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

net/publication/292337405

Geotechnical and construction considerations of pile foundations in

problematical soils

Article · January 2016

DOI: 10.3208/jgssp.TC305-05

CITATIONS READS

0 534

8 authors, including:

Askar Zhussupbekov Jana Frankovská

Eurasian National University Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava
43 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   88 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jakub Stacho Abdullah I. Al-Mhaidib

Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava King Saud University
12 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   131 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Drilling methods for energy wells View project

Deep geological radioactive waste repository in Slovakia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdullah I. Al-Mhaidib on 03 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Japanese Geotechnical Society Special Publication The 15th Asian Regional Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering

Geotechnical and construction considerations of pile foundations in problematical soils

A.Zh. Zhussupbekov i), J. Frankovská ii), J. Stacho ii), Abdullah I. Al-Mhaidibiii), M. Doubrovsky iv),
N. Uranhayev v), S. Yerzhanovvi) and I. Morevvii)

i) Professor, L.N.Gumilyov Eurasian National University, 5, Munaitpasov Street, Astana 010008, Kazakhstan.
ii) Professors, Slovak University of technology in Bratislava, 5, Vazovova Street, Bratislava 812 43, Slovakia.
iii) Professor, King Saud University, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia.
iv) Professor, Odessa National Maritime University, 34, Mechnikova Street, Odessa 65029, Ukraina.
v) General Director of KAZNIISSA, 21, Solodovnikov Street, Almaty, 050046, Kazakhstan.
vi) Vice General Director of Research of KAZNIISSA, 21, Solodovnikov Street, Almaty, 050046, Kazakhstan.
vii) Project Manager of KGS-Astana, 2/1, Baiyrkum, Astana, Kazakhstan

ABSTRACT

The Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) technology has evolved especially in recent decades. Using of CFA technology
has expanded all over the world. The article deals with geotechnical design of pile foundations, especially by static
load tests and by calculation using numerical models. Results of static load tests which were performed in
and in Slovakia are analysed and compared with numerical modelling. The technology of CFA has been used due to
the advantages of this technology in comparison with driven and bored piles in local geotechnical conditions.
Plaxis 2011 was used for CFA piles analyses by FEM. Advanced constitutive hardening soil model was used for soil
layers. Comparison of load-settlement curves, ratio of pile base and pile shaft resistance and distribution of unit shaft
friction are presented in the paper. The best geoengineering solution in this case is the use of new pile technology
CFA (continuous flight auger), FDP (full displacement piles), DDS (drilling displacement system), that lead to
increased bearing capacity.

Keywords: numerical model, pile foundations, CFA technology, load tests, design methods, FEM analyses

1. INTRODUCTION
Many megaprojects are emerging in the new capital
of Kazakhstan – Astana: Khan-Shatyr, Peace Palace –
Pyramid, house estate of “Severnoe Siyanie”,
Abu-Dhabi Plaza Hotel, New Aktau city near the
Caspian Sea and so on, see Fig. 1.
Modern construction puts modern requirements in
front of engineers and designers, and so instead of
traditional decisions it came to the use of new
economical and ecological efficient technologies such
as CFA (continuous flight auger and so on.
It is well known that pile foundation is one of the most
widely used types of foundation at the construction
sites of Kazakhstan. Application of pile foundation is
explained by necessity of ensuring a high bearing
capacity for high-rise buildings.
It has been mentioned previously that existing
Kazakhstan standard documentation of pile design is
out of date and does not meet the requirements of
modern engineering. The standard needs to be revised. Fig. 1. Engineering megaprojects in Kazakhstan.
Nowadays, conception of pile foundation design is in
the process of modernization, as presented in Design of pile foundation includes two critical
(Zhusupbekov A. et al., 2013). stages of analysis: bearing capacity and settlement
analysis. The preliminary design is performed based on

http://doi.org/10.3208/jgssp.TC305-05 2704
the engineering and geological investigation of modelled as a "wished-in-place". Modelling of pile
construction site. Accuracy of pile design generally installation is needed especially for displacement piles
depends on the accuracy of data presented in geological where the influence of technology is more significant
report. Final pile design project is corrected after than for bored piles.
approval by field tests.

2 DESIGN METHODS FOR PILE

FOUNDATIONS
Currently, a number of design methods are known
to determine the pile resistance or load-settlement
diagram. The choice of design method depends often on
the experiences, economy and technology availability
in given countries. Bearing capacity of single pile can
be determined by the following:
• the results of static load tests carried out on
working piles in real scale (experimental
resistance),
• the results of static load tests carried out on
model (trial) piles (pile of smaller diameter),
• the results of in-situ tests (e.g. CPT tests),
• empirical or analytical calculations based on the
results of laboratory and in- situ soil testing to
determine the geotechnical parameters of soils,
• calculations which take into account damage of
pile body.
Fig. 2. Static load test in Bratislava – Slovakia (over) and
Karagandy – Kazakhstan (under)
Best results can be obtained by static load tests of
instrumented piles, which are installed in the same
Using cavity expansion theory published by Mecsi
geological conditions, by the same technology and the
estimated that lateral earth pressure around pile shafts
same dimensions as system piles (Masopust, 1994).
was only slightly increased. This finding has led to the
Analytical and semi-empirical calculation methods
fact that the technology in these cases could be taken
based on the results of site investigation and ground
into account in numerical models only by using
testing are also often used for pile design, especially
interface elements between Piles and surrounding soils.
due to the cost saving. Analytical or empirical
CFA piles presented in this article are modelled
calculation methods are also the simplest methods
using the software Plaxis 2011. Tasks were done as
which provide an adequate view of load distribution
axisymmetric ones using 15 node elements. Linear
from pile to the surrounding soils. Using numerical
elastic (LE) constitutive model was used for CFA pile
methods (e.g. FEM) for pile design has increased in last
body and advanced Hardening Soil (HS) constitutive
years. FEM allows introducing more complex boundary
model was used for soil layers. Hyperbolic relationship
ground conditions and also local inhomogeneity of
between the vertical stress and the deviatoric stress in
subsoil, local effects of concentrated load at the pile
primary triaxial loading was considered for HS model.
base (Feda, 1977) and deeper understanding of
Soil shows a decreasing stiffness and simultaneously
behaviour of the soil-pile system as shown in many
irreversible plastic strain development during the
papers.
primary deviatoric loading. Yield surface form in the
The pile design approaches are different in our
space a hexagonal pyramid given by Mohr-Coulomb
countries. In Kazakhstan, static load tests are used for
criterion. Hardening parameter is not constant, but
pile design, while in Slovakia, piles are designed only
varies depending on accumulated plastic strain soil.
by analytical methods and static load test are used only
in exceptional cases (large constructions and projects) 2.1.1 Numerical model of CFA pile in Bratislava
for verification of design resistance and settlement. Static load test on CFA pile in Bratislava, Slovakia
Results of three static load tests in Slovakia and in (Fig. 2, over) has been made on system (working) pile
Kazakhstan (Fig.2) were compared with the results of of piled raft foundation below high-rise building. Depth
numerical analysis. of excavation pit is 6.3 m below the original surface.
CFA piles are 15.0 m long with diameter of 630 mm.
2.1 Numerical modelling of CFA piles
Geological conditions vary along the length of the pile.
Numerical modelling often does not take into
Quaternary well graded gravels are located in upper
account the effect of pile installation, because piles are

2705
part of pile environment up to 2.5 m. Free phreatic level results were used for comparison of real pile base and
has been taken into account in stratum of gravel. Sandy pile shaft resistances with calculated ones. Pile base and
silts and silts with low plasticity are situated below the pile shaft resistances of CFA piles in Karagandy from
layer of gravel from 2.5 to 12.5 m. These soil layers numerical modelling, are compared with real
have similar geotechnical properties and the ground measurements included in load-settlement curves.
model of homogenous layer was therefore used. The
silty sand with confined groundwater in the depth 12.5
– 13.9 m has been defined with pore pressure equal to
100 kPa. Silts with medium plasticity are located below
sandy layer. Geotechnical model of CFA pile is shown
in Fig. 3.

Fig. 4. Comparison of load-settlement curves by static load test

with those from numerical modeling for CFA pile B-TP1 in
Bratislava.

Fig. 3. Geotechnical models for numerical modeling.

2.1.2 FEM analysis of CFA piles in Karagandy

Two static load tests (Fig. 2, under) have been done Fig. 5. Comparison of load-settlement curves by static load test
below a 10th floor residential building in Karagandy. with those from numerical modeling for CFA pile K-TP1 in
Both test piles were 8.0 m long with diameter of 630 Karagandy.
mm. Excavation pit for foundation of building was
approximately 3.7 m below the surface. Geological
conditions of Karagandy are represented by fine
grained soils. This area is formed predominantly by
silts to sandy silts with lenses of clay to sandy clay.
Geotechnical models of both piles are shown in figure 3.
Input soil parameters for HS model are taken into
account as: Eoedref = E50ref; Eurref = 4 . Eoedref and m = 0.7
for fine-grained soils. Effect of excavation was
considered using the value of over consolidation ratio
in both cases.
Numerical analysis were done in form of a
parametric study. Analyses include 24 models for CFA Fig. 6. Comparison of load-settlement curves by static load test
pile in Bratislava and 2 x 18 models for CFA piles in with those from numerical modeling for CFA pile K-TP2 in
Karagandy. Technology impact, interface, phreatic Karagandy.
level and over consolidation were observed.
Load-settlement curves obtained from static load tests The impact of CFA technology has a significant
were compared with load-settlement curves calculated influence on the pile resistance, especially on shaft
by numerical modelling, as shown in Figure 4 for friction. Distributions of unit shaft friction along the
Bratislava and in Figure 5 and Figure 6 for two tests in CFA pile are shown in Figure 7.
Karagandy. It can be seen that in case of CFA pile in Bratislava,
Static load test in Bratislava has been fully unit shaft friction is visibly small in quaternary gravels
instrumeted. Distribution of load over the pile has been under the phreatic level. A small decrease is also in
measured by deformation reading recorders. These layer of silty sand which is caused by the pore water
pressure. Distribution of unit shaft friction in cases

2706
K-TP1 and K-TP2 is constant and proportional to the settlement. For analyzing bearing capacity working as
depth due to relatively homogeneous soil profiles. friction, CFA and Casing piles were modeled and
compared with results of static load test.

Fig. 8. SLT and designed bearing capacity.

Fig. 7. Distributions of shaft friction over CFA piles.
Taking advantage of the axi-symmetric nature of the
3 COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL AND problem, only half domain of the model ground and
DESIGN DDS BEARING CAPACITY pile was analysed. The soil ground and pile were
descretized into four noded quadrilateral elements.
Experimental and designed values of bearing
Number of nodal points are 675, number of finite
capacities are presented in Table 1. There are big
elements are 606, number of materials are 4 (1 is sand
differences between experimental results and design
with gravel, 2 is hard clay, 3 is clay, 4 is bored pile).
values of predicted bearing capacities.
During CFA pile installation the question of
over-expenditure of concrete was appeared. The actual
Table 1. Experimental and designed values of bearing capacities.
volume of borehole was about 1.3-1.4 times more than
Bearing capacity theoretical volume of borehole. After the determination
Description (кN) Coefficient of preliminary average radius (r+∇r), increasing
№
of piles Experim Design k= Fu/Fd diameter of CFA piles and remodeled numerical mesh
Fu Fd
FEM analysis was repeated. It results in increasing
1 №1 2280 1545 1,48
2 №2 2150 1545 1,39
bearing capacity of CFA piles “load-settlement” results
3 Pile DDS №3 2325 1545 1,50 of field static load test and stress and strain of soil
4 L=17m №4 2475 1545 1,60 around of single CFA pile through FEM computer
5 d=410 mm №5 2200 1545 1,42 program. The results of “load-settlement” from FEM
6 №6 2080 1545 1,35 are illustrated in Fig. 9.
7 №7 2190 1545 1,42
Pile DDS
8 L=17m 2700 2110 1,28
d=600mm
9 Pile DDS №1 470 272 1,73
10 L=2m №2 490 272 1,80
11 d=500mm №3 460 272 1,69

The comparison of SLT and design value of bearing

capacity is presented in Fig. 8. All the linear function
points are higher than the diagonal ones which means
that all experimental values of bearing capacity are Fig. 9. Results of FEM analysis.
higher than the designed ones. Significant differences
between experimental and designed bearing capacities 5 COMPARISON OF DDS AND CASING BORING
of DDS. In case of DDS, piles were surrounded with (TRADITIONAL) PILES
soil subjected to compaction.
Comparison of DDS and Casing boring piles
4 COMPARISON OF FEM CFA AND CASING bearing capacities by SLT are presented in Fig. 10.
BORING (TRADITIONAL) PILES There is big difference between DDS and Casing
boring piles bearing capacities.
The FEM elasto-plastic analysis was provided by Significant differences between bearing capacities
computer program established by Prof. Tadatsugu of DDS and casing boring piles indicate the incomplete
Tanaka. It uses the mechanical properties of soil ground usage of DDS technology resources.
for the numerical calculation of bearing capacity and

2707
 6 1,25
7 1,21
EGE4
5 1,12
6 1,08
7 1,05
5 1,21
6 1,16 1,20
7 1,12
5 1,43
6 1,34
7 1,28

6 FEM ANALYSIS OF DDS PILES

Fig. 10. Comparison of DDS and Casing boring. The main goal of this research is to determine the
influence of soil compaction on the bearing capacity
Classically there are two stages of pile under and settlement of pile. FEM analysis was performed to
vertical loads: during the first stage, the ultimate state analyse the stress-strain development of traditional and
of stress-stain condition of soil is developed, and during DDS pile in different geological elements of Astana.
the second stage, the slippage of pile through the soil The FEM model included two soil clusters. In case of
takes a place. DDS pile works identically, but if the traditional pile simulation the two clusters have
DDS pile is surrounded by soil subjected to compaction, identical soil characteristics, in case of DDS pile
the bearing capacity is increased. In this case the simulation of upper cluster was changed. The change
coefficient of soil work condition will be different. In took into consideration the compaction of soil
the case of traditional bored pile no compaction is surrounding the DDS pile. Only surrounding soil
occurred, therefore coefficient of shaft work of pile condition, but not under the pile, was changed; since
equal to 0,7, and in the case of DDS piles surrounded there is nothing occurs under the pile, namely no
by soil subjected to compaction this coefficient will be compaction.
increased. Moreover in case of DDS pile surrounded by First of all, it becomes important to predict bearing
soil subjected to compaction only the sides undergoes capacity of traditional and DDS pile. Next the obtained
compaction, under the pile no compaction. From results bearing capacities is compared with the calculated ones
of static load tests of DDS and case piles, the inverse by Kazakhstan Standard. By substituting this
problem was performed to the definition of coefficients. relationship in Kazakhstan Standards equation of
Obtained coefficients of DDS piles shaft work for bearing capacity, the coefficient of surrounding soil
different EGE (engineering geological elements) are work of DDS pile can be obtained by Eq. 1 and Eq. 2.
presented in Table 2. The results of FEM analysis for different geological
After reprocessing of obtained data by statistic elements and different DDS pile diameters are
analysis, several results of elastic modulus were presented in Fig. 11.
rejected. It is necessary to take into account elastic
modulus, angle of internal friction and cohesion FdDDS (1)
k= , k. ≥ 1
( PLX )

increase due to compaction during the design DDS pile. Fdtr( PLX )

Table 2. Coefficients of DDS piles shaft work. where: FdDDS

( PLX )
– predictable by Plaxis bearing capacity
Depth, m Ycf Ycf(average) of DDS pile; Fdtr( PLX ) – predictable by Plaxis bearing
EGE2
5 1,23 capacity of traditional pile.
6 1,18
kFdtr − γ cγ cr RA
7 1,15 γ cfDDS = (2)
5 1,45 uγ c ∑ f i hi
6 1,37 1,38
7 1,32 where: YDDS cf – coefficient of surrounding soil
5 1,67 ТР
work; F d – designed bearing capacity of traditional
6 1,56
7 1,23 pile; Yc , Ycf – coefficient of soil work; R – designed tip
EGE3 resistance; fi – designed shaft resistance of pile.
5 1,31
6 1,25 In case of DDS pile surrounded by soil subjected to
7 1,21 compaction, and no compaction under the pile, the
5 1,33 1,26 obtained coefficients of DDS piles shaft work for
6 1,26 different EGE (engineering geological elements) equal
7 1,21
to: EGE2 – 1.38, EGE3 – 1.26, EGE4 – 1.2.
5 1,32

2708
 Differences between Driving and Casing pile are too
small and can be neglected. The reason for these
differences might be the empirical coefficients required
by Standards.
Table 3. Designed pile characteristic.
Type of pile Required Length of Diameter or
quantity, e.a. pile (m) cross section (m)
CFA 1 10 0.5
DDS 1 10 0.5
Casing 1 10 0.5
Driving 2 12 0.3 x 0.3

Fig. 12. Bearing capacity comparison.

8 CONCLUSION
The installation process of CFA piles is less
time-consuming compared to traditional rotary bored
piles. Stability of borehole is ensured by the soil in
Fig. 11. Results of FEM analysis. continuous auger and therefore no other stabilization
elements are needed. Suitable geological conditions for
7 COMPARISON OF SLT RESULTS FROM CFA piles are fine-grained soils of stiff consistency,
DIFFERENT TYPES OF PILES weathered limestone and sandstone, residual
SLT of different types of pile was performed with a fine-grained soils and medium dense to dense
view to compare bearing capacity of traditional (namely, well-grained sands. Numerical analysis has been
boring casing pile and driving pile). performed in form of a parametric study. Very good
Unfortunately, most of the tested piles did not results were achieved using the numerical modelling in
achieve ultimate settlements prescribed by Kazakhstan comparison with results of static load tests. These
Standard – 24 mm, and so, for bearing capacity investigations are important for understanding the
comparison, it was chosen to use 3mm settlement behaviour of boring piles on problematical soil ground.
criteria, since all the piles achieved this settlement.
All the piles were designed to the criteria of 2200 kN REFERENCES
bearing capacity. Designed parameters of piles (length 1) Feda, J., 1977. Interaction between pile and ground. Praha,
and cross section) by Kazakhstan Standards are Academia, 156 p. (in Czech)
presented in Table 3. Results of comparison are 2) Kazakhstan Standards – SNiP RK 5.01-03-2002 “Pile
presenting in Fig. 12. foundation”.
All of these coefficients show incapacity of accurate 3) Masopust, J., 1994. Bored Piles. Praha, Čenek a Ježek s.r.o.,
263 p. (in Czech)
design of modern pile technology by out-of date 4) Mecsi, J. Geotechnical Engineering examples and solutions
Standards, otherwise this coefficients tending to 1. The using the cavity expanding theory. Hungarian Geotechnical
results of SLT showed entirely expected regularity. CFA Society, Budapest, 2013, 232 p.
piles showed highest bearing capacity as long as during 5) Zhusupbekov, A., Saparbek E., Erzhanov S., “Geotechnical
CFA pile installation it was expended much more Issues of Megaprojects on Problematical Soil Ground of
Kazakhstan”, Proceedings of the 1st Taiwan-Kazakhstan Joint
concrete than during Casing pile installation.
Workshop in Geotechnical Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan,2013.

2709

View publication stats