technical Paper

Effect of support fluids on

pile performance – a field
trial in east London
Carlos Lam (University of Oxford), Viv Troughton (formerly
Balfour Beatty Ground Engineering), Stephan Jefferis (University
of Oxford and Environmental Geotechnics), and
Tony Suckling (Balfour Beatty Ground Engineering)

S
ynthetic polymer support fluids
have been used in the UK for
about a decade, although
naturally derived polymers such as
xanthan gum have been used for
much longer. Very little research
has been carried out to assess the
effects of polymer fluids and espe-
cially synthetic polymers on pile
performance.
A field trial comprising the
construction and testing of three
piles has been carried out at
Stratford in east London. The
objectives of the trial were to
compare the effects of polymer and
bentonite support fluids on pile
performance, to assess the effect of
extended bore open time for the
polymer piles, and to quantify the
effect of support fluid contamination
on the hardened properties of
concrete.
It was found that the two polymer
piles significantly outperformed the
bentonite pile under the maximum
proof load, and that no adverse
effect was caused by the extended
soil-fluid exposure time in the
polymer-supported bore. The two
support fluids were also found to
in environmentally sensitive areas
and on urban sites with only limited
space for plant (Ground
Engineering, May 2001 and
December 2004).
At BBGE, polymers have become
the preferred choice of excavation
support fluid for their many benefits
such as a smaller site footprint, ease
of mixing and their ability to
stabilise a wide range of soils
(Lennon et al 2006).
However, despite more than a
decade of use, many engineers are
still unsure about the performance
of these fluids and their impact on
foundation performance, mainly
due to the very different properties
of polymers as compared with
bentonite and the lack of
documented case histories.
Importantly there is a lack of
industry guidance such as
specifications. When considering the
use of polymer fluids for pile design
Reaction frame
Ø1.2m test pile
+5.5 mOD
and construction, some of the to specifically answer these
frequently voiced concerns include: questions.
n the difference in load-settlement To shed light on some of these
characteristics between piles issues, in particular load-settlement
constructed under polymers and characteristics, effect of pile bore
bentonites; open time, and hardened concrete
n whether a polymer-supported quality, this technical note presents
bore can be open for an extended the initial results of a full-scale pile
period (eg >12 hours) without test programme carried out at a site
compromising the performance of in east London using both polymer
the completed pile; and bentonite fluids.
n the effect of polymer fluids on the
quality of hardened concrete; Ground conditions
n the amount of sediment collecting The test site is located at 0.5km
at base of pile; south-east of the Stratford
n rebar-concrete bond strength; International station box in east
n monitoring and control measures London. It sits on the surrounding
for specific polymers. land that was raised by about 7m
Although early UK experience using the excavated materials from
with synthetic polymers found a the CTRL tunnel and the box
number of beneficial effects on the construction (Dyson and Blight,
construction and the performance of 2007).
foundation elements (European Exploratory boreholes drilled at
Foundations, Summer 2003), so far the test location confirmed a thick
little research has been carried out layer of made ground/land raise
Position of Ø1.26m
temporary casing
SPT N (uncorrected)
Ø1.05m reaction pile
(blows/300mm)
(out of plane)
0 25 50 75 100
0
Depth (m, below ground)

Made Ground
have similar effects on concrete +2.5 mOD

quality. Perched water table

-1 mOD in shallow aquifer 5

Synthetic polymer fluids Woolwich & Reading

Formations
Synthetic polymer support fluids (Lambeth Group) 10
can be used as replacements for -8 mOD
bentonite slurry for the construction Upnor Formation 15 Idealised
of bored piles and diaphragm walls. (Lambeth Group) profile
The technology was developed -14 mOD
in the US in the early 1990s Thanet Sand 20
and introduced to the UK by -18 mOD
Stent Foundations (now Balfour
25
Beatty Ground Engineering – -21.5 mOD

BBGE) for a piling project in central

Glasgow in 1999.
Since then synthetic polymers
have been used successfully in other
parts of the country, and they are
gradually gaining popularity as an
alternative to bentonite, especially
-25 mOD
30
-28 mOD
Approx. groundwater table in deep
aquifer after drawdown at Stratford box
Set of four ‘sister bar’ strain gauges
Retrievable extensometers
Figure 1: schematic arrangement of the test and reaction piles and ground conditions

28 ground engineering October 2010

Figure 2: Twin-flight auger immediately after extraction from a
polymer-supported bore
from +5.5 to -1mOD, which was
underlain by the Lambeth Group
from -1 to -14mOD and then the
Thanet Sand to at least -28mOD.
The Lambeth group can be
subdivided into the Woolwich and
Reading Formations (sandy clay
with shell fragments) between -1
and -8mOD and the Upnor
Formation (slightly gravelly sandy
clay) between -8 and -14mOD.
The SPT N values for the
Woolwich and Reading Formations
can be approximated to increase
linearly from 15 blows/300mm at
the top to 44 blows/300mm at the
bottom. The blow counts increase
further in the underlying Upnor
Formation from 44 blows/300mm
at the top to 52 blows/300mm at the
bottom of the layer. For the Thanet
Sand, the N values consistently
exceed 100 blows/300mm.
The ground water conditions
have been modified by the
construction of the Stratford box.
As a result of the permanent
groundwater control that was put in
place to reduce the uplift force on
the structure (Whitaker, 2004), the
water table in the lower aquifer was
lowered to between -20 and
-27mOD in the vicinity of the box;
standing at approximately -25mOD
at the pile test location.
Test programme and
arrangement
Three bored piles with nominal
diameters of 1.2m and embedded
lengths of 27m were installed at the
test location. The piles were spaced
at 6m centres and were founded in
the Thanet Sand at -21.5mOD,
ground engineering October 2010 29
which is several metres above the
current ground water table. To
assess the effects of different support
fluids on concrete, the first pile was
dug under a conventional bentonite
slurry to serve as a benchmark,
while the other two were dug under
a synthetic polymer fluid with the
two bores kept open for different
times. Eight continuous-flight auger
piles of 1.05m diameter were also
installed to -18mOD to provide the
reaction for the load tests.
Figure 1 (left) shows the
schematic arrangement of the test
and reaction piles together with the
ground conditions as described
earlier. After a minimum of 25 days
from construction, the bored piles
were tested by the maintained load Figure 3: Vented digging bucket immediately after extraction from
method according to the ICE a polymer-supported bore
Specification for Piling and
Embedded Retaining Wall key information for the three test to near the base of the Lambeth
(Institution of Civil Engineers, piles. Group before flooding the pile bore
2007). To allow a proper interpretation with support fluid. The actual depth
As mentioned above, in addition of the test results, construction at which the fluid was introduced
to the assessment of pile details that are of particular depended on the stability of the
performance, an investigation of the importance but dependent on the bores, but for the three test piles the
effects of the different support fluids site conditions or the contractor’s depth was about 17m (-11.5mOD)
on concrete quality was also experience are described below. and thus 2.5m above the Thanet
included in the test programme. These include the excavation and Sand.
During casting of the bentonite pile base-cleaning procedures, properties Excavation under the support
(B1) and the second polymer pile of the support fluids, and the fluid was with a twin-flight auger or
(P2), 100mm cubes were prepared concreting records. a vented digging bucket; both tools
from concrete from the chutes of the allowed drainage of the fluid back to
delivery trucks and from the top of Excavation and base- the hole during tool extraction, thus
the pile which was the interface cleaning procedures preventing suction being developed
between the fresh concrete and the Excavation for the three test piles in the fluid column. Figures 2 and 3
support fluid. The cubes were tested generally followed BBGE standard show the auger and the digging
for compressive strength at seven, 10 procedures for that area. The initial bucket immediately after extraction
and 28 days and for elastic modulus steps included inserting a steel from a polymer-supported bore.
at 28 days according to BS EN casing through the made ground After excavation down to the final
12390-3:2002 and BS 1881- down to the top of the underlying toe depth, cleanliness of the base
121:1983. Table 1 summarises the clay layer, then excavating dry down was checked by lowering a
technical note
100mm x 100mm x 20mm metal
plate on a tape measure to the
bottom of the pile bore. The impact
as felt by the site engineer as the
plate hit the pile base was given a
grade from 1 to 5 using the grading
scale reported by Berry (2009).
All the three test piles received grade
3, meaning detection of a distinct
base with slight embedding of the
weight into the soil. This confirmed
a similar base quality for the three
test piles.
Fluid properties
The properties of the support
fluid can heavily influence the
conditions of the excavation and
the performance of the completed
foundation element. Effects range
from poor excavation stability
to reduced integrity of the concrete.
Table 1 gives details of the support
fluid materials, dosage, fluid-soil
exposure time, and the control
test results for both fresh and used
fluids.
It can be seen that the fluid
properties (Marsh funnel viscosity,
density, pH, and sand content) of
the polymer fluid were very different
to those of the bentonite. However,
for the two polymer piles there were
only slight differences in the fluid
properties and these were due to the
different times that the fluids had
been in the pile bores. As the sand
content of the used bentonite fluid
exceeded the specified limit of 4%
(Federation of Piling Specialists,
2006), it was exchanged for a fresh
bentonite fluid before concreting to
prevent accumulation of soft
sediments at the pile base.
Concreting
Following standard bored piling
practice, self-compacting concrete
(class C28/35 20mm CIIB-V S4
Table 1: Support fluid properties
Fluid details and exposure time
Total fluid-soil
Pile Name and
Dosage
number supplier
Berkbent
163
B1 40kg/m3
(Steetley
Bentonite)
1.0kg/m3
P1 for CDP
SlurryPro 0.08kg/
CDP m3 for LA-1
(KB Intl) and 10L
P2 of 1% MPA
solution
a
Test results are given in this format: fresh fluid from tank/used fluid from middle of bore/used fluid from bottom of bore
b
Results in brackets are sand contents at bottom of pile bores before addition of additive MPA
30 ground engineering October
DC-3) was discharged into the pile
bores through a tremie pipe, with its CL Equivalent pile radii (m)
tip kept below the rising concrete
0 0.55 0.575 0.60 0.625 0.65
level at all times. Initially, the tremie
pipe was rested on the base while 0
Depth (m, b.g.l.)
filled with concrete and then slightly Made Ground
Temporary
lifted to provide a surge effect. This casing position
allowed a high initial discharge rate
of about 1.2m3/min to be achieved
so that any sediment accumulated at P1
the base could be flushed aside. A
lower discharge rate of around P2 Theoretical dimension
0.5m3/min was used thereafter. 5
The successive rises in concrete
level were measured after every
truck load of concrete was Woolwich & Reading
B1 Formations
discharged. This information has (Lambeth Group)
been converted to the equivalent
radius along the pile length as
shown in Figure 4. 10
It is interesting to see from the
figure that the profiles of the three
piles are actually quite similar,
suggesting comparable conditions
of the pile bores before concreting.
This finding is consistent with the Upnor Formation
(Lambeth Group)
results of Ata and O’Neill (1998): 15
the sidewall profiles of their
polymer-supported shafts remained
almost the same for up to 19 hours.
However, the actual values of the
inferred radii should be considered
with caution as there are many
factors that can affect their accuracy
20 Thanet Sand
including slight variations in
concrete volume between deliveries,
material wastage, etc.
Results and discussions
Hardened concrete properties
Figure 5 gives the test results of the Figure 4: Equivalent pile radius from concreting records
concrete cubes prepared during
construction of bentonite pile B1 was clearly affected when compared the elastic modulus. These effects
and polymer pile P2, showing their with the strength of samples taken are likely to be due the intermixing
strength development curves and from the chute of the delivery truck. of fresh concrete and support fluid
the elastic modulus values at 28 The overall strength reduction at their interface during placing, but
days. As can be seen, the strength at was 26% and 29% for bentonites seem to have little correlation with
the top of the concrete column, ie and polymers respectively. A similar the support fluid type.
the concrete-support fluid interface, degree of reduction is also seen for This finding corresponds with the
conclusion of Jefferis and
Mavroulidou (2003) that polymer
fluids have little effect on fresh
Fluid test resultsa concrete mixes, except to increase
their workability and therefore
Marsh reduce their strength in proportion
Hours in hole Sand
funnel Density to the volume of liquid added.
exposure at time of content pH (-)
viscosity (g/cm3) It is important to note that the
time (h) fluid tests (h) (%)
(s) comparison shown in Figure 5 only
applies to the concrete which has
1.02/ 10.5/ been subject to exposure to support
7.5 3 34/40/41 1.10/ 0/6.8/10 10.3/ fluid during casting, and certainly
1.15 10.3 does not represent the concrete
conditions of the whole pile. Indeed,
1.00/ 11.2/ to minimise the amount of
0/0.2/0.2
7.5 5 70/56/56 1.02/ 11.2/ contaminated concrete in the test
(1.3)b
1.03 11.2 piles, during casting the concrete
near the top of the pile was removed
1.00/ 11.0/ by overflowing fresh concrete via
0/0.1/0.1
26 23 69/50/50 1.02/ 11.0/ the tremie pipe – a standard practice
(1.4)b
1.02 11.0 in the UK.
However, due to the complex
flow behaviour of fresh concrete in
pile bores, some contaminated
concrete is still expected to be
2010
 60
Mean compressive cube strength, fcm (MPa)

Chute of delivery truck Applied load (MN)

Elastic modulus
Bentonite pile Ec (GPa) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Polymer pile 0

Pile head settlement (mm)

29.25
50 Top of concrete column
27.75
Bentonite pile 10
Polymer pile

100% DVL + 100% SWL (18.1 MN)

21.75
40 20
21.25

30
30

100% DVL (9.1MN)

Trend line 40

B1 (7.5h)
20 50
0 7 14 21 28 35 P1 (7.5h)
P2 (26h)
Age at test, t (days) 60
Figure 5: Test results of the concrete cubes prepared during
construction of bentonite pile B1 and polymer pile P2 Figure 6: Load-settlement curves for the test piles

present in places away from the than pile P1. This means that the on the three test piles showed can offer over the conventional
tremie pipe, for example at the pile- polymer fluid was able to maintain similar load-settlement response up bentonite slurry. More importantly,
soil interface. the condition of the pile bore for to a moderate load level (100% it is hoped that the results will help
much longer than might have been DVL), but showed much smaller speed up the development of a new
Load-settlement response anticipated, possibly for the same settlements for the two polymer guidance concerning polymer-
Figure 6 shows the load-settlement reasons that the two polymer piles piles under proof load supported excavation work, so that
curves for the test piles. The outperform their bentonite (100% DVL + 100 % SWL). engineers and clients can take full
settlements at each loading stage counterpart. Comparable performance was seen advantage of the synthetic polymer
have been projected to infinite time for the two polymer piles with system for the benefit of the society.
to remove the time-dependent Conclusions different soil-fluid exposure times
effects of creep and consolidation. It The concrete cube test results suggesting that there was little Acknowledgements
can be seen that at 9.1MN (100% of indicate that both bentonite and the change in the pile bore condition The authors would like to thank
the Design Verification Load, DVL) polymer fluids, if allowed to mix over the extended period. The Dave Ritchie, Stephen Chambers,
there was very little difference in the with concrete, have a similar overall results show that the benefits of Blair Woodward and other BBGE
performance of the three piles. degree of impact on compressive polymer fluids are not limited to the staff for carrying out the field trial.
However, under the proof load strength and elastic modulus. The commonly quoted environmental Thanks are also due to Chris Barker
of 18.1MN (100% DVL + 100% of effects are thought to be due to the and operational factors, but also of Arup Geotechnics for
the Specified Working Load, SWL) increased amount of liquid in the include better load-settlement commenting on the first draft. The
the two polymer piles showed mix rather than adverse chemical behaviour and longer excavation authors also would like to thank Dr
much stiffer response than the reactions. Fuller laboratory-based open time without compromising Chris Martin, Dr Peter Martin and
bentonite pile, with the head research on this would be useful as the performance of the foundation. Gif Goodhue for their participation
settlements of piles B1, P1 and P2 accurate assessment of the degree of It is hoped that the findings in the ongoing polymer research
being 51mm, 29mm, and 24mm intermixing was not possible in a presented in this technical note will project at the University of
respectively. This finding confirms field trial. make engineers more aware of the Oxford; EPSRC grant
that polymer fluids can give better Maintained load tests carried out many benefits that polymer fluid reference no. EP/C537815/1.
overall pile performance especially
at higher loads. References
One of the contributing factors
for this improvement is possibly the Ata, A A and O’Neill, MW (1998): “Side- Dyson, S and Blight, I (2007): Embedded Retaining Walls, 2nd
inhibition of clay swelling in the wall stability and side-shear resistance “Channel Tunnel Rail Link section 2: Edition, Thomas Telford Publishing,
Lambeth Group, as the polymer is in bored piles constructed with high- Stratford”, Proceedings of the London.
likely to maintain the suction molecular-weight polymer slurry”, Institution of Civil Engineers, Civil
Proceedings of the 3rd International Engineering, 160 (CE6), pp29-32. Jefferis, S A and Mavroulidou, M
pressure developed in the clay for a Geotechnical Seminar on Deep (2003): “The effects of the KBT vinyl
longer period than bentonite. The Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles, European Foundations (Summer polymer excavation support materials
absence of a filter cake formed on Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 111-117. 2003): “Piles unlock polymer on fresh concrete mixes”, a report to
the surface of the Thanet Sand may potential”, No 19, Emap Construct, Stent Foundations and Bachy
be another contributory factor for Berry, A G (2009): “Method for London, pp8-9. Soletanche, University of Surrey.
the better response. cleaning and checking the base of
diaphragm wall panels”, Ground Federation of Piling Specialists Lennon, D J, Ritchie, D, Parry, G O,
Interpretation of the Engineering, 42 (11), November, (2006): Bentonite support fluid in civil and Suckling, T P (2006): “Piling
instrumentation results and Emap Inform, London, pp29-31. engineering, 2nd Edition. UK, January projects constructed with vinyl
numerical load transfer analyses are 2006. polymer support fluid in Glasgow,
being carried out to confirm these BS 1881-121 (1983): “Testing Scotland”, Proceedings of the 10th
concrete – part 121: Method for Ground Engineering (May 2001): DFI/EFFC International Conference on
theses – the results will be reported “Way out of a tight spot”, 34 (5),
determination of static modulus of Piling and Deep Foundations,
in a separate publication. elasticity in compression”, British Emap Construct, London, pp16-17. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp499-
With regard to the difference Standards Institution, London. 506.
between the two polymer piles, it is Ground Engineering (December
surprising but reassuring to see that BS EN 12390-3 (2002): “Testing 2004): “Fisherman’s friend”, 37 (12), Whitaker, D (2004): “Groundwater
hardened concrete – part 3: Emap Construct, London, pp17. control for the Stratford CTRL station
polymer pile P2, which had the
longer soil-fluid exposure time (26 Compressive strength of test Institution of Civil Engineers (2007): box”, Proceedings of the Institution of
specimens”, British Standards ICE Specification for Piling and Civil Engineers, Geotechnical
hours as opposed to 7.5 hours), Institution, London. Engineering, 157 (GE4), pp183-191.
showed a slightly better response

ground engineering October 2010 31