3.

Calculation Works and Design Analysis

For pile design in mini-project, precast reinforced concrete square pile of size 200
mm x 200 mm is to be used. The pile does not corrode or rot and its quality can be
checked before driving. The speed of installation of the pile is fast and it is suitable for
small to large complex projects. Moreover, the pile is certified by SIRIM QAS
International Sdn. Bhd. The concrete square pile is designed as 200 mm x 200 mm with
a penetration depth of 12 m and concrete grade used is C45.

Table 3.1 shows JKR “Class 1” RC Pile Details. Maximum pile length for 200 mm x
200 mm pile is 6 metre and another same pile of 6 metre has to be welded together in
order to penetrate 200 mm x 200 mm RC pile by 12 m into soil.

Table 3.1: JKR “Class 1” RC Pile Details

Pile Nominal Size (mm x mm) Pile length , L (m) Concrete grade (N/mm2)
150 x 150 3,6 45
175 x 175 3,6 45
200 x 200 3,6 45
250 x 250 3,6,9,12 45
300 x 300 3,6,9,12 45
350 x 350 3,6,9,12 45

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is an in-situ test that is in the category of

penetrometer tests. Besides, SPT test aims to provide informations on geotechnical
engineering properties of soil. Then, the SPT test are carried out in borehole and the
test is essential for determining relative density and angle of shearing resistance of
cohesionless soils and unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soils. To conduct
SPT test, standard split spoon sampler, drop hammer, guiding rod, drilling rig and
driving head are required. Number of blows are counted when samplers are drove with
hammer and N-value is recorded. N-value from the borelog can be utilized to calculate
bearing capacity. Table 3.2 is referred and used to compute value of Cu from different
N-values for cohesive soil such as clay. Due to lack of data on undrained shear strength
and N60 of sand from soil investigation report, interpolation is made based on Table 3.2
which is used to compute undrained shear strength of cohesive soil such as clay. The
data from the calculations are assumed to be undrained shear strength and N60 of sand.

Table 3.2: Correlation of corrected SPT, N (blows/450mm) with undrained shear

strength of clay (Terzaghi , 1996)

SPT, N (blows/450mm) Undrained shear strength, Soil consistency

Cu (kPa)
<4 <12 Very soft
2-4 12-25 Soft
4-8 25-50 Medium
8-15 50-100 Stiff
15-30 100-200 Very stiff
>30 >200 Hard

Interpolation for example: N = 12

(15-8) / (100-50) = (15-12) / (100-Cu)

Cu = 78.57 kPa
Table 3.3 shows variation of α and the table is used to interpolate α for different values
of undrained shear strength.

Table 3.3 Variation of α (Interpolated Values Based on Terzaghi , 1996)

Cu/Pa α
≤ 0.1 1.00
0.2 0.92
0.3 0.82
0.4 0.74
0.6 0.62
0.8 0.54
1.0 0.48
1.2 0.42
1.4 0.40
1.6 0.38
1.8 0.36
2.0 0.35
2.4 0.34
2.8 0.34

Interpolation for example: Cu = 78.57

(0.8-0.6) / (0.54-0.62) = (0.8-0.7857) / (0.54-α)

α = 0.5457 = 0.546
N60 = CECBCSCRN

CE = Energy correction

CB = Borehole diameter correction

CS = Split spoon liner correction

CR = Rod length correction

N = Number of blows

Table 3.4 shows correction factors for N-value. Number of blows gained is corrected
to obtain N60.

Table 3.4: Correction factors for N-value (T.E. Zettler et al., Geotechnical Engineering
Circular No.5 Evaluation of Soil and Rock Properties)

Factor Term Equipment Variable Correction

Energy Ratio CE= ER/60 Donut Hammer 0.5-1.0
Safety Hammer 0.7-1.2
Automatic Hammer 0.8-1.5
Borehole Diameter CB 65-155 mm 1.00
150 mm 1.05
200 mm 1.15
Sampling Method CS Standard Sampler 1.0
Non-standard sampler 1.1-1.3
Rod length CR 3-4 m 0.75
4-6 m 0.85
6-10 m 0.95
>10 m 1.00

Energy ratio is assumed as 60 %, CE = 1.0, CB = 1.05, CS = 1.0, CR = 1.0,

N60 = (1.0)(1.05)(1.0)(1.0)N = 1.05N

Table 3.5 shows value for N60, Cu, and α

Table 3.5: Soil parameters for calculation of allowable bearing capacity

Layer of Depth Types of N N60 Cu α

soil (m) soil
1 1.5 Sand 0 0 0 0
2 6.0 Sand 12 12.6 78.57 0.546
3 7.5 Sand 9 9.45 57.14 0.637
4 10.5 Sand 18 18.9 120 0.420
5 12.0 Sand 18 18.9 120 0.420
6 13.5 Sand 16 16.8 106.67 0.460
7 15.0 Sand 15 15.75 100 0.480
8 15.45 Sand 11 11.55 71.43 0.574

Point bearing capacity of pile, Qp and frictional resistance, Qs are calculated by using
correlations with SPT results. Meyerhof’s equation is as follows:

Qp = Ap (0.4PaN60 (L/D)) ≤ Ap(4PaN60 )

Average of N60 : 10D above and 5D below the pile tip are calculated.

10D = 10(0.2) = 2 m 5D = 5(0.2) = 1 m

Between depth 10-13 m,

N60 = (18.9+18.9+16.8)/3 = 18.2

Ap (0.4PaN60 (L/D)) = (0.2x0.2)(0.4)(100)(18.2)(12/0.2) = 1747.2 kN

Ap(4PaN60 ) = (0.2x0.2)(4x100x18.2) = 291.2 kN

Hence, Qp = 291.2 kN

Average N60 value for sand of top 12 m is

N60 = (12.6+9.45+18.9+18.9)/4 = 14.963

Concrete pile is a low displacement pile (assumed), fav = 0.01PaN60 = N60

Qs = Ʃp∆Lfav = (4)(0.2)(12)(14.963) =143.64 kN

Ultimate bearing capacity, Qult = Qp +Qs(sand) = 291.2+143.64 = 434.84 kN

Using Factor of Safety of 2.5, allowable bearing capacity, Qall = Qult/FOS = 434.84/2.5
= 173.94 kN

As Qall = 2 x Working load, Working load = Qall/2 = 86.97 kN

Hence, 86.97 kN of point load is applied to the pile foundation.

Figure 3.1: Design of Pile Foundation in Plaxis software with different soil layers

Figure 3.1 shows design of 200 mm x 200 mm C45 RC square pile foundation in
different layers of soil. Values of Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s ratio, saturated unit
weight, unsaturated unit weight, cohesion, angle of friction must be defined for each
layer of soil.
 Figure 3.2: Results

Figure 3.2 shows results. Total extreme displacement is 0.26775 mm which is

negligible.
4. Justification of Soil Parameters

0m
GWT
1.5 m Topsoil- light brown fine sand

6m Loose poorly graded sand, classified as SP

6m Medium dense poorly graded sand, classified as SP

2m Medium dense, fine to medium sand, classified as SP

15.45 m

Figure 4.1: Soil profile

Figure 4.1 shows the soil profile for the mini project. Groundwater table is at 1.42 m
from the ground surface. There is a lack of data on soil such as Modulus of Elasticity,
Poisson’s ratio, saturated/unsaturated unit weight, angle of friction. Thus, number of
blow is correlated with other soil parameters in order to gain values for different soil
paramaters that are to be used in the pile foundation design. Table 4.1 is used to
correlate between number of blows and unit weight (submerged) and angle of friction.
Unit weight (moist) is equal to saturated unit weight when degree of saturation equals
to 100%. Submerged unit weight is the result of ysat -ywater

Moist unit weight, y = ((G+Se)yw)/(1+e)

Saturated unit weight, ysat = ((G+e)yw)/(1+e)

Submerged unit weight, ysubmerged = ysat - ywater

ywater = 9.807 kN/m3

Table 4.1: Penetration Resistance and Soil Properties on the Basis of SPT (Rahman,
2019)

SPT N-value 0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 >50

Compactness very very
loose medium dense
loose dense
Relative Density, Dr 0 - 15 15 - 35 35 - 65 65 - 85 85 - 100
(%)
Angle of Internal <28 28 - 30 30 - 36 36 - 41 >41
Friction,φ(°)
Unit Weight pcf 95 - 125 110 - 110 -
(moist) <100 130 >130
140
kN/m3 14.9- 17.3- 17.3 -
<15.7 >20.4
19.6 20.4 22.0
Submerged pcf <60 55 - 65 60 - 70 65 - 85 >75
unit weight kN/m3
9.4 - 10.5-
<9.4 8.6-10.2 >11.8
11 13.4

Saturated kN/m3 19.2- 20.3-

<19.2 18.4-20.0 21.60
unit weight 20.8 23.2

Table 4.2: Young’s Modulus for granular material (Obrzud&Truty, 2012)

USCS Description Loose Medium Dense

GW,SW Gravel/Sand well- 30-80 80-160 160-320
graded
SP Sand, uniform 10-30 30-50 50-80
GM,SM Sand/Gravel silty 7-12 12-20 20-30

Table 4.2 shows Young’s Modulus for granular material. Suitable values of Young’s
Modulus are chosen for loose sand with grade SP and medium dense sand with grade
SP.
 Table 4.3: C45 Concrete properties (Eurocode 2, 2004)

E (kN/m2) v ysat (kN/m3)

3.6e7 0.2 24.5

Table 4.3 shows concrete properties while Table 4.4 shows soil properties. On layers
which has loose poorly graded sand, the number of blows are significantly lower if
compares to layer which has medium dense poorly graded sand. Citing instance,
number of blows on layers 6.0 m -7.5 m from soil investigation report is 6. From Table
4.1, the saturated unit weight for the layer ranges from 18.4-20.0 kN/m3 and it is
reasonable that its design value is 18.5 kN/m3. Then, layers 10.5-12 m which is medium
dense poorly graded sand has high number of blows which is 13 and its ysat falls in range
19.2-20.8 kN/m3. It is logic that the ysat is 19.2 kN/m3.

Table 4.4: Soil properties

Layer E (kN/m2) v yunsat ysat (kN/m3) cref ᵠ (°)

(kN/m3) (kN/m2)
Topsoil 2.3e4 0.3 18.0 18.5 0 30
Loose 3.01e4 0.3 18.0 18.6 0 30.4
sand
Medium 3e4 0.3 18.5 19.2 0 30.1
sand
Medium 3.05e4 0.3 18.4 19.3 0 30.2
to fine
sand

Table 4.5 shows typical values of soil friction angle for different soils according to
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Design soil friction angle is around 30° for
both loose and medium dense poorly graded sand. Both of the layers are graded as SP.
Their values fell in a suitable range in both Table 4.1 and Table 4.5. Table 4.6 shows
formulas for calculating Modulus of Elasticity. For example, 2900 x 8 = 23000 kN/m2
= 2.3e4 kN/m2.
Table 4.5: Typical values of soil friction angle for different soils according to USCS

Description USCS Soil friction angle (°)

Min Max Specific
value
Poorly graded sand, SP 30 39
gravelly sands with little
or no fines
Poorly graded clean SP - - 37
sand- Compacted

Table 4.6: Equations for stress-strain modulus Es by several test methods (Joseph E.
Bowles, 2011)

Soil SPT CPT

Sand (normally Es = 500(N+15) = Es = (2 to 4)qu =
consolidated) 7000(N)0.5 = 6000N 8000(qc)0.5
Sand (saturated) Es = 250(N+15) Es = Fqc , e = 1 for F = 3.5
Sands, all (norm. consol.) Es = (2600 to 2900)N -

5. Conclusion

The pile is designed under sandy conditions and installed in Pantai Tok Bali, Pasir
Puteh, Kelantan. Allowable bearing capacity calculated is 173.94 kN using FOS (factor
of safety) of 2.5 as FOS of 2.5 is a suitable value for pile foundation. Working load of
86.97 kN is applied to pile foundation in Plaxis design. The pile penetrated 12 m
through the surface. Many software errors such as stiffness matrix is nearly singular
and cannot be solved appeared during modelling. Hence, discussion among group
members on soil properties are carried out about the cause of the errors. Original values
in table of soil properties are modified. From the result of Plaxis analysis, extreme total
displacement is 0.26775 mm which is very small and negligible and it is less than 30
mm. Thus, the design has passed the requirement and the design is safe. Lastly, a soil
investigation report should have full details such as Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s ratio
of each layer of soil so that the design of pile foundation based on soil investigation
report is more reliable and closer to actual conditions of soil at the site. Although
experiments and test (in-situ/lab) on soil properties such as trixial test are expensive
and time-consuming, the tests shall be performed as reliable data on soil at the site is
provided.

6. Recommendations

Bearing capacity of soil is affected by many factors. Citing instances, soil strength,
foundation depth, soil weight and surcharge, expansive and collapsible conditions of
soil, potential heave and soil erosion and seepage. Soil bearing capacity can be
improved by applying methods as follows:

1. Grouting

Cement grout is injected to fill pores or cavities in soil or rock to decrease permeability
and liquefaction potential of soil and improve shear strength by increasing cohesion.
Cement grout is usually used for gravelly layers or fissure rock treatment. There are
many types of grouting which is compaction grouting, permeation grouting, jet grouting.
Examples of grouting materials include cement, bentonite, chemicals, resin and
bituminous material.

2. Confining soil

Usage of sheet piles can confine the ground and avoid movement of soil under action
of load. Sheet piles compacted soil particles by driven to form an enclosure which
increased bearing capacity as a result.

3. Compacting soil

Soil that has been compacted has increased load bearing capacity, reduced water
seepage, reduced settling of soil. There are many techniques for compacting soil which
can be classified as static, impact, vibrating, gyrating, rolling, kneading.

4. Increasing depth of foundation

Soil is more compacted at deeper depth and bearing capacity is higher. This condition
is applicable only for cohesionless soils such as sandy and gravelly soils. However,
designer shall keep in mind that cost to build foundation increased when the depth of
foundation increased.

5. Draining soil

Bearing capacity is lower when percentage of water content in soil is higher. Water
content that present in sandy soil reduce its bearing capacity significantly. Cohesionless
soils can be drained by laying porous pipes to a slope over a bed of sand and filing
trenches above pipes with loose boulders.

7. References

JKR “Class 1” RC pile details. (2010).

https://cowellresources.com.my/homeleader/wp-content/uploads/RC_Piles_JKR-
2010_11_08.pdf

Braja M.Das (2014). Principles of Foundation Engineering.

Terzaghi. (1996). Correlation of corrected SPT, N (blows/450mm) with undrained

shear strength of clay

Terzaghi. (1996). Variation of α.

T.E. Zettler, J.A. Schneider, P.W. Mayne, R.C. Bachus, P.J.Sabatini. (2002).
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CIRCULAR NO. 5 Evaluation of Soil and Rock
Properties.

Rahman. (2019). Foundation Design Using Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-value.

Obrzud, Truty. (2012). Young’s Modulus for Granular Material.

Eurocode 2. (2004).

Typical values of soil friction angle for different soils according to USCS. (2013).
Retrieved from http://www.geotechdata.info/parameter/angle-of-friction

Joseph E. Bowles. (2011). Foundation Analysis and Design (5th ed).

8. Appendix