Title

Author(s)

Behavior of a piled cap foundation under a vertical

loading

Yu, Zhenxiong;

Citation

Issue Date

URL

Rights

2011

http://hdl.handle.net/10722/174544

The author retains all proprietary rights, (such as patent

rights) and the right to use in future works.

Behavior of a Piled Cap

Foundation under a
Vertical Loading
()

By

YU Zhen Xiong
()

A thesis presented for the degree of Master of Philosophy

The University of Hong Kong
August 2011

Abstract of thesis entitled

Behavior of a Piled Cap Foundation under a Vertical Loading
Submitted by
YU Zhen Xiong
for the degree of Master of Philosophy at The University of Hong Kong
in August 2011

Hong Kong is a small city with a dense population. Due to limited land resources
and dense population, skyscrapers are built to meet the commercial and residential
needs. To fulfill the functional requirements, the superstructure is usually
supported by piles through a thick cap. A bored pile foundation is one of the most
common deep foundation systems with a high capacity adopted in Hong Kong.
Most of those piles are founded on Grade III or better rock. However, as lack of
field experience and high quality database, the behavior of such pile foundation
system is still unclear. These bored piles are designed as the end bearing piles. In
addition, the load distribution among the piles and the load shared by the pile cap
are also not properly addressed in the local design. In order to properly address the
above-mentioned issues related to the design of pile foundation, in particular for
large diameter bored piles, a comprehensive field study was launched.
Furthermore, the numerical simulations were also carried out.

A comprehensive field study was carried out on the behavior of a building

supported by large diameter bored piles. The building (40-storey public housing)
is Y-shaped with three wings (Wing A, Wing B, and Wing C) and a central core
(Central Core). The superstructure is resting on a Y-shaped foundation cap (2.3m
in thickness) which is supported by 18 bored piles (2.2m in diameter). The piles

terminated at Grade III or better rocks. The field test results indicated that the pile
group took up most of the applied load, while the cap had an insignificant
contribution to the capacity of the foundation system. The axial force in the pile
increased from the outer edge to the inner area of the cap. The shaft resistances
mobilized in the soil layer and the rock layer were significant. As a result, the
axial force reduced to a not significant level at the toe.

The finite element model could generally reflect the bored pile deformation and
the load distribution along the pile. The numerical simulation results could
generally reveal the load distribution among the piles. Based on the numerical
analyses, the load distribution among the piles was strongly dependent on the cap
stiffness. Moreover, when some pile stiffness reduced, the applied load will
redistribute among the piles. More loads will transfer to the nearby stiff piles. The
effected region of redistribution in axial force increased with the cap stiffness.

Word count: 403

Signature:

Declaration
I declare that this thesis represents my own work, except where due
acknowledgement is made, and that it has not been previously included in a thesis,
dissertation or report submitted to this University or to any other institution for a
degree, diploma or other qualifications.

Signed ___________________
YU Zhen Xiong

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to people who make this thesis
possible with their love, support and encouragement.

First, I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Professor L.G.

Tham of the Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong for
his continuous guidance, encouragement and valuable assistance throughout my
study. Not only the professional knowledge, he teaches me the attitude towards
life and work. It is my fortune to have such a kind and tolerant supervisor.

I would also express my gratitude to Mr. P.K.K. LEE who provided me the chance
to participate in this field-test project. Mr. Lee gave me valuable comments and
encouragement along the way in my research.

I am also greatly indebted to Dr. R.W.M. Yan, Dr. Y.D. Zhou and Dr. D.J. Guo
who have shared with me their wonderful insights and discussions in my research
project. I also appreciate the technical assistance in field work and laboratory
works from Mr. T.C. Chan, Mr. O.K. Chau, Mr. N.C. Poon and Mr. Y.F. Lo. They
provide wonderful technical assistance in overcoming practical problems.

The field test on piled cap foundation in this thesis was carried out at site
developed by the Housing Authority of the HKSAR Government. They are
gratefully acknowledged for providing me an invaluable opportunity to participate
in the field test. Here, I am indebted to Mr. Law Chi Wai of Housing Department
for his unstinting effort in providing all possible assistance, support and advice in
conducting the research on piled cap foundation of this study.

Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my family for their love,

encouragement, morale and financial support over years. In addition, many thanks
to all my teachers and friends, who have offered help and encouragement.

ii

Contents

CHAPTER 1
1.1
1.2
1.3

Declaration
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
Lists of Tables
Lists of Figures
Abbreviations and Symbols

Page
No.
i
ii
iii
v
vii
ix

INTRODUCTION
Research background
Research Objective and Scope
Layout of This Thesis

1
1
3
4

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 The concept of a deep foundation system
2.2 The design practice of the deep foundation in Hong
Kong
2.3 The behavior of a single bored pile
2.4 The behavior of a bored pile group
2.5 Determination of the load distribution among piles
2.6 Pile testing method
CHAPTER 3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4

FIELD TEST INFORMATION

The background information for the site
The objective for this field monitoring test
Field monitoring programme
Material property

5
5
6
8
13
14
20
28
28
31
32
35

THE FIELD PERFORMANCE

CHAPTER 4
4.1 The measurement results of the long term field
monitoring
4.2 The loading shared between the piles and the cap
4.3 Load distribution among piles
4.4 The contribution of shaft resistance in soil layer
4.5 Behavior of a larger-diameter bored pile
4.6 Summary

56
56

CHAPTER 5

91

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4

DETERMINATION OF THE LOAD DISTRIBUTION

AMONG PILES
Prediction the load distribution based on the pile
interaction approach
Prediction the load distribution based on the "Rivet
Group" approach
Numerical modeling
Prediction the load distribution based on the 3D
numerical model
iii

60
62
62
64
68

91
93
93
98

CHAPTER 6
6.1
6.2
6.3

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEDATIONS

Summary
Conclusions
Recommendations

APPENDIX A
REFERENCE

124
124
125
126
129
131

iv

Tables
Page
No.
22

Table 2.1

Classification of rock in Hong Kong

Table 2.2

23

Table 3.1

Presumed allowable vertical bearing pressure for

foundations on horizontal ground
Summary of the value of shaft resistance coefficient in
saprolites and sand in Hong Kong
Dead load of the superstructure

Table 3.2

Bored pile schedule for this foundation

37

Table 3.3

38

Table 3.4

Summary of the percentage of the reinforcements in the

pile section
The details for the concrete mixes

38

Table 3.5

Summary of the gauges location

39

Table 3.6

Summary of the crushing strength of the concrete

40

Table 3.7

41

Table 4.1

Summary of the Young's Modulus for the concrete cored

specimens
Summary of the construction process

Table 4.2

The status of strain gauges

72

Table 4.3

Settlement of the building from the land surveying method

73

Table 4.4

Axial force at pile head

74

Table 4.5

Grouping of the piles

74

Table 4.6

Axial force in soil-rock interface

75

Table 4.7

Total shaft resistance in soil layer

75

Table 4.8

Shaft resistance for three pile groups in soil layer

76

Table 5.1

The interaction factor E

102

Table 5.2

Comparison of the axial force between field test and pile

interaction approach
The detailed information for using the "Rivet Group"
approach
Comparison of the axial force between field test and "Rivet
Group" approach

103

Table 2.3

Table 5.3
Table 5.4

24
36

70

104
105

Table 5.5

The input parameter for the numerical model

106

Table 5.6

The pile stiffness for all piles in site

107

Table 5.7

The load schedule for the shear walls and columns on the
top of cap
Comparison of the axial force between field test and
numerical prediction
The pile cap thickness corresponding with the bending
rigidity of cap
Comparison of the axial force between rigid cap modeling
prediction and "Rivet Group" approach

108

Table 5.8
Table 5.9
Table 5.10

vi

109
110
111

Figures
Page No.
Figure 2.1

The geology mapping of Hong Kong

25

Figure 2.2

Load distribution in rock socketed piles

26

Figure 2.3
Figure 3.1

Determination of distribution of load in an eccentrically- 27

loaded pile group using the "Rivet Group" approach
The location of the study site
42

Figure 3.2

Ground floor framing plan of the Block 3

43

Figure 3.3

The location of the schedules area 4 (Ma On Shan)

44

Figure 3.4

The geological survey for Ma On Shan

44

Figure 3.5

Foundation plan of Block 3

45

Figure 3.6

The geological profile

48

Figure 3.7

Variations of the SPT N-value along with the depth

49

Figure 3.8

The typical details of the bored pile

50

Figure 3.9

The locations of the strain gauges in the piles

51

Figure 3.10

Details of the strain gauge

52

Figure 3.11

53

Figure 4.1

The standard 100mm cube specimens for the

compression tests
The modulus of the elasticity tests on the concrete
specimens
The stress-strain curves of the concrete specimens at
three levels
The dead load of the Block 3 building

Figure 4.2

Axial forces in the pile head during construction

79

Figure 4.3

Axial forces at soil-rock interface during construction

81

Figure 4.4

82

Figure 4.5

Comparison of the settlement from the survey and the

elastic shortening
The variations of cap load

Figure 4.6

The load distribution among the piles

85

Figure 3.12
Figure 3.13

vii

54
55
77

83

Figure 4.7
Figure 4.8

Comparison between the pile group resistances with the

dead load
Average pile head forces for three pile groups

87

Figure 4.9

Comparison of the settlement

88

Figure 4.10

The axial force against the settlement in the pile head

88

Figure 4.11

Variations of the axial force along the pile depth

89

Figure 4.12

89

Figure 5.1

The shaft resistance and the end bearing during

construction
Variations of the mobilized shaft resistance along the
pile depth
The local displacement against the mobilized shaft
resistance
The geometry of the numerical model for single pile

Figure 5.2

The axial force against the settlement in the pile head

111

Figure 5.3

Variations of the axial force along the pile depth

111

Figure 5.4

112

Figure 5.7

Shear stress distributions in the surrounding soil and

rock
The correlation of the pile stiffness against the pile
length
The geometry of the numerical model for the piled cap
foundation
The location of shear wall and column on the top of cap

Figure 5.8

The axial stress distribution on the top of cap

114

Figure 5.9

The predicted settlement contour for the field test

114

Figure 5.10

The predicted settlement contour for the "rigid" cap

115

Figure 5.11

116

Figure 5.12

The predicted settlement contour for different thickness

cap
The maximum settlement against the cap thickness

Figure 5.13

The differential settlement against the cap thickness

117

Figure 5.14

The variations of axial force against the cap thickness

120

Figure 5.15

Redistribution of axial force among piles after the pile

weakens in Wing B

121

Figure A1

The layout plan of site investigation in this site

127

Figure 4.13
Figure 4.14

Figure 5.5
Figure 5.6

viii

86

90
90
110

112
113
113

116

Abbreviations and Symbols

CDG
CPT
SPT

Completely Decomposed Granite

Cone Penetration Test
Standard Penetration Test

Ab
Apile
Br
c
c
C
d
D
Econcrete
Epile
Ep
Er
Esteel
Es
F
Fc
Fq
Fr
FS
Ix, Iy

Area of pile tip

Cross sectional area of the pile
Width of the raft
Cohesion of interface
Cohesion of soil
Empirical factor
Pile diameter
Bending rigidity of a plate
Youngs modulus of the concrete section
Youngs modulus of the pile
Youngs modulus of the plate
Elastic modulus of raft
Youngs modulus of the reinforcement casing
Elastic modulus of soil
Axial force in the pile
Correction factor
Correction factor
Correction factor
Factor of safety
Moment of inertia of pile group with respect to x and y axes
respectively
Moment of inertia of pile group about the centeriod
Pile-soil stiffness ratio
Initial shear stiffness factor for the interface
Raft-soil stiffness ratio
Coefficient of horizontal pressure
Pile length
Effective pile length
Length of the raft
Moment about centroid of pile group with respect to x and y
axes respectively
Principal moment with respect to x and y axes respectively

Ixy
K
ki
Krs
Ks
L
Leff
Lr
Mx, My
M x* , M *y
n
Nb
Nc
Nq
Nr
p
P
Pai
Pave
Pj
Qallow

Number of piles in a group

Correction factors relate to SPT N-value or CPT value
Bearing capacity factor
Bearing capacity factor
Bearing capacity factor
Perimeter of the pile
Total vertical load acting at the centroid of the pile group
Axial load on an individual pile i
Average load per pile
Loading on the pile j
Allowable bearing capacity

ix

qb
Qg
Qi
s
tp
tr
u
vp
vr
vs
xi, yi
z

Unit base resistance

Ultimate group capacity
Ultimate capacity of pile i
Pile spacing
Thickness of the plate
Thickness of the raft
Relative displacement
Poissons ratio of plate
Poissons ratio of raft
Poissons ratio of soil
Distance of pile I from y and x axes respectively
Depth along the pile

Average mobilized shaft resistance

ult

Ultimate shaft resistance

Uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock

v'

Mean vertical effective stress

vb

kj

Vertical stress at level of pile base

Shaft resistance coefficient

Average of the strains at each gauge level
Angle of interface friction
Unit weight of soil
Drained angle of friction

'

Correction factor
Pile interaction factor
Percentage of the reinforcements in the pile section
Pile interaction factor for the piles k and j

Group efficiency factor

Displacement of a single pile under unit load

F
sin gle

Axial force difference between two gauge levels

Settlement of a single pile

z
[ E ]

Length difference between two gauge levels

Matrix of the interaction factors for piles

[P]

Matrix of loading in the piles

[ ]

Matrix of settlement in the piles

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Research background

Hong Kong is a small city with a dense population. Due to limited land resources
and dense population, the land price in urban areas is exceptionally high, which
leads to construction of skyscrapers to meet the commercial and residential needs.
To fulfill the functional requirements, the superstructure is usually supported by
piles through a thick cap. A bored pile foundation is one of the most common
types of these deep foundation systems adopted in Hong Kong, and most of those
piles are founded on Grade III or better rock.

In the local design practice, the bored piles are normally assumed to be endbearing with the shaft resistance either ignored or limited to 10kPa for the "soil"
section, 150kPa for the "saprolite" section, and 0.5 to 1MPa for the Grade III or
better "rock" section (BD, 2004; GEO, 2006). The presumed allowable bearing
pressure is 5MPa for Grade III or better rock (BD, 2004; GEO, 2006). However,
for saprolites in Hong Kong, the results from loading tests on instrumented largediameter (up to 1.2m) bored piles and barrettes indicated that significant shaft
resistance can be generated in granitic saprolites (Malone, 1987; Lumb, 1983).
Furthermore, recent studies have demonstrated that considerable shaft resistance
can also be generated in socketted steel H-piles (Liu, 2008; Wang, 2006), driven
piles (Yu, 2004; Zhang, 2006; Yang, 2006), and jacked piles (Yu, 2004; Li, 2002;
Yang, 2006). It must be pointed out that the previous studies are based on pile
load test conducted on the piles.

-1-

As the diameter of bored piles increases, it becomes more and more difficult, if
not impractical, to conduct pile load test on these piles. For example, a 3m
diameter bored pile requires more than 70MN (twice allowable bearing resistance).
It is always difficult to provide sufficient reaction force for the test. Therefore,
there is very limited information available for piles larger than 3m in diameter on
the shaft resistance generated along them. It inevitably leads to an over-design of a
foundation system.

In addition, the load distribution among piles and the load shared by a pile cap are
also not properly addressed in the local design. It is mainly because of the lack of
field experience and a high-quality database. Based on a continuum approach,
Poulos and Davis (1980) computed the interaction factor between the piles and
produced design charts for different pile spacing, pile relative stiffness (with
reference to the soil layer), and base stiffness. Guo (1988) further extended the
method to multi-layered soil. With the interaction factor, one can further predict
the load distribution of the piles. Their studies had demonstrated that the load
distribution among piles depends on the stiffness of a pile cap (Poulos and Davis,
1980; Guo, 1988). For example, piles of a "rigid" pile cap near the centre of a
group are expected to carry lesser load than those at the edges. Such load
distribution is different from that obtained by the "Rivet Group" approach. The
predicted pattern obtained by the pile interaction approach was confirmed by the
field measurements for piles founded in clayey soils (Hooper, 1979; Cooke, 1986;
Randolph, 1994). However, contrasting distribution was measured by Vesic (1969)
in model tests involving jacked piles in granular soils. Nevertheless, these issues
are not yet fully resolved.

-2-

1.2 Research Objective and Scope

In view of the fact that the behavior of larger diameter bored piles is not yet fully
understood, in order to properly address the above-mentioned issues related to the
design of a pile foundation, a comprehensive field study was launched by the
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong and Housing
Department. The primary objectives of this study were to investigate (a) the shaft
resistance developed in the bored pile, (b) the load transfer mechanism of larger
diameter bored piles under vertical load, (c) the loading shared between the pile
cap and the pile group in the foundation system, and (d) the load distribution
among the piles. This study includes a series of comprehensive field test and
numerical simulations.

The specific tasks of the project are as follows:

To evaluate the loading shared by the pile cap and the pile group;

To further investigate the load distribution among the piles;

To study the shaft resistance developed in the bored pile under a vertical
load;

To develop an axisymmetrical numerical model for simulating the

behavior of larger diameter bored pile under a vertical load;

To develop a 3-D numerical model for predicting the load distribution

among the piles.

-3-

1.3 Layout of This Thesis

Chapter 1 briefly introduces research background, objectives and scopes of this
study.

Chapter 2 presents a brief review on previous researches related to each specified

topics.

Chapter 3 presents the long-term field measurement on a piled-cap deep

foundation.

Chapter 4 documents the results from the field test monitoring for this piled cap
foundation.

Chapter 5 predicts the load distribution among the piles based on three different
methods: (1) Pile interaction approach; (2) "Rivet Group" approach; and (3)
Numerical method through ABAQUS software.

Conclusions and discussions are presented in the last chapter. Some suggestions
on the future work are also made.

-4-

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

This study focused on the behavior of bored piles. In this chapter, a brief review
on the concept of a deep foundation system and the design practice of a deep
foundation in Hong Kong were presented. Further reviews on the behavior of a
single bored pile and the behavior of a pile group were carried out. Finally, the
methods for determining the load distribution among the piles and pile testing
methods were discussed in this chapter.

2.1 The concept of a deep foundation system

In general, a deep foundation is designed to carry huge loads. These foundations
were installed either by displacement or replacement methods. For the
displacement method, the piles are pre-manufactured and inserted into the ground
by driving, jacking or others. While for the replacement method, the piles are castin-place in a shaft formed in the ground by boring or excavation.

Furthermore, the superstructure is usually supported by the deep foundation

including piles and a thick cap. The ultimate capacity of a piled cap foundation
should take into account the contribution of both the piles and the cap acting as a
raft footing.

For a conventional pile foundation, the design is principally based on a simple

assumption that the entire superstructure loading is carried solely by the piles,

-5-

while the contribution from the pile cap derived from bearing capacity is
neglected. However, the studies proposed that the design of the deep foundation
system should combine the pile cap and pile group together (Poulos & Davis,
1980; Poulos, 1997; Ta and Small, 1996; Randolph, 1994; Koizumi and Ito, 1976;
Vesic, 1969; Phung, 1993; Lou, 2005; Comodromos, 2009). These studies proved
that the pile cap carried a significant loading. Therefore, a new piled raft
foundation concept has received considerable attention overseas. This new piled
raft foundation concept has been applied successfully in other countries. For
example, in Frankfurt, Germany, the foundation design of the Westend 1 Tower,
51-storey and 208m in height, is the piled raft foundation (Poulos, 2001). Another
example, the foundation system of the Emirates Twin Towers in Dubai is the piled
raft foundation as well (Poulos and Davids, 2005).

2.2 The design practice of the deep foundation in Hong Kong

2.2.1 Geology of Hong Kong

A simplified geological map (Figure 2.1) shows that the bed rock of Hong Kong is
mainly composed of granite and volcanic rock. Due to the insitu rock weathering
process, saprolites are formed in the lower zones of soil profiles and represent
deep weathering rock. Furthermore, under chemical and environmental processes,
soil is composed of particles of these broken rocks and develops layers in the soil
profiles. The thickness of these soil layers depends on the duration of residual or
transported formation processes. Therefore, the typical ground profiles can be
summarized as deposits of fill, alluvium, marine deposits, and colluvium
overlying decomposed rocks of varied depth (Lumb, 1962).

In addition, based on the degree of rock weathering, these decomposed rocks are
classified into six grades as set out in Table 2.1 (GCO, 1988). Generally, soil
refers to Grade IV to VI, while rock refers to Grade I to III.

-6-

2.2.2 General design guideline

In general, the design philosophies should comply with the following

requirements throughout their service life (BD, 2002):
(a) There should be adequate safety against failure of the ground. The required
factor of safety depends on the importance of the structure, consequence of
failure, reliability and adequacy of information on ground condition,
sensitivity of the structure, nature of the loading, local experience, design
methodologies, number of representative preliminary pile loading tests.
(b) There should be adequate margin against excessive pile movements, which
would impair the serviceability of the structure.
Traditionally in Hong Kong design practice, large-diameter bored piles are
designed as end-bearing and founded on Grade III or better rock. The rock head
level should be identified through the boredholes or drill holes record. Particularly
on sites, the borings should be made through highly weathered rock. When
bedrock is encountered, it should be proved by coring to a minimum depth of 5m
(BD, 2002).
Furthermore, the allowable capacity of the soil/rock under working loads where
any foundation is founded shall be the lesser of (BD, 2002):
(a) the ultimate capacity for bearing, bond or friction with an adequate factor
of safety against failure; or
(b) the value in relation to bearing, bond or friction such that the maximum
deformation or movement induced to the foundation under working loads
can be tolerated by the building, any other building, structure, land, street
and services.

-7-

2.3 The behavior of a single bored pile

The applied load is resisted by a shaft resistance and an end-bearing resistance.
Based on the dominant load transfer mode, piles are divided into two groups,
namely (1) shaft resistance pile, and (2) end-bearing pile.

2.3.1 Shaft resistance of a bored pile

The ultimate shaft resistance for a pile can be determined by the equation
(Meyerhof, 1973).

ult = c + K s v ' tan( )

(2.1)

where
Ks is the coefficient of horizontal pressure;
c is the cohesion of interface;

v ' is the mean vertical effective stress;

is angle of interface friction.

According to the geological conditions in Hong Kong, the majority of soils are
either sandy or silty. In these sandy soils, the cohesion can be ignored. Even there
is some cohesion at the interface with the pile, it is difficult to evaluate its
contribution. Therefore, the ultimate shaft resistance for these sandy soils can be
estimated by the equation

ult = K s v ' tan( )

(2.2)

In addition, is taken as equal to the angle of interface friction determined from

the shear box tests. The Ks is related to the coefficient of earth pressure and the
ratio Ks/Ko varies between 0.67 and 1 (Kulhawy, 1984). The Ko value can be
determined by Equation Ko=1-sin() based on the field measurements (Vaughan
and Kwan, 1984; Endicott, 1982; Howat, 1985).

-8-

Furthermore, based on the load tests on steel pipe piles (0.3m in diameter and 12
to 20m in length), Vesic (1970) demonstrated that the shaft resistance would
increase linearly for a depth up to 20 times of the pile diameter. The maximum
value depended on the relative density of surrounding soil. Similar shaft resistance
distributions were also found by Tavens (1971) and ONeill (1991) for
instrumented steel H-piles, concrete piles, and timber piles. The ultimate shaft
resistance was found to be approximately equal to the ambient lateral effective
stress for these piles. Besides, DeNicola and Randolph (1999) preformed a series
of tubular model-pile tests equipped with centrifugal device. These centrifugal test
results also showed that the shaft friction also increase linearly with depth.

Therefore, based on these shaft resistance distributions, combining the K s and

tan( ) together, Equation 2.2 could be rewritten as (this method is also called as
the method by Meyerhof, 1973)

ult = v '
where

(2.3)

is the shaft resistance coefficient.

Based on the load tests results, one can back calculate the shaft resistance
coefficient ( ). Furthermore, Robinsky (1964), Vesic (1970), Meyerhof (1986)
and Akbulut (1995) demonstrated that the ultimate unit shaft resistance or the
shaft resistance coefficient ( ) was independent of the pile size. However, this
shaft resistance coefficient ( ) varied within a range and was influenced by the
geotechnical characteristics of sites (Poulos, 1989).

In addition, for a pile-rock interface, the ultimate shaft resistance can be also
determined by Equation 2.1. The cohesion of pile-rock interface is significant in
this case. is the angle of interface friction.
Based on an elastic constitutive model, Kulhawy and Goodman (1987) proposed
an analytical design approach to determine the load distribution along a rock

-9-

socket as shown in Figure 2.2. The axial force dropped rapidly in rock layer.
Besides, Pells and Turner (1979) presented that the percentage of pile load
transmitted to the pile base is roughly constant for a pile with a "socketed length
to diameter" ratio greater than 3.

Furthermore, an empirical correlation has been proposed for evaluating the

ultimate shaft resistance in rock socketed section (Irfan and Powell, 1991; Pells
and Turner, 1979; Kulhawy and Goodman, 1987; Kulhawy, 2005). In this
correlation, the interface between a pile and rock layer was assumed as full
contact. The local shear displacement at sockets is small and bond rupture has not
occurred.

Later, this empirical correlation was rewritten by Serrano and Olalla (2004) to
estimate the shaft capacity of rock socket. This correlation between a shaft
resistance and the uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock was given by:

ult = ( c ) 0.5
where

(2.4)

is the correction factor varying from 0.1 to 0.8;

c is the uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock.

In Hong Kong, this correlation is also supported using the local pile loading test
results. The correction factor is 0.2 (GEO, 2006). Furthermore, based on the
local rock anchors loading test results, the allowable shaft resistance for a pilerock interface ranged from 0.5 to 1MPa (BD, 2004; GEO, 2006). The lower end
applies to the Grade III rock, while the upper end applies to the Grade II or better
rock.

Moreover, Hill (2000) pointed out that the rock socket was not fully mobilized in
most cases. The shaft resistance could be fully mobilized until the local shear
displacement was more than 20mm (Ng, 2001; Ng and Lei, 2003).

- 10 -

For design practice, Table 2.3 summaries for different types of soil in Hong
Kong based on the pile loading tests. The shaft resistance can be estimated by the

method, but the value could be not over 10kPa for soil layer, 150kPa for
granitic saprolites (BD, 2004; GEO, 2006). These ultimate shaft resistances can be
mobilized when the relative pile-soil displacement is about 1% of pile diameter
(10 to 15mm) for many cases (GEO, 2006). In addition, the ultimate shaft
resistance in the rock socketed section can be obtained by Equation 2.4, and the
value could be not over 0.5 to 1MPa for Grade II or better rock (BD, 2004; GEO,
2006). The contribution of shaft resistance in this rock socket is limited to a length
equal to twice the pile diameter or 6 m, whichever is less.

However, recent studies (Liu, 2008; Wang, 2006; Yu, 2004; Zhang, 2006; Yang,
2006; Li, 2002) have demonstrated that the mobilized shaft resistances in different
layers were larger than the allowable one in the local design guideline (BD, 2004;
GEO, 2006). Furthermore, in the rock socketed section, the local relative pile-rock
displacement was small. According to the curve of the local displacement versus
the shaft resistance, the rock socket was not fully mobilized even under twice
working load (Liu, 2008). There were still reserves in the shaft resistance for the
rock layer. Nevertheless, the shaft resistance behavior in a larger diameter bored
pile is not yet fully resolved.

2.3.2 End-bearing resistance of a bored pile

The base resistance (Qb) of a pile can be estimated from Terzaghis Equation. The
total base resistance is shown as:

Qb = qb Ab

(2.5)

q b = cN c Fc + vb N q Fq + 0.5dN r Fr

- 11 -

(2.6)

where

Ab is area of pile tip;

qb is unit base resistance;
c is cohesion of soil;

vb is vertical stress at level of pile base;

d is pile diameter;

is unit weight of soil;

Nc, Nr and Nq are bearing capacity factors;
Fc, Fr and Fq are correction factors.

In addition, there were several correlations in the literature for the base resistance
(Qb) on the basis of standard penetration test (SPT) and cone penetration test (CPT)
results conducted in the fields. Meyerhof (1986), Tomlison (1994), Jardine et al
(2005) produced correlations between the base resistances and the SPT N-value or
CPT value shown as follow:
q b = CN b
where

(2.7)

C is empirical factor;
Nb is correction factors relate to the SPT N-value or CPT value.

Furthermore, for a pile founding on rock, the bearing capacity of rock had a
correlation with the unconfined compression strength of rock (Goodman, 1980;
Wyllie, 1999). This correlation was shown as follow:

q b = c ( N + 1)
where

(Goodman, 1980)

c is unconfined compression strength of the rock;

N = tan 2 (45 + ' / 2) ;

' is the drained angle of fricion;

- 12 -

(2.8)

Qallow =
where

c d 2
FS 4

(Wyllie, 1999)

(2.9)

Qallow is the allowable bearing capacity;

FS is the factor of safety.

In Hong Kong design practice, as an alternative to using rational methods,

foundations for structures that are not unduly sensitive to settlement may be
designed using presumed bearing values given in design code (BD, 2004; GEO,
2006). These allowable bearing values for granitic and volcanic rocks are given in
Table 2.2 in a range from 3 to 10MPa for different degrees of decomposition of
igneous rocks. Furthermore, these bearing values reflect local experience and can
be used without the need for significant amounts of justification and testing.
Therefore, when the bored piles are founded on Grade III or better rock, the
allowable bearing capacity can be taken as 5MPa for the structures that are not
sensitive to settlement.

2.4 The behavior of a bored pile group

In general, piles are constructed in a group and tied together with a thick pile cap.
The pile group could have a different behavior from a single pile due to the pilesoil-pile interactions. For further examination, this pile-soil-pile interaction arises
as a result of overlapping of stress (or strain) fields and can affect both the
capacity and the settlement of the piles. Therefore, the piles in the center of the
group would have smaller stress field to resist an applied load. Under the same
load, the central piles would have more settlement. For a rigid cap, the local
settlement can not occur, and therefore, the loading would transfer from the
central piles and redistribute to the outer piles. This predicted pattern was
confirmed by the field measurements for piles founded in clayey soils (Hooper,
1979; Cooke, 1986; Randolph, 1994).

- 13 -

Furthermore, the group efficiency factor ( ) was widely used to quantify the
group interaction effects defined as the ultimate group capacity to the sum of the
ultimate capacity of each pile in a group (Poulos, 1980).

Qg

Q
i =1

where

(2.10)

i =n

Q g is the ultimate group capacity;

Q i is the ultimate capacity of pile i;
n is the number of piles in a group.

As a result of this complex pile-soil-pile interaction, the ultimate capacity of a pile

group foundation and the group efficiency factor can be influenced by some
factors including (Poulos, 1980; Guo, 1988; Chow, 1987; Lee, 1993; Liang and
Chen, 2004):
(a) method of pile installation, e.g. replacement or displacement piles;
(b) dominant mode of load transfer, i.e. shaft resistance or end-bearing;
(c) nature of founding materials;
(d) three-dimensional geometry of the pile group configuration;
(e) presence or otherwise of a ground-bearing cap;
(f) relative stiffness of the structure, the piles and the ground

2.5 Determination of the load distribution among piles

In general, the methods for determination of the load distribution among piles are
broadly classified into three as follows: (1) Pile interaction approach; (2) "Rivet
Group" approach; (3) Numerical method.

- 14 -

2.5.1 Pile interaction approach

Poulos and Davis (1968) presented the solution for a simple pile by using
Mindlins equations. In this analysis, pile was divided into cylindrical elements.
Each element was subjected to a uniform load around the periphery of the element
and a uniform circular load as the circular base of the pile.

Poulos (1980) further extended this method to analyses a pile group by

introducing an interaction factor ( ) to account for the interaction effect between
two identical piles. This interaction factor was defined as

additional settlement due to an adjacent pile

settlement of a pile under its own load

(2.11)

Poulos and Davis (1980) computed the interaction factor between the piles and
produced design charts for different pile spacing, pile relative stiffness (with
reference to the soil layer), and base stiffness. Guo (1988) further extended the
method to multi-layered soil. With the interaction factor, one can further predict
the load distribution of the piles in a group.

For a group of n piles, the displacement of each individual pile was obtained by
superposition
j =n

k = 1 Pj kj

(2.12)

j =1

where

kj is the interaction factors for the piles k and j;

Pj is loading on the pile j;

1 is the displacement of a single pile under unit load.

Moreover, the studies had demonstrated that the load distribution among the piles
depended on the stiffness of the pile cap (Poulos and Davis, 1980; Guo, 1988). If
the pile cap was "rigid", the resulting equations were solved for the unknown
loads and the rigid group settlement. Piles of a "rigid" cap near the centre of a
group are expected to carry lesser loads than those at the edges. Besides, this

- 15 -

predicted pattern was confirmed by the field measurements for piles founded in
clayey soils (Hooper, 1979; Cooke, 1986; Randolph, 1994).

2.5.2 "Rivet Group" approach

The load distribution in a pile group can also be determined through the "Rivet
Group" approach (as shown in Figure 2.3). This "Rivet Group" approach is
principally based on a simple assumption that:
(1) pile cap is perfectly rigid;
(2) pile heads are hinged to the pile cap and no bending moment is transmitted
from the pile cap to the piles;
(3) piles are vertical and of same axial stiffness.

Under an eccentrically-loading, the axial load on each individual pile can be given
by

P M y xi M x yi
Pai = +
+
n
Ix
Iy

Mx

Mx =
1
where

M y I xy
Ix
I xy

My

and M y =

IxIy

(2.13)

M x I xy
Iy
I xy

(2.14)

IxIy

Pai is axial load on an individual pile, i;

P is the total vertical load acting at the centroid of the pile
group;
Mx, My are the moment about centroid of pile group with
respect to x and y axes respectively;
Ix, Iy are the moment of inertia of pile group with respect to
x and y axes respectively;
Ixy is the moment of inertia of pile group about the
centeriod;
xi, yi are the distance of pile i from y and x axes
respectively;

- 16 -

Mx*, My* are the principal moment with respect to x and y

axes respectively, taking into account the non-symmetry of
the pile layout
np

I x = xi

i =1
np

I y = yi

i =1

np

I xy = xi y i
i =1

In Hong Kong design practice, engineers use this approach to determine the load
distribution among the piles. If an applied load is acting at the centroid of a pile
group, all piles in this group are expected to take up equal loads. Such load
distribution is different from that obtained by the pile interaction approach, as the
sub-soil is not taken into account (i.e. without the pile-soil-pile interaction).

2.5.3 Numerical method

Furthermore, in the past few decades, finite element numerical techniques have
been developed for the analysis of a piled cap foundation effectively.

Hongladaromp (1973) and Brown (1975) proposed to model the piled raft system
as a plate on spring system. The raft was modeled as an elastic plate and the piles
were represented by springs. The resistance contributed from the underlying soil
was not taken into account in this plate on spring system. No matter the raft is
"rigid" or "flexible", this model allowed determination of axial force in the piles
and guaranteed compatibility of displacements at any point of the raft.

Moreover, Ottaviani (1975), Poulos (2001), and Chow (2007) developed a threedimensional finite element method for analysis of vertically loaded pile groups

- 17 -

with or without pile caps. The study presented the results for the distribution of
stress around this group. This result was worthwhile to clarify the mechanism of
load transfer from piles to surrounding soil. However, this method required huge
compute resources.

Nevertheless, for this complex soil-structure interaction problem, the applied load
configuration is still not taken into account. The piles could not be simplified to be
identical. Therefore, it is still difficult to properly determine the load distribution
among the piles.

2.5.4 The flexibility of a pile cap

The flexibility of a pile cap is one of the crucial parameters for determination of
the load distribution among the piles. The flexibility of the pile cap could be
described by different equations based on the bending rigidity of a plate.

First, the bending rigidity of a plate is defined as:

D=

where

E pt p

12(1 v p )
2

Ep is the elastic modulus of plate (in MPa);

tp is the thickness of the plate (in m);
vp is the Poissons ratio of plate.

- 18 -

(2.15)

Brown (1975) described the flexibility of the pile cap as the relative stiffness
between the raft and the underlying soil:

4 E r Br t r (1 v s )
3

K rs =
where

3E s Lr

(2.16)

Krs is the raft-soil stiffness ratio;

Er is the elastic modulus of raft (in MPa);
Br is the width of the raft (in m);
Lr is the length of the raft (in m);
tr is the thickness of the raft (in m);
vs is the Poissons ratio of soil;
Es is the elastic modulus of soil (in MPa).

Randolph (1997) was expressed in term of relative cap stiffness as:

E 1 v s Br 0.5 t r 3
K rs = 5.57 r
( ) ( )
E s 1 v r 2 Lr
Lr
2

where

(2.17)

vr is the Poissons ratio of raft;

5.57 is the coefficient.

However, Guo (1988) defined the flexibility of a pile cap by taking into account a
pile stiffness and a pile spacing. This definition is more suitable for the piled cap
foundation system used in Hong Kong.
Guo (1988) defined the flexibility of a pile cap as

K rs =
where

Er t r

sin gle

12(1 v r ) s
2

Pave

s is the pile spacing (in m);

sin gle is the settlement of a single pile (in m);
Pave is the average load per pile (in kN).

- 19 -

(2.18)

In respect of the different definitions, one can note that the flexibility of a pile cap
can be written as

K rs E r t r

(2.19)

The relative cap stiffness can be enlarged by increasing the elastic modulus of a
cap or the thickness of a pile cap.

2.6 Pile testing method

As there are many uncertainties in the foundation system, it is difficult to predict
the performance of a pile. The best way is to carry out a loading test to evaluate
and confirm the pile design. There are two types of pile loading tests, namely (1)
static, and (2) dynamic loading tests.

Static loading test is a quality control measure to demonstrate that the required
performance will be achieved.

Dynamic loading tests are high-strain tests whereby stress waves are generated by
the impact of the pile with a piling hammer. The hammer impact and wave
reflections are monitored with the use of strain gauges and accelerometers to
predict the pile capacity.

Static loading tests are generally preferred because they have been traditionally
used and are also perceived to replicate the long-term sustained load conditions.
While dynamic loading tests are usually carried out as a supplement to static

- 20 -

loading tests and are generally less costly. But the failure mechanism in a dynamic
loading test is different from that in a static loading test.

The static loading test is normally used for bored piles. The trail piles are tested
following the procedure described in the General Specifications for Civil
Engineering Works (HKG, 1992). Traditionally, a static loading test is carried out
by jacking a pile against a kentledge or a reaction frame supported by tension piles
or ground anchors. In recent years, Osterbery load cell (O-cell) has been widely
adopted for the static loading tests, especially for large-diameter cast-inplace
concrete piles. The Osterbery load cell (O-cell) is very expensive and could not be
reused.

- 21 -

Table 2.1 Classification of rock in Hong Kong (GCO, 1988)

Descriptive
Term

Grade
Symbol

Residual
Soil

VI

Completely
Decomposed

Highly
Decomposed

IV

Moderately
Decomposed

III

Slightly
Decomposed

II

Fresh

General Characteristics for Granite and Volcanic

Rocks and Other Rocks of Equivalent Strength in
Fresh State
Original rock texture completely destroyed.
Can be crumbled by hand and finger pressure into
constituent grains.
Original rock texture preserved.
Can be crumbled by hand and finger pressure into
constituent grains.
Easily indented by point of geological pick.
Slakes when immersed in water.
Completely discolored compared with fresh rock.
Can be broken by hand into smaller pieces.
Make a dull sound when struck by geological hammer.
Not easily indented by point of geological pick.
Does not slake when immersed in water.
Completely discolored compared with fresh rock.
Cannot usually be broken by hand; easily broken by
geological hammer.
Makes a dull or slightly ringing sound when struck by
geological hammer.
Completely stained throughout.
Not broken easily by geological hammer.
Makes a ringing sound when struck by geological
hammer.
Fresh rock colors generally retained but stained near
joint surfaces.
Not broken easily by geological hammer.
Makes a ringing sound when struck by geological
hammer.
No visible signs of decomposition (i.e. no
discoloration).

- 22 -

Table 2.2 Presumed allowable vertical bearing pressure for foundations on

horizontal ground (BD, 2004)
Category

1 (a)

1 (b)

1 (c)

1 (d)

Description of rock or soil

Rock (granite and volcanic):

Fresh strong to very strong rock of material
weathering Grade I, with 100% total core
recovery and no weathered joints, and minimum
uniaxial compressive strength of rock material
(UCS) not less than 75MPa (equivalent point
load index strength PLI50 not less than 3Mpa)
Fresh to slightly decomposed strong rock of
material weathering Grade II or better, with a
total core recovery more than 95% of the Grade
and minimum uniaxial compressive strength of
rock material (UCS) not less than 50Mpa
(equivalent point load index strength PLI50 not
less than 2MPa)
Slightly to moderately decomposed moderately
strong rock of material weathering Grade III or
better, with a total core recovery more than 85%
of the Grade and minimum uniaxial compressive
strength of rock material (UCS) not less than
25MPa (equivalent point load index strength
PLI50 not less than 1MPa)
Moderately decomposed, moderately strong to
moderately weak rock of material weathering
Grade better than IV, with a total core recovery
more than 50% of the grade
Intermediate soil (decomposed granite and
decomposed volcanic):
Highly to completely decomposed, moderately
weak to weak rock of material weathering Grade
V or better, with SPT N-value >=200
Non-cohesive soil (sands and gravels):

3(a)
3(b)

Presumed
allowable
bearing pressure
(kPa)
10000

7500

5000

3000

1000

Dry
Submerged
500
250
300
150

Very dense- SPT N-value>50

Dense-SPT N-value 30-50; requires pick for
excavation; 50mm peg hand to drive
3(c)
Medium dense-SPT N-value 10-30
100
50
3(d)
Loose-SPT N-value 4-10; can be excavated with <100
<50
spade; 50mm peg easily driven
Note: point load index strength (PLI50) of rock quoted is equivalent value for 50mm-diameter cores (ISRM 1978).

- 23 -

Table 2.3 Summary of the value of shaft resistance coefficient in saprolites and
sand in Hong Kong (GEO, 2006)
Type of piles

Type of soils

Shaft Resistance
Coefficient,
0.1-0.4
0.1-0.5
0.8-1.2
0.2-1.5
0.1-0.6
0.2-0.6
0.2-1.2

Driven small
Saprolites
displacement piles
Loose to medium dense sand (1)
Driven large
Saprolites
displacement piles
Loose to medium dense sand (1)
Bored piles and
Saprolites
barrettes
Loose to medium dense sand (1)
Shaft-grouted bored Saprolites
piles and barrettes
Note: (1) only limited data is available for mobilized shaft resistance measured in
loose to medium dense sand.

- 24 -

Figure 2.1 The geology mapping of Hong Kong (GEO, 2006)

- 25 -

(a) friction angle =700

(b) friction angle =400
Figure 2.2 Load distribution in rock socketed piles (Based on Kulhawy and Goodman, 1987)

- 26 -

Figure 2.3 Determination of distribution of load in an eccentrically-loaded pile group using the "Rivet Group" approach (GEO, 2006)

- 27 -

CHAPTER 3
FIELD TEST INFORMATION

This chapter presented the long-term field monitoring of a piled-cap deep

foundation. The following details included: 1) the background information for the
site, 2) the objectives of the field study, 3) the field monitoring programme, and (4)
the material properties of the field study.

3.1 The background information for the site

3.1.1 The details of the site

The construction site is located in Ma On Shan, at the junction of Sai Sha Road
and Ma On Shan Road as shown in Figure 3.1. Three 40-storey public housings
(Block 1, Block 2, and Block 3 in Figure 3.1) were to be built. Block 3 (Figure
3.1) was selected for the study. The building (as shown in Figure 3.2) is Y-shaped
with three wings (Wing A, Wing B, and Wing C) and a central core (Central
Core). The superstructure is resting on a Y-shaped foundation cap (2.3m thickness)
which is supported by 18 bored piles (2.2m in diameter). The piles are end bearing
terminating at the Grade III or better rocks. The ground level is 1.5m above the
top of the pile cap. For the building, except for the first and second floors, the
remaining floors (the 3rd floor to the 40th floor) have a similar layout. The dead
load of the superstructure is tabulated in Table 3.1. The detailed framing plans can
refer to Appendix A.

- 28 -

3.1.2 The geological condition

As the site is near the Schedules Area 4 (Ma On Shan) (APP-61), its geology
could be complex (Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4). Therefore, a comprehensive
geotechnical investigation was conducted. Forty-five drill holes were drilled to
reveal the ground profile. Most of the drill holes were drilled at the proposed pile
location to confirm the depth of the founding rock head level. The detailed
location plan for these boreholes and drill holes are given in Appendix A (Figure
A1). The geological profiles along five sections (Figure 3.5) are shown in Figure
3.6. One can conclude that the soil profile includes fill, alluvium, and decomposed
granite. In addition, as the site is close to Tolo harbor, the ground water level is
high (2 to 3m below the ground level).

The details of each layer are as follows:

Fill layers: Light brownish grey occasionally spotted grey and brown angular to
subangular SAND or COBBLE with some medium to coarse gravel sized
moderately strong to strong concrete and granite fragments.

Alluvium layers: (1) subangular to subrounded medium to coarse GRAVEL sized

moderately strong to strong granite fragments with some stiff, light grey, sandy
silty clay matrix. (2) subangular to subrounded coarse GRAVEL with some
cobble sized moderately strong to strong rhyolite fragments. (3) clayey silty fine
to coarse SAND with some angular to subangular fine to coarse gravel sized
moderately decomposed tuff, siltstone, sandstone and quartz fragments.

Completely decomposed granite (CDG): (1) very weak to moderately weak,

highly decomposed fine grained, fractured, GRANITE (V). Clayey silty fine to
coarse SAND with some fine gravel sized quartz fragments. (2) extremely weak to
very weak, light grey spotted grey and brown, completely decomposed finely
feldsparphyric RHYOLITE. Slightly clayey slity fine to coarse SAND with some
fine gravel sized quartz fragments.
- 29 -

Granite or Rhyolite: moderately strong to strong, compose of moderately to

slightly decomposed chloritized medium grained GRANITE (II) with very closely
to closely occasionally extremely closely and medium spaced, rough planar and
stepped, calcite coated joints.

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was conduced in the site investigation. The
SPT N-value was performed in the site. The variation of the SPT N-value along
the depth was given in Figure 3.7. For about 30m top layer (mainly fill and
alluvium), the SPT N-value was below 40. This was reasonable as this area was
formed by reclamation. Beneath these layers, the SPT N-value increased rapidly
in the completely decomposed granite layer. When the SPT N-value was larger
than 200, it can be considered to have reached the founding "rock head" level. The
rock head level varied from -20mPD to -30mPD.

It is also necessary to point out that a special geological feature was identified at
location of the pile 3BP3 of Wing B. Within the completely decomposed granite,
there was a thick layer (about 5 to 8 meter) of Grade II granite and tuff. Beneath
this strong granite layer, there was a thin and weak layer forming with Grade V
completely decomposed granite. Underlying this weak granite layer, there was a
thick continuous Grade III granite and tuff.

3.1.4 Details of the foundation system

Figure 3.2 shows the foundation plan. The superstructure is supported by a Yshaped foundation cap (2.3m in thickness). The pile cap can be also divided into 4
zones, namely 1) Wing A, 2) Wing B, 3) Wing C, and 4) Central Core.

The pile cap is supported by the 18 bored piles. The locations and the details of
the piles are given in Table 3.2. All piles are embedded into Grade III or better
rocks. The actual length of these piles varies from 22.4m to 58.6m. Furthermore,
the percentage of the reinforcement varies from 1.5% to 2.5% of the cross
sectional area of the piles (Table 3.3). The concrete grade is 45MPa and the details
- 30 -

of mix are given in Table 3.4. All bored piles were constructed by a reversecirculation drilling machine. At the same time, steel casings were used to prevent
collapse of the surrounding soil. For each of these bored piles, a permanent steel
liner was placed from the ground level to not less than 1m beneath the CDG level
(Figure 3.8). The gap between the steel liner and the surrounding soil was back
filled with sand. Therefore, the effective shaft diameter in this section is 2200mm.
On the other hand, the diameter of the socket is 2300mm. At the toe, the pile
belled-out to 3450mm in order to increase the bearing capacity.

In addition, these piles are socketed into Grade III or better rock. The length for
the socketed segment varies from 1m to 8.5m. Due to the special geological
feature at the location of Wing B (Figure 3.6), the pile length in this zone is nearly
twice that of the piles in the other zones. The length of the socketed segment in
this zone is also much longer than others.

Finally, the applied load transferred from the cap through 18 bored piles into the
bed rock level. The allowable end bearing capacity was 46.7MN for all piles
(3.45m in belled-out diameter). In the project, the allowable shaft resistance was
assumed to be 0.5 to 1MPa along the pile-rock interface for the Grade III or better
rock, and therefore, the total allowable working loads, including the end bearing
and shaft resistance, for the piles varied from 46.7MN to 67MN.

3.2 The objectives for this field monitoring test

Because of lack of field experience and a high-quality database available for
larger diameter bored piles, a comprehensive field study was launched by the
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong and Housing
Department. The conventional load-displacement curve from the loading test
results can prove the pile loading performance. In addition, the results from the
strain gauges along the pile depth can demonstrate the load transfer behavior of
this pile.

- 31 -

The objectives of this field test are as follows:

(1) Observe the loading share of a piled-cap foundation from this field experience:
(a) Under working condition, the resistance contribution from the piles;
(b) The resistance contribution from the pile cap.

(2) Observe the load distribution among the piles.

(3) Evaluate the shaft resistance in the soil layer.

(4) Evaluate the load transfer behavior of a larger-diameter bored pile from this
site-specific loading test.

3.3 Field monitoring programme

In order to meet the previous objectives, the axial force in the piles and the
settlement of the building should be measured during the construction process.
Arrangement of the instrumentation should be carefully designed to provide useful
data for this research purpose.

3.3.1 Monitoring setup

Vibrating wire sensors (VCE-4200) were selected to measure the axial strain in
the pile in this field monitoring, as these gauges are designed for a long term strain
measurement in pile foundations. The gauge is 153mm in length. The maximum
measuring range is 3000 microstrain () with 1 sensitivity. The working
principle of this gauge is as follows. Each sensor consists of two end block
(designed specially for each application) with a tensioned steel wire between them.
As material that encompasses the strain gauge was strained, the end blocks will

- 32 -

move relative to each other. The tension in the wire between the blocks will
change accordingly, thus altering the resonant frequency of the wire and then the
resonant frequency of vibration will be measured by using an electromagnetic coil.

In addition, the advantage of vibrating wire sensor is that the frequency output is
not influenced by electrical noises. These gauges can tolerate wet wiring common
in geotechnical applications, and are capable of signal transmission of several
kilometers without loss of signal. Vibrating wire sensors are made from stainless
steel for corrosion protection. The gauges are fully waterproof and rugged to
withstand the rigors of concrete placement. Therefore, these gauges are suitable
for this long term monitoring.

172 vibrating wire sensors were installed in this site to monitor the axial strains in
the piles during the construction. The geometric locations of the strain gauges for
the piles are given in Figure 3.9. The details of the gauge location are summarized
in Table 3.5.

The monitoring setup as follows:

(1) To measure the axial force in the pile head, four sensors were embedded into
the pile head level. In order to eliminate the bending influence, two pairs of
gauges placed diametrically at equal distance from the pile center. Thus, the axial
force can be calculated based on the average measured strain reading. In addition,
by subtracting the total pile loads from the building dead load, one can estimate
the load taken up by the pile cap. Therefore, the load distribution in the pile group
can be observed as well.

(2) To evaluate the shaft resistance in the soil layer, another four or three sensors
were embedded into the piles in the soil-rock interface level. After calculated the
pile load in the pile head and at the soil-rock interface, one can deduce the shaft
resistance developed in soil layer.

- 33 -

(3) Moreover, to measure the load transfer behavior, the pile (3BP3) was
instrumented with total 14-level strain gauges along the pile. Four gauges were
installed at the pile top, while three gauges for other levels.

Figure 3.10 illustrates the fixing details of the sensor embedded into concrete.
First, a rubber tape was wrapped around the gauge in two places. Secondly, soft
iron tie wire was used for tying strain gauge with rebar about 3cm from the gauge
ends. The cable was tied carefully to a reinforcement casing. Finally, all cables
were collected into a steel pipe which led to the ground level.

In addition, fourteen settlement markers or gauges were installed around the

building near the ground level (Figure 3.2). These settlement markers were affixed
to walls or columns generally at 500mm above the adjoining ground level and
given a minimum clearance of 2.2 meters above the settlement markers. The
settlement is determined regularly by the land surveying method. The accuracy of
this land surveying is within 1mm. The measured settlement can provide a check
by comparing with the results from the strain gauges.

3.3.2 Data collection

Each addition of load due to casting of the floor will create a strain in the gauge.
The strain gauge reading was collected through the vibrating wire readout box
(GK-403) during the construction process.

Before the pile cap concreting, the initial gauge reading was record in the site. In
addition, during the construction of the superstructure, the data was collected
regularly.

- 34 -

3.4 Material property

3.4.1 Steel reinforcement property

In this study, Young's Modulus of the reinforcements was assumed to be 200GPa.

3.4.2 Concrete property

Total 276 standard concrete cubes (Figure 3.11) were carried out the compression
tests (BS 1881-116:1983) to find out the crushing strength (Table 3.6). The elastic
modulus can be determined based on correlation between strength and modulus of
the elasticity (Hong Kong concrete code, 2004).

In addition, the modulus of elasticity tests (BS 1881-121:1983) were also directly
conducted on twelve cylindrical specimens (Figure 3.12, 107mm in diameter and
220mm in height) cored from the pile in the site. Figure 2.13 plotted the stressstrain curves for those specimens. Table 3.7 summarizes the elastic modulus for
the concrete material at three levels of the piles. The Poissons ratio is 0.22.

- 35 -

Table 3.1 Dead load of the superstructure

Floor

Pile cap

Fill soil and

concrete
(Ground floor)

First floor

Second floor

Typical floor
(3rd to 40th)

Total

Dead load (MN)

69

16.3

18.9

18.9

10.8

534.4

- 36 -

Table 3.2 Bored pile schedule for this foundation

Location

Wing A

Wing B

Wing C

Central Core

Pile mark

Effective shaft
diameter (mm)

Minimum shaft
diameter on rock
socket (mm)

Socket
length (m)

Pile length (m)

Allowable working
load (MN)
(DL+LL+NSF)

3AP-1
3AP-2
3AP-3
3AP-4
3BP-1
3BP-2
3BP-3
3BP-4
3CP-1
3CP-2
3CP-3
3CP-4
3CP-5
3CP-6
3DP-1
3DP-2
3DP-3
3DP-4

2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200

2300
2300
2300
2300
2300
2300
2300
2300
2300
2300
2300
2300
2300
2300
2300
2300
2300
2300

2.5
1.0
5.0
2.5
1.0
6.0
6.0
8.5
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
3.5
5.5
2.0
4.5
4.5
4.5

25.1
25.2
29.6
22.6
58.6
52.6
52.6
39.5
29.1
28.1
31.4
22.4
31.2
28.6
28.3
22.4
38.3
38.8

54.3
46.7
67.0
54.3
46.7
46.7
46.7
46.7
46.7
46.7
56.9
46.7
59.4
56.9
51.8
56.9
56.9
51.8

- 37 -

Table 3.3 Summary of the percentage of the reinforcements in the pile section
Pile
AP1
AP2
AP3
AP4

%
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.7

Pile
BP1
BP2
BP3
BP4

%
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.5

Pile
CP1
CP2
CP3
CP4
CP5
CP6

%
1.7
1.7
2.1
1.7
2.5
2.1

Pile
DP1
DP2
DP3
DP4

%
1.7
1.7
2.1
1.7

Table 3.4 The details for the concrete mixes

Grade

45/20+
PFA

Slump
(mm)

175

Cement content
(kg/m3)

165

Aggregate (kg/ m3)

Admixture
(l/m3)

40mm 20mm 10mm Fines River

sand
0
640
340
330
330

- 38 -

Water content
(kg/m3)

A/C
Ratio

W/C
Ratio

188

3.35

0.38

Table 3.5 Summary of the gauges location

3AP-1
Layer
Level (mPD) No. of gauge
1
1.35
4
2
-17.5
3
3
-18.07
3

Layer
1
2
3

Layer
Level (mPD)
No. of gauge

3BP-3

Layer
1
2
3

3BP-1
Level (mPD) No. of gauge
1.3
4
-28.43
3
-59.81
3
1
1.3
4

3CP-1
Level
No. of
(mPD)
gauge
1.35
4
-19.13
3

Layer
1
2

2
-1.7
3

3AP-2
Level (mPD) No. of gauge
1.35
4
-20.63
3

3AP-3
Level (mPD) No. of gauge
1.35
4
-19.28
3
-24.75
3

3BP-2
Level (mPD) No. of gauge
1.3
4
-24.85
3

3BP-4
Level (mPD) No. of gauge
1.3
4
-23.69
3

3
-4.7
3

4
-7.7
3

3CP-2
Level
No. of
(mPD)
gauge
1.35
4
-24.51
3

3DP-1
Level (mPD) No. of gauge
0.85
4
-25.04
3

5
-10.7
3

6
-13.7
3

3CP-3
Level
No. of
(mPD)
gauge
0.85
4

3DP-2
Level (mPD) No. of gauge
0.85
4
-15.36
3

- 39 -

7
-16.7
3

8
-19.7
3

9
-22.7
3

3CP-4
Level
No. of
(mPD)
gauge
0.85
4
-18.81
3
-19.58
3

10
-26.7
3

3AP-4
Level (mPD) No. of gauge
0.85
4
-17.49
3

11
-30.7
3

3CP-5
Level
No. of
(mPD)
gauge
0.85
4
-24.91
3

3DP-3
Level (mPD) No. of gauge
0.05
4
-21.2
3

12
-34.55
3

13
-41
3

14
-48.62
3

3CP-6
Level
No. of
(mPD)
gauge
0.85
4
-25.04
4

3DP-4
Level (mPD) No. of gauge
0.05
4
-27.39
3

Table 3.6 Summary of the crushing strength of the concrete

- 40 -

Table 3.7 Summary of the Young's Modulus for the concrete cored specimens
Young's Modulus (GPa)
Specimens

At 0m depth

At 30m depth

At 60m depth

29

37

39

33

37

39

31

36

37

29

40

42

average

31

37

39

- 41 -

Block 1

Block 2

Block 3

Figure 3.1 The location of the study site

- 42 -

CENTRAL
CORE

Figure 3.2 Ground floor framing plan of the Block 3

- 43 -

The site

Figure 3.3 The location of the schedules area 4 (Ma On Shan, APP-61)

The site

Figure 3.4 The geological survey for Ma On Shan (APP-61)

- 44 -

Figure 3.5 Foundation plan of Block 3

- 45 -

(a) Section 1

(b) Section 2

- 46 -

(c) Section 3

(d) Section 4

- 47 -

(e) Section 5
Figure 3.6 The geological profile (a-e) (note: blue line indicate the location of
piles)

- 48 -

SPT N-Value
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

10

Depth (m)

20

30

40

50

60

Figure 3.7 Variations of the SPT N-value along with the depth

- 49 -

160

180

200

Figure 3.8 The typical details of a bored pile

- 50 -

3BP3
(a) Strain gauges along piles
R
N

Y
R = Red
Y=Yellow
B=Blue
W=White

(b) 2 types of section for gauge set up

Figure 3.9 The locations of the strain gauges in the piles (a-b)

- 51 -

Tie wire

Rubber
Tape

(a) Fix gauge on the rebar

Steel pipe

Signal cable

(b) Collect cable into a steel pipe

Figure 3.10 Details of the strain gauge (a-b)

- 52 -

Figure 3.11 The standard 100mm cube specimens for the compression tests

- 53 -

Figure 3.12 The modulus of the elasticity tests on the concrete specimens

- 54 -

(a) At 0m depth

(b) At 30m depth

(c) At 60m depth

Figure 3.13 The stress-strain curves of the concrete specimens at three levels (a-c)

- 55 -

CHAPTER 4
THE FIELD PERFORMANCE

This chapter first presented the measurement results from the field test monitoring
in the piled cap foundation mentioned in the pervious chapter. Based on this field
test results, the investigations of (a) the loading shared between the pile cap and
the pile group in the foundation system, (b) the load distribution among the piles,
(c) the shaft resistance developed in the bored piles, and (d) the load transferring
behavior of large diameter bored piles under vertical load were discussed. Finally,
a short summary was given.

4.1 The measurement results of the long term field monitoring

4.1.1 Construction process
The dead load of the superstructure is tabulated in Table 3.1. The applied dead
load was estimated based on the sequencing of loads due to casting of the pile cap
and each floor as given in Table 4.1.

Figure 4.1 shows that the variation of applied dead load during construction. The
initial dead load was due to the completion of the 2.3m pile cap. And then, the
construction of the ground and the first two floors resulted in a sudden jump in the
dead load. After that, the dead load increased nearly linearly during construction
from the 3rd floor to the 40th floor.

- 56 -

4.1.2 Axial force variation during construction

As strain gauges could be damaged during construction due to human factors and
(or) temperature change induced by the hydration process. Total 172 vibrating
wire sensors were installed in this site. After the pile construction process, thirty
eight strain gauges were not functioning properly. The other 134 gauges kept
functioning during construction. Table 4.2 shows the condition status of the
gauges at pile head and soil-rock interface levels.

Because of the damages in the strain gauges, strains at some locations cannot be
computed directly. Instead, they were estimated by assuming the shaft resistance
generated along a pile was similar to the piles at its vicinity. For example, if the
pile head strain gauges are not working, we can estimate the pile load from the
pile toe strain gauge readings and the average (pile head strain reading/pile toe
strain reading) ratio of the nearby piles, that is:

Pile head strain reading =

pile head strain reading

* ( pile toe strain gauge reading )
a var age
pile
toe
strain
reading

(4.1)

In this study, the time before casting the pile cap was chosen to be a reference
point as the initial time. After that time, the strain in the pile was the current
reading minus the "zero reading" (readings obtained at the initial time). Therefore,
the lock-in strain in the piles and the ground movement during the installation of
the piles as well as the excavation before the casting of the pile cap were not
accounted.

The axial force in the pile due to the construction of the pile cap and the
superstructure was determined from the change of strain by multiplying the strain
value with the modulus of the pile material and the cross sectional area, that is

F = E pile A pile

- 57 -

(4.2)

F is the axial force in the pile;

where

is the average of the strains at each gauge level;

E pile and A pile are the Youngs modulus and the cross sectional area of
the pile.

The equivalent Youngs modulus for each pile can be obtained based on the
equation:

E pile = E steel + E concrete (1 )

(4.3)

where
E concrete and E steel are the Youngs modulus of the concrete section and
the reinforcement casing;

is the percentage of the reinforcements in the pile section (Table 3.3).

The variations of the axial force at pile head level during construction are plotted
in Figure 4.2. Note that the average modulus of concrete (31GPa) was adopted in
the calculation. In general, the axial force in the pile head showed a similar change
tendency with the applied dead load in Figure 4.1.

On the other hand, the variations of the piles loads in soil-rock interface during
construction are plotted in Figure 4.3. The modulus for concrete was estimated
based on the linear interpolation at the ranges of 0-30m and 30-60m (Table 3.7).
Similar to the axial force in the pile head (Figure 4.2), the axial force in the soilrock interface level showed the similar tendency.

- 58 -

4.1.3 Settlement variation during construction

Fourteen settlement markers were installed around the building at 0.5m above the
ground level (Figure 3.4) on the columns or walls. The settlement was determined
regularly by the land surveying method. The accuracy of the land surveying was
within 1mm.
The initial survey was on 16 May 2009 when the 5th floor of the building was
completed. This time was chosen to be the reference. The settlement of the
building is tabulated in Table 4.3.

In addition, the elastic shortening of the pile 3BP3 was calculated to provide a
checking of the settlement. The settlement in the pile head composed the elastic
shortening of the pile and the pile toe movement. When a pile was socketed into
bed rock in 6m, the pile toe can be assumed not be fixed. Therefore, the pile head
settlement was equal to the elastic shortening in the pile.

The elastic shortening (s) in the pile was calculated by integrating the measured
axial strains at different levels along the pile according to the equation
L

s = ( z )dz
0

(4.4)

where
z is the depth along the pile;
L is the pile length.

Figure 4.5 compares the settlement of the building determined by the land
surveying with the elastic shortening of the pile 3BP3. The comparison showed
that the deviation was smaller than 1mm which was within the accuracy range for
the land surveying method. After the completion of the 40th floor, the total
settlement of the building was about 7mm. The consistent settlement results
indicated that the measured results from strain gauges were reasonable and
reliable.

- 59 -

4.2 The loading shared between the piles and the cap
4.2.1 The proportion of contribution

The pile group resistance was the summation of the calculated axial force at the
pile head for each pile based on Equation 4.2. As the gauges were embedded into
the piles in 1.2m beneath the cut-off level, the total pile resistance should be
estimated by the linear extrapolation from the top gauge level.

It is interesting to note that the piles had shared a higher percentage of the load as
the applied load increased: the contribution of the piles increased from 78% to
94% (Table 4.4). The four different construction stages of the superstructure were
after completion of the 10th floor (10F); 20th floor (20F); 30th floor (30F) and 40th
floor (40F).

By subtracting the total pile load from the building load, one can estimate the load
taken up by the pile cap and Figure 4.5 depicts the variation of the cap load during
construction.

The cap load reached the maximum value (58MN) after the

completion of the 22nd floor then started to decrease. At the maximum load, the
equivalent average soil pressure (cap load/net cap area) was approximately
50kN/m2.

According to the Foundation Code (BD, 2004), for the submerged non-cohesive
soil, the allowable bearing pressure was less than 50kPa when the SPT N-value
was smaller than 10. Based on the site investigation, the SPT N-value was mainly
less than 10 for the top 20m soil layer (Figure 3.7). Therefore, the drop of the cap
load probably indicated that the sub-soil could have reached its capacity and
therefore the cap could not carry further applied load.
Furthermore, the fluctuation of the pile load after the 30th floor (Figure 4.2 and
Figure 4.3) seemed to indicate that there was redistribution of load between the

- 60 -

piles and the cap after the soil weakened. A closer examination of the variation
(Figure 4.6) showed that the pile load at the edges (3AP1, 3AP2, 3BP1, 3BP2,
3CP1 and 3CP2) started to increase at a much faster rate when the building
reached the 30th floor, and it could be due to the "yielding" of the sub-soil at these
areas.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the piles take up most of the applied dead load,
while the pile cap had an insignificant contribution to the capacity of the
foundation system with piles socketed into rock.

4.2.2 Influence of the elastic modulus of the concrete

The elastic modulus of the concrete is a crucial parameter for determining of the
pile resistance.

Using the average value (31GPa) for the elastic modulus of the concrete, the
measured resistance of the pile group was very close to the calculated total dead
load based on the framing plans. As described above, the piles had shared a higher
percentage of the load as the loading increased (Table 4.4). After completion of
the 40th floor, the pile group took up 94% of the applied dead load.

In addition, as the elastic modulus of the concrete varied from 29GPa to 33GPa
(Table 3.7), the corresponding maximum and minimum pile group resistances can
be calculated respectively (Figure 4.7). When the 40th floor was completed, the
pile group resistance gradually increased from 88% of the applied dead load and
finally reached 99% of it.
Similarly, if the recommended value for the elastic modulus of the concrete
(26.4GPa in BD, 2004) was used in the calculation, the corresponding pile group
resistance would carry 82% of the applied dead load after the completion of the
40th floor. However, since the load taken by the cap was determined indirectly, the
cap load would take up about 20% of the applied loading.

- 61 -

4.3 Load distribution among piles

It was obvious that the distribution of the pile load (Figure 4.6) was not the same
as that of a rigid cap. In general, the axial force in the pile increased from the
outer edge to the inner area of the cap (Figure 4.6). This trend was observed
during the whole construction. The pile head force was noted as Qpi in MN, and
the normalized axial force in each pile was %=Qpi / ( Qpi/n).
Instead, the load distribution among the piles depended on the locations of the
piles and the distribution of the building load. According to the pile location, the
piles were distinguished into three groups, namely Centre pile, Intermediate pile
and Corner pile (Table 4.5).

Plotting the average load of each group (Figure 4.8), it can be shown that the load
of the Corner pile was below the average (65% of the average pile load) while the
loads of the Intermediate and the Central pile exceed the average pile load by 10%
and 30%, respectively.

4.4 The contribution of shaft resistance in soil layer

In order to investigate the soil shaft resistance, 2-level strain gauges were installed
to measure the axial forces at two levels: (1) the pile head level, and (2) the soilrock interface. The thickness of this soil layer was about 25m.

The axial pile loads at these levels were shows in Figures 4.2 and 4.3. Tables 4.4
and 4.6 summarized the axial pile loads for the four construction stages at the pile
head and at the soil-rock interface respectively. As noted above, the piles carried
most of the applied load (Table 4.4). Meanwhile, the results in Table 4.6 indicate
that there were 50%, 55%, 59% and 65% of the applied dead load transferring into

- 62 -

the rock head level after the completion of the 10th floor (10F); 20th floor (20F);
30th floor (30F) and 40th floor (40F), respectively. When the 40th floor was
completed, the total load taken up by the sub-soil was 189MN.

For further examination on the shaft resistance in this soil layer, combining the
results of Tables 4.4 and 4.6, one can deduce the total shaft resistance developed
in the soil layer and the results are given in Table 4.7. During the construction
period, this proportion of the shaft resistance in the soil layer reduced from 36% to
30%. Though it was assumed that the soil will not contribute to the capacity of the
piles in the design, the results indicated that the shaft resistance offered by soil
layer could be over 30% and this had greatly reduced the load transferred to the
rock layer.

One can further breakdown the results according to the three groups of piles and
the results are tabulated in Table 4.8. Generally, the shaft resistance in soil layer
decreased from the outer edge to the inner area of the pile group. Taking Stage
40F as an example, the average contributions of the soil friction were 34.9%,
31.7%, and 22.9% for the Corner pile, the Intermediate pile and the Center pile,
respectively. This shaft resistance distribution probably indicated that the
overlapping of stress (or strain) fields occurred in the central of the pile group.

In addition, it must be point out that sand was backfilled into the gap between the
soil layer and the permanent steel liner in this field test study. From this field test
results, generally, the shaft resistance offered by soil can be over 30% and this had
greatly reduced the load transferred to the rock layer. In a normal practice, there is
no backfilled sand. The surrounding soil will collapse to fill the gap as a result of
reconsolidation of the soil or the ground movement when the steel casing is
pulling out, the contact surface can provide a good interaction. Therefore, the soil
friction should be taken into account in the pile design.

- 63 -

4.5 Behavior of a larger-diameter bored pile

It was a good chance to carry out the proof load test for the bored pile under the
working load. Therefore, the load transfer mechanism of this bored pile can be
evaluated through this static load test. The conventional load-displacement curve
from the loading test results can prove the pile loading performance. In addition,
the results from the strain gauges reading along the pile depth can demonstrate the
load transfer behavior of this pile.

4.5.1 The correlation between the axial force and the settlement in pile head
As noted above, when the pile was socketed into the bed rock in 6m, the pile toe
can be assumed to be fixed. The pile head settlement was equal to the elastic
shortening in the pile.

The pile head settlement was calculated by integrating the measured axial strains
at different levels along the pile according Equation 4.3.

However, in local design guideline, the surrounding soil is considered not

contributing to the pile capacity. The pile can be treated as a single column
directly transferring the applied loading from the pile head to the pile toe. The
elastic shortening for this single column can be estimated from the equation

s=

FL
E pile Apile

(4.5)

The settlement calculated by Equation 4.5 is compared with that obtained from the
strain gauges and land surveying in Figure 4.9. One can note that the single
column assumption overestimates the settlement of the pile head.

Moreover, Figure 4.10 shows the correlation between the piled head settlement
and the axial force in the pile head. The settlement increased linearly with the
- 64 -

applied load. The pile stiffness ( k =

F
) was about 3.4MN/mm. According to
s

Equation 4.5, the effective length (Leff) of this pile was back calculated and equal
to 37.4m, while the actual length for this pile was 52.6m. This result also indicated
that the shaft resistance provides a significant resistance to dissipate the axial
force along the pile depth.

4.5.2 Variation of the axial force along the pile depth

Based on the measured strain in the pile 3BP3, the axial force was calculated and
plotted against the depth in Figure 4.11. The result can demonstrate the load
transfer behavior of the pile.

As shown in the above Figure 4.11, axial forces in the pile decreased gradually
along the pile in the soil layer. The results indicate that the axial force increases in
dense sand layer. Various reasons could be attributed to such observations. Once
could suggest that the pile diameter might not be uniform and therefore it could
lead to such fluctuation.

About 65% of the applied load was transferred into the granitic saprolites level. In
the granitic saprolites layer and rock layer, the axial force dropped rapidly. The
reduction rate slowed down with the depth. Finally, the axial force reduced to a
not significant level (less than 6% of the applied load) at the pile toe.

4.5.3 The shaft resistance and the end bearing resistance during construction
As described above, the applied load was supported by the shaft and the end
bearing resistances. The shaft resistances can be mobilized in the soil and the rock
layers. The mobilized axial strain at the pile toe was estimated by the linear
extrapolation at 1m above the pile toe. Then, the corresponding end bearing

- 65 -

resistance can be determined by Equation 4.2. Figure 4.12 demonstrates that shaft
resistance and the end bearing resistance both increased during construction.

For the shaft resistance mobilized in the soil layer, there was a hyperbolic growth,
and it reached the peak value then remained constant after the completion of the
35th floor.

For the shaft resistance mobilized in the rock layer, it increased linearly during the
construction. Most of the applied load was taken up by the shaft resistance in the
pile-rock interface. There were still reserves in the shaft resistance in the rock
interface.

Meanwhile, for the end bearing resistance, it increased slowly during the whole
construction. Before the completion of the 10th floor, the end bearing resistance
had insignificant contribution. After the completion of the 40th floor, it was still
not sufficient to mobilize end bearing resistance. It was obvious that the bored pile
could have a larger stiffness and capacity than that of design.

4.5.4 Variation of the mobilized shaft resistance

Based on the variation of the axial force along the depth as shown in Figure 4.11,
the mobilized shaft resistance along the pile can be calculated from the equation

where

F
pz

(4.6)

is the average mobilized shaft resistance between two gauge

levels;

p is the perimeter of the pile;

F and z are the axial force and length difference between two
gauge levels.
According to the soil profile along with depth, one can calculate the average
mobilized shaft shear resistances in the top alluvium, the completely decomposed

- 66 -

granite (CDG), the granitic saprolites, and the Grade III granite and the results are
depicted in Figure 4.13.
As expected, the average mobilized shaft resistance increased gradually along the
depth. The shaft resistance in the rock layer was generally higher than that in the
soil layer. The peak value (145kPa) was reached in the granitic saprolites layer.
The mobilized shaft resistances also increased gradually during construction.
Furthermore, one can define the "local" relative displacement as the average of the
elastic shortening in these consecutive gauge levels. Figure 4.14 plots the
hyperbolic correlation between such displacement and the mobilized shaft
resistance. The plastic behavior of shaft resistance implied that the ultimate shaft
capacity was fully mobilized and a slippage occurred when the relative
displacement further increased.

Based on a hyperbolic model, the correlation between the local displacement and
the mobilized shaft resistance ( ) can be represented using two parameters,

where

u
u
1
+
k i ult

(4.7)

ki is the initial shear stiffness factor for the interface;

u is the relative displacement;

ult is the ultimate shear resistance of the interface.

It may be noted from Figure 4.14 that the shaft resistance of the soil and CDG
layers may have been fully mobilized (about 25-30kPa) whereas there were still
reserves in the shaft resistance for the granitic saprolites (more than 150kPa) and
the Grade III rock layers.

- 67 -

4.6 Summary
This chapter presented the findings of the load transfer mechanisms of the pile
foundation system in the field test. The findings can be summarized as follows:
(a) The piles shared a higher percentage of the applied load as the loading
increased: the contribution of the piles increased from 78% to 94%. The cap
load reached the peak value (58MN) after the completion of the 22F then
started to decrease. At the peak value, the equivalent average soil pressure
(cap load/net cap area) was approximately 50kN/m2. The drop of the cap load
probably may indicate that the sub-soil could have reached its capacity and the
cap could not carry further applied load.

(b) The shaft resistance mobilized in the soil layer was considerable. The
mobilized shaft resistance in the soil had accounted for 36%, 33%, 32%, and
30% of the total load for the four construction stages, respectively.

(c) Based on the variation of axial forces of pile 3BP3, the result can demonstrate
the load transfer behavior of the pile. Axial forces in the pile decreased
gradually along the pile in the soil layer. About 65% of the applied load was
transferred into the granitic saprolites level. In the granitic saprolites layer and
rock layer, the axial force dropped rapidly. The reduction rate slowed down
with the depth. Finally, the axial force reduced to a not significant level (less
than 6% of the applied load) at the pile toe.

(d) The axial forces in the piles increased from the outer edge to the inner area of
the cap. These bored piles can be distinguished according to their locations
into three groups, namely (1) Center pile, (2) Intermediate pile, and (3) Corner
pile. Using the average axial force of all piles as the reference, the Corner pile,
the Intermediate pile and the Center pile took up about 65%, 110% and 130%
of the average axial force, respectively.

(e) The shaft resistance in the soil layer decreased from the outer edge to the inner
area of the pile group. The shaft resistance took up about 35%, 32% and 23%

- 68 -

of the axial for the Corner pile, the Intermediate pile and the Center pile in the
final stage, respectively.

- 69 -

Table 4.1 Summary of the construction process

Wing A

F40
F39
F38
F37
F36
F35
F34
F33
F32
F31
F30
F29
F28
F27
F26
F25
F24
F23

Date of
completion of
slap
2/10/2010
2/3/2010
1/27/2010
1/20/2010
1/13/2010
1/4/2010
12/24/2009
12/17/2009
12/8/2009
12/1/2009
11/24/2009
11/17/2009
11/9/2009
11/2/2009
10/24/2009
10/17/2009
10/9/2009
9/30/2009

Duration of
One Floor
7
7
7
7
9
11
7
9
7
7
7
8
7
9
7
8
9
9

Wing B
Date of
completion of
slap
2/8/2010
2/1/2010
1/25/2010
1/18/2010
1/8/2010
12/31/2009
12/22/2009
12/15/2009
12/5/2009
11/28/2009
11/21/2009
11/14/2009
11/6/2009
10/30/2009
10/22/2009
10/15/2009
10/7/2009
9/26/2009

Wing C

Duration of
One Floor
7
7
7
10
8
9
7
10
7
7
7
8
7
8
7
8
11
8

- 70 -

Date of
completion of
slap
2/20/2010
2/5/2010
1/29/2010
1/22/2010
1/15/2010
1/6/2010
12/29/2009
12/19/2009
12/12/2009
12/3/2009
11/26/2009
11/19/2009
11/12/2009
11/4/2009
10/28/2009
10/20/2009
10/13/2009
10/5/2009

Duration of
One Floor
15
7
7
7
9
8
10
7
9
7
7
7
8
7
8
7
8
12

Central Core
Date of
completion of
slap
2/10/2010
2/3/2010
1/27/2010
1/20/2010
1/13/2010
1/4/2010
12/24/2009
12/17/2009
12/8/2009
12/1/2009
11/24/2009
11/17/2009
11/9/2009
11/2/2009
10/24/2009
10/17/2009
10/9/2009
9/30/2009

Duration of
One Floor
7
7
7
7
9
11
7
9
7
7
7
8
7
9
7
8
9
9

F22
F21
F20
F19
F18
F17
F16
F15
F14
F13
F12
F11
F10
F9
F8
F7
F6
F5
F4
F3
F2
F1
G/F
Sub-wall

9/21/2009
9/12/2009
9/4/2009
8/28/2009
8/21/2009
8/14/2009
8/7/2009
7/29/2009
7/22/2009
7/15/2009
7/7/2009
6/29/2009
6/22/2009
6/13/2009
6/3/2009
5/26/2009
5/18/2009
5/11/2009
5/5/2009
4/21/2009
4/9/2009
3/11/2009
12/20/2008
11/22/2008

9
8
7
7
7
7
9
7
7
8
8
7
9
10
8
8
7
6
14
12
29
81
28

9/18/2009
9/10/2009
9/2/2009
8/26/2009
8/19/2009
8/12/2009
8/3/2009
7/27/2009
7/20/2009
7/13/2009
7/4/2009
6/26/2009
6/19/2009
6/8/2009
6/1/2009
5/22/2009
5/15/2009
5/8/2009
4/29/2009
4/18/2009
3/28/2009
2/9/2009
12/15/2008
11/11/2008

8
8
7
7
7
9
7
7
7
9
8
7
11
7
10
7
7
9
11
21
47
56
34

- 71 -

9/23/2009
9/16/2009
9/8/2009
8/31/2009
8/24/2009
8/17/2009
8/10/2009
7/31/2009
7/24/2009
7/17/2009
7/10/2009
7/2/2009
6/24/2009
6/17/2009
6/5/2009
5/29/2009
5/20/2009
5/13/2009
5/6/2009
4/23/2009
4/7/2009
2/25/2009
12/20/2008
11/22/2008

7
8
8
7
7
7
10
7
7
7
8
8
7
12
7
9
7
7
13
16
41
67
28

9/21/2009
9/12/2009
9/4/2009
8/28/2009
8/21/2009
8/14/2009
8/7/2009
7/29/2009
7/22/2009
7/15/2009
7/7/2009
6/29/2009
6/22/2009
6/13/2009
6/3/2009
5/26/2009
5/18/2009
5/11/2009
4/29/2009
4/20/2009
4/9/2009
3/3/2009
12/20/2008
11/24/2008

9
8
7
7
7
7
9
7
7
8
8
7
9
10
8
8
7
12
9
11
37
73
26

Table 4.2 The status of strain gauges

zone
Wing A

Wing B

Wing C

Central Core

pile No.
3AP1
3AP2
3AP3
3AP4
3BP1
3BP2
3BP3
3BP4
3CP1
3CP2
3CP3
3CP4
3CP5
3CP6
3DP1
3DP2
3DP3
3DP4

pile head
working
Damage
working
working
working
working
working
working
working
working
working
working
working
Damage
working
working
working
Damage

- 72 -

soil-rock interface
working
working
working
working
working
Damage
working
working
working
working
Damage
working
working
working
working
working
working
working

Table 4.3 Settlement of the building from the land surveying method
Time

16-May-09

19-Aug-09

16-Nov-09

22-Feb-10

Gauge

Floor No.

21

28

40

sum settlement

1.5

3.5

3.5

4.5

sum settlement

1.5

4.5

4.5

6.5

sum settlement

1.5

2.5

4.5

6.5

sum settlement

1.5

4.5

4.5

5.5

sum settlement

1.5

3.5

3.5

5.5

sum settlement

1.5

3.5

3.5

5.5

sum settlement

1.5

3.5

4.5

5.5

sum settlement

1.5

4.5

5.5

8.5

sum settlement

1.5

3.5

3.5

5.5

10

sum settlement

1.5

3.5

3.5

4.5

11

sum settlement

1.5

4.5

4.5

5.5

12

sum settlement

1.5

3.5

5.5

7.5

13

sum settlement

1.5

3.5

4.5

6.5

14

sum settlement

1.5

3.5

4.5

6.5

average

1.5

3.7

4.3

6.0

- 73 -

Table 4.4 Axial force at pile head (MN)

Total pile load

Total superstructure load
Percentage of load carried by the piles
Load taken up by pile raft

10F

20F

30F

40F

164.3

262.5

376.4

500.8

209.7
78.3%

317.9
82.6%

426.2
88.3%

534.4
93.7%

45.4

55.4

49.8

33.6

Table 4.5 Grouping of the piles

Group
Center pile
Intermediate pile
Corner pile

Pile No
3DP4, 3DP3, 3CP6 and 3CP3
3AP3, 3AP4, 3BP3, 3BP4, 3CP4, 3CP5, 3DP1 and 3DP2
3AP1, 3AP2, 3BP1, 3BP2, 3CP1 and 3CP2

- 74 -

Table 4.6 Axial force in soil-rock interface (MN)

10F

20F

30F

40F

105.8

175.9

256.5

349.1

Total superstructure load

209.7

317.9

426.2

534.4

Percentage of load carried by the piles

50.4%

55.3%

60.2%

65.3%

Load taken up by sub-soil

103.9

142.0

169.7

185.3

Total pile load

Table 4.7 Total shaft resistance in soil layer (MN)

Pile load

10F

20F

30F

40F

164.3

262.5

376.4

500.8

Total pile load (Soil-rock interface)

105.8
(59%)

175.9
(67%)

256.5
(68%)

349.1
(70%)

Shaft resistance in soil layer

58.5
(36%)

86.5
(33%)

119.9
(32%)

151.7
(30%)

Total pile load (Pile head)

- 75 -

Table 4.8 Shaft resistance for three pile groups in soil layer (MN)

Center pile

Intermediate pile

Corner pile

Sub-total resistance of pile group in the pile head

level
Sub-total resistance of pile group on the soil-rock
interface
Sub-total shaft resistance in soil layer
Sub-total resistance of pile group in the pile head
level
Sub-total resistance of pile group on the soil-rock
interface
Sub-total shaft resistance in soil layer
Sub-total resistance of pile group in the pile head
level
Sub-total resistance of pile group on the soil-rock
interface
Sub-total shaft resistance in soil layer

- 76 -

10F

20F

30F

40F

48.8

76.1

108.1

131.2

35.9

56.8

81.2

101.2

12.9
(26.4%)

19.3
(25.4%)

26.9
(24.9%)

30.0
(22.9%)

85.4

133.8

184.8

228.1

51.3

84.7

122.3

155.8

34.0
(39.9%)

49.1
(36.7%)

62.5
(33.8%)

72.3
(31.7%)

30.1

52.6

83.5

141.5

18.5

34.5

53.0

92.2

11.6
(38.5%)

18.2
(34.5%)

30.5
(36.5%)

49.3
(34.9%)

Figure 4.1 The dead load of the Block 3 building

- 77 -

(a) Wing A

(b) Wing B

- 78 -

(c) Wing C

(d) Central Core

Figure 4.2 Axial forces in the pile head during construction (a-d)
(Note: the 3AP2, 3CP6, and 3DP4 loads were estimated using the readings
measured by the strain gauges at the soil-rock interface, as the gauges at the pile
top were not functioning.)

- 79 -

(a) Wing A

(b) Wing B

- 80 -

(c) Wing C

(d) Center Core

Figure 4.3 Axial forces at soil-rock interface during construction (a-d)
(Note: the 3BP2 and 3CP3 loads were estimated using the readings measured by
the strain gauges at the pile head level, as the gauges at this level were not
functioning.)

- 81 -

Figure 4.4 Comparison of the settlement from the survey and the elastic
shortening

- 82 -

Figure 4.5 The variations of cap load

- 83 -

(a) After completion of the 10th floor

(b) After completion of the 20th floor

- 84 -

(c) After completion the of the 30th floor

(d) After completion of the 40th floor

Figure 4.6 The load distribution among the piles (a-d)
- 85 -

Figure 4.7 Comparison between the pile group resistances with the dead load

- 86 -

Figure 4.8 Average pile head forces for three pile groups

- 87 -

Figure 4.9 Comparison of the settlement

Figure 4.10 The axial force against the settlement in the pile head

- 88 -

Figure 4.11 Variations of the axial force along the pile depth

Figure 4.12 The shaft resistance and the end bearing during the construction
- 89 -

Figure 4.13 Variations of the mobilized shaft resistance along the pile depth

Figure 4.14 The local displacement against the mobilized shaft resistance

- 90 -

CHAPTER 5
DETERMINATION OF THE LOAD
DISTRIBUTION AMONG PILES

The methods for determination of the load distribution among piles were broadly
classified into three groups as follows: (1) Pile interaction approach; (2) "Rivet
Group" approach; and (3) Numerical method. Based on these approaches, the
prediction of load distribution among the piles was computed. Furthermore, a
series of parametric studies were carried out to investigate the influence of the cap
stiffness and the pile stiffness.

5.1 Prediction of load distribution based on the pile interaction

approach
Poulos and Davis (1980) computed the interaction factor between the identical
piles and produced design charts for different pile spacing, pile relative stiffness
(with reference to the soil layer), and base stiffness. Guo (1988) further extended
the method to multi-layered soil. With the interaction factor, one can further
predict the load distribution of the piles.
Therefore, the load distribution among the piles in the field test can be determined
by this pile interaction approach. As the bored piles were socketed into Grade III
or better rock, all piles can be assumed to be founded on a rigid stratum. In
addition, the pile-soil stiffness ratio ( K =

E pile
E soil

) was normally larger than 1000.

The interaction factor ( E ) which was a function of dimensionless pile spacing

- 91 -

s/d, can be determined for each pile (Table 5.1). One can note that the interaction
could be ignored when the dimensionless pile spacing s/d is larger than 6.
For a pile group, the superposition displacement of each individual pile can obtain
by Equation 2.12. In the present case, 1 was the displacement of a single pile
under unit load and it can be taken to be 1/4.1mm/MN (similar to the 30m pile).
Thus, the matrix equation is shown as follow:

[ ] = 1 [ E ] [ P ]
[ P] =

where

[ E ]1 [ ]

(5.1)

(5.2)

[ E ] is the matrix of the interaction factors for piles;

[P] is the matrix of loading in the piles;
[ ] is the matrix of settlement in the piles;

1 is the displacement of a single pile under unit load.

For a rigid cap, all piles will have the same settlement. Besides, the cap is
considered to have no contribution. Therefore, the total pile loads will be equal to
the applied dead load. The axial force of each individual pile is obtained by
solving Equation 5.2, and the results are tabulated in Table 5.2. The results
indicated that the piles near the centre of a group were expected to carry lesser
load than those at the edges. This did not agree with field measurement results.
Furthermore, the maximum deviation of axial force was 4%. The interaction
effect was very small for such larger diameter bored pile socketed into rock.

It can be concluded that the load distribution among the piles for this case could
not be properly predicted by using the pile interaction approach.

- 92 -

5.2 Prediction of load distribution based on the "Rivet Group"

approach
In the local design practice, distribution of load in a pile group can be determined
by the "Rivet Group" approach. This "Rivet Group" approach is principally based
on:
(1) pile cap is perfectly rigid;
(2) pile heads are hinged to the pile cap and no bending moment is transmitted
from the pile cap to the piles;
(3) piles are vertical and of the same axial stiffness.

According to this "Rivet Group" approach, if the external structure load acts on
the centroid of the pile cap, the load would evenly distribute to all piles.

In the field test, the structure load did not act on the centroid of the pile cap. The
details were shown in Table 5.3. The pile load can be calculated by Equation 2.13
and they are tabulated in Table 5.4. The predicted load distribution was again
different from that obtained by the field measurement. Due to eccentricity, piles
near the Wing C were expected to carry more loads than those at other locations.

5.3 Numerical modeling

In the past few decades, numerical techniques had been developed rapidly. The
numerical analysis can provide an effective method to investigate the behavior of
a piled cap foundation. ABAQUS, a commercial numerical package, was used to
analyze the pile foundation.

5.3.1 Introduce the finite element programme ABAQUS

ABAQUS is commercial software that is divided into some modules, namely (1)
define a geometry, (2) define material properties, (3) define an interaction for each

- 93 -

interface, (4) generate a mesh, and (5) monitor the process of a job. Finally, the
visualization module can view the results of analysis.

5.3.2 Simulation of a pile under vertical load

5.3.2.1. Modeling of single pile

A nonlinear axisymmetric numerical model was developed. This model (Figure
5.1) was used to simulate the load transfer behavior of a larger diameter bored pile.
This model consisted of three major components, namely (1) the pile body, (2) the
surrounding soil, and (3) the surrounding and end bearing rock.
In the present study, pile 3BP3 was taken as a typical example. To simplify the
bored pile in the numerical model, the diameter of this pile was equal to 2.2m in
the whole pile length. The pile length was 53m with a 6m length socketed into
rock.
In order to minimize the boundary effects, the edge boundary of the soil/rock was
30m far away from the pile edge. The bottom boundary for rock was 7m beneath
the pile toe. The edge and bottom boundary for the soil/rock layer was specified as
roller support.

In addition, the elements were modeled by the linear hexahedron (CAX4R)

(ABAQUS inc. 2006). The load was applied on the top of bored pile in four stages
representing the four construction stages (10F, 20F, 30F and 40F).

Material properties
In this axisymmetric model, the pile was modeled as an isotropic linear elastic
material, and the "Mohr Coulomb" was employed to model the behavior of soil
and rock.
The deformation parameters of the pile, including the elastic modulus and the
Poissons ratio, were determined from the results of uniaxial compression tests

- 94 -

(details refer to Chapter 3). The elastic modulus and the Poissons ratio of pile
were equal to 31GPa and 0.22, respectively.
According to the site investigations and the local design guideline (BD, 2004;
GEO, 2006), the soil and rock material parameters are tabulated in Table 5.5.
Finally, the initial stress was calculated from the self-weight stress. The lateral
coefficient (Ko) was taken as 0.43 (i.e. K o = 1 sin( ) = 1 sin(35o ) ).

Interfacial interaction
The Coulomb frictional law was applied to describe the interface behavior. The
interface represented the interaction at the interface between the bored pile and the
surrounding soil or rock for simulating the sliding feature. The Coulomb criterion
was used to distinguish between elastic behavior, where small displacements can
occur within the interface, and plastic behavior when permanent slip may occur
(Leong and Randolph, 1994).
Tangential slippage will occur when the mobilized shear stress, , reached the
ultimate shear strength given by

ult = c + K s v ' tan( )

(5.3)

where
Ks is the coefficient of horizontal pressure;
c is the cohesion of interface;

v ' is the mean vertical effective stress;

is angle of interface friction.

5.3.2.2. Comparison of the field test measurement and the numerical prediction
In Figure 5.2, the results of the present model are compared with the field test
results. The similar result was plotted.

- 95 -

In addition, the settlement increased linearly with the applied load. After the
completion of the 40th floor, the pile head settlements were 6.5mm and 6.8mm for
the field test monitoring and the numerical simulation, respectively. Furthermore,
during construction, this pile can be represented by a spring with a specific pile
stiffness.
The variations of axial force along pile are shown in Figure 5.3. As expected,
axial forces in the pile decreased gradually along the pile in the soil layer. While
in the granitic saprolites layer and rock layer, the axial force dropped rapidly. The
reduction rate slowed down with the depth. Finally, the axial force reduced to a
not significant level at the pile toe.
Figure 5.4 shows the shear stress distribution along the pile shaft. After the
completion of the 40th floor, the mobilized shaft resistance was about 25kPa and
170kPa in the soil and the granite saprolite layer respectively.

The results indicated that the numerical predictions compare favourably with the
field test results, and the axisymmetric model can predict the behavior of a single
pile under a vertical load.

5.3.2.3 Determination of the pile stiffness for all piles

As noted above, the settlement increased linearly with the applied load in the
numerical model. Under the working load, this bored pile can be represented as a
spring with the specific pile stiffness. Therefore, according to the soil profile
(Figure 3.6), the pile stiffness for each pile can be determined by this
axisymmetric model. The results are tabulated in Table 5.6.
The correlation between the pile stiffness and the pile length is plotted in Figure
5.5 and it is compared with that obtained from the single column assumption. The
results indicated that the pile stiffness reduced gradually with the pile length.
However, when the pile length was longer than 40m, the pile stiffness was almost

- 96 -

constant. There was a limiting depth beyond which the pile stiffness will not much
reduce.

5.3.3 Simulation of a piled cap foundation under vertical loads

According to the pile interaction factor proposed by Poulos and Davis (1980) and
Guo (1988), the interaction effect was small for the bored pile socketed into rock.
In addition, the field test results demonstrated that the load taken by the cap was
insignificant. Therefore, it can be ignored the pile interaction and the contribution
made by the underlying soil to the cap in the numerical model.

A three dimensional numerical analysis was developed following the spring pile
raft system (Hongladaromp, 1973 and Brown, 1975). The cap was modeled as an
elastic plate and the piles are represented by the springs. In addition, the applied
load configuration was taken into account. The load taken up by the cap could be
subtracted from the structural load directly.

5.3.3.1. Geometry of the numerical model

The full scale 3D model (Figure 5.6) was developed to simulate the behavior of
the piled cap foundation under the superstructure loads at different construction
stages. The model included the cap and the pile group.
The 2.3m elastic cap was modeled by the first-order tetrahedral elements (C3D4)
(ABAQUS inc. 2006). For the piles, they can be modeled by springs with specific
pile stiffness (Table 5.6) to support the cap.

- 97 -

5.3.3.2 The applied structure loads

The present study focused on the behavior of a foundation system under a

superstructure load. The load configuration was one of the crucial parameters
influencing the load distribution among the piles. The superstructure load
transferred through the shear walls, core walls and columns acting on the top of
the pile cap to the cap and the pile group. These structure loads can be simulated
by concentrate point and line loads acting on the top of the pile cap. The details of
the loading schedule are shown in Figure 5.7 and Table 5.7.
According to this load configuration, the axial stress contour on the top of the cap
is plotted in Figure 5.8. It can be noted that high stress concentrates at the shear
walls, core walls and columns. The applied loading was not evenly distributed.

5.4 Prediction of the load distribution based on the 3D numerical

model
The settlement contour obtained by the above-mentioned model is shown in
Figure 5.9. The maximum settlement was located at the Central Core, while the
minimum one was located at the corner of the Wing B. It was not unexpected as
the Central Core consists of the lift shaft and had fewer piles.
Furthermore, the load distribution obtained by the numerical model is tabulated in
Table 5.8 and it was compared with the field test results. In general, the axial force
in the pile increased from the outer edge of the cap to the inner area. In addition,
pile will expect to carry more loads if the shear walls, core walls and columns are
close or right on the top of this pile.

It must be pointed out that there was redistribution of load between the piles and
the cap after the soil weakened as calculated by the field test results. However, the
plate on spring model did not consider the sub-soil. The feature of redistribution
of load between the piles and the cap could not be predicted. Therefore, the
- 98 -

deviation between the prediction and the field test results increased during
construction.

Nevertheless, the prediction of load distribution in this plate on spring model was
close to that corresponding field test results. The comparison demonstrated the
capability of the above plate on spring model for predicting the load distribution
among the piles.

5.4.1 Influence of cap stiffness

The flexibility of pile cap was one of the crucial parameters influencing the load
distribution among piles. When the piles configuration and the soil condition were
fixed, the flexibility of the pile cap can be described (Brown, 1975; Guo, 1988;
Randolph, 1997)

K rs E r t r

(5.4)

To investigate the influence of the cap stiffness, the plate on spring model was
examined by changing the bending rigidity (D) of cap from 32 106 kN m to
2028 10 6 kN m . The corresponding thickness of the pile cap is tabulated in
Table 5.9. In addition, all piles were assumed as springs with stiffness equal to
4.1MN/mm (similar to the 30m piles, Table 5.6).
First, an extreme case was a benchmark analysis which corresponded to the pile
with a "rigid" cap foundation system (here D equal to 3 1012 kN m ). The
settlement contour is shown in Figure 5.10. The maximum settlement was located
at the corner of the Wing C, while the minimum one was located at the corner of
the Wing B. The predicted load distribution among the piles was similar to that
determined by the "Rivet Group" approach (Table 5.10). Therefore, this numerical
model can properly predict the load distribution for the pile with a "rigid" cap
foundation system.

- 99 -

Furthermore, it can be noted that increasing of cap stiffness results in a decrease in

settlement of the pile cap. The cap was in a smooth bowl shape (Figure 5.11). The
location of the maximum settlement moved from the Central Core to the corner of
the Wing C, as the cap stiffness increased. Besides, the maximum settlement
remained almost constant (Figure 5.12), whereas the differential settlement
reduced gradually. The cap thickness was more than 7m (Figure 5.13). one may
show that the average settlement was not affected by the cap stiffness whereas the
differential settlement is more sensitive to the cap stiffness.

As the superstructure can further constrained the cap deformation, and the
effective stiffness of the cap will increase with the floor height. Therefore, the pile
cap would transfer from a "flexible" cap to a "rigid" cap.

For further examination on the load distribution among the piles, the variations of
the axial force are shown in Figure 5.14. When the cap thickness was small, the
piles in the outer edge were expected to carry lesser loads than others in the inner
area. Until the cap thickness was more than 7m, the axial forces were similar with
each other and remain constant.

Therefore, the numerical results showed that the load distribution among the piles
was strongly influenced by the cap stiffness.

5.4.2 Influence of pile stiffness

As the actual pile stiffness depended on the shape of the pile and the surrounding
geomaterial, it was necessary to study its influence on the load distribution among
the piles.

- 100 -

In this field test, as noted above, a special geological feature was identified at a
location near Pile No. 3BP3 of the Wing B. The length of the piles in this zone
was nearly twice that of the piles in the other zones. The axial force would
redistribute among the piles due to those piles with smaller stiffness in Wing B.
Two cap thicknesses (2.3m and 7.3m) were chosen to represent a "flexible" and a
"rigid" cap respectively. Figure 5.15 depicts the redistribution of axial force
among the two pile groups.

When the pile in the Wing B reduced by 30% in stiffness, the applied load would
redistribute among the piles. There was a significant reduction (about 10%) in the
axial force carried by the intermediate piles BP3 and BP4 for these two pile
groups. A proportion of load transferred from these piles to the nearby stiff piles.
However, the effect became less significant for the other piles located further from
the Wing B. The results also indicated that the effected region increased with the
cap stiffness.

- 101 -

Table 5.1 The interaction factor E

3AP1

3AP2

3AP3

3AP4

3BP1

3BP2

3BP3

3BP4

3CP1

3CP2

3CP3

3CP4

3CP5

3CP6

3DP1

3DP2

3DP3

3DP4

3AP1

1.000

0.014

0.012

0.010

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

3AP2

0.014

1.000

0.010

0.011

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

3AP3

0.012

0.010

1.000

0.012

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.009

0.010

3AP4

0.010

0.011

0.012

1.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.010

0.009

0.008

3BP1

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

0.014

0.012

0.010

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

3BP2

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.014

1.000

0.010

0.011

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

3BP3

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.012

0.010

1.000

0.012

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.009

0.010

3BP4

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.010

0.011

0.012

1.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.010

0.000

0.009

0.008

3CP1

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

0.009

0.011

0.010

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

3CP2

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.009

1.000

0.011

0.000

0.010

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

3CP3

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.011

0.011

1.000

0.012

0.012

0.009

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

3CP4

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.010

0.000

0.012

1.000

0.009

0.011

0.009

0.000

0.000

0.000

3CP5

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.010

0.012

0.009

1.000

0.011

0.000

0.009

0.000

0.000

3CP6

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.009

0.011

0.011

1.000

0.012

0.012

0.009

0.000

3DP1

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.010

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.009

0.000

0.012

1.000

0.010

0.013

0.009

3DP2

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.010

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.009

0.012

0.010

1.000

0.013

0.009

3DP3

0.000

0.000

0.009

0.009

0.000

0.000

0.009

0.009

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.009

0.013

0.013

1.000

0.013

3DP4

0.000

0.000

0.010

0.008

0.000

0.000

0.010

0.008

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.009

0.009

0.013

1.000

- 102 -

Table 5.2 Comparison of the axial force between field test and pile interaction approach (MN)
10F

20F

30F

40F

Field
Field
Field
Field
Prediction Deviation
Prediction Deviation
Prediction Deviation
Prediction Deviation
result
result
result
result
3AP1
5.8
9.3
3.4
9.1
14.8
5.7
13.1
21.2
8.2
19.8
28.2
8.5
3AP2
5.6
9.3
3.7
8.3
14.8
6.5
15.8
21.2
5.5
34.7
28.3
-6.4
3AP3
10.7
9.1
-1.6
16.9
14.5
-2.3
23.8
20.9
-2.9
30.5
27.8
-2.8
3AP4
12.8
9.0
-3.8
18.4
14.4
-4.0
25.5
20.7
-4.8
31.3
27.5
-3.8
3BP1
5.6
9.3
3.7
10.6
14.8
4.2
15.9
21.2
5.3
25.5
28.2
2.7
3BP2
1.7
9.3
7.6
5.4
14.8
9.4
11.8
21.2
9.4
21.9
28.3
6.3
3BP3
8.4
9.1
0.7
13.4
14.5
1.2
18.4
20.9
2.4
23.0
27.8
4.8
3BP4
11.1
9.0
-2.1
17.4
14.4
-3.0
23.7
20.7
-3.0
29.4
27.5
-1.8
3CP1
4.9
9.3
4.4
8.5
14.9
6.4
12.3
21.3
9.0
17.3
28.4
11.1
3CP2
6.6
9.3
2.8
10.6
14.9
4.3
14.7
21.3
6.7
22.3
28.4
6.1
3CP3
13.5
9.1
-4.4
19.8
14.5
-5.3
26.9
20.8
-6.1
33.2
27.7
-5.5
3CP4
8.3
9.1
0.8
12.8
14.6
1.7
17.5
20.9
3.5
21.1
27.8
6.7
3CP5
12.0
9.1
-2.9
19.4
14.6
-4.8
27.1
20.9
-6.2
34.2
27.8
-6.4
3CP6
13.7
9.1
-4.6
20.8
14.5
-6.2
29.4
20.8
-8.6
34.2
27.7
-6.5
3DP1
9.5
9.0
-0.5
15.7
14.4
-1.3
22.6
20.6
-1.9
27.1
27.5
0.4
3DP2
12.6
9.0
-3.6
19.8
14.4
-5.4
26.2
20.6
-5.6
31.5
27.5
-4.0
3DP3
12.6
8.9
-3.7
19.5
14.2
-5.3
27.2
20.4
-6.8
32.6
27.1
-5.5
3DP4
9.0
9.0
0.0
15.9
14.3
-1.6
24.6
20.6
-4.0
31.2
27.4
-3.8
164.3
164.3
262.5
262.5
376.4
376.4
500.8
500.8
Total
(Note: Deviation= Prediction-Field result; The load taken up by the cap was subtracted from the structural load directly.)

- 103 -

Table 5.3 The detailed information for using the "Rivet Group" approach
Location of the centroid and each pile (m):

xi
yi

Center
of cap

3AP1

3AP2

3AP3

3AP4

3BP1

3BP2

3BP3

3BP4

3CP1

3CP2

3CP3

3CP4

3CP5

3CP6

3DP1

3DP2

3DP3

3DP4

0
0

-17.6
19.6

-10.1
23.9

-14.5
11.2

-6.2
12.3

-17.8
-19.2

-10.9
-23.3

-14.6
-10.5

-6.6
-11.3

23.8
-7.6

23.9
5.8

17.8
0.4

11.9
-7.6

12.0
5.7

6.3
0.4

0.7
-4.9

0.7
5.8

-6.5
0.4

-14.4
0.4

The estimated vertical load (MN):

Estimated Dead load

10F

20F

30F

40F

209.7

317.9

426.2

534.4

The loading arm of the total vertical load (m):

rx=
ry=

0.5
1

Mx=
My=

269.5
539

Ix=
Iy=
Ixy=

3379.9
2625.0
-61.1

Mx*=
My*=

279.2
545.3

m
m

MN.m
MN.m
2

m
2
m
2
m
MN.m
MN.m

- 104 -

Table 5.4 Comparison of the axial force between field test and "Rivet Group" approach (MN)
10F

20F

30F

40F

Field
Field
Field
Field
Prediction Deviation
Prediction Deviation
Prediction Deviation
Prediction Deviation
result
result
result
result
9.1
13.1
19.8
5.8
9.0
14.3
20.5
27.3
3AP1
3.1
5.2
7.5
7.5
8.3
15.8
34.7
5.6
9.5
15.1
21.7
28.9
3AP2
3.9
6.8
5.9
-5.8
16.9
23.8
30.5
10.7
8.8
14.1
20.2
26.9
3AP3
-1.9
-2.8
-3.5
-3.6
18.4
25.5
31.3
12.8
9.3
14.8
21.3
28.3
3AP4
-3.5
-3.6
-4.2
-3.0
10.6
15.9
25.5
5.6
7.7
12.3
17.6
23.4
3BP1
2.1
1.6
1.7
-2.1
5.4
11.8
21.9
1.7
7.9
12.6
18.1
24.0
3BP2
6.2
7.2
6.3
2.1
13.4
18.4
23.0
8.4
8.1
13.0
18.6
24.8
3BP3
-0.3
-0.4
0.2
1.8
17.4
23.7
29.4
11.1
8.5
13.6
19.4
25.9
3BP4
-2.6
-3.8
-4.3
-3.5
8.5
12.3
17.3
4.9
10.1
16.2
23.2
30.8
3CP1
5.2
7.6
10.9
13.5
10.6
14.7
22.3
6.6
10.6
16.9
24.2
32.2
3CP2
4.0
6.3
9.5
9.9
19.8
26.9
33.2
13.5
10.1
16.1
23.1
30.7
3CP3
-3.4
-3.7
-3.8
-2.5
12.8
17.5
21.1
8.3
9.5
15.2
21.8
29.0
3CP4
1.2
2.4
4.4
7.9
19.4
27.1
34.2
12.0
10.0
15.9
22.8
30.4
3CP5
-2.0
-3.5
-4.3
-3.9
20.8
29.4
34.2
13.7
9.5
15.2
21.8
29.0
3CP6
-4.2
-5.6
-7.6
-5.2
15.7
22.6
27.1
9.5
9.1
14.5
20.8
27.6
3DP1
-0.4
-1.2
-1.8
0.6
19.8
26.2
31.5
12.6
9.4
15.0
21.6
28.7
3DP2
-3.2
-4.7
-4.7
-2.8
19.5
27.2
32.6
12.6
8.9
14.2
20.3
27.1
3DP3
-3.8
-5.3
-6.9
-5.5
15.9
24.6
31.2
9.0
8.5
13.6
19.5
25.9
3DP4
-0.5
-2.4
-5.1
-5.3
164.3
164.3
262.5
262.5
376.4
376.4
500.8
500.8
Total
(Note: Deviation= Prediction-Field result; The load taken up by the cap was subtracted from the structural load directly.)

- 105 -

Table 5.5 The input parameter for the numerical model

Parameter

Units

Alluvium

CDG

Saprolites

Grade III
rock

Specific
weight

kN/m3

20

20

26

26

Youngs
modulus

MPa

60

100

2000

5000

0.38

0.38

0.3

0.3

1000

1000

Poissons
ratio
Cohesion

kPa

Friction
angle

35

35

40

40

Dilation
angle

- 106 -

Table 5.6 The pile stiffness for all piles in site

Pile number

Socket length
(m)

Pile length
(m)

Single column
assumption;
k=EA/L (MN/mm)

Axisymmetric
numerical model,
k(MN/mm)

3AP1

2.5

25.1

4.69

4.40

3AP2

25.2

4.68

4.27

3AP3

29.6

3.98

4.19

3AP4

2.5

22.6

5.21

4.84

3BP1

58.6

2.01

3.84

3BP2

52.6

2.24

3.64

3BP3

52.6

2.24

3.35

3BP4

8.5

39.5

2.98

3.72

3CP1

29.1

4.05

3.73

3CP2

28.1

4.19

3.92

3CP3

31.4

3.75

3.87

3CP4

24

4.91

4.49

3CP5

3.5

31.2

3.78

3.92

3CP6

5.5

28.6

4.12

4.53

3DP1

28.3

4.16

4.06

3DP2

4.5

22.4

5.26

5.51

3DP3

4.5

38.3

3.08

3.35

3DP4

4.5

38.8

3.04

3.38

(Note: E is 31GPa for the pile modulus)

- 107 -

Table 5.7 The load schedule for the shear walls and columns on the top of cap (MN)
AC2
AC4
AW1
AW10
AW11
AW12
AW14
AW2
AW3
AW3A
AW4
AW6
BC1
BC2
BW1
BW10
BW11
BW13
BW3
BW4
C1
C10
C11
C13
C14
C23
C24
CC1

2590
2563
8397
5613
8882
3700
2494
2784
16807
4875
4586
6614
2753
70
11247
10457
5977
8162
6900
4973
2293
390
446
402
304
244
2314
3951

CC10
CC18
CC19
CC20
CC3
CC4
CC5
CC6
CC7
CC8
CC9
CTC2
CTC3
CW1
CW10
CW10A
CW11
CW12
CW2
CW24
CW26
CW29
CW30
CW30
DW1
DW2
DW3
DW4

- 108 -

6564
5023
3265
2085
5758
11570
14238
13829
22518
4893
4755
4828
3051
7539
14530
2541
13886
9720
10324
5657
8359
3398
6291
4486
22553
17462
23679
20654

Table 5.8 Comparison of the axial force between field test and numerical prediction (MN)
10F
Field
result

Prediction Deviation

20F
Field
result

30F

Prediction Deviation

Field
result

Prediction Deviation

40F
Field
result

3AP1
9.1
13.1
19.8
5.8
6.4
0.6
10.2
1.0
14.4
1.4
3AP2
8.3
15.8
34.7
5.6
7.7
2.1
12.5
4.2
18.3
2.5
3AP3
16.9
23.8
30.5
10.7
8.4
-2.3
13.2
-3.7
18.6
-5.2
3AP4
18.4
25.5
31.3
12.8
9.9
-2.9
15.7
-2.7
22.4
-3.1
3BP1
10.6
15.9
25.5
5.6
5.6
0.0
8.8
-1.8
12.5
-3.4
3BP2
5.4
11.8
21.9
1.7
5.2
3.6
8.0
2.6
10.9
-0.8
3BP3
13.4
18.4
23.0
8.4
8.7
0.3
13.7
0.3
19.4
1.0
3BP4
17.4
23.7
29.4
11.1
9.4
-1.7
14.7
-2.7
20.7
-3.0
3CP1
8.5
12.3
17.3
4.9
8.7
3.7
12.9
4.4
17.3
4.9
3CP2
10.6
14.7
22.3
6.6
9.2
2.7
14.8
4.2
21.2
6.5
3CP3
19.8
26.9
33.2
13.5
10.5
-3.0
17.0
-2.8
24.7
-2.2
3CP4
12.8
17.5
21.1
8.3
9.5
1.2
14.8
1.9
20.6
3.2
3CP5
19.4
27.1
34.2
12.0
10.6
-1.4
17.5
-2.0
25.8
-1.3
3CP6
20.8
29.4
34.2
13.7
10.9
-2.8
17.9
-2.8
26.4
-3.0
3DP1
15.7
22.6
27.1
9.5
10.6
1.2
17.2
1.5
25.1
2.5
3DP2
19.8
26.2
31.5
12.6
10.9
-1.7
17.8
-2.0
26.1
-0.2
3DP3
19.5
27.2
32.6
12.6
12.0
-0.6
19.7
0.2
28.9
1.6
3DP4
15.9
24.6
31.2
9.0
10.0
1.0
16.1
0.1
23.2
-1.4
164.3
164.3
262.5
262.5
376.4
376.4
500.8
Total
(Note: Deviation= Prediction-Field result; The load taken up by the cap was subtracted from the structural load directly.)

- 109 -

Prediction Deviation
19.1
24.5
24.3
29.7
16.4
14.1
25.6
27.2
21.9
28.3
33.0
26.9
35.1
35.7
33.6
35.2
39.0
30.9
500.8

-0.7
-10.2
-6.2
-1.6
-9.1
-7.8
2.7
-2.2
4.6
6.0
-0.2
5.7
0.9
1.5
6.6
3.7
6.4
-0.3

Table 5.9 The pile cap thickness corresponding with the bending rigidity of cap
The pile cap
thickness (m)
The bending
rigidity of cap
( 10 6 kN m )

2.3

2.9

3.7

4.6

5.8

7.3

9.2

32

63

127

253

507

1014

2028

- 110 -

Table 5.10 Comparison of the axial force between rigid cap modeling prediction and
"Rivet Group" approach (MN)

In the finial
stage

Rigid cap
modeling
prediction (1)

"Rivet Group"
approach (2)

Deviation
= (1) - (2)

3AP1

28.2

27.3

0.9

3AP2

30.2

28.9

1.3

3AP3

27.3

26.9

0.4

3AP4

29.0

28.3

0.7

3BP1

21.6

23.4

-1.8

3BP2

22.2

24.0

-1.8

3BP3

23.6

24.8

-1.2

3BP4

24.9

25.9

-1

3CP1

31.0

30.8

0.2

3CP2

33.4

32.2

1.2

3CP3

31.3

30.7

0.6

3CP4

28.9

29.0

-0.1

3CP5

31.1

30.4

0.7

3CP6

29.3

29.0

0.3

3DP1

27.3

27.6

-0.3

3DP2

29.2

28.7

0.5

3DP3

26.9

27.1

-0.2

3DP4

25.5

25.9

-0.4

Total

500.8
500.8
(Note: The load taken up by the cap was subtracted from the structural load directly.)

- 111 -

Surrounding
soil

Pile body

Surrounding
and end
bearing rock

Figure 5.1 The geometry of the numerical model for single pile

- 112 -

Figure 5.2 The axial force against the settlement in the pile head

Figure 5.3 Variations of the axial force along the pile depth (marked points: field test
results; lines: numerical predictions)

- 113 -

(kPa)

(kPa)

Surrounding
soil

Surrounding
soil

Surrounding
rock

Figure 5.4 Shear stress distributions in the surrounding soil and rock

Figure 5.5 The correlation of the pile stiffness against the pile length

- 114 -

Cap

Pile

Figure 5.6 The geometry of the numerical model for the piled cap foundation

AW1
C1
AW2
AW3A
AW3

AW10

AW4
AW6

AC2

AW12
AW11
AC4

CC1

CC3

CW10A

C23

AW14
CC18

CW11

C18

CW1
CW10
DW1

DW2

CW12
CC4

CC5 CC6

CC7
CW2

DW3

DW4

CW24
CW30

CC20
CTC2 CTC3

C19
CC19

CC9

CW29 CW26

CC10

BW4
CC8
BW13
BW11

C13

C14

C11

BC4
BW3
BW10

BC2
BC1

BW1

Figure 5.7 The location of shear wall and column on the top of cap

- 115 -

C10

(kPa)

Figure 5.8 The axial stress distribution on the top of cap

Figure 5.9 The predicted settlement contour for the field test
- 116 -

Figure 5.10 The predicted settlement contour for the "rigid" cap

- 117 -

(a) 2.3m cap

(b) 3.7m cap

(c) 5.8m cap

(d) 9.2m cap

Figure 5.11 The predicted settlement contour for different thickness cap (a-d)
(Note: settlement (U3) in mater)

Figure 5.12 The maximum settlement against the cap thickness

- 118 -

Figure 5.13 The differential settlement against the cap thickness

- 119 -

(a) Wing A

(b) Wing B

- 120 -

(c) Wing C

(d) Central Core

Figure 5.14 The variations of axial force against the cap thickness (a-d)

- 121 -

(a) For 2.3m cap

- 122 -

(b) For 7.3m cap

Figure 5.15 Redistribution of axial force among piles after the pile weakens in Wing
B (a-b) (Note: red positive value: axial force increase; red negative value: axial force
reduce; value in the bracket: axial force before redistribution)

- 123 -

CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Summary
A long-term monitoring field test was carried out to investigate the behavior of a deep
pile foundation under vertical load. The bored piles were installed with strain gauges
at the pile head level and the soil-rock interface level. In addition, for one pile, strain
gauges were installed at fourteen levels to determine the axial force variation along
the pile. Moreover, fourteen settlement gauges were installed at the ground level to
measure the settlement of the building. This study investigated (a) the shaft resistance
developed in the bored pile, (b) the load transferring mechanism of a larger diameter
bored pile under a vertical load, (c) the loading shared between the pile cap and the
pile group in the foundation system, and (d) the load distribution among the piles.

The prediction of load distribution among the piles was obtained by three approaches,
namely (1) pile interaction approach, (2) "Rivet Group" approach, and (3) numerical
approach. The predicted results were compared with those obtained in the field test.
Furthermore, a series of numerical simulations were carried out to investigate the
influence of cap stiffness and pile stiffness on the load distribution among the piles.

- 124 -

6.2 Conclusions
The findings of the study are summarized as follows to improve the understand of this
piled cap foundation system:
(1) The settlement of the building was small (about 7mm) after the completion of
the construction. According to the numerical modeling, the cap was in a bowl
shape. The maximum settlement was located at Central Core, while the
minimum one was located at the corner of Wing B. It was not unexpected as
the Central Core consisted of the life shaft and had fewer piles

(2) In the field test, the piles had shared a higher percentage of the applied load as
the loading increased, while the pile cap had an insignificant contribution to
the capacity of the pile foundation system.

(3) The drop of the cap load probably indicated that the sub-soil could have
reached its capacity locally and the cap could not carry further applied load.
There was redistribution of load between the piles and the cap after the soil
weakened.

(4) The field test results indicated that the shaft resistance mobilized in the soil
layer was considerable. Though it was assumed that the soil would not
contribute to the capacity of the piles in the design, the results indicated that
the shaft resistance offered by soil could be over 30% and this had greatly
reduced the load transferred to the rock layer. Furthermore, the shaft
resistances in the soil layer decreased from the outer edge to the inner area of
the pile group.

(5) Pile 3BP3 was taken as a typical example to analyze the load transfer behavior
of such pile. Based on the variation of axial forces, axial forces in the pile
decreased gradually along the pile in the soil layer. About 65% of the applied
load was transferred into the granitic saprolites level. In the granitic saprolites
layer and rock layer, the axial force dropped rapidly. The reduction rate

- 125 -

slowed down with the depth. Finally, the axial force reduced to a not
significant level at the pile toe.

(6) According to the field test results, the axial forces in the piles increased from
the outer edge to the inner area of the cap. It can be distinguished these bored
piles according to their locations into three groups, namely 1) Center pile, 2)
Intermediate pile, and 3) Corner pile. Using the average axial force of all piles
as the reference, the Corner piles, the Intermediate piles, and the Center piles
had taken up about 65%, 110% and 130% of the average axial force,
respectively. Furthermore, the numerical simulation showed that the load
distribution among the piles depended on the pile location, the applied load
configuration, the pile stiffness, and the pile cap stiffness.

(7) Based on the numerical analyses, the load distribution among the piles was
strongly dependent on the cap stiffness. Moreover, when some pile stiffness
reduced, the applied load will redistribute among the piles. More loads will
transfer to the nearby stiff piles. The effected region of redistribution in axial
force increased with the cap stiffness.

6.3 Recommendations
6.3.1 Field tests improvement

(1) The strain gauge can be damaged immediately or not properly functioning due
to rise and decrease in temperature during the pile casting. Therefore, the
strains can not be computed directly from the strain gauge readings at some
locations. If it is possible, more gauge levels (at least four) should be installed
along the same pile. The axial force variation along the pile depth can be
determined. The missing axial force at some location can be properly

- 126 -

estimated based on this axial force variation. Furthermore, the shaft resistance
in the rock layer and the end-bearing resistance could be determined.

(2) The cap load was calculated by subtracting the total pile load from the
building load. The accuracy of this cap load was dependent on the building
load calculated based on the framing plans. Therefore, earth pressure cells
should be installed beneath the pile cap to measure the soil reaction force
directly. The loading shared between the piles and the cap can be determined
more accurately.

(3) In order to investigate the cap contribution, the details of the earth treatment in
the underlying soil should be recorded. In addition, the property of this
underlying soil should be determined by carrying out insitu or laboratory tests.
For example, the plate load test can be carried out on site to determine the
allowable bearing capacity of this underlying soil. Therefore, the measured
cap load could help engineers to consider the cap contribution in the normal
practice.

(4) The estimated building load was dependent on many uncertainties, such as the
procedure in casting each floor, the storage of material and equipment. To
properly estimate the building dead load, the detailed record for the site
situation should be required.

(5) Similar field monitoring works can be carried out for further investigation on
the shaft resistance in soil layer as this study applied backfilled sand into the
gap between the pile and soil. In normal practice, the sand is not used to
backfill the gap.

(6) Similar field monitoring works can be carried out for further investigation on
the load distribution among the piles as the results of this study was only
applicable to the specified cap thickness.

- 127 -

6.3.2 Numerical modeling

(1) The simplified plate on spring model ignored the pile interaction and the load
taken up by the cap. More comprehensive model should be developed.

(2) During construction, the structure frame provided additional restraint to the
pile cap. The bending rigidity of this pile cap increased as a result of the
additional restraint. The load distribution among the piles would be
influenced as the cap stiffness increased. More comprehensive model should
take into account this issue.

- 128 -

Appendix A
1. The site investigation
As the site was near the Schedule Area 4 (Ma On Shan) (APP-61), its geology
could be complex and a comprehensive geotechnical investigation deemed to be
necessary. Forty-five drill holes were drilled to reveal the ground profile. The
location of boreholes or drill hole (with mark such as T3-BV1) is given in Figure
A1. The detail information of this site investigation can be found in the library in
Civil Engineering and Development Department in Hong Kong.

Figure A1 The layout plan of site investigation in this site

- 129 -

2. The framing plan for this monitoring building

Three 40-storey public housings (Block 1, Block 2 and Block 3) were to be built
and Block 3 (Figure 3.1) was selected for the study. The building (Figure 3.2) was
Y-shaped with three wings (Wing A, Wing B, and Wing C) and a central core
(Central Core). The superstructure was resting on a Y-shaped foundation cap
(2.3m thickness) which was supported by 18 bored piles. Except for the first and
second floors, the remaining floors (the 3rd floor to the 40th floor) had a similar
layout. The detailed information was given in the framing plan provided by the
Housing Department (PROJECT No. MA ON SHAN AREA 86B).

- 130 -

REFERENCE
ABAQUS Theory Manual, ABAQUS, Inc, 2003

APP-61, The geological survey for Ma On Shan

Akbulut, H., bearing capacity of shaft-expanded driven model piles in sand.

Gotechnique, vol. 45, pp 715-718. (1995).

BD (Building Department), Code of Practice for Foundations. Building Department,

The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Kowloon, Hong
Kong (2004).

Brown, P.T., Numerical Analysis of Uniformly Loaded Circular Rafts on Elastic

Layers of Finite Depth, Gotechnique, vol. 19, pp 301-306. (1969).

Brown, P.T., Numerical Analysis of Uniformly Loaded Circular Rafts on Deep

Foundations, Gotechnique, vol. 19, pp 399-404. (1969).
Brown, P.T., The Significance of Structure-Foundation Interaction, Proc. 2nd
Australia-New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Brisbane, IEQust, vol. 1, pp

79-82, (1975).

Brown, P.T. and Weisner, T.J., The behavior of uniformly loaded piled strip footings.
Soils and foundations, vol.15, pp 13-21, (1975).

Brown, P.T., Poulos, H.G., and Weisner, T.J., Piled raft foundation design. Proc.
Symposium on raft foundations, Perth, CSIRO, pp 13-21, (1975).

Chow, S.W., Analysis of Piled-Raft Foundations with Piles of Different Lengths and
Diameters, School of Civil Engineering. The University of Sydney. (2007).

- 131 -

Chow, Y.K., Iterative analysis of pile-soil-pile interaction. Gotechnique, vol. 37, pp

321-333. (1987).

Chow, Y.K., Axially loaded piles and pile groups embedded in a cross-anisotropic
soil. Gotechnique, vol. 39, pp 203-212. (1989).

Chow, Y.K., Chin, J.T., Kog, Y.C., and Lee, S.L., Settlement analysis of socketed pile
groups. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil
Engineers, vol. 116, pp171-1184, (1990).

Chow, Y.K. and Teh, C.I., Pile-cap-pile-group interaction in nonhomogenous soil,

Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 117, No. 11, pp1655-1668, (1991).

Comodromo, E.M., Papadopoulou, M.C. and Rentzeperis, I.K., Pile foundation

analysis and design using experimental data and 3-D numerical analysis, Computers
and Geotechnics, vol. 36, pp 819-836, (2009).

Cooke, R.W., Piled raft foundations on stiff clays - a contribution to design

philosophy. Gotechnique, vol. 36, pp 169-203. (1986).

De Nicola, A. and Randolph, M.F., Centrifuge modeling of pipe piles in sand under
axial loads. Gotechnique, vol. 49, pp 295-318. (1999).

Endicott, L.D., Temporary walls for deep excavations. Proceedings of the Second
Conference on Structural Engineering, No. D1, pp 13, Bangkok, (1982)

Fellenius, B.H., Determining the resistance distribution in piles. Part 1: Notes on shift
of no-load reading and residual load. Geotechnical News, vol. 20, No. 2, pp 35-38.
(2002a).

Fellenius, B.H., Determining the resistance distribution in piles. Part 2: Method for
determining the residual load. Geotechnical News, vol. 20, No. 3, pp 25-29. (2002b).

- 132 -

GEO, Pile design and construction, GEO Publication No. 1/2006. Geotechnical
Engineering Office. Hong Kong. (2006).

Goodman, R.E., Methods of Geological Engineering in Discontinuous Rock, Wiley

and Sons, New York, (1980).

Guo, D.J., Infinite Layer Method And Its Application To The Analysis Of Pile
Systems. Civil Engineering Department. The University of Hong Kong. Hong Kong.
(1988).

Hill, W.J., Littlechild, B.D., Plumbridge, G.D. and Lee, S.C., End bearing and socket
design for foundations in Hong Kong. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Seminar,
Geotechnical Devision, Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, pp 167-178, Hong Kong
(2000).

HKG, General Specification for Civil Engineering Works. (1992 edition). Hong Kong
Government, vol. 1, pp280, (1992).

Hongladaromp, T., Chen, N.J. and lee, S.L., Load distributions in rectangular footings
in piles. Geotechnical. Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 4,
pp77-90, (1973).

Hooper, J.A., Review of Behaviour of Piled Raft Foundations (CIRIA Report No. 83).
Construction Industry Research & Information Association, pp 79. London. (1979).

Howat, M.D., Active and at rest pressures in granitic saprolotes. Proceedings of the
First International Conference on Geomechanics in Tropical Lateritic and Saprolotoc
Soils, Vol. 3, pp 297-299, Brasilia, (1985).

Irfan, T.Y. and Powell, G.E., Engineering geological investigations for pile
foundations on a deeply weathered granitic rock in Hong Kong. Bulletin of the
International Association of Engineering Geology, No. 32, pp 67-80, (1985).

- 133 -

Irfan, T.Y. and Powell, G.E., Foundation Design of Caissons on Granittic and
Volcanic Rocks (GEO Report No. 8). Geotechnical Engineering Office, pp92, Hong
Kong, (1991).

Ismeal, N.F., Axial load tests on bored piles and pile groups in cemented sands,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, American Society of

Civil Engineers, vol. 127, pp766-773, (2001).

Jardine, R.J., Chow, F., Overy, R.F., and Standing, J., ICP Design Methods for Driven
Piles in Sands and Clays. Thomas Telford, pp106, (2005).

Kulhawy, F.H., Limiting tip and side resistance: Fact or fallay? Proceedings of a
Symposium on Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, San Francisco, pp80-98.

(1984).

Kulhawy, F.H. and Goodman, R.E., Design of Foundations on Discontinuous Rock,

Proceedings of the International Conference on Structural Foundations on Rocks,

International Society for Rock Mechanics, vol. 1, pp 209-220, (1980).

Kulhawy, F.H. and Goodman, R.E., Foundations in rock. Ground Engineers

Reference book, edited by F.G. Bell, Butterworths, pp55/1-13, London, (1987).

Kulhawy, F.H. and Prakoso, W.A., Discussion on end bearing capacity of drilled
shafts in rock. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 125, pp1106-1110, (1999).

Kulhawy, F.H. and Prakoso, W.A. and Akbas, S.O., Evaluation of capacity of rock
foundation sockets. Proceedings of the 40th United States Symposium on Rock
Mechanics, pp8, Anchorage, (2005).

Lee, J., Kim, Y. and Jeong, S., Three-diamensional analysis of bearing behavior of
piled raft on soft clay, Computers and Geotechnics, vol. 37, pp 103-114, (2010).

- 134 -

Leong, E.C. and Randolph, M.F., Finite Element Modelling of Rock-socketed Piles.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, vol.

18, pp 25-47, (1994).

Li, K.S., Jack pileing in hong kong. Department of Civil Engineering, The University
of Hong Kong; Hong Kong Housing Authority; Center for Research & professional
Development. Hong Kong. (2002).

Liang, F.Y. and Chen, L.Z., A modified variational approach for the analysis of piled
raft foundation. Mechanics Research Communications, v31, No. 5, pp 593-604.
(2004).

Liu, Y.T., Experimental and Numerical Study on Socketed Steel H-Pile. Civil
Engineering Department. The University of Hong Kong. Hong Kong. (2008).

Lo, S.-C.R. and Li, K.S., Influence of a permanent liner on the skin friction of largediameter bored piles in Hong Kong granitic saprolites, Canada Geotech. Vol. 40, pp
793-805, (2003).

Lumb, P., Engineering properties of fresh and decomposed igneous rocks from Hong
Kong. Engineering Geology, vol. 19, pp 81-94. (1983).

Malone, A.W., A note on the design of large-diameter excavated piles in Hong Kong.
Hong Kong Engineer, vol. 15, No. 9, pp 15-17. Hong Kong (1987).

Meyerhof, G.G., Some recent research on the bearing capacity of foundations.

Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 1, pp 16-26. (1963)

Meyerhof, G.G., Bearing capacity and settlements of piled foundations. Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 102,

pp 197-228. (1976)

Meyerhof, G.G., Theory and practice of pile foundations. Proceedings of the

International Conference on Deep Foundations, Beijing, vol. 2, pp 1.77-1.86. (1986)

- 135 -

Meyerhof, G.G. & Adams, J.I., The ultimate uplift capacity of foundations. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, vol. 5, pp 225-244. (1968)

Meyerhof, G.G. & Purkayastha, R.D., Ultimate pile capacity in layered soil under
eccentric and inclined loads. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 22, pp 399-402.
(1985).

Narong, T., Muhammad, A.A. and Aung, W.M., Review of the shaft capacity
degradation of bored piles constructed with bentonite slurry, Civil and Environmental
Engineering Conference New Frontiers and Challenges, pp 59-73, Thailand, (1999).

Ng, C.W.W. and Lei, G.H., Performance of long rectangular barrettes in granitic
saprolites. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, American
Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 129, pp685-699, (2003).

Ng, C.W.W., Yau, T.L.Y., Li, J.H.M. and Tang, W.H., Side resistance of large
diameter bored piles socketed into decomposed rocks. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 127,

pp642-657, (2001).

ONeill, M.W., Side resistance in piles and drilled shaft. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenivironmental Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 127, pp3-

16, (2001).

ONeill, M.W., Hawkins, R.A. and Mahar, L.J., Load transfer mechanisms in piles
and pile groups. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society
of Civil Engineers, vol. 108, pp1605-1623, (1982).

ONeill, M.W. and Raines, R.D., Load transfer for pipe piles in highly pressured
dense sand. . Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of
Civil Engineers, vol. 118, pp1208-1226, (1991).

- 136 -

Ottoviani, M., Three diamensional finite element analysis of vertically loaded pile
groups. Geotechnique, vol. 52, No. 2, pp 159-174. (1975).

Pastakorn Kitiyodom and Tatsunori Matsumoto, A simplified analysis method for

piled raft and pile group foundations with batter piles. Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics. Vol. 26, pp 1349-1369, (2002).

Pells, P.J.N. and Turner, R.N., Elastic solutions for design and analysis of rock
socketed piles. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 16, pp 481-487, (1979).

Poulos, H.G., Small, J. C., Ta, L.D., Sinha, J., and Chen, L., Comparison of some
methods for analysis of piled rafts. Proc., 14th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. And Found.
Engrg., Hamburg, Germany, pp 1119-1124. Germany. (1997).

Poulos, H.G., Piled-raft interaction Alternative methods of analysis. Developments

in Theor. Geomechanics, Ed. D.W. Smith, & J.P. Carter, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp

445-468.

Poulos, H.G., Piled raft foundations: Design and applications. Geotechnique, vol. 51,
No. 2, March, 2001, pp 95-113. (2001).

Poulos, H.G., METHODS OF ANALYSIS OF PILED RAFT FOUNDATIONS

Technical Committee TC18 on Piled Foundations, International Society of Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. (2001).

Poulos, H.G. and Davids, A.J., Foundation design for the Emirates Twin Towers,
Dubai. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 42, No. 3, pp 716-730. June, (2005).

Poulos, H.G. and Davids, E.H., Pile Foundation Analysis and Design. (1980).

Randolph, M.F., Design of piled raft foundations, Proceedings of the interactional

symposium on recent developments in laboratory and field tests and analysis of
geotechnical problems, Bangkok, pp 525-537, (1983).

- 137 -

Randolph, M.F., Design methods for pile groups and piled rafts. Int. J. Numer. And
Analytical Methods in Geomech. vol. 20(1), pp 57-72. London. (1994).

Randolph, M.F., Design methods for pile groups and piled rafts. Proc. 13th
International conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. vol. 5, pp

61-82. New Delhi. (1994).

Randolph, M.F. and Worth, C.P., Analysis of Depormation of Vertically Loaded Piles,
Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 104,

pp1462-1488, (1978).

Randolph, M.F. and Worth, C.P., Analysis of the Vertical Deformation of Pile Groups,
Geotechnique, vol.29, No.4, pp 423-439. (1979).

Reese, L.C. and O' Neill, M.W., Drilled shafts: Construction Procedures and Design
Methods (Report No. FHWA-HI-88-042). U.S. Department of Transportation, pp 564.
U.S. (1988).

Robinsky, E.I., Sagar, W.L. and Morrison, C.F., Effect of shape and volume on the
capacity of model piles in sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol.1, pp189-204,
(1964).

Shen, W.Y., Chow, Y.K., and Yong, K.Y., A variational approach for the analysis of
pile group-pile cap interaction. Geotechnique, vol.50, No.4, pp 349-357. (2000).

Shen, W.Y., Chow, Y.K., and Yong, K.Y., An analysis of piled raft foundations using
a variational approach. The International Journal of Geomechanics, vol.1, No.2, pp
129-147. (2001).

Ta, L.D. and Small, J. C., Analysis of Piled Raft Systems in Layered Soils. Int. Jl.
Numerical And Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, vol.20, pp 57-72. (1996).

- 138 -

Tavenas, F.A., Load tests results on friction piles in sand, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 8, pp 7-22, (1971).

Terzaghi, K., Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade reaction. Geotechnique, vol.5, pp

297-326. (1955).

Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B., Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. (Second

edition). Wiley, New york, pp729, (1967).

Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., and Mesri, G., Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice.
(Third edition). John Wiley and Sons, New york, pp549, (1996).

Tomlinson, M.J., Pile Design and Construction Practice. (Fourth edition). Spon,
pp411, (1994)

Tosini, L., Cividini, A. and Gioda, G., A numerical interpretation of load tests on
bored piles, Computers and Geotechnics, vol. 37, pp 425-430, (2010).

Vaughan, P.R. and Kwan, C.Y., Weathering structure and in situ stress in residual
soils. Geotechnique, vol.34, pp 43-59. (1984).

Vesic, A.S., Experiments with instrumented pile groups in sand. ASTM Special
Technical Publication No. 444, Performance of Deep Foundations, American Society

for Testing and Materials, pp 177-222. (1969).

Wang, Y.H., Behavior of Socketed Steel H-Piles. Civil Engineering Department. The
University of Hong Kong. Hong Kong (2006).

Won, J., Ahn, S.Y., Jeong, S., Lee, J. and Jang, S.Y., Nonlinear three-dimensional
analysis of pile group supported columns considering pile cap flexibility, Computers
and Geotechnics, vol. 33, pp 355-370, (2006).

Wyllie, D.C., Foundations on Rock, E and FN Spon, (1999).

- 139 -

Yang J., Tham, L.G., Lee, P.K.K., Chan, S.T., and Yu, F., Behavior of jacked and
driven piles in sandy soil. Geotechnique, vol.56, No. 4, pp 245-259. (2006).

Yu, F., Behavior of Larger Capacity Jacked Piles. Civil Engineering Department. The
University of Hong Kong. Hong Kong (2004).

Zhang, L.M., Shek, Lawrence, M. P., Hon W.P.; Chan, F.P., Knowledge-based design
and construction of driven piles. Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 159 No. 3, p177-185.
(2006).

- 140 -