Khairul Anuar Mohd.

Nayan1, Shazwani Hanis Hidayat*1 ,

Sam Bulolo*1, Noor Adila Omar*1, Sung-Ho Joh*2, Mohamad
Nor Omar*3
1Department of Civil and Structural Environmental, Faculty of

Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan

Malaysia.
2Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea.3Public Works

Department of Malaysia
Content
 Introduction
 Theory
 Methodology
 Results and Discussions
 Conclusions
Introduction
Conventionally, parameters for the design of
bearing capacity of piles have been using site
investigations methods that covers the
determination of basic soil parameters from
laboratory, vane shear, SPT-N, cone penetration
and pressuremeter. These methods suffers
problems related to various disturbances such as
that of stress relief, sampling, transportation and
handling in the laboratory. In addition, they are
often time consuming and costly.
 An alternative method has been introduced
herein based on the measurement of shear
wave velocity and by the modification of
Keceli’s (2012) shallow bearing capacity
formula to obtain the bearing capacity of piles.
Comparisons of the pile bearing capacity were
then made with the normal empirical
calculation using parameters from SPT-N
values and the vane shear tests.
Theory
Impedance of soils is defined as :

𝑍 = 𝜌𝑉𝑆 (1)

Where 𝜌 is the density and 𝑉𝑆 is the shear

wave velocity
𝑞𝑧 = 𝑞𝑓 = 𝑞𝑢 = 𝛾𝑧 = 𝑔 ρ 𝑧 (3)

Where, 𝑞𝑧 is the soil column pressure, qf is the pressure at

failure, 𝑞𝑢 is the ultimate bearing capacity, 𝑔 is the
gravitational acceleration, 𝜌 is the mass density and 𝑧 is the
depth of the soil column to cause bearing capacity failure.
In order to evaluate bearing capacity the value of z in
Eq. (3), is substituted with the product of 𝑉𝑆 and T
and the equation is then transform into:

𝑞𝑢 = 𝑔 𝜌 𝑉𝑠 𝑇 (2)
In terms of allowable bearing capacity:

𝑞𝑎 = 𝑞𝑢 /1.5 = 𝑔 𝜌 𝑉𝑠 𝑇/1.5 (3)

By substitution of standard values of the allowable bearing

capacity of the most hard rock of 𝑉𝑆 = 4000m/s, 𝛾 =
35kN/m3 and 𝑞𝑎 = 10Mpa into Eq. (5) to obtain T = 0.1.
The value of T is then substitute in Eq. (4) to obtain the
following expression:

𝑞𝑢 = 0.1 × 𝛾 × 𝑉𝑠 (4)
In piles, the ultimate shear force of soil at a layer (n-2), T(n-2)
can be assumed to be:

Tu(n-2) = Qup(n-2)/2 (6)

The sum of the shear force of soil for every segmental depth
can then be equated to the total skin resistance for a pile
given as:

𝑄𝑢𝑝
𝑄𝑈𝑆 = 𝑄𝑈𝑆 = σ1𝑛[𝑇𝑢𝑠 ] = 1
σ𝑛[ ] (7)
2

The pile point resistance is then taken as the value of qu

obtain at the base of the pile multiplied by its base area.

𝑄𝑈𝑃 = 𝑞𝑢(𝑛) × 𝐴𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 (8)

Load Transfer Mechanism of a pile
LOKASI KAJIAN
SEBAHAGIAN GAMBAR-GAMBAR SEMASA UJIKAJI
DIJALANKAN DI HOSPITAL SULTANAH TG.
AMINAH, KLANG.
Methodology

Field Test set-up

Results and Discussion

Soil profiles of Vane Shear Test and SASW Test between

BH4 and BH5 at Klang
Soil profiles, SPT-N and Shear wave velocity of BH1 at
Hulu Langat
Soil profiles, SPT-N values and shear wave velocity
at BH2 at Hulu Langat
BH 1 - HULU LANGAT MUNICIPAL SITE PILE DESIGN

Ultimate Skin Resistance, Qus Ultimate Point Resistance, Qup

Qus = fsu X As QP = fbu X Ab
fsu = Ksu X SPT-N fbu = Kbu X SPT-N

Sand Silt Clay Sand Silt Clay

fsu fsu fsu fbu fbu fbu
Ksu 2.5 2.5 2.5 Kbu 400 250 120

Depth (m) Coefficient ( kN/m2)

N-SPT Qus Qup QS (All) QP(All)
Type of Soil
From To values fsu fbu
(kN) (kN) (FS=2) (FS=3)
0 0.2 Sandy Silt 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
1 1.45 Sandy Silt 11 27.5 2750 22 110 11.00 36.67
2 2.45 Sand 10 25 4000 42 160 32.00 53.33
3 3.45 Sand 9 22.5 3600 60 144 62.00 48.00
4 4.45 Sand 10 25 4000 80 160 102.00 53.33
5 5.45 Sand 11 27.5 4400 102 176 153.00 58.67
6 6.45 Sand 9 22.5 3600 120 144 213.00 48.00
7.5 7.95 Sandy Silt 10 25 2500 150 100 288.00 33.33
9 9.45 Sandy Silt 16 40 4000 198 160 387.00 53.33
10.5 10.95 Sandy Silt 19 47.5 4750 255 190 514.50 63.33
10.95 12 Sandy Silt 33 82.5 8250 284.7 330 656.85 110.00

Type of Pile : Square Qus = 284.7

Width of Pile : 0.2 m Qup = 330.0
Base Area of Pile, Ab : 0.04 m2 Qu = 614.7
Perimeter of Pile, P : 0.8 m
Length of Pile, L : 12 m

Conventional method (Meyerhof ) spreadsheet sheet to

determine pile bearing capacity at Hulu Langat (BH1)
 Normailised
Effective Correction Ultimate Bearing
Shear Wave Unit End Bearing for Skin Friction of
No. Depth Thickness Overburden Capacity, Keceli,
velocity, Vs Weight, γ Each Layer, Qup Each Layer, Qus
Stress Factor qu

m m m/s (kN/m3) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (kN) (kN)

1 0.00 0.50 169.85 15.58 0.00 0.00 264.66 10.59 5.29
2 0.50 0.50 184.81 15.91 3.05 33.19 9763.41 390.54 195.27
3 1.00 0.50 202.01 16.27 6.46 15.68 5153.79 206.15 103.08
4 1.50 1.00 182.18 15.86 9.07 11.17 3226.75 129.07 64.53
5 2.50 1.00 192.48 16.08 15.67 6.47 2001.19 80.05 40.02
6 3.50 2.00 267.34 17.45 26.75 3.79 1767.25 70.69 35.35
7 5.50 2.00 344.52 18.60 48.32 2.10 1343.36 53.73 26.87
8 7.50 3.00 526.46 20.68 81.49 1.24 1353.38 54.14 27.07
9 10.50 0.45 722.90 22.38 132.00 0.77 1241.95 49.68 24.84
10 10.95 1.05 723.90 22.39 137.74 0.74 1192.24 47.69 23.84
11 12.00 2.00 724.90 22.40 151.04 0.67 1089.13 43.57 21.78

Width of Pile, B = 0.20 m End bearing, Qup = 47.69 kN

Base Area of Pile, Ab = 0.04 m2 Skin Friction, Qus = 567.94 kN
Perimeter of Pile, P = 0.80 m Total Ultimate Bearing Capacity, Qu = 615.63 kN
Length of Pile, L = 12.00 m

Modified Keceli formula using Excel Spread Sheet for the calculation of bearing
capacity at Hulu Langat (BH1)
 Square Pile

Ultimate Pile Capacity - Ultimate Pile Capacity -

Pile Length Pile Size -
No. Site Location Conventional, Meyerhof Seismic, Modified Error (%)
(m) Square (m)
(kN) Keceli (kN)
Klang (BH4) 78.09 75.93 -2.76
1 6 0.2 x 0.2
Klang (BH5) 78.09 70.56 -9.64
Hulu Langat (BH1) 12 614.70 615.63 0.15
2 0.2 x 0.2
Hulu Langat (BH2) 12 585.50 587.30 0.31

Circular Pile

Pile Size - Ultimate Pile Capacity - Ultimate Pile Capacity -

Pile Length
No. Site Location Diameter Conventional, Meyerhof Seismic, Modified Error (%)
(m)
(m) (kN) Keceli (kN)
Klang (BH4) 63.13 59.64 -5.54
1 6 0.2
Klang (BH5) 63.13 55.42 -12.22
Hulu Langat (BH1) 12 482.78 483.52 0.15
2 0.2
Hulu Langat (BH2) 12 464.14 461.26 -0.62

Comparison between conventional and seismic method

of pile usimg square and circular pile
Modified Keceli vs Conventional Method Using Cone Penetrometer (CPTu) - Courtesy from Paul Mayne

Skin
Tip of Pile(Qup) Ultimate Bearing(Qult)
Friction(Qus)
No Test Location Calclation Method
(kN)

Shear Wave-Modified Keceli 703.32 1700.91 2404.23

1 SWGA01, Collierville CPTu-Conventional 848.25 1578.50 2426.75

Difference (%) -17.09 7.75 -0.93

Shear Wave-Modified Keceli 461.21 885.34 1346.54

2 SCPT19 (VENI01) CPTu-Conventional 169.67 1189.00 1358.66

Difference (%) 171.83 -25.54 -0.89

Shear Wave-Modified Keceli 485.35 726.63 1211.98

3 SCPT15 (VENI03) CPTu-Conventional 84.83 1135.04 1219.88

Difference (%) 472.12 -35.98 -0.65

Shear Wave-Modified Keceli 485.35 907.92 1393.27

4 SCPT14 (VENI02) CPTu-Conventional 186.63 1306.90 1493.53

Difference (%) 160.05 -30.53 -6.71

 CONCLUSION

The results obtained have shown the

ability of Keceli’s modified formula to
the design of pile foundation with a
reasonably good accuracy.
 ‫تريما کاسيه‬
Terima kasih
감사합니다
gamsahamnida
Teşekkür Ederım
Weebale