Common “Mistakes” in Designing of

Piles Subjected to Negative Skin Friction

Wong Kai Sin

WKS Geotechnical Consultants
wks@wks.sg

25 January 2011
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 1

Common “Mistakes” in Designing of Piles Subjected

to Negative Skin Friction

 Mistakes
 Misconceptions
 Misunderstandings
 Misinterpretation of CP4:2003
 Controversial issues
 Clarifications
 Proposals
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 2

1
 Known Facts about Negative Skin Friction

1. QNSF develops when the soil

d settles more than the pile.

pile soil 2. QPSF develops when the pile

settles more than the soil.

3. There exists a neutral point

which divides QNSF and QPSF.

4. It only takes a few mm of

relative movement to fully
mobilise QNSF and QPSF.

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 3

Issue # 1 -- Drag Load vs Downdrag

Negative Skin Friction

Shear stress on pile due to
downward soil movement
relative to pile

Drag Load
Force on pile caused by NSF

Downdrag
Settlement of pile due to drag
load
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 4

2
 Issue #2
The soft clay layer is over-consolidated or
fully consolidated under the existing fill.
Therefore, NSF is not an issue.

1. Will there be settlement

under future loading?

2. Do you have control over

future developments?

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 5

Issue #3
What happen when Q + Qnsf > Qp + Qpsf ?

Qult
Q

QNSF

QPSF
d
QP
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 6

3
 What will happen when ( QC + hQNSF > QP + QPSF ) ?
QC
Applied Load Qc (kN)
QC
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Q
5

10

QNSF 15
Depth (m)

20

25 QS
30

35

QPSF 40

45

50 d
QP QULT = QP+QS
QP
1. No plunging failure until (QC+ hQNSF) = (QP+QS).
2. NSF is a settlement problem.
3. Ultimate geotechnical capacity = (QP+QS).
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 7

Issue #4
Soft Toe  Qp = 0  Friction Pile
Therefore Ln = 0.6Ls

Neutral Point Location

CP4:2003
Ls Ln Friction Pile: Ln = 0.6Ls
L
Soft End Bearing Pile: Ln = 1.0Ls
Clay

Ls = thickness of consolidating soil

Ln = Distance from cut-off level to n.p.
OA(A)

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 8

4
 CP4:2003 Neutral Point Location
Friction Pile: Ln = 0.6Ls Ls = thickness of consolidating soil
End Bearing Pile: Ln = 1.0Ls Ln = Distance from cut-off level to n.p.

Ls Ln
L
Soft
Clay

Sand

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 9

Neutral point of pile end

bearing in clay
Ln = 0.6 L

Ln = 0.7 to 0.9 Ls

Ls Ln
L
Soft
Clay
Ln = 0.9 to 1.0 Ls

Ln= Stiff to Hard

Clay
Ls=

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 10

5
 Neutral point of driven pile
Ln = 1.0 LsLs
Ln
end bearing in sand & rock
Ls

Ln = 0.95 LsLs

Ls Ln
Ln = h Ls L
Soft
Clay

Sand

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 11

Issue #5
NSF should be computed using effective stress method only.

QC
-method

Sand Fill fs =  s′v

Soft Clay
cu ≈ 20 kPa Total stress method can also
be used for clayey soils.
OA - method
N ≈ 80
fs =  cu

QP
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 12

6
 Determination of Negative Skin Friction in Clay
CP4 : 2003 (Singapore) LTA
Use either  or  method Use effective stress method
- method -method
fs =  cu fs =  s′v

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 13

Determination of NSF in Clay using Total Stress Method

Clay (Fleming et al., 1987)

fs =  cuf
where  = 0.5 / (cuf / svf′) 0.5 for cuf / svf′ ≤ 1
 = 0.5 / (cuf / svf′) 0.25 for cuf / svf′ > 1
cuf = final undrained shear strength
svf′ = final effective stress

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 14

7
 Issue #6
NSF can be computed using cu values from SI report.

QC
- method
Sand Fill fs =  cu

Soft Clay
cu ≈ 20 kPa
1. Use final cu.
2. May not be appropriate to use
OA current cu. It depends on the
N ≈ 80 state of consolidation and the
long term effective stress.
QP
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 15

Determination of NSF in Clay using Effective Stress Method

Clay (Wong and Teh, 1995)

fs =  svf′
where  = (cu / sv′)NC OCR f 0.5
(cu / sv′)NC ~ 0.22 for many clays
OCR f = sp′ / svf′
sp′ = preconsolidation pressure
svf′ = final effective stress
For conservative estimation of Qnsf, higher
unit weights and lower ground water table
should be used.
For conservative estimation of Qpsf, the
25 January 2011
opposite trend should be used.
NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 16

8
 Issue #7
How to determine NSF in Sand?
-method
fs =  s′v
 = Ks tan d

Use one of following:

1.  = 0.35?
2. fs = N?
3. fs = 2N to 5 N?
4. fs = qc / 200?
5. fs = qc / 400?
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 17

Determination of Negative Skin Friction in Sand

1. May be appropriate
for sand above water
1.  = 0.35?
where OCR>>1.
2. May be too
conservative below
water where OCR≈ 1.

2. fs = N?
1. Conservative
3. fs = 2N to 5 N? for PSF.
4. fs = qc / 200? 2. Unconservative
for NSF.
5. fs = qc / 400?
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 18

9
 Determination of Negative Skin Friction in Sand

-method
fs =  s′v = Ks tan d

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 19

Issue #8
For piles subjected to NSF we only need to
check the following according to CP4:2003.
QC Structural
QC + h QNSF ≤ QALL,ST = fcu Ac / FS
where Fs = 4 for concrete

Geotechnical
QC + h QNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs
where Fs = 2.0 or 2.5
h = 0.67 or 1

Need to check : QC = ( QP + QS ) / Fs
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 20

10
 Issue #9
Is it necessary to consider self-weight of pile?
QC QC
QC

hQNSF

QC + W′pile + QNSF
QC+WP′ hQNSF

QPSF QPSF

QP
QP

For 300x300 RC pile with Ln=20m, W′pile ≈ 2.5 t.

For 1.2m diameter bored pile with Ln=30m, W′pile ≈ 50 t.
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 21

Issue #9
QC QC
QC

hQNSF

QC + W′pile + QNSF
QC+WP′ hQNSF

QPSF

QP
QP

Theoretically W′pile should be included in the design.

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 22

11
 Issue #9
QC QC
QC

hQNSF

QC + W′pile + QNSF
QC+WP′ hQNSF

QPSF

QP
QP

Practically, it may not be necessary to include W′pile . It

depends on how we compute QNSF . A conservative QNSF
can easily covered W′pile .
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 23

Evaluation of Soil Parameters for Negative Skin Friction

(Wong and Teh, 1995)

Norway Tokyo Bay Bangkok

(Bjerrum et al., 1969) (Fukuya et al., 1982) (Indraratna et al., 1992)
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 24

12
 Evaluation of Soil Parameters for Negative Skin Friction
(Wong and Teh, 1995)

Melborne End bearing pile Floating friction pile

(Walker & Darvall, 1969) Japan (Nishi & Esashi, 1982)
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 25

Evaluation of Soil Parameters for Negative Skin Friction

(Wong and Teh, 1995)

Closed-end pipe pile open-end pipe pile Closed-end pipe pile

(End bearing) (End bearing) (Floating friction)
Tokyo (Endo et al., 1969)
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 26

13
 Issue #9
The above comparisons show
that the current method of NSF
computation has implicitly
included the self-weight of pile.

No need to include W′pile !

Tokyo Bay, Japan

(Fukuya et al., 1982)
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 27

Issue #10
Bored pile is limited to Grade 30 concrete.
Structural
QCS QCS + h QNSF ≤ QALL,ST = fcu Ac / FS
where Fs = 4 for concrete

CP4 allows only grade 30 concrete?

fcu / Fs = 7.5 MPa

Bored Piles
For piles Use Grade 40 or higher
subjected
to NSF Driven Piles
Use as high as possible
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 28

14
 Issue #11
Difficulties with h and Fs

QC Geotechnical
QC + h QNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs
where Fs = 2.0 or 2.5
h = 0.67 or 1

What is “h” ?
When to use h = 0.67 or 1?
When to use Fs = 2.0 or 2.5?
Can we use Fs = 1.5 if Qp =0?

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 29

CP4:2003 - Degree of Mobilization “h”

“The negative unit friction along the pile section above the
neutral plane may vary between the fully mobilization value
on the top and a small value close to the neutral plane.”

QC

h= 1.0
hQNSF for low capacity
piles in highly
h= compressible clay
QPSF
h = 0.67
for all other cases
QP

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 30

15
 Effect of Bearing Stratum Stiffness on Neutral Point

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 31

Bangkok, Thailand
(Indraratna et al., 1992)

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 32

16
Nishi & Esashi (1982) End Bearing Pile Floating Pile

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 33

Melborne, Australia
(Walker & Darvall, 1969)

Difficult to justify
h = 0.67 !

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 34

17
 Degree of Mobilization “h”
The negative unit friction along the pile section above the
neutral plane may vary between the fully mobilization value
on the top and a small value close to the neutral plane.
QC
Difficult to justify
h = 0.67 !
hQNSF
hQNSF

h= = 0.67
QPSF
QPSF

QP

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 35

Degree of Mobilization “h”

QC

For single pile or piles

hQNSF
in group with large
spacing:

Use h = 1.0
QPSF

QP
Many LTA tunnels fall
into this category!

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 36

18
 QC
Degree of Mobilization
“h”
hQNSF

Does that mean we

QPSF should not use
h =0.67 ?
QP

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 37

4
3
2
1

(After Okabe, 1977)

Single pile
QNSF≈7000 kN

“corner” pile
QNSF≈3500
38 kN
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

19
 Effect of Bearing Stratum Stiffness
(Jeong & Briaud, 1994)

h = 0.6

h = 0.6

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 39

Group Reduction Factor "h"

Downdrag = h QNSF where h ~ 0.5 to 1

h

Corner Pile -- Based on AIJ

Foundation Code 2004 (Hong Kong)

Use group reduction factor h = 0.85
25 January 2011 40
NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

20
 Degree of Mobilization “h”
Group Efficiency Factor

QC

For piles in group with

hQNSF
small spacing:

Use h = 0.67
QPSF

QP

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 41

Degree of Mobilization “h”

or
Group Efficiency Factor “h”

Single Piles or Piles in Group with Large Spacing

h = 1.0

Piles in Group with Small Spacing

h = 0.67
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 42

21
 Geotechnical Capacity of Piles subjected to NSF

QC No NSF
QALL = (QP + QPSF) / 2.5
or
QALL = QP / 3 + QS / 1.5

With NSF
QC + h QNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / (2 or 2.5)

Can we also use:

QC + h QNSF ≤ QP / 3 + QS / 1.5 ?

1. What are the implications on pile capacity?

2. Is it supported by code?
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 43

1m f bored pile
Grade 40 concrete
Which factor of safety should we use ?
QC
QC + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs

QNSF = FS Qc (t) Qc (t)

282 t h=1.0 h=0.67
1.5 253 346
2.0 119 212
QPSF =
2.5 39 132
663 t

QP =
What are the corresponding
142 t settlements?
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 44

22
 Pile Settlement due to NSF
QC QC
QC QC

hQNSF
QS
QC hQNSF

QPSF

QP QP
QC Q QC Q

D D
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 45

What factor of safety should we use ?

1m f bored pile QC + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs
Grade 40 concrete

QC Applied Load on Pile Qc (kN)

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0

50 No
FS= 2.5
hQNSF = downdrag
100 FS= 2.0
2820 kN
Pile Top Settlement (mm)

FS= 1.5
150
FS= 1.2 With
downdrag
200
FS= 1.0

QPSF = 250
6625 kN
300
Case 1 (h=1.0)
350
QP= FS 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.2 1.0
400
1415 kN Qc (kN) 390 1190 2530 3870 5200
450
D (mm) 6 10 17 29 58
500
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 46

23
 What factor of safety should we use ?
1m f bored pile
QC + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs
Grade 40 concrete
Applied Load on Pile Qc (kN)
QC
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0

50
No
FS= 2.5 downdrag
100
hQNSF = FS= 2.0
1890 kN FS= 1.5
150 With
FS= 1.2
Pile Top Settlement (mm)

downdrag
200
FS= 1.0
250
QPSF =
6625 kN 300

Case 1a (h=0.67)
350

QP= FS 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.2 1.0

400
1415 kN Qc (kN) 1320 2123 3460 4797 6135
450
D (mm) 7.3 10.4 17.7 32 73
500

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 47

1m f bored pile What factor of safety should we use ?

Grade 40 concrete

Ground water
QC + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs
lowered by 2m.

QC Applied Load on Pile Qc (kN)

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0
0m
Sand fs=15 kPa
4m 50
FS= 2.0 No
downdrag
hQNSF = Soft Clay 100 FS= 1.5
2820 kN  = 0.22 FS= 1.2
150
With
FS= 1.0
downdrag
Pile Top Settlement (mm)

31m 200

QPSF = Hard Clay 250

6625 kN cu = 200 kPa
300
47m Case 2 (h=1.0)
350
QP= 0 FS 2.0 1.5 1.2 1.0
Soft Toe 400
Qc (kN) 495 1600 2700 3930
450 D (mm) 8 14 25 51
500
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 48

24
 400x400 RC Pile
Grade 50 concrete
What factor of safety should we use ?
Ground water
lowered by 2m.
QC + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs

QC Applied Load on Pile Qc (kN)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
0m 0
Sand fs=15 kPa
4m No
50
FS= 1.5 downdrag
hQNSF = Soft Clay 100 FS= 1.2
1435 kN  = 0.22
150 FS= 1.0
Pile Top Settlement (mm)

31m 200
With
QPSF = Hard Clay 250 downdrag
2030 kN cu = 200 kPa
300
41m
350
Case 3 (h=1.0)
QP= 290
400 FS 1.5 1.2 1.0
Qc (kN) 110 500 885
450
D (mm) 10 18 34
500
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 49

400x400 RC Pile What factor of safety should we use?

Grade 50 concrete

Ground water QC + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs

lowered by 2m.

QC Applied Load on Pile Qc (kN)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
0m
Sand fs=15 kPa No
4m 50 FS= 2.0
FS= 1.5 downdrag
hQNSF = Soft Clay 100
FS= 1.2
1435 kN  = 0.22
150
FS= 1.0 With
downdrag
Pile Top Settlement (mm)

31m 200

Hard Clay 250

QPSF =
cu = 200 kPa
3374 kN 300
Case 4 (h=1.0)
350
47m FS 2.0 1.5 1.2 1.0
400
QP= 290 Qc (kN) 245 805 1365 1925
450
D (mm) 9 16 24 38
500
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 50

25
 For Serviceability (SLS) Consideration:

Single Pile or Pile Group with Large Spacing

h = 1.0
Fs = 1.5 (non-compliance with CP4)
or
h = 0.67
Fs = 2.0 (compliance with CP4)

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 51

1m f bored pile Example illustrating effect of

Grade 40 concrete Fs and h on QNSF
Ground water
lowered by 2m. QC + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs
Q
h = 0.67
0m
4m
Sand fs=15 kPa Fs = 2.0 (compliance with CP4:2003)
QC = 1420 kN
hQNSF = Soft Clay
2820 kN  = 0.22
h = 1.0
Fs = 1.5 (non-compliance with CP4)
31m
QC = 1620 kN
QPSF = Hard Clay
6625 kN cu = 200 kPa Therefore, h= 0.67 and Fs = 2 yield
47m
reasonable results for single piles &
QP = 0 piles in group with large spacing.
Soft Toe
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 52

26
 1m f bored pile Example illustrating effect of
Grade 40 concrete Fs and h on QNSF
Ground water
lowered by 2m. QC + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs
Q
h = 0.67
0m Fs = 2.0 (compliance with CP4:2003)
Sand fs=15 kPa
4m
QC = 1420 kN
hQNSF = Soft Clay
2820 kN  = 0.22 h = 0.67
Fs = 1.5 (non-compliance with CP4)
31m QC = 2530 kN
QPSF = Hard Clay
6625 kN cu = 200 kPa If h=0.67 and Fs=2 are used for pile
47m group with small spacing, the
QP = 0 computed QC is conservative. There is
Soft Toe plenty of “fat” in the design.
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 53

For Serviceability (SLS) Consideration:

Pile Group with Small Spacing

h = 0.67
Fs = 1.5 (non-compliance with CP4)
or
h = 0.67
Fs = 2.0 (compliance with CP4)

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 54

27
 For Failure (ULS) Consideration:

Geotechnical
QC ≤ (QP + QS ) /2.5
or
QC ≤ QP /3 + QS /1.5

Structural
QC + h QNSF ≤ QALL,ST = fcu Ac / FS
where Fs = 4 for concrete

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 55

Issue #12
Difficulties with Load Test on Piles subjected to NSF
Qmax
Qmax = ?
Q Q

dall = ?

QS

dTOP
QP
1. What is the maximum test load?
2. What is the allowable settlement?
3. What is the settlement under NSF?
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 56

28
 CP4 : 2003 & HDB - Settlement at (WL + 2QNSF) ≤ 10 mm

Eurocode EC7 : Maximum test load = WL + 2QNSF

Allowable settlement not specified.

Found. Code 2004 (Hong Kong): Max. test load = 2QC+ QNSF
Allowable settlement not specified.
Other - Settlement at (WL + QNSF) ≤ 10 mm
Q Q
Q Q

?
QS

dTOP
QP
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 57

Why Maximum Test Load = WL + 2QNSF ?

Q QC QMAX QMAX QULT

Q Q

?
Ln

QS
QC + QNSF
QC + QNSF
QNSF

dTOP
QP
QP

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 58

29
 Working Pile: QMAX = WL + 2hQNSF
Preliminary Pile: QMAX = QULT = QP + QS
QC QC QMAX QMAX QULT
Q Q

dALL = ?
Ln

QS
QC + hQNSF
QC +hQNSF hQNSF

dTOP
QP
QP

What is the allowable settlement?

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 59

1m f bored pile
Grade 40 concrete Example illustrating different
Ground water
code requirements
lowered by 2m.
Applied Load on Pile Q (kN)
Q
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0
0m
Sand fs=15 kPa 50
No
4m
downdrag
100
hQNSF = Soft Clay
Pile Top Settlement (mm)

2820 kN  = 0.22 150

With
downdrag
200
31m
250
QPSF = Hard Clay
6625 kN cu = 200 kPa 300
47m
350

QP= 0 400
Soft Toe
450

500
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 60

30
 Code
(h=1) Maximum Allowable Allowable
Load Settlement (mm) Load Qc (kN)
CP4:2003 & HDB QC+ 2QNSF 10 -980
Eurocode EC7 QC+ 2QNSF 25 (assumed) 1620
Fdn. Code of H.K. 2004 2QC+ QNSF 25 (assumed) 2000

QC+ 2hQNSF = 3700 kN

QC + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs

With Fs=2 and h=1  QC = 500 kN

NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin

25 January 2011 61

Long Term Settlement Subjected to NSF

1620 kN

QC=500 kN QC=2000 kN
Applied Load (kN)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
0
8 mm
13 mm
16 mm
20
Pile Top Settlement (mm) .

40

60

Code QC Settlement Geotech.

(h=1) (kN) with NSF (mm) Fs h
80
CP4:2003 & HDB -980 - -
Eurocode
100 EC7 1620 13 1.50 1.00
Fdn Code of H.K. 2004 2000 16 1.37 1.00
QC
120 + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs 500 8 2 1.00
25 January 2011 62

31
 Code
(h=0.67) Maximum Allowable Allowable
Load Settlement (mm) Load Qc (kN)
CP4:2003 & HDB QC+ 2hQNSF 10 -80
Eurocode EC7 QC+ 2hQNSF 25 (assumed) 2520
Fdn. Code of H.K. 2004 2QC+ hQNSF 25 (assumed) 2200

QC+ 2hQNSF = 3700 kN

(h=0.67)

QC + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs

With Fs=2 and h=0.67  QC = 1420 kN

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 63

Long Term Settlement Subjected to NSF

2220 kN

QC=2520 kN
1420 kN Applied Load (kN)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
0
12 mm
17 mm
20
20 mm
Pile Top Settlement (mm) .

40

60
Code QC Settlement Geotech.
(h=0.67) (kN) with NSF (mm) Fs h
80
CP4:2003 & HDB -80 - -
Eurocode EC7 2520 20 1.50 0.67
100
Fdn Code of H.K. 2004 2200 17 1.62 0.67
QC
120 + hQNSF ≤ (QP + QPSF) / Fs 1420 12 2 0.67
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 64

32
 Load Test on Piles Subjected to NSF

Proposed Allowable Settlement at QC+ 2QNSF ≤ 25 mm

QMAX QULT
Q

dALL = 25 mm

dTOP

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 65

Conclusions & Recommendations

1. NSF should be considered, if future settlement is
real regardless of current state of consolidation.

2. NSF is a settlement problem.

3. Ultimate geotechnical capacity  QULT = QP + QS

4. Neutral point  top of competent stratum

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 66

33
Conclusions & Recommendations (con’t)
5. Both  and  method can be used.
6. Use h=0.67 and Fs=2 in all cases.
7. For bored piles, use Grade 40 concrete or higher.
8. Self-weight of pile need not be considered in design.

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 67

Conclusions & Recommendations (con’t)

9. For load test on preliminary piles:
• QMAX = QS +QP
• Allowable settlement at 1.5WL ≤ 15 mm
• Allowable settlement at 2WL ≤ 25 mm
• Allowable settlement at QC+ 2hQNSF ≤ 25 mm

10. For load test on working piles:

• QMAX = QC+ 2hQNSF
• Allowable settlement at 1.5WL ≤ 15 mm
• Allowable settlement at 2WL ≤ 25 mm
• Allowable settlement at QC+ 2hQNSF ≤ 25 mm
25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 68

34
 Thank You for
your attention !
If you have any comments and suggestions,
please email to me at wks@wks.sg.

25 January 2011 NSF Talk by Wong Kai Sin 69

35