Design of Piled Foundations

Sammy Cheung
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
GEO, CEDD

20 April 2013
 OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION

Vertical Load
Horizontal Load
Pile Group
Negative Skin Friction
Instrumented Pile Test Results
 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 Authorityy
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
i (so( could
ld endd up as bbeing
i worse off!)
ff!)
 Common Pile Design in Hong Kong

Submissions for private and housing projects

Building (Construction) Regulations

Code of Practice for Foundations, 2004

Practice
P i NotesN for f AP/RSE/RGE

Submission for public projects

GEO Publication No. 1/2006

Specifications (Arch SD)

Engineers
E i discretion
di i on adoptingd i standards
d d ffor private
i
submission
FOUNDATION DESIGN FOR PRIVATE PROJECTS

Buildings (Construction)
Regulations
AP/RSE Notes
Code of Practice for Foundations
( )
(2004)
deemed-to-satisfy rules
more economic designg mayy be
feasible by rational design method
Relevant PNAP for Foundation Submission for Private Projects

Key PNs include:

APP-18
APP 18 (PNAP 66) (Acceptance
(A t criteria
it i ffor pile
il ttesting)
ti )
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 Scheduoled
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
p reference to
Hong Kongs ground conditions

GEO Publication No. 1/96

 Foundation Design for Public Projects

Updated experience cumulated in

recentt 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,
p g looseningg 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
C l t d works
Completed k are bburied;
i d observations
b ti andd supervision
i i dduring
i ththe
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
i (kN) carrying
i capacity
i
Displacement Piles
Driven H-piles 2000 kN to 3500 kN Shaft friction and end
Driven prestressed 1950 kN to 3500 kN bearingg
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 HH-piles
piles 3500 kN to 5300 kN Shaft friction on rock
Auger piles 1500 kN Shaft friction on soil
Mi i il
Mini-piles 1400 kN Sh ft ffriction
Shaft i ti on rockk
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
NNeedd to
t consider
id geotechnical
t h i l capacity
it andd structural
t t l capacity
it off
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.
rock If depth of weathering is significant,
the piles behave as friction piles instead.
 PILE INSTALLATION

Displacement piles
hammering
h i steel
t l or concretet iinto
t th
the groundd with
ith
sufficient energy to refusal"
Replacement piles
dig
dig a hole and fill with steel and concrete
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
p ppiles ((driven ppiles)) - akin to cavityy expansion
p
problems, with the horizontal stresses increased and granular soils
subject
j to densification and compactionp

Bored piles - stress relief effect due to hole formation

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
h f ffriction]
i i ]
Adequate ground investigation to assist in formulation of appropriate
ground model
Characterization of ground pproperties
p byy means of appropriate
pp p 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
S l type 2
Soil

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
f area off pile
l shaft
h f in eachh soill stratum
FACTORS AFFECTING SHAFT FRICTION
 FACTOR AFFECTING SHAFT FRICTION

v

r

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 ppile 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:
M th d 1 : Eff
Method Effective
ti stress
t methodth d
_
s = Ks . v . tan [c[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
p 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
p Saprolites
p 0.1 0.4
piles Loose to medium dense sand 0.1 0.5
Driven large displacement
p Saprolites
p 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,
1.2 SPT max 200kP
200kPa 10 x SPT,
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
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)
k)
Loosened/disturbed soil
Loss of Confining Stress due to Arching Effect
 ULTIMATE END-BEARING CAPACITY

QB = q b x A b

qb = Ultimate end bearing stress

Ab = Bearing area of pile base

 ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY OF PILES IN GRANULAR SOILS

(a) Classical bearing capacit

capacity theor
theory
q b = Nq v

((b)) Empirical
p correlation with SPT
q b = f b Nb

(c) Presumptive bearing pressure

qb = presumptive bearing pressure
 Relationship between Nq and '
(Poulos & Davis,
Davis 1980)
1000
For driven piles,
1 + 40
f' =
2
Beaaring Capaciity Factor, Nq

100 For bored piles,

' =
'1 3
where ff'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 Ennd Bearing CCapacity

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
Reductionn Factor, fr

0.5 Medium dense sand

0.25 Dense sand

00
0.0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Base Diameter (m)

 Load Transfer Mechanism and Mobilization
of Load
Load-Settlement
Settlement Curve
Ultimate Qs typically develops in a stiff manner, at a pile settlement of only
about
b t 0.5%
0 5% to
t 1% pileil di
diameter
t

Total
Base
Pile Loaad

Shaft

Pile settlement
Ultimate
Ulti t QB typically
t i ll develops
d l att a pile
il settlement
ttl t off @ 10% ((clay)
l ) tto 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
Sh f RResistance, fs
Shaft E d b i RResistance,
End-bearing it fb
Granular Soils 1.5 35

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
h ft resistance
it 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 preliminar
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,
safety
(b) structural capacity of the pile material divided by suitable factor of
safety (e.g.
(e g permissible structural stresses or sufficient margin
against buckling in slender piles), and
( ) the
(c) th value
l att which
hi h deformation
df ti can beb tolerated
t l t d by
b the
th structure
t t
 Allowable Structural Stresses
Building (Construction) Regulations

The concrete stresses in cast

cast-in-place
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

Fl idit off concrete

Fluidity t

Time of pile bore being left open prior to concreting (-

generally better to minimise the waiting time to avoid
excessive soill relaxation)
l )
 Distribution of Wet Concrete Pressure
0
Rise = 8 m/hr Rise = 12 m/hr
5

10

15 2 hr
Depthh (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 = Youngs modulus
= Poissons 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 unnecessarilyy over-cleansingg of ppile base ((delayy
concreting)
Shaft grouting
grout pressure increase horizontal stress
improve strengthh off interface
f materiall hhence shaft
h f ffriction
 SHAFT GROUTING PROCEDURE

1 Crack fresh concrete cover using double packer and 2 Carry out shaft grouting for each manchette from bottom to
water
t within
ithi 24 hhours off casting
ti concrete.
t t
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.
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
 Local Instrumented Test Data for Bored Piles
=0.6 =0.5 =0.4

250
C3
Maximum Mobilised AAverage Shafft

=0
0.3
3

200
Resistance, maxx (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
Mobilised Aveerage Shaft

200
Resisttance,max (kkPa)

P14 B11
B2
150

P21-2 B3
P1
B7T B10 /N =
B4 B7C
100 0.5
0 5
Maximum M

B5 P7
P20 P19
P23 B9 P9 P2
P15

P22 P6
C2 B1
P16 B6C
50 P4
P21-1
M

B8C 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).
piles)

values
l fromf l d tests
load t t tend
t d tot be
b towards
t d the
th lower
l b d off that
bound th t
expected for bored piles in granular materials (possibly due to low
horizontal stresses in weathered rocks,
rocks i.e.
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]
Deem-to-satisfied
Deem to satisfied Rules
 PRESUMED ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE

Code of Practice for Foundations by Buildings Department (2004)

Presumed
Category Description of Rock
Pressure (kPa)
Rockk (granitic
( andd volcanic)
l ):
2 Highly decomposed, moderately weak to weak rock of 1,000
material weathering grade IV or V or better,
better with SPT N
value of 200
 PRESUMED ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE
Presumed
Category Description of Rock
Pressure (kPa)
RRockk (granitic
( iti andd volcanic)
l i ):
1(a) Fresh strong to very strong rock of material weathering 10,000
grade I, with 100% total core recovery and no weathered
joints, and minimum uniaxial compressive strength of rock
material (c) 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 material 7,500
weathering
th i grade d II or better,
b tt withith a total
t t l core recovery off
more than 95% of the grade and minimum uniaxial
compressive strength of rock material (c) not less than 50
MPa (equivalent point load index strength PLI50 not less
than 2 MPa).
 PRESUMED ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE
Presumed
Category Description of Rock
Pressure (kPa)
1( )
1(c) Sli htl to
Slightly t moderately
d t l decomposed
d d moderately
d t l strong
t 5 000
5,000
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
(c) 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
d t l weakk rockk off material
t i l weathering
th i grade d
better than IV, with a total core recovery of more than
50% of the grade.
 PRESUMED ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE

Based on simple material classification

I t d d for
Intended f foundations
f d ti on horizontal
h i t l groundd with ith negligible
li ibl lateral
l t l loads
l d
& structures not unduly sensitive to settlement (i.e. routine problems)
Minimum socket length = 0.50 5 m for categories 1(a) & 1(b),
1(b) and = 0.3
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
 PRESUMED ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE

Use of Total Core Recoveryy ((TCR)) as sole means of determiningg foundingg 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
No account taken directly of discontinuity spacing, aperture, persistence and
infill,, strength
g pproperties
p etc.
 PRESUMED ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE

30
P10-2O (13.6)
(12.6) settlement at P7-2O
25 P15O
P14 (3) pile base (mm) (7.5)
Provenn bearing presssure (MPa)

P11-2O (2)
P13-2O P2C
20 P11-1 (?) (11.3)
(15 5)
(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. UCS Uniaxial compressive strength

off rockk ~ 15 MP
MPa off intact
i rockk (MPa)
(MP )
 Key Points to Remember

Geotechnical and engineering

g g ggeological
g inputp - veryy important
p for pproper
p ppile
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
U d l conservative
Unduly ti ddesign
i - can make k matters
tt worse bby making ki construction
t ti
process difficult + prone to problems
Appreciate problems of different processes + compatibility of design
assumptions & construction techniques is key
Rock Sockets
 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)
g and stiffness of concrete relative to that of the rock
strength
 Design of Rock Sockets

10000
Mobiliseed Shaft Ressistance in RRock, (kPa))
P10-2O
P7-2O
P10-1 P1T
P7-1 P1C
P16 P3C P8

P3T
P2T
1000
C1 P9-1

s = 0.2 c 0.5

100
1 10 100 1000

Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Rock, q (Mpa)

 DESIGN OF ROCK SOCKETS
Recommendations in Code of Practice for Foundations

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
di to not more than
h 2 x pile
il di
diameters or 6 m ((whichever
hi h iis
shorter) plus the presumptive bearing value

The minimum socket depths stipulated in the presumed bearing pressures

should be ignored in bond calculation.
 Presumptive Design Parameters
in BDs
BD s Code of Practice for Foundations

Category Rock Mass Weathering Minimum Allowable Shaft

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

j with the end bearingg component
p is
more rational than assuming end bearing only and will help avoid the need to use
bell-outs in some cases ((also,, presence
p of soil seams below ppile base will be less
of a problem)
 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
Note : Loadd transfer
f in a rockk socket
k is a ffunction off the
h slenderness
l d ratio off the
h
rock socket & the relative pile/rock stiffness (based on numerical analysis)

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 (BD CoP stipulates L/D
ratio up to 2 or 6 m length, whichever is less, for shaft resistance
calculation)
otherwise, pile loading tests need to be carried out to confirm the
design
 SOIL SEAMS/SEDIMENTS BELOW BASE OF BORED PILES ON ROCK -
PROBLEM OR NOT?

Presumed bearing pressure of, for example, 5MPa corresponds to 85%

TCR, therefore not all needs to be rock!
With rock sockets, the confinement at base is substantially increased this
will give rise to an effective increase in the strength
Increase in 3, due to confinement - approximately follows a constant (1
/3) stress path, which has very high constrained secant modulus (about
200 MPa
MP to 300 MP MPa )()(ref.f Li et al,l 2000) important
i to use appropriate
i
stiffness for settlement calculations
Design of Driven Piles
 Design of Driven Piles
(Hong Kong practice)

Working load = allowable material compressive stress x cross-sectional area

Drive to set as calculated from dynamic pile driving formula
Estimates of required pile depth is usually made based on rules of thumb (e.g.
by relating
e a g too SSPT N values
a ues - typically
yp ca y ddrivee too a dep
depth with N value
a ue oof 50 too
100 for concrete piles, or a depth with N value of 180 to 200 for H-piles)
 Design of Steel H-piles
Typical H-sections
305 x 305 x 110 kg/m
g/
305 x 305 x 180 kg/m
305 x 305 x 223 kg/m
For Grade 55C steel H ppiles,, allowable load is taken as 30%
% yyield stress ((fy,
which is a function of the steel grade and thickness) x As [e.g. fy for
305x305x180 ppile = 430 MPa]]
Pile driving formula (Hiley) used and final set criteria (typically, 25mm/10
bl to 50 mm/10
blows /10 bl
blows if not iin rock)
k)
Dynamic
y load tests + static load tests are used
The final set table is developed using a factor of safety of 2
 Driven Piles Founded on Rock
Grade 55C steel sections with yield stress, fy, of 425 MPa, allowable stress =
0 3 fy (129 MPa)
0.3

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,
Practice Singapore
 Driven Piles Founded on Rock

A suitable pile point (stiffener) may be used at the pile toe to prevent sliding
on an iinclined
li d rockk surface
f
Typical hard driving criterion for final set, e.g.
<10 mm per 10 blows with 16-tonne drop hammer

But is hard drivingg doingg more harm than ggood?

 Hiley Pile Driving Formula -
(commonly used in Hong Kong)
Based on energy
gy consideration

W
WH
R= 1 X h
S + 2 (C1 + C2 + C3)
(W + e2p)
where h = = efficiency of hammer blow
(W + P)
 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
 Table for Final Set (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 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
 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,
DROP H 28m
2.8
ENERGY EFFICIENCY, 0.8
ENERGY OUTPUT PER BLOW, E 224 kN-m
EFFECTIVE ENERGY E =Ex
ENERGY, E' 179 kN-m
kN

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

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
i bl
Energy absorption property of cushions can vary with time
Past experience generally
ll based
b d on use off drop
d or diesel
d l hammers;
h hd l
hydraulic
hammers presents a problem with the empirical factors, therefore a drop
hammer is used to check 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)
set); typical efficiency = 00.99
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
productivity),
 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

C
CAPWAP analysis
l ((ArchSD,
hS 2003) to find
f d parameters for
f matching
h
the pile capacity as determined by Hiley Formula (combination of
and e as correction factors)
Proposed Pile Driving Formula for Hydraulic Hammers by HKCA (2004)

EMX
R =
[s + (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)
 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) not > 50% of yield stress of the
steel H pile (contribution by grout ignored), because no need to
consider drivingg stresses
 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 CoP 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
If rock socket is subject to lateral load, need to check for additional stresses
 Design of Mini-piles

Assessment of structural capacity

p y ((BD allows consideration of steel bars only.y
Overseas practice generally allow to account for load taken by grout also)
Mini-piles
p socketed in rock ((Grade III or better with TCR of min. 85%))
presumed allowable rock/grout bond strength up to 700 kPa for compression
(see CoP)
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)
Negative Skin Friction

93
 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,
ttl t reduction
d ti off watert pressure dued tot dewatering
d t i andd increase
i i
in
effective stress, dissipation of excess pore water pressure (and hence
settlement) in soft clay induced by pile driving

94
 Negative Skin Friction (Downdrag)
P Pile

shortening

Soil type 1 NNegative
ti skin
ki ffriction
i ti
(Soil drags down pile) Neutral pplane
No relative
movement
S l type 2
Soil Positive skin friction
(Pile settles relative
to the ground)
Ground
settlement
QB = base capacity
 Negative Skin Friction (Downdrag)

NSF = Ks V tan p L
NSF = V p 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
(BDss CoP on Foundations)
(BD
(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
l under
d ((D + L + NSF)) should
h ld bbe satisfactory
f
 Means to Reduce NSF

Driven ppiles - bitumen coatingg or asphalt

p coating, g, pplastic 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
p techniques
q to strengthen/stiffen
g / the soft soils

98
 Design of Lateral Load Capacity of Piles

The lateral load capacity of a pile may be limited in three ways :

(a) shear capacity of the soil,

(b) structural (i.e. bending moment and shear) capacity of the pile
section, and
(c) excessive deformation of the pile.
 Design of Lateral Load Capacity of Piles
ultimate
li lateral
l l soilil resistance
i ffor fifixed-head
d h d andd ffree-head
h d piles
il iin
granular soils are put forward by Broms

H H
e1

L L
Centre of
rotation
Free-head Fixed-head

(a) Short Vertical Pile under Horizontal Load

H

 Design of Lateral Load Capacity of Piles
ultimate lateral soil resistance for fixed-head and free-head piles in
granular soils are put forward by Broms

H H
e1 e1

Fracture

L F t
Fracture L

Free-head Fixed-head

(b) Long Vertical Pile under Horizontal Load

 Design of Lateral Load Capacity of Piles

(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
cla & gran
granular
lar soils)
soils), pile stiffness factor
factor,

5 E p Ip
T= n
h
where nh is the constant of horizontal subgrade reaction
 Design of Lateral Load Capacity of Piles

Pile Type Soil Modulus

Linearly increasing Constant
Short (rigid) piles L 2T L 2R
Long (flexible) L 4T L 3.5R
piles
 Design of Lateral Load Capacity of Piles
0 0

1 1
=2
=2
M H
2 2

z z
3 3 3
L 3 L
dM dH

4 d M = Fd 4 4 d H = Fd
4, 5 & 10
5 & 10
-1 0 1 2 3 -1 0 1 2 3

Deflection Coefficient, Fd for Applied

pp Moment M Deflection Coefficient, Fd for Applied
pp Lateral Load, H
0
0

1
=2 1
=2
2
M
2
3 H
3
z
3
z
L 3
4 L
MM
4 MH
4
5 4
10 MM = FM (M)
10 5 MH = FM (HT)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Moment Coefficient, FM for Applied Moment M Moment Coefficient, FM for Applied Lateral Load, H
 Design of Lateral Load Capacity of Piles

0 0

1 1

=2
2 2 =2
M H

z z
3
3 3 3
L L

VM 4
VH
4
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 Applied Moment M Shear Coefficient, Fv for Applied Lateral Load, H
 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
Foundation Design in Marble Bearing 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-

Jurrassic
Tuen Mun breecia, tuff & tuffite with clasts of white

Uppper
Tin Shui Wai marble,
bl quartzite,
t it metasiltstone
t ilt t etc, t Limited
F
Formation
clasts < 3 m

Ma Tin
Massively bedded, white crystalline marble,
Yuen Long > 200 m locally dolomitic and siliceous Main dissolution

Carboniferous
Formation
Long Ping Grey to dark grey, finely crystalline marble
intercalated and interbedded with meta- Limited
> 300 m
sediment
di
 Carbonate Rocks in Ma On Shan

Member /
Formation Material Description Age Dissolution
Thickness

Carboniferous
Grey to off-white, dolomite to calcite marble
Ma On Shan
> 200 m with thin interbeds of dark grey to black meta
meta- Vary
Formation siltstone
Pure Marble in Ma Tin Member

White pure,
White, pure crystalline marble
Impure Marble in Long Ping Member

Grey to dark grey,

grey fine
fine-grained
grained dolomitic marble
Marble-clast bearing rock

Marble clast
Foundation Design

Foundation system
y

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

 Foundation Design in Marble Bearing Area

Groundd Groundd
Foundation design
investigation modelling

Foundation
M i i off building
Monitoring b ildi R i off construction
Review i
construction
 FOUNDATION DESIGN IN MARBLE BEARING AREA

Geotechnical Contents in Design Submission

Interpretation of ground conditions

geological
l i l model
dl
karst geomorphology (GEO Report Nos. 28, 29, 32)

Foundation system
founding
f di levels
l l off ddeep ffoundation
d ti
increase of stresses at marble surface

Supplementary explanation on foundations on marble-bearing rock

(TGN 26)
 FOUNDATION DESIGN IN MARBLE BEARING AREA

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

 Foundation Design in Marble Bearing Area

Monitoring

Buildingg settlement monitoringg

building taller than 20 story high

foundations on marble

measurements undertaken by CEDD after building

occupied
id
 Foundation Design in Marble Bearing Area
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 > Length > 100 mm Length > 100 mm

100 mm
 Foundation Design in Marble Bearing Area

L1 (mPD)
Computation of Marble Quality

Length >
mm
100 m
Designation
1
RQD1

L1
RQDi x i

Length > 100

L2

mm
RQD2
Average RQD = 2

L2 L1
Cavities or infill
L1
Marble Rock i
Cover Recovery =
L2

Lengthh > 100

L2(mPD) 3 RQD3

mm
MR L2 L1

m
 Foundation Design in Marble Bearing Area
M bl Mass
Marble M Classes
Cl
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
p of Usage
g of Karst
No. of selected borehole: 6
Driven piles
Geomorphology on Piling Design Boreholes

M bl with
Marble i h overhang
h
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 identifyy the
karstic features
833790
821690 821740 821790 821840
Foundation Design in Marble Bearing Area

Attention!

No simple
p rule in a complex
p gground condition

Engineering
g g jjudgement
g is important
p
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
load unload cycles,
cycles criteria for stabilisation and
acceptance criteria (controversial!)
A
Automation
i off statici load
l d tests [see
[ Chan
Ch et all (2004),
(2004) Proc.
P Conf.C f OnO
Foundation Practice in Hong Kong, Centre for Research & Professional
D l
Development] t]
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 3D
Pile diameter,
whichever is greater
D
Typical Set-up for a Compression Load Test
Using Tension Piles
Girders (2 nos.)
Locking nut
Steel plate

Stiffeners Tension
Load cell members
Di l gauge
Dial

Reference Hydraulic jack

beam
Test pile

Minimum spacing Pile diameter, Reaction piles

2m or 3 D whichever is D
greater
Typical Set-up for Uplift (Tension) Load Tests

Locking nut
Steel plates

Reaction beam

Hydraulic jack Steel plate

Tension connection
Steel bearing plates

Clearance for pile Stiffeners Reaction pile

movementt
Dial gauge or on crib pads

Reference
beamMinimum
Minim m 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 and avoid
plates
lt connection
Test piles between
blinding layer

(a) Reaction Piles

Steel strut
Reference
e e e ce beam
ea
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

( ) Weighted Platform
(c)
 Osterberg load cell

bored
pile Enable higher test load
Test load ~ 30 MN
Shaft resistance in uplift

direction
rock
mass
O-cell
 INSTRUMENTATION PILE LOADING TESTS
Steel bearing pads Dial gauge Hydraulic pump with
pressure gauges
Reference beam Strain gauge for
measuring concrete
modulus
Data logger

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
g and ggeology.
gy

Rod extensometer

 INSTRUMENTATION PILE LOADING TESTS
Steel bearing pads Dial gauge Hydraulic pump with
pressure gauges
Reference beam Strain gauge for
measuring concrete
modulus
Data logger

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
g and ggeology.
gy

Hydraulic supply line

Rod extensometer

Steel bearing plates
Expansion
displacement
transducer

Osterberg cell (Optional)

 OSTERBERG Cell at pile toe
(cast in and jack up the pile
column from below after
concreting)

133
 SPECIFICATIONS FOR PILE LOAD TEST

General Specification for Civil Engineering Works (Hong Kong

Government) and corresponding Guidance Notes
Architectural Services Department
PNAP 66 and BDs Code of Practice for Foundations
Housing Department (previous one superseded,
superseded now adopt criteria in
CoP)
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
D/120 + 4

Loading
Max. total
settlement

Allowable
total settlement Settlement during
L
maintained load stage
AE
= PL/AE+ D/120 + 4 of pile load test
1
WL = working load
D = pile diameter
Allowable
total settlement = PL/AE+ D/50

*The consideration of residual settlement on unloadingg from twice design g load not rational,,
particularly for long friction piles, & tends to give a conservative assessment of pile capacity
135
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
137
138
139
140
 Instrumented Pile Load Tests

Purpose of pile instrumentation is to provide a better

understanding of the load transfer mechanism (i.e.
mobilisation of base capacity and shaft friction with pile
di l
displacement)
t)

Axial strains are usually measured (e.g. using strain gauges),

which can be converted to stress and hence load at a given
l l The
level. Th corresponding
di displacement
di l t can also
l beb assessed,
d
taking into account elastic compression of the pile shaft.
 INSTRUMENTED PILE LOAD TESTS

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)

Place the instruments carefully with full understanding of what is

being measured. 142
 INSTRUMENTATION PILE LOADING TESTS
Steel bearing pads Dial gauge Hydraulic pump with
pressure gauges
Reference beam Strain gauge for
measuring concrete
modulus
Data logger

Telltale
Outer ring casing
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
g and ggeology.
gy

Rod extensometer

VIBRATING WIRE STRAIN GAUGE

144
EXTENSOMETERS

145
 P = ( Ec x Ac + Es As)
P = pile load
= strain
t i iin steel
t l or concrete
t [[usuall assumption
ti off plain
l i sections
ti remain
i
plain, therefore equal]
Ec = Youngs
Yo ngs modulus
mod l s of concrete (adj
(adjust
st for different stress ratio)
Es = Youngs modulus of steel
Ac = cross sectional area of concrete
As = cross sectional area of steel
Shear stress, fs, is given by:
fs = (P1 - P2) / Ashaft
where Ashaft = surface area of pile shaft
between levels 1 and 2 146
 DYNAMIC PILE LOAD TEST

Measure the time history of force (using strain gauges) and acceleration
( i accelerometers
(using l t andd integrate
i t t to t gett velocity)
l it ) - e.g. Pile
Pil DDriving
ii
Analyser (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
148
Involve signal matching to get a good enough fit by adjusting the input values of
the pile-ground model
 Dynamic Pile Load Test

Strain gauge and accelerometers installed on steel piles

DYNAMIC PILE LOAD TEST

151
 DYNAMIC PILE LOAD TEST
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

Note : pile capacity may not be fully mobilised in dynamic load tests
because of limited pile movement

152
 PILE INTEGRITY TESTS

Quality control - serve as comparative and screening tests

Augment other tests and control measures

Retrospective investigation (after pile construction)

Indirect testing (need expert interpretation)

Checking pile integrity but not the bearing capacity

 TYPES OF PILE INTEGRITY TESTS

Sonic logging (also known as sonic coring)

Pile integrity test (PIT)
frequency-based (or impedance) tests
time-based ((or echo)) tests
Dynamic pile load tests
 SONIC LOGGING

Acoustic principles - measure propagation time of sonic transmission between

emitter
itt & receiver
i probes b ini ttubes
b castt iin pile
il
Used in bored piles & barrettes
Check for presence of defects in concrete
Tests cant tell yyou the nature of defects
No depth limitation due to damping effects
Need pre-selection
pre selection of piles (okay if all!)
Sudden increase in sonic wave travel time suggests local area of lower quality
concrete
156
157
 TYPICAL TUBE LAYOUTS FOR SONIC LOGGING

(a) (b)
With 3 ttubes
b (3 paths)
th ) With 4 ttubes
b (6 paths)
th )
WAYS OF CONDUCTING SONIC LOGGING TESTS

159
 PILE INTEGRITY TESTS

Acoustic anomalies may not correspond to structural defects

Cannot identify definitely whether defects will affect pile behaviour
under loading or long-term performance
Interpretation of test results needs expert input and possibly
subjective
j in not so straightforward
g cases