Myths and Common Problems

discovered in Geotechnical
Forensic Engineering
IEM Sarawak, 5 Sep 2014
IEM Sabah, 12 Sep 2014
Ir. Liew Shaw Shong

Content

• Introduction
¾ What is Forensic Engineering?.
• Frameworks
¾ Approaches for Forensic Engineering.
• Common Problems & Myths
¾ Issues related to Forensic Engineering.
• Case Studies
¾ Examples
• Conclusions
¾ Summary of messages to do quality Forensic
Engineering
Introduction

• What is forensic engineering?

• To find out reasons of non-compliance performance
(SLS & ULS) of products and the causation
(contributory and triggering factors) of undesired
incident
• Purposes :
¾ To prevent recurrence and improve reliability &
durability of product
¾ To attribute responsibility and damage recovery
(litigation)
¾ To remedy failure/distress based on root cause
• Locard’s exchange principle : “Every contact leaves
a trace”

Frameworks
• Desktop study
• Data collection (collecting evidences)
¾ Incident scene inspection
¾ Interview with Eye-witness & Specimen collection
¾ Measurements & Monitoring Data
• Developing chronological events
• Examine cause-and-effect
• Developing model and failure analysis
¾ Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) – Deductive
¾ Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) & Criticality
Analysis (CA) – Inductive
• Experiments & laboratory tests
Failure Analysis

• Evolved from Reliability Engineering (military),

Safety and QA/QC Engineering (but with
perspective of post failure review. i.e. a re-run)
• FTA (Backward logic)

Backward logic (Contributory & Triggering Factor)

Failure Analysis

• FMEA (Forward logic)

¾ Functional (Design Requirements)
¾ Design (ULS, SLS and Material Specifications)
¾ Process (Method of Statement & Construction)

Forward logic (Resultant Effects & Consequences)

Common Problems & Myths

Common Problems:
¾ Inaccessibility to the incident site
¾ Timing between incident occurrence and commission
of investigation (Destroy of Evidences)
¾ Incorporative altitudes of involving parties
¾ Release of critical information (information on design,
construction records, monitoring results, maintenance
and operation)
¾ Conflicting data and facts
¾ Representativeness of interpreted information
¾ Establishment of event sequences

Common Problems & Myths

Myths:
¾ Overly simple postulation of potential mechanisms
¾ Fundamentals of mechanics & kinematic movement
traces
¾ Matching of performance data
¾ Cherry picking of facts to favourably suit perceptive
failure scenarios
¾ Uniqueness of cause-and-effect relationship
¾ Soundness of evidences collected or implied
¾ Compliance of design codes, work statement &
material specifications
 Case Studies

• Failure of structural components (CBP Wall)

• Slope failures (Kedah)
• Retaining system (Taman Tebrau)
• Embankment distresses (D18 piled embankment)
• Foundation failure (Jack-in piles)

APEC Seminar on The State-of-the-Practice of Deep Excavation Works in Malaysia, Taiwan and Hong Kong on 21 May 2011
Cheung On Tak Lecture Theatre, TU201, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom

TWO CASE STUDIES OF

COLLAPSED TEMPORARY
EXCAVATION USING
CONTIGUOUS BORED PILE
WALL
Ir. Liew Shaw Shong
Outline of Presentation

… Common Probable Causes of Excavation Failure

… Investigation Procedure
… Case Study 1 & Case Study 2
† Background
† Chronological Events

† Causes of Failures

† Lessons Learnt

Common Probable Causes of Excavation

Failure
… Describe the product or service being marketed
A) Natural Disasters : fire, earthquake, tsunami, tremor, wind, rainfall and
flood

B) Act of Sabotage: explosive substances

C) Material Defects: reused steel strutting sections with poor conditions,

concrete properties

D) Design: modelling and design parameters, robustness and ductility

E) Construction: sequences of works, excavation depth

F) Maintenance: drainage system, no timely review of instrumentation results

Investigation Procedure
1. Check safety factor of the original design
2. Check the as-built construction for any deviations from original design
3. Identify design shortcomings, material defects, workmanship deficiencies, if any
4. Interview design team, construction management team, site personnel and eye witnesses
5. Consult other experts if required, for matters beyond the investigator’s expertise or
knowledge of the facts
6. Identify possible collapse scenarios and rationalise conflicting facts or evidences
7. Determine the major contributory and triggering factors that cause the collapse
8. Conduct advanced non-linear analysis /tests to ascertain the collapse mechanism
9. Confirm the collapse mechanism with those from facts and evidences
10. Write report

CASE STUDY 1 (CS1)

CS1: Excessive Movement of CBP Wall

… Two-Storey Basement
… Temporary Excavation with Berms & Raking Struts to
Lower Basement Slab
… Distresses observed in the middle of Temp. Excavation
† Ground Distress
† CBP Wall tilted and Structurally damaged

… Remedial Works
… Summary of Findings & Lessons Learnt

CS1: Excessive Movement of CBP Wall

N

PROJECT
Construction stage where
SITE
ground distresses observed
1A 1 2
Adjacent lot with 
ground distresses RL59.0m

RL56.1m (Ground Floor)
RC WALL

RL54.6m
12m Long 950mm x 600mm CAPPING BEAM
FSP IIIA Sheet Pile 200mm THK. REINFORCED SKIN WALL
RL52.0m (BASEMENT 1)

10.5m
TEMPORARY RAKING STRUT
RL48.8m (BASEMENT 2) FLOOR SLAB

HORIZONTAL DRAIN

PILED 
16m Long FOUNDATION
750mm DIA. CBP WALL

RL38.6m
 CS1: Excessive Movement of CBP Wall

60
65.00

N
58

56
62.00 56.75

54 56.50

52

ADJACENT SITE PROJECT SITE
50

59.00
56.00
48 56.00

46
44

55.00 Proposed platform level (RL m)

Possible seasonal stream 55.00

Badly Distressed Wall Area

CS1: Excessive Movement of CBP Wall

600mm

400mm

200mm

-200mm
 CS1: Excessive Movement of CBP Wall
Project site Adjacent site Adjacent site Project site

12°

CS1: Excessive Movement of CBP Wall

Ground Distress at Active Wedge Repairing of CBP Pile

 CS1: Excessive Movement of CBP Wall
IBH3 SI work for  SP1
N
forensic investigation

BH2 BH3
PBH1
IBH2
ADJACENT SITE ABH1
PROJECT SITE SP2

PBH2 BH1 BH4

IBH1
ABH2
ABH3
IBH3

Adjacent site Project site

CS1: Excessive Movement of CBP Wall

… Back Analysis
… Finite Element analysis (PLAXIS) to simulate the construction sequences of
excavation & to investigate the probable causes of ground distresses & wall
movements. 917mm displacement (sheet pile wall)

† Excavation in front of the wall → the retained earth platform displaced excessively in the
609mm displacement (CBP wall)
horizontal & vertical (settlement) directions with the temporary sheet pile wall moving
forward
† Over-excavation of passive berm before installing raking struts → reduce lateral
resistance to sheet pile wall & subsequently mobilise structural strength of the CBP walls
beyond serviceability state condition & reaching ultimate limit state condition
† Excessively displaced temporary sheet pile wall → induced additional lateral force &
flexural stress to the installed contiguous bored piles (CBP) walls unavoidably damaged the
CBP piles.
… The results of FE analyses agree reasonably well with the measured wall
movements and ground deformations (e.g. tension cracks, settlement and
depression)
 CS1: Excessive Movement of CBP Wall

… Remedial Solution

CS1: Excessive Movement of CBP Wall

Repairing Crushed CBP Shear Failure of Corbel Support

CS1: Excessive Movement of CBP Wall

… Summary of Findings & Lessons Learnt

† Building platform formed over natural valley containing thick fill
over previous soft deposits provides prerequisite condition for
ground distresses during temporary localized deep pile cap
excavation & removing passive berm excessively without planned
strut supports.
† Occurrence of tension cracks during initial open excavation and
installation of sheet piles suggested that the underlying subsoil at
the valley area are inherently vulnerable to ground disturbance
and hence are prompted to distressing.
† Perched groundwater regime can occur in backfilling over natural
valley leading to unfavourable behaviour of backfill.
† Desk study of pre-development ground contours is highly
recommended.

CASE STUDY 2 (CS2)

CS2: CBP Wall Failure

CS2: Retaining Wall System

CS2: Retaining Wall System

Unreinforced CBP Wall φ1.2m

@ 1.5m c/c
CBP Wall φ1m @ 1.075m c/c

CBP Wall φ1m @ 1.5m c/c for

Liftcore

CS2: Important Events Before Collapse

Original struts position for Struts D, E and F with passive berm retained at Gridlines G and H.
CS2: Important Events Before Collapse
Water pipe burst incident on Day 227 which caused the steel corbel for strut F being sheared off as reported.

Observations of investigator:

Although strutting subcontractor did 
not design the strutting system for 
one strut failure scenario, the 
retaining wall system still managed 
to distribute the loads from Strut F 
vertically to soil and laterally to 
Struts D & E and passive berm safely 
but with large incremental 
movement registered at 
Inclinometer IIC4. 

The water pipe burst incident on 
Day 227 could have weaken the 
strut corbel connection for Strut F 
and stressed the CBP walls towards 
its structural ultimate limit state.

CS2: Important Events Before Collapse

Water pipe burst incident on Day 227 which caused the steel corbel for strut F being sheared off as reported.

Observations of investigator:

Although strutting subcontractor did 
not design the strutting system for 
one strut failure scenario, the 
retaining wall system still managed 
to distribute the loads from Strut F 
vertically to soil and laterally to 
Struts D & E and passive berm safely 
but with large incremental 
movement registered at 
Inclinometer IIC4. 

The water pipe burst incident on 
Day 227 could have weaken the 
strut corbel connection for Strut F 
and stressed the CBP walls towards 
its structural ultimate limit state.
CS2: Important Events Before Collapse
Strut F was reinstated. After installation of struts G and H, temporary passive berm along Gridlines G and H were
progressively removed.

CS2: Important Events Before Collapse

The removal of temporary passive berm has caused incremental ground movement that led to another water pipe
burst incident on Day 248. This water pipe leakage had triggered CBP wall collapse tragedy on Day 248.
CS2: Video Clip on Wall Failure

CS2: Video Clip on Wall Failure

 CS2: Flow of Wall Failure on Day 248

1) Water pipe burst (behind the CBP Wall)

2) Steel corbel connection at Strut F sheared-off
3) Failure of strutting system to re-distribute the failure
load to adjacent struts
– Steel corbel connections at Struts D and E sheared off due to
sudden increased in strut force
– Struts G and H buckled due to sudden increase in strut force
4) Failure of CBP walls due to loss of lateral supports
(struts)
5) CBP wall failed rotationally and retained earth at
active soil wedge in to the excavation site

CS2: Why Wall Collapse

Triggering Factor of Wall Collapse: Increase of

water pressure due to repetitive water pipe burst
incidents happened at the back lane

Causes of Wall Collapse ??

 CS2: Causes of Wall Collapse
1) Adoption of optimistic cohesion parameter by the consultant

Over-estimation
of cohesion for
subsoil at
shallower depth

CS2: Causes of Wall Collapse

2) Inconsistency of design intent and site execution between consultant and

contractor
 CS2: Causes of Wall Collapse

2) Inconsistency of design intent and site execution between consultant and

contractor

CS2: Causes of Wall Collapse

3) Improper lateral restraint bracing system and non-compliance on hole

cutting at steel corbel by strutting sub-contractor and no timely review of the
retaining wall and strutting designs.

Triangular
system
 CS2: Causes of Wall Collapse
3) Improper lateral restraint bracing system and non-compliance on hole
cutting at steel corbel by strutting sub-contractor and no timely review of the
retaining wall and strutting designs.

CS2: Lesson Learnt & Recommendation

• Timely review on instrumentation monitoring results

is important
• Selection of soil parameters shall be done carefully
based on sufficient lab testing results and local
experiences
• Site supervision team to make sure the consistency
between the design intent and site execution
• Pay attention on the connection details and
strutting bracing system
CS2: Which connection detail is better?

VS

Cut Slope Failure at Kedah

 Site Background
„ High ground RL300m – RL350m.
„ Bedrock : Intact granite bedrock with prismatic
feldspar phenocrysts.
„ 5 to 6 berms : 27m height.
„ Slope gradient 1V:1H.
„ Two failure incidents:
a. Localised stretch (50m).
b. Major slope failure (250m) after 1 month
following heavy rainfall.
 Original Slope
Profile

Piezometric
Level
 Laboratory Test Results
„ Sandy material within failed mass.
„ CIU test :
a. cp’=2kPa, φp’=30o
b. c’ε(max)=1.9kPa, φ’ε(max) =28o
„ Back Analysis :
a. cm’=0kPa, φm’=30o

Findings
Possible causes of failure:
„ FOS against overall failure indicates the
slope is at the verge of failure for the water
level measured during investigation.
„ Rainfall leading to rise of groundwater is
the triggering cause to failure.
Conclusions
„ Main Contributory Factors for Slope Failure (Static) :
- Inherent weak strength & sensitive materials
- Adverse geological & hydro-geological features
- Morphological features
- Steep slope geometry
- Gravity force
- Weathering
- Inadequate design & lack of maintenance
„ Triggering Factors (Dynamic) :
- Rainfall/leaking utilities/rapid drawdown (soil saturation/ rise of
GWT)
- Human disturbance (excavation/surcharge/vegetation
removal/vibration)
- Earthquake/volcanic eruption/thunder
- Erosion

by Liew Shaw-Shong, Lee Seng-Tatt & Koo Kuan-Seng

Theme Session 4B - Design, construction and performance of foundations (II)

&
Geo-information and land reclamation technologies (I)
` Two Case Studies on Failure of Piled Supported Wall under
Extreme Lateral Loading

` Findings in the Forensic Investigation

` Conclusions & Recommendation

55

8m RS Wall + 2m L-Shaped RC Wall

Foundation : Vertical piles + Raked Piles (3 rows each)
400mm thick RC Slab
3~3.5m RC Monsoon Drain in front of Wall

Failure on 4 Jan 2007 - Intense antecedent rainfall from

10 Dec 06 to 29 Dec 06 & Triggering midnight rainfall
(20mm/hr)
When 120m long RS Wall reached soffit of L-
L-Shaped RC Wall

56
 Site Layout Plan & RS Wall Sectional View

WELL
COMPACTED
GRANULAR FILL
TO WALL
SPECIALIST
SPECIFICATION

1 20m
Ch 6 5 4 3 2 1

0m
Ch
120m long RS Wall
displaced laterally

Monsoon Drain 57

Subsurface Conditions
RL29.0m
30m
RL28.5m
RL27.0m

Original Ground Profile

25m
Reduced Level

RL20.18m

Top 4~5m Fill : medium stiff clayey Silt and

RL20.5m
clayey Sand (N = 6 to 10)
RL17.1m

20m RL19.0m
RL18.6m

Groundwater RL14m to RL18m

15m 4~8m very soft to soft Clay (Su

= 40kPa)

8~18m Stiff Sandy Silt (N= 10~30)

0 10m 20m 30m 40m

58
Installation of Piles (mid Oct 06)
Installation of Piles (mid Oct 06) Slab Casting (mid Oct 06)

CH 10 to CH 50m CH 100 to CH 150m

Backfilling works (mid Oct 06) Erection of Wall (mid Oct 06)

CH 150 to CH 220m CH 150 to CH 250m 59

Rainfall Record

60
 Retention pond full of water

61

Site Observations

` Panels
` Wet panels & traces watermark
` Highest level of observed seeping water below 2m high L-shaped
RC wall
∴ Evidence of high water table behind the wall panel
` Pile Foundation
` Flexural plastic hinge pile damage at 1.75m to 2m below slab
soffit level
∴ Likely due to excessive lateral load on piles

62
 1.5m

1.5m

Water
seepage 1.5m
sign

1.5m
RL 20.2m

Ch 0m

63

2m top RC panel
RL 27.0m

Water
seepage
1.5m sign

Precast RC
panel

Monsoon Drain

64
Damaged Foundation Piles

Raked pile

RL 18.6m

Raked pile

1.8m

Damaged
condition

65

Investigation Approach

` Examine induced Axial & Lateral Forces and Moments on

Piles at Design Condition & Failure
` Lateral earth pressure theory
` PIGLET to compute pile group load distribution
` Check FOS against
` Pile axial capacity
` Pile lateral capacity
` Pile structural adequacy (Moment & Shear)

66
 RL29.0m
30m
RL28.5m
RL27.0m

Original Ground Profile

25m
Reduced Level

RL20.18m

RL20.5m
RL17.1m

20m RL19.0m
RL18.6m

15m
0 10m 20m 30m 40m

67

Finished Ground Profile

RL29.0m
30m
RL28.5m
RL27.0m

Original Ground Profile Temporary Ground Profile

During Piling & Wall Construction
25m
Reduced Level

RL20.18m

RL20.5m
RL17.1m

20m RL19.0m
RL18.6m

15m
0 10m 20m 30m 40m

68
 RL29.0m
30m 1m Earth drain
RL28.5m
1m
RL27.0m

Original Ground Profile Temporary Ground Profile

During Piling & Wall Construction
25m
Reduced Level

RL20.18m

RL20.5m
RL17.1m

20m RL19.0m
RL18.6m

15m
0 10m 20m 30m 40m

69

RL29.0m
30m 1m Earth drain
RL28.5m
1m
RL27.0m

Original Ground Profile Temporary Ground Profile

During Piling & Wall Construction
25m
Reduced Level

RL20.18m

RL20.5m
RL17.1m

20m RL19.0m
RL18.6m

15m
0 10m 20m 30m 40m

70
 30m
RL28.5m

Original Ground Profile Temporary Ground Profile

During Piling & Wall Construction
25m
Reduced Level

20m RL19.0m

15m
0 10m 20m 30m 40m

71

Schematic View of the Rain Water Infiltration

RC wall

Accumulation of Water on
bowl ground
Infiltration

Perched
Water
Level
Seepage of water
Well Compacted
granular soil

RS Wall panel
72
 70m

View from
Retained
Platform
73

Design Scenario A (GWT at Monsoon Drain)

Finished Ground Profile

Surcharge = 20kPa
RL29.0m
30m
RL28.5m
RL27.0m

Original Ground Profile Temporary Ground Profile

During Piling & Wall Construction
25m
Reduced Level

RL20.18m

RL20.5m
RL17.1m

20m RL19.0m
RL18.6m

15m
0 10m 20m 30m 40m

74
 Design Scenario A Results
GWT at Top of Monsoon Drain (RL20.18m)

!
OK

75

Design Scenario B (1/3 GWT)

Finished Ground Profile

Surcharge = 20kPa
RL29.0m
30m
RL28.5m
RL27.0m

Original Ground Profile Temporary Ground Profile

During Piling & Wall Construction
25m
Reduced Level

RL20.18m

RL22.0m
RL20.5m

1/3H
RL17.1m

20m RL19.0m
RL18.6m

15m
0 10m 20m 30m 40m

76
 Design Scenario B Results
GWT at 1/3 of Retained Height (RL22.0m)

ile
alP
ividu
f Ind
ro
c to n
d Fa itio
L oa ond
t ed fe C
a
lcula Uns
Ca ≠
ck
Ba
w
Lo
77

Failure Scenario (GWT at Top Panel)

RL29.0m Finished Ground Profile

30m
RL28.5m
RL27.0m

Original Ground Profile Temporary Ground Profile

25m During Piling & Wall Construction
Reduced Level

RL20.18m

RL20.5m
RL17.1m

20m RL19.0m
RL18.6m

15m

0 10m 20m 30m 40m

78
Failure Scenario Results
GWT at Top RS Wall Panel (RL27.0m)

ion!
it
ond
e C
n saf
U

79

Failure Scenario :

80
Remedial Works

Ch 120.0m Ch 0.0m

Additional piles (CH 0 m to Ch 50m) 81

Additional Drainage Control on Re-erected Wall

Drainage blanket + PVC pipe

PVC pipe Drainage layer

82
Drainage control on Intact Wall
Drainage blanket (4.8m c/c)

Weepholes (6m
intervals)

83

Conclusions
• Main causation :
• Excessive lateral wall force due to high water table rise from prolonged intense
rainfall
• Foundation design under service condition is acceptable
• Attention shall be given to brittle behaviour of concrete piles taking lateral
load with rapid increase of wall pressure when rise of groundwater table
within the wall.

` Need careful evaluation of design robustness of vertical or sub-vertical piles

in taking lateral foundation loading
` Solutions :
` Use more raked piles utilising more robust axial pile strength to resolve lateral
imposed loading
` Extra drainage capacity for temporary drains for large flat retained platform
` Timely backfilling of suitable fill over granular fill of RS wall

84
29 December 2006 - Johor was the worst hit. Heavy rain – the highest recorded in 100 years
– caused floods in Johor Baru and several major towns.

85

Case 2: Case study on Piled Supported

Embankment Failure

86
 Site Conditions
` Embankment (maximum 5.4m high) with Piles & Ground
Improvements
` Ch3328 to Ch3375 (Top 10m soft Clay, Su = 10~15kPa)
` Distressed Abutment
` Abutment A @ Ch3266 (Top 15m soft Clay, Su = 13~18kPa)
` Abutment B @ Ch3328 (Top 9m soft Clay, Su = 7~12kPa)
Abutment A Pier P1 Pier P2 Abutment B Piled Embankment PVD + EVD Area

PA PA P3
P1
Filled Working Platform
P2
Upper Weak Soil

EVD PVD

Lower Firm Stratum

87

Findings from Site Inspection

` Piles & slab of piled embankment suffered structural distress

` Settlement of 0.4 to1.0m beneath piled embankment due to

consolidation of subsoils under the working filled platform.

` Bearing distortions confirmed : Bridge deck moving from Abutment B

towards Abutment A

88
Site Inspection Findings

` Piled Embankment 30m from Abutment B shown structural

distress

89

Site Inspections Findings

` Piles of Piled Embankment has shown flexural cracks

90
Site Inspections Findings

` Damaged piled embankment slab damaged & 100mm gap at slab

joint

91

Site Inspections Findings

` Settlement of 0.4 to 1.0m under the Piled Embankment

92
Site Inspections Findings

` Bearing distortion at Pier P2

93

Site Inspections Findings

` Bearing distortion at Pier P1

94
PA : Active Earth Pressure
P1 : Action/Reaction Force between Piled Embankment Slab & Abutment
P2 : Ultimate Lateral Pile Group Capacity of Embankment Piles
FOS
P3 : Mobilised Thrust on Stability Soil Mass with Corresponding FOS

Abutment A Pier P1 Pier P2 Abutment B Piled Embankment PVD + EVD Area

PA PA P3
P1
Filled Working Platform
P2
Upper Weak Soil

EVD PVD

Lower Firm Stratum

95

Settlement Markers (LDC) : 28 May -31 Jul 2005

Displacement Markers (by LDC) : 02 Mar – 18 Jun 2006
Displacement Markers (by G&P) : 25 Apr – 7 May 2007

Ch 3266.02 Ch 3286.72 Ch 3307.42 Ch 3328.12 Ch 3360

Abutment A Pier P1 Pier P2 Abutment B

M7 10 11 M9
M10 M12 PA + P1 F D
M8 Deck 1 12 Deck 2 13 14 Deck 3 M13 15 16 18 19 PVD Area
Piled Embankment
M13 M14 E C
B
M2 8 4 3 2 1
8 7 6 5 EVD Area
M6 M5 A
M1 M3 M4
Movement Direction Bearing Distortion
PA : Active Earth Pressure
P1 : Action/Reaction Force between Piled Embankment Slab & Abutment Clockwise Rotation

P2 : Ultimate Lateral Pile Group Capacity of Embankment Piles Anti-Clockwise Rotation

FOS Tension Cracks
P3 : Mobilised Thrust on Stability Soil Mass with Corresponding FOS
Developing Pile Plastic Hinge

Abutment A Pier P1 Pier P2 Abutment B Piled Embankment PVD + EVD Area

PA PA P3
P1
P2

96
Investigation Findings

` Embankment (5.4m high)

` Ch3375 : FOS ≅ 1.0 at Embankment on Ground Treatments
` Causation : Inadequate FOS => Embankment instability exerting lateral
stress to Piled Embankment on free standing piles due to subsoil
consolidation
` Distressed Abutment
` Abutment B : Laterally pushed by unstable embankment behind piled
embankment
` Abutment A & Two piers : Affected by lateral thrust from Abutment B
(No observable distresses at the abutment pile foundation after
exposure of piles)

97

Abutment Remedial Design

` Abutment Distress (Ch3266 to Ch3328)

` Remedial proposal :

Isolation Gap

98
Conclusions

` Weak post-treatment soil strength unable to support embankment

` Creep movement of weak subsoil beneath embankment coupled
with embankment instability due to low FOS
` Further consolidation of weak overburden soil, the lateral
resistance of piled embankment in free standing pile conditions is
weaken
` Monitored bridge displacement confirmed pattern of lateral
movement of entire bridge & piled embankment
` Structural damage on embankment piles was expected as structural
threshold has reached
` Use of residual strength is needed for rectifying failed embankment

99

Recommendations

` Construct new embankment slab at least 1m below the failed

slab to prevent further consolidation settlement
` Extend piled embankment for embankment fill higher than 2m &
provide isolation gap at the slab/abutment interfaces
` Use of higher strength RC pile for embankment piles
` Use of geotextile reinforcement to isolate embankment fill from
both abutments to reduce direct lateral earth pressure on
abutments

100
 G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd

PILE CAPACITY REDUCTION OF JACK-IN

PILES WITH EMPTY PREBORED HOLE AT
META-SEDIMENTARY FORMATION IN
PENINSULAR MALAYSIA

By Ir. Liew Shaw Shong

5~6 December 2013, ISAFE2013, Singapore

Content

• Overview of pile installation & Performance

• Subsurface Information
• Contractually Scheduled MLT Results
• Additional MLT Results
• Investigation Findings
• Conclusions & Recommendations
Overview Foundation System

• 400mm RC square pile

• Pre-boring was deployed to

- Overcome intermittent hard layer
- Avoid shallow pile penetration

• Jack-in pile installed inside pre-bored hole

Pre-bored Hole Diameter

600mm diameter 500mm diameter 550mm diameter
m
6m
56

Pre-bored hole 400mm dia. RC Pile

Too large pre-bored hole Too small pre-bored hole Compromised pre-bored
hole
(Adopted)
Void in Pre-bored Hole Annulus

Collapsed Debris in Pre-bored Hole Annulus

 Actual Scenario of Installed Piles

9m deep prebored

P=L

P>L
L – Pre-bored Length

P – Actual Penetration Length P >> L

MLT Results
Pile Top Settlement
Pile Max. Jack-in Achieved
Maintained Pre-bored At Max.
Penetration Load at Maximum
Load Test Diameter At Working Test
below Piling Termination Test Load
(MLT) (mm) Load (mm) Load
Platform (m) (kN) (kN)
(mm)
2220
MLT 1 600 9.40 2160 14.0 46.00
(1.71xWL)
2220
MLT 2 500 9.30 2600 23.50 42.00
(1.71xWL)
2600
MLT 3 550 12.50 2860 5.80 21.80
(2.00xWL)
1406
MLT 4 550 9.50 2860 16.50 24.50
(1.50xWL)
1950
MLT 5 550 13.50 2860 8.50 13.00
(1.50xWL)
 Jack-in Pile Termination Criteria

• All piles were jacked to 2.2 times pile working load

• Settlement < 5mm during 30 seconds holding period for
2 consecutive times

Boreholes Information
Piling
Platform
9m
End of
Pre-bored Pre-bored

SPT-N>50
Photos of Exposed Subsoils

Contractually Scheduled MLT

Results
 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
2800 2800

2600 2600

2400 2400

2200 2200

2000 2000
MLT1
PILE TOP LOADING (kN)

1800 1800

1600 1600

1400 1400

1200 1200

1000 1000
Legend
800 800
MLT 1 - 9.4m
MLT 2 - 9.3m
600 600
MLT 3 - 12.5m
MLT 4 - 9.5m
400 400
MLT 5 - 13.5m

200 200

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
PILE TOP SETTLEMENT (mm)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
2800 2800

2600 2600

2400 2400

2200 2200

2000 2000
MLT1
MLT2
PILE TOP LOADING (kN)

1800 1800

1600 1600

1400 1400

1200 1200

1000 1000
Legend
800 800
MLT 1 - 9.4m
MLT 2 - 9.3m
600 600
MLT 3 - 12.5m
MLT 4 - 9.5m
400 400
MLT 5 - 13.5m

200 200

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
PILE TOP SETTLEMENT (mm)
 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
2800 2800

2600 2600
MLT3
2400 2400

2200 2200

2000 2000
MLT1
MLT2
PILE TOP LOADING (kN)

1800 1800

1600 1600

1400 1400

1200 1200

1000 1000
Legend
800 800
MLT 1 - 9.4m
MLT 2 - 9.3m
600 600
MLT 3 - 12.5m
MLT 4 - 9.5m
400 400
MLT 5 - 13.5m

200 200

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
PILE TOP SETTLEMENT (mm)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
2800 2800

2600 2600
MLT3
2400 2400

2200 2200

2000 2000
MLT1
MLT2
PILE TOP LOADING (kN)

1800 1800

1600 1600

1400 1400
MLT4
1200 1200

1000 1000
Legend
800 800
MLT 1 - 9.4m
MLT 2 - 9.3m
600 600
MLT 3 - 12.5m
MLT 4 - 9.5m
400 400
MLT 5 - 13.5m

200 200

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
PILE TOP SETTLEMENT (mm)
 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
2800 2800

2600 2600
MLT3
2400 2400

2200 2200

2000 MLT5 2000

MLT1
MLT2
PILE TOP LOADING (kN)

1800 1800

1600 1600

1400 1400
MLT4
1200 1200

1000 1000
Legend
800 800
MLT 1 - 9.4m
MLT 2 - 9.3m
600 600
MLT 3 - 12.5m
MLT 4 - 9.5m
400 400
MLT 5 - 13.5m

200 200

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
PILE TOP SETTLEMENT (mm)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
2800 2800

2600 2600
MLT3 & MLT5:
2400 2400

2200 Longer Pile 2200

2000
Penetration 2000
below pre-bored
PILE TOP LOADING (kN)

1800 1800
base performs
1600 better 1600

1400 1400

1200 1200

1000 1000
Legend
800 800
MLT 1 - 9.4m
MLT 2 - 9.3m
600 600
MLT 3 - 12.5m
MLT 4 - 9.5m
400 400
MLT 5 - 13.5m

200 200

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
PILE TOP SETTLEMENT (mm)
 Additional MLT Results

Additional MLT

• 3 nos additional MLT at various penetration

below pre-bored base:

• MLT6 – 0.5m below pre-bored base

• MLT7 – 1.5m below pre-bored base
• MLT8 – 2.0m below pre-bored base
 Additional MLT

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
2800 2800

2600 2600

2400 2400

2200 2200

2000 2000
MLT6
PILE TOP LOADING (kN)

1800 1800

1600 1600

1400 1400

1200 1200

1000 1000
Legend
800 800
MLT 6 - 9.5m
MLT 7 - 10.5m
600 600
MLT 8 - 11.0m

400 400

200 200

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
PILE TOP SETTLEMENT (mm)
 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
2800 2800

2600 2600

2400 2400

2200 MLT7 2200

2000 2000
MLT6
PILE TOP LOADING (kN)

1800 1800

1600 1600

1400 1400

1200 1200

1000 1000
Legend
800 800
MLT 6 - 9.5m
MLT 7 - 10.5m
600 600
MLT 8 - 11.0m

400 400

200 200

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
PILE TOP SETTLEMENT (mm)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
2800 2800

2600 2600
MLT8
2400 2400

2200 MLT7 2200

2000 2000
MLT6
PILE TOP LOADING (kN)

1800 1800

1600 1600

1400 1400

1200 1200

1000 1000
Legend
800 800
MLT 6 - 9.5m
MLT 7 - 10.5m
600 600
MLT 8 - 11.0m

400 400

200 200

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
PILE TOP SETTLEMENT (mm)
 Pile Top Settlement
Max. Jack-in Achieved
Pre-bored Pile Penetration
Load at Maximum At Max.
MLT Diameter below Piling At Working
Termination Test Load Test Load
(mm) Platform (m) Load (mm)
(kN) (kN) (mm)
2220
MLT 1 600 9.40 2160 14.0 46.00
(1.71xWL)
2220
MLT 2 500 9.30 2600 23.50 42.00
(1.71xWL)
2600
MLT 3 550 12.50 2860 5.80 21.80
(2.00xWL)
1406
MLT 4 550 9.50 2860 16.50 24.50
(1.50xWL)
1950
MLT 5 550 13.50 2860 8.50 13.00
(1.50xWL)
1950
MLT 6 550 9.50 2860 15.08 42.38
(1.50xWL)
2400
MLT 7 550 10.50 2860 11.29 41.93
(1.85xWL)
2600
MLT 8 550 11.00 2860 10.30 50.35
(2.00xWL)

Investigation Findings

Pre-bored

Penetration below
base of pre-bored
Analogy of Footing

Bearing Improvement with Toe Confinement

Conclusions & Recommendations

• Pile performance improved with longer

pile penetration below pre-bored base
• Existence of pile toe softening due to
relaxation of pile tip founding material
• Sufficient pile penetration below pre-
bored base is important
• Recommend to seal the pre-bored hole
with grout

Conclusions

• Case studies to show application of forensic

principles in geotechnical investigation
• Difficulties encountered and ways to overcome
• Case Studies
• Professional responsibility to reveal truth of the
causation factors, failure mechanism, effects and
consequences for lessons learnt
Thank You