5" International Conference on DEEP FOUNDATION PRACTICE cxopoatug PILETALK International 2001 4-6 April 2001, Singapore RECORD LOAD TEST ON A LARGE BARRETTE AND ITS PERFORMANCE IN THE LAYERED SOILS OF BANGKOK Narong Thasnanipan, Aung Win Maung, Zaw Zaw Aye ‘SEAFCO Co,, Ltd, Bangkok, Thailand Pornpot Tanseng ‘Suranaree University of Technology, Nakomratchasima, Thailand Organized by * CI-PREMIER CONFERENCE ORGANIZATION ISBN: 981-04.2512.0{5 International Conference on Deep Foundation Practice incorporating Pltak: 4~ 6 April 2001, Singapore Record load test ona large barrette and its performance in the layered soils of Bangkok Narong Thasnanipan, Aung Win Maung, Zaw Zaw Aye SEAFCO Co,, Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand Pornpot Tanseng Suranaree University of Technology, Nakomratchasima, Thailand ABSTRACT This paper presents the load transfer characteristics of fully instrumented barrette of 1.5x3.0m in size seated about 57m below the ground level. The test results were compared with those from the instrumented load test on bored pile of diameter 1.5m with the same length, located 30m away. No significant difference in load transfer has been observed between barrette and pile despite the considerable difference in construction method applied and time consumed. Keywords : Barrette, static load test, load transfer characteristics 4, INTRODUCTION Barrettes have been used as deep foundations for various structures in Bangkok for a number of years. The large load carrying capacity achievable by fiexible dimension and length of barrettes provides @ major advantage in prevailing subsoil condition of Bangkok. In addition to extensive bearing capacity requirement, the demand for barrettes is necessitated mainly by site constraints, applicable construction method and equipment. Barrettes with dimension ranging from 0.80mx2.7m to 4.5mx3,0m for safe working load capacity from 1100 to 2300 ton have been used in some major projects. To assess the performance of large-capacity foundation element in layered subsoil of Bangkok, instrumented load testing is compulsory. This paper presents the static load test results of instrumented barrette tested up to 5290 ton for foundation of a fifty-storey building in Bangkok. The test results, particularly load transfer characteristics, and shaft friction capacity were compared with those of bored pile diameter 1.50m with the same length located 30m away. 2. OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT Foundation of the fify-storey tower called for 560 bored piles of 1.2m and 1.5m diameter and 24 number of barrettes having cross section size of 1.5m x 3.0m. Bored piles and barrettes were seated at approximate depth of 57m in the second sand layer. Barrettes were designed to suppor the large load for towers lift shafts as bored piles were not feasible to utlze in such case. Base grouting was ‘applied for barrettes and bored piles at the locations of high column load mainly in the central tower area, Instrumented static ple load test was proposed for one barrette and one bored pile of diameter 1.5m, The design safe working loads for the base grouted barrettes and bored piles are 2,300 ton and 1,175 ton respectively. Foundation plan of the project is shown in Figure 1 363Figure 1. Layout of foundation showing location of test barrette and bored pile 3, SUBSOIL CONDITION Sol investigation from five boreholes at different location reveals that subsoil layers along the site are relatively consistent. Similar to other localities in Bangkok a typical subsoil profile at the site is characterized by the alternating layers of clay and sand deposits as soil succession shown in Figure 7. Soft, highly compressible dark gray marine clay lies beneath weathered crust layers of 2m thick and extends up to 13.5m. Stiff Clay layer occurs directly underneath Soft Clay and its depth goes up to 26m. Below Stiff Clay layer, First Sand layer of 10m in thickness can be found. Hard Clay layer underlies First Sand and it is found to be about 12m thick, Second Sand layer occurs at depths between 50 to 72m. Undrained shear strength (Su) obtained from unconfined compression test and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) are shown in Figure 7. 4, CONSTRUCTION METHODS Both barrette and bored pile were constructed by wet process under bentonite slurry. Bentonite slurry conforming to the widely accepted specification was used. Properties of the bentonite slurry used are given in Table 1. Single stage base grouting was applied 24 hours after concreting for both barrette and bored pile. The detailed procedures utilized in the construction of two different foundation structures are outlined below. ‘Table 1. Comparison of bentonite slury properties Barrette Bored Pile Properties Before feeding | Afar Recycing & | Before feeding to | After Recycling & Before fotneborehole | Before Concreting | the borehole concreting {near tench base (near borehole base) Density 6) 10 147 708 110 Viscosity (se<) 8 a 3 s ‘Sand Content) 10 4 on 08 pH value 8 2 8 8 Mechanical rope-grab was used to excavate the trench. A guide wall cast with inside clear dimensions slightly larger than the nominal size of the barrette was used to guide the grab during 364initial bites. Since time consumed in the preparation of instrumentation was relatively long, desanding was continuously done to keep the bentonite slurry agitated, which also helps to alleviate the growth of fiter cake by minimizing the actual exposure time. As another measure, trench was once again occupied by grab to scrap the trench walls to remove, if any, filer cake formed on the walls. This attempt is inline with the recommendation made by Reese and O'Neill (1988) [1]. Its authors opinion that, if due to some unforeseen reasons, reinforcement cage lowering have to be delayed for considerable period of time, itis @ good practice to use the grab again to scrap the trench walls. This measure eliminates any foreseeable negative impacts caused by unexpected delays. After lowering the rebar cage, tremie concreting was done. Rotary driling was employed for bored pile excavation. Different from barrette excavation, temporary casing of 15 m length was used as a support in Soft Clay layer for bored pile driling to assure the stability of the borehole. Firstly, auger was used to drill within the temporary casing, followed by rotary bucket with bentonite slurry down to final depth of excavation. The base of the borehole was cleaned by recycling technique to minimize any congregated sediments. Before lowering the reinforcement cage special cleaning bucket was used to scrap of the borehole walls and the base. Reinforcement cages were then lowered inside the borehole while attaching the instrumentation simultaneously at specified locations. Soon after lowering the rebar cage tremie concreting was ‘commenced. Polystyrene grains plug was used before the first charge of concrete to avoid the mixing ‘of bentonite with concrete. Time consumed in different construction activities is plotted in Figure 2. Bored Pile | EiTremls Pipe Preparation Biconcretng ° 10 20 30 “0 50 60 70 0 ‘Time Consumed (noure) Figure 2 Time consumed in different construction activities of barrette and bored pile (after Thasnanipan, 1999 [2] ) 5. LOAD TEST PROGRAM AND INSTRUMENTATION 5.1 Test Pile Layout Test pile layout of barrette is presented in Figure 3. With overall height of &m, reaction frame lized for static load testing on barrette in this project was claimed to be one of the biggest ofits kind in the region. Four barrettes were used as anchoring system. Five numbers of built-up steel girders supported on each side by two 1" level cross beams were used as main beams to achieve the maximum capacity of 6000 tons. First level beams were supported against the second level cross beams. Second level cross beams were anchored against surrounding barrettes using anchor blocks at the top. Specially fabricated rigid transfer girders were used to distribute the tension force coming from the tie-bars to dowel bars above the anchor barrette heads. Sixteen numbers of hydraulic jacks ‘each having 500 ton capacity were placed between the test barrette cap and the main beams of the reaction frame, General view ofthe barrette load test set up is presented in Figure 4, Test pile layout of bored pile was similar to those of other static bored pile load tests in Thailand, Steel test frame anchored against four bored piles was used in bored pile load test. Different from the test frame of barrette, only 1 layer of cross beams was required for that of bored pile, 365Figure 3 Barrette test pile layout showing the configuration of 6000 ton capacity reaction frame 5.2 Monitoring System and Instrumentation Direct measurement from four dial gauges placed in diametrically opposite positions having ‘equidistance from the test pile axis was used as a main monitoring system of test pile head movement. Precise leveling and piano wire were also utilized as backup for pile head movement measurement. Additional two dial gauges were also used to monitor the lateral movement of the pile. Eight number of SINCO load cells of 500 ton capacity each were installed on top of the hydraulic jacks to evaluate the actual applied load of the fist load cycle . Vibrating wire strain gauges (VWSGs) and Mechanical Extensometers (ME) were fixed at five levels along the shafts at the known interface boundaries of different soil layers. At each level, four sets of VWSGs and one set of ME were installed for the pile whereas six sets of VWSGs and two sets of ME were installed for the barrette, Figure 4 General view of the reaction frame for static load test on barrette 3665.3 Load Test Pile load tests were carried out in accordance with ASTM D 1143-81. Pile and barrette were tested under three and four cycles of loading and unloading respectively. 6. LOAD TEST RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS 6.4 Pile Head Movement at Applied Load Load vs pile head movement graph of barrette and bored pile is illustrated in Figure 5. Measured pile head movements at design load, double of design load and maximum test load are presented in Table 2. As can be seen in the table, both barrette and bored pile experienced only negligible pile head movement at relevant design load. Table 2 Predicted and measured pile head movement at specific applied load Measured gross pile head movement at applied load Test Pl ed estPie_| Design Leed (OL) | Mex Test Load | eee se Tete Barrete 2300 ten 5290 ton “5mm | -12mm 61 mm Bored Pile | __1175ton 2700%t0n mm “19mm 7 mm Table 3 shows the estimated ultimate load capacity of barrette and bored pile from the load vs pile head movement using different method. Table 3 Estimated ultimate capacity of barrette and bored pile Ultimate capacity (Ga) and pile head movement Test Pile Perameter ‘at Qu estimated by diferent method Davisson's. Mazuriewcr’s | Butler and Hoys Qu (ton) 5180 ton 5156 ton 5100 ton Barrette Pile head movement at Quy 48mm 18mm 17mm ux (ton) 2675 ton 2734 ton 2620 ton Bored Pile Pile head movement at Qun 30mm 38mm 22mm ‘Applied Load (Tone) ° 1000 2000» 3000» 4000» $000 ©6000 Pile Head Movement (mm) 80 Figure 5 Pile head movement at the last load cycle (maximum loading) of barrette and bored pile 3676.2 Mobilized Skin Friction vs Pile Head Movement The graphs showing the ratio of mobilized skin friction to maximum mobilized skin friction against ratio of pile head movement to pile diameter (s/D) are presented in Figure 6a and 6b respectively. ‘Symbol ‘D’ shown in Figure 6a represents the barrette dimension in equivalent diameter. According to the figures, in general, skin friction mobilized to the maximum values at pile head movement of 0.6% ‘and 1.6% of equivalent shaft diameter for barrette and diameter of bored pile respectively +1008) s1008) 62 (Barrette) {6b (Bored Pile) Figure 6 Ratio of mobilized skin friction to mobilized maximum skin friction against ratio of pile head movernent to equivalent pile diameter 6.3 Load Transfer Characteristics of Barrette and Bored Pile Load transfer curves along the shaft of barrette and bored pile at various applied load are shown in Figure 7. The values of unit skin friction developed at the different soil layers along the shaft of barrette and bored pile in comparison with those of calculated ultimate unit skin friction are demonstrated in Figure 8. This comparison suggests that mobilized skin frictions of barrette and bored pile are higher than those of calculated values using empirical formulas. It proves the findings of Various researchers on shaft friction improvement of base grouted piles ( eg. Teparaksa et al 1999, [3]). Itis also evident that overall shaft resistance of both pile was not fully developed at design load. Figure 7 Load transfer curves of test barrette and bored pile with typical soil profile atthe site 368Nobazed Une Sn ton Max. Mobiized Unit ‘st Design Leetonia Skin Freon toni) Ho- su wey mt bePeH cm) 2 SPT-N (blows/30¢m) Figure 8 Comparison of calculated and mobilized unit skin friction of barrette and bored pile 6. 4 Effect of Construction Time on Shaft Capacity Reduction Excessive construction time is one of the main parameters claimed to be responsible for shaft friction capacity reduction of drilled shaft foundation constructed with wet process under bentonite slury as reported by various researchers. Total construction time of barrette and pile were 75 hours and 27 hours respectively. Though total construction time consumed for test barrette was almost 3 times more than that of bored pile, there is no significant difference in shaft load transfer between them. The ‘measures adopted in construction of barrette to minimize the excessive fiter cake formation along the ‘sand layers by proper desanding (continuous agitation), and retrenching with grab are considered the main reasons contributed to this achievement. Comparison of developed unit skin friction values of barrette and pile proves that difference in utilized bentonite viscosity as shown in Table 1 does not have significant effect on the shaft capacity, These findings are in line with conclusions made by ‘Thasnanipan et al (1998) (4) 6.5 Effect of Shape on Shaft Load Transfer Hosoi et al (1984) [5] concluded, from the results of numerical analysis that earth pressure acting on the flat surface of diaphragm wall panel is larger than that of circular bored pile. Thasnanipan et al (1999) [2] attempted to assess the effect of different aspect ratios (LIB) on the earth pressure developed around the trenches by using finite element program and reported that no significant difference in earth pressure was observed between the borehole (L/B=1) and the barrette (UB=2) Further research is necessary to evaluate this finding. No significant difference is found between the maximum mobilized skin friction against displacement of rectangular-shape barrette and circular- shape bored pile according to Figure 6a and 6b respectively. Displacements at maximum mobilized skin frictions of barrette and bored pil fall within the range (0.5 % - 2 % of shaft diameter) reported by Reese (1978) (6).7. CONCLUSIONS (1) Elastic deformation of both barrette and bored pile at relevant design load was found to be negligible, Shaft resistance of barrette and bored pile was not fully mobilized at relevant design load. These observations suggested that the selected size and length of barrette and bored pile for specified design loads are sufficient for acting as friction piles. (2) Mobilized shaft frictions of barrette and bored pile at maximum test load particularly in the first sand layer are considerably higher than calculated values. Shaft friction capacity improvement was considered to be contributed by base grouting which is in line with the findings reported by Various researchers, (8) Despite the considerable difference in construction method applied and construction time consumed (75 and 27 hours for barrette and bored pile respectively), similar characteristics of shaft load transfer were observed between barrette and bored pile. This achievement indicated that adopted measures (proper desanding and scraping of trench wall by grab prior to reinforcement lowering) to alleviate the excessive growth of bentonite fiter cake on the barrette wall proved to be effective, (4). Static load test up to 5290 ton conducted on barrette set the record as the highest load ever tested for a single cast-in-situ deep foundation in Thailand. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ‘The authors wish to express their appreciation to Dr. Wanchai Teparaksa and Mr. Kamol Singtogaw for providing invaluable suggestions in the intial stage of the load test program. The authors also wish to thank Mr. Chanchai Submaneewong for his assistance in preparing this paper. REFERENCES [1] Reese L.C., & ONelll M. W., Driled Shafts : Construction Procedures and Design Methods, ADSC: The intemational Association of Foundation Driling, Dallas, Texas, USA, 1988 [2] Thasnanipan N., Anwar M. A., Maung A.W., Tanseng P., Performance Comparison of Bored and Excavated Piles in the Layered Solls of Bangkok, Symposium on Innovative Solutions in Structural and Geotechnical Engineering in Honor of Professor Seng-Lip Lee, Asian Institute of Technology & National University of Singapore, 1999, p.p. 345-353. [3] Teparaksa W., Thasananipan N., and Anwar M. A., Base Grouting of Wet Process Bored Piles in Bangkok Subsoils, The Eleventh Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Seoul, Korea, 1999, p.p. 269-272. [4] Thasnanipan N., Anwar M. A. & Maung A. W., Review of the Shaft Capacity Degradation of Bored Piles Constructed with Bentonite Slurry, Civil and Environmental Engineering Conference, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand, 1999, p.p. V-59 to V-68, [5] Hosoi T., Yagi N., & Enoki M., Consideration to the Skin Friction of Diaphragm Wall Foundation, ¥" Intl. Conf. on Deep Foundation Practice incorporating PILETALK, Singapore, 1994 [6] Reese L. C., Design and Construction of Drilled Shafts, 12" Terzaghi Lecture, Proc. ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT4, 1978, p.p. 95-116 370