See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/348661882

CFA PILING IN THE EAST OF LONDON

Preprint · January 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 300

3 authors, including:

Paul Morrison Chris Barker

Arup Arup
21 PUBLICATIONS 119 CITATIONS 21 PUBLICATIONS 58 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Chris Barker on 02 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CFA PILING IN THE EAST OF LONDON
P. Morrison*1, L. Ganesharatnam1 and C. Barker1
1
Ove Arup and Partners Ltd, London, UK
* Corresponding author

ABSTRACT Piling in the east of London through multiple geological deposits has developed over the past 30+ years allowing a retrospective
of pile design, testing and construction to be presented. This specific paper considers design, construction and testing of continuous flight auger
(CFA) piles. Examples of integrity and load bearing issues are presented and attributed to construction issues.

Notation Groundwater levels are split between an upper aquifer in the

Terrace Gravel and above (linked to the Thames or dock
a Shaft fiction factor on σh′ water levels) and a lower aquifer in the Thanet Sand and
k Base resistance factor using Menard limit pressure below.
ks Shaft friction factor on σv′
Plim Menard limit pressure Table 1 – Stratigraphy in the East London Docks
Nq * Base resistance factor on σm′ Typical Stratigraphy Quay Areas 1
Qult Ultimate unfactored calculate pile resistance Top Level Thickness
qs Shaft fiction (stress) (mOD) (m)
qb Base resistance (stress) Made Ground +5.2 3.2
α Shaft adhesion factor assessed from mean cu Dock Silt N/A -
α* Shaft adhesion factor assessed from minimum cu Alluvium +2.0 2.5
σm′ Mean effective stress Terrace Gravel -0.5 5.0
σv′ Vertical effective stress
Lambeth Woolwich -5.0 6.0
σht Horizontal total stress
Group Formation (clay)
DVL Design Verification Load
Frep Representative action Reading -11.0 2.0
Formation (sand)
1. Introduction Upnor Formation -13.0 4.0
(sand)
The east of London has been at the heart of London’s Thanet Sand -17.0 14.0
prosperity for the past 200 years. Historically, foundation Chalk -31.0 To depth
design and construction focused on the shallow strata during
1
In dock areas the base of the dock will be around -5mOD.
the formation of the original docks, quays, warehouses and
Foundations for commercial scale buildings in east London
housing. These works caused disturbance to the shallow strata
has always been that of piles. These have varied between
that are typical of the low-lying areas around the River
wooden piles (historic), driven concrete and steel piles (Gaba,
Thames in the east of London (namely that of the soft alluvial
1989), conventionally bored piles with and without base
peat and clay layers overlying a river terrace gravel).
grouting (Troughton and Platis, 1989) and continuous flight
In the more recent years, since the 1980’s, construction works auger piles (Troughton, 1992). Pile dimensions have varied
have looked to mobilize the strength and stiffness of the from 0.3m diameter to 2.4m diameter with piles founded in
deeper strata (Lambeth Group, Thanet Sand and Chalk) to all strata from the Terrace Gravel, Lambeth Group, Thanet
support medium/high-rise office and residential Sands and to the Chalk (Ganesharatnam et al., 2018).
developments; these developments often have deep This paper focuses on CFA piles which typically found in the
basements associated with them. Lambeth Group or Thanet Sand formations.
The orginal ground levels were around +2mOD prior to the Experience and data from a nyumber of sites in east London
dock construction. The docks were formed by cutting the have been brought together in this paper to provide a general
shallow strata in the ‘dock’ areas and filling them in the review of CFA piling in these ground conditions. The piles
‘quay’ areas to ground levels of about +5mOD; hence are designed to support commercial scale buildings with piled
maintaining the uniform ground at depth but creating variable raft type foundations (Nicholson et al, 2002a) or conventional
shallow ground in dock and quay areas as in Table 1. The small groups of piles and pile caps. Piles may be working in
quay areas are thus formed of poor material which has over compression or in tension as would occur where a basement
the years been mixed with anthropogenic materials associated exists close to the high water table associated with the nearby
with phases of construction and industrial works. docks.

1
2. CFA pile construction Pile bore No Variations in auger
remold / dimensions may cause
During the past 20+ years CFA pile construction has smear different thicknesses of
developed from a perceived ‘black art’ to an established and weak ground
commonly available economic pile type. In the industry, CFA Pile base No Auger uplift prior to
pile construction sizes have increased with typically available disturbance concreting?
pile sizes now being between 450mm and 1200mm in
diameter, and to a maximum auger depth of 26m and to 32m Table 2b Construction issues (concreting)
with a kelly bar extension; all depending upon ground Pile auger up - concreting:
conditions. There are also developments such as air lifting Element Instrumentation Comment
during augering, side concrete discharge and auger tip Data
pressure sensor. Pile sizes regularly constructed in east Auger Yes Print out usually only
London are 900mm in diameter and can exceed 25m in length rotation gives full data where the
along with cages / bundles of central bars plunged to the pile (rev/m) pile does not have
toe when needed for tension loads. Concrete vol Yes phases of down
(m3 and %) movement and repeat
CFA piling is seen as one of the industry norms with a wide concreting
range of piling contractors providing the technique. The
Concrete Yes / No Lack of positive
technique, however, retains a degree of operator sensitivity
pressure at pressure at auger tip is
even though today’s knowledge of instrumentation allows a
auger tip indicative of over-break
forensic assessment of the as-constructed pile. Experience
(bar) in pile bore or restriction
shows that while modern rig instrumentation data provided in
in pile concrete volume
real time would appear to remove some of this operator
Concrete Yes Continuous lack of
sensitivity (e.g. as per ICE Specification for Piling and
pressure at positive pressure at
Embedded Retaining Walls, ICE 2017), there are modes of
swan neck swan neck is indicative
pile construction that cannot be so easily measured or
(bar) of over-break in pile
reported.
bore or low concrete
Tables 2a and 2b list some sample data that are considered to supply. Consistent
influence pile behavior; only some of these reach the positive pressure should
‘designer’ in the CFA pile printout. be possible toward
bottom part of pile.
Table 2a Construction issues (drilling) Auger depth Yes Auger should progress
Pile auger down - drilling: at all stages to surface in one process
Element Instrumentation Comment (mBGL) – any stoppages should
Data (typical) be short and be followed
Auger Yes Print out gives full data by a small auger
rotation where the pile does not penetration into the
(rev/m) have phases of uplift and placed concrete.
Auger Yes repeat penetration. The Concrete No The concrete volume is
torque correct control of rev/m flow at auger currently measured at
(T.m) prevents over-break and tip the concrete pump /
excessive disturbance of swan neck and not the
the pile bore. auger tip.
Auger depth Yes Auger should progress to Concrete No Mainly due to ground
at all stages base in one smooth without lost of the auger through
(mBGL) process inclusions different mechanisms
Over-break No No profile of pile bore is (see below) /
of pile bore possible. undersupply of concrete.
(including
re-drills) 3. Construction – observations and integrity
Auger No Back spinning of the 3.1 Piling process and auger set-up
rotation auger is not currently
direction reported or recorded. Pile construction is not straightforward. Design is mainly
Auger No Material flighted up pile based on empiricism, not theory, thus requiring continuity
flights full is normal (necessary) but between the design and construction processes. The
how full are flights construction methodology of a CFA pile has a potentially
bigger impact on the resulting pile resistance / integrity than
many other pile types requiring the designer to have a
detailed awareness of construction process and the operator to
2
be cognizant of the design assumptions. Issues such as the
auger set-up (tip and flights) and rate of drilling are more
important for CFA piles than most other piling techniques.
For example, the shape of the drilling tool is likely to be
important to the resulting resistance of the pile, this is
mentioned in Bell and Robinson (2012) but little data is
actually available to allow designers to assess this or for
contractors to specify a particular drilling tool set-up.
Examples of 900mm diameter augers are shown in Box 1
from a couple of sites showing differences in set-up, the pile
construction requirements were similar. It is considered likely
that the auger set-up (drilling head and auger flights behind it)
is important to the pile resistance and more investigation of
these could beneficially be carried out and published to
demystify the design and specification process. Experience on
one site showed that even with similarly powered hydraulic
piling rigs with torques in excess of 300kN.m being used for
a 900mm diameter pile constructed from within a basement
excavation (e.g. a 20m long pile reaching into the Thanet
Sand) some auger/rig set-ups did not penetrate to the toe level
in the Thanet Sand, some auger set-ups bit so well that the
auger “cork screwed” in and then stalled, while others finally
constructed a pile to “specification”.
Box 1 – Differing auger tip details for Thanet Sand Piles
• Double start auger • Double start auger
• Bottom concrete supply • Side concrete supply
• Semi-coarse teeth on • Isolated teeth on auger
auger side side
• Chisel teeth on cutting • Chisel teeth on cutting
edge edge
It is considered that the correct auger set-up cannot be
specified by the designer; the correct set-up can only be found
by repeated experience obtained by the piling contractor in
that specific geology. Without previous experience in that
specific geology it is important to construct trial bores prior to
pile construction to “design” the correct auger set-up for the
site.
3.2 Construction issues and concrete integrity
In CFA pile construction, the integrity is typically ensured by
means of the quality-controlled process as shown by the
computer printout from the rig as well as from the concrete
material testing (cubes).
The two examples (Boxes 2 and 3) of a lack of pile integrity
can be suspected from CFA pile rig printouts but are not
associated with lack of concrete oversupply as inferred by
volume of concrete / theoretical volume of pile.
Box 2 - Example of soil dropped off auger tip
For long piles where the kelly bar
needs to be repositioned on the rig
head the process of disengaging
and engaging the kelly bar may
allow material on the cutting face
of the auger to be “dropped” into
the concrete to form an inclusion.
A suspected example of this is
shown in a 900mm diameter CFA
pile which had a core taken from
top of the pile.

• Double start auger • Single start auger

The accepted means of preventing such defects as per Box 2
• Inclined-side concrete • Inclined-side concrete
is to ensure that post any kelly bar change (or other action
supply supply
that could result in material being dislodged back into the
• Coarse teeth on auger • Bead detail on auger side concrete), the auger is rewound back into the placed concrete
side • Bullet teeth on cutting by circa 1.0m and the concrete flow is commenced thereby
• Chisel teeth on cutting edge trapping any contaminated concrete on the auger. The size of
edge the “inclusion” may not be such that the pile performance is
impaired (e.g. at some depth down the pile the concrete
stresses are often low compared to those at the pile head).
The defect shown in Box 3 is more substantial compared to
that in Box 2. Such situations can be suspected when pile
drilling is not one continuous process (auger moves down and
up with potential over-flighting) and, where a pile tip
concrete pressure sensor is fitted, the concrete pressure drops
to zero. Realistically there is little cost-effective means for
remediation of such piles for two reasons:

3
• The concrete is not structurally sound over the zone of 4.2 Shaft resistance - drained
“inclusion”; The calculation of shaft resistance for those strata which are
• The disturbance to the pile shaft will likely result in a pile considered to behave as fully drained materials (coarse
load displacement curve that is unacceptable (see Section grained strata) include the Reading and Upnor Formations
4 below). and the Thanet Sand Formation and adopts the following
formulation:
If such a pile is suspected it is possible to re-concrete the pile
to ensure that the as-built pile is of sound concrete and to re- Compression qs = a σh′ tanφ′ (2)
assess the vertical pile resistance taking a down rated (or
ignored) shaft at and above the zone of concrete defect. Tension: qs = Min [a σh′ tanφ′; ks σv′ tanφ′] (3)

Box 3 - Example of the effect of over-break 4.3 Base resistance

Piles in the Thanet Sand are typically founded in the upper
Where the process of pile part of the Thanet Sand Formation. Pile base resistance is best
construction has left potential calculated using either a bearing resistance factor (Nq*) or
over-break in the pile shaft due to Menard pressuremeter data. For early works during the
auger removal/partial extraction redevelopment of east London in the 1980s and onwards an
and subsequent pile collapse. Nq* approach was adopted (Troughton and Platis, 1989)
With over rotation (over- while in more recent years the use of the Menard
flighting) and localized over- pressuremeter tests have shown value (Nicholson et al,
break it is possible that the 2002b). The formulation for each is as follows:
volume of concrete stored in the
auger stem is not adequate to fill qb = σm′ Nq* (4)
the zone of over-break leading to
concrete dropping out of the auger qb = k (Plim-σht) (5)
and concrete that has been
The “variables” σm′ and Plim need to be correct for the design
pressurized up the flight then
situation. Where the limit pressure has been measured prior to
winding down the flight. Such an
basement excavation (or water level variation) the value of
possible example is shown where
σm′ maybe higher than in the design condition; in such
there are repetitive inclined
situations a correction to the limit pressure is required by the
smears within the concrete core.
ratio of (σm′ design / σm′ limit pressure test measurement) in
keeping with Simpson et al (1989).

4. Pile design
4.1 Codes and strata
Pile design is typically carried out to BS EN 1997-1 and, in
the UK, the National Annex NA to BS EN 1997-1.
The Made Ground, Alluvium and River Terrace Deposits are
typically excavated for basement construction. Where some
remain the contribution to shaft resistance is small and
therefore generally not considered in calculations (in situation
without basements the Terrace Gravel maybe taken as a
beneficial stratum; the overlying Alluvium and Made Ground
may cause downdrag in some circumstances). Strata below
the Terrace Gravel are beneficial.
4.2 Shaft resistance - undrained
The calculation of shaft resistance for those strata within the
Lambeth Group which are consistently fine grained can be
designed in terms of total stress (the undrained shear strength
may include a softening allowance if below a basement):
q s = α cu (1)
The strata historically falling within this division typically lie
above the Lower Mottled Beds of the Lambeth Group.
These two approaches are typically used for large diameter
base grouted piles but are considered applicable to all types of
piles albeit with different “k” values being adopted (the “k”
value being an empirical factor to achieve an “ultimate” base
resistance at an acceptable displacement of 10-15% pile
diameter, i.e. to achieve a design that has a meaningful
settlement).
4.4 Design parameters
Table 3 presents the design parameters selected for the
preliminary design of CFA piles based on a number of sites.
4.5 Pile Settlement
For piles designed to the basis above, the settlement at
working load (approximately the Design Approach 1
Combination 2 action) is anticipated to be less than 1% of the
pile diameter for a 900mm diameter pile constructed with a
total length of up to 20m with pile toe bearing in the Thanet
Sand. As an example, preliminary and working test pile
results from three sites in east London are shown in Figure 1.
Site 1 had 900mm diameter CFA piles. The preliminary pile
test was constructed from above the basement level and
aquifer recharge was applied to mimic the subsequent
basement excavation; a softer result is seen in the preliminary
4
pile test than in the contract pile tests which were installed by load test results in Figure 1 where two of the contract pile
a different piling contractor at a later date. The piles all tests (W2 and W3) fall well below the general results of other
performed well with load settlement responses within the pile tests plotted.
general acceptance criteria in Table 4.
Figure 1 - Pile load test data (normalized)
Table 3 - Example (preliminary) design parameters
Strata Woolwich Reading / Thanet Sand
Formation Upnor Formation
Formations
Clay Sand Sand
α / α* # 0.4 / 0.7 - -
a - 0.7 / 0.45 0.9 / 0.45
(compression
/ tension)
ks - 1.0 / 0.65 0.85 / 0.425
(compression
/ tension)
Nq * / k ~ - - 25 / 1.2-2.4 ~~
qs limit (kPa) 85 140 / 100 #
250 / 150 #
qb limit - - 10 (possibly
(MPa) higher)
#
In this situation the scatter of cu was seen to be very
large. A design approach was based on the lower bound
value and not the mean value when assessing α, hence the
term α* is used. The reader is advised to consider this
approach carefully and not adopt it without understanding
the implication of such an approach based on the readers
data set used.
~
Adopt method that results in lower capacity.
~~
Where limit pressure results are available the k value can The contract pile tests carried out by the design and build
be as high as 2.4 but it is very much a function of base contractor for Site 3 was followed by a review of the CFA
disturbance. Annex E of BS EN 1997-2 gives a range of k pile construction records, parts of which are reproduced in
values, a well-constructed CFA pile can have a k value Figures 2a to 2c. These show that some piles at Site 3 (W2
between that of conventionally bored piles and driven and W3) were subject to difficult drilling conditions as seen
piles; a poorly constructed CFA pile can have a k value of in the auger depth with time plots in Figures 2b and 2c (these
1.2 (or less). Similar observations maybe possible for the piles are not representative of the body of piles at the site).
Nq* value.
Figure 2a - CFA log: Pile Site 3-W1
Table 4 - Typical pile acceptance criteria
Load Load / Qult (-) Settlement /dia. (%)
DVL ≈ 0.45-0.5 1.0
DVL + 50% Frep ≈ 0.6 1.5

Site 2 had 900mm diameter CFA piles. The piles were

constructed from within a basement with both preliminary
and contract pile tests carried out with similar ground and
groundwater conditions. Again, the load settlement
performance of these piles was uniformly good with Figure 2b - CFA log: Pile Site 3-W2
preliminary and contract piles all falling in a tight cluster up
to 70% of ultimate load.

Site 3 had a variety of 900mm and 750mm diameter CFA

piles with pile depths deeper than the length of the auger
strings used, hence kelly bar extensions were used. Piles were
generally longer than at Sites 1 and 2 due to a smaller
basement excavation depth and deeper Thanet Sand. These
piles could be expected to be a little softer to loading than the
shorter piles at Sites 1 and 2 but not to the extent seen in the
5
Figure 2c - CFA log: Pile Site 3-W3
It is clear from Figures 2a, 2b and 2c that the contract test pile
“Site 3-W1” was installed with an auger movement that did
not deviate from good practice (down and then up with a
small “blip” where the recovery of the kelly bar extension
occurred during concreting). Contract test pile “Site 3-W2”
was subjected to repeated down and up movements prior to
reaching the toe level during drilling; each of these
movements are associated with auger rotations (forward and
back spinning) and partially unsupported pile bores. Contract
test pile “Site 3-W3” had a construction process between the
contract test piles W1 and W2.
It is noted (not presented herein) that pile construction at
“Site 3-W2” did not register concrete pressure during
concreting while pile construction “Site 3-W1” and “Site 3-
W3” had some concrete pressure during construction.
The resulting load displacement plots of these pile tests
(Figure 1) reflect the construction processes with the pile test
at “Site 3-W2” falling well below the settlement requirements
at DVL and not reaching DVL+50% Frep and pile test at “Site
3-W3” falling below the settlement criteria but having a
ductile load settlement response. There are other piles
constructed on the site that do not have these construction
record non-conformances and have good load settlement
responses. To assess possible structural failure, Pile “Site 3-
W2” was concrete cored full depth to investigate potential
inclusions. No construction integrity defects as seen in Box 3
(from a different site) was observed.
It is not possible to see and compare the length of CFA auger
string and length of kelly bar from the records presented in
this paper. Nevertheless, the length of the kelly bar used
during CFA piling is important. This is because, where the
top of the auger flight (and hence the straight kelly bar)
descends below piling platform level, the ability of the CFA
rig to continue to flight some soil up to the ground surface to
allow continued penetration of the auger head becomes
increasingly difficult to the point of auger tip refusal. This
results in the rig operator being pushed to overflight and
potentially raise/lower the auger to allow the maximum depth
of the pile to be achieved. This has implications for the
contractor and the designer in considering rig capability
during the design process.
View publication stats
5. Conclusions
The paper has presented a range of different aspects of CFA
piling in an east London geology. Some aspects of the
observations herein will be directly transferable to other
locations / ground conditions and some not. Other locations
may have different construction issues that are not of concern
in this paper (e.g. ground squeezing and concrete pressure
issues when CFA piling in very soft ground).
The paper has tried to draw out the difficulties in design and
construction of CFA piles by dwelling on aspects of the piling
rig set-up and construction of the pile that are not in the
control of the designer. It is recommended that the
construction industry (designers and contractors) work
together to de-mystify / share some of the construction /
design issues and constraints to prevent issues with integrity
and poor load performance of CFA piles.
6. References
Bell A and Robinson C (2012). Chapter 54 “Single piles”.
ICE Manual of Geotechnical Engineering Institution of Civil
Engineers, pp 803-821.
BS EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2013. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical
Design – Part 1: General Design.
UK NA to BS EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2013. UK National
Annex to Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design – Part 1: General
Design.
Gaba A R (1989). Instrumented driven steel tube piles at
Canary Wharf, London. Proc Int conf on piling and deep
foundations, pp 445-455. Rotterdam, Publ. Balkema.
Ganesharatnam L, O’Leary F, Morrison P, Kwan V and
Thorp A (2018). Large diameter piles in chalk – Part 2,
design and construction. Geotechnical Engineering, Volume
171 Issue 6, December 2018, pp. 486-501.
ICE (2017), Specification for Piling and Embedded Retaining
Walls, 3rd edition. Institution of Civil Engineers.
Nicholson D, Morrison P and Pillai A (2002a). Piled Raft
Design for High Rise Buildings in East London, UK. DFI
Conference, Nice, France
Nicholson D, Chapman T and Morrison P (2002b).
Pressuremeter proves its worth in London Docklands. Ground
Engineering, March 2002.
Simpson B, Blower T, Craig R and Wilkinson W (1989).
Special Publication 69. The engineering implications of rising
groundwater levels in the deep aquifer beneath London.
Published by Ciria.
Troughton V M (1992). The design and performance of
foundations for Canary Wharf development in London
Docklands Géotechnique, Vol 42.3, pp 381-393
Troughton V M and Platis A (1989). The effects of changes
in effective stress in a base grouted pile in sand. Proc Int conf
on piling and dee foundations, pp 445-455. Rotterdam, Publ.
Balkema.