penang second bridge - jambatan keduajambatankedua.com.my/webv1/images/stories/isdc2012/tp10.pdf ·...

Penang Second Bridge

Marine Bridge Substructure Construction Spun Pile Main Span Pilecap Construction by

Ir. Cheng Kim Bong

Senior Resident Engineer MMSB Consult Sdn. Bhd.

Content • Penang Second Bridge Alignment

• Type Of Piles

• Summary of Piles

• Pile Testing Locations

• Pile Testing of Spun Pile, Steel Pile & Bored Pile

Spun Pile • Spun Pile Detail

• Spun Pile Length

• Spun Pile PDA Test

• Spun Pile Test For BHT11 (P163)

• Mobilization Factor of Spun Pile

• Pile Head Damage Analysis

• Validation of Spun Pile

Main Span Pilecap Construction

Penang Second Bridge

Penang Second Bridge Alignment

Type Of Piles

P292 P000 P023 P024 P027 P028 P144 P145

P0-P11 : Spun Pile

P12-P23 : Steel Pile

P24-P27 :

Bored Pile

P28-P43 : Steel Pile

P44-P144 : Spun Pile

P145-P282 : Spun Pile

P283-P292 : Bored Pile

Approach Span Main Span Approach Span Approach Span

Batu Maung Batu Kawan

Summary of Piles

Description Passed Pile

(Nos.)

Rejected Pile

(Nos.)

Total Pile

(Nos.)

Steel Pile (Ø1.6m) 368 - 368

Spun Pile (Ø1.0m) 5158+19* 10 5168+19*

Bored Pile (Ø2.3m-2.0m) 66 1 66+1 (P26-20 rejected)

Bored Pile (Ø1.5m) 80 - 80

* 19 nos. replacement spun piles P107-07 A & B, P102-12 A & B, P061-13 A & B, P120-04 A & B, P122-07A & B, 8A, P137-7A & 7B, P193-21A & B, P9-17 A&B, P280-R15 A&B

BHT7 BHT6

BHT4

BHT3&5

BHT2

BHT1

BHT9 BHT10 BHT8

BHT11

BHT12

Pile Testing Locations

Pile Test No. Chainage Location

(near to)

Pile Type Working

Load (kN)

Total Test

Done

Total

Passed

Not

Conclusive

O-Cell Test BHT 3 CH 9+700 P161 Ø1.2m Steel Pile 5,800 1 1 -

O-Cell Test BHT 7 CH 2+688 P33 Ø1.6m Steel Pile 8,100 1 - 1

O-Cell Test BHT 9 CH 1+981 P25 Ø2.3~2.0m

Bored Pile

25,500 1 - 1

MLT & PDA BHT 1 CH 15+900 P273 Ø1.0m Spun Pile 3,800 1 1 -



MLT BHT 4 CH 3+500 P48 Ø1.0m Spun Pile 3,800 1 - 1


MLT & PDA BHT 3 CH 9+700 P161 Ø1.2m Steel Pile 5,800 1 1 -


Statnamic - CH 11+028 P185-L08 Ø1.0m Spun Pile 3,100 1 1 -

Statnamic BHT 11 CH 9+818 P163 Ø1.0m Spun Pile 3,720 1 1 -

MLT & (Statnamic

on Anchor Pile)

BHT 12 CH 16+913 P292 Ø1.5m Bored Pile 8,000 1 - 1

MLT & (Statnamic

on Anchor Pile)

BHT 8 CH 1+368 P15 Ø1.6m Steel Pile 7,210 1 1 -

Statnamic - CH 3+548 P49-R15 Ø1.0m Spun Pile 3,410 1 1 -

Statnamic - CH 1+980 P25-09 Ø2.0m Bored Pile 27,200 1 1 -

Pile Testing On Spun Pile, Steel Pile & Bored Pile

SPUN PILE

Spun Pile Detail

ICP Spun Pile Sectional Details

SEE DETAIL “X”

Revised pile shoe detail as per next slide

Spun Pile Detail

Pile Shoe Details

DETAILS OF PILESHOE

Spun Pile Detail

Extension Joint

Spun Pile Detail

4 Lifting Points of Spun Pile

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5

L

L= Pile Length L1 = 0.05L L2 = 0.28L L3 = 0.31L L4 = 0.23L L5 = 0.13L * Average Pile Length is about 58.5m

Spun Pile Length

Design Pile Length vs Actual Pile Length

Difference Between Design Pile Length & Actual

Pile Length

Description Total Pile

(Nos.)

0 to 2m 2 to 5m > 5m

Spun Pile

(Ø1.0m)

5187 4744 (92%) 329 (6%) 114 (2%)

Average Design Length = 58.67m

Average Nett Length = 57.28m

Average Cut-off Length = 1.38m (2.4%)

Spun Pile Length

Bore Log Record For BHT 11 (near P163)

SPT = 50 ~ -55.00

Spun Pile Length

Design Pile Length vs Actual Pile Length

Pier Design Pile

Length (m)

Design Toe

Level (m)

Actual Toe

Level (m)

Differences

P161 59 -57.62 to -58.42 -56.14 to -57.02 <2m

P162 58 -56.63 to -57.42 -55.13 to -55.95 <2m

P163 56 -54.66 to -55.42 -53.20 to -54.49 <2m

P164 55 -53.67 to -54.42 -52.17 to -52.97 <2m

P165 53 -51.70 to -52.42 -49.71 to -51.09 <2m

Spun Pile PDA Test

PDA Test Summary

Description Initial Strike

for Pile

Integrity

BTA

<80%

Re-strike Total PDA

Done

Total (nos.) 331 8 396 735

•At least two PDA to be carried out at a pair of pilecap :

i) PDA initial : to verify pile integrity

ii) PDA re-strike : to verify pile capacity

PDA Test Frequency

Spun Pile Test For BHT11 (P163)

Objective Of Pile Load Test

• To determine the pile ultimate bearing capacity

• To determine the pile ultimate resistance at pile base

• To determine pile shaft skin friction parameter at each soil layer

• To determine correlation between Static Load Test, PDA & Statnamic

• To provide the basis for the revision of pile final set criteria

• To provide parameters for verification or modification basis for working pile

PDA analysis

• To obtain Load vs Settlement relationship


PDA Test...

PDA.pptx


Statnamic Test...

Statn.pptx


Static Load Test...

Load Cell

MLT.pptx

BHT 11 (P 163) Setting Up

Test Pile, S2 Reference Pile,

J2-2

Reference Pile,

J2-1

Anchor Pile,

M2-3 Anchor Pile,

M2-4

Anchor Pile,

M2-2

Anchor Pile,

M2-1

4m 4m

4m

4m

Pile Spun Pile Pile

Length

Design Toe

Level

Actual Toe

Level

M2-1 Ø1000mm 59m -57.0 -56.98

M2-2 Ø1000mm 59m -56.0 -56.00

M2-3 Ø1000mm 59m -56.0 -55.97

M2-4 Ø1000mm 59m -56.0 -55.95

J2-1 Ø1000mm 50m -46.5 -46.43

J2-2 Ø1000mm 50m -46.5 -46.41

S2 Ø1000mm 61m -57.0 -56.88

* Working load = 3720kN



Anchor Pile, M2-1

PDA (EOD)

Statnamic

w/o instrumentation

Test Pile, S2

PDA (EOD)

PDA (Restrike)

Min. 7 days after pile installation

Min. 28 days after pile installation

MLT

Min. 15 days after MLT

Statnamic

BHT 11 (P 163) Testing Process


Comparison of Static 2nd Cycle Static and Statnamic Load Test Results


Comparison of Static 2nd Cycle Nett Static and Statnamic Load Test Results


Comparison of Static and Statnamic Load Test Displacement

Table 1 : Comparison of Static & Statnamic Load Test Displacement

Table 2 : Comparison of 2nd Cycle Nett Static & Statnamic Load Test Displacement

• From Table 1, settlement recorded from Statnamic test for M2-1 at 2.0 WL is 5.14mm less than

Static test for S2

• From Table 2, settlement recorded from Statnamic test for M2-1 at 2.0 WL is 2.38mm less than

Static test for S2


Summary – Comparison Between Statnamic & Static Load Test


Comparison Between PDA & Static Load Test

Test

Pile

Pile

Length

(m)

Penetrated

Length

(m)

Set

(mm)

Ultimate

Capacity of

MLT(kN)

Initial

PDA

(kN)

Restrike

PDA

(kN)

Restrike /

Initial

MLT / PDA

Initial

S2 64 54.68 5.9 > 11,160 5150 10,800 2.10 >2.17

• It can be observed the analytical results of PDA test are accurate verified by BHT11’s MLT

test result and can be concluded that the PDA test procedures are in order.

- Summary – Comparison Between PDA & Static Load Test

Mobilization Factor of Spun Pile

M-Factor of Spun Pile Using PDA

• Major objective of PDA restrike test is to verify the pile capacity to satisfy the required

design capacity (2.5 times of working load)

• In order to verify the capacity of piles which no restrike test but only end of drive test

(EOD) was performed, recommended mobilization factor is proposed based on :

i) pile embedment

ii) pile toe founding layer

iii) total number of blow

• Mobilization factor of bearing capacity of a given pile can be obtained by dividing restrike

test capacity (Q2) by EOD test capacity (Q1)


M-Factor vs Pile Embedment

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

40 45 50 55 60

Relationship Diagram Between Pile Embedment & Mobilization

Factor

LP (m)

Mob

iliz

ati

on

Fact

or


M-Factor vs Blow Count

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Relationship Diagram Between Blow Count & Mobilization Factor

Blow Count

Mob

iliz

ati

on

Fact

or


Mobilization vs Set

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Relationship Diagram Between SET & Mobilization Factor

SET (mm)

Mob

iliz

ati

on

Fact

or


Mobilization vs Period

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 5 10 15

Relationship Diagram Between Period & Mobilization Factor

Period (Day)

Mob

iliz

ati

on

Fact

or


Recommended M-Factor of Spun Pile Using PDA

Conservative Considering

•According to the statistical result of comparison between M-factor and pile embedment,

final set and period, it is found that the effect of EOD set to M-factor is most dominant and

relatively obvious among the three factors considered.

• 98% of the restriked piles have penetration of 0.0mm. It is understood that most piles did

not achieve its maximum capacity during restrike test due to limited energy.

• From the data collected from tested working piles, the average M-factor is 1.77. On the

other hand, the M-factor for BHT 11 test pile is 2.17.

• Therefore, M-factor of 1.77 to 2.00 is a conservative engineering selection.

Recommended M-Factor

• Based on the abovementioned analysis and statistics, it is recommended to use M-factor

of 1.7 for spun pile.

Pile Head Damage Analysis

Pile Head Damage Cases vs Month

0123456789

1011121314

May

09

June

09

July

09

Aug

09

Sep

09

Oct

09

Nov

09

Dec

09

Jan

10

Feb

10

Mar

10

Apr

10

May

10

June

10

July

10

Aug

10

Sep

10

Oct

10

Nov

10

Dec

10

Jan

11

Feb

11

Mar

11

Apr

11

May

11

June

11

July

11

Aug

11

Sep

11

Pile Head

Damage Cases

Total cases = 55

Case

s

Month


% Pile Head Damage vs Monthly Progress

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

220

90

225

94

112

73

145

169

185

226

327

247

270

208

209

195

252

256

68

175

148

156

160

244

279

177

125

150 2

% P

ile H

ead

Dam

ag

e

Monthly Progress (nos.)

May

09

June

09

July

09

Aug

09

Sep

09

Oct

09

Nov

09

Dec

09

Jan

10

Feb

10

May

10

Apr

10

Mar

10

July

10

June

10

Aug

10

Sep

10

Oct

10

Nov

10

Dec

10

Jan

11

Feb

11

Mar

11

Apr

11

May

11

June

11

July

11

Aug

11

Sep

11


% Pile Head Damage vs Cumulative Piles Driven

0.00%

0.23%

0.46%

0.68%

0.91%

1.14%

1.37%

1.59%220

310

535

629

741

814

959

1128

1313

1539

1866

2113

2383

2591

2800

2995

3247

3503

3571

3746

3894

4050

4210

4454

4733

4910

5035

5185

5187

% P

ile H

ead

Dam

ag

e

Cumulative Piles Driven (nos.)

May

09

June

09

July

09

Aug

09

Sep

09

Oct

09

Nov

09

Dec

09

Jan

10

Feb

10

May

10

Apr

10

Mar

10

July

10

June

10

Aug

10

Sep

10

Oct

10

Nov

10

Dec

10

Jan

11

Feb

11

Mar

11

Apr

11

May

11

June

11

July

11

Aug

11

Sep

11

List of Preventive Actions

No Actions Taken Remarks

1 QC on standard operating procedure

with introduction of additional

checklist (Spun pile production)

•Mould inspection

•Concrete feeding process

•Spinning process

•Steam curing

•Staking yard

•More frequent checking on raw material

•Concrete cubes & cores strength

•Calibration certificates

2 QC on standard operating procedure

(Piling Operation)

•To replace hammer cushion once worn out

•Provide sufficient cushion materials

•Ensure hammer hits pile evenly and axially

•Reduce pile driving stresses by controlling hammer drop

height during hard driving

3 Factory visit, inspection and QAQC

procedure auditing at ICP factory


– Other Stringent QAQC Measures


• Production data for each produced pile is recorded in In-process checklist.

• 2 hours waiting time was set aside for pile which has undergone spinning

process. On top of that, 8 hours of steam curing time is above the usual practice

of 5 hours.

• Audit to supplier raw material suppliers (sand, aggregate) was conducted on a

regular basis to ensure the conformity of material supplied.

• The allowable gap between end plates is only 2mm, which is much more

stringent than 5mm tolerance stated in MS1314: Part4:2004.

• Monthly inspection from CHEC & MMSB to ensure all piles produced to the

highest standard as stipulated in the Technical Requirements for Spun Pile.

Other Stringent QAQC Measures


Welding facilities at ICP factory enable

us to overcome constraints of on-site

welding and reduce the possibility of

pile damage, which usually associate

with on-site welding. MIG wire was

used to ensure top quality welding work

was performed.

The welding quality of jointed pile was

further inspected with the use of

Magnetic Particle Test.



Support Support

Jack

Top Beam Of Jacking Frame

Test Pile

Dial Gauges

Pile Bending Test (MS1314 Part 2:2004)



Pile Bending Test

List of Investigation Actions

No. Actions Taken Remarks

1 Thorough investigation involving ICP’s

R&D department

2 Additional tests been carried out •Petrographic examination

•X-ray diffraction (XRD)

3 Additional PDA tests been carried out •P160 (10 nos)

•P121-P123 (18 nos)


Comments On Additional Test Results

•Raw material testing found comply to requirement

•Petrographic examination & XRD found satisfactory except

some air and water voids

•Additional PDA test results shown no pile integrity problem


Carry out pile head strengthening work (with carbon fiber & ICP method)

PDA Test

Coring Test

Pile considered acceptable

PDA & coring test result found satisfactory


Repair Method For Pile Head Damage

Validation of Spun Pile

Validation Process

Piling work done in accordance with :

- Approved construction drawing

- Set criteria

- HPDI revised pile length confirmation

- Shop drawing (if any changes)

Pile Driving Record

Pile Certification Report

-PDA test report

- PDAR if required

- SOR / NCR closure if any

Pile Cutting


Set Criteria


Piling Record

H>2m


PDA Result

> 80%

> 2.5 x WL


Pile Driving Acceptance Record (PDAR)

• PDAR is required when the different between design toe level and actual toe level

> 2m.

• The pile is considered acceptable if :

- Pile capacity shown in PDA test > 2.5WL

- Pile integrity, BTA value in PDA test > 80%

BTA value classification:

i) 100 % : Uniform. No apparent anomaly was detected

ii) 80-99% : Minor anomaly. Relatively minor impedance reduction detected

iii) 60-79% : Moderate anomaly. Relatively moderate impedance reduction detected

iv) <60% : Major anomaly. Relatively major impedance reduction detected


Pile Driving Acceptance Record (PDAR)


Pile Certification Report

Pile Type Diameter

Average

Length

Number /

Pier

Economic

Rate

(m) (m) - -

PHC

Driven

Spun Pile

1.0 53m 10 1.00

Driven

Steel Pile

1.6 83m 6 2.87

Bored Pile 1.5 105m 4 3.62

Cost Comparison For Different Types Of Pile Foundation

Main Span

Pilecap Construction


Main Span Structure Location

P24 P25

P26

P27

Main Navigation Span

Span Length

Navigation Channel

240 m

117.5 m

117.5 m

150 m

p24

p25

p26

p27

Navigation Channel

5m

30m


Pylon Detail

• Main Span arrangement : 117.5m – 240m – 117.5m

• Cable at 6m (typical) spacing

• Deck constructed by cast-insitu balanced cantilever method

• Deck post-tensioned longitudinally and transversely

• The structure design service life is 120 years.


General Description

48.1m

17.5m

6m


P25 & P26 Pilecap Layout


P25 & P26 Steel Fender Layout


P24 & P27 Steel Fender Layout


Steel Fender Cross Section

STEEL FENDER steel fender

P024 & P027 P025 & P026

Remove corbels below

platform

Clearing of formwork

platform

Installation of steel fender

Lower down formwork to

design level

Mass concrete casting

Platform clearing and 1st

stage rebar fixing

Discharge seawater, load

transfer

1st stage 3m thk. pilecap

concreting

Construction joint

2nd stage rebar fixing

Fabrication of rebar

onshore

Fabrication of rebar

onshore

Installation of supporting

brackets and bearing beams

Hydraulic jacks in

operation

Installation of hydraulic

jacks

2nd stage 3m thk. pilecap

concreting

Demarcation of

platform

Installation of

operation platform

Platform leveling and

verticality check


Construction Flow Chart


Mechanism Of Lowering Down Steel Fender


Hydraulic Jack Arrangement

St eel caseSt eel case

Steel Casing Steel Casing


Steel Fender Installation


Lowering Mechanism Installation


Steel Fender At Design Level


Lean Concrete Casting


Transferring Of Support System

The transferring of supporting system will be carried out after water is

pumped out from mass concrete and before proceeding for installation

of 1st layer pilecap reinforcement. +3.48m

-5.12m

-3.32m-3.32m

Corbels as loading transferring points of hanging rods


Concreting Of Pilecap

P024 & P027 P025 & P026

steel fender

mass concrete(1.2m)

the first layer concrete ofthe pilecap(2.0m)

the second layer concreteof the pilecap(2.0m)

+2.68m

+3.48m

+0.68m

-1.32m

-2.52m



mass concrete(1.8m)

steel fender

Mass Concrete

(1.8m)

Mass Concrete

(1.2m)

1st Layer

(3.0m)

2nd Layer

(3.0m)

1st Layer

(2.0m)

2nd Layer

(2.0m)


Temperature Control

NO. Items Requirement

1 Placing Temperature ≤ 36℃

2 Maximum Internal Temperature ≤ 70℃

3 Maximum Temperature Gradient ≤27.7℃

4 Rise rate in Temperature ≤ 10℃/30min

JKR Specification


Temperature Control Measures

• Low heat cement (Portland Pulverised-Fuel Ash Cement) to be

used

• Additive like GGBS and silica fume are added to the design mix

to minimize the cement content

• Water cooling pipe with cycling of ice water and thermocoupler

to be embedded in the concrete


Cooling Pipe System

Water boat

Thermocoupler

Cooling pipe


Temperature Monitoring For P24 & P27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Time/h

Tem

pera

ture/℃

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Ambient Tempt.

Peak Temperature



Thank You

penang second bridge - jambatan keduajambatankedua.com.my/webv1/images/stories/isdc2012/tp10.pdf ·...

Documents