Question : Many engineers in SL simply neglect the skin friction ( not negative SF) of the end bearing piles. Obviously it leads to lager diameter and greater cost but safe design..
Generally, here, the cast in situ piles are considered as end bearing piles and are normally socketed in to bed rock.
However recently I saw a pile design which I thought very risky. These are cast in-situ bored piles with rotary driven type. Pile diameter is 800mm and depth is 19-20m. No rock support in the bottom.the average SPT ( N' 70) is 20. the pile has to bare a design load of 1100 kN.
Is this not a risky and marginal design? how my global friends see it?
Answer:
As I described in my original post, the local engineers are reluctant to rely on the skin friction of the bored piles owing to the possibility of skin friction loss due to use of bentonite as the stabilization medium. As stated by Tonny Barry, there may be much research which carried out by other countries to investigate the development of skin friction in cast in situ bored piles. However I am not certain how we can incorporate the same results directly to our local conditions which are included different subsurface conditions and construction practice.
As per the original design, 3/4th of pile capacity is expected to achieve from the skin friction & rest from the end bearing .Obviously this is a floating pile design as mentioned by many. The same FOS of 2.5 was used of both SF and end bearing calculations. I think, this is almost in par with Asrat Workus’ rough calculations provided above.
Later, two PDA tests have been conducted and as per the results SF is amounted to 2670 KN while only 17 KN of end bearing capacity. It is clear that SF has contributed for the most of the mobilised capacity . As the set measured is only 1mm per blow, the result justifies the fact that shaft capacity of the pile is mobilised at much smaller displacement than the base capacity.
I think this result contradict the common belief of here, that the bentonite used during the drilling destroys the SF . However I think proper construction methods should used without keeping the bored hole open for long periods.
Last but not least I have to mention that Pile rest on the firm rock should designed as purely end bearing piles ignoring the SF owing to reasons mentioned by Yassin above. In many cases such as long rock soketed bridge piles, the maximum design load is determined by the stresses in the concrete or pile material and not by the bearing pressure of the rock.
Once again many thanks for all of you .......
As per the original design, 3/4th of pile capacity is expected to achieve from the skin friction & rest from the end bearing .Obviously this is a floating pile design as mentioned by many. The same FOS of 2.5 was used of both SF and end bearing calculations. I think, this is almost in par with Asrat Workus’ rough calculations provided above.
Later, two PDA tests have been conducted and as per the results SF is amounted to 2670 KN while only 17 KN of end bearing capacity. It is clear that SF has contributed for the most of the mobilised capacity . As the set measured is only 1mm per blow, the result justifies the fact that shaft capacity of the pile is mobilised at much smaller displacement than the base capacity.
I think this result contradict the common belief of here, that the bentonite used during the drilling destroys the SF . However I think proper construction methods should used without keeping the bored hole open for long periods.
Last but not least I have to mention that Pile rest on the firm rock should designed as purely end bearing piles ignoring the SF owing to reasons mentioned by Yassin above. In many cases such as long rock soketed bridge piles, the maximum design load is determined by the stresses in the concrete or pile material and not by the bearing pressure of the rock.
Once again many thanks for all of you .......
PS Quick Link To full discussion
 |
PDA Test for evaluate Pile Capdity |
