LOAD TRANSFER CHARACTERISTICS OF BORED PILES IN DIFFERENT

SOIL CONDITIONS


by


Florian Bussert




A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Engineering




Examination Committee Prof. Dr. A.S. Balasubramaniam (Chairman)
Dr. Noppadol Phien-wej
Dr. Kinya Miura
Dr. Tian Ho Seah




Nationality German
Previous Degree Diplom Ingenieur (FH)
Fachhochschule Frankfurt am Main
Frankfurt, Germany

Scholarship Donor EEC (European PTS)





Asian Institute of Technology
School of Civil Engineering
Bangkok, Thailand
April 2001
- ii -
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT




The author wishes on this way to express his profound gratitude and appreciation
to Associate Professor Chang Ming Fang who made it possible to fulfil the required in-
ternship at Nanyang Technological University (NTU), provided the topic and numerous
resources for the research. Also appreciated is the friendly welcome from all of the staff
members at NTU and given help whenever questions raised.

Profound appreciation is expressed to Professor A. S. Balasubramaniam, for his
kindness and friendly support during the thesis, with valuable and unexpected help during
the internship in Singapore.

Thankful appreciation is also expressed to Dr. Tian Ho Seah for his constructive
ideas and encouragement throughout the duration of this master program.

Last but not least to Dr. Kinya Miura and Dr. Noppadol Phien-wej for being part
of the thesis committee.
- iii -
ABSTRACT




Data from static pile load tests, conducted on 13 fully instrumented large diameter
bored piles constructed in Bangkok, Singapore and Indonesia were evaluated. They pro-
vide useful information on the load transfer characteristics at the pile soil interface. A
calculation procedure to obtain reliable shaft friction values is recommended. It was
found that the calculation method used has a significant influence on the results obtained.
The influence of the actual pile diameter and the concrete Modulus as a function of strain
are used to calculate the shaft friction is shown. This leads to the assumption that more
reliable pile calculations can be done in future practice.

The authors results were compared with previous publications. Significant differ-
ences are noted. It is shown that these differences exist due to improper analysis, based
on insufficient information on the construction procedure.

Analysis of the results from piles in Bangkok show higher pile capacity possibly
due to improved installation procedure. A reduction in the construction time after the
boring and before the concreting is started could have a further influence on the capacity.
- iv -
TABLE OF CONTENTS


Chapter Title Page




Title Page i
Acknowledgement ii
Abstract iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
List of Symbols viii

1. Introduction 1
1.1 Scope 2

2. Literature Review 3
2.1 Load transfer principle 3
2.1.1 General 4
2.1.2 Shaft friction 5
2.1.3 End bearing 6
2.2 Factors influencing pile capacity 7
2.2.1 Drilling technique 7
2.2.2 Supporting agent 8
2.3 Actual design practice 9
2.3.1 Disadvantages of current approaches 11
2.4 Requirements for pile tests 12
2.4.1 Measurement devices for instrumented piles 13

3. Investigation of possible Improvement 14
3.1 Data evaluation 14
3.2 Reliable calculation procedure 16
3.3 Calculation method used for prediction 19
3.3.1 Advantages of load transfer method 20
3.3.2 Calculation of end bearing 20
3.3.3 Calculation procedure 21

4. Presentation and discussion of results 22
4.1 General 22
4.2 Soil conditions 23
4.3 Results of investigation 24
4.4 Results of prediction 27
4.5 Comparison with published data 28
- v -
4.6 Increase in pile capacity 29
4.7 Constructive recommendations 30

5. Conclusions 32

References 27
Tables 31
Figures 35
Appendix 54
- vi -
LIST OF TABLES


Table No. Title Page




3.1: Additional Data on Investigated Piles 13
3.2: Reference and Title for Additional Data 14
3.3: Shaft Friction Values Used for Calculation of Bangkok Soil
Condition 32
3.4: Shaft Friction Values Used for Calculation of Singapore Soil
Condition 32
3.5: Shaft Friction Values Used for Calculation of Indonesia Soil
Condition 32
3.6: Presumed Bearing Capacity Values under Vertical Static Loading
(BS 2004) 33
3.7: Characteristic Tip Resistance Depending on the Settlement
Index s/D in Cohesionless Soils (DIN 4014) 34
3.8: Characteristic Ultimate Shaft Friction in Cohesionless Soils
(DIN 4014) 34
3.9: Characteristic Tip Resistance Depending on the Settlement
Index s/D in Cohesive Soils (DIN 4014) 34
- vii -
LIST OF FIGURES


Figure No. Title Page




2.1: Load Settlement curves for Piles Embedded in 1
st
Sand (Bangkok) 36
2.2: Load Settlement curves for Piles Embedded in 2
nd
Sand (Bangkok) 36
2.3: Load Settlement curves for Piles Embedded in Stiff Clay (Bangkok) 36
3.1: Flow Chart for Analysing Pile Capacity 37
3.2: Inconsistent Strain Gage Data Reading 38
3.3: Adjustment of Initial Strain Gage Data Reading 38
3.4: Concrete Youngs Modulus as a Function of Strain (Pile P1 P5) 39
3.5: Effect of Diameter Used in Calculation, Soft Clay (Pile P1) 39
3.6: Pile Section Properties as Function of Strain (P1 Bangkok) 40
3.7: Result of Improper Analysis vs. Right Procedure 40
3.8: Strain vs. Load (Pile P1 Bangkok) 41
3.9: Strain vs. Axial Load Initial Loading Cycle (Pile P1 Bangkok) 42
3.10: Strain Distribution with Depth (Pile P1 Bangkok) 43
3.11: Load Distribution with Depth (Pile P1 Bangkok) 43
3.12: Development of Shaft Friction by Top Settlement (Pile P1) 44
3.13: Development of Shaft Friction (Pile P1 Bangkok) 44
3.14: vs. c
u
Curve Proposed by Different Authors and Codes 45
3.15: Calculated & Expected Shaft Friction vs. Displacement (Soft) 46
3.16: Calculated & Expected Shaft Friction vs. Displacement (Medium) 47
3.17: Calculated & Expected Shaft Friction vs. Displacement (Stiff) 48
3.18: Calculated & Expected Shaft Friction vs. Displacement (1
st
Sand) 49
3.19: Calculated & Expected Shaft Friction vs. Displacement (2
nd
Sand) 50
3.20: Effect of Construction Time on Shaft Capacity of bored piles 51
3.21: Cost Development Curves of Foundation Expenses 52
4.1: Shaft Friction vs. SPT-N for Residual Soils (CHANG et al, 1989) 53
4.2: Critical Displacement (z
sc
) vs. SPT-N for Residual Soils 53
4.3: f
s
/z
sc
vs. SPT in Residual Soils 53
5.1: Impact of Diameter used in Calculation 25
- viii -
LIST OF SYMBOLS

m
: Shaft Friction
: Adhesion Factor
c
u
: Undrained Shear Strength
N
q
: Bearing Capacity Factor

v
: Effective Vertical Stress
Q: Pile Capacity
Q
s
: Shaft Friction Capacity
Q
e
: End bearing Capacity
q
s
: End bearing pressure
A
s
: Area of Pile Tip
dl: Length of Pile in Each Layer
P
t
: Applied Load on Top
A
s
: Cross Sectional Area of Reinforcement
E
s
: Youngs Modulus of Reinforcement
A
c
: Cross Sectional Area of Concrete
E
c
: Youngs Modulus of Concrete
e: Elastic Pile Shortening
- 1 -
CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION




Large diameter cast in-situ bored piles are extensively used in the foundations
design in Southeast- Asia. They provide several advantages compared to driven or
precast piles. In the past, lack of understanding on load transfer characteristics has lead to
extensive research made on this topic. It was observed that existing soil mechanics
theories cannot explain the complex mechanisms that take place at the pile soil interface.
Investigation have been done to understand these mechanisms. More reliable
measurement devices that increase accuracy are being introduced. Nevertheless, better
understanding of the pile soil interaction has also not lead to reliable design procedure.

Design is still based on calculating a failure load. A high factor of safety (2.5
3.0) provides certainty against excessive settlement. In the design phase no information is
available on the estimated settlement that will take place. To check whether the
assumptions made have been correct, load tests are conducted in every project. These
tests are mostly stopped when a specific settlement criterion is reached. Load tests are
time consuming and costly. More reliable estimation of pile capacity would lead to a
reduction in the number of load tests required. To gather such reliable information
knowledge on shaft friction values for different geological conditions are helpful.

When comparison is made between capacities of piles constructed under similar
geological conditions, a large scatter in the capacities of the shaft friction is noted. This is
mostly due to the influence of the installation procedure, free stand-up time and varying
soil properties. These factors do not have such a great influence to alter the shaft friction
values by nearly 400% as noted in the scatter of the available data. With more accurate
measurement devices valuable information can be obtained, during the calculation
process of converting the measured strains in the field into shaft friction values. To check
the reliability of the calculated data, SPT shaft friction correlations can also be used.

When ultimate shaft friction values and related critical displacement are within
acceptable range, improvement in the design procedure can be expected. Also the
differential settlement (which is most critical for high- rise buildings) can be estimated as
well.

This research tries to evaluate the reasons for the large scatter that exists in
previous interpretations. Thirteen instrumented large diameter bored piles were used to
investigate load transfer characteristics under different geological conditions. The piles
were instrumented with strain gages at several depths, providing information about
strains taking place at these different levels. With this knowledge, the load transfer can be
calculated in the soil layers. Static load compression tests were conducted, which provide
- 2 -
results with a high degree of reliability. Other load test methods are not fully reliable and
should be calibrated with the static tests of the type studied here.


1.1 Scope

This study deals with single axially loaded large diameter bored piles. The load
transfer characteristics for different soils in varying geological conditions are studied.
The main emphasis is placed on recommending a reasonable data evaluation process that
produces reliable load transfer parameters. The consequence of improper analysis on the
pile design is also discussed. Pile improvement techniques like grouting, which is
conducted quite frequently to increase pile capacity after installation, are not evaluated
due to insufficient data.
- 3 -
CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW




In this chapter an overview about achieved knowledge on the load transfer
characteristics from pile to soil is given. Factors influencing pile capacity are reviewed
and their influence rated. To illustrate how the present uncertainties are taken in account,
the recommended procedures in various codes of practice are shortly introduced and the
limitations summarised. Necessary requirements that should be fulfilled to obtain reliable
data from fully instrumented load tests are given.

Research on behaviour of bored piles has been done in the Asian Institute of
Technology (AIT) in the last years. The behaviour & performance of grouted bored piles
(Analas S., 1995) and non- grouted piles (Apichai, W., 1993) was studied. The related
construction problems (NG, 1983) and the performance of piling practice in Bangkok
(OONCHITIKUL, 1990) provide the background for the work presented. These
researches give a view on achieved knowledge on pile behaviour and performance in
Bangkok. The results are discussed and suggestions for further research is made.


2.1 Load transfer principle

The geotechnical capacity of piles has been investigated in the last decades.
Numerous publications available give a clear picture on the achieved knowledge. In the
last years mostly new design approaches have been published, representing regional
experiences and related findings. It has been seen that they cannot be used as overall
valid design procedures. This is due to the fact that a lot of influencing factors (that have
been constant during the presented investigations) were not taken in account.


2.1.1 General

In the beginning piles have only been tested measuring applied load and related
settlement. From this, conclusions were made, how the load is transferred to the soil.
With the development of new and reliable measurement devices a better understanding of
load transfer characteristics was achieved. Nevertheless, presented attempts to calculate
pile capacity do not lead to reasonable results. It is still practice to conduct pile tests
before every project. With this it is checked if the assumptions made in the design phase
have been right. When necessary, improvements in design are made after the required
parameters are obtained from the load test data.
- 4 -

When the pile is loaded, a displacement field is introduced in the ground, causing
sliding along the pile shaft until full shaft friction is mobilised. Compression and sliding
mechanisms occur in the soil volume in which the load transfer takes place
(SMOLTCZYK, 1993). Research has been done trying to explain pile behaviour by ideal
elastic theories. Even the use of non linear failure criteria in conjunction with finite
element method does not provide reasonable results (FRANKE, 1996). All used methods
for design have the disadvantage that they require empirical adjustment based on the soil
conditions found and the drilling technique adopted.

Reasons for this are:
1. Due to pile installation in the ground, the initial ratio of vertical to horizontal
stress (k =o
x
/o
z
) is changed from the earth pressure at rest k
0
=o
x
/( . z) to
unpredictable values from k >k
0
or k <k
0
.

2. Due to the pile displacement occurring in the ground, end bearing cannot be
calculated anymore by the methods originally invented for shallow
foundations. The neglecting of compressibility in the formulas leads to much
larger calculation errors than in shallow foundations. Higher overburden
pressure exists. These overburden pressures allow extremely high end bearing
values. When these values are reached, soil compressibility is increased by
soil grain destruction. This causes a decrease in effective friction angle below
pile tip. The failure mechanism taking place cannot be described by a linear
failure line.

3. The interaction between shaft friction and end bearing leads to a interlocking
effects in the ground, causing tensions forces near and above pile tip. They
disappear when shaft friction is around two times the end bearing (FRANKE,
1996).

As these interaction mechanisms cannot be analysed theoretically, pile capacity is
calculated as a superposition of shaft friction and end bearing:

Q =Q
s
+Q
e
(2.1)



2.1.2 Shaft friction

Shaft friction is determined by:
t
m
=o . c
u
(2.2)
for cohesive soils and
t
m
=| . . z (2.3)

for cohesionless soils, with | =k
0
. tan |
d
.

- 5 -
It could be estimated from this formula, that shaft friction increases endless with
increasing depth. This is not the case. After a critical depth is reached, shaft friction does
not increase anymore. Therefore the used formula is only applicable with empirical
adjustments depending on pile length, material, roughness of pile shaft, construction
method and others. All influencing factors have been summarised by POULOS &
DAVIS (1980) and BROMS & HANSBO (1981). Factors having main influence on pile
capacity are discussed in more detail later.

Only small displacement is required to fully mobilise shaft friction. The required
displacement are stated as 5 6 mm (HORVATH et al., 1979), 4 8 mm (CHANG et al.,
1991) or 5 10mm (ONEILL et al., 1972). Contrary results are given by STAMM
(1990) who reported possible displacements of 2 cm and more to fully mobilise shaft
friction.


2.1.3 End bearing

End bearing is calculated by:
Q
b
=o
v
. N
q
(2.3)

As for shaft friction it can also be estimated from this formula that end bearing
increases continuously with depth and inner friction angle of the soil (N
q
increases
exponentially with increasing friction angle). This is not the case as well (compare shaft
friction). When end bearing reaches a critical depth no further increase is noted. This is
simply due to the reason that overburden pressure is too large and the additional load
from the pile becomes small and negligible (FRANKE, 1996).

End- bearing requires a larger settlement to be fully mobilised, mostly assumed to
be circa 10% of the pile diameter (BS 2004, 1972, DIN, 1990). End bearing entirely
depends on the workmanship at the site, especially in cleaning process which can hardly
be calculated. To overcome the uncertainties extremely conservative end bearing values
are assumed in design.

WILLIAMS & PELLS (1981) and HORVATH et al. (1983) demonstrated on field
tests, that the majority of the load carried by a socketed pile is carried in side shear until
slip occurs at the interface. Once slip occurs, the majority of additional load is then
transferred to the base of the socket. In many instances, the shear stress distribution along
the socket is quite non uniform. When consideration is given to the potential variability in
side shear resistance, it can be expected that under normal conditions (extremely low
loads applied on the base of the pile) some slip might occur along the socket irrespective
of whether it is considered in design or not.
- 6 -
2.2 Factors influencing pile capacity

With theoretical formulas it might never be possible to calculate all factors
influencing pile capacity, as even the initial values cannot be determined in a for an
analysis required range (FRANKE, 1996).

The existing difficulties are, that even definitions of different capacities are not
overall valid. Failure load is defined as a constant load under which the pile settlement
increases continuously. WEISS et al. (1983) reported from field tests, that failure load
depends on in-situ soil properties. While piles in loose sand showed an extreme failure
mechanism, no ultimate load could be applied to piles in dense sand. Settlement was the
limiting factor. Load settlement curves from load tests in Bangkok (Fig. 2.1 2.3)
indicate similar findings: no uniform and predictable failure mechanism is observed.
Even piles founded in the same soil layers show brittle as well as ductile failure
mechanism.


2.2.1 Drilling technique

Shaft friction depends on the shear resistance of the soil: cohesion and effective
stress perpendicular to the pile shaft. Before drilling, the soil in which the pile is placed is
in a medium, dense or even overconsolidated state, dependent on the geological history.
Under these conditions, a bored pile could introduce extremely high shear and
compression loads to the ground. Every disturbance of the ground causes unknown
dilatancy and densification effects from the original parameters. This leads to a reduction
in pile capacity. Differences in compactness in the order from 10 to 40 % were reported
by HARTUNG (1995). To reduce these disturbance effects drilling tools were optimised
in the last years (indicated by achieved increase in pile capacities). Aim is to conduct
drilling as fast as possible and with minimised soil disturbance. When specified
requirements are fulfilled during construction process (sufficient ahead installed, deeper
casing; sufficient high liquid column in the casing, limitation of suction during drilling
process and small cutter head) smallest soil disturbance possible is achieved
(GOEDECKE, SCHULER, 1986).


2.2.2 Supporting agent

Every excavation in the ground causes a response: dilation and destressing of the
surrounding soil and therefore a change in the mechanical properties. To minimise these
changes as well as to provide a stable borehole support must be provided: casing, water
and slurry (bentonite and recently polymer) are used.

The effect of bentonite was discussed extremely controversy in the beginning.
Assumption that the shaft friction is virtually unaffected by the slurry to that it
completely eliminates shaft friction have been stated. WEISS (1965) conducted
laboratory shear tests on vertically and horizontally loaded slabs cast on to a horizontal
- 7 -
bed of dry sand and similar beds immersed in bentonite suspension. He concluded that a
significant greater load transfer is obtained at the latter interface. Several attempts have
been made in field and laboratory tests to state the influence more clearly. It was found
that the results obtained are affected by the acting radial stress. Higher frictional
resistance is achieved with bentonite at lower displacements while at larger displacement
the resistance is lower (difference smaller than 10 %).The effect on pile capacity in the
ground depends on the interaction between bentonite and soil. Therefore on following
parameters: grain size of soil and slurry; the nature of the soil particles inevitably held in
the suspension and the rheological properties of the suspension, which depends
themselves on the bentonite used and the chemical nature of the mixing water (FARMER
et al., 1970).

Due to several advantages, it becomes more popular to use polymer slurry as
supporting agent. It is more economical, requires less preparation at the side, can be
mixed and hydrated more rapidly and is environmental friendly. It has been shown in
several projects, that polymer slurry increases possible shaft friction. In field tests, ATA
et al. (1998) found, that polymer slurry, when introduced with the right dosage provides
stable boreholes for more than eighteen hours. Developed unit side shear resistance of
polymer piles exceeded those constructed by bentonite at all depths. The average o factor
as recommended in the U.S. design practice (Fig. 3.14) for bentonite was exceeded of
more than 40 %, leading to an increase from 0.55 to 0.74. This increase in shaft friction
took place under all investigated soil conditions.


2.3 Actual design practice

After it has been seen that no theoretical approach can be found, attempts were
made to state the influence of installation procedure more clearly for most geological
conditions.

In the actual design of bored piles in Southeast- Asia it is widely adopted to
calculate pile capacity based on the effective stress principle. Test piles are used to check
the assumptions made. Preliminary piles should be constructed using the same methods,
materials and dimensions as to be used in contract piles. Such tests are intended to verify
that the methods, materials and dimensions used in construction process provide an
adequate foundation. As the construction of the contract piles proceeds, further load tests
are usually carried out on contract piles in order to ensure that the workmanship and
materials are of satisfactory standard. This produces high expenses that could be saved,
when a more reliable approach on pile capacity calculation could be given in the future.
Actual pile design still consists to a high degree of uncertainties. These uncertainties are
taken in account in different ways in given codes of practice.

The American code, represented by the work of the U.S. Department of
Transportation, is based on partial safety factors. Depending on the reliability of
necessary information (e.g. ground conditions) the designer has to choose adequate
factors that are applied to the measured or estimated value. In most instances it can be
- 8 -
chosen between a mean, lower and upper confidence line. The range of these lines is very
large, indicating the existing design uncertainties. Values from laboratory tests on
different soils provide the input parameters for the design charts, when pile tip or shaft
movement as a function of applied load is calculated. This approach requires profound
knowledge on pile behaviour. Every influencing factor has to be rated and a
representative partial safety factor chosen. When this is not done in an proper way,
extremely large differences in calculated pile capacities are obtained. As in all other
presented codes it is therefore advised to conduct a load test in the beginning to check the
made design assumptions.

The German code follows a completely different design philosophy. To take all
existing uncertainties present in pile behaviour in account, design is completely based on
analysed data from field tests. They were conducted in the last decades and represent
therefore achieved piling practice in Germany. Shaft friction values are given for
different soil types based on the measured density. These values represent lower bound
values. With these a load settlement curve is calculated representing field behaviour that
can be garantied. Disadvantageous in this approach is, that pile strain is not taken in
account even for long piles. Due to the lower bound values also large differences are
noted between designed and measured ultimate capacities. Load tests are required before
every piling project is started.

The English approach is the approach that is widely used in Southeast- Asia. As
the interaction between shaft friction and end- bearing is not yet fully understood, pile
capacity is calculated as a superposition of both:

Q =Q
s
+Q
e

=q
s
. A
s
+t . D . (t
m
. dl) (2.4)

Shaft friction for cohesive soils is calculated by (2.1), while for cohesionless soils
(2.2) is used. o is obtained from Figure 3.14, where only the recommended lines are
shown. They are rough average values, valid for highly scattered data points. These o
values have been slightly changed in the past to represent

The | value stays nearly constant at a value of 0.25, as the lines for k
0
and tan |
d

show contrary results (BURLAND, 1973). This indicates that shaft friction for
cohesionless soils depends only on the overburden pressure, which would lead to a
continuous increase. MEYERHOF (1986) stated that | values should decrease from a
critical depth on in uniform soils, as capacity is not increasing linearly with effective
stress.

The o and | values have to take all uncertainties that arise during pile installation
in account. Therefore they are stated in the literature in a large range, indicating regional
experiences. It is clearly visionable that sound engineering judgement is required to
estimate these values in a realistic way. Knowledge about the construction process,
possible failure modes and the interaction between pile and soil conditions is required.
PIMPASUGDI (1989) showed that even piles installed under comparable conditions
- 9 -
show the same scatter. The o and | values are correlated to in-situ soil property data. For
cohesive soils the undrained shear strength provides the necessary information. SPT test
in cohesionless soils are correlated to the inner friction angle, which are again correlated
to the | value.

With this shaft friction values an ultimate pile capacity is calculated. By applying
an overall safety factor, it is assumed that settlement and hazard against failure is in an
acceptable range. That this is only a rough estimation can be seen from Figures 2.1 2.3
where it can be seen that every pile follows an own, non- predictable load- settlement
curve, which is independent from soil conditions below pile tip. A slightly different
approach applies different factors of safety on shaft friction and end- bearing, taking in
account hazards of different failure probabilities. Disadvantages of this approach is
mainly, that no information on the load settlement characteristics is given. It is simply
assumed, that by the taken factor of safety settlement is in an acceptable range.

To overcome the existing difficulties in pile capacity design, semi-empirical
approaches are used. A lot of these approaches have been published, representing
regional properties. They fit under special conditions, are independent from several
factors that were constant in this situation.


2.3.1 Disadvantages of current approaches

In Southeast- Asia the effective stress approach is mainly used. It has been seen in
the past, that pile capacity differs much from the predicted ones using the described
procedure. Differences in order from 30% are noted. These changes are thought to take
place due to installation and workmanship and cannot be taken in account by this
approach. To obtain more reliability, it has to be looked, why these differences between
calculated and measured values takes place. An improved pile design procedure in the
future to overcome the existing uncertainties has to take all factors in account. Therefore
only values derived from field tests can provide the necessary information

No information can be given to the structural engineer about settlement under
working load from soil mechanics theoretical point of view. Therefore no information is
available about possible maximum differential settlement as this is the most important
information for serviceability of the building.


- 10 -
2.4 Requirements for test piles

Testing of piles is in first line for the owners benefit. Exact information about load
transfer characteristics leads to a more sufficient design and a more economical
foundation. In the beginning piles were too small to implement reliable measurement
devices. Since large diameter bored piles have been introduced and equipped with
meaningful measurement devices more information about the load transfer is obtained.

In most load tests only top displacement dependent on the applied load is
measured. This does not provide any information about the load transfer principle to the
soil (NOWACK, GARTUNG, 1983). To be able to study behaviour at each pile soil
interface other requirements are necessary.

Careful planning, reliable equipment and instrumentation as well as proper set- up
and a correct recording and repeating of measured data is necessary to obtain reliable
information (FULLER, 1983). Careful planning involves a geological examination. When
the geology is highly variable, it has to be decided if the location is chosen on average,
worst or best conditions (CROWTHER, 1988). Boring has to be done near pile
location, to be able to install the strain gages dependent on the soil layers found. To
determine load transfer from the pile to the soil along the shaft strain gages or telltales are
placed at bottom and top, mid- or quarter points in uniform soil or the defined strata. One
telltale or a strain gage level placed near the pile tip (around 2m depth) is necessary, to
obtain information on concrete Youngs modulus during loading. Telltales are rods
placed in shielded conduits that allow detection of movement at remote locations along
the pile shaft. They require careful installation and securing. The protective conduit must
permit unrestricted movement of the internal rod to occur (CROWTHER, 1988).

When contract piles do not meet their required performance, the load ratio-
maximum settlement curve derived from the preliminary pile is invaluable. Such piles
can be downgraded to a design load at which their load- settlement performance will
meet the specific requirements. Decisive action can be taken immediately to provide an
adequate foundation (BUTTER et al., 1970).


- 11 -
2.4.1 Measurement devices for instrumented piles

Reliable statement about load transfer principle can be obtained from following
devices:

Strain gages,
Load cell at pile tip,
Inductive displacement transducer,
Telltale,
Independent conventional geodetic measurement for control,
Inclinometer (for horizontally loaded piles).

Only a proper selection and combination of independent devices provide a high
degree of accuracy and reliability.

Optimum is to install our strain gages, put in 90 degree to each other, to obtain
information about the bending moment. For reliable data, they should be installed,
protected for damage during concreting process, at the reinforcement. The length of the
strain gages depends on the largest concrete grain size, as grains and concrete matrix do
not follow the same load- strain characteristics.

End- bearing is most reliable measured by load cell. Care has to be taken that no
load bridges occur. This would lead to wrong measured values and does not provide
reliable information about the acting load.
- 12 -
CHAPTER III

INVESTIGATIONS FOR POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENT




To investigate a more reliable design procedure, several instrumented pile load
tests in Southeast- Asian countries (Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia) have been analysed.
Main emphasis is placed on the calculation process. Calculation is enhanced by taking a
different pile stiffness at every strain gage level into account. The observed diameter in
every layer and change in concretes youngs modulus (dependent on strain) are the most
important factors that influence pile stiffness. Consideration of these two factors show an
increase in accuracy of shaft friction values. The calculated results are checked for
reliability and used for prediction by load transfer method (COYLE et al., 1966).

The piles have been tested by static compression test, which is mostly conducted,
due to its simplicity in data interpretation and analysis of shaft friction and end- bearing.


3.1 Data evaluation

Thirteen instrumented tests on large diameter bored piles in Southeast- Asia,
constructed under different geological conditions have been evaluated.

Strain gage, load cell and telltale readings are available for the investigated tests.
They provide useful and reliable information in pile testing. It is necessary to check the
consistency of the telltale output versus strain gage data for the lowest measurement
level. The telltale is very sensitive to damage during the installation process and therefore
might not provide reliable information. When the difference between load calculated by
telltale and strain gage is too large, the strain gage reading is used for further calculation.
The results of this investigation are compared with published data in Chapter IV.

Details on all tests are given in Table 3.1:
- 13 -




Table 3.1: Additional Data on Investigated Piles
No./
Source
Country/
Date
Design
Dia.
(m)
Length
(m)
Drilling
process
Soil at Pile
Tip
Test
load
(ton)
Remarks/
Pile Locations
BP02-A
NTU
Indonesia
03 - 1994
1.00 41.00 Wet (bucket,
temp. casing)
Cemented
Sand
1800

No concreting
report
BP03-A
NTU
Indonesia
04 - 1994
1.00 41.00 Wet (bucket,
temp. casing)
Cemented
Sand
1800 No concreting
report
UTP1

NTU
Singapore

06 - 1995
0.80 13.85 Wet (Flight
auger)
Weathered
Granite
350 No concreting
report
Soft toe
UTP2

NTU
Singapore

07 - 1995
0.80 13.95 Wet (Flight
auger)
Soft Toe 350 No concreting
report,
End bearing pile
PTP3
NTU
Singapore
04 - 1997
0.80 22.00 Wet (Flight
auger)
Weathered
Granite
1160 No concreting
report
Track 10

NTU
Singapore

10 - 1996
0.50 11.30 Wet (Flight
auger)
Granite 350 No concreting
report
End bearing pile
P1
SEAFCO
Thailand
09 - 1997
1.20 46.25 Wet (bucket,
temp. casing)
Very dense
Sand
2000 Bang Na Trad
Road
P2
SEAFCO
Thailand
10 - 1997
1.00 43.00 Wet (bucket,
temp. casing)
Dense
Sand
1300 Asoke Srinakrin
Section
P3
SEAFCO
Thailand
05 - 1997
1.00 49.47 Wet (bucket,
temp. casing)
Hard Clay 1200 Bang Pa In
Pak Kret
Expressway
P4
SEAFCO
Thailand
07 - 1994
1.00 41.00 Wet (bucket,
temp. casing)
Very dense
Sand
840 Bangkhlo Ram
III
P5
SEAFCO
Thailand
08 - 1997
1.20 57.10 Wet (bucket,
temp. casing)
Very dense
Sand
2000 Bang Na Trad
Road
PPLT 22
AIT
Thailand
11 - 1990
1.00 42.70 Wet (bucket,
temp. casing)
Very dense
Sand
1150 2
nd
stage
expressway
PPLT 23
AIT
Thailand
11 - 1990
1.20 46.30 Wet (bucket,
temp. casing)
Hard Clay 1500 2
nd
stage
expressway


Additional data from different investigators are used to increase the reliability of
pile capacity determination. Results from published material that differ from those
evaluated here are discussed to identify possible causes of inaccuracy. Those causing
inaccuracy are not used in further calculation. Used additional data is given below:




- 14 -
Table 3.2: Reference and Title for Additional Data
Name Title
RADHAKRISHNAN (1987) Foundations for Capital Square, Phase I, Kuala Lumpur
CHANG & BROMS (1991) Design of bored piles in residual soils based on field-
performance data
CHANG & GOH (1989) Design of bored piles considering load transfer
WACHIRAPRAKARNPONG
(1993)
Performance of grouted and non- grouted bored piles in
Bangkok subsoils
CHUN (1992) Performance of driven and bored piles in expressway
projects
SOONTORNSIRI (1995) Behaviour & performance of grouted bored piles in
Bangkok subsoils
BALAKRISHNAN (1994) Performance of bored piles in Kenny Hill formation in
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
THASNANIPAN, et al.
(1998)
Large Diameter bored piles in multi- layered soils of
Bangkok


3.2 Reliable calculation procedure

Reasonable results from load tests can only be achieved when the given procedure
(Fig. 3.1) is followed. First, strain gage data has to be plotted versus applied load.
Inconsistent data has to be removed as it affects the outcome (Fig. 3.2). These
inconsistencies can be due to short- circuit or damage in the cable and transducer during
concreting and installation process. Wrong initial readings (Fig. 3.3) have to be adjusted
as they do not represent actual pile behaviour. Their presence is due to incorrect readings
that can take place in the initial part of the test. To increase reliability, two strain gages
are installed in each layer. This provides useful information about bending moments.
Engineering judgement is required to choose appropriate strain values for later analysis.
For the further process, strain gage readings are limited to the initial loading cycle.
Unloading and reloading procedures cause different stress fields in the ground that can
hardly be calculated.

First, the rebar stress data and the section properties for the first measurement
level are used to calculate concrete Youngs modulus which is dependent on the
measured strain. When the trend is acceptable (decrease of modulus with strain, Fig. 3.4)
these values are used to calculate pile stiffness in each level as a function of measured
strain. Pile strain under self weight is not taken in account, it is assumed that it is part of
the initial readings. Once zero reading is done under the assumptions of complete
bonding between steal and concrete; equal strain in steal and concrete in the specific area;
known cross section in the measured section and a constant steal Modulus.

Load =(E
s
A
s
+E
c
A
c
) .
i
(3.1)

Where
i
=measured strain in each strain gage level.
- 15 -
From the load acting at each layer the axial shortening is calculated. Measurement
from telltales are converted to load by:

P =2 (A
s
E
s
+A
c
E
c
) . e/L - P
t
(3.2)

The importance in knowing the section properties to calculate load in each level is
shown in this formulas. From the measured amount of concrete used for every filling
step, the cross sectional area is calculated. Figure 3.5 verifies the importance of the
difference between the obtained in-situ diameter and design diameter. It shows that a
small difference (in a range of 5 - 8%) leads to erroneous output for shaft friction values.
With calculated Youngs modulus and reinforcement properties, reasonable information
about pile stiffness in each layer is obtained (Fig. 3.6). The differences in results of
calculation procedures with an without consideration of actual strain is compared in
Figure 3.7.

From the difference in load between measured strain gage levels, shaft friction for
each layer is derived. Pile shortening as a function of existing load is analysed for each
layer and compared with the telltale results. Proper telltale readings should give the same
axial shortening value as the calculated one from overall pile strain. Otherwise small
corrections on pile stiffness for each layer are necessary. The telltale is very sensitive to
destruction during pile installation process. Lower data output can also occur due to
overfilling with concrete, restricting its movement. Nevertheless, telltale data can be used
to verify the quality of pile concrete, when abrupt changes in readings take place. When
no changes are noted, concrete quality is good and no failure occurred in the pile itself.
After uniformity of measured and calculated strain is obtained, pile movement at the mid-
point of each layer is calculated. Shaft friction development curves for each layer are
obtained with this information. A complete set of Figures, illustrating the whole process
to be done, is given in Figures 3.8 3.13. Results of all tests investigated are presented
according to country and summarised in Appendix A - C.

The results have to be checked for consistency after the calculation process. For
cohesive soils, the - versus c
u
curve is used (Fig. 3.14). For soft clay, results of the vane
shear test provide information about initial soil properties. For stiff clay, correlation of
shaft friction with SPT numbers is given by c
u
=
2
/
3
N. In Figures 3.15 3.17 the
estimated shaft friction for cohesive soils, based on SPT meanvalues are shown, together
with shaft friction values obtained from the pile tests. It is noted that the range is smaller
than expected. Details of the initial load development curves indicate the small
displacement required to mobilise main part of shaft friction. It can be seen that the shape
of the shaft friction activation curve is not similar, even for similar soil layers. This can
be caused by improper conducted pile test.

Figure 3.20 states the influence of construction time on shaft friction degradation.
Shaft friction values decrease with free stand-up time due to swelling in cohesive soils
and caking effects in cohesionless soils. This rough trend shows the importance of a rapid
and efficient pile installation process. It can be used in practice when the degradation of
shaft resistance due to delayed pile installation needs to be compensated.
- 16 -

In cohesionless soils, the established correlation f
s
=N/3 N/5 is used to check
the calculated shaft friction. Figures 3.18 3.19 show the range of acceptable shaft
friction values. Those outside this boundary indicate an error in either the calculation
procedure or construction process.


3.3 Calculation method used for prediction

Based on obtained shaft friction values, the load transfer method by COYLE et al,
(1966) provide a more reliable pile capacity design than the effective stress procedure
currently in use. The calculated data from different countries indicate that the approach in
pile design is to some extent regional and cannot be generalised. Several factors that are
relevant to local piling practice and experience influence pile behaviour. These results are
consistent with the literature. It is stated in DIN 4014 (1990) and BS 2004 (1972) that
regional experience is always more reliable than overall valid approaches and should be
used for design whenever available. Tables 3.3 3.5 present shaft friction values
obtained for each analysed soil condition in the investigated locations and have been used
in design process. These values were taken carefully from the calculated load
displacement curves and represent lower bound values. The values for Bangkok are
comparable to the design values used in Bangkok 2
nd
stage expressway- project. They
represent actual piling design practice under the given soil profile and show the high
degree of accuracy obtained from the described method.

Further investigation (for Singapore and Indonesia) is necessary to prove the
reliability of these data as they might contain shaft friction values that are too low or
high. No data was available here to compare the calculated data with actual design values
used in these countries.


3.3.1 Advantages of load transfer method

The values used in the calculation are based on lower bound values. This seems to
be fairly uneconomical in the beginning compared with the effective stress procedure.
The load transfer method is made more economical by using a lower factor of safety to
compensate for the lower bound values used. Advantages of this calculation are:

Settlement is taken into account,
Artificial load settlement curves for different pile length are generated.

In this approach, a factor of safety equal to two is sufficient to prevent the
foundation from failure in practice. When this factor of safety is applied to the generated
load settlement curve, the difference between required load and design load is smaller
than expected. Comparison of predicted ultimate load divided by the given factor of
safety (Fig. 3.21, 3.22) with design load indicate the reliability of the approach. Cost for
expensive load tests can be saved as design procedure contains less uncertainties. For
- 17 -
large projects it is still preferable to use the normal procedure: conducting load tests in
the beginning to prove if the design load is reliable under in-situ installation procedures.
Initial cost for load tests are high and as overall costs of small construction projects are
low this approach would prove fairly economical (Fig. 3.23).


3.3.2 Calculation of end bearing

End bearing capacity can be obtained from undrained shear strength or effective
stress calculation. The evaluated piles where mostly tested based on a settlement
criterion. Therefore the number of load tests available does not provide reliable
information about required settlement necessary to fully mobilise end bearing as well as
maximum possible end bearing. It was chosen here to use bearing capacity values from
BS 2004 (1972) and DIN 4014 (1990) (Tables 3.6 3.9) as they provide simple and
acceptable formulation of end bearing values. End bearing failure is in both codes
assumed to take place at:

s =0.1 . D (3.3)

Values for end bearing resistance are chosen carefully in these codes as it entirely
depends on in-situ installation practice. Therefore it is not convenient to predict
accurately the end bearing values to be used. Reasonable cleaning time and installation
schedule should be adopted from the beginning. Negative results from improper cleaning
is described in Chapter IV in detail for pile BP02-A (Indonesia) as workmanship was the
reason for early failure of this pile.


3.3.3 Calculation procedure

In this paragraph the procedure to calculate pile capacity based on proposed
design values is presented. After appropriate design values have been chosen, prediction
of pile capacity under similar soil conditions can be made. The pile is divided into several
segments each having a thickness of the corresponding soil layer. Calculation is done
starting from pile tip. For this segment, a settlement is assumed which will cause a
corresponding reaction from the ground in the form of end bearing and shaft friction. The
sum of both resisting forces is applied as the load acting on the top of the segment in the
first iteration step. This load in turn causes a strain of the pile segment, mobilising
additional shaft friction. The addition of the load acting of the top of the segment and
additional shaft friction causes further pile strain. This again mobilises additional shaft
friction. An iteration process is applied in this segment until the additional shaft friction
due to pile strain becomes negligible. Then the final total force acting on the top of the
first segment is applied as the reaction force on the base of the next segment. Similarly
this reaction mobilises shaft friction. The iterative process is applied in this segment as
well. This procedure is followed through the entire pile length to obtain the load acting on
the pile top and its corresponding settlement.
CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS


In this chapter the results of the investigated piles and the predictions are presented
and discussed. Actual piling practice is reviewed critically and possible causes for
inaccuracies in predicted shaft friction values are presented. Suggestions for
improvements are given then.


4.1 General

The investigated piles have been constructed under various geological conditions.
Piles in Bangkok are friction piles while in Singapore piling practice is based on end
bearing piles. This difference is due to varying underlying soil conditions. First the most
reliable pile test data are discussed, before the less reliable ones are analysed. Due to the
of lack of reliable data available, no probabilistic method can be used to obtain reliable
mean values for design. Lower bound values are used for calculation. The ultimate load in
the recommended procedure appears to be much higher (Fig. 3.21, 3.22) than those
obtained from pile tests. Once a factor of safety is applied, the working load for both cases
does not seem to differ significantly. This is due to the factor that a lower factor of safety
is applied in the more reliable method recommended.

Installation of all analysed piles was done using wet drilling process. This method
is mostly adopted in Southeast- Asia. During installation a temporary casing prevents soil
with low undrained shear strength from collapsing. Excavation is done by bucket. This
process is flexible in situations where pile diameter and length have to be altered due to
in-situ soil conditions that differ from prediction. To reduce construction time and degree
of disturbance, different drilling techniques have been introduced resulting in an increase
in the achieved pile capacity. Bentonite slurry was used as stabilising agent in all tests.
4.2 Soil conditions

Bangkok subsoil condition is formed by a geological depression filled with alluvial
and deltaic sediments as well as shallow sea sediments (LIMANHADI, 1992). Layers of
clay with varying strength (increasing with depth) and sand layers alternate. Thickness of
these layers vary, but show remarkable uniformity over the whole Bangkok area. The
engineering properties of each soil layer have been investigated and reviewed in several
publications (PIMPASUGDI, 1989; LIMANHADI, 1992). A cross section and a typical
soil profile are given in Appendix A together with calculated results.

The investigated piles in Singapore have been constructed in residual soils.
Varying strength and thickness of soil layers which depend on the weathering grade cause
main problems under these conditions. The soils are highly variable, spatially
heterogeneous, often unsaturated, overconsolidated with respect to the overburden and
have a high strength and low compressibility (CHANG & GOH, 1988). Piles are mostly
drilled down to bedrock. Therefore only end bearing is considered in design (CHANG &
WONG, 1987). Piles in this analysis were embedded in strong granite and weathered rock.
One pile was constructed with a soft toe for investigation of shaft friction development.
The piles placed in weathered rock show behaviour comparable to piles founded in very
dense sand. Soil profile from pile locations and obtained results are given in Appendix B.

Soil conditions for the constructed piles in J akarta (Indonesia) are to some extent
comparable with the Bangkok subsoil profile. J akarta lies on an alluvial flood plain with
sand and silt layers sedimented in alternating sequence. The uppermost layers show low
resistance to SPT test, but these values increase with depth. Analysed piles were founded
in a very dense cemented sand layer. Because of artesian water in the alternating sand
layers, care has to be taken during pile installation. Soil profile and obtained results under
these conditions are given in Appendix C.
4.3 Results of investigation

As can be seen from load displacement curves of different soil layers (Fig. 3.15
3.19), the displacement required to fully mobilise develop shaft friction does not follow a
general trend. Shaft friction values are fully mobilised under very small displacements for
most layers (Detail Fig. 3.15 3.19). In a limited number of cases it has been observed
that larger displacement at soil pile interface can be required for full mobilisation. This is
consistent with the literature, where MEISSNER (1979) observed that ultimate shaft
friction can be achieved at displacements larger than 2 cm. STAMM (1990) reported that
only small changes in grain size and grain size distribution is required for significant
change of shaft friction. Strain softening or hardening that takes place depending on the
soil properties. Finally it can be said that even under small displacements (5 8 mm)
where pile friction is not entirely mobilised, its magnitude is sufficient to provide required
pile resistance.

The results from the investigations in Bangkok have a high degree of reliability.
All necessary information for proper calculation was provided. The recommended
procedure was adopted, producing results with a high degree of reliability. Comparison of
calculated shaft friction with values obtained from SPT test correlations show good
agreement in both procedures (cohesive and cohesionless soil). This indicates good piling
practice. It is observed that the SPT correlation for cohesionless soils (f
s
=N/3 N/5)
leads to good results in medium dense to dense sand (1
st
sand layer). In very dense sand
(2
nd
sand layer) the calculated and correlated results differ slightly. Possible reasons is the
high SPT number required to penetrate the ground. Common practice in the high
blowcount range is that the SPT test is terminated before the required 30 cm penetration is
achieved. The SPT number is recorded then as a value higher than the actual blowcount by
correlating the achieved and the required penetration. It has to be investigated, whether
this is a common difference or only existent in these tests.

Shaft friction decreases with free stand-up time. Previous findings
(THASNANIPAN et al., 1998) and those found in this analysis are shown clearly in
Figures 3.20, 3.20a. It can be observed that there are differences in the initial estimation of
shaft friction values in both findings. This is due to the fact that shaft friction values are
derived here from SPT test correlations which do not represent real values. The results of
these correlation is usually presented in a range of values. Therefore the results strongly
depend on the exact values taken within these upper and lower limits. Observed residual
shaft friction values have to be used in the ratio (expected shaft friction/ observed shaft
friction), so that pile testing must be done until failure load is reached. Apart from these
differences in soil properties, swelling and caking effects are other possible factors
causing different results.

Further, it is observed that shaft friction values for each pile do not show the same
characteristics. A low shaft frictional resistance in one layer does not indicate that the
other layers shows similar behaviour. From Figures 3.15 3.17, it can be seen that low
shaft frictional resistance is mobilised in soft clay for pile P3 whereas shaft friction in
medium clay is high. Pile PPLT 23 shows high resistance in stiff clay and lower resistance
in medium clay and 1
st
sand.

End bearing resistance indicates a large scatter in results. The piles investigated in
this report show high as well as low end bearing values. The limited data available caused
large scatter in results. This scatter could not be analysed logically.

The Results from Singapore were analysed carefully, as no information was
provided on the amount of concrete used. Nevertheless, analysis on these piles show
results that differ quite significantly from those in Bangkok. This enables a useful
platform for comparison and deduction. As explained in Chapter III, improper analysis has
lead to some unacceptable values of shaft friction in piles investigated in Singapore. To
check the reliability of these values, expected shaft friction values were derived from the
mentioned SPT correlation. The correlation was found for sedimentary soil. A fair
agreement is observed in this comparison.

The vs. c
u
correlation by CHANG et al. (1988, Fig. 3.14) shows that stays
constant at 0.3 for all c
u
values. This value is derived from the relationship f
s
=2 . N found
by plotting all data points like shown in Figure 4.1. No comparable relationship could be
found for critical displacement (z
sc
) vs. SPT. Also the often used ratio f
s
/z
sc
does not
provide a clear trend. This indicates the large scatter obtained in residual soil. The
formulation f
s
=2 . N might therefore be a usable formulation of average shaft friction in
Singapore. This formula does not indicate overall valid design in residual soils.
BALAKRISHNAN (1994) found slightly different values for Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
soil condition. The especially when lower shaft friction is present. Failure mechanisms
indicate that the ratio of shaft friction/ undrained shear strength is coincides with
decreasing c
u
. The proposed curve does not show this behaviour.

Load carrying principle of the piles evaluated here are different from piles
constructed under Bangkok soil conditions. The developed end bearing provides high
support. Therefore shaft friction cannot be fully mobilised under working load in the
lower pile segments, as movement is restricted by end bearing. From the given pile tests
no conclusion can be made on interaction of end bearing and shaft friction. This
relationship can be found from findings by WILLIAMS et al. (1981) and HORVARTH et
al. (1983). It is found from calculation, that the settlement observed at ultimate testing
load is sufficient to mobilise substantial shaft friction throughout the entire pile length.

It can also be concluded that proper base cleaning is important. To investigate this
a pile constructed with soft toe (UTP 1) can be used to simulate improper bas cleaning.
The settlement observed is significant until the settlement reduced the soft toe effect. After
this point further load increase takes place when the end bearing is obtained from the
underlying rock layer.

The Test results from Indonesia are not reliable. Calculated shaft friction values
contain errors due to incomplete data. The calculation procedure could not be done in a
proper manner. The achieved results sometimes do not fit with the correlations used to
check shaft friction. Piles showing failure characteristics provide valuable information.
Pile BP02-A failed earlier than expected due to the soft toe effect. It can be seen from
Appendix C that load capacity increases slowly with settlement. This indicates slow
densification with settlement at pile tip. The observed behaviour indicates the importance
of careful pile installation. End bearing is very sensitive to the installation process.
Possible failure reasons are: inflow of water when artesian water is present, and
supporting liquid in the column does not have sufficient height; loosening possibly due to
suction during fast bucket removal. The results of an optimised process can be seen from
pile BP03-A which reached the required load settlement criterion easily.


4.4 Results of prediction

The lower bound shaft friction values calculated from the analysed pile tests in
Bangkok can be applied for all piles within the same soil conditions. From the prediction,
some tested piles in practice show agreement indicating good prediction. Others show fair
agreement. Capacity reached under good workmanship is higher than predicted values.
This indicates that for further design shaft friction above the lower bound can be used. The
results show an acceptable agreement with field behaviour at working load. In the early
stage of design, this can be used as a reliable approach to estimate working load as a
function of settlement.

Results of Singapore show different behaviour. Although measured and calculated
ultimate loads differ significantly, a good agreement is achieved under working load,
which to an acceptable degree coincides with the measured value. This is due to shaft
friction taken in account in the calculation. Prediction of pile UTP 1 (soft toe), show that
values chosen for shaft friction are reasonable. The difference between predicted and
measured ultimate load is due to conservative assumptions for end bearing. Low values
from DIN 4014 (1990) and BS 2004 (1972) were chosen for design because of lacking
regional data. Local experience on end bearing capacity should be used for further design.
Substantial cost can be implemented by good prediction and by reducing the number of
pile tests conducted.

Actual design neglects shaft friction to some extent in Singapore (CHANG et al.,
1987). The results presented here indicate this highly uneconomical approach. In Figure
3.21, 3.22 predicted load settlement curves are shown based on lower bound values as
well as measured field behaviour. The working load and the calculated ultimate capacity is
indicated as well. It is noted that the working load for the prediction still provides a factor
of safety of around 3. The corresponding settlement to this working load is in a reasonable
range, and indicates the reliability of the design procedure.
Shaft friction should be considered in further design.

No conclusions can be taken from Indonesian tests. Reliable data is necessary to
give a final statement and a reliable design. Calculated shaft friction values depend on
reliable soil parameters obtained from field tests. Due to this, data of both tests analysed
are considered in choosing lower bound design values. This leads to underestimation of
pile capacity. Careful research has to be done to overcome the lack of data. The
importance of proper piling practice and clear construction records is described later.


4.5 Comparison with published data

The analysed shaft friction values are compared with previous publications.
However, due to insufficient material, this could only be done for piles in Bangkok.

A large difference between calculated and published data is observed. Shaft
friction indicate erroneous shaft friction values for several layers. Shaft friction obtained
from calculation and published material are given in the table.

Soil layer Soft clay
[t/m
2
]
Stiff clay
[t/m
2
]
1
st
sand
[t/m
2
]
2
nd
sand
[t/m
2
]
Recommended values 1.5 2.0 3.5 9.1 6.6 12.1 12.1 25.1
THASNANIPAN (1998) 6.0 13.9 7.5 18.8 11.2 19.9 15.6 25.1
2
nd
stage expressway project 1.3 - 2.0 3.7 6.8 6.3 7.6 11.4
Analas S. (1995) 3.5 6.6 3.1 5.9 2.8 9.7 0.2 2.6
CHUN, 1992 - 9.1 24.2 15.1 27.4 15.2 18.1
NG, 1993 6.23 8.5 28.0 5.81 7.8 8.6
Table 4.1: Comparison of different proposed shaft friction values

Most shaft friction values given for different soil layers in previously published
material cannot be used in design practice. These published calculation procedures should
be checked as incorrect sublayer shaft friction values somehow produce overall pile
capacity that agrees well with pile tests. Load was calculated under constant diameter and
concrete Youngs modulus value obtained from test cube. Youngs modulus from test
cubes are taken at a fixed strain. This cannot lead to reliable field data evaluation. As
described in Chapter III, small changes in diameter and Youngs modulus (function of
strain) lead to different results.

THASNANIPAN et al. (1998) presented shaft friction values obtained from pile
tests that ranged from 50% higher to 27% lower than values obtained from SPT test
correlation. Possible reasons are stated. They expect test load (not yet fully mobilised
shaft friction as failure load was not reached), to cause the lower difference. These
conclusion contain reasonable and non reasonable assumptions. As it was shown that only
small pile displacement is necessary to fully develop shaft friction, a top settlement from
3 4 cm already develops full shaft friction in most layers. The assumption made can only
be valid for the lowest soil layers of very long piles.

Possible reasons for too high shaft friction values are stated as increase in diameter
in the field due to casing removal or an increase in c
u
due to higher values in the
weathered crust. The assumptions made are correct. When the influence of the weathered
crust is neglected, an increase in diameter in order from 5-10% due to the casing would
lead to reasonable calculation result. When calculated shaft friction values are too high,
used diameter in calculation is too small. The reverse effect is observed when calculated
loads are too small.

Comparison of results with presented values for 2
nd
stage expressway project show
good correlation with the observed values given in this research.
Based on the achieved knowledge, data used in predictions should be reviewed
carefully and checked for reliability. With the amount of data available for these soil
conditions, reliable pile capacity estimation must be possible.


4.6 Increase in pile capacity

It is shown that pile capacity and load- settlement characteristics depend to a high
degree on the construction process. Higher pile capacities would be preferable for more
economical foundations. In order to achieve this more emphasis has to be put on the
construction process. Higher shaft friction values can be achieved, by use of different
stabilising agent (polymer), shorter construction time and toe and shaft grouting. Research
is necessary on these improvements to state definite values of the higher achieved
capacity.
4.7 Constructive recommendations

During data evaluation, several points were observed, that needed to be improved
in further test pile construction and presentation of data.

Mistakes in pile tests can occur in every stage. The importance of a proper
conducted load test is obvious from strain gage data output of pile PPLT 23. The strain vs.
load graphs contains discontinuities that indicate a too fast loading process (Fig. 4.1). The
load was not kept stable for a sufficient time to build up static equilibrium. When the next
load increment was applied strain (and therefore load) in these layers increased drastically.
Measurement can be optimised, by taking the given settlement criterion (next load
increment is applied after a specific settlement rate is reached) and a strain gage criterion
in account. Load should not be applied when strain gage readings for lower pile sections
still show an increase in strain. The effects of these strain gage data output are present in
the whole calculation process. In the load displacement curve shaft friction values that are
not representing real behaviour (Fig. 4.2) are observed. They are higher for upper layers
than the expected values, in lower layers they are smaller. These values have to be
removed for further calculation, leading to less reliable data.

It is further noted from the available reports, that less care is taken on construction
reports. Only this information leads to reasonable statements on possible failure modes.
The same conclusion is valid for soil profiles. Less care is taken to clearly describe soil
conditions at test pile location. Test piles are mostly constructed outside the foundation
area, a soil profile equal to the foundation report is attached. As strain gages are usually
installed on top of each layer, differences exist between given strain gage level and soil
profile. In the worst case it is impossible to gain reliable information which soil exists
between adjacent strain gage levels. Reasonable soil investigation must be adopted as
well. SPT test does not provide reliable information on strength of soft clay.

Emphasis should also be put on the concreting record. Measurement after each
filling step provides necessary information about the existing diameter. The record must
be written clearly, additional drawings must lead to the same result. Concreting record
should be extended to provide information about concrete level while the casing is
removed. From this the diameter in the uppermost level can be calculated, and information
on the interaction of fresh concrete pressure to unstable soil is provided as well.

For later investigation, all these records should be attached to the load test report.
Useful drilling records provide information about the entire construction process. When
reports are written in the field they should refer to one fixed point, several measurements
to different locations does not provide reliable information (top casing, ground level and
mean sea level).
- 25 -
CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS




The load transfer characteristics of bored piles investigated in this study show a
high degree of dependency on proper calculation procedure. Results calculated by the
authors recommended method show smaller scatter than in the previous literature. The
differences were discussed and it is concluded that they are due to improper calculation
procedure when the measured strains where converted to load. The significant difference
in the calculated shaft friction values as a result of the authors method (e.g. for soft clay
layer) is shown below:


Analysis based on design diameter does not lead to reasonable results. The shaft
friction values are higher than actual because obtained in-situ diameter is usually higher
due to removal of casing and inconsistencies in installation procedure. Although larger
diameter is used by taking the average amount of concrete used throughout pile length in
order to compensate for this to some extent, the reduced shaft friction values obtained
still are higher than actual. This could be due to the inconsistent diameter and concrete
Youngs modulus throughout the pile length. In the method recommended by the author,
the diameter and concrete Modulus are assigned according to pile segment and full
compensation for casing observed, producing highly representative shaft friction values.
Results similar to those obtained for soft clay layer were observed for all layers and soil
conditions.

The given correlations for shaft friction based on SPT blowcounts provide
acceptable results. Shaft friction values for cohesive soils in Bangkok, calculated by the
procedure recommended by the author show values slightly higher than those presented
in previous literature (Fig. 3.14). Another fact supporting this observation is the noted
increase in shaft friction in all layers for more recently constructed piles (P1P5). This
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
1
S
h
a
f
t

F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

[
t
/
m
2
]
Design Diameter
Average Diameter Based on
Total Amount ofConcrete
Segmental Diameter based
on Amount of Concrete in
each Pile Segment
c
u
fromSite
Investigation
- 26 -
could indicate that installation process has been improved in the last 6 8 years. At
present, pile installation process could still be improved by decreasing construction time
and increase efficiency. A further increasing in capacity is expected when achieved
theoretical understanding is applied to practice.
- 27 -
REFERENCES




ATA, A. A., ONEILL, M. W. (1998): Side- wall stability and side- shear resistance in
bored piles constructed with high- molecular- weight polymer slurry, Proc. of
Deep Foundations on bored and auger piles, Rotterdam

BALAKRISHNAN, E. G. (1994): Performance of bored piles in Kenny Hill formation
(weathered meta- sedimentary) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, M. Eng. Thesis,
GT934, AIT, Bangkok

BAUER (2000): http://www.bauer.de/deutsch/gbm/prod_frame.htm

BRITISH STANDARD INSTITUTION (1972): CP 2004: Code of practice for
foundations, British Standard Institution, London,

BROMS, B., HANSBO, S. (1981): Foundations on soft clay, Soft clay engineering,
Developments in Geotechnical Engineering 20, pp. 417 - 468

BURLAND, J . (1973): Shaft friction of piles in clay a simple fundamental approach,
Ground Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 30 - 42

BUTTER, F. G., MORTON, K. (1970): Specification and performance of test piles in
clay, Behaviour of piles, Proceedings of the conference by the Institution of
Civil Engineers, London

CHANG, M. F., BROMS, B. B. (1991): Design of bored piles in residual soils based on
field- performance data, Canadian Geot. J ournal Vol. 28, pp. 200 - 209

CHANG, M. F., GOH, A. T. C. (1988): Behaviour of bored piles in residual soils and
weathered rocks of Singapore, Research Report CSE/1988/17, Nanyang
Technological Institute, Singapore

CHANG, M. F., GOH, A. T. C. (1989): Design of bored piles considering load transfer,
Geot. Engineering, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 1 - 18

CHANG, M. F., WONG, I. H. (1987): Shaft friction of drilled piers in weathered rock,
Proc. of the 6
th
Int. Congress on Rock Mechanics, Canada, I, pp. 313 - 318

CHUN, H. H. (1992): Performance of driven and bored piles in expressway projects, M.
Eng. Thesis, GT913, AIT, Bangkok

CROWTHER, C. C. (1988): Load testing of deep foundations, J ohn Wiley & Sons, New
York
- 28 -

DIN (1990): DIN 4014 German Industrial Code of Practice (in German)

COYLE, H. M., REESE, L. C. (1966): Load transfer for axially loaded piles in clay,
J ournal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 92, No.2, pp.
1 - 26

FARMER, I. W., BUCKLEY, P. J . C., SLIWINSKI, Z. (1970): The effect of Bentonite
on the skin friction of cast in place piles, Proc. of the conference behaviour of
piles by the institution of civil engineers, London

FINDLAY, J . D., BROOKS, N. J ., MURE, J . N., HERON, W. (1997): Design of axially
loaded piles United Kingdom practice, Proc. of ERTC3 Seminar, Brussels,
1997

FRANKE (1996): Load carrying principle of piles under axial loading,
Grundbautaschenbuch, Teil 3, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin (in German)

FULLER, F. M. (1983): Engineering of pile installation, McGraw Hill, New York

GOEDECKE, F.-J ., SCHULER, G. (1986): Foundations on bored piles Experiences,
examples and evaluation of test loading, Bautechnik 63, H. 5

HARTUNG, M. (1995): Quality ensurance during pile installation, Pile Symposium of
TU Braunschweig, Germany (in German)

HORVATH, R.G., KENNEY, T.C. (1979): Shaft resistance of the rock- socketed drilled
piers, Proceedings on the Symposium on Deep Foundations, ASCE National
Convention, Atlanta, pp. 183 - 214

LIMANHADI, B. (1992): Prediction of pile settlement with quantified uncertainty for the
second- stage Bangkok expressway, M. Eng. Thesis No. GT 91 9, AIT,
Bangkok

MEISSNER, H. (1979): Load carrying principle of axially loaded bored, Geotechnik 2,
H. 2, (in German)

MEYERHOF, G. G. (1986): Theory and practice of pile foundations, Proc. of the int.
Conference on deep foundations, Beijing, 1986

MYINT, Z. W. (1989): Pile driving criteria for residual soil in Thailand, M. Eng. Thesis,
GE 98 32, AIT, Bangkok

NG, K. C. (1983): The construction problems and performance of large bored piles in
second sand layer, M. Eng. Thesis No. GT8226, AIT, Bangkok

- 29 -
NOWACK, F., GARTUNG, E. (1983): Instrumentation of cast- in- situ concrete piles for
vertical and horizontal load testing, Geotechnik, 6, Heft 1 (in German)

OONCHITTIKUL, S. (1990): Performance of bored piles in Bangkok subsoils, M. Eng.
Thesis No. GT8910, AIT, Bangkok

ONEILL, M.W., REESE, L.C. (1972): Behaviour of bored piles in Beaumont clay,
ASCE J ournal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, 98 (SM2):
195 - 213

PIMPASUGDI, S. (1989):Performance evaluation of bored, driven and auger press piles
in Bangkok subsoils, M. Eng. Thesis No. GT 88 -12, AIT, Bangkok

POULOS, H. G., DAVIS, E. H. (1980): Pile foundations analysis and design, J ohn Wiley
& Sons, New York

REESE, L. C., WRIGTH, S.J . (1997): Drilled shaft design and construction guidelines
manual, U.S. Federal Department of Transportation, Washington

RIANRUKWONG, S. (1993): Prediction of pile Settlement by inverse analysis method,
M. Eng. Thesis, GT 92 12, AIT Bangkok

RODATZ, W. (1998): Vorlesungsumdruck Grundbau, Bodenmechanik, Unterirdisches
Bauen, TU Braunschweig (in German)

ROWE, R. K., ARMITAGE, H. H. (1986): A design method for drilled piers in soft rock,
Can. Geot. J ournal, Ottawa, 24, pp. 126 - 142

SOONTORNSIRI, A. (1995): Behaviour & performance of grouted bored piles in
Bangkok subsoils, M. Eng. Thesis, GT 94 11, AIT, Bangkok

STAMM, J . (1990): Aktivierung von Spitzendruck und Mantelreibung eines Pfahles,
Bautechnik 67, H. 10 (in German)

THASNANIPAN, N., TANSENG, P. (1998): Large Diameter Bored Piles in multi-
layered soils of Bangkok, Proc. of deep foundations and auger piles,
Rotterdam, 1998

WACHIRAPRAKARNPONG, A. (1993): Performance of grouted and non- grouted
bored piles in Bangkok subsoils, M. Eng. Thesis No. GT 92 8, AIT,
Bangkok

WEISS, F. (1965): Die Wandreibung an im Kontraktorverfahren unter
Bentonitsuspension geschutteten Betonwaenden, Bautechnik, 42, pp. 257 263
(in German)

- 30 -
WEISS, K., HANACK, S. (1983): Der Einfluss der Lagerungsdichte des Bodens und der
Herstellungsart von Grossbohrpfaehlen auf deren Tragfaehigkeit, TU Berlin

WILLIAMS, A. F., PELLS, P.J .N. (1981): Side resistance rock sockets in sandstone,
mudstone and shale, Can. Geot. J ournal 18/4, pp. 502 - 513
- 31 -















TABLES
- 32 -
Table 3.3: Shaft Friction Values and Related Crit. Displacement, lower bound, Bangkok
Soil Shaft friction Critical
Displacement
[-] [t/m
2
] [mm]
Soft Clay 1.5 10
Medium Clay 5 4
1
st
Sand 8 12
Stiff Clay 6 9
2
nd
Sand 16 10

Table 3.3a: Shaft Friction Values and Related Crit. Displacement, upper bound, Bangkok
Soil Shaft friction Critical
Displacement
[-] [t/m
2
] [mm]
Soft Clay 2.1 6
Medium Clay 6 7
1
st
Sand 10 8
Stiff Clay 8 7
2
nd
Sand 25 9

Table 3.4: Shaft Friction Values and Related Critical Displacement, Singapore
Soil Shaft friction Critical
Displacement
[-] [t/m
2
] [mm]
Fill Soil 12 15
Peaty Soil 12.5 16
Loose to Silty Fill Sand 6.5 7
Dense Silty Sand 12.5 19
Hard Clayey silt 13 15
Very Dense Sand 18 9
Stiff Silty Clay 9 13
Fractured Siltstone 12 14
Very Hard Siltstone 20 15


Table 3.5: Shaft Friction Values and Related Critical Displacement, Indonesia
Soil Shaft Friction Critical
Displacement
[-] [t/m
2
] [mm]
Sandy Silt, Stiff 5 11
Clayey Silt, Very Stiff 6 13
Sandy Silt, Hard 7 9
Sand, Very Dense 15 12

- 33 -


Table 3.6: Presumed Bearing Values under Vertical Static Loading (BS 2004)
Group Class Types of rocks and soil Presumed
bearing capacity
Remarks
KN/m
2

I
Rocks
1 Hard Igneous and Gneissic
Rocks in Sound Condition
10000 These values are
based in the
assumption that
the foundations are
carried down to
unweathered rock
2 Hard Limestones and Hard
Sandstones
4000
3 Schists and Slates 3000
4 Hard Shales, Hard mudstones
and Soft Sandstones
2000
5 Soft Shales and Soft
mudstones
600 - 1000
6 Hard Sound Chalk, Soft
Limestone
600
7 Thinly bedded Limestones,
Sandstones, Shales
To be assessed
after inspection
8 Heavily Shattered Rocks
II
Non-
cohesive
soils
9 Compact Gravel, or Compact
Sand and Gravel
>600 Width of
foundation (B) not
less than 1 m.
Groundwater level
assumed to be a
depth not less than
B below the base
of the foundation.
For relative
density and
groundwater level
see 2.2.2.3.2
10 Medium Dense Gravel, or
Medium Dense Sand and
Gravel
200 - 600
11 Loose Gravel, or Loose Sand
and Gravel
<200
12 Compact Sand >300
13 Medium Dense Sand 100 - 300
14 Loose Sand <100
III
Cohesive
soils
15 Very Stiff Boulder Clays and
Hard Clays
300 - 600 Group III is
susceptible to
long- term
consolidation
settlement (see
2.1.2.2.2) For
consistencies of
clays see Table 2.
16 Stiff Clays 150 - 300
17 Firm Clays 75 - 150
18 Soft Clays and Silts <75
19 Very Soft Clays and Silts Not applicable
IV 20 Peat and Organic Soils See 2.2.2.3.4
V 21 Made Ground or Fill See 2.2.2.3.5
- 34 -


Table 3.7: Characteristic Tip Resistance q
bk
Depending on the Settlement Index s/D and
the Average Cone Penetration Resistance q
ck
in Cohesionless Soils (DIN 4014)
Settlement Index s/D
or s/D
f

Characteristic Tip Resistance q
bk
[MN/m
2
]
for an Average Cone Penetration Resistance q
ck
[MN/m
2
]
10 15 20 25
0.02 0.70 1.05 1.4 1.75
0.03 0.90 1.35 1.8 2.25
0.10 =s
g
2.00 3.00 3.5 4.00
*) intermediate values are allowed to be interpolated linearly.
Using a bored pile with base enlargement the values must be reduced to 75%.




Table 3.8: Characteristic Tip Resistance q
bk
Depending on the Settlement Index s/D and
the Undrained Shear Strength c
uk
in Cohesive Soils ( DIN 4014)
Settlement Index s/D
or s/D
f

Characteristic Tip Resistance q
bk
[MN/m
2
]
for an Undrained Shear Strength c
uk
[MN/m
2
]
0.1 0.2
0.02 0.35 0.90
0.03 0.45 1.10
0.10 =s
g
0.80 1.50
*) intermediate values are allowed to be interpolated linearly.
Using a bored pile with base enlargement the values must be reduced to 75%.




Table 3.9: Failure Loads for Shaft (q
s1k
) and End Resistance (q
b1k
) or Piles in Rock (DIN
4014)
q
uk
q
b1k
q
s1k

MN/m
2
MN/m
2
MN/m
2

0.5 1.5 0.08
5.0 5.0 0.5
20.0 10.0 0.5



- 35 -















APPENDIX
Fig.: Load Settlement Curve (BP02-A - Indonesia)
Fig.: End bearing & Shaft Friction vs. Settlement (BP02-A - Indonesia)
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]

Load [ton]
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0
Load [ton]
Settlement [mm]
Cumulative Load
End bearing
Shaft Friction
Fig.: Concrete Young's Modulus vs. Strain (BP02-A, BP03-A - Indonesia)
Fig. : Predicted vs. Measured (BP02-A, BP03-A - Indonesia)
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Y
o
u
n
g
'
s

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

[
t
s
c
]

Strain [microstrain]
BP02-A
BP03-A
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]

Load [ton]
Measured BP02-A
Predicted
Measured BP03-A
Fig.: Development of Shaft Friction (BP02-A - Indonesia)
Fig.: Development of Shaft Friction (BP03-A - Indonesia)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0
S
h
a
f
t

F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

[
t
/
m
2
]

Displacement (mm)
Silty Clay, 2.0 - 5.0 m
Sandy Silt, 5.0 - 8.0 m
Sand, 8.0 m- 12.0 m
Clayey Silt, 12.0 - 18.0 m
Silty Clay, 18.0 - 24.0 m
Clayey Silt, 24.0 - 30.0 m
Sand, 30.0 - 36.0 m
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
S
h
a
f
t

F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

[
t
/
m
2
]

Displacement (mm)
Silty Clay, 2.0 - 8.0 m
Sand, 8.0 m- 12.0 m
Clayey Silt, 12.0 - 18.0 m
Silty Clay, 18.0 - 24.0 m
Clayey Silt, 24.0 - 30.0 m
Sand, 30.0 - 36.0 m
Fig.: Load Settlement Curve (BP03-A - Indonesia)
Fig. : End bearing & Shaft Friction vs. Settlement (BP03-A - Indonesia)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]

Load [ton]
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0
Load [ton]
Settlement [mm]
Cumulative Load
End bearing
Shaft Friction
Fig.: Strain vs.Load (BP03-A - Indonesia)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
Level A - 2.00m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
Level C - 8.00m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 500 1000 1500 2000 Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
Level D - 12.00m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
Level E - 18.00m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 500 1000 1500 2000 Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
Level F - 24.00m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
Level B - 5.00m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 500 1000 1500 2000 Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
Level G - 30.00m
0
50
100
150
200
0 500 1000 1500 2000 Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
Level H - 36.00m
Strain[microstrain]
Fig.: Strain Distribution with Depth (BP03-A - Indonesia)
Fig.: Load Distribution with Depth (BP03-A - Indonesia)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 200 400 600 800 1000
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]

Strain [microstrain]
150 ton
300 ton
450 ton
600 ton
750 ton
900 ton
1050 ton
1200 ton
1350 ton
1500 ton
1800 ton
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]

Load [ton]
150 ton
300 ton
450 ton
600 ton
750 ton
900 ton
1050 ton
1200 ton
1350 ton
1500 ton
1800 ton
Fig.: Strain vs. Axial Load Initial Loading Cycle (BP02-A - Indonesia)
Fig.: Strain vs. Axial Load Initial Loading Cycle (BP03-A - Indonesia)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
Level A - 2.00m
Level B - 5.00m
Level C - 8.00m
Level D - 12.00m
Level E - 18.00m
Level F - 24.00m
Level G - 30.00m
Level H - 36.00m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0

Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
Level A - 2.00m
Level B - 5.00m
Level C - 8.00m
Level D - 12.00m
Level E - 18.00m
Level F - 24.00m
Level G - 30.00m
Level H - 36.00m
Fig.: Load Settlement Curve (Pile P1 - Bangkok)
Fig. : End bearing & Shaft Friction vs. Settlement (Pile P1 - Bangkok)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]

Load [ton]
0.0
500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
L
o
a
d

[
t
o
n
]

Settlement [mm]
Cumulative Load
End bearing
Shaft Friction
Fig. 3.8: Strain vs. Load (Pile P1 - Bangkok)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
A1- 2.00m
A2- 2.00m
A3- 2.00m
A4- 2.00m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
C1 - 22.50m
C2 - 22.50m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
D1- 25.50m
D2- 25.50m
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
F1 -36.00m
F2 - 36.00m
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
G1-39.00m
G2- 39.00m
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
H1- 46.00m
H2- 46.00m
H3- 46.00m
H4- 46.00m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
B1 - 16.50m
B2 - 16.50m
Fig. 3.10: Strain Distribution with Depth (Pile P1 - Bangkok)
Fig. 3.11: Load Distribution with Depth (Pile P1 - Bangkok)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]

Strain [microstrain]
162.5 ton
325.0 ton
487.5 ton
650.0 ton
812.5 ton
975.0 ton
1137.0 ton
1300.0 ton
1462.5 ton
1625.0 ton
1787.5 ton
2000.0 ton
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]

Load [ton]
162.5 ton
325.0 ton
487.5 ton
650.0 ton
812.5 ton
975.0 ton
1137.0 ton
1300.0 ton
1462.5 ton
1625.0 ton
1787.5 ton
2000.0 ton
Fig. 3.9: Strain vs. Axial Load Initial Loading Cycle (Pile P1 - Bangkok)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0 1600.0 1800.0 2000.0
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
Level A - 2.00m
Level B - 16.50m
Level C - 22.50m
Level D - 25.50m
Level F - 36.00m
Level G - 39.00m
Level H - 46.00m
Fig. 3.12: Development of Shaft Friction (Pile P1 - Bangkok)
Fig. 3.13: Development of Shaft Friction (Pile P1 - Bangkok)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
S
h
a
f
t

f
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

[
t
/
m
2
]

Top Displacement [mm]
Soft Clay, 0.0 - 16.50 m
Stiff Silty Clay, 16.5 - 22.5 m
Very Stiff Silty Clay, 22.5 m- 25.5 m
Very Stiff Silty Clay, Sand, 25.5 - 36.0 m
Very DenseSilty Sand, 36.0 - 39.0 m
Very DenseClayey Sand, 39.0 - 46.0 m
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
S
h
a
f
t

f
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

[
t
/
m
2
]

Displacement [mm]
Soft Clay, 0.0 - 16.50 m
Stiff Silty Clay, 16.5 - 22.5 m
Very Stiff Silty Clay, 22.5 m- 25.5 m
Very Stiff Silty Clay, Sand, 25.5 - 36.0 m
Very DenseSilty Sand, 36.0 - 39.0 m
Very DenseClayey Sand, 39.0 - 46.0 m
Fig.: Load Settlement Curve (Pile P2 - Bangkok)
Fig. 15: End bearing & Shaft Friction vs. Settlement (Pile P2 - Bangkok)
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]

Load [ton]
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
L
o
a
d

[
t
o
n
]

Settlement [mm]
Cumulative Load
End bearing
Shaft Friction
Fig.: Strain vs. Load (Pile P2 - Bangkok)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 500 1000 1500 Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
A1- 1.00m
A2- 1.00m
A3- 1.00m
A4- 1.00m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 500 1000 1500 Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
C1 - 24.87m
C2 - 24.87m
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 500 1000 1500 Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
D1- 30.87m
D2- 30.87m
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 500 1000 1500 Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
E1 - 36.87m
E2 - 36.87m
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 500 1000 1500 Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
F1 - 43.37m
F2 - 43.37m
F3 - 43.37m
F4 - 43.37m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 500 1000 1500 Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
B1 - 12.87m
B2 - 12.87m
Fig.: Strain Distribution with Depth (Pile P2 - Bangkok)
Fig.: Load Distribution with Depth (Pile P2 - Bangkok)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]

Strain [microstrain]
112.5 ton
225.0 ton
337.5 ton
450.0 ton
562.5 ton
675.0 ton
787.5 ton
900.0 ton
1000.0 ton
1050.0 ton
1100.0 ton
1150.0 ton
1200.0 ton
1250.0 ton
1300.0 ton
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]

Load [ton]
112.5 ton
225.0 ton
337.5 ton
450.0 ton
562.5 ton
675.0 ton
787.5 ton
900.0 ton
1000.0 ton
1050.0 ton
1100.0 ton
1150.0 ton
1200.0 ton
1250.0 ton
1300.0 ton
Fig.: Strain vs. Axial Load Initial Loading Cycle (Pile P2 - Bangkok)
Fig.: Strain vs. Axial Load Initial Loading Cycle (Pile P3 - Bangkok)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0.0 300.0 600.0 900.0 1200.0 1500.0
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
Level A - 1.00m
Level B - 12.87m
Level C - 24.87m
Level D - 30.87m
Level E - 36.87m
Level F - 43.37m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
Level A - 1.00m
Level B - 9.00m
Level C - 16.00m
Level D - 23.00m
Level E - 32.00m
Level F - 39.00m
Level G - 45.00m
Level H - 49.00m
Fig.: Shaft Friction Development (Pile P2 - Bangkok)
Fig.: Shaft Friction Development (Pile P3 - Bangkok)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
S
h
a
f
t

F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

[
t
/
m
2
]

Displacement (mm)
Soft Clay 1.00 - 12.87 m
Mediumto Hard Clay 12.87 - 24.87 m
DenseMediumSand 24.87 - 30.87 m
DenseMediumSand 30.87 - 36.87 m
MediumSand 36.87 - 43.37 m
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0
S
h
a
f
t

F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

[
t
/
m
2
]

Displacement (mm)
Soft Clay, 0.0 - 9.0 m
MediumClay, 9.0 - 16.0 m
MediumSand, 16.0 - 23.0 m
Very Stiff Silty Clay, 23.0 - 32.0 m
DenseSilty Sand, 32.0 - 39.0 m
DenseMediumSand, 39.0 - 45.0 m
Hard Silty Clay, 45.0 - 49.0 m
Fig.: Load Settlement Curve (Pile P3 - Bangkok)
Fig.: End bearing & Shaft Friction vs. Settlement (Pile P3 - Bangkok)
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0
Settlement [mm]
Load [ton]
0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1000.0
1200.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Load [ton]
Settlement [mm]
Cumulative Load
End bearing
Shaft Friction
Fig. : Strain vs. Load (Pile P3 - Bangkok)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 500 1000 1500
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
A1- 1.00m
A2- 1.00m
A3- 1.00m
A4- 1.00m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 500 1000 1500
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
C1 - 16.00m
C2 - 16.00m
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 500 1000 1500
Load
[ton]
Strain [microstrain]
D1 - 23.00m
D2 - 23.00m
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 500 1000 1500
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
E1 - 32.00m
E2 - 32.00m
0
50
100
150
0 500 1000 1500
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
F1 -39.00m
F2 - 39.00m
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 500 1000 1500
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
G1 -45.00m
G2 - 45.00m
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 500 1000 1500
Load
[ton]
Strain [microstrain]
H1 - 49.00m
H2 - 49.00m
H3 - 49.00m
H4 - 49.00m
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 500 1000 1500
Load
[ton]
Strain [microstrain]
B1 - 9.00m
B2 - 9.00m
Strain[microstrain]
Fig.: Strain Distribution with Depth (Pile P3 - Bangkok)
Fig.: Load Distribution with Depth (Pile P3 - Bangkok)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]

Strain [microstrain]
112.5 ton
225.0 ton
337.5 ton
450.0 ton
562.5 ton
675.0 ton
750.0 ton
800.0 ton
900.0 ton
950.0 ton
1000.0 ton
1100.0 ton
1200.0 ton
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]

Load [ton]
112.5 ton
225.0 ton
337.5 ton
450.0 ton
562.5 ton
675.0 ton
750.0 ton
800.0 ton
900.0 ton
950.0 ton
1000.0 ton
1100.0 ton
1200.0 ton
Fig.: Load Settlement Curve (Pile P4 - Bangkok)
Fig.: End bearing & Shaft Friction vs. Settlement (Pile P4 - Bangkok)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 900.0
Settlement [mm]
Load [ton]
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
L
o
a
d

[
t
o
n
]

Settlement [mm]
Cumulative Load
End bearing
Shaft Friction
Fig.: Strain vs. Load (Pile P4 - Bangkok)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
A1- 0.70m
A2- 0.70m
A3- 0.70m
A4- 0.70m
0
50
100
150
200
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
C1 - 18.00m
C2 - 18.00m
0
50
100
150
200
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
D1- 22.00m
D2- 22.00m
0
50
100
150
0 200 400 600 800 1000 Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
E1 - 26.00m
E2 - 26.00m
0
50
100
150
200
0 200 400 600 800 1000 Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
G1-34.00m
G2- 34.00m
0
50
100
150
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
H1- 37.00m
H2- 37.00m
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
B1 - 14.00m
B2 - 14.00m
0
50
100
150
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
I2-39.00m
Fig.: Strain Distribution with Depth (Pile P4 - Bangkok)
Fig.: Load Distribution with Depth (Pile P4 - Bangkok)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]

Strain [microstrain]
90.0 ton
180.0 ton
270.0 ton
360.0 ton
450.0 ton
540.0 ton
630.0 ton
700.0 ton
770.0 ton
840.0 ton
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]

Load [ton]
90.0 ton
180.0 ton
270.0 ton
360.0 ton
450.0 ton
540.0 ton
630.0 ton
700.0 ton
770.0 ton
840.0 ton
Fig.: Strain vs. Axial Load Initial Loading Cycle (Pile P4 - Bangkok)
Fig.: Strain vs. Axial Load Initial Loading Cycle (Pile P5 - Bangkok)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 900.0
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
Level A - 0.70m
Level B - 14.00m
Level C - 18.00m
Level F - 30.00m
Level G - 34.00m
Level H - 37.00m
Level I - 39.00m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0 1600.0 1800.0 2000.0
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
Level A - 2.00m
Level C - 22.50m
Level D - 28.50m
Level F - 39.00m
Level G - 46.50m
Level H - 50.00m
Level I - 57.00m
Fig.: Development of Shaft Friction (Pile P4 - Bangkok)
Fig.: Development of Shaft Friction (Pile P5 - Bangkok)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
S
h
a
f
t

F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

[
t
/
m
2
]

Displacement (mm)
Soft Clay, 0.00 - 14.00m
Stiff Clay, 14.00 - 18.00m
Very Stiff Clay, 18.00 -30.00m
Very Stiff Clay, 30.00 - 34.00m
Very Dense Sand, 34.00 -37.00m
Clay, Hard, 37.00 -39.00m
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
S
h
a
f
t

F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

[
t
/
m
2
]

Displacement (mm)
Soft Clay, 2.0 - 22.5m
Loose Clayey Sand, 22.5 - 28.5m
Stiff Clay, MediumSand, 28.5 - 39.0m
Fine to MediumSand, 39.0 - 46.5m
Hard Silty Clay, 46.5 - 50.0m
Very Dense Clayey Sand, 50.0 - 57.0m
Fig.: Load Settlement Curve (Pile P5 - Bangkok)
Fig.: End bearing & Shaft Friction vs. Settlement (Pile P5 - Bangkok)
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0
Settlement [mm]
Load [ton]
0.0
500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Load [ton]
Settlement [mm]
Cumulative Load
End bearing
Shaft Friction
Fig.: Strain vs. Load (Pile P5 - Bangkok)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
A1- 2.00m
A2- 2.00m
A3- 2.00m
A4- 2.00m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
C1 - 22.50m
C2 - 22.50m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
D1- 28.50m
D2- 28.50m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
E1 - 34.00m
E2 - 34.00m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
F1 -39.00m
F2 - 39.00m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
G1- 46.50m
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
I2- 57.00m
I3- 57.00m
I4- 57.00m
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
H1- 50.00m
H2- 50.00m
Fig.: Strain Distribution with Depth (Pile P5 - Bangkok)
Fig.: Load Distribution with Depth (Pile P5 - Bangkok)
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]

Strain [microstrain]
162.5 ton
325.0 ton
487.5 ton
650.0 ton
812.5 ton
975.0 ton
1137.0 ton
1300.0 ton
1462.5 ton
1625.0 ton
1787.5 ton
2000.0 ton
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]

Load [ton]
162.5 ton
325.0 ton
487.5 ton
650.0 ton
812.5 ton
975.0 ton
1137.0 ton
1300.0 ton
1462.5 ton
1625.0 ton
1787.5 ton
2000.0 ton
Fig.: Development of Shaft Friction, Pile P5 (Bangkok)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
S
h
a
f
t

f
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

[
t
/
m
2
]

Top Displacement (mm)
Soft Clay, 2.0 - 22.5m
Clayey Sand, 22.5 - 28.5m
Stiff Clay, MediumSand, 28.5 - 39.0m
Fine to MediumSand, 39.0 - 46.5m
Hard Silty Clay, 46.5 - 50.0m
Very Dense Clayey Sand, 50.0 - 57.0m
Fig.: Development of Shaft Friction (UTP 1 - Singapore)
Fig.: Development of Shaft Friction (UTP 2 - Singapore)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
S
h
a
f
t

F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

[
t
/
m
2
]

Displacement [mm]
FirmClayey Silt
Clayey Silt, Peaty Clay
Loose Silty Sand
Med. Dense Sandy Silt
Dense Sandy Silt
Strong Granite
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
S
h
a
f
t

F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

[
t
/
m
2
]

Displacement [mm]
Fill Soil
Dense Silty Sand
Peaty Clay, Loose Sand
Fig.: Strain Distribution with Depth (UTP 1 - Singapore)
Fig.: Load Distribution with Depth (UTP 1 - Singapore)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]

Strain [microstrain]
131,3 ton
262,5 ton
393,8 ton
525 ton
656,3 ton
787,5 ton
918,8 ton
1050 ton
1070 ton
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]

Load [ton]
131,3 ton
262,5 ton
393,8 ton
525 ton
656,3 ton
787,5 ton
918,8 ton
1050 ton
1070 ton
Fig.: Strain vs. Axial Load Initial Loading Cycle (UTP 1 - Singapore)
Fig.: Strain vs. Axial Load Initial Loading Cycle (UTP 2 - Singapore)
Fig.: Strain vs. Axial Load Initial Loading Cycle (PTP 3 - Singapore)
0
50
100
150
200
250
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
Level A - 0.40 m
Level B - 5.00 m
Level C - 9.95 m
Level D - 13.45 m
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
Level A - 0.15 m
Level B - 2.85 m
Level C - 5.85 m
Level D - 7.85 m
Level E - 9.85 m
Level F - 11.55 m
Level G - 13.05 m
Level H - 13.45 m
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0
Load [ton]
Strain [microstrain]
Level A - 0.20 m
Level B - 4.00 m
Level C - 8.00 m
Level D - 12.00 m
Level E - 15.00 m
Level F - 18.00 m
Level G - 20.00 m
Level H - 21.50 m
Fig.: Strain Distribution with Depth (UTP 2 - Singapore)
Fig.: Load Distribution with Depth (UTP 2 - Singapore)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]

Strain [microstrain]
87,5 ton
175 ton
262,5 ton
350 ton
437,5 ton
525 ton
612,5 ton
700 ton
787,5 ton
918,75 ton
1050 ton
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]

Load [ton]
87,5 ton
175 ton
262,5 ton
350 ton
437,5 ton
525 ton
612,5 ton
700 ton
787,5 ton
918,75 ton
1050 ton
Fig.: Strain Distribution with Depth (PTP 3 - Singapore)
Fig.: Load Distribution with Depth (PTP 3 - Singapore)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]

Strain [microstrain]
120 ton
240 ton
360 ton
480 ton
600 ton
720 ton
840 ton
920 ton
1020 ton
1160 ton
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]

Load [ton]
120 ton
240 ton
360 ton
480 ton
600 ton
720 ton
840 ton
920 ton
1020 ton
1160 ton
1120 ton
Fig. 3.21: Predicted vs. Measured Load (Track 10, PTP3 - Singapore)
Fig. 3.22: Predicted vs. Measured Load (UTP1, UTP2 - Singapore)
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]

Load [ton]
Track 10 - measured
Track 10 - predicted
PTP3 - measured
PTP3 - predicted
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]

Load [ton]
UTP1 - measured
UTP1 - predicted
UTP2 - measured
UTP2 - predicted
WL 120 WL 330
Soft Toe
WL 115
Fig.: Strain Distribution with Depth (Track 10 - Singapore)
Fig.: Load Distribution with Depth (Track 10 - Singapore)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]

Strain [microstrain]
34,38
68,75
103,13
137,5
171,88
206,25
240,63
275
306,25
337,5
368,75
400
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]

Load [ton]
34,38 ton
68,75 ton
103,13 ton
137,5 ton
171,88 ton
206,25 ton
240,63 ton
275 ton
306,25 ton
337,5 ton
368,75 ton
400 ton
Fig.: Development of Shaft Friction (Track 10 -Singapore)
Fig.: Development of Shaft Friction (PTP 3 - Singapore)
0.0
4.0
8.0
12.0
16.0
20.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
S
h
a
f
t

F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

[
t
/
m
2
]

Displacement [mm]
Fill, stiff silty clay
Fill, stiff silty clay
Fill, stiff silty clay
Fill, stiff silty clay
Fractured Siltstone
Fractured Siltstone
Very Hard Siltstone
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
S
h
a
f
t

F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

[
t
/
m
2
]

Settlement [mm]
Looseto Silty Sand
Very DenseSilty Sand
Hard Clayey Silt
Hard Clayey Silt
Hard Clayey Silt
Hard Clayey Silt with Sand
Fig.: Shaft Friction & End bearing vs. Settlement (Track 10 - Singapore)
Fig.: Shaft Friction & End bearing vs. Settlement (PTP 3 - Singapore)
Fig.: Shaft Friction & End bearing vs. Settlement (UTP 2 - Singapore)
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
L
o
a
d

[
t
o
n
]

Displacement [mm]
Cumulative Load
End bearing
Shaft Friction
0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1000.0
1200.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
L
o
a
d

[
t
o
n
]

Displacement [mm]
Cumulative Load
Shaft Friction
End bearing
0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1000.0
1200.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
L
o
a
d

[
t
o
n
]

Displacement [mm]
Cumulative Load
Shaft Friction
End bearing