Translated from Indonesian to English - www.onlinedoctranslator.

com

STANDARD SPLN T5.008: 2015

Attachment to the Decision of the Board of Directors

PT PLN (PERSERO) PT PLN (Persero) No. . K/DIR/2015

TOWER FRAME FOUNDATION DESIGN GUIDE

ELECTRICAL AIR LINE
BASED ON
CONUS / SONDIR PENETRATION TEST RESULTS
(Cone Penetration Test)

PT PLN (Persero)
Jl. Trunojoyo Blok M - 1/135 Kebayoran Baru
South Jakarta 12160

i
STANDARD SPLN T5.008: 2015
Attachment to the Decision of the Board of Directors

PT PLN (Persero) No. . K/DIR/2015

PT PLN (PERSERO)

TOWER FRAME FOUNDATION DESIGN GUIDE

ELECTRICAL AIR LINE
BASED ON
CONUS / SONDIR PENETRATION TEST RESULTS
(Cone Penetration Test)

PT PLN (Persero)
Jl. Trunojoyo Blok M - 1/135 Kebayoran Baru
South Jakarta 12160
TOWER FRAME FOUNDATION DESIGN GUIDE
ELECTRICAL AIR LINE
BASED ON
CONUS / SONDIR PENETRATION TEST RESULTS
(Cone Penetration Test)

Arranged by :

Standardization Transmission Field Group

by Decision
Head of PT PLN (Persero) PUSLITBANG for Electricity
(Research Institute)
No. 0103.K/LIT.03/KAPUSLITBANG/2015

Standardization Working Group

Transmission Tower Foundation
by Decision
Head of PT PLN (Persero) PUSLITBANG for Electricity
(Research Institute) No.
0237.K/PUSLITBANG/2014

Published by:
PT PLN (Persero)
Jl. Trunojoyo Blok M - 1/135, Kebayoran Baru
South Jakarta 12160
Sk sahdir
Sk sahdir
 Standardization Transmission Field Group
Decree of the Head of PT PLN (Persero) PUSLITBANG for Electricity
(Research Institute)
No. 0103.K/LIT.03/KAPUSLITBANG/2015

1. Ir. Sugiartho : As Chairman concurrently Member As

2. Didik Fauzi Dakhlan, ST, MSc : Secretary concurrently Member As
3. Ir. Sahala Turnip : Member
4. Ir. Bambang Daryanto : As a Member
5. Ir. Soni Asmaul Fuadi : As a Member
6. Ir. Tri Agus Cahyono, MT : As a Member
7. Ir. Sumaryadi, MT : As a Member
8. Joko Muslim, ST, MT : As a Member
9. Ir. Didik Sudarmadi, MSc : As a Member
10. Ir. Imam Makhfud : As a Member
11. Ir. Eko Yudo Pramono, MT : As a Member
12. Ir. James Munthe : As a Member
13. Ir. Yulian Tamsir : As a Member

Structure of the Standardization Working Group

Transmission Tower Foundation
Decision of the Head of PT PLN (Persero) PUSLITBANG ELECTRICITY
No. 0237.K/PUSLITBANG/2014

1. Ir. Dudy Nasriya Hirawan : As Chairman concurrently Member : As

2. Anwar Rusmana, ST Secretary concurrently Member : As
3. Ir. Abdul Nahwan Member
4. Sul Munawir, ST : As a Member
5. Drs. Suradi : As a Member
6. Chaerul Ikhsan, ST : As a Member
7. Dede, BE : As a Member
8. Ana Ngesti Miharsi, ST : As a Member
9. Pramono Ajie, ST : As a Member
10. Rasgianti, ST : As a Member
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

list of contents

List of contents ................................................ ................................................................. ................................ i

Tables ................................ ................................................................. .................................................iii List of

picture ................................................ ................................................................. .................iv

Foreword ............................................... ................................................................. .......................................... viii 1

Scope ................................................ ................................................................. ........... 1

2 Aim ................................................. ................................................................. ......................... 2
3 Normative References................................................................................ ................................................................. ........... 2

4 Terms and Definitions ............................................................... ................................................................. ....... 3

4.1 Towers ................................................................. ................................................................. ........... 3

4.2 Foundation ................................................. ................................................................. ........ 3

4.3 Shallow Foundation................................................................................. ............................................... 3

4.4 Deep Foundation ................................................................. ................................................ 4

4.5 Foot Foundation (Pad and Chimney)................................................................ ............... 4

4.6 Block Foundation and Anchor (Block and Anchor)................................................................. .4

4.7 Grout ................................................................. ................................................................. ............ 4

4.8 Raft Foundation (Raft or Mat) ............................................... ............................... 4

4.9 Drill Pile Foundation ............................................................... ............................................... 4

4.10 Pile Foundation............................................................... .................................. 4

4.11 Sondir Cone Penetration Test (CPT) ............................... 4
4.12 Foundation Stability ................................................................. ............................................... 5

4.13 Bearing Capacity of Soil/Foundation .......................................................... ................................ 5

4.14 Ultimate Carrying Capacity ............................................................... ............................................... 5

4.15 Permit Carrying Capacity ............................................................... .............................................. 5

4.16 Land Subsidence ................................................................. ............................................... 5

4.17 Immediate Drop ............................................................... ........................................ 5
4.18 Primary Decrease................................................................................. ............................................... 5

4.19 Secondary Decline................................................................................. ............................................... 5

4.20 Friction ............................................................... ................................................ 6

4.21 SPT (standard Penetration Test) ............................................... ......................... 6
4.22 N60 SPT................................................................ ................................................................. ........ 6

4.23 Ground Water Level ............................................... .................. 6

4.24 Cohesive Soil ................................................................ ................................................. 6
4.25 Non-Cohesive Soil ............................................................... .......................................... 6

i
SPLN T5.008: 2015

4.26 Frustum Angle ...............6

4.27 Concrete ................................................................. ................................................................. ............6

4.28 Vertical Axial Load (Compress / Uplift) ............................................... ...............6

4.29 Horizontal Lateral Load (Shear) ............................................... .........................7
4.30 Overturning Moment Load............................................................... .........................................7

4.31 Safety Factor / SF (Safety Factor) ................................................................. ............7

4.32 Rock Quality Designation (RQD) ............................................... ..........................7
5 Foundation Design Criteria............................................................... ................................................................. 7

6 Soil Stratigraphy and Soil Specific Gravity ............................................... ..........................7

7 Soil Parameters From the Interpretation of Sondir Conus Penetration Test Data Results ....................8

7.1 Unit Weight of Soil ( ) .......................................................... ...............................................8

7.2 N60 SPT................................................................. ................................................................. .........9

7.3 Undrained Shear Strength (Su)................................................................ .....................10

7.4 Soil Sensitivity (St) ............................................... ...............................................10
7.5 Undrained Shear Strength Ratio .......................................... ................11
7.6 Over Consolidation Ratio (OCR) ............................................... ........................11
7.7 In-Situ Stress Ratio (Ko) ................................................................. ................................12
7.8 Relative Density (Dr)................................................................. ................................................12

7.9 Effective Inner Sliding Angle (Φ❤) ................................................................. ........................13

7.10 Stiffness (E) and Constrained Modulus (M) ............................................... ............14

7.11 Permeability (k) and Consolidation Coefficient (cv)................................................16
8 Classification of Tower Frame Foundation ............................................... ................................17
8.1 Type of Foundation................................................................................ .................................................17

8.2 Foundation Classification ................................................................. ...............................................17

8.3 Naming of Foundation Feet ............................................................... .................................20

9 Foundation Bearing Capacity for Foundation Design............................................... .......21

9.1 Shallow Foundation Axial Bearing Capacity ............................................... ..............21
9.2 Shallow Foundation Tensile Axial Bearing Capacity............................................... .......26
9.3 Shallow Foundation Shear Stability ............................................... ....................28
9.4 Shallow Foundation Roll Stability................................................................. ....................29
9.5 Axial Bearing Capacity Single Pile Foundation ...............................................29
9.6 Axial Tensile Bearing Capacity (Uplift) Single Mast ............................................... ..33
9.7 Single Pole Blanket Negative Shift.......................................... ............37
9.8 Pile Group Axial Bearing Capacity ............................................... ...............37
9.9 Lateral Bearing Capacity and Deflection of Single Pile Foundation ............................40
9.10 Lateral Bearing Capacity of Pile Group ............................................... ..............62

ii
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

9.11 Raft Foundation Bearing Capacity ............................................... ............................ 63

9.12 Bearing Capacity of Block Foundations and Anchors in Rock ................................... 63
10 Lowering of Foundation ............................................................... ................................................................. ... 70

10.1 Limitation of Subgrade Subgrade Subgrade ............................................... 70

10.2 Soil Subsidence on Shallow Foundations .......................................... ........ 71
10.3 Soil Subsidence on Pile Foundations................................................................ .............73
11 Design of Foot Foundation................................................................. .................................. 75
12 Pile Foundation Design................................................................. ............................................... 76
13 Design of Raft Foundation ............................................... ............................................... 77
14 Design of Block Foundations and Anchors in Rocks .......................................... ...... 78
15 Load Test on Foundations ............................................... ................................................ 79
15.1 Scope of Test ................................................................ ............................................... 79
15.2 Compressive Axial Load Test.......................................................... .................................. 80

15.3 Tensile Axial Load Test............................................................... ................................................ 91

List of Tables

Table 1. Level of Suitability of Field Test Methods for Geotechnical Parameters & Soil
Types ................................................ ................................................................. ..............................................1
Table 2. Correlation qc with N (after Schmertmann, 1970)* ................................................. ...10
Table 3. Value of Nkt for Cohesive and Non-Cohesive Soils ............................................... ...10
Table 4. Correlation of M with qc (after Mitchell and Gardner, 1975) ..................................16
Table 5. Foundation class .......................................................... ................................................................. ....19

Table 6. Prism/Cone Angle ............................................... .................................................27

Table 7. Tensile Capacity Adhesion Factors................................................................ ................................34
Table 8. Value of for Soil Types (Garlenger, 1973)................................................ .........37
Table 9. Relationship of k1 with Cu (Source: Tomlinson, 1994).................................................41
Table 10. Modulus of Variation of Cohesive Soil (Source: Tomlinson, 1994) ..........................42
Table 11. Pole Classification (Source: Tomlinson, 1994)................................................ .............42
Table 12. Coefficient n1 and n2 ................................................................. .........................................60
Table 13. Ultimate Shear Bearing Capacity of Anchor Steel with Grout (BS 8081) ................67
Table 14. The ultimate shear bearing capacity of steel anchors with Grout (IS: 456-2000)...........68
Table 15. Pile Foundation Load Testing Strategy .......................................... ..............79
Table 16. Collapse Loads of Various Interpretation Methods .................................................91

iii
SPLN T5.008: 2015

list of picture

Figure 1. Graph of soil behavior type for mechanical type cone penetration test ................ 8
Figure 2. Graph of estimated total soil unit weight (after Robertson, 2010)................... 9
Figure 3. q . correlationc with N based on grain size (after Robertson, 1983)......... 9
Figure 4. Estimated Ko as correlation with su, OCR and Ip................................... 12
Figure 5. D . Correlationr with conical end resistance qc and❤ vo ................................................. 13

Figure 6. Correlation❤ with qc and❤ vo for sandy soils (Robertson & Campanella,
1983)................................................................ ................................................................. ................................ 13

Figure 7. Correlation Eu with Su (after Ladd et al, 1977).................................................................. 15

Figure 8. Classification of Foundations on the Graph of Soil Behavior Types from the Schmertmann

Graph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20 Figure 9. Illustration of tower leg naming.............................................. ................................ 20

Figure 10. The bearing capacity factor of the foundation on the slope................................................................. ......... 22

Figure 11. Bearing capacity factor of the foundation on the slope ............................................... ......... 24

Figure 12. Correlation of carrying capacity ............................................... .................................. 26

Figure 13. Tensile axial bearing capacity using the prismatic/truncated cone method......... 27
Figure 14. Shear stability of shallow foundation................................................................. ...................... 28

Figure 15. Bearing capacity factor of deep foundation (Meyerhof, 1976) ................................ 31
Figure 16. Kulhawy adhesion factor, 1991 .......................................... ............................ 31
Figure 17. Pile blanket friction correction factor (source: Nottingham, 1975) ............. 33
Figure 18. Distribution of frictional resistance................................................................. ................................ 35

Figure 19. Tensile coefficient ............................................... ................................................ 35

Figure 20. Pile-soil shear angle.......................................... .................................. 36
Figure 21. Pile group as block foundation .......................................... ............... 38
Figure 22. Block foundation form factor ............................................... .............................. 38
Figure 23. Bearing capacity factor of block foundations (Meyerhof, Source: Tomlinson, 1994) ...
39 Figure 24. Tensile failure of pile group blocks in cohesive soils ................... ......... 40
Figure 25. Tensile failure of pile group blocks on non-cohesive soil ................................ 40
Figure 26. The relationship between modulus of variation (ηh) with the degree of soil density (Dr) ......... 42

Figure 27. Soil reaction and cohesive earth pile moment plane ............................... 43
Figure 28. The ultimate lateral bearing capacity of short piles in cohesive soils ................................ 44

Figure 29. Soil reaction and incohesive pile moment plane............................... 45

Figure 30. The ultimate lateral bearing capacity of short piles on non-cohesive soils ............. 46

iv
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

Figure 31. Deflection, soil reaction diagram and bending moment in cohesive soil ........47
Figure 32. The ultimate lateral bearing capacity of long piles in cohesive soils ..................48
Figure 33. Deflection, soil reaction diagram and bending moment in non-cohesive soil49
Figure 34. Ultimate lateral bearing capacity of long piles in non-cohesive soil. ............50
Figure 35. Diagram of earth pressure & internal forces in pile ................................................................ ........51

Figure 36. Kq and Kc................................................................. ................................................................. .52

Figure 37. Determination of z for cohesive soils .......................................... .................52

Figure 38. Deformation, moments, pile shear and soil reaction ............................................... .54
Figure 39. Reese-Matlock coefficient of load H of free head piles with increasing
modulus. ................................................................. ................................................................. ...................56
Figure 40. Reese-Matlock coefficient of load Mt free head pile with increased
modulus ............................................... ................................................................. ..........................57
Figure 41. Reese-Matlock coefficient of load H of wedged head pile with increasing
modulus ................................... ................................................................. ...................................58
Figure 42. Pile deflection in cohesive soil .......................................................... ..................61
Figure 43. Pile deflection in non-cohesive soil ............................................... ..............62
Figure 44. Lateral bearing capacity of pile group.......................................... ..................63
Figure 45. Block foundation without anchors in rock ............................................... ............63
Figure 46. Block foundation with anchors in rock ............................................... .........64
Figure 47. End Resistance (qb) rock ................................................................................ .........................65

Figure 48. Single anchor failure mechanism .......................................................... ...........69

Figure 49. Collapse of anchorage group ............................................... ................70
Figure 50. Factors affecting depth and shape of the foundation ................................................71
Figure 51. Coefficient of secondary soil subsidence ............................................... ...............72
Figure 52. Strain influence factor ............................................... ..............................73
Figure 53. Equivalent shallow foundation for pile group foundation .................................74
Figure 54. Flowchart of the calculation stages of the footing...............................................75
Figure 55. Flowchart of pile foundation calculation steps ............................................... 76
Figure 56. Flowchart of the stages of calculating the raft foundation ................................................................. .77

Figure 57. Flowchart of the calculation stages of the foundation block and anchor in rock ...78
Figure 58. Sketch of the installation of testing equipment with hydraulic jacks ...........81
Figure 59. Comparison of test times (Fellenius, 1975) ............................................... .84
Figure 60. Pile settlement behavior due to loading (Fellenius, 1975) .................84

v
SPLN T5.008: 2015

Figure 61. Method of interpretation of test results by davisson ................................................ 86

Figure 62. Method of interpretation of test results by Chin............................................... .... 86
Figure 63. Method of interpretation of test results by De Beer ................................................. 87
Figure 64. Method of interpretation of test results by Brinch Hansen criteria 90% ......... 88
Figure 65. Method of interpretation of test results by Brinch Hansen 80% criteria ......... 88
Figure 66. Method of interpretation of test results by Mazur Kiewiecz ................................ 89
Figure 67. Methods of interpretation of test results by Fuller & Hoy and by Butler &

Hoy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

89 Figure 68. Method of interpretation of test results by Vander Veen ............................... 90

Figure 69. Typical loading equipment with one hydraulic jack ............... 92
Figure 70. Example of determining the ultimate pile tensile load (Sharma et. al., 1984) .............. 93

Figure 71. Lateral load testing equipment ................................................. 95

Figure 72. Wire-mirror measuring system ............................................... ........................ 96
Figure 73. Inclinometer measurement system ............................................... ........................ 96
Figure 74. Example of a lateral loading test curve .......................................... .... 97

vi
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

Foreword

In determining the design criteria of the tower foundation for High Voltage Air Ducts,
Extra High Voltage Air Ducts and Distributions, SPLN standards are needed to provide a
directional and uniform grip on the detailed design of Tower foundations.

The design of this tower foundation in the planning and construction implementation uses
the tower foundation design method based on the results of the sondir cone penetration test
(Cone PenetrationTest), this is done considering that this method is more practical and the
implementation time is relatively short.
With the stipulation of SPLN T5.008:2015, the preparation of design criteria and the design of
transmission and distribution tower foundations must follow this standard.

viii
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

Tower Frame Foundation Design Guide

Electric Power Air Line
Based on
Conus / Sondir Penetration Test Results
(Cone Penetration Test)

1 Scope

This standard is intended to establish design criteria and design methods for
transmission and distribution frame tower foundations with standard spans based on
cone/sondir penetration test data.
Conus/sondir penetration test data are used to estimate soil types and parameters,
including:
a. Soil layer and soil type;
b. Characteristics of the strength or bearing capacity of the soil;
c. Characteristics of deformation or subsidence of the soil.

Soil parameters determined based on test results in the field have different levels of
accuracy from each other or even some parameters cannot be determined, so it is
necessary to know that there are limitations in the design of foundations that use soil
parameters from the results of the konus / sondir penetration test in particular and the
test method other fields in general.
The limitations of each test method can be seen in Table 1 which states the level of
suitability for the type of soil and soil parameters under investigation.

Table 1. Level of Suitability of Field Test Methods for Geotechnical Parameters & Types
Land

(Lunne, Robertson & Powell, 1997, updated by Robertson, 2012)

1
SPLN T5.008: 2015

If there is one or more of the reasons stated below, such as:

a. There are difficulties in interpreting the test data such as in the soil layer containing
gravel or there is no interpretation method;
b. Very low cone resistance with qc 2 kg/cm2;
c. Soil with high sensitivity/susceptibility/monmorilonite soil or peat soil;

d. The required soil data is beyond the capabilities of the test equipment;

e. Changes in the position of the ground water level need to be known with certainty;

f. The design of the transmission structure foundation with a very high level of risk
for;
g. Foundations of special transmission structures such as crossing towers or large span
transmissions and others;
h. The foundation is a layer of rock.

the foundation design using cone penetration test data cannot be carried out with this
standard unless accompanied by test data from other soil/rock investigation methods.

2 Aim

This standard is used as a guideline in equating the design method of the truss tower
foundation using the sondir cone penetration test data.

3 Normative Reference

Unless otherwise specified in this standard, the provisions follow the following standards
and references. In the event of a change, the provisions follow the latest edition.
1) ASTM D 1143M-07 (2013), Standard Test Methods for Deep Foundations Under Static
Axial Compressive Load, 2013;
2) ASTM D 3689M-07 (2013) e1, Standard Test Methods for Deep Foundations Under
Static Axial Tensile Load, 2013;
3) ASTM D 3966M-07 (2013) e1, Standard Test Methods for Deep Foundations Under
Lateral Load, 2013;
4) ASTM D 3441-98, Standard Test Methods for Mechanical Cone Penetration Tests of
Soils, 1999;
5) G, Sanglerat, The Penetrometer and Soil Exploration, Elsevier Publishing Company,
Amsterdam, London, New York, 1972;
6) J, E, Bowles, Foundation Analysis and Design, 3rd edition, McGraw-Hill, 1982;
7) NAVFAC DM-7, Design Manual Soil Mechanics, Foundations, and Earth Structures,
Department of The Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 200 Stovall Street,
Alexandria, VA. 22332, 1971;
8) J, M, Duncan, A., L., Buchignani, Geotechnical Engineering An Engineering Manual for
Settlement Studies, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California,
Berkeley, 1976;

2
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

9) H, G, Poulos, E, H, Davis, Pile Foundation Analysis and Design, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, 1980;
10) IEEE ISBN 0471-01076-8, IEEE Trial-Use Guide for Transmission Structure Foundation
Design – Draft American National Standard, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Inc. – Wiley-Interscience of John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1986;
11) P, P, Rahardjo, Pillar Foundation Manual, Postgraduate Masters in Civil Engineering,
Parahyangan Catholic University, ISBN 979-95267-0-1;
12) EPRI EL-6800, Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design, Final
Report, Electric Power Research Institute, 1990;
13) EPRI EL-2870, Transmission Line Structures Foundation for Uplift Compression
Loading, Final Report, Electric Power Research Institute, 1983;
14) EPRI EL-3777, Load Transfer Mechanisms in Rock Sockets and Anchors, Final Report,
Electric Power Research Institute, 1984;
15) EPRI EL-5918, Analysis and Design of Drilled Shaft Foundations Socketed Into
Rocks”, Final Report, Electric Power Research Institute, 1988;
16) P, K, Robertson, K, L, Cabal (Robertson), Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for
Geotechnical Engineering, Gregg Drilling & Testing Inc., 5th edition, 2012;
17) B, H, Fellenius, A, Eslami, Soil Profile Interpreted from CPTu Data, Year 2000
Geotechnics, Geotechnical Engineering Conference, Asian Institute of Technology,
Bangkok, Thailand, November 27 - 30, 2000, 18p;
18) J, H, Schertmann, Guide Lines for Cone Penetration Test, Performance and Design”,
US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC,
1978;
19) P, W, Mayne, Cone Penetration Testing State of Practice, Transportation Research Board
Synthesis Study, Washington, 2007;
20) D, L, Presti, C, Meisina, Use of Cone Penetration Tests for Soil Profiling and Design of
Shallow and Deep Foundations, CPT Handbook, Pagani Geotechnical Equipment.

4 Terms and Definitions

4.1 Towers

Frame structure to support High Voltage Air Line (SUTT), Extra High Voltage Air Line
(SUTET) and Distribution.

4.2 Foundation

Substructure building that functions to distribute the tower load into the surrounding soil
layer.

4.3 Shallow foundation

Foundations that have a depth of not more than the width of the foundation include grades 1, 2, 3, 4A,
5, and 7 foundations.

3
SPLN T5.008: 2015

4.4 Deep foundation

Foundations that have a depth of more than the width of the foundation and use support
poles with the type of drill pile (bored pile) or piles (driven pile), all deep foundations are
classified into class 6 foundations.

4.5 Foot foundation (Pad and Chimney)

Shallow foundation consisting of a plate (foot/pad) and a column part (chimney) at each leg of
the tower separately from each other with the material in the form of reinforced concrete.

4.6 Block foundation and anchor (Block and Anchor)

Foundations on rock consisting of concrete blocks with or without anchors at each foot of the
tower separately from each other with materials in the form of reinforced concrete for blocks
and steel reinforcement with grout for anchors (foundation class 4B).

4.7 Grout

Gap filling material between anchor steel and rock on block and anchor foundations.

4.8 Raft foundation (Raft or Mat)

Shallow foundations consisting of slabs (palms/pad) which unites all tower legs and column
sections (chimney) at each leg of the tower separately from each other with the material in
the form of reinforced concrete.

4.9 Drill pile foundation

The deep foundation is in the form of reinforced concrete piles, the installation of which
is done by drilling the ground first and then casting the reinforced concrete piles.

4.10 Pile foundation

Deep foundations in the form of reinforced concrete poles or steel poles or wooden poles
whose installation is done by pounding the pole into the ground.

4.11 Sondir cone penetration test (Cone Penetration Test/CPT)

Tests to obtain the parameters of the resistance to penetration of the soil layer in the
field with the conus sondir penetration tool. The parameter is in the form of cone
resistance (qc), shear resistance (fs), shear ratio (Rf), and the total soil shear (Tf), which can
be used for the interpretation of soil layers and the physical and mechanical parameters
of the soil that are part of the foundation design.

4
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

4.12 Foundation stability

The ability of the foundation to bear axial compression loads, axial tensions, laterals and
overturning moments without collapsing and not causing excessive soil deformation or
settlement.

4.13 Bearing capacity of soil/foundation

The ability of the soil/foundation to withstand compressive axial loads, tensile axial loads,
laterals, and overturning moments expressed in units of pressure or stress without
experiencing excessive failure or settlement.

4.14 Ultimate carrying capacity

The ability of the foundation to bear the load until there is a complete shear failure of the
soil (general shear failure).

4.15 Permit carrying capacity

The ability of the foundation to bear the load without experiencing soil collapse whose
magnitude is the ultimate bearing capacity divided by the safety factor.

4.16 Land subsidence

Vertical deformation of the subgrade layer due to loads consisting of instantaneous

settlement (immediate settlement), primary decline (primary settlement) and secondary/
crawl decline (secondary settlement/creep) .

4.17 Instant drop

Vertical deformation of the subgrade layer of the foundation by the load caused by the elastic properties
of the soil.

4.18 Primary decline

Vertical deformation of the cohesive soil layer of the foundation base by the load in the form of soil
compression caused by the release of water from the soil pores (consolidation).

4.19 Secondary drop

Vertical deformation of the cohesive soil layer of the foundation base by the load in the form
of soil compression caused by a decrease in the pore ratio (void ratio) soil at constant earth
pressure and over a long period of time.
-

5
SPLN T5.008: 2015

4.20 Friction (Friction)

The value of the frictional resistance of the soil against the pile foundation is expressed in kg/cm.

4.21 SPT (standard penetration test)

The test is carried out to determine the value of soil density expressed in the value of N.

4.22 N60 SPT

Is N-SPT with 60% energy efficiency. The standard value for energy efficiency ranges from
35-85% when a donut or safe beater is used. In America and England an average of 60%
energy efficiency is used for drill rod lengths of more than 10 meters.

4.23 Groundwater level (Groundwater Level)

The position of the groundwater level at the time of testing.

4.24 Cohesive soil

Fine-grained soil material consisting of silt or clay that contains or does not contain
organic material.

4.25 Non-Cohesive Soil

Coarse-grained soil material with visible grain size visually and has no cohesion or
adhesion between grains, for example sandy soils.

4.26 Angle of shear failure due to lift (Frustum Angle)

The angle between the vertical axis and the line on the failure plane due to tensile loads
uplift which can be either a prism or a truncated cone.

4.27 Concrete

Is a cement mixture portland or other hydraulic cement, fine aggregate, coarse

aggregate and water, with or without admixtures (admixture).

4.28 Vertical axial load (Compress / Uplift)

Loads that work perpendicular to the foundation plane consisting of compression and tension.

6
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

4.29 Horizontal lateral load (Shear)

The load acting in the direction of the foundation plane

4.30 Overturning moment load

The load caused by the eccentricity of the vertical load and the lateral load to the center of gravity of the
foundation base.

4.31 Factor of safety/SF (Safety Factor)

Comparison between the ultimate capability of the foundation to the permit/workability of the foundation on
the permit design method.

4.32 Rock quality design (RQD)

Comparison between the total length of intact rock test samples with a length equal to or
more than 10 cm to the total length of the test samples in one test tube.

5 Foundation Design Criteria

The design of the foundation must meet the design criteria, including the foundation must be stable,
strong and not experiencing excessive settlement, namely:

a. The stability and strength of the foundation consists of the bearing capacity of the foundation in carrying axial
compressive, tensile, lateral and overturning loads;

b. The settlement of the foundation must be limited so that it does not cause damage to the superstructure
and does not interfere with the aesthetics or comfort of the surrounding environment.

6 Stratigraphy / Soil Layers and Soil Types

Stratigraphy or soil layers and soil types need to be known in designing the foundation to
determine the calculation method according to the type of soil. This can be estimated by
using the sondir cone penetration test data in the form of sondir cone tip resistance (qc)
and the friction ratio, which is the ratio between the frictional resistance of the sondir
blanket (fs) with conus sondir end resistance (Rf = fs/qc).

Interpretation of soil type from mechanical sondir cone penetration test data using
graphs from Schmertmann (1978) as in Figure 1.

7
SPLN T5.008: 2015

Figure 1. Graph of soil behavior for mechanical type cone penetration test

(after Schmertmann, 1978)

7 Soil Parameters Based on Conus/Sondir Penetration Test Results

7.1 Unit weight of soil ( )

The unit weight of soil is determined using the equation from Robertson, 2010 as follows:

/ w = 0.27[log Rf] + 0.36[log(qt/pa)]+1.236 ………………….………………………… (1)

With:
= total unit weight of soil;
w = unit weight of water;
qt = cone resistance with pore water pressure correction, taken equal to qc;
Rf = The ratio of the frictional ground of the blanket to the resistance of the cone tip = fs/qt x 100%; Pa =
atmospheric pressure.

Or by using the graph in Figure 2.

8
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

Figure 2. Graph of total soil unit weight estimation (after Robertson, 2010)

7.2 N60 SPT

Correlation between sondir cone penetration test data and N60 The SPT uses the graph of
Robertson & Campanella, 1983 as the graph in Figure 3. below:

Figure 3. q . correlationc with N based on grain size (after Robertson, 1983)

9
SPLN T5.008: 2015

For non-cohesive soils, the Schmertmann, 1970 correlation table can be used for mechanical
penetration test equipment as shown in table 2.

Table 2. Correlation qc with N (after Schmertmann, 1970)*

Soil Type qc/N

Silts, sandy silts, and slightly cohesive silt-sand mixtures 2
Clean, fine to medium sands and slightly silty sands 3-4
Coarse sands and sands with little gravel 5-6
Sandy gravels and gravel 8-10

* ) Copied from “The Penetrometer and Soil Exploration:, G. Sanglerat, 1972

7.3 Undrained shear strength (Su)

The empirical formula used to estimate the shear strength of the soil under undrained
conditions is as follows (Prandtl, 1921):

……………………………………………………………………………………………….… (2)

With:
su = undrained shear strength;
qt = resistance of the corrected sondir cone tip, taken equal to qc for test equipment
without pore water;

v = earth pressure above the studied soil elevation (overburden pressure); = conus
Nkt sondir factor according to table 3.

Table 3. Value of Nkt for Cohesive and Non-Cohesive Soil

Type of soil Nkt

Cohesive 20
Not Cohesive 40

Undrained shear strength is used in foundation soil analysis as undrained cohesion Cu.

7.4 Soil sensitivity (St)

The sensitivity of the clay soil is the ratio of the undrained peak shear strength of the
undisturbed test soil sample to the undrained shear strength of the disturbed test soil
sample (“remolded”) su(brake). Undrained shear strength su(brake) assumed to be equal to the
frictional resistance of the conical blanket (“sleeve”) fs so that the sensitivity of clay can be
estimated as follows (after Robertson, 2100):

10
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

) = 7/Fr …………………………………………………….. (3)

For very sensitive clay soils (St > 10) f values which is measured is relatively low with a low
level of accuracy so that the value of St it is used for instructions only.

7.5 Undrained shear strength ratio ( )

This parameter is used to estimate the plasticity index of clay Ip in looking for a
correlation with the modulus of elasticity of clay in undrained conditions Eu which is
expressed by the empirical formula as follows (after Robertson, 2010):

( ) = 0.071 Qt ………………………………………………………………. (4)

And for the landremolded” is;

( ) = (Fr . Qt)/100 ……………………………………………………….. (5)

With :

Qt =

= effective earth pressure above the studied elevation

7.6 Over consolidation ratio (OCR)

Excessive consolidation ratio (“overconsolidation ratio”) is the ratio between the past
effective earth pressure and the present effective earth pressure
which is expressed by the equation:

…………………………………………………….…………..……… (6)

Empirical correlation between with qt from Kulwahy and Mayne, 1990 are:
= k(qt –vo) …………………………………………………………………………. (7)

The value of k ranges from 0.2 to 0.5 and an average value of 0.33 is often used, a larger
value of k is recommended for highly consolidated clays.

11
SPLN T5.008: 2015

7.7 In-situ stress ratio (Ko)

Ko determined using the correlation between undrained shear strength, OCR and
plasticity index for fine-grained soils as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Estimated Ko as correlation with su, OCR and Ip

(after Andresen et al., 1979)

7.8 Relative density (Dr)

For non-cohesive soils, relative density or density index is an intermediate soil parameter
that is used to obtain other soil parameters and to determine its density.

Correlation between the tip resistance of the sondir cone and relative density, as shown
in Figure 5. quoted from Wesley, 2009. This graph is the average curve of the curves of
Lunne and Christofferson (1983), Baldi et al. (1989), and Jamiolkowski et al. (1988).

12
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

Figure 5. D . Correlationr with conical end resistance qc and' vo

(Lunne and Christofferson, 1983, Baldi et al., 1989) and Jamiolkowski et al., 1988)

7.9 Effective internal shear angle (Φ')

The correlation between the effective internal shear angle and the tip resistance of cone
penetration for uncemented light quartz sand soils with medium compressibility is shown
in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Correlation' with qc and' vo for sandy soils (Robertson & Campanella,
1983)

13
SPLN T5.008: 2015

For fine-grained or cohesive soils, the shear angle in effective The most precise is
determined by triaxial test of the sample of consolidated test soil in the laboratory. As an
estimate for the purposes of initial foundation design, the assumed value of 28° for clay
soils and 30° for silt soils is considered adequate (Robertson, 2012).

7.10 Stiffness (E) and Constrained modulus (M)

The main soil parameter needed to estimate the deformation or settlement of the soil on
the foundation is the modulus of elasticity or Young's modulus (E) and constrained
modulus (M).
The correlation between qc where E is very sensitive to stress-strain history, age and soil
mineralogy. One of the guidelines for estimating the modulus of elasticity of incohesive
soils under drained conditions is the correlation proposed by Robertson, 2010 as follows:

E❤=αE(qt–vo) ……………………………………………………..……………………………………… (8)

With:
E❤ = Young's modulus equivalent under drained conditions;
E = function of load degree, unit weight, pressure history, age, grain shape and
soil mineralogy = 0.015 [10(0.55 Ic + 1.68)];
qt = qc for penetration testing of mechanical and electrical types.

Ic = Soil behavior type index = [(3.47 – log Qt)2 + (log Fr +1.22)2]0.5 ……………….. (9)

Soil parameters for cohesive soil deformation analysis are modulus of elasticity for
instantaneous settlement and constrained modulus for consolidation decline. The
correlation between the shear strength of cohesive soils under undrained conditions (su)
with the modulus of elasticity (Eu) proposed by Ladd et al, 1977, is as shown in Figure 7.

14
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

Figure 7. Correlation Eu with Su (after Ladd et al, 1977)

Constrained modulus To analyze the consolidation of the cohesive soil, the correlation of
the electric cone penetration test data by Robertson, 2010 is used as follows:

M=1/mv=αM(qt–vo) ……………………..………………………………..........…… (10)

With:
mv = soil compressibility coefficient;
If Ic > 2.2 thenM = Qt for Qt < 14 orM = 14 for Qt > 14; If Ic < 2.2 thenM =
0.0188 [10(0.55 Ic + 1.68)];
qt = resistance of the tip of the cone corrected for pore water pressure;

Qt = .

For the interpretation of the results of the mechanical type cone penetration test, it is more
appropriate to use the correlation from Mitchell and Gardner, 1975, as shown in Table 4. taken
from Sanglerat, 1972.

15
SPLN T5.008: 2015

Table 4. Correlation of M with qc (after Mitchell and Gardner, 1975)

7.11 Permeability (k) and coefficient of consolidation (cv)

To estimate the settlement time of a cohesive soil at a certain degree of consolidation (U),
a soil permeability parameter (k) is needed. Soil permeability is most precisely
determined from the results of the permeability test of undisturbed soil samples in the
laboratory, but for estimates, the correlation from Robertson, 2010 can be used which is
expressed by the following equation:

k=10(0.952–3.04Ic) (m/s) for 1.0 < Ic < 3.27 …………………………………………..…….…… (11)

k = 10(-4.52 – 1.37 Ic) (m/s) for 3.7 < Ic < 4.0 ......................................................................................... (12)

This correlation cannot be used on sensitive soils or fine-grained hard soils and very
dense coarse-grained soils.
Coefficient of vertical consolidation (cv) is estimated from its correlation with the soil
compressibility coefficient (mv) that is:

cv = k/(mv . w) = k . M /w ……………………………………………………………….. ..…… (13)

With:
w = unit weight of water.

For the electric cone penetration test with pore water pressure measurements, the vertical
consolidation coefficient (cv) is estimated by measuring the drop in pore water pressure when
penetration is stopped.

16
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

This consolidation coefficient is interpreted as the level or degree of consolidation of 50%

which is expressed by the following equation:

cv = (T50/t50) (ro)2 ……………………………………………………..………………………………………… (14)

With:
T50 = theoretical time factor;
t50 = time required for 50% degree of consolidation; Ro =
cone radius.

For the mechanical type cone penetration test without measuring the pore water pressure when
the soil subsides at a certain degree of consolidation, it is expressed by the equation:

tU = TU H2/cv ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. (15)

With:
tU = time of decline in the degree of consolidation U; =
TU theoretical time factor in degree of consolidation U; =
H thickness of compressible soil.

8 Classification of Tower Frame Foundation

8.1 Type of foundation

The type of foundation used for the frame tower foundation in the PLN environment is
one of the following types of foundation:

8.1.1 Shallow foundation

The shallow foundations used are:

a. Foot Foundation;
b. Raft Foundation;
c. Block foundation without anchors in rock layers.
8.1.2 Deep foundation
The deep foundations used are:
a. Pile Foundation (displacement pile);
b. Drill Pile Foundation (non-displacement pile);
c. Block foundation with anchors in rock layers.

8.2 Foundation classification

The grouping of foundations is based on grading the bearing capacity of the foundation soil
according to the table and identifying the types and properties of the soil according to point 6
as shown in Figure 8 and used as an initial estimate of the type and depth of the foundation.

17
SPLN T5.008: 2015

In designing the foundation, the bearing capacity used for calculating the size of the
foundation in the same class is the smallest soil bearing capacity based on the method in
item 9.
Soil with conical pressure less than 2 kg/cm2 additional testing of other types of soil and
testing of undisturbed soil samples must be carried out in the laboratory to determine
the technical feasibility of the soil layer.
Investigation of rock layers for class 4b foundations was carried out to determine the physical and
mechanical properties of the rock.

18
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

Table 5. Foundation class

Foundation Class 1 2 3 4a 4b 5 6 7

Block Foundation Palm Foundation

Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation
Foundation Type with or without or Foundation Palm Foundation
palm palm palm palm Pole
anchor Raft
Conus's End Prisoner
Sondir for Land
100< qc <200 50< qc <100 25< qc <50 200< qc <400 qc > 400 20< qc <30 qc <20 20< qc <200
Not Cohesive
qc (kg/cm²)
Conus's End Prisoner
Sondir for Land
50< qc <100 25< qc <50 15< qc <25 100< qc <200 qc > 200 10< qc <15 qc< 10 10< qc <100
Cohesive
qc (kg/cm²)
Foundation Class 1,2,3
Investigation and 5 with
Soil Parameters Sondir Sondir Sondir Sondir Sondir Sondir
Rock Unit Weight
Saturated Land
Under Under Under Under
Under Basic
Ground water level Base Base Base Base Variation Variation Variation
Foundation
Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation
Concrete Density
2400/1400
Bones 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 / 1400 *) 1400 *)
*)
(kg/m³)
NOTES :
* ) is used when submerged in water

19
SPLN T5.008: 2015

Figure 8. Classification of Foundations on the Graph of Soil Behavior Types from the Schmertmann . Graph

8.3 Naming the foot of the foundation

The naming of the transmission tower foundation legs is determined based on the serial number
of the transmission tower from the small number to the large number, with the position facing the
large tower number in clockwise order, then the positions A and D are in the right position while B
and C are in the left position. , according to Figure 9 in the illustration below.

B C

T.011 (small number) T.012 T.013 (big number)

A D

Figure 9. Illustration of naming tower legs

20
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

9 Foundation Bearing Capacity for Foundation Design

This standard is used to calculate the bearing capacity of the soil using the direct method,
namely using the empirical formulation of the test parameters in the field.

9.1 Shallow foundation axial bearing capacity

9.1.1 Effect of groundwater level

The location or position of the ground water level will affect the bearing capacity of the foundation, namely
through the unit weight of the soil which is determined based on the location of the ground water level
mentioned above, namely as follows:

a. Dry unit weight in all terms of the bearing capacity equation if the water table is at a
depth below the base of the foundation;
b. The effective unit weight for all terms of the bearing capacity equation if the water level is
the soil is at a depth above the base of the foundation.

9.1.2 Effect of foundation position on slope

The bearing capacity of the foundation can be reduced if it is located around the slope, this is
due to the reduced layer of soil around the foundation to withstand the load, namely the
reduced volume of soil in the collapse area. The bearing capacity of the foundation at the
location around the slope can be estimated using the Terzaghi method with the corrected
Meyerhof bearing capacity factor as shown in the graphs of Figure 10 and Figure 11.

The correction factor for the bearing capacity of the foundation around the slope using the direct
method can be approached by comparing the bearing capacity factors of the foundation at
position around the slope (Ncq or N q) to the bearing capacity factors of the foundation in a position
without slopes, namely:

a. For cohesive soil, foundation bearing capacity correction factor = Ncq(β>0)/ Ncq(β=0);
b. For non-cohesive soil, correction factor for foundation bearing capacity = Nq(β>0)/ N q(β=0).

The placement of the foundation around the slope affects the stability of the slope so that a
slope stability analysis needs to be carried out.

9.1.2.1 Location of foundation on slope

The bearing capacity of the foundation located on the slope with a distance b from the edge of the slope
as shown in Figure 10(a) can be estimated by using a comparison of the bearing capacity factor of the
foundation on the slope (β> 0) with the bearing capacity factor of the foundation on flat ground (β=0 ).

For cohesive soils, the foundation bearing capacity factor on the slope is Ncq obtained
from Figure 10(b) using a curve with a value of > 0, while the bearing capacity factor of a
foundation without a slope is Ncq with a value of =0.

21
SPLN T5.008: 2015

In Figure 10(b), Ns is the slope stability value calculated by the following equation:

Ns = Hs/c ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. (16)

With:
Ns = slope stability value;
= unit weight of soil; H
s = slope height; C = soil

cohesion.

Equation (16) above is used when the width of the foundation Bf Hs, when Bf < Hs
then the price Ns = 0.

(a) Geometry (b) Cohesive soil ( =0) (c) Soil is not cohesive (c=0)

Figure 10. Bearing capacity factor of foundation on slope

When Bf Hs then for the value 0<Df/Bf<1 price Ncq interpolated from both D . curvesf/Bf=0 and D
f/Bf=1 with a value of Ns=0.
When Bf < Hs then the price Ncq for the value of Ns>0 can be interpolated from the two N . curvess
between the value of Df/Bf=0.

As an example:

1. A foundation located on a slope on a cohesive soil (ϕ = 0) with; C = 10 t/

m2
= 2 t/m3
Bf = 4 m
b=2m
Hs = 20 m
= 60°
Df = 4 m
22
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

Because Bf < Hs, eats = 0

For = 60°, b/Bf=0.5 and Df/Bf=1, from the graph of Figure 10(a) we get Ncq= 5.6
While the bearing capacity factor of cohesive soil on flat land (β = 0°)
In Figure 10(a) is Nc= 7
So that the bearing capacity of the foundation above the slope must be corrected to 5.6/7 or
0.8 of the bearing capacity on flat ground.

If b = 4 m, then b/Bf =1 then Ncq = 5.5 so that the carrying capacity factor increases to
6/7 or 0.86. The bearing capacity is not affected by slope geometry if b/ Bf 3 or
foundation edge b is equal to or greater than 12 meters.

2. The foundation is located on a slope on a cohesive soil (ϕ = 0) with; C =

10 t/m2
= 2 t/m3
Bf = 5 m
b=2m
Hs = 4 m
= 60°
Df = 2.5 m
Because Bf > Hs, eats = (2x4)/10=0.8
For = 60°, b/Hs=0.5, Df/Bf=0 and Ns=0, from the graph of Figure 10(a) we get Ncq= 4

For = 60°, b/Hs=0.5, Df/Bf=0 and Ns=2, from the graph of Figure 10(a) we get Ncq= 2.6

So for = 60°, b/Hs=0.5, Df/Bf=0 and Ns=0.8, inter [placing the two prices above and
getting Ncq= 3.44.
While the cohesive soil bearing capacity factor on flat land (β = 0°) for Ns=0.8 obtained
from the interpolation of the two graphs above is Ncq= 4.4
So that the bearing capacity of the foundation above the slope must be corrected to
3.44/4.4 or 0.78 of the bearing capacity on flat ground.

In non-cohesive soils, the bearing capacity factor for foundations on slopes is N q

obtained from Figure 10(c) using a curve with a value of > 0, while the factor
bearing capacity for the foundation without slope is N q with a value of =0. For values
0<Df/Bf<1, price N q can be calculated by interpolating between the D . curvesf/Bf=0 and
curve Df/Bf=1.

9.1.2.2 Location of foundation on slope

The foundation located on the slope is shown in Figure 11(a).

For cohesive soils, the foundation bearing capacity factor on slopes Ncq obtained based
on Figure 11(b), while the foundation bearing capacity factor on the slope for non-
cohesive soil N q obtained from Figure 11(c). The interpolation method used for the value
of Ns>0 nor value 0<Df/Bf<1 is the same as in item 9.1.2.1 above.

23
SPLN T5.008: 2015

(a) Geometry (b) Cohesive soil ( =0) (c) Soil is not cohesive (c=0)

Figure 11. Bearing capacity factor of foundation on slope

Example:

1. The foundation is located on a cohesive soil slope (ϕ=0) with: C

=10 t/m2
= 2 t/m3
Bf = 4 meters;
Hs = 20 meters;
= 30°;
Df = 3 meters.

Because Bf < Hs, then the N . curve is useds = 0 D

f/Bf=0.75;

On the D . curvef/Bf=0, for =30° we get N q= 4.1; On the D .

curvef/Bf=1, for =30° we get N q= 5.8; So the value of Nq for D
f/Bf=0.75, for =30° is 5.4; On the D . curvef/Bf=0, for =0° we

get N q= 5.14; On the D . curvef/Bf=1, for =0° we get N q= 7;

So the value of Nq for Df/Bf=0.75, for =0° is 6.5.

The carrying capacity correction factor is 5.4/6.5 or equal to 0.83.

2. The foundation is located on an incohesive soil slope (c=0) with:

=35°;
= 2 t/m3
Bf = 4 meters;
Hs = 20 meters;
= 30°;
Df = 4 meters;

24
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

Df/Bf=1;

On the D . curvef/Bf=1, for =30° and =30° we get N q= 25; On the

D . curvef/Bf=1, for =30° and =40° we get N q= 100; So the value
of Nq for Df/Bf=1, =35° and =35° are 62.5;

On the D . curvef/Bf=1, for =0° and =30° we get N q= 60; On

the D . curvef/Bf=1, for =0° and =40° we get N q= 250; So the
value of Nq for Df/Bf=1, =0° and =35° are 155.

The carrying capacity correction factor is 62.5/155 or equal to 0.4.

9.1.3 Bearing capacity in cohesive soil

The empirical correlation for the bearing capacity of the foundation in cohesive soils is:

qult = 2 su + D ……………….………………….…….……………….. (17)

By ignoringv , value Nkt of 15 and the safety factor of the soil bearing capacity is 3, then the bearing
capacity of the foundation permit on cohesive soil can be taken as follows:

qall = (1/20) qc + D/3 ……….……………………………………………………………….. (18)

9.1.4 Bearing capacity in non-cohesive soil

A direct method that directly correlates the bearing capacity of a non-cohesive soil as a
linear function of the end resistance of the cone qc which is expressed by the equation by
Eslaamizaad and Robertson, 1996 as follows:

qult = K xqc(ave) + D …………………………………………………….……………….….………………….. .. (19)

With:
qult = ultimate bearing capacity of the soil;
K = factor depends on B/D in Figure 12;
qc(ave) = average cone tip resistance at depth B below the base of the foundation.

In general K the minimum price can be taken of 0.16 and with a safety factor of 3, the
bearing capacity of the foundation soil permit becomes:

qall = (1/20) qc(ave) + D/3 ……….…………………….……………………………………………… (20)

25
SPLN T5.008: 2015

Figure 12. Correlation of carrying capacity

The bearing capacity of foundations on non-cohesive soils is generally determined by

settlement restrictions, so the conservative value is taken as follows:

qall = qc/40 + D/3 …………..……………………..……………………………………….. (21 )

9.2 Shallow foundation tensile axial bearing capacity

The ultimate tensile axial bearing capacity of the shallow foundation is as shown in Figure 13. The
Axial Tensile Bearing Capacity using the Prism/Truncated Cone Method is as follows:

Tu = Wf + Ws ……………………………….………………..…….……………… (22)

With:
Tu = ultimate tensile axial bearing capacity (tons or kN); Wf =
Foundation weight (tonnes or kN);
Ws = Weight of soil in the failure chamber (tonnes or kN).

Ws = t (V1 – Vo) + 1/6 t D2 tan (9 B + 2 D tan ) …………………………. (23)

With:
t = unit weight of soil (ton/m3 or kN/m3);
Vo = Volume of foundation below ground level (m3); V1 =
Base area of foundation x depth of foundation (m3); D =
depth of foundation (m);
B = Width of foundation base (m);
= prism/cone angle or frustum angle (°) according to table 6.

The allowable bearing capacity of the axial tensile load of the foundation is obtained from the ultimate bearing
capacity divided by the value of the safety factor of 2.

26
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

Figure 13. Tensile axial bearing capacity using the prismatic method

Table 6. Prism/Cone Angle

(Source: Guide for Transmission Structure Foundation Design, IEEE Std 691, 1986)

For Foundations Against Well-Compacted Fill

Vertical Pressure (psf) Cone Angel

Soil Type
A B C A B C
Quicksand and Alluvial 0 0 0 0 0 0
Soft Clay 1000 1000 500 5 0 0
Moderately Dry Clay, Clay and Sand 2000 2000 1000 25 20 15
Dry Loam and Clay 3000 3000 1500 25 20 15
Fine Firm Sand 4000 3500 3000 25 15 10
Compact Coarse Sand 5000 4500 4000 25 15 10
Compact Coarse Gravel 8000 8000 8000 30 15 10
Cemented Sand and Gravel 10000 10000 10000 30 20 15
Good Hardpan and Hard Shale 12000 12000 12000 30 25 20
For Foundations Against Undisturbed Natural Ground

Vertical Pressure (psf) Cone Angel

Soil Type
A B C A B C
Quicksand and Alluvial 1000 500 500 0 0 0
Soft Clay 2000 2000 1000 10 5 0
Moderately Dry Clay, Clay and Sand 4000 4000 2000 30 25 20
Dry Loam and Clay 6000 6000 3000 30 25 20
Fine Firm Sand 6000 5000 4000 30 20 15
Compact Coarse Sand 8000 7000 6000 30 20 15
Compact Coarse Gravel 12000 12000 12000 30 20 15
Cemented Sand and Gravel 16000 16000 16000 30 25 20

27
SPLN T5.008: 2015

Good Hardpan and Hard Shale 20000 20000 20000 30 30 30

Condition of Soil : A– Naturally well-drained
B– Subject to periodic flooding of short durationC– Subject to
ground water several months of the year

9.3 Shallow foundation shear stability

The shear strength of the foundation comes from the difference between passive soil pressure and
active soil pressure and from the shear resistance at the soil surface at the base of the foundation as
shown in Figure 14 Shallow Foundation Shear Stability.
The minimum value of the factor of safety against shear is set at 1.5.

Ws Ws
W

D Te

Tf

4 Cu
B
(a)Cohesive Soil

Ws Ws
W

D
Te
Tf
A
t D (Kp – Ka)
B

(b) Soil is not cohesive

Figure 14. Shallow foundation shear stability

FK Shear = (Te + Tf)/H …………………………………………………………………………… .. (24) With:

28
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

P = Compressive or tensile axial load (tons or kN); H

= Horizontal load (tonnes or kN); =
B Width of foundation base (m);
D = depth of foundation (m);
Wf = Foundation weight (tonnes or kN);
Ws = Weight of soil above the foundation (tonnes or kN).

(a) Cohesive Soil:

Te = Effective lateral soil resistance = 4 Cu BD (tons or kN);
Cu = Cohesion of undrained soil = Su (ton/m2 or kN/m2);
Tf = Shear resistance = (0.2 to 0.3)x(Wf+Ws+P) for compressive axial load (tons or kN);
Tf = Shear resistance = (0.2 to 0.3)x(Wf+Ws-P) for tensile axial load (tons or kN).

(b) Non-Cohesive Soil:

Te = Effective soil lateral resistance = 0.5 t D2B (Kp – Ka) (tons or kN); Ka =
Coefficient of active earth pressure = tan2(45°-ϕ/2); Kp = Coefficient of passive
earth pressure = tan2(45°+ϕ/2).

9.4 Shallow foundation roll stability

The overturning safety factor must not be less than 2, where the magnitude of the
foundation overturning moment at point A in Figure 14 is the sum of the multiplications
between the forces and each arm of the moment, while the overturning moment due to
the load at point A is the product of the force H with the arm. moment about point A.

9.5 Compressive axial bearing capacity of single pile foundation

The soil bearing capacity for pile foundations consists of compressive axial, tensile and lateral axial bearing
capacity. The pile foundation analysis method is carried out in two ways, namely:

a. Static empirical method (direct method) for pile foundations;

b. Static semi-empirical method (indirect method) for drill pile foundations.
The compressive axial bearing capacity of a single pile foundation is produced by two components of soil
resistance, namely: the bearing capacity of the tip of the pile and the frictional resistance of the pile blanket
which is expressed by the following equation:

Qult = Qb + Qs ……………………………………………………….………………….……………….. (25) Qult = qp

Ap + fp As ………………………………..……………………………….…………………… (26)

With:
Qult = ultimate bearing capacity of the pile;
Qb = ultimate bearing capacity of pile end resistance;
Qs = ultimate bearing capacity of pile blanket friction resistance;
Ap = cross-sectional area of the ends of the pile;
As = area of the pile end
qp blanket; = pile end resistance;
fp = pile friction resistance.

29
SPLN T5.008: 2015

The safety factor used to calculate the bearing capacity of the axial compression permit is
2.5 to 3.

tensile bearing capacity (uplift) The single pile is produced by the frictional resistance of the pile blanket and the pile
weight, namely:

Qult = fp As + Wp ………………..……………………………………………………………….…… (27)

With:
Wp = pile weight.

The safety factor used to calculate the axial tensile permit bearing capacity is 2.

9.5.1 Axial bearing capacity of concrete drill piles

9.5.1.1 Axial bearing capacity of concrete drill piles in cohesive soil

By using the following assumptions:

- soil conditions are not drained or total pressure then C = Cu = su;
- shear angle in soil = 0.
The axial bearing capacity of the concrete drill pile foundation is:

Qult = qp Ap + fp As ................................................................. .......................................... (28) Qult =

su Nc Ap + su As ................................................................. ................................. (29)

With:

Su = shear strength of undrained soil = (qc -v)/Nkt;

Nkt = 20;
Nc = deep foundation bearing capacity factor of Meyerhof, 1976 = 9 (Figure 15); =
adhesion factor from Kulhawy, 1991 as shown in Figure 16.

Then the ultimate bearing capacity of the axial concrete drill pile is:

Qult = (9/20) (qc -v) Ap + su As ………………………………….……………….… (30) Qult = (3/20) (q

c -v) Ap + (1/3) su As ……………………….……………………………… (31)

30
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

Figure 15. Deep foundation bearing capacity factor (Meyerhof, 1976)

Figure 16. Kulhawy adhesion factor, 1991

9.5.1.2 Axial bearing capacity of concrete drill piles on non-cohesive soil

By using the following assumptions:

- Soil is in a drained condition or effective stress then = ;

- Soil cohesion, C = 0.
31
SPLN T5.008: 2015

Qult = qp Ap + fp As ………………………………………………………………………………………………. (32)

With:
qp =❤ p Nq;
❤p = effective earth pressure at pile tip depth;
Nq = bearing capacity factor of deep foundation from Meyerhof, 1976;
fp = Ko ❤ z tan ;
Ko = earth pressure coefficient at rest at depth z;
❤z = effective earth pressure at depth z;
= effective internal shear angle of the soil.

9.5.2 Axial bearing capacity of pile compression

9.5.2.1 Compressive axial bearing capacity of piles in cohesive soil

Using the method of Schmertmann – Notingham, 1975:

Qult = qp Ap + fp As ……………………………………………………………………………………….. (33)

With:
qp = 0.5(qc1 + qc2);
qc1 = qc averaged at 0.7 D above the tip of the pile to 4 D below the tip
pole;
qc2 = qc averaged at 8 D above the pole tip;
fp =c ;
c = clay reduction factor according to Figure 17.

32
Translated from Indonesian to English - www.onlinedoctranslator.com

SPLN T5.008: 2015

Qult = qp Ap + fp As ………………………………………………………………………………………………. (32)

With:
qp =❤ p Nq;
❤p = effective earth pressure at pile tip depth;
Nq = bearing capacity factor of deep foundation from Meyerhof, 1976;
fp = Ko ❤ z tan ;
Ko = earth pressure coefficient at rest at depth z;
❤z = effective earth pressure at depth z;
= effective internal shear angle of the soil.

9.5.2 Axial bearing capacity of pile compression

9.5.2.1 Compressive axial bearing capacity of piles in cohesive soil

Using the method of Schmertmann – Notingham, 1975:

Qult = qp Ap + fp As ……………………………………………………………………………………….. (33)

With:
qp = 0.5(qc1 + qc2);
qc1 = qc averaged at 0.7 D above the tip of the pile to 4 D below the tip
pole;
qc2 = qc averaged at 8 D above the pole tip;
fp =c ;
c = clay reduction factor according to Figure 17.

32
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

Figure 17. Pile blanket friction correction factor (source: Nottingham, 1975)

9.5.2.2 Compressive axial bearing capacity of piles on non-cohesive soil

The procedure is the same as for cohesive soils but with the following limitations:

qp 100 kg/cm2 for sandy soil;

qp 75 kg/cm2 for silty sand.

9.6 Tensile axial bearing capacity (Uplift) single pole

The tensile axial bearing capacity of a single pile foundation is expressed as:

Tult = Tsf + Wp ……………………………………………………………………………………..………. (34)

With:
Tult = tensile axial ultimate bearing capacity;

33
SPLN T5.008: 2015

Tsf = ultimate frictional resistance;

Wp = Pole weight.

9.6.1 Tensile axial bearing capacity of single pile in cohesive soil

The ultimate frictional resistance of a single pile in a cohesive soil is estimated by the formula (Das and
Seeley, 1982):

Tsf = Lp❤ Cu ………………………………………………………………………………………………. (35)

With:
L = length of the pole; P =
Perimeter of the pile;
= adhesion factor for tensile capacity according to Table 7 Capacity Adhesion Factor
Pull;
Cu = Cohesion of undrained soil.

Table 7. Adhesion Factor Tensile Capacity

Pole Type Adhesion Factor

= 0.9 – 0.00625 Cu
Bore pile
(Cu 80 kPa)
= 0.4 (Cu > 80 kPa)

= 0.715 – 0.0191 Cu
Pipe Pole
(Cu 27 kPa)
= 0.2 (Cu > 27 kPa)

9.6.2 Tensile axial bearing capacity of single pile on non-cohesive soil

The ultimate frictional resistance of a single pile in a cohesive soil is estimated by the equation:

Tsf = ……………………………………………………..……..………….. (36)

With:
fu = The blanket-pull friction resistance = Ku ❤ v tan according to Figure 18 Distribution
Friction Resistance;
Ku = Tensile coefficient from Figure 19 Tensile
❤v = coefficient; Effective vertical stress;

= Shear angle between the pile and the ground from Figure 20 Angle of Shear
Pole-Earth & Lcr;
= inner shear angle;

34
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

Lcr = Critical depth according to Figure 20 Pile-Ground Shear Angle & Lcr.
Dr = Degree of relative density

Figure 18. Distribution of frictional resistance

Figure 19. Tensile coefficient

35
SPLN T5.008: 2015

Figure 20. Pile-ground shear angle

When L Lcr and the groundwater level is above the base of the pile, then:

Tsf = ……………………………….……………………………….. (37)

When L Lcr and the groundwater level is below the base of the pile, then:

Tsf = 0.5p t L2 Ku tan …………………………………………………………………………… (38)

When L Lcr, so:

Tsf = 0.5p t L 2 cr Ku tan + p t Lcr Ku tan (L - Lcr) ............................................................... (39)

36
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

9.7 Single pole blanket negative slide

Pile foundations that are in embankment soil (compressible clay/silt or loose sand) or
there is a large decrease in groundwater level, the subsidence of the soil layer that occurs
can cause the pile to be dragged down. The downward friction on the pile is called
negative friction (negative skin friction). The negative friction force based on the Beta
Garlenger method is:

Pn = ❤vi phi ………………………………………………………………………….. (40)

With:
= Coefficient of friction between pile and soil according to Table 8 Value of for Types
Land;
❤vi = effective soil stress layer i; =
hi layer thickness i;
p = circumference of the pole;

m = number of layers of soil.

Table 8. Value of for Soil Types (Garlenger, 1973)

Type of soil
Clay 0.20 – 0.25
Silt 0.25 – 0.35
Sand 0.35 – 0.50

9.8 Axial bearing capacity of pile group

The axial bearing capacity of the pile group is influenced by the distance between the piles, for that
a minimum distance between the piles is required between 2 D to 3 D where D is the diameter of
the pile.

9.8.1 Compressive axial bearing capacity of pile groups in cohesive soil

The bearing capacity of the pile group on cohesive soil is determined by the lowest value
between the sum of the single pile bearing capacity calculated at 9.5.1 or 9.5.2 and the
bearing capacity based on the collapse of the pile group as the block foundation as
shown in Figure 21 Pile Group as Block Foundation.

37
SPLN T5.008: 2015

Figure 21. Pile group as block foundation

The axial bearing capacity of the pile group block with length L, width B and depth D is
(Tomlinson, 1994):

Qult = 2 D (B + L) Cur +1.3 Cub SNc BL …………………………………………………….. (41)

With:
Cur = mean soil cohesion along L; Cub =
soil cohesion at depth L;
S = Block foundation form factor according to Figure 22 Block Foundation Form Factor; Nc =
Bearing capacity factor of block foundation according to Figure 23 Bearing Capacity Factor
Block Foundation.

Figure 22. Block foundation form factor

(Meyerhof-Skempton, Source: Tomlinson, 1994)

38
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

Figure 23. Bearing capacity factor of block foundation (Meyerhof, Source: Tomlinson, 1994)

9.8.2 Compressive axial bearing capacity of pile groups on non-cohesive soil

The comparison between the bearing capacity of the pile group and the sum of the carrying
capacity of the single pile is referred to as the pile group efficiency factor. The efficiency of this pile
group is only used for sandy soils with frictional resistance as the main component of carrying
capacity.
The pile group efficiency was estimated using Bowles' (1982) equation:

Eg = ………………………………………………………………………….. (42)

With:
Eg = Pile group efficiency factor; D =
Diameter or width of single pile; P =
Perimeter of single pile;
m = Number of piles on the wide side of the pile group; n =
Number of piles on the long side of the pile group.

Compressive axial bearing capacity of pile group = Eg x Total bearing capacity of single pile.

39
SPLN T5.008: 2015

9.8.3 Tensile axial bearing capacity of pile group

The tensile axial bearing capacity of pile group for cohesive soil is shown in Figure 24.
Tensile failure of pile group block on cohesive soil whose magnitude is:

……………………………………………………………..…….. (43)

Figure 24. Tensile failure of pile group blocks in cohesive soil

For non-cohesive soils, the same principle is used as for cohesive soils, but the form of
block failure is shown in Figure 25. Tensile Collapse of Pile Group Blocks in Non-Cohesive
Soils.

Figure 25. Tensile failure of pile group blocks on non-cohesive soil

9.9 Lateral bearing capacity and deflection of single pile foundation

The methods that can be used in the analysis of pile foundations against lateral loads are:

a Broms . Method
Used to calculate the ultimate lateral load on homogeneous (uniform) cohesive
undrained or homogeneous (uniform) incohesive soil layers;

40
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

b Brinch Method – Hansen

Used to calculate the ultimate lateral load on uniform and layered soils with the
parameters of cohesion and internal shear angle;

c Reese's Method - Matlock

Used to calculate the ultimate load or allowable load based on the allowable pile
deflection and can take into account moment loads other than lateral loads.

9.9.1 Pole classification

Pile foundations are divided into short (rigid) and long (rigid) piles.elastic) which is
determined by the ratio of the length of the pile to its stiffness.
Pile stiffness for overconsolidated clay/cohesive soils (overconsolidated) is:

…………………………………………………………………………………….. (44)

With:
R = Pile stiffness factor (m); E = Modulus of
elasticity of the pile (kN/m2); I = moment of
inertia of the pile (m4); B = Diameter or
width of the pile (m);
k = k1 = Reaction modulus subgrade soil (kN/m3) according to Table 9 Relationship k1
with Cu.

Table 9. Relationship of k1 with Cu (Source: Tomlinson, 1994)

Consistency Firm to stiff Stiff to very stiff Hard

Undrained shear strength (Cu) kN/m2 50 - 100 100 - 200 > 200

Range of k1 MN/m3 15 - 30 30 - 60 > 60

In normally consolidated clay/cohesive soils and sandy/non-cohesive soils, the modulus

of the subgrade reaction of the soil generally increases linearly with depth, so the
stiffness factor is expressed by:

T= ……………………………………………………………………………..….………… (45)

With:
T = Pile stiffness factor (m);
41
SPLN T5.008: 2015

E = Modulus of elasticity of the pile (kN/m2); I =

moment of inertia of the pile (m4);
h= Modulus of soil variation (kN/m3) according to the Reese et.al curve in Figure 26
Relationship Modulus of Variation (ηh) with Degree of Soil Density (DR) for sandy
soils or Table 10 Modulus of Variation of Cohesive Soils.

Table 10. Modulus of Variation of Cohesive Soil (Source: Tomlinson, 1994)

Type of soil rangeh (kN/m3)

- Normal consolidated clay 350 - 750
- Organic silt 150

Figure 26. The relationship between modulus of variation (ηh) with the degree of soil density (Dr)

Pile classification criteria are stated in the ratio of pile length to stiffness factor (soil
modulus) as shown in Table 11 Pile Classification below:

Table 11. Pole Classification (Source: Tomlinson, 1994)

Pole Type Soil Modulus

Short (stiff) L 2T L 2R

Length (elastic) L 4T L 3.5R

42
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

9.9.2 Broms . Method

Broms (1965) developed a simple method for calculating the ultimate lateral load bearing
capacity of piles using the following assumptions:
1. In short piles, failure occurs in the soil in the form of shear failure;
2. In long piles, the passive resistance of the soil is so large that failure occurs
in pile bending which is determined by the plastic yield resistance of the
pile section;
3. Cohesive or non-cohesive homogeneous soil properties.

9.9.2.1 Short Pole

In undrained cohesive soils or with short term loading, the soil pressure and pile bending
moment diagrams are depicted as in Figure 27 Soil Reaction and Cohesive Pile Moment
Fields where the soil reaction is considered not to occur in the shrinkage area as deep as
1.5 B.

27 image. Soil reaction and cohesive earth pile moment plane

From the figure above for the free pile head condition, the pile shear force is equal to
zero if Hu equal to 9 Cu Bf or:

f = Hu/(9 Cu B) …………………………………………………………………………………… ......... (46)

with:
f = zero shear depth; Hu = ultimate
lateral bearing capacity; Cu =
Cohesion of undrained soil.
43
SPLN T5.008: 2015

B = Width or diameter of the pole

The maximum moment on the pile occurs at zero shear force, then by taking the moment
at the zero shear point, we get:

Mmax = Hu (e + 1.5 B + 0.5 f) …………………………………………………….…. (47)

The horizontal forces in the system of Figure 27(a) are in equilibrium, then the reaction or
soil pressure below the zero shear force point has a resultant force equal to zero or the
earth pressure on the left of the pile is the same as the soil pressure on the right of the
pile. So that the maximum pile moment can be expressed in the equation:

Mmax = 2.25 Cu B g2 ………….…………………………………………………………..……. (48)

With the same analogy as above, for a short pile of pinched heads, zero shear force and
zero moment lie at the base of the pile, so Mmax obtained:

Mmax = 4.5 Cu B (L2 – 2.25 B2) ……………….…………………………………………. (49)

To simplify the calculation, the lateral ultimate bearing capacity of single short piles in
cohesive soils is calculated using the curve in Figure 28. Lateral ultimate bearing capacity
of short piles in cohesive soils.

Figure 28.. The ultimate lateral bearing capacity of short piles in cohesive soils

Source: Tomlinson, 1994

44
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

Meanwhile, the ultimate lateral bearing capacity of a single short pile on a non-cohesive soil is
calculated based on the soil reaction diagram and the bending moment of the pile as shown
in Figure 29. Soil Reaction and Non-Cohesive Soil Moment Plane.

Figure 29. Soil reaction and incohesive pile moment plane

At depth z, the soil reaction is calculated based on its passive pressure, namely:

………………………………………………………………………………. (50)

Kp is the passive pressure coefficient of Rankine as a function of the shear angle in ,

namely:

Kp = (1 + sin )/ (1 - sin )…………………………………………………… (51)

The passive pressure at the base of the pile is expressed in terms of the concentrated
force P by using equation (50) and by using the moment and horizontal force equilibrium
equation, the ultimate lateral bearing capacity of the free head pile is;

………………………………………………………………(52)

As for the pile with the head pinched condition obtained:

………………………………………………………………………… (53)

45
SPLN T5.008: 2015

In order to simplify the calculation, the lateral bearing capacity can be calculated using
the curve in Figure 30. Lateral ultimate bearing capacity of short piles in non-cohesive
soils.

30 image. The ultimate lateral bearing capacity of short piles on non-cohesive soil

Source: Tomlinson, 1994

The maximum bending moment in the pile is calculated using the equation:

……………………………………………………………….. (54)

9.9.2.2 Long Pole

Passive soil resistance in long piles as shown in Figure 31 Deflection, Soil Reaction Diagram
and Bending Moment in Cohesive Soils is considered very large, then the ultimate lateral
bearing capacity of the pile is determined by the strength or bending capacity of the pile Mu
not by the strength of the foundation soil.

By using equation (55), the ultimate lateral bearing capacity of long piles with free head
on cohesive soil is:

46
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

………………………………..……………… (55)

As for the condition of the head of the pile being pinched, the ultimate lateral bearing capacity on the
cohesive soil is:

…………………………………………………….. (56)

Figure 31. Deflection, soil reaction diagram and bending moment in cohesive soil

To simplify the calculation, the lateral ultimate bearing capacity of a single long pile on a
cohesive soil is calculated using the curve in Figure 32. Lateral ultimate bearing capacity
of a long pile on a cohesive soil.

47
SPLN T5.008: 2015

Image 32. Ultimate lateral bearing capacity of long piles on cohesive soil
Source: Tomlinson, 1994

The ultimate lateral bearing capacity of long piles on non-cohesive soils is based on
Figure 33 Deflection, Soil Reaction Diagram and Bending Moments in Non-Cohesive Soils,
where the maximum moment occurs at zero shear forces.

48
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

Figure 33. Deflection, soil reaction diagram and bending moment in non-cohesive soil

For the free pile head condition the location of the zero shear force is:

…………………………………………………….. (57)

The maximum positive moment is:

…………………….……………………………….. (58)

So that the ultimate lateral bearing capacity of free piles on non-cohesive soils is obtained
by equating Mmax with Mu in equation (55) and substitute f from equation (57):

………………………………..………………………………………… (59)

For long piles where the pile head is wedged into a non-cohesive soil, the bearing
capacity is:

49
SPLN T5.008: 2015

……………………………………………………..…….............. (60 )

The lateral ultimate bearing capacity of a single long pile on non-cohesive soils can also
be calculated using the curve in Figure 34. Lateral ultimate bearing capacity of long piles
on non-cohesive soils.

Figure 34. The ultimate lateral bearing capacity of long piles on non-cohesive soil.

Source: Tomlinson, 1994

Broms Method calculation steps:

1. Determine the type of soil and its parameters;
2. Determine the value of the length, width or diameter of the pile and the design of its cross-sectional
reinforcement (pile cross-sectional capacity) from the calculation of the compressive or tensile axial
bearing capacity;
3. Determine the pile classification according to 9.9.1 and the pile head condition;
4. Calculate Hu with Figures 28, 30, 32 and Figure 34 adjusted for values in stage 1) to
values in stage 3);
5. Check the Safety Factor, if it has not reached 2 or more, return to stage 2) by changing
the dimensions of the pile;
6. Calculate and check the pile deflection in accordance with item 9.9.5, if it does not meet the
requirements, return to stage 2) by changing the dimensions and or strengthening of the pile
cross section;

50
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

7. If it is necessary to design the cross section of the pile in detail, draw the plane of the
shear force and bending moment according to the force system in Figures 27, 29, 31
and Figure 33;
8. Detailed cross-sectional design drawings in accordance with applicable regulations or
standards.

9.9.3 Brinch Method - Hansen

This method assumes that the short pile will rotate at point X at a depth x from the
ground surface and the soil will resist the movement of the pile with passive pressure as
shown in Figure 35 Diagram of Earth Pressure & Internal Pile Force.

35 image. Diagram of earth pressure & force in pile

Figure 35(a) shows a pressure or soil reaction diagram, Figure 35(b) shows a diagram of
the forces in pile shear and Figure 35(c) shows a diagram of the forces in pile moments.

Passive earth pressure at depth z which consists of internal shear angle and cohesion
parameters is expressed in:

pz = poz Kqz + CKcz …………………………………………………………………………………… (61)

with:
pz = passive earth pressure at depth z;
poz = effective vertical soil pressure at depth z; = soil
C cohesion at depth z;
Kqz = Coefficient of internal shear passive pressure at depth z according to Figure 36 Kq and
Kc;
Kcz = Cohesive passive pressure coefficient at depth z according to Figure 36 Kq and Kc.

51
SPLN T5.008: 2015

The cohesion parameter C is adjusted to the loading stage conditions or the soil
conditions under review, Cu, =0 is used for short term loading conditions or undrained
conditions and C❤,❤ used for long term loading conditions or drained soil conditions.

In calculating z for cohesive soils (clay), then the z value is taken starting from the top of
each layer as shown in Figure 37. Determination of z for cohesive soils.

Figure 36. Kq and Kc

37 . image. Determination of z for cohesive soil

The total passive resistance for an element with height L/n and pile width B at depth z is
pz L/n B.
The sum of the moments at the point of the lateral force H is:

52
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

……………(62)

The number of moments at the point of lateral force for the free head pile is equal to
zero, so by trial and error, the value of x is obtained from equation (62) above. If the load
is a moment, then the moment can be replaced by a force H which is a distance e from
the ground. Meanwhile, if the condition of the pile head is pinched, it can be analogous to
the condition of the free pile head with a lateral force distance of e1 from the virtual pinch
point at depth zf . The buckling length of the pile that is pinched at both ends is half the
length of the pile, it can be analogous to a pile that is pinched only at one end, so that the
condition of the pinched pile head can be replaced by a free pile head condition with
length:

e1 = 0.5 (e + zf) …………………………………………………………………………………….. (63)

z valuef recommended in ACI 534R-74 (re-affirmed 1980) are:

zf = 1.4 R for hard clay or overconsolidated clay;

zf = 1.8 T for normally consolidated clay, silt, peat and incohesive soil.

The ultimate lateral bearing capacity of the free head pile can be calculated by taking the moment at the point
of rotation X, namely:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (64)

By obtaining the value of Hu, then the internal force fields in the form of shear forces and bending
moments can be calculated and described as shown in Figure 35 Diagram of Earth Pressure & Internal
Pile Force.

Calculation stages using the Brinch – Hansen Method:

1. Determine pile classification according to 8.9.1 and pile head condition;
2. Determine the value of the length and width or diameter of the pile from the calculation of the compressive or
tensile axial bearing capacity;
3. If the pile head is pinched, calculate e1 according to equation (63);
4. Suppose a trial value of x;
5. Divide each layer of soil into several thinner layers (the thinner the more accurate);

6. Calculate pz according to equation (61) with the value of Kq and Kz according to Figure 36;
7. Calculate the number of moments about the capture point Hu;
8. If the number of moments is not close to zero, then try another value of x until the
number of moments = 0;
9. Calculate Hu according to equation (64) and check the Safety Factor, if it has not
reached 2 or more, return to stage 2) by changing the dimensions of the pile;
53
SPLN T5.008: 2015

10. Calculate and draw the field of shear force and bending moment of the pile based on the values of
the forces in steps 6) and 9);
11. Calculate and check the pile deflection according to item 9.9.5, if it does not meet the
requirements, return to step 2) by changing the pile dimensions;
12. Design and cross-sectional drawings of piles in accordance with applicable regulations or
standards.

9.9.4 Reese's Method – Matlock

With the Broms and Brinch-Hansen methods the lateral load bearing capacity, maximum
bending moment, maximum shear force and maximum pile deflection can be calculated
quite simply, but if it is necessary to know the magnitude along the pile depth, both
methods require a calculation process that is not simple.

The Reese-Matlock method can be used for this purpose by using the curves that have
been analyzed for normally consolidated cohesive soils and non-cohesive soils based on
elastic deformation analysis. In the elastic analysis, the load used is the workload, not the
ultimate load. Soil elasticity modulus Es considered to increase linearly as a function of
depth with a value of Es= 0 at ground level.

The shape of the deformation, the angle of inclination, the bending moment, the shear/transverse force
of the pile and the soil reaction along the depth of the pile are shown in Figure 38. Deformation,
Moment, Pile Shear and Soil Reaction.

Figure 38. Deformation, moment, pile shear and soil reaction

The calculation of deformation, slope angle, bending moment, pile shear force and soil
reaction is carried out using the following equations;

…………………………… (65)

………….……………… (66)

54
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

……………………….… (67)

......................................................... (68)

…………………….… (69)

With:
Y = Pile deflection;
S = Pile deformation tilt angle; M = Pile
bending moment;
V = Pile shear/latitude; P =
Soil reaction;
Index A, B = Index that expresses load H (lateral) or load M (moment) Index y, s,
m, v, p = Index that represents Y, S, M, V, P;
H = Lateral working load at pile end; Mt =
moment working load at pile end; E =
Modulus of elasticity of the pile;
I = moment of inertia of the
pile; T = Pile stiffness factor;
Ay, By = Coefficient of deflection due to load H and Mt;
As, Bs = Coefficient of slope angle due to load H and Mt
Am, Bm = Coefficient of bending moment due to load H and Mt
Av, Bv = Coefficient of shear force due to load H and Mt
Ap, Bp = Coefficient of soil reaction due to loads H and Mt.

The coefficients for A and B are obtained from the curves in Figure 39. Reese-Matlock
Coefficient Load H Free Head Mast with Increasing Modulus.

55
SPLN T5.008: 2015

Figure 39. Reese-Matlock coefficient of load H free head pile with modulus
increase.

As for the pile with free head condition due to moment load, the coefficients are taken
from Figure 40 Reese-Matlock Coefficient Load Mt Free Head Mast with Increasing
Modulus.

56
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

40 image. Reese-Matlock coefficient of load Mt free head mast with modulus

increase

Z is the depth coefficient, i.e. the ratio of the depth variable x to the stiffness factor of the
pile T with the maximum value on the curve being 5. Since piles with a length of more
than 5T have the same deflection as shown in the pictures above, these curves can be
used. also for poles having a length greater than 5T.

In piles with a pinched head condition, the angle of inclination at the pile head is zero and
the load Mt entirely supported by the pile cap, so the diagrams that need to be calculated
are the deformation, bending moment of the pile and the reaction of the soil.

………………………………………………………………… (70)

57
SPLN T5.008: 2015

………………………………………………………… (71 )

With:
Fy, Fm, Fp = Coefficient of deflection, bending moment and soil reaction due to load H
according to Figure 41 Reese-Matlock Coefficient of Load H Squeezed Head Pile with
Increased Modulus.

Figure 41. Reese-Matlock coefficient of load H of wedged head pile with modulus
increase

58
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

Reese-Matlock Method calculation steps:

1. Determine the value of the length and width or diameter of the pile from the calculation of the compressive or
tensile axial bearing capacity;
2. Calculate T, E, I of the pole;
3. Calculate Y, S, M, V, P based on equations (65) to (69) which are adjusted to the
condition of the pile head and its load starting with a depth of x=0 to x=L;

4. Check that the maximum deflection does not exceed the allowable, if it exceeds return
to stage 1) with a larger pile dimension;
5. The design of the pile cross-section is in accordance with the maximum internal
strength of the pile with the allowable strength design method according to
applicable standards, if the cross section is inadequate, return to stage 1) with a
larger cross section.

9.9.5 Pile deflection

For the calculation of the ultimate lateral load bearing capacity using the Broms method and the
Brinch-Hansen method, the estimated pile deflection is carried out using the Broms method based
on the reaction modulus. subgrade from the foundation soil.

9.9.5.1 Pile Deflection in Cohesive Soil

Pile deflection properties in cohesive soils are mainly influenced by the length coefficient
L which has no units, with:

……………………………………………………………… ............... (72)

With:
k = Soil subgrade reaction coefficient that can be taken is equal to k1 according to Table 9;

B = Width or diameter of the pile.

The pile is considered short/stiff if the value of L is less than 1.5 for free head piles or less
than 0.5 for clamped head piles. The deflections occurring at the ground surface for the
free head pile and the clamped head are as follows:
Free Head Mast;

……………………………………………………………… .........(73)

Pinched Head Mast;

……………………………………………………………… .......................... (74)

59
SPLN T5.008: 2015

The pile is considered long/flexible if the value of L is more than 2.5 and the deflection
that occurs at the ground surface for the free head pile and the stuck head is as follows:

Free Head Mast:

……………………………………………………………… ......................... (75)

Pinched Head Mast;

…………………………………………………… .................................... (76)

Where:
e = Distance H to the ground;
k = Ko/B = Soil subgrade reaction coefficient for long piles; = n1 n2

KO = 0.305 k1
n1 and n2 determined from Table 12 Coefficient n1 and n2 below this:

Table 12. Coefficient n1 and n2

Calculations can also be done using the curve in Figure 42 Pile Deflection in Cohesive Soil.

60
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

Figure 42. Pile deflection in cohesive soil

9.9.5.2 Pile Deflection in Non-Cohesive Soil

Broms correlates the pile deflection with the factor into the pile L (without units) with the
following equation:

………………………………………………………..…….……..……….. (77)

With:
h= Coefficient of modulus of soil variation according to Figure 26; E =
Modulus of elasticity of the pile;
I = moment of inertia of the pile.

Pile deflection on non-cohesive soil is calculated based on the following equations;

Free Head Short Pole (ηL<2):

……………………………………………………………… ......... (78)

Pinched Head Short Pole (ηL<2):

……………………………………………………………… ..........(79)

Free Head Length Mast (ηL>4):

……………………………………………………………… ......................... (80)

61
SPLN T5.008: 2015

Pinched Head Long Pole (ηL>4):

……………………………………………………………… ......................... (81)

Equation (78) and equation (79) do not apply to very short piles, namely piles with a
length of less than 4 times the diameter.

Besides using the above equations, the calculation of pile deflection can also be
calculated using the curve in Figure 43 Pile Deflection in Non-Cohesive Soil as follows;

Figure 43. Pile deflection on non-cohesive soil

9.10 Lateral bearing capacity of pile group

The lateral bearing capacity of the pile group is affected by the distance between the single
piles (pile spacing), Prakash (1962) concluded that the lateral pile bearing capacity is the sum
of the lateral bearing capacity of a single pile if the pile spacing is more than 3B in the
direction perpendicular to H and more than (6 – 8)B in the direction parallel to H. Pile spacing
less than these values is treated as a single pile unit equivalent to the pile width B❤ = width of
the pile group in the direction perpendicular to H as shown in Figure 44. Lateral bearing
capacity of the pile group.

62
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

Figure 44. Lateral bearing capacity of pile group

9.11 Bearing capacity of raft foundation

The bearing capacity of the raft foundation is the same as the bearing capacity of the shallow
foundation according to items 9.1 to 9.4.

9.12 Bearing capacity of block foundation and anchor in rock

The foundation of the steel frame transmission tower in the rock layer can be in the form of a
block foundation with or without anchors with an example of a block foundation as shown in
Figures 45 and 46.

Figure 45. Block foundation without anchors in rock

63
SPLN T5.008: 2015

Figure 46. Block foundation with anchors in rock

9.12.1 Bearing capacity of block foundation without anchor

The compressive axial load bearing capacity of rock with conditions in the field is lower than the
strength of massive or intact rock (intact) which consists of end/base resistance and frictional
resistance which is expressed by the equation:

Qult = qb Ab + fs As ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… (82)

With:
Qult = ultimate bearing capacity of rock foundation layers;
qb = End resistance/strength i.e. qallowed in Figure 47; fs = Resistance/
friction strength according to Equation (83); Ab = Base area of
foundation; As = Area of the foundation wall.

End resistance or bearing capacity is taken based on empirical equations or curves from Peck et.al
(1974) as shown in Figure 47 End/Base bearing capacity which is influenced by the RQD value with
the maximum value not exceeding the compressive strength of the massive rock (qu).

64
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

Figure 47. End Resistance (qb) rock

While the frictional resistance fs used the equation from Kulhawy et.al (2005) as follows:

fs/pa = (qu/pa)0.5 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. (83)

With:
pa = atmospheric pressure

With the safety factor for the axial compression load bearing capacity of 3, the allowable
compressive axial load bearing capacity is:

Qall = Qult/3 ………………………………………………..……..………..…… (84)

The ultimate bearing capacity of the axial tensile load consists of frictional resistance and the weight of the block
foundation, namely:
Qutricle = fs As + W ……………………………………………………………… .......... (85)

With:
W = Weight of block foundation and soil on it if any

If the safety factor for the tensile axial load is the same as the compressive axial load,
then the allowable bearing capacity is:

Qataric = Qutricle/3 ……………………………………………..………………………… (86)

The shear stability of block foundations in rock is analyzed by the same analogy as
shallow foundations on soil, but by using the parameters of the foundation layer in the
form of rocks, namely:

65
SPLN T5.008: 2015

Tf = fs x Ab ………………………………………………………………………….. .…… (87)

Te = 0.5 t D2BKp ……………….…………………………………………………………………… (88)

Rock passive earth pressure Kp calculated based on the value of the shear angle in rock , obtained
from triaxial experiments or with an approximate value of 30°. The factor of safety for shear
stability is determined to be a minimum of 1.5 if the internal shear angle is obtained from
laboratory experiments or 2.0 if an approximate value is used.
The overturning stability is analyzed on the same principles as shallow foundations on
soil and using the same factor of safety as the shear stability factor of safety mentioned
above.

9.12.2 Bearing capacity of block foundation with anchor

The vertical and horizontal/lateral compressive loads on the block foundation with anchors are considered to
be borne only by the concrete block foundation with the condition that the concrete block foundation must be
embedded in a layer of rock, while the vertical tensile/uplift loads are supported by the anchors and the
weight of the concrete block foundation. The moment load is equivalent to the vertical compressive and
tensile loads and the compressive load is only held by the concrete block.
The bearing capacity of the concrete block foundation section against the vertical compressive load is
calculated using equation (82) above.

The bearing capacity of the anchor foundation is determined by the lowest strength of the
components/materials in the foundation system, namely:
- Strength of steel material or steel anchor connection with concrete block;
- Material strength grout;
- Frictional strength between anchor steel and grout/concrete;
- Friction strength between grout with rocks;
- The strength of the foundation rock mass in carrying the tensile load (uplift),
where the failure occurred in the bedrock layer.

The ultimate tensile bearing capacity of steel anchor materials can be calculated as follows:

Tb = Ab fy …………………………………………………………………………………… ............ (89)

With:
Tb = ultimate tensile bearing capacity; Ab =
cross-sectional area of steel anchors;
fy = yield stress of steel anchor material.

Shear strength between anchor steel and grout can be estimated using several formula
recommendations, including:

American Concrete Institute Standard, ACI 318-89, 1998:

66
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

……………………..………………………………………….…… (90)

With:
b = Shear strength/bond of screw steel reinforcement with concrete/grout (psi);
fc ❤
= compressive strength of concrete/grout (psi);
db = Diameter of steel reinforcement (inch).

American Petroleum Institute, API RP2A, 1984 for plain steel pipe/reinforcement:

For normal conditions ............................................... (91)

For extreme conditions ........................................................................ (92)

With:
fba = Shear strength of plain steel pipe/reinforcement; fcu =
compressive strength of grout characteristics; h = Length
of sliding connector;
s = Sliding connector spacing.

The shear bearing capacity of the anchor steel with grout is as follows;

Tbg = pb Lb (σb) or (fba) ………….…………………………………………………………………… .…. (93)

With:
Tbg = ultimate bearing capacity of steel shear with grout; Pb
= circumference of anchor steel; Lb = length of anchor
steel; FK = Safety factor.

The shear strength of anchor steel with grout (σb or fba) is restricted, some examples of
the value of the restriction include:

- British Standard BS 8081, Code of Practice for Ground Anchors:

Table 13. Ultimate Shear Bearing Capacity of Anchor Steel with Grout (BS 8081)

plain bar - Not greater than 1N/mm2

Clean strand or deformed bar - Not greater than 2N/mm2

Locally noded strand - Not greater than 3N/mm2

67
SPLN T5.008: 2015

- Indian Standard IS: 456 – 2000:

Table 14. The ultimate shear bearing capacity of steel anchors with Grout (IS: 456-2000)

Limit bond stress between concrete and reinforcement steel deformed in tension of
grade Fe.415 (conforming to IS : 1786-1985 and 1139-1165)
1 (a) With M 15 Mix = 16.0 kg/cm2
(b) With M 20 Mix = 19.5 kg/cm2
Note : For bars in compression the above values shall be increased by 25%

Limit bond stress between concrete and stubs in tension with (a)
M 15 Mix = 10.0 kg/cm2
2
(b) M 20 Mix = 12.0 kg/cm2
For compression above values will be increased by 25%

Limit bond stress between rock and concrete

3 (a) In Fissured rock = 1.5 kg/cm2
(b) In hard rock = 4.0 kg/cm2

4 Limit bond stress between hard rock and grout = 2.0 kg/cm2

Shear strength between grout with rocks according to Adam et. al (1976) is a function of
the rock compressive strength orgrout. One of the formulations that can be used is the
one recommended by Horvath – Kenney (1979), namely:
For large diameter (≥ 16 inch):

Sr = (2.5 – 3) (psi) ……………………………………………………………………….…….… (94)

For small diameters (< 16 inch):

Sr = (3 – 4) (psi) ………………………………………………………………………….….…… (95)

With:
Sr = ultimate shear strength of grout with rock (psi);
fw = The lowest characteristic compressive strength between grout with concrete (psi).

So that the ultimate shear bearing capacity grout with rocks are:

Tgr = pg Lg Sr (psi) …………………………………………………………………………………… ……. (96)

With:
Tgr = ultimate shear bearing capacity of grout with rock (psi); pg =
Circumference grout (inches); Lg = Length grout;

Sr = Shear strength grout with rocks.

68
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

The failure may occur in the bedrock mass layer, the single anchor failure mechanism is
shown in Figure 48. Single Anchor Failure Mechanism.

Figure 48. Single anchor failure mechanism

The maximum stress in the rock first occurs at the top of the anchor so that local failure
will occur as shown in Figure 48(a). Progressive failure then occurs to the lower end of the
anchor. In partially grouted anchors, local failure at the top does not occur becausegrout
compressed. Failure then occurs up to the lower end of the anchor as shown in Figure
48(b).

The actual shape of the collapse space is very complex influenced by the leveljoint and
fissuring as well as the slope of the bedding plane (bedding plane), the shape of the
conical failure model with an angle of 30° is considered quite conservative for design
calculations. Wyllie (1991) recommends that the top of the cone is in the middle of the
length of the grouted anchor, but this does not apply if the lower end of the anchor is
attached to a plate or bolt retainer.
Because the shear resistance in the rock failure chamber is not taken into account, the
safety factor or rock load factor in calculating the rock weight in the failure chamber is
enough to be taken as 1, so that the ultimate bearing capacity in rock collapse is:

Tr = Weight of rock collapse/FK,

where FK = 2 is the tensile bearing capacity safety factor or:

Tr = 0.5 Wr ………………………………………………………………………………………………. (97)

Where; Wr = Weight of rock in failure chamber

Thus, the ultimate tensile bearing capacity of the anchor Ta is the lowest value of Tb, Tbg,
Tgr or Tr or;

69
SPLN T5.008: 2015

Ta = Least Value of (Tb, Tbg, Tgr or Tr) …………………………………………………… (98)

Installation of anchors for tower foundations is usually more than one, so it is necessary
to know the carrying capacity of the anchor group. The failure space of the anchor group
based on the cone failure model is shown in Figure 49. The failure space of the anchor
group is where there is overlapping of the failure space between the anchors.

Figure 49. The collapse space of the anchor group

As an approximation, the ultimate tensile bearing capacity of a block foundation with anchorage is
the sum of the single anchor bearing capacity Ta plus the weight of the concrete block, while the
weight of the soil in the failure chamber is neglected, so:

Tba = Ta + Wb …………………………………………………………………………………….… (99)

10 Foundation Drop

10.1 Limitation of subgrade subgrade

The amount of the reduction limitation is based on 2 main criteria, namely:

a) The potential for damage to the upper structure due to differences in foundation soil settlement is highly
dependent on the type of material and the geometric configuration of the structure;
b) The total uniform subsidence of the soil that can be seen clearly will cause discomfort
or concern for the user of the structure.

Limitation of settlement for truss tower foundations refers to the criteria by Skempton &
Mac Donald (1956), Polskin & Tokar (1957) and NAVFAC DM 7.1 (1971) which are included
in the category of lean buildings/structures with the following limitations:

a) The difference in settlement between the foundation columns with each other 25 mm;
b) Rotation of the foundation, namely the ratio of settlement to the length of the building or the width of the
foundation 0.002.

70
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

10.2 Soil subsidence on shallow foundation

10.2.1 Soil settlement on shallow foundations of cohesive soil

Total land subsidence is the sum of instantaneous/elastic settlement, primary/

consolidation settlement and secondary/creep settlement, namely:

S = Si + Sc + Ss ………………………………………………………………………………………………..(100)

10.2.1.1 Instant drop

The instantaneous reduction of the one-dimensional average for cohesive soils uses the
equation from Janbu, 1963 assuming a Poisson ratio of 0.5 for cohesive soils, namely:

Si =o.µ1.q B/Eu ……………………………………………………………………………………………… (101)

With:
o = the influence factor of the depth of the foundation according to Figure 50; 1 =
influence factor of the shape of the foundation according to Figure 50; q = increase
in average soil pressure at the base of the foundation; B = width of the foundation;

Eu = modulus of elasticity of undrained soil according to Figure 7.

Figure 50. Factors affecting depth and shape of the foundation

(after Christian & Carrier)

71
SPLN T5.008: 2015

10.2.1.2 Primary decline/consolidation

Primary settlement/consolidation is estimated based on the theory of compressible cohesive soil

consolidation, namely:

Sc = ……………………………………………………………………………………….. (102)

With:

q❤ I = increase in effective soil pressure in layer i;

Mi = constrained modulus of soil layer I, according to item 7.10; Hi =
thickness of soil layer i; n = number of layers of soil.

10.2.1.3 Secondary drop/creep

Secondary decline is estimated based on correlation by Mesri, 1994:

Ss ………………………………………………………………………….. (103 )

With:
Ci = coefficient of secondary consolidation/crawl settlement according to Figure 51;
zi = thickness of compressible soil layer i; t = time.

Figure 51. Coefficient of secondary soil subsidence

(source Winterkorn, 1975)

72
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

10.2.2 Soil settlement on shallow foundations of non-cohesive soil

The largest decrease that occurs is an instantaneous settlement while the creep decrease is
not dominant, the total subsidence of the non-cohesive soil is estimated by the method of
Schmertmann, 1970:

S = C1 C2 p ………………………………………………………………………….……….. (104)

With:
C1 = depth correction factor = 1 - 0.5❤ o / p;
C2 = creep correction factor;
p = increase in effective earth pressure at the base of the foundation = p -❤ o
Izi = strain influence factor according to Figure 52;
E❤I = modulus of elasticity of non-cohesive soil according to equation (8);
Zi = thickness of soil layer i;
n = number of soil layers;
❤o = effective earth pressure above the base of the foundation.

Figure 52. Strain influence factor

10.3 Soil subsidence on pile foundation

The method of calculating pile foundation settlement on cohesive and non-cohesive soils
is the same as for shallow foundations where pile group foundations are considered as
shallow raft foundations equivalent to a depth of 2/3 pile length with a slope of 1/4 as
shown in Figure 53.

73
SPLN T5.008: 2015

Figure 53. Equivalent shallow foundation for pile group foundation

74
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

11 Design of footing foundation

The design of the footing foundation using cone penetration test data consists of several
stages as described in the following flow chart:

Figure 54. Flow chart for the calculation of the footing foundation

75
SPLN T5.008: 2015

12 Pile foundation design

The design of the pile foundation consists of several stages as described in the
following flow chart:

Figure 55. Flowchart of pile foundation calculation stages

76
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

13 Design of raft foundation

The design of the raft/raft foundation consists of several stages as described in

the following flow chart:

Figure 56. Flowchart of the stages of calculating the raft foundation

77
SPLN T5.008: 2015

14 Design of block foundations and anchors in rock

The design of the block and anchor foundation consists of several stages as
described in the following flow diagram:

Figure 57. Flowchart of the calculation stages of block foundations and anchors in rock

78
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

15 Load Test on Foundation

15.1 Test scope

15.1.1 Type of test

For steel frame tower foundations, the type of load is in the form of compressive axial static load, tensile axial
and lateral so that the type of load test can be in the form of compressive, tensile and lateral axial load tests.

The planner must determine a test program from several alternative choices as follows:

- Taking one type of load for testing so that the load test results are easier to
evaluate or interpret;
- Taking all types of loads together for testing but load test results are very difficult to
interpret or evaluate;
- Taking all types of loads with a certain loading scenario but the load test results are
difficult to evaluate.
In steel frame tower foundations, in general, the foundation load test is based on giving
only one type of load which is considered critical.

15.1.2 Number of tests

To obtain a safe, reliable and economical foundation design, the foundation load test
must be carried out with the type, location and number of tests determined based on the
analysis taking into account the costs to be incurred and the benefits to be gained (cost-
benefit analysis). One of the criteria or strategies for determining the number of tests
that can be used as a reference that can be considered is as shown in Table 15 taken
fromHandbook on Pile Load Testing by Federation of Piling Specialists, 2006.

Table 15. Pile Foundation Load Testing Strategy

Characteristics of Foundation Work Level Type and Number of Foundation Tests

Pole Risk Pole
It is very necessary to do preliminary
- Various soil conditions
(complex) or unknown and working pile testing
- No previous test data - Testing 1 preliminary pile for
Tall
- New driving technique or every 250 piles
limited similar experience - Testing 1 working pile for every
100 piles
- Relatively uniform soil conditions It is necessary to carry out preliminary
(consistent) and/or working pile testing
Currently
- No previous test data
- Testing 1 preliminary pile for
- A little experience
piling on the ground every 500 piles and/or

79
SPLN T5.008: 2015

kind of - Testing 1 working pile for every

100 piles
No testing is required. When
- Relatively uniform soil conditions
(consistent) testing is carried out:
- Previous test data available Low - Testing 1 preliminary pile for
- Lots of experience every 500 piles and/or
piling on the ground - Testing 1 working pile for every
kind of 100 piles

Preliminary pile foundation load test (preliminary pile test) is a load test carried out on a
special foundation for testing with a maximum load until the foundation collapses while
the load test on a working pile foundation (working pile) is a load test carried out on a
working foundation with a minimum loading of 100% and a maximum of 200% of the
design load.

15.1.3 Test location

Practical foundation load tests can be carried out at two alternative locations, namely:

1) Test Foundation
Foundation load tests are generally carried out on test foundations that are built not
far from the working foundation and the soil conditions are considered the same.
The test is carried out by giving the load gradually until the foundation soil collapses;

2) Work Foundation
If there is sufficient information or experience that the foundation design has been
carried out for the same type of soil elsewhere, the foundation load test can be
carried out at the working foundation location. Loading is usually done in stages up
to a maximum of 100% of the design load.

The procedure for testing at the two locations mentioned above is the same, the only
difference being the maximum load applied to the test foundation.

15.2 Compressive axial load test

15.2.1 Testing standards

Test equipment, instrumentation and testing procedures for axial compression loads for steel
frame tower foundations refer to the ASTM D 1143M-07 (2013) standard, “Standard Test Methods
for Deep Foundations Under Static Axial Compressive Load" This standard can also be used for
other types of foundations such as footing foundations, concrete block foundations, raft
foundations and anchor foundations.

80
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

15.2.2 Testing Equipment and Instrumentation

The main equipment for loading and measuring tests is shown in Figure 58 which
consists of:
- Hydraulic jack (hydraulic jack);
- load cell (load cell).
Pole deformation measurements are carried out by installing a minimum of 2 different types of measuring
instruments, namely 2 dial gauges which are installed parallel as primary measuring instruments and 1 wire
measuring instrument or survey scale ruler as a secondary measuring instrument which is installed
perpendicular to each other.

Figure 58. Test equipment installation sketch with hydraulic jack

15.2.3 Test procedure

The method of testing the load on the pile foundation, can be done with 2 (two) methods
from the 4 (four) methods contained in the ASTM D 1143M-07 (2013) standard, namely: Slow
Maintained Load Test Method (SM Test), Quick Maintained Load Test Method (QM Test), Slow
Maintained Load Test Method (SM Test) used when settlement is an aspect that determines
the design dimensions of the foundation, while Quick Maintained Load Test Method (QM Test)
used if the settlement does not determine the design dimensions of the foundation.

81
SPLN T5.008: 2015

15.2.3.1 Slow Maintained Load Test Method (SM Test)

This test method is the recommended method in the ASTM standard with the following
testing stages:
a. The burden is divided into 8 stages with the same increase, for example; 25%, 50%,
75%, 100%, 125%, 150%, 175% and 200% of the design load;

b. The load at each increment is maintained until the deformation rate of reduction
reaches 0.25 mm/hour but does not exceed 2 hours;
c. 200% load is maintained for 24 hours;
d. After that, the load is lowered gradually with the same level of decline, namely 25%
and a lag time of 1 hour for each level of load reduction;
e. After the load has been completely lowered, the test foundation is then given
another load with an increase of 50% to 200% of the design load and the lag time
for each load increase is 20 minutes;
f. Then the load is increased at a rate of 10% every 20 minutes until the foundation
collapses.

The testing time required for this method ranges from 40 hours to 70 hours or even
more. This method is known as the ASTM standard method which is often used before
construction or before carrying out detailed designs.

15.2.3.2 Quick Maintained Load Test Method (QM Test)

In the ASTM standard this method is an alternative method (optional) with the following
testing stages:
a. The load is given in 20 stages of increase until it reaches 300% of the design load or
stages of increasing the load by 15%;
b. Loading was maintained for 5 min for each stage with reading intervals every 2.5 min;

c. The loading in point b is carried out until the amount of loading reaches 300% of the
design load;
d. The load is reduced to 0% in the same 4 stages of descent (75% load reduction stage);

e. At each descent, the loading was maintained for 5 minutes with an interval of reading
every 2.5 minutes.

This method is fast and economical with loading completion time between 3 to 5 hours,
this loading condition is close to the condition of undrained soil. This method cannot be
used to estimate the amount of land subsidence.

82
Translated from Indonesian to English - www.onlinedoctranslator.com

SPLN T5.008: 2015

15.2.3.3 Constant Rate Penetration Test Method (CRP Test)

This method is an alternative method (optional) in the ASTM standard with the following
main steps:
a. The pile head is loaded so that the rate of increase in pile settlement is 1.25 mm/min;

b. The magnitude of the load in point a is recorded at any time;

c. The test is carried out until the pile settlement reaches 50 mm to 75 mm.

The advantage of this method is that the test can be completed in a short time, which is
between 2 to 3 hours and is economical. This method is only suitable for pile foundations
with the largest bearing capacity from pile blanket friction, while for foundations with
end bearing capacity it is not suitable because it requires very large hydraulic pressure.
As in the QM Test, this method cannot be used to estimate settlement of pile
foundations.

15.2.3.4 Swedish Cyclic Test Method (SC Test)

This method is recommended by the Swedish Pile Commission with the following main
steps:
a. Loading is given up to 1/3 of the design load;
b. The load is reduced to 1/6 of the design load;
c. The loading in point a and point b was repeated 20 times;
d. The loading is increased by 50% of the load in point a and then decreased as in point
b;
e. The loading in point d is repeated as in point c;
f. The loading is continued with the level of increase as in point d until failure occurs.

The time required for this test is very long with many stages, so it is only suitable for
foundation design with cyclic loading such as earthquake loading or engine vibration
loads.
Comparison of the time required for testing of the above test methods is shown in Figure
59 Comparison of Test Time (Fellenius, 1975) below. From the figure, it can be seen that
the SM Test and SC Test require a longer time than other methods, while the CRP Test is a
test method with the fastest completion time.

83
SPLN T5.008: 2015

Figure 59. Comparison of testing times (Fellenius, 1975)

In Figure 60 the behavior of pile settlement due to loading (Fellenius, 1975) shows the
behavior of pile settlement against loading.

Image 60. Pile settlement behavior due to loading (Fellenius, 1975)

From the figure, it can be seen that the CRP Test curve shows the behavior of the
foundation soil in general when it is given a load until it collapses and the CRP Test curve
is similar to the QM Test curve before the soil collapses.

84
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

15.2.4 Interpretation of test data

The method of interpretation of the test results data is carried out using 3 (three) methods
from several of those contained in the ASTM D 1143M-07 (2013) standard as follows:
a. Davisson method (1972);
b. Chin method (1970, 1971);
c. the De Beer Method (1967) or the De Beer & Wallays Method (1972);
d. Brinch Hansen criteria 90% (1963);
e.Brinch Hansen Criteria 80% (1963);
f. Mazur Kiewiecz Method (1972);
g. Fuller & Hoy method (1970);
h. Butler & Hoy Method (1977);
i. The Vander Veen Method (1953).

a. Davisson method

The procedure of this method to determine the failure load of the foundation is as
follows:
1. Draw a graph of the loading and deformation of the test data as shown in Figure 61
Davisson's Method of Interpretation of Test Results;
2. Calculate the change in the elastic length of the pile foundation for a load test data
amount based on Hooke's law so that point A is obtained in Figure 61;

= Qva L / (EA)
With:
Qva = an arbitrary load data magnitude L =
length of the pile foundation
A = cross-sectional area of foundation piles E =
modulus of elasticity of foundation piles
3.Draw a straight line connecting point O with point A; Draw a straight line BC parallel
to line OA so that it intersects the test result curve at point C with the distance
between the two lines equal to;
X = 4 + b/120
With;
X = distance between line OA and BC (mm) b
= pile diameter (mm)
4. The bearing capacity of the pile is the magnitude of the load on the curve at point C.

85
SPLN T5.008: 2015

Figure 61. Method of interpretation of test results by davisson

This method was originally recommended for pile types with a QM Test where the
excess line BC can be drawn (with Qva is the bearing capacity of the design pile) before
the test is carried out so that it can be used as a criterion for the acceptance test or
proof load test.

b. Chinese Method

This method is described as in Figure 62 Method of Interpretation of Test Results by Chin

with the following stages:
1. Draw a line graph of linear extrapolation from the test curve which is considered to
be a hyperbolic curve by plotting the pile deformation divided by the load (Qva/Δ)
as ordinate to pile deformation (Δ) as abscissa as in Figure 62;

2. The slope of the regression line from the data in item 1 above is C1;
3. The ultimate load of the pile is 1/C1.

Figure 62. Method of interpretation of test results by Chin

This method can be used for both QM Test and SM Test as long as the load increase and
decrease time is constant.

86
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

c. De Beer Method
As shown in Figure 63 Method of Interpretation of Test Results by De Beer, the stages of
this method are as follows:
1. Make a graph between loading and deformation on a logarithmic scale;
2. The resulting graph is in the form of two intersecting straight lines;
3. The ultimate pile load is located at the point of intersection of the two lines above.

Figure 63. Method of interpretation of test results by De Beer

This method is suitable for slow tests such as SM Test.

d. Hansen's Brinch Method 90% Criteria

This method uses trial and error (trial & error) as shown in Figure 64 Method of
Interpretation of Test Results by Brinch Hansen Criteria 90% with the following
procedure:
1. Make a graph between the load and the deformation of the pile foundation in a normal scale;
2. Take a point on the curve as the ultimate point then read the load magnitude (Qultimate)
and its deformation (Δlimit);
3. Take a point on the curve with the ordinate 90% of Qultimate which is tried in point 1, then read
the magnitude of the deformation;
4. If the amount of deformation for the load is 90% of the ultimate load in point 3, the
amount is 50% oflimit in item 2, then the magnitude of the load taken in item 2 is the
ultimate load of the pile while if it is not the same then return to item 2 with a trial
price for the new ultimate load.

This method can be used in the CRP Test.

87
SPLN T5.008: 2015

Image 64. The method of interpretation of test results by Brinch Hansen criteria 90%

e. Hansen's Brinch Method 80% Criteria

The interpretation of this method is shown in Figure 65 Method of Interpretation of Test

Results by Brinch Hansen Criteria 80% with the following stages:
1. Extrapolate from the test curve considered to be a parabolic curve by plotting the load
test data as the roots of Qva against pile deformation (Δ) which is a straight line;

2. From the results of the data regression in point 1 above, it is found that the slope of the line C1 and
the line constant C2;
3. The magnitude of the load and ultimate deformation of the pile foundation is as follows:

Figure 65. Method of interpretation of test results by Brinch Hansen 80% criteria

This method can be used for QM Test and SM Test and the results are in accordance with the
criteria for collapse of the foundation collapse, but this method is not suitable for testing with
a decrease in load or tests that do not reach collapse with the criteria for falling.

f. Mazur Kiewiecz . Method

This method is shown in Figure 66 Method of Interpretation of Test Results by Mazur

Kiewiecz with the following stages:

1. Graph the load curve against pile deformation in normal scale;

88
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

2. Make a division on the axis of the pile deformation with equal intervals and draw a vertical
line so that it intersects the curve. From each of these points of intersection, draw a
horizontal line so that it intersects with the load axis;
3. From each point of intersection between the horizontal line and the load axis, a line is
drawn at an angle of 45° so that it intersects the horizontal line above it;
4. The connecting line between the points of intersection in point 3 above will generally form
an almost straight line that intersects the load axis. This point of intersection is the
ultimate load of the pile foundation.

Figure 66. Method of interpretation of test results by Mazur Kiewiecz

This method assumes that the curve is a parabolic function, so the results should be close
to the results of the Brinch Hansen Criterion method of 80%. Sometimes the connecting
line generated in point 4 does not approach a straight line, so justification is needed.

g. Fuller & Hoy Method

This method is very simple with the following steps:

1. Create a curve from the test results in a normal scale as shown in Figure 67 Methods
of Interpretation of Test Results by Fuller & Hoy and by Butler & Hoy;
2. The ultimate pile load and deformation is the point of the curve which has a slope of
0.05 inch/ton.

Figure 67. Methods of interpretation of test results by Fuller & Hoy and by Butler & Hoy

89
SPLN T5.008: 2015

This method can be used for QM Tests, but it has drawbacks if it is carried out for long
piles because the elastic line from the test results is long enough so that a point with a
slope of 0.05 inch/ton will be obtained long before the actual failure occurs.

h. Butler & Hoy Method

As shown in Figure 67 Methods of Interpretation of Test Results by Fuller & Hoy and by
Butler & Hoy, this method has the following stages:
1.Draw the test result curve in a normal scale;
2. The ultimate load and deformation of the pile is the point of intersection between a
line having a slope of 0.05 inch/ton as in the Fuller & Hoy method with one of the
following lines:
a. The slope line at the beginning of the elastic curve or;
b. curve line parallel to the load shedding curve starting from point O (not shown
in the figure).

This method is suitable for use for QM Test.

i. Vander Veen . Method

This method consists of the following steps:

1. Choose any amount of load that is considered as the ultimate load (Qv)ult;
2. Graph ln(1-Qva//(Qv)ult) for each price Qva (the value of the load from the test data) to
the corresponding deformation value as shown in Figure 68 Method of
Interpretation of Test Results by Vander Veen;
3. If the graph is still a curved line then take the example price (Qv)ult
another and repeat the steps in point 2;
4. If the graph is a straight line (close to a straight line) then the sample price (Qv)ult is the
ultimate load of the pile foundation.

Figure 68. Method of interpretation of test results by Vander Veen

The disadvantage of this method is that it requires complex calculations.

90
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

The study conducted by Joshi and Sharma (1987) on the 9 interpretation methods
mentioned above for 5 data from the SM Test test results on different types of pile
foundations concluded the following:
1. For drilled pile foundations and belled pile piles, the method
Fuller & Hoy estimates the ultimate load well;
2. For Franki piles, the Davisson, Fuller & Hoy and Buttler & Hoy methods predict the
ultimate load well;
3. For H steel piles, the Brinch Hansen Criteria 90% method and the Fuller & Hoy method
predict the ultimate load well.

Meanwhile, the results of a similar study by Fellenius (1980) on concrete piles with the
CRP Test showed that interpretations using the Fuller & Hoy method, Brinch Hansen
Criteria 90% and the Vander Veen method produced more rational predictions than other
methods.
From all cases reviewed, in general, the De Beer method and the Davisson method
produce conservative predictions, while the Chin method gives a value above the failure
load of the actual failure test. The Fuller & Hoy method is the method that produces the
most rational value. As an illustration of the results of the study, it can be seen in Table
16. Collapse Loads of various Interpretation Methods below:

Table 16. Collapse Loads of Various Interpretation Methods

15.3 Tensile axial load test

15.3.1 Testing standards

Test equipment, instrumentation and testing procedures for tensile axial loads for steel frame
tower foundations refer to the ASTM D 3689M-07 (2013) e1 standard, “Standard Test Methods for
Deep Foundations Under Static Axial Tensile Load" This standard can also be used for other types
of foundations such as footing foundations, concrete block foundations, raft foundations and
anchor foundations.

91
SPLN T5.008: 2015

15.3.2 Testing equipment and Instrumentation

Testing equipment and instrumentation consist of loading equipment and measuring

equipment for movement of test foundation piles.
Figure 69 shows a typical loading device that is commonly used. Figure 69 The tensile
load is provided by a hydraulic jack placed between the test beam and the reaction beam
anchored to the test pile.

Figure 69. Typical loading equipment with one hydraulic jack

The minimum clearance between the test pile and the reaction beam is 5 times the diameter of the test
pile but not less than 2.5 m.
The calibration and strength requirements of the test beam and reaction beam are the same as those for the
tests for axial compression loads.

92
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

The type and requirements of movement measuring equipment for tensile axial load
testing are the same as for movement measuring equipment for compressive axial load
testing.

15.3.3 Test procedure

The loading method for the tensile axial load test is the same as for the compressed axial
load, the only difference being the direction of the load.

15.3.4 Interpretation of test data

The method of interpretation of test results to predict the load on pile failure is
influenced by the tolerance of the movement of the test pile at the time of failure. In
general, the failure load in the tensile axial load is easier to distinguish than for the axial
compression test because the decrease in frictional resistance which is quite large before
failure can be measured more clearly. The failure / ultimate load can be considered as the
minimum tensile axial load from the 3 criteria below (Sharma et. al, 1984):

1. The ultimate tensile load is the magnitude of the tensile load that produces a net
movement (net movement) from the top end of the test pile by 6.25 mm (0.25
inch);
2. The ultimate tensile load occurs at the point of intersection of the 2 tangents on
the test curve;
3. The ultimate tensile load at the time of a sudden disproportionate increase in
movement (point on the sharpest curve).

An example of the criteria for determining the ultimate tensile load is shown in Figure 70. An
example of determining the ultimate tensile load for a pile (Sharma et. al., 1984) is below:

Image 70. An example of determining the ultimate pile tensile load (Sharma et. al., 1984)

93
SPLN T5.008: 2015

From the picture above, the ultimate tensile load based on the 3 criteria above is as
follows:
a. Criterion 1: 758 kN;
b. Criterion 2: 779 kN;
c. Criterion 3: 800 kN.
So that the ultimate tensile load from the test pile is the one that has a minimum value of the
3 criteria above, which is 758 kN.

15.4 Lateral load test

Test equipment, instrumentation and lateral load testing procedures for steel frame tower
foundations refer to the ASTM D 3966M-07 (2013) e1 standard, “Standard Test Methods for Deep
Foundations Under Lateral Load" This standard can also be used for other types of foundations
such as footing foundations, concrete block foundations, raft foundations and anchor foundations.

15.4.1 Testing Equipment and Instrumentation

The loading apparatus for testing pile lateral loads is shown in Figure 71 where the load
is applied by a hydraulic jack placed between the test pile and the support which can be
(a) reaction pile, (b) deadman or (c) platform.

94
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

Figure 71. Lateral load testing equipment

(a) Reaction Pole, (b) Deadman, (c) Platform

Pile movement measurement equipment that is commonly used is usually placed in 2

alternative locations, namely equipment placed at the head of the pile (to measure total
movement) and equipment placed at several points along the pile (to measure the
distribution of movement or pile deformation).
The type of equipment used consisted of dial gauges as shown in Figure 71, a wire-mirror
system as shown in Figure 72 and an inclinometer as shown in Figure 73.

95
SPLN T5.008: 2015

Figure 72. Wire-mirror measuring system

Figure 73. Inclinometer measuring system

Dial gauges and wire-mirror gauges are used to measure the total movement of the pile
head, while the inclinometer is placed on the axis of the test pile to measure the
distribution of movement or flexural deformation of the pile. We recommend that at least
2 pieces of motion measurement equipment are used in each test.

15.4.2 Test Procedure

The test procedure consists of 2 main stages of loading, namely:

96
 SPLN T5.008: 2015

1.Standard Loading:
a. Give the total load in 10 stages up to 200% of the design load, for example 25%,
50%, 75%, 100%, 125%, 150%, 170%, 180%, 190% and 200%. The loading at
25% and 50% was maintained for 10 minutes, the loading of 75% was
maintained for 15 minutes while the other loading was for 20 minutes;

b. After the load reaches 200%, this load is maintained for 60 minutes then the
load is lowered in stages every 50%, namely for example 150%, 100%, 50% and
0% with loading maintained for 10 minutes for each step of descent;

c. At each stage record the magnitude of the load and movement.

2. Non-standard loading:
a. After the standard loading test is completed as in point 1, increase the load in
stages by 50% so that it reaches 200% of the design load with a duration of
every 10 minutes for each stage;
b. Then the load is increased in increments of 10% every 15 minutes until the pile
collapses or up to another specified load value;

c. The maximum load in point b is maintained for 30 minutes and then the load is
reduced to levels of 75%, 50%, 25% and 0% with a load holding time of 10
minutes for each stage.

15.4.3 Interpretation of Test Data

The ultimate lateral load of the test pile is determined based on the lowest value of the 2
criteria below:
1. Load at the time of movement of 6.25 mm (0.25 inch) or,
2. Load at the point of intersection of 2 tangents to the test curve.

These two criteria are shown in Figure 74 below:

Figure 74. Example of lateral loading test curve

97
SPLN T5.008: 2015

The ultimate lateral load based on the 2 criteria above are as follows;

a. Criterion 1: 96.5 kN;

b. Criterion 2: 100 kN.

So that the ultimate lateral load of the test pile is 96.5 kN.

98