Your Partner In Ground Engineering

Some Jack-in Piling Experiences in

Singapore

Gwee Boon Hong

31 August 2015

CSC HOLDINGS LIMITED

Contents
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

1. Introduction to Jack-in Pile System

2. Advantages of Jack-in Piling

3. Disadvantages of Jack-in Piling

4. Some Information for Jack-in Piles

5. Difference between Driven and Jack-in Piles

6. Discussion on Some Pile Load Test Results

7. Conclusions
1. Introduction to Jack-in Pile System
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

A technique by which pre-formed pile is hydraulically jacked into

the ground using counter weights as reaction.

R.C. Square Pile

 150 - 400mm
 W.L. 25 - 180ton

Spun Pile
 φ250 - 800mm
 W.L. 50 - 377ton
1. Introduction to Jack-in Pile System
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

SINGAPORE
CONTEXT

• Started more than

20 years ago

• Mainly for small

foundation piles

Earlier used machine

(max.100 tons jack-in force)
1. Introduction to Jack-in Pile System
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

Installation Process

(1) Setting up (2) Lifting of Pile (3) Clamping of Pile (4) Verticality Check

Graph - Set paper

(5) Joining of Sections (7) Jack until Practical
Refusal & Set Taking
Video
(6) Jack to Required Load
 1. Introduction to Jack-in Pile System
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

Termination Criteria

• Pile is jacked into the ground with a

jack-in force adjusted in steps up to a
pre-determined max jack-in force
(Typically 2 to 2.5 times working load)

• Jacking will continue until practical

refusal where jack-in force is released
and reapplied.
• Downward movement of the pile
between the two cycles is then
measured and checked against the
“set” criteria. (Usually 5mm for a
holding time of 30 seconds)
2. Advantages of Jack-in Piling
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

i) Environmental friendly
 Low noise
 Negligible vibration
 Minimal soil disposal

ii) Less probability of pile damage

iii) Able to achieve good verticality

iv) No Risk of machine toppling as compared with conventional

leader type machines

v) As piles are jacked to an appropriate max jack-in force, hence

unnecessary penetration as a result of cautious design could
be avoided
 2. Advantages of Jack-in Piling
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

Design -
SPT-N Unit Shaft Resistance (kPa) Unit End Bearing (kPa) Ultimate Pile Capacity (kN)
Actual
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 5000 10000 15000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
0 0 0 0

CS
JIF=2.1xWL
2
-5 -5 -5 -5
12

4430 (2.1xWL)
13
-10

10 MS
-10
Back -10 -10
Pile
-15 12 -15 Analysis -15 -15 did not
17 fail at
-20 -20 -20 -20
35
SM
3xWL
35
Depth (m)

-25 -25 -25 -25

13 SM Design SF>2.5
-30 23 -30 -30 -30

15 CS
-35 -35 -35 -35
17

-40
28 MS
-40 -40 -40
10m
36 difference in
59
-45 100 -45 -45 -45 pile length
68
= $$
-50 SM -50 -50 -50
100 Qs - Design
q Structural Capacity = 2100 kN
100 (Spun Pile diam. 600mm) Qb - Design
-55 -55 -55 -55
q Geotechnical Capacity
100
q fs = Ks.N , Qult - Design
-60 -60 Ks = 2.0 to-602.5 (limited to 120 kPa) -60

q qb = [Link] JIF
-65
Project -65
Kb = 5 (limited to 7500 kPa)
-65 -65
q F.O.S = 2.5 Qult - Back Analysis (Based on Ins
in OA Result)
-70 -70 -70 -70
 2. Advantages of Jack-in Piling
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

vi) Every pile jacked is practically loaded-tested

(Note: Final acceptance criteria for the installed piles
would still need to be verified by static load test)

During Installation Load Test - Kentledge

Applied Load: Max Jack-in Force Applied Load: 2~3 WL (Test Load)
3. Disadvantages of Jack-in Piling
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

i) Soil displacement (Potential problem of displacement piles)

 Lateral & vertical displacement

ii) Require large and flat working space Video

 Larger machine requires larger working space

iii) Poor manoeuvrability of machine

iv) May not be suitable for site with intermittent hard layers and
boulders unless pre-boring is adopted

v) High surcharge loading

 Need stable & good working platform
 May induce additional displacement on adjacent
structures (Good platform could alleviate this)
3. Disadvantages of Jack-in Piling
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

Numerical Analysis on Hypothetical Model

 Jack-In Machine rests on 15 mm thick plate

Max weight
 Applied pressure =
Sleeper Width (B)
 Plane-strain analysis using Mohr-Coulomb
CL B B B B

Machine Medium High

Capacity
Maximum Jacking 2400 8000
Force (kN)
Maximum Weight 2400 8000
(kN)
Sleeper 10 x 1.18 14 x 1.9
Dimension,
L(m) x B(m)
Applied Pressure 102 151
(kPa)
3. Disadvantages of Jack-in Piling

Simplified Soil Stratigraphy

GWL 1m.b.g.l GWL 1m.b.g.l

FILL (3m-6m) E’ = 10,000 kPa FILL (3m-6m) E’ = 10,000 kPa

Eu = 200Cu kPa Eu = 1500N kPa

MARINE CLAY (4m-7m) ΔE = 230 kPa/m
RESIDUAL SOIL (4m-7m) ΔE = 1100 kPa/m
Cu = 0.22s’ kPa N = 10

HARD SOIL E = 100,000 kPa HARD SOIL E = 100,000 kPa

 3. Disadvantages of Jack-in Piling

Medium

B 2B 3B

FILL
21mm 19mm
(3m-6m)
18mm

Marine
CLAY
(4m-7m)

STIFF SOIL
 3. Disadvantages of Jack-in Piling

Max Lateral Displacement (Marine Clay & Residual Soil)

Summary

Fill Marine CLAY Residual Soil

Thickness
Medium Heavy Heavy
(m)
1B 2B 3B 1B 2B 3B 1B 2B 3B
3 21mm 20mm 18mm 46mm 35mm 20mm 9mm 6mm 3mm
4 14mm 14mm 13mm 31mm 25mm 14mm 9mm 6mm 3mm
5 10mm 10mm 10mm 21mm 18mm 10mm 9mm 6mm 3mm
6 6mm 6mm 6mm 14mm 12mm 7mm 9mm 6mm 3mm

Could provide good platform eg. Hardcore to alleviate this!

3. Disadvantages of Jack-in Piling

B 2B 3B

46mm
35mm
15mm
32mm 20mm
26mm
36mm
29mm
16mm
3. Disadvantages of Jack-in Piling

Improvement
with hardcore
 4. Some Information for Jack-in Piles
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

 CSC has installed > 60,000 nos of jack-in piles in Singapore since 2006

 This includes many high rise buildings (> 10 storeys) up to a max of 30

storeys to date. It is therefore a proven pile foundation option for high
rise buildings

 Max jacking force is up to 6500kN (Centre jack) and 2000kN (Side jack)

 High direct bearing pressure below sleeper of up to 200kPa

 Length of machine is up to 14m

 Min clearance required from pile centre to existing structure is ~5.0m

(centre jack) and ~2.5m (side jack) for the bigger machine
4. Some Information for Jack-in Piles
Your Partner In Ground Engineering
4. Some Information for Jack-in Piles
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

Medium Capacity Machine - 240 to 420 tons

4. Some Information for Jack-in Piles
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

High Capacity Machine - 600 to 800 tons

5. Difference between Driven and Jack-in Piles
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

o Current practice in Singapore is to design jack-in pile as per

driven pile

o Jack-in pile utilizes static jacking force while driven pile utilizes
dynamic load during installation

o Due to difference in installation method, jack-in pile is expected

to have a better shaft resistance and stiffer toe response as
compared to an equivalent driven pile - D. J. White & A.D.
Deeks (2007)

o Hence, designing a jack-in pile using parameters for driven pile

is conservative but not optimum. Hopefully with more research
and collected data, appropriate design parameters for jack-in
pile could be established soon
 5. Difference between Driven and Jack-in Piles
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

o Toe of driven pile would usually terminate in soil with SPT N > 50
using conventional set criteria. It is difficult for driven pile to
penetrate soil with SPT N > 100 without pile head damage

o It is therefore not uncommon for driven pile to be downgraded from

its structural capacity to its geotechnical capacity

o In contrast, toe of jack-in pile is governed by total soil resistance &

applied jack-in force during installation. It is not uncommon for jack-
in pile to terminate in soil with SPT N < 50. On the other hand, jack-
in pile could even penetrate soil with SPT N > 100 substantially
when enough force is applied

o Hence, as long as the jack-in force corresponds to its structural

capacity could be achieved during installation, jack-in pile could
attain its structural capacity without the need to downgrade
5. Difference between Driven and Jack-in Piles

Bukit Timah Formation

SPT (N) Jack-In Force (ton)

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 100 200 300 400 500

0 MS
0 MS

-5 5 -5 5
CS CS
20 20

-10 8 -10 8
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
18 18
Pile Length

-15 15 -15 15

25 MS 25 MS

-20 -20
25 25

18 18
-25 -25
27 27

-30 29 -30 29

36 36
-35 -35
79 79

100 100
-40 -40
5. Difference between Driven and Jack-in Piles

Jurong Formation
SPT (N) Jack-In Force (ton)

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 100 200 300 400

MS MS

11 CS 11 CS
-3.0 -3.0

Depth (m)
26
Depth (m)

26
75 75
Pile Length SM SM

97 97 5m
-8.0 -8.0
100 100

81 81

100 100
-13.0 -13.0
100 100
MS
MS

-18.0 -18.0

SM SM

-23.0 -23.0

-28.0 -28.0
6. Discussion on Some Pile Load Test Results
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

Research Study

Effect of Jack-in Force on Jack-in

Pile Performance
at Tuas South Avenue

- In collaboration with NUS (2009) -

 6. Discussion on Some Pile Load Test Results
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

15m (25D)

CPT3a

30°
30° CPT2a
CPT1a

TP2 TP3
CPT3 CPT2 CPT1
CPT1 CPT1b CPT1b
CPT1a CPT2
CPT2a P1'
CPT3
CPT4a

30
CPT3a

°
°

30
30

°
CPT3a
CPT4
CPT2a

8.4 )
30°

CPT1a

m CPT1b
CPT3
CPT2
4 D
(14
CPT1
(1
D) .4 m
TP1 8
CPT1, CPT1a, CPT1b, : 2r (0.6m) from center of spun pile Before pile installation
CPT2, CPT2a, : 3r (0.9m) from center of spun pile After pile installation
CPT3, CPT3a, : 5r (1.5m) from center of spun pile
After load test
CPT4, CPT4a ; 10r (3.0m) from center of spun pile

Pile & Instrumentation Layout Plan

 6. Discussion on Some Pile Load Test Results
Your Partner In Ground Engineering
TP2 TP1 TP3
(JIF = 2xWL=5860kN) (JIF=1.5xWL=4395kN) (JIF=2.25xWL=6593kN)

12m
FILL (Loose to Medium Dense SAND)
SPT-N of 5 to 12

4m KALLANG FORMATION (Very Soft to Soft Marine CLAY)

SPT-N of 2 to 4
Residual Soil S VI
4m JURONG FORMATION (Stiff to Very Stiff Sandy CLAY)
SPT-N of 10 to 20

Completely Weathered
10m JURONG FORMATION Siltstone/Sandstone S V
SPT-N of 20 to 40 (Stiff to Very Stiff Sandy CLAY)
28.7m
29.9m 31.7m
JURONG FORMATION, Completely Weathered Siltstone/Sandstone S V
(Hard Sandy CLAY, N>60)

Soil Stratigraphy
 6. Discussion on Some Pile Load Test Results
Your
N-SPT
Partner In Ground Engineering
N-SPT
N-SPT

Set at 28.7m Set at 29.9m Set at 31.7m

Jack-In Force (kN) 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
0 0 0
0
10 4 9

13 11 13
SM SM SM
9 11 14
5 -5 (Fill) -5 (Fill) -5 (Fill)
8 11 9

4 8 4

9 8 8
10 -10 -10 -10
9 20 8

4 m arine m arine 5 marine

CLAY CLAY CLAY
4
2
15 -15 -15 -15
10 MS CS
10

Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

(S-VI) 18 (S-VI)
Depth (m)

CS
28 (S-VI) 10
11

20 27 36 MS
20 -20 -20 -20 (S-V)
34 38 40

15 MS 21 14
MS
(S-V) (S-V)
25 27 16
25 -25 -25 -25 MS
23 19 17
(S-V)
35 41 19

62 28 18
MS
30 -30 71 -30 100 -30 29
(S-V) CS
100 (S-V) 100
CS CS
TP-1 TP-2 TP-3 100 (S-V)
(S-V)
35 -35 -35 -35
TP1 TP2 TP3
Installation Record (1.5xWL=4395kN) (2xWL=5860kN) (2.25xWL=6593kN)
6. Discussion on Some Pile Load Test Results
Your Partner In Ground Engineering
Pile Top Settlement
Pile Applied Jack-in Penetratio
No. Force n (m)
1xWL 2xWL 2.5xWL
Failure State
(2930 kN) (5860 kN) (7325 kN)

Load
LoadSettlement
SettlementCurve
Curve(Combine
(CombinePlot)
Plot)
85.09mm
2.5xWL (7325 kN) TP1’ 4395 kN 1.5xWL 28.7 7.5mm 18.8mm 29.9mm (at 2.62xWL
= 7690kN)
10000
10000
TP1=29.9mm
TP2=26.0mm TP2 5860 kN 2.0xWL 29.9 6.2mm 18.3mm 26.0mm n/a
9000
9000 Pile Top Settlement
Pile
TP3=26.5mm Applied Jack-in Penetratio
No. Force n (m)
98.24mm
8000
8000 1xWL 2xWL 2.5xWL 98.24mm
6592.5 Failure State
TP3 2.25xWL
(2930 kN) 31.7 7.4mm
(5860 kN) 18.0mm
(7325 kN) 26.5mm (at 2.99xWL
kN (At 2.99xWL = 8762kN)
= 8762kN)
85.09mm
7000
7000 85.09mm
TP1’ 4395 kN 1.5xWL 28.7 7.5mm 18.8mm 29.9mm (at 2.62xWL
(At 2.62xWL = 7690kN)
(kN)
Top (kN)

= 7690kN)
6000
6000 2xWL (5860 kN)
at Top

TP2 5860 kN 2.0xWL 29.9 6.2mm 18.3mm 26.0mm n/a

TP1'
TP1'
5000
5000 TP1=18.8mm
Load at

TP2=18.3mm 98.24mm
Load

6592.5
4000
4000 TP3
kN
2.25xWL 31.7 7.4mm 18.0mm 26.5mm (at 2.99xWL
TP2
TP2
TP3=18.0mm = 8762kN)

3000
3000 1xWL (2930 kN)
TP3
TP3
2000
2000 TP1=7.5mm
TP2=6.2mm Allowable
Allowable
1000
1000 TP3=7.4mm Settlement
Settlement
(CP4)
(CP4)
00
00 10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50 60
60 70
70 80
80 90
90 100
100

Settlement
Settlementat
atTop
Top(mm)
(mm)
 6. Discussion on Some Pile Load Test Results
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

Mobilized Shaft Resistance & End Bearing

250 10000
CP-4
225 TP2 Ks= 5N
TP1 9000

8000
(kPa)

End Bearing (kPa)

200

7000
Resistance (kPa)

175

Unit End Bearing (kPa)

Resistance

150
TP3 6000

125 5000
CP-4
Unit Shaft

Ks= 2N 4000
100
Unit Shaft

Unit
75 3000

50
2000 TP1'
TP2
25
1000
TP3

0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SPT-N
SPT-N PilePileBase Settlement (mm)
Base Settlement (mm)
N-SPT

Combined Plot TP1, TP2 and TP3

 6. Discussion on Some Pile Load Test Results
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

Preload Effect - Randolph (2003)

 Bored Pile
 No residual pressure at
pile base during
installation
 End-bearing could only
be mobilized at
relatively large
displacement

 Jack-In Pile Jack-in pile

 Significant residual
pressure at pile base
during installation
(higher than driven pile)
 Higher end bearing
could be mobilized at Bored pile
small displacement
6. Discussion on Some Pile Load Test Results
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

Case Studies
Jack-in Pile Performance
in Various Formations

- Based on Some Completed Projects -

 6. Discussion on Some Pile Load Test Results
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

 CSC has installed various types of jack-in piles in Old Alluvium,

Jurong and Bukit Timah Formation. A summary of some of the
load test results would be presented
 In general, pile performance could be quantified by Strength
(Capacity) and Stiffness (Settlement)
 Capacity, Pult = Load that causes a F/10 settlement, Pmax = Max
jack-in force & Stiffness = Applied Load/ Settlement
 Ratio Pult/Pmax signifies the amount of increase in capacity as a
result of consolidation and setup after installation
 In almost all tests, Pult is not reached. In these cases, the
reported Pult is the max test load applied
 Stiffnessrequired computed as 1xWL/10mm & 2xWL/25mm
settlement based on commonly adopted settlement criteria
 Stiffnessactual computed as 1xWL/(actual settlement) &
2xWL/(actual settlement)
6. Discussion on Some Pile Load Test Results

Some Projects in Jurong Formation

6. Discussion on Some Pile Load Test Results
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

Plot of Pult/Pmax for Jurong Formation

1.50

1.25
Pult/Pmax

1.00

0.75

0.50
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Pmax (x W.L.)
6. Discussion on Some Pile Load Test Results
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

Plot of Stiffnessactual/Stiffnessrequired for Jurong Formation

4.0

3.5
Stiffnessactual/Stiffnessrequired

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
Pmax (x W.L.)
6. Discussion on Some Pile Load Test Results

Some Projects in Old Alluvium

6. Discussion on Some Pile Load Test Results
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

Plot of Pult/Pmax for Old Alluvium

2.00

1.75

1.50
Pult/Pmax

1.25

1.00

0.75

0.50
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Pmax (x W.L.)
6. Discussion on Some Pile Load Test Results
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

Plot of Stiffnessactual/Stiffnessrequired for Old Alluvium

4.0

3.5
Stiffnessactual/Stiffnessrequired

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
Pmax (x W.L.)
6. Discussion on Some Pile Load Test Results

Some Projects in Bukit Timah Formation

6. Discussion on Some Pile Load Test Results
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

Plot of Pult/Pmax for Bukit Timah Formation

2.00

1.75

1.50
Pult/Pmax

1.25

Pult
1.00

0.75

0.50
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
Pmax (x W.L.)
6. Discussion on Some Pile Load Test Results
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

Plot of Stiffnessactual/Stiffnessrequired for Bukit Timah Formation

6.0

5.5

5.0
Stiffnessactual/Stiffnessrequired

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0
Pult
2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
Pmax (x W.L.)
6. Discussion on Some Pile Load Test Results
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

Comparison of FOS Computed by EC7 Alternative Method & CP4

3.0
40%DL, w/o ULT &
w/o WLT

40%DL, w/o ULT &

Global FOS [Total Resistance/(DL+LL)]

w WLT
2.5
40%DL, w ULT &
w/o WLT

40%DL, w ULT & w

WLT

2.0 80%DL, w/o ULT &

w/o WLT

80%DL, w/o ULT &

w WLT

1.5 80%DL, w ULT &

w/o WLT

80%DL, w ULT & w

WLT

CP4
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Shaft Resistance/Total Resistance

7. Conclusions…(1)
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

 Jack-in pile is an environmental friendly piling system

 Suitable for various types of Pre-formed piles and is a viable

foundation option for high rise buildings

 Piles are ‘load tested’ during installation. Max jack-in force

applied during installation is an indication of actual pile capacity

 Though high surcharge imposed by machine self-weight is a

concern for site with shallow depth of soft clay, provision of
good working platform (eg. thick hardcore) could alleviate this
problem effectively

 In contrast, there is insignificant impact on ground as a result of

high machine surcharging in residual soil
 7. Conclusions…(2)
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

Instrumented load tests in Tuas have verified that :

 Pu of pile > Calculated Pu adopted from driven pile

 Pu of pile > Jack-in force (JIF)

 Piles installed by JIF of 1.5~2.25 x WL have adequate Pu &

showed similar load-settlement behaviour up to 2xWL

 Pu of Jack-in pile increases as JIF increases

 Higher JIF could result in higher Pu JIF ≥ 1.5xWL is enough to

ensure satisfactory pile performance up to 2xWL

 Jack-in pile installation results in a “preloaded” pile toe condition,

hence better displacement performance
 7. Conclusions…(3)
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

From the many full-scale load tests:

 All jack-in piles perform satisfactorily in achieving the required

settlement when installed to the current termination criteria

 Stiffness achieved is generally 1.5 to 2 times better than required

and there is no indication that a higher JIF would result in better
stiffness up to 2xWL

 With the exception of very few tests in BT formation, all load tests
were unable to load the piles to failure. Based on these data, it is
observed that the mobilized pile capacity at the time of test is
generally 1.25 to 1.5 times the JIF.

 In the case where Pult has been achieved, it is about 1.1 times Pmax
7. Conclusions…(4)
Your Partner In Ground Engineering

 As a good practice, an appropriate JIF shall be established with

the use of static load test for a specific site. Subsequently all piles
could be installed using this termination criteria

 More future research would help to provide accurate design in the

use of jack-in pile and it is important that the change in design
requirement (eg, EC7) should be considered also

 As the termination criteria relies heavily on the JIF, it is therefore

important to have a well calibrated gauge during installation
 Your Partner In Ground Engineering

Thank You

CSC HOLDINGS LIMITED