Translated from Indonesian to English - www.onlinedoctranslator.

com

Design Plan © Itenas Civil Engineering | No. x | Vol. xx

Online Journal of the National Institute of Technology August 2016

Analysis of Dynamic Single Pole Bearing Capacity

on Soft Soil at Gedebage
ELVINA MARIANNA TAMPUBOLON, YUKI ACHMAD SURE

Civil Engineering Department, National Institute of Technology, Bandung

e-mail: marianna.elvina@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

In every building a foundation is needed as the basis for a strong and sturdy
building. The term foundation is a building element that functions to channel all
the loads acting on the structure into the ground, up to a certain depth, namely
until the hard soil layer. The purpose of this study is to compare the axial bearing
capacity of single pile foundations analytically and numerically. Analytically it is
done by calculating the carrying capacity based on the data obtained from the
field, namely SPT. Numerical, namely calculating using the finite element method
using the program. The results of this study are also based on the dynamic
formula method to find the ultimate axial bearing capacity of the pile (  ) with the
Hiley formula, the PCUBC formula, the Gates formula, the Navy-Mckay formula,
and the Canadian National Building Code formula.

Keywords: SPT, carrying capacity, analytical, numerical, dynamic formula.

ABSTRACT

In every building a foundation is needed as a strong layer. The term foundation is a

building element whose function is to distribute all loads acting on the structure into
the ground to a certain depth until the soil is hard. The purpose of this study was to
compare the axial bearing capacity analytically and numerically. Analytical done by
calculating the bearing capacity based on the data obtained from the field, namely
SPT. The numerical count by using the finite element method using the program.
The results of this study are also based on the dynamic formula for bearing capacity
ultimate piles (  ) with Hiley formula, PCUBC formula, Gates formula, Navy-Mckay
formula, and Canadian National Building Code formula.

Keywords: SPT, bearing capacity ultimate, analytically, numerically, dynamic

formula.

Plan Design - 1
 Elvina Marianna Tampubolon, Yuki Achmad Sure

1. INTRODUCTION

One of the advantages of the pile foundation is that the bearing capacity is
determined based on the end resistance(end bearing)and the attachment of the pole
to the ground(friction), thus this foundation is very suitable for use on soft soils where
the hard soil layer is located quite far from the soil surface. To determine the bearing
capacity of each pile foundation during the piling work, there are several methods
used such as the static method, the dynamic method and thefinite elements. With this
test it will be possible to estimate the maximum load (Pultimate) and decrease (
settlement) of each single pile so that the bearing capacity of the foundation can be
planned to approach the actual reality. The bearing capacity of a single pile is greatly
influenced by the uniformity of soil properties, therefore the value of the bearing
capacity of a pile can vary greatly even though it is located at the same building
location.

The benefit of this research is to find out how much single pile carrying capacity is
produced by several methods.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1 SPT and Boring

The value of the soil parameters that will be used to design geotechnical structures,
such asundrained shear strength(  ), the unit weight of the soil (    ) or     , the soil elastic
modulus (  ), and the shear angle (Φ), is obtained by means
correlation between the N-SPT value and the soil parameters. Determination of soil
parameters based on N-SPT correlations are as follows:

1. Correlation of N-SPT toundrained shear strength(  )

Correlation between N-SPT and valueundrained shear strength(  ) from the
research data of Terzaghi & Peck (1967) and Sowers (1979) is given for a range of
soil types CH (high plasticity clay), CL (low plasticity clay), and ML (low plasticity
silt). For more details, seeImage 1the following.

Figure 1. Estimated relationship between N-SPT andUndrained Shear Strength(  )

(Source: Geotechnical Engineering Center, 2013)

2. Correlation of N-SPT to shear angle (Φ)

N-SPT correlation with shear angle (Φ) in sandy soils can be determined using
Figure 2.
Plan Design - 2
 Analysis of Dynamic Single Pile Bearing Capacity on Soft Soil at Gedebage

Figure 2. Sliding Angle Relationship (Φ) and N-SPT for sandy soils
(Source: Geotechnical Engineering Center, 2013)

3. Correlation of N-SPT to OCR (overconsolidated ratio)

OCR (overconsolidated ratio) of the clay layer can also be correlated with the N-
SPT. Mayne and Kemper (1988) proposed a relationship between OCR and  60
based on regression analysis of 110 data. The formula that can be used for the N-
SPT correlation can be seen inEquation 1, as follows:

0.689
 
= 0.193 ∗ (60)
′ 
… (1)

where:
'  =overburden pressure,
=SPT value that has been corrected against the tool.

4. Correlation of N-SPT to soil consistency

The relationship between N-SPT and the consistency of sand and clay soils can be seen
inTable 1,Table 2AndTable 3.

5. Correlation of N-SPT to soil elastic modulus andpoisson ratio( )

Elastic modulus (  ) soil for sandy soils can be obtained using the correlation of the
N-SPT and CPT data, while for clay soils it can be correlated to the valuedrained
shear strength(  ), as can be seen inTable 4.

Table 1. Relationship between N-SPT and Sand Soil Consistency

N-SPT
Angle of Internal Unit Weight
Consistency relative (Blows Per
friction(deg)
density(%) ft) moist Submerged(pst)
Very loose 0 – 15 0–4 <28 < 100 < 60
loose 16 – 35 5 – 10 28 – 30 95 – 125 55 – 65
Medium 36–65 11 – 30 31–36 110–130 60 – 70
Dense 66–85 31–50 37–41 110–140 65 – 85
Very dense 86 – 100 > 51 > 41 >130 > 75
(Source: Bowles, Joseph E., 1988)

Plan Design - 3
 Elvina Marianna Tampubolon, Yuki Achmad Sure

Table 2. Relationship of N-SPT to Clay Soil Consistency

Unconfined Compression N-SPT(blows Saturated Units
Consistency
strength,  (kN/m²) per ft) Weight(kN/m³)
Very Soft 0 – 25 0–2 <16
Soft 25 – 50 2–4 16 – 19
Medium 50 – 100 4–8 17–20
Stiff 100 – 200 8 – 15 18 – 20
Very Stiff 200 – 400 15 – 30 19 – 22
Hard > 400 > 30 >20
(Source: Bowles, Joseph E., 1988)

Table 3. Correlation between N-SPT and Consistency of Sand and Clay Soils
Cohesionless Soil
N 0 – 10 11- 30 31 -50 > 50
Unit Weight γ, KN/m³ 12 – 16 14 – 18 16- 20 18- 23
Angle of friction(φ) 25 – 32 28 – 36 30 – 40 > 35
state loose Medium Dense Very Dense
cohesive
N <4 4–6 6 – 15 16 – 25 >25

Unit Weight γ, KN/m³ 14 – 18 16 – 18 16 – 18 16 – 20 >20

Angle of friction(φ) <25 20- 50 30–60 40 – 200 >100
state Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Hard
(Source: Bowles, Joseph E., 1988)

Table 4. Relationship between N-SPT, CPT to Soil Elasticity Modulus

Soil SPT CPT
Sands (NC)  = 500 (N+15)  =2 to4  
 =(15,000 to 22,000)lnN   =(  = (1+Dr²)  
35,000 to 50,000) logsN
Sand(saturated)  =250 (N+15)   =
Sand (OC) 18,000 + 750N   =  =6 to 30  
Gravelly san and gravel 1,200 (N+ 6)
 =600 (N+ 6)

 =600 (N+ 6) + 2,000 N≤15

Clayey sand  =320 (N+15)   =300 N>15  =3to 6
Silty sand (N+ 6)  =1 to 2  
Soft clays -  =3 to 8  
Using the undrained shear
Clay strength
IP> 30 or organic  =100 to 500  
   = 500 tons 1,500  
IP >30 or stiff
1,2
 (OCR)=  (NC)(OCR)

(Source: Bowles, Joseph E., 1988)

Bowles (1988) recommends the value of the soil elasticity modulus (  ) andpoisson ratio
( )by soil type, as can be seen inTable 5AndTable 6.

Plan Design - 4
 Analysis of Dynamic Single Pile Bearing Capacity on Soft Soil at Gedebage

Table 5. Elasticity Modular Values (ES) Soil Based on Soil Type

Type of Soil Elasticity Modulus

(MPa)
Clay
Very soft 2 – 15
Soft 5 – 25
Medium 15 – 50
Hard 50 – 100
Sandy 25 – 250
Glacial Till
loose 10 – 150
Dense 150–720
Very dense 500 – 1,440
Looes 15 – 60
Sandy
Silty 5 – 20
loose 10 – 25
Dense 50–81
Sand and Gravel
loose 50 – 150
Dense 100 – 200
Shale 150 – 5,000
Silt 2 – 20
(Source: Bowles, Joseph E., 1988)

Table 6. ValuePoisson Ratio( ) Based on Soil Type

Type of Soil Poisson's Ratio ( )

Clay, saturated 0.4 – 0.5

Clay, unsaturated 0.1 – 0.3
Sandclay 0.2-0.3
Silt 0.3 – 0.35
Sand, gravelly sand 0.1 – 1
commonly used 0.3 – 0.4
Rock (depends
somewhat on type
of rock) 0.1 – 0.4
Loess 0.1 – 0.3
Ice 0.36
Concrete 0.15
Steel 0.33
(Source: Bowles, Joseph E., 1988)

1.4 Static Method Piling Capacity

1.4.1 Pile End Bearing Capacity (  )
In clay soils, the shear angle is generally zero (Φ= 0 ), then value σv̍*Nq* =0. While the
valueNc* = 9 (Skempton). For the bearing capacity of the pile ends can be calculated by
Equation 2, as follows:

 =      9

… (2)

Plan Design - 5
 Elvina Marianna Tampubolon, Yuki Achmad Sure

where:
 =pile end bearing capacity (kN),
 =passenger area at the end of the mast (m2),
 =clay soil cohesion at the pile tip (kN/m2).

1.4.2 Pole Shear Bearing Capacity (  )

a. Lambda Method (λ)
The average shear resistance (   ) using the lambda method ( )onEquation 3, as
follows:

  =  ( ′ + 2  )

. . . (3)

where:
′ =the average vertical pressure along the pile,
   = average saturated clay shear strength (Φ = 0), =
  constant.

The following is a formula that can be used to find the value  And v̍for each
segment, for more details can be seen inEquation 4AndEquation 5.

∑      1  1 +   2   2 +   3 3+ ⋯ +      

 = =
∑    1+  2+  3+ ⋯ +   

… (4)

Σ    = 1+  2+  3….  

 ˈv =
Σ   1+  2+  3….  
… (5)
where:
   = soil cohesionundrainedlayer to ,
   = the length of the pile segment ke ,
   = area of the effective vertical stress diagram of layer ke .

b. Alpha Method (α)

The formula used to determine the shear resistance ( )using the alpha method(α)
likeEquation 6, as follows:

=    
… (6)

where:
=empirical adhesion/adhesion factor,   =
shear strength of saturated clay (kN/m2).

c. Beta Method
The equation that can be used to calculate the shear resistance (f) using the
method (β) asEquation 7AndEquation 8, as follows:

Plan Design - 6
 Analysis of Dynamic Single Pile Bearing Capacity on Soft Soil at Gedebage

=   ′ 
… (7)
=   ∗ tan ∅′
… (8)

where:
′ =effective vertical stress (kN/m2),  
= shear resistance (kN/m2), =
∅′ effective shear angle, =
  coefficient of earth pressure.

1.5 Pole Bearing Capacity Using the Meyerhoff Method Using SPT Data

Manual calculations to estimate the bearing capacity of piles use the Meyerhof
formula which is calculated based on N dataSPTobtained from field tests. The
formula used in this calculation is as followsEquation 9, as follows:

   = 40    + 0.2    

… (9)

where:
 =N priceSPTat the base of the pile elevation,
   = ultimate bearing capacity of the pile foundation,   
= cross-sectional area of the pile (m2),
   = pile cover area (m2),
   = value    average along the pole.

1.6 Dynamic Formulas

To determine the bearing capacity of piles, the dynamic formula is the oldest method. The
dynamic formula is based on the relationship between the bearing capacity of the pile and
the driving energy of the pile, that is, it relates the bearing capacity of the pile to the value
setand assume that the resistance of the soil at the time of driving is equal to the capacity
of the pile to carry the load in a static state. The relationship between the dynamic and
static resistance of the pile based on the dynamic formula should not depend on the time
factor.

Several dynamic formulas to determine the dynamic bearing capacity orRUTwell

known as follows:

a. Hiley's Formula (a) (FS=3)

2.  ℎ∗   ∗    + ( 2∗    )

= ∗
+   +   

… (10)

where:
= pile capacity (tonnes), = tool
 ℎ efficiency/hammer,

Plan Design - 7
 Elvina Marianna Tampubolon, Yuki Achmad Sure

 ℎ = hammer energy
  (tonne), = final set (m),
 1 = block cap compression (mm), =
 2 pile compression (mm), = elastic soil
 3 compression (mm), = hammer
   weight (tonnes),
   = pile weight (tons),
n2 = coefficient of restitution.

b. Hiley's Formula (b) (FS=3)

ℎ∗  ℎ  +  2∗   
= ∗
+ 0.5 ∗     +   

… (11)

where:
 =recordingreboundsfrom the last hit.

c. PCUBC Formula (Pacific Coast Uniform Building) (FS=4)

ℎ∗  ℎ∗  1
=
+.  2
… (12)

+ ∗    ∗ 
1= ; 2 =
+    ∗ 

… (13)

where:
  = 0.25 … for steel piles, =
  0.1 … for other piles,
  = cross-sectional area of the pile (m2),
  = pile length (m),
 ℎ = tool efficiency/hammer, =
 ℎ hammer energy (kN), =
  modulus (kN/m),
   = hammer weight (kN),
Wp.s = pile weight (kN).

d. Gate Formulas (FS=3)

=   ∗ √ ℎ ℎ(  − log  )
… (14)

where:
=final set(mm),   =
27 FPs,
=2.4 SI.

Plan Design - 8
 Analysis of Dynamic Single Pile Bearing Capacity on Soft Soil at Gedebage

e. Navy –Mckay (FS = 6)

ℎ∗  ℎ
=
(1 + 0.3  1)
… (15)
  
 1=
  
… (16)

where:
 ℎ = tool efficiency/hammer, =
 ℎ hammer energy (kN), =
   hammer weight (kN),
Wp.s= pile weight (kN).

f. FormulasCanadian National Building Code(FS=3)

ℎ∗  ℎ∗  1
=
(1 + 0.3  2 ) 3

… (17)

+  ( 2∗   )  
 1=
 +   

… (18)

where:
 ℎ = tool efficiency/hammer, =
 ℎ hammer energy (kN), =
   hammer weight (kN),
 =pile weight (kN).

3. DATA ANALYSIS

3.1 Data Collection

This land investigation data was obtained from the Gedebage toll road project in the
Gedebage area, West Java. The purpose of conducting a soil investigation is to find soil
properties related to the design of the structure to be built on it, to determine the
position of the groundwater table (MAT), determine the carrying capacity of the soil,
and to predict the magnitude of settlement.

3.2 Problem Formulation

The bearing capacity of the soil at Gedebage is low, with high compressibility and large
settlements, so that the bearing capacity of the piles needs to be calculated and tested
until the piles reach sufficient soil bearing capacity.

Therefore the author formulates the problem in this final project is to compare the results
of the bearing capacity of the foundation using static methods, dynamic formulas, and
finite elementsor Plaxis 2D which is close to the results of the PDA test (Pile Driving
Analyzer).

Plan Design - 9
 Elvina Marianna Tampubolon, Yuki Achmad Sure

3.3 Flow chart

Start

Data Collection and

Literature review

Formulation

Foundation Data Land Data

1. Interpretation of dynamic
loading test results
2. Dynamic Formulas (Hiley,
PCUBC, Gates, Janbu, Modified 1.Index Properties
ENR, Danish) 2. Atterberg Loimits
3. 2D Plaxis Finite Element Method 3. Engineering Properties

Power Capacity
SupportFoundation Ultimate
Single Pole

Comparison of Test Results

Carrying Capacity
Pillar Foundation Ultimate
Single

Conclusions and recommendations

Finished

Figure 3. Flowchart (continued)

3.4 Carrying Capacity of Static Method Piles

End bearing capacity (  ) obtained by the static method for the method
Alpha is 508.86 kN, Lambda method is 508.86 kN, and Beta method is 323.73 kN.
Meanwhile, the carrying capacity by shear using the static method for the Alpha
method is 2857.33 kN, the Lambda method is 2872.48 kN, and the Beta method is
2979.41 kN.

The result of the total end bearing capacity (  ) and shear bearing capacity (  ) obtained large
ultimate carrying capacity (  ). For the Alpha method, the ultimate bearing capacity is
obtained (  ) of 3,366.19 kN or equal to 343.14 tons, the Lambda method obtained the
ultimate carrying capacity (  ) of 3,381.34 kN or equal to 344.68 tons, and for the Beta
method, the ultimate carrying capacity is obtained (  ) of 3,157.79 or equal to 107.91
tons.

3.5 Piling Capacity of the Meyerhoff Method Using SPT Data

End bearing capacity (  ) obtained by the Meyerhoff method is equal to

1,866.857 kN and shear bearing capacity (  ) of 960.095 kN. The result of the total end
bearing capacity (  ) and shear bearing capacity (  ) obtained large power capacity
support ultimate (  ) of 2,826.952 tons.

Plan Design - 10
 Analysis of Dynamic Single Pile Bearing Capacity on Soft Soil at Gedebage

3.6 Carrying Capacity Using Dynamic Formulas

1. Hiley's Formula
It is known from the field data the efficiency of the tool/hammer ( ℎ)0.85, hammer fall
height (H) 290 cm, final set (s) 0.3 cm, rebound 1 cm, hammer weight (  )6.5 tons, mast
weight (  ) 37,353,248.43 tons, coefficient of restitution (n2) 0.4, SF = 3 withEquality
9. Obtained a pole carrying capacity of 394.40 tons and a permit carrying
capacity of 131.47 tons.
2. PCUBC Formula (Pacific Coast Uniform Building)
It is known from the hammer weight field data (  )63.765 kN, pile weight (  ) 366,44
kN, final set (s) 0.003 m, hammer energy ( ℎ) 184.9185 kN, k used 0.1, value forC2
= 0, SF = 4 withEquation 11AndEquation 12. Obtained a pole carrying capacity of
1,228.40 tons and a permit carrying capacity of 307.10 tons.

3. Formula Gates
Known data from the field of tool efficiency orhammer( ℎ) 0.85, hammer energy ( 
ℎ) 184.9185 kN, final set ( )3mm. (a = 27 FPs, b = 24 SI) SF = 3 with Equation 13.
Obtained a pole carrying capacity of 765.67 tons and a permit carrying capacity
of 255.22 tons.
4. Formula Navy-Mckay
Known data from the field of tool efficiency orhammer( ℎ) 0.85, hammer energy ( 
ℎ) 184.9185 kN, final set ( )0.003 m, the cross-sectional area of the pile is 2,827
cm2, hammer weight (  )63.765 kN, pile weight (  ) 366.44 kN, SF = 6 with
Equation 14AndEquation 15. Obtained a pole carrying capacity of 1,962.10 tons
and a permit carrying capacity of 327.12 tons.
5. Canadian Building Code Formulas
Known data from the field of tool efficiency orhammer( ℎ) 0.85, hammer energy (Eh)
184.9185 kN, final set ( )0.003 m, hammer weight (Wr)63.765 kN, pile weight (Wp.s)
366,44kN, SF = 3 (Note: valuestogether withC2and withEquation 16 AndEquation
17. Obtained a pile carrying capacity of 1,118.62 tons and a permit carrying
capacity of 372.87 tons.

3.7 Carrying Capacity of PDA Test ResultsC3(Pile Driving Analyzer) The tested pile diameter was
600 mm and the pile length was 54 m, the number of blows was 9 times, the maximum compressive
force was 263 tons, the maximum tensile force was 0 tons, the maximum energy transferred was
5.99 tons, the maximum settlement was 31 mm, the permanent settlement was 1 mm, the height
hammer drop 2.9 m, blows per minute 38.4, pile integrity value 100%, pile cross-sectional area 1,570
cm2, and a mast carrying capacity of 430 tons.

3.8 Pole Bearing Capacity by MethodFinite Element

Resultsoutput2D PLAXIS program obtained graphicsdynamic timeto decrease and
compared with the CAPWAP results, namely the graph between load and demand, as
shown inFigure 4AndFigure 5. The magnitude of the decrease shown from the results
outputPLAXIS 2D is 0.3 mm while the result from CAPWAP is 29.82 mm.

Plan Design - 11
 Elvina Marianna Tampubolon, Yuki Achmad Sure

Figure 4. Comparison betweenDynamic Timeand decline

Figure 5. Comparison between load and settlement

4. CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis that has been done, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. When the test resultsPile Driving Analyzercompared to several dynamic formulas

the results are close to Hiley's formula, the percentage difference is 8.28%, of all
methods compared toPile Driving AnalyzerHiley's formula is closest.

2. If the test resultsPile Driving Analyzercompared to several static methods the results are
closer to the Lambda method with a difference in percentage of 10.41%.
3. If the test resultsPile Driving Analyzercompared to the Meyerhoff method the
percentage difference is 32.98%.
4. Output results from PLAXIS 2D withdynamic designis to know the decrease that
occurs in a changing function of time. The decrease that occurs is 0.3 m.

5. The results of the carrying capacity of a single pile with several methods that have
been calculated have a far comparison due to the parameters used, many
assumptions and simplifications.

REFERENCES

Bowles, Joseph E. Translated by Silaban, Pantur. (1988). Foundation Analysis and Design
Volume 1 (Edition 4). Jakarta: Erlangga Publisher.
Geotechnical Engineering Center. (2013). Pile Foundation Manual (4thEditions). Bandung:
Geotechnical Engineering Center (GEC), Parahyangan Catholic University.

Plan Design - 12