Design of Piled Foundations

Sammy Cheung
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
GEO, CEDD

19 May 2015
 OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION

 Vertical Load
 Horizontal Load
 Pile Group
 Negative Skin Friction
 Foundations in marble areas
 Objectives

 To appreciate the interaction between pile construction and

pile design
 To appreciate what can go wrong with different piling
techniques
 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
 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
 Short pile scandals in Hong Kong (magic tape, etc.)
Simplified Borehole log Borehole B Borehole A Borehole log Simplified geology
geology B A

VI VI
Potential risk of using an
overly simplified
V
geological model
V (e.g. layered-model in
corestone-bearing saprolites)
IV

III

III

II

II

I I

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

rock decomposition grade I to grade VI.
 Common Pile Design in Hong Kong

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

the Authority
 Rules were derived through experience & have been applied without
geological considerations
 Some rules are not conservative and are not based on soil mechanics
principles
 Unnecessarily long piles may encounter major problems during
construction (so could end up as being worse off!)
Construction site activities
are utmost important!

As a designer, do we have too

large the FOS such that there
are rooms to cut corner
 Common Pile Design in Hong Kong

 Submissions for private and housing projects

 Building (Construction) Regulations

 Code of Practice for Foundations, 2004

 Practice Notes for AP/RSE/RGE

 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 method
Relevant PNAP for Foundation Submission for Private Projects

 Key PNs include:

 APP-18 (PNAP 66) (Acceptance criteria for pile testing)
 APP-61 (PNAP 161) (Scheduled Area for karstic marble)
 APP-103 (PNAP 227) (Structures On Grade on Newly Reclaimed
Land)
 APP-16 (PNAP225) Ground Investigation Works in Scheduled
Areas – Approval and Consent
 APP-134 (PNAP 283) (Designated Area of Northshore Lantau)
 APP-137 (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 rail projects
 expanded scope to include shallow
foundations and recent advances

GEO Publication No. 1/2006

Other Useful References
 INTRINSIC PROBLEMS ABOUT PILING DESIGN
 The piling process changes the ground behaviour, for good or worse
 compacting, loosening the soils

 It is the behaviour of the ground after pile installation that controls pile
performance (pile soil interaction)
 Varying ground conditions involve uncertainty and risk – opportunity
 Completed works are buried; observations and supervision during the
installation process are important
 In some cases, there may be time-dependent effects that could influence
the development of pile capacity in the long term
 COMMON PILE TYPES IN HONG KONG

Pile Types Typical range of pile Geotechnical load

capacity (kN) carrying capacity
Displacement Piles
Driven H-piles 2000 kN to 3500 kN Shaft friction and end
Driven prestressed 1950 kN to 3500 kN bearing
precast concrete piles
Jacked Steel H Pile 2950 kN
 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 soil/rock
m bell-out) and end bearing
 TRADITIONAL PILE DESIGN IN HONG KONG
 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.
 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) & surrounding facilities
 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

 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 [e.g. presumed bearing pressure,

zero shaft friction]
 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

P = Qs + QB

     
     
Soil type 1

Qs = shaft capacity
Soil type 2

 QB = base capacity

 DESIGN OF AXIALLY LOADED PILE (STRUCTURAL CAPACITY)

 Structural strength of piles to be determined in accordance with

appropriate limitations of design stresses
 Permissible stresses given in Code of Practice for Structural Use of
Concrete & Code of Practice for Structural Use of Steel
 For bored piles, reduce concrete strength by 20% where groundwater is
likely to be encountered during concreting, or where concrete is placed
underwater
 Ultimate Pile Shaft Capacity

Qs = s x As

s = Ultimate shear stress in each soil stratum

As = Surface area of pile shaft in each soil stratum

FACTORS AFFECTING SHAFT FRICTION
 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)
 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 concrete/sand 1.0

'

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

Type of Piles Type of Soils Shaft Resistance

Coefficient, b
Driven small displacement Saprolites 0.1 – 0.4
piles Loose to medium dense sand 0.1 – 0.5
Driven large displacement Saprolites 0.8 – 1.2
piles Loose to medium dense sand 0.2 – 1.5
Bored piles & barrettes Saprolites 0.1 – 0.6
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
 Design Parameters for Friction Piles
- Method 2 (SPT correlation)
Friction parameters previously accepted by BD :
Pile types Shaft grouting? Ultimate Shaft Friction Ultimate End Bearing

Barrettes formed YES - No Data - - No Data -

using grab
NO 1.2 x SPT, max 200kPa 10 x SPT,
max 2000kPa
Barrettes formed YES 2.5x SPT, max 200kPa
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

 DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR FRICTION PILES
- METHOD 2 (SPT CORRELATION)

 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.
 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
Loss of Confining Stress due to Arching Effect
 ULTIMATE END-BEARING CAPACITY

QB= qb x Ab

qb = Ultimate end bearing stress

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,
’1 + 40
f' =
2
Bearing Capacity Factor, Nq

100 For bored piles, ' =

'1 – 3
where f'1 is the angle
of shearing resistance
prior to installation.
10
25 30 35 40 45
Angle of Shearing Resistance' (°)
 Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Piles in Granular Soils
Based on SPT N

0.6
Pile Length Coarse sand
≥ 15
Ultimate End Bearing Capacity

Base diameter
0.4
SPT Nb Value

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
 Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Piles in Granular Soils
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)

 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
Base
Pile Load

Shaft

Pile settlement
Ultimate QB typically develops at a pile settlement of @ 10% (clay) to 20%
(sand) pile diameter
 Mobilisation 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
 Recommended Global Safety Factors for Pile Design

Minimum Global Factor of Safety

Method of Determining against Shear Failure of the Ground
Pile Capacity
Compression Tension Lateral
Theoretical or semi-empirical 3.0 3.0 3.0
methods not verified by loading
tests on preliminary piles
Theoretical or semi-empirical 2.0 2.0 2.0
methods verified by a sufficient
number of loading tests on
preliminary piles
 Design Requirements

 The allowable pile working load must not exceed:

(a) ultimate capacity for bearing on and bond with the ground divided by
suitable factor of safety,
(b) structural capacity of the pile material divided by suitable factor of
safety (e.g. permissible structural stresses or sufficient margin
against buckling in slender piles), and
(c) the value at which deformation can be tolerated by the structure
 Allowable Structural Stresses
Building (Construction) Regulations

 The concrete stresses in cast-in-place concrete foundations

at working load shall not exceed 80% of the appropriate
limit design stress of concrete where groundwater is likely
to be encountered during concreting
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 minimise the ‘waiting time’ to avoid
excessive soil 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 of granitic saprolite
due to stress
relaxation

* Important to ensure
sufficient excess slurry head
within pile bore
DILATANCY EFFECTS IN A DENSE SOIL WITH A ROUGH
PILE/SOIL INTERFACE
CHANGES IN EFFECTIVE HORIZONTAL STRESSES DUE TO DILATANCY EFFECTS
DURING SHEARING

r E
 h’ =
r 1+


r = dilatancy (change in radius)

r relative to the pile radius
E = Young’s modulus
 = Poisson’s ratio
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 (minimise 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
 SHAFT GROUTING PROCEDURE

1 – Crack fresh concrete cover using double packer and 2 – Carry out shaft grouting for each manchette from bottom to
water within 24 hours of casting concrete. top.
Water cracking must be carried out for all grouting pipes in Target Grout Intake used so far in Hong Kong is 35 l/m2  Area
the barrette (even the spare ones). covered by each manchette or refusal pressure (around 50 bars),
whichever occurs first. The overall minimum average intake of 25
l/m2 over the whole frictional area.
If intake cannot achieved on some manchettes, the target intake
Typical Grout Mix for 1 m3 for the manchette immediately above, below or on its side is
increased if necessary.
Cement: 1000kg Bentocryl 86: 1.5 litres
Grouting for all pipes to be used in one barrette can be carried out
Water: 666 litres Daracem 100: 4 litres simultaneously.

Bentonite: 15 kg
SHAFT GROUTING PROCEDURE
 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

 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 (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).

  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]