THE CURRENT PILING CODE AS 2159 -2009

SOME NEW CHANGES AND FEATURES

Gary Chapman Golder Associates Melbourne

GARY CHAPMAN

9/6/2010

THE NEED FOR A REVIEW

The Old code was dated 1995 and was over 14 years old and in need of
updating

Concerns were raised by some contractors and consultants within the

piling industry regarding pile testing and the incorrect selection of g
factors we now have a more rigorous selection system

New piling systems have become available over the last 14 years

Advances have been made in pile testing methods

9/6/2010

SAA COMMITTEE CE 018 MEMBERS

9/6/2010

Prof Harry Poulos (chairman)

Brian Chandler
Dr Gary Chapman
David Klingberg
Peter Mc Donald (co-opted)
Jim Millar
Prof Mark Randolph
Dr Julian Seidel
Slav Tchepak
Dr Frank Collins

Coffey Geosciences, Sydney

AECOM -Maunsell, Melbourne
Golder Associates, Melbourne
Wagstaff Piling, Brisbane
Douglas Partners, Melbourne
Waterway Const. Sydney
UWA
Foundation QA, Melbourne
Vibropile, Sydney
Monash University, Melbourne

OUTLINE OF CHANGES

9/6/2010

New terminology S* is now Ed

Code structure similar to previous, new pile types recognised jacked and steel screwed, cast insitu screw displacement
Geotechnical design aspects g factor is now calculated not selected
from a list, down drag calculations improved
Structural design aspects durability section revised, revised concrete
placement factor
Construction and testing aspects changes to pile testing
acceptance criteria, some testing clauses are now normative (i.e.
required) rather than there for guidance only, there is now recognition of
benefits of testing by increasing the g factor with increasing amounts of
testing
Testing aspects recognition of alternative forms of testing such as
Statnamic and Osterberg cell tests
4

Code Structure Similar to previous with some

changes

9/6/2010

1. Scope and general

2. Site investigation information required
3. Design requirements & procedures
4. Geotechnical design- strength and serviceability
5. Structural design concrete and grout piles, steel, composite &
timber piles
6. Durability design
7. Materials and construction requirements
8. Testing- revised acceptance criteria
Appendices: Detailed testing procedures and requirements for static, O
cell, high strain dynamic, rapid (Statnamic), and low strain and sonic
integrity testing

Section 2 - Site Investigations

The code now includes a requirement for site investigations to address
working platform issues and the stability of a safe working platform for
piling equipment.
Clause 2.2(c) (xii) an assessment of the site surface for the provision of
a safe work platform for piling equipment
To help prevent this from happening

9/6/2010

Section 3 Design Requirements

Design for ultimate strength and for serviceability
Load factors for actions from ground movements for structural design
1.2 x negative skin friction (Fnf) action
1.5 x compression, tension from vertical ground movement (Fes)
1.5 x moment, shear and axial forces from lateral ground movement
(Fem)
1.5 x moments shears and axial forces from heave due to unloading
from excavation (Feh)
For geotechnical strength design, loads due to soil movements (e.g.
down drag) do not need to be taken into account.
For geotechnical serviceability design, loads due to soil movements
(e.g. down drag) shall be taken into account using unfactored loads

9/6/2010

Section 4 - Geotechnical Design

A completely new section on the assessment of geotechnical design

parameters

A detailed process for the explicit determination of the geotechnical

strength reduction factor g

Tangible benefits for conducting load testing through the testing benefit
factor

A revised treatment of negative skin friction at serviceability loads and a

requirement for capacity in the stable zone to be verified

Guidance for design of combined piled raft foundations

9/6/2010

Selecting the right geotechnical strength

reduction factor
Underlying philosophy:

Reduce ad-hoc judgement in the fg selection process available under

previous code

Reduced maximum value of fg selection available from 0.9 to 0.76

You must now consider all of the site risks more specifically

There is an incentive for pile load testing by using the testing benefit
factor to increase fg

Can also allow for the benefits arising from the design of a redundant
foundation system. Single piles are not redundant and now attract a
reduced fg value for a low risk site rating fg is 0.67 for a non redundant
system versus 0.76 for a redundant system.

9/6/2010

Design Geotechnical Strength

Design geotechnical strength (Rd,g) is calculated as the design ultimate
geotechnical strength (Rd,ug) multiplied by a geotechnical strength

reduction factor (fg)

Rd,g = fg . Rd,ug

fg, = fg,b + (ft,f fg,b).K

fg,b

where fg,b = basic geotechnical strength reduction factor

ft,f = intrinsic test factor 0.9 for static test, 0.85 Osterberg cell, 0.8
for PDA test on preformed piles, 0.75 for Statnamic and for PDA on
other than preformed piles
K = testing benefit factor
9/6/2010

10

Basic Geotechnical Strength Reduction

Factor fg,b

The value of fg,b depends upon the assessed site risk factors & the
weighted sum of individual risks x risk weighting factors

Risk factors to be considered are divided into 3 categories:

Site Factors
Design Factors
Installation Factors

9/6/2010

11

Individual Risk Ratings (IRR) Table 4.3.2B

9/6/2010

RISK LEVEL

INDIVIDUAL RISK RATING

(IRR)

Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

12

Basic Risk Factors

TABLE 4.3.2 (A)

9/6/2010

Risk
Category

Risk Factor

Site

Geological complexity
of the site

Extent of Ground
Investigation

Amount & quality of

geotechnical data

13

Weighting
factor

Basic Risk Factors (continued)

TABLE 4.3.2 (A) (cont.)

9/6/2010

Risk
Category

Risk Factor

Design

Experience with similar

foundations & conditions

Methods of assessing design

parameters for design

Design Method Adopted

Methods of utilizing in-situ test

data and installation data

14

Weighting
factor

Basic Risk Factors (continued)

TABLE 4.3.2 (A) (cont.)

9/6/2010

Risk
Category

Risk Factor

Installation

Level of construction
control

Level of performance
monitoring (during &
after construction)

0.5

15

Weighting
factor

Average Risk Rating

To calculate the Site Average Risk Rating (ARR)

ARR = S (wi. IRRi )/ S wi

Where wi = weighting factor for the individual risk factor considered
IRR = Individual risk rating which is selected based on 1 = very low risk
through to 5 = very high risk.
Example: A site investigation for piling where the bores stop above
expected pile toe level = very high risk geotech data then IRR = 5 for
site quality of data and possibly also for extent of investigation as well.

9/6/2010

16

Examples Individual Risk Circumstances

Geological complexity of site. IRR 1 = horizontal well defined strata,

IRR 3 = some variability, IRR 5 highly variable profile steeply dipping rock

Design Method Adopted. IRR 1 = well established and soundly based

methods, IRR 3 = simplified methods with a well established basis, IRR 5
simple empirical methods or sophisticated methods that are not well
established.

Installation. IRR 1 = detailed construction control with professional

geotechnical engineering supervision with well established processes,
IRR 3 = limited professional supervision with conventional procedures,
IRR 5 = very limited or no involvement of designer with construction
processes that are not well established or complex.

9/6/2010

17

Sample Average Risk Rating Calculation

Risk Factor

(wi)

IRR

Wi . IRR

Geological Site Complexity

Extent of Site Investigation

Amount & Quality of Geotech Data

Experience with similar foundations

Method of Parameter assessment

Design Method Adopted

Method of using Insitu/Install data

Level of Construction Control

Level of Performance Monitoring

Sums
ARR = S (wi. IRRi )/ S wi
9/6/2010

15

49
3.27

18

Selection of basic geotechnical strength

reduction factor fg,b
Range of
ARR

Overall Risk
Category

fg,b for low

redundancy

fg,b for high

redundancy

ARR<= 1.5

Very low

0.67

0.76

1.5<ARR<2.0

Very low-low

0.61

0.70

2.0<ARR<2.5

Low

0.56

0.64

2.5<ARR<3.0

Low mod

0.52

0.60

3.0<ARR<3.5

Moderate

0.48

0.56

3.5<ARR<4.0

Mod High

0.45

0.53

4.0<ARR<4.5

High

0.42

0.50

ARR>4.5

Very High

0.40

0.47

Table 4.3.2 (B)

9/6/2010

19

Geotechnical reduction factor - Benefit of

pile load testing

fg = fg,b + (ft,f fg,b).K

fg,b

where fg,b = basic factor (0.56 in this example)

ft,f = intrinsic test factor depends of type of testing
K = testing benefit factor which depends on the
amount of load testing carried out

9/6/2010

20

Intrinsic Test Factor

9/6/2010

The intrinsic test factor (ft,f) is determined by the type

of load testing proposed
ft,f = 0.9 for static load proof testing
= 0.85 for Osterberg cell testing
= 0.8 for dynamic proof load testing (PDA) on
preformed piles
= 0.75 for rapid proof load testing (Statnamic)
= 0.75 for PDA testing of other than preformed piles
= fg,b for no load testing
21

Testing Benefit Factor K

For static, O cell, or rapid load testing

K= 1.33 p / (p + 3.3) <= 1

For dynamic load testing

K = 1.13 p /(p + 3.3) <=1

9/6/2010

where p = percentage of the total number of project piles that are

tested and meet the specified acceptance criteria

22

Testing Benefit Factor

Testing Benefit Factor
1.2

Testing Benefit Factor

1
0.8
Static
Dynamic

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0

10

20

30

% Piles Tested
9/6/2010

23

40

50

Improvement in fg,d with percentage of piles tested

Geotechnical Strength Reduction Factor

Test Benefit Factor
0.95
0.9
0.85

Phi gd

0.8
0.75

Static Testing
Dynamic Testing

0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0

9/6/2010

10

15
% Piles Tested

24

20

25

30

Combined Pile-Raft Foundations

Geotechnical Strength Criterion

Applies to the group as a whole and is the sum of the
factored strength of the shallow footing fgs Rd,ug,sshallow
footing plus fg Rd,ug piles

Serviceability
Requires an analysis which takes into account the
interaction amongst the piles, the raft or shallow footing
and the soil. Usually a 2 or 3D FE analysis.

9/6/2010

25

Negative Skin Friction

In the absence of other information, the design ultimate geotechnical
strength shall be assumed to be unaffected by negative friction.
Serviceability is often a key design feature and must be considered:
via a pile-soil interaction analysis (preferred method),
or via a requirement for sufficient pile embedment in the stable
zone to satisfy strength criteria applied to design load and the
negative friction force.
Rd,ug,sz fgs > (Eds +0.4Fnf)
and a serviceability settlement approximated by summing the pile
shaft compression under design load, the shaft compression due to
down-drag load and the settlement of the part of the pile in the stable
zone under the action of the design load and the negative friction
load.

9/6/2010

26

Section 5 - Structural Design

Design Structural Strength is given by:

Rd,s = fs k Ru,s

fs is taken from the appropriate code for concrete, steel, timber

k = concrete placement factor varies from 0.75 to 1.0 as per Table 5.3.2
k value depends on pile type, construction methods and the level of
integrity testing and construction monitoring
K = 1.0 requires at least 5% integrity testing over full depth of shaft, full
installation monitoring of CFA piles, monitoring of drilling fluid for bored
piles, monitoring of drive stresses for precast piles.
If integrity testing cannot see over the full depth of pile consider using a
k value of <1
For grout piles design using equivalent cylinder strength of 0.81 x cube
strength

9/6/2010

27

Structural Design

9/6/2010

Precast reinforced concrete piles shall have a longitudinal reinforcement

area of not less than 0.014Ag. This means 350 mm square precast piles
require 4 No. 24 mm bars (0.0147), not 4 No. 20 mm bars (0.1026)
For other than precast piles, minimum steel area of 0.005 Ag. (as before)
Partially reinforced piles can have reinforcement curtailed one
development length below the level in the pile when bending and tensile
loads cease to be significant and when the design axial load in the
unreinforced section of the pile does not exceed 0.5 k fcAg fs
Unreinforced piles are permitted where the design action effect does not
exceed 0.45 k fcAg fs
For cast in place screw piles design using minimum shaft cross section

28

Section 6 - Design for Durability

9/6/2010

Exposure classification for concrete piles is unaltered

Greater reinforcement cover for cast-in-place piles

Now have a provision of 50 and 100 year design life cover

Steel piles now have separate exposure classifications for water,

refuse fill and soil

Steel pile very severe exposure corrosion allowance lower limit

increased to 0.1 mm/yr

29

Section 7 - Material & Construction Requirements

Position. Revised position tolerances now avaiable for piles with deep
cut off levels
Non circular piles where axis orientation is specified have10 degree limit
Installation by jacking
Follows Chinese code requirements (inventors of the system)
Requirements on the installation force to be used
Pmax =0.74 pRug where p is the coefficient of jacking pressure
assessed from static test correlations but not less than 1.4.
If no correlations are available take p as 1.5 for piles>15m, 1.75 for 8
m- 15 m and 2.2 for piles < 8m long
Repeated jacking required (minimum of 5 repeats)
Installation by jacking IS NOT considered to be equivalent to a static
load test
Installation by screwing - new section

9/6/2010

30

Pile Load Testing Significant Changes here

9/6/2010

31

Section 8 - Pile Load Testing

Pile testing is encouraged
Testing benefit factors reward testing with higher fg factors
Where g,b is 0.4 or less no testing is required unless specified
Where g,b is > 0.4 then testing is mandatory (normative).
In absence of tests the verify design ultimate geotechnical strength
tests for serviceability are required for all sites with an ARR > 2.5.
Percentage of piles to be serviceability load tested varies with ARR
ARR 2.50 - 2.99
Test 1% of piles
3.00 - 3.49
2%
3.50 - 3.99
3%
4.00 4.49
5%
>= 4.5
10%

9/6/2010

32

Integrity Testing Table 8.2.4 B

9/6/2010

Testing of integrity shall be conducted in accordance with

Table 8.2.4(B)
Amount of integrity testing (5% to 25%) depends on
Whether the pile design load is governed by pile
geotechnical capacity or pile shaft structural capacity
The method of pile construction
Construction control and monitoring
Integrity test method must be capable of verifying the
integrity of the full length of pile shaft which may preclude
the use of low strain head impact methods for long piles
Need to consider all of the factors in Table 8.2.4 (B) in
selecting the percentage of piles to be integrity tested
33

Determination of Test Load

9/6/2010

Default test load values for sites without negative skin

friction are nominated
Loads for assessment of ultimate geotechnical strength
Pu = Ed/fg,d for compression
or 1.2 Ed for tension or lateral loading
Load for assessment of serviceability
Ps = Ed,s
Load for assessment of design geotechnical strength
Pg = Ru,g

34

Determination of Test Load

with negative skin friction

Maximum test load shall take into account the required

ultimate pile strength in the stable, non down drag zone

Test load shall also include allowance for shaft resistance

through settling ground that will provide positive support
during the short duration of the load test but produce long
term negative skin friction

9/6/2010

35

Static Load testing

9/6/2010

Two types of static load test with procedures are

detailed in Appendix A
Proof load test to verify pile compression performance
Load to maximum of Pu = Ed/fg,d holding 1hr at Ps &
3hrs at Pu
Ps = Eds plus 2Fnf for downdrag sites
Total test time ~ 9.5 hrs hr
Ultimate geotechnical strength test
Load in 10% increments of estimated Ru,g
Hold for 10 minutes at each increment until gross
deflection criteria is exceeded or pile no longer carries
additional load
36

Static Load Test Acceptance Criteria

Load

Maximum Deflection (mm)

Ps= Eds = design serviceability load

Ps L / A E + 0.01d

Ps = Eds +2Fnf for down drag sites

Ps L / A E -0.5 FnfLnf/AE +
max (0.01d,5)

0 (after removing Ps)

Max (0.01d,5)

Pg =Ed/g (load for assessment of

design geotechnical strength)

Pg L / A E + 0.05 d

0 (after removing Pu = load for

assessment of ultimate
geotechnical strength)

10 +0.05 d

Note d = diameter of pile shaft at the pile toe

9/6/2010

37

Dynamic load test acceptance criteria

High Strain Dynamic Load Tests with procedures detailed

in Appendix B
Load

Maximum Deflection (mm)

Ps

Ps L / AE + 0.01 d

1.5 Ps

Ps L/A E + 0.05 d

Same acceptance criteria as for static tests

In the absence of a more detailed analysis, pile head deflections
should be taken as the accumulated displacement over all the test
blows delivered
Acceptance criteria specified in the schedule can over ride the
above values if you fill it out
9/6/2010

38

Assessment of dynamic test results

9/6/2010

39

Other Pile Test Types

Rapid Load Testing (Statnamic)

Procedures set out in Appendix C
Acceptance criteria are as for dynamic load tests

Integrity Testing
Procedures set out in Appendix D for pulse echo, vibration and impulse
response methods. Cross hole and sonic logging methods are also
described with the opportunity to use other test methods if applicable
Acceptance criteria are stated in general terms. Tests are deemed
acceptable unless results show a likely impediment of the ability of the
pile shaft to perform its intended function

9/6/2010

40

Overall Objectives of Code

9/6/2010

To improve the standard of pile design and

construction
Design is to include a detailed consideration of risk
factors
To encourage pile testing by:
Recognising design benefits arising from testing
To require load testing in some circumstances
To require integrity testing in some circumstances
To encourage the monitoring of pile performance, both
during and after pile installation
41

Thank You!!
Questions (?s)
and
Answers (!!!s)

9/6/2010

42