Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Daman D.M. Lee*, W.K. Pun§, Arthur K.O. So# & C.C. Wai¤
Abstract: This paper gives a state-of-the-practice account of key issues pertaining to the
design and construction of two of the major types of deep foundation systems in Hong Kong,
namely large diameter bored piles (including barrettes) and driven piles. For bored piles,
key issues such as negative skin friction, rational design approach with consideration of
settlement, use of shaft friction, quality control and mitigation on common defects are
discussed. For driven piles, the limitations of the commonly adopted driving formulae are
further deliberated and the criteria for the pile loading tests are re-visited. Finally,
suggestions are put forward on the discussed issues with an intent to attract more fruitful
discussions and debates within the industry for further advancement.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, Hong Kong has been through a turmoil time with regards to pile foundation
design & construction. There were cases of deep foundations found to have been
constructed short of the design length, occurrence of soft materials at the toe of large diameter
bored piles. These had brought about some changes in the industry. Recently, the
Buildings Department has published the first version of the Code of Practice for Foundations
(CoPF), as part of a whole new series of codes for the private development industry.
Furthermore, the Geotechnical Engineering Office (GEO) of the Civil Engineering &
Development Department has prepared a new version of the GEO Publication No. 1/96 - Pile
Design and Construction, which takes into account of the latest pile testing data and other
advances of pile design and practices into consideration. It is therefore considered timely for
this paper to discuss some of the latest practices and look ahead to other possible areas for
improvement.
This paper focuses on large diameter bored piles and driven steel H-piles only. They
together exhausted a majority of the piling resources in Hong Kong and both have had their
fair share of events in recent years. For example, it was baffling to observe that segregation
or grout loss at the toe of bored piles has suddenly known to be a wide-spread problem.
There was neither any apparent change in the casting technique nor significant change in the
design mix of the tremie concrete. This might have become apparent due to the introduction
of more stringent quality control, eg the systematic coring of the interface between the
concrete and the founding rock for every single pile. The situation with driven H-pile is
equally captivating. For example, there has been a flourish of publications in recent years on
the use of wave equations to replace the various forms of driving formulae, with an aim to
tackle the shortcomings of the driving formulae. While this is happening, some contractors
are confused; they continue to use drop hammers to achieve final set but at the same time,
The development of the design and construction of foundation in Hong Kong has been largely
influenced by the economic climate through time. The use of simple, albeit conservative
empirical approaches, have served its purpose till recent years. However, with the increasing
budget constraint these days, cost-effectiveness must deserve greater consideration. Out of
all different components within a structure, foundation has always been singled out as the one
that is least optimised and hence there is much room for improvement.
CURRENT PRACTICES
General
The governing of foundation design in Hong Kong can be broadly divided into two families.
First, for designs related to private developments, they are under the control of the Building
Ordinance (BO), supplemented by the Building (Construction) Regulations and administered
under the Building (Administration) Regulations. A number of Practice Notes (PNAP) were
also issued that provide guidance to the practitioners; design and construction following these
notes are deemed to satisfy the BO. The Buildings Department (BD) also recently issued the
Code of Practice for Foundations (BD, 2004). Foundation designs are submitted to the BD
for vetting and approval. Second, for public works, foundation design and construction in
general follows the General Specification for Civil Engineering Works (Hong Kong
Government, 1992). Practitioners often make reference to the GEO Publication No. 1/96:
Pile Design and Construction (GEO, 1996). The designs are submitted to the client
government departments for vetting prior to the invitation to tender. In some special area, eg
areas underlain by marble, the designs are also submitted to the GEO for vetting. For major
construction project, independent checking may also be specified.
Bored Pile
(i) Presumptive rock bearing stress
Many of Hong Kong’s private developments often have columns transferring loadings of
more than 100MN down to the foundations. To match with the intense economical and
housing situations in the late eighties, the adoption of presumptive rock bearing stress
approach has played an important role. It recognizes the fact that Hong Kong’s solid
geology is predominately granite and volcanic tuff and hence the recommendation in BS8004
was further simplified to the selection of presumptive bearing stress based only on the total
core recovery (TCR) of core samples from the predrilling core run and an index strength on
the core samples. This simplified approach needs to be conservative as it takes no account
on the likely settlement and assumed none of the load is resisted by the soil above the
founding. Typically, designers only need to specify the piles to be constructed to a rock
stratum with 5m core run of rock with TCR of greater than 85% and rock strength greater than
25 MPa, giving a rock bearing stress of 5MPa. The use of the next higher grade at 7.5MPa,
requiring TCR greater than 95% and rock strength better than 50MPa is very much less often
because of the high risk of not being able to achieve the requirements when individual
predrilling is carried out for each pile and then having to carry out the re-design using a lower
In 1999, a series of preliminary pile loading tests was carried out in an attempt to provide cost
effective solutions for the foundation of the Kowloon Canton Railway Corporation (KCRC)
West Rail. The test series included test to explore: (i) the use of higher end bearing stresses
on rock greater than those commonly used, (ii) possible use of shaft-grouted barrettes, (iii)
combined use of end bearing with rock socket friction and (iv) lateral design stiffnesses of
pile groups. On (i), the test eventually lead to the adoption of a bearing stress of 11.25MPa
on Grade II rock with a TCR of 95% and UCS of 50MPa in one of the stations.
The CoPF (BD, 2004) introduced a new category of presumptive bearing with an allowable
bearing stress of 10MPa. The requirements of the new Category 1(a) bearing stress are
given as: “Fresh strong to very strong rock of material weathering grade I, with 100% total
core recovery and no weathered joints, and minimum uniaxial compressive strength of rock
material (UCS) not less than 75 MPa (equivalent point load index strength PLI50 not less than
3 MPa)”. When dealing with fresh granite and tuff, the required strength should generally
be attainable. For designers and clients, the finding of rock joints at the post-tender
predrilling stage, or worst still at the pile founding level verification stage, would put the
entire piling contract into disarray. The project would experience delays due to the need for
re-design, which may not even be possible if the original design was too tight. For
contractors, there is little incentive for them to put forward alternative design using this new
presumptive bearing value category even after the predrilling for individual piles because of
the high contractual risk of finding rock joints, however minor they might be, during the post
construction pile verification stage.
From a technical point of view, the introduction of this check is puzzling. The most onerous
load spreading situation for two adjacent piles occurs when the piles’ founding levels are the
same and the two piles are directly next to each other. According to the 45° load spread rule,
however, such a situation does not require further checking. In the CoPF (BD, 2004), there
is no such 45° load spread checking requirement but its application is still quite wide-spread
amongst practitioners.
Where the difference in pile founding levels is large, indicating a possible steeply sloping
rockhead either locally or globally, it is more appropriate to run a check on the stability of the
rock mass in cases where there are unfavourably orientated jointing. This possible rock
sliding mechanism is obviously constrained by the overburden pressure and hence it is a
straight-forward exercise to determine at what depth such instability would render impossible,
however adverse the joint sets might be.
A consequence of the simplistic design approach to found on rock described in earlier sections
is that piles may eventually need to be constructed to depths greater than 70m, which is
widely regarded as the practical limit of casing installation (even shorter at 50m for the very
large diameter piles). The telescoping method is sometimes used for the construction of
deep piles (depth > 70m), in layered rock or rock with solution features (Figure 1). This
method is intending to ensure the entire bored hole in soft layers to be fully cased. However,
installing more than one layer of casing is time consuming and requires a very experienced
crew for its operation and successful retrieval of all the casing. For public sector works,
casing may be allowed to stop short of rockhead provided that either some form of slurry is
used for the lateral support or the soil is judged to be competent without any major risk of
collapsing. Such practices remain rare in the private sector works. The reluctance in
allowing the use of slurry support for bored piling is perhaps difficult to justify, considering
the fact that excavated bore for circular piles ought to be inherently more stable that that for
the rectangular barrettes. Foundation contractors in Hong Kong are introducing more
innovative and advanced tools such as hydraulic under-reamer and combined bit to facilitate
pile excavation.
To minimize the occurrence of toe defects, many contractors have their own methods in
pouring the first load of concrete and a slightly different concrete mix etc. The occurrence
of toe defects has been significantly reduced both in terms of number and extent but more
effort is still needed in improving the technique before this problem can be completely
eliminated.
Toe imperfection could be related to workmanship and unforeseen ground. In most cases,
the need to pour concrete to meet tight construction programme often leads to improper or
insufficient cleaning by airlifting, resulting in the presence of compressible silt layer in the
pile base. Thick weathered joints or silt trapped in crevices in the pile base may also be the
cause of toe imperfection. Furthermore complete cleaning of the pile base is particularly
difficult for bell-out base as the reinforcement cage restricts the movement of the airlifting
pipe to within the confined area of the cage. Soft materials could sometimes migrate to the
central area of the pile from the bell-out after air-lifting and prior to concreting.
When a pile is suspected of having segregated concrete regardless of the thickness of the
imperfection and the pile depth, the common approach is to sink additional full cores in the
pile, terminating typically 1 m below the suspected defect zone. Once the extent and volume
of segregated concrete are identified, high pressure water jet would be used to remove loose
aggregates in the defect zone. Voids left behind would be backfilled with cement grout
injected under high pressure. Usually a proof core hole would be required to penetrate
through the grouted zone to confirm the effectiveness of the remedial work.
Similar remedial measures would be adopted for piles with imperfect toe. Investigation to
verify the extent of toe imperfection would be carried out by coring through the remaining
reservation pipes for sonic logging test. Sometimes additional full cores may be required to
supplement the information from interface cores and to facilitate cleaning and grouting of the
pile base.
Toe defects in large diameter bored pile became a significant issue since the year 2000. It is
believed that this discovery was made as a result of the introduction of the systematic coring
of the interface via a reservation tube attached to the side of the reinforcement cage. The
logic being that when carrying out full depth coring, it is always aimed towards the centre of
the pile to avoid clashing into the pile reinforcements. At the pile centre, the interface is
likely to be at its best where the pouring of the concrete takes place via the tremie pipe.
During the concrete pouring process, soft materials that exist would be tend to be pushed to
the outer circumference of the pile, giving poor results when being cored. The
reinforcement cage could also act as a trap to these soft materials, thus giving a poor rock-pile
interface when being cored.
The approach taken to deal with imperfection in bedrock has been an interesting subject. As
previously described, end-bearing bored piles in Hong Kong are normally designed to found
on moderately weathered rock with a minimum of 85% total core recovery. This means that
15% of the core could have been highly to completely weathered materials, which are soils in
engineering terms. It is interesting to observe that in the case of up to 15% of core loss, no
remedial actions are required but when up to 15% of jointed materials were recovered that do
not meet the required grade for founding, remedial actions were often imposed..
Driven Piles
In Hong Kong, driven piles are generally hammered to a depth where penetration resistance
reaches a pre-determined value. The Hiley Formula is widely used as a field control in
determining the penetration resistance required for a given pile capacity. Design of driven
piles based on soil mechanic principles alone to determine the required length of the piles in
soils is not common, unless they are designed to resist uplift forces or where only soft soils
are encountered. In the past, driving formulae based on the Newton’s laws of impact were
normally used. They are simple and provide acceptable prediction as long as their basic
assumptions as particles and spontaneous energy transfer upon impact are not extensively
violated. According to Smith (1960), there were 450 formulae of this kind in the file of the
Engineering News Record and more were proposed since then. However, it is well known that
modern techniques based on one-dimensional wave propagation theory can better represent
the driving process particularly when the pile is long. They are more complicated and require
pile-soil modelling and numerical analysis. In the last two decades, there were also energy
approaches based on wave mechanics and energy conservation. They determine the impact
energy delivered to pile head by dynamic measurement and relate it to work done by pile-soil
system to predict pile capacity.
Experience in driving piles indicates that small-displacement piles, e.g. steel H-pile, will be
terminated at depths where the standard penetration test (SPT) N-values in the soils are in the
range of 150 to 200, or at bedrock level. For large-displacement piles, such as prestressed
precast concrete piles, they are usually terminated at depths where SPT N-values exceed 100.
These SPT N-values provide a basis of estimating the likely depths where piles will meet the
required driving resistance. These are not design requirements.
The pile capacities are generally governed by the compressive stresses on the nominal
cross-section of the prefabricated piles. For example, the capacities of steel H-piles are based
on limiting the compressive stress to 30% of the characteristic yield strength of the steel at
working load (BD, 2004).
Given the many inherent uncertainties in the design of driven piles, a certain number of piles
are always selected for loading testing to confirm the pile capacity.
In 1991, hydraulic hammers were introduced to local market as a step to minimise the
environmental impact of percussive piling. The piling industry proposed to adopt an
improved driving formula, the HKCA Formula (HKCA, 1994), which allows the use of
hydraulic hammer in the process of taking final set for driven piles. In principle, the HKCA
Formula is based on the energy approach (Broms & Lim, 1988). It lumps together the
various efficiency terms in the Hiley Formula into a single hammer factor, Kh. The HKCA
Formula is expressed as follow:
kh E
R = (1)
S + 0.5 (Cc+Cp+Cq)
where R = pile resistance
Kh = 0.7 for pile driving system without a cushion
= 0.6 when an additional pile cushion is used
E = hammer energy
S = pile set
Cc, Cp, Cq = temporary helmet, pile and soil compression
This formula is different from Hiley formula as a constant Kh value is used in lieu of the blow
efficiency η which is equal to (W+e2P) / (W+P) and is length dependent as shown in Figure 6.
However, the Kh value adopted is later found to be too conservative to use. Contractors are
therefore forced to pitch piles with hydraulic hammers and final set them using drop
hammers.
In 2004, a revised HKCA formula was proposed (HKCA, 2004) such that:
XE
R = S + 0.5 (C +C ) (2)
p q
0.9
Blow Efficiency
0.8
0.7
0.6
The advantage of this formula is that it is independent of hammer type and Cc value. Despite
this difference, the two versions of HKCA formula are basically similar because Kh is equal to
kX where k = [S+1/2(Cc+Cp+Cq)] / [S+1/2(Cp+Cq)]. Figure 7 shows that k tends to be very
constant as both S and Cc are generally smaller than Cp+Cq particularly when the pile is long
and for the driving condition and type of cushion used.
Further improvements have been made to reduce the uncertainty of energy transferred from
the hammer to the pile (HKCA, 2004). This involves taking measurements by Pile Driving
Analyzer (PDA) during trial piling stage to establish site-specific data on the efficiency of
driving hammers. The selection of the mean energy transfer ratio is best taken based on a
consistent and statistical approach. Selection based on the lowest measured value does not
necessarily reflect the hammer efficiency and could result in overly conservative final set
table. Measurements should also be taken at different stages of pile driving to ensure
consistency of the selected hammer efficiency.
1.12
1.10
Ratio of K h /X
1.08
1.06
1.04
Cc=5.0mm, Cp+Cq=40mm
1.02 Cc=5.0mm, Cp+Cq=50mm
Cc=2.5mm, Cp+Cq=40mm
Cc=2.5mm, Cp+Cq=50mm
1.00
0 10 20 30 40 50
Set Per Last 10 Blows S10 (mm)
Hydraulic hammer is now the standard equipment in driving piles. However, piling
contractors continue to use drop hammers in taking the final sets of piles in many cases. This
may partly attribute to the ease of varying the energy output of a drop hammer in order to suit
the prescribed range of penetration in the final set. More measurements and analysis will be
required for using hydraulic hammers in computing final set of the piles.
In recent years, high grade (e.g. Grade 55C) and heavy steel sections are commonly used, as
they can carry larger foundation load. As a result, the weight of the drop hammer and its
drop height has to be increased, so as to satisfy the maximum and minimum penetration
resistance at final set (Woo & Ng, 2005). This increases the chance of damaging a pile and
poses a safety risk to the personnel taking records of the final set. From safety and cost
considerations, it is more sensible to use hydraulic hammers for setting piles.
The use of hydraulic hammers in taking final sets has been successful in some projects
(ArchSD, 2003). Fung et al (2004) described the procedures of ascertaining the pile
capacities by using the Hiley Formula with modified parameters. Despite the final set table is
still based on the Hiley Formula, the parameters are selected such that the pile capacity
predicted by the Hiley Formula is equal to 85% of that predicted by the CAPWAP analysis.
This is equivalent to using CAPWAP analysis to ascertain the pile capacities. The use of
hydraulic hammers will require more verifications to calibrate the hammer efficiency
Nevertheless, the data and experience gained will be important to establish hydraulic
hammers as a standard driving equipment for setting of piles. Practitioners are encouraged to
adopt such an approach.
Driven piles will end up seating on bedrock if adequate penetration resistance is not provided
The interaction of driving piles is a complex process. Soil resistance developed during pile
driving consists of static and dynamic resistance components. The static resistance
component is more important as they will usually be the only component to carry the
foundation loads at working stage. However, it only represents a portion of pile capacity
during driving or setting of piles. On the other hand, the process of driving piles inevitably
changes the soil properties, e.g. densification of soils, shearing and displacing of soils around
the driven piles and the development of excess pore water pressures.
QL
es = AE (3)
However, due to existence of shaft resistance, the load in pile will reduce in magnitude as it
travels down the shaft and becomes significantly small at base leading to very little end
bearing resistance. Figure 9 shows that if the load reduction in pile is taken into consideration,
the elastic shortening of the shaft will be:
(Qt+αsQs)L
es = AE (4)
where Q = Qt + Qs
Qt = end bearing
Qs = shaft resistance
αs = distribution factor for shaft resistance (FHWA 1992)
Figure 11 – Pile damaged by 12 tonnes drop hammer from 1.5m height (Kowloon Tong)
Figure 12 presents the static load test result of a project in which piles were driven through
very thick layers of loose or weak soils. The maximum pile head settlement minus the
residual settlement was found
to be larger than the
theoretical elastic shortening
of the pile shaft. It was
interpreted, amongst other
information, that the piles
could have bent along the
weak axis by whipping.
In Hong Kong, two sets of acceptance criteria for static pile loading tests are in use:
While the acceptance criteria given in the CoPF look similar to the off-set’ limit given by
Davisson (1972), there are differences in the acceptance criteria as well as the loading
procedures between the two methods. Davisson developed the ‘off-set’ limit by comparing
the pile capacities derived from wave equation analyses with that by static loading tests. The
‘quick test’ procedure was adopted in the static loading tests, which is different from the
maintained loaded tests commonly used in Hong Kong. Davisson (1972) suggested that the
‘off-set’ limit should not be directly used to interpret the failure load of the pile for any
loading procedures that included load increments held for a period longer than an hour.
The acceptance criteria given in the CoPF (BD, 2004) were introduced in 1990 when the
Building Regulations were revamped. In addition to a ‘off-set’ limit, a residual settlement was
specified in a Practice Note. This residual settlement limit has evolved over the years and it
can now be taken as D/120 + 4 mm or 25 % of the maximum pile head settlement measured
during the tests, whichever is larger. This 25% came from the Buildings Department when a
set of test results in BD’s record was studied when the CoPF was being finalised.
MOVING FORWARD
In reality, foundations rarely suffer from sudden bearing failure without signs of excessive
settlement. The serviceability of the structure will become questionable long before its
collapse due to bearing failure of the foundation. This is a more critical criterion that ought to
be taken care of in the foundation design. Such a requirement transpires to the need for a
better understanding of soil-structure interaction for single piles and piles in groups. This
design concept has received much attention in overseas practices, e.g. it has been embedded in
design code published by the Federal Highways Administration of the United States.
Unfortunately, there are obvious omissions in the technological advancement to improve our
capability in predicting soil-structure interactions and, hence, the settlement of foundations.
The adoption of simplified design approach common in local practice may partly contribute to
this shortcoming. In recent years, some instrumented pile loading tests were conducted to
support rational design approach adopted in a few infrastructure projects. While these are
positive steps that have resulted in some improvements to the design practice (GEO, 2005),
designs using rational design approach remain a small proportion. Transformation of local
Bored Pile
(i) End bearing capacity
An alternative method for determining allowable bearing pressure is given in GEO (2005).
In this method, the rock mass is characterized by the rock mass rating (RMR) classification
system by Bieniawski (1989). The RMR classification system requires the assessment of the
uniaxial compressive strength of the materials, the rock quality designation (RQD), the
spacing of joints and conditions and orientation of the discontinuities. It is more rational, as it
examines in more details the infilling between the joints and the conditions of the joint
surface. The RMR is also applicable to sedimentary and metamorphic rocks, except for
marble that have been affected by dissolution.
In assessing the data of the West Rail pile loading test, Hill et al (2000) also promoted the use
of a method of deducing rock stiffness based on the RMR. The derivation of the RMR
values from rock cores extruded from the predrilling boreholes is described in detailed by Hill
& Wallace (2001).
In computing the RMR values, Kulhawy & Prakoso (1999) and Littlechild et al (2000)
recognised that two basic parameters in the original RMR (i.e. groundwater and orientation of
discontinuity) are not relevant to foundation problems and they proposed fixed values for
these two parameters. These recommendations are followed in the marking scheme given in
GEO (2005). The individual rating for the joint spacing has been adjusted in Bieniawski
(1989) and the effect of the double counting the joint spacing in RQD has been reduced. On
the other hand, RQD could be very sensitive to joint spacing, particularly when these are
around 100 mm apart.
The correlation between RMR values and deformation modulus of the rock mass is
established based on local pile loading tests conducted in recent years. The allowable
bearing pressure of a rock mass can be assessed by specifying an acceptable settlement using
the rock mass modulus determined from the RMR values. The allowable bearing pressures
recommended in GEO (2005) are established based on a settlement limit generally less than
0.5% of the pile base diameter for RMR > 40 (see Figure 18). Designers can adopt a higher
bearing pressure based on other acceptable settlement consideration. This method offers a
rational basis for assessing the performance of the foundations.
25
Mobilized Bearing Pressure, qa (MPa)
Be 15 14.5
12.5
ari
ng 10
10
Pre
7.5
5 Recommended
5 allowable bearing
3 3
pressure
88
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rock Mass Rating (RMR)
Legend:
● = Bearing pressure substantially mobilised
∆ = Degree of mobilisation of bearing pressure unknown
Figure 18 – Determination of Allowable Bearing Pressure based on Rock Mass Rating (RMR)
10000
Mobilized Shaft Resistance in Rock, τ (kPa)
1000
τs = 0.2 σc 0.5
100
1 10 100 1000
Uniaxial Compressive
Uniaxial Strengthof of
Compressive Strength Rock,
Rock, q σc (MPa)
Legend:
● = Shaft resistance substantially mobilised
∆ = Degree of mobilisation of shaft resistance unknown
The latest advancement in high performance concrete technology plays an important role in
resolving some of issues concerning defects in bored piles. With the use of third generation
additives and optimization of PFA content, concrete mixes can be designed to suit individual
site condition and other environmental and logistical constraints. For instance, in the Hong
Kong Shenzhen Western Corridor project (Hong Kong section), the whole process of concrete
delivery from the batching plant to the marine piling area followed by pouring into the pile
often took up to 5 hours to complete. Bored pile concrete mixes were specially formulated to
enable the concrete to retain its flow properties to allow concreting to be carried out over an
extended period of time.
In year 2001, requested by the Hong Kong Construction Association, Arup carried out a study
of bored pile interface acceptance criteria. In the study, over 200 piling case histories were
reviewed and the toe imperfections were categorized into different thickness of unbound
aggregates and soil inclusions. A series of compression tests was then carried out in the
laboratory to investigate the compressibility of different interface materials. The study can
be used to provide a basis for prescriptive approach in dealing with defects in bored piles.
In fast track piling projects, particularly projects with large number of piles, it is a good idea
to adopt a project specific prescriptive approach to resolve the issue of defects. In this
approach, a checklist summarizes the defects with different severities, their corresponding
investigative regime and remedial measures. An example of a typical checklist is shown in
Figure 20. Items and actions in the checklist would be pre-approved by the Engineer. The
checklist provides a list of actions that are clear to both the Contractor and Engineer. In the
event of a defect occurring, the Contractor would carry out the appropriate remedial action in
accordance with the approved checklist. The prescriptive approach facilitates defects to be
rectified in a timely manner and minimize the impact to the overall construction programme.
The prescriptive approach had been used successfully in several major infrastructure projects
in Hong Kong, such as Deep Bay Link (Northern Section) and Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western
Corridor.
Driven Piles
(i) Residual Settlement on Pile Loading Test
Some questions remain on the imposition of the limit in residual settlement in a static pile
loading tests. The rationale for this requirement has not been clearly laid out to the profession.
If this is included as a check for limiting the differential settlement, it is more appropriate to
specify it at the working load. It has also been suggested that limiting the residual settlement
could limit the creep settlement accumulated from cyclic loadings, e.g. wind load. If this is
the intention, it would be more appropriate to include in the test procedure cyclic loadings at
the appropriate load magnitude.
There are few occasions where piles are reported to have failed the criterion on residual
settlement while satisfying the maximum pile head settlement. Practitioners should be
encouraged to investigate the reasons of such non-compliance. The recovery of the pile head
settlement may be restricted by the ‘locked-in’ stress in soils, as a result of reversal of shaft
resistance upon removal of test load (eg Fraser & Ng, 1990; Fellenius, 2002). Other
observation may relate to the hard-driving of the piles which may damage the pile toe. This
could cause plastic deformation of the steel section and larger residual settlement in static
loading test. The finding of these investigations should enable the industry to move forward in
improving the acceptance criteria for local practice.
It is unreasonable to continue using drop hammers in final setting of piles after diesel
hammers have been abandoned. However, the use of hydraulic hammers in final setting
requires measurement of energy transfer to pile head, which indeed involves wave equation
analysis. It is therefore logical to seek for further development in the use of the wave equation
approach but at the same time, one should also be mindful in avoiding similar trails to the
original development of the many forms of Pile Driving Formulae.
CONCLUSIONS
Piling design practices in Hong Kong has been through a time during which international
approaches were further simplified, quite often become empirical, and inevitably trading off
against cost-effectiveness in the process. There have been signs of clients willing to seek for
This paper illustrates a few salient design and construction issues that are currently in practice
and makes an attempt to illustrate the need to change our approaches and be open to more
rational methods when the opportunities arise. It is the authors’ view that local governing
bodies should establish guidelines to good practices but should also provide room for
innovations.
REFERENCES
BD (2004), Code of Practice for Foundations, Buildings Department, Hong Kong SAR
Government.
Brinch Hansen, J. (1963), “Discussion on Hyperbolic Stress-Strain Response: Cohesive
Soils”, Journal for Soils Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 89(4),
pp. 241-242.
Broms, B.B. and Lim, P.C. (1988), “A Simple Pile Driving Formula Based on Stress Wave
Measurements”, Proc. of the Third International Conference on Application of
Stress-Wave Theory to Piles, Ottawa, pp. 591-600.
Butler, H.D. and Hoy, H.E. (1977), Users Manual for the Texas Quick-Load Method for
Foundation Load Testing, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Chin, F.K. (1970), “Estimation of the Ultimate Load of Piles Not Carried to Failure”, Proc.
of the Second Southeast Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, Singapore, Vol. 1, pp.
81-90.
Chan, G., Lui, J, Lam, K., Yin, K.K., Law, C.W., Lau, R., Chan, A. & Hasle, R. (2004),
“Shaft Grouted Friction Barrette Piles for a Super High-rise Building”, Proc. of Hong
Kong Institution of Engineer Structural Division Annual Seminar, pp83-98.
Cummings, A.E. (1940), “Dynamic Pile Driving Formulas”, Journal of the Boston Society
of Civil Engineers, Vol. 23.
Davisson, M.T. (1972), “High Capacity Piles”, Proc. of ASCE Lecture Series, Innovations
in Foundation Construction, Illinois Section, pp. 81-112.
De Beer, E.E. (1967), “Proefondervindelijke bijdrage tot de studie van het grensdraag
vermogen van zand onder funderingen op staal”, Tijdshrift der Openbar Werken van
Belgie, No. 6, 1967 and 4, 5 and 6, 1968.
FDOT (1999), Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction, Florida
Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida, pp. 398-451.
Fellenius, B.H. (2002), “Determining the Resistance Distribution in Piles. Part 1: Notes on
Shift of No-Load Reading and Residual Load”, Geotechnical News Magazine, Vol.
20(2).
FHWA (1992), Static Testing of Deep Foundations, Publication No. FHWA-SA-91-042,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Fuller, F.M. and Hoy, H.E. (1970), “Pile Load Tests Including Quick-Load Test Method,
Conventional Methods and Interpretations”, Highway Research Board No. 333, Pile
Foundations, pp. 74-86.
GEO (1996), Pile Design and Construction, GEO Publication No. 1/96, Geotechnical
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The comments from the Organizing Committee of the Seminar are gratefully acknowledged.
This paper is published with the permission of the Head of the Geotechnical Engineering
Office and the Director of Civil Engineering and Development, Government of the Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region.