2.0 2.

Design calculations Design of shallow foundation

Meyerhoffs Bearing Capacity

Formula that is using,

qu = C.Nc.Fcs.Fcd.Fci + q.Nq.Fqs.Fqd.Fqi + ..B.N.Fs.Fd.Fi

Assuming that the foundation is square footing (BxB) When = 0,

Nc = 5.14

Nq = 1 N=0 Shape Factor Fcs =

1+ B Nq . = 1 + (0.19) = 1.19 L Nc

Fqs =
1+ B tan = 1 L

Depth Factor (if Df / B 1) Fcd =

1 + 0.4 Df 3 1.2 = 1 + 0.4( ) = 1 + B B B

Fqd =
1 + 2 tan (1 sin ) 2 ( Df 3 ) = 1 + 2 tan 0(1 sin 0) 2 ( ) = 1 B B

Inclination Factor Fci = Fqi =

(1

2 ) = (1 0) 2 = 1 90

Therefore, qu = 10(5.14)(1.19)(1+1.2/B)(1)+ 1.05 (1 + (0.26/B) 1 [13.63x0.2 + 2.8(16.09-9.81)](1) (1)(1)(1) = 61.166 +(73.4 /B) + 20.31

= 81.476 + (73.4 /B) q = Df = [13.63x0.2 + 2.8(16.09-9.81)] = 20.31 kN/m2

q(net)all = (qu q)/Fs = (81.476 + (73.4 /B) - 20.31) / 3 = 20.39 + (24.47 /B) Q(net)all = q(net)all x B2 3000 = [20.39 + (24.47 /B)]B2 [20.39 + (24.47 /B)]B2 3000 = 0

B = 11.54 m

Use B =12m

Check assumption and depth factor

Df / B = 3 / 11.54 = 0.26 < 1 (adequate) Since that the value of Df / B is less than 1. Therefore the assumption that we make for the calculation design part is correct.

Check Contact Pressure

qmax

= Q/ BL (1 6e / B) where e = 0 = (3000/122) = 20.83 kN/m2

q(net)all = 20.39 + (24.47/12) = 22.43 kN/m2 Conclusion for Shallow Foundation Design Q(net)all is smaller than Q(net)all, and qmax is larger than the allowable stress, hence, using shallow foundation is not adequate. Besides that, it is not economical if using value of width, 12m to design the shallow foundation. Using Pile foundation would be a more appropriate approach.

2.2

Pile Foundation Design (RC Pile)

Given Value: Minimum total compression load, Q = 500 kN Maximum total compression load, Q = 3000 kN Assumptions: 0.35 m 0.35 m

Using diameter of rc pile, dpile = 0.35m pre-cast pile with unit weight 24 kN/m Distance from edge of foundation to outer pile is 1000mm Spacing between pile Factor of safety, FS Height of pile cap = 2m =3 = 1m

Solution: Capacity of one pile, Qu = Qb + Qs

End Bearing For Clay, =0

Average Cu in stiff clay = (52+57)2 = 54.5 kPa End bearing, Qb = cNc x Ab = 9(54.5)(0.35)2 = 60.09 kN

Skin Friction For Cu 50 kPa =1 For Cu > 50 kPa Refer to Figure 8.19 in Appendix Qs = p(L)f where f = Cu

For depth, 0-1.5m

Qs1

= p(L)f = (4 x 0.35)(1.5)(1 x 10) = 21 kN

For depth, 1.5-1.7m

Qs2

= p(L)f = (4 x 0.35)(0.2)(1 x 10) = 2.80 kN

For depth, 1.7-5.2m

Qs3

= p(L)f = (4 x 0.35)(3.5)(1 x 10) = 49 kN

For depth, 5.2-6.7m

Qs4

= p(L)f = (4 x 0.35)(1.5)(1 x 10) = 21 kN

For depth, 6.7-16.7m

Qs5

= p(L)f = (4 x 0.35)(10)(1 x 12) = 168 kN

For depth, 16.7-25.7m

Cu avg = 27+292 = 28 kPa Qs6 = p(L)f = (4 x 0.35)(9)(1 x 28) = 352.8 kN

For depth, 25.7-28m

Cu avg = 52+572 = 54.5 kPa

From Figure 8.19,

= 0.8 Qs7 = p(L)f = (4 x 0.35)(2.3)(0.8 x 54.5) = 140.39 kN

Total skin friction, Qs = 49+ 21+ 168 + 352.8 + 140.39 21 2.8 = 707.39 kN Ultimate Capacity Qu = Qb + Qs = (60.09 + 707.39) kN = 767.48 kN Bearing capacity allowable Qall = QuFS = 767.48 3 = 255.83 kN Minimum Total Compression Load, Qload = 500kN Design number of piles (preliminary design) No. of pile required, N = QloadQall

= 500255.83
= 1.95 piles 4 piles (for safety purpose)

By using the area, A Weight of pile cap, Q (conc)

= 4m x 4m = 24 x 16 x 1 = 384 kN

Total,

Qload

= 500 + 384 = 884 kN

Design number of piles (real design) No. of pile required, N = QloadQall

= 884255.83
= 3.46 piles 4 piles (for safety purpose)

Settlement for using pile foundation:

Se

= (QgLgBg)(BgI2qc) where Qg = the load on pile cap Lg = length of the pile group Bg = width of pile group I = influence factor qc = average cone penetration resistance

Is

= 2 + 0.35 LB where L = length of embedment pile B = smallest dimension of the pile

Is

= 2 + 0.35 280.35 = 5.13

I-LBg = 5.13 - 284

= - 1.87 < 0.5 (Need to increase the number of piles)

Maximum Total Compression Load, Qload = 3000kN Design number of piles (preliminary design) No. of pile required, N = QloadQall = 3000255.83 = 11.72 piles 12 piles (for safety purpose)

By using the area, A Weight of pile cap, Q (conc)

= 8m x 6m = 48m2 = 24 x 48 x 1 = 1152 kN

Total,

Qload

= 3000 + 1152 = 4152 kN

Design number of piles (real design) No. of pile required, N = QloadQall = 4152255.83 = 16.23 piles 17 piles (for safety purpose)

Settlement for using pile foundation: Immediate settlement: Se = (QgLgBg)(BgI2qc)

Is

= 2 + 0.35 LB

= 2 + 0.35 280.35
= 5.13
I-LBg = 5.13 - 2810

= 2.33 > 0.5 (OK!)

Cu = qc- oNk, assume Nk = 20

= (13.63 x 0.2) + [(16.09 9.81)(1.5)] + [(16.09 9.81)(3.5)] + [(16.52 9.81)(1.5)] + [(19.30 9.81)(10)] + [(20.46 9.81)(9)] + [(21.46 9.81)(2.3)] = 261.74 kN/m2

Therefore, Cu = qc- oNk 54.5 = qc- 261.7420 qc = 1351.74 kN/m2 Substitute all values into the settlement equation, Settlement, Se = 300010 x 10 x (10 x 5.13)(2 x 1351.74) = 0.57 mm < 50mm (OK !) To calculate the load carried by each pile for the pile groups as shown above.

Q=VNMxx x2Myyy2

Since that value x and y = 0 therefore the equation just left Q=VN for each pile.

Q = 300017 = 176.47 kN which means that each pile will carry 176.47 kN.

The pile design is able to sustain 255.83 kN. Therefore, this pile group design is suitable for this construction.

2.3

Pile Foundation Design (Spun Pile)

Given Value: Minimum total compression load, Q = 500 kN Maximum total compression load, Q = 3000 kN Assumptions: Using spun pile of unit weight 24 kN/m of: Outer diameter, D = 0.35m Wall thickness = 0.07m, therefore, inner diameter, d = 0.21m 0.35m

Distance from edge of foundation to outer pile is 1000mm Spacing between pile Factor of safety, FS Height of pile cap = 2m =3 = 1m

Solution:

Capacity of one pile, Qu = Qb + Qs

End Bearing For Clay, =0

Average Cu in stiff clay = (52+57)2 = 54.5 kPa End bearing area, Ab = D42- d24 = x 0.3542- x 0.2142 = 0.0616m2 End bearing, Qb = cNc x Ab = 9(54.5)(0.0616) = 30.20kN

Skin Friction For Cu < 50 kPa =1 For Cu > 50 kPa Refer to Figure 8.19 in Appendix Qs = p(L)f where f = Cu

For depth, 0-1.5m

Qs1

= p(L)f = ( x 0.35)(1.5)(1 x 10) = 16.49 kN

For depth, 1.5-1.7m

Qs2

= p(L)f = ( x 0.35)(0.2)(1 x 10) = 2.20 kN

For depth, 1.7-5.2m

Qs3

= p(L)f = ( x 0.35)(3.5)(1 x 10) = 38.48 kN

For depth, 5.2-6.7m

Qs4

= p(L)f = ( x 0.35)(1.5)(1 x 10) = 16.49 kN

For depth, 6.7-16.7m

Qs5

= p(L)f = ( x 0.35)(10)(1 x 12) = 131.95 kN

For depth, 16.7-25.7m

Cu avg = 27+292 = 28 kPa Qs6 = p(L)f = ( x 0.35)(9)(1 x 28) = 277.09 kN

For depth, 25.7-28m

Cu avg = 52+572 = 54.5 kPa

From Figure 8.19,

= 0.8 Qs7 = p(L)f = ( x 0.35)(2,3)(0.8 x 54.5) = 110.26 kN

Total skin friction, Qs = 38.48 + 16.49 + 131.95 + 277.09 + 110.26 16.49 2.20 = 555.58 kN

Ultimate Capacity Qu = Qb + Qs = (30.20+ 555.58) kN = 585.78 kN Bearing capacity allowable Qall = QuFS = 585.78 3 = 195.26 kN

Minimum Total Compression Load, Qload = 500kN Design number of piles (preliminary design) No. of pile required, N = QloadQall = 500195.26 = 2.56 piles 4 piles (for safety purpose)

By using the area, A Weight of pile cap, Q (conc)

= 4m x 4m = 24 x 16 x 1 = 384 kN

Total,

Qload

= 500 + 384 = 884 kN

Design number of piles (real design) No. of pile required, N = QloadQall = 884195.26 = 4.53 piles 5 piles (for safety purpose)

Settlement for using pile foundation: Immediate settlement:

Se

= (QgLgBg)(BgI2qc) Lg = length of the pile group Bg = width of pile group I = influence factor qc = average cone penetration resistance

where Qg = the load on pile cap

Is

= 2 + 0.35 LB where L = length of embedment pile B = smallest dimension of the pile Is = 2 + 0.35 280.35 = 5.13

I-LBg = 5.13 - 286

= 0.46 < 0.5 (Need to increase the number of piles)

Maximum Total Compression Load, Qload = 3000kN Design number of piles (preliminary design) No. of pile required, N = QloadQall = 3000195.26 = 15.36 piles 16 piles (for safety purpose)

By using the area, A Weight of pile cap, Q (conc)

= 8m x 8m = 24 x 64 x 1 = 1536 kN

Total,

Qload

= 3000 + 1536 = 4536 kN

Design number of piles (real design) No. of pile required, N = QloadQall = 4536195.26 = 23.23 piles 24 piles

Settlement for using pile foundation:

Immediate settlement: Se Is = (QgLgBg)(BgI2qc) = 2 + 0.35 LB

= 2 + 0.35 280.35
= 5.13
I-LBg = 5.13 - 288

= 1.63 > 0.5 (OK !)

Cu = qc- oNk, assume Nk = 20

= (13.63 x 0.2) + [(16.09 9.81)(1.5)] + [(16.09 9.81)(3.5)] + [(16.52 9.81)(1.5)] + [(19.30 9.81)(10)] + [(20.46 9.81)(9)] + [(21.46 9.81)(2.3)] = 261.74 kN/m2

Therefore, Cu = qc- oNk 54.5 = qc- 261.7420 qc = 1351.74 kN/m2 Substitute all values into the settlement equation, Settlement, Se = 30008 x 12 x (8 x 5.13)(2 x 1351.74) = 0.47 mm < 50mm (OK !) To calculate the load carried by each pile for the pile groups as shown above.

Q=VNMxx x2Myyy2

Since that value x and y = 0 therefore the equation just left Q=VN for each pile.

Q = 300024 = 125 kN which means that each pile will carry 125 kN. The pile design is able to sustain 195.26 kN. Therefore, this pile group design is suitable for this construction.

3.0

Discussion To evaluate which pile is more economical, different types of pile were used in

the pile foundation design. In this project, RC pile and Spun pile are selected for comparison. The results from the calculations are shown in the table below: Compression load (kN) Type RC pile (350 x 350 mm) Spun pile (350 mm) 4 5 17 24 500 3000

From the table above, it is clearly seen that spun pile requires more piles to sustain the same load. Although the diameter for both piles are the same, RC pile with a square size will have a greater surface area and end bearing area compares to round spun pile. Hence, RC pile can sustain greater load. However, the cost for the spun pile is generally lower than RC pile. Therefore, the other factors should be included for getting the most cost effective pile. These factors are shown in the table below: Type Dimension (mm) RC pile Spun pile 350 x 350 350 Length (m/pile) 6 6 Price of material ($/m) 48 31.75

The table above shows that the price for spun pile is much lower than RC pile per meter. Each pile length have six meter length and pile design for 28 meter depth, so there are five numbers of pile required for one single pile. Compression load of 500kN RC pile: 4 x 48 x (6 x 5) = RM 5760

Spun pile:

5 x 31.75 x (6 x 5) = RM 4762.50

Type

Dimension (mm)

Length (m/pile) 6

Quantity of pile

Calculated depth of pile work

Wastage (m)

Wastage (RM)

RC pile Spun pile

350 x 350

28

384

350

28

10

315

From the table shown above, we can initially make a conclusion that using RC pile is more costly if compared to Spun pile. Although the number of RC pile required is less than spun pile, but total amount calculated that need to purchase is higher than Spun pile. By using spun pile, we can save up the cost up to RM 997.50. Besides, the wastage of RC pile and spun pile showing that the wastage in RC pile is more costly compared to spun pile. Therefore, the more economical pile type can be concluded is Spun pile.

Compression load of 3000kN RC pile: Spun pile: 17 x 48 x (6 x 5) = RM 24480 24 x 31.75 x (6 x 5) = RM 22860

Type

Dimension (mm)

Length (m/pile)

Quantity of pile

Calculated depth of pile work

Wastage (m)

Wastage (RM)

RC pile Spun pile

350 x 350

17

28

34

1632

350

24

28

48

1512

From the table shown above, we can initially make a conclusion that using RC pile is more costly if compared to Spun pile. Although the number of RC pile required is less than spun pile, but total amount calculated that need to purchase is higher than Spun pile. By using spun pile, we can save up the cost of material purchasing in foundation design. Besides, the wastage of RC pile and spun pile showing that the wastage in RC pile is more wasting compared to spun pile. Therefore, the more economical pile type can be concluded is Spun pile.

4.0

Conclusion In foundation design, there are shallow foundation and pile foundation. However,

shallow foundation is not suitable for soil surface which are too soft and cannot sustain the load from the building. When shallow foundation failed, pile foundation design need to be carried on. In designing pile foundation, there are different types of pile exist in Malaysia. Different types of pile are particularly for different condition of foundation. In this report, there are two types of pile are being compared. From the discussion, Spun pile can be concluded that is more economical compared to RC pile. However, spun pile are more wasting of spaces as the number of pile required is higher that RC pile. Lastly, Spun pile cut down the cost of material purchasing compared to RC pile. Therefore, it is more economical compared to RC pile.