Upload
fatihah-tyah
View
247
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/2/2019 Borang Pengesahan Status Thesis
1/21
PSZ 19 : 16 (Pind. 1/97)
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
BORANG PENGESAHAN STATUS TESIS
JUDUL : COMPARISON OF ULTIMATE CAPACITY OF A PILEBASED ON IN SITU TESTING AND THEORETICAL
FORMULA
SESI PENGAJIAN : 2004/2005
Saya
(HURUF BESAR)
mengaku membenarkan tesis (PSM/Sarjana/Doktor Falsafah)* ini disimpan di PerpustakaanUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia dengan syarat-syarat kegunaan seperti berikut:
1. Tesis adalah hakmilik Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
2. Perpustakaan Universiti Teknologi Malaysia dibenarkan membuat salinan untuk tujuanpengajian sahaja.
3. Perpustakaan dibenarkan membuat salinan tesis ini sebagai bahan pertukaran antara
institusi pengajian tinggi.
4. ** Sila tanda ( )
SULIT (Mengandungi maklumat yang berdarjah keselamatan ataukepentingan Malaysia seperti yang termaktud di dalam AKTA
RAHSIA RASMI 1972)
TERHAD (Mengandungi maklumat TERHAD yang telah ditentukanoleh organisasi/badan di masa penyelidikan dijalankan)
TIDAK TERHAD
Disahkan oleh
(TANDATANGAN PENULIS) (TANDATANGAN PENYELIA)
Alamat Teta: 1491, TMN RIVERVIEW,
JLN DAYA, PENDING,
93450 KUCHING,
SARAWAK.
PM DR. KHAIRUL ANUAR KASSIM
Nama Penyelia
Tarikh: OKTOBER 2004 Tarikh: OKTOBER 2004
Catatan : * Potong yang tidak berkenaan.** Jika tesis ini SULIT atau TERHAD, sila lampirkan surat daripada pihak
berkuasa/organisasi berkenaan dengan menyatakan sekali sebab dan tempohtesis ini perlu dikelaskan sebagai SULIT atau TERHAD.
Tesis dimaksudkan sebagai tesis bagi ijazah Doktor Falsafah dan Sarjana secara
penyelidikan, atau disertasi bagi pengajian secara kerja kursus dan penyelidikan, atau LaporanProjek Sarjana Muda (PSM).
CHAI LEE LIN
8/2/2019 Borang Pengesahan Status Thesis
2/21
Saya akui bahawa saya telah membaca karya ini dan pada pandangan saya karya ini
adalah memadai dari segi skop dan kualiti untuk tujuan penganugerahan ijazah Sarjana
Muda Kejuruteraan Awam
Tandatangan : ..
Nama Penyelia : PM Dr. Khairul Anuar Kassim
Tarikh : ..
8/2/2019 Borang Pengesahan Status Thesis
3/21
COMPARISON OF ULTIMATE CAPACITY OF A PILEBASED ON
IN SITU TESTING AND THEORETICAL FORMULA
CHAI LEE LIN
This report is submitted
as a partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the Bachelor
Degree in Civil Engineering
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
OKTOBER, 2004
8/2/2019 Borang Pengesahan Status Thesis
4/21
Saya akui karya ini adalah hasil kerja saya sendiri kecuali nukilan dan ringkasan yang
tiap-tiap satunya telah saya jelaskan sumbernya.
Tandatangan : ..
Nama Penulis : CHAI LEE LIN
Tarikh : ..
ii
8/2/2019 Borang Pengesahan Status Thesis
5/21
To My Parents, beloved and friends....
Thank you for all your advice,
Word by word,
Thank you for all the support,
Day by day,
Thank you for the cheer you bring to my life.
iii
8/2/2019 Borang Pengesahan Status Thesis
6/21
ACKNOLEDGEMENTS
I wish to acknowledge my deepest appreciation and gratefulness to my
supervisor, PM. Dr. Khairul Anuar Kassim, for his valuable guidance, advice and
suggestions throughout this study.
My grateful is also dedicated to Ir. Loh Leh Goh, Engineers, Mr. Michael Hii
and Mr. Lim Wee Han in KTA Consultant as well as Mr. Lee Siak Fong for their
valuable discussions and assistance during the data collection and results analysis
period.
Finally, but not means least, I wish to express my thanks to my family and
friends for their encouragement, caring care and understanding.
Thank you very much to all of you.
iv
8/2/2019 Borang Pengesahan Status Thesis
7/21
ABSTRACT
The common problem faced by designers is the calculated ultimate pile
capacity from static analysis often gives poor agreement with in situ testing methods.
This study is specifically focused on comparison of ultimate pile capacity based on in
situ testings and theoretical formula as well as established the criteria for the
differences between various methods. The differences were established throughcomparison of ultimate capacity among three most commonly used methods, i.e. the
static load test, static analysis and three pile driving formulas. The results of study
indicated that ultimate capacity from load test result achieve the highest value,
followed by static analysis and pile driving formulas respectively. From the driving
formulas, Gates Formula achieved higher ultimate capacity as well as shows a closer
value to the static analysis and load test results. Comparison between ultimate capacity
from load test results (Chins method) and static analysis (Meyerhofs method) showed
the differences ranging from 21.61% to 27.74%. The larger difference was established
when the base stratum is of clayey soil where the clay formula needs to be used where
it gave an underestimated value. Static analysis can be correlated to load test results
with a linear relationship of QuSA = 0.76QuLT. Comparison between load test and pile
driving formulas shows the ultimate capacity from load test was 60 % to 90% higher
than the three driving formulas, namely Modified ENR Formula, Hiley Formula and
Gates Formula. It is expected that ultimate capacity from driving formulas would be
even lower and achieve a higher differences when the particular site involved more
clay layer as remolding of soils during driving has created greater disturbance to
clayey soil. Ultimate capacity from load test results is more reliable as it is based on
actual loading and site condition.
v
8/2/2019 Borang Pengesahan Status Thesis
8/21
ABSTRAK
Masalah yang biasa dihadapi oleh pereka bentuk geoteknik adalah rekabentuk
kapasiti mutlak cerucuk melalui analisa statik sering memberikan pembezaan ketara
terhadap kaedah ujian in-situ. Kajian ini fokus kepada perbandingan antara kapasiti
mutlak yang dikira melalui ujian in-situ dan persamaan teori serta membincangkan
kriteria yang menentukan perbezaan antara berlainan kaedah tersebut. Perbezaantersebut diperolehi daripada perbandingan antara kapasiti mutlak yang dikira daripada
tiga kaedah yang paling umum digunakan, iaitu ujian beban statik, analisa statik dan
tiga persamaan pemacuan cerucuk. Keputusan daripada kajian mendapati kapasiti
mutlak yang diberi oleh ujian beban adalah paling tinggi, diikuti oleh analisis static
dan persamaan pemacuan cerucuk masing-masing. Antara persamaan-persamaan
pemacuan pula, persamaan Gates memberi kapasiti mutlak yang lebih tinggi serta
menunjukkan nilai yang lebih dekat dengan kapasiti dari analisa statik dan ujian beban.
Perbandingan antara kapasiti mutlak cerucuk dari ujian beban (Kaedah Chin) dengan
analisa statik (Kaedah Meyerhof) menunjukkan perbezaan antara 21.61% hingga
27.74%. Perbezaan yang lebih tinggi telah dicapai apabila tanah pada dasar cerucuk
adalah jenis tanah liat yang mana persamaan tanah liat diperlukan kerana ia memberinilai di bawah anggaran sebenar. Keputusan dari analisa statik menunjukkan
hubungan linear dengan keputusan ujian beban melalui persamaan QuSA = 0.76QuLT.
Perbandingan antara ujian beban dan persamaan pemacuan menunjukkan kapasiti
mutlak dari ujian beban adalah 60% hingga 90% lebih tinggi dari tiga persamaan
pemacuan dipilih, iaitu Persamaan ENR Ubahsuai, Hiley dan Gates. Adalah dijangka
nilai kapasiti yang lebih rendah lagi akan perolehi dari persamaan pemacuan serta
perbezaan lebih ketara didapati jika tapak tersebut memiliki lebih banyak lapisan tanah
liat kerana pergerakan tanah semasa pemacuan telah menyebabkan lebih gangguan
kepada tanah liat. Kapasiti mutlak cerucuk dari ujian beban adalah lebih benar kerana
ia berdasarkan pembebanan dan keadaan tanah yang sebenar.
vi
8/2/2019 Borang Pengesahan Status Thesis
9/21
CONTENTS
CHAPTER CONTENT PAGE
TITLE i
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
ABSTRACK v
ABSTRAK vi
CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLE xiii
LIST OF FIGURE xiv
LIST OF SYMBOL xvi
LIST OF APPENDIX xviii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Background Problem And Importance Of
The Study 2
1.3 Objective 3
1.4 Scope Of Study 3
CHAPTER 2 PILE FOUNDATIONS
2.1 Pile Foundation 5
vii
8/2/2019 Borang Pengesahan Status Thesis
10/21
2.2 Classification Of Pile 7
2.2.1 Classification By Method Of
Load Transmission 7
2.2.1.1 End Bearing Piles 7
2.2.1.2 Friction Piles 8
2.2.2 Classification By Method Of
Installation 10
2.2.2.1 Displacement Piles 10
2.2.2.2 Replacement Piles 10
2.2.3 Spun Pile 11
2.3 Pile Installation Methods 12
2.3.1 Pile Driving Methods 12
2.3.1.1 Drop Hammers 13
2.3.1.2 Diesel Hammers 13
2.3.1.3 Vibrating 14
2.3.1.4 Jetting 14
2.3.2 Boring Methods 15
2.3.2.1 Continuous Flight Auger 15
2.3.2.2 Underreaming 15
2.4 Subsurface Investigation For Piling 15
2.4.1 Subsurface Access Methods 16
2.4.1.1 Borings 17
2.4.2 Sampling For Soils And Rocks 18
2.4.3 In-situ Testing 19
2.4.3.1 Standard Penetration Test 20
2.4.4 Borehole Log 20
2.5 Pile Testing 22
2.5.1 Pile Load Test 22
2.5.1.1 Equipment And Procedure 23
CHAPTER 3 ULTIMATE PILE CAPACITY
3.1 Ultimate Capacity Of Driven Pile 27
3.2 Static Analysis 27
viii
8/2/2019 Borang Pengesahan Status Thesis
11/21
3.2.1 Static Analysis For Estimating Pile
Capacity In Cohesiveless Soil 28
3.2.1.1 Method Based On Standard
Penetration Test 28
3.2.1.2 Method Based On Static
Cone Penetration 30
3.2.2 Static Analysis For Estimating Pile
Capacity In Cohesive Soil 31
3.2.2.1 End Bearing Capacity, Qb 31
3.2.2.2 Frictional Resistance In
Clay, Qs 34
3.2.3 Negative Skin Friction 38
3.2.3.1 Total Overburden Pressure
Method 38
3.2.3.2 Effective Overburden
Pressure Method 39
3.3 Pile Driving Formulas 40
3.3.1 Concept Of Pile Driving Formulas 41
3.3.2 Commonly Used Pile Driving
Formulas 42
3.3.2.1 Modified Engineering News
Record Formula 42
3.3.2.2 Hiley Formula 43
3.3.2.3 Gates Method 44
3.3.2.4 Danish Method 45
3.4 Estimation Of Ultimate Capacity From
Pile Load Test 46
3.4.1 Chins Method 47
CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY
4.1 The Research Design Study 50
4.2 Data Requirement 52
ix
8/2/2019 Borang Pengesahan Status Thesis
12/21
4.3 Methods 52
4.4 Description Of The Selected Sites 54
4.4.1 Soil Investigation For The Selected
Sites 56
4.4.1.1 Borehole 56
4.4.1.2 Standard Penetration test 56
4.4.2 Geotechnical Information Of The
Selected Sites 57
4.5 Formulas Used In The Study 58
4.5.1 Static Analysis 58
4.5.2 Pile Driving Formulas 60
4.5.2.1 Modified ENR Formula 60
4.5.2.2 Hiley Formula 61
4.5.2.3 Gates Formula 61
CHAPTER 5 RESULT AND ANALYSIS
5.1 Introduction 62
5.2 Calculations Example 63
5.2.1 Static Analysis 63
5.2.1.1 Calculation Example
Meyerhofs Method 63
5.2.1.2 Summary Of Ultimate
Capacity From Static
Analysis 66
5.2.2 Pile Driving Formula 67
5.2.2.1 Modified ENR Formula 67
5.2.2.2 Hiley Formula 68
5.2.2.3 Gates Formula 70
5.2.2.4 Comparison OF Ultimate
Capacity From Pile Driving
Formulas 70
5.2.3 Pile Load Test - Chins Method 73
x
8/2/2019 Borang Pengesahan Status Thesis
13/21
5.2.3.1 Calculation Example 73
5.2.3.2 Interpretation Of Load
Test Result By Chins
Method Stability Plot 74
5.2.3.3 Estimation Of Ultimate
Pile Capacity From
Stability Plot 75
5.2.3.4 Summary Of Ultimate
Capacity From Load Test
Results 76
5.3 Comparison Of Ultimate Pile Capacity, Qu 77
5.3.1 Comparison Of Ultimate Capacity
Between Theoretical Formula And
In-situ Testings 77
5.3.2 Comparison Between Static Analysis
And Load Test Results 80
5.3.3 Comparison Between Static Analysis
And Pile Driving Formulas 84
5.3.4 Comparison Between Load Test
Results And Pile Driving Formulas 87
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
6.1 Conclusion 90
6.1.1 Comparison Between Different Pile
Driving Formulas 91
6.1.2 Comparison Between Load Test
Results And Static Analysis 91
6.1.3 Comparison Between Load Test
Results And Pile Driving Formulas 92
6.2 Factor That Affect Accuracy Of Analysis
Results 94
xi
8/2/2019 Borang Pengesahan Status Thesis
14/21
6.3 Recommendation 94
REFERENCES 95
APPENDIX 98-163
LIST OF TABLE
xii
8/2/2019 Borang Pengesahan Status Thesis
15/21
TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE
2.1 Typical subsurface access investigation methods 16
2.2 Commonly used soil and rock samplers and their applications 18
2.3 Typical in-situ tests and their application 19
3.1 Typical value for the undrained shear strength of cohesive soils 35
3.2 Typical values for the rated efficiency of the hammer, E 43
3.3 Coefficient of restitution between the ram and the pile cap, n 43
3.4 Temporary compression in inches 44
5.1 Summary of ultimate capacity from static analysis 67
5.2 Summary of ultimate capacity from pile driving formulas 70
5.3 Load-settlement relationship of the pile 73
5.4 Summary of ultimate capacity from load test results 76
5.5 Summary of ultimate capacity from load test results, pile
driving formulas and static analysis 77
5.6 Comparison of ultimate pile capacity, Qu from load test
results and static analysis 80
5.7 Comparison of ultimate capacity from static analysis and
pile driving formulas 84
5.8 Comparison of ultimate capacity from load test results and
pile driving formulas 87
LIST OF FIGURE
xiii
8/2/2019 Borang Pengesahan Status Thesis
16/21
FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE
2.1 Principal types of pile : (a) precast RC pile, (b) steel H pile,
(c) shell pile, (d) concrete pile cast as driven tube
withdrawn, (e) bored pile (cast in-situ), (f) under-reamed
bored pile (cast in-situ) 6
2.2 Classification of bearing pile types 8
2.3 Example of End Bearing Pile Preformed Timber Pile and
In-situ Reinforced Concrete Pile 9
2.4 Using friction pile to support a downward load 9
2.5 Using friction pile to support a upward load 9
2.6 Soil is being displaced downwards and sideways when the
pile is driven into the ground 10
2.7 The hole is excavated by means of an auger drill 11
2.8 Pre-stressed spun concrete piles 12
2.9 Typical single acting diesel hammer 13
2.10 Operational cycle for single acting diesel hammer 14
2.11 Wash boring 18
2.12 A sample of borehole log 21
2.13 Test load arrangement using Kentledge 25
2.14 Sketch of typical setup for test reference beam 26
2.15 Pile loading tests: (a) Maintained load test, (b) Constant
rate of penetration test 263.1 Bearing capacity factor, Nq 29
3.2 Variation of the maximum values of Nc* and Nq*
with friction angle, 32
3.3 Janbus bearing capacity factors 33
3.4 Variation ofwith undrained cohesive of clay 35
3.5 Variation ofwith pile embedment length 37
3.6 Pile subjected to negative friction 40
xiv
8/2/2019 Borang Pengesahan Status Thesis
17/21
3.7 Schematic diagram of pile driving 41
3.8 Modulus of elasticity of the pile materials, Ep 46
3.9 (a) Typical routine load settlement curve, s vs. Q;
(b) Single straight line relationship, s vs. s/Q;
(c) Bilinear relationship, s vs. s/Q For Piles. 48
3.10 The Chins method for estimation of ultimate load 49
3.11 Stability plot the bearing capacity of pile is
Skin friction plus end bearing 49
4.1 Steps of the study 51
4.2 Locality plan for the selected sites 55
5.1 Comparison of ultimate capacity from pile driving formulas 71
5.2 Stability plot 74
5.3 Ultimate capacity from load test results, pile driving formulas
and static analysis 78
5.4 Correlation factor for ultimate capacity from load test result
and static analysis 82
5.5 Comparison of ultimate capacity based on static analysis
and pile driving formulas 85
5.6 Comparison of ultimate capacity based on load test result
and pile driving formulas 88
LIST OF SYMBOL
xv
8/2/2019 Borang Pengesahan Status Thesis
18/21
Qu
Qb
Qs
Ab
qb
As
s
o
NqN
qf
DbLb
B
N
N
Ks
vo
CKD
CKdave
Cu
Ap
C
qp
q
Nq*
p
L
'v
L
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ultimate pile capacity
Load carrying capacity of the pile point
Frictional resistance
Nominal plan area of the pile base
Characteristic value per unit area of base
Nominal surface area of the pile in soil layer
Characteristic value of the resistance per unit of the shaft in
soil layer
Effective overburden pressure at the pile base
Bearing capacity factor
Resistance value per unit of the shaft in soil layer
Length of pile embedded in the sand
Diameter of pile
Value of standard penetration resistance in the vicinity of the
pile base
average value of standard penetration resistance over the
embedded length of pile within the sand stratum
Coefficient of horizontal soil stress
Average effective overburden pressure
Angle of wall friction
Point resistance of cone
Average point resistance of cone per unit of the pile shaft
Undrained shear strength
Area of pile tip
Cohesion of the soil supporting the pile tip
Unit point resistance
Effective vertical stress at the level of the pile tip
Bearing capacity factors
Empirical adhesion factor
Unit friction resistance at any depth z
Perimetre of pile section
Incremental pile length over which p and are taken constant
Vertical effective stresses
Length of piles
xvi
8/2/2019 Borang Pengesahan Status Thesis
19/21
LIST OF APPENDIX
APPENDIX TITLE PAGE
A1 Manufacturing process of spun pile 1 98
A2 Manufacturing process of spun pile 2 99
B1 Project 1 : Record Of Boring, sheet 1 100
B2 Project 1 : Record Of Boring, sheet 2 101
B3 Project 1 : Record Of Boring, sheet 3 102
B4 Project 1 : Record Of Boring, sheet 4 103
C1 Project 2 : Record Of Boring, sheet 1 104
C2 Project 2 : Record Of Boring, sheet 2 105
C3 Project 2 : Record Of Boring, sheet 3 106
C4 Project 2 : Record Of Boring, sheet 4 107
D1 Project 3 : Record Of Boring, sheet 1 108
D2 Project 3 : Record Of Boring, sheet 2 109
D3 Project 3 : Record Of Boring, sheet 3 110
D4 Project 3 : Record Of Boring, sheet 4 111
E1 Project 4 : Record Of Boring, sheet 1 112
E2 Project 4 : Record Of Boring, sheet 2 113
E3 Project 4 : Record Of Boring, sheet 3 114
E4 Project 4 : Record Of Boring, sheet 4 115
F1 Project 5 : Record Of Boring, sheet 1 116
F2 Project 5 : Record Of Boring, sheet 2 117
F3 Project 5 : Record Of Boring, sheet 3 118
F4 Project 5 : Record Of Boring, sheet 4 119
G1 Project 6 : Record Of Boring, sheet 1 120
xviii
8/2/2019 Borang Pengesahan Status Thesis
20/21
G2 Project 6 : Record Of Boring, sheet 2 121
G3 Project 6 : Record Of Boring, sheet 3 122
G4 Project 6 : Record Of Boring, sheet 4 123
H Piled Foundation Static Analysis Criteria correlation factor 124
I1 Breakdown of skin friction and end bearing capacity value
for Project 1 125
I2 Breakdown of skin friction and end bearing capacity value
for Project 2 126
I3 Breakdown of skin friction and end bearing capacity value
for Project 3 127
I4 Breakdown of skin friction and end bearing capacity value
for Project 4 128
I5 Breakdown of skin friction and end bearing capacity value
for Project 5 129
I6 Breakdown of skin friction and end bearing capacity value
for Project 6 130
J Summary of driving record for the six selected sites 131
K1 Project 1 : Modified ENR Formula 132
K2 Project 1 : Hiley Formula 133
K3 Project 1 : Gates Formula 134
L1 Project 2 : Modified ENR Formula 135
L2 Project 2 : Hiley Formula 136
L3 Project 2 : Gates Formula 137
M1 Project 3 : Modified ENR Formula 138
M2 Project 3 : Hiley Formula 139
M3 Project 3 : Gates Formula 140
N1 Project 5 : Modified ENR Formula 141
N2 Project 5 : Hiley Formula 142
N3 Project 5 : Gates Formula 143
O1 Project 6 : Modified ENR Formula 144
O2 Project 6 : Hiley Formula 145
O3 Project 6 : Gates Formula 146
P Table D. 5 - Partial list of typical diesel hammer 147
Q Standard Products Properties 148
xix
8/2/2019 Borang Pengesahan Status Thesis
21/21
R1 Project 1 : Load-Settlement Relationship of The Pile 149
R2 Project 1 : Stability plot 150
R3 Project 1 : Interpretation Of Ultimate Pile Capacity 151
S1 Project 2 : Load-Settlement Relationship of The Pile 152
S2 Project 2 : Stability plot 153
S3 Project 2 : Interpretation Of Ultimate Pile Capacity 154
T1 Project 3 : Load-Settlement Relationship of The Pile 155
T2 Project 3 : Stability plot 156
T3 Project 3 : Interpretation Of Ultimate Pile Capacity 157
U1 Project 5 : Load-Settlement Relationship of The Pile 158
U2 Project 5 : Stability plot 159
U3 Project 5 : Interpretation Of Ultimate Pile Capacity 160
V1 Project 6 : Load-Settlement Relationship of The Pile 161
V2 Project 6 : Stability plot 162
V3 Project 6 : Interpretation Of Ultimate Pile Capacity 163
xx