Piling & Deep Foundations 2010

Geotechnical
I
Investigation
ti ti and
d
Design for Piling
Works
Chris Haberfield

Outline

Client Moments
You get what you pay for
Benefits of Doing More
Case Studies
Closing Remarks

Client Moments
Just do a basic investigation the piling contractors can take the risk
A
A primary risk to my project involves the in-ground
in ground construction
construction
Can you guys help us out as we have a problem with our foundations ...
we have a geotechnical report .. but.....?
but.....?
The piling contractor cant install the piles to the design depth in the way
I want them to install them
Geotechnical advice during construction is an expense I dont need
the investigation, analysis and design have all been done I dont need
construction advice
The piling contractor is claiming latent conditions can you help
I must have bored piles on this project, and you cant use bentonite or
polymer to install them
3

Client Moments
You pay for geotechnical advice/investigation one way or another
I am taking
t ki a conservative
ti approach....so
h
I can go cheap
h
on my
geotechnical advice/investigation
It
It worked down the road so it will work here
here
I want to spend as little money as I can on the foundations as we never
see them what we can
cantt see wont
won t hurt us .... and if it does I can always
go and get decent geotechnical advice/investigation later on
Your
Your proposal for the geotechnical investigation is too expensive I can
get one from Joe for half the price
We
We have to take the cheapest price I know we will pay for it in the end
but that is the policy
With g
geotechnical advice/investigation
g
y
you get
g what yyou p
pay
y for
4

Levels of Geotechnical Input

Ground investigation, analysis, design, construction services...
You g
get what yyou p
pay
y for...

Platinum
Gold
Silver
Bronze

You get what you pay for !

Bronze

Ground
Investigation

Geotechnical
Engineer
Design
g
Parameters

Silver

boreholes>toedepthof
boreholes
toe depth of
piles
shallowboreholes
SPTtesting
notestingand/orsampling
Indextesting

Gold
Silver+moreboreholes,

Design
Foundations
Risk
Cost

Gold+comprehensive

insitu and laboratory

insituandlaboratory
someinsitutestingfor
testingformodulus,
modulus,laboratory
strengthandpermeability,
testingforpermeability,
staticpileloadtesting
modulusandstrength

Limitedexperience
Nonexpert

Experienced
Limitedinexpertise

Experienced
Expert

Experienced
Expert

G
Guessed
d

G
Generic
i

Si
Sitespecific
ifi

E h
Enhancedsitespecific
d i
ifi

Silver+simple
Analysis

Platinum

None

Empirical

Rulesofthumb(overly
conservative)
Usuallyoverdesigned
May be impractical
Maybeimpractical
Maybeunsafe
High

Empirical,Loadbased,
standardindustry

Low

theoreticalorbasic
numerical modelling
numericalmodelling
Improved
Serviceabilitybased
Partiallyoptimiseddesign
Practical to build
Practicaltobuild
Safe
VeryLow

$50k

$80k

$120k

Usuallyoverdesigned
Safe

Gold+advanced
numericalmodelling
Optimised
Serviceabiltybased
Optimiseddesign
Practical to build
Practicaltobuild
Safe
VeryLow
$250k

Implications of Enhanced Geotechnical Input

How does enhanced g

geotechnical input
p help
p you?
y

Relatively small increase in initial cost (as % of total foundation cost)

Potential significant savings in overall foundation costs due to:
i.
Improved strength reduction factors (AS2159 2009)
ii.
Improved design parameters
iii
iii.
Improved estimate of foundation performance (design for
serviceability)
iv.
Improved confidence (due to ii and iii and reduced risk) allowing
optimisation
v.
Reduced duration for foundation works
Reduction in risk due to improved knowledge

Improved Strength Reduction Factors

Piling Code AS2159 2009

Hypothetical Example 1

Simple Geology 30 m compressible soils over weathered rock, high

groundwater
d t table
t bl
50 No. 1.2 m diameter bored piles, no basement
40 m x 40 m in plan
Pile working load of 15 MN

Improved Strength Reduction factors

Same Design Parameters

10

Improved Parameters, Analysis and Design

11

Pile Construction Time

Improved Parameters, Analysis and Design

12

Hypothetical Example 2

Complex Geology e.g. Two separate flows of basalt of variable

thi k
thickness,
quality
lit and
d extent
t t separated
t d by
b stiff
tiff soilil over sloping
l i
weathered bedrock surface. Bedrock varies in weathering with depth
and location and is intersected by dykes. High groundwater table.
50 No. 1.2 m diameter bored piles, 3 level basement, diaphragm wall
40 m x 40 m in plan
Pile
Pil working
ki lloads
d ffrom 10 MN tto 50 MN

13

Example 2 - Risks and Opportunities

Opportunities

Risks

Optimised retention
Excavation
system
G
Groundwater/dewatering
d
/d
i
Optimised pile lengths
Pile founding levels
e g piles founding at
e.g.
Socket lengths
Si ifi- dykest opportunities
Significant
tdifferent
iti levels
for
f in
Differential
settlement/tilt
reducing
foundation
costs,
basalt/bedrock
Longer piles
Alternative
construction time
and riskfooting
Construction difficulties
systems
Delays
Shorter construction time
Latent conditions
14

Case Studies

15

Case Study 1 Royal Domain Towers, Melbourne

0

EW-MW siltstone from

surface
f
- deep
d
weathering
dykes
~ 85 piles
0.75 m to 1.5 m dia

GARSP - as
constructed
t t d

10

EW - MW
Siltstone/Sandstone

Depth (m)

Gold level investigation provided significant

serviceability
i
bilit lloads
d cost and time savings to project
5 MN to 15 MN
15

Traditional
approach

20

design pile head

settlement
ttl
t : 1 % dia
di

Saving of 9.5 m
25

1.2 m dia. pile, SL=

SL 15.3 MN
30

Benefits - savings

950 m socket length

950 m3 concrete
t

1400 m3 spoil

$$ + 42 days
Additional Cost for

P
Pressuremeter
t testing,
t ti
UCS
testing, analysis

on-site presence

Case Study 2 Freshwater Place, Melbourne

1.2 m diameter pile, serviceability load = 27 MN
30 m overburden over
HW MW siltstone
HW-MW
ilt t
(variable)

30

GARSP - as
constructed

35

70 x 1.2 m dia. Piles

( l others)
(plus
th )

Gold level investigation provided significant

Benefits - savings
cost
and
time
savings
to
project
900 m socket length
design top of socket
serviceability loads
17 MN to 30 MN

Depth (m)

settlement : 1 % dia

40

HW - SW
Siltstone /
Sandstone

45

FE analysis
l i
50

55

60

Traditional
approach

1000 m3 concrete

1500 m3 spoil

$$ + 40 days
Additional Cost for

Pressuremeter testing, UCS

testing analysis,
testing,
analysis +$20k

on-site presence

Saving of up to 17 m

Case Study 3 SU Building, Melbourne

Multi storey building

Subsurface stratigraphy
g p y weathered siltstone
Recommended Gold level geotechnical investigation. Client wanted
only to pay for silver (for about $20 k less)
Sil
Silver
carried
i d out,
t ffootings
ti
d
designed
i
d accordingly
di l
Piling contractor engaged on lump sum price design and construct
Golder novated to piling contractor
Piling contractor requested additional geotech Gold
Footings redesigned significant savings to piling contractor (>>$20k)
Original client unhappy !!!!!

The piling contractor saw the benefits of a Gold

level investigation and reaped the benefits

Case Study 4 - Eureka Tower, Melbourne

19

Case Study 5 - Eureka Tower, Melbourne

Inferred Stratigraphy Section AA

Upper basalt

Lower basalt

Siltstone

Inferred Stratigraphy Section BB

Upper basalt

25m
Lower basalt
35 m

Siltstone

Limits of basalt

Upper Basalt

L
Lower
B
Basalt
lt

CFA and Bored Pile solution

Gold level investigation provided significant

g to p
project
j
and managed
g
cost and time savings
the risks of complex ground conditions

Case Study 6 Residential Building, Melbourne

40 level building, small site

Subsurface stratigraphy
g p y weathered siltstone shallow footings/raft
g
Recommended Gold level geotechnical investigation.
Silver (by others) carried out (for $30 k less), piled footings
recommended
d d nott practical
ti l ffor this
thi site.
it
Original Gold investigation carried out to estimate deformation
p p
properties
Raft footing proposed and built

Silver investigation provided impractical

provided p
practical footing
g
solution. Gold p
solution at reduced cost and construction time.

Case Study 5 Esplanade, Darwin

Case Study
Darwin
Deeply weathered
phyllite
Bored piles

The original Silver level investigation did not

UCS not possible
identify the risks.
risks Gold level investigation
Is < 0.05 MPa
Pressuremeter
identified the risks and resulted in significant
testing unsuccessful
foundation cost and construction time savings
Slakes
Difficult to sample

(50)

PDA testing allowed

modulus estimate
Analysis
Founded on shallow
f i
footings

Case Study 6 Oracle Towers, Gold Coast

Two x 40 level towers

Stratigraphy 25 m sand, 8 m
clay, 4 m gravel, hard rock
Original design bored piles
socketed into rock. Piled raft
considered but discounted.
No bored piling rigs available
Delay to project start
Further borehole test clay
Piled raft using CFA piles
Reduction in piling costs and
construction time

The original
Th
i i l Sil
Silver llevell iinvestigation
ti ti was nott
sufficient for alternative design options. Gold

level
investigation
allowed
alternative
footing

options to be considered and resulted in

significant foundation cost and construction

time savings
27

Case Study 6 Nakheel Tower, Dubai

> 1km high tower

Mass > 2,000,000
,
,
tonnes
90 m diameter
20 m deep basement, 120 m diameter
High saline groundwater
Soft calcareous rock to 200 m

Worlds Tallest Towers

Platinum Level Investigation

Initial investigation
Boreholes to 60 m,, one borehole to 120 m
lower standard of drilling, laboratory testing only (disturbed samples)
Preliminary recommendations piles possibly in excess of 120 m
d th (t
depth
(to lilimit
it settlements)
ttl
t )
Settlement estimate of about 500 mm risk of tilt
Subsequent
q
Investigation
g
Boreholes to 300 m, triple tube coring
Extensive laboratory testing for strength, stiffness and constitutive
behaviour
Extensive insitu testing including pressuremeter, crosshole seismic,
full scale pile load tests and construction trials
Extensive 3D finite element analysis
y
p
plus others
Settlement estimate of about 80 mm
Basement retention no anchors

The Pl
Th
Platinum
ti
llevell iinvestigation
ti ti
gave everyone the confidence that
this could be done

30

Footing Layout
Barrette toe levels
-55 m DMD
-60 m DMD
-79 m DMD

Barrette sizes
1.5
15mx2
2.8
8m
1.2m x 2.8 m

Raft thicknesses
2.5 m
4.0 m
6.0 m to 8.0 m

Case Study 7 Basement

2 level basement in alluvium on

beach
Tertiary clay at about 12 m depth
Potential buried channels
S
Secant
t piles
il tto extend
t d minimum
i i
3 m into tertiary clay
Additional investigation
g
recommended to confirm depth
to tertiary clay not done
Penetration to be confirmed
during CFA piling
Not done - not all piles
penetrated to tertiary clay
Construction issues

The original Silver level investigation identified

risks but insufficient for design
design. Construction
difficulties with increased cost and time followed.

32

Concluding Comments

Numerous examples of the value of better geotechnical investigations

But ... Our clients continue to accept
p lower cost investigations
g
The market is competitive you are not being ripped off.
Dont take bids for geotechnical advice based on price look what they
offer.
ff
If a price
i iis hi
higher
h there
th
are probably
b bl geotechnical
t h i l risks
i k th
the
others have not forseen or there is opportunity for significant savings
on foundations.
Be open minded - foundation solution, pile type or installation technique.
Some piling methods can be impractical for some ground conditions.
You get what you pay for
You p
pay
y for the ground
g
investigation
g
sooner or later
Thank you
33