Design of Piled Foundations

Design of Piled Foundations
Sammy Cheung
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Geotechnical Engineering Office
Civil Engineering and Development Department
30 April 2011
Outline of Presentation
 Vertical Load
 Horizontal Load
 Negative Skin Friction
 Pile Group
 Instrumented Pile Test Results
Objectives
 To understand the empirical nature of pile design

and the role of precedents (load tests and
monitoring)
 To understand the role of rational design approach
and proper geotechnical input
 To appreciate the interaction between pile
construction and pile design
 To appreciate what can go wrong with different
piling techniques
General Perspective
 Ground conditions in Hong Kong are complex and can

pose major challenge to piling design and construction
(e.g. corestone-bearing weathered profiles, karstic
marble, deep and/or steeply inclined rock head)
 Piling design in Hong Kong is always criticized for overly

conservative design.
General Perspective
Simplified Borehole Borehole B Borehole A Borehole Simplified
geology log B log A geology
VI VI
Potential risk of using
an overly simplified
V
geological model
V (e.g. layered-model in
corestone-bearing
IV saprolites)
III
III
II
II
I I
Note : (1) Refer to Geoguide 3 (GCO, 1988) for

classification of rock decomposition grade I to grade VI.
Pile Design in Hong Kong
 Many Hong Kong-specific ‘deemed-to-satisfy’ rules are

promulgated by the Authority
 Rules were derived through experience but are applied

without geological considerations and soil mechanics
principles
 Some rules are not conservative
 Unnecessarily long piles may encounter major problems

during construction (so could end up as being worse off!)
Pile Design in Hong Kong
 Submissions for private and public housing projects

 Building (Construction) Regulations
 Code of Practice for Foundations, 2004
 Practice Notes for AP/RSE/RGE
 Foundation Handbook (in preparation)
 Submission for public projects

 GEO Publication No. 1/2006
 Specifications (Arch SD)
 Engineer’s discretion on adopting standards for
private submission
Foundation Design for Private Projects
 Buildings (Construction)
Regulations
 AP/RSE Notes
 Code of Practice for
Foundations (2004)
 deemed-to-satisfy rules
 more economic design may
be feasible by rational
design methods
Relevant Practice Notes for Foundation Submission
for Private and Public Housing Projects
 Key PNs include:
 PNAP 66 (Acceptance criteria for pile testing)
 PNAP 161 (Scheduled Area for karstic marble)
 PNAP 227 (Structures On Grade on Newly Reclaimed
Land)
 PNAP 242 (Qualified supervision)
 PNAP 282 (Designated Area of Northshore Lantau)
 PNAP 289 (Ground-borne Vibrations Arising from
Pile Driving and Similar Operations)
Foundation Design for Public Projects
 Promote use of rational design

 First edition was published in
1996
 Consolidate good design and
construction practice for pile
foundations, with special
reference to Hong Kong’s
ground conditions
GEO Publication No. 1/96

Foundation Design for Public Projects
 Updated experience
cumulated in recent years
 Piling data obtained from the
instrumented piling load tests
programme for the railway
projects
 Expanded scope to include
shallow foundations and
recent advances
GEO Publication No. 1/2006

Other Useful References
Basic Facts about Piling
 Varying ground conditions involve uncertainty and risk
 Completed works are buried; observations and supervision
during the installation process are important
 All forms of pile construction will affect the ground conditions -
the question is by how much
 Different piling techniques and workmanship will affect the
ground in different ways
 It is the behaviour of the ground after pile installation that
controls pile performance (pile soil interaction)
 In some cases, there may be time-dependent effects that
could influence the development of pile capacity in the long
term
Pile Installation
 Displacement piles
–“hammering steel or concrete into the ground
with sufficient energy to refusal"
 Replacement piles
–“dig a hole and fill with steel and concrete"
Sounds simple, but not so! Pile installation can affect

pile material (damage), the ground (disturbance) and
surrounding facilities
Common pile types in Hong Kong
Pile Types Typical range of Geotechnical load
pile capacity (kN) carrying capacity
Displacement Piles
Driven H-piles 2000 kN to 3500 Shaft friction and
kN end bearing
Driven 1950 kN to 3500
prestressed kN
precast concrete
piles
Jacked steel H- 2950 kN
pile
Jacked steel H-pile – not that common
Common pile types in Hong Kong
Pile Types Typical range of pile Geotechnical load
capacity (kN) carrying capacity
Replacement Piles
Socketed H-piles 3500 kN to 5300 kN Shaft friction on rock
Auger piles 1500 kN Shaft friction on soil
Mini-piles 1400 kN Shaft friction on rock
Mini-bored piles 2000 kN Shaft friction on rock
and end bearing
Barrettes Up to 20,000 kN Shaft friction on soil
and end bearing
Bored piles Up to 80,000 kN (3.8 Shaft friction on
m bell-out) soil/rock and end
bearing
Pile Design
 Need to consider geotechnical capacity and structural
capacity of piles
 Driven piles – piles usually driven to a set based on dynamic

driving formula to match the structural capacity (e.g. 0.3 fy for
steel H piles )
 Bored piles & socketed H-piles – piles are usually designed

as end-bearing and limited shaft friction on rock. If depth of
weathering is significant, the piles behave as ‘friction piles’
instead.
Effects of Pile Construction on Ground
• Displacement piles (driven piles) - akin to ‘cavity

expansion’ problems, with the horizontal stresses
increased and granular soils subject to densification
and compaction
• Bored piles - stress relief effect due to hole formation;

horizontal stresses in the ground reduced and ground is
subject to loosening
Pile Design
Pile Design
DESIGN ISSUES
Ultimate foundation capacity & overall stability

Cyclic loading effects (wind, uplift)
Overall settlements
Differential settlements
Structural design
Effects of external ground movements

Cooperation between Geotechnical Engineer
and Structural Engineer
 Essential for a successful outcome
 A key geotechnical output is the values of pile stiffness

(axial, lateral, rotational) for each pile within the group
 These can be incorporated into the structural analysis to

obtain structural design actions and also to take account
of structural stiffness for settlements and differential
settlements
 The stiffness values MUST take into account pile group

interaction effects
Pile Design
 Deem-to-satisfy rules
 Simplified rules
 Code of Practice for Foundations (2004)
 Rational design method

 Based on soil/rock mechanic principles
 Consider geotechnical capacity and settlement
 May require instrumented pile loading tests to confirm
design assumption
 More economical design can be achieved!
Rational Pile Design Approach
 An alternative to use of default values

 Adequate ground investigation to assist in formulation of
appropriate ground model
 Characterization of ground properties by means of appropriate
insitu and laboratory tests
 Proper geotechnical + engineering geological input
 Design analysis to be based on principles of mechanics,
and/or an established empirical correlations
 Pile testing programme to verify design assumptions
Design of Axially Loaded Pile (Geotechnical Capacity)
 P
Piles found on soil
     
     
Soil type 1
P = Q s + QB
Qs = shaft capacity
Soil type 2
 QB = base capacity

Ultimate Pile Shaft Capacity
Qs = s x As
s = Ultimate shaft friction in each soil stratum
As = Surface area of pile shaft in each soil stratum

Shaft Friction in Granular Soils
Two common design approaches as follows:
Method 1 : Effective stress method
_
s = Ks . v’ . tan  [c’ is usually taken as zero]
The above may be simplified to:
_
s =  . v’ [ method, where  = Ks x tan ]
Method 2 : Correlation with SPT N values

_
s = fs . N [SPT method]
where N is the average uncorrected SPT N values
before pile construction
Suggested Ks Values for Method 1
Pile Type Ks/Ko

Large Displacement Piles 1 to 2
Small Displacement Piles 0.75 to 1.25
Bored Piles 0.7 to 1.0
Ko is the earth pressure coefficient at rest (viz. before pile

construction) and is usually taken as (1 - sin ’) for
weathered rocks.
Pile Shaft Interface Friction Angle, s
Pile/Soil Interface  s/  ’
Steel/sand 0.5 to 0.9
Cast-in-place 1.0
concrete/sand '
Precast concrete/sand 0.8 to 1.0
s is interface friction
’ is effective angle of friction
Note - roughness of pile/ground interface is important, but
difficult to quantify in practice
Typical  Values in saprolites and sands for Method 1 based
on back analysis of local instrumented pile loading tests
Type of Piles Type of Soils Shaft Resistance
Coefficient, 
Driven small Saprolites 0.1 – 0.4
displacement piles Loose to medium dense sand 0.1 – 0.5
Driven large Saprolites 0.8 – 1.2
displacement piles Loose to medium dense sand 0.2 – 1.5
Bored piles & Saprolites 0.1 – 0.6
barrettes Loose to medium dense sand 0.2 – 0.6
Shaft grouted bored Saprolites 0.2 – 1.2
piles/barrettes
Noted: Only limited data for loose to medium dense sand
Design Parameters for Friction Piles
- Method 2 (SPT correlation)
s = fs . N
For bored piles/barrettes in granitic saprolites :

fs typically ranges from 0.8 to 1.4 [often taken to be 1.0
for preliminary design]
Pile types Ultimate Shaft Friction

Driven small 1.5 – 2.0 x SPT, max 160 kPa
displacement piles
Driven large 4.5 x SPT, max 250 kPa
displacement piles
Friction parameters previously accepted by BD :
Pile types Shaft Ultimate Shaft Friction Ultimate End
grouting? Bearing
Barrettes YES - No Data - - No Data -
formed using
grab NO 1.2 x SPT, max 200kPa 10 x SPT,
max 2000kPa
Barrettes YES 2.5x SPT, max 200kPa
formed using
cutter NO 0.8 x SPT, max 200kPa
Bored piles YES 2.1 x SPT, max 200kPa
NO 0.8 x SPT, max 200kPa

 The design method involving correlations with SPT results
is empirical in nature
 Level of confidence is not high particularly where the

scatter in SPT N values is large.
 Where possible, include a loading test on preliminary pile

to confirm the design assumption.
Factor Affecting Shaft Friction
v

r
  
  
   r
  

θ
Changes of radial effective stress

affects the skin friction
 Displacement piles – increases in
radial stress
Pile Shaft  Replacement piles – decrease in
radial stress
Factor Affecting Shaft Friction
 = (ho + h ) tan  = (hf) tan 
ho is the locked-in effective horizontal stress after pile

construction
h is the change of horizontal stress after pile construction
hf is the effective horizontal stress at failure and will be
affected by:
 interface dilation/compression under constant stiffness
condition during pile loading which can increase (due to

dilation of a dense soil), or reduce (due to compression
of a loose soil)
Factors Affecting Shaft Friction of Bored Piles
 Reduction in confining stress in bored piles

– Stress relief
– Arching effect
– Loosening of soil due to poor construction control
 Reduction in friction angle

– Presence of weak materials at pile/soil interface (e.g.
bentonite filter cake)
– Loosened/disturbed soil
Key Non-Geotechnical Factors Affecting
Behaviour of Bored Piles
 Rate of concrete pour
 Fluidity of concrete
 Time of pile bore being left open prior to

concreting (- generally better to minimize the
‘wait time’ to avoid excessive relaxation)
Distribution of Wet Concrete Pressure
0
Rise = 8 m/hr Rise = 12 m/hr
5
10
15 2 hr
Depth (m)
20
2 hr
25
30 4 hr
4 hr
35
40 Set = 6 hr
Set = 6 hr
45
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Concrete Pressure (kPa) Concrete Pressure (kPa)
Note: Faster concreting process will help to achieve higher wet concrete
pressure, which would help to achieve higher locked-in horizontal
stresses in the ground
Swelling Effect due to Stress Relaxation
constant
2.4 * Important to ensure sufficient 1 ’

excess slurry head within pile
bore 3 ’

Radial strain (%)
decreasing
1.6
anisotropic
Swelling of granitic saprolite

0.8 due to stress
relaxation
0.0
0 40 80 120 160 200
Horizontal Effective Stress (kPa)
Good Practice for Enhancing Shaft Friction in Bored Piles
 Sink casing in advance of excavation

– to prevent loosening of soil/stress relief
 Maintain a high hydraulic head inside temporary casing
 Adopt a longer setting time for concrete

– Wet concrete will exert an outward fluid pressure
against the drill shaft (minimize stress relief)
– Horizontal stress h that can be restored after
excavation may be controlled by concrete pressure
Good Practice for Enhancing Shaft Friction in Bored Piles
 Avoid delay in construction to minimize potential of

stress relief
– minimize delay in concreting after excavation
– avoid unnecessarily over-cleansing of pile base
(delay concreting)
 Shaft grouting
– grout pressure increase horizontal stress
– improve strength of interface material hence shaft
friction
Ultimate End-bearing Capacity
QB= qb x Ab
qb = Ultimate end bearing pressure
Ab = Bearing area of pile base

Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Piles in Granular Soils
(a) Classical bearing capacity theory
qb = Nq · v
(b) Empirical correlation with SPT
qb = fb · Nb
(c) Presumptive bearing pressure
qb = presumptive bearing pressure

Relationship between Nq and '
(Poulos & Davis, 1980)
1000
For driven piles,
’ + 40
' = 1
Bearing Capacity Factor, Nq
100 For bored piles, '

= '1 – 3
where '1 is the
angle of shearing
resistance prior to
10 installation.
25 30 35 40 45
Angle of Shearing Resistance, ' (°)
Based on SPT N
0.6
Ultimate End Bearing Capacity
Pile Length Coarse sand

≥ 15
Base diameter
SPT Nb Value
0.4
Fine sand
Normally consolidated silt
0.2
Coarse sand
Fine sand
0.0
0 5 10 15 20
Depth in bearing stratum

Driven piles
Base diameter
Bored piles
Based on SPT N
1.0
Loose sand
0.75
Reduction Factor, fr
0.5 Medium dense sand
0.25 Dense sand
0.0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Base Diameter (m)

Local Instrumented Test Data for Bored Piles
 =0.6  =0.5  =0.4
250
C3
Maximum Mobilised Average Shaft
 = 0.3
200
Resistance, max (kPa)
B2 P14
150  = 0.2
P1 B3 P21‐2
B11
B7T
B10
B4
100 P23
B7C
B9
P20
P19
P9 P7 B5
P15
P2  = 0.1
P22 P4 P6
B6C C2 B1
50 P13
B8C P21‐1
P11 P18
C1 P5
P17 B8T
P10 P8 P12
B6T
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Mean Vertical Effective Stress, 'v (kPa)
Figure A1 of GEO Publication 1/2006

Local Instrumented Test Data for Bored Piles
/N = 2.5 /N = 1.5
250
C3
/N =
1.0
Maximum Mobilised Average Shaft
200
Resistance,max (kPa)
P14 B11
B2
150
P21-2 B3
P1
B7T B10 /N =
B4 B7C
100 0.5
B5 P7
P20 P19
P23 B9 P9 P2
P15
P22 P6
C2 B1
P16 B6C
50 P4
B8C P21-1 P5
P11 P13
B8T P18
P17
C1 P12
P8 P10
B6T
0
0 50 100 150 200
Mean SPT N Value
Figure A2 of GEO Publication 1/2006

Some Observations
 Significant scatter in the pile performance based on local
instrumented pile tests. Large variability recorded in the same
site.
 Some unexpectedly low results have been measured for bored

piles under bentonite. Thus, load tests are important to
confirm design parameters and workmanship for friction bored
piles).
 β values from load tests tend to be towards the lower bound of

that expected for bored piles in granular materials (possibly
due to low horizontal stresses in weathered rocks, i.e. low Ko
value)
Some Observations
 The  method and the SPT method for pile design are not
necessarily consistent in that they may give different predictions
 As a pragmatic approach, it is probably best to use both
methods to assist in decision-making regarding pile design
capacity
 It is important to make reference to the results of previous
instrumented pile load tests in similar ground conditions for the
respective pile construction methods [role of precedents +
design by load tests]
Load Transfer Mechanism and Mobilization
of Load-Settlement Curve
Ultimate Qs typically develops in a stiff manner, at a pile
settlement of only about 0.5% to 1% pile diameter
Total
Pile Load
Shaft
Base
Pile settlement
Ultimate QB typically develops at a pile settlement of @ 10%
(clay) to 20% (sand) pile diameter
Mobilization Factors for Deriving Allowable Bearing Capacity
Qb Qs
Allowable Load Carrying Capacity, Qa = +
fb fs
Mobilisation Factor for Mobilisation Factor for
Material
Shaft Resistance, fs End-bearing Resistance, fb
Granular Soils 1.5 3–5
 Mobilisation factors for end-bearing resistance depend very much on

construction. Recommended minimum factors assume:
 good workmanship no 'soft' toe
 based on available local instrumented loading tests on friction
piles in granitic saprolites.

 Lower mobilisation factors when the ratio
shaft resistance is high

end-bearing resistance
Overall Global Factor of Safety
Minimum Global Factor of Safety

Method of Determining against Shear Failure of the Ground
Pile Capacity
Compression Tension Lateral
Theoretical or semi- 3.0 3.0 3.0
empirical methods not
verified by loading tests on
preliminary piles
Theoretical or semi- 2.0 2.0 2.0
empirical methods verified
by a sufficient number of
loading tests on preliminary
piles
Presumed Allowable Bearing Pressure
 Code of Practice for Foundations by Buildings Department

(2004)
Presumed
Category Description of Rock
Pressure (kPa)
Rock (granitic and volcanic) :
2 Highly decomposed, moderately weak to weak 1,000
rock of material weathering grade IV or V or
better, with SPT N value of  200
Presumed
Pressure (kPa)
Rock (granitic and volcanic) :
1(a) Fresh strong to very strong rock of material 10,000
weathering grade I, with 100% total core
recovery and no weathered joints, and minimum
uniaxial compressive strength of rock material
(σc) not less than 75 MPa (equivalent point load
index strength PLI50 not less than 3 MPa).
1(b) Fresh to slightly decomposed strong rock of 7,500
material weathering grade II or better, with a
total core recovery of more than 95% of the
grade and minimum uniaxial compressive
strength of rock material (σc) not less than 50
MPa (equivalent point load index strength PLI50
not less than 2 MPa).
Presumed
Pressure (kPa)
1(c) Slightly to moderately decomposed moderately 5,000
strong rock of material weathering grade III or
better, with a total core recovery of more than
85% of the grade and minimum uniaxial
compressive strength of rock material (σc) not
less than 25 MPa (equivalent point load index
strength PLI50 not less than 1 MPa).
1(d) Moderately decomposed, moderately strong to 3,000
moderately weak rock of material weathering
grade better than IV, with a total core recovery
of more than 50% of the grade.
 Based on simple material classification

 Intended for foundations on horizontal ground with negligible
lateral loads & structures not unduly sensitive to settlement
(i.e. routine problems)
 Minimum socket length = 0.5 m for categories 1(a) & 1(b),
and = 0.3 m for categories 1(c) & 1(d)
 Total core recovery = % ratio of rock recovered (whether solid
intact with no full diameter, or non-intact) to 1.5 m length of
core run + should be proved to at least 5 m into the specified
rock category
 Self weight of pile - no need to further consider in calculation
of bearing stresses
 Use of Total Core Recovery (TCR) as sole means of determining

founding level + presumptive bearing value in rock is
experience-based and tends to be conservative
 TCR can be affected by effectiveness of drilling technique in

retrieving the rock cores
 What are the requirements of the 15% of material?
 No account taken directly of discontinuity spacing, aperture,

persistence and infill, strength properties etc.
 Can we find Grade I rock with no weather joints?
 Category 1(d) rock should be “grade IV” material instead of
“better than grade IV”
Comparison of Allowable Bearing Pressure with Results
obtained from Local Instrumented Pile Loading Tests
30
P10-2O (13.6)
settlement at P7-2O
P15O (12.6)
Proven bearing pressure (MPa)
25 pile base (mm) (7.5)

P14 (3)
P11-2O (2)
P13-2O P2C (11.3)
20 P11-1 (?)
(15.5)
15 P9-3O (86)
P9-1 (64) Category 1(a) Code of Practice for Foundations

10 P1C
(1.2) Category 1(b)
(2.5)
P3C
5 Category 1(c) pile load predominately taken by shaft
resistance
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
P9 founded on granodiorite. Uniaxial compressive strength

UCS of rock ~ 15 MPa of intact rock (MPa)
Rock Sockets
Calculation of Rock Socket Length
• General equation :
R = Acontact  fs  L
• Check which scenario is more critical : (a) failure between

rock and cement grout and (b) failure between steel and
cement grout. Take the longer of the calculated socket
length.
Design of Rock Sockets
 Rock socket friction depends on:

– wall roughness
– tendency for pile dilation during displacement upon
loading under constant normal stiffness condition
(dilatancy component may possibly reduce if load
beyond the peak shear stress, depending on nature of
material)
– strength and stiffness of concrete relative to that of
the rock
Recommendations in Code of Practice for Foundations (2004)
 For piles socketed in rock of categories 1(a) to 1(d), the total

capacity may be taken as the sum of the bond resistance of
the socket length corresponding to not more than 2 x pile
diameters or 6 m (whichever is shorter) plus the presumptive
bearing value
 Not evident from results of instrumented pile loading tests
 The minimum socket depths stipulated in the presumed
bearing pressures should be ignored in bond calculation.
Presumptive Design Parameters
in BD’s Code of Practice for Foundations
Category Rock Mass Minimum Allowable Shaft

Weathering Embedment (m) Friction (kPa)
1a Grade I or better 0.5 700
1b Grade II or better 0.5 700
1c Grade III or better 0.3 700
1d Grade IV or better 0.3 300
Note: Use of rock socket bond in conjunction with the end bearing
component is more rational than assuming end bearing only and
will help avoiding the need to use bell-outs in some cases (also,
presence of soil seams below pile base will be less of a problem)
Most of the results were not fully mobilized
10000
P10-2O
P7-2O
P10-1 P1T
P7-1
Mobilized Shaft Resistance in
P1C
P16 P8
P3C
P3T
Rock,  (kPa)
P2T
1000 P9-1
C1
s = 0.2 c 0.5
100
1 10 100 1000
Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Rock, q (Mpa)

Note : Load transfer in a rock socket is a function of the slenderness
ratio of the rock socket & the relative pile/rock stiffness
 Load-carrying capacity of bored piles socketed in rock (based
on available data):
 pile shaft resistance and end-bearing resistance can be
added together
 settlement of pile base < 1% of pile diameter at working
loads
 socketed length / pile diameter ratio < 3 (GEO Publication
No. 1/2006)
 otherwise, pile loading tests need to be carried out to
confirm the design
Design of Driven Piles
Design of Driven Piles
(Hong Kong practice)
 Design is rarely based on soil mechanic principles
 Load carrying capacity of pile is based on structural capacity.
 Drive to set as calculated from dynamic pile driving formula
 Estimates of required pile depth is usually based on rules of

thumb (e.g. by relating to SPT N values - typically drive to a
depth with N value of 100 for large displacement concrete
piles, or a depth with N value of 180 to 200 for H-piles)
Design of Steel H-piles
 For Grade 55C steel H piles, allowable load is taken as 30%

yield stress (fy, which is a function of the steel grade and
thickness) x As [e.g. fy for 305x305x223 pile = 430 MPa]
 Pile driving formula (Hiley) used and final set criteria (typically,
25mm/10 blows to 50 mm/10 blows if not in rock)
 Dynamic load tests + static load tests are used
Hiley Pile Driving Formula -
(commonly used in Hong Kong)
Based on energy consideration
W H
R= 1 X 
S + 2 (C1 + C2 + C3)
(W + e2p)
where  = = efficiency of hammer
(W + P)
blow
Hiley Pile Driving Formula -
(commonly used in Hong Kong)
E’ = W H = effective energy impacted to pile (allowing for

hammer efficiency, )
S = permanent set (i.e. pile penetration for the last blow)
c1 = temporary compression of pile head (elastic)
c2 + c3 = temporary compression of pile and ground (elastic)
W = weight of hammer
P = weight of pile
e = coefficient of restitution between hammer and pile cushion
H = drop distance of hammer
Typical Final Set Table (mm) per 10 Blows
Temporary Compression, Cp + Cq (mm)

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Pile Length
FINAL SET (mm) PER 10 BLOWS
15 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 46 41 36 31 26 -- -- -- --
16 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 48 43 38 33 28 -- -- -- -- --
17 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 50 45 40 35 30 -- -- -- -- -- --
18 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 47 42 37 32 27 -- -- -- -- -- --
19 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 49 44 39 34 29 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
20 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 46 41 36 31 26 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
21 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 49 44 39 34 29 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
22 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 46 41 36 31 26 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
23 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 48 43 38 33 28 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
24 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 46 41 36 31 26 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
25 -- -- -- -- -- -- 48 43 38 33 28 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
26 -- -- -- -- -- -- 46 41 36 31 26 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
27 -- -- -- -- -- 49 44 39 34 29 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
28 -- -- -- -- -- 47 42 37 32 27 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
29 -- -- -- -- 49 44 39 34 29 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
30 -- -- -- -- 47 42 37 32 27 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
31 -- -- -- -- 45 40 35 30 25 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
32 -- -- -- 48 43 38 33 28 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
33 -- -- -- 46 41 36 31 26 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
34 -- -- 49 44 39 34 29 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
35 -- -- 47 42 37 32 27 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Latest BD practice : Allow 100 mm per 10 blows but set 50 mm instead

Sample Final Set Calculation by Hiley Formula
TYPE OF PILE 305 x 305 x 180kg/m Grade 55C
ULTIMATE PILE LOAD Ru 5916 kN (2 x Design Working Load)
HAMMER MODEL Drop Hammer (8 ton)
WEIGHT OF RAM, W 80 kN
COEFFICIENT OF RESTITUTION, r 0.32
TEMPORARY HELMET COMPRESSION, Cc 2.5 mm
WEIGHT OF PILE HELMET, Wd 3 kN
HEIGHT OF DROP, H 2.8 m
ENERGY EFFICIENCY,  0.8
ENERGY OUTPUT PER BLOW, E 224 kN-m
EFFECTIVE ENERGY, E' = E x  179 kN-m
Pile Length, L (m) = 25 m

Effective Pile Weight, P = Wp + Wd = 25 x 1.8 + 3 = 48.0 kN
For Cp + Cq = 30 mm
C = Cc + (Cp + Cq) = 33 mm
S = 3.8 mm / Blow
S = 38 mm / 10 Blows
Problems with Hiley Formula
 Basic assumptions on rigid body collision and conservation

of energy is considered problematic.
Cq S
Cq
S
Force
Assume elasto-plastic soil and

no damping effect considered
Displacement
Problems with Hiley Formula
 Rates effects and set-up effects not accounted for (assumed
static capacity = dynamic capacity)
 Hammers do not always operate at their rated efficiency and

can be highly variable
 Energy absorption property of cushions can vary with time

and based on assumed values. For long pile, only a portion
of the pile length is mobilized by the hammer blow.
 Use of hydraulic hammers is not accepted by the Building

Authority. Drop hammer is used to take final set.
Pile Hammers
 Previous extensive use of diesel hammers was effectively
banned since 1997
 Drop hammers (typical efficiency assumed in private sector =
0.7 to 0.8) - normally site measurements (by PDA) required if
proposed energy coefficient is > 0.8
 Hydraulic hammers (not accepted by BD for final set); typical
efficiency = 0.9 or higher
 HKCA studies on hydraulic hammers in 1995 and 2004
respectively
 In Hong Kong, it is common to use hydraulic hammers for pile
driving (higher productivity), but a drop hammer is used for
final setting
Recent Work on Design of Driven Piles
 Proposed improvement to Hiley Formula :

− Energy approach (HKCA, 2004) using Pile Driving
Analyzer to measure the driving energy

 CAPWAP analysis (ArchSD, 2003) to find parameters for
matching the pile capacity as determined by Hiley Formula
(combination of  and e as ‘correction factors’)
Recent Work on Design of Driven Piles
Proposed Pile Driving Formula for Hydraulic Hammers by
HKCA (2004)
EMX
R =
[s + ½ (cp + cq)]
where EMX is the actual energy transfer to pile head
 Pile driving system not taken as part of pile-soil system,
therefore Cc is not considered and subsumed in EMX, which is
determined by CAPWAP
 Final set table to be prepared based on average EMX (done
during trial piling & use simple statistical methods to
determine average EMX
 cp = elastic compression of pile & cq = quake (elastic
compression of ground)
Driven Piles Founded on Rock
 A suitable pile point (stiffener) may be used at the pile toe to

prevent sliding on an inclined rock surface
 Typical hard driving criterion for final set, e.g.
− <10 mm per 10 blows with 16-tonne drop hammer
− But is hard driving doing more harm than good?

Driven Piles Founded on Rock
 Grade 55C steel sections with yield stress, fy, of 425 MPa,
allowable stress = 0.3 fy (129 MPa)
 Very high stresses on rock - why okay?
 Rocks upon which driven piles are founded will be are subject to
high confining pressure and hence can develop very high
bearing capacity (also possible soil plug formation and local
yielding leading to a larger base area) - see paper by Li & Lam
(2001) - Proc. 5th International Conf. on Deep Foundation
Practice, Singapore
Design of Prebored Piles
Pre-bored Steel H-piles
 Prebore (using temporary casing as necessary), place H-

section into bore and grout up [acts as a friction pile]
 Compression loading - maximum allowable axial working

stress (or combined axial and flexural stress) < 0.5 fy
Pre-bored Steel H-piles
 Rock/grout bond limited 700 kPa in compression (or 350
kPa for permanent tension) for Category 1(c) or better rock
in Code of Practice for Foundations
 Under Compression : allowable grout/steel bond <600
kPa (x reduction factor of 0.8 when grouting under water).
Under Tension : same assumptions if nominal shear studs
are provided
 Use shear studs to ensure proper bonding at grout/steel
interface
 If rock socket is subject to lateral load, need to check for
additional stresses
Design of Mini-piles
 Assessment of structural capacity (BD allows consideration of

steel bars only. Overseas practice generally allow to account
for load taken by grout also)
 Mini-piles socketed in rock (Grade III or better with TCR of min.
85%) – presumed allowable rock/grout bond strength up to
700 kPa for compression (re. CoP for Foundations)
 Loading test results gave higher bond between rock/grout
 May need to check buckling capacity for slender piles with

substantial length embedded in soft/weak ground
 Working load controlled by permissible structural stresses
(typical maximum load capacity @1300 kN)
 Raking mini-piles are usually used to resist lateral load
Negative Skin Friction
Negative Skin Friction (Downdrag)
 Caused by ground settlement relative to the pile

 Need to understand site history and consolidation parameters
to assess potential for NSF
 NSF may arise due to surcharge or recent filling inducing
consolidation settlement, reduction of water pressure due to
dewatering and increase in effective stress, dissipation of
excess pore water pressure (and hence settlement) in soft clay
induced by pile driving
P Pile
shortening

     
     
Soil type 1 Negative skin friction
(Soil drags down pile) Neutral
plane
No relative
Soil type 2 Positive skin friction movement
(Pile settles relative
to the ground)
Ground
settlement
 QB = base capacity
Estimation of Negative Skin Friction

NSF =  Ks V’ tan  D L
NSF =  V’ D L
Soil Type 
Soft Clay 0.20 - 0.25
Silt 0.25 - 0.35
Sand 0.35 - 0.50

Design Checks for Negative Skin Friction
(BD’s CoP on Foundations)
(a) Ground bearing capacity check (exclude NSF) :
Pc  D + L (where Pc is the allowable ground bearing
capacity & D and L are the dead load and live load)
(b) Pile structural integrity check :
Ps  D + L + NSF (where Ps is the structural strength of
the pile)
(c) Settlement check :
Settlement under (D + L + NSF) should be satisfactory
Group Effect for Negative Skin Friction
More efforts are required to drag the

entire pile group including the pile
cap. The pile-pile cap-soil interaction
helps to reduce negative skin friction
on a pile group.
  


The magnitude of free field soil

movement for pile group is
reduced especially for inner
piles.
Group Effect for Negative Skin Friction
 Group interaction effects are beneficial as negative skin

friction on individual piles will be reduced (up to 30%
reported).
 Distribution of negative friction among piles is not the

same (centre piles has the least negative skin friction due
to shielding and the most severe interaction among piles in
the group).
 There are a variety of recommended methods for the

design of pile groups against negative skin friction!
Means to Reduce NSF
 Driven piles - bitumen coating or asphalt coating, plastic

sheet, “Yellow Jacket”, etc. (Note - need to carefully review
effectiveness and potential for damage to such protective
layers during pile driving into competent ground)
 Permanent casing for bored piles
 Sacrificial protection piles around the structure foundation
 Ground improvement techniques to strengthen/stiffen the

soft soils
Design of Lateral Load
Design of Lateral Loads
The lateral load capacity of a pile may be limited in three

ways :
Shear capacity of the soil,
Structural (i.e. bending moment and shear) capacity of
the pile section, and

Excessive deformation of the pile.
Design methods by Broms (1980) and Reese & Matlock

(1960)
Computer programs for pile groups, e.g. PIGLET, ALP, etc.
Ultimate lateral soil resistance for piles in granular soils
(Broms )
Hu Hu Mmax
e1  
L L
PL
3Ds'LKp Mmax 3Ds'LKp
Free-head Soil Bending Fixed-head Soil Bending

Deflection Reaction Moment Deflection Reaction Moment
200 For free-head short piles in granular soils

e1/L = 0
0.2
160 Fixed-head 0.5 D L3 Kp s’
0.4 Hu =
0.6 e1+L
120 Free-head 0.8
1.0
80 1.5 For fixed-head short piles in granular
2.0
3.0 Hu = 1.5 D L2 Kp s‘
40
0
0 5 10 15 20
Pile Embedment Ratio, L/D

(Broms )
H H Mmax Mmax
e1  
f*
f*
Mu
3s'f*Kp
Free-head Soil Bending Fixed-head Soil Bending

Deflection Reaction Moment Deflection Reaction Moment
(b) Long Vertical Pile under

Horizontal Load
(Broms )
1000
Free-head long piles in granular soils

Mmax = H (e1 + 0.67f*)
100
H
f* = 0.82 √ D  ’ K
D3 s’ Kp
Hu
s p
Fixed-head
10
Fixed-head long piles in granular soils
Mmax = H (e1 + 0.67f*)
Free-head
1
e1/D =0 1 2 4 8 16 32
Mmax = 0.5 H (e1 + 0.67f*)
Mu
D4 s’ Kp
(Broms )
(1) For constant soil modulus with depth (e.g. stiff
overconsolidated clay), pile stiffness factor R = (in units of
length) where EpIp is the bending stiffness of the pile, D is
the width of the pile, kh is the coefficient of horizontal
subgrade reaction.
(2) For soil modulus increases linearly with depth (e.g.
normally consolidated clay & granular soils), pile stiffness
factor,
5 Ep Ip
T=√ nh
where nh is the constant of horizontal subgrade reaction
Design of Lateral Load - Pile Stiffness
Pile Type Soil Modulus

Linearly Constant
increasing
Short (rigid) L ≤ 2T L ≤ 2R
piles
Long (flexible) L ≥ 4T L ≥ 3.5R
piles
Design of Lateral Load - Horizontal Subgrade Reaction
Loose Medium Dense Dense

Consistency
(N = 4-10) (N =11-30) (N =31-50)
nh for dry or moist
sand 2.2 6.6 17.6
(MN/m3)
nh for submerged
sand 1.3 4.4 10.7
(MN/m3)
Lateral Soil Resistance for Piles in Granular Soils
(Reese & Matlock )
0 0
1 1
=2
=2
 
2 2

z z
3 3 3 3
L L
M H
4 M = F 4 4 H = F
4, 5 & 10 5 & 10
-1 0 1 2 3 -1 0 1 2 3
Deflection Coefficient, Fd for Applied Moment M Deflection Coefficient, Fd for Applied Lateral Load, H
0
0
1
=2 1
=2
2

2
3 
3
z
3 
z
L 3
4 L
MM
4 MH
4
5 4
10 MM = FM (M)
5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 10 MH = FM (HT)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Moment Coefficient, FM for Applied Moment M Moment Coefficient, FM for Applied Lateral Load, H
Lateral soil resistance for piles in granular soils
(Reese & Matlock )
0 0
=2 =2
1 1
2 2
M H
z

3 z
3 L
3 3
L
VM 4
4 VH
4 4
VM = Fv () 10 5
10 5 VH = Fv (H)
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8
Shear Coefficient, Fv for Shear Coefficient, Fv for Applied

Applied Moment M Lateral Load, H
Pile Group
Design of Pile Group
Pile Group Efficiency Factor
Ultimate capacity of a pile group
=
Sum of ultimate capacity of individual piles
For piles founded on soil:

Group factor for pile capacity ≥ 0.85
Higher group factor can be used with justification by soil
mechanic principles
Need to consider separately the pile group settlement
For piles founded on rock or driven to refusal:

 No group factor is required
    
    
    
Shaft resistance
W'
Surface of assumed
 failure block



  
End-bearing resistance
Block Failure
Shaft efficiency
3.0
2.5
9-pile group 4-pile group
Group Efficiency Factor
2.0
4-pile group
1.5 9-pile group Total efficiency
with pile cap
4-pile group Total efficiency
1.0 Base efficiency
(average of tests)
0.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Model Tests on Groups of
Pile Spacing/Pile Instrumented Driven Piles
Diameter in Granular Soils
Z
Y Rigid
P cap
MX X
yi
xi Pile
My
P My*xi Mx*yi
Pai = n + I + I
p x y
Based on rigid cap assumption
 Rotation of principle axes
MyIxy MxIxy
Mx - I My - I where pile arrangement is
x y
Mx* = Ixy2 and My* = Ixy2
1-II
xy
1-II
xy
not symmetrical
Some desirable features for undertaking analysis by commercial
software
 Pile groups subjected to vertical load and moments in
both horizontal directions
 Realistic soil profiles
 Non-linear soil-pile behaviour
 Different pile types within group
 Raft/cap flexibility incorporated
 Structure stiffness incorporated
ANALYSIS
Some Programs (commercially available)
DEFPIG – pile groups SAFE Analysis

PIGLET – pile groups
REPUTE – pile groups
PLAXIS (2D & 3D)
ABAQUS
FLAC (2D & 3D)
 2D analyses tend to:

 over-estimate settlements
 under-estimate differential settlements & raft moments
 over-estimate proportion of load carried by piles
Flexible Cap Analysis
 SAFE – Structural Analysis program

─ Pile stiffness based on EA/L
─ Length based on tentative founding level
─ Need for performance review?
─ Effect of structural walls/columns ignored?
─ Interaction between piles ignored? Could be
detrimental for long piles
Foundation Design in Marble Bearing Area
Scheduled Area No. 2 in the Scheduled Area No. 4 in Ma On Shan

Northwest New Territories reclamation area
Designated Area in Northshore Lantau
Carbonate Rocks in Northwest New Territories
Member /
Formation Material Description Age Dissolution
Thickness
Interbeds of volcanic rocks including
tuff-breecia, tuff & tuffite with clasts
Jurassic
Tuen Mun
Upper
Tin Shui Wai of white marble, quartzite, Limited
Formation metasiltstone etc,
clasts < 3 m
Ma Tin
Massively bedded, white crystalline Main
Carboniferous
Yuen Long > 200 m marble, locally dolomitic and siliceous dissolution
Formation
Long Ping Grey to dark grey, finely crystalline
marble intercalated and interbedded Limited
> 300 m
with meta-sediment
Carbonate Rocks in Ma On Shan
Member /
Formation Material Description Age Dissolution
Thickness
Carboniferous
Grey to off-white, dolomite to calcite
Ma On Shan
> 200 m marble with thin interbeds of dark grey Vary
Formation to black meta-siltstone
Pure Marble in Ma Tin Member
White, pure, crystalline marble

Impure Marble in Long Ping Member
Grey to dark grey, fine-grained dolomitic

marble
Marble-clast bearing rock
Marble clast
Foundation Design
 Foundation system
 suitability of foundation types

 bored piles, driven steel H piles
 friction piles for lightly loaded building
 founding levels of deep foundation

 sound marble (Class I or II)
 redundancy for driven piles
 increase of stresses at marble surface

Ground Ground
Foundation design
investigation modelling
Monitoring of Review of Foundation

building construction construction
Geotechnical Contents in Design Submission
 Interpretation of ground conditions

 geological model
 karst geomorphology (GEO Report Nos. 28, 29, 32)
 Foundation system
 founding levels of deep foundation
 increase of stresses at marble surface
 Supplementary explanation on foundations on marble-

bearing rock (TGN 26)
Construction
 driven piles
 pile driving record
 bored piles
 pre-drilling investigation
 Conclusion of construction
 performance review
 post-construction tests, e.g. CAPWAP, PDA, pile
loading tests
 PDA useful to identify broken piles and 12% ~ 28
% of piles were tested in some projects

Monitoring
 Building settlement monitoring

 building taller than 20 story high
 foundations on marble
 measurements undertaken by CEDD after building
occupied
Computation of Rock Quality Designation
Core at least one Core at least one Core at least one

full diameter full diameter full diameter
RQD1 RQD2 RQD3
Length > 100 Length > 100 mm Length > 100 mm

mm
L1 (mPD)
Computation of Marble
Length >
100 mm
Quality Designation
 1
RQD1
L1
 RQDi x  i
Length > 100

L2

RQD2
mm
Average RQD = 2
L2 – L1
Cavities or infill
L1
Marble Rock  i
Cover Recovery =
L2

Length > 100

L2(mPD) 3 RQD3
L2 – L1
mm
MR
Marble Mass Classes
Marble MQD Range
Marble Class Features
Class (%)
Rock with widely spaced fractures and unaffected by

I Very good 75 < MQD dissolution
II Good 50 < MQD ≤ 75 Rock slightly affected by dissolution, or slightly

fractured but essentially unaffected by dissolution
Fractured rock or rock moderately affected by

III Fair 25 < MQD ≤ 50 dissolution
IV Poor 10 < MQD ≤ 25 Very fractured rock or rock seriously affected by

dissolution
Rock similar to Class IV marble except that cavities can

V Very Poor MQD ≤ 10 be very large and continuous
Driven piles with preboring
Displayed depth: -10 mPD ~ -15 mPD
Example of Usage of Karst

No. of selected borehole: 6
Driven piles
Geomorphology on Piling Boreholes
Design Marble with overhang
833890
Contour of good marble
rock for foundation
Section 1-1
Section 2-2
Section 3-3
Section 4-4
Section 5-5
833840
Area with
insufficient
boreholes to identify
the karstic features
833790
821690 821740 821790 821840
Pile Testing
Static Pile Load Tests
 Preliminary or Trial Piles (to check design and workmanship)

vs. compliance tests on Working Piles
 Specifications - define load-unload cycles, criteria for
stabilisation and acceptance criteria (controversial!)
 Automation of static load tests [see Chan et al (2004), Proc.
Conf. On Foundation Practice in Hong Kong, Centre for
Research & Professional Development]
Compression Load Test Using Kentledge
Kentledge
block
Universal beam
Stiffeners Girder
Load cell Steel cleat
Dial
gauge
Concrete
block
Reference
beam Hydraulic jack
Test pile
1.3 m minimum or
Pile
3D whichever is
diameter, D
greater
Typical Set-up for a Compression Load Test
Using Tension Piles
Girders (2 nos.)
Locking nut
Steel plate
Stiffeners Tension
Load cell members
Dial gauge
Reference
Hydraulic jack
beam
Test pile
Minimum spacing
Pile Reaction piles
2m or 3 D whichever is diameter, D
greater
Typical Set-up for Uplift (Tension) Load Test
Locking nut
Steel plates
Reaction beam
Steel plate
Hydraulic jack
Tension connection
Steel bearing plates
Clearance for pile

Stiffeners Reaction pile or
movement
on crib pads
Dial gauge
Reference beam
Minimum spacing
Pile diameter, D
2m or 3 D whichever is
greater
Typical Set-up for Horizontal Load Test
Reference beam Steel strut
Hydraulic jack
Pile cap Pile cap

Dial gauge
Clear spacing
Test plates and avoid
connection
between
Test piles blinding layer
(a) Reaction Piles

Steel strut
Reference beam
Hydraulic
jack
Pile cap Dial gauge
Deadman Clear spacing

Test plate
Test pile
(b) Deadman
Typical Set-up for Horizontal Load Test
Weights
Hydraulic jack Reference beam
Pile cap
Dial gauge
Platform
Test plate Clear spacing
Test pile
(c) Weighted Platform

Osterberg load cell
bored
pile  Enable higher test load
 Test load ~ 30 MN
 Shaft resistance in uplift
  
 
  
  
direction
rock
mass
O-cell
Osterberg Cell at pile
toe (cast in and jack up
the pile column from
below after concreting)
135
Specifications for Pile Load Test
 Maintained Load Test
─ General Specification for Civil Engineering Works (Hong

Kong Government)
─ BD’s Code of Practice for Foundations
─ Architectural Services Department
─ Criteria similar to CoP for Foundations, but the rate
of recovery of settlement and magnitude of

allowable residual settlement after removal of test
load
─ Housing Department (now follows CoP for Foundations)
─ No unified standard as yet in Hong Kong
Pile Loading Test Acceptance Criteria
(for small diameter piles)
Allowable 2WL
residual Applied load P
settlement
Residual settlement
Loading
Max. total
settlement
Allowable
total settlement Settlement during
L
maintained load
AE
Davisson Criterion=is
PL/AE+ D/120 + 4
1
stage of pile load
test
based on quick WL = working load
loading procedures! D = pile diameter
*The consideration of residual settlement on unloading from twice

design load not rational, particularly for long friction piles, & tends to
give a conservative assessment of pile capacity
Load Test on Piles Designed to Take Negative Skin Friction
 Test load should allow for effects of NSF to examine

adequacy of pile design
 Should load to [2 P + 3NSF] assuming a factor of safety

of 2, because 1 x NSF is acting against the applied load
during load test
139
140
141
142
Instrumented Pile Load Tests
 Purpose of pile instrumentation is to provide a better

understanding of the load transfer mechanism (i.e.
mobilization of base capacity and shaft friction with pile
displacement)
 Axial strains are usually measured (e.g. using strain gauges),

which can be converted to stress and hence load at a given
level. The corresponding displacement can also be assessed,
taking into account elastic compression of the pile shaft.
 Given the pile load profile with depth, one can work out the
shaft friction at different levels
 Possible pile instrumentation :

– Strain gauges (measure strain)
– Fibre optics (measure strain)
– extensometer (measure displacement)
 Properly plan the pile loading test programme
– What parameters are being measured?

– Will the installation method be used in production piles?
– Is sufficient instruments allowed for redundancy?
– Is loading test properly set up without unforeseen
interference?
Instrumentation Pile Loading Tests
Steel bearing pads Dial gauge Hydraulic pump with
pressure gauges
Reference Strain gauge for
beam measuring
concrete
Data logger modulus
Telltale
extensometer
attached to load
cell
Cast-in-place large-
diameter pile
Strain gauges (at least two

and preferably four
gauges at each level).
Quantity and number of
gauges depend on the
purpose of investigation
and geology.
Hydraulic supply
line Rod
extensometer
Steel bearing
plates
Expansion
displacement
transducer
Osterberg cell (Optional)

Vibrating Wire Strain Gauge
147
Extensometers
148
P =  (Ec Ac + Es As)
P = pile load
 = strain in steel or concrete [usual assumption of
plain sections remain plain, therefore equal]
Ec = Young’s modulus of concrete
Es = Young’s modulus of steel
P1
Ac = cross sectional area of concrete 
As = cross sectional area of steel
fs


Shaft friction stress, fs, is given by:
fs = (P1 - P2) / Ashaft 
where Ashaft = surface area of pile shaft P2
between levels 1 and 2
 Samples for measuring Young’s modulus of concrete

 Samples for measuring Young’s modulus of steel
 Strain correction for concrete Young’s modulus
 /N=5 /N=4 /N=3 t/N=2  / N = 1.5

250
C3
 /N = 1.0
Mobilised Average Shaft Resistance,  (kPa)
200
B2 P14
150
P21-2 B3
P1
B7T
B4  /N = 0.5
B7C
100 B5 P7
P9 P20 P19
P23 P2
P15
P22 P6
C2 B1
P16 B6C
50 P21-1
P4
B8C P5
P11 P13
B8T P18
C1 P17
P10 P12
P8 B6T
0
0 50 100 150 200
Mean SPT N Value
Mobilised average shaft resistance and SPT N values for

replacement piles
 / N = 12 /N=9 /N=6 /N=5 /N=4 /N=3

250
200 /N=2
large-diameter
D5
displacement piles
150  / N = 1.5
D9
D6
D1 D12
D14
100 D7 τ /N=1
D11
D8
D15 D10
D13 D4
50 τ / N = 0.5
D3
D2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Mean SPT N Value

displacement piles
 /N=5  /N=4  /N=3  /N=2

500
400
 / N = 1.5
300
B2  /N=1
B4 P2
B1
200
B3
P1
B5  / N = 0.5
B6
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Mean SPT N Value

replacement piles with shaft-grouting
Dynamic Pile Load Test
 Measure the time history of force (using strain gauges) and

acceleration (using accelerometers and integrate to get velocity)
- e.g. Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA)
 CASE method to determine ultimate pile capacity using a

damping factor, Jc (typically 0.45 to 0.5 in Hong Kong) -
primarily for end-bearing piles
 PDA can determine the energy transfer ratio (hammer

efficiency), soil resistance to driving (driveability study),
dynamic pile stresses and pile integrity
Pile Driving Analyzer

Strain gauge and accelerometers installed on steel piles

157
 High-strain tests (stresses generated by pile driving
hammer)
 CAPWAP analysis can be carried out to determine the
distribution of soil resistance, dynamic soil response and
predict the pile-settlement curve for the pile
 CAPWAP parameters can be correlated with site-specific
static load tests
Key Points to Remember
 Geotechnical and engineering geological input - very
important for proper pile design
 Close supervision of critical activities by experienced
supervisors - vitally important
 Very difficult and costly to rectify pile defects later - must try
to get things right first time
 Unduly conservative design - can make matters worse by
making construction process difficult + prone to problems
 Appreciate problems of different processes + compatibility of
design assumptions & construction techniques is key
 Performance review and monitoring – important for
advancement of foundation design
QUESTIONS

Design of Piled Foundations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Design of Piled Foundations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of Piled Foundations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of Piled Foundations

 To understand the empirical nature of pile design

 Ground conditions in Hong Kong are complex and can

 Piling design in Hong Kong is always criticized for overly

Note : (1) Refer to Geoguide 3 (GCO, 1988) for

 Many Hong Kong-specific ‘deemed-to-satisfy’ rules are

 Rules were derived through experience but are applied

 Some rules are not conservative

 Unnecessarily long piles may encounter major problems

 Submissions for private and public housing projects

 Code of Practice for Foundations, 2004

 Practice Notes for AP/RSE/RGE

 Foundation Handbook (in preparation)

 Submission for public projects

 Specifications (Arch SD)

 Engineer’s discretion on adopting standards for

 Promote use of rational design

GEO Publication No. 1/96

GEO Publication No. 1/2006

Sounds simple, but not so! Pile installation can affect

 Driven piles – piles usually driven to a set based on dynamic

 Bored piles & socketed H-piles – piles are usually designed

• Displacement piles (driven piles) - akin to ‘cavity

• Bored piles - stress relief effect due to hole formation;

Ultimate foundation capacity & overall stability

Effects of external ground movements

 Essential for a successful outcome

 A key geotechnical output is the values of pile stiffness

 These can be incorporated into the structural analysis to

 The stiffness values MUST take into account pile group

 Code of Practice for Foundations (2004)

 Rational design method

 Consider geotechnical capacity and settlement

 May require instrumented pile loading tests to confirm

 An alternative to use of default values

 QB = base capacity

s = Ultimate shaft friction in each soil stratum

As = Surface area of pile shaft in each soil stratum

Method 2 : Correlation with SPT N values

Pile Type Ks/Ko

Small Displacement Piles 0.75 to 1.25

Bored Piles 0.7 to 1.0

Ko is the earth pressure coefficient at rest (viz. before pile

Precast concrete/sand 0.8 to 1.0

For bored piles/barrettes in granitic saprolites :

Pile types Ultimate Shaft Friction

Bored piles YES 2.1 x SPT, max 200kPa

NO 0.8 x SPT, max 200kPa

 Level of confidence is not high particularly where the

 Where possible, include a loading test on preliminary pile

Changes of radial effective stress

 = (ho + h ) tan  = (hf) tan 

ho is the locked-in effective horizontal stress after pile

condition during pile loading which can increase (due to

 Reduction in confining stress in bored piles

 Reduction in friction angle

 Rate of concrete pour

 Time of pile bore being left open prior to