BORED PILES
DESIGN &.. TESTING
S BUTTLING- SENIOR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, MRTC
SA ROBINSON- SENIOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN ENGINEER, MRTC
SUMMARY
Bored piles have been used extensively on the MRT,
primarily for the elevated structures. Generally, total
settlements of up to approximately 50mm can be
accommodated, but pile settlements were originally
restricted to values much less than this, typically 10mm.
The variable soil conditions and different contractual
arrangements led to several different pile design
methods being used. Extensive pile testing showed that
pile designs were generally conservative, and allowed
piles to be shortened. A computer model. has be~n
prepared which gives a better understanding of pile
behaviour.
INTRODUCTION
An examination of the SMRT route in relation to the
geology of Singapore shows that much of the alignment
is underlain by recent deposits of the Kallang formation.
Elsewhere the weak rocks of the Jurong formation, and
the harder Bukit Timah granite, have been subjected to
tropical weathering, producing profiles of decomposition
reaching to 30m below the surface in places. Since the
loads to be carried by the columns of the v1aducts are
substantial, typically 13000 kN, piled foundations have
been necessary in order to avoid major settlement,
except for those few areas where stiff strata were
encountered close to ground level. Although driven piles
have been occasionally used, most notably at Bishan
Depot and on some parts of Phase 2B, bored piles
have been installed for viaduct support on part of Phase
1, all of Phase 1A, all of Phase 2A and the balance of
Phase 2B. This paper is concerned only with bored
piles, for which the two main design criteria are:-
i) settlement and
ii) bearing capacity.
In addition lateral stiffness may need to be
considered.
Settlement Criteria
From the point of view of the viaduct structures, the
magnitude of the total settlement would be of little
consequence provided it was uniform. However,
differential settlement obviously needs to be limited. The
following factors are relevant:-
1. Track alignment: for a typical span where the
columns are 20 to 30m apart:-
a) Differential settlement of one column relative to its
155
two neighbours could be 50mm without significantly
affecting the track which, being laid on ballast, can
be readily adjusted.
b) The track could accommodate a differential lateral
movement of up to 30mm. Such a lateral movement
of the track could be caused by differential
settlement of the piles across the width of the cap,
causing rotation of the cap and column, or by
translation of the cap.
2. For the multi-span continuous structures (used in
special locations, e.g. to cross rivers, railways or major
roads), differential vertical movements of the
substructure of, say 50mm, would significantly affect the
stresses within the deck. Although it depends on the
particular span configuration and the reserve of strength
in each of these continuous bridges, it is generally
necessary to restrict the differential settlement between
adjacent columns to approximately 10mm.
3. However, for a typical span, i.e. a 20 or 25m long
pre-cast beam simply supported at each end, differential
vertical movements can be readily accommodated. The
limit will be the rotational capacity of the bearings. For
the bearings used on the MAT (elastomeric bearings on
C102 and "pot" bearings elsewhere), the rotational
capacity is normally O.D1 radians; allowing for dead and
live load rotations, this would permit differential
settlements well in excess of 50mm.
4. The viaduct pre-cast beams have very high torsional
rigidity. Because of this, if a beam is supported on four
bearings (two on each crosshead), transverse rotat1on of
one of the crossheads relative to the other can lead to
very significant changes in the bearing loads. In an
extreme case, all the reaction at one end of the beam
may be carried by one of the bearings, with the other .
taking no load. This would lead to overstress both w1th1n
the bearing and in the crosshead half-joint which
supports it. ·
Some transverse rotation of the crosshead will occur
due to flexing of the columns caused by the normal live
loads, but this may not become significant unless it is
additional to a transverse rotation of the pile cap,
caused by differential settlement of the piles across the
width of the cap. A differential settlement of 5mm .
between piles 5m apart (i.e. a rotation of 1 in 1000) 1s
sufficient to have a significant effect on the bearing
loads.
If the four bearing arrangement is changed to three
bearings (as was done for Phase 2B and subsequently
for Phase 2A) this problem disappears.
5. The top surface of the viaduct has a drainage
screed which is laid to falls. In order for this to function,
it is necessary to limit the differential settlement between
adjacent columns to approximately 25mm. In addition,
this amount of differential settlement is unlikely to be
noticeable.
6. For the stations on Phase 2A, the design of the roof
structure is such that is cannot tolerate differential
settlements in excess of 10mm.
To summarise the above, the limits on differential
settlements are as follows:-
a) Mutti-span continuous structures:
10 to 15mm between adjacent columns.
b) Typical pre-cast beam span:
25mm between adjacent columns.
c) Supports for stations in Phase 2A:
10mm between adjacent columns.
d) Supports for beams with 4 bearing arrangement:
1 in 1000 maximum transverse rotation of pile cap,
i.e. maximum differential settlement between piles,
say 5m apart, to be 5mm.
(No such restriction for beams supported by 3
bearings.
Using the rule-of-thumb that differential settlements
are unlikely to be more than half the total settlement,
the limits on total settlements are twice those given
above.
In order to ensure that the structural settlement
criteria were met, the following limits for movement of
piles under maintained load tests were set:-
Working Load 150% of Working Load
Phase 1 & 1A 6mm 9mm
Phase 28 9mm 20mm
Pill DESIGN
Phase 1
The only above ground contract on Phase 1 was
C102 and this had viaducts supported on piers on pile
caps over. groups of bored piles. The pile sizes, lengths
and reinforcement were all designed by the consultants,
and the piles were generally of 1m diameter obtaining
their bearing in the Bukit Timah Granite. Designs were
based on conventional analyses of cohesion and
concrete/soil adhesion, conservatively assessed, together
with an allowance for end-bearing.
Phase 1A
In Phase 1A of the SMRT the geology was quite
different. The whole of the alignment was underlain by
the Jurassic rocks of the Jurong Formation, in their
varied facies and in very different states of weathering.
Again the size and length was provided by the
consultant and was based on adhesion and end bearing
using undrained strength parameters. It had been
assessed that various shear strengths were available
within the founding strata and, for the material of
weathering grade V, undrained shear strengths ranging
from 45 to 150 kPa were used with an adhesion factor
of 0.45. In material of grades IV & Ill, the shear strength
was taken as 200 kPa with an adhesion factor of unity.
These weathering grades were then correlated
approximately with SPT 'N' values as measured in-situ,
concluding with a general recommendation that piles
should have 3 - 5m of socket into material with an N
value of 200, which would generally correspond to
156
highly to moderately weathered sedimentary rock of
grades IV and Ill, or S2.
Phase 2A
For the piles on phase 2A the problems were totally
different again. Here the founding stratum was the much
younger Pleistocene deposit called Old Alluvium. This
comprised sandy clays, clayey sands and weakly
cemented sands, displaying some over-consolidation. It
was overlain by varying thicknesses of Kallang Deposits,
comprising Marine Clays, Estuarine Clays and Fluvial
Sands & Clays, much of which were covered by fill. The
risk of negative skin friction imposingsignificant loads
on these piled foundations was therefore great. This was
particularly so in the Marina Bay extension, which is
sited beneath recent reclamation of hydraulic fill over
10-20m of Marine Clay. Latest survey figures showed
that surface settlements had been at 40mm/year for the
last 3 years. It was therefore necessary to consider
carefully the likely magnitude of negative skin friction on
the box structures and on the piles themselves, and on
the consequent settlements. Since pile settlements will,
in themselves, reduce negative skin friction this
becomes a complex analytical problem.
The Old Alluvium was known to have variable
properties, particularly with regard to proportions of clay
and sand. For this reason, alternative design methods
were used as follows:-
Cohesionless soils:
where D = pile diameter
L __ pile length in Old Alluvium
-y', = effective unit weight of Kallan~rmation
-y', = effective unit weight of Old Alluvium
N,, N.-y = bearing capacity factors
0, = a.1r.D.L(p1, + -y'o.L) K,.tan ¢ 1
3
where a = adhesion reduction factor
p', = vertical effective stress at bottom of Kallang
Formation
K, = coefficient of. earth pressure for Old
Alluvium
¢ 1 = eftective angle of internal friction for Old
Alluvium
Cohesive soils:
where N, = bearing capacity factor
C,, = undrained cohesion at base
where C, = average undrained cohesion in Old
' Alluvium
Working pile capacities were determined from
ultimate capacities using a factor of safety of 3. Due
allowance was made for negative skin friction, but NSF
and live load were not considered to be additive
because of the transient nature of the live loads which
would tend to reverse any NSF. Global design
parameters with regard to skin friction, end bearing,
elastic modulus and consolidation settlement were
assumed. C, values, shown on figure 1, were used with
a derived from the Australian Piling Code (AS
2159:1978). ¢ 1 was taken as 22° and used with a = 0.6.
Designs were then produced for various locations
dependent on loads and depths of Kallang Formation,
but it was not practicable to take account of all the
variations in the properties of the founding material.
Phase 28
In Phase 28 of the SMRT, the west line was again
founded on weathered siltstones and mudstones of the
Jurong formation, while the northern branch to Bukit
Panjang crossed a zone of Gombak Norite in varying
degrees of weathering. These piles were subject to
different contractual arrangements, in which the length
was designed by the contractor. Several preliminary load
tests were carried out, of which seven were
instrumented, and these allowed the contractor's design
methods to be checked. The first method proposed was
the use of a formula from Smith & Pole (1980), which
was derived for granular soils:-
·Q, -- 0.67.N.As
~
+ 14.N. de
_ .Ab
D Phase 1A
where As = Area of shaft
Ab = Area of base
D = diameter of pile
de = depth of socket
iii = average 'N' value over socket length
N = 'N' value at base
Another contractor used the relationship
0, = 2.N.As + 130.N.Ab
which was shown to give acceptable answers in terms
of field performance. In both cases factors of safety
were conventionally used, with 2.5 on Qu, or 2 on Qs
and 3 on Qb.
A third contractor has used the relationships between
cohesion, adhesion and 'N' value shown in figure 2. For
N greater than 100 an adhesion of 200 kPa was used.
The relationship between cohesion and N is derived
from Terzaghi & Peck (1967), and also shown in figure 2
are the adhesions derived by equations (1) & (2).
DESIGN OF REINFORCEMENT FOR PILES
Vertical loads in the piles were calculated from the
vertical load and the moments acting at the underside
of the pile cap, assuming that the pile cap is rigid.
Horizontal loads were assumed to be resisted by the
piles in bending, together with resistance from the soil
in front of the pile cap and around the piles.
Since the maximum pile loads are low in terms of
concrete stresses, reinforcement is only required in
areas where tension is expected. Possible causes of
tension are:-
i) Axial tension in the piles due to particular loading
combinations - there are very few cases where this
arises.
ii) Lateral movement of the soil surrounding the piles,
due to subsequent works nearby, such as
construction of an embankment or a deep
excavation. It would obviously be uneconomic or
impossible to design the piles to resist all such
effects, so it will be necessary to restrict adjacent
works of this nature, as part of the route protection.
It is considered most unlikely that deep excavations
or tall embankments will be allowed near enough to
the MRT viaducts to have any significant effect.
However, it does remain a remote possibility.
iii) Bending of the piles due to horizontal live loads
such as traction, braking and centrifugal forces. The
bending moment is a maximum at the underside of
the pile cap, reverses to a peak of lower magnitude
at some distance down the pile, then gradually
diminishes to zero. The extent of the bending effects
depends on the stiffness of the surrounding ground,
but significant bending moments will rarely extend
beyond 10m below the pile cap. Nominal
reinforcement, of 1% of pile cross section, is
normally sufficient for the maximum bending
moment in the piles.
In the event, reinforcement was typically provided in
the bored piles as follows:-
Table 1
Reinforcement (as % of pile cross section)
(1) C102 1% for full pile length .
1% for full pile length
Phase 2A 1% for top 1f2 (10m minimum), 0.5% for
remainder
Phase 28 1% for top 16m, 0 for remainder
LATERAL STIFFNESS
The permissible differential lateral movement of
30mm, quoted in the settlement criteria, refers to a
movement occurring over a relatively long period. The
(2) maximum permissible lateral movement due to live
loads is smaller, approximately 10mm under the action
of the maximum transverse loading (approximately 75t).
Calculations have been carried out to predict the lateral
movement of single piles, in fixed and free head
conditions, using the methods of, for example, Poulos &
Davis (1980). Assumptions have to be made about soil
stiffness, and these are checked by carrying out lateral
load tests, usually by jacking apart adjacent piles.
PRINaPLES OF PILE TESTING
Axial loads
In general the load reaction for maintained load tests
in Singapore is by kentledge blocks. This is certainly
true up to the 1450 tonnes used on SMRT, and is in
contrast to UK practice where bored tension piles would
be used for such high loads. For the lower loads on
working piles, up to about 500 tonnes, and where space·
was restricted such as in the median strips, prestressed
ground anchors were also used. Some general
information on pile testing is given in Buttling (1986).
The two places where most attention is needed are
in the measurement of load and of displacement. The
use of pressure gauges in the hydraulic line as the only
means of determining load is not satisfactory. They are
frequently too small to be read precisely, and are
subject to friction and wear in the ram, amongst other
things. Even up-to-date calibrations are no guarantee of
precision in load measurement. This should be done• by
an independent load cell (hydraulic, electrical or
mechanical), also recently calibrated, used in
157
conjunction with a spherical seating device to ensure
axiality of load.
Settlement measurements by surveyors level are very
useful as a back-up, and to check on movements of
kentledge and reference beams. However, even with
parallel plate micrometers, they are not really accurate
enough for a pile test. Dial gauges reading to 0.01mm
and with at least 50mm of travel and a large dial are
readily available and should be used. They should be
mounted on a reference frame which is very stiff in the
vertical plane, though not necessarily heavy, and
protected from sun, and from engineers sitting on them!
Where thermal movements are likely to be a problem,
and readings will be taken throughout a 24· hour cycle,
at least one cycle should be recorded prior to load
application to detect any relationship between dial gauge
reading and temperature.
Lateral loads
Lateral load tests were carried out in order to verify
that lateral displacements were within the allowable
limits. Generally pairs of adjacent piles were jacked
apart, as this is the most convenient method, and
deflections were measured with dial gauges. In some
cases inclinometers were also used within the pile to
check on the deflected shape and the distance below
ground level that deformations reached. In all cases the
measured deflections over-estimated those in service
because the tests were carried out in a "free head"
condition compared to the "fixed head" condition of the
piles embedded in a pile cap.
CONSTRUCTION &.. TEST RESULTS
Phase 1
In practice the allowable settlements were sufficiently
small that very little end bearing load could be expected
to be mobilised, yet piles were generally bored to virtual
refusal of the auger equipment in moderately weathered
granite of grade Ill, known here as G2. The
performance under load test was excellent, well within
allowable limits, and no major problems were
experienced. Permanent casings were provided for,
where there were likely to be significant thicknesses of
overlying soft soils of the Kallang Formation. In the
event they were not required as much as had been
anticipated, yet they sometimes proved difficult to install.
This may have been partly due to inexperience of the
procedure in Singapore, since it has been common to
use driven piles in conditions where soft soils overlie the
founding stratum.
In some locations there were sewers or other deep
pipelines adjacent to pile caps. In anticipation of a future
requirement to excavate alongside these, and bearing in
mind the problems of temporary support and its
possible interaction with the foundation, contiguous
bored piles were provided in these areas. Inclinometer
ducts have also been installed in order that the effects
of the opening up of any future trenches on the viaduct
supports can be monitored.
Phase 1A
At the start of construction it was decided to include
strain gauge instrumentation within the preliminary test
piles, of which there were two on each of contracts 202,
203 and 204. At the same time it was decided to relax
the design criteria to a 5m socket into material of N
value 100 or more. In order to achieve this on site a
158
borehole was put down at the exact location of each
test pile. The depths of the various N values were then
noted and these were related visually to the arisings as
each pile was bored. In practice the test piles generally
showed that the revised criteria were still conservative
enough to allow for some error of judgement in
assessing soil strength.
The details of some of the test piles are shown in
Figures 3 to 5, including the soil profile, instrumentation
positions and the measured strain distributions. The
more steeply sloping strain distributions indicate higher
rates of load transfer, and therefore shear strength, while
the proportion of end bearing load is seen to be very
small except in TP6 which had a short socket into hard
rock beneath 18m of soft to very soft overburden. The
contribution of the overburden is also seen to be small,
and in TP5 where S4 was found right up to the surface
the skin friction is seen to be significant, though less
than in the S2.
Some load settlement curves are shown in figures 6
to 9, and are seen to compare well with the allowable
limits of 6mm at working load {300 tonnes), and 9mm at
150% WL. A total of thirty six tests were subsequently
undertaken to 150% WL on working piles. Of these,
thirty four were within the design criteria and only two
exceeded them. These were within one pile cap and it
is believed that this happened as a result of mis-
interpretation of the ground conditions causing the piles
to be finished short of their required length. Two
additional piles were installed at similar length in order
to achieve compatibility of settlement with downrated
pile loads.
Phase 2A
Although the ground conditions posed no real
problems foe boring, concern over long term settlement
meant that some very deep piles were called ~or in the
Old Alluvium. Along the east line, depths of Kallang
Formation of over 30m are quite common; hence some
piles over 60m long were shown on the drawings.
These, together with the handling of temporary and,
sometimes, permanent casings, created construction
difficulties and it was not uncommon to find the
permanent casing lifted in whole or in part as the
temporary casing was removed.
Thirty seven preliminary test piles were carried out
east of Kallang River, of which two were instrumented.
Later, six more were carried out on the Marina Bay
extension of which two were instrumented. Typical
results are shown in figures 10 to 12. The results of
these were considered, along with results of pile tests
published by the PWD (Chin et al 1985, Yong et al
1982), and a picture of ultimate skin friction for the
various soil layers was developed. The methods of
calculating ultimate capacity of piles proposed by Chin
(1970) were used, and from simple calculations it was
deduced that the skin friction mobilised in the tests was
up to 300kPa. This allowed some reductions to be made
in the design pile lengths at several locations, most
notably at Bedok Station where a construction problem
arose with a layer of unstable sand, and at Marina Bay,
where 3m was saved on the depth of each of about
1500 piles.
Phase 28
On the basis of the instrumented test piles the
contractor derived alternative values for the ultimate skin
friction as shown in table 2, which show that the
coefficients in equation (1) were too conservative.
TABLE 2 - ULTIMATE SKIN FRICTION VAWES
DERIVED FOR JURONG FORMATION
Soil Type N Average (ultimate)
(blows/300mm) skin friction
qs (kPa)
Medium dense 5-20 35
clayey silt
'
Medium dense 20-50 50
decomposed shale
Dense clayey 50-100 100
silt
Very dense 100-250 160
clayey silt
Cemented siltstone/ 150-300+ 300
sandstone
Only a few piles showed any settlement problem, and
this was noted in one load test and in low pile head
stiffnesses measured in non-destructive testing. Two of
the latter piles were cored, and revealed evidence of a
poor concrete/rock interface at the toe. This was then
held to be the cause of the poor static and dynamic
load responses.
Many of the piles on Phase 2B were driven, but
some were designed as bored piles and others were
changed to bored piles when hard ground was
encountered. The results of tests generally showed good
agreement with data obtained from the Phase 1A pile
tests.
COMPUTf.R MODEL
By careful analysis of the strain gauge results,
together with the information on gross pile movement
from extensometers, a picture of load transfer/
displacement can be built-up, and this can be
related to soil strength, eg. SPT 'N' value. One way of
using this information is within a mathematical model of
pile/soil interaction. One such simple model has been
prepared (Buttling & Tam 1987), considering each pile as
a series of cylindrical elements, the length of which
corresponds to a zone of soil which can be represented
by a single load transfer/displacement relationship or
'soil' type. Assuming an end bearing/displacement
relationship and postulating a pile tip settlement, the pile
behaviour can be modelled incrementally from bottom to
top. The end results are a load distribution with depth
together with a pile top load and settlement. The
method has been programmed, and a series of runs
provides a load settlement curve. The model can then
be used to back analyse instrumented test pile results,
adjusting the load transfers until a good fit is obtained
with the measured strains. It can similarly be used,
though with less precision, to back analyse load
settlement curves of non-instrumented pile load tests.
This model has been used to examine the data from
the Phase 1A, 2A & 2B pile tests, and a family of
suitable load transfer/displacement curves has been
produced. Figures 13 to 20 show typical examples of
comparisons between measured and computed load
distribution, and load/settlement curves. From the load
transfer/displacement relationships in Figure 21, used to
produce the measured distributions, a reliable picture of
the shear stresses mobilised at various levels can be
produced. Generally these show that the shear stresses
are much higher than those used in the design, and are
159
closer to the ultimate shear resistance. This is a natural
consequence of a design in which small settlements are
specified. In order to achieve this with any sense of
economy it is good practice to reduce the factor of
safety on calculated ultimate skin friction to about 1.2, in
order to maximise on the capacity which can be
mobilised at small strain. A factor of safety on end-
bearing of about 10 is probably compatible with this,
and will ensure that. no embarrassing failure occurs
should the skin friction have been marginally over-
estimated.
DISCUSSION
It is clear from the foregoing that, despite some quite
tight settlement criteria, there has been very little
problem in the performance of the bored piles
compared to their design. Generally the available factors
of safety against ultimate failure are very high, because
little of the base resistance can be mobilised at the
small working settlements. Economic design therefore
dictates that most of the skin friction should be
mobilised, reducing the factor of safety to about 1.2 on
ultimate, with a large margin on the end-bearing
capacity.
Back analysis of vertical load tests, both with and
without instrumentation, and use of the computer model
have shown that skin friction values of 300kPa have
been mobilised on many occasions; these are much
higher than the design values, even without the
adhesion reduction factors. The Smith & Pole
relationship is clearly too conservative for Singapore
soils, while curves (2) and (3) in Figure 2 would each
appear to indicate about half of the available ultimate
adhesion.
Lateral loads are generally of the order of 100kN per
pile, and can readily be accommodated. Tests on single
piles showed small and acceptable lateral movements,
bearing in mihd that fixed head conditions and passive
resistance of the pile cap would each help to reduce
deflections and bending moments. Although there is not
enough data to be conclusive, it is likely that the lengths
of reinforcement used are excessive in relation to the
bending moments in the piles.
The computer model has been successfully used to
back analyse instrumented test pile results, and hence
the load transfer/displacement relationships have been
calibrated. Its use can then be extended into
investigating the ultimate capacity of piles not tested to
failure, the effects of reducing the length of a pile or the
effects of reducing friction in the upper part due to (i) a
deep pile cap or (ii) an adjacent excavation such as for
a subway.
It is hoped that further analysis will lead to a better
correlation between the 'soil' types and some
measurable property such as horizontal effective stress
or SPT 'N' value.
CONCWSIONS
1. The design criteria, in terms of allowable deflection,
have been met without undue difficulty.
2. Bearing capacity has very rarely been a problem.
3. The design methods used have been refined during
the course of the project but, on the basis of the
load test results, are still considered to be
conservative.
4. The computer model is a very useful aid to
understanding of test pile behaviour and the
investigation of the effect of small changes on pile
performance.
REFERENCES Poulos HG & Davis Pile foundation analysis and
EH (1980) design. John Wiley & Sons, New
Buttling S (1986) Testing and instrumentation of
York.
bored piles, 4th Int. Geotechnical
Smith & Pole (1980) Elements of foundation design.
Seminar, NTI, Singapore, 211-218.
Granada, London, 72-73.
Buttling S & Tam A simple model for pile
Terzaghi K & Peck Soil mechanics in engineering
RCK (1987) performance - its calibration and
RB (1987) practice. John Wiley & Sons, New
use (to be published).
Ct)in FK (1970) Estimation of the ultimate load of York, 2nd Ed., 347.
Yong KY, Cheah Ultimate load test of an
piles from tests not carried to
WB & Yap NC instrumented cast-in-situ bored pile
failure. 2nd SEACSE (SEAGC),
(1982) installed in stiff clay. 7th SEAGC,
Singapore, 81-90.
Hong Kong, 1, 453-463.
Chin YK, Tan SL Ultimate load tests on instrumented
& Tan SB (1985) bored piles in Singapore Old
Alluvium, Proc. 8th SEAGC, Kuala
Lumpur, 2, 54-64.

Undrained Shear Strength , Cu ( kN I m 2 )

0 100 200 300 L,OO 500 600 700
0 Cl
0
(!)
0

5 Ill

le -
..... 10
(!)
E
'

(!)

25
, -~ommended desigo
relationship
30
Figure 1 UNDRAINED SHEAR SlRENGTH FROM
UU TESTS - SOIL TYPE 0

160
 180
Cu ( Terzaghi & Peck )

...... 160
"e
-
z-"' 140
~

-...
.£:
g' 120
Ql
( 3)
/
Vi
~ 100
.£:
/
-"-' lf)

-o
Ql
c
80 /
·a...
-o
c 60 /
----
::::>
c(l

/
c
0
'iii

]/ / ----- ----
-----
Ql
.£:
-o

-----
~

V/_____.
0
0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88 96 104
SPT ' N ' Value
Figure 2 Relationship between adhesion , undrained shear strength & SPT ' N ' value
 12 MICROSTRAIN
50 lOO 150 200 250 n;r Description
reddish brown
SPT
blows/mm

3 clayey silt 1/300

reddish brown 12/300
6 silt 25/300
dark reddish
c\1 brown clayey
27/300
~

10 silt 52/300
~ 48J brown clayey
J'\E 300 silt (weathered 122/300
lll~ siltstone)
176})00
f::: 191/190
36/300
121/130
'
22.2 100/80
reddish brown 100/70
~· 25 TP4 26.0
SW siltstone
100/50
1, 2 ~ ~X tensclmtt~
Cmm::mw<alth
x or~ strain ~

( Q ) (b) (c )
t~ 3 I lnfornation for the Test pile at Carrronwealth (TP 4)
a. Position of extensometers and strain gauges in the pile.
b. Vertical strain distribution.
c. Borelog taken at the centre of pile location.

123 MICROSTRAIN
~
E
0
0 50 100 1'50 200 250 uc:' Description SPT
blows/mm
_j_
SOt l)>ard reddish
[b~own ligl:t greh 37/300
!'=layey s1lt wit
5 san.• sand and 46/300
5 r- fragments of roc
131;L230
~~d dark red
8.4' [rott led light
101/215
l"l~
fbsown clayey sil
~th coarse sand
i.dJ I~ 10 dark red light
100/260
Ji ~~~~ E 2.3 brownish grey
coarse grained
100/160
~ I'"' ~
~ ~siltstone
100/110
jE 15
a. hard brownish
6.5 yellow grey 100/130
~ r--, clayey silt with
100/130
rL ~iltstone
fragments of
100/150
Notes: v dense dark red
silty fine to 100/180
1,2,3 ~ex~ coarse sand
x ~ strain ga 19!'5 v dense dark red 100/210
25 TP' brownish yellow
Clerrenti clayey silt fine 100/50
(a) r12-- to rred sand 100/50
30 .___,____L._,_ _.___ _.__----J v dense dark red 101/100
grey· silty fine
to coarse sand 100/95
(b )
with fine gravel
F.gu.-. 4 I lnfornation for the Test pile at Clerrenti (TP 5) 100/200
a. Position of extensometers and strain gauges in the pile 36
b. Vertical strain distribution.
(c )
c. Eorelog taken at the centre of pile location.
162
 12 MICROSTRAIN
~
E SPT
~ 50 XX) 150 Description blowslmm
.L stiff yellowish 11/300
red reddish
orange clayey
silt with fine 13/300
5 to rred sand 12/300
14/300
~ ~10
rirrn black peaty 8/300
lay
~ E tiff dark grey 13/300
~ l.:.Kk ~caty clay
J'l ~ I P-..5- nd si tv clay 8/300
~15
N
N irrn light brown-
w ~ clav ish grey silty 12/300
0 8/300
c1§..._ rv hard yellowish
red clayey silt
20 )100/150
20 ,~rd dark red SW
22 siltstone
dark red rned
grain SW silt-
Notes' 25
~6.5 i~o~~' with ioints
1 s aced close
1,2 are ext~ TP6
x are strain gauges Ulu Pmdan

30 ~---J'-----J'----'---'--___J
(a ) (b ) (c )

Figure 5 1 Information for the Test pile at Ulu Pandan (TP 6)

a. Position of extensometers and strain gauges in the pile.
b. Vertical strain distribution
c. Borelog taken at the centre of pile location.

LOAD ( tonnes )
200 400 500 800 1000

......
E 20
E
.......
1-
z
w 40
~
w
....J
I=
w
til
50
w
....J
a.
80 Pile No: TP 2
Location :Queenstown

100~----~----~------'--------~-------'

Figure 6 LOAD SETILEMENT CURVE OF THE

TEST PILE AT QUEENSTOWN ( T P 2 )
163
 LOAD ( tonnes )
0 200 400 600 800 1000
0 I I

......
E 20
E
- -
......
1-
zw
~
40 - -
w
...J

~
1./l
w
60 - -
...J
0:::

80 - Pile No: TP 4 -
Location :Commonwealth

I I I I
100

Figur• 7 LOAD SETILEMENT CURVE OF THE

TEST PILE AT COMMONWEALTH ( TP 4 )

LOAD ( tonnes ) '

!:>
'·
0 200 400 600 800 1000
0 I I

.....
E 20 - -
E
......
1-
z
w 40
~
- -
w
...J

~
1./l
w
60 - -
...J
a.
80 - Pile No: TP 5 -
Location :Clementi

I I I I
100

Figure 8 LOAD SETILEMENT CURVE OF THE

TEST PILE AT CLEMENTI( TP 5 )
164
 LOAD ( tonnes )
0 200 400 600 800 1000
0~~~~~~~=-r-1~

......
E 20
E
.......
- -
1-
zw
~
ItO ~ -
w
...J

s
<f)
60 r- -
w
...J
a:
80 r- Pile No: TP 6 -
Location : Ulu Pondon

I I I J
100

Figure 9 LOAD SETILEMENT CURVE OF THE

TEST PILE AT ULU PANDAN ( TP 6 )

Load ( tonnes )

10

Figure 10 PILE LOAD TEST FOR PP 2 ( C 305 )

165
 Load ( tonnes )

00 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

1st cycle
~
l-
E I 2nd cycle·
~10
.....
c
CIJ
E
CIJ
.....
.....
~ 20
I
------- 3rd cycle

Figure 12 PRELIMINARY TEST PILE TP 4 (a), MARINA BAY { C 310 )

30
-"'"' Load ( tonnes )

00 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

1st cycle
~
2nd cycle
E
E
~

3rd cycle
~ 20
E
JY
.....
_.
~

•"V:~
40

Figure 11 PILE LOAD TEST FOR P612, PASIR RIS STATION ( C 306 )
 !:i
!:i ::::>
::::> C/l
8co C/l LIJ
a:
~
0
ln
LIJ
LIJ
~
1- ....1
::::>
~ 0
<( ~
<(
9 u

!
§ tI
r
~

N
0
C"'l

IJ
u
......
~
I.Cl
C"'l
~ Cl.
Cl.
Ill
<I>
c: LIJ
....1
c:
.9 a:
......
0
0
~ I ~
f
<(
0
....1 LIJ
5:
0
0
I ::::>
u
C"'l

t 1-
z
LIJ
~
I ~
1-

~
0
0 l:i:i
N
-
C/l

0
I 9
0
0
~

-I!!
C")

:::1
01
0 i.i:
0 0
0 2 N C"'l

( ww) 1N3W311l.35

167
 LOAD ( tonnes )
100 200 300 400 ·<>¥ 500 600 700 800

10

,.....
E 15
~

~
~ 20~ co

25
I
1//
Ill/ ./
"'
~

STRAIN GAUGE RESULT

30~/Y;'f X CALCULATED RESULT

35

40

45
Figure 14 LOAD TRANSFER CURVE FOR PP 35 ( C 302 )

.<11
 ~
m~
wm
o:w
0:
0
w 0w
~ 0:

I~
_j :::J
:::J Vl
~ <l
~~

~
l
"
~

Ir
I<
)(
"' C"')
u
'-'

6
§ ~
I
fl
I(
1 In
Vl
0:

I
~
0:
~
clC
~
-
c
0
"
i
'-' 0
~

0 <D
<l a.
9§ M 0:
f2
I w
5:
~ a

~
I ~
w
~
w
_j
1-
1-
~
-
0
<l
g
~" 1.0
~

~
::J
til
0 u:
0 S2 ~ 0
C"')
0
~

( ww) lN3~3ll13S

169
 ~
!:J
::J !J
l{l ::J
t.n
a: IJJ
a:
§ c
~
IJJ c
t:( ~
....1 ::J
::J t.n

~ r 5L5 ::E

I I
v I
8 <I
N
~
I
I .......
0
....... ~

M
:c
c § u
~

c M
....0 a.
~ 1-
c
~
<(
g @ .
u.
IJJ
6:
::J
u
~
IJJ
::E
IJJ
....1
I=
IJJ

-
t.n
c
<5
;;:)

-
<D

~
::J
01
iJ:

( ww ) 1N3~311!3S

170
 LOAD ( tonnes )
00 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
- 1400 1600

10
~

E
E
~

1- 20
z
w
:::E
-
::l
~
I=
w
(/) 30

40
MEASURED RESULT
- - x - - CALCULATED RESULT

50

Figure 17 LOAD TRANSFER CURVE FOR TP 3 ( C 310 )

 LOAD ( tonnes )

010 I A
100
"'
200
1
I
~-:x-32- A
300
I I
X
400
I I
500
I I
600
I I
700
I I
800
I I
900
I I
-x-~-x-x-x-x-x
- x - x - x -...,.._)(_

E 10
E
~

1-
zw

:::l
"' .=~
1-
20
w
lf)

30 - - - - L O A D TEST RESULT

- • - - CALCULATED RESULT

Figure 18 LOAD I SETTlEMENT CURVE FOR P 3111 ( C403 )

·~-
 0
8 (T)
0
~
:::::::-_X--~ u
0
g ~~~-·~------~--~:~'--- -
;;:;
a.

~
ea:
Ill
0
Cll
0
U)
c
c
.9
~

Cl
<(
g §

-
m

173
 LOAD ( tonnes )

o
0

~-~-~~
100 200

=·
300 400

r r
500

r r
600

E
E 10
- 1- MEASURED RESULT
~

1-
z
w
:::E Y'..: CALCULATED RESULT
~ w
..J
1-
~ 20
1/)

30

Figure 20 LOAD I SETTLEMENT CURVES FOR PILE S314, BUKIT BATOK ( C 405 )
•'<'·
 80
'SOIL' TYPE 7

70

60

~
' SOIL ' TYPE 6
50

-
"E
.....
~

a:
w
lJ..
40
!£
<(
a:
1-
0
<( 'SOIL' TYPE 5
0 30
...J

'SOIL' TYPE 4
20

' SOIL' TYPE 3

'SOIL' TYPE 2
10

' SOIL' TYPE I

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
DISPLACEMENT ( mm )

Figure 21 LOAD TRANSFER VS DISPLACEMENT

175