LOAD BEARINGSTEEL INTENSIVE BASEMENT- Press-in Method and Thorough Inspection Technique Case StudyTable of Contents
Chapter1

Design Criteria ············································································································1

Chapter2

General Layout of Basement and Ground Conditions ····················································2

Chapter3

PPT (Pile Penetration Testing) Process for Bearing Capacity Assurance ···························3

Chapter4

Test Piling and Static Load Testing (Sheet Pile) ································································5
4-1 Installation of Test Piles (unclutched piles): T1-T8 ····················································5
4-2 Extraction of Test Pile T1 and T6 (7 days after their installation) ·······························6
4-3 Calculation of Maximum Test Load in Static Load Testing ·········································6
4-4 Static Load Testing Results ·····················································································7
4-5 Analysis by Fleming Method ··················································································8
4-6 Back Analysis ······································································································ 11
4-7 Conclusion ········································································································· 12

Chapter5

Test Piling and Static Load Testing (Tubular Pile)···························································· 12
5-1 Installation of Test Piles: W28 and W86 ································································ 12
5-2 Calculation of Maximum Test Load in Static Load Testing ······································· 12
5-3 Static Load Testing Results ··················································································· 13
5-4 Analysis by Fleming Method ················································································ 14
5-5 Back Analysis ······································································································ 17
5-6 Conclusion ········································································································· 17

Chapter 6

Quality Control Procedure for Pile Installation ·························································· 18
6-1 Sheet Pile ········································································································· 18
6-2 Tubular Pile ······································································································ 19

Chapter 7

Slab Connection ····································································································· 21
7-1 Sheet Pile Wall ································································································· 21
7-2 Tubular Pile Wall ······························································································· 22

Chapter 8

Waterproofing ······································································································· 23

Design Criteria
Design Life of Retaining Wall

100 years

Basement Grade (BS 8102:2009)

Grade 1 (Car Park) and Grade 3 (Other area)

Working Load on Retaining Wall

500kN/m run (300kN/pile) on U sheet pile wall and 1,100kN/m run(1,075kN/pile) on tubular pile wall

Surcharge Loading behind Retaining Wall

10kN/m2

Movement under Lateral Loads

Limit of vertical movement of wall elements; 25mm
Limit of horizontal movement of wall elements; 20mm
Limit of differential movement between adjacent columns and basement;
1 in 500

Piling Tolerances

Deviation in plan normal to the wall line at the top of the pile; ±25mm
Deviation of verticality along line of piles; 1 in 100
Table 1

Note : Basement Grade (BS 8102:2009)
Grade

Example of use of structureA)

Performance level1

Car parking; plant rooms (excluding ElectricalSome seepage and damp areas tolerable, dependent onequipment); workshops

the intended useB)
Local drainage might be necessary to deal with seepage2

3

Plant rooms and workshops requiring a drier

No water penetration acceptableenvironment (than Grade 1); storage areas

Damp areas tolerable; ventilation might be required

Ventilated residential and commercial areas,

No water penetration acceptable

including office restaurant etc.; leisure centres

Ventilation, dehumidification or air conditioning
necessary, appropriate to the intended use

A)

The previous edition of this standard referred to Grade 4 environments. However, this grade retained as its only
difference from Grade 3 is the performance level related to ventilation, dehumidification or air conditioning (seeBS5454 for recommendations for the storage and exhibition of archival documents). The structural form for Grade 4
could be the same or similar to Grade 3.

B)

Seepage and damp areas for some forms of construction can be quantified by reference to industry standards, such as
the ICE’s Specification for piling and embedded retaining walls.
Table 2

1

General Layout of Basement and Ground Conditions

MADE GROUNDLEVEL B1
LEVEL B1
LEVEL B2

sandy GRAVELLEVEL B2

gravelly CLAY
MUDSTONESILTSTONEU SHEET PILE PU22-1 L=12.8m

UCS=26-35MPa
TUBULAR PILE Ø914xt22 L=15.755m

SPT N Value

Figure 1

2

PPT (Pile Penetration Testing) Process for Bearing
Capacity Assurance
Step 1. Test pile installation to measure toe resistance Rt and shaft friction Rf.

Extg. G.L.

Formation Level(Excavation Level)

Rf : Shaft Friction
Toe Level(Design Level of the Toe of the Pile)

Rf : Toe Resistance

Figure 2

Step 2. Waiting for shaft friction recovery (mobile shaft friction Rfm

static shaft friction Rfs)

Toe Resistance Rt

Time EffectFigure 33

X (days)

Ultimate Load Capacity (kN)

Shaft Friction Rf

Static Shaft Friction Rfs (kN)

Mobile Shaft Friction Rfm (kN)

Installation Resistance (kN)with time effect.

Step 3. Static load testing to determine required toe resistance i.e. “Net Toe Resistance Rtnet” toachieve required load capacity.

Figure 4

Step 4. Pile Installation with required net toe resistance Rtnet or greater.

Extg. G.L.

Press-in force

Required value at ending
press-in force

Rtnet

Figure 54

Type of Pile

Ultimate Load(kN/pile)

Specified
Working Load

Required Net Toe Resistance (Rtnet) to achieve

FOS

specified load capacity (kN/pile)(kN/pile)

Sheet Pile

600

300

2.0

Tubular Pile

2,150

1,075

2.0

230
650

Table 3

Test Piling and Static Load Testing (Sheet Pile)
Installation of Test Piles (unclutched piles) : T1-T8
T2 - T5,
T7 and T8

T1 and T6

Extg. G.L.

Formation Level(Excavation Level)
Net ToeToe Level

Resistance(Design Level of
the Toe of the Pile)

Net ToeResistance

Figure 6

Net Toe Resistance

T1

T2

T3

T4

T5

T6

T7

T8

N/A

90 kN

290 kN

400 kN

480 kNN/A

190 kN

180 kN

Table 45

Extraction of Test Piles T1 and T6 (7 days after their installation)
T1 and T6

Extg. G.L.

Static Shaft Friction = 80kN (T1)
30kN (T6)

Formation Level(Excavation Level)

Figure 7

Calculation of Maximum Test Load in Static Load Testing
The Design Verification Load (DVL) is calculated as the Specified Working Load (SWL) of 300kN per pileplus the friction contribution of the soil above the future excavation level, 80kN. The factor of safety is
2.0, giving:
Maximum test load = DVL + 1.0 x SWL= 2.0 x SWL + Friction above excavation level= 2.0 x 300 + 80
= 680kN

6

Static Load Testing Results
LOAD Vs DISPLACEMENTDISPLACEMENT (mm)Pile No. T3

LOAD (kN)
St. Davids 2, Bute Terrace,
Cardiff.
6th to 7th December 2006

Maximum Displacement = 5.58 mm

GIKEN EUROPE BVResidual Displacement = 4.21 mm

Figure 8 e.g. Static Load Testing Result (T3)

Test piles T2 to T5, T7 and T8 were tested in compression 18-28 days after their installation. The test
results are summarized in Table 5 below.
Residual settlement

Interval between

after DVL +50% SWL

installation and(mm)ｔesting

2.70

22.25

18 days

5.58

0.32

1.56

26 days

682

8.46

0.19

1.99

27 days

T5

682

2.30

0.32

0.50

25 days

T7

530

44.12

0.72

41.27

28 days

T8

680

70.68

1.43

21.12

23 days

Max applied test

Max settlement

Residual settlement

ｌoad (kN)(mm)

after DVL (mm)

T2

680

36.0

T3

681

T4

Pile No

Table 57

Analysis by Fleming Method
The settlements have been assessed using the Fleming method, which was developed for bored piles.
The pile shaft and base diameters have been adjusted to equivalent values to allow the method to be
used. The method does not allow for any locked-in load due to the installation process; for example
preload of the base. These effects cause the pile to react stiffer than the ground parameters would
suggest (ref. Single Pile Settlement Prediction and Analysis for Driven Piles, DFI Conference, Amsterdam
2006).
Each pile exhibits an initial stiff response based on the static shaft friction. This represents the likely
response in service. Once the static shaft friction is exceeded, the pile adopts a mobile or dynamic shaft
friction with an increasing base capacity as the pile is pushed further into the ground, mobilising the basecapacity. The mobile or dynamic friction plus the end bearing resistance should be at least as great as theforce originally required to install the pile. Two different curves are generated by the Fleming method toreplicate these two phases, varying the flexibility factor (Ms) as used by Fleming. For the dynamic case,a flexibility factor of 0.03 is generally adopted and for the static case a very low figure of 0.0001 is used,based on achieving a best-fit for the curves. The base capacities have been maintained as constant forthe static and dynamic analyses. The results are summarized in Table 5 and the analyses are included in
Figure 9 and Figure 10.

8

Job No
Project
Calculations for

C106070
Cardiff St Davids 2
Test Pile T3

Ref

Sheet No
Date
By

PILE SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS (after Fleming, 1992)
INPUT DATA
Equivalent pile shaft diameter (DS)=
Equivalent pile base diameter (DB)=Deformation modulus below base (EB)=
Equivalent Young's modulus of steel (EC)=Friction length coefficient (KE)=Upper pile length carrying no load (LO)=
Pile length transferring load by friction (LF)=
Flexibility factor (MS)=Pile design load (PT)=Ultimate shaft friction load (US)=Ultimate pile base load (UB)=
Total ultimate load =Max plotted predicted ult.load =Maximum settlement =Load

OUTPUT DATA
Load Settlement Shortening Movement%Ult.Load Settlement % Dia.

Load / Ultimate Load

Load / Settlement

Settlement / Diameter

Figure 9 e.g. Fleming Method Analysis (Test Pile T3, Static Friction)

9

16/01/2007
DRB

Job No
Project
Calculations for

C106070
Cardiff St Davids 2
Test Pile T3

Ref

Sheet No
Date
By

PILE SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS (after Fleming, 1992)
INPUT DATA
Equivalent pile shaft diameter (DS)=
Equivalent pile base diameter (DB)=Deformation modulus below base (EB)=
Equivalent Young's modulus of steel (EC)=Friction length coefficient (KE)=Upper pile length carrying no load (LO)=
Pile length transferring load by friction (LF)=
Flexibility factor (MS)=Pile design load (PT)=Ultimate shaft friction load (US)=Ultimate pile base load (UB)=
Total ultimate load =Max plotted predicted ult.load =Maximum settlement =Load%Ult.Load Settlement % Dia.

OUTPUT DATA
Load Settlement Shortening Movement

Load / Ultimate Load

Load / Settlement

Settlement / Diameter

Figure 10 e.g. Fleming Method Analysis (Test Pile T3, Mobile Friction)

10

16/01/2007
DRB

Back Analysis
The ultimate capacity of each pile based on the Fleming analysis is tabulated below. The specified working
load (SWL) is assessed from the static friction results for a factor of safety of 2.0 on the total capacity andallowing for 80kN friction above basement level (i.e. SWL = (Total capacity – 80)/2) for piles T2 to T5 and
30kN for piles T7 and T8.
Static friction (i.e. initial stage of test)
Pile No

Mobile friction (i.e. final stage of test)

Assessed shaft

Assessed baseTotal capacity

Assessed shaft

Assessed baseTotal capacity

capacity (kN)capacity (kN)

/SWL (kN)capacity (kN)capacity (kN)

/SWL (kN)

T2

280

140

420/170

Pile continually pushed into the ground

T3

350

580

930/425

230

580

810

T4

310

675

985/452

160

675

835

T5

450

850

1300/610

Test did not reach this stage

T7

365

195

560/265

Pile continually pushed into the ground

T8

400

175

575/272

Pile continually pushed into the ground

Table 6

Plotting the above static friction results against the Net Toe Resistance (see figure 7) illustrates the trendof increasing Specified Working Load with increasing Net Toe Resistance. Taking a lower bound line
through the data indicates a minimum Net Toe Resistance of 230kN is required to justify a Specified
Working Load of 300kN per pile. Note that the Net Toe Resistance implies that an additional push force
is applied to the ground of (2 x weight of chuck, auger, casing and sheet pile) approximately 250kN.
For back analysis of the piles as installed, the proposed lower bound line can be used to assess the Safe
Working Load of each piles.

Specified Working Load (kN)Specified Working Load vs Net Toe Resistance
T5
T3
T4

T8

T2

T7

Net Toe Resistance (kN)

Figure 11 Plot of Specified Working Load vs Net Toe Resistance11Conclusion
All the test piles illustrate that the ground is capable of supporting the required ultimate load. The
settlement at working load is approximately 1mm for all piles except T2, T7 and T8, which settle up to 4mm.
The predicted ultimate capacity is satisfactory for all piles except for T2, T7 and T8 (the Net Toe Resistanceapplied to these piles is less than the recommended 230 kN). Plotting the data indicates a lower bounddesign line for the relationship between Net Toe Resistance and Specified Working Load, giving aminimum Net Toe Resistance of 230kN for a specified working load of 300kN per pile (with a factor ofsafety of 2.0)

Test Piling and Static Load Testing (Tubular Pile)
Installation of Test Piles : W28 and W86
The test piles, W28 and W86, were installed at the initial stage of the tubular pile installation works. They
have already been used as a part of the proposed basement wall. The status of the test piles is as follows.
Top of Pile

Toe Level

Pile Length

Formation Level

(mOD)

(mOD)

(m)

(mOD)

φ 914mm O.D. x 20mm

8.755

- 4.1

12.8552.055

φ 914mm O.D. x 20mm

9.255

- 3.0

12.255

1.605

Pile No.

ProfileW28
W86

Table 7

Calculation of Maximum Test Load in Static Load Testing
The Design Verification Load (DVL) is calculated as the Specified Working Load (SWL) of 1,075kN per pileplus the friction contribution of the soil above the future excavation level, 414kN*. The factor of safety is
2.0, giving:
Maximum test load = DVL + 1.0 x SWL= 2.0 x SWL + Friction above excavation level= 2.0 x 1,075 + 414= 2,564kN

12

* The calculation method for static skin friction, assuming cohesionless material is based on the effective
vertical stress and a conversion factor to horizontal shaft friction of Ks.tanδ. Taking ground water level at
a conservatively low level of 6m below ground level and assuming a range of values for Ks.tanδ
calculation sheets gives a static skin friction from ground level to excavation level of between 207kN and
414kN. The lower values compare well with the measured dynamic friction. It is proposed to adopt thehigher value as the value of skin friction and allow for this value in the pile test, such that it is not necessary
to undertake a separate test to determine the value of the skin friction.

Static Load Testing Results

DISPLACEMENT (mm)

LOAD Vs DISPLACEMENT
Pile No. W86

LOAD (kN)
St. Davids 2, Bute Terrace,
Cardiff.
8th to 9th March 2007

GIKEN EUROPE BV

Maximum Displacement = 96.58 mm
Residual Displacement = 89.82 mm

Figure 12 e.g. Static Load Testing Result (W86)

Test piles W28 and W86 were tested in compression 17-54 days after their installation. The test results
are summarized in Table 8 below.
Interval between

Max applied test

Max settlement

Residual settlement

Residual settlement

ｌoad (kN)(mm)

after DVL (mm)after DVL +50% SWL (mm)

W28

2,400

54.77

2.30

32.41

54 days

W86

3,100

96.58

0.63

18.21

17 daysPile No

Table 813

installation andtestingAnalysis by Fleming Method
Pile W28
The analysis using the Fleming method indicates that the pile behaved normally up to about 2,000kN.
The Fleming curve fits the data up to 1,758kN, but not for 2,028kN and 2,300kN. Beyond about 2,000kN,
the pile is pushed further into the ground, replicating the installation process and further load is sustainedat greater depth. The back analysis indicates an ultimate shaft friction of 650kN and ultimate basecapacity of 1,400kN, giving a total capacity of 2,050kN.
Pile W86
The initial settlement readings are rather high, suggesting that perhaps there is a “bedding-in” settlement
for this pile of the order of 1mm. The analysis using the Fleming method indicates that the pile behaved
normally up to about 2,000kN. The back analysis of the initial stages of the test, when static friction
conditions exist, indicates an ultimate shaft friction of 800kN and ultimate base capacity of 1,250kN,
giving a total capacity of 2,050kN. Once the initial static friction is exceeded, the friction reduces to a
dynamic value (350kN) and as the pile is pushed into the ground, the end bearing capacity increases to2,875kN, using the Fleming curve-fitting procedure.

Static friction (i.e. initial stage of test)
Pile No

Mobile friction (i.e. final stage of test)

Assessed shaft

Assessed base

Total

Assessed shaft

Assessed baseTotal

capacity (kN)capacity (kN)capacity(kN)

capacity (kN)capacity (kN)capacity (kN)

W28

650

1400

2050

W86

800

1250

2050

Pile continually pushed into the ground350
Table 9

14

2875

3225

TONY GEE and PARTNERS
Consulting Engineers
CobhamSurreyAshford
Kent
Halesowen W.Midlands

Job NoProject
Calculations for

C106070
Cardiff St Davids 2
Tubular Test Pile W28

Ref

Sheet No
Date
By

PILE SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS (after Fleming, 1992)
INPUT DATA
Equivalent pile shaft diameter (DS)=
Equivalent pile base diameter (DB)=Deformation modulus below base (EB)=
Equivalent Young's modulus of steel (EC)=Friction length coefficient (KE)=Upper pile length carrying no load (LO)=
Pile length transferring load by friction (LF)=
Flexibility factor (MS)=Pile design load (PT)=Ultimate shaft friction load (US)=Ultimate pile base load (UB)=
Total ultimate load =Max plotted predicted ult.load =Maximum settlement =Load%Ult.Load Settlement % Dia.

OUTPUT DATA
Load Settlement Shortening Movement

Load / Ultimate Load

Load / Settlement

Settlement / Diameter

Figure 1315

12/03/2007
DRB

TONY GEE and PARTNERS
Consulting Engineers
CobhamSurreyAshford
Kent
Halesowen W.Midlands

Job NoProject
Calculations for

C106070
Cardiff St Davids 2
Tubular test pile W86

Ref

Sheet No
Date
By

PILE SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS (after Fleming, 1992)
INPUT DATA
Equivalent pile shaft diameter (DS)=
Equivalent pile base diameter (DB)=Deformation modulus below base (EB)=
Equivalent Young's modulus of steel (EC)=Friction length coefficient (KE)=Upper pile length carrying no load (LO)=
Pile length transferring load by friction (LF)=
Flexibility factor (MS)=Pile design load (PT)=Ultimate shaft friction load (US)=Ultimate pile base load (UB)=
Total ultimate load =Max plotted predicted ult.load =Maximum settlement =Load%Ult.Load Settlement % Dia.

Assessed settlement at zero load = 1.20 mm
OUTPUT DATA
Load Settlement Shortening Movement

Load / Ultimate Load

Load / Settlement

Settlement / Diameter

Figure 1416

12/03/2007
DRB

Back Analysis
For the purposes of back analysis of the as-built piles, the recorded net push force can be compared tothe pile capacity. To determine the skin friction from ground level to basement level, take the average ofthe uplift force measured for piles W1 to W97 (498kN) and deduct the weight of the pile, chuck and auger(258kN) to give 240kN as the average skin friction down to basement level.
Taking a conservative view of the ultimate load capacities from the test results as summarised in the tablebelow, a graph of push force vs working capacity is plotted, assuming a factor of safety of 2.0 and taking
the skin friction to basement level as discussed above as 240kN (i.e. DVL = 1,075 + 240 = 1,315kN):
Pile No.

Net Toe Resistance (kN)

Ultimate Capacity (kN)Working Capacity (kN)

W28

460

2050

= (2050-240)/2 = 905

W86

990

3100

= (3100-240)/2 = 1430

Table 10 Working capacity, ultimate capacity and net toe resistanceSpecified Working Load (kN)Specified Working Load vs Net Toe Resistance

W86
W28

Net Toe Resistance (kN)

Figure 15 Plot of Specified Working Load vs Net Toe ResistanceConclusion
The tests have indicated an ultimate capacity of 2,050kN for the initial stage of each test. At additional
settlements, higher base capacity is mobilised such that the maximum load of 3,100kN is achieved forpile W86 at a settlement of 96mm, which suggests that the ultimate capacity has increased toapproximately 3,225kN.
At working load (1,075kN), which is increased to the design verification load of 1,489kN to allow for the
potential skin friction above the basement level, the settlements of the first loading are small (4.32mm
and 4.47mm).

17Quality Control Procedure for Pile Installation
Sheet Pile

Casing Auger
W1=77.5kN
Piling Direction
Silent Piler
The part of the machine
which to be lowered/liftedwith the pile to be pressed-in
W2=33.5kN

Pile Toe Level

X

Pile Toe Level

2X

A Pile to be pressed-in
W3

Sheet Piles

Completed Piles
1. Installation of pile A to approx. -X mmfrom the pile level to avoid disturbing
soil below pile toe level

2. Extraction of the auger by approx. 2X mm
to position the bottom of the auger above
the pile toe

PU2 = C+S1+S3+W1+W2+W3
PU2; Pull-up Force (kN)C; Interlock Resistance (kN)S1; Mobile Skin Friction above
excavation level (kN)S3; Mobile Skin Friction below
excavation level (kN)

R1>T+PU2-2*(W1+W2+W3) (kN)
T; Required Toe Resistance (kN)
= F x SWL-S4
F; Factor of Safety
S4; Static Skin Friction below
Underside of Baseslab (kN)
= s4 x A
s4; Unit Skin Friction given by
Static Load testing on U Piles(kN/ m2)
A; Pile Surface Area (m2)

X+200

C+S1+S3=PU2-(W1+W2+W3) (kN)

Pile Toe Level

Pile Toe Level

3. Extraction of the sheet pile and auger by approx.
200mm to measure the extraction force PU2 (kN)

4. Installation of the sheet pile to the pile toe level
to measure the final press-in force R1 (kN)
If R1 ≧ 230kN + PU →OK
If R1 < 230kN + PU →Deeper pile installation is required.

Figure 16 Quality Control Procedure (Sheet Pile)

18

Press-in

Figure 17 e.g. Press-in Force Monitoring Results

Tubular Pile

Casing Auger
W1=113kN
Piling Direction

Tubular Crush Piler SCP260
The part of the machine
which to be lowered/liftedwith the pile to be pressed-in
W2=88kN

Pile Toe Level

Pile Toe Level

Pile Toe Level

X

Pile Toe Level

1. Installation of the pile to approx. –Xmmfrom the pile toe level to minimize
soil disturbance below pile toe level

2X

A Pile to be pressed-in
W3

Completed Piles

2. Extraction of the auger casing by approx. 2x mm
to position the bottom of the auger above the pile toe

19

-19-

PU2 = S1+S3+W1+W2+W3
PU2; Pull-up Force (kN)S1; Mobile Skin Friction above
excavation level (kN)S3; Mobile Skin Friction below
excavation level (kN)

R1>T+PU2-2*(W1+W2+W3)(kN)
T; Required Toe Resistance (kN)
= F x SWL -S4
F; Factor of Safety
S4; Static Skin Friction below
Underside of Baseslab (kN)
= s4 x A
s4; Unit Skin Friction given by
Static Load Testing on U Piles(kN/ m2)
A; Outer Surface of Tube (m2)S1+S3=PU2-(W1+W2+W3) (kN)

Pile Toe Level

Pile Toe Level

Pile Toe Level

Pile Toe Level

3. Extraction of the tubular pile and casing
by approx. 500mm to measure
the extraction force PU2 (kN)

4. Installation of the tubular pile to the pile toe level
to measure the final press-in force R1 (kN)
If R1 ≧ 650 kN + PU2 →OK
If R1 < 650 kN + PU2 →Deeper pile installation is required

Figure 18 Quality Control Procedure (Tubular Pile)

20

Slab Connection
Sheet Pile Wall
℄ SHEET PILE

WATER BAR PLATE WELDED TO
PILES DETAILS AS PER
C106070/204.
19Ø 100 LONG
SHEAR STUDSTYPE 3 (SEE NOTE 6)SCALE 1:20

(UP TO AND INCLUDING 310kN/m NOMINAL AXIAL LOAD ON SHEET PILE)
8No 16Ø 100mm HIGHSHEAR STUDS PER PILE
SSL VARIESELEVATION E-E
SCALE 1:20

ELEVATION F-F
SCALE 1:20

Figure 19 Slab Connection Details (Sheet Pile) – 1

Figure 20 Slab Connection Details （Sheet Pile） - 2

21

Tubular Pile Wall

WATERPROOFING
PLATE WELDEDTO PILESWATER BAR PLATEWELDED TO PILES DETAILSAS PER TGP DETAILDRAWING C106070/204.

19Ø 100 LONG
SHEAR STUDSVARIES 900/1200

WEST TUBE WALL/BASEMENTCONNECTION - TYPE 1(UP TO & INCLUDING 1100 kN/m AXIAL LOAD ON PILE)SCALE 1:25

SLAB CONCRETE
GRADE C40

SSL VARIES

24No 19Ø
100mm HIGHSHEAR STUDSSECTION B-B
SCALE 1:25

SECTION A-A
SCALE 1:25
Figure 21 Slab Connection Details (Tubular Pile) – 1

Figure 22 Slab Connection Details (Tubular Pile) – 2

22

Waterproofing

TYPICAL L-T
CLUTCH DETAIL(MINIMUM)

10mm THICK PLATECUT TO PILE PROFILE

6mm THICK PLATEG275JR 6mm FILLET WELD(MIN)OVERLAP DIM JOINTSDEPENDANT ON
CLUTCH TOLLERENCETUBELAR PILE PUDDLE FLANGE DETAILSCALE 1:10

SEE DETAIL 1

10mm CFW BETWEEN SHEETPILE + PUDDLE FLANGEPUDDLE FLANGE

MIN 50mm PLATE OVERLAP,MIN 6mm CFW ON OVERLAP
JOINT

10mm THICK PLATE CUTTO PILE PROFILESHEET PILE PUDDLE FLANGE DETAILSCALE 1:5
PILE

B2 SLAB(THICKNEZZ VARIES)

10MM FILLETWELD SEAL

10MM FLAT PLATE AND
10MM FILLET WELDS

CLUTCH SEALING DETAIL 1
SCALE 1:5

PUDDLE FLANGE ELEVATION A-A
SCALE 1:5
Figure 23 Waterproofing Details

23

Care has been taken to ensure that the contents of this publication are accurate at the time of printing, but GIKEN LTD. and its subsidiaries do
not accept responsibility for error or for information which is found to be misleading. Suggested applications in this technical publication are for
information purpose only and GIKEN LTD. and its subsidiaries accept no liability in respect of individual work applications.

Construction Solutions Company

GIKEN LTD.

1-3-28 Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 135-0063, Japan
Email: project@giken.com
Offices: Japan, USA, UK, Germany, Singapore, China©2016 GIKEN LTD. All Rights Reserved.

TEL+81(0)3-3528-1633

Ver1.1EN01 / 06 Sep 2016