borang pengesahan status thesis

8/2/2019 Borang Pengesahan Status Thesis

1/21

PSZ 19 : 16 (Pind. 1/97)

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

BORANG PENGESAHAN STATUS TESIS

JUDUL : COMPARISON OF ULTIMATE CAPACITY OF A PILEBASED ON IN SITU TESTING AND THEORETICAL

FORMULA

SESI PENGAJIAN : 2004/2005

Saya

(HURUF BESAR)

mengaku membenarkan tesis (PSM/Sarjana/Doktor Falsafah)* ini disimpan di PerpustakaanUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia dengan syarat-syarat kegunaan seperti berikut:

1. Tesis adalah hakmilik Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

2. Perpustakaan Universiti Teknologi Malaysia dibenarkan membuat salinan untuk tujuanpengajian sahaja.

3. Perpustakaan dibenarkan membuat salinan tesis ini sebagai bahan pertukaran antara

institusi pengajian tinggi.

4. ** Sila tanda ( )

SULIT (Mengandungi maklumat yang berdarjah keselamatan ataukepentingan Malaysia seperti yang termaktud di dalam AKTA

RAHSIA RASMI 1972)

TERHAD (Mengandungi maklumat TERHAD yang telah ditentukanoleh organisasi/badan di masa penyelidikan dijalankan)

TIDAK TERHAD

Disahkan oleh

(TANDATANGAN PENULIS) (TANDATANGAN PENYELIA)

Alamat Teta: 1491, TMN RIVERVIEW,

JLN DAYA, PENDING,

93450 KUCHING,

SARAWAK.

PM DR. KHAIRUL ANUAR KASSIM

Nama Penyelia

Tarikh: OKTOBER 2004 Tarikh: OKTOBER 2004

Catatan : * Potong yang tidak berkenaan.** Jika tesis ini SULIT atau TERHAD, sila lampirkan surat daripada pihak

berkuasa/organisasi berkenaan dengan menyatakan sekali sebab dan tempohtesis ini perlu dikelaskan sebagai SULIT atau TERHAD.

Tesis dimaksudkan sebagai tesis bagi ijazah Doktor Falsafah dan Sarjana secara

penyelidikan, atau disertasi bagi pengajian secara kerja kursus dan penyelidikan, atau LaporanProjek Sarjana Muda (PSM).

CHAI LEE LIN


2/21

Saya akui bahawa saya telah membaca karya ini dan pada pandangan saya karya ini

adalah memadai dari segi skop dan kualiti untuk tujuan penganugerahan ijazah Sarjana

Muda Kejuruteraan Awam

Tandatangan : ..

Nama Penyelia : PM Dr. Khairul Anuar Kassim

Tarikh : ..


3/21

COMPARISON OF ULTIMATE CAPACITY OF A PILEBASED ON

IN SITU TESTING AND THEORETICAL FORMULA

CHAI LEE LIN

This report is submitted

as a partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the Bachelor

Degree in Civil Engineering

Faculty of Civil Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

OKTOBER, 2004


4/21

Saya akui karya ini adalah hasil kerja saya sendiri kecuali nukilan dan ringkasan yang

tiap-tiap satunya telah saya jelaskan sumbernya.

Tandatangan : ..

Nama Penulis : CHAI LEE LIN

Tarikh : ..

ii


5/21

To My Parents, beloved and friends....

Thank you for all your advice,

Word by word,

Thank you for all the support,

Day by day,

Thank you for the cheer you bring to my life.

iii


6/21

ACKNOLEDGEMENTS

I wish to acknowledge my deepest appreciation and gratefulness to my

supervisor, PM. Dr. Khairul Anuar Kassim, for his valuable guidance, advice and

suggestions throughout this study.

My grateful is also dedicated to Ir. Loh Leh Goh, Engineers, Mr. Michael Hii

and Mr. Lim Wee Han in KTA Consultant as well as Mr. Lee Siak Fong for their

valuable discussions and assistance during the data collection and results analysis

period.

Finally, but not means least, I wish to express my thanks to my family and

friends for their encouragement, caring care and understanding.

Thank you very much to all of you.

iv


7/21

ABSTRACT

The common problem faced by designers is the calculated ultimate pile

capacity from static analysis often gives poor agreement with in situ testing methods.

This study is specifically focused on comparison of ultimate pile capacity based on in

situ testings and theoretical formula as well as established the criteria for the

differences between various methods. The differences were established throughcomparison of ultimate capacity among three most commonly used methods, i.e. the

static load test, static analysis and three pile driving formulas. The results of study

indicated that ultimate capacity from load test result achieve the highest value,

followed by static analysis and pile driving formulas respectively. From the driving

formulas, Gates Formula achieved higher ultimate capacity as well as shows a closer

value to the static analysis and load test results. Comparison between ultimate capacity

from load test results (Chins method) and static analysis (Meyerhofs method) showed

the differences ranging from 21.61% to 27.74%. The larger difference was established

when the base stratum is of clayey soil where the clay formula needs to be used where

it gave an underestimated value. Static analysis can be correlated to load test results

with a linear relationship of QuSA = 0.76QuLT. Comparison between load test and pile

driving formulas shows the ultimate capacity from load test was 60 % to 90% higher

than the three driving formulas, namely Modified ENR Formula, Hiley Formula and

Gates Formula. It is expected that ultimate capacity from driving formulas would be

even lower and achieve a higher differences when the particular site involved more

clay layer as remolding of soils during driving has created greater disturbance to

clayey soil. Ultimate capacity from load test results is more reliable as it is based on

actual loading and site condition.

v


8/21

ABSTRAK

Masalah yang biasa dihadapi oleh pereka bentuk geoteknik adalah rekabentuk

kapasiti mutlak cerucuk melalui analisa statik sering memberikan pembezaan ketara

terhadap kaedah ujian in-situ. Kajian ini fokus kepada perbandingan antara kapasiti

mutlak yang dikira melalui ujian in-situ dan persamaan teori serta membincangkan

kriteria yang menentukan perbezaan antara berlainan kaedah tersebut. Perbezaantersebut diperolehi daripada perbandingan antara kapasiti mutlak yang dikira daripada

tiga kaedah yang paling umum digunakan, iaitu ujian beban statik, analisa statik dan

tiga persamaan pemacuan cerucuk. Keputusan daripada kajian mendapati kapasiti

mutlak yang diberi oleh ujian beban adalah paling tinggi, diikuti oleh analisis static

dan persamaan pemacuan cerucuk masing-masing. Antara persamaan-persamaan

pemacuan pula, persamaan Gates memberi kapasiti mutlak yang lebih tinggi serta

menunjukkan nilai yang lebih dekat dengan kapasiti dari analisa statik dan ujian beban.

Perbandingan antara kapasiti mutlak cerucuk dari ujian beban (Kaedah Chin) dengan

analisa statik (Kaedah Meyerhof) menunjukkan perbezaan antara 21.61% hingga

27.74%. Perbezaan yang lebih tinggi telah dicapai apabila tanah pada dasar cerucuk

adalah jenis tanah liat yang mana persamaan tanah liat diperlukan kerana ia memberinilai di bawah anggaran sebenar. Keputusan dari analisa statik menunjukkan

hubungan linear dengan keputusan ujian beban melalui persamaan QuSA = 0.76QuLT.

Perbandingan antara ujian beban dan persamaan pemacuan menunjukkan kapasiti

mutlak dari ujian beban adalah 60% hingga 90% lebih tinggi dari tiga persamaan

pemacuan dipilih, iaitu Persamaan ENR Ubahsuai, Hiley dan Gates. Adalah dijangka

nilai kapasiti yang lebih rendah lagi akan perolehi dari persamaan pemacuan serta

perbezaan lebih ketara didapati jika tapak tersebut memiliki lebih banyak lapisan tanah

liat kerana pergerakan tanah semasa pemacuan telah menyebabkan lebih gangguan

kepada tanah liat. Kapasiti mutlak cerucuk dari ujian beban adalah lebih benar kerana

ia berdasarkan pembebanan dan keadaan tanah yang sebenar.

vi


9/21

CONTENTS

CHAPTER CONTENT PAGE

TITLE i

DECLARATION ii

DEDICATION iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

ABSTRACK v

ABSTRAK vi

CONTENTS vii

LIST OF TABLE xiii

LIST OF FIGURE xiv

LIST OF SYMBOL xvi

LIST OF APPENDIX xviii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Background Problem And Importance Of

The Study 2

1.3 Objective 3

1.4 Scope Of Study 3

CHAPTER 2 PILE FOUNDATIONS

2.1 Pile Foundation 5

vii


10/21

2.2 Classification Of Pile 7

2.2.1 Classification By Method Of

Load Transmission 7

2.2.1.1 End Bearing Piles 7

2.2.1.2 Friction Piles 8

2.2.2 Classification By Method Of

Installation 10

2.2.2.1 Displacement Piles 10

2.2.2.2 Replacement Piles 10

2.2.3 Spun Pile 11

2.3 Pile Installation Methods 12

2.3.1 Pile Driving Methods 12

2.3.1.1 Drop Hammers 13

2.3.1.2 Diesel Hammers 13

2.3.1.3 Vibrating 14

2.3.1.4 Jetting 14

2.3.2 Boring Methods 15

2.3.2.1 Continuous Flight Auger 15

2.3.2.2 Underreaming 15

2.4 Subsurface Investigation For Piling 15

2.4.1 Subsurface Access Methods 16

2.4.1.1 Borings 17

2.4.2 Sampling For Soils And Rocks 18

2.4.3 In-situ Testing 19

2.4.3.1 Standard Penetration Test 20

2.4.4 Borehole Log 20

2.5 Pile Testing 22

2.5.1 Pile Load Test 22

2.5.1.1 Equipment And Procedure 23

CHAPTER 3 ULTIMATE PILE CAPACITY

3.1 Ultimate Capacity Of Driven Pile 27

3.2 Static Analysis 27

viii


11/21

3.2.1 Static Analysis For Estimating Pile

Capacity In Cohesiveless Soil 28

3.2.1.1 Method Based On Standard

Penetration Test 28

3.2.1.2 Method Based On Static

Cone Penetration 30

3.2.2 Static Analysis For Estimating Pile

Capacity In Cohesive Soil 31

3.2.2.1 End Bearing Capacity, Qb 31

3.2.2.2 Frictional Resistance In

Clay, Qs 34

3.2.3 Negative Skin Friction 38

3.2.3.1 Total Overburden Pressure

Method 38

3.2.3.2 Effective Overburden

Pressure Method 39

3.3 Pile Driving Formulas 40

3.3.1 Concept Of Pile Driving Formulas 41

3.3.2 Commonly Used Pile Driving

Formulas 42

3.3.2.1 Modified Engineering News

Record Formula 42

3.3.2.2 Hiley Formula 43

3.3.2.3 Gates Method 44

3.3.2.4 Danish Method 45

3.4 Estimation Of Ultimate Capacity From

Pile Load Test 46

3.4.1 Chins Method 47

CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY

4.1 The Research Design Study 50

4.2 Data Requirement 52

ix


12/21

4.3 Methods 52

4.4 Description Of The Selected Sites 54

4.4.1 Soil Investigation For The Selected

Sites 56

4.4.1.1 Borehole 56

4.4.1.2 Standard Penetration test 56

4.4.2 Geotechnical Information Of The

Selected Sites 57

4.5 Formulas Used In The Study 58

4.5.1 Static Analysis 58

4.5.2 Pile Driving Formulas 60

4.5.2.1 Modified ENR Formula 60


4.5.2.3 Gates Formula 61

CHAPTER 5 RESULT AND ANALYSIS

5.1 Introduction 62

5.2 Calculations Example 63

5.2.1 Static Analysis 63

5.2.1.1 Calculation Example

Meyerhofs Method 63

5.2.1.2 Summary Of Ultimate

Capacity From Static

Analysis 66

5.2.2 Pile Driving Formula 67

5.2.2.1 Modified ENR Formula 67


5.2.2.3 Gates Formula 70

5.2.2.4 Comparison OF Ultimate

Capacity From Pile Driving

Formulas 70

5.2.3 Pile Load Test - Chins Method 73

x


13/21

5.2.3.1 Calculation Example 73

5.2.3.2 Interpretation Of Load

Test Result By Chins

Method Stability Plot 74

5.2.3.3 Estimation Of Ultimate

Pile Capacity From

Stability Plot 75

5.2.3.4 Summary Of Ultimate

Capacity From Load Test

Results 76

5.3 Comparison Of Ultimate Pile Capacity, Qu 77

5.3.1 Comparison Of Ultimate Capacity

Between Theoretical Formula And

In-situ Testings 77

5.3.2 Comparison Between Static Analysis

And Load Test Results 80

5.3.3 Comparison Between Static Analysis

And Pile Driving Formulas 84

5.3.4 Comparison Between Load Test

Results And Pile Driving Formulas 87

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Conclusion 90

6.1.1 Comparison Between Different Pile

Driving Formulas 91


Results And Static Analysis 91


Results And Pile Driving Formulas 92

6.2 Factor That Affect Accuracy Of Analysis

Results 94

xi


14/21

6.3 Recommendation 94

REFERENCES 95

APPENDIX 98-163

LIST OF TABLE

xii


15/21

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

2.1 Typical subsurface access investigation methods 16

2.2 Commonly used soil and rock samplers and their applications 18

2.3 Typical in-situ tests and their application 19

3.1 Typical value for the undrained shear strength of cohesive soils 35

3.2 Typical values for the rated efficiency of the hammer, E 43

3.3 Coefficient of restitution between the ram and the pile cap, n 43

3.4 Temporary compression in inches 44

5.1 Summary of ultimate capacity from static analysis 67

5.2 Summary of ultimate capacity from pile driving formulas 70

5.3 Load-settlement relationship of the pile 73

5.4 Summary of ultimate capacity from load test results 76

5.5 Summary of ultimate capacity from load test results, pile

driving formulas and static analysis 77

5.6 Comparison of ultimate pile capacity, Qu from load test

results and static analysis 80

5.7 Comparison of ultimate capacity from static analysis and

pile driving formulas 84

5.8 Comparison of ultimate capacity from load test results and

pile driving formulas 87

LIST OF FIGURE

xiii


16/21

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

2.1 Principal types of pile : (a) precast RC pile, (b) steel H pile,

(c) shell pile, (d) concrete pile cast as driven tube

withdrawn, (e) bored pile (cast in-situ), (f) under-reamed

bored pile (cast in-situ) 6

2.2 Classification of bearing pile types 8

2.3 Example of End Bearing Pile Preformed Timber Pile and

In-situ Reinforced Concrete Pile 9

2.4 Using friction pile to support a downward load 9

2.5 Using friction pile to support a upward load 9

2.6 Soil is being displaced downwards and sideways when the

pile is driven into the ground 10

2.7 The hole is excavated by means of an auger drill 11

2.8 Pre-stressed spun concrete piles 12

2.9 Typical single acting diesel hammer 13

2.10 Operational cycle for single acting diesel hammer 14

2.11 Wash boring 18

2.12 A sample of borehole log 21

2.13 Test load arrangement using Kentledge 25

2.14 Sketch of typical setup for test reference beam 26

2.15 Pile loading tests: (a) Maintained load test, (b) Constant

rate of penetration test 263.1 Bearing capacity factor, Nq 29

3.2 Variation of the maximum values of Nc* and Nq*

with friction angle, 32

3.3 Janbus bearing capacity factors 33

3.4 Variation ofwith undrained cohesive of clay 35

3.5 Variation ofwith pile embedment length 37

3.6 Pile subjected to negative friction 40

xiv


17/21

3.7 Schematic diagram of pile driving 41

3.8 Modulus of elasticity of the pile materials, Ep 46

3.9 (a) Typical routine load settlement curve, s vs. Q;

(b) Single straight line relationship, s vs. s/Q;

(c) Bilinear relationship, s vs. s/Q For Piles. 48

3.10 The Chins method for estimation of ultimate load 49

3.11 Stability plot the bearing capacity of pile is

Skin friction plus end bearing 49

4.1 Steps of the study 51

4.2 Locality plan for the selected sites 55

5.1 Comparison of ultimate capacity from pile driving formulas 71

5.2 Stability plot 74

5.3 Ultimate capacity from load test results, pile driving formulas

and static analysis 78

5.4 Correlation factor for ultimate capacity from load test result

and static analysis 82

5.5 Comparison of ultimate capacity based on static analysis

and pile driving formulas 85

5.6 Comparison of ultimate capacity based on load test result

and pile driving formulas 88

LIST OF SYMBOL

xv


18/21

Qu

Qb

Qs

Ab

qb

As

s

o

NqN

qf

DbLb

B

N

N

Ks

vo

CKD

CKdave

Cu

Ap

C

qp

q

Nq*

p

L

'v

L

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Ultimate pile capacity

Load carrying capacity of the pile point

Frictional resistance

Nominal plan area of the pile base

Characteristic value per unit area of base

Nominal surface area of the pile in soil layer

Characteristic value of the resistance per unit of the shaft in

soil layer

Effective overburden pressure at the pile base

Bearing capacity factor

Resistance value per unit of the shaft in soil layer

Length of pile embedded in the sand

Diameter of pile

Value of standard penetration resistance in the vicinity of the

pile base

average value of standard penetration resistance over the

embedded length of pile within the sand stratum

Coefficient of horizontal soil stress

Average effective overburden pressure

Angle of wall friction

Point resistance of cone

Average point resistance of cone per unit of the pile shaft

Undrained shear strength

Area of pile tip

Cohesion of the soil supporting the pile tip

Unit point resistance

Effective vertical stress at the level of the pile tip

Bearing capacity factors

Empirical adhesion factor

Unit friction resistance at any depth z

Perimetre of pile section

Incremental pile length over which p and are taken constant

Vertical effective stresses

Length of piles

xvi


19/21

LIST OF APPENDIX

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

A1 Manufacturing process of spun pile 1 98

A2 Manufacturing process of spun pile 2 99

B1 Project 1 : Record Of Boring, sheet 1 100




C1 Project 2 : Record Of Boring, sheet 1 104




D1 Project 3 : Record Of Boring, sheet 1 108




E1 Project 4 : Record Of Boring, sheet 1 112




F1 Project 5 : Record Of Boring, sheet 1 116




G1 Project 6 : Record Of Boring, sheet 1 120

xviii


20/21




H Piled Foundation Static Analysis Criteria correlation factor 124

I1 Breakdown of skin friction and end bearing capacity value

for Project 1 125


for Project 2 126


for Project 3 127


for Project 4 128


for Project 5 129


for Project 6 130

J Summary of driving record for the six selected sites 131

K1 Project 1 : Modified ENR Formula 132

K2 Project 1 : Hiley Formula 133

K3 Project 1 : Gates Formula 134

L1 Project 2 : Modified ENR Formula 135

L2 Project 2 : Hiley Formula 136

L3 Project 2 : Gates Formula 137

M1 Project 3 : Modified ENR Formula 138

M2 Project 3 : Hiley Formula 139

M3 Project 3 : Gates Formula 140

N1 Project 5 : Modified ENR Formula 141

N2 Project 5 : Hiley Formula 142

N3 Project 5 : Gates Formula 143

O1 Project 6 : Modified ENR Formula 144

O2 Project 6 : Hiley Formula 145

O3 Project 6 : Gates Formula 146

P Table D. 5 - Partial list of typical diesel hammer 147

Q Standard Products Properties 148

xix


21/21

R1 Project 1 : Load-Settlement Relationship of The Pile 149

R2 Project 1 : Stability plot 150

R3 Project 1 : Interpretation Of Ultimate Pile Capacity 151

S1 Project 2 : Load-Settlement Relationship of The Pile 152

S2 Project 2 : Stability plot 153

S3 Project 2 : Interpretation Of Ultimate Pile Capacity 154

T1 Project 3 : Load-Settlement Relationship of The Pile 155

T2 Project 3 : Stability plot 156

T3 Project 3 : Interpretation Of Ultimate Pile Capacity 157

U1 Project 5 : Load-Settlement Relationship of The Pile 158

U2 Project 5 : Stability plot 159

U3 Project 5 : Interpretation Of Ultimate Pile Capacity 160

V1 Project 6 : Load-Settlement Relationship of The Pile 161

V2 Project 6 : Stability plot 162

V3 Project 6 : Interpretation Of Ultimate Pile Capacity 163

xx

borang pengesahan status thesis

Documents