CIE-4362 Soil Structure Interaction

Case Study Report

Foundation design of Balthasar van der Polweg in Delft

Group 11:
Juan Chavez-Olalla 4503252
Daniel Bot
1376187
Shayan Kalanaki
4086643

09 June 2016

0|Page

Table of Contents
1.

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3

2.

Site Investigation.................................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Comparison of provided soil data .................................................................................................... 4

3.

Loads .................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Load transferring form structure to soil ........................................................................................... 6
3.2 Wind load ........................................................................................................................................... 6
3.3 Vertical load ....................................................................................................................................... 8
3.4 Summary of total loads ..................................................................................................................... 9

4.

Foundation design columns J3 and F3 ........................................................................................... 10

4.1 Pile type........................................................................................................................................... 10
4.2 Pile tip level..................................................................................................................................... 10
4.3 Loads............................................................................................................................................... 10
4.4 Bearing capacity ............................................................................................................................. 10
4.5 Settlement calculation ................................................................................................................... 12
4.6 Final design for columns J3 and F3 .............................................................................................. 14

5.

Foundation design wall in axis 1 ...................................................................................................... 15

5.1 Loads............................................................................................................................................... 15
5.2 Bearing capacity ............................................................................................................................. 16
5.3 Pre-design ....................................................................................................................................... 16
5.4 Settlement calculation ................................................................................................................... 17
5. 5 Final design for axis 1 ................................................................................................................... 19

6.

Foundation design basement .......................................................................................................... 20

6.1 Loads............................................................................................................................................... 20
6.2 Bearing capacity ............................................................................................................................. 22
6.3 Pre-design ....................................................................................................................................... 22
6.4 Final design for basement ............................................................................................................. 23
6.5 Settlement calculation ................................................................................................................... 23

7.

Pile testing ......................................................................................................................................... 24

7.1 Pile integrity test ............................................................................................................................. 24
7.2 Blow count test ............................................................................................................................... 25

8.

References ........................................................................................................................................ 25

Tables and Figures .................................................................................................................................... 26

1|Page

Appendices ................................................................................................................................................ 27
Appendix A: CPT data ............................................................................................................................ 27
Appendix B: Detailed calculation of vertical loads on basement ....................................................... 28
Appendix C: Basement pile force calculation in ULS .......................................................................... 29
Appendix D: Basement settlement calculation in SLS ....................................................................... 32
Appendix E: Pile blow counts ................................................................................................................ 35

2|Page

1. Introduction
This report investigates the foundation of the rather newly built (constructed in year 2000) student
housing flat of 15 floors. This flat offers 400 student rooms and is located in Delft.
The flat is consist of a high rise part with a total height of 56 m, a length of 53 m (perpendicular to
the available canal) and a width of 23 [m]. At the side of the Balthasar van der Polweg, a basement
is constructed with a top level of -0.34 [m] NAP and a bottom level of -3.7 [m] NAP. Figure 1 shows
the cross sections of this building.

Figure 1: Cross section of structure

In this report the required foundations in axis 1, columns F3, J3 and the basement (see Figure 2) will
be determined by using the Eurocodes and D-pile computer software.

Figure 2: Structure axis

3|Page

2. Site Investigation
Before construction of a structure of this size a thorough site investigation must be performed. Firstly
the geological history of the site should be considered. Fortunately there are a lot of knowledge
about the history of this are available and the other needed information can be obtained by tests.
One of the main knowledge about this area is that it is known that is located in a deltaic area. This
means a thick soft soil layer covering a more stable sand layer. The main goal now will be
determination of the top and bottom level of this soft soil.
On the other hand a lot of information is provided about the surrounding buildings, they are built on
driven displacement piles, like many others in the neighborhood. So it can be assumed that the local
stratigraphy is similar to that of the rest of Delft.
The main unknowns are now the exact location and bearing capacity of the deep sand layer, the
friction provided from top soil layers. These two parameters together define the bearing capacity of
foundation piles. So having CPTs at each side of the canal would help to define the needed property.
Performing a CPT on the canal will be difficult, however when the CPT datas on both sides are
available it is then possible to interpolate the soil under the canal.
Due to the fact that a large part of the structure is on the north side of the canal, most CPT's are
performed on north side. The best representative CPT test is assumed to be number 7 on the north
side and 3 on the south side. If the results are showing a similar result, it can be said that that the
missing data in the middle can be filled by interpolation.
Another important thing to know, next to the friction and bearing capacity is the pressure head of the
water. The basement will be constructed by excavating the soil. If the water pressure is too high,
during some stages of the construction the building pit floor might burst up. It is not paramount to
the building itself, but it is important to check the possibility of something going wrong during the
construction.

2.1 Comparison of provided soil data

The data provided was a small selection of CPT's. Some on the south side and a bit more on the
north side. The fact that they look similar in both stratigraphy and capacity proves that the soil is
quite uniform, and thus the interpolation of the data will be close to the real situation. The
overpressure of the deep sand layer was high, but not high enough to cause problems in the building
of the basement.
In order to design the foundation for wall in axis 1 and 8, columns J3 and F3 CPT data number 8 (see
appendix A) from survey was chosen to be representative of the soil profile.
From that profile, four layers are distinguished. Figure 3 represents the soil profile model:

4|Page

Figure 3: Soil layers

Levels are measured with respect to NAP.

-

Water level is NAP -3.00 [m].

The bottom side of the pile caps is around Nap -6.40 [m]

Characteristic values were obtained from NEN-9997-1 and can be found in Table 1.

Table 1: Characteristic values

Design values were calculated for undrained shear strength and friction angle by dividing the characteristic
values by the material factors recommended in Eurocode 7 which are 1.4 and 1.25 respectively. Thus, for
ultimate limit state the following parameters are used:

Table 2: Design values

In the further calculations the values of Youngs modulus used in the calculations is equal to 10
times the values of the secant Youngs modulus at 50 % of the maximum stress at a reference
stress level of 100 [MPa] (10 times the value provided in the table of soil properties). This is because
for SLS the stress level is much lower than 50% of the maximum. Otherwise, settlements would be
too large and unrealistic.
5|Page

3. Loads
3.1 Load transferring form structure to soil
The vertical loads in the structure are the summation of the floors-, walls-weight and the variable
loads that the structure needs to resist. From top to bottom the loads are transferred via the walls to
the lower floors and at the end they are directly transferred to the pile foundations. Therefore the
calculated vertical loads are the exact loads that the piles J3 and F3 should be able to transfer it to
the soil.
Since it is assumed that the piles will act elastically, the applied horizontal load by the wind is not
directly transferred to the piles J3 and F3. The horizontal loads (mainly wind loads) are transferred
via the floors toward the side of the buildings where stiff walls are constructed. These walls will
transfer the horizontal loads to the soil.
The relative stiffness of columns J3 and F3 with respect to the walls is negligible, so it is assumed
that these columns do not receive lateral load, so they carry the same load and their design is the
same. Also, due to the fact that the pile cap thickness is around two meters, it is assumed the cap is
infinitely stiff. Otherwise, the software D-pile would not be suitable for interaction calculations.
Considering elastic-plastic springs the distribution of loads in the piles is almost uniform at Ultimate
Limit State. On the other hand, for the same springs at Serviceability Limit State the distribution of
loads is not uniform because the load level is smaller, so outer piles carry more load than inner piles.

3.2 Wind load

The distribution of wind pressure over the building is calculated by using the following formula:

Where:
-

P0: Characteristic wind load at NAP +56.00 [m] (1.56 [MPa])

z: Distance from the bottom
z0: Height of the top of the building (56 [m])
k: factor accounting for location of the building (k=0.5 cities or k=1/7 for open terrain)
The chosen value for k is equal to 1/7 since the building is located in a relatively open zone.

6|Page

Figure 4: Characteristic wind pressure distribution

This wind force is calculated as the integral of the wind pressure over the area of the building in
which the wind is acting. The position in which the force is actuating is calculated as the centroid of
the pore pressure distribution. Then the moment acting in the foundation is the force times that
distance.
The horizontal forces are counteracted only by the wall elements (in their stiff direction), any small
contribution such as column stiffness is neglected.
There are three stiff walls in direction perpendicular to the canal. Thus, 50 % of the horizontal force
is taken by the wall in axis 1 and the remaining 50% is taken by the two stiff walls in the right.

Figure 5: Horizontal actions and reactions (direction parallel to the canal)

7|Page

In the direction parallel to the canal there are two stiff walls counteracting the wind loads.

Figure 6: Horizontal actions and reactions (direction perpendicular to the canal)

3.3 Vertical load

For calculating the vertical loads, the following vertical loads were taken into account for each floor
(including roof and basement floor):
-

Live load (char-value): 2 [kPa]; reduction factor =0.4; load factor 1.5
Dead load (char-value): 0.28 [m] concrete floor, light separation walls, tubes: 9.1 [kPa] in
total; load factor 1.2
Basement floor in stability elements: representative permanent load 52.4 [kPa] and live load
2 [kPa]

Permanent load:
-

Concrete: 0.28*24=6.72 [kPa]

Separation walls: 9.1 [kPa]

Variable load:
-

Live load: 2 [kPa]

For columns J3, F3, axis 1 and axis 8 in the upper floors the following procedure for ULS and SLS
loads is used:

8|Page

For axis 8 in the basement floor the following procedure for ULS and SLS loads is used:

3.4 Summary of total loads

Finally all after performing all the calculation the following tables are made showing the summary of
total loads on the needed piles and axiss.

Table 3: Total loads axis 1

Table 4: Total loads columns J3 and F3

Table 5: Total loads axis 8

9|Page

4. Foundation design columns J3 and F3

4.1 Pile type
Depending on the required shaft resistance and the needed tension resistance in case of horizontal
wind load the length of the foundation pile should be defined. However for the bearing capacity
reaching the sand layer at approximately -16 [m] NAP should be enough.
Since the ground water table will be at the surface using of steel piles will not be a good choice due
to the possible corrosion. Therefore the best option will be concrete pile. Prefabricated concrete piles
are available up to around 50 [m]. Due to the fact that the closest structures to this site are 20
meter away and they are founded on driven displacement piles with smaller vulnerability to vibration,
pile jacking and vibrations will not be a big issue for the foundation piles. Therefore the best option
will be driving prefabricated concrete pile.

4.2 Pile tip level

The required shaft resistance and total bearing capacity are the leading factors for determining the
required pile length and tip level, but according to the soil datas the first estimation is that the pile
should at least reach the deep sand layer located at approximately -16 [m] NAP.

4.3 Loads
A detailed calculation of the loads was performed in chapter number 2. In the following table the
final load is presented.

Table 6: Loads columns J3 and F3

4.4 Bearing capacity

The relative stiffness of columns J3 and F3 with respect to the walls is negligible, so it is assumed
that these columns do not receive lateral load. Besides, they carry the same vertical load and their
design is the same. Moreover, due to the fact that the pile cap thickness is around two meters, it is
assumed the cap is infinitely stiff. Otherwise, the software D-pile would not be suitable for interaction
calculations.
The total bearing capacity is the sum of skin friction and base resistance which are calculated with
the design values of the cone resistance.
10 | P a g e

Table 7: Base resistance from CPT (Eurocode):

Pile tip is located in the sand 2 layer which has a design cone resistance of 11 [MPa]. The total
skin friction is the sum of the skin friction over the four soil layers which is calculated based on the
cone resistance.

Table 8: Skin from CPT (Eurocode)

Table 9: Skin friction and base resistance in the layers

11 | P a g e

Total bearing resistance (compression) for a concrete square pile with base of 0.45 [m] and a length
of 16 [m]:

Table 10: Bearing capacity (compression) of a single pile (B=0.45[m]; L=16[m])

Bearing capacity calculations were performed based on cone resistance. The same method was
implemented in the software D-Pile, so the software was only used for interaction and settlement
calculations.
The number of piles for column J3 and F3 is:

Due to group effect outer piles receive more load than inner piles. Pile interaction was calculated
with the software D-Pile.

4.5 Settlement calculation

After designing piles for columns J3 and F3 in ULS and checking group effect, settlement calculation
of the pile cap in SLS is checked, giving the following results:

Table 11: Displacement of the pile group

The displacement of the pile group for columns J3 and F3 is equal to 1 [cm] which is smaller than
the maximum allowed 15 [cm]. Later, it will be checked if the relative settlement of the structure is
smaller than the maximum.
Pile group effect is noticed more in SLS than in ULS. For example, by comparing columns 1 (corner)
and 10 (inner), there is a difference of 336 [kN] in load in SLS whilst in ULS the difference is
negligible because the piles are in the plastic zone.

12 | P a g e

Table 12: Columns J3 and F3 pile Forces in SLS

Table 13: Columns J3 and F3 pile forces in ULS

13 | P a g e

4.6 Final design for columns J3 and F3

Twenty piles are necessary to guarantee stability in columns J3 and F3. They are organized in 5 rows
and 4 columns. The piles are square with a base B=0.45 [m] and length L=16 [m].

Figure 7: Columns J3 and F3 pile plan

Figure 8: Columns J3 and F3 pile profile (B=0.45 [m]; L=16 [m])

14 | P a g e

5. Foundation design wall in axis 1

5.1 Loads
A detailed calculation of the loads was performed in chapter 2. In the following table the final load is
presented. Due to the fact that the pile cap thickness is around two meters and the load is applied
through the 56-meter wall, it is assumed the cap to infinitely stiff. Otherwise, the software D-pile
would not be suitable for interaction calculations.

Table 14: Loads in axis 1.

Additional compression due to horizontal load is calculated with the cantilever method as follows:

Figure 9: Cantilever method scheme

15 | P a g e

5.2 Bearing capacity

The total bearing capacity is the sum of skin friction and base resistance which are calculated with
the design values of the cone resistance. The same standard pile used for columns J3 and F3 will be
used for this part, so the ultimate bearing capacity is:

Table 15: Bearing capacity (compression) of a single pile (B=0.45[m]; L=16[m])

5.3 Pre-design
No interaction was considered in the predesign. The total quantity of piles was calculated as the
number of piles needed for pure vertical load plus the number of piles needed for additional
compression due to wind action.
Number of piles for axis 1:
-

Due to wind action:

Due to vertical load:

Total number of piles (wind action is in both directions)

16 | P a g e

Due to group effect outer piles receive more load than inner piles. Pile interaction was calculated
with the software D-Pile. The following geometrical configuration was used:

Figure 10: Axis 1 pile plan view

5.4 Settlement calculation

After designing piles for axis in ULS and checking group effect, settlement calculation of the pile cap
in SLS is checked, giving the following results.
The maximum displacements take place in the outer piles in compression. However, they do not
exceed the allowable displacement limit. The geometrical configuration is symmetrical, so wind
effect is the same in both directions.

Table 16: Maximum displacements axis 1

In this axis pile group effect is not as noticeable as in columns J3 and F3. However, interaction
between piles is necessary, so the loads are distributed when a pile reaches failure.

17 | P a g e

Table 17: Pile forces in axis 1 in SLS

Table 18: Pile forces in axis 1 in ULS

18 | P a g e

5. 5 Final design for axis 1

Thirty two piles are necessary to guarantee stability in columns axis 1. The piles are square with a
base B=0.45 [m] and length L=16 [m]. In piles 17, 18, 19 and 20 the tension is around 850 [kN] for
ULS, but the ultimate capacity of the pile for tension is 1090 [kN], so the final design is:

Figure 11: Axis 1 final pile plan view

Figure 12: Axis 1 pile profile (B=0.45 [m]; L=16 [m])

19 | P a g e

6. Foundation design basement

In order to be able to calculate and determine the needed foundation piles under the basement,
firstly the basement has been divided into three different sections, see Figure 13. Section 1 and 3
are areas that only the load of the basement is available there, while the section 2 is the part that
the forces coming from the 16 floors tower and basement itself should be transferred to the soil via
this section.

Figure 13: Basement division

The main calculation for this part will be done by the D-pile group software but before setting up
the software some pre calculations have to be done and be used as input for the software.

6.1 Loads
For this part the loads are calculated for each section separately by using the values calculated in
chapter 2.
Vertical loads:
The vertical loads will be calculated as a total force in kNs in order to determine the needed
number of piles for a pre-design and as input for the software. Since section 2 in under a lot of
pressure coming from the tower, the uplift calculation will not be relevant for this section; however it
is calculated for sections 1 and 3. Table 19 shows the total downward force for each section, the
detailed calculation can be found in appendix B.
Section
1
2
3

Total downward force [kN]

ULS
SLS
11731.2
7644
167206.8
145206
4512
2940

Table 19: Total force on the basement

Moment due to longitudinal horizontal wind load:

This load will only have effect on the section 2. As it is already calculated in the previous part (based
on Cantilever method) the total compression and tension load working on the walls in section 2 will
be equal to 6244.56 [kN] for ULS and 4112.045 [kN] for SLS.

20 | P a g e

Horizontal load in cross-sectional direction:

This horizontal load will be caused by the different total ground pressure at each side of the
basement due to the ground surface and water surface difference.
The basement starts at -0.34 [m] NAP and has an excavation depth of -3.70 [m] NAP. The water level
in the open water will never exceed -3.0m NAP and the phreatic level in the ground is not higher than
-1.5 [m] NAP. Figure 14 shows the working loads on the basement in this direction.

Figure 14: Horizontal loads on the basement in cross-sectional direction

The schematized loads on the basement need to be in equilibrium and if not the excess load needs
to be supported by the piles.
Loads calculation:
Loads 2 and 3 are the water pressures. They are easily calculated.
Load number
Load 2
Load 3

Height of water [m]

2.2
0.7

Water load [kPa]

22
7

Table 20: Water loads on basement

Load 1 is the horizontal earth pressure. This is the resultant of the sum of all the vertical loads times
a K factor. The surcharge on street level is assumed to be equal to 5 [kPa].
A crucial value in this calculation is the value of the K. In this case the load of the soil is available for
a long period therefore the pressure on the basement cannot be considered active or passive for the
entire life of the building. At a certain point it will go back to being the neutral earth pressure. For this
weak clayey soil the value of the neutral earth pressure k0 is assumed to be equal to 0.7. Therefore
an equilibrium check can be done by using the following formulas:

Horizontal equilibrium for ULS: (63.78*0.7) + 22.0 - 7.0 = 59.65 [kPa]

- Total horizontal force= 59.65 * 50 * 3.7 = 11035.25 [kN]
Horizontal equilibrium for SLS: (54.54*0.7) + 22 7 = 53.178 [kPa}
- Total horizontal force= 53.178 * 50 * 3.7 = 9837.93 [kN]
21 | P a g e

The previous calculations show that in both situations (ULS and SLS) the resultants of the horizontal
loads are not equal to zero; therefore these loads need to be transferred to the piles and then to the
deeper soil layers. The loads will be implemented into the software in the final design phase and the
stability of the basement will be checked.

6.2 Bearing capacity

For basement pile foundation the same bearing capacity as calculated and used in previous
chapters will also be assumed. Therefor the total bearing capacity of each pile with a base of 0.45
[m] and a length of 16 [m] will be equal to 1539.72 [kN]

6.3 Pre-design
For the pre-design phase based on the calculated vertical and moment loads on each section of the
basement the number of needed piles are estimated. Since the end and final design will be based
on the results from the D-pile software the interactions are not taken into account in the pre-design
phase.
For each section the calculated vertical loads will be divided by total bearing capacity of each pile;
therefore the needed amount of the piles for each section is calculated as shown in

Section
1
2
3

Used number of piles (Calculated number of piles)

ULS
SLS
9
5
~120 (109+8)
101 (95+6)
~6 (4.5)
2
Table 21: Needed piles for basement

Since the number piles based on ULS calculations are the decisive ones, these values will be
inputted in the software. Figure 15 shows the final input for the piles under the basement.

Figure 15: Pile plan view basement

22 | P a g e

6.4 Final design for basement

In the final design phase all the calculations above (vertical and horizontal loads in 2 direction which
one of them is working as a moment) is implemented in the D-pile software.
The soil profile is chosen to be more or less equal to the soil profile in previous parts since the whole
construction area is assumed to have the same soil layering and properties. The chosen pile is also
the same as previous parts of the structure.
The goal of doing the calculation with the software is to be able to include the pile group effect and
the interaction between all the piles while all the loads are applied. Then the forces on each pile
should be checked to see whether they have exceeded the maximum bearing capacity of the piles or
not. Tables in appendix c show the result of software calculations for the applied loads and number
of piles for both ULS and SLS. For strength calculation the ULS loading situation is the decisive
loading case to base the calculation on.
According the result it can be concluded that none of the forces on the piles are exceeding the
maximum bearing capacity of a single pile. The forces are checked by applying the moment force in
both directions as well. Therefore it can be concluded that the chosen number of piles is delivering
enough support for the basement.

6.5 Settlement calculation

The settlement of the basement is also checked with the software. The result of pile displacement in
SLS is to be found in appendix D. The maximum allowable settlement for the basement is assumed
to be 150 [mm] and since the settlement of any of the piles is not exceeding above 100 [mm], it can
be said that the pile plan shows a good result considering the settlement criteria.

23 | P a g e

7. Pile testing
During the installation of the piles some test needs to be done in order to make sure that the piles
are going in the right direction with no cracks or damages along the length of the pile. Two methods
are available to check this namely; pile integrity testing and blow counts. In this part each method
will be separately explained and defined which method is more suitable to use.

7.1 Pile integrity test

It is a quick and simple method and it enables number of piles to be tested in a single working day.
This method provides information about continuity, defects such as cracks, necking, soil incursions,
changes in cross section and approximate pile lengths. Integrity tests provide an indication of
soundness of concrete but they should be undertaken by persons experienced in the method and
capable of interpreting the results with specific regard to piling.
In piles integrity test, a small metal / hard rubber hammer is used to produce a light tap on the top of
the pile. The shock travels down the length of the pile and is reflected back from the toe of the pile
and recorded through a suitable transducer / accelerometer in a computer disk for subsequent
analysis. In Figure 16 a sample of the result of the pile integrity test is illustrated. It is important to
know that if the wave shows various changes along the length of the pile that means some potential
problems might be expected there.

Figure 16: Pile integrity test sample

Figure 17 shows the results of pile integrity test in the Balthasar van der Polweg field. As it can be
concluded from the results, most of the piles are in good condition with no damages along the length
of the pile because there are not serious variations of the wave production.

24 | P a g e

Figure 17: Pile integrity test at Balthasar van Polweg

7.2 Blow count test

Blow count test is another method to test the drivability and to check whether there exists any
potential problem or not.
This method is taking into account the number of blows applied when driving 25 cm of pile in to the
soil. The acceptability of the hammer system is based on the demonstration that the pile can be
driven to the required capacity (as it is calculated before) with no damage within a penetration
resistance of about 15 to 25 blows per 25 cm. Figure 21 in appendix E shows a typical result of blow
counting in the field. As can be seen from the results most of the piles are well constructed with a
good amount of strength. There are some piles such as pile number 38, 39, 36, 35 and 28 which
have a higher number of blows (more than 25 blows) and that means they are placed in stiffer soil.
Pile number 36 has the highest blow count number and it would probably be a good idea to see if
this pile passes the crack controlling test.

8. References

Eurocode 7
NEN-9997-1
25 | P a g e

Tables and Figures

Table 1: Characteristic values ..................................................................................................................... 5
Table 2: Design values................................................................................................................................. 5
Table 3: Total loads axis 1 ........................................................................................................................... 9
Table 4: Total loads columns J3 and F3 ..................................................................................................... 9
Table 5: Total loads axis 8 ........................................................................................................................... 9
Table 6: Loads columns J3 and F3 .......................................................................................................... 10
Table 7: Base resistance from CPT (Eurocode):...................................................................................... 11
Table 8: Skin from CPT (Eurocode) .......................................................................................................... 11
Table 9: Skin friction and base resistance in the layers......................................................................... 11
Table 10: Bearing capacity (compression) of a single pile (B=0.45[m]; L=16[m]) .............................. 12
Table 11: Displacement of the pile group ............................................................................................... 12
Table 12: Columns J3 and F3 pile Forces in SLS.................................................................................... 13
Table 13: Columns J3 and F3 pile forces in ULS .................................................................................... 13
Table 14: Loads in axis 1.......................................................................................................................... 15
Table 15: Bearing capacity (compression) of a single pile (B=0.45[m]; L=16[m]) .............................. 16
Table 16: Maximum displacements axis 1.............................................................................................. 17
Table 17: Pile forces in axis 1 in SLS....................................................................................................... 18
Table 18: Pile forces in axis 1 in ULS ...................................................................................................... 18
Table 19: Total force on the basement ................................................................................................... 20
Table 20: Water loads on basement ....................................................................................................... 21
Table 21: Needed piles for basement ..................................................................................................... 22
Figure 1: Cross section of structure ............................................................................................................ 3
Figure 2: Structure axis................................................................................................................................ 3
Figure 3: Soil layers...................................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 4: Characteristic wind pressure distribution ................................................................................... 7
Figure 5: Horizontal actions and reactions (direction parallel to the canal) ............................................ 7
Figure 6: Horizontal actions and reactions (direction perpendicular to the canal) ................................. 8
Figure 7: Columns J3 and F3 pile plan .................................................................................................... 14
Figure 8: Columns J3 and F3 pile profile (B=0.45 [m]; L=16 [m])......................................................... 14
Figure 9: Cantilever method scheme....................................................................................................... 15
Figure 10: Axis 1 pile plan view ................................................................................................................ 17
Figure 11: Axis 1 final pile plan view ....................................................................................................... 19
Figure 12: Axis 1 pile profile (B=0.45 [m]; L=16 [m])............................................................................. 19
Figure 13: Basement division .................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 14: Horizontal loads on the basement in cross-sectional direction ........................................... 21
Figure 15: Pile plan view basement......................................................................................................... 22
Figure 16: Pile integrity test sample ........................................................................................................ 24
Figure 17: Pile integrity test at Balthasar van Polweg ............................................................................ 25
Figure 18: CPT data number 8 ................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 19: Basement pile forces in ULS .................................................................................................. 31
Figure 20: Basement pile displacement in SLS ...................................................................................... 34
Figure 21: Pile blow counts ...................................................................................................................... 35
26 | P a g e

Appendices
Appendix A: CPT data

Figure 18: CPT data number 8

27 | P a g e

Appendix B: Detailed calculation of vertical loads on basement

-

Section 1:
o ULS

o SLS

Section 2:
o ULS

Downward force: 56.6*15*26 = 22074 [kN]

Uplift force:
10*26*15*3.7 = 14430 [kN]
Total force = 22074 14430 = 7644 [kN]

Downward force: (23.2*16*22*(15+3.75))+(67.08*15*14) = 167206.8

[kN]
Total force = 167206.8 [kN]

Downward force: (20.2*16*22*(15+3.75))+(56.6*15*14) = 145206 [kN]

Total force = 145206 [kN]

SLS

Section 3:
o ULS

o SLS

28 | P a g e

Downward force: 67.08*15*26 = 26161.2 [kN]

Uplift force:
10*26*15*3.7 = 14430 [kN]
Total force = 26161.2 14430 = 11731.2 [kN]

Downward force: 67.08*15*10= 10062 [kN]

Uplift force:
10*10*15*3.7 = 5550 [kN]
Total force = 10062 5550 = 4512 [kN]
Downward force: 56.6*15*10 = 8490 [kN]
Uplift force:
10*10*15*3.7 = 5550 [kN]
Total force = 8490 5550 = 2940 [kN]

Appendix C: Basement pile force calculation in ULS

29 | P a g e

30 | P a g e

Figure 19: Basement pile forces in ULS

31 | P a g e

Appendix D: Basement settlement calculation in SLS

32 | P a g e

33 | P a g e

Figure 20: Basement pile displacement in SLS

34 | P a g e

Appendix E: Pile blow counts

Figure 21: Pile blow counts

35 | P a g e