Long Bored Pile Design Issues For Very Tall Buildings

The Latest Development in Civil Engineering (LDCE):
a book is to honor the 80th Birthday of Professor Wiratman Wangsadinata

Jakarta, February 25, 2015.
LONG BORED PILE DESIGN ISSUES FOR VERY

TALL BUILDINGS
FRANCISCUS X. TOHA1
1
Geotechnical Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Bandung Institute of Technology, Bandung, Indonesia
ABSTRACT
Data from groups of long bored piles of tall buildings in Jakarta was analyzed to
examine general load settlement behavior of long bored piles. End resistance of
bored piles were not included in the analysis. Redundant length and capacity were
introduced as more versatile parameters to describe the performance of bored piles
in settlement analysis. Redundant length and capacity were evaluated for single
and groups of bored piles at typical load levels. Results showed that redundant
capacity could distinguish differences in pile settlement performance and
geotechnical design bias, even though customary safety factors were identical. For
piles in large groups, the selection of the settlement limits greatly effects the
anticipated performance level of the pile groups.
1 INTRODUCTION
The emergence of large skyscraper projects in Jakarta in recent years, is marked

by construction of buildings with 70 to more than 110 floors above ground. Three
of the buildings are Thamrin Nine, Signature Tower Jakarta and Pertamina Energy
Tower, all of these require deep bored pile foundations. All 3 buildings are situated
in the prime business districts of Jakarta, where the geologic stratification is
similar, i.e. consisting silt-clay alluvium; henceforth, the bored piles behavior is
expected to be similar. Table 1 shows foundation details of these buildings.
Table 1. General foundation description of the buildings.
Thamrin Nine Signature Pertamina
Foundation foot print 3,405 m2 7,343 m2 5,724 m2

Floors above ground 71 111 99
Basement levels 6 7 6
Bored pile diameter 1.2 m 1.2 m 1.8 m
No. of piles 271 631 208
Length of piles 66 m 90 m 100 m
Design load 12.15 MN 13.0 MN ~ 40.0 MN
1
Illustrations of the skyscraper foundation pads and view of the structure are
shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3. The design loads shown, are preliminary estimates
for axial compression capacity and deformation elaboration purposes. The soil
profiles are taken from soil investigation reports.
Top Level
El. 331 m
55m
Level 46 59m
El. +207 m
N
Zone 2 High Rise
Bottom of CAP
-17 m
Level 23 Silty Sand
-29 m
El. +103 m Dense (N-SPT = 30-50)
-43 m
Zone 1 Low Rise -66 m Stiff Clay

-80 m Very Stiff (N-SPT = 15-30)
Ground Podium
Hard (N-SPT  30)
El. +1.80
Figure 1. Thamrin Nine.
Top of Spire 92m

El. +656 m
92m
Level 93
El. +460 m
N
Zone 3 High
Rise
Level 60 Bottom of CAP
El. +300 m -11 m
Sand
Zone 2 High Rise -31 m Med. Dense (N-SPT = 10-30)
Level 35 Dense (N-SPT = 30-50)
El. +184 m -61 m
Zone 1 Low Very Dense (N-SPT  50)
-80 m
Rise Level Clay
El.
10 +68 Very Stiff (N-SPT = 15-30)
m
B6 -110 m
El. -4.5 Hard (N-SPT  30)
Tower Podium
Figure 2. Signature Tower Jakarta
2
Top Level
90m
81m
Bottom of CAP
-20 m
-38 m Sand
Dense (N-SPT = 30-50)
Very Dense (N-SPT  50)
-88 m
-106 m Clay
-120 m Very Stiff (N-SPT = 15-30)
Ground Level Hard (N-SPT  30)
Figure 3. Pertamina Energy Tower.
The bored piles of these large and tall buildings are quite deep, and subject to
high structural loads from the upper structure. Like most piles under skyscrapers,
the piles are commonly configured in large groups, and are required to perform
under stringent settlement tolerance. Amongst the design issues associated with
very long bored piles in this article, are the load transfer from the piles to the
foundation soil, the serviceability and group interactions. The discussion in this
article is not aimed to specific foundation design details of each site studied; but
rather, as the load deformation characteristics of bore piles are commonly similar,
it is geared towards more general understanding of the settlement behavior of very
long bored piles against axial compression load.
This article addresses shaft friction as the main element of the load deformation
behavior of the long bored piles. The contribution of toe end resistance was briefly
discussed, such that the subsequent elaborations are mostly about shaft resistance.
This article demonstrated the effect of geotechnical engineering judgment in the
pile design practice. The analysis was based on 3 axial compression tests at the
Thamrin Nine site, and the expected performance of the piles were deduced from
comparison of design estimates and load test results. The bias in design was
evaluated in terms of the pile lengths at customary axial loads. Redundant length
and capacity were introduced in here. Furthermore, analysis of group interaction
behavior against axial load was presented for the large group of bored pile
foundation for the 3 tall building sites.
3
2 TESTED PILE PERFORMANCE AT THAMRIN NINE
Three sets of axial compression tests were performed at the Thamrin Nine site. The
load deformation curves, as well as customary design estimates, are shown in
Figure 4. Initially, the “design” load deformation curves were established based on
the soil profiles. Using a typical NSPT – undrained shear strength correlation of cu =
6 NSPT (Reese, Touma and O’Neill, 1976), as well as field vane shear test result in
the soil report, with typical values for soil modulus, Es, = 55 MN/m2 (Duncan and
Buchignani, 1976), adhesion factor,  = 0.55 (API, 2007), and limiting friction,
qs, of  cu; the design load deformation curves were obtained. The design estimates
were then compared to the load test results. The measured deformations were 40 to
70 % of the design estimates, therefore, using back calculated soil parameters, the
load deformation curves at Thamrin Nine were redefined. In general, the back
calculated cu for the Thamrin Nine site is 9 NSPT and Es is 83 MN/m2, typical to
Jakarta, are more favorable the design estimates in practice.
30
Load Test - TE4 BP84
Load Test -
BP271 Soils Data Analysis
Axial Load (MN)
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Vertical Displacement (mm)
Figure 4. Load deformation curves from Thamrin Nine site.
Using the more conservative test results of the 3 load tests, then applying the
same correlations for the Signature Tower Jakarta and Pertamina Energy Tower
sites, a set of load deformation curves were established. The subsequent discussion
in this article will only be dedicated to the adjusted load deformation curves. The
load deformation curves of the 3 project sites are thus based on the estimated load
test performance, not the initial design curves.
3 SINGLE PILE LOAD DEFORMATIONS
3.1 End resistance

End bearing capacity for bored piles is achieved when a relative deformation
between the pile tip and its surrounding soil is about 2 to 6 % of the bored pile
diameter (Reese and O’Neill, 1987). For 1,200 and 1,800 mm diameter bored piles,
the axial deformation to mobilize the end bearing resistance would be 24 to 108
4
mm. Considering the additional settlement due to group interaction, such

magnitude of deformation at the pile tip is usually not permitted by the upper
structure. Moreover, for long bored piles, it is very difficult to form a competent
bearing layer at great depth, as there would be drilling debris at the bottom.
Poulos and Davis (1980) suggested that for a floating bored pile:
 = o CK C (1)
where  = ratio of applied load to tip load.
o = tip load proportion for incompressible pile in  = 0.5
CK = correction factor for pile compressibility
C = correction factor for soil’s Poisson’s ratio
The estimated proportions of the load transmitted to the bored pile tip for the 3
sites, are shown in Table 2. For consistent comparison, the calculated values were
based on typical shaft loads of 40% and 80% of the ultimate capacity, taking into
account the pile compressibility correction factor. The estimated portion of the total
load to be transmitted to the tip is negligible. In fact, the ratio of shaft to total load
is more than 95% even if the pile lengths are reduced substantially. Fellenius and
Hai (2013), as well as Zou and Zhao (2013) arrived as the same conclusion for
different cases with more elaborate analysis and measurements.
Table 2. End bearing load ratio, .
 0.048 0.040 0.048

CK (40%) 0.890 0.840 0.880
CK (80%) 0.980 0.930 0.970
C 0.8 0.8 0.8
(40%) 3.4% 2.7% 3.4%
(80%) 3.8% 3.0% 3.7%
As the load at the pile tips for the long bored piles in this article are small, the
elaboration in the following sections of this article, unless explicitly stated, ignores
the end bearing resistance of the bored pile.
3.2 Shaft friction resistance

Load deformation curves based on the shaft friction were presented in Figure 5. As
described before, the curves for the Signature Tower Jakarta and the Pertamina
Energy Tower utilized similar adjustment from the Thamrin Nine design estimate
and load test result. The most conservative result of Thamrin Nine was adopted.
As the axial loads increase, it can be seen that there are very little additional shaft
resistance beyond an axial deformation of 40 to 80 mm. In this article, the yield
load is defined as the “ultimate” load. The load test result, as well other results
from bored piles in Jakarta, do not exhibit noticeable strain softening, therefore
5
hyperbolic curves were used to establish load deformation relationships. When

single pile settlement becomes large, if group interaction is accounted for, larger
settlements will occur, whereas end bearing capacity cannot develop due to the
large group size. Therefore, the bored piles performance at these 3 sites will not
be governed by the end bearing capacity, instead, it will be settlement dependent.
80
Pertamina
60
Axial Load (MN)
Signature
40
Thamrin
Nine
20 Load Test - TE1 BP62
Load Test - BP271
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Figure 5. Shaft friction load deformation.
In order to analyze the shaft ultimate resistance of the long bored piles, axial
deformations at 40% and 80% of ultimate load, at design load, as well as at 150%
design load, were evaluated using Reese and O’Neill’s (1987) method, with results
as shown in Table 3. The 40% and 80% represent the loads for piles with a safety
factor of 2.5, being tested to 200% of their design load. The static design and 150%
of it, will be used to demonstrate variability in the geotechnical design judgment.
Table 3. Load deformation parameters.
Pile diameter 1,200 mm 1,200 mm 1,800 mm

Pile length 66 m 90 m 100 m
Yield deformation 45 mm 71 mm 74 mm
Ultimate load 35 MN 40 MN 71 MN
Deformation at
- 40 % ultimate load 10 mm 14 mm 13 mm
- 80 % ultimate load 31 mm 46 mm 43 mm
- Design static load 8 mm 11 mm 22 mm
- 150 % design static load 15 mm 19 mm 47 mm
Multiplying the design loads in Table 1 by 2, it can be seen that the piles would
perform differently at the 3 sites. At 200% design load, Thamrin Nine piles utilize
6
71% of its ultimate, while for Signature Tower Jakarta and Pertamina Tower, the
utilization is 65% and more than 100%, respectively. The deformation at design
and 150% design loads, also vary significantly. Although the Pertamina Tower test
load is intended to obtain a maximum plausible force, if it is used eventually, there
would be a significant spread in geotechnical design judgment between the 3
projects. It was assumed that the workmanship of the bored piles are more or less
the same, as the 3 structures are of the same magnitude and built by reputable
multinational companies, such that the workmanship deviation could be ignored.
Shaft friction propagates from top to bottom with increasing applied load, at
smaller loads, not all of the pile length carries the load. Figure 6 shows a plots of
calculated pile settlements for variable pile lengths at the sites. The settlements
reduces with increasing pile length, but, beyond a certain pile length, settlements
remain mostly constant. That means, in excess of this certain pile length, there will
be an excess shaft resistance. The excess shaft length is termed as a redundant
length of the pile. A pile with redundant length will allow additional load without
the occurrence of large settlements. If we limit the pile settlement at a certain value,
the product of the redundant length times the average shaft friction, will be the
additional force that can be applied to the pile without causing noticeable additional
(accelerated) settlements. This required additional force is termed as a redundant
capacity in this article. It will be shown that redundant capacity is more versatile
in describing bored pile settlement performance and the conservatism in the design.
The redundant length of the bored piles at the 3 sites were calculated using
variable pile lengths at each site, starting at the design length, and gradually
reducing the length until additional settlements became noticeable. Figure 6 shows
the results for loads of 40% ultimate, 80% ultimate, 100% and 150% design loads.
120
40% UL 100% DL 80% UL 150% DL
100 100% DL 40% UL
80
Length (m)
100% DL 80% UL
60
80% UL
40 150% DL Pertamina
150% DL Signature
Thamrin
20 40% UL
DL : Design Load
UL : Ultimate Load
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure 6. Redundant lengths.
7
In the assessment of the redundant capacity, average mobilized shaft friction

was determined from dividing applied load by the pile length minus redundant
length. The results are listed in Table 4.
Table 4. Pile redundancy.
Redundant length
- 40% of ultimate load 32 m 50 m 40 m
- 80% of ultimate load 10 m 15 m 5m
- Static design load 33 m 55 m 25 m
- 150% static design load 26 m 45 m <0m
Average shaft friction
- 40% of ultimate load 100 kPa 99 kPa 90 kPa
- 80% of ultimate load 115 kPa 109 kPa 120 kPa
- Static design load 98 kPa 96 kPa 113 kPa
- 150% static design load 106 kPa 99 kPa 123 kPa
Redundant capacity
- 40% of ultimate load 15.8 MN 23.9 MN 35.4 MN
- 80% of ultimate load 4.3 MN 8.4 MN 5.7 MN
- Static design load 15.9 MN 26.6 MN 20.6 MN
- 150% static design load 11.7 MN 22.3 MN <0
The analysis results show that the pile settlement increased significantly once
the redundant length is exhausted. For very long bored piles, where provisions of
a competent hard bearing base is hardly possible, when the design settlement is at
the allowable limit, sufficient redundant length would be necessary, otherwise, due
to construction and site uncertainties, there is a close possibility of occurrence of a
significant increase from the anticipated settlements. If the redundant capacity is
compared to the ultimate capacity, it can be seen that the redundant capacity is a
more sensitive measure of the pile performance. At Thamrin Nine, at a SF = 2.5
(40% ultimate load), the redundant capacity of 15.8 MN has a mobilized shaft
friction of 53% of the limit friction before the pile start showing significant increase
in rate of settlements. The SF against the limit settlements in this case is 1.87, much
less than the SF for load capacity. Similar arguments can be said for the higher
loads and for the other sites. Further research is needed to quantify reasonable
redundant length at various load levels.
The average shaft friction in Table 4 shows a slight variation for each test site
at the different load levels. Theoretically, the t-z curves around the will not change
for the same soil layer, regardless of the pile lengths. However, at higher load levels,
the redundant length would be less, hence, higher shaft friction from deeper layers
below will contribute to the slightly higher average value.
The redundant capacities at 40% and 80% of ultimate load are relatively the
same for the 3 sites, i.e. averaging around 46% to 60%; and 8% to 18% of the
8
ultimate, respectively. However, redundant capacities at the design loads are 47%,
66% and 27% of the ultimate loads, at Thamrin Nine, Signature Tower Jakarta,
and Pertamina Energy Tower, respectively. At higher loads, 150% of the design
load, the redundant capacities are 34%, 56% and less than zero. The redundant
capacities give a clearer picture of the pile settlement behavior, although the SF
against load capacity are 2.5 (for 40% ultimate load) and 1.25 (for 80% ultimate
load) the redundant capacities detected that there will be a large difference in the
potential of larger settlement if the pile loads are increased. The ratio of SF for the
design loads, is 2.8 : 3.1 : 1.8; whereas a more pronounced ratio of 47% : 66% : 27
% is displayed by the redundant capacities. At the higher loads (150% design load),
the ratio of SF is 1.1 : 1.2 : 0.7; while the redundant capacity ratio is 34% : 56% :
< 0. The preceding arguments show that the redundant capacity has a better ability
to display different risk of excess settlements, even if the load SF is equal; and that
the geotechnical judgment bias is more pronounced through the redundant
capacities.
4 PILE GROUP LOAD DEFORMATIONS

In tall buildings, long bored piles come in large numbers, and the performance of
is governed by limit deformation of the piles as a group. The settlement of the pile
groups containing 271 (Thamrin Nine), 631 (Signature), and 208 (Pertamina)
bored piles of the 3 sites, will be 4 to 12 times the settlement of each single piles
in Table 3. Estimates of the pile group settlements were deduced from multiplying
the single pile settlements described previously, by group interaction factors,
according to Poulos and Davis (1980).
Assuming the piles are floating piles, group settlements of the bored piles is:
𝜌𝑘 = 𝜌1 ∑𝑛𝑗=1(𝑃𝑗 . 𝛼𝑘𝑗 ) + 𝜌1 𝑃𝑘 (2)
𝑗≠𝑘
where ρ1 = displacement of single pile under unit load

Pj = load in pile j
αkj = interaction factor for spacing between piles k and j
In the Poulos and Davis (1980) pile settlement analysis, single pile settlements
for a pile in semi-infinite soil is expressed as:
 = 𝑃𝐼/𝐸𝑠 𝑑 (3)
where I = Io RK Rh Rv
ρ = settlement of pile head
d = pile diameter
P = applied axial load
Io = settlement-influence factor for incompressible pile in semi-
infinite mass, for vs = 0.5
RK = correction factor for pile compressibility = RA K
RA = Ap /( d 2)
K = pile stiffness factor, defined as Ep RA/ Es, where Ep is the pile’s
Young’s Modulus, RA is the ration between the pile cross section
area to area bounded by outer circumference of pile, and Es is the
soil’s Young’s Modulus.
9
Interaction factors, kj, were obtained from two pile interaction factor, F
(Poulos and Davis, 1980), for relevant L/d, K, and s/d values, in which L/d is
the pile length to diameter ratio, and s/d is the pile spacing to pile diameter ratio.
Small strain soil modulus, Eso, of the foundation soil was established from the
undrained shear strength, then to account for nonlinearity, the strain softened
modulus, Es, was estimated after Vucetic and Dobry (1991) or Ishibashi and Zhang
(1993). A reduced modulus was applied at the soil pile interface. Poulos (2006)
recommended to increase the modulus in the soil beyond the interface, as this soil
experiences much lower strain and pile installation disturbance. For the Emirat
Tower, Dubai, it was deducted from the load settlement measurement, that the soil
modulus was approximately 5 times the modulus of soil at soil-shaft interface.
Therefore, the soil modulus outside the shaft interface was increased by taking into
account the ratio small strain modulus to the soil modulus at the shaft interface at
the corresponding working load. The increase was obtained by multiplying the soil
modulus at the interface, by the ratio of the soil Eso at small strain to the interface
soil E at the pile deformation strains at 40 % and 80% of ultimate load. As a result,
the soil modulus outside the interface were 3 to 10 times the soil modulus at the
interface. Furthermore, using the increased soil modulus, Es, all the pile stiffness
factor values, K, used for the assessments of interaction factors, kj, in Equation
2; were modified according to pile spacing and Poisson’s Ratio. Calculations of
each pile stiffness due to group interaction, were approximated using average pile
load of 40% and 80% of ultimate load. For a rigid pile cap, the axial pile loads
were distributed based on the individual pile stiffness in the group.
Estimated pile group settlements were obtained from modifying each single
pile settlements using the average interaction ratio of the considered pile cap.
Calculated maximum settlements of the pile groups, at 40% ultimate load, are 80
mm, 168 mm, and 120 mm, for Thamrin Nine, Signature Tower Jakarta, and
Pertamina Energy Tower, respectively. At 80% ultimate loads, the settlement
values are 105 mm, 276 mm, 149 mm, respectively. Load deformation curves
resulting from group settlement analysis were used to assess redundant capacities
of the piles in the group. If the magnitude of settlements are not considered, the
ultimate bearing capacity of pile group may be slightly reduced, therefore, reduction
of redundant capacity, in terms of required force to initiate a sudden increase in
settlements, is also expected to be relatively small.
More importantly, is the reserve capacity in terms of settlements. The load
settlement curve of the pile in a large group has a significantly smaller load-
deformation modulus, the work required for the pile to attain the group deformation
is only a fraction of the work required by a single pile to achieve the same
deformation. In attempting to evaluate redundant capacity in pile groups,
integration of the averaged load-displacement function up to the pile group
settlement values, for 40% and 80% ultimate load, as well as for design loads and
150% of design loads, was done. The integral value will be the work required to
reach the group settlements under respective loads. A ratio of the remaining work
required to reach the limit settlement to the total work, i.e. the work ratio in Table
5, must be related to the redundant capacity, although no specific correlation was
stated here. Similarly, the work required for the single pile to reach the settlements
of the group at 40% and 80% ultimate load was calculated.
10
The ratio of the work of each pile, acting as a single pile in a group and acting
alone, relates to the reduction of redundant capacity, as it quantifies how much less
work will be spent for that pile as a single pile in a group, compared to the case
where there is no group interaction.
In evaluation process, a limit design settlement of 0.2%, which provided a
group settlement of 110 mm to 184 mm settlements for the piles caps in the 3
projects, was selected. Table 5 shows that work required to reach the limit
settlements were 6% to 36% of the total work. However, at higher settlement limits
(0.4% selected for evaluation purpose), remaining work required increased
significantly, despite the higher loads being used in the analysis. It is also evident,
that the geotechnical engineering judgment in the design affected the redundant
capacity values.
Table 5. Pile redundant capacity ratio in groups
Piles in group 271 631 208

Mat width 55 m 92 m 81 m
 at 40% ultimate 100 mm 168 mm 120 mm
 at 80% ultimate 106 mm 276 mm 149 mm
Work ratio at 40% ultimate 36% 36% 36%
Work ratio at 80% ultimate 68% 51% 70%
Work ratio at design load 77% 75% 20%
Work ratio at 150% design 78% 79% 7%
The results in Table 5 imply that the reliability of long bored piles performance
for skyscrapers is sensitive to the determination of the limit settlements. The
settlement criteria is usually selected based on the upper structure’s requirement,
and is often unrealistically stringent. For typical and similar soil conditions, and
relatively similar load levels (40 % and 80% of ultimate load), the required work
to surpass the limit settlements vary significantly, more so if designer’s judgment
is included. Nevertheless, at higher settlement limits, such as at higher loads
usually specified for earthquakes and wind storms, sensitivity is reduced as larger
redundancy is observed.
Piles under tall building towers are usually grouped under relatively thick pile
caps, most of the times in excess of 5 meters. The thick pile cap was assumed to
provide equal settlements on the piles when uniform vertical load was applied. Due
to pile-soil-pile interactions, as calculated based on Poulos and Davis (1980) in this
article, the pile loads vary, where piles near the perimeter receiving higher loads
than the piles towards the center. Similar results for non sand soils were observed
by others (e.g. Whitaker, 1970, Basile, 1999, and Poulos and Bunce, 2008). Using
the pile interaction analysis described previously, contours of relative pile loads
with center piles used as unit reference, are shown in Figure 7.
11
55m 55m
1.3 1.3
1.2 1.2
1.1 1.1
59m 59m
1 unit load = 11.8 MN 1 unit load = 23.9 MN
P average = 14 MN P average = 28 MN
1.1 1.1 N
1.2 1.2
1.3 1.3
(a) Thamrin Nine Tower
92m 92m
1.4 1.4
1.3 1.3
1.2 1.2
1.1 1.1
92m 92m
1 unit load = 13.1 MN 1 unit load = 26.7 MN
P average = 16 MN P average = 32 MN
1.1 1.1
1.2 N
1.3 1.2
1.4 1.3
1.4
(b) Signature Tower Jakarta
90m 90m
1.4 1.3
1.3 1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
81m 81m
1 unit load = 24.1 MN 1 unit load = 50 MN
P average = 28.4 MN P average = 56.8 MN
1.1 1.1 N
1.2 1.2
1.3
1.4 1.3
(c) Pertamina Energy Tower
Figure 7. Normalized pile axial load contours for 40% and 80% of ultimate axial loads
The results show that the maximum pile loads on the perimeter are around 20%
more compared to the average pile load. The center piles, on the other hand, will
carry 20% less than the average pile load, which means, within the group, the
perimeter piles could carry as much as 40% more than the center piles. In terms of
redundant capacity, the perimeter piles would have less redundant capacity, and as
seen in Table 7, the redundancy would be less as the load increases. For earthquake
12
and wind forces, where the perimeter piles would be subject to higher applied loads,
the deformation of the perimeter piles will increase rapidly when the redundant
capacity is exceeded, or the exhausted redundant capacity condition will be spread
towards the center piles. In the interest of pile group behavior, the redundant
capacity is also a more representative measure of performance. For large pile
groups, due to the size of the block, very high “ultimate” capacity will be obtained.
As the toe bearing of such block is associated with large settlements, the safety
factor against loads of the pile group will become a useless parameter. On the other
hand, as the redundant capacity of a pile in a group is less, and as tolerable
settlements of a pile group is extremely small compared to the width of the pile
group, the redundant capacity will be a much more sensitive measure of the pile
group performance in terms of settlements. Further research on the redundant
capacity of pile groups is currently underway.
5 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the data and analysis of 3 skyscrapers with long bored piles in Jakarta, in
typical alluvium silt-clays soil conditions, the following can be advanced:
(1) The effect of having redundant pile length for safety provisions in practice has
been evaluated in this article in terms of a redundant capacity of the pile. In
single piles, redundant capacity is a measure of how much additional force the
pile can sustain without experiencing significant additional settlements.
(2) Redundant capacity is a more versatile parameter in describing pile settlement
risks. At same safety factor values, the redundant capacity varies distinctively,
reflecting different vulnerability of the piles against larger settlements upon
increasing loads.
(3) Effect of geotechnical design judgment variability is easily detectable in a larger
difference in redundant capacity values, compared to using the usual selection
of different safety factors.
(4) In pile groups, redundant capacity is measured in terms of work to be done by
the pile loads at a certain point to reach the limit settlements where group
interaction is considered. The results of analysis show that the redundant
capacity is very sensitive to the choice of limit settlements, in particular at the
customary design load levels. At higher loads and thus higher settlement limits,
less contrasting redundant capacities are observed.
(5) In pile groups with large number of piles, the redundant capacity variation in
the piles will be occur, as the pile loads will vary for equal pile cap axial
deformation. Since the limit settlements of the group is relatively small
compared to the mat dimension, varying redundant capacities of the piles in the
group give a more realistic representation of vulnerability of the piles in the
group.
(6) More elaborate research will be necessary to formulate the redundant capacity
formulation, both for single and group of bored piles, in order to obtain a more
general formulation in describing the settlement behavior of very long bored
piles in sustaining very high axial loads.
13
6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author extends greatest gratitude to Prof. Dr. Ir. Wiratman Wangsadinata
for sharing some of the data from Thamrin Nine Project and Pertamina Energy
Tower. Permits to use data from Thamrin Nine by Ir. Nevins Lie from PT Putragaya
Wahana; from Signature Tower Jakarta by Mr. Josef Aliwarga from PT Grahamas
Adisentosa; and from Pertamina Energy Tower by Ir. Hermawan from PT Pertamina
(Persero); have been generously granted to the author in writing and publishing this
article. As the writing of this article was in progress, additional data from the 3
towers became available, there are no change in qualitative arguments resulting
from the data updates.
References
American Petroleum Institute, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and
Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms – Working Stress Design, API
Recommended Practice 2A-WSD (RP 2A-WSD), 2007.
Basile, Francesco, Non-linear analysis of pile groups under general loading
conditions, PhD Thesis, University of Glasgow, 1999.
Duncan, J. M., and Buchignani, A. N. An Engineering Manual for Settlement
Studies, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley,
1976.
Fellenius, B. H., and Hai, M. N., Large Diameter Long Bored Piles in the Mekong
Delta, International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories,
http://casehistories.geoengineering.org, Vol. 2, Issue 3, 196-207, 2013.
Ishibashi, I. and Zhang, X., Unified Dynamic Shear Moduli and Damping Ratios
of Sand and Clay, Soil and Foundations, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 182-191, 1993.
Mindlin, R.D., Force at a point in the Interior of a Semi-Infinite Solid, Physics 7:
195, 1936.
Poulos, H. G., Pile Group Settlement Estimation Research to Practice, in
Foundation Analysis and Design, Innovative Methods, R. L. Parsons et al.,
(Ed.), ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 153, pp. 1-22, 2006.
Poulos, H. G., and Bunce, G., Foundation Design for the Burj Dubai – The World;s
Tallest Building, Proc. 6th International Conference on Case Histories in
Geotechnical Engineering, Arlington, VA, 2008.
Poulos, H. G. and Davis, E. H. Pile Foundation Analysis and Design, John Wiley
and Sons, New York, 1980.
Reese, L. C. and O’Neill, M. W. , Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and
Design Methods, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Office of Implementation, McLean, VA, 1987.
Reese, L. C., Touma, F. T. and O’Neill, M. W., Behavior of Drilled Piers under
Axial Loading, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE , Vol.
102, No. GT5, pp. 493-510, 1976.
Vucetic, M. and Dobry, R., Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vo. 117,
No. 1, pp. 89-107, 1991
Zou, X. and Zhao, M, Axial Bearing Behavior of Super-Long Piles in Deep Soft
Clay over Stiff Layers, J. Int. South Univ., Central South Univ. Press and
Springer-Verlag, 20: 2008-2016, 2013.
14

Long Bored Pile Design Issues For Very Tall Buildings

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Long Bored Pile Design Issues For Very Tall Buildings

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Latest Development in Civil Engineering (LDCE):

a book is to honor the 80th Birthday of Professor Wiratman Wangsadinata

LONG BORED PILE DESIGN ISSUES FOR VERY

The emergence of large skyscraper projects in Jakarta in recent years, is marked

Table 1. General foundation description of the buildings.

Thamrin Nine Signature Pertamina

Foundation foot print 3,405 m2 7,343 m2 5,724 m2

Zone 1 Low Rise -66 m Stiff Clay

Top of Spire 92m

Figure 2. Signature Tower Jakarta

Ground Level Hard (N-SPT  30)

Figure 3. Pertamina Energy Tower.

2 TESTED PILE PERFORMANCE AT THAMRIN NINE

3 SINGLE PILE LOAD DEFORMATIONS

3.1 End resistance

mm. Considering the additional settlement due to group interaction, such

Thamrin Nine Signature Pertamina

 0.048 0.040 0.048

3.2 Shaft friction resistance

hyperbolic curves were used to establish load deformation relationships. When

Thamrin Nine Signature Pertamina

Pile diameter 1,200 mm 1,200 mm 1,800 mm

Figure 6. Redundant lengths.

In the assessment of the redundant capacity, average mobilized shaft friction

Table 4. Pile redundancy.

Thamrin Nine Signature Pertamina

4 PILE GROUP LOAD DEFORMATIONS

where ρ1 = displacement of single pile under unit load

Table 5. Pile redundant capacity ratio in groups

Thamrin Nine Signature Pertamina

Piles in group 271 631 208

(a) Thamrin Nine Tower

S-ar putea să vă placă și