PSZ 19 : 16 (Pind. 1/97)
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
BORANG PENGESAHAN STATUS TESIS
JUDUL :
COMPARISON OF ULTIMATE CAPACITY OF A PILE
BASED ON IN SITU TESTING AND THEORETICAL
FORMULA
SESI PENGAJIAN : 2004/2005
CHAI LEE LIN
Saya
(HURUF BESAR)
mengaku membenarkan tesis (PSM/Sarjana/Doktor Falsafah)* ini disimpan di Perpustakaan
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia dengan syarat-syarat kegunaan seperti berikut:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Tesis adalah hakmilik Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Perpustakaan Universiti Teknologi Malaysia dibenarkan membuat salinan untuk tujuan
pengajian sahaja.
Perpustakaan dibenarkan membuat salinan tesis ini sebagai bahan pertukaran antara
institusi pengajian tinggi.
** Sila tanda ( √ )
√
SULIT
(Mengandungi maklumat yang berdarjah keselamatan atau
kepentingan Malaysia seperti yang termaktud di dalam AKTA
RAHSIA RASMI 1972)
TERHAD
(Mengandungi maklumat TERHAD yang telah ditentukan
oleh organisasi/badan di masa penyelidikan dijalankan)
TIDAK TERHAD
Disahkan oleh
(TANDATANGAN PENULIS)
(TANDATANGAN PENYELIA)
Alamat Tetap: 1491, TMN RIVERVIEW,
JLN DAYA, PENDING,
93450 KUCHING,
SARAWAK.
PM DR. KHAIRUL ANUAR KASSIM
Nama Penyelia
Tarikh:
OKTOBER 2004
Catatan : *
**

Tarikh:
OKTOBER 2004
Potong yang tidak berkenaan.
Jika tesis ini SULIT atau TERHAD, sila lampirkan surat daripada pihak
berkuasa/organisasi berkenaan dengan menyatakan sekali sebab dan tempoh
tesis 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 Laporan Projek Sarjana Muda (PSM).
“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
:
………………………………..
COMPARISON OF ULTIMATE CAPACITY OF A PILE
BASED 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
ii
“Saya akui karya ini adalah hasil kerja saya sendiri kecuali nukilan dan ringkasan
yang tiap-tiap satunya telah saya jelaskan sumbernya”.
Tandatangan
:
Nama Penulis
:
Tarikh
:
……………………………..
CHAI LEE LIN
……………………………..
iii
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.
iv
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.
v
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 through
comparison 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 (Chin’s method) and static analysis (Meyerhof’s
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 = 0.76 QuLT.
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.
vi
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. Perbezaan
tersebut 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 persamaanpersamaan 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 memberi nilai di bawah anggaran sebenar. Keputusan dari
analisa statik menunjukkan hubungan linear dengan keputusan ujian beban melalui
persamaan QuSA = 0.76 QuLT. 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.
vii
CONTENTS
CHAPTER
CHAPTER 1
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
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Introduction
1.2
Background Problem And Importance Of
1
The Study
2
1.3
Objective
3
1.4
Scope Of Study
3
viii
CHAPTER 2
PILE FOUNDATIONS
2.1
Pile Foundation
5
2.2
Classification Of Pile
7
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.3
7
2.2.1.1
End Bearing Piles
7
2.2.1.2
Friction Piles
8
Classification By Method Of
Installation
10
2.2.2.1
Displacement Piles
10
2.2.2.2
Replacement Piles
10
11
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
Boring Methods
15
2.3.2.1 Continuous Flight Auger
15
2.3.2.2 Underreaming
15
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
Borehole Log
20
2.4.4
2.5
Load Transmission
Spun Pile
2.3.2
2.4
Classification By Method Of
Pile Testing
22
2.5.1
Pile Load Test
22
2.5.1.1 Equipment And Procedure
23
ix
CHAPTER 3
ULTIMATE PILE CAPACITY
3.1
Ultimate Capacity Of Driven Pile
27
3.2
Static Analysis
27
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
3.2.2
30
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
3.2.3
Negative Skin Friction
34
38
3.2.3.1 Total Overburden Pressure
Method
38
3.2.3.2 Effective Overburden
Pressure Method
3.3
39
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
3.4
42
3.3.2.2 Hiley Formula
43
3.3.2.3 Gates Method
44
3.3.2.4 Danish Method
45
Estimation Of Ultimate Capacity From
Pile Load Test
3.4.1
Chin’s Method
46
47
x
CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGY
4.1
The Research Design Study
50
4.2
Data Requirement
52
4.3
Methods
52
4.4
Description Of The Selected Sites
54
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.5
CHAPTER 5
Soil Investigation For The Selected
Sites
56
4.4.1.1 Borehole
56
4.4.1.2 Standard Penetration test
56
Geotechnical Information Of The
Selected Sites
57
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
RESULT AND ANALYSIS
5.1
Introduction
62
5.2
Calculations Example
63
5.2.1
63
Static Analysis
5.2.1.1 Calculation Example –
Meyerhof’s Method
63
5.2.1.2 Summary Of Ultimate
Capacity From Static
Analysis
5.2.2
66
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
xi
5.2.2.4 Comparison OF Ultimate
Capacity From Pile Driving
Formulas
5.2.3
70
Pile Load Test - Chin’s Method
73
5.2.3.1 Calculation Example
73
5.2.3.2 Interpretation Of Load
Test Result By Chin’s
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
5.3
Comparison Of Ultimate Pile Capacity, Qu
5.3.1
76
77
Comparison Of Ultimate Capacity
Between Theoretical Formula And
In-situ Testings
5.3.2
Comparison Between Static Analysis
And Load Test Results
5.3.3
84
Comparison Between Load Test
Results And Pile Driving Formulas
CHAPTER 6
80
Comparison Between Static Analysis
And Pile Driving Formulas
5.3.4
77
87
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
6.1
Conclusion
6.1.1
Comparison Between Different Pile
Driving Formulas
6.1.2
90
91
Comparison Between Load Test
Results And Static Analysis
91
xii
6.1.3
Comparison Between Load Test
Results And Pile Driving Formulas
6.2
6.3
92
Factor That Affect Accuracy Of Analysis
Results
94
Recommendation
94
REFERENCES
APPENDIX
95
98-163
xiii
LIST OF TABLE
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
5.6
Comparison of ultimate pile capacity, Qu from load test
results and static analysis
5.7
80
Comparison of ultimate capacity from static analysis and
pile driving formulas
5.8
77
84
Comparison of ultimate capacity from load test results and
pile driving formulas
87
xiv
LIST OF FIGURE
FIGURE NO.
2.1
TITLE
PAGE
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
3.1
rate of penetration test
26
Bearing capacity factor, Nq
29
xv
3.2
Variation of the maximum values of Nc* and Nq*
with friction angle, 
32
3.3
Janbu’s bearing capacity factors
33
3.4
Variation of  with undrained cohesive of clay
35
3.5
Variation of  with pile embedment length
37
3.6
Pile subjected to negative friction
40
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 Chin’s 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
5.4
Correlation factor for ultimate capacity from load test result
and static analysis
5.5
82
Comparison of ultimate capacity based on static analysis
and pile driving formulas
5.6
78
85
Comparison of ultimate capacity based on load test result
and pile driving formulas
88
xvi
LIST OF SYMBOL
Qu
-
Ultimate pile capacity
Qb
-
Load carrying capacity of the pile point
Qs
-
Frictional resistance
Ab
-
Nominal plan area of the pile base
qb
-
Characteristic value per unit area of base
As
-
Nominal surface area of the pile in soil layer
s
-
Characteristic value of the resistance per unit of the shaft in
soil layer
o’
-
Effective overburden pressure at the pile base
Nq，N
-
Bearing capacity factor
qf
-
Resistance value per unit of the shaft in soil layer
Db，Lb
-
Length of pile embedded in the sand
B
-
Diameter of pile
N
-
Value of standard penetration resistance in the vicinity of
the pile base
N
-
average value of standard penetration resistance over the
embedded length of pile within the sand stratum
Ks
-
Coefficient of horizontal soil stress
vo’
-
Average effective overburden pressure

-
Angle of wall friction
CKD
-
Point resistance of cone
CKdave
-
Average point resistance of cone per unit of the pile shaft
Cu
-
Undrained shear strength
Ap
-
Area of pile tip
C
-
Cohesion of the soil supporting the pile tip
xvii
qp
-
Unit point resistance
q’
-
Effective vertical stress at the level of the pile tip
Nq*
-
Bearing capacity factors

-
Empirical adhesion factor
ƒ
-
Unit friction resistance at any depth z
p
-
Perimetre of pile section
L
-
Incremental pile length over which p and ƒ are taken
constant
'v
-
Vertical effective stresses
L
-
Length of piles
ØR
-
Drained friction angle of remolded clay
K
o
-
Earth pressure coefficient at rest
-
The effective overburden pressure

-
Reduction factor
E
-
Hammer efficiency,
WR
-
Weight of ram
h
-
Height of hammer drop
n
-
Coefficient of restitution between the ram and the pile
capacity
Wp
-
Weight of the piles
eh
-
Hammer efficiency
s
-
Average penetration per hammer blow
c
-
Temporary Compression
HE
-
Rated hammer energy
Ep
-
Modulus of elasticity of the pile materials
xviii
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
xix
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
I2
Breakdown of skin friction and end bearing capacity value
for Project 2
I3
128
Breakdown of skin friction and end bearing capacity value
for Project 5
I6
127
Breakdown of skin friction and end bearing capacity value
for Project 4
I5
126
Breakdown of skin friction and end bearing capacity value
for Project 3
I4
125
129
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
xx
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