CEEC222

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING (HONS) CIVIL

ECG553
GEOTECHNIQUES

PROJECT BASED DESIGN FOR DEEP

FOUNDATION

PREPARED BY:
NAME STUDENT ID GROUP
MUHAMMAD AKMAL BASYIR BIN LAYNIN 2022745433 CEEC2225C3
MUHAMMAD IQMAL HAKIMI BIN MAT ZAHALI 2022780041 CEEC2225C3
ABDUL HAKIM BIN AMINUDIN 2022745505 CEEC2225C3
NIK MUHAMMAD IDZAMUDDIN BIN ABDUL 2022787349 CEEC2225C3
HADI
MUHAMMAD NAQIB SYAHIRAN BIN 2022786265 CEEC2225C3
KAMARUDDIN

PREPARED FOR:
TS. FAUZILAH BINTI ISMAIL

SEMESTER MARCH 2023 – AUGUST 2023

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 SOIL PROFILE 2

3.0 SINGLE PILE ANALYSIS 5

3.1 CIRCULAR PILE DESIGN

3.1.1 400mm DIAMETER 6

3.1.2 600mm DIAMETER 7

3.2 SQUARE PILE DESIGN

3.2.1 300mm x 300mm SIZE 8

3.2.2 400mm x 400mm SIZE 9

4.0 PILE GROUP DESIGN

4.1 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 10

4.2 CIRCULAR PILE DESIGN (400mm) 11

4.3 CIRCULAR PILE DESIGN (600mm) 12

4.4 SQUARE PILE DESIGN (300mm x 300mm) 13

4.5 SQUARE PILE DESIGN (400mm x 400mm) 14

5.0 COMPARISON OF THE PILE DESIGN 15

6.0 PILE GROUP AND PILE CAP DRAWINGS 16

7.0 CONCLUSION 20

REFERENCES

APPENDICES
1.0 INTRODUCTION

In this subject ECG553 also known as Geotechniques, students have been given task
to solved a problem related to a foundation design. We have been tasked to design a suitable
deep foundation for the proposed development project. The design must be using different
size, shape and length for the displacement pile for the proposed development project. From
the borehole log, soil profile can be identified and being draw.

Additionally, the location of the planned project, the soil type, the durability of the piles
in withstanding the loads from the structure, and the overall cost of the selected piles are taken
into consideration when choosing piles. The proposed project is situated in Parit Buntar,
Perak, where a design for a multi-story residential is needed. Site research through site
exploration and sampling would be a vital initial procedure before designing the foundation.
This allows for the determination of the geology and subsurface soil conditions, and for this
project, the data for the soil is obtained using rotary drilling. The pile's proposed depth from
the ground level is 30 meters.

The choice of an appropriate pile design can be made after obtaining the soil profile of
the specified location for the foundation. The static approach can be used to examine the pile
design and calculate the bearing capacity of the chosen pile design. The choice of an
appropriate pile design can be made after obtaining the soil profile of the specified location for
the foundation. The Static method can be used to examine the pile design and calculate the
bearing capacity of the chosen pile design. For the proposed project, the analysis will be based
on a pile of soil which the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile can be determined through the
α, β, and λ method whereas this method is only applicable for single pile analysis. Sum up, if
the proposed pile design passes the factor of safety, its value would be 2.0, the pile design
should be secure.
2.0 SOIL PROFILE

Soil properties refer to the characteristics or attributes of soil that determine its behavior and
suitability for various purposes. Some important soil properties include texture, structure,
porosity, permeability, moisture content, organic matter content and others. These soil
characteristics are crucial for a variety of uses, such as horticulture, building, and
environmental planning. Scientists and agricultural professionals may decide how to maintain
and optimize soil for various reasons by studying the qualities of the soil.

As a result, Figure 2.1 depicts the soil profile of the study site. SPT-N values for the soil
condition based on the Borelog from Appendix 1 are shown in Graphs 2.1 and 2.2. Terzaghi
and Peck (1967) suggested rough ranges of Cu and associated SPT-N for cohesive soils,
which are depicted in Table 2.1. To ascertain the real value of any numbers falling within the
range, interpolation will be utilized.

Figure 2.1: Soil Profile of the Location

Table 2.1: Approximate Ranges of Cu and SPT-N for Cohesive Soils (Terzaghi & Peck 1967)
 N-Value
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
5
10
15
Depth (m)

20
25
30
35
40
45
50

Graph 2.1: Soil Profile from Borelog in Appendix 1

0 5 10 15 20
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Graph 2.2: Proposed Soil Profile from Borelog in Appendix 1

 Soil Strength Eff. Unit weight, ɣ Eff. Overburden
Type of Soil SPT-N Depth α Nc As Ab
Cu Avg Cu Depth ɣb ɣ' σo σo(bar)
Topsoil
0.00 0.00
(Clay) 0 0.45 9.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Silt 0 1.50 0.45 9.0 0.00 0.00 1.50 4.47 6.71 3.35 4.24 0.13
Silt 0 3.00 0.45 9.0 0.00 0.00 0.45 5.93 2.67 4.69 1.27 0.13
Silt 0 4.50 0.45 9.0 0.00 0.00 0.45 7.92 3.56 3.12 1.27 0.13
Silt 0 6.00 0.45 9.0 0.00 0.00 0.45 5.94 2.67 3.12 1.27 0.13
Silt 0 6.50 0.45 9.0 0.00 0.00 0.50 7.13 3.57 3.12 1.41 0.13
Silt 0 7.50 0.45 9.0 0.00 0.00 0.45 6.21 2.79 3.18 1.27 0.13
Silt 0 9.00 0.45 9.0 0.00 0.00 0.45 6.71 3.02 2.91 1.27 0.13
Silt 0 10.50 0.45 9.0 0.00 0.00 0.45 14.13 6.36 4.69 1.27 0.13
Silt 2 12.00 0.45 9.0 12.50 6.25 0.45 14.77 6.65 6.50 1.27 0.13
Silt 3 13.50 0.45 9.0 16.67 8.34 0.45 15.19 6.84 6.74 1.27 0.13
Silt 4 15.00 0.45 9.0 20.83 10.42 0.45 14.95 6.73 6.78 1.27 0.13
Silt 6 16.50 0.45 9.0 30.00 15.00 0.45 14.73 6.63 6.68 1.27 0.13
Silt 11 18.00 0.45 9.0 55.00 27.50 0.45 16.22 7.30 6.96 1.27 0.13
Silt 13 19.50 0.45 9.0 65.00 32.50 0.45 16.22 7.30 7.30 1.27 0.13
Silt 16 21.00 0.45 9.0 80.00 40.00 0.45 15.95 7.18 7.24 1.27 0.13
Silt 15 22.50 0.45 9.0 75.00 37.50 0.45 15.95 7.18 7.18 1.27 0.13
Silt 6 24.00 0.45 9.0 30.00 15.00 0.45 16.91 7.61 7.39 1.27 0.13
Silt 7 25.50 0.45 9.0 35.00 17.50 0.45 16.91 7.61 7.61 1.27 0.13
Silt 5 27.00 0.45 9.0 25.00 12.50 0.45 18.01 8.10 7.86 1.27 0.13
Sand 8 28.50 0.45 9.0 40.00 20.00 0.45 18.07 8.13 8.12 1.27 0.13
Sand 12 30.00 0.45 9.0 60.00 30.00 0.45 17.74 7.98 8.06 1.27 0.13
Sand 13 31.50 0.45 9.0 65.00 32.50 0.45 17.74 7.98 7.98 1.27 0.13
Sand 18 33.00 0.45 9.0 90.00 45.00 0.45 17.74 7.98 7.98 1.27 0.13
Sand 23 34.50 0.45 9.0 130.00 65.00 0.45 19.35 8.71 8.35 1.27 0.13
Sand 22 36.00 0.45 9.0 120.00 60.00 0.45 19.42 8.74 8.72 1.27 0.13
Sand 24 37.50 0.45 9.0 140.00 70.00 0.45 19.42 8.74 8.74 1.27 0.13
Sand 17 39.00 0.45 9.0 85.00 42.50 0.45 19.66 8.85 8.79 1.27 0.13
Sand 19 40.50 0.45 9.0 95.00 47.50 0.45 19.66 8.85 8.85 1.27 0.13
Sand 21 42.00 0.45 9.0 110.00 55.00 0.45 19.7 8.87 8.86 1.27 0.13
Sand 20 43.50 0.45 9.0 100.00 50.00 0.45 19.7 8.87 8.87 1.27 0.13
Sand 26 45.00 0.45 9.0 160.00 80.00 0.45 18.68 8.41 8.64 1.27 0.13
Table 2.2: Soil Parameters
3.0 DESIGN ANALYSIS

SINGLE-PILE ANALYSIS
i. α-method
Ultimate Bearing Capacity, Qu = cuNcAb + Σ[αc̅uΔAs]
Nc = 9.0 for Intact Clays or 6.75 for Fissured Clays
α = Adhesion Factor, usually taken as 0.45, but may vary from 1.0 for soft clays
to 0.3 for over consolidated clays
cu = Undrained Strength at the Pile Tip
As = Shaft Surface Area within a given layer of UD Strength Cu
c̅u = Average Undrained Strength along the Pile Shaft

ii. β-method
Ultimate Bearing Capacity, Qu = cuNcAb + Σ[βσ̅’oAs]
β = Adhesion Factor, usually taken between 0.25 – 0.40
As = Shaft Surface Area
σ̅’o = Average Effective Overburden Pressure at the Centre of the Pile Length

iii. λ-method
Ultimate Bearing Capacity, Qu = cuNcAb + Σ[λ(σ̅’o+ 2cu)As]
λ = Adhesion Factor, usually taken between 0.117 – 0.5 depending on the
Length of the Pile
As = Shaft Surface Area
σ̅’o = Average Effective Overburden Pressure at the Centre of the Pile Length
cu = Mean Undrained Shear Strength (φ = 0 Concept)

The value will be assumed based on the maximum value of range to design for the
maximum value of QU. Hence,
i. α = 0.45
ii. β = 0.40
iii. λ = 0.50
iv. Nc = 9.0 considered intact clay
3.1 CIRCULAR PILE DESIGN
3.1.1 400mm DIAMETER

α-Method β-Method λ-Method

α = 0.45 β = 0.40 λ = 0.50
Nc = 9.0 Nc = 9.0 Nc = 9.0
Area of Base, Ab Area of Base, Ab Area of Base, Ab
2 2
= πd /4 = πd /4 = πd2 /4
= 0.13m2 = 0.13m2 = 0.13m2
Area of Shaft, AS Area of Shaft, AS Area of Shaft, AS
= 2πd x Eff. Depth = 2πd x Eff. Depth = 2πd x Eff. Depth
= 1.13m = 1.13m = 1.13m
Table 3.1.1: Parameters of α-Method, β-Method, λ-Method for circular 400mm diameter

Depth α - method β - method λ - method

(m)
Qb Qs Qu Qb Qs Qu Qb Qs Qu
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.06 5.06 0.00 6.32 6.32
3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.18 7.18 0.00 8.97 8.97
4.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.59 8.59 0.00 10.73 10.73
6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 12.50 12.50
6.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.56 11.56 0.00 14.46 14.46
7.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 0.00 16.25 16.25
9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.32 14.32 0.00 17.90 17.90
10.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.44 16.44 0.00 20.55 20.55
12.00 14.63 3.18 17.81 14.63 19.38 34.01 14.63 38.36 52.99
13.50 19.50 7.42 26.93 19.50 22.43 41.93 19.50 61.03 80.53
15.00 24.37 12.72 37.09 24.37 25.50 49.87 24.37 88.42 112.79
16.50 35.10 20.36 55.46 35.10 28.52 63.62 35.10 126.13 161.23
18.00 64.35 34.35 98.70 64.35 31.67 96.02 64.35 192.27 256.62
19.50 76.05 50.89 126.94 76.05 34.97 111.02 76.05 269.91 345.96
21.00 93.60 71.25 164.85 93.60 38.25 131.85 93.60 364.48 458.08
22.50 87.75 90.34 178.09 87.75 41.49 129.24 87.75 453.36 541.11
24.00 35.10 97.97 133.07 35.10 44.84 79.94 35.10 491.47 526.57
25.50 40.95 106.88 147.83 40.95 48.28 89.23 40.95 535.36 576.31
27.00 29.25 113.24 142.49 29.25 51.83 81.08 29.25 568.08 597.33
28.50 46.80 123.42 170.22 46.80 55.51 102.31 46.80 617.91 664.71
30.00 70.20 138.69 208.89 70.20 59.15 129.35 70.20 690.32 760.52
Table 3.1.2: Ultimate Bearing Capacity Analysis for circular 400mm diameter
From the calculation above, the maximum value of Qu achieved using λ - method which is
760.52kN.
 3.1.2 600mm DIAMETER

α-Method β-Method λ-Method

α = 0.45 β = 0.40 λ = 0.50
Nc = 9.0 Nc = 9.0 Nc = 9.0
Area of Base, Ab Area of Base, Ab Area of Base, Ab
= πd2 /4 = πd2 /4 = πd2 /4
= 0.28m2 = 0.28m2 = 0.28m2
Area of Shaft, AS Area of Shaft, AS Area of Shaft, AS
= 2πd x Eff. Depth = 2πd x Eff. Depth = 2πd x Eff. Depth
= 1.70m = 1.70m = 1.70m
Table 3.1.3: Parameters of α-Method, β-Method, λ-Method for circular 600mm diameter

Depth α - method β - method λ - method

(m)
Qb Qs Qu Qb Qs Qu Qb Qs Qu
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.58 7.58 0.00 9.48 9.48
3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.76 10.76 0.00 13.45 13.45
4.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.88 12.88 0.00 16.10 16.10
6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.99 14.99 0.00 18.74 18.74
6.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.35 17.35 0.00 21.68 21.68
7.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.50 19.50 0.00 24.38 24.38
9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.48 21.48 0.00 26.85 26.85
10.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.66 24.66 0.00 30.82 30.82
12.00 14.63 4.77 19.40 14.63 29.07 43.70 14.63 57.54 72.17
13.50 19.50 11.13 30.64 19.50 33.65 53.15 19.50 91.54 111.05
15.00 24.37 19.09 43.46 24.37 38.25 62.62 24.37 132.63 157.00
16.50 35.10 30.54 65.64 35.10 42.78 77.88 35.10 189.19 224.29
18.00 64.35 51.53 115.88 64.35 47.50 111.85 64.35 288.40 352.75
19.50 76.05 76.34 152.39 76.05 52.46 128.51 76.05 404.86 480.91
21.00 93.60 106.88 200.48 93.60 57.37 150.97 93.60 546.72 640.32
22.50 87.75 135.50 223.25 87.75 62.24 149.99 87.75 680.04 767.79
24.00 35.10 146.96 182.06 35.10 67.26 102.36 35.10 737.21 772.31
25.50 40.95 160.32 201.27 40.95 72.42 113.37 40.95 803.04 843.99
27.00 29.25 169.86 199.11 29.25 77.75 107.00 29.25 852.11 881.36
28.50 46.80 185.13 231.93 46.80 83.26 130.06 46.80 926.86 973.66
30.00 70.20 208.03 278.23 70.20 88.73 158.93 70.20 1035.48 1105.68
Table 3.1.4: Ultimate Bearing Capacity Analysis for circular 600mm diameter
From the calculation above, the maximum value of Qu achieved using λ - method which is
1105.68kN.
3.2 SQUARE PLIE DESIGN
3.2.1 300mm x 300mm SIZE

α-Method β-Method λ-Method

α = 0.45 β = 0.40 λ = 0.50
Nc = 9.0 Nc = 9.0 Nc = 9.0
Area of Base, Ab Area of Base, Ab Area of Base, Ab
= Width x Length = Width x Length = Width x Length
= 9.0m2 = 9.0m2 = 9.0m2
Perimeter of Pile, AS Perimeter of Pile, AS Perimeter of Pile, AS
= 4(Width x Eff. Depth) = 4(Width x Eff. Depth) = 4(Width x Eff. Depth)
= 0.54m = 0.54m = 0.54m
Table 3.2.1: Parameters of α-Method, β-Method, λ-Method for square 300mm size

Depth α - method β - method λ - method

(m)
Qb Qs Qu Qb Qs Qu Qb Qs Qu
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.41 2.41 0.00 3.02 3.02
3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.43 3.43 0.00 4.28 4.28
4.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.10 4.10 0.00 5.12 5.12
6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.77 4.77 0.00 5.97 5.97
6.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.52 5.52 0.00 6.90 6.90
7.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.21 6.21 0.00 7.76 7.76
9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.84 6.84 0.00 8.55 8.55
10.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.85 7.85 0.00 9.81 9.81
12.00 1012.50 1.52 1014.02 1012.50 9.25 1021.75 1012.50 18.32 1030.82
13.50 1350.27 3.54 1353.81 1350.27 10.71 1360.98 1350.27 29.14 1379.41
15.00 1687.23 6.08 1693.31 1687.23 12.17 1699.40 1687.23 42.22 1729.45
16.50 2430.00 9.72 2439.72 2430.00 13.62 2443.62 2430.00 60.22 2490.22
18.00 4455.00 16.40 4471.40 4455.00 15.12 4470.12 4455.00 91.80 4546.80
19.50 5265.00 24.30 5289.30 5265.00 16.70 5281.70 5265.00 128.87 5393.87
21.00 6480.00 34.02 6514.02 6480.00 18.26 6498.26 6480.00 174.03 6654.03
22.50 6075.00 43.13 6118.13 6075.00 19.81 6094.81 6075.00 216.46 6291.46
24.00 2430.00 46.78 2476.78 2430.00 21.41 2451.41 2430.00 234.66 2664.66
25.50 2835.00 51.03 2886.03 2835.00 23.05 2858.05 2835.00 255.62 3090.62
27.00 2025.00 54.07 2079.07 2025.00 24.75 2049.75 2025.00 271.24 2296.24
28.50 3240.00 58.93 3298.93 3240.00 26.50 3266.50 3240.00 295.03 3535.03
30.00 4860.00 66.22 4926.22 4860.00 28.24 4888.24 4860.00 329.60 5189.60
Table 3.2.2: Ultimate Bearing Capacity Analysis for square 300mm size
From the calculation above, the maximum value of Qu achieved using λ - method which is
6654.03kN.
 3.2.2 400mm x 400mm SIZE

α-Method β-Method λ-Method

α = 0.45 β = 0.40 λ = 0.50
Nc = 9.0 Nc = 9.0 Nc = 9.0
Area of Base, Ab Area of Base, Ab Area of Base, Ab
= Width x Length = Width x Length = Width x Length
= 12.0m2 = 12.0m2 = 12.0m2
Perimeter of Pile, P Perimeter of Pile, P Perimeter of Pile, P
= 4(Width x Eff. Depth) = 4(Width x Eff. Depth) = 4(Width x Eff. Depth)
= 0.72m = 0.72m = 0.72m
Table 3.2.3: Parameters of α-Method, β-Method, λ-Method for square 400mm size

Depth α - method β - method λ - method

(m)
Qb Qs Qu Qb Qs Qu Qb Qs Qu
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.22 3.22 0.00 4.02 4.02
3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.57 4.57 0.00 5.71 5.71
4.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.47 5.47 0.00 6.83 6.83
6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.36 6.36 0.00 7.95 7.95
6.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.36 7.36 0.00 9.20 9.20
7.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.28 8.28 0.00 10.35 10.35
9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.11 9.11 0.00 11.39 11.39
10.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.47 10.47 0.00 13.08 13.08
12.00 1350.00 2.03 1352.03 1350.00 12.34 1362.34 1350.00 24.42 1374.42
13.50 1800.36 4.73 1805.09 1800.36 14.28 1814.64 1800.36 38.85 1839.21
15.00 2249.64 8.10 2257.74 2249.64 16.23 2265.87 2249.64 56.29 2305.93
16.50 3240.00 12.96 3252.96 3240.00 18.16 3258.16 3240.00 80.29 3320.29
18.00 5940.00 21.87 5961.87 5940.00 20.16 5960.16 5940.00 122.40 6062.40
19.50 7020.00 32.40 7052.40 7020.00 22.26 7042.26 7020.00 171.83 7191.83
21.00 8640.00 45.36 8685.36 8640.00 24.35 8664.35 8640.00 232.04 8872.04
22.50 8100.00 57.51 8157.51 8100.00 26.42 8126.42 8100.00 288.62 8388.62
24.00 3240.00 62.37 3302.37 3240.00 28.54 3268.54 3240.00 312.88 3552.88
25.50 3780.00 68.04 3848.04 3780.00 30.74 3810.74 3780.00 340.82 4120.82
27.00 2700.00 72.09 2772.09 2700.00 33.00 2733.00 2700.00 361.65 3061.65
28.50 4320.00 78.57 4398.57 4320.00 35.34 4355.34 4320.00 393.37 4713.37
30.00 6480.00 88.29 6568.29 6480.00 37.66 6517.66 6480.00 439.47 6919.47
Table 3.2.4: Ultimate Bearing Capacity Analysis for square 400mm size
From the calculation above, the maximum value of Qu achieved using λ - method which is
8872.04kN.
4.0 PILE GROUP DESIGN

4.1 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

Group pile design is the process of planning and evaluating a collection of piles that
are used together to support a building or transmit loads to the soil or rock underneath it. In
civil engineering and foundation design, pile groups are frequently utilized to disperse loads
and provide structures the support they need.

Each design needs to pass the Factor of Safety (F.O.S) which is more than 2.0 in order to
make sure it is safe. The parameter that required to the checking are diameter or size, length,
length of group block (Lg), breadth of group block (Bg), Skempton’s Value (NC), undrained
shear strength (CU), depth, ultimate bearing capacity (QU) and number of piles (N). The value
for length of group block (Lg), breadth of group block (Bg) and number of piles (N) is assumed
for each design. The design load for this project is 2000kN. Besides, the cohesionless pile
group must be larger than the efficiency value, which was set at 1.0. The efficiency of the
group has been referred as the ratio of the average load in pile group to the ultimate single
pile load. The following equation represents the group's efficiency, Ultimate load equation, Qu
and F.O.S checking:

Efficiency checking, ℇ = Ultimate Group Load/ (N × Ultimate Individual Group)

Ultimate load equation, Qu(group) = Nc Cu Bg Lg + AverageCu 2D (Bg + Lg)

F.O.S = Ultimate load equation, Qu(group)/ Design Load

4.2 CIRCULAR PILE DESIGN (400mm)

PARAMETER VALUE
Diameter 0.4m
Length 30.0m
Length of Group Block, Lg 2.0m
Breadth of Group Block, Bg 2.0m
Skempton’s Value, NC 9
Undrained Shear Strength, Cu 60kPa
Depth 30m
Ultimate Bearing Capacity for Single 760.52kN
Pile, Qu
No. of Piles 8
Table 4.2: Group Circular Pile Design for 400mm

Ultimate load equation, Qu(group) = Nc Cu Bg Lg + AverageCu2D(Bg + Lg )

= (9)(60)(2)(2) + (30)(2x30)(2+2)
= 9360kN

F.O.S Checking, F.O.S = 9360/2000

= 4.68 > 2.0 (PASS)
∴ Since the F.O.S is more than 2.0, our design is safe.

Efficiency checking, ℇ = Ultimate Group Load/ (N × Ultimate Individual Group)

= 9360/ (8x760.52)
= 1.54 > 1.0 (PASS)
∴ Since the Efficiency is more than 1.0, our design is safe.
4.3 CIRCULAR PILE DESIGN (600mm)

PARAMETER VALUE
Diameter 0.6m
Length 30.0m
Length of Group Block, Lg 2.0m
Breadth of Group Block, Bg 2.0m
Skempton’s Value, Nc 9
Undrained Shear Strength, Cu 60kPa
Depth 30m
Ultimate Bearing Capacity for Single 1105.68kN
Pile, Qu
No. of Piles 6
Table 4.3: Group Circular Pile Design for 600mm

Ultimate load equation, Qu(group) = Nc Cu Bg Lg + AverageCu2D(Bg + Lg )

= (9)(60)(2)(2) + (30)(2x30)(2+2)
= 9360kN

F.O.S Checking, F.O.S = 9360/2000

= 4.68 > 2.0 (PASS)
∴ Since the F.O.S is more than 2.0, our design is safe.

Efficiency checking, ℇ = Ultimate Group Load/ (N × Ultimate Individual Group)

= 9360/ (6x1105.68)
= 1.41 > 1.0 (PASS)
∴ Since the Efficiency is more than 1.0, our design is safe.
4.4 SQUARE PILE DESIGN (300mm x 300mm)

PARAMETER VALUE
Width 0.3m
Length 30.0m
Length of Group Block, Lg 2.0m
Breadth of Group Block, Bg 2.5m
Skempton’s Value, Nc 9
Undrained Shear Strength, Cu 80kPa
Depth 30m
Ultimate Bearing Capacity for Single 6654.03kN
Pile, Qu
No. of Piles 2
Table 4.4: Group Square Pile Design for 300mm size

Ultimate load equation, Qu(group) = Nc Cu Bg Lg + AverageCu2D(Bg + Lg )

= (9)(80)(2.5)(2) + (40)(2x30)(2.5+2)
= 13500kN

F.O.S Checking, F.O.S = 13500/2000

= 6.75 > 2.0 (PASS)
∴ Since the F.O.S is more than 2.0, our design is safe.

Efficiency checking, ℇ = Ultimate Group Load/ (N × Ultimate Individual Group)

= 13500/ (2x6654.03)
= 1.01 > 1.0 (PASS)
∴ Since the Efficiency is more than 1.0, our design is safe.
4.5 SQUARE PILE DESIGN (400mm x 400mm)

PARAMETER VALUE
Width 0.4m
Length 30.0m
Length of Group Block, Lg 2.0m
Breadth of Group Block, Bg 3.8m
Skempton’s Value, Nc 9
Undrained Shear Strength, Cu 80kPa
Depth 30m
Ultimate Bearing Capacity for Single 8872.04kN
Pile, Qu
No. of Piles 2
Table 4.5: Group Square Pile Design for 400mm size

Ultimate load equation, Qu(group) = Nc Cu Bg Lg + AverageCu2D(Bg + Lg )

= (9)(80)(3.8)(2) + (40)(2x30)(3.8+2)
= 18024kN

F.O.S Checking, F.O.S = 18024/2000

= 9.0 > 2.0 (PASS)
∴ Since the F.O.S is more than 2.0, our design is safe.

Efficiency checking, ℇ = Ultimate Group Load/ (N × Ultimate Individual Group)

= 18024/ (2x8872.04)
= 1.02 > 1.0 (PASS)
∴ Since the Efficiency is more than 1.0, our design is safe.
5.0 COMPARISON OF THE PILE DESIGN

After all the design stage for 4 piles, it is needed to compare them in order to choose
the safest and economical pile. It is analyzed based on the ultimate load capacity, Factor of
Safety and, efficiency.

Types of Dimension Ultimate Load, Factor of Efficiency,

Pile QU(Group) (kN) Safety, ξ > 1.0
F.O.S > 2.0
Circular Pile 0.4m diameter 26460 4.68 1.54
0.6m diameter 37440 4.68 1.41
Square Pile 0.3m x 0.3m size 49920 6.75 1.02
0.4m x 0.4m size 66000 9.00 1.02
Table 5.0: Comparison between all the pile design

Compared to rectangular parts, circular sections are more stable and robust. In comparison
to a rectangular part of the same area, a circular section offers more resistance. Additionally,
the strains placed on the circular part are the same all the way around while there are different
stresses placed on the rectangular part.

The ultimate load capacity represents the maximum load that a pile can resist before failure.
In this case, circular pile of 0.6m diameter has the highest ultimate load capacity of 37440kN
while for square, the 0.4m x 0.4m has the highest ultimate load capacity of 66000kN. Hence,
both can resist the load that subjected to the column design load of 2000kN.

The factor of safety indicates the level of safety margin between the applied loads and the
ultimate load capacity. Higher values of F.O.S provide greater safety. Here, the 0.4m x 0.4m
square pile has the highest factor of safety of 9.0 while for circular section, both diameters
have the same value which is 4.68. All designs pass value of 2.0 but need to choose suitable
value that not overdesign.

Efficiency represents the ratio of the ultimate load capacity to the applied load. Higher
efficiency values indicate a more efficient use of the pile capacity. All data is suitable as
efficiency is usually taken as 1.0 for design purposes. In this comparison, the circular piles
have higher efficiencies, with the 0.4m diameter circular pile at 1.54 and the 0.6m diameter
circular pile at 1.41, while both square piles have an efficiency of 1.02.

Therefore, based on these consideration, the best and safest pile that will be chosen is
circular pile with 0.6m diameter.
6.0 PILE GROUP AND PILE
CAP DRAWINGS
 600 400

300 400
300

400
 6000

2000

PILE CAP

PILES

PILE CAP
400

600
PILES

1100 1320

TOP VIEW TOP VIEW

6000
2000 3000
1000

500
500

PILE CAP PILE CAP

30000

PILES
30000

PILES

1100

SIDE VIEW 1320

SIDE VIEW
 2500

2500

500
PILE CAP

PILE CAP
2000

PILES
PILES

30000
300
1600
1600

TOP VIEW SIDE VIEW

3800

3800

500
PILE CAP
PILE CAP
2000

PILES
PILES
30000

400
1800
1800

TOP VIEW SIDE VIEW

7.0 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, there are 4 size of pile design proposed. For single pile designed, two
circular piles with diameter 400mm and 600mm and also two types of square piles with size
300mm x 300m and 400mm x 400mm. During single pile design stage, the Static Method was
used where the derive of piles that carrying capacity from the end bearing and the shaft friction
resistance, all three methods 𝛼, 𝛽 and λ have been used to calculate the maximum load
accommodate for the single pile and group piles. In order to design the maximum value of QU,
the assumption value for 𝛼, 𝛽 and λ are 0.45, 0.40 and 0.50 respectively. All maximum value
of QU for 4 designs are obtained by using λ-method which is 760.52kN, 1105.68kN, 6654.03kN
and 8872.04kN.

For pile group design the dimension used are the same for the single pile design. The
Factor of Safety and efficiency need to be checked as it must pass 2.0 and 1.0. All 4 designs
are checked passed and the design is safe. For the comparison purpose, ultimate load
capacity, Factor of Safety and, efficiency for these designs need to be analysed and chosen
as the safest pile design. Based on Table 5.0, 0.4m x 0.4m size of square pile scored the
highest value of Ultimate Load which is 66000kN while for circular pile, 0.6m diameter has the
highest value which Is 37440kN. For F.O.S, the 0.4m x 0.4m square pile has the highest factor
of safety of 9.0 while for circular section is 0.6m diameter with 4.68 F.O.S. Finally, all data is
suitable as efficiency is usually taken as 1.0 for design purposes. In this comparison, the
circular piles have higher efficiencies, with the 0.4m diameter circular pile at 1.54 and the 0.6m
diameter circular pile at 1.41, while both square piles have an efficiency of 1.02. Based on this
consideration, circular pile with 0.6m diameter is selected as the safest pile design.
REFERENCES

1. R. Gianpiero. Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations Under Vertical Load. Retrieved
from RIG218.indb (associazionegeotecnica.it). Accessed by 2023, Jun 28.

2. MediaWiki. 2022, December 19. Soil Physical Properties and Processes. Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency United Kingdom. Retrieved from Soil physical properties and
processes - Minnesota Stormwater Manual (state.mn.us). Accessed by 2023, Jun 20.

3. TC, Admin. 2014, November 25. Selection of Pile Foundation Based on Soil Condition
- The Constructor. The Constructor. Retrieved from Selection of Pile Foundation Based
on Soil Condition - The Constructor. Accessed by 2023, July 7.

4. TC, Admin. 2018, September 26. Different Types of Soil – Sand, Silt, Clay, and Loam
– The Constructor. The Constructor. Retrieved from Different Types of Soil - Sand, Silt,
Clay and Loam - The Constructor. Accessed by 2023, July 7.

5. TheMeter.net. bulk weight and density. (2010). Themeter.net. Retrieved from bulk
weight and density (themeter.net). Accessed by 2023, 2023, Jun 28.

6. L.F., C., S.M, P., & S., A. (2016). INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR SOIL MECHANICS
AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING. Retrieved from ISC5_105.pdf (issmge.org).
Accessed by 2023, July 2.
PENGAJIAN KEJURUTERAAN AWAM
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA
SHAH ALAM

COURSE NAME
ECG533 (GEOTECHNIQUE)

COURSE GEOTECHNIQUE
COURSE CODE ECG553

PROGRAMME CEEC220/CEEC222

ASSIGMENT PROJECT BASED DESIGN FOR DEEP FOUNDATION

SEMESTER MARCH 2023 - AUGUST 2023
PERIOD OF ACTIVITY 15 JUNE – 14 JULY 2023

CLASS GROUP : EC2225C3

LECTURER : TS. FAUZILAH BINTI ISMAIL

NAME UiTM NO
1. MUHAMMAD AKMAL BASYIR BIN LAYNIN 2022745433
2.
MUHAMMAD IQMAL HAKIMI BIN MAT ZAHALI 2022780041
3. ABDUL HAKIM BIN AMINUDIN 2022745505
4. NIK MUHAMMAD IDZAMUDDIN BIN ABDUL HADI
2022787349
5. 2022786265
MUHAMMAD NAQIB SYAHIRAN BIN KAMARUDDIN

MARKS –REPORT / 50
 APPENDICES

SCHOOL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

SHAH ALAMCAMPUS COMPLEX
PROBLEM ASSIGNMENT

Course : GEOTECHNIQUES
Course Code : ECG553
Semester : MARCH 2023 - AUGUST 2023
Programme : CEEC220/CEEC222
Assignment : PROJECT BASED DESIGN FOR DEEP FOUNDATION

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This project-based learning involves an open-ended complex engineering problem related to
geotechnical assessment for foundation design. The proposed project is in Parit Buntar, Perak. A Multi-
Storey Residential Development is proposed on the property. The students are appointed as
consulting engineers by the client of the project. They are required to design a suitable deep
foundation for the proposed development project.
The students are required to follow these instructions:
1. The team needs to come out with an alternative pile design using different shape, sizes, or length of
displacement pile for the proposed development project.
2. Draw the soil profile based on the data from the borehole log.
3. Design a single pile based on the data provided in the borehole log. Any parameter assumptions
made for the analysis and design must be supported by references to credible research articles or
textbooks.
4. Design a pile group and suggest the number of piles that are required as well as the size of the
suggested pile cap. Draw the suggested pile group and pile cap in a plan view and side elevation.
5. Compare the findings and suggest the safest pile design for use. Provide appropriate references on
the piles you chose in addition to the safety factor to support your response.
6. Students shall works in team of no more than five members.

1.1 COURSE OUTCOME (CO), PROGRAMME OUTCOME (PO), COMPLEX ENGINEERING PROBLEMS
(WP) & KNOWLEDGE PROFILES (WK)
There are two (2) course outcome and one (1) programme outcome that are mapped to the complex
engineering problem characteristics and knowledge profile (WK) as shown in Table 1.0.

1
 Table 1.0: Mapping of Course, Programme Outcomes and Complex Engineering Characteristics (WP)
and Knowledge Profiles (WKs)

Course Programme Complex Engineering

Knowledge Profile (WKs)
Outcomes Outcome Problems (WP)
CO1: Design solution PO3: Design solutions WP1 Depth of WK3 (Engineering
of soil engineering for complex civil Knowledge Required = fundamental):
parameters in engineering problems in-depth engineering A systematic, theory-
geotechnical and design systems, knowledge at the level based formulation of
analysis. components or of one or more of WK3, engineering
processes that meet WK4, WK5, WK6, or fundamentals required in
CO2: Analyse specified needs with WK8 (WK’s) the engineering
problems related appropriate fundamental, first discipline.
to soil settlement, consideration for public principles analytical
bearing capacity health and safety, approach. WK4 (Specialist
and slope stability cultural, societal, and knowledge):
for geotechnical Environmental WP2 Range of Knowledge that provides
structure. considerations. Conflicting requirement theoretical frameworks
(WK5). = wide & conflicting and bodies of knowledge
technical, engineering & for the accepted practice
other issues. areas in the engineering
discipline; much is at the
WP3 Depth of analysis = forefront of the discipline.
no obvious solution,
abstract thinking, WK5 (Engineering design
originality. & operation):
Knowledge that supports
WP4 Familiarity of engineering design in a
issues = infrequently practice area.
encountered issues.
WK6 (Engineering
WP5 Extent of Practice):
applicable codes = Knowledge of
outside problems engineering practice
encompassed by codes (technology) area in the
for professional engineering discipline.
engineering.
WK8: Research
WP7 Interdependence = Literature
high level problems Engagement with
with many parts & sub- selected knowledge
problems. in the research literature
of the discipline.

2
1.2 LEARNING OUTCOMES
At the end of this project, the students should be able to:
1. Design deep foundation to follow specific design criteria
2. Select the most suitable parameter value for design proposed by considering different code of
practice from researchers and professionals which are commonly used in Malaysia engineering society.
3. Justify suitable pile foundation based on soil properties and method of analysis prior to the
condition and location of the proposed project.

2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT

The Multi-Storey Residential Development will be built on the ground and subjected to the column
design load of 2000 kN. Because of the deep soft ground and low soil bearing capacity, a deep
foundation or driven piles design is being proposed. Based on the borehole log data, suitable deep
foundation required to design for proposed project.

2.1 SOIL PROFILE

Appendix 1 displays the borehole log report and summary of laboratory test data to be used in the
analysis. A maximum depth of 45.45 meters marks the end of the borehole. Any assumption regarding
the parameters to be used in the design must be supported by references to trustworthy research
articles or textbooks. Table 2.0 and 3.0 contain piles recommendation based on the grade, size and
load capacity to which students should be referred.
Table 2.0: ICP Circular Piles

*Product reference: ICP Piles

3
 Table 3.0: HUME RC Square Piles

*Product reference: HUME Piles

2.2 INSTRUCTION FOR THE DESIGN OF DEEP FOUNDATION

The following requirements for this project must be followed:
Task 1: The Static Method must be used for analysing the piles. Based on the information provided in
the borehole log, sketch the possible soil profile encounter underneath ground surface.
Task 2: The soil parameters to be used can be suggested from any available reference (codes,
standards, guidelines, textbooks, technical papers, etc.) that suits the soil conditions in Malaysia.
Design a single pile based on the data provided in the borehole log. Any parameter assumptions made
for the analysis and design must be supported by references to credible research articles or textbooks.
Task 3: For the proposed Multi -Storey Residential development, the team must provide an alternative
design using piles of various shapes or sizes. Design a pile group and suggest the number of piles that
are required as well as the size of the suggested pile cap. Draw the suggested pile group and pile cap
in a plan view and side elevation. The proposed pile must pass the factor of safety of 2.0.
Compare the findings and suggest the safest pile design for use. Justify your answer and provide
appropriate references on the piles you chose in addition to the safety factor to support your
response.
Prepare your report using the appropriate format, which includes the following:
a. Cover page
b. Introduction
c. Design calculation
d. Conclusion
e. References
4
APPENDIX 1
 Performance Criteria Matrix for Design of Deep Foundation
VERY POOR POOR GOOD VERY GOOD EXCELLENT
TASKS WP, WK MARKS
1 2 3 4 5
Ability to analyse the problem using static approach/method with elaboration based on the specified
knowledge profile (WK3, WK4, WK6 or WK8)

Use 2 WKs but Use 2 WKs with Use 3 WKs with Use 3 WKs with Use 3 WKs with
WP1: Depth of lack of elaboration acceptable acceptable good elaboration excellent elaboration
Knowledge Required elaboration elaboration
= in-depth
engineering Ability to evaluate the problems based on various parameters towards providing effective design solution
knowledge at the level
of one or more of Evaluate 2 Evaluate 2 Evaluate 3 Evaluate more than 3
Task 1: Evaluate 3
WK3, WK4, WK5, parameters parameters with parameters with parameters with parameters with
Analysis and
WK6 or WK8 (WK’s) but lack of acceptable acceptable good justification excellent justification
design
using static fundamental, first justification justification justification
approach principles analytical Ability to compare the conflicting technical, engineering and other issues to solve the problems and
methods approach ability to differentiate the infrequently encountered issues in problem solving with proposal
(CO2--PO3)
WP2: Range of Compare more than 4
Compare 2 issues Compare 4 issues
Draw the Conflicting Compare 3 issues issues with Acceptable
with acceptable with acceptable
possible soil requirement with accordance discussion. Able to
Provide only 1 discussion and discussion and
profile = wide & conflicting and compare and compare and
issue and compare compare and compare and
encounter technical, engineering differentiate 2 differentiate more
the basis differentiate 2 differentiate 3 than 3 issues and
underneath & other issues issues and
with no proposal issues and issues and propose comprehensive
ground surface. propose
propose poor propose solution
(CO2-PO3) WP4: Familiarity of acceptable solution
solution substantial solution
issues = infrequently
encountered issues Ability to provide drawing of the possible soil layering based on the given data
wide & conflicting
technical, engineering Provide detailed
Provide soil profile
& other issues Provide soil Provide soil profile and clear soil
with sufficient and
Unable to provide profile with with minimal data profile with
clear soil profile acceptable data
ambiguous and information adequate and
and
data needed sufficient data for
information needed
design
5
 VERY POOR POOR GOOD VERY GOOD EXCELLENT
TASKS WP, WK MARKS
1 2 3 4 5
Ability to refer to any available sources to analyse the problem and ensure the design must pass the
factor of safety 2.5 by using specified knowledge profile (WK3, WK4, WK5, WK6 and WK8)
Task 2:
WP1: Depth of Use 2 WKs but Use 2 WKs with Use 3 WKs with Use more than 4
Extent of Use 4 WKs with
Knowledge Required lack of acceptable acceptable WKs with good
applicable = in-depth good elaboration of
codes: elaboration of elaboration of elaboration of elaboration of
engineering design using any
To refer to any design using design using any design using design using any
knowledge at the level available code or
available code any available available code or any available available code or
of one or more of reference
for soil factor code or reference code or reference
WK3, WK4, WK5, reference reference
and coefficient WK6 or WK8 (WK’s)
to suit with fundamental, first Ability to design a single pile using the soil parameters
Malaysia soil principles analytical Able to provide and
condition. approach. Able to provide and compare 3 or more
(CO1-PO3) Able to provide and soil parameters with Able to provide all soil
compare 3 soil
WP2: Range of Able to identify compare 2 soil acceptable parameters needed and
parameters with
Design a single Conflicting only 1 soil parameters with assumption, comparable with
acceptable
pile based on requirement = wide & parameter. No acceptable method and acceptable assumption,
assumption and
the data conflicting technical, assumption made assumption and discussion in correct method of
method in design
provided in the engineering & other in design method in design design proposed. analysis and discussion
proposed. A
borehole log. issues. Proposed. No soil proposed Possible Acceptable in design proposed. A
minimal possible
(CO1-PO3) profile provided soil layering/ profile possible soil clear possible soil
soil layering/ profile
provided layering/ profile layering/profile provided.
provided
provided

Ability to design and compare the single pile using the soil parameters (WK3, WK4, WK5,WK6 and WK8)
Task 3: WP1: Depth of
To ensure the Knowledge Required Able to provide and Able to provide and
design must = in-depth compare 2 designs Able to provide and compare 3 or more Able to provide all
of pile using soil compare 3 design design of pile using designs using soil
pass the factor engineering Able to provide
parameters with of pile using soil soil parameters parameters needed and
of safety 2.0. knowledge at the level only 1 design using
acceptable parameters with with acceptable comparable with
(CO2-PO3) of one or more of soil parameters
assumption and acceptable assumption, acceptable assumption,
WK3, WK4, WK5, identified.
method in design assumption and method and correct method of
Compare the WK6 or WK8 (WK’s) method in design analysis and discussion
proposed discussion in
findings and fundamental, first proposed in design proposed
design proposed

6
 VERY POOR POOR GOOD VERY GOOD EXCELLENT
TASKS WP, WK MARKS
1 2 3 4 5
suggest the principles analytical
safest pile Ability to justify the most economical pile design towards the achievement of the design procedures
approach.
design for use.
Justify your
answer and WP2: Range of Evaluate 2 Evaluate 2 Evaluate 3 Evaluate 4
provide Conflicting circumstances only circumstances only circumstances and circumstances and Evaluate more than 4
appropriate requirement = wide but unable to justify and able to justify the able to justify the able to justify the circumstances and able to
references on & conflicting the FOS obtained by FOS obtained by the FOS obtained by FOS obtained by justify the FOS obtained by
the piles you technical, the design proposed design proposed with the design proposed the design proposed the design proposed with
chose in engineering & other acceptable with with excellent and solid
addition to the issues justification acceptable acceptable and clear justification
safety factor to justification justification
support your WP3: Depth of
response analysis =
(CO2-PO3) no obvious solution,
abstract thinking,
Ability to analyse high level problems (pile group) including many component parts or sub-problems (pile
originality
cap arrangement) by selecting the most suitable parameter value for design proposed of the pile design
WP5: Extent of under study
applicable
codes = outside
problems
encompassed by Able to use at least
codes for Able to use at least
3 parameters value
professional 3 parameters value Able to use more than 3
and include the
engineering and include the parameters value and
Able to use at least Able to use at least basic design
mediocre design the extensive design
1 parameter value 2 parameters value proposed
WP7: proposed proposed
method/practicing
method/practicing method/practicing guide
Interdependence = guide
high level problems guide
with many parts &
sub
problems
7
 VERY POOR POOR GOOD VERY GOOD EXCELLENT
TASKS WP, WK MARKS
1 2 3 4 5

Ability to prepare proper technical report to justify the solution using standards and codes of practice for
Submission of professional engineering
Technical
Report Conclusion is Conclusion is good
(CO2-PO3) No attempt was derived from the Conclusion is and derived from
made to conclude, design but the derived from the the design Conclusion is good and
and the objectives objectives of the design, but it is not calculation but did derived from the design
of the report were report were not answering the not directly and directly answers the
not answered. No answered. objectives. Make answer the objectives. Good
recommendation Make some some relevant objectives. Make recommendation
made recommendation recommendation good
recommendation

Total Marks (50%)

Prepared by: Approved by: Vetted by:

……………………………………….…. ………………………………………. …………………………………….

TS.DR. MAZIDAH BINTI MUKRI TS. HJH. FAUZILAH BINTI ISMAIL
Course Coordinator Resource Person Complex Engineering Committee
Date: 17/04/2023 Date: 18/04/2023 Date: 9/05/2023