B/2-C2/2

av =Sb/2-D/2-C1/2

100As/bd = 1.59

400/d =

0.63

Table 3.9

f = 2d/avb

allow vc = min (5, 2vc* f)

v = (1.5 *3Pw) / (b *h)

Width,

b

BOTTOM STEEL

1620

0.0498

0.95

2080

6684

M=

M/(fcu*bd)=

z=

As required (min)=

As required=

Provide :

First Row

Seceond Row

Third Row

O.K.

14

0

0

M = 1.5*3 Pw *(Sl/2)/1000

CL3.4.4.4

z = 0.95 d but not greater than 0.95d

Table 3.27 As(min)= 0.13% bh

As required = M/ (0.87fy z)

mm

mm

mm

100As/bd = 0.54

Spacing = (b - 2c -bar)/(n-1)

Table 3.30 Max Spacing = 155 mm

kNm

< 0.157

d

mm

mm

M = 1.5*3 PT*(Sl/2)/1000

CL3.4.4.4

z = 0.98 d but not greater than 0.95d

Table 3.27 As(min)= 0.13% bh

As required = M/ (0.87fy z)

mm

mm

mm

100As/bd = 0.34

Spacing = (b - 2c -bar)/(n-1)

Table 3.30 Max Spacing = 155 mm

25

25

25

6872

140

115

As provided =

Spacing =

Clear spacing =

O.K.

T

T

T

kNm

< 0.157

d

mm

mm

TOP STEEL

M=

M/(fcu*bd)=

z=

As required (min)=

As required=

Provide :

O.K.

First Row

Seceond Row

Third Row

729

0.0224

0.95

2080

3008

14

0

0

20

20

20

4398

140

120

As provided =

Spacing =

Clear spacing =

O.K.

T

T

T

BOTTOM STEEL

3360

0.0861

0.90

2496

14633

M=

M/(fcu*ld)=

z=

As required (min)=

As required=

Provide :

O.K.

O.K.

First Row

Seceond Row

Third Row

As provided =

Spacing =

Clear spacing =

20

0

0

T

T

T

kNm

< 0.157

d

mm

mm

M = 1.5*2 Pw *(Sb)/1000

CL3.4.4.4

z = 0.9 d

but not greater than 0.95d

Table 3.27 As(min)= 0.13% lh

As required = M/ (0.87fy z)

mm

mm

mm

100As/bd = 1.05

Spacing = (l - 2c -bar)/(n-1)

Table 3.30 Max Spacing = 155 mm

32

32

32

16085

115

83

68

TOP STEEL

M=

M/(fcu*ld)=

z=

As required (min)=

As required=

Provide :

First Row

Seceond Row

Third Row

O.K.

As provided =

Spacing =

Clear spacing =

O.K.

(I)

O.K.

1512

0.0388

0.95

2496

6238

20

0

0

T

T

T

kNm

< 0.157

d

mm

mm

M = 1.5*2 PT *(Sb)/1000

CL3.4.4.4

z = 0.96 d but not greater than 0.95d

Table 3.27 As(min)= 0.13% lh

As required = M/ (0.87fy z)

mm

mm

mm

100As/bd = 0.41

Spacing = (l - 2c -bar)/(n-1)

Table 3.30 Max Spacing = 155 mm

20

20

20

6283

120

100

HORIZONTAL BLINDERS

No. of Bars required =

Min bar =

No. of Bar provided =

bar provided =

sb =

15.64

3

16

225

CL 3.12.11.2.6

69

0.5

mm

b = (sb *b*fy)

mm

mm

Max sb = 250mm

1.

Footing

Generally, footing refers to foundations with depth/width (D/B) ratio of less than 1 to 2,

and foundations that are constructed through excavation and backfilling.

It is recommended where :a. The soil stratum near the surface has a high shear strength

b. The soil stratum has sufficient thickness

When a footing is chosen for a structure, the suggested design procedures are :a. Calculate the loads acting on the footing

b. Obtained the soil profile Field and laboratory measurements of soil properties

(Strength, compressibility, consolidation, elastic modulus, etc)

c. Determine depth and location of footing

d. Evaluate bearing capacity of supporting soil

e. Determine the footing size

f. Compute footing contact pressure and check stability against sliding and

overturning.

g. Estimate total and differential settlement

h. Design footing structure

allowable bearing values for rocks and soils. (See Table 1)

a) Loads

The possible loads acting on a footing are:a. Dead Load

b. Live Load

c. Wind Load

d. Earth pressure

e. Water pressure

b) Depth and location of footing

To avoid adverse effects from outside influences like :a.

b.

c.

d.

Adjacent structure and property line

Groundwater

Underground effects

70

2.

The allowable bearing capacity of the soil is determined by dividing the net ultimate

bearing capacity by an appropriate factor of safety and adding the overburden pressure if

the excavation is backfilled.

71

a)

Terzaghis formula can used to determine the bearing capacity for shallow footings.

QULT

Where

qult

c

= Cohesion (kN/m2)

B

= width of footing (m)

D

= Depth of footing (m)

Nc, Nq and N ? = dimensionless bearing capacity factors depending on the value

of shear resistance, . (See Table 3)

&

Strip

Round

Square

SC

1.0

1.3

1.3

1.0

0.3

0.8

&

Nq = a2 / {a cos2 (45+/2)}

a = e (0.75-/2)tan

Nc = (Nq 1) cot

N = (tan) / 2 {(kpy / cos2 ) 1}

72

b)

Meyerhorf proposed an equation similar to Terzaghis but included a shape factor sq with

the depth term Nq. He has included depth factors di and inclination factors ii for cases

where the footing load is inclined from the vertical.

Vertical load

Inclined load

For the shape, depth, inclination and bearing capacity factors, see Table 4 and Figure 1.

Where

NQ

NC

N

= (NQ 1) COT

= (NQ 1) TAN(1.4)

(According to Meyerhorf)

73

c)

Skemptons method

Qult

= CuNc + z

Nc

Cu

= Ultimate shear strength

Where

(According to Skempton)

3.

The shear and moment in critical sections are needed for footing design

q

Where

q

= Contact pressure

Q

= Total axial vertical load

A

= Area of footing

Mx, My = Total moment about the x and y axis

Ix, Iy = Moment of inertia

x, y = Distance from centroid to point at which contact pressure is

computed.

74

friction between base and soil

Horizontal forces

Moment to resist overturning

Overturning moment

4.

For sands, the allowable bearing capacity that may be applied to a footing is generally

governed by settlement consideration, rather than shear failure of the soil, unless the

footing is very narrow and located at a shallow depth on loose sands with a high ground

water table. Hence, the prediction of footing settlement on sand is of considerable practical

importance.

In principle, the immediate settlement can be calculated using elastic theory. In practice, it

is very expensive and difficult to obtain undisturbed samples on sand. Even reconstituting

disturbed samples to the same relative density as in the field will not guarantee that the

elastic parameters obtained in the laboratory will be equal to those pertaining to the field

because other important factors such as

a. Overconsolidation

b. Ageing

c. Cementation

estimated using measurements from in-situ tests.

a)

For granular soils, Terzaghi and Peck (1967), Peck, Hansen and Thornburn (1974) and

Meyerhorf (1965) have suggested a number of empirical relationships for estimating

settlement. The simple relationship suggested by Meyerhorf has been found to be as

accurate as any other. Comparisons between measured and predicted settlements for a

wide number of cases showed that Meyerhorfs procedures predicted settlement which

varied from 0.9 to 7 times the actual settlement, This relationship can therefore be used to

estimate the upper limit of possible settlement for a given footing.

i

Where

i

p

N

CB

= 5p / [(N-1.5) CB]

= Bearing capacity in tons/ft2

= Minimum average SPT blow count

= Width correction (Table 6)

75

Footing Width, B (ft)

CB

4

1.00

0.95

0.90

10

0.85

12

0.80

For very fine or silty sand, it is suggested that Nmeasured can be corrected by using the

formula,

Ncorrected = 15 + 0.5 (N 15)

Ncorrected = N

Nmeasured >15

Nmeasured <15

Where

Nmeasured = Actual SPT blow counts

The magnitude of settlement after various periods of time may be estimated using the

following equation

st

= si C t

Where

st

si

Ct

= Immediate settlement (inches)

= Empirical time rate correction (dimensionless)

Time

Ct

1 month

1.0

4 month

1.1

1 year

1.2

3 years

1.3

10 years

1.4

30 years

1.5

Meyerhorf considered that the values of the bearing capacities were conservative and

suggested to increase the value by 50%.

76

b)

1)

Settlement on sand

sand using the cone tip resistance (qc). This method is based on the theory of elasticity and

an empirical correlation between the drained Youngs modulus of sand and qc.

s

Where

Cp

p

po

Iz

z

(Table 8)

= p po = Net bearing pressure at foundation level

= Initial effective overburden pressure at foundation level

= Settlement influence factor (Dimensionless) (Figure 2)

= Thickness of sub-layer

estimating settlement using CPT

factor Cp

77

2)

Settlement on clay

s

= si + sc + ss

Where

si

sc

ss

(1)

= Immediate settlement

= Consolidation settlement

= Secondary settlement

Immediate Settlement

The immediate settlement can be estimated using Janbu, Bjerrum and Kjaernsli method.

si

= (? 0 qnet B ) (1-2) / Eu

Where

? 0

Eu

= Undrained Youngs modulus of clay

= Undrained Poissons ratio of clay.

= Width of footing

foundations on clay (After Janbu, Bjerrum and Kjaernsli)

78

The settlement of the corner, the edge and the centre of the loaded area can be estimated by

using the coefficients in Table 9. This table also contains coefficient for rigid footing.

centre and edge to the average immediate settlement

(2)

oedometer or 1-D consolidation test. The test results are typically presented in the form of

a e-log p curve (Figure 4).

79

(a)

Soed

Where

Soed

eo

H

Cc

po

p

= In-situ void ratio

= Thickness of clay stratum

= Compression index

= In-situ effective overburden stress

= Pressure increase in clay stratum caused by net pressure imposed at

foundation level

(b)

Soed

= s1 + s2

And

s1 = H Cur log10 {(po + p1)/ po} / (1+eo)

s2 = H Cc log10 {(pc + p2)/ pc} / (1+eo)

Where

pc = Effective preconsolidation stress

Ccur = Unload-reload index

p1 = p p2

80

Cc and Cur can be evaluated using Schmertmanns method (See Figure 7). As an estimate,

Cur = Cc / 5

81

p can be estimated using Janbu, Bjerrum and Kjaernsli Chart (See Figure 8)

uniformly loaded flexible footing, after Janbu, Bjerrum and Kjaernsli (1956)

Soed needs to be corrected for lateral deformation and pore pressure effects as follows

Sc

Where

= Soed

82

foundation, after Skempton and Bjerrum (1957)

Type of clay

clay)

1.0 1.2

0.7 1.0

0.5 0.7

.2 0.5

3)

Secondary Settlement

Ss

= C H log10 (t/tp)

C

H

tp

= Thickness of clay stratum

= Time taken to complete primary consolidation

Where

83

Typically,

Type of clay

Normally consolidated clay

<0.001

0.005 0.02

0.03 or higher

And,

tp / t100

= (dfield / doed)2

Where

t100 = Time taken to complete primary consolidation in an oedometer test

dfield = Drainage path length in the field

doed = Drainage path length in an oedometer (Half of the soil specimen height)

5.

Plate Test

The plate test can be used to determine the bearing capacity of granular soil. Figure 10

shows the test setup.

Terzaghi and Peck proposed the following relationship between the settlement? B of a

footing of width B and the settlement b of a 0.3m square test plate, loaded to the same

intensity.

B / b = {2B/(B + 0.3) }2

84

Bjerrum and Eggestad suggested the settlement ratios very much larger than 4 could occur.

The proposed correlation is shown on Figure 11

derived from collected case records (From Bjerrum and Egpestad) (Source : P220

Soil Mechanics by T William Lambe and Robert V Whitman)

6.

c)

qnet

d)

qnet

Where

sub

= Submerged unit weight of soil (kN/m3)

85

e)

If the water table rises above the bottom the founding level

qnet

Po

Where

7.

Examples

Example 1

Determine the size of a footing needed to support a gross axial load of 800kN and a turning

moment of 200kNm at the foundation base. The footing is supported on medium dense

sand with an effective friction angle of 35o and a moist unit weight of 18kN/m3. The

average SPT-N value over a depth of 2m below the footing is 25 blows/300mm. The water

table is deeper than 6m.

2m

6m

Solution

Given,

Moment, M = 200kNm

Axial force, N = 800kN

Therefore the eccentricity, e

= M/N

= 200 / 800

= 0.25m or 250mm

e

==>

Min L

<L/6

= 250 * 6 mm

= 1500mm

86

e

==>

Min B

<B/6

= 250 * 6 mm

= 1500mm

qult

Where

D

B

= 0 (sand)

= 18 kN/m3

=2m

=2m

Nq

Nc

N

sc

s

= 41.4

= 57.8

= 42.4

= 1.3

= 0.8

qult

= 2100.96 kN/m2

qall

= (qult - D)/ 3 + D

= 724.32 kN/m2

==>

==>

=L

= 2m

= B 2e

= 2 2*0.25

= 1.5m

==>

Qult

= qall*L*B

= 724.32*1.5*2

= 2172.96 kN > 800kN (OK)

Note: Compare using Meyerhof s method to obtain the size.

87

Example 2

AR0012 -- PROPOSED ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY BUS TERMINAL

AND MINOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT WORKS ALONG UPPER EAST

COAST ROAD (OPPOSITE KEW DRIVE) AT LOT 1992PT SL MK 27

y

L

for Column of Office

self-weight

Upperstructure load

Fv (kN) My(kNm) ey (m) Mx(kNm) ex (m)

Q (kN)

b/6

L/6

28.92

5.042 0.1743

0.15

B

Fv

0.1667

y

y

My

Proposed depth and size of footing

3

D (m) B(m) L (m) ' (kN/m ) q0 (kPa) q (kPa)

0

0.9

1

10

0

0

3

3

2

(m ) Wy (m ) Wx (m )

0.9

0.15

Mx

0.135

min.= -1.48

max.=

max

min

Average Stress

65.747 -1.48

32.13

kPa

65.75 kPa

=(Fv+Q)/A Mx/Wx My/Wy

Kp

Nq

Nc

Nr

sc

c (kPa)

5

30

0

3

18.401 30.13963 15.668 1.54

Ultimate bearing capacity =

Safety factor Fs=

Allowable bearing capacity qall=

max=

65.747

321.618

2.5

kPa

128.6472

kPa

kPa

sq

sr

dc

dq

dr

ic

iq

ir

1.27

1.27

ok

88

2

Table 1 Typical geotechnical parameters for preliminary design

Soil Type

Sub Type

Bulk

Density

(kN/m3)

19

Fill

Compacted

Fill

19

Marine

Clay (M)

15

cu

c

2

f

2

Eu

2

Permeability,

k (m/s)

Ko

Cc & Cr

cv

(m2/yr)

0.5

--

--

--

--

Cc = 0.4 - 1.2

2 - 3.5

(kN/m )

(kN/m )

( degree)

(kN/m )

25 (clayey)

27

10000

1 x 10-9

-9

0 (sandy)

30

20000

1 x 10

22

200cu

1x10-9

50 (clayey)

10 (0 6m);

1.0

Cr = 0.05 to 0.175Cc

0.220.23sv

14

Peaty Clay

(E)

5 (0 5m)

22

200cu

1x10-9

1.0

10

18

Dr = 35% ( 25m)

32

10MPa

1x10-6

0.5 0.7

--

--

20MPa

Dr = 50% ( 25m)

cu: depths 5m+ increasing linearly with depth to 50 kN/ m2 at 25m depth;

(see Fig 2-2, 2-3 and 2-4)

Water content can be up to 500%

0.05Cc

Fluvial

Sand (F1)

cu: increasing linearly with depth to 60 kN/ m2 at 40m depth (see Fig 2-8, 29 and 2-10) see also Section 4

25m: Eu = 20,000 kN/m2

10m: cu = 20.0kN/m2;

19

Fluvial

Clay

5N

24

15MPa

1x10-9

0.7 1.0

10

Cr = 0.05Cc

(F2)

Figure 2-6)

Sensitivity = 4; Pore pressure parameter, A = 0.9, eo = 0.5

N < 20

20

0 (sandy)

30 (sandy)

2 (clayey)

28 (clayey)

5N

G (VI)

0.2

20N50

20

30

-2N

(MPa)

1x10-7

0.8

--

25

--

5.0m = 35.0 kN/m2; 5 to 20m = 55.0

(see Figure 2-25)

Clayey SILT:

55.0 kN/m2; 20m = 100.0 kN/m2; (see Figure 2-26)

max:

kN/m2; (see Figure 2-27)

200MPa

G (V)

20N100

20

4N

32

--

--

N100

20

4N

10

35

--

--

G (IV)

--

23

qu = 30 MPa

50

40

500MPa

0.8

--

--

G (III)

--

23

qu = 50 MPa

300

45

2000MPa

0.8

--

--

G (I, II)

--

24

qu = 100 MPa

500

50

5000MPa

--

--

15,000

3

Table 1 Contd

Soil Type

Sub Type

Bulk

Density

(kN/m3)

cu (kN/m2)

c (kN/m2)

Eu

(o degree)

(kN/m2)

2N

(MPa)

S (VI),

S (V)

max:

< 3m = 45

--

20

3m to 12m = 85

30

100MPa

Cc & Cr

cv

(m2/ye

ar)

0.1 0.2

20

1x10-8

--

--

1x10-7

--

--

1x10-9

--

--

12m = 150,000 kN/m2; (see Figure 2-20)

--

40

--

--

--

--

--

30

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Permeability,

k (m/s)

Sandstone,

Siltstone,

22

150

30

50MPa

1x10-9

0.8

Shale/Mud

stone

S (III)

Sandstone,

Siltstone,

22

200

10

28

100MPa

5x10

-9

0.8

Shale/Mud

stone

S (I, II)

O (E)

O (D)

Sandstone

23

50 MPa

200

40

300MPa

Siltstone

23

50 MPa

200

35

200MPa

Shale/Mud

stone

23

10 MPa

50

30

200MPa

35

34

2N

N10

10N30

20.5

20.5

5N

Remarks

12m = 150.0 kN/m2; (see Figure 2-19)

0.8

>12m = 150

S (IV)

Ko

25

34

(MPa)

O (C)

30N50

20.5

20

34

max:

O (A&B)

N50

20.5

15

32

200MPa

1x10

-9

-9

1x10

References include:

Geotechnical Interpretative Report: 1) Design & Construction of Transmission Cable Tunnel from Harbour

Drive to Labrador, 2) MRT Ph I & II,

0.8

25

--

kN/m2; (see Figure 2-15)

Eu: 15m = 50,000 kN/m2; 15m = 75,000 kN/m2

Pore pressure parameter, A = 0.1

= 150.0

- Seismic Design of RC Structures Using UBC_ACI ProvisionsDiunggah olehMuhammad Saqib Abrar
- Design Working Manual Part2Diunggah olehKen Liew
- Handbook Review Temporaywork Deep ExcavationDiunggah olehKen Liew
- Batter PileDiunggah olehcadel
- Bearing capacity testing of pre-cast driven-in pilesDiunggah olehDariusz Sobala
- BCA - RC Spreadsheet User Guide Version 3Diunggah olehalex_3_15
- Handbook of Concrete Engineering, 2nd EdDiunggah olehManvendra Nigam
- Ch-12Diunggah olehYoung-chul Jung
- GDR for ERS_April 2013.pdfDiunggah olehJamie Moore
- simplified design of reinforced concrete buildings.pdfDiunggah oleh1975JACC21
- Handbook of Concrete Engineering-Mark Fintel_ACIDiunggah olehseena107
- Seismic and Wind Design of Concrete BuildingsDiunggah olehMonde Nuylan
- Structural Concrete Theory and Design, Sixth Edition M. Nadim Hassoun South Dakota State University Akthem Al-Manaseer San Jose State UniversityDiunggah olehahmed ali
- 22477_rf.pdfDiunggah olehAndres Barra Salaues
- Micro PilesDiunggah olehAnonymous spNlhAQxC6
- 64431 ICDF Vol 3 Conference Program_proof00Diunggah olehSerguey Figueredo Sosa
- Piling___Deep_Foundations_India_2010Diunggah olehjsvrraju
- Pile_(by_Meyerhof).xlsDiunggah olehzejuan
- Corporate Member Companies Are in ALLCAPS and Have LinksDiunggah olehMohammad Syeduzzaman
- Slope Stability Vol2Diunggah olehJames Laurent
- Shaf ShalDiunggah olehSajjad Anwar
- Expansive Clay.pdfDiunggah olehLevi
- BCA - Worked Examples Design of Concrete BuildingDiunggah olehSaw Is Saw
- 20110127 Eurocodes Egypt Work Frank EC7.pdfDiunggah olehbalaram
- Design_of_multi-anchored_walls_for_deep.pdfDiunggah olehskript
- 1050402.pdfDiunggah olehDenis Akingbaso
- Socket h PileDiunggah olehjoeli
- pluviator.pdfDiunggah olehAsad Hafudh
- Behaviour of Pile Adjacent to Excavation in Layered SoilDiunggah olehIJAERS JOURNAL

- Prefabricated Vertical Drain and SurchargingDiunggah olehKen Liew
- Lecture 3 - FEM of PVD.pptDiunggah olehKen Liew
- 009745.pdfDiunggah olehKen Liew
- CLiq manual.pdfDiunggah olehKen Liew
- Two-Lane vehicle underpass using pipe roof method at Sentosa GatewayDiunggah olehKen Liew
- Caisson Breakwater Design for SlidingDiunggah olehAhmad Balah
- Tirants d'ANCRAGE - Recommendations TA95 - French Experience.pdfDiunggah olehKen Liew
- Tirants d'ANCRAGE - Recommendations TA95 - French ExperienceDiunggah olehKen Liew
- Characterization of Marine Clay for Road Embankment Design in Coastal AreaDiunggah olehKen Liew
- Correlations of Soil Properties, Carter and BentleyDiunggah olehKen Liew
- Strength MobilizationDiunggah olehJiménez Jorge
- Ladd - Recommended Practice for Soft Ground Site CharacterizationDiunggah olehhartonowu
- v074n08p312Diunggah olehAr Muttaqien
- Pullout Resistance of Grouted Soil NailsDiunggah olehKen Liew
- Rock Anchor State of ArtDiunggah olehKen Liew
- Elements of Soil MechanicsDiunggah olehFourHorsemen
- 5_1384304235Diunggah olehKen Liew
- Design and Performance Evaluation of Vertical ShaftsDiunggah olehKen Liew
- Analysis of lateral earth pressure on a vertical circular shaft consideringDiunggah olehKen Liew
- Design Guide for MassBloc Retaining WallDiunggah olehKen Liew
- Earth Retaining Walls_Geotechnique_No32_Issue4_349_367.pdfDiunggah olehKen Liew
- Hardening Soil Model (Plaxis)Diunggah olehbogdan tanasoiu
- Sand aging field study.pdfDiunggah olehKen Liew
- Structural Elements Design ManualDiunggah olehKen Liew
- Reinforced and Prestressed ConcreteDiunggah olehKen Liew
- Sand Aging Field StudyDiunggah olehKen Liew
- Kulhawy and Mayne 1990 - Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation DesignDiunggah olehKen Liew
- Soil stiffness for shallow foundation design in the Perth CBDDiunggah olehKen Liew
- The impact of particle shape on the angle friction and implicaitons for sediment dynamics at a steep, mixed sand-gravel beachDiunggah olehKen Liew

- lm2500_fuelctrlDiunggah olehDenis Jimenez
- Grain Storage TipsDiunggah olehMohd Kaleemullah Khan Adnan
- UntitledDiunggah olehSamaksh Verma
- Advanced Java and Web TechnologiesDiunggah olehRiyaz Shaik
- FN for ASS DSS Welding _110817_IYDiunggah olehIl Yoo
- datapump by arif.docxDiunggah olehArif Mohammed Rangrezz
- Manipulating Binary Data Using the Korn ShellDiunggah olehFinnbarr P. Murphy
- hw3.pdfDiunggah olehNewton21st
- -Stata- The Language of Choice for Time Series AnalysisDiunggah olehAlejandro Granda Sandoval
- 6qlllkpq Simulink Tutorial s FunctionDiunggah olehMA1357
- 03WDiunggah olehtroublezaur
- MikroPul High Efficiency Cyclones 200511Diunggah olehZoran Danilov
- 230hw4solDiunggah olehMauricio Perdomo
- B.Bowan_EnergySolutionsDiunggah olehGattu Suneel
- 10.2.3.4 Lab - Exploring FTP - ILMDiunggah olehKevin Kim
- CE Objective Paper 1 1006Diunggah olehrockstar10561
- Albert EinsteinDiunggah olehGregorius
- OHM_INTERNATIONAL - USA W_ohminternational_com - IndDiunggah olehureachanit
- Storage.pptDiunggah olehAnonymous oUoJ4A8x
- MCA Regular First to Fourth Semester Syllabus Final..Diunggah olehIshna Anhsi
- Lab 6xDiunggah olehAnritsi An
- Pythagoras game card.pdfDiunggah olehmdmema
- T267 User ManualDiunggah olehBryanHesp
- SAD LAB PRACTICALS (1).docxDiunggah olehykjewaria
- eddy current brakeDiunggah olehHanafy Mahmoud
- L-39(SM) (IA&C) ((EE)NPTEL)Diunggah olehMarvin Bayanay
- SX008a en EU Example Sway StabilityDiunggah olehferasalkam
- From Mathematics to Generic Programming - Alexander A. Stepanov.pdfDiunggah olehRiccardo Ricci
- DecisionTheory_Ch8Diunggah olehAlex Banton
- SL13A DatasheetDiunggah olehali