Case History Evaluation of Axial Behaviour of Bored Pile from SPT

Case History Evaluation of the Axial
Behaviour
of Bored Pile from SPT
Aung Naing Moe
August 2014
Outline
Introducti
on
- Axial Capacity of
Bored Pile
- Case Studies
- Conclusions &
Discussions
Introduction
Since 1967, there have been a significant
increase in the use of bored piles as foundation in
Singapore.
Reported by Chang and Broms (1990),
approximately 200,000-400,000 m of bored piles
is installed each year. The diameter of Bored piles
varies from 500 mm to 1800 mm.
Until late 1970s, the design procedure for bored
piles was essentially empirical and the capacity
was very often underestimated.
Introduction
As a result, the designs were often conservative. One
of the most valid reasons for conservative design
procedure is the lack of understanding of the
behaviour of bored piles in local residual soils and
weathered rocks.
For the design verification purpose, proof load tests
were conducted. Although test piles were occasionally
loaded to failure, they were often not instrumented.
As a result, only load-displacement behaviour of pile
could be determined and test data did not provide the
information on the load distribution and the loadtransfer characteristics of pile.
Introduction
To develop the design of bored piles in residual soils
and weathered rocks of Singapore, number of
studies on instrumented bored piles have been
carried out since early 1980s.
These studies show that the load transfer is
primarily through the shaft resistance and the
mobilized point resistance is very small at the
working load.
The results of these studies were reported by Yong
et al (1982), Chin (1982), Chin et al (1982),
Buttling (1986) and Buttling & Robinson
(1987).
Introduction
In late 1980s and early 1990s, similar studies were
carried out and the results were reported by Chang
& Goh (1988) and Chang & Broms (1991).
The design recommendations were given on the unit
shaft friction, critical displacement and load transfer
curve.
The more comprehensive study was carried out by
Chang & Zhu (2002) and the report was focused
on a better understanding of the interaction
mechanism between pile shaft and the surrounding
soil and the construction effects on the pile
performance.
Axial Capacity of Bored Pile

The function of piles is to transfer the load to the
stronger layers of the ground which are capable
of supporting the load with an adequate factor of
safety and without settling at the working load by
an amount detrimental to the structure that they
support.
At all times, it is important that the stress induced

in both pile material and supporting soil is kept
within an allowable limit.

(structural)
Structural Capacity
For
nominally
reinforced
bored
pile,
as
recommended in BS 8004 and SS CP4 (2003),
the allowable structural capacity can be computed
as:
Qst = 0.25 fcu Ac

where Ac = area of concrete and 0.25 fcu should not
exceed 7.5 N/mm2.

(structural)
For rock socketed reinforced bored piles with full length
steel reinforcement, the allowable structural capacity
may be determined as axially loaded short columns in
accordance with SS CP65 and can be taken as:
Qst =
0.4 f cu A c 0.75 f y As
Fs
where
fcu = compressive strength of concrete at 28 days
Ac = area of concrete
fy = yield stress of steel
As = steel area
Fs = factor of safety ( 2)

Geotechnical Capacity
A pile subjected to the axial load will carry the load
partly by shear generated along the pile shaft, and
partly by normal stress generated at pile base.
The ultimate capacity is equal to the sum of
ultimate shaft and base resistance.

(geotechnical)
Force Diagram
Qu
Qu + Wp
= Qs
+ Qb
Qu = Qs + Qb - Wp
In practice, Wp is much
Smaller compared to Qu,
WP
Qs
Q u = Q s + Qb
Qb
Qu = ultimate capacity
Qs = ultimate shaft
resistance
Qb = ultimate base
resistance
Wp = self weight of pile

(geotechnical)
Ultimate Shaft Resistance
The ultimate shaft resistance, Qs is generally taken as:
f dA
Qs = s s
where
fs = ultimate unit shaft resistance
dAs = local incremental shaft area of pile
For layered soil, the above equation can be rewritten as:

N
f si Asi
i 1
Qs =
where
fsi = ultimate unit shaft resistance in layer i
Asi = shaft area of pile in layer i

(geotechnical)
Ultimate Base Resistance
The ultimate base resistance, Qb is generally
estimated from the relationship:
Qb =f b A
p
where
fb = ultimate base resistance
Ap = pile base area

(geotechnical)
Allowable Capacity
The allowable capacity is equal to the sum of ultimate shaft
and base resistance divided by a suitable factor of safety:
Qa =
(Qs Qb )
F
A single global factor of safety (F) of 2.0 to 3.0 is

commonly used to evaluate the allowable capacity of single
piles.
The lower value is often used when the ultimate capacity is
determined from load tests and the higher value when the
capacity is estimated from a static formula.

(geotechnical)
Another important factor, the settlement of the pile
under the working load should not exceed the
specified limit. In Singapore, the maximum settlement
of bored pile should not exceed 25 mm at 2 times
working load (Public Works Department, Housing
and Development Board & SS CP4 2003).
In the 1st Phase MRT construction, the Mass Rapid
Transit Corporation of Singapore specifies that the
maximum settlement should not exceed 6-9 mm at
working load and 9-20 mm at 1.5 times working load
(Buttling and Robison, 1987).

(geotechnical)
The axial displacement that is required to fully

mobilize the shaft resistance for bored piles is usually
small, typically 5-6 mm (Whitaker and Cooke 1966,
Aurora and Reese 1977, Horvath and Kenney 1979) or
5-10 mm (ONeill and Reese 1972). Based on the
findings by local investigators, 4-9 mm of pile shaft
unit shaft
movement
is required to fully mobilize the shaft
resistance
resistance.
t-z
curve
qs max
56mm
displacement

(geotechnical)
In
contrast
a
relatively
large
displacement,
approximately 5 % (Aurora and Reese 1977) or 10
% (Woodward et al. 1972) of the pile diameter, is
required to fully mobilize base resistance. Thus at the
working load, the shaft resistance plays an important
role.
unit base
resistance
q-z
curve
qb
max
5% - 10% of pile
displacement
Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

This difference in the required displacement for fully
mobilization of resistance and its effect on pile
behaviour are not taken into account in the traditional
design approach in Singapore.
Since the different displacements are required for fully
mobilization of the two resistance components, the
use of different partial factor of safety for the shaft
resistance and base resistance is recommended in the
improved traditional design method. The allowable
pile capacity can be expressed as:
Qa =
Qs Qb
Fs Fb
where Fs is typically 1.5 to 2 and Fb is typically 3 to 4.

Estimation of Unit Shaft Resistance
The load transfer mechanism in the design of bored
pile shaft resistance is similar to that used to
analyze the resistance to a sliding of a rigid body in
contact with soil.
Two methods of analysis, one for cohesive soil and
the other for non-cohesive soil, can be used to
estimate the ultimate shaft resistance of bored pile.
-Method
This method is commonly used to estimate the ultimate
unit shaft resistance of piles in clay soil subjected to an
undrained loading condition (total stress analysis).
The skin resistance is evaluated from the undrained
shear strength (Cu) as determined by field or laboratory
tests. Tomlinson (1957) recommended the -method
to determine the unit shaft resistance as follows:
fs = C u
Cu = undrained shear strength and = adhesion factor
Evaluation of
Number of studies have been carried out to
determine the adhesion factor () for stiff and hard
clays and weathered rocks.
Generally, the value decreases with increasing
undrained shear strength.
The value of a for a given pile at a given site should
be determined from a pile load test.

However, it is impossible and therefore many
attempts have been made to establish the
correlation between Cu and .
Typically, the value of a ranges from 0.25 for very
stiff to hard clay to 1.0 soft clay.
Some a values suggested by researchers based on
the intensive studies in different soils are
summarized in following Table.

Golder and Leonard (1954)
Adhesion
Factor,
0.25 - 0.70
Tomlinson (1957) and Skempton (1959)
0.30 - 0.60
Tomlinson (1957) and Skempton (1959)
0.45 (average)
Soil Type
London Clay
Stiff Clay
Stiff silty Clay
Beaumont Clay
Kenny Hill Formation,

Malaysia
Silt Stone
(highly weathered)
Reference
Woodward et al (1961)
0.50
Mohan and Jain (1961)
0.66
Whitaker and Cooke (1966)
0.44
Reese and O'Neill (1988)
0.55
Chin (1982)
Pearce and Brassow (1979)
Toh, C.T et al (1989)
Davies et al (1979)
0.80 - 0.85
0.60
0.50 - 0.54
0.65 - 0.71

Weltman and Healy (1978) studied the ultimate
shaft resistance of bored piles in boulder clay and
other glacial tills and introduced the verses Cu
curve.

Kulhawy and Jackson (1984) reported the correlation
between a and Cu based on the data of over 100 pile
load test.
Pa
= 0.21 + 0.26Cu
where Pa is the atmospheric pressure, 101 kPa. The
value and Cu/Pa should not exceed 1 and 3, respectively.
Based on the comprehensive study, Kulhawy and
Phoon (1993) found that both the unit shaft resistance
and the adhesion factor vary linearly.
Cu
fs
C
0.5 u
(or) = 0.5
Cu
Pa
Pa

Fleming et al (1985) proposed the following
relationships.
For Cu/'v <1,
=
0.5
(Cu / ' v ) 0.5
For Cu/'v >1,

0 .5
(Cu / ' v ) 0.25
where 'v is the effective vertical stress.

Semple and Rigden (1984) proposed the value of a
as a function of Cu/'v and L/d. The a value can be taken
as:
= F p
where F is the length factor and p is peak friction
coefficient. The values of F and ap can be obtained from
followings:

The back calculated a value from results of load
tests is subject to soil disturbance, constriction
effects and rate of loading.
Moreover, the undrained shear strength is not a
fundamental soil parameter. It depends on various
factors, such as the stress history, the effective
overburden stress, the effective friction angle, the
water content and the testing method.
Therefore the care should be taken when using a
method for the estimation of shaft resistance.

-Method
The effective stress analysis is commonly used to
estimate the ultimate unit shaft resistance of pile in
coehionless soil or cohesive soil which is subjected
to a drained loading condition (effective stress
analysis). In this method, the skin friction resistance
is related to the effective overburden pressure 'v:
fs = c' + 'h tan '
since 'h = Ks 'v, tan ' = tan ' and the above
equation becomes:
fs = c' + Ks 'v tan '

In practice, due to the soil disturbance associated with pile
installation, the drained shear strength is commonly
neglected.
fs = Ks 'v tan
Where:
(or) fs = 'v
c' = drained shear strength

'h = effective horizontal stress acting on pile shaft
' = effective friction angle between the pile and soil
'v = effective vertical stress
Ks = coefficient of horizontal stress
' = effective friction angle
= Ks tan '

There is a relationship between the coefficient K s and the
coefficient of earth pressure at rest K 0. Kulhawy (1984)
recommended Ks = 0.7 - 1.0 K0 and also suggested that ' =
1.0 ' for cast-in-place piles in sand.
For cohesive soil, the value of b ranges typically from 0.25 to
about 0.40 depending on the over consolidation ratio (OCR).
= 0.25 (OCR)0.5
An equivalent can be estimated for residual soils and
weathered rocks from the following relationship.
OCR = Cu/Cnu
where Cnu is the undrained shear strength of the normally

consolidated clay which can be estimated from the c/p ratio. If
no test data is available, the widely accepted c/p ratio of
0.22 can be used.

Number of studies have been carried out to determine
the value. Wong (2005) recommended the following
relationship to estimate the .
0.375
0.625
= (Cu/'v) ( Cu/'
nc v)
Fleming et al (1985) proposed to use the following

relationship to estimate the value of b. For Cu/'v <1:
= (Cu/'v) (
0.5
Cunc
/'v)
0.5
and for Cu/'v > 1.0,

0.5
= (Cu/'ncv)
0.75
( Cu/'v)

Estimation of Unit Base Resistance
The base resistance normally depends upon the
shear strength properties of soil within the vicinity
of the pile base.
Large amount of displacement is required to fully
mobilize the base resistance.
The mobilized base resistance at the working load is
usually small (Chang and Wong 1987).

Cohesive Soil
The drained end bearing capacity of bored pile in
clayey soil is larger than the undrained. However,
the displacement required to mobilize the drained
capacity would be too large to be tolerate by most
of structures.
For this reason, the ultimate base resistance of piles
in clay is calculated as a function of undrained
shear strength (Cu) and bearing capacity factor (Nc).
The unit base resistance can be estimated from the
following relationship.

fb = Nc Cu
The value of Nc is usually taken as 9 (Skempton,
1951) if the pile tip penetrates into the bearing
stratum by 3 times pile diameter or more.
However when the ratio of the embedment depth in
the bearing stratum, to the diameter of pile base is
less than 3, a linear interpolation is necessary for
the adoption
of the value of Nc
(6
,
Nc 9
Fleming, 1985).

Non-Cohesive Soil
The bearing pressure beneath a pile in a uniform
deposit of non-cohesive soil is directly proportional
to the vertical effective stress.
From the general bearing capacity equation, the
unit base resistance can be express in the terms of
the effective vertical stress ('v) and bearing
capacity factor (Nq).
fb = Nq 'v

Berezantzev et al (1961) recommended the
value of Nq as a function of friction angle '. The
relationship between frictional angle ' and bearing
capacity factor Nq is shown in Figure below:

Estimation of Pile Capacity
Penetration Test (SPT)
from
Standard
The soil parameters derived from laboratory tests

are used in traditional method of design for piles.
However for stiff cohesive soil, the determination of
the undrained shear strength and deformation
parameters from laboratory tests is not reliable due
to difficulty in undisturbed sampling and sample
disturbance.
Also,
obtaining
of
undisturbed
cohesionless soil is very difficult.
sample
in

As a result, in-situ tests are commonly used to
calculate the geotechnical capacity of bored piles.
The standard penetration test (SPT), developed
around 1927, is currently the most widely used insitu test in many countries around the world.
The test method has been standardized as ASTM
1586 since 1958 with periodical revision to date.
The reason for preference for SPT test is probably
because it is easy to use, inexpensive and the long
experience accumulated with interpretation.

Estimation of Unit Shaft Resistance
As presented earlier, the unit shaft resistance of bored
piles is normally estimated by the method. However it
should be highlighted that it is difficult to determine the
undrained shear strength from unconfined compression
tests or triaxial undrained tests (UU tests) due to sample
disturbance.
Therefore it is preferable to correlate the C u from
penetration tests. For residual soils of Singapore, as
recommended by Stroud (1974), the relationship
between the standard penetration resistance or N value
and the undrained shear strength is:
Cu = 5 - 6N (kPa)

using a value of 0.45, as recommended by Skempton (1959),
the relationship between ultimate unit shaft resistance and
standard penetration resistance (N) can be taken as:
fs = 2.45N (kPa)
Meyerhof (1976) suggested that the ultimate unit shaft

resistance of bored piles can be estimate directly from the
standard penetration resistance (N).
fs = N (kPa)
A well known relationship f s = 2N (kPa), proposed by

Meyerhof (1976) for driven piles in sand, is often used for the
design of bored piles in residual soils in Singapore (Broms et al.
1988).

Based on the extensive studies of instrumented pile tests in
residual soil of Singapore, Chang & Goh (1988) and Chang &
Broms (1991) recommended the following relationship to
evaluate the ultimate unit shaft resistance of bored piles.
fs = 2N (kPa)
The Singapore code for foundation, SS CP4 (2003)
recommended the following empirical relationship to estimate
the ultimate shaft resistance.
fs = Ks N (kPa)
where Ks is the skin friction coefficient and value depends very

much on the local experience. For soil of Bukit Timah Granite, a
value of Ks between 1.5 to 2.5 may be adopted. For dense or
hard cemented soil in the Old Alluvial, a value of K s between 2
and 3 can be adopted.

Estimation of Unit Base Resistance
As discussed, the unit base resistance of bored piles
is normally estimated from bearing capacity
equation, fb = Nc Cu.
Using cu = 5 - 6N based on Stroud (1974) and Nc =
9 as recommended by Skempton (1951), the
ultimate unit base resistance can be taken as:
fb = 45N (kPa)

Meyerhof (1976) suggested that the ultimate unit
base resistance of bored piles can be estimate directly
from the standard penetration resistance (N).
fb = 120Ncorr (kPa)
where Ncorr can be taken as:
Ncorr = CN N60
where CN is SPT overburden correction factor and
N60~N.
CN = 10 (1/'v)0.5

Based on the extensive studies of instrumented pile tests in
residual soil of Singapore, Chang & Broms (1991)
recommended the following relationship to evaluate the ultimate
unit base resistance of bored piles.
fb = 30 - 45N (kPa)
The SS CP4 (2003) recommended that qu may be related to the
SPT N-value as:
fb = Kb 40N (kPa)
where Kb is coefficient and value depends on the depth of
embedment in bearing stratum, effect of loosing of soil at pile
base, effect of softening of soil due to ingress of ground water and
cleanness of pile base. A Kb value of between 1 and 3 may be
adopted with limiting value of fb = 10 MPa, unless otherwise
verified by load test.
Case Studies
The main objective is to study the results and
performances of load tests conducted on the
instrumented bored piles.
The piles under this study were located at various
sites around Singapore and were installed in
different soil conditions and geological formations.
The results of 5 instrumented load test data were
used in this chapter. The details of the test piles and
their locations are summarized in following Table.
Case Studies
Test
Pile
Worki
Casti
Loa
Cas Diame Penetrat
ng
Locati Formati
ng
d
e
ter
ion (m)
Load
on
on
Meth
(ton
(mm)
(ton)
od
)
Senja
Bukit
1
600
16.8
180
558
Tremie
Road
Timah
Balesti
Old
2
600
19.2
212
742
er
Dry
Alluvial
Road
Bukit
329
3
1400
19.0
1000
Ho
Jurong
Dry
5
Swee
Boon
174
4
1000
28.0
580
Lay
Jurong Tremie
0
Way
Jalan
5
900
13.0
180
610
Jurong
Dry
Kilang
Case Studies
Test Pile Detail
Case 1 Test Pile
Depth
(m)
0 - 2.6
Soil Description
fill material
2.6 - 4.0 medium stiff silty Clay

loose clayey Silt with medium
4.0 - 8.0 coarse sand
medium dense clayey Silt with
8.0 - 15.0 coarse sand
15.0 Very dense Silt with decomposed
15.2
Granite
15.2 18.0
Hard Granite
SPT
6
7
9
14-18
100
43-55% RQD
Case Studies
Case 1 Test Pile
(test pile detail)
Case Studies (test pile detail)

Case 2 Test Pile
Depth
(m)
0 - 1.0
Soil Description
SPT
fill material
1.0 - 2.7
medium stiff silty Clay
2.7 - 8.0
stiff silty Clay
8.0 - 11.5 very dense clayey Sand

11.5 14.0
hard clayey sandy Silt
14.0 18.4
very dense to hard clayey silty Sand
13-14
60
77
>100
Case Studies
Case 2 Test Pile
(test pile detail)

Case 3 Test Pile
Depth
(m)
0 - 1.0
Soil Description
SPT
Firm clayey Silt
1.0 - 2.7
medium stiff silty Clay
2.7 - 8.5
stiff silty Clay
8.5 - 12.0 very dense sandy Silt

12.0 18.0
weathered Siltstone
18.0 28.0
weathered Siltstone
30-33
56
>100
>100
Case Studies
Case 3 Test Pile
(test pile detail)

Case 4 Test Pile
Depth
(m)
0 - 1.4
1.4 - 6.3
Soil Description
SPT
fill material
loose to medium dense sandy clayey
Silt
6.3 - 14.5 medium dense to dense sandy Silt

14.5
33.5
hard sandy Silt
7-11
25-51
>100
Case Studies
Case 4 Test Pile
(test pile detail)

Case 5 Test Pile
Depth
(m)
0 - 0.8
Soil Description
fill material
SPT
0.8 - 3.0 Stiff clayey Silt
11
3.0 - 5.8 hard clayey Silt
40-63
5.8 - 7.6 hard clayey Silt
>100
7.6 -11.2 weathered Siltstone

11.2 17.0
weathered Siltstone
>100
>100
Case Studies
Case 5 Test Pile
(test pile detail)
Case Studies
Load Distribution & Pile Capacity
The load distribution curves provide the information

of axial load variation along pile shaft and at pile
tip.
The magnitude of load distribution at each soil layer
is calculated from the measured strain changes, pile
geometry and suitable elastic modulus of pile.
The load distribution curves along a pile allow an
evaluation of the load transferred to each geological
stratum and the corresponding mobilized resistance
value at each stage of loading.
Case Studies (load distribution & pile capacity)
The pile capacity is mobilized by the movement of

pile in relation to the surrounding soil.
The ultimate capacity, which is the maximum load,
is carried by the pile without excessive settlement
or failure.
For those cases in which the test loads are not high
enough to fully mobilize the ultimate capacity, the
Chin method of analysis is introduced to estimate
the ultimate pile capacities.
Load Distribution Curves

To obtain a greater understanding of the pile-soil
interaction behaviour, it is desirable to install
further instrumentations in the test piles.
The load distribution along the pile shaft and at the
pile toe can be measured using vibrating wire strain
gauges (VWSGs).
The VWSGs measured the axial strain changes in
pile shaft and at the pile toe.

The VWSGs are installed on sister bars (approximately
1.0 m long). Each strain gauge assembly (sister bar)
is tied to the pile reinforcement cage at the specified
intervals as indicated in test pile detail 1-5.
Based on the current construction practice, the
maximum interval between two layers of strain
gauges is 3.0 m. The signal cable from the VWSG is
routed to the readout unit which is stationed near the
pile head.
The function tests are conducted before the
installation of reinforcement cage into the borehole
and upon the completion of concreting. The strain
changes under each stage of loadings are measured
and stored in the readout unit.
The axial deformation of pile may be measured

using a simple rod extensometer.
The extensometer consists of a stainless steel rod
attached to a fixed anchor point in the pile and
placed within a protective pipe.
The entire assembly is cast in the bored pile. As the
pile undergo compression, the steel rod remains
free in the protective pipe which undergoes
compression with the pile.
A linear transducer is used to measure the axial
movement of the steel rod.
sister
strainbar
gauge
extensomet
er
protective
pipe

Load
Distribution
Instrumentation Data
Calculations
from
Based on the reading of VWSGs and the extensometers,

both the load distribution along the pile shaft and the
load-transfer curves can be derived.
First a suitable elastic modulus of the pile, E p, is
adopted. The suitable elastic modulus value is backcalculated from the axial strain measurement of strain
gauges at the first layer.
With a proper elastic modulus, the load distribution at
each layer of stain gauges can be calculated.

Adoption of Suitable Elastic Modulus of Pile
In general, the elastic modulus is not constant and its
value depends on the quality of concrete, amount of
axial strain and methods of testing.
The results of instrumented load test piles located in NIE
site at NTU campus indicate that elastic modulus
decreases as axial strain increases (Chang & Zhu,
2002).
In this case study, where possible, this modulus
degradation was considered in the adoption of suitable
modulus value for load distribution calculations.
The elastic modulus of pile (Ep) was back-calculated

from the axial strain measurement of strain gauges
at the first layer. Below is the sample of average
strain change and back-calculated Ep from first layer
strain gauges data.
Layer Strain
DepthChange
Average
Ref
Average Axial Strain Change
(m)
(10-6)
189
377
566
754
943
1131
2.35
148.0
307.1
487.3
692.0
948.1
1268.5
5.85
146.5
306.6
484.9
687.4
931.5
1263.0
11.85
144.5
303.8
479.7
677.3
913.2
1222.2
14.85
139.6
295.9
464.8
641.9
854.2
1091.9
17.85
131.7
279.1
427.9
566.4
725.7
886.6
19.85
119.7
260.5
386.6
498.4
624.3
741.2
21.55
104.0
232.4
331.7
426.1
534.8
612.4

Strain vs Elastic Modulus
E (ton/mm2)
2.80
2.40
f(x) = - 0x + 2.65
2.00
1.60
1.20
0.80
0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1000.0
1200.0
1400.0
Strain (10-6)
Test Load
189
377
566
754
943
1131
Ep (t/mm2)
2.54
2.44
2.31
2.17
1.98
1.77
With a proper elastic modulus, the load distribution

at each layer of stain gauges can be calculated
from the following relationship.
p
= Ep
p =
P
Ap
p
Ep
Ap
=
=
=
=
axial strain
P
axial stress
elastic modulus of pile
area of pile
P
Ap
1
Ep
= Ep Ap

Secondly, the calculated loads at various levels are
plotted and load distribution curves at different applied
load are obtained. The load distribution curves along a pile
allow a calculation of the load transferred to each soil
stratum and the corresponding mobilized resistance value
at each stage of loading.
Based on the pile head movement and the axial strain
measured, the relative displacement in the middle of each
soil layer between the pile and its surrounding soil or at
the pile toe can be computed. A plot of the mobilized shaft
resistance verses the relative shaft displacement or the
mobilized point resistance versus the tip movement can
be obtained for each supporting stratum to reflect the
complete load transfer characteristic of the stratum.

Axial Load (ton)
0
150
300
450
600
750
900
1050
1200
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Depth (m)
14
16
189 tons
377 tons
18
20
566 tons
754 tons
943 tons
22
24
26
1131 tons
load
distribution
diagram
unit shaft
resistance
qs max
56mm
displacement
t-z
curve
unit base
resistance
q-z
curve
qb
max
5% - 10% of pile
diameter
displacement
Test Results
Case 1 test pile
Case 2 Test Pile
Case 3 Test Pile
Case 4 Test Pile
Case 5 Test Pile
Case Studies
Conclusions & Discussions

Case No.
Depth
(m)
4.3 - 7.3
7.3 - 10.3
10.3 - 13.3
13.3 - 16.3
0.0 - 10.7
10.7 - 13.7
13.7 - 16.7
16.7 - 18.7
3.5 - 6.5
6.5 - 9.5
9.5 - 12.5
12.5 - 15.5
15.5 - 18.5
0 - 6.5
6.5 - 9.5
9.5 - 12.5
12.5 - 15.5
15.5 - 18.5
18.5 - 21.5
21.5 - 24.5
24.5 - 27.5
3.5 - 6.5
6.5 - 9.5
9.5 - 12.5
SPT N Value
(blows/300 mm)
9
14
18
100
23
72
98
111
56
100
100
150
167
11
11
25
25
25
42
150
150
63
107
150
Shaft
Resistance
fs, (kPa)
53
96
198
298
52
210
168
260
112
247
213
388
429
39
23
24
26
26
168
313
210
208
175
482
fs/N
5.9
6.9
11.0
2.9
2.3
2.9
1.7
2.3
2.0
2.5
2.1
2.6
2.6
3.5
2.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
2.1
1.4
3.3
1.6
3.2
summary of
mobilized shaft
Case Studies (conclusions & discussions)

Case
No.
1
2
3
4
5
SPT N Value
(blows/300 mm)
Base Resistance
fb, (kPa)
fb/N
100
6468
64.7
111
11033
99.4
167
9101
54.5
150
5796
38.6
150
3782
25.2
summary of
mobilized base
resistance
Case No.
Depth
(m)
7.7 - 10.7
10.7 - 13.7
13.7 - 16.7
16.7 - 18.7
0 - 6.5
6.5 - 9.5
9.5 - 12.5
12.5 - 15.5
15.5 - 18.5
18.5 - 21.5
21.5 - 24.5
24.5 - 27.5
3.5 - 6.5
6.5 - 9.5
9.5 - 12.5
SPT N Value
(blows/300
mm)
23
72
98
111
11
11
25
25
25
42
200
200
61
107
150
Shaft
Resistance
fs, (kPa)
52
210
168
260
39
23
24
26
26
168
313
210
208
175
482
Critical
Displacement
(mm)
N.A
3.0
5.0
5.0
N.A
N.A
5.0
8.6
8.6
N.A
7.3
11.8
5.0
5.0
N.A
summary of
critical shaft
displacement
Relations
hip
between
unit shaft
resistance
& SPT (N)
Relations
hip
between
fs/N & SPT
(N)
Relations
hip
between
unit base
resistance
& SPT (N)

As discussed earlier, the value of elastic modulus
decreased with increased in axial strain.
The skin resistance increased with increased in
standard penetration resistance.
As presented, the relationship between the unit
skin friction and the standard penetration
resistance (N) was 2.4N.
The other relationship, the unit end bearing and
the respective N, was found to be 46N.

Another important parameter, the critical shaft displacement
(zs) to fully mobilize the skin resistance was varied between
3.0 mm and 11.8 mm. In most cases, zs = 3.0 - 8.7 mm
which is irrespective of standard penetration resistance, the
diameter and the length of piles.
Based on the finding from the results of the instrumented test
pile reported in this study, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
a) The adoption of elastic modulus value is very important for
the evaluation of load distribution curves which significantly
effects the estimation of fs and fb. The modulus degradation
and the relationship between Ep and value of e should be
considered in the calculation of load distribution. A constant E p
value should not be adopted especially for the case when the
Ep value is much lower than the theoretical value.

b) For the design of bored pile in residual soil of Singapore, a possible
approximate relationship between fs and N is as follows:
fs = 2N (kPa)
A higher value of fs may be adopted if the soil parameters or the
important relationships are available from the load test result.
c) For design applications, the unit end bearing value f b can be
related to the penetration resistance, N, as follows:
fb = 45N (kPa)
The higher fb value may be adopted if the debris from the pile
bottom is properly removed and pile base is cleaned.

d) The test results suggested that the critical shaft
displacement, zs = 3.0-9.0 mm for the bored pile in
residual soil of Singapore. However, it is expected
that similar correlations can be derived for other soil
conditions.
e) Due to inadequate data, no conclusion could be
made on the estimation of the critical tip
displacement, zp value. If there is lack of data, it is
suggested that the zp value be selected as 5% to
10% of the pile diameter.
Thank You.

Case History Evaluation of Axial Behaviour of Bored Pile from SPT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case History Evaluation of Axial Behaviour of Bored Pile from SPT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case History Evaluation of the Axial

Aung Naing Moe

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile

At all times, it is important that the stress induced

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile

Qst = 0.25 fcu Ac

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile

For layered soil, the above equation can be rewritten as:

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile

A single global factor of safety (F) of 2.0 to 3.0 is

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile

The axial displacement that is required to fully

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

where Fs is typically 1.5 to 2 and Fb is typically 3 to 4.

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

Tomlinson (1957) and Skempton (1959)

Tomlinson (1957) and Skempton (1959)

Stiff silty Clay

Kenny Hill Formation,

Mohan and Jain (1961)

Whitaker and Cooke (1966)

Reese and O'Neill (1988)

Pearce and Brassow (1979)

Toh, C.T et al (1989)

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

For Cu/'v >1,

where 'v is the effective vertical stress.

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

c' = drained shear strength

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

where Cnu is the undrained shear strength of the normally

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

Fleming et al (1985) proposed to use the following

and for Cu/'v > 1.0,

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

The soil parameters derived from laboratory tests

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

Meyerhof (1976) suggested that the ultimate unit shaft

A well known relationship f s = 2N (kPa), proposed by

Axial Capacity of Bored Pile (geotechnical)

where Ks is the skin friction coefficient and value depends very