Case Study of Church ST Pile Design Legal Case

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another
Page 1 of 87

[2008] SGDC 136
Suit No:
Decision Date:
Court:
Coram:
Counsel:
BCA 500011/2005, 500012/2005, 500013/2005, MA 1/2007, 2/2007

03 Jun 2008
District Court
Tan Puay Boon
Paul Chia and Crystal Ong, DPPs (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the prosecution,
Raymond Chan and Melvin Chan (TSMP) for the1st accused, Alvin Yeo SC and Chan
Hock Keng, with Jenny Tsin and Wong Baochen (Wong Partnership) for the 2nd accused
Judgment
3 June 2008
District Judge Tan Puay Boon:
Background
1
In the Central Business District of Singapore, at the corner of Telok Ayer Street and Church
Street, stands a 30-storey office building (the building). The building is now called the Samsung
Hub and its address is 3 Church Street. The builder of this project was Samsung Corporation
(Samsung), the second accused in this case. The project was a design and build contract, and
Samsung engaged Maunsell Consultants (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Maunsell) as its civil and structural
consultants. Peter Lee Chung Shek (Lee), the managing director of Maunsell, was appointed as the
qualified person (QP) for the project. He provided the structural design the building, and had the
statutory duty of supervising its construction. He is the first accused in this case.
2
Construction work began in 2000, with piling works taking place between August and
October of that year. At that time, the building was designed to be supported by 73 reinforced
concrete bored piles. Sometime in 2002, during the course of construction, it was discovered that the
30-storey building had experienced excessive settlement. The Building Control Authority (BCA)
was notified of this by Lee on 21 August 2002. Investigations were conducted and rectification works
were carried out.
3
In 2005, Lee and Samsung were charged for offences under the Building Control Act (Cap 29)
(the Act). Lee faced two charges: first, for permitting the piling works to be carried out by Samsung
which deviated in a material way from the piling plan approved by the BCA; and secondly, for falsely
certifying to the BCA after the completion of the piling works that these were carried out in
accordance with the approved depths set out in the approved piling plan and calculations. Samsung
faced a single charge of carrying out the piling works which deviated in a material way from the
piling plan approved by the BCA. The alleged deviation was that 66 out of the 73 bored piles had
failed to penetrate at least 5 m into the hard stratum as required in the approved piling plan. They both
claimed trial to the charges.
The Charges
4
Lee, the 1st Accused, claimed trial to the following charge in BCA 500012 of 2005
you, whilst appointed as the Qualified Person for structural works directly concerned with
the overall supervision of the piling works for the Proposed 30-Storey Office Building on Lots
568X, 569L, 598N and 99566 of TS 1 at No 3 Church Street, Singapore under Building Plan
No A0236-029-1999 ST01, did permit the piling works carried out by the Builder, Samsung
http://lwb.lawnet.com.sg/legal/lgl/rss/subcourts/57295.html
05/08/2008
Page 2 of 87
Corporation, from 18 August 2000 to 12 October 2000 to deviate in a material way from the
piling plan approved by the Commissioner of Building Control on 17 August 2000, in that, you
had permitted the penetration depth of 66 out of the 73 concrete bored piles installed at the site
to fall short of the penetration depth specified in the approved piling plan wherein the said piles
were required to be socketed at least 5.0 m into the hard stratum, and you have thereby
committed an offence punishable under section 19(2) of the Building Control Act (Cap 29
1999 Revised Edition).
[Exh P1A]
and the following charge in BCA 500013 of 2005
you, whilst appointed as the Qualified Person for structural works directly concerned with
the overall supervision of the piling works for the Proposed 30-Storey Office Building on Lots
568X, 569L, 598N and 99566 of TS 1 at No 3 Church Street, Singapore under Building Plan
No A0236-029-1999 ST01, had falsely certified on Form BEV/C1 dated 16 February 2001,
Certificate of Supervision of Piling Works and Notice of Completion By the Qualified Person
For Structural Works as required under Regulation 23(1)(c) of the Building Control
Regulations (Cap 25, Rg 5), that all piling works as carried out under your supervision had been
completed in accordance with the approved depths as set out in the approved piling
plans/calculations under Building Plan No: A0236-029-1999 ST01, and you have thereby
committed an offence punishable under section 19(3)(a) of the Building Control Act (Cap 29
1999 Revised Edition).
[Exh P1B]
5
Samsung, the 2nd Accused, claimed trial to the following charge in BCA 500011of 2005
you, whilst appointed as the builder directly concerned with the carrying out of the piling
works from 18 August 2000 to 12 October 2000 for the Proposed 30-Storey Office Building
on Lots 568X, 569L, 598N and 99566 of TS 1 at No 3 Church Street, Singapore under
Building Plan No A0236-029-1999 ST01, did deviate in a material way from the piling plan
approved by the Commissioner of Building Control on 17 August 2000, in that, 66 out of the 73
concrete bored piles installed by you at the site had failed to penetrate at least 5.0 m into the
hard stratum as specified in the said approved building plan, and you had thereby committed an
offence punishable under section 19(2) of the Building Control Act (Cap 29 1999 Revised
Edition).
[Exh P1C]
The Agreement between the Parties

6
It was agreed between the prosecution and the two accused that they would not touch on the
cause of the settlement of the building. This was because the issue had no bearing on the charges
before the court. Although at times evidence led did stray in to the area of the settlement of the
building, and the agreement sometimes appeared to be breaking down, all the parties eventually
managed to abide by the agreement. There was no submission at the end of the trial on the issue of the
cause of settlement of the building, and no reference to portions of some of the expert reports which
touched on the issue. These reports were prepared before parties were able to narrow down on the
issues for the trial, and for matters other than the subject of this trial as well.
The Companies
7
A number of companies had various roles in this case. A quick introduction to them is set out
below.
05/08/2008
Page 3 of 87
a
DBS Properties Services Pte Ltd (now known as Capitaland Commercial Ltd): The
developer of the project.
b
HCE Engineers Partnership : The firm in which Ong Chin Lock, the accredited checker
(AC), was the principal. The firm had instructed that the soil investigations of the original
five boreholes by SIPL be carried out.
c
Soil Investigations Pte Ltd (SIPL): The company appointed to conduct the original
soil investigation of the project site, where the results were used by the designer for the pile
foundation design. Five boreholes were carried out, one in October 1998 and the remaining four
in October 1999.
d
Samsung Corporation (Samsung): The Design and Build Main Contractors (builder)
who had to construct the project according to the drawings provided by the architect and the
structural designer.
e
Maunsell Consultants (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Maunsell): The company appointed as the
Civil and Structural Consultants of Samsung for the project
f
Rotary Piling Pte Ltd (Rotary): The sub-contractor of Samsung for the piling works,
which constructed the bored piles. They were also the piling sub-contractors for the
neighbouring China Square Project in 1996.
g
Pilescan Geotechnical Services (Pilescan): The company conducted the Pile Dynamic
Analyser (PDA) tests on selected piles of the project and furnished reports on the results of
the tests.
h
KTP Consultants Pte Ltd (KTP Consultants): The company in which Song Wee Ngee
was managing director. It was first engaged by the BCA in March 2003 to provide assistance in
the problem of settlement faced by the completed building at 3 Church Street.
i
SETSCO Services Pte Ltd (SETSCO): The company which conducted the load tests
on various rock samples retrieved from the project site during the piling works.
The People
8
The 14 witnesses who gave evidence at the trial can be divided into 6 groups. A quick
introduction to them is set out below.
a
Officer of the Building Control Authority
(1)
Shee Siu Ming [PW1] (Shee): A senior engineer with the BCA, he was the
investigating officer of this case. He filed summonses under the Act against both the accused.
He also gave evidence on where the accused were allegedly in breach of the Act.
b
Site staff during construction of the project
(2)
Chen Soon Fatt [PW2] (Chen): The Resident Engineer (RE) for the project who
was appointed by Lee Chun Shek, but employed by Samsung. He was the only site supervisor
appointed for the project [Exh P16, pp 2-3]. Amongst other statutory duties he had under the
Act, he was responsible for the supervision of the piling works. He pleaded guilty to a charge
under s 10(5)(2) of the Act for failing to take all reasonable steps and exercising due diligence
in giving full time supervision to the carrying out of the piling works, and was fined $10,000
under s 10(6) of the Act [Exh P50].
(3)
Low Pu Tong [PW3] (Low): The Clerk of Works (CoW) who was appointed by
05/08/2008
Page 4 of 87
the qualified person for architectural works (QP(AW)), Wong Hong Yan on behalf of the
developer vide a letter of appointment [Exh P51]. His main role was to keep an eye, on the
behalf of the developer, on the quality of the work done on site. He was to witness all work
done by Samsung, and he reported to a representative of the developer almost daily. He was
also instructed by the QP(AW) to supervise both the architectural and structural works.
c
The accredited checker of the structural design
(4)
Ong Chin Lock [PW6] (Ong): The principal of HCE Engineers Partnership, he was
the accredited checker (AC) of the design of Lee. He conducted an independent design check
on the design calculations of Lee before it was submitted to the BCA.
d
The employees of Maunsell Consultants (Singapore) Pte Ltd
(5)
Peter Lee Chun Shek [DW1] (Lee): The managing director of Maunsell, he was the
qualified person (QP) appointed for the project and the first accused in the case.
(6)
Mak Wai Choong [DW3] (Mak): Maunsells Project Engineer of the project, who
was originally on the prosecutions list of witnesses. When the prosecution offered him to the
defence at the close of the prosecutions case, he was called to give evidence on behalf of Lee.
e
The representative of Samsung Corporation
(7)
Wong Seng Poh [EW1] (Wong): Samsungs Deputy Project Manager of the project.
His duties required him to handle correspondence between Maunsell, the developer and the
authorities. Together with other Samsungs staff, he also attended weekly site inspections with
Maunsells representatives, the Resident Engineer and the CoW. In addition, he attended
Samsungs weekly internal staff meetings on the schedules, progress of the work and problems
encountered.
f
The expert witnesses
(8)
Song Wee Ngee [PW4] (Song): A senior member of the civil engineering profession
in Singapore and the managing director of KTP Consultants Pte Ltd, he was first involved in
March 2003 in providing assistance to BCA on the settlement problem faced by the building.
He was the expert witness called by the BCA to provide an independent opinion of the first
charge against Lee.
(9)
Associate Professor Harry Tan [PW5] (A/Prof Tan): A faculty member of the Civil
Engineering Department of the National University of Singapore, he was the other expert
witness called by the BCA. He was first approached by KTP Consultants Pte Ltd in May 2003
to be the geotechnical expert on the matter. He also gave evidence on the static load test and
PDA tests conducted on the piles.
(10)
Professor Harry Poulos [DW2] (Prof Poulos): A Professor Emeritus of the University
of Sydney who has written textbooks used around the world, he has international consulting
experience on major engineering projects. He has also been a Rankine Lecturer, Institution of
Civil Engineers, London 1989 and Terzaghi Lecturer, American Society of Civil Engineers,
2004. He was called by Lee and gave evidence on, inter alia, whether the changes in the
penetration depths of the piles, which did not penetrate at least 5 m into hard stratum, were
immaterial changes, and whether Lee had made a false declaration when he submitted the asbuilt piling plans to BCA.
(11)
James Nicholas Shirlaw [DW6] (Shirlaw): A Chartered Engineer of the United
Kingdom, he is very familiar with the soil conditions in Singapore, having been involved with
the Mass Rapid Transit System since 1985, and various other road construction projects,
05/08/2008
Page 5 of 87
including the underground Kallang/Paya Lebar Expressway. He was called by Lee to give
evidence on, inter alia, the geological conditions of the site, and whether it was reasonable for a
QP to rely on the piling records provided by the contractor, rock samples collected during
piling, and also to assess the number of piles that achieved a penetration of 5 m into the hard
stratum, and whether the failure to do so affected any key structural element, requiring a redesign.
(12)
Dr Leonard John Endicott [DW7] (Dr Endicott): The chairman of Maunsell
Geotechnical Services Ltd in Hong Kong where he is also an Adjunct Professor at the Hong
Kong University of Science and Technology, he has specialised in geotechnical engineering for
38 years. He was first involved in the building in 2002 when the building encountered
unexpected settlement and tilt. He reviewed its design and construction records, and the
proposals to enhance the piling. He was called by Lee to give evidence on the two charges
which the latter faced.
(13)
Dr Kog Yue Choong [DW4] (Dr Kog): A senior member of the civil engineering
profession in Singapore, who is also an Adjunct Professor of the Faculty of Engineering,
National University of Singapore, he was called as an expert witness by Lee to give evidence on
the two charges against Lee, on what a reasonable Professional Engineer (PE) would have
done at that particular time and under similar circumstances.
(14)
Tham Poh Kuan [DW5] (Tham): Another senior member of the civil engineering
profession in Singapore, he was also called by Lee to give evidence on the two charges against
Lee, on what a reasonable PE would have done at that particular time and under similar
circumstances.
The Facts
9
Many of the facts in this case were not in dispute. I shall set them out here before proceeding
to deal with their interpretation, and the rest of the matters in this case.
The Agreed Statement of Facts
10
An Agreed Statement of Facts [Exh A] was tendered by the Prosecution and counsel for both
accused at the commencement of trial. It covers the events leading up to the investigation of the two
accused. I have reproduced the contents in full.
INTRODUCTION
1.
The complainant is Shee Siu Ming, a senior engineer of the Building Engineering
Division of the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), Ministry of National
Development at 5 Maxwell Road, Singapore [Complaint Exh P2].
2.
On 21 Aug 2002, B1 [Lee Chung Shek] notified BCA that B2 [Samsung Corporation]
had observed that the 30 storey office building at Telok Ayer Street, which was being
constructed by B2, had experienced settlement since the completion of the structural works of
the said building [Notification Exh P3A].
3.
Together with the notification, B1, with the assistance of his geotechnical specialist, Dr
Leonard John Endicott had submitted a preliminary report on the building settlement for the
said building [Report Exh P3B]. Dr Leonard John Endicott had recommended that remedial
measures should be considered such as installing additional mini piles into the ground to
support the building, to reduce the settlement and prevent any further settlement of the building
in the future.
BACKGROUND FACTS
05/08/2008
Page 6 of 87
4.
This case concerns the erection of a 30 storey office building on lots 568X, 569L, 598N,
99566C, TS01 at Telok Ayer Street. The relevant parties involved in the project development
are:(i)
Lee Chung Shek [B1] the Qualified Person for Structural Works who has
responsibilities in relation to the design and supervision of structural works of the said
building.
(ii)
Samsung Corporation [B2] the Builder who is to construct the said building in
accordance with the drawings supplied to him by B1 and the architect, Wong Hong Yan.
(iii)
Chen Soon Fatt the Resident Engineer.
(iv)
Ong Chin Lock the Accredited Checker who is to perform an independent
check on the design of structural works of the said building with a view to determining
that the design is structurally adequate.
(v)
Wong Hong Yan the Qualified Person for Architectural Works, who is
responsible for the design and supervision of architectural works of the said building.
(vi)
5.
DBS Properties Services Pte Ltd the Developer of the project development.
There are two accused parties to the present proceedings. Their particulars are:(i)
Lee Chung Shek [B1], Nric No. S2552085H of Maunsell Consultants (Singapore)
Pte Ltd at 300 Beach Road #03-00, The Concourse, Singapore 199555. [Charges Exh
P1A and P1B]
(ii)
Samsung Corporation [B2], a company incorporated in Singapore with its
registered office at #21-01 of the building in question (referred to as 3 Church Street
Singapore 049483). [Charge Exh P1C]
6.
On 8 Aug 2000, the Building Engineering Division of the BCA received an application
from B1 seeking approval for the piling plans and calculations in respect of the proposed 30
storey office building at lots 568X, 569L, 598N, 9956C TS 01 at Telok Ayer Street.
[Application Exh P4]
7.
In support of his application, the following documents were forwarded to the Building
Engineering Division of the BCA by B1:(i)
One set of piling plans, reference no. A0236-029-1999 ST01, endorsed by B1.
[Exh P5].
(ii)
One set of design calculations by B1 [Exh P6].
(iii)
One set of design calculations by Accredited Checker, Ong Chin Lock [Exh P7].
(iv)
2 Volumes of soil investigation report carried out by Soil Investigation Pte Ltd
[Exh P8].
(v)
One copy of Form BEV/A1 [Exh P9].
(vi)
One copy of Form BEV/A2 [Exh P10].
(vii)
One set of architectural plans endorsed by Wong Hong Yan [Exh P11].
05/08/2008
(viii)
(ix)
Page 7 of 87
One copy of Grant of Written Permission dated 7 July 2000 [Exh P12].
One copy of Form BPD03_Appendix 1 [Exh P13].
8.
The set of structural plans [Exh P5], which were endorsed by B1 and Accredited
Checker, Ong Chin Lock, stated that minimum anchorage length of 5000mm into hard stratum
shall be achieved in all 73 reinforced concrete bored piles and is subject to verification of
working load tests. [Exh P5] also stipulated that hard stratum level shall be SPT 100.
9.
The set of design calculations [Exh P6] endorsed by B1 and Accredited Checker, Ong
Chin Lock, showed that Limiting Skin Friction QS = 400 kN/m2 and Limiting End Bearing Qb=
12000 kN/m2 were used in calculating the carrying capacity of the reinforced concrete bored
piles providing the support and structural stability to the building.
10.
Soil investigation was carried out at borehole, BH-1, in Oct 1998 and at another four
boreholes, namely BH-A, BH-B, BH-C & BH-D, in Oct 1999. The 2 volumes of soil
investigation reports were endorsed by a professional engineer, Ting Sa Tee of Soil
Investigation Pte Ltd [Exh P8].
11.
The Form BEV/A1 [Exh P9] confirmed that B1 is appointed as Qualified Person for
structural works under section 6(3) of the Building Control Act and Ong Chin Lock is
appointed as the Accredited Checker under section 16A(1) of the Building Control Act.
12.
In Form BEV/A2 [Exh P10], Accredited Checker, Ong Chin Lock certifies that he has
carried out an evaluation, analysis and review of the set of piling plans [Exh P5] and design
calculation [Exh P6], and to the best of his knowledge and belief, the set of piling plans and
design calculation do not show any inadequacy in the key structural elements of the building to
be erected or affected by the building works carried out in accordance with those plans.
13.
The plans of piling works, reference no. A0236-029-1999 ST01, were approved on 17
Aug 2000 [Exh P14] by the Commissioner of Building Control.
14.
In the approved sets of piling works [Exh P14], it was stated that Min. anchorage
length of 5000mm into hard stratum (SPT 100) shall be achieved in all piles and is subject to
verification of working load tests.
15.
In [Exh P14], it was also stated that The load test shall be carried out by loading with
Kentledge or other approved system to the required test load. The max. allowable settlement at
the max. test load is 20mm.
16.
In [Exh P6], B1 used a Limited Skin Friction Qs=400 kN/m2 and Limiting End Bearing
Qb=12000 kN/m2, in calculating the carrying capacity of the reinforced concrete bored pile.
17.
A Notice of Approval for the piling plans, dated 17 Aug 2000 [Exh P15], was sent to
DBS Properties Services Pte Ltd and copied to B1 and the Accredited Checker, Ong Chin Lock.
18.
On 16 Aug 2000, the Building Engineering Division of the BCA received an
application for a permit to commence piling works from B1 [Exh P16]. In the application, B1,
B2 and Chen Soon Fatt were named as Qualified Person for structural works, Builder and
Resident Engineer respectively for the proposed 30 storey office building at lots 568X, 569L,
598N, 9956C TS 01 at Telok Ayer Street.
19.
The Permit to carry out building works was issued to B1, B2, Qualified Person for
Architectural Works and DBS Property Services Pte Ltd, on 18 Aug 2000 [Exh P17] to carry
05/08/2008
Page 8 of 87
out piling works in accordance with the approved set of piling plans [Exh P14].
20.
The test pile TP1 was installed on 5 Aug 2000. The piling works were completed on 12
Oct 2000. On 20 Feb 2001, B1 submitted the following document to the Building Engineering
Division of the BCA:(i)
Form BEV/C1 [Exh P18].
(ii)
As-built ECC & Pile Penetration Layout, drawing number 0101 Rev 3, showing
the pile penetration length, pile eccentricities, location and type of pile load tests [Exh
P19].
21.
In [Exh P18], B1 certified that all piling works as carried out under my supervision
have been completed on 12 Oct 2000 in accordance with the approved set of piling
plans/calculations, together with the conditions under which they were approved and all the
relevant provisions stipulated under the Building Control Act.
22.
In [Exh P19], it stated that Min. anchorage length of 5000mm into hard stratum (SPT
100) shall be achieved in all piles and is subject to verification of working load tests.
IMMEDIATE RECTIFICATION WORKS CARRIED OUT TO ARREST
SETTLEMENT AND ENHANCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE SAID BUILDING
23.
On 21 Aug 2002, B1 notified BCA that B2 had observed the 30 storey office building at
Telok Ayer Street had experienced settlement since the completion of the structural works of
the said building [Exh P2]
24.
B1 and B2 then took immediate remedial measures to enhance the reinforced concrete
bored piles foundation to arrest the settlement of the said building.
25.
On 28 Aug 2002, B1 submitted an interim proposal, Foundation Enhancement Design
(Stage 1) (ST18), to arrest settlement of the building and enhance the constructed reinforced
concrete bored piles foundation by installing additional 28 nos of pre-bored H-pile [Exh P20].
26.
The proposal to install an additional 28 nos of pre-bored H-piles was approved by the
Commissioner of Building Control on 11 Sept 2002 [Exh P21] and the installation works started
on 26 Sept 2002.
27.
Before installing the additional 28 nos of pre-bored H-piles on 26 Sept 2002, the
recorded maximum and minimum settlement of the said building as reported by B2 were
164mm and 70mm respectively [Exh P22].
28.
During the course of the foundation enhancement works, the following experts/
consultants/ advisors were engaged:(i)
B1 was assisted by his geotechnical specialist, Dr Leonard John Endicott to
implement the foundation enhancement works of the building.
(ii)
B2 engaged T Y Lin International Pte Ltd and Prof Bengt B Broms and GeoEng
Consultants Pte Ltd to assess the adequacy of the pre-bored H-piles installed into the
ground to arrest the settlement.
(iii)
The developer, DBS Properties Services Pte Ltd engaged RSP Architects
Planners & Engineers (Pte) Ltd and Ove Arup & Partners Ltd to present a second opinion
with respect to the foundation enhancement works to arrest the settlement.
29.
In addition to the 28 nos of pre-bored H-piles [Exh P20], pre-bored H-piles and press-in
05/08/2008
Page 9 of 87
H-piles were installed into the ground.

30.
On 4 June 2004, B1 re-submitted the proposal on the overall foundation enhancement
design (ST 27) to BCA for approval [Exh P23].
31.
In support of the application, the following documents were submitted to BCA on 4 Jun
2004 or on subsequent dates:
(i)
Submission Drawing titled Piling: Foundation Enhancement Pre-Bored H-Pile
layout (Drawing No. 0105 Rev 18) [Exh P24].
(ii)
B1 submitted his overall foundation enhancement design (2 volumes) [Exh P25].
(iii)
Accredited Checker, Ong Chin Lock submitted his evaluation report on the
enhanced pile foundation [Exh P26].
(iv)
Through B1, Dr Leonard John Endicott submitted a report titled Review of the
foundation enhancement design [Exh P27].
(v)
RSP Architects Planners & Engineers (Pte) Ltd and Ove Arup & Partners,
submitted a report [3 volumes] [Exh P28].
(vii)
T Y Lin International Pte Ltd, who was engaged by B2 , submitted a
supplementary report [2 volumes] to provide a second opinion on underpinning works for
the development to B2 [Exh P29].
(viii)
B2 submitted a report by Prof Bengt B Broms to evaluate the proposed
foundation enhancement scheme [Exh P30].
32.
Thereafter plans were submitted to install the 24 additional press-in H-piles (a total of
82 pre-bored H-piles and 80 press-in H-piles) which were endorsed by B1 and Ong Chin Lock,
and approved (subject to conditions) by the Commissioner of Building Control on 17 Sept 2004
[Exh P31].
33.
The Notice of Approval dated 17 Sept 2004 [Exh P32] was sent to Capitaland
Commercial Ltd (formally known a DBS Properties Services Pte Ltd) and copied to B1 and
Ong Chin Lock.
34.
B2 carried out simulation test piles on SP1 and SP2b on 19 Nov 2004 and 19 Dec 2004
respectively, and B1 submitted pile load test reports on the simulation test piles SP1 and SP2b
on 16 Feb 2005 and 15 Mar 2005 respectively [Exh P33].
35.
Accredited Checker, Ong Chin Lock submitted a report on his assessment of the pile
load tests on simulation piles, SP1 and SP2b [Exh P34].
36.
RSP Architects Planners & Engineers (Pte) Ltd submitted a report on their assessment
of the pile load tests on simulation piles, SP1 and SP2b on 30 Mar 2005 [Exh P35].
37.
GeoEng Consultants Pte Ltd submitted a report on their assessment of the pile load tests
on simulation piles, SP1 and SP2b on 28 Apr 2005 [Exh P36].
INVESTIGATIONS BY BCA INTO THE CAUSE OF SETTLEMENT IN THE
BUILDING
38.
When B1 notified BCA that the said 30 storey building had experienced settlement on
21 Aug 2002, the focus was to rectify the building immediately to arrest the settlement.
05/08/2008
39.
Page 10 of 87
In the investigation, BCA obtained the following documents from B1 and B2:(i)
Bored Piling Records certified by RE, COW and Builders representative and
photographs of the rock samples retrieved from the bored holes by B2 [Exh P37].
(ii)
Report on Working Load Test Pile No. P44 [Exh P38]
(iii)
Report on Dynamic Pile Testing on piles, P10, P44, P16, P68, P22, P13, P53, P58
and P62 [Exh P39] by Pilescan Geotechnical Services Executive Geotechnical Engineer
Mitchell P. Yukon and Senior PDA Engineer Kyaw Yin. The Reports were also certified
by Professional Engineer Mok Yew Meng (Report on P10, P44 and Report on P13, P58,
P53 and P62) and Professional Engineer AJ Natrass (Report on P16, P68 & P22)
respectively.
(iv)
Correspondence to and from Maunsell, including a memo from B1s
representative, Mak Wai Choong to B2 that ultimate point bearing of the sandstone be
limited to 12 MPa (ie. 12,000 kN/m2) [Exh P40].
40.
BCA investigation revealed that a working load test on the test pile TP1 (later
designated as working pile P44), was conducted between 14 Aug 2000 and 21 Aug 2000
[Working Load Test Report Exh P38].
41.
BCA compiled a list of the constructed reinforced concrete bored piles based on the
bored piling records [Exh P37].
42.
Through Mak Wai Choong, B1 was informed that certain reinforced concrete bored
piles were not constructed with 5000mm anchorage length into the hard stratum with SPT
100, because rock was encountered at the founding level of the piles.
43.
BCA investigations revealed that Pilescan Geotechnical Services was engaged by
Rotary, who was the sub-contractor of B2, to carry out 9 PDA tests on reinforced concrete
bored piles, P16, P68, P22, P53, P58, P10, P44, P13 and P62 [Exh P39].
44.
In [Exh P39], it showed that PDA tests on P10 and P44 were performed on 26 Sept
2000 and 28 Sept 2000 respectively. PDA tests on P16, P68 and P22 were performed on 12 Oct
2000 while P13, P58 and P53, on 19 Oct 2000 and P62, on 25 Oct 2000.
Geological conditions of the site
11
Lee had interpreted the information from the original 5 boreholes to mean that the site was
underlain by the Jurong formation. After the completion of another soil investigation involving an
additional 34 boreholes, it became clear that two thirds of the site was underlain by Fort Canning
boulder bed with the remaining third underlain by the Jurong formation.
12
At the material time, para 1.2.2.3 (Characteristics of Various Types of Ground and Allowable
Bearing Pressures) of the relevant Code of Practice for Foundations CP4: 1976 [Exh D3] had not
defined these formations, which were only defined subsequently in para 2.2.1 (Engineering
classification of soils and rocks) of CP4: 2003 [Exh D19].
Soil formations
Jurong Formation
13
This is a soil formation which consists of interbedded layers of soil and hard sandstone.
(Interbedded literally means between two layers, eg, a lava flow may occur interbedded between
two layers of sediments, a limestone may be interbedded between two layers of shale [Exh D39, slide
05/08/2008
Page 11 of 87
12].) The rock layer may have undergone further transformation. Para 2.2.1.2.2 of CP4: 2003 Code
of Practice for Foundations states
The Jurong Formation includes a variety of sedimentary rocks that have been subjected to a
variable degree of metamorphism. Rocks present in Jurong Formation range from moderately
strong or stronger rocks, such as cemented sandstone, cemented siltstone conglomerate and
occasionally quartizite, to moderately weak or weaker rock such as shale and mudrock.
Rocks of the Jurong Formation exhibit a wide rage of strengths in the fresh state, and have
weathered in different ways
[Exh D19, p 27]
Fort Canning Boulder Bed (Bouldery Clay)
14
A bouldery clay bed is essentially sandstone boulders randomly distributed in a clay matrix
[N/E p 533]. Para 2.2.1.3.2 of CP4: 2003 Code of Practice for Foundations states
The boulder clay underlying much of the Central Business District in Singapore has
traditionally been included as part of the Jurong Formation. It is now generally agreed that this
deposit is of colluvial origin and the boulders are part of in-situ Jurong Formation rock. The
material is important enough to be given a separate Formation name, and it was recommended
recently (2001) by a working group led by Land Transport Authority that Fort Canning
Boulder Bed is an appropriate term
[it] consists of a mixture of clay, silt and sand and usually 5% to 35% of boulders
[Exh D19, p 32]
Soil Investigations
15
Two sets of soil investigations were done for the project. The first comprised 5 boreholes done
before design commenced [see para 10 of the Agreed Statement of Facts at para 10 above]. The two
reports from SIPL [Exh P8] contained the only soil information available to Lee at the time when the
piling plans and design calculations were submitted to BCA for approval. The second set of
investigations comprised 34 boreholes and was done after the report of excessive settlement was
made to the BCA. The soil investigation report is at Exh P55.
Standard Penetration Test
16
This is a test done in-situ during soil investigations to establish the stiffness of the soil. A
standard-weight hammer is dropped on to a split spoon tube. The number of blows, N, needed to
drive the tube a distance of 30 cm into the soil is recorded. The larger the value of N, the stiffer is the
soil [Exh P53, TAB 5, p 46]. Sometimes, the soil may be so stiff that the N value is recorded in the
following manner, eg., 100/10 cm. It means that in this case the test was stopped after 100 hammer
blows when only a 10 cm penetration was achieved. The N value is equivalent to 300/30 cm.
17
Two soil parameters used in pile design may be obtained from the N value. These are the unit
skin friction and the unit end bearing. Para 7.5.3(b) (Calculation from soil tests In situ tests) of CP4:
2003 Code of Practice for Foundations, published after the material events of this case, sets out the
conversion factors and the upper limits of the results for the values of these two soil parameters: [Exh
P53, TAB 5, p 176]. CP4: 1976, the governing code at the material time, did not provide for such
conversion factors, and pile designers depended on their experience, published literature and
knowledge of surrounding sites to choose the soil parameters for their design. The unit skin friction of
the soil, in kN/m2, is calculated as 2 x N value, and the unit end bearing, also in kN/m2, is 40 x N to
120 x N [Exh D38(1), p 16]. (In the present case, the unit end bearing used`was 54 x N, subject to a
05/08/2008
Page 12 of 87
limit of 12,000 kPa [Exh P67, Q/A 43].)

18
The standard penetration test is only carried out for soils and not rock. This is because it is
difficult, if not impossible, for the split spoon tube to penetrate into rock, no matter how many drops
of the hammer are made.
19
In the present case, soil with an N value equal or greater than 100 (SPT 100) was defined as
hard stratum in the Approved Piling Plan [Exh P14].
Rock Quality Designation
20
The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) is expressed as a percentage. It is the ratio of the
number of solid core pieces of rock longer than 100 mm to the length of a core run, ie., the total
length of the pieces of samples which are more than 100 mm in length divided by the core length. It is
a measure of the quality of rock in terms of fractures, and the lower the value of RQD, the more
fractures there are. For example, if RQD is 0%, it means that none of the rock samples collected is
more than 100 mm in length.
21
RQD is therefore a measure of the condition of the rock and not necessarily an indication of
the strength of the rock.
Piles
What piles are for
22
Many loads are imposed on a building, including that from the people, equipment, furnishings
and other contents within the building. These loads, together with the weight of the building itself,
will be transmitted to the ground beneath the building. With a modern high rise building, it is no
longer possible to just sit the building on the ground. This is because the ground immediately below
such a building is invariably not strong enough to support the total load from the building. Therefore,
piles are installed to transmit the load from the building to stronger layers of soil deeper below
ground.
The design process for piles
Determining the load which a pile carries
23
The designer first collates the total weight which will be carried by each column of a building.
This is the sum of the loads of all the floors of the building carried by each column. Under each
column, a pile or a group of piles would be installed. Where a group of piles is required, a pile cap is
constructed above the piles. Its function is to distribute the column load evenly to all the piles in the
group. In such a case, the piles in the group also have to carry the weight of the pile cap.
24
CP4: 1976, the relevant Code of Practice for Foundations at the material time, defined
working load as
The load which the pile is designed to carry (see also Allowable Load)
[Exh D3, p 106]
Allowable load was defined as
The load which may be safely applied to a pile after taking into account its ultimate bearing
capacity, negative friction, pile spacing, overall bearing capacity of the ground below the piles,
allowable settlement and the allowable structural strength of the piles.
[Exh D3, p 104]
05/08/2008
Page 13 of 87
Geotechnical capacity of a pile

25
When the load on a pile pushes it downwards, a frictional force develops between the outer
surface of the pile shaft and the surrounding soil which resists the downward force from the load.
This is called skin friction or shaft friction. At the same time, the soil on which the bottom of the pile
(or toe of the pile) sits also provides resistance against the downward force. This is the end bearing
component of the pile resistance. Together, the skin friction and end bearing from the soil provide the
load carrying capacity of a pile. This is the geotechnical capacity of the pile, ie., the capacity
provided by the soil to carry the load imposed on the pile. The amount of skin friction depends on the
surface area of the pile. All else being equal, the amount of skin friction is reduced if the length of the
pile is shortened. The amount of end bearing depends on the cross-sectional area of the pile: the larger
the cross-sectional area, the higher the end bearing.
26
In the design of piles, the skin friction relied on to support the load carried by the pile is that
provided by the entire length of pile. Because a pile passes through different layers of soil, the skin
friction provided by each layer varies according to the properties of that layer.
27
Generally, the stiffer the soil, the greater is the skin friction and, similarly, the greater is the
end bearing.
Structural capacity of a pile
28
A pile is also a structural member. So in a circular reinforced concrete pile, say, the
dimensions of the pile (essentially its diameter), the grade of the concrete, and the amount of the steel
reinforcement have to be such that the pile can safely carry the load imposed on it. This is the
structural capacity of the pile. If it is unable to, the pile would fail. In the case of a reinforced
concrete pile, it would fracture.
Approval process for pile design
29
At the end of the design process, piling plans are produced. Together with the design
calculations, the piling plans are submitted to the accredited checker (AC) for an independent
review of the structural design and a check of the calculations and detailing of the key structural
elements. The design is then submitted to BCA for approval.
30
At the material time, BCA relies on the AC to check a QPs design before approving it, and
BCA only did spot checks. In the present case, no check was conducted by BCA on the design of Lee
for the building at 3 Church Street.
The piling plans
31
In their evidence in court, the witnesses have referred to different exhibits when they gave
evidence touching on the piling plans. In fact, Exh P5 is the piling plans submitted to the BCA. Exh
P14 is the piling plan which has been approved by BCA. Other than the indorsement of BCA, its
contents are the same as that in Exh P5. The As-built Ecc[entricity] & Pile Penetration Layout,
which sets out the details of the as-constructed piles, is Exh P19.
The construction process for bored piles
32
The piles which are the subject matter of the present case are reinforced concrete bored piles.
They were constructed using the tremie method. The steps of the construction are described in the
Method Statement for Bored Pile Installation of Rotary [Exh P41, pp 87 97]. A schematic
representation of this process can be found in the sketches in Exh P44.
33
First, a cylindrical steel casing of 8 to 12 m length is pushed into the ground. An augur is
inserted within the casing and, as it turns, removes the soil materials from within the casing. The
05/08/2008
Page 14 of 87
casing prevents the surrounding soil from collapsing into the hole. When the augur reaches the base
of the casing, supermud slurry is then poured into the hole to stabilise the side of the hole as the augur
continues drilling downwards past the bottom end of the steel casing. When the augur reaches rock,
where the material is so hard that the augur is unable to remove it, the pile is advanced using either
alternate chiselling using drop hammer chisel and coring with rock augur or coring bucket. (In the
present case, although both options were provided in the Method Statement, only the coring bucket
was used.)
34
When the coring bucket cannot core downwards any further, the base of the bore hole is
cleaned out, and steel reinforcement is inserted into the hole. Concrete is then poured into the hole
and the cylindrical casing is removed, leaving behind a reinforced concrete bored pile after the
concrete sets.
Termination of piles
35
Only the RE or CoW has the authority to decide the level at which the coring ends and where
each pile terminates [N/E p 134]. After the base of the pile is cleaned, the RE or CoW will inspect the
base and sign inspection sheets [Exh D13] before Rotary can proceed with the concreting of the pile
[N/E p 307].
Load tests
36
After a pile is constructed, it may be subjected to load tests to verify if it is able to carry the
load it was designed for, ie., the correctness of the design, and the quality of its installation. Such tests
may be static load tests or dynamic load tests. In a building project, the number of piles tested is in
the order of 1 to 2% of the total number of piles.
37
In the project, a total of 9 piles were subject to dynamic load tests, including P44 (formerly
test pile TP 1) which had earlier been subject also to a static load test.
Static load test
38
The manner in which the static load test was conducted on pile P44 is set out in the Method
Statement for Working Load Test of Rotary [Exh P41, pp 133-151]. As shown in the sketch on page
141 of the Exh P41, a hydraulic jack is placed between the top of the pile and a beam which carries a
set of concrete blocks supported by a group of secondary beams. As the load is jacked against the
pile, readings are taken of the loads applied to the pile and the settlements encountered as a result of
the applied loads, as well as the times at which the loads are applied.
39
The results of the static load test are at Exh P41, pp172-194.
Pile Dynamic Analyser (PDA) Test

40
The manner in which the PDA test, a dynamic load test, was conducted on piles P10 and P44
and the results of the test are set out in the report of Pilescan [Exh P41, pp 219-242]. It comprised the
PDA field testing
Dynamic testing on the pile was conducted by striking the pile one or several blows during the
pile driving process. During the testing of the pile, complete dynamic pile measurements were
obtained for each hammer blow delivered to the pile.
..
The PDA measures the total (static plus dynamic) resistance acting on the pile. The portion of
total resistance which is computed as static resistance by the analyser (BMX) is determined by
the soil damping factor (Jc) set into the analyser. A more accurate independent measure of the
soil damping factor was determined using the CAPWAP analysis.
05/08/2008
Page 15 of 87
and a CAPWAP analysis

A selected PDA field recording of force and velocity data for a blow delivered to the pile was
further analysed using the CAPWAP (Case University Pile Wave Equation Analysis Program)
suite of computer software. The analysis involved supplying the measured pile top velocity time
record to the top of the lumped-mass and spring wave equation model of the pile.
The program computes the pile top force-time record and this is then compared to the actual
measured force-time record. The pile and soil resistance model is then adjusted in an iterative
procedure until a good match is obtained between the measured and computed forces.
The pile and soil models can then be used to determine the distribution of resistance along the
length of the pile and an estimated static pile load-settlement curve.
The weight of the drop hammer used was 8.5 tonnes, and the hammer drop height was 5500 mm [Exh
P44, p 221].
41
For the PDA tests conducted on the other 7 piles, the same drop hammer weight of 8.5 tonnes
was used, but the hammer drop height was 5000 mm for piles P16, P68 and P22 [Exh P44, p 405] and
5500 mm for piles P13, P58, P53 and P62 [Exh P44, p 436].
Piling Records
42
Two sets of formal piling records were kept of the 73 reinforced concrete bored piles which
are the subject matter of the present case.
Bored Pile Records
43
The Bored Pile Records were prepared by Rotary Piling Pte Ltd (Rotary). They recorded,
inter alia, the diameter of each pile, the date and time when the drilling of the borehole for the pile
took place, the depths and thicknesses of the various layers of soils encountered during the drilling of
the borehole for each pile, the descriptions of those soil layers, whether the borehole was wet or dry,
the bore length, and the pay length of the pile. They bore the signatures of the RE, the CoW, and the
representative from Rotary.
Bored Piling Works Results
44
The Bored Piling Works Results were kept by Samsung. They recorded, inter alia, the
existing ground level, the pile cut off level, the level where Hard Stratum Commence, and the level
at the bottom of the pile. They bore the signatures of the CoW, and Samsungs Site Engineer, Jacky
Park. In these records, the level where Hard Stratum Commenced was actually where rock was first
encountered during the drilling of the borehole.
45
Both these sets of records are compiled together in Exh P37, with the records for each pile
placed next to each other. Both sets of records show that hard sandstone was encountered at the base
of all 73 piles.
The formalities when piling is completed
46
After the completion of the piling works, the QP is required to submit the as-built plan and a
BEV/C1 certificate to BCA. This is in compliance with s 9(3)(e) of the Act and Reg 23(1)(c) of the
Building Control Regulations (BCR).
47
Section 9(3)(e) of the Act at the material time provides that

(3) Every qualified person appointed under section 6 (3) shall
05/08/2008
Page 16 of 87
(e) submit to the Commissioner of Building Control at the prescribed times such reports and
certificates as may be prescribed in the building regulations;
.
and Reg 23(1)(c) of the BCR provides that
Submission of progress reports and certificates
23. (1) For the purposes of section 9 (3) (e) of the Act, the qualified person appointed under
section 6 (3) of the Act in respect of any building works shall prepare and submit the following
reports and certificates relating to the building works at the following times or stages of the
building works, where applicable:
(c) a notice of completion of all piling works carried out, a record plan showing full
details of the piling works and a certificate of supervision of those piling works within 28
days of completion of those piling works;
48
At the material time, Reg 18 of the BCR also provides that

Departure and deviation from approved plans
18. (1) Subject to paragraph (2), where it is desired that any building works depart or deviate
from any approved plan of the building works, application shall be made to the Commissioner
of Building Control under section 6 (7) of the Act and shall, without prejudice to that section,
be accompanied by the amended plan of the building works showing clearly by demarcation,
delineation or otherwise the departures or deviations.
(2) Where any departure or deviation from any approved plan of building works does not
require any changes to be made to the detailed structural plans and design calculations of the
building works, or requires immaterial changes to be made thereto, the qualified person
appointed in respect of the building works shall
(a) summarise in his quarterly progress reports referred to in regulation 23 all the
departures and deviations from the approved plans of building works;
(b) keep and maintain on the premises where the building works are carried out a record
of all the departures or deviations relating to the structural elements of the building
works; and
(c) on the completion of the building works, deliver to the Commissioner of Building
Control as-built detailed structural plans and design calculations showing the building as
it has been completed in accordance with paragraph (1), his certificate stating that to the
best of his knowledge and belief the departures or deviations do not affect the structural
adequacy and stability of the building and a certificate from an accredited checker
referred to in section 6 (8) of the Act.
(3) Where several amendments have been made to the original approved plans of any building
works, the Commissioner of Building Control may require as-built plans to be delivered to him
showing the building as it has been completed, except that if in his opinion the amendments
05/08/2008
Page 17 of 87
only affect certain floors of the building, he may require as-built plans showing only those
floors as they have been completed.
Although material deviation is not defined in the BCR, regulation 2 of the Building Control
Regulations 2000 ("BCR") states that
"material changes" in relation to any plan of building works, means an amendment that affects
the key structural elements of the structure to such an extent as to require a re-design of the key
structural system
"immaterial changes", in relation to building works, means any changes that
(a) do not affect any key structural elements; or
(b) affect the key structural elements but the effects are localised in nature and do not require a
re-design of the key structural system
49
Form BEV/C1 [Exh P18] submitted by Lee contained the following statement
I hereby certify that all piling works as carried out under my supervision have been completed
on 12 Oct 2000 (date) in accordance with the approved set of piling plans/calculations, together
with the conditions under which they were approved and all the relevant provisions stipulated
under the Building Control Act. I attach a record plan showing full details of the piling works.
The record plan [Exh P19] referred to in this certification sets out against each pile the pile number,
the completion date, and penetration and the pile eccentricity, with the estimated pile penetration
(from the Approved Piling Plan [Exh P14]) also shown. Further, the plan contained the following
certifications from Lee and Ong, respectively
I Lee Chung Shek (Professional Engineer) hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge and
belief, the departures and deviations shown in the as-built plan do not affect the structural
adequacy and the stability of the building.
and
I Ong Chin Lock (Accredited Checker) hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge and
belief, the departures and deviations shown in the as-built plan do not affect the structural
adequacy and the stability of the building.
50
Earlier, on 17 October 2000, the BCA issued a letter entitled Guidelines on submission of asbuilt plans to the Association of Consulting Engineers, Singapore [Exh D8]. It states, inter alia, that
4.
As for the submission of as-built structural plans required under regulation 23(1)(d), we
like to highlight that only immaterial changes (minor amendment) as defined in regulation 18(2)
can be incorporated in the as-built plans. Immaterial changes means an amendment that does
not affect any key structural element or affects the key structural elements but the effects are
localised in nature and do not require a re-design of the key structural system. For all other
departures or deviations from the approved plans, section 6(7) of the Building Control Act
requires amendment plans to be submitted for approval before commencement of those
structural works. QPs who are uncertain whether the amendments constitute major or minor
deviations should write to the Commissioner for clarification
Case for the Prosecution
The investigations by the Building Control Authority
05/08/2008
Page 18 of 87
51
The investigating officer, who was also the complainant in the summonses against both the
accused, was Shee Siu Ming [PW1] (Shee), a Senior Engineer with the BCA. He commenced
investigations when BCA was notified by Lee that the building was undergoing excessive settlement.
BCA had then also engaged KTP Consultants Pte Ltd and Associate Professor Harry Tan (A/Prof
Tan) to help to arrest the excessive settlement of the building.
52
In the prosecution of the accused, the BCA relied on the findings of Shee, and also the expert
reports prepared by KTP Consultants Pte Ltd and A/Prof Tan.
The evidence of Shee Siu Ming
53
After reviewing the approved piling calculations in the Piling Design [Exh P6] and the
approved piling plan [Exh P14] of Lee, Shee Siu Ming (Shee) came to the conclusion that 66 out of
the 73 reinforced concrete bored piles constructed by Samsung had deviated materially from the
approved design requirement which required each pile to be socketed into hard stratum for a
minimum depth of 5000 mm (or 5 m). This was the basis of charge P1C against Samsung. He also
found that Lee had permitted Samsung to carry out the piling works in this way. This was the basis of
the charge P1A against Lee. Shee further found that the certification by Lee in Form BEV/C1 dated
16 February 2001 (Certificate of Supervision of Piling Works and Notice of Completion by the
Qualified Person for Structural Works) [Exh P18] that all piling works carried out under Lees
supervision were completed in accordance with the approved depths as set out in the approved piling
plans/calculations were false. This was the basis of charge P1B against Lee. (See generally Exh P2
and Exh PS1.)
54
In Exh P43, Shee had tabulated on the first 4 pages the anchorage lengths and other
information on the 73 piles which are the subject matter of the present case. Using pile P1 as a
reference, the following information may be obtained from the 11 columns in the table. Pile P1
(Column 2) was designed based on soil information from BH A (Column 3) of the 5 original
boreholes done before the commencement of the piling. It has a diameter of 900 mm (Column 4) and,
according to the Piling Design [Exh P6], was to have at least 5 m minimum anchorage into hard
stratum (Column 5). This was based on the load which the pile was required to support being a load
equivalent to the structural capacity of the pile. Since from the Bored Piling Records [Exh P37] the
anchorage length into hard stratum was found to be 6.5 m (Column 6), it would have satisfied that
requirement (Column 7: P-Pass). However, the anchorage length of this pile derived from the original
soil report of Dr John Endicott [Exh P46, 10. Appendix - Case 1B, Column 23] was only 1.5 m
(Column 8). So it would not have satisfied the requirement (Column 9: F-Fail). Similarly, the
anchorage length of this pile derived from the original and additional soil reports [Exh P46, 10.
Appendix - Case 1C, Column 23] was also 1.5 m (Column 10). It would also not have satisfied the
requirement (Column 11: F-Fail).
55
After considering all 73 piles, Shee was of the view that, based on the anchorage length into
hard stratum derived using the three different methods described above, 72, 71 and 70, respectively,
of the 73 piles would have failed to satisfy the requirement [Exh P43, p 4]. None of these figures
correspond to the figure of 66 in the charge P1A or charge P1C. Also, the penetration lengths were
obtained from the Piling Design [Exh P6] using the structural capacity of the pile as the load which
the pile is required to carry.
56
Shee said that according to the approved piling plan [Ex P14], there must be at least 5 m
penetration into soil of SPT 100, ie., hard stratum [N/E p 25]. However, he was of the view that
even if all the piles were able to achieve this, the support provided by the piles would still not be
adequate. This was because according to the design calculations, some of the piles needed more than
5 m to reach the intended structural capacity shown in the design calculations [N/E p 27]. Shee was of
this view because he seemed to maintain that the geotechnical capacity of the pile had to be able to
carry a load equivalent to the structural capacity of the pile [N/E p 21].
05/08/2008
Page 19 of 87
57
In Shees computations, penetration into hard stratum was in fact penetration into rock, and
not just penetration into soil of SPT 100.
The evidence of Chen Soon Fatt
58
Chen Soon Fatt [PW2] (Chen), the RE, was the only site supervisor appointed. He worked
fulltime at the site supervising the structural works of the project, including the piling works. He was
assisted by Low Pu Tong, the CoW. As work was carried out round the clock, Chen worked the day
shift from 8.30 am to 6.00 pm while Low worked the night shift from 3.00 pm to 8.30 am. Chen
started work on 18 August 2000, when the installation of the test pile (which was subsequently used
as a working pile and renamed as pile P44) had already begun on 5 August 2000. The piling works
proper started around 28 August 2000 and ended around 12 October 2000. Chen relied on the Piling
Plan [Exh P14] for his work, and he had not seen the Piling Design [Exh P6] before. As RE for the
project, it was sufficient for him to refer to the plan without the design calculations.
59
Although Chen acknowledged that hard stratum of SPT 100 did not mean rock, and could be
a very stiff soil, he interpreted it as when they encountered refusal during the drilling. When a sample
of hard material or rock was extracted from the borehole he took it as hard stratum. Chen was not
aware of the design parameters used in the piling design.
60
Throughout the pile installation works, Rotary kept bored pile records which were signed by a
representative from Rotary or Samsung, and acknowledged by the CoW and certified by the RE.
During the piling works, Chen did not cross refer samples collected against the soil investigation
report. This was because he was not trained in geotechnics. He was also not told by Lee or Mak to do
so.
61
Chen and Low decided on the founding depths of the piles during their respective shifts. Chen
said that Lee and Mak were aware of this but raised no objection. Low would show to Chen rock
samples collected during the night shift when he handed over after his shift. Mak had visited the site
at least once a week during the piling works, and Chen would report the progress of the pile
installation on these occasions. He also wrote to Mak to report the progress occasionally. Mak had
earlier instructed Chen to report any issues or problems so that he could report them to Lee. Chen did
not see Lee on site throughout the piling works, except on 6 October 2000 during the occasion of the
ground breaking ceremony [Exh D10].
62
Around 31 August 2000, the piling works first encountered difficulties, when pile P45 was not
able to achieve 5 m anchorage into hard stratum. Chen informed Mak of this verbally, and was asked
to follow as far as possible this requirement. Chen subsequently wrote to Mak on 4 September 2000
[Exh P41, p 204] to inform him that of the 10 installed piles, 8 did not achieve a minimum 5 m
anchorage into hard stratum. Chen was later told by Mak that PDA tests would be carried out on the
piles that failed to achieve the 5 m anchorage. In the meanwhile, piling works continued. Eventually,
the anchorage into hard stratum for the piles ranged from 1.5 to over 5.0 m.
63
In his 21 December 2002 statement [Exh P49] given at Samsungs request, Chen stated that
the decision to terminate piles based on the time/effort of coring was arrived at after discussion
between him and Patrick Lee, a staff of Samsung. Chens understanding was that the main contractor
in a design and build contract had a major role in the decision making in consultation with the
consultant on major technical issues. He therefore believed that Patrick Lee would discuss the short
pile lengths with Maunsell. But Chen acknowledged that Mak had told him that time was not the
criteria for terminating piles, and that he should as far as possible follow the design depth. However,
as there was no other information available to him for decision making, he had continued to use time
and quality of the rock as the criteria for termination. Chen said in his statement that there was a
meeting between Maunsell, Samsung and Rotary on the issue of the pile lengths, where Rotary was
asked by Maunsell to substantiate the shorter pile lengths. However, he was not aware of the outcome
from the meeting.
05/08/2008
Page 20 of 87
The evidence of Low Pu Tong

64
The Clerk of Works (CoW) Low Pu Tong [PW3] (Low) started work on site on 5 August
2000, and oversaw the installation of the first test pile TP1 (which later became pile P44) as Chen was
not appointed as RE yet. After Chens appointment, Low supervised the installation of piles during
the night shift. He supervised the pile installation at night, and decided the founding depths of those
piles. He would show to Chen rock samples collected during his shift when he handed over to the
latter in the mornings. Low would ask Chen for assistance if he was not sure of anything.
65
Low was aware that many of the piles did not meet the stipulated minimum of 5 m anchorage
into hard stratum of SPT 100. He had informed Chen of this progressively, and Chen in turn
informed Mak and Lee. Low did not know if there was any modification or re-design of the piles, but
PDA tests were carried out in September 2000.
66
Maunsell had wanted Samsung to achieve 5 m anchorage into hard stratum when piling.
Wong Seng Poh of Samsung counter-proposed continuing piling for 3 to 4 hours after reaching hard
stratum. When Low asked Chen on 5 September 2000 whether piling should continue or stop after
this, Chen told him that he did not know. After returning from a meeting with Maunsell and Samsung
later in the day, Chen told Low of the following criteria for terminating the piles were to be followed
1.
If the contractor reached hard stratum, and if soil sample collected was good, ie, starting
from that level, they were to continue to core for 3 to 4 hours. Every hour they had to take a
sample to show him. If hourly samples shown to him are good, he would accept it provided
socketing is 1.5 to 2m. What he means is that if they continue for 3 to 4 hours and the
penetration was only 1.5 to 2m, it was acceptable to him. They would do the casting and it was
not necessary to have 5m socketing.
2.
If they reached the hard stratum, and the soil sample is bad, then they had to continue 3
hours, 4 hours or 5 hours. Then minimum depth was 5m.
Under this category, so far our bore piling depth achieved 5m only in 6 to 7 piles.
3.
If they reached hard stratum, at every hour the samples were bad, they would have to
continue. There is no limit to stop at 3 to 4 hours.
[N/E pp 286-287]
67
When Low said he did not understand what Chen was saying, the latter sketched this on a
piece of paper for him [Exh P51, p 7].
68
Low had signed on the Bored Pile Record prepared by Rotary [Exh P37]. He checked some of
the information against personal records that he kept, viz., depth, pay length, time when they hit hard
stratum and time the depth was confirmed.
69
Although Low had decided when a pile can be terminated during the night shift, he said that
he was only helping the RE at the latters request as it was not his duty to decide this. Nor did he have
the capacity to be RE.
The evidence of Ong Chin Lock
70
Ong Chin Lock [PW6] (Ong), was the accredited checker (AC) of the design of Lee. His
curriculum vitae is at Exh P66. Ong, who was appointed by DBS Property Services Pte Ltd, said that
after he conducted an independent review of the design, he certified in Form BEV/A2 dated 8 August
2000 [Exh P10] that the piling plans and design calculations did not show any inadequacy in the key
structural elements to be built according to those plans. Ong did calculations of his own, and his
office had conducted an independent assessment of the column loads and the sufficiency of the
05/08/2008
Page 21 of 87
structural and geotechnical capacities of the piles [Exh P7]. Although Ong said that this assessment
was on the declared working load of the piles which were shown in the table at on the bottom of the
piling plan Drg No 0101A [Exh P14] [N/E p 673], he later explained that he was comparing the
column load to be supported by the piles against the pile capacity (he used pile working load to mean
pile capacity) [N/E p 682]. In any case, the geotechnical capacities of the piles based on the soil
parameters obtained from the 5 boreholes all exceeded the working loads in P14, and not just the
column loads: see Exh P7(1), pp 200, 205, 209, 214, 219.
71
Ong said that the piling plan stated that all 73 piles were to achieve a minimum anchorage of
5000 mm into hard stratum, and was subject to verification of working load tests. When he received
the as-built piling plan, it was not made known to him if the minimum anchorage was achieved, but
he assumed that it would have been during construction. He said that if he had been aware that this
was not achieved, he would have asked the QP to submit substantiating data that can be collected
from additional soil investigation to justify any stronger soil parameters than originally adopted into
the submission. He would need to review the pile design calculations and also have to inform BCA
because it would have been a departure from the submission calculations and design.
72
Ong said he was aware of the reduction in penetration length in most of the piles from the asbuilt piling plan, but he was not particularly worried by the differences in the penetrations provided
that the minimum 5 m anchorage into hard stratum had been achieved for all piles. Even the 19 m
difference in penetration length for the pile at gridline 1/D was not necessarily of concern to him.
This was because the level at which hard strata is encountered will vary from location to location
within the site. The QPs original estimate of the pile penetrations was at best on a guesstimate
basis. He did not ask the QP about the reduction in pile penetration lengths, nor did he carry out any
calculation to check the adequacy of the piles. He said that there was only a need to do so if QP had
notified him of a departure from the design soil parameters.
73
Ong was not informed if there was any change from the limiting skin friction of 400 kN/m2
and limiting end bearing of 12,000 kN/m2 used by the QP in his design calculations which he had
earlier indorsed. He was of the view that any change in the design parameters was a change in the
design because the adequacy of the piles to support the working load depended only on the soil
parameters and the related need of penetrating into hard stratum. The QP would then have to resubmit his design to Ong, followed by submission to BCA as it was a departure from the originally
approved piling plans.
The evidence of the expert witnesses of the prosecution
The evidence of Song Wee Ngee
The credentials of Song Wee Ngee
74
Song Wee Ngee [PW4] (Song), a Fellow of the Institute of Engineers Singapore and a PE
and AC, is also the managing director of KTP Consultants Pte Ltd. His curriculum vitae is set out
Annex 1 of Exh P46. Song has been involved in many building projects in Singapore [Exh P46,
Annex 1, pp 1-12]. Before his involvement in this case, Song had been associated with several
projects in the vicinity of the building in various capacities, including that of QP and AC, which
concerned piling [N/E p 349].
How Song Wee Ngee came to be involved in this case
75
KTP Consultants Pte Ltd was first approached by BCA in March 2003, after the building was
completed, to provide assistance in the problem of excessive settlement it faced. Song, together with
his partners, provided their views on the proposal by the QP and Samsung on the rectification works.
To deal with charge P1A, Song and his colleagues produced the BCA Expert Witness Report 3
Church Street [Exh P46]. Charge P1B was not dealt with because the issue there was legal in nature.
05/08/2008
Page 22 of 87
The report of Song Wee Ngee on whether there was deviation

76
Song considered a pile as a key structural element. If it was poorly designed or constructed,
the safety concerns were the inability of the pile to carry its working load, overstressing of the pile
material, and settlement of the pile.
77
At the material time, the governing Code of Practice for Foundations was CP4: 1976 [Exh
D3]. Under the code, working load was defined as the load which a pile is designed to carry [Exh
P52, TAB 3, p 106] (see para 24 above). In the piling plan [Exh P5], the working loads of the
various piles are found in the table at the bottom centre of the plan. This same plan is reproduce in a
reduced form in the Piling Design of the QP [Exh P6, p 153]. In the pile design calculations, the term
working load is also found at the top of pages 156-179 of the Piling Design [Exh P6].
78
As Song was not an expert on PDA tests, he consulted A/Prof Harry Tan on this matter.
79
Song approached the matter by looking into the design of the piles by Lee to understand the
concept and the issue of minimum of 5 m anchorage into hard stratum with SPT 100. After his
investigations, Song came to the conclusion that the deviations in the piles after construction were
material deviations. This was because the piles affected due to short anchorage were extensive and
well spread over the site. He had gone through 9 scenarios in his investigation. These comprised 3
different cases and 3 different soil profiles, which he set out in his report at Exh P46. A summary of
his findings on how many piles have deviated in a material way is set out in the table at Exh P53,
TAB 7.
80
The 3 cases are

Case 1:
Where the anchorage length into hard stratum is less than 5 m;
Case 2:
Where the pile capacity is less than the working load of the piles; and
Case 3:
Where the pile capacity is less than the column load,
and the 3 soil profiles, from where soil with SPT 100 began was established, are
Profile A:
Samsung;
From the Bored Piling Record [Exh P37] provided by both Rotary and
Profile B:
From the 5 original boreholes (but obtained from Exh P37) and the report of Dr
John Endicott [Exh D16, Fig 1] [N/E p 360]; and
Profile C:
From the 5 original boreholes [Exh P8] and the 34 new boreholes [Exh P55].
81
For Case 1, the number of piles where the anchorage length into hard stratum was less than 5
m were 66, 60 and 65 for the soil profiles A, B and C, respectively. For Case 2, the number of piles
where the pile capacity was less than the working load of the piles were 53, 54 and 67 for the soil
profiles A, B and C, respectively. For Case 3, the number of piles where the pile capacity was less
than the column load of the piles were 15, 22 and 45 for the soil profiles A, B and C, respectively.
82
In the Soil Profile [Exh P54] he produced, Song has provided at TAB A 3-dimensional
schematic drawings of the soil profiles of the site based on the original 5 boreholes, and also based on
the original 5 boreholes plus the 34 new boreholes. The sectional views of the soil profile of the site,
based on all 39 boreholes, are also set out [Exh P54, TAB B].
The views of Song Wee Ngee on the design approach
83
Song said that Shee had referred to the figure of design capacity in the Piling Design [Exh P6,
05/08/2008
Page 23 of 87
pp 154-155] to establish the founding depth of the piles, and had used structural capacity as opposed
to the design capacity, which was the column load. Song agreed with this approach because in the
approved plan, the table at the bottom showed working load for each diameter of pile, which matched
the structural capacity of the respective piles.
84
Song was of the view that when a particular working load is adopted for a pile, there could be
implications for future alterations and renovations. This is because, unlike the design calculations
such as that in Exh P6, the as-built piling plan could be obtained from BCA to provide information
on what working loads the piles were designed to carry from the building, Depending on the
additional load which will be imposed, this would allow one to determine whether the alterations can
be done.
85
In his Piling Design [Exh P6], Lee had adopted 400 kN/m2 as the limiting skin friction, and
12,000 kN/m2 as the limiting end bearing for all the piles. If these limiting values were increased, the
anchorage lengths of the piles would be decreased. In Songs experience as a QP and also as an AC,
such design parameters proposed by the QP would be checked by the AC to see if the values are
suitable. If they are, and he accepts the QPs calculations and plans, they would be forwarded to the
BCA for approval. If there is a change in the design parameters, the AC and BCA would be informed.
86
In checking the QPs design, the AC would consider how the QP had chosen the design
parameters. For example, Lee had used two times the SPT value (ie., 2 x N) to obtain the skin
friction. In CP4: 2003, a range of multipliers, and limiting values for the design parameters, are
recommended. At the material time, the governing code CP4: 1976 did not contain such
recommendations, and the QP depended on available literature and design parameters used in projects
with similar site conditions. If the values of the design parameters chosen are too high, the AC will
ask the QP for the basis of the selection.
87
Song said that a change to limiting skin friction or end bearing would have an effect on the
length of the pile. When the values of these parameters are changed, it amounts to a re-design of the
piles.
88
Song criticised Lees adoption of shorter piles when sandstone was encountered. This was
because, from the Site Investigation Report of SIPL [Exh P8], sandstone was encountered in BH-1,
BH-A and BH-C. Therefore this was already taken into consideration in the calculations in the Piling
Design [Exh P6, p 156], as the last layer of soil was hard sandstone and clay.
89
Song disagreed with Lees position that the piles were socketed into rocks which were larger
than the piles. In a boulder bed, the sizes of the boulders can vary from centimetres across to metres
across. It is not possible to look at fragments of rock samples taken out to say that there is a rock
bigger than the size of the pile below its toe. Moreover, where the RQD is 0%, say, chances are that
there will not be big solid boulders.
QPs role to ensure compliance with piling plan
90
Song was of the view that the QP has a duty to ensure that the building works go according to
the plans approved by the BCA. Where the builder goes against the plans, Song said that he would
have to stop work if there is no valid reason for the builder to do so. If work continues nevertheless,
he would give a warning to the one carrying on the works. If it still continues, he would report the
matter to his employer, and also resign as QP. He said that the QP also has a duty to report to the
BCA if the works go on in a manner not in accordance with the approved plan.
91
For piling works, it has to be done under immediate supervision by the site supervisor or QP.
For a project of the size of 3 Church Street, the site supervisor has to be a RE. In the case of the
project, there was only one site supervisor, RE Chen. Song said that if Chen was not on site, the QP
has to provide the immediate supervision on matters requiring it.
05/08/2008
Page 24 of 87
Method for pile construction

92
In the present case, where drilling using the augur encountered difficulty, Song said that the
builder could have used a rock augur, coring bucket, or chisel if the rock was not fractured and was of
good quality. In the Method Statement provided by Rotary, chiselling was provided for [Exh P41, p
94, para 34]. If chiselling was used, it was necessary to change tools and alternate it with the bucket.
This slowed down the piling process and would perhaps cost more. But a QP could insist on
alternative methods if the methods employed were ineffective.
Whether the QP had acted reasonably when he was informed of the short pile penetration
93
Songs views on the claim that Lee had acted reasonably when he was informed of the short
pile penetration because he considered certain factors are set out below.
(a)
QP had relied on PDA tests conducted
94
Song acknowledged that he was not an expert on PDA tests, and agreed that it was permissible
for him to rely on PDA experts. It was therefore reasonable for Lee to rely on the PDA test results for
the 73 bored piles. However, the PDA tests in the present case were done after many of the bored
piles were constructed. He was of the opinion that if there were problems on site, such as the inability
to achieve a minimum 5 m anchorage into hard stratum, PDA tests should be done as early as possible
to find out if the problem piles could achieve the intended capacity. Here, since more than 60% of the
piles were completed, Song thought that it was a bit late because it would be difficult for remedial
works to be done at that stage.
(b)
All piles were socketed into rock for 1.5 to 6.5 m
95
If the 5 m anchorage into hard stratum could not be achieved, Song thought that the QP should
revisit his design to see whether the design parameters could be increased in value because of the
socketing into rock, ie., there should be a re-design.
(c)
Rock samples retrieved from work site were seen by QP
96
Song said that from the Piling Design [Exh P6], hard sandstone was expected for BH 1, BH A,
BH C and even BH D.
(d)
There was re-calculation by QP on end bearing of rock
97
Song said that the remedial work was more to establish what were the remaining capacities of
the piles, ie., what they could carry after the settlement of the building, and not what the end bearing
capacity and shaft friction based on socketing of 1.5 to 5.0 m. He did not recall any mention by Lee
and anyone employed by him of the higher end bearing when rock was discovered at the site. This
would have been useful for the remedial works, as the remedial piles need not go as deep as 60 to 70
m down.
(e)
QP looked at sub-contractors calculations on efficacy of pile
98
It was Songs view that it was part of the duty of a QP to check the piling sub-contractors recalculations on end bearing of rock when these were prepared to justify the shorter anchorage lengths.
This is to see whether they are reasonable.
(f)
Reliance on static load test
99
Song was of the view that for pile P44 on which the static load test was conducted, the results
may not be representative of the performance of other piles which had shorter anchorage lengths. This
was because although it was performing within the specification, its anchorage length into hard
05/08/2008
Page 25 of 87
stratum was more than 5.2 m.

Whether deviations from piling plan were material deviations
100
Referring to para 4 of the Guidelines on Submission of As-Built Plans of 17 October 2000
issued by the BCA [Exh D8] (see para 50 above), which was applicable at the time the as-built piling
plan [Exh P19] was submitted, Song disagreed that the deviations by Samsung were permitted
deviations. He did not regard them as the immaterial deviations referred to in para 4 of the Guidelines
because they affected the re-design. He was of the view that Exh D8 did not recognise short piling as
an immaterial deviation.
Authority of site supervisor to deviate from plans
101
Song said that in terms of supervision and control of building works, the QP has greater
authority than the site supervisor. This is because he was the one who provided the design and issued
the construction drawings. It there is any deviation, the RE is not in a position to understand the
background of the design, and has to refer the matter to the QP for clarification or approval. The REs
duty is to ensure that the construction takes place according to the plan and specification. If the piling
plan specifies a minimum anchorage of 5 m into hard stratum, the RE has no authority to depart from
this requirement. Where the piles installed do not deviate from the piling plan, and the soil conditions
on site do not deviate from that in the soil investigation report, the RE can decide on the termination
of the pile. But where he encounters a different soil condition, and pile is unable to anchor into the
hard stratum as specified, he has to revert to the QP for his decision.
PDA test results
102
Song had received all 9 sets of the PDA test raw data. He had no experience of PDA testing,
and did not know why 7 sets of the raw data could not be used. He also understood from A/Prof Tan
that the hammer weight was inadequate. Prof Bengt Fellenius of Canada also gave an opinion on the
results, and the raw data was also sent to GRL, the expert in this area, for analysis.
The rebuttal evidence of Song Wee Ngee
103
Song had used the step approach in ascertaining the penetration of the piles into hard stratum
in Case 1C, Case 2C and Case 3C. At the request of the defence, he considered the pile penetrations
using the linear evidence, and returned to given evidence of his findings, which were presented in a
table [Exh P74], which was in the same format as Exh D25.
104
Comparing the results with that in Exh P46, for Case 1C, one pile which had achieved the
socketing depth when the step method was used did not do so when the linear method was used. For
Case 3C, there were two such piles.
105
Song said that where boreholes are located closed to the piles, results from either the step
method or linear method would not be vastly different. He added that the step approach was a
common approached used by engineers in Singapore, and pointed out that Lee had used the step
method in estimating the lengths of the piles in the pile groups at Gridlines B1, A2 and A3 of the
approved piling plan [Exh P14].
106
Song acknowledged that while an engineer is required to interpret the soil investigation report,
a draftsman will be able to just join the lines. He accepted that anything can happen between
boreholes, and one could not determine the exact soil condition between them. However, where they
are close enough to one another, he did not think that there was much variation.
The evidence of Associate Prof Harry Tan
The credentials of Associate Prof Harry Tan
05/08/2008
Page 26 of 87
107
Associate Prof Harry Tan [PW5] (A/Prof Tan) is a faculty member of the Civil Engineering
Department of the National University of Singapore. He is a Professional Engineer and has been
involved in several major consulting jobs in Singapore and Malaysia. He was the leader of the expert
witness team consisting of four international experts in Committee of Inquiry into the fatal collapse of
the Nicoll Highway portion of the Mass Rapid Transit System Central Line. He learnt to do PDA
testing during his post-graduate days in California, when he was attached to Insitu Tech. He is now a
member of Singapore Laboratory Accreditation Scheme (Singlas) Accreditors to assess PDA
contractors in Singapore for Singlas Accreditation in PDA testing. The curriculum vitae of A/Prof
Tan is at Exh P58.
How A/Prof Harry Tan came to be involved in the case
108
Sometime in May 2003, A/Prof Tan was approached by KTP Consultants to look into the
project at 3 Church Street. His role was mainly as a geotechnical expert in the matter. He was tasked
to locate a suitable consultant of international standing on pile foundations, make an assessment of
the pile foundation, and assess the proposed remedial works for the problems. He reviewed the
expert soil reports submitted by Samsung and Maunsell, and was involved in the simulation test piles.
He also looked at all the soil investigation reports, and reviewed the static load test and PDA tests of
the original foundation.
109
Referring to section 2 of the Act, which provides that

"key structural elements" means the foundations, columns, beams, shear cores and such other
parts of a building which are essential for its support and overall structural stability;
A/Prof Tan was of the view that a pile is part of the foundation system, and is a key structural
element. In the case of the project, the requirement in the approved plan for the piles to be anchored 5
m into hard stratum was a crucial requirement. This was more so because the founding layer in which
the piles were anchored was bouldery clay.
What soil at founding layer was
110
Founding layer is the material in which piles are socketed or anchored. In the case of the
project, the design plans required the piles to be anchored 5 m into hard stratum of soil of SPT 100.
A/Prof Tan was of the view that the founding layer of the project was Fort Canning bouldery bed. He
came to this view from the results of soil investigations by SIPL [Exh P8], the published literature,
and the subsequent soil investigations [Exh P55], and from looking at the core runs from the
boreholes [N/E pp 527-534].
111
Most of his knowledge in boulder clay comes from working with piling contractors who have
experience in this material. He had not consulted on any of the downtown buildings, but he was fully
aware of the nature of this material.
112
To A/Prof Tan, bouldery bed and boulder clay refer to the same thing. It is not a rock bed, ie,
a continuous layer of rock with no joints. It is essentially sandstone boulders randomly distributed in a
stiff clay matrix. The sandstone varies in size from 200 mm to perhaps as large as 6 m, but most of
the boulders are in the 1 to 2 cu m range. The boulder content varies from 5-30%, although it is
usually in the 20-25% range. The boulders are hardly in contact with one another, and float in the clay
matrix. The general observation is that the macro behaviour of this material is predominantly
governed by the properties of the stiff clay matrix.
Whether deviation was a material deviation
113
In A/Prof Tans experience, bored piles in bouldery clay depend mainly on shaft friction for
its capacity. He said that not much reliance is placed on end bearing to achieve the pile capacity
05/08/2008
Page 27 of 87
because piles founded in stiff clays will require large toe movements to realise the end bearing
capacity. Therefore, when the minimum socket strength is shortened, it becomes a material deviation.
For example, every 1 m reduction in socketing for a 5 m socket length represents a reduction of 20%
of the shaft capacity.
Whether the bored piles were resting on a layer of rock or hard sandstone
114
Based on the total of 39 boreholes done, A/Prof Tan did not think that the bored piles were
resting on a layer of rock, but were perhaps founded on the upper part of the bouldery bed. He said
that, depending on the weathering grade of the sandstone, piles socketed in good sandstone can
develop very high shaft friction and end bearing. Such piles can perform very well even with short
sockets. As for piles in a bouldery clay bed, the properties of the stiff clay dominate their behaviour.
The skin friction ranges from 150 kPa to 400 kPa, and typical values used for design seemed to be
about 300 kPa. With regard to end bearing, this cannot be fully mobilized unless large pile
movements, typically about 10% of pile diameter, are accepted.
What were the limiting skin friction and limiting end bearing
115
Referring to four publications tendered by the prosecution: Properties & Origins of
Singapore Boulder Bed by Shirlaw, Poh and Hwang [Exh P57A]; The Republic Plaza in Singapore
- Foundation Design by Broms and Lai [Exh P57B]; Singapore Bouldery Clay: The Origin,
Properties and Load Tests of Bored and Cast-in-Place Piles by Han, Wong and Broms [Exh P57C];
and Volume 1 Foundation Design Calculations for 30 storey office building at China Square Parcel
from T. Y. Lin South East Asia Pte Ltd [Exh P57D], A/Prof Tan was of the view that the shaft
friction for bored pile in bouldery clay typically ranges from 200 to 400 kPa, and the design value is
usually 300 kPa [N/E p 540]. For the Church Street project, it was highly improbable that one could
get anything more than 400 kPa for bouldery clay. For end bearing, the figure mentioned in the
publications is 9,000 kPa, which is 9 times the undrained shear strength of stiff clay (about 1,000
kPa). But A/Prof Tan pointed out that to achieve this, almost all the publications said that the toe must
be allowed to settle by a depth equivalent to 10% of the pile diameter.
A/Prof Tans criticisms of Pile Dynamic Analyser test
116
Of the 9 PDA tests conducted, A/Prof Tan had access to the measured data of 4 tests. Prof
Bengt Fellenius sent these data to GRL, the company from which PDA testing originated.
117
It was concluded that all 4 sets of data were of poor quality, and only 2 sets had reasonably
satisfactory data for further processing. These were re-analysed, and the conclusion was that the
estimated measured capacities of the piles from these tests were only about 600 tonnes, and not the
2,000 tonnes stated in the original PDA test reports.
118
To achieve a good reliable PDA test, research papers showed that it was necessary to have a
sufficient hammer weight to mobilise the soil resistance around the piles. Reports of GRL showed
that the hammer weight should be 1.0 to 1.5% of the capacity which the test seeks to measure. Since
the hammer used for all 9 PDA tests was only 8.5 tonnes, the test could only give a test capacity of
about 850 tonnes. A 20 tonne hammer would have been needed to measure test a test capacity of
2,000 tonnes.
119
A/Prof Tan also thought that there were inaccuracies in the PDA tests. In June 2003, he met
BCA staff, and showed them what were wrong with the PDA tests. An expanded version of the earlier
presentation is at Exh P59, which covered
a
What is PDA test;
Why are the PDA tests not valid;
05/08/2008
Problem with P44 static load test; and
Simulation test piles SP1 and SP2.
Page 28 of 87
Much of the evidence is highly technical in nature, and may be found at N/E pp 548-563 besides Exh
P59. I will not reproduce them here even in a summarised form, but will only touch on the portions
relevant to my decision later in these grounds of decision.
120
In brief, the problems A/Prof Tan found with the PDA test included underweight hammer,
loose instrumentation, poor quality of data obtained, and wrong factors used to compute the results.
A/Prof Tans criticisms of the static load test
121
While A/Prof Tan accepted that a static load test has always been a reliable method of
measuring pile capacity, he pointed out there were some anomalies for the test conducted for pile
P44. First, there was an anomaly between the first and second cycle of loading. Secondly, while the
static load test conducted from 14-21 August 2000 showed that the pile had a good toe, the
subsequent PDA test on the same pile showed that it had a soft toe. Thirdly, the soil profile of the pile
from the Bored Piling Record of Rotary [Exh P37] was inconsistent with the soil profile of BH 14 of
the subsequent 34 boreholes, where BH 14 was located only 1.5 to 2.0 m away from pile P44 in plan
view.
122
In the first area of anomaly, A/Prof Tan said that from the settlement vs load graph [Exh P41,
p 177], the test showed that the pile appeared to be stiffer in the second cycle of loading (represented
by the line joining the triangles) than in the first (represented by the line joining the squares). At the
working load of 1130 tonnes, the settlement in the second cycle was less that that of the first cycle. In
the piles he had encountered, the settlement in the second cycle was usually the same or more than
that in the first cycle generally. He had not come across such behaviour as in pile P44 before in his
practice, and could offer no explanation for it.
123
As to the second area of anomaly, based on adjustments he made to correct the errors in the
original PDA test results of pile P44, A/Prof Tan concluded that the static load test conducted on that
pile could not be correct. This was because, amongst others, the permanent settlement was 12.7 mm
after the pile was hit by a relatively small hammer in the PDA test, while the maximum settlement
was only almost 15 mm when loaded to almost 2,000 tonnes during the static load test. He therefore
thought that the static load test could not be correct. A/Prof Tan also thought that the PDA test
showed that pile P44 had some kind of a soft toe.
124
The third area of anomaly was that while the Bored Pile Records [Exh P37] showed that pile
P44 was socketed 5.2 m into bouldery bed, according to BH 14 of the 34 boreholes, the bouldery bed
starts at the toe of the pile [Exh P55].
Point load test conducted on rock sample
125
The defence team of Lee arranged for point load tests to be conducted on rock samples,
including Exh D5, collected from the project site. A/Prof Tan pointed out that such tests were to
obtain the unconfined compressive strength of the rock sample, and to use it in the design, the piece
of rock must be representative of the global rock mass system. The test was therefore only relevant
when the rock was from a sedimentary rock bed, and was irrelevant for a bouldery clay (as pointed
out in Exh P67A, p 463, left column).
The rebuttal evidence of Associate Professor Harry Tan
126
As A/Prof Tan was not available to assist the prosecution when the expert witnesses of the
defence gave evidence, he was recalled by the prosecution to respond to the evidence of these
witnesses. His evidence, presented in a series of slides in Exh P72, dealt with the following issues
05/08/2008
Page 29 of 87
What are the hammer requirements for PDA test of bored piles (drilled shaft);
Why are Pilescan PDA tests not valid;
What is basis for 20% reduction factor on Chins method; and
What is appropriate end bearing value for Bouldery Clay.
Issue (a):
127
A/Prof Tan pointed out that the PDA test inventor, GRL, had stated in a paper that the
hammer weight had to be at least 1.5% of the test load, and this has been embodied in the PDA Users
Manual. He said that it was incorrect to presume that hammer input energy alone was adequate to test
bored piles, as not all the energy was transferred to the pile due to the various problems set out in
Slides 7 and 8 of Exh P72.
Issue (b):
128
A/Prof Tan pointed out the errors of the CAPWAP analyses of Pilescan on piles P10, P62,
P44 and P58, and presented the results of the CAPWAP analyses of piles P44 and P58 done by GRL
and the result of the CAPWAP analysis of pile P58 which he did. He compared these results, which
showed that the two piles were tested to capacities which were much less than that purported to have
been tested by Pilescan. He concluded, inter alia, that all the 9 PDA tests did not prove that the piles
have capacities of at least twice the working loads.
Issue (c):
129
As for the Chins Method for predicting ultimate load, A/Prof Tan presented literature which
states that the method over-estimates by 20% to 25% the ultimate capacity of piles. He showed the
theoretical basis for this, and pointed out that Chins Method uses a mathematical model. He said that
he had polled three of his colleagues who teaches pile load testing, and they all allowed for a 15% to
30% reduction when using Chins Plot. He further described his experience with a spun pile, where
the pile failed by plunging (excessive settlement) at two times the working load, which highlighted
the pitfall of an extrapolation method like the Chins Method.
Issue (d):
130
From plate load tests done at the base of a hole in bouldery clay, the end bearing should not
exceed 9 MPa provided there is perfect construction. A/Prof Tan was of the view that high reliance
should not be placed on end bearing for bored piles.
131
A/Prof Tan pointed out that both the Soil Investigation Report for the 5 original boreholes
[Exh P8] and the Soil Investigation Report for the subsequent boreholes [Exh P55] showed that the
investigations conformed to BS 5930: 1999, the Code of Practice for Site Investigations. However, in
Exh P55, there is a table which shows that for clay and silt, the N-values for SPT tests were about half
that for the same description of soil, eg., for very stiff clay, say, the N-value in Exh P55 was half that
in BS 5930.
132
Finally, A/Prof Tan was of the view that while a metal weight suspended from a tape or string
could be used to tell if the base of a borehole is soft or hard, it would not be able to tell whether a hard
base was soil of SPT 100 or rock.
Close of the Prosecutions Case
The law
05/08/2008
Page 30 of 87
Burden at the close of the prosecutions case

133
At the close of their case, the prosecution has to adduce prima facie evidence which is not
inherently incredible, and which, if accepted as accurate, would establish each ingredient in the
charge: Haw Tua Tau v PP [1989] 1 MLJ 49.
Whether there was a case for the accused to answer
134
It was clear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that there was prima facie
evidence for each of the elements in the three charges. I therefore called on the accused to give their
defence.
Calling of defence
135
Both the accused elected to give evidence. Lee also called six other witness, including five
experts, to give evidence on his behalf. Only one witness gave evidence on behalf of Samsung in its
defence.
Case for the Defence for the First Accused
The evidence of the first accused
The role of the first accused Lee Chung Shek
136
Besides being appointed as QP, Lee Chung Shek [DW1] (Lee) was also the Project Director
for the project. His duties included overseeing the design of the permanent structural works and the
periodic site investigations carried out by Maunsells Technical Director, Foo See Lim (Foo) and
Project Engineer, Mak Wai Choong (Mak).
137
Either Foo or Mak would visit the site about one to two times a week to inspect the piling
works, and then report and discuss any issue arising with Lee. In turn, Lee also highlighted any issue
that he wanted them to pay close attention to, and gave them instructions on specific matters. All
correspondence to Maunsell would be circulated to Lee, who usually discussed the contents with Foo
and Mak and any follow up action to be taken. Lee also discussed the contents of any correspondence
sent by Foo or Mak on behalf of Maunsell or the QP. In this way, Lee was kept informed of the
progress of the piling works and any issue raised by Samsung, the RE or the CoW during the progress
of the works.
Soil profile of the site
138
When Maunsell was appointed, Samsung provided Maunsell with the two soil investigation
reports of the 5 boreholes conducted by SIPL [Exh P8]. In the second report, the soil description of
the layers where BH A and BH C were terminated, viz., interbedded layers of hard sandstone and
silty clay, was interpreted by Lee as the weathered rock of the Jurong Formation. BH B and BH D
were terminated in hard silty clay with SPT of 100. As for the soil description in the first report for
BH 1, viz., boulder clay with weathered siltstone, Lee considered this to be an anomalous local
deposit, given the absence of boulder clay in any of the later four boreholes.
139
Lee interpreted the site as being underlain by the Jurong Formation with a sloping rock head
generally towards Telok Ayer Street. Subsequently, the piling design and calculations were based on
a foundation system of piles being anchored into the weathered rock of the Jurong Formation.
Appointment of site supervisors
140
The appointed on-site supervisors for the project were the RE Chen Soon Fatt who started
work in mid-August 2000, and the registered CoW Low Pu Tong, who started work in end-July 2000.
05/08/2008
Page 31 of 87
Installation of test pile

141
The test pile TP-1 (later re-designated as pile P44) was constructed on 5 August 2000 under
the supervision of the CoW. Mak informed Lee that the CoW did not mention that any problem was
encountered during its construction. The Bored Piling Records showed that it penetrated 5.2 m into
rock and hard stratum, with a 1.8 m socket into sandstone and 3.4 m into an interbedded layer of hard
sandstone and silty clay. Lee said that even though the approved piling plan provided that the
minimum anchorage length of 5000 mm into hard stratum of SPT 100, the pile was still subject to
verification of a working load test.
Static load test
142
The static load test was conducted by Rotary from 14-21 August 2000 under the supervision
of the CoW, who did not mention to Foo or Mak any problem being encountered during the test. Nor
was any problem mentioned by the RE who had been appointed by then.
143
After reviewing the results of the static load test sent to him by Samsung, Lee was generally
satisfied with the results as the test verified the performance of the pile under the design load. He
decided to maintain the limiting end bearing resistance as 12,000 kPa, the value adopted in the design.
Mak then wrote to Samsung with their comments [Exh P41, p 195].
144
Lee did not have any objection when Samsung wanted to use the test pile as a working pile,
and re-designate it as pile P44, as the static test results were satisfactory.
Construction of the bored piles
145
Before commencement of the piling works, Lee told Mak to brief the RE on various matters to
be expected during the piling work, in particular
a
the terminating criteria for the piles;
there was soft soil overlying the hard stratum;
the top level of hard stratum dipped towards Telok Ayer Street; and
d
he was to monitor the actual soil conditions encountered during piling, and compare
them against the bore log from the soil investigation reports.
146
Lee said Mak confirmed that he did so, and Mak had also briefed the RE on his duties and
responsibilities with regard to the supervision of the piling works.
147
Piling works commenced in August 2000 and took place round the clock. Lee was aware that
the RE would usually cover the day shift while the CoW covered the night shift. The RE did not send
the bored piling records to Lee everyday, but typically sent them every 3-7 days. The first set of
Rotarys records was only received by Maunsell after 4 September 2000.
148
Although Samsung also maintained a set of records called Bored Piling Works Results,
these were prepared at a later date and added on to the on-site records. They were also not given to
Maunsell, although Mak noted that they were inserted into the on-site piling records of the earlier
constructed piles. Lee did not consider them to be part of the bored piling records, and he relied on
Rotarys Bored Pile Records as the contemporaneous and accurate on-site piling records.
149
With the commencement of the piling works, Lee instructed Mak and Foo to visit the site one
to two times a week to inspect the status of the piling works and report their observations to him. In
particular, he asked them to look at the piling records and soil samples retrieved at the founding
levels, and to take note of any anomalies and to compare them with the borelogs.
05/08/2008
Page 32 of 87
150
On 31 August 2000, Wong had telephoned Mak to inform him that there were difficulties in
penetrating any further because they had encountered rock during the construction of the bored piles.
Mak said Wong proposed that the duration of coring through the rock be used as a basis for pile depth
penetration, and to carry out PDA tests to confirm their capacities. Mak, however, instructed Wong
that the piles were to be constructed according to the approved piling plan and the proposal to use
duration of pile penetration was not acceptable. Subsequently, Mak had also confirmed with the RE
that some of the piles were constructed with short anchorage lengths after many hours of coring, and
Samsung claimed that they were unable to penetrate any further. Mak had told the RE to ensure that
the piles were constructed according to the approved plan.
151
On 1 September 2000, Mak and Foo visited the site and saw that the samples collected from
the founding levels were sandstone. Mak reminded the RE to ensure that the pile penetrations were
according to the approved piling plan, and also asked for a tabulation of the constructed piles.
152
The RE sent a site memo on 4 September 2000 [Exh P41, p 204] stating that 10 piles
constructed between 28 August and 3 September 2000 had penetrations into hard stratum varying
from 1.8 to 6.5 m. On the same day, following on from his conversation with Mak, Wong also sent a
fax [Exh P41, p 205] proposing
a
Duration of time taken to penetrate hard stratum to be taken as a criteria for terminating
the pile, subject to approval from the RE to make the final decision;
b
PDA testing on the most severe cases to prove that penetration of 1.5 to 2.0 m into hard
stratum was adequate; and
c
Compressive strength of sandstone was in excess of the value stated in the static load
test results.
Samsung had enclosed literature to show that the compressive strength of sandstone ranges from 28 to
138 MPa. They requested that Lee accepted their proposal for socketing into hard stratum to be 2.0 m.
153
In his discussion with Mak and Foo, Lee directed that Samsung should construct the piles in
accordance with the approved piling plan. For those constructed, Samsung would have to test a
representative sample of the piles to prove the pile performance.
154
When Mak and Foo visited the site on 5 September 2000, Mak inspected the piling records
which showed that sandstone was encountered in all the constructed piles. Mak also saw the rock
samples, and he reminded the RE to construct the piles according to the approved piling plan.
155
On Lees instructions, Mak also wrote to Samsung on 5 September 2000 rejecting Wongs
proposed criteria for terminating the piles, and requiring Samsung to conduct PDA tests to confirm
the capacity of the installed piles with socketing depths of 2.5 m or less [Exh P41, p 212]. Samsung
was also told to limit the ultimate point bearing of the sandstone to 12 MPa, and they were to follow
the pile penetrations indicated in the drawings. Mak also informed Lee that he had performed some
calculations on the allowable capacity of the pile based on the maximum permissible stress of
concrete, as sandstone has a compressive strength higher than concrete.
156
On 12 and 14 September 2000, Mak visited the site where he inspected the piling records,
which all showed that sandstone was encountered at the base of the piles. He also examined the rock
samples retrieved from the completed piles.
157
The RE continued to provide copies of Rotarys bored piling records to Maunsell, and by midSeptember, there were a significant number of piles that did not achieve a penetration of 5 m into hard
sandstone, which was a much harder material than hard stratum of SPT 100. All the constructed
piles had a socket of between 1 to 6.5 m into hard sandstone. Lee discussed this with Mak and Foo,
05/08/2008
Page 33 of 87
and he asked Mak to carry out a design check on the pile capacities based on a reduced penetration
into hard stratum, but with a socket into sandstone.
158
Mak later went through his calculations for pile P58 with Lee and confirmed that the pile,
which has a 1 m socket into the hard sandstone, had sufficient capacity on the basis that the sandstone
had at least the minimum intact strength of concrete of 35 MPa.
159
Even though they were satisfied that the constructed piles had sufficient capacity, they still
wanted the piles to be constructed according to the piling plan. Foo then wrote to Samsung on 18
September 2000 to highlight the short anchorage lengths, and asked for the PDA proposal to check
the design parameters, and to substantiate the geotechnical capacities of the piles. Lee also told Mak
to remind the RE to ensure that the penetration in the piling plan was followed.
160
Mak again visited the site on 19 and 26 September 2000, and reported to Lee that he had
inspected the piling records, all of which showed that sandstone was encountered at the base of the
piles. He also saw samples of the sandstone retrieved from the completed piles by the RE. Their
presence was consistent with Maunsells understanding of the geology of the site. Mak also continued
to tell the RE to ensure that the piling plans were followed.
Testing of the bored piles
161
Lee discussed with Mak and Foo the numbers and locations of the piles which they wanted
Samsung to test to verify that piles which were not constructed according to the approved piling plan
had sufficient capacity. In addition to piles P44 and P53 which they had selected earlier for load tests
of two times the working load, they decided to test another 6 piles to 1.5 times working load to verify
that they have sufficient capacity. The 6 piles all had sockets of less than 5 m, including pile P58
which had the shortest socket. The piles were also selected to achieve a good spread over the site.
Subsequently, pile P53 was substituted with P10 due to site constraints.
162
After several reminders to them to submit the PDA test results, on 3 October 2000 Samsung
submitted the report for the PDA tests conducted by Pilescan on piles P10 and P44 [Exh P41, p 218],
which was indorsed by a PE. Since PDA testing was a specialised field, Lee relied on the PDA testing
specialist, Pilescan, to perform the test properly and to let him have their conclusions as PDA experts.
He was not familiar with PDA testing, and was not able to interpret data from the CAPWAP analysis.
163
The test report on piles P10 and P44 showed that these piles had capacities of at least two
times the working load, and indicated that there was fresh rock at the toes of the piles, which was
consistent with the piling records and rock samples from the RE. The PDA test on pile P44 also
correlated the performance of PDA test results with the static load test results. It indicated that the
PDA tests results might have underestimated the actual carrying capacities of the piles, as they
showed that the capacity was 2.02 times the working load while the static load test showed the
capacity of more than 2.5 times the working load of the pile.
164
Lee visited the site with Mak and Foo on 6 October 2000, and having inspected the piling
record, and seen samples of the sandstone pieces from the founding depths, was satisfied that the piles
were founded in sandstone. This was because it was verified by the rock samples, and the results of
the two PDA tests conducted on piles P10 and P44.
165
On 11 October 2000, Lee received Samsungs reply to their earlier queries, submitting a letter
from Rotary stating that socket depths of between 2.0 to 3.0 m were more than adequate to carry the
design loadings [Exh P41, p 243]. On 12 October 2000, Samsung notified Lee that piling works have
been completed, and that they would continue with the rest of the PDA tests.
166
A meeting was held on 18 October 2000 in Maunsells office, where certain instructions were
given to Samsung, as confirmed by Maks facsimile later that day [Exh P41, p 246]. One of them was
to forward the existing neighbouring site piling records to Maunsell as suggested by Rotary. Lee said
05/08/2008
Page 34 of 87
he wanted the PDA tests and the neighbouring site pile load test records to assess whether the
constructed piles had sufficient capacity. The piling records of the neighbouring site at China Square
Parcel E submitted by Samsung on 23 October 2000 showed that the ultimate end bearing of the test
pile was greater than 15 N/mm2 (or 15,000 kPa) [Exh P41, p 247].
167
Samsung submitted the PDA test results for the rest of the piles to Maunsell on 2 and 6
November 2000. The test results were indorsed by two different PEs. The results showed that the
piles had capacities of at least 1.5 times the working load. They also indicated there was rock at the
toe of the piles. This was consistent with the piling records and rock samples shown to Mak by the
RE.
168
The calculations of Rotary on pile P58 (the pile with the shortest socket into sandstone)
submitted by Samsung on 16 November 2000 also showed that the short piles had sufficient capacity.
Lee reviewed these calculations, and was generally satisfied with them.
169
Having considered also

a
the pile capacities of a good representation of the piles have been verified by the PDA
test as having 1.5 to 2.0 times working capacity;
b
the Bored Pile Records showed that all the constructed piles encountered sandstone;
c
and
the samples from the base of the piles and PDA tests verified the presence of sandstone;
Maunsells own calculations on the bearing capacity of the piles socketed in sandstone,
Lee was satisfied that the constructed piles had sufficient capacity with an adequate factor of safety.
Since PDA testing was a specialist skill, and the PDA reports were indorsed by PEs, he did not have
any reason to disagree with the PDA test results, or the analyses made in the reports.
170
Following exchanges of correspondence with BCA between November 2000 and February
2001, Lee eventually submitted to BCA on 20 February 2001 Form BEV/C1 [Exh P41, p 481] and a
revised As-built ECC & Pile Penetration Layout Plan (Drg no 0101 rev 3) [Exh P41, p 493].
171
Based on the above matters, Lee was of the view that the piling works were completed in
accordance with the approved piling plan and calculations.
How anchorage lengths were derived from the design calculations
172
Shee had calculated the anchorage lengths based on the generic values of the structural
capacity of the different pile types reflected in the table in the first sheet of the approved piling plan
for each type of pile, instead of the column loads that each pile group was designed to support as
shown in the second sheet of the approved plan [Exh P14]. Lee disagreed with Shees approach in
deriving the anchorage lengths of the piles from the design calculations. This was not the approach
Lee adopted.
173
Lee maintained that if the anchorage lengths for the piles were indeed to be derived from the
structural capacity of the piles instead of the column loads, then there was no need to carry out
detailed calculations to obtain the column loads to be imposed on each pile group, or to further
calculate the capacity required for each pile to support the corresponding column load.
174
The design calculations also did not specifically stipulate the anchorage length into hard
stratum for any individual pile. The calculations were prepared based on the column load to be
imposed at specific locations identified in the piling plan, and assessed soil conditions based on the
available borehole information. From the column loads, the total penetration of each pile was
05/08/2008
Page 35 of 87
calculated based on the assessed soil conditions. When this was determined, the anchorage lengths
into hard stratum was obtained based on the assessed soil conditions.
175
The total penetration required of each of the piles was reflected in the piling plan as the
estimated pile penetration for each of the pile groups [Exh P14]. Estimation of pile penetration was
done based on assessed soil conditions from the four boreholes. On actual construction of the piles,
they were subject to variations based on the actual soil conditions encountered on site. The actual
penetrations of the constructed piles would inevitably vary from the estimated pile penetrations,
which was accepted industry practice. A percentage of the piles would then be tested to ascertain that
they have achieved design capacity.
176
Lee said that a QP is not required to stop the works and seek approval before continuing piling
every time a constructed pile does not meet the estimated pile penetration. If it is later determined that
the constructed pile does not meet its design capacity, and is unable to support the designed column
load imposed on it, the QP can provide for compensating piles to rectify the situation and provide the
required capacity to support the designed column load.
Alleged meeting with RE on 5 September 2000
177
With regard to the evidence of Low that the RE had met the QP or his representative on 5
September 2000, Lee denied any such meeting having taken place. He said he has not seen the
sketches which the RE had prepared for Low [Exh P51, p 7 and Exh P52], nor spoken to the RE or
Low on the 3 criteria for acceptance of piles with less than 5 m penetration into hard stratum. Nor did
he meet the RE on 5 September 2000, and was not aware of any meeting between Mak or Foo with
the RE on that day.
The Pile Design of Lee Chun Shek
178
The design calculations of Lee for the bored piles are found in the Piling Design [Exh P6]. It
is useful to go through one set of the calculations at pages 154-179 to understand the approach taken
by Lee in deriving the geotechnical capacity of the piles.
179
In his evidence [N/E pp 718-724], Lee demonstrated how this was done for piles P10, P12 and
P15, which are three 1300mm diameter piles in a group supporting one building column [Column ID
2/A], where the nearest soil investigation borehole is BH A, less than 5 m away.
Column load
180
First, all the loads that the column carries from the 30 storeys of the building are set out [Exh
P6, p 14]. The total of all the loads from the roof to the 1st storey (excluding the weight of the pile
cap), called the foundation load, is 21,807 kN [Exh P6, p 15]. This is added to the pile cap weight of
1,623 kN to obtain the Design Capacity of 23,430 kN [Exh P6, p 154].
Structural capacity
181
Secondly, the number of piles needed to support this Design Capacity, based on the structural
capacity of the pile (constructed of Grade 35 concrete) is determined. Referring to the table at Exh P6,
p 155, if piles of 1200 mm diameters were used, 2.55 piles [column 7 of table] would be needed. This
means that structurally, 2.55 numbers of 1200 mm diameter piles would be sufficient to support the
Design Capacity. However, Samsung and Rotary chose to use 1300 mm diameter piles because of
equipment availability. From the same table, the number of such piles needed would be 2.34 [column
10 of table]. Since piles are not constructed in fractions, the number of 1300 mm diameter piles
needed is three. Each of these piles will be able to carry up to 10,000 kN [column 9 of table]. This is
greater than the actual design capacity of 7,810 kN (being 23,430/3) required.
Geotechnical capacity
05/08/2008
Page 36 of 87
182
Thirdly, the geotechnical capacity needed to support the design capacity, which is 10,000 kN
based on the structural capacity, is determined. For piles of 1300 mm diameter designed using soil
parameters obtained from BH A, the geotechnical capacity is set out in the table at Exh P6, p 158.
This shows that for a design capacity of 10,063 kN [column 22 of table] (the next higher value above
10,000 kN), a penetration length of 30 m is required [column 6 of table].
183
Referring to the table, it is quite apparent that the geotechnical capacity is derived from the
skin friction throughout the entire length of the pile, from all layers of soil which the pile passes
through (although a soil like soft marine clay provides no shaft friction), and not just from the part of
the pile within soil where SPT 100. In his design, Lee has stipulated limiting skin friction to be 400
kN/m2, and limiting end bearing to be 12,000 kN/m2.
Piling plans
184
The results from the Design Calculations are reflected in Drg No 0101A (Piling Layout and
Details) of the Approved Piling Plan [Exh P14, first sheet]. The column at the intersection of gridline
2 and gridline A (column 2/A) is supported by three piles of 1300 mm diameter, and the penetration
depth of each pile is 30 m (see box next to piles and the Legend at the bottom of drawing). This is the
length of the pile between the cut-off level, and the toe of the pile. In this case, the cut-off level is
about 3 m below ground level.
185
The Design Capacity of column 2/A, 24,000 kN (which is 23,430 kN rounded up), is reflected
in Drg No 0102A (Loading Plan) [Exh P14, second sheet].
186
This process is repeated for all the columns and piles of the building.
187
Drg No 0102A shows the design capacities obtained in the Piling Design [Exh P6] which the
foundation is supposed to carry. If there is a future development or alteration of the building, the
drawing would be a reference for the design of the future works in that it shows the load which the
foundation was designed to support.
Lees definition of working load
188
At the bottom of Drg No 0101A [Exh P14, first sheet] is a table which sets out the different
pile types (P1 to P5), their respective diameters, reinforcement details, and working loads, etc. Lee
has used working load to mean the structural capacity of the pile [N/E p 722]. Indeed the working
loads of the five different pile types in the table do match the structural capacities of the five
corresponding pile types in the Piling Design [Exh P6, pp 156-160].
189
This was in contrast to the definition of working load in CP4: 1976, the relevant Code of
Practice for Foundations at the material time [Exh D3, p 106] (see para 24 above). Lee did not intend
to use the structural capacity to determine the pile penetration length, which was derived from the
process of the design calculations set out above [N/E p 724].
190
In place of working load, Lee used the term Design Capacity [Exh P6, p 155].
Load tests
191
Note 14 on Drg No 0101A states

NO. OF WORKING LOAD TEST
(TEST LOAD = 2 x SAFE WORKING CAPACITY)
a) 1300 mm PILE TP1 (STATIC LOAD TEST & PDA)
05/08/2008
Page 37 of 87
b) 1400 mm PILE TP2 (PDA)

COMPENSATION PILES SHALL BE INSTALLED IF THE LOAD TEST IS FAILED.
This means that if the pile load test shows that the pile cannot support the design capacity, the
contractor would be obliged to install compensating piles, which are additional piles to compensate
loss of failed pile. Based on the pile layout in Drg No 0101A, Lee did not envisage any difficulty at
all if compensating piles are required to be installed.
Pile Elevation
192
On the left of Drg 0101A [Exh P14, first sheet] is a sketch of the Pile Elevation, where it is
stated
MIN. ANCHORAGE LENGTH OF 5000 mm INTO HARD STRATUM SHALL BE
ACHIEVED IN ALL PILES AND IS SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION OF WORKING LOAD
TESTS.
193
Lees position is that this was not a minimal criterion which must be satisfied at all costs, and
what was more important to him was that the pile bearing capacity must be greater than the design
capacity.
The Piling Plans of Lee Chun Shek
194
After the design was completed, the piling plans produced by Lee comprised two drawings
which were submitted to BCA as part of the approval process. The first, Drg No 0101 Rev A (Layout
& Details) [Exh P5], included information such as the pile type and number (quantity), pile diameter,
and the estimated pile penetration. The second, Drg No 0102 Rev A (Loading Plan), sets out the load,
transmitted by the column sitting on the pile or pile group (and including the load of the pile cap),
which each pile (or pile group) was required to carry. This piling plan was approved by BCA without
amendment [Exh P14].
195
After the piles were constructed, Lee submitted Drg No 0101 Rev 3, the As-Built ECC &
Pile Penetration Layout plan [Exh P19]. The information set out in this drawing includes the pile
penetration, date of completion, and eccentricity (how far the top of the pile has deviated from its
intended position). The Pile Elevation sketch was retained in this drawing.
The evidence of Mak Wai Choong
The role of Mak Wai Choong
196
Mak Wai Choong [DW3] (Mak) became involved in the project in July 2000. He was the
Project Engineer from Maunsell involved in coordination with the architect, M & E consultant and
Samsung on the project. He also assisted the QP in liaising with the AC and making submissions to
the authorities, particularly BCA. Together with Foo See Lim (Foo), Maunsells Technical Director
for the project, he carried out periodic site inspections of the construction works on behalf of the QP.
He reported to the QP and Foo, and together with Foo, were the QPs representatives at the site.
197
Much of the evidence of Mak on his dealings in relation to the project was the same as that of
Lee. I will only set out Maks evidence which are specific to him.
198
Mak had briefed the RE on his duties and responsibilities as regards the supervision of the
construction works at the site, as well as those of the CoW who would be assisting him. This was
done in accordance with Maunsells ISO Briefing Notes for Resident Engineer/Clerk of Works [Exh
P41, p 197]. In particular, he drew the REs attention to the notes on the cover page of Maunsells
Quality Procedures Manual and highlighted to the RE that he was to ensure that the works were
05/08/2008
Page 38 of 87
carried out in accordance with the specifications and the approved plan. The RE then signed the cover
page.
199
At the first site meeting with the owner, Samsung and other consultants at the project site,
Mak learnt that the owner would employ three CoWs, who would practise their conventional
roles [Exh D12]. The conventional role of a CoW includes supervising and inspecting the piling
works and the casting of concrete for the piling works.
Static load test
200
Mak spoke to Low, the CoW, on the requirements for installing the test pile on 1 August 2000
when he was on site. Subsequently, when he spoke with Low over the telephone during the
construction of the test pile, Low did not mention any problem. On 8 August 2000, when he was on
site with Foo, Mak also told the Low to ensure that the static load test on the test pile was conducted
in accordance with the requirements in the Method Statement. The test was conducted by Rotary
under Lows supervision. Low did not raise any issue with Mak when the latter was on site on 15
August 2000.
201
On 22 August 2000, when Mak visited the site with Foo, he was informed by the RE that the
static load test was successfully conducted. On that day, Mak issued the construction drawings to the
site staff and Samsung, and also briefed the RE on the matters on the piling operation set out in para
145 above.
202
After receiving Rotarys report on the static load test, Lee, Foo and Mak reviewed the test
report and were generally satisfied with the results as the test verified the performance of the pile
under the design load. It also demonstrated that Rotarys construction methods were satisfactory.
Verification of pile capacity by Mak
203
When Maunsell informed Samsung that the ultimate point bearing of sandstone was limited to
12 MPa, Mak had carried out a simple verification on site to determine the end bearing capacity based
on the compressive strength of sandstone. Mak had judged the sandstone to be harder than concrete
by hitting the sandstone sample with a hammer. He did not take into consideration the contribution of
skin friction for this test. As the piles were socketed into sandstone, the end bearing of the pile would
be dependent on the compressive strength of the sandstone. In turn, as the compressive strength of the
sandstone was harder than concrete, the allowable capacity of the pile would effectively be governed
by the maximum permissible stress of the concrete, ie., 0.25 fcu, or 8.75 MPa (being 0.25 x 35 MPa).
This meant that the concrete would fail before the full geotechnical capacity of the pile was reached.
204
By the middle of September 2000, from the bored piling records provided by the RE, there
were a significant number of piles that did not achieve the penetration lengths set out in the drawing.
The piling records also showed that all the completed piles had a socket of between 1.5 to 6.5 m.
205
Subsequently, Mak carried out a design check on pile capacities based on penetration into
sandstone at the request of the QP. He used a reduction factor of 0.2 to account for the joints in the
sandstone, and calculated the mass strength of sandstone as 7 MPa (being 0.2 x 35 MPa). He then
obtained the ultimate end bearing of the sandstone using a factor of 5, ie., 35 MPa (being 5 x 7 MPa).
This value was larger than the value for ultimate end bearing assumed in the design calculations, viz.,
12,000 kPa (or 12 MPa).
206
Since the pile with the shortest socket into sandstone was pile P58, which has a diameter of
1400 mm and a penetration of 1.0 m, Mak calculated the pile capacity, using a factor of safety of 2.5,
as 21,551 kN [Exh DS2, para 40]. This was much higher than its structural capacity of 13,470 kN
[Exh DS2, para 41]. It therefore confirmed his earlier on-site verification that the pile would be
governed by its structural capacity, ie., the strength of the concrete.
05/08/2008
Page 39 of 87
207
In both the above calculations, Mak did not take into account the contribution of skin friction
in calculating the pile capacity.
208
Since all of Rotarys piling records until then showed that the piles were socketing into hard
sandstone, and all of Maks calculations showed that the pile with the shortest socket had adequate
capacity, he concluded that all the other piles would likewise have adequate capacity. Mak then
explained his method of calculations to the QP, and told him that the results showed that the piles had
sufficient capacity. Notwithstanding this, the QP still wanted the piles to be constructed in accordance
with the piling plans.
Termination of piles
209
Mak denied ever telling the RE that he could terminate the piles by the three criteria which
were described by the CoW in his evidence. He had never discussed the three criteria with the RE or
the CoW, and did not recall meeting the RE in the afternoon of 5 September 2000. He has not seen
the drawings tendered by the CoW [Exh P51] before, and he said these were definitely not from him
or Maunsell. He has also never discussed the three criteria with the RE or CoW at the technical
meeting on the morning of 5 September 2000.
Sandstone samples
210
The rock samples which Mak inspected during the construction of the piles were of various
sizes. Some were as big as his fist, about 6-7 cm across, while some were twice as big. These were the
sizes obtained when a solid layer of rock was encountered at the base of the pile, because they usually
come up broken into pieces of these sizes.
211
Mak did not accept at face value what he was told by the RE on there being hard sandstone at
the base of the pile. He had gone down to look at the samples retrieved. The RE had also told him that
a test involving tying a heavy weight to the end of a tape and hitting it against the base of the pile was
conducted. This was done to confirm the depth and check the base. To make sure that the rock was
not localised, the test was done around the circumference of the borehole, and its centre. Mak said this
was a common practice, and he had done it himself before.
212
Based on what the RE told him, Mak was satisfied that there was hard sandstone at the base of
the pile.
213
In August 2002, after they were informed that the building had settled, Maunsell took
photographs of the rock samples collected by the RE and CoW during the construction of the piles
which were still in the site office. There were samples from 61 bored piles, and the photographs are at
Exh D4.
214
The rock samples were brought to Maunsells office in June 2005. By then, the samples were
from only 38 bored piles. One of these samples was Exh D5. These samples were viewed by
representatives from BCA and KTP Consultants, including Shee and Soh, and A/Prof Harry Tan, on
10 April 2006. Four rock samples were sent on 25 April 2006 to SETSCO for point load tests to be
conducted, and the results are at Exh D17. Exh D5 was sent on 8 June 2006 for testing. It broke into
two, and one half was later sent again for testing on 21 June 2006. The results of these tests are at Exh
D18.
The evidence of the expert witnesses of the first accused
The evidence of Prof Harry Poulos
The credentials of Prof Harry Poulos
215
Professor Harry Poulos [DW2] (Prof Poulos) is the Senior Principal, Coffey Partners
05/08/2008
Page 40 of 87
International Pty Ltd and Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd, and as mentioned in his curriculum vitae [Exh
D31], he is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Sydney. He has many professional
qualifications, and has conducted research on the analysis of the settlement and deformation of
foundation and earth-supported structures. He also consulted on many major engineering projects in
Australia, Asia, and the Middle East, and has written textbooks on soil and rock mechanics, pile
foundation analysis and design, and marine geotechnics, a couple of which are used in universities
around the world.
The reports of Prof Poulos
216
Prof Poulos was appointed by the solicitors for Lee. His first report dated 6 April 2004 [Exh
D20] dealt with, inter alia, the possible reasons for the recorded settlements, and what had caused the
piles to settle; whether the original design by Maunsell was in any way inadequate or contributed to
the movement of the piles; and whether the foundation design had taken into consideration the soil
conditions available at that time. His report dated 6 September 2005 [Exh D21] dealt with the
following
Were changes in the penetration depth of piles, where they did not penetrate at least 5 m into
hard stratum, immaterial changes which:
1
Did not affect any key structural element
2
Affected key structural elements but the effects were localised and did not require a redesign of the key structural system?
Whether upon a reading of the as-built piling plans submitted on 21 February 2001, there was a
false declaration made that all piles as installed had been socketed at least 5 m into hard
stratum.
217
Prof Poulos report of 13 December 2005 [Exh D22] compared the effects of the length of the
socket on the capacity and settlement of a pile which rests on moderately weathered (MW) rock
after passing through hard soil of average SPT 100 against that of a pile which has a 5 m socket into
rock.
218
In his report dated 16 December 2005 [Exh D23], Prof Poulos provided an assessment of the
as-built ultimate load capacity of the piles, a summary of the settlement analysis in the previous
reports, and whether there were material changes due to socket lengths being less than 5 m. In his
report dated 27 October 2006 [Exh D30], Prof Poulos compared the safe working load (SWL)
(equivalent to Lees Design Capacity in Exh P6 or Songs Pile Bearing Capacity in Exh P46) of
the piles (when socketed into hard sandstone of the Jurong Formation, and when socketed into Fort
Canning Boulder Bed), based on the soil information available at the material time, against the
column load to see how many piles had adequate capacity to support the column loads. He also
considered whether the results of the point load test carried out by Shirlaw on Exh D5 had any impact
on his opinion of the estimated capacity of the piles.
Evidence of Prof Poulos in court
219
Prof Poulos prepared 35 slides for the trial [Exh D32]. The slides may be divided in 3 parts
a
the effect of shorter sockets on building settlement (Slides 2-19);
the capacity of the piles (Slides 20-31); and
the capacity of the piles based on the PDA test results (Slides 32-34).
220
In Prof Poulos opinion, an immaterial change is where any increase in settlement is
acceptable, and where the safe working load (Songs Pile Bearing Capacity in Exh P46) on a pile or
05/08/2008
Page 41 of 87
pile group is not reduced to below the load it supports.

221
In his reports, Prof Poulos assumed that the construction records were an accurate reflection of
the ground conditions, that the column loads were as adopted by Song, and the static load test data
from pile P44 and the 9 PDA test results were reliable.
Part (a):
222
From his computations (the approach of which is summarised in Exh D32, Slides 7-16), Prof
Poulos found that the reduction of socket length leads to relatively small increases in settlement. For a
single pile, if the socket length was reduced from 5 m to 1 m, say, the increase in settlement was
about 3 mm [Exh D32, Slide 17]. By way of comparison, in a 32 storey concrete building, when the
temperature changes by 8oC, its length changes by about 10mm. For the building itself, comparing
the settlement based on designed socket lengths against the settlement based on as constructed socket
lengths, the increase was about 5mm, and the increase in tilt was from 1/4000 to 1/3300. These were
not considered significant [Exh D32, Slide 19]. The results of the point load test on Exh D5 and other
pieces of rock collected at the site did not change Prof Poulos view on the soil parameters which he
adopted for his computations.
Part (b):
223
Turning next to the capacities of the piles, according to Prof Poulos assessment, in order for
there to be no material change, the safe working loads of the piles had to be all equal to or greater
than the corresponding column loads. Also, the factors of safety, which was the ultimate pile capacity
(Pu) divided by the corresponding column load, had to be all equal to or greater than 2.5. Prof Poulos
computed Pu from the pile load test data, using methodologies from the work of well known
researchers, Hirany & Kulhawy (1989) and Ng et al (2001). He then compared the computed
capacities with the extrapolated measured capacity from the static load test conducted on pile P44.
224
The safe working loads for the piles were all greater than the corresponding column loads
using the soil parameters derived for the Jurong Formation. When the soil parameters used were those
derived for the boulder bed, the results were the same, except for pile P69. However, pile P69 is in the
same pile group as pile P70. When considered together, the average safe working load was greater
than the average column load.
Part (c):
225
When the values of Pu assessed from the PDA tests were divided by the respective column
loads of the piles, the factors of safety were all greater than 2.5.
226
Prof Poulos concluded that the assessed safe working loads exceeded the column loads; for
the 9 test piles, the assessed factor of safety was greater than 2.5; and the computed changes in
settlements and tilt due to shorter sockets were relatively small.
Other matters
227
Prof Poulos did not think that the geotechnical capacity of the pile should be determined by
the structural capacity of the pile. For example, if titanium and not concrete was used for a pile, it
would be absurd to compare the geotechnical capacity of the pile to the strength of titanium, which is
stronger than even steel, which is in turn 10 times stronger than concrete. If the design of the titanium
pile was based on geotechnical capacity being the structural capacity, the pile would be 6 to 8 times
longer with a larger diameter. He thought that there was some confusion in terminology, where
working load (from Exh P14) was not used to represent column load, but to represent structural
capacity. He was more used to working load having the meaning of column load and not
structural capacity.
05/08/2008
Page 42 of 87
The evidence of James Nicholas Shirlaw

The credentials of James Nicholas Shirlaw
228
James Nicholas Shirlaw [DW6] (Shirlaw) is a Chartered Engineer of the United Kingdom
who is very familiar with the soil conditions in Singapore, having been involved with the Mass Rapid
Transit system since 1985, and also various other road construction projects, including the
underground Kallang/Paya Lebar Expressway [Exh D38-1, pp 1, 22-24]. He has published about 70
articles on geotechnics and underground construction works, and a list of these articles is at Exh D381, pp 25-29. He is a part-time lecturer on soft ground tunnelling at the National University of
Singapore, and since 2002, he has been the Deputy Chairman of the technical committee on the
development of Civil and Geotechnical Standards of SPRING Singapore. One of the codes under this
committee is the Singapore Standard CP4: Code of Practice for Foundations.
The reports of James Nicholas Shirlaw
229
Shirlaw was appointed by the solicitors for Lee to give an opinion on the following
a
The general geological profile of the site;
Interpretation of the original Site Investigation reports in November 1998 and 1999;
c
Whether it was reasonable for the QP to rely on the piling records provided by the
contractor;
d
Whether it was reasonable for the QP to rely on the piling records and rock samples
provided by the contractor, the PDA tests and the static load test, when permitting the on-site
variation to the minimum piling depth of 5.0 m into hard stratum;
e
Based on the piling records, assess the number of piles that achieved a penetration of 5
m into hard stratum; and
f
Whether the failure to achieve a penetration of 5 m into hard stratum:

i
Affected any key structural element;
ii
Affected the key structural elements, but the effects are localised and do no
require a re-design.
He reports are at Exh D38-1 and Exh D38-2. The contents of these reports were summarised into 24
slides [Exh D39], which he referred to in his evidence in court.
Task (a)
230
The 1976 PWD Geological Map of Singapore did not identify the Fort Canning Boulder Bed.
The blue part at the top of the extract of the map [Exh D39, Slide 2], which showed part of Fort
Canning Hill, was shown as Jurong Formation. The original soil at the site was from the Kallang
Formation. The Geological Map contained many sections, none of which went through the site. But
the nearest section showed the Kallang Formation overlying Jurong Formation rock.
231
A number of papers were written in the early 1990s on the nature and extent of what was then
known as bouldery clay. One, published by Hans, Wong and Broms in 1993 [Exh P57C], contained a
map on areas identified to have bouldery clay, and another map showing what the authors considered
to be the possible distribution of boulder clay [Exh D39, Slide 7]. The site is shown in the latter map
to be just outside area of possible boulder clay.
05/08/2008
Page 43 of 87
232
The characteristics of the Jurong Formation and Fort Canning Boulder Clay may be seen from
the photographs in Exh D39, Slides 4, 5, 6. Having reviewed the 34 additional boreholes drilled in
2002-2003, including the cores extracted [Exh D39, Slide 9], Shirlaw was of the view that the Fort
Canning Boulder Bed is over most, but not all the site [Exh D39, Slide 8]. The extent of the Fort
Canning Boulder Bed at the site is the area to the left (south) of the red line in the plan at Exh D39,
Slide 10. He could not positively identify the area to the right (north) of the red line to be Fort
Canning Boulder Clay or Jurong Formation. This was because the Fort Canning Boulder Bed was
derived from the Jurong Formation, and it could be difficult to make a clear distinction without coring
all the way down.
Task (b)
233
For BH 1, the founding stratum was described as hard boulder clay with weathered siltstone,
reddish brown. The founding strata for BH A and C were described as interbedded layers of hard
sandstone and silty clay, and that for BH B and D were described as hard silty clay. Interbedded
refers to at least three and perhaps many more beds of materials of different nature. This would be an
appropriate descriptor for the Jurong Formation and not the Fort Canning Boulder Bed, which is a
singular bed. Based on the descriptions of the borelogs of BH A to D, Shirlaw was of the view that it
was reasonable to consider the founding stratum to be weathered Jurong Formation. The
identification of bouldery clay in BH 1 was not typical of the Fort Canning Boulder Bed, and
appeared to be either anomalous or a local area of the material [Exh D38-1, para 5.2]. For a pile
design based on the SPT count, there was no difference in design between weathered Jurong
Formation and the hard clayey soil matrix of the Fort Canning Boulder Bed.
Task (c)
234
Since the piling records were prepared by the contractor, and were verified by the RE and the
CoW, who were on duty throughout the day and night, respectively, Shirlaw was of the view that it
was reasonable for the QP to rely on the piling records as there were no obvious anomalies in them.
Task (d)
235
Para 6.5.1 of CP4: 1976 [Exh D3] required that information from the construction of the bored
piles be considered by the QP. Such information was in fact given to the QP and samples were also
collected and shown to him. The number of piles tested, which was 12% of the total number of piles,
was a very high number. The results of the static load test and 9 PDA tests showed that the capacity
of these piles were significantly greater than the working load.
236
The combination of the piles records, samples, results from the static load test and PDA tests
formed a reasonable basis for the QP to accept the piles as constructed.
Task (e)
237
Information in the Bored Piling Records was not sufficiently precise to define where soil with
SPT 100 began, although many showed penetration into hard sandstone of between 2.5 and 5.0 m.
However, the soil investigation results from the original 5 boreholes and the later 34 boreholes
showed that there was soil with SPT 100 above the hard sandstone in over half the number of the
boreholes [N/E pp 1032-1034]. As a result, Shirlaw was not able to determine the number of piles that
had penetrated at least 5 m into hard stratum.
Task (f)
238
Shirlaw was of the view that the reduction of the lengths of some of the piles such that they no
longer penetrated 5 m into hard stratum should have no effect on the load carrying capacity of the
piles, but slightly increased the overall settlement of the structure. This increase would not be
05/08/2008
Page 44 of 87
sufficient to warrant a re-design of the key structural elements. His assessment was based on the
assumption that the piles were taken into hard sandstone as shown in the pile records, and that the
piles had otherwise been constructed according to the drawing, specifications and method statement.
Further, the large proportion of the piles tested justified the capacity of the piles, and the suitability of
the construction methods. Shirlaw noted that PDA tests have been in use from 1987, after CP4: 1976
was published, and was included as one of the accepted load tests in CP4: 2003, although the results
are to be correlated to the results of a static load test.
Other matters
239
Shirlaw was of the view that the original design, particularly the values used for end bearing,
was consistent with common practice in Singapore [Exh D36(1), para 5.6.1].
240
Shirlaw was not an expert on PDA tests, but he had the experience of looking at tests done on
piles. He was not aware of any rule of thumb requiring the hammer weight to be at least 1 to 2% of
the force to be mobilised in the pile. In one of the PDA tests he has come across, the hammer weight
was as low as 0.5% of the load tested. There was also no such requirement in CP4: 2003.
241
The difference in pile penetration lengths of piles P6 and P7, which were only about 4.5 m
apart, was 17 m. Shirlaw said that he had seen even larger differences between adjacent piles in
weathered rock. It was because it was possible to have almost vertical beds of rock in the Jurong
Formation, where one layer was a strong sandstone or quartzite, and the adjacent layer is a rock which
had been weathered into a soil [Exh D39, Slide 4].
242
Referring to the approach adopted by Song in coming to his conclusion in Case 1C, Shirlaw
prepared two sketches at Exh D25 which he used to comment on that approach. On Exh D25-1, which
reflects Songs step approach in determining where the line joining soil of SPT 100 runs, Shirlaw
was of the view that the steps did not represent a real surface, as natural erosion of the surface would
not have those steps. As for the line approach reflected in Exh D25-2, the general trend of the line
dipping from Gridline A to Gridline F was reasonable, although he acknowledged that natural erosion
of surface shows variability. Indeed, Shirlaw pointed out that in fact neither approach reflected
reality.
The evidence of Dr Leonard John Endicott
The credential of Dr Leonard John Endicott
243
Dr Leonard John Endicott [DW7] (Dr Endicott) has specialised in geotechnical engineering
for 38 years. He is the Chairman of Maunsell Geotechnical Services Ltd in Hong Kong, a
geotechnical engineering consulting firm with a staff of about 200 there. He has also been an Adjunct
Professor at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology since 2003. Besides being a
Chartered Engineer and a Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Hong Kong Institution
of Engineers, he is registered with various professional bodies in Hong Kong and elsewhere. In
Singapore, Dr Endicott has given advice on piles since 1975, and also gave consulting advice from
time to time. He has been involved with tunnels and site formation works, and was very familiar with
the geology and ground conditions in Singapore. In 2004, he was an expert witness in the Committee
of Inquiry into the fatal collapse of the Nicoll Highway portion of the Mass Rapid Transit System
Central Line. His curriculum vitae, which also set out his publications, may be found at Annex 1, pp
1-8 of Exh D41.
The involvement of Dr Leonard John Endicott
244
Dr Endicott was asked by the solicitors for Lee to give an independent professional opinion on
the two charges brought by BCA against him. He submitted two reports dated 13 October 2005 [Exh
D41] and 9 November 2006 [Exh D42], and also a set of slides [Exh D43]. His first involvement in
the project was in 2002, when he reviewed the records of piling construction and monitoring data;
05/08/2008
Page 45 of 87
carried out an assessment of the ground conditions, the basis of the design of the piles, and an
evaluation of the workmanship; and reviewed the proposals for enhancement of the piling on account
of the unexpected settlement and tilt. He continued to review the ongoing work of the project from
time to time. A Preliminary Report on Settlements he prepared on 15 August 2002 [Exh P3B] was
referred to in the course of his evidence in court. He was also referred to Overall Foundation
Enhancement Design prepared by Maunsell [Exh P25].
The reports of Dr Leonard John Endicott
245
The report at Exh D41 sets out Dr Endicotts opinion on the following two questions
Q1: Whether the changes in the penetration depth of piles where they did not penetrate at least 5
metres into hard stratum as specified in the approved piling plans is an immaterial changes
which:
Does not affect any key structural element
Affects key structural elements but the effects are localised in nature and do not require redesign of the key structural system
Q2: Whether upon a reading of the as-built piling plans submitted on 21 February 2001, there
was a false declaration made that all piles as installed had been socketed at least 5 m into hard
stratum.
The second question related to the second charge which Lee faced. Since the charge was amended by
the prosecution, Dr Endicotts answer to the second question was no longer directly relevant.
246
In summary, Dr Endicotts answer to the first question [Exh D43, slides 14, 15] was
A1: The piles were built in accordance with the requirements. Based on the site construction
records and PDA testing, it was reasonable to expect that the piles would have the required
bearing capacity. The layout of the piles was unchanged and the construction tolerances were
satisfied. Therefore the piles were constructed in accordance with the bearing capacities as
required by the approved plans. The deviations of penetration were not a material change in this
case.
There was also no material affect to the key structural elements, as the capacities and
configuration of the piles were not changed. The pile caps and structural elements could be built
without material change and, in fact, construction went ahead on that basis.
247
In Dr Endicotts view, a structural element is affected if it has to be relocated, or changed in
structural capacity as determined by size, steel reinforcement content and grade of concrete [Exh D41,
para 3.2].
248
Exh D42 was a rebuttal report in which Dr Endicott dealt with the following questions. These,
together with his answers, summarised in Slides 24 to 36 of Exh D43, are reproduced below
1
Are the soil properties adopted by Mr Song in his Expert Report reasonable?
I conclude that Mr Song does not adopt a reasonable model of the ground or for the parameters.
In particular he does not adopt the piling construction records and he assumes hard soil where
the piling construction records show hard sandstone. Hard sandstone is stronger than hard soil.
For soils above the sockets, he does not take any account of any soils with SPTs between 60
and 200.
2
Is Mr Songs analysis of penetration of piles in his Expert Report reasonable?
05/08/2008
Page 46 of 87
Mr Song under-estimates the penetration into hard ground. He relies on the depth of the sockets
shown in the piling records which are described as hard sandstone. His estimate does not
include any ground with SPT > 100 above rock.
He does not take into account that hard sandstone is considerably stronger than soil with SPT >
100.
3
Is Mr Songs estimate of the capacity of piles in his Expert Report reasonable?
Mr Song estimates the bearing capacity of the piles without taking into account the piling
construction records.
He disregards the hard sandstone that is reported in the sockets and he assumes weaker
parameters for soil.
He does not allow for soil with SPT > 60 above the sockets.
His conclusions that the piles as-built had inadequate capacity are not reasonable.
4
Was it reasonable to consider that the piles as built had sufficient pile bearing capacity?
Had Mr Song adopted reasonable estimates for the properties of soil above the sockets and for
hard sandstone he would have concluded that the piles as-built had an allowable capacity in
excess of the column loads and he would have concluded that there was no material deviation
from the design and there was no affect to key structural elements of the building.
Based on the piling construction records, the static load test, and the 9 PDA tests it was
reasonable to consider that all of the 73 piles, if properly constructed, had adequate capacity.
5
Was it reasonable to accept the static load test results on pile P44 as reliable?
Yes it was reasonable to accept the results of the static load test as reliable.
There was a small anomaly between the displacements at loads up to 1160 T during the first and
second stages but the results overall showed good performance and that the bearing capacity
was at least 1160 T.
6
Was it reasonable to accept the 9 PDA test results on piles numbers P10, P13, P16, P22,
P44, P53, P58, P62 and P68 as reliable?
Yes it was reasonable to accept the results of the PDA tests as reliable.
The reports were certified by a PE who was experienced in this type of specialist testing and
there was no signs in the reports that would cause concern.
7
How are column loads on piles and bearing capacities determined?
The column load is taken from the structural design, the weight of the pile cap is added and the
whole is divided by the number of piles to derive the column load per pile.
Ultimate shaft friction derived from SPTs is summed for the depth of the pile and is divided by
a factor of safety of 2.0. The ultimate end bearing of 12 MPa is divided by a factor of safety of
2.5 and is added to the shaft friction to obtain the bearing capacity.
8
How the estimated penetrations of piles as reflected in the Approved Piling Plans were
determined?
05/08/2008
Page 47 of 87
The estimated penetration of a pile was determined such that the bearing capacity equalled or
exceeded the column load for the pile.
9
Whether the Pile Elevation on the Approved Piling Plans showing 5 m penetration into
hard stratum is a requirement in the Approved Piling Plans which must be achieved as an
absolute criterion?
No, the requirements of the design are that the piles shall have adequate bearing capacity to
support the column loads. The product of the design is an estimated penetration for each pile
group as shown on the first sheet of the Approved Piling Plans. The actual penetration is to be
determined according to the ground conditions as encountered at each pile location and
sufficient to achieve the required bearing capacity.
10
Whether based on the original soil investigations, 5 boreholes, there should be soil
layers above hard sandstone with SPT > 100?
Yes, based on the 5 borehole logs it would have been reasonable to assume that soil with SPT >
100 would be present above hard sandstone.
11
Whether based on the additional soil investigations, 34 boreholes, there should be soil
layers above hard sandstone with SPT > 100?
Yes, based on the 34 borehole logs it would have been reasonable to assume that soil with SPT
> 100 would be present above hard sandstone.
12
In the event that there is a change of parameters for shaft friction and end bearing from
the original design, would this affect a key structural element locally and warrant a re-design of
the key structural system?
Provided that there is no change contemplated to the bearing capacity of the piles, in the event
that there is a change of parameters for shaft friction and end bearing, then it is a verification of
the bearing capacity and it is not a re-design.
13
Why the basis of Mr Shees evidence in Court that his derivation of the anchorage
length the piles in the approved plans based on the Working Load in the approved plans and
piling design calculations is wrong?
Piles are required to have an anchorage length sufficient to achieve a bearing capacity equal to
or greater than the column loads. Mr Shee has wrongly assumed that the piles are required to
support a load equal to the structural capacity of the pile shafts which, in this case, exceed the
column loads.
His assumptions are unnecessarily conservative and are unreasonable.
The evidence of Dr Kog Yue Choong
The credentials of Dr Kog Yue Choong
249
Dr Kog Yue Choong [DW4] (Dr Kog) is a senior member of the civil engineering
profession in Singapore. Besides being a PE and AC, the professional appointments he has held
include Chairman of the Interview Panel, Professional Engineers Board, Singapore; and President,
Association of Consulting Engineers Singapore. He is also a fellow of the professional bodies in
Singapore and the United Kingdom, and Adjunct Professor of the Faculty of Engineering, National
University of Singapore. He has been a member of the National University Council since 1988,
holding the post of deputy chairman in 2000-2002. The complete list of his qualifications is at Exh
D33, pp 9-10.
05/08/2008
Page 48 of 87
The reports of Dr Kog Yue Choong

250
Dr Kog was appointed by the solicitors for Lee to give an independent professional opinion of
the two charges Lee faced. His two reports are at [Exh D33 and Exh D34]. His opinion was based on
what he considered a reasonable and competent PE would have done at that particular time and under
similar circumstances based on the information and documents he was provided with by Lees
solicitors.
251
Dr Kogs opinion was that the key structural elements in a piling plan are the piles. In
Singapore, the soil conditions are very varied in that soil conditions of two closely located spots
differ. It is generally recognised by practising engineers that the limited number of borelogs of a few
boreholes cannot provide a precise and complete description of the soil conditions of the project.
Consequently, the designed pile lengths invariably vary when piles are installed on site. This change
in penetration has been accepted as not a material change in practice. The same applied for the
anchorage length of the pile into a hard stratum. The QP may indicate on the piling plan the intended
anchorage length, and it may be varied on site because of actual difficulties in achieving it. Similarly,
such a change is commonly encountered, and has been accepted to be not a material change in
practice. The material change for piles as normally practised is the load carrying capacity and
settlement of the pile at working or test load. In Singapore, because of the prevailing conditions, the
focus by the QP is on the load carrying capacity of the piles. For this project, the results of the 10 tests
performed on 9 piles showed that the piles had all achieved the design capacities and allowable
settlements specified in the approved piling plan. This testing regime (12.3% of the piles) was
adequate and exceeded even the code requirements of a subsequent code, viz., CP4: 2003, which
indicated usually only 1% to 2% of the piles need to be tested [Exh D19, para 7.5.4.1]. On this basis,
Dr Kog was of the view that deviation in pile penetration length into hard stratum was immaterial and
the adequacy of the key structural elements had not been adversely affected to warrant a re-design of
the pile foundation because of this immaterial change.
252
There was no justifiable reason for the QP at that time not to allow the builder to proceed with
the subsequent construction because this deviation was commonly encountered in all construction
projects with pile foundations, since none of the load tests failed. Had the load tests failed, additional
compensating piles would need to be installed.
253
Dr Kog thought that the allegation of false declaration arose because in the as-built building
plan submitted, it was stated that minimum anchorage length of 5000 mm into hard stratum shall be
achieved in all piles and is subject to verification of the working load tests. According to him, this
note usually appears in the construction drawing for the builder to show the intent of the QP for
compliance by the builder whenever site conditions permit. It is normally deleted from the drawing
since the actual penetration has been incorporated. This is a common practice in the building industry.
This is becaue it does not make sense to repeat the intent of the QP in the as-built drawing since the
piles have been installed. Had a QP wanted to make a false declaration, then the words shall be
would have been replaced with had been to make clear that the requirement has been achieved on
site. It was clear to Dr Kog and practitioners in the construction industry that the inclusion of the Pile
Elevation sketch and not deleting it from the as-built drawing was an oversight by the QP and his
staff. In his opinion, there was no intended false declaration in the as-built drawing submitted on 21
February 2001 that all the piles installed had been socketed at least 5 m into a hard stratum.
254
Dr Kog was of the view that Lee acted with reasonable care and due diligence and in
accordance with what he would consider as acceptable practice in permitting the penetration depth of
some of the concrete bored piles to fall short of the minimum anchorage lengths of 5 m into hard
stratum, thereby permitting Samsung to deviate from the approved piling plan.
255
The basis of his opinion was that since the 5 borelogs only showed the soil conditions at those
5 specific locations, a reasonable QP would expect the actual soil conditions on site would differ from
the probable soil profile obtained from the 5 borelogs. Consequently, the actual pile penetrations
05/08/2008
Page 49 of 87
would differ from the design pile penetrations specified in the approved piling plans based on the
probable soil profile. Comparing the penetrations of all the piles, there was no basis for Lee to think
that the contractor was deliberately reducing the pile penetration, as some were greater than the
design penetrations. The fact that the actual pile penetration will differ from the design penetration
was one reason why pile testing was done. In this case, a selection of piles was subjected to PDA tests
to establish whether they satisfied the allowable load bearing capacities and settlements stipulated.
256
Originally, the working load tests specified was one static load test and one PDA test on a
1300 mm diameter pile, and one PDA test on a 1400 mm diameter pile, with the test load defined as
two times safe working capacity of the pile. Compensating piles were to be installed in the event the
load test failed [Exh P14, Note 14]. Subsequently, the number of PDA tests was increased by 7. The 7
piles selected were evenly distributed within the site, and were all for piles which did not have a
socket of 5 m into rock, including the pile with the shortest socket into rock, pile P58. The results of
these test demonstrated that the piles installed, including those which fell short of the minimum
anchorage length into hard stratum, have complied with the requisite load carrying capacity and pile
settlement stipulated by the QP.
257
Dr Kog came to the view that Lee had acted with reasonable care and due diligence and in
accordance with what he considered as acceptable practice in permitting the penetration depth of
some of the bored piles to fall short of the minimum anchorage into hard stratum, thereby permitting
Samsung to deviate from the approved piling plans. He did so after having reviewed all the steps
which Lee went through [Exh D34, pp 5-6], after he was first informed that the piles were not able to
achieve 5 m anchorage into hard stratum. Dr Kog considered that Lee had taken appropriate action to
address the issues such as short piles.
258
Dr Kog found that Lee had acted with reasonable care and due diligence in relying on the 3
PDA test reports on the 9 piles endorsed by the PEs. The tests have all shown that the piles installed,
including those which fell short of the minimum anchorage length of 5 m into hard stratum, had
complied with the load carrying capacity and allowable settlement specified by Lee. Since PDA
testing was a specialised field in which most QPs were not well versed with, they would accept the
conclusions without going through the calculations, which were mostly performed by computer
programs of the equipment supplier. There was no basis for Lee at the material time to suspect that
the contractors QP had not exercised due care and diligence in carrying out the piles tests and
subsequent analysis which were submitted in the reports.
259
According to Dr Kog, it was not a common practice for piling works to stop. For construction
sites, a stop work order will only be given if there was an imminent collapse where there is serious
doubt on safety of the erected structure. In the case of short socketing into hard stratum, normal
practice is to carry out load test later to establish the adequacy of the piles with regard to load
carrying capacity. In the event that some of the piles fail the load tests, the load carrying capacity of
the failed piles will be downgraded and additional compensating piles will be installed to ensure that
total carrying capacity of the pile group is adequate for the intended column load. There is no need to
stop work, as 9 piles were going to be tested, and one did not know whether any pile would fail.
260
Dr Kog has never heard of a rule that weight of the hammer used in a PDA test should be at
least 1.0-1.5% of the force to be mobilised in the test pile. He was co-author with Lee and others of an
article on the SUNTEC City project which had touched on PDA testing. He said Lee contributed
practically nothing to the article, and was included as a matter of courtesy because he was the
consulting engineer of the project.
The evidence of Tham Poh Kuan
The credentials of Tham Poh Kuan
261
Tham Poh Kuan [DW5] (Tham) is also a senior member of the engineering profession in
Singapore. Besides being a PE and AC, the professional appointments he held included Vice-
05/08/2008
Page 50 of 87
President, Association of Chartered Engineers Singapore. He is also a member of professional

engineering bodies in Singapore and the United Kingdom, and was a member of the Drafting
Committee of SS 515: Code of Practice on Site Supervision. The complete list of his qualifications is
at Exh D35.
The reports of Tham Poh Kuan
262
Tham was appointed by the solicitors for Lee to give an independent professional opinion on
the two charges which were brought against Lee. His opinion is set out in his first report of September
2005 [Exh D36]. It is based on what he considered a reasonable and competent PE would have done
at that particular time and under similar circumstances. He has not taken into account what
subsequently happened to the particular project with regard to the issue of the tilting of the building.
263
On the first charge, Tham was of the view that the Pile Elevation sketch (PEL) at the left
edge of the piling plan [Exh P14] was only a conservative guide to the builder and site staff doing the
piling works. This was because the soil investigation reports from the original 5 boreholes showed the
soil profile to be highly variable, and that rock might be encountered at certain parts of the site and
not others. The specified anchorage length of 5 m into soil of SPT 100 in the PEL was to provide
adequate load carrying resistance to the piles which did not encounter rock. Where rock was
encountered, the end bearing resistance of the piles would be achieved by nominal socketing into
sound rock. The minimum anchorage specified would have acted as a conservative guide to the
builder and site staff during piling works. When the builder has difficulty in socketing 5 m into the
rock, the matter could be referred back to the QP, who could relax the requirement on a case by case
basis. It was therefore reasonable to interpret the PEL as a guide to the builder and the site staff, and
was not meant to be complied with under any circumstances.
264
The PEL also stated that the 5 m anchorage was subject to verification of working load tests.
This showed that the 5 m was only an estimate and a guide. It was therefore reasonable to assume that
this length may be adjusted upwards or downwards depending on the results of the tests. Since an
additional seven PDA tests were indeed conducted, the condition of verifying the load capacity of
piles which had reduced anchorages using the working load tests was complied with. Tham was
accordingly of the view that the QP would have complied with the intent of the PEL.
265
As there was no change to the pile capacity despite the shorter anchorage depths, there was no
need to do a re-design for the key structural system like piles and columns. Accordingly, there was
not need to submit the plans to BCA for approval. Tham said it was an accepted practice in Singapore
to give some leeway to QPs to vary the depths of piles without going back to BCA, as there would
otherwise be costly delays to projects.
266
Tham said that the Building Control Act requires all piling works to be carried out under the
supervision of a QP. Since piles are designed based on the information of only a few boreholes, the
actual ground conditions can vary greatly. The QPs role is to ensure that the piles constructed all
comply with the design intent. The piling works need to be executed in a timely manner without
major disruptions to the completion date of the project as the costs of any delay, and of keeping
machinery idle, are very high. Therefore, the QP has to be given sufficient leeway and discretion in
varying the design of the piling works based on his engineering judgment without having to refer
every decision to the BCA for approval first. He said such was the accepted engineering practice in
Singapore, provided that the changes were immaterial in nature and did not affect any key structural
elements, or their effects were localised in nature. In the present case, with regard to the QP allowing
deviation in the pile anchorage length into hard stratum, the deviation did not affect the pile type,
size, load capacity or location, and did not require a re-design in the key structural system. The
deviation was therefore minor in nature, and did not affect the key structural elements. In Thams
view, the deviation was immaterial.
267
The charge stated that 66 piles out of the 73 piles did not have a minimum of 5 m anchorage
into hard stratum. Tham was of the view that this was wrong, and the number of piles with
05/08/2008
Page 51 of 87
anchorages of less than 5 m into hard stratum was actually smaller. This was because the charge was
based on the piling records which equated hard stratum to rock, while in the piling plans it was soil
with SPT 100. Although rock would give SPT 100, in engineering practice, SPT is not used to
measure rock strength but soil strength.
268
In his second report in April 2006 [Exh D37], Tham said he was of the opinion that the QP
acted with reasonable care and due diligence and in accordance with acceptable practice in permitting
the penetration depths of some of the concrete bored piles to fall short of the minimum anchorage
length of 5 m into hard stratum of SPT 100, thereby permitting Samsung to deviate from the
approved piling plan. He said it was an accepted practice when a builder encounters difficulties
during construction to consider alternatives. Here the proposal put forward by Samsung was accepted
by the QP after considering that the material the piles were socketed into was rock, which was stiffer
than hard stratum, and that the piles tested have all passed. Tham also noted that the first pile tested,
which has a 5 m embedment into hard stratum but not 5 m into rock, had still passed. This indicated
that it was not necessary to penetrate 5 m into rock to achieve the required load capacity. During
piling works, the QP had insisted on a penetration depth of at least 5 m into hard stratum, and had not
accepted the piles which had short penetrations until after they had passed the load tests. Tham was of
the view that Lee had exercised due diligence. After considering all these, there was no technical
justification for the QP to reject the piles, since there was no evidence that the shorter penetrations
would not achieve the required load capacities.
269
Tham was of the view that the QP had also acted with reasonable care and due diligence in
relying on the PDA tests on the 9 piles. Such tests were an accepted and widely used method of
determining the load capacities of piles at the material time. The piles tested were selected by the QP
and were representative of the piles on site. Further, the results correlated with the results of the static
load test done earlier. The tests were also performed by a company which did many such tests then,
and is still performing these tests now. It has also become a company accredited by the Singapore
Accreditation Council for performing such tests. Moreover, the reports, which were clear and
unambiguous, were endorsed by PEs. Tham said that a report indorsed by a PE has to be taken at face
value, and one PE could not be unduly critical of another PEs work.
270
To Tham, the deviation was not a material change in nature because there was no change to
the pile type, size, capacity and location. The load tests conducted showed that the capacity remained
unchanged.
271
Tham has also personally used a metal rod tied to the end of a tape to ascertain the material at
the founding level of a pile. He said this was a common method to test for whether the material is
rock or mud at the bottom of the pile, and it could be used even though there is supermud slurry at the
base of the pile.
272
Where there is a change of the design parameters because hard sandstone was encountered, so
that end bearing and shaft friction are more than the original design, Tham was of the view that it was
not necessary for QP to carry out a re-design of the whole structural system. This is because there is
no change to the pile capacity. There is also no need to submit plans for approval to BCA.
Case for the Defence for the Second Accused
The evidence of Wong Seng Poh
273
Wong Seng Poh [EW1] (Wong) was the Deputy Project Manager of Samsung for the
project. Besides handling the correspondence between Samsung, Maunsell, the owners and the
authorities, he attended weekly site inspections (with other Samsung staff) with Maunsells
representatives, the RE and the CoW. He also attended internal meetings of Samsung on the project.
274
Wong said that Rotary was chosen as the piling sub-contractor because, besides its proposal
being the most suitable for Samsung, it also had prior experience with piling works in the vicinity of
05/08/2008
Page 52 of 87
Church Street, being the piling sub-contractor of the neighbouring China Square Project in 1996 [Exh
P41, p 248].
275
The test pile (later designated as pile P44) was constructed by Rotary on 5 August 2000,
before the construction of the rest of the piles, and subjected to a static load test from 14 to 21 August
2000 using the Kentledge Reaction System in accordance with their Method Statement [Exh P41, p
85]. The results of the test were submitted to Maunsell, who accepted them. Piling works on the rest
of the site began on 18 August 2000.
276
Wong said that the piling records were always properly kept. These piling records were
Rotarys Bored Pile Records [Exh P37], prepared daily by Rotary and then verified and signed by
Chen and Low. Samsung also prepared its own separate Bored Piling Works Results one or two
days after each Bored Pile Record was prepared. These were for its record and for easy reference by
its Korean engineers. They were a lot simpler, and were to reflect the underground conditions in
diagrammatic form. The classification was either marine clay stratum or hard stratum, with no
other differentiation made.
277
Samsung distributed the piling plan they received from Maunsell to Rotary. Samsung had
noted that the piling plan stated the estimated total pile penetration length for each pile, and also that
piles were to achieve a minimum 5 m anchorage into hard stratum of soils of SPT 100, subject to
verification of working load test. Samsungs understanding was that Rotary had to achieve both the
estimated total pile penetration length and the minimum anchorage length into hard stratum.
278
As with usual practice, only the QP (whether himself or through his agents, the RE or CoW)
could decide when Rotary could terminate the piles and proceed with the casting. Rotarys views on
termination were irrelevant.
279
Although the requirement was to achieve 5 m minimum anchorage into hard stratum, the
practice on site was more conservative, as hard stratum was treated as rock. Rock was expected and
this was fortified when hard sandstone was encountered during the construction of pile P44, the test
pile.
280
Samsung was of the view that because no proper SPT was done on the materials being
removed from the boreholes, it was far more practical to treat rock as the start of hard stratum.
Otherwise the site staff would have to establish the stiffness of the various soils layers encountered
during the drilling;
281
When Rotary was unable to achieve 5 m anchorage into the rock encountered for piles P23
and P26, it was permitted to terminate the piles by the RE or CoW. Wong then telephoned Mak on 31
August 2000 and suggested that the duration of time taken to penetrate into the hard stratum to be a
criterion for terminating a pile, subject to the approval of the RE, and that PDA tests be conducted
subsequently to confirm if the shortened penetration was adequate. As requested by Mak, Wong
followed up with a written proposal to Maunsell on 4 September 2000 [Exh P41, p 205]. The proposal
was rejected by Maunsell in their reply of 5 September 2000 [Exh P41, p 212].
282
Subsequently, a practice was adopted on site where Rotary would report to the RE or CoW
when it could no longer penetrate any further after continuous coring for 4 to 6 hours, while
collecting rock samples from the various levels of coring for examination by the RE or CoW. The RE
or CoW would then take instructions from Maunsell on whether the pile could be terminated. Also,
additional PDA tests would be conducted to justify the capacities of the piles with anchorages of 1.5
to 2.0 m into rock.
283
Besides the static load test done on pile P44 earlier, a total of 9 PDA tests were conducted by
Pilescan. The first batch of test results showed that piles which had socket depths of between 2 to 3 m
had achieved sufficient capacity [Exh P41, p 218]. Rotarys fax to Samsung of 10 October 2000 [Exh
P41, p 244] confirmed that the bored piles were more than adequate to carry the design loadings.
05/08/2008
Page 53 of 87
This information was conveyed to Maunsell on 11 October 2000 [Exh P41, p 243], who did not raise
any further query on the matter. Subsequent PDA test results were also transmitted to Maunsell on 2
and 6 November 2000 [Exh P41, pp 402, 433]. Rotary also submitted their technical calculations to
justify the shorter penetration and anchorage [Exh P41, pp 474-475], which Samsung forwarded to
Maunsell, seeking permission to proceed with the casting of the pile caps.
284
Lee eventually accepted Rotarys piling works, and indorsed on the As-built ECC and Pile
Penetration Layout plan [Exh P19] that the piles were constructed in accordance with the approved
plan with no material deviations.
Close of the Trial
The law
285
The burden on the prosecution at the close of the trial is to prove the guilt of an accused
beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not for accused to prove his innocence.
Standard of proof at the close of the trial
286
In determining the guilt of an accused, the court is not bound by the decision it made at the
close of the prosecutions case as that was based on a different standard of proof. It was stated by the
learned Chief Justice in PP v Liew Kim Choo [1997] 3 SLR 699 that
The evidence must be subjected to the highest, not lowest standard of scrutiny. The facts proved
by the Prosecution must therefore satisfy the trial judge beyond reasonable doubt that the
correct inference to be drawn from those facts is that the accused person is guilty. The trial
judge is not allowed to act on the presumption that the primary evidence is true. Nor is he to
make only a minimal assessment to decide if the necessary inferences would reasonably be
drawn. He must make a maximum assessment
287
Even if the court does not believe the defence of the accused, it does not exempt the
prosecution from having to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In Yeo
See Koon Jimmy v PP [1994] 3 SLR 539, the learned Chief Justice stated that
I do not propose, however, to deal in minute detail with the defects of the appellants defence:
for, however tenuous that defence might have been, the burden still lay on the prosecution to
prove the appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and in discharging that burden, it was
simply insufficient for them to point to the inadequacies of the appellants testimony.
288
In Oh Laye Koh [1994] 2 SLR 385, a case in which the prosecution relied on circumstantial
evidence, the High Court acquitted the accused at the close of the prosecutions case. On appeal by
the prosecution, the Court of Appeal stated at pp 391-392 that the test in Sunny Ang v PP
[1966] 2 MLJ 188 (that before circumstantial evidence can secure an accuseds conviction, it must
lead inevitably and inexorably to one conclusion and one conclusion only) was not relevant or
applicable at the close of the prosecutions case. It held that
There is one and only one principle at the close of the trial, that of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, and this principle applies equally to cases where the prosecution evidence is wholly
circumstantial as it does to those where direct evidence is adduced. We would therefore wish to
dispel any notion that the Sunny Ang test is somehow a separate and unique test reserved for use
in cases where the prosecution evidence is wholly circumstantial.
Hence the Sunny Ang test is applicable whether the evidence is wholly circumstantial or otherwise.
289
In the more recent case of PP v Chee Cheong Hin Constance [2006] 2 SLR 24, V K Rajah J
commented (at pp 46-47), in relation to the approach to take when drawing inferences from
circumstantial evidence, that
05/08/2008
Page 54 of 87
85
The general process of drawing inferences from evidence is similar in both civil and
criminal cases. The burden of proof, however, is altogether different. In a criminal case, proof
beyond any reasonable doubt is required. Grave suspicion is no substitute for proof beyond
reasonable doubt. In the same vein, moral certainty cannot replace the requirement for explicit
and certain evidence. The various links in the interlocking chain of evidence must establish a
complete chain that rules out any reasonable likelihood of an accuseds innocence. Guilt must
be the only rational inference and conclusion to be drawn from the complete chain of evidence.
In assessing the circumstances, the court should discount fanciful or speculative possibilities.
However, if more than one reasonable inference can be elicited from the factual matrix, the
inference most sympathetic to the accused ought to be accepted.
Findings
The expert witnesses
The law
290
In BAJUMI WAHAB & 7 ORS v. AFRO-ASIA SHIPPING COMPANY (PRIVATE) LIMITED
& 4 ORS (OS727/1996, CWU162/1996 unreported), the High Court has stated that
12. The first duty of the court is to satisfy itself that the person put forward as an expert in his
field is indeed one. In this case, Mr. Fernandez and Dr. Wijesekara each holds an impressive list
of paper certification and experience. I need not recite the list save to say that their paper
credentials were not challenged. Mr. Wong made a vigorous submission that Mr. Fernandez had
"disqualified himself as an expert", but I am unable to agree with that view. I think that Mr.
Fernandez's words that he did not think himself an expert was taken out of context. He clearly
meant that he was not an accountant by training as Dr. Wijesekara is. Mr. Fernandez is an
expert in estate valuation with particular experience in the valuation of rubber plantations in
Malaysia. Dr. Wijesekara is a chartered accountant by training, but has experience in the
valuation of rubber plantations in Sri Lanka. The expert's competency is, naturally, enhanced by
the quantity and quality of his research, and the study he undertakes. There is no special
category of expert known as the "valuation expert on rubber plantations". The persons
appointed to assist the court is a team consisting of an agronomist and an accountant. There are,
therefore, many routes to qualify as an expert in the valuation of rubber plantations, and I have
no difficulty in accepting Mr. Fernandez and Mr. Wijesekara as experts in this field although
they each have their strengths and weaknesses. While Mr. Fernandez is familiar with the state
of rubber plantations and the rubber industry in Malaysia, Dr. Wijesekara is familiar with that in
Sri Lanka. There can be little doubt that the conditions of this industry vary greatly in different
countries and a sound knowledge of what goes on in the country in question is important.
Intimate knowledge of details such as the fact and effect of the presence of squatters in the
vicinity of the plantation affect the valuation of yield, for instance. Mr. Fernandez had made a
site inspection of the plantation in question but Dr. Wijesekara did not. Quite apart from the
individual mannerism, style, and personality of the witness which, in varying degree, may add
to or detract from the overall confidence the court may repose in his testimony, the substance
and quality of an expert's evidence is best approached with the summary of the duties and
responsibilities of an expert, as set out by Cresswell J in the Ikarian Reefer [1993] 2 Lloyd's rep
68, 81, firmly and constantly in mind. I will here set out the relevant portion.
"1. Expert evidence presented to the Court should be, and should be seen to be, the
independent product of the expert uninfluenced as to form or content by the exigencies of
litigation (Whitehouse v Jordan, [1981] 1 WLR 246 at p. 256, per Lord Wilberforce).
2. An expert witness should provide independent assistance to the Court by way of
objective unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his expertise (see Polivitte Ltd v
Commercial Union Assurance Co. Plc., [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 379 at p. 386 per Mr.
05/08/2008
Page 55 of 87
Justice Garland and Re J, [1990] FCR 193 per Mr. Justice Cazalet). An expert witness in
the High Court should never assume the role of an advocate.
3. An expert witness should state the facts or assumption upon which his opinion is based.
He should not omit to consider material facts which could detract from his concluded
opinion (Re J sup.).
4. An expert witness should make it clear when a particular question or issue falls outside
his expertise.
5. If an experts opinion is not properly researched because he considers that insufficient
data is available, then this must be stated with an indication that the opinion is no more
than a provisional one (Re J sup.). In cases where an expert witness who has prepared a
report could not assert that the report contained the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth without some qualification, that qualification should be stated in the report
(Derby & Co Ltd and Others v Weldon and Others, The Times, No. 9, 1990 per Lord
Justice Staughton).
6. If, after exchange of reports, an expert witness changes his view on a material matter
having read the other side's expert's report or for any other reason, such change of view
should be communicated (through legal representatives) to the other side without delay
and when appropriate to the Court.
7. Where expert evidence refers to photographs, plans, calculations, analyses,
measurements, survey reports or other similar documents, these must be provided to the
opposite party at the same time as the exchange of reports (see 15.5 of the Guide to
Commercial Court Practice)."
To these salutations, I need only add that in discharging his duty the expert is required to make
reasonable appraisement of reasonable factors. Often, he cannot be proved right; and he must
thus gain acceptance of his opinion by the depth of his research, the soundness of his analysis
and arguments, and the honesty and impartiality in which he presents his views.
291
While that case was a civil case, the same principles apply in dealing with the evidence of
experts in a criminal prosecution after making the necessary adjustments for the different procedures
and burdens of proof in the two types of cases. I kept the relevant principles in mind when I
considered the evidence of the experts in the present case.
Evaluation of the evidence of the expert witnesses
292
I had no difficulty in accepting that the expert witnesses on both sides all held "an impressive
list of paper certification and experience" and, subject to any reservation they have themselves made,
the nature of the evidence they gave was all within their competence to do so. I examined all their
evidence to see if it could stand up to scrutiny on the basis of the accuracy and quality of the
assumptions, analyses and conclusions put forward.
Evidence on areas of professional practice
293
I note that where it comes to issues on certain areas of professional practice, the expert
witnesses did not always share a common view as to what the correct practice ought to be. In such
cases, unless there was clear evidence that one view was preferred to all others, I would accept that
different practitioners may have different practices and no one view is to be preferred to the others at
all times.
Evidence on geotechnical engineering and Singapore soil conditions
294
In the course of the trial, the expert witnesses have given differing opinions on the soil
05/08/2008
Page 56 of 87
conditions at the project site. In evaluating their evidence, I took into account their expertise in
geotechnical engineering, and their experience with the soil conditions in Singapore. Since neither
Shee nor Song claimed to be geotechnical engineers, I gave lesser weight to their evidence on soil
matters when compared to the weight I gave to the evidence of A/Prof Harry Tan, Prof Harry Poulos,
Shirlaw and Dr Endicott. Of these four expert witnesses, A/Prof Tan and Shirlaw were more familiar
with Singapore soil conditions generally, and Fort Canning Boulder Clay, specifically. Between the
two, I was of the view that Shirlaw had a greater span of knowledge, having been closely associated
with underground tunnelling works all over Singapore for many years. As for knowledge on Fort
Canning Boulder Clay, I noted that Shirlaw has been involved with more projects which encountered
this soil formation [Exh D38(1), pp 23-24], which was officially identified only several years ago,
than A/Prof Tan [N/E p 562].
Whether the offences are strict liability offences
295
Based on the Prosecutions Opening Address [Exh P42, paras 6, 11] and submissions [Exh
P75, paras 8(d), 18; N/E p 1220], it would appear that the prosecution does not take the position that
the offences in the present case are strict liability offences. Since this was also the common position
of the two accused, I would therefore only set out very brief reasons for my view that the offences
were not strict liability offences.
296
The provisions in s 19(2) of the Act are intended to regulate building activities. As may be
seen from the various matters set out above, the process of how piling works are executed is a
dynamic one. While the work starts off with an approved piling plan, the conditions encountered on
site may require the QP and builder to make adjustments. This necessarily contemplates that the QP
has to apply his mind to decide if changes are required, and the results obtained are acceptable. In
such circumstances, it cannot be said that the offences under the section are strict liability offences.
This is because the requirements in the original plans may cease to be valid, and the constructed
works would have to be measured by a different set of requirements. Sometimes the constructed
works require endorsement by the AC and approval by the BCA before they can be accepted (when
the deviations are material deviations), while at other times, the constructed works can be accepted by
the QC himself (when the deviations are immaterial deviations). Whether a deviations is material can
only be decided after an assessment is done. Accordingly, the offences under s 19(2) of the Act in
charges P1A and P1C were not strict liability offences.
297
As for the charge P1B, since there could only be an offence if Lee had falsely certified that
the piling works were constructed in accordance with the approved piling plans (see para 442 below),
mens rea has to be an essential ingredient of an offence under s 19(3) of the Act.
Information by which each accused persons conduct is to be measured
298
The evidence admitted before the court included both information which was available at the
material time, and information which was only available after the event. Examples of the earlier were
the results of the soil investigation which was conducted before the piles were constructed [Exh P8],
and CP4: 1976 [Exh D3], the relevant foundation code at the material time. Examples of the latter
were the results of the soil investigations which were conducted after the piles were constructed [Exh
P55], and CP4: 2003 [Exh D19], the relevant foundation code after the event.
Which set of soil information to use
299
At the time when the piles were designed, the only soil information available was that
obtained from the 5 boreholes in the soil investigations conducted by SIPL, and other information
which was in the public domain, eg., the Geology of Singapore published by the then Public Works
Department in 1976, containing maps, cross-sections and a booklet on the geology of Singapore [Exh
D38(1), para 4.1].
300
In the course of the construction of the 73 bored piles, Rotary prepared its Bored Piling Report
05/08/2008
Page 57 of 87
[Exh P37] which sets out the various types of soil excavated from the ground at the bored pile
locations.
301
After the building was found to have settled, another soil investigation involving an additional
34 boreholes was conducted, and test piles were also constructed.
302
The conduct of Lee at the material time could only be measured by the soil information
available to him then. Therefore the Soil Investigation Report [Exh P8] and soil information in the
public domain at the material time may be referred to when assessing Lees design of the bored piles.
To these will be added Rotarys Bored Piling Records [Exh P37] when assessing his evaluation and
acceptance of the constructed piles. It would not be right to use information which was not available
to him then to evaluate subjective matters. For example, soil information obtained subsequent to the
building settlement [Exh P55] should not be used to decide if the original pile design was correctly
done. However, the subsequent soil information could be used to evaluate objective matters. For
example, it would be permissible for the subsequent soil information to be used to determine where
hard stratum actually commences for the purpose of establishing the length of anchorage of the pile
into hard stratum.
Which design code to use
303
From the publication of CP4: 1976 to the publication of CP4: 2003, there was a gap of 27
years. It would be fair to say that there would have been much progress in the field of foundation
engineering during this period. While a designer in 2000, when the events took place, could have
relied on the 1976 code in his design, he would necessarily have brought into bear the state of
knowledge available to him at the material time. His conduct should therefore be judged on that basis.
It would, however, not be right to judge him based on the requirements in the 2003 code, unless these
were also requirements which were commonly accepted in 2000 by the profession.
The accuracy of the Bored Piling Report [Exh P37]
304
Leaving aside the question of whether the Bored Piling Report [Exh P37] was hearsay and
inadmissible, which will be dealt with later (see para 359 below), Prof Poulos has expressed doubt as
to its accuracy. This was because the soil conditions recorded in the Report for some of the bored
piles differed quite significantly from those found in the investigation boreholes which were in their
vicinity. One example was BH 10 and BH 11, which were situated within 3 m of either side of pile
P35, where hard soil with SPT 100 was located some 5-6 m below the toe level of the bored pile
[Exh D20, para 9]. It should, however, be pointed out that even between closely spaced investigation
boreholes, the soil conditions can also differ significantly. In the case of BH14 and BH 22, which
were less than 2 m apart, the difference in depths between the levels where hard stratum commenced
is 7.4 m. It therefore did not follow that just because soil conditions of the bored piles had differed
from those at nearby boreholes, it was because the Bored Piling Report was inaccurate.
Impact of supervision by Clerk of Works
305
The piling works were supervised by the RE by day and the CoW by night. This was because
the construction of the bored piles went round the clock. Although the RE was suitably qualified and
duly appointed under the Act, the position of the qualification of the CoW under the Act was in some
doubt even though he was expressly engaged as a civil and structural clerk of works [Exh P51, p 1,
Clause 2(i)], and would be practising the conventional role as a CoW [Exh D12, p 4, para 8.01].
While the CoW had tried to minimise his role, he was undoubtedly the person who permitted the
termination of the piles during his shift, when the RE was not on site. However, given the outcome of
the case, I did not find it necessary to come to a finding on whether the CoW was duly qualified for
appointment as site supervisor, or whether his supervision was up to par. What mattered was that
since he was relied on by the QP to perform the duties of a site supervisor, his acts, just as the acts of
the RE, bound the QP during the construction of the bored piles. It would have been necessary to
come to a finding on whether the CoW was duly qualified if Lee had been convicted of the offence
05/08/2008
Page 58 of 87
under Charge P1A. This is because it would have been an aggravating factor for the purposes of
sentencing if the CoW was not duly qualified to be appointed as site supervisor.
Whether the RE met any representative from Maunsell in the afternoon of
5 September 2000
306
The evidence of the CoW that the RE had met representatives of Maunsell on the afternoon of
5 September 2000 was hearsay. Mak had denied that such a meeting took place, and the
contemporaneous correspondence at the material time contradicts the representation by the RE to the
CoW that the piles could be terminated using the criteria related by the CoW in court [Exh P51, p 7].
Although the RE had given evidence before the CoW, he could have been recalled to clarify if such a
meeting did take place. No application to recall him was made. In the result, I found that no such
meeting took place, and further found that the criteria for terminating piles which the RE gave to the
CoW had not come from Maunsell. Indeed, the evidence before the court seemed to suggest that the
criteria for terminating the piles were agreed between the RE and Samsung [Exh P49, para 2 and N/E
p 241].
What Working Load in the piling design meant
307
On the face of it, the table at the bottom of the Approved Piling Plan (Piling: Layout &
Details) [Exh P14, sheet 1] contained information relating to the reinforced concrete of the various
diameters of piles, viz., sizes of main reinforcement bars and links, and the values of the working
loads were the structural capacities of these reinforced concrete piles shown in the Piling Design
[Exh P6, column 4 row 4 of pp 156-160]. It therefore seemed that Lee had used working load in
place of structural capacity in Exh P14, sheet 1, notwithstanding the meaning given to working
load in CP4: 1976, the prevailing code at the material time (see para 24 above). The term working
load is also found at the top of pages 156-160 and other such pages in Exh P6, with the
corresponding pile penetrations for those loads indicated against them. This suggests that the term
working load in the Piling Design had the same meaning assigned to it in CP4: 1976 ie., the load
which the pile is designed to carry. Reading the two together, it seemed that the piles were designed
to carry loads equivalent to their structural capacities.
308
However, the Approved Piling Plan also included a Loading Plan [Exh P14, sheet 2], which
sets out the column load each pile or pile group is required to carry. This column load was derived
from the Design Capacity, which in the Piling Design was used to describe the total load
(foundation load [Exh P6, p 15] and pile cap weight) [Exh P6, p 154]), which the pile had to carry.
From Lees evidence, and going through the Piling Design [Exh P6] and the penetration depth for
each pile in the Approved Piling Plan [Exh P14, sheet 1] (all of which were lengths needed to carry
the column loads and not loads equivalent to the structural capacity of the pile), it was clear that the
penetration depths of the piles were chosen so that the piles could carry the column loads.
309
Reading the two plans together, it would appear that the better interpretation was that Lee had
used the term working load to represent structural capacity, without intending the piles to carry
loads equivalent to the structural capacity of the piles, but intending them to carry the column loads
shown in Exh P14, sheet 2. In short, he had used the term working load wrongly in Exh P14, sheet
1. Such an interpretation would be consistent with the general approach in which piles are usually
designed. Although it was possible for Lee to specify the working load as the structural capacity, such
a design would be highly uneconomical, as demonstrated by Prof Poulos using the example of a
titanium pile. While Shee said that such an approach would provide for future renovations, additions
and alterations of the building, which may impose additional loads, there was no evidence that the
columns were similarly designed using this same approach. I therefore did not agree with Shees
interpretation because there is no purpose in piles having spare capacity when the columns which
transmit the building loads to the piles do not. The columns would then fail from the additional loads
even though the piles may be able to support them. As Shee acknowledged, where there is a
difference between the plans and design calculations on a particular matter, BCA looks at the intent of
05/08/2008
Page 59 of 87
the design, which is in the calculations [N/E p 163]. In this case, the calculations show that the load
the piles were required to carry were the column loads in Exh P14, sheet 2. In this connection, too, I
did not find the evidence of Dr Endicott on the meaning of working load [N/E pp 1149-1151] to be
of assistance in deciding what it means.
310
The incorrect use of working load to represent structural capacity had caused some
confusion. When the static load test and PDA tests were conducted, they were based on testing the
piles to loads which were multiples of loads equivalent to the structural capacity instead of the
column loads which they were designed to carry. However, this had not caused any adverse
consequences, as the structural capacity was higher than the column load. In CP4: 2003, piles are
usually tested to two times the pile design load [Exh D19, para 7.5.4.1], which was the column load in
Lees design. Moreover, in his calculations to check the QPs design, Ong had compared the column
loads against the working load of each pile or pile group to see if they could be supported by the piles
[N/E p 682]. Since he had indorsed Lees design, it would appear that whatever errors Lee may have
made in using the term working load, the designed piles were still able to perform the functions
required of them.
Whether the stipulation of 5 m minimum anchorage into hard stratum in the approved piling plan
was a mandatory requirement
Whether there is anything wrong with Lees design
311
It was not the prosecutions case that there was insufficient soil investigation when Lee
embarked on the design of the pile foundation [N/E pp 678-679]. Ong said that the soil information
from the 5 boreholes were sufficient [N/E p 681].
312
As for the design approach of Lee embodied in Exh P6, there was no criticism of it by Ong,
Prof Poulos, Dr Kog or Tham. According to Shirlaw, Lees design was consistent with common
practice in Singapore (see para 239 above) Indeed, Song was of the view that so long as the
geotechnical capacity is able to support the column load, that would be sufficient [N/E pp 417-418].
313
Although A/Prof Tan had said there was a wrong interpretation of the bedrock, he
acknowledged that based on the original soil investigations, there was uncertainty as to whether the
site was underlain by the Jurong formation or Fort Canning Boulder Clay. It was only with the soil
information from the additional 34 boreholes that the nature of the bedrock was confirmed. Even
then, as it turned out, of the site was underlain by the Jurong formation while was underlain by
the Fort Canning Boulder Clay [N/E pp 637-638].
Whether the shear strengths relied on by Lee Chun Shek were accurate
314
However, A/Prof Tan seemed to suggest in his rebuttal evidence that the soils described in the
Bored Piling Records as clay and silt did not have the shear strengths attributed to them by Lee [N/E
pp 1165-1166]. This was because the Soil Investigation Report of the subsequent boreholes [Exh P55]
adopted a nomenclature where the N values (number of SPT blows per 300 mm of penetration) of the
different types of clays and silts found at the pile location were half of that used in BS 5930:1999. By
itself, in the absence of any evidence from Rotary, who was the maker of the Bored Piling Records, I
did not find this evidence from A/Prof Tan to be very helpful in determining if Lee had indeed made a
mistake. Also, as pointed out by the counsel for Lee, Rotary was not a soil investigator but a specialist
piling sub-contractor, and would have followed CP4: 1976 instead of BS 5930. In any case, even
though A/Prof Tan thought otherwise, Shirlaw was of the view that a number of piles would have
encountered soil with SPT 100 in the soil layers above the boulders. The prosecution had the burden
of proving that it was otherwise. As things stood, this was not proved.
The 5 m minimum anchorage into hard stratum
315
It cannot be disputed that no one can predict exactly what the soil conditions below ground are
05/08/2008
Page 60 of 87
for any site. This is despite the exploratory boreholes which are sunk to obtain soil parameters that are
then used for designing the foundation. While the boreholes will provide the soil conditions at the
locations where they are sunk, the soil conditions between the boreholes can differ greatly from those
found at the borehole locations. This is particularly true in Singapore, where soil conditions at certain
locations can change significantly over small distances, as mentioned by Shirlaw in his evidence.
Thus, any method which is used to predict the soil conditions in the space between two boreholes
from the known soil conditions at those borehole locations are, at best, estimates [N/E pp 1047-1048,
1020]. This would be the case whether a step approach (joining the known layers at the boreholes
using horizontal lines as was done by Song and illustrated in Exh D25-1) or a linear
approach (joining the known layers of soil at the boreholes with a straight line as was done by
Shirlaw and illustrated in Exh D25-2) is used. No QP can therefore guarantee what the soil conditions
are at a site. Digging up the entire site, or sinking a large number of boreholes all over the entire site
is neither feasible nor practicable. This is because the cost of each borehole soil investigation can vary
from $5,000 to $10,000, and even up to $50,000, depending on the complexity of the tests ordered
[N/E pp 1052-1053].
316
In these circumstances, if the stipulation of 5 m minimum anchorage into hard stratum in the
approved piling plan is a mandatory requirement, it means that the QP is holding out that there will
definitely be hard stratum at the location of the pile, something which is impossible to do.
317
From the difficulties shown by both Dr Kog and Tham in answering the question on whether
the 5 m minimum anchorage into hard stratum was a mandatory requirement, and their actual
answers, it appeared that the idea of a minimum anchorage being a mandatory requirement was an
idea which was quite alien to them. Although Tham accepted that the 5 m minimum anchorage into
hard stratum could be a mandatory requirement if the pile designer so specifies [N/E pp 1008-1009],
it was his view that it was a guide in the present case. This was because it was subject to a load test
[N/E p 1012]. According to Dr Kog, it is an accepted industry practice for load tests on piles to be
performed later [N/E p 973], and he found it hard to accept an approach otherwise [N/E p 978]. He
pointed out that the mandatory requirement for piles is the load carrying capacity, and the rest are the
means to this end [N/E pp 976-977]. This relates back to the fact that piles are structural elements
which are meant to carry loads.
318
Further support for the proposition that the 5 m minimum anchorage into hard stratum was not
a mandatory requirement may be found in Ongs Design Calculations [Exh P7], from which piles
may be constructed if a piling plan is produced from them [N/E p 700]. They do not show that a
minimum anchorage of 5 m into hard stratum was necessary. Ong has also admitted that, based on his
design approach, the 5 m minimum anchorage was not necessary when rock was encountered [N/E pp
698-699]. Also, according to Dr Endicott, the Piling Design [Exh P6] shows that some piles do not
require a minimum anchorage of 5 m into hard stratum [Exh D46, para 201].
319
Although the correspondence between Maunsell and Samsung at the material time suggested
that it is mandatory, Lee had eventually accepted the piles which did not have a 5 m minimum
anchorage into hard stratum after the PDA tests conducted showed that they had sufficient capacity.
320
During cross-examination by the prosecution, Lee had said that the builder was not permitted
to terminate a pile under any other condition apart from achieving 5 m anchorage into hard stratum
and the pile penetration described in the piling plan at Exh P14. If they failed to do so, they would
have deviated from the piling plan, but these were not material deviations if capacity was achieved.
To him, material deviations were reductions in pile diameter, grade of concrete and other parameters
in relation to the design, and reduction in the capacity of the pile [N/E pp 744-746].
321
In these circumstances, while the 5 m minimum anchorage was a requirement, it was not a
mandatory requirement where failure to meet it would necessitate a re-design. I accepted that it was a
construction control imposed to add some conservatism into the design, given that boreholes BH B
and BH D did not show any sandstone and the ground conditions were so variable [N/E pp 729-730,
1104-1105].
05/08/2008
Page 61 of 87
Whether the requirement of 5 m anchorage into hard stratum could be varied by the QP
322
According to Song, it was permissible to have a shorter pile length compared with the design
pile length if the soil parameters remained the same and the pile still had the same load carrying
capacity [N/E p 447]. Where the reduction in pile length was due to a change of soil parameters, a redesign of the pile system was necessary. It was also Songs view that where there is a deviation from
the Approved Piling Plan, the RE or CoW may refer the matter to the QP, who can either approve the
deviation if he was satisfied with the calculations and justifications. In his view, it is the QP who
decides whether a deviation from the approved plan can be accepted, if it does not involve a re-design
of the structural elements, or whether it is something material which requires a re-design [N/E pp
495-496].
323
However, although it appears that BCA had approved Lees design based on the limiting skin
friction of 400 kPa and limiting end bearing of 12 MPa, it should also be noted that in the calculations
of the AC, which they also approved, the limiting end bearing was almost 40 MPa. Thus, when the
load test showed that the end bearing capacity was 16 MPa, it was still less than the 40 MPa which
the AC had used to check Lees design, which was also accepted by the BCA earlier.
324
In any case, according to Tham, if a re-design is due to a change of the founding material of
the pile, such minor re-design is not a re-design of the key structural system [N/E p 1022].
325
Having in mind what piles are for (see para 22 above), pile lengths serve to ensure that the
design capacity can be achieved. They are merely a means to an end, and where the design pile
lengths cannot be achieved because the soil conditions turn out to be different from that used in the
design, it is incumbent on the QP to verify the capacity of the constructed pile through load tests. If
the soil conditions are weaker, it is not only the anchorage length of the pile which would have to be
greater, but the total penetration length of the pile would also have to be greater if the design relies on
the skin friction along the entire length of the pile to achieve the geotechnical capacity.
326
For the reasons given earlier, I have found that the 5 m minimum anchorage into hard stratum
was not a mandatory requirement (see para 321 above). Since it was not the position of the
prosecution that 5 boreholes were not sufficient [N/E p 681], and since the soil conditions below
ground cannot be predicted exactly using the 5 boreholes, while the soil parameters obtained from
these boreholes were used to design the piles, whether a constructed pile turns out to have the same
length as the design pile would depend on the actual soil conditions at its particular location.
Therefore, while Lee had specified in the piling plan a minimum anchorage length of 5 m into hard
stratum, it was subject to verification of working load tests. If the load test shows that the design
capacity could be achieved with a shorter anchorage, there was really no reason to insist that a
minimum 5 m anchorage be maintained, as that would serve no engineering purpose, and add
unnecessary costs to the project. Accordingly, the requirement of 5 m minimum anchorage into hard
stratum was something which could be varied by the QP.
327
I therefore accepted that the stipulation of 5 m minimum anchorage into hard stratum in the
present case was only a guideline to the builder, Samsung, to ensure that it worked to attain the
requirement of the QP, Lee. It was not a mandatory requirement because when the builder was unable
to do so due to different soil conditions being encountered, while it was open to the QP to reject the
pile, he might still accept it if it passed the load test which was provided as part of the requirement to
achieve the minimum 5 m anchorage into hard stratum [Exh P14]. Or he might reduce the pile
carrying capacity, and order that compensating piles be installed. As the pile designer, the QP knew
what changes were permissible based on his approach towards the pile design, and could relax the
requirement if he was satisfied that it could be safely done. Moreover, in the original Piling Design
[Exh P6], not all piles need to have 5 m anchorage into hard stratum [Exh D42, p 25]. Some examples
of such piles are P1, P11 and P23.
Whether the piling works deviated from the mandatory requirement referred to by the
05/08/2008
Page 62 of 87
prosecution
What was the mandatory requirement the piling works had deviated from
328
It was the prosecutions position that the piles had deviated from the mandatory
requirement. According to the charge in Exh P1A, 66 out of the 73 piles had failed to meet the
requirement of minimum 5 m anchorage into hard stratum. In the Prosecutions Opening Address too,
the prosecution has contended that the failure to achieve a minimum of 5 m into soil with SPT 100
amounted to a material deviation from the approved plans and calculations [Exh P42, para 6]. It
would therefore seem that this was the case which the accused had to meet. However, the evidence
led by the prosecution went beyond what was stated in the charge. They further alleged that according
to the Piling Design [Exh P6], the minimum anchorage into hard stratum for the piles should not have
been only 5 m, but should have been the lengths set out in column 5 of the table prepared by Shee
[Exh P43]. These were the anchorage lengths needed for the piles to carry the Working Load of the
pile, ie., a load equivalent to the structural capacity of the pile. Therefore if the actual anchorage
length of a pile in hard stratum was less than the length set out in column 5 of the table, it would have
deviated from the mandatory requirement.
329
Although Shee said he established the lengths in column 5 independently without verifying
with Lee or the experts with KTP Consultants [N/E pp 38, 114-116, 118-119], it should be noted that
it was the prosecutions submission that the information summarised by Shee in Exh P43 was derived
from the BCA Expert Witness Report prepared by Song in February 2006 [Exh P46].
330
Irrespective of the source of its information, in Exh P43, using the anchorage lengths in
column 5 (and not the 5 m minimum anchorage length) as a reference, the prosecution determined
whether the piling works had deviated from the mandatory requirement in the following ways
a
Whether the computed anchorage length (which was the length of the pile within rock
and did not include the length of the pile within soil with SPT 100) [column 6 of Exh P43]
was longer than the minimum anchorage length in column 5;
b
Whether the anchorage length derived from the original soil investigation report by Dr
Endicott in his report of 13 October 2005 [Exh D16/Exh D41] [N/E pp 26, 360] [column 8 of
Exh P43] was longer than the minimum anchorage length in column 5; and
c
Whether the anchorage length derived from the original and new soil investigation
reports [column 10 of Exh P43] was longer than the minimum anchorage length in column 5.
331
The BCA Expert Witness Report [Exh P46], however, went beyond considering anchorage
lengths. It also considered whether the piles had sufficient capacity to carry the Working Loads and
the column loads. In summary, Exh P46 dealt with 3 cases
a
Case 1 Whether the piles achieved anchorage length of at least 5 m into hard stratum;
Case 2 Whether the piles had sufficient capacity to carry the Working Load; and
Case 3 Whether the piles had sufficient capacity to carry the column load.
332
It should be noted that the method used by Shee in Exh P43 to assess whether a pile has
deviated from its design anchorage length (which is based on the anchorage length required to support
the working load) is different from that used by Song to assess whether a pile has deviated from its
design anchorage length (which Song took as 5 m) in Case 1A, 1B and 1C of Exh P46].
333
Although I have held that the minimum anchorage length of 5 m, let alone the minimum
anchorage length adopted by Shee [Exh P43, column 5], was not a mandatory requirement, I would
deal with all of the issues raised by Exh P43 and Exh P46 in turn.
05/08/2008
Page 63 of 87
The computation of the anchorage length by the prosecution

334
According to the approved piling plan [Exh P14], hard stratum is defined as soil with SPT
100. While it would certainly include rock (even though rock does not have SPT values), it can also
include soil which is described as stiff to very stiff. This can be seen from the Soil Investigation
Report [Exh P8], where SPT 100 values may be found in the layers of soil having this description.
Shirlaw has also confirmed that soil of SPT = 100 is somewhere within a soil layer described as stiff
to very stiff. Soil of SPT 100 is also found in soil described as very stiff. On site, soils of these
two descriptions are found above the rock layers. Even Song accepted that there was soil of SPT
100 above the layer of sandstone [N/E p 422].
335
To determine what the anchorage length in hard stratum a particular pile may have, it would
be necessary for the prosecution to first show where the hard stratum commences, ie., the level where
soil first has SPT = 100. This is because the anchorage length for that pile into soil of SPT 100 is
the distance between that level and the toe of the pile. The prosecution did not appear to have made
any attempt to do so. It was my understanding from the prosecutions submission that they were
content to take hard stratum to commence from the level where the SPT value first exceeds 100, even
though it was their position that it had the burden to establish where soil of SPT = 100 began. While I
accept that this was a conservative approach which was perfectly acceptable for a pile designer to
adopt, as it would save him the trouble of establishing the level where SPT = 100 is without
undermining the actual design, it was, however, not an acceptable approach to adopt when used to
establish the depth of anchorage in a criminal charge. It denied to the accused the length of pile
between where the level where SPT = 100 is and the level where the SPT value above 100 was first
established. It was particularly unfair to the accused because some of the SPT values in the Soil
Investigation Report [Exh P8] where they first exceeded 100 were actually very much large than 100.
An example may be found in the case of BH D, where the first SPT value which exceeded 100, at the
depth of 42 m, was 100/15 cm (equivalent to 200/30 cm). This meant that the soil would already have
a SPT value of 100 some distance above the level where this SPT test was conducted. I therefore
could not accept the prosecutions submission that they had to prove the SPT 100 line but not the
SPT = 100 line [N/E p 1251], despite also accepting that it had the burden to establish where soil of
SPT = 100 begins [N/E p 1229].
336
Shirlaw was also of the view that if Rotary had adopted the soil classification found in CP4:
1976 [Exh D3], the soils described as stiff to very stiff would have SPT 100. While Shirlaw
expected a significant portion of the piles to have encountered soil with SPT 100, he was not able to
tell exactly where such soil begins.
The table prepared by Shee Siu Ming [Exh P43]
Computed anchorage lengths in column 6 of Exh P43
337
For the purpose of establishing the anchorage lengths in column 6, the prosecution did not
even adopt the approach described above. Instead, they had obtained the anchorage length into hard
stratum from Samsungs Bored Piling Works Results [Exh P37], ie., the depth the pile had penetrated
after it first encountered the layer called hard stratum in Samsungs records [N/E p 58]. However, as
Wong said, hard stratum in those records actually referred only to rock, and did not take into
consideration other soils which may have SPT 100. Consequently, the prosecution also did not take
into consideration soil above the rock which fell within the definition of hard stratum. When
computing the anchorage lengths, they completely disregarded portions of the piles which were
actually within soil where the SPT 100.
338
I therefore found that the lengths in column 6 to be of no assistance in determining the total
anchorage lengths of the piles which were within hard stratum because the portion of the piles above
rock which were within hard stratum had not been taken into account.
05/08/2008
Page 64 of 87

339
The anchorage lengths in column 8 of Exh P43 were obtained using the step approach together
with the positions of the soil layers from Dr Endicotts report [Exh D16/Exh D41]. As pointed out
earlier, whether the step method or linear method is used to establish the positions of the soil layers
between boreholes by interpolation, the results are only estimates (see paras 315 above). This may be
seen from Exh D25, where the same pile may be founded in hard stratum when one approach is used
but not when the other approach is used.
340
I therefore found that the lengths in column 8 were of no assistance in determining the
anchorage lengths of the piles which were within hard stratum.
341
Similarly, the anchorage lengths in column 10 of Exh P43 were computed using the step
approach, but this time with the positions of the soil layers obtained from the interpolations using the
soil information from the 5 original soil investigation boreholes with the additional 34 soil
investigation boreholes done after the building settled. For the same reasons stated above, I found that
the lengths in column 10 were of no assistance in determining the anchorage lengths of the piles
which were within hard stratum.
342
Even if I were to accept the anchorage lengths set out in columns 6, 8 and 10 of Exh P43 to be
accurate, I still could not accept Shees approach in determining whether the anchorage lengths of the
constructed piles had exceeded the minimum design anchorage lengths in column 5. This was because
Shee had equated the minimum anchorage lengths to be that needed to carry the Working Load. With
respect, he had effectively substituted his own design for Lees design, as manifested in the Piling
Design [Exh P6] and the Pile Loading Plan [Exh P14, sheet 2], where the piles only have to carry the
column loads. Taking one of the pile groups as an example, according to the approved piling plan
[Exh P14, sheet 1], the design penetration lengths for the three 1300 mm diameter piles at gridline
2/A was 30 m, the penetration length needed for the pile to carry the column load. If Shee was correct
in his understanding of the Pile Design, it should be reflected as 32 m instead, the penetration length
needed for the pile to carry the Working Load [Exh P6, p158, col 6]. This was not the case. Indeed,
all the penetration lengths in the approved Piling Plan [Exh P14] were those needed for the respective
piles to carry the column loads, and not the Working Loads.
343
Therefore, while it seemed to be the prosecutions position that it was necessary to look at the
QPs intent when assessing whether there was any deviation from the design plan [N/E pp 978, 1004],
they had not done so when assessing Lees pile design.
344
In the result, I did not accept that the computations in Exh P43 were of any use in determining
whether the piling works had deviated from the mandatory requirement in the approved piling plan.
345
Similarly, as pointed out in para 335 above, it was also not possible to establish from the other
evidence admitted where hard stratum actually commenced. Therefore, it was again not possible to
establish how many of the piles had anchorage lengths of less than 5 m into hard stratum.
346
The prosecution could have, as suggested by Dr Endicott, sought to determine where hard
stratum commenced by relying on descriptions given by Rotary in the Bored Pile Records, using the
soils described as stiff to very stiff, or very stiff to establish where hard stratum commenced [N/E p
1127]. They had not done so, and left me with no choice but to hold that, given these circumstances, it
was not possible to say with any certainty whether there were actually 66 piles, or indeed any pile,
which had anchorage lengths of less than 5 m into hard stratum. This was because no attempt was
made to establish where SPT 100 actually commenced in the soil layers, so as to allow the pile
length into hard stratum to be calculated.
05/08/2008
Page 65 of 87
347
I should also point out that, while Shees computations showed that the required anchorage
into hard stratum for Pile P44 was 8 m [Exh P43, column 5], it still passed the static load test even
though the actual anchorage into hard stratum was only 5.2 m [Exh P43, column 6]. This further
highlighted the inaccuracy of the table.
The BCA Expert Witness Report [Exh P46]
348
In the BCA Expert Witness Report [Exh P46], Song had evaluated the three cases, Cases 1 to
3 (see para 80 above), based on three different set of soil profiles
a
Profile A based on the Bored Pile Records [Exh P37];
b
Profile B based on the original soil report [Exh P8] as interpreted by Dr Endicott [Exh
D16/Exh D41]; and
c
Profile C based on the original soil report [Exh P8] and additional soil investigation
reports.[Exh P55].
349
The following criticisms may be made of these three soil profiles.
Profile A
350
For this soil profile, the level of SPT 100 was based on the Bored Pile Records, and was
determined where the boring equipment encountered rock [Exh P46, pp 9; 12; 16]. Soil layers above
the rock layer which had SPT 100 were therefore omitted from the evaluation [N/E pp 423-424].
Profile B
351
For this soil profile, although it was stated to be based on the original soil reports of the 5
boreholes, the soil layers adopted were also derived from the Bored Pile Records, except that for
layers of soil where SPT 100, it followed the 5 boreholes, in particular, contour of SPT 100
adopted by Dr Endicott [N/E p 434]. Also, the boreholes were chosen selectively, and those chosen
were not always the boreholes closest to the pile that was being evaluated. The soil profiles adopted
also bore little relation to the soil profile encountered by the relevant pile as shown in the Bored Pile
Records.
Profile C
352
Although this soil profile was based on the original 5 boreholes and the additional 34
boreholes, the soil profiles at the locations of the 73 bored piles were still the result of interpolations
between the profiles at the boreholes, with their inherent inaccuracies (see para 315 above).
The three Cases
353
Referring first to Case 1 of Exh P46, it dealt with whether the anchorage lengths had achieved
at least 5 m into hard stratum based on the three soil profiles. For the same reasons stated when I
considered the methodology in assessing anchorage length in the table prepared by Shee [Exh P43], I
was of the view that Case 1 was of no assistance in determining the anchorage lengths of the piles
which were within hard stratum.
354
As for Case 2 of Exh P46 which dealt with whether the piles could carry the Working Load,
since I have earlier held that the pile design of Lee was for the piles to carry the column load and not
the Working Load, I was of the view that Case 2 was also of no assistance in determining whether the
piles had sufficient capacity.
355
Case 3 of Exh P46 dealt with whether the piles have sufficient capacity to carry the column
05/08/2008
Page 66 of 87
load. In Cases 3A and 3B, as in Cases 2A and 2B, Song had adopted a broad brush approach in his
computations of the geotechnical capacities of the piles. Instead of computing the geotechnical
capacity of each pile based on the soil parameters of the soil investigation boreholes which were the
closest to the respective piles, he had, in order to simplify the process, normalised all the various soil
layers above the hard stratum into two layers which he described as Residual Soil 1 (RS 1) and
Residual Soil 2 (RS 2), and used a standard value for shaft friction for each of these layers, viz., 44
kPa and 120 kPa, respectively [N/E pp 506-508, 519-520, 523-524]. Had the soil parameters of
investigation boreholes near the respective pile been used, the shaft friction values would have been
different, and larger in some cases [N/E pp 426-427, 431-432]. Also, as pointed out by Dr Endicott,
the depths and thicknesses of RS1 and RS2 did not always correspond with the depths and
thicknesses of soil profiles in the Bored Pile Records [Exh P37] which were combined by Song to
construct these layers [N/E pp 1077-1083]. Further, the soil characteristics of the soil layers he
combined together were sometimes different from each other [N/E pp 1082-1083]. In contrast, Lees
approach was to adopt soil profiles based on one of the 5 original boreholes nearest to the pile. Of the
three approaches used to compute the geotechnical capacities of the piles, that of the QP (Lee), AC
(Ong) and Song, the QPs approach was the most rigorous.
356
In Cases 2C and 3C, pile P44, the test pile, had failed as its computed geotechnical capacity
was less than the Working Load (a load equivalent to the structural capacity of the pile) and also the
column load that it was required to carry [N/E p 453]. In actual fact, pile P44 had passed the static
load test, and was able to carry two times the Working Load, and not just the column load. Song was
unable to explain the reason for this, but maintained that his computations were more accurate than
the results of the static load test Rotary conducted for pile P44. It seemed that his choice of soil
parameters were not appropriate and gave results which did not accord with reality. This raised
serious concerns over the accuracy of Songs assumptions generally.
Other criticisms of BCAs Expert Witness Report [Exh P46]
357
Besides the matters set out above, a number of other criticisms have been levied against
Songs computations in BCAs Expert Witness Report [Exh P46], which added to the doubts on
whether the Report could be relied on to establish the lengths of the piles within hard stratum, and to
establish the geotechnical capacities of the constructed piles. These were as follows
a
In considering Case 2 of his investigations, for one of the piles, P52, which is closer to
soil investigation borehole BH C, the soil parameters used to evaluate its geotechnical capacity
was that from BH B, which was further away from the pile. Similarly, the soil parameters from
BH 1 and BH C were not used to assessed the geotechnical capacities of the piles which were
near to them [N/E pp 426-427]. Had the soil parameters from the soil investigation boreholes
been used, the geotechnical capacity of the respective piles would have been different.
b
While Song maintained that Case 1A was different from Case 1B, they were in fact the
same [N/E pp 462-464].
c
Although from the static load test, the ultimate end bearing pressure obtained using
Chins Plot was about 16 MPa [N/E p 436], and the unconfined compressive strength using the
point load test on the rock samples was also more than 12 MPa [N/E p 438]. Song did not think
that the value of 12 MPa he used in his Case 2A was low, based on the papers submitted by the
prosecution [Exh P57A-D], although he acknowledged that a higher end bearing value should
be used for hard sandstone [N/E pp 434-435].
d
Although Songs position was that Soil Profile B was based on the original soil report,
ie., the 5 boreholes, the descriptions and levels of the different soil layers were actually taken
from the Bored Piling Records [Exh P37], while the skin friction values were taken from the
design calculations [Exh P6]. The only use of the 5 boreholes was to determine where soil with
SPT 100 commenced. This means that the information in Soil Profile B was not based on the
soil investigation report [Exh P8] as stated. Even when taking the skin friction values from the
05/08/2008
Page 67 of 87
design calculations, it did not take into account the skin friction values of the soil at
corresponding depths. Instead, it simply adopted the skin friction values of soils with similar
descriptions [N/E pp 433-434]. However, the skin friction values of soils with the same
descriptions do vary, depending on the borehole from which the soil information is derived.
Song did not choose the soil information from the borehole which was closest to the pile, but
chose the borehole randomly. Moreover, Song had relied on the Bored Piling Records [Exh
P37] to derive the depths of the different soil levels and the total penetration length. If the
accuracy of the document was, as claimed by the prosecution, unreliable [N/E pp 1126, 11441145], the accuracy of Songs report would have been correspondingly unreliable. Further, if
the document was indeed hearsay, much of the contents of Exh P46 would have to be
disregarded as well.
e
The approach taken by Song was to place an upper limit on the skin friction and end
bearing when evaluating the performance of the piles, thereby placing a corresponding limit on
their actual bearing capacities. This was in contrast to the approach by Ong, the AC, who
adopted much higher end bearing limits in his calculations at Exh P7 to check Lees design
calculations.
358
Having regard to all of the above, I did not accept that the computations in the BCA Expert
Witness Report [Exh P46] were of much assistance in determining whether the piling works had
deviated from the mandatory requirement in the approved piling plan. It should be pointed out that
re-computations of Case 2A and Case 3A using the soil parameters derived from Prof Poulos Report
[Exh D24; Exh D42, p 17] showed that the bored piles were able to carry their design loads.
Whether certain documents were hearsay
359
At the close of the trial, the prosecution unexpectedly decided to take the position that a
number of documents which had been were admitted by consent, and were the subject of much of the
cross-examination of witnesses of both sides, were hearsay, as the respective makers of these
documents were not called to verify the truth of their contents. These documents were part of the
Bored Piling Records [Exh P37], the entire static load test report [Exh P41, pp 174-194] and all the
PDA test reports [Exh P41, pp 218-242; 402-432; 433-472] [N/E p 1226]. Accordingly, the
prosecution said that Lee and Samsung could not rely on these documents to mount their defence.
360
However, for the Bored Piling Records, which was admitted by the prosecution without any
reservation [N/E p 31], it took the strange position that part of the contents (where the rock layer was
found) was not hearsay because they were independently verified by the RE and CoW, but not other
parts, such as the descriptions of the soil layers above the rock layer because no one had verified this
other information. This was despite the prosecution having put to Dr Endicott earlier that the Bored
Piling Records were unreliable [N/E p 1126]. I would point out that the RE had no reason to doubt the
accuracy of the soil descriptions in Rotarys Piling Records at the material time, and had not
expressed any reservations to the QP [N/E p 218].
361
I would also point out that Song had relied on information in the Bored Piling Records [Exh
P37] to prepare his BCA Expert Report [Exh P46]. When choosing the shaft friction values for his
normalised soil layers Residual Soil 1 and Residual Soil 2 for Cases 2A, 2B, 3A and 3B of his report,
Song had obtained the layering and the descriptions of the soils above the hard stratum from the
Bored Piling Records. From these descriptions of the soil layers, he obtained the values of the skin
friction from soil layers with corresponding descriptions in the Piling Design [Exh P6] [N/E p 431].
Similarly, Shee had drawn up Exh P43 using, inter alia, information from Exh P37 on the depths of
soil layers [see para 54 above]. If the prosecutions submission that the Bored Piling Record was
hearsay was accepted, they could not even begin to prove that the geotechnical capacities of any of
the piles were less than the loads they were designed to carry for these cases, or the number of piles
which did not achieve a minimum anchorage length of 5 m.
362
To the extent that the CoW had confirmed that the static load test was carried out properly and
05/08/2008
Page 68 of 87
that the records in the static load test were accurate, the static load test report was not hearsay. As for
the PDA test results, I note that A/Prof Tan had relied on the raw data collected from the PDA tests to
show that the piles tested did not have sufficient capacity. If the PDA test results were hearsay,
A/Prof Tans entire evidence based on the PDA test reports would have to be disregarded.
363
In any case, s 14 of the Evidence Act (Cap 97) provides that

Facts showing existence of state of mind or of body or bodily feeling
14. Facts showing the existence of any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith,
negligence, rashness, ill-will or good-will towards any particular person, or showing the
existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant when the existence of any such
state of mind or body or bodily feeling is in issue or relevant.
364
The reports objected to by the prosecution had all been relied on by Lee at one stage or other
of the piling works. First, he relied on the static load test to verify the design and the construction
method used for the construction of the piles. Secondly, he relied on the Bored Piling Records and the
static load test report and PDA test reports to decide whether to accept the piles which had anchorage
lengths less than the 5 m specified in the piling plan. Since the contents of these reports go towards
showing whether he had addressed his mind to the issue of short piling when he accepted those piles,
they were therefore admissible under s 14.
Whether the deviations, if any, were material deviations
365
The definitions of material changes and immaterial changes under the BCR have been set
out in para 48 above. Since the term deviation is used synonymously as change in the present
case, I therefore treated material deviations as material changes, and immaterial deviations as
immaterial changes.
366
It is stated in para 4.5 of the BCAs Expert Witness Report that

Our interpretation concerning the material changes as defined in the Building Control
Regulations is that the changes in the anchorage of the pile into hard stratum are significant
enough to affect the capacity of the building foundation. The reduction in the pile penetration
length would not meet the safety factor according to the original design parameters and would
constitute a material change if the pile capacity of a pile group is significantly altered as
illustrated below.
367
The prosecution therefore took the position that the reduction in anchorage length was a
material deviation. This was because the QP had to rely on the soil having a higher shaft friction and
end bearing to justify the reduction. However, the prosecution was not concerned with reductions in
total penetration depths because it maintained that in Lees design, the piles had relied on the 5 m
anchorage in hard stratum to provide the geotechnical capacity of the pile.
368
Although the prosecution had originally thought that there was a BCA circular issued in 2003
after the events which took place in the project requiring a QP to re-submit a design to BCA if there
were deviations to the approved piling plans [Exh P77, para 11a], there was in fact none, and the
corresponding submission had to be withdrawn [N/E p 1253]. I therefore examined the issue on this
basis.
Whether reduction in anchorage length was a material change
369
A/Prof Tan had commented that any reduction in anchorage length in a hard stratum was a
significant reduction. He said that where the capacity was provided by a 5 m anchorage length, a
reduction of 1 m in anchorage length meant a loss of 20% of the pile capacity. While this would be
correct if the entire bearing capacity of the pile was provided by only the 5 m within the hard stratum,
05/08/2008
Page 69 of 87
this would not be the case if the pile derived its capacity from skin friction along its entire length, and
not just the 5 m within the hard stratum, and also from end bearing, as was the case in Lees pile
design. It therefore appears that A/Prof Tan comments were not applicable in the present case.
370
It was Ongs evidence that he was not concerned with pile penetration length, but only with
minimum anchorage into hard stratum, so that even a 19 m reduction in the penetration depth, such as
that for the pile at gridline D/1 was of no concern to him. This was because the shortened pile could
be investigated and the carrying capacity determined by the QP [N/E p 676]. I had some difficulty
with Ongs evidence on the importance of the minimum anchorage length. This was because in his
own calculations to check the QPs design [Exh P7], he had used ultimate end bearing values much
larger than the 12,000 kPa adopted by the QP, almost 40,000 kPa in some cases, while he used
smaller shaft friction limits, 180 kPa [Exh D29], as opposed to the 400 kPa used by the QP. These
differences, besides showing that design approaches can vary widely, also showed that changes to the
anchorage length had less importance in Ongs calculations based on his design approach than that of
the QP. This was because the anchorage length, which contributes the bulk of the shaft friction
component of the geotechnical capacity in the pile, now contributes much less due to the smaller shaft
friction limit. Noting that piling plans could also have been produced from his calculations (which
were also approved by BCA) for construction, it would seem that Ongs evidence on the importance
of the minimum anchorage length was not supported by his own design approach.
371
In his evaluation of the load carrying capacity and increased settlement of the piles with
reduced anchorage lengths, Prof Poulos came to the conclusion that the reduction in load carrying
capacity and the increase in settlement and tilt were both insignificant. Accordingly, the reduced
anchorage lengths could not be considered as material deviations.
372
Another point to note is that based on Shees table [Exh P43] and Songs Cases 2A, 2B, 2C
and 3B [Exh P46], pile P44 would have failed. However, the static load test had shown that pile P44
could safely carry the working load. On that basis, there was no material deviation, as that pile, with
an anchorage of 5.2 m into rock and hard stratum (1.8 m socket into sandstone and 3.4 m into an
interbedded layer of hard sandstone and silty clay), could easily carry not just the column load, but
the working load as well.
Whether change in pile length was a material change
373
In contrast to the position it has taken on the minimum penetration depth of 5 m into hard
stratum stated in the piling plan being a mandatory requirement, the prosecution has taken the
position that the total penetration lengths of the piles in the piling plans are not mandatory
requirements. Therefore, an increase or decrease in the pile length is not a material change. This, too,
seemed to be Ongs view (see para 370 above).
374
This position appears to be based on the prosecutions view that the pile design relied on the
minimum 5 m penetration into hard stratum to provide the load carrying capacity. As stated above,
this is not correct. The approach in the pile design by the QP relied on the entire length of the pile to
provide geotechnical capacity through shaft friction, and the toe of pile in the hard stratum to provide
additional geotechnical capacity through end bearing.
Whether a change in the soil materials is a material deviation
375
The prosecution has also taken the view that the increase in ultimate end bearing was a
material change. This was because Lee knew from original boreholes that there was rock at the design
founding levels, and therefore the ultimate end bearing used in the design had been chosen with this
in mind. I did not think that this was a correct conclusion to draw from the original soil investigation.
Only 3 of the boreholes (BH 1, BH A and BH C) encountered rock, while BH B and BH D did not.
So the ultimate end bearing value chosen would necessarily have to caters for situations where piles
are not founded in rock, and the value chosen for ultimate end bearing would not have been based on
rock being found at the founding levels of all piles
05/08/2008
Page 70 of 87
What constitutes a material deviation

376
Referring to the definition in Reg 2 of the BCR (see para 48 above), changes are considered as
material changes only if they affect key structural elements of a structure to such an extent as to
require a re-design of the key structural system.
377
As mentioned above, the purpose of a pile is to provide sufficient structural capacity and
geotechnical capacity to carry the imposed load. The pile shaft is therefore a key structural element,
and any change to its cross-sectional area, steel ratio, concrete strength may be a material change.
This is because the structural capacity of the constructed pile would then be different from the
designed pile, and if this is a reduction in the structural capacity (as opposed to an increase), the key
structural system of which the element is a part of may require a re-design.
378
To Prof Poulos, design parameters are aids to engineers in coming to a design. If the capacity
achieved is that assumed in the design, then whether or not design parameters are changed is
immaterial. This was borne out by the two different choices of limiting skin friction and limit end
bearing chosen by Lee, the QP, in his Piling Design [Exh P6] and by Ong, the AC, in his Design
Calculations [Exh P7]. A material change relates to the performance of a foundation, not the design
parameters used to arrive at the foundation design. A design change also does not involve the change
in the length of the pile, but would be a situation where additional piles are required, so that the pile
cap needs to be altered or extended [N/E pp 822-823].
379
In addition, a change in the location of the pile would also be considered as a material change
because the pile, when supporting the column load individually, needs to be located immediately
below the column. Any change in its location would affect the position of the column, and all the
structural elements supported by that column. A major re-design may well be necessary. If the pile is
part of a pile group, a change to its location could affect the location of the other piles in that pile
group, and may necessitate a re-design of the pile cap to ensure that the column load is properly
distributed to the piles in their new locations.
The sum total of the above
380
The objective of pile design is to ensure that the pile has sufficient capacity. It is also to ensure
that settlements and tilt are within code limits. Such design is based on limited soil information, and
actual soil conditions encountered will invariably be different from those obtained from soil
investigations. Therefore, changes in the pile length would not constitute a material change.
Otherwise, for every such change, whether the pile is longer or shorter, or whether the pile has
achieved the design anchorage length, a re-design is required. This is not tenable because soil
conditions encountered on site invariably differs from that used in the design, and a re-design would
be required in every case.
381
I did not accept the approach of BCA, which looks at the means where the performance is
achieved, such as the anchorage length of the pile in hard stratum, to determine whether the change is
material. Moreover, there was an internal inconsistency in its approach as it chose not to consider the
total pile length, when the pile design may have been based on the entire pile length contributing
towards achieving the design capacity. Another point to note is that for a QP to decide whether a
change in the total depth of penetration of a pile is to be accepted, he must go through an exercise of
calculations as he would for a change in penetration depth into hard stratum. This is because both
changes are as a result of soil conditions encountered. Therefore, contrary to the position of the
prosecution that a change in the total penetration depth of a pile is not a material change, on principle,
if a change in the depth of penetration into hard stratum is a material change, then a change in the
penetration length should also be a material change. I should point out the fact that BCA had
approved the calculations of the QP and AC further demonstrates that what was important was the
outcome, viz., the piles could carry the design load, and the approaches (penetration and anchorage)
employed to do so were not mandatory.
05/08/2008
Page 71 of 87
382
I therefore accepted the view of Prof Poulos that a change is immaterial if any increase in
settlement is acceptable, and the capacity of pile is not reduced to a level below the load it supports.
This is an approach based on the performance of the pile.
383
Based on Prof Poulos calculations using the limiting skin friction and end bearing derived
from the static load test on the assumption that the site was underlain by the Jurong formation, the
piles with their as constructed anchorage lengths had sufficient capacity to carry the working loads
or column loads, and acceptable settlements under those loads. These calculations did not rely on soil
parameters derived from Chins Plot. Similarly, the soil parameters derived from the point load tests
performed on Exh D5 and other pieces of rock collected, showed that piles still had sufficient
capacity to carry the working loads and column loads. The piles also had sufficient capacity and
acceptable settlements if it is assumed that the entire site is underlain by Fort Canning bouldery clay.
In any case, the 9 piles tested all passed the load tests.
384
In the circumstances, there was no need to re-design the key structural system as a result of
the short anchorages of the piles. The calculations which were done due to different soil parameters
being encountered were a verification and not a re-design. These deviations were therefore not
material deviations.
The validity of the load tests
385
It was the evidence of Ong that if a pile with short anchorage passes a load test, the
requirement for a 5 m minimum anchorage length could be waived for that pile but not for the other
piles [N/E pp 678-679]. I did not think this was in accord with the practice of the profession. The
usual number of load tests specified is in the order of 1-2% of the total number of piles. This is the
case even in CP4: 2003 [Exh D19, para 7.5.41], which suggests that piles may be accepted after a
representative number of them are tested. In the present case, after the piles were found to be unable
to achieve the minimum 5 m anchorage into the rock that was encountered on site, Lee had ordered 7
more PDA test to be conducted in addition to the single static load test and 2 PDA tests originally
provided for. In all, a total of 10 load tests were done on 9 piles, so that about 12% of the total
number of 73 piles was tested.
386
Lee had then relied on, inter alia, the results of all the tests to decide whether to accept all the
piles, including those which did not achieve the 5 m minimum anchorage into rock. There could
therefore be no cause for complaint against what Lee did, as it was in accord with the practice of the
profession at the material time, and also with the current code practice. However, since A/Prof Tan
had criticised all the load tests, and disputed the accuracy and validity of the test results, it was
necessary to consider whether it was reasonable for Lee to have relied on these test results.
Static load test
The results of the static load test
387
The results of the static load test, conducted on a test pile which eventually became pile P44,
showed that the pile had sufficient capacity. It was accepted by Lee as a validation of the design
parameters and approach which he adopted.
388
There was nothing adverse known against the way in which the static load test was conducted.
While the CoW said that the glass had cracked on one of the gauges, there was no evidence on how
this had affected the validity of the test. The records of soil conditions encountered during pile
construction [Exh P37] also showed that they were in line with the results of the original soil
investigation. In the result, there was no reason for Lee not to have accepted the results of the static
load test, which had been certified to be correct by a QP, and relied on the static load test as a
validation of his design.
05/08/2008
Page 72 of 87
389
However, A/Prof Tan pointed out that the loading and reloading curves showed some
discrepancies. This led him to question the validity of the static load test, but he did not know what
could have caused the discrepancies. Prof Poulos, on the other hand, was of the opinion that the
discrepancies could be due some form of improper seating of the load during the first loading cycle.
He found that the second loading curve was consistent with inferred load-settlement behaviour from
the PDA tests, and in his interpretation and back-calculations based on the second loading curve of
the static load test and the results of the PDA test for pile P44, the parameters that he derived were
able to provide him with consistent predictions of the load settlement behaviour of the piles that were
founded in the same materials as Pile P44. He was therefore prepared to accept that the reloading
curve gave accurate test results. This evidence was not disputed by A/Prof Tan when he was recalled
by the prosecution to give rebuttal evidence in response to the evidence of expert witnesses of the
defence. In the absence of other explanations, I accepted what Prof Poulos said as a valid explanation
for the anomaly. Given that the results of the static load test were actual measured results, and there
was no evidence of any problem with how the test was conducted, I accepted that the re-loading curve
was a correct representation of the pile behaviour of Pile 44. I therefore did not accept that the static
load test results were invalid.
390
The prosecution had submitted that the result of the static load test, which was on a pile with
an anchorage length of 5.2 m, was not representative of other piles which had a shorter anchorage
length. I was not able to accept this submission. This was because the submission assumed that the
geotechnical capacity was provided entirely or mostly by shaft friction of the length within hard
stratum while, in fact, the shaft friction along entire length of the pile and also the end bearing had
also contributed to the geotechnical capacity.
391
In the result, I found that it was reasonable for Lee to have relied on the results of the static
load test as a validation of his design. In any case, since even Song has no concern over the loading
curves of the static load test [N/E p 600], a QP with the same experience as him is not expected to
have any concerns, and could reasonably rely on the results of such a load test.
PDA tests
Criticisms of PDA test methodology and results
392
A/Prof Tans criticisms of the PDA tests conducted by Pilescan may be divided into three
areas: first, the hammer weight was less than 1.0% to 1.5% of the working load tested; secondly, the
sensors were damaged or not placed properly, leading to poor or useless results being obtained; and
thirdly, improper approaches were being used to process the PDA test results to predict the capacities
of the piles.
Hammer weight:
393
In respect of the actual conduct of the PDA tests, A/Prof Tan had maintained that it was
necessary to use hammer weights which were equivalent to 1.0% to 1.5% of the working load for the
results to be valid. While the PDA manual [Exh P70A] and other documents [Exh P70B-P70F]
tendered by the prosecution seemed to support this, it would also appear from other articles admitted
that this requirement was not commonly known or observed in Singapore at the material time. PDA
tests conducted in Singapore, such as those for Suntec City, had hammer weights which were less
than this minimum requirement stated by A/Prof Tan. A hammer weight as low as 0.5% of the test
load has been encountered by Shirlaw [N/E p 1055]. Indeed, even CP4: 2003 [Exh D19], in which
A/Prof Tan was involved in the preparation, makes no mention of this requirement. A/Prof Tans
explanation for this was that the code was not one which provided the basis of things one must
observe to do a good PDA test, and all it said is that one could use the PDA test provided that it is
calibrated against a static load test.
394
Although he did not dispute that the principle behind PDA testing is that one had to ensure
05/08/2008
Page 73 of 87
sufficient energy is transferred to the pile, whether by a heavy hammer with a smaller drop, or a
smaller hammer with a larger drop, as mentioned by Prof Poulos, A/Prof Tan said that a lighter
hammer with a large drop did not have enough impedance, so that the hammer would merely bounce
off the pile. Also, the pile head could crack.
395
I note, however, that A/Prof Tan has acknowledged that PDA testing conducted locally
differed from such testing carried out in North America, where a large impedance at the pile head
appeared to be a standard requirement. This was one of the reasons that he did not accept the results
of the reprocessed PDA test results by even GRL, the originators of PDA testing. Also, the Method
Statement for PDA Testing [Exh P41, pp 1154-1155] required that the pile head be protected, and
there was no evidence that this was not done. I was therefore unable to accept A/Prof Tans criticisms
on the hammer weight.
Defective gauges:
396
A/Prof Tan did not know what measurements were given to GRL to do their analyses besides
the raw measurements. He was of the view that all 4 sets of data were of poor quality, including that
used by GRL for the CAPWAP analysis for pile P44. This was because the data were collected using
defective gauges.
397
One such example was pile P44, where only one out of the 4 gauges was good. A/Prof Tan
had relied on the measurements from this gauge to show that pile P44 had soft toes. However, he
acknowledged that even this good gauge gave erroneous readings [NE pp 628-629].
Improper processing of test results:
398
A/Prof Tan was of the view that in obtaining the PDA test results, Pilescan had included into
the computations certain factors which he considered inappropriate. A/Prof Tan also did not agree
with the results of the CAPWAP analysis of GRL, which used a large impedance at the top of the
pile, a practice not adopted here.
399
While I accepted A/Prof Tan to be an expert on PDA testing, he was not present during the
testing of the piles in the present case, and his opinion was based solely on the conclusions he drew
after reading the reports from Pilescan and using the data obtained in those tests in his own
calculations. No representative from Pilescan was before the court to explain how they conducted and
obtained the results of the PDA testing. No other witness called was in a position to assist the court on
the matter of the PDA tests. Given the state of the evidence before me, I did not think it was
appropriate to come to a finding on whether Pilescan had conducted the PDA testing properly. This
was because there was no reason for Lee not to accept the results of the tests at face value (see para
403 below), so that the validity of the PDA test results was not an issue I needed to decide.
Static load test is a reference point for PDA tests
400
The results of the PDA load tests were all inferred results. This meant that any load capacity
which a tested pile was supposed to have was not a direct measure of that capacity, but a predicted
value from applying certain mathematical formulae to data collected on the response of the pile after
it was hit with a hammer. Given A/Prof Tans view that the data were mainly defective and invalid,
due to, inter alia, defective instrumentation, I did not think that the results he obtained using the
CASE method were of much use. Indeed, A/Prof Tan recognised that they had a 20-30% margin of
error [N/E p 615]. This was all the more so when they were in conflict with the results obtained by
GRL, the company which had originated PDA testing, which A/Prof Tan said were wrong. Moreover,
they were in conflict with the results of the static load test, the yardstick by which such tests should
be measured according to CP4: 2003. Although A/Prof Tan was of the view that the results of the
static load test were defective because of the anomaly between the two loading curves, for the reasons
given above, I did not accept that the static load test results were invalid. Moreover, to use the result
of the PDA test to invalidate the results of the static load test would mean that I had to prefer
05/08/2008
Page 74 of 87
measurements computed from problematic data of the PDA tests over direct measurements from a
static load test where there was no evidence that the measurements were erroneous [N/E p 1181]. This
would run contrary to the collective wisdom of the profession as embodied in CP4: 2003, which holds
PDA test results to be secondary to, and subject to the verification by, the results of the static load
tests, and not the other way round. In this regard, I also did not agree with A/Prof Tans preference for
the PDA test results which showed that pile P44 had a soft toe while the static load test on the same
pile showed otherwise [N/E p 617].
Reliance on PDA test results by Lee
401
It was not disputed that a PDA test is a highly specialised test, and even engineers with many
years of experience like Song, Lee, Dr Kog, Tham, Prof Poulos and Shirlaw are not familiar with the
intricacies of how it is done. They have to depend on the specialists for its conduct, and can only rely
on the results of the tests as interpreted by the specialists, a position accepted even by A/Prof Tan
[N/E pp 601-603]. Although there did not appear to be any regulatory framework in place at the
material time on who may conduct PDA tests, which have been used on bored piles in Singapore
since the mid-eighties [N/E p 1063], from 1 January 2003 they could only be conducted by companies
accredited by the Singapore Accredited Council Singapore Laboratory Accreditation Scheme
(SIAC-SINGLAS) [Exh D6]. Pilescan, which conducted the PDA tests, was one such company
[Exh D7].
402
Shee had said in evidence that even when the PDA tests were certified by PEs, these could not
be relied on, and it was incumbent on the QP to satisfy for himself that the test results were correct.
This evidence was not supported by any authority in the form of statutory provisions or guidelines
issued by the BCA. Nor does it accord with the understanding of the senior members of the
engineering profession who gave evidence before the court. I therefore found that Lee was entitled to
rely on the certification by the PEs in the PDA test results that these were correct. However, if it is
indeed BCAs position that, notwithstanding the statutory provisions, one QP generally cannot rely on
another QPs certification, then this should be made clear to the profession.
403
In the result, since the PDA tests were conducted by a specialist contractor and the results,
which all passed, were indorsed by PEs, I was of the view that Lee was entitled to rely on the results
of the tests in deciding whether the piles which did not achieve 5 m anchorage into rock had sufficient
capacity. Whatever criticisms A/Prof Tan may have on the quality of Pilescans work, there was no
reason for Lee not to have accepted the results of their tests at face value at the material time.
Moreover, A/Prof Tans opinion was based on four sets of PDA test results, as he said that BCA had
access to only four sets of PDA test data [N/E pp 610-611]. Song, however, had said that all nine sets
of PDA test data were available [N/E p 399].
Whether the PDA tests were conducted too late
404
Although only two PDA tests were originally specified [Exh P14, Note 14], more PDA tests
were ordered by Lee after a number of piles had anchorage lengths which were shorter than 5 m into
hard stratum. The tests were conducted at the same time when the remaining piling works was in
progress, where the piles continued to have anchorage lengths of less than 5 m into the rock. The
prosecution has therefore criticised the timings of the PDA tests, in that by the time they were
completed and the results obtained, most of the piles would have been completed. Therefore, if the
results of the PDA tests showed that the tested piles had failed, there was no time to make
rectifications to the design or construction methods of the remaining piles.
405
I did not think that the criticism was a valid one. The PDA tests were not conducted with the
objective of suspending the piling works if the load carrying capacities turned out to be less than the
design capacities. They were conducted to allow the QP to know whether the capacities of the piles
constructed were as provided in the original design. If so, the piles could be safely accepted. If not,
remedial actions would then be taken, either to remove and replace any offending pile, or to keep the
pile, but to have compensating piles installed. As Song said, if all the PDA tests failed, the QP had the
05/08/2008
Page 75 of 87
right to reject all the piles [N/E p 464]. While he maintained that it would be difficult to add in
another 73 piles if all the 73 piles were rejected [N/E pp 465-466], in actual fact the site now has a
great many more piles than the original 73. According to Dr Kog, it was not necessary to stop work
unless there was imminent danger of collapse or some other adverse consequences, which does not
arise for piling [N/E pp 971, 992]. In the present case, even if the piles failed the load tests,
compensating piles could be added. If the piles were tested with the view to suspending piling works
whenever a pile failed, then the entire piling process would be a start-stop affair. Again, if this is to be
the practice required by the BCA, then the engineering profession and the construction industry need
to be informed.
Whether a reduction factor should be applied when using Chins Plot
406
Chins Plot is an empirical relationship where the load-settlement measurements obtained
during a static load test for a pile is used to predict the ultimate load which the pile can carry. In the
static load test conducted by Rotary on pile P44, the unit ultimate end bearing projected using Chins
Plot was 16 MPa [Exh P41, p 183]. Lee had relied on this to justify his increase of the end bearing
capacity of the founding layer when deciding whether the piles with the short anchorage lengths could
carry their design loads. This was challenged by the prosecution because Chins Plot is supposed to
over-predict the ultimate loads. Ong said that even though the static load test gave 16,449 kPa as the
limiting end bearing, the QP could not increase his end bearing limit from 12,000 kPa because values
derived from Chins Plot, which was used in this case, are usually reduced by 20% [N/E p 702].
407
Similarly, A/Prof Tan said a 25% reduction factor should be applied on the results obtained
using Chins plot. However, Prof Poulos was not aware that such a reduction factor was necessary,
and Dr Endicotts literature search disclosed that Chins Plot both over-predicts and under-predicts.
Further, while CP4: 2003 [Exh D19, para 7.5.6.5(b)] states that Chins Plot may be used to assess the
ultimate bearing capacity of a pile subject to a static load test, it makes no mention of the necessity of
reducing the results obtained by 25%. A/Prof Tan, who was involved in writing part of the code but
not this part, did not know why this was the case. Therefore while there is a school of thought which
holds the view that results obtained using Chins Plot should be reduced by 25%, there also appears
that there is another school of thought amongst practitioners which does not hold that such a
reduction is required. It is not clear which school of thought should prevail, and I made no finding on
this issue, except to point out in passing that the proposal to adopt a reduction factor by Prof Tan
Swan Beng was based on results obtained from triaxial test conducted in a laboratory [N/E pp 11721174]. However, I recognised that Prof Fellenius has pointed out in his book how the results from the
Chins Plot should be used [Exh P72, Slide 27], and that colleagues of A/Prof Tan have taught that
reduction factors should be applied when using Chins Plot in pile testing.
408
In the present case, Dr Endicott has shown that the ultimate bearing capacity of pile P44 using
Prof Poulos formula based on the work of Hirany and Kulhawy, which is independent of Chins Plot
[N/E p 82], coincided with the results of the original calculations of Rotary using Chins Plot, where
no reduction factor was applied [Exh D42, pp 17].
409
A/Prof Tan had informed the court of a case of a spun pile plunging (settling further without
application of any additional load on it) after the test load was increased to 2.2 times the working load
even though based on Chins Plot, it could safely carry that load. I understood that he was using this
example as an illustration to show the pitfall of using an extrapolation method like Chins Plot [N/E p
1164]. However, I was not prepared to use such anecdotal evidence as a basis for holding that the
approach in the current pile testing regime of the Singapore construction industry, where the use of
Chins Plot has been accepted in CP4: 2003, should be rejected or at least modified. This should
properly be a matter for the consideration of the writers of the next CP4.
The choice of and changes to soil parameters used in the design
410
The position taken by the prosecution was that if the change in the pile penetration was due to
a change in the soil parameters, eg., the anchorage length could be shortened because of higher limits
05/08/2008
Page 76 of 87
of skin friction and end bearing values being substituted for those originally chosen, it was necessary
for the QP to re-submit the design for approval. Although they submitted that there was a circular
from BCA to the same effect, this submission was withdrawn when it was found that no such circular
was in fact issued. Nevertheless, it is necessary to consider the validity of the prosecutions position.
411
In the present case, the design limits of Lee were 400 kPa for shaft friction and 12 MPa for
end bearing [Exh P6]. Mak had directed that Samsung stick to these limits [Exh P40]. Ongs evidence
was that Lee had to inform him if there was a departure from the design soil parameters. However, in
his own calculations checking Lees design [Exh P7], Ong had in fact used values of 180 kPa for skin
friction and up to almost 40,000 kPa (40 MPa) for end bearing [Exh D29 and N/E p 690]. This set of
calculations, which was approved by the BCA, could have been the basis for the pile design and used
in the construction of the piles if drawings were produced from them [N/E pp 696-700]. It would
seem that a variation of end bearing values due to different soil conditions being encountered on site
which did not exceed 40 MPa would be acceptable. Also, the ACs choice of limiting values for skin
friction and end bearing showed that he places greater reliance on end bearing. This was contrary to
A/Prof Tans view that for bored piles in bouldery clay, less reliance should be placed on end bearing.
A/Prof Tan was of the view that 12 MPa was too high because soil at formation level was Fort
Canning Boulder Clay, and it was the characteristics of the clay which prevailed. However, Lee had
actually designed the piles on the basis that they were founded on the Jurong formation. It was not
unreasonable for him to have formed this view, as that was the state of knowledge at the material
time, and Fort Canning Boulder Clay had not been recognised in the building codes yet. Moreover,
the project site sits right smack at the boundary between the Jurong Formation and the Fort Canning
Boulder Clay, with the Jurong Formation covering one-third of the project site while Fort Canning
Boulder Clay covered the other two-thirds. It should be noted that, under cross-examination by
counsel for Samsung, A/Prof Tan acknowledged that based on original soil investigation, one would
be uncertain whether the founding layer was the Jurong formation or Fort Canning Boulder Clay [N/E
p 638].
412
Two conclusions may be drawn from the above. First, it shows that different pile designers
adopt different approaches towards pile design, and changes in the soil parameters have different
impacts on the pile design. In the present case, when the limiting end bearing was increased to 16
MPa, it had exceeded the 12 MPa originally set by Lee but was still within the original limit of 40
MPa set by Ong. Secondly, different pile designers can reasonably choose different limiting values
for the soil parameters used in their designs, and it cannot be said that one particular choice is to be
preferred to all others. In this regard, Shirlaw was of the view that Lees choice of soil parameters for
the pile design were reasonable [Exh D38(1), para 5.6.1, p 16]. In CP4: 2003 [Exh D19, para 7.5.3],
12 MPa was acceptable for end bearing if it was confirmed by a load test.
413
All these support the view that foundation engineering is an art and it is up to the judgment of
the individual pile designer to choose what soil parameters to use. After all, he cannot guarantee what
soil conditions are actually found on site. Further, the common theme of the ACs approach in his
calculations and the evidence of Dr Kog and Tham is that a pile design is concerned with ensuring
that the pile capacity is achieved. The soil parameters chosen, and the lengths derived are all aimed at
achieving this objective. Where actual conditions on site are different, then the pile length will
necessarily have to be adjusted to ensure that the capacity is still achieved. In such circumstances, I
could not agree with the prosecution that a change of soil parameters would necessarily require a resubmission of the design for approval, when the pile could still carry its design load.
When offence was committed
When does offence of deviation take place?
414
The prosecution has taken the position that a deviation would have taken place if, at the end of
the drilling, when the pile was cast, the constructed pile has deviated from the approved plans [N/E p
59]. Such a position does not take into account the dynamics of the pile design, construction and
acceptance process. All these have been described earlier, and will not be repeated here. In essence,
05/08/2008
Page 77 of 87
since pile design is based on an estimated soil profile, the length of the constructed pile would
invariably deviate from the details of the design pile, as the actual soil profile or soil parameters on
site would differ from that assumed in the design. So, to carry the design load, a longer or shorter pile
may be required, or if the design calls for anchorage into a hard stratum, the anchorage length may be
longer or shorter. This is the reason for subjecting a representative sample of the piles to load tests, to
confirm if the constructed piles perform according to the design. If a pile is found to have sufficient
capacity, it would be accepted even though it may be shorter than the designed pile, or have an
anchorage shorter than the minimum specified. If it has a lower capacity than that in the design, it
may be rejected, and a replacement pile ordered, or the load capacity of the pile may be downgraded,
and compensating piles installed. This was expressly provided for in Note 14 of the Approved Piling
Plan [Exh P14], which states
COMPENSATION PILE SHALL BE INSTALLED IF LOAD TEST IS FAILED.
415
Therefore if the offence is deemed to have taken place immediately upon the construction of
the pile, an anomalous situation arises when the builder would have committed an offence even
though the pile in question is able to perform as required, has been replaced, or compensating piles
have been ordered. I did not think this could be the legislative scheme.
416
In my view, an offence of a pile being constructed in a manner which deviates from the
approved plan takes place when a pile is found to have deviated from the approved piling plan, eg., it
did not achieve its design capacity, but the builder refuses to replace it, or to construct compensating
piles despite being instructed by the QP to do so. Where the QP has accepted the pile even though it
has been constructed in a manner which deviates from the approved plan, the builder would not be
liable (see para 421 below).
When does offence of permitting deviation by a QP take place?
417
It was submitted on behalf of Lee that if the QP was not there to supervise the construction, he
could not have been said to permit the deviation because he would have no knowledge of when the
pile was cast. I did not agree. The QP may be represented on site by the RE and CoW, and was so
represented in the present case. If their acts did not bind him, then they would have no authority to
represent him. This could not have been the legislative scheme. However, for the reasons stated
above, the permitting of a deviation cannot take place immediately when a pile is cast.
418
The permitting of a deviation by a QP can only take place when he certifies that the piles have
been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, and such certification was wrong. This is
because before that point, any deviation can immediately be remedied by the measures described
above. It would therefore be incongruous to hold him liable before he is given the opportunity to
overcome the problem in accordance with the usual practice.
Role of the builder under the scheme of the Building Control Act
419
At the second reading of the Building Control Bill (Bill 5/89) on 16 February 1989, the
Minister for National Development stated that
The Building Control Bill seeks to revise and strengthen the law in respect of building control.
This includes:
(a)
enhancing the powers of the Building Authority in relation to regulation of building
works and safety of buildings;
(b)
implementing a system of independent checking of structural plans by accredited
checkers;
(c)
requiring construction supervision by qualified persons and site supervisors;
05/08/2008
Page 78 of 87
(d)
requiring certain tests to be carried out under the supervision of a structural engineer;
(e)
and
requiring mandatory inspection of buildings at regular intervals by structural engineers;
(f)
providing for enhanced penalties in respect of offences under the Act.
[Parliamentary Debates Vol 52, Col 668]

420
He further stated that

In the design stage of a building the Bill requires that all structural plans and calculations are
checked by an accredited checker who has no professional or financial interests in the project.
This checking of plans will be done before they are submitted to the Building Authority for
approval. It includes major renovation works, additions and alterations to buildings. This will
ensure that all structural plans and calculations are subjected to a system of independent checks.
It will also prevent a situation where the design of the structures is carried out by an unqualified
person, such as a draughtsman under the supervision of an irresponsible engineer, as happened
in the case of the Hotel New World. This provision was in the original Bill.
To ensure that there is proper supervision of the construction work, the Bill stipulates that the
appointment of a qualified person and site supervisor must be done before a permit to carry out
construction building works will be issued. It requires all building works to be supervised by a
qualified person and under the continual supervision of a site supervisor. The qualified person is
required to maintain proper records, site records, test reports and other documents on the site for
examination or checking by the Building Authority. He is also to carry out various structural
tests during the construction stage. This will help prevent incidents like the Cheng Hong
Mansion where lapses during construction by the supervisor resulted in the erection of substandard and unsafe concrete structures. This provision again was in the original Bill.
The most important change to the Bill as compared to the original Bill is that concerning the
role and responsibility of the contractor. It was the general view of the various representors to
the Select Committee that contractors play a crucial role in ensuring that a building is built
safely and constructed in accordance with the approved building plans and building regulations.
As such, it is important that contractors be brought under the ambit of the law. The Select
Committee agreed with these representations and several clauses in the Bill have been amended
to achieve this.
A new term 'builder' has been inserted in clause 2 of the Bill. The 'builder' as defined, refers to
the main contractor who carries out building works for the developer. It excludes subcontractors. A builder can be a person, a partnership, a company or a body corporate.
A new clause 11 has been included to spell out the duties of the builder. It requires the builder
to build in accordance with the requirements of the building regulations and the approved plans
of the building. For example, the builder must ensure that the actual concrete strength achieves
the designed value and all reinforcement bars are placed in accordance with the approved
building plans. Upon the completion of the building works, the builder has also to certify that
the building has been built in accordance with the approved plans. The builder must also inform
the Building Authority if he ceases to be the builder and the developer must appoint another
builder in place of the first builder, and this second builder will then become responsible under
the law.
The penalties imposed on the builder for offences under the Bill are similar to those prescribed
for the qualified person in respect of analogous offences. Where a convicted builder is a body
corporate or partnership, every director or person occupying an executive and managerial
05/08/2008
Page 79 of 87
position in the organization will be personally guilty, unless he can prove that he has exercised
due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.
[Parliamentary Debates Vol 52, Col 669-671]
421
In PP v Bill Hong & ors (BCA 43-44 of 1999, unreported), the QP, AC and builder were
prosecuted under various sections of the Building Control Act (the Act) when the roof of a multipurpose hall in a primary school collapsed during construction. The builder was convicted under
section 11(4)(a) of the Act for failing to ensure that the thickness of the welds at the joints of the steel
roof truss of the hall had complied with the requirement as stated in the approved structural plans.
Addressing the builders mitigation when they tendered calculations to show that the design loads
could be safely carried by the roof truss even though the thickness of the welds were less than that
specified, I held that
99
Turning to the penultimate mitigation factor advanced by B3 [the builder], it is clear
from the scheme of the [Building Control Act] and from the provisions in the Act that the
builder is not to assume the responsibility of the designer (qualified person) or the checker
(accredited checker). His role is only to build according to the design given to him by the
designer after it has been checked by the checker and cleared by the [Building Control]
Authority. If he builds a structure strictly according to those specifications, and that structure
fails because the design is inadequate, it is doubtful if he could be liable for any offence under
the [Building Control Act]. The corollary is that it is not open to him to substitute his own
design for that given by the designer, unless his design had gained the acceptance of the
designer and the checker, and is also cleared by the [Authority]. If it is open to him to say that
his work is adequate even though it did not meet the specifications given to him by the designer,
he may well be assuming a whole lot of responsibilities which the legislature had not given to
him. I do not think any builder should or would volunteer to assume these responsibilities. In
the context of the case against B3, I did not think it is open to for the company to say that the
welds, even though having a thickness of less than 6 mm, were adequate to carry the design
loads, and call it a mitigating factor.
Although section 11(4) of the Act provides that
11(4) A builder undertaking any building works shall
(a) ensure that the building works are carried out in accordance with the plans of the
building works supplied to him in accordance with section 9 (3)(c) by a qualified person
and with any term or condition imposed by the Commissioner of Building Control in
accordance with the provisions of this Act and, subject to section 14, the building
regulations;
(b) notify the Commissioner of Building Control of any contravention of the provisions of
this Act or the building regulations in connection with those building works;
..
the builder is in no position to challenge the QP on matters which are within the latters province, eg.,
the design of the building. Indeed, the builder is bound to ensure that the building works is carried out
in accordance with the plans supplied to him by the QP, including any amendments made to the plans
which are accepted by the QP. Therefore, the builder will not be able to terminate the drilling, or cast
the pile without the approval of the QP or his representative, the RE or the CoW. While the builder
may propose alternatives if he encounters any problem on site, he will not be allowed to proceed with
them without the approval of the QP. To hold otherwise would be contrary to role of the builder under
the scheme of the Act stated by the Minister.
422
In coming to this view, I have noted that the Ministers speech in relation to Clause 11 seemed
05/08/2008
Page 80 of 87
to suggest that the builder has to build according to the plan which was originally approved.
However, this has to be read in the context of the inherent nature of piling works, and the role of the
QP in ensuring that the constructed pile can achieve its design capacity. If what the Minister said is
followed to the letter, it could lead to a situation where the builder can insist on terminating a pile in
accordance with the original approved piling plan even though the QP has since determined that the
actual soil conditions require the pile to be sunk to a much greater depth. This would not have been
something in the contemplation of the legislature.
The Charges
The statutory provisions
423
Section 19(2) and (3) of the Act states

Building offences
19.
(2) Any person for whom any building works are carried out and any qualified person, site
supervisor or builder directly concerned with the building works who, in carrying out the
building works deviates, or permits or authorises the building works to deviate, in any material
way from any plans of the building works approved by the Commissioner of Building Control
under this Part shall each be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not
exceeding $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.
(3) Any person who, being required by or by virtue of this Act or the building regulations to
make or produce to the Commissioner of Building Control any plan, declaration, certificate,
report, record, notice or other document, or who, for the purpose of obtaining any licence,
permit, waiver or approval from the Commissioner of Building Control under this Act or the
building regulations or for the purpose of establishing any fact relevant to the administration of
this Act or the building regulations
(a) makes or produces any plan, declaration, certificate, report, record, notice or other
document which is false in a material particular; or
(b) produces any plan, declaration, certificate, report, record, notice or other document
which is false in a material particular, or has not been made by the person by whom it
purports to have been made, or has been in any way altered or tampered with,
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.
Charge P1A
The elements of Charge P1A
424
For Charge P1A (see para 4 above), the prosecution has to prove that
a
The stipulation of 5 m socketing into hard stratum was a mandatory requirement of the
approved piling plans;
b
The piling works deviated from the approved piling plans, in that 66 out of the 73 piles
failed to meet this requirement;
c
The deviation from the piling plans was a material deviation; and
Lee had permitted the piling works carried out by Samsung to deviate from the approved
05/08/2008
Page 81 of 87
piling plans.
The first element
425
Even though it is stated in the Pile Elevation sketch in the approved piling plan [Exh P14, Drg
No 0101] that Min anchorage length of 5000 mm into hard stratum shall be achieved in all piles and
is subject to verification of working load tests, I was of the view that this was not a mandatory
requirement.
426
As I have found, the only way this condition could have been a mandatory requirement was
for the actual soil conditions at the location of the pile to have turned out to be as that assumed in the
pile design based on the original soil investigation of the 5 boreholes. Since this was unlikely to have
been the case, I accepted the evidence of Lee that it was a construction control, which served as an
exhortation to the builder, Samsung, to construct the pile according to the piling plan in a way that it
would achieve the design capacity. Had the anchorage length not been achieved, it would have been
open to the QP to: accept the pile if he was satisfied that the geotechnical capacity of the pile was
sufficient to carry the imposed load; reject the pile, and order its extraction and replacement; or, order
that compensation piles be installed to provide additional capacity to carry the imposed load. In
addition, the Piling Design [Exh P6] showed that not all piles required a 5 m minimum anchorage into
hard stratum, and, as I have found, the QP could also vary this requirement. Therefore, the first
element of the charge was not made out.
The second element
427
The basis for computing the number of piles (66) which could not achieve a minimum
anchorage length of 5000 mm into hard stratum was the Bored Piling Works Results [Exh P37].
These were prepared by Samsung for their own records and easy reference by their engineers. Here
hard stratum was equated to rock, which was a lot harder than soil with SPT 100. In these records,
they did not take into account the fact that there was soil with SPT 100 above the rock. Had this
been taken into account, the anchorage lengths of the piles into hard stratum would have been longer
than that presented in the Bored Piling Works Results, and the number of piles which could not meet
the requirement would no longer have been 66.
428
Going beyond the information in Samsungs Bored Piling Works Result, for the reasons stated
earlier, neither the table prepared by Shee [Exh P43] nor the BCA Expert Witness Report [Exh P46]
was able to assist the prosecution in establishing the number of piles which could not achieve a
minimum anchorage length, or did not have sufficient geotechnical capacity to carry the column load.
429
As I have found above, the prosecution was not able to establish the number of piles which
were unable to achieve a minimum of 5 m into hard stratum, nor could they establish the number of
piles which did not have sufficient geotechnical capacity. Since the prosecution had the burden of
establishing the number of piles which could not meet these requirements, the second element of the
charge was not made out.
The third element
430
As I have found above, the objective of pile design is to ensure that the pile has sufficient
capacity, and the settlements are within accepted limits. The changes to the anchorage length and total
penetration length of the pile, and to the soil conditions are not material deviations. These were
merely the means to achieve the objective.
431
From the results of the static load test and the 9 PDA tests ordered, Lee came to the view that
the piles which did not achieve minimum anchorage lengths of 5 m into hard stratum could still carry
the loads. As I have found earlier, he was entitled to rely on these test results to come to this view,
and to determine that there was no material deviation to the key structural system. In addition, Prof
Poulos had, using his own approach, confirmed that the piles could indeed perform according to their
05/08/2008
Page 82 of 87
design. In the result, there was no material deviation from the piling plans.
432
The third element was therefore also not made out, since there was no question of there being
any material deviation.
The fourth element
433
Although Lee had sought to argue that he could not have permitted a deviation if he was not
informed of what the RE or CoW was doing [Exh D46, pp 257-265], I was not able to accept a
position where the QP could be absolved of his responsibilities by dissociating himself from the acts
of the RE or CoW by claiming ignorance. For the reasons stated earlier, I found that the acts of the
RE and CoW did bind him.
434
However, as I have found, Lee could only be said to have permitted deviation at the stage
when the as-built plan was submitted. Until then, he was free to reject the piles, and ask for them to
be extracted and new piles constructed in their place, or order compensating piles to be installed. Had
he been deemed to have permitted a deviation from the piling plans at any time before this stage, he
would have been culpable immediately when the piles deviated materially from the piling plans, and
there was no question of him being able to rectify any shortcomings in the constructed piles through
any of the methods described. Otherwise, the only way he could have absolved himself from any
culpability was to submit a re-design for approval whenever soil conditions encountered were
different from those assumed in the design being encountered. This would have made piling a long
drawn and cumbersome process.
435
In the present case, Lee had accepted the deviations after reviewing the calculations of Rotary,
the results of the PDA tests, and the piling records of a neighbouring site, and did not require any step
to be taken in respect of the piles which did not achieve a 5 m minimum anchorage into hard stratum.
Since Lee did permit the deviations, the fourth element would therefore have been made out.
436
However, since three of the four elements in Charge P1A have not been made out, Charge
P1A was not proven.
Charge P1B
The elements of Charge P1B
437
Although the charge does not provide the particulars of approved depths as set out in the
approved piling plans/calculations, it follows from the Prosecutions Opening Address [Exh P42,
paras 6, 12] and the Prosecutions Closing Submissions [Exh P75, para 323], that this refers to the
stipulation of 5 m socketing into hard stratum in the approved piling plans.
438
Therefore, for Charge P1B (see para 4 above), the prosecution has to prove that
a
The approved piling plans/calculations stipulated that the piles had to achieve at least 5
m socketing into hard stratum;
b
The piling works were not completed according to this stipulation;
c
Lee had certified that the piling works were completed according to the approved piling
plans/calculations; and
d
The certification by Lee was false.
The first element

439
While the approved piling plan [Exh P14] did indeed stipulate that the piles had to achieve at
least 5 m into hard stratum, for the reasons given when dealing with the first element of Charge P1A,
05/08/2008
Page 83 of 87
I was of the view that this stipulation was not a mandatory stipulation. Since the stipulation was
subject to the review of Lee, who could waive the requirement if the piles had achieved sufficient
capacity, I was of the view that the first element has not been made out.
The second element
440
Since the stipulation of having at least 5 m anchorage into hard stratum was not a mandatory
requirement, there was no need for the piling works to be completed according to this stipulation if it
has been accepted by the QP. Besides, there were doubts as to whether how many, if any, of the piles
had not achieved the 5 m minimum anchorage into hard stratum. Therefore, for the same reasons
given when dealing with the second element of Charge P1A, I was of the view that this element has
not been made out.
The third element
441
It was not in dispute that Lee had provided the certification in form BEV/C1 [Exh P18] that
the piling works were completed according to the approved piling plans/calculations. The third
element was therefore made out.
The fourth element
442
as
In Longmans Dictionary of the English Language (1993 edn) the meaning of false is given
intentionally untrue; lying, or
adjusted, made or fabricated so as to deceive or mislead
The prosecution therefore had to prove that the certification by Lee was intentionally untrue, a lie, or
given so as to deceive or mislead.
443
The certification by Lee in form BEV/C1 [ExhP18] has been set out in para 49 above. This
certification states that the full details of the piling works were shown in a record plan [Exh P19]
which, in turn, expressly sets out against each pile the actual penetration and eccentricity of that pile,
together with the estimated pile penetration from the Approved Piling Plan [Exh P14]. There is no
evidence that any of the information is not true or not correct. Lee had further certified on the record
plan that the departures and deviations did not affect the structural adequacy and the stability of the
building (see para 49 above). He had done this after 9 PDA tests were conducted, 7 more than what
was originally specified in the piling plan. The results from these tests, together with the results from
the earlier static load test, showed that the piles were able to achieve their design capacities despite
the short penetrations and despite not being able to achieve the 5 m minimum anchorage into hard
stratum. Since the results of all the tests were indorsed by PEs, it would have been reasonable for
someone in the position of Lee, with his experience and training, to have accepted these test results,
even though someone who has a great deal more specialist knowledge on PDA testing, like A/Prof
Tan, may question their accuracy. In any case, whether those results were accurate is not a matter
which can be settled given the evidence which was before the court, as there was evidence from other
experts which suggested that they were accurate. Lee had not considered the deviations of the
anchorage lengths material, as the design capacities had been achieved. There was no attempt to
suppress any of the information which he had considered material. Since the guidelines from BCA
(see para 50 above) provided that immaterial changes as defined in Reg 18(2) of the BCR could be
incorporated into the as-built plan without the need for amendment plans to be submitted to BCA for
approval, and given his view that the deviations in the anchorage lengths were immaterial, it could
not be said that Lees certification in Exh P18 that the piling works were completed according to the
approved plans/calculations was false. What he did was in line with Shees evidence that if a change
in penetration length of 5 m into hard stratum was an immaterial change as defined in the BCR, it was
permissible for the QP to permit the deviation and allow the works to continue [N/E p 108].
05/08/2008
Page 84 of 87
444
I therefore did not think that there was a false certification by Lee, given his view, which was
arrived at after PDA tests were conducted, that the deviations in the anchorage lengths into hard
stratum were not material deviations. In this regard, I agreed with Dr Kog that the retention of the
Pile Elevation sketch in Exh P19 was an oversight of Lee and his staff. Accordingly, the fourth
element was not made out.
445
In the result, since three of the four elements were not made out, Charge P1B was not proven.
Charge P1C
The elements of Charge P1C
446
For Charge P1C (see para 5 above), the prosecution has to prove that
a
The stipulation of 5 m socketing into hard stratum was a mandatory requirement of the
approved piling plans;
b
The piling works deviated from the approved piling plans, in that 66 out of the 73 piles
failed to meet this requirement;
c
The deviation from the piling plans was a material deviation; and
d
Samsung had installed the piles in a manner which deviated from the approved piling
plans.
The first to third elements
447
For the same reasons stated for the first to third elements of Charge P1A, these have not been
made out by the prosecution.
The fourth element
448
While the piles were actually installed by Rotary, the piling sub-contractors engaged by
Samsung, it was Samsung which was the builder under the Act. Accordingly, for the purpose of the
Act, it was Samsung who had installed the piles.
449
In the present case, the termination of the piles was decided by the RE or the CoW, and
neither Rotary nor Samsung had the authority to determine when a pile may be terminated. Although
it appears that the RE or CoW did not comply with the QPs directions when they accepted the
termination of the piles and allowed the piles to be cast, the QP had not rejected these piles outright.
Instead, after conducting a number of load tests, and satisfying himself that the piles with shorter
anchorage lengths had sufficient capacity, he indorsed the acceptance of the piles by the RE and
CoW, and certified to the BCA that they were constructed according to the approved plans without
deviation. Having been so accepted, it is no longer correct to say that these piles were installed in a
manner which deviated from the approved plans.
450
Had the QP not accepted the piles, he could have either ordered that they be removed, or
compensating piles installed to provide additional capacity to carry the imposed load. The QP could
do so because he was aware of the design considerations and was in the best position to resolve any
issue caused by short piling. It is only if the builder had refused to comply with the QPs instructions
that it could be said that he had installed the piles in a manner which deviated from the approved plan.
Given the nature of foundation works, when soil conditions are unknown most of the time, and any
soil investigation beforehand can at best provide only some assistance, I do not think that it is the
legislative scheme to immediately impose criminal liability on a builder whenever the completed piles
cannot achieve the design of the QP, when that design may have to be revised because the actual soil
conditions turn out to be different from that assumed by the QP during the design of the piles.
05/08/2008
Page 85 of 87
Moreover, the QP can reject the piles, and ask for them to be replaced. Alternatively, the QP can
accept the piles if he is satisfied that they are still able to carry the design loads, or he can accept the
piles, but ask for compensating piles to be installed.
451
Given the different roles that the QP and builder have under the legislative scheme, and my
finding above that the builder was bound by statute to carry out the building works in accordance with
the plans of the QP, it would not be open to find the builder to have deviated from those plans if any
deviation from them was accepted by the QP, whether or not the QP was correct in doing so.
452
Here, Samsung had made best efforts to ensure that it was in a position to achieve the piling
design of the QP. It had employed Rotary, a specialist piling sub-contractor which was familiar with
the area, having done piling on the adjacent site. Rotary had submitted calculations to justify the
shorter anchorage lengths, and the reason for short piling (difficulty in boring into rock) was verified
by the RE and CoW who were on site to supervise piling. Rock samples from the founding levels
were collected and seen by the QP, and Mak had also satisfied himself using the sounding method
that the base of the piles was at least hard material, if not rock. Further, Samsung had conducted the
PDA tests ordered by the QP, where the number of tests was well above the norm specified in CP4:
2003. It had engaged Pilescan, a specialist PDA sub-contractor to conduct the tests. Although there
was no accreditation scheme for such sub-contractors at the material time, Pilescan was a reputable
company, and they were eventually accredited when the accreditation scheme was established. The
results of the PDA tests were satisfactory and were duly certified by PEs. Since even PEs of many
years experience accept that PDA testing was a specialised field, and nonspecialists PEs could rely
on the results of the PDA tests provided, it was perfectly in order for the builder to similarly accept
these results as well. Against this background, Samsung would have no reason to question the
decision of the QP even if it had the power to do so.
453
The fourth element of the charge was therefore not made out.
454
In the result, Charge P1C was not proven.
Another Matter
455
I did not agree with the prosecutions submission that in order to satisfy safety requirements,
under s 19(2) of the Act, it is necessary to re-submit the design every time when there is a deviation.
In the case of piles, which are buried in the ground, there is no imminent threat to safety when a
deviation takes place. The appropriate recourse in such situations is for the QP to reject the pile and
order it to be replaced, or order compensating piles to be installed. There is no reason to burden the
QP and builder, and even the BCA, with a protocol which is not cost-effective. If there are indeed
such threats, the more appropriate recourse would be to the other provisions of the Act, and also to
other statutory provisions, eg., the Workplace Safety and Health Act (Cap 354A), which repealed the
Factories Act (Cap 104), which are better placed to take care of those concerns [N/E pp 1214-1216,
1234-1235; Exh D46, pp 130-131].
Conclusion
456
It has been quite apparent from the evidence given in this trial that, where the construction of
piles are concerned, there is a difference of treatment between BCA and some senior members of the
civil engineering profession on the one side, and Lee and some other senior members of the
profession on the other, in determining whether a constructed pile has deviated from its design. My
decision in this case was based on the approach adopted by the latter, and the reasons for me making
the choice have been set out above.
457
In essence, I was of the view that foundation design is based on limited information on the soil
conditions received from the initial soil investigations. This information is limited because of
economic realities [N/E p 870], and therefore a significant part of the design is what I would call
art. This is the professional judgment which the designer has to make in producing his design based
05/08/2008
Page 86 of 87
on the limited information. The science part of the design is the calculations which the designer
goes through, based on his deep understanding of material behaviour and other fundamentals of the
subject [N/E p 868], to ensure that the design is able to carry the imposed load. The fact that
foundation design is partly an art is accepted by the Ong [N/E pp 703-704], Prof Poulos [N/E pp
867-868], Lee [N/E p 883], Shirlaw [N/E pp 1065-1066] and Dr Endicott [N/E pp 1154-1155], even
though it was not accepted by Song [N/E p 526]. A/Prof Tan, while stating that it is a science,
recognised that local knowledge of the site plays a very important role in making the right judgment
and interpretation in pile engineering [N/E p 666].
458
With the inherent uncertainties, any foundation design is likely to have to be reviewed once
the actual soil conditions are encountered when the construction of the foundation takes place. While
some reviews may result in a re-design of the foundation, others may not. An example of the latter
would, in my view, be when the penetration length of the pile needed is either increased or reduced,
due to a difference of the actual soil conditions from that assumed at the design stage, for it to achieve
the design pile capacity. It should also be remembered that different pile designers take different
approaches in their design, and the changes in the soil conditions would have different impacts on the
design capacity. The approaches towards the pile design of the different professionals in the present
case clearly illustrate this. While Lees design was based on both shaft friction and end bearing
contributing to the geotechnical capacity of the pile, Ongs calculations for checking Lees design
(which could be used to produce a pile design for construction if required) adopted much higher
ultimate end bearing values than Lee [Exh D 29], and therefore relied more on end bearing for the
pile to achieve its geotechnical capacity. While the skin friction in the upper levels of the pile in Lees
approach was based on actual skin friction values of the adopted soil layers along that portion of the
pile, the pile in Songs approach in his calculations to check Lees design derived skin friction mainly
from the hard stratum near the founding level of the pile, and the skin friction contributions by soil
layers at the upper levels of the pile were based on normalised skin friction values at certain levels. In
contrast, a pile design using A/Prof Tans approach would have derived little contribution from end
bearing (because the soil encountered was Fort Canning Boulder Bed), and relied mainly on the skin
friction component from the length of the pile embedded in the hard stratum.
459
The BCAs position was that while a change in pile length was not a material deviation, a
change in the depth of anchorage of the pile in hard stratum was a material deviation. Implicit in this
is that they have adopted a pile design approach which was different from that of the actual pile
designer to evaluate the performance of the constructed piles, and assumed the existence of soil
conditions which were at best predictions at the design stage. In the present case, it means that they
have adopted the pile design approaches of either Song or A/Prof Tan to evaluate whether a deviation
was a material deviation. I did not think that this is a tenable position for the BCA to take. If changes
in anchorage lengths are to be taken as material deviations, changes in total penetration lengths
should similarly be taken as material deviations. Otherwise, it would mean that in any pile design,
only the foundation layer can provide the geotechnical capacity required, whatever the approach the
pile designer may have taken to derive the geotechnical capacity for that pile.
460
If it is decided that the approach taken by BCA, viz., any deviation of the constructed pile
from the designed pile due to different soil conditions being encountered requires a re-design before
construction can proceed further, should be the approach for piling works, it can easily be brought
into force by defining material deviations in piles to include any deviation from those lengths in hard
strata which the designer has relied on to provide a substantial part of the load bearing capacity of the
pile. Before doing so though, the impact of such a move should be carefully considered.
461
Such an approach places the builder in a position where he may be faced with frequent
interruptions to the piling programme whenever the soil conditions encountered are different from
that adopted in the design, or the re-design arising from an earlier deviation. Given the variability of
soil conditions in Singapore, this means that BCA would be faced with a constant barrage of
applications for re-design approvals. The evidence before the court was that at the material time when
the design was approved, BCA only did spot checks of plan approval submissions. Should this still be
the practice after the proposal is adopted, it means that the supervision of the re-design would still be
05/08/2008
Page 87 of 87
left to the ACs, with random checks by BCA. Even assuming that the turn around time for each resubmission is only one day, using the liquidated damages of $50,000 per day which Samsung has to
pay for delays in the present project as a gauge, the additional costs due to this regulatory requirement
can be very substantial for a site with highly variable ground conditions, where the soil profile may
vary from pile location to pile location, necessitating multiple re-designs and submissions for
approval each time. For much larger projects which cost billions of dollars, the additional costs
resulting from this regulatory requirement would be even much higher. This is because piling works
are invariably on the critical path, and any delay to the piling works would mean a consequential
delay to the completion of the project. Even if the contract provides that the contractor is to bear these
costs, the contractor will no doubt price for this eventuality in his tender, and the owner would
ultimately be the paying party. Whether all these are necessary would have to be weighed against the
current practice of verifying the load carrying capacity of the piles when they are completed, and
allowing the QP to take corrective actions such as removing the offending piles and replacing them,
or adding compensation piles before approving the piling works. At the end of the day, the measure of
whether a constructed pile is acceptable is whether it is able to carry the load it was designed to carry,
and not how long or short it is, or even how much of it lies within a particular soil stratum.
462
I have found the two accused not guilty of the respective charges they faced, and accordingly
discharged them for the reasons given earlier. However, since some of the evidence of the witnesses
and some of the documents admitted in the trial touched on the possible causes of the excessive
settlement of the building, for the avoidance of doubt, I should state that I have not come to any
determination on the causes of the excessive settlement. I have also not come to any determination on
which was the party who was responsible for the excessive settlement, and, if more than one party
was responsible, what was the apportionment of liability between them. For completeness, I should
also add that my findings in this case were made within the context of the charges and based on the
relevant evidence placed before the court at the trial.
05/08/2008

Case Study of Church ST Pile Design Legal Case

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case Study of Church ST Pile Design Legal Case

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

BCA 500011/2005, 500012/2005, 500013/2005, MA 1/2007, 2/2007

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

The Agreement between the Parties

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

Officer of the Building Control Authority

Site staff during construction of the project

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

The accredited checker of the structural design

The employees of Maunsell Consultants (Singapore) Pte Ltd

The representative of Samsung Corporation

The expert witnesses

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

Chen Soon Fatt the Resident Engineer.

One set of design calculations by B1 [Exh P6].

One copy of Form BEV/A1 [Exh P9].

One copy of Form BEV/A2 [Exh P10].

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

Form BEV/C1 [Exh P18].

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

H-piles were installed into the ground.

B1 submitted his overall foundation enhancement design (2 volumes) [Exh P25].

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

Report on Working Load Test Pile No. P44 [Exh P38]

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

limit of 12,000 kPa [Exh P67, Q/A 43].)

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

Geotechnical capacity of a pile

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

Pile Dynamic Analyser (PDA) Test

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

and a CAPWAP analysis

Section 9(3)(e) of the Act at the material time provides that

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

At the material time, Reg 18 of the BCR also provides that

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

The evidence of Low Pu Tong

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

The report of Song Wee Ngee on whether there was deviation

The 3 cases are

Where the anchorage length into hard stratum is less than 5 m;

Where the pile capacity is less than the column load,

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

Method for pile construction

QP had relied on PDA tests conducted

All piles were socketed into rock for 1.5 to 6.5 m

Rock samples retrieved from work site were seen by QP

There was re-calculation by QP on end bearing of rock

QP looked at sub-contractors calculations on efficacy of pile

Reliance on static load test

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another

stratum was more than 5.2 m.

Public Prosecutor v Lee Chung Shek and Another