Design of Small Diameter Frictional Piles and Cases Study

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD
Page 1 of 71
File Code: Friction Piles.doc
Information Paper on Small Diameter Frictional
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL
Issue No./Revision No. : 1/ Issue/Revision Date : March 2013

Information Paper

Design of Small Diameter Frictional Piles
and Cases Study

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
March 2013
Page 2 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

CONTENTS

Content Page
1. Objectives............................................................................................................. 3
2. Background ........................................................................................................ 4
3. Load-Carrying Capacity of Frictional Piles - a Summary ............................. 6
4. I n-Situ Measurements in ArchSD Projects..................................................... 30
5. Summary of Findings ....................................................................................... 48
6. Loading Tests ................................................................................................... 50
7. Pile Group Settlement ...................................................................................... 51
8. Method of Procurement ................................................................................... 53
References

Annex A Estimation of the Length of Piles

Annex B Sample Particular Specification for Design and Construction of
Frictional Mini-Piles

Page 3 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

1. Objectives

1.1 Traditional small diameter frictional piles, which are usually drilled and cast in-
situ piles, are especially suited as foundations for sites with difficult access,
congested or where minimal disturbance to the existing structure is required.
Though Clause 5.3.2 of Code of Practice for Foundations 2004 (Foundations
Code 2004) issued by Buildings Department states that the allowable bearing
capacity for such non-driven piles may be determined by the allowable bearing
pressure and bond or frictional resistance of the ground, it further states that
unless for piles socketted into rock, the load-carrying capacity of the piles
should not be derived from a combination of the shaft resistance and end
bearing resistance of the piles unless it is justified that the settlements under
working load conditions are acceptable and adequate to mobilise the required
shaft resistance and end bearing resistance of the piles simultaneously. As such,
traditional mini-piles in Hong Kong are designed to be socketted into rock, and
their allowable capacity is derived solely from the average bond strength
between the grout and rock. An average bond strength is usually adopted for
piles socketted into rock, and the study carried out by the University of Hong
Kong (Department of Civil Engineering 2009) confirmed that most of the axial
load transmitted to the rock socket is dissipated at the top portion of the socket.

1.2 This Information Paper, besides reviewing the design and construction of
different types of small diameter frictional piles, introduces a non-traditional
piling system the frictional mini-piles. All such small diameter frictional
piles, unlike traditional mini-piles, derive its load-carrying capacity from shaft
friction from the soil. The frictional mini-piles are constructed with steel I-
section or a group of reinforcement bars in a pre-bored hole with a temporary
steel casing and then injected with cement grout. Similar type of frictional piles,
constructed with steel I-section in a pre-bored hole by continuous flight
augering (CFA) and then injected with cement grout, had successfully been
employed in four ArchSD sites in the 1990s, including a site in Tung Chung, a
site in Yuen Long and two sites in Ma On Shan. A distinctive feature of the
frictional mini-piles is that the pre-bored hole, instead of forming by CFA, is
constructed with Odex or similar method with a temporary steel casing.
Recently, ArchSD has successfully employed such frictional mini-piles as
foundations in two projects one in Mid-Levels and the other in Central.
Instrumented piles were also installed these two projects to monitor the stress
distribution along the piles. This Information Paper provides:

a) a literature review on the design of piles deriving their load-carrying
capacity from shaft resistance from soil;
b) summary of the results of instrumented piles in some ArchSD projects;
c) the design shaft friction to be adopted for the design of the different types of
small diameter frictional piles (including the frictional mini-piles); and
d) a particular specification on the design and construction of the frictional
mini-piles.

Page 4 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

2. Background

2.1 Typical sub-soil profile in Hong Kong consists of a layer of loose fill overlying
marine deposit and alluvium. Completely weathered soil then follows before
reaching Grade III or better bedrock. For low-rise development, shallow
foundation in the form of pad and/or raft footing is usually adopted. For
medium-rise or high-rise development, founding the building on topmost fill or
alluvium will result in excessive settlement of the building. Deep foundation in
the form of piled foundation is therefore required.

2.2 Approved systems of piles in ArchSD can be classified into replacement piles or
displacement piles. Replacement piles include non-percussion cast in-situ
concrete piles (e.g. PIP piles); large diameter bored piles; pre-bored rock-
socketted steel H-piles, barrette piles; mini-piles founding on bedrock; and
hand-dug caissons (which has been banned) may only be used for public works
under the conditions imposed by Works Branch Technical Circular No. 9/94
(available: www.devb.gov.hk/). Displacement piles include: precast concrete
piles; precast prestressed tubular piles (e.g. Daido, SS piles); driven steel H
piles; and percussion cast in-situ concrete piles (e.g. Frankie piles, Vibro piles).

2.3 Among these approved systems of piles, driven steel H-piles (a small
displacement piling system) are one of the most popular and economical piling
options in Hong Kong due to the quick installation time and tidy site condition.
However, noise and vibration are particular concerns for some sites, and for
some sloping sites the driving operations also require the construction of heavy
temporary platforms. Replacement non-percussion piling systems are then
adopted. Common systems of non-percussion end-bearing piles include: large
diameter bored piles, pre-bored rock-socketted steel H-piles, and mini-piles. In
fact, these piles derive the resistance mainly from their end-bearing on hard
stratum and partly from the shaft friction between the soil and the pile shaft.
However, there are uncertainties on the shaft friction between the soil and the
pile shaft. Furthermore, if the rock end bearing stratum is available at a
reasonable depth, the shaft friction component is small when compared with the
end bearing component in the overall load carrying capacity of a pile. As such,
for traditional replacement non-percussion piles (e.g. pre-bored rock-socketted
steel H-piles, mini-piles, or large diameter bored piles) the shaft friction
component is usually neglected.

2.4 However, on some sites in Hong Kong (e.g. in Mid-Levels, Tung Chung, or
some newly reclaimed land) sound bedrock can only be found at very deep
level, e.g. more than 60m from the ground level. In such cases, a cost effective
solution is to adopt replacement piles relying on the shaft friction component.
Shaft friction can be developed after small relative displacements between the
soil and the pile shaft though may reach ultimate shortly after that, and hence
shaft friction component often contributes the bearing capacity in the working
load situations.

Page 5 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

2.5 Besides PIP piles, frictional mini-piles have now been employed commonly in
Hong Kong for those sites with bedrock at great depth. Frictional mini-piles are
a hybrid system combining traditional mini-piles with replacement non-
percussion cast in-situ piles. Traditional mini-piles consist of a steel permanent
casing with internal diameter not greater than 400 mm, with a group of
reinforcement bars in the middle as the load bearing element and the remaining
cavity filled with cement grout. They are required to be socketted into bedrock,
and hence derive their load carrying capacity from end-bearing on the bedrock.
The frictional mini-pile is constructed with steel I-section or a group of
reinforcement bars in a pre-bored hole with a temporary steel casing and then
injected with cement grout. The frictional mini-pile is not required to be
socketted into bedrock, and as such it behaves similar to the other non-
percussion cast in-situ piles deriving their load carrying capacity from the shaft
friction along the length of the piles. Moreover, steel casing is only temporarily
provided for pre-drilling and will be removed during the subsequent grouting
work.

2.6 The advantages of frictional mini-piles are that they are especially suited as
foundations for loading that is not high and for the sites that are with difficult
congested access (Figure 1), or requirements for minimal disturbance to the
existing structure, or bedrock can only be found at very deep level.

Figure 1 Congested site with difficult access

Page 6 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

3. Load-Carrying Capacity of Frictional Piles a Summary

3.1 Figure 2(a) shows the forces acting upon an axially loaded pile. Figure 2(b)
shows the typical relationship of shaft resistance R
s
and end bearing R
b

components of the pile founded on soil with the settlement of the pile. In theory,
by integrating the mobilised shaft friction f
s
over the surface of pile can give the
total shaft resistance R
s
.

Figure 2(a) Stresses and forces on an axially loaded pile

Figure 2(b) Typical shaft resistance and end bearing versus displacement
in a pile founded on soil
Page 7 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

Because relatively large displacements are required for piles founded on soil to
mobilise the end bearing capacity in normal range of acceptable settlement
criterion (Figure 2(b)), the ultimate bearing capacity of such a frictional pile
may develop up to 80 90% of its capacity through shaft friction (Holt et al
1982, Kwok 1987). However, the design parameters for the shaft resistance
along the length of pile also show great variation. The pile-soil interface shear
friction, besides determined by the stress history of the soil, is affected by the
following key parameters (Brown et al 2007):

a) the construction method;
b) the shear displacement of the soil at the pile-soil interface;
c) the in-situ soil properties (e.g. soil composition, water content, saturation,
stiffness and strength);
d) the concrete/grout properties (e.g. composition, viscosity, pressure, stiffness
and strength).

3.2 Effect of construction methods on shaft friction

3.2.1 Among the parameters listed in the above paragraphs, construction method
affects the shaft friction substantially. That is, despite of the same soil and grout,
piles constructed with the different construction method can have significantly
different shaft friction (Kay and Kalinowski 1997; Lo and Li 2003). The
construction method affects the relative volume of soil displaced in proportion
of the pile volume, the magnitude of the increase in the effective horizontal
stress at the pile-soil interface, the relative roughness of the pile-soil interface
(Figure 3(a)), and the effective diameter of the pile (Brown et al 2007). In
Hong Kong, pile driving by means of hydraulic hammer is commonly adopted
to install displacement piles such as driven steel H-piles. For replacement piles,
the following three methods are commonly employed to form the holes:

a) for large diameter bored piles, various excavating tools such as grabs,
chisels are used to form the holes within a temporary casing;
b) for PIP piles, CFA is used to form the hole;
c) for mini-piles or pre-bored rock-socketted steel H-piles, Odex method is
usually used to form the holes.

(a) smooth interface (b) rough interface
Figure 3(a) Roughness at pile-soil interface
(Source: Rollins et al 2005)

Page 8 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

3.2.2 Besides the difference in the method to form the holes, Armour et al (2000), as
illustrated in Figure 3(b), classifies the different concreting/grouting operations
for replacement piles. In Type A, concrete/grout is placed under gravity head
only. In Type B, grout is placed into the hole under pressure at around 0.5 to
1MPa as the temporary steel drill casing is withdrawn. In Type C, a two-step
process of grouting is employed with cement grout placed under gravity head as
with Type A and prior to hardening of the primary grout (after approximately 15
to 25 minutes), injection of grout via a sleeved grout pipe at a pressure of at
least 1MPa. In Type D, a two-step process of grouting is employed similar to
Type C with grout in the second step injected via a sleeved grout pipe at a
pressure of 2 to 8MPa. A pair of double packers is usually used inside the
sleeved pipe so that specific horizons can be treated several times. Among the
different construction methods, it can be expected that the shaft friction
increases from Type A to Type D construction.

Figure 3(b) Classification of construction method for replacement piles
(Source: modified from Armour et al 2000)

3.3 Shaft friction for different types of frictional piles

3.3.1 Section 3.2 describes the differences in forming the hole and concreting/
grouting operations for installing replacement piles. It should be noted that the
different construction methods affect the effective horizontal stress on the pile-
soil interface, and hence the shaft friction. Figure 4 summarises their load-
settlement behaviours of piles relying on pile-soil friction, including driven steel
H-piles, augered piles and bored piles (ONeill 2001). Two lines have been
added to Figure 4 to show the expected load-settlement behaviour of frictional
mini-piles with and without post-grouting along the pile shaft.
Page 9 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

Figure 4 Load-settlement graphs of common frictional piles
(Source: Modified from ONeill 2001)

3.3.2 Driven piles and bored piles

As expected, large displacement piles (e.g. driven Daido piles) are of the highest
shaft friction. During driving, the surrounding soil is displaced laterally,
causing an increase in the effective horizontal stress (Brown et al 2007). For
large diameter bored piles, the soil is removed by grabs, and there are temporary
casing throughout the installation. Concreting is of Type A (Figure 3(b)).
Therefore, the effective horizontal stress at the pile-soil interface tends to reduce
or remains unchanged during the construction (Brown et al 2007). Hence shaft
friction should be the lowest. The behaviour of small displacement driven piles
(e.g. driven steel H-piles) will lie between that of bored piles and that of large
displacement piles.

3.3.3 CFA piles

For augered piles using CFA (e.g. PIP piles), the grouting operation is similar to
Type A (Figure 3(b)). Yet, shaft friction for some augered piles (e.g.
displacement CFA piles (or termed DD piles in the US)) can achieve the
highest shaft friction among the replacement piles (ONeill 1994) if suitable
plants are properly used. It is due to its distinct construction method of such
DD piles, where a large diameter CFA with greater torque is used for forming
the hole. The large displacement by the large diameter CFA with greater torque
displaces the soil laterally, and therefore tend to increase the stresses in the
surrounding soil (similar to driven piles). However, in the traditional CFA pile
construction, the shaft friction at the pile-soil interface is far more complicated
than those of driven piles and large diameter bored piles. The continuous
augering operation can maintain the effective horizontal stresses near the value
Page 10 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

that existed before the installation, and may in some cases can achieve higher
effective stresses than the preconstruction state. However, it should be noted
that the rate of auger penetration is extremely important when installing augered
piles (Brown 2005). Prolonged augering at one depth without penetration will
flight the soil surrounding the CFA (a phenomenon called Archimedes pump),
resulting in excessive removal of the surrounding soil by loosening and
allowing the adjacent soil to fall into the hole. In such case, the soil surrounding
the pile is decompressed and the effective horizontal stresses are then decreased,
and thus the shaft friction cannot achieve the theoretical values. PSE should
therefore note that though Figure 4 shows that augered piles can achieve the
highest shaft friction among the replacement piles, in reality traditional CFA
piles may not be able to achieve such high shaft friction and may sometimes be
smaller than that for frictional mini-pile with post grouting. For details, PSE
may refer SEB Information Paper Review of PAKT-IN-PLACE Piles
Installation (available: http://asdiis/sebiis/2k/resource_centre/).

3.3.4 Frictional mini-piles

For the frictional mini-piles without post grouting along the pile shaft, the
construction method lies between Type A and Type B (Figure 3(b)). Their
load-settlement behaviour is therefore expected to be better than (though close
to) that of large diameter bored piles, as the grout filling the pre-bored holes is
placed under a small pressure. Improvement of the shaft friction for the
frictional mini-piles can be achieved by post grouting along the pile shaft, and
the construction method will then follow Type C or D (Figure 3(b)). The post
grouting is expected to increase the diameter of the mini-piles and hence the
effective horizontal stress so as to increase the shaft friction. However, it should
be noted that pre-bored holes for frictional mini-piles in Hong Kong are usually
formed by Odex method, and hence the densification effect is not predominant.

Page 11 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

3.4 Idealised pile-soil interface shear friction

3.4.1 Numerous studies (e.g. Misra and Chen 2004; Frizzi and Meyer 2000) have
been carried out to study the relationship of shear friction with shear movement
for the soil at pile-soil interface. Figure 5 shows one of such studies plotted in
dimensionless axes of developed shear to ultimate shear resistance (f/f
max
)
against the shear displacement to diameter of the pile (W/D).

Figure 5 Relationship of shear resistance with shear displacement at pile-
soil interface (Source: modified from Frizzi and Meyer 2000)

3.4.2 Theoretical model of development of shaft friction with displacement

Although the actual load-transfer mechanisms developed along the pile-soil
interface are highly complicated (Mayne and Harris 1993; Paik et al 2003; Yang
et al 2006), an idealised model for the soil at the pile-soil interface is usually
adopted (Misra and Chen 2004). Figure 6(a) plots the relationship between the
idealised pile-soil interface shear friction t and shear movement u. In the
idealised model, t is assumed to vary linearly with u in the elastic zone, and is
then assumed to be constant once the soil movement exceeds critical shear
displacement u
c
. Mirsa and Chen (2004) derive the following governing ODE
for the shear displacement u(x) at a distance x from the pile tip in the pile of
diameter D and length l:

e
u
d
u d

s s = 0 for 0 ) (
) (
2
2
2

1 for 0
) (
and
2
2
2
s s =

e c
u
d
u d

Page 12 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

where k = stiffness factor (Figure 6(a)),

=
m
k
k
l ,
k
m
= axial stiffness of the pile,

= non-dimensionless length = x/l,
and
e
= transition from elastic to plastic zone = l
e
/l (Figure 7)

Misra and Chen (2004) then give the general solutions to this governing ODE
with the following shear displacement u()along the pile shaft with an applied
axial load of P :
elastic zone: ( ) 1 0 for
sinh
cosh
s s =

o
u
P
P
u
elasto-plastic zone: ( )
e
u
P
P
u

o s s = 0 for
sinh
cosh

( ) ( ) ( ) 1 for
1
1
2
1
e
2
2 2
s s +
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
o
e
u
e
P
P
u

and plastic zone: ( ) 1 0 for
1
1
2
1
2
2
s s
(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
o
u
P
P
u
where
o = P
u
l/k
m
,
and P
u
= ultimate load carrying capacity of the pile = tDlt
c
.

The location of transition from elastic to plastic zones
e
at a given load P can
be solved from the following equation:
( ) 0
cosh
1 tanh
1 = +
e u
e
e
P
P

For the value of u
c
, Figure 6(b) shows the summary of Luo et al (2000) of the
test results by Cartier and Gigan (1983), Lim and Tan (1983), Murray et al
(1980), Billam (1972), Chang et al (1977), and Taylor (1948). Their summary
indicates that, for silty soil, u
c
lies between 0.8mm to 5.6mm, and 2.5-5.6mm is
the mode. Thus, a shear movement of around 3 to 6mm may already cause full
mobilisation of the pile-soil interface friction.

Figure 6(a) Idealised pile-soil interface
shear friction with shear displacement
(Source: Misra and Chen 2004)
Figure 6(b) Frequency distribution table
of the test data of u
c

(Source: Luo et al 2000)
Page 13 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

3.4.3 Zoning in a frictional pile

When a frictional pile is subjected to vertical load, the movement at the pile
head will be larger and the movement decreases along the length of the pile.
Figure 7 shows the variation of shaft friction along a pile in a homogenous
uniform soil medium using the idealised model (Wong 2003; Misra et al 2004).
When the pile is in elasto-plastic stage, the shaft friction along the length may
be idealised into two zones: plastic and elastic (Figure 7) (Misra and Chen
2004), depending the shear movement at the pile-soil interface. Elastic zone is
at the lower portion of the pile where the shear displacement at the interface is
still less than u
c
. Plastic zone occurs at the top portion of the piles where the
shear displacement at the interface exceeds u
c
. Unlike an end-bearing pile, not
the whole length of the pile (especially the portion near the pile tip) for a
frictional pile will be mobilised.

Figure 7 Zoning of soil along a frictional pile
(Source: modified from Misra et al 2004)

Figure 8 predicts the load-settlement curve in a black line of a frictional pile
obtained from the above general solution against the actual load-settlement of
three mini-piles measured by Misra and Chen (2004). The elastic, elasto-plastic
and plastic behaviour at increasing shear displacement are clearly shown.

Figure 8 Calculated shear displacement against measured displacement
(Source: Misra and Chen 2004)
Page 14 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

3.5 Methods to calculate shaft friction

The mobilised unit shaft friction (f
s
) along the pile shaft is theoretically
determined by the sum of pile to soil cohesion and friction components in the
following equation:

f
s
= c
a
+
h
tan|
s
where c
a
and |
s
are respectively the adhesion and friction parameters between
the soil and the pile shaft, and
h
is the effective horizontal stress due to
overburden. Numerous theoretical methods (e.g. Nordlund method (1963), -
method (Tomlinson 1971), |-method (Burland 1973; Fellenius 1991),
Nottingham and Schmertmann CPT method (1975, 1978), method based on
SPT-N values (Meyerhof 1976)) have then been developed to compute the shaft
resistance along a pile shaft.

3.6 (total stress) method

(total stress) method suggests that the ultimate capacity of the pile is be
determined from the undrained shear strength (c
u
) of the cohesive soil
(Tomlinson 1971). This method further assumes that the shaft resistance is
independent of the effective overburden pressure, and the unit shaft resistance f
s

is therefore given by the following equation:

f
s
= c
a
= c
u
where is an empirical adhesion factor to relate the average undrained shear
strength along the pile length. The factor depends on the nature and strength
of the cohesive soil, pile dimensions, method of installation, and time effects.
Typical values of range from 1.0 for soft clay to 0.30 for very stiff clays
(Kulhawy and Jackson 1989). method, however, assumes slow dissipation of
water and is therefore not applicable in most of the soils in HK. Fellenius (2011)
further commented that the load transfer between a pile and the soil is governed
by effective stress rather than the undrained shear strength. In Hong Kong,
GEO Publication No. 1/2006 - Foundation Design and Construction (GEO
2006) published by the Geotechnical Engineering Office therefore recommends
the use of either |-method or method based on SPT-N values (N-value
method), which are applicable to both cohesive and cohesionless soil.

3.7 | (effective stress) method

3.7.1 | (effective stress) method models the long-term drained shear strength
conditions of piles using the effective stress, and the ultimate unit shaft
resistance f
s
is calculated by Coulombs friction law using the following
equation:
f
s
= |
v

where | (a dimensionless coefficient) = K
s
tano,

v
= average effective overburden pressure along the pile shaft,
K
s
= lateral earth pressure coefficient,
and o = friction angle between the soil and the pile shaft.

Page 15 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

The ultimate unit shaft resistance f
s
is limited to 200kPa (ONeill and Reese
1999), whilst GEO (2006) recommends a limit of 150kPa unless a higher value
is substantiated by site specified tests.

3.7.2 Table 1(a) summarises the typical values of | obtained from back analysis of
field test data for different methods of installation and types of pile given in
GEO (2006). The range of | given is similar to those specified in overseas
research, which gives a minimum of 0.15 (Fellenius 2011) and a maximum
value of 1.20 (ONeill and Reese 1999; Caltrans 2008). Besides summarising
the back analysis of field test data, GEO (2006) also gives the field data of each
site in its Appendix, and it should, however, be noted that the test data (Figure
9) show very high variability. Besides the construction method, | also depends
on the types of soil. Fellenius (2011) gives approximate range of values of |
(Table 1(b)) for different types of soil; but cautions that the values of | can
deviate significantly from [those] values.

Table 1(a) Typical values of | for different types of piles
Pile Type Soil Type |
Small displacement driven
piles (e.g. driven steel H-
pile)
CWG 0.1 - 0.4
Loose to medium dense sand 0.1 - 0.5
Large displacement driven
piles (e.g. driven Daido SS
piles)
CWG 0.8 - 1.2
Large diameter bored piles
CWG 0.1 - 0.6
Shaft-grouted bored piles CWG 0.2 1.2
(Source: GEO 2006)

Table 1(b) Typical values of | for different types of soil
Soil Type |
Clay (25
o
< | < 30
o
) 0.15 - 0.35
Silt (28
o
< | < 34
o
) 0.25 - 0.50
Sand (32
o
< | < 40
o
) 0.30 - 0.90
Gravel (35
o
< | < 45
o
) 0.35 - 0.80
(Source: Fellenius 2011)
Page 16 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

(a) Replacement piles without shaft grouting

(b) Replacement piles with shaft grouting

(c) Displacement piles
Figure 9 | values for piles installed in saprolites
1
in Hong Kong
(Source: GEO 2006)

1
GEO (2006) defines saprolite as mass that retains the original texture, fabric and structure of the
parent rock. In Hong Kong, saprolite may be used interchangeably with decomposed granite (Lo
and Li 2003).
Page 17 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

3.7.3 The following two approaches are usually used to evaluate the value of
adopted in Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and LRFD Design Methods
issued by the US Federal Highway Administration (Brown et al 2010):

1) the depth-dependent method, which establishes an empirical relationship
of versus depth is determined from field load tests; and
2) the rational method based on soil mechanics theory, which expresses in
terms of K
s
and .

3.7.4 Depth-dependent method

The depth-dependent method was first introduced in 1978, and was claimed to
provide conservative estimates of side resistance given the uncertainties
associated with construction effects (ONeill and Reese 1978; Brown et al
2010). Since then, there have been a lot of field tests confirming its applicability.

Kulhaway and Chen (2007) calculated the values of | from the available field
data for replacement piles in gravels and cobble soils. Their results are shown
in Figure 10. Figure 11(a) shows the variation of | summarised by Rollins et
al (2005) together with two lines inserted by Fellenius (2011) for piles in sand
the values recommended by CFEM (1992) and GEO (2006). All results show
that peak value of | occurs at the pile head decreasing with depth,
corresponding to the larger shear displacement at the top portion of the pile as
predicted in Section 3.4.

Figure 10 Variation of | for replacement piles in cohesionless soil
(Source: Kulhaway and Chen 2007)
Page 18 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

Figure 11(a) Variation of | for replacement piles in sand
(Source: Fellenius 2011)

Design and Construction of Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) Piles published by
the US Federal Highway Administration (Brown et al 2007) recommends the
use of the depth-dependent method of either ONeill and Reese (1999) method
or Coleman and Arcement (2002) method. ONeill and Reese (1999) method
was based on a design trend line for | related to the depth of the soil layer by
data fitting. As | also depends on the types of soil, the method tries to relate the
types of soil to their standard penetration test blowcount (SPT-N values) by
scaling down | by the ratio of N/15 for loose sand layers with N<15. The
following equations for calculating the value of | at depth z (in m) from the
ground level are derived:
sand with N>15: |= 1.5 0.245 z
0.5

soil with N<15: |=
15
N
{1.5 0.245 z
0.5
}

Coleman and Arcement (2002) method is derived from loading tests on a
number of CFA piles in mixed soil conditions consisting of alluvial, loessial
deposits and inter-bedded sands and clays in Mississippi and Louisiana, the US,
and the following set of equations for for calculating the value of | at depth z
(in m) from the ground level as follows:
silty soils: |= 2.27 z
-0.67

sandy soils: |= 10.72 z
-1.3

Page 19 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

Figure 11(b) shows the plot by Coleman and Arcement (2002) comparing their
derived equations against that by ONeill and Reese (1999) for sand with their
data for silts and clays. The main difference between those of ONeill and Reese
(1999) and Coleman and Arcement (2002) is that | in the latter equations has
larger value at the pile head, which decreases rapidly with depth.

Figure 11(b) Comparison of ONeill and Reese (1999) method with
Coleman and Arcement (2000) method
(Source: Coleman and Arcement 2002)

Using these equations, Figure 12 shows the variation of | with depth for
homogenous soil profiles with N>15. It shows that | will be much greater for
the top soil, and will approach zero at depth around 30m. Brown et al (2010)
account for the variation of | with depth by arguing that the values of K
s
are
higher near the surface, where many soil deposits are overconsolidated as a
result of burial, erosion, fluctuations in the water table, capillary rise,
desiccation, etc. Brown et al (2010) argue that the effect of preconsolidation is
to increase the in-situ horizontal stress and, therefore, , and with increasing
depth, most soil deposits trend toward a normally consolidated state, a lower
value of K
s
and therefore a lower value of . However, the validity of such
argument is to be further substantiated, especially the fact that the topmost soil
in Hong Kong is relatively loose and is seldom overconsolidated, and that
though there is preconsolidation effect due to fluctuation in the water table etc,
the increase in effective vertical stress would not be significant. On the other
hand, the variation of | along the length of the pile tallies with the zoning soil
profile in Figure 7. Hence, this Information Paper suggests that the variation of
| with depth may be due to the different relative pile movement at the pile-soil
interface along the length of the pile. That is, soil at the top portion of the pile
will become fully mobilised with larger relative pile movement, and it is
difficult to mobilise soil fully at lower portion.

Page 20 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

Figure 12 Variation of | with depth in a homogenous uniform soil with
N>15

3.7.5 Rational method

|, being the lumped shaft friction parameter including K
s
and o, is a function of
the soil strength, soil stress state and its change, and the soil-shaft interface
characteristics (Kulhawy and Chen 2007). The rational method aims at
evaluating separately the parameters that are lumped into using theory of soil
mechanics. Firstly, the friction angle between the soil and the pile shaft o is
related to the friction angle | of the soil. Kulhawy (1991) found that for cast in-
situ concrete piles with good construction techniques, a rough interface can
develop, giving o/| equal to 1.0; but with poor slurry construction this ratio can
be 0.8 or lower.

Secondly, K
s
is found to depend on soil displacement, pile installation method,
pile geometry, and the stress changes caused by construction, loading, and
desiccation. Analysis of field load tests has shown that K
s
can range from about
0.1 to over 5 (Kulhawy and Mayne 1990). Kulhawy (1991) reported his study of
the effect of installation methods on a number of piles, and found that the values
of K
s
related their values to the effect with respect to Rankine at rest earth
pressure K
o
within the ratio of 0.67 and 1. Their findings are as summarized in
Table 2. The range shows that the shaft friction developed in large
displacement driven piles is the highest, followed by small displacement driven
piles, and the lowest shaft friction should be that of large diameter bored piles.
Their findings tally with the load-settlement behaviours for these types of piles
in Figure 4. The results further shows that the soil at the pile-soil interface for
Page 21 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

large displacement driven piles behaves in passive stage and K
s
approaches
Rankine passive earth pressure coefficient K
p
, and that for large diameter bored
piles behaves in active stage and K
s
approaches Rankine active earth pressure
coefficient K
a
(Vesic 1977; Rollins et al 2005).

Table 2 K
s
/K
o
for different types of piles
Pile Type K
s
/ K
o

Small displacement (e.g. driven H-pile) 0.7-1.2
Large displacement (e.g. driven Daido SS piles) 1.0-2.0
Drilled shafted piles (e.g. large diameter bored piles) 0.67-1.0
(Source: modified from Kulhawy 1991)

It was also in the past limited by the lack of data from load tests to correlate
with parameters, such as K
s
and . Given the uncertainties and difficulties in
relating K
s
and o with K
o
and | respectively, recent studies as published in
FHWA (Brown et al 2010) and Kulhawy and Chen (2007) have tried to relate
them with SPT-N value of the soil. The correlation of | and N value is a
common practice in Hong Kong and presumably the US as well. The following
set of equations is then proposed to calculate the value of (Brown et al 2010):

o |
| = 27.5 + 9.2 log N
60
| |
|
| tan K tan
sin
'
'
) sin (1
p
v
p
s
|
|
.
|
\
|
=

where o
p
is the effective vertical preconsolidation stress = 0.47p
a
N
60
0.8
(for
silty sands) or 0.15p
a
N
60
(for gravelly soils); N
60
is the SPT-N value corrected
for field procedures and apparatus;
2
and p
a
= atmospheric pressure. Brown et al
(2010) reported that in-situ tests have shown generally good agreement with
these correlations. However, factors such as cementation, aging, structuring,
desiccation, etc that may affect K
s
and have not been accounted in the above
equation.

The rational method, though is better than the depth-dependent method from a
soil mechanics perspective, has not addressed the relative pile movement
between pile and soil.

3.7.6 Applicability of | method

Section 3.1 has identified the key parameters affecting the shaft friction, which
include construction method (including the workmanship), the shear
displacement at the pile-soil interface, site specific soil properties and the

2
N
60
assumes that the SPT hammer has about 60% efficiency, and to convert the measured blowcount
SPT-N value to N
60
, the equation N
60
= NC
N
C
E
C
B
C
R
C
S
C
A
C
BF
C
C
, where C
N
= overburden
correction factor; C
E
= energy correction factor; C
B
= borehole diameter correction factor; C
R
= rod
length correction factor; C
S
= sampling method correction factor; C
A
= anvil correction factor; C
BF
=
blow count frequency correction factor; and C
C
= hammer cushion correction factor. For details, see
Skempton (1986).
Page 22 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

concrete/grout properties. Two methods depth-dependent and rational
have been used to evaluate the values of . The equations based on the depth-
dependent method only take into account for its variation with the depth (the
variation presumably due to the different shear displacement along the pile
shaft). The effect of other site specific soil properties (including soil types and
degree of consolidation) is only partially considered by classifying them into
sand, gravelly sand and soil with N<15. Brown et al (2010) tried to provide the
rationale behind on why load test results indicate is depth-dependent by
saying that the forming of the hole disturbs the soil, reducing its density and
allowing relaxation of horizontal stress. They viewed that detailed evaluations
of in-situ strength and state of stress are not warranted because the in-situ
properties are changed by construction and the changes cannot be predicted
reliably. With this limitation, the depth-dependent method assumes that the
soil disturbance can reduce the soil friction angle to a lower-bound value
corresponding to the critical state void ratio. The practice of lumping K
s
and
into a single parameter () and then evaluating solely as a function of depth
therefore neglects the influence of geology, material type, and stress history. Its
use is therefore restricted to site-specific ground conditions (Brown et al 2007).
Should such relationship in one specific site be applied to other sites, the pile
length for different sites with the same load carrying capacity will be the same,
as the variation of | with depth will be the same. Kulhaway and Chen (2007)
remarked that they do not believe that a mean line should be drawn through
these data, which then would be used as a design line.

In order to include the effect of site specific soil properties, the rational method
is an improvement of the depth-dependent method by relating the value of to
the site specific SPT-N values of the soil. However, the typical soil profile in
Hong Kong shows increasing SPT-N values with depth, and using the above
equations based on the rational method will give increasing values of with
depth and this does not match diminishing with depth as shown by load test
results. This Information Paper suggests that, as discussed earlier, relative pile-
soil movement should be considered.

Hence, a practical way recommended by this Information Paper is to consider
the site specific SPT-N values of the soil, which can take into account of the
combined effect of site specific soil properties and the overburden effective
pressure, and this together with considerations of pile-soil movement will be
discussed in the subsequent paragraphs.

Page 23 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

3.8 N-value method

3.8.1 N-value method (Meyerhof 1976) is more commonly adopted in Hong Kong to
calculate the unit shaft friction and base resistance of piles. It estimates pile
capacity based on semi-empirical correlation between SPT-N values results and
static pile load tests. The method correlates SPT-N value directly to shaft
friction, with different coefficients depending on whether the foundation is a
replacement or driven pile. As SPT-N values have been included in the
calculation, the type of soil (including the degree of consolidation and its
strength properties) and overburden pressure have indirectly been incorporated
into the method. As the SPT-N values are readily available in every project,
this method is very easy to use and provides a quick way to calculate the shaft
friction. The following paragraphs will discuss the semi-empirical correlation
values to be used for different construction methods.

3.8.2 Shaft friction for piles without post-grouting

3.8.2.1 Most of the test data (Figure 13) available to date in Hong Kong have been
summarised in GEO Publication No. 1/2006. These data were obtained by
load-test frictional piles to calculate the f
max
/N ratio. These data give a mean
value of 0.89 for replacement piles, which is lower than values reported
elsewhere (e.g. Chang and Wong 1995; Tan et al 1998). Moreover, like the
data for |, they have a high variability with a coefficient of variation (COV) of
61%.

(a) Replacement piles without shaft grouting
Page 24 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

(b) Displacement piles
Figure 13 f
max
/N values for piles installed in saprolites in Hong Kong
(Source: GEO 2006)

3.8.2.2 Meyerhof (1976) provides the correlation factor of the average maximum
mobilised shaft friction f
max
(in kPa) with SPT-N values to be 2 for driven pile
and 1 for bored piles. For augered piles, the earlier paragraphs have pointed
out that their shaft friction lies between driven piles and bored piles. In the
design of PIP piles which was a proprietary piling system patented by
Intrusion Prepakt before the 21
st
century in Hong Kong, owing to their special
construction method, the average maximum shaft friction (in kPa) had
traditionally been taken as f
max
= 4.8N with limiting value for SPT-N values
at about 40. The proprietary method is in fact very similar to CFA pile.
However, recent studies found that such high correlation factor (4.8N) is only
recommended for relatively large displacement DD piles, and for conventional
CFA piles the correlation factor may not be able to achieve such high values
(Brown et al 2007). In view of the experience over the years (summarised in
SEB Information Paper Review of PAKT-IN-PLACE Piles Installation
(available: http://asdiis/sebiis/2k/resource_centre/), ArchSD SEI 04/2010:
Particular Specification for Non-Percussion Cast In-situ Concrete Piles
(available:
http://asdiis/sebiis/2k/MAIN%20TOPIC/technical%20paper/frame.htm) now
specifies that the design shaft friction (in kPa) with a FOS of about 3 for non-
percussion cast in-situ concrete pile (including PIP Piles) is now taken as
varying from a maximum of 1.6N for CFA piles to 0.7N for piles formed by
boring with an auger and temporary casing with limiting value for SPT-N
values at about 40, and specifies further that the adopted design values have to
be further verified by trial piles before construction.

3.8.2.3 For other frictional piles, GEO (1996, 2006) provides the correlation factor of
the average maximum shaft friction f
max
in (kPa) with SPT-N values for
different types of piles and methods of construction as follows:

f
max
= F
geo
N (kPa)

Page 25 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

where F
geo
is taken as 1.5 to 2 for small-displacement piles (e.g. driven H-piles)
for N up to about 80, and 4.5 for large-displacement driven piles (e.g. Daido
SS piles) with a limiting average shaft resistance of 250 kPa. For replacement
piles formed by boring, F
geo
is taken as 0.8 to 1.4 for N up to 200. GEO
(1996, 2006) further recommends the base resistance to be ignored in
calculating the load carrying capacity of the pile.

3.8.3 Shaft friction for piles with post-grouting

3.8.3.1 Shaft friction of a cast in-situ pile can further be increased by post-grouting
along the pile shaft. Post-grouting is a pressurised process that injects cement
grout to the interface between the surface of the installed pile and soil through
tubes embedded within the pile. The installed pile surface must be cracked
open by injecting either water or grout under high pressure. This is done after
the concrete or grout of the pile has set, but before it has gained significant
strength. An early application of the shaft grouting method overseas was in
1975, where loading tests on six shaft grouted |660mm bored piles showed
that there was an increase in shaft friction of 2.5 times that of piles without
post-grouting (Gouvenot and Gabaix 1975). With regard to the long term
durability of the effect of the shaft grouting, it was reported in a Bangkok site
that there was no loss of shaft resistance for two shaft grouted piles in alluvial
sand and clay when reloaded one year after the first load test (Littlechild et al
1998).

3.8.3.2 Shaft-grouted technique has been employed in Hong Kong for mini-piles since
the early 1990s (Lui et al 1993) and for barrettes and large diameter bored
piles since the late 1990s. In Hong Kong, post-grouting is carried out using
tube-a-manchette in stages after casting the piles. The system adopted for shaft
grouting consists of 50mm diameter mild steel tube-a-manchette pipes, with
manchettes spaced at about 1m intervals along the pipes (Figure 14). The
tube-a-manchette pipes are fixed, using normal tie wire, to the outside of the
reinforcement cage and within the zone of the concrete cover for large
diameter bored piles, or to the steel H-piles. Within 24 hours after
concreting/grouting, water is injected through the tube-a-manchette pipes at
the perimeter of the shaft with a pair of double packers in stages to crack the
green grout/concrete (Figure 15), which can then be followed by shaft
grouting operation.

Page 26 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

(a) Tube-a-manchette pipe without
manchette

(b) Tube-a-manchette pipe with
manchette

(c) Double packers and pumps (d) Inflated packer inserted in the
Tube-a-machette pipe

(e) Tube-a-manchette pipe installed
adjacent to the flange of steel section

(f) Pressure gauge for post-grouting
Figure 14 Tube-a-Manchette pipe

Page 27 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

(a) Arrangement of Tube-a-manchette pipe along perimeter of shaft

(b) Post-grouting by means of tube-a-manchette
Figure 15 Cracking of green grout and post-grouting

3.8.3.3 For shaft-grouted mini-piles, the horizontal soil stress around the pile
perimeter will increase due to the soil modification resulting from pressure
grouting and this effect may be considered as similar to a pile without post-
grouting but with an enlarged pile diameter. In-situ measurements have been
carried out to correlate the shaft friction at the pile-soil interface after the shaft
grouting operation. Littlechild et al (1998) reported that the f
max
/N value was
5 with a maximum value of 260kPa and 200kPa for shaft-grouted piles
respectively in sand and clay in Bangkok, whilst Stocker (1983) reported
maximum values of 250 to 400kPa in sands and 200 to 270kPa in clays. In
Hong Kong, Chan et al (2004) used f
max
/N of 2.85 for a frictional mini-pile
with post-grouting construction method in a project for the former Kowloon-
Canton Railway Corporation (the KCRC) in Tuen Mun, Hong Kong, and
Page 28 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

found satisfactory performance in the subsequent loading test to twice the
design working load. Littlechild et al (2000), based from a number of loading
test results on the foundations in a KCRC project, reported that the f
max
/N
values range from 1.3 to 3.6. Their study further noted that shaft grouting is
more effective for completely weathered materials with SPT-N values less
than 60, and that for soil with SPT-N values greater than 60, the percentage of
increase in shaft friction is less marked.

3.8.3.4 GEO (2006) summarized the data of loading tested on shafted grouted
replacement piles in Hong Kong (Figure 16), and found that the f
max
/N values
can range from 1.4 to 5.5. The highest value was reported by Lui et al (1993)
in a project in Mid-Levels, at which an average mobilized shaft friction f
max
of
5.5N was recorded in an instrumented pile in completely weathered granite
with a maximum value of 270kPa. GEO (2006), unlike that for piles without
post-grouting, does not recommend the range of f
max
/N for piles with post-
grouting, and only suggest the f
max
/N values should be limited to 5 with a
limiting N-value of 100.

Figure 16 f
max
/N values for replacement piles with shaft-grouted installed
in saprolites in Hong Kong
(Source: GEO 2006)

Page 29 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

3.9 Section Summary

3.9.1 In Section 3, three of the key parameters affecting the shaft friction along the
length of the pile have been discussed, including:

a) the construction methods,
b) the shear displacement at the pile-soil interface, and
c) the site specific soil properties.

This Information Paper then summarises | and N-value methods in estimating
the shaft friction along the length of a pile. The depth-dependent | method, has
the advantage of relating the shaft friction with the depth, with greater values at
the pile head tallying with the greater shear displacement at the pile-soil
interface at such region. However, it does not correlate with the construction
methods and soil properties, e.g. soil strength and degree of consolidation. The
rational method | method has included the effect of soil properties of a specific
site by relying to the SPT-N values of the soil. Though it is better than the
depth-dependent method from a soil mechanics perspective, it has not
addressed the relative pile movement between pile and soil.

N-value method, on the other hand, has the advantage of relating the shaft
friction with the SPT-N values, and hence incorporates indirectly the soil
properties in its calculation. Moreover, the effect of overburden pressure has
also been indirectly taken into account in the SPT-N values. It further takes into
account of the various construction methods by using different correlation factor
for different types of piles. This is why N-value method is widely used in
calculating the shaft friction for a frictional pile. To incorporate the variation of
shear displacement at the pile-soil interface along the pile length, an average
correlation factor F
geo
is usually adopted for calculating the pile capacity.

3.9.2 Upper bounds of shaft friction

In Section 3, available literature has been reviewed, and it was noted that there
has been a consensus that there are upper bounds of the shaft friction. For
example, GEO (1996, 2006) gives an upper bound for N to about 80 for small-
displacement piles and limits the shaft friction for large-displacement piles to
270kPa. Similarly, for shaft-grouted piles Littlechild et al (1998) reported that
the maximum shaft friction in sands lies between 250 to 400kPa, and further
reported that shaft grouting is more effective for soil with N less than 60.
Micropile Design and Construction Guidelines published by the US Federal
Highway Administration (Armour et al 2000) summarises the values of typical
shaft friction with reference to the different construction methods in described
in Section 3.2 and different types of soil. Table 3 is an extract of the summary
for sandy soil, and it can be seen that the shaft friction increases from Type A to
D construction methods and also increases from with increasing percentage of
gravel. Furthermore, the ranges of shaft friction are in line with those observed
by literature. Post grouting along the shaft (i.e. Type C or D) is very effective
for soil with weak soil; but for good soil, the percentage of the increase in the
shaft friction is less obvious. This observation tallies with the observation of
Littlechild et al (1998).
Page 30 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

Table 3 Typical range of shaft friction
Soil types
Typical range of shaft friction (kPa) for different
construction methods
Type A Type B Type C Type D
Sand with silt 70 145 70 190 95 190 95 240
Sand with silt and
gravel
95 215 120 360 145 360 145 385
Gravel with sand 95 265 120 -360 145 360 145 - 355
(Source: Micropile Design and Construction Guidelines (2000))

4. I n-Situ Measurements in ArchSD Projects

4.1 In-situ measurements in the 1990s

Numerous in-situ measurements have been carried out since the 1990s on the
shaft friction along the length of frictional piles in both private and public sector
projects. These in-situ measurements have then been published (e.g. Ng and Lei
2003; Li 2000; Ng et al 2001; Yau 2000; Lei and Ng 2007; Littlechild et al
2000). In ArchSD, Dr H Y WONG (our ex-SGE/NP) carried out in-situ
measurements on eight instrumented piles of the four sites (two for each site)
during the 1990s (Wong 2003). All piles on the four sites were installed by
Intrusion Prepakt using PIP pile system. On three out the four sites, steel
sections have been inserted so that the load carrying capacity of the piles was in
the range of 2200kN to 2700kN, and on the remaining site, the load carrying
capacity of the piles was 1461kN (the typical load-carrying capacity of |610mm
PIP pile). These eight instrumented piles were loaded to twice their working
capacity, and the pile-head settlement and strains along the length of piles were
measured. Raw data and more details of his instrumentation works can be
found in Wong (2003).

4.2 In-situ measurements in recent ArchSD projects

4.2.1 Two ArchSD projects have recently employed the frictional mini-piles as the
foundations, and instrumented piles (details in Figure 17(a)) were installed in
order to verify the shaft friction along the pile length. The first project is A
permanent planning and infrastructure exhibition gallery at City Hall Annex
(Inform no. 7195U) (the City Hall Annex Project). 14 nos. of the frictional
mini-piles were installed to a new annex, and each of the frictional mini-piles
consisted of a Grade S355JR 15215237 kg/m UC installed in a pre-bored
hole formed into soil with a temporary steel casing with internal diameter of 305
mm and then injected with cement grout followed by extraction of temporary
steel casing before the setting of grout. The load carrying capacity of the
frictional mini-pile was 580kN. During the installation, the casing of the upper
portion was accidentally left in to a depth of 22m below the ground level, due to
the early setting of the grout before extraction, whilst the temporary casing of
the remaining piles was withdrawn successfully. As such, negligible friction
was expected from the upper portion of the pile, where the temporary casing
remains.

Page 31 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

4.2.2 The second project is Transformation of the former police married quarters site
on Hollywood Road into a creative industries landmark (Inform no. 7955V)
(the Hollywood Road Project). 34 nos. of the frictional mini-piles were
installed to a new annex, and each of the frictional mini-piles consists of a
152152 built-up I-section from Grade S355JR 20mm thick steel plates
installed in a pre-bored hole formed into soil with a temporary steel casing with
internal diameter of 305 mm and then shaft grouted with cement grout followed
by extraction of temporary steel casing before the setting of grout. Post-grouting
using tube-a-manchette in stages after casting the piles was carried out to
increase the shaft friction along the length of the pile. The load carrying
capacity of the frictional mini-pile was 1300kN. Typical details of these
frictional mini-piles are shown in Figure 17(b).

Figure 17(a) Details of Instrumented Piles at City Hall Annex Project

Page 32 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

Figure 17(b) Typical details of the frictional mini-pile at City Hall Annex
Project

4.3 Shaft friction for PIP Piles

4.3.1 From the paper reported by Wong (2003) on the 4 ArchSD sites using PIP piles,
this Information Paper carry out an analysis of the instrumentation data. Figure
18 plots the axial force along the depth of the instrumented piles. In the
following paragraphs, both | and N-value methods will be used to calibrate the
relationship among the measured shaft friction, SPT-N values and | for these
instrumented piles.

(a) Yuen Long Site (b) Tung Chung Site

Page 33 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

(c) Ma On Shan Site A (d) Ma On Shan Site B

Figure 18 Axial load along the length of instrumented PIP piles in four ArchSD
projects (Source: Wong 2003)

4.3.2 | method

In Section 3, the following equations for calculating the value of | at depth z
from the ground level have been quoted

ONeill and Reese (1999):

sand with N>15: |= 1.5 0.245 z
0.5

soil with N<15: |=
15
N
{1.5 0.245 z
0.5
}
Coleman and Arcement (2002):
silty soils: |= 2.27 z
-0.67

sandy soils: |= 10.72 z
-1.3

Figure 19 shows the relationship of the value of | at depth z from the ground
level for all the eight instrumented piles, with the best-fit trend line in black
shown alongside with the equations of ONeill and Reese (1999) and Coleman
and Arcement (2002). It correlates with the above equations with the greatest
value at pile head decreasing with depth z. The data of all sites show similar
trend and values, indicating that | in these sites generally follows the same
trend with depth z. As the construction method of all these PIP was being the
same, it is reasonable to deduce that a generalised equation can be derived. The
best-fit line is thus:
|= 7.5 z
-1.2
Page 34 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

It can further be seen that the best-fit line lies close to that equation of Coleman
and Arcement (2002) for sandy soil, indicating the soil types for these eight
sites match closely with the soil type used in that equation.

Figure 19 Variation of | with depth z for PIP piles

To investigate the value of | with the shear displacement of the soil at the pile-
soil interface, a plot of | against the measured displacement at the interface is
shown in Figure 20 and with the trend line, though not a good correlation,
added. The plot confirms that soil behaves elastically with small shear
displacement; but will then behave elasto-plastically with the increase in the
shear displacement exceeding about 4mm. The soil will behave in plastic stage
with a shear displacement exceeding 10mm.

Page 35 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

Figure 20 Varation of | with shear displacement movement at pile-soil
interface

Though for the eight instrumented piles the similar values of | with depth z,
Section 3 has already pointed out that such correlation does not consider the
soil types (including its properties and the degree of consolidation) at different
sites.

4.3.3 N-value method

Figure 21 plots the relationship of f
max
/N and shear displacement at pile-soil
interface with the depth along the instrumented piles for the four selected sites
in the study of Wong (2003). The maximum mobilised f
max
/N range from 7 to
25. It was further noted that most of the shaft friction was developed in the top
10m, and the shaft friction at deeper depth was not fully mobilised. The
observations by Wong (2003) tally with the theoretical load profile (Figure 7)
of Misra and Chen (2004) and Misra et al (2004). Plastic zone can be seen with
a shear displacement exceeding 6mm. Wong (2003) accounted for the variation
along the length of the pile by dividing the maximum friction f
max
= 4.8 N with
different FOSs as follows:

FOS = 1 for top one-third (i.e. at depth 0 to H/3)
FOS = 2 for middle one-third (i.e. at depth H/3 to 2H/3)
FOS = 3 for bottom one-third (i.e. at depth 2H/3 to H).

However, as per the discussion in Section 3, the pile head moves more than the
pile tip, and the soil behaves plastically as the shear displacement exceeds u
c
.
Therefore the shear resistance at that portion can be fully mobilised, and the
FOS of 1 proposed by Wong (2003) represents the shaft friction of the soil in
the plastic zone. The degree of mobilisation will then be decreased as shear
displacement at the pile-soil interface decreases, and Wong (2003) used FOS of
2 or 3 to represent the decrease, as it is difficult to have the pile-soil interface to
Page 36 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

behave fully plastically unless there is a plunge of the pile into the ground such
that mobilisation of the friction of the whole pile length is obtained.

In practical design, an average mobilised shaft friction can be adopted, which
can be obtained by summing the area under the f
max
/N graph and then averaging
the sum by the mobilised length of the pile. That is, instead of dividing the
shaft friction along the pile length into three zones, it is a common practice to
average the mobilised shaft friction and then apply a single FOS to obtain the
safe working load for the pile. This Information Paper therefore calculates the
average mobilised shaft friction, which is obtained by averaging the area under
the plot of f
max
/N against the depth of the pile by the length where the shaft
friction has been mobilised. Table 4 shows the detailed calcualtion of the
average F
geo
(=f
max
/N) with the mobilised length for these instrumented piles on
these sites. In summary, the following avearge f
max
/N values are calculated as:

Site 1 3.57
Site 2 3.66
Site 3 2.70
Site 4 5.15

The average f
max
/N for the eight instrumented piles of the four sites is 3.77.
Applying a FOS of 3 or 2, the design shaft friction can be taken as 1.25 to
1.88N respectively.

Page 37 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

(a) Yuen Long Site (b) Tung Chung Site

(c) Ma On Shan Site A (d) Ma On Shan Site B

Figure 21 Variation f
max
/N values for frictional piles formed by CFA
(Source: Wong 2003)

Page 38 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

Table 4 f
max
/N against pile depth and calculation of average value
Depth z
from pile
head (m)
f
max
/N (kPa)
Yuen Long
Site
Tung Chung
Site
Ma On Shan
Shan Site A
Ma On Shan
Shan Site B
pile no
1
pile no
2
pile no
1
pile no
2
pile no
1
pile no
2
pile no
1
pile no
2
-2 7.83 5.22 - - 1.74 1.74 18.48 13.05
-4 - - 11.67 13.39 - - - -
-5 - - - - 6.79 8.78 13.44 25.30
-6 6.17 12.57 - - - - - -
-7 - - 4.06 8.70 - - - -
-8 - - - - 6.96 6.40 17.39 5.80
-10 2.51 4.11 4.83 5.31 - - - -
-11 - - - - 5.57 3.71 4.89 6.52
-13 - - 3.99 3.26 - - - -
-14 2.69 0.79 - - 1.34 2.68 1.63 0.54
-16 - - 1.74 1.96 - - - -
-17 - - - - 0.79 0.79 3.16 1.58
-18 0.58 1.23 - - - - - -
-19 - - 1.45 1.86 - - - -
-20 - - - - 4.06 2.90 4.89 2.72
-22 4.25 1.02 4.08 3.53 - - - -
-23 - - - - 0.38 1.51 1.45 3.62
-25 0.14 0.88 - - - - - -
-26 - - - - 4.04 3.73 1.24 1.24
-28 - - 0.93 0.47 - - - -
-29 - - - - 1.09 1.52 1.30 1.96
-32 - - 1.19 0.40 0.18 0.72 0.61 1.01
-35 - - - - 1.09 1.09 1.11 0.67
-38 - - 0.39 0.10 - - - -
-45 - - - - 0.49 0.24 0.19 0.06
Average
F
geo

3.57 3.66 2.70 5.15

max
/N and shear displacement at the pile-soil
interface. An approximate linear correlation is noted between the shear
displacement and the value of f
max
/N (Figure 22) when the shear displacement
is less than 4mm, as the soil behaves elastically. For a shear displacement
exceeding 4mm, the soil starts to behave elasto-plastically, and for a shear
displacement exceeding 6mm, the soil behaves plastically. The observations
coincide with the idealised zoning in Figure 7 with the top portion of the piles
in plastic zone and the lower portion in elastic zone.

Page 39 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

Figure 22 Relationship between f
max
/N values and shear displacement

4.4 Shaft friction for frictional mini-piles without shaft-grouted at City Hall Annex
Project

4.4.1 In order to investigate the shaft friction for the frictional mini-piles without
shaft-grouted, a pile in the City Hall Annex Project was instrumented to
measure the shaft friction along the pile by load-tested it to twice its working
capcaity of 560kN. Figure 23 plots the axial force along the depth of the
instrumented pile, and Figure 24 plots the shear displacement at the pile-soil
interface movement along the length of the pile. Figure 24 shows that up till a
depth of 22m from the pile head, only about 300kN out of the total load of
1100kN was taken up by the soil friction. Limited friction was developed at the
top 22m despite that there have been substantial movement at the top portion of
the pile. This was due to the fact that the temporary casing was not removed,
and hence the friction along this portion of the pile shaft is realtively smaller.
Focus will therefore be data for the lower portion of the pile to calibrate the
relationship among the measured shaft friction, SPT-N values and | for these
instrumented piles.

Page 40 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

Figure 23 Axial load for the frictional pile at City Hall Annex site

Figure 24 Shear displacement along the length of pile

Page 41 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

4.4.2 | method

Figure 25 shows the relationship of the value of | at depth z for the
instrumented pile with the best-fit trend line shown alongside with the
equations of ONeill and Reese (1999) for sand and gravelly sand. The best-
fit line is calibrated as:
|= 1.2 0.175 z
0.50

This equation differs substantially from that given by ONeill and Reese (1999)
for CFA piles installed in gravelly sand, though it lies close to that given by
ONeill and Reese (1999) for sand. This equation also differs from that
obtained from the eight instrumented PIP piles by Wong (2003). Moreover,
the values of | (and hence the shaft friction) are less than those for PIP piles.

Figure 25 Variation of | with depth z for instrumented frictional mini-
pile without shaft-grouted

Again, to investigate the value of | with the shear displacement of the soil at
the pile-soil interface, a plot of | against the measured shear displacement at
the interface is shown in Figure 26, and a linear correlation can be observed.

Page 42 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

Figure 26 Varation of | with soil movement at pile-soil interface


Figure 27 plot the variation of f
max
interface with the depth. A linear correlation is noted between the shear
displacement and the value of f
max
/N (Figure 28), as the lower portion of the
pile is the elastic zone, where soil at the pile-soil interface behaves elastically as
that predicted in the idealised pile-soil interface model. The average value of
f
max
/N for the tested frictional mini-pile is 0.80. Table 5 shows the detailed
calcualtion of the average F
geo
(=f
max
/N) starting from a depth of 22m from the
pile head for the instrumented pile. Applying a FOS of 2, the design shaft
friction can be taken as 0.40N.

Figure 27 Variation of f
max
/N values and shear displacement with depth

Page 43 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

max

Table 5 Calculation of average f
max
/N in mobilised length of
instrumented pile at City Hall Annex Project

Depth z from Pile Head (m) f
max
/N (kPa)
-27.22 1.46
-29.22 0.97
-31.22 0.56
-35.22 1.01
-39.22 0.66
-43.22 0.16
Average F
geo
0.80

4.5 Shaft friction for frictional mini-piles with shaft-grouted at Hollywood Road
Project

4.5.1 Two shaft-grouted instrumented piles at Hollywood Road Project were test
loaded to twice its working capacity of 1300kN and maintained for 72 hours.
Figure 29 plots the axial force along the depth of the piles at test load 650kN,
1300kN, 1950kN and 2600kN.

Page 44 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

(a) Pile no. 19 (a) Pile no. 22
Figure 29 Axial load for the instrumented piles with shaft grouted along their
lengths

4.5.2 | method

Figure 30 shows the relationship of the value of | at depth z from the ground
level for two instrumented piles at Hollywood Road Project, with the best-fit
trend line in black shown alongside with the equations of ONeill and Reese
(1999) and Coleman and Arcement (2002). Again, it correlates with the above
equations with the greatest value at pile head decreasing with depth z. The data
of these two instrumented piles show similar trend and values, indicating that |
in this particular site generally follows the same trend with depth z. The best-fit
line is thus:
|= 2.0 0.3 z
0.58

Page 45 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

Figure 30 Variation of | with depth z for instrumented frictional mini-
piles with shaft-grouted

As the construction method is different from CFA piles, the equation therefore
differs substantially from those given by ONeill and Reese (1999) and
Coleman and Arcement (2002), and also differs from that obtained from the
eight instrumented piles by Wong (2003). Thus, it confirms the observation of
Kulhaway and Chen (2007) that a single design equation could not be derived,
as | is affected by shaft geometry, soil particle size, soil properties, the degree
of consolidation, construction method, etc, especially the fact that the
construction method in the present case is completely different from CFA.
Notwithstanding such limitation, as compared with that for PIP piles the values
of | (and hence the shaft friction) in the present case shows greater value at the
top portion; but the trend line shows steeper slope. That is, it decreases at a
faster rate with depth as compared with that for PIP piles.

Figure 31 plots the variation of | against the measured shear movement at the
interface and with the trend line added. The plot confirms that soil behaves
elastically with small shear displacement; but will then behave elasto-plastically
with the increase in the shear displacement at the pile-soil interface exceeding
about 4mm. Full plastic behaviour could not be achieved in the instrumented
piles, when the shear displacement is not adequate for full mobilisation of its
shear strength.

Page 46 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

Figure 31 Varation of | with soil movement at pile-soil interface


max
interface with the depth along the piles. Again, a strong linear correlation is
noted between the shear displacement and the value of f
max
/N, as the lower
portion of the pile is the elastic zone, where soil at the pile-soil interface
behaves elastically as that predicted in the idealised pile-soil interface model. A
linear correlation is noted between the shear displacement and the value of
f
max
/N (Figure 33) when the shear displacement is less than 2mm, and with a
shear displacement exceeding 2mm, the soil starts to behave elasto-plastically,
and for a shear displacement exceeding 6mm, the soil behaves fully plastic. The
maximum f
max
/N is 9.78, and the average f
max
/N is 4.22 for the first
instrumented pile and 3.89 for the second instrumented pile. Table 6 shows the
detailed calcualtion of the average F
geo
(=f
max
/N) with the mobilised length for
these two instrumented piles. Applying a FOS of 2 to 3, the design shaft
friction can be taken as 1.9N or 1.2N respectively.

Page 47 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

(a) Pile no. 19 (b) Pile no. 22
Figure 32 Variation f
max
/N values for frictional piles with shaft grouted

max

Page 48 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

Table 6 Calculation of average f
max
/N in mobilised length of instrumented
piles at Hollywood Road Project

Depth z from
Pile Head (m)
f
max
/N (kPa)
Pile no. 19 Pile no. 22
-0.95 4.99 4.29
-5.95 5.35 6.25
-10.95 8.25 9.78
-15.95 7.62 5.02
-20.95 2.52 1.22
-25.95 0.56 0.49
-30.95 0.27 0.17
-35.95* 0.15 0.04
-40.95* 0.05 0.00
-45.95* 0.01 -0.01
Average F
geo
4.22 3.89
* The values of f
max
/N are neglected in calculating the
average value, as this portion is assumed not have been
mobilised under the loading test.

5. Summary of Findings

The above paragraphs are a literature review together with the in-situ
measurements of the instrumented piles in ArchSD projects of the shaft friction
for cast in-situ piles. Table 7 summarises the average mobilised shaft friction
over the length where shear resistance has been mobilised for different types of
cast in-situ replacement piles and the suggested maximum design shaft friction
for different types of frictional piles with or without post-grouting along pile
shaft. It is suggested that N-value method using SPT-N value is used for the
design for the frictional capacity. It should however be noted that shaft friction
along a pile is hard to be estimated accurately as different construction method,
concreting/grouting operation etc will have different effects of modifying or
remoulding the soil along the pile shaft, and hence the suggested values have to
be further verified by trial piles before construction.

Page 49 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

Table 7 Suggested average shaft friction for different types of
replacement piles for design in sandy soil
#

Pile type
Average mobilized shaft friction fmax
(kPa)
Suggested average
design shaft friction
f (kPa)
| values from the
studied sites*
N-value
method

Bored
piles
- 0.8 to 1.4N
[1]
-
Frictional
mini-piles
without
post-
grouting
f
s
= |
v
s 150kPa
[2]

where
v
= average effective
overburden pressure,
and
|= 1.2 0.175 z
0.50

0.8 to 2.0N
s 150kPa
[1]

0.4 to 0.7N
s 50kPa (FOS 3.0)
or
s 60kPa (FOS 2.5)
[3]

Frictional
mini-piles
with post-
grouting
f
s
= |
v
s 270kPa
[4]

where
v
= average effective
and
|= 2.0 0.3 z
0.58

1.4 to 5.5N
s 270kPa
[3]

1.0 to 1.5N
s 90kPa
[5]

PIP piles
installed
by CFA
f
s
= |
v
s 200kPa
[6]

where
v
= average effective
and
|= 7.5 z
-1.2
3.0 to 4.8N
1.0 to 1.6N, where
Ns40
[7]

#
The values quoted in Table 7 are only applicable to sandy soil, and are not applicable to
clayey soil.
* PSE should particularly note that the equations derived for | method are -specific for
the studied sites and the | values are different from the values obtained from
literature. It is not recommended for use as the method is only related to depth and
does not correlate with construction methods and soil properties, e.g. soil strength and
degree of consolidation. It can be used only when it has been calibrated for the
specific site and construction method.
[1]
The range of values is suggested by GEO (2006).
[2]
f
s
is limited to 150kPa with reference to Micropile Design and Construction Guidelines
(2000).
[3]
A factor of safety of 3 has been included to get the average design shaft friction; but a
smaller FOS can be adopted.
[4]
f
s
is limited to 270kPa with reference to Micropile Design and Construction Guidelines
(2000) and Lui et al (1993).
[5]
A factor of safety of 3 has been included to get the average design shaft friction.
[6]
f
s
is limited to 200kPa with reference to ONeill and Reese (1999) and Brown et al (2007).
[7]
Limit of N-value is quoted in SE Instruction No. 04/2010, which is based on the PIP piles
patented by Intrusion Prepakt (Far East) Limited.

Page 50 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

6. Loading Tests

6.1 Trial pile

In order to verify the design assumptions and parameters, loading test on a trial
pile is required prior to the installation works. The intent of the loading test on
a trial pile is to:

a) establish and/or verify installation means and methods of the contractor,
and
b) verify the design parameters and hence the load carrying capacity of the
pile.

6.2 Installed piles

After the completion of the installation of the piles, loading tests on a number of
the completed piles are required to verify that the contractor is producing
acceptable piles. In the General Specification of Building 2012 of ArchSD, 1%
of the piles are required to be to be load tested to twice the theoretical safe
loading capacity. However, it should be noted that the variation of the load
carrying testing of frictional piles is expected to be higher than that for end-
bearing piles, as the design assumptions and parameters are only provided by
the ground investigation and initial loading test on the trial pile. Moreover,
even for sites with uniform soil properties, the integrity of the piles is affected
by the workmanship of the contractor. Thus, it is prudent to adopt a higher
testing frequency for installed piles. Micropile Design and Construction
Guidelines published by the US Federal Highway Administration specifies 5%
of the installed micropiles to be subjected to loading tests; whilst EN 14199:
Execution of Special Geotechnical Works - Micropiles (BSI 2005) specifies 2%
of the first 100 installed micropiles to be tested and 1% for each next 100
installed piles thereafter. This Information Paper therefore suggests specifying
3% of the first 100 installed piles and 1% for each next 100 installed piles
thereafter for loading test.

Page 51 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

7. Pile Group Settlement

7.1 Settlement of pile is always a concern for floating piles with their toes stop in
the overburden soil. The increase of stress in the underlying soil below the pile
toe may cause undue settlement; the thicker the soil layer, the larger the
settlement will be. It is therefore specified in our GS that a settlement analysis is
required for such piling systems. Frictional mini piles, PIP piles are considered
as floating piles.

7.2 Piles installed in a group to form a foundation can give rise to interaction
between individual piles. The overlapping of stress and strain fields can result in
the pile-soil-pile interaction and this will not only affect the capacity of the piles
but also the settlement behaviour of the pile group. Interference between zones
of influence causes a pile within a group to settle more than a single isolated
pile, as a result of pile-soil-pile interaction. Figure 34 shows the zone of
influence for a single pile and a pile group. Further details on pile group
settlement are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Figure 34 Zone of Influence for a Single Pile and a Pile Group
(Source: Brown et al 2007)

7.3 If the building or column load is not high, the supporting piles are not closely
spaced. However, if piles are closely spaced, the pile groups behave differently
from single isolated piles because of pile-soil-pile interactions that take place in
the group. For a group of closely spaced frictional piles which is required to
support loading from heavily loaded columns, the pile group will form a
network of reticulated piles that create a system of confined soil composite with
the piles acting as reinforcing elements. Unlike a single pile system where the
soil at the pile-soil interface is modified and the lateral stresses may also be
increased during the pile installation stage, such effect cannot happen along the
perimeter of the pile group (Figure 35). In this case, the block settlement of a
group with closely spaced piles should be considered which may often exceed
that predicted from a single pile analysis of an individual pile at the same load.
This pile group settlement is sometimes a few times more than a single pile; that
means the settlement obtained from load testing of a single pile cannot give the
settlement of the pile group/building. The settlement of pile group can be
assessed by various methods such as equivalent raft methods or computer
modelling by PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION. SEB promulgated SEB Guidelines
SEBGL-PL14: Guidelines on Assessment of Pile Group Settlement (available:
Page 52 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

http://asdiis/sebiis/2k/resource_centre/) on the methods to assess the pile group
settlement. If necessary, it is recommended to carry out settlement monitoring
after a building is constructed.

Figure 35 Pile Group with Closely Spaced Piles

7.4 For drilled placement (DD) piles or shafted grouted frictional mini-piles, the
required pile length will be shorter than that those ordinary CFA piles or
frictional mini-piles without post-grouting under the same required loading.
Figure 36 illustrates the equivalent raft model for the estimation of pile group
settlement. It can be observed that the settlement of the pile group of friction
mini-piles with shaft grouted will be greater than those piles without post-
grouting due to the shorter pile length and hence a thicker depth of compressible
soil beneath the base of the pile group.

Figure 36 Equivalent Raft Model for Estimation of Pile Group Settlement

7.5 Thus, it should be noted that the advantages of friction mini-piles in achieving
high loading capacity at shallow depth may be offset by settlement
considerations. PSEs should therefore make an assessment of the effect of pile
group settlement on the superstructure if frictional mini-pile is considered to be
a feasible piling option. This is especially the problem for high-rise buildings or
under heavily-loaded columns, not only because of inadequate total pile
capacity, but also the resulting settlement may be too excessive leading to the
infeasibility of using frictional mini-piles as the foundation.

Page 53 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

8. Method of Procurement of Frictional Piles

8.1 Either an engineer-design or the traditional deign-and-build arrangement can be
adopted for procuring the frictional mini-piles. For an engineer-design, the
design in the form of the location, sizes, founding depth and method of
installation of the piles will be specified in the contract, and the contractor is
only required to carry out the works according to the specified design.
However, this Information Paper has shown that one of the key parameters
affecting the load carrying capacity of frictional mini-piles is the construction
method (e.g. during the post grouting works and operating the CFA for PIP
piles). The parameters used in the design of the length of piles also show that
the length of the piles is very site-specific, and the only means to check the
assumed parameters is through the initial trial pile. Thus, adopting an engineer-
design arrangement cannot demarcate the defaults in design and in
workmanship should a dispute arise. It is therefore recommended that the
traditional design-and-build arrangement should still be adopted.

8.2 Adopting the traditional design-and-build arrangement, the contractor should
then be held responsible to design and construct each frictional pile to a capacity
to meet the contract requirements (including the loading specified in the loading
schedule), according to his own construction method. PSE should specify the
loading points, and minimum length and size of the piles in the contract. The
contractor can then design the number of piles, the size of the piles and the
length of the piles based on their chosen design shaft friction, which can vary
depending on his proposed plant and experience of the crew; but such chosen
values shall be validated on site by trial piles and loading test. To specify the
minimum length for the piles, the PSE should normally adopt the N-value
method for assessment the length. In case the | method is used, the limitations
of | method as stated in Table 7 should be noted. Annex A provides an
example to estimate the minimum length of piles in a typical site. Annex B
provides a sample particular specification for the design and installation works
of frictional mini-piles with steel sections in pre-bored holes formed by the
Concentric or Symmetrix system (i.e. a system with the pilot bit set back from
the ring bit during drilling or other drilling systems) and PSE may vary it to suit
individual site and project, and when steel rebars are used in lieu of the steel
section.

Page 54 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

References

Armour, T, Groneck, P, Keelev. J and Sharma, S (2000), Micropile Design and Construction
Guidelines (Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration) (available:
http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/FHWA/009966.pdf, accessed: 9 June 2010).
Billam, J (1972), Some aspects of the behaviour of granular materials at high pressures,
Proceedings of the Roscoe Memorial Symposium, 29-31 March 1971, Cambridge, pp. 69-80.
Brown, D A (2005), Practical Considerations in the Selection and Use of Continuous Flight Auger
and Drilled Displacement Piles, Proceedings of Sessions of Geo-Frontiers 2005 Congress,
Austin, Texas, 24-25 January 2005, pp. 1-11 (available: http://ascelibrary.org, accessed: 3
December 2012).
Brown, D A, Dapp, S D, Thompson, W R and Lazarte, C A (2007), Design and Construction of
Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) Piles (Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration).
Brown, D A, Turner, J P and Castelli, R J (2010), Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and
LRFD Design Methods (Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration).
BSI (2005), EN 14199:2005: Execution of Special Geotechnical Works Micropiles (London: BSI)
Burland, J B (1973), Shaft Friction of Piles in Clay, Ground Engineering, 6(3), pp. 30-42
Caltrans (2008). Bridge Memo to Designers 3-1: Deep Foundations (Sacramento, CA: California
Department of Transportation).
Cartier G and Gigan J P (1983), Experiments and observations on soil nailing structures,
Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
23-26 May 1983, Helsinki, 2, pp. 4736.
Chang, J C, Hannon, J B and Forsthy, R A (1977), Pullout resistance and interaction of earth
reinforcement and soil (California, CA: Department of Transport).
Chan, C K, Tsang, A H K, Chow, R N and Tam, J Y C (2004), Prebored Friction Mini-pile
Foundation for Light Rail Grade Separation, The Structural Engineer, 82(20), pp. 24-7 (available:
www.istructe.org/thestructuralengineer/, accessed: 7 October 2011).
Canadian Geotechnical Society (1992), Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM)
(Vancouver: BiTech Publishers, 3
rd
ed).
Chang M F and Wong J H (1995), Axial load test behaviour of bored piles in weathered granite.
Proceedings of the 10
th
Asian Regional Conference in Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Beijing, 1, pp. 185-8.
Chin, F K (1970), Estimation of the Ultimate Load of Piles not Carried to Failure, Proceeding of
the Second Southeast Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, Singapore, 1, pp. 81-90.
Davisson, M T (1972), Static Measurements of Pile Behavior, in Fang, H Y and Dismuke, T D
(eds), Design and Installation of Pile Foundations and Cellular Structures (Lehigh Valley, PA:
Envo Publishing Co).
Department of Civil Engineering (2009), A Study of Rock Socketed Steel H-Piles Final Report for
Architectural Services Department (Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong) (Unpublished
Consultancy Report) (available: http://asdiis/sebiis/2k/resource_centre/).
Fellenius, B H (1991), Pile foundation, in Fang, H S (ed), Foundation Engineering Handbook
(New York: Chapman and Hall, 2
nd
ed).
Page 55 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

Fellenius, B H (2011), Basics of Foundation Design, Electronic Edition (Calgary, Canada:
Fellenius) (available: www.fellenius.net; accessed: 10 January 2013).
Frizzi, R P and Meyer, M E (2000), Augercast Piles: South Florida Experience, Proceedings of
Sessions of Geo-Denver 2000, 5-8 August 2000, Denver, Colorado, pp. 382-96.
GEO (1996), GEO Publication No. 1/96: Pile Design and Construction (Hong Kong: GEO)
(available: www.cedd.gov.hk, accessed: 7 October 2011).
GEO (2006), GEO Publication No. 1/2006: Foundation Design and Construction (Hong Kong:
GEO) (available: www.cedd.gov.hk, accessed: 7 October 2011).
Gouvenot, D and Gabaix, J C (1975), "Essais de pieux scells par injection sous pression", Annales
de l'ITBTP, n 331, Sept., pp. 3-21.
Hansen, B (1963), Discussion on Hyperbolic Stress-Strain Response, Cohesive Soils, Journal for
Soil Mechanics and Foundation, 89(SM16), pp. 931-2.
Holt D N, Lumb P and Wong P K K (1982), Site control and testing of bored piles at Telford
Gardens, an elevated township at Kowloon Bay, Hong Kong, Proceedings of the 7th SE Asian
Geotechnical Conferences, November 1982, Hong Kong, pp. 349-61.
Kay, J N and Kalinowski, M (1997), Shaft friction for cast-in place piles in Hong Kong,
Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Structures and Foundations in Civil
Engineering, January 1997.
Kulhawy, F H and Chen J R (2007), Discussion of Drilled Shaft Side Friction in Gravelly Soils,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(10), pp. 1325-28.
Kulhawy, F H and Jackson, C S (1989), Some Observations on Undrained Side Resistance of
CIDH piles, in Kulhawy, F H (ed), Geotechnical Special Publication No. 22: Foundation
Engineering - Current Principles and Practices, pp. 1011-1025.
Kulhawy, F H and Mayne, P W (1990), Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation
Design (Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute).
Kwok, D (1987), Construction of Large Diameter Bored Piles Founded on Soil (Hong Kong: The
University of Hong Kong) (Unpublished MSc Thesis).
Lei, G H (2001), Behaviour of Excavated Rectangular Piles (Barrettes) in Granitic Saprolites
(Hong Kong: University of Science and Technology) (Unpublished PhD Thesis).
Lei, G H and Ng, C W W (2007) Rectangular barrettes and circular bored piles in saprolites,
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Engineering, 160(GE4), pp. 237
42.
Li, J H M (2000), Side shear resistance of large diameter bored piles in weathered geomaterials
(Hong Kong: University of Science and Technology) (Unpublished MPhil Thesis).
Lim, K. S., and Tan, S. S. (1983), A Study on the Ultimate Pullout Resistance of Anchors in Sand
(Singapore: National University of Singapore) (Unpublished PhD Thesis).
Littlechild, B D, Plumbridge, G D and Free M W (1998), Shaft Grouted Piles in Sand and Clay in
Bangkok, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference and Exhibition on Piling and Deep
Foundations, Vienna, Austria, 15-17 June 1998.
Littlechild, B D, Plumbridge, G D, Hill, S J and Lee, S C (2000), Shaft Grouting of Deep
Foundations in Hong Kong, in Dennis, N D et al (eds), New Technological and Design
Page 56 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

Developments in Deep Foundations (Houston: University of Houston), pp.33-45 (available:
http://ascelibrary.org/proceedings/, accessed: 7 October 2011).
Lo, S C R and Li, K S (2003), Influence of a Permanent Liner on the Skin Friction of Large-
Diameter Bored Piles in Hong Kong Granitic Saprolites, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 40(4),
pp. 793-805.
Lu, Y L (2009), Experimental Analysis for the Bearing Capacity of Screw Piles (Shanghai: Jiaotong
University).
Lui, S P Y, Cheung, S P Y and Chan, A K C (1993), Pressure grouted minipiles for a 12-storey
residential building at the mid-levels scheduled area in Hong Kong, Proceedings of International
Conference on Soft Soil Engineering, 8-11 November, Guangzhou, pp. 419-24.
Luo, S Q, Tan, S A and Yong, K Y (2000), Pull-out resistance mechanism of a soil nail
reinforcement in dilative soils, Soils and Foundations, 40(1), pp. 47-56.
Mayne, P W and Harris, D E (1993), Axial Load-displacement Behaviour of Drilled Shaft
Foundation in Piedmont Residuum (Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration).
Meyerhof, G G (1976), Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Pile Foundations, Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, 102(3), pp. 195-228.
Taylor, D. W. (1948), Fundamentals of soil mechanics (New York: John Wiley and Sons).
Misra, A, Chen, C H, Oberoi, R and Kleiber, A (2004), Simplified Analysis Method for Micropile
Pullout Behaviour, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130(10), pp.
1024-33.
Misra, A and Chen, C H (2004), Analytical solution for micropile design under tension and
compression, Geotechnicaland Geological Engineering, 22, pp. 199225.
Murray, R T, Inst, H E, Carder, D R and Krawczyk, J V (1980), Pullout tests on reinforcement
embedded in uniformly graded and subject to vibration (London: Department of Transport).
NeSmith, W M and Siegel, T C (2009), Shortcomings of the Davisson Offset Limit Applied to
Axial Compressive Load Tests on Cast-in-Place Piles, Proceedings from the International
Foundation Congress and Equipment Expo, Orlando, Florida, 15-19 March 2009, pp. 568-74.
Ng, C W W and Lei, G H (2003), Performance of long rectangular barrettes in granitic saprolites,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 129(8), pp. 68596.
Ng C W W, Li J H M and Yau, T L Y (2001), Behaviour of large diameter floating bored piles in
saprolitic soils, Soils and Foundations, 41(6), pp. 3752.
Nordlund, R L (1963), Bearing Capacity of Piles in Cohesionless Soils, Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations, 89(SM3), pp. 135.
Nottingham, L C (1975), Use of Quasi-Static Penetrometer Data to Predict Load Capacity of Piles
(Gainesville: University of Florida).
ONeill, M W (2001), Side Resistance in Piles and Drilled Shafts, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(1), pp. 316 (available: http://ascelibrary.org/journals,
accessed: 7 October 2011).
ONeill, M W (1994), Review of Augered Pile Practice Outside the United States, Transportation
Research Record No. 1447: Design and Construction of Auger Cast Piles, and Other Foundation
Issues (Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration), pp. 63-9.
Page 57 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

O'Neill, M W and Reese, L C (1999), Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods,
(Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration).
Paik, K H, Salgado, R, Lee, J, and Kin, B (2003), Behaviour of open and closed ended piles driven
into sands, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 129(4), pp. 296306.
Paikowsky S G and Tolosko, T A (1999), Extrapolation of Pile Capacity from Non-Failed Load
Test (Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration) (available:
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/16000/16000/16053/PB2000102368.pdf.; accessed: 4 October 2011).
Poulos, H G (1968). Analysis of the Settlement of Pile Groups. Geotechnique, 18, pp. 449-71.
Poulos, H G (2006), Pile Group Settlement Estimation Research to Practice, Proceedings of
Sessions of GeoShanghai, 6-8 June 2005, Shanghai, China, pp.1-22.
Poulos, H G and Davis, E H (1974), Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock Mechanics (New York:
John Wiley & Sons).
Poulos, H G and Davis, E H (1980), Pile Foundation Analysis and Design (New York: John Wiley
& Sons).
Rollins, K M, Clayton, R J, Mikesell, R C and Blaise, B C (2005), Drilled Shaft Side Friction in
Gravelly Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(8), pp. 987
1003.
Schmertmann, J H (1978), FHWA-TS-78-209 Report: Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test,
Performance and Deign (Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration).
Skempton, A W (1986), Standard Penetration Test Procedures and the Effects in Sands of
Overburden Pressure, Relative Density, Particle Size, Aging and Overconsolidation,
Geotechnique, 36(3), pp. 425-47.
Stocker, M (1983), The Influence of Post-grouting on the Load-Bearing Capacity of Bored Piles,
Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
23-26 May 1983, Helsinki, pp. 167-70.
Tan Y C, Chen C S and Liew S S (1998), Load transfer behaviour of cast-in place bored piles in
tropical soils of Malaysia, Proceedings of the 13th SE Asian Geotechnical Conference, Taipei,
pp. 563-71.
Taylor, D W (1948), Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics (New York: John Wiley and Sons).
Tomlinson, M J (1971), Some Effects of Pile Driving on Skin Friction, Proceedings of
Conference on Behaviour of Piles, pp 10714.
Tomlinson, M J (1994), Pile Design and Construction Practice (London: E & FN Spon, 4
th
ed).
Yang, J, Tham, L G, Lee, P K K, Chan, S T, and Yu, F (2006), Behaviour of jacked and driven
piles in sandy soil, Gotechnique, 56(4), pp. 245259.
Yiu, T M and Lam, S C (1990), Ultimate Load Testing of Driven Piles in Meta-Sedimentary
Decomposed Rocks, Proceedings of the Conference on Deep Foundation Practice, Singapore,
pp 293-300.
Yau, T L Y (2000), Capacity and Failure Criteria of Bored Piles in Soils and Rocks (Hong Kong:
University of Science and Technology) (Unpublihsed MPhil Thesis).
Page 58 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

Wong, H Y (2003), Design and Construction of Friction Bored Piles in Hong Kong with Particular
Reference to Marble Areas, Presented at the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers Annual
Seminar on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering in Hong Kong, 9 May 2003, Hong Kong.
Vesic, A S (1977), Synthesis of Highway Practice No. 42: Design of Pile Foundation (Washington,
DC: Transportation Research Board).
Page 59 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

Annex A

Estimation of the Length of Frictional Mini-Piles

Page 60 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

Table A1 calculates of the length of a frictional mini-pile of |305mm using N-value method with load carrying capacity of 1000kN to be
installed in a hypothetical site by using the SPT-N values of the soil shown. The water table is at 34mPD. Two cases will be considered:
frictional mini-pile with and without shaft grouted. For frictional mini-pile without shaft grouted, the design average shaft friction of 0.4N is
adopted, whilst an average value of 1.0N is adopted for frictional mini-pile with shaft grouted. The calculation shows that the required lengths
of the pile without and with shaft grouted are 42m and 28m respectively.

Table A1 Calculation of length of pile using N-value method

Page 61 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

Annex B

Sample Particular Specification for
Design and Construction of Frictional Mini-Piles

Page 62 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

1. General

A Frictional Minipile for the Contract is defined as a pile which is built-up H-
section from steel plates, or rolled steel H-section [delete where appropriate] to
be installed in a prebored hole formed into soil with a temporary steel casing
with minimum internal diameter of [insert dimension] and then filled with
cement grout. The requirements on the construction of the pile are as shown in
drawing no. [insert drawing number].

The Contractor is required to engage a specialist contractor to design and
construct the piling works, who shall be in the List of Approved Suppliers of
Materials and Specialist Contractors for Public Works in the Category of Land
Piling Group II and eligible to carry out the registered piling system of Rock-
socketed Steel H-pile in Pre-bored Hole or Minipile.

2. Piling Design

2.1 Design Requirements

The theoretical safe loading capacity of the individual Frictional Minipile shall
be the allowable axial force of the built-up H-section from steel plates, or rolled
steel H-section [delete where appropriate]). The maximum allowable axial
working stress of the built-up H-section from steel plates, or rolled steel H-
section [delete where appropriate]) shall be 45% of the yield stress, and the
combined stresses due to axial load and bending moments shall be limited to
50% of the yield stress. When the calculations of stresses are based on all loads
including wind loads, the permissible stress shall be increased by 25% of the
above stresses.

The theoretical safe loading capacity of each individual pile shall not exceed
[insert number]kN.

The Contractor shall be responsible for the design and construction of the
Frictional Minipiles including the length and the number of Frictional Minipiles
to support the loading in the loading schedule of drawing no. [insert drawing
number]. The founding level shall be at [insert number]m below the cut-off
level or ground level [delete as appropriate].

[Guidance notes: the minimum length of the pile is to be calculated according
to the GI, and refer to the example in Annex A of this information paper for a
worked example to estimate the minimum length.]

The frictional resistance between the pile shaft and the soil above [insert
number]mPD shall not be considered. End-bearing capacity of the pile shall be
ignored. The Contractor shall satisfy himself that his method of calculating the
design frictional resistance, which shall provide a sufficient factor of safety in
his design.

Page 63 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

Pile design submission shall be in accordance with Clause 5.02 of the GS.

2.2 Pile Head Details

The Contractor shall provide capping plate and dowel bars in accordance with
the detail as given in the GS for steel H piles..

2.3 Cover

The minimum clearance (cover) between casing and the steel section shall be
40mm. The Contractor shall submit his proposed spacer details with his pile
design submission.

2.4 Minimum Segment Length of Steel Sections

The minimum length of each segment of steel sections forming the whole length
of Frictional Minipile shall be 10 m except the uppermost section.

2.5 Provision of Shear Key

The Contractor shall provide shear bars to steel sections in accordance with the
details shown in Appendix.

3. Submissions for Piling Works

In addition to the submissions stated in GS Clause 5.02, the Contractor shall
submit 2 copies of each of the following information with the design
submissions:
a. details of built-up H-section from steel plates, or rolled steel H-section
[delete where appropriate];
b. details of grout mix;
c. method of installation including equipment to be used, sequence of
operations, drilling methods, temporary casing installation and extraction,
and time of grouting;
d. details of grouting operation, taking into account of the subsoil condition
and ground water fluctuation during the day;
e. method of piling operation to overcome underground obstruction, if
encountered;
f. spacers details;
g. a report on the existing conditions of the adjacent structures (including
existing underground pipe, existing retaining walls and any other
structures nearby). This initial condition survey report shall include
information and record photos of these existing structures with particular
attention to those aspects that may be adversely affected by the proposed
works. Foundation types of the adjacent structures shall also be included;
h. proposal on precautionary measures and actions to be taken so as to
prevent the above adjacent structures from being adversely affected by the
works;
i. any other requirements specified in this particular specification.
Page 64 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

No piling works shall commence on site unless the submissions are approved by
the SO in writing.

4. Drilling Method

Unless otherwise agreed by the SO, Frictional Minipile shall be formed with a
temporary casing used to stabilise the surrounding soil, and shall not be installed
with the use of bentonite slurry or other drilling muds. Temporary casing of
approved quality shall be lowered at the same time when the hole is made.

Unless otherwise approved by the SO, the Concentric or Symmetrix system or
other drilling systems shall be used to form the pile hole of the Frictional
Minipiles.

Temporary casing shall be free from distortion, internal projections and
hardened grout.

5. Flushing Medium

Air or water shall be used as the flushing medium during the drilling operation.
The Contractors attention is drawn to the formation process of the pile shaft
using air flushing where special care shall be taken to avoid disturbance to
adjacent ground of soil during forming of the pile shaft.

6. Tolerances

The maximum deviation of the centre of the head of each finished Frictional
Minipile from the designed centre point shall not be more than 50 mm in any
direction. The maximum deviation from the vertical axis of the pile through the
centroid of the cross section at the cut off level at any level of the finished pile
shall not be more than 1 in 75.

[Guidance note: If a group of reinforcement bars, instead of steel section, is
used, the maximum deviation of the centre of the head shall be limited to 15mm
and the maximum deviation from the vertical axis shall be limited to 1 in 100.]

7. Founding Level

Founding level of each Frictional Minipile shall not be higher than those
specified in Clause 2.1.

8. Cutting Off of Pile Heads

All Frictional Minipiles shall be grouted to a minimum level of 300 mm above
the specified pile cut-off level.

Page 65 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

9. Grout for Piling Work

9.1 Grout Material

Grout shall consist of ordinary Portland cement and water with an approved
non-shrinkage additive. Where PFA is used, the maximum PFA content shall
not exceed 35% of the total cementitious content in the grout. Other admixtures
can be used when approved by the SO. The manufacturers guidance shall be
strictly followed. Cement sand mix is not allowed.

Grout shall have minimum cube strength of 30 MPa at 28 days.

Measurements for bleeding shall be taken at 15-minute intervals. The amount of
bleeding shall not exceed 2% at the end of the first 3 hours and no interim
readings shall exceed 4%. In addition the water must be reabsorbed by the
grout within 24 hours after mixing.

Free expansion of grout when measured at the end of 24 hours after mixing
shall have a figure between 0% and 5%. A negative percentage figure shall not
be accepted.

Any approved admixtures shall be chloride-free and comply with BS EN 934.

The maximum total chloride content, expressed as a percentage relationship
between the chloride ion and the cementitious content by mass in the grout shall
be 0.1%.

Water for grout shall be clean fresh water having a temperature not exceeding
30C nor less than 5C.

9.2 Grout Mixing

Grout material shall be mixed by weight batching. The amount of water used
shall be measured by a calibrated flowmeter or a measuring tank.

The mixing time in high-speed mixers shall be appropriate for the type of mixer
used.

After mixing, the grout shall be continuously agitated in a holding tank and
screened before injection. The grout shall be placed within the time limits
specified by the manufacturers of the additives.

9.3 Pressure Grouting and Extraction of Temporary Casing

9.3.1 Grout Pipes

Grouting shall be carried out with two non-flexible grout pipes, one at each side
of the web of the steel section.

Page 66 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

9.3.2 Grouting Methods

Before grouting, the bottom of the hole shall be cleaned by airlifting or an
alternative method approved by the SO.

[Delete either of the following options]

Either:

The hole shall be grouted by shaft grouted method. That is, upon extraction of
temporary casing after the completion of initial grouting to the body of the
whole Frictional Minipile, the surface of the shaft of each Frictional Minipile
shall be cracked by water within 24 hours of the initial grouting via Tube-a-
Manchettes or similar method approved by the SO. Subsequent pressurised
post grouting shall then be followed such that the pressurised grout expels itself
into the surrounding ground. The Contractor shall submit to the SO for
approval the detailed proposal of his shaft grouted method.

Or:

Grouting shall be carried out in an upstage sequence from the bottom of the
hole. After the initial pressure grouting of the bottom of the pile, the temporary
casing shall first be partially extracted upward to a predetermined level as
approved by the SO and then followed by pressure grouting. The bottom level of
the grout pipes shall in no case be higher than the bottom level of the temporary
casing. The above grouting sequences shall be repeated until the completion of
the grouting of the pile.

Unless otherwise permitted by the SO, grouting shall be carried out by injecting
the grout under pressure into each grouting stage of the hole until the grouting
stage refuses to take further grout.

The initial grouting shall be carried out in such a way that the lowest part of the
grout pipes shall be as close to the pile toe as possible.

9.3.3 Pressure Grouting

Grouting pressure shall be determined by the Contractor and shall in no case be
less than the overburden pressure unless otherwise approved by the SO.

Holes shall be grouted in a continuous operation at each grouting stage and
pressures as approved, and except during subsequent post grouting, shall not be
left partially grouted.

If, in the opinion of the SO, grouting of any hole or grouting stage has not been
completed due to low pressures, excessive leakage when compared to the
performance of the trial pile as required in Clause 11 or other causes, the hole
shall be redrilled or flushed out with water and re-injected with grout.

Page 67 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

The Contractor shall agree with the SO the method to measure the grout intake
volume.

Newly grouted piles shall be properly covered and fenced off.

9.4 Testing of Grout

The Contractor shall employ an approved laboratory to carry out the tests for
Bleeding, Free Expansion and Flow Cone Efflux and Crushing Strength of
grout.

9.4.1 Definition of Batch

A batch of grout is any quantity of grout used for grouting in one continuous
operation in one day.

9.4.2 Test for Bleeding and Free Expansion

The Contractor shall provide one sample of the grout from each Frictional
Minipile after mixing and shall protect from changes in moisture content before
tests are carried out.

Each sample shall be divided into 3 specimens. Each specimen is to be placed
in a covered cylinder with a diameter of 100 10mm to a depth of 100 5 mm
and the amount of bleeding and free expansion is measured by a scale fixed to
the outside of the cylinder.

Bleeding = 100% x
H
2
- Hg
H
1

Free Expansion = 100% x
H
2
H
1

H
1

where H
1
- initial height of grout sample
H
2
- height of sample measured at upper surface of water layer or
hardened grout surface if water is fully absorbed
Hg- height of grout portion of sample at upper surface of grout

The Contractor shall submit preliminary test results to the SO within 48 hours
after the mixing of grout.

If the result of the bleeding test of the grout for any pile does not comply with
the specified requirements or the free expansion of the grout for any pile is
greater than the specified upper limit, the Contractor shall propose changes to
improve the materials, grout mix or method of production, though the failure
does not constitute a failure of the pile.

Page 68 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

If the free expansion of the grout for any pile has a negative figure, the
Contractor shall carry out test(s) at their own expense to demonstrate that the
pile can fulfil the original design requirements.

9.4.3 Flow Cone Efflux Test

At least one sample from each pile shall be taken and tested in accordance with
ASTM C939 to determine the Flow Cone Efflux time. Agree with the SO the
frequency of the test.

Except with SOs prior agreement for grout mixes containing additives, grout
having an efflux time of less than 15 seconds shall be rejected.

9.4.4 Test for Crushing Strength

The Contractor shall provide one sample of the grout for each Frictional
Minipile after mixing and shall protect it from changes in moisture content
before making test cubes.

Cubes shall be prepared using 100mm cube moulds.

The Contractor shall make two cubes from the sample. Strength compliance
requirements shall follow GS Clause 6.55.

10. Steel Sections

GS Clause 5.18 (iii), (v) and (vii) shall apply to Frictional Minipiles.

The Contractor shall employ an approved specialist firm to carry out and
interpret the inspection and testing of welds, and shall provide any necessary
labour and attendance. The Contractor shall submit evidence proving that
operators carrying out the inspection and testing have been trained and assessed
for competence in the inspection and testing of welds. In addition, the
Contractor shall submit certificates of competence from a recognised authority
for operators carrying out ultrasonic examination.

The welded joints of steel sections shall not be lowered into the pile shaft within
one hour after they are completed.

The maximum length of spliced steel sections in horizontal or inclined positions
shall be 24 m.

11. Trial Pile

After the approval of the design submission and before the commencement of
pile installation, one of the piles selected by the SO shall be installed as trial pile
to validate the design parameters, method of installation and grouting operation
proposed by the Contractor.

Page 69 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

The trial pile shall be subjected to a static loading test as included in Clause 12.
If the trial pile fails in the static loading test, the Contractor shall revise his
piling proposal and re-submit his revised design to the SO for approval. A new
trial pile shall then be installed in accordance with the revised proposal by the
Contractor and then subjected to the static loading test.
No installation works for the remaining piles shall be commenced until the trial
pile has passed the static loading test.

12. Static Loading Tests

Loading tests shall be required as instructed by SO in accordance with GS
Clause 5.28. Notwithstanding GS Clause 5.28, the SO may order 3% of the
installed piles or [insert drawing number] nos. of piles installed, whichever is
more, to be load tested to twice the loading capacity of the respective piles. In
determining the cross sectional area (A) of pile, the transformed section
(comprising the grout and steel section) shall be used.

The Youngs modulus of grout shall be taken as that of concrete of the same
strength as given in the GS.

[Guidance note: Allow for 3% (instead of 1%) of the first 100 installed piles
and 1% for each next 100 installed piles thereafter to be load tested to twice the
theoretical safe loading capacity]

13. Piling Records

The Contractor shall keep records of the installation of each pile and submit two
signed copies of these records to the SO not later than noon of the next working
day after the pile was installed.

The record shall give the following information in an approved format:-

a. Pile reference number;
b. Date and time of boring;
c. Soil samples taken and in situ test carried out, if any;
d. Date pile installed;
e. Pile type and size;
f. Date and time of drilling;
g Date of grouting;
h. Position of pile in the works and ground level at pile position;
i. Working level;
j Drilling rates and material encountered;
k. Depth from working level to pile toe;
l. Toe level;
m. Depth from working level to pile head level;
n. Length and toe level of temporary casing;
o. Length of steel section;
p. Grout mix;
q. Volume of grout in pile (actual and theoretical);
Page 70 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

r. Details of obstructions, delays and other interruptions to sequence of
work;
s. Flow rate and total time required for the grouting operation;
t. Grouting pressure used in each stage;
u. Any other data requested by SO.

On completion of all piling works, the Contractor shall submit to the SO two
copies of the record piling plans showing, as appropriate, the position, identity
number, size and top and bottom levels of each pile installed.
Page 71 of 71
Piles
CTW/MKL/CYK/KWK/LPL

Appendix

Typical Details of Shear Bars

Design of Small Diameter Frictional Piles and Cases Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of Small Diameter Frictional Piles and Cases Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD

You might also like