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 primary risk to my project involves the in-ground in ground 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 cant t 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 y you p pay y for
4

Levels of Geotechnical Input

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

Platinum Gold Silver Bronze

You get what you pay for !

Bronze Silver Gold
Silver+moreboreholes ,

Platinum
Gold+comprehensive

Ground Investigation

boreholes >toedepthof piles shallowboreholes SPTtesting notestingand/orsampling Indextesting

insituandlaboratory someinsitutesting for testing formodulus, modulus,laboratory strengthandpermeability, testing forpermeability, staticpileloadtesting modulus andstrength Experienced Expert Si specific Site ifi Experienced Expert E h Enhanced dsite i specific ifi

Geotechnical Engineer Design g Parameters Analysis Design Foundations Risk Cost

Limitedexperience Nonexpert G Guessed d

Experienced Limitedinexpertise G Generic i

Silver+simple
None Rules ofthumb(overly conservative) Usuallyoverdesigned Maybeimpractical Maybeunsafe High $50k Empirical Empirical,Loadbased, standardindustry Usuallyoverdesigned Safe Low $80k
6

theoreticalorbasic numericalmodelling Improved Serviceabilitybased Partiallyoptimiseddesign Practicaltobuild Safe VeryLow $120k

Gold+advanced
numericalmodelling Optimised Serviceabiltybased Optimiseddesign 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 soil il 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 l loads d f from 10 MN t to 50 MN

13

Example 2 - Risks and Opportunities Risks

Opportunities

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 - dykes Si ifi Significant t opportunities t iti for f different levels in Differential settlement/tilt reducing foundation costs, basalt/bedrock Longer piles Alternative footing construction time and risk 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

Depth (m)

GARSP - as constructed t t d

10

EW - MW Siltstone/Sandstone

~ 85 piles 0.75 m to 1.5 m dia

Gold level investigation provided significant serviceability i bilit l loads 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

25

Saving of 9.5 m

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) 70 x 1.2 m dia. Piles ( l others) (plus th ) serviceability loads 17 MN to 30 MN
30

35

GARSP - as constructed

Depth (m)

Gold level investigation provided significant Benefits - savings cost and time savings to project 900 m socket length design top of socket
40

HW - SW Siltstone / Sandstone

settlement : 1 % dia FE analysis l i

45

Traditional approach

Saving of up to 17 m

50

55

1000 m3 concrete 1500 m3 spoil $$ + 40 days Additional Cost for Pressuremeter testing, UCS testing analysis, testing, analysis +$20k on-site presence

60

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 f footings 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 not t practical ti l f for 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

The original Th i i l Sil Silver l level li investigation ti ti was not t 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

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

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 li limit 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 l level li investigation 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

The original Silver level investigation identified risks but insufficient for design design. Construction difficulties with increased cost and time followed.

2 level basement in alluvium on beach Tertiary clay at about 12 m depth Potential buried channels S Secant t piles il t to 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

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 i is 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