The State-of-the-practice of Geotechnical Engineering

in Taiwan and Hong Kong

Foundation Design & Construction in

Hong Kong Present & Beyond?

Daman Lee Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited

W.K. Pun Geotechnical Engineering Office, CEDD
Arthur So China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Ltd.
C.C. Wai Gammon Construction Limited

Our Theme
A brief look at where we are
Issues still bugging us
Where do we go now?

Common Foundation Types in Hong Kong

Steel H piles Large diameter bored pile

Mini-piles

1MN

4MN

6MN

Driven

Up to
100MN

Prebored

New Publications in Hong Kong

1 / 2006

Progress in Last 5 Years

Li et al (2000)
Design of Deep Foundations in
Hong Kong Time for change?

(1) End Bearing Bored Piles on Rock

Predominately using
presumptive values
Bearing pressures generally
regarded as very conservative

GEO Publication 1/2006

provides an alternative
approach

(2) Bell-out / Rock Socket

Many queried the actual
effectiveness of bell-out (eg
Lumb)

Typically 10MPa

A convenient way to address

bearing pressure being too
conservative?

Half-addressed by Code of Practice

for Foundation (BD, 2005)
Typically 5 7.5 MPa

(3) H-pile Driven to Rock

Shallow rockhead
Pile driven into rock
Loading tests tend to produce
positive results
Shallow rockhead

Addressed by Code of Practice

for Foundation (BD, 2005)

(4) Negative Skin Friction

Drag on piles due to settling
ground
Transient loads results in
temporary settlement
Need
to consider a combined
Addressed
by Code
load case of both?

of Practice
for Foundation (BD, 2005)
Settling
ground

(5) Issues Requiring More Progress

Use of hydraulic hammer to achieve final set

Bored pile on rock how to deal with soft materials at the
interface

Bored Piles

Design & Construction Issues with Bored Piles

Bearing pressure on rocks
Combined end bearing and rock socket
45 load spread
Pile base imperfections

Bearing Pressures on Rock

First appear in 1990
Considered to be very
conservative
Many full-scale pile loading
tests had been undertaken
since
Used until 2005

30

Loading Tests
by West Rail

(14)

(13)

In the Technical
Memorandum, 50%
increase in bearing
stresses were
approved by BD
Various other loading
tests also support this

End bearing stress qb (MPa)

(2)

Presented in many
previous occasions

(7.5)

25
(2-3)

West Rail

(15)

20
(30)

(11)
(7)

(130

PNAP141

15
(11)

(11)
(12)

1.0xUCS
10
(1)

(30)

Breccia

5
(1)

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

Average unconfined compressive strength (MPa)

Bearing Stresses in the New Code of Practice for

Foundations (BD, 2005)

A new prescriptive bearing

stress for highly to completely
decomposed rocks
No change to the other
categories
A new prescriptive bearing
stress for fresh rock note the
requirement of 100% total core
recovery (TCR) and no
weathered joints

End Bearing on Rock Alternative to

Presumptive Values
Mobilised Bearing Pressure q (MPa)
30

25

Bearing pressure
thatBearing
can induce
pressure that
settlement
~1%
can induceofsettlement
of
of the about
pile 1%
dia.of the
pile diameter at the
at the
pilebase
base.

Mobilized Bearing Pressure, qa (MPa)

All
ow
abl
e 20
Be
ari
ng
Pre 15
ssu
re
(M
Pa)

14.5
12.5
10

10
7.5

Recommended
Recommended
allowable
allowable bearing
pressure
bearing
pressure
88

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Rock Mass Rating (RMR)

Rock Mass Rating (RMR)

Legend:
? = Bearing pressure substantially mobilised
? = Degree of mobilisation of bearing pressure unknown

Extracted from GEO

Publication 1/2006 (In Press)

 Data published in
recent years

Mobilized Shaft Resistance in Rock, (kPa)

The Use of Rock Socket

10000

Extracted from
GEO Publication
1/2006 (In
Press)

Many used Osterberg

Cell at pile base direct measurement
of socket behaviour
Ultimate
socket
friction,
s (kPa)
Ultimate
shaft friction
s (kPa)

10000

1000

s = 0.2 c 0.5

100
1

10

1000

100

Uniaxial
Compressive Strength
Rock,
q c (MPa)
Uniaxial
Compressive
Strengthof of
Rock,
c (MPa)

Legend:
? = Shaft resistance substantially mobilised
? = Degree of mobilisation of shaft resistance unknown

s=

qu
0.3

Figure 19 Mobilized Shaft Resistance in Rock Sockets

Williams & Pells

1000

Horvath et al (1980)

Geoguide 1/96
GEO
Publicati
on No.
Code of1/96
Practice
2004

Horvath et al (1980)
Long & Collins (1998)
Radhakrishnan & Leung (1989)
Williams & Pells (1980)
Glos & Briggs (1983)
Shiu & Chung (1994)
Lam et al (1991)
Arup tests in HK
KCRC West Rail tests
Zhan & Yin (2004)
Incheon 2nd Bridge (2005)

Extracted from
West Rail papers

100
1

10

100

1000

Uniaxial
Compressive
Strength,
Unconfined
compressive
strengthqof
rock (MPa)
u (MPa)

Load Deflection Behaviour of Rock Sockets

This is where
The bullet points
Are to go

Combined Rock Socket and End Bearing

Rock socket behaves in a ductile manner
Should allow direct combination of both without the
need of further loading test
Provide a robust alternative to the use of bell-out if the
socket length to pile diameter ratio is around 3
Max ratio allowed by BD (2005) is 2 (or 6m whichever is
less)

45 Load Spread

Under the strange rule,

there is no need for any
load spread check in this
case!

10

Pile Toe Imperfections

Major issue a few years ago
Less so nowadays, but not completely resolved
The use of pressure grouting is still routinely done as a
remedial measure

Study by the HK Contractor Association (2001-2002)

Thin layer of soft materials at pile base does not always
require remedial works
Factors to be considered:
A single pile or pile group?
Probing at centre of pile or edge of pile?
unbound aggregate, soil inclusions or coreloss

Suggested a rational approach to the problem

11

Prescriptive Approach An Example

Interface
Investigation
Soft
This is
where
Layer Thickness
S 100
N/A

Remedial
Works/ Proposal
Flush clean +
The bullet pointsnormal grout
100 < S 150
N/A
Flush clean +
Are to go
pressure grout
150 < S 200 Sonic test (Fan Flush clean +
shape) with
pressure grout
satisfactory
results
Unsatisfactory
results

Further
Investigation
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A

coring for
second hole
S 100

N/A

100 < S 150

150 < S 200

S > 200

Remedial
Works/Proposal
N/A

Flush clean +
normal grout
Flush clean +
pressure grout
Pressure jet
clean + pressure
grout

Concrete
pile
Coring
tube

Thickness
Of soft
Material - s

Further investigation + submit remedial proposal

Driven H-piles

12

Design & Construction Issues with Driven H-piles

Pile driving formula
Final set problems
Whipping of piles
Long piles

Shall We Keep Using Hiley Formulae?

Different views
Simple is beautiful vs
Too simple,
sometimes ..
If we were to vote ..

examples

13

The Driving Formulae

Hiley (1925)
In 1960, more than 450 formulae of slight variations to Hiley
HKCA (1994) lumped various efficiency terms into a single
factor Kh
HKCA (2004) uses energy measured from PDA
Gradually increasing experience in modelling the efficiency of
hydraulic hammers in Hiley Formula
Difficulties encountered in long piles

Development of the Wave Equation

Isaacs (1931) First used 1-D stress wave theory in pile
driving analysis
Smith (1960) forms the basis of modern wave equation
analysis
Development of bonded resistance strain gauges
Research work at Case Institute of Technology
CAPWAP, GRLWEAP
At present, limited to detect pile defects, measure
hammer efficiency

14

A State of Confusion
Different departments have different approaches
ASD approach: Use of CAPWAP to determine pile capacity
and calibrate against parameters in the Hiley Formula
Private projects: essentially HKCA (1994), with trial piles to
establish kh and PDA/CAPWAP
Contractors do not know how small the set needs to be in
order to pass the loading tests

Long Piles Big Hammers

Ideal Situation: SPT N > 200 at around 30-40m; set usually
achieved 3-5m into the saprolite
For longer piles, the length effect of Hiley Formulae starts to
show
Even 20t hammers dropping from 4m is not enough
So-called Driving to refusal

15

Required Set for Long Piles at a Particular Site

(over 4000 piles, 35-80m long)

Hypothetical Allowable Set

16

Whipping of Piles

Why Does This Happen?

Happens mostly in sites with soft deposits in the upper
layers (eg reclamation)
Let go in its weaker axis with insufficient lateral restraint
during driving
Some contractors attempt to avoid this by reducing the
drop height and carry out final set a few days later

17

Signs of Whipping from Shaft Shortening

Measurements

Static load tests carried

out at a particular site with
thick layer of soft soils
Signs of whipping

More to Tackle .
Residual settlement on pile loading tests
Use of pile raft (settlement reducing piles)
Use of base-grouting in competent soils
Ultimate limit state design?
etc etc
Encourage rational designs when time and resources are available

18

Thank You

Typical Set Table

TYPE OF PILE
UNIT WEIGHT OF PILE
DRIVING RESISTANCE
TYPE OF HAMMER
WEIGHT OF HAMMER OR RAM
WEIGHT OF PILE HEAD HELMET
ENERGY OUTPUT PER BLOW (MAX)
(W*h*k* )/R-C/2

S=

:
:
(R) :
:
(W) :
(WH) :
(W*h) :

305x305x223 kg/m
223 kg/m
7096 kN <=3548x2
Drop Hammer (DH-06)
20.45 ton
0.59 ton
642 kN.m

WHERE

C = Cp + Cq + Cc

DROP OF HAMMER
EFFICIENCY OF HAMMER
COEFFICIENT OF RESTITUTION
TEMPORARY COMPRESSION OF PILE HEAD

200.6 kN
5.79 kN

Efficiency of blow :
=
W+P*e^2
W+P

WHERE

(h) :
(k) :
(e) :
(Cc):

3.2 m
0.6
0.5 (Steel Anvil)
1.5 mm

P = WEIGHT OF PILE AND HELMET

Max. Allowable Penetration (mm) For Last 10 Blows Table

Pile
Length (m)
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72

Blow
Efficiency

Temporary Compression Cp+Cq (mm)

61
49
48

62
50
49
47
46
44
43

63
49
48
47
45
44
42
41
39
38

64
49
47
46
44
43
42
40
39
37
36
34
33

65
50
49
47
46
44
42
41
39
38
37
35
34
32
31
29
28

66
50
49
47
45
44
42
41
39
37
36
34
33
32
30
29
27
26
-

67
49
47
45
44
42
40
39
37
36
34
32
31
29
28
27
25
-

68
49
47
46
44
42
40
39
37
35
34
32
31
29
27
26
-

69
46
44
42
41
39
37
35
34
32
30
29
27
26
-

70
41
39
37
36
34
32
30
29
27
25
-

71
36
34
32
31
29
27
25
-

72
31
29
27
26
-

73
26
-

74
-

0.733
0.730
0.726
0.723
0.720
0.717
0.714
0.711
0.707
0.704
0.701
0.699
0.696
0.693
0.690
0.687
0.684
0.682
0.679
0.676
0.674
0.671
0.668
0.666
0.663

19

Examples
B.H. Fellenius

E. Blackett

return

20