Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

Cambridge-Giken Collaborative Working on Pile-soil Interaction Mechanisms
Yukihiro ISHIHARAManager, Press-in Technologies Support Department, GIKEN LTD., Tokyo, Japan
Email: ishihara@giken.com

Stuart HAIGH
Senior Lecturer, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Email: skh20@cam.ac.uk

ABSTRACTThe Cambridge - Giken collaborative research was started in 1994, based on the strong awareness of Mr. Akio
Kitamura, President of Giken, Ltd., on the issues related to construction. Every summer two students stay in Kochi,
Japan, to carry out field and model tests using press-in machines and other experimental facilities in Giken, so that they
can learn this technology by experience. This paper introduces an outline of the summer projects conducted in Kochi
each year, and summarizes some research findings on the performance of a pressed-in pile, the estimation of subsurface
information from piling data and the performance of a sheet pile wall.
Key words: Pressed-in pile, Press-in piling data, Sheet pile wall

1. Outline of Cambridge-Giken collaboration
The Cambridge - Giken collaboration research was

2. Overview of the summer projects in Kochi

started in 1994, based on the strong awareness of Mr. Akio

2.1. 1995-1996: Effect of water jetting
Field tests were conducted using a press-in machine

Kitamura, President of Giken, Ltd., of the issues related to

to investigate into the effect of water jetting on reducing

construction (Kitamura, 2017). Every summer twopress-in time in dense sand. U-shaped sheet piles with astudents stay in Kochi, Japan, to carry out field and model

width of 400mm (SP-III) was used. The size of thetests using press-in machines and other facilities in Giken,

water-jetting nozzle was varied between 6.5 to 8.5mm,

so that they can learn this technology by experience. In

with a flowrate of about 320ℓ/min. Two different nozzle

some cases, they conduct model tests or numericalshapes (directions of jetting) were examined as well. The

analyses in their own laboratory as well. Dr. Malcolm

effect of these parameters on press-in time was analyzed,

Bolton supervised the research activities of the students

and the mechanisms were discussed qualitatively.

until 2013, while Mr. Teruo Nagayama led the field testingteam in Giken until 2009. These roles have been

Matthew Carter and Fiona Gooch were involved inthis project.

succeeded by the authors.
This paper introduces an outline of the summer

2.2. 1997-1998: Investigation into the pressure bulb

projects in Kochi (Section 2.), and summarizes some

The resistance on the base of the sheet pile during

research findings on the performance of a pressed-in pilepress-in was obtained by measuring the strain due to the(Section 3.), the estimation of subsurface information

hoop stress around the holes in the base of the sheet pile,from piling data (Section 4.) and the performance of aas shown in Fig. 1. The unit base resistance in dense sandsheet pile wall (Section 5.).

in Fig. 2 was approximately constant at 35MPa when thepenetration depth was from 3m to 6m, which is of thesame order of magnitude as the crushing strength of- 23 -

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochicoarse sand.

considering the effect of the soil plug in the pan of theDavid White, Peter Kirkham and Naomi Lyons weresheet pile was pointed out.

involved in this project. The details of the project arereported by White (1998).

Peter Kirkham and Haramrita Sidhu were involvedin this project.
2.4. 1999-2000: Measurement of soil plug strength
The phenomenon of plugging was investigatedusing a separate-type tubular pile. The pile was

Strain gaugespressed-in, extracted and separated into two, as shown in
Fig. 3, so that the inner soil column could be directly
observed. The creation, dissolution and re-creation of soil
plug during press-in was confirmed, and the mechanismof the creation of the soil plug was discussed.
Haramrita Sidhu and Timothy Finlay were involved

Holes

in this project. Details are reported by White et al.
(2000).

Fig. 1

Sheet pile to measure the base resistanceSemi-circular piles

Inner soil column
Fig. 3Tubular pile to observe plugging

2.5. 2000-2001: Friction cutter / Strain measurement
A double-tubed tubular pile, shown in Fig. 4, waspressed-in to investigate the horizontal earth pressure on
Fig. 2Site profile (N2-1)

the internal surface of the pile. Piles with and without
friction cutters on their base were also pressed-in, to

2.3. 1998-1999: Press-in force and pile type / Press-in
speed
The press-in force during press-in was comparedusing U-shaped sheet piles, H-shaped sheet piles andopen-ended tubular piles. Two press-in rates wereadopted. An attempt to estimate the press-in force basedon CPT data was discussed, and the necessity ofinvestigate their effect on reducing press-in force. The
friction cutter reduced the shaft resistance during press-in
but had little effect on the base resistance.
Timothy Finlay and Yueyang Zhao were involved inthis project. Details are reported by Finlay et al. (2001a)and Finlay et al. (2001b).

- 24 -

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

Outer pipe(semi-circular)

Reaction beam

Strain gauges

Test pile
beneath the beam

Inner pipe
Reaction piles

Fig. 4

Tubular pile to measure the plug strength
Fig. 5 Vertical load test on a pile group

2.6. 2001-2002: Press-in force and bearing capacity
A double-tubed tubular pile was pressed-in. A static
vertical load test was conducted and the bearing capacity
was measured.
Yueyang Zhao and Gulin Yetginer were involved inthis project. Details are reported by Zhao (2002) andZhao & White (2006).
2.7. 2002-2003: Features of pressed-in group piles /Vibration measurement
Open-ended tubular piles with an outer diameter of
101.6mm were pressed-in as a cell foundation in a square

Fig. 6or a circular manner. A static vertical load test was

Effect of the number of piles on installation load
(Yetginer et al., 2006)

conducted as shown in Fig. 5, and the group effect on thepress-in force and the bearing capacity of thesepressed-in piles was investigated. The press-in force

2.8. 2003-2004: Load test on groups of pressed-in piles

increased with the progress of the construction of the cell

Open-ended tubular piles with an outer diameter offoundation, as shown in Fig. 6. The group efficiency in

101.6mm were pressed-in in a circular manner. Twoterms of the bearing capacity, if the capacity of the single

circular groups of piles were constructed, one with apile was taken as the press-in force of the first pile in theconstant embedment depth (Fig. 7a) and the other withgroup, was slightly greater than unity.

two different embedment depths for each pile (Fig. 7b).

David Rockhill, Gulin Yetginer and Andrew Deeks

The bearing capacity of these groups were comparable,

were involved in this project. Details of tests on theeven though the embedment depth of some piles in thefeatures of pressed-in group piles are reported by White

group in Fig. 7b was smaller than the other piles. The

et al. (2002), Yetginer (2003), Yetginer et al. (2003) andgroup efficiency in terms of the bearing capacity, if the

Yetginer et al. (2006). On the other hand, details of thecapacity of the single pile was taken as the press-in force

field measurements of the vibration associated with theof the first pile in the group and the capacity of the pilepress-in piling are reported by Rockhill (2003) andgroup was taken as the plunging load, was approximately

Rockhill et al. (2003).

equal to unity. On the other hand, the stiffness of thegroup decreased with an increasing number of piles in
the group.

- 25 -

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

Andrew Deeks and Melvin Hibberd were involvedin this project. Details are reported by Deeks (2004) and
Deeks et al. (2006).

Fig. 8

Stiffness of pressed-in piles and a parabolic model(White & Deeks, 2007)

closed-ended tubular pile with an outside diameter of
318.5mm. The closed-ended pile was equipped with aload cell on its base and several pore pressure transducers

Fig. 7 Pile wall with different embedment depth

on its shaft. Extraction resistance was investigated withdifferent lengths of curing period, in a soft alluvial soil
2.9. 2004-2006: Penetration resistance / Soil plug andshown in Fig. 9. Although set-up was confirmed, theextent of set-up was not clearly linked with thebearing capacity
Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs) and load tests onpressed-in closed-ended tubular piles were conducted at
two different sites in Kochi. The closed ended-pile had
an outside diameter of 318.5mm and was equipped witha load cell on its base to measure the base resistance. It
was found that the load-displacement curves for baseresistance and shaft resistance during the load test wasdissipation of excess pore water pressure. In some tests,
the peak value of extraction resistance appeared not at
the commencement of extraction but when the pile was
extracted by a substantial distance (more than 1m), as
shown in Fig. 10. It was suggested that the penetration
resistance could be well expressed by replacing qc,avewith qb in the UWA-05 pile capacity prediction method,well modelled by a parabola considering G0/qc, where G0
is the small strain shear modulus and qc is the cone
resistance in CPT. The load test results, together with thisparabolic model, as shown in Fig. 8, suggested a higher
stiffness of pressed-in piles compared with piles installedby conventional piling methods.
Melvin Hibberd, Helen Dingle and Andrew Jackson
were involved in this project. Details are reported by
Dingle (2006), Deeks & White (2007) and White &Deeks (2007).
2.10. 2006-2007: Mechanism of increase in pull-out
resistanceThree types of piles were used in this project: aU-shaped sheet pile with a width of 400mm (SP-III), a
hat-shaped sheet pile with a width of 900mm (25H) and a
Fig. 9- 26 -

Site profile (T)Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

Penetration resistance [kN]
0

100

200

300

― penetration― extraction

Depth [m]010Fig. 11(a) U-shaped sheet pile, with zero curing period

Difference in drainage condition

during load test and press-in (Jackson et al., 2008)

Penetration resistance [kN]00

was pressed-in at 3 different penetration rates (2, 12 and100 200 300 400

30 mm/s). After 3 different curing periods (0, 15 and 60― penetration― extractionmin.), the pile was extracted to confirm the extent of
set-up in extraction resistance. The base resistance was

Depth [m]reduced at higher penetration rates (Fig. 12a), while theshaft resistance showed the opposite trend (Fig. 12b).
Set-up in extraction resistance was confirmed. In sometests, peak values of extraction resistance were found not

10

at the commencement of extraction but when the pile was
extracted by more than 1 m. This tendency was more
apparent for tests with shorter curing periods.
(b) Closed ended tubular pile, with zero curing period
Fig. 10 Site profile (T)where qc,ave is a CPT cone resistance averaged by Dutch
method and qb is a base resistance during press-in, tocompensate for the difference in drainage condition
during load test and press-in as shown in Fig. 11(Jackson et al., 2008).
Andrew Jackson and Marcus Gillard were involvedin this project. Details are reported by Jackson (2007)
and Jackson et al. (2008).
2.11. 2007-2008: Penetration resistance and set-up
A closed-ended tubular pile with an outside
diameter of 318.5mm, instrumented with a load cell on
its base and several pore pressure transducers on its shaft,- 27 -

Fig. 12a Rate effect on base resistance (Ishihara et al., 2011)

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

Marcus Gillard and Paul Shepley were involved inthis project. Some of the test results are reported by

2.12. 2008-2009: Plugging during press-in
A double walled open-ended tubular pile with

Ishihara et al. (2009).

outside and inside diameters of 318.5 mm and 199.9 mm,
as shown in Fig. 13, was used in this project. The pile
was equipped with 3 earth pressure transducers on its
base to measure the base resistance. Four earth pressuretransducers and pore pressure transducers were placed
inside the pile. The pile was pressed-in at two different
penetration rates (2 and 10 mm/s) down to 11m, followed
by load tests with different curing periods (85 minutes, 1
day and 10 days), in a soft alluvial soil as shown in Fig.
14. It was confirmed that the strength of the soil plug was
greater if the penetration rate was low, as shown in Fig.
15. On the other hand, a set-up ratio, the ratio of theresistance measured in the load test to the resistancemeasured at the end of installation, was identified. At acuring period of 10 days, the set-up ratios wereconfirmed to be around 1.5 and 3.5 for base and shaft
resistance respectively, as shown in Fig. 16.

(b-1) Penetration rate = 2mm/s

Earth pressure transducers(b-2) Penetration rate = 30mm/s
Fig. 12b Rate effect on shaft resistance (Ishihara et al., 2011)

Fig. 13

Tubular pile to investigate the behavior ofinner soil column- 28 -

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

Paul Shepley and Olusomi Delano were involved inthis project. Details are reported by Shepley (2009) andOgawa et al. (2009).

Fig. 16 Set-up ratio of a pile installed by standard press-in

2.13. 2009-2010: Effect of repeated penetration andextraction
Two types of piles were used in this project: aU-shaped sheet pile with a width of 400mm (SP-III) and
Fig. 14 Site profile (N)a closed-ended tubular pile with an outside diameter of
318.5mm. The closed-ended pile was equipped with a

Total base stress [Mpa]load cell on its base and several pore pressure transducers

Drained response(Randolph et al., 1991)

on its shaft. The pile was pressed-in monotonically orwith repeated penetration and extraction (also called as
surging, cyclic jacking and so on), at different sets ofcombination of rates and displacements of penetration

2mm/s

and extraction. The results showed that shaft resistance
was reduced by repeated penetration and extraction,

10mm/sregardless of the ground condition (penetration depth).

Undrained response(Randolph et al., 1991)

where cohesive soils were dominant. No clear trend was

On the other hand, base resistance was reduced in layers
found between the pore water pressure and thepenetration resistance in repeated penetration andPlug length [m]extraction.
Olusomi Delano and Thomas Bond were involved

Fig. 15

Rate effect on plug strength

in this project. Details are reported by Delano (2010) and(Shepley, 2008)

Ogawa et al. (2011).

- 29 -

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

2.14. 2010-2011: Reduction of penetration resistanceduring rotary press-in
Two types of piles were used in this project: aclosed-ended tubular pile with an outside diameter of
318.5 mm and an open-ended tubular pile with an outside
diameter of 500mm. The closed-ended pile was installedby standard press-in and rotary press-in at different
penetration rates and rotation rates. It was found that thebase resistance was reduced by increasing the penetration
rate, showing a trend explained based on Finnie factor(White et al., 2010), in which the rate effect is attributed
to the drainage condition. The rotation was confirmed toreduce the shaft resistance significantly but have little
influence on the base resistance. The reduction of the
shaft resistance was greater at larger velocity ratio (theratio of the rotation rate to the penetration rate). This wasFig. 18 Variation of inner soil column length with depth

attributed to a more horizontal direction of friction
mobilized at the pile-soil interface, as indicated in Fig.
17. On the other hand, the extent of plugging was notin this project. Details are reported by Bond (2011) andNishigawa et al. (2011).

mitigated by rotation; the length of the soil column insidea pile installed by rotary press-in was not shorter than

2.15. 2011-2012: Spatial distribution of pore waterthat installed by standard press-in, as shown in Fig. 18.

pressure during press-in
Three closed-ended piles with an outside diameter

This is contradictory to the assumption that the internal
shaft resistance is reduced by rotation in the same way as
the external shaft resistance (White et al., 2010), and wasconcluded to be due to the difference in the groundcondition down to 4m below the ground surface.

of 318.5mm were used in this project. Each pile was
equipped with a load cell on its base, 5 pore pressuretransducers and 5 earth pressure transducers on its shaft.
Two of the piles were used as measurement piles while

Thomas Bond and Travis Winstanley were involved

the other one was pressed-in as a test pile, as shown in
Fig. 19. The distance between the test pile and themeasurement piles were maintained as either 1, 2, 3 or 5
times the outside diameter of the piles. During press-in,
the pore water pressure measured by the measurement
piles increased to its peak value until the pile base passed
the depth of the transducers, and then started to decrease
to a residual value. As shown in Fig. 20, It was
confirmed that the spherical cavity expansion analysis
provided a lower bound of the peak values of pore waterpressure generated when the pile was pressed-in in a soft
alluvial soil shown in Fig. 14.
Travis Winstanley and Ewa Hazla were involved inthis project. Details are reported by Winstanley (2012).

Fig. 17 Effect of rotation on shaft resistance(White et al., 2010)- 30 -

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

Fig. 19

Test procedure to measure the spatial distribution of pore water pressure (Winstanley, 2012)

C12-13

C12-15
Fig. 20 Excess pore water pressure measured in the test
and estimated by cavity expansion theory (Winstanley, 2012)

2.16. 2012-2013: Reduction of friction during rotary
cutting press-in of an open-ended tubular pile insand
Open-ended tubular piles with an outside diameter

Fig. 21 Variation of torque with rotational displacementof 800mm were used in this project. The piles were(Rotation rate = 100mm/s, depth of pile base = 11.5m)

installed into a dense sandy ground shown in Fig. 2 byrotary cutting press-in with water injection. When thepile was processed to have surface projections, which

was contrary to the expectation. When the non-processed

had been expected to be effective in reducing the shaft

pile was continuously rotated at a constant depth, theresistance, the penetration resistance was greater thanrotational torque did not keep decreasing with anwhen the pile did not have the surface projections, which

increasing rotational displacement, as shown in Fig. 21.

- 31 -

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochia ‘Slanting wall’ where sheet piles were embedded withan inclination angle of 5 degrees. The other was the ‘IP(Implant preload) Wall’ in which sheet piles wereembedded with an inclination angle at their base of 5
degrees and were elastically deflected toward the
excavation side, as shown in Fig. 23. When a surcharge
was applied on the ground surface behind the wall, thehorizontal displacement of the walls was largest for theNormal wall and smallest for the IP wall. Two underlying
mechanisms were inferred, which will be introduced inFig. 22

Tubular pile to measure the plug strength

detail in Section 5.2.
Gongyan Gao and Glyn Stevens were involved inThis result was different from those confirmed in thethis project. Details are reported by Gao (2014), Ishiharaprevious years as shown in Fig. 22, in which the

et al. (2015) and Ogawa et al. (2017).

rotational torque decreased by more than 50% with anincreasing rotational displacement when a pile with an

2.18. 2014-2015: Mechanism of water-binding duringoutside diameter of 318.5mm embedded in a soft alluvial
ground shown in Fig. 14 was rotated at a constant depth.

rotary press-in in dense sand
Water-binding is a phenomenon that is sometimes

These differences are presumably due to different effects

encountered when installing a pile in sand assisted byof dilatancy.

water injection. Muddy water coming up to the ground

Ewa Hazla and Gongyan Gao were involved in thissurface along the pile shaft, which will be observed whena pile is being installed smoothly, is lost and the

project. Details are reported by Hazla (2013).

penetration resistance suddenly increases. To investigate
the2.17. 2013-2014: Performance of steel sheet pile walls

mechanismofwater-binding,circularandThree types of cantilevered sheet pile walls weresemi-circular model piles with an outside diameter ofdealt with in this project. One was a ‘Normal wall’ in

48.6mm and a soil tank of 1000mm square with a depth

which sheet piles were embedded vertically. Another wasof 1200mm were used in this project. The soil tank had

Fig. 23

Construction procedure of IP Wall (Ishihara et al., 2015)- 32 -

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

sand.
Glyn Stevens and Andrei Dobrisan were involved inthis project. Details are reported by Stevens (2015).

Water reserved
beneath the pile base

2.19. 2015-2016: Verification of the resilience of
Implant levees against tsunami
Two sets of experiments were carried out in thisproject. One was to investigate the horizontal load
imposed by tsunami on a wall in an overflowing
condition, by means of model tests using an experimental
facility called the Tsunami Simulator, as shown in Fig.
25. The other was a static horizontal load tests on two
piles with the same outside diameter of 1000mm andFig. 24 Visualization of penetration process

different thicknesses of 12mm and 24mm, to observe thewith water injection (Stevens, 2015)

deformation characteristics of piles embedded in dense
sand beyond its elastic limit. The results of the modelan acrylic plate on one of its four sides, and a saturated

tests showed that the tsunami load in an overflowing

model ground was prepared inside the soil tank bycondition can be safely estimated by an existing

mixing a saturated silica sand #7 using a stirring bar. The

estimation

semi-circular pile was pressed-in assisted by watermeasured when the model tsunami hit the wall. Based on

injection against the acrylic plate, so that the penetration

the results of the load tests, it was confirmed that theprocess could be visualized as shown in Fig. 24. The

stiffness and bending moment profile of the pile were

circular pile was installed by rotary press-in assisted bywell estimated by DNV (1992). On the other hand, thewater injection at the center of the model ground, withhorizontal capacity of the pile was confirmed to bedifferent penetration rates, rotational rates and flowrates

underestimated by a factor of 2 by the p-y method, whichto confirm the conditions on which the water-binding is

has been pointed out by many researchers including

triggered. From the tests using the semi-circular piles, theKirkwood (2015). The findings will be taken into

process of the creation of ‘interface liquefaction’ and theaccount when designing tsunami mitigation structures

disappearance of it (i.e. water-binding) was observed,

with piles, whose effects were investigated by Suzuki etand three parameters were identified as critical foral. (2016a) and Suzuki et al. (2016b).

method,excludinginstantaneous

loads

sustaining the interface liquefaction: the water pressure atAndrei Dobrisan and Yan Zhuang were involved in

the edge of the pile base, the water pressure required tothis project. Details are reported by Dobrisan (2016) andsustain the interface liquefaction and the flowrate

Dobrisan et al. (2018).

availableforinterfaceliquefaction.

Ananalyticalmodel

proposedwasbyassuming that the cause ofwater-binding is the sufficientpressure in the liquefied region
to transmit all water though thepores, and was confirmed to beable to predict the depth ofwater-binding observed in thetests in which the circular pile
was installed in the saturated

Fig. 25- 33 -

Tsunami simulator (Ishihara et al., 2018a)

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

2.20. 2016-2017: Design and construction of sheet pile

6.0m

retaining wall with and without the stabilization of
excavation base
Two types of sheet pile pits were designed andconstructed under the ground condition of Fig. 14. One
was a square pit No.1 with a horizontal length of 8.4m,
an embedment depth of 10m and an excavated depth of
5m. The other was a rectangular pit No.2 with a

8.4m

horizontal length of 8.4m and 6m, an embedment depthof 16.5m and an excavated depth of 9.5m. The
excavation base in the pit No.2 was stabilized by a

1000mm(from centerto center)

number of concrete columns before the excavation, as
shown in Fig. 26. The deformation of the wall due to thestabilization and the excavation was measured manually
Fig. 26 Stabilization of excavation base (Zhuang, 2017)

by an inclinometer. As shown in Fig. 27, the wall was
pushed outwards due to the stabilization and then pushedinwards due to the excavation. Together with the resultsof FEM analysis in which the stabilization process wasmodelled by thermal expansion, the effectiveness of thestabilization was discussed qualitatively.
Yan Zhuang and Marla Gillow were involved in thisproject. Details are reported by Zhuang (2017).
2.21. 2017-2018: Mechanism of water jetting
Two sets of sheet piles equipped with pore pressuretransducers were used in this project. One pile wasinstalled prior to the installation of another, so that thepore water pressure not only on the shaft of the pile being
installed but also in the ground at a certain distance fromthe pile being installed can be measured. Data obtained
during press-in with water jetting in unsaturated dense
sand indicated in Fig. 2 showed that the build-up of highexcess water pressure was limited to the region that isnear from the jet nozzle equipped in the pile base.
Results of detailed analysis of the data shown in Fig. 28
suggested that a high stress region near the base of theFig. 27

Horizontal displacement of a sheet pile pit

sheet pile caused a build-up of base resistance,

due to stabilization and excavation (Zhuang, 2017)

preventing further penetration of the pile, until enoughwater pressure was built up at the pile base to reduce thestress of the high stress region. The high water pressure

impermeable film in the pile base as shown in Fig. 29.

was able to be built-up around the pile base even in

Marla Gillow and Jennifer Chambers were involved

relatively permeable soils, presumably because thein this project. Details are reported by Gillow (2018) andrepeated penetration and extraction at a constant depth

Gillow et al. (2018).

range caused crushing of sand particles, forming an- 34 -

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

3. Performance of pressed-in piles
3.1. Vertical capacity of a pile installed by standard
press-inAs the penetration mechanisms of a CPT cone and apressed-in pile are similar, it seems to be reasonable toestimate the vertical capacity of a pile installed bystandard press-in from CPT data. White & Deeks (2007)
and White et al. (2010) argued that the vertical capacity ofa pile installed by standard press-in can be estimated bymodifying the values of coefficients in UWA-05
framework, which is a CPT-based design method
originally prepared for offshore driven piles (Lehane et al.,2005). In this framework, a base capacity (qbf) and a shaft
capacity (qsf) of driven piles are expressed as:
qbf =(0.15+0.45Ar )qc,ave

qsf =aqc,ave Ar b max

h
,2
Do

(1)
c

tanδcv(2)where qc,ave is the CPT cone resistance averaged by
Dutch method, Ar is the area ratio of the pile adjusted forthe plugging condition, h is the distance from the pilebase, Do is the outer diameter of the pile and δcv is theconstant volume pile-soil friction angle. Parameters a, b
Fig. 28 Variation of depth, force and water pressure

and c represent the stress drop around the pile base, theduring press-in with water jetting (Gillow et al., 2018)

effect of the plugging condition and the effect of thefriction fatigue respectively.
Table 1 shows the comparison of the values of theparameters for driven and jacked piles (White et al.,Table 1.

Comparison of driven and jacked piles

in UWA-05 framework (White et al., 2010)

Fig. 29

Conjectured key mechanism of water jetting(Gillow et al., 2018)- 35 -

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

2010). The ratio of qbf to qc of jacked piles is higher thanthat of driven piles. This will be because the jacked piles
tend to plug more easily due to the reduced effect ofinertia (Liyanapathirana et al., 2001) and the greater
amount of soil is displaced during piling. The value ofparameter c of jacked piles is smaller, meaning that theeffect of friction fatigue is smaller for jacked piles thanfor driven piles. This will be because the number ofcyclic motion of the pile during piling is smaller injacked piles.
Fig. 30 Stiffness of jacked, driven and bored piles

3.2. Vertical stiffness of a pile installed by standard(Deeks & White, 2007)

press-inAccording to Dingle (2006) and Deeks & White(2007), the vertical stiffness of a jacked pile (a pile
installed by standard press-in) is well expressed by aparabolic model, which is expressed as:

qb
qbf

w 2
w
＋2
wbf
wbf

(3)

π(1-ν) qbf
D
4 Gb,init o

(4)

=－

wbf =

where qb is the base resistance when the settlement of thepile base is w, wb is the settlement when qbf is mobilized, νis the Poisson’s ratio and Gb,init is the initial soil stiffness.
They argued, by comparing the parabola representing theresults of the centrifuge load tests of themselves as well asof the field load tests of Dingle (2006) and the trend
Fig. 31

curves for bored piles (Ghionna et al., 1993; Berardi &Typical example of a load-unload-reload curve of soil
(JGS, 2002)

Bovolenta, 2005) and for driven piles (API, 2000), that theaxial stiffness of a jacked pile at a typical working
settlement (from 0.02Do to 0.1Do) is greater than that of abored pile by a factor of 10 and that of a driven pile by afactor of 5, as shown in Fig. 30. One reason will be theeffect of the loading history. The soil beneath the base of

4. Use of press-in piling data to estimate subsurface
information
4.1. Estimating CPT qt, soil type and SPT N from datain standard press-in
The similarity in the penetration mechanism of athe jacked pile experiences a static loading and unloadingat the end of installation. This means that the load test is areloading process, in which a greater stiffness can beobtained compared with the case where the soil beneaththe pile base is loaded for the first time, as shown in Fig.
31 (JGS, 2002).

pressed-in pile and a CPT cone was taken into account todevelop an estimation method in standard press-in(Ishihara et al., 2015b; IPA, 2017). The estimation
process can be divided into four.
Firstly, the vertical jacking force applied to a pile by- 36 -

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

a press-in machine is decomposed into a base resistancethe pile base passes a certain depth for the first time and(Qb) and a shaft resistance (Qs), based on a simple

for the second time in each cycle of the repeatedassumption as shown in Fig. 32 (Ogawa et al., 2012)

penetration

which is expressed by the following equations:recommended to be 0.15Do below the depth where theandextraction.

‘A certain

depth’ issecond penetration is started, to avoid the influence of
Q b = Q 1 － Q2

(5)

Q s = Q2

(6)

the soil collapsed into the cavity beneath the pile base(Ishihara et al., 2015b). The validity of Eqs. (5) and (6)can be confirmed in Fig. 33, which was obtained during
the press-in of a closed-ended tubular pile with Do =where Q1 and Q2 are the jacking forces measured when

318.5mm.
Secondly, a unit base resistance (qb) and a unit shaft
resistance (qs) are obtained from Qb and Qs, byconsidering the area on which Qb and Qs are acting. For
the area of the pile base, the plugging conditions aretaken into account based on a linear correlation between
the plug strength and IFR (Incremental Filling Ratio),which was found in a monotonic penetration of a model
pile at 1g in a dry sand with a relative density Dr of 30%
as shown in Fig. 34 (Lehane & Gavin, 2001) as well as
in a monotonic and cyclic penetration of a model pile at

Fig. 32

Decomposition of jacking force

into base and shaft resistance (Ogawa et al., 2012)

1g in a dry sand with Dr = 60% as shown in Fig. 35(Ishihara et al., 2018b).
Thirdly, the obtained qb and qs are converted into
CPT qc and fs, by considering the scale effect on theplunging values of qb as shown in Fig. 36 (White &Bolton, 2005) and the rate effect based on the Finnie(a) C11-05
Fig. 33(b) C11-06

Comparison of measured and estimatedFig. 34

base resistance in standard press-in

Relationship between plug strength and IFR

in monotonic penetration (Lehane & Gavin, 2001)(Ishihara et al., 2015b)- 37 -

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

Fig. 37

Rate effect on base resistance(White et al., 2010)

Fig. 35

Relationship between plug strength and IFR

in monotonic or cyclic penetration (Ishihara et al., 2018)

Fig. 36 Scale effect on base capacity(White & Bolton, 2005)

factor (Finnie & Randolph, 1994) as shown in Fig. 37(White et al., 2010).
Finally, the soil type and SPT N are estimated fromqc and fs, based on the methods developed by Robertson(1990) and Jefferies & Davies (1993) respectively. The
validity of the estimated results is discussed by Ishihara
et al. (2015b).
As explained above, this method requires thepenetration process to be associated with the repeatedFig. 38 Effect of repeated penetration and extraction

penetration and extraction. It was confirmed in a fieldon base resistance (Ishihara et al., 2011)

test using a closed-ended tubular pile with Do = 318.5mm
in a soft alluvial soil shown in Fig. 9 that the repeatedpenetration and extraction has little effect on thefollows that this method underestimates CPT qt or SPT N

envelope of Qb as shown in Fig. 38, while it significantly

because of the reduced value of Qs. However, as the

reduces Qs as shown in Fig. 39 (Ishihara et al., 2011). It

effect of Qs on the estimated results was confirmed to be- 38 -

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

Fig. 39 Effect of repeated penetration and extraction

Fig. 40 Effect of repeated penetration and extraction

on shaft resistance (Ishihara et al., 2011)

At a constant depth range on base resistance(Burali d’Arezzo et al., 2013))

insignificant (Ishihara et al., 2009), this point is notessential. On the other hand, the repeated penetration andextraction at a constant depth range leads to a significant
increase in Qb as shown in Fig. 40 (Burali d’Arezzo et al.,consumed at the tip of the SPT sampler. The validity ofthe estimated results is discussed by Ishihara et al.
(2015c).

2013). As Qb directly influences the estimated results, it

In the first process, the vertical and rotational

leads to a significant overestimation. Attention has to bejacking forces applied to a pile by a press-in machine (Q,paid when a large number of cyclic motions are applied
to a pile at a constant depth, which is probable whenT) are decomposed into a base and a shaft components(Qb, Qs, Tb and Ts), by introducing four equations (Eqs.

penetrating though a hard layer under a manually-set(7) - (10)) where δsp, Do and vr are the frictional angle atlimitation of Q for example.

the soil-pile interface, the outside diameter of the pileand the rotational rate of the pile shaft, respectively

4.2. Estimating SPT N from data in rotary cutting(Ishihara et al., 2015c).

press-in
The estimation process in rotary cutting press-in isdivided into three: 1) estimating a vertical and rotational
resistance at the pile base from a vertical and rotational
jacking force, 2) estimating Specific Energy (Teale,1965) consumed at the pile base and 3) estimating SPT N
based on the assumption that the Specific Energy
consumed at the base of the pile is comparable to that- 39 -Q = Qb + Qs

(7)

T = Tb + Ts
tanδsp
Tb
=
Do
Qb
3

(8)

Ts
v r ⁄v d
=
Do
Qs
2

(9)
(10)

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi(a) C11-10, without repeated penetration and extraction
Fig. 41 Pile-soil friction calculated from Qs and Ts(Bond, 2011)

Of these, Eq. (9) is based on the assumption that both Qb
and Tb are expressed by a unit base resistance (qb), while
Eq (10) is obtained by assuming that a pile-soil friction
is shared by Qs and Ts with the velocity ratio of vd to vr.
The latter assumption was discussed by White et al.
(2010) as shown in Fig. 17, which was confirmed asvalid when the velocity ratio was smaller than 5 asshown in Fig. 41 but as invalid for greater velocity ratio
due to the effect of excess pore water pressure (Bond,2011). Comparison of estimated and measured values of
Qb in Fig. 42 (Ishihara et al., 2015c) demonstrates thevalidity of Eqs. (7) - (10).
5. Performance of a sheet pile wall
5.1. Deformation of different types of sheet pile walls
As discussed in 2.17., three types of sheet pile walls(b) C11-13, with repeated penetration and extraction

were constructed, and their deformation due to asurcharge was compared (Gao, 2014). As summarized inFig. 42Comparison of measured and estimatedFig. 43, the horizontal displacement of the IP Wall due tobase resistance in rotary press-ina surcharge of 20kPa was reduced by 99% at the wall

(Ishihara et al., 2015c)

head and 74% for the entire wall, compared with that of- 40 -

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

the slanting wall (Ishihara et al., 2015a). Different
deformation patterns were confirmed: the maximum
displacement was found at the wall head in the slanting
wall while it was found near the excavation base in the IP
Wall.
5.2. Mechanism of the high stiffness of IP Wall
Two mechanisms shown in Fig. 44 were conjectured
for the higher stiffness of IP Wall. The first mechanism isthe loading history of the soil in the excavation base. In
IP Wall, the excavation base is preloaded horizontally,
due to the Preload in the upper part of the wall. When thewall is applied with the surcharge, the excavation baseFig. 43experiences the second loading, in which it shows higher

Deformation of slanting wall and IP Walldue to surcharge (Ishihara et al., 2015a)

stiffness. This is similar to what can be seen in theload-unload-reload curve of a soil shown in Fig. 31.
The second conjectured mechanism is that, due tothe elastic reaction from the wall, the horizontal stress ofthe soil behind the wall is increased, and subsequently,
the Mohr’s circle becomes smaller as shown in Fig. 45
and the plastic region of the soil behind the walldecreases. This will reduce the displacement of the soil
behind the wall.
Numerical analyses were carried out by ignoring thebackfill materials (Ishihara et al., 2015a), and the two
mechanisms

wereconfirmed

toexist.

The

first

mechanism was more influential, presumably due to theignorance of the backfill material in the analysis model.

Fig. 44 Mechanism of performance of IP Wall

5.3. Determination of the amount of the preload
A key issue in designing the IP Wall is thedetermination of the appropriate amount of the Preload.
A simple method was proposed by focusing only on thefirst mechanism, as conceptually summarized in Fig. 46,
in which the appropriate amount of the Preload should
correspond to the amount of the surcharge in terms of theeffect on the soil in the excavation side (Ishihara et al.,2015). In this concept, the deformation of the soil in the
excavation side is represented by the summation of thehorizontal displacement of the wall below the excavationbase, while the effect of the Preload and the surcharge iscommonly expressed by the combination of thehorizontal load and moment at and around the cross pointof the wall and the excavation base.

- 41 -

Fig. 45

Reduced radius of Mohr’s circle due to Preload

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

6. Summary
The Cambridge - Giken collaboration research has
focused on wide range of topics on press-in engineering
since 1994, in terms of the mechanism of pile-soil
interaction as well as the performance of piles and pilewalls. The research findings suggest that 1) thepressed-in pile shows higher vertical and horizontal
performance than piles installed by other methods, 2) thepiling data can be utilized for estimating subsurface
information and 3) sheet piles can be used not only for
temporary structures but also as members of structures.
(a) Appropriate

7. Acknowledgements
Technical and financial supports over the wholeyears of this joint research by Mr. Akio Kitamura, thecontinuous supervision and the provision of academic
essences by Dr. Malcolm Bolton, technical advices fromDr. Kozo Tagaya, Dr. Masaaki Terashi Dr. Osamu
Kusakabe and the members of IPA-TC2, are highly
appreciated. Special contributions were made by Mr.
Teruo Nagayama, Mr. Yukinori Horikawa, Mr. Yasutaka
Yokotobi, Mr. Kensuke Inomata, Mr. Tatsuo Nose, Ms.
Nanase Ogawa, Ms. Mai Nishigawa and Mr. Koichi
Okada to complete the summer projects in Kochi.

(b) Insufficient

References
American Petroleum Institute. 2000. API Recommended
Practice

2A-WSD:

Planning,

DesigningandConstructing Fixed Offshore Platforms – Working
Stress Design.
Berardi, R. and Bovolenta, R. 2005. Pile-settlement
evaluation

using

field

stiffness

non-linearity.

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers:
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 158, Issue 1, pp.
35-44.
Bond, T. 2011. Rotary jacking of tubular piles. M.Eng.
Project Report, Cambridge University Departmentof Engineering, 50p.
(c) Excessive

Burali d’Arezzo, F., Haigh, S. K. and Ishihara, Y. 2013.
Cyclic jacking of piles in silt and sand. Installation

Conceptual diagram to determine

Effects in Geotechnical Engineering – Proceedings

the amount of Preload (Ishihara et al., 2015a)of the International Conference on Installation

Fig. 46

Effects in Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 86-91.
Deeks, A. D. 2004. An investigation into the strength andstiffness of jacked, driven and bored piles. M.Eng.

- 42 -

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

Project Report, Cambridge University Department

Ghionna, V. N., Jamiolkowski, M. and Lancellotta, R.

of Engineering, 51p.

1993. Base capacity of bored piles in sands from in

Deeks, A. D., White, D. J. and Bolton, M. D. 2006. A

situ

comparison of jacked, driven and bored piles in

of

the

International

Balkema, pp. 67-75.
Gillow, M. 2018. Water jetting for sheet piling in sandy

Japan, pp. 1685-1688.

soils. M.Eng. Project Report, Cambridge University

Deeks, A. D. and White, D. J. 2007. Centrifuge

Department of Engineering, 49p.

modelling of the base response of closed-ended

Gillow, M., Haigh, S. K., Ishihara, Y., Ogawa, N. andjacked piles. Advances in Deep Foundations, pp.

Okada, K. 2018. Water jetting for sheet piling.

241-251.

Proceedings of the First International Conference on

Delano, O. 2010. The application of surging on jacked-in
piles. M.Eng. Project Report, Cambridge University

Press-in Engineering.
Hazla, E. 2013. Rotary press-in piling in hard ground.

Department of Engineering, 49p.

M.Eng. Project Report, Cambridge University

Dingle, H. 2006. The testing and analysis of jacked
foundation piles. M.Eng. Project Report, Cambridge

Department of Engineering, 50p.
International Press-in Association (IPA). 2016. Press-in

University Department of Engineering, 50p.
Det

Proceedings

Conference on Bored and Augured Piles II,

sand. The 16th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Osaka,

tests.

NorskeVeritas(DNV).

1992.

retaining structures: a handbook, First edition 2016.

Foundations.

International Press-in Association (IPA). 2017. TechnicalClassification Notes, No. 30.4, 54p.

Material on the Use of Piling Data in the Press-in

Dobrisan, A. 2016. Suitability of jacked-in steel piles astsunamidefences.

M.Eng.

Project

Method, I. Estimation of Subsurface Information,

Report,Cambridge University Department of Engineering,

63p. (in Japanese)
Ishihara, Y., Ogawa, N., Horikawa, Y., Kinoshita, S.,

48p.

Nagayama, T., Kitamura, A. and Tagaya, K. 2009.

Dobrisan, A., Haigh, S. K. and Ishihara, Y. 2018.

Utilization of pile penetration test data for groundinformation.

tsunamiInternational Workshop in New Orleans, Press-in

defences.

Proceedings

of

the

First

International Conference on Press-in Engineering.

Proceedings

of

the

2nd

Evaluating the efficiency of jacked-in piles as

IPA

Engineering 2009, pp. 105-120.

Finlay, T. C. R. 2001a. Press-in piling: noise, vibration

Ishihara, Y., Okada, K., Nishigawa, M., Ogawa, N.,

and the relief of hard driving. M.Eng. Project Report,

Horikawa, Y. and Kitamura, A. 2011. Estimating

Cambridge University Department of Engineering,

PPT

data

via

CPT-based

designmethod.

rd

49p.

Proceedings of the 3 IPA International Workshop

Finlay, T. C. R., White, D. J., Bolton, M. D. andin Shanghai, Press-in Engineering 2011, pp. 84-94.

Nagayama, T. 2001b. Press-in piling: the installation

Ishihara, Y., Ogawa, N., Okada, K. and Kitamura, A.

of instrumented steel tubular piles with and without

2015a. Implant Preload Wall: a novel self-retaining

driving shoes. 5th International Conference on Deep

wall with high performance against backside

Foundation Practice, Singapore, 1, pp. 199-208.

surcharge. Proceedings of the 5th IPA International

Finnie,

I.

M.

S.

and

Randolph,

M.

F.

1994.

Workshop in Ho Chi Minh, Press-in Engineering

Punch-through and liquefaction-induced failure ofshallow foundations on calcareous sediments.
ProceedingsofInternational

Conference

2015, pp. 68-82.
Ishihara, Y., Ogawa, N., Okada, K. and Kitamura, A.

on

2015b. Estimating subsurface information from data

Behaviour of Offshore Structures, BOSS’94, pp.

in press-in piling. Proceedings of the 5th IPA

217-230.

International Workshop in Ho Chi Minh, Press-in

Gao, G. 2014. Comparing performance of different sheet
pile walls. M.Eng. Project Report, Cambridge

Engineering 2015, pp. 53-67.
Ishihara, Y., Haigh, S. and Bolton, M. D. 2015c.

University Department of Engineering, 50p.

Estimating base resistance and N value in rotary- 43 -

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

press-in. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp.

Nishigawa, M., Okada, K., Bond, T., Yamane, T.,

788-797.

Ishihara, Y. and Kitamura, A. 2011. Reduction of

Ishihara, Y. 2018a. Comparison of pile-type andfriction in rotary jacking. Proceedings of the 3 rd IPA

gravity-type coastal levees in terms of resilience toInternational Workshop in Shanghai, Press-in

tsunami. Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Press-in Engineering.

Engineering 2011, pp. 107-113.
Ogawa, N., Ishihara, Y., Yokotobi, Y., Kinoshita, S.,

Ishihara, Y., Kikuchi, Y. and Koseki, J. 2018b. Model test

Nagayama, T., Kitamura, A. and Tagaya, K. 2009.

on correlation between plugging condition andSoil plug behavior of open-ended tubular pile during

Incremental Filling Ratio

during press-in ofpress-in. Proceedings of the 2nd IPA International

open-ended tubular pile. Proceedings of the 53rd

Workshop in New Orleans, Press-in EngineeringJapan

2009, pp. 121-129.

National

Conferenceon

GeotechnicalEngineering, pp. 1321-1322. (in Japanese)

Ogawa, N., Ishihara, Y., Nishigawa, M. and Kitamura, A.

Jackson, A. 2007. The setup of jacked piles. M.Eng.

2011. Effect of surging in press-in piling: shaft

Project Report, Cambridge University Department

resistance and pore water pressure. Proceedings ofof Engineering, 49p.

the 3rd IPA International Workshop in Shanghai,Jackson, A., M., White, D. J., Bolton, M. D. and

Press-in Engineering 2011, pp. 101-106.

Nagayama, T. 2008. Pore pressure effects in sandOgawa, N., Nishigawa, M. and Ishihara, Y. 2012.

nd

Estimation of soil type and N-value from data in

BGA International Conference on Foundations, CD,press-in piling construction. Testing and Design

pp. 575-586.

Methods for Deep Foundations, IS-Kanazawa 2012,and silt during pile jacking. Proceedings of the 2Japanese Geotechnical Society. 2002. Deformation
Analysis of Soils: from Fundamental Theory to

pp. 597-604.
Ogawa, N., Ishihara, Y. and Kitamura, A. 2017.

Application, p. 1. (in Japanese)

Experimental study on deformation of self-retaining

Jefferies, M. G. and Davies, M. P. 1993. Use of CPTu to

sheet pile wall due to excavation and backside

estimate equivalent SPT N60. Geotechnical Testing

surcharge. Journal of Japan Society of Civil

Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 458-468.

Engineers, Division C: Geotechnics, pp. 62-75. (inKirkwood, P. 2015. Cyclic lateral loading of monopole
foundations in sand. Ph.D. Thesis, University ofJapanese)
Randolph, M. F., Leong, E. C. and Houlsby, G. T. 1991.

Cambridge.

One-dimensional analysis of soil plugs in pipe piles.

Kitamura, A. 2017. Construction Revolution. 216p.,
Diamond. (in Japanese)

Geotechnique, Vol. 41, Issue 4, pp. 587-598.
Robertson, P. K. 1990. Soil classification using the cone

Lehane, B. M. and Gavin, K. G. 2001. Base resistance ofpenetration test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 27,

jacked pipe piles in sand. ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,pp. 151-158.
Rockhill, D. 2003. Ground vibrations due to construction

Vol. 127, No. 6, pp. 473-480.

operations. M.Eng. Project Report, Cambridge

Lehane, B. M., Schneider, J. A. and Xu, X. 2005. CPT

University Department of Engineering, 46p.

based design of driven piles in sand for offshore

Rockhill, D. J., Bolton, M. D. and White, D. J. 2003.

structures. Report, the University of Western

Ground-borne vibrations due to press-in piling

Australia, GEO: 05345, 46p.

operations. BGA International Conference on

Liyanapathirana, D. S., Deeks, A. D. and Randolph, M. F.

Foundations: Innovations, Observations, Design and2001. Numerical modelling of the driving response

Practice.

of thin-walled open-ended piles. International

Shepley, P. 2009. An investigation into the plugging of

Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods on

open-ended jacked-in tubular piles. M.Eng. Project

Geomechanics, Vol. 25, No. 9, pp. 933-953.

Report, Cambridge University Department ofEngineering, 47p.

- 44 -

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi

Stevens, G. 2015. Mechanism of water binding duringYetginer, A. G., White, D. J. and Bolton, M. D. 2003.

press-in in sand. M.Eng. Project Report, Cambridge

Press-in piling: field testing of cell foundations.

University Department of Engineering, 50p.

BGA International Conference on Foundations:Suzuki, N., Ishihara, Y. and Isobe, M.

2016a.

Innovations, Observations, Design and Practice.

Experimental study on influence of porosity andYetginer, A. G., White, D. J., Bolton, M. D. 2006. Field

material of pile-type porous tide barrier on its

measurements of the stiffness of jacked piles andtsunami mitigation effect. Journal of Japan Society

pile groups. Geotechnique 56, No. 5, pp. 349-354.

of Civil Engineers, Ser. B3 (Ocean Engineering),

Zhao, Y. 2002. Pile set-up in sand. M.Eng. Project Report,

Vol. 72, No. 2, pp. I-491-I-496. (in Japanese)
Suzuki,N.,

Ishihara,

Y.

andIsobe,

M.

Cambridge University Department of Engineering,
2016.

48p.

Experimental study on tsunami mitigation effect ofZhao, Y. and White, D. J. 2006. A model-scale

breakwater with arrays of steel tubular piles. Journal

investigation into ‘set-up’ of displacement piles inof Social Safety Science, No. 29, 2016.11, pp. 7-14.

sand. Physical Modelling in Geotechnics - 6th(in Japanese)

ICPMG, pp. 889-894.

Teale, R. 1965. The concept of specific energy in rockZhuang, Y. 2017. The effect of bottom stabilisation on

drilling. International Journal of Rock Mechanics &sheet pile pit. M.Eng. Project Report, Cambridge

Mining Sciences, Vol. 2, pp. 57-73.

University Department of Engineering, 46p.

White, D. J. 1998. Deep penetration in sand. M.Eng.
Project Report, Cambridge University Departmentof Engineering, 51p.
White, D. J., Sidhu, H. K., Finlay, C. R., Bolton, M. D.
and Nagayama, T. 2000. Press-in piling: theinfluenceofpluggingondriveability.

8th

International Conference of the Deep Foundations
Institute, New York, pp. 299-310.
White, D. J., Finlay, T. C. R., Bolton, M. D. and Bears, G.
2002. Press-in piling: ground vibration and noise
duringpile

installation.

Proceedings

of

the

International Deep Foundations Congress, Orlando,
USA, ASCE Special Publication 116, pp. 363-371.
White, D. J. and Bolton, M. D. 2005. Comparing CPT
and pile base resistance in sand. Proceedings of theInstitution

of

Civil

Engineers,

GeotechnicalEngineering 158, pp. 3-14.
White, D. J. and Deeks, A. D. 2007. Recent research into
the behavior of jacked foundation piles. Advances in
Deep Foundations, pp. 3-26.
Winstanley, T. 2012. The significance of pore waterpressures on press-in piles. M.Eng. Project Report,
Cambridge University Department of Engineering,
50p.
Yetginer, A. G. 2003. Press-in piling. M.Eng. Project
Report, Cambridge University Department ofEngineering, 50p.

- 45 -

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Press-in Engineering 2018, Kochi- 46 -