Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

780

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering


ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp. 780-784
#020410417 Copyright 2011 CAFET-INNOVA TECHNICAL SOCIETY. All rights reserved
Large Diameter Pile Foundations for Cost Effective & Fast Track Construction

Kishore Kumar M
Executive Engineer (Civil), Border Roads Organisation, Government of India, HQ CE (P) Vartak, c/o 99 APO.
(Research Scholar at KL University) makam64@sify.com
Hanumantha Rao Ch

Prof & Head, Dept of Civil Engineering, KL University, Green Fields, Vaddeswaram, Andhra Pradesh, Pin 522 502 (India).
hrao_ce@kluniversity.in; hanumantharao.chappidi@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: Well foundations have stood with the time against vagaries of nature such as floods in the mountainous
terrain resulting in heavy erosion and colossal damages due to shooting boulders/large sized debris. Caissons are
relatively easy to construct provided sinking operations are smooth without requiring extensive tilt & shift rectifications
especially at advanced stage of sinking. Constructional difficulties viz., prolonged sinking period extending to
numerous working seasons, complicated & time consuming tilt & shift rectifications, complex and costly pneumatic
sinking if warranted by site conditions force the designers to think seriously for an alternative solution. A case study is
presented in this paper exploring the feasibility of large diameter pile foundations which is proved to be cost effective
with an added advantage of fast track construction.

KEY WORDS: well foundation, pile, sinking, boulder.

INTRODUCTION
Well foundation is a massive substructure required to
extend deep inside the river bed in order to attract
necessary net soil resistance against overturning, heavy
scour, rolling boulders & floating debris. When sub-strata
contains large boulders hindering penetration of piles,
well foundation is the only solution. Caisson or well
foundations are advisable in rivers where a heavy scour
at flood time would otherwise bare the piles and lead to
buckling.
(4)
The stability of well is derived mainly from
the passive resistance mobilised from the soil grip below
the maximum scour level and also from the huge end
bearing resistance. If site conditions warrant pneumatic
sinking, this specialised technique would squeeze the
bridge project financially. Some of the major problems
normally encountered in sinking of wells are construction
of temporary islands for casting well curbs, clayey strata,
sand blow and artesian conditions, counteracting tilts &
shifts and obstacles during well-sinking, horizontal &
vertical cracks in well steining, skin friction in caissons
and pneumatic sinking.

LARGE DIAMETER PILE FOUNDATIONS
Cast-in-place concrete piles are of two types viz., Shell
Pile, in which a steel shell is first driven with a mandrel
and concrete is placed, leaving the shell in place, and
Shell-less Pile, in which the pipe and mandrel used for
making the hole are removed as the concrete is filled in.
The shell type is suitable for long piles, e.g. the Raymond
cast-in-situ closed end pipe pile 114 m long under one of
the monorail piers at Walt Disney World, Florida.
(6)
The
shell-less type can be used only in firm soil or in
conjunction with bentonite slurry. Most of the methods
used for cast-in-place piles are either covered by patents
or specialised by particular firms. These Large Diameter
Pile Foundations are also known as Drilled Shaft
Foundations and often controversy has arisen as to
whether this is another type of pile or an alternate for pile
foundations. Strictly speaking these large sized
bored/drilled piles having a minimum diameter of up to
1.2 m for river bridges (1 m in the case of bridges located
on land such as flyovers, road bridge over railway track
etc) are almost analogous to well foundations. The only
difference lies in the mode of dredging i.e., in the case of
well foundations it is gradual as the steining comes up
whereas in these large diameter piles the entire bore is
drilled in one go. To prevent the collapse of sides of bore
hole either steel casing pipe is used or bentonite slurry is
employed. After the drilling operations are over, steel
reinforcement cage is inserted before concreting of these
piles whereas well is plugged with concrete. To sum up,
these large sized piles combine the casting methodology
of bored in-situ piles and load transfer mechanism of well
foundation on account of their grip length and end
bearing. In these bored piles, frictional forces are mostly
neglected while calculating their load carrying capacity
thus deriving their load carrying capacity from the
transfer of load to the hard stratum on which the pile may
be ultimately resting. Further in these large diameter pile
or drilled shaft foundations, less emphasis is laid on
group factor for arriving at load carrying capacity and
more concern is shown towards construction problems as
methodology viz., rotary drilling, use of drilled shafts in
intermediate geo-materials such as soft rocks, hard pan
and glacial till, tackling segregation of concrete,
nondestructive evaluation techniques etc.

Fig 1. Rotary Drilling Machine
781
Large Diameter Pile Foundations for Cost Effective & Fast Track Construction
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering
ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp. 780-784
The availability of sophisticated bore drilling machines
(Fig 1) capable of piercing through even rocks has now
made it possible to go in for large diameter pile
foundations. As compared to well foundations, each
bored pile can be constructed in just 3 days. This aspect
of faster construction with consequent overall cost
economies can tilt the balance in favour of pile
foundations vis--vis well foundation which may be
better appreciated from the case study as discussed in the
subsequent paragraphs. These bored piles are normally
installed vertically, but it is still possible to absorb
horizontal loads in this position though this gives rise to
bending in the piles.
(3)
Methods of assessing the
horizontal-load capacity of large diameter piles have been
developed and these utilize sub-grade resistance in
combination with stiffness of the pile. The techniques for
constructing large-diameter bored piles are best suited to
cohesive soils. Granular layers near to the surface can be
successfully dealt with, but at greater depths the risks of
the shaft-sides collapsing, become greater. The relative
merits & limitations are as under :

Advantages
Very large depths can be achieved with larger
diameters and accordingly higher load carrying
capacity can be easily achieved. Consequently the
number of piles can be reduced under each
foundation, which may further reduce construction
time considerably.
No disturbance to the surrounding mass of soil as in
the case of open foundations and hence no reduction
in soil resistance.
Specially suited for harder strata such as stiff clay.
Easy for keying into rock with an ultimate aim of
ensuring efficient load transfer to the strata
underneath.
Cost economies and faster construction can be stated
to be the two main advantages associated with these
large sized bored piles irrespective of the type of
strata.

Disadvantages and Difficulties
Heavy initial financial outlay required due to larger
equipment cost thus ultimately may work out to be
costlier than well foundation.
Precise constructional control on concreting
operations, concrete mix, etc is difficult to be
achieved at site.
Maintenance of correct specific gravity of bentonite
slurry at about 1.1 to 1.2 is needed, otherwise sides
may collapse and cave in. In the case of loose soils
steel liner (casing pipe) are required thus adding to
the overall cost of foundations.
Reduced skin-friction since the pile is not driven into
the soil as in the case of precast piles, thus decreased
load carrying capability.

TIDDING BRIDGE : A CASE STUDY
Perturbed by the turbulent history of Tidding river
causing destruction to temporary bailey suspension
bridges with 360 feet span configuration year after year
disrupting the only communication to strategic areas of
Arunachal Pradesh bordering China, the necessity for
construction of a permanent bridge was felt way back in
the year 2000. Accordingly 155 m long prestressed
concrete bridge with end spans of 45 m each on either
side and central span of 65 m over 12 m diameter well
foundation is under construction since 2002 over this
furious river at km 67.95 on Tezu Hayuliang road in
Arunachal Pradesh.

Hydraulic Design
Design discharge Q = 2424 cumecs and Linear
waterway W = 4.8 Q = 4.8 2424 = 236.32 m. Since
the flowing river is confined to a channel of 95 m, it was
decided to construct a bridge of length 155 m which
seems to be adequate at site. However the value of
effective linear waterway is adopted as 130 m while
calculating scour depth to account for obstructions as
piers etc.

Scour depth & Foundation level
The silt factor assessed in sub soil investigation (SSI)
report was ranging from 2.5 to 2.85 vide clause 703.2.2
of IRC : 78 2000 Standard Specifications & Code of
Practice for Road Bridges Sec VII : Foundations &
Substructure. As the river bed at Tidding is bouldery in
nature with size of boulders varying between 200 mm to
3 m, the silt factor of 2.5 if adopted would be unrealistic
and may result in huge scour depth requiring deeper
foundations. Hence to arrive at a tentative founding level
a silt factor of 10 may be adopted.
Mean scour depth dsm in m = 1.34(Db
2
/Ksf)
1/3
(1)
Where Db = Design discharge per metre width at
effective linear water way
= (Q + 30% Q) / L = (2424 + 30% of 2424) / 130 =
24.24 cumecs/m
Silt factor of bed material obtained up to the level of
anticipated deepest scour Ksf = 1.76 dm (2)
Where dm = weighed mean dia of bed material in mm
Mean scour depth dsm = 1.34{(24.24)
2
/10}
1/3
= 5.13 m
Max scour depth near pier = 2 dsm = 10.26 m
Max scour depth near abutments = 1.27 dsm = 10.26 m
Founding level of pier well = HFL (Scour depth + grip
length) = 308.10 (10.26 + 10.26/3) = 294.42 m.
Founding level of abutment well = HFL (Scour depth +
grip length) = 308.10 (6.52 + 6.52/3) = 299.40 m

Founding level of pier well has been fixed at RL 290 m
would be over safe due to max scour value of 10.26 m is
much higher side vis--vis observed scour of 3 m at
existing temp bailey bridge, hence safe. Further, the pier
of existing temp bridge though situated on open
foundation in the mid stream withstood the fury of flood
without abnormal scouring, thus proposed well
foundation was considered to be safe from scouring
criteria considering silt factor as 10.

The proposed pile foundation is extended up to RL 285
i.e. 5 m below well foundation thus sufficient grip
ensured against buckling of these slender piles.
Moreover concrete plugging between the piles in the
782 Kishore Kumar M, Hanumantha Rao Ch
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering
ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp. 780-784
portion which is projecting over the river bed level
similar to well foundation would protect the substructure
along with piles from damages by the rolling boulders
and floating debris.

Sub Soil Investigation (SSI)
Field investigation comprised core drilling in 4 locations
up to a max depth of 41.5 m (Table 1). Disturbed samples
were collected at each 1.5 m and standard penetration
tests (SPT) were conducted using split spoon sampler
during boring.

















Fig 2. SSI pictograph at bridge site

Table 1. Bore Hole Data
Bore Hole No 1 2 3 4
Existence of Rock
(depth in m from GL)
0.0 3.0 14.5 4.0

In addition to these, change of soil strata, ground water
level (GWL), colour, nature, stiffness etc were observed
during field investigations. Undisturbed soil samples
could not be collected as the soil samples were
cohesionless in nature (c = 0). In SPT test, number of
blows required to drive the samples for first 15 cm is
neglected and the blows for the next 30 cm is considered
and expressed in terms of N-value, which is found to be
more than 50. Ground Water Level varied from 0 to 17 m
below the existing ground level. Diameter of casing pipe
used for boring was kept between 75 to 150 mm. It took
about 1 to 3 hours for each 30 cm boring. As per clause
706.3.1.1.2 of IRC:78-2000 Code of Practice for Road
Bridges, the allowable bearing pressure on rock may be
decided upon not only on the strength of parent rock but
also on overall characteristics particularly deficiencies
like joints, bedding planes, faults, weathered zones etc. In
the absence of such details or analysis of overall
characteristics, value of factor of safety based on
unconfined compressive strength of parent rock may be
taken as 6 to 8. The proposed foundation being in rock
layer in all the bore holes as shown in Table 1 & Fig 2,
the safe bearing capacity SBC (considering factor of
safety as 8) was calculated as 1/8 of minimum crushing
strength i.e. 1/8 x 995.70 Kg/cm
2
=124 Kg/cm
2
(or) 1240
tonnes/m
2
(or) 12.4 MPa. But as per IRC : 78-2000, SBC
is restricted to 3 MPa or 300 t/m
2
. The conservative
design of well foundation can be gauged from the
adopted value of SBC as low as 0.5 MPa.

Design of Pile Foundation
In addition to the ability of soil or rock to carry the
transferred load from a pile, the load capacity of the pile
is important. The load capacity of the pile is governed by
its structural strength and, to a lesser extent, by the
surrounding environmental conditions. The structural
strength is a function of the allowable stress levels that
apply to the particular pile material and the cross-
sectional area of the pile. To provide a factor of safety
against failure, allowable stress levels normally are
specified as a percentage of the peak strength value of the
pile material as steel, concrete etc. Practically the
structural strength of the pile (M 35 in the instant case
i.e., 35 MPa allowable stress) is far higher than the
allowable safe bearing resistance based on the settlement
criteria viz., 3 MPa, thus limited by the underlying strata.
In the absence of reliable analytical technique predicting
the load carrying capacity of the piles based on load
transfer between pile & surrounding soil (soil-structure
interaction) and group behaviour with respect to
individual piles, static load testing to failure is probably
the best method available to determine the actual static
capacity of a pile. However these static tests are
expensive & time consuming and as a result not routinely
conducted. In many cases a load test to twice the design
load is conducted to verify safety factors and save money
on the cost to extend the loads to failure range. These
tests would further give some measure of assurance to the
project design team but do little to advance the
knowledge of design of pile in a particular soil. The
simple act of striking a pile with a heavy hammer can
also be thought of as an instantaneous load test to failure
because in order for the pile to penetrate further into the
soil, the soil must fail under the driving forces. In other
words, pile driving is actually a very fast load test under
each hammer blow.












Fig 3. Proposed pile foundation for bridge







Fig 3A. Grouping of piles at abutment & pier locations
ROCK LAYER
SAND MIXED WITH BOULDERS
783
Large Diameter Pile Foundations for Cost Effective & Fast Track Construction
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering
ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp. 780-784
With the right type of instrumentation, the engineer can
take advantage of these failure measurements and use the
information to predict potential static capacity in the field
during pile driving operations itself. As per IRC: 78
2000, safe load carrying capacity of piles shall be lesser
of the two values i.e.,
Ultimate load carrying capacity Ru = Rb + Rf (3)
Structural Strength of Pile
Neglecting skin friction Rf & considering end bearing
resistance only Ru = Rb i.e., Ab x Fbu = (/4 x 1.5
2
) x
300 t/m
2
= 529.87, Say 530 tonnes.

Adopting Factor of safety as 2.5, Safe load carrying
capacity of each Pile = 530 / 2.5 = 212 tonnes
Dead Load of Box girder taking average depth as 3.5 m
for 155 m long bridge = 3138.75 tonnes.
Dead Load of 4 Piers i/c Pier Cap = 1000.00 tonnes
Live Load (Class 70 R) = 100.00 tonnes
Total Load (in tonnes) = 4238, Say 4250
Nos of piles required considering safe load carrying
capacity of each pile as 212 tonnes & taking Group
Factor as 1.0 since spacing between piles exceeds 2.5
times diameter of pile = 4238 / 212 = 19.99.
Conservative Design since frictional resistance totally
ignored. Complying with the design parameters, total 20
Nos piles may be provided with 4 Nos each at end
abutment locations & 6 Nos each at pier locations (Fig 3
& 3A).

Present Arrangement of Foundations
The foundation comprises of 12 m diameter wells with
well steining thickness as 2 m for abutments as well as
piers and scope of work along with problems encountered
are given at Table 2.

Table 2. Status of well foundation
Well
Foundation
at
Founding
level (RL
in m)
Sinking
Depth
(in m)
Problems
encountered
during
construction
Abutment
A1
297.500 16.300
Buried under slide
many times
requiring massive
clearance work.
Pier P1 290.000 13.240
Sunken portion of
well got silted
very badly during
floods hampering
sinking operations.
Pier P2 290.000 13.240
Tilt of 1 in 4
observed and
rectification work
under progress.
Abutment
A2
290.000 18.000


Cost Benefit Analysis
The advancements in construction technology can permit
any type of project feasible on ground but their economic
viability should be ensured before its implementation i.e.,
the alternative selected should prove to be better than the
traditional or conventional technique. Cost benefit
analysis of proposed pile foundations in the place of well
foundations has been carried out at Table 4 to 6 so as to
test for its efficacy.








Economic Analysis




Fig 4. Shift at Pier Well P2

Table 3. Tilt & Shift at Pier Well P2

Tilt along bridge axis 1 in 4.61
Tilt along river axis 1 in 120
Permissible Tilt 1 in 80
Pier well P2
Shift towards d/s side 1.85 m
Shift towards u/s side 2.628 m
Permissible Shift 0.150 m

Table 4. Costing of Well Foundation
Description A/U Qty Rate
(Rs)
Amount
(Rs)
Cutting edge Nos 01 1120000 1120000
Qty of muck
to be
removed for
sinking
Cum 4362.9 107.11 467310
Cost of
dewatering
a) 22 HP pump
b) 50 HP pump

Cum
Cum

1444
736

22 x 15
50 x 15

476520
552000
Concrete
Plugging
Cum 358.07 2930.35 1049270
Cost of well
curb
Cum 138.15 2930.35 404828
Cost of well
steining
Cum 502.66 2930.35 1472958
Cost of steel
reinforceme
nt
MT 7.62 33040 251764
Laying of
reinforceme
nt i/c cutting,
bending etc.
Qtl
(100
Kg)
76.2 741.05 56408
Total 5851118
Misc
towards cost
of well tilt &
shift
rectification
LS 148882
G/Total 6000000
4 wells @ Rs. 60 lacs/well = Rs. 240 lacs
Shifted
Position
784 Kishore Kumar M, Hanumantha Rao Ch
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering
ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp. 780-784

Table 5. Costing of Pile Foundation
(4 nos 1.5 m diameter bored cast in situ concrete piles at
each abutment location and similar sized piles 6 nos
under each pier (Total 20 in number) assuming a driven
length of 20 m (against 15 m well sinking))

Description A/U Qty Rate
(Rs)
Amount
(Rs)
Mobilisation &
demobilization
of drilling eqpt
LS 4000000
Providing MS
Casing (Liner)
from top of
drilling
platform upto
founding level
@ 0.25 MT/m
20 nos x 20 m
= 400 m. Add
extra50 m, thus
450 m @ 0.25
MT/m = 112.5
MT 112.50 42500 4781250
Underwater
cutting of steel
casing pipe
Nos 20 25000 500000
Cutting/Boring
through strata
for 1.5 m dia
pile including
all plants etc
Rotary Drilling
m 400 42000 16800000
Concreting
M35 for piles
incl cost of
materials
cum 706.50 2930.3 2070292
Cost of steel
reinforcement
MT 64.59 33040 2134054
Laying
reinforcement
incl bending,
cutting,
welding etc.
qtl 645.90 741.05 478644
Total 30764240

Table 6. Comparision of well & pile foundations
Item of work Well
Foundation
Pile
Foundation
Foundation^ Rs. 240 lacs Rs. 307 lacs
Substr & superstructure Rs. 538 lacs Rs. 538 lacs
Escalation# Rs. 191 lacs Rs. 114 lacs
Contingency Expdr* Rs. 200 lacs -
Total Cost Rs. 1169 lacs Rs. 959 lacs
% Saving 20%
^ Conservative estimate neglecting skin friction of piles
& providing MS casing pipe. As such casing pipe is not
required in this rocky strata & same if deleted, cost of
pile foundation work will be at par with well foundation.
Escalation catered for 5 years in well & 3 years for pile
Extra expenditure towards launching and maintenance of
temporary bailey suspension bridge for 2 consecutive
years till commissioning of permanent PSC bridge
considered since construction of bridge with well
foundation taking total 5 years as completion period vis-a
vis 3 years in the case of pile foundation.

CONCLUSION
As far as the choice for deep foundation goes, well
foundation & piles are the two viable options. Though
well foundation has been a time tested structure, it is
plagued by numerous problems as prolonged construction
period, tedious sinking operations requiring rectifications
to tilt/shift etc. Universally pile foundations have been
widely adopted on all important bridges due to rapidity
with which piles can be installed requiring just 2 to 3
days per pile. On the other hand minimum 2 to 3 months
are required to sink a well provided there are no hurdles
as tilt/shift, sand blow etc. The only doubt persists on
whether these slender piles can withstand the havoc of
flash floods with huge floating debris and
rolling/shooting boulders in this heavy scouring river.
This problem can be tackled as discussed in the case
study by concrete plugging between the piles so as to
give the solidity of well foundation and stone
boulders/concrete block jacketing around the pile cap &
beneath it so as to protect the structure from any
anticipated damages during peak floods. The construction
of large diameter cylindrical pile foundations has now
become easier with the advent of sophisticated & high
powered rotary drilling machines. The constraints in
sinking depth due to considerations of limiting air
pressure that humans can accept, means that pneumatic
caissons are only rarely to be used in future, hence piles
are the natural choice for bridge foundations in future.

REFERENCES

[1] IRC : 78 (2000). Standard Specifications & Code
of Practice for Road Bridges Sec VII :
Foundations & Substructure
[2] IS 14362 (1996). Pile boring equipment - General
requirements
[3] IS 2911 : Part 1 - Sec 2 (1979). Bored cast-in-situ
piles
[4] Johnson Victor D (2010). Essentials of Bridge
Engineering, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt
Ltd., New Delhi.
[5] Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (2000).
Pocket Book for Bridge Engineers (First
Revision).
[6] Raina VK Dr (2002). Concrete Bridge Practice :
Analysis, Design & Economics, Tata McGraw
Hill, New Delhi.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi