Bab 9 Pre Design Foundation

SITE INVESTIGATION STUDY OF MOBILE POWER PLANT AND PLTMG CLUSTER SULAWESI 3
CHAPTER 9
PRE DESIGN FOUNDATION
9.1. INTRODUCTION
The soil beneath structure responsible for carrying the loads is the foundation. The
general misconception is that the structural element which transmits the load to the soil
(such as a footing) is the foundation. The figure 6.1 below clarifies the point.
Figure 9.1. Description of Foundation
9.2. FOUNDATION DESIGN PROCEDURE
A foundation is the interfacing element between the superstructure and the

underlying soil or rock. The loads transmitted by the foundation to the underlying soil
must not cause soil shear failure or damaging deformations of the superstructure. It is
essential to systematically consider various foundation types and to select the optimum
alternative based on the superstructure requirements, the subsurface conditions, and
foundation cost.
Ix- 1 DRAFT FINAL REPORT

9.3. TYPES OF FOUNDATION
Foundation can be categorized into basically two types. Shallow and deep
foundation.
 Shallow foundation:
These types of foundations are so called because they are placed at a shallow
depth (relative to their dimensions) beneath the soil surface. Their depth may
range from the top soil surface to about 3 times their breadth (about 6 meters).
They include footings (spread and combined), and soil retaining structures
retaining walls, sheet piles, excavations, and reinforced earth. There are several
others of course.
 Deep foundation:
The most common of these types of foundations are piles. They are called deep
because they are embedded very deep (relative to their dimensions) into the soil.
Their depths may run over several 10s of meters. They are usually used when the
top soil layer have low bearing capacity.
9.4. DESIGN CONSIDERATION
To perform satisfactory, foundations must carry the loads (and moments) and have
two main characteristics:
1. Be safe against overall shear failure (bearing capacity failure)
2. Not undergo excessive displacement (settlement)
These conditions will insure that the foundation i.e. the soil is safe and can carry the loads
withput major problems. Therefore, when designing foundations, these two characteristic
must be satisfied.
In addition to satisfying the conditions for the foundation, the structural members
(concrete, steel, and/or wood) must be able to transfer the load to the soil without
failing. In the case of concrete, two basic conditions must be satisfied.
1. No shear failure: this is satisfied by providing an adequate thickness of concrete
2. No tension failure: this is satisfied by providing adequate steel reinforcement.

Figure 9.2. Spread Footings : (a) Square, (b) Rectangular
Figure 9.3. (cont). Spread Footings : (c) Circular (d) continuous (strip) (e)
Combined (d) Ring
Figure 9.4. Cantilever Retaining Wall

Figure 9.5. Gravity Retaining Wall
Figure 9.6. Counter fort Retaining Wall
Figure 9.7. Various Types of Concrete Piles

Figure 9.8. Layout of Piles in Groups

Table 9.1. Gives an indication of the type of foundation investigation appropriate
for various ground conditios and types of foundation

Table 9.2. Soil types and foundation consideration
Table 9.3. Possible solutions to some problems in foundations

Table 9.4. Pile Selection Guide
9.5. SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Classification is the process used during ground investigation to divide soil and rock
into a limited number of groups, each of which contains materials expected to have
broadly similar engineering behaviour.
The engineering parameters which are of most importance in estimating behaviour
are strength, compressibility and permeability and rate of consolidation.The methods most
commonly used for classification are sample description, moisture content and plasticity
testing (for cohesive soils) and particle size distribution (for granular soils).Classification
with the SPT is made possible because the test combines both a sampler (albeit of very
poor quality and unable to sample coarse granular soils) and a penetrometer.

Table 9.5. Applications of the SPT in geotechnical design
Table 9.6. Determination of geological Parameters from SPT results

Table 9.7. SPT – based soil and rock classification systems
Table 9.8. Typical Undrained shear strength for cohesive soils

Table 9.9. Empirical value Young’s Modulus of Weathered Granites from SPT
results
9.5.1. Estimation of Parameters in granular soils between N value – effective angle of

friction Ø’
By knowing the value of N SPT , then the value of granular soil parameters and the
effective angle of friction Ø ' can be estimated by the following chart :

Figure 9.9. Parameters in granular soils – effective angle of friction Ø’
9.5.2. Estimation of Parameters in cohesif soil between N value – plasticity index (PI)
The relationship between undrained shear strength of cohesive soil and SPT N is
controlled by a number of factors :
 Plasticity
 Sensitivity
 Fissuring
Cu = f1 N60
f1 depends slightly on the plasticity of the clay.

Figure 9.10. Correlation between N value and undrained shear strength,
Cv for insensitive clays (after Stroud, 1974)
9.5.3. Estimation of shaft resistance for design of piles
The estimation of shaft resistance for design of piles are:

 fs = α + β N (Poulos 1989)
fs is in kPa
 α and β are constants, depending upon soil and pile type
Construction method(e.g., for driven piles, shaft resistance will depend upon the
extend to which the pile displaces the soil, upon the rate at which excess pore water
pressures can dissipate during and after driving and upon the amount of lateral movement
allowed during driving.)

Table 9.10. Correlation between ultimate shaft resistance, fs of piles and SPT N
value (after Poulos, 1989).
9.5.4. Estimate value of Safe Bearing Capacity for Cohesive Soils
The table 6.11 below explains the estimate value of safe bearing capacity for
cohessive soils.
Table 9.11. Estimate value of safe bearing capacity for cohessive soils.

9.6. DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION OR SHALLOW FOOTINGS

9.6.1. Footing Depth and Proportions
9.6.1.1. Founding Level

The following factors should be considered in determining the founding level, i.e.
level of underside of footing:
 The founding level is on a stratum with an adequate geotechnical resistance;
 For structures over water or in seasonally active watercourses, the anticipated
depth of scour must not undermine the foundation or reduce embedment beyond
limits required for bearing capacity or sliding;
 In clayey soils, the foundation level is located in a zone that is free from seasonal
moisture changes which may cause shrinkage and swelling of the soil. The zone
should also be free from any disturbance caused by roots of trees and shrubs for
both clay and sand soils;
 The founding level is below the level of any future nearby excavations or trenching
for utility services;
 Anticipated ground movements especially in sloping ground, will be within
allowable limits;
 The seasonal high groundwater level’s impact on geotechnical resistance; and
 Construction considerations, e.g. temporary works and dewatering requirements
fordeep versus shallow excavation.
9.6.1.2 Size of Footing

The width and length of the footing is controlled by the following factors:
 The footing pressure must be within allowable limits;
 The size of the load supporting members e.g. columns and walls, which have to be
accommodated will fit on the footing;
 Practical and economic considerations for excavation, and minimum working space
requirements; and
 Clearances required to adjacent roadways, services etc., especially during
construction.
The overall size of a footing is dependent on the design loadings, both vertical and
inclined, the point of action (eccentricity), the ultimate geotechnical design resistance of
the soil at the founding level (Rug) and total and differential settlement limits.Generally
the vertical load will be applied at the centroid of the footing. However, bridge footings

subject to large overturning moments from flood loading may be designed such that the
point of action from the pier acts off centre from the footing towards the upstream side.
The purpose of this is to create a more even load distribution across the footing base
under flood load.
At the ultimate limit state, the toe pressure can reach the ultimate geotechnical
resistance of the soil and there can be uplift at the heel, but at the serviceability limit
state it is recognised good practice that the vertical load resultant should lie within the
middle third with no resultant uplift at the heel.
9.6.2. Ultimate Geotechnical Strength (Rug) of Shallow Footings
Geotechnical strength The modes of failure to be considered are :

 ultimate bearing failure;
 overall (global) instability; and
 sliding failure.
9.6.2.1 Ultimate Bearing Failure

General bearing capacity equations account for the important design variables.
These involve:
 shape (square, rectangle, strip);
 depth of embedment;
 inclination and direction of inclined loads;
 eccentricity of load (could be one-way or two-way);
 sloping ground surface;
 tilted footing base;
 stratification in foundation; and
 scour (taken into account through reduced embedment).
Reference to Bowles (1996) indicates how these factors can be accounted for by
using a range of reduction factors. It should be noted that the presence of relatively small
horizontal loads can significantly reduce the ultimate geotechnical resistance.
Eccentricity will tend to reduce the effective area of a footing. Moments applied to
the footing need to be resolved to components at right angles to the width and length of
the footing (sometimesreferred to as “biaxial” loading). The effective width of a footing is
defined by B' = B - 2e, where B is the width of the footing (m) and e is the eccentricity (m)
applicable in that direction. Similarly the effective length of a footing is defined by L' = L -

2e, where L is the length of the footing (m) and eis the eccentricity (m) in that direction.
For a strip footing or a footing where L ≥ B it is only necessary to consider the eccentricity
in the direction perpendicular to the footing length. The reduced effective footing size not
only results in higher applied bearing pressures, but in reduced ultimate bearing capacity.
For footings where the length is similar to the width it is necessary to calculate the
ultimate bearing capacity based on an effective footing area that considers both L' and B'.
This is usually under taken using a computer program for analysis but hand calculations
using tabulated factor scan also be used. It must be realised that the resulting pressure
diagram underneath the footingwill not be square, with shape dependent on the relativity
of eccentricity in both directions.
In applying the various bearing capacity formulae, consideration needs to be given
to the choice ofeffective stress (drained) or total stress (undrained) soil parameters. The
choice will need to takeinto account the conditions prevailing at the particular site.
However, the following notes areprovided as a guide.
 For a footing on saturated clay, the available bearing capacity will usually be
lowest immediately following loading. The undrained shear strength su (total stress)
should be used;
 For footings on sand, dissipation of excess pore pressure will usually occur rapidly
and drained (effective stress) strength parameters should be used;
 For footings to be constructed on over-consolidated clay subjected to excavation,
the undrained strength potentially exceeds that which would apply once drainage
has occurred and both states need to be considered in analysis.
Various formulae have been developed for calculation of ultimate bearing capacity, such
as the methods developed by Terzaghi, Meyerhof, Brinch-Hansen, Vesic and Bowles. The
most appropriate methods for design are considered to be Brinch-Hansen and Vesic since
they include allowance for the important design variables noted above.
9.6.2.2 Overall (Global) Instability

Overall global instability must be considered, accounting for possible modes of
failure as follows:
 footings on or near an inclined slope (including buried rock profile beneath
alluvium);
 footings near an excavation or retaining structure;
 footings near a river, lake, canal, reservoir or the sea shore;
 footings near mine workings or buried structures; and
 possible change in profile due to future construction, scour, erosion, etc.

9.6.2.3 Sliding Failure

Horizontal forces acting above the horizontal bearing surface of the foundation are
resisted by thefrictional resistance on the base of the footing, by passive resistance
against the vertical face of thefooting and any shear keys, and by counterforts and ground
anchors.
Care should be taken when relying on passive resistance, as a considerable
deformation (typically about 30 mm to 50 mm for typical footing dimensions) is usually
required to activate full passive pressure. In addition, caution should especially be
exercised in utilising passive resistance in clayey locations susceptible to moisture
movements as a vertical gap can develop between the soiland the footing as a result of
shrinkage. Generally to minimise potential displacement, no morethan 50% of the total
passive resistance after the application of a geotechnical reduction factor φg is to be
taken to provide resistance against horizontal movement.
In the case of a rock footing, critical sliding failure may occur along a defect
surface (e.g. joint inrock, clay filled shear surfaces etc.).Sliding resistance may be
reduced under flood conditions and submerged unit weights below ground water or flood
river levels need to be considered when calculating frictional resistance.
9.6.3. Bearing Capacity Formula of Shallow Foundation

Soil bearing capacityisthe amount of pressure or the ability of the soil to receive
the load from the outside so that it becomes stable. Foundation bearing capacity must be
greater or equal to the external load which transferred to the ground through the
foundation system under the foundation:
q(ult) > soil bearing capacitybestif q(ult) 2 to 5 times sc
Terzaghi prepared the formula of soil bearing capacity which is calculated in the
condition ultimate bearing capacity, means : if a limit value is exceeded will cause
colapse. That is why allowable bearing capacity must be smaller than ultimate bearing
capacity. Limits bearing capacity (qult, ultimate bearing capacity; kg/cm2, t/m2) a land
which is under the burden of foundation will depend on the shear strength. The value of
allowable bearing capacity (qa, allowable bearing capacity) for build and design foundation
involves factors of strength and deformation characteristics. Some models of the collapse
of the soil bearing capacity for shallow foundations has been predicted by several
researchers (Lambe & Whitman, 1979; Koerner, 1984; Bowles, 1984;Terzaghi & Peck,
1993). allowable bearing capacity, depend on how large the selected safety factor (F).
Commonly the value of selected F is 2 to 5, thusthe allowable bearing capacity values are
as follows :

𝑞𝑢𝑙𝑡
𝑞𝑎 =
𝐹
In general,the value ofthe safety factor is often taken 3.
Figure 9.11. The forces that works on a foundation system
Figure 9.12. The relation of q(a) and q(ult) in a foundation system
Figure 9.13. Scheme of soilbearing capacity for various types of commonly

collapse used by Terzaghi (according Terzaghi in Bowles, 1982)

if F = 3, This mean that planned foundation strength is 3 times the power of its
bearing capacity, so the foundation is expected to secure from collapse. With the
condition qa < qult the contact stress (sc) caused by external load transferto the soil under
the foundation become (intented to become small) depend on the given value of F.
Foundation is categorized shallow if foundation width (B), equal or greater than the
distance of ground surface level to foundation or D , foundation depth (Terzaghi & Peck,
1993; Bowles, 1984).
Based on experiment sand calculations some previous researchers that is: Meyerhof,
Hansen, Bala, Muhs dan Milovic (in Bowles, 1984), revealed that the calculation of bearing
capacity Terzaghi method produces the smallest value especially on the conditions the
depth shear angle> 30o. The smallest value is considered safe in anticipation of the soil
collapse or failure of the foundation (Bowles, 1984).
At Miloniv experiment (in Bowles, 1984) with the depth shear angle less than 30o, obtained
results which not much different with the calculated theoretical values Terzaghi way
(Tabel 6.12).
Soilbearing capacityforsometypes offoundationaccording toTerzaghiwayisas follows:
Bearing capacity foundation type (Terzaghi)

Lane/continuous qult = c.Nc + q.Nq + 0,5 BN
quadrangle qult = 1,3 c.Nc + q.Nq + 0,4 BN
circle qult = 1,3 c.Nc + q.Nq + 0,3 BN
information :
qult = ultimate soil bearing capacity
c = soil cohesion
q = x D (unitweight ofsoil content x depth)
B = width dimension or foundation diameter
= the depth shear angle
Nc, Nq , N is thesoil bearing capacityfactorwhichdepends on
Table 9.12. Soil Bearing Capacity Factor for Terzaghi equation

9.6.4. Factor of Soil Bearing Capacity

Factor of soil bearing capacity depends on the depth shear angle. Nc, Nq and N is
a constantTerzaghiobtained by standart graphical (figure 6.14) by finding thevalue ofsoil
bearing capacityfactorbased on depth shear-angle values obtainedfirstorsee thetable
above (Table 6.12).
Figure 9.14. The value of graphycal soil bearing capacity
9.6.5. The Relation of physical properties – soil mechanical with soil bearing capacity
Fine-grained soilthat issilt, clayey-silt or silty-clay high plasticity,
haveconsistencyvariesaccording to thethe water contentit contains (Bowles, 1989).
Cohetion (c) decreasesfollowing the increase insoilwater content ( ). Beside that the
depth shear angle dalam (f ) also decreased if soil water content is increasing. Thus
thestrength ofthe soilalsodecreases. Soil bearing capacityforshallowfoundations (Bowles,
1984) depend on cohetion (c) and the depth shear angle ( ). Value of cohetion and the
depth shear angle will high atdryconditions of thesoilmassorsoilwater contentconditionsdo
notaffect thefoundation.
Figure 9.15. Ground water levelonthe soil surface

a) If Ground Water Level (GWL) is on the soil surface.

If Ground Water Level (GWL) is on the soil surface. The value of theunitweight ofthe
soilcontentwill be affected ground water so thatthe used isthe saturated . At this
condition the value of q(ult) will be smaller.Thus become ' (unitweight ofsoil
contentsubmerged water / Underground water level )which value ' = saturated -
water , because become ' atthe condition ofthe groundwater tableonthe soil surface,
then :
1) qult become smaller than without GWL
2) .B.N becomes '.B.N
3) .D.Nq becomes '.D.Nq
b) If Ground Water Level (GWL) is under foundation elevation

If Ground Water Level (GWL) is under foundation elevation, then used is at wet condition
( wet), see figure 6.16.
Figure 9.16. Ground water level under foundation elevation
Soil bearing capacity for various foundation type with GWL under foundation.
Foundationbearing capacity (Terzaghi)
Lane/continuous qult = c.Nc + ( ' D).Nq + 0,5 ' B N
quadrangle qult = 1,3 c.Nc + ( ' D).Nq + 0,4 ' B N
Circle qult = 1,3 c.Nc + ( ' D).Nq + 0,3 ' B N
9.6.6. Bearing capacity from insitu test

Formula bearing capacity from insitu testaccording toBowles (1996)wayisas follows :

Table 9.13. Typical Bearing Capacity Factors of safety
In this study simulation ofbearing capacity analysis forshallow foundation will be

conducted with consideration ofwidth dimension orfoundation diameter
Summary Simulation of Bearing capacity analysis for Shallow Foundation - PLTMG

KOLAKA UTARA
End depth = 1 meter

a. Case 1
Case 1 , B = 1,00 m
No. End Depth N-SPT N60 N55 B B Df Df Kd qa qa qa
(m) (m) (feet (m) (feet) (ksf) (kN/m2 = kPa) (ton/m2)
BH-1 1 50 22,92 25,00 1,00 3,28 1 3,28 1,33 14,15 677,60 69,07
BH-2 1 5 2,29 2,50 1,00 3,28 1 3,28 1,33 1,42 67,76 6,91
BH-3 1 50 22,92 25,00 1,00 3,28 1 3,28 1,33 14,15 677,60 69,07
b. Case 2
Case 2 , B = 2,00 m
BH-1 1 50 22,92 25,00 2,00 6,56 1 3,28 1,17 9,67 462,98 47,20
BH-2 1 5 2,29 2,50 2,00 6,56 1 3,28 1,17 0,97 46,30 4,72
BH-3 1 50 22,92 25,00 2,00 6,56 1 3,28 1,17 9,67 462,98 47,20
c. Case 3
Case 3 , B = 3,00 m
BH-1 1 50 22,92 25,00 3,00 9,84 1 3,28 1,11 8,42 403,09 41,09
BH-2 1 5 2,29 2,50 3,00 9,84 1 3,28 1,11 0,84 40,31 4,11
BH-3 1 50 22,92 25,00 3,00 9,84 1 3,28 1,11 8,42 403,09 41,09

End depth = 2 meter

a. Case 1
Case 1 , B = 1,00 m
BH-1 2 50,00 22,92 25,00 1,00 3,28 2 6,56 1,66 17,66 845,73 86,21
BH-2 2 30,00 13,75 15,00 1,00 3,28 2 6,56 1,66 10,60 507,44 51,73
BH-3 2 50,00 22,92 25,00 1,00 3,28 2 6,56 1,66 17,66 845,73 86,21
b. Case 2
Case 2 , B = 2,00 m
BH-1 2 50,00 22,92 25,00 2,00 6,56 2 6,56 1,33 11,04 528,56 53,88
BH-2 2 30,00 13,75 15,00 2,00 6,56 2 6,56 1,33 6,62 317,13 32,33
BH-3 2 50,00 22,92 25,00 2,00 6,56 2 6,56 1,33 11,04 528,56 53,88
c. Case 3
Case 3 , B = 3,00 m
BH-1 2 50,00 22,92 25,00 3,00 9,84 2 6,56 1,22 9,25 443,04 45,16
BH-2 2 30,00 13,75 15,00 3,00 9,84 2 6,56 1,22 5,55 265,82 27,10
BH-3 2 50,00 22,92 25,00 3,00 9,84 2 6,56 1,22 9,25 443,04 45,16
9.7. DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATION
Pile foundations are used as alternatives to other types of foundation systems,

(e.g. spreadfootings), to avoid rupture of weak soil layers, excessive settlements or the
possible effectsof scour. Piles transfer loads to a lower level bearing stratum by skin
friction (adhesion)along the sides of the pile permanently embedded in the ground, end
bearing at the base ofthe pile, or a combination of the two.
9.7.1. Types of Pile

Piles can be classified either in accordance with the material they are made from
(i.e. timber, concrete, steel or combinations thereof), or the method of installation (i.e.
driven or bored).
The majority of piles used by Main Road Western Australia (MRWA) are driven and
the principal types in use are:
 Concrete - precast, prestressed and usually either 350 mm square with a normal
working load of 700 kN or a 450 mm octagon with a working load of 1000 kN. Also,
some precast normally reinforced segmented concrete piles have been used;
 Steel - H sections or steel tubes in a wide range of sizes and capacities;
 Composite - combined steel and precast concrete; and also

 Timber - round, untreated Jarrah with a working load of around 500 kN. Note that
for a number of reasons including the lack of suitable quality jarrah, timber piles
have not been used for many years.
There are increasing opportunities and/or requirements to use bored piles, either
CFA (continuous flight auger) or bored, rock socketed pile types. The opportunities have
arisendue to availability of dedicated plant and improved construction skills.The different
pile classifications are presented in Figure. 6.17. Reference should be made to one of the
standard piling texts in the general reference list for information on these piles.
Figure 9.17. Classification of Pile Types

Figure 9.18. Stages In A Typical Design For Driven Piles
9.7.2. Selection of Pile Type

This is the first item in the foundation design process to be undertaken once the
loads are known and bore logs available. The material, type and the method of installation
of the proposed piles have to be identified as they influence the subsequent calculations.
These depend on a number of factors, such as the type of structure and its location, the
size of the loads to be carried, and most importantly the nature of the bearing stratum
and overburden. These are shown diagrammatically at Figures 6.19;6.20; 6.21; 6.22 and
discussed below.

1). Sub soil conditions

The single most important factor influencing pile selection is the sub-soil
conditions, as revealed by the site investigation, i.e. boring and testing and/or
previous pile driving in the area. This will show whether the proposed pile will carry
the load by end-bearing, friction, or a combination of the two, and also whether the
ground is suitable for bored piles.
A hard founding layer at a reasonable depth will indicate that end-bearing piles
are practical; driven precast concrete piles if the loads are moderate and the
overlying strata easy to penetrate, otherwise driven steel piles, with low
displacement H piles the choice if there are very hard layers to penetrate.If the
overlying soil is suitable and ground water is not an issue, e.g. medium/stiff clays
bove the water table, then uncased bored piles may also be a possibility.If ground
conditions are such that bored piles are likely to require temporary shaft support to
prevent collapse, consideration may be given to driven cast in place enlarged base
piles (Frankipile) providing that a suitable end bearing layer is present within 12 to 18
m from the ground surface. Alternatively, continuous flight auger piles (which provide
their own shaft support) or bored piles drilled with an appropriate drilling fluid
(bentonite or polymer slurry) may be considered. These types of pile must be load
and/or integrity tested.
Generally it will be found that a driven pile is more economical on a
cost/tonne of load capacity than other types of piles, unless there are very high
loads, deep scour requirements or corrosion issues to be addressed in the design
process.For driven preformed piles, the depth to the founding layer is important
because of the difficulties of extending some types of piles. If precast concrete piles
need to be longer than about 12 m to 15 m some form of proprietary steel joint for
precast concrete piles will be required. Several piling contractors have joints that
have been approved by the Victorian and NSW road authorities. If joints are not
required, consideration may be given to prestressed concrete piles (which can be
handled in longer unjointed lengths) or alternatively steel preformed tube or H
sections which can be extended by welding.With driven piles the likely resistance to
driving must also be assessed to check on driving stresses and the size of pile driving
hammer that will be required to driven the piles. Driven steel piles may have to be
used (or bored piles), if the driveability assessment indicates that concrete piles may
be damaged during driving or dynamic testing.
Another factor to consider when selecting a pile type is the potential presence
of sea water, brackish water or aggressive ground water which could lead to a

durability/corrosion problem. Durability issues may require perhaps the use of

concrete rather than steel, and possibly even the need to use special cements or
cement additives such as silica fume. If driving conditions are hard then this may
preclude the use of driven normally reinforced concrete piles. Prestressed concrete
piles may provide a more durable pile in marine environments. Driven steel tube piles
may be provided with suitable protective coatings in the zone of potential corrosion.
Alternatively, driven steel tubes, subsequently cleaned out and filled with reinforced
concrete may be used where the outer steel lining is considered to be sacrificial and
the reinforced concrete infill provides for long term durability. For most ground
conditions, any re-strike of a driven pile after a period of days will require some
increase in driving energy for the remobilisation of the pile. This is referred to as
“set-up” of the pile.
Figure 9.19. Selection of a Pile Type – Sub Soil Conditions
2). Loading
The magnitude and type of loading and the required type of pile load testing
will also affect the choice of pile. Ultimate axial loads of up to about 3000 kN to 4000
kN per pile can satisfactorily be catered for by a number of types of pile. In order of
increasing load capacity: precast normally reinforced segmental concrete piles, driven
cast in place enlarged base piles, prestressed concrete driven piles and steel H
sections.Larger ultimate design loads will usually require steel tube piles, composite
piles or largediameter bored or CFA piles.
Large tension or lateral loads will require special consideration. Tension piles
with an enlarged base (with adequate reinforcement) can provide significant uplift

resistance, as can bored or CFA piles socketed into rock. In hard rock consideration
can be given to the use of passive or active rock anchors to develop uplift resistance.
The potential for negative skin friction to develop caused by the settling of soft soils
around the piles should be considered where there the site sub surface profile has
deep deposits of soft normally consolidated soils which may be subject to creep, or
where additional loads (such as embankment fills) are to be imposed on soft soils in
proximity to piles.
Negative skin friction can increase the working load in piles, or can create
additional pile settlements at working load. This may necessitate the use of larger
capacity piles capable of resisting additional axial or in some cases lateral load due to
horizontal movements under embankments built on soft soil.
For driven piles, the piles can be coated with a bitumen slip coating that can reduce
the magnitude of down drag loads significantly. Raked piles are generally not suitable
where the surrounding soil is settling, due to the bending that is introduced to the
piles.
Figure 9.20. Selection of a Pile Type – Loading
3). Site Conditions

The physical conditions at the site can influence the choice of pile type in a
number of ways. Site access for piling plant can be a major factor. It may not be
possible to get a large piling rig into position (e.g. a steep creek crossing), or there
may be restricted headroom (especially important when widening or strengthening an
existing structure), requiring the use of short lengths of pile jacked into place, or a
small bored-pile rig.
The site itself may be distant from Perth and so the transport costs of precast
concrete piles may become excessive as compared to steel piles which may be more
economical.The presence and type of any adjacent structures may also have a bearing

on the choice of pile type.Installation, particularly of uncased bored piles, close to an

existing structure may reduce the available capacity of the existing structure’s piles
if they develop significant capacity from shaft friction.
Driven piles may not be feasible in built up areas or close to vibration sensitive
structures, because of possible vibration and noise issues. Steps such as pre-boring can
reduce ground vibrations and newer hydraulic piling hammers come with noise
reduction shielding.
Figure 9.21. Selection of a Pile Type – Site Conditions
4). Structure Type

The main influence of the structure type comes from the stiffness of the
structure, plus any aesthetic considerations. A continuous structure, especially if it
has a deep stiff deck and/or relatively short spans, can tolerate little differential
settlement across or between piers.
Relatively stiff piles installed to a hard bearing stratum reduce the risk of large
differential settlements. Alternatively, a simply supported structure is more tolerant
of differential settlements.The proposed pile design should consider not only pile
capacity but also vertical and lateral deformation at working loads. Due allowances
must be made in the design of the structure for the anticipated differential
settlements.
Aesthetic considerations may rule out some pile types, e.g. concrete or steel
piles extending to the underside of cross head above ground level would only be used
as combined pile/columns in the country and other less publicly visible areas.

Figure 9.22. Selection of a Pile Type – Structure Type
9.7.3. Ultimate Load Capacity Of A Single Pile

The calculation of the design ultimate geotechnical strength of a single, isolated
pile is probably the most important step to be taken in assessing the likely performance of
piled foundations. Although piles are nearly always used in groups the calculation of the
ultimate geotechnical strength of a single pile is a necessary prerequisite for estimating
group performance. Also, although other factors such as settlement and lateral capacity
are important in foundation analysis, vertical load capacity is usually the most important
consideration for piled foundations.
In this context the design ultimate geotechnical strength is the maximum load that
a single pile can carry or the load which generates a pile head settlement of the order of
50 mm. At this load all of the available pile soil resistance is fully mobilised. The pile is
incapable of supporting more load and settlement.The ultimate design geotechnical
strength of a single pile is the sum of the soil friction on the pile shaft and the resistance
on the base of the pile.
9.7.4. Empirical Methods Of Ultimate Load Capacity Estimation

1). General
As well as the theoretical approaches to single pile ultimate load capacity
calculation detailed above, there are also a number of empirical methods available.

These range from the purely empirical, based mainly on local knowledge, to pseudo-
scientific methods based on empirical observations. Examples of the former are the
knowledge that exists in Main Road Western Australia (MRWA) on the performance of
common types of pile, e.g. 350 mm square PSC concrete, 310UC steel, in local ground
conditions. For these situations, an experienced engineer will be able to assess the
reports of boreholes and from the SPT results, make an estimation of the depth to
which a pile may be driven to develop a required design strength.
For instance, concrete piles will not be able to be driven very far into material
with SPT values of around 60 and above or below where cone penetrometer cone
resistances in excess of 50 MPa are measured, providing the soils are not calcareous in
nature. Caution is, however, required to ensure that the material beneath the
founding layer is sound, particularly where pile groups are concerned as whilst
individual piles may be driven to the required capacity, the load applied by the pile
group to the soil below the founding layer may be significant and the capacity of the
pile group may be governed by block failurerather than the sum of individual pile
capacities.
The semi-scientific methods of pile geotechnical strength assessment are all
based onstablished correlations with standard soils tests such as the Standard
Penetration Test(SPT), the Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT), and to a lesser extent in
Australia, thepressuremeter test (PMT).
2). Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

The SPT test is perhaps the most commonly used in situ test. Numerous
empirical correlations between SPT N value and shaft friction and end bearing have
been developed.These correlations take the form:
 Pile shaft friction : fs = AN + BNN (kPa)

 Pile end bearing : fb = CNN (MPa)
The most widely used empirical method is that presented by Meyerhof (1956)
for driven piles in sand with AN = 0, and BN = 2 for displacement piles and 1 for small
displacement piles and CN=0.3 where CN is correction to the N-SPT value. Limiting
values of fs of 100 kPa for displacement piles and 50 kPa for small displacement piles
and about 12 MPa to 15 MPa end bearing in dense sands have been recommended.
Poulos (1989) has summarised a number of other empirical correlations for various soil
types.

3). Cone Penetrometer Testing (CPT)

Use of CPT data offers the chance of improving estimates of pile axial capacity
as this test measures shaft friction and end resistance directly and separately and
provides a continuous profile of soil resistance which is much less sensitive to drilling
operations.
Bustamante and Gianeselli (1982) have provided a comprehensive review of the
estimation of pile capacity for a variety of pile types based on CPT results. Their
review is based on the results of 197 static load tests on 48 sites comprising a variety
of soil types. Their correlation
takes the form:
 Pile shaft friction : fs = qc/ (kPa)
 Pile end bearing : fb = qckc (MPa)
Where qc is the cone point resistance. Values of and kc vary with soil cone
resistance and pile type. For the assessment of end bearing an average value of cone
resistance over a depth ranging from 1.5 pile diameters above and below the pile base
is used. Cone resistance values higher than 1.3 times and lower than 0.7 times the
cone resistance under the pile toe are eliminated from the calculation of the average
cone resistance. Additional details are presented in the reference noted
above.Typical α and kc values for driven displacement piles are presented in Table
6.14.
Table 9.14. CPT Correlations for Driven Displacement Piles after Bustamante &
Gianeselli
For stiff to hard cohesive soils, the cone point resistance (qc) can be used to obtain
theundrained cohesion, cu, from the relationship:
cu = qc/Nc
With the value of Nc normally in the range 15 to 20. The assessed value of cu can then
beused to estimate the appropriate value of pile shaft adhesion (fs) and pile end
bearingresistance (fb) in the usual static bearing capacity formula. Reference
toFleming et al 1992 provides relationships between fs and cu. For end bearing
capacity Nc isin the range of 6 to 9 depending on depth of penetration into the

founding layer.
9.7.5. Pile Group Analysis

1). Introduction
Piles in bridge foundations are almost invariably used in groups rather than as
isolated piles.Therefore, the calculation of pile group capacities, for both vertical and
horizontal loads is amore important consideration than the behaviour of single piles.It
is, however, necessary to first calculate single pile behaviour as pile group behaviour
is estimated from these. It must be stressed that in nearly all cases, the group
capacity and deflections will differ from those of the individual piles making up the
group. In the majority ofcases, the geotechnical ultimate capacity of the group will be
less than the sum of the individual pile capacities and the deflections of the pile
group will be greater than the deflection of a single pile carrying the average load of
a pile within the group. Where the pilespacing is greater than about 3 pile diameters,
the geotechnical strength of the pile group may not be reduced significantly due to
interaction effects, however, settlement of the pile group should always consider
interaction effects.
Another thing that must be borne in mind at all times with foundation
calculations, and especially with pile groups, is that the answers obtained will not be
exact. No matter how scientific the method of analysis may seem, the output can only
be as good as the input to the analysis, and in the case of piles and pile groups in
particular, this input must, because of the nature of the problem, be approximate
only. For example :
• Soil Properties - can never be known exactly. Only a very small proportion of the
soil on a site will be tested and even that may not indicate the actual in situ
properties of the soil orrock at the site as it will probably be affected by the
manner of sampling and testing and may behave differently under in situ load.
Also, the soil will probably be anisotropic, although for simplicity in analysis it is
usually assumed to be isotropic.
• Pile Positions and Rakes - will not be known accurately as there is always
somevariation in the position and dimensional tolerance that can occur during
pileinstallation.
• Soil Interaction - there will probably be some soil contact with the soffit and sides
ofthe pile caps, but this is often not taken into consideration during pile group
analysis.
Notwithstanding these qualifications and the inherent complication of the 3-

dimensional pilesystem which has to be analysed, there are a number of methods

available which seem toprovide adequate, if perhaps somewhat conservative estimate
of the loads and deflections inpile groups.
2). Analysis Methods

The usual approach, having estimated the ultimate capacity of a typical single
pile is to thenanalyse a "guesstimated" pile group under general 3-dimensional loading
to check that theindividual pile capacities are not exceeded, in either compression or
tension and that groupdeflections under serviceability loads are acceptable. Methods
available for the analysis of pile groups are outlined below. Further details of various
methods are summarised by Poulos and Davis (1980), Fleming et. al. (1992) and
Tomlinson (1994)
• Simple Static Methods
These are very simple, usually 2-dimensional only “bolt group” type analyses which
ignore the presence of the soil and assume the piles are pinned to the pile cap so
that the structure can be analysed as statically determinant. Pile–soil interaction
effects where the lateral resistance of the soil is applied to the pile are ignored.
Graphical or simple spread sheet methods of solution are also available. The use of
this method is not recommended except for use as a rough first pass at estimating
the number of piles likely to be required within a group.
• Equivalent Bent Method
This takes the above method one stage further. It assumes a somewhat more
complex equivalent frame that can be 3-dimensional and can have piles built into
the pile cap. This can then be analysed on a standard structural frame analysis
program, e.g. ACES, Microstran, etc. Soil properties are modelled to some extent
by modification to the lengths and stiffnesses of the actual piles when deriving the
equivalent piles for the model, e.g. by assuming a depth to fixity for the piles but
the methods are not exact. Pile group interaction effects are not included and
estimates of soil spring stiffness are required.
• Elastic Analysis Methods
These methods use elastic theory for the effects on the individual pile and the
interactions between the piles themselves and the pile and the soil. They are a
great improvement on any of the above methods as they can be made to allow for
load effects in 3 dimensions and for pile/soil interaction. They are computer based
because of the extensive computation required. MRWA uses the PIGLET (Randolph,
1986) program which can analyse full 3 -dimensional loading for either a rigid or

flexible pile cap using a soil stiffness profile which can be varied with depth. Other
commercially available programs include Repute (www.geocentrix.co.uk) and
DEFPIG (Sydney University Geotechnical Application and Research at
www.civil.usyd.edu.au).
• Finite Element Analysis
This is not often used because of the complexity and size of the models required.
Recent developments of the PLAXIS suite of 2D and 3D geotechnical computer
programs (www.plaxis.nl) now provide a user friendly geotechnical finite element
analysis package thatcan be used to assess a variety of pile soil interaction
problems where the complexity of the problem justifies the use of this approach.
Three dimensional finite analyses are complicated and time consuming to run so
where possible it is better to use 2D analyses if at all possible. Correct analyses
require good estimates of soil properties to provide meaningful results. Having
assessed the general loading behaviour and deflections of the proposed pile group,
it is important to realise that the structural and geotechnical design strengths of
single piles within the pile group calculated previously may require modification to
account for interaction between the piles before the pile group design can be
finalised.
3). Group Effects

As stated earlier, a group of piles behaves differently to a single pile in the same
situation. This “group effect” is different for each design action.
• Ultimate Load
In cohesive soils, piles driven close together can generate high pore pressures (with
accompanying reduction in the effective strength of the surrounding clay soil)
which may take a long time to dissipate, especially from the centre of the group
(perhaps a matter of years). The ultimate vertical capacity of the pile group can be
considerably less than the sum of the capacities of the individual piles. In this case,
it is usual to take the group ultimate loadcapacity as the lesser of the sum of the
individual pile capacities or the capacity of the wholefoundation block which
encompasses the pile group.
In cohesionless soils, driving groups of piles at close centres can result in increases
in relative density and therefore increased lateral pressures in the sand, which can
increase pile skin friction and thus pile capacity. However, it is usual to take a
conservative view and assume the group capacity will be represented as the sum of
the individual pile capacities. For bored piles in either material, there may be a

reduction in capacity for the group due to the relaxation of lateral stress as a
result of the method of installation.
• Group Settlement
The settlement of a pile group is usually linked to the settlement of a single pile
under the same average load as a pile in the group by a group settlement ratio
(Rs). Poulos and Davis (1980) present charts and elastic solutions that allow the
estimation of group settlement for isotropic elastic conditions. Rs is dependant
upon the length: diameter ratio of the piles, (or equivalent diameter in the case of
non-circular piles), the Poisson's ratio of the soil, the variation in Young's modulus
of the soil, and a relative stiffness parameter (Krb), linking the pile and soil
stiffnesses. Alternatively pile group settlement estimates can be obtained directly
from the output of elastic analysis programs such as PIGLET, Repute and DEFPIG.
• Group Lateral Capacity
There are two possible modes for lateral failure of a pile group. If the piles are
widely spaced (at least 3D to 4D), they are unlikely to interfere with one another
and so the ultimate lateral capacity will be the sum of the lateral capacity of the
individual piles within the group. If the piles are closely spaced, then the group
capacity will be that of an equivalent pier containing the piles and the soil.
Lateral capacity of individual piles can be assessed using elastic methods (Poulos
and Davis, 1980); limit state equilibrium methods such as those proposed by Broms
(1965) or so called p-y methods such as those presented by Reese et al (2006).
• Lateral Deflection
There will usually be increases in pile deflections and rotations as a result of group
action. There are a number of possible approaches to this calculation, but the
easiest is that of Poulos using elastic theory. He has tabulated group deflection and
rotation ratios which are used in a similar manner to the group settlement ratio for
vertical settlement (see Poulos, 1979).
4). Summary
Although the above may seem complex, it must be remembered that the program
PIGLET makes allowance for the interactions between the piles in a group and so all
that is ecessary, (assuming the correct loads, soil properties, etc, are input), is to
check the maximum and minimum pile loads from the program output against those
acceptable for a single pile and deflections and rotations against whatever is judged
to be acceptable for the particular structure.

9.7.6. Settlement Of Piles

Whereas the pile capacity calculations presented above are an ultimate limit state
check, this section deals with the estimation of the settlement of piles and is therefore
essentially a serviceability check. Again only single pile settlements are presented here;
settlement of pile groups has been discussed above.
The differential settlement of the supports of a bridge can be an important load
case, depending on the properties of the structure. For continuous decks, especially those
with stiff cross-sections and short spans, it will be more important than for simply
supported or more flexible structures. It is normal to think of piled foundations as rigid
and assume there will be no settlement of the supports. However, this will only be really
true for short, end-bearing piles to a rigid sub-strata. For other types and especially
friction piles, there will be the chance of some settlement, although this will of course
usually be much less than for spread footings. There is also the elastic deflection of the
piles themselves to consider. This could be quite large for long piles, but if the piles are
all of similar length it will tend to be the same for all supports, so will produce little
structural distress. In WA, all structures on piled foundations should be designed for a
minimum differential settlement of 5 mm and then, as long as the vertical capacity is
adequate, it will usually be unnecessary to specifically checkpile settlement. However, in
certain instances, calculation may be required.
The subject of pile settlement is complex. For a full treatment refer to Poulos and
Davis, 1980, Chapter 5. There are a variety of methods available for pile settlement
calculations, but the most popular is elastic theory, for which there are tables and charts
available to assist in calculations. A few such graphs are given in Poulos and Davis, (1980),
or other publications referred to in the AS 2159 Commentary. The simplest elastic
solutions consider an incompressible pile in an infinite half space with a completely
homogeneous soil having a constant Young's modulus (Es), and Poisson's ratio, and assume
there is no slippage at the pile/soil interface. Also elastic theory normally only calculates
the immediate, elastic settlement of the pile, it does not readily provide information on
any long-term consolidation settlement that may occur. However, these approximations
are usually acceptable. A greater problem which can have a profound effect on the answer
obtained is the correct choice of Es. The triaxial test was used to derive values, but these
resulted in gross overestimates of pile settlement. The only reliable way is to carry out an
in situ test, loading a test pile, plotting the load settlement relationship and then back
calculating the soil modulus. It is not necessary for the test pile to be the same cross-
section as that to be used in the final structure, but it must be the same length so that it
goes through the same soil layers. Failing this, there are a number of empirical

correlations available, refer to AS 2159 Commentary.
9.7.7. Meyerhof’s Formula For Driven Piles based on SPT Value

Meyerhof’s Formula For Driven Piles based on SPT Value for various types of soils
classified into groups of sands ; non-plastic silt and fine sand ; clays as follows :
L = Depth of piles penetration in subsoil

D = Pile diameter (m)
N = N-SPT value
N = Average value of N-SPT
Ap = Base sectional area of pile(m2)
As = Wide of pile blanket due to friction (m2)
 = Adhesion factor, taken 1 for consolidated clay

Qu = Ultimate bearing capacity (ton/m2)
9.7.8. Bearing Capacity Calculation of Pile Foundation in PLTMG KOLAKA UTARA

In general, the use of pile foundation will be chosen according to the needs of the
workload that would support pile foundation andthe type of soil on the foundation plan.
The following is one example as an illustration of the use of pile foundation on various
workloads:

Figure 9.23. The type of Pile Foundation on various workloads
From figure 6.23.could be used as an initial reference for the type of usage pile
foundation on the plan of PLTMG KOLAKA UTARA Tanjung Batu.
From the investigation survey results of N SPT that has been conducted at some
point drill which represents the main building site plan of PLTMG KOLAKA UTARA Tanjung
Batu, lithology geological structure included in the classification of “ clay “ , thus the
empirical formula of pile foundation bearing capacity that will be used as the basis for
calculation is for the category of "clay" as follows :
Qu = Qp + Qs = 4,5 N Ap+ (N/2) As
Where in calculation of bearing capacity N-SPT value recommended using SPT N- corrected
values, so that the formula is written as follows:
Qu = Qp + Qs = 4,5 [N60 . Ab] + [(N’60/2) . As]
Qp = bearing capacity from point bearing factor
Qs = bearing capacity from skin friction factor
N60 = Correction value of N SPTobtained from Skempton (1986),
N’60 = Average value of SPT along the immersed piles
Ap= Ab = Base sectional area of pilei.e ¼ .  . D2 (m2) -> for circular
D2 (m2) -> for square
½ .D . B (m2) -> for triangular
As = Wide of pile blanket (circle pile) =  . D . h (m2)-> for circular
D .h(m2) -> for square
3 . h . D (m2) -> for triangular
Qallowable = Qu/SF
SF Value taken 3

In this study a bearing capacity simulation analysis of pile foundation will be

conducted with consideration of the availability of diameter pile foundations on the
market with a product reference WIKA Beton by the following specifications:
Table 9.15. Spec Spun Pile WIKA
Outside Wall Concrete Unit Length Bending Moment Allowable

Diameter Thickness Cross Weight (m) Axial Load
(mm) (mm) Class Section (kg/m) (Ton)
(cm2) Crack Ultimate
(Ton.m) (Ton.m)
300 60 A2 452 113 6-13 2,50 3,75 22,60
A3 3,00 4,50 70,75
B 3,50 6,30 67,50
C 4,00 8,00 65,40
350 65 A1 582 145 6-15 3,50 5,25 93,10
A3 4,20 6,30 89,50
B 5,00 9,00 86,40
C 6,00 12,00 85,00
400 75 A2 766 191 6-16 5,50 8,25 121,10
A3 6,50 9,75 117,60
B 7,50 13,50 114,40
C 8,50 18,00 111,50
450 80 A1 930 232 6-16 7,50 11,25 149,50
A2 8,50 12,75 145,80
A3 10,00 15,00 143,80
B 11,00 19,80 139,10
C 12,50 25,00 134,90
500 90 A1 1159 290 6-16 10,50 15,75 185,30
A2 12,50 18,75 181,70
A3 14,00 21,00 178,20
B 15,00 27,00 174,90
c 17,00 34,00 169,00
600 100 A1 1571 393 6-16 17,00 25,50 252,70
A2 19,00 28,50 249,00
A3 22,00 33,00 243,20
B 25,00 45,00 238,30
c 29,00 58,00 229,50
Table 9.16. Spec Spun Square Pile WIKA
Dimension Concrete Concrete Weight Bending Moment Allowable Length

(D) Thickness Area (kg/m) Axial Load Of Pile
cm (mm) cm2 Class ton (m)
Crack Ultimate
(ton.m) (ton.m)
40 x 40 75 1105 277 A2 6,50 10,00 182 6-16
A3 8,50 12,50 180
B 10,00 18,00 173
C 11,00 22,00 169
350 65 1364 341 A1 8,50 12,50 227 6-16
A2 11,00 17,00 222
A3 13,00 20,90 219
B 13,50 24,00 215
C 15,50 31,00 208

Diameter which is used to analyze the calculation of foundation bearing capacity in the area of
PLTMG KOLAKA UTARA are:
 For mini pile Ø 200, 250, 300, 320, dan 400 mm
 For spun pile Ø 300, 400, 500, 600 mm
Skempton develop the correction of N-SPT valueas follows:
where:
N60 = Correction value of SPT towardsthe value of field testing
Em = Hammer Efficiency
CB = Correction of drill diameter
Cs = Sampler Correction
CR = Correction of rope length
Table 9.17. SPT Hammer Efficiencies
Source: Clayton (1990) in Donald P.Coduto (1994)
Table 9.18. Borehole, Sampler, and Road Correction factor
Source: Skempton (1986) inDonald P.Coduto (1994)

For the calculation of bearing capacity of mini pile driven group, Q allowable is Q
allowable bearing capacity of single driven pilemulitply with pile efficieny:
Qall = (Qu/SF) x Pile Efficiency
Where :
𝜃 (𝑛−1)𝑚+(𝑚−1)𝑛
Pile efficiency = 1 − x
90 𝑚.𝑛
Θ = arc tan (d/s) in degree
n = the number of piles in a line
m = the number of lines
s = distance between piles
Figure 9.24. Pile Group
In this study for bearing capacity of pile group will conducted hypothetical simulation for
Mini Pile Group as follows:

 Driven pile BH-1
FINAL REPORT DRAFT VIII - 43


Figure 9.25. End Bearing Capacity Driven Pile Group Foundation which obtained from The Data of N-SPT BH-1 at PLTMG
KOLAKA UTARA Area

Figure 9.26. Driven Pile Bearing Capacity which obtained from The Data of N-SPT BH-1 at PLTMG KOLAKA UTARA Area

 Driven Pile BH-2


KOLAKA UTARA Area


 Driven pile BH-3


KOLAKA UTARA Area


 Mini pile BH-1


Figure 9.31. End Bearing Capacity Mini Pile Group Foundation which obtained from The Data of N-SPT BH-1 at PLTMG KOLAKA
UTARA Area

Figure 9.32. Mini Pile Bearing Capacity which obtained from The Data of N-SPT BH-1 at PLTMG KOLAKA UTARA Area

 Mini Pile BH-2


UTARA Area


 Mini pile BH-3


UTARA Area


 Bored Pile BH-1

Figure 9.37. Bored Pile Bearing Capacity which obtained from The Data of N-SPT BH-1 at PLTMG KOLAKA UTARA Area

 Bored Pile BH-2


 Bored Pile BH-3


Suggestions for driven pile foundation with soil depth considering the rigors of the
value of N - SPT > 50 is not too deep, so if driven pile will be applied should be done pre drill
advance with a view to facilitate the implementation of the work driven pile until it reaches
the depth of the plan. Whereas if chosen bored pile, it is necessary to elections diameter
bored pile according to the load that will work on the foundation system.

Contents
CHAPTER 9 ................................................................................................................................................................ 1
PRE DESIGN FOUNDATION .................................................................................................................................... 1
9.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1
Figure 9.1. Description of Foundation ....................................................................................................... 1
9.2. FOUNDATION DESIGN PROCEDURE ........................................................................................................... 1
9.3. TYPES OF FOUNDATION ............................................................................................................................. 2
9.4. DESIGN CONSIDERATION ............................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 9.2. Spread Footings : (a) Square, (b) Rectangular .................................................................... 3
Figure 9.3. (cont). Spread Footings : (c) Circular (d) continuous (strip) (e) Combined (d) Ring . 3
Figure 9.4. Cantilever Retaining Wall ........................................................................................................ 3
Figure 9.5. Gravity Retaining Wall .............................................................................................................. 4
Figure 9.6. Counter fort Retaining Wall..................................................................................................... 4
Figure 9.7. Various Types of Concrete Piles ............................................................................................. 4
Figure 9.8. Layout of Piles in Groups ......................................................................................................... 5
Table 9.1. Gives an indication of the type of foundation investigation appropriate for
various ground conditios and types of foundation ................................................................................... 5
Table 9.2. Soil types and foundation consideration ......................................................................... 6
Table 9.3. Possible solutions to some problems in foundations .................................................... 6
9.5. SOIL CLASSIFICATION .................................................................................................................................. 7
Table 9.5. Applications of the SPT in geotechnical design.............................................................. 8
Table 9.6. Determination of geological Parameters from SPT results
Table 9.7. SPT – based soil and rock classification systems ............................................................ 9
Table 9.8. Typical Undrained shear strength for cohesive soils .................................................... 9
Table 9.9. Empirical value Young’s Modulus of Weathered Granites from SPT results ....... 10
Figure 9.9. Parameters in granular soils – effective angle of friction Ø’ ......................................... 11
Figure 9.10. Correlation between N value and undrained shear strength, .................................. 12
Table 9.10. Correlation between ultimate shaft resistance, fs of piles and SPT N value (after
Poulos, 1989).13
Table 9.11. Estimate value of safe bearing capacity for cohessive soils. .................................... 13
9.6. DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION OR SHALLOW FOOTINGS ......................................................... 14
Figure 9.11. The forces that works on a foundation system ............................................................ 18
Figure 9.12. The relation of q(a) and q(ult) in a foundation system.............................................. 18
Figure 9.13. Scheme of soilbearing capacity for various types of commonly collapse used by
Terzaghi (according Terzaghi in Bowles, 1982)......................................................................................... 18
Table 9.12. Soil Bearing Capacity Factor for Terzaghi equation ................................................... 19
Figure 9.14. The value of graphycal soil bearing capacity ............................................................... 20
Figure 9.15. Ground water levelonthe soil surface ............................................................................ 20
Figure 9.16. Ground water level under foundation elevation ......................................................... 21
Table 9.13. Typical Bearing Capacity Factors of safety ................................................................... 22
9.7. DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATION................................................................................................................. 23

Figure 9.17. Classification of Pile Types ............................................................................................... 24

Figure 9.18. Stages In A Typical Design For Driven Piles................................................................... 25
Figure 9.19. Selection of a Pile Type – Sub Soil Conditions .............................................................. 27
Figure 9.20. Selection of a Pile Type – Loading ................................................................................... 28
Figure 9.21. Selection of a Pile Type – Site Conditions...................................................................... 29
Figure 9.22. Selection of a Pile Type – Structure Type ..................................................................... 30
Table 9.14. CPT Correlations for Driven Displacement Piles after Bustamante & Gianeselli . 32
Figure 9.23. The type of Pile Foundation on various workloads ..................................................... 39
Table 9.15. Spec Spun Pile WIKA ........................................................................................................... 40
Table 9.16. Spec Spun Square Pile WIKA ............................................................................................. 40
Table 9.17. SPT Hammer Efficiencies ................................................................................................... 41
Table 9.18. Borehole, Sampler, and Road Correction factor .......................................................... 41
Figure 9.24. Pile Group .............................................................................................................................. 42
Figure 9.25. End Bearing Capacity Driven Pile Group Foundation which obtained from The
Data of N-SPT BH-1 at PLTMG KOLAKA UTARA Area .................................................................................. 45
Figure 9.26. Driven Pile Bearing Capacity which obtained from The Data of N-SPT BH-1 at
PLTMG KOLAKA UTARA Area ............................................................................................................................ 46
 Driven Pile BH-2 .......................................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 9.31. End Bearing Capacity Mini Pile Group Foundation which obtained from The Data
of N-SPT BH-1 at PLTMG KOLAKA UTARA Area ............................................................................................ 57
Figure 9.32. Mini Pile Bearing Capacity which obtained from The Data of N-SPT BH-1 at
 Mini Pile BH-2 .............................................................................................................................................. 59
 Bored Pile BH-1 ........................................................................................................................................... 67
Figure 9.37. Bored Pile Bearing Capacity which obtained from The Data of N-SPT BH-1 at
 Bored Pile BH-2 ........................................................................................................................................... 69
 Bored Pile BH-3 ........................................................................................................................................... 71


Bab 9 Pre Design Foundation

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Bab 9 Pre Design Foundation

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SITE INVESTIGATION STUDY OF MOBILE POWER PLANT AND PLTMG CLUSTER SULAWESI 3

Figure 9.1. Description of Foundation

9.2. FOUNDATION DESIGN PROCEDURE

A foundation is the interfacing element between the superstructure and the

Ix- 1 DRAFT FINAL REPORT

9.3. TYPES OF FOUNDATION

9.4. DESIGN CONSIDERATION

Ix- 2 DRAFT FINAL REPORT

Figure 9.2. Spread Footings : (a) Square, (b) Rectangular

Figure 9.4. Cantilever Retaining Wall

Ix- 3 DRAFT FINAL REPORT

Figure 9.5. Gravity Retaining Wall

Figure 9.6. Counter fort Retaining Wall

Figure 9.7. Various Types of Concrete Piles

Ix- 4 DRAFT FINAL REPORT

Figure 9.8. Layout of Piles in Groups

Ix- 5 DRAFT FINAL REPORT

Table 9.2. Soil types and foundation consideration

Table 9.3. Possible solutions to some problems in foundations

Ix- 6 DRAFT FINAL REPORT

Table 9.4. Pile Selection Guide

9.5. SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Ix- 7 DRAFT FINAL REPORT

Table 9.5. Applications of the SPT in geotechnical design

Table 9.6. Determination of geological Parameters from SPT results

Ix- 8 DRAFT FINAL REPORT

Table 9.7. SPT – based soil and rock classification systems

Table 9.8. Typical Undrained shear strength for cohesive soils

Ix- 9 DRAFT FINAL REPORT

9.5.1. Estimation of Parameters in granular soils between N value – effective angle of

Ix- 10 DRAFT FINAL REPORT

Figure 9.9. Parameters in granular soils – effective angle of friction Ø’

f1 depends slightly on the plasticity of the clay.

Ix- 11 DRAFT FINAL REPORT

Figure 9.10. Correlation between N value and undrained shear strength,

Cv for insensitive clays (after Stroud, 1974)

9.5.3. Estimation of shaft resistance for design of piles

The estimation of shaft resistance for design of piles are:

Ix- 12 DRAFT FINAL REPORT

9.5.4. Estimate value of Safe Bearing Capacity for Cohesive Soils

Ix- 13 DRAFT FINAL REPORT

9.6. DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION OR SHALLOW FOOTINGS

9.6.1.1. Founding Level

9.6.1.2 Size of Footing

Ix- 14 DRAFT FINAL REPORT

9.6.2. Ultimate Geotechnical Strength (Rug) of Shallow Footings

Geotechnical strength The modes of failure to be considered are :

9.6.2.1 Ultimate Bearing Failure

Ix- 15 DRAFT FINAL REPORT

9.6.2.2 Overall (Global) Instability

Ix- 16 DRAFT FINAL REPORT

9.6.2.3 Sliding Failure

9.6.3. Bearing Capacity Formula of Shallow Foundation

q(ult) > soil bearing capacitybestif q(ult) 2 to 5 times sc

Ix- 17 DRAFT FINAL REPORT

Figure 9.11. The forces that works on a foundation system

Figure 9.12. The relation of q(a) and q(ult) in a foundation system

Figure 9.13. Scheme of soilbearing capacity for various types of commonly

Ix- 18 DRAFT FINAL REPORT

Bearing capacity foundation type (Terzaghi)

Table 9.12. Soil Bearing Capacity Factor for Terzaghi equation

Ix- 19 DRAFT FINAL REPORT