Piling & Deep Foundations 2010

Geotechnical
I
Investigation
ti ti and d
Design for Piling
Works
Chris Haberfield

1
 Outline

Client Moments
You get what you pay for
Benefits of Doing More
Case Studies
Closing Remarks

2
 Client Moments
Just do a basic investigation the piling contractors can take the risk

A
A primary risk to my project involves the in-ground
in ground construction
construction

Can you guys help us out as we have a problem with our foundations ...
we have a geotechnical report .. but.....?
but.....?

The piling contractor cant install the piles to the design depth in the way
I want them to install them

Geotechnical advice during construction is an expense I dont need

the investigation, analysis and design have all been done I dont need
construction advice

The piling contractor is claiming latent conditions can you help

I must have bored piles on this project, and you cant use bentonite or
polymer to install them
3
 Client Moments

You pay for geotechnical advice/investigation one way or another

I am taking
t ki a conservative
ti approach....so
h I can go cheap
h on my
geotechnical advice/investigation

It
It worked down the road so it will work here
here

I want to spend as little money as I can on the foundations as we never

see them what we cancantt see wont
won t hurt us .... and if it does I can always
go and get decent geotechnical advice/investigation later on

Your
Your proposal for the geotechnical investigation is too expensive I can
get one from Joe for half the price

We
We have to take the cheapest price I know we will pay for it in the end
but that is the policy

With g
geotechnical advice/investigation
g y
you get
g what yyou p
pay
y for
4
 Levels of Geotechnical Input

Ground investigation, analysis, design, construction services...

You gget what yyou p
pay
y for...

Platinum
Gold
Silver
Bronze

5
 You get what you pay for !
Bronze Silver Gold Platinum
Gold+comprehensive
Silver+moreboreholes,
boreholes>toedepthof
boreholes toe depth of insitu and laboratory
insituandlaboratory
Ground someinsitutestingfor
shallowboreholes piles testingformodulus,
modulus,laboratory
Investigation notestingand/orsampling SPTtesting strengthandpermeability,
testingforpermeability,
Indextesting staticpileloadtesting
modulusandstrength

Geotechnical Limitedexperience Experienced Experienced Experienced

Engineer Nonexpert Limitedinexpertise Expert Expert
Design
g
G
Guessed
d G
Generic
i Si
Sitespecific
ifi E h
Enhancedsitespecific
d i ifi
Parameters
Silver+simple
Gold+advanced
Analysis None Empirical theoreticalorbasic
numericalmodelling
numerical modelling
numericalmodelling
Rulesofthumb(overly Empirical,Loadbased, Improved Optimised
Design
conservative) standardindustry Serviceabilitybased Serviceabiltybased
Usuallyoverdesigned Partiallyoptimiseddesign Optimiseddesign
Usuallyoverdesigned
Foundations May be impractical
Maybeimpractical
Safe
Practical to build
Practicaltobuild Practical to build
Practicaltobuild
Maybeunsafe Safe Safe
Risk High Low VeryLow VeryLow
Cost $50k $80k $120k $250k

6
 Implications of Enhanced Geotechnical Input

How does enhanced g

geotechnical input
p help
p you?
y
Relatively small increase in initial cost (as % of total foundation cost)
Potential significant savings in overall foundation costs due to:
i. Improved strength reduction factors (AS2159 2009)
ii. Improved design parameters
iii
iii. Improved estimate of foundation performance (design for
serviceability)
iv. Improved confidence (due to ii and iii and reduced risk) allowing
optimisation
v. Reduced duration for foundation works
Reduction in risk due to improved knowledge

7
Improved Strength Reduction Factors
Piling Code AS2159 2009

8
 Hypothetical Example 1

Simple Geology 30 m compressible soils over weathered rock, high

groundwater
d t table
t bl
50 No. 1.2 m diameter bored piles, no basement
40 m x 40 m in plan
Pile working load of 15 MN

9
Improved Strength Reduction factors
Same Design Parameters

10
Improved Parameters, Analysis and Design

11
 Pile Construction Time
Improved Parameters, Analysis and Design

12
 Hypothetical Example 2

Complex Geology e.g. Two separate flows of basalt of variable

thi k
thickness, quality
lit and d extent
t t separated
t d by
b stiff
tiff soilil over sloping
l i
weathered bedrock surface. Bedrock varies in weathering with depth
and location and is intersected by dykes. High groundwater table.
50 No. 1.2 m diameter bored piles, 3 level basement, diaphragm wall
40 m x 40 m in plan
Pile
Pil working
ki lloadsd ffrom 10 MN tto 50 MN

13
 Example 2 - Risks and Opportunities

Risks Opportunities

Excavation Optimised retention

G
Groundwater/dewatering
d /d i system
Optimised pile lengths
Pile founding levels
e g piles founding at
e.g.
Si ifi- dykest opportunities
Significant
Socket lengths tdifferent
iti levels
for
f in
reducing
Differential foundation
settlement/tilt costs,
basalt/bedrock
Longer piles
construction time and riskfooting
Alternative
Construction difficulties systems
Delays Shorter construction time
Latent conditions
14
Case Studies

15
 Case Study 1 Royal Domain Towers, Melbourne
0

EW-MW siltstone from GARSP - as

5
surface
f - deep
d constructed
t t d

weathering
EW - MW
dykes 10
Siltstone/Sandstone

~ 85 piles
Gold level investigation provided significant
Traditional
Depth (m)

0.75 m to 1.5 m dia 15 approach

serviceability
i d cost and time savings to project
bilit lloads
5 MN to 15 MN
20
Benefits - savings
design pile head Saving of 9.5 m 950 m socket length
settlement
ttl t : 1 % dia
di 950 m3 concretet
25 1400 m3 spoil
$$ + 42 days
Additional Cost for
1.2 m dia. pile, SL=
SL 15.3 MN
30 P
Pressuremetert testing,
t ti UCS
testing, analysis
on-site presence
 Case Study 2 Freshwater Place, Melbourne

1.2 m diameter pile, serviceability load = 27 MN

30 m overburden over 30

HW MW siltstone
HW-MW ilt t
(variable)
35 GARSP - as
70 x 1.2 m dia. Piles constructed
( l others)
(plus th )

Gold level investigation provided significant

serviceability loads 40
HW - SW
17 MN to 30 MN Siltstone /
cost and time savings to project
Benefits - savings
Sandstone
900 m socket length
Depth (m)

design top of socket

45
settlement : 1 % dia Traditional 1000 m3 concrete
approach Saving of up to 17 m
1500 m3 spoil
FE analysis
l i $$ + 40 days
50
Additional Cost for
Pressuremeter testing, UCS
testing analysis,
testing, analysis +$20k
55
on-site presence

60
 Case Study 3 SU Building, Melbourne

Multi storey building

Subsurface stratigraphy
g p y weathered siltstone
Recommended Gold level geotechnical investigation. Client wanted
only to pay for silver (for about $20 k less)
Sil
Silver carried
i d out,
t ffootings
ti d
designed
i d accordingly
di l
Piling contractor engaged on lump sum price design and construct
Golder novated to piling contractor
Piling contractor requested additional geotech Gold
Footings redesigned significant savings to piling contractor (>>$20k)
Original client unhappy !!!!!

The piling contractor saw the benefits of a Gold

level investigation and reaped the benefits
Case Study 4 - Eureka Tower, Melbourne

19
Case Study 5 - Eureka Tower, Melbourne
 Inferred Stratigraphy Section AA

Upper basalt

Lower basalt

Siltstone
 Inferred Stratigraphy Section BB

Upper basalt

25m

Lower basalt
35 m

Siltstone
 Limits of basalt

Upper Basalt

L
Lower B
Basalt
lt
 CFA and Bored Pile solution

Gold level investigation provided significant

g to p
cost and time savings project
j and managedg
the risks of complex ground conditions
 Case Study 6 Residential Building, Melbourne

40 level building, small site

Subsurface stratigraphy
g p y weathered siltstone shallow footings/raft
g
Recommended Gold level geotechnical investigation.
Silver (by others) carried out (for $30 k less), piled footings
recommended d d nott practical
ti l ffor this
thi site.
it
Original Gold investigation carried out to estimate deformation
p p
properties
Raft footing proposed and built

Silver investigation provided impractical

solution. Gold pprovided p
practical footing
g
solution at reduced cost and construction time.
 Case Study 5 Esplanade, Darwin

Case Study
Darwin
Deeply weathered
phyllite
Bored piles

The original Silver level investigation did not

Difficult to sample
UCS not possible
identify the risks.
Is < 0.05 MPa
(50)
risks Gold level investigation
identified the risks and resulted in significant
Pressuremeter
testing unsuccessful
Slakes
foundation cost and construction time savings
PDA testing allowed
modulus estimate
Analysis
Founded on shallow
f i
footings
 Case Study 6 Oracle Towers, Gold Coast

Two x 40 level towers

Stratigraphy 25 m sand, 8 m
clay, 4 m gravel, hard rock
Original design bored piles
The original
Th i i l Sil
Silver llevell iinvestigation
socketed into rock. Piled raft ti ti was nott
sufficient for alternative design options. Gold
considered but discounted.
No bored piling rigs available

level investigation allowed

Delay to project start
alternative footing
options to be considered and resulted in
Further borehole test clay
significant foundation cost and construction
Piled raft using CFA piles
Reduction in piling costs and
construction timetime savings

27
 Case Study 6 Nakheel Tower, Dubai

> 1km high tower

Mass > 2,000,000
, , tonnes
90 m diameter
20 m deep basement, 120 m diameter
High saline groundwater
Soft calcareous rock to 200 m
Worlds Tallest Towers
 Platinum Level Investigation

Initial investigation
Boreholes to 60 m,, one borehole to 120 m
lower standard of drilling, laboratory testing only (disturbed samples)
Preliminary recommendations piles possibly in excess of 120 m
d th (t
depth (to lilimit
it settlements)
ttl t )
Settlement estimate of about 500 mm risk of tilt
Subsequent
q Investigation
g
The Pl
Th Platinum
ti llevell iinvestigation
ti ti
Boreholes to 300 m, triple tube coring
Extensive laboratory testing for strength, stiffness and constitutive
gave everyone the confidence that
behaviour
this could be done
Extensive insitu testing including pressuremeter, crosshole seismic,
full scale pile load tests and construction trials
Extensive 3D finite element analysisy p
plus others
Settlement estimate of about 80 mm
Basement retention no anchors

30
 Footing Layout

Barrette toe levels

-55 m DMD
-60 m DMD
-79 m DMD

Barrette sizes
1.5
15mx2
2.8
8m
1.2m x 2.8 m

Raft thicknesses
2.5 m
4.0 m
6.0 m to 8.0 m
 Case Study 7 Basement

2 level basement in alluvium on

beach
Tertiary clay at about 12 m depth
Potential buried channels
S
Secant t piles
il tto extend
t d minimum
i i
The original Silver level investigation identified
3 m into tertiary clay
risks but insufficient for design
Additional investigation
g design. Construction
recommended to confirm depth
difficulties with increased cost and time followed.
to tertiary clay not done
Penetration to be confirmed
during CFA piling
Not done - not all piles
penetrated to tertiary clay
Construction issues
32
 Concluding Comments

Numerous examples of the value of better geotechnical investigations

But ... Our clients continue to accept
p lower cost investigations
g
The market is competitive you are not being ripped off.
Dont take bids for geotechnical advice based on price look what they
offer.
ff If a price
i iis hi
higher
h there
th are probably
b bl geotechnical
t h i l risks
i k th
the
others have not forseen or there is opportunity for significant savings
on foundations.
Be open minded - foundation solution, pile type or installation technique.
Some piling methods can be impractical for some ground conditions.

You get what you pay for

You p
pay
y for the ground
g investigation
g sooner or later

Thank you
33