Piling

© All Rights Reserved

83 vues

Piling

© All Rights Reserved

- FRANKI Simplex sipovi
- Pile Set Calculation
- Pile Foundation Design and Construction Practice in Malaysia
- DESIGN CALCULATION FOR PILE LENGTH USING MEYERHOFF FORMULAE
- Steel Piling Handbook Design
- Pile Foundation
- AASHTO Pile Specs
- QCS 2010 Section 4 Part 10 Static Load Testing of Piles.pdf
- Sub Cont Bill March14
- 05 Brettman PPT
- Types of Deep Foundations
- 2008 08 21 Steel Piling Handbook Design Englisch
- FCR Dahej Port
- Soil Spring
- Foundation Types (US Army Corp a402418)
- Piles Budhu
- Kumpulan Mesin Pancang
- AASHTO GeoTechnical Design of Pile
- Raft Pile Cap Shear
- Metro Standard StructDwgs 080613

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 77

iv

DEDICATION

I am where I am because of all of you

Please continue to give me your support and encouragement

My humblest thanks and gratitude to all

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

and supplying me with the required knowledge and information to complete this

thesis.

There are no words apt enough to describe the amount of patience and love

shown and showered by my parents whilst I was completing this project. They were

always there when I needed their help and advice. My sincere thanks also to family

members and relatives who have given me the strength and encouragement to carry

on when I had almost given up hope.

complete my thesis. They include my course mates, seniors who have graduated,

colleagues and my many other friends. My outmost gratitude to all of them.

I especially would like to express and record my gratitude and thanks towards

Dr. Ramli Nazir, for the huge amount of patience shown by him and for all his

guidance in the preparation of this thesis. Without his patience and assistance, this

thesis would never have been completed.

vi

ABSTRACT

In Malaysia, Maintained Load Test (MLT) is the most common static load

test used for testing of driven reinforced concrete (RC) piles, while Pile Driving

Analyzer (PDA) is currently the most popular dynamic test method. MLT provides

relatively accurate information on ultimate pile capacity and settlement but is costly,

time consuming and difficult to carry out. PDA is much more timesaving, less

expensive and can be carried out with relative ease, but the results are subject to

uncertainties and interpretations of wave stress propagation theories. Results of pile

load tests at a hypermarket development were studied and analysed to create a

comparison between MLT and PDA. From the study, ultimate pile capacities derived

from analysis of PDA were consistently higher than results from MLT. Comparison

of pile settlement results for MLT and PDA was observed to be inconsistent. The

study also recognises that Davissons Method is used to obtain ultimate pile capacity

from MLT as it is more conservative compared with other calculation methods. PDA

results were observed to be satisfactory in determining ultimate pile capacity, but a

coefficient of 0.9 or a 10% reduction is suggested to be applied to values derived

from PDA. For future pile testing programs, there is a potential for an increase of

PDA tests to be carried out. However, a limited number of MLT must also be carried

out to determine accuracy of parameters and soil models used in PDA tests.

vii

ABSTRAK

statik yang paling biasa digunakan ke atas cerucuk konkrit bertetulang manakala Pile

Driving Analyzer (PDA) adalah kaedah ujian dinamik yang paling popular. MLT

mampu memberi maklumat yang tepat mengenai keupayaan maksima cerucuk dan

enapan yang dialami, namun ia melibatkan kos dan masa yang banyak, dan sangat

susah dijalankan. PDA lebih senang dijalankan serta melibatkan kos dan masa yang

kurang, namun keputusan ujian dipengaruhi oleh ketidakpastian dan tafsiran

berkaitan teori wave stress propagation. Keputusan ujian bebanan untuk satu

projek pasaraya besar telah dikaji dan dianalisa untuk mendapatkan perbandingan di

antara keputusan MLT dengan PDA. Daripada kajian, didapati keupayaan maksima

cerucuk daripada PDA adalah lebih tinggi berbanding dengan MLT untuk semua

cerucuk yang dianalisa. Bagi perbandingan enapan cerucuk pula, didapati bahawa

keputusan daripada MLT dan PDA adalad tidak tetap. Kajian juga menyokong

kaedah Davisson digunakan untuk mendapatkan keupayaan maksima cerucuk kerana

kaedah ini memberikan hasil yang lebih konservatif berbanding kaedah-kaedah lain.

Keputusan keupayaan maksima cerucuk daripada PDA didapati memuaskan, namun

sedikit pengurangan sebanyak 0.9 atau 10% dicadangkan untuk keputusan PDA .

Untuk program pengujian cerucuk yang bakal dilakukan pada masa hadapan,

terdapat potensi untuk menambahkan bilangan ujian PDA yang dilakukan. Namun,

MLT perlu juga dijalankan pada kadar yang minima untuk mendapatkan kepastian

mengenai parameter and model tanah yang digunakan dalam ujian PDA.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ii

DEDICATION iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v

ABSTRACT vi

ABSTRAK vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS viii

LIST OF TABLES xi

LIST OF FIGURES xii

LIST OF SYMBOLS xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES xvi

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Problem Statement 3

1.3 Objectives 3

1.4 Scope and Limitations 4

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5

2.1 Driven Reinforced Concrete (RC) Piles 5

2.2 Maintained Load Test (MLT) 9

2.2.1 Background 9

2.2.2 Equipment and Test Procedure 10

2.2.3 Measurement of Settlement 12

ix

2.3.1 Background 13

2.3.2 Wave Equation Analysis 15

2.4 Advantages and Disadvantages of MLT and PDA 20

3 METHODOLOGY 21

3.1 Background 21

3.2 Data Collection 23

3.3 Data Analysis and Results 23

3.4 Summary 24

4.1 Background of Case Study 25

4.2 Soil Condition 28

4.3 Analysis of MLT 29

4.4 Analysis of PDA 35

4.5 Comparison of Analysis on MLT and PDA 36

5 DISCUSSIONS 39

5.1 Quantitative Evaluation of Results 39

5.2 Consistency and Pattern of Results 39

5.2.1 Ultimate Pile Capacity 41

5.2.2 Pile Settlement 42

5.3 Reasons and Factors Affecting the Results 42

5.3.1 Ultimate Pile Capacity 42

5.3.2 Pile Settlement 44

5.4 Usage of Coefficient 45

5.5 Importance of Study and Further Discussions 46

5.1 Conclusions 49

5.2 Recommendations 50

x

REFERENCES 51

Appendices A - C 53 - 63

xi

LIST OF TABLES

advantages and disadvantages

PDA

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

(MLT)

piles during PDA testing

(Tomlinson, 1994)

xiii

Hansens Method

(1980)

xiv

LIST OF SYMBOLS

B - Diameter of pile

considered

c - Wave speed

F - Compression force

i - Incident (velocity)

P - Test load

R - Soil resistance

R - Reflected velocity

xv

st - Total settlement

v - Velocity

z - Impedance

xvi

LIST OF APPENDICES

Construction

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

corresponds with the development of that particular country. In Malaysia, piling

activities are currently active all around the country due to the numerous

development projects that are ongoing, funded by both the Government and the

private sector. Types of piles used for these development projects can broadly be

divided into displacement and replacement piles. Driven reinforced concrete (RC)

pile is type of displacement pile that transmits loads from structures into the soil

stratum through shaft friction and end bearing capacity of the pile.

Malaysia, especially for buildings that are of limited height. Construction of driven

RC piles foundation is commonly chosen by developers as it is relatively time saving

with a flexible construction schedule, the RC piles are normally readily available and

construction methodology is straightforward and not complicated.

2

However, if driving is not carried out properly, it will result in piles that have

not adequately set. Set criteria for driven RC piles are pre-determined by calculation

before pile-driving activity begins. If the set criterion for a certain pile is not

achieved, excessive settlement of the particular pile may be encountered and this will

eventually affect the stability and integrity of the supported structure or building.

Given the many uncertainties inherent in the design and construction of piles,

it is difficult to predict with accuracy the performance of a pile. In order to mitigate

and prevent such occurrences, and comprehensive pile-testing program must be

incorporated in every project. Loading tests can be carried out on preliminary piles to

confirm the pile design or on working piles as a proof loading tests. Although pile

load tests add to the cost of foundation, the saving can be substantial in the event that

improvement of to the foundation design can be materialized. Pile tests can generally

be divided into two main categories, which are static and dynamic tests. An example

of static testing is the Maintained Load Test (MLT) while Pile Driving Analyzer

(PDA) is a type of dynamic test.

MLT has been traditionally used to test piles in static condition. Most projects

require a certain number of driven RC piles to be selected and tested by the MLT

method. The MLT test method is well known to be cumbersome due to the test set

and testing process. It is a very costly test method and the long duration required for

testing makes it undesirable. Unfortunately, the MLT is one of the most direct

methods of testing driven RC piles and if procedures are strictly followed, the results

are extremely reliable and the settlement of driven RC piles can be accurately

determined.

Testing using PDA has gained popularity in recent years due to it being

relatively cost-efficient, timesaving and easy to perform. Due to its cost which is

much less compared to MLT, PDA can be performed on more driven RC piles thus

providing a bigger sample of tested piles.

3

However, accuracy of data from PDA testing can sometimes be in doubt due

to the uncertainties in the energy transmitted to the pile during testing and wave

stress propagation theories.

combination of data obtained from MLT and PDA testing is proposed to provide a

clear picture of the driven RC pile bearing capacity and expected settlement.

At present, not many comparisons have been made between PDA and MLT

testing for driven RC piles, specifically for cohesive soil in Malaysia. Accurate and

detailed studies showing attempted calibration between PDA and MLT in order to

gauge the effectiveness of PDA is not normally carried out. By comparing the results

of ultimate pile capacity using both PDA and MLT, it is envisaged that eventually,

the number of MLT can be reduced and substituted by conducting more PDA tests

instead. Thus, by comparing the results from PDA and MLT, the Engineer will gain

the confidence and reliability of using numerous PDA with limited MLT tests.

1.3 Objectives

capacity from MLT.

b) To determine the ultimate capacity of driven RC piles in cohesive soil

utilizing data from MLT and PDA respectively.

4

c) To compare results and data obtained from MLT and PDA. The

correlation is to be used for future testing programs for cohesive soil

whereby the number of MLT can be reduced and replaced with more

PDA tests

For the purposes of this research, only driven RC piles in cohesive soil will be

considered. This limitation is necessitated by the available data, which involves

driving of RC piles in mainly cohesive soil.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

,Q WKLV FKDSWHU IRXU PDLQ VXEWRSLFV ZLOO EH SUHVHQWHG 7KHVH LQFOXGH

OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ RQ GULYHQ UHLQIRUFHG FRQFUHWH SLOHV PDLQWDLQHG ORDG WHVW SLOH

GULYLQJ DQDO\]HU DQG WKH FRPSDULVRQ EHWZHHQ PDLQWDLQHG ORDG WHVW DQG SLOH GULYLQJ

DQDO\]HULQWHUPVRIWKHLUDGYDQWDJHVDQGGLVDGYDQWDJHV,QIRUPDWLRQIRUWKLVFKDSWHU

LV EDVHG RQ SXEOLVKHG OLWHUDWXUH RQ WRSLFV UHODWHG WR WKLV WKHVLV ZLWK WKH UHOHYDQW

SXEOLFDWLRQVOLVWHGLQWKHUHIHUHQFHV

2.1 Driven Reinforced Concrete (RC) Piles

JURXQG5&SLOHVDUHQRUPDOO\SURGXFHGLQDFHQWUDOL]HGFDVWLQJ\DUGE\LQGHSHQGHQW

SLOH PDQXIDFWXUHUV PDQ\ RI ZKRP SRVVHV WKHLU RZQ FRQFUHWH EDWFKLQJ SODQWV

8VXDOO\WKHVHPDQXIDFWXUHUVSURGXFHDYDULHW\RISLOHVDFFRUGLQJWRGLIIHUHQWW\SHV

VL]HVDQGOHQJWKV,QRUGHUWREHXVHGIRUDSDUWLFXODUFRQVWUXFWLRQSURMHFWWKHSLOHV

PXVW PHHW WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV RI WKH SURMHFW 7HFKQLFDO 6SHFLILFDWLRQV &OLHQW RU

&RQWUDFWRUV ZLOO FKRRVH SLOHV IURP WKHVH PDQXIDFWXUHV WDNLQJ LQWR DFFRXQW

FRQVLGHUDWLRQVVXFKDVVXSSO\SULFLQJGHOLYHU\WLPHDQGGLVWDQFHIURPSURMHFWVLWH

TXDOLW\DQGDYDLODELOLW\RIUHTXLUHGVL]HVOHQJWKV

5&SLOHVXVXDOO\DUHPDQXIDFWXUHGZLWKDVTXDUHRURFWDJRQDOFURVVVHFWLRQ

DOWKRXJK 5& SLOHV LQ RWKHU VKDSHV FDQ DOVR EH SURGXFHG 6L]HV RI 5& SLOHV LQ WKH

PDUNHWQRUPDOO\UDQJHEHWZHHQPPWRPPLQGLDPHWHUDQGDUHPDQXIDFWXUHG

LQOHQJWKVRIPWRP7KH\DUHDEOHWRFDUU\ZRUNLQJD[LDO ORDGVRIN1WR

N1&RGXWR+RZHYHU5&SLOHVRIGLIIHUHQWOHQJWKVFURVVVHFWLRQVDQG

FDSDFLWLHV IURP WKRVH OLVWHG DERYH DUH DOVR SURGXFHG GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH QHHGV DQG

UHTXLUHPHQWVRIFRQVWUXFWLRQSURMHFWV5&SLOHVDUHQRUPDOO\GULYHQLQWRWKHJURXQG

XVLQJ PDFKLQHU\ VXFK DV SLOH GULYHUV HTXLSSHG ZLWK GURS KDPPHUV DV VKRZQ LQ

)LJXUH

Figure 2.1'ULYLQJRI5&SLOHV

3UHFDVWGULYHQ5&SLOHVDUHHLWKHUPDGHXVLQJRUGLQDU\UHLQIRUFHPHQWRUPD\

EH SUHVWUHVVHG 3UHFDVW SLOHV PDGH XVLQJ RUGLQDU\ UHLQIRUFHPHQW DUH GHVLJQHG WR

UHVLVWEHQGLQJVWUHVVHVGXULQJORDGLQJXQORDGLQJDQGWUDQVSRUWWRWKHSURMHFWVLWHIURP

WKHFDVWLQJ\DUG7KH\DUHDOVRGHVLJQHGWRUHVLVWEHQGLQJPRPHQWVIURPODWHUDOORDGV

DQG WR SURYLGH VXIILFLHQW UHVLVWDQFH WR YHUWLFDO ORDGV DQG WHQVLRQ IRUFHV GHYHORSHG

GXULQJGULYLQJRIWKHSLOHV'XULQJSLOHGULYLQJWKHKHDGRI5&SLOHVFDQEHVHYHUHO\

GDPDJHGLIQRWDGHTXDWHO\SURWHFWHG7KHUHIRUHVXIILFLHQWFXVKLRQLQJDQGGDPSLQJ

PXVW EH SURYLGHG LQ WKH GURS KDPPHU DQG GULYLQJ VHWXS 7KLV QRUPDOO\ LQYROYHV

XVDJHRIKDPPHUFXVKLRQVDQGSLOHFXVKLRQV$W\SLFDOVHWXSRIGURSKDPPHUDQG

SLOHGULYLQJLVDVVKRZQLQ)LJXUH

Figure 2.26HWXSIRUSLOHGULYLQJ

(YHQWKRXJKGULYHQ5&SLOHVDUHWKHPRVWSRSXODUW\SHRIGLVSODFHPHQWSLOHV

XVHGLQWKHFRXQWU\WKHUHDUHDIHZGUDZEDFNVWKDWDUHDVVRFLDWHGZLWKLWVXVH6RPH

RIWKHDGYDQWDJHVDQGGLVDGYDQWDJHVRIWKHVHSLOHVDUHOLVWHGLQ7DEOH

Table 2.1: $GYDQWDJHVDQG'LVDGYDQWDJHVRI5&3LOHV

Advantages Disadvantages

0DWHULDORISUHIRUPHGVHFWLRQFDQEH 3LOHVHFWLRQPD\EHGDPDJHGGXULQJ

LQVSHFWHGEHIRUHGULYLQJ GULYLQJ

'ULYHQFDVWLQSODFHFRQFUHWHSLOHVDUH )RXQGLQJVRLOFDQQRWEHLQVSHFWHGWR

DGDSWDEOHWRYDULDEOHGULYLQJOHQJWKV FRQILUPWKHJURXQGFRQGLWLRQVDV

LQWHUSUHWHGIURPWKHJURXQGLQYHVWLJDWLRQ

GDWD

,QVWDOODWLRQLVJHQHUDOO\XQDIIHFWHGE\ *URXQGGLVSODFHPHQWPD\FDXVHPRYHPHQW

JURXQGZDWHUFRQGLWLRQ RIRUGDPDJHWRDGMDFHQWSLOHVVWUXFWXUHV

VORSHVRUXWLOLW\LQVWDOODWLRQV

6RLOGLVSRVDOLVQRWQHFHVVDU\ 3LOHVFDQQRWEHHDVLO\GULYHQLQVLWHVZLWK

UHVWULFWHGKHDGURRP

'ULYLQJUHFRUGVPD\EHFRUUHODWHGZLWK ([FHVVSRUHZDWHUSUHVVXUHPD\GHYHORS

in situWHVWVRUERUHKROHGDWD GXULQJULYLQJUHVXOWLQJLQIDOVHVHWRIWKH

SLOHVRUQHJDWLYHVNLQIULFWLRQRQSLOHVXSRQ

GLVVLSDWLRQRIH[FHVVSRUHZDWHUSUHVVXUH

'LVSODFHPHQWSLOHVWHQGWRFRPSDFW 8QGHUJURXQGREVWUXFWLRQVFDQQRWEHFRSHG

JUDQXODUVRLOVWKHUHE\LPSURYLQJEHDULQJ ZLWKHDVLO\

FDSDFLW\DQGVWLIIQHVV

&DXVHOHVVJURXQGGLVWXUEDQFH +HDY\SLOLQJSODQWPD\UHTXLUHH[WHQVLYH

VLWHSUHSDUDWLRQWRFRQVWUXFWDVXLWDEOH

SLOLQJSODWIRUPLQVLWHVZLWKSRRUJURXQG

FRQGLWLRQV.

7KHUH DUH D IHZ PHWKRGV WR FDUU\ RXW VWDWLF ORDG WHVW RQ 5& SLOHV 7KHVH

LQFOXGH 0/7 &RQVWDQW 5DWH RI 3HQHWUDWLRQ &53 WHVW DQG 2VWHUEHUJ ORDG WHVW

DPRQJ RWKHUV $V SUHYLRXVO\ PHQWLRQHG LQ &KDSWHU 0/7 KDV EHHQ WUDGLWLRQDOO\

XVHGWRWHVWSLOHVLQVWDWLFFRQGLWLRQDQGLVWKHSUHIHUUHGPHWKRGRIVWDWLFDOO\WHVWLQJ

SLOHV

2.2.1 Background

,QWKHGHVLJQSURFHVVJHRWHFKQLFDOHQJLQHHUVQRUPDOO\HVWLPDWHSLOHFDSDFLW\

IURP VRLO VWUHQJWK HVWLPDWHV REWDLQHG IURP VLWH VRLO LQYHVWLJDWLRQV WR REWDLQ D

SUHOLPLQDU\GHVLJQOHQJWKIRUELGGLQJSXUSRVHV1XPHURXVFRUUHODWLRQVDQGHPSLULFDO

FRUUHFWLRQ IDFWRUV IRU VRLO VWUHQJWK ZHUH GHYHORSHG IRU 6WDQGDUG 3HQHWUDWLRQ 7HVW

637&RQH3HQHWUDWLRQ7HVW&37RURWKHUVRLOVDPSOLQJWRROV

+RZHYHUWKHUHLVJHQHUDOO\FRQVLGHUDEOHVFDWWHULQVWUHQJWKSUHGLFWLRQUHVXOWV

DQG ORFDO H[SHULHQFH GRHV QRW WUDQVIHU WR GLIIHULQJ FRQGLWLRQV RUGLIIHULQJVDPSOLQJ

PHWKRGV 1XPHURXV SUHGLFWLRQ HYHQWV KDYH GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW VXFK SUHGLFWLRQV DUH

JHQHUDOO\ KLJKO\ LQDFFXUDWH SDUWLFXODUO\ LQ VDQG\ VRLO FRQGLWLRQV ZKHUH VWUHQJWK LV

GHWHUPLQHGE\6371YDOXHV/RQJ7KXVEHFDXVHRIODUJHLQKHUHQWULVNGXH

WRSRRUSUHGLFWLRQDFFXUDF\PRVWFRGHUHTXLUHVDVDIHW\IDFWRURIDURXQGIRUSLOHV

LQVWDOOHG XVLQJ RQO\ D VWDWLF DQDO\VLV ,Q JHQHUDO SUDFWLFH GULYHQ SLOHV DUH DOPRVW

QHYHU LQVWDOOHG WR D GHSWK IURP D VWDWLF DQDO\VLV DORQH EXW WKH ILQDO LQVWDOODWLRQ LV

JRYHUQHG E\ EORZ FRXQW GHWHUPLQHG E\ G\QDPLF PHWKRGV RU FRQILUPHG E\ D VWDWLF

ORDGWHVWVXFKDVWKH0/7

7KHREMHFWLYHVRISLOHWHVWLQJZLWK0/7LQFOXGHWKHGHWHUPLQDWLRQRIWKHORDG

EHDULQJFDSDFLW\RIWKHGULYHQSLOHVWKHVHWWOHPHQWDQGUHVLGXDOVHWWOHPHQWRIWKHSLOH

XQGHUORDGDQGGHWHUPLQDWLRQRIWKHVWLIIQHVVRIWKHVRLOSLOHV\VWHPLQUHJDUGVWRWKH

GHVLJQORDG

7KHXOWLPDWHORDGRIDGULYHQ5&SLOHPD\UDQJHIURPDIHZWRQQHVWRPRUH

WKDQDWKRXVDQGWRQQHV$VVXFKWKHSURYLVLRQRIDUHDFWLRQRUORDGWRMDFNDJDLQVW

UHTXLUHVFDUHIXOFRQVLGHUDWLRQ1RUPDOO\DUHDFWLRQRIDURXQGPRUHWKDQWZLFH

WKH ZRUNLQJ ORDG LV SURYLGHG IRU WHVWLQJ SXUSRVHV 7KH FHQWUH RI JUDYLW\ RI WKH

UHDFWLRQPDVVPXVWEHDVQHDUDVSRVVLEOHWRWKHSLOHD[LV3DUWLFXODUDWWHQWLRQWRWKH

VHW XS DQG JHRPHWU\ RI WKH SLOHUHDFWLRQ DUUDQJHPHQW PXVW EH HPSKDVLVHG WR

PLQLPL]HLQWHUDFWLRQEHWZHHQSLOHUHDFWLRQDQGWRDYRLGDQ\PRYHPHQWRIUHIHUHQFH

EHDPV

2.2.2 Equipment and Test Procedure

7KHPRVWFRPPRQPHWKRGRISURYLGLQJWKHUHDFWLRQWRWKHSLOHXQGHUWHVWLV

E\ XWLOLVLQJ NHQWOHGJH .HQWOHGJHV DUH VSHFLDOO\ FDVW FRQFUHWH EORFNV WKDW QRUPDOO\

ZHLJKWEHWZHHQWRWRQQHVHDFK7KHORDGFDQEHV\PPHWULFDOO\GLVWULEXWHGDQG

SODFHGZLWKHDVHRYHUWKHWHVWLQJIUDPHDVWKHEORFNVDUHXVXDOO\HTXDOLQZHLJKWDQG

VL]H/RDGLVDSSOLHGWRWKHWHVWSLOHE\PHDQVRIDK\GUDXOLFMDFN

$ QRUPDO 0/7 ZLOO FRQVLVW RI ORDGLQJ F\FOHV 'XULQJ WKH ILUVW F\FOH WKH

SLOHZLOOEHJUDGXDOO\ORDGHGXQWLOLWVSURSRVHGZRUNLQJORDGLQVWHSORDGV(DFKVWHS

ORDG LV XVXDOO\ DERXW RQHIRXUWK RI WKH SURSRVHG ZRUNLQJ ORDG 7KH VWHS ORDGV DUH

PDLQWDLQHGIRUDFHUWDLQSHULRGRIWLPHQRUPDOO\KRXUXQWLOWKHSURSRVHGZRUNLQJ

ORDGLVDFKLHYHGZKHUHE\WKHORDGZLOOEHPDLQWDLQHGIRUDORQJHUSHULRGDURXQG

KRXUV7KHSURFHVVLVUHSHDWHGLQUHYHUVHDQGORDGVDUHGHFUHDVHGLQVWHSVXQWLOWKHUH

LV QR ORDG DSSOLHG WR WKH SLOH )RU WKH VHFRQG F\FOH WKH SLOH LV JUDGXDOO\ ORDGHG LQ

VWHSVXQWLOWLPHVWKHSURSRVHGZRUNLQJORDG2QFHWKHPD[LPXPUHTXLUHGORDGLV

DFKLHYHGLWLVKHOGIRUDSHULRGRIDERXWKRXUVDQGWKHQWKHORDGVDUHGHFUHDVHGLQ

VWHSV

Figure 2.37\SLFDONHQWOHGJHDUUDQJHPHQWIRU0/7

'LDOJDXJHVDUHXVHGWRPHDVXUHWKHVHWWOHPHQWRIWKHSLOHXQGHUWHVW7KHVH

GLDOJDXJHVDUHDWWDFKHGWRWKHUHIHUHQFHEHDPVZKLFKDUHSRVLWLRQHGRQHLWKHUVLGH

RI WKH SLOH )RU DQ\ ORDG 4 WKH QHW SLOH VHWWOHPHQW FDQ EH FDOFXODWHG XVLQJ WKH

IROORZLQJHTXDWLRQ

VQHW VWVH

ZKHUH VQHW QHWVHWWOHPHQW

VH HODVWLFVHWWOHPHQWRIWKHSLOH

VW WRWDOVHWWOHPHQW

7KHYDOXHVRI4FDQEHSORWWHGDJDLQVWWKHFRUUHVSRQGLQJQHWVHWWOHPHQWLQD

JUDSK7KHXOWLPDWHORDGEHDULQJFDSDFLW\RIWKHSLOHFDQWKHQEHGHWHUPLQHGIURPWKH

SORWWHGJUDSK

Figure 2.56HWXSIRUPHDVXUHPHQWRIVHWWOHPHQW

2.3.1 Background

'\QDPLFWHVWLQJZDVSLRQHHUHGE\'U***REOHDQGKLVFROOHDJXHVDW&DVH

:HVWHUQ 5HVHUYH 8QLYHUVLW\ LQ &OHYHODQG 2KLR DQG LV QRZ D URXWLQH SLOH FDSDFLW\

HYDOXDWLRQ PHWKRG '\QDPLF WHVWLQJ UHTXLUHV PHDVXULQJ SLOH IRUFH DQG YHORFLW\

GXULQJ KDPPHU LPSDFW DQG VXEMHFWLQJ WKLV GDWD WR D VLJQDO PDWFKLQJ DQDO\VLV WR

GHWHUPLQH WKH VRLO EHKDYLRU ([WHQVLYH FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ VWDWLF DQG G\QDPLF

WHVWLQJKDYHYHULILHGWKHPHWKRGVUHOLDELOLW\

3'$LVRQHRIWKHPRVWZLGHO\XVHGG\QDPLFWHVWHTXLSPHQWLQWKHPDUNHW,W

ZDVGHYHORSHGE\3LOH'\QDPLFV,QF86$3'$LVXVHGDWVLWHWRSHUIRUPWKHILUVW

VWDJHRILQWHUSUHWDWLRQRIVWUHVVHVLQUHDOWLPH7KHKDUGZDUHRIWKH3'$FRQVLVWVRI

VWUDLQ DQG DFFHOHURPHWHU JDXJHV FRQQHFWHG WR LW ,W FDQ EH UHJDUGHG DV D FRPSXWHU

ORDGHGZLWKVRIWZDUHWRFDSWXUHWKHVWUDLQVDQGDFFHOHUDWLRQVPHDVXUHGQHDUWKHSLOH

WRSZKLFKWKHQFRPSXWHVDFORVHGIRUPVROXWLRQRIWKHSLOHVRLOKDPPHUV\VWHPLQ

UHDOWLPH

EDVLFJXLGHOLQHVPXVWEHIROORZHG7KHKDPPHULQSXWPXVWSURGXFHDPLQLPXPVHW

SHU EORZ VR WKDW WKH VRLO LV ORDGHG VXIILFLHQWO\ WR PRELOL]H WKH IXOO VRLO VWUHQJWK ,Q

FDVHVZKHUHWKHVHWSHUEORZLVYHU\VPDOOHJODUJHEORZFRXQWWKHG\QDPLFSLOH

WHVWZLOODFWLYDWHRQO\DSRUWLRQRIWKHIXOOVRLOVWUHQJWKDQGWKXVZLOOXQGHUSUHGLFWWKH

WUXHXOWLPDWHFDSDFLW\VRWKHUHVXOWLVFRQVHUYDWLYH7KHSLOHFDSDFLW\RIGULYHQSLOHV

RIWHQFKDQJHVZLWKWLPHDIWHULQVWDOODWLRQXVXDOO\LQFUHDVHVGXHWRVHWXSDOWKRXJK

LQ VRPH FDVHV UHGXFWLRQ GXH WR UHOD[DWLRQ DUH IRXQG 7R PHDVXUH WKHVH WLPH

GHSHQGHQW FDSDFLW\ HIIHFWV WKH GULYHQ SLOH VKRXOG EH WHVWHG E\ UHVWULNH DIWHU DQ

DSSURSULDWH ZDLWLQJ WLPH 5HVWULNH WHVWV DUH UHFRPPHQGHG VWDQGDUG SUDFWLFH IRU

FDSDFLW\HYDOXDWLRQE\G\QDPLFSLOHWHVWLQJ/LNLQV

'\QDPLF WHVWLQJ SURYLGHV RWKHU EHQHILWV IRU GULYHQ 5& SLOHV '\QDPLF SLOH

WHVWLQJ SURYLGHV YDOXDEOH DGGLWLRQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ GULYLQJ VWUHVVHV ZKLFK LI WRR

ODUJHFDQUHVXOWLQSLOHGDPDJH3LOHLQWHJULW\FDQEHHYDOXDWHGG\QDPLFDOO\IRUERWK

ORFDWLRQ DQG H[WHQW RI GDPDJH LI DQ\ 3URSHU KDPPHU SHUIRUPDQFH LV H[WUHPHO\

LPSRUWDQWIRUGULYHQSLOHVEHFDXVHHQJLQHHUVUHO\RQWKHEORZFRXQWRUVHWSHUEORZ

DVDGULYLQJFULWHULDIRUSLOHDFFHSWDQFHWKXVLPSOLFLWO\DVVXPLQJWKDWWKHKDPPHULV

SHUIRUPLQJSURSHUO\

Figure 2.67HVWLQJRISLOHVXVLQJ3'$

%\SHULRGLFDOPRQLWRULQJWKURXJKRXWODUJHUSURMHFWVLWFDQEHDVVXUHGWKDWWKH

KDPPHULVSHUIRUPLQJSURSHUO\DQGFRQVLVWHQWO\GXULQJWKHHQWLUHSURMHFWVRWKDWWKH

VDPH LQLWLDO GULYLQJ FULWHULD FDQ EH XVHG IRU DOO SLOHV ZLWK FRQILGHQFH 3HULRGLFDO

WHVWLQJFDQFKHFNVLWHYDULDELOLW\DQGLQYHVWLJDWHWKHFDXVHRISLOHVWKDWDUHWRRVKRUW

RUWRRORQJRUWKDWKDYHXQXVXDOEORZFRXQWUHFRUGVWRGHWHUPLQHLIWKHFDXVHLVWKH

KDPPHURUWKHSLOHRUWKHVRLO$FFRUGLQJWR/LNLQVJXLGHOLQHVIRUFKHFNLQJ

VLWH YDULDELOLW\ DQG SHULRGLF KDPPHU YHULILFDWLRQV DUH PHQWLRQHG LQ FHUWDLQ FRGHV

VXFKDV3LOH'ULYLQJ&RQWUDFWRUV&RGH3'&$

7KHJHQHUDOO\XVHGSURFHGXUHLVWRXVHDGURSZHLJKWIRUWKHLPSDFWVRWKDW

WKHGURSKHLJKWDQGQXPEHURIEORZVDSSOLHGLVFRQWUROOHG$UHODWLYHO\WKLQSO\ZRRG

FXVKLRQ W\SLFDOO\ WR PP LV SODFHG DW WKH SLOH WRS WR GLVWULEXWH WKH ORDGV

8VXDOO\DQLQLWLDOVPDOOLPSDFWLVDSSOLHGWRFKHFNWKHLQVWUXPHQWDWLRQDQGDOLJQPHQW

%ORZVZLWKLQFUHDVLQJGURSKHLJKWDUHWKHQDSSOLHGXQWLOHLWKHUWKHVWUHVVHVUHDFKWKH

VWUHQJWK OLPLWV RI WKH SLOH RU XQWLO WKH VHW SHU EORZ H[FHHGV DERXW PP ZKLFK

DFWLYDWHV WKH IXOO FDSDFLW\ RU XQWLO WKH UHVXOW LQGLFDWHV D FDSDFLW\ VXIILFLHQWO\ LQ

H[FHVVRIWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVIRUWKHSURMHFWZKLFKHYHUFRPHVILUVW

$VPHQWLRQHGE\/LNLQVWKHUHFRPPHQGHGGURSZHLJKWLVDWOHDVW

RIWKHUHTXLUHGXOWLPDWHFDSDFLW\WREHSURYHGIRUVKDIWVLQVWDOOHGLQFOD\VRLOVRULQWR

URFN VRFNHWV )RU SLOHV ZLWK ODUJHU H[SHFWHG HQG EHDULQJ FRQWULEXWLRQV WKH

UHFRPPHQGHGSHUFHQWDJHLQFUHDVHVWRDWOHDVWRIWKHORDGWREHWHVWHG

2.3.2 Wave Equation Analysis

%ORZV IURP D GURS KDPPHU ZLOO FUHDWH D VWUHVV ZDYH RQ WKH SLOH WRS 7KLV

VWUHVVZDYHWUDYHOVIURPWKHSLOHWRSWKURXJKWKHSLOHWRWKHWRH*DXJHVPRXQWHGRQ

WKH SLOH MXVW EHORZ WKH SLOH WRS PHDVXUH WKH VWUDLQV DQG DFFHOHUDWLRQV DV WKH ZDYH

WUDYHOV GRZQ 7KH SLOH PDWHULDO DQG VRLOVXUURXQGLQJWKHSLOHGDPSHQWUDQVPLWDQG

UHIOHFWWKHZDYHDVLWWUDYHOVGRZQWKHSLOH$WWKHSLOHWRHWLSWKHVWUHVVZDYHLV

UHIOHFWHGEDFNWRWKHWRSRIWKHSLOH$VWKHZDYHPDNHVLWZD\WRWKHWRSWKHJDXJHV

PHDVXUHWKHVWUDLQVDQGDFFHOHUDWLRQVGXHWRWKHUHWXUQLQJZDYH

Figure 2.7:DYHHTXDWLRQWKHRU\VHWXSDQGSDUDPHWHUV

$V WKH VWLIIQHVV RI WKH SLOH LV NQRZQ WKH IRUFH FDQ EH FDOFXODWHG IURP WKH

VWUDLQ PHDVXUHPHQWV 7KH DFFHOHUDWLRQV FDQ EH LQWHJUDWHG RYHU WLPH WR \LHOG WKH

YHORFLW\ RI WKH ZDYHV 7KH IRUFH DQG YHORFLW\ PHDVXUHPHQWV DUH WKH SULQFLSDO GDWD

XVHGLQWKH3'$WRFRPSXWHWKHXQNQRZQVRLOUHVLVWDQFH%\H[DPLQLQJWKHIRUFHDQG

YHORFLW\WUDFHDGLDJQRVLVRIWKHFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIWKHSLOHVRLOKDPPHUV\VWHPFDQ

EHPDGHDQGDEQRUPDOLWLHVLQSLOHGULYLQJFDQEHGHWHFWHG,QPRVW3'$DSSOLFDWLRQV

WKH KDPPHU LV QRW LQVWUXPHQWHG DQG RQO\ WKH SLOHVRLO V\VWHP LV FRQVLGHUHG DQG

DQDO\VHG

Figure 2.8 6WUDLQ JDXJHV DQG DFFHOHURPHWHUV DUH IL[HG WR 5& SLOHV

GXULQJ3'$WHVWLQJ

&XUUHQW3'$WHVWLQJPHWKRGLVEDVHGRQDRQHGLPHQVLRQDOZDYHSURSDJDWLRQ

WKHRU\)RUDVWUHVVZDYHWUDYHOOLQJGRZQDSLOHGXHWRDKDPPHULPSDFWRQWKHSLOH

WRSWKHFRPSUHVVLRQIRUFHDQGYHORFLW\DUHUHODWHGE\WKHIROORZLQJHTXDWLRQ

) =Y

= ($F

ZKHUH ) FRPSUHVVLRQIRUFH

= LPSHGDQFH

Y YHORFLW\

( <RXQJV0RGXOXV

$ FURVVVHFWLRQDUHD

F ZDYHVSHHG

)RUDJLYHQPDWHULDO($DQGFDUHFRQVWDQWV$VWKHZDYHWUDYHOVGRZQWKH

SLOHDQ\FKDQJHLQWKHSLOHLPSHGDQFHVXFKDVFKDQJHVLQFURVVVHFWLRQDUHDVSOLFHV

RUGHIHFWVZLOOFDXVHWKHZDYHWREHUHIOHFWHG7KHJRYHUQLQJHTXDWLRQVIRUWKHIRUFH

DQGYHORFLW\WUDQVPLWWHGDQGUHIOHFWHGDWSRLQWVRILPSHGDQFHFKDQJHDUHJLYHQE\

)W )L

)U )L

YW YL

YU YL

ZKHUH L LQFLGHQW

W WUDQVPLWWHG

U UHIOHFWHG

UDWLRRILPSHGDQFHEHIRUHDQGDIWHUVHFWLRQFRQVLGHUHG

,QDGGLWLRQWRFKDQJHVLQWKHSLOHLPSHGDQFHWKHVRLOUHVLVWDQFHDORQJWKHSLOH

ZLOODOVRDIIHFWWKHZDYHSURSDJDWLRQ3DUWRIWKHLQFLGHQWZDYHZLOOEHUHIOHFWHGGXH

WRWKHVRLOUHVLVWDQFH7KHJRYHUQLQJHTXDWLRQVIRUWKHIRUFHDQGYHORFLW\WUDQVPLWWHG

DQGUHIOHFWHGGXHWRVRLOUHVLVWDQFHDUHDVIROORZV

)W 5

)U 5

YW YU 5=

ZKHUH5 VRLOUHVLVWDQFH

7KHIRUFHRUYHORFLW\WUDFHDWWKHSLOHWRSGXHWRDKDPPHUEORZWKHUHIRUHFDQ

EHDQDO\WLFDOO\FRPSXWHGE\DSSO\LQJWKHHTXDWLRQVWRDGLVFUHWHILQLWHHOHPHQWPRGHO

RI WKH SLOHVRLOKDPPHU V\VWHP DQG VROYLQJ LW LQ WKH WLPH GRPDLQ 7KH ZDYH LQSXW

FDQEHHLWKHUWKHPHDVXUHGIRUFHRUYHORFLW\%\VXLWDEO\DGMXVWLQJWKHVRLOPRGHOWKH

FRPSXWHGIRUFHRUYHORFLW\WUDFHFDQEHPDGHWRPDWFKWKHDFWXDOPHDVXUHGYDOXH

2QFH WKLV LV DFKLHYHG WKH VRLO PRGHO LV VDLG WR EH UHSUHVHQW WKH DFWXDO VRLO

FRQGLWLRQ7KHUHVXOWLQJVRLOPRGHOWKHQSURYLGHVWKHUHTXLUHGLQIRUPDWLRQRQWKHVRLO

UHVLVWDQFH DQG LWV GLVWULEXWLRQ DORQJ WKH SLOH OHQJWK 7KH SLOH PRGHO XVXDOO\ LV D

NQRZQLQSXWH[FHSWZKHUHLWLVUHTXLUHGWRGHWHUPLQHXQNQRZQGHIHFWVLQWKHSLOHV

GLVDGYDQWDJHV

Test Type Reaction Maximum Advantages Disadvantages

System Test Load

0DLQWDLQHG .HQWOHGJH 1RUPDOO\ 6XLWVDOOVRLO .HQWOHGJHWHVWV

/RDG7HVW DURXQG FRQGLWLRQVDQGSLOH DUHUHODWLYHO\

0/7 N1 W\SHV0DQXDODQG H[SHQVLYH6HWWLQJ

DXWRPDWHGV\VWHPV XSDQG

WRQQHVDYDLODEOH3LOHVFDQ GLVPDQWOLQJWKH

EHLQVWUXPHQWHG WHVWHTXLSPHQW

7HQVLRQDQGODWHUDO

+LJKHUWHVW LQYROYHV

ORDGVDUH WHVWLQJSRVVLEOH RSHUDWLYHV

SRVVLEOH9HU\KLJKWHVWORDGV ZRUNLQJDWKHLJKW

DFKLHYDEOH /RQJGXUDWLRQ

.HQWOHGJHDQG

IUDPHDUH

UHTXLUHG

3LOH'ULYLQJ 3LOLQJ N1 )DVWDQGUHODWLYHO\ 0D\UHTXLUH

$QDO\]HU KDPPHU JHQHUDOO\ LQH[SHQVLYH FDOLEUDWLRQZLWK

3'$ RU EXWFDQEH 6XLWDEOHIRUERWK VWDWLFWHVW5HVXOWV

VHSDUDWH JUHDWHU GULYHQDQGERUHG PD\EH

GURS SLOHV&RUUHODWLRQ XQUHSUHVHQWDWLYH

ZHLJKW +DPPHU ZLWKVWDWLFWHVWVRQ LQVRLOVWKDW

ZHLJKW ERUHGSLOHV H[KLELWUHOD[DWLRQ

VKRXOGEHLQ JHQHUDOO\JRRG &RUUHODWLRQRI

WKHUDQJH G\QDPLFDQG

WRRI VWDWLFUHVXOWVRQ

ORDG SLOHVLQFRKHVLYH

VRLOVDQGFKDON

PXVWFRQVLGHU

WLPHUHODWHG

HIIHFWVDQGWKH

OHQJWKRISLOH

WHVWHG

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Background

The study was conducted based on data from a single project site.

Description on the project will be presented in Chapter 4. The data were grouped in

static and dynamic test results. Analysis of the different data was carried out

separately.

High strain dynamic test and CAPWAP analysis results from the each of the

data were reviewed in terms of shaft distribution and pile load-settlement. Similarly

the same procedures were employed to MLT results. The output of the PDA results

and CAPWAP analysis, and MLT analysis were compared to obtain a relationship.

The results were compared based on ultimate pile bearing capacity and settlement.

Discussions on the obtained results are presented and conclusions made based on the

results. Finally, recommendations are provided.

22

Driven RC Piles

Data from PDA and pile driving Data from MLT and pile driving

records records

Stage 3 - Summary

Conclusions & Recommendations

23

construction project. The data required was from driven RC piles that were tested

both by MLT and PDA. The results were made sure to be complete for comparison

purposes.

There were many data obtained but data that contained only a particular test

method, either MLT or PDA alone were rejected during this stage of study

The second stage of this study was to analysis the data that was obtained from

the construction site. Based on the raw data, pile load vs. settlement data were

tabulated and subsequently plotted.

The PDA data were also analyzed based on shaft distribution. The shaft

distribution was obtained from results of CAPWAP analysis. These results were

tabulated for easier presentation. The percentage of shaft distribution through the

length of the pile in regards to the total capacity obtained was observed.

In the MLT tests, certain pile capacities were obtained. The same also

applies to PDA tests whereby capacities of piles were also obtained. Both the

capacities were compared available methods and plotted to get a comparison for all

of the analyzed piles.

24

3.4 Summary

The third and final stage of the study was to draw a conclusion based on the

results of the analysis. It is understood that from previous studies there has been

good correlations and comparisons between dynamic test and static load test results.

The result that was derived from the analysis were carefully studied based on

the objectives. The closeness and the deviation between the results obtained were

checked.

Reasons and factors that influence test results were identified and presented.

Recommendations were included to for use during future pile load testing programs

and for further research works on similar subjects.

CHAPTER 4

Raw data in various forms and sources were organized and compiled, as

previously mentioned in Chapter 3. Subsequently, analysis was carried out on all of

these data in order to obtain results and findings. Analyzed data was only from the

case study. In the following chapter, the results are presented in paragraph and

tabular formats.

The area of interest (case study) that was researched was a hypermarket

development project in Bandar Kinrara, Puchong, Selangor Darul Ehsan. The

hypermarket development project covers an area of approximately 7.98 acres. The

hypermarket project development area is mostly of cut formation and its elevation is

higher than the surroundings.

people residing in nearby areas and the purchasing power of local residents,

especially residents of the affluent Bandar Kinrara.

26

decided to construct a two and half storey building, and not just a typical single

storey building to house the hypermarket and other tenants. In addition, the

managing company was also determined to provide numerous facilities and

amenities such as the power cart system that is not normally found in most

hypermarkets.

Due to this, loading from the structural and architectural components as well

as mechanical and electrical (M&E) equipment was significant. Type and capacity of

piles, pile groups and the piling layout was designed taking into consideration the

huge loading requirements of the project. At locations with heavy loading such as the

water tank area, pile groups of up to 6P-350 (6 numbers of 350mm x 350mm RC

piles) were required. Dimension of the pile cap for the 6P-350 pile group was

2850mm x 1800mm x 1800mm (height).

Piling was carried out using driven RC piles and all of these piles were driven

until set. A set criterion was pre-determined before commencement of piling activity

by means of calculation using Hileys Formula. The set criteria used was a maximum

of 25mm settlement for 10 blows by the hammer (25mm/10 blows) and this set

criteria was the same for all pile sizes. Sizes of piles used for the project were

250mm x 250mm, 300mm x 300mm and 350mm x 350mm. There were

approximately 998 piling points for the whole development. Piling was carried out

using 7-tonne hydraulic hammers with drop heights of 300mm, 400mm and 600mm

for the different pile sizes. A total of five numbers of driven RC piles were analyzed

for the purposes of this study. Details of the analyzed piles are given in Table 4.1.

27

Gridline/Pile Height of Drop Pile Penetration

Pile Size (mm)

Reference Hammer (mm) (m)

14/B 300 x 300 400 18.2

Note: Gridlines set by project Architect. Gridlines used as convention to

identify piles

During piling, all of the 998 piles points that were driven into the ground

were identified to have fulfilled the set criteria, as shown in the relevant piling

records. Upon completion of the piling activity, a testing program was specified by

the Engineer to identify the capacities, condition and integrity of the driven piles and

also to determine the magnitude of further settlement of the driven piles under

working and test loads.

The testing program for the driven piles consisted of both static and dynamic

test methods. MLT was chosen for the static load test and dynamic testing was

carried out using PDA. For the data analysis, the number of piles studied and

analyzed was limited to five. All in all, testing by MLT was carried out on six piles

and PDA was carried out on thirty piles. Only five piles were studied due to the

restrictions of available data to be analyzed, as tests on most other piles were carried

out by either static or dynamic means only, and not by both methods.

28

For the soil investigation (SI) program, a total of twelve boreholes were

carried out. These boreholes were evenly spaced out and distances between

boreholes were limited to less than 50 meters to maximize data and knowledge of the

sub-soil condition. Sub-surface exploration was carried out using a multi-speed wash

boring rig. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was carried out at 1.5m intervals until

the termination of the borehole. Termination was determined by either achieving

seven consecutive SPT - N values of 50 or by coring through 2m of rock.

Undisturbed samples were obtained by jacking thin-walled tubes into soft cohesive

layers and mazier sampler used for stiffer soil layers (SPT N values more than 15).

Measurement of groundwater table was carried out in the borehole using standpipes.

Data from the boreholes were analyzed and a soil profile for the development

was subsequently created from the results of the analysis. As shown in Table 4.1

above, the penetration depths of the driven piles are between 14m to 19m from the

ground level. Analysis results from the soil profile show that the soil layers

corresponding to the pile penetration depths mainly consist of cohesive soils. There

are only traces of cohesionless soil such as sandy soils and gravel in a limited

number of boreholes. Majority content of soil layers corresponding to pile

penetration depths were observed to be silt and clay.

SPT N values. This classification is as shown in Table 4.2 below. Generally, the

SPT N values for soil layers corresponding to pile penetration depths were

observed to range between 11 and 50. Based on the system of classification by

Bowles (2006), the soil strata for the analyzed pile locations in the case study is

mainly made up of stiff, very stiff and hard cohesive soils.

29

SPT N values (range) Consistency

0-2 Very soft

3-5 Soft

6-9 Medium

10-16 Stiff

17-30 Very stiff

>30 Hard

Data obtained from the MLT tests included loads imposed upon by the

kentledge system and the settlement of the tested pile due to the corresponding loads.

Applied loads were measured in units of tons and later converted to kilo Newton

(kN) to be used for calculation purposes. Settlement was measured in millimeter

(mm). Data from MLT tests on the five analyzed piles were plotted on load vs.

settlement graphs.

Tomlinson (1994) had plotted many load vs. settlement graphs for different

soil conditions, including cohesive soils, and varying types of piles. Figure 4.1

illustrates some of these graphs.

30

Figure 4.1 Typical load settlement graphs for pile load tests

(Tomlinson, 1994)

31

From the case study, a separate graph was plotted for each of the analyzed

pile. Further analysis was carried out on the graphs to obtain the ultimate pile

capacity for each of the five analyzed piles. Calculations for the settlement of the

tested piles were not required as pile settlement under loading and residual settlement

is readily available from the MLT test reports. However, a review of the test reports

was carried out and the settlement values stated in these reports were checked. Based

on the review results, the settlement values were accurately reported. This conclusion

was made after comparing the settlement values to the actual field records attached

together with the reports, which was verified by the Engineers representative.

proposed by many authors to obtain ultimate pile capacity from load-deformation

curves in a static load test. Some of these methods are listed in Table 4.3, based on

explanations by Murugan (2006).

Author(s) and Year Explanation on Method

Davisson (1972) Obtain the load corresponding to the movement,

which exceeds the elastic compression of the pile by

a value of 4mm plus a factor equal to the diameter of

the pile divided by 120. This method was developed

in conjunction with the wave equation analysis.

Fuller and Hoy (1970) Proposed a simple definition that the failure load is

equal to the test load for where the load movement

curve is sloping 0.14mm/kN. This method penalizes

long piles because the larger elastic movements

occurring for a long pile, as opposed to the short pile,

causes the slope 0.14mm/kN to occur sooner.

Butler and Hoy (1977) Developed the above definition defining the failure

load as the load at the intersection of the tangent

32

straight portion of the curve, or to a line that is

parallel to the rebound portion of the curve. Butler

and Hoy took into account the elastic deformation,

substantially offsetting the length effect.

Brinch Hansen (1963) Defines failure as the load that gives twice the

movement of the pile head as obtained for 90% of the

load. It is also known as Brinch Hansens 90%

criterion.

De Beer & Wallays Proposed a method, where the load movement values

(1972) are plotted in double logarithmic diagram. When, the

value fall on two approximately straight lines, the

intersection of these defines the failure value.

Mazurkiewicz (1972) Method where a series of equal pile head movement

lines are arbitrarily chosen and the corresponding

load lines are constructed from the intersection of the

movement lines with the load movement curve.

From the intersection of each load line with the load

axis, a 45 line is drawn to intersect with the next

load line. These intersections fall approximately on a

straight line the intersection of which with the load

axis defines the failure load. This method considers

an assumption that the load movement curve is

approximately parabolic.

Chin (1970 and 1971) Proposed a method that assumes that the load

movement curve is of hyperbolic shape when the

load approaches the failure load. In this method,

each load value is divided with its corresponding

movement value and the resulting value is plotted

against the movement. After some variation, the

plotted values will fall on a straight line. The inverse

slope of this line is the failure load.

33

It can be summarized that the load vs. settlement graphs is the basis for all of

the various methods of determining ultimate pile capacity. Each author used the basic

form of the graph and devised their own method of calculation. An example of this is

the Brinch Hansen Method, which is also based on the load vs. settlement graph.

The plot for this method is shown in Figure 4.2.

34

popular methods used for analysis of static load tests. The Davissons method

produces conservative results, especially if slow MLT is carried out. It also takes into

account the elastic compression of a pile that has no side friction.

35

the following, Coduto (2001):

and

E = 4700 fcu (2)

P = test load

D = embedment depth of pile

A = cross section area of pile

E = modulus of pile material

fcu = compressive strength of concrete at 28 days age

The Davissons method was selected for the analysis of ultimate pile capacity

for the case study as it produces the most conservative results. Calculation using the

Davissons method is also straightforward and is not complicated. This was an

important factor to consider as five graphs were plotted; one graph for each of the

analyzed piles in the case study.

During dynamic pile testing, PDA provided peak pile forces, which was

converted to pile stresses, under each strike of hammer impact. Analysis of these pile

force measurements indicated that there were no significant damage to the piles

during testing.

36

Case Pile Wave Analysis Program (CAPWAP) software was used for the

analysis of data from PDA field tests. Through CAPWAP, the pile mobilized

capacity, skin friction, end bearing and settlement data at working and test loads

were obtained.

analysis on the PDA test results is considered to be fully mobilized if the net set of

3mm is achieved at the time of testing. Based on this criteria, it was analyzed that all

of the five piles in the case study had achieved the mobilized capacity and the

required test load at the time of testing.

had to be made for certain parameters involved in the calculations. These parameters

include the soil resistance distribution, quake and damping factors. Consistent

adjustments of the soil models used had to be made in order to achieve the best fit

with the prevailing ground conditions for each of the five analyzed piles.

According to Das (2004), the time lapse of testing after end of driving for

piles is stated as EOD. For the case study, the EOD for both MLT and PDA for all

five analyzed piles are presented in Table 4.4.

The time lapse (waiting period) between pile driving and testing enables soil

set-up around the driven piles. The longer the time interval, it is expected that the

shaft friction contribution would be larger towards the pile capacity (Murugan,

2006). From the analysis, the above was confirmed as shaft friction contribution in

piles 17/H, 8/P and 12/C were significant, mostly due to the wider time interval

37

between pile driving and testing. For pile 1/H, the shaft contribution was analyzed as

only 42% and the time interval between driving and testing was only 6 days.

MLT PDA

Gridline/ Pile

Shaft Friction % of Pile

Reference Time Lapse Time Lapse

(kN) Capacity

14/B 5 days 17 days 1099 52

12/C 6 days 19 days 1638 58

1/H 12 days 6 days 1158 42

8/P 17 days 19 days 1246 60

17/H 25 days 27 days 1766 88

After completion of the analysis on MLT and PDA tests data, it was observed

that there is a variation between results for settlement and ultimate pile capacity

derived form these two different testing methods. While the results for ultimate pile

capacity was consistent, the results for settlement was not consistent.

Analysis results for ultimate pile capacities are presented in Table 4.5 below.

It is observed that for all analyzed piles, the ultimate pile capacity derived from the

PDA testing method is higher compared to capacity derived through MLT testing.

The consistency of results based on the analysis can be deemed satisfactory.

38

Table 4.5: Ultimate pile capacities obtained through MLT and PDA

Pile Capacity (kN)

Gridline/Pile Reference

MLT PDA

14/B 1850 2011

12/C 2600 2776

1/H 2550 2776

8/P 1800 2070

17/H 1690 2011

However, analysis results from the static and dynamic tests for pile settlement

does not indicate consistency. In fact, it was observed there is no clear pattern of

results in terms of settlement measured by MLT and PDA. For piles 12/C, 1/H and

8/P pile settlement from PDA showed higher values compared to values derived

through MLT. For piles 14/B and 17/H, pile settlement from MLT was higher

compared to settlement derived through PDA. Settlement results of the five piles

obtained through both methods are listed in Table 4.6.

Gridline/Pile Test Load Settlement (mm)

Reference (Tons) MLT PDA

14/B 200 16.71 13

12/C 280 11.25 13

1/H 280 14.49 22

8/P 200 10.70 17

17/H 140 9.66 7

presented in the following chapter.

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSIONS

paragraph and tabular formats. In this chapter, the results are discussed and

commented upon in terms of:

2) Explanation and interpretation of the results

3) Reasons and factors affecting the results

Results of the analysis carried out for pile ultimate capacity using both MLT

and PDA was presented in Table 4.5. Subsequently, results of pile settlement

calculated based on MLT and PDA methods were presented in Table 4.6.

The difference in ultimate pile capacities obtained from these two methods is

shown in Table 5.1.

40

Table 5.1: Difference between pile ultimate capacity through MLT and PDA

Gridline/Pile Pile Capacity (kN) Difference between PDA

Reference MLT PDA and MLT Results (kN)

14/B 1850 2011 161

12/C 2600 2776 176

1/H 2550 2776 176

8/P 1800 2070 270

17/H 1690 2011 321

Mean = 221

derived from PDA testing is higher when compared to the ultimate pile capacity

derived from MLT using the Davissons method. The highest difference calculated

was 321 kN for pile 17/H. Dimension of this pile is 250mm x 250mm and its design

working load is 700 kN. Therefore, the variation of ultimate pile capacity amounts to

approximately 46% of the design working load for that particular pile. The mean

difference for all five analyzed piles between the two testing methods was calculated

to be 221 kN or approximately 22.5 tonnes.

In terms of pile settlement, the difference observed from both testing methods

is as shown in Table 5.2.

41

Gridline/Pile Test Load Settlement (mm) Difference in settlement

Reference (Tons) MLT PDA (mm)

14/B 200 16.71 13 -3.71

12/C 280 11.25 13 1.75

1/H 280 14.49 22 7.51

8/P 200 10.70 17 6.30

17/H 140 9.66 7 -2.66

Note: + sign denotes settlement calculated by PDA is higher while -

denotes that settlement calculated by PDA is lower than by MLT

From Table 5.2, it is shown that for the majority of analyzed piles, settlement

derived by PDA is higher than the settlement values derived from MLT. The

difference in values of pile settlement calculated by PDA compared to MLT ranges

from between 1.75mm to 7.51mm. However, for two of the analyzed piles, results of

pile settlement from PDA were lower than the results from MLT. Overall, settlement

of piles obtained from both methods were within the tolerances allowed by the

Project Specifications, which is a maximum settlement of 25mm when tested at the

Test Load (twice Working Load).

derived from both MLT and PDA methods were satisfactory. It was observed that in

all cases of analysis, the values obtained through PDA were higher than values from

MLT. There was a variation in the percentage of difference between results from

PDA and MLT for each analyzed pile, when compared to the test load.

42

As an example, the test load for pile 14/B is 1962 kN (200 tonnes) therefore

the percentage of difference is 8% whereas for pile 17/H the test load is 1373 kN

(140 tonnes) and the percentage of difference is 23%. However, the variation in

difference is not an important factor in analyzing the piles and therefore it was not

considered in the analysis and presentation of results. In summary, results for

analysis of ultimate pile capacity were observed to be consistent and were

satisfactory, without any significant deviations.

Unlike the analysis for ultimate pile capacity, results of pile settlement

obtained from both PDA and MLT were not consistent and did not display a clear

pattern. Due to this, it was not possible to produce a coefficient or correlation for

predicting settlement based on results of the analysis. When only PDA is used in a

testing program, the accuracy of pile settlement obtained is perpetually in doubt.

Therefore, MLT must also be carried out in any testing program in order for

calibration and checking to be carried out on values of pile settlement from PDA.

Analysis of PDA tests carried out on five samples of piles had yielded higher

values of ultimate pile capacity when compared with analysis results from MLT. As

MLT is acknowledged to be one of the most reliable and accurate pile load testing

methods, identification of factors affecting the results of this study is concentrated on

analysis carried out for PDA. Two main factors that may have brought about this set

of results are the parameters and soil model used in the CAPWAP analysis.

43

In CAPWAP analysis, the software will iteratively modify the soil model

until a best-fit match is obtained. Then, a test engineer will use his knowledge and

judgment to manually fine-tune the soil model parameters until he is satisfied that an

acceptable and reasonable result is obtained (Sam, 2006). Therefore, the accuracy of

test results are subjective and depend to a large extend on the competency of the

personnel conducting the testing at site and carrying out the software analysis in the

office.

Besides this, the method of conducting PDA tests itself may influence the

results of the analysis. In most cases, in order to obtain a proper soil model and

parameters, a particular pile under test is struck several times by the hydraulic drop

hammer. This process will be repeated until the tester is satisfied with the results.

Sometimes, even before the tester fine tunes the soil model parameters, the operator

of the crane will strike the pile under test a few times in order to achieve the required

drop height. The dynamic force repeatedly being transmitted to the pile prior and

during testing will affect the accuracy and results of PDA analysis.

time following installation, especially in cohesive soils such as clay and silt. This is

due to set-up, attributed to dissipation of excess pore water pressure generated during

installation. Excess pore water pressure generated during pile driving will influence

the values of pile capacity during testing. The excess pore water pressure will

dissipate over time, which will result in greater pile capacity (Das, 2004). . For

nearly all analyzed piles, there was a larger time interval between piling and testing

by PDA, when compared to testing by MLT. Higher ultimate pile capacity values

from PDA may to some extend be attributed to this factor.

44

When piles are driven into soft clay, a zone surrounding the clay becomes

remolded or compressed. This results in a reduction of undrained shear strength.

With time, the loss of undrained shear strength is partially or fully regained (Das,

2004). In addition to this, thixotropic effect (hardening of disturbed cohesive soil

layers) and consolidation will increase pile capacity with advancement of time.

These factors are important in analyzing the higher results obtained through pile

testing by PDA method.

However, it must also be noted that the Davissons method was used for the

analysis of MLT results. As previously mentioned in Chapter 4, the ultimate pile

capacities derived from the Davissons method is more conservative and less than

ultimate pile capacity values derived from other methods. Davissons method was

selected for this study as it provides a higher degree of safety as it assumes lower

capacities of piles compared with other methods. In this connection, the lower values

of ultimate pile capacity obtained through analysis of MLT are significantly affected

by the application of Davissons method. Most probably, if another method was

applied, the difference between ultimate pile capacity from PDA and MLT would not

be as high. It is also possible that for some of the analyzed piles, the values obtained

from MLT might even be higher compared to values from PDA, if other calculation

methods were used. Further studies should be carried out to examine this hypothesis.

inconsistency may be due to testing of piles being carried out without sufficient time

interval between driving and testing. According to Bowles (1996), piles in cohesive

soils should be tested after sufficient lapse for excess pore water pressures to

dissipate.

45

accepted to be accurate. This condition is true if the test set-up, especially the

monitoring frame (reference beam) is properly installed and is kept free from

disturbances. Dial gauges must also be calibrated prior to use and protected from

vibration, movement or shock. For all of the analyzed piles, the above conditions

were practiced during testing, as verified by the Engineers Representative.

Therefore, it is safe to deduce that the settlement results obtained from MLT are

accurate.

In view of the above, the inconsistency of results and the difference of pile

settlement values are brought about by the PDA analysis. As previously mentioned in

Section 5.3.1, soil model parameters, competency of tester and disturbance to pile by

application of dynamic force will also result in discrepancies in pile settlement

values.

can be categorized as shown in Table 5.1. The column for Coefficient / Reduction

Factor is derived by dividing the values from MLT with the ultimate pile capacity

values obtained from PDA.

46

Gridline/Pile Reduction

Reference MLT PDA Factor

14/B 1850 2011 0.92

Mean = 0.90

Therefore, test results for ultimate pile capacity derived from PDA tests, may be

multiplied by the value of 0.9 or a reduction of 10% applied, if piling and testing are

carried out in similar conditions to the case study. However, there are numerous

limitations to the application of the coefficient due to the huge number of variables

involved in load tests and due to differing site conditions.

According to Likins (2004), after correlating static and dynamic tests, the Pile

Driving Contractors Association (PDCA) code allows substitution of three dynamic

tests for one static test, in determining the quantity of further testing. Thus, with at

least one successful correlation, the PDCA suggests that 5% static testing can be

translated into testing 15% of the piles dynamically, for the same suggested global

safety factor of 1.65. It is probably implicitly assumed that the large number of tests

allows site variability to be properly assessed and hammer performance to be

evaluated periodically throughout the project duration.

47

The PDA is a very useful tool in evaluating the ability of pile driving

equipment to install piles to the desired depth without damage. It can be used to

show the variability of likely pile capacity across the site by using the PDA on

several test piles installed across the site. It can be calibrated to be more site specific

by calculating input factors from static compressive load tests, such as the MLT.

Once the output data correlates with the load test results, confidence can be

gained in other PDA predictions. It can be used to change the length of piles when

test results indicate a savings can be made. This is usually of value on large projects

when a small reduction in pile length can result in big savings because of the large

number of piles driven.

The PDA is perceived as less costly than a traditional static load test such as

the MLT. A value analysis should be performed on the net savings when longer or

more piles are used. The value in PDA testing is in the ability to test a large number

of piles instead of just a few, as in the case of MLT. The variability in load capacity

across a site can be evaluated with the goal of lowering the safety factor used for the

project.

An important point to consider in pile load test program is that piles are

normally designed to be in pile groups. Regardless of how individual pile capacity is

analysed, piles are usually in groups. Therefore, a significant amount of research

must be carried out to analyse ultimate pile capacities and settlement in pile groups

when tested using both MLT and PDA.

48

This study has successfully analysed driven RC piles in cohesive soils and

presented the results, also providing interpretation and discussions on these results. It

can be summarized that the number of tests involving PDA in a testing program

should be increased to obtain a bigger sampling proportion. From the study, a

coefficient or reduction factor was calculated. A similar coefficient or factor should

be applied to PDA results for future projects due to the numerous variables that are

involved in PDA tests. The magnitude of the coefficient or reduction factor will

depend on many contributing points such as type of soil, site condition, parameters

that are used, among other considerations. MLT should be carried out in order to

calibrate the PDA tests. However, the number of MLT should be limited due to its

many constraints.

CHAPTER 6

5.1 Conclusions

capacity results derived from MLT and PDA tests. The comparison was carried out

based on data obtained for the piling and load test programs carried out for a

hypermarket development in Puchong, Selangor Darul Ehsan. Findings of the study

were presented in Chapter 4 and discussions on the findings were made in Chapter 5.

In summary, the following conclusions can be made based of results of the study:

1) In terms of ultimate pile bearing capacity, results from the analysis were

observed to be consistent and there was a clear pattern in terms of the method

of testing that provided higher values. It was observed that ultimate pile

bearing capacity obtained from PDA were higher than results derived from

MLT, for all analyzed piles;

2) For pile settlement, there was no clear pattern or consistency in results

derived from both testing methods. In some cases, it was observed that

settlement shown in PDA results were higher, while in other cases settlement

results in MLT were higher;

50

applied to results from PDA tests. However, there are numerous limitations to

the application of the coefficient due to the huge number of variables

involved in load tests and due to differing site conditions;

4) Even though the number of MLT tests may be reduced and substituted with

more PDA tests, a limited number of MLT must still be carried out in order to

gauge the accuracy and consistency of PDA test results. MLT also provides

more conservative results, which can be used for design purposes if testing is

carried out on test piles and not working piles.

5.2 Recommendations

achieve a greater sampling ratio for driven piles. It is more practical to

increase the number of PDA instead of MLT due to considerations involving

cost, time and effort;

2) A coefficient or a reduction in terms of percentage is recommended to be

applied to results of ultimate pile bearing capacity obtained from PDA;

3) Further research must be carried out to analyze ultimate pile capacities and

settlement in pile groups when tested using both MLT and PDA;

4) Further research is suggested to test the applicability of the coefficient

derived from this study in other areas/locations, with mainly cohesive soil

and using only driven RC piles.

51

REFERENCES

Aarsleff Piling, et al. (2006). Handbook on Pile Load Testing. Kent, England.

Federation of Piling Specialist.

Through Critical State Soil Mechanics. Berkshire, England. McGraw Hill.

pp. 74-86.

Bowles, J.E. (1996). Foundation Analysis and Design 5th Edition. Illinois,

USA. McGraw Hill.

Craig, R.F. (2001). Soil Mechanics 6th Edition. London, UK. Spon Press.

Cudoto, D.P. (2001). Foundation Design: Principles and Practices 2nd Edition.

New Jersey, USA. Prentice Hall.

California, USA. Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learning.

of the Fourth International Conference on the Application of Stress Wave

Theory to Piles. The Hague, Netherlands. pp. 91

52

Fleming, W.K., Weltman, A.J., Randolph, M.F., Elson W.V. (1994). Piling

Engineering 2nd Edition. Glasgow. UK. Blackie Academic & Professional.

Kowloon, Hong Kong. Civil Engineering and Development Department,

Government of Hong Kong. pp. 264-292

Cohesive Soil. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the

Application of Stress Wave Theory to Piles. The Hague, Netherlands. pp.

409-411.

Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. Monthly Bulletin of the Institution of Engineers,

Malaysia. pp. 8-15.

Wakiya, Y., Hashimoto, O., Fukuwaka, M., Oki, T., Shinomiya, H., Ozeki, F.

(1992). Ability of Dynamic Testing and Evaluation of Bearing Capacity

Recovery from Excess Pore Pressure Measured in the Field. Proceedings of

the Fourth International Conference on the Application of Stress Wave

Theory to Piles. The Hague, Netherlands. pp. 665-670.

53

APPENDIX A

Pile 14/B

250

200

150

Load (Tons)

100

50

0

0 5 10 15 20

Settlement (mm)

54

Pile 1/H

300

250

200

Load (Tons)

150

100

50

0

0 5 10 15 20

Settlement (mm)

55

Pile 8/P

250

200

150

Load (Tons)

100

50

0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Settlement (mm)

56

Pile 12/C

300

250

200

Load (Tons)

150

100

50

0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Settlement (mm)

57

Pile 17/H

160

140

120

100

Load (Tons)

80

60

40

20

0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Settlement (mm)

58

APPENDIX B

59

60

61

APPENDIX C

Calculations were carried out using Hileys Formula and the following parameters

were used for analysis of all pile sizes:

Penetration depth = 24m

Weight of driving assembly (external and internal helmet), P2 = 9.90 kN

Coefficient of restitution, e = 0.25 0.50

Hammer efficiency, A = 0.80

Temporary compression, C = 0.012m (12mm)

= 1400 kN

Weight of Hammer, W = 70 kN

Hammer drop, h = 310 mm

Weight of pile, P1 = 1.5 kN/m x 24m

= 36 kN

P = P1 + P2 = 45.90 kN

fL = A x W x h x W + P x e2

S + 0.5C W+P

1400 = 0.80 x 70 x 310 x 70 + 46 x 0.452

S + 0.5 x 12 70 + 46

S = 2.48 per blow

= 25mm per 10 blows (25mm/10 blows)

Therefore, set criteria not more than 25mm per 10 blows

62

= 2000 kN

Weight of Hammer, W = 70 kN

= 51.84 kN

P = P1 + P2 = 61.74 kN

fL = A x W x h x W + P x e2

S + 0.5C W+P

S + 0.5 x 12 70 + 62

= 24mm per 10 blows (24mm/10 blows)

63

= 2800 kN

Weight of Hammer, W = 70 kN

= 70.56 kN

P = P1 + P2 = 80.46 kN

fL = A x W x h x W + P x e2

S + 0.5C W+P

S + 0.5 x 12 70 + 80

= 26mm per 10 blows (26mm/10 blows)

- FRANKI Simplex sipoviTransféré parMiroslav Novakovic
- Pile Set CalculationTransféré parmatsoul
- Pile Foundation Design and Construction Practice in MalaysiaTransféré parHanizan Abu Bakar
- DESIGN CALCULATION FOR PILE LENGTH USING MEYERHOFF FORMULAETransféré parezarul fitri
- Steel Piling Handbook DesignTransféré par_ARCUL_
- Pile FoundationTransféré parLiana Guadiz
- AASHTO Pile SpecsTransféré parVignesh Ramalingam
- QCS 2010 Section 4 Part 10 Static Load Testing of Piles.pdfTransféré parbryanpastor106
- Sub Cont Bill March14Transféré parmani0214
- 05 Brettman PPTTransféré parAlexandru Poenaru
- Types of Deep FoundationsTransféré parRuli Aprillianto
- 2008 08 21 Steel Piling Handbook Design EnglischTransféré parIancu-Bogdan Teodoru
- FCR Dahej PortTransféré parVivek Singh
- Soil SpringTransféré paradaneteferi
- Foundation Types (US Army Corp a402418)Transféré parBehrang Baghernejad
- Piles BudhuTransféré parmagdyamdb
- Kumpulan Mesin PancangTransféré parFajrin M. Natsir
- AASHTO GeoTechnical Design of PileTransféré parTee Bun Pin
- Raft Pile Cap ShearTransféré parkhawaldeh jamal
- Metro Standard StructDwgs 080613Transféré parrpazb
- A Field Study on Super-tall Building_super-long Pile_thick Raft Interaction in ShanghaiTransféré parChee Keong Tan
- Is 1904 1961(Presumptive SBC)Transféré parBindu Madhava Rao U
- Pile Spring bTransféré parHoihogo Hoi
- Writeup for FdpTransféré parPrakash Mahandra
- WEEK4A_INSTRUMENT AND STATIONARY .pptTransféré parMariam Mustafa
- 0021Transféré parAlvian Ardiansyah
- chapter 2Transféré parZeleke Taemu
- Timber 07Transféré parMohammed Safaa Al Sarraf
- Resistance Factors for High-strain Dynamic TestingTransféré parAnonymous eAfIJ5Wu3I
- Typical Base Slab for Water TankTransféré parChee Soon Lee

- Method Statement for Rehabilitation worksTransféré parNordin Yunus
- Hardcore Below Pad FootingTransféré parBMZ
- Block wallTransféré parBMZ
- ZalconTransféré parBMZ
- NU-GuardTransféré parBMZ
- Letter Out 21 - Curing Compound Fosroc EditWITransféré parBMZ
- AnonymousTransféré parBMZ
- Rectification NotesTransféré parBMZ
- NDT - Rebar Detector 2 (GPR)Transféré parBMZ
- Pile Spring Constant (Use Orion Default Value)Transféré parBMZ
- Structural Design of Raft FoundationTransféré parshakirhamid6687
- NDT - Rebar Detector 1 (Magnetic)Transféré parBMZ
- JPCP Preservation and Rehab Design GuideTransféré parBMZ
- New Jkr ManualTransféré parElvic Chia
- Dwg 4 - Long SectionTransféré parBMZ
- Rate ConcreteTransféré parBMZ
- Pile Testing for Driven or Jack-In pile.pdfTransféré parBMZ
- PDS English Final 11122015Transféré parBMZ
- Al Awfar TnC Final 11122015Transféré parBMZ
- PileLateralLoadCapacity.pdfTransféré parBMZ
- SR 150.pdfTransféré pardiverhap
- Cs Course 2017Transféré parBMZ
- Work ProgrammeTransféré parBMZ
- Structural Stability AnalysisTransféré parBMZ
- Cut & Fill- MIZTransféré parBMZ
- MJL-1-C-1205Transféré parBMZ
- MJL-1-C-1204Transféré parBMZ
- DOC280217-28022017132946Transféré parBMZ
- TYPICAL DETAIL DRAWING - SYABAS PC SLab.pdfTransféré parBMZ

- Piso Techo 2018 - YorkTransféré pardanvalgar
- Proceedings of the SGP – PEMSEA MeetingTransféré parPEMSEA (Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia)
- Structure and Nanostructure in Ionic LiquidsTransféré parbalkanboj
- 3001 ELEX 1 []Transféré parimmanuelladera
- Generalized Laplace - Mellin Integral TransformationTransféré parAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- construction SuperintendentTransféré parapi-77332672
- Transfer of Learning AssgmtTransféré parJason C. Joseph
- Bhavitha 24.02.2011 EM MathsTransféré parSatya Narayana Bandaru
- Lenovo L193 Wide 19'' LCD Monitor Service ManualTransféré partakne_007
- m2d2.docxTransféré parNina Nicholson
- plc30Transféré parRitesh Sharma
- Bash Beginners GuideTransféré parسام النعمان
- 1-APU Intro ATA 49 Informal TrainingTransféré parhoo
- Solairs-hbaTransféré parping2pratap
- Value of Fault Ride Through capability of Wind generation in UK.pdfTransféré parmuhannad11061975
- Zhang y Wang 2009 Growth Curves Con SASTransféré parCarlos Andrade
- E77-14 Standard Test Method for Inspection and Verification of ThermometersTransféré parzerzeta
- Ee1401 Power System Operation and Control Energy Control Center Safety,Transféré parsrmce
- Electrical TitleTransféré parShaaruk Shk
- 3D-2-Reference.pdfTransféré paradrian
- Ferreyros CAT SwgrTransféré parHeber Flores
- BroachingTransféré parmarkkevin
- Operation Manual AIM AIFMTransféré parDimitriu Carmen
- Lcms PracticalTransféré parRadhe Shyam Sahu
- Why Twitter Will EndureTransféré paradam
- Product Data Mangement e BookTransféré parPrasad Raikar
- DochTransféré parJosé Araujo
- Wr Radiantpexal Specification Product-EnTransféré parmehrzadjalali
- Project Report SampleTransféré parHimanshu Soni
- Graphical User Interface (GUI)Transféré parRavindra Reddy